It is true that Being should be understood in its full enormity and not limited to just knowledge and cognition. In other words the "good life" is not one of only mental activity and correctness, but includes one's whole interaction with existence on all level. That said the mental world, the world of words, can be a testing ground for the wider aspect of our being.
The question here, and posed to my girlfriend last night, can the Subject ever be the Object?
What is Subject and Object?
Object is anything that you can point at. Obviously that's physical things, but point at includes anything we can point at with words. So I might say that I have an idea. It's not physical but I am pointing to its existence and I am aware of it in the world at large.
The subject, by contrast, cannot be pointed to. It is the thing which does the pointing. In simple terms it is the self. But as we will see much of what we consider ourself can actually be pointed to, and the self cannot be pointed to.
Can we point at ourselves?
That is the challenge. Everything we might point to: emotions, thoughts, memories suddenly becomes an object. And for each object there is always a subject doing the pointing. Can we envisage putting our whole self on the other side of the finger of pointing? No, there will always be the agent of awareness and living doing the looking.
If we can't point to ourselves, or anything about ourselves then we cannot say that we differ from moment to moment. It was the same subject looking at the world yesterday as today. (Strictly we can't say we are the same either, but I am trying to remove the idea that subject has any distinguishing features.)
A complete awareness of the Subject and how it refuses any definition is a huge step to freedom. All the things we think about ourselves and other people think about ourselves, all the features we think we need such as food and life are actually objects - they are not us. This is true for all subjects also. Any person we meet is not an object, but a subject, and that means we can only understand them in opposition to the physical and mental object that they present to us.
Subjectivity is without bounds. Does not exist in time and space like objects and the notion of identity, life and personal existence is completely transformed. It is very liberating and is a further exposition of the notion of "being oneself" outlined before.
Tuesday, 26 September 2006
Monday, 25 September 2006
The Central Hypothesis of this blog
This weekend after a few years of absence I remembered the central thesis of my life. It got lost in 2003 when I first questioned the relationship between man and nature which diverted my energies, and then in 2004 when I tried to become a mediator at a Chinese temple totally forgetting my own input, and then last year through tolerance of an unwanted relationship. Finally its back and I'm on rails again.
The Thesis
========
Straight from Buddha comes the idea of Middle Path. He realised that neither abstinence nor indulgence achieved anything. Indulging in life's pleasures is only satisfying when we have a short sight that can stick its head in the sands of current experience. Things are great when it's pleaure, we have difficulty when things are unpleasant. Going to the other extreme and shifting entirely to the long view removes us from current concerns and that is detrimental to our healthy. The balance is the right view.
I concluded, especially from this but it is present elsewhere, that physical comfort and material progress were not essential to life. A completely happy, satisfying and successful life is available without any loss through a life of poverty. Indeed it is mastery of such things as loss and poverty which achieve this.
Such a view frees me from much that is traditionally viewed as "important" and despite what Mahayana Buddhists try to convince themselves, is very consuming to our time and effort.
If it is possible to achieve a completely full life through moderate poverty, it also follows that riches are indeed futile, or at least unnecessary for life and pursuit of them is a life wasted.
Its a work in progress, I now understand the cause of my current life - which for personal narrative reasons is very centering, since I was searching for it and thereby unsatisfied.
It has obvious real implications also. Social and financial inequality - which is one of those blatant absurdities that jarr violently which the rhetoric of free society - is no longer an important feature.
With the significance of economic prosperity anulled the constrant human drive to transform the environment is tempered, and that gives breathing space for other excluded aspects of the environment - like nature.
The space such a simple acceptance of poverty creates is what I believe is the space in which we can develop a meaninful existence and that is the current root of this blog and of my life.
QED
The Thesis
========
Straight from Buddha comes the idea of Middle Path. He realised that neither abstinence nor indulgence achieved anything. Indulging in life's pleasures is only satisfying when we have a short sight that can stick its head in the sands of current experience. Things are great when it's pleaure, we have difficulty when things are unpleasant. Going to the other extreme and shifting entirely to the long view removes us from current concerns and that is detrimental to our healthy. The balance is the right view.
I concluded, especially from this but it is present elsewhere, that physical comfort and material progress were not essential to life. A completely happy, satisfying and successful life is available without any loss through a life of poverty. Indeed it is mastery of such things as loss and poverty which achieve this.
Such a view frees me from much that is traditionally viewed as "important" and despite what Mahayana Buddhists try to convince themselves, is very consuming to our time and effort.
If it is possible to achieve a completely full life through moderate poverty, it also follows that riches are indeed futile, or at least unnecessary for life and pursuit of them is a life wasted.
Its a work in progress, I now understand the cause of my current life - which for personal narrative reasons is very centering, since I was searching for it and thereby unsatisfied.
It has obvious real implications also. Social and financial inequality - which is one of those blatant absurdities that jarr violently which the rhetoric of free society - is no longer an important feature.
With the significance of economic prosperity anulled the constrant human drive to transform the environment is tempered, and that gives breathing space for other excluded aspects of the environment - like nature.
The space such a simple acceptance of poverty creates is what I believe is the space in which we can develop a meaninful existence and that is the current root of this blog and of my life.
QED
Monday, 18 September 2006
2 types of problems in the world
Problems can be separated into two types. Those made by man and those made naturally.
A tsunami is not man made. A war is man made.
Looking at the news so much of what we need to do in the world and in our lives, is actually the result of other things we have done.
Environmentalists for example have two jobs. One to record and manage the natural world. The second to offer advice on how mankind is destroying the natural world. A lot of their time is wasted covering up other peoples actions.
Likewise in medicine there are genuine illnesses that no amount of care can prevent. The vast majority of medical time is spent treating illness and injury brought about by careless people. Again mankind making work for itself.
Rather than work to undo the mess that other people have done, would it not be infinitely more efficient to educate people not to make mistakes in the first place.
When there is a problem there are 2 ways of tackling it. Do things to stop it, or if we are the cause stopping doing it.
It's not fashionable to consider not doing something to be the solution of a problem, but in the balance of things not doing things is as likely to be the answer as doing things. A quick look at economics will explain why this is the case. If we ever solve a problem by not doing something then it damages the economy. Better in economic terms to do something with undesirable results, and then do more to solve the outcome. That way there are plenty of jobs.
In real terms I suggest not doing things is a very real solution to many problems, especially in health and environmental areas.
A tsunami is not man made. A war is man made.
Looking at the news so much of what we need to do in the world and in our lives, is actually the result of other things we have done.
Environmentalists for example have two jobs. One to record and manage the natural world. The second to offer advice on how mankind is destroying the natural world. A lot of their time is wasted covering up other peoples actions.
Likewise in medicine there are genuine illnesses that no amount of care can prevent. The vast majority of medical time is spent treating illness and injury brought about by careless people. Again mankind making work for itself.
Rather than work to undo the mess that other people have done, would it not be infinitely more efficient to educate people not to make mistakes in the first place.
When there is a problem there are 2 ways of tackling it. Do things to stop it, or if we are the cause stopping doing it.
It's not fashionable to consider not doing something to be the solution of a problem, but in the balance of things not doing things is as likely to be the answer as doing things. A quick look at economics will explain why this is the case. If we ever solve a problem by not doing something then it damages the economy. Better in economic terms to do something with undesirable results, and then do more to solve the outcome. That way there are plenty of jobs.
In real terms I suggest not doing things is a very real solution to many problems, especially in health and environmental areas.
Friday, 15 September 2006
Which came first eyes or sight?
Which came first eyes or sight?
Eyes we say because without eyes we can't see.
However if we could not see what would our eyes mean to us?
Surely it is because we can see that we go in search of the wonderful organs and processes that enable us to explain how we see.
After all if we did not have sight how could we see the eyes!
The same goes for all the senses. Surely it is our experiences which come first, because without our experiences how could we know about the senses!
Our Mind comes first is the lessons.
I will argue later that the real answer is that neither the experience nor the eyes come first! Rather it is a very profound kind of Mind which comes first - beyond both sense and thought.
(q.v. the story of the monks arguing over the moving flag)
Eyes we say because without eyes we can't see.
However if we could not see what would our eyes mean to us?
Surely it is because we can see that we go in search of the wonderful organs and processes that enable us to explain how we see.
After all if we did not have sight how could we see the eyes!
The same goes for all the senses. Surely it is our experiences which come first, because without our experiences how could we know about the senses!
Our Mind comes first is the lessons.
I will argue later that the real answer is that neither the experience nor the eyes come first! Rather it is a very profound kind of Mind which comes first - beyond both sense and thought.
(q.v. the story of the monks arguing over the moving flag)
Beyond Descartes
This is well documented in philosophy texts, but only recently has it begun to make real sense to me.
Descartes wanted to know if anything was certain. He embarked on a process of doubt, trying to find if there was anything he could not doubt.
All sense could be hallucinations or like things in the Matrix.
One day he came to consider his own thoughts and inparticular his doubting and then he realised something. Could he doubt that he was doubting? The more he tried to doubt he was doubting the more he knew he was doubting. It was some certainty at last! He expanded this immediately realising that he could not think that he was not thinking! any thought was proof that he was thinking - even the thought that he was not thinking.
The inner world of Descartes was filled with certainty which grew and grew. Eventually he realised that even if he was hallucinating that experience of his hallucinations could not be doubted. The whole mental world was proof to Descartes that he was thinking and seeing and hearing and soon the world was back certain and secure again.
He made a well reported mistake however. Although he was now fully aware of all these undoubtable experiences, how did he know they belonged to him?
Where is the evidence that anything belongs to us?
We think many things belong to us from cars, to houses, to children, to arms, legs, organs, brain, sights, sounds and thoughts. But, where is the evidence they belong to us?
I will explore in later blogs that on many occasions in life we are able to own things, and then disown them. It is a free process, so where comes the real link that goes beyond our choice to own things?
Descartes wanted to know if anything was certain. He embarked on a process of doubt, trying to find if there was anything he could not doubt.
All sense could be hallucinations or like things in the Matrix.
One day he came to consider his own thoughts and inparticular his doubting and then he realised something. Could he doubt that he was doubting? The more he tried to doubt he was doubting the more he knew he was doubting. It was some certainty at last! He expanded this immediately realising that he could not think that he was not thinking! any thought was proof that he was thinking - even the thought that he was not thinking.
The inner world of Descartes was filled with certainty which grew and grew. Eventually he realised that even if he was hallucinating that experience of his hallucinations could not be doubted. The whole mental world was proof to Descartes that he was thinking and seeing and hearing and soon the world was back certain and secure again.
He made a well reported mistake however. Although he was now fully aware of all these undoubtable experiences, how did he know they belonged to him?
Where is the evidence that anything belongs to us?
We think many things belong to us from cars, to houses, to children, to arms, legs, organs, brain, sights, sounds and thoughts. But, where is the evidence they belong to us?
I will explore in later blogs that on many occasions in life we are able to own things, and then disown them. It is a free process, so where comes the real link that goes beyond our choice to own things?
Celibacy and Vegetarianism
The process of celibacy for me seems to be the same as the one I went through for vegetarianism.
We tend to find the killing of animals disgusting. What we do then is hide ourselves from the reality and just enjoy the superficial taste. I did a similar thing. Long after beginning to finding the reality of sex disgusting I continued to satisfy myself with porn which has much of the taste without the disgusting reality.
In some ways this is a dangerous path because we begin to live in a fantasy world and forget about the real persons involved. This is exactly the myth of meat, they many people live in a fantasy meat world and are very distances from the daily slaughter of animals.
It can be good however because it is much easier to kick the habit of looking at silly pictures, than to kick the habit of finding real girls! If we can be aroused from some colours on a page or computer screen how easy to see the absurdity of the whole thing! With real girls we are encouraged to believe that there is more to sexual satisfaction that just an absurd biological impulse.
Maybe today I have finally attained celibacy, after many years of struggling with this!
We tend to find the killing of animals disgusting. What we do then is hide ourselves from the reality and just enjoy the superficial taste. I did a similar thing. Long after beginning to finding the reality of sex disgusting I continued to satisfy myself with porn which has much of the taste without the disgusting reality.
In some ways this is a dangerous path because we begin to live in a fantasy world and forget about the real persons involved. This is exactly the myth of meat, they many people live in a fantasy meat world and are very distances from the daily slaughter of animals.
It can be good however because it is much easier to kick the habit of looking at silly pictures, than to kick the habit of finding real girls! If we can be aroused from some colours on a page or computer screen how easy to see the absurdity of the whole thing! With real girls we are encouraged to believe that there is more to sexual satisfaction that just an absurd biological impulse.
Maybe today I have finally attained celibacy, after many years of struggling with this!
God or Dog
This is not an angel / devil thing where we should be one side and not the other side - its a fact: one part of us is like a dog and the other side of us wants to be with God.
Learn about dogs; how they eat and defaecate, how they have sex and have children, how they seek social security and dominance. This is our genetic and natural side.
But they have short and temporary existences and they suffer.
Humans do many things exactly like dogs.
But we also have another side which does not belong to dogs. We can put others before ourself in a way which cannot be explained by genetics. We can develop distance and mastery of our genetic and natural sides, and through this process we can overcome the limitations of material existence escaping death and suffering - just as Jesus and Buddha for example have done.
The path of God is quite different from the path of dog. Dogs seek satisfaction for desires, Gods seek freedom and liberation. Dogs put themselves first, Gods seek liberation from themselves initially by putting others first. Dogs are onesided and bias, Gods are multisides and universal. Dogs are agressive and protective while Gods are joyful, compassionate and endlessly giving.
There are big differences and we need to chose all the time whether we want to be more dog or moreGod in life.
Learn about dogs; how they eat and defaecate, how they have sex and have children, how they seek social security and dominance. This is our genetic and natural side.
But they have short and temporary existences and they suffer.
Humans do many things exactly like dogs.
But we also have another side which does not belong to dogs. We can put others before ourself in a way which cannot be explained by genetics. We can develop distance and mastery of our genetic and natural sides, and through this process we can overcome the limitations of material existence escaping death and suffering - just as Jesus and Buddha for example have done.
The path of God is quite different from the path of dog. Dogs seek satisfaction for desires, Gods seek freedom and liberation. Dogs put themselves first, Gods seek liberation from themselves initially by putting others first. Dogs are onesided and bias, Gods are multisides and universal. Dogs are agressive and protective while Gods are joyful, compassionate and endlessly giving.
There are big differences and we need to chose all the time whether we want to be more dog or moreGod in life.
Religion and the World
I have an email from a friend regarding a famous Buddhist Master who is visiting the UK to speak about the importants of harmony and peace in society. This seems to be a common subject for spiritual leaders, but I have questioned to myself whether this is a good outlet for spiritual wisdom.
Looking at society as it stands the majority of people work to help one another. There are teachers who are skilled at bring reading and writing to pupils, there are nurses and doctors who are skilled at bringing health to patients, there are politicians and diplomats who are skilled in the complex world of negotiations to bring the best outcome for those they represent, there are engineers who make devices for handicapped people to help them live more open lives, their are councillors and psychologists to aid people in their relationships and problems... in short every need that people have is met by ordinary people.
Many spiritual masters seem to duplicate these services. They build hospitals, and schools, they get involved in politics like the Dalai Lama and they offer councelling services and advice on life. Why the need to duplicate what is already there? Have spiritual masters not their own niche?
Jesus was most known in his own time for his miraculous ability to heal. But is a physical doctor all he was? Why is he more famous than any doctor? Buddha said that he was a doctor who offered the medicine to cure suffering, but he was not talking about worldly afflictions. Many spiritual groups believe that healing worldly afflictions is the point. Few seem to accept that worldly afflictions are not the real problem, and curing them is like offering a cold remedy; it simply treats the symptoms. If we want to heal worldly afflictions then become doctors or psychologists don't turn to religion!
Spiritual leaders should lead us to God and teach us to pay little attention to our physical circumstances. After all our physical suffering is at worst only for 70 or 90 years, why waste so much of that time on itself? The solution to worldly things is not itself worldly, and strictly it is not other-worldly (many people believe after death we go to a new world called Heaven which is absurd), rather as recently explored here it is learning not to take sides with the world.
Looking at society as it stands the majority of people work to help one another. There are teachers who are skilled at bring reading and writing to pupils, there are nurses and doctors who are skilled at bringing health to patients, there are politicians and diplomats who are skilled in the complex world of negotiations to bring the best outcome for those they represent, there are engineers who make devices for handicapped people to help them live more open lives, their are councillors and psychologists to aid people in their relationships and problems... in short every need that people have is met by ordinary people.
Many spiritual masters seem to duplicate these services. They build hospitals, and schools, they get involved in politics like the Dalai Lama and they offer councelling services and advice on life. Why the need to duplicate what is already there? Have spiritual masters not their own niche?
Jesus was most known in his own time for his miraculous ability to heal. But is a physical doctor all he was? Why is he more famous than any doctor? Buddha said that he was a doctor who offered the medicine to cure suffering, but he was not talking about worldly afflictions. Many spiritual groups believe that healing worldly afflictions is the point. Few seem to accept that worldly afflictions are not the real problem, and curing them is like offering a cold remedy; it simply treats the symptoms. If we want to heal worldly afflictions then become doctors or psychologists don't turn to religion!
Spiritual leaders should lead us to God and teach us to pay little attention to our physical circumstances. After all our physical suffering is at worst only for 70 or 90 years, why waste so much of that time on itself? The solution to worldly things is not itself worldly, and strictly it is not other-worldly (many people believe after death we go to a new world called Heaven which is absurd), rather as recently explored here it is learning not to take sides with the world.
Wednesday, 13 September 2006
Economics of Ideas
Managing risk is an important element of economics. A program on TV showed how people tend to handle risk very badly, going for what is familar and comfortable even while it is not very profitable, in favour of taking quite reasonable risks and betting on the unknown.
It occurred to me we adopt ideas in the same way. We tend to keep to those sets of ideas that are familar and comfortable, even when we know that they give us an unprofitable world view.
New ideas are treated with fear because, while every sign might be they give us a much better world view, we don't like the feeling of unknown and risk.
Accepting unfamilar ideas is also unwelcome because it challenges the comfort of our contemporaries and so we experience a secondary reaction to such unconformity.
Hegemony is the name for dominant ideology, or the common norm of ideas and world outlooks. It is often very unhelpful in approaching life, especially when the world changes around it. Maybe the unwillingness of people to risk new ideas and outlooks is one reason that the hegemony is maintained even while it is detremental.
It occurred to me we adopt ideas in the same way. We tend to keep to those sets of ideas that are familar and comfortable, even when we know that they give us an unprofitable world view.
New ideas are treated with fear because, while every sign might be they give us a much better world view, we don't like the feeling of unknown and risk.
Accepting unfamilar ideas is also unwelcome because it challenges the comfort of our contemporaries and so we experience a secondary reaction to such unconformity.
Hegemony is the name for dominant ideology, or the common norm of ideas and world outlooks. It is often very unhelpful in approaching life, especially when the world changes around it. Maybe the unwillingness of people to risk new ideas and outlooks is one reason that the hegemony is maintained even while it is detremental.
How to Help
This is a seemingly dangerous position, but I am more convinced that it works.
Faced with violence or any wrong doing we should adopt Jesus' approach and suffer that wrong doing in silence, neither seeking to defend ourselves, nor seeking to retaliate against the wrong doer.
This is especially possible if we do not take sides. Normally in a conflict we are encouraged to take sides and to fight on one side against the other. That is the sporting logic that is so prevalent.
This is particularly potent when we are one of those sides ourselves. It is inconvievable to most people that someone might not automatically take sides with themselves. The very fact that we have a choice whether to take sides, or not take sides, with other people is a clue to the freedom that we can exert. That freedom is fundamental and we are quite at liberty, and quite reasonable, in exercising that liberty regarding ourselves also.
If I am angry or unhappy I would not take sides with myself, why would we take sides with such a person anyway? Let that anger or unhappiness pass away un-noticed, certainly don't get involved with it. Likewise if we experience the wrong doing of other people, simply do not take sides neither with yourself nor against the perpetrators. Stay out of it like Jesus did. If we can rise above such temptation to take up the tools of wrong-doing ourself to defend ourself and attack others then we have risen above the level of mortal existence and that is called surviving death.
It follows then that with other people we do not take sides either. Faced with people who do wrong we should not take sides against them, and we should not take sides with them (obviously what they have done is wrong and we don't associate with that). But we do give them an open space to be themselves, to be listened to, to be loved and respected - we give them the right to be themselves. Thoughts of defending victims, or protecting perpetrators - all such 'taking sides' approaches are irrelevant.
Through that process they can then start to be themselves. The goal is for themselves to look at what they have done and disown it, saying "I will never do that again, that is no longer a part of myself". By realising that they are different from wrong doing they have learned not to take sides with wrong doing and against what is good.
What is unusual is that the same must be done for those who are "too good". Being good is a stepping stone away from being bad. We take sides with good as an antedote to taking sides with bad. But, we need to at some stage see that good-doing does not belong to us either. This is a very profound step to be approached at the right time.
If we take the side of good then we are commiting ourself to the success of good. If the world were to turn bad then we would have lost. Yet the true God is all pervading in all worlds at all times and all places for all people. If our existence rests upon the prevaling of good against evil then we are worshipping a false god.
It is not about football teams, of good against evil. It is about peace and universal salvation. When we learn to no longer take sides then can abide in all worlds and watch all football games, and accept all outcomes with an equal mind.
The nagging worry that without awareness of good and evil we may do evil is an evil doubt! because when we don't take sides how could we ever perpetrate evil "against" anything. In the football world we would not do evil to ourself only maybe to another person. In the not-taking-sides-world there is no other side, nor a home side, so how can there be evil at all?
Not taking sides with people, offering "them" complete solidarity without accepting or rejecting what they have done, so that they might be able to accept what they have done, weigh it up, and see that it is not really them I think is helping.
Faced with violence or any wrong doing we should adopt Jesus' approach and suffer that wrong doing in silence, neither seeking to defend ourselves, nor seeking to retaliate against the wrong doer.
This is especially possible if we do not take sides. Normally in a conflict we are encouraged to take sides and to fight on one side against the other. That is the sporting logic that is so prevalent.
This is particularly potent when we are one of those sides ourselves. It is inconvievable to most people that someone might not automatically take sides with themselves. The very fact that we have a choice whether to take sides, or not take sides, with other people is a clue to the freedom that we can exert. That freedom is fundamental and we are quite at liberty, and quite reasonable, in exercising that liberty regarding ourselves also.
If I am angry or unhappy I would not take sides with myself, why would we take sides with such a person anyway? Let that anger or unhappiness pass away un-noticed, certainly don't get involved with it. Likewise if we experience the wrong doing of other people, simply do not take sides neither with yourself nor against the perpetrators. Stay out of it like Jesus did. If we can rise above such temptation to take up the tools of wrong-doing ourself to defend ourself and attack others then we have risen above the level of mortal existence and that is called surviving death.
It follows then that with other people we do not take sides either. Faced with people who do wrong we should not take sides against them, and we should not take sides with them (obviously what they have done is wrong and we don't associate with that). But we do give them an open space to be themselves, to be listened to, to be loved and respected - we give them the right to be themselves. Thoughts of defending victims, or protecting perpetrators - all such 'taking sides' approaches are irrelevant.
Through that process they can then start to be themselves. The goal is for themselves to look at what they have done and disown it, saying "I will never do that again, that is no longer a part of myself". By realising that they are different from wrong doing they have learned not to take sides with wrong doing and against what is good.
What is unusual is that the same must be done for those who are "too good". Being good is a stepping stone away from being bad. We take sides with good as an antedote to taking sides with bad. But, we need to at some stage see that good-doing does not belong to us either. This is a very profound step to be approached at the right time.
If we take the side of good then we are commiting ourself to the success of good. If the world were to turn bad then we would have lost. Yet the true God is all pervading in all worlds at all times and all places for all people. If our existence rests upon the prevaling of good against evil then we are worshipping a false god.
It is not about football teams, of good against evil. It is about peace and universal salvation. When we learn to no longer take sides then can abide in all worlds and watch all football games, and accept all outcomes with an equal mind.
The nagging worry that without awareness of good and evil we may do evil is an evil doubt! because when we don't take sides how could we ever perpetrate evil "against" anything. In the football world we would not do evil to ourself only maybe to another person. In the not-taking-sides-world there is no other side, nor a home side, so how can there be evil at all?
Not taking sides with people, offering "them" complete solidarity without accepting or rejecting what they have done, so that they might be able to accept what they have done, weigh it up, and see that it is not really them I think is helping.
Wednesday, 6 September 2006
The Dialectic of Violence
Well non violence works! The on going dispute at work about whether a database I implemented years ago to track stock and order - and which is universally used and makes everyone's life much easier, but which has annoyed the control freakish boss - has been solved. I sat through another meeting where he complained about all its bad sides and how we needed to implement extra layers in order to get back to what he wanted (all of which defeat the purpose of an online, easily accessible, soft copy, searchable, labour saving, traceable, distributed system). Today I just took it, didn't defend the system and didn't argue. At points I casually put over the alternative perspective that the systems "problems" were really benefits in a different paradigm perspective. Suddenly at the end of the meeting without warning his paradigm changed and he seems to like the proposal! Only 2 years late but that is maybe the power of non-violence I suggest.
Also wanted to add the ironic nature of violence from some previous experiences.
A few years ago I went into a kebab shop with a mate. A huge bloke was giving his son the usual nationalistic lecture on how the immigrants are taking jobs from the whites, jobs and freedom which our fathers died in the war to secure for us. It was in full view of the Turkish staff and I was a bit insensed. I just stared at the bloke. It was not necessarily a wise thing to do, and my friend advised me to stay out of it cos trouble with this bloke would not be fun. Sure enough the works came "what you looking at" luckily I said "I'm not looking just listening" so he was "oh alright then" and started back on his lecture... but it faultered cos he knew he had ears now. So he asks angrily "so what you think 'bout it anyway". Again luckily I spoke from the heart "I think its shit, shit for everyone involved". He completely changed at that point, like a child. "Too bloody damn right mate" he said emotionally and then pulled up his shirt to show the huge scar of a bullet he'd got in Northern Ireland. His anger at foreigners was his own fear at having been almost killed and how he felt cheated and confused trying to understand for what he had almost died. The Turks were silently happy and put free drinks in the take away, but the real suffering was in that bloke who I hope has some resolution to the horror of whatever happened on that day. We shook hands which made sense to me as he was the victim, although my friend who was outside by then saw the Turks as the victim. Its very ironic.
Similar situation - bit more surreal. Was on a train and this bloke rushes into the carriage and says "you saw a bloke running through the train". I said "sorry but no". He said "don't lie to me, I'm undercover and I'm chasing a spy, where did he go". "I said, sorry to disagree with you but I didn't see anybody". Its gets aggressive. "You know I can throw you off the train". "I said yes, but I don't know what it will achieve". He's a bit exasperated now and sits down. "You that will kill you". Again I say, "Yes you can kill me, but I don't understand what it will achieve". "There is a knife in this bag and I'm gonna stab you", I said the same thing, trying to get him to find a solution to this which would benefit him - I couldn't see how my death was of any benefit to him. Eventually he gave up and started to talk about the real problems. It had something to do with, on the one hand fear his girlfriend might get raped, but on the other hand loathing of her love for him. It was obvious that he was rejecting her love and really that is what he needed, but I couldn't see why (was a new situation then). This went on and on, cycling (like a recurring dream) around these opposing issues of losing her to rape but not wanting to love her. I had to get off the train, and then realised - too late unfortunately - what was going on. The fear of losing her to rape was really his own desire to rape projected onto another person, and that desire to rape was a rejection of love and intimacy which he was rejecting because he could not open himself up to love, and that because he was protecting himself from hurt. In reverse: he was protect himself from hurt, but it was a barrier, and his girlfriend trying to love him was threatening that barrier, so he rejected that love and feelings of intimacy by having a desire to rape, but he couldn't accept that so he projected it onto a fear of "other" people taking her from him. So again all that agression stemed from his own hurt, and that is what he needed to face and heal. It takes real courage to face to world and take a chance with hurt - we don't all have that, I fear I too am weak in that area as I avoid relationships because of the pain and complications they can cause.
A third case was the training ground in this understanding of violence. A gay friend was telling me about his lover who was a schitzophrenic with sexual fantasies of killing people. On the one hand he glorified this extreme sexual taste as a bold and radical break from mainstream tastes. On the other hand (quite separately) he was dismayed at his lovers suicidal tendancies and lack of will to live. It was obvious - killing is killing whether it happens to oneself or another person - the suicidal tendancy was the same as the destructive sexual fantasy - they were both negative and counter to life - obviously neither were good as the radical wanted to believe. So respecting other peoples life was the key to recovering respect for his own life, those sexual fantasies had to be seen for the cynical and destructive things they were, the poison that was robbing him of his own life.
Such thinking is what lead me to the karmic way of thinking in Buddhism. The perpetrator of any crime is always suffering. Suffering and wrong doing go hand in hand. It is just what every religion says that sin is always punished. To remove suffering we must remove sin. And if we are suffering it is counter productive to turn to crime to alleviate that sin. Forget the law and the police - they do not do the punishment, and they do not administer justice. These things are automatically handed out whenever we sin. Maybe we can't see it, the addict unwilling to face the damage and pity of his situation - but the suffering is there. This is the most important law in the world - more important than anything in the material world, the law more influential and relevant for human life than any physical law.
We may see people doing wrong (maybe stealing) who seem to experience no suffering. But consider the saying "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword". If we steal we are suffering in 2 ways. First we are showing no respect to property and so we are undermining the security of our own property. The mind is very just - if you believe you can steal from people, you also believe that people can steal from you - so your life becomes very insecure and "your" property ceases to be "yours". You are also greedy unwilling to wait for things you want. As we get more greedy the things we have become less and less able to satisfy our needs and we need more and more. We have to steal more and more just to have the level of satisfaction we had before. So our life spirals into dissatisfaction in 2 ways - firstly never being satisfied by what we have stolen, and secondly never feeling we own anything we have stolen because we have abandoned the belief in rightful ownership. Stealing then is a very fast track to unhappiness. As are all sins.
So we don't need the state law really, nor the police, nor the judges, nor any protection of our goods, nor any manufactured justice because when we see how the world works all this is only implementing what already exists. We are so blind to this natural Law however that if we don't turn to crime, we turn to the law to defend us which shows up our ignorance and just encourages the law breakers.
The world is all very ironic. What is violent is really the little boy crying in the corner. What is Lawfully Right is really the cynic who has lost understanding of the true law of suffering. What is Lawfully Wrong is just another cynic who has lost understanding of the true law, but who will suffer for their actions. All these people are actually in need of some help, and a good dose of irony to see how reality is quite different.
Also wanted to add the ironic nature of violence from some previous experiences.
A few years ago I went into a kebab shop with a mate. A huge bloke was giving his son the usual nationalistic lecture on how the immigrants are taking jobs from the whites, jobs and freedom which our fathers died in the war to secure for us. It was in full view of the Turkish staff and I was a bit insensed. I just stared at the bloke. It was not necessarily a wise thing to do, and my friend advised me to stay out of it cos trouble with this bloke would not be fun. Sure enough the works came "what you looking at" luckily I said "I'm not looking just listening" so he was "oh alright then" and started back on his lecture... but it faultered cos he knew he had ears now. So he asks angrily "so what you think 'bout it anyway". Again luckily I spoke from the heart "I think its shit, shit for everyone involved". He completely changed at that point, like a child. "Too bloody damn right mate" he said emotionally and then pulled up his shirt to show the huge scar of a bullet he'd got in Northern Ireland. His anger at foreigners was his own fear at having been almost killed and how he felt cheated and confused trying to understand for what he had almost died. The Turks were silently happy and put free drinks in the take away, but the real suffering was in that bloke who I hope has some resolution to the horror of whatever happened on that day. We shook hands which made sense to me as he was the victim, although my friend who was outside by then saw the Turks as the victim. Its very ironic.
Similar situation - bit more surreal. Was on a train and this bloke rushes into the carriage and says "you saw a bloke running through the train". I said "sorry but no". He said "don't lie to me, I'm undercover and I'm chasing a spy, where did he go". "I said, sorry to disagree with you but I didn't see anybody". Its gets aggressive. "You know I can throw you off the train". "I said yes, but I don't know what it will achieve". He's a bit exasperated now and sits down. "You that will kill you". Again I say, "Yes you can kill me, but I don't understand what it will achieve". "There is a knife in this bag and I'm gonna stab you", I said the same thing, trying to get him to find a solution to this which would benefit him - I couldn't see how my death was of any benefit to him. Eventually he gave up and started to talk about the real problems. It had something to do with, on the one hand fear his girlfriend might get raped, but on the other hand loathing of her love for him. It was obvious that he was rejecting her love and really that is what he needed, but I couldn't see why (was a new situation then). This went on and on, cycling (like a recurring dream) around these opposing issues of losing her to rape but not wanting to love her. I had to get off the train, and then realised - too late unfortunately - what was going on. The fear of losing her to rape was really his own desire to rape projected onto another person, and that desire to rape was a rejection of love and intimacy which he was rejecting because he could not open himself up to love, and that because he was protecting himself from hurt. In reverse: he was protect himself from hurt, but it was a barrier, and his girlfriend trying to love him was threatening that barrier, so he rejected that love and feelings of intimacy by having a desire to rape, but he couldn't accept that so he projected it onto a fear of "other" people taking her from him. So again all that agression stemed from his own hurt, and that is what he needed to face and heal. It takes real courage to face to world and take a chance with hurt - we don't all have that, I fear I too am weak in that area as I avoid relationships because of the pain and complications they can cause.
A third case was the training ground in this understanding of violence. A gay friend was telling me about his lover who was a schitzophrenic with sexual fantasies of killing people. On the one hand he glorified this extreme sexual taste as a bold and radical break from mainstream tastes. On the other hand (quite separately) he was dismayed at his lovers suicidal tendancies and lack of will to live. It was obvious - killing is killing whether it happens to oneself or another person - the suicidal tendancy was the same as the destructive sexual fantasy - they were both negative and counter to life - obviously neither were good as the radical wanted to believe. So respecting other peoples life was the key to recovering respect for his own life, those sexual fantasies had to be seen for the cynical and destructive things they were, the poison that was robbing him of his own life.
Such thinking is what lead me to the karmic way of thinking in Buddhism. The perpetrator of any crime is always suffering. Suffering and wrong doing go hand in hand. It is just what every religion says that sin is always punished. To remove suffering we must remove sin. And if we are suffering it is counter productive to turn to crime to alleviate that sin. Forget the law and the police - they do not do the punishment, and they do not administer justice. These things are automatically handed out whenever we sin. Maybe we can't see it, the addict unwilling to face the damage and pity of his situation - but the suffering is there. This is the most important law in the world - more important than anything in the material world, the law more influential and relevant for human life than any physical law.
We may see people doing wrong (maybe stealing) who seem to experience no suffering. But consider the saying "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword". If we steal we are suffering in 2 ways. First we are showing no respect to property and so we are undermining the security of our own property. The mind is very just - if you believe you can steal from people, you also believe that people can steal from you - so your life becomes very insecure and "your" property ceases to be "yours". You are also greedy unwilling to wait for things you want. As we get more greedy the things we have become less and less able to satisfy our needs and we need more and more. We have to steal more and more just to have the level of satisfaction we had before. So our life spirals into dissatisfaction in 2 ways - firstly never being satisfied by what we have stolen, and secondly never feeling we own anything we have stolen because we have abandoned the belief in rightful ownership. Stealing then is a very fast track to unhappiness. As are all sins.
So we don't need the state law really, nor the police, nor the judges, nor any protection of our goods, nor any manufactured justice because when we see how the world works all this is only implementing what already exists. We are so blind to this natural Law however that if we don't turn to crime, we turn to the law to defend us which shows up our ignorance and just encourages the law breakers.
The world is all very ironic. What is violent is really the little boy crying in the corner. What is Lawfully Right is really the cynic who has lost understanding of the true law of suffering. What is Lawfully Wrong is just another cynic who has lost understanding of the true law, but who will suffer for their actions. All these people are actually in need of some help, and a good dose of irony to see how reality is quite different.
Tuesday, 5 September 2006
War & Taking Sides
We all know that killing is wrong, but on the other hand it seems that there are many occasions we need to defend ourselves from attack, and as US has argued recently even go that extra step and attack our potential enemies, and has Mr Blair has argued last week deal with criminal elements in society at birth! It is a perennial problem for me deciding whether I would fight for my country, deciding whether to agree with other people fighting and deciding in my personal life whether to launch an attack on elements I see as harmful - like my bosses stupidity etc.
I woke up this morning and finally have the answer to the question "what would have happened had the Nazis won the war"? The answer comes from the "taking sides" approaches of the last few days. If we took sides with the Nazis, as did the Germans, Italians and Japanese and had the war been won then we would have taken sides with the explanations given for the war and also the history told there after. The concentration camps would have been a big cover-up, the news would concentrate on all the Master Race propaganda and all the inflated hopes for the future of the purified and supreme human race. It would have been the best World Cup Win ever if you took sides with the Nazis (and they took sides with you).
Sometime in the future the murmurs about the concentration camps would have grown louder and maybe when the Nazi governments and their puppets were secure and the chance of unrest overcome, leaders might look back and give comment - as the Japanese might someday do. A future leader of the Nazis might look back in sincerity and say what an appalling disgrace the concentration camps were, hold an inquiry and disown his forefathers - as we have done to our forefathers who ran and exploited the African slave trade! The thing is it doesn't matter now because the job is done, the benefit gained and the disowning of our history cheap because there is no-one alive to carry the blame.
The reason for this hypothetical is to show that there is never a bad war! Like there is never a bad World Cup. It is only bad when your side loses. If your side wins the war it is a good war.
There is always an explanation for a war, otherwise how would each side persuade its people to fight for it! People don't fight unless they are either pushed into it, or they believe in it - and if they are pushed into it they tend to surrender. Starting the war Fritz believed what he was fighting for, just as the British did. Though British instincts were initially a little more sincere as had we lost we would have lost our home, while the Germans only stood to lose their pride. People say brain washing to explain terrorism, but who isn't brainwashed when it comes to killing people?
The great story of the Nazis being evil and the British being good is the oldest and most classic war myth. Along with invading armies liberating people and bringing freedom - a myth which dates back to Alexander the Great in the 4th Century BC and before. America is just using good old tried and tested war propaganda that has been in circulation for thousands of years. While I'm on that subject some trivia - "You are either with us or against us" comes not from Bush but from Lenin. Axis of Evil is reference to the Axis countries that won World War I (basically British Commonwealth), but after the collapse of the Empire was rebranded as the League of Nations, and then expanded to United Nations. A huge football team has been created which keeps buying up players in the hope that eventually there will be only one team and everyone will be supporting the same global multi-national team... and that team owned and governed by US elected individuals.
So eventually I get to the point. Wars are created when people take sides. Fights, disputes, inequalities, injustices and basically suffering happens when people take sides. Your side may win the war, but the other side suffers. Now if people will take sides then it is probably a good thing that we all take the same side. But, that is fraught with subtle problems. What good is supporting a football team that never plays? If the US is never involved in battles and wars, what is the meaning of being "on side" - being with them - taking their side? A world leader must be involved in continual struggles to order to highlight its friends, its support and therefore its dominance. If everyone came on side and there were no more world conflicts then how could America claim to be dominant? It would have to endlessly over step the mark and stir up trouble just in order to exert its force and create a game for its supporters to take sides in.
The true way as taught by all spiritual leaders I know of, is not to take sides. Jesus most spectaculary didn't take sides. He let the Romans crucify him, he didn't take up arms against them, he didn't call down angels to destroy the Romans, he didn't hate them, "forgive them for they know not what they do", he peacefully let them destroy him. We don't take up arms and fight against another side that wants to destroy us, because such action is evil. If someone attacks us we turn the other cheek (remember the teaching), we don't defend one side. If someone attacks our family, friends, nation, or world we turn the other cheek. We do NOT take sides and fight against them.
This clears up for me a mystery. I have always known that I should not kill, but there are many situations where it seems I "have" to kill although I can't see why. I now realise there is never a reason to kill. If a solution arises which involves killing then it is the wrong solution.
It means that when a country is invaded it must not defend itself. We have living evidence of this in Tibet where the Dalai Lama has strictly prohibited any resistence to the Chinese occupation. It is not a peaceful occupation it involves all the usual humiliations and provocations to fight that accompany such human violence - children being raped and killed in front of parents, children being forced to kill their parents - every abomination and disgrace possible. But, the Tibetans (who have done the same thing in their time so they are not innocent) have bravely suffered it all in silence. That I now believe is the correct action.
All soldiers are therefore being misled into believing they are correct to be fighting. If a soldier is reading this there is no disgrace in completing the commission, it is an unparalleled service you perform; a brave, honourable and distinguised act to lay your life down for the benefit of other people. I am in no way worthy to question you. And, if you have to kill the enemy, as you will, then so be it. It is not your fault you may have been misled. But do not renew the contract and renounce violence at the first opportunity.
If British and American soldiers lay down their weapons, and if Al-Qaeda soldiers lay down their weapons, or Taleban, or Sri-Lankan soldiers do the same then that is peace. It is no good saying well we don't trust them to do it, because they are saying the same. We just need to do it. By the same token if no-one ever joined the army then that would be the instant end of war.
So no armies. The enormous riches of the West become left open to attack. Terrorism develops, theft expands - people being mugged, banks being robbed. Companies and governments being held to ransom by threats of violence - and all in the knowledge that there will be no violent response.
Yes it is true that there are greedy people who prefer to just take what they want without wondering where it came from and without concern for other people. In many ways that irresponsible spirit has been stirred up in the worlds people by the endless promises of the "free" West.
It isn't FREE! people have to work bloody hard to get it like this. That is the message we need to send around the world. If you want to be rich then work bloody hard like the Chinese, or get someone else to do it. People sitting in sweat shops trying to get rich, to be like the West, are only doing the work that makes the West rich, not themselves - WAKE UP. The conveyor belt they are peddling is actually making the riches on TV that they want - the most profound donkey and carrot scenario where the more the donkey walks the bigger the carrot gets, but they never get to eat it. Riches come when you accept the burden of work and social order and by no other way, but be realistic because working in an agrarian economy isn't going to buy you a car maybe a new buffalo at best.
The thieves are the threat. The people who take more than they give, those who pollute the environment and leave it for future generations to clear up, those who take the worlds resources and leave none for the future, those who exploit periods of boom economy without shoring up for the future, those who plan for short term political gains again without concern for the future, those who set unfair international trade policies like the US or UK Agricultural Subsides, those who cut corners on manufacturing or who build in obsolescence to ensure the customer has to return for more or pay for repair, and of course the classic thieves who use coersion and violence like the British empire or the local gang.
The world it is true is not suited to non-violence. If we stopped using violence then we would lose a very great deal. The lesson from Tibet is that non-violence as the Dalai-Lama said takes "a very long time" and we are impatient. I don't think people would want to open the UK borders and risk showing the world a soft side. There are enough problems at the moment with the influx of imigrants looking for an easy life and turning to crime to get it. And with elements of the Islamic world deciding that US is "the enemy" of Islam and the enemy of what is Good and Just and therefore UK by association. The foundations simply have not been set for non-violence.
Which means that very much the foundations have been set for violence. The current policies of the West are built for violence. Encouraging people to take sides. Making a poor world and a rich world, a civilised and uncivilised world, a world we can kill and a world we can't kill, a good world and a bad world, an US and THEM world.
Before we can turn to non-violence then, we must turn to an inclusive world. It should be no stretch of the governments imagination to spend a moment thinking about the rest of the world. The US seems to spend most of its time worrying about the rest of the world, and Mr Blair in addition to saving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan is now saving the people of Africa (cynical and I suggest with less sincerity than Geldof and Hewson) so why can't he extend this to our general overseas package .
"UK is a country which offers its people much of what they want, and does so not at the expense of other people, but through good government, economy, hard work and harmony. We can help you do the same. Don't expect life here to be easy, we only offer an infrastructure for your dreams, but get an education and return home and put the work into a better world there also. And we will be only too happy to help."
This belief in Nation is not just a game politicians create to get us on side for their wars, they really believe it. The political system encourages it. Mr Bush was voted by the American people to represent the American people. He forgets this when he takes the destiny of Iraq, the Middle East or Afghanistan into his (their) hands. A leader is NOT just responsible for his voting public, he is clearly responsible for the World as the current environmental issues are also highlighting. "Nation" is an obsolete word, we should not fight for our nation, and politicians should not operate in the interests of a nation but of the world. The voting public should not expect politicians to look after only them either - we need to change to. If interest rate increases suit us, but would cripple countries with debts to the World Bank (as happens) then we should consider not raising rates, or offering leniency to such debtors.
The next time there is a plane crash it matters not what nationality the dead were, but only that they were people. Such national thinking is evil it does violence to people and must change if we are stop violence.
If we are ever to live in a peaceful world we must resist taking sides. Neither our side nor the other side. We should not take the side of Tibet against the Chinese, and we should not take the side of China against the Tibetans. We should not take the side of the British against the Nazis and we should not take the side of the Nazis against the British. Neither the side of the Blacks against the Racists nor the Racists against the Black. Neither the side of the US against Terrorists nor the side of Terrorists against US. It is simple - never take sides, this is not a football game but real.
For that reason as from today I am convinced (despite once looking at a commission in the army) that I will never fight for any reason and any nation. I will also never support anyone in fighting for any reason or for any nation. I will not support any government (even that of my home) in defence or attack. I will not however attack anyone for use of violence, but will seek peaceful means to diffuse violent events and encourage others to do the same. I will offer only tolerance and acceptance of violence.
It means also in the personal world I will do the same. I will nor defend myself in arguments or when I am insulted. I will not agree with people when they attack or insult other people. I will actively seek to avoid violence and seek ways of diffusing violence by non-violent means. If people steal from me, or wrong me in anyway I will not use force to reset the situation but give them what they want and let them wrong me. I would hope at some stage to encourage them to reconsider what they have gained from violence and whether there was a non-violent way.
That is a clear stage in this enquiry about life.
DO NOT TAKE SIDES.
DO NOT USE VIOLENCE.
5 Sept 2006
I woke up this morning and finally have the answer to the question "what would have happened had the Nazis won the war"? The answer comes from the "taking sides" approaches of the last few days. If we took sides with the Nazis, as did the Germans, Italians and Japanese and had the war been won then we would have taken sides with the explanations given for the war and also the history told there after. The concentration camps would have been a big cover-up, the news would concentrate on all the Master Race propaganda and all the inflated hopes for the future of the purified and supreme human race. It would have been the best World Cup Win ever if you took sides with the Nazis (and they took sides with you).
Sometime in the future the murmurs about the concentration camps would have grown louder and maybe when the Nazi governments and their puppets were secure and the chance of unrest overcome, leaders might look back and give comment - as the Japanese might someday do. A future leader of the Nazis might look back in sincerity and say what an appalling disgrace the concentration camps were, hold an inquiry and disown his forefathers - as we have done to our forefathers who ran and exploited the African slave trade! The thing is it doesn't matter now because the job is done, the benefit gained and the disowning of our history cheap because there is no-one alive to carry the blame.
The reason for this hypothetical is to show that there is never a bad war! Like there is never a bad World Cup. It is only bad when your side loses. If your side wins the war it is a good war.
There is always an explanation for a war, otherwise how would each side persuade its people to fight for it! People don't fight unless they are either pushed into it, or they believe in it - and if they are pushed into it they tend to surrender. Starting the war Fritz believed what he was fighting for, just as the British did. Though British instincts were initially a little more sincere as had we lost we would have lost our home, while the Germans only stood to lose their pride. People say brain washing to explain terrorism, but who isn't brainwashed when it comes to killing people?
The great story of the Nazis being evil and the British being good is the oldest and most classic war myth. Along with invading armies liberating people and bringing freedom - a myth which dates back to Alexander the Great in the 4th Century BC and before. America is just using good old tried and tested war propaganda that has been in circulation for thousands of years. While I'm on that subject some trivia - "You are either with us or against us" comes not from Bush but from Lenin. Axis of Evil is reference to the Axis countries that won World War I (basically British Commonwealth), but after the collapse of the Empire was rebranded as the League of Nations, and then expanded to United Nations. A huge football team has been created which keeps buying up players in the hope that eventually there will be only one team and everyone will be supporting the same global multi-national team... and that team owned and governed by US elected individuals.
So eventually I get to the point. Wars are created when people take sides. Fights, disputes, inequalities, injustices and basically suffering happens when people take sides. Your side may win the war, but the other side suffers. Now if people will take sides then it is probably a good thing that we all take the same side. But, that is fraught with subtle problems. What good is supporting a football team that never plays? If the US is never involved in battles and wars, what is the meaning of being "on side" - being with them - taking their side? A world leader must be involved in continual struggles to order to highlight its friends, its support and therefore its dominance. If everyone came on side and there were no more world conflicts then how could America claim to be dominant? It would have to endlessly over step the mark and stir up trouble just in order to exert its force and create a game for its supporters to take sides in.
The true way as taught by all spiritual leaders I know of, is not to take sides. Jesus most spectaculary didn't take sides. He let the Romans crucify him, he didn't take up arms against them, he didn't call down angels to destroy the Romans, he didn't hate them, "forgive them for they know not what they do", he peacefully let them destroy him. We don't take up arms and fight against another side that wants to destroy us, because such action is evil. If someone attacks us we turn the other cheek (remember the teaching), we don't defend one side. If someone attacks our family, friends, nation, or world we turn the other cheek. We do NOT take sides and fight against them.
This clears up for me a mystery. I have always known that I should not kill, but there are many situations where it seems I "have" to kill although I can't see why. I now realise there is never a reason to kill. If a solution arises which involves killing then it is the wrong solution.
It means that when a country is invaded it must not defend itself. We have living evidence of this in Tibet where the Dalai Lama has strictly prohibited any resistence to the Chinese occupation. It is not a peaceful occupation it involves all the usual humiliations and provocations to fight that accompany such human violence - children being raped and killed in front of parents, children being forced to kill their parents - every abomination and disgrace possible. But, the Tibetans (who have done the same thing in their time so they are not innocent) have bravely suffered it all in silence. That I now believe is the correct action.
All soldiers are therefore being misled into believing they are correct to be fighting. If a soldier is reading this there is no disgrace in completing the commission, it is an unparalleled service you perform; a brave, honourable and distinguised act to lay your life down for the benefit of other people. I am in no way worthy to question you. And, if you have to kill the enemy, as you will, then so be it. It is not your fault you may have been misled. But do not renew the contract and renounce violence at the first opportunity.
If British and American soldiers lay down their weapons, and if Al-Qaeda soldiers lay down their weapons, or Taleban, or Sri-Lankan soldiers do the same then that is peace. It is no good saying well we don't trust them to do it, because they are saying the same. We just need to do it. By the same token if no-one ever joined the army then that would be the instant end of war.
So no armies. The enormous riches of the West become left open to attack. Terrorism develops, theft expands - people being mugged, banks being robbed. Companies and governments being held to ransom by threats of violence - and all in the knowledge that there will be no violent response.
Yes it is true that there are greedy people who prefer to just take what they want without wondering where it came from and without concern for other people. In many ways that irresponsible spirit has been stirred up in the worlds people by the endless promises of the "free" West.
It isn't FREE! people have to work bloody hard to get it like this. That is the message we need to send around the world. If you want to be rich then work bloody hard like the Chinese, or get someone else to do it. People sitting in sweat shops trying to get rich, to be like the West, are only doing the work that makes the West rich, not themselves - WAKE UP. The conveyor belt they are peddling is actually making the riches on TV that they want - the most profound donkey and carrot scenario where the more the donkey walks the bigger the carrot gets, but they never get to eat it. Riches come when you accept the burden of work and social order and by no other way, but be realistic because working in an agrarian economy isn't going to buy you a car maybe a new buffalo at best.
The thieves are the threat. The people who take more than they give, those who pollute the environment and leave it for future generations to clear up, those who take the worlds resources and leave none for the future, those who exploit periods of boom economy without shoring up for the future, those who plan for short term political gains again without concern for the future, those who set unfair international trade policies like the US or UK Agricultural Subsides, those who cut corners on manufacturing or who build in obsolescence to ensure the customer has to return for more or pay for repair, and of course the classic thieves who use coersion and violence like the British empire or the local gang.
The world it is true is not suited to non-violence. If we stopped using violence then we would lose a very great deal. The lesson from Tibet is that non-violence as the Dalai-Lama said takes "a very long time" and we are impatient. I don't think people would want to open the UK borders and risk showing the world a soft side. There are enough problems at the moment with the influx of imigrants looking for an easy life and turning to crime to get it. And with elements of the Islamic world deciding that US is "the enemy" of Islam and the enemy of what is Good and Just and therefore UK by association. The foundations simply have not been set for non-violence.
Which means that very much the foundations have been set for violence. The current policies of the West are built for violence. Encouraging people to take sides. Making a poor world and a rich world, a civilised and uncivilised world, a world we can kill and a world we can't kill, a good world and a bad world, an US and THEM world.
Before we can turn to non-violence then, we must turn to an inclusive world. It should be no stretch of the governments imagination to spend a moment thinking about the rest of the world. The US seems to spend most of its time worrying about the rest of the world, and Mr Blair in addition to saving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan is now saving the people of Africa (cynical and I suggest with less sincerity than Geldof and Hewson) so why can't he extend this to our general overseas package .
"UK is a country which offers its people much of what they want, and does so not at the expense of other people, but through good government, economy, hard work and harmony. We can help you do the same. Don't expect life here to be easy, we only offer an infrastructure for your dreams, but get an education and return home and put the work into a better world there also. And we will be only too happy to help."
This belief in Nation is not just a game politicians create to get us on side for their wars, they really believe it. The political system encourages it. Mr Bush was voted by the American people to represent the American people. He forgets this when he takes the destiny of Iraq, the Middle East or Afghanistan into his (their) hands. A leader is NOT just responsible for his voting public, he is clearly responsible for the World as the current environmental issues are also highlighting. "Nation" is an obsolete word, we should not fight for our nation, and politicians should not operate in the interests of a nation but of the world. The voting public should not expect politicians to look after only them either - we need to change to. If interest rate increases suit us, but would cripple countries with debts to the World Bank (as happens) then we should consider not raising rates, or offering leniency to such debtors.
The next time there is a plane crash it matters not what nationality the dead were, but only that they were people. Such national thinking is evil it does violence to people and must change if we are stop violence.
If we are ever to live in a peaceful world we must resist taking sides. Neither our side nor the other side. We should not take the side of Tibet against the Chinese, and we should not take the side of China against the Tibetans. We should not take the side of the British against the Nazis and we should not take the side of the Nazis against the British. Neither the side of the Blacks against the Racists nor the Racists against the Black. Neither the side of the US against Terrorists nor the side of Terrorists against US. It is simple - never take sides, this is not a football game but real.
For that reason as from today I am convinced (despite once looking at a commission in the army) that I will never fight for any reason and any nation. I will also never support anyone in fighting for any reason or for any nation. I will not support any government (even that of my home) in defence or attack. I will not however attack anyone for use of violence, but will seek peaceful means to diffuse violent events and encourage others to do the same. I will offer only tolerance and acceptance of violence.
It means also in the personal world I will do the same. I will nor defend myself in arguments or when I am insulted. I will not agree with people when they attack or insult other people. I will actively seek to avoid violence and seek ways of diffusing violence by non-violent means. If people steal from me, or wrong me in anyway I will not use force to reset the situation but give them what they want and let them wrong me. I would hope at some stage to encourage them to reconsider what they have gained from violence and whether there was a non-violent way.
That is a clear stage in this enquiry about life.
DO NOT TAKE SIDES.
DO NOT USE VIOLENCE.
5 Sept 2006
Monday, 4 September 2006
True Self - update
Have tried out this understanding of self being formless and so the way to truth being is to throw off all images we have about ourself and to simply to Be Oneself. There are many pitfalls!
Being oneself is a very profound experience, and usually we are not able to be that profound. We tend to fixate upon some event and associate ourself with it.
At the weekend my mother burst into my room in the morning and started lecturing me. I wanted to sleep, she was waking me up, and I began to think this is very disrespectful and I started to get angry. So I analysed it from the "be yourself" perspective.
The anger is not really "me". I could feel some anger arising but I refused to associate with it. This is not my anger. It belongs to someone else.
The I looked back a bit. The anger was coming because I had this image of myself wanting to sleep and of my mother wanting to talk. I was associating with the desire to sleep, and was associating my mother with the desire to talk. Worse I was then imagining myself with a "right" to sleep and her with no "right" to talk. That imbalance then suggested that the situation should stop and I should get my way, rather than her.
Of course the error came in forming the image of "rights" and then associating myself with them. And, before that, forming the image of a desire-to-sleep and the associating with that, and also the image of wanting to talk and then associating my mother with that.
In reality all selves are formless! True my mother wanted to talk, and true I wanted to sleep. There is nothing wrong with those images. True also that maybe I had a right to sleep, and she should have waited until later to talk. But the error came in putting those costumes on the players in that room. The whole situation could have unfolded without me feeling at all associated with either character, or by associating with ither character.
In the end I decided to associate with my mothers character and enjoy her desire to talk. So while that fellow in the bed was being woken up, and maybe was tired for the rest of the day, from my mothers perspective at least she had her say.
Freedom arises when as can step aside from the images of the world and let them play out their own intrinsic natures without feeling the need to take sides and associate with any or them.
This may all sound very odd! Most of us can grasp that our material possessions are not really us. While we can see they are outside us and not in any way connected, we can still hurt very badly when we lose or have things damaged or stolen. If we can't see the absurdity in feeling associated with things which aren't even physically part of us, imagine how much harder it is for us to see the absurdity in feeling connected to things which are apparently connected to us!
We can lose a kidney, a leg, genitials, a finger even an eye without to much discomfort. In reality we are still the same person afterwards. Going deeper we can become quite unhappy, or happy, depressed or joyful and still be the same person. Take these losses further and other people begin to feel that we are not the same person. But deep inside we still know somehow we are the same person - even after a serious car accident, or even some serious psychological illness. Then we image that there comes some point down the road of loss where we are insane or dead and then we no longer exist.
But all these inner images we have are only that - images. There is no reason why we should associate out true self with any of them. Our true self is formless, it is nothing, it is present upon the world all the time, and while it may wear these many jackets of identity and events - it by itself is nothing.
Its an amazing thought that even when we die, that is an event which we don't really have to associate ourselves with! See it like this. If we are not intrinsically associated with the events of the world when we are alive, then it is not us who dies!
This is not to say that we are removed from the world, watching it like it was a film. That is still imaging the "self" as having some form, and that form being "outside" the picture. There is only the picture - don't make that mistake. The only issue is whether we associate with elements of the image, or not. Football fans associate with different parts of the same game, that is what makes it so much fun - but there is no intrinsic "link" between each fan and his side. In the same way there is no intrinsic "link" between the world's events and "Team Me" the team I habitually support called Alva. Alva is just a name for a remarcable entity which has no form. An entity I am only just beginning to discover and one which I share with all people and beings in the universe.
Being oneself is a very profound experience, and usually we are not able to be that profound. We tend to fixate upon some event and associate ourself with it.
At the weekend my mother burst into my room in the morning and started lecturing me. I wanted to sleep, she was waking me up, and I began to think this is very disrespectful and I started to get angry. So I analysed it from the "be yourself" perspective.
The anger is not really "me". I could feel some anger arising but I refused to associate with it. This is not my anger. It belongs to someone else.
The I looked back a bit. The anger was coming because I had this image of myself wanting to sleep and of my mother wanting to talk. I was associating with the desire to sleep, and was associating my mother with the desire to talk. Worse I was then imagining myself with a "right" to sleep and her with no "right" to talk. That imbalance then suggested that the situation should stop and I should get my way, rather than her.
Of course the error came in forming the image of "rights" and then associating myself with them. And, before that, forming the image of a desire-to-sleep and the associating with that, and also the image of wanting to talk and then associating my mother with that.
In reality all selves are formless! True my mother wanted to talk, and true I wanted to sleep. There is nothing wrong with those images. True also that maybe I had a right to sleep, and she should have waited until later to talk. But the error came in putting those costumes on the players in that room. The whole situation could have unfolded without me feeling at all associated with either character, or by associating with ither character.
In the end I decided to associate with my mothers character and enjoy her desire to talk. So while that fellow in the bed was being woken up, and maybe was tired for the rest of the day, from my mothers perspective at least she had her say.
Freedom arises when as can step aside from the images of the world and let them play out their own intrinsic natures without feeling the need to take sides and associate with any or them.
This may all sound very odd! Most of us can grasp that our material possessions are not really us. While we can see they are outside us and not in any way connected, we can still hurt very badly when we lose or have things damaged or stolen. If we can't see the absurdity in feeling associated with things which aren't even physically part of us, imagine how much harder it is for us to see the absurdity in feeling connected to things which are apparently connected to us!
We can lose a kidney, a leg, genitials, a finger even an eye without to much discomfort. In reality we are still the same person afterwards. Going deeper we can become quite unhappy, or happy, depressed or joyful and still be the same person. Take these losses further and other people begin to feel that we are not the same person. But deep inside we still know somehow we are the same person - even after a serious car accident, or even some serious psychological illness. Then we image that there comes some point down the road of loss where we are insane or dead and then we no longer exist.
But all these inner images we have are only that - images. There is no reason why we should associate out true self with any of them. Our true self is formless, it is nothing, it is present upon the world all the time, and while it may wear these many jackets of identity and events - it by itself is nothing.
Its an amazing thought that even when we die, that is an event which we don't really have to associate ourselves with! See it like this. If we are not intrinsically associated with the events of the world when we are alive, then it is not us who dies!
This is not to say that we are removed from the world, watching it like it was a film. That is still imaging the "self" as having some form, and that form being "outside" the picture. There is only the picture - don't make that mistake. The only issue is whether we associate with elements of the image, or not. Football fans associate with different parts of the same game, that is what makes it so much fun - but there is no intrinsic "link" between each fan and his side. In the same way there is no intrinsic "link" between the world's events and "Team Me" the team I habitually support called Alva. Alva is just a name for a remarcable entity which has no form. An entity I am only just beginning to discover and one which I share with all people and beings in the universe.
Biology verses Spirituality
Am battling this more than ever.
After the message on sexualty I can add some stuff. There is nothing wrong with sexuality. I never know whether to let it go like a dog off the lead however because I can see it getting me stuck in its "honey". That is a very pleasant stuff which is however sticky and makes moving and life difficult.
Sex has a very deep biological basis. Not dismissing its importants in relationships, but the "sex" bit is very defining in these relationships. Boys with girls etc
Now the spiritual bit is quite different to my mind. In spirituality we do not go around judging people by how they look. You don't stare at a deformed person. You understand that within that unusual exterior is a human being like yourself who wants respect and love, and who you should quite naturally feel equal to. The problem with sex is that you do end up staring at people for how they look and for the pleasure how-they-look gives you. And you don't automatically think that beneath that exterior is a human being, who wants respect and love and who I should feel quite equal to. To add to the problems they quite probably are doing the same to you, so it all kicks off and both individuals get drawn into a mutual act of disrespect :-) And its great.
So marriage is invented to place all this before God. Yesterday I understood why. The temptation is to place our partner either above or below us. I am terrible for either idolising girls or pittying them for their own idolatry of myself! Horrible! To live in a equal relationship is extremely hard, and to live in a relationship where we respect the other as a human being above how they look is even harder. The girlfriend starts to put on weight and we begin to wonder whether we feel the same about them - tragically superficial. And to my mind the whole thing is tainted by the fact that we chose them primarily because of their sex not their personality - otherwise you would get heterosexuals marrying the same sex! So its not founded on companionship or any rubbish like that - its biological - its about sex, attractiveness, genitals, sperms, eggs, genes and children. And married people often do just that - a family.
I do realise however that maybe it is possible to exist at both levels however and God is a very good way of doing it. If we join our physical bodies, under the instructions of our biological selves - the feelings of love, attachment and sexual enthusiasm for each other - but place God at the centre of the relationship rather than each other then we have an equal and spiritual playing field. It must be odd to have a partner who puts God before yourself in a relationship, but if you do the same that is true equality and we can be sure the spiritual elements are not subverted by the biological superficiality.
My own approach is different at the moment. If I am going to place God at the center of my life then biological things are actually rather superficial. Why bother with a family? Why bother with a big career? Why bother with a big house and all the trappings of the biological life which seeks status and material comfort. Place God at the centre and all the world becomes a paradise of equality.
Viewed in the light of the "be yourself" undertanding and this makes real sense. Worldly , biological existence has its place but it is not important, and to have it as important is what the Christians call Sin. And what all religions tell us causes suffering. Buddha only said we need to attain "middle path" with the right amount of biological worldly things. Too little and we suffer from neglect, too much and we suffer from indulgence. I recon middle is actuall quite impoverished compared to todays rich Western world.
What I need to do now is make the inner transformation toward "God" so that I am genuinely seeking to "Be myself" all the time. I hate to speak of "God" because it carries so many images with so many people. By God, I at least mean absolutely "nothing", in other words don't even try and picture what that is. The presence of an image is drawing you away from God. It means your Self as you exist without any images of yourself, of what you are, or of what you have to do, or have done - no memories, no expectation, no knowledge of yourself at all.
Just to add I can see why many teachers would disagree with this. Asking myself to be myself is just encouraging me to build up the images of self that I am most probably most attached to "Team Me". Another way is to break the self by asking me to devote myself to outer authority be it other people or ultimately God. The problem I find here is that subservience is impossible in the western world today as we are living in a "free" society and I just don't trust anyone enough to submit to them. Ultimately my own attachment to images of "correctness" and "truth" has hindered me. But the "Be Yourself" motif, if used correctly, ought to do the same job.
After the message on sexualty I can add some stuff. There is nothing wrong with sexuality. I never know whether to let it go like a dog off the lead however because I can see it getting me stuck in its "honey". That is a very pleasant stuff which is however sticky and makes moving and life difficult.
Sex has a very deep biological basis. Not dismissing its importants in relationships, but the "sex" bit is very defining in these relationships. Boys with girls etc
Now the spiritual bit is quite different to my mind. In spirituality we do not go around judging people by how they look. You don't stare at a deformed person. You understand that within that unusual exterior is a human being like yourself who wants respect and love, and who you should quite naturally feel equal to. The problem with sex is that you do end up staring at people for how they look and for the pleasure how-they-look gives you. And you don't automatically think that beneath that exterior is a human being, who wants respect and love and who I should feel quite equal to. To add to the problems they quite probably are doing the same to you, so it all kicks off and both individuals get drawn into a mutual act of disrespect :-) And its great.
So marriage is invented to place all this before God. Yesterday I understood why. The temptation is to place our partner either above or below us. I am terrible for either idolising girls or pittying them for their own idolatry of myself! Horrible! To live in a equal relationship is extremely hard, and to live in a relationship where we respect the other as a human being above how they look is even harder. The girlfriend starts to put on weight and we begin to wonder whether we feel the same about them - tragically superficial. And to my mind the whole thing is tainted by the fact that we chose them primarily because of their sex not their personality - otherwise you would get heterosexuals marrying the same sex! So its not founded on companionship or any rubbish like that - its biological - its about sex, attractiveness, genitals, sperms, eggs, genes and children. And married people often do just that - a family.
I do realise however that maybe it is possible to exist at both levels however and God is a very good way of doing it. If we join our physical bodies, under the instructions of our biological selves - the feelings of love, attachment and sexual enthusiasm for each other - but place God at the centre of the relationship rather than each other then we have an equal and spiritual playing field. It must be odd to have a partner who puts God before yourself in a relationship, but if you do the same that is true equality and we can be sure the spiritual elements are not subverted by the biological superficiality.
My own approach is different at the moment. If I am going to place God at the center of my life then biological things are actually rather superficial. Why bother with a family? Why bother with a big career? Why bother with a big house and all the trappings of the biological life which seeks status and material comfort. Place God at the centre and all the world becomes a paradise of equality.
Viewed in the light of the "be yourself" undertanding and this makes real sense. Worldly , biological existence has its place but it is not important, and to have it as important is what the Christians call Sin. And what all religions tell us causes suffering. Buddha only said we need to attain "middle path" with the right amount of biological worldly things. Too little and we suffer from neglect, too much and we suffer from indulgence. I recon middle is actuall quite impoverished compared to todays rich Western world.
What I need to do now is make the inner transformation toward "God" so that I am genuinely seeking to "Be myself" all the time. I hate to speak of "God" because it carries so many images with so many people. By God, I at least mean absolutely "nothing", in other words don't even try and picture what that is. The presence of an image is drawing you away from God. It means your Self as you exist without any images of yourself, of what you are, or of what you have to do, or have done - no memories, no expectation, no knowledge of yourself at all.
Just to add I can see why many teachers would disagree with this. Asking myself to be myself is just encouraging me to build up the images of self that I am most probably most attached to "Team Me". Another way is to break the self by asking me to devote myself to outer authority be it other people or ultimately God. The problem I find here is that subservience is impossible in the western world today as we are living in a "free" society and I just don't trust anyone enough to submit to them. Ultimately my own attachment to images of "correctness" and "truth" has hindered me. But the "Be Yourself" motif, if used correctly, ought to do the same job.
We sIn when I is at the centre
Went to Christian service at St Helen's, Bishopsgate, London yesterday with my sister. Was very happy with the sermon. He explained that we sin when we put ourselves at the centre of the world. More exactly he continued that sin whenever we put anything other than God at the centre.
That made complete sense given what I was discovering in the previous post. Whenever we place a distinct entity at the centre of our world be it an image of ourselves, or someone else, or some material desire then we become trapped by the world and we are hidden from the truth which is that there is no distinct form to ourselves. That formless self they call Buddha in Buddhism, and God in the other religions.
The lesson for God religions to learn from Buddhism then is to resist giving God an image, because that simply reduces him to a thing in this world - and all "things" were made by God. God must remain formless and beyond our imagination for us to even begin to apprehend Him.
Buddhists might do well to remember this also, since they are just as liable to replace the formless with ideas about the state of Buddhahood and how to attain it. In meditation we are always told to ignore the inner states - there is no such thing as successful/unsuccessful meditation as long as we meditate. Even if we attain all the Jhanas, I suspect we are no better off if we attach to them formally as "Jhanas"!
The insidious rot that sets into God religions from forming opinions about "Who" their God is, is the very cause of all the conflict and problems we associate with religion. To believe that Our God is in any way identifiable and therefore distinguishable from any other god is to place him amongst gods and so defeat the whole idea of Monotheism. There can only be One God because anything which stood in opposition to Other Gods would not be God. No believer in God can ever therefore say that their God is different from that of another believer without being a non-believer!
The problem of course arises when prophets claim to represent God because then we have a form to place upon God, and in so doing our faith falls from being toward The Creator toward an object of creation. If Words come to represent God they too become false idols too. Any Form that we hold up as representing God is automatically a blasphemy because all things are created by God and so All things represent Him.
Scheptics will say what a load of rubbish because god doesn't exist so it doesn't matter. But that is not such an easy claim. While the religious heretics look form some evidence for God, a shape or thing which proves his existence or some worldly manifestion which they can attribute to God in someway, the atheists do the opposite and try to show that all the things which exist have nothing to do with God.
When will people on both sides learn that God is formless. There is no thing which points toward God, nor points away from God. Evidence is not the point. It is that there is a world in the first place, the place where we find we can investigate and squabble over the matter to begin with, that is God.
We are conditioned at this point to trip off into imagining the Big-Bang etc ad nauseam. Its a nice theory - it fits the facts, I don't doubt it is true, but its answering the wrong question! The question is how did scientists come about in the first place so that they might investigate and theorise the Big-bang? That we can't explain!
Imagine that we could explain how the Big-bang gave rise to scientists and therefore science. The theory would then explain how it came about - that's a chicken and egg. Either the Big-Bang came first and then created scientists and science to explain the Big-Bang, or Scientists and science came first and provided the explanation by which the Big-Bang might operate. Of course we know the "real" Big-bang came first, and we also therefore know that it all happened long before science and that the efforts of science to come up with a "fictional" Big-bang will always fall short of fully-wrapping up the mystery of where the universe came from. Any theory that could do this would be meaningless - personally I call it the fundamental universal priciple "Q". Which means nothing because its so fundamental. Everything depends upon "Q" but the cost of depending upon nothing itself, is that it is meaningless.
So where does God come in? When u realise that the human mind is incapable of a complete explaination of the universe, it then follows that the universe is not supported upon the pillars of rational understandable laws. Those laws are, at root, quite ineffectual for substantiating the universe - what afterall do they depend upon... ad infinitum. The truth is that the universe is supported by a miraculous mystery - It Just Is There Right Here, Right Now! That mystery is God and He has no shape or form and there is nothing to say about Him other than he sustained the whole universe Right Now. If that mystery ever shines into your life, even if only for a second - that is true Living, and that is what it means to have God at the centre and to be sinless.
That made complete sense given what I was discovering in the previous post. Whenever we place a distinct entity at the centre of our world be it an image of ourselves, or someone else, or some material desire then we become trapped by the world and we are hidden from the truth which is that there is no distinct form to ourselves. That formless self they call Buddha in Buddhism, and God in the other religions.
The lesson for God religions to learn from Buddhism then is to resist giving God an image, because that simply reduces him to a thing in this world - and all "things" were made by God. God must remain formless and beyond our imagination for us to even begin to apprehend Him.
Buddhists might do well to remember this also, since they are just as liable to replace the formless with ideas about the state of Buddhahood and how to attain it. In meditation we are always told to ignore the inner states - there is no such thing as successful/unsuccessful meditation as long as we meditate. Even if we attain all the Jhanas, I suspect we are no better off if we attach to them formally as "Jhanas"!
The insidious rot that sets into God religions from forming opinions about "Who" their God is, is the very cause of all the conflict and problems we associate with religion. To believe that Our God is in any way identifiable and therefore distinguishable from any other god is to place him amongst gods and so defeat the whole idea of Monotheism. There can only be One God because anything which stood in opposition to Other Gods would not be God. No believer in God can ever therefore say that their God is different from that of another believer without being a non-believer!
The problem of course arises when prophets claim to represent God because then we have a form to place upon God, and in so doing our faith falls from being toward The Creator toward an object of creation. If Words come to represent God they too become false idols too. Any Form that we hold up as representing God is automatically a blasphemy because all things are created by God and so All things represent Him.
Scheptics will say what a load of rubbish because god doesn't exist so it doesn't matter. But that is not such an easy claim. While the religious heretics look form some evidence for God, a shape or thing which proves his existence or some worldly manifestion which they can attribute to God in someway, the atheists do the opposite and try to show that all the things which exist have nothing to do with God.
When will people on both sides learn that God is formless. There is no thing which points toward God, nor points away from God. Evidence is not the point. It is that there is a world in the first place, the place where we find we can investigate and squabble over the matter to begin with, that is God.
We are conditioned at this point to trip off into imagining the Big-Bang etc ad nauseam. Its a nice theory - it fits the facts, I don't doubt it is true, but its answering the wrong question! The question is how did scientists come about in the first place so that they might investigate and theorise the Big-bang? That we can't explain!
Imagine that we could explain how the Big-bang gave rise to scientists and therefore science. The theory would then explain how it came about - that's a chicken and egg. Either the Big-Bang came first and then created scientists and science to explain the Big-Bang, or Scientists and science came first and provided the explanation by which the Big-Bang might operate. Of course we know the "real" Big-bang came first, and we also therefore know that it all happened long before science and that the efforts of science to come up with a "fictional" Big-bang will always fall short of fully-wrapping up the mystery of where the universe came from. Any theory that could do this would be meaningless - personally I call it the fundamental universal priciple "Q". Which means nothing because its so fundamental. Everything depends upon "Q" but the cost of depending upon nothing itself, is that it is meaningless.
So where does God come in? When u realise that the human mind is incapable of a complete explaination of the universe, it then follows that the universe is not supported upon the pillars of rational understandable laws. Those laws are, at root, quite ineffectual for substantiating the universe - what afterall do they depend upon... ad infinitum. The truth is that the universe is supported by a miraculous mystery - It Just Is There Right Here, Right Now! That mystery is God and He has no shape or form and there is nothing to say about Him other than he sustained the whole universe Right Now. If that mystery ever shines into your life, even if only for a second - that is true Living, and that is what it means to have God at the centre and to be sinless.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
There are few people in England I meet these days who do not think we are being ruled by an non-democratic elite. The question is just who t... -
https://chatgpt.com/share/688e1468-dfc4-8003-b47c-eb5351496d3d Me: Platonic Forms are invokes to explain how all apples are apples and all b...
