React to insults--Why turn other Cheek

We might turn the other cheek because we sympathize with the aggressor, realizing he is caught in the mind, and because of this sympathy and compassion are willing to let the man exhaust his negativity.

Knowing our own form and his are equally transient, the play is permitted, this is showing love for them. Protecting ourselves would be showing love for our own form though, so how to decide which is most appropriate? I would suggest that having rules about hypothetical situations is not useful, we should learn rather to respond to all situations as they arise, and let go of things which have already passed.

In this way, karma is never touched, if we realize we are beyond the play, the play cannot touch what we are, and so we play the divine game - leela - while we remain here.
 
I would also add that self-control is not necessary when we realize we are not the doer, and doership is the greatest cause of ego. There is much confusion in the spiritual world about free will vs destiny, which point at exactly this. Understanding we are not in control of what is arising for us, there is no more an attachment to the story, and thus no need to react to what is happening.

For me, self-control means we are fighting with ourselves, we have divided ourselves into the one wanting to react and the one holding back, this is the beginning of schizophrenia. The fundamental problem is that we have become involved in the story, and this is delusional. When we realize we are not the story about this life, but rather life itself experiencing this story, we can simply enjoy whatever is happening. There is no more need to decide something is good or evil, it is all more evidence that we are alive and that is enough.
 
"Bhishma asked Krishna why he was suffering so much. Krishna told him it was a result of his reticence and silence towards Draupadi's cheer-haran which was a maha-papam (great Sin). Bhishma failed to act to protect Draupadi at a time of dire need."
Bhishma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For that you would need to study the story of Draupadi in Wikipedia. Duryodhana had ordered the undressing of Draupadi in a full audience (this was in retaliation of Draupadi's laugh when he fell down in water in the Pandava palace because he could not differentiate between solid ground and water, the palace was that cleverly made). Bhishma was there, but kept mum. It was his kings order. But that was not right action, he should have intervened and saved Draupadi's honor. As a punishment for this action, his death was very painful, lingering for ten days between life and death.

Bhishma's death too was the result of another action (karma). It is a very interesting story. I invite you to read it at Shikhandi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Don't accuse me of pointing to false and strange stories because all mythology is like that. Bhishma was killed by Arjun from behind Draupadi's brother, a sex-changed warrior (from a girl to a boy), whom Bhishma would not kill, because he was the reborn woman whose life Bhishma had spoiled. :D
Thank you Aupmanyav. I had read something similar. Do you know where in the Hindu texts Krishna had words for Bhisma, or in regards to Bhisma?
 
I would also add that self-control is not necessary when we realize we are not the doer, and doership is the greatest cause of ego. There is much confusion in the spiritual world about free will vs destiny, which point at exactly this. Understanding we are not in control of what is arising for us, there is no more an attachment to the story, and thus no need to react to what is happening.

For me, self-control means we are fighting with ourselves, we have divided ourselves into the one wanting to react and the one holding back, this is the beginning of schizophrenia. The fundamental problem is that we have become involved in the story, and this is delusional. When we realize we are not the story about this life, but rather life itself experiencing this story, we can simply enjoy whatever is happening. There is no more need to decide something is good or evil, it is all more evidence that we are alive and that is enough.
Lunitik returns? Karma-Samnyasa?
 
It is interesting to me that you say I denigrate the good here, while advocating or assisting the evil. Is it good, in your viewpoint, to seek and do one of those items?

Bits of the Bad Guy's Bio inre Royal court intrigue​

Although loved by all his family, Duryodhana and most of his brothers are not seen on the same level as the Pandavas in their adherence to virtue and duty, and respect of elders. Duryodhana is mentored by his maternal uncle Shakuni, who desires the elevation of his sister's children at the expense of the Pandavas. Shakuni masterminds most of Duryodhana's plots to humiliate and kill the Pandavas.
Duryodhana's hatred for the Pandava brothers stems from his sincere belief that he—being the son of the eldest brother—is the heir apparent to the throne of Hastinapura. His father, in spite of being the eldest son, had to renounce the throne in favor of Pandu because of his blindness.
Duryodhana deeply believed that what was rightfully his was being given away to his elder cousin Yudhisthira which was nepotism, he also felt the Pandavas were sons of Kunti, not of Pandu. He never believed in their divine origin, on many occasions questioning it, and always calling them the 'Kaunteya', which means 'sons of Kunti'. He also bore a deep hatred of Bhima, who dominates his brothers in sport and skill with his immense physical power and strength.
Duryodhana attempted to murder Bhima by feeding him a poisoned feast, but Bhima survived due to his immense physical capacity and blessings from celestial Nagas. Duryodhana then participated in a plot by Shakuni involving an architect Purochana who built an inflammable house by incorporating lacquer, animal fat, hay and various other fuels into the walls, and set it on fire when the Pandavas were staying in it during a visit to participate in festive celebrations at Varnavata. However, Purochana was himself killed in the fire, and the Pandavas managed to escape thanks to a brilliant counter-scheme by Vidura.
When the princes come of age, Yudhisthira is given half the kingdom and made king of Indraprastha, so as to avoid a clash with the Kaurava princes over the whole Kuru kingdom. Duryodhana becomes the prince regent of Hastinapura, and owing to the age and blindness of his father, he accumulates much control and influence, managing the state affairs himself with a group of his advisors that include his uncle Shakuni, brother Dushasana and friend Karna.
But Duryodhana remains jealous of Yudhisthira, owing to Indraprastha's prosperity and fame exceeding Hastinapura's. When Yudhisthira performs the Rajasuya sacrifice that makes him emperor of the World, Duryodhana is unable to contain his anger, which is intensified when Yudhisthira's queen Draupadi arrogantly taunts him, and his father's blindness, when he slips into a pool of water in the court.
Knowing that an all-out war with the Pandavas may not lead to definitive success, Shakuni devises a scheme to rob Yudhisthira of his kingdom and wealth by defeating him in a game of dice, which Shakuni is an expert at and Yudhisthira a complete novice.
Unable to resist the challenge, Yudhisthira gambles away his entire kingdom, his wealth, his four brothers and even his wife, in a series of gambits to retrieve one by staking another.
Karna encourages Duryodhana's brother Dushasana to drag Draupadi into the court and disrobe her, as she is Duryodhana's property after Yudhisthira had gambled everything away to him.
Dushasana attempts to strip Draupadi, who is mystically protected by Krishna, who makes her sari inexhaustible. Dushasana exhausts all his might, pulling the sari which never finishes.
Nevertheless, due to this action Bhima swears, he would break Duryodhana's thigh (as Duryodhana asked Draupadi to sit on his thigh).
The first time, the king Dhritarashtra and Vidura make Duryodhana re-establish Yudhisthira.
But then the plot is repeated, and for this game of dice Shakuni sets the condition that upon losing, Yudhisthira and his brothers must spend thirteen years in exile in the forest before they may reclaim their kingdom.
The thirteenth year must be passed incognito, or else the term of exile would be repeated.
 
Lunitik returns? Karma-Samnyasa?

It is said the greatest realization of all is there was never anything to renounce. The movement of renunciates, however, is a very life-negative pursuit. We can renounce anything, but it will never bring realization until we understand the nature of the one renouncing.

When this is understood, the whole game of religion is seen as a joke. Learning scripture and all the practices common to the paths, they were the pursuit of ego all along, just a mind game we are playing with ourselves.

For whom is the story appearing?
 
Ah yes, thank you. That does look selfish to me. When the sport is to help others, 'turn the other cheek' takes on a different meaning and motivation. I see better how you agree with Bhisma, and disagree with me. Thank you for the education.

May be you'll understand what I said when I give concrete examples:

An Ode to the William Sisters --
Indisputable Maestras of Tennis
Turning the other Cheek has practical application in the art of Sport.
The Projectile launched directly at me causes me to flinch and loss-focus and distract me and cause verbal outbursts that drain ones single-minded attention.
Do I allow distractions from the Season Seat Holders?
Do I allow distractions from the other teams coaches?
Do I allow distractions from the Flashing Lights?
Do I allow distractions from the Haughty banter at the weigh-in?
Do I allow distractions from the Sports agent that didn't get me an endorsement deal?
Do I allow distractions from my own personal life?

No, I must stay in the Zone, and save my self from loss.
I must stay on task while all the world swirls around me!
That is why I must turn the other cheek ---lest I falter over the shadow of my ego.
Williams-sisters-to-play-for-gold-in-doubles-I020JAD5-x-large.jpg
 
I see better how you agree with Bhisma, and disagree with me. Thank you for the education.

Maybe you disagree with me because you miss-understand what I am saying?


That is where I was headed next: Dharma and Karma.

About this... I have been looking and I have not found it. What is the Parva and Sub-Parva? I don't doubt that he said something similar, and I found some of that, but I have not found the 'verbatim' source. Where did you copy and paste it from?

ANGRY MEN AND THEIR SINFUL, COVETOUS, MISERLY & EGOTISTIC WAYS

Shanti Parva (The Book of Peace) is the twelfth Parva (Book) of the epic Mahabharata. Set in the aftermath of Kurukshetra war, it consists of three sub-parvas - Rajadharmanusasana Parva, Apaddharmanusasana Parva and Mokshadharma Parva. It consists of 339 sections, and contains 14,732 slokas. Apart from the final instructions about code of conduct, dharma and good governance given by Bhishma to his victorious nephew and future King, Yudhisthira from his death bed [1], it also contains Vishnu sahasranama, a list of 1,000 names (sahasranama) of Vishnu, which is a popular Hindu chanting amongst stotras.

Shanti Parva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SIN

From The Mahabharata Santi Parva, Section CLVIII

Sin


Yudhishthira said: I desire, O bull of Bharata’s race, to hear in detail the source from which sin proceeds and the foundation upon which it rests.

Bhishma said: Hear, O King, what the foundation is of sin.

Covetousness alone is a great destroyer of merit and goodness.

From covetousness proceeds sin. It is from this source that sin and irreligiousness flow, together with great misery.

This covetousness is the spring of also all the cunning and hypocrisy in the world. It is covetousness that makes men commit sin.

From covetousness proceeds wrath; from covetousness flows lust, and it is from covetousness that loss of judgment, deception, pride, arrogance, and malice, as also vindictiveness, loss of prosperity, loss of virtue, anxiety, and infamy spring.

Miserliness, cupidity, desire for every kind of improper act, pride of birth, pride of learning, pride of beauty, pride of wealth, pitilessness for all creatures, malevolence towards all, mistrust in respect of all, insincerity towards all, appropriation of other people’s wealth, ravishment of other people’s wives, harshness of speech, anxiety, propensity to speak ill of others, violent craving for the indulgence of lust, gluttony, liability to premature death, violent propensity towards malice, irresistible liking for falsehood, unconquerable appetite for indulging in passions, insatiable desire for indulging in ear, evil-speaking, boastfulness, arrogance, non-doing of duties, rashness, and perpetration of every kind of evil act,- all these proceed from covetousness.

In life. men are unable, whether infants or youth or adults, to abandon covetousness. Such is the nature of covetousness that it never decays even with the decay of life. Like the ocean that can never be filled by the constant discharge of even immeasurable rivers of immeasurable depths, covetousness is incapable of being gratified by acquisitions to any extent.

The covetousness, however, which is never gratified by acquisitions and satisfied by the accomplishment of desires, that which is not known in its real nature by the gods, the Gandharvas, the Asuras, the great snakes, and, in fact, by all classes of beings, that irresistible passion, along with that folly which invites the heart to the unrealities of the world, should ever be conquered by a person of cleansed soul.

Pride, malice, slander, crookedness, and incapacity to hear other people’s good, are vices, that are to be seen in persons of uncleansed soul under the domination of covetousness. Even persons of great learning who bear in their minds all the voluminous scriptures, and who are competent to dispel the doubts of others, show themselves in this respect to be of weak understanding and feel great misery in consequence of this passion.

Covetous men are wedded to envy and anger. They are outside the pale of good behaviour. Of crooked hearts, the speeches they utter are sweet. They resemble, therefore, dark pits whose mouths are covered with grass. They attire themselves in the hypocritical cloak of religion. Of low minds, they rob the world, setting up (if need be) the standard of religion and virtue.

Relying upon the strength of apparent reasons, they create diverse kinds of schisms in religion. Intent upon accomplishing the purposes of cupidity, they destroy the ways of righteousness.

When wicked-souled persons under the domination of covetousness apparently practise the duties of righteousness, the consequence that results is that the desecrations committed by them soon become current among men.

Pride, anger, arrogance, insensibility, paroxysms of joy and sorrow, and self-importance, all these are to be seen in persons swayed by covetousness. Know that they who are always under the influence of covetousness are wicked.


Excerpt from the Shanti Parva:
Hindu Vedic Philosophy (Sri Mahabharat): srimahabharat - Santi Parva (Book 12) chapters 300 to 309

"Yudhishthira said, 'O grandsire, learned men praise truth, self-restraint, forgiveness, and wisdom. What is thy opinion of these virtues?' . . .
The Swan said, 'Ye who have drunk Amrita, I have heard that one should have recourse to these, viz., penances, self-restraint, truth, and subjugation of the mind. Untying all the knots of the heart, one should also bring under one's control both what is agreeable and what is disagreeable.

One should not wound the vitals of others. One should not be an utterer of cruel speeches. One should never take scriptural lectures from a person that is mean. One should never utter such words as inflict pain on others, as cause others to burn (with misery), and as lead to hell. Wordy shafts fall from the lips.

Pierced therewith one (to whom they are directed) burns incessantly. Those shafts do not strike any part other than the very vitals of the person aimed. Hence he that is possessed of learning should never aim them at others.

If a person deeply pierces a man of wisdom with wordy shafts, the wise mart should then adopt peace (without giving way to wrath). The man who, though sought to be angered, rejoices without yielding to anger, taketh away from the provoker all his merits.

That man of righteous soul, who, full of joy and freed from malice, subdues his blazing wrath which, if indulged, would lead him to speak ill of others and verily become his foe, takes away the merits of others. As regards myself, I never answer I when another speaks ill of me. If assailed, I always forgive the assault.

The righteous are of opinion that forgiveness and truth and sincerity and compassion are the foremost (of all virtues). Truth is the arcanum of the Vedas. The arcanum of Truth is self-restraint.

The arcanum [etiquette/behavior] of self-restraint is Emancipation. This is the teaching of all the scriptures. I regard that person to be Brahmana and Muni who subjugates the rising impulse of speech, the impulse of wrath appearing in the mind, the impulse of thirst (after unworthy things), and the impulses of the stomach and the organ of pleasure. One who does not yield to wrath is superior to one who does.

One who practises renunciation is superior to one who does not. One who possesses the virtues of manhood is superior to one who has them not. One who is endued with knowledge is superior to one who is destitute of it. Assailed with harsh speeches one should not assail in return. Indeed, one who, under such circumstances, renounces wrath, succeeds in burning the assailant and taking away all his merits.

That person who when assailed with harsh speeches does not utter a harsh word in reply, who when praised does not utter what is agreeable to him that praises, who is endued with such fortitude as not to strike in return when struck and not to even wish evil to the striker, finds his companionship always coveted by the gods. He that is sinful should be forgiven as if he were righteous, by one that is insulted, struck, and calumniated.

By acting in this way one attains to success. Though all my objects have been fulfilled, yet I always wait reverentially on those that are righteous. I have no thirst. My wrath hath been suppressed. Seduced by covetousness I do not fall away from the path of righteousness. I do not also approach any one (with solicitations) for wealth.

If cursed, I do not curse in return. I know that self-restraint is the door of immortality. I disclose unto you a great mystery.

There is no status that is superior to that of humanity. Freed from sin like the Moon from murky clouds, the man of wisdom, shining in resplendence, attains to success by patiently waiting for his time.

A person of restrained soul, who becomes the object of adoration with all by becoming the foremost of the supporting pillars of the universe, and towards whom only agreeable words are spoken by all, attains to the companionship of the deities. Revilers never come forward to speak of the merits of a person as they speak of his demerits.

That person whose speech and mind are properly restrained and always devoted to the Supreme, succeeds in attaining to the fruits of the Vedas, Penances, and Renunciation. The man of wisdom should never revile (in return) those that are destitute of merit, by uttering their dispraise and by insults.

He should not extol others (being extolled by them) and should never injure themselves. The man endued with wisdom and learning regards revilement as nectar. Reviled, he sleeps without anxiety.

The reviler, on the other hand, meets with destruction. The sacrifices that one performs in anger, the gifts one makes in anger, the penances one undergoes in anger, and the offerings and libations one makes to the sacred fire in anger, are such that their merits are robbed by Yama.

The toil of an angry man becomes entirely fruitless. Ye foremost of immortals, that person is said to be conversant with righteousness whose four doors, viz., the organ of pleasure, the stomach, the two arms, and speech, are well-restrained.

That person who, always practising truth and self-restraint and sincerity and compassion and patience and renunciation, becomes devoted to the study of the Vedas, does not covet what belongs to others, and pursues what is good with a singleness of purpose, succeeds in attaining to heaven. Like a calf sucking all the four teats of its dam's udders, one should devote oneself to the practice of all these virtues.
 
I find at the root of this is: what does it mean to believe in, and to worship God? In the relationship between a person (human), and God, what is the Dharma and Karma of a man, and the Dharma and Karma of God? Said a different way: What is the evil, where does it come from, and who is it that worships, bows to, and does, the evil?
To get at the root of it, why should we take the existence of God as established? If there is no God then the relationship is between one person and another (and of course, with all other humans, animals, vegetation, and non-living). 'Dharma' is the rule of the society. They say man is a social animal. So, dharma is for efficient and peaceful conduct of a society.

Evil comes from transgressing the rules of the society (a-dharma, not dharma, not 'the done thing'). One should bow to society, the society sustains that person, the person would be nowhere if there was no society. That is what is meant by hindu saying 'dharmo rakshati rakshitah' (if dharma is preserved, it preserves the society), or 'dharayet iti dharma' (what SHOULD be done is dharma).
The Bible tells us God is love, so the dharma of God is love. The dharma of the human is exactly the same - love is the energy which moves all existence. What often happens is our love becomes directed, when we limit love hate arises for whatsoever we feel threatens it. True religiousness is a life lived as love.
Why was that prescription not used in WW I and WW II and the wars after that? It may disappoint you but it is not that simple. That is why Krishna's advice to Arjuna to fight.
 
Thank you Aupmanyav. I had read something similar. Do you know where in the Hindu texts Krishna had words for Bhisma, or in regards to Bhisma?
Mahabharata here: Sacred-Texts: Hinduism. Should be in Book 6, which is named 'Bhishma Parva'. I read these books years ago (i.e., half a Century ago). :)

Some stories would be repeated in Srimad Bhagwat Purana here: The Vishnu Purana Index. A slightly biased translation, but better produced, would be available at the Hare-Krishna site here: Srimad Bhagavatam.
 
It is said the greatest realization of all is there was never anything to renounce.
"Jneyah sa nitya-sannyasi, yo na dveshti na kankshati;
nirdvandvo hi, Maha-baho, sukham bandhat pramucyate."

Know him as ever-renounced, one who neither hates nor desires; bereft of dualities, O Mighty Armed (Arjuna), (such a person) easily overcomes the bondage of material things and is completely liberated.
(Chapter 5, Verse 3, BhagawadGita)
 
May be you'll understand what I said when I give concrete examples:
What is there to not understand? What kind of words are to be exchanged in a game of tennis? If hitting balls is your dharma, and swinging a racquet is the extent of your serve, then who do you think you are playing for to win? Imagine a different game where you play for the opponent, friend or enemy, to win. Imagine a more interactive game where the opponent tells you where they want you to hit the ball, and you tell your opponent where you want them to hit the ball, and you individually decide whether or not it is good and something worth doing. Different kind of exchange. Imagine a game against your child where you place the ball just within their reach, instead of outside of it. Do you truly think it is good to ignore the words of your opponent, to stay in your zone? That is what tribes and countries do when they go to war. They each ignore the propaganda of their selfish opponent, so that they can stay in their zone, and stay in the war to win. Tennis in deed... selfish deeds.
 
It is said the greatest realization of all is there was never anything to renounce. The movement of renunciates, however, is a very life-negative pursuit. We can renounce anything, but it will never bring realization until we understand the nature of the one renouncing.
You have renounced volumes. Not in yourself, in others. You prefer to not do the work to apply that to yourself.

When this is understood, the whole game of religion is seen as a joke. Learning scripture and all the practices common to the paths, they were the pursuit of ego all along, just a mind game we are playing with ourselves.
What you see changes with your mood. You have pronounced religion to be many things.

For whom is the story appearing?
For whom is your story appealing?
 
I) I know what you should meditate on, "Grace". Do you know Grace?

Here are some verses from the book of signfeld:

(Elaine at her job interview at Doubleday with Mrs. Landis.)

LANDIS: Of course, Jackie O. was a great lady. Those are going to be some tough shoes to fill. Everyone loved her. She had such...grace.

ELAINE (gushing): Yes! Grace!

LANDIS: Not many people have grace.

ELAINE: Well, you know, grace is a tough one. I like to think I have a little grace...not as much as Jackie -

LANDIS: You can't have "a little grace." You either have grace, or you...don't.

ELAINE: O.K., fine, I have...no grace.

LANDIS: And you can't acquire grace.

ELAINE: Well, I have no intention of "getting" grace.

LANDIS: Grace isn't something you can pick up at the market.

ELAINE (fed up): Alright, alright, look - I don't have grace, I don't want grace...I don't even say grace, O.K.?

LANDIS: Thank you for coming in.

ELAINE: Yeah, yeah, right.

LANDIS: We'll make our choice in a few days, and we'll let you know.

ELAINE (stands up): I have no chance, do I?

LANDIS: No.
(They shake hands.)

LANDIS'S INTERCOM: Justin Pitt to see you.

ELAINE: Justin Pitt?

LANDIS: He was a very close friend of Mrs. Onassis's.

ELAINE: "Mrs. Onassis's"? That's hard to pronounce.

LANDIS: Excuse me?

ELAINE: Nothing.

PITT: Mrs. Landis, there's something wrong with this copying machine, it's all coming out slanted. Now, I don't know if this is your department or not.

LANDIS: Justin Pitt, this is Elaine Benes.
(Elaine turns around. With sunglasses and a scarf on her head, she bears a close resemblance to Jackie O.)

PITT (clearly affected by Elaine's appearance): Charmed.

ELAINE: I was a great admirer of Mrs. Onass-sis-sis-sis...

New scene - Elaine and Mr. Pitt having lunch at the coffee shop

PITT (looking at Elaine and smiling): The resemblance is uncanny. Even the brown eyes.

ELAINE: Well, a lot of people have brown eyes.

PITT: No, there's something else. An indefinable quality.

ELAINE: Grace?

PITT: grace, yes.

ELAINE: You think I have grace?

PITT: Some grace, yes.

ELAINE: Just some?

PITT: Well, you don't want too much grace or you won't be able to stand.

ELAINE (laughing): Oh, Mr. Pitt.

PITT: Elaine, I want you to come and work for me as my personal assistant. Now, I'll pay you the same as Pendant, but I would need you to start right away.

II) Homework assignment: Have a close friend read any of your best well written posts. to see if your writing style is lucid.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ZLQ1pogTBOCYH2GrpzCxCkA&bvm=bv.41018144,d.dmQ
 
You have renounced volumes. Not in yourself, in others. You prefer to not do the work to apply that to yourself.

Please do not speak of me like you know me.

What you see changes with your mood. You have pronounced religion to be many things.

I have never diverged from calling religion the process of rebinding, because this is its meaning. My understanding has evolved around this, remaining static is simply a refusal to grow, but encountering our own divinity is the only purpose of religion.

For whom is your story appealing?

No story should stick to anyone.
 
Please do not speak of me like you know me.
Sorry, I thought you were the person that formerly posted as Lunitik. We argued once about how I could get to know him. I sense you have posted here before. Am I correct?

I have never diverged from calling religion the process of rebinding, because this is its meaning.
Lunitik said that too when it suited him.

My understanding has evolved around this, remaining static is simply a refusal to grow, but encountering our own divinity is the only purpose of religion.
I guess I see why you are calling it a joke.

No story should stick to anyone.
I submit that some do, some work, is required to stick and unstick a story.
 
bhaktajan said:
I) I know what you should meditate on, "Grace". Do you know Grace?
Some. Do good and turn the other cheek for others as we would have others do good and turn the other cheek for us.

II) Homework assignment: Have a close friend read any of your best well written posts. to see if your writing style is lucid.
I will provide you a more personal example of homework I have done: I intentionally spent time with a person who had a police rap sheet for essentially doing unto others as he would not appreciate others doing unto him, and we had some history together where I came to see the same. Haven't we all to some degree? We were together and naturally opposed on some behavior. After some trouble with his behavior, I asked him some questions and he said, "I am going to say whatever you want me to say." Sadly it was so true in many ways. What do you think of that, bhaktajan? "I am going to say whatever you want me to say." It was a recurring theme, and it was definitely his nature at that point in time. He would often do whatever he wanted without regard for others, yet would look to say whatever it took. So I said something to him like, "Speak the Truth. Don't lie, and if you guess then identify it as a guess. Use words to seek my approval in the things where you would want me to seek your approval. How would you like me to speak to you?" This person still works with me today. Would you like me to go ask him whether or not he wants me to tailor my words to please him, to say whatever he wants me to say to him? He has a girlfriend today for that, and he has had to contend with some things that he wanted his girlfriend to say, and to not say.

bhaktajan, I saw this in your title. You have compared an insult with the unkind response that will come from speaking the tough words that someone else does not wish to hear. To be slapped in the first place involves saying something that someone did not wish to hear, and saying it to a person that believes in corporal punishment over words. I find that the enemy, us, as we do not do unto others as we would have others do unto us, considers criticism an insult and corporal punishment a good deed, when it suits us. That path is huge and varied. From my perspective, which I have been sharing: Loving the enemy requires not turning a blind eye, not tailoring the words into a lie, and not holding back on the good deeds. It requires a lot of patience, trust, honesty, and as I discovered: there is help from above.

On the flip side, I have meditated before playing a sport. It was racquetball and chess back to back for an entire summer. I was playing against a person that provided lots of verbal feedback, based on whether or not I made a good shot, and whether or not he made a good shot. The time I meditated the most, I had a goofy smile on my face before and during the game, and I knew something was different. I certainly do remember the feeling, and I know how to return there if I have to or want to. I think a racquet might have been destroyed, and may have prematurely ended the game. I was a little too far into the zone to care to say much, but I wish that I handed him my racquet, and said, "I hope this racquet brings you as much good luck as it has me in this game, because I really have no clue how in the hell I made those shots against you. I confess that I was trying, but I swear to you: it was not really me." Later in life he travelled across the USA to be present as a groomsman at our wedding, but to be honest I have not seen him since.

Anywhere close to the type of homework you are advising?
 
Sorry, I thought you were the person that formerly posted as Lunitik. We argued once about how I could get to know him. I sense you have posted here before. Am I correct?

So you feel that you did get to know me?

Lunitik said that too when it suited him.

When it suited me? When have I ever said anything other than this?

I guess I see why you are calling it a joke.

I don't think you do.

I submit that some do, some work, is required to stick and unstick a story.

All "work" is pseudo, imagined, all paths are a journey from here to here.

All that is necessary is to understand the nature of the observer, watch the mind, then find out who that watcher is. Remaining as this is all the scriptures of the world are really talking about, every spiritual experience, just showing us this simple truth.

It has birthed psychology in the West, for it is the only true mental health.
 
So you feel that you did get to know me?
I know what a person did and said in my presence, in promotion and response, with a little interaction.

When it suited me? When have I ever said anything other than this?
When do you take responsibility for what you say?

Lunitik said opposing things about religion, himself, God, love, truth, spirit, etc... all part of his nature. In the heat of a moment he said something about religion that was more to his liking. If you admit to being Lunitik and the person that stayed at my place for a bit, then I will point to the varying things you said about religion. If you deny it, then I won't waste everyone's time.

I don't think you do.
When do you take responsibility for what you spend time thinking about?

All "work" is pseudo, imagined, all paths are a journey from here to here.
When do you take responsibility for your work?

All that is necessary is to understand the nature of the observer, watch the mind, then find out who that watcher is. Remaining as this is all the scriptures of the world are really talking about, every spiritual experience, just showing us this simple truth.
Necessary for what, to be perfectly evil? If you see yourself as being non-physical, then I recommend dropping your duality and take responsibility for what you do. Meditate on do-ing unto others as you would have others do unto you... and do it.

It has birthed psychology in the West, for it is the only true mental health.
Interesting statement about your religion.
 
Back
Top