Hypnosis

"Hypnotized" redirects here. For other uses, see Hypnotized (disambiguation).
Hypnosis is a mental state (state theory) or imaginative role-enactment (non-state theory) usually induced by a procedure known as a hypnotic induction, which is commonly composed of a long series of preliminary instructions and suggestions.[1] Hypnotic suggestions may be delivered by a hypnotist in the presence of the subject, or may be self-administered ("self-suggestion" or "autosuggestion"). The use of hypnotism for therapeutic purposes is referred to as "hypnotherapy."
The words 'hypnosis' and 'hypnotism' both derive from the term "neuro-hypnotism" (nervous sleep) coined by the Scottish surgeon James Braid around 1841. Braid based his practice on that developed by Franz Mesmer and his followers ("Mesmerism" or "animal magnetism"), but differed in his theory as to how the procedure worked.
Contrary to a popular misconception - that hypnosis is a form of unconsciousness resembling sleep - contemporary research suggests that it is actually a wakeful state of focused attention[2] and heightened suggestibility,[3] with diminished peripheral awareness.[4] In the first book on the subject, Neurypnology (1843), Braid described "hypnotism" as a state of physical relaxation accompanied and induced by mental concentration ("abstraction")
Skeptics point out the difficulty distinguishing between hypnosis and the placebo effect, proposing that hypnosis is so heavily reliant upon the effects of suggestion and belief that it would be hard to imagine how a credible placebo control could ever be devised for a hypnotism study.
It could be said that hypnotic suggestion is explicitly intended to make use of the placebo effect. For example, in 1994, Irving Kirsch proposed a definition of hypnosis as a "nondeceptive mega-placebo," i. e., a method which openly makes use of suggestion and employs methods to amplify its effects.
The earliest definition of hypnosis was given by Braid, who coined the term "hypnotism" as an abbreviation for "neuro-hypnotism", or nervous sleep, which he opposed to normal sleep, and defined as:
a peculiar condition of the nervous system, induced by a fixed and abstracted attention of the mental and visual eye, on one object, not of an exciting nature.

Braid elaborated upon this brief definition in a later work:
[...] the real origin and essence of the hypnotic condition, is the induction of a habit of abstraction or mental concentration, in which, as in reverie or spontaneous abstraction, the powers of the mind are so much engrossed with a single idea or train of thought, as, for the nonce, to render the individual unconscious of, or indifferently conscious to, all other ideas, impressions, or trains of thought. The hypnotic sleep, therefore, is the very antithesis or opposite mental and physical condition to that which precedes and accompanies common sleep [...]
Braid therefore defined hypnotism as a state of mental concentration which often led to a form of progressive relaxation termed "nervous sleep". Later, in his The Physiology of Fascination (1855), Braid conceded that his original terminology was misleading, and argued that the term "hypnotism" or "nervous sleep" should be reserved for the minority (10%) of subjects who exhibited amnesia, substituting the term "monoideism", meaning concentration upon a single idea, as a description for the more alert state experienced by the others.
Since it can not (or has not) been defined in scientific terms. It can not be subjected to the scientific method for confirming its existence as more than a theory.
A new definition of hypnosis, derived from academic psychology, was provided in 2005, when the Society for Psychological Hypnosis, Division 30 of the American Psychological Association (APA), published the following formal definition:

New Definition: Hypnosis

The Division 30 Definition and Description of Hypnosis
Hypnosis typically involves an introduction to the procedure during which the subject is told that suggestions for imaginative experiences will be presented. The hypnotic induction is an extended initial suggestion for using one's imagination, and may contain further elaborations of the introduction. A hypnotic procedure is used to encourage and evaluate responses to suggestions. When using hypnosis, one person (the subject) is guided by another (the hypnotist) to respond to suggestions for changes in subjective experience, alterations in perception, sensation, emotion, thought or behavior. Persons can also learn self-hypnosis, which is the act of administering hypnotic procedures on one's own. If the subject responds to hypnotic suggestions, it is generally inferred that hypnosis has been induced. Many believe that hypnotic responses and experiences are characteristic of a hypnotic state. While some think that it is not necessary to use the word "hypnosis" as part of the hypnotic induction, others view it as essential.
Details of hypnotic procedures and suggestions will differ depending on the goals of the practitioner and the purposes of the clinical or research endeavor. Procedures traditionally involve suggestions to relax, though relaxation is not necessary for hypnosis and a wide variety of suggestions can be used including those to become more alert. Suggestions that permit the extent of hypnosis to be assessed by comparing responses to standardized scales can be used in both clinical and research settings. While the majority of individuals are responsive to at least some suggestions, scores on standardized scales range from high to negligible. Traditionally, scores are grouped into low, medium, and high categories. As is the case with other positively-scaled measures of psychological constructs such as attention and awareness, the salience of evidence for having achieved hypnosis increases with the individual's score.
Hypnosis is normally preceded by a "hypnotic induction" technique. Traditionally this was interpreted as a method of putting the subject into a "hypnotic trance"; however subsequent "nonstate" theorists have viewed it differently, as a means of heightening client expectation, defining their role, focusing attention, etc. There are an enormous variety of different induction techniques used in hypnotism. However, by far the most influential method was the original "eye-fixation" technique of Braid, also known as "Braidism". Many variations of the eye-fixation approach exist, including the induction used in the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (SHSS), the most widely-used research tool in the field of hypnotism. Braid's original description of his induction is as follows:
James Braid's Original Eye-Fixation Hypnotic Induction Method
Take any bright object (I generally use my lancet case) between the thumb and fore and middle fingers of the left hand; hold it from about eight to fifteen inches from the eyes, at such position above the forehead as may be necessary to produce the greatest possible strain upon the eyes and eyelids, and enable the patient to maintain a steady fixed stare at the object.
The patient must be made to understand that he is to keep the eyes steadily fixed on the object, and the mind riveted on the idea of that one object. It will be observed, that owing to the consensual adjustment of the eyes, the pupils will be at first contracted: they will shortly begin to dilate, and after they have done so to a considerable extent, and have assumed a wavy motion, if the fore and middle fingers of the right hand, extended and a little separated, are carried from the object towards the eyes, most probably the eyelids will close involuntarily, with a vibratory motion. If this is not the case, or the patient allows the eyeballs to move, desire him to begin anew, giving him to understand that he is to allow the eyelids to close when the fingers are again carried towards the eyes, but that the eyeballs must be kept fixed, in the same position, and the mind riveted to the one idea of the object held above the eyes. It will generally be found, that the eyelids close with a vibratory motion, or become spasmodically closed.
Braid himself later acknowledged that the hypnotic induction technique was not necessary in every case and subsequent researchers have generally found that on average it contributes less than previously expected to the effect of hypnotic suggestions (q.v., Barber, Spanos & Chaves, 1974). Many variations and alternatives to the original hypnotic induction techniques were subsequently developed. However, exactly 100 years after Braid introduced the method, another expert could still state: "It can be safely stated that nine out of ten hypnotic techniques call for reclining posture, muscular relaxation, and optical fixation followed by eye closure
When James Braid first described hypnotism, he did not use the term "suggestion" but referred instead to the act of focusing the conscious mind of the subject upon a single dominant idea. Braid's main therapeutic strategy involved stimulating or reducing physiological functioning in different regions of the body. In his later works, however, Braid placed increasing emphasis upon the use of a variety of different verbal and non-verbal forms of suggestion, including the use of "waking suggestion" and self-hypnosis. Subsequently, Hippolyte Bernheim shifted the emphasis from the physical state of hypnosis on to the psychological process of verbal suggestion.

I define hypnotism as the induction of a peculiar psychical [i.e., mental] condition which increases the susceptibility to suggestion. Often, it is true, the [hypnotic] sleep that may be induced facilitates suggestion, but it is not the necessary preliminary. It is suggestion that rules hypnotism. (Hypnosis & Suggestion, 1884: 15)
Bernheim's conception of the primacy of verbal suggestion in hypnotism dominated the subject throughout the twentieth century, leading some authorities to declare him the father of modern hypnotism (Weitzenhoffer, 2000). Contemporary hypnotism makes use of a wide variety of different forms of suggestion including: direct verbal suggestions, "indirect" verbal suggestions such as requests or insinuations, metaphors and other rhetorical figures of speech, and non-verbal suggestion in the form of mental imagery, voice tonality, and physical manipulation. A distinction is commonly made between suggestions delivered "permissively" or in a more "authoritarian" manner. Some hypnotic suggestions are intended to bring about immediate responses, whereas others (post-hypnotic suggestions) are intended to trigger responses after a delay ranging from a few minutes to many years in some reported cases.
Some hypnotists conceive of suggestions as being a form of communication directed primarily to the subject's conscious mind, whereas others view suggestion as a means of communicating with the "unconscious" or "subconscious" mind. These concepts were introduced into hypnotism at the end of 19th century by Sigmund Freud and Pierre Janet. The original Victorian pioneers of hypnotism, including Braid and Bernheim, did not employ these concepts but considered hypnotic suggestions to be addressed to the subject's conscious mind. Indeed, Braid actually defines hypnotism as focused (conscious) attention upon a dominant idea (or suggestion). Different views regarding the nature of the mind have led to different conceptions of suggestion. Hypnotists who believed that responses are mediated primarily by an "unconscious mind", like Milton Erickson, made more use of indirect suggestions, such as metaphors or stories, whose intended meaning may be concealed from the subject's conscious mind. The concept of subliminal suggestion also depends upon this view of the mind. By contrast, hypnotists who believed that responses to suggestion are primarily mediated by the conscious mind, such as Theodore Barber and Nicholas Spanos tended to make more use of direct verbal suggestions and instructions.
The first neuro-psychological theory of hypnotic suggestion was introduced early on by James Braid who adopted his friend and colleague William Carpenter's theory of the ideo-motor reflex response to account for the phenomenon of hypnotism. Carpenter had observed from close examination of everyday experience that under certain circumstances the mere idea of a muscular movement could be sufficient to produce a reflexive, or automatic, contraction or movement of the muscles involved, albeit in a very small degree. Braid extended Carpenter's theory to encompass the observation that a wide variety of bodily responses, other than muscular movement, can be thus affected, e.g., the idea of sucking a lemon can automatically stimulate salivation, a secretory response. Braid therefore adopted the term "ideo-dynamic", meaning "by the power of an idea" to explain a broad range of "psycho-physiological" (mind-body) phenomena. Braid coined the term "mono-ideodynamic" to refer to the theory that hypnotism operates by concentrating attention on a single idea in order to amplify the ideo-dynamic reflex response. Variations of the basic ideo-motor or ideo-dynamic theory of suggestion have continued to hold considerable influence over subsequent theories of hypnosis, including those of Clark L. Hull, Hans Eysenck, and Ernest Rossi. It should be noted that in Victorian psychology, the word "idea" encompasses any mental representation, e.g., including mental imagery, or memories, etc.
It has been alleged post-hypnotic suggestion can be used to change people's behaviour after emerging from hypnosis. One author wrote that "a person can act, some time later, on a suggestion seeded during the hypnotic session". A hypnotherapist told one of his patients, who was also a friend: 'When I touch you on the finger you will immediately be hypnotised.' Fourteen years later, at a dinner party, he touched him deliberately on the finger and his head fell back against the chair
Braid made a rough distinction between different stages of hypnosis which he termed the first and second conscious stage of hypnotism;[citation needed] he later replaced this with a distinction between "sub-hypnotic", "full hypnotic", and "hypnotic coma" stages.[citation needed] Jean-Martin Charcot made a similar distinction between stages named somnambulism, lethargy, and catalepsy. However, Ambroise-Auguste Liébeault and Bernheim introduced more complex hypnotic "depth" scales, based on a combination of behavioural, physiological and subjective responses, some of which were due to direct suggestion and some of which were not. In the first few decades of the 20th century, these early clinical "depth" scales were superseded by more sophisticated "hypnotic susceptibility" scales based on experimental research. The most influential were the Davis-Husband and Friedlander-Sarbin scales developed in the 1930s. Andre Weitzenhoffer and Ernest R. Hilgard developed the Stanford Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility in 1959, consisting of 12 suggestion test items following a standardised hypnotic eye-fixation induction script, and this has become one of the most widely-referenced research tools in the field of hypnosis. Soon after, in 1962, Ronald Shor and Emily Carota Orne developed a similar group scale called the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (HGSHS).

Whereas the older "depth scales" tried to infer the level of "hypnotic trance" based upon supposed observable signs, such as spontaneous amnesia, most subsequent scales measure the degree of observed or self-evaluated responsiveness to specific suggestion tests, such as direct suggestions of arm rigidity (catalepsy). The Stanford, Harvard, HIP, and most other susceptibility scales convert numbers into an assessment of a person's susceptibility as 'high', 'medium', or 'low'. Approximately 80% of the population are medium, 10% are high and 10% are low. There is some controversy as to whether this is distributed on a “normal” bell-shaped curve or whether it is bi-modal with a small “blip” of people at the high end.[15] Hypnotizability Scores are highly stable over a person’s lifetime. Research by Deirdre Barrett has found that there are two distinct types of highly susceptible subjects which she terms fantasizers and dissociaters. Fantasizers score high on absorption scales, find it easy to block out real-world stimuli without hypnosis, spend much time daydreaming, report imaginary companions as a child and grew up with parents who encouraged imaginary play. Dissociaters often have a history of childhood abuse or other trauma, learned to escape into numbness, and to forget unpleasant events. Their association to “daydreaming” was often going blank rather than vividly recalled fantasies. Both score equally high on formal scales of hypnotic susceptibility.

Stanford prison experiment

The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of over 75 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned at random. They adapted to their roles well beyond that expected, leading the guards to display to authoritarian and even draconian measures. Two of the prisoners were upset enough by the process to quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. The experimental process and the results remain controversial. The entire experiment was filmed, with excerpts soon made publicly available, leaving some disturbed by the resulting film. Over 30 years later, Zimbardo found renewed interest in the experiment when the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal occurred.
Zimbardo and his team set out to test the idea that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards were summarily key to understanding abusive prison situations. Participants were recruited and told they would participate in a two-week prison simulation. Of the 75+ respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected the 21 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy. These participants were predominantly white and middle-class.

The "prison" itself was in the basement of Stanford's Jordan Hall, which had been converted into a mock jail. An undergraduate research assistant was the "warden" and Zimbardo the "superintendent". Zimbardo set up a number of specific conditions on the participants which he hoped would promote disorientation, depersonalisation and deindividualisation.

The researchers provided weapons—wooden batons which could not be used to punish the prisoners, meant only to establish their status -- and clothing that simulated that of a prison guard—khaki shirt and pants from a local military surplus store. They were also given mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact.

Prisoners wore ill-fitting smocks and stocking caps, rendering them constantly uncomfortable. Guards called prisoners by their assigned numbers, sewn on their uniforms, instead of by name. A chain around their ankles reminded them of their roles as prisoners.

The researchers held an orientation session for guards the day before the experiment, during which they were told that they could not physically harm the prisoners. In The Stanford Prison Study video, quoted in Haslam & Reicher, 2003, Zimbardo is seen telling the guards, "You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy... We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none."

The participants chosen to play the part of prisoners were arrested at their homes and charged with armed robbery. The local Palo Alto police department assisted Zimbardo with the arrests and conducted full booking procedures on the prisoners, which included fingerprinting and taking mug shots. At the police station, they were transported to the mock prison where they were strip-searched and given their new identities.
The experiment quickly grew out of hand. Prisoners suffered — and accepted — sadistic and humiliating treatment from the guards. The high level of stress progressively led them from rebellion to inhibition. By the experiment's end, many showed severe emotional disturbances.

After a relatively uneventful first day, a riot broke out on the second day. The guards volunteered to work extra hours and worked together to break the prisoner revolt, attacking the prisoners with fire extinguishers without supervision from the research staff.

After only 36 hours, one prisoner began to act "crazy", Philip Zimbardo says; "#8612 then began to act crazy, to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him."

A false rumor spread that #8612, who was now out of the experiment, would lead companions to free the rest of the prisoners. The guards dismantled the prison and moved the inmates to another secure location. When no breakout attempt occurred, the guards were angry about having to rebuild the prison, so they took it out on the prisoners.

Guards forced the prisoners to count off repeatedly as a way to learn their prison numbers, and to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts as another method to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, made worse by the guards refusing to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate. As punishment, the guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket. Mattresses were a valued item in the spartan prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to go nude as a method of degradation, and some were subjected to sexual humiliation, including simulated sodomy.

Zimbardo cited his own absorption in the experiment he guided, and in which he actively participated as Prison Superintendent. On the fourth day, some prisoners were talking about trying to escape. Zimbardo and the guards attempted to move the prisoners to the more secure local police station, but officials there said they could no longer participate in Zimbardo's experiment.

Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experiment continued. Experimenters said that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded early.

Zimbardo argued that the prisoner participants had internalized their roles, based on the fact that some had stated that they would accept parole even with the attached condition of forfeiting all of their experiment-participation pay. Yet, when their parole applications were all denied, none of the prisoner participants quit the experiment. Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalized the prisoner identity, they thought themselves prisoners, hence, they stayed.

Prisoner No. 416, a newly admitted stand-by prisoner, expressed concern over the treatment of the other prisoners. The guards responded with more abuse. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him in a closet and called it solitary confinement.[2] The guards used this incident to turn the other prisoners against No. 416, saying the only way he would be released from solitary confinement was if they gave up their blankets and slept on their bare mattresses, which all but one refused to do.

Zimbardo concluded the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student he was then dating (and later married), objected to the appalling conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that of more than fifty outside persons who had seen the prison, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the Stanford Prison experiment was shut down.
The Stanford experiment ended on August 20, 1971, only six days after it began instead of the fourteen it was supposed to have lasted. That day, Zimbardo called both the guards and inmates to a meeting and announced that the 'prison' was closing down. The experiment's result has been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. It is also used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.

The results of the experiment are said to support situational attribution of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. In other words, it seemed the situation caused the participants' behavior, rather than anything inherent in their individual personalities. In this way, it is compatible with the results of the also-famous Milgram experiment, in which ordinary people fulfilled orders to administer what appeared to be damaging electric shocks to a confederate of the experimenter.

Shortly after the study had been completed, there were bloody revolts at both the San Quentin and Attica prison facilities, and Zimbardo reported his findings on the experiment to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary
The guards and prisoners adapted to their roles further than expected, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine sadistic tendencies", while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized (two of whom had to be removed from the experiment early). After being confronted by Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating,[4] and realizing that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to be performed under his direct supervision, Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become too grossly absorbed in their roles and terminated the experiment after six days.[5] Ethical concerns surrounding the famous experiment often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former college friend. Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr wrote in 1981 that the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.

The experiment was widely criticized as being unethical and unscientific. Current ethical standards of psychology would not permit such a study to be conducted today. The study would violate the Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Code of Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and the Belmont Report. Critics including Erich Fromm challenged how readily the results of the experiment could be generalized. Fromm specifically writes about how the personality of an individual does in fact affect behavior when imprisoned (using historical examples from the Nazi concentration camps). This runs counter to the study's conclusion that the prison situation itself controls the individual's behavior. Fromm also argues that the amount of sadism in the "normal" subjects could not be determined with the methods employed to screen them.

Because it was a field experiment, it was impossible to keep traditional scientific controls. Dr. Zimbardo was not merely a neutral observer, but influenced the direction of the experiment as its "superintendent". Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were largely subjective and anecdotal, and the experiment would be difficult for other researchers to reproduce.

Some of the experiment's critics argued that participants based their behavior on how they were expected to behave, or modelled it after stereotypes they already had about the behavior of prisoners and guards. In other words, the participants were merely engaging in role-playing. In response, Zimbardo claimed that even if there was role-playing initially, participants internalized these roles as the experiment continued.

More directly, though, it has been pointed out that, in contrast to Zimbardo's claim that participants were given no instructions about how to behave, his briefing of the guards gave them a clear sense that they should oppress the prisoners. In this sense the study was an exploration of the effects of tyrannical leadership. In line with this, certain guards, such as John Wayne, changed their behavior because of wanting to conform to the behavior that Zimbardo was trying to elicit.

Additionally, the study has been criticized on the basis of ecological validity. Many of the conditions imposed in the experiment were arbitrary and may not have correlated with actual prison conditions, including blindfolding incoming prisoners, not allowing them to wear underwear, not allowing them to look out of windows and not allowing them to use their names. Zimbardo argued that prison is a confusing and dehumanizing experience and that it was necessary to enact these procedures to put the prisoners in the proper frame of mind; however, it is difficult to know how similar the effects were to an actual prison, and the experiment's methods would be difficult to reproduce exactly so that others could test them.

Some said that the study was too deterministic: reports described significant differences in the cruelty of the guards, the worst of whom came to be nicknamed John Wayne. (This guard alleges he started the escalation of events between guards and prisoners after he began to emulate a character from the Paul Newman film Cool Hand Luke. He further intensified his actions because he was nicknamed John Wayne though he was trying to mimic actor Strother Martin who played the role of the sadistic Captain in the movie.[7]) Most of the other guards were kinder and often did favors for prisoners. Zimbardo made no attempt to explain or account for these differences.

Also, it has been argued that selection bias may have played a role in the results. Researchers from Western Kentucky University recruited students for a study using an advertisement similar to the one used in the Stanford Prison Experiment, with and without the words "prison life." It was found that students volunteering for a prison life study possessed dispositions toward abusive behavior.
When the Abu Ghraib military prisoner torture and abuse scandal was published in March 2004, many observers immediately were struck by its similarities to the Stanford Prison experiment — among them, Philip Zimbardo, who paid close attention to the details of the story. He was dismayed by official military and government efforts shifting the blame for the torture and abuses in the Abu Ghraib American military prison on to "a few bad apples" rather than acknowledging it as possibly systemic problems of a formally established military incarceration system.

Eventually, Zimbardo became involved with the defense team of lawyers representing Abu Ghraib prison guard Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick. He had full access to all investigation and background reports, testifying as an expert witness in SSG Frederick's court martial, which resulted in an eight-year prison sentence for Frederick in October 2004.

Zimbardo drew on the knowledge he gained from participating in the Frederick case to write The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (Random House, 2007), dealing with the striking similarities between the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Abu Ghraib abuses.

the milgram experiment

A simple procedure is devised for studying obedience. A person comes to the laboratory and, in the context of a learning experiment, is told to give increasingly severe shocks to another person (who is actually an actor). The purpose of the experiment is to see how far a subject will proceed before refusing to comply with the experimenter’s instructions. Twenty-six of 40 subjects administered the highest shocks on the generator.
This study is often described as an experiment. However as there is no control condition (i.e. all of the participants took place in the same experimental procedure) it is not strictly speaking an experiment. The independent variable could be considered to be the prods provided by the experimenter for the participant to carry on, and the dependent variable could be considered to be the degree of obedience. That is, how far up the shock scale the participant went.
It is perhaps more accurate to describe the method used as a type of controlled observation. The study collected both quantitative data in the way that it measured the amount of volts given and qualitative data in the way that Milgram observed the participants emotional responses and interviewed the participants after the study.
40 males aged between 20 and 50 years of age, were recruited from the New Haven area. They were obtained by responding to a newspaper and direct mail advertisement which asked for volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. The participants represented a wide range of occupations, including postal clerks, high-school teachers, salesmen, engineers and labourers. They were paid $4.50 for their participation in the experiment but importantly they were told that the payment was simply for coming to the laboratory, regardless of what happened after they arrived.
To improve the authenticity of the phoney shock generator written labels were also clearly indicated for groups of four switches: ‘slight shock’, ‘moderate shock’, ‘strong shock’, ‘very strong shock’, ‘intense shock’, ‘extreme intensity shock’, ‘danger: severe shock’. Two switches after this were marked XXX).

The experiment took place in a smart psychology laboratory in Yale University.

The role of experimenter was played by a 31-year-old biology teacher, who introduced himself as Jack Williams. He wore a grey technician’s coat and appeared stern and emotionless throughout the experiment.
The victim was played by Mr Wallace, a 47-year-old accountant, trained for the role, whom most observers found mild-mannered and likeable.
One participant and one victim (a confederate) were used in each trial. In order to justify the administration of the electric shocks by the participant a cover story was used. After a general introduction about the relation between punishment and learning the participants were told:
The participant was asked to draw a slip of paper from a hat to determine which role he would play. The draw was rigged so the participant was always the teacher and Mr. Wallace (the confederate) was always the learner.
The teacher (participant) and learner were taken to an adjacent room and in full view of the teacher (participant) the learner was strapped into the ‘electric chair’. The experimenter explained to the teacher (participant) that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner was being shocked; the effect was to make it impossible for him to escape the situation. An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist and electrode paste (cream) was applied ‘to avoid blisters and burns’. The participant (teacher) was told that the electrode was attached to the shock generator in the adjoining room. The participant (teacher) then heard the experimenter tell the learner ‘although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage’.
To further enhance the authenticity of the generator the participant (teacher) was given a sample shock of 45 volts, applied by pressing the third switch. The shock generator was actually powered by a 45-volt battery and not wired to the mains.
The participant (teacher) was then seated in an adjacent room in front of the shock generator and asked to read a series of word pairs to the learner. The learner was asked to learn (memorise) these pairs (this is known as ‘paired-association learning’). The participant (teacher) then tests the learner by giving him one of the words in a pair along with four other words. The learner has to indicate which of the four words had originally been paired with the first word. The learner’s answer was communicated by pressing one of four switches which illuminated a light on top of the shock generator. If the answer was correct the participant (teacher) had to move onto the next word on the list, if the answer was wrong the participant had to tell the learner the correct answer and then the level of punishment that they were going to give them. They would then press the first switch on the shock generator (15 volts). For every subsequent incorrect answer the participant was required to move one switch up the scale of shocks (15 volts higher than the voltage of the last shock delivered).
In all conditions the learner gives a predetermined set of responses to the word pair test, based on a schedule of approximately three wrong answers to one correct answer.
In this very first experiment, the procedure continued as the ‘remote victim’ experiment, whereby no vocal response or other sign of protest was heard from the learner until the shock level of 300 volts was reached. At this point the learner (Mr Wallace) pounded on the wall of the room and could be heard by the participant (teacher). From this point on, the learner’s answers no longer appeared on the panel, and many participants usually began to turn to the experimenter for guidance. The participant (teacher) was instructed to treat the absence of a response as a wrong answer and to shock the learner according to the usual schedule, allowing 5 to 10 seconds before considering no response as a wrong answer. The pounding on the wall was repeated after the 315 volt shock but subsequently the learner was not heard from, and his answers did not reappear on the panel.
If the participant asked advice from the experimenter, whether it be; ‘should I continue administering shocks’, or some other indication that he did not wish to go on, he would be given encouragement to continue with a sequence of standardised ‘prods’:

Prod 1: ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’;

Prod 2: ‘The experiment requires that you continue’;

Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’;

Prod 4: ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’.

The prods were always made in sequence. Only if Prod 1 was unsuccessful could Prod 2 be used, etc. If the participant continued to disobey after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated. The experimenter’s tone of voice was always firm, but not impolite.
If the participant asked if the learner could suffer permanent physical injury, a special prod was used; ‘although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on’, followed by Prods 2, 3 and 4 if necessary. If the participant said that the learner did not want to go on, another special prod was used; ‘whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on’, followed by Prods 2, 3 and 4 if necessary. The experiment would end either when the 450 volt shock had been administered, or when the participant walked out.
A participant who breaks off at any point prior to the highest shock level (450 volts) is called adefiant participant, while one who obeys up to the 450 volts is called an obedientparticipant.
The sessions were also filmed and notes were taken by observers looking through an observation mirror. The latency and duration of shocks were timed.
After the experiment, the participants were thoroughly debriefed using open-ended questions and to test that the participants were not harmed a number of psychometric measures (projective tests and attitude scales) were used.
The participant was also reunited with the victim to show them that the victim was not harmed and it was explained to them that there behaviour was normal. These measures were taken to ensure that the participants left that laboratory in a state of well being
All 40 of the participants obeyed up to 300 volts at which point 5 refused to continue. Four more gave one further shock before refusing; two broke off at the 330 volts level and one each at 345, 360 and 375 volts. Therefore, a total of 14 participants defied the experimenter, and 26 obeyed. Overall, 65% of the participants gave shocks up to 450 volts (obeyed) and 35% stopped sometime before 450 volts;
After the maximum shock had been administered, the participant was asked to continue at this level until the experimenter eventually called a halt to the proceedings, at which point many of the obedient participants heaved sighs of relief or shook their heads in apparent regret."

المقامة الثالثة ـ الدينارية ـ

قالَ الحارث : ضَمَّني وبعض الأصدقاء ِمجلسٌ تَذاكَرنا فيه الشِعرَ والشعراء، وبينما نحن في هذه الأحاديث إذ طَلَعَ علينا شخصٌ أعرج وعليه اَثوابٌ ممزَقَة، ثُمَّ حيَّا بلفظٍ جميلٍ في أسلوبٍ مشرقٍ، ولم نكد نأنس إليه ونستريح لحديثه حتى شكا الزمانَ وسوءَ الأيام وما يعانيه أولاده من فقرٍ وحِرمان، فأخرجتُ له من جيبي ديناراً وقلتُ له : إذا مَدَحْتَ هذا الدينار شِعراً فهو لك، فروَّى قليلاً، ثم أنشدني شعراً جميلاً اَستحقَ به الدينار بِقَوله
جوَّاب آفاق ترامت سَفْرَته

أكرم به أصفر راقت صُفرته
قد أودعت سر الغنى اَسِرَّتِهِ

مأثورةٌ سمعته وشهرته
كم آمرٍ به اِستتبت إِمرته

وحبذا مَغْناته ونصرته
لولا التُّقى لَقُلتُ جَلَّت قدرتهِ
فأخرجتُ له آخرَ وقُلت : إن ذممته شعراً فهو لك أيضاً، ولم يَكُن في ذَمِّهِ أقل جودةً من شعره حين قال :
أصفرَ ذي وجهينِ كالمنافق

تَبَّاً له من خادعٍ ممازقٍ
يدعو إلى اِرتكابَ سُخطَ الخالق

وحُبُّه عندَ ذوي الحقائق
ولا بَدَت مَظْلَمة من فاسق

لولاه لم تُقطعْ يمينُ سارق
ومَنْ إذا ناجاه نجوى الوامق

واهاً لِمَن يقذِفه من حالق
لا أرى في وصلكَ لي ففارق

قال له قَوْلَ المُحِقِ الصادق
قال الحارث : ولما وجدتُ منه هذا الاِقتدار واِمتلاكه لناصية البيانِ، حدثتني نفسي أنه أبو زيدٍ وأن عرجه لكبير، فَعَرَّفتهُ بِنَفسي، فقال : إن كنت الحارث بن همام فأنا أبو زيد بلا كلام، فسألته عن سِرِّ عَرَجِهِ وتنكرِ خِلقَتِهِ، فقال
ولكن لأقرَعَ باب الفَرَج

تَعارَجْتُ لا رغبهً في العرجْ
فليس على أَعرجٍ من حَرَج

فإن لامني القومُ قُلتُ اعذروا
+++

L'épopée d'Adapa

Adapa, est un mortel d'ascendance divine, l'immortalité lui échappe de peu mais il reçoit une compensation - en l'occurrence, il devient le plus sage des hommes.
Adapa est un prêtre d'Ea dans son temple, à Eridou. Chaque jour, Adapa accomplit les rites : il cuit le pain, dresse les tables d'offrandes, puis, étant le pêcheur du temple, part pêcher en barque.

Un jour, sa routine consacrée est interrompue par le Vent du Sud qui a failli le faire couler, avec sa barque, jusqu'au fond de l'eau, là où se trouve la résidence des poissons. Adapa interroge le Vent du Sud et menace de lui briser l'aile ; mais, dès qu'il prononce sa mence, l'aile du Vente du Sud se brise.

Ensuite, pendant sept jours, le Vent du Sud ne souffle pas vers la terre.
Anou le remarque et en demande la raison à son vizir Ilabrat. Ce dernier lui répond qu'Adapa a brisé l'aile du Vent du Sud. Anou fait alors venir Adapa. Mais, avant qu'il ne se mette en route, (Ea) le conseille de s'habiller en habits de deuil, et l'avertit qu'en présence d'Anou, il ne faut pas qu'il mange du pain de mort, et il ne faut pas qu'il boit l'eau de mort qu'Anou va lui offrir.

Adapa monte au ciel et arrive devant l'entrée de la résidence d'Anou, là où se trouvent les deux dieux gardiens, Tammuz et Gizzida. Les deux dieux, s'étonnent des vêtements de deuil qu'Adapa a mis sur lui, alors ils lui demandent pourquoi? il répond que c'est par tristesse suite à l'absence de deux dieux dans son pays ; les deux dieux, lui demande de citer les noms de ces dieux absents, Adapa, répond, qu'il s'agit de Tammuz et Gizzida. Avec cette réponse il a effectivement réussi à garntir leur soutien, et leur sympathie.

Adpa arrive devant Anou et lui explique ce qui s'est passé :
Mon seigneur, je pêchais du poisson au milieu de la mer pour la maison de mon seigneur (Ea). Mais il souleva la mer en une tempête, Puis le Vent du Sud souffla et me fit couler ! Je fus forcé de demeurer chez les poissons, Dans ma fureur, je maudis Vent du Sud.
Tammuz et Gizzida, les deux gardiens du seuil des dieux, parlent à Anou en faveur d'Adapa. Apaisé par leurs paroles, Anou ordonne de servir à Adapa nourriture et boisson

Ils lui apportent le pain de vie éternelle, mais il ne veut point manger ;
Ils lui apportent l'eau de vie éternelle, mais il ne veut point boire.

Anou fait comprendre à Adapa, qu'en se rappelant les instructions d'Ea de rejeter le pain et l'eau, il a perdu d'immortalité, et il a apporté à l'humanité toute entière les maladies ; alors il ne reste pour l'humanité que la déesse (Ninkrak) (la déesse de la guérison) pour soulager la douleur et lutter contre certaines de ces maladies.

NEVROZA

Termen utilizat pentru prima data de catre Raymond Vieussens (inceputul secolului al XVIII-lea) pentru a desemna orice tulburare legata de creier.
In 1776, W. Cullen cuprande in acest termen toate afectiunile nervoase si psihice fara substrat anatomopatologic. In acceptiunea actuala nevroza reprezinta un grup de reactii si dezvoltari patologice, determinate psihogen si exprimate clinic printr-un complex de tulburari, cu sau fara rasunet somatic, care este trait in mod constient si penibil de catre individul bolnav.
Nevroza constituie astfel varietatea cea mai raspindita si de obicei cea mai polimorfa de psihogenii, caracterizata prin prezenta subiectiva a bolnavului la boala, prin participarea autoanalitica si critica a bolnavului la intelegerea bolii, ea desfasurandu-se totdeauna pe un fond de luciditate.
Nevroticul este in chip definitoriu un suferand care-si comenteaza si isi asuma suferinta printr-o atitudine participativa.
Tulburarile nevrotice sunt mai putin marcate, regresia este mai putin profunda decat in psihoze, psihicul organizindu-se la un nivel foarte apropiat de cel normal.
Pierre Janet defineste nevroza ca o boala psihica caracterizata prin conflicte intrapsihice, care sunt de natura sa inhibe conduitele sociale, generand intotdeauna o stare de anxietate. Ele perturba mai mult echilibrul interior al persoanei decat ii altereaza sistemul relatiilor cu realitatea. Din acest punct de vedere nevroza este considerata ca o boala mentala minora, in sensul ca destructureaza mai putin personalitatea bolnavului decat psihozele.
Din definitia data de Pichot, se pot desprande trei caracteristici esentiale ale nevrozei:
* tulburarile nevrotice de comportament sint, in general, minore
* bolnavul pastreaza constiinta caracterului morbid al tulburarii sale;
* tulburarile sunt psihologic comprehensibile, deci se poate stabili o legatura inteligibila intre ceea ce a fost bolnavul anterior, circumstantele vietii lui premorbide si tabloul morbid actual.
Tabloul clinic al nevrozei cuprande instabilitate psiho-motorie, iritabilitate, intoleranta, astenie nevrotica, tulburari ale somnului, tulburari functionale nevrotice (criticuri, balbisme etc), care se insereaza pe un fond de anxietate generalizata, in urma convertirii, disimularii si complicarii agresivitatii inconstiente.

SUPRAEU (SUPER-EGO)

In teoria lui S. Freud, a treia instanta a personalitatii, care constituie expresia existentei individului in mediul social; el este purtatorul normelor etico-morale, a regulilor de convietuire socialei.
Freud vede in constiinta morala autoobservarea si formarea idealurilor, functii ale supraeului.
Supraeul este achizitia recenta si relativ fragila a individului, dezvoltata in conformitate cu normele si nivelul sociocultural al comunitatii din care face parte. El isi are originea in Id (sinele) si se dezvolta in interrelatia ocazionata de experientele eului (egoului), in cadrul personalitatii.
Prin rolul si statutul sau, supraeul cauta sa refuleze impulsurile Id-ului, mai ales cand acestea sunt de natura instinctivo-afectiva sau agresiva. De asemenea, supraeul obliga eul la substitutia scopurilor realiste, moraliste si il impinge la lupta spre perfectiune si sublim.
Supraeul reprezinta deci in primul rand instanta verificatoare, cenzuranta a personalitatii.
Nascut din inconstient, supraeul, ca si eul, constituie un triumf al elementului constient, element care devine cu atat mai manifest, cu cat omul este mai matur, mai elevat sub aspect social.

REFULARE

Termen folosit de psihologia freudista pentru a denumi procesul efectuat de subconstient, prin care anumite imagini, idei, tendinte sau dorinte neplacute pentru subiect sau care contravin normelor morale, sunt indepartate din constiinta, respinse din sfera proceselor constiente

Tendintele refulate nu se sedimenteaza in inconstient ci au un caracter dinamic, cauta sa patrunda, sa revina din nou in constiinta. Apare astfel un conflict subteran, permanent, inconstient intre tendintele refulate si constiinta morala care le reprima.

Tendintele refulate se strecoara totusi in constiinta, insa intr-o forma deghizata, simbolica prin sublimare, acte ratate, lapsusuri si vise. Subiectul normal rezista presiunilor exercitate de tendintele refulate fara a-si pierde echilibrul psihic. Nevroticii cad victima conflictului aratat si devin incapabili de actiune.

Refularea - concept de baza in psihanaliza

Psihanaliza
Refularea in psihanaliza este un concept cheie. Dar ce inseamna el? Toata lumea il foloseste, mai mult ori mai putin corect.
Cateva explicatii:
Refularea este cel mai vechi (Freud il mentioneaza inca din 1895), cel mai important si cel mai cunoscut in psihanaliza, intrucat este si cel mai des utilizat concept. Si o data cu el s-a nascut si conceptul de inconstient. Poate fi definit ca un proces psihic ce are misiunea de a pastra in afara constiintei reprezentarile inacceptabile , dat fiind ca sunt interzise de catre Supraeu.
Refularea reprezentarilor pulsionale , in acelasi timp dorite si de nedorite, are loc printr-un joc de dezinvestire a libidoului si de reinvestire (sau „contra-investire”) a energiei in alte reprezentari autorizate. Esecul sau imperfectiunea respectivului mecanism se manifesta prin simptome precum: conversii somatice, lapsusuri, acte ratate, angoase fobice...
Refularea este mecanismul de baza al nevrozei isterice, insa si in viata de toate zilele este folosit intr-o mica masura de catre orice „nevrozat normal”, adica de majoritatea indivizilor. Refularea apare si la nevrozatii obsedati, insa la acestia actioneaz a mai mult asupra afectului decat asupra reprezentarii, folosind mecanisme complementare, cum ar fi izolarea, formatia reactionala, deplasarea, represia si condamnarea.
Izolarea consta in separarea reprezentarii stanjenitoare de legaturile libidinale si afective. Asadar, reprezentarea poate subzista intr-un afect indepartat sau deviat, precum in cazul umorului, cinismului si zeflemelii, dar si al represiei, condamnarii sau intelectualizarii. Formatia reactionala decurge din inversarea dintre afecte si reprezentari: de exemplu, atractia pentru analitate si „mizerii” este transformata intr-o dorinta aproape compulsiva de curatenie; atractia pentru dezordine se schimba intr-o preocupare exemplara pentru ordine; agresivitatea este inlocuita prin comportamente excesiv de afabile sau politicoase etc.
Deplasarea este o reorientare a afectelor si dorintelor spre alte obiecte substituibile. In sfarsit, in domeniul mai arhaic (care serveste mai clar pentru aparare decat pentru adaptare), au fost descrise trei mecanisme:
- Proiectia, care transforma pericolul interior in pericol exterior. In caz extrem, se extinde la trairile de persecutie paranoica. Universul devine populat cu dusmani rauvoitori si periculosi, iar subiectul isi traieste relatiile ca o modalitate de persecutie;
- Clivajul , prin care obiectele de investire sunt impartite in „bune” si „rele”, printr-un mecanism de proiectie a Eului, care, de asemenea, este scindat in doua atitudini simultane si contradictorii. Clivajul respectiv permite ca realitatea sa fie perceputa si sa se actioneze ca si cum ar fi una diferita, ba chiar ca si cum nu ar exista.
- Se asociaza cu negarea, care face parte din categoria mecanismelor delirante.

Dupa aceasta scurta si schematica prezentare a catorva dintre mecanismele de aparare descrise de psihanalisti, trebuie remarcate doua aspecte:

* Primul este ca, si repetam acest lucru, mecanismele respective nu implica neaparat patologicul. Servesc la adaptare si sunt in mod normal folosite in viata cotidiana, care fara ele ar fi imposibila sau prea angoasanta. Patologicul apare atunci cand, din cauza rigiditatii si a predominantei lor, constituie o piedica pentru gandire si actiune: in loc sa simplifice modalitatile de adaptare cotidiene, le complica si la randul lor produc suferinta subiectului.

* In al doilea rand, trebuie mentionat ca nu se refera decat la stapanirea afectelor nedorite si sunt folosite mai ales pentru a evita angoasa. Protejeaza Eul impotriva reprezentarilor anxiogene, care sunt neplacute din punctul de vedere al narcisismului. In viata cotidiana insa, problema se pune pentru toate afectele, pozitive sau negative, dorite sau nedorite. Societatea cere ca toate afectele sa fie bine temperate, si nu numai afectele „nevrotice”. Rezultatele studiului european deja mentionat aduc completari interesante in aceasta privinta.

Goliciune

Cu pas domol si suflet gol
Pasii cu aripile frante...
Catand cararea cu ocol
Spre drumul pietruit de munte.

Povara visului pierdut
L-am cautat pe-ngusta cale
Cand l-am zarit,a disparut...
Iar eu eram din nou in vale..

Si-am tot urcat spre visul meu,
Cu talpile insangerate...
Cu umerii plecati spre hau-
Cu priviri reci..indepartate.

Tot pasind printre suspine,
Plangandu-mi plansu-nabusit
Simt ca sufletu-mi ramane-
Asa trist,.. si gol... si prabusit....

mioara.16 martie 2010

''Café Kasbah''- o cafenea-muzeu

''Café Kasbah''- o cafenea-muzeu

Lara Fabian - Mistral Gagnant

A m'asseoir sur un banc cinq minutes avec toi
Et regarder les gens tant qu'y en a
Te parler du bon temps qu'est mort ou qui r'viendra
En serrant dans ma main tes p'tits doigts
Pis donner à bouffer à des pigeons idiots
Leur filer des coups d' pieds pour de faux
Et entendre ton rire qui lézarde les murs
Qui sait surtout guérir mes blessures
Te raconter un peu comment j'étais, mino
Les bonbecs fabuleux qu'on piquait chez l' marchand
Car en sac et Mintho, caramels à un franc
Et les Mistral gagnants

A marcher sous la pluie cinq minutes avec toi
Et regarder la vie tant qu'y en a
Te raconter la Terre en te bouffant des yeux
Te parler de ta mère un p'tit peu
Pis sauter dans les flaques pour la faire râler
Bousiller nos godasses et s' marrer
Et entendre ton rire comme on entend la mer
S'arrêter, repartir en arrière
Te raconter surtout les carambars d'antan et les coco-boërs
Et les vrais roudoudous qui nous coupaient les lèvres
Et nous niquaient les dents
Et les Mistral gagnants

A m'asseoir sur un banc cinq minutes avec toi
Et regarder l' soleil qui s'en va
Te parler du bon temps qu'est mort et pis je m'en fou
Te dire que les méchants c'est pas nous
Que si moi je suis barge, ce n'est que de tes yeux
Car ils ont l'avantage d'être deux
Et entendre ton rire s'envoler aussi haut
Que s'envolent les cris des oiseaux
Te raconter enfin qu'il faut aimer la vie
Et l'aimer même si le temps est assassin
Et emporte avec lui le rire des enfants
Et les Mistral gagnants
Les Mistral gagnants

Ahimsa ( nonviolence, nonharming ) by Swami Shivananda

In the regeneration and divinisation of man, the first step is to eliminate his beastly nature. The predominant trait in beasts is cruelty. Therefore, wise sages prescribe Ahimsa (non-injury). This is the most effective master-method to counteract and eradicate completely the brutal, cruel Pasu-Svabhava (bestial nature) in man.

Practice of Ahimsa develops love. Ahimsa is another name for truth or love. Ahimsa is universal love. It is pure love. It is divine Prem. Where there is love, there you will find Ahimsa. Where there is Ahimsa, there you will find love and selfless service. They all go together.

The one message of all saints and prophets of all times and climes, is the message of love, of Ahimsa, of selfless service. Ahimsa is the noblest and best of traits that are found expressed in the daily life and activities of perfected souls. Ahimsa is the one means, not only to attain Salvation, but also to enjoy uninterrupted peace and bliss. Man attains peace by injuring no living creature.

There is one religion - the religion of love, of peace. There is one message, the message of Ahimsa. Ahimsa is a supreme duty of man.

Ahimsa, or refraining from causing pain to any living creature, is a distinctive quality emphasized by Indian ethics. Ahimsa or non-violence has been the central doctrine of Indian culture from the earliest days of its history. Ahimsa is a great spiritual force.

MEANING OF AHIMSA

Ahimsa or non-injury, of course, implies non-killing. But, non-injury is not merely non-killing. In its comprehensive meaning, Ahimsa or non-injury means entire abstinence from causing any pain or harm whatsoever to any living creature, either by thought, word, or deed. Non-injury requires a harmless mind, mouth, and hand.

Ahimsa is not mere negative non-injury. It is positive, cosmic love. It is the development of a mental attitude in which hatred is replaced by love. Ahimsa is true sacrifice. Ahimsa is forgiveness. Ahimsa is Sakti (power). Ahimsa is true strength.

SUBTLE FORMS OF HIMSA

Only the ordinary people think that Ahimsa is not to hurt any living being physically. This is but the gross form of Ahimsa. The vow of Ahimsa is broken even by showing contempt towards another man, by entertaining unreasonable dislike for or prejudice towards anybody, by frowning at another man, by hating another man, by abusing another man, by speaking ill of others, by backbiting or vilifying, by harbouring thoughts of hatred, by uttering lies, or by ruining another man in any way whatsoever.

All harsh and rude speech is Himsa (violence or injury). Using harsh words to beggars, servants or inferiors is Himsa. Wounding the feelings of others by gesture, expression, tone of voice and unkind words is also Himsa. Slighting or showing deliberate discourtesy to a person before others is wanton Himsa. To approve of another's harsh actions is indirect Himsa. To fail to relieve another's pain, or even to neglect to go to the person in distress is a sort of Himsa. It is the sin of omission. Avoid strictly all forms of harshness, direct or indirect, positive or negative, immediate or delayed. Practice Ahimsa in its purest form and become divine. Ahimsa and Divinity are one.

AHIMSA, A QUALITY OF THE STRONG

If you practice Ahimsa, you should put up with insults, rebukes, criticisms and assaults also. You should never retaliate nor wish to offend anybody even under extreme provocation. You should not entertain any evil thought against anybody. You should not harbour anger. You should not curse. You should be prepared to lose joyfully even your life in the cause of Truth. The Ultimate Truth can be attained only through Ahimsa.

Ahimsa is the acme of bravery. Ahimsa is not possible without fearlessness. Non-violence cannot be practiced by weak persons. Ahimsa cannot be practiced by a man who is terribly afraid of death and has no power of resistance and endurance. It is a shield, not of the effeminate, but of the potent. Ahimsa is a quality of the strong. It is a weapon of the strong. When a man beats you with a stick, you should not entertain any thought of retaliation or any unkind feeling towards the tormentor. Ahimsa is the perfection of forgiveness.

Remember the noble actions of great sages of yore. Jayadeva, the author of Gita-Govinda, gave large and rich present to his enemies who cut off his hands, and obtained Mukti (liberation) for them through his sincere prayers. He said: "O my lord! Thou hast given Mukti to Thy enemies, Ravana and Kamsa. Why canst Thou not give Mukti to my enemies now ?" A saint or a sage possesses a magnanimous heart.

Pavahari Baba carried the bag of vessels and followed the thief saying: "O Thief Narayana! I never knew that You visited my cottage. Pray accept these things." The thief was quite astonished. He left off his evil habit from that very second and became a disciple of Pavahari Baba.

Remember the noble actions of saints like Jayadeva and Pavahari Baba, you will have to follow their principles and ideals.

GRADATIONAL PRACTICE OF AHIMSA

When thoughts of revenge and hatred arise in the mind, try to control the physical body and speech first. Do not utter evil and harsh words. Do not censure. Do not try to injure others. If you succeed in this by practice for some months, the negative thoughts of revenge, having no scope for manifesting outside, will die by themselves. It is extremely difficult to control such thoughts from the very beginning without having recourse to control of the body and speech first.

First control your physical body. When a man beats you, keep quiet. Suppress your feelings. Follow the instructions of Jesus Christ in his Sermon On The Mount: "If a man beats you on one cheek, turn to him the other cheek also. If a man takes away your coat, give him your shirt also." This is very difficult in the beginning. The old Samskaras (impressions) of revenge, of "a tooth for a tooth", "tit for tat", "an eye for an eye", and "paying in the same coin" will all force you to retaliate. But you will have to wait cooly. Reflect and meditate. Do Vichara or right enquiry. The mind will become calm. The opponent who was very furious will also become calm, because he does not get any opposition from your side. He gets astonished and terrified also, because you stand like a sage. By and by, you will gain immense strength. Keep the ideal before you. Try to get at it, though with faltering steps at first. Have a clear-cut mental image of Ahimsa and its immeasurable advantages.

After controlling the body, control your speech. Make a strong determination, "I will not speak any harsh word to anybody from today". You may fail a hundred times. What does it matter ? You will slowly gain strength. Check the impulse of speech. Observe Mouna (silence). Practice Kshama or forgiveness. Say within yourself: "He is a baby-soul. He is ignorant, that is why he has done it. Let me excuse him this time. What do I gain by abusing him in return ?" Slowly give up Abhimana (ego-centred attachment). Abhimana is the root-cause of human sufferings.

Finally go to the thoughts and check the thought of injuring. Never even think of injuring anyone. One Self dwells in all. All are manifestations of One God. By injuring another, you injure your own Self. By serving another, you serve your own Self. Love all. Serve all. Hate none. Insult none. Injure none in thought, word and deed. Try to behold your own Self in all beings. This will promote Ahimsa.

BENEFITS OF THE PRACTICE OF AHIMSA

If you are established in Ahimsa, you have attained all virtues. Ahimsa is the pivot. All virtues revolve around Ahimsa. Just as all footprints are accommodated in those of the elephant, so also do all religious and ethical rules become merged in the great vow of Ahimsa.

Ahimsa is soul-force. Hate melts in the presence of love. Hate dissolves in the presence of Ahimsa. There is no power greater than Ahimsa. The practice of Ahimsa develops will-power to a considerable degree. The practice of Ahimsa will make you fearless. He who practices Ahimsa with real faith, can move the whole world, can tame wild animals, can win the hearts of all, and can subdue his enemies. He can do and undo things. The power of Ahimsa is infinitely more wonderful and subtler than electricity or magnetism.

The law of Ahimsa is as much exact and precise as the law of gravitation or cohesion. You must know the correct way to apply it intelligently and with scientific accuracy. If you are able to apply it with exactitude and precision, you can work wonders. You can command the elements and Nature also.

THE POWER OF AHIMSA

The power of Ahimsa is greater than the power of the intellect. It is easy to develop the intellect, but it is difficult to purify and develop the heart. The practice of Ahimsa develops the heart in a wonderful manner.

He who practices Ahimsa develops strong will-power. In his presence, enmity ceases. In his presence, cobra and frog, cow and tiger, cat and rat, wolf and lamb, will all live together in terms of intimate friendship. In his presence, all hostilities are given up. The term 'hostilities are given up' means that all beings - men, animals, birds and poisonous creatures will approach the practitioner without fear and do no harm to him. Their hostile nature disappears in them in his presence. The rat and the cat, the snake and the mongoose, and other beings that are enemies of each other by nature, give up their hostile feelings in the presence of the Yogi who is established in Ahimsa. Lions and tigers can never do any harm to such a Yogi. Such a Yogi can give definite orders to lion and tigers. They will obey. This is Bhuta-Siddhi (mastery over the elements) obtainable by the practice of Ahimsa. The practice of Ahimsa will eventually culminate in the realization of unity and oneness of life, or Advaitic (non-dual) Consciousness. The Yogi then enjoys the highest peace, bliss and immortality.

LIMITATIONS TO THE PRACTICE OF AHIMSA

Absolute Ahimsa is impossible. It is not possible to the most conscientious Sannyasin or monk. To practice that, you must avoid killing countless creatures while walking, sitting, eating, breathing, sleeping and drinking. You cannot find a single non-injurer in the world. You have to destroy life in order to live. It is physically impossible for you to obey the law of non-destruction of life, because the phagocytes of your blood also are destroying millions of dangerous intrusive spirilla, bacteria and germs.

According to one school of thought, if by the murder of a dacoit many lives are saved, it is not considered as Himsa. Ahimsa and Himsa are relative terms. Some say that one can defend oneself with instruments and use a little violence also when one is in danger; this is not considered to be Himsa. Westerners generally destroy their dear horses and dogs when they are in acute agony and when there is no way of relieving their sufferings. They wish that the soul should be immediately freed from the physical body. Motive is the chief factor that underlies everything.

A renunciate or monk should not defend himself and use violence even when his life is in jeopardy. To an ordinary man, Ahimsa should be the aim, but he will not fall from this principle if, out of sheer necessity and with no selfish aim, he takes recourse to Himsa occasionally. One should not give leniency to the mind in this respect. If you are lenient, the mind will always take the best advantage of you and goad you to do acts of violence. Give a rogue an inch, he will take an ell: the mind at once adapts this policy, if you give a long rope for its movement.

Ahimsa is never a policy. It is a sublime virtue. It is the fundamental quality of seekers after Truth. No Self-realization is possible without Ahimsa. It is through the practice of Ahimsa alone that you can cognize and reach the Supreme Self or Brahman. Those with whom it is a policy may fail many a time. They will be tempted to do violent acts also. On the contrary, those who strictly adhere to the vow of Ahimsa as a sacred creed or fundamentals cannon of Yoga, can never be duped into violence.

A UNIVERSAL VOW

Ahimsa is a Mahavratam or "great universal vow". It should be practiced by all people of all countries. It does not concern the Hindus or Indians alone. Whoever wishes to realize the Truth must practice Ahimsa. You may encounter any amount of difficulties; you may sustain any amount of losses, but you must not give up the practice of Ahimsa. Trial and difficulties are bound to come in your way to test your strength. You should stand adamant. Then alone will your efforts be crowned with sanguine success.

There is a hidden power in Ahimsa which protects its practitioners. The invisible hand of God gives protection. There is no fear. What can pistols and swords do ?

Even now there are people who do not give the least pain to any living creature. They carry sugar and rice for distribution to ants in their holes. They do not use lights at night for fear of killing the small insects. They are very careful while walking in the streets, as they do not wish to trample upon small insects.

Blessed are these men. They will soon see God as they have very soft hearts.

---

Bliss Divine - Ahimsa (non-violenta ) de Swami Shivananda

Ahimsa

Introducere

In regenerarea si divinizarea omului, primul pas este eliminarea naturii lui de fiara.

Predominant in activitatile animalelor este cruzimea. De aceea marii intelepti recomanda Ahimsa (neranirea, non violenta). Aceasta este cea mai eficienta metoda de lupta impotriva brutalei si crudei naturi animalice in om, pina la eradicarea ei completa.

Practica Ahimsa dezvolta dragostea. Ahimsa este o alta denumire a Adevarului sau Dragostei. Ahimsa este dragoste universala. Dragoste pura. Prem divin. Acolo unde este dragosta, veti intilni Ahimsa. Acolo unde este Ahimsa, veti intilni dragoste si serviciu dezinteresat. Toate merg impreuna.

Mesajul tuturor sfintilor si profetilor din toate timpurile si de oriunde, este mesajul dragostei, al non-violentei, si al serviciului dezinteresat, voluntar, fara avantaje proprii. Ahimsa este cel mai bun si mai nobil lucru, ce isi gaseste expresie in activitatile vietii cotidiene ale sufletelor perfecte. Ahimsa este foarte importanta, nu numai pentru a dobindi Salvarea, dar si pentru a ne bucura de neintrerupta pace si fericire. Omul dobindeste pacea atunci cind nu face rau niciunei creaturi vii.

Exista o singura religie – religia iubirii, a pacii. Exista un singur mesaj – mesajul nonviolentei ( Ahimsa). Ahimsa este datoria suprema a omului.

Ahimsa, sau abtinerea de la producerea durerii oricarei fiinte vii, este o calitate distinctiva, evidentiata in etica indiana. Ahimsa sau nonviolenta, a reprezentat doctrina principala a culturii indiene, din cele mai vechi timpuri. Ahimsa este o mare forta spirituala.

Insemnatatea non-violentei Ahimsa

Ahimsa sau neranirea, desigur presupune ne-uciderea. Dar a nu rani nu inseamna doar a nu ucide. In sensul cel mai profund, Ahimsa inseamna totala abtinere de la a cauza oricefel de rana sau durere oricarei creaturi vii, fie cu gindul, vorba sau fapta. Non-violenta cere mintea, gura si mina non-violente.

Ahimsa nu este doar nonviolenta negativa. Este pozitiva, dragoste cosmica. Este dezvoltarea unei atitudini mentale in care ura este inlocuita cu dragostea. Ahimsa este adevarat sacrificiu. Ahimsa este iertare. Ahimsa este Sakti (putere). Ahimsa este reala tarie.

Forme subtile ale Himsa

Doar oamenii obisnuiti cred ca Ahimsa inseamna sa nu ranesti fizic creaturile vii.

Aceasta nu este decit forma grosiera, bruta a non-violentei Ahimsa. Legamintul Ahimsa este rupt chiar prin aratarea aversiunii fata de alt om, de intretinerea de neplaceri in defavoarea oricui, prin ura altuia, prin abuzarea altuia, prin vorbele rele fata de ceilalti, prin muscaturile pe la spate si perfiditate, prin intretinerea gindurilor de ura, prin rostirea de minciuni, sau prin ruinarea altui om in ori ce fel ar fi.

Toate vorbele ce ranesc ori nepoliticoase sint Himsa ( violenta sau prejudiciere). Rostirea de vorbe jignitoare catre cersetori, servitori ori inferiori este Himsa.

Ranirea simtamitelor altora prin gesturi, expresie, ton al vocii si vorbe lipsite de dragalasenie si respect este de asemeni Himsa. Injosirea sau dezaprecierea unei persoane in fata altora, este Himsa voita. Aprobarea actiunilor altuia, care ranesc este Himsa indirecta. Lipsa de compasiune fata de durerea altuia, sau chiar neglijenta de a merge la o persoana aflata in deznadejde sau durere este tot un fel de Himsa. Este pacatul omisiunii. Evitati in mod strict toate formele de ranire fizica sau verbala, directa sau indirecta, pozitiva sau negativa, cu efecte immediate sau intirziate. Practicati Ahimsa in forma sa pura si deveniti divini. Ahimsa si Divinitatea sint una.

Ahimsa, o calitate a celor puternici

Daca practici Ahimsa, trebuie sa renunti la insulte, critici sau atacuri de orice fel. Nu trebuie niciodata sa ofensezi sau macar sa ai dorinta de a ofensa pe cineva, fie si sub provocare extrema. Nu trebuie sa tii suparare. Trebuie sa fii pregatit sa pierzi cu bucurie chiar si viata, pentru cauza Adevarului. Adevarul Ultim poate fi obtinut doar prin Ahimsa.

Ahimsa este virful eroismului. Ahimsa nu este posibila decit in lipsa fricii. Non-violenta nu poate fi practicata de oamenii slabi. Ahimsa nu poate fi practicata de un om caruia ii este teribil de frica de moarte, si nu are putere sa reziste si sa indure.

Este o armura nu pentru cel rasfatat ci pentru cel potent. Ahimsa este o calitate a celui puternic. Este arma celui puternic. Atunci cind un om te bate cu un bat, nu trebuie sa intretii nici un gind de riposta ori vreun sentiment negentil fata de atacator. Ahimsa este perfectiunea iertarii.

Amintiti-va faptele nobile ale unui intelept de demult. Jayadeva, autorul Gita Govinda, a dat daruri multe si imbelsugate dusmanilor care i-au taiat miinile, si a obtinut Mukti ( eliberare ) pentru ei, prin rugaciunile sale sincere. El a spus :

O Doamne ! Tu ai dat Mukti dusmanilor tai, Ravana si Kamsa. De ce nu poti da Mukti acum dusmanilor mei? Un sfint sau un intelept poseda o inima mareata.

Pavahari Baba tinind o legatura de lucruri, urma un hot spunind : O hotule Narayana ! nu am stiut ca Tu mi-ai vizitat coliba. Te rog accepta aceste lucruri.

La care hotul a inmarmurit. El s-a lasat imediat de obiceiurile rele si a devenit un discipol al lui Pavahari Baba.

Amintiti-va de actiuni nobile ca ale sfintilor Jayadeva si Pavahari Baba, si urmati principiile si idealurile lor.

Practica treptata a Ahimsa

Cind gindurile de razbunare sau ura rasar in minte, incercati sa controlati corpul fizic si vorba mai intii. Sa nu rostiti nici un cuvint rau sau jignitor. Nu cenzurati. Nu incercati sa raniti pe ceilalti. Daca practicati cu succes astfel, pentru citeva luni, gindurile negative de razbunare, nu au nici un scop de manifestare exterioara, si in final vor muri de la sine. Este extrem de greu de controlat astfel de ginduri chiar de la inceput, fara un control al corpului si vorbei mai intii.

Intii controlati corpul fizic. Cind cineva va bate, pastrati linistea. Suprimati simtamintele. Urmati instructiunile lui Iisus Hristos in Predica de pe Munte : ,,daca un om va loveste pe un obraz, intoarceti-i si celalalt obraz, daca un om va ia haina, dati-i si camasa !’’ Acest lucru este foarte greu la inceput. Vechile Samskaras ( impresii) de razbunare de genul ,,dinte pentru dinte, ochi pentru ochi, plata cu aceeasi moneda, etc, ‘’ va vor forta sa ripostati. Dar va trebui sa asteptati cu calm si rabdare. Reflectati si meditati. Faceti Vichara sau analiza corecta. Mintea va deveni calma. Agresorul care era foarte furios, de asemeni va deveni calm, pentru ca el nu gaseste nici o opozitie din partea voastra. El va fi blocat si surprins, pentru ca stai asemeni unui intelept. Incetul cu incetul, veti dobindi o rezistenta imensa. Tineti idealurile in fata voastra. Incercati sa ajungeti la ele, desi cu pasi sovaielnici la inceput . Sa aveti o imagine transanta a Ahimsa si a avantajelor ei nenumarate.

Dupa controlul corpului, controlati vorba voastra. Faceti o determinare puternica : nu voi vorbi de rau si nu voi jigni nici un om de azi inainte.

Poate ca veti cadea de o suta de ori. Ce conteaza ? incetul cu incetul veti obtine taria. Controlati impulsul de a vorbi. Observati Mouna ( tacerea ). Practicati Kshama sau iertarea. Spunetu in sinea voastra : ,, este un sufletel. El este un ignorant si de aceea face ceea ce face. Am sa-l iert de data aceasta. Ce obtin daca in schimb abuzez si eu de el ? ‘’ Incet, abandonati Abhimana ( atasamentul egocentrist ). Abhimana este radacina cauzei suferintei umane.

In final ocupati-va de ginduri, si controlati gindurile despre a rani pe cineva. Niciodata sa nu ginditi macar sa raniti pe cineva. Un Sine locuieste in toate. Toate sint manifestatiile unui singur Dumnezeu. Prin ranirea altora, va raniti pe voi insiva. Iubiti tot. Deserviti tuturor. Nu uriti pe nimeni. Nu insultati pe nimeni. Nu raniti prin fapta, vorba sau gind. Incercati sa va identificati pe sine in toate fapturile. Aceasta va promova Ahimsa.

Beneficiile practicii Ahimsa

Daca esti stabilit in Ahimsa, ai dobindit toate virtutile. Ahimsa este axul. Toate virtutile se rotesc in jurul Ahimsa. Asa cum toate urmele se acomodeaza in cea a elefantului, tot asa, toate regulile etice religioase se intrunesc in marele legamint Ahimsa.

Ahimsa este forta sufletului. Ura se dizolva in prezenta Dragostei. Ura se dizolva in prezenta Ahimsa. Practica non-violentei dezvolta puterea vointei pina la un grad considerabil. Practica Ahimsa va va face temerari, fara frica. Cel care practica Ahimsa cu reala credinta, poate muta toata lumea, poate imblinzi animale salbatice, poate invinge inimile tuturor, si-i poate birui pe toti dusmanii. Puterea non-violentei, este infinit mai minunata si mai subtila decit electricitatea sau magnetismul.

Legea Ahimsa este o lege la fel de exacta si precisa, precum este gravitatia sau fortele de coeziune. Trebuie sa stiti modul corect de a o aplica, inteligent si cu precizie stiintifica. Daca o puteti aplica exact, cu mare precizie, puteti face minuni. Poti comanda elementelor si Naturii.

Puterea Ahimsa

Puterea non-violentei ( Ahimsa ) este mai mare decit puterea intelectului. Este usor de dezvoltat intelectul, dar este greu sa purificam si sa dezvoltam inima. Practica Ahimsa, va dezvolta inima intr-un mod minunat.

Cel care practica Ahimsa dezvolta forta vointei. In prezenta lui, dusmania inceteaza. In prezenta lui, cobra si broasca, pisica si soarecele, lupul si mielul, vaca si tigrul, vor trai cu totii impreuna, intr-o intima prietenie. In prezenta lui, toate ostilitatile inceteaza. Prin termenul ‘ostilitatile inceteaza ‘ inseamna ca toate creaturile- oameni, animale, pasari sau creaturi veninoase, se vor apropia de practicant fara frica, si nu ii vor face nici un rau. Natura lor ostila, dispare in prezenta lui. Soarecele si pisica, sarpele si mangusta, si alte creaturi care sint inamice una celeilalte in mod natural, abandoneaza simtamintele ostile in prezenta Yoghinului stabilit in Ahimsa. Leii si tigrii nu vor rani niciodata un astfel de Yoghin. Astfel de Yoghini, pot da ordine definite tigrului si leului. Ei se vor supune. Aceasta este Bhuta-Siddhi ( stapinirea peste elemente) , obtinuta prin practica Ahimsa. Practica non-violentei ( Ahimsa ) va culmina in realizarea unitatii si unicitatii vietii, sau Constiinta Advaita ( non-duala ).

Atunci, Yoghinul se bucura de pace suprema, fericire si nemurire.

Limitele in practica Ahimsa

Ahimsa absoluta este imposibila. Nu este posibila nici pentru cel mai constient Sannyasin sau monah. Pentru a practica aceasta, trebuie evitata uciderea nenumaratelor creaturi in timp ce mergeti, stati, mincati, beti, respirati, sau dormiti. Nu puteti intilni nici un practicant al non-violentei perfecte in lume. Trebuie sa distrugeti vieti, pentru a putea trai. Este in mod fizic imposibil, deoarece fagocitele din singele vostru distrug miliarde de intrusi, virusi, bacterii sau germeni.

Conform unor scoli ale gindurilor, prin uciderea unui raufacator multe vieti sint salvate, nu este considerata Himsa. Ahimsa si Himsa sint termini relative. Unii spun ca te poti apara cu ajutorul unor obiecte si folosi putina violenta, daca te afli in pericol, ceea ce nu este considerate Himsa. Occidentali in general, isi ucid animalele dragi, precum caii sau ciinii, cind ei sint in agonie acuta, si cind nu exista alta cale de a indeparta suferinta. Ei doresc ca acest suflet sa fie imediat eliberat din corpul fizic.

MOTIVUL este factorul principal care sta la baza tuturor.

Un om care a renuntat sau un monah, nu trebuie sa se apere, nici macar cind viata ii este in joc. Unui om obisnuit, Ahimsa trebuie sa-i fie telul, dar nu va cadea din acest principiu daca, in mod strict necesar, fara scopuri egoiste, personale, se foloseste ocazional de violenta ( Himsa ). Dar nu trebuie sa acordam indulgenta mintii in acest respect. Daca sinteti indulgenti, mintea se va folosi de cele mai bune avantaje, pentru a va impinge la acte de violenta. Da-i un deget si-ti va lua toata mina. Mintea se adapteaza dintr-o data, in felul acesta daca i se lasa sfoara lunga pentru miscarea ei.

Ahimsa nu este niciodata o politica. Este o virtute sublima. Este calitatea fundamentala a celor ce cauta Adevarul. Nici o realizare de sine, nu este posibila fara Ahimsa. Numai prin practica Ahimsa, puteti cunoaste si atinge Sinele Suprem sau Brahman. Cei pentru care este o politica, pot cadea dese ori. Ei sint tentati de asemeni sa faca acte violente. Dar din contra, cei care adera la legamintul Ahimsa, ca fiind regula de baza a Yoga, niciodata nu va recurge la violenta.

Un legamint universal

Ahimsa este Mahavratam sau marele legamint universal. Trebuie practicata de toti oamenii, din toate tarile. Nu ii priveste doar pe Hinduisti si pe Indieni. Oricine doreste sa realizeze Adevarul, trebuie sa prectice Ahimsa. Puteti numara o multime de greutati, puteti suferi pierderi mari, dar nu trebuie sa abandonati Ahimsa. Incercarile si greutatile sint menite sa vina in drumul vostru pentru a testa taria voastra. Trebuie sa ramineti precum diamantul. Doar atunci eforturile voastre vor fi incununate de succes.

Exista o forta ascunsa in Ahimsa, care ii protejeaza pe practicanti. Mina invizibila a lui Dumnezeu da protectie. Nu exista frica. Ce pot face sabiile sau pistoalele?

Chiar si acum, in zilele noastre, exista oameni care nu provoaca nici cea mai mica durere nici unei finite vii. Ei au mereu asupra lor zahar sau orez pisat, pe care le ofera furnicilor in gaurile lor. Ei nu folosesc lumini noaptea, de teama sa nu ucida micile insecte. Ei sint foarte atenti cind merg pe strada, nedorind sa calce peste mici insecte.

Binecuvintati fie acesti oameni ! foarte curind ei vor gasi pe Dumnezeu, cu asa inimi asa de blinde.

IUBIRE

Am cautat cu toata fiinta mea sa te gasesc.Si-am trecut furtuna abisala ca sa ma pot cuibari in bratele tale.Am strans in sufletul meu atata patima,si-atatea lacrimi mi-au mangaiat obrajii.Nu am aer cand tu nu esti ,si trupul ma doare ingenuncheat de absenta ta.Clipele imi apleaca fruntea ganditoare si-mi cer socoteala gandurilor.Dar toate sunt cu tine...simturile si trairile mele nu-mi mai apartin.Ma-chin umbrei tale ca unei icoane facatoare de minuni,caci ea mi-a harazit clipa aceasta minunata,care se cheama IUBIRE.

questions..only

today i was like this sea..i don`t know why.

a lot questions run in my mind ...but i can not find the answer...

same time i feel that this life is a stupid game only.

my place is not my...

my heart is not my..

my life the same...

and now...i don`t exist...or may be i can not exist without you...i don`t know.