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 Is " is " in conflict with " is not " -- " am " with " am not " ? Not necessarily. It all depends if one is attempting to hold " is " and avoid " is not " (or vice versa). Violence means something can be violated. It seems to me that what can be violated is the attempt to hold onto -- " Is not " doesn't violate " is " -- unless " is " seems to have an existence that can be maintained and held. " Is " only violates " is not " if there is an attempt to avoid being. -- 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 , " 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 > > Is " is " in conflict with " is not " -- " am " with " am not " ? W: No, of course, no conflict is possible with " is not " maybe one side of the coin is in conflict with the other? > > Not necessarily. > > It all depends if one is attempting to hold " is " and avoid " is not " > (or vice versa). > > Violence means something can be violated. > > It seems to me that what can be violated is the attempt to hold onto -- > > " Is not " doesn't violate " is " -- unless " is " seems to have an > existence that can be maintained and held. " Is " only violates " is > not " if there is an attempt to avoid being. > > > -- D. > 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.