now I recall exactly what the old lady said to me at speakers corner "this isn't your country is it?"
I said "no" not because I wasn't born here, or didn't grow up here because I don't see the land I live on as belonging to me so "why do you live in England?" was profound notice one can hear non-duality in her question :) we can learn from the trees man! On 23 March 2011 23:18, YouWho? <[email protected]> wrote: > > You see that's the beauty of the simplicity of the idea of making > everything free. Nobody would be demanding anything. Nobody would be > claiming that 'they' have more than 'me,' as anyone could have > whatever they needed or wanted, within reason of course. You can't > give everyone everything, there just simply isn't enough of everything > to give everyone. :O) > > We both know that this is not going to happen, at least not in our > lifetime, but take a step back from what you are arguing for a few > moments and try to see the deeper point that is being indicated. > > "Us" versus "them," and greed(desire) for objects in the world are at > the root of the problem. > > Everyone need not have universal consciousness to live and work > cooperatively for the good of the whole and not just the few. Just > look at the letter I posted from Japan. I assure you that all of those > folks helping each other out are not living from a place of universal > consciousness, but they dropped the "us vs. them" mentality, and they > are helping each other survive, together. > > What do you really care if someone works or not? This is ego based > thinking that is a result of thinking solely of oneself, and not THE > Self that is the oneness in all. The only reason one cares about this > is because of "me vs. them" thinking which is duality and ignorance on > its most gross level. > > There will always be people who don't want to work, or who can't work. > So what? Let them eat cake, or make music, or watch the kids. Who > cares? Does that mean that their needs should not be taken care of? > And there will always be people who want to work, even if there is no > reward or payment for their labor. And, unfortunately because of love > for objects in the world, and thinking them to be 'mine,' or the > notion "I want that," there will be injustice and cruelty. > > Not wanting to give 'mine' to another is ego. Who is 'mine' for > anyway? It is for the body, and this type of selfish thinking is > solidly based in the belief that oneself is the body. > > What are things anyway? Nothing but dust in the wind. Like water or > sand slipping through your fingers, trying to lay claim to any thing > is and excercise in futility and the very definition of bondage. > > I say nothing is mine. Mine is delusion. Whatever can be taken away > from me was never mine to begin with. > > This understanding is the difference between sages and the ignorant. > The sages want nothing, give everything, and for them, nothing is > lacking. > > > >
