Serious Discussions about Life

[injest]

Ok...first off


Mean vs Nice

now I know that you hear about Holocaust survivors that are kind and have come thru with their faith and belief intact....

and I know what we were all taught about how good always triumphs...but does it really?

There was a Nazi that said "Here I stand with my guns and swords...there YOU stand with your laws. We shall see who wins" (paraphrased...don't have the quote in front of me.) but you get the drift. and I know the Nazis lost in the long run. that is small comfort to the small child being gassed.

It seems good and nice is so fragile. and mean and cruel so overwhelming...

I think Mean wins.

[Daniel]

Hmm, if I may replace your "meanness" with "cruelty" - which is the psychologically addictive control and powerful influence to harm another - I would actually say that the cruel ones are the ones who are losing out.

In their mad rush for power, their eagerness to bring pain to others, they do not realize how much pain they are causing to themselves. The Golden Rule works; even if no one stands up to the cruel, or comes into open conflict with them, those whom would do much to see a little harm come to others will suffer in their spirits and their psyche for their own actions. Those whom are kind, on the other hand, nourish themselves psychically by their own activities, and generate an infinite amount of caring energy that effects both their own lives and the lives of those around them.

If you do not believe me, look at the lives of those whom we know to have been cruel. They are often paranoid, void of friends or emotional companionship, they take no pleasure in the good-natured things of life and can only be humored by the destruction of the noble. One wonders if this is even truly humorous, or if the soul has become so twisted that it measures not the nature of benign behavior.

Cruelty has its price, and kindness is filled with infinite promise.

[injest]

it takes months to build a beautiful temple. Two seconds to bomb it into nothing.

a flower takes weeks to grow and bloom. Takes seconds to crush it.

innocence is fragile as that flower. It can't be given back.

So to me the one who bombs. who crushes, who steals the innocence has won.

yes, I think mean people are unhappy. but they still get their way while innocents suffer.

[Daniel]

The innocents who built the temple, who watched the flower bloom and grow: They are the true winners. They observed the creation of true beauty, and in those instances of true creation, created beauty in their hearts that no cruelty could take away. Even if the temple is destroyed.... Even if the flower is crushed... Those who observed them, and registered their beauty in their hearts can maintain their beauty infinitely. And even if no fragment of memory remains, they will still have the ideal that allowed that beauty to be remembered.

[moremojo]

I believe that each moment is inscribed in Eternity. So, while it is true that the fragile flower can be stomped to bits in seconds flat, the essence of that flower's beauty and vitality remains enshrined in a Memory that transcends our human limitations of understanding. And this is part of the mystery...the stomping and the shredding, by being part of the Story, becomes part of the Beauty and Vitality. There is no polarity in the realm of the Transcendent; such exists only in this contextual field that we call earthly life.

A perennial challenge in this earthly life: How do the meek, the innocent, and the noble find love for the overbearing, the corrupt, and the craven? For the latter are as deserving of Love as the former, though they do not cultivate it in their own lives. To know this is to begin to live this, and that is all we can ask of the vulnerable creature that is the human being.

[injest]

those are very noble sentiments...but to the person who built only to see it ruined...well I don't see them being able to see the beauty thru the pain of loss and bitterness.

[moremojo]

I hear you, Jess, and I do know how painful the feeling of loss can be. But I would like to suggest that feelings aren't necessarily the best gauge of reality.  I speculate on a reality where the loss never really occurred at all...we just pretended that it did because it made for a more compelling Story. In the fullness of Eternity, our Story will merge with the Storyteller, and the Storyteller will welcome us all home, congratulating us, both "good" and "bad", on a job well done.

[Daniel]

If one chooses to focus on the pain and bitterness, then there is no doubt in my mind that the experience of loss will be infinitely painful. At the death of a beloved, do we not nurture sorrow's pain in our hearts when we focus upon the loss of that person in our own lives rather than focusing on the creative and productive measures that filled theirs. Hmm, that reminds me of a poem I wrote. Its included in my book Mystic Madness in the Night (shameless plug: http://www.xlibris.com/mysticmadnessinthenight )

Eulogy

Standing on the silence of the sepulchral stage,
a silver-gilt sarcophagus summons several starry-eyed.
Each enjoys an enchanting effect:
effort enlivened in enlightenment.
A single seed, sparingly sorrowful, so still yet
stirring somewhere  - seated at its center,
a love of life, a living lapse in the
'lorn luminosity of laboring lungs.
Planted peacefully, perhaps plucked
perchance, posing as a part, petals
caress the cadaver's core, caring
for the crying and concerned.
The wind whispers willfully of wishes
that once went by, wandered by one
who in the name of them had died.
Death dealt desired dangers. Daring
dreams and darkness drum the dauntless.
Hopes held haughtily heralded honing of the heart,
high heaven's holy hiccup happens to agree,
stifling this somber soliloquy.
What wonders were lost when weary flesh wore out?
What worldly wealth of wisdom winked away?
The mortified moment of mortality
mummed the mumbling majority.
And in the autumn of anger and unridden angst,
among the aftereffects, awry and aired,
friends and family finicky felt the frost forlorn,
following the fading fortitude of the fellow death had born.
Memories magnified via mortal majesty
maneuver moments into malcontent.
Does this honor life or even death,
which so easily changes the face of everything?

When something beautiful in our lives is suddenly not there, should we focus upon that loss and grieve for moments striken from us, or with that beauty still within our heart, begin to build again? That is the question of how to respond to the destruction of the beautiful.

[injest]

second off.

What is it about sex that makes people give up everything? I read in the paper about women drowning their children...for a man...

I hear about men that abandon their families, give up careers (Craig), betray everything...for what? A few minutes of physical pleasure?

I don't understand it.

I like to think I have a reg sex life...I am happy with it. But if I had to choose my child or sex...I would pick my child. If I am working I don't think about sex...when I have sex I don't think about work. I don't understand how people can't control themselves..

It is only ONE part of life...but people let it become their ENTIRE life...

[Daniel]

For women, I think it is different than for a man. In our western culture, women are sometimes raised to believe that men will take care of them for the rest of their lives. In some eastern cultures, a woman has no say in her own life, she always belongs to the closest male relative, whether it be father, uncle, brother, or son. There is no choice for the people in these cultures: this is the way life has been and probably always will unless someone introduces dramatic changes to fight this notion of imprisonment thought.

We have our own modes of imprisonment thought, specific ideas that we enslave ourselves too. Part of the benefit of a good education is the recognition that we are not slaves to ideas, but that we can create our own ideas and work beyond the boundaries that others establish for us. This is sometimes a difficult concept to take into hand, the complete independence of the primordial self. We become comfortable with ways of life that are not healthy for us. We eat fatty fried foods, for example, and foods loaded with butter fat to bring comfort to ourselves, when in reality we are enslaving our bodies to addictive food additives, high fructose corn syrup, and any number of manmade chemicals designed to keep you using a product. Free the body, free the mind, free the heart, free the soul. Freedom is the essence of our human existence, if we can but realize it. How many times have we stayed in a job we hated because it was more uncomfortable to go out and find one that we liked. Sometimes we can even delude ourselves that we like our job, or our status in life, and continue to remain where we are.  We are comfortable and secure, and thus have no need for liberty and freedom. We can give up our hopes and dreams to maintain this comfort, and more often than not, we do.

So it is no surprise to me that we can become comforted by our relationships with specific individuals, become used to their presence and willing to do anything to maintain it. The insecurity and discomfort that might arise in that relationship can easily be defeated by sacrificing our true desires to give ourselves completely to another person. This is the great poison that infiltrates the human soul, the idea that romantic sacrifice is a true and noble goal and that our ability to give up everything that is a part of ourselves, everything for another, will ensure that we maintain that relationship forever, as the songs tell us. The arts sometimes do not do enough to battle this idea, and instead enforce it. Dreamy romantic music, romantic comedies, everything that focuses upon the permanence of a relationship imbalances the human ability to maintain their own unique identity, and creates a very unhealthy view of the romantic relationship.

For men, much of the western ideal of masculinity has included a type of machoism, an intense superiority of the male, even including a sexual superiority. A healthy individual can realize that this idea is not at all productive at an individual level of consciousness. But all too often, our society has duped men into not thinking about his place in life and not questioning the nature of his romantic liaisons. The jovian man is certain that his sexual prowess is part of his being, and the proof of such a matter can be paramount. This has been part of western male society since the middle ages, and probably before then as well. But in this enlightened age, what can cause a man to act in the same primeval ways?

There can only be one answer, he has been culturally brought up to believe that this is the only way. He is a victim of familial and diseducational circumstances, never learning to question those things that have always been taken for granted. Further, his sexual pride becoming tantamount to all other forces of his daily existence might indicate a desperate sexual imbalance. He was coddled too frequently in one relationship or another, given everything he wanted and desired without question, and virtually completely spoiled by spouse or significant other, on whom he became completely dependent. Given the prior consideration of women who are victims to the cognitive perception of their social existence, this type of behavior is unfortunately popular.

In almost every way of the word, a man's sexual partner becomes his "bitch". She (or he in some cases) is responsible not only for his sexual needs, but also for his comfort and physical needs, and for the relative security of his personal life. She must chase out all newcomers which might threaten his superiority. A man can become all too comfortable in this type of relationship, and he will give up much to maintain it. Slavery has been outlawed, but that does not mean that there are not still some ways in which it is practiced.

[injest]

It is too late and I am too tired. I will continue this tomorrow.

Thank you for answering, Daniel. You are always interesting....

[injest]

You might not believe it, Daniel.


but Mean wins. Always.

[moremojo]

but Mean wins. Always.

I invite you to consider that "Mean" and "Good" are but illusions. They are figments of Your imagination that You employ to make this contextual field called life more compelling and interesting. Yes, Mean Always Wins, if You will it to be so. But it doesn't really matter, because ultimately nothing really matters...except the Essence of You, resonating, for Now and Always, on the ripples of Eternity.

I hope I don't seem facetious, Jess, because I get worked up over these things too (believe me, I do). I strive to preserve sanity and equilibrium by appropriating such (Eastern) philosophical outlooks and employing them upon the stuff of my own life. By telling myself that I Am Making This All Up I bestow some peace of mind upon myself. Two very wise people once told me that the mind is a wonderful tool but a terrible master. When we quiet the mind, we get in touch with a deeper sense of reality, one where Bush, Hitler, our fucked-up parents, our own sense of inadequacy, and all the rest of it are seen as fleeting phantoms in a horror show we devised for our own delectation. But the horror show isn't real.

What is real? We get a sense, a taste of Real when we are lost in the bliss of sexual union/release. This is why you see some folks do some extraordinary or even horrific things to capture or preserve this state or sensation...they are craving the Real, but are not employing the most constructive means to nurture it in their own lives. They have the right general Idea, but their path is strewn with the pitfalls of selfishness and bad faith. As someone who is compulsive in his behavior regarding pornography, and who has been tempted towards (and has actually engaged in at times) sexual recklessness, I have some sympathy for these souls, and I try not to judge them (though sometimes I find myself doing so). Sexuality, like the mind, is a wonderful tool when used wisely and with the heart always in place. Without love, sexuality can become an all-devouring demon. So All Things with Love...Always with Love. 

[injest]

oh, ok. So I MADE up that Susan Smith drowned her kids....I made up the Holocaust...it was all in MY head..

God, I am one sick sick woman.

[moremojo]

Well, if it's in Your head, it's in My head too. If You're sick, then I'm sick right here with You. The only sickness really, is not recognizing the Illusion for what it is. Susan Smith and her children are real, and so are all the participants of the Holocaust, but the events that bring them to mind are like acts in a play, that we collectively write and perform...for the sheer Fun Of It! Yes, the Universe is one big Game, devised for our own Divine Pleasure. This Pleasure exists on a Soul level of reality, not on the level of the conscious Mind. The Mind sees all of it as Horror, but the Soul can look beyond the Horror to see It from all other, different kinds of angles.

Look...Susan Smith's children and the murdered ones in the Holocaust are not what they seemed to be...they were like butterflies released from the chrysalis, able to return Home a bit sooner than the rest of us. They are stronger than we realize...We are stronger than we realize. We are spirits encased but momentarily in garb of flesh. We are in the world, but not of the world. WE ARE (simply) GOD.

[Daniel]

I will respectfully disagree, Jess.

Name one good thing that has been created or maintained by cruelty or meanness. I think it is possibly because you view the power to destroy as being more powerful than the power to create. If cruelty and meanness always wins then nothing would exist. Everything would be destroyed or subverted to a hostile franchise. And this, we know is not always the case. There are educational systems that seek to create a critically thinking individual rather than a automaton of industry, and these could not have been created or facilitated through cruelty. Indeed it would seem that cruelty-sponsored educational systems would undermine the individual to the point of extreme debasing. Are there some educational systems like this? Yes, of course. But generally such educational systems are eventually torn down and replaced with more caring and kind educational systems that are in favor of teaching the individual self-empowerment.

Political systems are sometimes created or facilitated through cruelty. But these political systems destroy individual rights, undermine economic independence, and enforce slavery upon their peoples. They kill, maim, brutalize and terrorize their citizens. But generally such political systems are eventually torn down and replaced with more caring and kind political systems that are in favor of helping the individual to reclaim his or her individual rights, funding private enterprise and enabling the independent growth thereof, and releasing their peoples from the tyranny of debt.

Religious systems are sometimes created or facilitated through cruelty. They dominate the masses by thought control, insist upon dogmatic principles and terrorize those whom express otherwise. But generally, such religious systems are eventually town down and replaced with more caring and kind religious systems that are in favor of embracing changes in thought and cognitive diversity, are willing to free those that they can from dogmatic ritual and embrace the discovery of true spirituality in the face of hardships, and otherwise look forward to the engagement of the human mind in the complexity of its soul.

There are cruel systems in place throughout the world, but they are not "winning", and if they were, I would be questioning what exactly it is that they were winning. For the most part such systems are like cruel individuals, they are consumed by the negativity that broils within them and have less and less interest in the genuine goodness of man. Sometimes we forget our spiritual nature, but that does not mean that the spiritual nature is not present, or that it is not still acting on our behalf.

I can remember a story where a Buddhist would not leave his meditation spot, even when the rest of the village was fleeing from a warlord known for his cruelty. When the warlord's forces marched into the village, he remained where he was, quietly meditating in the lotus position. When the warlord thundered in himself on the back of a huge horse, he remained where he was, quietly meditating in the lotus position. The warlord did not like this monk that refused to move in the face of his power. He drew out his spear and held it to the monk's throat.

"Do you not realize that I can pierce your body with this spear and kill you, making all your meditations meaningless?"

The monk looked up peacefully and replied.

"Do you not realize that I can let you pierce my body with your spear and make all your killing meaningless?"

The warlord took his forces and left the village.

[Daniel]

There is actually a wonderful book out, Jess, if you want to look into it, called Fire in the Soul. Chapter One might be really beneficial for you, its called Why Do Bad Things Happen?

If you don't want to go out and find it, I can probably post a few excerpts here.

[moremojo]

"When the hurly-burly's done,
When the battle's lost and won,..." ....what is left? Love Eternal.

I love you.

Peace to all who read this,
Scott

[Daniel]

Thanks, Scott.

I love you too.

[injest]

Well, if it's in Your head, it's in My head too. If You're sick, then I'm sick right here with You. The only sickness really, is not recognizing the Illusion for what it is. Susan Smith and her children are real, and so are all the participants of the Holocaust, but the events that bring them to mind are like acts in a play, that we collectively write and perform...for the sheer Fun Of It! Yes, the Universe is one big Game, devised for our own Divine Pleasure. This Pleasure exists on a Soul level of reality, not on the level of the conscious Mind. The Mind sees all of it as Horror, but the Soul can look beyond the Horror to see It from all other, different kinds of angles.

Look...Susan Smith's children and the murdered ones in the Holocaust are not what they seemed to be...they were like butterflies released from the chrysalis, able to return Home a bit sooner than the rest of us. They are stronger than we realize...We are stronger than we realize. We are spirits encased but momentarily in garb of flesh. We are in the world, but not of the world. WE ARE (simply) GOD.

I don't understand your reasoning, Scott. From what you have written here, I am getting that you don't think other people's lifes matter. I am sure that Susan's children weren't having a lot of fun as the cold dark water engulfed them.

Are you saying that there is no morality? That everything is acceptable on some level I am not understanding? So tying Matthew to the fence was not (on this cosmic level) an evil, cruel thing? and in fact he didn't suffer? or that his suffering doesn't matter?

[injest]

I will respectfully disagree, Jess.

Name one good thing that has been created or maintained by cruelty or meanness. I think it is possibly because you view the power to destroy as being more powerful than the power to create. If cruelty and meanness always wins then nothing would exist. Everything would be destroyed or subverted to a hostile franchise. And this, we know is not always the case. There are educational systems that seek to create a critically thinking individual rather than a automaton of industry, and these could not have been created or facilitated through cruelty. Indeed it would seem that cruelty-sponsored educational systems would undermine the individual to the point of extreme debasing. Are there some educational systems like this? Yes, of course. But generally such educational systems are eventually torn down and replaced with more caring and kind educational systems that are in favor of teaching the individual self-empowerment.

Political systems are sometimes created or facilitated through cruelty. But these political systems destroy individual rights, undermine economic independence, and enforce slavery upon their peoples. They kill, maim, brutalize and terrorize their citizens. But generally such political systems are eventually torn down and replaced with more caring and kind political systems that are in favor of helping the individual to reclaim his or her individual rights, funding private enterprise and enabling the independent growth thereof, and releasing their peoples from the tyranny of debt.

Religious systems are sometimes created or facilitated through cruelty. They dominate the masses by thought control, insist upon dogmatic principles and terrorize those whom express otherwise. But generally, such religious systems are eventually town down and replaced with more caring and kind religious systems that are in favor of embracing changes in thought and cognitive diversity, are willing to free those that they can from dogmatic ritual and embrace the discovery of true spirituality in the face of hardships, and otherwise look forward to the engagement of the human mind in the complexity of its soul.

There are cruel systems in place throughout the world, but they are not "winning", and if they were, I would be questioning what exactly it is that they were winning. For the most part such systems are like cruel individuals, they are consumed by the negativity that broils within them and have less and less interest in the genuine goodness of man. Sometimes we forget our spiritual nature, but that does not mean that the spiritual nature is not present, or that it is not still acting on our behalf.

I can remember a story where a Buddhist would not leave his meditation spot, even when the rest of the village was fleeing from a warlord known for his cruelty. When the warlord's forces marched into the village, he remained where he was, quietly meditating in the lotus position. When the warlord thundered in himself on the back of a huge horse, he remained where he was, quietly meditating in the lotus position. The warlord did not like this monk that refused to move in the face of his power. He drew out his spear and held it to the monk's throat.

"Do you not realize that I can pierce your body with this spear and kill you, making all your meditations meaningless?"

The monk looked up peacefully and replied.

"Do you not realize that I can let you pierce my body with your spear and make all your killing meaningless?"

The warlord took his forces and left the village.

I read a story once about what would have happened in India if Gandi had been facing the Nazi warlords....for the story changes if the opponent..the warlord didnt stop to talk. In the story I read the protestors were killed and then every tenth person in the village died with them....after a while the protestors stopped protesting to protect the innocent.

Have you ever read 1984?

[injest]

I hope I don't come across as disrespectful. Or offensive, Scott and Daniel....just trying to wrestle my head around things....

it is not as easy for me...just like any muscle your brain gets lazy when you don't use it...

[Daniel]

Yes, I have read 1984, and I think it is important for every person to mentally explore every cruelty his mind is capable of conceiving. As a result of this mental exploration, we can often come up with ways to fight the oppressive cruelty of others. The main source for democracy is of course information and education in the face of misinformation and propaganda. If you can remember V for Vendetta, an informed populace is the worst enemy of the government.

If you want to get into governmental conspiracies, I have a slew of videos on my thread Strange Connections, most of them from a film called "Zeitgeist", unless youtube's removed them again.

[Brokeback_Dev]

Icky.  I am staying out of this conversation.  All I can say is those poor souls, from Matthew, to the holocaust victims (some of which I will probably find in my heritage), to the 5 Little kids in the back of that car as it went down into the lake.

[injest]

Icky.  I am staying out of this conversation.  All I can say is those poor souls, from Matthew, to the holocaust victims (some of which I will probably find in my heritage), to the 5 Little kids in the back of that car as it went down into the lake.

oh fine then! Leave me in here all alone with these two brainiacs!! I need some backup here!!

 

[injest]

An old Jewish man approaches the police in his town. "There is a new man come to town. I knew him in the death camps. He was a guard there. He killed many people and raped women."

The police look in disgust upon the old Jew. "Look! He is being sweet and nice...live and let live. Besides you have no proof!"

so the old Jew goes to the paper..."There is a man in town. He is a murderer and a rapist. I have seen it with my own eyes! I have lived here for thirty years, you know me! I do not go about making these charges lightly!"

The paper runs an article about the old Jew losing his mind and making up stories.

so the old Jew goes to the religious leaders of his community..."There is a Nazi death camp guard here...he has fed live children into the ovens at Aushwitz! Here are two more witnesses to his crimes!"

"Elder, we must learn to forgive and forget! Everyone starts here with a clean slate. As long as he behaves HERE then his past is immaterial"

A man escapes from Buchenwald, he flees to a town in northern France...tells his story to the people of the horrors he has seen. Their response?

"We don't want to hear it. It doesn't affect us."

The Nazis arrive and begin transporting people away in cattle cars..."We dont want to hear it....we must show love. THAT will stop them" and they

This is why I think evil triumphs. There are evil people who enjoy destruction and causing pain...and there are an awful lot of people who want to live their lifes looking the other way as long as they aren't suffering. As long as it doesn't cost them anything.

To be silent in the face of evil is to give it power...

that is why child molesters rack up HUGE numbers of victims..."SHHHHHH! dont talk about it! It doesn't affect me..."

[moremojo]

I don't understand your reasoning, Scott. From what you have written here, I am getting that you don't think other people's lifes matter. I am sure that Susan's children weren't having a lot of fun as the cold dark water engulfed them.

Are you saying that there is no morality? That everything is acceptable on some level I am not understanding? So tying Matthew to the fence was not (on this cosmic level) an evil, cruel thing? and in fact he didn't suffer? or that his suffering doesn't matter?

What I am trying to suggest with these words is that morality isn't the whole picture. In the realm of the Transcendent, I believe there is no moral polarity--Good versus Evil will not have the same meaning it does for us humans in this contextual field called life/earth. This is going to sound amazing to many, and quite possibly cruel to many others, but I believe that we create our own reality/lives. Susan Smith's children and the victims of the Holocaust created their destiny, on a Soul level, because they wanted to experience those experiences. To be clearer, their Souls wished to have these experiences, even if their conscious Minds had no recollection of this.

I can't prove any of this, this is just a matter of personal belief to me. I believe that nothing is an accident; everything happens for a reason. Furthermore, I believe that we create our reality, from a Soul level, for the sheer joy of experiencing experience--God gets to know God in this way. This is a very Eastern concept--that of the universe being lila, God's Divine Game or Play. In this sense, life very much matters, but life transcends our understanding of it. Susan Smith's children did not die in that dark lake--their bodies did. They themselves, the essences of who they are, endure still--they are eternal, existing before they manifested as Susan Smith's children and enduring beyond the demise of those identities. We transcend our earthly identities--we are not our earthly identities.

Some key words for these concepts--monism; Abhinavagupta; Kashmir Saivism; lila. I find an "austere compassion" in these systems of belief. Many find them hard and unappealing, but the Truth need not be comforting, at least not in an ordinary sense. I value Truth over Comfort.

Hope this helps in understanding where I'm coming from. I may sound harsh in this, but I think I'm actually offering another way of looking at things, a way that offers freedom from illusion and needless suffering.

Peace,
From the one playing as Scott

[moremojo]

I'd like to add a little more clarification on the subject of suffering that you addressed, Jess. Do I believe that people suffer? Absolutely--the evidence is all around us. Do I believe that people deserve to suffer? No, not at all, but "deserve" is a tendentious and misleading term in this context. I posit that people (or, more accurately, their Souls) choose to have the experience of "suffering", much as an actor might choose to undertake the role of a misunderstood, troubled, or tortured character in a play. The play's the thing! If one sees experience as a kind of play-acting, one can see things in a whole new Light.

What is the appropriate response to suffering? Choose from the enormous emotional repertoire at hand: If You are choosing to experience Yourself as a merciful person, Love and Compassion would be excellent responses. If the One is opting to experience the mode of Selfishness, Apathy would be an apposite choice. The possibilities and nuances are virtually limitless.

So what do You/We choose? This is the crux of free will, for without the capacity or ability to choose between "Good" and "Evil", the play becomes devoid of Meaning. We invest the Game with Meaning with our own choices within the contextual field. This may well be precisely why "Good" and "Evil" were created, to enable the Divine Players to create a Meaningful Story. But the Story isn't the end all and be all of Reality. And that is part of the great Mystery yet unfolding.

[ifyoucantfixit]

       I am sorry scott but I feel I must put up a different perspective here.
   I think you are espousing a certain belief system.  It is the same as any other religion, and you are
more than entitiled to it.  However saying that.  Not all people do feel that way and have those
particular belief systems.  That doesnt mean that other peoples perpectivei,,,isnt,,,,just as valid
and true. 
    How about the people that dont believe in the hearafter.  That dont have your faith in the common joining of the souls in the afterdeath terms....Are they doomed to just feel that they
are unequal.  Just as any other group of minoritys.

[Daniel]

Before we start having a knock-down, throw-out argument... lets slow down and think about what we're trying to do here. This is a thread about the serious discussions of life, so of course we're not going to be seeing eye to eye. The point is to bounce ideas off of one another, not in order to come to a conclusion, but just to experience a multitude of ideas that we might be able to use to form our own ideas about what the truth of the matter might be. If either one of us is coming down more authoritative than we meant to, I believe I can apologize for both of us.

But we have thought of these serious things before; that is why we have formed these opinions and why they are so strong in our own beings. So as long as we're on that same page... that is to say that we are all on separate pages, for the most part, we will be alright. Scott and I might even be in the same chapter, but we're not going to gang up on you and force you to see it our way. Serious discussions about life seems to be, at least where I was raised, a mostly male-dominated event... and my brother occasionally despairs that women cannot philosophize. I pointed out to him that that was overgeneralization and certainly not true of all women.  But he seems to also think that the point of philosophization is consensus... that I am almost certain is not the case... Philosophizing, or participating in serious discussions of life, gives us an opportunity to challenge our own beliefs about how the world is so, and to collect our thoughts and feelings about a particular subject so we can know where we as individuals stand.

As long as we can participate in this discussion with this knowledge intact, everything will be okay, and there won't be any need for anyone to apologize for their own personal viewpoints. Of course, it will be natural and indeed perhaps even necessary for each participant to stand by his or her own argument. And if anyone decides to change their views on a particular subject due to another person's argument, that is an internal change within that person and no one has "won" anything.  This is not a battle to be won, but rather a game to be played.  We are interested in seeing where all the ideas can take us, not in acknowledging one victor.

Anyway, that is my little blurb for today. I certainly didn't want to sound like I was coming down hard on anyone, but now that I look up at it, it does feel like I'm berating someone... I'm not trying to, and I don't know who exactly I might be berating... so enough of that thinking. I just wanted to remind everyone to lighten up... we are all in the great game of life, and where we are on the board does not mean that we are further along or back than anyone else.

[ifyoucantfixit]

          I would never cause or take part in an....as you call it.  Knock down drag out...I am just saying there are two schools of thought..I appreciate yours.  I hope I can expect the same.
          I certainly meant no disrespect.....I would just decline my position if it were to lead to
that//

[Daniel]

I know you didn't... and I just wanted to clarify all of what I just said before we got any further... There's no need for anyone to apologize for their own views... and if you're feeling rubbed the wrong way by what someone else has said, try to calm down and get to why it feels like you've been rubbed the wrong way. Okay, everything I'm saying is better reserved for argument-ending, which isn't happening here, but its good stuff so I'm just gonna leave it... lol...

So anyway, as long as we're agreeing that we're basically agreeing to disagree and to maintain our own viewpoints and not try to subvert others, let's carry on.

[ifyoucantfixit]

      I hope I did not seem too arguementative.  I was only pointing out the fact that myself and
others have not seen the ethos or future as a place we choose to land.  We only want to partake
in all the aspects of today and now..Without the disdain or criticisim that we are not worthy of
the ability to philosophize.  That is...pardon my view.. of your brothers thoughts.  Rude and
disregarding, and misogenistic.  I don't and havent found that to be true at all...

[injest]

Scott,

If I were to subscribe to it....I would be absolved of all 'sin' or crimes because the 'victims' wanted to be victims. So how can you justify putting anyone in jail?

If I believed that other people that are in worse circumstances than I am in CHOOSE their circumstance then what right have I got to aid them? In fact if I use and abuse them I am being helpful....since it is in fact what they wanted. A step further down the road you lay out....If I abuse WORSE then I am hastening them on their fun journey. So dont' just rape....mutilate! I am doing what she wants.

Your philosophy seems too close to the patriarchal standard we have just pulled ourselves away from.

[Daniel]

It is misogynistic; my brother has some strange views about life, but considering the way my father is, its a miracle he's not a gung-ho male-chauvinist **** (insert expletive here).  Fortunately, I think he's really trying to do something about them, unlike my father.  And I have tried to point out that most of the girls that are his age that he can hang around with have some serious issues besides their "inability to philosophize".  It was not much of a surprise to me when my brother informed me that most of the women his age have serious problems with alcohol, self esteem, and relationship addictions. And I hate to say that, because it sounds like I am stereotyping all women ages 21 to 25, but here in the DFW area, with its lack of public transportation resources and disturbing absence of anything really fun or meaningful for young adults.... I fear that a lot of young people have adapted their lives to weekend alcohol binging... err, partying, drug use and casual sex as a way of filling their lives.  I am glad that my brother hasn't gotten into too much of that, though, and I think a large part of it might have been my urging of the free and open mind in his later education.

[injest]

It is misogynistic; my brother has some strange views about life, but considering the way my father is, its a miracle he's not a gung-ho male-chauvinist **** (insert expletive here).  Fortunately, I think he's really trying to do something about them, unlike my father.  And I have tried to point out that most of the girls that are his age that he can hang around with have some serious issues besides their "inability to philosophize".  It was not much of a surprise to me when my brother informed me that most of the women his age have serious problems with alcohol, self esteem, and relationship addictions. And I hate to say that, because it sounds like I am stereotyping all women ages 21 to 25, but here in the DFW area, with its lack of public transportation resources and disturbing absence of anything really fun or meaningful for young adults.... I fear that a lot of young people have adapted their lives to weekend alcohol binging... err, partying, drug use and casual sex as a way of filling their lives.  I am glad that my brother hasn't gotten into too much of that, though, and I think a large part of it might have been my urging of the free and open mind in his later education.

well you find what you look for. If you go to bars all the time looking for dates then you are going to meet people that drink...

[Daniel]

Here, perhaps this excerpt from Fire in the Soul will help you, Jess.

Andrei had just received the phone call I've always feared the most. The one that would tell me that loved one had died suddenly. [....] Mat died before he even reached the hospital. Andrei's anguished "why?" was resonated by most of the teenagers who gathered at our home to grieve during the first few days after the tragedy. Why Mat? Why the one who never had a critical word for anyone, the one who was so grateful for life, so accepting of the uniqueness and potential of everyone he met? "Why the very best of us?" they asked.
     At odds with Andrei and the others, one young woman admonished, "Don't even ask that question. It doesn't have an answer that we could possibly understand." This teenager in white sneakers and red socks had put her finger directly on the pulse of the sacred mystery. We cannot know. But for human beings, the need to know goes hand in hand with restructuring our world after tragedy.
     Tragedy brings forth the need to create meaning -to tell new stories - that can reweave the frayed ends of life into a coherent whole. Our ability to tell these stories is positively linked with recovery, according to the research of UCLA-based psychologist Shelly Taylor. Studying people whose lives had been disrupted by misfortunes that ranged from rape to life-threatening illness, Dr. Taylor found that those who readjusted well incorporated three coping strategies into their recovery: a search for meaning in the experience, an attempt to gain mastery over the event in particular and life in general, and a recouping of self-esteem after they had suffered some loss or setback.[size]
     Dr. Taylor was awed by the remarkable resilience of human nature and the deep reservoir of strength that tragedy taps. She observed that, rather than folding in times of crisis, most people have the innate capacity to recover from monumental problems, readjusting to life not only as well as, but even better than, before the tragedy occurred. And the meaning we ascribe to these dark nights of the soul is central to how we emerge from them.

You are asking about the cruelty of taking a life, of hindering our development as human beings and as individuals, the incarceration and destruction of thousands of lives. Do these events have meaning? To many, yes. The survivors of these acts of cruelty can become stronger and better people than they were before; they can respond to their own thoughts of vengeance - cruelty in response to cruelty, and master them. And I do not think there is anything more empowering for a human being than realizing that you can do more than just get revenge. You can do something productive, rather than destructive... Responding to cruelty with the ultimate kindness, the sacrifice of life's pleasures and comforts to bring true knowledge, meaning, and many other states of loving awareness to others.

In response to being raped at knifepoint, we can struggle to regain our prior sense of being, a greater sense of being, and with that difficult moment now part of ourselves we have a more powerful strength to do what we have always felt called to do but did not realize it, or did not know that we had the strength to do it.

I think that this, in part, is what Scott is refering to. We do not create the cruelties that take place in our lives, but we are actively seeking for ways to make us stronger and better human beings and individuals. And sometimes, though it may be a rare and unfortunate event, the very thing that we fear will happen to us the most is the thing that grants us that extra strength, that extra courage, the extra power we need to accomplish our life's mission.

[Daniel]

well you find what you look for. If you go to bars all the time looking for dates then you are going to meet people that drink...

Where else would you like him to go?

And I am not referring to casual drinkers... the purpose and intent of alcohol binging is to get piss-drunk, to forget who you are. This is the modicum of entertainment that many young adults have taken on themselves, and what is worse is that the media is sponsoring this idea more fully than ever before.
I seem to be the last of a dying breed, the philosophical youth. I would counter it will all my might, if I could, I would do everything in my power to see that an army of free thinking individuals stands upon the horizon of tomorrow. But here in the United States, where the public education system dumbs down its inmates; the government bans and disenfranchises ideas of political dissension as anti-American or terrorist threats, and where the economy is controlled not by independent businesses but by a central banking system with vested interests in maintaining the perpetual idea of free thought but never allowing it to blast off, I do not think this army of free thinking individuals will rise anytime soon.

[injest]

Where else would you like him to go?

And I am not referring to casual drinkers... the purpose and intent of alcohol binging is to get piss-drunk, to forget who you are. This is the modicum of entertainment that many young adults have taken on themselves, and what is worse is that the media is sponsoring this idea more fully than ever before.
I seem to be the last of a dying breed, the philosophical youth. I would counter it will all my might, if I could, I would do everything in my power to see that an army of free thinking individuals stands upon the horizon of tomorrow. But here in the United States, where the public education system dumbs down its inmates; the government bans and disenfranchises ideas of political dissension as anti-American or terrorist threats, and where the economy is controlled not by independent businesses but by a central banking system with vested interests in maintaining the perpetual idea of free thought but never allowing it to blast off, I do not think this army of free thinking individuals will rise anytime soon.

bookstores

sports groups

charitable organizations

spiritual organizations

night classes

[Daniel]

I'll pass on your ideas, Jess, but I know he has tried going to church with some of his girl friends and found that to be as disgusting as I find our current state of political and economic affairs. I cannot say that I blame him, for like most of the south and midwest, we are ruled by the megachurches.  Organizations designed to hold individual lives in check through religious and political fear.  If you have ever seen the film Jesus Camp, you will have some idea what type of experiences might be occurring in youths in their attempts to grasp their own spiritual identities. Indoctrination, Bible Camp, forced prayer, even forced speaking in tongues in some places.

My brother can recount for you one of the most terrifying experiences he ever had while attending a megachurch (actually I think it may have been a smaller church with a megachurch mentality), in which he was quite literally forced to "pray in tongues". The pastor forcibly held him down until he did. And scarily, this is a common occurence. There is nothing I can do about it though, and that saddens me... The world will remain like this (or become progressively worse) until we as a culture, as a society can rise up and say that we are fed up with it and come up with something new, something that works in man's progressive search for his inner self... and not merely come up with food, clothing, and machines that make us look and feel good about ourselves. We must advance the inner mind, the soul, in search of a greater depth of meaning...

I know that a spiritual organization is different from a religious organization, but if you look around here in the DFW metroplex, you will not find many spiritual organizations. I tried to find a Parabola reading group down here not too long ago, and found that it had been dissolved some time before I even moved. As far as I know, there are no organizations in pursuit of spiritual meaning here in DFW and I've looked high and low for them. Everything that's even remotely spiritual is wrapped up in pretense and psychological mumbo-jumbo that has no place in the search for self.

For a while, new age bookstores provided some relief from this catoleptic experience of life, but the megachurches have pounded them out of commission. In an area that once was the Aquarian Capital, there are now 2 new age businesses that have not been put out of business.  There are other bookstores, yes, but strangely enough, they are mostly empty of customers. You can sometimes find someone in the cooking section, or the romantic fiction arena but that's just about it.

Night classes? He's taking some graduate courses, but I don't think they're the deep and provocative ones that one should really be taking to challenge the mind and void our lives of the repetitive, incessant babble of the beginnings of the posthumanist era.

[moremojo]

Scott,

If I were to subscribe to it....I would be absolved of all 'sin' or crimes because the 'victims' wanted to be victims. So how can you justify putting anyone in jail?

If I believed that other people that are in worse circumstances than I am in CHOOSE their circumstance then what right have I got to aid them? In fact if I use and abuse them I am being helpful....since it is in fact what they wanted. A step further down the road you lay out....If I abuse WORSE then I am hastening them on their fun journey. So dont' just rape....mutilate! I am doing what she wants.

Your philosophy seems too close to the patriarchal standard we have just pulled ourselves away from.

No, nothing to do with patriarchy here. You ask some very cogent questions that I still grapple with. If we will our destinies into being, should we never appeal to a sense of morality, seeing morality as a relative and unstable thing that doesn't even hold up in the mirror of Eternity? I don't think this is at all the most constructive approach we can take.

I think morality is here precisely so we can engage one another in a moral sense. Morality helps us choose who we want to be in a particular moment. And morality is measured, I think, by the degree of joy or suffering that we see around us. Something that causes the most pleasure to the most people, or alternatively something that causes the least harm to the least number of people, can be seen as Good. Conversely, something that does the most harm to the greatest number of people may be defined as Bad or Evil. By knowing the difference between Good and Evil, we are better able to craft our path, our destiny to a greater degree of nuance and refinement, just as the painter who can choose between this color and that color has a greater choice about what kind of picture she wants to create.

Should we never grieve? Should we never feel angry? Should we never seek to punish the transgressor and protect the victim? No, not at all. We should feel our feelings...that's precisely why we have them. We are in this contextual field for a reason, and that is to experience...ALL of It. Experience sadness, loss, love, joy, anger, quiescence, resignation...the whole spectrum of human feeling. Yes, send someone to jail who transgresses your law...if they end up there, their Soul was calling them to that experience, just as your Soul is calling you into the experience of Jailer. But when the jail has crumbled to dust, along with the laws that put it up in the first place, remember that Prisoner and Jailer were merely roles that you played...they do not define Who You Really Are.

Do keep in mind that I am only expounding my own speculations here. I am not the repository of all the answers. But the philosophy I present here is one that I find both interesting and personally appealing. You are free to consider it and reject it as you see fit. But I wish to emphasize that this approach is not patriarchal in the least...I find the Judeo-Christian tradition, with its emphasis on sin and retribution, much more deserving of that appellation.

[moremojo]

I have to say that, upon reflection, I think my reasons for citing the Judeo-Christian tradition as patriarchal had nothing to do with logical reasoning. I do believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition is imbued with patriarchal values, but its emphasis on sin and retribution (with the added nuance, within the Christian religion, of redemption) has nothing to do with this. The patriarchal values of this tradition are reflected in its myths and in the structure of its organized religions.

[moremojo]

One very important element within my attempts to explicate in this thread the monistic flavor of Kashmir Saivism (as I understand it) that I've neglected is the emphasis within this religion on recognition. Succinctly, this tradition states that God and the individual Consciousness are One and the Same (ergo, we create all that we experience, for God, the creative agent of the universe, is absolutely identical with Us), and that the key to enlightenment is the recognition and direct experience of this Reality.

How can this recognition be attained? In any number of ways. Abhinavagupta, the great synthesizer of Kashmir Saivism, advocated ritual behavior that would shock the participant into such awareness. Many of these rituals were deliberately devised to transgress the taboos of his particular culture (with its empasis on ritual purity), to remind the participant that God is within all things, and that there is nothing that is not holy. But there are as many paths to recognition as there are human beings to experience it. Meeting an old friend is one possible portal into this experience, as is the aesthetic experience of appreciating a work of art, music, or literature. Abhinavagupta was a compassionate figure (in a similar way, to my mind, as Lucretius was) and sought to free his fellow beings from the bondage of illusion, even though his methods might seem shocking or scandalous. The sense of heartlessness that I know many must see in my comments in this thread only seem so because they go against the "bad faith" that our culture has instilled in us. As Gangaji once said, "Love is ruthless." Love takes no prisoners...because Love is Free! It is in grappling with such apparent paradox that we begin to approach Divine Truth.

[Daniel]

Scott, while I can appreciate your knowledge and understanding of spirituality, I don't think these discussions were ever meant to be this... heavy. If it becomes too heavy, it becomes less possible for others to engage in it, since they might be confused or not as well versed in religious and spiritual philosophies than we might be... Let's see if we can keep it a little lighter so that everyone can participate, if we can.

[ifyoucantfixit]

        I find these kinds of activities, somewhat meandering...It is so much like free associating.
You can feel and think whatever you like to do..Its all ok...But at the risk of sounding way too
simplifying,,what does it do for the regular man in the end...
        It is over so many peoples head, and does it serve any purpose other than to the one doing the espousing...
       I personally would like to see something that would encompass the greater majority of
people and let them understand ,,, and participate....JMO
          Ok maybe that makes me stupid, i will own that.

[Daniel]

No, it doesn't make you stupid....

A discussion should be that, a discussion... not a lecture. Lectures are all very well and good when you're ready to completely listen and try to learn about another person's perspective without entering your own views into the equation at the time. Discussions are about bouncing ideas off of each other, addressing expressed concerns, and just allowing a beautiful flow of information that creates dialogue.

[injest]

from what I understand Scott you are talking about a form of reincarnation. That we live lifes over and over. But my understanding of reincarnation is that you live a life that 'corrects' the wrongs you did in the previous one. That we as spiritual beings are on a path toward being more God like...but that we stumble and have to keep reliving to learn lessons...what those lessons are, I am not aware of. but this to me seems more logical (and more attractive) than to think we are choosing based on whims instead. (and whims may be the wrong word...)

I am not familiar with the names you mentioned...links, if any, might be helpful.

[moremojo]

Yes, reincarnation is a central component of the belief system I'm describing. But bear in mind that traditionally, in the Eastern religions in which it is featured, reincarnation is not a "good" thing. The cycle of birth and rebirth locks one into a round of suffering from which the soul hopes to escape. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism (Kashmir Saivism is a Hindu sect) all offer strategies by which to escape the wheel of transmigration. Enlightenment is a key element usually in freeing oneself from this cycle.

My own take on reincarnation is that there is no particular program of betterment, or evolution that is being played out. The Soul has nothing to learn, as it contains Everything within Itself. Experience rather than knowledge per se is what is being pursued. This may be akin to a whim, but it is the Grandest Whim Ever Conceived. It is God seeing God through the length and breadth of Space-Time and beyond into Eternity. I hasten to affirm that this is my own particular take on this issue, and is not necessarily illustrative of the tenets of Kashmir Saivism or any other religion.

There seems to be very little online pertaining to Kashmir Saivism or Abhinavagupta. I'll search around and post (or PM you) any requisite links as I find them.

You might be interested in studying Buddhism. I am not an expert by any means on the Buddhist tradition, but a basic concept of the religion is that Desire is the root of all suffering, and that by detaching ourselves from Desire we can free ourselves from suffering. In a system such as this, one could observe that Mean Always Wins and still be free from suffering. It's seemingly paradoxical, yet possible.

[moremojo]

Yes, Jess, women are the mothers of the human race. None of us would be here without women. I have pondered on the reality that the first body we idolize, regardless of who we are (be it male or female, gay or straight or any permutation in between), is a woman's body. Woman is our first intimation of the Divine--it is only later that so many of us have it drummed into our heads that God is Father, when we so naturally apprehended from the beginning that it was the Goddess who cared for us.

While it is true (and true for the very reasons you point out) that there are fewer women famous for their philosophizing than men, it does not follow that women actually philosophize less. They just haven't written down their thoughts as extensively (for various reasons), or have not had access to their writings being preserved, promoted, and/or published. The humblest, meekest person can be the repository of enormous wisdom. Many, many women throughout history have been sages, healers, teachers, artists, and priests. The fact that many (most) of their names have been forgotten does not diminish the immense importance they have had. Remember the saying that behind every great man is a great woman? Well, I think that's true, but it's also self-evident that a woman is behind every single human being who ever lived!

 

[injest]

Mary Renault got me started looking at ancient Greece.

one of the things that fascinate me is that period of time when civilization moved from worshipping the mother earth to worshipping the sky gods...

and interesting to see how men have held onto that fear of women's power.

[ifyoucantfixit]

               I too hope that we can have a point of agreement here.  Not make it a place where there is a very institutionalized type of  opposition.  I hope that women vs men is not going to become the core issue.  I like and respect men and women..I hope that we can use that as a
common ground and then take the phylosophical discussion forward, without those kinds of
name callings and separating thoughts...
               There are ideas that the soul can relate to..Men and women be damned.....

[injest]

agreed.

 

[moremojo]

I asked my friend Keith, who introduced me to Abhinavagupta and Kashmir Saivism, and who has remained my primary mentor in this tradition, to examine my replies in this thread to see if I misrepresented anything here. Here is his electronic message in response to me (shared here with his explicit permission), which I find very interesting and informative, and which explicates this religion much more fully and insightfully than I am able:
 
Dear Scott

I found your comments insightful and largely misunderstood by those who took issue with them.  I will concede that it is very difficult to get out of the monotheistic perspective in which a fatherly deity is held to sit in judgment over all creation.  We’re entirely too accustomed to a universe of right and wrong, with reward for virtue and punishments for vice distributed by an almighty overlord. Of course, we all assume that the actions for which we are being rewarded or punished are those that we see as virtues and vices, respectively.  The gods help us if we’re wrong!
     There are two things I would note about your comments on Kashmir Shaivism. 
     The first of these is your characterization of the tradition as “Hindu.”  This isn’t really a mistake.  I just want to point out that the term is modern and doesn’t reflect any concept in pre-modern India.  It has, of course, been accepted by modern Indians, however, and use of the term can be helpful for people to locate the tradition.
     The second thing is the idea that we each have a soul.  For one thing, I hate to use the term “soul” for anything in ancient Indian religions (modern Indian religions aren’t so much a problem).  If we’re talking about a self, however, there isn’t a multiplicity of selves.  There’s just one self.
     I’m afraid I probably won’t really be able to explain this clearly in just a few words, but I will try.  The ultimate reality is simply consciousness, so we can look at things as working on the ultimate level in much the same way that our own cognitions work.  Now, within a given cognition you can see two aspects, the seer and the seen (the subject (the producer of the cognition) and the object).  Our perception of the ordinary world occurs when the seer deliberately identifies itself with particular objects (namely, the mental faculties), and sees everything else as other than itself.  In other words, although all objects exist within the universal self, this ultimate self limits itself by identifying itself with particular objects, by thinking that it is these objects only, and by, conversely, coming to think that all other objects are other than its self.  The universe so becomes divided into “me” and “not-me.”  What we ordinarily call the self is, thus, just an agglomeration of those objects the self has chosen to identify with.  For example, by identifying with a certain mind, certain sensory faculties, a certain body, etc., and by thinking that all other objects are not itself, the ultimate self becomes “Scott.”     
     How about this?  Imagine a man.  Imagine the man walking.  This imaginary man is an object, a thing you’ve just created, but it is not something different from yourself.  Now, spend some time developing this man.  Picture his life and his adventures.  If you concentrate on them enough you can get so wrapped up in them that they seem real.  You can, briefly, forget who you are and think that you’re the imaginary creation you’ve conjured up.  That’s something like what’s going on.  The only difference is that the one self is portraying every role in the universe simultaneously, from the humblest ant to the wisest sage.
     As for morality, look at it this way:  In a play, there are actors and the characters they portray.  You can see the characters behaving immorally without thinking that the actors are doing anything wrong.  The actors choose to be in the play, even when portraying those who suffer or cause others to suffer.  If we are just the characters, however, we don’t generally realize we’re in the play.  We’re stuck in the universe of duality.  Then, in that case, there is morality.
     I’ll admit Abhinavagupta doesn’t have much to say about morality, but morality isn’t really a topic of his philosophy.  I’m inclined to say that, were he asked about morality, he’d refer his questioner to a book by a Mimamsaka (Kumarila, for example).  In the same way, I might refer you to something by Mill. 
     From the ultimate perspective, morality is meaningless.  It’s just a mental construction, a work of the imagination.  In the world we live in, it’s not.  There cannot be a question of morality without two people being involved.  In reality, there is only one self, so there cannot be morality.  In the world we live in, however, there are a multiplicity of selves, so, on this level, there can be morality.  Of course, this morality is just something we make up.         
     That said, transcending morality doesn’t mean becoming immoral.  This isn’t Christianity.  There is no separate god in heaven looking down and proclaiming some code that must be followed and torturing those that don’t comply.  The god above is just yourself, and that self is the same self that is every other person’s self.  If anything, this perspective should incline one towards compassion, not cruelty.   
      There is only the Goddess who plays at being us all.  So, if Kashmir Shaivism inclines us towards any position, it is not being cruel to others, but a realization that every other person is just yourself.  You are the Goddess, and so is the person you hate, the man who cut you off on the road, the woman who insulted you in the office, the dog who barked at you, etc.  Instead of hating them as enemies, you should realize that they are the same person you are.  It’s only your forgetfulness, your amnesia, if you will, that keeps you from knowing your identity with them.  If you realize this, you CANNOT hate them.  After all, you can only despise them as enemies when you think that they are other than yourself.
The ultimate reality transcends divisions and is pure joy. 
Sincerely,
Keith
PS  I hope this has been helpful.

[moremojo]

Here is an addendum to my friend Keith's explication/commentary that he just sent me; he invited me to share it also if I chose to do so:

Dear Scott,
I promised you an addendum to my earlier comments, so here it is.
     Mostly, I just wanted to remark on your description of Kashmir Shaivism as an “austere companion.”  Of course, your perspectives are neither more right nor more wrong than are mine, but I still wanted to give you my two cents about this.  Yes, I grant that there is a harsh element in the tradition.  In fact, its authors do describe it as being made for heroes (viirya).  It’s not for the ordinary person.  Moreover, there are certainly some disturbing practices involved.  They are, of course, deliberately disturbing, but they are meant to shake us out of our complacency so that we can see things in a new way. 
      That said, remember, it’s a religion where the entire universe is seen as art.  The experience of the aesthete and the experience of the enlightened are virtually identical.  The latter is just more complete.  There is a joyousness in the tradition.  Think of it this way:  when you’re immersed in a movie or a painting, when you’re overcome with love, you’re coming very close to enlightenment.  I know of no other religion that finds salvation in art, sex, wine, and laughter. 
     Perhaps, however, you are referring to your own connection to the fatherly god of Christianity.  If so, there is little I can say.  There is devotionalism of a sort in Kashmir Shaivism, but it’s nothing like what’s in Christianity.  Of course, I don’t find God the Father at all appealing, personally.  I do like the idea of god as lover, but this is not an idea found much in the West.  I am aware of Theresa of Avila and her ilk, but their erotic religiosity seems to consist primarily of the sick fantasies of oversexed celibates.  They don’t appeal to me.  I find the healthy physicality of the worship of Krishna, for example, to be far more attractive.  That, however, is just my perspective.  I do not mean to demean anyone else’s viewpoint.   If you find viewing the ultimate as a fatherly god appealing, then that’s as valid a view as is mine.  It’s just not one that has emotional resonance for me.
     Lastly, I want to amend the last sentence of my email.  I wrote, “The ultimate reality transcends divisions and is pure joy.” However, in fact, while the ultimate reality does transcend divisions, it, simultaneously, includes those divisions within itself.  The highest truth is not completely transcendent (as it is in Christianity).  It is both transcendent and immanent.
Yours,
Keith
PS  In case you do want to share this epistle, feel free to do so.

[moremojo]

Here is the latest exchange between Keith and myself regarding the subject of Kashmir Saivism:

Dear Keith,

Thank you for that interesting addendum. It does not surprise me to learn that the tradition is oriented towards the heroic personality. There is a grandeur in Kashmir Saivism that, frankly, I find a little frightening emotionally, though I do find it very appealing intellectually. There is just something inside of me that feels the desire to appeal to something outside of myself, though I'm aware that Abhinavagupta would have said that this "outsideness" was just illusory. But in my vulnerable moods, this devotional impulse feels very natural.

The suggestion that there is beauty in all things is truly revolutionary. The invitation to regard all creation as an aesthetic experience is one that many would resist (I myself resist it at various times). But I think there is truth in this message, and the shockingness of the invitation (in certain contexts, at least) is what I hint at when I invoke the word 'austere'. Lucretius in his Nature of Things offers a compassion that is paradoxically also austere, and I find some of this same flavor in Abhinavagupta's stance.

This all makes for very interesting discussion. Thank you for your replies, and for allowing me to grace our forum with them.

Until later,
Scott

Dear Scott,
 I hope that I am not annoying you, but I have one further addendum to my earlier comments.  It occurred to me that your readers might be interpreting “Shaivism” as meaning “the worship of Shiva” just as “Christianity” means “the worship of Christ.”  This, however, is not the meaning of the word.  To be a “Shaiva” is to be a follower of a scripture taught by Shiva, just as to be a Buddhist is to be a follower of a scripture taught by the Buddha.  One should not worship the Buddha and one should not worship Shiva.  In fact, in Kashmir Shaivism, while the ultimate is not really different from oneself (and characterizations of it as having a particular name or form are given only to get the ignorant to behave properly), the highest reality is anthropomorphized not as the god “Shiva” but as the goddess “Kaalasankarshinii” or “Maatrsadbhaava” (i.e., Kali). 
     One last note, when I objected to your phrase “austere companion,” my problem was with the word “austere.”  There is nothing austere about Kashmir Shaivism.  It is the most sensuous religion of which I am aware.  Reading your last response to mine, I do, however, understand what you mean.   It is a “hard” religion, not a soothing one.  I, therefore, retract my objection.  I know what you mean. 
Yours,
Keith

[Front-Ranger]

Hmmm, when he was talking about it being an "austere" religion vs. sensuousness, that reminded me of Brokeback Mountain, which is austere and sensuous at the same time!

[injest]

so, Scott, if we are just one being then other people do not really exist. There is no future or past?

It seems to lack purpose.

I like what I have learned of the Native Americans traditions...and I am not anywhere NEAR an expert on them...but they seem more in touch with what I 'feel'. This belonging to one another and to nature.

but I can't make that leap that other people are just figments of my imagination.

[moremojo]

Well, as I understand it, no one is a figment of another's imagination. If anything, everyone would be a figment of the One Imagination. As there is only One Self, you and I are just different projections of that Self having a little discussion because the Self is deriving some kind of joy from it. Sounds pretty neat to me.

But of course different spiritual paths or schools will appeal to different people in different ways. I too find much to admire in many of the Native American traditions. In the Conversations with God series, God tells Neale that there is much wisdom in the Native American traditions, and intimates that many of these cultures were exemplars of spiritual human communities before they were wiped out by the European conquerors.

I have a great book at home called The Sacred Tree that explicates a holistic Native American approach to spirituality utilizing the ancient symbol of the Medicine Wheel. I can look up the publication info on this book and give it to you...I'd highly recommend this wonderful illustrated book to anyone interested in spirituality and Native American cultures.

[injest]

what about the past and future thing? is there in this system you are talking of?

[moremojo]

what about the past and future thing? is there in this system you are talking of?

I'm not sure about conceptions of time that might be specific to Kashmir Saivism. I know that the system now referred to as Hinduism teaches a cyclical concept of time, where Brahman conceives a universe, sustains it, and ultimately destroys it, only for the cycle to be repeated indefinitely. The lengths of time employed (yuga, I believe is the term) are immense, as in billions of years.

I'll have to ask Keith about concepts of time as expounded by Abhinavagupta, assuming he addressed that subject. I suspect that time is probably seen as ultimately illusory, a tool with which to activate and sustain the Great Play, but which ultimately has no real existence beyond this purpose.

[ifyoucantfixit]

        With this concept in mind.  Would it be right to say that Timothy Leary was right..Just tune out turn on and tune in..........a gigantic trip...Lucy in the sky with diamonds?

[Daniel]

I hope you all can forgive me, I seem to have lost the train of conversation. It's all getting very Krishnamurti blurry and not making a whole lot of sense for me right now.

[louisev]

You know what is interesting, Scott, is that your teacher's commentary on "self" is very close to the mystical hermetic teachings to which my tradition subscribes.  (Rosicrucianism).  In the Rosicrucian tradition "soul" is spoken of as the undifferentiated Cosmic which is intelligent, and individual "souls" are the material expression of that universal and undifferentiated Soul to which we return between incarnations.  Very interesting stuff here, thanks for posting it!

[injest]

Reading about Circle Justice..(Native American)

interesting their view (as I understand it) of forgiveness. I was taught that all you had to do to be forgiven is to ask for it. The onus is on the victim to just accept it. Or THEY are wrong.

I always have felt there was something askew there...that the perpetrator of the wrong had to do less than the victim to make things right. All it took was a simple "I am sorry" and everything was supposed to be better. I have seen instances where victims COULDN"T forgive and the church turned on THEM....while the agressor sat there all sweetness and light.

In Circle Justice both the victim and the criminal have to work together to make things right. This helps the victim by showing the violator was truly working to do better.

[Daniel]

So, Jess, as I understand what you are describing as Circle Justice, both the victim and the aggressor work together on bringing harmony back into the whole. This makes perfect sense, and is often what is practiced de facto by many people, not only Native Americans. In this way the agressor learns that his actions are connected to the whole and that a future desire to perform the same types of actions would likely be met with strong mental resistance because of this knowledge. In the same way, the victims of cruelty realize that they do not need to simply remain a victim indefinitely, they can do something about their circumstances, and work for the betterment of themselves and their communities.... As I mentioned before, bringing harmony back into the whole.

[injest]

yes, Daniel

for some reason the ideas I see in Native American spirituality really speak to me. Seems very comforting.

I like the idea of working toward being in harmony, that you have some control over your circumstances. Even if part of that control is realizing and accepting that some things ARE beyond your control.

You have heard of the prayer:

Lord, grant me the Strength to change that which I can change;
 the Grace to accept that which I can not change;
 and the Wisdom to know the difference.

[Shasta542]

I love Touching Spirit Bear, Ben Mikaelsen's YA novel about Circle Justice.

[injest]

I love Touching Spirit Bear, Ben Mikaelsen's YA novel about Circle Justice.

it is hard to find anything on Spirituality that is not so hard to understand. People start writing and forget that you have to be accessible before you can teach. If your reader has to use a dictionary for every other word or do research about each phrase....you lose most of your audience.

(which is what Daniel has been saying for several pages and I just 'got') 

[Shasta542]

"Touching Spirit Bear" is very understandable. I understood it--so there ya go. I'm not too deep!  

[Daniel]

I know what you're going through, Jess. The Divine Milieu was particularly difficult for me, but I managed to get through it. What a mental workout that was. I had to read every sentence three to four times (out loud), before I finally understood what it was saying. But I'm glad I did. It's a beautiful and intriguing philosophy on life, the universe, and everything that fits in well with what I didn't know I already believed.

And if you think that statement is slightly confusing, you're probably right.

[injest]

Have things gotten worse or are we viewing the past with rose colored glasses? Everyone on the conservative radio shows go on and on abuot how wonderful everything was back in the fifties....

What about women's rights? minorities? The Cold War???

or is it their youth that they are remembering?

it is amazing to me to see how people's memories are so selective. So is mine? Are my memories real or not?

[Daniel]

Often what we remember is shaded if not colored in completely by propaganda, media coverage, and educational devices designed to keep us misinformed. The Cold War, for instance, while it may not have been started by banking interests, was most likely propelled by them... for defense spending and the scientific industrial labors of that era. When governments are at war, there is one thing that is certain... they borrow money. The Cold War was an international banker's dream. A complete round of "Duelling Banjos", followed by a rousing rendition of "Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better." and the international bankers providing the instruments and the recording devices necessary to create them.

For both the Soviet Union and the United States, I fear that the ultimate effect of the Cold War will be bankruptcy for both nations, unless some extreme actions are carried out to neutralize the national debt and reinvigorate U.S. currency by deprivatizing its production.

So, yes, what we remember is significant... As is our decision to forget. And yes, it is a decision. When we blindly accept what is offered to us and do not act in defense of what we know to be the truth and to be right, we are choosing to let it slide... we are choosing to forget and simply let that force of instruction and education walk over us and what we know to be real. Anything can be painted over this way. Films edited, for instance. Governmental documents forged. Securities overridden. Privacies breached. Rights removed. History books rewritten. Religious intolerance and dogmatic principles made part of our daily existence, and all because we choose to forget. We forget who we are. We forget what we are. We forget that we are. And then we just forget.  A mindless population is the most easily controlled.

[moremojo]

it is amazing to me to see how people's memories are so selective. So is mine? Are my memories real or not?

You might be interested in exploring the films of the great French director Alain Resnais if memory is a theme that concerns or appeals to you. The vagaries and tricky beauty of memory are major motifs in this artist's work. Some pertinent films include Hiroshima mon amour, L'année dernière à Marienbad, Muriel ou Le temps d'un retour, and Je t'aime, je t'aime.

Fellow filmmaker and author Marguerite Duras, who wrote the screenplay for Hiroshima mon amour, shares some of these same preoccupations...her novel L'amant (The Lover), is a representative work, as well as being one of her greatest (approach Jean-Jacques Annaud's dubious film adaptation of L'amant with caution).

[Artiste]

Great subject, you ask now! Thanks!

If you notice on one of my threads or others, you will see that there was a bit more freedom between men in certains times, like in the 30's, 40's, even the 50's, in some ways!! They certainly smiled much more!! ??

Yes??

Hugs!!

[Lynne]

Good grief, Jess!  Lynchings?!  How'd you get there from here??     Not treating this lightly, by any means.  I know well how such stream-of-consciousness browsing can lead you places you don't want to go (or you feel compelled to follow).  Just a week or so ago, Truman sent me a link to Wikipedia which led me to a listing of known victims of GLBT hate crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people).

I swear, I spent hours reading the articles linked with each and every name, took me half the night.  But what really kept me awake was knowing that the 35 names or so listed are the teeny tip of a very large iceburg.  They all deserved better.  And never mind the thousands or more not listed yet.  It might make a good project to research this and add every single name we can find - if we all concentrated on say a 250 mile radius of our homes, I bet we'd add thousands easily.

I believe we as a society have come a long way - I have to believe that.  Homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental illness.  Many companies are offering domestic partner benefits and the number increases all the time.  Gay marriage is legal in the Commonwealth of MA and with enough effort, hopefully it will stay legal there; other states are recognizing civil unions.  Today, the US House passed a bill declaring discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation illegal (excepting the military - idiots!).  It does not include transgender people, but most GLBT groups supported anyway as a good step; nonetheless, Shrub is threatening to veto it if a similar measure sponsored by Kennedy is passed by the Senate.  It's out there, it passed, there's dialogue, we're moving forward.

But moving isn't getting there.  And when you have loved ones whose very right to life is threatened because of who they choose to love (like I know you and the rest of us do!), it's very cold comfort.

It's just so frustrating that it seems for every teeny step forward there are people who will smack us back.  Every legal victory results in numerous asinine challenges.  The sheer number of states who have chosen to amend their constitutions to define marriage as M/F is truly appalling.  This whole states' rights business regarding recognition of marriage and/or civil unions is a powder keg just waiting to be ignited.  Hell, we fought a war once allegedly about 'states rights' didn't we??  It boggles my mind that some people believe civil unions are an acceptable alternative to marriage.  I'm no legal scholar, but I think anybody with half a brain gets that 'separate but equal' was struck down by the courts years ago during the civil rights era.  It makes me want to get a law degree and go to work for the ACLU, I swear.

OK..[/rant..as I saw Eric post once  ]

Lynchings...appalling.  I don't know how far removed we are from this, but not far enough.  My last casual bf was black and we had to deal with sh*t from people when we went out.  Daryl actually helped me gain some perspective and moderate my temper or else I'd probably have a record for disorderly conduct.   BUT I did not put up with my father's not-so-veiled comments...OK maybe rant's not over.  Granted he was born in 1939 and a product of the TN hills, BUT I've been making my own decisions since I was about 14 and I loved that 25 years later he thought he deserved(?) some input into my love life.   The conversation went

Him:     'You were raised better than that.'
Me:      'Better than what?'
Him:     (nods at D w/disdain)
Me"      "How would you know?  You stopped raisin me at 14.'
Silence.

It's one of those bitter, ironic, laugh to keep from crying things, but I think I got my point across.

Nonetheless, I'm sure he's got despicable relations, if he didn't have the guts to do it himself...made me seriously consider if D's very life was worth risking for something I wasn't that into in the first place.  I wouldn't put it past them.

[delalluvia]

The night before last, somehow I got off on some website that had pictures of lynchings on it. Page after page.

Do you know people used to make postcards out of those pictures?

and as horrible as the lynched people were...they were dead. They couldn't suffer anymore. What horrifies me about those pictures is the people in the crowd.

How can people have that evil in them and it not show? How can you know looking at people walking down the street what HORRORS they harbor in their souls?

I think about those men...torturing women and boys....and men....and then going home and making love with their wifes...playing with their kids...going about their lives as if nothing happened...

I feel sick just thinking that there are people right HERE...it hasn't been that long that that kind of thing happened...

we like to think we have come so far...that we are so civilized.

Yes, it is hard to believe isn't it?  Amazing what dehumanizing a victim can allow one to do.  Everything from ethnic genocide a la the Old Testament to the spectacles in the ancient Roman Colosseum to heck, just war in general, enables people to do and allow the worst atrocities to each other and not feel so much as a stomach ache.  We aren't very civilized, Jess.  We've barely started wading into the pool that is civilized society.  We call ourselves civilized, but that's just comparatively speaking. 

I've been reading your earlier comments - "mean always wins".  Well, basically yes it does.  Power, force, coercion have enslaved people for millennia.  Might makes right.  Even in the U.S. where we believe our country to be mostly unaggressive (until recently that is  ) we wouldn't have been able to keep our country from being invaded and overrun and conquered had we not an army and location location location to deter others from even trying.

There are moments of brilliance in life - where good will, kindness and peacemakers have gifted the human race with grace, but they are few and far-inbetween.

The most we can do as humans is take refuge in spirituality - praying that the universe is just and has meaning and therefore hope that retribution will be forthcoming for those who have made others suffer - but [shrug] it's just that, a hope. 

But then, good leaders have always used religion as a control as well. 

Are you miserable now?  Downtrodden and oppressed?  Don't worry, the meek shall inherit the earth!  In other words, religion is a good way to get people to shut up about their treatment and accept their situation without rising up.

Even the show 'Desperate Housewives' had a great line.

"Money doesn't buy you happiness."

"Oh yes, it does.  That's just something they tell the poor people so they won't riot."

Of course, on this plane of existence we can always work and keep working and push push push for justice and fairness and inalienable rights for everyone.  But if someone with power and money chooses to oppose us, there's a pretty good chance that greed and power and 'mean' will overcome.  Not forever of course.  Revolutions occur, but then there is always going to be someone out for someone else.  Humans are hierarchical and tribal (meaning someone has to be in charge, someone better than someone else) and so our human nature will not be very easy to overcome.

 A friend of mine and I once discussed what it would take to change the violent trend in U.S. society and she pretty much came to the conclusion that we would have to completely change our value system in this country and that was very unlikely to happen seeing as the U.S. was based on the capitalist system and growth markets and competition and winner take all the rewards.

[Lynne]

Well-said, Del - you make some good arguments here and I absolutely understand and mostly agree with you, I swear.  I particularly agree with you about the role of religion in pacifying the masses, in a sense.

There are moments of brilliance in life - where good will, kindness and peacemakers have gifted the human race with grace, but they are few and far-inbetween.

These are your words, however, that touch me the most...I only have a quibble with the exception at the end.  I submit that the good only seems 'few and far in-between' because of media sensationalism and the like.  Unless we make a major effort on a daily basis, we only get the sensational news, the meaningless sound bytes, and good news without controversy doesn't sell.  Therefore we're left with a perception that the world is going to hell in a bucket.

I would argue that the vast majority of the world's population aspire to a life that is full of good will, kindness, peace, and grace (if they still have the capacity to aspire - those that don't aspire just want food and shelter); however, a small but terrorist/fascist/??? minority seek to undermine that ideal state.  What scares me is how LOUD these voices can be and how the voices opposed to them appear to remain silent.  Is that a news reporting bias?  Am I just being naive?

-Lynne

[delalluvia]

Well-said, Del - you make some good arguments here and I absolutely understand and mostly agree with you, I swear.  I particularly agree with you about the role of religion in pacifying the masses, in a sense.

These are your words, however, that touch me the most...I only have a quibble with the exception at the end.  I submit that the good only seems 'few and far in-between' because of media sensationalism and the like.  Unless we make a major effort on a daily basis, we only get the sensational news, the meaningless sound bytes, and good news without controversy doesn't sell.  Therefore we're left with a perception that the world is going to hell in a bucket.

I would argue that the vast majority of the world's population aspire to a life that is full of good will, kindness, peace, and grace (if they still have the capacity to aspire - those that don't aspire just want food and shelter); however, a small but terrorist/fascist/??? minority seek to undermine that ideal state.  What scares me is how LOUD these voices can be and how the voices opposed to them appear to remain silent.  Is that a news reporting bias?  Am I just being naive?

-Lynne

Thank you, Lynne.  You're absolutely right - I thought about that line 'few and far inbetween' as well after I wrote it.  I was thinking about social/poliitcal events, but you're correct, in everyday life, the majority of the people just want to be happy and live peaceful lives and don't even think about being ugly or mean (except in petty mundane ways) to their neighbors.

As for the LOUD ugly and evil minority groups - it is a media bias, I think.  They're out to make money and need people drawn in to buy newspapers, magazines or to make ratings for their advertisers, so the more they can sensationalize something, the better.  But, at the same time, it doesn't hurt to know such groups exist and where they're coming from.  Forearmed is forewarned.

[Artiste]

Unfortunately, there are anti-gay groups and persons, even to-day and more and more! ??

Too, there remains and grow anti-women liberation such as the islamics... forcing veils and anti-education!

Fortunately, maybe we can keep an eye on some such anti-human activities?

Hugs!

[moremojo]

Jess, you expressed curiosity about how time was conceived within the tradition of Kashmir Shaivism. I wrote to my friend Keith for input on this topic, and this is his reply (edited out of a longer email):

Now, as for time in Kashmir Shaivism, based on what you said in your email, there are two things I guess I should address. 
     First, like the adherents of many other Indian traditions, the Kashmir Shaivas see the universe as beginningless and endless.  They also think that it undergoes cycles of creation and dissolution.  I know of no Indian tradition (with the exception of some that can be found represented in very early texts) that think the universe had a definite beginning and will eventually come to an end.  In philosophy, that idea is rejected as nonsensical.  I can provide you with the reasoning if you’re really interested.  Not all, however, think that the universe undergoes cycles of creation and dissolution.  The Mimamsakas, the most orthodox of all Indian thinkers, believe that the universe is eternal and has always existed much as it does now. 
     Second, the Kashmir Shaivas understand time in terms very similar to those given by Kant in the West.  Time is a mental construction for them.  It is a concept, a category (in the Kantian sense), used to organize our cognitions, but it has no independent reality.  Any given cognition has, as part of its content, the quality “being present.”  When recalling another cognition, you relate that second cognition to the one in which it is recalled by qualifying it with “being past.”  The two cognitions are, in this way, related to one another.  The one is present, the other is past.  Future cognitions, though not known directly, can be expected.  We can then qualify the objects of those expectations with “being future.”  These organizations are not, I should note, arbitrary.  We are hard wired for them.  It’s just part of our mental apparatus to organize our cognitions in this way.  Ultimate reality is, however, beyond time as we generally understand it.  That means that all cognitions actually exist simultaneously.  Time is simply the way they are organized in relation to one another.
     One little note:  On the highest level, there is still a sort of time.  Christians often say “God is outside of time,” but Kashmir Shaivas would not.  There must still be a moment of intention before a moment of action.  Consciousness must desire to create before it creates.  There is, then, a sort of transcendental time.  If there were no such moments, consciousness would be a lifeless emptiness.  If Christians say God is beyond time, then, since he cannot have any intentions, any will or desire leading to an action, he is inert.  He would be the great cosmic stone.  In contrast to this, the Kashmir Shaivas see the highest reality, the unlimited consciousness, as having volition as part of its very essence.  They refer to the highest reality as “Kalasankarshini” (kah-luh-sun-kahr-shuh-nee).  This, literally, means “She who ploughs in time.”  This reality is the hypostasis of all the states of consciousness.  It is that which includes both desire and fulfillment, presentational and representational consciousness.  It is intended to integrate and include all things, but particularly this “subtle” time, into the highest level of reality.

[Artiste]

Thanks moremojo!

Boy, I sure have lots to re-read now!

Your details... on life are revealing to many as well as I!!

Hugs!

[Front-Ranger]

Scott, your discussion reminded me of the recent show Cosmic Collisions I saw at the Museum of Natural History in New York! The big climax at the end was the collision of two galaxies, leading to the creation of many new smaller galaxies. The worlds of science, physics, art, religion, and philosophy are actually colliding and combining now, in ways fascinating to watch!

[Lynne]

Thank you, Lynne.  You're absolutely right - I thought about that line 'few and far inbetween' as well after I wrote it.  I was thinking about social/poliitcal events, but you're correct, in everyday life, the majority of the people just want to be happy and live peaceful lives and don't even think about being ugly or mean (except in petty mundane ways) to their neighbors.

As for the LOUD ugly and evil minority groups - it is a media bias, I think.  They're out to make money and need people drawn in to buy newspapers, magazines or to make ratings for their advertisers, so the more they can sensationalize something, the better.  But, at the same time, it doesn't hurt to know such groups exist and where they're coming from.  Forearmed is forewarned.

Excellent point, Friend.  I'm full of aphorisms tonight  - how's it go?  'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.'

[Artiste]

Just back from a 2 days exhibition in Montreal, about my paintings I created and by others. Had many, many full house spectators! With many, we talked about very serious discussions about life, and one's own!!!

All were elders, especially ladies! How intelligent and clear they are!! Every one surprised me about their life and/or mine!!


Some were men too!!

Hugs!

[injest]

back to my original question about mean people....there is a new book called "Evil Genes" by Barbara Oakley.

She puts forth the possibility that the being mean may be a genetic problem.

She suggests the term "Malignant Narcissist" to describe a person 'that is malevolent but high functioning....people whose success turns out to be illusory and their lives marked by a trail of emotional scars on people that have to deal with them. In the workplace the successful sinister generate turmoil and leave a trail of damaged careers in their wakes'

maybe this explains some of my questions. About why people like to cause other people pain. I know people like that.

[Artiste]

Thanks again injest and thanks too to all!!

Injest, may I repeat your first thought: Ok...first off


Mean vs Nice

now I know that you hear about Holocaust survivors that are kind and have come thru with their faith and belief intact....

and I know what we were all taught about how good always triumphs...but does it really?

There was a Nazi that said "Here I stand with my guns and swords...there YOU stand with your laws. We shall see who wins" (paraphrased...don't have the quote in front of me.) but you get the drift. and I know the Nazis lost in the long run. that is small comfort to the small child being gassed.

It seems good and nice is so fragile. and mean and cruel so overwhelming...

I think Mean wins.

injest, you do bring up an interesting subject! One that not many want to talk about! Even if it is an important one, I guess that too many (even us all) are afraid to discuss this. It is about danger?

When I bring up that more than one million gays were murdered in the WWII in the gas chambers only because they were gay men, nobody even here... replies to that! So, I am very surprised since there are gay men here on this site! Also, it is a surprise because non-gay persons here on Bettermost are usually more thoughtful!

Why do we even TO-DAY do a blind eye to such murderers letting these kill us?

Why do not many talk about islamics now bringing in their slave women into the USA, Canada, France, England... why? Only such talk seem to be in Quebec right now... in order to educate us about such evil, plus to try to find ways to get those slaves to free themselves from  such muslim thugs!

Why are we so blind? Because we are afraid to be still free persons?

Awaiting replies from you and from all,

hugs!!

[injest]

no, Artiste

I don't think it is fear (although that may be part of the reason) I think is laziness. It is easy to just not acknowledge some things. To just let it be. Sometimes you have to stand up to the bad things...even if it hurts people's feelings...

but that is hard. It requires more than wearing a piece of ribbon on your lapel. It means you can't be friends with certain people. It means you have to take your time, your energy and your money and think of OTHER people instead of yourself.

and there are too many people that just want to take care of themselves and never think of others.

denial.

[delalluvia]

injest, you do bring up an interesting subject! One that not many want to talk about! Even if it is an important one, I guess that too many (even us all) are afraid to discuss this. It is about danger?

When I bring up that more than one million gays were murdered in the WWII in the gas chambers only because they were gay men, nobody even here... replies to that! So, I am very surprised since there are gay men here on this site! Also, it is a surprise because non-gay persons here on Bettermost are usually more thoughtful!

Why do we even TO-DAY do a blind eye to such murderers letting these kill us?

Why do not many talk about islamics now bringing in their slave women into the USA, Canada, France, England... why? Only such talk seem to be in Quebec right now... in order to educate us about such evil, plus to try to find ways to get those slaves to free themselves from  such muslim thugs!

Why are we so blind? Because we are afraid to be still free persons?

Awaiting replies from you and from all,

hugs!!

We're not blind Artiste. There are plenty of groups around that protest and work against exactly the kind of atrocities you speak of.  There are women's groups, gay groups, humanitarian groups - just do a Google search and you will find plenty of organizations that exist to fight exactly the injustices and crimes you speak of.  I certainly belong to several such groups.

I'm not sure what you would have people do that would demonstrate to you that people do care about such things.

Laws are passed and enforced, people are punished, protests are lodged with political entities, money collected..

The existence and work of such groups should be convincing if nothing else.

As for who the Nazis killed, yes they killed 6 million Jews, the remaining 4 million were gays, the mentally challenged and other undesirable ethnic groups such as Romanian gypsies.

I'm not sure what you wanted noted about that fact.

[Artiste]

Thanks delalluvia, and thanks injest!!

Delalluvia, all the persons murdered by those WWII gas chambers, you do not know that many countries sent gay men to be such killed as such in Germany? That to me is a blind eye! Even to-day!

Injest, I agree with you that there are organisations, but not enough; so we, in general, do have a blind eye!
For instance, we purchase in big stores products made to-day by slaves, yes? We do not care less if children are murdered neither nor starved, not that much, because such a child works in those cheap-labour camps! The general population keeps doing a blind eye to slaves markets!

How to correct tthat?

Hugs!

[delalluvia]

Thanks delalluvia, and thanks injest!!

Delalluvia, all the persons murdered by those WWII gas chambers, you do not know that many countries sent gay men to be such killed as such in Germany? That to me is a blind eye! Even to-day!

That's probably because there was a war on and many records were lost or simply not kept.  Plus, indigent people such as gypsies probably had no records of their populations at all so it's hard to take a head count - before and after.

Do YOU know how many gypsies were murdered?  Does that make YOU blind?

Injest, I agree with you that there are organisations, but not enough; so we, in general, do have a blind eye!

How many do there need to be?

For instance, we purchase in big stores products made to-day by slaves, yes? We do not care less if children are murdered neither nor starved, not that much, because such a child works in those cheap-labour camps! The general population keeps doing a blind eye to slaves markets!

How to correct that?

That's an economic issue, isn't it?  Something their governments need to rectify?  If the people of those countries allow their children to be worked like slaves, and don't care enough to mount some sort of protest or strike, it's usually because they're so poverty stricken they need all the income they can get and if that means they and their children working like dogs, then they're going to do it.

I think the correction needs to come from within, not without.

[Artiste]

Thanks all of you!!

As for who the Nazis killed, yes they killed 6 million Jews, the remaining 4 million were gays, the mentally challenged and other undesirable ethnic groups such as Romanian gypsies.

 

...

To that, I read on TV last night that it was MUCH more than that! I think that it was MORE than 10 millions... but what shocked me was that that was like 1/4 or 1/3 of all soldiers and persons killed in the WWWII... so even to-day, we MUST NOT be blind, I say!

Awaiting your news,

hugs!!