The missing Lightsaber

As the observation of feelings progresses, and the reactivity with regard to them ceases, the awareness for the surrounding becomes deeper. One becomes aware that in daily life one is surrounded by organizations that try to impose their rules upon us, trying to break and bend us, preventing us from following our "true nature". Organizations, in which people appear to advance that prefer authoritarian leadership and think in hierarchies.

While the "internal lightsaber" that cuts attachments appears to work well, I sometimes feel that in our current society the external lightsaber is missing, and by society's and financial pressures the "dark side" is growing strong these days.

As sheer acceptance (say: the Buddhist way) for me does not resonate well with "the lightsaber", i.e. the elegant weapon of a Jedi. It also must be effective in the external world. At least that's what makes the lightsaber, and the Jedi, so appealing in the movies. The immense capacity of fighting back against the evil forces, not merely passively accepting them.

I'd be interested in what in your personal toolbox is.

In mine there is:
- Calling things by their name, if there's something going wrong, then addressing it.
- Taking action when there's something going wrong, and nobody does something.
- Helping people further their awareness, if they are interested in such a dialogue, otherwise repeatedly trying to point in a direction.

However, the reflux into decisions with impact is (unfortunately) still limited. Military-style organizations appear to be on the rise again.

How do you go about it?

Best wishes
Kc

If something is our "true nature", how can anything prevent us from succumbing to it? What is this "true nature" thing anyway and why does anyone get to decide that for anybody, including themselves?
What about hierarchical structures is in conflict with this "true nature" thing, and why would being in conflict with the "true nature" be a problem to the thing or to any person?

The pursuit of wealth certainly has its fair share of the backlog of human mistreatment of each other. I wouldn't dare say if love, pride and religious difference have spilled less blood than finances though.

This leads me over into your next paragraph, albeit a little too quickly, so let's slow down for a second. I, too, remember Seneca's 16^th Moral Letter to Lucilius and how it urges us to walk the walk and not merely talk the talk. Yet both positions are flawed. They who only think and struggle internally seldom achieve much of note out in the world that is shared among us. Yet, those who take to action after what ever think their brain produced risk committing some of the most devastating atrocities. All of us are humans in very similar, if not equal ways. To neglect our duty to follow our convictions is as much a mistake as would be to follow them as though our own judgement is in fact a better one than everyone else's.

So to of the three points in your strategy I commend in order like this:
Let's address things, not so much when they are wrong - for we have no way to identify them being so - but because we do individually find trouble with it and are in need to resolve that conflict.
If nobody is taking action, it is not always the case that they are cowardly or wicked. If we are allowing for the possibility that people can be wrong about things, we have to count ourselves in that, too.
Isn't it awfully condescending to paint people as sleeping or unaware or heading in a "wrong direction" as though you had some way to figure out what the "right" one is?

If people are hesitant to act in meaningful ways, a rise of military-style organizations (what ever you mean by that) would by my flawed human logic be the one thing we would expect not to see. Frankly I'd like some data to back up either claim before I can take them seriously, and I would also urge anybody considering to get "more active" in this vague, marginally aggressive sounding sense to kindly demand it, too.

Are we appealing to nature here?

Hmm. I think that my stream of thoughts did not produce the docking clamps I intended to, in both ways. My question was a rather practical one, one of tools. "Be centered", in my view, is not the answer to everything, although an important point to start with. There can only come naturally from this body what is either born into it or skilled. One cannot just "be centered" and suddenly be a world class pool player. One may not worry about not having a certain skill when one is centered. But one won't acquire it that way.

My question was about acting in a society, take the Western ones, that are placed inside of the duality of good and bad. If one is not self-employed, chances are that one particpiates in some sort of organization that lives in hierarchical command-and-control structures. Take Buddha's third challenge: not bend yourself towards pressure of conformity. However, many organizations that one is part of (say, corporations, but of course also churches) tend to make decisions (many of them to increase shareholder value or secure personal power), that will exert such pressure of conformity. Along with propagating hierarchical command-and-control structures, many corporations use military metaphors in their everyday language (I recommend Karl Weick or Higoroh Maruyama to go deeper into that subject). Maybe I expand on the analogy with the missing lightsaber:

The position argued above by Gisteron, to me sounds as if Luke was facing Darth Vader, telling him Vader's sword can't cut him. So Luke dwells in his center and watches Vader submit the Galaxy, himself unharmed. Vader's body dies some day, Luke's body dies some day, problem solved for them. Now from this point of view, Luke is only (externally) effective because of his lightsaber, because he can take up the battle. Act without attachment (with attachment it would lead to hatred), but act. There is a skill to achieve certain results in the external world (lightsaber-fighting). You can, of course project all that to the internal battle of thoughts of moralistic judgment. However, that was not my intention in this post.

Thus my question: What are the skills you apply when faced with the bipolar atrocities of a world that thinks in good and bad, and retreat (just let things happen) is not an option you want to pursue. Or if you say "address", what particular means of addressing them did you cultivate? One can always go meditate. Or meditate in place. But that wasn't the question I tried to ask.

Best wishes
Kc

If using my preferred definition of evil (deliberate intent to increase suffering), then there are existing enforcement agencies which are setup to do this and it would be more effective IMO to join them and work to reform or improve them from the inside. They have the authority, the funding, various natures of supports and lots of room to 'grow' LOL, don't we all. So over all they can be a great opportunity to have real impact on 'evil', depending how you define it.

If your definition is a more subjective based experience of suffering then I'd say shift your perspective rather then cutting off awareness to it. Easy for self but not so much for others, which sort of shifts your focus I guess to your third point, helping others with their awareness. So I like your toolkit, it seems to allow balancing of your action to what is most appropriate.

But your post reminds me of Chöd. In some parts of Tibetan Buddhism is said to translate to 'cutting off' but, though seeming a bit dark, its one of many practises and probably not intended to be the antidote to all things. Otherwise I think its a great analogy to link to the fiction if that suits your path, and indeed one I share to some extent!! It works great for visualization and trying to import it into dreams for example
:side:

Adder wrote: But your post reminds me of Chöd. In some parts of Tibetan Buddhism is said to translate to 'cutting off' but, though seeming a bit dark, its one of many practises and probably not intended to be the antidote to all things. Otherwise I think its a great analogy to link to the fiction if that suits your path, and indeed one I share to some extent!! It works great for visualization and trying to import it into dreams for example
:side:

Interesting analogy.

With regard to this aspect, I get along well with "I'm not this" sort of meditation of any emotional quality that comes up, staying "as the observer" (to borrow a bit from Advaita Vedanta), or the experience as the space/diamond/mirror as in Dzogchen. It also helps to focus on one internal and one "external" sensation (e.g. body and visual) at the same time to stay in an integral superposition. I don'd visualize much, more going for the open-eye-experience. In my experience, the more it is done, the more the recognition also comes up in dreams, at least when dream content starts to become turbulent, in the phase of waking. I need to add, I'm not a big ritual type, so I revert to mental tools that can be carried out in daily life situations.

Best wishes
Kc

OMG Adder...I would very much like to talk with you about the benefits of suffering...

I guess i dont consider myself to have a toolbox persay to fight against "evil" because i dont consider "evil" to be a "force". Just as "good" is not a force. These are not forces of nature in any similar manner to say the force of gravity. As for the actions of organizations or individuals being characterized as good or evil how can anyone judge? What is evil to me is good to my enemy perhaps. Who is right? Its a subjective thing at the individual or group level. It takes a more universal consensus of the species to raise the opinion to an objective level. No one or no thing can cause me to go against my "nature". That is impossible. One might suppress that nature or stifle that nature but that nature is still within and given the chance will always re-manifest in an organic way. This demonization of individual and group effort by characterizing them as paramilitary shock troop regimes bent on our destruction is a gross exaduration in terms. They do what they do because their nature is to do that thing and for us to label them as subversive just because they carry out their nature is tantamount to hypocracy in the highest degree.

Kaccani wrote: One becomes aware that in daily life one is surrounded by organizations that try to impose their rules upon us, trying to break and bend us, preventing us from following our "true nature". Organizations, in which people appear to advance that prefer authoritarian leadership and think in hierarchies.

Yet, if we resort to actionism (or wield our "external Lightsaber"), don't we, ourselves, impose our views and rules upon others? The Jedi in the movies are fictional characters that overemphasize and exemplify certain aspects of life (good vs. evil etc.) for the sake of dramatization for entertainment purposes - I find it doubtful that following their example when it comes to wielding lightsabers will be of any benefit to personal development or furthering society as a whole.

Actions prompt reactions. Causality isn't a constant - it's an extremely complex system, so it's impossible to accurately judge the outcome of any action. While some situations appear completely black and white, with a certain action presenting itself as the best one, even then any action taken is rarely universally beneficial to everyone involved and repercussions might not be felt for a long time.

I think it's immensely important to keep in mind that within causality / life / the Force, inaction also prompts a reaction within the system - and often causes fewer ripples but has an equally great effect. As Jedi, we might be more aware of this than other people; let us make good use of this knowledge. Inaction doesn't have to mean acceptance.

Cyan Sarden wrote: Yet, if we resort to actionism (or wield our "external Lightsaber"), don't we, ourselves, impose our views and rules upon others? The Jedi in the movies are fictional characters that overemphasize and exemplify certain aspects of life (good vs. evil etc.) for the sake of dramatization for entertainment purposes - I find it doubtful that following their example when it comes to wielding lightsabers will be of any benefit to personal development or furthering society as a whole.

I can see your point, yet actionism is not what was implied. But you pretty much answered that in your last section yourself. There is no possibility not to act, as non-action also has consequences. Maybe we can take this as a starting point for further discussion. So it's not only from yu-wei to wu-wei, but wu-wei follwing yu-wei again and again. The wu-wei more or less compares to Buddhism's "don't defile on it", as Tao's "eternal" and Buddha's "beyond" in my eyes point to the same experience. I personally don't buy into the "passivity" part, that is sometimes advocated. Of course, one can say it is "their" nature to act like that. But, vice versa, the force behind everything is energy, also us. To say any external action has consequences so don't act creates suffering from laziness. A way of acting must also be "appropriate" for the Jedi, because it is their nature to act that way.

I also don't think that acting is the problem, but reacting is. We cannot break the chain of experience and defiling upon it in others, we can break it within ourselves. But that does not mean it is called for to suppress any action. It means that now there is choice to act in ways that go beyond conditioned reflexes, or habits. Others may respond according to their conditioning, dependent on whether they are skilled in breaking that reactivity or not. That is to overcome nihilism ("I can't do anything about it, thus I'm going to do nothing.", or even go to the option of "Then i can do anything I want, because it doesn't matter anyway.")

Now you can also say "Do what feels natural to you, from that point." But then again, that is largely dependent on prior conditioning. A big aspect of Yoga and Tantra are some kind of "transformation", and one cannot ignore the fact that this transformation and practice also enables a new skill, new ways of acting. Therefore, a certain routine or practice may go along with the mere internal development. In many disciplines, the mental aspect accompanies and intertwines with the art. Take any martial art, or archery. On another account, there is the story that tells us you cannot permanently work for the evil businessman without your daily practice feeding back on yourself. Taken to the level of society, there needs to be balance. I, for my part, consider this to be an integral part of the Jedi myth.

From that point, the above mentioned "predictability" comes into play. Following Campbell, the recommendations of the ancient time of the east were given for a society, that did not grow up in acceptance of dualities of good and bad, with our complex ethics based upon it. Thus our habits are likely to integrate into a society of good and bad, to keep it going. For any given society or context there are actions, that have a likelyhood of producing certain results or not. Take for example Marshall Rosenberg's "Nonviolent Communication". In my view, that is one decent change in habit that can be cultivated. Apparently, that form of communication is less likely to produce defilements than starting with "You idiot just don't see ..."

Cyan Sarden wrote: Inaction doesn't have to mean acceptance.

True. I always translated this as: "Don't imply an actor in that which is acted out.", i.e. don't create an ego from the act, but (to quote the Advaita-Vedantic alternative) maybe stay as an observer of the act. I suppose the same is true for many other actions, not only verbal ones. That's what I referred to as a "Jedi toolbox" or "external lightsaber".

If I kindly may request one thing for your answers: Please don't refer to "resolve that problem internally". Or "change your view". I like to relate on a shared practical experience. There are these perspectives, there is following a practice that teaches deal with emotions. There is the way of non-reacting, and the one of passivity. And to forget about ways. I would like to discuss the step to go beyond that passivity, and share experience with what actions you experienced to be beneficial in our current society in dealing with matters, with the prevailing conditioning of samsaric rooting, and what not. Even if predictability (in a deterministic manner) is not given, or difficult. Regulating a drift, in my view, does not require determinism. And if we don't dare to name the opposites, there's no chance to ever know the center.

Best wishes
Kc