>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > In the news
        > SRF war stance		 New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
Borg108
Registered User
(3/14/03 8:35 am)
Reply 		SRF war stance
The following just appeared in Allen Schmidt's SRF devotees newsletter. It reminds me of when several SRF monastics counseled me to join the Army during the time of the Vietnam war.

> After reading through the last newsletter, I picked up
> the phone and called
> the Mother Center.
>
> "Hello," I began, "I am calling to inquire where SRF
> stands on the current
> world situation."
>
> "We are a religious organization," came the predictable
> response. "We do not
> participate in political activity."
>
> "The reason I was asking," I continued, "is that the
> online SRF devotees
> newsletter is beginning to carry a number of messages
> from devotees
> apparently anxious to announce their antiwar political
> position under the
> aegis of SRF. One even wrote in recommending a website
> devoted to a psychic
> doing an antiwar benefit in Baghdad. When these things
> are presented in an
> SRF venue, It gives the appearance that they are
> reflecting SRF's position.
> I have received, from SRF devotees using the newsletter
> mailing list, emails
> inviting me to participate in pro Iraq activism. The
> overall implication is
> that the antiwar, pro Iraq position is quite naturally
> the position of SRF.
> It appears to be taken for granted. So I wondered if this
> is so."
>
> "Oh, no," came the response from the Mother Center. "The
> guru always stands
> for peace, even if it takes war to achieve it."
>
> "What you say, " I continued, " sounds to me like you are
> talking about the
> kind of peace achieved by gaining permanent victory over
> dictators, as in
> WWII. But I want to be sure, since there's also the
> kind of peace the
> French and others obtained by appeasing Hitler with
> Czechoslovakia in the
> treaty of Munich. If I recall correctly, the result of
> that appeasement was
> that Hitler began rolling over Europe. Does SRF support
> that kind of peace?
>
> "No, the guru does not support appeasement of dictators.
> The guru stands for
> genuine and permanent peace. "



"When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"
-Malvina Reynolds
Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

Edited by: Borg108 at: 3/14/03 8:53:47 am
chrisparis
Registered User
(3/14/03 8:53 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF war stance
The right for a person to be a pacifist in a free country has been purchased by those who have been willing to take up arms in defense of liberty.

chela2020
Registered User
(3/14/03 4:45 pm)
Reply 		Re: SRF war stance
Borg: That is a very interesting statement made my MC:

"Oh, no," came the response from the Mother Center. "The guru always stands for peace, even if it takes war to achieve it."

I cannot believe that Yogananda would think that way. One wonders what the person was thinking about when he/she said this?

MastersChela
Registered User
(3/14/03 9:21 pm)
Reply 		Re: SRF war stance
I think "the Guru" (God), would always stand up for rightious war. Didn't Lord Krishna urge Arjuna to fight?

I think the more important question to be asked here, when examining whether Master would support the Bush War, is this: "Is this coming war a rightious one?" Is our military really being used to liberate the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator, or is this a war to preserve the value of the US dollar and to bring Iraqi oil under US control?

For my own answer, I can only say that I believe this war to be not rightious, but self-rightious. It is a war about American military "might makes right" and it has it's roots in economic soil, not humanitarian soil. If this govt. were really concerned about Saddam gassing his own people, we should have said something back in the 80's when we were giving him the gas. If this were about "Weapons of Mass Distruction," wouldn't we ask the #! owner of WMD in the Middle East (Israel) to do something about theirs? Why not threaten N. Korea with war?

Lobo
Registered User
(3/14/03 10:49 pm)
Reply 		Re: SRF war stance
Gandhi was a pacifist. He certainly was in a country, his own, that wasn't free. And no arms were taken up to defend his, and millions of others, right to be pacifists.

War is over-rated. But your point, Chris, is understood of course.

May Peace Prevail On Earth!

OM SHANTI, OM SHANTI, OM SHANTI, OM

Borg108
Registered User
(3/15/03 12:08 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF war stance
Good points, Masters Chela and Lobo. When I was new on the path and one of the SRF ministers told me it was stated in the Gita by Krishna to Arjuna that one had a duty to fight, so I should go to Vietnam if called upon to do so. I wish I had read the Gita more carefully then and had noticed where it said about it needing to be a righteous cause. The samething seems to be happening now in the way that SRF spokepersons are interpreting things without due consideration of righteous behavior. The headquarters person said that Guruji felt dictators should be opposed rather than appeased. But that could really mean we should oppose the dictates of the US policies of aggression, as most of the rest of the world is now doing. This is another example of SRF's slant on things being opposite to what the Guru might actually say or do if he were still in his physical form.

Edited by: Borg108 at: 3/15/03 12:10:09 am
parabastha
Registered User
(3/15/03 6:00 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF war stance
Master, from the tape "Stories to Remember", formerly published by Ananda (before the last lawsuit, when they lost the right to publish it). The talk is PY's address at the dedication of the SRF Lake Shrine, August 1950):

"We must have an international police force, nonviolence alone will not do. If you go into the tiger's cage and say, 'Mr. Tiger, I am going to practice nonviolence on you,' he will chew you up before you can preach it. Not all peoples of the world are educated enough to understand nonviolence. Of course, we want that state where a police force will not be necessary, but there will always be some who will be wicked, and we have to be on guard. War is unnecessary and we should make it unncessary by cooperating in every way for the sake of peace. We believe and pray that brotherhood may come through the peaceful means advocated by Mahatma Gandhi, rather than by force, but it must come, by whatever means is necessary!" (Applause from the public)

He also said at that talk: "I did not come here to create a church, sect or new cult. I do not believe in such things!"

And he talks about "world-brotherhood colonies"...

I wonder if ever SRF will publish that talk again, now they won the exclusive right to publish it. Probably some parts will be edited out, as it was done with the most recent tape, "Self-Realization: The Inner and Outer Path."

GregsBrother
Registered User
(3/15/03 7:13 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF war stance
This up coming War on Iraq is not to defend America.

I am not sure exactly why it is going to happen, but I am sure that the existence of America is not threatened by Iraq in any way.

The Bush administration has not given us any evidence that Iraq must be invaded to save America. In fact, CNN today has a story about how some of the documents Colin Powell presented to the UN were forged. And Powell is not denying it.

There are other ways to remove Hussein besides invading and occupying the entire country.

If the USA were under attack I would fight and kill with my bare hands to defend this nation.
If another nation is about to invade us, then I think we should bomb the heck out of them.

This Iraq thing does not fit into either category.

This Iraq war is not like ww2 , where freedom and the American way of life were being defended. Suggesting that is an insult to the people that fought and died in that war.

And regarding SRF.......they are not always a good source of spiritual advice, why would anyone care what they think about other matters?

MastersChela
Registered User
(3/15/03 11:58 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF war stance

Thanks for that post, G'sBro!

This quote is especially touching:

Quote:
If the USA were under attack I would fight and kill with my bare hands to defend this nation.


I feel this exact same way. If there was a rightious war to be fought, I would be there in a heartbeat, and I would certainly be willing to die to protect this nation from invaders. I still believe in the Constitution, and in the ideals of this country. they are rightious, even if those in charge are not. In my short lifetime, however, I've never seen a fight that I would call rightious. Honestly, I don't think we've really fought in one since WWII.

Quote:
This Iraq war is not like ww2


I have to disagree with you just a bit on this one, Brother. This war IS going to be like WWII in a lot of respects, I fear. The problem is that this time, the USA may be the invader, and "Dubya" may be the dictator. There's actually very similar patterns emerging... The Richstag bombing vs. the WTC disaster, Hitler's claim that Poland was preparing to invade Germany (and that's why they needed to invade), using security as an excuse to solidify power in the executive branch of govt and erode civil liberties...

If anyone would like to discuss these issues further, I'm quite read on them and would love to go deeper. This isn't really something I want to get into with depth on The Walrus, though. Send me a private message if you want to discuss...

stermejo
Registered User
(3/15/03 6:15 pm)
Reply 		Re: SRF war stance
Whereas YT's opinion would be blown off:

"Man's blood has become like water. So many atrocities are done, and people let them happen in the name of non-violence. Non-violence is not for this. I do not want people to be blind when they have two eyes in their heads."

"You all think devotion is fun. Someday you will ahve to jump without fear of life or death; then you will be able to make progress. When the time comes, you will have to walk through fire and water."

"Only the man of courage can live through this time."

Welome back Borg, YOU are a true man of courage.

KS
Registered User
(3/15/03 7:40 pm)
Reply 		SRF's stance on ANYTHING
SRF does not take much of a stance on ANYTHING! They are the biggest do nothing organization anyone has ever seen. They don't help the community or do any kind of public service, they don't help poor people or homeless, they don't volunteer time for the sick or needy, nothing! They don't take a stand on ANY issues so as to not offend any possible donnors or have to think about much outside their own environment. They are selfish and self involved. They use the excuse that they are doing meditation for the good of all mankind which is pure bullshit of course.

That about covers it. Questions?

Edited by: KS at: 3/15/03 7:41:01 pm
forkhand
Registered User
(3/16/03 9:09 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
Thanks KS, i liked that one. Do SRF really do none of those things? I wouldn't be in the least surprised.

I was just thinking that perhaps it is true as someone said above that walrus isn't really the place for talking about this imminent war. But then, why can't the discussion lean on the Bhagavad Gita and the ideas of pacifism and aggression that deals with life in general. Or is there already a post on this that i have missed?

THere was a chat discussion on tv today (ITV1, Sunday) and some of the guest talkers were talking about how democracy can be established in Iraq once Saddam is overthrown. I think that while it is noble to believe something resembling peace can reign in Iraq, it is a bit naive to believe that cultural, political and religious systems will somehow remain unresolved. Hate to throw a spanner in the works there, but such a view is very simplistic. Maybe if we can try to resolve a war situation by looking at the history of war and dichotomies presented in the Gita, we may be one step closer to achieving some sort of peace. Two religions fighting each other with bombs doesn't make either one righteous war. But the world being in such the state it is, my offer of peace probably goes unheard and is in itself, highly simplistic and unworthy. What can i offer? (Sorry, after re-reading this i realised that i didn't offer anything lol)

Yogananda's talk on war and peace, sects, cults etc is very inspiring. Whether we will agree or not that SRF is a cult is entirely a matter of opinion. It is obviously no good for the founder to say that his organisation is not a cult, but i guess it goes to show that his stance was impersonal.

KS, you are commended. IMHO meditation is inherently selfish because it is not practical and we live in a practical world. If it helps our egos in some way, or even wages war on evil, then who am i to say it is no good? I wish sometimes i could spit out what i want to say about all this, but the words are harder to find than a knat. Meditation doesn't pay the bills, help the homeless, cure diseases, or anything else of humanitarian aid. And so to to prayer. THe only reasonable stance meditation has to offer is that instead of BEING practical and throwing bombs at each other we can DO sitting on our asses for several hours a day in silence. Coming out of meditation may last for a while, but it doesn't mean that you let someone walk over you and steal your money or mobile phone etc. Conflict won't cease in your life, just in your mind. Do you see a problem with this? I do. There is a reason why ill people take medication. There is a reason why therapy exists. IF meditation is the answer to all problems, it should be the biggest drug in the industry.

I don't mind flitting from one subject to another. It's just like my mind.

War is likely to happen now with Iraq. My country (UK) is as far as i know the closest to democracy this world has seen, at least in terms of tolerance for cultural differences. Is Iraq a threat to the USA? And if that question is so simplistic, why hasn't it been given a simple answer? I often like to put myself in others shoes to see what it must be like. Apparently, most Iraqis don't care less for Saddam or his regime except that obviously it is wrong. Killing people does not work.

Make sure you keep up your health, listen to the doc, take medication if you need it, treat each other nicely and with respect, be tolerant of others without showing anger, live with your minds on the soles of your feet, have patience and sincerety and smile.

D

peaceone
Registered User
(3/16/03 11:35 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
Yogananda, 1940: “You cannot conquer your enemies by brute force. You must use love. Even if your enemy does not yield to love, you will have done your part. If you surround your enemy with hatred, his hatred for you will increase, and he will never understand, but if you do what is right with great firmness, yet with love in your heart, your good deeds will not go unnoticed by God.”

Yogananda, 1950 (see the above post): “We must have an international police force, nonviolence alone will not do....‘peace’ by whatever means necessary, etc.”

OK, Yogananda, so which is it ??

The later quote is ridiculous: everyone who takes the time to step back from ego and look can see that men of God-realization do not possess any physical weapons and thus do not believe such as being necessary in God‘s eyes. Furthermore, PY’s statement about appeasing a tiger is also ludicrous: Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras state that “in the presence of a man perfected in ahimsa (nonviolence), enmity in any creature does not arise.” This is BASIC yoga. I ask again, Yogananda: which is it? Also, in this quote PY says that, however, we should “pray that brotherhood may come through peaceful means advocated by Gandhi.” JUST pray? While our ACTIONS are the opposite of our prayers, condoning or taking up arms in the police force you mentioned? In other words, leave it to GOD to RESPOND to our prayers for peace, but don’t ACT in accordance WITH God‘s principles of peace? Don’t get me wrong: prayer is a wonderful thing and a necessary part of nonviolence, but let’s not be hypocrites by either participating in, or condoning, actions that don‘t equate with our prayers!

During his early years (pre-World War II), PY spoke of nonviolence and against the use of force: he championed Jesus’ and Gandhi’s actions without exception. However, in his later years (post-WWII), he begins to interject these “exceptions-to-the-rule” sort of phrases, where sometimes the use of force is necessary. Now there are only two possible explanations for this: A) PY was not yet fully enlightened in the 1930’s, or B) PY was enlightened early on, but then had something of a falling-out with God’s principles during the late 40’s, early 50’s. Based on the time-tested principles of yoga and the historical periods of PY‘s movement, all indications point to B. I’ve been researching this for the last couple weeks, and if anyone can find one of these “exceptions phrases” from BEFORE 1941 then I would like to see it. I think this is understandable due to the OVERWHELMING mass consciousness of the time, in which war was justified in our society in order to defeat Hitler and Japan in the 1940‘s. (Just as with 9/11, the deeper, karmic root causes of Pearl Harbor were not considered by the mass society, so they resorted to revengeful anger.) I think that even Yogananda was not immune to that strong of a force in mass consciousness: even he himself says that “environment is stronger than will.”

So, could PY have fallen, albeit ever so slightly? I could understand it: after all, he was sent to the most materialistic, deluded-by-maya, civilization of the current ages. Perhaps two decades in such a culture was enough to SLIGHTLY have its effect in SOMEWHAT distorting the truths of yoga?

“Just” war theories make about as much sense as “just” adultery or “just” stealing theories: they are all nothing more than the ego’s attempt to justify its ends, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether on the individual or the collective level, even if that means twisting the universal spiritual truths of all great wisdoms of the world in order to do so. When one is one with everything, as in God-consciousness, to kill another is metaphysically impossible, since the “enemy” is viewed as a part of oneself.

If there are not currently enough people in the world at the “ahimsa“ level of consciousness to prevent war (which there obviously are not), then we should not just say “Oh, well: I guess war is sometimes necessary.” As God-seekers and knowers, we should represent God’s will. It takes a great deal more courage to sacrifice one’s own life for the principles of God’s nonviolence than it does to hold a gun and kill others, acting outwardly brave yet being inwardly fearful, hoping not to be killed oneself in the process, in order to ATTEMPT to solve conflicts.

Yogananda, you speak great words of wisdom so often, but why all of the inconsistencies and contradictions on so many occasions? Truth is simple and one-pointed. It is only the maya of complexity that leads to inconsistency.



Lobo
Registered User
(3/17/03 10:21 pm)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
peaceone,

I think you've made so very good points as to what seems to be Yogananda's paradoxical statements on the one hand advocating ahimsa/non-violence, and on the other hand advocating the development and usuage of an international peace force to wage war when necessary ("by whatever means necessary"). Of course the means necessary does include peaceful nonviolence, it doesn't necessarily mean violent war; yet it does seem in the context he used it to mean violence.

In 1950 at the recording of the tape, the Lake Shrine dedication, the UN was a new organization, created after WW11 as a forum with police powers to handle nation-nation conflicts in order to avert all out war. Remember millions had been killed, slaughtered in the 10 years or so before the founding of the UN, so the world was weary of war and very much desired to avoid it in the future; hence, again, the UN.

Also at the time he spoke, 1950, Korea was becoming more war-like. Communism was something that the Western powers, particularly the US, now saw as the direct threat to the world. They saw it as a threat due to their belief that USSR wanted to spread their form of governance around the world; in short, America feared that Russian communism was trying to take over the world.

So with Korea becoming a problem the US saw that it was probably going to go communist unless something was done. The US sent troops to try to stop that from happening. The Koreans proved to be adept at fighting and the US took heavy casualties. But when sufficent American fighting power arrived the Koreans were having to withdraw. This brought in the other newly Communist power, the sleeping giant to the north, The People's Republic of China. They sent massive amounts of troops to aide the Koreans and ultimately they proved a decisive agent in the outcome. The 38th parallel which is known as the "de-militarized zone" that we know today.

So that said, and due to what I've heard SRF minister state that Yogananda believed communism to be the "evil" in the world it isn't difficult to understand his belief that a UN police keeping force must be created and used to keep the peace, and without saying so, stopping the spread of communism.

He was speaking, not as a guru to his disciples expounding yogic philosophy on this occasion (it was a public gathering including the Lt. Governor of California Goodwin J. Knight and his wife along with other dignitaries); rather he was speaking of his own personal beliefs. A realized being can and does have the ability to be simulataneously on all levels and in all beings, that's omnipresence and is accepted and noted by Patanjali. So he was speaking from Yogananda the personal, not Yogananda the Transcendent-Wisdom-Plane.

At least that's how I took it when I listened to the tape a few times. Making that statement (in what was a rambling talk touching on many subjects) he was practically screaming, exhorting that "peace must come by any means" which brought the crowd hardly acknowledged by clapping loudly and longely. They were tired of war. They wanted peace.

It's important to understand the context. Again, that's how I interpret those remarks of his at that time on that day.

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(3/19/03 1:38 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
"...everyone who takes the time to step back from ego and look can see that men of God-realization do not possess any physical weapons and thus do not believe such as being necessary in God‘s eyes."

I don't think this is true. In any case, how many people have really been able to "step back from ego?" What does that even mean? To me it just sounds like a meaningless sequence of words intended to elevate oneself above the "unenlightened masses" that subscribe to beliefs contrary to ones own. Did you know that Swami Sri Yukteswar was a strong believer in teaching martial arts as a part of a child's education? You can read this in Swami Satyananda's biography of Sri Yukteswarji. If it's good enough for Sri Yukteswarji then it's good enough for me!

"It takes a great deal more courage to sacrifice one’s own life for the principles of God’s nonviolence..."

Be my guest (natural selection in action.) As for me, I will take a piece to go along with my Peace in case I might need to protect myself or my loved ones.

Edited by: Ringbearer7 at: 3/19/03 5:37:14 pm
peaceone
Registered User
(3/19/03 6:43 pm)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
Ringbearer7 stated:
"In any case, how many people have really been able to "step back from ego?" What does that even mean? To me it just sounds like a meaningless sequence of words intended to elevate oneself above the "unenlightened masses" that subscribe to beliefs contrary to ones own. Did you know that Swami Sri Yukteswar was a strong believer in teaching martial arts as a part of a child's education? You can read this in Swami Satyananda's biography of Sri Yukteswarji. If it's good enough for Sri Yukteswarji then it's good enough for me!"
***************************

Sri Yukteswar, from p. 4 of “The Holy Science”: “Only a few specially gifted persons can rise superior to the influence of their professed creeds and find absolute unanimity in the truths propagated by all great faiths.”

(Sarcastically): My, Sri Yukteswar, aren’t we special? Looks like a “sequence of words intended to elevate oneself above the unenlightened masses that subscribe to beliefs contrary to ones own.” The only reason I pull such a quote is to sarcastically prove a point to my critic. Actually, I think in my post that I was much more polite than Yukteswar: he uses the word “ignorant” to refer to non-understanding masses and individuals QUITE OFTEN (just read the introduction to “The Holy Science.”) I am always amazed at how many people give this type of response. It’s cheap, and can be used as a response to ANYONE’S opinion. I don’t know why we just can’t just stick with reasoning. Instead, we have to assume that someone who is espousing their views in a bold way is being arrogant or egotistical, REGARDLESS of what is being argued for. Whether something is arrogant/egotistical or not should be based on the actual SUBSTANCE of what is being argued for. In other words, is the POINT OF VIEW egotistical or non-egotistical? In my arguments in my previous post, I am arguing for things that are NOT to the benefit of my own ego, or to ego in general. I am arguing for a position that is one of universal peace, tolerance, and cooperation: in other words, what is good for everyone’s good, not just individual or collective (family, country, etc.) egos. Weapons are for self-preservation and self-promotion of one isolated being (whether person, class, or country) to the detriment of another isolated being, and thus are for ego.

Perhaps I could have stated “step back from ego” as “rise above ego”. Being involved in spiritual teachings, I’m sure you know what ego itself is: Yukteswar of course explains it, as well as rising above it (going beyond it), in his teaching.

As far as martial arts training for children being advocated by Sri Yukteswar: yes, I had heard that. I would think that this would be for children who had much immature, fiery, perhaps even militaristic, -type karma to work out. By channeling that energy in a way that is more moral than might otherwise occur if not mitigated, a smoother transition may be made to the practice of the highest, God-advocated morals of nonviolence. This could only make sense. After all, what is it that Yukteswar deems worthy of inclusion in his seminal teaching “The Holy Science”: martial arts or nonviolence? The fact that nonviolence WAS included, and that martial arts of any kind had NO mention, is in perfect keeping with the yogic tradition.


Referring to nonviolent action as “natural selection in action” sounds like a pretty evil statement to make. Your implication is that those weaponless individuals who are beaten down with violence are to be extinguished from Darwinian evolution. Yet the fact is, even if their bodies ARE extinguished, they will not have propagated bad karma, and the beneficial spirit of the incident will live on much more powerful than if they had acted otherwise. To use the language of natural selection: in your view, a Jesus or a Gandhi was “extinguished” by a “more evolved species" “better equipped” to “handle survival” on this planet. Needless to say, your view of evolution is curious in light of any type of spiritual path. What evolutionary path are you on anyway, an earthly one or a spiritual one?

Finally I would recommend that you might want to expand your circle of “loved ones” such that ALL of humanity becomes your “loved ones”. It is the most fulfilling way to live.

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(3/20/03 1:28 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
You wrote: "As far as martial arts training for children being advocated by Sri Yukteswar: yes, I had heard that. I would think that this would be for children who had much immature, fiery, perhaps even militaristic, -type karma to work out."

Here's the quote from Swami Satyananda's bio (copyright Sevayatan & Yoganiketan): '...he taught us that vocations such as farming and cowherding, knowledge of spinning wheels, looms, sewing, etc. and simple arts and crafts, nursing, physical exercise and, according to age, martial arts were necessary and worthy of being a part of formal education.'

You wrote: "After all, what is it that Yukteswar deems worthy of inclusion in his seminal teaching “The Holy Science”: martial arts or nonviolence? The fact that nonviolence WAS included, and that martial arts of any kind had NO mention, is in perfect keeping with the yogic tradition."

Sri Yukteswarji's book was about yoga not martial arts. He was a yogi, not a martial artist (though apparently he did possess some skill with weapons.) In any case, how many yogis are out there who have actually realized even a fraction of what Sri Yukteswarji wrote of in his Holy Science? Doesn't it say in the Gita something like '1 out of 1000 seeks Me and out of those only 1 in 1000 knows me as I am?' So what about the rest of the 99.9999999% of humanity? I think Sri Yukteswarji (and Paramhansaji) gave practical advice for them also. For them martial arts was considered to be a "necessary" part of formal education. On the other hand, I am sure Sir Yukteswarji would waive this requirement for all the avatars, siddhas and jivamuktas out there.

You wrote: "Referring to nonviolent action as natural selection in action?sounds like a pretty evil statement to make."

What is wrong with natural selection? Non-violence ignorantly and indiscriminantly applied is dumb and could result in your prompt removal from the gene pool.

You wrote: "Your implication is that those weaponless individuals who are beaten down with violence are to be extinguished from Darwinian evolution."

That's what Darwin would say. It think it sorta makes sense biologically. I didn't make the rules of the game.

You wrote: "Needless to say, your view of evolution is curious in light of any type of spiritual path. What evolutionary path are you on anyway, an earthly one or a spiritual one?"

Is there a difference?

You wrote: "Finally I would recommend that you might want to expand your circle of loved ones ?such that ALL of humanity becomes your loved ones? It is the most fulfilling way to live."

Until I have cosmic consciousness I will find it very difficult to love people I don't know. I may be able to sympathize with them (i.e. self-projection), but to imagine that I could feel the same concern for a stranger as I do for myself or my family is, in my opinion, just self-delusion.

God has nothing against violence. Look around. The animal kingdom is full of violence. It is a natural part of this world and sometimes it is useful and necessary. If you have cosmic consciousness, are beyond the instinct of self-preservation and can overcome an enemy by Pure Divine Love then I bow to you. If you don't have cosmic consciousness and willingly refuse to fight when a thug attacks you or a loved one, then I would say that you are dumb and self-deluded. In this case it would probably not be a really bad thing if you were removed from the gene pool.

Edited by: Ringbearer7 at: 3/20/03 1:14:11 pm
stermejo
Registered User
(3/30/03 12:57 pm)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
My e-mail signature.

Answer enough?

------------------------------------

How do we ever know for certian what is ego and what is soul? The distinction is a favorite tool of moral bullies. -Michael Murphy, "Kingdom of Shivas Irons"

peaceone
Registered User
(4/3/03 10:36 pm)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
"How do we ever know for certian what is ego and what is soul?"

Engage in spiritual practice until you know.


"The distinction is a favorite tool of moral bullies."

Some of my favorite "moral bullies", in that case, would be:
-Jesus Christ
-Babaji
-Krishna
-Lahiri Mahasaya
-Sri Yukteswar
-Paramahansa Yogananda
-Buddha
-Mohandas Gandhi


stermejo
Registered User
(4/12/03 9:37 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
Sorry Bub,

Very cute. You can call Babaji a moral bully if you like. But honestly, you KNOW exactly what the quote means; the distinction between soul and ego is open to exploitation, has been and is being explioited by individuals simply interested in exercising control over people.

peaceone
Registered User
(4/16/03 5:13 pm)
Reply 		Re: SRF's stance on ANYTHING
"the distinction between soul and ego is open to exploitation, has been and is being exploited by individuals simply interested in exercising control over people."

Couldn't agree more. Still doesn't mean there is no distinction, or that discovering that distinction is not the ultimate goal of life. All the more reason that those who have actually realized the difference speak up.

P.S. Your resort to name-calling speaks for itself.


Page 1 2 << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- SRF Walrus - In the news -



Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.