Once
while the Blessed One stayed near Rajagaha in the Veluvana Monastery at the
Squirrels' Feeding Place, there lived at Rajagha a Brahman of the Bharadvaja
clan who was later called "the Reviler." When he learned that one of
his clan had gone forth from home life and had become a monk under the recluse
Gotama, he was angry and displeased. And in that mood he went to see the
Blessed One, and having arrived he reviled and abused him in rude and harsh
speech.
Thus
being spoken to, the Blessed One said: "How is it, Brahman: do you
sometimes receive visits from friends, relatives or other guests?"
"Yes,
Master Gotama, I sometimes have visitors."
"When
they come, do you offer to them various kinds of foods and a place for
resting?"
"Yes,
I sometimes do so."
"But
if, Brahman, your visitors do not accept what you offer, to whom does it then
belong?"
"Well,
Master Gotama, if they do not accept it, these things remain with us."
"It
is just so in this case, Brahman: you revile us who do not revile in return,
you scold us who do not scold in return, you abuse us who do not abuse in
return. So we do not accept it from you and hence it remains with you, it
belongs to you, Brahman..."
There once was a very old old man who lived with his beloved wife for 67 years until she died. One day as he looked at old photographs, gifts, and letters, he said to his daughter with tears in his eyes 'everyone that's attached to them is gone'.
We live our lives for ourselves, for a pleasing internal state, yet the only thing that seems to give meaning to life is our relations with other people.
One of the most prominent dualities is the desire to make oneself happy, and the desire to be around those we love and see them happy too. It seems one is selfish and the other selfless, but perhaps they are the same thing.
In this post I am going to analyze David Icke's responses to Jesse Ventura in order to show how this interview could cause one to question the genuineness of David Icke's endeavors as a speaker and an author.
This short analysis is just that, a short analysis, not a conclusion, but rather a suggestion to be skeptical and more critical of the information this man puts forth and the intention behind it all. However, I do not encourage anyone to make a conclusion based on my brief analysis of a single interview. In addition I will offer possible criticisms to my own points. So, onward!
1. This may sound meticulous and ridiculous to some, but I found it to be quite revealing. After Jesse tells David he has searched high and low for reptilians but found none David replies with a curt and cold 'and?' Right away, David can sense Jesse's skepticism and he goes on the defensive. In my view, if you know you have been honest, being short with someone is not the first response, at least not at the very beginning. That kind of attitude at the beginning of the discussion suggests insecurity in the speaker which invites suspicion among listeners. In addition, what does he mean 'and'? If he is the only man, high profile in the pubic eye, that has gathered the information, done research traveling around the world for two decades, written books, and sold out seats, shouldn't it be obvious to him why Jesse is there telling him that he has traveled high and low and found no reptilians? I think so.
The first obvious criticism of this point is that, well, Jesse didn't ask a question. So a response like 'and?' could also be a simple indicator that David wants to know what the precise question is. The next criticism is that it is hard to determine someone's internal/emotional activity based on their external behavior, making my analysis of the feelings behind his response only one plausible hypothesis. Other people might not hear the same defensiveness or insecurity that I did.
2. Jesse said to David "Everybody's focused me and geared me towards you and they tell me you got the answers here". David Icke gave a response to this statement fascinated me. He responds with "Well, um, whose got all the answers? None of us really, but we've all got some of the answers" as he darts his eyes away, rather than keeping them fixed and steady on Jesse. Essentially what he has done is this: Make a case for why he shouldn't be expected to have the answers to questions about the reptilian theory that Jesse hasn't even asked yet. After all, none of us have all the answers. The suggestion here is that it is only fair to expect partial or vague answers since 'no one has "all" the answers but everyone has "some".
The next thing that jumps out at me is the simple fact that he has put forth his ideas as the truth about the nature of reality and what is truly happening in our world and beyond [ie his book The Truth Shall Set You Free], but then says he doesn't have all the answers. To promote allegedly accurate information about subjects that have been mysterious and elusive to people since the dawn of civilization, and then say you don't have all the answers and suggest you should only be expected to have some of the answers, is suspicious to me. If you only have some of the answers and "everyone has some of the answers", then when it comes to having the answers, you're in the same boat as everyone else, and being in the same boat as everyone else makes one far from qualified to claim he has found the truth that can set humanity free.
3. Jesse asks David where and how he can see a reptilian, he says that they operate outside of visible light and that not everything that exists can be seen via visible light (which is certainly true). However, this response doesn't answer the question. So, Jesse pushes harder and asks how do I turn the radio on and see one? I want to see a shapeshifter, how do I see one? Give me proof. Again, no answer. Instead David tells him he should read his book. Surely, books are written to be read and that's all fine and well, but that doesn't negate the fact that David never gives an adequate answer to Jesse's question, and should have.
Jesse asks again, 'what do I need to do to prove it to myself'? David says that one must be in a situation where it happens. One has to be in a situation where it happens? The obvious problem with this response is that it is vague and nondescript. Essentially all he says is that if happens in front of you in a given situation you will have proof. Well, duh! But that doesn't give anyone an action they can take on their own to see these beings. He also says that when they enter visible light, we can see them. Same problem, this doesn't give anyone an action they can take on their own. That statement only tells us how a reptilian reveals itself to us, not how we can reveal the knowledge of the existence of reptilians to ourselves.
4. Jesse asks if he sits through the nine hour lecture if it will become clear to him. For someone who has the truth that will set humanity free, this should be an easy yes or no question to answer. David says that it depends what one makes of the information. Saying that it depends on the listener is an easy way to deviate the focus from the alleged clarity and reality of his message.
5. Interestingly, David at one point gets closest to an adequate answer to the question 'what does it take for one to have knowledge of, not belief in, these reptilian beings'? He explains that one must have an open mind, and spend over 20 years doing research in 55 different countries, for 10 or more hours a day. This kind of investment of time and money is not something everyone can do, so if that is what it takes to gain the knowledge of these beings, then it doesn't sound like reasonably accessible knowledge. It is important to make the distinction between knowledge and belief. Sitting through a lecture or a sermon and taking what you hear as truth is taking on a belief. Learning something through direct experience is the first step towards knowledge.
Kind and constructive comments from a place of peacefulness are always welcome.
On the subway last night I thought my heart was going to pound its way out of my chest and fall onto the floor between my feet. You know that feeling? When you see something that makes you so upset your hands are visibly trembling with anger from 50 feet away?
It started when a very short, very overweight old man, shabbily dressed entered our subway car announcing that we would all sing Jingle Bell Rock together. He sang alone. Two people gave him some change and he sat down directly in front of me.
Then he began an incohesive rant. There's too many miserable men! Women don't want a miserable men, they want a happy man with a lot of land! - Too many men having babies that they don't care of, they can't look at one woman they need to look at many women - I don't do that - I'm not like that. I turned behind me to look at the stop number. This is 72nd street! - 81st street Natural History Museum!
86, this is 86th street!
He took water and some one dollar bills from a plastic bag and began counting them - I'm done working today, I've made enough money today I'm going back to my apartment - I am the only Santa Claus left, I am Santa Claus, that's my job. - Happy lovers be happy, don't catch the HIV, I know too many women with the HIV- I'm a man of God - Too many people hate my Jesus, I love my Jesus.
No one batted an eye, they just let him go on, cut him the slack he deserves since he was clearly disoriented, had some sort of psychological impediment.
But one man, mid 20s, made it his mission to rile up, torment, and demean, this already downtrodden old man. I didn't make out exactly what this young fool said to the old man but he yelled something along the lines of 'OK! Shut up!' Or was it 'shut your mouth'? Either way it was enough to set Old Man off. He began yelling at young fool that he doesn't know who he's messing with, he could wipe the floor with him, young people don't know how to treat their elders, and I don't have to deal with miserable men like you. And on he went defending himself, clearly angered and hurt by young fool's unnecessary jab.
young fool used his body, his words, his tone of voice, his eyes, every faculty he could employ, to say to Old Man 'you're beneath me, you're worthless'. he rolled his eyes back like he was having a seizure or an exorcism (he probably needed the latter), stuck his arm straight out towards Old Man, and waving his hand at him with the tight flicking of his wrist, said in the most queenie, sarcastic, condescending manner 'It's okay, Jesus loves you, don't worry, Jesus loves you, Jesus loves you'.
'I'm on this train making people happy! I'm making people happy! What are you doing?!' yelled Old Man. young fool couldn't contain his overwhelming disgust and anger towards Old Man. his appetite for demeaning Old Man was insatiable, and sarcasm and passive aggression the most delicious tools for doing this. With all faculties employed to demean, scoff, and scorn young fool responded, 'yes, you're making people on this train soooooooo happy'. (Exorcism eye roll on the "so").
Now my hands are trembling violently and my heart is booming. I want to punish young fool. I want to hurt him for hurting Old Man.
Then I made a choice. Instead of channeling this energy negatively to punish the oppressor, I channeled it as positive energy to show kindness towards the victim.
Just as I was getting off at my stop I turned to Old Man to tell him 'Hey sir, you have a good night OK?' But before I could finish, he looked up at me and said 'Aren't I doing good? Aren't I right?' I gave him a nod and a thumbs up, told him he was doing good and to enjoy his night. 'Thank you!' I was happy with myself for directing my focus on uplifting Old Man rather than punishing young fool, but that doesn't mean I didn't want young fool to fall in a ditch somewhere. My heart was still racing and my hands were still trembling.
What is wrong with people? How is it that someone like Old Man could invite such nastiness from anyone? I guess I have to expect the lowliest from people in this world.
Einstein said that 'the most important decision [we can] ever make is whether [we] live in a friendly universe or a hostile universe'.
As we get older, the more perceptive we get about the world, what's in it, and who's in it. And it can start to seem like we've figured it out; the world is a dark place, an unfair, unpredictable place, where our expectations of the average person should be low, lower, lowest.
This is supposed to be the Uplifting part. Then I realized something. That occurrence was no grounds for such expectations from the average person. Sure, there's awful people, but most people are okay. There were about 30 people on that train car, only one was cruel to Old Man, 2 people gave him change, one person left him with some nice words, and everyone else let him be.
Only one person was demeaning, only one person was aggressive, only one person was nasty. The majority left Old Man alone, and more than one gave a nice gesture.
It is common for people to develop the misconception that the pessimistic view is the realistic view and optimism is foolishness and niavete. So to answer Einstein's question, I guess the universe is pretty okay, or perhaps more accurately, one tiny part of the universe, humanity, is pretty okay. The whole universe, we'll leave that for another day :-)
The shortest answer is no. A more complete short answer is that it is highly unlikely but possible under unique circumstances. The following reasoning comes from my own experience, observation, and knowledge on the ego and personality from research articles and other texts.
Often times each dissenting party, whether they admit it or not, has the strong desire to change the other person's view, a desperate 'Agghh, don't you see?! Don't you see know that your view is wrong and that mine makes far more sense?!' This is this the frustrated unconscious dialogue that is going on while your conscious is presenting all the reasons why you believe what you do.
After all, isn't that what goes on in these situations? Each person talks about why they believe what they do? Yes, and this is precisely the mistake, unless of course you want an argument and not a discussion. I believe that as people we have little bundles of "selves" such as wife, businesswoman, swimmer, or musician, that we group together and say 'This is me'. Among these selves is a political self concept, so at the end of our list of "selves" we can throw in republican or democrat or populist ect...
Dissenting views are usually perceived as threats to the other party's "political self" which is a part of the person's ego. The political self is usually a very important and sensitive part of the ego and when it is challenged one can go into protection mode. Protection mode means going on the defensive or the offensive, neither of which is desirable for a constructive discussion. Our egos seek suggestions that they are "good" or "correct". To remove the threat of a dissenting political view, people either say why their views are correct or why the other person's views are incorrect, each of which will create a self perpetuating cycle of egos battling for security in their perceived "goodness" or "rightness". Sometimes people even try to change the other person's views, in order to remove the "threat"completely. Obviously this seldom works.
So what are the unique circumstances under which dissenting parties can have a calm political discussion?
The Unique Circumstances
1. Whatever speech you use, or actions you take, ask yourself first, is this speech or act constructive or destructive? There is an easy way to know if your speech is constructive or destructive. Be
honest with yourself. How are you feeling when the inclination to speak or act
arises? If you feel angry, frustrated, or are otherwise experiencing negative
energy in relation to the other person, it is best not to speak or act. This is
important, because we all know that we can feel one way and behave as though we
feel another way. Decide if the speech or action is destructive or constructive
based on the way you feel, not based on the way you want to
portray yourself.
2. Take active interest in learning about the human being before you, about why they believe what they do. All
parties must be active listeners – asking questions to understand why the other
party thinks the way they do, not to understand them and then give a counter
argument, not to understand them and then try to convince them otherwise, just
to understand them, that’s it, that’s the end goal.
If all parties above can do the two things listed above everyone should be able to express themselves comfortably, and at the end, everyone will have a better understanding of each other. However I find it doubtful that many people who are both willing and able to do this are going to run into each other.
Note:
This is in reference to small or one on one interactions, not large scale
interactions such as The People and The State. Frustration with an unfair law
or anger at the mistreatment of others can be a catalyst for positive change so
long as change seekers do not act in ways the embody the very flaw in the
institution they wish to change.
What do you think? Have I been cynical or no? Am I missing something? Feel free to leave your thoughts below.
Many of us have heard wise phrases like 'all we have is now' or 'the present is all that exists'. But certain experiences bring these wise words to life in a way that takes our intellectual understanding of this concept, and shimmy it from our heads to our hearts, where we can really "get it".
Working as a Care Partner, people with dementia have taught me a lot about these wise words. I was just laying outside tanning when some thoughts occurred to me.
Have you ever loved someone and lost them? Have you ever cherished something, be it a job, a place, or anything else, and then lost it for good? And afterwards, did you ever think 'What was the point of ever having such a wonderful thing if I was just going to lose it?' or 'I would have been better off if I never had it at all, then I wouldn't have to suffer the pain of loss'?
I will show you why this thinking is not only useless, but also illogical, and I will use my experience working with people with dementia to do so.
Let's apply this same dysfunctional thinking to someone with dementia. I have a client in mind for this example, so let's say I give him/her a thoughtful gift and he/she is filled with joy and gratefulness. This will be a pleasant moment for him/her. However, within 10 minutes he/she will not even know the event just occurred and will have completely lost the memory of such a pleasant experience, as though it never occurred at all.
So what if all the Care Partners and Loved Ones of this person said to themselves 'What is the point of doing kind gestures to try and enrich his/her life? He/she won't remember them anyway, so they will all be effectively lost, and if it is all to be lost, we may as well not bother with it at all'. Do you think this would effect the mood, disposition, overall quality of life of this person? Of course, if his/her loved ones did that, his/her life would become uneventful, lonely, and blank! This is because the effects of the experience are not lost just because the experience itself has come and gone.
So, it is the same for people without dementia. If anyone, with or without dementia, erased all which they once loved and lost from their life experience, their life too would be uneventful, lonely, and absolutely blank. So in spite of painful loss, don't regret, and dare I say you should still appreciate having had the experience in the first place.
So I'll leave you with this, what you have loved and lost continues to have value in your life until your very last breath.
