(continued from last post)
Attention has been a lively topic in psychology in recent years, what with the sudden proliferation of ADD (attention deficit disorder), especially among the youth. ADD is being blamed for so many behavioral problems that it sounds like the latest medical fad. In a more general sense, attention is what consciousness does. The undirected becomes directed by virtue of the intellect: the decider. But we can’t blame intellect, or lack thereof, for criminal behavior because clever people as well as stupid people commit crimes. Therefore, the ultimate origin of error could not be the decision level itself, although the decision is the error. Some mental status antecedent to deciding has to be deficient: the quality of ones attention; that which cannot be manipulated, but can only be uncovered.
If we humans are generally comparable in our range of expression of mental potential, then full mental potential should be fairly equal for everyone. Let’s assume that human attention is potentially infinite in scope: that it is possible, under the right conditions, that one could be aware of anything and everything. This level of information would enable one to make error-free decisions. (Infallibility is implied in the Vedic definition of enlightenment; a state of consciousness that has a long recorded history.) In conceding that we are not infallible, we can admit that the difference between us and them (convicted criminals) is only by degree, the degree of attention applied to thought and action. In other words, the number of future consequences that can be known, resulting from a particular action, would affect that decision to act. In business it’s called “doing due diligence” before making a deal; it’s just using common sense.
Since Nature demands that all actions, both “positive” and “negative”, be ultimately progressive (evolutionary), then any decision will suffice in the long run, as is the case with animals. When people act without regard for consequences, then they are acting like animals. Society should show these ignorant humans at least as much compassion as they show to animals caught acting within their nature. It is ironic to see people protesting against the treatment of animals in captivity while ignoring similar treatment of caged humans. This “quality of treatment” consideration is more applicable to humans than to animals because we have the capacity to improve, whereas animals do not. As humans, we have free will and the power to alter our destinies, to erase karma. But we have to become aware of karma in order to deal with it; not merely intellectually aware but instinctively aware.
This instinct is an aspect of the power of attention. Most people have had some experience with instinctively avoiding danger, or of knowing something without actually witnessing it. Fear is a useful instinct, as is shame or embarrassment, in stimulating avoidance behaviors. The extent of ones awareness of possible future outcomes, and of past experiences, seems to be a factor in the decision-making process. Intellectually, one could recall plenty of facts that would influence a decision, but even smart folks make mistakes; so intellect can’t be the prime factor. The “hows” and “whys” of past events, present circumstances and future consequences cannot be comprehended by the intellect. Maharishi once stated that “Karma is unfathomable, even by the enlightened.”
To avoid error, what is required is a general awareness of the collective effect of the virtually infinite variables of karma; a kind of knowingness that is not limited to any particular point in space and time. This would not be attention given to a single object, but to a field of objects simultaneously. That is the very description of transcending: Attention moving from action to silence, from a limited point-by-point focus to unlimited awareness of an infinite field. That state is usually experienced as quietness and peacefulness in its earliest manifestation; and that’s good enough for our present consideration. The most important factor is to allow the mind to be exposed to such a state. After that, nature takes over and provides whatever is needed at that time.
What makes us different from them is our more expanded level of awareness of possible consequences resulting from action. This advantage is something that we are born with rather than taught. A person born into a life-damaging environment, if equipped with this advantage, can more easily rise above those external influences. A life-supporting environment makes this advantage easier to sustain. On the other hand, we have seen or heard about people from the best families go “down the tubes” because they were not born with enough of this awareness, despite having a life-supporting environment. This consideration of awareness is not meant to suggest that genetics determines behavior because the influence of karma extends well beyond genetics.
As normal people, we take it for granted that our decisions are fairly safe and will result in some progress, either in the short or the long term. The consequences of mistaken decisions have been relatively mild for the most part. A certain level of error is deemed acceptable because we believe that the future is not totally in our hands, but determined either by a higher power or society or global political/ economic trends. I contend that the convicts I worked with were thinking just like this before they were caught in crime. Afterwards, they felt bitterness, self-pity and denial over their punishment for “one mistake”. They thought that they were making progress; but that experience of error-plus-consequence did not improve their level of awareness and no lasting lesson was learned. This is why most return to jail again and again. For a very few inmates, fear-based avoidance behavior (negative reinforcement) may alter their future course of action and keep them out of jail.
The suggested “normal” perspective, described in the preceding paragraph, does not facilitate the same results for everyone; so the perspective itself is not to blame for any shortcomings experienced. The breadth of ones awareness, which precipitates that perspective, is to blame. For example, a child playing in his crib possesses that same normal perspective, but it is based upon a limited awareness of the real world. We cannot say that he is wrong for feeling secure and hopeful, even impetuous, in his decision-making. But from our expanded world-view as adults, we would question his bravado and scrutinize his decisions. We are obliged to protect him from possible unforeseen consequences resulting from his acting out of an illusion of invincibility.
The level of consciousness that society embodies is like that of the adult, in relation to the child-like consciousness of its less responsible members. The criminals who end up in jail are like the children who are confined to cribs provided by their protectors. The misbehavers who have not yet been caught are like kids who are supposed to stay in their back yards but decide to play in the street, despite knowing that they become eligible for the crib. As we know and have personally experienced, kids do grow up and expand their awareness of the world; eventually becoming adults—supposedly the epitome of advancement. (To be continued)
