Guest guest Posted September 12, 2001 Report Share Posted September 12, 2001 Hi, well, I mean, not as indeviduals, I think the country can do things, but not us. So, there is no worry about it needed. Blessed be Leaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2001 Report Share Posted September 12, 2001 Hi Rob, First of all, the sharing of your walk down Manhattan was wonderful. You have a flair to convey the moment. Thank you. Some conceptual prattlings.... - Rob Sacks Realization Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:26 AM Re: (no subject) Dear Leaf,Let's put the political question aside for a moment. I'll return to it at the end of thismessage.I think your message is very beautiful. Thespirit of the sermon on the mount is spontaneously alive in your heart. Thesermon on the mount always brings tears to my eyes, and your message has the sameeffect.As we come closer to an experience of thenatural state, we become increasingly awareof the enormous love that burns within us.>From meditation it has become apparent to methat a thermonuclear explosion of love burnswithin my chest. There is a sort of valve,a kind of contraction, that prevents the lovefrom radiating toward everyone in every direction. Just as a sort of mental contractionforms the ego, a similar contraction makes us feel that we don't love our enemies. Therelease of the first contraction is jnana; therelease of the second is bhakti. Really theyare two aspects of a single phenomenon. When one valve relaxes, the other relaxestoo. In a perfectly relaxed state, the egodissolves and love fills everything. San: Rob, real love is the apperception that we can never love the other, whether that other is a dear son or Osmana Ben Laden. It is the apperception that we ARE the other. When we urge people to love their enemies,we are telling them to emulate the way thatpeople feel naturally when they begin toexperience glimpses of enlightenment. But what can we conclude from this aboutthe best action to take? Absolutely nothing. San: The best action is the action which finally takes place, if it occurs. And that is why the term "best" is misleading. A more appropriate word is "appropriate" (LOL) Some people will think that if we love ourenemies, we must be passive and let them hurt us. Perhaps this is the teaching ofChristianity, of the sermon on the mount. San: This is indeed the teaching not only of Christianity but many a religion. It is based on the misconception that "people" hurt "people". Whereas what is happening is that for "hurt" to take place, an appropriately conditioned body-mind complex would be needed as an instrument for this functioning to take place. And thus such a conditioned body-mind complex, gets manifested. But what is the teaching of the BhagavadGita? Isn't it the exact opposite? Arjuna dropshis weapons and refuses to fight because he doesn't want to kill. God says to him: nonsense,pick up your weapons and fight. Fight because it'syour duty; fight because you really aren'tthe actor; fight because they don't really die. San: A slight difference Rob. Krishna tells Arjun, on the battlefield. "I have already killed them. You are a mere instrument through which these events will come to occur.Your despair originates from the wrong conception that you are killing them and hence the dilemma, whether you should proceed or not in battle". The key is the phrase, which I find very rarely mentioned by any of the so called Gurus, is the statement "I have already killed them". It's also interesting to remember that Sankara,the major philosopher of Advaita Vedanta, taught that people should not attempt to act nondualistically in the phenomenonal world. San: What that dude Shankara prattled is now available to us only through interpretations. What I would say, is that you cannot act non-dualistically. In the belief of non-dualism is the dualism. Yes, with the non-volitional acausal erasure of the entity which believes or does not believe (whatever be the belief, non-duality, duality, morality, whatever), there is subsequently an "existing" in non-dualism. Conceptually speaking. When it comes to love, I imagine that if I met theterrorists who planned this act, I might feel lovefor them. It would depend on how much I meditated that day. The feeling might really be there. San: Rob, that love which is a result of a meditation, or any other practice, would it not be based on a cause-effect relationship? And thus temporary? For the cessation of the cause, is the cessation of the effect. Folding the meditation mat, you are ready to kick ass. <LOL> But my opinion (not that it matters) about theright course of action is that the United States should use every ounce of its military strength to hunt down everyone responsible and kill them.Why? Because next time they are going to usenuclear weapons or chemical weapons or biological weapons. We should protect ourselves.There have been leaks from intelligence agenciesthat Sadam Hussein has managed to build twonuclear bombs.I think that yesterday's events have a fortunateaspect. They rang an alarm bell. Maybe now theU.S. will wake up and defend itself. The worldis not a safe place. San: When was the world a safe place? When will it be a safe place? Maybe 35,000 have died in Newyork/Washington. Maybe 50,000 will die, in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan or wherever Bush decides in his plan of action as the enemies at war. Will it make the world a safer place? The US is the only country on this globe to have used nuclear weapons in a conflict. Did that make the world a safer place? (The current anger at WTC as a civilian target, innocent civilians being killed, etc, etc, is amusing. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evidently military centers?) There is no judgment on either situations, Rob. Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the 24 hours ago, destruction in NewYork/Washington was to occur and thus occurred through decisions by appropriately conditioned body-mind complexes. As will the retaliation, if it comes to occur. The French philosopher Antole France prattles " It is almost impossible systematically to constitute a natural moral law. Nature has no principles. She furnishes us with no reason to believe that human life is to be respected. Nature in her indifference, makes no distinction between good and bad". And Rob, Nature often works through the instrument, which she herself brings about to "existence", the instrument of appropriately conditioned body-mind complex, a "Hitler", a "Osmana Ben Laden", a "Bush", a "Lao Tzu", a "Krishna", a "Jesus", to enable the happening of what is to occur in the moment. Some conceptual two bits..... Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2001 Report Share Posted September 13, 2001 Hi Sandeep, I feel that is a privilege to receive your letters. > First of all, the sharing of your walk down > Manhattan was wonderful. You have a flair > to convey the moment. Thank you. It's interesting that when I wrote those words, I deliberately tried to let them tumble out artlessly without any attempt at literary merit. I try to do that more and more lately. Try to write like a child. > Rob, real love is the apperception that we can never > love the other, whether that other is a dear son or > Osmana Ben Laden. It is the apperception that we ARE > the other. Very beautifully put, Sandeep. I could only write about my own experience, so I described it. Perhaps you will now remind me that reality cannot be experienced. > The best action is the action which finally takes place, if it occurs. > And that is why the term " best " is misleading. > A more appropriate word is " appropriate " (LOL) Do you not acknowledge that the pondering of " best action " by the mind is part of the mechanism by which the universe arrives at the action that does eventually take place? > Whereas what is happening is that for " hurt " to > take place, an appropriately conditioned body-mind > complex would be needed as an instrument for > this functioning to take place. > And thus such a conditioned body-mind > complex, gets manifested. I don't understand. The first sentence seems to say that physical organisms need to be physical organisms in order to be hurt, but this is what everybody believes. The second sentence, with " thus " , seems to imply causality, but I don't understand the implication. Are you saying that animals come into existence in order to be hurt? > A slight difference Rob. > Krishna tells Arjun, on the battlefield. > " I have already killed them. You are a mere instrument > through which these events will come to occur.Your despair > originates from the wrong conception that you are killing them > and hence the dilemma, whether you should proceed or not > in battle " . > The key is the phrase, which I find very rarely mentioned > by any of the so called Gurus, is the statement > " I have already killed them " . This is extraordinarily beautiful, Sandeep. I just went to Radhakrishnan's translation of the Gita and can't find these lines. Can you tell me a verse number? > What that dude Shankara prattled is now available > to us only through interpretations. Why do you say this? We have the texts of many of his books. > In the belief of non-dualism is the dualism. lol. > Rob, that love which is a result of a meditation, or > any other practice, would it not be based on a > cause-effect relationship? And thus temporary? The easy part of the question is that yes, my experience of this love is temporary. But maybe the love is always there even when " I " am not aware of it. I do suspect that in a " more advanced " state of knowledge, there could be no love, because there would be no objects. But I can't say this from my own knowledge. In general I have trouble with any argument, like this one, that tries to convince me that something isn't real because it involves causality or temporariness. I have trouble with metaphysical arguments. Even the ideas of asat-ness and sat-ness, that entire metaphysic -- I really don't know what to make of it. I grew up in the 20th century, what can I say. > For the cessation of the cause, is the cessation > of the effect. > Folding the meditation mat, you are ready > to kick ass. <LOL> I don't quite follow you. I get the sense here that you are slightly beyond my range of vision. > When was the world a safe place? > When will it be a safe place? Safety is relative. Surely life in Europe was safer in the second half of the 20th century than the first half. > Maybe 35,000 have died in Newyork/Washington. > Maybe 50,000 will die, in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan or > wherever Bush decides in his plan of action as the enemies at war. > Will it make the world a safer place? It depends on what he does. Actions do have consquences even though people are not very good at predicting the consequences of political and miltary actions. Let us hope the fatalities are as small as possible. I don't think the U.S. will kill a large number of people. We did that in Cambodia and Vietnam and it was a great crime. Bush's father, when he invaded Iraq, did so with overwhelming force which precluded the need to inflict large numbers of casualities. I hope that Bush follows his father's example. It may be difficult because Clinton allowed U.S. military strength to greatly deteriorate. > The US is the only country on this globe > to have used nuclear weapons in a conflict. > Did that make the world a safer place? Certainly. It ended the war of conquest which Japan had begun not only against the U.S., but also China and the rest of southeast Asia. If the U.S. had not used nuclear weapons, it would have needed to use conventional weapons. Conventional weapons were no less deadly. More people died in the fire-storm bombings of many German cities, carried out with conventional bombs, than died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. > (The current anger at WTC as a civilian target, innocent civilians > being killed, etc, etc, is amusing. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were > evidently military centers?) I think that killing in war is moral only if there is a likelihood that some great benefit will result from it. This is why I regard the American wars against Kosovo, Vietnam, and Cambodia as crimes: there was no likelihood that any benefit would result. The bombing of Japan was different: it freed vast areas of Asia from very ugly domination by Japan. Please tell me what likely benefit will arise as a result of the killing of people in the WTC? The only result will be that Americans will now kill a lot more people. > There is no judgment on either situations, Rob. No, please, say anything you think. > The French philosopher Antole France prattles " It is > almost impossible systematically to constitute a natural > moral law. Nature has no principles. She furnishes us with > no reason to believe that human life is to be respected. > Nature in her indifference, makes no distinction between > good and bad " . I used to have a kitten, an adorable little kitten, that loved to torture insects to death. So of course I agree. Except that I must dissent from the pre-20th-century view that humans are something other than nature. By the way, the cat was kidnapped when I left him in my parked car and the car was stolen. Poor little guy, I miss him terribly. Best regards, Rob - Sandeep Chatterjee Realization Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:15 AM Re: (no subject) Hi Rob, First of all, the sharing of your walk down Manhattan was wonderful. You have a flair to convey the moment. Thank you. Some conceptual prattlings.... - Rob Sacks Realization Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:26 AM Re: (no subject) Dear Leaf, Let's put the political question aside for a moment. I'll return to it at the end of this message. I think your message is very beautiful. The spirit of the sermon on the mount is spontaneously alive in your heart. The sermon on the mount always brings tears to my eyes, and your message has the same effect. As we come closer to an experience of the natural state, we become increasingly aware of the enormous love that burns within us. >From meditation it has become apparent to me that a thermonuclear explosion of love burns within my chest. There is a sort of valve, a kind of contraction, that prevents the love from radiating toward everyone in every direction. Just as a sort of mental contraction forms the ego, a similar contraction makes us feel that we don't love our enemies. The release of the first contraction is jnana; the release of the second is bhakti. Really they are two aspects of a single phenomenon. When one valve relaxes, the other relaxes too. In a perfectly relaxed state, the ego dissolves and love fills everything. San: Rob, real love is the apperception that we can never love the other, whether that other is a dear son or Osmana Ben Laden. It is the apperception that we ARE the other. When we urge people to love their enemies, we are telling them to emulate the way that people feel naturally when they begin to experience glimpses of enlightenment. But what can we conclude from this about the best action to take? Absolutely nothing. San: The best action is the action which finally takes place, if it occurs. And that is why the term " best " is misleading. A more appropriate word is " appropriate " (LOL) Some people will think that if we love our enemies, we must be passive and let them hurt us. Perhaps this is the teaching of Christianity, of the sermon on the mount. San: This is indeed the teaching not only of Christianity but many a religion. It is based on the misconception that " people " hurt " people " . Whereas what is happening is that for " hurt " to take place, an appropriately conditioned body-mind complex would be needed as an instrument for this functioning to take place. And thus such a conditioned body-mind complex, gets manifested. But what is the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita? Isn't it the exact opposite? Arjuna drops his weapons and refuses to fight because he doesn't want to kill. God says to him: nonsense, pick up your weapons and fight. Fight because it's your duty; fight because you really aren't the actor; fight because they don't really die. San: A slight difference Rob. Krishna tells Arjun, on the battlefield. " I have already killed them. You are a mere instrument through which these events will come to occur.Your despair originates from the wrong conception that you are killing them and hence the dilemma, whether you should proceed or not in battle " . The key is the phrase, which I find very rarely mentioned by any of the so called Gurus, is the statement " I have already killed them " . It's also interesting to remember that Sankara, the major philosopher of Advaita Vedanta, taught that people should not attempt to act nondualistically in the phenomenonal world. San: What that dude Shankara prattled is now available to us only through interpretations. What I would say, is that you cannot act non-dualistically. In the belief of non-dualism is the dualism. Yes, with the non-volitional acausal erasure of the entity which believes or does not believe (whatever be the belief, non-duality, duality, morality, whatever), there is subsequently an " existing " in non-dualism. Conceptually speaking. When it comes to love, I imagine that if I met the terrorists who planned this act, I might feel love for them. It would depend on how much I meditated that day. The feeling might really be there. San: Rob, that love which is a result of a meditation, or any other practice, would it not be based on a cause-effect relationship? And thus temporary? For the cessation of the cause, is the cessation of the effect. Folding the meditation mat, you are ready to kick ass. <LOL> But my opinion (not that it matters) about the right course of action is that the United States should use every ounce of its military strength to hunt down everyone responsible and kill them. Why? Because next time they are going to use nuclear weapons or chemical weapons or biological weapons. We should protect ourselves. There have been leaks from intelligence agencies that Sadam Hussein has managed to build two nuclear bombs. I think that yesterday's events have a fortunate aspect. They rang an alarm bell. Maybe now the U.S. will wake up and defend itself. The world is not a safe place. San: When was the world a safe place? When will it be a safe place? Maybe 35,000 have died in Newyork/Washington. Maybe 50,000 will die, in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan or wherever Bush decides in his plan of action as the enemies at war. Will it make the world a safer place? The US is the only country on this globe to have used nuclear weapons in a conflict. Did that make the world a safer place? (The current anger at WTC as a civilian target, innocent civilians being killed, etc, etc, is amusing. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evidently military centers?) There is no judgment on either situations, Rob. Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the 24 hours ago, destruction in NewYork/Washington was to occur and thus occurred through decisions by appropriately conditioned body-mind complexes. As will the retaliation, if it comes to occur. The French philosopher Antole France prattles " It is almost impossible systematically to constitute a natural moral law. Nature has no principles. She furnishes us with no reason to believe that human life is to be respected. Nature in her indifference, makes no distinction between good and bad " . And Rob, Nature often works through the instrument, which she herself brings about to " existence " , the instrument of appropriately conditioned body-mind complex, a " Hitler " , a " Osmana Ben Laden " , a " Bush " , a " Lao Tzu " , a " Krishna " , a " Jesus " , to enable the happening of what is to occur in the moment. Some conceptual two bits..... Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2001 Report Share Posted September 13, 2001 Hi Rob, I am snipping away portions, in which either there is a sense of completion or where no response arises at this end.... - Rob Sacks Realization Thursday, September 13, 2001 10:11 PM Re: (no subject) Hi Sandeep,I feel that is a privilege to receive your letters.> First of all, the sharing of your walk down> Manhattan was wonderful. You have a flair> to convey the moment.Thank you. It's interesting that when I wrote thosewords, I deliberately tried to let them tumble outartlessly without any attempt at literary merit. Itry to do that more and more lately. Try to writelike a child. San: Yes there is writing but no author. <SNIP>> The best action is the action which finally takes place, if it occurs.> And that is why the term "best" is misleading.> A more appropriate word is "appropriate" (LOL)Do you not acknowledge that the pondering of "best action"by the mind is part of the mechanism by which the universearrives at the action that does eventually take place? San: Sure. And this process of pondering is also appropriate. What I was trying to draw the attention to, was that often the final action which eventually takes place, may be subsequently assessed not to have been the "best" one. What I was trying to convey, is that whatever action does finally occur, is an appropriate one, appropriate to the moment, even if the "appropriateness" is not clearly visible, in the moment. > Whereas what is happening is that for "hurt" to> take place, an appropriately conditioned body-mind> complex would be needed as an instrument for> this functioning to take place.> And thus such a conditioned body-mind> complex, gets manifested.I don't understand. The first sentence seems to say thatphysical organisms need to be physical organisms in orderto be hurt, but this is what everybody believes. The secondsentence, with "thus", seems to imply causality, but I don'tunderstand the implication. Are you saying that animalscome into existence in order to be hurt? San: First of all, we are talking about events in phenomenality. Let's for the time being keep aside the fact that phenomenality itself being a concept, events within a conceptual construct can only be conceptual. Events within phenomenality (which make up phenomenality) are nothing but movements of Consciousness, as Impersonal functioning. There is no entity involved as a perpetuator or as the victim. Conceptually speaking, it is Consciousness playing both the roles, simultaneously. What is being attempted here Rob, is to show that a reversal of the cause-effect equation, is the operating principle. In order for an effect to come to be, a cause comes to be. Now lets get back to the previous statements which I can see, were not clear. Let me try again. In order to produce a "hurt" in a body-mind complex, or multitudes of them, the act which would produce this, would need an appropriately conditioned body-mind complex, through which such an act would then actualize. And thus such a conditioned body-mind complex would get manifested. > A slight difference Rob.> Krishna tells Arjun, on the battlefield.> "I have already killed them. You are a mere instrument> through which these events will come to occur.Your despair> originates from the wrong conception that you are killing them> and hence the dilemma, whether you should proceed or not> in battle".> The key is the phrase, which I find very rarely mentioned> by any of the so called Gurus, is the statement> "I have already killed them".This is extraordinarily beautiful, Sandeep. I just wentto Radhakrishnan's translation of the Gita and can't findthese lines. Can you tell me a verse number? San: I will try and find the reference, but have to confess, this body-mind complex is quite poor in cross-referencing.<s> > What that dude Shankara prattled is now available> to us only through interpretations.Why do you say this? We have the texts of many ofhis books. San: The books available are the translated, and thus edited "versions" of what Shankara spoke, in the moment. > In the belief of non-dualism is the dualism.lol.> Rob, that love which is a result of a meditation, or> any other practice, would it not be based on a> cause-effect relationship? And thus temporary?The easy part of the question is that yes, my experience of thislove is temporary. But maybe the love is always there evenwhen "I" am not aware of it.I do suspect that in a "more advanced" state of knowledge, therecould be no love, because there would be no objects. But I can'tsay this from my own knowledge.In general I have trouble with any argument, like this one,that tries to convince me that something isn't real becauseit involves causality or temporariness. San: A simple criteria. That which does not have an independent reality of it's own, depends for it's existence on the existence of an "other", is not real. Love, which, needs the object of Love, in order to be, is not Love, it's infatuation. Maybe the infatuation has spiritual dimensions to it, but it still does not have an independent existence of it's own. I have trouble withmetaphysical arguments. Even the ideas of asat-nessand sat-ness, that entire metaphysic -- I really don't knowwhat to make of it. I grew up in the 20th century, what canI say. San: Forget all these concepts. Look at the concept of the individual entity and ascertain whether that exists or not. Apperception of this truth, dissolves all questions. For it is only the "entity" which "really does not know", what to make out of asat-ness or satness". <SNIP> > For the cessation of the cause, is the cessation> of the effect.> Folding the meditation mat, you are ready> to kick ass. <LOL>I don't quite follow you. I get the sense here that youare slightly beyond my range of vision. San: I recall in your last post, you had indicated that you might love Osama Ben Laden and his people, after a heavy dose of meditation or words to that effect. What I was saying here, was that once the meditation "high" is over, you would be ready to kick ass. <SNIP>> The US is the only country on this globe> to have used nuclear weapons in a conflict.> Did that make the world a safer place?Certainly. It ended the war of conquest which Japan hadbegun not only against the U.S., but also China andthe rest of southeast Asia. If the U.S. had not usednuclear weapons, it would have needed to use conventionalweapons. Conventional weapons were no less deadly. Morepeople died in the fire-storm bombings of many Germancities, carried out with conventional bombs, than died atHiroshima or Nagasaki. San: Rob, Japan was militarily, economically finished at that stage and there is enough evidence of debate subsequently that the real issue behind the nuclear bombings was not to make Japan surrender, but for the US to become the sole nuclear power. No military objective was served through the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whatever be the truth, the point I was trying to make was, as it is the innocents in WTC who paid and are paying the price, it was the innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who paid and are still paying the price. > (The current anger at WTC as a civilian target, innocent civilians> being killed, etc, etc, is amusing. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were> evidently military centers?)I think that killing in war is moral only if there is a likelihood thatsome great benefit will result from it. This is why I regard theAmerican wars against Kosovo, Vietnam, and Cambodia ascrimes: there was no likelihood that any benefit would result.The bombing of Japan was different: it freed vast areas ofAsia from very ugly domination by Japan.Please tell me what likely benefit will arise as a result of thekilling of people in the WTC? The only result will be that Americanswill now kill a lot more people. San: Nature in it's movements, is rarely concerned about the possible benefits or losses to the human entity. You may say, I accept that for natural disasters. I am suggesting that all "disasters', whether seemingly man-made or otherwise, are movements of Nature. > There is no judgment on either situations, Rob.No, please, say anything you think. San: When I say there is no judgement, what I was meaning that I do not judge that any of the events, which occurred, are either right or wrong. <SNIP> Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.