Tagged: malcom x

Levels of violence

krishna-non-violence-j-krishnamurti-quote-771247

When a country or the general agreement of the world is in non-violence, but the consciousness of the individuals have not changed, the result is “pretty talk.”

Violence has many levels and resistance arises in all of them.

Ananda observed that a girl got a fish with her fishing pole. The fish was struggling to get out.
The girl reacted with fear and amazement at the same time. Her friend; who was watching the scene was laughing out loud. After 30 or some seconds, the girl unhooked the fish and it was let go. The fish was thrown almost lifeless into the Ocean again.

Was that violence?
The consciousness of those girls is unable to perceive suffering and struggle from another being.

The girl’s intention may not have been to torture the fish, her intentions may have been to have “fun.”
“After all it is just a fish and the laws do not prohibit to torment a fish,” she may have learned at school.

Human laws and beliefs are of no consequence in the way life operates.
This issue is related with consciousness.

In Nature there is killing, although that is not the label used.
It is called “eating to survive.”

Humans may have a different view on that. Killing for profit may be just called “earning a living.”

As we can see, there are different perspectives according to different states of consciousness.

It is the way it is, but certainly there are consequences.

There is violence in a family, when someone’s perception of an issue in life is not acknowledged but rather “corrected” to fit someone’s view of what is correct under the threat to punish them, to disinherit them or to cast them away.

There is also personal violence when any level of our being is not fully respected. For instance the pursue of the “perfect body” through exercise and diet could bring a disease, it could bring an injury. That is unnecessary suffering, but our consciousness may not be able to catch that and rather use the masochistic cliché: ”No pain no gain.”

Asceticism is another way of inner violence if the body is not accepted in all its wholeness and holiness but rather when is viewed only as a means to obtain something in the future such as “illumination.”

Our thoughts could bring violence when there is rejection of what is for the sake of what “should be.”

As we could see violence exists in many levels and that is why it needs to be observed and understood.

Typically we have been taught to react.
There is a reactionary mentality in society because changes do not happen “right now.”

Malcom X, a human rights activist; is quoted as saying: “ I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American Black’s man problem just to avoid violence.”

Malcom X was assassinated.

Many times we forget about timing and that every occurrence in life does not happen all of a sudden but it has a process for being built and a process to disappear. To respect that process is to align with Nature, the Universe.

Changes will happen, because life is change but the greatest and most influential change, is the change of consciousness.

Advertisements

The virtue of Tolerance

gandhi-tolerance

A notch of depth will be shared below.

If God were to speak with a group of people about living life to the fullest, what could be “His” way of addressing the audience? 🙂

Most probably according to the audience’s state of consciousness. Otherwise, “his” message could not be understood.
One thing to notice is that “interpretation” of that message will happen until there is personal experience of the words conveyed. For all practical reasons, the only concern is to make sure the audience understands the message.

That is a powerful reason not to limit the manifestation of what we may call “God” in our lives. “God” is not meant to appear in just one form to everyone.
Why?
My intellectual ability, cultural traditions, moral values, beliefs, etc. are different from someone else from another culture or historical time.

As our consciousness moves to a different position, so will be our understanding.

Let me illustrate the above.

Matthew 5:39 (Holy Bible) “But– I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other…”

The above is believed by many to be the words of God. For some, the words of the “son of God” and for others “nice words to live by.”

Malcom X said: “If you turn the other cheek, you can be enslaved for 1,000 years.”
Nietzsche interpreted “turning the other cheek” as “slave morality” in his “master and slave paradigm of moralities.

Even though the words: “To turn the other cheek” were pronounced by “God himself,” according to some; those words were not really understood.
As a matter of fact, those words caused a rebellion in those listening to them. Every experience of war or racist issues bringing the problem of “you vs. me” created an environment in which the majority of human beings were not able to “give the other cheek” to the “enemy.”

At that point, God decided to change his words and used the word “Tolerance” instead. 🙂
“To tolerate someone or something” was considered a virtue.
God himself could be praising our ability to “tolerate.”
That tolerance became a “Spiritual” power.
The power to tolerate.

You could “turn the other cheek” because you were “tolerating” as God has taught you.

The above is something which could be understood by many.

To “tolerate” means that there is a “wall” in me called a personality. That wall does not allow for things being thrown at “me” to pass through. The focus of someone who tolerates is to do the “right” thing.
The focus is important to understand consciousness at a deeper level.

Basically, when “I” tolerate John’s behavior, “I” will make myself believe that “I” am doing the right thing and even though John’s behavior is not something which “I” approve; that is fine for I have learned that to “give the other cheek” is “good.”

In a deeper level, to tolerate means to lie to yourself.

Is it possible for God to teach us about lying to ourselves?

That is the wrong question to ask when we could see the “valley from the top of the mountain,” but a valid question to ask when our consciousness is stuck on the focus of being “right or wrong.”
That type of consciousness is filled with judgment and duality.

To tolerate is a step forward in keeping things at peace. It is the first step for someone whose “normal” behavior is filled with animosity.
Tolerance is something that a person in this level may understand for to “give the other cheek” is still out of reach.

Is tolerance a virtue?
It all depends on your state of consciousness.

When your consciousness is focused on enjoyment, to “give the other cheek” is not an issue. Many examples in the life of the Buddha will point to this.

When our consciousness is located in “being right” we could give the “other cheek” as compulsion.
“It is the right thing to do whether I feel that or not.”

That is why, virtues are not found in the dictionary. That is why to be “virtuous” is not a matter of “practice.”
It is a matter of consciousness.

“Others” will label what they perceive as “virtue” but there is nothing to practice.

Tolerance is not necessary when the wall of the personality is not there anymore.
That is called emptiness.

To be empty is not something that could be defined. A concept is not the thing, but when we experience emptiness ourselves, then we will know.

When we know about emptiness, to tolerate someone becomes meaningless.

Is emptiness a virtue?

Let me laugh at that question …. 🙂 🙂

malcomx