[Warning to potential new readers: this is a thread that get’s kind of messy. I apologize for poor wordings and reactive behavior on my part. Please know that it is temporary, even though the words are still there, and please have faith that the wise people running this forum will not let a beginner’s processing mind ruin the forum for you. Practice well and do not get caught up in the content of this thread. Peace be with you.]



Let us play with the idea that humanity some day wakes up in a way that makes it possible for every individual to distinguish between reasonable needs on the one hand and cravings and aversions that cause unnecessary suffering on the other hand. Let us say that it is a combination of full awakening and any additional psychological maturity that would be required, and a genuine wish to benefit all sentient beings. Suddenly the entire humanity is free from clinging to ”me”and ”mine”. They realize that current systems for production and distribution are based on misguided views, and decide that enough is enough. The planet needs to be saved and priorities need to change radically.

What do you think they would do?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I’m not talking about a revolution. There would be no coercion or force involved. I’m interested in how priorities would change in specific issues. No need to overthrow governments or anything like that. When I say ”systems” I mean in a broader sense. There are systems for practically anything we do. I have a system for how to clean my home, for instance, and for how I do grocery shopping.

Is this one of those political questions masquerading as a dharma question?

To be serious for a minute, I'm not a fan of utopias and theories of human nature that assume utopia is possible and desirable, that human nature is perfectible. I think human nature is what we see of it now, and focusing on what is impossible to achieve (utopia and human perfection) both ignores the reality of human nature and focuses our energies in the wrong direction. I believe we have to deal with the reality of both human nature and how we got to where we find ourselves now if we have any hope of "fixing" the climate crisis.

YMMV

EDIT: And yes, this means that I don't believe it's possible that every human being will wake up in the dharma sense.

I'm with Chris on this one. No utopian thinking for me, and frankly it makes me a bit nervous when I see it. I'm too much of a practical realist anyway and not only are the efforts and energies better spent elsewhere, but when utopian thinking goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong. I prefer to dispense with beliefs and ideals as much as possible at this point in my life. 

Yes. It tends to lead to authoritarianism. It leads to governments that "protect the ideal" and not the human beings who suffer under them.

Your skepticism is duly noted.

I don’t believe in a ”human nature” because to me that sounds like believing that there is an essence to what is empty. I might change my mind later, though, as I’m only beginning to grasp what emptiness might implicate.

I think of this as a way to brainstorm about possible solutions to urgent problems without discarding all ideas prematurely because they seem impossible. It is important to discard all potentially harmful ideas before taking action, of course, but in a beginning phase it could perhaps be helpful to believe in the potential for human development, impermanence if you like, rather than assuming that people will always remain the same.

Honestly, I thought it was obvious that this is a political question, as all discussions about the end of suffering on a collective level. It is moral/political philosophy, based on aspects of the dharma. Should I flag this somehow so that people can avoid it more easily?

Maybe it wouldn’t have to. This is based on the assumption that people have gone through the stated development and truly wish for a change.

For all I know, their first point on the agenda could be exactly to make sure that this new common interest does not end up as authoritarianism. They might take measures to ensure that any steps towards authoritarianism are called out early on and nipped in the bud in a non-violent way. I think that would be extremely important for the reasons the two of you point to.

We always seem to enter into these things with very good intentions. Yet they go wrong. I wonder why?

Maybe because that development hasn’t happened yet. Anyway, I can assure you that I don’t have a gerilla army waiting for my orders. I just want to talk about how a sustainable society would look like together with other people who share my interest and who are also committed to non-violent and democratical solutions. Taking part in the discussion is entirely voluntary.

Anyway, if I were to take part in such a discussion for real some day, which is highly unlikely, I would totally argue for the role of the sage as a valid option for any individual. I don’t think anybody would dispute that.

I would also suggest that since we are currently using a lot of electricity, it would be a good idea to install solar panels in Sahara, unless there are environmental or other problems with that that I’m unaware of, and distribute the electricity to those who are currently primarily using fossile fuels. First locally and then globally if possible. I’m thinking that if people are less invested in ”me” and ”mine”, maybe there wouldn’t be so much discussion about who would have to pay for it. People would soon realize that such an intervention would benefit us all.

I think we would stop using oil rather rapidly. Those who had invested a fortune in the oil business would trust that they would still be fine without those riches. They would take pleasure in knowing that the development was for the greater good, and people would appreciate them for that sacrifice (which would be seen as a minor one by now but still recognized for the great change that it would entail) and make sure that they were okay, because nobody would be interested in retribution. After all, there are no individual selves and there is no point in punishing dependent origination as it would only cause additional bad karma.

I imagine we would stop throwing away food and other useful products because of the empty fact that nobody bought them. We would laugh at the mere idea of doing such a thing. Also, if something needed to be done (such as making sure that somebody could eat and breathe and wash and get some air) and there were people who were willing and competent to do it, I think we would make sure that they had the resources needed. No need to quarrel about who should pay for it.

I believe we would be less interested in compelling packages and more interested in making quality products that last and using a cradle-to-cradle system to make it easier to reuse old materials. I believe we would definitely stop making and selling and using weapons. That would free up resources for more important matters. That would also be the case with all the systems that we have today just for making sure that people don’t get what they need.

There would probably be some overwhelming difficulties to begin with, because so many needs are unmet today. Saving everybody might not be possible. There would be a period of collective mourning. We would have to face the consequences of our previous choices. Maybe people would still find some comfort in knowing that future generations would be free from that kind of suffering, and maybe not clinging to ”me” and ”mine” would relieve people from the suffering that these difficulties would normally entail. Maybe that would be too optimistic. I can’t personally imagine the scenario, so I really don’t know. Would people hurry up to minimize the pain for as many as possible or relax because the suffering was radically reduced anyway thanks to the letting go of cravings? I don’t know.

Other sentient beings would still be able to suffer, so I would guess that animal rights would be on the agenda, together with the entire ecology. That’s a tough one. We have messed up the ecology big time, so it’s not like suddenly stopping using animals would solve everything in a flash (I’m not personally a vegan but I do believe that we need to rethink how we treat animals; I don’t know exactly how).

To be clear, I don’t believe that perfection is possible. I just think that humanity could do better than today.

Just some thoughts, not very well thought through.

You know, taking measures to prevent people from talking about political change tends to lead to authoritarianism, too, so it is good that none of us is prone to use force or coercion to ”protect” anything.

Also, exactly what are you saying here? What would the alternative be? Not having any politics at all? Like that would be possible. Not having any intentions? Yeah well, I suppose if people were really all fully enlightened, at least in one sense there would be no intentions, but that’s not something that you believe in. Entering political issues with bad intentions - that options is discarded, right? So what remains? Keeping status qou? Like that one never turned into authoritarianism. Letting everyone mind their own business? Yeah, Lord of the flies is a really cosy scenario, right? Deliberatly aiming for politics that are tailored to humanity’s worst character flaws? That’s where we are now, and we are destroying the planet. Does that qualify as going wrong?

Actually, that is authoritarianism. Do you think I'm shutting you down by expressing my opinion? 


You're misinterpreting my comments.

I'm saying that the historical attempts human beings have made at governing based on the notions that utopia is achievable and human beings are perfectible have not done well and most have simply failed. It's a fact of history. I'm not commenting on anything else, or any other form of government.

If it matters, I happen to like the limited government models that have taken hold in the U.S. and in Europe over the last several hundred years. Republics that are based on the notion that we need to protect human rights, not protect the ideal of human perfection.

Please try not to take my comments personally. They're not aimed at you. 

Linda, I have no idea where you currently are map-wise and so I'm just throwing this out there--please don't take offense...

I have seen practitioners getting caught in loops of utopian thinking when in the dukkha nanas. The conceptual mind seems to be trying to fix the suffering "out there" rather than letting go so we can see clearly the self-created suffering "within" ourselves. It can be an avoidance mechanism. Again, I'm not saying that this is what's going on with you, just that I've seen it happen to others and it might be worthwhile to do some investigation. Trying to feel deep into the urges leading to this train of thought might be fruitful. Or maybe not--again, I'm just throwing this out there in case it might be useful to you. 

Of course, you're more than welcome to continue making conversation here on this thread, but you might also consider checking out the dharma of climate change thread on awakenetwork as it's been fairly lively lately with a number of participants.

I said that it’s good that none of us is prone to force or coercion, so no, I don’t think you are shutting me down. I was merely pointing out that my ideas have as little to do with authoritarianism as your ideas.

I’m very well aware of the fact that no utopia has been successful. I’m also very well aware that the current situation is no success either. I’m not planning to build a utopia. I’m just trying to frame a discussion in a way that allows people to think outside the box.

I haven’t said anything about changing any governmental models. I’m trying to talk about political priorities, in specific issues. Why do you think I’m talking about changing the governmental models? I happen to be a firm believer in human rights.

Of course your comments aren’t personal. They aren’t even targeting anything that I have actually said.

No offense taken.

I’m not sure where I am in the maps either. All I know is that I am exactly where I need to be right now, and that’s a pretty good place.

These thoughts are not new, and they are not loops now, although they certainly have been before. I’m aware of the potential problem there. Right now I just think that it might be a good idea for humanity to think outside the box and embrace that potential for impermanence in a good way. Also, I think it’s an interesting question.

I haven’t been active on awakenetwork lately due to a busy schedule, but I’ll certainly read that thread. Thanks!

Linda, you said this in the first comment on this topic:


This comment, at least to me, meant that some changes to the way we allocate resources and decide on what we will do on a collective basis are required should every human being someday "wake up" (in the spiritual sense). That, to me, means changes in the nature of government. Is that not what you meant? How else will we make changes to the way we eat, generate energy, where and how we live, how we get around, and so on? I'm open to ideas on how we can make massive changes in a short period of time - because the time we have left before the earth's climate reaches a tipping point is very, very short.

One thing I've run across recently is that we may need to position the problem using different terms. "Climate change" is a neutral phrase. Some people argue that we need to use words like "Climate crisis" to generate a sense of urgency. People, in general, do not seem to think this is at all a crisis. I see today, too, that the British Parliament has now officially declared the climate crisis a "climate emergency."

Ah, ”system” is a word that has many connotations so I see how that was ambiguous. No, I didn’t mean that at all. I’m talking about the unlikely scenario that people would perfectly voluntarily let go of ”me” and ”mine” and stop quarrelling over empty things such as who is paying for what and trust that it would even out if we help each other. People would democratically vote for this. Nobody would be interested in buying or producing things in an unsustainable way, so there would be no market for it anymore. Thus, whole industries would go out of business. People would have to come up with new systems for producing things - that is, cradle to cradle systems. Isn’t it correct to use the word ”system” in that sense too? Is there a better word? And since people would prioritize ”real” needs over mere cravings of material things, at least to a higher degree than today, bureaucratic administrative systems for keeping people out of health care and social welfare would no longer be needed everywhere. Instead, there would be new openings for a livelihood that is actually aimed at helping people. Yeah, I know that it is a very unlikely scenario, and it is totally okay to be uninterested in dreaming about such scenarios. I am however not talking about a revolution. I’m talking about maturity. I’d like to think that there is hope for that. I’m aware that it is normative to call this maturity and that people may have different ideas of what maturity is. It would be interesting to hear from other people about their ideas of what it would entail.

One additional example would be if people in a country were to vote, in accordance with their current political system, for public transportation to be free of charge and publicly financed.

Detach from all: society, government, authorities... (all are Maya)

Refuse to recognize all "authorities", practice civil disobedience...

Refuse to be "domesticated" "humans"...

So you don’t vote?

Replying to my question is optional. It would be nice if someone who did actually cared to follow the premises I set up.

People can care very much about all of these things and still not want to engage intellectually. Caring is emotional. I spent a year with the brahma viharas as my primary practice and you might say it was my spiritual or mystical response to the terrible problems of the world which I am helpless to solve. (And yes I do vote.)

Did me spending so many hours radiating infinite compassion to the entire universe have any practical effects at all? Does it matter? Should we reduce spiritual practice to what can be measured in worldly terms?

It’s perfectly fine not wanting to engage intellectually, but why do all of you need to tell me that here in this thread? Practically all other threads are not about wordly matters. Is it so provokative that I want to discuss worldly matters in one thread?

Perhaps we care deeply that you practice--and practice well!--and so we are trying to give you gentle nudges to do that rather than spending your time giving your conceptual mind a workout. Just a thought.

Then I can assure you that these thoughts are not distracting me from my practice. It took me a few minutes to write them down. Assuring you that I’m neither depressed nor sloppy, and certainly not thinking about threatening human rights, did take some time from my practice, though. Seriously guys, this is a thread about ideas such as cooperating globally to divert the energy production from oil to solar cells. If that worries you all so much, maybe you need to investigate your own reactive patterns. Just sayin’.

I'm not worried or reactive.

Since you seem interested in the subject of human rights and mass awakening and you practice Mahasi noting, I'm curious if you've yet done any research into the historic roots of the tradition and the current political situation in Myanmar with the Rohingya.

Folks typically come to the DhO to talk about meditation practice. It's not surprising that every topic turns to practice matters, even the ones that aren't meant to be focused on practice. Like Andromeda, I suggest you might want to review and participate in a similar conversation over on AwakeNetwork, which has become more squarely focused on climate issues, not practice issues.

Anyone evaluated consumption patterns (carbon footprint etc) of contemplatives ?

Osho had 94 Rolls Royces.

Hi Stickman2! You are very welcome to write about reduction of carbon footprints or lack of such reduction here, and even more welcome to discuss what changes would make reduction of carbon footprints possible. I would also be interested in your thoughts about consumption patterns in the stated fictive scenario.

There's a fictive scenario ?

Linda, are you familiar with Spiral Dynamics? If not, you may find it very interesting:

http://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/

Is that "integral" as in Ken Wilbur-type integral?" I'll go check it out.

That's what it is.

http://www.thefullwiki.org/Spiral_Dynamics 

Yes. Obviously. I haven’t exactly seen the kind of maturity I’m talking about thrive on this planet. Have you?

My scenario is just as fictive as Andromeda’s dystopia about the poisening of all but one water reserve. I haven’t seen anyone lecturing about authoritarianism in that thread.

Thanks, I’m not, and quite frankly I’m always a bit sceptical about systems that try to categorize people, but as I don’t know anything about it I’m not in a position to evaluate it. I just think it would be nice if people would mature enough not to kill each other, let each other starve and lie helpless in their own feces, and destroy the planet. Sometimes I like to daydream about such a scenario for a moment, and I thought it would be nice to brainstorm about what such people would be capable of and see if one or two ideas could actually be of interest to people for real. That’s all.

Are you referring to that Sufi spiritual teaching story written by the saint and passed down over generations? 

Yes. Why? Do we believe in people capable of maturity now?

The last time I voted was over 30 years ago.

Maturity consists of two tracks: growing-up and waking-up. 

(credit the idea to Ken Wilber)

Since science is our new "world religion", and science does not recognize the "waking-up" (states), unless and until humans detach themselves from beliefs of "science", maturity is not possible.

There seem to be a lot of people who do not believe in science, though. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to help either.

Maybe we just stopped growing up, if we ever did.

In U.S. parents are required to send their kids to schools to be subjected to science brain-wash, parents could home-school kids but the kids still must take and pass the brain-washing exams (they would need to study and memorize brain-washing materials in order to pass exams), that's law. 

by "a lot", approximately what percentage of the populations in this country that don't believe in science do you suggest? 

and it matters, it matters "a lot" 

I was referring to the horrible discussions in Swedish social medias before our election, among others. And to the ”autism moms” that think giving their children bleach enema will ”cure” their children from being neurodivergent and to the anti-vaxxers who attack in packs as soon as an autistic adult suggests that being autistic doesn’t have to be the end of the world and that vaccines don’t cause autism anyway. I have been accused of working for ”Big Pharma” in trying to make a plague happen that will contaminate the whole world with autism (!). I have no idea how many they are, and especially not in other countries, but they sure seem like many enough, and they seem to have a lot* of both waking up and growing up to do.

I thought you had schools over there that teach ”intelligent design”. Is that just a myth?

Mocking my language isn’t very mature, by the way, so your scepticism might still need the addition of just a tad more growing up, no offence.

*) Yeah, I can’t even begin to imagine exactly how much, so go ahead and sue me for being vague. Just do it somewhere else than in this thread, if you would be so kind. 

Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. At any rate, I don't think it's valid to compare a Sufi teaching story with your highly speculative thought experiment. Do you? I'm really not understanding why you made the comparison, so it would be helpful if you could fill me in a bit more as to why. Your comment reads to me as snarky.

At any rate, what I (and perhaps others) don't agree with is your premise that all of humanity is going to achieve full awakening (and let's not forget that what "full awakening" means or if it even exists at all is hotly contested). No, I do not believe that is possible, nor do I personally know any awake long term practitioners or teachers who think this is possible (although I do know some who DID think it was possible but changed their minds). In fact, the number of people who actually manage to achieve anything close to "full awakening" seems quite low among practitioners, and those are the ones who made the choice to practice. If people don't want to practice, how would they wake up? Spontaneous awakenings occur, but they are rare. You are new to this forum and dharma in general, but this type of thing has been discussed on the DhO at least since I first landed here around 2011 so it may be "common knowledge" to most people reading your post. That may be why people are not engaging with your thread as you would like. Why should anyone invest time and energy into a speculative discussion with a premise they think is baseless? That wouldn't make sense.

Or it could just be that people, like myself, already spend a lot of time discussing and reflecting on politics and culture and the problems the world is facing with close associates and do not wish to do so on this forum, where most people come to discuss practice (and this may be the ONLY place they get to discuss practice). 

Just some thoughts.

I appreciated the wisdom of that story, but I really don’t see why imagining what mature people would potentially do to save the planet is so dangerous whereas allegories about the poisening of water supplies are completely safe. So the person who authored it was considered a saint, and maybe also was one, whatever that is. It’s a construction like everything else. A construction made by people. A construction about people who are more spiritually and morally mature than the majority. The man in the story did try to save people. It didn’t end that well, but it didn’t make anything worse either.

If you are tired of discussing newbie questions, you could just ignore the post. Maybe there are other newbies here who would be interested in the topic. If nobody is interested, that’s just fine. I don’t expect answers to all my posts. I’m fine with people just replying to the posts that do interest them.

I have explained over and over again that I was interested in a discussion that did not end up with depressing remarks about how impossible all change is. Engaging in the discussion is entirely optional. So is derailing it, I guess, and common decency is perhaps also Maya, what do I know, being so new and all.

Of course I’m not comparing myself to a saint. It was a relief to see that you at least believe that some people are capable of enough maturity to be talking about possible scenarios without it turning into a catastrophy. I honestly wondered.

Linda, your responses are getting more and more angry sounding and are being aimed at folks who very clearly enjoy your presence here and who have contributed to your DhO participation in positive ways. Are you aware of this? Maybe it's time to take a break from this topic and gain some perspective? Just a thought.

I am so sorry for causing you to perceive that I was mocking your language, that absolutely was not my intent.  My native tongue is not English and I don't know if "a lot" means, in a ballpark, 10%, 30%, 50%, or otherwise, was just wanted to understand that better. 

My own perception is that less than 10% of U.S. populations don't believe in science.  I don't really think people in DHO are so immature as to wanting mocking other people's language, especially for those whose native language is not English to mocking other people's English.

Again, I sincerely apologize for causing your displeasure by my poor English language skill.  

Maybe I would notice that people appreciate my presence if they did not assume that I want to throw away human rights, comment on my language, point out to me in so many ways that I’m new and that my question is naive/stupid/dangerous, pathologize my behavior and insist on derailing my thread over and over again instead of just ignoring it. If that’s how you show people that they are welcome here, we seem to have a cultural barrier. Also, in most forums moderators do not moderate threads in which they are actively engaged. Are awakened people so free from bias that you don’t need such precautions? That assumption would be kind of ironic, given the topic, wouldn’t it?

EDIT: Well, at least there was no intentional mocking of language. Good to know. Appologies for the misunderstanding, John!

EDIT again: I do feel welcome. I very much appreciate the kindness, wisdom and helpfulness you all have showed. This particular moment felt very surrealistic, though.

I’m sorry for the misinterpretation, John. In another thread I would probably have asked instead of assuming.

I don’t know enough about the US to make a qualified guess. Do you have reasons to believe that people who do not believe in science are more mature than those who do? I believe it’s more complicated than that. Science has its limitations but also its advantages.

I didn’t think so either, but I honestly don’t know what to believe anymore. If that was the intention of the contributors, to have me see for myself just how impossible the scenario would be (although I explicitly wrote that it was fiction), then mission accomplished.

Since the topic was about human maturity, it is my belief that science is a very limited and immature belief system (a religion, just like most other religions), therefore, if the majority of our human population are still brain-washed to believe this very limited belief system, then we humans are very immature, but, humans are in the evolution progress of both growing up and waking up.  Science, unfortunately, is an obstacle to our waking up, it has been, however, very helpful for our growing up process.

An obstacle to waking up but helpful in growing up - yeah, that sums it up pretty well. Well put.

Yes, I agree that turning science into a belief system is very contraproductive. It is important to see the limitations of all tools.

Linda, you're obviously very angry--it comes through loud and clear in your last few comments--and you seem to be misinterpreting a number of people's good intentions including my own. I'm happy to talk about this further, but not until you've cooled off and I have more time.

It is said that Buddha had waking up 2500 years ago, we humans today, 2500 years later, are we more awake now than humans in Buddhas time? I am not convinced that we are, this could be an interesting study project for scientifically minded intellects.

Developmentally, no doubt, we humans have grown up a lot in 2500 years time.

Ken Wilber wrote his Integral Theory book in 1973, today if you ask a person randomly if he had heard of Ken Wilber, 99% of Americans (even among the most educated ones) would likely to answer NO, at least that has been my experience.  Waking up is a VERY slow process for us humans, an unawakened person is not a truly matured human being.  Will humans ever wake up? I doubt that too.

I’m just trying to make conversation with those who are interested in the topic, if there are such people, and if they dare showing it. Also, I’m vain enough to care about not being mistaken for a potential terrorist or something. I never claimed to be one of those mature human beings. They are fictional, after all. Thus, when people feel the need to point out my lack of experience and so on, that does hurt. Maybe all of you are above that and have forgotten how that feels, I don’t know, but it’s actually not very nice.

I’m not angry. I’m sad.

I don’t think people are more awake today. Some people seem to believe so, but I suspect that may be due to changed definitions. This was a fictiobal scenario.

As for growing up, we have probably done so in some respects but regressed in others.

I would appreciate it if you didn’t insist on being helpful in a way that is not helpful for me.

Crossposting:

I need to find my own balance in dealing with wordly suffering. Nobody can do it for me. When people interfere with my mourning process and tell me that I’m doing it all wrong, that doesn’t help. I have faith in the process. It knows the way. I need to make my own mistakes. That’s part of the journey. I’ll let go of false hopes when I’m ready for it. Trying to take them away from me prematurely will only cause me to hold on to them even more. I know what they are. I also know my limitations in this respect, so that’s why I set boundaries. I would appreciate if people would trust me enough to respect those boundaries. It’s okay to just look the other way. I can take this.

You know that exercise when you make a muscle as tense as you possibly can, in order to notice clearly that letting go is the effortless part? That’s what I’m doing. Pulling and tugging my limbs to make me stop kind of disrupts the process.

It's hard to fathom the inertia behind the forces driving the world into the future. For me, it has been helpful to explore what interconnectedness really means. As in "I am one with all the horror and all the tragedy and all injustice and all the love and all the miracles". The world's greed is my greed. The world's hate is my hate. The world's joy is my joy. The world's love is my love. Our own personal shit is the world's macro-shit. Working from that view, you don't feel powerless because the change you make in yourself is reflected in the world. Lately, I've noticed that when I get wrapped up thinking or discussing politics, I suffer a great deal as do those around me with whom I have disagreements - even if I know we all have the best intentions for the most helpful outcome (this thread for example). If I throw the politics aside and just practice Right View (suffering and no suffering) with Right Sati, cultivating joy and cultivating compassion, the world becomes brighter, lighter and richer. I can adequately love and support the people around me. In this way I feel I am really making a difference in the world that transcends political ideals or philosophy. In the information age we get so caught up in what's happening around the world we forget that real change starts in our own minds and the community around us.

..Or maybe I'm just spiritually bypassing ;)

I’m glad you have found something that works for you.

“It is the beginning of wisdom to recognize that most men are fools and knaves, but it is the end of wisdom to embrace that vision.”
-Art Kleps

Yeah, I prefer to at least be open to the possibility that most human beings have a potential for development. If others choose to deal with the issue in other ways, or in other versions of a similar way, I fully respect that. It’s not for me to evaluate other people’s approaches. I can only speak - to the best of my ability - for what I need, something that may in itself be subject to change.

Linda, you've been an excellent forum contributor and so this thread and your comments in it took me by surprise. I've gone out of my way to make you feel welcome and comfortable on this forum and shared a lot of my own process in attempts to help you over the last however many months since we seem to have some similarities in wiring. To my knowledge, we haven't had any issues prior to this.

Nobody starts off with experience and I've shed plenty of tears over illusions lost along the way, and occasionally (to my regret) spewed venom at people who've been trying to help me. But mostly I've been grateful to those who pointed my illusions out and generally appreciate it when people are honest and forthright with me and so I try to pay it forward. You stated clearly in the first post of your most recent practice log that you wanted and were receptive to receiving help and a number of people including myself have tried to do that. Of course, good intentions aren't enough and communication sometimes goes awry, especially on internet forums. Nobody here is perfect in any way, myself included, and I apologize that my attempts to help didn't work out.

Thankyou for acknowledging that communications went awry. It’s okey. I’m sorry that I snapped. I needed to protect my boundaries, and neither you nor Chris seemed to get that I needed that. I know that both of you meant well but this was not helpful. You were unintentionally forcing (I can’t find a better word for it right now, so the nuance sounds stronger than I intend) your insights on me before I was ready for it. I will probably make many similar mistakes along the road (I may already have), and I can only hope that I’ll be able to listen when people tell me that it’s not helpful.

Feedback on my practice log is highly appreciated, and feedback on posts where I ask for advice. This wasn’t that kind of post, and I made that as clear as I could. This was one of those political threads for people who do want to take part in such discussions. Both you and Chris had made it very clear that you did not want to take part in such discussions. I respect your wish to not engage in them, and I thought you would respect my wish to engage in them, even if you think it’s unwise and even if my posts are utterly naive. It’s not your call to make.

It hurts but I’ll be okay. Unless you actually think I’m dangerous; that would hurt as hell. 

Thank you for acknowledging that you "snapped."

But if someone posts something that appears unwise and naive, why should this not be pointed out on a forum dedicated to awakening? Because your post wasn't JUST political, but started off with a premise that was spiritual. 

Maybe because I’m a beginner at this and you have had several decades to think about it, and sometimes newbies need to talk about stuff and process it for themselves.

And maybe because the premise was not the point. It was a fictional framing.

You edited your last post after I replied to it and added: "Unless you actually think I’m dangerous; that would hurt as hell." 

A few months back, I made a poorly worded comment to a practitioner with more experience than me that was interpreted as a statement that was very similar to your premise and nearly got my head bitten off. "That's dangerous!" I had to backpedal and explain that wasn't what I'd meant. Why do you think that might be?

Did that more experienced practicioner have compassion enough to listen when you explained what you actually meant?

Yes, Linda. I know what you were proposing and that you invented a framework within which to propose a thought experiment. I responded with my own thoughts, which were not aimed at you personally, but at the framework you suggested we work under. To me, that framework is a fantasy and, if applied to the real world, potentially dangerous. I was not then and am not now calling you, the person, dangerous. You're obviously a sensitive and caring human being. You don't appear to me to be any kind of authoritarian. You took offense at what I said about utopian thinking and it's been downhill ever since. Please know that at no time did I think anything negative about you as a person. I was engaging in a discussion that matters. You started a good topic. It's still a good topic. I'm truly sorry that you've taken offense and have been upset by my comments. I'll do my best to be careful in the future when we talk. Can we move on?

I don’t know what you mean when you say ”work under”. For the sake of discussion, then yes, for those who are willing. In our practice? No. We can’t base our practice on fictional premises. In politics? If people vote for a solution democratically and voluntarily, such as cooperating to install solar panels in the Sahara desert, then sure. Otherwise, of course not.

Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but in Sweden it is in most contexts considered very disrespectful to invest one’s energy in telling people over and over again that the entire discussion is pointless. It makes other people wary of entering the discussion, especially when the persons who do it are authorities. As moderators, you are authorities, and the two of you combined were quite persistent in tearing down the plausibility of a totally fictional premise and make the case that the topic therefore was pointless. And dangerous, for that matter. As for the latter, I have heard both Shinzen Young and Culadasa talk about the same premise in their dharma talks. I don’t know if they have changed their mind since then, but as far as I know, these talks are still available on youtube. I don’t know which talks, because I wasn’t aware that I would need the reference. I’m not blaming them for my thoughts, but I do think it’s unfair to hold me to standards that not even they live up to.

Thankyou for making explicit that you do not consider me authoritarian or dangerous and so on. You did not reply when I explained what you seemed to have mistaken for a possible violation of human rights and... I don’t know what you thought - a coup? - so I didn’t know.

Sure, we can move on, but I’m not sure what it is in this that you want to discuss. Also, I don’t want to press you to talk about politics if you are not comfortable with that, and the politics - as in specific issues, not governmental forms - are what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

It was compassionate to bite my head off in that case and I didn't take it personally. I am not suggesting you are dangerous and never have. This is about ideas. 

At any rate, I hope we can move on from this conversation. Thoughts on this?

This is a very interesting thought experiment, but of course, we are left with one major problem - how to define “awake”! 

E.g. do we include an ethical component? Some of the most ethical and intelligent and kind people I know, who are doing wonderful things in the world, are not at all what we might call spiritual or awake. Whereas there are plenty of so-called spiritual masters who have been abusive and behaved questionably. 

Another issue to consider - if we look at examples of some of the great awakened saints, they often don’t seem too concerned with worldly affairs. Some live as hermits, others are so “God intoxicated” as to be quite incapacitated and need others to help them with the basic daily requirements of living, and there are those who spend a lot of their time seemingly operating in other states of consciousness or realms. (E.g. check out some of the Indian sages like Neem Karoli Baba)

In fact, maybe the un-awake human condition is the only thing that keeps life as we know it going. I suspect if we all suddenly woke up, the implications would be so strange as to be absolutely un-imaginable and incomparable to any system we currently know today. 

But ... it’s very interesting to think about! 

I’m still not following why it would be dangerous to explore the idea of what humanity would do if we were not so attached to the way things are now.

Sure, we can move on. I don’t have anything against any of you. Just please do not make a diagnose of my ways of caring about wordly suffering. You be you and let me be me.

Thankyou for taking an interest in what I mean and exploring the topic further! These are good questions. They help me clarify what I mean and also clarify for myself what is confusing for me.

I don’t think the degree of perceptual awakening is necessarily so important for this thought experiment. I did have the three characteristics in mind, though, but maybe in a more worldly sense. I don’t know exactly where to draw the line. I’d be happy to discuss it further. I was thinking that much of the worldly suffering remains because people have difficulties in letting go of cravings and aversions and ”me” and ”mine” and also tend to fear change. If we are to secure that basic needs are met for at least the majority of the world population while avoiding destruction of the planet (climat crisis/emergency/change, pollution, not blowing it up, not having it implode...), then some people would need to let go of things that they have come to take for granted. That would be a huge challenge. Maybe classical awakening would help with that, maybe not. If it’s not too sensitive to discuss, I would appreciate a calm discussion about what could be given up and how big of a challenge it would be for someone who has gone through different degrees (and kinds, if there are kinds) of awakening. I think that would be interesting. For me it would be difficult to let go of some medications, for instance, and there may be ethical problems to that. Not that I’m that awake yet, but just to exemplify what kinds of issues I have in mind.

That leads to the next aspect. I think there are people who are not awakened that would still be ready and willing to let go of much (not sure how much) because they feel that it would be the right thing to do, even though they believe that there are selves and don’t realize that everything is impermanent. They would perhaps suffer more from it than if they were also awakened, but may possibly gain insights from doing the letting go. There would be no guarantees for that. It would be a difficult time.

It is of course a political opinion that people would need to share. I have that opinion, and it colors how I think about this. I think it’s a fact, though, that there are millions (billions?) of people who do not get their most basic needs met. A climate catastrophy would make matters even worse.

I think people would need to trust each other and know better than to betray that trust. I count that as partly psychological maturity, partly a social conditioning that unfortunately is hard to foster without having it to begin with. I see the fear-based application of game theory as a major problem. People are so suspicious that they take action against their own interest just because someone else might take action that would be even more against their interest. As I see it, that explains why we have so many administrative and distributive systems that waste resources just to prevent people from accessing the very same resources (or some other resources but with the same ultimate result). This is obviously colored by my own political values, but that’s how I see it.

The moral aspect comes in vaguely as the premise that they would genuinely want to benefit all sentient beings. That’s a tricky one, since intent and impact do not necessarily match. Many wordly problems would be complex. The consequences of different choices would be difficult to predict. People often disagree on what is beneficial. There would still be disagreements. People would also still misunderstand each other. I think there would be some things that would be easier to agree upon than others, though. I mentioned some early in the thread. I don’t know if you would agree. There are probably better examples. I would be interested in talking about such issues, mainly because I’m still naive enough to hope that there is no need for awakening to realize some things that would make a change for the better. If people were to talk about them, maybe some ideas would catch on.

Your last point came to my mind, actually, but I didn’t mention it because I wanted to see if someone else brought it up. That idea both saddens me and gives some relief at the same time. I still want it to not be true, but I think it scares me even more to think that saving the world would be theoretically possible but not accomplished just because people don’t believe in it or care enough.

Something that came to my mind while writing early in the thread was that if human beings were hypothetically awakened in a sense that radically diminished their suffering, whereas animals were not, that would potentially have ethical implications that I would personally find hard to deal with in the state in which I am now. It would be even harder to justify animal experiments and meat production. I would prefer not to eat meat, but I have very complicated food allergies and intolerances. I have given up vegetarianism for now, because I haven’t found a way to function on a vegetarian diet, but I’m hoping to be able to change that in one way or another. I’m also currently dependent on medications. These have been tested already, and I could just stick to the same old medz, I suppose, but it got me thinking. I know that there is ongoing research aiming at replacing animal experiments and growing synthetic meat. I think that kind of research would be a major priority.

Domesticated animals (cattle, sheep, livestock of many kinds) and the industries that surround them do contribute heavily to the climate crisis:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/ 

Yes, that too. And discussions about that are at least in Sweden often extremely infected (is that a correct wording in English?). People would need to mature significantly in one way or another in order to deal with this issue. Taking things less personally might help with that, and that’s something that I think is very difficult for most people.

What Daniel wrote in that thread about sectarianism in the dharma illustrates how difficult this challenge is to overcome. I appreciated that he talked about it so honestly and acknowledged his own limitations in the department of getting over oneself, but it also saddened me. And gave me a sense of relief at the same time. For me it is very important to make a world where people are allowed to have both flaws and other forms of diversity. Everything else would be ableistic and possibly contain basically every similar -ism, depending on what people deem as less preferred. I wouldn’t want a world where people were not allowed to make mistakes either.

Basically, I think trust may be the key component in the kind of maturity I’m imagining. That’s not really a character trait, but more a way of living and approaching the world. As I said above, it entails a social conditioning that is hard to achieve if it’s not already in place. I tend to conflate trust with awakening because my journey so far has been so much about trust. Not being trusted is also what saddens me most.

As a sidenote, I just realized that I just shared on public internet what would be the most effective way to crush me. That may be very stupid, but it’s how I want to live. In trust.

Or not being worthy of trust. That would be the worst nightmare.

I am very grateful to Anna L for being given the chance to process this. Maybe these are pointless and tiresome thoughts for those of you who have already had decades to talk about this, but I really needed to process this and I needed to do that in explorative communication rather than combative discussion. It was difficult for me to put my thoughts into words, and having every sentence scrutinized with suspicion at that formless stage in the thought process made it even more difficult. So thanks Anna for listening without judging! I shall never forget it.

It's not about categorizing people so much as it is about categorizing the cultural memes that lead people to hold the values that they do. It describes where those memes come from, and the direction in which they must evolve in order to lead to the kind of global awakening I think you're hoping to achieve. I'm no expert on it, but I've skimmed through the book.

Ah! Thankyou for that input! That does sound very interesting. Yes, what I’m after is the kind of social conditioning that would enable trust and faith and exploration in combination with the realization that we are all connected and the ability to find happiness in sustainability and respect for every sentient being.

And enable is a key word here. Enable, not force. Not coercion.

Good to see the forum did eventually help you get your needs met, Linda.

Me too, but I never doubted that. That’s the strength of community.

Linda, you’re welcome! I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to engage much in this post as I’ve had a busy weekend and limited screen time. However I understand where you are coming from and I understand your need to process these issues as I’ve been through similar stages myself. I think it’s only natural that studying and practicing the dharma can lead to us wanting to better understand how we are all interconnected and how we may contribute to one another’s suffering. For me, animal rights has been a big issue since getting into meditation. In fact, for a time, the idea of animal cruelty was actually causing me quite a bit of distress (and outrage) and I was struggling to understand what to do about it. It took a while for this intense immediate reaction to settle down into something more manageable. It’s funny how these things can arise and provoke such strong reactions in us. We all have to find our own way to come to terms with the suffering we cause just by being human. 

I’m happy you’re processing this stuff and as time allows I’m always happy to add in my 2 cents ️

For transparency's sake, let me state here that since you've made it clear you no longer want my help I will not be offering it in the future unless you explicitly ask me for it. I hope you continue to find the DhO a place that nurtures your development in positive ways. Best wishes for your life and practice.

With metta,

Andromeda

You misunderstood me. As I said, I appreciate feeback on my practice and questions related to it. This is not a thread about my practice, and yet you insisted that you were helping even though I asked that the thread should be about politics.

In all our other interactions, I have found your input very very helpful, and I still appreciate it more than I can put into words.

Given the spiritual premise of your thread I wouldn't put it squarely in the category of politics at all, but that's beside the point. To be frank I do not want to risk a repeat of the messiness that occurred here if we have another miscommunication. You may want to read over your comments to and about me in this thread and try looking at things from my perspective. I'm sorry if this disappoints you. I have no doubt you'll do just fine without me looking over your shoulder.