Sorry, but this reeks of bypassing to me. Just watch the speaker's eyes as he talks always glancing up into his head leaving his body and its primal wisdom behind. His is a rational solution to an irrational situation. A lot of "what if's" with little relation to "what is." Ignoring our shadow does not make it go away or any more lethal.
For the record, neither video was overtly addressing the situations I related them to in this Substack, but I felt they addressed it quite deeply. This perspective may not be one you are open to, and that's fine. But I think you are misjudging John Astin. He is a friend of mine, someone I know, and I can assure you he is not speaking from his head. More information about John here: https://www.johnastin.com/bio -- and for more on his approach: https://www.johnastin.com/about
I would also invite you to re-read my closing paragraph: In the context of these wars, this message can be very challenging to hear. But notice the resistance to it, if there is resistance—notice how we tighten up against it, if we do, how we defend the solidity of what we think is happening, perhaps especially our pain and suffering and that of others with whom we identify. Again, this isn’t about denying human pain or in any way suggesting that we shouldn’t feel agonizing grief or rage or whatever else we might feel if our child is killed or our neighborhood destroyed—but imagine how it might change the whole situation if all of us really deeply got that what appears is never what we think it is.
"Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream..." Nope, not buying it and spent much of my life escaping from such airy groundlessness.
Joan, you are asking us to "imagine" an illusionary scenario and how we all clasp hands and sing "Kumbaya" in the midst of a Jihadist blood ritual of murder and self sacrifice. Pardon me if I find that crazily ungrounded. Lines of human morality have been crossed and Karma has been set in motion. What I "imagine" is immaterial. Woo-woo won't work here.
I can tell you have a very strong point of view here with a lot of very strong emotion attached, and as a result of that and whatever else moves you, you don't seem to have actually heard what my post is saying. There is nothing in it about dismissing life as merely a dream, nor any woo-woo vision of everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya, nor is there any attempt here to deny the reality of pain and horror, which is in fact deeply felt. Anyway, John, take care....
Who are you quoting here, John? What you imagined was being said? Again, you seem to have misheard the post. (As I said, that inability to hear happens easily when we are angry and upset--as I know only too well from my own experience, and as I think you know as well).
I would never say, "Stay in the moment," but since you've mentioned it, I'd ask you: Is THIS moment, in YOUR experience, "anarchistic and bloody"? And if it is, is that ALL it is? Actually giving attention (not thought, but open attention) to what's ACTUALLY happening NOW for YOU might be valuable. Might be surprising. I'm not prescribing it. But in my experience, action that comes from that kind of attention is usually more helpful than the kind that comes from anger, belief, delusion, self-righteousness, etc.
What kind of "stand" or "walking the talk" are you looking for, John? Do you want me to lay out my views on the two conflicts mentioned, maybe rip into one side or the other, drop a few metaphorical bombs or shoot off a few rockets? I deliberately didn't do that. I do have opinions, but sharing them wasn't the point here. I see pain on all sides. I see violence on all sides. I see it all in myself as well! I don't know what "should" happen. I see that there isn't even One True View of what IS happening.
If I'm hearing you correctly, you seem to imagine that I'm pushing some idealistic, pie-in-the-sky, woo-woo kumbaya-singing vision of world peace, but actually, things look quite grim to me. I see what looks like an escalating war in the Middle East that may even involve Iran and the US, and that will undoubtedly kill, maim and displace thousands...and I see a potential global nuclear war deliberately or accidentally breaking out over Ukraine, which could bring massive and even civilization-ending destruction, and there is already massive destruction there. I see real dangers of fascism and authoritarianism coming from both the right and the left in the US. I see climate change and environmental destruction that sometimes breaks my heart. And as I tried to say in the post, I see how hard it is for humans to see and act clearly given the addictive and deeply habitual smog of emotion-thought that so easily overtakes us (and I speak from experience). I see how easily we humans (myself included) believe our thoughts and opinions and become identified with them.
Was it Gandhi who said that "an eye for an eye" will leave the whole world blind? If you think bombing the hell out of Gaza is the answer here, well, bomb away, my friend. But I'm guessing that response will just fuel ever more rage and pain and desire for revenge in a never-ending cycle.
I wasn't painting some rosy picture, John, but I was suggesting that EVERYTHING is an unfathomable movement of the whole, and that we really don't know what it all is. But in some way, it all goes together.
And yes, I do see amazing potential in the possibility of waking up from our certainties and from how we think and believe everything is. We cannot do that waking up on command or at will in my experience, but it can happen. However, it seems highly unlikely to me that it will happen to enough people, enough of the time, and soon enough, to save us. My sense of things is that humanity will not survive much longer. I could be wrong, and I have been trying not to radiate Doom and Gloom, to which I am sometimes prone, but rather to focus on the possibilities and the beauty that are here now...not in some rosy imaginary future, but only ever right here, right now, even in the midst of darkness.
Your ending phrase what triggered me: "... but imagine how it might change the whole situation if all of us really deeply got that what appears is never what we think it is."
I don't know how to process that intellectual concept connected to the horrors listed in the first part of that sentence. It is our "imaginations" that got us all here and to dismiss them at this moment of deep transformation feels disrespectful to me. I know you don't see it this way, but I am reflecting back to you what others might feel having their grief relegated to "never what we think it is."
I am done here. I have purposely not waded in on this situation in Israel because I sense what is unfolding is beyond words and can only be felt. Deep primal shadow work is unfolding and all I can do is witness and feel the wrenching pain. Too soon for words, too soon.
Thank you, Joan. Having just been on retreat with Gangaji, even before I read what you wrote and heard what John said my mind was more open and in flux than usual. I appreciate having my usual ways of looking at things shaken even more. Given its role in relation to the unfathomable Mystery of existence, it's appropriate for the mind to be humbled!
Joan right on point as usual. Loved the discussion with John Hardman. The older I get and the more I see the more I realize that any opinion we have, beliefs or points of view are inherently flawed because they are merely opinions. In actuality we don’t know a damn thing except what exists Now and we don’t even know what that is! Your insight, humanity and humility are stunning. Thanks again.
I was sick for 3 days last week, I had the new booster. Fine now.
I listened to a book about the history of England and France during the 14th century.
Constant war, internecine killings, plague killing without regard to feudal rank, floods destroying crops and drowning sheep, England’s main export product. Wool.
It was astonishingly familiar to now, with many fewer humans on the earth.
Yes, it's nothing new. In the years when Zen was first developing in China, apparently two-thirds of the population died from famine, plague, or war. Many people have pointed out that humanity as a whole has become less cruel and more sensitive over time. Our technology enables far greater levels of destruction, so it may seem otherwise. And different people and cultures may be at different developmental stages, as Ken Wilber has brilliantly described. But things that were once considered totally normal--torturing animals for fun, vivisection, slavery, the subjugation of women, lynching people while picnicking, etc--are increasingly being left behind and in many societies are now viewed as horrific atrocities. So, it's the same, and it also seems to evolve...for better or worse. Glad you're feeling better. Thanks for your comment.
Joan, I have copied here my response to your "What is Love?" post, from June 3. You didn't respond to my question then, so I thought I'd offer you another opportunity, since I'd like to say the same thing in response to this post. Perhaps this current post is your answer. 'When politics comes up, or activist friends who see as "critically important" some protest for social justice, I have been accused of being "the worst kind" of apolitical person, someone who apparently "doesn't care." However, like you, from the place where I am, all this only promotes division, an us and them, a separation where none really exists. It is part of the drama of duality, not reality. From a child, I have known that all this only perpetuates the harm it aims to cure, that it is, at its core, what is known as hypocritical, self-contradictory, and simply can't be any other way. Yet this is a difficult position to be in when in the company of others, and when remaining silent is perceived as uncaring, along with anything else one could say that shows why one can't stand "with." Of course, we all know the saying that if you're not with, you're against! What do you do, Joan, if/when you find yourself in this kind of situation, with well meaning political activist friends who are trying to "save the world" and assume that you are with them?'
I try to read every comment and respond to questions. So my apologies for missing yours. I didn't see a couple of late comments on the Love post, including yours, so I didn't intentionally ignore it. Thanks for asking again.
I think your way of responding to the world is perfectly valid. People who are politically active tend to feel that everyone else should also be, and perhaps there's sometimes a truth in the idea that silence is complicity--e.g., if one doesn't speak out as Hitler comes for the Jews, or when blacks are being held as slaves, or when women are being denied the right to vote, and so on. But I would say that for some people, their contribution is silent presence. Ramana Maharshi is a great example of this. He read the newspapers--he knew what was going on--but he remained mostly silent, and maybe completely silent on political issues. And yet, I feel he helped the world every bit as much as others who were more actively engaged, such as Martin Luther King Jr or Thich Nhat Hanh. We each have different callings and different roles to play in the world drama. I see value in many different possibilities.
As a former political activist, I feel very good about some of the activism I engaged in--for example, the civil rights movement in the 60s or the 504 occupation for the rights of people with disabilities--both of which transformed society in what I would say are positive ways. I could name other things I feel good about having been involved in as well, but those are two examples. Other political things I was involved with I came to feel were off the mark and even destructive.
Political activism can take many forms, and I would never say that all of it "only promotes division" or "only perpetuates the harm it aims to cure." I'm deeply grateful for the political movements that have have made my own life so much better: the women's movement, the disability rights movement, and the lesbian-gay liberation movement. And I'm deeply grateful that people actively opposed slavery and Jim Crow and many other injustices. I'm glad many people are working to end cruelty to animals or to stop environmental destruction. But much political work can be problematic. I think it matters greatly where it comes from, whether from fear and hate or from love--and then how and in what spirit it is done, whether it is full of rage and blame and "other-ing," or whether it is in a spirit of love and inclusivity. Martin Luther King Jr and Thich Nhat Hanh are great examples of the latter.
You might also check out my very long final comment, which I just now wrote, to John Hardman in the thread above with him.
But suffice it to say I fully support you in being silent. I'm not actually totally silent. I do speak up sometimes, and not always in effective ways, because I do get easily triggered. In recent years, I feel politically homeless, alienated by much of what both the right and the left are doing and advocating. Will I vote in 2024? I don't know. The electable choices so far on offer are not very appealing to me!
I don't think there's any "how to respond" formula to situations like the one you describe being in. I'd say, simply see how you DO respond, both inwardly and outwardly. Awareness is the great liberator, in my experience. And follow your own heart even if it means taking unpopular stands or not doing what others think you should be doing.
Oct 12, 2023·edited Oct 12, 2023Liked by Joan Tollifson
Thank you for responding, Joan. I very much appreciate your thoughts and the time you took to formulate them. And although you say that you "would never say that all of it "only promotes division" or "only perpetuates the harm it aims to cure," I notice you say this in your above comment in your conversation with John: "What is being threatened? I have found that working or speaking at that level of relative reality in politically charged situations generally brings forth conflict and more suffering, in part because I'm easily triggered." Of course, you're speaking of "politically charged" situations. But to me, all politics has this charge, simply because there is always an us and them, always others who are passionate about the opposite of what you are.
Also, as you know: From a place of non-divisiveness, there is no division. As Ramana Maharshi said, thoughts project the world from themselves. There is no world outside of Self. (In Ramana-speak.)
Or, this dialogue, quoted from one of his books, on topic:
D: Is it not necessary that the saints should mix with people and be helpful to them?
M: The Self alone is the Reality; the world and the rest of it are not. The realised being does not see the world as different from himself.
D: Thus then, the saint's realisation leads to the uplift of humanity without the latter being aware of it. Is it so?
M: Yes. The help is imperceptible but is still there. A saint helps the whole of humanity, unknown to the latter.
D: Would it not be better if he mixed with others?
M: There are no others to mix with. The Self is the one and only Reality.
This is beautiful, Janis, and I certainly resonate. And perhaps I’m moving in this direction. This post on War certainly came from a similar kind of radical or absolute perspective, and I was offering it as an alternative to so much of what is swirling around in the media, a different way of seeing. But I still don’t see it as the only way of seeing or being.
I agree with you that any political stand does in some way divide by distinguishing between right and wrong, or between wholesome from unwholesome—for example, opposing Hitler was based on seeing that what he was doing was divisive, harmful, unwholesome, morally wrong, extremely unkind, and that it was bringing forth immense pain and suffering. And while Hitler and his allies saw it differently, I would say they were deluded. But of course, that is all from a relative perspective. From the absolute perspective, it was all an impersonal movement of energy like the churning movements of the ocean in the video I shared, all of it a kind of dream-like appearance in which there is no way to separate the light from the dark. Apparent forms were apparently destroyed, but life itself or presence-awareness or the Self was unharmed.
Ramana, of course, came exclusively from this kind of absolute perspective, and I resonate deeply with that perspective, but I also resonate with Zen, which sees the absolute as only half the truth. Zen doesn't dismiss or ignore relative reality. Thus, as I also said in my comment to John, “I am by no means saying that…there is no place for addressing injustices at the level of political activism or deep trauma work or even at times with military action (I'm not a pacifist).”
And in speaking in my comment to him of the pitfalls of getting entangled in relative positions and views, I was speaking of a general tendency, not meant to apply to all such involvements (e.g., I don’t see MLK and TNH that way), and specifically I was referring to my own tendency in such discussions or actions to get triggered, defensive, self-righteous, etc. Joan is not nearly as equanimous as MLK or TNH.
So, as I see it, there are many valid ways of being. Your way, like Ramana's, may be total silence and un-involvement, leaving the world behind, seeing it as merely a dream-like appearance, not taking sides within the dream. And that’s beautiful. I fully support you in that. But it doesn’t seem to be my way of being. I don’t seem to feel drawn to leave the everyday world of relative reality totally behind. I engage with it less and less as the years go by, and I can certainly see how dream-like and ungraspable it is, and there is definitely a pull in the direction you are speaking from, but I don’t seem to totally stay there. Maybe someday I will, maybe not.
It's definitely possible in my view that Ramana and other silent sages, known and unknown, had as much (or maybe even much more) to do with stopping Hitler’s atrocities as the armies that fought him. I don’t claim to know how the universe works. It's also true, as I see it, that the dream necessarily includes all possibilities, and that what appear to be horrific atrocities from our human perspective may be nothing of the kind from a larger or more subtle perspective.
I think of Nisargadatta responding to questions in I AM THAT about the war in what was then East Pakistan. He says, "In pure consciousness nothing ever happens." The questioner is quite upset by this response and questions how N. can remain aloof. N replies: "I never talked of remaining aloof. You could as well see me jumping into the fray to save somebody and getting killed. Yet to me nothing happened. Imagine a big building collapsing...Nothing happened to the space itself...nothing happens to life when forms break down and names are wiped out."
I resonate completely. But still, I seem to jump into the fray on occasion. And I still take the world drama much more seriously than I think Nisargadatta did.
Thank you again for your comments and for nudging me in what I sense is the deepest direction. 🙏❤️
Reality might not be what it seems to be, in absolute totality, but that we are here right now may mean that this perception and all of our particular perceptions, do matter: how we feel about this, what we think about this, how we understand ourselves in this moment, is meaningful, if not utterly grasping the whole picture. The latter may be fair, but why would we be here otherwise?
Someone also sent me this. I have mixed feelings about Bentinho, but I listened, and while his expression and mine are quite different in many ways, I actually did like this:
We should always remember: “Not always so”
Sorry, but this reeks of bypassing to me. Just watch the speaker's eyes as he talks always glancing up into his head leaving his body and its primal wisdom behind. His is a rational solution to an irrational situation. A lot of "what if's" with little relation to "what is." Ignoring our shadow does not make it go away or any more lethal.
For the record, neither video was overtly addressing the situations I related them to in this Substack, but I felt they addressed it quite deeply. This perspective may not be one you are open to, and that's fine. But I think you are misjudging John Astin. He is a friend of mine, someone I know, and I can assure you he is not speaking from his head. More information about John here: https://www.johnastin.com/bio -- and for more on his approach: https://www.johnastin.com/about
I would also invite you to re-read my closing paragraph: In the context of these wars, this message can be very challenging to hear. But notice the resistance to it, if there is resistance—notice how we tighten up against it, if we do, how we defend the solidity of what we think is happening, perhaps especially our pain and suffering and that of others with whom we identify. Again, this isn’t about denying human pain or in any way suggesting that we shouldn’t feel agonizing grief or rage or whatever else we might feel if our child is killed or our neighborhood destroyed—but imagine how it might change the whole situation if all of us really deeply got that what appears is never what we think it is.
"Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream..." Nope, not buying it and spent much of my life escaping from such airy groundlessness.
Joan, you are asking us to "imagine" an illusionary scenario and how we all clasp hands and sing "Kumbaya" in the midst of a Jihadist blood ritual of murder and self sacrifice. Pardon me if I find that crazily ungrounded. Lines of human morality have been crossed and Karma has been set in motion. What I "imagine" is immaterial. Woo-woo won't work here.
I can tell you have a very strong point of view here with a lot of very strong emotion attached, and as a result of that and whatever else moves you, you don't seem to have actually heard what my post is saying. There is nothing in it about dismissing life as merely a dream, nor any woo-woo vision of everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya, nor is there any attempt here to deny the reality of pain and horror, which is in fact deeply felt. Anyway, John, take care....
"Stay in the moment..."
OK, the moment is anarchistic and bloody.
"Imagine the infinite possibilities instead."
Take a stand, damn it, take a stand for something deeper than your fickle conscious mind. Walk your talk.
Who are you quoting here, John? What you imagined was being said? Again, you seem to have misheard the post. (As I said, that inability to hear happens easily when we are angry and upset--as I know only too well from my own experience, and as I think you know as well).
I would never say, "Stay in the moment," but since you've mentioned it, I'd ask you: Is THIS moment, in YOUR experience, "anarchistic and bloody"? And if it is, is that ALL it is? Actually giving attention (not thought, but open attention) to what's ACTUALLY happening NOW for YOU might be valuable. Might be surprising. I'm not prescribing it. But in my experience, action that comes from that kind of attention is usually more helpful than the kind that comes from anger, belief, delusion, self-righteousness, etc.
What kind of "stand" or "walking the talk" are you looking for, John? Do you want me to lay out my views on the two conflicts mentioned, maybe rip into one side or the other, drop a few metaphorical bombs or shoot off a few rockets? I deliberately didn't do that. I do have opinions, but sharing them wasn't the point here. I see pain on all sides. I see violence on all sides. I see it all in myself as well! I don't know what "should" happen. I see that there isn't even One True View of what IS happening.
If I'm hearing you correctly, you seem to imagine that I'm pushing some idealistic, pie-in-the-sky, woo-woo kumbaya-singing vision of world peace, but actually, things look quite grim to me. I see what looks like an escalating war in the Middle East that may even involve Iran and the US, and that will undoubtedly kill, maim and displace thousands...and I see a potential global nuclear war deliberately or accidentally breaking out over Ukraine, which could bring massive and even civilization-ending destruction, and there is already massive destruction there. I see real dangers of fascism and authoritarianism coming from both the right and the left in the US. I see climate change and environmental destruction that sometimes breaks my heart. And as I tried to say in the post, I see how hard it is for humans to see and act clearly given the addictive and deeply habitual smog of emotion-thought that so easily overtakes us (and I speak from experience). I see how easily we humans (myself included) believe our thoughts and opinions and become identified with them.
Was it Gandhi who said that "an eye for an eye" will leave the whole world blind? If you think bombing the hell out of Gaza is the answer here, well, bomb away, my friend. But I'm guessing that response will just fuel ever more rage and pain and desire for revenge in a never-ending cycle.
I wasn't painting some rosy picture, John, but I was suggesting that EVERYTHING is an unfathomable movement of the whole, and that we really don't know what it all is. But in some way, it all goes together.
And yes, I do see amazing potential in the possibility of waking up from our certainties and from how we think and believe everything is. We cannot do that waking up on command or at will in my experience, but it can happen. However, it seems highly unlikely to me that it will happen to enough people, enough of the time, and soon enough, to save us. My sense of things is that humanity will not survive much longer. I could be wrong, and I have been trying not to radiate Doom and Gloom, to which I am sometimes prone, but rather to focus on the possibilities and the beauty that are here now...not in some rosy imaginary future, but only ever right here, right now, even in the midst of darkness.
You got guts, girl...
Your ending phrase what triggered me: "... but imagine how it might change the whole situation if all of us really deeply got that what appears is never what we think it is."
I don't know how to process that intellectual concept connected to the horrors listed in the first part of that sentence. It is our "imaginations" that got us all here and to dismiss them at this moment of deep transformation feels disrespectful to me. I know you don't see it this way, but I am reflecting back to you what others might feel having their grief relegated to "never what we think it is."
I am done here. I have purposely not waded in on this situation in Israel because I sense what is unfolding is beyond words and can only be felt. Deep primal shadow work is unfolding and all I can do is witness and feel the wrenching pain. Too soon for words, too soon.
Thank you, Joan. Having just been on retreat with Gangaji, even before I read what you wrote and heard what John said my mind was more open and in flux than usual. I appreciate having my usual ways of looking at things shaken even more. Given its role in relation to the unfathomable Mystery of existence, it's appropriate for the mind to be humbled!
Joan beautiful writing! Thanks!
Joan right on point as usual. Loved the discussion with John Hardman. The older I get and the more I see the more I realize that any opinion we have, beliefs or points of view are inherently flawed because they are merely opinions. In actuality we don’t know a damn thing except what exists Now and we don’t even know what that is! Your insight, humanity and humility are stunning. Thanks again.
Thank you.
Thank you Joan, for this essay.
I was sick for 3 days last week, I had the new booster. Fine now.
I listened to a book about the history of England and France during the 14th century.
Constant war, internecine killings, plague killing without regard to feudal rank, floods destroying crops and drowning sheep, England’s main export product. Wool.
It was astonishingly familiar to now, with many fewer humans on the earth.
xo. Gina
Yes, it's nothing new. In the years when Zen was first developing in China, apparently two-thirds of the population died from famine, plague, or war. Many people have pointed out that humanity as a whole has become less cruel and more sensitive over time. Our technology enables far greater levels of destruction, so it may seem otherwise. And different people and cultures may be at different developmental stages, as Ken Wilber has brilliantly described. But things that were once considered totally normal--torturing animals for fun, vivisection, slavery, the subjugation of women, lynching people while picnicking, etc--are increasingly being left behind and in many societies are now viewed as horrific atrocities. So, it's the same, and it also seems to evolve...for better or worse. Glad you're feeling better. Thanks for your comment.
Joan, I have copied here my response to your "What is Love?" post, from June 3. You didn't respond to my question then, so I thought I'd offer you another opportunity, since I'd like to say the same thing in response to this post. Perhaps this current post is your answer. 'When politics comes up, or activist friends who see as "critically important" some protest for social justice, I have been accused of being "the worst kind" of apolitical person, someone who apparently "doesn't care." However, like you, from the place where I am, all this only promotes division, an us and them, a separation where none really exists. It is part of the drama of duality, not reality. From a child, I have known that all this only perpetuates the harm it aims to cure, that it is, at its core, what is known as hypocritical, self-contradictory, and simply can't be any other way. Yet this is a difficult position to be in when in the company of others, and when remaining silent is perceived as uncaring, along with anything else one could say that shows why one can't stand "with." Of course, we all know the saying that if you're not with, you're against! What do you do, Joan, if/when you find yourself in this kind of situation, with well meaning political activist friends who are trying to "save the world" and assume that you are with them?'
I try to read every comment and respond to questions. So my apologies for missing yours. I didn't see a couple of late comments on the Love post, including yours, so I didn't intentionally ignore it. Thanks for asking again.
I think your way of responding to the world is perfectly valid. People who are politically active tend to feel that everyone else should also be, and perhaps there's sometimes a truth in the idea that silence is complicity--e.g., if one doesn't speak out as Hitler comes for the Jews, or when blacks are being held as slaves, or when women are being denied the right to vote, and so on. But I would say that for some people, their contribution is silent presence. Ramana Maharshi is a great example of this. He read the newspapers--he knew what was going on--but he remained mostly silent, and maybe completely silent on political issues. And yet, I feel he helped the world every bit as much as others who were more actively engaged, such as Martin Luther King Jr or Thich Nhat Hanh. We each have different callings and different roles to play in the world drama. I see value in many different possibilities.
As a former political activist, I feel very good about some of the activism I engaged in--for example, the civil rights movement in the 60s or the 504 occupation for the rights of people with disabilities--both of which transformed society in what I would say are positive ways. I could name other things I feel good about having been involved in as well, but those are two examples. Other political things I was involved with I came to feel were off the mark and even destructive.
Political activism can take many forms, and I would never say that all of it "only promotes division" or "only perpetuates the harm it aims to cure." I'm deeply grateful for the political movements that have have made my own life so much better: the women's movement, the disability rights movement, and the lesbian-gay liberation movement. And I'm deeply grateful that people actively opposed slavery and Jim Crow and many other injustices. I'm glad many people are working to end cruelty to animals or to stop environmental destruction. But much political work can be problematic. I think it matters greatly where it comes from, whether from fear and hate or from love--and then how and in what spirit it is done, whether it is full of rage and blame and "other-ing," or whether it is in a spirit of love and inclusivity. Martin Luther King Jr and Thich Nhat Hanh are great examples of the latter.
You might also check out my very long final comment, which I just now wrote, to John Hardman in the thread above with him.
But suffice it to say I fully support you in being silent. I'm not actually totally silent. I do speak up sometimes, and not always in effective ways, because I do get easily triggered. In recent years, I feel politically homeless, alienated by much of what both the right and the left are doing and advocating. Will I vote in 2024? I don't know. The electable choices so far on offer are not very appealing to me!
I don't think there's any "how to respond" formula to situations like the one you describe being in. I'd say, simply see how you DO respond, both inwardly and outwardly. Awareness is the great liberator, in my experience. And follow your own heart even if it means taking unpopular stands or not doing what others think you should be doing.
Thank you for responding, Joan. I very much appreciate your thoughts and the time you took to formulate them. And although you say that you "would never say that all of it "only promotes division" or "only perpetuates the harm it aims to cure," I notice you say this in your above comment in your conversation with John: "What is being threatened? I have found that working or speaking at that level of relative reality in politically charged situations generally brings forth conflict and more suffering, in part because I'm easily triggered." Of course, you're speaking of "politically charged" situations. But to me, all politics has this charge, simply because there is always an us and them, always others who are passionate about the opposite of what you are.
Also, as you know: From a place of non-divisiveness, there is no division. As Ramana Maharshi said, thoughts project the world from themselves. There is no world outside of Self. (In Ramana-speak.)
Or, this dialogue, quoted from one of his books, on topic:
D: Is it not necessary that the saints should mix with people and be helpful to them?
M: The Self alone is the Reality; the world and the rest of it are not. The realised being does not see the world as different from himself.
D: Thus then, the saint's realisation leads to the uplift of humanity without the latter being aware of it. Is it so?
M: Yes. The help is imperceptible but is still there. A saint helps the whole of humanity, unknown to the latter.
D: Would it not be better if he mixed with others?
M: There are no others to mix with. The Self is the one and only Reality.
This is beautiful, Janis, and I certainly resonate. And perhaps I’m moving in this direction. This post on War certainly came from a similar kind of radical or absolute perspective, and I was offering it as an alternative to so much of what is swirling around in the media, a different way of seeing. But I still don’t see it as the only way of seeing or being.
I agree with you that any political stand does in some way divide by distinguishing between right and wrong, or between wholesome from unwholesome—for example, opposing Hitler was based on seeing that what he was doing was divisive, harmful, unwholesome, morally wrong, extremely unkind, and that it was bringing forth immense pain and suffering. And while Hitler and his allies saw it differently, I would say they were deluded. But of course, that is all from a relative perspective. From the absolute perspective, it was all an impersonal movement of energy like the churning movements of the ocean in the video I shared, all of it a kind of dream-like appearance in which there is no way to separate the light from the dark. Apparent forms were apparently destroyed, but life itself or presence-awareness or the Self was unharmed.
Ramana, of course, came exclusively from this kind of absolute perspective, and I resonate deeply with that perspective, but I also resonate with Zen, which sees the absolute as only half the truth. Zen doesn't dismiss or ignore relative reality. Thus, as I also said in my comment to John, “I am by no means saying that…there is no place for addressing injustices at the level of political activism or deep trauma work or even at times with military action (I'm not a pacifist).”
And in speaking in my comment to him of the pitfalls of getting entangled in relative positions and views, I was speaking of a general tendency, not meant to apply to all such involvements (e.g., I don’t see MLK and TNH that way), and specifically I was referring to my own tendency in such discussions or actions to get triggered, defensive, self-righteous, etc. Joan is not nearly as equanimous as MLK or TNH.
So, as I see it, there are many valid ways of being. Your way, like Ramana's, may be total silence and un-involvement, leaving the world behind, seeing it as merely a dream-like appearance, not taking sides within the dream. And that’s beautiful. I fully support you in that. But it doesn’t seem to be my way of being. I don’t seem to feel drawn to leave the everyday world of relative reality totally behind. I engage with it less and less as the years go by, and I can certainly see how dream-like and ungraspable it is, and there is definitely a pull in the direction you are speaking from, but I don’t seem to totally stay there. Maybe someday I will, maybe not.
It's definitely possible in my view that Ramana and other silent sages, known and unknown, had as much (or maybe even much more) to do with stopping Hitler’s atrocities as the armies that fought him. I don’t claim to know how the universe works. It's also true, as I see it, that the dream necessarily includes all possibilities, and that what appear to be horrific atrocities from our human perspective may be nothing of the kind from a larger or more subtle perspective.
I think of Nisargadatta responding to questions in I AM THAT about the war in what was then East Pakistan. He says, "In pure consciousness nothing ever happens." The questioner is quite upset by this response and questions how N. can remain aloof. N replies: "I never talked of remaining aloof. You could as well see me jumping into the fray to save somebody and getting killed. Yet to me nothing happened. Imagine a big building collapsing...Nothing happened to the space itself...nothing happens to life when forms break down and names are wiped out."
I resonate completely. But still, I seem to jump into the fray on occasion. And I still take the world drama much more seriously than I think Nisargadatta did.
Thank you again for your comments and for nudging me in what I sense is the deepest direction. 🙏❤️
Reality might not be what it seems to be, in absolute totality, but that we are here right now may mean that this perception and all of our particular perceptions, do matter: how we feel about this, what we think about this, how we understand ourselves in this moment, is meaningful, if not utterly grasping the whole picture. The latter may be fair, but why would we be here otherwise?
Someone just sent me this:
https://youtu.be/tcrkFYLwT3I?si=PynUFjOScF1yeKOn
I also saw something kind of funny today, along similar lines, I think, except it is based from the opposite vantage point, which isn't really opposite, just different. But anyway, A physicist claims that the "'block universe' view in which there is no distinction between the past, the present and the future, and all three of them simultaneously coexist...arose from the improper/incomplete understanding of imaginary numbers. " Who would have guessed! And apparently, that imaginary number in question is 'i'. And then it sort of makes sense. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rrcat-physicist-claims-physics-cosmology-033021388.html#:~:text=News%20Direct-,RRCAT%20Physicist%20claims%20that%20physics%20and%20cosmology%20are%20both%20in,wrong%20model%20of%20the%20universe&text=Mr.%20Subhajit%20Waugh%2C%20a%20scientist,and%20workings%20of%20the%20universe.
dear joan,
thank you for your kindness and thoughtfulness as always.
love,
myq
Someone also sent me this. I have mixed feelings about Bentinho, but I listened, and while his expression and mine are quite different in many ways, I actually did like this:
https://youtu.be/7VRoejSz3G4?si=tPn_8B8rTtKJI16f
John Astin writing about and also singing his message:
https://johnastin.substack.com/p/yoga-is-already-accomplished