-Caveat Lector- I am no one's guru. Please, we are not interested in platitudes ot theories here. We are walking together, enquiring together. We are both looking at what is. We are interested in facts, not interpretations. Not agreeing or disagreeing. Looking, listening. All is not two. Alone (= all is one) but not isolated. Isolation, separation are inventions of thought. If Ghandi opposed, exerted will, made a choice, then he was violent. If he acted effortlessly & choicelessly without motive, then there was no violence. Being a violent person, I don't know what is effortless, choiceless action without a motive. >From: "Joshua Tinnin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Jacob Sabat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [604] Force >Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 01:02:27 -0700 > >OK, this is getting plainly silly, Jacob. Your apparent inability to speak >to others here on this list with "plain language," not always guru-sounding >platitudes, is hurting your ability to communicate those thoughts to >others, >I think, and you have many good things to say. So, may I present this view? > >In my view, there is I, Me, which some have called the "soul" or "spirit," >or "Ego, Super Ego and Id," or what have you. > >There is the "we," and you and I are the parts of it, if referring to you >and me. > >And then there is the whole, of which we all, and everything, is a part. >And >we, all of us, and everything, is connected. To deny that connection is to >not realize that, and that is destructive, as nothing lives or exists in >complete isolation, spiritually nor physically. > >However, if you simply state that there is nothing but the whole, and that >we should always and only see that, then you contradict yourself, for why >would you try to convince anyone (another person) that there is anything >but >this if that were true? It wouldn't be necessary, if you realize that >fully. > >Additionally, if, as you say, you refer to personal views and philosophies, >and how we view the big picture, then may I present to you one obvious >example: if Mohatma Gandhi had not opposed the British Empire with the >sheer >will of opposition by inaction, which is force, then they might still be >ruling India today, yet he accomplished this without firing a shot or >taking >violent force into his philosophy. I don't think that Gandhi himself, if he >were alive today, would deny that, presented today with this debate. If you >wish to accomplish anything, including what he accomplished, in this world >ruled mainly by force of wills, then you must use force, but only when >necessary, and, in his and my views, it is best accomplished by non-violent >force (i.e. not taking up arms). The form which you choose to embody and >therefore enact this force is up to you, the individual (and there it is >again, the I, the me), and, to make the very best choices, one must look >deeply into one's self, as well as to realize that there is the whole, and >how you affect it by your use of force. > >So, may I present to you, Jacob, that force takes many forms, and that it >exists anyway, even without us humans, and that not seeing the potential >good of that is not really seeing the whole at all. > >OK, off my soapbox ... > >- jt > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jacob Sabat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > As long as there is a me & a you, there will be struggle all the time. > > > > Since the "me" is made of contradictory fragments, there is struggle >within > > oneself too. > > > > (The "me" is not whole; it is not an individual (undivisible) & it can >never= > > > > be whole). > > > > When you see this fact, with all your heart, the rest will follow. > > > > Don't agree or disagree, find out, go to the very end of the enquiry. > > > > >From: Craig Durkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:26:33AM +0000, Jacob Sabat wrote: > > > > Force is always violence. > > > > > > > > When the me is not, there is just flow, like an instrument being >played. > > > > > > > > > >I just don't understand. What is the purpose of this? What is the point >of > > >taking apart a simple quote from a movie, and seeing as an ideological > > >attack? I just don't see why. > > > > > >I understand the whole hippie/spirtual/new-age/grand unifying theory du > > >jour attractiveness. It doesn't do it for me, but I understand it. And >with= > > > > >a lot of those schools of thought, especially the area you tend to be > > >leaning (judging from your past posts), "open-mindedness" is key. The >sort > > >of openmindedness where one thinks "maybe they are just quoting a > > >movie...maybe this isn't a statement of oppression." > > > > > >Not everything is a struggle... _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
