--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > <big snip> > > > > > > > Recruit > > > > them from kids who grew up on the myths created by people > > > > like Gandhi or Buddha or Martin Luther King, and who can > > > > thus think of more than two solutions to the problems of > > > > the world. > > > > > > Why the Buddha? Buddha wasn't shot, he just died of poisoned > > > meat. > > > > Do you mean "meat gone bad", that is rancid, spoiled, and thus > > food-poisoning? Or do you mean someone put poison in his meat? > > The former. I just had meant to say, that Buddha somewhat > stands out from Gandhi or Martin Luther King as he wasn't > shot, and these are the guys meaningful writers are supposed > to turn to in order to prevent insane shooting.
I'm going to have to respond to this one, even though I don't really want to waste a post on it. I am sitting here completely mindboggled to think that anyone -- much less t3rinity -- could imagine that the thing I thought "connected" Gandhi and Buddha and Martin Luter King was that two of the three were shot. I am rendered almost speechless by this. But not quite. :-) What I had in mind when I wrote my earlier rant about the myth-formers of our age was that the thing that connected these three guys was that they THOUGHT OUT OF THE BOX. Whereas most of the human beings of their respective eras looked at the world around them and saw only a few limited options -- for example, killing the person whose actions you don't like or putting them in jail -- these three guys saw other options. All three of them looked at the Same Problems and saw Other Solutions. None of the solutions they saw had to rely on violence and the perpetuation of it. *That* is what makes them "related" in my mind, not what may or may not have happened to them. Same thing for John Lennon, who someone else brought up. What makes these guys interesting is NOT what Other People might have done to them as a result of what they stood for, but what they stood for. They stood for NOT SETTLING for all the things we've been taught all our lives to settle for, often by people we consider spir- itual teachers. Think Krishna. As Vyasa tells the story of the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna is basically the counterpart in his age of a lobbyist/cheerleader for Bush, Cheney Inc. He's trying to convince Arjuna that the way to attain his spiritual goals is to *not* question authority, to go to war and kill as many other human beings as he can in it, and to basically Do What He's Been Told To Do By The Folks Who Run The Status Quo. Compare and contrast to the three guys I mentioned, who stood for trying to find a NEW solution to the age-old problems that confront the residents of planet Earth. These guys all stood for looking at the world as "we," not as "them vs us." They stood for not taking life so seriously, not for Taking Life, Seriously.
