- Posts: 2288
On Peace
However, as often happens with words, "Peace" can include a host of things that are not always similar or even compatible. For example, someone pursuing inner peace by letting go of attachments could very well become apathetic. If I were to make peace with losing my job, for example, I might not strive to do it well or seek a promotion. Making peace with being overweight will take off motivation to work towards better health.
So, what does Peace mean to you? How do you walk the line between whatever peace means to you, and stagnation?
The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- User
-
Making peace with things such as losing a job could very well lead to one not searching for another. But this would throw off your inner peace as you realize you could lose your home and wont be able to put food on the table. So yes, you can make peace with an event, but the aftershocks of that event may cause events to happen that will require one to change their life and begin the pursuit for peace again.
For me, peace means happiness. Simple as that. Perhaps over time this answer will evolve, but for now it is just happiness. How do I avoid stagnation? Personally, I've always had a drive to go ever onward, to achieve. I may become peaceful for a bit when I hit a personal milestone, but eventually I realize there is more and begin the climb again. So its more of a temporary stagnation than anything.
One can view that temporary stagnation as complacency, but I view it as being happy with that you have until you realize there is more within reach. I imagine it to be akin to climbing a mountain. Its ok, even recommended, to take breaks on your journey to the peak as long as you ensure you get there. All things in time and on time.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
I believe inner peace is a foundation to having the ability to accept events for what they are to move on from them and continue doing what you next have to do. Someone who is apathetic is so not because they have inner peace but because they are struggling with something inside that they are clinging to.
|
“For it is easy to criticize and break down the spirit of others, but to know yourself takes a lifetime.”
― Bruce Lee |
|---|
House of Orion
Offices: Education Administration
TM: Alexandre Orion | Apprentice: Loudzoo (Knight)
The Book of Proteus
IP Journal | Apprentice Volume | Knighthood Journal | Personal Log
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Proteus wrote: In your examples, I see "making peace with" as meaning "accepting that it has happened so that you are not hung up on it and beating yourself up", which is something that we tend to do that results in us becoming discouraged from moving on from that event and continuing what we must do.
I believe inner peace is a foundation to having the ability to accept events for what they are to move on from them and continue doing what you next have to do. Someone who is apathetic is so not because they have inner peace but because they are struggling with something inside that they are clinging to.
Where do you draw the line between what can be changed and what cannot? It seems to me it is a slippery slope to accept something as outside of our control. You eventually might leave everything "outside" of control, and the cost of this peace is that nothing gets done.
The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
I definitely see peace as equilibrium. Balance.
There can be turmoil in the world but you don't see it walking in a park on a sunny day. While you're enjoying nature people are starving, dying, losing their homes, committing suicide, being cheated on, abused, etc.
I believe a Jedi's mind should be like the planet. One does not need to feel every prick of everything wrong to confirm that he or she has feelings. Probably the most famous example is Anakin not being able to be "at peace" with the inevitability of death. So what happened? He was consumed by his fear and it led to anger and hate and he became the bringer of the very death he feared.
Where is your consciousness within the world? Is it on the sick and the dying? Or is it in the park? Is it at your desk behind your computer? Through meditation one can work to perfect a mastery over one's consciousness, moving it around the body. For instance if you have pain in your ear and you pinch your leg the pain in your ear is still there but your consciousness focuses on the more intense pain. Interesting how the body uses pain to alert the mind to act. So one cannot say it is a purely negative thing. It is simply a thing. How you use a thing is what makes it good or bad.
In the example of losing a job, there is a "pain" that is natural and normal to feel; especially depending on how it happened. You may feel a sense of loss. You may also feel anxiety and insecurity. How will you find the next job? How will you pay your bills in the meantime? The more you think about these things the more stress builds up... the more tension builds up... and these can have negative effects.
Personally, I choose to worry about the things that are within my control. Whatever temporary pain I feel I use as very quick "call to action". The action is thinking about what my next move is. Beyond this the pain is redundant... unproductive. I focus on the next move, not the pain that is designed to trigger it. Sometimes it makes me seem like I don't care. Of course, I do. But what will be the result of letting "bad things" get under my skin? Will it somehow improve the situation?
Losing one's job is junction in a series of decisions, either made by you or others. You can only control the decisions you make. If you could have done your job better to save your job it's too late now. It's spilled milk. If the only option is to clean it up then what else is there to think about?
I think being at peace is one's ability to accept reality. Reality is not designed to make your life perfect as if the world revolves around you. The larger your ego is (keeping in mind ego is necessary for survival) the more bothered you become when the world doesn't treat you as if you are the priority. You're not the priority. You are your own priority but not the priority of others. The same negative things that happen to others can happen to you and some of it will. We are not the exception or the statistical anomaly that gets to escape all the challenges of life. That's life. It's not designed to be fair because it wasn't designed for any one person. Losing your job might mean that the company saves enough money for 3 other people to keep theirs. If you are cut because of your performance then you might have been bringing down other people and holding the company back from being more successful which might translate into more people getting hired. Everything is connected and when something is bad for one of us it tends to be good for someone else.
So whose problems do we focus on? Whose problems can we solve? Anakin wasn't okay with reality and therefore he wanted to change it by any means necessary. One has to surrender their will (ego) to the force. One has to accept reality and understand that not everything is in their control. Power is a responsibility not to be sought lightly or obtained recklessly because power corrupts. The ability to change the world also helps to create a personality that constantly chooses to change the world into something that benefits their own life. Pain tells us when we should act. However the right decision comes to a clear mind that isn't held hostage by fear or anxiety. It isn't wrong to have passion but the Jedi have restrictions because of the power they have. When passion rules the mind you cannot make clear decisions so what do you then do with the power you have? Who does it serve?
When we approach a problem emotionally we often don't fix anything. We "do something" that we "feel" is a solution only because it makes us "feel" better. If "feeling better" is your goal that doesn't make the problem go away. It only dilutes the pain the was supposed to make you act. But if your action is only to suppress or subdue the pain then the problem is still there. Peace is not about trying not to feel. It is about accepting reality such that your response to external stimuli isn't exaggerated because it is balanced by a strong internal force. Whatever happened happened; but it shouldn't make you lose your mind and cause you to react without thinking. Even if you experience something sad you cannot be ruled by sadness. When we do not have peace we give ourselves over... our bodies... our minds... we give actions over and allow darkness to act through us; to use us like a tool. I am the one who must ultimately have power over me, myself, and I so that I can co-exist with others.
Peace is not the absence but the co-existence of good and evil.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
ZealotX wrote: Personally, I choose to worry about the things that are within my control. Whatever temporary pain I feel I use as very quick "call to action". The action is thinking about what my next move is. Beyond this the pain is redundant... unproductive. I focus on the next move, not the pain that is designed to trigger it. Sometimes it makes me seem like I don't care. Of course, I do. But what will be the result of letting "bad things" get under my skin? Will it somehow improve the situation?
When we approach a problem emotionally we often don't fix anything. We "do something" that we "feel" is a solution only because it makes us "feel" better. If "feeling better" is your goal that doesn't make the problem go away. It only dilutes the pain the was supposed to make you act. But if your action is only to suppress or subdue the pain then the problem is still there. Peace is not about trying not to feel. It is about accepting reality such that your response to external stimuli isn't exaggerated because it is balanced by a strong internal force. Whatever happened happened; but it shouldn't make you lose your mind and cause you to react without thinking. Even if you experience something sad you cannot be ruled by sadness. When we do not have peace we give ourselves over... our bodies... our minds... we give actions over and allow darkness to act through us; to use us like a tool. I am the one who must ultimately have power over me, myself, and I so that I can co-exist with others.
Peace is not the absence but the co-existence of good and evil.
I'm sure Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have gotten far if his dream would have included your vision of peace.
The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- User
-
In practical terms, at least in this Earthly realm, inner peace is our capacity to realize a state of contentment, of tranquility, a sense that everything is okay at this moment or an assurance that it will be in the future. My experience though is that it is inherent in our lives as Earth creatures that we sometimes - even often - lose this balance, becoming stressed and anxious regarding certain events of our outer lives. Perhaps that is actually necessary at times for self-preservation; the emotional awareness a sailor thrown overboard has for his peril may be what inspires him to swim with enough vigor to reach the shore. But if his spirit leans toward peace, when he reaches shore he can readily leave his anxiety in the ocean, thank the Force for his fortune, and return to a more tranquil state of mind; a less peaceful person might relive the incident for days, even cursing his fate for having to experience such danger.
Outer peace is seen more in our relationships - our ability to happily coexist with others most of the time, and being committed to an optimal solution for all parties when conflicts do occur. I believe that in contrast to some guru types, this peace is at least close in importance to inner peace; conditions of outer turmoil tend to inspire animosity and resentment, and hence make sustaining an inward peacefulness very difficult.
Just my thoughts ... always subject to change as I learn more!
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Carlos.Martinez3
-
- Offline
- Master
-
- Council Member
-
- Senior Ordained Clergy Person
-
- Posts: 8036
Chaplain of the Temple of the Jedi Order
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Magnus Staar wrote: I'm sure Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have gotten far if his dream would have included your vision of peace.
There is often much debate around Martin vs Malcom X and which way was better. In a lot of ways they represented the Jedi and the Sith* (* = SW Sith).
I think I'm going to post about this in a new thread. But Martin had a certain level of internal peace. You could tell. He wasn't an angry man. His emotions were channeled in a very controlled way. He wasn't looking for a solution that went against his values. He was looking for peace, not war. When you go looking for peace you're more likely to find it. When you go looking for war to make you feel better you're more likely to create it. And more likely to cause hurt feelings, even as you repair your own.
When I talk about the Jedi way vs the Sith* way it is because I have a desire to point out exactly why it's evil (to the greater good).
Please Log in to join the conversation.
ZealotX wrote: There is often much debate around Martin vs Malcom X and which way was better. In a lot of ways they represented the Jedi and the Sith* (* = SW Sith).
I don't know exactly what, in your view, makes each of them Jedi or Sith, but each moved people, and each refused the status quo. If maintaining the status quo was the cost of peace, then both of them waged war, each in their own way.
The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Magnus Staar wrote:
ZealotX wrote: There is often much debate around Martin vs Malcom X and which way was better. In a lot of ways they represented the Jedi and the Sith* (* = SW Sith).
I don't know exactly what, in your view, makes each of them Jedi or Sith, but each moved people, and each refused the status quo. If maintaining the status quo was the cost of peace, then both of them waged war, each in their own way.
I didn't think it would be prudent to go into that on this particular thread but I did write about that in a new thread.
You're right. They both waged war in a sense. MLK's power/influence came from the concept of peace and the idea that we wanted to live in harmony as equals. Malcolm was more "by any means necessary" which I think was based on a fear that white society would never truly To get to a peace I think one needs to fight; even if all that means is that you stand up when you're told to sit down. If we're too passive things will never change. The aggressive will just assume that what they're doing is okay. It's like they have to be convinced by your conviction. Peace at the time of the civil rights movement was the status quo, protecting the rich. Often, one side fights, wins, and then wants peace to protect what they've won through war. It would be easier if one peaceful side were going up against another. But the reality is that the side that usually controls things usually got there by force and the pressure to move that obstacle is... well something equal to that force.
I think in some ways the Civil Rights movement was kind of like Luke vs Vader. Luke didn't really win by force. Force respects strength. But if you can get that force to empathize or relate then that becomes a kind of moral victory.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
As for StarWars, the original trilogy does not expand on philosophical differences between Jedi and Sith, but instead paints the whole Jedi vs. Dark Jedi as an issue of "becoming corrupted". The scene in ROTJ when Luke throws down his saber and refuses to kill his father is NOT an assertion of non-violence (I mean, Luke had no problem using violence against the Hutts and Imperial Storm trooopers).
Instead, it was an assertion of free will.
Rather than sacrifice his own will for the sake of getting things done, he abandons his claim to control everything and decides his father is more important. In this way, he asserts free will over the system (the machine that had imprisoned Vader as another cog in the wheel).
This is akin to Neo refusing the return to the source and instead save Trinity in The Matrix Reloaded.
The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
Please Log in to join the conversation.
