In reality we own nothing!

seattlegal said:
Well said, Vajradhara! In not accepting resposibility for {or owning,} our actions, thoughts, and words, we risk becoming morally {and spiritually} bankrupt.

Namaste Seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

i completely agree.

it is difficult, in my view, for many beings to have an active sense of responsbility for these sorts of things. it certainly isn't the comforting view nor does it lend to any sort of quasi-psychological bliss states... it is actually quite a sobering sort of experience.

metta,

~v
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste Seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

i completely agree.

it is difficult, in my view, for many beings to have an active sense of responsbility for these sorts of things. it certainly isn't the comforting view nor does it lend to any sort of quasi-psychological bliss states... it is actually quite a sobering sort of experience.

metta,

~v
Sobriety to balance the bliss--or would being happy in our responsibilities be part of the bliss? ;) {Time for me to chop wood and carry water}
 
Wonderful thoughts Vaj and Seattle:

I don't believe it's a natural state to be happy in fulfilling our responsibilities most of the time, but I have known some people who "seemed" to function that way. They "seemed" to be in a blissful state when functioning. The essential talent in this is to know oneself. It could be that religious pursuits are cultural inventions intended to address this issue. Joseph Campbell had a primal saying, "Follow your bliss." I have really tried to live that, but it seems mostly to only bring troubles into my life.

On the other hand balancing sobriety against bliss seems a more natural approach to the question, since that's the way that nature seems to govern itself over the long term. But then, perhaps, we run the risk of evolving into a resemblance of the life of vegetables and fruits in the long term. More "observers" rather than "doers" in the world around us all. More "prey" then we are "asserters".

An interesting dilemma IMHO.

flow....:)
 
Rich people have stuff and poor people have faith, isn't that the way it works? Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich and taking their stuff. Lao Tzu said, "keep the people's heads empty and their bellies full." If you read Chinese philosphy it's pretty clear that it's about how to keep the citizenry pacified and orderly. But what if you can't keep the people's bellies full?

That is too much of a materialistic slant! Deep down in our hearts our true desires are very human and basic: love/acceptance (friendships, relationships), fulfillment in work and other creative activities, enjoying simple things.

So I think we have to look carefully at our motives and emotional compensation mechanisms because deep down in our tangled psyches is a bunch of social programming that we've inherited without even being aware of it.

Exactly, society, peers, family pressures. Wanting to have more than my neighbour, be more successful than my colleague, being praised by how good/clever/giving/etc, I am. Those are the false wants that cover up the deeper needs.

But to truly have enlightened self-interest, the kind that seduces the universe to back up our intentions, I think we have to become really clear about what we really want, and that's so, so hard. Well, I find it hard, anyway.

Yes agree completely, but it is impossible without deconstructing your intentions, how can you otherwise?

Your "self-interest" label is misguiding, feels "selfish" too me, in my opinion truly knowing what you really want/need does not equate at all to opening the gates of lawlessness, I think the opposite (my own dogma of the nature of things). I suppose you said more or less the same:rolleyes: .

I find the concepts of asceticism and enlightened detachment put forth by eastern religions, as well as the piety, self-denial, and submission espoused by Christianity and Islam to be serious impediments to unearthing true enlightened self-interest from under the rubbish pile of acquired social programming. I think that's by design.

Agree again, but I don't think they are necessarily restricting, the problem is that they are dictated and imposed, so poisonous if taken blindly without listening to your heart.

The problem is that most tortured souls either immerse themselves in hedonistic bliss trying to fulfil their real needs through the fake ones, or they deny their own selves in order to numb or repress their legitimate desires and needs that they haven't managed to fulfil by other means (like those that immerse themselves in a spiritual path).

Alvaro
 
Alvaro and Chris:

I pretty much agree with your overall analyses. The important stuff has been covered up over the millenia, and the information that we all need to get on with things is being very closely held by those who believe that the ordinary people of the world "can't handle the truth". ( By the way that line comes from a famous play about what went on at Guantanamo Bay during the cold war, believe it or not !)

I believe that if our leaders really cared about the future that they would facilitate transformative activities in the world. Instead we see so much of our resources misspent on "false security" because our leaders have been so successful in scaring their constituencies into believing that we are all mortally threatened by "terrorists". If we don't fall into line to defend our "homelands" and our "stuff" our lives as we know them to be will be destroyed by the religious fanatics, the immigrants, or whatever scapegoat happens to be handy at the time. In intelligenge parlance, this strategy is known as "misdirection". Of course all of these "boy crying wolf" activities have, since the year 2,000, now succeeded in bringing into being just such a set of world circumstances.

flow....:(
 
I'd have to agree with Vajra that this is an interest question...What is it that we truly own?

Our memories? and what are they but a delicate spun fabric that waves with the wind... now battered and forgotten as they blow about.

Memories are cherished but they are distorted by what we add to them over time.. The spider-mind summarizes and connects a few points but where is the real substance?

- Art
 
arthra said:
I'd have to agree with Vajra that this is an interest question...What is it that we truly own?

Our memories? and what are they but a delicate spun fabric that waves with the wind... now battered and forgotten as they blow about.

Memories are cherished but they are distorted by what we add to them over time.. The spider-mind summarizes and connects a few points but where is the real substance?

- Art

Energy is neither created nor destroyed...only changed. Since "memories" are contrived through energy, I submit they never disappear. They may "change", but they are never destroyed.

my thoughts

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed...only changed. Since "memories" are contrived through energy, I submit they never disappear. They may "change", but they are never destroyed.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

Actually I can see your point Quahom.. and my religious view on this is similar.

but I was just reflecting on how in time who we are can be apparently changed by what we choose to remember ...or what we forget.

Like looking in a mirror to get a reference point to reassure ourselves so we reflect back on our lives.

I was also thinking of the Alzheimers condition that many of us will probably experience as we get older.

See:

http://www.alz.org/AboutAD/WhatIsAD.asp

Actual ownership that is a question. Can we say we actually "own" anything.

- Art
 
"Ownership" is a temporally dependent concept. To "own" anything implies control in the ultimate sense. And in a "natural" world the concept loses its meaning over time. Everything that is manifest in the world is subject to change.

Even patentable invention ownership is limited by governments which grant patent holders the right to exclude the practice of the invention by others without the owner's permission for a fixed period, usually seventeen years in the U.S. Thus those who wish to make and sell anything based upon the information disclosed in the patent must usually pay the patent owner a royalty to "practice" the elements of the invention during the exclusionary time period.

So my answer would be that, yes, ownership is possible over certain periods of time passage, but it fades and changes because of what time does to the natural world of which everything is part and parcel.

flow....;)
 
That is why it is good to possess those things no one can take away from you.
 
Wait a minute. I'm existing in the present. In the present I own everything that I have posession of. I don't know about memories, those are captured reflections of the past, but if you look out in my garage you can see some of the stuff I own. So long as I keep my doors locked it's a pretty sure thing I'm going to continue to own my stuff. And In my memory I can remember when I bought this stuff that I still have. I mean, how complicated do we want to make this?

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Wait a minute. I'm existing in the present. In the present I own everything that I have posession of. I don't know about memories, those are captured reflections of the past, but if you look out in my garage you can see some of the stuff I own. So long as I keep my doors locked it's a pretty sure thing I'm going to continue to own my stuff. And In my memory I can remember when I bought this stuff that I still have. I mean, how complicated do we want to make this?

Chris
It's simple really. Ownership is tied to responsibility. :)
 
seattlegal said:
It's simple really. Ownership is tied to responsibility. :)

And responsibility is transitory and waxes and wanes with time and scale of reference. No matter how much we attempt to adhere to the "kiss" prime directive (I really follow the 'keep it simple stupid' principle more each day as I age) the world around us is just so much more complex than that. However, we can discipline ourselves to "believe" it is what we wish it to be in order to simplify our day-to-day living. I view that as one of G-d's great gifts to us.

I've been thinking a lot about the "lilies of the fields" parable while "doing" this thread. They really do not "spin nor toil" and yet they bless us with their presence and being. Neither are they "owned" nor "ownable" by anyone or anything. And yet they participate in "being" as actively and meaningfully as we "owners" do.

flow....;)
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Wait a minute. I'm existing in the present. In the present I own everything that I have posession of. I don't know about memories, those are captured reflections of the past, but if you look out in my garage you can see some of the stuff I own. So long as I keep my doors locked it's a pretty sure thing I'm going to continue to own my stuff. And In my memory I can remember when I bought this stuff that I still have. I mean, how complicated do we want to make this?

Chris

Chris,

I guess the point of this exercise is that, what we "own" can dissappear in a New York second. So, in fact we really "own" nothing. Not even our lives. What it seems we are is, "stewards" of what has been given to us (or what we "earned"), and that we should consider life and everything about it as such, and treat all accordingly.

my thoughts (simplified)

v/r

Q
 
Quahom...

Could you expand on that phrase you used:

what we "own" can dissappear in a New York second.

Where did that expression "New York second" derive from?

- Art
 
This has been a most interesting line of debate and commentary.
For my part, I simply would like to reiterate that the original post in this thread didn't really address action and responsibility and what we should or shouldn't do and all the implications therein. A simple statement was made (to paraphrase): "I don't really own these things. Instead, God owns them."

Now, I think that there is something to be said for this. Is it a practical...a rational...way of thinking? Of course not. This goes without saying...though, admittedly, the members of this board have done a truly eloquent and succinct job of explaining exactly why it is quite impractical. Nonetheless, I stand firmly by the notion that there MUST BE ROOM in our lives, in our way of thinking, to allow for this sentiment. Not out of pity for religion, not because we don't want to hurt the namby-pambies feelings, not because we should lie to ourselves or deny our responsibility, but because throughout all of this argument and debate, it still stands to be a valid viewpoint in so far as one recognizes that there is more to this life than JUST an ego that can own and, in time, lose everything to which it lays claim.

I don't know if I saw a single response that noted that the viewpoints that "I own my things" and "God owns my things" (or nature, or tao, or what have you) are not necessarily mutually exclusive propositions! Yes, I certainly do own my car. In fact, I got in a fender bender just yesterday...you can bet my insurance company is not going to go after God for a detailed account of the scenario and a review of the damages. And they aren't going raise God's monthly payment, either. These are, most certainly, facts of life. But something is not final and open-and-shut simply because it is a fact. Even if that fact cannot, in any way, be reasonably challenged...it is STILL not the final word. Though, when I see that most responses have primarily focused upon the so-called "practical" uses of the sentiment, I guess I find this somewhat more understandable.

This seems to me to be same reason that philosophy gets such a bad rap in many circles. Everyone's always busy asking "What good is it? What does it actually do?" However, this is not the only way of looking at things. Must we be so very obsessed with action? Does EVERYTHING that is worth anything have to involve some kind of direct and corresponding effect in our lives that involves acting to get us something or to achieve something?

Furthermore, this is NOT just some hack attempt at trying to save one sentiment by declaring that it does not necessarily negate others. For, on one hand, we are people with concepts and rules concerning ownership and these rules cannot be denied. On the other hand, we are complex formations of earth and air that play dress-up everyday, gathering mass quantities of other things also made of earth and air that we pretend we can be apart from in order that we can wield absolute ownership over them. Of course, in due time all of the things we "owned" will either change shape and wind themselves back in the dirt, or their owners will kick the bucket first. Either way, the realization that "I" own this or that is a concept of markedly temporary validity. So, if we can't own our things forever...then who will? Who does the ownership get passed on to? It is the same idea that was expressed by a Native American by the name of Chief Seattle when he asked," Who can sell the air?" in a famous address to the burgeoning European society in North America. He was, ironically, discussing what he saw in "the white man" (now perhaps better termed 'the Westerner') as a terribly exaggerated and ferociously defended idea of ownership...one that denied unwittingly the fact that ownership is just a concept invented by man...nothing more. Of course, it has worth and commands respect as a concept that is universally accepted...but, it is STILL just somebody's idea, and it doesn't correspond to so-called "real life" anymore than the idea that God owns everything.

The funny thing is, the more a man comes to honestly and truly believe in the most sincere sense that some thing is ABSOLUTELY his, he will be inclined to invent all manners and reasons to viciously and ferociously keep these things at all costs...even when his losing them causes himself less violence and pain, even when he doesn't need such things at all or has no actual interest in them...even when his doing so only secures his ownership for yet another uncertain term that will again be challenged or just plain taken away by death or destruction of those things. Frankly, I think it might do us well to consider this sometimes. Sometimes the idea that 'God owns everything' reminds us of this...reminds us to ask at certain times just what our ownership of this or that is really worth or what it really means to say 'This is mine'!
 
arthra said:
Quahom...

Could you expand on that phrase you used:

what we "own" can dissappear in a New York second.

Where did that expression "New York second" derive from?

- Art

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe that Q's statement "in a New York second" is an adaptation of a popular R&B/Funk song lyric from the 70's or 80's, "In a New York Minute".

flow....:cool:
 
flowperson said:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe that Q's statement "in a New York second" is an adaptation of a popular R&B/Funk song lyric from the 70's or 80's, "In a New York Minute".

flow....:cool:

Actually from the Eagles in 1987, I think.
 
Quahom1 said:
So, in fact we really "own" nothing. v/r

This is wrong like i mentioned early there are things that we have that no one can take away. Such as opoinions and your beliefs.

Sayonara!
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste all,

interesting thread.

i own my actions, thoughts and words.

metta,

~v

Hi V,

Do you really own your actions, thoughts and words or are they merely borrowed images that appear and disappear as a vapor before you? From one perspective of consciousness what you say seem to ring true but from another it seems there is no 'you' to own anything. Just another view to consider.

Metta,
JosephM
 
Back
Top