skydog

put on the earphone, put on the feng shui, flutes, beautiful, i am the waterfall, i am the tree, i am the flower looking at the grass being eaten by the rabbit Wow this music is amazing, cant wait to dragon fly, dragon BOOM BOOM BOOM, serious, SERIOUS, SERIOUS, SERIOUS...tupac nigga motherfucker, wants to fuck with me, i am god, who the fuck is scarface gonna goodfella the ghost in the priate ship going into the eye of the other person into the eye of the other person into the eye of the cloud, roaring through the keyboard all taking place in reality thoughts are reality little fluffy cute bunny rabbits, drums are good for going to sleep, tip, tip, receieve tips in the hotel, help others i am above, i exist now, who, what what is what

"What is a good man but a bad man's teacher? What is a bad man but a good man's job? When some things are seen as good Other things become bad Success is as dangerous as a failure Hope is as hollow as fear" Tao te ching But also Express yourself completely but remain quiet Ive been in peace all day but then I got a job, my normal reaction to this is " yes, ego boost, I am better than this person that person, I am normal, I am respectable, I can make money, I can buy this, the future, this is good, bla bla bla" but Is reminding myself of the tao te ching and sort of silencing this pleasure, wrong?

I can see the sense in that. if peace is spontaneous then it is naturally occuring, however if one tries to force it, because one thinks "peace/bliss is good" then this ruins the flow ( I guess ) or possibly it can be done in a way that is naturally occuring since ones desire to be at bliss is also natural but on the other hand desire hinders reality. I think trying to live life without any desire at all is somewhat insane Taoists say if they have one desire to attain the tao then they do but if they have many they cant attain any of them. Their needs to be some structure? Also interesting Im noticing sometimes I am in peace or bliss or emptiness and Im like "yes this is good, Im advancing, im going to be enlightened soon (haha) Im better than others. Whereas if Im in a bad mood my mind is doing the opposite "this is bad, your not doing something right, your worse than those happy people, you cannot find ego completion in the future through enlightenment (wow just realising this thought) However if I feel joy/excitement but my mind is saying ( you feel joy/excitement that means you believe this is good. But is it really, what about non duality, what is higher than temporary pleasure...peace/bliss, your current excitement is an ignorance of reality that you dont know/cant say what is good or bad) then one struggles to ignore this mind But also I cannot feel excitement if I am in emptiness meditation...it goes back to peace/bliss excitement is a sort of belief that what Im doing might be great and be a real ego boost but I must avoid doing something/I am scared of this not happening. I guess one can allow natural feelings, while keeping non dualism in mind?

Yes good posts zoose and jetsun

Sort of Misunderstandings are likely to take plac with the use of words nevertheless I will do my best. Gloating I guess is a sort of "now Im higher up than you, (not lower than you), now im higher up than some others (not lower than some others) and your happiness should not depend on comparison with those around you because gloating is finding relief that others are not doing as well as me and that Im not at the bottom. Sort of confusing actually need some clarification of the practicalities of this kind of thinking. I was thinking more in terms of thinking some things are good and bad and believing them. If I think getting a job is good (because not having this is bad, not having a job is bad, having a job here is worse than here) then I will believe not having a job is bad, not having these possessions is bad, it is worse to have a job in this place than here. Say I get a job in this luxury hotel I think its good, but what if I dont get paid/ have a major accident/ get bullied (lol) then this would be considered bad or believed to be worse than getting paid or being healthy or being spoken to nicely. What if I have a major accident but then go on to get massive claims by suing some and recover fairly quickly (this would be considered good) but then say if with this money I use it to drink alchohol and get drunk every night and party (some people may consider this good) some people may consider this bad, say I go and get drunk every night then end up dating a hot woman ( which is considered good) because not dating one is considered bad then the hot woman is abusive/breaks my heart which is considered bad rather than the good of not being abused, but maybe through this abuse/broken heart, I become enlightened which some people consider good rather than bad, then through this enlightenment it means I behave in dangerous ways which leads to family members being killed which is considered bad rather than good but say through these members being killed it leads to mass enlightenment which is considered good rather than bad which then leads to lack of productivity considered bad rather than good. lol I was just amusing myself with this story but kind of true. Also I guess fighting with oneself is against taoism so I have a feeling I can either philosophise out of the belief or philosophise out of the belief believing im going with the natural flow of peace, or I can accept the feeling and not intefere with it just allowing it. Hmm..

Ok thanks for the posts

@Harmonious Emptiness- Ok thanks, will do @Jetsun- Thanks for the tip, I have seen Non violent communication and done a couple of workshops on it, In India I lived in this sustainable living community. Personally I think it must have some use. However some people who use it talk like absolute weirdos and everything is discussed in this over the top manner but yes your right, It does have good applications @ Enishi- Yes, I agree @ The lerner.. Yes, I see what your saying @ Twinner/Aaron...good post actually. I think it is important to go into every situation not assuming you know everything and learn and see things from other peoples perspective, this is a useful bit of info. Still havent talked to my mum but perhaps letting things take their natural time. I apologised (only for losing control) but I think this had the effect I feared in making my mum think that her own behaviour is correct and she did nothing that provoked me, nevertheless I trust things will work out fine. Yes good luck in dealing with your own mother, hope things work out in the most harmonious way. Regards Sinan

apparantely its for old men or anyone who wants to improve their sexual prowess (not sure if theres a female version but I know theres sexual qigong exercises for women somewhere) Also for health in general as the sexual energy gets improved and converted into chi (apparantely). K I think this video is pretty cool so you should find somewhere to watch it lol, theres other qigong feats here. I don't think its dangerous unless you start thinking your superman and do more than you actually can - eg weightlifting. Possibly is though.

Thanks for your reply Actually I have been reading the Tao teh Ching ever since I nearly hit my mum and contemplating it, as well as chuang tzu and the I ching and it is very remarkable stuff indeed. I will study these books patiently. Thanks for your comment about the five elements I will pick up the book as well. I was reffering more to learning tai chi, not as a means to hurt someone but to understand how to deal with conflict harmoniously and automatically react with yin instead of yang as I am conditioned to. Yeh, I wasnt really going to hit anyone, more of an empty threat, but still not something I want to be doing

lol I agree

Actually here is a good post by Osho- COnfucian in the office, Taoist out of the office. Osho on Chinese Saying - 'Confucian in office, Taoist out of office" Question - This is a marxist, a christian theologian's question -- so many diseases together! In traditional china there was a saying, 'Confucian in office, Taoist out of office.' this represented a deep division and dilemma in chinese society, perhaps all societies. Can there be an enlightened society which does not teach the way of the ego? Or is society by nature of its very ordered and patterned reality of the calculating and repressive collective mind or ego; is society, even that of enlightened individuals or would-be enlightened individuals, by its very nature, opposed to enlightenment? Osho - First, the old saying is perfectly beautiful: A Taoist out of office, and a Confucian in the office. When you live with people, you have to follow certain rules. Those rules have no ultimacy about them; they are rules of a game. For example: if you walk on the road you have to walk to the right or to the left, as the society has decided. If you start walking anywhere, you will be in trouble and you will create trouble for others. Keeping to the left is not something ultimate; it is utilitarian, it has use. It is not that God has commanded you to walk to the left; because in America they go on keeping to the right. Whether you keep to the right or to the left does not matter; but you have to keep to either the right or left. A rule has to exist because there are so many persons. If you are alone on the road, then there is no problem. If you have a private road where you walk alone, it is up to you. There is no need to keep to the left, because then that would be an obsession, foolish. Then you can walk in the middle of the road, or whatsoever you like you can do. In your privacy there should be no rules. One should live a life of total freedom -- that is what Lao Tzu is. But where there are others your freedom can become a chaos, and chaos is not freedom. Where others are involved you have to follow certain rules. There is no need to get obsessed about them. There are people who get obsessed about rules. I used to stay in Calcutta in one friend's house. He is a Justice of the High Court. His wife told me once when he was not at home,'My husband follows you, reads you, loves you tremendously. It will be great compassion on me if you can tell him one thing to do.' I asked,'What is that one thing?' The woman said,'Tell him not to be a Justice in the bed. Even in the bed he remains a High Court Justice; he never comes out of the role.' It is good to be a Justice in the court. It would be as wrong to be a husband in the court, as wrong as to be a Justice in the bed. In the court one has to be a Justice: this is what Confucianism means. Confucius thinks about the relationship between people, the society, the world: etiquette, manners, the law. Confucius is like Moses or Manu: the law-giver. Lao Tzu brings love, freedom to the world. And it is good to move in these two polarities. Don't think that they divide you. They don't divide you. In fact, they give you more freedom, more flow, more possibilities, because if you remain Taoist, then you will have to move to the Himalayas some day or other. You cannot live in the society because wherever you go, there will be trouble. Either you will have to go to the Himalayas, or people will crucify you. That's what happened to Jesus. One Christian bishop was saying to me, 'Wherever Jesus went there was revolution, but wherever I go people serve tea!' Jesus was dangerous. The proverb is of a very deep wisdom: there is no need to be continuously creating revolution wherever you go; there is no need to be constantly forcing people to make a cross for you. It will be wiser, sometimes it is good, if tea is served. To be an obsessed revolutionary is a disease. And to bring etiquette and manners back home so that you cannot even relax in your bathroom, that too is obsession. The proverb is perfectly beautiful. I approve of it totally. Be a Confucian in the world, and in your innermost world be a Taoist, a follower of Lao Tzu. And there is no division! There is nothing wrong with it. You simply have a fluidity: when the other comes you follow the rules, because with the other, rules come; when you are alone there is no need for any rules. Without the other, rules disappear. In your aloneness you are totally free, but whenever you are with somebody else you have a responsibility. The other is there and you have to be careful. That is part of love: to care about the other. So I don't see any dichotomy, and I don't see any dilemma. The dilemma is created if you have not understood the point. If you understand the point, there is no dilemma. And the second thing: 'Is society, even that of enlightened individuals or would-be enlightened individuals. by its very nature opposed to enlightenment?' Yes, society, by its very nature, is opposed to enlightenment, because enlightenment is basically individual. It happens in your aloneness. When you are absolutely alone, only then does it happen. The other functions as a barrier. The society is opposed to enlightenment and will always remain opposed, because the society is an organization. The society, even if it calls itself revolutionary, cannot be revolutionary. All societies are traditional, even the society of Mao. It may be a new tradition, that's all, but it is a tradition. The Russian society now is as traditional as any society. Society cannot be revolutionary because the society has to settle, it has to have some type of establishment, it has to follow certain rules. Only the individual can be purely, innocently revolutionary, rebellious. There is no need for any organization and any structure. But once there is the other, organization comes in. Society can never be for enlightenment, because people who become enlightened go, in a certain way, beyond the society. They go beyond the rules; they start living their freedom. That will not happen if you follow the Chinese proverb. Then, the society will not be against enlightenment. It may not be for it, but it will not be against. If you move in the world and follow the rules there, and in your aloneness you go into the unknown, then there is no problem. The problem arises when just in the middle of the road you start meditating, or you start dancing. Nothing is wrong with dancing; you have just chosen a wrong place. Dancing is perfectly good, but choose a right place for it. There is a right time and a right place for everything. Don't just stand in the middle of the road and create a nuisance. If one understands the proverb, there will be no trouble. But society itself can never be for enlightenment, because enlightenment is basically individual. It happens to the individual, never to the society. You become enlightened, not the group, not the society. In fact, society is just a name for the collectivity, for the collective of individuals. There is no 'soul of society'; the soul is individual. The society is just the arrangement -- superficial. It is needed, necessary, but it is a necessary evil; it has to be tolerated. But society does not bother about whether you become enlightened or not. For society, Confucius is enough. For the individual, Confucius is not enough, Lao Tzu is needed. For society, Moses is enough. For the individual, Moses is not enough -- maybe necessary, but not enough -- Jesus is needed. And once you understand, you can create an inner synthesis of the two, and there is no problem. In the TALMUD is said one of the most beautiful sentences ever uttered: One man outweighs all creation. Not only society, not only this earth, but,'One man outweighs ALL creation.' This is true, because one man can become a vehicle for the divine. One man can become the opportunity for God to exist, to be present, for God to express Himself. One man can become the flowering of the ultimate. The society is utilitarian; one man outweighs all creation. There is another sentence in the TALMUD: Wherever you come across a footprint of man, God stands before you: bow down. Wherever you come across a footprint, God stands before you -- the possibility. Society is just a structure with no soul. The soul is of the individual. One individual outweighs all societies. And, one individual's revolution outweighs all revolutions in the whole of history, because one man can become the womb for God to be reborn.

Yes good comment. I was thinking of this tai chi- using love and emptiness for an attacker, their anger against them. I don't know much about it wondering where I can learn this method of dealing with conflict. As you can see I attempted this method in the last few posts I made. I felt like reacting back with violent words but then decided to edit my words. So yeah where can I learn about this method of dealing with conflict. I didnt say it was good but as osho says it is a natural response, I am not a bad person for doing it as others have said just lacked control. Also I found oshos teachings some of the soundest and wisest that there is. Very taoist, very natural. I doubt some of the claims that he tried to attack some agency or whatever but even if he did, I am skeptical as to his lack of wisdom, I heard he shouted at someone and told someone to get out of his resort because he was trying to debate with them about vipassana, but to me I dont see this as meaning that none of his words have any value.

nah lol I was directing it at jeremiah zeitgeist your comment was compassionate Im not saying I want to hit anyone, but as osho says its kind of natural so I shouldnt hate myself

lol at osho "what should his son do? hit his mother back, But the world has not become that civilized yet. So he goes inside his room, picks up his doll and tears it to pieces."

Osho on Gandhi and non violence. A thousand illustrations can be given, but I will mention only a few. Mahavir Tyagi has mentioned an incident in his book of memoirs. One day Gandhi visited his town and addressed a largely attended public meeting in the evening. At the end of the meeting he asked for donations from the audience. Many people gave money; women gave away their ornaments, like earrings, bracelets and anklets. Gandhi accepted them and piled them on the podium. Before he left the meeting he asked Mahavir Tyagi to carry the donations to his residence. Tyagi arrived at Gandhi's place at about midnight. He thought that Gandhi had gone to bed; he also thought that he himself could have waited until the next morning before he saw him. But he had no idea of the mind of a businessman -- he never goes to bed before finalizing his accounts. And so he was surprised to see that the old man was wide awake at that hour of the night. As soon as Tyagi arrived Gandhi enquired if he had brought everything from the meeting place, and immediately he opened the bag and examined it. He found one earring missing. "No woman will give only one earring; she will donate the pair. So go back to the meeting place and find the other," he said to Tyagi. A tired Mahavir Tyagi returned to the meeting place at one in the morning and found the missing earring with the help of a gaslight. When he returned to Gandhi's place he again thought that he had gone to bed, but no, he again found the old man awake. When he received the earring he was satisfied and said to Tyagi, "Now you can go; the account is okay." I did not say anything derogatory about Gandhi. This is also a kind of mind; there is nothing of condemnation about it. And if we had rightly understood the personality of Gandhi, it would have made a great difference in the life of India. Because if the leadership of this country was in the hands of a businessman, the danger was inevitable. It was really the job of a warrior which Gandhi, a businessman, undertook to do. Bhagat Singh would have done it well; Subhas Bose would have done it still better. But it could not happen that way. And Gandhi did what his type was capable of doing. The country was partitioned and it was a mutilated and lifeless independence that we had, because the businessman is always for compromise; he cannot afford to be an extremist. He says, "Let us settle on the basis of fifty-fifty." India's partition was the result of Gandhi's leadership. Because the mind of a businessman does not like fight, he chooses compromise instead. He believes in settlement on the basis of give-and-take. He avoids conflict and confrontation. Whether Gandhi said so in explicit terms is not the question. It was the mind of a businessman that the country acquired from the leadership of Gandhi. This is precisely the reason why Gandhi found accord with the British, because they also are a community of businessmen. The British could not have found this accord with anyone else. It was impossible to have accord with Bhagat Singh or Subhas Bose. They had accord with Gandhi because their mental type was the same. The British were essentially businessmen, who by mistake became rulers of a country and wielded power. And the person who confronted them was, to their good luck, also a businessman. It is surprising to see that the British government provided every security to Gandhi, something no government on earth had ever done to their enemy. We could not save Gandhi's life after the British left India, but he was alive as long as they were here. It is such an interesting episode of history. The British gave full protection to Gandhi because it became clear to them that sooner or later he would prove useful to them, and so they should be on good terms with him. others in his place would have been difficult to deal with. There was a sort of inner communion between him and the British rulers of India. This relationship was bound to happen, because it was so natural -- they belonged to the same category as far as their mental makeup was concerned. They could understand each other, and so a rapport was established between them. That is why India could not win her independence; it was given as a gift, and such an independence is worse than slavery. Independence is wrested, it is achieved, it is not had by begging. Independence is not had through negotiations and compromises; it is always wrested from unwilling hands. And the freedom that is wrested is alive and dynamic; it has a verve and vitality of its own. And one that is granted and received as a gift is as good as a corpse. It was a lackluster independence that came to India in 1947; it missed the glory and grandeur that comes with it. And it came with all the ugly consequences that independence coming as a gift brings with it. Gandhi never tired of preaching non-violence, because a businessman cannot afford violence. Have you cared to note that the Jain teerthankara Mahavira is a kshatriya, a warrior, but the community that gathered around him is entirely a trading community. Mahavira is a warrior, and the twenty-four teerthankaras of the Jains are warriors, but not one Jain is a warrior -- all the Jains are businessmen. What is the matter? There is no other reason than the fact that non-violence made a deep appeal to the merchant community. Mahavira's non-violence made a great impact on the minds of the shopkeepers. Similarly, the businessman's mind in India found itself in accord with Gandhi's non-violence. It said that Gandhi was right: if we are not going to be violent with others, others will not be violent with us. It was because of Gandhi's leadership that non-violence became the basis of a movement for independence. India had to go through tremendous misfortunes because of the non-violent character of its movement for independence. It was a great misfortune that Gandhi did not allow the hatred and violence that naturally surged in India's mind against the British to express itself. He suppressed it. Whenever a little violence showed itself, the businessman in Gandhi panicked and retreated, as if he thought aloud that shopkeepers could not afford violence, they were all for compromise. He always retraced his steps. I remember a story; it is perhaps one of the folk tales of Rajasthan. The story says that there was a warrior, a kshatriya in a village, who was very proud of his mustache; it symbolized his brawn. He sat all through the day in front of his house twisting the ends of his mustache upwards. He had it announced in the village that nobody could pass his house twisting the ends of his mustache upwards. One day a businessman, who had newly settled in the village and who sported a mustache, happened to pass the house of the warrior while twisting the ends of his mustache upwards. The warrior stopped him and said, "Listen, businessman, stop twisting the ends of your mustache upwards." The businessman said, "Who are you to order me about?" The warrior stood up and handed the businessman a sword saying, "Then take this sword and let us settle the matter once and for all." The businessman was flabbergasted, he had not imagined that things would come to such a head. He said, "Okay. But before we fight a duel let us do one thing that is necessary. In case I die, my wife and children will suffer. And if you die your wife will be widowed and your children will have to beg. It will be better if both of us go back to our houses and finish with our dependents. And then we will settle our score." The warrior readily agreed. If he had been intelligent, he would not have made an issue of his mustache. The businessman went home, and so did the warrior. The warrior killed his wife and children and returned to his seat, twisting his mustache. When the businessman came back, he had no mustache at all; he had shaved it. And he said, "I thought there was no point in fighting to death for nothing, and I shaved my mustache!" This is a type of mind; there is nothing derogatory about it. This is just to say that the warrior is like this and the businessman is like that. It is not a condemnation. Whenever Gandhi was in difficulties, whether it was the Chaurichaura incident or something else that turned violent, he at once beat a retreat. He thought it was better that he shaved his mustache. Why fight? The result was that the hatred and violence of the Indian people against the British, which was simply natural, was repressed. And because of this repression, the two major communities of India -- the Hindus and the Mohammedans -- fought with each other, and bloody riots took place throughout the country. If India had fought the British openly -- with swords -- the Hindus and Mohammedans would not have fought among themselves. As we could not fight the British, the repressed hatred, the unspent violence, had to find an outlet somewhere. Where could it go? And it found an outlet in the Hindu-Mohammedan riots, in violent infighting. It is generally believed that Gandhi tried his best to prevent the infighting between Hindus and Mohammedans. But I say that he was responsible for the whole tragedy. You can understand this easily if you are familiar with the findings of modern psychology. The feeling of hatred and violence against the alien rulers was so powerful -- and very natural at that -- that it could have set fire to the British regime and thrown it out of India. Such a tremendous energy was suppressed, and it had to find other ways to express itself. It could not have done otherwise. For example, there is a petty clerk working in some office. One day his boss berates him He is so hurt that he feels like strangling his boss, but he simply cannot do it; it is unthinkable. So he suppresses his anger and puts a false smile on his face and goes about wagging his tail before the boss as usual. Then the clerk leaves for home in the evening. Watch his bicycle; he is pedaling it with great force. Why? He is just giving vent to his repressed anger against the boss. He would have beaten him with his shoes, but he could not. Now it is as if he is beating the pedal with the same shoes. And he drives fast. Now his wife should know that the lord and husband is coming home after he had some trouble with his boss. But she does not know a thing. She is fondly expecting her husband home. The husband too is not aware of what he is going to do after reaching home. But you can know that he is now going to strangle his wife in the place of his boss. He will find a thousand and one excuses to punish her -- the bread for his dinner was burned, the bed was not made, and so on and so forth. And he takes her to task, he thrashes her. In reality he had to thrash the boss, but he dared not. So the anger deviates and makes the wife its target. Hatred is stored in his mind; it is bursting. If you close the drainage of your house, then filth will be all over the place. As a house needs a drainage, so also our violence needs a let-go. And if it is not allowed a right outlet, it will find a wrong one. And the violence expressed the wrong way will do you more harm than one expressed the right way. It proved to be so. But the wife is also helpless; she cannot beat the husband in retaliation. Up to now the wife has not gathered that much courage... but she should. Husbands themselves have taught the wives that husbands are their gods. Now it is dangerous to beat a god, although the wife has her doubts too. What kind of a god is he that beats his wife without reason? But she has to believe what she had been taught to believe. So the wife of the clerk, in her turn, waits for her son to return from the school. These are all unconscious deviations. The son is returning from school; he is not aware of what has happened between his father and mother. He comes home singing a film song. The mother immediately grabs him by the neck saying, "What a dirty song it is!" It was this very song he sang while returning home the previous evening and the evening before that. And the mother herself sang it, his father too. Their forefathers had done the same -- there is nothing new about this song -- but today the mother is about to strangle him on the grounds that he sang an indecent song. Now what should the son do? Should he hit his mother back? But the world has not become that civilized yet. So he goes inside his room, picks up his doll and tears it to pieces. The mind has its own energy. Gandhi caused deviations in the way of India's natural energy by thwarting it, suppressing it. If India's violence had been directed against the British -- which was its natural course -- a splendored country could have emerged out of that clean fight. Then India would not have been divided into two parts; it would have remained one and whole. A direct fight with the British power would have disciplined us as a people, given an edge and sharpness to our energy and a dignity and grandeur of our own. A straight and clean fight with the alien rulers would have filled us with hope and confidence, verve and vitality; it would have made our life lively, juicy and beautiful. But that could not happen. But we had to use the sword nonetheless, and we used it against our own people. This is how the Hindus and Mohammedans clashed, and clashed like savages. And who is responsible for the massive violence that blasted this country after it became independent on August 15, 1947? People are dishonest who say that the British government engineered the communal riots and infighting. Some people say that Mr. Jinnah was responsible for it. Others say other things. No, this is wrong. None of them, neither Jinnah nor the British were behind the holocaust. The real reason was that a volcano of hate and violence was smoldering in India's mind, but it had no outlet. So when India was partitioned, the suppressed volcano found an opportunity and it erupted. The pain of hundreds of years of slavery found an outlet. The country was partitioned and a million people were killed. At the price of a million lives we would have wrested our freedom from the British a long time before. If one fine morning a million people had only shown readiness to die for their country's freedom, the British government would have left the very next morning. But it could not be. When I say that Gandhi was a businessman, I say it after due consideration. And I do not mean to slander him in the least. And it will stand you in good stead if you take him to be what he is -- a businessman. Then you will be careful in relating with him in the future. If this country has anything to do with the shopkeeper's mind, then it will never have that dynamism, that elan vital, without which we would be as good as a dead people. The tradesman has his usefulness. He has a place in the society, and he is valuable. Similarly the warrior has a place in the society, and he is useful and valuable. The priest is equally useful and valuable. And the laborer also. They all have their distinctive usefulness and value. And in the humanist sense no one is more or less valuable than the other. But it should be clearly understood that socialism is going to wipe out these distinctive types altogether, because it does not accept them. It says that all men are the same -- but all men are not the same. A friend has a question, and a few other friends have put the same question with some variations. They want to know on what authority I say that Gandhi was opposed to railways, telegraphs and airplanes. They also say that I am wrong to say so. I wonder if you read anything at all. If you only read Gandhi's hind swaraj you will see that Gandhi denounced modern machines and technology a thousand times more than what I have mentioned here. But the book hind swaraj was written way back in 1905, and someone may say that it is not right to judge a person who died in 1948 from his writings of 1905. I will agree with him. But in this context there is a letter of Gandhi's which he wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru in 1945. Nehru had asked Gandhi by letter if he still stood by his opposition to railways and telegraphs as he had written in his book hind swaraj. Gandhi wrote back to Nehru -- and this in 1945 -- that he stood by every word he had written in hind swaraj. It appears that the questioners don't read a thing. They have said that I am not aware of facts. But the truth is that Gandhi himself was not a well-read man, and his followers are still less so. In my understanding, Gandhi is the least-read man among the great men of this century. He was unaware of all the great findings of the present times. He knew nothing about Freud and Jung. And what he talked about celibacy was three thousand years old and now out-of-date. He had no knowledge of the studies done on birth control. He read Marx in jail in 1942, and I doubt if he read him fully. His grasp of Marxism, however, was never deep. He, of course, read the GITA and the RAMAYANA, but the GITA and the RAMAYANA are the textbooks for the ignorant villagers, not for the knowledgeable. Gandhi read poorly and thought poorly, and his followers, it seems, do not even read their leader's writings. A last word. Another friend has said that I did not illustrate my point when I said that there was contradiction in Gandhi's professions and his practice. I would like to give a few examples. Gandhi preached non-violence throughout his life, but his own personality was violent, utterly violent. He never tired of talking of non-violence. You may ask how I say it. We need to understand this thing carefully. If I point a knife at your chest and say that I w ill kill you if you don't accept what I say, then you will say that I am a violent person. Now just reverse the process. Instead of pointing the knife at you, I point it at myself and say that I will kill myself if you don't accept what I say. Do I now become a non-violent person? Does one become non-violent by just turning the direction of the knife, or changing its target? All his life Gandhi used this threat, this coercion that he would kill himself if his point of view was not accepted. This is coercion, this is violence. Gandhi coerced Dr. Ambedkar through fasting. He could not bring about one change of heart, though he resorted to any number of fasts and fasts-unto-death. Not one heart was changed, although he always talked of"change of heart" as the object of his fasts. Ambedkar just gave in under duress and accepted Gandhi's demands. Later on Ambedkar said that Gandhi should not be under the illusion that he changed his heart. He still believed that he was right and Gandhi was wrong, but he submitted because he realized that it would be too much if Gandhi lost his life for his demand. His heart was not at all changed; he relented because of Gandhi's coercion. Gandhi used this kind of coercion all along. Whether you threaten to kill yourself or kill others, it is all the same and it is violence. Both kinds of threats are violent. But we fail to observe it, and we think that the threat to kill oneself is non-violent. Truth is otherwise; it is subtle violence. It is not non-violence. Non-violence is very different. Non-violence means that there should be no threat, no coercion whatsoever, to kill oneself or others. Ask the people who were associated with Gandhi. Ask his own sons. Ask Haridas Gandhi if his father was non-violent. If so, then why did he become a Mohammedan? If Gandhi was non-violent, why did his son take to drinking and meat-eating? If Gandhi was non-violent, why did he have to fight his father all his life? It was because Gandhi's non-violence was so sadistic, so torturous that he tortured his own sons. Haridas left home and ran away for fear of his father, that he would destroy him. Haridas did not know that the person who could not be a right father to his own son was going to become the father of a whole nation. Really, it is easy to become the father of a nation; it is much more difficult to be a right father of a single son. Being the nation's father you are really nobody's father. Ask Haridas and you will know whether Gandhi's personality was violent or non-violent. Ask Kasturba, his wife, about it. A lot is being written about the married life of Gandhi and Kasturba and it is trumpeted that they made a very ideal couple. It is sheer tall-talk; but in talking tall we are a matchless people. In reality the married life of Gandhi was ridden with constant conflict and strife, but we claim that it was the ideal of ideals. Ask Kasturba; look at their whole life.But we don't see at all; we are so skilled in shouting and slogan-mongering that we don't need seeing. Whenever they had a guest in their house in South Africa, Gandhi always asked Kasturba to clean the guest's latrine. Once Gandhi saw that Kasturba was weeping while coming down the stairs with the guest's chamber pot in her hands. He took her to task saying, "Don't cry. Service should be rendered with a smile on your lips." The poor woman is being forced to clean the latrine of others; she is not doing it for service. She is just in the trap of her husband who, in his turn, is in the trap of a set of principles. So he coerces his wife to clean latrines with a smile. Many times he took Kasturba by her wrist and threw her out of the house at midnight, on the grounds that she did not follow his principles. This man is not non-violent; he is utterly violent. But he swears by non-violence; it is his ideal. And it is on account of his ideal of non-violence that it becomes so difficult to understand his personality. Life is a very complex affair; it is not that simple. So when I say something don't jump to a conclusion about it. Whatever I say is well-considered; I have given thought to it. But Gandhi's devotees think that they are protecting him by questioning me. They are mistaken to think so. The more questions they ask, the more vulnerable they make him to beatings. There is no place in my mind for Gandhi. I consider him to be an utterly diseased personality, so don't get him beaten unnecessarily. It is not necessary to drag him in the midst of our present discussions. Right now I am speaking on the question of socialism and capitalism, and you bring him in for a beating. It is absolutely uncalled for. I am grateful to you for having listened to me so silently, with love. And at the end I bow down to the God enshrined in the heart of each one of you. Please accept my salutations.

I love you bro also some of you so called non violent people are actually being violent with words eg It sok to hit a man but not a woman- that is violence towards men implying I think of women as a mythical creature Offering to fight a guy for giving his opinion Teasing me with saying the whole point of my thread was to justify myself Saying "I haven't grown up" saying because it doesnt go through my thick head. Since when is emotional abuse any less violent than physical abuse. I would actually say emotional abuse is worse. So much for the whole non violence thing.

.

Argh I really feel like a failure. I was travelling for four months and seem to have lost my self control, peace and am gaining some bad habits again such as masturbation. I was having a shower and my dad came down the stair shouting at me for doing so, 3 hours before his work because the hot water runs out, i didn't keep my cool i just shouted back.

I respect your opinion but I feel perhaps your not seeing things how I see them. Zoose is saying Men are bigger than women fact. Why do people train in martial arts or go to the gym a lot of them do so they are more capable of protecting themselves against verbal or physical abuse. Why should the rule of physical protection only apply to a man and not a woman who is doing far worse things (not including my mother) I've seen women doing ridiculous things eg getting their boyfriend to start a fight with other men because they want the drama as you say. Also again Zoose is saying Women want equal rights. That doesnt mean better than a man rights. Generally their so protected against a touch from a man because their smaller unlike men who are allowed to be hit and no one really cares too much. They also want more money jobs etc which I have no problem with but its not equal rights. Its unfair because they will do anything they want knowing that a man cannot hit them. "When nothing else gets through your thick head" See one reason why I feel so bad about this is because a lot of men grow up with amazing mothers who once in a while get annoyed they feel nothing but love for their mothers. This is not my case I worked hard to try to do lots of psychological meditative work for my feelings towards my mother because of all the resentment yet if I react back according to most socially conditioned males I am the living hitler. So this makes me feel ashamed it also makes me feel bad for protecting myself and also bad for even asking for advice. Why does everyone assume the woman must be right. I agree sometimes I dont do certain things. But if I forget to do something all I hear is " You better do this now, fucking stinky pig, bla bla bla" and yes Im exaggerating but I cant get my point off to a socially conditioned audience otherwise. I am not moving out, just gonna stick to the advice given here. I dont feel that I should hit a woman, but what if I said I hit a man who was doing all this Im pretty sure a lot of people would agre with what Im doing in my opinion this is sexist.

Thanks for the reply..

Thanks for your post.

Thanks for your reply. I agree sometimes there is aspects of things which I am not doing right. However instead of asking me to do something which I would do I just get screamed at for not doing it or leaving a shirt somewhere which I didn't or waiting for my mum to take me somewhere shes late and at the last second I go to the toilet then she accuses me of being late and starts screaming at me. She doesnt even have logical basis when I ask why shes shouting she gets even worse. But yes I will do my best to acknowledge my part in this but when I was younger I used to think I was a bad kid because my shame based mother is dumping all her past shit on me when she gets in a bad mood. I think its one step better to not believe that and believe she actually has no reason to shout at me and I am perfectly fine the way I am.

Abuse is abuse. and Emotional Abuse is a lot more harmful in my opinion than getting hit once (which I didn't even do) This kind of abuse gave me anger problems, confidence problems, shyness problems. It has been occuring because my mother got fucked up from her mother and dumps all her shame onto her kids when she gets angry. I came back from my holiday and for a week everyday she was ncie but had one occasion of absolutely craziness to which she apologised the next day. I managed to meditate on my lower dan tien which I was impressed with but the next day I lost it. You push someone to far and look what happens. Don't come in with this shit of "calling us a name" in the tibetan tradition bullying is regarded as bad as rape is and I agree with that. You hurt on the inside your heart hurts and you feel pain. In our society if a man gets hit by a woman you should just sit there and laugh to me thats pretty stupid and has nothing to do with equal rights.

often I think im clever until things show me how little i know and this is how it must be often i think there is no good or bad until i experience, excitement, joy, worry I must really know it who is it who is peaceful, there is just nothing Often I think im being good and doing the right thing, but I am just as selfish the way water flows is always the way it flows whether I want it to or not I must allow and be one with it, I am one with it, I am part of it