Life 03 (Jun 09 - Jul 09)

[kennynah]

What You Think About Others

Spock knows your thoughts...

[winston]

When love is tainted by selfishness, it cannot illumine at all. Self is lovelessness; Love is selflessness. Love gives and forgives. Self gets and forgets. Love can never entertain the idea of revenge, for it sees all others as Oneself.

When the tongue is hurt by the teeth, do you seek vengeance against the teeth? No, they both belong to you and are integral parts of your body. So too, when some other person insults you or inflicts pain, allow wisdom to have mastery over you. Discover the truth and do not rush to conclusions, always keeping love as your guide. This is a difficult task, but not beyond your capacity. Embark on this task with ardor and faith, you will attain sweet victory.

-Divine Discourse, Feb 16, 1977

Source: radiosai.org

[winston]

A whole laboratory inside you

Questioner: What value do you place on social sciences and the understanding of man?
Krishnamurti: Sir, when you have got the whole laboratory inside you, why do you want to “study man”? Study yourself, the whole human being, the whole complexity, beauty, extraordinary sensitivity which is you.

Why do you want to study what somebody else says about man? The whole of mankind is you. And you in relationship with another is society. You have created this terrible, ugly world which has become so utterly meaningless, and that is why young people are revolting throughout the world. To me it is such a meaningless life.

The society which man has created is the outcome of his own demands, his own urgencies, instincts, ambitions, greed and envy. You think that by reading all the books about man and going in for social study, you are going to understand yourself. Would it not be much more simple to begin with yourself?

Talks with American Students, p 45

Source: jkrishnamurthi.com

[winston]

Connect: Be Fully Present NOW! By Karen Mehringer

Eager to fill our hungry bellies after a full day of hiking and soaking in the mineral hot springs , John and I sat waiting for our food to arrive. Observing my surroundings, I noticed a woman sitting with her husband text-messaging with her iPhone. The couple appeared to be on vacation. Next, I noticed a man sitting with his wife and two grown daughters. He was also text-messaging while waiting for dinner. At one point, I witnessed him holding his iPhone and text messaging with one hand, while holding his burrito and eating with the other!

Astonished, I thought, “What could possibly be so urgent and important as to divert their attention away from their loved ones?” Being an outside observer, it was easy for me to judge their behavior. But, since I believe we are all mirrors for each other, I had to ask myself, “In what ways do I allow myself to be distracted from being present with the people I love?” And, “What am I missing out on when I’m not fully present with them?”

Modern communication technology, such as the iPhone and Internet, designed to help us connect, when used unconsciously, distracts us from being fully present with one another. When we give these technologies more of our time and attention than the people in our lives, we miss out on experiencing the joy of cultivating deep, intimate, fulfilling relationships. And, isn’t that what we truly desire…to feel seen, heard, loved, honored, valued, acknowledged and supported for who we are?

I encourage you to spend time evaluating the role modern communication technology plays in your life. Are you using it to connect more intimately with one another? Are these connections deep and satisfying or shallow and unfulfilling? Do you find yourself distracted when with your loved ones…frequently answering the phone, checking e-mail, text-messaging or otherwise preoccupied? Sit down and have a conversation about how the other person feels when this happens.

Consider establishing ground rules for your family about when and how you use these technologies. For example, one rule might be to turn them off when eating a meal or when driving in a car together. Notice how often you miss the opportunity to connect more deeply with those near you when you are distracted. How could your relationships be enhanced if you were more fully present?

We were designed to be in relationship with one another…to develop deep and lasting bonds with each other in which we feel safe and secure. Studies show that when we feel securely connected to our loved ones, we become more independent and autonomous. We are more resilient under stress and better able to cope in the world.

Turning off our computers and iPhones when in the presence of one another is one step we can take to further develop these bonds.

“We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.” – HH the Dalai Lama

[winston]

The standard of success in life isn't the things. It isn't the money or the stuff -- it is absolutely the amount of joy you feel.

--- Abraham

Excerpted from the workshop in Lincroft, NJ on Tuesday, October 15th, 1996

Source: abraham-hicks.com

[winston]

"How little has situation to do with happiness." - Fanny Burney

Stumbling On Happiness By Alex Green

The recent decline in home values and the stock market - not to mention corporate and municipal bond markets - has left most investors with less than they had a year ago. To meet their long-term investment goals, many will have to spend less and save more than they originally planned.

This is not easy. As the economist Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations in 1776:

"The desire for food is limited in every man by the narrow capacity of the human stomach; but the desire of the conveniences and ornaments of building, dress, equipage, and household furniture, seems to have no limit or certain boundary."

In the current economic downturn, many of us are unable to afford all the things we want. That pinches. But should it make us unhappy?

That depends. But for most of us, the answer is a resounding no.

As Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert writes in Stumbling On Happiness:

"Economists and psychologists have spent decades studying the relation between wealth and happiness, and they have generally concluded that wealth increases human happiness when it lifts people out of abject poverty and into the middle class but that it does little to increase happiness thereafter. Americans who earn $50,000 per year are much happier than those who earn $10,000 per year, but Americans who earn $5 million per year are not much happier than those who earn $100,000 per year.

People who live in poor nations are much less happy than people who live in moderately wealthy nations, but people who live in moderately wealthy nations are not much less happy than people who live in extremely wealthy nations. Economists explain that wealth has 'declining marginal utility,' which is a fancy way of saying that it hurts to be hungry, cold, sick, tired, and scared, but once you've bought your way out of these burdens, the rest of your money is an increasingly useless pile of paper."

If this is true, why are so many people out there busting their humps for more?

For some, it is the pursuit of financial independence, a worthy goal. But for others, the answer lies in their increasingly materialistic ways.

We all must consume to survive, of course. But when consumerism becomes an end in itself, when it overruns more important ideals, provides the measure of our success, or corrodes our capacity to know truth, see beauty, or feel love, our lives are diminished.

Some will argue that for economies to flourish, we need rampant consumerism. It is consumers' insatiable hunger for more stuff that fuels the economic engine.

In many ways, this is true. In fact, the notion itself is hardly new. In 1759, Adam Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

"The pleasures of wealth and greatness... strike the imagination as something grand and beautiful and noble, of which the attainment is well worth all the toil and anxiety which we are so apt to bestow upon it. ... It is this deception which rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind."

Notice that Smith, the father of the concept of free markets, referred to the endless pursuit of more as "this deception." He recognized that the needs of a vibrant economy and the requirements for us to be happy as individuals are not the same.

Studies show that the riches and material goods we desire - should we have the good fortune to acquire them - won't necessarily make us happier. Yet we often imagine they will, even when experience teaches us otherwise.

Walk into your local auto dealership, for example, and check out the cars in the showroom. They look sharp. They smell good. The tires have been blackened. The exteriors have been waxed and polished and Windexed until they gleam. In short, we are seduced by their newness.

And even though we know that a new automobile is perhaps the world's fastest-depreciating asset - and within weeks we will be mindlessly traveling from point A to point B without a second thought about our vehicle's make or model - we plunk for one.

As my grandmother used to say, "Most people can't tell the difference between what they want and what they need." (This remark, incidentally, was generally directed toward me and my latest two-dollar object of fascination at F.W. Woolworth.)

Look around today and you'll have no problem finding folks with plenty of neat things: big cars, fancy boats, the latest electronic gadgets, and all sorts of expensive "bling." They seem to have it all. What you may not realize is how many of them are two payments from the edge.

Yet some middle-class Americans remain obsessed with what they don't have. To some, it just doesn't seem right - doesn't seem fair - that others have so much more than they do. But as political satirist P.J. O'Rourke observed:

"I have a 10-year-old at home, and she is always saying, 'That's not fair.' When she says that, I say, 'Honey, you're cute; that's not fair. Your family is pretty well off; that's not fair. You were born in America; that's not fair. Honey, you had better pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you.'"

[millionairemind]

"How little has situation to do with happiness." - Fanny Burney

"I have a 10-year-old at home, and she is always saying, 'That's not fair.' When she says that, I say, 'Honey, you're cute; that's not fair. Your family is pretty well off; that's not fair. You were born in America; that's not fair. Honey, you had better pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you.'"

W - Tks for posting the article above.. I esp. liked the part at the end highlighted above.... When my 6 yr old son starts whining about "NOT FAIR", I just end the conversation with "LIFE'S NOT FAIR, ACCEPT IT"... now I know what to do

[winston]

Shoulda Woulda Coulda

There are no should's. There is no universal rule of how to act or what to do. Even the age old advice of following your heart is not as much a "should" as it is a suggestion to increase fulfillment in your life. What is best for one person is not necessarily best for another, and even doing what you think is best for you is not necessarily something you "should" do. It's just something you can do.

We are here to contribute our individual perspectives and all of life is created and experienced in that way. Even in our meditation when we lose that sense of personal identity and feel absolute oneness and connection with the Universe, we are still experiencing that oneness from our individual perspective.

Life does not demand you to be or do anything in a certain way. Life simply asks for your existence so that you could offer your perspective. It is we who put that demand on each other and ourselves. We can let go of our shoulds, not because we should, but because we want to be free.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Source: www.followyoursoul.com

[winston]

Riches melt away only when you spend them. But the span of years you can live on earth is shortened every moment, whether you like it or not. Therefore, you must feel an urgency in accomplishing great tasks in life.

The intellect is a special gift that has been offered to you, so you may know yourself. Like the mirror is used to look at your face and set right your blemishes, use the intellect to discharge your duties in life perfectly.

- Divine Discourse, 20 Mar 1977.

Source: radiosai.org

[winston]

The Difference Between Knowing and Believing by Alexander Green

A Rabbi, a Christian, a Muslim, a Sikh and a Mormon are sitting at a table. An atheist is questioning them.

It sounds like the start of a bad joke, I know. But I'm actually describing "The Sacred Text Project" at FreedomFest in Las Vegas last week.

Five religious leaders and scholars were there to advance and defend their sacred scriptures. Moderating the discussion was Michael Shermer, founder and publisher of Skeptic magazine and author of How We Believe.

Shermer announced up front that he would brook no political correctness. He didn't want these scholars to talk about their common goals or spiritual principles. He wanted them to defend their differences.

And he didn't mince words. He began by asking the panelists to explain how they knew their sectarian beliefs were right and their fellow panelists were wrong.

Each responded eloquently, in some cases poetically, about their particular faith. But they couldn't - or wouldn't - answer Shermer's question directly.

That demonstrated wisdom and discretion. After all, the question was designed to put them one move away from checkmate.

No panelist could offer definitive evidence. None would accept any other's answer as "the right one."

Moreover, if the sectarian tenets of any religion could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, why call it faith?

Historians of science like Shermer and the theologians on the panel seek "the truth" from different angles.

Science begins with the null hypothesis, the assumption that whatever claim is under investigation is not true until proven otherwise.

Next come the laboratory experiments and statistical tests. The burden of proof - which must be repeatable, falsifiable, statistically significant, and published (along with the data) in peer-reviewed journals - is necessarily high.

Fundamentalists often claim that scientists are arrogant, full of hubris (full of themselves). And no doubt some scientists are. Yet this hardly describes the scientific enterprise itself.

Even when the results of controlled experiments appear conclusive, no scientific claim is beyond doubt. Science views all knowledge as provisional.

Every finding falls on a graduated scale somewhere between absolute truth and absolute falsity, but never at either end. It's okay to say "I don't know," "I'm not sure," or "Let's wait and see."

This is particularly true when physicists, astronomers, cosmologists and other scientists grapple with The Great Unknown.

In The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, physicist Richard Feyman writes, "The size of the universe is very impressive, with us on a tiny particle whirling around the sun, among a hundred thousand million suns in this galaxy, itself among a billion galaxies... There are atoms of which all appears to be constructed, following immutable laws. Nothing can escape it; the stars are made of the same stuff, and the animals are made of the same stuff, but in such complexity as to mysteriously appear alive - like man himself... To see life as part of the universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is rarely described. It usually ends in laughter, delight in the futility of trying to understand. These scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty... "

In short, science acknowledges human limitations and fallibility.

It begins with the proposition that we are examining things that are unknown or poorly understood. To gain knowledge, we must remain modest, conceding what we do not know.

Science is a tool for understanding the natural world and advancing technology. It helps us distinguish what we might like to be true from what is probably true.

Religion, on the other hand, addresses moral questions beyond the purview of science, important questions like "should I do this?" and "what will happen if I do?" It underscores the primacy of love, the brotherhood of men, the value of the individual.

Yet at their best, both emphasize an important principle - one scientists and theologians can equally embrace:

A deep sense of humility.