In reality we own nothing!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

i get the general impression that most modern beings are not all that keen on accepting personal responsiblity for their actions, thoughts and words. we often find beings trying to justify these things by proclaiming that another being has made such and such come about.

this seems to be wrong thinking at its most subtle.

if a child is abused, for instance, it is clear that the responsibility for the abuse lies soley with the abuser. yet, you will often hear former abused children are, themselves, abusing children and proclaiming that they couldn't help it because they, too, were abused.

whilst it is certainly a terrible thing, and please don't misunderstand that point. as an abused child, it is something quite close to me. each being is responsible for their actions and the thoughts and words which they express.

so not only do we own our actions, thoughts and words, we are the inheriters of our actions, thoughts and words as well.

metta,

~v

[seattlegal]

Well said, Vajradhara! In not accepting resposibility for {or owning,} our actions, thoughts, and words, we risk becoming morally {and spiritually} bankrupt.

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Look, I agree with the sentiment expressed in the OP, but I think that it's nice but unrealistic. Can I borrow your car for a while since it really belongs to God? Hmmm, thought not. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to spiritual fuzzywuzzies because they don't translate into meaningful action. It's all well and good to express these nice ideas, but let's be honest about our intentions: who here is ready to give up their possesive nature for the sake of some make-nice spirituallyness? What really happens, I think, is that sentiment serves as a substitute for action. It allows us to feel enlightened without having to give anything up.
Chris

Hi, I like your stance, but I think a bit of detachment can be healty, especially when things go wrong. Recently I was shortchanged by 20£ in the supermarket, I complained straight away, the supermarket's response was to check the balance in the till, guess what, it was 6 pounds short. I couldn't do anything else, there was no cctv that I could use to prove anything either. Instead of let it eat me away, in my heart I decided to let go of those £20 as I gained nothing with dwelling on it, it also made reflect: have I shortchanged other people?

Also if somebody is too possesive it might be a symtom of compensating for something else, as there could be something missing emotionally for example.

But no, you are not borrowing my toys.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Caimanson

Hi, I like your stance, but I think a bit of detachment can be healty, especially when things go wrong. Recently I was shortchanged by 20£ in the supermarket, I complained straight away, the supermarket's response was to check the balance in the till, guess what, it was 6 pounds short. I couldn't do anything else, there was no cctv that I could use to prove anything either. Instead of let it eat me away, in my heart I decided to let go of those £20 as I gained nothing with dwelling on it, it also made reflect: have I shortchanged other people?

Also if somebody is too possesive it might be a symtom of compensating for something else, as there could be something missing emotionally for example.

But no, you are not borrowing my toys.

Letting go of things that eat you up is hard. It's bad enough that you're out twenty quid, but then you can't help but beat up on yourself for letting it happen. I suppose one could compensate by affirming that it's all God's money anyway if that works. The main thing is to find a way, in persuit of your own enlightened self-interest, to let it go. Easier said than done, though. I sometimes say to myself "I'll remember to be pissed about this later." I like to play golf, and in golf you've got to be able to let go of your anger over bad shots or it will wreck your game. It's pretty much that way in life too.

Rich people have stuff and poor people have faith, isn't that the way it works? Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich and taking their stuff. Lao Tzu said, "keep the people's heads empty and their bellies full." If you read Chinese philosphy it's pretty clear that it's about how to keep the citizenry pacified and orderly. But what if you can't keep the people's bellies full? Ah, then you have to put a little something in their heads that helps them accept not only their own poverty but also the inferiority in social status that accompanies it.

"In reality we own nothing" is a true statement since the concept of ownership is a subjective construct. The idea that "GOD" owns everything is fine with me, but I'm always mindful of the ways religion strives to construct virtue out of self-denial, and how that serves to perpetuate the stratification of class and caste. So I think we have to look carefully at our motives and emotional compensation mechanisms because deep down in our tangled psyches is a bunch of social programming that we've inherited without even being aware of it.

But why bother? Why dig down below the comfort mantle and deconstruct our motives? Why not enjoy a fluffy affirmation and leave it at that? I believe in this axiom: "The Universe arranges itself to come to the assistance of those whose intentions are clear." You can't have clear intentions if you don't know what you really want. That's why I believe in enlightened self-interest. I think that God wants us to take ownership of the earth. In fact, I think of the Torah as a primer on how to do that. But to truly have enlightened self-interest, the kind that seduces the universe to back up our intentions, I think we have to become really clear about what we really want, and that's so, so hard. Well, I find it hard, anyway.

I find the concepts of asceticism and enlightened detachment put forth by eastern religions, as well as the piety, self-denial, and submission espoused by Christianity and Islam to be serious impediments to unearthing true enlightened self-interest from under the rubbish pile of acquired social programming. I think that's by design.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Anyway, I forgot the point...oh, yeah. The point is that I'm trying to pin down the nature of compensation mechanisms. Obviously, when I hit that bad shank into the pond it's in my enlightened best interest to shrug it off as quickly as possible, compose myself, get my mojo going again so I can hit the next shot solid. It doesn't do you any good to beat yourself up, and it surely doesn't punish whatever or whoever pissed you off in the first place. But it's hard to let it go even though it's in my own best interest, so I go looking for a compensation mechanism. What I've discovered is that the comensation mechanisms are located in the same file as the emotional responses that make it so hard to let go.

In fact, the compensation mechanisms act like an insulation blanket around the emotional responses that seemingly necessitate them. It's hard to say which came first, the emotional discontinuity or it's temporary remedy since they seem to be bundled together in a mutually self-protective relationship. What is clear, to me anyway, is that to really advance the agenda of what I want and what's good for me I can't just go on letting pavlovian emotional responses and their transcendental compensation mechanisms drag me around by the nose.

Chris

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well said, Vajradhara! In not accepting resposibility for {or owning,} our actions, thoughts, and words, we risk becoming morally {and spiritually} bankrupt.

Namaste Seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

i completely agree.

it is difficult, in my view, for many beings to have an active sense of responsbility for these sorts of things. it certainly isn't the comforting view nor does it lend to any sort of quasi-psychological bliss states... it is actually quite a sobering sort of experience.

metta,

~v

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

i completely agree.

it is difficult, in my view, for many beings to have an active sense of responsbility for these sorts of things. it certainly isn't the comforting view nor does it lend to any sort of quasi-psychological bliss states... it is actually quite a sobering sort of experience.

metta,

~v

Sobriety to balance the bliss--or would being happy in our responsibilities be part of the bliss? {Time for me to chop wood and carry water}

[flowperson]

Wonderful thoughts Vaj and Seattle:

I don't believe it's a natural state to be happy in fulfilling our responsibilities most of the time, but I have known some people who "seemed" to function that way. They "seemed" to be in a blissful state when functioning. The essential talent in this is to know oneself. It could be that religious pursuits are cultural inventions intended to address this issue. Joseph Campbell had a primal saying, "Follow your bliss." I have really tried to live that, but it seems mostly to only bring troubles into my life.

On the other hand balancing sobriety against bliss seems a more natural approach to the question, since that's the way that nature seems to govern itself over the long term. But then, perhaps, we run the risk of evolving into a resemblance of the life of vegetables and fruits in the long term. More "observers" rather than "doers" in the world around us all. More "prey" then we are "asserters".

An interesting dilemma IMHO.

flow....

[Caimanson]

Rich people have stuff and poor people have faith, isn't that the way it works? Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich and taking their stuff. Lao Tzu said, "keep the people's heads empty and their bellies full." If you read Chinese philosphy it's pretty clear that it's about how to keep the citizenry pacified and orderly. But what if you can't keep the people's bellies full?

That is too much of a materialistic slant! Deep down in our hearts our true desires are very human and basic: love/acceptance (friendships, relationships), fulfillment in work and other creative activities, enjoying simple things.

So I think we have to look carefully at our motives and emotional compensation mechanisms because deep down in our tangled psyches is a bunch of social programming that we've inherited without even being aware of it.

Exactly, society, peers, family pressures. Wanting to have more than my neighbour, be more successful than my colleague, being praised by how good/clever/giving/etc, I am. Those are the false wants that cover up the deeper needs.

But to truly have enlightened self-interest, the kind that seduces the universe to back up our intentions, I think we have to become really clear about what we really want, and that's so, so hard. Well, I find it hard, anyway.

Yes agree completely, but it is impossible without deconstructing your intentions, how can you otherwise?

Your "self-interest" label is misguiding, feels "selfish" too me, in my opinion truly knowing what you really want/need does not equate at all to opening the gates of lawlessness, I think the opposite (my own dogma of the nature of things). I suppose you said more or less the same .

I find the concepts of asceticism and enlightened detachment put forth by eastern religions, as well as the piety, self-denial, and submission espoused by Christianity and Islam to be serious impediments to unearthing true enlightened self-interest from under the rubbish pile of acquired social programming. I think that's by design.

Agree again, but I don't think they are necessarily restricting, the problem is that they are dictated and imposed, so poisonous if taken blindly without listening to your heart.

The problem is that most tortured souls either immerse themselves in hedonistic bliss trying to fulfil their real needs through the fake ones, or they deny their own selves in order to numb or repress their legitimate desires and needs that they haven't managed to fulfil by other means (like those that immerse themselves in a spiritual path).

Alvaro

[flowperson]

Alvaro and Chris:

I pretty much agree with your overall analyses. The important stuff has been covered up over the millenia, and the information that we all need to get on with things is being very closely held by those who believe that the ordinary people of the world "can't handle the truth". ( By the way that line comes from a famous play about what went on at Guantanamo Bay during the cold war, believe it or not !)

I believe that if our leaders really cared about the future that they would facilitate transformative activities in the world. Instead we see so much of our resources misspent on "false security" because our leaders have been so successful in scaring their constituencies into believing that we are all mortally threatened by "terrorists". If we don't fall into line to defend our "homelands" and our "stuff" our lives as we know them to be will be destroyed by the religious fanatics, the immigrants, or whatever scapegoat happens to be handy at the time. In intelligenge parlance, this strategy is known as "misdirection". Of course all of these "boy crying wolf" activities have, since the year 2,000, now succeeded in bringing into being just such a set of world circumstances.

flow....

[arthra]

I'd have to agree with Vajra that this is an interest question...What is it that we truly own?

Our memories? and what are they but a delicate spun fabric that waves with the wind... now battered and forgotten as they blow about.

Memories are cherished but they are distorted by what we add to them over time.. The spider-mind summarizes and connects a few points but where is the real substance?

- Art

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by arthra

I'd have to agree with Vajra that this is an interest question...What is it that we truly own?

Our memories? and what are they but a delicate spun fabric that waves with the wind... now battered and forgotten as they blow about.

Memories are cherished but they are distorted by what we add to them over time.. The spider-mind summarizes and connects a few points but where is the real substance?

- Art

Energy is neither created nor destroyed...only changed. Since "memories" are contrived through energy, I submit they never disappear. They may "change", but they are never destroyed.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Energy is neither created nor destroyed...only changed. Since "memories" are contrived through energy, I submit they never disappear. They may "change", but they are never destroyed.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

Actually I can see your point Quahom.. and my religious view on this is similar.

but I was just reflecting on how in time who we are can be apparently changed by what we choose to remember ...or what we forget.

Like looking in a mirror to get a reference point to reassure ourselves so we reflect back on our lives.

I was also thinking of the Alzheimers condition that many of us will probably experience as we get older.

See:

http://www.alz.org/AboutAD/WhatIsAD.asp

Actual ownership that is a question. Can we say we actually "own" anything.

- Art

[flowperson]

"Ownership" is a temporally dependent concept. To "own" anything implies control in the ultimate sense. And in a "natural" world the concept loses its meaning over time. Everything that is manifest in the world is subject to change.

Even patentable invention ownership is limited by governments which grant patent holders the right to exclude the practice of the invention by others without the owner's permission for a fixed period, usually seventeen years in the U.S. Thus those who wish to make and sell anything based upon the information disclosed in the patent must usually pay the patent owner a royalty to "practice" the elements of the invention during the exclusionary time period.

So my answer would be that, yes, ownership is possible over certain periods of time passage, but it fades and changes because of what time does to the natural world of which everything is part and parcel.

flow....

[Azure24]

That is why it is good to possess those things no one can take away from you.