The two wolves

This was sent to me and I thought it was pretty cool and worth sharing.


Think About This



The Two Wolves

An old Native American grandfather and his grandson sat around a fire one night. The grandson was angry at a friend who he said had done him an injustice.



The Grandfather thought and thought and then said, "I too have felt hate at times. You must understand that hate can kill you, but does no harm to your enemy. It's like taking a poison yourself and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feelings. It is as if there are two wolves inside me. One lives in harmony with all around him, accepting what comes and deals with each situation individually. He fights when it is right to do so and in the right way. But...the other wolf... ahee! The littlest thing will send him into a fit of temper. He feels the world is against him, he fights everyone all of the time, and many times for no reason. Sometimes he cannot even think because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger, for his anger will change nothing. It is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit."



The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which one wins, Grandfather?"



The Grandfather smiled and said quietly, "The one I feed."

Nice.

thats really good



ps Roadkill about the other thing? I would do them for free mate

lol thats SO me. i feel like there is this war in me some times. like the good side Vs the darker side. the good side is always ont he surface. it smiles, is polite and has manners. many people would so it as an "easy target". but the darker side is ALWAYS just behind the surface. it waits and creeps. makes you think of things you dont like and FEEDS off the negative emotion. the it starts to stift and grow and you have to hold it back. but you feel it rise to the surface and some days you find your looking at people and life in a very calculated way and seeing everything as inferior. just waiting for the cance to act. but it comes with a feeling of almost indestructablility. we all have it. this other side some is stronger then others. but WHEN IT becomes the top layer and the right things happen that stimulates it its like hell being opened up.

i truely believe that i am a fairly pleasent bloke. i think i have manners and treat people with respect. my little mantra is "think positivily, talk polietly and act respectfully". BUT, and there is ALWAYS a but, there have been occasions were i can "feel" this other side of me that actually scares me in truth. i know what IT can do. ITS the almost primal side. the survival part, the part the we tap into when we need to act when the fighting begins or when you have to deal with a "problem". its almost like a different personnality that takes over. you know if you've felt it because you KNOW when it happens. you just feel like ther is liquid raw power in your veins and there is a feeling that simply ANYTHING is possible, but not in a good way. have you ever felt like you could kill with your bear hands?! but would you be like that from day to day? i honestly feel the the wide majority of people here wouldn't and dont. BUT there are times when you can feel this "RUSH" and when that gets coupled with anger/rage its like a nuke! and when that happens you get a glimpse of this "other" side in your personnality that be truely scary.

BUT you CAN learn to hone it and use it. and thats what the old guy means. the one that wins is the one he needs! but its ALWAYS there just under the surface........just waiting...........just watching...........just feeding and whispering to you.......and we LOVE it.

nice story. i love hearing lesson stuff that has a cultural twist. there's a buddhist one about two monks
passing a girl by some shallow water. the older one carries her across, the younger one is miffed as monks aren't supposed to touch women. after about 10 miles, the older one finally comments on the
mental state of the younger incensed monk.

"i left her back at the puddle, you're still carrying her"

***

another with no lesson whatsoever comes frm john fire lamedeer--a lakota indian.
two traditional older indians take a trip to the big city and are consequently a wee bit
overwhelmed. hunger overtaking them, they attempt to try and find a bite to eat. they finally
see a cart that reads, "hot dogs".
"alright, that's are kind of food" exclaims the one indian.
after eating for some time, the other one says,
"these aren't bad, but....what part of the dog did you get???"



///
back to the original meaning of the wolves. coming from lessons on the ashram.
the baghavad gita--to a hindu, carries literal, metaphorical, etc...i've always existed
amongst the holy with my metaphorical meaning carrying me. i've always believed
in god and all--but i've been hesitant to accept what almost anyone tells me--assuming
it is all largely the blind leading the blind. since i was a late teen, i've believed in a
hidden language of life lessons hidden amongst vivid stories that could be anything from
the navaho's hero twins to the bagavad gita's arjuna. i found gold in my guru, who only
spoke of deep metaphorical meanings and lessons to scriptural texts--which he attempted
to disect--regardless of religious dogma.

the baghavad gita--to return to the subject, is nothing short of the story of two wolves.
the gita--a book, is just one person's journey [inward] to conquer the shit inside themselves.
the good propensities overcoming the evil ones. as fate would have it, there's more evil than
good--otherwise what would be impressive about striving for what is in abundance. five heros
defeat 95 wicked foes. kill them and they return through re-incarnation. maybe a drinking
problem today, then coffee and cigarettes tomorrow [sound like an AA meeting to anyone?].
this is the meaning of killing your evil relatives because it is the right thing to do as long as
you do it dispassionately and fearlessly. don't fear death. your's or another's. we are all ultimately
arjuna's 'kashatriya-warrior-caste' fighting to achieve inner piece in the great battle--which will
bring us enlightenment--brahma state/caste. in this way, it was explained to me the caste are
misunderstood metaphors for the inner climb toward being better people. ultimately we all start by
serving, fighting for something, ataining peace through accomplishment and achievement, etc...then
comes wisdom.

the level of depth of a person will determine whether they need the sciptural text to be taken literal
and as apodictic edicts to live by, metaphorical, or all the above. a dare say any of us have not been
introduced to some inner little shit striving to reek havoc--whether of a perverse, violent, hedonistic,
slothful, or whatever...nature. the goal of the life of a warrior then becomes defeating yourself first, your opponent second. and prosthelatizing is a game some play, but the real teaching comes from
a life of example--actions speak louder than words. they always have. and as luck would have it, arjuna...the hero of the gita is the karma [action] yogi who achieves the ultimate--your interpretation as to whether that's piece/god/both/milkybars/pork pies/whatever... he's the house holder who didn't have to sit in a physical cave to deny the world, but instead retreated to his own inner caves--strong enough to turn from his imbalances and meet them head on however close they were, however great they were. it is a great epiphany for many as there are many lone desert fleeing half naked men who claim to have renounced fame, fortune, lust, etc...but to really be a renunciate, you have to have something to give up in the first place. if one day i give up on anger, etc...i'll feel like a renunciate monk in a way. but if my 90 pound mild mannered friend claims he's a pacifist who has renounced violence...i'll laugh an evil and knowing laugh that comes from knowing he hadn't anything of the sort to give up in the first place. i have yet to give up on greed as i've never tasted wealth. i'll let you know though, if i ever make any money in my life

it is sort of related to thoughts like that edict of Richie's when he says, "how you practice is how you fight". you learn how to kick butt by 'bringing butt'. you learn how to fight by fighting. there's so much there. the more you dig with this stuff though, the more there is to absorb. it can be daunting. it is better to savor tid bits.
arjuna and his practical journey to the front lines--the short cut path, why Richie's words weigh more than the average sensei's for his theoretical and outmoded knowledge base. the code is cracked. and also why my guru could take a meditation technique handed down from generations and fillet it into simple and shortened steps--he knew what was real from direct deep states. everyone else was working on faith--and so the ritual was bound to be a lengthy and silly thing, superstitious to leave anything out save whatever part might derail the whole thing got left out.

street fighting becomes, then, fighting stripped of ignorrant ritual. this is my terrible bias, and why i have trouble not taking the mickey out of the traditional stuff. rambled, but if you share space inside my mixed up head...it is all related to the subject

Quote :

...but to really be a renunciate, you have to have something to give up in the first place.

very good point

does me think about a movie lord of war, when the guy says beware of the dog, in me, is the dog part not the best part? haha, fighting eating, and f...cking? haha
everybody wants to ignore the dog part, but its not healthy if you allways do the right thing, you have to find a balance i think, sometimes unleash the dog, somtime controll him

also, i believe people react a little bit the same way as dogs.. all the discussions on how you can get capable mentally for a real fight etc..
a good police dog trainer knows, you cannot learn a dog to bite.. he simply bite, or wont bite, a few dogs are capeble for biting, mostly the alpha dogs.
in human is it a little bit the same i think.

you can tie your dog and beat him till he will bite
but if the shit hits the van, the dog dont help you,

a dog whos naturally capeble of biting, has mostly to learn how to not bite.. and in a real life situation the dog is happy to bite, and help you.

so people can try to copy a alpha male character, but hes still an actor, and if he meets the real alpha man in a conflict situation both of them know immidiatly where they stand in order of power, just like dogs

Ive always said that with training you can do anything

but nowadays I lean more towards your view Chulo, some people just either have it or they dont

"you cant make the ones that won't and you cant stop the ones that will"- its a sales expression but applies here

I'm interested in this idea of who 'will' and who 'won't', but is it really the same as who can and who can't?
I'm thinking about more to write here, but for now, here is an interesting vid clip which starts off with 2 Judoka playing Kendo (for the first time?). Then at about 1min on, a Kendoka (shorter and in Hakama) plays with one of the Judoka .....
No big mystery who has more 'will' here ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEsMuvBwdDk

I disagree with a couple of the stated views;
Chulo's comparison to people as dogs.
People aren't dogs, society isn't a wolf pack, it's a skewed analogy.
What is an alpha male in a wolf pack? the leader.
So in society, our leaders are the alpha males? I would suggest no.
What are "alpha male" characteristics in society? physical power? fighting skill? intelligence? charisma? communication skills and diplomacy?
For me, the analogy doesn't seem to fit.

In my mind, Richard's belief that "some people have it or they dont" runs counter to the effectiveness of any self protection training (or any other type of training).
Folk that have a natural talent or "have it" may have an easier time of picking up training, but people who have to struggle a bit but have true desire can be trained to be as effective as a "natural".

hey nix! i only like to say, people react a litte bit the same as dogs sniffing eachother.

and you cannot become a worrior if you train enough, its for a reason in the modern army special forces that theres a proper psychology research, with 4 different psygologists.
like in war time if every body can come easy in a army, its proven most of the guys dont shoot at the human target, but above.

so in my opinion you have it, or dont, and if you have it, with training it can come more natural
if you dont have it, with training and more training, and more training, you still be not capable.

hey, its just my point of view

It is difficult to say anything for sure. The research Chulodog mentions is interesting. Back during WW1 and WW2 there was a large number of non-fighters. If not just pretending to fight so as not to piss of the others, they would tend to try helping out those who did fight the enemy by bringing guns and ammo. But... The research was apparently used very effectively by the military, changing the way they trained soldiers, managing to boost the rate of fighting soldiers to an estimated 95% in the Vietnam war.

The "some have it and some don't" does seem to have a lot of truth to it, but not in an absolute sense. Maybe that could relate to the reasons and motivation behind violent behavior. Some people may never allow themselves to be driven by that sense of sadistic joy. Others won't strike in anger. Others can't do it cold. You could probably make an extensive lsit of these things. But I believe everyone has a place in their mind where they will perform.

Then again. Still on the "some have it and some don't" line of thought. Just like anything in life. Sports for instance. Anyone can play and compete to a certain degree. I believe most people can go pretty far if they would truly push themselves, but only a few can ever hope to be champions. We're basically talking about quality of raw materials. Sure you can make a shiv out of plexiglass, and it will work, but it will never be as sharp or solid as something made of good steel.

With some people, the question is how good can they become. With others, the question is what and how long will it take to get them functional.


But this digression branched out of "dogs sizing each other up" in relation to doorwork. * Edited to add:*(opps got it confused with that other thread) Humans do that too. For doing that job, although I never have, I think it is optimal to be dominant and confident by nature. There are people who seem to have the ability to walk into a room, and instantly own the room. They have a certain prescence. They appear extremely cool and confident. Others have the straight opposite quality about them. Jittery, subdued, nervous. If anything is unnerving about them, it is the fear that they'll show up at work one day with a gun.

The police also pay attention to these things. Optimally they only want people of a certain height or above. If under that height, the would be officer needs to really have "it" in order to be accepted. Intimidation and deterrence is the name of the game. American studies show that overly friendly and agreeable officers are the ones who tend to die on duty. They let people get away with too much, they act too late, criminals don't respect them.

It seems trainable but it's not necessarily easy. In "what makes tough guys tough" Jaime O'Keefe argue that affective learning is the crucial component. (theoretical learning and physical training being the other two used in the book). As stated above I think there is truth to "you have it or you don't" but not in an absolute sense. People who don't have it probably shouldn't seek lines of work where that is the job skill, so to speak. They put themselves and possibly others in danger. But with intelligent effort over time, it seems possible to shape the personality you're habitually doing to the point where you genuinely become it.

interesting stuff

perhaps I should add that what I think would allow a person to truly have "it" in terms of training would fall WAY outside the boundaries of what people would be prepared to do in their SP training

getting some people to "be aggressive" is like pumping air into a lilo with a hole in it

but like it or not that "aggression" (insert qualifying words as necessary: tenacity, determination, violent etc) is an ESSENTIAL component

and Nix your right

Quote :

In my mind, Richard's belief that "some people have it or they dont" runs counter to the effectiveness of any self protection training (or any other type of training).

In that my view (its not a belief, its an idea Im open to, no conclusions from me on it yet ) does run counter to the effectiveness of SP training but not ANY training.
I believe you can "make" a tennis pro, get them young enough, give them enough training and supportive environment and its a go- provided the essential components are there you could have been trained to do anything any other person has done... not accounting for people who I tend to consider genetically predisposed, like that american swimmer chap who has webbed toes and gills.

You cant "make" someone be aggressive however without abusing them and encouraging them to abuse themselves. This type of training would work but it would also be inhumane and illegal.

Agression and the willingness to do harm are attributes that would get you the "anti social sociopath" label in a psychology test. People are really resitant to it because its a social taboo I suspect.

For all the posturing and words I have seen what my friends do when they have on the rare occassion seen me fight. To a man and woman they are appalled, frightened and eventually (after the shock) angry with me. I can feel them withdraw.
Previous to that they get a buzz out of what I do and being out with me or getting into a club for free I was on. Afterwards they are like kids who have just realised that what they thought was a game is in fact not and it all gets just a bit too real for them.

So yes, this opinion- and its just an opinion and not one Ive totally given in to, Ive seen training do amazing things for people in many contexts- does indeed run counter to the effectiveness of most SP training

have you ever been to or watched a class where all the students are doing the movements pretty much spot on but with zero intensity? everyone is chilled out, giggling, chatting between reps, the atmosphere is like a social club- you ever see that?

its very common nowadays

Well, its useless- training under those conditions means that you will remember probably nothing when actually attacked and just go into denial and shock like someone with no training whatsoever.

So a key word that needs specifying that we are all using is "training"- what does it mean?

It can mean many different things. So maybe I should qualify my statement further: what most people call training isnt going to give you what it takes. In my opinion.

i was not talking about training., im sure if somebody trains enough he can become a very great dojo fighter. no doubt about that one.

but i prefere a guy who doesnt have any fighting skill, but the will to go 100%

i give him more chance in a real life situation.

in my opinion its more easy to learn how to fight, than learn the will of fighting.

and this is what i mean you have it or you dont

but training is more usefull than no training at all.. for sure

Sorry for the view/belief misnomer.
I do agree about the lack of intensity in most self protection type training available.
I've also found is much easier to instruct someone to fight than to instill the will to fight as Chulodog stated; hence my interest in Richard's psychology and NLP DVD's and CD's