Mark

Members
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Religion? What is that?

    This brick wall is just too thick for me.
  2. Religion? What is that?

    You're sure they'd say it was healthy? You mean you haven't asked anyone, so you don't know. And if you ever do ask anyone make it a mature woman, a woman of experience, ask her if she enjoys your anger. Ask her if she thinks war starts 'out there', or does it start in the man who thinks he has a right to be angry. Righteous anger? You mean the same old biblical stuff? It's too simple for you. You still think the problem of human nature is 'out there', in some other body. Which only means you are unwilling to take responsibility for your unhappiness. Or would you tell me you don't get unhappy? Or that being 'normal' unhappiness is healthy? Utter nonsense! And you would pass this on to the children? What's normal in the world is the problem. It's normal for people to be exploited, for women to be raped, for nations to go to war, for men to be angry and greedy. Unhappiness is normal. It's all normal but to say it is healthy is absurd. If you don't see the problem of human nature then there isn't one, for you, yet. Like the biblical slave you mentioned earlier you don't yet have the will to see the cause of your enslavement, you believe normal is natural. It's too uncomfortable to see it otherwise, to go against the stream of 'normality'. Sooner or later everyone comes up against the past they make. It's just a matter of time and experience. No problem, just the way it is.
  3. Religion? What is that?

    We were looking at the problem of human nature and you asked me what is my solution, exactly. So I told you, exactly. The problem here seems to be you think the problem of human nature is 'out there' somewhere. You don't have a problem, with being emotional, angry, depressed, self doubtful/judgmental, worrying etc. So it's theoretical to you. An intellectual exercise. Where, exactly, have I suggested you bury your problems or emotions? The only healthy function of emotion is to draw my attention to whatever is not right which then requires me to act to be rid of the emotion, because it's not healthy. It becomes a problem when I ruminate on it, as our society teaches us to, as you would have to do to go to war with someone. And if talking to them about the 'cause' of your anger doesn't help and you can't change the situation that 'makes' you angry what then? Can you give anger up if you believe it is right? If you justify it now when you can be clear you haven't a hope of giving it up when it's upon you, whatever you perceive the cause to be, because you think someone has the power to 'do it' to you. Only you have the power, so only you have the responsibility. But that's too difficult until you have suffered enough from such avoidance. Ask the one on the receiving end of your anger if it's healthy. Or on the receiving end of any of your unhappy emotions. It sure is normal, just look beneath the surface of anyone who isn't getting their own way and there it is. But would you tell me that's healthy? War, violence, conflict begins inside where I believe I have a right to be angry because somebody did something to me. Nobody makes you angry, you get angry because you believe you have a right to be angry. You give in to anger and you must enjoy it to say it's healthy. This only means you don't know enough the pain anger is, to you and everyone around you. That's not stupid, that's just inexperienced.
  4. Religion? What is that?

    brettbh, The solution, for me, is simple. What I give my attention to, what I acknowledge I get. If I acknowledge problems I get problems. Test it in your experience, next time anger arises in you don't give it your attention as if it has a right to be. See what happens, it either comes back at you renewed because you are trying to suppress it - force against force - which won't work. Or it dies because you have enough understanding to see there is no need for anger, it just causes pain all round, and you have denied its momentum enough. The appearance of it is another matter. If you think about, acknowledge, any negativity of mind you stir the emotion which generates more thinking which stirs emotion ad infinitum, or until the emotion has run its course. Got depressed, hit my mate, gone to war. You probably know the torrent of mind fear, anger, resentment, greed, etc can be at times. That's the problem of the human condition, it overtakes me when I would be without it, if it does. Of course it's only the problem when I, one, knows it enough as a pain. That's when there is a possibility of seeing the solution. If there is a solution it has to be accessible to all in their own experience now or it's just another patch, like politics or religion. So what is there besides the problem of mind, in your own experience? In my experience, now, all I have is sense. The sensation of the body inside and the senses 'outside'. And the space it all occurs in. If a little anger dies when I don't give it my attention as if it is right then there is the potential of being free of the whole lot. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. Is it a fact in your experience anger or fear dies? There is only so much of it in any body and when it has been denied enough it doesn't return as a problem, a psychological possession or obsession. Yes, I live in a beautiful place but I haven't 'opted out'. I did once, or twice, but it didn't work. And it has its time but is not the solution. A wise man once said,"I must be able to walk unmoved amidst great sordidness and great beauty." Unless I can be unmoved, emotionally, by the beauty in nature or my love, and be unmoved by the sordidness of human nature, I will be moved, emotionally. And you can't have the 'good' emotion without inviting the 'bad' emotion, they are of the same mind. This is how another wise man was once able to say "I am in this world but not of it." Sense/ation is your only reliable anchor against being swept away by the momentum of mind once it is upon you in earnest. It's not the whole solution in itself but the solution rests on it. There is nothing else that works for good, in my experience.
  5. Religion? What is that?

    1.>>The way I see it religion is what I do, what I put first in my daily life.<< That's as much a ideological or humanitarian concept as it is a religious concept. People do not have to believe in supernatural beings or discarnate entities on the astral plane in order to be able to do good. Of course, religion does not necessarily entail a belief in such beings, but it's a common and often accurate connotation. 2.>>The way I see it it’s the love of nature that gives birth to the green, peace and environmental movements.<< Greens and environmentalists do not necessarily love nature either more or less than the next man; the simply recognise that the continued success of our species is dependant upon us respecting the environment. 3.>>The danger, in my experience, for the eco/social/political-activist is in the love of politics overtaking the original motivating love of the simplicity of the beautiful Earth.<< Care to share an example? 1. It's the way I see it, religion is a word that doesn't have to mean what is 'commonly' understood by it. The word doesn't 'belong' one way if it serves me to use it another. It's not ideological or conceptual if it's in my experience and what I actually live. 2. I think I make this point too, it depends on what you put first. Survival, in one form or another, is all the politicians are concerned about too. As for being concerned for the species, that's a red herring, there's nothing special about the species. It's the intelligence behind it that matters, not the form of it, species die like everything else. The concern is for the survival of their perceived position or particular identification, for this, against that. That's politics. 3. As I say, in my experience. I have the experience of the fundamental love of life as the form of nature that has impelled me and enabled me (in part) to find the solution to the problem of human nature of which politics is one form. In me, for me. I had to get into it to get out of it. If you want to know how I live my life follow the link in my sig. Though I wouldn't really call it my religion, because of the commonly held associations with that word. :)
  6. In the world religion is considered to be what particular 'faith' one believes, or professes to believe. I don’t think so. Look at the ‘religious’ lobby in the US, or here in Aus. They campaign for a particular party or candidate and what happens? George Bush happened, or we recently had eleven years of antisocial government, in part due to the so-called religious lobby. And did the religious lobby have any positive effect on the administration? Not that I could see. That’s not religion, that’s politics, the art of compromise between conflicting positions vying for influence or power over others presenting as waves of change judged to be either of the left or right. The way I see it religion is what I do, what I put first in my daily life. That is what becomes the past I carry and presents as my future, which is now. I make it because what I do has more substance than what I say I believe, which I may not believe at all. It’s what I do that matters and what I do is not just ‘out there’. The reason I bring this up here is this forum is titled Politics and Religion and I don’t see any ‘religion’ here, except the religion of politics. So I was wondering, what is your religion, what do you put first in your life? The way I see it politics comes from a compassion for the human condition, a recognition that left to itself, without discipline, the most forceful will always rise and impose their will. Politics is born of the need to moderate the rapacious of human nature which, as can be observed, doesn’t seem to work too well. The way I see it it’s the love of nature that gives birth to the green, peace and environmental movements. Political bodies created to help in the same moderation of the rapacious in human nature, because the rapacious just keeps growing, or so it seems. But politics is not love or compassion. Politics moderates but doesn’t resolve the problem of the human condition. And what is moderated lives to return, given the opportunity. Essentially, compassion and love of the earth are not separate, just different octaves of the same intelligence. Equally, the various political bodies are not separate. Having similar structures and functions, just different aims but within the same rational political sphere. What separates one political body from another is what the various parties or participants put first in their daily life, what they actually live. Is it the politics or the love of the earth and compassion for its people? The danger, in my experience, for the eco/social/political-activist is in the love of politics overtaking the original motivating love of the simplicity of the beautiful Earth . What say you? I could be wrong, couldn’t I.
  7. Symbolic or what?

    Well said :thumbup:
  8. Symbolic or what?

    They were probably monks. ;)
  9. Symbolic or what?

    It's not personal Steve, it's a matter of perception. The event may have been a reflection of something going on in my own life. I often see such reflections in nature and I'm surely not the only one. What about you, do cockroaches and rats equate with working for the government? Not to malign the creatures but the way I see it is there are such in every domain, as there are swans and butterflies. And they all have to eat something.
  10. Symbolic or what?

    I was sitting at the traffic lights yesterday in the afternoon sun waiting for the green when I noticed a rodent dashing across the road in front of me from the right. It was probably one of the 600 or so species of rat. I watched as it determinedly ran the white line separating pedestrians from vehicles and made it safely to an island on the left. It still had to cross one lane and we both saw the SUV bearing down on it at the same time but it didn't pause for a moment. It jumped off the island and continued running the white line down the middle of the road on my left and when the SUV had passed the rodent made a sharp right turn behind it and headed straight into a famous fast food joint. I had to laugh. :lol: