I have been studying lately how the Native Americans used to live, until the white man came and destroyed them.
That's a pretty great list... but...
Btw, energy can't be destroyed. Life is energy. 'Native Americans' (Indians? I HATE euphemisms and political correctness, it's not honest) are
lifeforms. Therefore, 'Native Americans' weren't destroyed, and could never be destroyed.
(We could of course talk about whether a continent, country or 'nativeness' is the true identity of an eternal energy entity, often called "soul" -
but that's beyond the scope of this reply)
1. Treat the Earth and all that dwell thereon with respect.
Sounds good on the surface, but I can't ever respect cockroaches, flies, especially banana flies, or anything that mercilessly slaughters, murders and
/ or devours animal or human flesh. Ok, there's a slight error of thought in that sentiment, but I hope the reader can still understand what I
I can't respect stupid people.
I can't respect feminists.
I can't respect politicians.
I can't respect liars.
I can't respect murderers.
I can't respect thieves.
I can't respect deniers.
.. and so on. This rule is both unrealistic and not very well-thought. Perhaps in their small tribes, living amidst the nature, before all that
tragedy happened, it might have been possible for them. Maybe there weren't cockroaches or banana/fruit/drain/ordinary flies there back then.
But then again, even indians murdered animals to eat their flesh and exploit their skin. What gave them that right? Honestly, I want to know the
answer to 'what gives anyone the right to murder an animal of any kind, let alone a human being'. Some people seem to think something just hands them
a right to do that, but I'd like to know where that right supposedly comes from, and why a sentient lifeform would ever have such a right.
2. Remain close to the Great Spirit, in all that you do.
This is common sense and wisdom - at least on the surface. Do you really need to be very spiritual when you are taking a dump, for example? I think
"in your daily life" would be sufficient. What does 'remain close' mean in practical reality anyway? That you can't have thoughts that don't include
the Great Spirit? You have to pause between sentences when you speak to think of Him? Or you in some way intertwine the 'feel of His presence' even
when you are sleeping? They must have had a great control over their dreams and all, if they can truly dictate something like that in ALL they do.
I get the point though - you shouldn't do 'godless' things, forget the Great Spirit when you are doing something, because the result of that action
will then be soulless and awful, even if it seems impeccable on the surface. I wonder if the ones who thought of this list remained close to the Great
I agree to the extent, though, that 'holiness' should be present in our everyday life. But I think in _ALL_ you do goes a bit far. You can't keep a
solemn presence every single second of your life, especially because you can't really control your dreams or sleep usually. And what if you fall in a
coma or you hit your head and become unconscious? How do you follow this rule, then? It's too strict, in my opinion.
Besides, wouldn't it diminish the meaning of the Great Spirit, if you had to include him in the most mundane tasks, like chanting for a minute before
flicking the light switch.. "Aumm.. I am going to .. auumm.. hit the light switch.. auumm.. may the holy electricity fill this room .. auumm.. with
its blissful magnificence.. auumm..", with eyes closed and in a prayer position..
Soon all your time goes to simply sitting in prayer and you starve to death, because you think of flicking light switches too much during the day or
something. That's obviously not PRACTICAL.
3. Show great respect for your fellow beings. (Especially Respect yourself)
Didn't we already go through this? Why is the same thing said twice, just worded a bit differently? Or are "fellow beings" different guys from "all
These 'commandments' are both UNCLEAR and TOO STRICT at the same time, as well as being IMPRACTICAL. The Bible's Ten Commandments are at least clear,
to the point, practical and are not too strict at all.
In fact, LAW is based on those commandments (and precedent cases of course).
4. Work Together for the benefit of all Mankind
Is it me, or are these commands very vague?
This is something I would definitely agree with, though - but aren't working for smaller groups allowed? I mean, my DREAM is to work for the 'whole'
or the 'good of all', but why does it have to be all mankind (and why are 'Together' and 'Mankind' capitalized? They are not names)? Isn't that a bit
much for just a small human being, trying to survive in the wilderness? Indians certainly fought some of the mankind, so I guess this bit wasn't so
important to them.
If things are arranged properly, everyone could work for the 'common good of all', and a planet could be a paradise for everyone, all would have to
work only a few hours a week, and yet everyone could live better than Bill Gates.
So this part does have a bit of a point, but again, it goes to the extreme, and becomes too strict - and at the same time, is extremely vague. How is
one supposed to work for all mankind? Is picking berries for your tribe working for ALL MANKIND? If not, what should one do, and can't one pick
berries? And if it is, then what wouldn't be?
It's a nice sentiment, but it's not very clear, or practical, again. It sounds to me more like philosophy than a commandment. Like, 'I am thinking of
all mankind when I pick these berries', or 'I will make sure that I won't litter, because someone else might want to enjoy this scenery later', or
something like that. Well, maybe it made more sense from their point of reference.
By the way, what scale is used? 'All mankind' of the immediate area? 'All mankind' of the country? 'All mankind' of the planet? 'All mankind' of the
solar system? 'All mankind' of the galaxy? 'All mankind' of the Universe? The physical plane? The astral plane? The mental plane? The causal plane?
You see my point? The scale is not specified, so which is it, and why is it exactly that? And who gets to decide what it shall be? And can it ever be
5. Give assistance and kindness wherever needed.
Kindness that comes from a commandment, is not true kindness.. "I don't want to give you kindness, but the commanndment said that I have to, so here
you are". Does that sound honest?
These sound more and more like philosophical guidelines than practical commandments for everyday life.
Btw, who determines, 'where' the assistance and kindness is needed? Needed by WHOM? What if an evil entity needs assistance - will you give it to her,
and then sweeten the deal by also giving kindness? Isn't it important to differentiate who we give kindness and assistance to, and what the end result
What if Custer came to the Indians and needed assistance in slaughtering the neighbourg tribe - would he be given kindness and assistance?
We usually think of situations where someone is starving in the forest and being attacked by a bear, and then a kind assistance is offered and the
bear is avoided, the starving individual is nursed back to health and then he falls in love with the lead female actor and..
In any case, these sound mostly good on the surface, but when you start to think about them, they do not seem completely clear, wise or practical. And
they do look like philosophical guidelines for attitude direction, rather than clear commandments of how to live and what to do (and not to do).
Besides, what if assistance and kindness is needed somewhere very far away? Should I abandon my life just to go fulfill this commandment? Before
planes, a trip to another continent and back could take years in all practicality (you wouldn't want to come back right away after such a long and
tedious trip). What if assistance and kindness is needed on another planet? Then this commandment becomes ludicrous or impossible to follow, unless
you are very lucky. Is its purpose to create guilt?
Why are all the commandments like this - they are like strict blanket statements. WHEREVER needed. No exceptions. Not 'wherever practical' or 'if
needed near you' or anything. No. It's WHEREVER needed. How long would it take to travel, say, 7000 kilometers during those times? 14000, if I plan to
come back, of course..
Furthermore, what about the QUALITY of assistance needed? What if you are unable to do it, you should still try and fail and make things worse? I
mean, you are not qualified, and you have to do it anyway? What if it's a trivial need that someone else can perfectly well do by themselves? Like
picking up the remote control from the floor, and not being able to, because they got too comfy? Should you travel 7000 kilometers for that? I think
there should be some LIMITS.
6. Do what you know to be right. (But be careful not to fall in self-righteousness)
So.. anyone's "right" is justified. Feminists KNOW that all men are rapists and should be brutally murdered and have their evil penises cut off so
they wouldn't breed and form more patriarchies. The indians are actually encouraging this? Just because someone feels something is right, doesn't mean
that it IS right. This bit is a bit too trusting in the wisdom of human beings - masses generally are not wise at all.
Besides, would anyone deliberately do what they know is not right? Isn't everyone rationalizing even their bad behaviour, so that it becomes 'right'
in their mind anyway? Whatever people do, they think it's the right thing to do, whether it's commuting by polluting contraptions to
planet-destroying, mass-indoctrinating, soul-sucking corporations and back. 'You gotta earn your living!', they rationalize, so it becomes something
they 'know to be right'.
Does that mean they should keep doing it as long as possible? Does it mean this planet can sustain that kind of mass-madness?
No, it doesn't. I think they were wrong with this. Don't do what LAW says is wrong. That would be a much wiser sentiment, that doesn't let the
individuals decide their actions completely freely, without morals or protection of others' rights.
Rights have to be protected, or they can't be used, in which case they lose their meaning, and humanity is just a bunch of meaningless slaves.
7. Look after the well being of mind and body.
Why only mind and body? Those are the least important parts of the human experience of the soul.
This is a pretty obvious thing, though - who wouldn't want to take care of their tools? But it IS a bit unclear, vague, and becomes pretty
meaningless. So, HOW shall we do this, o'master? How do you 'look after' your mind? Do you mean you let the mind go, and then watch it from behind,
letting it lead you?
As we all know, mind is part of the ego. It's often called "ego-mind" for that reason. So, only ego and body should be 'looked after'. What about the
astral body, etheric body, energy flows, chakras, meridians, the soul, the spirit? If the Great Spirit should be there with us in all we do, why not
here as well?
Body is easy to take care of - exercize, food, drink, rest, hygiene, clothes, shelter, defacation, urination, sexual urges.
But how do you 'look after' (I always find this idiom weird, because I can't help thinking of it literally) the mind? By reading books? Meditating?
Debating? Praying? How? And why should you pay so much attention to the ego anyway?
8. Dedicate a share of your efforts to the greater good.
Wouldn't this happen automatically, if I worked for 'all mankind'? Why is this again a repetition of an earlier clause, just worded differently? And
now it's just a 'share' of efforts, now it's not just 'work' or 'in all I do'..
It's a bit confusing and unclear - and who gets to determine the 'greater good'? Politicians?
Obviously gathering sticks for firewood so food can be prepared for the tribe is for the greater good. But in modern times, it's a little bit
9 Be truthful and honest at all times.
(Especially be truthful and honest with your self.)
I wasn't aware that indians were 'american typoists' - I guess they should be called 'native american typoists'. That's "yourself", not "your self".
You don't have any "others", you only have "a self", so it's one word, not two.
As I aim to be as honest as possible in everything I say and do, I would definitely save someone from torture by lying. I mean, if it meant physical
pain or losing a digit or something, and it was up to me to save someone, where telling the truth would condemn them to that awful experience, and
lying would set them free and guarantee safety from that torture, I would definitely lie.
I am all for honesty, but .. AT ALL TIMES? That goes a bit far, although many probably wouldn't have thought to hear this from me.
Honesty is the basis of humanity - without honesty, anything you build, will be built on quicksand.
But I would definitely lie in certain situations, because I'd rather sacrifice myself and do something that, btw, I KNOW IS WRONG (!), than sacrifice
someone else so I can keep a shiny and glittering conscious. It's more right to save someone from physical pain or permanent injury than to be honest
in such a situation.
I would agree if it was 'be honest in most situations and most times', or something like that.
Better yet, why not let people decide for themselves, whether to be honest, or not? That way, they carry full responsibility, and their honesty comes
from their core, instead of a commandment. Honesty that comes from a book/text/commandment, is not true honesty.
Only when people have a choice between good and evil, and they then still choose good, is the choice to be good worth anything.
10. Take full responsibility for your actions
I think anyone who is willing to take responsibility, would take the full version, instead of the preview version.
I don't have a problem with this one - unless you were drugged, hypnotized or something. I mean, can you really take full responsibility, if you are
in a state of mind where you are not 'fully there'?
There can also be situations in which someone accuses you of doing something that they think is a crime, but you don't see it the same way - so do you
'take full responsibility and admit to being a criminal', or 'take partial responsibility, and admit to the deed but not the notion that it's a
All in all, this is still a wise thing to say, but it's such an obvious, common sense-statement, that I can't imagine why it needed to be written.
Were indians somehow notorious for not taking full responsibility of their actions?
So what if one of them helped Custer, when he was a kid - does he have to take full responsibility for what happened as a consequence?
That's the samee problem anyone faces when helping any stranger - what if the stranger is evil, and uses your assistance for evil purposes? Then you
have helped evil, and now you have to take full responsibility for it..
Their way of life is far, far different from the way we live today
Who is this 'we'? Speak for yourself anyway.. I pretty much live like that anyway, as far as possible - but those things are very vague, so it's easy
to interpret them to mean almost anything.
I think indians did have a lot of wisdom about their lifestyle, and their respect of the Creator, as the Great Spirit (an accurate description of the
Universe, actually), is undeniable.
But there were many kinds of indians, and those commandments are not as wise and good as it looks from the first glance, as you hopefully can see.
They are not always practical, they are repetitive (same thing differently worded a couple of times), they don't even mention the crimes that people
could do, like murder, theft, fraud, etc. - and those commandments really wouldn't prepare any tribe for everyday practical life with modern people
all that much (especially the exciting immigrants from exotic parts of the world, living upstairs).
I think there is way too much automatic respect given to the indians, just because of what 'the white man' did to them. Yes, always the 'white man is
evil'-mantra still dictates how much of guilt every pale-skinned human should feel, although THEY as individuals never did anything bad to anyone.
Perhaps it's this guilt that makes non-indians look at indians and think they possess some unearthly, heavenly, divine wisdom and breathe the Great
Spirit itself. When the truth is, they are just another bunch of humans, whose ancestors had a good experience on the planet, and probably felt a
real, deep connection with the nature, the planet, the Universe and all. And who still murdered animals and used the skins of the innocent for their
own, selfish needs, without mercy. Yeah, they might have 'apologized' for them later on, or 'asked for their skin' or whatever - but does a dog really
feel glad to give its skin to you just because you ask? They don't understand words. Just watch some 'Dog Whisperer' to see how dog psychology
So if I apologized to your dog and asked for its skin, it'd be ok for me to come to your house, blow out your dog's brains and make a meal and a hat
out of its bodily remains, and carve some utensils from its bones?
Just because an animal isn't a pet, doesn't mean it doesn't feel exactly the same kind of feelings as a pet would. Just because it's not a human
possession, doesn't mean that humans have any more right to slaughter it.
I hate cockroaches, but I have never killed even one. (I am not going to say 'not one', because that can be misinterpreted) I refuse to kill even
cockroaches - I just don't want them near me, that's enough for me. Why isn't it enough for others?
In any case, yes, there is some wisdom to those common sense-sounding commandments, but basically they only look good on the surface, but haven't been
very well thought-out. Yes, Indians have been wise in the past, but it doesn't mean that every word a modern indian types, is made of pure, divine
gold that blesses you when you read it.
They are humans, too, and they have egos, they make mistakes, they have misconceptions, they have errors in judgment, they are misinformed, they are
just like any other humans. It'd be racistic to claim otherwise. But somehow the romance and charm of the 'olden times', 'before the white man', makes
the modern city-dwellers starry-eyed and nostalgic, and type these 'respect the 'native americans'-messages and posts.
I have talked with these 'native americans', and they seemed like pompous know-it-alls, probably because their egoes were stroked so much by the
city-dwellers. So anything they say was met with admiration. It's like being surrounded by admiring yes-men all the time - it's hard to keep your
sense of reality and sense of perspective with you. Even Bruce Lee struggled with this.
These 'native americans' are not magical, levitating gods from another galaxy - they are just human beings, who have gone through their own,
individualistic karmic experiences. Their ancestors may have had some wisdom with them, but that's bound to happen when you live and are forced to
survive in nature with only primitive tools and the tribe to aid you. You kind of want to get along.
Relieve them of that tribe and nature surroundings, and put them to live in a city, and see how they turn into just regular 'dudes', with the regular
problems, like anyone else.
'NA'-worshipping is not healthy. Just stop it, already, and realize that wisdom is not localized or tribalized - no one group of human beings or other
entities has ownership of wisdom, common sense or truth. Recognize the wisdom in multiple other groups as well for balance, and then see the 'NA's as
they truly and really are, instead of this romanticized Disney-fueled image of the 'noble warrior' (like such could ever exist - a war doesn't make
anyone noble) and the 'wise shaman' (though undoubtedly, some ancient Shamans were wise in ways that the only the Zen-masters, visitors and Deities
Wisdom is not the exclusive right to the 'NA's. Look at ancient Japanese, Chinese, Egyptians, Atlantians (especially the trained priest-class). Look
at Extra-Terrestrial visitors, and even the 'Great Earth-Thinkers' throughout the history. You can find history from the ancient Greeks just as well
as the Indians.
Oh, talking about Indians - how about Peru Indians - should they also be called 'Peru NAs'? Or Mexican Indians?
I think the word 'Indian', as silly as its origin is, is more useful and descriptive than 'NAs', because, let's face it, if we go down that road,
shouldn't the VIKINGS be the true NAs? So whenever someone says "NA", I would just assume they talk about Norwegians...
Btw, 'living' doesn't require a 'way'. Like Bruce Lee said, 'We don't live for, we simply live.'
edit on 4-10-2014 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)