> I am reviewing the chapter "Surrendering" from "Cutting Through
> Spiritual Materialism" by Chogyam Trungpa. I thought I would tackle it
> by linking what is written to real-world examples.

> I had difficulty thinking of a real-world example for the paragraph on
> p.24 that says "Although we may hate ourselves, at the same time we
> find our self-hatred a kind of occupation. [...] We would have no
> further occupation if we were to surrender everything".

> Another aspect of generosity is letting go of the measuring up,
> judging, and categorizing. Instead of the limited choices of "is this
> good or bad? right or wrong?" one gets the rather less constricting
> "oh, so it's like *this*!"

> On Jan 11, 4:34 pm, monkeym...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) wrote:
>

>> Another aspect of generosity is letting go of the measuring up,
>> judging, and categorizing.  Instead of the limited choices of "is this
>> good or bad? right or wrong?" one gets the rather less constricting
>> "oh, so it's like *this*!"

>
> I think this is really important and is one of the biggest obstacles
> people have in perceiving the unreality of things. There appears to be
> a very strong and common need to *evaluate* both actions and
> qualities, and one of the things I constantly stress is that each and
> every standard against which these evaluations are made are obviously
> and demonstrably *imaginary*. This whole "Thou shalt/shalt not"
> phenomenon that you mention can - with the right frame of mind - be
> easily brought to the ground with a long or short series of *whys*.
>
> It's nothing other than Hume's old "is-ought" problem. The falsity of
> any moral or value-based statement can be easily demonstrated by the
> fact it's impossible to sensibly terminate a string of whys without ...

> On 11 Jan, 23:12, Erwin Hessle erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Jan 11, 4:34 pm, monkeym...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) wrote:

>

>>> Another aspect of generosity is letting go of the measuring up,
>>> judging, and categorizing. Instead of the limited choices of "is this
>>> good or bad? right or wrong?" one gets the rather less constricting
>>> "oh, so it's like *this*!"

>

>> I think this is really important and is one of the biggest obstacles
>> people have in perceiving the unreality of things. There appears to be
>> a very strong and common need to *evaluate* both actions and
>> qualities, and one of the things I constantly stress is that each and
>> every standard against which these evaluations are made are obviously
>> and demonstrably *imaginary*. This whole "Thou shalt/shalt not"
>> phenomenon that you mention can - with the right frame of mind - be
>> easily brought to the ground with a long or short series of *whys*. ...

> If all religions etc threw off the moral element of their docterines
> that you consider counterproductive, do you think more children would
> be raised as better human beings?
>
> If so, why?

> On Jan 12, 11:43 am, alectrum hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> On 11 Jan, 23:12, Erwin Hessle erwinhessle.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Jan 11, 4:34 pm, monkeym...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) wrote:

>

>>>> Another aspect of generosity is letting go of the measuring up,
>>>> judging, and categorizing.  Instead of the limited choices of "is this
>>>> good or bad? right or wrong?" one gets the rather less constricting
>>>> "oh, so it's like *this*!"

>

>>> I think this is really important and is one of the biggest obstacles
>>> people have in perceiving the unreality of things. There appears to be
>>> a very strong and common need to *evaluate* both actions and
>>> qualities, and one of the things I constantly stress is that each and
>>> every standard against which these evaluations are made are obviously
>>> and demonstrably *imaginary*. This whole "Thou shalt/shalt not"
>>> phenomenon that you mention can - with the right frame of mind - be
>>> easily brought to the ground with a long or short series of *whys*. ...

> I include this whole evaluative tendency under the heading of
> "morality," and the moral layer of narration is probably the most
> pernicious of all, since if you manage to let go of the idea of what
> you "should" be doing, then all you really have to go on is what you
> are naturally *inclined* to do, and that's paying attention to reality
> right there.

> For this reason I consider any religion or spiritual path whatsoever
> that contains a moral element to be wholly obnoxious and entirely
> counterproductive.

> Erwin Hessle erwinhessle.com> writes:
>

>> I include this whole evaluative tendency under the heading of
>> "morality," and the moral layer of narration is probably the most
>> pernicious of all, since if you manage to let go of the idea of what
>> you "should" be doing, then all you really have to go on is what you
>> are naturally *inclined* to do, and that's paying attention to reality
>> right there.

>
> Takes some practice - the first thing I noticed after I put this idea
> into practice was that I was inclined to evaluate experience. :)
>

>> For this reason I consider any religion or spiritual path whatsoever
>> that contains a moral element to be wholly obnoxious and entirely
>> counterproductive.

>
> I think this is a bit too general. If morality is an end in itself,
> then yes, I'd agree, because as you point out, there's no absolute
> morality. If morality is viewed as a training (not an exclusive one), ...

> On 11 Jan, 23:12, Erwin Hessle erwinhessle.com> wrote:

>> On Jan 11, 4:34 pm, monkeym...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) wrote:
>>

>>> Another aspect of generosity is letting go of the measuring up,...

> On 12 Jan, 19:01, Erwin Hessle erwinhessle.com> wrote:

>> I don't think it's quite a simple as this. If it was just a question
>> of "asking them to consider and think about their actions" then it
>> would be one thing, but in practice that consideration is almost
>> always a prelude to the conclusion "therefore don't do that." There is
>> an underlying morality that is being pushed in such education.

>
> Well - that depends. If the educationalist is prepared to preface all
> such "don't do that'ism" with "I may be wrong'ism" and "you should
> seek other people to enhance your views'ism" then morals may be more
> safely conversed with young people. Of course the ultimate preface is
> "think for yourself'isms".