The necessity of holding that the same is fundamentally true for all

Hello all.



This is a problem I've been mulling over for a long time:

Is it necessary to hold that some fundamentals that are true for oneself, are true for others too?
But would not holding such a stance be a case of speaking beyond one's competence, and as such be invalid?

Is there a way to reformulate this problem into such a form that would not lead to negative consequences for the one who holds it?


For example: I hold that I am subject to karma. But I am not sure others are subject to karma, too; so in effect, I do not hold that others are subject to karma. Now, while this seems adequate -I am after all being true to the scope of my competence, namely, my competence is limited to myself- it brings in a host of problems:
1. It constitutionally alienates me from other people - as in effect, I feel obligated to think of myself as something totally different than all others.
2. It thus makes communication and interaction with people difficult to the point of being impossible.
3. It makes me very very vulnerable to the attacks of other people.
- All of which are consequences calling for a rethinking of my position about competence and holding a position.

It would be nice if I would hold "All beings are the owners of their karma, subject to their karma, whatever they do, for good or for ill, to this they shall be heir." Whenever someone did something, I could simply explain it to myself as "It's their karma" and be done with it. But as it is, I am left to wonder and wonder ...


This example with karma is just one of many. The same problems appear with all other stances that involve statements about all living beings. Such as "All living beings are ultimately servants of God," "All living beings are entangled in material nature," "All living beings have desires" and so on.

So I ask myself, for example - "I am ultimately a servant of God, but what about others? Perhaps they are not? Perhaps they don't have to be? Perhaps they are too good for that, or too bad?"

And further - "Is a person what they say that they are? So if they say that they are their body, their thoughts, their actions and their emotions, or that they are ultimately not a servant of God - is that true then? If they say about themselves that they are noble, or that they are not subject to karma, or that they are superior to me - is that true then? Is this how I am supposed to think about them?"



Has any of you had this or a similar problem? How did you resolve it?
Or do you know of a way to resolve it?


Your input is much appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I frequently come across this problem of one size fits all. Just because its good for me, is it good for others too?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps ....Mind your own business, and let others mind their own?

"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"?

Condemning the actions of others doesn't change what has already occured. Live with it and go on with your life.

Condemnation of others, or for what they've done, seldom does any good for anyone. I.e., if Africans want to kill each other, what difference does it make to you? Does your life change in some way? What if you just don't listen to the news, don't hear about all the Africans being killed, ...does it affect you in any way? Stop listening to, or reading, the news.

If Joe Highschooler in Podunk, Arkansas, goes to school and murders dozens of his classmates and teachers, if you don't live in Podunk or have friends or relatives in Podunk, what difference does it make to you?

I think one of the things that's caused more trouble in the world is that we all, somehow, feel that everything else is our business. It usually isn't ....even tho' we continually try to make it so. And the media prods us constantly to "care". Why? Why should we care? Turn off the news, don't read about news, and you'll never know about those other happenings.

If you live in India, why should you give a shit that a hurricane hit Galveston, Texas, and caused a couple of dollars in damage? By the same token, if you live in Texas, why should you care if a monsoon hits India and kills a gazillion poverty-stricken Indians? Why should we give a shit? Really.

Live your life as best you can with the ethics and morality that you were taught and/or know, and let others do the same. If you run into someone who has a conflict with how you act, ....shoot him, and that'll end the conflict!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a matter of your conviction, is it not?

Of course, what may be good for one person at time t1 might not be good for the same or another person at time t2 - but that is not the point of this thread.

Also, whether one should try to convince others to take upon themselves the same convictions as oneself is not directly the point here, either.


The issue is - Can you really live peacefully with yourself, function well in society, be a productive person - while believing that e.g. some people are subject to karma and some are not, and that whether they are subject to karma or not is entirely up to the person's own conviction?
Can you really live peacefully with yourself while believing that some people are atheists and that "that is perfectly okay"?
And so on, you can continue with the examples yourself.

 

I never think about stuff like that. For me, the principles of life are very simple.

Here is the problem. Can I do something about it? If yes, lets just do it. If not, lets look for other options. If within x time no options are visible, move on, nothing can be done about it. Sometimes, letting go is hard [hence the indeterminate time x], but holding on is even more painful. There is nothing more damaging, more destructive and more unproductive than hoping endlessly. I know, because some hopes have never died.

Oh yeah, totally, that does not bother me at all. I believe in a logical universe and to me, what you believe about it is less important than what you do with it.

 

SAM -

How do you think about other people - how do you think about who and what they are?

Do you have your own position about who or what another person is regardless of what they say and do - for example, you might hold "All beings are God's creations" even about people who declare themselves to be atheists?

The thing is - unless we live in total isolation, we have to -in advance- think something about other people if we are to enter into any kind of communication and interaction with them.
What we think of them can be very simple, instrumentalistic, pragmatic - "Aha, this is the clerk, this is the being that I ask about the product" or "Aha, this is the sex buddy, this is the being I use to have sex with".
But it can also be more complex, or abstract, for example "This is my fellow living being who is also just trying to be happy, just like me".
And then all the notions inbetween.

 

I don't think all that much about people honestly. This is one my deepest and gravest shortcomings. When I am involved with an issue all I think about is the issue at hand. Most people feel I am dismissive and inconsiderate, when I am actually just thoughtless. Most times, I don't even realise it until someone comes right out and say it. Which is why I am in the habit of explaining my thought process if anyone asks.

I generally put myself in the position I am thinking about. Other people are just aspects to enter into the equation. When I am interacting though, I am completely focused on the person and this too can get uncomfortable. Both ways I guess I suck

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In advance?? Seems to me that all you're doing is making unfair judgements about people. How can you do that? And even if you could, why would you do that?

I think you're confusing yourself, Greenberg, or trying to. I know for a fact that you're confusing me. And by the number of responses, I think you're confusing a lot of people.

Wanna' try to state your issue a little more clearly?

Baron Max

 

there is the suggestion that unless there is something in common (with others) there is no scope for interaction or communication.

IOW the very fact that we can engage in communication with others indicates that there is some objective medium . It certainly makes for a bizarre world view if one doesn't hold that it has any objective foundation (I recall one eccentric philosopher from greek times who simply used to wiggle his finger to communicate to people).

In the vedas there are three broad categories that dictate a persons sense of objectivity - Tamas (ignorance), Rajas (passion) and sattva (goodness) - these are material concepts of life - above and beyond them is the purified state of suddha sattva or vasudeva.
Perhaps another way to explain it is that when we take birth in this world we are born (and continue to further cultivate) under the three modes of material nature (ignorance, passion and goodness). And in this way we develop a material sense of self (I am american/Indian, male/female, attractive/ugly, old/young etc etc) with its associated obligational duties (since I am an old american male I must ... yada yada yada) - beyond this there is the issue of one's self (or soul) that is simply carrying these material designations. There is no way one can begin to understand the exact "responsibility" of the soul except by hearing about it (because conditioned life severely impedes one's vision) .... Therefore you commonly find there are prescriptions for how everyone should live, so that their vision will be less impeded - there are recommendations for purifying oneself and transcending the modes all together ... and if that is not possible, how a person can stabilize or progress from whatever mode of nature they are situated in.

In this way, one can determine one's personal goals and also the collective goals of all living entities in general - For instance, one can easily determine the malignant nature of animal slaughter by recognizing that other eatables are easily available and the extent to which a beast resists having its throat slit - the only way a person can overcome that conclusion is by reducing the animal's right to pursue life (mode of passion) or by entertaining a tamasic world view ("we all got to die anyway" etc etc)

Not sure if this addresses what you are getting at ....

 

Max, you have made a judgment in advance about me and people in this forum in general before you even clicked the link to this thread:
For example, you've judged that I will be rational enough to have a discussion with - that I am a human and not a robot.

There is a number of preconceptions or judgments that we have about ourselves and other people. Without these preconceptions or judgments, communication and interaction with others is impossible. However, as we tend to take these preconceptions or judgments for granted, we sometimes, or often, don't even notice them and think we are "being fair" or "starting from scratch".

If one doesn't have much interaction with other people or doesn't care about it, then it probably won't be necessary to be aware of those preconceptions or judgments or to work them out.
But anyone who is after a greater quality of communication and interaction with other people, will have to work out those things.
The quality of one's communication and interaction skills is crucial nowadays in many areas of the working and social life.

 

greenberg Is it necessary to hold that some fundamentals that are true for oneself, are true for others too?

This seems a bit backwards. A fundimental truth would speak to the actual nature of reality. As such it isn't necessary to "hold" that it is true. It actually is true and is true for all. Anything which requires holding and support above and beyond the communication of the fact of its existence, is not actually a fundimental truth.

So real truth can be communicated, but needs no defense.

Something which must be held/defended beyond the fact of its existence is just an opinion. It may be useful and good, or not, but there is no point in getting worked up if others don't share it. Instead show its worth by the example of how it helps you.

Its like having a rock in your hand. You just need to hold out you hand for all to see you have a rock. But saying it is heavy is a matter of opinion. Best to just let the other hold it for a while and form their own opinion and if they disagree, no biggie.

 

Lightgigantic -



Are you allright with, for example, the fact that some people are meateaters or atheists?

If yes, then how come your acceptance of the fact that some people are meateaters or atheists does not threaten your own persuasion that meateating and atheism are wrong (if that is your persuasion, that is)?

And if you are not allright with the fact that some people are meateaters or atheists, how do you live with that, what do you "tell yourself" so as to not feel brought down by the things you are not allright with?

What is your all-overarching stance or conviction that makes it possible for you to accomodate phenomena that are in discord with what you think is right?

 

Sure. But this doesn't mean that it is "self-evident", that access to it is easy, requires no effort.

It seems to me that we have the notion of "fundamental" and possible stances that candidate as "fundamentals", but what specifically such a "fundamental" actually is, is yet for us to figure out.

Can you peacefully live with yourself and others, thinking for example "All living beings are subject to karma. But this is just my opinion. Others are free to disagree."

Anyway, like I said earlier, this thread isn't about convicing others about one's own stance, or whether others share the same stance as we.

Can you peacefully live with yourself and others, if at least in your mind, your own stance does not override the stance of those other people who oppose your stance?

Can you peacefully live with yourself and others, while in your mind blatant contradictions between what you think is fundamental and what other people think is fundamental continue existing without either winning?

Please elaborate: Why exactly is that "no biggie"? What is your philosophy behind the notion that disagreements are "no biggies"?

 

Greenberg this doesn't mean that it is "self-evident",

I didn’t say it was self evident and did say it could be communicated. But it should be manifest and therefore not in need of defense even if it might require exposition.

greenberg Can you peacefully live with yourself and others, thinking for example "All living beings are subject to karma. But this is just my opinion. Others are free to disagree."

Without the least concern. If in fact there is something “karma” that all are “subject to” the holding of opinions for or against is completely irrelevant to the fact. My opinion might allow me to function more effectively if it is more closely aligned with the reality, but its no big deal if you disagree. You just might have more difficulty understanding why certain events unfold as they do.

The key point is not what particular opinion you hold at any particular point or forcing others to agree. The key point is verifying the opinions you do hold align with what is real as closely as possible and refining your understanding when possible. If you have something that is well worked out sharing it is fun, but if it is unwanted then that’s ok too. Agreement should come reluctantly because it is obvious something actually does work well.

greenberg Can you peacefully live with yourself and others, if at least in your mind, your own stance does not override the stance of those other people who oppose your stance?

Can and do. In fact those people can be the most fun. Someone who disagrees and has the courage of their convictions may know something I don’t and will at least keep the conversation going. And if not, then I just move on.

greenberg Can you peacefully live with yourself and others, while in your mind blatant contradictions between what you think is fundamental and what other people think is fundamental continue existing without either winning?

Do these questions really bother you? Like I say above. Actually fundamental is actually fundamental. Drop a rock it falls at 32’/s^2 – drag. What I or anyone else thinks about the matter is irrelevant to the actuality. If they are wrong I can show that they are wrong. Over and over if need be and they can show they are wrong as well. If they insist on being wrong, that’s certainly their right but reality has a way of smacking such hard headedness down in the long run. Either way it is not my responsibility to correct them. Its ok to show, but not to force.

“ Its like having a rock in your hand. You just need to hold out you hand for all to see you have a rock. But saying it is heavy is a matter of opinion. Best to just let the other hold it for a while and form their own opinion and if they disagree, no biggie. ”

greenberg Please elaborate: Why exactly is that "no biggie"? What is your philosophy behind the notion that disagreements are "no biggies"?

Ok, disagree with me about something. Spend a couple hours thinking about how wrong I am. Jump up and down a little and call your mom and let her know what an idiot I am. Now how is your opinion causing me consternation? Your having a differing opinion is no biggie.

 

My approach will be to react in perhaps a scattered way - in a sense to find my way with an interesting issue raised in an interesting way - and focus later on. I hope this approach is usefu despite its scatteredness.

Two issues:
1) I think it is unavoidable for me to do this to some degree, so the issue of its necessity, while a concern, is an issue of degree.
2) I am not sure we are so priviledged about ourselves. I think raising the issue of 'who am I to pronounce judgments?' on myself - either descriptive ones or moral ones - is not so straightforward. Sometimes we are the last ones to understand certain things about ourselves. IOW the playing field may be more level between myself and others than the question implies.

Perhaps I will be more focused than I thought....

1) Yes, all the time. One way this issue comes up for me is in relation to respect. I have found myself in interpersonal dynamics with certain individuals, generally in person, where I continuously tried to explain what I saw as 'what was happening between us' something I was not pleased with. They continued not to 'get it', in ways that were very upsetting. At a certain point I pulled back and realize that they could not 'get it' and I relaxed. In the first stage there were more presumptions of similarity than in the second. Once I decided they were less self aware, or did not have similar goals or hopes for the interaction, or could not communicate as well or whatever the 'no longer seen as similar area' was obvious - or hallucinated - by me, I was vastly less bothered by what they were doing.

I can see from the way you are framing the issue that you might see both stages as me being presumptuous about the other person and even, perhaps, saying that that are the same, but not as competent as me. And there is truth to this - not that I am apolagizing for it. I did, often, have a loss of respect in the transition between stages. This respect, though, often was not global. IOW I did not end up looking down on them, though this happened on occasion, but I decided - rightly or wrongly - that their side of the dynamic lacked certain qualities that mine had and to take it seriously in the ways I had pre-transition was damaging to both of us. I ended up, on occasion, appreciating them, sometimes much more, and keeping a certain distance, or making certain shifts in the relationship, due to what I realized - or hallucinated. I tend to think it was the former since the relationships seemed more satisfying for both parties.

Sometimes I broke off the relationship.

To use an analogy. A mathematician meets another mathematician - or thinks he has. The latter puts forward a critique of something the first has written on the blackboard. An argument ensues. The mathematician (1) gets irritated as the latter refuses to acknowledge certain things. Then the mathematician realizes that the other person is not a mathematician but actually someone with much less experience and education. He calms down. Perhaps he explains in a way more fitting their differences in knowledge. Perhaps he rushes off to an appointment - perhaps on some level he was a bit excited and thought he might learn something new,while also irritated, and now stops putting off that appointment.

How do we avoid brushing off the savant without training?
How can we be sure we are not categorizing the other's level of expertise incorrectly and to avoid facing certain things we need to or it would be great to face - in ourselves, about the world?

Well, I am afraid we must trust our own intent -not in the specific interaction, perhaps, but that over time we do wish to learn, etc. - and our own intution. If we cannot trust these things in ourselves than any 'solution' is tainted anyway - except perhaps the solutions that involve a great deal of self-distrust, such as those offered by certain religions. but in the end even that offers no escape.

2)I think that, so far, it has seemed to me that a certain global air of tentativeness must hover. IOW I am more ready now to shift my sense of 'we are the same' and to have a wider range of responses and senses of other people.

That is a start. And I appreciate the opportunity to become more conscious of this issue - especially in the broad way it is framed here.

Thanks.

edit: just realized that one of your responses above to BM includes a partial answer to the question you are asking. Your raising the issue with us is presumptive. Hermits can avoid the issue. But anyone with a social component in their lives must make assumptions about others, otherwise they would have to deal with infinite regresses before and after and perhaps during every interaction. 'Can I assume he is using the words the same as me?' 'What data justifies this position?' And so on.

Not that those issues cannot come up both globally and individually. In fact I think they should, given my intution about what everyone seems to want - however presumptuous that may seem, it is the truth about me: I do indeed think that pretty much everyone does wonder such things when jarred by things that do not seem to fit, but to widely varying degrees they do this.

 

I find this interesting. I have never thought about the three modes this way before - that they dictate a person's sense of objectivity.

Would it be correct to say that the thee modes roughly correspond to these three Western philosophical approaches to reality and their understanding of objectivity:
ignorance - relativism/constructivism
passion - existentialism
goodness -realism
-?

Would this mean that it is not our responsiblity or our task to discover, all on our own, or to create what our responsibility what a soul is?
That it is simply not within our power to discover the fundamentals of the Universe and that we instead need to rely on other sources?

Perhaps my problem lies in here - in thinking that I must discover everything on my own, or it doesn't count - that I may not take on an already existing philosophy (no matter how much I intellectually agree with it) unless I can on my own and independently prove that it is true.
It seems that I basically have the attitude that the self-awakened Buddha had (namely, feeling the need to work it out all on one's own), while I do not have the will nor the means to actually act on that attitude - hence my getting stuck and frustrated.

Thank you. Like I said in the OP, perhaps the problem needs to be reformulated before it can be resolved.

 

You didn't answer my question.
Can you observe yourself, your mind, your life and tell me what it is that enables you to not be concerned when others disagree with you?

 

Thank you. We've addressed this topic a couple of times before, when discussing what to do with the labels others give us.

Yes, and then there is this ...
Ideally, one is competent only about oneself, but not about others. This is the underlying assumption in my OP. But knowing oneself might be something that can take years and years and years, so in effect, we aren't competent about ourselves (unless we are enlightened, of course).

But perhaps this notion that one is competent only about oneself, but not about others is not adequate to begin with, so my problem in the OP is relativized by this. Perhaps knowing oneself, one becomes competent to know about others, without them having to provide any input?

Yes, I noticed this too. How at some point, after quite a troublesome exchange, almost miraculously comes an indifference, a "shaking things off and moving on". But myself, I can't produce this indifference at will, even though I want to. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. I wonder if there are any general principles for this, so that I could be more efficient.

I can relate to this, too.

But where is the line between trusting one's own intuition and being presumptuous?

So in the case when one is lacking the necessary self-trust, one might simply have to accept that this is just how it is, and accept that one can (currently) have nothing better but a tainted solution? The proverbial "living with imperfection"?

Yes, this seems necessary. But what is the viable philosophy behind this?

It is, yes. But it seems I could only raise the issue because I felt that the negative consequences of my stance justified doing so.

Seeing it as a matter of degree seems feasible, yes. But when it comes to degrees, the highest end and the lowest end need to be identified too, as otherwise, it is impossible to reasonably talk about degrees. Without the extremes identified, the whole range of degrees might as well go in a circle.

 

one can understand why they are by knowing how they are affected by the modes of material nature

Its kind of like this world being like a hospital - IOW everyone here (for the most part), myself included , has come here to express some sort of malady. Of course its the purpose of the hospital that everyone gets better and that whatever happiness or satisfaction one claims to possess here is illusory - for instance if you ask a person in traction how they are going and they say fine, its understood that they are simply meaning "fine, given the present circumstances".

in short

BG 5.29 A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.

The only way to be peaceful in this world is to properly understand how god is controlling all things in these three capacities.