Time Bound

[Mark Hovila]

Very well said.  I wonder how many macho nondualist philosophers were
standing around in Rwanda  asking "How is violence recognizable?" while
heads were flying past.

----------
> From: Martin Gifford <marting at NSWCC.ORG.AU>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ADVAITA-L <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Time Bound
> Date: Wednesday, July 02, 1997 12:07 AM
>
> Hi All !
>
> Well I can see this one is going to keep me busy...  :-)
>
> How is violence recognisable? Screams, blood, crying, etc.
>
> Who is there to make a distinction? Beauty, love, intelligence, feelings.
> You know.... human stuff, heart stuff.
>
> Who is being violent to whom? An owned aspect of consciousness is being
> violent to a disowned aspect of consciousness.
>
> I am asking - What is the motivation for violence? Isn't it caused by the
> sense of separation? If so, then when that sense of separation is gone,
> violence should be gone too. Human violence is clearly a distortion
caused
> by ego. If a person has feelings (we spiritual philosophers tend to
forget
> about feelings) then it is more than a philisophical question.
>
> Best wishes to All,
>
> Martin Gifford.
>
>
>
> At 02:15 AM 1/07/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Hi Mark,
> >
> >     But if, as you say, there "is no duality, no self/other split,"
then
> >how is so-called "violence" (or, for that matter, even "non-violence")
even
> >recognizable as such?   "Who" is really there to be making  that
distinction?
> >
> >     In other words, "who" is being "violent" towards "whom?"
> >
> >     When your ego seemingly disappears (it doesn't really exist in the
> >first place),  there will be no separate one left to give "us" an
answer,
> >anyway.  What a paradox!
> >
> >                                With Blessings,
> >
> >                                        Chuck Hillig
> >
> >