Normally we think of responsibility as meaning to do something out of a sense of duty or obligation. A parent is responsible for his children’s welfare. A student is responsible for doing her homework.
But a different meaning of responsibility has been suggested in this thread. I’m not sure exactly what it is, but my best guess is that this type of responsibility is not a duty or obligation, rather a choiceless response to the dynamics of the present moment. If you see someone who is lost, you take responsibility and help them get their bearings, not because you have a duty or obligation to do this, but because you are sensitive to a situation in which help is needed.
It’s okay, there will be always some difference in our perception.
I think that is charity, as there is no control over that. Some people find pleasure in giving to the voiceless in society.
Finally, my point is that responsibility implies control in our action whereas the response is just a natural activity happens inside us. Like I replied to you at present.
In some of the above comments, I learnt there was discussion on relation between RESPONSIBILITY and CHANGE. I don’t know from which perspective this comparison took place. My final question is,
Thought stops the very moment it looks at the world. At that moment of looking the outer is the inner. So it is not the ending of thought that needs to be sought after or worried about; it is in the awareness of the beginning of thought that the two worlds of the inner and the outer are reconciled. Either thought comes in immediately and interprets the world according to its old patterns or there is a pause before it enters.
Can thought come to a complete stop? You put the question because you want to find out, not because you know the answer. So the moment any answer starts to emerge or materialise as thought, you go back to the question until there is simply no answer at all.
It is easy enough to turn any of this into a paradox. But the question itself is not a paradox; and the energy within the question is a tremendous and incontrovertible energy when the whole of thought is brought to bear upon it. Any mind that demands a total answer will receive that benediction.
The problem many of us have with the word “responsibility” is that it has always been used by authorities to manipulate us into doing what they want us to do. But the literal meaning of the word is simply the ability to respond appropriately, adequately. People who are highly responsible in ways most people don’t understand are considered irresponsible in ways most people do understand.
So to be responsible in the sense you’re referring to means to be taking the human condition seriously enough to awaken the intelligence needed to bring about the resolution of this condition.
It might be imagination, an imaginary metamorphosis, the product of wishful thinking and conditioning. Or it might be real, realer than anything else. I don’t know, and am not apt to take anyone’s word for it either way.
It can’t be mistaken because it can’t be imagined. All we can know about the change is that it is free of illusions, and illusion-free consciousness is unimaginable.
The conditioned mind has illusions, ideals, notions of goodness and love and what-should-be because it is nothing without imagery, symbols, myths, etc.
If there is such a thing as intelligence, it can’t be dependent on anything.
From this reply, I understood that the ability to respond is a responsibility. Based on this perspective discussion went on in this thread. People at the workplace use this term for controlling the actions of a person.
Now, I can summarize the possible understandings about responsibility,
Ability to respond.
Demanding to respond.
The word “Responsibility” was used from two different perspectives. This kind of labeling will create more confusion in using the language and creates more arguments among us. My question is,
Q What happens if the two persons use the same word with two different perspectives in a discussion?
Q How to recognize the point of view in opposite person, in such situations?
I had this kind of thought many times inside my head. I think instead of holding to the idea of intelligence, finding a way to get peace in our minds is important I guess. My understanding of the mind is that it is the same for everyone.
Yes I think I understand what you mean. It is very tempting to think about things like intelligence, enlightenment, pure awareness, brahman, God. Awe and pleasure arise from these thoughts. You feel you are in the presence of, in communion with The Truth, with IT. All of this feels wonderful, but along with the good there is a dark side to dwelling on these ideas.
Why? Perhaps intelligence arises from and is grounded in a web of interdependency? Is intelligence one of those terms (like God) that can be pointed to loosely, but not defined exactly?
Hey nobody,
I did not understand what you are talking about. I said that, inside us there should be peace. I am a researcher, I like to be skeptical about many different aspects.
What are the dark aspects, of understanding the truth?
The darkness I spoke of is not the darkness of understanding the truth, but of getting obsessed with trying to understand it, visualize it, grab onto it. This can be like a mental-spiritual illness. Or at least it has been, from time to time, for me. Ever since I was a tiny little nobody I tried to imagine the unimaginable.
