True Enlightenment

[Enlightened2B]

Wanted to post this quote from Natalie Sudman's book 'The Application of Impossible Things'. Just an incredibly, inspiring, enlightening quote which I think we all can use and I'd like to share with love to this forum.

There's things I don't understand in her book, but I recommend it anyway

In trying to curtail, control and circumscribe the wide array of creativity available, we steal from ourselves. Making everyone comply with an idea of perfection (personally, politically, religiously, or socially) we admit our own fear of ourselves, a distrust that isn't true. We are not, at heart, evil and flawed. If we expressed only curiosity and admiration for each other's different creative lives instead of trying to fix or save those who are different from us, we might find ourselves in a fascinating world. If we understood that we are deliberate co-creators of the world and all experience within it, relatives of and co-creators with the rocks and grass, trees and tigers, wind and storms and tsunamis, the world might quit creating a "war on this and a war on that" and instead imagine a cooperative world, the first step to its creation. We might each find profound meaning in what we now think of as small and insignificant lives, thereby letting go of the desire to impose ourselves on others; we might dispose of the need to impose meaning and value in our lives through the deviance of misapplied competition and violence, instead finding it through harmony

[KathleenBrugger]

Thanks for sharing that quote E2B. I found it very inspiring. I really like the idea of taking my attention of other people's "flaws" or "problems," and instead being interested in who they are as creative people.

This makes me think of the great job I had a few years ago. My husband and I had a weekly TV show on our local cable channel. I absolutely loved doing interviews, one reason was that it was a fascinating way to practice presence. I would really be there with whoever I was interviewing, listening to them intensely, and the questions would arise naturally. What I was doing was what she suggests, "expressing only curiosity and admiration for another's creative life," whether that was an artist, a scientist, or an old mountain man talking about cooking groundhog. Many times the interview would go totally unexpected places, and someone who knew the interviewee would say to me later, "I've known ____ for years and I've never heard him/her say that or tell that story!" I felt like most people never experience having another person truly interested in who they are and what they have to say, so when I came along and gave them that space it created magic.

I love the idea of no more wars on anything too. I will definitely check out the book!

[Enlightened2B]

Glad you enjoyed it Kathleen. The way I see it, is that war is not necessarily 'bad' from the higher perspective or a more inclusive perspective. It's just a 'different experience'. Only humans label 'good vs. bad'. There is no judgement what-so-ever from the higher perspective.

However, with that said, if you look into the reasons why war happens, it's always unconsciousness (fear/separation). So, if we were all aligned with our true nature of 'being', then there could not possibly be any war. War is a construct of thought. Thought leads to separation.

[KathleenBrugger]

Glad you enjoyed it Kathleen. The way I see it, is that war is not necessarily 'bad' from the higher perspective or a more inclusive perspective. It's just a 'different experience'. Only humans label 'good vs. bad'. There is no judgement what-so-ever from the higher perspective.

However, with that said, if you look into the reasons why war happens, it's always unconsciousness (fear/separation). So, if we were all aligned with our true nature of 'being', then there could not possibly be any war. War is a construct of thought. Thought leads to separation.

You're right about good/bad. I don't think I expressed myself very well there. What I took from her quote was the idea of no longer fighting things, we don't say "that's flawed and I have to defeat it." Even if it's something we don't like, we don't approach it as a battle--for example the "war" on poverty. Instead we face the problem squarely, accept it as it is, and look for the creative potential in the people involved to solve it. So war ends not because it's bad but just because we are no longer confronting life through the lens of fight/flight. Because, as you say, war is an outgrowth of separation, which means we react from survival fears, which is another way of saying fight/flight.

[dijmart]

If we expressed only curiosity and admiration for each other's different creative lives instead of trying to fix or save those who are different from us, we might find ourselves in a fascinating world. If we understood that we are deliberate co-creators of the world and all experience within it

Many times we create from our subconscious thoughts also, then wonder why we're in such a pickle, but either way, I do agree that we ultimately create it. Also, on my way home from work today I was thinking...everyone is on the path they are meant to be on, of their choosing. They have chosen it either consciously or unconsciously and I should at least "respect" that. Then I thought, regardless of what I may think about it, they have the right to do it, without judgement. For example, if someone is a drunk, I may think, what a wasted life, but if that's what they want to experience, who am I to judge that? Of course, this doesn't pertain to the person begging to get out of their "nightmare", as Key calls it, then they are inviting advice on how to change.

Now, on war or murder..I'd say it depends, is it murder or killing? Killing to me is something you have to do, murder isn't. Example, someone comes into my home to murder me and my family, in the process I kill them. Was it murder or was it killing, because I had no choice, but to be murdered myself. Also, war can be the same way. Are you defending against or attacking? If another country said they were coming into your country and were going to burn everyone's homes down, rape the women, murder the men and take over, would you fight? So, if I fought against this, to me it would be killing (what choice did I have?), but they would be murdering, since they choose to attack.

Just my 2 cents, at the moment!

[smiileyjen101]

I'll raise you five cents DJ

Can I ask, cause & effect do you think there is a 'real' 'universal' difference?

Is anyone who is killed any less dead than someone who was murdered?
Is anyone's family of someone who was killed, going to grieve and mourn them any less than someone who was murdered?
Is the blood on our hands of someone who was killed, less or more blood than someone who was murdered?

Can you see the ludicrousness of it yet?

The reason the Commandment in the bible does not say "Thou shalt not murder" and does say "Thou shalt not kill" is because 'kill' is universal - the cause of the effect of someone dying by the hand of another and the blood and the natural consequence affects us all.

Murder on the other hand is not 'universally' accepted - not understood in the same way by all. It allows for interpretation in the laws of humankind, justified by cultural beliefs and making 'right' and 'wrong' of individual circumstances.

In a very instant recognition one can look at the 'fighting' in Gaza. The Israelis believe they are 'only killing' those who are threatening their perceived 'right' way of life, therefore it is 'just'. The Palestinians believe their citizens are being murdered therefore it is 'unjust'. The Palestinians believe they are 'only killing' those who are threatening their perceived 'right' way of life therefore their killing is 'just', and the Israelis believe their citizens are being murdered which is 'unjust'.

Until they both stop and realise that they are both killing - there will be no consensus as to the madness and the natural unfolding consequences of their individual cultural beliefs, and so it will continue along fortified lines of belief creating barriers to reconciliation, regardless of the evidence, or their separate beliefs in God leading them into and empowering them in 'righteousness'.

Thou shalt not kill, is universal. In the sense that if one does kill then one creates the natural unfolding consequences of that.

Killing to me is something you have to do, murder isn't.

Killing is something you 'assume' you 'have to do' based on your perspective - within your awareness, capacity and willingness to defend that perspective.

Example, someone comes into my home to murder me and my family, in the process I kill them. Was it murder or was it killing, because I had no choice, but to be murdered myself.

If they're dead, it's killing. If you get tried for it as murder the 'defences' will depend on your societal and cultural paradigms and 'distinctions' in 'right or wrong' (and whether or not you can afford a good lawyer )

There will be 'assumptions' about the awareness, capacity and willingness of the 'intruder' to stay within the confines of 'accepted societal behaviour' - now dead and unable to speak for them self as to their 'intention' and the unfolding circumstances, as to their innocence, or guilt against you, your family and the status quo of the society in which you are indoctrinated.

The 'result' is the same regardless of the findings.

You will live with the taking of the life of another.
They will be dead.

However you justify that will be within your own awareness, capacity and willingness or not to do so.

I'm quite happy to accept that 'in reality' 30% of those put to death by the hands of their own nation, their own govts, their own courts abiding by their own laws in one country claiming to be the 'land of the 'free' and of 'justice for all', are later found to actually have been 'innocent' of the crimes for which they were punished by death in that country. What you sow, so shall you reap. If you put your self up as judge and executioner of another without actually understanding their 'experience' you cannot do otherwise than get it wrong sometimes.

Too bad ---- were they - these 'innocents' - then 'murdered' or 'killed'?
Did they 'have to be' killed? Or was there a choice somewhere, anywhere along the line that could have been chosen differently?

I'm not sure which it is interpreted as in that culture.

[smiileyjen101]

Ubuntu - I am because you are


I apologise for my honesty - my 'political bluntness' DJ, I know too many who live in the nightmares of their consciences having done what was deemed 'right' and 'necessary' while caught up in nationalistic perspectives and values. When the reality of universality permeates, only then can one see the 'wrong' that balances the 'right'.

Namaste

[dijmart]

I'll raise you five cents DJ

Can I ask, cause & effect do you think there is a 'real' 'universal' difference?

Is anyone who is killed any less dead than someone who was murdered?
Is anyone's family of someone who was killed, going to grieve and mourn them any less than someone who was murdered?
Is the blood on our hands of someone who was killed, less or more blood than someone who was murdered?

Can you see the ludicrousness of it yet?

No, I'm talking extreme circumstances and tried to phrase it that way in my post above. Where there is no choice, but kill or be killed.

The reason the Commandment in the bible does not say "Thou shalt not murder" and does say "Thou shalt not kill" is because 'kill' is universal - the cause of the effect of someone dying by the hand of another and the blood and the natural consequence affects us all.

Murder on the other hand is not 'universally' accepted - not understood in the same way by all. It allows for interpretation in the laws of humankind, justified by cultural beliefs and making 'right' and 'wrong' of individual circumstances.

I don't believe in the ten commandments. I don't believe God ever said them. I think man added them for control and power over others to evoke fear of going to some make believe hell. Also, I'm not speaking of laws. In my post I was not referring to laws, cultural beliefs or making right or wrong. Just flat out survival in a situation were one has to kill or be killed. You can think of any circumstance you like other then the ones I mentioned if you like.

In a very instant recognition one can look at the 'fighting' in Gaza. The Israelis believe they are 'only killing' those who are threatening their perceived 'right' way of life, therefore it is 'just'. The Palestinians believe their citizens are being murdered therefore it is 'unjust'. The Palestinians believe they are 'only killing' those who are threatening their perceived 'right' way of life therefore their killing is 'just', and the Israelis believe their citizens are being murdered which is 'unjust'.

Killing for the threatening perceived "right" way of life, is not killing to "survive" ( kill or be killed), therefore it is not what I was referring to.

Killing to me is something you have to do, murder isn't.

Killing is something you 'assume' you 'have to do' based on your perspective - within your awareness, capacity and willingness to defend that perspective.

Ok, let me give another example, say a home intruder has already stabbed me once, thinks I'm dead, is raping me and I some how get the knife and stab him in the chest and he dies. That is killing to survive, not murder. I can definitely assume he was going to kill me, since he thought I was already dead.

Example, someone comes into my home to murder me and my family, in the process I kill them. Was it murder or was it killing, because I had no choice, but to be murdered myself.

If they're dead, it's killing. If you get tried for it as murder the 'defences' will depend on your societal and cultural paradigms and 'distinctions' in 'right or wrong' (and whether or not you can afford a good lawyer )

Laws about something are man made, I was speaking from a different prospective. The prospective that it's not "wrong" to defend the body, against it being killed if one so chooses to defend it.

I'm quite happy to accept that 'in reality' 30% of those put to death by the hands of their own nation, their own govts, their own courts abiding by their own laws in one country claiming to be the 'land of the 'free' and of 'justice for all', are later found to actually have been 'innocent' of the crimes for which they were punished by death in that country. What you sow, so shall you reap. If you put your self up as judge and executioner of another without actually understanding their 'experience' you cannot do otherwise than get it wrong sometimes.

Too bad ---- were they - these 'innocents' - then 'murdered' or 'killed'?
Did they 'have to be' killed? Or was there a choice somewhere, anywhere along the line that could have been chosen differently?

Ok, you are speaking of my country, were the innocents that were killed murdered? In my opinion, yes, but also too the guilty that were put to death.. were murdered, because they were killed when they were not a threat, at that time, to taking someone's life. Which is what I've been referring to.

As a side note, In this country if you are a registered voter you are randomly chosen for jury duty. You "by law" can not refuse or you face punishment of jail time and $1,000 fine. It just so happens I was picked for jury duty last week at our federal courthouse. I'm summoned to report next week, so all this stuff has been on my mind. It would either be for the grand jury or the petit jury and they ask you questions to weed out jurors. If I'm asked if I could give a sentence of 1st degree murder to someone knowing that their sentence may be death, my answer will be no.

[dijmart]

I apologise for my honesty - my 'political bluntness' DJ, I know too many who live in the nightmares of their consciences having done what was deemed 'right' and 'necessary' while caught up in nationalistic perspectives and values. When the reality of universality permeates, only then can one see the 'wrong' that balances the 'right'.

Namaste

No need to apologize, be honest, it's fine by me. My views are always subject to change anyways I don't get involved with politics, doesn't interest me, it's all a bunch of crap imo.

[KathleenBrugger]

Ubuntu: thanks for posting that photo jen, it's amazing! I think we in western cultures have lost some precious elements of the human experience. But in our arrogance we think we have the best systems for social organization and are unwilling to learn from "backwards" cultures.

Some years ago I wrote a weekly column for my small-town newspaper, here was a column from 2007 on Ubuntu. I think it has relevance to the quote in the OP:

Lately I have been seeing a Southern African word: ubuntu.

I read about it in this Desmond Tutu quote: “Ubuntu is the essence of being human. We say a person is a person through other persons. You can’t be human in isolation. You are human only in relationships…We are interconnected…No human being is totally self-sufficient. In fact, a self-sufficient human being is subhuman.”

Then in a book I read to try and understand how South Africa survived the transition from apartheid without a major civil war I found this passage: “Africans are not a vengeful people; the guiding principle of their traditional culture is ubuntu, a concept only roughly translatable into English, but one that embodies charity, forgiveness, generosity, and an essential humanity. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a great proponent of ubuntu, once explained it to me like this: ‘We say that a human being is a human being because he belongs to a community. So ubuntu actually demands that you forgive, because resentment and anger and desire for revenge undermine harmony. In our understanding, when someone doesn’t forgive, we say that person does not have ubuntu. That is to say, he is not really human.”

I went to the bank this week and was in line at the drive-through, but there were two cars in front of me and the person at the window seemed to be in the middle of a troublesome transaction. So I decided to go inside the bank, and there had a wonderful interaction with one of the tellers.

As I left, feeling good, I realized that if I had gone to the drive-through I would have completely missed that human interaction. At the drive-through, even if you are at the lane closest to the teller, there is still a wall of glass between you.

All of a sudden I started to see the ways modern life is cutting us off from each other. Go to a large supermarket and check yourself out. Go to the gas station and pay at the pump. And what was I doing at the bank window anyway, when there are ATMs and online banking?

Cars allow us to zip around town alone in our own private conveyance, and television gives us our own private entertainment.

The internet has made it possible to have relationships without ever seeing another face (although I am not saying the internet is all bad for human relationships—it makes possible a uniquely modern form of relationship, such as allowing people of like interests to find each other across geographical distance).

Someone I know once said “Health is a function of participation.” I think the reason 10% of adult women in the United States are on anti-depressants (and 4% of the men) could be directly linked to this increasing isolation of each of us from one another.

For tens of thousands of years humans lived in tribes or clans that were large extended families. Life was lived communally. We worked together and we partied together. We would sing and dance and this would bind us as a group.

At the holiday season I feel like I see the remnants of this pulling at people’s memories. People love to gather and sing the traditional Christmas songs. Last Fourth of July the Presbyterian Church held a patriotic songfest and the church was packed. Again I felt the hunger for that communal experience we have almost lost.

Research has shown that people who go to church regularly and people who are married live longer lives. I am sure that spirituality and love factor into the increased longevity, but I also believe that in both cases there are health benefits that can be attributed to social interaction. Loneliness kills.

Psychologists have a term “social connectedness” to measure how isolated or connected people are. Studies of highly socially connected people have found that in addition to living longer, they are less likely to be depressed, are less susceptible to infectious disease and are less likely to suffer severe cognitive decline with aging than are those who are more socially isolated.

I film a lot of events for my TV show, Heart of the High Country, and I am constantly amazed at how few people come to these events, many of which are wonderful opportunities for experiencing ubuntu.

Before my husband and I started the TV show I was practically a hermit; I never went anywhere. Now I go so many places people laugh at me, saying they can’t go anywhere without seeing me.

I can personally attest to the positive results of being socially engaged. I am happier and healthier. An African might say I am learning ubuntu. I recommend it.

[Enlightened2B]

Thanks for the responses all.

As far as war is concerned, I don't believe war is ever the solution to any problems. I think war is always caused by fear. But, as dijmart indicates, if I were being attacked such as in Nazi Germany or Pearl Harbor, and my only choice was to defend, well I don't know how I would react. Ghandi always preached passive resistance. So, maybe I'd try that path first. I can't sit here and say whether or not that would be justified, but I would never fight in a war. I'd sooner move to Canada than stay here in the US and fight a meaningless war. I have nothing to defend here other than a part of Mother Earth which I call 'my country'. Just another label.

In a very instant recognition one can look at the 'fighting' in Gaza. The Israelis believe they are 'only killing' those who are threatening their perceived 'right' way of life, therefore it is 'just'. The Palestinians believe their citizens are being murdered therefore it is 'unjust'. The Palestinians believe they are 'only killing' those who are threatening their perceived 'right' way of life therefore their killing is 'just', and the Israelis believe their citizens are being murdered which is 'unjust'.

Until they both stop and realise that they are both killing - there will be no consensus as to the madness and the natural unfolding consequences of their individual cultural beliefs, and so it will continue along fortified lines of belief creating barriers to reconciliation, regardless of the evidence, or their separate beliefs in God leading them into and empowering them in 'righteousness'.

You got it. Actually my point of posting that quote in this thread was somewhat in reference to the insanity going on in Gaza. I was raised part Jewish/part Catholic. So, I have Jewish family who can't understand why I refuse to take a side in the conflict. Maybe because I no longer see the difference between the two sides and only see the fear/belief systems unconsciously at work keeping 'war' alive in the delusion of separation.

[smiileyjen101]

We do what we can in our awareness, capacity and willingness in any given moment.

Natural consequences unfold, regardless whether we think we have / had no choice or not.

DJ I find it interesting that you seem to oppose capital punishment and yet 'in certain circumstances' might think that you would have 'no choice' but to enact it your self. Isn't that what the law does, albeit taking more 'time' to decide whose life is worth what?

I am interested in politics, because politics sets the framework for a society, dictates its laws, spends and allocates its resources and creates its culture. The resources spent on 'the war' on this or that are decided in the politics of our nations. The notions of separateness rather than inclusive community create and build on the fears that create the wars in self fulfilling prophecies.

That we are this far into our human history and still have not figured out that 'making war' is not the solution to differences just defies logic.

Where there is no choice, but kill or be killed.

There are still two choices here DJ - one absolutely may be less palatable than the other
And again I'd assume that one will always act within their awareness, capacity and willingness in that moment - via the survival instinct.

What Natalie is speaking of when she says

we might dispose of the need to impose meaning and value in our lives through the deviance of misapplied competition and violence, instead finding it through harmony

is more Ubuntu than 'kill or be killed'.

The efforts and resources that go into upholding the mindset of 'kill or be killed' is a 'deviance of misapplied competition and violence' - and it ensures that that mindset will continue to be resourced and enacted and 'limit' our creativity - via politics and culture.

Amid the 'dominant' culture individuals can still make a difference, choose differently - there are a number of multi religious gatherings for peace - Jerusalem Hug for one, where individuals are saying and enacting Ubuntu even in Gaza. Meeting when they can to hug, hold hands and walk together in peace amid the travesty and to say this is a political war, not a religious one. This is the dominant culture's war, not ours. This is madness and we are living in it, still in peace with each other.

[dijmart]

DJ I find it interesting that you seem to oppose capital punishment and yet 'in certain circumstances' might think that you would have 'no choice' but to enact it your self. Isn't that what the law does, albeit taking more 'time' to decide whose life is worth what?

So, I guess by what you're saying you can think of no circumstance in which you would kill? Not for your family either? or an innocent baby? Well, I can and it would take an extreme circumstance, but I'm not naive enough to think it couldn't happen. The "law" is not enacting it's sentence of death out of an immediate threat to survival, but as a punishment. That to me is the difference. I'm saying, "no thank you" to their trying to take my or my families life and if that means defending our lives at any cost, then so be it.

That we are this far into our human history and still have not figured out that 'making war' is not the solution to differences just defies logic.

Just to be clear, I'm not pro war, but war is necessary sometimes. Hitler would have stayed in power if he was not invaded upon. The civil war ended slavery in the US. I'm sure the Jews in Germany and blacks in the South of the US were very happy the wars were started. Neither Hitler nor the slave owners wanted to hear about solutions or logic. They wanted what they wanted...period.

Where there is no choice, but kill or be killed.

There are still two choices here DJ - one absolutely may be less palatable than the other

For myself maybe, but if I knew someone was going to kill my child or grandchild and I had any say in it ...they'd be dead.

[karmarider]

Judgment is never necessary and harm is mostly not necessary. Mostly. Sometimes we have to be who we don't want to be to be what we want to be. It's fine and validating to take the intellectual position that violence is never necessary, but that's a position of separating ourselves from real human life. It's a safe, sterile and uncompassionate view. Which is why Gandhi did not oppose the violence against Hitler.

Here's another example. An African village is raided and pillaged and a 12 year old girl is forced to be a child soldier. She is given a choice: kill her parents with a machine gun or the raiders will slowly kill all of them with a dull machete. The girl--not having the luxury of theoretical positions--does the compassionate and human thing.

[dijmart]

Sometimes we have to be who we don't want to be to be what we want to be.

Nice! I agree.