We've been discussing Hitler on the other thread, and while we've reached some sort of broad consensus there's many shades of view emerging. Maybe a few Buddhist inspired but personal thoughts (which may be wacky) on why these sorts of issues can be so difficult to bottom out with any certainty of reaching a 'true' or accurate 'helicopter' or overview. Using the Hitler discussion to illustrate them. Pardon if it gets a little heavy.

The problem in trying to figure what's going on in a given situation like any of these we've talked of is that our natural instinct is to process information or to seek to make sense of a situation in terms of dualities or polarities. Good/bad, black/white, hot/cold, love/hate etc.

There is actually a continuum associated with each of these variables, but our instinct is rarely to go for values in the middle, if only because a 'maybe' complicates reaching a position compared to a simple yes/no. (and one of our urges is to abolish groundlessness or uncertainty from our minds - see below)

Another complicating factor is that we have a tendency to get mentally intense, and to seize on a single variable to the point where we blank all the others from our consideration.

Yet reality is described by an infinitely great network of variables which are not even discrete or separate - they all merge into each other.

A further complicating factor is that the total reality of the cosmos (all the varieties of the esoteric as well as conventional C1) requires heaven knows how many dimensions to describe it. We probably don't even sense many of these, and are just starting to become more aware of more. (discussion of these realities is in essence is the purpose of this board)

We're conventionally used to dealing with four dimensions - length, breadth, height and time. (space time reality as Albert E called it)

Buddhism teaches that the total reality is made up of precisely this sort of incredibly complex interdependent  network of dynamic (continuously changing) cause and consequence, and that in order to even remotely understand anything we have to consider all of the variables and dimensions pretty much all at once. We need to avoid our deeply ingrained habit of heading for the polarities too (epitomised by the 'is/isn't arguments of childhood), since this is rarely where the truth lies.

This is the reason why Buddhism is often referred to as the 'Middle Way'.

It goes on to point out that we don't naturally do this - that ego automatically results in prejudice and intensity of mind (grasping) - that it always blocks data from consciousness that doesn't fit what it wants to think. Macho man admits mostly what makes him look tough and blocks what doesn't, the victim only admits what makes him/her seem put upon and blocks seeing caring behaviours and so on.

So we tend to fixate on only one variable in a given situation, and in order to strengthen our case tend to identify with one of the polarities.

Propaganda, hype (casting complex situations in terms of one extreme in one simple dimension), political correctness and the myriad of ways those in power manipulate public opinion for their own ends all exploit this tendency. This is also the reason why many actions conceived out of a genuine but misplaced intention to do good end up doing terrible harm. ('just' wars being a very large case in point)

True seeing, or the admission of all data and  its unbiased analysis (necessary to reach correct conclusions about situations) consequently requires the dropping of ego.

Realisation or enlightenment in other words, although as we grow through teaching, practice and centering we gain a progressively more informed view.

One big problem in achieving this is that the intellectual or discursive (thinking) mind or conceptual thought deals in polarities, or at least point data. Simpler minds as above get hung up on one variable, and fasten on one polarity and block the rest. More sophisticated intellectual minds can handle several variables at a time, but only by using tricks and methods of one sort or another to make more complicated comparisons (like maths ), but egotistical bias remains. We can only think about one thing at a time.

Buddhism usually teaches that the intuition that comes with higher consciousness or realisation (the seamless merging of intellectual and intuitive/emotional mind that occurs at the highest level of Jacob's ladder) is the only way we can truly handle the complexity. Which is why true wisdom (the practical wherewithal required if we are to live from love) ultimately only arises with realisation.

Which is why we struggle to recognise enlightened action unless we too are in that state. Because up to this point we're hampered by the fragmented nature of our perception and analysis. A related problem is that when we do arrive at this knowing we simply don't have the means to express this sort of higher knowing in words, concepts and language. (because it draws mostly on the intellect)

A concept or a belief is by definition only a point sample plucked out of the great network of reality. Yet we get so hung up on defending these - slices of partial reality with which we identify, and which can only at best be partially true, or true in a very specific context.

Which explains why the spiritual traditions consider the achievement of openness, lightness and flexibility of mind such an important step on the way. Why achievement of the ability to be comfortable with groundlessness is essential - not needing rigid beliefs on which to base our sense of who/what we and our reality are/is (this is ego) - so that our our perception and understanding will not be  biased by the need to prop up these beliefs, and so that our understanding can freely evolve.

This is the core problem with rigid beliefs and fundamentalist religion.

We're in the unrealised state basically lumbered with biased and limited perception and analysis. Lack of consciousness prevents us seeing that we have it wrong. (ever come back later to something you were 100% sure of and realised you were looking at it from the wrong angle?)

The surer we are that we are right the worse it probably gets. (the catch 22 of life ) This makes it pretty unlikely that many of our decisions or cultural positions (conventional wisdom) on issues are optimised for the greater good. Which rather explains why we get it wrong and things don't work out so often - we develop tunnel vision around seeing an issue the way we want to, and ignore all the other data.

The Hitler discussion is an example of this. At the highest level we may agree that God is love, and that suffering follows from our unconscious inability or knowing refusal to live through love. You could say that karma is the mechanism by which our reality provides suitable lessons so that our errors are  rectified.

When talking about Hitler we've seen apparently conflicting views like:

He was fulfilling a higher mission  - by teaching a lesson to humanity.
He was just a catalyst that manifested the negative karma of those involved in the war.
He did wrong - he led Germany into an aggressive war and caused terrible suffering.
He meant well - he hoped to help people.
He resolved most of the economic problems  of Germany, and hence was supported by International banking
He destroyed the economies and infrastructure of Germany and most of Europe
He was led astray - by the way people too up his cause.
He suffered terribly - his health collapsed, and in the end he was forced to commit suicide with his wife.
His karma must be terrible - look at all those who died and suffered as a result of his actions.
Etc. - it goes on as long as you like.

You can list a similar series of positions on what happened to the Jews in WW2 - pitching it as an atrocity, or as previously earned karma or whatever.

The insight that can (must?) be drawn from all of this is that it's a mistake to get hung up on any of these positions in isolation, and to seek to argue for or against them. Because the greater reality or the higher (helicopter) view is that they (or some similar set of points) are all simultaneously true.

The practical issue that follows from this is that IF you fasten on one variable in this situation you could decide to act very differently from another seeing only another. The possibilities for Hitler range from being demonised for the rest of history with everlasting suffering in some hell or other, to his awakening and becoming enlightened just before he died having just burned off the last of an incredibly long string of negative karma.

Alternatively the relative or dualistic view of a person caught in one or other situation (concentration camp survivor whose family was massacred before his eyes and who was almost starved and worked to death = it was terrible) or another (industrialist  who never had to fight and who made gazillions supplying the war effort and set up a family dynasty = it was a wonderful opportunity).

Except that again in the biggest possible picture the camp survivor perhaps worked off karma earned in a previous life, while the industrialist can look forward to lifetime(s) of karmically induced suffering because by making weapons despite knowing in his heart he should not have done he knowingly did great harm to others.

I'd (hopefully, but ego is a slippery beast)  not presume to judge the 'truth'.

Taken from the highest level of all none of it matters, because from the level of God consciousness it all cancels out - failures to live from love (our choices) are corrected by the experience of subsequent karma. (caused by our choice and presumably not by a loving God exacting retribution) Extracting time from the equation (a peculiarity of our particular sort of relative perception) the outcome is the same - a cosmos of love.

That's not to say that if all of the players involved in WW2 had made wise choices (lived from love - in those lives, and in the ones that created the karma leading up to it) that all this suffering would not have been avoided.

But unfortunately they weren't (and we probably still are not) sufficiently realised to achieve this.

There's hints in this discourse as to the reasons why Buddhism is inclined to teach that our views and ultimately our positions these realities are ultimately unimportant:

'Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.....

Ta N - you got it.

I guess in case I've confused anybody with what was a very long post the point was not to push any particular view on the Hitler topic - the perspectives listed are simply illustrative.

The point was simply to get across the idea that any situation in this world is in fact described by an enormous multiplicity of variables and dimensions - many in this world, and probably many more in other realities.

Even when aware of this we clearly must struggle given the limited nature of our sensory and processing apparatus, and the barriers ego introduces to what we're allowed to become conscious of, and to decide. I guess we're talking the difference between God consciousness, and ordinary human consciousness.

What it all points to is that its really important that we avoid the rushing to judgement on issues - or allowing ourselves to be taken in by the hype and propaganda on issues aired by those wanting to manipulate us for their own ends.

That we stop (as many do) rushing to adopt a very limited view (often based on one extreme of one variable: e.g. the designation 'enemy' or similar terms that the military like to condition soldiers to use ignores the many human and positive dimensions of that person or group - in this case purposely to overcome any tendency towards compassion), and investing all of our selves in defending that view.

Included in this are perspectives about ourselves (includes our internal world), and how we and others see us - not just the external world.

The received wisdom on even commonplace issues is often just one view, as is most of the dog eat dog societal and cultural conditioning we're brought up with. (does the blind patriotism taught in schools for example truly make any sense?)

Yet by unthinkingly swallowing it many people are left behaving as little more than 100% predictable and reactive automatons - with so much of themselves invested in their views that they may even be prepared to kill others and die for them. At best we view things from a selfish and wholly personal viewpoint which usually has enormous downsides for others.

We cause so much suffering this way - there's not much room for wisdom and compassion in that sort of mind....

Given all of this it's not hard to see why diametrically different opinions on the same issue can arise. It really underlines the importance of staying open - of staying light and flexible, and of seeing situations from multiple perspectives. It underlines the futility of getting defensive and angry because we've somehow become selfish or attached to or hung up on certain views too.

It's so important to go easily with the flow, to develop some equanimity and trust that basic goodness means that things turn out fine.

Yet we love to rush to judgement - it feels so good to feel certain about our views, to feel that surge of what we take to be 'strength' rising. (   says he!)

There's a famous and very old Eastern story that's used to illustrate this perspective. An old Chinese gentleman has a son. Their horse strays and others say it's terrible. He says 'maybe', and a few days later the horse comes home with 14 wild horses in tow. The son breaks his leg riding a horse. 'Terrible' and 'maybe' get voiced yet again. A week later the emperor institutes compulsory military service, and all the young men in the village get killed leaving the injured son who had to stay home in charge. And so on....

It's time for each and every one of us to awaken - to start connecting with what's there and acting accordingly rather than acting on what we want to be there (but isn't, not that we notice)....

Hi R. I had to dig a bit to figure the significance of 444, but yes - it's quite an auspicious number isn't it!