|
|
Post by lightmystic on Dec 3, 2008 14:59:36 GMT -5
Murder.
Is murder wrong?
Everyone who has any sanity or sense of decency would say yes. Right? Anyone who is spiritually attuned to love and light and all of that should decry murder, shouldn't they?
Now, notice that we cannot live without feeding off the life of others. We take the life of plants, animals, etc.. Is that wrong?
Is it wrong for a cat to eat a mouse? Or a lion to eat a gazelle? Where do we draw the line?
It seems that somewhere along the way we've decided that it's not okay to kill others, in kind of a moralistic sense. Maybe we'll go to hell, maybe we'll never attain Enlightenment, maybe we'll just feel really bad about ourselves.
We want to support human life, and perhaps also plant and animal life, but has it occurred to anyone that the reason we want to do that is because we ARE human life? Has it occurred to anyone that maybe it's not objectively "bad" (or "good")?
Truthfully, I see the need for death. It's the only thing certain. Why would we say that it isn't okay? Or say that it's only okay under certain circumstances? Where did all of that come from?
It's not that I've never thought this way before, it's just that I've realized that thinking this way, at least for me, was just constructs built on nothing. For me, it was insane. Can I, personally, really know whether death is "right" or "not right" for any given person, under any given circumstances, at any given time? How could anyone, including me, POSSIBLY know that for sure? I can give tons of opinions on the subject, as can everyone else, but how do we really know these things? Isn't this all just part of the same house of cards?
Aren't we all just afraid of getting too close to the edge of our boundaries, and then perhaps falling off.....into Nothingness, or Void, or whatever the unknown symbolizes for us?
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Dec 3, 2008 15:13:05 GMT -5
That said, here's my personal experience and relationship to murder:
How could I kill or hurt anyone? It would only be hurting myself. Now sometimes I have to remove a splinter from my arm, and that hurts a little bit, but it's only an act of love in order to heal myself. These things happen. The punishment for murder is that one has to deal with the murder. Most killing (like 99%) comes from being closed, comes from fear. It's very hard to live with that kind of fear, and the pain of hurting yourself with something like murder is quite intense. I couldn't do that to myself unless it was the most loving thing that could possibly be done under the situation. Seeing the most intense suffering can still rattle me a bit, but that's fading more and more over time.
My experience of life is that there's a flow to it. It has this sense of rightness. It's clear that Life is helping those along to get what they need. If people get too big for their old boundaries, it starts to pinch. The gentle nudges of life become stronger because we're trying to fit something too big into something too small for us, and that causes pain. Allowing the box of our mind to expand releases that "pinch", that pain or pressure. But some people reach the edge of what they can do, and they get to start over with new circumstances. Or maybe their death is a lesson to a friend. Or maybe their just too damn evolved for where they are now and their ready to start over with a new or better life. There are plenty of "reasons" I could give, but I think those essentially are just backwards rationalizations, in the same way that when there's a feeling of wrongness it's backwards rationalized as to why it's NOT okay. Each circumstance is different, but there's an underlying feeling or "rightness" to it all that goes beyond words.
These are all just feelings. None of it inherently MEANS anything specific, and we are creating our own realities. I find that the more I refuse to look at life, the more confusing it is and the more it hurts, but it's the resistance that hurts, not the content of what I'm trying to avoid looking at itself.
The more intense an experience, the more open one has to be to allow that, but to be able to do that is so truly amazing, there really is nothing better in existence as far as I can see. To have oneness with life is so amazing, but to be able to have that integrated so that it shines forth stronger in any circumstance is the most amazing. And this naturally alleviates suffering. Automatically. Just by showing up.
I find that when I look at life clearly without resistances, life pours itself into me and fills me to the top. There is no separation, and I can see how I am helping myself achieve the fulfillment of myself at every moment, in every aspect of myself inside and out. This knowingness comes from being in the flow, and cannot be described properly, although I am making an attempt.
I trust life, even with murder, not because of any idea or blind faith, but because I can feel it. I know.
Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by commiejesus on Dec 4, 2008 22:12:38 GMT -5
My teacher used to say "murder is not desirable but it happens".
He said he would kill to defend his Guru. The Guru takes on the Karma of all his disciples, so it is just right that with a clean slate he would take the karmic burden of a murder to save his guru's life.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 5, 2008 11:48:31 GMT -5
Makes perfect sense.
Look at a blank sheet of paper (get reeeeeeaaaaaaallllll close so it looks like everything). Try to describe everything you see on the paper.
Now, draw a circle on it. Try to describe to someone who doesn't "know" that what is most interesting is the blank piece of paper on which the circle is possible.
That's a VERY BIG circle. Birth, death, life, expanding, exhaling, drama, staring, trekking, teaching, walking, making love, sleep, dismay, being genuine, living the lie, forgetting, remembering....
That's soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooome nothing.
"Nothing" is terrifying for those who have fallen for the circle (i.e., everything). There must be something, or else, and people usually want it to be what they want it to be.
Life's a killer.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Dec 5, 2008 12:32:35 GMT -5
someNothing
G. Spencer- Brown-Laws of Form. Draw a circle on a blank sheet of paper-distinction-inside/outside, more distinctions- birth,life death.......
distinctions= Maya.
Enlightenment= Awakening to the blank sheet of paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Dec 5, 2008 13:20:37 GMT -5
Hehe. Nice. Yeah, it's kind of exactly like that analogy, although I wish there was a way to also include that the circle is also somehow "made of" the space and is, in fact, the movement of the space itself on the background of space. .... um.... Yeah.... Cannot be talked about, only pointed to. Life IS a killer. Makes perfect sense. Life's a killer. |
|
fear
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by fear on Dec 5, 2008 13:27:19 GMT -5
That's a load of crap, murdering for your guru. A real guru has no attachments and would not want his disciples to be attached to him either. The real guru would not go against an attacker with equal force because nothing good results. Ex Ramana Maharshi was attacked in his cave on Mt Arunachala by robbers. One of the robbers hit him on his arm and Ramana offered him the other arm to hit too. The robber recalls feeling pain in his arm as if he had hit his own arm.
So sorry commiejesus I know it's hard to change your beliefs but look into it more. There something you're missing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Dec 5, 2008 13:38:36 GMT -5
Fear, I know they're long, but please my first 2 posts. It seems that it's those issues relate to what you're implying, and it would be interesting to hear your responses.
|
|
|
|
Post by commiejesus on Dec 5, 2008 15:21:29 GMT -5
Fear, It is a choice we each must make. Life is billions of choices in action and in thoughts. I am not saying that it is right or wrong to murder for my Guru, all I am saying - it is (murder) a karmic event and as third parties we have no right to pass ANY judgment. You see where you missing the point, that the Guru might foil the whole attempt of his "saving" or the Hierarchy might. The main concern to me is - the karmic consequence of the desire or act is auspicious. Simply we do not know as humans what is the price of an act - such as murder for defense. I would murder for defending my 8-year old, yet I perhaps not murder to defend myself. DO you see the difference? Actually nobody knows what he/she would do in theory. Your example of self defense is quite a different story of a person intervening on someone's behalf, (which by the way happens ALL THE TIME) I hope I clarified myself. CJ That's a load of crap, murdering for your guru. A real guru has no attachments and would not want his disciples to be attached to him either. The real guru would not go against an attacker with equal force because nothing good results. Ex Ramana Maharshi was attacked in his cave on Mt Arunachala by robbers. One of the robbers hit him on his arm and Ramana offered him the other arm to hit too. The robber recalls feeling pain in his arm as if he had hit his own arm. So sorry commiejesus I know it's hard to change your beliefs but look into it more. There something you're missing. |
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Dec 5, 2008 15:53:43 GMT -5
commiejesus & fear
Perhaps it is someone's karma to be murdered, but then again, if someone intervened to stop the murder is it the victim's karma to be saved then? What happens to the victims karma to be murdered?
Is it superceded by the victim's karma to be saved?
What about the karma of the person who intervened?
|
|
Morrie
New Member
"Nothing is me" is the first step. "Everything is me" is the next.
Posts: 38
|
Post by Morrie on Dec 5, 2008 16:56:50 GMT -5
FEAR, I agree with you. A true guru has no interest in building a sense of dependency or unquestioning loyalty among his disciples. If your guru is being attacked, should you care? I mean should you really care more about your guru being attacked than some random person in the street you see being attacked? I think in both cases, if possible, you should try to intervene to prevent the attack. But why would it really matter more if it was your guru being attacked....it shouldn't unless you have developed a false attachment to your guru. Of course, there is no shortage of false gurus who consciously try to put their disciples in a codependent relationship with them.
|
|
fear
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by fear on Dec 6, 2008 14:29:18 GMT -5
commiejesus, you're right about 3rd parties having no right to judge. In your previous post you said your teacher would kill for his guru. Isn't your teacher the third party judging his guru's killer.
Second it doesn't matter if the guru intervenes, the intent to muder with the belief that you are doing something positive is destructive. I can see that but I don't have to judge him for that. I could act in a positive way by maybe blocking my guru with my body and showing the attacker that I'm willing to die without stooping to his level.
Adyashanti said that Gandhi and Mother Teresa were so sucessful because the never went against anyone they were for something but not against anything.
Gandhi was for India but not against the British.
Mother Teresa was for the poor but was not against the rich.
|
|
Morrie
New Member
"Nothing is me" is the first step. "Everything is me" is the next.
Posts: 38
|
Post by Morrie on Dec 6, 2008 16:08:41 GMT -5
|
|
fear
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by fear on Dec 6, 2008 17:09:19 GMT -5
I don't know if this book holds any water. She received $1.25 million from the proceeds of crime and spent it on what, ferrari's and escorts and maybe those prada shoes she wears and that Louis Vitton purse. No she didn't spend a dime on herself, if you ask me.
Here are the reviews on that book. It's a long shot at making a good person look bad, just like all those national geographic shows on "did jesus have children". So what if he did, does that make him any less.
This readable, caustic polemic is very short on biographical data and cited sources and lacks scholarly development. Given its provocative nature, it is recommended for libraries owning several titles about Mother Teresa despite its weaknesses
The Missionary Position . . . is very short, zealously overwritten, and rails wildly in defense of an almost nonsensical proposition: that Mother Teresa of Calcutta is actually not a saint but an evil and selfish old woman. And Mr. Hitchens . . . is rather convincing.
|
|
Morrie
New Member
"Nothing is me" is the first step. "Everything is me" is the next.
Posts: 38
|
Post by Morrie on Dec 6, 2008 17:21:15 GMT -5
FEAR,
If you want to deify Mother Teresa, I suppose you are free to do so. But why do it? She was trendily viewed by the mass media as a model of altruism, but c'mon take a look beyond the surface level.
If she was so moral, why did she not have the courage to challenge her own Church on moral issues? For instance, are women really inherently unfit for the priesthood? Is stem cell research really morally wrong? Is it really moral, in the wake of an AIDS epidemic in Africa, to tell people that using condoms is wrong?
|
|
