|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
John C. Kimbrough
Thailand
63 Posts |
 Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 02:48:21 AM
|
Condemnation – The Greatest Expression of Ignorance
The teachings and disciplines of Christianity, Buddhism and Yoga are all built around three concepts that we attempt to carry out in thought, word and action.
These are non – violence, loving kindness and compassion. Other words that we hear that are synonymous with these practices are charity and grace.
Sometimes the best way to understand what these concepts and practices really mean in application is not what they say that we should do, but to understand what they say and mean that we should not do.
Perhaps there is no greater meaning in them other then one thing, that being that we should not condemn others in any way in thought, word or action, nor should we condemn ourselves.
If we look at the teachings and stories about both Jesus and The Buddha, we find that they did not condemn, but instead showed mercy and understanding, and questioned in order to cultivate mindfulness on the part of the person who was engaged in some ignorant, unwholesome or unskillful thought, word or action.
When we condemn, we not only poison our own mind and consciousness and cultivate further ignorance, but we also make ourselves blind to a number of things in the person that we condemn.
We poison our own mind and consciousness because in condemning others we ignorantly imply or feel that we are better, stronger and wiser then them. We are looking at what we think of as being weaknesses or impurities in them, instead of seeing the weaknesses and defilements within ourselves.
The mindfulness that we want to cultivate, and work that we want to do, especially if we think of ourselves as being practitioners of Christianity, Buddhism and Yoga is to be directed to ourselves, not others.
In addition, when we condemn others, especially to their face or in a manner that they see or know that they are being condemned, we may be harming them to a great extent, because they may already be condemning themselves in any number of ways on a daily basis.
They may have poor self – esteem or self – confidence, or feel guilt or shame about some recent or past experience or action on their part.
They may feel lonely, unloved or confused about their life and place in the world.
What is gained by adding to such things with our own condemning ways?
When we get into the habit of condemning others in thought, word and action, we also do not allow ourselves to see the good points in others or how they have got to be in such a state.
Were they orphans or did they grow up in a household where verbal, emotional, physical and sexual abuse took place on a regular basis?
Were they or have they been denied some basic human right because of their skin color, ethnic background, nationality or religious or political beliefs?
Were they victimized knowingly or by chance in some other way, perhaps through random violence or war?
When we practice non – violence, loving kindness and compassion as individual human beings or as followers and practitioners of Christianity, Buddhism or Yoga, we are also applying an understanding that all human beings have the capacity for joy and wisdom, and suffering and confusion.
We understand that all human beings have weaknesses and strength.
We understand that all human beings can change or undergo change and develop in both skillful and unskillful ways.
We understand and know that someone who is a drug addict this year can be a saint and teacher next year.
We know that a soldier can become a minister and a patient can become a doctor, just as we know that someone who is the president or Prime Minister can become dishonest and dishonored.
Life and our ignorance and confusion about how to approach and live it can create suffering, not to mention that various things that can happen to us because of the ignorance, greed and desires of others.
Why add to this suffering by condemning others?
©2006 John C. Kimbrough/Yoga is for Better Health and Living
John C. Kimbrough |
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 09:33:06 AM
|
I agree. We have discussed this issue in other areas of the forum.
It is something I have learned fairly recently.
There are a couple forms of condemning others that are practiced fairly widely and people don't think anything of it.
One is talking behind someone's back negatively. That's a hard one to break because we figure just saying a couple of derogatory things about somebody doesn't do any harm if they aren't there, and the person you are talking to agrees with you. You feel a little closer to the person you are talking to at the expense of the one who isn't there.
But the problem with that is the next time either of you sees the one you were talking about, there is a little more distance between you. That person has been dehumanized a little bit, because you have set them up as being wrong without giving them the chance to defend themselves or learn what they are doing wrong.
A better way to handle the situation, although much more difficult, is to talk with the person whom you feel is wrong and discuss the subject to find out why they do what they do.
That takes a lot of communication skill to keep from setting them off, and the average person today is not spending a lot of time working on communication skills. People are busy talking on their cell phones to people who agree with them, or watching TV or playing video games, none of which increase communication. Try talking to someone you DISagree with.
The other form of condemnation that I recently have learned is people condemning political figures, or people in other political parties.
They feel that "the truth" is the only thing that matters, and they think a certain action taken by their enemies is inexcusable, and they condemn the person responsible.
For instance, it's popular to say "Bush is Hitler" about the president here in the USA. The president may have some similarities to Hitler, but the harm in calling him that is that you de-humanize him and associate all the bad traits of Hitler and none of the good.
What good traits, you might say? Well, that's exactly my point. We don't think Hitler had any good traits because we dehumanized him. We think his actions were so bad that he cannot be excused, and condemned him as a person. We think the same thing about the president and also wish to condemn him as a person.
But isn't that the essence of what was wrong with Hitler to begin with? The fact that he condemned people, dehumanized them, and felt that killing them was no big deal because they were the source of evil?
So I learned that we need to look at ourselves instead of condemning people, and discuss people's actions separately from their value as a human being, and communicate with those people we disagree with, and not judge people by their actions. |
 |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 1:36:34 PM
|
John said:
When we get into the habit of condemning others in thought, word and action, we also do not allow ourselves to see the good points in others or how they have got to be in such a state.
There are many impediments to allowing ourselves to see how they have got to be in such a state. If we believe in compassion that survives information and is firmly rooted in reality, let us not forget:
"Were they formed under the direction of genes that make it harder for them to be part of a concordant society?"
Most people are completely unable to bring their compassion into that question at all. There is a common mechanism where that compassion-weakness is projected instead onto those who ask it.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 18 2006 1:38:00 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 1:48:29 PM
|
Ether said:
The other form of condemnation that I recently have learned is people condemning political figures, or people in other political parties.
They feel that "the truth" is the only thing that matters, and they think a certain action taken by their enemies is inexcusable, and they condemn the person responsible.
For instance, it's popular to say "Bush is Hitler" about the president here in the USA.
I appreciate that you have made me more aware of this one too. It's very true.
It's very easy for us to, without knowing it, have certain kinds of people that we feel free to condemn. Political opponents are a big one.
[Hitler has become a sort of larger-than-life caricature of evil. But the truth is that, while he is no paragon of purity, he was nothing extraordinary bad, just ordinarily bad and extraordinarily powerful in his badness. There isn't much difference in what it takes in a tribal chief to, say, in a small tribe of 200, do a devastating raid on a neighboring tribe of 50, and do what he did. Historically, only the magnitude of the event sets it apart, not the human motivations.]
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 18 2006 1:51:12 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 1:50:30 PM
|
One question:
'Condemnation – The Greatest Expression of Ignorance'
Does the title seem a little disparaging, or even condemnatory?
|
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 3:35:48 PM
|
Hi Ether and David,
I think it's important to remember that there is "your truth", "my truth" and "the truth". Problems arise when mistaking either your truth and/or my truth with the truth. It can seem like they are one and the same, but until we become one with the truth we can only have our dualistic perception of it.
Anthem |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 3:41:13 PM
|
David wrote:
" 'Condemnation – The Greatest Expression of Ignorance'
Does the title seem a little disparaging, or even condemnatory?"
I was thinking the same thing, but I don't think so. I tried to think of a worse expression of ignorance, and couldn't.
Then I realized that "expression of ignorance" is an act. I believe it is OK to condemn acts, just not the whole person who committed them. There were plenty of acts that hitler did that were downright wrong, and also Bush. But to condemn either one cuts off all communication with them as if they weren't human, and communication is the only way I know of to bring people together.
Anthem posted while I was writing.
Yes, there are different truths. But what I was referring to is people take a fact like "Hitler killed six million Jews", and say since it is the truth he is all evil and shouldn't be thought of as a human. i used to agree with them, but not now. It's not that his acts were any more excusable, but how I react to them that changed.
I've heard a fully enlightened being could love Hitler as much as Jesus. So this is one step closer to that. |
Edited by - Etherfish on Mar 18 2006 3:47:15 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 3:46:21 PM
|
Ether said:
I was thinking the same thing, but I don't think so. I tried to think of a worse expression of ignorance, and couldn't.
Actually, the correctness of it was not at issue with me, so I wouldn't care if I could find a worse expression of ignorance or not. The issue was only in the way it comes across.
Ether:
I believe it is OK to condemn acts, just not the whole person who committed them.
I suppose. Hmmmm, maybe. But (and this is just food for thought) is the dividing line always so clear? I'm not so sure it is. I think the emotion of condemnation is either there or it is not. Maybe we should seek to minimize condemning emotions in general.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 18 2006 3:50:46 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 3:48:37 PM
|
| but it is not condemning a person is it? It is condemning the act. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 3:51:44 PM
|
We are cross-editing and posting. :)
Check what I finished with again.
OK, if 'condemning the act' just means saying that 'that act is very, very bad and should never be done', I am all for it.
If you really can 'condemn the act' but not the person, would you have the emotion of condemnation at all?
Food for thought.
OK, here's another angle: suppose a person says 'Indulging in too much Television is the greatest expression of ignorance'. Have they just 'condemned the act' and are off the hook? Or have they disparaged/condemned people when it was not called for?
The dividing line is not so clear in practice.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 18 2006 4:24:23 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 5:23:04 PM
|
I don't understand what emotion has to do with it.
To me, condemning a person is putting up a wall where there will be no further communication, because that person has done something you refuse to excuse.
Yes, I would say 'Indulging in too much Television is the greatest expression of ignorance' is only condemning an act. They have not said "Therefore any person who indulges in too much TV will be banished from society." That would be condemning people. And even then they can be ignored. It is when you name specific people that it gets dangerous. Like "You watch too much TV, so don't ever speak to me again." |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 5:52:46 PM
|
Ether said:
I don't understand what emotion has to do with it.
To me, condemning a person is putting up a wall where there will be no further communication, because that person has done something you refuse to excuse.
This actual interpretation of 'condemnation' is a pretty extreme one, and is I think much narrower than is meant in the context. Since we actually do that kind of condemnation very, very rarely, my interpretation of 'condemn' is more like:
1 : to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually without reservation
2 a : to pronounce guilty
There's a continuum I believe between just expressing a negative judgemental view and making a condemnation. I think the emotions have everything to do with it. Can you condemn in a loving way?
Just food for thought.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 18 2006 5:55:39 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Mar 18 2006 : 8:39:25 PM
|
i see what you mean by emotions being connected, and condemnation is generally done as a result of emotions. But what I meant is the emotion itself not what is wrong, but the expression of it.
I think if you declare someone's ACT as being reprehensible, wrong, or evil without reservation, and pronounce a person guilty of that ACT, you are not condemning the person as a human.
I believe what is damaging to humanity is when we declare a person to be reprehensible, wrong, and evil without reservation, so there is no restitution possible. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Condemnation – The Greatest Expression of Ignoranc
Topic Locked
