Doing the right thing

[ulvfdfgtmk]

Hello everyone,
recently I asked myself 'why is doing the right thing so damn hard to do?' and I haven´t come up with a satisfying answer yet.
To make my point more clear I would like to give you an example:
Before I tried to do 'the right thing' I oftentimes engaged in conversations with my friends which were of the kind "Look at what XY is doing wrong", "Yea, and did you heard what YZ did yesterday?". Now I came to the conclusion that by talking about soneone elses problems one is only trying to hide ones own problems. So I tried changing my behaviour and if someone brings up a conversation like the ones mentioned above I try to find the underlying problem my friend is having by asking questions. It´s hard to find a line between not upsetting my friend (for example saying: "Hey man you might be doing this wrong") and not drifting away into defaming other persons again but I think I´m doing pretty good at this. The problem is the more I´m trying to do the right thing/help the people around me, the more it frustrates me. For one thing I see that very rarely people take my advice to heart and even more rarely do they act on it. The other thing is I stopped laughing as much as I used to do. It seems that most jokes we make today go on the cost of others (which I think is wrong).
So yea, that´s bugging me for a long time now and I finally decided to ask for help and advice.
As always any input is welcome and have a nice day!

[Rin]

It's a very interesting question, and I'm not quite sure how to answer it, except to say that I've found that giving up moral vices is like giving up any other negative, self destructive behavior. It's hard at first, it requires a lot of internal reflection, lifestyle change and a shift in focus from immediate gratification to long term results, but in the end, you feel better, just as someone does after quitting smoking or losing weight.

As for why it is usually so much easier to do what is "wrong" than what is "right," I don't have any deep philosophical insight.

[ulvfdfgtmk]

Thank you Rin, this is a big help already! Focusing on long term achievements will help me stay true to my vices.
A good friend of mine suggested to not go from one extreme to the other. I think it´s a good idea to take small steps (as always) and not judge every 'bad' action right away.
Which leads me to another point: judging.
As soon as I tried to change myself I immediately saw the mistakes other people do more clearly. Now, don´t joining in on the 'fun' is one thing but I got this voice constantly in my head which keeps saying "XY is talking bad about YZ, he shouldn´t do that". Of course the voice is correct in saying this but it doesn´t help me (or at least I don´t know how it could be a help). Is there any way to reduce this noise? I always bet on meditation when it comes to the inner chatter but there might be other, short term, solutions which could help in the situation where the chatter appears.
Any ideas?

[Rin]

Thank you Rin, this is a big help already! Focusing on long term achievements will help me stay true to my vices.
A good friend of mine suggested to not go from one extreme to the other. I think it´s a good idea to take small steps (as always) and not judge every 'bad' action right away.

Your friend is correct. I found it helps immensely to not think of morality and good behavior as a spectrum, with good on one end and evil on the other, but think of each expression of your personality as a spectrum with the correct place being in the center of that spectrum, in balance. So for example, "courage" isn't the opposite of cowardice, it's the place between cowardice and brashness or foolhardiness, and so on. Friendliness isn't the opposite of rudeness, but the place between rudeness and excess openness or attachment. You are aiming to balance your personality and the way your personality is expressed through your thoughts and actions.

Which leads me to another point: judging.
As soon as I tried to change myself I immediately saw the mistakes other people do more clearly. Now, don´t joining in on the 'fun' is one thing but I got this voice constantly in my head which keeps saying "XY is talking bad about YZ, he shouldn´t do that". Of course the voice is correct in saying this but it doesn´t help me (or at least I don´t know how it could be a help). Is there any way to reduce this noise? I always bet on meditation when it comes to the inner chatter but there might be other, short term, solutions which could help in the situation where the chatter appears.
Any ideas?

I'm not sure how useful this will be, since these kind of mental transmutation processes tend to be highly personalized, but I personally find the best way to get rid of things like that is to think them away through pure logic.

Do judgmental thoughts change the individuals behavior? No. Does if make you happy? No, if anything it makes you more miserable. So you're expending mental energy on a thought complex which not only achieves nothing in the real world, but makes you more miserable internally. It makes much more sense to simply change yourself and act as a positive influence on those around you. If they persist in negative behavior to the point that it drags you down, then you should reconsider the company you keep. Surround yourself with the people you want to be like, not with people who's negative influence you have to constantly fight off. This can be hard though, and make the beginning of the spiritual path somewhat isolating, but change is always painful.

[chris3]

Sometimes silence is the wisest choice. It is not your duty to help them if they do not want to help themselves. It is only your duty to provide the opportunity for help. Now whether another takes it or not is his choice entirely. I hope this helps.

[ulvfdfgtmk]

You are aiming to balance your personality and the way your personality is expressed through your thoughts and actions.

I would say I´m trying to do this already. Maybe I went too far to the nice side in the recent days.

I'm not sure how useful this will be, since these kind of mental transmutation processes tend to be highly personalized, but I personally find the best way to get rid of things like that is to think them away through pure logic.

Do judgmental thoughts change the individuals behavior? No. Does if make you happy? No, if anything it makes you more miserable. So you're expending mental energy on a thought complex which not only achieves nothing in the real world, but makes you more miserable internally. It makes much more sense to simply change yourself and act as a positive influence on those around you.

This is great! I will use this the next time I get into this situation.

If they persist in negative behavior to the point that it drags you down, then you should reconsider the company you keep. Surround yourself with the people you want to be like, not with people who's negative influence you have to constantly fight off. This can be hard though, and make the beginning of the spiritual path somewhat isolating, but change is always painful.

Again I would say I began this process already, however there are times and places where you can´t avoid negative influences (for example at work). However I will take it as a motivation to finish my studies with a good degree in order to chose a place where I will work in the future.

Sometimes silence is the wisest choice. It is not your duty to help them if they do not want to help themselves. It is only your duty to provide the opportunity for help. Now whether another takes it or not is his choice entirely. I hope this helps.

It helps and I know you are right. I always get frustrated when people don´t want help but maybe that´s just because I´m a sensitive person.

[RockDemon]

I think every spiritual person has this problem in their beginning of the path.

Your friend is correct. I found it helps immensely to not think of morality and good behavior as a spectrum, with good on one end and evil on the other, but think of each expression of your personality as a spectrum with the correct place being in the center of that spectrum, in balance. So for example, "courage" isn't the opposite of cowardice, it's the place between cowardice and brashness or foolhardiness, and so on. Friendliness isn't the opposite of rudeness, but the place between rudeness and excess openness or attachment. You are aiming to balance your personality and the way your personality is expressed through your thoughts and actions.

Could you please explain these in more details Rin ?

[Rin]

I can try :p

People tend to view morality in a dualistic way. One set of behavior is on one side, and is good, and one set of behavior is on the other side, and is evil. Look at Star Wars or Lord of the Rings for pop-culture examples, and most Abrahamic religions for religious examples. Even in the occult world, a trend of dividing systems up into vaguely defined "left hand path" and "right hand path" has cropped up (terminology which originally had a far different meaning, but has been appropriated from Hindu culture and now mostly reflects this moral dualism).

I believe, however, that this perspective is incorrect - or at least less than useful. Instead I believe that moral problems are a result of imbalance, just as, in Eastern medical systems, health problems are seen as the result of imbalance. The ideal state is not at one far end of the spectrum, but in the center.

Take any behavioral trait - let's say generosity. At one extreme end you have the individual who gives things away to excess, an excess of generosity. At first this may seem like a good thing, but it is in fact harmful. Firstly because it is harmful to the individual, they lose their time, energy and possessions to their own detriment, at the extreme end they could become hungry and starve because they give too much food away, end up in debt or homeless because they give too much money away, and so forth. Eventually they suffer the consequences, they end up having nothing and being unable to continue their generosity (and quite likely dependent on the generosity of others, undoing all their good works), so it is counterproductive in the long run - they become either a burden on those who return their extreme generosity (who in turn suffer) or likely end up resenting those who do not (and, until we live in an ideal society, there will always be a portion who do not, likely the larger portion).

On the flip side, you have the miserly individual who not only hoards his own physical possessions, but refuses to expend his time and energy in helping those who have helped him in the past or are otherwise close to him, who values himself and his time and possessions more than other people. As a result, these people will generally abandon him, he ends up alone and isolated, with nobody to help him or support him in any way.

So as you can see, neither end of the spectrum has a positive outcome to the individual, the people around them or society as a whole. Both extremities cause more harm than good and lead to long term negative outcomes. So what is best is to strike a balance. Of course what this balance consists of will be unique in practicality - a millionaire trust fund heir is in a position to be far more generous, in quantitative terms, than a single parent with two jobs, for example (of course, generosity is also relative to the individual - it means far more for the latter to loan a friend $100 in desperate circumstances than for the former to give a stranger $10 000 on a whim). But ideally you seek to reach a position where you balance your generosity and consideration for others, your ability to help those around you and contribute to society in the here and now, with your concern for your own welfare and your ability to sustain your generosity in the longterm. It does no good to give away so much money you cannot afford fuel for your car, lose your job, and therefor lose your source for further money to help other people as well as your ability to feed and cloth yourself. It all comes back to balance.

This line of thought can be applied to more or less any moral trait, and there are systems which draw up charts where the individual can map out their personality and behavior based on different cosmologies and seek to balance them (the most widely known being the Soul Mirrors taught in Initiation Into Hermetics). But the point is that your moral behavior is combined of an intersection of spectrums, and you want to bring each of those spectrums into balance so you have a strong, central foundation which provides the ideal outcome for both yourself and society and which brings the mind into balance.

[Shinichi]

What is right? What is wrong?

These are abstract words, with definitions that change depending on context. As they say, one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. So when you ask about doing the right thing, when you ask about how its easier to do the wrong things, you have to sit down and first ask what is right and wrong. A monk who is celibate and sends all of his energy to his spiritual training is a good monk. A polygamist with seven wives who makes love to his women every night is a good husband. A military sniper that kills dozens of enemy soldiers is a hero.

What is good or bad for you, what is right or wrong for you, is not for us to discuss. It's for you to figure out yourself, by practicing Introspection and following the ancient edict Know Thyself!

"Everyone tells you what's good for you. They don't want you to find your own answers, they want you to believe theirs." - Dan Millman, Way of The Peaceful Warrior.



~:Shin:~

[RockDemon]

I can try :p

People tend to view morality in a dualistic way. One set of behavior is on one side, and is good, and one set of behavior is on the other side, and is evil. Look at Star Wars or Lord of the Rings for pop-culture examples, and most Abrahamic religions for religious examples. Even in the occult world, a trend of dividing systems up into vaguely defined "left hand path" and "right hand path" has cropped up (terminology which originally had a far different meaning, but has been appropriated from Hindu culture and now mostly reflects this moral dualism).

I believe, however, that this perspective is incorrect - or at least less than useful. Instead I believe that moral problems are a result of imbalance, just as, in Eastern medical systems, health problems are seen as the result of imbalance. The ideal state is not at one far end of the spectrum, but in the center.

Take any behavioral trait - let's say generosity. At one extreme end you have the individual who gives things away to excess, an excess of generosity. At first this may seem like a good thing, but it is in fact harmful. Firstly because it is harmful to the individual, they lose their time, energy and possessions to their own detriment, at the extreme end they could become hungry and starve because they give too much food away, end up in debt or homeless because they give too much money away, and so forth. Eventually they suffer the consequences, they end up having nothing and being unable to continue their generosity (and quite likely dependent on the generosity of others, undoing all their good works), so it is counterproductive in the long run - they become either a burden on those who return their extreme generosity (who in turn suffer) or likely end up resenting those who do not (and, until we live in an ideal society, there will always be a portion who do not, likely the larger portion).

On the flip side, you have the miserly individual who not only hoards his own physical possessions, but refuses to expend his time and energy in helping those who have helped him in the past or are otherwise close to him, who values himself and his time and possessions more than other people. As a result, these people will generally abandon him, he ends up alone and isolated, with nobody to help him or support him in any way.

So as you can see, neither end of the spectrum has a positive outcome to the individual, the people around them or society as a whole. Both extremities cause more harm than good and lead to long term negative outcomes. So what is best is to strike a balance. Of course what this balance consists of will be unique in practicality - a millionaire trust fund heir is in a position to be far more generous, in quantitative terms, than a single parent with two jobs, for example (of course, generosity is also relative to the individual - it means far more for the latter to loan a friend $100 in desperate circumstances than for the former to give a stranger $10 000 on a whim). But ideally you seek to reach a position where you balance your generosity and consideration for others, your ability to help those around you and contribute to society in the here and now, with your concern for your own welfare and your ability to sustain your generosity in the longterm. It does no good to give away so much money you cannot afford fuel for your car, lose your job, and therefor lose your source for further money to help other people as well as your ability to feed and cloth yourself. It all comes back to balance.

This line of thought can be applied to more or less any moral trait, and there are systems which draw up charts where the individual can map out their personality and behavior based on different cosmologies and seek to balance them (the most widely known being the Soul Mirrors taught in Initiation Into Hermetics). But the point is that your moral behavior is combined of an intersection of spectrums, and you want to bring each of those spectrums into balance so you have a strong, central foundation which provides the ideal outcome for both yourself and society and which brings the mind into balance.

Ah yes , now I understand. That is something that I came up with on my own a while ago. In most cases it a matter of balance/disbalance. I just couldn't understand what you meant in the first post.

[ulvfdfgtmk]

What is right? What is wrong?

These are abstract words, with definitions that change depending on context. As they say, one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. So when you ask about doing the right thing, when you ask about how its easier to do the wrong things, you have to sit down and first ask what is right and wrong. A monk who is celibate and sends all of his energy to his spiritual training is a good monk. A polygamist with seven wives who makes love to his women every night is a good husband. A military sniper that kills dozens of enemy soldiers is a hero.

What is good or bad for you, what is right or wrong for you, is not for us to discuss. It's for you to figure out yourself, by practicing Introspection and following the ancient edict Know Thyself!

"Everyone tells you what's good for you. They don't want you to find your own answers, they want you to believe theirs." - Dan Millman, Way of The Peaceful Warrior.



~:Shin:~

Hello Shin and thank you for your response.
After reading your text I came up with the conclusion that not necessarily doing 'good' things is hard to do, but doint things which one hasn´t done before. In this very example I was used to going along with the mood of my companions instead of thinking for myself and doing what I myself would say is 'right'. Now I´m trying to change and the new thing ('right' thing) is hard to do because I´m not used to behaving this way.

All you guys helped me a lot, thanks again to everyone who posted!