Maybe the universe likes it?

100 views
Skip to first unread message

Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 10, 2026, 2:43:42 PMApr 10
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
All,

I had asked a similar question at the end of a Thursday night group a few weeks back, and then this article came through my feed and brought it back up for me. Figured I’d deposit the questions here. Fair warning, some of you may feel offended or triggered by them, because this is very much a devil’s advocate kind of conversation. So read on with that in mind.

We often find ourselves talking about how we wish everyone would wake up so the world could become a more peaceful place. But I have to ask, if the universe, God, consciousness, or whatever name you want to give the thing I’m pointing toward, truly wanted peace above all else, then why does it seem to express itself through conflict so often?

It plays out everywhere, in every form. Even in the article below, chimpanzees are described waging a civil war, killing each other and even the babies of the tribe. Are we supposed to be saddened by that? Should we intervene and stop it? Should we preach to them that if they could just step outside their thoughts, everything would be better? Or do we dismiss it because they are just animals, even though their behavior so clearly mirrors our own?

Or is all of this violence and strife actually part of the purpose of the world of form, to live out tragedies the formless itself cannot? It is uncomfortable to say, but should we in fact celebrate the violence the way we celebrate the peace, if both are equal parts of the whole and both keep showing up endlessly?

Can we actually find gratitude and even love in the violence? Gratitude that these forms are living out the struggle we, the whole, so obviously seem to want, because we keep creating it. Love for the violence we seem to return to over and over again in so many different forms. Or does that violate the human mind too deeply, and are we too conditioned to seriously entertain such a thought?



-Jason
Cheers!

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 10, 2026, 3:19:41 PMApr 10
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Jason All,


If I follow this all the way, it gets uncomfortable fast.

We say we want peace—but without conflict, how would peace even be known? Without contrast, it’s just a word with no meaning. So it does seem like what we call “the whole” expresses as both—creation and destruction, harmony and violence—not as errors, but as part of the same movement.

That’s easy to say at a distance.

Harder to say when it’s close.

Because if we’re honest, something in us does not celebrate violence. It recoils. And that recoil isn’t conditioning to get rid of—it may be just as much a part of the whole as the violence itself.

So I don’t buy that understanding non-duality means flattening everything into “it’s all the same.” That can become a kind of bypass.

Yes—nothing is outside of this.

But the impulse to stop harm, to protect, to care—that’s not outside of this either.

So maybe the real tension isn’t something to resolve.

Maybe it’s this:

The same field shows up as violence…

and as the refusal of it.

And we don’t get to stand outside that and philosophize.

We are where that tension lives.

We don’t stand outside the balance—we are the place where it chooses its direction.


Jeff Angelson


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/72570913-DDE4-4A22-9953-E116E9575A0F%40gmail.com.

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Apr 10, 2026, 5:54:55 PMApr 10
to Diehards google
Jeff,

A lot of what you said hit the mark for me. 

Paul


All,
Cheers!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/72570913-DDE4-4A22-9953-E116E9575A0F%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

Willow

unread,
Apr 12, 2026, 12:45:21 AMApr 12
to Diehard Group
Jason,

Interesting.. are you too wishing for the world to be something other than it is..?

Willow

Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 12, 2026, 4:09:51 PMApr 12
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,
Do we all recoil with violence? Or is that conditioning of the minds and cultures? Obviously the Chimps have no qualm with it. Most if not all of nature has no qualm with it. I might argue that violence is more of the default mode for everything in the world of form and that we teach the forms to not be violent. Kind of the Christian thing of inherent sinners. 

There are lots of people on the Israel side of things in the war on Gaza who are excited and are celebrating the killing of the Palestinians. So are they being dishonest? 

I’m not looking for resolution, it’s more a discussion. Can we love the violence like we love the peace? And if not or if so ,what implications does that have on our concepts of awakening and enlightenment and seeking? 
-Jason


Cheers!

On Apr 10, 2026, at 2:19 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jason All,


If I follow this all the way, it gets uncomfortable fast.

We say we want peace—but without conflict, how would peace even be known? Without contrast, it’s just a word with no meaning. So it does seem like what we call “the whole” expresses as both—creation and destruction, harmony and violence—not as errors, but as part of the same movement.

That’s easy to say at a distance.

Harder to say when it’s close.

Because if we’re honest, something in us does not celebrate violence. It recoils. And that recoil isn’t conditioning to get rid of—it may be just as much a part of the whole as the violence itself.

So I don’t buy that understanding non-duality means flattening everything into “it’s all the same.” That can become a kind of bypass.

Yes—nothing is outside of this.

But the impulse to stop harm, to protect, to care—that’s not outside of this either.

So maybe the real tension isn’t something to resolve.

Maybe it’s this:

The same field shows up as violence…

and as the refusal of it.

And we don’t get to stand outside that and philosophize.

We are where that tension lives.

We don’t stand outside the balance—we are the place where it chooses its direction.


Jeff Angelson

On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 2:43 PM Jason Klav <jasonklav1h...@gmail.com> wrote:
All,

I had asked a similar question at the end of a Thursday night group a few weeks back, and then this article came through my feed and brought it back up for me. Figured I’d deposit the questions here. Fair warning, some of you may feel offended or triggered by them, because this is very much a devil’s advocate kind of conversation. So read on with that in mind.

We often find ourselves talking about how we wish everyone would wake up so the world could become a more peaceful place. But I have to ask, if the universe, God, consciousness, or whatever name you want to give the thing I’m pointing toward, truly wanted peace above all else, then why does it seem to express itself through conflict so often?

It plays out everywhere, in every form. Even in the article below, chimpanzees are described waging a civil war, killing each other and even the babies of the tribe. Are we supposed to be saddened by that? Should we intervene and stop it? Should we preach to them that if they could just step outside their thoughts, everything would be better? Or do we dismiss it because they are just animals, even though their behavior so clearly mirrors our own?

Or is all of this violence and strife actually part of the purpose of the world of form, to live out tragedies the formless itself cannot? It is uncomfortable to say, but should we in fact celebrate the violence the way we celebrate the peace, if both are equal parts of the whole and both keep showing up endlessly?

Can we actually find gratitude and even love in the violence? Gratitude that these forms are living out the struggle we, the whole, so obviously seem to want, because we keep creating it. Love for the violence we seem to return to over and over again in so many different forms. Or does that violate the human mind too deeply, and are we too conditioned to seriously entertain such a thought?


Cheers!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/72570913-DDE4-4A22-9953-E116E9575A0F%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 12, 2026, 4:28:33 PMApr 12
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Willow,
I have no wish for anything to be different at all!! I fully love the world exactly as it arises hence the reason I’m arguing for embracing violence. Haha. 

I do see your point of it seems I want others to change their thoughts on this topic, thus doing the thing I’m saying is being done by wanting the world to be less violent. Paradoxes like these are littered in non-dual conversations. Makes it difficult at times to try and communicate topics like these. 

The fascinating thing to me is that the universe has these discussions at all. Why discuss changing something that we all control and choose to create? Why isn’t embracement automatic in humans like it is in other forms? I’m not sure the chimps lose sleep over killing each other. Why do we? Holds up a finger. The ultimate answer? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 

Why even ask these questions? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 

-Jason

Cheers!

On Apr 11, 2026, at 11:45 PM, Willow <idd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jason,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 12, 2026, 4:34:04 PMApr 12
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Jason, All 


I don’t think anyone really loves violence.


What they love is what violence seems to restore—power when they feel powerless, justice when they feel wronged, belonging when they identify with a side.


In that sense, violence can feel clean. Even righteous.


But that “love” depends on distance—psychological or physical.

Up close, stripped of story, it’s much harder to sustain.


Awareness doesn’t exclude anything.

In that sense, you could call it unconditional love.


But not excluding something doesn’t mean loving it, celebrating it, or wanting to enact it.


So maybe the question isn’t whether we can love violence like we love peace…


…but whether we’re willing to see clearly what’s underneath the pull toward it.


Because if it’s identification, fear, hurt—then violence isn’t some deep truth we’re meant to embrace…


it’s a movement trying to resolve something that doesn’t actually get resolved that way.


Nothing is outside of what is…

but not everything needs to be lived out.


—Jeff



Jeff Angelson


inca...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 13, 2026, 3:39:40 PMApr 13
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com

All, 

Just 2 cents 😅


What comes up is this: no one truly loves violence or negativity. In other words, our individual minds do not love violence or negativity. If we follow this logic, violence or any form of negativity should not occur, or at least should occur far less often, shouldn’t it? 

Despite this, it continues to happen all over the world, as well as in the animal world, as Jason’s chimps example. If there is no separate “someone” out there committing violence, then the idea of no-self seems to make a certain kind of sense. What Is or Universe (I have no idea what is to be called) appears to be arising/doing continuously, regardless of how our minds interpret it, whether as wonderful or terrible.

Even the effort to spread love, advocate for peace, or engage in war might be part of movements of What Is—the universe itself—unfolding, even though we believe we are the ones doing it. As a result, we tend to take credit for positive outcomes and assign blame to others when negative things occur. 


Although the mechanics behind these appearances remain mysterious and unknown, what we call “good” or “bad” seems to arise as something that our mind perceives as an object and interprets through a dualistic lens. 


Thank you 🙏 


Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 12, 2026, at 3:34 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Paul Rezendes

unread,
Apr 13, 2026, 4:19:47 PMApr 13
to Diehards google
Jason, Sunhee, Jeff, Willow, everyone,

I have been very hesitant to come in on this thread. The Buddha wanted to end suffering. Many monks are walking for peace all over the world. Krishnamurti said, “ If I can set one man free, it will all be worth it.”


Count me out when it comes to enlightenment. I’m working for peace in the world. You can love violence all you want.


Paul



Sheri R

unread,
Apr 13, 2026, 9:21:54 PMApr 13
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff and All, 

Jeff, I also really appreciate what you said here. I especially agree with your statement here: "So I don’t buy that understanding non-duality means flattening everything into “it’s all the same.” That can become a kind of bypass." It can become a very dangerous bypass. 

It's important to keep in perspective that most human violence can be traced back to the traumatized, separate, identified sense of self and is a result of the learned but unconscious, habituated social/relational coping strategies. Unconscious and unexamined beliefs, thoughts and behaviours directly correlate to the depth of suffering. Suffering contained within a human organism is tragic in itself. When it bleeds into the collective, which it inevitably does, it's a menace. 
So gratitude for it? No. Celebrate it? Hard no. 
For me, what has been 'done', or shifted, is that it's obvious to me I am that. Or, that is me. Said another way; I am pedophile, I am christ, I am abuser, I am saint. 
Call me by my true names. 
When I saw I was all (meaning the violence and the peace), 'understanding' arose with both compassion and love. 
I don't know what I would do if violence or abuse arose here. I sense there would be an action but I don't know that for sure and I don't know exactly what that action would be. However, I do feel confident I would not stop to give thanks for it and I would definitely not celebrate it. 

Source is being. Somehow that seems obvious to me. And yes, both extremes and everything in between is 'of' and 'from' the same being. 
However, if the purpose of Source is to know itself, then it is doing so, at least in part, through a means of separation or duality; appearing as water, people, plastic, couches, etc. And though a sense of separation is 'natural' within non dual duality for humans, it results in a sense of identification for us. Humans who feel separate and are identified with their internal and external environments develop beliefs, learn behaviours and ideas. Those beliefs, ideas and behaviours become habituated and unconscious = Coping = Suffering = Poor behaviour. 

As for the chimpanzees, it's easy enough to theorize that the aforementioned behaviour of humans has drastically changed the ecosystem for many, if not all, wildlife. It makes sense then that they are stressed and fighting among themselves. Rats, mice and other animals subject to lab experimentation behave the same way. 

Just my two cents

With Metta, 
Sheri 



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/096F2500-5AB4-4D03-8FFB-F6B01BF23659%40paulrezendes.com.


--
Sheri Rink Dip.PT, Acup., RYT

Paul Rezendes

unread,
Apr 15, 2026, 10:05:47 AMApr 15
to Diehards google
Sheri, Jeff,

I appreciate the emails you sent in. I thought they were clear and could really resonate with them.

❤️
Paul

Paul Rezendes Photography
3833 Bearsden Road
Royalston, MA 01368-9400
USA

Photography
Check out our new rotating images on our home page: http://www.paulrezendes.com

Search Online Photo Library:  https://www.agpix.com/results.php?agid=PaRe12
Videos 
















Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Apr 15, 2026, 10:45:02 AMApr 15
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Sheri, Jeff and All,

Sheri, just briefly, I don't want to step on what you shared here. You asked the question as to what would happen should violence arise in you. Wonderful question, and as you say, only to be found out, not projected. Yet it brings up to me what you also shared: being fully thet violence. Meaning, free to flow right through us, without interference, without identifying, attaching/resisting (no one doing or not doing any of this). No words for this, only wordlessly going through it, which as you beautifully pointed to, may be its own action. But none of this can be turned into the known, as a continuing knowing, just gone through without anyone going through it.

My impressions, -Dan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAfzGURa%2BADC6C%2B0czJNksucHkugsJbmpGGJjF3nqkiY7FW%2Bew%40mail.gmail.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 15, 2026, 11:47:56 AMApr 15
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Sheri, Dan, All,


It feels like this keeps getting described…

but maybe not actually touched.


If violence arises, it isn’t something flowing through “me,”

or something I allow.


In that moment, it simply is.


No position.

No relationship.

No one to let it pass or not.


Afterward, thought comes in and tries to make sense of it.


But in the moment—

nothing to hold.

Nothing to do.


Just this.



Jeff Angelson


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Apr 15, 2026, 11:52:22 AMApr 15
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff, Isn't it possible to speak directly from what might be happening? In other words, is there a going through happening, no matter what is happening? Experiencing that is not being experienced (by anyone), since even the sense of an experiencer is also the experiencing? The sense of division is itself part of experiencing, never separate from experiencing. No escaping this......  -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCRpHFTgAwCSb3vBem27dAjR7OyBSdcrNpwY5SO6QA%2ByFA%40mail.gmail.com.

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 15, 2026, 12:00:16 PMApr 15
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Dan, All,


Yes… but even that becomes another description.


“Going through,” “experiencing,” “no experiencer”—

all pointing… but still something to understand.


Before all that—

just this.


Nothing happening to anything.

Nothing to escape.

No one in it



Jeff Angelson


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Apr 15, 2026, 12:03:25 PMApr 15
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,

Isn't the describing itself also "this"? Is there a before and after?

Just questions, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCT9tvPunptvqhCVDXAUUCiYdvGTiKn5iCCWzNUR5K-Tzg%40mail.gmail.com.

Willow

unread,
Apr 16, 2026, 10:46:50 AMApr 16
to Diehard Group
Jeff,

In the Rinzai tradition of Zen, a master like Hakuin would slap you in the face or whack you with a stick (violence?), whenever you produced a response like the ones you are offering. Why do you think he would do that?

💜Willow

Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Apr 16, 2026, 11:07:42 AMApr 16
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, Diehard Group
Because you are expressing the unsure with surety ! 😁
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Apr 16, 2026, at 7:46 AM, Willow <idd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jeff,

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 16, 2026, 11:56:37 AMApr 16
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Willow,


Ah… so that’s when I get whacked—

right when I start sounding like I know something.


Jeff



Jeff Angelson


Paul Rezendes

unread,
Apr 16, 2026, 1:11:46 PMApr 16
to Diehards google
Jeff,

That's all right. I'd probably get whacked with a stick too. I can easily sound like I know something. Even this sounds like I know something.

LOL!

Does Rinzai think he knows something when he whacks somebody with a stick?

Paul

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 16, 2026, 1:28:11 PMApr 16
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
😊

Jeff Angelson


Dan Kilpatrick

unread,
Apr 16, 2026, 4:59:09 PMApr 16
to Diehards google
Jeff, All,

Anything we say as a statement can be received as knowing something. What does it mean to know something? Is it permanent, absolute, not open to itself?

I sensed in your response an openness, a not being held on to....
My impression, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCSHJVMSgn018BJthySeiS4g8kbUn8RDaOUsueWuoajSEA%40mail.gmail.com.

Willow

unread,
Apr 18, 2026, 1:33:34 PMApr 18
to Diehard Group
Jeff,

No. I think the idea is you get whacked by the master when he sees you have your head in the clouds along with your feet…
IOW enlightenment without “boots on the ground” is delusion.

E.g. How is ‘This’ a useful response to a parent who has just seen their child’s arms and legs blown off by a bomb…?

❤️‍🩹Willow

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 18, 2026, 2:58:54 PMApr 18
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Willow 
I think we may be talking about two different things.

What I was pointing to wasn’t what you would say to a parent in that kind of unimaginable moment. Nothing conceptual belongs there—only love, presence, and compassion.

My comment was about how violence is understood as it arises in life more generally.

Is it even conceivable to have a world with no violence at all? In nature, life feeds on life. A lion eating a deer isn’t cruelty—it’s survival. That’s very different from human violence driven by fear, belief, or identity.

And then there’s another layer—protection. If someone is trying to harm you or someone you love, most of us would act if necessary. That’s not the same as aggression or domination. It’s care in action.

So for me, it’s not as simple as violence vs. no violence. Not all violence is the same.

Peace, as I see it, isn’t the total absence of force—it’s the absence of unnecessary or unconscious harm.



Jeff Angelson


Willow

unread,
Apr 18, 2026, 5:03:07 PMApr 18
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,

As part of your reply you said;
"What I was pointing to wasn’t what you would say to a parent in that kind of unimaginable moment. Nothing conceptual belongs there—only love, presence, and compassion."

Yes 🥰  

p.s. If you had included that in your initial response I'm sure the Zen master would have given you a hug instead of a whack...


♥️Willow

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/diehard-group/V2vly67LUhc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCQN_gkXbAhBJY8zTmkvSEz%3DdiU0At6C6XrYcj_dApkDaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 10:23:08 AMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,


I don’t think anyone really loves violence.


I think we might have to define love for that statement to be true. What we are obviously loves it because we continue to make it happen. If we don’t enjoy doing it why would we manifest it? Why if we didn’t enjoy it would we create this entire thing we call life and the world and the universe. That may be too difficult for our trained minds to accept because we are so programmed to think violence and hate and all of the negative is a bad thing to be disliked. But yet, what we are continues to manifest it almost religiously. 

What they love is what violence seems to restore—power when they feel powerless, justice when they feel wronged, belonging when they identify with a side.


The Chimps don’t seem to mind the violence or ensuing battles. Do they have thoughts and egos that drive them to the violence? And if the answer is no then that strengthens my case for what we are loving the violence. Why make creatures with no thoughts so violent otherwise? 

but not everything needs to be lived out.

But it is lived out. Constantly. Every second of every day by every organism in existence. There’s no separation from it ever. Even when people believe the thought they’ve risen above violence with awakening, their very bodies betray them by killing microbes and virus’s and bacteria. 

Why is that violence okay but other forms not? 


-Jason

Cheers!

On Apr 12, 2026, at 4:34 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 10:30:01 AMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
“As a result, we tend to take credit for positive outcomes and assign blame to others when negative things occur.”


A thousand yes’s to this line right here! Possibly the entire pointer I’m trying to express!!!!! We embrace what we deem as positive and exclude or push away that which we deem negative. 

 Cheers!


On Apr 13, 2026, at 3:39 PM, inca...@gmail.com wrote:



Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 10:38:31 AMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
There is violence within us. How can we escape it? When we swat a mosquito or a fly or an ant isn’t that violence ? What is it that makes us kill without thinking? It’s a conditioned reflex isn’t it? When we see a murder mystery or war movie what is it that brings us to watch it? 
So violence within us is manifest without.
I may think killing a mosquito is ok so I don’t get malaria another kills a cat and up the chain for self protection. It’s the same drive. 
So how do we understand that what we see is what we are?  Isn’t this what IS. 
We choose love over violence if we are not in any way affected🤯? 

Love peace and joy! 
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Apr 21, 2026, at 7:30 AM, Jason Klav <jasonklav1h...@gmail.com> wrote:

“As a result, we tend to take credit for positive outcomes and assign blame to others when negative things occur.”

Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 10:41:59 AMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
Forgot to mention it’s my 2 cents ! 🥰
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Apr 21, 2026, at 7:37 AM, Rani Madhavapeddi <rmadha...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is violence within us. How can we escape it? When we swat a mosquito or a fly or an ant isn’t that violence ? What is it that makes us kill without thinking? It’s a conditioned reflex isn’t it? When we see a murder mystery or war movie what is it that brings us to watch it? 

Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 10:49:15 AMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Paul,
I’m not surprised that this topic would be a difficult engagement for ya, ya hippy. Hahaha  😜🤣🤣 

Many want peace, it’s the balance the universe requires with so much violence. 

My question still stands…why love the peace and not love the other? Yes that’s what’s happening, arising in you right now but is it possible that that is an unquestioned mind groove or pattern or left over spinning of the egoic fan as you say? Could you someday come to love violence like you love peace, if you were able to remove that pattern of thought that violence is a bad thing? Imagine loving totality without wanting to change it. Is there further freedom in that? Or does loving violence and being grateful for all the parts that make up you, too far outside of the teachings, for you to accept? 


-jason 


Cheers!

On Apr 13, 2026, at 4:19 PM, Paul Rezendes <pho...@paulrezendes.com> wrote:

Jason, Sunhee, Jeff, Willow, everyone,

Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 11:04:27 AMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Sherri,

“As for the chimpanzees, it's easy enough to theorize that the aforementioned behaviour of humans has drastically changed the ecosystem for many, if not all, wildlife.”

So are you saying humans created/cause all the violence in nature? Ants war with each other because of our encroachment? What about the white blood cells in our bodies? They commit violence every day. Are they too stressed by humans? This theory seems to have a lot of holes in it if you really look at nature. Animals have been killing each other over territory long before humans had a global influence. Apes and dogs and lots of other creatures beat the crap out of each other to be the leaders of their group. 

It's important to keep in perspective that most human violence can be traced back to the traumatized, separate, identified sense of self and is a result of the learned but unconscious, habituated social/relational coping strategies. 

The article about the chimps suggests otherwise. If it’s inherent in the chimps then are they traumatized, separate, identified senses of self as well? Is that what’s making them want to kill babies and murder each other? Or is there a default mode in many creatures, that we also have, that does violence instinctively. A lion isn’t traumatized into killing other lions over territory. An ant colony isn’t traumatized into war with another colony because their mother doesn’t love them. 

-Jason

Cheers!

On Apr 13, 2026, at 9:21 PM, Sheri R <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 11:12:52 AMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Love this. 
Cheers!

On Apr 21, 2026, at 10:38 AM, Rani Madhavapeddi <rmadha...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is violence within us. How can we escape it? When we swat a mosquito or a fly or an ant isn’t that violence ? What is it that makes us kill without thinking? It’s a conditioned reflex isn’t it? When we see a murder mystery or war movie what is it that brings us to watch it? 

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 11:55:58 AMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jason All

Jason,


I hear what you’re pointing to—that if this is all one movement, why pick and choose? Why love peace and reject violence?


I think there’s an important distinction.


At one level, everything that appears is part of the whole. Nothing is outside of it. In that sense, it’s all included.


But inclusion isn’t the same as endorsement.


We can acknowledge that violence exists—fully, honestly—without needing to love it in the same way we love peace, care, or connection.


When violence shows up in human life, it’s felt directly—as pain, as harm. And something in us naturally moves to reduce that, not celebrate it.


So maybe it’s not:


“Love violence and peace equally”


but more like:


“Nothing is outside of what is—but not everything is something we choose to express or encourage.”


Peace, compassion, and care don’t come from rejecting reality.
They come from seeing clearly what leads to suffering—and not adding to it.


—


If everything is to be loved equally, what guides action when harm is happening right in front of you?



Jeff Angelson


inca...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 12:45:20 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,

One question, 

“Nothing is outside of what is—but not everything is something we choose to express or encourage.”

If not everything is something we choose to express, then what is to choose violence instead? 

Question to all,

Yes, we all want and choose to reduce or avoid pain and suffering. No doubt about that.


Yet logically, even though we try to reduce it because no one loves it, suffering still happens in nature and in our world. If it should be reduced, why does it continue? Is it because there is less enlightenment or realization?


It’s interesting to read comments when someone posts on a community site about a stray mama cat with four kittens and says they don’t want them coming into their yard. People respond with things like, “Don’t abandon them—feed them until a rescue team takes them,” or “They’re adorable, please feed them,” or “Don’t let them die.”

These comments sound loving. But in reality, many stray cats kill millions of birds every year, and some bird species are declining because of them. At the same time, I don’t see many people volunteering to adopt the cats, and rescue shelters are already overcrowded.


People keep pets for their comforts and sometimes abandon them. Of course, there are also people who care for their pets like family.


So what action should be taken?
Is it love for one particular animal versus care for the entire ecosystem?
Birds versus stray cats?

What is realization? Does it have to do with becoming more loving and compassionate? 


I don’t know the answers… just asking what you all think of… 



Thank you,🙏 

Sunhee 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 21, 2026, at 10:55 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 12:45:48 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,
I agree I also want love not hate peace not war, but in accepting one over the other there is a choice being made by me- and I now want others to be like that so I differentiate I separate what is love and what is hate and now  I am the Doer so where does that fit into what IS? 

Understanding that all dualities are stemming from me myself and I in my 2 cents can spontaneously help us in choosing one over the other. But not one is better than the other? If it’s spontaneous like killing a mosquito or a red ant or a scorpion or a snake or putting a horse dog cat down. Act is violent one is out of compassion the other out of hatred. So nothing can be judged who are we to judge when what IS is what IS? 
Sorry I am going to stop we can all think differently and I am pretty open to alternate thoughts but wanted to share as I say my 2 cents. 

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Apr 21, 2026, at 8:55 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 1:48:04 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Sunhee,

Your questions really stay with me.

There’s a line often attributed to Nisargadatta Maharaj that feels relevant here—something along the lines of:

When action is needed, it appears.

Not as a personal choice from a separate self, but as a natural response arising from the whole situation.

That doesn’t mean inaction or passivity.
It means action without the psychological burden of “I am the one deciding everything.”

In the case of the cats and birds, there may not be a single “right” answer.

Sometimes feeding the cats will arise.
Sometimes protecting the birds will feel more aligned.
Sometimes doing nothing.

What matters, maybe, is what the action is rooted in:

  • fear or sentimentality
  • or a quieter clarity that includes the whole

So the question shifts from:

“What should I choose?”

to something more immediate:

“What is being called for here, when I’m not caught in my own reactions?”

And even then, we may not get it “right.”

But the seeing itself begins to shape the action.

It’s a subtle shift, but it changes the whole feel of it.

Curious how that lands for you

Jeff Angelson


Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 1:57:55 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Rani,

I really appreciate you sharing this—it’s a subtle and important point.

I don’t see it as “I am the doer making a choice,” even though it can feel that way.

The sense of choosing love over hate can still arise, but it doesn’t have to come from a separate “me” trying to control or fix what is. It can arise more like a natural movement—like a response of the whole situation expressing itself through us.

So the differentiation—love vs hate, peace vs war—still appears. It’s part of how life functions. But the question is whether it’s coming from a contracted sense of “me” needing things to be a certain way, or from a clearer seeing that isn’t centered in that identity.

What you said about violence is really key.

Killing a mosquito, putting an animal down, acting in anger—outwardly they may all look like “violence,” but the root is different.

One may come from:

  • fear, reactivity, separation

Another from:

  • care, necessity, or even compassion

So while the action may look similar, the source of the action matters.

I don’t hear this as “nothing can be discerned” or “everything is the same.”

There is still a natural intelligence that senses:

  • what creates more suffering
  • what brings more coherence or care

But that sensing doesn’t require a judging self standing outside of life. It’s more immediate than that.

So maybe it’s not about saying:

“This is better, that is worse”

But more like:

“What is moving here?”
“What is this action rooted in?”

And yes—who are we to judge from a position of separation?

At the same time, life itself seems to move toward reducing unnecessary suffering where it can. That movement can show up through us—without needing to turn it into a personal identity.

It’s a very fine line you’re pointing to:

  • no separate doer
  • yet real discernment still happening

Both seem to coexist.

Curious how that lands for you.



Jeff Angelson


Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 2:46:59 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,
If it arises spontaneously with no doership there is no good or bad! 
That’s my 2 cents! 
Love peace and joy! 
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Apr 21, 2026, at 10:57 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

you.

Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 3:29:59 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,
That’s it in a nutshell! The last 2 lines of yours is it ! It’s what it IS. 
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Apr 21, 2026, at 10:57 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 3:36:49 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Rani
😎😂💭👍

Jeff Angelson


Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 4:00:06 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
💜 that’s all there IS
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Apr 21, 2026, at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



inca...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 5:31:46 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
Hi Jeff,

Thank you for replying back. 

I do remember that what Nisargadatta said about actions arising when needed. 

“Nothing is outside of what is—but not everything is something we choose to express or encourage.”

If not everything is something we choose to express, then what is to choose violence instead? (I don’t know if this question find you 😅) 




Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 21, 2026, at 12:48 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 21, 2026, 6:01:26 PMApr 21
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
😊

Jeff Angelson


Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 22, 2026, 11:58:11 AMApr 22
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Whacking someone in the face with a stick?!?!?!?

Violence!!! This should be pushed away! People like this should be thrown in jail or at least forced to look at their childhood trauma as to why they do such things…. 

Oh wait… 

Oh this is “good” violence? This points towards ending the illusion of ego? So this violence is the good violence. 

We can love this violence. Permission granted! 

Slap on!!! 
😉
-Jason
Cheers!
On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 9:21 PM Sheri R <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeff and All, 

Jeff, I also really appreciate what you said here. I especially agree with your statement here: "So I don’t buy that understanding non-duality means flattening everything into “it’s all the same.” That can become a kind of bypass." It can become a very dangerous bypass. 

It's important to keep in perspective that most human violence can be traced back to the traumatized, separate, identified sense of self and is a result of the learned but unconscious, habituated social/relational coping strategies. Unconscious and unexamined beliefs, thoughts and behaviours directly correlate to the depth of suffering. Suffering contained within a human organism is tragic in itself. When it bleeds into the collective, which it inevitably does, it's a menace. 
So gratitude for it? No. Celebrate it? Hard no. 
For me, what has been 'done', or shifted, is that it's obvious to me I am that. Or, that is me. Said another way; I am pedophile, I am christ, I am abuser, I am saint. 
Call me by my true names. 
When I saw I was all (meaning the violence and the peace), 'understanding' arose with both compassion and love. 
I don't know what I would do if violence or abuse arose here. I sense there would be an action but I don't know that for sure and I don't know exactly what that action would be. However, I do feel confident I would not stop to give thanks for it and I would definitely not celebrate it. 

Source is being. Somehow that seems obvious to me. And yes, both extremes and everything in between is 'of' and 'from' the same being. 
However, if the purpose of Source is to know itself, then it is doing so, at least in part, through a means of separation or duality; appearing as water, people, plastic, couches, etc. And though a sense of separation is 'natural' within non dual duality for humans, it results in a sense of identification for us. Humans who feel separate and are identified with their internal and external environments develop beliefs, learn behaviours and ideas. Those beliefs, ideas and behaviours become habituated and unconscious = Coping = Suffering = Poor behaviour. 

As for the chimpanzees, it's easy enough to theorize that the aforementioned behaviour of humans has drastically changed the ecosystem for many, if not all, wildlife. It makes sense then that they are stressed and fighting among themselves. Rats, mice and other animals subject to lab experimentation behave the same way. 

Just my two cents

With Metta, 
Sheri 



On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 3:54 PM Paul Rezendes <pho...@paulrezendes.com> wrote:
Jeff,

A lot of what you said hit the mark for me. 

Paul


--
Sheri Rink Dip.PT, Acup., RYT

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 25, 2026, 3:17:59 PMApr 25
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,

“Nothing is outside of what is—but not everything is something we choose to express or encourage.”

We do choose to express it. Every second of every day, what we are, chooses to express it. Or even if we say it doesn’t choose it, it shows up. It could show up infinite ways and it shows up this way. If you are uncomfortable calling that choice, fine, call whatever you like but it looks a whole lot like choice to me. There is seemingly another way this could show up, without suffering and violence and all the bad. Yet THIS chooses to keep showing up as all of those things in all of the different forms.

Maybe it’s a feature and not something we want to rid the world of?

I purpose, not to go all woo woo, that we can’t experience any of the “bad” stuff when not on this plane of existence. It’s all love and peace (what we label as love and peace) when out of these bodies so we create these bodies and this world for the experiencing of all this “bad” stuff. Kind of like a playground of torture. Haha. We purposefully come down into these limited forms, forgetting what we are, totality, to experience the suffering and wanting and isolation that’s impossible to feel otherwise.

-Jason
Cheers!

> On Apr 21, 2026, at 10:55 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 25, 2026, 5:26:41 PMApr 25
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jason

Being awake, we see we’re not separate from anything—including violence. But that doesn’t mean we are violence. We’re responsible for how life moves through us—not for how it moves through others.



Jeff Angelson


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.

Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
Apr 25, 2026, 7:05:14 PMApr 25
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jason,
When I read tour post it reminded me of this said 300 BC !


Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On Apr 25, 2026, at 12:17 PM, Jason Klav <jasonklav1h...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jeff,

Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 26, 2026, 5:10:16 PMApr 26
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,


we’re not separate from anything—including violence


Completely agree. 

But that doesn’t mean we are violence.


Completely disagree. 

How is it possible to not be separate and yet not be violence if there is nothing separate? 

We’re responsible for how life moves through us


Who do you speak of? Who is this “we”? And how do we delineate the we out from the “others”? 


I must commend you though that you’re giving all the agreed upon as “good” answers in the spiritual circles we run in but do they actually hold water? Are they once again figments of selfhoods trying to separate themselves from the “bad” stuff? 

In Christian terms…the Devil gets all the blame yet it was God who created the Devil. So who is really to blame for his activities? 

Same here. What we are creates a world of violence. It also creates a world of peace. Why is it so hard to love and embrace both for “spiritual” people? 

-Jason
Cheers!

On Apr 25, 2026, at 4:26 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jason Klav

unread,
Apr 26, 2026, 5:13:33 PMApr 26
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Rani ,
Haha. Interesting video. And so true in world politics for many countries. Unless you are like America and you just over throw all the governments around you and place puppet regimes. Haha. 

-Jason
Cheers!

On Apr 25, 2026, at 6:05 PM, Rani Madhavapeddi <rmadha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jason,
When I read tour post it reminded me of this said 300 BC !

Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
Apr 26, 2026, 5:25:52 PMApr 26
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jason , All

Awareness is the action.


No separate doer—
yet what unfolds shifts in that awareness.


Violence contracts.
Love opens.




Jeff Angelson


Jason Klav

unread,
May 4, 2026, 1:11:51 AMMay 4
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff, 

How does violence contract if there is nothing separate? What does it contract into? What does love open into? 


Cheers!

On Apr 26, 2026, at 4:25 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
May 4, 2026, 4:58:38 AMMay 4
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jason, All

Jason,


There are many ways to approach this question—
this one stays with THIS.


If we stay here, the question starts to dissolve.


Violence doesn’t contract into anything.
Love doesn’t open into anything.


That “into” already assumes direction, distance, separation—
and we both felt how language breaks there.


More simply…


Violence feels like contraction—
tight, narrow, defended.


Love feels like openness—
soft, unbound, allowing.


Same THIS.


Nothing moving somewhere else.
No “into.”


Just the felt difference in how THIS is appearing.


So maybe the question isn’t where it goes…


but whether THIS, right now, feels tight…
or open.


Not two states—just two ways THIS feels.




Jeff Angelson

inca...@gmail.com

unread,
May 4, 2026, 6:38:51 PMMay 4
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
Jeff,

but whether THIS, right now, feels tight…
or open.

Not two states—just two ways THIS feels.

“Two ways THIS feels”
Do you mean THIS can feel two ways? 

Are you sure that THIS actually feels two ways, or is it your mind feeling two ways and projecting/interpreting that onto THIS?
(Assuming that THIS has feeling thus it feels two ways?) 

Could you say that the Unlimited ways THIS appear implies THIS can feel in unlimited ways?

Thank you 

Sunhee 


On May 4, 2026, at 3:58 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
May 4, 2026, 7:00:41 PMMay 4
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
Sunhee, All

Sunhee,

Beautiful question—this goes right to the heart of it.

When we say things like “THIS feels tight” or “THIS feels open,” it can sound as if THIS itself has states or qualities, as if it does the feeling.

But what’s actually happening is more subtle.

There are sensations—tightness, openness, contraction, ease.
There are thoughts that label them—“tight,” “loose,” “good,” “bad.”

All of that appears.

The language makes it seem like something is feeling, or something is experiencing something else.
But that division isn’t actually there.

So it may be more accurate to say:

There aren’t two ways THIS feels.
There are simply different sensations appearing—
all of them not separate from THIS.

Not that THIS has qualities,
but that all qualities appear as THIS.

Even saying “appear as” is already a bit too much—
but it helps point.

So your intuition is right to question it.

It’s not that THIS feels in two ways,
or even in unlimited ways—

but that what we call “feeling” is simply part of what’s happening,
with no center behind it,
no one it belongs to.

Just this.

Look at what remains.

Not by focusing,
not by trying to find it—
but by noticing what’s already here
when nothing extra is added.

What remains isn’t something to reach.
It doesn’t come and go.

It was never hidden.

Nothing to arrive at—
just this,
as it’s always been.

What remains doesn’t need to be revealed…
it never left.




Jeff Angelson

Jason Klav

unread,
May 9, 2026, 7:42:46 PM (12 days ago) May 9
to diehar...@googlegroups.com

Violence feels like contraction—
tight, narrow, defended.

To who? 


Love feels like openness—
soft, unbound, allowing.

To who?

Just the felt difference in how THIS is appearing.

Are you sure or is that just the illusion again trying to make there be a difference? 

The language is slowly changing in this conversation but I feel like we are getting away from the original question. Why is it difficult to love all of it, the violence and the love, for spiritual folks in our circles? Why not love and embrace both sides of ourselves? All these wonderful awakened sounding things are being said here but when the rubber meets the road and loving it ALL is asked for, there seems to be something happening that seems to split things up into what we can love and embrace and what we can’t…. or more accurately shouldn’t, even though that’s an inferred word. What is that?

Or maybe it’s more accurate to ask, who is that? 😉

-jason

Cheers!

On May 4, 2026, at 3:58 AM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jeffrey Angelson

unread,
May 9, 2026, 7:59:26 PM (12 days ago) May 9
to diehar...@googlegroups.com
There he is.. Hi Jason

Maybe the difficulty comes when THIS gets segmented into parts.

Good.
Bad.
Beautiful.
Ugly.
Love.
Violence.

At that point the mind is no longer relating to the totality of THIS, but to conceptual fragments of it.

Human nature naturally recoils from violence just as nature abhors a vacuum. The nervous system responds, protects, contracts, discerns.

Yet all of it still appears within THIS.

Maybe “love it all” doesn’t mean approving of every appearance.

Maybe it means not placing anything outside the totality of what is.



Jeff Angelson

Rani Madhavapeddi

unread,
May 9, 2026, 8:38:35 PM (12 days ago) May 9
to diehar...@googlegroups.com, diehar...@googlegroups.com
Yesterday this is exactly what was discussed. Nothing is separate all is arising in the One. The good the bad and the ugly and beautiful. It just issing.
I thought everyone agreed in the group. Or at least no one dissented. 
Love Peace and Joy! 
Rani Madhavapeddi Patel


On May 9, 2026, at 4:59 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages