1. Unfortunately The Project Meditation Community Forum is no longer active. Although registration and the creation of new posts not possible, you can still read and search the forum...

    If you are unable to find what you are looking for within the Project Meditation Community please check out our new Blog and/or our Facebook page.

from religion to meditation

Discussion in 'Meditation Chatter Box' started by brozen, Jul 3, 2011.

  1. Bryan555

    Bryan555 Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Michael...

    No problem with being direct. It suits you. Perhaps you should make a habit of it. And I certainly receive your reply in its intended spirit.

    Yes, we agree that malevolence must be opposed, and that children can be disciplined with love. I'm not so sure that Rupert Murdoch can be disciplined, in any way...(little media joke there).

    Seriously, you make an interesting point: that two actions might seem the same, while coming from a very different "place" in our hearts. I think it's a good point, and accept it entirely. Best rgds...
     
  2. Karmoh

    Karmoh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Brozen, I'm the new kid on the block regarding non-duality, so my posts do tend to be from that perspective. when I write i'm truly writing from myself to myself and then to the forum. When you discover that there was nothing to discover, it's hard not see the separation that exists. Unfortunately i'm still green and haven't established an easy conversational style of posting.

    Hi Bryan, I do realise that certain portions of your posts have a deeper humour, yet I read them as passive aggresive. Once I get used to your direct style maybe we can converse on a more even playing field and you may not find my non dual perspective so one sided. I do live in a very real world, but experience has shown that regardless of my opinion or stance on any political or social commentary, within an instance it can be torn away. All that really matters is that I take another breath and what appears I will deal with, with whatever means are available to me at that moment.

    Peace
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2011
  3. Hazelkay

    Hazelkay Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    anger

    Have come back from holiday and have been reading this thread with interest as I watched my resentment, anger (ego) seething at an incident on holiday and lost my cool for a while.

    Here's a real world two penn'orth;

    I turn on the TV and the reporter is interviewing a politician who is expressing the view that all African/Asian asylum seekers should be stopped at the borders and sent back to where they came from to 'face the music'. Anger arises at this lack of compassion, love, and the demonstration of racial bigotry.

    I turn on the TV and the reporter is interviewing a politician who is expressing the view that all African/Asian asylum seekers should be stopped at the borders and sent back to where they came from to 'face the music'. Anger arises at the asylum seekers for being here in large numbers and 'sponging off the state'.

    Whose anger is better?

    'Mine' of course.:D:(

    peace and joy:)
     
  4. brozen

    brozen Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    hi all,
    I just wanted to make this a quick post.
    I've gotten to the stage where I feel that I am just being pedantic about definitions and considering alternatives (anger) to processes that have already been well established as fool-proof (love). I don't KNOW this to be true, but I have a strong faith that the various forms of love are the best possible means to an end.

    Maybe, as earlier pointed out, my problem was that I felt I needed a stronger driving force. The worlds experience with anger has proved to be a very strong driving force for motivation and action, but of course, as also pointed out, not as ideal as the driving force love can provide.
    An extract from the movie, The Network, shows anger in a somewhat romantic sense, and does seem more appealing due to its strong sense of direct connection to action in the remedy of suffering.

    Bryan you may be familiar with this and appreciate it as much as I did, haha
    Mad as hell:
    YouTube - ‪Network - Mad as hell‬‏

    This has been a great learning experience, and I can see that I am at a stage where I need to experience the effects of love in order to truly be able to argue a case for anger (if thats even possible).

    @Karmoh, I can see the perception of the non-dualist as being a means of achieving this understanding.
    @Pollyanna, Eckhart provided some good remedies for anger. Fortunately, I am not someone who experiences anger in such a great way, but it is a useful control and observation method for all emotions. He also helped me to understand more of the non-dualist world. Problems caused by labelling and separation. Which I have seen to be evident in the world ie. Labeling of humans as 'terrorists', demeans and devalues them, pushing them further away from what they are in reality.

    Sorry to anyone I've missed again but my head is exhausted. I will probably just be observing this thread for a while before posting again, if it continues.
    I am still interested but feel I need to sit back and take in all the information some more, to truly understand.

    Thanks all, cya for now.
     
  5. pollyanna

    pollyanna Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hi there Brozen,

    Michael's "Good Life" is sent out as an email to everyone who wants to receive it. Check your emails and see if you have one from Michael Mackenzie, titled How to clear your mind. If you don't have one you could contact support and I'm sure they will forward your email to Michael. In the meantime, I have copied the following for you to read.

    Wishing you much peace and joy :) :) :)

    "As you probably know, excess Beta waves are often blamed for causing feelings of stress and all of the related problems that come with stress, and while this is true it's only half of the picture. Beta waves begin at about 14hz and go up to 40Hz and are divided into low, mid, and high Beta ranges. The low and mid range Beta waves are in fact healthy and natural. It is really only when you get into the high ranges of Beta; about 26Hz and above that you experience an explosion of the stress response. These higher Beta frequencies seem to have a more pronounced effect on two sections of the human brain, the reptilian and the limbic sections.

    Now, I'll try to keep this interesting, however, there's really only so much that can be done with a discussion of brain structures and their functions so please bear with me...

    The reptilian portion of the brain is the oldest (earliest developed) and controls, as you might expect, our instinctual senses related to survival. Our "fight or flight" responses are hard wired into the reptilian brain and our feelings of aggression and urges for procreation also find their home in the reptilian brain.

    The limbic portion of the brain is often referred to as our "emotional" brain. It is the seat of most of our feelings, particularly one section known as the amygdala. The amazing thing about the amygdala is that when a foetus is in gestation the amygdala grows, is fully developed and becomes completely functional long before birth. What's been discovered is that it is processing and more importantly storing feelings and emotions we have, even pre-birth feelings and emotions, long before the parts of the brain that cover logical and rational thinking develop. This is the source of many of our emotional problems because we accumulate emotional pains and traumas before we are capable of comprehending them within any kind of rational context.

    To make matters worse, the amygdala stores emotional memories in what is known as "a temporal" form, meaning that they're sort of like an emotional hologram that sits outside of any reference to time. Stored emotions can be called up and will feel just as real 30 years later as they did at the moment they were first experienced.

    This becomes especially problematic when emotional memories are triggered and called up into full activity that were stored before the parts of our brains developed that would have allowed them to have been put into some kind of rational context and framework. A classic example is the person who is prone to fits of sudden and (seemingly) inexplicable rage that they cannot control. The rage takes them suddenly, often for little or no apparent reason. Even they don't understand (or even stop to wonder, usually) where this rage suddenly appeared from.

    What is often happening is that these emotions were first experienced very early in life, possibly even during gestation, before birth, and something triggers them to re-emerge later on. Who can even say what the trigger is? But it happens. The rage gets triggered, the reptilian brain may even get involved, interpreting this rage as a response to danger and therefore activating its mechanisms for aggression or flight, etc. We all have these things buried in our brains. Some of us have more than others; some of us feel them much more intensely than others, but we've all got them, ticking away like time bombs, waiting for the right trigger event to come along and stir them back to life.

    Eckhart Tolle refers to these buried parts of us as our "pain body". He uses a very colorful, anthropomorphic way of discussing them, but essentially he is talking about these buried, negative emotions that take on almost a life of their own. They come up, they feed, and what they feed on are those feelings that seem most like their own nature, and when they're done feeding they settle back down for awhile until its time for another feeding. If they can't find any emotional nutrition handy that is similar to themselves they often cause us to act out in ways that will provoke these sorts of emotional responses in both ourselves as well as others.

    Here's a link to a 6 minute video where Eckhart Tolle speaks about the "pain body".

    http://www.project-meditation.org/c...dy-very-seductive-eckhart-tolle.html#post2908

    The link below explains in more detail about how to control the "pain body" by becoming more conscious and aware. The video lasts 1 hour and 30 minutes. At approximately 46 minutes into the video he discusses very clearly how the "pain body" operates in a relatable and amusing way.

    http://www.project-meditation.org/c...ower-not-knowing-eckhart-tolle.html#post24298


    Meditation cultivates the inner observer and as you consciously accept and observe the sensations that accompany negative and/or suppressed emotions you will begin to release them. You will experience much relief and peace as you gradually release more and more accumulated negative emotions.

    Can you picture yourself feeling peaceful, fresh, full of energy, more positive and calm? What's more, these benefits won't just affect you. Everyone around you will begin to notice a more vibrant and happier you.

    In your next issue of "The Good Life" you can discover...

    * How the gamma tracks Nirvana and Awaken trigger a response that is exactly the opposite of those higher Beta frequencies between 26Hz and 40Hz and why I call them the "Jack of all trades".
    * Why you can use these tracks for relaxation, meditation, creativity, study, stress reduction, and so forth equally well.
    * Why anyone creating tracks using only binaural technology that attempt to entrain to the gamma frequency of 40Hz produce no entrainment effect at all, even if they are otherwise constructed properly.
    * Why you benefit from all the LifeFlow tracks when listening without headphones even though they are below 20Hz.

    Have a great week,

    Yours for HUGE meditation success,

    Michael Mackenzie."

    P.S. Here is what a U.K. member of the community had to say...
    "Having a major head injury many years ago, I've always been on the lookout for new ways to improve my memory and there is no doubt that Lifeflow has helped me get parts of my brain working again and enjoying it at the same time, it is awesome. It's truly amazing how I think now with so much more depth, reasoning and understanding. This last year of meditation is certainly one of the biggest and most memorable events in my life of healthy change. I wish it to all who have made that step forward with Lifeflow. So thanks to LIFEFLOW and ALL"

    LifeFlowTM Community Member

    P.P.S. Click on the link below to read the truly inspiring stories of two others:

    http://www.project-meditation.org/c...ss-stories/2095-actually-happy.html#post11027
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2011
  6. Bryan555

    Bryan555 Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi again Karmoh...

    You kind of blindsided me with that "passive-aggressive" charge. I had to look it up to see what, exactly, I was being accused of, and it's kind of a serious matter. Also, it doesn't really seem to fit me at all.

    Basically, a passive-aggressive person pretends to agree with someone else, but actually disagrees...and sort of sabotages the discussion, enterprise, whatever. In my case, I think we can all be pretty sure that I tend to disagree quite notably, when i do indeed disagree.

    In the discussion above, for instance, I was pretty vehement that TV -- aside from its physical apparatus -- is NOT an inanimate object at ALL. Nothing passive there.

    I also looked up the symptoms of this "disease": procrastination, stubborness, feeling cheated or under-appreciated, memory lapses, inefficiency, etc. Nope, not me, either.

    What I do have in spades is directness and the "easy conversational style of posting" you also mentioned above. Plus, a sometimes sardonic sense of humor to go with it. (Gently sardonic, mostly.)

    Sorry if that offended you in some way, Karmoh. Certainly no offense was intended. Best rgds....
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2011
  7. GilesC

    GilesC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Just coming back to that TV for a moment... ;)

    I still maintain that it IS inanimate. Not just the physical apparatus itself, but the image and sound you watch on it. At any moment of Now, there is just the image and sound of that moment, and it's not even something that is happening Now in most cases. Anyway, the point is that if it is the television (or what you are watching on it) that could cause a particular emotion, whether it be anger, fear, happiness or whatever, then that emotion would exist in every single person watching. The truth is that some people will watch something and feel angry, some just a little frustrated, some infuriated and determined to do something about it, others indifferent. A single moment of television cannot create different emotions and force those emotions into a person... the emotions come from within the person themselves. This is a persons re-action, and the "re" part of that is important, as it indicates that the action the person has towards something is not in the present moment, but is based on actions in the past that they are bringing to the present moment... they are re-enacting how they believe they should act now, based on ideas, memories and thoughts from the past, and not on what is right there in front of them right Now.

    That isn't to say that what is happening out there in the world should be ignored, or that it isn't terrible what is happening (let's not forget there is a lot of good happening as well). It's to say that if the opportunity is there right in front of us at any time, where we can make a difference, then we can act on that there and then at that time; but to take something we see on television and let it take a hold on our emotions and cause anger or whatever that we carry around with us for days, determined that we will change it somehow, and focused on looking for ways to do that, will actually prevent us from meeting the real needs of the moment; those real needs that are right there in front of us, and that are the needs of the universe at that time, rather than just the perceived needs of the little self (or mind/ego).

    This is the difference in perception that the TV (or whatever) can cause emotions or that they are created by ourselves. By understanding how we create or own emotions (or "re-act" to things), we can choose to stop that re-acting and learn to just "act" in the present moment.

    Hugs

    Giles
     
  8. Bryan555

    Bryan555 Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Giles...

    You wrote: "Anyway, the point is that if it is the television (or what you are watching on it) that could cause a particular emotion, whether it be anger, fear, happiness or whatever, then that emotion would exist in every single person watching."

    Well, sure, we each react differently. But that can be said of life itself, and every event in it. We can sit at a lunch table with friends, and each of us will have a different reaction to what is being discussed.

    Does that somehow prove that -- because "the emotions come from within the people themselves", as you say-- that whatever sparks them is, by necessity, inanimate?

    I think, obviously not. You do make some wonderful arguments, Giles. But, in this case, I don't think it holds much water. Sure, we each bring our own emotions and understandings to things, whether on TV or real life. It seems to me that just proves they are equally "animate".

    Best rgds...
     
  9. GilesC

    GilesC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Well if we're going down the pedantisism route we can say that everything is animated as the energy within them is moving.

    By "inanimate" I'm referring more to the fact that anything "out there" cannot be considered to animate the emotions as those emotions are created by ourselves. In day to day life people can use a phrase like "You make me frustrated", but that is a false statement. The person has not made you frustrated... YOU have made yourself frustrated by the re-action you create within yourself. The other person does not animate themselves in such a way to force the emotion to rise within you, that is just something you perceive as happening because you've (your mind has) taken the input of the senses and connected that with things of the past and fed back something to your senses to create the emotions. Those emotions animate from within yourself, not the other person.

    Yes, it may sound like semantics, I know, but as I said before, recognising where the emotions stem from allows us to let them go. As the creator of the emotions we can choose not to create them, and thus not blame others for the creation of them also. When we do that, we can be more present and deal with the needs of what is in the present moment.

    ;)

    Hugs

    Giles
     
  10. Karmoh

    Karmoh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Bryan,

    Truly no offense taken, I didn’t really explain it too well. What I was trying to say was that initially I (as in me only) read your posts as passive aggressive but had realised that your direct approach was steeped in a humour that took a while for me to grasp. I now see it......is all.
    Sorry for the confusion

    Peace :)

    PS. One of the reasons I started to post here was the amazing cross section of personalities. There is rarely any dogma involved. The broadness of views is wonderful, people post from the realist view, religious view, non-dual view and simple I’m happy with life view. It all makes for a heady mix. would you agree?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2011
  11. Karmoh

    Karmoh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Now that's a very good way of explaining it, and is exactly the way I see objects in the real world. I can watch TV with impunity for it is only a medium to relay information. Like a book. It too is inanimate. It’s how my conditioning interprets the words that create the story or theory.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2011
  12. Bryan555

    Bryan555 Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Giles...

    You wrote: "By "inanimate" I'm referring more to the fact that anything "out there" cannot be considered to animate the emotions as those emotions are created by ourselves. In day to day life people can use a phrase like "You make me frustrated", but that is a false statement. The person has not made you frustrated... YOU have made yourself frustrated by the re-action you create within yourself. The other person does not animate themselves in such a way to force the emotion to rise within you, that is just something you perceive as happening because you've (your mind has) taken the input of the senses and connected that with things of the past and fed back something to your senses to create the emotions. Those emotions animate from within yourself, not the other person.

    Yes, it may sound like semantics, I know, but as I said before, recognising where the emotions stem from allows us to let them go. As the creator of the emotions we can choose not to create them, and thus not blame others for the creation of them also. When we do that, we can be more present and deal with the needs of what is in the present moment."

    So, ok, if I understand you correctly, then everything is inanimate -- at least in the sense that it is our own reaction which "animates" everything. It doesn't matter whether it's a live television show, or a lively conversation with friends. In each case, we are the ones who choose what emotion/reaction to attach to it.

    I get that and, sure, it's an interesting point of view. Indeed, we are all free to make up our own definitions for every word in the dictionary.

    The problem, of course, is that those words already have definitions, widely compiled and pretty much universally recognized. So it creates some havoc with communication when each of us gets to decide what words mean to themselves.

    I thought your little story about getting angry at the car was funny. And we all laughed precisely because, geez, it really is stupid to get angry at inanimate objects. And we all shared that laughter precisely because we all shared the understanding of what inanimate means.

    But, geez, if everything is inanimate -- including live conversation -- then the whole point of your "car story" is lost. See what I mean?

    I agree 100% with your fundamental point: We cannot control events, but we are in absolute control of our response to them. It's all up to us.

    Still, Giles, out here in the world of Webster's Dictionary, cars and TV sets are definitely inanimate objects. I am not; neither are you. And neither are the people who tell all those lies which so animate the media.

    Interesting discussion. Much thanks...
     
  13. GilesC

    GilesC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Hi Bryan,

    Yep, that's about the crux of it.

    I'm not really making up anything. Again, it all comes down to perspecive, or as Einstein would have said, relativity.

    Yes, there are widely recognized definitions for things, but again, it's still relative. We could watch a cartoon on the TV and we call that animation, yet we can watch the news on TV and say that that isn't animation. Yet, to someone who is technically involved in the production of televisions, they will refer to the image being displayed sequentially on the screen as the animation of the images regardless of whether it's a cartoon or 'real' images.

    Not really. :rolleyes: The "car story" gives you an insight into where the emotions are coming from, and the ability to recognise a certain level of detachment. Then those examples can be expanded upon, to deepen that understanding. So, just because the examples are now deeper, doesn't negate the need or meaning of the initial example. Just like a child will not start school and start to learn advanced calculus, but will start with basic arithmetic, there's no point in someone going straight into a deep example that means something to themselves without starting at the basics.

    Yes, that is one of the key points, the other being that there are needs to be met in the present moment, that we will often fail to notice if we are caught up in emotions attached to 'other' events elsewhere that we really have no control over.

    I've never seen you animated, how would I know? ;)

    To me, this is you:

    [​IMG]

    ... not very animated at all. :D

    And that may seem like a silly thing, but it too has a point. The point being that you would consider yourself animated, but to me, I just have some static picture and text in front of me, and therefore it would be wrong of me to get emotional about that text and 'blame' those emotions on you. I could read your text and say that you're a really friendly person, or that you are always confrontational, or that your words upset me or that they make me smile. Non of these things are true. Your words are just words, the emotions is created by me and my perception of what you say.

    A good example is, as some know already, I'm a moderator on another forum, and from time to time we get some members who don't agree with the way they have been moderated. Even though the decisions about their posts or membership or whatever have been a joint decision of the moderating team (there's several of us that discuss things before we take action in some cases), those members of the forum can take it very personally and really honestly believe that the moderator who has contacted them about the decision has taken that decision solely by themselves and that they are acting out of some sort of malice towards them. In some cases, they can get quite abusive and offensive, and sometime contact the site administrator to complain about they way they feel they've been treated. Of course the site admin knows we are acting as a team and knows that they are blowing it completely out of proportion, because they are letting their own emotions blow up over something that they know in their heart they've done wrong, but they want someone to blame for it. Of course we, as moderators, could take what they say personally too when they start accusing us of things, but most of us know that there's no need to do that.

    Hugs

    Giles
     
  14. brozen

    brozen Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Hi all,
    after having some time to digest all the information I have retained from this discussion, I feel I have gained some understanding.

    I think when it comes down to it, we all agree on the same thing. Essentially, we agree that suffering is bad, and that the ideal situation would be to have no suffering.

    I think we could all also agree, that the idea "Be the change you wish to see in the world" is an appropriate response to the query 'How to end suffering'

    This is where I think it comes down to our interpretation of "Being the change".

    In my case, I had a hard time fully understanding the suggestion of not responding emotionally to things seen on TV.

    My earlier reasoning:
    My first response to Giles quote
    Was that I thought it was an apathetic view to hold. I thought, if I went about my day to day life, dealing with only the problems in front of me, then I'd NEVER be able to help those who suffer overseas. Therefore the TV makes a great medium of conveying what is 'in front of me' yet on the other side of the world, and that we SHOULD react to it. I saw no benefit in dealing with my little day to day problems, when compared to dealing with corruption, destruction of homes overseas.

    My newer understanding:
    Giles view was not apathetic, it just came from a different understanding of the way things work. By dealing with day to day problems in positive manner, we are essentially spreading peace to our surroundings. And to me, that is the key and also what gave me a better understanding of 'Be the change you want to see'. This isn't to say you shouldn't worry about the rest of the world or that there is no need to go over and help, but at least to understand that your actions in moment, are just as important and worthwhile. The TV can cause hopelessness for that idea, but in reality that's the way the world has always worked (peace spreads peace, ideas spread knowledge).

    And for those people (sheeple) out there who hold real apathy or ignorance, don't let them cause you hopelessness. Know that sheep can also follow good.

    and what may actually relate to the original topic of this post, haha.
    My problem with religion was that it can FORCE people to believe things that aren't the 'right' thing to believe. Specifically that being gay is a sin. But really no one is being FORCED to believe anything, it is essentially a suggestion. Each of us can make up our mind in the end. And as we can see, over time many religions have adapted to the world, diverged to form different religions (the many denominations of Christianity), or else have been forgotten/rejected entirely due to being irrelevant (Greek mythology). Some denominations of Christianity allow for gay priests.

    I guess my original concern for this post is in effect, relieved. (understanding spread understanding lol)

    I use this religion thing as more of an example of how people have caused change in THINGS, not to bash religions.
    A revolution for a change in government, is caused by individuals spreading ideas.
    A revolution for peace in the world, is caused by individuals spreading peace.



    thanks again everyone for adding to this discussion. It has given hope and understanding to me. I hope it made sense. New ideas came up as I was writing so may be a bit disjointed. Look forward to any feedback and responses from everyone out there.

    PEace

    EDIT:
    PS This also really helped my understanding of this issue.
    Dalai Lama
    YouTube - ‪Living Peace (part 2 of 6)‬‏
    You may want to watch Pt 1. first to get used to the audio and the mood etc.
    but the goodness comes from part 2
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2011
  15. brozen

    brozen Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Just had a bit of a meditation session where these random thoughts gave me smiles lol.

    ANOTHER analogy;
    You don't solve the problem of rabbit infestation by releasing snakes. Unless you want to deal with snakes!

    some assurance:
    The worst case scenario of spreading pure peace, is that you don't spread enough pure peace. I don't think that is something to be ashamed of.

    peace
     
  16. Karmoh

    Karmoh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Brozen,

    You’ve got it...:)

    I will tell a true story, if I may.

    2 years ago I lived in a quite suburban street consisting of around 20 houses, 9 of which, the back yard faced a nice expanse of natural wetlands and the Avon River beyond. Our refuse collection day was Wednesday morning. Tom (not his real name) an elderly gentleman moved in to the area with his wife, a quite couple who pottered around the house and garden. After a few weeks I noticed that early on Wednesday morning’s Tom would walk through our area collecting any loose paper or rubbish that had accumulated in the gutter or from the edge of people’s properties. He also walked the wetlands at the back of the properties doing the same.
    After a few weeks, more and more residents noticed and sure enough on Wednesday mornings they too would clear the odd piece of rubbish from close to their properties. There were a few that thought him a busy-body, but I saw it differently and others too. Tom walked every morning regardless, he saw the odd piece of rubbish and decided to pick it up, he wasn’t try to place guilt or shame, he just saw an issue and decided in his own peaceful way do something about it. For some of us it rubbed-off and we too joined in. The residents committee for the whole area approached Tom and he agreed to organise mass rubbish collection days in and around the river and wetlands in our suburb, the local Council (govt.) were involved too, up until September 2011 we had one of the most beautiful spots to live.

    That area is now gone, but lessons were learnt from a very gentle man who picked up a chocolate wrapper one Wednesday morning, yet never said a word about it.


    Peace :)
     
  17. Edwin

    Edwin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Lovely story Karmoh :)

    That reminds me of a saying of Alexander Smit, a Dutch non-duality teacher and ex-student of Nisargadatta Maharaj:

    "Responsibility is the ability to respond"

    If a less desirable situation appears in your conscious self, and you are able to do something about it, you are automatically responsible for it.
    That includes TV, animated or not :p.
    It may happen on the other side of the world, as soon as the news offers the problem to you, and you are able to do something about it ( like for instance a fund-raise, or collecting ) it is your responsibility.

    You don't have to fix the whole world with all of it's problems, just those problems that find their way to you ;)

    Take for instance Thich Nhat Hanh, the Zen buddhist who frequently took action to re-unite North and South Vietnam, even during the vietnam war.

    A few years ago he heard that the chickens that are being bred for KFC were being over-fed and stuffed with hormones until they were so fat that their legs were unable to carry them, just to increase the amount of meat.

    All he did was write a letter to KFC, and publish a copy of the letter on the internet. Also KFC's response was put online.
    It must have been about 2 or 3 hours work for him to do this in total, but KFC started to be more conscious about just where their chickenmeat came from.:)
     
  18. Bryan555

    Bryan555 Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ha ha ha. Thanks, Giles, for re-publishing my photo in your post, and reducing me to a two-dimensional, inanimate object. That tickled my sense of irony.

    And I enjoyed your explanation of that 'all-things-are-inanimate' concept.

    My own take: We're all just "making it up" -- quite literally -- as we go along. It's a simpler way of looking at it, and requires no re-defining of common words.

    Thanks again. This discussion has been fun.
     
  19. brozen

    brozen Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    love hearing stories of good coming from good. thanks for those

    the idea of
    forms the perfect combination when your mind sees with love.

    Since my realization/understanding of this new idea of love, I've started to see every action in my day to day life as a choice between love and hate. Also that everything that your senses pick up can be interpreted by a loving mind or a hateful mind. (reminds me of a quote from Bill Hicks, which makes so much more sense now)
    All religions and so much of spirituality has suddenly just become so much more meaningful. Time to read EVERY religious script!


    thanks again, again to everyone for being part of helping me along what seems like such an important path

    Peace to all
     

Share This Page