How do people in wars not rapidly evolve?

[Nikos1982]

If I haven't been fair in my speech I apologize

[Starman]

Nikos1982, what you have shared is your opinion and it is fair, and not offensive. Your speech is polite and that is what matters, at least to me.

So, I am going to share another perspective here and it is not aimed at you or anyone else; its just another perspective.

In Hinduism, the Mahabaratta is a story about a great war, and Lord Krishna is on the battlefield with his closest devotee, Arjuna, and they are facing an army which has some of Arjuna’s relatives. Krishna tells Arjuna to “kill them all,” he says they are all me.

Western culture views war and death much differently then eastern cultures. Today, it is still acceptable in Japan to take your own life, although many in the younger generations are against it. During WWII Japan had suicide bombers, and even today in the Middle East, there are suicide/homicide bombers.

Christians have had many so-called “holy wars,” the crusades and also the Reformation, when Christians (Catholics) went to war with other Christians (Protestants) killing each other. There have been many religious wars, but can a person be spiritual and be involved in a war? Again I say, peace is much more than just the absence of war.

The Ten Commandments say “Thou shall not kill,” but that is largely ignored by most religions. War taught me a lot about human nature; man’s inhumanity to man. There are spiritual people who are involved in a war, and when I was in Vietnam we had military clergy, ministers and priests, who told us that “ communism was evil,” and we were doing “God’s work” by getting rid of communist. Of course, I did not believe this.

[Native spirit]

Like Starman My uncle was a medic in the war at the same time I had another uncle that was fighting in the war.
The one uncle was killed by a sniper bullet he was in the Royal welch Fusiliers
he was my mothers brother.
The other uncle was my dads brother.
I always remember him telling me There are no winners in war.
ITS BEST TO MAKE PEACE.

Namaste

[CosmicWonder]

But what about small wars. Not necessarily about killing so much or about countries. But two (spiritual) forces clashes, creating conflict in a community and there will be nasty and obscure things. Like bad talk, lies, verbal abuse, verbal agression, manipulation.... What about that? Thats war too, but smaller and can take a toll too. I dont think to me its fabricated like the bigger wars sometimes are. Or well, maybe someone does... Some antisocial profitting from the chaos. Thoughts??

I learned that art is a mighty weapon, even outside the modern context. Words are too. And so is purity and Truth. The weapons of the Love. But when we think about war, like movies .. its usually guns and knives right? Its not always like that. Some may sharpen their knives, or improve their aim... Others may make sketches, or try out a new tune... Or find that next ingredient. Thoughts?

Edit to add: war is war. No matter what the method is, or the medium, its gonna get bloody and its gomna hurt on some or multiple levelz. Do not be mistaken. But size, focus and etc do influence it.

[Starman]

I met British and Australian military people in Vietnam, there were many different military forces from various countries in that war. Although I do agree with Cosmic Wonder, about how people generally think about war; usually it is only size and scope that are considered.

Right now in Sudan a war is raging, children are dying, but it is not given much attention here in the U.S. Because I think the war in Sudan is in Africa and it has been raging for some time. If a war goes on for a long time, that includes Israel and Hamas, or even Ukraine and Russia, people tend to lose interest in it, or block it out.

I connect instantly with military veterans, regardless if they are from another nation. Like Native Spirit, mentioning the Royal Welch Fusiliers, I am familiar with them. Medics are there is heal people, soldiers and civilians alike, in the middle of a raging battle. But medics are often the first ones targeted; because, at least in Vietnam, the other side did not want medics patching up the people they had shot.

The deeper question is does war have a spiritual significance? I have been looking into this for some time; spirit is experienced by most as overwhelming peace and non-violent. But as Cosmic Wonder has stated, there are different types of wars. Wars that take place between co-workers, ex-lovers, or divorcees, etc. No one may die in these wars but too often people in these situations are out to hurt each other, like in a war.

The bottom line for me is that people are at war with themselves and they take it out on other people, regardless whether they are in a military war or not. The larger picture is recovery from our own internal battles.

[CosmicWonder]

@starman,

I agree in that war is internal.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by AlignedWithTheHeart

I think they do rapidly evolve, but not so rapidly that wars cease to exist in this world because theres nobody left to fight them? .

I think when you're literally fighting for your life you're in survival mode, trying to stay safe and survive another day. That doesn't leave much energy left for raising your spiritual vibration. People who can maintain a high vibration even when their very life is threatened and there is bombing and destruction and death all around have probably spent their lives in spiritual pursuit like monks and nuns who shut themselves away and spend their days in prayer and meditation.

[Altair]

I think war is simply inevitable in a world with finite resources. ''War'' is basically all around us. Animals war over territories and food. Ants and termite colonies have epic wars between them. Animals mark their territory peeing and growling, we build houses and walls. War isn't just armies and blowing things up, that sort of war is a different form of competition.

War can't be inherently bad because God/''God'' has ''made'' nature this way. Of course, there are DEGREES of war or competition. The economy is basically warlike. Two male tigers marking the same patch of forest are in a war, but it is just two of em. Ant and termite colonies warring is a battlefield. We cannot stop war, but we (humans) can reduce/eliminate how war/competition LOOKS, such as avoiding the killing part.

[Gem]

I haven't fought in a war, and I imagine from the perspective of those who have what we say may sound naive, but we could generally agree that it's a both a terrible thing and something we repeat, which doesn't seem sensible.

In the Australian Aboriginal setting there was a knowledge, and in a loose way, a multitude of countries formed as places of knowledge. A man from one country has the knowledge to live in his own place, but doesn't know how to live in other countries. Hence people of one country do not want to inhabit other countries because they do not know what they need to know to live there.

All the countries complex because the populace aren't hunters and gatherers as such, but people who manage the ecology like a huge estate to produce more of what they need to live on. Since the country gives you life, you have to take good care of it. Thus people feel a responsibility and understand that other peoples are looking after other countries. They don't know how to look after another country and would have no purpose there. Besides, they can't neglect their own place which gives them life.

Because people from one country do not want to reside in other countries - as it makes no sense whatsoever - there's no such thing as invasions as such, though I imagine there would be skirmishes over border areas where different countrymen encounter each other.

I'll get back to this later, but first, the civilised mind works in a different way because we imagine property, and property implies subservience. We don't need to know how it all works because we can rip all that out and plant a field of corn. Hence 60 million roos hop about while we eat the sheep and cows we know about. That's what happens when a man from one country uses the knowledge he has in another country - it's an ecological disaster and a human tragedy.

Since we have that mindset, we have the sense that we can live anywhere, so we might lust after 'greener grass', neglect our own lot, and impose what we know upon a land that is not congruent with such knowledge. The home-people see the travesty and defend the land in a literal sense. The perpetrators are run off because country gives life and if they mess it up, everything and everybody dies. Thus a man from another country who attempts to settle is inherently destructive, and thereby a lethal threat to the homeland countrymen.

Now back to where I left off. Knowledge of the land is passed through heritage. Ancestry is the means by which a man knows his place and how to live there. The knowledge is transmitted across generations, and this emerges in culture. The purpose of culture is to continue across the generations as the vessel of knowledge. This means organising reproduction through rituals like marriage to keep a history of bloodlines and maintain order through impermissible and permissible couplings. E.g. first cousin couplings aren't permitted. Such organisation of bloodlines lets us know our place both as where we live and where we fit within a 'permissive' society. IOW our belonging. It's a complex interweaving of boundaries that interrelate to form the borders that define different countries.

Thus the imagining of land rights is very different to the imagining of land ownership.

Would you conquer a land you cannot call your own? Nope. We conquer land to stick flag in it and say 'I hereby declare this the realm the King'. The imagining of 'rights' does not congeal with the imagining of 'ownership'. Rights imply knowledge whereas ownership implies subservience.

If all this becomes confused there will be war, not so much because men fight it, but because without the right knowledge on the land there is chaos and destruction. That's easy to say now that war has occurred repeatedly and continues recurring, and ecological disasters are seen in hindsight.

By this stage of human history, a vast majority of people everywhere have lost the knowing, and with it, belonging, so we just put what we do know into incongruent lands we may own but do not belong together-with. It's a highly destructive process which becomes increasingly chaotic. There is nothing real in the ground and blood that founds a true story; just flags that represent surreal identity stories that are entirely fabricated.

Essentially, the 'chaos of war' is an issue of knowledge. Yes, it emerges from the ill-will generated by human beings, which weirdly expresses as good-will and service. But without any disrespect to the warrior, it is in service of an upheld fallacy underpinned by the loss of knowing. Now that the knowledge has been lost and the bloodlines that carry it are defunct, we can only continue this ignorant and chaotic general assault on the land and the species thereon, including the human species - one another.

[Nikos1982]

Altair, regarding the human species, there are many who receive life as a wonder, unlike animals who live life upon their instincts.

On one hand.

On the other it is said that if we were living like animals the world would be more peaceful ... as a matter of fairness I suppose.

Makes one wonder....