Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12649Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Pallavi's question

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Morgen
    Feb 2, 2004
      Jason Fishman wrote:


      Bruce Morgen <editor@...> wrote:
      Nina wrote:
      Hello, Sandeep,
      
      Since you uploaded this file, I wonder if you would
      care to share your answer to Pallavi's question.
      
      In your file description, you say she has it figured out.
      However, she only asks questions, and nevers offers a
      conclusion. Perhaps, you have found a conclusion somewhere
      in her show... and this is what I am interested to know.
      
      What moved you to post it here?
                
      I thought Nina might be moved.
      
      Pallavi, a 12 year old girl,.......is just bewildered 
      with the world right now.
      
      What would you Nina, like to answer her?
            
      No, no, you posted the original, please do go first as
      regards what you would like to answer her.
      
      Nina
      
      
      Oh come now Nina, take the leap.
      
      Peace and Love
          
      Jason, you might be able to see that I have already
      taken a leap, considering Sandeep's cryptic,
      uncontextualized posting. If he gives it context,
      then a discussion may ensue, otherwise, the posting
      remains in the realm of flippant one-linership,
      another manipulation via senti-mentality. That's why
      I was asking him what his thoughts behind it were -
      it can't be that Sandeep is intending to come from
      such a place.
      
      
        

      I personally don't see this
      girl as "bewildered" at all.
      Like most bright, computer-
      equipped kids of her years,
      she's far too savvy to not
      be aware of the age-old
      haves vs. have-nots
      dichotomy that has
      characterized human history
      from the recorded gitgo.

      That seem extremely shallow Bruce. To suggest that a 12 year old isn't bewildered by all the images of suffering she sees with enough gumption to put a presentation together asking "why does this have to be this way?"

      It doesn't take much in the
      way of "gumption" to
      assemble a PowerPoint show
      and ask a question with a
      very well-known (if not
      terribly gratifying" answer.


      Sandeep is also very canny
      -- he's presenting this as
      a guilt trip to ellicit
      sympathy from materially
      comfortable middle-class
      folks who, by dint of
      cultural and/or hormonal
      conditioning, are attracted
      to little children.  There
      is a big difference between
      guilt/shame-provoked
      sentiment and true compassion,
      which isn't in the least bit
      sentimental and is never the
      result of deft emotional
      manipulation.

      Wow, really? Compassion not born of sentiment? Not born of guilt/shame provokation? What is compassion if not for the have-nots in contrast of the haves?


      Compassion is the human
      body/mind's expression of
      non-dual realization.  It
      has nothing to do with
      sentiment at all, and its
      form are myriad and often
      (if superficially) seem to
      be downright unkind.

      You actually could easily feel like that presentation is an emotional guilt trip, that seems quite discompassionate.

      Compassion has nothing
      whatsoever to do with
      appearances.

      It's a reality, a truth to this global village we live, a great reasoning behind wars that rage between the compassionate (haves) and the discompassionate (haves) therefore this, the have-nots a result.

      Karma is karma, there will
      always be causes and
      effects.  If the planet
      embraces a generous ilk of
      Fabian Socialism and
      strives mightily to bridge
      the have/have-not disparity,
      that too will have effects,
      and undoubtedly some of them
      will be unanticipated by the
      idealists who long for such
      a paradigm shift.

      Perhaps if the global village was enroute to settling some of the materilastic principles from the basic needs scenario, there would be more compassion that isn't born out of anything sentimental.

      Sorry, Jason, I don't get
      what you mean by the above.

      Yes, Bruce I want the good ole days when people died of starvation and lived an entire live of fear for thier lives.

      You wanting or not wanting it
      is irrelevant, it's simply the
      way it continues to be.  Given
      the burgeoning growth of
      middle classes all over the
      world in the last century
      (disproportionately in North
      America, western Europe, and
      northeast Asia, but I digress),
      there are probably more "haves"
      by percentage than at any other
      time in human history.  Of
      course this serves to underline
      the bereft state of the (still
      billions of) "have-nots," but
      the situation is improving at
      may well be the limit of a
      planet-sized population's
      ability to endure and integrate
      change.

      Yet we even have people here (in the us) running around taking all kinds of drugs and drink just to get through the day without fear, this from the healthy well-fed group, thats pretty sad also.

      Yes, something that Sandeep's
      contrivance doesn't address.

      There is plenty of natural selection occuring, which isn't going to change because the haves are or are not offering up the resources they protect so defly. There is plenty of contrast that humans have little, if any, control over. But we still have at it over materials that we don't need.

      All that has to happen is a
      broad political consensus
      among the "haves" for the
      sharing of unneeded resources --
      a worthy goal, but not any easy
      one!

      Whether reality is manipulating us or we are manipulating reality or an even combination, any which way, there still appears to be a choice and people still appear to choose live and let die, long slow painfully horrific deaths, while they cannot even contribute an instant of thier time to even write a few words on an answer for a 12 year old girl that poses a question, as complex, as the simple why question is. We'd much rather find the modus operanda of it. That to me is the apex of discompassion of which I don't feel guilt for.

      Whatever, we each in our own
      way took Sandeepji's bait --
      you to express generosity with
      (your and other folks') material
      wealth, me to point out some
      deft game-playing on Sandeepji's
      part.  The meditative state is
      one of equanimity to either ilk
      of response -- creation is
      perfect with or without human
      material generosity (a perogative
      of the relatively wealthy) and
      selfishness (if not overdone, a
      simple survival trait) or, for
      that matter, the ancient (but
      merely apparent) dichotomy
      between the two.

      Peace and Love



    • Show all 25 messages in this topic