In · Medias · Res

There is considerable difference between justification and the application of sound judgment, the distinction between proving one's choices and actions correct, and perceiving what is appropriate in the moment. Although, of itself, justification is a not without good purpose, it is too often employed in the absence of good judgment as a means to presume correctness or excuse error. Seeking justification for one's choices and actions is inevitably a tricky business, requiring the most earnest of assessments without ego or presumption, and most specifically, without established belief nor idealism distorting the interpretation of context, appropriateness and significance. Invariably, whenever ego, belief or idealism enters the equation, one risks making sweeping presumptions, attempting to render things appropriate after the fact, and often upon dubious and simplistic criteria: a delusion of circular reasoning.

"Ends Justify the Means"

This is a familiar phrase to many people, and therefore a classic and effective example, but for the sake of argument, it merits definition. Peeling away the innumerable connotation and allusions associated with it, this common ideological claim, in essence, represents a specific set of basic beliefs. First, that ethically or morally questionable actions are sometimes necessary and justifiable to achieve desirable — and generally presumed "good" — outcomes. Secondly, that the ethical or moral appropriateness of actions, and the determination of whether these actions are "right" or "wrong", is exclusively determined by the moral or ethical character of the outcome. Thus, if the outcome of an action is deemed "good" then the means taken to accomplish it are likewise justified and "good" as well. Although one might find rare examples in which this premise may be technically true, as well as applications of the principle of "the greater good" versus "individual good"; more frequently, it represents a rather obvious oversimplification of logic.

The perils and failures of this stance, regardless of whether it is stated explicitly or implied by one's choices and actions, are well-remarked, and there are many aspects, moral, ethical, or practical, that one might examine. For this argument, the focus is the simplistic linear equation of this justification and the way in which it becomes circular. Whereas one might argue that the outcome of any choice or action will logically bear directly upon judgement of the means of execution, overemphasis on the latter part of the equation ignores the potential for side-effects of execution which may negate the value of outcome even if it is achieved as desired. Unlike in algebra, the real world value of x+y seldom begets a clean and self-contained z, and likewise z seldom represents an unambiguous x+y. Any choice or action to which one might commit tends to produce peripheral outcomes which ensure that the value of the means demands its own assessment along lines tangent to the desired or achieved singular outcome.

This argument becomes circular in the manner in which the end comes to define the means, and the common practice associated with this argument of identifying and fixing the overriding value of that end before any assessment of appropriate choices or action is made. Although placing value upon one's goals is significant part of sound judgement, the final exercise of such judgement lies in comparing the anticipated value at the beginning versus the proven value of the outcome at the end, and examining the weight of each choice and action that connects these two points. When one applies the argument "end justifies the means" there is the risk that the value of the outcome will be arbitrarily established in advance and no assessment made. And if the outcome proves to result as initially desired, this is seen as proof enough of the arbitrary valuation, the steps in between left unexamined or ignored as irrelevant to this "proof". How is this circular reasoning? The ultimate proof of the outcome and the means employed to reach it is often built in the premise that the end was good in advance of action, and any indication of contradiction or negative value that may have emerged in the course of choice and action is neatly overlooked as irrelevant if the outcome met that expectation. The beginning and the end, and all points in between, are effectively presumed to be of the same value.

While discussing the subjects of good and evil, the wise Master presented his pupil with a lesson on the nature of values.

The Master asked, "If I were to set you before a crossroads, and tell you that one way is good and the other evil, what would be the correct the choice?"

Without hesitation, the pupil replied, "The one which is good, of course!"

And the master shook his head, and said, "That is not the proper choice."

The pupil was confused, and exclaimed, "But surely, I cannot choose the evil path!"

And the Master again shook his head, and said, "That is likewise an incorrect choice."

The pupil became agitated, "But surely, I must make a choice between good and evil!"

The master replied, "That is so."

And the student wailed, "Then what must I do to make a correct choice?"

The Master calmed the student with his gentle countenance, and said: "The correct choice is to realize that when presented with such definitive declarations of good and evil, you must not accept such statements unsubstantiated. The opinion presented may be sound or unsound, accurate or inaccurate, truthful or untruthful, regardless of the who offers it, even if he is the most trusted friend or wisest master.

"The correct choice is to weigh the values before you and make your own determination. One must learn to discern and substantiate the mercurial aspects of such values as good or evil, rather than accepting without question the values offered."

And the student asked, "But which of the paths would be correct?"

And the Master replied, "Take the one or the other, or none; or strike a new path of your making. One must not allow oneself to be confined by the presumed limits imposed by arbitrary values. One must recognize that values of any kind tend not to be definitive, and may be substantiated or dismissed with due consideration. Apply the Three Rays to the paths before you, assay the situation and its aspects, and then make whatever path you choose the correct path."

The student bowed to the Master, "Your teaching is very wise, but I must contemplate the meaning and implications of these things before I am truly certain, and can accept them fully."

The Master smiled, for clearly the student had learned the lesson.

These are the three basic axioms of the Siidhi:

Trust your feelings, but do not rely upon them solely.
Hone your mind, but do not cling to logic.
Open your senses, but do not define your comprehension by them.

Today, we will consider the third of these.

True perception can be recognized by its relationship to compassion. Although the unbiased input of raw sensation may generate profound awareness and a sense of immersion, in its torrential influx, it overwhelms understanding and will mislead the heart with superficiality and delusion. Unlike raw sensation, which so misleads impression and feeling, true perception enhances these expressions of the heart, granting them both instant awareness and observational clarity of interpersonal significance.

Likewise, true perception can be recognized by its relationship to reason. Although the unbiased input of raw sensation may ensure attention and focus its aim, in its torrential influx, it supersedes reason and will congest the mind with false impression and mercurial feeling. Unlike raw sensation, which so bombards the mind and comprehension, true perception broadens and deepens these contemplations of being, granting them both thorough differentiation and observational clarity of perceptual interrelationship.

True perception is a broad window of enlightened sensation that leads one to the awareness of all that exists; but alone, it is without understanding or reliable comprehension in the moment. When combined with deep compassion and sound reason, perception shines upon the moment and its revelations may be presented with confidence.

It is because of this, that the Siidhi say "Open your senses, but do not define your comprehension by them".

These are the three basic axioms of the Siidhi:

Trust your feelings, but do not rely upon them solely.
Hone your mind, but do not cling to logic.
Open your senses, but do not define your comprehension by them.

Today, we will consider the second of these.

True reason can be recognized by its relationship to compassion. Although the pure calculation of precise logic may generate precise syllogisms and a sense of correctness, in its detachment, it neglects sympathy and will wound the heart with derision and antipathy. Unlike pure logic, which so divorces reasoning and feeling, true reason enhances these expressions of the heart, granting them both certain comprehension and rational clarity of interpersonal significance.

Likewise, true reason can be recognized by its relationship to perception. Although the pure calculation of precise logic may refine attention and structure its aims, in its detachment, it overrides perception and will confound the senses with false premise and inflexible conclusions. Unlike pure logic, which so precludes the senses and awareness, true reason broadens and deepens these sensations of being, granting them both thorough differentiation and rational clarity of logical interrelationship.

True reason is a solid foundation of enlightened contemplation that leads one to the comprehension of all that exists; but alone, it is without sympathy or flexible awareness in the moment. When combined with deep compassion and clear perception, reason shines upon the moment and its consideration may be offered with certainty.

It is because of this, that the Siidhi say "Hone your mind, but do not cling to logic".

These are the three basic axioms of the Siidhi:

Trust your feelings, but do not rely upon them solely.
Hone your mind, but do not cling to logic.
Open your senses, but do not define your comprehension by them.

Today, we will consider the first of these.

True compassion can be recognized by its relationship to reason. Although the raw passion of superficial feeling may generate great energy and sense of purpose, in its unrefinement, it overrides rational thought and will confound the mind with presumptions and delusions. Unlike superficial feeling, which so clouds reasoning and judgement, true compassion enhances these actions of the mind, granting them both firm motivation and rational clarity of interpersonal significance.

Likewise, true compassion can be recognized by its relationship to perception. Although the raw passion of superficial feeling may focus attention and ensure its aim, in its unrefinement, it narrows perception and will confuse the senses with presumptions and delusions. Unlike superficial feeling, which so fixates the senses and awareness, true compassion broadens and deepens these sensations of being, granting them both solid attentiveness and observational clarity of empathic interrelationship.

True compassion is a great well-spring of enlightened feeling that binds one to all that exists; but alone, it is without action or clear context in the moment. When combined with sound reason and clear perception, compassion shines upon the moment and its warmth may be shared freely.

It is because of this, that the Siidhi say "trust you feelings, but do not rely solely upon them".