Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and marches in opposition to British control of India predictably led to violence in which many of his followers died. So much for ahimsa. He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. So much for adherence to truth. Se la vie! On with the show. P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb (with the assistance of the U.S.). P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? -- Dan Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Mahatma Gandhi based his life on two fundamental principles, satya > and ahimsa— unconditional adherence to the truth, and unreserved > practice of nonviolence in thought, speech, and deed. > > One day a journalist remarked to Gandhi that in some cases telling > the truth could actually cause harm to others. Gandhi asked for an > example. The journalist then related a carefully crafted spiritual > dilemma for the Mahatma to solve: > > " A monk was sitting peacefully at a crossroad. A noise attracted his > attention and, as he looked up, a wounded deer galloped past and took > one of the roads leading away from the intersection. A few minutes > after the deer had disappeared a hunter came to where the monk was > still sitting. He cast about him but couldn't determine which way the > beast had fled, so he asked the monk if he could point him in the > right direction. " > > Gandhi smiled for he knew the dilemma the monk was facing. > > The journalist continued, " If the monk answered `yes', he was > compromising his vow of ahimsa, because he would become the material > cause of the deer's death. But if he said `no', he was compromising > satya by resorting to lying. " > > Looking the Mahatma straight in the eye, the journalist asked the > crucial question. " Gandhiji, what should the monk answer? " > > " Let me answer your clever scenario by a story. It comes from one of > the scriptures composed by Sage Vyasa, the Devi Bhagavata. " > > Mahatma Gandhi fixed his gaze in a distant horizon and started. > > > > > " Sage Satyavrata had taken the vow of always saying the truth—hence > his name ( " Vow of Truth " ). One day he saw, running towards him, a pig > that had been struck by an arrow. It stopped, looked about it and > then hid in the bushes nearby. Soon a fierce-looking hunter came and > asked Satyavrata whether he had seen a pig wounded by an arrow. > Satyavrata gave an answer which saved the pig, dharma, and possibly > his own life. " > > What was it? > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi explained, " Very calmly, Sage Satyavrata said, `My > eyes have seen but they cannot speak. My mouth can speak but it > cannot see. Please leave me alone, O hunter, and go your way.' > > The hunter was so impressed by the courage of this answer that he > begged apology and left. " > > Turning to the journalist, Mahatma Gandhi concluded, " Most > importantly, know that if anybody asks a question, one is never > obliged to give an answer. " > > > --------- .............. ---------- > > > No one is ever required to tell everything, or to answer every > question, if it might cause harm to the innocent. In other words, non- > injury must always supersede truth-telling. This is the golden rule > found in many different guises in all religions: " Do no harm " . > > A story from the Puranas confirms this principle. A very respected > sage had once blindly adhered to telling the truth, thereby causing > the death of hundreds of innocent people. When he died years later, > despite his vehement protests that he was a man who had always > defended the truth, he was taken to hell. The angel of Death warned > him, " By making truth a blind principle, you walked away from the > path of compassion, and this is what lead you here. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and marches in > opposition to British control of India predictably led to violence in > which many of his followers died. > > So much for ahimsa. > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > So much for adherence to truth. > > Se la vie! > > On with the show. > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > -- Dan Well the followers of Jesus, Mohammed, Lao'tsu, Buddha, the Vedas, et al have done a fine job of doing the exact same thing. Whether it's Imperial Japan, Chinese hegemony, Islamic Jihad, American " War on Terror " , the Crusades and on unto the need to vomit it goes. That's the Fault and Sin of those guys? Give me a freaking break Dan. Excuse the French..home of the Grail and all that merde. You're not making any sense to me by stating the human condition and than extrapolating from that the 'sin' of the teachers. Sorry...non sequitur in the extreme. ........bob p.s. are you saying Ghandi 'Imposed' his ideals? C'mon with you. I think that it is you're trying to impose your idea on the matter and not they're trying to impose theirs. They attemted to 'force' or 'impose' squat. They were most probably the most practical philosophers to have ever strolled along our pathways by stating what worked. There is no ideation nor ideals being spouted in those boys. You kill...you get killed...you hate...you are hated...and onwards and downwards if that's the tactic employed. Frankly I think much of the spiritual mumbo-jumbo that is attributed to their most pragmatic lessons is just the conceptual overlay of a plethora of namby-pamby sentementalists that have bastardized and absconed the true meanings of what they taught. Lessons were understood or were ridiculed by abuse of the principals the referred to. And those principals were the truth of the matter. The down to earth consequences of our very own actions or reactions. Period. And that situation is the case even here now. ........bob (NNB) > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Mahatma Gandhi based his life on two fundamental principles, satya > > and ahimsa— unconditional adherence to the truth, and unreserved > > practice of nonviolence in thought, speech, and deed. > > > > One day a journalist remarked to Gandhi that in some cases telling > > the truth could actually cause harm to others. Gandhi asked for an > > example. The journalist then related a carefully crafted spiritual > > dilemma for the Mahatma to solve: > > > > " A monk was sitting peacefully at a crossroad. A noise attracted his > > attention and, as he looked up, a wounded deer galloped past and took > > one of the roads leading away from the intersection. A few minutes > > after the deer had disappeared a hunter came to where the monk was > > still sitting. He cast about him but couldn't determine which way the > > beast had fled, so he asked the monk if he could point him in the > > right direction. " > > > > Gandhi smiled for he knew the dilemma the monk was facing. > > > > The journalist continued, " If the monk answered `yes', he was > > compromising his vow of ahimsa, because he would become the material > > cause of the deer's death. But if he said `no', he was compromising > > satya by resorting to lying. " > > > > Looking the Mahatma straight in the eye, the journalist asked the > > crucial question. " Gandhiji, what should the monk answer? " > > > > " Let me answer your clever scenario by a story. It comes from one of > > the scriptures composed by Sage Vyasa, the Devi Bhagavata. " > > > > Mahatma Gandhi fixed his gaze in a distant horizon and started. > > > > > > > > > > " Sage Satyavrata had taken the vow of always saying the truth— hence > > his name ( " Vow of Truth " ). One day he saw, running towards him, a pig > > that had been struck by an arrow. It stopped, looked about it and > > then hid in the bushes nearby. Soon a fierce-looking hunter came and > > asked Satyavrata whether he had seen a pig wounded by an arrow. > > Satyavrata gave an answer which saved the pig, dharma, and possibly > > his own life. " > > > > What was it? > > > > > > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi explained, " Very calmly, Sage Satyavrata said, `My > > eyes have seen but they cannot speak. My mouth can speak but it > > cannot see. Please leave me alone, O hunter, and go your way.' > > > > The hunter was so impressed by the courage of this answer that he > > begged apology and left. " > > > > Turning to the journalist, Mahatma Gandhi concluded, " Most > > importantly, know that if anybody asks a question, one is never > > obliged to give an answer. " > > > > > > --------- .............. ---------- > > > > > > No one is ever required to tell everything, or to answer every > > question, if it might cause harm to the innocent. In other words, non- > > injury must always supersede truth-telling. This is the golden rule > > found in many different guises in all religions: " Do no harm " . > > > > A story from the Puranas confirms this principle. A very respected > > sage had once blindly adhered to telling the truth, thereby causing > > the death of hundreds of innocent people. When he died years later, > > despite his vehement protests that he was a man who had always > > defended the truth, he was taken to hell. The angel of Death warned > > him, " By making truth a blind principle, you walked away from the > > path of compassion, and this is what lead you here. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and marches in > opposition to British control of India predictably led to violence in > which many of his followers died. > > So much for ahimsa. > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > So much for adherence to truth. > > Se la vie! > > On with the show. > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > -- Dan > 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and marches in > opposition to British control of India predictably led to violence in > which many of his followers died. Please check your facts, Dan! Violent protest against British had started long before Gandhi. They had started in 1857. After Gandhi's leadership there were very few incidence of violent protests or attack against British. Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed after that... were killed when British forces fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent meetings/rallies. > > So much for ahimsa. Please check your facts, Dan! > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > So much for adherence to truth. Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, Dan! Please check your facts! > > Se la vie! > > On with the show. > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb > (with the assistance of the U.S.). According to Indian historians, India has been attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 years. According to same historians India has not attacked other countries except for self-defense in this period. .... BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in your writing on the subject of India/Indians. In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if it is just an impression that I get from your writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got many times from you. I just want to clarify it from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > marches in > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to violence > in > > which many of his followers died. > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > Violent protest against British > had started long before Gandhi. > They had started in 1857. > > After Gandhi's leadership there were > very few incidence of violent protests > or attack against British. > > Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed > after that... were killed when British forces > fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent > meetings/rallies. > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, > Dan! Please check your facts! > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > On with the show. > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > According to Indian historians, India has been > attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 > years. According to same historians India has not > attacked other countries except for self-defense > in this period. > > ... > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > it is just an impression that I get from your > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > from you. > Did you know that Ghandi was very prejudiced against blacks? And yes........you can check the facts. toombaru toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and marches in > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to violence in > > which many of his followers died. > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > Se la vie! > > > > On with the show. > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence. > > > toombaru > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " what opposition is in that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Jeez, be a little careful of whom you trash. When you, yourself, have realized the level of spiritual development of Ghandi, then you can speak. I remember two incidents in relation to Ghandi that might show you just the kind of being he was: H..W.L. Poonja (Papaji) said that there were only two bodies he had seen in his life that literally glowed. One was Ramana Maharshi and the other was Ghandi. He said that when he was close to Ghandi he could hear every cell breathing the mantra Ram. When Ghandi was shot, Raman Maharshi was informed of it. He had the ashram do a special celbration in memory of Ghandi, and Ramna was seen weeping throughout it. pliantheart <illusyn wrote: Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and marches in > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to violence in > > which many of his followers died. > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > Se la vie! > > > > On with the show. > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence. > > > toombaru > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " what opposition is in that? ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > marches in > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to violence > > in > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > Violent protest against British > > had started long before Gandhi. > > They had started in 1857. > > > > After Gandhi's leadership there were > > very few incidence of violent protests > > or attack against British. > > > > Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed > > after that... were killed when British forces > > fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent > > meetings/rallies. > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, > > Dan! Please check your facts! > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > According to Indian historians, India has been > > attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 > > years. According to same historians India has not > > attacked other countries except for self-defense > > in this period. > > > > ... > > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > > it is just an impression that I get from your > > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > > from you. > > > > > > Did you know that Ghandi was very prejudiced against blacks? > > > And yes........you can check the facts. > > > > toombaru > > > > toombaru Well I have. And you're wrong. And even if he weren't......prejudice is not violence. And yes you can look it up in any dictionary. No need to go any deeper' than that. the sand is not deep on this..no sandeep here. .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , chris boys <tony_s_sandford wrote: > > Jeez, be a little careful of whom you trash. When you, yourself, have realized the level of spiritual development of Ghandi, then you can speak. > > I remember two incidents in relation to Ghandi that might show you just the kind of being he was: H..W.L. Poonja (Papaji) said that there were only two bodies he had seen in his life that literally glowed. One was Ramana Maharshi and the other was Ghandi. He said that when he was close to Ghandi he could hear every cell breathing the mantra Ram. > > When Ghandi was shot, Raman Maharshi was informed of it. He had the ashram do a special celbration in memory of Ghandi, and Ramna was seen weeping throughout it. > > pliantheart <illusyn wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > marches in > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > violence in > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > what opposition is in that? > > > > It is the ultimate land grab. And the one named " Ghandi " was merely one of the many meat monkies through whom the liquid light flowed for a time....there is no perfect human being. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , chris boys <tony_s_sandford@> > wrote: > > > > Jeez, be a little careful of whom you trash. When you, yourself, > have realized the level of spiritual development of Ghandi, then you > can speak. > > > > I remember two incidents in relation to Ghandi that might show you > just the kind of being he was: H..W.L. Poonja (Papaji) said that there > were only two bodies he had seen in his life that literally glowed. > One was Ramana Maharshi and the other was Ghandi. He said that when he > was close to Ghandi he could hear every cell breathing the mantra Ram. > > > > When Ghandi was shot, Raman Maharshi was informed of it. He had > the ashram do a special celbration in memory of Ghandi, and Ramna was > seen weeping throughout it. > > > > pliantheart <illusyn@> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > marches in > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > violence in > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an army, > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic bomb > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > > what opposition is in that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the ultimate land grab. > > > And the one named " Ghandi " was merely one of the many meat monkies > through whom the liquid light flowed for a time....there is no perfect > human being. > > > toombaru That certainly is not in response to the question I posed to you. Do you have a response to: violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " what opposition is in that? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > marches in > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > violence > > > in > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > Violent protest against British > > > had started long before Gandhi. > > > They had started in 1857. > > > > > > After Gandhi's leadership there were > > > very few incidence of violent protests > > > or attack against British. > > > > > > Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed > > > after that... were killed when British forces > > > fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent > > > meetings/rallies. > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, > > > Dan! Please check your facts! > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > army, > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic > bomb > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > According to Indian historians, India has been > > > attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 > > > years. According to same historians India has not > > > attacked other countries except for self-defense > > > in this period. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > > > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > > > > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > > > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > > > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > > > it is just an impression that I get from your > > > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > > > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > > > from you. > > > > > > > > > > > Did you know that Ghandi was very prejudiced against blacks? > > > > > > And yes........you can check the facts. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Well I have. And you're wrong. And even if he weren't......prejudice > is not violence. And yes you can look it up in any dictionary. No > need to go any deeper' than that. the sand is not deep on this..no > sandeep here. > > .......bob > He was a man Bob.........just a man. Nothing special. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > marches in > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > violence > > > in > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > Violent protest against British > > > had started long before Gandhi. > > > They had started in 1857. > > > > > > After Gandhi's leadership there were > > > very few incidence of violent protests > > > or attack against British. > > > > > > Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed > > > after that... were killed when British forces > > > fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent > > > meetings/rallies. > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, > > > Dan! Please check your facts! > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > army, > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic > bomb > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > According to Indian historians, India has been > > > attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 > > > years. According to same historians India has not > > > attacked other countries except for self-defense > > > in this period. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > > > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > > > > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > > > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > > > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > > > it is just an impression that I get from your > > > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > > > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > > > from you. > > > > > > > > > > > Did you know that Ghandi was very prejudiced against blacks? > > > > > > And yes........you can check the facts. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Well I have. And you're wrong. And even if he weren't......prejudice > is not violence. And yes you can look it up in any dictionary. No > need to go any deeper' than that. the sand is not deep on this..no > sandeep here. > > .......bob > Remember when he called Ramana " the dude in the diapers? " :-) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > > marches in > > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > violence > > > > in > > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > Violent protest against British > > > > had started long before Gandhi. > > > > They had started in 1857. > > > > > > > > After Gandhi's leadership there were > > > > very few incidence of violent protests > > > > or attack against British. > > > > > > > > Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed > > > > after that... were killed when British forces > > > > fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent > > > > meetings/rallies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, > > > > Dan! Please check your facts! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > > army, > > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic > > bomb > > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > According to Indian historians, India has been > > > > attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 > > > > years. According to same historians India has not > > > > attacked other countries except for self-defense > > > > in this period. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > > > > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > > > > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > > > > > > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > > > > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > > > > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > > > > it is just an impression that I get from your > > > > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > > > > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > > > > from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you know that Ghandi was very prejudiced against blacks? > > > > > > > > > And yes........you can check the facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Well I have. And you're wrong. And even if he weren't......prejudice > > is not violence. And yes you can look it up in any dictionary. No > > need to go any deeper' than that. the sand is not deep on this..no > > sandeep here. > > > > .......bob > > > > > He was a man Bob.........just a man. > > > > Nothing special. > > > > toombaru > that specialness kills...maims...loves...lives... and is broken in time, drifting sands, crashing seas, lost in unwritten worlds beyond time... love, Ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , chris boys <tony_s_sandford@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Jeez, be a little careful of whom you trash. When you, yourself, > > have realized the level of spiritual development of Ghandi, then you > > can speak. > > > > > > I remember two incidents in relation to Ghandi that might show > you > > just the kind of being he was: H..W.L. Poonja (Papaji) said that > there > > were only two bodies he had seen in his life that literally glowed. > > One was Ramana Maharshi and the other was Ghandi. He said that when > he > > was close to Ghandi he could hear every cell breathing the mantra > Ram. > > > > > > When Ghandi was shot, Raman Maharshi was informed of it. He had > > the ashram do a special celbration in memory of Ghandi, and Ramna > was > > seen weeping throughout it. > > > > > > pliantheart <illusyn@> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > marches in > > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > > violence in > > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > army, > > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status > of > > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic > bomb > > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > > > > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > > > what opposition is in that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the ultimate land grab. > > > > > > And the one named " Ghandi " was merely one of the many meat monkies > > through whom the liquid light flowed for a time....there is no > perfect > > human being. > > > > > > toombaru > > That certainly is not in response to the question I posed to you. > > Do you have a response to: > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > what opposition is in that? > > > Bill > I am is a delusional declaration of independence. It is the ultimate violence. It is in opposition to all that is. toombaru I am off on a trip. See you when I return. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > > marches in > > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > violence > > > > in > > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > Violent protest against British > > > > had started long before Gandhi. > > > > They had started in 1857. > > > > > > > > After Gandhi's leadership there were > > > > very few incidence of violent protests > > > > or attack against British. > > > > > > > > Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed > > > > after that... were killed when British forces > > > > fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent > > > > meetings/rallies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, > > > > Dan! Please check your facts! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > > army, > > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic > > bomb > > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > According to Indian historians, India has been > > > > attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 > > > > years. According to same historians India has not > > > > attacked other countries except for self-defense > > > > in this period. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > > > > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > > > > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > > > > > > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > > > > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > > > > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > > > > it is just an impression that I get from your > > > > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > > > > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > > > > from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you know that Ghandi was very prejudiced against blacks? > > > > > > > > > And yes........you can check the facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Well I have. And you're wrong. And even if he weren't......prejudice > > is not violence. And yes you can look it up in any dictionary. No > > need to go any deeper' than that. the sand is not deep on this..no > > sandeep here. > > > > .......bob > > > > > He was a man Bob.........just a man. > > > > Nothing special. > > > > toombaru I didn't say he was 'special' toom. I wouldn't say that about him or myself or you or anyone. But I do think he had one up on a lot of folks, myself included, when it comes to a lot of realization and understanding and qualities that I consider worthwhile in living- time. Maybe you don't feel that way and that's OK. A lot of the people you bring up with quotes and words of wisdom and words about how you think there ever so wonderful, are just plain folks too. We all are.....as you say. But that doesn't allow as how we shouldn't hold up some of their thoughts or deeds, as commendable, and thought provoking........ now does it? ........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , chris boys <tony_s_sandford@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Jeez, be a little careful of whom you trash. When you, yourself, > > > have realized the level of spiritual development of Ghandi, then you > > > can speak. > > > > > > > > I remember two incidents in relation to Ghandi that might show > > you > > > just the kind of being he was: H..W.L. Poonja (Papaji) said that > > there > > > were only two bodies he had seen in his life that literally glowed. > > > One was Ramana Maharshi and the other was Ghandi. He said that when > > he > > > was close to Ghandi he could hear every cell breathing the mantra > > Ram. > > > > > > > > When Ghandi was shot, Raman Maharshi was informed of it. He had > > > the ashram do a special celbration in memory of Ghandi, and Ramna > > was > > > seen weeping throughout it. > > > > > > > > pliantheart <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > > marches in > > > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > > > violence in > > > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > > army, > > > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status > > of > > > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic > > bomb > > > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > > > > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > > > > > > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > > > > what opposition is in that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the ultimate land grab. > > > > > > > > > And the one named " Ghandi " was merely one of the many meat monkies > > > through whom the liquid light flowed for a time....there is no > > perfect > > > human being. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > That certainly is not in response to the question I posed to you. > > > > Do you have a response to: > > > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > > what opposition is in that? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > I am is a delusional declaration of independence. > > It is the ultimate violence. > > It is in opposition to all that is. > > toombaru " I am " is an assertion of being. You say it is in opposition to " all that is " , which is another assertion of being. But " I am " could plausibly be considered equivalent to " all that is " . Or, " I am " could plausibly be considerd as an aspect of " all that is " . In other words, " I am " does not necessarily entail a sense of separation. Perhaps it typically does have such a connotation (in actual use). But not always. Bill > > > I am off on a trip. > > See you when I return. > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > > marches in > > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > violence > > > > in > > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > Violent protest against British > > > > had started long before Gandhi. > > > > They had started in 1857. > > > > > > > > After Gandhi's leadership there were > > > > very few incidence of violent protests > > > > or attack against British. > > > > > > > > Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed > > > > after that... were killed when British forces > > > > fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent > > > > meetings/rallies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, > > > > Dan! Please check your facts! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > > army, > > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status of > > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic > > bomb > > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > According to Indian historians, India has been > > > > attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 > > > > years. According to same historians India has not > > > > attacked other countries except for self-defense > > > > in this period. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > > > > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > > > > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > > > > > > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > > > > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > > > > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > > > > it is just an impression that I get from your > > > > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > > > > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > > > > from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you know that Ghandi was very prejudiced against blacks? > > > > > > > > > And yes........you can check the facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Well I have. And you're wrong. And even if he weren't......prejudice > > is not violence. And yes you can look it up in any dictionary. No > > need to go any deeper' than that. the sand is not deep on this..no > > sandeep here. > > > > .......bob > > > > > > Remember when he called Ramana " the dude in the diapers? " > > :-) > > > toombaru LOL.....actually I don't, but you know...that's also true. He was. And the statement is funny. When S. said that...did he go on further and say the Bhagavan was a fraud? Just curious. .........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > > > marches in > > > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > > violence > > > > > in > > > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > > > Violent protest against British > > > > > had started long before Gandhi. > > > > > They had started in 1857. > > > > > > > > > > After Gandhi's leadership there were > > > > > very few incidence of violent protests > > > > > or attack against British. > > > > > > > > > > Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed > > > > > after that... were killed when British forces > > > > > fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent > > > > > meetings/rallies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > > > Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, > > > > > Dan! Please check your facts! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > > > army, > > > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the > status of > > > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the > atomic > > > bomb > > > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > > > According to Indian historians, India has been > > > > > attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 > > > > > years. According to same historians India has not > > > > > attacked other countries except for self-defense > > > > > in this period. > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > > > > > > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > > > > > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > > > > > > > > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > > > > > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > > > > > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > > > > > it is just an impression that I get from your > > > > > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > > > > > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > > > > > from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you know that Ghandi was very prejudiced against blacks? > > > > > > > > > > > > And yes........you can check the facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Well I have. And you're wrong. And even if he > weren't......prejudice > > > is not violence. And yes you can look it up in any dictionary. No > > > need to go any deeper' than that. the sand is not deep on > this..no > > > sandeep here. > > > > > > .......bob > > > > > > > > > He was a man Bob.........just a man. > > > > > > > > Nothing special. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > I didn't say he was 'special' toom. I wouldn't say that about him or > myself or you or anyone. But I do think he had one up on a lot of > folks, myself included, when it comes to a lot of realization and > understanding and qualities that I consider worthwhile in living- > time. Maybe you don't feel that way and that's OK. A lot of the > people you bring up with quotes and words of wisdom and words about > how you think there ever so wonderful, are just plain folks too. We > all are.....as you say. But that doesn't allow as how we shouldn't > hold up some of their thoughts or deeds, as commendable, and thought > provoking........ now does it? > > ........bob > They weren't their thoughts bob. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , chris boys > <tony_s_sandford@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Jeez, be a little careful of whom you trash. When you, > yourself, > > > > have realized the level of spiritual development of Ghandi, > then you > > > > can speak. > > > > > > > > > > I remember two incidents in relation to Ghandi that might > show > > > you > > > > just the kind of being he was: H..W.L. Poonja (Papaji) said > that > > > there > > > > were only two bodies he had seen in his life that literally > glowed. > > > > One was Ramana Maharshi and the other was Ghandi. He said that > when > > > he > > > > was close to Ghandi he could hear every cell breathing the > mantra > > > Ram. > > > > > > > > > > When Ghandi was shot, Raman Maharshi was informed of it. He > had > > > > the ashram do a special celbration in memory of Ghandi, and > Ramna > > > was > > > > seen weeping throughout it. > > > > > > > > > > pliantheart <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests > and > > > > > marches in > > > > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > > > > violence in > > > > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed > an > > > army, > > > > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the > status > > > of > > > > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the > atomic > > > bomb > > > > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > > > > > > > > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > > > > > what opposition is in that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the ultimate land grab. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the one named " Ghandi " was merely one of the many meat > monkies > > > > through whom the liquid light flowed for a time....there is no > > > perfect > > > > human being. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > That certainly is not in response to the question I posed to you. > > > > > > Do you have a response to: > > > > > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > > > > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > > > what opposition is in that? > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > I am is a delusional declaration of independence. > > > > It is the ultimate violence. > > > > It is in opposition to all that is. > > > > toombaru > > " I am " is an assertion of being. > You say it is in opposition to " all that is " , > which is another assertion of being. > > But " I am " could plausibly be considered equivalent > to " all that is " . > > Or, " I am " could plausibly be considerd as an > aspect of " all that is " . > > In other words, " I am " does not necessarily entail > a sense of separation. > > Perhaps it typically does have such a connotation > (in actual use). But not always. > > Bill > > > > > > > I am off on a trip. > > > > See you when I return. > > > > > > toombaru > > > I am as opposed to other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , chris boys <tony_s_sandford@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Jeez, be a little careful of whom you trash. When you, yourself, > > > have realized the level of spiritual development of Ghandi, then you > > > can speak. > > > > > > > > I remember two incidents in relation to Ghandi that might show > > you > > > just the kind of being he was: H..W.L. Poonja (Papaji) said that > > there > > > were only two bodies he had seen in his life that literally glowed. > > > One was Ramana Maharshi and the other was Ghandi. He said that when > > he > > > was close to Ghandi he could hear every cell breathing the mantra > > Ram. > > > > > > > > When Ghandi was shot, Raman Maharshi was informed of it. He had > > > the ashram do a special celbration in memory of Ghandi, and Ramna > > was > > > seen weeping throughout it. > > > > > > > > pliantheart <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > > marches in > > > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > > > violence in > > > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > > army, > > > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the status > > of > > > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the atomic > > bomb > > > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > > > > > P.P.S. Is the imposition of an ideal an act of violence? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > > > > > > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > > > > what opposition is in that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the ultimate land grab. > > > > > > > > > And the one named " Ghandi " was merely one of the many meat monkies > > > through whom the liquid light flowed for a time....there is no > > perfect > > > human being. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > That certainly is not in response to the question I posed to you. > > > > Do you have a response to: > > > > violence necessarily entails some kind of opposition, yes? > > > > so when you say, " 'I am' is the ultimate act of violence, " > > what opposition is in that? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > I am is a delusional declaration of independence. > > It is the ultimate violence. > > It is in opposition to all that is. > > toombaru > > > > I am off on a trip. > > See you when I return. > > > toombaru > where are we going? ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ghandi's leadership forming public statements, protests and > > > > > > marches in > > > > > > > opposition to British control of India predictably led to > > > > violence > > > > > > in > > > > > > > which many of his followers died. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > > > > > Violent protest against British > > > > > > had started long before Gandhi. > > > > > > They had started in 1857. > > > > > > > > > > > > After Gandhi's leadership there were > > > > > > very few incidence of violent protests > > > > > > or attack against British. > > > > > > > > > > > > Most Indian freedom fighters that were killed > > > > > > after that... were killed when British forces > > > > > > fired on unarmed Indians in non-violent > > > > > > meetings/rallies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for ahimsa. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check your facts, Dan! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He told himself he was committed to nonviolence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So much for adherence to truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gandhi did adhere to non-violence and truth, > > > > > > Dan! Please check your facts! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Se la vie! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On with the show. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. India subsequently claimed its independence, formed an > > > > army, > > > > > > > engaged in war with Pakistan, and now has reached the > > status of > > > > > > > nuclear technology, including the means to develop the > > atomic > > > > bomb > > > > > > > (with the assistance of the U.S.). > > > > > > > > > > > > According to Indian historians, India has been > > > > > > attacked more than thousand times in last 2000 > > > > > > years. According to same historians India has not > > > > > > attacked other countries except for self-defense > > > > > > in this period. > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > > > > > > > > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > > > > > > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > > > > > > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > > > > > > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > > > > > > it is just an impression that I get from your > > > > > > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > > > > > > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > > > > > > from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you know that Ghandi was very prejudiced against blacks? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yes........you can check the facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I have. And you're wrong. And even if he > > weren't......prejudice > > > > is not violence. And yes you can look it up in any dictionary. No > > > > need to go any deeper' than that. the sand is not deep on > > this..no > > > > sandeep here. > > > > > > > > .......bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > He was a man Bob.........just a man. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing special. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > I didn't say he was 'special' toom. I wouldn't say that about him or > > myself or you or anyone. But I do think he had one up on a lot of > > folks, myself included, when it comes to a lot of realization and > > understanding and qualities that I consider worthwhile in living- > > time. Maybe you don't feel that way and that's OK. A lot of the > > people you bring up with quotes and words of wisdom and words about > > how you think there ever so wonderful, are just plain folks too. We > > all are.....as you say. But that doesn't allow as how we shouldn't > > hold up some of their thoughts or deeds, as commendable, and thought > > provoking........ now does it? > > > > ........bob > > > > > They weren't their thoughts bob. > > > toombaru They weren't anything at all toom. Nothing is. But in a land where there can be such things as " frauds', then there must be 'something' that can thus be considered 'fraudulent'. Whatever 'that' is, is what I am talking about. Of course maybe nothing IS. It all depends on what your definition of 'is', is.....to quote another phantom of the Presidential Opera. .........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.