A Fatal Blow to Idealism

An article in the Washington Post for the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s death: "A Fatal Blow To Idealism"

Click: www.intentblog.com

www.deepakchopra.com

Comments

[outnow]

Dr. King talked of justice and equality. He dared to address the issue of poverty. He also talked of peace. His methods were non-violent, a tribute, as you state to the teachings of both Thoreau and Gandhi. Christ had a similar message. You wouldn't know that from the present day "believers" who are war-mongers and greedy capitalists. The autobiography of Gandhi and the writings of Dr. King should be read by all.

Change comes slowly through confronting those in power. Gandhi did most of his work in South Africa. He spent twenty years there. South Africa is a microcosm of what America is turning into. The late Dr. John S. Galbraith (the "other" John Galbraith) was chancellor at UCSD and wrote books in the sixties and seventies about the system of apartheid in South Africa and how America had become a "reluctant empire." I studied the history of British imperialism and the history of South African while a student at UCLA while he taught there. I would place Dr. Galbraith in the above group. He was "banned" from South Africa in the early sixties, the highest tribute possible.

[bethinCary]

Deepak-big fan.
Reading "A Womans' Journey To God" right now--and am only beginning to realize that the enlightenment process is diffferent for women than men.
Women occur at spirituality in a cirlcular patteren-with themselves and God being the center-whereas for men it's more linear or ladderlike--they have to accomplish one concept before moving to the next.
It also has to do with the Right & Left hemispheres of men and women. As a woman-I am supposedly more "wired" for "knowing". The left hemi of women is rational,linear, fact-based, focusing on external world--looking for value in what it recieves.The right is more irrational, receptive, visual and gestalt oriented-interested in beauty and aesthetics..It's focused on emotions and is the feminine half. Some a re left-brain dominant-others right-but many women have more access to the right and more ability to move back and forth between the 2 areas.
The right-brain is where mystical experiences, OBEs occur. For women-our cycles can show an increase in rt brain experiences. The right is less optimistic-more in tune with uncomfortable emotions-the left wants joyful and happy words.. We go from AC alternating currents of wisdom to DC a direct current of wisdom based on menstrrual cycles.....

I just mention all this-becasue I was hoping you would write a column on this.and the "male" spiritual brain too..Please..
Thanks Deepak.

[dissolvethecorporation]

The greedy and ignorant were standing in the shadows then, and are in power now. We need a revolution now, as we knew that we did then. Are we truly willing to make the necessary sacrifices?

[ShawnMichel]

We need that revolution, yes--and by any means necessary.

The problem is 99 of 100 'Murkans are so asleep, so inured in their cogjobs, their corporate unexistences, that said revolution is incredibly unlikely.

And so the evil and the corruption that is destroying this nation, this world, marches merrily on, unimpeded.

[bethinCary]

Yes we do Deepak.
I'm in strong rebirth mode..
I hope others will begin to find it in themselves and want the same-for our countrys' sake.

[jhamm1]

Sorry. But I can't condone assertions that pursuit of King's dream necessitates a "revival of spirit", considering that such definitions of the well-being of one's "soul" entails a further round of subjective interpretations over what remains an untangible phenomenon, and thus arguments in this direction are only bound to further fuel competion among separate religious ideologies.

[wishiknew]

with all due respect jhamm1, i think your comment perfectly explains precisely why there needs to be a "revival of spirit". spirit isn't specifically about religion, it is about the life force within each of us, that may be driven by religion, god, or nature. but the point isn't what drives us, but what it drives each of us to do. King wanted people to tap into that "spirit" within themselves to come together in compassion for humanity. The religious ideologues that you point out, (and I don't believe you are one of them), who choose to quarrel over definitions rather than live and lead by positive example are the very souls who need a revival of spirit more than anything. so the real question is how to reach them?

[sebocd]

The competion among separate religious ideologies is your problem and it's not your proble to worry about. Human personhood derives from soul, spirit, and soma. This goes back to Aristotle for the West. By conditioning we tend to associate the soul and spirit exclusively with religion. It aint necessarily so.

[jhamm1]

You obviously didn't understiand my post. For your information, I hold no religious affiliations whatsoever, and further acknowledge the fact that even those among separate spiritual denominations, whether affiliated with any type of religion or not, standards vary quite radically over what constitutes being "spritually healthy". For all of our standards about inner-peace and well-being of the soul, the fact remains that nobody knows for a fact what spiritual laws, if any, apply to everyone, and it is furthermore pointless to apply standards about phenomenon which none of us can agree upon and which, to this date, cannot be tangibly proven.

And what about atheists who are perfectly inclined to better themselves but hold no belief in spirituality? For clearly, the concept of asking one "is your spirit better off today than yesterday" clearly implies that "athiests need not apply". I don't believe that Martin Luther King would have asked masses to dwell upon a "betterment of spirit", knowing the differing interpretations which apply to such terminology.