Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
Family of Origin
The win and the loss
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Copabanana" data-source="post: 676888" data-attributes="member: 18958"><p>When I come to this site, CD, most of the time the first thing I see is that thread on the precepts. I loved that.</p><p>For some reason upon reading this I thought of M and his evil sister.</p><p></p><p>She was the one who instigated that he come here from Mexico, the last time, 12 years ago, and leave his family. Of course he is a grown man and a strong one. He decided. And from that decision came all of this heartache. For him, his family, and me. But also growth. And love.</p><p></p><p>She, the evil sister, wanted work done in her house. For free. So she had this bright idea that he come to visit her. Then she and her husband proceeded to exploit him. That had been the plan.</p><p></p><p>Of course he is responsible.</p><p></p><p>Does this fit into banality of evil?</p><p></p><p>There are people who do not have boundaries. Usually that refers to the way we act upon others. In my case, I think it means not that, but that I do not stop others acting upon me. I let everybody do as they want until even I have had enough. Or at least that used to be me.</p><p></p><p>M's sister acts on others...for her own interests. She is so destructive because she does not know that when she acts for her own interests upon other people's lives she causes hurt that cannot be remedied. Or perhaps she does know, and does not care. That is the question at hand.</p><p></p><p>Whether or not we are correct to look the other way, or whether we can.</p><p></p><p>Like what she did in her parent's and siblings lives recently. She no more thinks she is doing an evil act, than a big cat taking a swipe at a zoo patron. Is this a choice? To not know. That is what we are exploring.</p><p></p><p>So maybe banality of evil is that. A lack of boundaries. Perhaps in both guises. Allowing others to act upon you, without your conscious consent. Without a squawk. Instead of dissenting or even asking a question, like, "What exactly do you mean? And where do you propose to go with this, to take me with you?"</p><p></p><p>Acting upon others without taking responsibility for the consequences upon them. Convenience. The other form this takes.</p><p></p><p>In this sense detachment is consciousness of the reality of things. We accept we no longer can determine where we go with our children, where they take us. We can no longer consent.</p><p></p><p>We understand and accept, finally, that where they take us <em>we do not want to go</em>. It will hurt us. We decide. No I do not want to go on that train with you. Instead of feeling like their victims.</p><p></p><p>In that sense "no" can be the most moral, responsible and difficult of all words to say. The simplest of concepts, but the most profound and powerful. I mean, "yes" is just so easy. And then we end up in the swamp or the concentration camp. When no would have nipped it in the bud. The thing is, we never know where we are really going when the trip starts out. It is like we look outside the window of the train. And we realize, slowly we realize, where we are going. And still we want to hope we are wrong.</p><p></p><p>When we say "no" to our families, they are stuck with themselves. They have to "eat it." Something they do not want to do. How much better to put their stuff into us. For them it is like taking out the garbage. How much better to put it in us. When we stop accepting it, they get stinky and fumy and slimy inside themselves. And the madder they get.</p><p></p><p>COPA</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Copabanana, post: 676888, member: 18958"] When I come to this site, CD, most of the time the first thing I see is that thread on the precepts. I loved that. For some reason upon reading this I thought of M and his evil sister. She was the one who instigated that he come here from Mexico, the last time, 12 years ago, and leave his family. Of course he is a grown man and a strong one. He decided. And from that decision came all of this heartache. For him, his family, and me. But also growth. And love. She, the evil sister, wanted work done in her house. For free. So she had this bright idea that he come to visit her. Then she and her husband proceeded to exploit him. That had been the plan. Of course he is responsible. Does this fit into banality of evil? There are people who do not have boundaries. Usually that refers to the way we act upon others. In my case, I think it means not that, but that I do not stop others acting upon me. I let everybody do as they want until even I have had enough. Or at least that used to be me. M's sister acts on others...for her own interests. She is so destructive because she does not know that when she acts for her own interests upon other people's lives she causes hurt that cannot be remedied. Or perhaps she does know, and does not care. That is the question at hand. Whether or not we are correct to look the other way, or whether we can. Like what she did in her parent's and siblings lives recently. She no more thinks she is doing an evil act, than a big cat taking a swipe at a zoo patron. Is this a choice? To not know. That is what we are exploring. So maybe banality of evil is that. A lack of boundaries. Perhaps in both guises. Allowing others to act upon you, without your conscious consent. Without a squawk. Instead of dissenting or even asking a question, like, "What exactly do you mean? And where do you propose to go with this, to take me with you?" Acting upon others without taking responsibility for the consequences upon them. Convenience. The other form this takes. In this sense detachment is consciousness of the reality of things. We accept we no longer can determine where we go with our children, where they take us. We can no longer consent. We understand and accept, finally, that where they take us [I]we do not want to go[/I]. It will hurt us. We decide. No I do not want to go on that train with you. Instead of feeling like their victims. In that sense "no" can be the most moral, responsible and difficult of all words to say. The simplest of concepts, but the most profound and powerful. I mean, "yes" is just so easy. And then we end up in the swamp or the concentration camp. When no would have nipped it in the bud. The thing is, we never know where we are really going when the trip starts out. It is like we look outside the window of the train. And we realize, slowly we realize, where we are going. And still we want to hope we are wrong. When we say "no" to our families, they are stuck with themselves. They have to "eat it." Something they do not want to do. How much better to put their stuff into us. For them it is like taking out the garbage. How much better to put it in us. When we stop accepting it, they get stinky and fumy and slimy inside themselves. And the madder they get. COPA [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
Family of Origin
The win and the loss
Top