Visit blog link to view youtube videos

http://literarydiscussions.blogspot.com/2008/09/learning-debate-to-support-our-v\
iews.html

<a
href="http://literarydiscussions.blogspot.com/2008/09/learning-debate-to-support\
-our-views.html">Click
here for link to blog</a>

A neighbor of mine, Mary, is a devout Republican conservative who
admires Bush and Cheyney.

She would like to find a place to learn and practice the art of
debate, so that she may better defend her views in arguments with
liberal Democrats.

I have offered to help find debating resources.

Here is what she writes to me:

I would like to defend Bush on the War! Why he is blamed by the left
wing and hated so much. This man is sincere and his only concern was
to protect his country regardless of the polls.  He inherited
Clinton's recession and 9/11 same along....After all it was with the
vote of both houses that we went into Irag...so why do they blame him
and Cheney, etc. - and of course, they automatically connect Cheney
with Haliburton and Bush with oil?

If any of you have ideas for arguments which defend her position, or
arguments against her views, please let me know.


Here is one resource for debating societies that I have found so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Parliamentary_Debate_Association

APDA members stage weekly debating tournaments, each at a different
university and occurring throughout the academic year. Some weekends
have two debating tournaments, one north of New York City and one
south of New York City, in order to shorten transport time. However,
centrally located tournaments or particularly prestigious tournaments,
such as those at Columbia, Fordham, NYU, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton,
will frequently be "unopposed", meaning that they will be the only
tournament on that particular weekend. While APDA does play a role in
creating a tournament schedule, the tournaments themselves are only
loosely coordinated by the APDA body. Individual schools must ensure
that their tournaments meet a broad set of APDA guidelines, but are
free to tinker with their tournament formats.
...
Debates at APDA tournaments follow a debating style known as American
Parliamentary Debate, which is modeled loosely on the procedure and
decorum of the UK Parliament. This style emphasizes argumentation and
rhetoric, rather than research and detailed factual knowledge.




Mary has presented some arguments to me in support of Pres. Bush.  She
makes the good point that Bush is sincere in his beliefs, and has
persevered even at the cost of popularity in public opinion.

She is reading books about Obama, and books by Obama, in order to
build her arguments against Obama.

She loves McCain and Palin.

Mary is very pro-life. She admires McCain for immediately stating that
the beginning of personhood is the moment of conception. She feels
that Obama gave more vague and evasive answers regarding the status of
the embryo.

It is quite true that my personal views lean in favor of people like
Obama and the Democrats.  But I do value the opportunity to explore
the arguments of the opposition, and exercise my own judgment and
understanding.

Mary's difficulty arises when she becomes so emotional during
arguments that she loses focus and concentration and focus, and forget
which points she want to make and how she wants to make them.  She
feels that practice in the art of debate will remedy this weakness.

I do think one is strengthened by the exercise of arguing both sides
of an issue, pro and con.

Flow of the round

A round of debate features two teams of two debaters each: the
Government team, including the Prime Minister and the Member of
Government, and the Opposition team, including the Leader of the
Opposition and the Member of the Opposition.

Six speeches in all are delivered, varying in length:

     * Prime Minister's Constructive: 7 minutes
     * Leader of the Opposition's Constructive: 8 minutes
     * Member of Government: 8 minutes
     * Member of the Opposition: 8 minutes
     * Leader of the Opposition's Rebuttal: 4 minutes
     * Prime Minister's Rebuttal: 5 minutes

Points of information

A debater may rise to ask a point of information (POI) of an opponent
during the opponent's speech. POIs are only permitted during the first
four speeches, except in the first and final minutes of the speech.
The speaking debater can choose to hear the POI or to dismiss it
politely. Traditionally when standing on a point of information some
debaters extend one hand palm up, holding the back of the head with
the other. This pose originated in old British Parliamentary
etiquette: an MP would adopt the position to secure his wig and show
that he was not carrying a weapon.[1] It is generally considered good
form to accept at least two POIs during a speech.

  The resolution

In most rounds, the resolution is squirrelable, meaning that the
Government team can propose any topic it wants for debate. (Certain
tournaments provide both teams with the topic of debate 15 minutes
before the round.)

Since the Opposition team arrives at the round with no prior knowledge
of the case, some kinds of resolutions are not permitted to ensure a
fair debate. If Opposition feels that the round fits any one of these
categories, they may point this out during the Leader's speech. If the
judge agrees, Opposition wins. There are five kinds of disallowed
resolutions:

     * tight resolutions, which are deemed too one-sided ("racism is
bad", for example);
     * truisms ("Bill Clinton is the greatest Democratic president of
the U.S. since Jimmy Carter");
     * tautologies ("Good citizens should help the poor," with goodness
defined as "a willingness to do charitable acts");
     * status quo resolutions ("The United States should have jury
trials");
     * specific-knowledge cases, i.e., cases which are unfair toward
the Opposition team because they require highly obscure knowledge to
oppose effectively ("NASA should replace the current sealant used on
the space shuttle with hypoxynucleotide-C4598")

Aside from these five limitations, virtually any topic for debate is
fair game, as long as there are two coherent and debatable sides.
Debaters may also present opp-choice cases, in which the government
team offers the opposition team the chance to choose which side of a
topic the government team will defend in the round.

I suppose such debate, and parliamentary procedure is at the fabric of
a constitutional democratic republic.

Time-space

One type of case, common on APDA but rare on other circuits, is the
time-space case. This places the speaker in the position of some
real-life, fictional, or historical figure. Only information
accessible to a person in that position is legal in this type of
round. For instance, "You are Socrates. Don't commit suicide" could
not reference events that took place after Socrates' death. The
speaker can be a fictional character ("You are Homer Simpson. Do not
sell your soul"), a historical character ("You are Abraham Lincoln. Do
not sign the emancipation proclamation") or virtually any other
sentient individual.

One notable type of time-space case is the historical hypothetical
case, in which decisions made by particular historical figures are
debated from their historical context. Debates surrounding, for
instance, Civil War strategy or World War I alliances are commonplace.
These types of debates often require a detailed knowledge of history.

Time-space cases are a particularly sensitive type of case for the
government, because their setting must leave room for the opposition
to defeat the case even if that would go against the historical
outcome already known to everyone in the room.

VIRTUAL CLASSROOMS AND IRC CHAT CHANNELS

http://www.csun.edu/~webteach/mirc/whatis.html

Today, I had a BRILLIANT idea for how St. John's College in Annapolis
Md (and in Sante Fe NM) could place a webcam and a mic in each and
every seminar classroom, where in Tuesday and Thursday evenings, for 2
or 3 hours, the 100 Great Books readings are discussed over the 4
years.  They could have channels in ustream.tv with a show broadcast
for each seminar.  All that wonderful conversation is, in some sense
going to waste, because people around the world who would like to
participate in such readings and seminars, cannot participate in person.

Broadcasting these seminars would cost almost nothing, except the
effor of someone caring enough to implement it, but the benefits to
society would be enormous.

http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

Thanks!

Sitaram

I am logged in under a different email address.

My apologies for not having posted in so long.

Most of my activity now is at myspace.com/literarydiscussions

I will try to post here from time to time

email me at

literarydiscussions at gmail dot com

Thanks for your interest.

I post each day at my blog

http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

Myspace Category: Religion and Philosophy

Some religions see God as so sovereign that they reason that each
person must be predestined and foreordained to be good or evil, from
before the foundation of the world.

5-point Calvinism as well as Islam holds such a doctrine.

Other religions see God being so humble and compassionate as to
incarnate in human form, mystically assume the sins of all humanity
for all time, and suffer the extreme humility of death.



There are Good Friday Lenten prayers and hymns which describe the
shadowy tenebres of the entire world darkening, as every sin past,
present and future, is absorbed by the man upon the cross, who
"becomes sin" for our sakes.



http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/09/the_gospel_according_to_galati_1.php



Paul says in Galatians 1:3-5 that Christ has been delivered up for our
sins. This means that Christ has taken the curse of the Law upon
himself (Col. 2:11-16) in order that we might truly be righteous.



Paul says it in 2 Corinthians 5:21:

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we
might become the righteousness of God."

It occurred to me this morning how very similar these two seemingly
different view-points are.  If God has willed each wicked person to
have a wicked nature, then, certainly the sins of all humanity
throughout history are upon God's shoulders.


Daily posting at http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

One Seventh-Day Adventist friend of mine, a woman in her 60s, told me
that on the day that the World Trade Center was destroyed, NO JEWS
reported for work.  She was implying that there was some kind of
Jewish conspiracy, and that they were somehow alerted to what would
happen.  Such ideas are preposterous. How could any one large group,
whether Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, or Hare Krishna, manage to
coordinate and communicate as a group, and keep something a total secret.

If any large group of humans were capable of such a high degree of
communication and cooperation, then peaceful world government might be
possible.

But, as a species, we are not capable of collaboration on such a grand
scale.

I am quite certain that large numbers of Jews, as well as Muslims, and
most likely some people of Saudi ancestry, perished in the World Trade
Center.

One has to be gullible to take such conspiracy theories seriously

The world population is over 6 billion. There are 1000 million in one
billion.  The entire world population of Jews is around 19 million.
More than half of all Jews live on the east coast of the United
States.  Of that 19 million, only one sixth is seriously practicing
their religion.  The other 5/6 are secular, Jewish in name only. Of
the 1/6 who are religious, they are divided into Hasidic, Orthodox,
Conservative, and Reform.  And among the Hasidic and Orthodox, there
are so many different groups and Rebbis (a Rebbi is a charismatic
Rabbi, like Menachim Schneerson of the Lubavitchers).  They are
further divided into anti-Zionists, who actually object to the
foundation of the nation of Israel and object to the use of Hebrew for
daily speech (they use Yiddish, a dialect of German, for daily
communication).

Such a small diverse group is not the best candidate for pulling off
some grand world-wide conspiracy of a top secret nature.

Following links at progressiveislam.org , I came to this interesting site



http://www.mernissi.net/gallery/sindbad.html



And found this inspiring translation:



Every man is a hostage of his own deeds.
Koran, Sura at-Tur (The Mount), N° 52, Verse 21



With all due respect, I feel that this translation is stretching it a bit.



Here are three translators renditions side by side.



My argument is simply that the sense of the statement "hostage of his
own deeds", is too suggestive of karma and a Hindu/Buddhist notion of
cause and effect.  The doer of the deed becomes passive, a victim,
while the deeds themselves take on a personification and will of their
own. That person held hostage by their own deeds can plead innocence
through helplessness.  The Hindu/Buddhist understanding leaves open
the possibility that all sentient beings shall eventually be saved
precisely through a working out of their samskaras or tendencies which
hold them captive until worked out and undone as knots are undone,
through countless rebirths.

There are also Zoroastrian notions that all will be cleansed through
the sufferings of a purgatory lake of fire, and eventually be saved.



One Islamic scholar, from George Washington University, I believe,
explained the notion that Allah allows the foreordained and
predestined wicked to be born into this life, rather than placing
their souls immediately in torment, precisely so they can prove
through their actions that they are deserving of hell, and not
complain that they were never given a chance.









[52:21]

YUSUFALI: And those who believe and whose families follow them

in Faith,- to them shall We join their families:

Nor shall We deprive them (of the fruit) of aught of their works:

(Yet) is each individual in pledge for his deeds.

PICKTHAL: And they who believe and whose seed follow them in

faith, We cause their seed to join them (there), and

We deprive them of nought of their (life's) work.

Every man is a pledge for that which he hath earned.

SHAKIR: And (as for) those who believe and their offspring

follow them in faith, We will unite with them their offspring and

We will not diminish to them aught of their work;

every man is responsible for what he shall have wrought.

The winter celebrations are pretty closely in synch this year;
Hannukah ends on the same night that winter begins, which happens to
be just three days before Christmas (Kwanzaa begins the day after, of
course), and Eid al Adha falls on New Year's on the common calendar
this time. Given that these festivals span three different calendars
(two of them lunar), it's interesting to see them all lining
up�guaranteed to stress out just about everyone.



(excerpt from Developer Shed weekly programming newsletter).

Sorry that I have not been able to post for some time, as I have
become busy with work.

Today, I was thinking about Lot's daughters, in the wilderness with
their father, after the destruction of Sodom. And they despaired of
finding husbands and having children.  So they schemed to get their
father drunk with wine and be with child through that incestuous
relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon

Tradition has it that the Ammonites and Moabites descended from the
union with Lot and his daughters.

The point I am attempting to make is that various enmities seem to be
blamed upon women and sexual indiscretion.  Eve is the one who is
beguiled by the serpent, and causes the expulsion from paradise.

The daughters of Lot through their improper desires, give rise to a
nation of enemies.  And it is Sarah who forces her desires upon
Abraham, to have relations with the slave Hagar.  That union gives
rise to Ishmael, who is described in one Biblical passage as "a wild
donkey of a man".  The lineage of Hagar and Ishmael give rise to the
entire race and religion which is today the arch enemy of Israel.

Even the Palestinians of today are the Philistines of biblical times.

It is only Mary, who exercises no desires or schemes, but is visited
by an angel, who conceives a child who is celibate and gives rise to
no nation of enemies, only Mary, who seems to counteract and redeem
womankind through a form of desireless and asexual conception and birth.

Gandhi Quotes
   http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga164233.html

A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the
brave.


A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for
the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of
the world. It was a perfect act.


A nation's culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people.

Be the change that you want to see in the world.

Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.

The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he
does becomes tainted.

If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on
a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children.

An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.

As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to
remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being
able to remake ourselves.

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach
is more so.

Fear has its use but cowardice has none.

I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to
kill.

Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat
is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.

I believe that a man is the strongest soldier for daring to die unarmed.

(posted just now at progressiveislam.org)

Rabbi Abraham Heschel, in his two volume work on "The Prophets" of the
Old Testament Bible, wrote, "few are guilty, but all are responsible."

His words could be applied to the situation of corruption among the
Israelites of biblical times, or they could be applied to the American
practice of slavery in the 19th century, or they could be applied to
the Nazi holocaust.

Few are guilty. Few there are who go to trial at Nuremberg, or in Iraq
today.  But, all are responsible, all that is, of the society or
generation who stands by silently and allows injustice to be perpetuated.

As Edmund Burke said, "When good men do nothing, evil triumphs."

http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

I met with a special young woman, age 11, yesterday, special because
she is a distant relative through marriage  She showed me her myspace
blog and mentioned that she never blogs anything.

My suggestion to everyone, especially the very young, is to look about
you each day, and find something which interests you.  Then blog about
it.  Ask a question. Make a comment or criticism.  Express your
opinion or belief.  Posting each day is a good exercise in writing and
self expression.  If you have a spell checker available, then make a
game of finding and correcting all the spelling errors.  Make a list
for yourself of frequently misspelled words, and try to memorize them
so that you will not make the same mistake in the future.   Force
yourself sometimes to read or watch something that you do not enjoy,
for the sake of growth and expansion of your world and understanding.
  Randomly read an article from The Wall Street Journal at
http://wsj.com , or watch a senate or congressional proceeding.

One of my great interests is comparative religion study.  Whenever I
see something interesting on religion or spirituality, I blog about
it.   We don’t need a teacher to give us a writing assignment. We can
give ourselves a writing assignment each and every day.  It can be a
lot of fun!  You may sometimes hear people say “use it or lose it.”
Well, “use it or lose it” is especially true about our mind and
intellect.  Our mind is just like a muscle. If we exercise all the
time, like a weightlifter in the gymnasium, always adding more and
more weight to our topics, then our minds will look like Olympic
stars, with dashing figures and rippling muscles.  If we NEVER
exercise our mind, then it will be as flabby as a couch potato.

Here is what I did for today’s blog.  First, I though about my young
relative and her lack of blogs.

Next, I took a topic of interest from Sunday morning television.

I enjoy watching Rev. Joel Osteen  http://www.joelosteen.com and Rev.
Reflo Dollar, whose television ministries run back to back on Sunday
morning.

Rev. Osteen spoke about prayer, saying that we do not have to pray to
God in the Old English of the King James Bible, saying “thee” and
“thou art”, but rather we may speak in a normal voice, in our daily
colloquial speech.

Joel Olsteen did end with a little prayer which said, “Jesus, I invite
you into my life as my Savior.”  Joel explained that, if you repeated
that prayer with him, then you are “born again.”   I disagree with
such a notion.  I have known many people in my life who might, for
whatever reason, in a moment of emotion, decide to repeat Joel’s
little prayer.  But I know perfectly well that these people would not
change their ways or lifestyle.  And, if you cannot change at all,
then what does it mean to say that you are “saved.”   I think it is
far better to be able to honestly say “I am changed, transformed,
reformed.”  An alcoholic may decide to say Joel’s prayer, but if they
do not stop their drinking, then, how have they profited, for they
are, at best, a saved alcoholic.
Joel is right that one does not need to pray in the Old English of the
King James translation, saying “thee” and “thou art”.  But, I
personally feel that it is more important to be “prayerful” than to
actually pray.  Now, what does it mean to be “prayerful” but not pray.
  Well, throughout the day, it is possible for us to realize all the
good things that we have and feel grateful for them.  If we live in a
free society, we may feel grateful, for many live under a tyranny
where they may not say or read or watch anything they please.
Whenever we eat or drink or go to the bathroom each day, we may
realize how blessed we are to have such good health, and remember
those who are on dialysis or in the intensive care ward, and do not
enjoy such normal body functions.   We are prayerful when we realize
that we do not have unlimited time on this earth, but shall one day
grow old and die, and therefore, each day and hour is precious;
something not to be wasted.

It is very easy to get into the habit of automatically reciting a
number of written prayers each morning or evening, or every Friday or
Saturday or Sunday, in our mosque or synagogue or church or mandir or
gurudwara, or vihara (and, if some of these terms are unfamiliar to
you, then why not google on them and blog about it?).  But, if we
mechanically recite prayers, and are not prayerful in our mind
throughout the day, then how do we profit; how have we changed; how
are we to transform?

And, by the way, if it should happen that we are grudgingly changed or
reformed, but go about complaining of the burdens of our new life, and
yearning for the pleasure of the old life, then how much have we
really changed.  Perhaps our life and activities have change, but we
are still the same, still desiring the same things.

posted at http://progressiveislam.org

posted at http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

Thanks, Laury, for the link to Dr. Godlas's website.


I visited his site, signed his guestbook (posting the questionnaire),
and also emailed the questionnaire to Dr. Godlas. Perhaps this shall
result in some responses for Avis. One thing I have learned in life:
whenever you ask, the worst thing you can hear is no, (or you may
simply receive no reply.)


I have been an amateur writer on topics of spirituality for 10 years
now. A number of people over the years have asked me if I am happy, or
have found happiness. I think this is a natural question for people to
ask of anyone, regarding their way of life. If you were to visit the
Chukshi reindeer herders in Siberia, you might desire to ask them what
they know of the rest of the world, and whether they are happy in the
snow, with their reindeer, and their challenging way of life. Of
course, when you ask someone if they are happy, you might do well
first to explain what you mean by happiness. I have written some
things in response to questions about happiness. I once promissed
Laury that I would try to keep my posts short.

Here are a few links to what I said about happiness:

Strive to Find Happiness and Meaning Within Yourself

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic46.php

(excerpt)

     We all know examples of very wealthy, famous, powerful people who
     become so unhappy as to take their own lives in suicide. This is a
lesson to us that the their fame and wealth did not help alleviate the
pain of their own existence.


     We also know examples of people who managed to find peace in
     happiness and meaning even in the poorest and most oppressive
     circumstances, even in places such as a Jewish Concentration camp in
     Germany. You might like to read Viktor Frrankl's book "Mans Search for
     Meaning". He is a medical doctor who survived a German concentration
     camp in WWII.


     As for your life, simply meet new people, nice decent people, and
try to
     be their friends. You will see that, if you are patient, an
appropriate
     spouse and life partner will be provided for you. Sometimes happiness
     comes when we are not expecting it or looking for it.



When Virtue and Happiness are One

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic514.php

(excerpt)

     Can we be "good" and also be "happy" in our goodness, our modesty,
     our moderation, our charity, patience and long-suffering?

     Ethical and moral righteousness of behavior is an external, but our
     happiness over such behavior involves an internal transformation.



The Pursuit of Happiness

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic896.php



Choose Happiness

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1086.php

(excerpt)

     Lincoln said "Most people are about as happy as they make up their
minds to be."

     The 33rd stanza of the Way of the Tao says: "He who can be content
with however much or little he has; that person has achieved true wealth."

     I keep thinking about your problem.

     You must choose happiness and peace of mind, and choose an outlook
which will bring you this happiness and peace.





Our Greatest Sin

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic844.php

(excerpt)



     Our greatest sin is that we became gods, but we never became godly.

     Unlike Faust, we do have the means to sweep back the ocean and make
     dry land. We have power but we lack vision. It is not that God
looked and saw that it was very good. The goodness was in the seeing,
in the vision. Vision is seeing before there is yet anything to look at.


     Our second greatest sin is that, lacking vision, we do not even go in
     search of vision. We do not look for vision, and we look askance at
     visionaries because we do not care. None so blind as those who
will not
     see. None so deaf as those who will not here. The age of miracles
is when
     the blind see, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised. But we are the
     miracle of the walking dead, who neither see nor hear. We are not
Moses
     without his staff. We are Moses who leans upon his staff and does
nothing.


     We have laid down our instrumentality upon the shores of Babylon, and
     we weep, not for Sion, but for our lack of tears. Lack of tears is the
     greatest draught. Lack of hunger is the greatest famine. As Rumi said,
     “Do not seek water. Seek thirst!" Water is everywhere, but without
thirst, all the water in the world is useless.



Plato's Dialogue with Gorgias

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1009.php

(excerpt)

     We should keep in mind that one of the charges against Socrates at his
     trial, in addition to corrupting the youth of Athens, was that he
taught
     people the art of "making the weaker argument defeat the stronger."


     I sometimes wonder if our contemporary educational system isn't
     corrupting the youth by heaping scores of sheet music before the
     symphony and never attempting to tune the instruments in the
orchestra. Society shall prepare and drink its own cup of hemlock for
that crime.


     An offer is made to have Gorgias repeat his performance for Socrates'
     benefit, but Socrates convinces Gorgias to enter into a simpler
dialogue of brief questions and answers. Socrates gleefully
compliments Gorgias on how well he complies with the rules of this
simple form of dialogue.


     Socrates is leading Gorgias into his dialectic trap. I once saw a
cartoon in a magazine depicting a dog, who has laid down a trail of
cat food, leading to an open dryer, hiding and gleefully waiting for
the cat to step insidethe dryer. Once the cat is in, the dog will slam
the door shut and rejoice as the cat spins round and round. Once
Gorgias agrees to enter Socrates' "laundromat" of syllogisms, then
poor Gorgias will find his head spinning like that cat.



An Analysis of Holiness

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic587.php

(excerpt)

     The mere recognition that there is such a thing as holiness and that
     it is to be desired is the beginnings of holiness. - Sitaram


     If I am ugly, yet I know that beauty exists.

     If I am foolish, yet I know there is Wisdom.

     If I am mortal, yet I know there is something Eternal.

     If I am unclean, it is Purity which teaches me of my uncleanliness.

     If I am sinful, yet I am not so sinful as to say there is nothing
     Holy.

     - Sitaram


Constantly Marvel in Wonder at the Ordinariness of it All

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic756.php

(excerpt)

     Stop and think for a moment. If YOU could reach that point in YOUR
     spiritual life where at EVERY WAKING MOMENT, you were CONSTANTLY
     MARVELLING IN WONDER at the ordinariness of everything, what would
     you have achieved? What would your spiritual state be called?
Would you be happy or sad in such a state?

     It is by THOUGHT, and EQUANIMITY that we transcend the unpleasant
     physical realties of our mundane corporeal existence. Mind makes
     suffering. Mind makes all things, in a way, all things that
matter. Eleanor Roosevelt stated this in a different way when she
said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent". Even a
thief hanging on a cross is able to keep his dignity and elevate his
mind. We can never escape the need to sit on a toilet, but we are not
forced to keep our MIND on the toilet, or IN the toilet. Our Mind is
free to be in the Heaven of Heavens with the Archangels and Cherubim
and Seraphim, ceaselessly changing "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of
Hosts". Are those angelic orders not also CONSTANTLY MARVELLING IN
WONDER at the ordinariness of it all.



Pleasure, Knowledge and Happiness

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic285.php

(excerpt)

     Stop and think of two scenarios which quantitatively are
identical, but
     qualitatively are quite different:

     One person begins their career earning 10,000 the first year,
20000 the second, and so-on throughout their career, til the final
year of retirement, they earn a million dollars... a clear example of
continued success in the eyes of the world.


     Now, consider a second person who earns a million dollars the first
     year of their career, but each successive year, they earn less, until
     their final year they earn a mere 10000... the world sees this as a
     patter of failure... yet both individuals earned the same total
     amount in their lifetimes, and the second had the opportunity to
     invest the million in the first year


     It is possible to see, in to lives, quantitatively the same "amount",
     and yet it is the quality which dictates public opinion about
     success/failure/happiness/fortune





Making Peace with Our Unhappiness

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic346.php

(excerpt)

         Neal: Are you happy? Because when you reach high meditation
and spirtual knowlege
         You are suppose to have some sort of upliftment like inner peace


         Sitaram: I will not lie to you, I am not always happy, but my
studies make it much easier for me to bear my sorrow and pain.


         Sometimes, peace means making peace with our unhappiness,
though it is not necessarily honest to call that "Happiness"


         Job, in the Old Testament Bible, is certainly not "happy",
         but he certainly has made peace with his unhappiness





Avis, perhaps you will find something useful in the above.

One reader responds:


Wow! Sitaram! You put so much thought into your post that I hate to be
such a spoil sport- almost. Saved from what? From being the animals we
are? There is no salvation. There is no damnation. All the people you
mentioned, imho, are deranged and self serving. There are many wisdom
books and ways of inviting other humans to extend mercy to one
another. Hope is something we give ourselves and bring to fruition alone.


Sitaram replies:

Thanks for the wow.

I was hoping for a "Holy cow!"

Consider the game of Chess.

Imagine that I had written, not about the history and development of
theological doctrines, nor the inchoate weakness of various scriptural
arguments, lying in waiting to refute scholars with their own words,
but, rather, that I had written about the history of chess, the
supremacy of certain strategies, the essential character of those few
in each age who become grand masters, and the mystery of IBM's Deep
Thought program.

And, after you read my monograph on chess, you dismiss it all by
pointing out to us the obvious:  Chess is only a game, you say, and
not a matter of importance in the course of human events; the chess
pieces are merely carved wood or ivory at best and plastic at worst,
you say.  You take your hand and sweep the pieces off the board and
onto the floor with a laugh, and give us a look of satisfaction.

But, have you told us anything we did not know before?  Have you added
to or detracted from anyone's observations regarding the game?  Of
course, in theory, the world might go on without the game of chess,
though in practice it shall not, for chess and religion are human
activities.  It is not the pieces or the board, or even the players,
which are of significance, but, shall we say, the mathematical
patterns, eternal patterns of logic and illogic, which are the real
object of study.  And shall there ever be a Kurt Godel of chess, to
unravel the seeming infinity of moves in our Sisyphean  labors and put
Deep Blue forever to rest with a meta-mathematical model of
incompleteness?

Have you made a point, or missed the point?

There are those who pose challenging questions.  There are those who
find clever answers or solutions.  And then, there are those who
neither pose nor solve questions and problems, but dismiss them as
insignificant.

Whenever we are confronted by a dragon, we have a choice. We may
attempt to slay the dragon. Or, we may dismiss the dragon as something
which does not exist.  We slay non-existent dragons in our imagination
and our fiction, using our minds. Dragons exist as ideas and ideas are
very real, and can sometimes be very dangerous.  Epics are always
peopled by heroes who are dragon slayers, and not nay-sayers.

We must be careful not to dismiss or write-off too many questions and
problems, or our mind may suddenly find itself unemployed.

We can never prove conclusively to everyone that God and heaven and
hell exist or do not exist, but we all know there is a Northern
Ireland.  Belfast requires no phenomenology.

We need to be saved from ourselves.  As e. e. cummings said, "The mind
is its own beautiful prisoner."

The mind is a faithful servant, but a cruel master.

We must try to save ourselves from the damnation of our own
intolerance before terrorism and retaliation destroy us all.

Being, myself, more Hindu and Buddhist than Christian in my personal
beliefs, I have other fish to fry.  But I know a few interesting
things about Christianity.

Here is this morning's internet dialogue in Yahoo chat between myself
and a professor of folklore in South India, posted with his permission.

I have done only minor editing.
Our dialogue explores the synergy between faith and doubt, and the
cyclic nature of the spiritual pendulum between
subjective/mystic/transcendent and the objective/corporate/legislative.

Mahendra:  good morning  Sitaram

Sitaram: Hello there,  nice to see you. How is your work coming?
I hear from no one regarding the topics of your interest

Mahendra:  yes   it is     very ambitious  and  need more time. Shall
I send a copy of my work ?
Sitaram: I write regularly at http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions
Mahendra: you may  post it
Mahendra:  I wil see it
Mahendra:  this  is about   Multilingual education in Orissa

Sitaram: very interesting

Sitaram: you might, at some point, compare with experiences in the
Philippines

Mahendra:     by  now we  have done  two  grand workshops  where
linguists from  Canadsa and  England have   come and trained  our
tribal  teachers
Sitaram: all education there is in English, yet they speak Tagalog
(Pilipino)

Mahendra:  it  is  also  same  here
Mahendra:   but     the mother tongue is  their own language
Mahendra:  the second language is  state  language  and  third
language is  English

Sitaram: What it the name of the mother tongue?

Mahendra:  ten languages:  they are santali, saora, munda, koya, kuvi,
kui, juang, bonda, kishan , oroam

Sitaram: I read some things regarding the bhasa braj language of the
Asta Chap poets, surrounding the lineage of (the name escapes me for a
moment), he was contemporary of Chaitanya

Mahendra:  yes  it was in   north India

Sitaram: in America, Krishna Das, is the lead scholar, an American convert

Mahendra:  Mathura   region  is it?
Sitaram: yes

Mahendra:  It may be  braj bhasha

Sitaram: it is a household sampradaya

Mahendra:  language of gopis
Mahendra:  yes

Sitaram: yes, I always get confused


Sitaram: Vallabh acharya

Mahendra:  Vallabha sampradaya?

Sitaram: yes

Mahendra:  I was reading all these  in my  MA  during  1984
Sitaram: I forget now exactly where they fall in the spectrum between
adwaita, vasisthdwaita, dwaita

Sitaram: I am reminded of Ramakrishna, who answered, "I want to EAT
sugar, I do not want to BECOME sugar

Mahendra:  this  is all about  the    concept of God

Sitaram: when he was asked concerning adwaita

Mahendra:  adwaita  means  no two
Mahendra:  only one god

Sitaram: it was from the goswami of Krishna das (from his writings),
that...

Mahendra:  he  is neither   a male or a female
Mahendra:  and every  one is originated from him
Mahendra:  dwaita means  purusha and prikriti
Mahendra: means male god and female god

Sitaram: an interesting concept that all people are just as they
should be, at every given moment, working out their karma... even the
Hitlers and bin Ladens

Mahendra: guna  and karma
Mahendra:  three gunas
Mahendra:  swtwa

Sitaram: satvas

Mahendra:  raja
Mahendra:  tama

Sitaram: rajas
Sitaram: tamas

Mahendra: you know this

Sitaram: Prabhupad speaks at length of these in his commentary on Gita

Mahendra:  yes

Mahendra:  this is wisdom and knowledge  on  god
Mahendra:   philosophy

Sitaram: he was not always called Prabhupad, previously to his last
few years,... oh, I cannot remember his exact title
Sitaram: but, followers began to call him Prabhupada in the last few years

Mahendra: Bhakti Vedanta swamy  Prabhupada

Sitaram: yes... that is it
Sitaram: a very interesting thing about the Vallabh lineage
Sitaram: I read that the development of their household ritual of the
lilas of baby Krishna

Mahendra:   Are  you   following this  or   only reading this  for
knowledge sake?

Sitaram: … a reaction to Islamic persecution

Mahendra:  means?

Sitaram: in other words, in a state of persecution, one may worship in
secret without a temple. If you need a temple and visible
priesthood,... then it is difficult during persecution

Sitaram: perhaps what I read is inaccurate

Mahendra:   why?

Sitaram: Well, how can I know the reality of things in India hundreds
of years ago
Sitaram: I only know what I read
Sitaram: It sounds logical

Mahendra:   do you feel it   in your heart?
Mahendra: insight?
Mahendra:  revealing
Mahendra:  speculation?
Mahendra:  eternal pleasure
Mahendra:  release of tension
Mahendra:  eureka?

Sitaram: what I mean is.... the theory about Islamic persecution being
a factor in such householder worship

Sitaram: that sounds logical to me, but I cannot verify the accuracy

Mahendra:  ok  nothing is accurate
Mahendra:  ecdept the  adwaita
Mahendra:  he is complete

Sitaram: well, I know that there was a civil war in USA, in 19th
century.... and that slavery was a fact, and that the Romans built a
coliseum

Sitaram: there are things one can know in a more factual manner

Mahendra:  with realization

Sitaram: the topic of persecution, and its effects upon worship,
raises some interesting things about Christianity...

Sitaram: namely... the roman and Greek emphasis on an ordained
priesthood with valid lineage...

Mahendra:  how it is perceived  by the Christianity?

Sitaram: but.... there are TWO things which any Christian may do as a
layperson
Sitaram: one, any Christian may BAPTIZE to create a new Christian

Mahendra:  yes then

Sitaram: two: any two Christians may sanctify their own marriage...
Sitaram: but... this is so essential, in times of persecution
Sitaram: e.g. in Russia in 17th century... the persecution of the Old
Believers
Sitaram: by the Russian orthodox reformed church and the Tsar
Sitaram: to this day, there are old believers, who cling to their ways...
Sitaram: but, the old believers split into two groups
Sitaram: the PAPOVSI, (having priests) and the BYEZ-PAPOVSI (with no
priest)
Sitaram: but.... here is a great divide in all religions....

Sitaram: listen

Mahendra:  yes

Sitaram: there are eastern-like, native religions,.... in which the
guru or shaman CREATES HIMSELF,.... by a retreat and a vision
Sitaram: there is NO ORDINATION OR LINEAGE
Sitaram: whereas, other religions, have a laying on of hands, a
consecration... an appointment

Sitaram: so the bishop or priest or pope is created by a political process

Sitaram: now, ... here is what is interesting

Mahendra:   yes

Sitaram: Abraham and Mohammed BOTH retreated into solitude, and had a
vision

Mahendra:  it is a  universal process

Sitaram: and yet, they founded religions which FORBID such a solitary,
subjective experience

Mahendra:   and then?

Sitaram: so... in Islam, if you say you retreated to a cave, and heard
angels, you are executed as blasphemer

Sitaram: and in Christianity, if you say you went to the desert and
heard God, then you are branded as fanatic and heretic

Sitaram: misguided, deluded

Mahendra: oh

Sitaram: Ninian Smart and Huston Smith are two scholars of comparative
religion who speak of such matters

Mahendra:  and  in Hinduism if you say like this  people will  worship you

Mahendra: believeing that  God  or goddess   has  appeared in  him

Sitaram: you see, whenever spirituality become political, and
administrated by a bureaucracy...

Sitaram: then, it becomes institutionalized... and is no longer the
fresh personal subjective experience of wonder
Mahendra:  then religion becomes subservient to   power
Mahendra:  ??

Sitaram: the believer becomes indeed a FOLLOWER... who follows the
political machinery

Sitaram: whether papacy or imams or rabbinical tradition

Mahendra: oh

Sitaram: now Augustine, of the 5th century, said something interesting
either in Confessions or City of God

Mahendra:  what

Sitaram: he said "Believe, and you have already eaten" (referring to
bread and wine of communion

Sitaram: now, the ancient emphasis on the Eucharistic communion, is
that it actually transforms mystically to body and blood of Christ

Sitaram: and the emphasis is on the valid ordination of the clergy,
and the orthodox confession of beliefs... all affecting the genuine
nature of the communion (eucharist)

Sitaram: well, Augustine’s sentence lays the foundation for the
protestant reformation

Sitaram: in other words, the individual, in seclusion, simply reading
bible...

Mahendra: you have  a comparative   vision of all religions
Mahendra:  why don’t you write a book on this?

Sitaram: without aid of clergy or bureaucracy
Sitaram: I have written everything on internet, and no one cares
Sitaram: and it is all there for free
Sitaram: but, when I die, then it shall disappear
Sitaram: because no one cares
Sitaram: I had thought perhaps even one student somewhere might take
an interest

Mahendra: yes the individual   reading a Bible

Sitaram: every Johnson needs a Boswell, to carry on
Sitaram: so... anyway, the protestant notion is similar to the
subjective experience of the mystic who becomes self proclaimed guru

Mahendra:     you were speaking  of  a in individual reading  bible
alone with out beruacratic support
Mahendra: ..

Sitaram: protestant reformation recognizes the power of the individual
believer to interpret scripture
Sitaram: so, you see, Christianity itself makes a great journey...

Mahendra:   and reinterpretation?
Mahendra:  by the individual is  respected?

Sitaram: from Christ, who is like a renegade from Jewish bureaucracy
of Pharisees.... who goes to desert wilderness
Sitaram: and has subjective experience as son of God
Sitaram: avatar

Mahendra:  yes

Sitaram: but then, the followers evolve a politic, a bureaucracy,
Sitaram: where it is no longer visionary and subjective..

Mahendra:  what happened with Buddha, Gandhi

Sitaram: but rather, legalistic and legislative and public

Mahendra:  may be  with Christ

Sitaram: and evolves to papacy of middle ages...
Sitaram: but then, with Luther, the reform, the protest....
Sitaram: until, now, one may feel called, and open a store front
church... or a radio or television ministry

Mahendra: but

Sitaram: we  see John the Baptist, and Elisha the prophet, as solitary
visionaries... who return from wilderness, to preach to society

Mahendra: yes

Sitaram: so, this constant vacillation between solitary/subjective and
communal/objective/legislative
Sitaram: Have I your permission to post our chat

Mahendra:   why not

Sitaram: in several forums

Mahendra:   it is always welcome
Sitaram: I ask, because, sometimes, someone will criticize me, that I
post a conversation without permission of the other person

Sitaram: so, here is your permission in writing, within the chat itself

Mahendra:   yes

Mahendra:   knowledge   become  finer with  dialogue  and discussion
Sitaram: and, you are a recognized scholar in your country, so this is
an important dialogue for people to consider

Mahendra:  yes

Sitaram: and not simply idle speculation
Sitaram: aha.... look... the Ramayan
Sitaram: the movement from king and city... to wilderness, forest,
solitude
Mahendra:  I had no idea  that    the  protestants have the  freedom
to  reinterpret  Bible
Sitaram: and then, a return to Ayodiya
Sitaram: the pendulum goes full swing in the epic

Mahendra:  yes   about Ramayana
Mahendra:  yes   amazing

Sitaram: aha... and... even the notion of God taking individual form

Mahendra:  it is   called Rama rajya
Sitaram: where even God is depicted as moving back and forth between
universal, legislative..... and subjective/solitary

Mahendra:  kingdom of Rama -  nature,  animal, birds, demon and human
Mahendra:   May I request

Sitaram: which reflects the constant tension between the
State/society, and personal liberty/individual freedom

Mahendra:  you  write on    Ramayana  , may be small, but your
perception   is  something   uncommon to Indians who  mingle
emotionally in Ramayana    and  don’t   interpret
Mahendra: great Sitaram
Mahendra:  what  a discourse

Sitaram: yes... and think of the dialogue between the Kag Bushundi,
humble crow, and the great vehicle Garuda
Sitaram: we see this as the dialectic
Sitaram: between the private/personal/subjective, and the
public/legislative
Sitaram: and, the epic saga of Ramayana flows from their dialogue
Mahendra: yes
Mahendra: amazing

Sitaram: but, it is Garuda crisis of faith, seeing Ram subdued by the
serpent weapons
Sitaram: and given to doubt of the supreme nature of the deity
Sitaram: and, Garuda must turn to Bushundi, and the lila/song of the epic

Mahendra: then?

Sitaram: to have his faith bolstered
Sitaram: it is our very participation in Lila, and Katah...

Mahendra:   yes katha

Sitaram: which constantly weaves for us the fabric of our convictions
Sitaram: now... in the very last book of the Old Testament......

Mahendra:   yes
Sitaram: almost the very last page...
Sitaram: it is written

Mahendra: what

Sitaram: "Those who fear God (respect god), CONVERSE, discourse... and
God listens, and it is written in a book
Sitaram: This is said in 3rd chapter of Malachi

Sitaram: so, this dialogue, is no different than Bushundi and Garuda

Mahendra:  yes it  is a nice  comparison  and realization

Sitaram: if we consider Buddha notion of "dependent co arising"

Mahendra: but what  happens  if some body  is nastika- non believer
in God

Sitaram: and view the dependency between god and man

Mahendra:  what is  there in Bible for him?

Sitaram: namely.... it is BOTH TRUE that man creates god as well as
god creates man

Mahendra:  yes
Mahendra:  that s true

Sitaram: but... this is difficult to comprehend
Sitaram: and quite similar to the quirks of quantum verses relativity
Sitaram: in the macrocosm.... motions of planets and galaxies are
smooth, orderly, grand, majestic, solemn...

Mahendra:  it is believed  that  when  a man does not believe  God  it
is  also the creation of God,  because  God  is  both being  and
nothing( sunya)

Sitaram: but, on the quantum level, even being and non being
vacillates as a vibration, a vritti

Sitaram: so, how can such chaos become the building blocks of such order

Mahendra:  yes

Sitaram: and how may such grand order and regularity suffer such chaos
in its very fabric

Mahendra: then?
Sitaram: this is the power of paradox

Mahendra:  to be believed   both  the discourse?

Sitaram: we may not approach it directly... in discourse
Sitaram: we must encircle obliquely in katah

Mahendra: but  like  Garuda’s doubt,
Mahendra:  mah   has also doubt

Sitaram: in the metaphor and imagery of the lila
Sitaram: and, doubt itself is a component of conviction and strength
of faith
Sitaram: Ram asks Hanuman "are you monkey or man"....

Mahendra:  and  you know  when   man fails  to achieve anything
face any  disaster , he  put all  blames on fate that  is   god  as
though  god  and fate is not equal

Sitaram: Hanuman answers, "when I know who I am I serve you"
Sitaram: I forget exact working
Sitaram: but... the same dilemma
Sitaram: between self knowledge and self doubt
Sitaram: ohhhh ok
Sitaram: when I do not know who I am, then I serve you, and when I
know who I am, then you and I are one

Mahendra:  yes
Mahendra:   atma paramatma
Mahendra:  self  and supreme being

Sitaram: exactly
Sitaram: it is the two birds in the same tree, in Upanishads
Sitaram: one eats, the other beholds

Mahendra:   one    is the creation and other is the creator
Mahendra:  and creator is manifested in the creation

Sitaram: the beholder is the inner observer/enjoyer

Mahendra: aha

Sitaram: which gives meaning to "I am the sacrificer, and the
sacrificed, the ghee, and the fire"

Mahendra:  so nice feeling
Mahendra:  yes

Sitaram: we may not have faith without doubt
Sitaram: faith which is not in the face of doubt looses all value, as
a currency taken to a foreign land

Mahendra:  yes

Sitaram: becomes merely a curiosity, a relic

Mahendra:   and inspite of doubt  we still believe god

Sitaram: and not a valid legal tender

Mahendra:  samsaya-
Mahendra: doubt

Sitaram: yes, samsara/nibbana

Mahendra: samsaya means doubt
Mahendra:  and this ends with    true  knowledge

Sitaram: yes.. doubt leads to knowledge

Mahendra:  knowledge  makes a man free from  doubt

Sitaram: the final words of Buddha on his death bed..... be a lamp
unto yourself

Mahendra:  and knowledge   possible   when some body is ready  to
surrender

Sitaram: the rock and the flint create the spark which makes fire

Mahendra:  to the  total knowledge
Mahendra:  yes

For many years now, I have written on the Internet about certain
topics, some of which are halakic in nature.  You might find what I
posted just now to be of interest.  My interest, in my spare time, has
been in comparative religion, and questions of ethics.


Somone on the Internet has written to me to ask the following question:

My 'problem' with hell is (and maybe this has something to do with my
accounting nature): What is the cutoff point?; I mean, say if two
people were equally bad till age 60, & then one reformed and did a few
nice things, is that enough to get him off the hook. Does it really
depend upon the people who were wronged providing forgiveness?  If
that's the case, doesn't seen fair that some 'bad" getoff scott-free
'cause their victims were extraordinarliy compassionate......

Here is my reply:

There is a passage in the Old Testament, in Ezekiel, which pertains to
your question.

(paraphrased from memory)

"If a man should life all of his life in righteousness, but in his
last days, should turn to iniquity, then, all of his righteousness
shall be counted for nothing.  BUT, if a man should live all of his
life in iniquity, but, in his last days should repent, and turn to
righteousness, then, all of his unrighteousness shall be counted as
nothing."

Ezekiel 18:26 When a righteous man turneth away from his
righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his
iniquity that he hath done shall he die.


Ezekiel 18:21-22 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that
he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is
lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his
transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned
unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.


Isaac the Syrian (6th century) in his homilies, said, "All the sins of
all the world for all ages, are as but a handful of dust in the face
of God's infinite mercy."

The catch is to discover the key which unleashes that mercy.

I would say that the secret lies somewhere hidden within the word "turn".

What does it mean to truly and completely "turn"?  What may we say of
that person who has genuinely turned or "returned?"

The prodigal son finally "returned" to his father, at last, after
years of living in a foreign land, working for a cruel master.

The Greeks speak of the "apotreptic" moment, the moment in which one
turns about, a 180 degree reversal; a change, a sincere change.

Once, three students approaced the famous rabbi Baal Shem Tov (whose
title means "Master of the Good Name") and asked,
"Rabbi. Suppose a man sins greatly, but later repents and prays. When
and how shall he know that he is forgiven?"

Baal Shem Tov answered, "When the day comes that this man looks upon
his sin, not with longing and a secret delightful savoring and relish,
but with genuine disgust and revulsion for the iniquity, then, he may
know by the miracle of his inner transformation, that he has been
forgiven."


John Climacus (of the Ladder, also 6th century) wrote that "On the day
of Judgment, you shall recognize the righteous, because their heads
shall be hung low, and they shall say, 'We have done nothing worthy.' "

Regarding the spirit of author censorship, and books on trial:


I think it was John Barth that I was reading, perhaps his non-fiction
collection "Further Fridays", where he quoted one Islamic scholar as
saying, "If a writing expresses something which is found in the
Qur'an, then it is superfluous, and if a writing expresses something
not in the Qur'an, then it is blasphemous" (paraphrasing from memory).

Islam boasts that not one word of the Qur'an has ever been changed,
whereas the scriptures of other religions are somehow corrupt. Yet,
the great irony is that the 1st Caliph had all variant copies of the
Qur'an destroyed.  Why did variant copies exist if the virtue of the
Qur'an is its invariance?

Certainly, such beliefs and attitudes fuel the banning of certain
authors and books, both in Islamic and Christian societies.


There is one irony in the Qur'an which I may perhaps be the first to
point out.  The convenience of search engines reveals many things.  A
search on "psalm" in the Qur'an reveals five passage in which the
Jewish Psalms are greatly praised. One such passage states that even
the birds chant the Psalms.  And yet, not one Psalm is quoted in the
Qur'an or recited in Mosques.  And Islamic scholars claim that
Biblical text is so corrupted that it is not worth studying. And yet,
we know from archeological findings such as the Qumran texts that the
Psalms that were accessible to Mohammed are essentially unchanged from
what we have today.


Then there is the one about the fundamentalist pastor who insists that
God created dinosaur fossils (not dinosaurs mind you, but just the
fossil remains) in order to test the truly faithful, to see if they
reject evolution.  (This is not a joke! One fundamentalist actually
made a statement to this effect.)

Then, there was some French bureaucrat who said, "That works well in
theory, but not in practice."

One scholar has a plausible theory that certain banned books from
Switzerland were partly the cause of the French Revolution.  In those
days, in France, no book could be published without the King's
approval.  People were eager to read banned books which fictionalized
the affairs and debauchery of the nobility.  That scholar feels that
such banned fiction helped fuel the hatred for the nobility.

At the end of Cyrano De Bergerac, we see that Cyrano meets weekly with
his beloved to tell her precisely of such court gossip.

We imprison authors and ban books because we are afraid to look at
something critically which we hold to be unquestionable. There is
something which we fear in the books that we ban.


visit me at http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

My old Palm M-120 started to have strange problems synchronizing with
the various desktops that I use.

Today, I purchased a Palm Z22 for $99 at Staples.

So far, it has worked like a charm.

The most amazing thing I found is this program to convert any document
or browser page to a format compatible with a Palm reader.

http://www.jakewalk.de/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=MySoftware.PdaConverter


The entire install took only 10 minutes, but it was complicated by the
fact that, in the midst of it, I was asked to click on a link, and
install some other program which this program invokes as a "filter" to
remove advertising and other things from web pages prior to
conversion.  I said "yes" to everything during the install, and made
some lucky guesses.  The first think I did was convert a Word document
of a short story.  The converter invokes the Palm ADD software, to
schedule the addition of the document during the next hotsync.  On my
first attempt, I converted to xTxt format, but my free shareware
reader was unable to open that. Next, I converted to Aportis format,
and my shareware reader read that just fine.

So now, I can convert almost anything I please, upload it to the palm
pilot, and read it.

I found some great free religious texts at this site:

http://www.freewarepalm.com/religion/religion.shtml

I downloaded the Bhagavad-Gita, New Testament, 613 Mitzvoths, Qur'an,
and Way of the Tao.

I am certain that some readers here will be interested in putting the
Qur'an (in English) on their PDA.


Vist me at http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

(posted today at http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions
and also at
http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1080.php )

Yesterday, I watched an "Open Mind" interview with William Kunstler,
recorded in 1994.  The host, Richard Heffner, has aged so much in only
twelve years!  The interview discussed Kunstler's book "My Life as a
Radical Lawyer."  Kunstler died a year after that interview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Kunstler

Kunstler was a director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
from 1964 to 1972, when he became a member of the ACLU National
Council. In 1969 he cofounded the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Kunstler also worked with the National Lawyers Guild.

To many, Kunstler's image was that of a flamboyant radical. He
defended many controversial clients, including Lenny Bruce, H. Rap
Brown, Stokely Carmichael, American Indian Movement (AIM) leaders,
Jack Ruby, Abbie Hoffman, Angela Davis, Jerry Rubin, Martin Luther
King, Lemuel Smith, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, Ibrahim A. ElGabrowny,
Gregory Johnson, and Wayne Williams.

During the time they practiced law together, Kunstler and his partner,
Kuby, were the lawyers to whom the despised, outcast, and dissidents
turned for legal help

The image of a lawyer as the last refuge of the despised and outcast
reminds me of God.  Isn't God supposed to be that sort of refuge of
last resort?  A god defined as a god of love is easily seen as such a
refuge.

I remembered back to the first days of television, around 1954, when I
was age 4 or 5.  I was always sad when a show like "Meet the Press",
or Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, or "Lamp Unto My Feet" came on.  I much
preferred cartoons and movies.  Now that I am older, I preferred such
serious shows over the cartoons.

Here is an excerpt from the trial transcript of The Chicago Seven Trial:


     http://members.aol.com/stewa/kunstler.htm

     MR. KUNSTLER: After you arrived in Chicago did you have any
discussion with Jerry?

     THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. We discussed the nomination of a pig for
President.

     MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what you said and what Jerry said.

     THE WITNESS: We discussed the details. We discussed going out to
the countryside around Chicago and buying a pig from a farmer and
bringing him into the city for the purposes of his nominating speech.

     MR. KUNSTLER: Did you have any role yourself in that?

     THE WITNESS: Yes, I helped select the pig, and I paid for him.

     MR. KUNSTLER: Now, did you find a pig at once when you went out?

     THE WITNESS: No, it was very difficult. We stopped at several
farms and asked where the pigs were.

     MR. KUNSTLER: None of the farmers referred you to the police
station, did they?

     THE WITNESS: No.

     MR. FORAN: Objection.

     THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

     MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Ochs, can you describe the pig which was finally
bought?

     MR. FORAN: Objection.

     THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

     MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what, if anything, happened to the pig?

     THE WITNESS: The pig was arrested with seven people.

     MR. KUNSTLER: When did that take place?

     THE WITNESS: This took place on the morning of August 23, at the
Civic Center underneath the Picasso sculpture.

     MR. KUNSTLER: Who were those seven people?

     THE WITNESS: Jerry Rubin. Stew Albert, Wolfe Lowenthal, myself is
four; I am not sure of the names of the other three.

     MR. KUNSTLER: What were you doing when you were arrested?

     THE WITNESS: We were arrested announcing the pig's candidacy for
President.

     MR. KUNSTLER: Did Jerry Rubin speak?

     THE WITNESS: Yes, Jerry Rubin was reading a prepared speech for
the pig---the opening sentence was
     something like, "I, Pigasus, hereby announce my candidacy for the
Presidency of the United States." He was interrupted in his talk by
the police who arrested us.

     MR. KUNSTLER: What was the pig doing during this announcement?

     MR. FORAN: Objection.

     MR. KUNSTLER: Do you remember what you were charged with?

     THE WITNESS: I believe the original charge mentioned was something
about an old Chicago law about
     bringing livestock into the city, or disturbing the peace, or
disorderly conduct, and when it came time for the trial, I believe the
charge was disorderly conduct.

     MR. KUNSTLER: Were you informed by an officer that the pig had
squealed on you?

     MR. FORAN: Objection. I ask it be stricken.

     THE WITNESS: Yes.

     THE COURT: I sustain the objection. When an objection is made do
not answer until the Court has ruled. . .



I made some notes as I watched the "Open Mind" interview with Kunstler.

Kunstler said, "All systems [, whether political, or legal, or
religious, or academic] are corrupt."  (The bracked portion is my
clarification.)

Kunstler said, "It is always the few who [/influence] move the many."

Heffner and Kunstler debated the notion that "the people are the real
repositories of power."

Kunstler's rebuttal; "Have any intelligent people ever been with the
crowd?"
I am reminded of Abraham Heschel's statement, in "The Prophets",  that
"few are guilty but all are responsible."



http://www.esquilax.com/flag/kunstler.html



Unlike more mercenary lawyers, Bill Kunstler only took cases he
belived in. Earlier this year, when last I saw him at a reading from
his autobiography, he continued to speak of the flag cases as among
the most important of his long and eventful career.

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, 5 August 1989, "What Shocked
Me Most About the Flag Amendment", Bill Kunstler wrote;

"Every time we've been stampeded into violating the rights of our
citizens -- the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts in response to the
excesses of the French Revolution, the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus during the Civil War and the relocation of
Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, to name but three well- known
examples -- we have belatedly come to regret it."

Bill Kunstler isn't around around anymore to make to Congress, or to
the public, the case for the right to burn flags which I feel
privileged to have heard him make, so well, in 1989 and 1990 to the
Supreme Court. His death is, to me, a reminder that we can't ever rely
on others to say for us what needs to be said. If it's important for
us to say, we'll have to say it for ourselves. It's up to all of us to
make ourselves heard on this issue.

An odd idea came to Sitaram this week.  I suddenly remembered the
Biblical scene in the Torah, where the people complain to Moses that
they wish to be like all the other nations, and have a king of their
own.  God counsels the Israelites that, if they do get their wish,
then that king will conscript their sons as soldiers, and their
maidens as hand-maidens.

What and interesting Biblical illustration of freewill choice!  God
has it in mind that a theocracy is preferable to a monarchy, but is
willing to give the people what they desire, against better judgment.



By the way, the "M." in William M. Kunstler stands for "Moses."  Yes,
Moses was Kunstler's middle name.  Only just now did I learn this,
during a google search!

Kunstler was a rebellious child who shocked and worried his
conservative Jewish parents.







Let's see what Hobbes makes of the Bibilical passage regarding Moses
and Monarchy:



http://www.literature.org/authors/hobbes-thomas/leviathan/chapter-20.html
Leviathan
Thomas Hobbes
Chapter 20 - Of Dominion Paternall And Despoticall



The Right Of Monarchy From Scripture: Let us now consider what the
Scripture teacheth in the same point. To Moses, the children of Israel
say thus. (Exod. 20. 19) "Speak thou to us, and we will heare thee;
but let not God speak to us, lest we dye." This is absolute obedience
to Moses. Concerning the Right of Kings, God himself by the mouth of
Samuel, saith, (1 Sam. 8. 11, 12, &c.) "This shall be the Right of the
King you will have to reigne over you. He shall take your sons, and
set them to drive his Chariots, and to be his horsemen, and to run
before his chariots; and gather in his harvest; and to make his
engines of War, and Instruments of his chariots; and shall take your
daughters to make perfumes, to be his Cookes, and Bakers. He shall
take your fields, your vine-yards, and your olive-yards, and give them
to his servants. He shall take the tyth of your corne and wine, and
give it to the men of his chamber, and to his other servants. He shall
take your man-servants, and your maid-servants, and the choice of your
youth, and employ them in his businesse. He shall take the tyth of
your flocks; and you shall be his servants." This is absolute power,
and summed up in the last words, "you shall be his servants." Againe,
when the people heard what power their King was to have, yet they
consented thereto, and say thus, (Verse. 19 &c.) "We will be as all
other nations, and our King shall judge our causes, and goe before us,
to conduct our wars." Here is confirmed the Right that Soveraigns
have, both to the Militia, and to all Judicature; in which is
conteined as absolute power, as one man can possibly transferre to
another. Again, the prayer of King Salomon to God, was this. (1 Kings
3. 9) "Give to thy servant understanding, to judge thy people, and to
discerne between Good and Evill." It belongeth therefore to the
Soveraigne to bee Judge, and to praescribe the Rules of Discerning
Good and Evill; which Rules are Lawes; and therefore in him is the
Legislative Power. Saul sought the life of David; yet when it was in
his power to slay Saul, and his Servants would have done it, David
forbad them, saying (1 Sam. 24. 9) "God forbid I should do such an act
against my Lord, the anoynted of God." For obedience of servants St.
Paul saith, (Coll. 3. 20) "Servants obey your masters in All things,"
and, (Verse. 22) "Children obey your Parents in All things." There is
simple obedience in those that are subject to Paternall, or
Despoticall Dominion. Again, (Math. 23. 2,3) "The Scribes and
Pharisees sit in Moses chayre and therefore All that they shall bid
you observe, that observe and do." There again is simple obedience.
And St. Paul, (Tit. 3. 2) "Warn them that they subject themselves to
Princes, and to those that are in Authority, & obey them." This
obedience is also simple. Lastly, our Saviour himselfe acknowledges,
that men ought to pay such taxes as are by Kings imposed, where he
sayes, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesars;" and payed such taxes
himselfe. And that the Kings word, is sufficient to take any thing
from any subject, when there is need; and that the King is Judge of
that need: For he himselfe, as King of the Jewes, commanded his
Disciples to take the Asse, and Asses Colt to carry him into
Jerusalem, saying, (Mat. 21. 2,3) "Go into the Village over against
you, and you shall find a shee Asse tyed, and her Colt with her, unty
them, and bring them to me. And if any man ask you, what you mean by
it, Say the Lord hath need of them: And they will let them go." They
will not ask whether his necessity be a sufficient title; nor whether
he be judge of that necessity; but acquiesce in the will of the Lord.



Here is an excerpt from something Sitaram wrote a year ago:

http://www.literatureforums.net/vb3/archive/index.php/t-4622.html



Socrates asks Gorgias what name he gives to his profession, art,
skill, technology. Gorgias replies that he is a Rhetorician and that
he works with words and speech alone. Socrates refines and clarifies
the term "rhetoric" and calls it the art of persuasion.

Nowadays, the descendents of Gorgias ply trades known as advertising
and politics.

The "sophists" came to be known as the "bad guys" among platonists.

I suppose I should google about on the word sophist and see what pops up.

This link is quite useful and pertinant to our thread:


     http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/sophists.htm
     (excerpts)

     The growing demand for education in 5th century BCE. Greece called
into existence a class of teachers known as sophists. They were a
professional class rather than a school, and as such they were
scattered over Greece and exhibited professional rivalries.

     ...

     The educational demand was partly for genuine knowledge, but
mostly reflected a desire for spurious learning that would lead to
political success.


     Though not disgraceful in itself, the wise men of Greece had never
accepted payment for their teaching. The sophists were not,
technically speaking, philosophers, but, instead taught any subject
for which there was a popular demand. Topics included rhetoric,
politics, grammar, etymology, history, physics, and mathematics. Early
on they were seen as teachers of virtue in the sense that they taught
people to perform their function in the state.

     Protagoras of Abdera, who appeared about 445 BCE. is named as the
first Sophist; after him the most important is Gorgias of Leontini,
Prodicus of Ceos and Hippias of Elis. Wherever they appeared,
especially in Athens, they were received with enthusiasm and many
flocked to hear them. Even such people as Pericles, Euripides, and
Socrates sought their company.

     The most popular career of a Greek of ability at the time was
politics; hence the sophists largely concentrated on teaching
rhetoric. The aims of the young politicians whom they trained were to
persuade the multitude of whatever they wished them to believed. The
search for truth was not top priority. Consequently the sophists
undertook to provide a stock of arguments on any subject, or to prove
any position. They boasted of their ability to make the worse appear
the better reason, to prove that black is white. Some, like Gorgias,
asserted that it was not necessary to have any knowledge of a subject
to give satisfactory replies as regards it. Thus, Gorgias
ostentatiously answered any question on any subject instantly and
without consideration. To attain these ends mere quibbling, and the
scoring of verbal points were employed. In this way, the sophists
tried to entangle, entrap, and confuse their opponents, and even, if
this were not possible, to beat them down by mere violence and noise.
They sought also to dazzle by means of strange or flowery metaphors,
by unusual figures of speech, by epigrams and paradoxes, and in
general by being clever and smart, rather than earnest and truthful.
Hence our word "sophistry": the use of fallacious arguments knowing
them to be such. Early on Sophists were seen to be of merit as people
of superior skill or wisdom, as we find in Pindar and Herodotus.
     ...
     We learn from Plato, though, that even in the 5th century there
was a prejudice against the name "sophist". By Aristotle's time, the
name bore a contemptuous meaning, as he defines "sophist" as one who
reasons falsely for the sake of gain.
     ...
     Dion Chrysostom, Herodes Atticus, Aristides, Lucian, and
Philostratus the Elder belong to the flourishing period of this second
school of sophists, a period which extends over the entire second
century. They appear afresh about the middle of the fourth century,
devoting their philosophic culture to the zealous but unavailing
defense of paganism. Among them was the emperor Julian and his
contemporaries Libanius, Himerius, and Themistius. Synesius may be
considered the last sophist of importance.


     You will notice that I highlighted They boasted of their ability
to make the worse appear the better reason, to prove that black is
white. in the above excerpts.

     The American judicial system, its laws and constitution, bear
traces of influence from the Biblical portrayal of law, and also from
Jewish talmudic wisdom. The Talmud stresses that a good scholar must
be able to find a hundred reasons why snake meat is kosher. Their
reasoning for this odd advice is that an accused person deserves the
best defense possible. We see this every day on television, from court
room dramas, to Judge Judy, to news items about controversial trials
such as O.J. Simson, who was found guilty (or perhaps I should say
responsible) in civil court of a charges acquitted in criminal court.

     I remember watching President Clintons lips curl in a wry smile as
he replied "That depends on what your definition of is is."

     The art of persuasion is a necessary evil in our lives. Nor is it
always an evil. Passages from Lincoln's speechs and the Declaration of
Independence reverberate in our ears with a hallowed tone on par with
prayers.

     Conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men
are created equal.

     When, in the course of human events...


     Speaking of the preamble to the Declaration, look at this
interesting observation which is germane to the Socratic method of
discourse:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence


     The preamble is presented as a syllogism, with one proposition
leading to another proposition. From the first proposition (that all
men are created equal), a chain of logic is produced that leads to the
right and responsibility of revolution when a government becomes
destructive of the people's rights.

     We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness.

     By the way, if anyone finds this thread a bit tedious, they might
want to read my anecdote regarding "Isaac Newton's Homework"

     http://toosmallforsupernova.org/page009.htm

     http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic119.php

One reader asks:


     Sitaram, I am curious, do you see a significant difference between
the following two statements?

     1) Treat others as you would like to be treated.

     2) Treat others how they wish to be treated.

     And would you expound upon the answer?



This excellent question touches upon an age old disagreement between
Judaism and Christianity.

Two of the most famous Rabbis of antiquity, are Hillel and Shamai.
One day, so the story goes, an smart-alec Roman came to Hillel said, I
shall convert to your religion if you can teach me everything about
Judaism while you stand upon one foot.  Hillel replied, "Do not do
unto others that which you find hateful if done to you.  That is the
crux of the Law. All else is commentary."

Christians have a different spin on this notion, saying "DO unto
others as YOU would have others do unto you."   The Christians presume
to stand upon higher moral ground and describe Hillel's maxim as "The
Silver Rule" while the Christian maxim is "The Golden Rule."

Now, you may be asking yourself, "What is the difference?"  Well, you
see, the Christian golden rule makes the audacious presumption that
you yourself know what is good for others.  Like Pres. Mckinley, you
know what is good for all those Philipinos that you have just taking
upon your shoulders as "the white mans burden."  You know what is good
for all those emancipated slaves.

The Jewish maxim implies that we can know what is hateful, and we
should not do that.  But is it possible for us to know what is good
for others, and then impose that upon others?

Joseph's brothers, out of jealosie, thought to murder Joseph, but then
changed their minds and simply sold Joseph into slavery in Egypt.

Through a long series of events, Joseph gradually becomes one of the
most powerful people in all of Egypt.  Joseph's power allows him to
save his kinfolk when they are afflicted by famine.   Joseph's
brothers come to ask his forgiveness.  Joseph answers "You intended
evil, but God transformed your evil into good."

Elsewhere, in the Proverbs of the wise King Solomon, it is written,
"There are ways which seem good unto a person, but the end thereof is
death."

What all this boils down to, in the Old Testament, is the idea that we
can know what is bad and hateful, but we may not necessarily know what
is good and beneficial.

A Catholic scholar came to give a lecture at St. Johns, Annapolis, in
the 1960s.  He made us laugh by saying, "there is always some
good-deed-doer waiting to do a good deed on you."   The humor lies in
the image of someone "doing a good deed on you" which resembles the
notion of a bird taking a dump on you.

Well, folks, it is 3 am, and I am short on time, but if I think of
more to say, I shall return to this blog via edit, or perhaps just
post a sequel.

Here is a link to download all my writings of the past nine years as
zipped files.

I still need to add some things, but this is pretty complete.

Nothing lasts forever, not even me.

It is my hope that one or two people may take some interest in
preserving some of these poems and essays.

http://toosmallforsupernova.org/downloads.htm

I place everything in public domain.

Thanks for your time and interest.

Let me know if there is some problem with one of the downloads.

Thanks!

- Sitaram


http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Religion-communalism/2002/rama.htm

The Importance of Rama In Arabian Culture
By CTR Wilson, Saidabad, Hyderabad 500 020


The words Ra and Ma signify spiritual and religious area of Arabian
cultures. That is why many holy places and names of people start with
either Ra or Ma. There is place called RAMALLAHA in Palestine, RaMa
dan is also the name of persons and also the holy month in Arabian
culture.

The word Ra is the sacred name of Sun by ancient Egyptians, Ma is
taken from MAZDA, the 20th name of God. RAMA is a holy term in Indian
and Sarabic lands, 'RAMAHA' is the name of girs in Arabic lands. The
opinions expressed are impersonal and purely academic. I hope to give
full details soon. 'RAMAH' is also found in bible (Mathew2, Para 18).
Omnipotent, Omnipresence and Omniscience in English are from word 'OM'
of Indian Culture.

THE VOWEL SOUNDS RA AND MA: the pituitary gland is quite sensitive to
the intonation of two vocal sounds: Ra and MA (pronounced "rah",
"mah"). As you know, Ra was the sacred name given to the Sun by the
ancient Egyptians during the reign of Akhnaton, first Grand Master of
the mystical traditions perpetuated in our times by our Order. For him
it was the symbol of the One God he venerated. In fact, the name had
not been arbitrarily so chosen, in that the intonation of the sound RA
sets in motion and energy of positive predominance and solar nature.
On the other hand, the sound of MA conveys the spirit of the Moon in
its cyclical, reflective nature.

To illustrate this commonality, we share a short excerpt from what a
Parsi member of the Order has written.

The most important manthras (mantras), according to Hormazd Yasht, are
the name of God. Among them, the most powerful are AHURA, his twelfth
name, and, Azda, his twentieth name. It seems that Rishi Vasistha
extracted RA from AHURA and MA from MAZDA, and that by joining them,
he formed a new and very fortunate name for the Avatar of God Himself.
In other words, Vasistha extracted the name RAMA from the very heart
of the name of God. (AHU) RAMA (ZDA). It is interesting to note that
RAMA is also the name of a Yasata who presides over the twenty-first
day of the Zoroastrian month. All the works of good omens, weddings,
etc., begin with the recall of name, exactly as the Hindus generally
recall the name of Shree Ganesha. RAMA signifies: Peace" "Divine Joy"
or "Ananda" one aspect of God. In the prayer of the Gathas of
Zoroaster, "Ramancha aish dadatoo" means "And may he grant (us)
Profound Peace, Divine Joy, thanks to them (these verities)".

Incidentally, RAMA, in the capacity of Angel, also directs the
electromagnetic Vital Force (Khastra) which emanates from the sun
(Mitra) and which penetrates into the body with them air (Vaayu) as
breath of life. Students of Yoga, of Theosophy, and of Rosicrucianism
who regularly practice spiritual exercise, invariably including deep
breathing and the intonation of certain mantras and of certain vocal
sounds, will understand immediately the esoteric reason why the Angel
RAMA is generally evoked alongwith Mithra in Zoroastrian prayers, and
why the Angel Vaayu is like wise evoked when RAMA in involved. All
this draws attention to the ancient belief according to which deep
breathing and the intonation of vocal sounds, when practiced
regularly, not only regenerate our bodies, but also elevate us both
psychically and spiritually.

In the authors opinion a circular building dedicated to the planets
and stars will be suitable to give to God. The name of the building is
RAMALAH BHAVAN.

Yours sincerely,
CTR Wilson, Saidabad, Hyderabad 500 020

Phil Silvers was a popular television comedian during the 1950s and 60s.

His daughter, Laury Silvers, through a serious of unusual incidents,
converted to Islam.

Laury Silvers founded http://www.progressiveislam.org

I am not Muslim, and for many years now, I have written critically
regarding Islam.  But, I have decided to join the Progressive Islam
site and blog there frequently, cordially I hope, in the interest of
maintaining some sort of Interfaith dialogue, and with the hopes
making some small, constructive effort towards world peace.

I am also posting/blogging daily at

http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions


I shall continue to post here once or twice per month.

I do hope you can visit these sites.

Best regards,

Sitaram

I have been corresponding for several years now with Shravya, who was
raised in Andra Pradesh and speaks Telugu, but who currently lives in
Chennai in Tamil Nadu, India.

She has written this very interesting essay.



Sounds of Silence
- by Shravya

What good is this world to a poet who does not have the heart to see...
to gaze into Beauty's deep eyes; a poet struggling to express in these
sinful words... the simplicity of Love's embrace... or nature's
perfection? I cannot call myself a poet anymore.... that is a grave
transgression. But, the strongest urge overwhelms me... igniting the
simmering passion that thirsts for that MAD, insane ecstasy that
explodes from MY innermost creative core... and manifests as a
wondrous creation.... immortalizing me!


But alas, these are just a few foolish musings of a foolish poet.
Poetry to me is like Conception, itself! It is the process of
harnessing that insatiable desire to create, to expand, to extend, to
absorb and reproduce...  and to finally conceive a masterpiece.  To
pour life into it, enliven it.. and, expand myself through it. This
creative urge is so very deeply rooted in all human beings and
animals. It is just intrinsic to our nature.  This universal,
life-giving necessity is acquired from Our Divine Creator. The urge to
create comes from the basic spiritual impulse to find our way back to
our primary source and unite with it. This is reflected in the way we
try to emulate Divine Creativity, through our mortal selves. But, we
are far away from perfection ..my brothers!

Life itself is the evolution of the Cosmic Creative Energy.  Each of us
present at a certain level or layer of creativity. At the basic level
this creative impulse is expressed as copulative reproduction. In the
process of evolution, it finds itself manifesting as the gastronomical
arts,  architectural skills,  dancing,  painting and poetry.  My
belief is that, as the level of sensitivity of the individual creative
force gets subtler, the experience cannot be even partially expressed
through anything except poetry.  Many of the ancients have tried to
explain the creative energy of God as a cosmic dance, but once again
this cosmic dance cannot be emulated on a mundane level nor can it be
given a pictorial representation... and, at best can only be given
poetic expression.  But having said that I'd also like to say,  poetry
is the attempt to grasp  The Limitless  and contain it within the
barriers of our  mortal limitations. Words cannot penetrate into the
realms of Beauty, of sublime emotion, and of Love.  They barely tinge
the surface with an insipid sweetness, and cast a shadow on the
unfathomable
depths of experience and transcendence.  So, we begin to wonder... what
then is the ultimate medium through which we can entirely capture and
express  this  Endless creative flow in its primordial state and
incessant perpetuation, without of course  inhibiting  its
spontaneity? It is that which brings forth creation and creativity yet
remains unmanifest and uncreated. It is that Silence that rests at the
zenith of all expressions, wheeling beyond space and time. It is
transcendence itself. So, what is this Silence? How can we harness its
creative expression? Silence can never be defined. It is beyond the
region of "thought" and "imagination". But, a shallow definition of
it, would be:
Silence is the eternal harmony of the Soul and its Cosmic expanse.
*That is no definition at all! It's so vague and elusive. Just a mental
abstraction*

According to the laws of physics, silence is potential energy and sound
is kinetic energy. But, according to quantum physics everything in this
universe is in perpetual motion(when looked at in the atomic state).
There in, my friend lies the contradiction! Sound travels in waves of
vibrations, and anything in motion creates vibrations. So,
silence(according to physical laws) can never be motionless and hence
creates vibrations. So, what most people understand by silence is,
either the ability to restrain from speech and keep quiet or subtle
sounds that surpass the sensitivity of our sense-organs. But, silence
is not Silence. Silence is the absolute balance between both potential
and kinetic energies. It is the fountainhead of the entire spectrum of
sound. It contains all vibrations and energies in such harmony that
they all disappear. They become motionless and yet wholly energetic in
perfect synthesis.

Swami Vivekananda said, "A Buddha and A Christ are but second-rate
heroes for great men live in Silence and die in Silence."
Now, there is a powerful statement.

Hence, the art of  Silence when mastered can become a massive creative
force reflecting the Glory of Divine Creativity. Silence is a harmonic
mergence where "All is One and One is All." . In this harmonization
time becomes timeless and eternity is realized, space becomes
spaceless and infinity is remembered, and tri-dimensionality
transmutes into multidimensionality and transcendence is awakened.
There is nothing to be known and there is nothing that remains unknown.
It is always there hidden in the depths of all sounds and subtleties,
yet always felt in core of soulfulness. Through this Silence comes
comprehensive expression, but in itself, it remains completely
expressionless. This is truly "Immaculate Conception"! It is so pure
and divine that harnessing its creativity would only dilute its
natural and energetic flow. Just like Beauty's true form is
formlessness, Love's true nature is nothingness and Light's true color
is transparence. Between light and shadow exists a whole array of
colours, and between sound and soundlessness exists a whole range of
tones. But, in the very heart of this gigantic Cosmic vortex resides
The Alchemic Creative Force, that Silence that resides in the heart of
all creative urges; a poet's romantic absorption, a writer's
fantastical musings and a dreamer's midnight reveries.

It melts my longing heart, and stirs the searing passion of this
embodied soul. Spellbound and awestricken I prostrate in the face of
such profundity, beholding the sublimity of Silence in delightful
adoration. It overwhelms me, envelopes me, enshrouds me, enchants me,
enthralls me and finally urges me to experience, explore and expand
into the creative longing of Nature and life... and humbled ... I pine
for romantic perfection, for passionate perpetuation and for endless
posterity!

A young single mother writes of her loneliness and despair.  She feels
discouraged in her attempts to find a partner.

Here is my reply:

I wish I had some magic words to cheer you up.  All that I have to
offer are words of advice.  Please forgive a total stranger for being
so bold as to make some observations.  I sense you are desperate, and
I am concerned that you may be very vulnerable to someone who might
use you.  Love, loyalty and devotion are not things we can purchase in
exchange for giving something to another.   If you do anything with or
for someone with the expectation of something in exchange, then you
are leaving yourself wide open for bitter disappointment anger and
resentment if that person does not repay you as you desire.
In the late 1980s, I read a book for women on self-esteem. I thought
it was by Gloria Steinem, but I cannot find it in google.  The opening
chapter was about a woman whom the author called Nina.  Nina when
through relationship after relationship being used and then discarded.
  Nina went to counseling and decided to take a vacation from
relationships for two years and work on developing her self esteem by
taking various courses at night school.  In one of those classes she
became friends with a man who was totally unlike anyone she would have
ever considered dating.  She was always attracted to the same type of
macho, powerful, controlling male.  This new friend was sensitive,
sentimental, and compassionate.  Their friendship gradually grew into
a relationship and lead to marriage.  The moral of the story is that
"it is easier to make a friend into a lover than it is to make a lover
into a friend."  Nina finally realized that she was in a pattern of
seeking the same type of powerful male, hoping that by joining with
him, she would somehow receive that power.

If you take a night course and join and attend some local church, then
you shall meet a totally different class of people than you would meet
in a tavern.  Perhaps you can find counseling with some pastor or
social worker.  If you volunteer some community work, you may meet
quality people.

Be patient. You are still very young.  Do not act out of desperation.

Remember that many males are very predatory and opportunistic, and
will sense your vulnerability and try to exploit you.

I once found a saying, attributed to CODA (Co-Dependants Anonymous):
"Look in the mirror and you shall see the problem and the solution."

Rather than hope for some knight in shining armor to come and take you
away from your unhappiness, you would be wiser to consider how you can
make a life for yourself and your children on your own.  If you can
address whatever issues there are which keep you from such emotional
and financial independence, then you will find that love may happen
when you least expect it.  Suppose you do not find true love until age
30 or 35. That may sound like a long time, but it will be worth the
wait, and far preferable to the unhappiness and suffering of a toxic
relationship entered into in haste out of desperation.

I hope I have not offended you by offering you these words of advice.

With you permission, I would like to post this advice at my blog,
keeping you anonymous of course by concealing your identity.  Perhaps
others will read my post and offer other valuable advice, which I can
forward to you.

Best regards,

Sitaram


http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

http://www.literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Those who take up the axe of reason
And fell the tree of paradox
In the forest of mysticism
Inevitably have chips on their shoulders.

- Sitaram

The literature forum which I recently joined is discussing the
question: " Is it really possible to be completely Just and Forgiving?"

http://www.literatureforums.net/vb3/showthread.php?p=61253#post61253


The question which this thread poses reminds me of two very
interesting books:

On Forgiveness - Richard Holloway

The Prophets - Abraham Heschel

Holloway chooses as his first epigraph a quotation from Jacques Derrida:


There is only forgiveness, if there is any, where there is the
unforgivable.


The cover of my paperback edition of On Forgiveness displays  a
photograph of an atomic bomb mushroom cloud.  "Forgiveness of the
unforgivable" refers to events like the bombing of Hiroshima and the
Nazi Holocaust.

If I might make an aside comment:  Rabbi Harold Kushner once advised a
woman to "forgive" (i.e. forget) her husband's abandoning of her
family, since if she continues for years to be possessed by anger and
resentment, then she allows her ex-husband a form of victory over her.
  Kushner likens this to anger over the Holocaust, in the sense that if
one permits the feeling to dominate one's life for years, then one
allows the Nazis to be in some sense victorious.  I mention Kushner's
counsel to emphasize that forgiveness or mercy holds a benefit for the
grantor as well as for the recipient.



Heschel ends volume one of his two volume work on The Prophets with an
epilogue on the union of ethos and pathos (justice and mercy), quoting
the Psalmic verse, "Righteousness and peace have kissed."

http://www.spurgeon.org/treasury/ps085.htm

Psalm 85 Verse 10. Mercy and truth meet together. Righteousness and
peace have kissed each other.


Heschel, "The Prophets", Chapter 11 "Justice" page 201

Righteousness goes beyond justice.  Justice is strict and exact,
giving each person his due.  Righteousness implies benevolence,
kindess, generosity.  Justice is form, a state of equilibrium;
righteousness has a substantive associated meaning.  Justice may be
legal; righteousness is associated with a burning compassion for the
oppressed. When you extend a loan to a poor man, "Thou shall not sleep
in his pledge; when the sun goes down, you shall restore to him the
pledge, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it shall be
righteousness to you before the Lord your God" (Deut. 24:10-13).

Justice was not equal justice, in this case, but a bias in favor of
the poor.  Justice always leaned toward mercy for the widows and the
orphans.  Divine justice involves being merciful and compassionate.

Justice dies when dehumanized, no matter how exactly it may be
exercised.  Justice dies when deified, for beyond all justice is God's
compassion.  The logic of justice may seem impersonal, yet the concern
for justice is an act of love.

...
Page 205

In the Iliad [of Homer] gods as well as men are indifferent to wrongs
inflicted, not upon themselves, but on others.  Quite a number of
homicides are mentioned.  However, "outside the circle of the dead
man's kinsmen and friends, there is no indication of any popular
sentiment against ordinary homicide.

...

It was long after the time of the early prophets of Israel that a law
of Solon's (d. 559 B.C.E.) was promulgated in Athens which presupposed
the readiness of the citizens to interfere when wrongs were inflicted
on others.  Solon believed that the best-governing state was that in
which those who had suffered no wrong were as diligent in prosecuting
and punishing the worngdoers as those who had suffered wrong."

...

Pg. 218

Divine ethos does not operate without pathos.  Any thought of an
objectivity, or a Platonic self-subsistence of ideas, be it the idea
of beauty or of justice is alien to the prophets.  God is
all-personal, all-subject. His ethos and pathos are one.


I find this sort of question about forgiveness and justice to be very
interesting.  I would like my post to be a work in progress this
morning, as I return via the edit feature to add to my thoughts.

My own background is largely theological. One may certainly discuss
forgiveness (or mercy) and justice from a theological perspective.
Justice and mercy may also be discussed in a judicial context.  I
would like to address myself first to the theological side, and then
to the judicial.

I should mention that Richard Holloway was Bishop of Edinburgh for 14
years and Gresham Professor of Divinity in the City of London.

And here is an informative Wikipedia article on Abraham Heschel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Joshua_Heschel



Justice and Forgiveness in Jurisprudence

(a work in progress)

One glaring example of forgiveness which possibly conflicts greatly
with due process of law is Executive and Gubernatorial power to pardon.

Nixon's full pardon granted by Ford was part of a deal cut for the
sake of expediency.

Texas' Gov. Bush's refusal to commute the death sentence of Karla Fay
Tucker is an example of his perhaps one opportunity to imitate Jesus'
mercy at the stoning, but Bush refused to imitate or embody the
principles to which he pays such frequent lip service.

The plea-bargain scenes which we constantly see dramatized in crime
shows are a quid-pro-quo gesture of forgiveness with an eye to expediency.

I suppose forgiveness in its purest form would involve no gain or
expediency but rather loss and sacrifice.

Let us take the very simple example of a boy who has been warned not
to play ball near any houses.  He disregards the warning, and breaks a
very expensive picture window.
The home owner may perhaps readily forgive the boy, and yet require
the boy to work until the expense of repairing the window has been
reimbursed.

Now, what does it mean to forgive someone, yet require them to pay for
the damage they have caused?

We might imagine a more generous form of forgiveness which not
forgives the debt, but even makes no mention to the boy or the boy's
parents, acting as if nothing ever happened.  An extreme form of
forgiveness is looking the other way, and pretending to take no notice.

Once, a Zen master was accused by the town of having fathered a child
with a young woman.  The townspeople brought the child to his
doorstep.  The Zen monk simply replied to them "Is that so?".  The
monk cared for the infant for many months, until finally, the mother
and the true father stepped forward to tell the truth.  The
townspeople appeared at the monk's door, most apologetic, and
explained to him their error.  His only reply was "Is that so?"   Now
this monk displayed a very pure form of forgiveness not once, but twice.


During the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton quoted:




The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

	 -- Omar Khayyam
(the Fitzgerald translation)


This is an extreme, existential notion of justice, the justice of
facticity, which can never be erased, and leaves no room for forgiveness.

That moving finger of our freewill choices which writes indelibly is
part and parcel of Sartre's notion that "existence precedes essence."
  Our choices, actions and inaction, are the moving finger which
sketches indelibly the essence of our character.

Sow a thought, reap an action.
Sow an action, reap a habit.
Sow a habit, reap a character.
Sow a character, reap a destiny.

There is no room for forgiveness in the karmic concept of a justice
and retribution which is built into action just as Newton's Third Law
is built into the nature of mass and motion.


What might we say about justice versus forgiveness in the case of
Clinton's scandal?

Clinton faced possible impeachment not for his misconduct but
regarding issues such as perjury and obstruction of justice.

Now, suppose you were to have lunch tomorrow with Bill Clinton.  If
you truly forgave him, then you would act towards him, I suppose, as
if nothing had ever happened.  Well, suppose you were very cordial to
him and accorded him great honor as a former President.  Would your
conduct constitute forgiveness?  But what of your inner feelings.
Would inwardly harbor some feeling of disdain or resentment towards
Clinton.  And if you did conceal such feelings, then could we say that
you truly forgive him?

Forgiveness seems to have something to do with forgetting.

With regard to Clinton and justice, Clinton forfitted his Arkansas
license to practice law for a period of five years:

http://www.nysun.com/article/25965

As of 2006, Clinton is eligible to petition for re-admittance to the
bar.  It is not clear when or if he will make that petition.


I watched a documentary on television about a man whose wife had been
killed by a drunk driver.  The widower was a deeply religious
Christian who took very seriously the commandment to forgive and love
even one's worst enemy.  This bereaved man appeared before the judge
and vigorously appealed for clemency to be granted to the convicted
driver.  The victim and the guilty are now close friends and make
public appearances to educate people on the dangers of drinking and
driving.

I have frequently quoted Vonnegut's shrewed observation that
Bible-belt Americans are always clamoring for monuments to Moses' Ten
Commandments, but no one ever asks for a monument to Jesus' Beatitudes
of the Sermon on the Mount, one of which is "Blessed are the merciful
for they shall obtain mercy."

Occasionaly, I see news coverage of a death row inmate.  Christian
family members of the victim are sometimes inteviewed, waiting outside
the prison, demanding justice, anxious to observe the execution and
experience the satisfaction of retribution and closure.

+++++++++++++++++

Is it really necessary to forget in order to forgive? I think that is
the challenge: to remember the wrong done (by remmebering I don't mean
I don't mean dwelling on it), yet to forgive the person for having
committed the wrongdoing.

I don't honestly know the answer. I am puzzled by many things in this
difficult question of justice and forgiveness.

When a husband is unfaithful to his wife, and she forgives him, then,
to what extent does she remember the transgression, and how does her
recollection change their daily relationship as husband and wife?

When I was in 6th. grade, our teacher made us copy down a proverb
every day into our permanent notebooks.  I still remember a few of
them. One is "Once the cord of friendship is broken, though retied,
there always remains a knot."

I was just about to post some excerpts from Richard Holloway's book
"On Forgiveness", when I saw your post on forgetting.   I shall post
those excerpts next.  I think that Holloway and Heschel bring an
unusual dimension to this discussion for many who unfamiliar with such
works.

Did you ever notice how it is the rudest and most aggressive people in
crowds, who elbow everyone out of the way, toppling the elderly and
handicapped, as they loudly proclaim "SCUSE ME".

Quite a lot of lipservice in the matter of forgiveness.  How often is
it that the person who said "I'm sorry" is truly sorry.  And in case
of repeat offenders, it is obvious that they cannot be sorry, or they
would not commit the same offenses over and over.

What are the "fruits" or signs of forgiveness, or repentence (reform)?


For example, many pay lipservice to racial equality and gender
equality.  After all, it is the politically correct thing to do.  The
genuine fruits are obvious only when sees a parent truly happy over
the marriage of their child to someone of another race, or when one
sees women assuming executive positions in equal numbers with males.

As I was thinking about the nature of forgiveness, just now, I began
to think about the Nicholas Cage movie, "Leaving Las Vegas", the story
of an alcoholic and a prostitute who fall in love.   Their love is
preceded by a cautious covenant which requires each to "forgive" the
fault of the other.  The alcoholic warns her that she must never ever
make any attempt to stop his drinking.  She makes a gesture of
acceptance by purchasing for him a small silver liquor flask.  His
covenant with her, to forgive or overlook her life as a prostitute, is
more implicit.

A breach of trust when she discovers him making love to another woman.
  She seems unwilling to forgive him this fault and leaves him.

When we accept someone as they are, for what they are, then we
overlook or forgive certain undesirable things about them.

+++++

Here are a few excerpts from "On Forgiveness" by Richard Holloway:

Chapter One

Religion Without Religion


You don't have to be religious to believe in or practice forgiveness.
  You might even argue that religion can make people invincibly
unforgiving, but the fact remains that religion gives us many of the
best stories and metaphors for forgiveness.

�

When I take part in radio discussions on religion, I am frequently
challenged by people to give a straight yes or no in answer to their
questions about the meaning of particular passages in the Bible.  I
always resist these attempts to turn theology into algebra, by
pointing out that there are honestly different ways of using and
understanding religious narratives.  What is important is to use them
to improve rather than damage the health of the human community.  We
are more likely to agree on that objective than on establishing their
precise theological meaning.  This way of using religion tries to show
that some of its best values are now accepted by the community at
large, so the important thing is to concentrate on the continuing
development of these values and pay less attention to the agencies
that have carried them through history.  Like the rocket that has to
fall away when it has established its satellite in space, religion has
thrust its best values into the human orbit where we hope they will
continue to do their work long after the vehicle that got them there
has disappeared.  What happens to the launch engine is not as
important as the future of the ideals it has carried, though there
will be some sadness as we see it disintegrating now that its purpose
has been achieved.  This approach continues to accord a high value to
the impulse behind religion, though it no longer takes any of the
particular religions at their own self-estimation.  It is a position
that Jacques Derrida calls `religion without religion'.   According to
this way of looking at things, it is the fundamental ideals we find in
religions that matter, not the religions themselves.  The most
important of these ideals, the love of God, has been the most
difficult to define.  This is how John Caputo puts it, as he echoes
the famous question of Augustine of Hippo from his Confessions:

What do I love when I love my God?  Not the burnt offerings and solemn
assemblies, but justice.  Is justice then another name for God?  Or is
God another name for justice?  If I serve the neighbour in the name of
justice, what difference does it make?  If the name of God is a how,
not a what, then the name of God is effective even when it is not used.




+++

I slept for a few hours this evening, and the moment I awakened, I had
the thought that part of justice involves never fully forgiving
oneself.  What I mean is, if you do something dreadful, then even
after you pay your fines and finish your prison sentence, and you can
say "I have paid my debt to society", you are still forced to live
with the memory of your crime.

I do not mean that you should not forgive yourself.  Whatever happens
in life, we must somehow pick up the pieces, dust ourselves off, and
move on.  What I mean is that you can't forgive yourself.  You are
constantly haunted by the memory of what you did.  Think of the two
young men from Laramie, Wyoming, in prison for life, because they were
strung out on meth and murdered Matthew Shepard.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1

Consider the movie "Damage" with Jeremy Irons and Juliette Binoche.
The character which Jeremy Irons portrays does something monstrous
which results indirectly in his son's death and directly in the loss
of his wife and career.  At the end of the movie, we see him sitting
day after day in a room in a remote village, simply starring at a
wall.  He cannot forget.  He cannot forgive himself.  He cannot get on
with his life.

++++

I began this morning with a search for Plato's definition of Justice,
or any other definition, other than the sort one finds in a dictionary.

I will be reading through this linke:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_on-plato.html


We need to define our terms Justice and Forgiveness.  We often seek
precise answers to vague questions.  Vagueness has a pervasive quality.

The statues of Justice which adorn our court buildings is a woman
holding a balance. She is not blind, but merely blindfolded.

A balance (scales) connotes equality.  (I am just trying to brainstorm
here, as I drink my first cup of coffee).

Yet Heschel argues that the prophets of the Old Testament, as well as
some of the commandments themselves, stress a favoritism towards the
poor and orphaned.  Such a favoring is not inequality, or injustice, I
suppose, but merely an attempt, through compassion, to level the
playing field between the empowered rich and the helpless impoverished.

How vividly I member that character Polemarchus, in The Republic, who
argues that it is good to be able to help one's friends and harm one's
enemies.


This entire thread commences with the question "Is it possible to have
justice and forgiveness at the same time", if I may paraphrase.
Perhaps the very difficulty of having justice and mercy coexist is why
we strive towards achieving that balance.

Let's look a bit at the above link on Plato.


Morgenstern was one of several [scholars] not sure whether the search
after justice or the building of a state were its real aim [of Plato's
Republic]. On the other hand, Stallbaum thought the intention was to
be found "in the representation of human life in a state perfected by
justice and governed according to the idea of good." Jowett, replying
to the doubt raised by Morgenstern, says:

     The answer is, that the two blend in one and are two faces of the
same truth; for justice is the order of the state, and the state is
the visible embodiment of justice under the conditions of human
society. The one is the soul, and the other is the body, and the Greek
idea of the state, as of the individual, is a fair mind in a fair
body. In Hegelian phraseology, the state is the reality of which
justice is the idea. Or, described in Christian language, the Kingdom
of God is within, and yet develops into a Church, or external kingdom;
"the house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens," is reduced to
the proportions of an earthly building. Or, to use a Platonic image,
justice and the state are the warp and the woof which run through the
whole texture. And when the constitution of the state is completed,
the conception of justice is not dismissed, but reappears under the
same or different names throughout the work, both as the inner law of
the individual soul, and finally as the principle of rewards and
punishments in another life.


In our recent times, it seems conceivable that a country might go to
war, not for power, or a seaport, but to defend some distant people
from human rights violations.  This seems a new development in the
history of human events.  Of course, there are those who will argue
the ulterior motives of such liberators.  If it is possible for a
nation to become the champion of the suffering afflicted, then I
suspect that justice and mercy are to be found somewhere close by.
But here I am always confusing mercy with forgiveness. To forgive is
an act of mercy, I suppose. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive
those who trespass against us."  Actually, the original Greek of this
prayer uses the words "aphes eemin ta opheleimata eemon", where the
words aphes and opheleimata connote debts or obligations more than
trespasses.  We often hear the phrase "forgiveness of debts".
Reorganization under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is a form of forgiveness.

Let's examine another excerpt from our link above:


Evidently justice is not readily discovered in the simple or frugal
state, so a luxurious state is thought of; for in such a state,
Socrates says, "we shall be more likely to see how justice and
injustice originate." He reminds them that in his opinion the true and
healthy constitution of the state is the one which he has described,
but, if they wish "to see a state at fever-heat," he has no objection
to the idea of building a luxurious state. He suspects that many will
not be satisfied with the simpler way of life. So numbers of
non-essential callings are created, and the de luxe state is set
going, increasing desires, and, by the growth of population, exceeding
its bounds.

     Then a slice of our neighbours' land will be coveted by us fc>r
pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like
ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up
to the unlimited accumulation of wealth.



That, Socrates, will be inevitable.

And so we shall go to war, Glaucon, shall we not?

Most certainly, he replied.

Then, without determining as yet whether war does good or harm, this
much we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to be derived from
causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in states,
private as well as public.

The phrase, wanting "a slice of our neighbours' land," may be
translated into the language of the Foreign or Colonial Office as
desiring commercial penetration, or trade following the flag, or
civilizing the backward native, or developing the natural resources of
the ignorant savage. There are many polite ways of expressing
Socrates' crude remark. In any case, he clearly saw war as derived
from the cause which underlies "almost all the evils in states,
private as well as public." Moreover, a slice of a neighbour's land,
in the sense of territorial aggression, implies such evils as tribute
and slavery; for it is not a mere slice of land that is the military
objective; it is the fiscal and labour possibilities which go with
captured land.

The argument that follows, describing what is necessary in a luxurious
state, once a slice of a neighbour's land is wanted, is Hebraic in
tone and reads almost like a broad paraphrase of Deuteronomy. "Cursed
be he who removeth his neighbour's landmark." And now armies,
policemen, magistrates, politicians, and all the departments for
protection and aggression multiply fast. People are drafted from their
essential occupations into others, where they are to be drilled and
regimented. Parasites increase, and well-fed drones batten on the
producers.


It occurs to me that forging a society with justice and equality for
all involves nurturing a spirit of mercy and forgiveness in each citizen.

Perhaps, in the following excerpt, we can see an example of
forgiveness playing a role in the restoration of justice:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/platopol.htm



The essence of the constitutional reform which Solon made in 593
B.C.E., over one hundred and fifty years before Plato's birth, when he
became the Athenian leader, was the restoration of righteous order,
eunomia. In the early part of the sixth century Athens was disturbed
by a great tension between two parties: the poor and the rich, and
stood at the brink of a fierce civil war. On the one hand, because of
an economic crisis, many poorer Athenians were hopelessly falling into
debt, and since their loans were often secured by their own persons,
thousands of them were put into serfdom. On the other hand, lured by
easy profits from loans, the rich stood firmly in defense of private
property and their ancient privileges. The partisan strife, which
seemed inevitable, would make Athens even more weak economically and
defenseless before external enemies. Appointed as a mediator in this
conflict, Solon enacted laws prohibiting loans on the security of the
person. He lowered the rate of interest, ordered the cancellation of
all debts, and gave freedom to serfs. He acted so moderately and
impartially that he became unpopular with both parties. The rich felt
hurt by the reform. The poor, unable to hold excess in check, demanded
a complete redistribution of landed property and the dividing of it
into equal shares. Nevertheless, despite these criticisms from both
sides, Solon succeeded in gaining social peace. Further, by
implementing new constitutional laws, he set up a "mighty shield
against both parties and did not allow either to win an unjust
victory" (Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution). He introduced a
system of checks and balances which would not favor any side, but took
into consideration legitimate interests of all social groups. In his
position, he could easily have become the tyrant over the city, but he
did not seek power for himself. After he completed his reform, he left
Athens in order to see whether it would stand the test of time, and
returned to his country only ten years later. Even though in 561
Pisistratus seized power and became the first in a succession of
Athenian tyrants, and in 461 the democratic leader Ephialtes abolished
the checks upon popular sovereignty, Solon's reform provided the
ancient Greeks with a model of both political leadership and order
based on impartiality and fairness. Justice for Solon is not an
arithmetical equality: giving equal shares to all alike irrespective
of merit, which represents the democratic concept of distributive
justice, but it is equity or fairness based on difference: giving
shares proportionate to the merit of those who receive them. The same
ideas of political order, leadership, and justice can be found in
Plato's dialogues.

Here is a link which asks whether Philosophy is an art or a science.

http://www.literatureforums.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=2767

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1006.php

Visit http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

Here is my reply, posted to the thread:


Early in Plato's Republic, Socrates states that "Philosophy is a
preparation for death."

Before we can say whether Philosophy is a science or an art, we must
spend some time defining what we mean by the words "science" and "art".

The question presumes that Philosophy must be one or the other.  It is
possible that Philosophy is neither.

How does science differ from art?

One hallmark of science is that results are objective and repeatable.

One hallmark of art is that it is subjective and unique.

http://www.icoste.org/news0404.htm


So what is the difference between science and art? Science is governed
by unchangeable rules. This is why we can give the same mathematical
equation to ten people educated in the science of mathematics and
arrive at the same answer each and every time. Art, on the other hand,
is a learned skill derived from experience and, as such, is full of
human judgement. Give the same artistic problem to ten people and it
is entirely possible you'll get back ten different answers, all of
which are more or less appropriate under the circumstances.


Historically, philosophers and philosophy appear earlier than
scientists and science.


Art in the sense of painting and song or verse appears earlier than
philosophy or science.


http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee501/moore2.html


The first truths sought or philosophical questions raised by people
had to do with the meaning and purpose of existence. The Egyptians
wondered if there was life in the hereafter. Thales, the first Greek
philosopher, pondered about what the substance of life was (he
concluded it was water). As we began to search for answers to
questions about existence, the questions became more concrete. What
causes toothaches? Why does it frost? Questions dealing with naturally
occurring phenomena were classified as "natural philosophy." Natural
philosophy has evolved into what we call science.


http://denisdutton.com/moscow_address.htm


The first line is most famously represented by Plato, whose respect
for the power of art was so great that he thought it would have to be
rigorously censored and controlled in his ideal republic. For Plato,
as for the Greeks generally, art was mimesis, an imitation or
representation of reality. As artists were apt to get their
representations of reality wrong, art was not only in danger of
spreading ignorance and misinformation, but of weakening the very
fabric of society. Plato did not ban all art from the republic �
painting and sculpture, if we read carefully, are not generally
excluded. His main targets were the narrative arts of poetry and
drama, which were to be admitted to the republic only in censored
form, as "hymns to the gods and praises of noble people"(607a).



science, with progress as one of its primary goals, seeks
understanding through objective methods (even though it rarely attains
it). The arts seek provocation of emotion and reflection through
subjective means. The more subjective the endeavor, the more personal
it becomes, and therefore difficult if not impossible for anyone else
to replicate. The more objective the pursuit, the more likely someone
else would have made the achievement. Darwin's theory of natural
selection would have been (and, in fact, was by Wallace) replicated
because the scientific process is empirically verifiable. In a crude
dichotomy, the difference between science and art is discovery versus
creation. Freud's theory of psychoanalysis probably would not have
been presented by another, because it was a creation of one
individual's mind more than it was a discovery.

We cannot, in any absolute sense, equate happiness with progress, or
progress with happiness. But if an individual finds happiness in the
progress produced by science and technology, there is a rational way
to quantify and define how this progress can be accomplished. As
scientific progress was defined above, the definition for
technological systems can similarly be made:



http://www.mindport.org/kevin/mhistory.html


The major difference I can discern between a scientist and an artist
is one of belief. The scientist proceeds from one set of assumptions
about the universe and his relationship to it, and the artist proceeds
from another.

The scientist presumes that we live in a rationally comprehensible
universe which is outside of ourselves, and that it is knowable by the
exercise of so-called "objective" observation and the use of formal
logic. The scientist is moved by the beauty of what he sees, and his
reaction is to want to understand it, to encompass it some way. But
his way of encompassing is different than that of the artist.

Scientific observation is of physical relationships between things.
The scientist encompasses the object of his attraction by noticing
what it does in relation to other objects and their actions.
Necessarily, the scientist must break his observed world up into
discrete objects so that he has something to observe. (This process of
"lumping" things is probably a fundamental property of the Western way
of thinking.) We say, "This thing here is a cup, this one is a teapot,
this is a paper towel." All of them are separate and discrete objects
which exist apart from each other in form and function. Certain of
their qualities are fair game for scientific study. . . in fact ANY
quality is fair game as long as nothing "subjective" is brought to the
observation.

Science and art both are driven by an esthetic sense and a desire to
know the world. Science is limited by certain rules: it pretends to
ignore values. You might even say that science is really art with
something left out. Both scientist and artist have a subject sense of
beauty in connection with what they observe. The scientist does his
observations according to a certain set of beliefs about what he's
doing, and the artist conducts his observations according to a
different set of beliefs which encompass more.


Science and art, as I've said, are both ways of grokking* the world,
to use Heinlein's term. You can collect starfish skeletons on the
beach and study them mathematically or esthetically. (Mathematics IS
esthetics to some.) Each way of studying them is an attempt understand
the ISness of the starfish. But each way is also an attempt to
understand a relation of the man to the starfish, and the man to
himself. The understanding of the scientist requires a different mode
of being than the understanding of the artist, and each mode of being
has its own importance in the scheme of things. Each mode requires the
manifestation of a different aspect of our selves, and both these
manifestations of self are important aspects of our all.

In grokking the starfish, we grok ourselves. We might say that the
exhibit we're building is our grokking of a corner of the universe
which we name "starfish" and of our simultaneous grokking of ourselves
grokking starfish. Someone who sees our exhibit might say, "Look at
all this stuff about starfish." But he isn't seeing stuff about
starfish, he's seeing starfish as understood by us. We hope that his
seeing it will teach him something about his ability to widen his own
understanding.

*This term appeared in Robert Heinlein's book, Stranger in a Strange
Land, which was popular with the counter-culture during the 1960's. To
"grok" something means approximately to understand it completely in
all its complexity.



http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=clarence550M&nextdate=4%2f2%2f2005+2%3a0%3a3\
2.480


"The difference between science and art is not that they deal with
different objects, but that they deal with the same objects in
different ways. Science gives us conceptual knowledge of a situation;
art gives us the experience of that situation." (T. Eagleton)


http://www.cthisspace.com/intro.html


"In a crude dichotomy, the difference between science and art is
discovery versus creation."


http://www.bowdoin.edu/news/archives/1bowdoincampus/002200.shtml


"Scientists break problems into smaller and smaller ones, until we get
to one small enough to answer," he said. "Artists often don't care
what the answer is, because definite answers don't exist. The
exquisite contradictions of the human heart, to me, are what make life
interesting."

http://www.kennethsnelson.net/articles/contemporanea_heartney_90.htm


Science has to be reproducible, and art is absolutely not supposed to be."


For further reading:

http://www.zubiri.org/works/englishworks/nhg/ideaofphilosophy.htm


http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/tolstoy.html

http://www.piclab.com/lee/index.php/Philosophy

http://www.stanford.edu/~rrorty/analytictrans.htm

http://sow.colloquium.co.uk/~barrett/jacques.htm

I have found a wonderful story from India at the following link:


http://www.yimag.org/mkm/pilgrimage.html


I have changed only a few words and phrases here and there in the
story to make it easier for people outside of India to relate to it.
It is quite amazing how a few changes of words and phrases transform
this story from being something quite alien and unfamiliar into a
story which is familiar to many.

Long, long ago, a demon sent forth legions of mud-dwelling creatures
from the bottom of the sea to capture the scriptures and thus destroy
their content. And as the dark waters swallowed the knowledge of
prayer, the higher values of life also sank into the depths. People
forgot the difference between good and bad and could no longer
distinguish between right and wrong. As their power of discrimination
faded, acts of charity and other forms of selfless service vanished.

Fear, hunger, sleep, and sex became the motivating forces for all
human activities.

Trust disappeared and with it any semblance of loving relationships
between men and women. The population soared while the general state
of health plummeted. Striving to appease their insatiable desires,
humans plundered the natural world-laying waste to forests and
valleys, polluting rivers and lakes, and robbing the soil of its
vitality. Life was miserable for everyone but the demon and his
bottom-dwelling minions.


Seeing how severely nature had been weakened, the demon then decided
to finish it off by attacking and conquering the forces of
nurturance-the soil, vegetation, water, fire, air, and clouds. The
angels, bright beings who are the presiding forces of nature, fled and
hid themselves.  With the angels gone, the demon demolished natural
law and imposed his own rule, ushering in his reign with earthquakes,
volcanoes, tornadoes, typhoons, wildfires, droughts, floods, and all
manner of epidemics.


Chaos stalked the Earth, and the angels were in hiding, so the saints
  resolved to intervene. Approaching the Lord, the supreme force of
protection and nourishment, they meditated on him with love and faith,
asking him to come to their aid. In response the Lord told them, "With
a one-pointed and disciplined mind, join forces to gather the divine
knowledge once again, and while you fulfill this task I will bring the
angels from their hiding place and dwell with them. Come and join
us there."


The Lord went forth and vanquished the demon.


Meanwhile the Saints had again gone into deep prayer, and had
re-discovered divine wisdom. There they asked the Lord's  permission
to bring the knowledge of the Vedas into practice for the benefit of
all creation. In granting their request, the Lord said, "The secret of
success lies in sacrifice, and the scriptures tell us how to walk this
path. In every aspect of creation there is a continuous ceremony of
sacrifice. Leaves decompose and nourish other organisms. It is the
same with everything-nothing in creation is meant for itself. There is
one sacrifice which is greatest among all sacrifices. Those who
perform this sacrifice their personal desires for the sake of the
larger welfare. They train and tame their mind and senses - and
finally they share this harnessed energy with all living beings. This
form of sacrifice nourishes humankind and every other form of life.
Let us now perform this sacrifice." So at the Lord's command all
aspects of nature, the angles, their presiding forces, and the saints
(the seers of divine wisdom), along with all the heavenly host, took
part in this great sacrifice.


The sacrifice lasted for years, and by the time it was completed an
astounding transformation was apparent everywhere. People had regained
their interest in learning. They began to embrace the higher values in
life and to take pleasure in performing acts of charity and selfless
service. Their power of discrimination blossomed and the confusion
between right and wrong vanished. Fear, hunger, sex, and sleep were no
longer the motivating forces behind human activity. Relationships
between men and women were now built on trust, and people once again
understood the purpose of life. They remembered
how to live in harmony with the natural world, and as they did, the
ecosystem came back into balance. Even the demons were
transformed: instead of trying to destroy sacred wisdom, they worked
in concert with the angels and other forces of nurturance. And with
the natural world once again bursting with vitality, peace and
prosperity reigned. Seeing this, the saints and angels prostrated in
gratitude at the feet of the Lord: "It is through your grace, O Lord,
that we have been empowered and that all living beings have found
their rightful place in this creation. The energy emanating from this
great sacrifice has brought harmony out of chaos. For this reason we
ask you to bless one sacred place of pilgrimage on earth so that it
may always be the most auspicious and powerful place on the Earth. May
the energy emitting from this holy land guide humanity through all
eternity. May all human endeavor undertaken here be auspicious.


May acts of charity and self-sacrifice performed here bear fruit
without limit."


The Lord readily granted their wish. "Be it so," he said. "From now on
this place will also be known as "the field of pure consciousness" and
"the lord of all holy places". The concentration of spiritual energy
here will purify the way of the soul. By the simple act of coming
here, even minds and hearts that are tainted by dreadful crimes over
the course of many lifetimes will be purified. One day's practice done
here properly will bear the fruit of a decade of continuous practice
anywhere else. Periodically all the benevolent forces of creation, the
energies of all holy places, the saints, and the angels will convene
here. And just as darkness vanishes with the sunrise, obstacles to
spiritual practices have no power to withstand the brilliance of this
conjunction of time and place. Practices undertaken here at this time
open the door to all possibilities."


Once during a time of material prosperity the higher virtues again
fell into decline, and as a result the manna of holiness almost
vanished from this earthly realm. All living beings and all aspects of
nature  became weak and pale. The angels and saints pleaded with the


Creator to recharge creation with fresh vitality, but were told that
the sanctity in life now lay buried and obscured. People of all races
and faiths joined forces to find and recover the sanctity. They set
out to churn an entire ocean of words and texts, and churn they did,
laboring night and day. But to their dismay the first fruit of their
labor was not the sanctity they were seeking but a vial of poison so
deadly that if it were unleased it would scorch all creation. The
search could not go on until this menace was removed, yet no one had
the capacity or the wisdom to dispose of it except the Lord who
appeared and took upon himself all the sin.


This ceremony is known as "the spiritual gathering around the vessel."


When we attempt to procure holiness we must be ready to deal with
poison; we can benefit from gathering around the vessel of holiness
only when we realize that poison and manna go hand in hand.


Achieving even the noblest goal entails some degree of pain and
temptation. And because our natural tendency is to avoid pain, the
one who takes it on for the sake of others becomes like God, the most
auspicious and benevolent of beings.




See the http://myspace.com/literarydiscussions blog entry for this

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=71049306&blogID=\
123474481&Mytoken=BA988F1A-50DD-45A9-BBE02414FD1D97FD135234359