Observer vs Observed

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

TCase in point. How about all those rioters expressing their emotional suffering and furthering the maturation of the collective soul? I would say this is de-evolution, not evolution. They identify with, at best, and unproductive narrative and then act it out. They are caught up in a nightmare they can't escape.

Dare I say we'd all be better off if they took that portion of the poem to heart.

I profoundly (deep-heartedly, emotionally) disagree with the 'pacifism' you (in effect) espouse, fella! The world (and consequently people's experiences 'in' it) has been positively changed by those who did the necessary 'work' to protest (as in 'Protestantism' for example) injustice and assertion of selfish 'privilege'.

"They shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. 17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls."

You and I are miles apart on what is necessary and desirable for Life to be affirmed and augmented, JASG.

Are you not aware(???) that 'injustice' had to confronted and exposed for what it is for the 'weak', 'neglected' and 'downtrodden' to be given their approprate due. If people did not expressively act on the basis of their 'pain' and (moral!!!!) 'outrage', slavery would still be 'tolerated' even 'legal'. Christ, Bro!

The 'rationlization' you have expressed here is exactly why I campaign againstpeople and philisophies which implicity (even if not explicitly) serve to supports 'comfortably' established (and so 'complacent') group-think followers/followings.

'Holiness' ('goodness' even) is often a smug-'cover' for self-interest and social 'privilege': https://www.worldvision.org/blog/app...ce-good-people

Your attitudinality and postionality in the above regard is very miss-guided, IMO (so as to preserve what you wish to believe, hence your "everyone should be nice-nice, at-peace-at-peace" 'comfort-zone', maybe).

Here is another Sheesh!

Originally Posted by davidsun

I profoundly (deep-heartedly, emotionally) disagree with the 'pacifism' you (in effect) espouse, fella! The world (and consequently people's experiences 'in' it) has been positively changed by those who did the necessary 'work' to protest (as in 'Protestantism' for example) injustice and assertion of selfish 'privilege'.

"They shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. 17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls."

You and I are miles apart on what is necessary and desirable for Life to be affirmed and augmented, JASG.

Are you not aware(???) that 'injustice' had to confronted and exposed for what it is for the 'weak', 'neglected' and 'downtrodden' to be given their approprate due. If people did not expressively act on the basis of their 'pain' and (moral!!!!) 'outrage', slavery would still be 'tolerated' even 'legal'. Christ, Bro!

The 'rationlization' you have expressed here is exactly why I campaign againstpeople and philisophies which implicity (even if not explicitly) serve to supports 'comfortably' established (and so 'complacent') group-think followers/followings.

'Holiness' ('goodness' even) is often a smug-'cover' for self-interest and social 'privilege': https://www.worldvision.org/blog/app...ce-good-people

Your attitudinality and postionality in the above regard is very miss-guided, IMO (so as to preserve what you wish to believe, hence your "everyone should be nice-nice, at-peace-at-peace" 'comfort-zone', maybe).

Here is another Sheesh!

I know the difference between peaceful protest based on principles and violent riots to further an ideology. Speak up? yes. Peaceably protest? Yes. Vote? Yes. Needless violence largely directed at the innocent? No.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I know the difference between peaceful protest based on principles and violent riots to further an ideology. Speak up? yes. Peaceably protest? Yes. Vote? Yes. Needless violence largely directed at the innocent? No.

Many a times rioters also damage public property causing losses to exchequer. Many a times these rioters are mercenaries for opposition parties with hidden agenda .

So every times what we see on the surface is not what it really is .

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Many a times rioters also damage public property causing losses to exchequer. Many a times these rioters are mercenaries for opposition parties with hidden agenda .

So every times what we see on the surface is not what it really is .

Yup, it's an ideology hijacking a cause and for it's own ideological end, and that end is nowhere any sensible person want's to end up.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yup, it's an ideology hijacking a cause and for it's own ideological end, and that end is nowhere any sensible person want's to end up.

Yes and at the same time as u mentioned and I believe DS too intends to speak up at the right time to right people assertively fearlessly in a issuebased manner without demeaning the opposition also is important.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I know the difference between peaceful protest based on principles and violent riots to further an ideology. Speak up? yes. Peaceably protest? Yes. Vote? Yes. Needless violence largely directed at the innocent? No.

Yes, BUTT even non-violent protestors do so because they are morally 'outraged'. 'needlessness' is a relative (and 'condescending' from a 'superior' stance in your case, IMO) 'judgment'.

Those who have no 'needs' and in that they choose to completely 'detach' from the exigencies of earthy Life and consequently don't 'oppose' anyone or anything (like Ramana Maharshi, who never 'partner'ed with anything or anyone as far as I know, and Gautama, called Buddha, who 'sanctimoniously' 'abandoned his wife and kids, IMO) are Life-abandoning examples of what I am talking about.

Tell me if there's anything that you emotionally care about enough to go to bat against what diminishes or detracts from 'it' and also tell me why, o 'super'-tolerant one.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yup, it's an ideology hijacking a cause and for it's own ideological end, and that end is nowhere any sensible person want's to end up.

I agree about there being 'bad' actors (grossly selfish and 'crazy' anarchist elements, etc.) mixed in with in the current protest movement. However, IMO, the Advaita 'ideology' is worse in that it includes and endorse many 'hijackers' Jesus's and the Gita's social-responsibility message and exhortations. I don't think you have even begun to 'hear' and 'acknowledge' the logic of what I have been saying, Guy. Your notion of 'sensible' is very far from mine!

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Yes, BUTT even non-violent protestors do so because they are morally 'outraged'. 'needlessness' is a relative (and 'condescending' from a 'superior' stance in your case, IMO) 'judgment'.

Those who have no 'needs' and in that they choose to completely 'detach' from the exigencies of earthy Life and consequently don't 'oppose' anyone or anything (like Ramana Maharshi, who never 'partner'ed with anything or anyone as far as I know, and Gautama, called Buddha, who 'sanctimoniously' 'abandoned his wife and kids, IMO) are Life-abandoning examples of what I am talking about.

Tell me if there's anything that you emotionally care about enough to go to bat against what diminishes or detracts from 'it' and also tell me why, o 'super'-tolerant one.

So Ramana Maharshi was life-abandoning. Interesting. Perhaps he abandoned the small petty life that most people engage in and embraced a much greater life.

And when the Buddha and Ramana Maharshi began teaching they both engaged with people every day. This is scarcely life-abandoning.

What do you think Ramana Maharshi should have done differently in his life?

Peace

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by iamthat

So Ramana Maharshi was life-abandoning. Interesting. Perhaps he abandoned the small petty life that most people engage in and embraced a much greater life.

And when the Buddha and Ramana Maharshi began teaching they both engaged with people every day. This is scarcely life-abandoning.

What do you think Ramana Maharshi should have done differently in his life?

Peace

Screw your 'Peace' blessing.offering. I have already clearly stated/argued (sevral times and in several places) that I think that Life is a 'wave' (i.e. flux) phenomenon, and that 'Peace' (i.e. no up and down 'energy waves) will, if it is prolonged, result in stagnation which, in terms of Creativity, is a 'death'.

Yes, they engaged people every day, but to what end? My sense is that they just pied-piper induced people to focus on not 'suffering' any 'problems' - hence to not engage in seeking and choosing to make the experience of Life both for themselves and others - IOW not just for themselves - which kind of engagement naturally presents one with tough how-best-to-balance 'conflicting' values, in order to make 'Life' better.

Ramana's 'lounging' around in a something that looks like a 'diaper', just smiling at everyone no matter what (when there's so much more that clearly needs to be done in order to make animal and human Life more Love-filled and Joy-full qualitatively better) illustrates my 'point'. Not my idea of a desirable 'role'-model at least. If your 'parents' had just done that, you wouldn't even be here.

This is one of my thought-experiment 'tests' when attempting to e-value-ate any 'mode' of 'operation' in terms of whether it would or would not be a 'good' idea: what if everyone chose to behave that way? In Ramana's case, at least, have 'everyone' emotionally-detachedly sitting around in 'diapers', with a seductive "I-am-completely-happy" smile on their faces, using all their intelligence to 'convince' others to 'follow' suit!

I know I am presenting something that is extremely hypothetical, but please do at least take me seriously enough to genuinely contemplate the issue I am 'raising'.

I have the same issue with those who 'simply' (Hi-Ho 'simple' Guy! ) preach/say and live/act as if 'accepting' 'Jesus' as their 'Lord and Savior' is the best possible 'way' to LIVE, BTW!

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Screw your 'Peace' blessing.offering. I have already clearly stated/argued (sevral times and in several places) that I think that Life is a 'wave' (i.e. flux) phenomenon, and that 'Peace' (i.e. no up and down 'energy waves) will, if it is prolonged, result in stagnation which, in terms of Creativity, is a 'death'.

Yes, they engaged people every day, but to what end? My sense is that they just pied-piper induced people to focus on not 'suffering' any 'problems' - hence to not engage in seeking and choosing to make the experience of Life both for themselves and others - IOW not just for themselves - which kind of engagement naturally presents one with tough how-best-to-balance 'conflicting' values, in order to make 'Life' better.

Ramana's 'lounging' around in a something that looks like a 'diaper', just smiling at everyone no matter what (when there's so much more that clearly needs to be done in order to make animal and human Life more Love-filled and Joy-full qualitatively better) illustrates my 'point'. Not my idea of a desirable 'role'-model at least. If your 'parents' had just done that, you wouldn't even be here.

This is one of my thought-experiment 'tests' when attempting to e-value-ate any 'mode' of 'operation' in terms of whether it would or would not be a 'good' idea: what if everyone chose to behave that way? In Ramana's case, at least, have 'everyone' emotionally-detachedly sitting around in 'diapers', with a seductive "I-am-completely-happy" smile on their faces, using all their intelligence to 'convince' others to 'follow' suit!

Ah, David, you dismiss Ramana's clothing as "diapers", as if to try to belittle it. He is simply wearing a loincloth, sometimes called a kaupina. This is not uncommon for yogis in India, and it is what Ramana habitually wore from 1896. Who are you to judge the clothing customs of another culture?

If you really think that Ramana just sat round smiling at everyone you clearly have no understanding of his life and teachings.

And what if everyone chose to do that? Who knows, the world might be a better kinder place.

You seem to consider life as a process of choosing between conflicting values to improve the quality of life. And how do we improve the quality of life? By reducing all unnecessary suffering. And yet you criticise the Buddha and Ramana for teaching how to eliminate such suffering.

You say that more is required to make human life love-filled and joyful? What is your recipe for increasing human joy and love? Is it working? Your posts do not seem to radiate love or joy.

Peace (of the non-stagnating variety)