Man was not made to suffer. So why does he we hear you ask. Over-development of the intellect: plain and simple. It has become a muscle that has become too strong, too strong for the creative urges of man, too strong to be able to let go with any ease. Intelligence was given to you as your species came down to exist here on earth. Your gene pool was taken from that of the animals and you were developed, given the gift. Yet though the gift was given from God, from all that is, it has become what has taken you away from all is, and fundamentally this needs to be rectified. We need you now to use your minds to learn to train and control your intellect. To take that muscle and through work, through dedication, allow its control to become flaccid and its repartee- its ability to distinguish what is right and wrong in a situation- to remain. So if you like, what is needed is a lobotomy and this muscle needs to be halved in size. Once halved in size it will become equal once again and be able to balance with mankind’s other gifts, its creative urges, its flows, the intuition, and the instincts. There is nothing that cannot be achieved on earth. Not through the intellect but through the creative flow and then the utilization of intellect henceforth.
I listen to the suffering of many. “Why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why?” No answer comes. However, “Why, why, why? This hurts, this pains, this hurts, this pains, this hurts, this pains. I wish for, I wish for, I wish for, I wish for, I wish for.”
What does this get?
“Why, why, why, why, why, why, this hurts, this pains, this hurts, this pain, I wish for, I wish for, I wish for.”
The resolution to suffering is not within the mind it is in the end of mind.
This is short today Zoe and it is very straight. We end this suffering from the cessations of mind. By this we mean the cessations of mental desire. Pointless mental questionings that are incapable of answers. “Why?”, “Because.” “Why?”, “Because.” “Why?”, “Because.” “Why?”, “Because.”
From now on when someone asks, “Why”, say, “It simply is.” This need not be pain, this need not be suffering. Accept the simply is and find the peace there in. There is no movement from this point for mind, except to take you away from this point. When you are taken away from this point the suffering and pain will begin once more. “Why, why, why?”. “It simply is”. Find the peace from this point and be aware that only the mind can take you away from this and you will resume pain and suffering. “Why, why, why?” I needn’t go on now Zoe.
Do you know that all enlightenment is this simple? Goodbye for now.
TM: I’ve received quite a few inquiries about money and requests to talk about it. There has been a great body of writing on this from a spiritual perspective. What do you say to someone who asks, “What is the proper relationship to money, how much to have, how to use it, how to get it, etc.?”
Master Buddha: First of all, there isn’t just one way to view this because each person has his or her particular orientation to money given his or her life path. Anything I say must be understood as general statements and then I can offer examples of individual circumstances to show how some principles may apply.
As viewed from the spiritual perspective, meaning from a non-material realm, money is as worthless as a bicycle would be for travel across an ocean. It is purely a human creation. So your question presumes a spiritual oversight that doesn’t exist except in the form of advice and counsel that may be offered from time to time. That is the spirit in which I present these ideas today.
Let me attempt to simplify the concept of money in relation to a person. Humans have decided that money shall represent a value of some thing. Those things may include the physically inanimate object (house, car, etc.), a personal action (one’s labor), a promise for future delivery of value (speculation), restitution for past value (grievances resolved), a gift of love or social obligation, so on and so forth. The second premise is that the value of money shall equal approximately the value of that thing in the exchange. Sometimes the values are not equal, and if they are too unequal, then one or the other person feels either elated or cheated.
The third premise created by humans is a system of ethics regarding transactions between one another using money or the thing valued as the currency. This is a point of departure between the diverse cultures of the world. The one dominant force has been the Western philosophy governing the use of money. The ethics of the Western system have varied over the past two hundred years, but for the most part they have represented an idealism that while noble in its aim has not achieved its goal.
TM: So is it possible to answer my questions?
Master Buddha: I’m getting there, but needed to frame my response for clarity. The proper relationship to money must take on a general perspective representing larger society (we’ll call general ethics) and the particular relationship of an individual to money. From the general ethics, the idea of freedom to choose one’s occupation and one’s level of income and expense, is I think the best arrangement. As we have discussed in these conversations there is a point that one must consider that individual freedom intersects with group harmony. This means that it is necessary for individuals to contribute to the whole in a way that brings harmony to the whole and doesn’t disturb the peace of the many. This is the greatest insurance for all. The current system in Western society doesn’t achieve this goal, but with modification it could.
TM: I’m not clear on what you mean. Are you saying that there needs to be a balance in interest between the range of individual freedom and the needs of the whole population?
Master Buddha: Yes. For example, in Western society a person is permitted to amass unlimited wealth. On the other end of the scale a person is permitted to starve to death or die due to exposure to the elements because he cannot afford shelter. What is preventing Western society from implementing safeguards at the bottom end of the scale?
TM: We don’t allocate budget for it because we’ve determined other things are more important.
Master Buddha: And the contradiction is that your idealism states that you cherish life above all. Your military runs to all ends of the earth to rescue those in peril. Your governments send aid to foreign countries in an attempt to prevent starvation and lethal diseases from spreading. Yet in your own domestic domain you have families living in such poverty that their lives are at risk daily.
TM: It isn’t a perfect system for sure and most Westerners will agree that we can do more to clean up our domestic programs.
Master Buddha: What do you think is stopping you from doing this?
TM: We have an overly complicated and increasingly corrupt political system that can’t philosophically agree on just how much we are our brother’s keeper.
Master Buddha: It is first and foremost the obligation of your governments, using the general treasury, to prevent starvation and health-related problems derived from poverty. This cannot be left to the generosity and goodwill of individuals. It must begin with your domestic sphere first. It is there that you work out the ethics of being your brother’s keeper as you phrased it. Once you have mastered that step then sharing that wisdom with other cultures is a natural extension.
TM: We have the resources to do what you suggest, but not the collective resolve to do it.
Master Buddha: This is true, but you asked for a perspective on the proper relationship to money. You will have to work out the politics in order to deliver a just relationship.
TM: Okay then, maybe you can state what a person should be required to do in order to receive assistance that raises his status above poverty. That’s where we fail; we can’t agree on that. Some people say we should be self-reliant and others want to give to others with little or no requirements for self-responsibility. So, what is the answer?
Master Buddha: Ah you see, now you are into the business of designing a society that grapples with such ethical obligations yet stumbles at the final step failing to complete the mission. If the US government felt the collective will of its citizens favored a system whereby no citizen would be permitted to fall into poverty, could they achieve that?
Master Buddha: Then it must be that the collective will of its citizens do not favor such a system.
TM: How many citizens create a collective will?
Master Buddha: Enough that under your political system you could legislate and implement the system.
TM: Then you must be correct. Sadly it must be true. But you still haven’t answered my question of self-responsibility.
Master Buddha: Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. Your society has through its own design created an array of citizens from the genius to the infantile. Your society is responsible on a par level with the individuals that make up society. It will take many generations of enlightened governance to correct the mistakes and injustices created by past policies and practices. It will likewise take time for individuals to climb out of their ignorance or unfortunate circumstances due to conditions beyond their control.
Wandering your streets are the insane and the helpless. They cannot take responsibility for themselves in any way.
You have many people who are indolent and averse to responsibility through personal predilection and familial training. They will have to be educated on a new understanding of their responsibility.
You have a growing number who have turned to crime and are either incarcerated or among the general population. They will have to be educated, and until they are they will remain incarcerated because you have no other way to assimilate them.
There are those who through no fault of their own have fallen upon hard times due to major shifts in the economy. They will need to be retrained in new occupations and helped along the way.
When there are enough enlightened citizens there will be a more enlightened government and they will realize the long-term commitment required to correct your system. It is a race against the clock.
If you do nothing to correct this situation, because as a society you think it isn’t your responsibility, then you will suffer the consequences of doing nothing. The consequences will include a greater divide between the economic classes, thus more poverty; less efficacy in minimum education achievement among the lower classes; increased criminal activity; reduction of individual freedoms due to crime prevention measures; compartmentalization of community along class lines further reducing the efficacy of government and the erosion of community infrastructure. You can probably project from there what will transpire next.
If however, you find the collective will to make a long-term commitment to correction, then you will begin to see minor changes for the good. It will take patience beyond one, two or three generations. That is perhaps the greatest challenge for a society that has come to expect immediate gratifications of its goals (even though this hasn’t really been the case).
TM: What can you say to the questions regarding individuals and their relationship to money? What are some guidelines to follow is really what I’m asking.
Master Buddha: As individuals you must graduate through levels of ethical refinement regarding the role of money in your life. What is good for one person may not be good or right for another. For that reason do not be hasty in judging others for their view in earning or handling their money.
As Master Jesus and I have maintained throughout these conversations, release judgment from your view. Find your relationship to money based upon your path and your understanding and allow others to do the same without inveighing their choices. When you have come to peace with your relationship to money then you may offer a helping hand to others who may wish to hear from you.
Conversation with Buddha and TMichael: Sensual Pleasures and Enlightenment
TM: I’d like to talk about one area that seems to be rejected by Christianity and Buddhism (maybe for different reasons) and yet Hinduism embraces it in part. And that is pleasures of the flesh. Two questions come to mind. When you say give up the pleasures of the flesh, or give up the sensory pleasures, what do you mean? Why do we have to forego pleasure in order to appreciate and live a spiritual life in the flesh?
Master Buddha: Those questions allow me to clarify some misunderstandings that have arisen from my original teachings and Master Jesus’ teachings too. Let me emphasize too that those teachings were provided for an earlier time in which the conditions of the time were different than they are now and so adjustment is required.
First of all for context, the questions posed that aroused the teachings had to do with achieving enlightenment or salvation. They were intended for disciples who had dedicated their lives to tread the path. Those who recorded the essence of the sermons and discussions were biased by their own personal beliefs toward the ideas presented. This doesn’t mean they are completely inaccurate, it just means that one must make allowances for the bias.
Secondly, we were in our own time biased by our own lives while incarnated. While it is true that Master Jesus and I achieved states of enlightenment beyond the norm we could not escape the effects of being human. This is often forgotten or is dismissed because we are elevated above our actual experience in the flesh by devotees and followers.
Now let me address your questions. Sensuality is a natural part of being human. It is so natural in fact that it can be mistaken as the primary aspect of ones being. It is in reality a reflection of higher consciousness. For those treading the path I ask, do you wish to play in your reflection in the pond or do you wish to know the one casting the reflection?
This was not and is not to be interpreted as an admonishment to those beings who are playing in their reflections. It is saying to the one upon the path, this is the way.
TM: So you are saying that one can’t find their way to enlightenment by exploring the pleasures of the flesh?
Master Buddha: It is knowing the distinction between the true self and the one who pretends to be the self. One will not find the true self by only exploring the reflection. Likewise one cannot deny or ignore the reflection and truly know oneself. I think what you want to know is can one experience and appreciate the pleasures of the flesh and pursue enlightenment. The answer is in each ones heart or center of ones intent. The non-self is a trickster beyond belief. To answer yes means that it is possible and to answer no is to exclude that which is possible. It will be different for everyone.
TM: So it is possible but it depends on the individual?
Master Buddha: Yes.
TM: How do I know if it is possible for me? How do I know what is the center of my intent?
Master Buddha: You will know when the power of your heart and your true desire for enlightenment out weighs all other considerations. All that isn’t from that place melts away and leaves the purity of true self. In other words until that point you won’t know. You will try this and that, and mostly you will try to strike bargains and negotiations with the true self to bring with you all the things that are important to the non-self. Until that day when you realize what you have been doing and it all falls away and leaves who you are. Then you’ll know.
TM: It sounds like what you’re saying is that the pleasures of the flesh are the parts that the non-self is bargaining to keep and that they will be the parts that melt away. Is that what you mean?
Master Buddha: I believe you were one of the ones who recorded these teachings many centuries ago. Why don’t you just find out for yourself?
TM: Well, of course I will. But I’m asking you as a teacher for a lesson that will guide me along the way.
Master Buddha: And I am a teacher along the way who is offering a lesson to a student who wants me to provide shortcuts that obviate his own need for experience, which in reality cannot happen. What more can I say except that you will have to find the way to the center of your heart to know your true self and in time know that which is not the true self. The pleasures of the flesh represent the reflection, but are not the true self. Is that clear?
TM: Humbly, yes. Although, I must say you are being forceful and adamant about this in a way I haven’t before experienced in your teaching.
Master Buddha: Sometimes that is what is needed. I am adamant that you experience life for yourself. A teacher shall point a way, but shall be cautious about dictating precise directions. It is through discovery that you truly learn the lesson, not through intellectual comprehension. The motivating force that propels you into discovery is from within yourself. There is no harm in vigorous stimulation of the mind on spiritual matters. But ultimately it is living experience that counts.
Conversation with Buddha and TMichael: Humor is Essential for the Human Spirit
TM: What does it take to live a spiritual life?
Master Buddha: Dedication, perseverance and a sense of humor.
TM: Did you have a sense of humor during your life as Siddhartha Gautama?
Master Buddha: Not at first. I was spiritually ambitious and burning with desire. That’s not very fertile ground for humor. Later in that life I developed an understanding of the importance of humor.
TM: Is it as important as dedication and perseverance?
Master Buddha: In some ways maybe more so. The ability to laugh at one’s self is priceless. I see so many lives that tread the path of holiness and they are so miserable because they cannot laugh. So much seriousness kills the spirit.
TM: I’ve learned to laugh at myself more recently and I can say it makes a big difference in reducing the amount of judgment I have for others and myself.
Master Buddha: Life is for experience and for fulfilling purpose. That can be pretty serious. It can also be very funny if you know that all of the mistakes and all of the pain go to the same place when it’s all over.
TM: Where is that, where do they go?
Master Buddha: They go to hell of course, right with the soul who created them.
TM: I take it that was a joke.
Master Buddha: Is it funny?
TM: Sort of, if you don’t believe in hell.
Master Buddha: And if you do?
TM: Well, you might not find it too funny.
Master Buddha: I tell you there is no hell. Furthermore, I tell you that the idea of hell was created to keep you in line. Has it worked?
TM: Maybe it has for some people, but probably not for most folks. It seems there are a lot of loopholes to slip out. It never seemed too enlightened a concept to me. I mean it sounds like something humans would do to one another, but it doesn’t sound too godlike.
Master Buddha: Yes, but don’t you know about the battle, or perhaps feud I should say between God and the Devil? God gave the Devil his due by giving him the real estate of hell and all the sinners that go with it. That’s a fair settlement wouldn’t you say?
TM: Okay, now I know that’s supposed to be funny.
Master Buddha: I’m doing my best to break your reverence for everything. You can stop pretending that you believe everything must be taken so seriously.
TM: You’re right, I’m afraid of offending people, so I tend to show respect for all points of view.
Master Buddha: Does that mean that you cannot find the humor in all points of view?
TM: No, but like I said, I’m afraid some people will be offended by you or me finding humor in their beliefs.
Master Buddha: Do you find offense if someone finds humor in your beliefs?
TM: Well, since I find humor in my beliefs I don’t get offended. But I don’t know if others feel that way about their own beliefs; so, I just avoid making light of their beliefs.
Master Buddha: That’s very polite and considerate of you. Do you have thoughts about their beliefs and do you usually think funny thoughts, silently to yourself?
Master Buddha: Then maybe you should share them with others and let them tell you if they are offended or not. Maybe they would have a good laugh with you. Did you ever consider that option?
TM: Not really.
Master Buddha: I’ll tell you a story about a man who traveled the world in search of the perfect religion. He stopped in every village in every country and sought out the priest. He asked each and every priest, what makes your religion so perfect? And after each description the priest gave he would laugh uproariously, falling over on his side, rolling on the ground. At first the priest would recoil in horror and offense that this stranger would be so rude to laugh at his religion. But eventually seeing and hearing the stranger laughing so uncontrollably, the priest would crack a smile at first and then after a few moments he would start to gently laugh and then he would also fall over with laughter.
The villagers in seeing this would think that their priest had gone mad. They would try everything they could to restrain the priest. But to no avail. The priest would laugh and laugh for hours until he would fall unconscious in sleep.
This happened in one village after another as the man traveled throughout the world. When he at last he had covered all known villages and had laughed with every priest, he decided to compile his notes about every religion on earth and why the priests believed them to be the best religion in the world.
When he examined his notes he began to laugh uncontrollably again. In every language and in every way the priests gave him the same answer. Their religion was the greatest because the Supreme Being, God, had decreed theirs the best, the greatest and the one that all men should follow.
It was this news that he shared with each priest he encountered after the fits of laughter. In that state of ecstasy, they all embraced him and thanked him for reminding them of their own arrogance.
TM: Thank you for that story. But, really I think the man would have been hung in some places.
Master Buddha: You underestimate the power of pure enlightenment. Laughter is one of the best pathways to pure enlightenment. At any rate it is necessary from time to time to keep one’s balance.
TM: We use humor to ridicule oftentimes- to belittle others and their ways. I think that is what feels bad about humor and then it takes on irreverence, especially as it relates to one’s religion.
Master Buddha: Ridicule would be ineffective unless one has a powerful attachment to the importance and inviolability of one’s religion. It seems to me that if one is so sensitive to receive ridicule, then perhaps the weakness is in his faith that his religion has any value at all and must be held together by his defense of it as being beyond reproach.
I once encountered a monk who delivered the most eloquent and beautiful sermon on the virtue of humor. He told of his journey to a foreign land and of his many blunders with language and custom. His audience was all smiles and laughs as they recognized themselves in each anecdote. Why can’t we have that acceptance about religion? Is it somehow more important than its adherents? There is a problem here that goes deeper than offense at irreverence. There is a problem that a man can only resolve by finding his true spiritual nature through a religion that he so identifies with that he has the strength and the courage to laugh at himself and his religion occasionally. Life is experience and religion is also experience. This means that it must be accepted as fallible and in need of evolution. Man must not guard it as if it is a treasure that belongs only to him, and is so fragile that it will break at the slightest injury.
Religion is a living thing. It is nurtured in the way all living things are nurtured. It must learn. And to learn it must not take too seriously what it already thinks it knows. Otherwise there is no room for new insights. Without new insights how is it to grow and learn and allow for nurturing?
TM: What about humor in our popular culture; it reflects where we are socially, but often in a mean-spirited way.
Master Buddha: You’re correct in your emphasis on ridicule and mean-spiritedness, but really this is the stuff of children. It hurts one’s feelings to hear such things because of the attachment you have to the importance of such things. The more that you clutch onto your beliefs, whether religious in nature or secular, the more offended you’ll be at the suggestion they are unimportant or faulty in some way. There is no escape then from the mode of defense. And to be in the mode of defense requires much serious vigilance. This excludes humor from one’s life.
Without humor, expressions that should effortlessly pass through get stuck. When you have a thought or a feeling at the level of consciousness and you stuff it, what do you think is happening to the energy behind it? Humor allows for the movement. Otherwise in its place we have judgment. And with that we have stuck energy. With stuck energy we have the root cause of disease and physical distress.
TM: I think I’m afraid to let go of the beliefs and I defend them because I don’t know what will replace them. Maybe it will be worse than the ones I eliminate. And then where will I be?
Master Buddha: You’ll be stuck if you don’t release the attachment to your beliefs. Yes, certainly you could adopt beliefs that are no good to serve you and your fellow beings. But remember, that at the point you have decided to openly question your beliefs, you have opened the door to your spiritual nature in a way that can and will inform you. It will not lead you astray. It will take you where you need to go regardless of your opinion or protestations. You may at any point stop the course, but if you feel that despite your discomfort or resistance, it is the right path, you’ll continue.
It is rare to find one who has no doubt whatsoever. There is a difference between doubt and denial. A strong attachment to beliefs relies on denial to guard its gates, so to speak. Doubt can leave the door ajar and permit examination. There can be a gradual release of belief as one becomes familiar with a new idea.
TM: It seems like there must be some value to the fact that the majority of the population holds steady with certain beliefs as a sort of social glue. What would happen if everyone just shed his beliefs and tried on new ones? No one would be able to function in a society where you couldn’t anticipate anything.
Master Buddha: This is quite the conundrum for people who begin to tread the path to enlightenment. How does one explore new beliefs while remaining in the world that is governed by set beliefs that demand conformity? This is not so hard to understand once you accept that everything will be okay if you are out of sync with the collective consciousness of humanity. The mass of humanity is in sync with this collective consciousness and it is this fact that terrifies you and holds you back; yet at the same time it urges you to rebel against it. Remember this, most of humanity is subject to the magnetic pull of the collective consciousness. They have no awareness that it should be any other way—they are present with it and do not question it from a philosophical perspective. It is the way of life for them.
Those who have crossed the threshold of awakening and sense there is more to experience in life will not be satisfied. They will agitate for change in their lives and also in society as they press against the forces of conformity. This is the tension that is necessary to move the mark of progress for humanity. It is the birth of new consciousness and it struggles to break free from the confines of its womb, which is represented by mass consciousness.
TM: Is this break more difficult in Western society than in Eastern?
Master Buddha: Yes, largely because in Western society, the individual surrenders much authority. The irony is that while that is true, the individual is encouraged to compete and excel at the cost to everyone around him. On the one hand you are worthless and not capable of making your own decisions about life and on the other hand you must lift yourself up by your bootstraps in order to prove your worthiness.
It is a system of behavioral conditioning that says that you are incapable of excellence except through the authority of (fill in the blank). You may do your own thing, so to speak, as long as you don’t cross this boundary that has been established by the authority, be it religious or governmental. The great problem for Westerners is that they feel they are the freest society on Earth, and yet their happiness seems to spring only from being in a position of economic and military dominance. That again reflects the notion of being “the world authority”, which satisfied their belief system of being free. If they are the authority, then they must have overcome some other authority, which means they must be free. It is a convoluted psychology and one that will require a good deal of working out. With the spreading of Eastern thought, many in the West are beginning to question this foundational belief system. That takes us back to your question. Yes it is difficult to break with a system that breeds insecurity and at the same time encourages development of the little ego to compensate.
TM: What about dedication and perseverance?
Master Buddha: Human nature changes slowly, in the individual and in the group. Dedication and perseverance provide the counter balance to the insatiable impatience of humanity. It isn’t more than a mental discipline to favor patience. It is also a matter of the emotional nature in regard to one’s desire, but the impetus of impatience comes from the mind. Dedication and perseverance represent the noble virtues that humanity identifies with, and so can provide the strength of character needed to thwart the ill effects of an impatient mind. It is a bridge technique and once greater understanding is reached, it too shall be cast off. Humor endures beyond the shedding of dedication and perseverance. That is why I say it is the greatest of the three, yet they work together at one stage to assist humans to the next level of understanding. Where a healthy sense of humor can dissipate despair, dedication and perseverance keep despair abated because of the promise of a better life earned. Humor eliminates it immediately.
TM: We really admire dedication, loyalty and perseverance. Those are character traits held dear by most people aren’t they?
Master Buddha: Yes, but your question began with what does it take to live a spiritual life. Not what do most humans admire in one another. I’m saying that humor is a compassionate, loving way to accept one’s ignorance—of oneself and ignorance of others. The opposite of humor about these things is judgment. That means defending against your lessons, which in turns makes the lesson nearly impossible to accept without accepting blame for ignorance and the consequences associated with ignorance. That means that one is shamed as one consequence, or one must feel guilt for being ignorant, or one must feel she is lacking in some way that points to self-inadequacy. The intent of judgment is to undermine self-confidence.
TM: This always gets around to judgment is seems.
Master Buddha: It’s important to understand the harmful role judgment plays and that there are other options to using judgment. Humanity has relied on judgment because it has been believed that humans are inherently evil or at least bad and that judgment is the way to keep everyone from enacting the evil things in their hearts. If you could stand back from humanity as we can, you’d see how steeped you are in this belief and this stuck position. You cannot advance any further by using the system of judgment. This is the end of the road for it. It will only bring destruction on a huge scale if your systems of thought persist in this way.
TM: That sounds gloomy.
Master Buddha: It is. Judgment is the root of hate, for oneself and for others.
TM: Others might say it’s the reverse.
Master Buddha: They go together and so what difference does it make, where there is one there is the other and their presence makes it impossible to embrace love. That in turn makes it nearly impossible to learn, to evolve.
TM: Yet, arguably humanity has evolved, and quite rapidly in some ways, wouldn’t you agree?
Master Buddha: The speed and progress of humanity is relative and really you haven’t anything to compare it with unless you are suggesting that perhaps you could compare it to the progress of a rock. In which case I could agree that humanity is faster in progress. But what does that suggest?
TM: I don’t know. I’m not defending the use of judgment, I’m expressing that most humans probably believe we’ve come a long way in a relatively short period of time.
Master Buddha: Whatever role you believe judgment played in that progress is now over wouldn’t you agree?
TM: It won’t be so easy to just throw it away if you believe that it was instrumental in the progress you’ve made. Aren’t there different levels of judgment, like this is good and useful and that isn’t?
Master Buddha: That is a different context entirely and one, by the way, that can be used to subtly judge while pretending to be open and neutral. So, you’re right in stating there are different levels of how judgment is applied. So maybe we can start with the most obvious way regarding human behavior.
This method of judging one another’s behavior as to good or bad has it roots in an innocent and useful social practice. Early agrarian societies needed standards of behavior in order to coordinate the community toward those practices that would yield the greatest results for survival. This included provisions for food, shelter and defense. It wasn’t too long after that however that some people, mainly priests and rulers, discovered that if they could devise, interpret and defend the judgment of behaviors intended for the good of the community then they could derive much power for themselves. And it was from that point that political interests and greed for wealth and power became the motivating force behind the creation of the principles men and women were to be judged. It has only grown more distorted and corrupt ever since that time and it will only grow worse. So, that is why I say it has run its course.