Once, you could have said the same thing about Northern Ireland. People there choose to find a different way and life there has changed. If you continue to do the same violent things over and over, it is no wonder that violence continues. It is only when an individual decides to stop and choose another way that progress can finally be made.

Thanks for the video links. I’ll be sure to go into them when I have a spare moment.

There is no way out.
http://www.premmedia.de/sites/images/Netclips/2007/17.1.07/there%27s%20no%20way%20out….mov

Being nice to oneself and charitable to oneself and loughing with oneself is the only medicine and the only way out.
Best regards.
iamasimpelman

You both have gone into this very well. I can’t really bring much more to it.

It could be these aggressive acts will come to an end because humanity will finally see the danger and act accordingly. Or, it could be these aggressive acts will come to an end due to the extinction of humanity. At this moment, one seems more likely than the other.

None of us knows what will happen because there is no “will happen.” One can only sit with oneself and see how it all unfurls. From there, real movement may occur in the outer world; a movement that springs from a timeless space. Not a movement of protest and sign-carrying.

The self perceives the outer world as separate; something that “I” see, or something that is over there and “I” am over here. But what is it that is really happening?

People usually expect someone else will do it, or “It is not my responsibility.” Their favorite candidate gets elected and they say, “Now that he/she is in office, everything will be great.” And if the candidate from the other side gets elected it is, “Now that he/she is in office, things will continue to go downhill!” But not once do they look within and see the responsibility they have as human beings. Regardless of who is elected, it is your job, and not theirs.

This is such a cleansing topic, but people do not want to touch it. They would rather hold to what they know.

Indeed.

Yes, its hard to prove a causal relationship between apparently unrelated things. Even trickier as the world is a false causality. (laughs) But when one predicts in advance the effect, the statistics become harder to ignore. The character Sherlock Holmes said “An ancestor of mine maintained that whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true.” I find this handy when reality makes a shift and no longer follows the rules (beliefs).

The research I’ve read about here and there. The latest I looked up and just summarizes it with no links. The point really isn’t if it can be scientifically proven though. Its simply that a group of mediators demonstrated several times they could end a war. The only reason they didn’t continue is they ran out of money. Most I understand were doing at their own expense. As Lynn McTaggart observed, they didn’t even have an intention to end the war. They simply gathered together and stepped into inner peace.

Of course, this is not the solution to all problems. But it is closely related. As Albert Einstein put it, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” When you expand enough to take a step back, the solution often presents itself. Only in stepping out of the box can you see the box clearly.

“I agree that simply telling people some platitude is pointless. That was not what I meant by the statement. It is understanding that. That peace arises within, the point Takuin makes. That is simplicity itself. ”

Sorry, I wasn’t reacting to what you’ve said. Just pointing out a ridiculous situation.

The study is interesting. I hope I can stumble upon it. However, I am very cautious when it comes to studies that immediately equate incidents that are “correlated” to having a “causal” relationship. If you see what I mean. Certainly, I’m adopting a critical but an open attitude here, but it doesn’t mean that I am posing that something is wrong and that I know the right answer. I am just investigating, inquiring to see. There are multiple causes; and “causes” and “effects” are quite so entangled together that teasing them apart and determining which is which is like being caught in a chicken-and-egg situation. And indeed, teasing them apart leads to fragmentation – as if we can be “truly” in the position that “certainly” separate causes from its effects. I don’t know if I’m actually verbally conveying what I truly meant here. One can sometimes be lost in translation.

“But peace will surprise you when you least expect it, wash over you with happiness. Where is anger and conflict in that? It cannot be imagined.”

I agree. Expecting is effort. I can see that peace cannot be brought about by more “effort” as effort necessarily produces friction, and therefore conflict. I know this might sound simplistic but it seems that there is an inverse relationship between peace and effort: more effort = less peace; more peace= less effort.

Paradoxically, it seems that to have peace one must give up all efforts towards it. We prepare for war but not for peace.

Perhaps it would be useful to offer a practical example of how peace ends war. There’s a meditation group that began bringing groups of meditators to war torn areas in the early ’80’s. When a group of sufficient size (a minor %) meditated together in the stricken area, the war would stop. Accident rates, crime and hospital admissions would drop too. When they left it would start up again, immediately. They did this a number of times in various parts of the world. They discovered they didn’t have to be in the middle of it, just nearby. They could even predict the % change in stats in advance. And they published the research in peer reviewed scientific journals.

But this is so outside the box of most peoples experience, it remains a curiosity and most people are unaware of it. More recently, other groups have begun things like The Intention Experiment and they’re finding this research and talking about it. Slowly, the possibility become more real.

The key to understand is that there is no individual to be fragmented. It is a mistake in perception, as Bohm says. When consciousness is enlivened, the perception of fragmentation ceases. When awareness is soothed, all are soothed. We are in this together. This is why I said peace is not hard.

It may be hard to see this, especially if you are caught up in it. But peace will surprise you when you least expect it, wash over you with happiness. Where is anger and conflict in that? It cannot be imagined.

this is a very interesting conversation.

1. honestly, i have thought about what iamasimpelman has pointed out here.
before i proceed, we don’t really know what we are going to do or say unless
we are already in the situation that we are just hypothesizing about.

2. going to an area where there is war going on, and telling the people there
that “Peace is only now. Ending war is very simple” is a ridiculous action and
an utterly useless act.

as i understand, awareness, enlightenment, or whatever you call it is not an an anesthetic that dulls you and make you incapable of intelligent action.

3. certainly, ending war, the war that is actually going on, is not simple.
you cannot just go in the middle of it all and shout “Let there be peace” and
the peace shall come. no, it doesn’t happen that way. but someone who acts “intelligently” (i don’t mean intelligent as in cunning but intelligent as in without fragmentation) will know what to do when there’s war. what that person will do, we don’t know.

4. at this point, let must just distinguish between conflict and war. conflict
is inevitable because we are in a state of fragmentation. war is one of those
way humanity use to resolve conflict: since we cannot agree let’s just kill each other (or better yet, since we are too lazy to think of a better solution to our dilemma let’s just kill each other).

i’ve mentioned that conflict is the outcome of our “state of fragmentation”.
perhaps one may think that this state of fragmentation is the way things
“really” are; hence, conflict is inevitable.

in wholeness and the implicate order, david bohm offers an interesting insight about this fragmentation. let me just quote his exact words here:
“Some might say:’Fragmentation of cities, religions, political systems,
conflict in the form of wars, general violence, fratricide, etc. are the reality.
Wholeness is only an ideal, toward which we should perhaps strive.’ But this
is not what is being said here. Rather, what should be said is that wholeness
is what is real, and that fragmentation is the response of this whole to
man’s action, guided by illusory perception, which is shaped by fragmentary
thought. in other words, it is just because reality is whole that man,
with his fragmentary approach, will inevitably be answered with a correspondingly fragmentary response. So what is needed is for man to give attention to his habit of fragmentary thought, to be aware of it, and thus bring it to an end. Man’s approach to reality may then be whole, and so
the response will be whole.”

5. i do not believe that there will “always” be war. i don’t know what “always” is. saying that something is genetically programed to us doesn’t mean that it will surely happen. as i understand it, and i may be wrong, genes interact with the environment, when the environment is favorable for the expression of a “gene” it expresses itself; otherwise it remains dormant. a gene doesn’t act in a vacuum: it needs the proper conditions.

6. another distinction, war and aggression are not one and the same. aggression can be considered a “spontaneous” reaction of a person BUT not entirely spontaneous for aggression is determined by conditions happening inside the person. we can say that aggression is a “conditioned” reaction
just like any reaction is.

war is never a spontaneous event. war doesn’t just come into being in a day. it has recipes and takes time to be cooked. we prepare for war. it is systematic. it is strategical, scheming, a long tedious “thought process” is involved.

though we cannot just “simply” stop an actual war, we can prevent an
actual war from happening.

7. the trauma and all the hideous effects of war will surely be there.
one face it and we do what we have to do in that situation. certainly,
telling people “peace is now” in the face of someone in trauma is not one of those things.

when your house is on fire, you don’t light a candle nor get your bible and pray nor sit and meditate nor gather your neighbor and talk about enlightenment or being in the now. you do everything you can do to save what can be saved and let go of those that you cannot. but you can only do this if you yourself is safe.

8. and yes, i would not offer these musings to people who are “actually”
experiencing war or suffering the trauma of war. that what the situation needs.

but before anything else, i should bring sanity into myself, to put total
attention into my thoughts, call it awareness or whatever you like.
i’m doing this not because i was told to do it but because i have
seen the danger, the distraction, the suffering that inattention
causes me and other people. every one of us is another hitler in
the making if we don’t put an end to the war that is happening within us.

and if i don’t have the courage to end the war within myself,
i’m of no help to the people who are in shock, in pain, and who are suffering.
i only amplify and add to their burden….

i don’t know if i’m making any sense here.

P.S.
and yes, the human animal is no longer killing for physical survival.
war (as in World War 1, 2 what have you) is not for physical survival but for the survival of our “beliefs”.

iamasimpelman, I am sorry about that! I didn’t notice it was spelled as “simpel.” It seems my brain automatically flipped the “e” and “l.”

About the post (and comments), it was never my intention to present a “correct way” to do things. If one sees the world in a particular way, I will not try to bring that world to an end. It has nothing to do with Takuin.

I write these posts and go deep in the comments in the hope that someone will take up the reigns and find out on their own. Someone is out there right now, posing these questions within, and that is important. The world may need these people; the ones that will not yield to external authority, or bend to the will of conformity.

Time will tell, of course, but it can’t be any worse than what we have already created.

About the fight… none of that is here. It is one of the difficulties in writing online. One only has the words to go by, so the intention of the speaker may be easily missed. That is one of the reasons I may release a video series. The audio posts seem to go over well, and I expect a video series might fare the same. (Feel free to make any suggestions on that, as well.)

But if there is any mis-communication, the fault lies with Takuin. All one can do is approach the essence. I cannot solidify these things, and that is why I am thankful for comments. At least here, we can go deeper into the topic and try to come together on these matters.

Thanks for all the wonderful interaction, and by all means, keep it going.