11-29-2012, 03:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2012, 04:50 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
I find that compassion and wisdom are similar in that they are both exceedingly difficult to communicate with words. I do not find that there is any such convenient "yardstick" by which to measure either of them.
For example, we might be inclined to define compassion in terms of "ethics or activity", but this is problematic. There are certainly times when inaction is the compassionate response. Compassion and wisdom are nonphysical; Actions are physical.
Try as we might, to tell somebody that to do X would be compassionate or to do Y would be wise- more often than not- fails to result in any appreciable change in behavior. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try. But it is to say that we should remain nonattached to the apparent results.
It is in nonattachment that we find the faith to trust that All is Well in this topsy-turvy environment that we find ourselves in, and where we find the ability to have love for the world- despite its gross injustices and inequalities.
Wherein we find ourselves proverbially "banging our head against the wall" in our fallible attempts to communicate wisdom and compassion, this is the point where the line between the mission and the lesson becomes blurred.
Do we charge forward and push the issue? Do we pull back to distill our experience and regroup? There are no clear-cut answers here on this side of the veil. And that is exactly the way we intended it to be.
Ethical dilemmas are supposed to be dilemmas. They are catalyst for us to polarize and thereby build identity through the attraction of the "light of harvestable quality." There will never be a final answer to ethical dilemmas because, in truth, there is no right or wrong.
The "rightness" or "wrongness" of our actions have no yardstick other than our own ethical standards. When a 3D incarnation comes up for review, the question is not so much, "Did we arrive at the correct ethical principles?" but, "To what degree did we live up to our ethical principles?"
With specific respect to polarization,
111 Thread Redirect ---> Polarization and Polarity
The rules of "ethics or activity" are many; The Law is One.
For example, we might be inclined to define compassion in terms of "ethics or activity", but this is problematic. There are certainly times when inaction is the compassionate response. Compassion and wisdom are nonphysical; Actions are physical.
Try as we might, to tell somebody that to do X would be compassionate or to do Y would be wise- more often than not- fails to result in any appreciable change in behavior. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try. But it is to say that we should remain nonattached to the apparent results.
It is in nonattachment that we find the faith to trust that All is Well in this topsy-turvy environment that we find ourselves in, and where we find the ability to have love for the world- despite its gross injustices and inequalities.
Wherein we find ourselves proverbially "banging our head against the wall" in our fallible attempts to communicate wisdom and compassion, this is the point where the line between the mission and the lesson becomes blurred.
Do we charge forward and push the issue? Do we pull back to distill our experience and regroup? There are no clear-cut answers here on this side of the veil. And that is exactly the way we intended it to be.
Ethical dilemmas are supposed to be dilemmas. They are catalyst for us to polarize and thereby build identity through the attraction of the "light of harvestable quality." There will never be a final answer to ethical dilemmas because, in truth, there is no right or wrong.
The "rightness" or "wrongness" of our actions have no yardstick other than our own ethical standards. When a 3D incarnation comes up for review, the question is not so much, "Did we arrive at the correct ethical principles?" but, "To what degree did we live up to our ethical principles?"
With specific respect to polarization,
Quote:It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service to others and service to self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.
One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.
Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.
111 Thread Redirect ---> Polarization and Polarity
The rules of "ethics or activity" are many; The Law is One.