<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <fairfieldlife@>
> > on 5/28/06 1:20 AM, shempmcgurk at shempmcgurk@ wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Yes. I wonder what the implications are -- that is, Bob's
> > > suggestion
> > >> for creating a quantum leap in world Sattva might be. Or the
> > > of
> > >> some limited mind who came across this "chart" and actually
> > > believed it.
> > >>
> > >> Interestily, Hilter read a lot of Madame Blavatsky and her
> > >> theories cloaked in spiritualism.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I heard somewhere that Gandhi was a fan of Hitler and his
> > > politics...anyone heard something similar?
> I have not finished the whole article, but it appears a major
> concern that it raises is that Gandhi addressed the letter to
> as "Dear Friend". To me, its shocking, sad and yet laughabley funny
> that this is an issue.
> How would Amma treat Hitler. Would she hug him? Of course she
> How would SSRS treat Hitler. Would he hug him? and smile and look
> into his eyes and make some up lifting comment andmake him laugh?
> course he would. Same for Sri Karanyumani, Mother Meera and any
> number of other true saints who know IT is in everyone and "play"
> that "audience". And they know warmth and goodness will create a
> better raction than scorn and dismissivness.
> I am nost suggesting Churchill and Roosevelt should have hugged
> Hitler, but I am glad someone rose to a high enough level to
> to appeal to Hitlers basic humanity, basic inner core of bliss.
> Did it "work"? Kind of a Mu question. I don't expect Gandhi
> sudden transformation from "dear friend". But from a man of peace,
> a better foundation for discussions than starting out, "hey you
> cheating asshole!" Most mothers would agree and teach their kids
> Its not rocket science.
Really good points.
But perhaps the moral to the above story is that such niceties
should be left to the spiritual leaders of society and not their
political leaders who must -- and should -- necessarily stay and do
their fighting -- and rhetoric -- in the gutter.
And perhaps the message is that spiritual and political leadership
should always be separate and never be carried out by the same
person; in other words, spiritualism is spiritualism and politics is
politics and never the twain shall meet.
I think of that other famous advocate of non-violence -- the Dalai
Lama -- who I've commented upon on this forum regarding his
political moves and mixing his spiritual concept of non-violence in
with his political strategies...all to HORRIFIC consequences for his
people. To the tune of 1.5 million slaughtered and the Tibetan
Remember that before he left Tibet, the DL courted and met with Mao
and, at the time, had only nice things to say about Mao...just as
Gandhi tried to make nice with Hitler.
Well, all this sweetness and cookies didn't do anyone any good. It
just muddied up the whole thing.
So, yes, I definitely think there's a place for people like Amma or
the DL to express love to people -- like Hitler -- who are obviously
lacking from it...BUT that it's dangerous for this to be done within
the concept of political leadership.
> > http://die_meistersinger.tripod.com/gandhi9.html
To subscribe, send a message to:
Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'
|Religion and spirituality||Maharishi mahesh yogi|
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.