welcome sir KR On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 at 10:17, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote:
> Rajaram Sir, > You are a mini big bang or a big flood of concepts. > YMS > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 9:41 AM Rajaram Krishnamurthy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> NATURE IS NATURALLY FREE OR WE GIVE IT FREEDOM >> >> >> >> The question of whether nature is free by itself or if freedom is a >> concept bestowed upon it by humanity touches on profound philosophical, >> ecological, and ethical debates. At its core, this question asks us to >> distinguish between nature as an independent, self-regulating entity >> ("wildness") and nature as a concept defined within human consciousness. >> While humans often "give" nature a symbolic or legal freedom by protecting >> it, nature possesses an intrinsic, functional freedom that existed long >> before humanity and operates independently of it. >> >> Nature's Intrinsic Freedom (Self-Ordering) >> >> *Nature is inherently free in that it acts according to its own laws, >> creating, destroying, and regenerating without external authorization*. >> It is a self-regulating system—from forests regenerating after fire to >> ecosystems managing nutrient cycles. This "wildness" is the ultimate form >> of freedom: unhindered, chaotic, and creative, operating at its own pace. >> >> Philosophically, this can be viewed as "nature's freedom," a dynamic, >> unconscious productivity that exists for itself. Before human intervention, >> nature was not "under-regulated"; it was governed by the laws of physics >> and biology. Even when humans are gone, nature continues its, often >> chaotic, path. >> >> The Human Perspective: Assigning Freedom >> >> Humans tend to define freedom through the lens of agency and choice. When >> we "give" nature freedom, we are usually talking about: >> >> Protection: Creating national parks, conservation areas, or "rewilding" >> areas. >> >> Legal Rights: Assigning legal personhood to rivers or forests, as seen in >> some indigenous and legal systems. >> >> In this context, freedom is a human construct—a restriction placed on our >> own behavior (development, logging, pollution) to allow nature to follow >> its own path. This is not creating freedom for nature, but removing our >> inhibition of its existing freedom. >> >> The Conflict of Freedoms >> >> The issue arises when human freedom (the desire for development, energy, >> and consumption) clashes with nature’s freedom (its right to exist and >> evolve). Modern civilization often treats nature as a resource to be >> used, effectively enslaving it. However, the "freedom" we take for >> ourselves—such as expanding cities—destroys the freedom of ecosystems to >> thrive. >> >> Many, particularly in the environmental movement, argue that nature has >> "intrinsic value"—the right to exist, regardless of its usefulness to >> humans. In this sense, true freedom is a recognition of this intrinsic >> value rather than an act of human generosity. >> >> Nature is fundamentally free by itself, operating through its own, >> often harsh, laws. However, in our modern world, we often "give" nature a >> recognized freedom, which is really just an acknowledgment of its right to >> exist, and a conscious withdrawal of our encroachment. Ultimately, >> nature does not need human permission to be free; it is the ultimate >> expression of freedom, whereas human freedom is often a struggle to define >> itself within the limitations that nature sets. >> >> THEN WHY ALL THE HUBBUB? WHAT CAN WE DO TO NATURE? >> >> Philosophers often account for the difference between human beings >> and other animals in terms of a difference between norm-governed behavior >> and instinct-determined behavior. As human beings, we are socialized into a >> normative understanding of who to be–e.g., man or woman, black or white, >> working class or aristocrat–and we act in light of those social norms. In >> contrast, the behavior of all other animals is supposedly hardwired by >> their natural instincts. This way of describing the difference, however, is >> misleading for at least two reasons. First, an instinct is already >> expressive of a norm, since it specifies something that the animal ought to >> do and that it can fail to do (e.g., the seagull instinctually understands >> that it ought to eat fish and it can fail to find any fish to eat). Second, >> many animals can be socialized into forms of behavior that are not >> hardwired by their natural instincts. For example, there are cats that >> behave like dogs because they have been raised by huskies, and there are >> huskies that behave like cats because they have been raised by cats. Such >> behavior is clearly not hardwired by the nature of cats or dogs but >> acquired through a specific way in which they are raised. >> >> The difference between human beings and other animals, then, cannot >> simply be explained by the difference between instincts and norms. Rather, >> the decisive difference is the difference between natural and spiritual >> freedom. Even when a cat behaves like a husky, she does not call into >> question the husky way of life but treats it as the given framework for her >> actions. She is able to learn the husky norms but not able to understand >> them as norms that could be otherwise. The cat cannot understand her norms >> as something for which she is answerable and which can be challenged by >> others, since she cannot hold herself responsible for the principles that >> govern her actions. The cat is responsive to success and failure in her >> pursuits, but whether the norms that govern her pursuits are valid–whether >> she ought to behave like a cat or a husky–is not at issue for her. >> >> For human beings, by contrast, the validity of norms is always >> implicitly and potentially explicitly at issue. We act in light of a >> normative understanding of ourselves–of who we should be and what we should >> do–but we can also challenge and change our self-understanding. We are not >> merely governed by norms but answerable to one another for what we do and >> why we do it. Even when we are socialized into an identity as though it >> were a natural necessity–as when we are taken to belong naturally to a >> certain gender, race, or class–there remains the possibility of >> transforming, contesting, or critically overturning our understanding of >> who we are. Who we can be–as well as what we can do–is inseparable from how >> we acknowledge and treat one another. How we can change our >> self-understanding therefore depends on the social practices and >> institutions that shape the ability to lead our lives. Moreover, any >> ability to lead our lives can be impaired or lost by damages to our >> physical and psychological constitution. Yet as long as we have a >> self-relation–as long as we lead our lives in any way at all–the question >> of who we ought to be is alive for us, since it is at work in all our >> activities. In engaging the question “What should I do?” we are also >> engaging the question “Who should I be?”–and there is no final answer to >> that question. This is our spiritual freedom. >> >> The difference between natural and spiritual freedom is not a matter >> of metaphysical substance but a difference in the practical self-relation >> exhibited by human beings and other animals. Many kinds of animals exhibit >> forms of mourning, play, courage, deliberation, suffering, and joy. They >> may even in some cases (as studies of primates have shown) be able to >> experience a conflict of choice when certain instincts or loyalties are at >> odds with one another. Yet no other species we have encountered is capable >> of transforming its understanding of what it means to be that species. >> Changes in the environment can cause animal species–or certain members of >> species–to change patterns in their behavior, but the principles in light >> of which they act remain the same for as long as the species exist. >> >> In contrast, the understanding of what it means to be human–as >> manifested in the actual behavior of human beings–varies dramatically >> across history and across the world at any given moment of history. The >> difference between a monk who renounces filial bonds for an ascetic life in >> a monastery and a father who devotes his life to taking care of his >> children is not merely an individual difference in behavior. Rather, the >> two forms of life express radically different understandings of what it >> means to be human. The two men may not only have different degrees of >> courage, but what counts as courage for them is radically different. They >> may not only experience different degrees of grief and joy, but what counts >> as grief and joy for them is radically different. Even the experience of >> suffering is never merely a brute fact for us as human beings but an >> experience we understand and respond to in light of what matters to us. >> Such mattering is not reducible to our biological-physiological >> constitution; it depends on our commitments. We are certainly subject to >> biological constraints–and we cannot even in principle transcend all such >> constraints–but we can (and do) change our relation to these constraints. >> There is no natural way for us to be and no species requirements that can >> exhaustively determine the principles in light of which we act. Rather, >> what we do and who we take ourselves to be are inseparable from a >> historical-normative framework that must be upheld by us and may be >> transformed by us. >> >> Let me be clear about the status of my argument. I am not asserting >> that only human beings are spiritually free. It is possible that we may >> discover other species that are spiritually free or that we may create >> artificial forms of life that are capable of spiritual freedom. That is an >> empirical question, which I do not seek to answer. My aim is not to decide >> which species are spiritually free, but to clarify the conditions of >> spiritual freedom. Whether certain other animals are spiritually free–or >> whether we can come to engineer living beings who are spiritually free–is a >> separate and subordinate question, which in itself presupposes an answer to >> the question of what it means to be a free, spiritual being. >> >> Two clarifications are here in order. First, the distinction between >> natural and spiritual freedom is not a hierarchical distinction. That we >> are spiritually free does not make us inherently better than other animals, >> but it does mean that we are free in a qualitatively different sense. >> Because we can call into question the purposes of our own actions, we can >> hold ourselves to principles of justice, but we can also engage in forms of >> cruelty that go far beyond anything observed in other species. Second, the >> distinction between natural and spiritual freedom does not legitimize the >> exploitation of other animals. Many contemporary thinkers are critical of >> any distinction between humans and other animals since they fear that such >> a distinction will serve to justify sexism or racism, as well as buttress >> the mistreatment of other species and the willful extraction of natural >> resources. Yet such “post-humanism” rests on a conflation of historical >> facts and philosophical arguments. As a matter of historical fact, it is >> true that a human/animal distinction often has been employed to classify >> certain genders or races as “subhuman” and to legitimize ruthless >> exploitation of the nonhuman world. The critique of such politics is well >> taken, as is the reminder that we too are animals and dependent on the fate >> of our environment. However, it does not follow from these facts that any >> distinction between humans and other animals is illegitimate or politically >> pernicious. On the contrary, the pathos of post-humanist politics itself >> tacitly relies on a distinction between natural and spiritual freedom. When >> post-humanist thinkers take us to task for being sexist, racist, or too >> centered on our own species, they must assume that we are capable of >> calling into question the guiding principles of our actions. Otherwise it >> would make no sense to criticize our principles and enjoin us to adopt >> different ideals. Likewise, it is clear that no post-humanist thinker >> seriously believes that other animals are spiritually free. If they were, >> we should criticize not only humans but also other animals for being sexist >> and too centered on the well-being of their own species. >> >> To deny the distinction between natural and spiritual freedom is >> therefore an act of bad faith. Any political struggle for a better >> treatment of other animals–or for a more respectful relation to the natural >> environment–requires spiritual freedom. We have to be able to renounce our >> prior commitments and hold ourselves to a new ideal. No one is inclined to >> place the same demands on other animals because we implicitly understand >> the distinction between natural and spiritual freedom. It would be absurd >> to reproach the seagull for eating fish, but it can make sense for me to >> stop eating other animals, since I am capable of transforming my relation >> to the norms that structure my world. For a naturally free being like the >> seagull, there is a normative “ought” that guides its actions (e.g., to eat >> fish in order to survive), but it cannot call into question the norm–the >> ought–itself. Natural freedom has a single ought structure, since the agent >> cannot question its guiding principles and ask itself what it should do. >> Spiritual freedom, by contrast, is characterized by a double ought >> structure. As a spiritually free being, I can ask myself what I should do, >> since I am answerable not only for my actions but also for the normative >> principles that guide my actions. There are not only demands concerning >> what I ought to do; there is also the question if I ought to do what I >> supposedly ought to do. [yale review] >> >> Sita Upanishad Translated by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier >> >> Published by The Theosophical Publishing House, Chennai It is in Atharva >> veda where the nature spoken in Rig veda and Upanishads are treated as GODs >> and worshipped; this is required since bhakti alone can get along with the >> exiting freedom of the nature. >> >> >> >> Om! Gods! With ears let us hear what is good; >> >> Adorable ones! With eyes let us see what is good. >> >> With steady limbs, with bodies, praising, >> >> Let us enjoy the life allotted by the gods. >> >> May Indra, of wide renown, grant us well-being; >> >> May Pusan, and all-gods, grant us well-being. >> >> May Tarksya, of unhampered movement, grant us well-being. >> >> May Brihaspati grant us well-being. >> >> Om! Peace! Peace! Peace! >> >> 1. The gods, indeed, said to Prajapati: who is Sita? What is Her form? >> Then Prajapati replied: She is Sita: >> >> 2. Being the first cause Sita is known as >> >> Prakriti; of Pranava, too, She is cause >> >> And so is named Prakriti. >> >> 3. Maya in very essence, >> >> Is Sita, of three letters formed. >> >> Called Vishnu, the world-seed, >> >> And Maya, too, is the letter i. >> >> 4. The letter sa denotes truth immortal; >> >> Achievement; Siva with his consort. >> >> Ta denotes the Queen of Speech >> >> United with Brahman, the Deliverer. >> >> 5. The Goddess who is the great Illusion, whose form is un-manifest, and >> who is denoted by ‘i’ becomes manifest, beauteous as the moon, faultless of >> limb, decked with ornamental garlands, pearls and other adornments. >> >> 6. At first, at the time of Vedic studies, She is essentially the clear >> Vedic speech. Secondly, on earth, at the tip of the plough She springs up, >> who, as the bliss of Brahman-realization, is ever present. Thirdly, as >> denoted by ‘i’ She becomes un-manifest. So is She Sita. Thus they explain >> in the text of the Saunakas. >> >> 7. By Srirama’s (light of total liberation) presence enabled >> >> The universe She sustains; >> >> All embodied beings >> >> She brings forth, sustains and withdraws. >> >> 8. Sita must be known; >> >> She is the first cause; >> >> As Om is She that cause, >> >> Declare the Brahman-knowers. >> >> 9. Now, therefore, inquiry into Brahman. >> >> 10. She here is all the Vedas; all the gods; all the worlds; all renown; >> all virtue; all ground, effect and cause; the great Beauty of the Lord of >> gods. She has a form which is different and yet the same. She is the >> essence of the intelligent and the inert. She is all, from Brahma to stocks >> and stones. She is embodied, owing to distinctions of attributes and >> activities. She assumes the forms of gods, sages, men and Gandharvas; of >> demons, fiends, spirits, ghosts, goblins, etc.; and of the elements, >> sense-organs, mind and the vital breaths. >> >> 11. That divine Being is threefold through Her power, namely the power of >> desire, the power of action, and the power of knowledge. >> >> 12. The power of desire is threefold: Sri, Bhumi and Nila. Auspiciousness >> is the form (of Sri); the power (of holiness) is the form (of Bhumi); the >> sun, the moon, and the fire are the forms (of Nila). >> >> 13. As the moon (She) is the mistress of the herbs; She is the tree of >> plenty, flowers, fruits, creepers and bowers; the mistress of medicinal >> plants and physicians; She is the divine drought of immortality, yielding >> the fruit of massive splendour. She satisfies the gods with ambrosia and >> the animals with grass on which, respectively, the gods and the animals >> live. >> >> 14. She illumines all worlds, day and night, in the garb of the sun, etc. >> As determinations of time, such as the smallest moment, hour, day with its >> eight divisions, day of the week, and night, as also the fortnight, month, >> season, six months, and year and as the prescriber of the term of human >> life as a hundred years, She manifests herself and is known as Delay and >> Speed. Thus wheel-like, She revolves as the wheel of Time, the wheel of >> Universe, etc.; comprising (all dimensions of time) from the moment up to >> fifty years of Brahma’s life. All the luminous temporal divisions are the >> specific determinations of this very Time, the container of all. >> >> 15. As fire is the food and drink of living beings, their hunger and >> thirst. As regards the gods, She has the form of sacrifice. As regards the >> herbs in the forest, She is the coolness and the warmth. Both inside and >> outside the fuel She dwells, eternal and fleeting. >> >> 16. The Goddess Sri assumes a threefold form in conformity with the >> Lord’s will for the protection of the world. That She is styled Sri and >> Lakshmi is known. >> >> 17. The Goddess Bhu is the Earth comprising the seven islands and the >> seas; the container and the contents of the fourteen worlds such as bhu, >> etc.; and her essence is Pranava. >> >> 18. Nila is festooned with lightning. To nourish all herbs and living >> beings, She assumes all forms. >> >> 19. At the root of all the worlds, She assumes the form of Water, being >> known as ‘consisting of frogs’ and supporting the worlds. >> >> 20. The real form of the power of action (is as follows): From Hari’s >> mouth (proceeds) sound; from this sound ‘the drop’; thence, the syllable >> Om; from this syllable, distinctively proceeds the mount Rama, the abode of >> the Vaikhanasas. On that mount flourish manifold branches representing >> action and knowledge. >> >> 21. The primal science of >> >> Vedas three, reveals all sense; >> >> They are the ‘three’, comprising >> >> Ric, Yajus and Saman. >> >> 22. Based on a fact, fourfold, they are called >> >> The Ric, Yajus, Saman, Atharvan. >> >> 23. The ‘three’ are so famed as they >> >> Concern the four priests, form texts >> >> Of triple sense, lingas, and much else. >> >> The Atharvan is, in essence, >> >> Ric, Yajus and Saman, too. >> >> 24. Yet separated it is, being >> >> In the main, of magic sense. >> >> The Rig-Veda does flourish >> >> In branches twenty-one. >> >> 25. The Yajus is well known >> >> In nine and hundred various schools. >> >> Saman has a thousand branches; >> >> The Atharvan but forty. >> >> 26. The Vaikhanasa philosophy >> >> With intuition is concerned; >> >> With Vaikhanasa it is that >> >> Sages ever engage themselves. >> >> 27. Rituals, Grammar, Phonetics, Etymology, Astronomy and Metre are the >> six limbs. >> >> 28. The minor limbs are Vedanta >> >> And Mimamsa, the treatise on >> >> Nyaya and Puranas upheld >> >> By the knowers of the Law; so also >> >> Of meditation (upasana) the chapters; >> >> 29. Ethics, of the Vedic lore all branches, >> >> Tradition, Law upheld by Rishis great; >> >> History and legend – these the Upangas. >> >> 30. The five minor Vedas are >> >> Architecture and Archery, >> >> Music, Medicine and Occult Thought (daivika). >> >> 31. The Discipline, the Rites, the Gloss, the Lore, >> >> Conquest supreme of breath – these twenty-one >> >> Are renowned as self-evident. >> >> 32. The word of Vishnu at first sprang forth >> >> From Vaikhanasa as the Vedas three. >> >> 33. As of old from sage Vaikhanasa >> >> The ‘three’ sprang forth – >> >> Hear all from me. >> >> The eternal Brahmic form is power to act. >> >> 34. The manifest power is but the memory of the Lord; its essence is >> manifestation and evolution, restriction and promotion, subsidence and up >> flaring. It is the cause of the patent and the latent, possessing all feet, >> limbs, faces, colors. It is at once different and non-different (from the >> Lord); the unfailing consort of the Lord, perpetually dependent on Him. She >> becomes patent and latent, and is called the manifest power because She is >> competent to bring about, through the (mere) closing and opening (of Her >> eye) creation, sustenance and retraction, suppression and promotion. >> >> 35. The power of desire is threefold. At the time of retraction, for the >> sake of rest, when She rests on the right side of the Lord’s chest, in the >> shape of Srivatsa, She is the power of Yoga. >> >> 36. The form of the Power of enjoyment is enjoyment. Associated with the >> Tree of Plenty, the wish-granting Cow, the wish-fulfilling Gem, and the >> nine Treasures such as the (precious) Conch and Lotus, She is impelled by >> the devotion of the worshipper, whether sought or unsought (to yield >> enjoyments) as a result of rites, compulsory or optional, like the >> Agnihotra; or as a result of (the eight ‘limbs’ of Yoga practice, namely) >> restraint, discipline, posture, control of breath, withdrawal, attention, >> meditation and contemplation; or as a result of worship of the Lord’s image >> in pinnacled temples; or as a result of ceremonial baths, etc.; or of the >> worship of manes, etc.; or as a result of giving food, drink, etc., for >> pleasing the Lord. (All this) is done (through the Power of enjoyment). >> >> 37. Now the Power of heroism, four-armed, (is described). She indicates >> by her gestures fearlessness and (the granting of) boons; She bears the >> lotus; crowned and bedecked, She is surrounded by all the gods; is bathed, >> at the foot of the Tree of Plenty, by four elephants, in ambrosial waters >> from jeweled pots. All divinities, Brahma and others, render obeisance to >> Her. She is vested with the eight miraculous powers such as becoming atomic >> in proportion; She is lauded by the wish-granting cow who is before Her; >> she is extolled by the Vedas, the Shastras, etc. Celestial nymphs like Jaya >> wait upon Her. The luminaries – the sun and the moon – shed splendour on >> Her. Tumburu, Narada and others sing of Her glory. The full moon and new >> moon days hold an umbrella over Her; two delightful beings hold the whisks. >> Svaha and Svadha fan Her. Bhrigu and other supernatural beings adore Her. >> The Goddess Lakshmi is seated on a divine Lion-Throne in the lotus posture, >> effectuating all causes and effects. The steady (image of) the Lord’s idea >> of differentiation, She beautifies. With tranquil eyes, adored by all the >> gods, She is known as the Beauty of Heroism. This is the Secret. >> >> Om! Gods! With ears let us hear what is good; >> >> Adorable ones! With eyes let us see what is good. >> >> With steady limbs, with bodies, praising, >> >> Let us enjoy the life allotted by the gods. >> >> May Indra, of wide renown, grant us well-being; >> >> May Pusan, and all-gods, grant us well-being. >> >> May Tarksya, of unhampered movement, grant us well-being. >> >> May Brihaspati grant us well-being. >> >> Om! Peace! Peace! Peace! >> >> Here ends the Sita Upanishad, included in the Atharva-Veda. >> >> K Rajaram IRS 27226 >> >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 at 06:57, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *MarThe Need for Freedom to Nature* >>> *The Guilt Merchants* >>> >>> *A Non-Cartesian, Holistic Expression* >>> >>> Before thought divides the world, there is participation. >>> >>> In the breathing forest, in the flowing river, in the wingbeat of a >>> bird, life moves without the burden of guilt. No tree apologizes for >>> growing. No deer carries shame for running. No river regrets its flood or >>> its drought. Life responds, adjusts, renews. It does not stand outside >>> itself to judge itself. >>> >>> Only the human mind steps back and says, “This is the world, and I am >>> separate from it.” >>> >>> This separation is the beginning of fragmentation. >>> >>> Nature does not function as isolated objects interacting mechanically. >>> It unfolds as communion. The soil is not beneath the tree; it is within it. >>> The air is not around the lung; it becomes the lung. The ocean is not >>> separate from the cloud; it rises as the cloud. Each being is a gesture of >>> the whole. Each organism is not merely in nature—it is nature in a >>> particular form. >>> >>> The biosphere breathes as a single, immeasurable body. Every species >>> participates in a living holarchy: wholes within wholes, movements within >>> movements. Nothing exists alone. Nothing is merely an object. >>> >>> When perception is whole, there is no need to conquer, dissect, or >>> dominate. Knowledge arises through intimacy, not distance. Understanding >>> comes through resonance, not control. >>> >>> The Cartesian habit of mind—placing the observer outside the >>> observed—creates the illusion that life can be cut into parts without >>> consequence. It trains us to divide endlessly: matter into particles, >>> knowledge into disciplines, society into competing interests, the self into >>> mind and body. In division without reunion, strength dissolves. >>> >>> But life does not grow by division alone. It grows by participation. The >>> universe expands not as a heap of fragments, but as a deepening >>> interweaving. Stars are born from shared gravity. Ecosystems flourish >>> through reciprocity. Cells cooperate to become bodies. Wholeness is the >>> deeper movement. >>> >>> To educate a child as if they are a limb of Earth would transform >>> learning. Biology would not be about specimens but about kinship. Physics >>> would not be about detached forces but about the dance of relation. >>> Economics would not measure extraction, but circulation. Knowledge would >>> not accumulate as data stored outside the self; it would ripen as >>> sensitivity within the self. >>> >>> When we add the world to ourselves—not by possession but by >>> communion—our identity expands. The more we feel, the more we belong. The >>> more we belong, the less we harm. >>> >>> Technology, when unconscious, can thicken the illusion of separation. A >>> machine may extend the hand, yet numb the sensing of the hand. When tools >>> replace participation rather than deepen it, we lose the subtle >>> conversation between body and world. But tools guided by awareness can also >>> serve life. The question is not machine versus nature; it is whether the >>> machine participates in the rhythm of the whole or accelerates >>> fragmentation. >>> >>> Universities today often sanctify analysis and call it knowledge. Yet >>> analysis without synthesis becomes dismemberment. What if learning began in >>> silence, in forests left untamed, in rivers not engineered? What if >>> students first learned to listen—to wind, to soil, to their own >>> breathing—before they learned to measure? Sensory awakening would precede >>> conceptual abstraction. Meditation would stand beside mathematics. >>> Participation would balance precision. >>> >>> Freedom for nature is not a political slogan. It is a shift in >>> perception. >>> >>> When we cease to stand outside life as judges and engineers, when we >>> dissolve the rigid boundary between observer and observed, guilt loses its >>> grip. The “guilt merchants” thrive where separation reigns—where humans >>> feel alien to the living world and must be morally coerced into >>> responsibility. But when one experiences directly that harming the Earth is >>> self-harm, regulation becomes reverence. Law becomes love. >>> >>> Nature does not require our management as much as it requires our >>> reunion. >>> >>> To free nature is to free perception from fragmentation. >>> To free perception is to remember that we are not spectators of the >>> Earth. >>> We are a movement within it. >>> >>> And in that remembering, exploitation gives way to participation, >>> control gives way to communion, >>> and guilt gives way to belonging. >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> If you would like, I can next: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Deepen this into a spiritual–ecological manifesto >>> - >>> >>> Connect it explicitly to contemporary ecological crises >>> - >>> >>> Or refine it into a publishable journal essay with philosophical >>> references >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "societyforservingseniors" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2BZ1SzXpFjSVuLmb-JyePh-YYCWfbb3h%2BWUZGWAR0ooZw%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2BZ1SzXpFjSVuLmb-JyePh-YYCWfbb3h%2BWUZGWAR0ooZw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> > > -- > *Mar* > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZop1PsC1r%3DNkS%2Bj08fDRKGiyVfT%3DNRVreZY0d3Bkqzze7g%40mail.gmail.com.
