Re: Tibetans and passivity

[Guest guest]

frank i loved that. thanks for sharing.

yesterday i saw a docu-drama on HBO. well i did not really watch it all i

was busy with taking care of the kids, but i saw some part of the end. it

was about this lady on death row. i think they stayed with her for the last

3 month of her life. they showed how they struggled with the laws and courts

to change her sentence. they showed her family and the victims family.

anyway, i just really got to see the very end. i saw her lawyer (i think it

was her lawyer) telling the family over the phone how she went out. he was

so upset, and i was immediately touched by his emotions. i was upset with

him and tears were running down my face (no biggy, i cry all the time) and

then suddenly i had that thought how kind reality was to this lady. she

could have been bound to a cell for the rest of her life. everything was

clear then. i was still crying. and i can not say that those were tears of

joy. i felt the pain of the lawyer who fought so hard and the family left

behind. i was still sad. but the sadness was different. it was not painful

to me anymore. it was like love.

when i read what you wrote i was reminded of that little experience

yesterday and thought i would share.

love,

andrea

-- Tibetans and passivity

I viewed the movie Seven Years in Tibet two nights ago and was saddened by

the story of how they have been persecuted by the Chinese. One million

Tibetans have been killed. Six thousand monasteries have been destroyed. I

was in tears.

Then I began to question, is there something wrong here? Is this a situation

which falls outside of Reality being whole, perfect and complete? I did an

inquiry on it last night. I won't try to recount it sentence by sentence but

here is the gist.

I felt attached to the idea that they had been treated unfairly and that

something was wrong. I felt that if I gave up that idea it would be like

abandoning these peaceful people and leaving them alone and relatively

helpless. I can see that I saw myself in them. I didn't want to be alone and

relatively helpless. I can find that. I eventually moved into peace with " I

can't know that this is not their path. I can't know that the monks who were

killed weren't blessed by the event. "

When I considered being without the thoughts I noticed that I felt at peace,

even though it had appeared that holding onto the thoughts was the peaceful

choice.

I'm still not complete on the distinctions between being at peace with what

is (people were killed, monasteries were destroyed, the Dali Lama is in

exile) and being passive about what is. For instance I don't fault the

makers of the movie for telling the story and seeking a shift in world

opinion regarding the situation in Tibet. I might even feel moved to take

some action on their behalf myself.

I've even heard say, " Oh honey, if your baby is starving, then feed

her; for your sake. " It seems that being at peace with everything which is,

could leave one passive and disinterested in taking care of what there is to

be done.

Then again, says that she is an on her knees servant; that if

something occurs to her to do, she's on it. I'd love to be that clear and

never second guess how I'm spending my time.

Feedback welcome.

Love,

[Guest guest]

,

I tried to think of how this acceptance vs. passivity may apply to me

and I suppose it depends upon my " religion " . If my religion is socks I

might be a servant to them and in all the clarity I feel I will demand

that they are treated with respect.

If my religion is protection from harm and fear, then I may in all my

" clarity " do what I can to deliver that to my " self " and perhaps others.

This may be where I seek to find my beliefs, my " moral code " and inquire

as to what that might be. Recently I have done this with regard to

reactions to my husband, my kids, etc, only because I seemed confused.

If I am not with my integrity (it does not matter the religion with

which I aspire) then I am using the work and acceptance as passivity to

accept what is only for the sake of non reaction. If I am with my

integrity then there is nothing to be done. If it is in front of me, I

just do it.

With my kids, I had a religion that " house must be clean " . I nagged. I

still think the house is nice when it is clean. I still ask for help,

but no nagging. It is in front of me and I do it, or we do it. No

wrong. No right. It is in front of me. I suppose the clean house is

not a religion anymore. (I was not great at my religion by the way and

this caused much stress!, LOL)

I do have religions of curfews, I do have religions of kids checking in

with me etc. That apparently is fine with me. I am in my integrity.

If I tried to not have them when I thought I needed them, I would be

nuts! If the kids didn't call I would be nuts, trying to hide my fears.

Nope, I like them to call if late for curfew, if they don't I figure

they must have a good reason as they know the " religion " and they do

call or I will call them on their cell phone. They are great about it.

I think for me it comes to feeling " just fine " with my various thoughts

of what I need. And it is damn OK to have these thoughts! At some

point I change my mind. Seems as the kids grow, leave the nest, are off

and doing what they do, I don't care where they are, or when they get

to their home! LOL

Some philosophers believe that when we stop acting out of integrity we

might as well be dead. When we can watch suffering and not be moved,

what is that? When we don't reach out for the drowning kid, what kind

of integrity do we hold? I don't know, I check mine often, it appears,

the thought feels yucky and I inquire. Sometimes there is something to

do and other times it is not my job. I do not want to use the work to

not feel. (As if it were possible!) I like to use this tool to assist

me with keeping in my integrity. I won't drop a story if I think I need

it. I do not care if the answer to questions one and two are " YES! it

is true! "

Lovingly,

April

[Guest guest]

Thanks nne,

I did find an official website for the government in exile.

I don't feel that I have answers. It feels appropriate to care. It feels

appropriate to recognize that it's China's, Tibet's, God's business and let

myself off the hook for knowing what to do or declaring what " should " be.

Sitting in I don't know,

Re: Tibetans and passivity

Dear ,

I don't know how this is related but I keep thinking about my Mom and

her sad stories...and how I listen to her and am sad for her. But

there is nothing I can do (i think) except listen to her and cry for

her.(Already gently suggested some things to help). There doesn't seem

to be anything to do except listen to the Tibetan's story/Mother's

story and cry for them.

Being peaceful about life can also be active...when I see that

something *needs to be done* or *can be done* I can move to do it

without stress or a story that someone or I messed up!

So maybe you can write to the Dali Lama and see what *can be done*.At

least that's what I'm hearing from your post.

love,

nne

> I viewed the movie Seven Years in Tibet two nights ago and was

saddened by

> the story of how they have been persecuted by the Chinese. One million

> Tibetans have been killed. Six thousand monasteries have been

destroyed. I

> was in tears.

>

> Then I began to question, is there something wrong here? Is this a

situation

> which falls outside of Reality being whole, perfect and complete? I

did an

> inquiry on it last night. I won't try to recount it sentence by

sentence but

> here is the gist.

>

> I felt attached to the idea that they had been treated unfairly and that

> something was wrong. I felt that if I gave up that idea it would be like

> abandoning these peaceful people and leaving them alone and relatively

> helpless. I can see that I saw myself in them. I didn't want to be

alone and

> relatively helpless. I can find that. I eventually moved into peace

with " I

> can't know that this is not their path. I can't know that the monks

who were

> killed weren't blessed by the event. "

>

> When I considered being without the thoughts I noticed that I felt

at peace,

> even though it had appeared that holding onto the thoughts was the

peaceful

> choice.

>

> I'm still not complete on the distinctions between being at peace

with what

> is (people were killed, monasteries were destroyed, the Dali Lama is in

> exile) and being passive about what is. For instance I don't fault the

> makers of the movie for telling the story and seeking a shift in world

> opinion regarding the situation in Tibet. I might even feel moved to

take

> some action on their behalf myself.

>

> I've even heard say, " Oh honey, if your baby is starving, then

feed

> her; for your sake. " It seems that being at peace with everything

which is,

> could leave one passive and disinterested in taking care of what

there is to

> be done.

>

> Then again, says that she is an on her knees servant; that if

> something occurs to her to do, she's on it. I'd love to be that

clear and

> never second guess how I'm spending my time.

>

> Feedback welcome.

>

> Love,

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I like that thought of *I don't know*..it's true for me with my

Mom...I'm comforted by the thought that God is much bigger and wiser

than me and she's got the master plan...still, I'll listen when she

talks to me (sometimes

love,nne

> > I viewed the movie Seven Years in Tibet two nights ago and was

> saddened by

> > the story of how they have been persecuted by the Chinese. One million

> > Tibetans have been killed. Six thousand monasteries have been

> destroyed. I

> > was in tears.

> >

> > Then I began to question, is there something wrong here? Is this a

> situation

> > which falls outside of Reality being whole, perfect and complete? I

> did an

> > inquiry on it last night. I won't try to recount it sentence by

> sentence but

> > here is the gist.

> >

> > I felt attached to the idea that they had been treated unfairly

and that

> > something was wrong. I felt that if I gave up that idea it would

be like

> > abandoning these peaceful people and leaving them alone and relatively

> > helpless. I can see that I saw myself in them. I didn't want to be

> alone and

> > relatively helpless. I can find that. I eventually moved into peace

> with " I

> > can't know that this is not their path. I can't know that the monks

> who were

> > killed weren't blessed by the event. "

> >

> > When I considered being without the thoughts I noticed that I felt

> at peace,

> > even though it had appeared that holding onto the thoughts was the

> peaceful

> > choice.

> >

> > I'm still not complete on the distinctions between being at peace

> with what

> > is (people were killed, monasteries were destroyed, the Dali Lama

is in

> > exile) and being passive about what is. For instance I don't fault the

> > makers of the movie for telling the story and seeking a shift in world

> > opinion regarding the situation in Tibet. I might even feel moved to

> take

> > some action on their behalf myself.

> >

> > I've even heard say, " Oh honey, if your baby is starving, then

> feed

> > her; for your sake. " It seems that being at peace with everything

> which is,

> > could leave one passive and disinterested in taking care of what

> there is to

> > be done.

> >

> > Then again, says that she is an on her knees servant; that if

> > something occurs to her to do, she's on it. I'd love to be that

> clear and

> > never second guess how I'm spending my time.

> >

> > Feedback welcome.

> >

> > Love,

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I am not upset by what I think I am .

On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 09:21 AM, Boyd wrote:

> I viewed the movie Seven Years in Tibet two nights ago and was

> saddened by

> the story of how they have been persecuted by the Chinese. One million

> Tibetans have been killed. Six thousand monasteries have been

> destroyed. I

> was in tears.

>

> Then I began to question, is there something wrong here? Is this a

> situation

> which falls outside of Reality being whole, perfect and complete? I

> did an

> inquiry on it last night. I won't try to recount it sentence by

> sentence but

> here is the gist.

>

> I felt attached to the idea that they had been treated unfairly and

> that

> something was wrong. I felt that if I gave up that idea it would be

> like

> abandoning these peaceful people and leaving them alone and relatively

> helpless. I can see that I saw myself in them. I didn't want to be

> alone and

> relatively helpless. I can find that. I eventually moved into peace

> with " I

> can't know that this is not their path. I can't know that the monks

> who were

> killed weren't blessed by the event. "

>

> When I considered being without the thoughts I noticed that I felt at

> peace,

> even though it had appeared that holding onto the thoughts was the

> peaceful

> choice.

>

> I'm still not complete on the distinctions between being at peace with

> what

> is (people were killed, monasteries were destroyed, the Dali Lama is in

> exile) and being passive about what is. For instance I don't fault the

> makers of the movie for telling the story and seeking a shift in world

> opinion regarding the situation in Tibet. I might even feel moved to

> take

> some action on their behalf myself.

>

> I've even heard say, " Oh honey, if your baby is starving, then

> feed

> her; for your sake. " It seems that being at peace with everything

> which is,

> could leave one passive and disinterested in taking care of what there

> is to

> be done.

>

> Then again, says that she is an on her knees servant; that if

> something occurs to her to do, she's on it. I'd love to be that clear

> and

> never second guess how I'm spending my time.

>

> Feedback welcome.

>

> Love,

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rabbi , how many times must I forgive the wrongdoer ?

Seventy times seven ... THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO . You never

understand anyone until you see the ordinary human being inside

struggling to relate to life as a whole . Love what is .

> frank i loved that. thanks for sharing.

>

> yesterday i saw a docu-drama on HBO. well i did not really watch it

> all i

> was busy with taking care of the kids, but i saw some part of the end.

> it

> was about this lady on death row. i think they stayed with her for the

> last

> 3 month of her life. they showed how they struggled with the laws and

> courts

> to change her sentence. they showed her family and the victims family.

> anyway, i just really got to see the very end. i saw her lawyer (i

> think it

> was her lawyer) telling the family over the phone how she went out. he

> was

> so upset, and i was immediately touched by his emotions. i was upset

> with

> him and tears were running down my face (no biggy, i cry all the time)

> and

> then suddenly i had that thought how kind reality was to this lady. she

> could have been bound to a cell for the rest of her life. everything

> was

> clear then. i was still crying. and i can not say that those were

> tears of

> joy. i felt the pain of the lawyer who fought so hard and the family

> left

> behind. i was still sad. but the sadness was different. it was not

> painful

> to me anymore. it was like love.

>

> when i read what you wrote i was reminded of that little experience

> yesterday and thought i would share.

>

> love,

>

> andrea

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> -- Tibetans and passivity

>

>

>

> I viewed the movie Seven Years in Tibet two nights ago and was

> saddened by

>

> the story of how they have been persecuted by the Chinese. One million

>

> Tibetans have been killed. Six thousand monasteries have been

> destroyed. I

>

> was in tears.

>

>

>

> Then I began to question, is there something wrong here? Is this a

> situation

>

> which falls outside of Reality being whole, perfect and complete? I

> did an

>

> inquiry on it last night. I won't try to recount it sentence by

> sentence but

>

> here is the gist.

>

>

>

> I felt attached to the idea that they had been treated unfairly and

> that

>

> something was wrong. I felt that if I gave up that idea it would be

> like

>

> abandoning these peaceful people and leaving them alone and relatively

>

> helpless. I can see that I saw myself in them. I didn't want to be

> alone and

>

> relatively helpless. I can find that. I eventually moved into peace

> with " I

>

> can't know that this is not their path. I can't know that the monks

> who were

>

> killed weren't blessed by the event. "

>

>

>

> When I considered being without the thoughts I noticed that I felt at

> peace,

>

> even though it had appeared that holding onto the thoughts was the

> peaceful

>

> choice.

>

>

>

> I'm still not complete on the distinctions between being at peace with

> what

>

> is (people were killed, monasteries were destroyed, the Dali Lama is in

>

> exile) and being passive about what is. For instance I don't fault the

>

> makers of the movie for telling the story and seeking a shift in world

>

> opinion regarding the situation in Tibet. I might even feel moved to

> take

>

> some action on their behalf myself.

>

>

>

> I've even heard say, " Oh honey, if your baby is starving, then

> feed

>

> her; for your sake. " It seems that being at peace with everything

> which is,

>

> could leave one passive and disinterested in taking care of what there

> is to

>

> be done.

>

>

>

> Then again, says that she is an on her knees servant; that if

>

> something occurs to her to do, she's on it. I'd love to be that clear

> and

>

> never second guess how I'm spending my time.

>

>

>

> Feedback welcome.

>

>

>

> Love,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What about the dude that survived Niagara this Fall ? Scary-lovely ?

Loving what is ... April is on her way per Keats in Ode to Autumn

..

> ,

> I tried to think of how this acceptance vs. passivity may apply to me

> and I suppose it depends upon my " religion " . If my religion is socks I

> might be a servant to them and in all the clarity I feel I will demand

> that they are treated with respect.

>

> If my religion is protection from harm and fear, then I may in all my

> " clarity " do what I can to deliver that to my " self " and perhaps

> others.

>

>

> This may be where I seek to find my beliefs, my " moral code " and

> inquire

> as to what that might be. Recently I have done this with regard to

> reactions to my husband, my kids, etc, only because I seemed confused.

>

> If I am not with my integrity (it does not matter the religion with

> which I aspire) then I am using the work and acceptance as passivity to

> accept what is only for the sake of non reaction. If I am with my

> integrity then there is nothing to be done. If it is in front of me, I

> just do it.

>

> With my kids, I had a religion that " house must be clean " . I nagged.

> I

> still think the house is nice when it is clean. I still ask for help,

> but no nagging. It is in front of me and I do it, or we do it. No

> wrong. No right. It is in front of me. I suppose the clean house is

> not a religion anymore. (I was not great at my religion by the way and

> this caused much stress!, LOL)

>

> I do have religions of curfews, I do have religions of kids checking in

> with me etc. That apparently is fine with me. I am in my integrity.

> If I tried to not have them when I thought I needed them, I would be

> nuts! If the kids didn't call I would be nuts, trying to hide my

> fears.

> Nope, I like them to call if late for curfew, if they don't I figure

> they must have a good reason as they know the " religion " and they do

> call or I will call them on their cell phone. They are great about it.

> I think for me it comes to feeling " just fine " with my various thoughts

> of what I need. And it is damn OK to have these thoughts! At some

> point I change my mind. Seems as the kids grow, leave the nest, are

> off

> and doing what they do, I don't care where they are, or when they get

> to their home! LOL

>

> Some philosophers believe that when we stop acting out of integrity we

> might as well be dead. When we can watch suffering and not be moved,

> what is that? When we don't reach out for the drowning kid, what kind

> of integrity do we hold? I don't know, I check mine often, it appears,

> the thought feels yucky and I inquire. Sometimes there is something to

> do and other times it is not my job. I do not want to use the work to

> not feel. (As if it were possible!) I like to use this tool to assist

> me with keeping in my integrity. I won't drop a story if I think I

> need

> it. I do not care if the answer to questions one and two are " YES! it

> is true! "

>

> Lovingly,

>

> April

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Think global Act local .

> Dear ,

>

> I don't know how this is related but I keep thinking about my Mom and

> her sad stories...and how I listen to her and am sad for her. But

> there is nothing I can do (i think) except listen to her and cry for

> her.(Already gently suggested some things to help). There doesn't seem

> to be anything to do except listen to the Tibetan's story/Mother's

> story and cry for them.

>

> Being peaceful about life can also be active...when I see that

> something *needs to be done* or *can be done* I can move to do it

> without stress or a story that someone or I messed up!

>

> So maybe you can write to the Dali Lama and see what *can be done*.At

> least that's what I'm hearing from your post.

>

> love,

> nne

>

>

>> I viewed the movie Seven Years in Tibet two nights ago and was

> saddened by

>> the story of how they have been persecuted by the Chinese. One million

>> Tibetans have been killed. Six thousand monasteries have been

> destroyed. I

>> was in tears.

>>

>> Then I began to question, is there something wrong here? Is this a

> situation

>> which falls outside of Reality being whole, perfect and complete? I

> did an

>> inquiry on it last night. I won't try to recount it sentence by

> sentence but

>> here is the gist.

>>

>> I felt attached to the idea that they had been treated unfairly and

>> that

>> something was wrong. I felt that if I gave up that idea it would be

>> like

>> abandoning these peaceful people and leaving them alone and relatively

>> helpless. I can see that I saw myself in them. I didn't want to be

> alone and

>> relatively helpless. I can find that. I eventually moved into peace

> with " I

>> can't know that this is not their path. I can't know that the monks

> who were

>> killed weren't blessed by the event. "

>>

>> When I considered being without the thoughts I noticed that I felt

> at peace,

>> even though it had appeared that holding onto the thoughts was the

> peaceful

>> choice.

>>

>> I'm still not complete on the distinctions between being at peace

> with what

>> is (people were killed, monasteries were destroyed, the Dali Lama is

>> in

>> exile) and being passive about what is. For instance I don't fault the

>> makers of the movie for telling the story and seeking a shift in world

>> opinion regarding the situation in Tibet. I might even feel moved to

> take

>> some action on their behalf myself.

>>

>> I've even heard say, " Oh honey, if your baby is starving, then

> feed

>> her; for your sake. " It seems that being at peace with everything

> which is,

>> could leave one passive and disinterested in taking care of what

> there is to

>> be done.

>>

>> Then again, says that she is an on her knees servant; that if

>> something occurs to her to do, she's on it. I'd love to be that

> clear and

>> never second guess how I'm spending my time.

>>

>> Feedback welcome.

>>

>> Love,

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

> I viewed the movie Seven Years in Tibet two nights ago and was saddened by

> the story of how they have been persecuted by the Chinese. One million

> Tibetans have been killed. Six thousand monasteries have been destroyed. I

> was in tears.

> ...

> I'm still not complete on the distinctions between being at peace with what

> is (people were killed, monasteries were destroyed, the Dali Lama is in

> exile) and being passive about what is.

> ...

> It seems that being at peace with everything which is,

> could leave one passive and disinterested in taking care of what there is to

> be done.

Hi, .

Being at peace with what is could leave me passive and disinterested

in acting.

1 Is it true? My experience has been that when I'm most peaceful and

comfortable, I have the most energy to act. And this idea (that

being at peace could leave me passive and disinterested) still

seems true to me sometimes.

2 Can I absolutely know that it's true? No.

3 How do I react when I think that thought? Being peaceful seems like

it might be a mistake. Being peaceful seems dangerous and fearful.

Being peaceful seems uncaring. Choosing peace seems selfish (in a

bad way) and irresponsible.

c Does this thought bring peace or stress into my life? confusion and

stress. It leads me to wonder if Am I wrong for seeking peace?

d What's the worst that could happen if I never have the thought

again, and is that true? I could be peacefully passive and

disinterested in acting. I might never do anything helpful again.

(That doesn't *seem* likely.

i How do I treat myself when I believe that thought? I push myself to

act just to prove to myself I'm not falling into the " peace trap " .

j What do I get out of holding this belief? What's the payoff? My

fearful ego that has to prove its story gets reinforced.

k What does it cost me? my peace.

m Can I see a reason to drop the thought? (but don't try) yes -- so I

can be peaceful and joyful.

n Can I see a stress-free reason for keeping the thought? the reason

for keeping it would be to get myself to do the " right " thing, to

not be passive. That's stressful. No, I don't see a stress-free

reason to keep it.

4 Who am I without that thought? At peace, alert, fascinated by

what's taking place around me, ready to help, ready to sit back and

watch, whatever seems most appropriate in the moment. Aware of and

not taken in by my fantasies of saving others. Amused. Feeling a

complex and poignant mixture of joy, wistfulness at the confused

conflict I see in myself and others, amusement, comfort, peace.

c What would I experience without my story? I don't know yet.

5 Turn it around (to self, other, opposite, thinking, being willing,

looking forward)

- Being at peace with what is could leave me passionately engaged in

what I care about. (seems truer to me)

- Being in conflict with what is could leave me passive and

disinterested in acting. (yes! this seems to me an accurate

description of my experience -- conflict burns me out and leaves me

depressed and anxious, a state in which I'm less willing to act.)

- Being at peace with my thinking could leave me lots of energy to do

the things I want to.

- Being in conflict with my thinking could leave me tied up in knots

and immobilized.

- I am willing to be passive and disinterested in acting.

- I look forward to being passive and disinterested in acting (if

it's painful, it will put me back into inquiry).

- I am willing to be at peace.

- I look forward to being at peace (to see for myself what the effect

really is).

love,

Tom

[Guest guest]

> Hey Tom,

Hey, . Long time no talk. It feels good to be in touch again.

> Thanks for sharing your work on this. You've helped me to flesh it out for

> myself. I loved your take on it. -

Thank you for bringing it up, . It's my work, too. I'm glad you

found it useful.

Tom

[Guest guest]

Dear Stephan,

Thank you for you in the world. What I am hearing in most of your posts are

lovely little sayings from books and bumper stickers. I have the thought

that I would rather hear what thoughts Stephan does his Work on. (Here we go

with me, me, me. I want you to do it differently for me. LOL!)

I should do the work on my own little bumper stickers and sound bites, it

seems.

Stephan, you just go on being wonderful you.

Love,

Bev

> Re: Re: Tibetans and passivity

>

>

> Think global Act local .

>