The Illusory Nature of Land and Ownership
No-one has any claim to assert over this land.(1)
We are all guests on the land we inhabit.
Ownership is a man-made concept, a position of an illusory nature which we all identify with – this is especially so with public land.
Aboriginal customs and culture are not rooted in the land, but within the spirits which also inhabit their land, and the dreaming. This land is no more sacred then, every other piece of land.
Should we cordon off everyone other piece of land, also? Each race was at one time not in Australia, therefore we are all guests.
The pro-closure people appear as sycophants whom crave to follow another rule down the turn to block the freedoms of all for the sake of but a few.
Restricting land and sites which is of benefit to all people should be looked at with a new veneer of clarity.
Ownership is temporary, just as the rain that washes off of the rocks, this will pass to.
Clarity on the mental level where each of us overcome our restrictive desires should be embraced by encompassing the desire vs desirelessness path.
(1) Ayers Rock
Land vs Spirituality
All humans are from somewhere else, back to time immemorial. The notion of one human having special rights over something because of their spiritual beliefs is selfish, and manifestly disrespectful to all other races whom have an equally legitimate claim.
Some abstract musings to keep you’all busy over your taro latte.
Any partiality is always from a position of detriment to the other excluded parties. Thus, consider the perspective on encompassment – Nobody can claim rights over any land from a perspective of spirituality if you take it from the perspective in which the religion or spirituality is intended
Once we encompass duality at the mental level see that we are in both perspectives simultaneously and the original point of view is somewhat grosse.
Enjoy and encompass.
Both sides need a willingness for peace, until then its foolery to think, that, just because the White man in ‘over’ slaughtering 98% of their people, then it’s ‘all good’.
Both sides need to be perfectly willing to change their positions, until the, there will be conflict.
White man is ignorant of his cause because he is unwilling to see the effect he has caused in the lives of others.
Black man is unwilling to see the state of their of position as justified in being a victim, or effect, they are ignorant of the state of their victimness.
White man is unwilling also to see that in the destruction of the social system he then assumes responsibility for the new social chaos.
Both sides need a willingness on many many levels, so that in a generation or so, harmony and a new order of reintegration and harmony can be tolerated and respected.
Willing to be the unwillingness to be the effect,(1) is the start.
The same could be said about any human relationship be it on an individual level or on a country by country, collective level. Things change when we change, ourselves.
(1) Willing to be the unwilling is described in detail in the Logic in Sequence Series. John Ray. Another way to explain this is simply, that we are adding insult to injury by resisting an existing resistance. Therefore, we become unwilling to even consider the fact that we are unwilling to receive. The healing crisis reverses this process, by firstly being willing to realise that we perhaps are totally unwilling to even receive.