Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 < Message 5 < " dan330033 " dan330033 < Thu May 18, 2006 4:35pm(PDT) < Re: Right and Wrong....Choose < 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 In my view, anytime the " imagined future " (i.e., idea, ideal, concept, etc) is made more important than the *actual factual* " present " and the present is being sacrified in order to implement that striven and hoped for " idea " , violence is being done. J. Krishnamurti never tired of pointing this out. He also stated that Ghandi was a very violent person for that very reason! His constant struggling to " force " an ideal into place was in itself a violent act. Along this line, there's a French saying to the effect of " The better is the enemy of the good! " Michael 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: > 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) Hi Bob - Touched a nerve, it seems I did. Wonder what life might be like without " ideals to strive for. " Guess we wouldn't be able to make a big deal about people like Gandhi anymore. What a loss - not. You mention Lao Tzu, which is kinda ironic. Lao Tzu was right on when he said the more people talk about morality, the more mischief they are likely causing. A person who responds openly with awareness in the moment doesn't need moral principles brought from the past as a guideline. Be aware now, and you'll know what to do now -- your compassion won't be manufactured, won't be the result of trying to use a static moral principle, which is just the imposition of thought. Your interacting will be from life itself, not fixed ideas of good vs. bad. Trying to take a moral stance against violence due to ideals is indeed itself a form of violence, and tends to lead to conflicts of various kinds. Violence is an aspect of life. Is a lion bad when it eats a gazelle? Does lightning make a moral choice to strike a building vs. a tree? Do you think a human being is a special situation in nature, operating in an essentially different way than gravity or lightning? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > < Message 5 > < " dan330033 " dan330033 > < Thu May 18, 2006 4:35pm(PDT) > < Re: Right and Wrong....Choose > > < 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 > > In my view, anytime the " imagined future " (i.e., idea, ideal, concept, > etc) is made more important than the *actual factual* " present " and the > present is being sacrified in order to implement that striven and hoped > for " idea " , violence is being done. J. Krishnamurti never tired of > pointing this out. He also stated that Ghandi was a very violent person > for that very reason! His constant struggling to " force " an ideal into > place was in itself a violent act. Along this line, there's a French > saying to the effect of " The better is the enemy of the good! " > > Michael To you he was violent. To toom he was prejudiced. To me I don't care if he was a killer. I was pointing out a teaching story that was good advise for anyone anywhere. Argumentum Ad Hominem, concerning the attack of a person's character or circumstances, is characterized and shown to be sometimes persuasive but normally fallacious. It is a handy tactic to misdirect the point. Read the story again and either learn from it or not. Your choice in a world of no choice I guess. But attacking his viewpoints, his political agenda etc., has absolutely zip to do with the lesson of the tale, or the reason I posted it. I'm beginning to think that there are some on this list who want to arouse their egos to such a masturbatory high by attacking greater personages, that they loose sight of the thing that started them off on that tact. The story wasn't ABOUT Gandhi as a man, nor about his position amoung the stars. What exactly is this crap of abusing the man's person all about? It's all like another place in time and space when peoples', books were burned because they were Jewish. Forget what they said, and what they had to teach...they were......fill in the blanks. That seems to be what get's some people off. ........bob P. S...... J.Krish. has been the cause of an awful lot of violence both verbal and non-verbal between people arguing about his meanings (that are sometimes as circumlocutious and ambagious as it gets)...as anyone else on the planet. So are we to say then that he was violent by his setting such a thing up? Well I guess if we follow the same platform of thinking that's being used here he too was a 'killer' of the peace. ..yeah no doubt. Trying to force those ideas on people! Of all the damn nerve of that lost Hindoo! (bn) 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: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > 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) > > Hi Bob - > > Touched a nerve, it seems I did. > > Wonder what life might be like without " ideals to strive for. " > > Guess we wouldn't be able to make a big deal about people like Gandhi > anymore. What a loss - not. > > You mention Lao Tzu, which is kinda ironic. > > Lao Tzu was right on when he said the more people talk about morality, > the more mischief they are likely causing. > > A person who responds openly with awareness in the moment doesn't need > moral principles brought from the past as a guideline. > > Be aware now, and you'll know what to do now -- your compassion won't > be manufactured, won't be the result of trying to use a static moral > principle, which is just the imposition of thought. Your interacting > will be from life itself, not fixed ideas of good vs. bad. > > Trying to take a moral stance against violence due to ideals is indeed > itself a form of violence, and tends to lead to conflicts of various > kinds. > > Violence is an aspect of life. > > Is a lion bad when it eats a gazelle? > > Does lightning make a moral choice to strike a building vs. a tree? > > Do you think a human being is a special situation in nature, operating > in an essentially different way than gravity or lightning? > > -- Dan > Violence is Life... I do not doubt. But as I have been answering all of these posts.....what the hell does that have to do with the message of that little story. Christ got pissed in the temple, Lao Tsu agreed about this violece stuff, regarding himself as well, in his own musings. All that's inescapable. And yes that touches a nerve. I am human and I an violent......aren't we all. And as you say, isn't everything. So what's the point, Dan? Let's be done with all the stories, tales of wisdom, gospels, sutras, scriptures and religious texts, because they were written or told by humans who are imperfect? I just don't get you guys. Why do you post at all if no meaning can be found in the words of men because of their imperfections. And no, I don't think a huiman is apart from nature. And I don't think that any of the Big Boys of spiritual leadership saw it any differently. I've read your words Dan, and I think a lot of them are good. Maybe though because you a just a man and no different than the violence of the universe, I should just focus on that and basically say " well shit man...why would anyone want to say anything good about that stuff...or even give reply to it....he's a violent and misguided piece of jumbled molecules, and most likely a fraud and a hoax and quite probably prejudiced in his opinions and secret thoughts. This most certainly is our loss......NOT. ........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: > 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 Yes, the intent to idealize and impose ideals is a means to attempt escape from " what is. " My ideal is more ideal than yours! ;-) It's funny the direction this took on this list - lots of righteous indignation, little awareness of the issue of idealizing. How dare you tread on my idealized figure! rather than: What is going on when one idealizes? -- D. 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: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > 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 > > Yes, the intent to idealize and impose ideals is a means to attempt > escape from " what is. " My ideal is more ideal than yours! ;-) > > It's funny the direction this took on this list - lots of righteous > indignation, little awareness of the issue of idealizing. > > How dare you tread on my idealized figure! > > rather than: > > What is going on when one idealizes? > > -- D. Is the answer in the form of some idea or ideal of yours Dan? And I like how you have so righteeously pointed out the righteous indignation of those less aware. Amazing insight. Now let's examine 'you' rather than whatever it is that you are saying. That will surely be less self righteous of us and far more to the point eh? ........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: > Violence is Life... I do not doubt. But as I have been answering all > of these posts.....what the hell does that have to do with the > message of that little story. Christ got pissed in the temple, Lao > Tsu agreed about this violece stuff, regarding himself as well, in > his own musings. All that's inescapable. Jesus didn't attempt to impose ideals - not in my reading of him. He suggested that one die and be reborn. Dying includes dying to one's former self and its ideals. The violence that is concerning is the violence one attempt to do to one's own being -- the violence of life is just life as it is. In other words, the violence done to knowing oneself as one is, is to invest in ignorance. Investing in ignorance often involves attempts to claim moral superiority in one way or another. The ideals and idealism fragment " what is " into how it is vs. how it should be. This is understood firsthand as " my activity " -- or not. I'm not posting these observations to criticize supposedly existing beings that have their own qualities to themselves. I'm posting these observations to suggest awareness of one's own action. The " human being " is understood in its attempt to claim a self-existence with its own qualities to itself (including moral qualities). This is what I'm suggesting. It's not about an " other " existing out there somewhere with its own separated characteristics. And yes that touches a > nerve. I am human and I an violent......aren't we all. And as you > say, isn't everything. So what's the point, Dan? I tried to explain that above. Let's be done with > all the stories, tales of wisdom, gospels, sutras, scriptures and > religious texts, because they were written or told by humans who are > imperfect? I just don't get you guys. I'm speaking for myself, not " the guys " -- whoever those are. Why do you post at all if no > meaning can be found in the words of men because of their > imperfections. Who says that no meaning can be found in the words of men because of their imperfections? That has nothing to do with what I said. If anything, I'm saying that opposite - that if we understand our limitations, vulnerabilities, and imperfections our communication will be honest, and won't involve imposing ideals upon each other. And no, I don't think a huiman is apart from nature. > And I don't think that any of the Big Boys of spiritual leadership > saw it any differently. I've read your words Dan, and I think a lot > of them are good. Maybe though because you a just a man and no > different than the violence of the universe, I should just focus on > that and basically say " well shit man...why would anyone want to say > anything good about that stuff...or even give reply to it....he's a > violent and misguided piece of jumbled molecules, and most likely a > fraud and a hoax and quite probably prejudiced in his opinions and > secret thoughts. You can say that if you want - it has very little to do with what I was addressing, though. -- Dan 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: > Is the answer in the form of some idea or ideal of yours Dan? And I > like how you have so righteeously pointed out the righteous > indignation of those less aware. Amazing insight. Now let's > examine 'you' rather than whatever it is that you are saying. That > will surely be less self righteous of us and far more to the point eh? > > ........bob I am not suggesting that there is a separately existing Dan with its own inherent characteristics, and a separately existing Bob with his own inherent characteristics, and a separately existing Gandhi, etc. I am suggesting that belief in such separations, and trying to conduct relations as if those separations are real, is based on fragmentation related to perceiving a split universe. One aspect of this split is to pit an idealized self against an actual self, and moral ideals against who we actually are. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > Violence is Life... I do not doubt. But as I have been answering all > > of these posts.....what the hell does that have to do with the > > message of that little story. Christ got pissed in the temple, Lao > > Tsu agreed about this violece stuff, regarding himself as well, in > > his own musings. All that's inescapable. > > Jesus didn't attempt to impose ideals - not in my reading of him. I am Roman Catholic Dan. Now having said that you may understand that I think a lot about what Jesus said and did. Having been educated in private R.C. schools for over 12 years, I would suggest that you read the 4 syntoptic Gospels one more time and try and tell me this again. If you would like a few samplers that go 180 degrees from your statement here..........ask me to spell them out. I think you have the brains to be able to pick out the passages I'm referring to, without this little exercise, after you have done your reread. > He suggested that one die and be reborn. yes and he suggested a whole loy more than that. > Dying includes dying to one's former self and its ideals. > > The violence that is concerning is the violence one attempt to do to > one's own being -- the violence of life is just life as it is. > > In other words, the violence done to knowing oneself as one is, is to > invest in ignorance. Investing in ignorance often involves attempts > to claim moral superiority in one way or another. The ideals and > idealism fragment " what is " into how it is vs. how it should be. > This is understood firsthand as " my activity " -- or not. Ok try and explain how YOU are Different than the human condition. I am ALL EARS. > I'm not posting these observations to criticize supposedly existing > beings that have their own qualities to themselves. > > I'm posting these observations to suggest awareness of one's own > action. The " human being " is understood in its attempt to claim a > self-existence with its own qualities to itself (including moral > qualities). This is what I'm suggesting. It's not about an " other " > existing out there somewhere with its own separated characteristics. > > And yes that touches a > > nerve. I am human and I an violent......aren't we all. And as you > > say, isn't everything. So what's the point, Dan? > > I tried to explain that above. > > Let's be done with > > all the stories, tales of wisdom, gospels, sutras, scriptures and > > religious texts, because they were written or told by humans who are > > imperfect? I just don't get you guys. > > I'm speaking for myself, not " the guys " -- whoever those are. Read the above response. > Why do you post at all if no > > meaning can be found in the words of men because of their > > imperfections. > > Who says that no meaning can be found in the words of men because of > their imperfections? That has nothing to do with what I said. If > anything, I'm saying that opposite - that if we understand our > limitations, vulnerabilities, and imperfections our communication will > be honest, and won't involve imposing ideals upon each other. And your ideals on what is or is not non-violence and what is violence? And your trying to impose your ideas here? What about that? > And no, I don't think a huiman is apart from nature. > > And I don't think that any of the Big Boys of spiritual leadership > > saw it any differently. I've read your words Dan, and I think a lot > > of them are good. Maybe though because you a just a man and no > > different than the violence of the universe, I should just focus on > > that and basically say " well shit man...why would anyone want to say > > anything good about that stuff...or even give reply to it....he's a > > violent and misguided piece of jumbled molecules, and most likely a > > fraud and a hoax and quite probably prejudiced in his opinions and > > secret thoughts. > > You can say that if you want - it has very little to do with what I > was addressing, though. > > -- Dan I disagree 100%. ........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > Violence is Life... I do not doubt. But as I have been answering > all > > > of these posts.....what the hell does that have to do with the > > > message of that little story. Christ got pissed in the temple, > Lao > > > Tsu agreed about this violece stuff, regarding himself as well, > in > > > his own musings. All that's inescapable. > > > > Jesus didn't attempt to impose ideals - not in my reading of him. > > I am Roman Catholic Dan. Now having said that you may understand that > I think a lot about what Jesus said and did. Having been educated in > private R.C. schools for over 12 years, I would suggest that you read > the 4 syntoptic Gospels one more time and try and tell me this again. > If you would like a few samplers that go 180 degrees from your > statement here..........ask me to spell them out. I think you have > the brains to be able to pick out the passages I'm referring to, > without this little exercise, after you have done your reread. > > > > He suggested that one die and be reborn. > > > yes and he suggested a whole loy more than that. > > > > Dying includes dying to one's former self and its ideals. > > > > The violence that is concerning is the violence one attempt to do to > > one's own being -- the violence of life is just life as it is. > > > > In other words, the violence done to knowing oneself as one is, is > to > > invest in ignorance. Investing in ignorance often involves attempts > > to claim moral superiority in one way or another. The ideals and > > idealism fragment " what is " into how it is vs. how it should be. > > This is understood firsthand as " my activity " -- or not. > > > > > Ok try and explain how YOU are Different than the human condition. I > am ALL EARS. > > > > I'm not posting these observations to criticize supposedly existing > > beings that have their own qualities to themselves. > > > > I'm posting these observations to suggest awareness of one's own > > action. The " human being " is understood in its attempt to claim a > > self-existence with its own qualities to itself (including moral > > qualities). This is what I'm suggesting. It's not about an " other " > > existing out there somewhere with its own separated characteristics. > > > > And yes that touches a > > > nerve. I am human and I an violent......aren't we all. And as you > > > say, isn't everything. So what's the point, Dan? > > > > I tried to explain that above. > > > > Let's be done with > > > all the stories, tales of wisdom, gospels, sutras, scriptures and > > > religious texts, because they were written or told by humans who > are > > > imperfect? I just don't get you guys. > > > > I'm speaking for myself, not " the guys " -- whoever those are. > > > Read the above response. > > > > > Why do you post at all if no > > > meaning can be found in the words of men because of their > > > imperfections. > > > > Who says that no meaning can be found in the words of men because of > > their imperfections? That has nothing to do with what I said. If > > anything, I'm saying that opposite - that if we understand our > > limitations, vulnerabilities, and imperfections our communication > will > > be honest, and won't involve imposing ideals upon each other. > > > > And your ideals on what is or is not non-violence and what is > violence? And your trying to impose your ideas here? What about that? > > > > > And no, I don't think a huiman is apart from nature. > > > And I don't think that any of the Big Boys of spiritual > leadership > > > saw it any differently. I've read your words Dan, and I think a > lot > > > of them are good. Maybe though because you a just a man and no > > > different than the violence of the universe, I should just focus > on > > > that and basically say " well shit man...why would anyone want to > say > > > anything good about that stuff...or even give reply to it....he's > a > > > violent and misguided piece of jumbled molecules, and most likely > a > > > fraud and a hoax and quite probably prejudiced in his opinions > and > > > secret thoughts. > > > > You can say that if you want - it has very little to do with what I > > was addressing, though. > > > > -- Dan > > > > I disagree 100%. > > > ........bob > The topic of this thread says it all " Right and Wrong...Choose " , that is- any choice will be right and wrong simultaniously, as it will be correct for one situation and catastrofic in another. Which leaves us with no choice.... Where to go without a choice? Why go anywhere? Whats wrong with right here, right now? I agree and disagree 100% Peace Mats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Hi Bob - Thanks for your comments below. I get that you disagree, and I'll leave it there - agreeing that we disagree. What occurred to me as I read what you say about Jesus was the statement attributed to him: " Let the dead bury their dead. " Leaving the dead behind, means to me all of my mental constructs about famous people, political leaders, and religious stories. Jesus never wrote anything down. The self that was a clutching at knowledge and definitions has evaporated - no where to be found. No debate for me to enter here, at this, the moment of my demise. There is no means to be right or to win. There is just " this moment " as is, and nothing to hold to. Rebirth can't be made to happen by what I know, nor what I believe I know. -- Dan (nothing new below) Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > Violence is Life... I do not doubt. But as I have been answering > all > > > of these posts.....what the hell does that have to do with the > > > message of that little story. Christ got pissed in the temple, > Lao > > > Tsu agreed about this violece stuff, regarding himself as well, > in > > > his own musings. All that's inescapable. > > > > Jesus didn't attempt to impose ideals - not in my reading of him. > > I am Roman Catholic Dan. Now having said that you may understand that > I think a lot about what Jesus said and did. Having been educated in > private R.C. schools for over 12 years, I would suggest that you read > the 4 syntoptic Gospels one more time and try and tell me this again. > If you would like a few samplers that go 180 degrees from your > statement here..........ask me to spell them out. I think you have > the brains to be able to pick out the passages I'm referring to, > without this little exercise, after you have done your reread. > > > > He suggested that one die and be reborn. > > > yes and he suggested a whole loy more than that. > > > > Dying includes dying to one's former self and its ideals. > > > > The violence that is concerning is the violence one attempt to do to > > one's own being -- the violence of life is just life as it is. > > > > In other words, the violence done to knowing oneself as one is, is > to > > invest in ignorance. Investing in ignorance often involves attempts > > to claim moral superiority in one way or another. The ideals and > > idealism fragment " what is " into how it is vs. how it should be. > > This is understood firsthand as " my activity " -- or not. > > > > > Ok try and explain how YOU are Different than the human condition. I > am ALL EARS. > > > > I'm not posting these observations to criticize supposedly existing > > beings that have their own qualities to themselves. > > > > I'm posting these observations to suggest awareness of one's own > > action. The " human being " is understood in its attempt to claim a > > self-existence with its own qualities to itself (including moral > > qualities). This is what I'm suggesting. It's not about an " other " > > existing out there somewhere with its own separated characteristics. > > > > And yes that touches a > > > nerve. I am human and I an violent......aren't we all. And as you > > > say, isn't everything. So what's the point, Dan? > > > > I tried to explain that above. > > > > Let's be done with > > > all the stories, tales of wisdom, gospels, sutras, scriptures and > > > religious texts, because they were written or told by humans who > are > > > imperfect? I just don't get you guys. > > > > I'm speaking for myself, not " the guys " -- whoever those are. > > > Read the above response. > > > > > Why do you post at all if no > > > meaning can be found in the words of men because of their > > > imperfections. > > > > Who says that no meaning can be found in the words of men because of > > their imperfections? That has nothing to do with what I said. If > > anything, I'm saying that opposite - that if we understand our > > limitations, vulnerabilities, and imperfections our communication > will > > be honest, and won't involve imposing ideals upon each other. > > > > And your ideals on what is or is not non-violence and what is > violence? And your trying to impose your ideas here? What about that? > > > > > And no, I don't think a huiman is apart from nature. > > > And I don't think that any of the Big Boys of spiritual > leadership > > > saw it any differently. I've read your words Dan, and I think a > lot > > > of them are good. Maybe though because you a just a man and no > > > different than the violence of the universe, I should just focus > on > > > that and basically say " well shit man...why would anyone want to > say > > > anything good about that stuff...or even give reply to it....he's > a > > > violent and misguided piece of jumbled molecules, and most likely > a > > > fraud and a hoax and quite probably prejudiced in his opinions > and > > > secret thoughts. > > > > You can say that if you want - it has very little to do with what I > > was addressing, though. > > > > -- Dan > > > > I disagree 100%. > > > ........bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " mats.aberg " <hyl894t wrote: > > The topic of this thread says it all " Right and Wrong...Choose " , > that is- any choice will be right and wrong simultaniously, as it > will be correct for one situation and catastrofic in another. Which > leaves us with no choice.... > > Where to go without a choice? > > Why go anywhere? > > Whats wrong with right here, right now? > > I agree and disagree 100% > > Peace > Mats A bolt of lightning hits the ground. It made so many twists and turns on its route -- it must have made a thousand choices. Yet, understood fully, there was no choice involved. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 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 > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > It actually got him in a lot of hot water with the Ramana chanters. It wasn't that he was making fun of Ramana. But he did know......beyond a shadow of doubt that the one named Ramana was a vehicle through the liquid light of Love flowed into the painful dream of separation. I love Sandeep.......but I am indifferent about the physicality through whom Sandeep spoke. I don't know if that physicality is still alive.....but the squiggles that originated in India and mysteriously appeared on this computer screen........broke open this heart....and continue to warm and leaven the life experienced as toombaru. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mats.aberg " <hyl894t@> wrote: > > > > > The topic of this thread says it all " Right and Wrong...Choose " , > > that is- any choice will be right and wrong simultaniously, as it > > will be correct for one situation and catastrofic in another. Which > > leaves us with no choice.... > > > > Where to go without a choice? > > > > Why go anywhere? > > > > Whats wrong with right here, right now? > > > > I agree and disagree 100% > > > > Peace > > Mats > > A bolt of lightning hits the ground. > > It made so many twists and turns on its route -- it must have made a > thousand choices. > > Yet, understood fully, there was no choice involved. > > -- D. > Perhaps Dan, though I picture self as a rosy thunderbolt! The unchosen choiceless choice seems to be the easy choice! /Mats 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.