Let's Agree to Disagree?

Charan ji please explain a little about the specifics

• I will try to change those views that do not fit with universal morality.
  • Please explain specifics,
    • Is it person's behavior with you and others
    • Is it person's eating habits, sleeping habits, etc.
    • Is it person's personal beliefs
    • Is it person's treatment of other religion's
    • Is it person's treatment of elders or other family members
    • Is the person,
      • Related to you
      • Lives with you
      • Works with you
• We all know how sometimes, it matters little what you are trying to do, but matter a lot how you try to do?
  • **************************

Please let me know if any thing I write is unhelpful or offensive, I will delete it.

Sat Sri Akal.

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Ambarsaria ji, first of all; I am extremely sorry if I come across as nagging. I don’t know what have given you this impression of me. I am young and maybe the questions I ask or the things I say are stupid. Or maybe it is because English is my third language and therefore what I intend to say may not always come forward in my words. I don’t know.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/34378-lets-agree-to-disagree.html
In this topic, I am not referring to any specific person in my life. I am just talking about people in general. People who have thoughts and ideas that do not fit with universal morality. I just wanted to know how one should deal with these people.But it makes me very sad that you have misunderstood me greatly. I don’t want to be accepted for what I am doing. I just want to know if what I am doing is right or wrong. What I have come to understand is that what I was doing was in fact wrong. I was being selfish when trying to change other people for the better; because my feelings were accompanied by anger.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34378

Once again, sorry for being nagging

Charan Ji,

At the end of the day, we are responsible for our own lives. My actions, words, thoughts are observed by God and according to them, things come into my life that are in accordance with the flow of them.

You cannot help someone who does not want it, all you can do is voice your opinion and if they disagree in words, thoughts, actions, thats between them and God. Who am I to take responsibility for them? You cannot cajole someone into agreement, if they side with something horrifying, Im pretty sure they suffer as long as they choose to beat that drum of negativity. Plus God takes care of everyone, including those we may disagree with and dislike. They're his too, he will guide them just like we are being guided.

Charan ji please accept apologies if any way I hurt your feeling. It is also conversely true that generally if only you care you will hurt while ignoring is the easy way out.

• People who have thoughts and ideas that do not fit with universal morality.

In discussions sometimes it gets very difficult to talk in general terms. Specially Universal Morality is such a slippery slope that it is so easy to feel righteous and see others as less righteous.

One of the explanations of Universal Morality (Kant) is the following description in a search I did and I quote,

• Never treat a human being in such a way that you fail to respect the intrinsic human dignity of this human being/ Can we be more precise - how do we avoid disrespect the human dignity which all rational agents - human beings - have? Here is how: Never treat anyone as a mere means to an end - this would mean disrespecting them; never treat anyone as a mere tool to bring about goals or objectives she or he has not and could not possible accept or consent to; always treat a human being as an end-in-him/herself - treat a rational human being as if he or she were able to form his/her own projects and plans and goals in life.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/omakridis/kant2.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34378
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34378
Perhaps if your interpretation is in line with the above about Universal Morality it could be of some help.

Summary,

• Treat a person as rational
  • If not you cannot communicate based on the concept of Universal Morality
• Respect their dignity
  • They are not all wrong
  • You are not all right
• Respect if a person does not buys-in into your thoughts or ideas
• Treat a person that in final analysis they are responsible for the plans and goals of their life

Please post if this is more in line with your expectations from your thread here.

Sat Sri Akal.

Charan ji,



I am glad that you got something positive out of my message.

I appreciate the good intentions to point out to other people their wrong attitudes. But it is one thing to have such intentions when faced with a situation in which advice / help is called for. It is however different when we make it our mission to do such a thing. The intention in this case is towards an ideal, and idealism is expression of ignorance and craving. And I am not saying that you come across as idealistic, but we all have the tendency to some extent.

From my last message you had come to the conclusion that if the state of mind is with unpleasant feelings, this being sign of aversion should cause you to hesitate from acting upon your thoughts. But if the feeling was either neutral or pleasant, then you should go ahead. I wonder if you took into account the fact that these same feelings define attachment as well, and while aversion is the ‘far’ enemy of kindness, attachment is it’s ‘near’ enemy.

Far enemy appears as such and is obvious. On the other hand, the near enemy, which in this case is attachment and having the same kind of associated feelings, comes across as a friend. Does this not make this latter more dangerous? As it is, feeling is the one thing that we are moved by in all our interactions, as in something is agreeable only because it feels good. And now we have something that ‘feels right’ which also ‘feels good’, so what do you think will result from this? Would one not end up encouraging what is essentially evil but thinking that it is good?

Different perceptions condition different train of thoughts. Sometimes we perceive something good in others and our thoughts are one way, at other times we see differently and proliferate further in that direction. One is therefore not asked to change the line of thought, but to understand what is at the root of the thinking at the time. The problem with all of us is that it is with ignorance and attachment that we feel driven to act upon our thoughts most if not all of the time.

What is it that we are ignorant of then? Not information about other people and the world out there, but of the reality now, including what motivates our thinking. In other words, we are ignorant of ignorance itself and of the craving, conceit, aversion and other unwanted mental realities which usually come along. On the other hand, not knowing for example, what goodwill really is either, we end up mistaking our own attachments as being friendliness and concern for others.

And the point is not that you come to perceive correctly what these are so that you can then act rightly, but that the very impulse to act, if motivated by craving will be understood as being *the* problem. Ambition with regard to ‘doing good’ is not somehow better than that which is directed towards material gains.

I think it good that you make reference to ‘universal morality’. But how does one really know what morality is? Do you need to ask anyone what is right and what is not if you developed your own understanding about all this? It seems that people need to convince themselves into acting rightly by making reference to abstract concepts such as justice and humanity. But would you need to do this if you came to understand that good is what it is because this is its nature, likewise evil has its particular intrinsic characteristics? Not to speak of then having doubt and thinking that perhaps all this is arbitrary, references to justice and humanity will be seen in fact as ideas conceived of, due exactly to the lack of understanding!