Roger/communities was Terezin

[Guest guest]

, "Roger Isaacs" <RIsaacs@c...>

 

wrote:

> Your comments might be interpreted as this: "Adolph, Go ahead follow

 

your desire and invade Russia, invade France, invade England while yer

at it.

> This would certainly be more appropriate than considering the

 

consequences."

>

> The ultimate truth may very well be that there is no "doer", and

 

volition maybe an illusion. However, if you claim licentious behavior is

"the way", I beg to differ.

>

> Roger

 

Roger,

 

I try not to claim anything, yet, each time I use our limited language,

I do. I "create" to use the words of KKT, "But... But..." to say as Dan.

 

For one thing, it was not Adolph Hitler holding the guns, running the

war machines, etc.., it was people like you and me... Why would a

soldier kill another soldier? Is it only because the colour of the hair

is different or the colour of the flag is? Is it only because of Hitler?

 

Often it is very stupid, to take the words of Annette, the reason that

will make one kill the other. Ignorance? It's a word for it... In a war

situation, from experience, the prime motivation factor comes to fear. I

kill the other because I think he will kill me if I do not. If the enemy

is not the prime motivation anymore, the surrounding, the war friends,

the superior in the hierarchy of war, the martial court, the fear of

those become the prime motive, for most people...

 

Konrad Lorenz, in his study of "Aggression", in between animals, brings

out an interesting aspect that he projected on human comportment. In the

"normal" soldier, that was carrying the gun for Adolph or Arjuna or the

church or the Viet Nam War or even for the high tech engineer

programming the course of the high tech missiles in the Golf War, there

seem to be a natural process of "guilt", an intuition, that make us not

want to kill the other for no reason...

 

So when i say:

" Yet asking oneself what one should not or should do, or have or have

not done, or what consequence it will or will not have, is to my

presence a very strange question in itself. IMHO, this very form of

question or questioning of one in action, instead of simply being

present to the Presence of the moment, is one of the major cause of the

act of violence in itself."

 

One of the possible meaning of such a statement would be that when i

question, in a war situation, this intuition or feeling of guilt that i

may have in doing in action (e.g. killing someone) to allow action

guided by fear to replace action guided by the natural feeling within,

then yes then it was Hitler killing others in the battlefield.

 

What brings people to listen to fear as a guide to the way they will act

(i.e. killing someone in the battlefield), or to become blinded by an

ideology (i.e the cold war: red = evil). The biography of Jean Jaures is

interesting to read in this aspect, where he was trying to bring to

consciousness of the mass this very process where the Economical Machine

based on order and respect of property was changing into the War Machine

based on Ideology and Fear on the front line.

 

The aspect of "Dialogue" in the text referred by KKT, as a branch of

political economics (of the state, the town or our own body (like would

say Gloria), is interesting to explore as a source of conflict.

 

In my years of study in political economy there is a fact that is very

"scary" as to who may be the real responsible for wars. This fact is

simple to experiment and prove scientifically. And it was a bit

mentioned in the "Dialogue" text.

 

Simply chose 25 people or more (why 25? With less than 25 it does not

always append)...

You simply say to each one who did not know each other before, that they

are to stay in a room with other people for more than 6 hours (why 6

hours, with less it does not always append)...

Given nothing to do in such a room, and no reason for being there. After

6 hours and more than 25 people the "group" will always break up in a

quarrel...

 

Why is that??? I think not one person as the answer for that.

 

Exploring the notion of Dialogue, still remains an aim that unites the

group, and stops from seeing itself as it is.

 

I must say that society, on that level, seems to evolve, for the romans

it was hard to bring 2000 people in a same place, they needed the

violence of the arena where gladiators where killing themselves. Today

with baseball or hockey we can easily bring more than 10000 people in a

room, in a still peaceful way.

 

Of course the economical machine exploits this human tendency, if there

was no Wall Disney distraction all the people so close together in its

park would be at each other.

 

Is that what Jesus was Saying when he said something like "may the one

who as not sinned throw the first rock"?

 

Or in another way, in the words of Morehi Uyeshiba at:

http://www.sentient.org/amber/uyeshiba.htm

 

"When an enemy tries to fight with me, the universe itself, he has to

break the harmony of the universe. Hence at the moment he has the mind

to fight with me, he is already defeated. There exists no measure of

time -- fast or slow."

 

So I repeat myself here, to find the source of this conflict of groups,

would it be between cells, life, societies, species, etc...

 

" Yet asking oneself what one should not or should do, or have or have

not done, or what consequence it will or will not have, is to my

presence a very strange question in itself. IMHO, this very form of

question or questioning of one in action, instead of simply being

present to the Presence of the moment, is one of the major cause of the

act of violence in itself."

 

Antoine

 

--

May our communities become those of people who learn from everyone

instead of teaching to everyone!

[Guest guest]

Antoine wrote:

> Often it is very stupid, to take the words of Annette, the reason that

>

> will make one kill the other. Ignorance? It's a word for it... In a

> war

> situation, from experience, the prime motivation factor comes to fear.

> I

> kill the other because I think he will kill me if I do not. If the

> enemy

> is not the prime motivation anymore, the surrounding, the war friends,

>

> the superior in the hierarchy of war, the martial court, the fear of

> those become the prime motive, for most people...

 

thank you Antoine. You have helped me to understand what I have been

saying, which is a wonderful feeling. I think what I wish to propose

(and learn to articulate more clearly - work in progress...) is that

fear itself needs to be forgiven. I am not really all that interested

in the outside so much as the inside, so when I suggest forgiving fear,

I mean that quite literally and directly. When fear arises, we tend to

defend ourselves, which we think lessens the fear, but I think it does

just the opposite, it strengthens it. If we can welcome the fear in and

experience it, in my experience, it turns out not to have been fear

after all, but to have been love, which we in some deeply instinctive

survival way, turned inside out and used to defend our "self". This

transformation of fear back into love is forgiveness. It's freeing up

the energy that was used to defend and making it available to give. I

give this gift to myself, to you, to Hitler, to life itself, because it

is what that energy wants me to do with it. My original mistake of

using the freely given love to erect defenses is just that; a mistake.

Ask me if this can work in a world where madmen rape and murder? Can I

sit and watch my mother get raped and murdered with a sense of

quanimity, knowing it to be a mad dream, a mirage? No, I'm not the full

embodyment of my words. But will I ever be if I envision a gap between

my present view and such a Christ filled view? I say no. I can only go

there if I go there however I can go there. (that makes sense to me, so

read it again...) It's naive (absurd) to suggest I have this level of

love, but it is not absurd to say I want it, and in my experience thus

far, if I want something, the only way to get it is to imagine that it

is possible to have it. Grace only comes when there is a receptive

place for it (although sometimes that receptive place is not know by the

conscious, so surprises do happen.)

 

 

Oh well, more words... someday I will express this so it can be heard.

 

Love, Mark

[Guest guest]

Namaste` List,

 

Antoine wrote:

 

"For one thing, it was not Adolph Hitler holding the guns, running the

war machines, etc.., it was people like you and me... Why would a

soldier kill another soldier? Is it only because the colour of the hair

is different or the colour of the flag is? Is it only because of

Hitler?"

 

Shankara:

 

The obvious answer here, would be no. But is the obvious always the

correct view ? In my opinion (for what it is worth) the whole issue of

Hitler, is driven by personal perspectives that fail to understand the

motivation behind the War in which Hitler appeared as some form of

"Anti-Christ".

 

If the man is to be attacked, then lets look at a few other issues that

seem to be overlooked in the passing. But I beg of you, please do not

attack me for sharing the truth with you on this sensitive issue, as I

am not a follower of these traditions, just another searcher like you

are, that happened to find the reason behind the War interesting and

helpful in my own growth.

 

Prior to becoming a "Demi-God" to his people, Hitler had 30 years of

intensive training in at least three schools of Occultism; this is well

documented for anyone who cares to look for it. He was the head of the

Thule Society, which was an Occult Organization which embraced the

teachings of Agartha rather than Shambala. In other words, Hitler was a

follower of the Moon and not the Sun lineage of Occult teachings that

are more commonly known in the West.

 

Their belief was that the Sun followers; which were the Jewish people

who had descended from Moses etc, were "EVIL INCARNATE". The SS who

drove the propaganda machine, were in most cases Adepts of the Occult

Arts like Hitler, in fact if they were not that way inclined, they were

not recruited. In view of that fact, they believed that the Third Reich

were to be the saviours of our world, not the destroyers of it. It was

a perspective shared by the one thousand Tibetan Buddhist Monks that

were also found at the SS headquarters in Berlin when the Allies

arrival there. This URL may help in further understanding of why Hitler

rejected the Jewish people.

 

http://www.crystalinks.com/hitler.html

 

My personal perspective, was that Hitler was misled in his beliefs, but

that is only my own personal opinion. I do believe however, that we

each find our own path to "God" or whatever, and each of us has that as

our birth right.

 

It is my firm belief that we have all been victims of the "Hate

Machine" generated by those with another agenda. Be they the Illuminati

or some other body of individuals that are bent on the idea of a global

"Big Brother" government. Lets face the facts here, we are only told

that which the controlling bodies want us to know, the rest is hidden

by "Secrecy Acts" etc.

 

I do not point a finger at America or any other government for that

matter, as they all have their reasons for not being truthful with the

people. I find the Vatican has more to answer for, as it has the real

records of the second world war locked in the Vatican Library

indefinitely. They held a limited enquiry into the War material at the

insistence of Israel, so the three Israeli Scholars may tell us

something in time. They started viewing a limited range of details with

three Jesuits in October 1999.

 

As for the Nag Hamadi texts found in Egypt over 50 years ago now, of

the 32 volumes found, only a small percentage have been released to the

public. These were Gospels that had transcribed words of Christ in

them, the Gospel of Thomas is a good example of how different these

texts are to what can be found in the Bible.

 

My reason for sharing the above, is to show that the tail wags the dog.

We are victims of imposed ignorance, so how can we believe anything we

are told by those people with a hidden agenda ? The conspiracy theories

are everywhere you look, so most people just say that it is all rubbish

and turn a blind eye to it all. I have never thought of myself as an

Emu, so I never hide my head in the sand to avoid the truth even if it

may hurt.

 

I learnt many lessons from Swami Muktananda, one that I think was very

important, was that we can listen to those who others respect, but we

should only believe that which we "Know" experientially to be true.

 

My heart goes out to those who suffered as innocents, but there is

nothing that hating anybody can undo, that has already been done. If

hate could change the cruel things that people do in the name of their

beliefs, then perhaps it could be a tool of some use, but I could never

see where blind hatred; especially in ignorance, could achieve anything

other than more pain.

 

The same can be said for Love, as how many crimes are committed in the

name of love each year ? Love and Hate are both tar from the one brush;

as I see it. If on the other hand, we see each other as equals who are

all incarnated on this "Plane" to find our way back to the "Oneness" of

all things, then love and hate are needless tools that only blind us to

the fact that we are one in essence and therefore we should treat each

other as we believe we should be treated, and that is with respect.

 

There is no such thing as the right way, as we all have a different

idea on what that actually is. We tend to base our ideas or beliefs on

our cultures, religions, philosophies, experiences, flags or a

multitude of other things. Perhaps if Shambala was found in the

Himalayas then we may become a world at peace.

 

It is Idealistic or even Utopian to think that love can cure all ails,

as global love or hate, must rely on our own perspectives based on

cultural or religious foundations. Until we think as "One", we will

always fight for our own beliefs, and yes more innocents will be hurt

as a result of our individual attitudes on who has right on their side.

 

Sorry, I just realized I was soapboxing here :-) I will get off the

podium and take my seat again, thank you for listening to my thoughts.

 

In the light of sharing,

Shankara.

 

 

"I am what I am, having become

a product of what I have thought"

Shankara.

 

http://users.net2000.com.au/~shankara