GENIUS FORUMS

cckeiser wrote: We were betrayed by the lies of the world.

Make no mistake, we are all monsters. We are all descended from the Predator monster and rip flesh from bone with our teeth and drink the blood with our gravy. It is our inheritance, our endowment, our legacy. We are Monsters in three piece suits and neckties. We are Monsters in gowns and tiaras.
We are Monsters in baseball caps and sneakers. We are Monsters all!

Very good. I like it so far!

cckeiser wrote:If you want proof of The Monster, just look at the replies on this forum. We have been actively spreading the Do No Harm message for a months now, and to our initial surprise it was greeted with more than a little resistence. I would have thought the simple message Do No Harm would not require defending! But for a moment I also forgot about "The Monster in the Id."

Well, hold on for a minute. The reasoning and observations appear to be going slowly down the drain here.

What have the replies on this forum to do with the Monster you described above? It's mostly a civilized discussion about the worth of a specific campaign to raise awareness, about its correctness. The Monster, if anywhere, would rise as defensiveness and close-mindedness to rational arguments, wouldn't you agree? Are you sure the Monster is the other? Can you rule out projections?

But I'm more interested in the remark about how you're meeting more than a little resistance while spreading your supposedly simple and universal message. Instead of feeling the need to 'defend' it wherever it goes, why wouldn't you start with questioning if the message might not be the best one to spread? Maybe it's just not neutral and harmless enough? Perhaps it's perceived as threatening? Whatever the reason I'd think some doubt about its choice is in place and should remain an ongoing process in the minds of the ones initiating it. The ideal of non-attachment, which is part of your philosophy as well, would suggest not be to too attached to this project. If it doesn't work, why not throw it away and work on something even better? Instead of suggesting monsters where there's perhaps only opportunity to learn...

The Monster is quite comfortable where it is and does not want to be vanquished. Instinctively it will rebel and subconsciously resist the thought of Do No Harm. Even those who claim to be enlightened and spiritual suddenly find excuses why Do No Harm is impossible.

The Monster doesn't want to be vanquished for the simple reason that it cannot be vanquished without killing the whole organism. That's the wisdom of the Monster. Those who claim wisdom already know this and do not try to vanquish anything but ignorance. The Monster however does not equal ignorance, it only gains more power through ignorance.

We are not asking you to do good. We are not asking you to do anything at all, just do no harm. The only purpose of our movement is to help facilitate the creation of a more compassionate world.

The Dao teaches us that everything we do will create its own shadow. The only way to avoid the shadow is to remove the object (non-duality) or to switch off the light. Many people seem to suspect you want to switch off the light.

When exposed repeatedly to Do No Harm the effect will be to cause a moment of reflection before an action. Do No Harm will become the little voice inside the mind, the voice of the angel on your shoulder, persuading, pleading and commanding you to do no harm.

There are already many mantras that serve the same purpose for centuries. At least these Sanskrit terms had a more sound basis and its meaning was always secondary anyway.

The problem as you can see is it's a little to late for most people today. Some it might help, but others have already given in to their Monster.

Have you any idea how much this sounds like demonizing everyone opposing your own idea? And how typical 'Monster' mentality that is?

If we do not attempt to change things, things will never change.

Your attempt is worthy of encouragement, but also in need of major improvements. Why not entertain the possibility you might have a lot more to learn, that the road is still very long with unexpected curves? The moment one refuses to learn or adapt, all hope is lost.

clyde wrote: Nick;

Suffering includes more than hurt feelings and “do no harm” is not about fear. But your statement caused me to wonder, are you afraid of your feelings?

No.

clyde wrote:What “path to enlightenment” are you following and does it encourage causing suffering or does it encourage wisdom and compassion?

The path I'm taking is simply, my path. My path does not encourage any of those things, all three are absolute necessities. As I've traveled my path, my ego has endured suffering, I have applied and gained wisdom, and all my actions have been compassionate.

Matt;

You wrote that you “hold [Buddhism] in high regard”. The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths of Suffering. The Buddha taught the Eightfold Noble Path which includes Right Speech and Right Action. The message “do no harm” is not in conflict with these teachings.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Anything not generated out of a wise understanding of Reality is in conflict with wisdom. I really don't care if what you say is in conflict with Buddhism or not.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote: Yes, I do make it personal. I can share with you what I experience and understand, and I can report to you what others share with me, but I cannot say how “most will interpret it”.

It would be interesting to know what others outside this forum shared with you about their interpretation of your 'no harm' campaign. The only experience I have with reactions on your phrase is on this forum so far. Are these reactions never a reason for you to doubt the quality of our campaign? See also my following remark to cc about perceived resistance.

Diebert;

In my experience meeting and speaking with people in my community the message is accepted and understood, although each persons’ understanding of the message reflects that person’s experiences, circumstances, and view. It is the case that some people are reluctant at first, but the reasons seem to be concern that the message may be associated with some religious or political organization (which it is not) or (sadly) fear of expressing any position at all.

It’s not surprising that here, on a forum that engages in analysis of concepts, that “do no harm” would be subjected to scrutiny. I understand and accept this.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote: As you have expressed concern that some might be harmed, it seemed appropriate to inquire if you had been harmed. Have you?

Since I understand how harm (suffering) is caused I'm in the position to evaluate and explain how your line of thinking is causing 'harm' to people. But as I said before harm is a relative term and basically embodies the things we consider damaging to that what we value most. Therefore there might be a slight misunderstanding if we both use the term harm without sharing values about what is most important. If you understand what I'm saying here, you also might start to understand why "do no harm" is not addressing the core issue (of value, identity, focus) and therefore remains only superficial, in other words: a cause of the problem, and not even near to pointing to any solution.

Diebert;

If you have experienced suffering, then you know what suffering is and I mean just that. And since you write that you understand how suffering arises, you will understand that, as I have written previously, “do no harm” works to minimize harm where there is suffering.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. No simple message can address “the core issue”; only a person can do that. The message “do no harm” might not be “pointing to any solution” for you, but for me “do no harm” points to an understanding of suffering and harm, causation and conditions, interdependence and impermanence, and self and other; which leads to an understanding of the true nature of reality.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Diebert wrote:

The Monster doesn't want to be vanquished for the simple reason that it cannot be vanquished without killing the whole organism.

That sounds almost like a quote out of Iron John

David Quinn wrote:Clyde wrote:

p.s: Although not required, a sense of humor is helpful.

Nietzsche once remarked, with great insight, that laughter was maliciousness without a conscience.

-

You've got it backwards, David. Nietzsche said that laughter was maliciousness with a conscience. *edit* I don't suppose it makes much of a difference, however.

Nick Treklis wrote:The path I'm taking is simply, my path. My path does not encourage any of those things, all three are absolute necessities. As I've traveled my path, my ego has endured suffering, I have applied and gained wisdom, and all my actions have been compassionate.

Nick;

Yes, we are each on our own path and each of us has experienced suffering.

I congratulate you on gaining and applying wisdom and that “all [your] actions have been compassionate”. You are already embodying “do no harm”.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

He actually said "with a good conscience", meaning that the person has thrown away their conscience, which is what most people have to do in order to have a "good" conscience.

clyde wrote:I congratulate you on gaining and applying wisdom and that “all [your] actions have been compassionate”. You are already embodying “do no harm”.

Would you still consider me to embody "do no harm", if my compassion necessarily requires me to deliberately cause myself and others to suffer?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

The Monster doesn't want to be vanquished for the simple reason that it cannot be vanquished without killing the whole organism.

The Monster is in the Mind.

Do No Harm

Chuck

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
But I'm more interested in the remark about how you're meeting more than a little resistance while spreading your supposedly simple and universal message. Instead of feeling the need to 'defend' it wherever it goes, why wouldn't you start with questioning if the message might not be the best one to spread? Maybe it's just not neutral and harmless enough? Perhaps it's perceived as threatening? Whatever the reason I'd think some doubt about its choice is in place and should remain an ongoing process in the minds of the ones initiating it. The ideal of non-attachment, which is part of your philosophy as well, would suggest not be to too attached to this project. If it doesn't work, why not throw it away and work on something even better? Instead of suggesting monsters where there's perhaps only opportunity to learn...

Yes, it is perceived as threatening by the monster. We are predators by birthright; doing no harm is not our natural state.
Doing no harm threatens the monster in the Id which fights against being abandoned.
The enlightened mind knows doing no harm is karma. It is the unenlightened mind that rebels against it. The monster twists and turns in its lair to drive out the threat to its domain. It will conjure excuse after excuse; manifest strawman, and twist its meaning completely out of context in its attempt to defeat it. The monster tricks the mind with rationalizations into believing it is giving analytic arguments all in an attempt to " throw it away" before it has even had a chance to begin.
But the mind really knows better. The mind knows it is being deceived. The mind knows doing no harm is karma, and the path to a higher realization.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:If it doesn't work, why not throw it away for something better?

We have only just begun. And it is already working.
Take a look for yourself. Google Do No Harm+clyde grossman.
You will have better luck if you google clyde.

Do No Harm

Chuck

Matt Gregory wrote:Anything not generated out of a wise understanding of Reality is in conflict with wisdom. I really don't care if what you say is in conflict with Buddhism or not.

Matt;

Fair enough. What “wise understanding of Reality” will you present?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Whatever seems most appropriate to me. Right now, I'm attempting to show why Truth is more valuable than not harming anyone.

Nick Treklis wrote:

clyde wrote:I congratulate you on gaining and applying wisdom and that “all [your] actions have been compassionate”. You are already embodying “do no harm”.

Would you still consider me to embody "do no harm", if my compassion necessarily requires me to deliberately cause myself and others to suffer?

Nick;

Yes. A simple example is the doctor who amputates a gangrenous limb to save a patient’s life. As I have explained, “do no harm” requires the exercise of attention, understanding and empathy.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Matt Gregory wrote:Whatever seems most appropriate to me. Right now, I'm attempting to show why Truth is more valuable than not harming anyone.

Well, I’m certain you will not be harmed in the attempt.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

clyde wrote:It’s not surprising that here, on a forum that engages in analysis of concepts, that “do no harm” would be subjected to scrutiny. I understand and accept this.

Analysis and logical manipulation of concepts equals reasoning. That might explain the difference in reception then!

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Diebert wrote:

The Monster doesn't want to be vanquished for the simple reason that it cannot be vanquished without killing the whole organism.

That sounds almost like a quote out of Iron John

I wasn't familiar with, or forgotten all about that fairy tale but yeah, as usual the older fairy tales are spot on describing the inner processes symbolically. In Freudian terms the monster does not live in the ID, it is the ID: the unwanted or deformed aspects of it.

cckeiser wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

The Monster doesn't want to be vanquished for the simple reason that it cannot be vanquished without killing the whole organism.

The Monster is in the Mind.

What is not in the mind? Even harm is. Your monster is the object of your fear, of what you dismiss from reality.

cckeiser wrote:Yes, it is perceived as threatening by the monster. We are predators by birthright; doing no harm is not our natural state.

So you're promoting an unnatural state then?

Doing no harm threatens the monster in the Id which fights against being abandoned.

Perhaps the monster fights because it understands you're aiming to destroy the whole organism, life itself. Why would it have pity with a killer more ruthless than even itself?

But the mind really knows better. The mind knows it is being deceived. The mind knows doing no harm is karma, and the path to a higher realization.

So now doing no harm has suddenly become our natural state, or that of the mind at least? What if the mind is wrong? It will destroy the organism and create deep, very deep shadows that one day come out of the collective dump and slaughter everyone in sight. Just follow the local news a while to witness demon-strations.

cckeiser wrote:Take a look for yourself. Google Do No Harm+clyde grossman. You will have better luck if you google clyde.

Oh yeah! The meme is spreading. Heard that one before. Really hard evidence of realities setting in, these virtual goggles.

This thread reminds me of a saying: if all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:It’s not surprising that here, on a forum that engages in analysis of concepts, that “do no harm” would be subjected to scrutiny. I understand and accept this.

Analysis and logical manipulation of concepts equals reasoning. That might explain the difference in reception then!

Diebert;

Yes, it explains the reception. But the application of “analysis and logical manipulation of concepts” is not necessarily rejection.

How do you deal with that which is not conceptual?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Matt Gregory wrote:This thread reminds me of a saying: if all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.

Matt;

A hammer is a tool, useful for solving some problems. What are the problems you see? And what tools do you use to solve them?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

Living by fixed rules is a problem because rules are not intelligent. People are.

They have the potential, anyway.