Q - One of the first questions I asked myself when I approached the teachings was how can you be enough yourself but without hurting others. I was wondering what exactly this “hurting others” is, since it's the hardest thing, almost, to understand.
Many times we think we want the good of our children, and then instead we realize that it is our selfishness, and so on. You could help me, because it was said that it is the intention that counts, but even with the intention sometimes, even if it is good, you can find yourself in front of a person who is not able to understand.
Certainly, one can do the action with the best possible intention and the other does not understand it or even takes it badly. And where is the problem?
Q - How do you manage not to harm others? It is very difficult to determine when you could damage them or not; sometimes, even leaving a person in trouble, let's say, or leaving him anyway ...
Stop, because otherwise you won't stop! I do it for you, because it's hot and then we know you sweat too much! You are starting from the wrong point of view (you must have been a missionary, in some previous life!). Instead you should put yourself in another position: you you must put yourself in the position of having your good intention; then how the other reacts is totally his problem, really.
D - Even if he's a bit ... deranged?
But the problem is totally yours, it is no longer yours! If you are pure in your intention, you have a clear conscience!
Q - I would feel guilty because I do not turn to a person in possession of his faculties.
So, dear, if you feel guilty it means that you know you didn't behave the right way, otherwise you wouldn't feel guilty. But I was speaking in general.
D - Well, jokes aside ... clearly you cannot be sure that this person is, for example, in a nervous breakdown so he is not able to undergo a logical reasoning ...
It could be very well, of course.
D - So what would it be like to hurt her !?
But that's not true, that's not true! His reaction could be negative, but you do not know then inside, in his subtlest bodies, your behavior, your felt action what you cause! As far as you know, this person seems exhausted or out of their mind but, in reality, they may already be highly evolved and not just be able to manifest their own. evolution.
You guys continue to judge others based on behavior, and you can't do it! Put it in your head! Just as you absolutely cannot be able to convince others of what you want: you cannot, if others do not want to!
You can't help others if others don't want to be helped! You will never succeed! I know that this does not satisfy yours Io, but you will never succeed!
Readings for the interior: every day, a short spiritual reading of the Ifior Circle and of the Florence 77 Circle, on Whatsapp.
(Read only, cannot comment) To subscribe
D - Helping ... I think I have understood that enough, at least mentally, then put it into practice no, but explaining yourself when you are in a conflict with family members, for example ... you are in conflict but you do not think it is appropriate to say the your opinion even if you believe it is altruistic, because the other is not in a psychic condition to bear it. Is it wrong to make these arguments, then?
A moment, a moment: those who want to help others must always have the sensitivity to try to understand what the other can listen to.
D - Ah, here ...
One moment, don't overdo it. You are always in these absolutist positions. One cannot speak of a thing in an absolutist way, especially when it comes to helping others; each case must be seen a sé given that, you can't make a general rule, absolutely.
There are cases in which it is right to be hard and then the individual reacts well to hardness; there are cases in which (and maybe it is the same person with whom you have been hard) it is right to be sweet, and then the sweetness works.
If you want to help others, you have to be attentive and sensitive to what others may perceive; otherwise, if instead you just want to live with others, then the best thing is to do what you feel like doing, and say: “The other's reaction concerns him, it no longer concerns me. The important thing is that I did what I felt like doing”.
D - You are halfway there.
You are halfway there, you are neither meat nor fish, nor roast nor omelette.
D - And when you have enough sensitivity, however, you still have some instincts for which you want to do what you want, more than anything else ...
In that case my dear, there is only one possibility. Let's see if you guess what it is.
D - The “Kalideva”.
You will just suffer. Because it is the typical situation in which the individual suffers because he is unable to do what he would like to do and, instead, the of him pushes him to do something else that is just a meaningless fulfillment, for himself and that's it.
D - Excuse me, Scifo, but I thought I spoke not of wanting to help others, but to be sure not to harm. It seems a little different to me.
Not harming others is actually helping; because all of you, with your reckless and senseless action, end up with theoretically harm others. I say "theoretically" because it always means that the other needs to be harmed to understand something, but this is once again the other's problem and not yours. Scifo
Privacy policy of this site to consult before commenting,
or subscribe to feeds.
Dynamics that bring new perspectives. Never absolutistic.
Thank you.
Acting respecting the flow of Feeling, only in this way could we be sure that we have done what was in our possibilities.
Continuous and scrupulous attention to the other
Questioning what the other can hear without pretending to control the whole relationship process.
We will never know who we are in front of,
we act according to a "good" intention.
Attitudes towards the other are a continuous modulation.
There is no absolute correct attitude but each situation must be weighed on the basis of the evolutionary degree of the other and of one's own obviously.
After all, immersed as we are in illusion, it is understandable how this is continuous mutability and therefore also the actions and attitudes that follow.
The difficulty, if we want to call it that, is precisely in the continuous elaboration of everything that happens.
Here the attention and observation can never be lowered.
"Each case must be seen in its own right"
It is good to recognize the right times for each situation,
when it is time to speak and when to be silent, when it is time to act and when to wait ...
It struck me that it is the good intention, in helping, that what counts is that one cannot help those who do not want to be helped.
It is never easy to understand how we can help others and at least not harm them when reality, as a representation, is almost entirely subjective and each of us experiences our own film.
There are certainly no objective criteria, such as those put in place by morality. Perhaps, the only "parameter" is the "subjective" one of feeling the intention, which moves us as good (even if not "good-natured"), pure, free from personal selfishness.
But even here how can I determine that an action is truly pure based only on what I "feel"?
Who tells me that I could not deceive myself about my evaluation?
Who tells me that my evaluation is not produced by a limited feeling that perceives a selfish action as disinterested?
I believe that the error is upstream: the dual categories of helping and not harming, of doing good or evil.
If existence is a process of understanding, all dualism (helping and harming, good and evil) skips and only What-Is remains.
Thank you.
You keep judging others based on behavior, and you can't do it!
This sentence is not entirely clear to me.
Isn't the behavior the result of our understandings, therefore of our evolutionary degree? Let's leave the judgment alone. As the scenes are extracted from the Undifferentiated, to add atoms of feeling and proceed into the understandings themselves?