Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

Rigs, I may not have put it better !

On Jan 27, 6:41 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no intention of giving Neil a headache- what a horrid image! In
> fact, Neil's comments often dance through my thoughts and hope I drift
> through his.
>
> Iniquity is different form inequality. The American model of rampant
> consumerism is impossible given near future population figures not to
> mention cultural systems which are quite apparent but another topic.
> The thought has even been ventured at Davos, I believe.
>
> The USA has been "on a roll"- similar to the British Empire at its
> "peak"- if one wants to sugar coat. Do you think we will stay there
> with long-distance warfare/sanctions to get our way?
>
> We change our own world first- like a pebble tossed in a calm pool and
> let the circles spread- if possible.
>
> On Jan 27, 3:55 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Neil... you give me the impression that Rigs' heels are hard on your
> > scalp, so you can't ever disagree with her ! Seems pragmatic to me.
>
> > There is NO ONE here with power who is EVER EVER going to share with
> > you. So, what kind of a dream are you banking upon ?
>
> > Iniquity refers to : gross immorality, injustice or wickedness. These
> > are each acts committed of individual drives. They may aggravate with
> > cartelisation and could be suppressed with policing or checks and
> > balances, but power sharing is not a solution for drives residing in 7
> > billion people. Yes, even people without power can be immoral, unjust
> > and wicked.
>
> > Very truly, I am inclined to embrace the reality that nothing
> > appreciable can be done about the world, in terms of changing it for
> > the better. But, equally, that no individual can ever improve one bit
> > without trying to live and do all in its power to change the world !
>
> > On Jan 27, 1:59 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can't disagree with rigsy.  For all my wish for power to be shared
> > > to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well.   I
> > > see no signs of this trap being sprung.
>
> > > On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > > > try to realize God , Self  if you like.  You yourself were talking of
> > > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > > > thing to me.
>
> > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Seems good to me, RP...
> > > > > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > > > > The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > > > > It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > > > > but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > > > > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > > > >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > > > >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit  of individuals
> > > > >> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > > > >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >  "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > >> > a challenge?"
>
> > > > >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > >> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > >> > what does not.
>
> > > > >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > >> > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -