azulra (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Do gooders with no inner balance do more harm than good. Like getting poor people in rich countries to give money to rich people in poor countries. LOL. People without inner peace are usually serving their own needs first.

cycleboy21 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

This is so important. To include the relative in the absolute. Thank-you Gangaji!

RandomResponse (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

By the way, my previous comment is in response to Serialsally, two comments below my original one.

RandomResponse (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

It's a good question. She is being somewhat abstract. And her method of conveyance is kind of difficult to understand. What does it have to do with world problems? Well, her direct subject is one about existential interconnections. How all things are connected to each other. And her overarching theme, I think, is about how to find peace. With inner peace, all other problems are easier to address. There are many world crises. One not to be ignored might be called the crisis of the "soul".

elshisu (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

I makes real full sense. Wonderfull. A real wise woman. Speaks the Philosophia Perennis of the ages as someone that has realized it in life, not as someone that only understands it theorcally.

serialsally (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

is this babbling woman and all these silly abstractions raking in the bucks or what? i mean come on! what the heck does this have to do with global warming or AIDS or third world debt....pleazzzzzzzzze....this is bullshit - get your shovels ready boys and girls - Gancuca is here!

akimorient (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

While I feel that my interpretation of your post was not due to confusion, but one plausible way to read it, I am happy that you did not mean it the way I read it.

jtram21 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

I certainly was not implying that she told people to beat themselves up. I was also not implying that she is incorrect in her message. I am sorry that you saw that. I was simply reiterating an important point to remember which is good to do when using dualistic terms. Hopefully this response clears up any other confusion about my post.

akimorient (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Thats what she says in her very first sentence: "Exclusion is appropriate and has it's place". She continues to specify her point in saying: "Because we have been trained to exclude, the vastness of inclusion has been overlooked". She does not state that someone should beat themselves up for excluding. What she is talking about are people who escape reality by excluding mundane reality. She does not judge this but points it out.

jtram21 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Inclusion includes EVERYTHING. It even includes "exclusion". By definition, inclusion cannot exclude exclusion. Therefore, if we do exclude, we don't have to beat ourselves up, just include the exclusion as part of the Perfection and we transcend the exclusion.