Precisely! I learned through direct experience, being a victim of abusive managers. Another fact is the suffering of others, even if we aren't directly attacked. A time comes when enough is enough, and one can no longer tolerate the atrocities, not only for our own personal protection; but in the larger scheme of things, for all "neighbors". And where do the neighborhoods end, and who is our neighbor? I see no need or limitation on this argument,..if the responsibility ends 2 doors down, why not 3? If somebody calls out for help, should I only help those who yell louder than 20 decibels? How about 19? But my lessons were practical. In the face of abuses going on all around me in which stresses contributed to the deaths of several people, I came to the realization that if self-protection ended at the surface of my skin, that wouldn't result in victory over the force of evil. I had to stand up for others, so I started a campaign to root out the abuses if they occurred anywhere at the Co. After several years now of a zero tolerance for evil (which I won't define now, but in the work environment, all of the back stabbing, dishonest behavior that we might see in the movies);....the evil dudes and dudettes are gone and I'm still here. At any rate, my take on the situation: if I'm responsible for helping one or two people when necessary, then everybody should be included within my capacity. One might easily argue that extending karmic influences beyond my immediate environment resulting in significant and often unpredictable changes, are indeed risky and "fate" might turn out worse then non-interference. I'm reminded of the (what was it called - Prime Directive?) - in Star Trek where the Trekkers were not to "interfere" in the affairs of other planets, particularly those on a lesser technological level of evolution. As to the interference, I've decided to interfere as much as possible and take the risks of making wrong decisions. If somebody sneezes in Bangladesh I'm responsbile for helping. If somebody is abused in Afghanistan by the Taliban, then I'm coming after the abusers. The question of "level of evolution" doesn't apply. It's a matter of pure game theory: a cost/benefit analysis with risks and rewards.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > The conspirators in the world tend to fail by their own > > means. Usually because they are too blinded by their ego. > > Anyone who wants to dominate the world is not very > > spiritually evolved. Their perception and consciousness > > has to be limited. Seems to me the higher the intellect > > the more the recognition that power has a price and a > > burden and a good thing to stay away from. The power > > mongers have been trying to enslave the masses for > > decades and so far they haven't succeeded mainly because > > of their own folly. > > But the really malign ones do perfectly ghastly damage > and cause horrific suffering before they fail, so the > fact that they're ultimately self-limited by their egos > doesn't solve the problem. You just wanna make them stop > NOW. >
