Consciousness As New Civil Rights Movement - Deepak Chopra

[burythehatchet]

Huffington Post
The kind of oppression that many people are feeling right now is more than political. It exists in consciousness. The cries for a new political vision on the left are one symptom of a wider yearning that crosses race, gender, and class. People want to get out of trouble, and that can only be done after they see a way out.
It takes a new level of consciousness to envision a positive future when things are very dark.

To be brutally frank, the opponents of consciousness tend to fall into two camps:

1. Those who desperately cling to the status quo for no better reason than to resist change.
2. Those who make money or protect their privilege by holding others down.
...
Rest of his post at Huffington Post

[bonito]

1. A good article

Thanks for posting it.

[IChing]

2. Changing one's consciousness can only come at times by experiencing

Pain and suffering.

Consciousness cannot be forced on the individual, just as psychological therapy can not make gains until the patient admits the problem.

In oneself lies the whole world and if you know how to look and learn, the door is there and the key is in your hand. Nobody on earth can give you either the key or the door to open, except yourself.

" true understanding is possible only when we are fully conscious of our thought, not as an operative observer on this thought, but completely and without the intervention of a choice."

I agree that there are many clinging to the status quo for no better reason than to resist change and the one's with money and privilege holding and blinding the others down.

[IChing]

3. The above was from Krishnamurti and me below is more from the article.

Today we live in a consciousness backlash. The voice of fear is being heeded, and it's a very loud voice. But the worst days of Communism preceded a great awakening, and with any luck, our backlash will end soon and we will find ourselves once more in a climate where advancing one's consciousness is protected as the most cherished of inalienable rights.

[burythehatchet]

7. thanks IChing, I have not yet read Krishnamurti

you've prompted me to do that.
We've long wondered what the great dividing line is between the people in this country. I believe that line may be between dogma and deism.

[H2O Man]

8. A good introduction

to Krishnamurti is "Meeting Life: writings and talks on finding your path without retreating from society." I think you would enjoy it.

This is tied very closely to one of my favorite books, which another DUer kindly reminded me to re-read: Erich Fromm's "To Have or To Be." In it, there is a section on the difference between what "faith" means for those who want "to have" compared to those with a goal of "being." Indeed, one is asleep, while the other is an awakening to the worth of humanity.

[burythehatchet]

9. very nice

my bookstore gift card is burning a hole in my pocket:)

[Karenina]

10. My favorite Krishnamurti quote:

Being well-adjusted in a profoundly sick society is not a sign of good health. (paraphrased)

[Orrex]

27. Interesting. Do you have an approx. date on that quote?

[burythehatchet]

28. there's this awesome website

I think its called dubya dubya dubya dot google dot com. I've heard you can find great info there. Let me know how it goes.

[Orrex]

33. May I suggest where you can bury the hatchet?

By asking Karenina a question, I thought I might engage a fellow human being in rational discourse.

Perhaps you might give it a try sometime.

[H2O Man]

36. I'm curious:

why the approximate date is significant to you?

[Orrex]

40. resonance

Here's the quote: Being well-adjusted in a profoundly sick society is not a sign of good health.

I don't have the text before me, but Philip K Dick used a very similar phrase in 1981's VALIS.

Dick was a voracious reader with a profound interest in gnosticism and non-western thought. I wondered if the quote were coined during Dick's life, and, if so, approximately when. I'd be interested to learn whether he came upon it earlier or later in his life or if he simply came up with his own formulation independently.

[H2O Man]

44. It is also

what Erich Fromm wrote fairly frequently, perhaps most notably in The Sane Society.

Krishnamurti was born in 1895 -- which you likely know. I'm not sure of when he may have first said the statement being quoted, and will likely not be able to look through many books today. I would assume that it was something that a number of people noted around the same time. Perhaps I'll get a chance to look at Fromm's sane Society to see if he sources it.

[Orrex]

50. Thanks, but don't go to any trouble

You've gotten me into the ballpark so that I can check for myself.

Ah! Rational discourse!

[H2O Man]

53. Perhaps .....

though it might be irrational discourse within the context of the greater society.

[Karenina]

66. I'm so sorry.

It was one I collected for a book for one of my kid-links. It struck me so profoundly it remains easily accessible in my aging mind.

[phusion]

4. Chopra is great

thanks for posting this article.

[IChing]

5. kick

[Autonomy]

6. As always, the enemy is orthodoxy. nt

[Orrex]

11. A little help?

Someone please tell me what Chopra means by "advancing one's consciousness." And be reasonably specific. And while we're at it, tell me how one can verify that one actually has advanced one's consciousness.

Chopra is a staunch advocate of bullshit New Age "energy balance," which is about as poorly defined and wholly unverifiable as any other pseudoscience.

He says a lot of nice things about nice things that nice people can do if they're nice to people, starting with themselves.

He is potently toxic to science-literacy and does a great disservice to anyone who latches on to his quackery.

Sure he's an international best seller, but so is L. Ron Hubbard.


No, thanks.

[omega minimo]

12. There is a wide range of material to read on this subject

from different angles. Lots to choose from, depending on your "new agey" tolerance level.

You may be interested in the New Physics angle and the studies on science and consciousness. This science has blossomed since the days of "The Tao of Physics" which I don't think anyone would accuse of "quackery."

Your hostility to the subject may prevent you from finding the gems in the hokum.

[burythehatchet]

15. Very nice reply

I have always found that certainty is a difficult emotional barrier to overcome, and perhaps therein lies the "great divide"

[omega minimo]

17. Methinks debunkers doth protest too much

:hug:

Here's to Consciousness
:toast:

At this point, what's left?

[burythehatchet]

19. good thinking

...to consciousness that comes with Harp lager.
:toast:

[omega minimo]

20. Unconsciousness?

:boring:

[Orrex]

38. Not "certainty" but verifiable consistency

Chopra's nostrums can't be tested and can't be verified and are therefore of minimal except as works of apologetics for those who already believe.

I am "certain" of almost nothing. I am strongly convinced of many things. Someone can convinced that I am in error, but it will take more than Chopra's "first you have to realize that there is no spoon" quack mysticism to do it.

Complaints about undue certainty are the first defense of indefensible gobblydegook.

[omega minimo]

57. The "test" is experience

hence "consciousness"

Deal with it.

[omega minimo]

62. What'd I say?

Quoting beam me up from #49:

From Jacob Needleman's A Sense of The Cosmos: Scientific Knowledge and Spiritual Truth

Edit to emphasize: . . . the immediate personal effort to be aware of what is taking place in myself in the present moment.

That is the key. Our ordinary awareness is not the highest possible awareness. It serves to enable us to function well enough in the world we create through our thoughts, feelings and actions. But there is a dynamic and reciprocal relationship between the quality of our inner attention and the world we create through our functions.

[Orrex]

63. I'm not hostile--I'm just not buying into it.

Most of what I've read of New Physics seems to focus heavily on the "New" and not so much on the "Physics."

Here's a discussion of Chopra, with a mention of the linking of traditional non-western mysticism with modern physics.

The whole of the Skeptic's Dictionary is worth reading at length.


The burden of providing the gems is upon Chopra and other purveyors of mysticism; it's not up to me to search through thousands of pages of bunk just to pull out the occasional "don't give a chicken bone to a dog" wisdom.

If these gems are there, let Chopra present them succinctly. Otherwise his smoke and mirrors do a great disservice to those whom he purports to want to help.

[lateo]

14. I agree with you about his quackery but...

a stopped clock is right twice a day. His article here is putting forward a very buddhist philosophy so if you want to learn more about what he is talking about, and you don't want to read his books, go to the library and check out some books by the Dali Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh.

Two of Thich Nhat Hanh's books that I highly recommend.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807012394/ref=pd_sim_3/002-6539857-8550465?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0938077570/002-6539857-8550465?v=glance

[burythehatchet]

16. well I don't know if I agree with the broken clock analogy

his pop philosophy is really just a marketing success. The underlying thoughts extend well back into Hindu scriptures. I personally have no affinity towards any person who profits from religion. But this doesn't make him wrong.

[omega minimo]

18. A bigger quack than George W. Bush?

:evilgrin:

[Orrex]

35. That's a *perfect* analogy

A stopped clock may be right twice a day, but you have know way to know when it's right (unless you have a working clock by which to verify the time).

Chopra is a broken clock with no verifying clock. There is no way to ascertain when his blather is correct and when it's just blather.

However, to me it sounds like blather more than 99% of the time, so I'll look for another clock instead.

[K-W]

37. And other people say the same right things he says

only they say it more elequently and back it up with reason.

[Orrex]

43. Broad brush

Chopra says a lot that is fundamentally unverifiable and therefore of limited use to a reasonable thinker.

If his writings happen to coincide with well-supported works, then I guess he can be right twice a day. Good for him! But he still needs to support his arguments rather than just declaiming his transcendental insights by fiat.

[Stevepol]

21. by definition consciousness is what YOU think. Nobody can

define it for you. At what point does someone cease being sad or upset and become clinically depressed?

At what point does that same person cease being clinically depressed and become capable of handling his depression and then perhaps even capable of seeing that these feelings are natural and both respond to and create certain chemical relationships in the body? Only that person can say. If he makes a certain score on a depression inventory, it's still his or her evaluation and not somebody else's.

In other words, as soon as you move into the area of the mind, the only real arbiter is YOU. If your behavior impinges on somebody else, then rules can be set up and tests devised but for FEELINGS like security, compassion, etc., there's no test that I know of, despite the no child left behind mantras.

Advancy one's consciousness means exactly what you want it to mean for yourself, nobody else.

[Orrex]

32. In other words, the phrase "advancing one's consciousness" means nothing

Clinical depression is a well-defined and empirically observable phenomenon that tends to respond in predictable, repeatable, verifiable ways to known stimuli.

Consciousness is a poorly-defined and poorly observable phenomenon that does not respond in predictable, repeatable, or verifiable ways to known stimuli.

Therefore clinical depression is a weak analogy for consciousness and should be discarded as a term of comparison.

In any case, I'm not asking for a definition of my consciousness. I'm asking for a definition of what Chopra means by "advancing one's consciousness."

[Beam Me Up]

49. This quote may be of help to you:

Part four

What Is Consciousness?

I realize that our task would be much easier if from now on we could be working with a precise definition of the word "consciousness." But it is important to stay flexible toward this question of the nature of consciousness. The word is used these days in so many different ways that out of sheer impatience one is tempted to single out one or another aspect of consciousness as its primary characteristic. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that our attitude toward knowledge of ourselves is like our attitude toward new discoveries about the external world. We so easily lose our balance when something extraordinary is discovered in science or when we come upon a new explanatory concept: Immediately the whole machinery of systematizing thought comes into play, Enthusiasm sets in, accompanied by a proliferation of utilitarian explanations, which then stand in the way of direct experiential encounters with surrounding life.

In a like manner, a new experience of one's self tempts us to believe we have discovered the sole direction for the development of consciousness, aliveness or--as it is sometimes called --presence. The same machinery of explanatory thought comes into play accompanied by pragmatic programs for "action." It is not only followers of the new religions who are victims of this tendency, taking fragments of traditional teachings which have led them to a new experience of themselves and building a subjective and missionary religion around them. This tendency in ourselves also accounts, as we shall see later, for much of the fragmentation of Modern psychology, just as it accounts for the fragmentation in the natural sciences.

In order to warn us about this tendency in ourselves, the traditional teachings--as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, for example--make a fundamental distinction between consciousness on the one hand and the contents of consciousness such as our perceptions of things, our sense of personal identity, our emotions and our thoughts in all their color and gradations on the other hand.

This ancient distinction has two crucial messages for us. On the one hand, it tell us that what we feel to be the best of ourselves as human beings is only part of a total structure containing layers of mind, feeling and sensation far more active, subtle and encompassing (like the cosmic spheres) than what we have settled for as our best. These lawyers are very numerous and need to be peeled back, as it were, or broken through one by one along the path of inner growth, until an individual touches in himself the fundamental intelligent forces in the cosmos.

At the same time, this distinction also communicates that the search for consciousness is a constant necessity for man. It is telling us that anything in ourselves, no matter how fine, subtle or intelligent, no matter how virtuous or close to reality, no matter how still or violent--any action, any thought, any intuition or experience--immediately absorbs all our attention and automatically becomes transformed into contents around which gather all the opinions, feelings and distorted sensations that are the supports of our secondhand sense of identity. In short, we are told that the evolution of consciousness is always "vertical" to the constant stream of mental, emotional and sensory associations within the human organism, and comprehensive of them (somewhat like a "fourth dimension"). And, seen in this light, it is not really a question of concentric layers of awareness embedded like the skins of an onion within the self, but only one skin, one veil, that constantly forms regardless of the quality or intensity of the psychic field at any given moment.

Thus, in order to understand the nature of consciousness, I must here and now in this present moment be searching for a better state of consciousness. All definitions, no matter how profound, are secondary. Even the formulations of ancient masters on this subject can be a diversion if I take them in a way that does not support the immediate personal effort to be aware of what is taking place in myself in the present moment.

In all that follows in this book, we shall continue to speak about levels of consciousness and intelligence within man and within the universe, for this idea is crucial in any attempt to reach a new understanding of science. But I wish, for the reader and for myself, that this more inner, personal meaning of the idea be constantly kept in mind.

From Jacob Needleman's A Sense of The Cosmos: Scientific Knowledge and Spiritual Truth

Edit to emphasize: . . . the immediate personal effort to be aware of what is taking place in myself in the present moment.

That is the key. Our ordinary awareness is not the highest possible awareness. It serves to enable us to function well enough in the world we create through our thoughts, feelings and actions. But there is a dynamic and reciprocal relationship between the quality of our inner attention and the world we create through our functions.

I can say more about this but only if you are interested.

[Orrex]

52. Yes, that is helpful

I may not find myself in full agreement with the text, but if it's consistent with what Chopra's getting at, then it can help me to understand his argument better--whether or not I agree with it.

Thank you for the quote.

[H2O Man]

55. Another option

might be Bill Moyers' interview with Tu Wei-ming. It is found in Moyers' book, "A Worldof Ideas 2." Wei-ming is a professor of Chinese history and philosophy at Harvard. He attempts to apply Confucian thinking to our modern society.

[Beam Me Up]

56. I recommend you read Needleman's book. I can send you a copy if you

like. He is professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University. This particular book was published almost 30 years ago -- when there was a different kind of academic debate going on between science and the Eastern traditions. Needleman isn't merely an academic. He started out in Medical School before going on to Harvard where he studied philosophy and comparative religion. He was for many years the editor of the "Penguine Metaphysical Library." Beyond that, he is engaged in a form of practice and has been for over half a century. He is not a 'woo woo' New Age philosopher but has been quite critical of its simplistic appeal to 'better' one's self.

Another book which he edited, a collection of essays by some of the most important thinkers of the past century is, "The Sword of Gnosis:Metaphysics, Cosmology, Tradition, Symbolism." Out of print but highly recommended if you can find a copy.

[Chemical Bill]

22. advancing one's consciousness

just means joining the reality based community. While I agree that too many new-agers would lose their head if it wasn't attached, I think that consciousness includes becoming aware of the world, and what is happening, including what * is up to.

Bill

[burythehatchet]

31. yes exactly, the term people use is mindfulness

and that includes being mindful of how ones own choices impact the lives of others.

[Just Me]

39. In my view, advancing one's consciousness begins with taking ownership,...

,...of your own thoughts and feelings. Know thyself. A lot of people choose to project their thoughts and feelings or blame others or simply deny/ignore/suppress their thoughts and feelings.

It requires some measure of courage to look inside oneself, take full responsibility for one's own thinking and feeling, confronting those parts of self which are ugly or toxic, and acting to change those parts. Moreover, one must be willing to engage in healthy doses of self-forgiveness and self-acceptance. If one fails to develop a tolerance and forgiveness and compassion for oneself, it is vastly unlikely such noble notions will be applied to others.

[magnolia]

45. Why don't you get a list of...

international best sellers. You'll find out that they all have one thing in common...they are all INTERNATIONAL BEST SELLERS!

Personally I don't care if Deepak Chopra belongs to the Church of Kookamunga...his books literally changed my life.

[Orrex]

54. My intent

Almost always when one questions Chopra's wisdom, the immediate answer is "then how come so many people have bought his books?" as if that were evidence that he's correct rather than just popular.

By pointing out that L Ron Hubbard has likewise sold millions, I hoped to illustrate that sales-level does not equate to correctness.

[peace_on_earth]

47. Advancing one's consciousness means

Advancing one's consciousness means focusing most of your energy on learning about who you really are, and how you fit into this world/Universe. What is your purpose, both for being here, and WHILE being here? It means being okay with who you are, no matter what you do for a living (or not), or who you hang out with.

It means understanding how things work and how to get what you want out of life, without taking from others. It means learning how vast your personal power really is, and how much control you actually have over your life and your circumstances, and how you are not a victim. It means living joyfully, no matter what is going on with the rest of the world, or in the other (external) parts of your life. It means living inside yourself, and finding peace there at all times. It means listening to your intuition rather than your mind, and trusting that the answers you get are the right ones for you at that time.

There are two ways to know if you've succeeded. The first is, simply put, that you just KNOW. Sorry I can't be more specific than that since it's quite the cliche, but I don't know if this can be adequately explained without experiencing it yourself.

The second is that you no longer experience angst, even when the world around you seems to be falling apart (as it can seem now).

Having just been through a year (2004) of utter hell and fear about our country and our planet, I can tell you that finding peace within myself feels a heck of a lot better than that.

Lastly, all of this may still be considered "New Age" B.S. by many (as is evidenced right here on this thread). But quantum physics is now PROVING that these principles are correct, in laboratories all around the world. We do indeed create our reality, merely by the act of observing a field of possibilities, and in essence, choosing which one we want to experience. Take a look at my husband's latest article on this if you want to see the proof:

http://www.journey-to-success.com/Wave_Particle_Duality_qp.html

Lastly, think about this quote by Raymond Holliwell, from his book "Working With The Law":

"If all conditions are the result of our actions, and all actions are the outcome or the fruit of our ideas, then our ideas must determine the conditions in our daily lives."

Therefore, our thoughts determine our results.

[pitohui]

73. yeah there's no there there

by advancing one's consciousness, he means waste yr time reading his ouevre, which i find to be of v. little merit

ppl who might actually otherwise do something of value waste too much time doing yoga & eating bran muffins as it is

[lateo]

13. All suffering is rooted in desire.

I like the idea he is putting forward. And I would say that along with it there is a component of "mindfulness" that must be attained in order to grow.

[Mizmoon]

23. like the desire for food and water?

I'd say the not having water causes suffering, not the desire for it.

[Orrex]

25. One doesn't "desire" food and water

One requires food and water.

[Mizmoon]

41. You suffer without water, correct?

which means that not all suffering is caused by desire.

[Orrex]

46. Oh, I see

I misread your question. Oops.

I guess I'd suffer if I hit my thumb with a hammer, and that doesn't really stem from a desire...

[Beam Me Up]

58. "Suffering" and "desire" in Buddhism have meanings not necessarily related

to the meanings used in common speech. For example, 'suffering' isn't the kind of pain you feel when you are thirsty or have hit your finger with a hammer. 'Suffering' is ALL existence, pleasurable and not and 'desire' is the force that brings it into existence. 'Desire' and 'suffering' therefore are principals, like 'yin' and 'yang', manifesting in a reciprocal relationship.

[flvegan]

48. Depends on why you don't have this water you speak of in the first place.

[lateo]

51. If you are without water.

And you are thirsty...would you not desire water?

[burythehatchet]

29. physical need is distinct from desire.

lack of water will kill the body. Lack of sex will not...(believe me, I know)

[Lorien]

24. A common philosophy, but only true if one counts hunger, thirst,

desire for safety and desire for health (when ill or in pain) as "desires" and not "needs".

[snot]

26. Kicking and nom'ing --nt

[KittyWampus]

30. Absoutely Agreed. I Haven't Been Arguing In Darwinism/ID Threads For

the sake of being a crank or devil's advocate.

Materialism has been very helpful but it is now strangling Science and Human developement.

[H2O Man]

34. "The Way to do

is to be." -- Lao Tse

[Greenbeard]

42. I have always liked what Deepak has to say

seems like a good man who understands the path that needs to be taken in order to form something we can all be proud of.

He does make money off his ideas and much that is said is unverifiable and may seem a bit "quacky" at times, but it is nontheless a message of hope.

I have a hard time arguing with people pushing forward a message of hope. His ideas may not be provable but if I have yet to see anything written by him that would hurt people or lead them down a dangerous path.

Although, I have to admit I have never read one of his books.

[RandomKoolzip]

59. Goddamn, I HATE this new age crap.

Just give us some fucking free health care and stop raping the planet's resourses! You don't gotta be the Maharishi to figure this out.

[Lilith Velkor]

60. Thank you.

[K-W]

61. Indeed. EOM

[burythehatchet]

64. Why the hostility?

Just like the other poster on this thread, I cannot figure out why there are set of people (just as many progressives as conservatives) who simply insist that they must pee in someone else's corn flakes because they have deemed corn flakes do not taste good. Its OK to disagree but I just don't understand the hostility.

[H2O Man]

67. "Intolerance

betrays a want of faith in one's cause." -- Gandhi.

I think that sums up the answer to "why the hostility?" quite well.

[RandomKoolzip]

72. Soft-headedness has always been the achilles heel of the left.

There are almost insurmountable challenges ahead of us. Do we fight them head on with organization, infrastructure, precision, and sobriety?

Or should we all get in a circle and chant until things get better?

[burythehatchet]

74. Well, let's look at the choices you present

1. fight them head on with organization, infrastructure, precision, and sobriety (sounds like the Democrats:))

or

2. get in a circle and chant until things get better

Those aren't the only two choices, now are they?

Let me just make another point. The greatest question in the lives of many people is "why are we here?". At least it is for me. And the only answer I can come up with for myself is that we are here to increase our consciousness to the point where our consciousness resides in the dimension that some call God. I sure can understand if this this is not the cup of tea for most people, but for me it is the central point of my life.

No one has to like it, no one needs to take time to understand the philosophy, but I believe that everyone has a right to believe what they believe. Until this philosophy leads to the killing of innocent people or the the oppression of others, I would expect to remain an adherent.

[peace_on_earth]

65. That's the point, friend...

Advancing your own consciousness gives you access to the ability to have free health care and a healthy planet.

Try it...you might just get what you want, for once.

[RandomKoolzip]

71. Oh, okay....

Positive visualization, eh?

Okay....I want.....A GIGANTIC ICE CREAM CONE!

Switching on "conciousness advancer..."

Waiting......




Waiting.....





Still waiting........




I'll keep y'all updated.

[peace_on_earth]

77. That is considered "wishing", which will get you nowhere

There's a lot more to it than simply envisioning what you want. Summed up in a few steps:

1) Intense desire
2) Intention (including Action)
3) Expectation that it will come to you

So no, you can't just imagine an ice cream cone is going to pop into your mouth. Sorry but it must be accompanied by some action.

The difference is that some people can take action day after day, but get nowhere. I'm sure we all know people like that. This is because they don't (on some level, conscious or subconscious) expect that it will lead to fruition. And/or, they don't believe they deserve good things in their life.

Others can have that total expectation, and take the same (or even less) action, and see incredible results.

[onager]

68. Anyone wanting to know what a fatuous fraud Deepak REALLY is...

...should do a google on Victor Stenger and read some of his stuff. Especially "Quantum Quackery" and related works.

Stenger can't be bullshitted on either quantum physics or philosophy. He's a university professor in both subjects. In his younger years, he worked on the scientific teams that discovered such basic quantum elements as the quark.

Warning to the "sensitives:" Stenger absolutely despises Quantum Blowhards like Chopra and Frijot Capra, and he doesn't mince words.

[Zhade]

70. As my quantum physics is rusty...

...(okay, nonexistent), what is Stenger's primary opposition to Chopra's views?

[IChing]

75. The reason Lennon's "Imagine" is so radical

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
Nowhere below us
Above only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one



When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.
-- J. Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known, pp. 51-52

[burythehatchet]

76. simply profound

I see the process of enlightenment today as what is required of us in order to see beyond the divisions. We have to recognize the contemporaneous reality of those divisions, and our actions have to reflect the eternal reality of connectedness.

[omega minimo]

69. Political solutions are not effective right now

The Hurrican Katrina (aka Mother Nature) has kick-started the national dialogue like nothing else has.

Consciousness is the level at which change will come. The blah blah blah of politics is oftentimes merely running in excited circles (including at the beloved DU).

[IChing]

78. more on consciousness----this is not worship but logic.

Black people had a right to see themselves as worthy. This was how oppression ends, first by seeing that you don't deserve to be oppressed. In India Gandhi showed the common people, long held down by colonialism and the caste system, that they, too, were worthy.

At this moment women are cresting a wave of consciousness-raising, yet much more could be done. By one estimate half the children born in the Third World are conceived without regard for what the woman actually wants. And shamefully, up to 99% of voluntary abortions are of female fetuses in a country like India.

Gay people are learning to see themselves as worthy, a trend that took a huge leap when they realized that they were worthy of being healed of AIDS, despite the bigoted opinion that this was a "lifestyle disease" caused by the victims. Now gay marriage is another step toward raising gay consciousness higher, because society doesn't have the right to block human relationships and the love that underlies them.