Click here to go to the next issue

Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nondual Highlights each day

Issue 1376 - Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - Editor: Jerry

Gratitude: Deep thanks to Gloria, Michael, Christiana and John for covering for me while I was away from the computer for three weeks. Their artistry, insight and hard work educate, inspire, entertain and enlighten.  

cee from Live Journal
http://www.presentnonexistence.com  

some modern teachers give much validity
to the world
like you are supposed
to realize the Absolute and then kind of
reemerge in the world more radiant and loving
and save all sentient beings. or be more exactly
here (meaning more here as a human being in a world)
or be here now (making what appears “now” real)

do you think that “awakening from all fixed points of view”
has a point from which to view from?
humanness is a point of view.

the world IS an illusion. (ancient scriptures were
not just kidding or trying to make hell for spiritual seekers)
find the truth in that statement
and THEN see if you can come back to a world
and love and save everybody

as to how an awakened being is supposed to act---
some awakened ones appear loving, some don’t
if they are really awake –there is NO identity
how they appear to "others" has nothing to do with them

how can something formless and absolute
manifest in ANY particular way
in an apparent world of form?

there is only ONE dreamer
only one wakes
the only enlightenment there is
is your own

Environmentalist wins $1m prize

Professor Holmes Rolston III, a philosopher leading the international debate on environmental ethics, has been awarded the one-million-dollar Templeton Prize.

Global warming is a bigger threat to the world than Saddam Hussein Prof Holmes Rolston

It is the world's most lucrative annual prize for an individual and is given to raise awareness of how scientific research can lead to discoveries about spirituality.

Previous recipients have included Mother Teresa of Calcutta; Paul Davies, a mathematical physicist who examined the philosophical and theological implications of discoveries in quantum physics and cosmology; and mathematician John Polkinghorne who sought to reconcile the Big Bang with religious perceptions.

Holmes Rolston, Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University, US, is sometimes referred to as the "father of environmental ethics".

Greater threat

He has published his thoughts in a wide range of academic journals, exploring the relationship between genetics, evolutionary biology, ethics and religion.

He believes that a more spiritual approach could help to solve global problems.

"Our planetary crisis is one of spiritual information," he told BBC News Online, "not so much sustainable development, certainly not escalating consumption, but using the Earth with justice and charity. Science cannot take us there, religion perhaps can."

Professor Rolston has criticised the US Government for paying too much attention to Iraq while failing to address the bigger problem of global warming. "Global warming is a bigger threat to the world than Saddam Hussein," he said.

Judging panel

"The US is about to commit the resources and soul of the nation to a war in Iraq, but it has shown no leadership whatsoever in addressing the problems arising from global warming."

Sir John Templeton with last year's winner, John Polkinghorne

He would like to see more international effort "to figure out humankind's appropriate place on the planet and to use the Earth's valuable resources with care and concern."

The Templeton Prize forms part of an annual $40m investment by Sir John Templeton into exploring spirituality.

It is awarded by a panel of judges from the major religions of the world.

Giving back

Sir John made his fortune in global fund management and Professor Rolston said that as a radical environmentalist he was very surprised to win the award from such a well-known capitalist.

However he is glad his work has been recognised and he hopes the award will bring attention to the deepening of respect and reverence for the natural world.

He plans to give the $1m prize money to fund a new professorship in science and religion at Davidson College in North Carolina, where he studied physics 50 years ago.

"That is where I got my start," he said, "and in the future I want the same possibilities for others to think about science and religion."

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Victor Forsythe Dedicated to the Love it or Leave it crowd
(contributed to Nasrudin list by Lobster)

PeaceNik Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security
council resolution 1441.  A country cannot be allowed to violate security
council resolutions.

PN But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of
more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM It's not just about UN resolutions.  The main point is that Iraq could
have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could
well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN Mushroom cloud?  But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no
nuclear weapons.

WM Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us
or our allies with such weapons.

WM The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
materials?  We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM That's ancient history.  Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an
undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
eighties.  He gasses his enemies.  Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic
murderer?

WM The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did.  He is the
one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad.  But didn't our ambassador to
Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM Let's deal with the present, shall we?  As of today, Iraq could sell its
biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida.  Osama BinLaden himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a
partnership between the two.

PN Osama Bin Laden?  Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the
tapes.  But the lesson from the tape is the same there could easily be a
partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?

WM You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape.  Powell presented
a strong case against Iraq.

PN He did?

WM Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq
controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM And a British intelligence report...

PN Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student
paper?

WM And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM And reports of Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM Yes, but there is plently of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed
because it would compromise our security.

PN So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
dectruction in Iraq?

WM The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence.
You're missing the point.

PN So what is the point?

WM The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441
threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council
will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM Absolutely.  ...unless it rules against us.

PN And what if it does rule against us?

WM In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN Coalition of the willing?  Who's that?

WM Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions
of dollars.

WM Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM Current public opinion is irrelevant.  The majority expresses its will
by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM Yes.

PN But George Bush wasn't elected by voters.  He was selected by the U.S.
Supreme C...-

WM I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were
elected, because they are acting in our best interest.  This is about being
a patriot.  That's the bottom line.

PN So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?

WM I never said that.

PN So what are you saying?  Why are we invading Iraq?

WM As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass
destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN You know this?  How?

WM Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still
unaccounted for.

PN The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM Precisely.

PN But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an
unusable state over ten years.

WM But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we
must invade?

WM Exactly.

PN But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the
west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened
to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM That's a diplomatic issue.

PN So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM Aren't you listening?  We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the
inspections to drag on indefinitely.  Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,
and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM Yes, but this is not about money.  This is about security.

PN But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we
live.  Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act?  Don't these change the way
we live?

WM I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN I do.  Why are we invading Iraq?

WM For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on
Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so.  He must now face the
consequences.

PN So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a
peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM Well...  there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN In which case?

WM In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN That makes no sense.

WM If you love Iraq so much, you should move there.  Or maybe France, with
the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys.  It's time to boycott
their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN I give up!

Mr. Mustard Live Journal
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mrmustard/  

Look, I'm Sorry

I know this is really selfish of me, and it's kind of embarrassing to admit, but that's what LiveJournal is for, right? This is the place to say the things that in real life would get you hissed out of the opera house. So here's my admission. I'm bummed about the start of the war because it probably means an end to those nude anti-war protests. I was hoping the naked thing would continue      

Images are from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~agrxray/gallery2.html
"Floral radiographs literally provide one with a third eye with which to see and appreciate the beauty in the secret garden of flowers."

top of page