Reply
Fri 23 Feb, 2007 05:12 pm
It's an old truth, but it deserves mentioning every once in a while.
Our enemies are manifestations of our fears.
So long as fear has a place in our hearts, a finger in guiding our hand, it will always manifest as a new enemy as soon as the old one is vanquished.
So you will not be at peace until you have banished fear from your heart. Only then will your enemies stop coming, because there will be none.
So the only war we can fight to end the turmoil of our world is one in which everyone must play a part.
Each and every one of us must become the master of their fears, rather than the puppets of it. That is the only means to secure our peace and our freedom.
And if I was a muslim I'd say that this war is the only true Jihad.
Quote:And if I was a muslim I'd say that this war is the only true Jihad.
Alas no ! ....Islam is the antithesis of such "truth"...but it is a noble thought !
I admit I do not know that much about Islam, but I once had a muslim tell me that the true meaning of Jihad was something similar to this, non-violent at its core. I'd like to see some muslims comment on it though.
I consider death to be, if not the only enemy, than certainly in the running for first prize. Death equates to all hope lost. Fear can be overcome, death cannot (well we'll see what science has to offer in this regard going forward).
Fear of death can be overcome. Death is inevitable, and to one who has lived a life in love rather than in reaction to his fears, death may not seem an enemy. Our mortality is the very thing that gives life it's value.
I did not say fear of death, I said death itself.
Regardless of your position as to death's inevitably, that does not in and of itself change the consideration I made as to "death certainly being in the running for first prize" because "death equates to all hope lost" (outside of my medial science caveat).
A circumstance's inevitably, in and of itself, is not a merited argument in this case.
As to whether our "mortality is the very thing that gives life it's value" that would suggest the longer we live the less value, to the point by which if our lives were long enough, to be the practical equivalent of immorality, our lives would be thus be bereft of value.
Unsurprisingly I don't agree.
With the statement that "our mortality is the very thing that gives life it's value" I mean simply that we learn to cherish the moments as they come because we know that we will not have an infinity of them.
I am of the opinion that the reason we might consider death to be "in the running for the first prize" is that we have fear of death, or fear of dying. But I do not think that to know that I will die one day in any way diminishes the quality of life. Perhaps those who thinks it does do so because of their fear of death?
Jihad means struggle, more accurately resistance. It is not a conquest, rather it is self-defense.
Chumly wrote:I did not say fear of death, I said death itself.
Regardless of your position as to death's inevitably, that does not in and of itself change the consideration I made as to "death certainly being in the running for first prize" because "death equates to all hope lost" (outside of my medial science caveat).
A circumstance's inevitably, in and of itself, is not a merited argument in this case.
As to whether our "mortality is the very thing that gives life it's value" that would suggest the longer we live the less value, to the point by which if our lives were long enough, to be the practical equivalent of immorality, our lives would be thus be bereft of value.
Unsurprisingly I don't agree.
For me, the fact that it will end, and rather soon in the grand scale of things, is a definitive frustration!
Chumly,
Cyracuz is indicating an exploration of the esoteric line here.
The "simple self" (that committee of opposing desires) "dies" every time we sleep. Mortality is therefore not "the enemy" per se....the enemy is the "self" and its "attachments". The self fears loss of its attachments. Transcendence of "self" is transcendence of this fear.
The difference between "spirituality" and "theisms" like Islam is the difference between transcendence of self, where the self dissipates and submission of self where the self is retained as a dutiful "soul" after death. (Islam =Submission). It is possible that the Sufis interpreted "Jihad" as "the struggle to attain a "higher self" which was "closer to Allah in this life". Such a "Self" (capital S) would be "Master of the committee of little selves and their attachments." But as Krishnamurti pointed out, the desire for such a nebulous goal is merely another "attachment".
I feel similar about sleep as I do about death, they both equate to all hope lost, they both represent the same enemy to me.
I would not be a good candidate for the
hive-mind
That's interesting. I was going to ask how you felt about sleep in view of how you stated you feel about death.Because although I have no knowledge of what will happen after death- that is a fear I've been able to overcome (at least I think so-we'll see how brave I am when the time comes) at least in part because at the very worst, I think of it as a long, extended sleep- which I love.
I look at sleep as a place to visit that's more interesting sometimes than life in the waking world. Of course, I have all sorts of dreams and always have-they're what makes it so interesting. In some of my dreams I've written songs, or painted pictures-things that I haven't been able to do while awake. I'm hoping death is similar.
In my mind, death is not foregoing all hope-it's like moving anywhere different- it may be better than where you are in ways you never thought of. And it is inevitable, so it makes sense to come to some kind of peace with it.
Chumly,
Esoterically speaking only "me's" have "enemies" :wink:
Also, the "hive mind" (as in the Borg) is not synonymous with the esoteric concept of "dissipation of self". In the transcendent state there is no "mind" plus "universe" ...there is only "mind-universe" (as in a conglomeration of Q characters)
'Scuse the cliché:
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light
......said Dylan Thomas (Died of drink age 39)
Raul-7 wrote:Jihad means struggle, more accurately resistance. It is not a conquest, rather it is self-defense.
What is it struggle against?
What is your opinion of those who kill and use 'jihad' as their justification?
Fresco,
'scuse one more cliché:
Man's last mind fused and only AC existed -- and that in hyperspace.
Hi aidan,
I guess dreams do seperate sleep from death. This brings to mind two of my favorite books:
"2001" (Author C. Clarke)
"Will I dream?" is asked by both the SAL-9000 & HAL-9000* computers.
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (Philip K. Dick)
The movie Blade Runner is loosely based on it.
*Anthony Hopkins claimed that HAL was the inspiration for his interpretation of the character Hannibal Lecter.
real life wrote:Raul-7 wrote:Jihad means struggle, more accurately resistance. It is not a conquest, rather it is self-defense.
What is it struggle against?
What is your opinion of those who kill and use 'jihad' as their justification?
There's jihad against one's own desires and passions. Then there's jihad against those who oppress you.
What do I think? I think it's wrong to commit suicide and especially to kill innocents, which is transgression. However, Hizballah has the correct idea of jihad.
Demonising fear a bit don't you think?
Although perhaps you are mistaking paranoia for fear?
Fear is what keeps us alive when we are in danger. Fear is what helps generals make decisions that keep their troops alive. Fear is what causes us to have adrenalin rushes. In the moments of our greatest fear, we can learn what life is, and learn to value it greater. Fear drives us to greater achievements, and fear can sharpen the mind to its greatest clarity.
Of course much of that can be argued in other ways, but saying fear creates our enemies is rather an oversimplification of the matter.
Fresco wrote:The "simple self" (that committee of opposing desires) "dies" every time we sleep. Mortality is therefore not "the enemy" per se....the enemy is the "self" and its "attachments". The self fears loss of its attachments. Transcendence of "self" is transcendence of this fear.
Yes, that is what I was saying in the initial post, wether the fear is for dying, getting robbed or whatever. Those who threaten our attatchments or that which we are attatched to are percieved as enemies because they trigger our fear. In so doing they rule us.
vikorr
Fear is a primitive human emotion, and it relates to ego or self. As human beings we come to a place where it is possible to shed fear. We have the resources to make sound judgements without this instinct, and schooling ourselves to master it only grants us a more complete control of ourselves.
I maintain what I said at first. Fear is the only enemy.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace