In defence of the realm

Words like realm, kingdom, majesty, sovereignty, supreme power and authority seem to conjure up such images of solemnity and seriousness that have tremendous weight and overrule words like humility, integrity, sensitivity, forgiveness and awareness. It is no accident that those in authority use the words that conjure the images of solemnity and seriousness when motivating its members to action.

At times of stress we get angry with the gentle words. Our patience is thin and we want resolutions and external actions that support our rationalised cause irrespective of the facts and the others views. We see a solution, not in the modification of our own behaviour but in the modification of the others.

Our nations and religions behave as we do for they can only be an extension of what we are. They are not a separate entity; they are a reflection of or own contradictions, fragmentation and hypocrisy. We defend ourselves, our egos, with all its self centred desires, against others who have a different point of view and lose contact and communication and this is what nations and religions do in time of disagreement because there can be not other outcome or course of action if we ourselves are in conflict and fragmented. What is inside is outside, it is one. For the concerns of the world to be remedied the internal concerns have to be deeply understood not externalised so we can blame somebody else for our problems.

The fear of losing security, whether it be ones partner, one’s home or job has to be understood not just blindly defended because it is a personal possession, the tradition or ones conditioning.

It is sometimes difficult to find the words with which to express oneself deeply with. Perhaps words are too full of imagery rather than real meaning, loaded with easy illusions that do not explain the truth.

What is trying to be said here is that our individual lives are in conflict and so too therefore must be our national and religious lives with their habits and rituals, dogma and controls. It is not being said that one should be against the individual, state or religion but one cannot be part of something that controls and conditions one into fear for in fear are the actions that lead to conflict, hate and war.

What is surely required is complete responsibility in relationship. In complete relationship there is no enemy; one is in discussion as with a friend.

To Join or not to Join - The World peace cup

How do we decide whether we are going to join or not to join an organisation. Do we weigh up the intellectual arguments using our personal rationalism and desires and then make a decision? Once the decision is made is it then final and so one pins ones metaphorical flag to it? It is then the right decision for you and other decisions and desires must then conform to the decision you previously made.

Can we see the dangers of the above, the joining of one thing precluding interaction with someone who has joined something different.

We may be born in a particular country and brought up in a particular style by parents who introduce you to their religious and cultural beliefs but do we have to fall into their way of life because it seems the most easy thing to do?

Here the danger is putting yourself first, your family, your community, team, country, religion, all of it, pulling you in the direction of self centred desires and beliefs. We seem to want to cling to these desires and beliefs for our identity and security but please ask yourself why pursuing you own desires and beliefs is so important.

Surely this drive to belong to one thing or another is separating us from each other; you in your organisation and me in mine. I must support my nation against your nation if we cannot agree on something. The facts are lost and belief and nationalism takes over.

There is currently a near global event taking place where nation is playing nation at sport. Such energy and resources has gone into the organising of this event that one is left wondering why this sort of enormous effort cannot go into basic resources for the poor, or education, or perhaps world peace. We seem to be very good at organising events for our pleasure and senses but woeful when trying to find inter-national solutions to our human problems.

Our self centred actions seem to know no bounds when it comes to our desires and our apparent need to cling on to what we think is our indentity and security especially when it is seen through nationalistic and organised religious eyes.

To join one thing is divisive however worthy. By being a member there will be an expected behaviour and adherence to the beliefs of the organisation so there is no freedom. Without freedom we cannot love and understand and without love and understanding there can be no peace. 

I heard the news today...

Someone speaking in this part of the world today said that the richest 85 people in the world had more wealth than 50% of the world's poorest people. That is 3.5 billion people.

Can this be justified, can capitalism, which we are all involved in, be considered a sane way for humanity to continue to conduct itself?

It seems we are all capitalist as we want more of everything for ourselves and the people around us. We crave attachments and acquisitions and build them up as trophies. Then we feel the need to protect them and so conflict ensures as everybody does the same.  

Where are the voices, and not just the words, of those who are really fundamentally looking into the factual problems of the human race: the killing, the poverty, the selfishness, the resentment, all of the conflict.

The media fails us because it is in support of the system that supports it. It will not bite the hand that feeds it.

If our leaders espouse national patriotism behind a flag and our religious leaders promote their faith ahead of other faiths then we have to be a light unto ourselves as others have vested interests to support and do not want to look at the facts of poverty, exploitation and all the rest of it.

As J. Krishnamurti has said "The world is sick and there is no one outside you to help you except yourself."

Can we understand our desire for ownership of relationships as well as material goods and perhaps really see that we are only concerned with our own self-centered security because of our fears and not the fact that ownership be not bring real security without conflict?

Only when we have resolved our deepest insecurities and fears can we understand and deal properly with the gross inhumanity of people set against each other whether it is because of our economic, nationalistic, cultural or religious conditioning.

No Violence

If we want 'freedom from violence' as the United Nations recently stated in a link to its web site, I wounder if the enormity of that statement is really understood when it appears such an easy statement to make and an ideal to pursue.

Do we not see that most of us are violent in our ambitions, our relationships, in our workplace, in the corporate companies, the nations and our religions. We may not call it violence but our fear of loosing what we are constantly accumulating makes us aggressive when we have to consider giving something up. Can we have a peaceful life for everybody on this planet if we do not see what we have gained at the expense of others?

Do we think we can carry on as we are, unwilling to ease off on our selfish consumption and magically have peace? That nation states will stop looking after their own interests and we, as self-centred individuals, will stop accumulating material and psychological attachments? Will we stop defending our individual and national possessions that have been acquired often through exploitation in this very unfair and unequal world?

To have no violence requires fundamental change within and without. It cannot be achieved through politics and force of will.

Perhaps we can have peace if we understand what it means to be conditioned by our respective societies and cultures and we can observe our own thoughts and behaviour factually so we can see the competitiveness, aggression and violence we carry out in our daily lives as we strive to achieve and gain what we think is success in our competitive and aggressive societies.

Today we have seen and listened to politicians. There have also been commentaries on world affairs from the media that purports to be global and articles from the UN's publications.

We are told of Polio returning to parts of the world where it had left, due to the conflict in the region, We hear politicians extolling the virtues of Nationhood within or without of the EU. There is a constant bombardment of ones sensibilities, if one allows it, of information about all the horrible things happening in the world yet no one is asking the fundamental question as to why is man, being such a cleaver and so called knowledgeable being, totally incapable of ceasing the conflict, wars, hatred, sorrow and pain that man inflicts upon his fellow being?

Are we no longer interested in asking the question as to why man destroys man anymore because we feel so helpless to stop the suffering? Why do our politicians take sides and destroy lives. Do we ask them to do this in our name, to use nationalism to turn against others to protect our own selfish interests. Are our interests worth killing for if they are threatened? If the answer is yes then we enter into a dark place where we only encourage others to do the same to us and so all the conflict and suffering that we see all around us destroying human beings and the planet continues; man pitched against man forever battling against an hated enemy because they dared to be as self righteous and nationalistic or religiously bigoted as ourselves.

Can we not see this? Are we incapable of of being without hate and anger against another human being because we have too much vested interest in our own self centered desires for success and wealth?

Thought is fragmentary, it is conditioned. If one looks at it do you not see that we think selfishly. Whether it is our religion, our nation, our family, our job, our community or our ethnic group we think in terms of what we may call our protection and security, the 'me' and 'mine'. Do we do this because we are frightened that if we do not protect ourselves we may loose something, even loose our identity as a Christian, as a Muslim, a German or an American, or whatever. In order that we can protect our conditioning, our religious views, our nationality that we have identified with, we enter the aggressive arena that is our everyday living. Look at it and see what is going on, don't take anyone else's words on this, see for yourself what you have built around you to stop the fear, the insecurity that you may feel. To escape the fear of being alone and to feel a sense of belonging many of us have created so many divisions that are destroying our lives and the lives of everybody around us.

Isn't it time to ask the question why we feel so utterly lost as individuals unless we belong to something or continuously gather items that define us which then creates the ugly mess we all see around us.

I would like to share this link with you

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-video/organisations-have-not-saved-man-full-version.php

Please copy and paste this into your Internet browser

Right, wrong addiction

Difficult as it may be for us who are brought up on 'this is right, that is wrong' scenarios throughout our lives, isn't there perhaps a different way of looking at issues such as the current problems in the Ukraine.
We can argue the rights and wrongs of either side endlessly but where does that get us? Does it take us any nearer the truth or just further into our entrenched views, beliefs, conditioning, nationalism or in support of our own country's vested interests?

To resolve the many problems that face us we surely have to get beyond taking sides as this will just prolong the conflict or lead us into more deadly action.

Just take a look at other unresolved conflicts throughout the world.