Sunday, 30 September 2012


They say that he was the wisest of them all. Well, think again. He wasn’t. Offering to cut a baby in two is not my idea of wisdom, not even to arrive at the truth. So let’s pretend that that was just his warped sense of humor.
In Hebrew the word ‘Solomon’ means: “peace, peaceable, welfare and/or well-being”. There is no reference to wisdom, although it could be argued that it took wisdom to maintain peace. Although we are told that Solomon was later given another name, Jedidiah, which while meaning “Jah is friend, or, beloved of Jah” there’s still no mention of wisdom.
David, Solomon’s dad, was forbidden to build a temple. The reason was simple. We are to hold the sacred in our hearts, not in a building of polished stone and timber. Solomon, in his (lack of) wisdom, ignored that. With his heart full of pride, first he built a royal palace for himself, and then put his loins to good use with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Some claim he did so to gain political connections, only there weren’t that many connections to be made. If you wish to learn more about his sexual prowess, read Visualization—Creating Your Own Universe. You will be amazed!
Also, for the time being, he had neither time, nor money, nor materials, to build a temple.
Later he got an idea. Instead of separating church and state he installed himself, as king, on the top of the priesthood. Thus, having all authority on his side, he set out to build himself a temple, to his eternal glory. It never crossed his mind that he, as much as you and I, are the temples of god.
King Solomon did to Judaism what Pope Julius II did to Christianity.
In Chronicles Chapter 2, we learn just how he did it.

“And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel… and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred. (That’s 153,600)
And he set threescore and ten thousand of them to be bearers of burdens, and fourscore thousand to be hewers in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people a work.”(This adds up to 70,000 + 80,000 + 3,600)

His concept of slave labour was perfect. Not wise, but pure and simple. Peaceful? Only if the slaves went quietly. Or perhaps the ‘peace’ only applied to the welfare of Israel, not to ‘strangers’.
Not much has changed…

And now imagine. In spite of Solomon and Julius II, and thousands of others building monuments to their transient, material glory, the I AM manifestation still thrives in our hearts. Welcome to the club of the Immortals.  

Friday, 28 September 2012


To most of us, this word is better known as “holy war”. No, it hadn’t been invented by the Moslem. It is the idea of the Crusaders, backed with great ardor by popes and ‘saints’ alike. It had been the Christians, who invented the concept of Jihad, of justifiable murder. Only we did it in the name of the Prince of Love. In the name of Yeshûa.
Thou shalt not kill, said Moses. Oh, yes, you may, replied Pope Gregory VII, after he bravely overcame initial qualms. Those had been long cleared up by an early 5th century Saint (!), Augustine of Hippo, in his City of God dissertation. He, the saint, liked writing works on Christian Doctrine. Why love them when you can kill them? Sounds like a hippie proposition.
By the time of the first crusade, some 500 years later, the ground, I mean the doctrine, has been clearly set.
Thou shalt not kill? Oh, yes you may, confirmed Pope Urban II, by now sure of his righteousness. Love your enemy, affirmed Yeshûa. Only after I murder them, apparently. Turn the other cheek? I wonder if Urban II was smiling an inane smile when he blessed the first Crusaders setting out on their tour of duty.

So what of Jihad?
In Arabic, the word means ‘struggle’ and, so they say, it is a religious duty of Muslims. Wikipedia defines it as: “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad… (there is more).
Welcome to the club.
There is one consolation. Crusades lasted only a little over 100 years (1096-1204), thus there is a good chance that if what is happening at present in Moslem countries could be regarded as a form of Jihad, then in a mere 80 years or so they will reach the same level of sanity which we, the Christians have reached in comparative time. Of course, they might not benefit from the good services of Philip IV, of France, who managed to murder most, and outlaw the rest of the Crusaders. We shall see.
Of course, in the 12th century Pope Lucius III created the concept of inquisition to combat heresy, and the church continued to burn heretics, alive, until Joseph Bonaparte abolished such peccadilloes in early nineteenth century. The Holy Office had fun while it lasted.
Since history is said to have the habit of repeating itself, we can look forward to only some 80 years of continued Jihads, and then… to a around a millennium of homicidal excesses based on the explicit examples set out by the Great Inquisition.
Unless… unless the Moslem are much, much more advanced as human beings then Christians were during the last two thousand years.
We shall see.

In my Essay #49 the matter is discussed in greater depth. You can find it in my collection Beyond Religion Volume 3.

[1] More info. in I Segreti del Vaticano by Corrado Augias

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Something for Nothing.

You cannot keep it. It just cannot be done. Unless you take possession of anything in your consciousness, you are going to lose it. If you can hold it in your hand, or in any aspect of you that is transient, that which you hold is also transient. And… the loss of such items, loss with the accrued interest, may be very painful.
But why, you may well ask?
There are a number of reasons. First we must remember that whatever we can hold in our hands, like silver or gold, or a piece of paper with a title, which makes our ego swell, is essentially empty space. This, as you know, is not a religious statement but scientific. See my previous blogs or read Delusions—Pragmatic Realism.
So, if whatever we can perceive with our senses is virtually non-existent, it is only in our consciousness that we can give it sustained reality. A person can die, and we still love them. The buildings I designed may be lying in ruin, but the designs still ‘live’ in my mind, my imagination. Ideas and even feeling have a much longer shelf-life than anything tangible. Mozart, Mendelssohn, Verdi are long dead, but their true possessions live on. They will forever belong to them. They are an intrinsic part of their consciousness; of the essence of their being. Some people call it spirit—but consciousness will suffice. Not consciousness as we know it, not the consciousness generated by our biological construct, but the immortal consciousness which is indestructible, together with all the wealth we acquired and stored within in. Like Mozart, or any other individualized consciousness that is bringing out that which is immortal from the infinite potential… for others to share in.
Their priceless gifts of love. 

Monday, 24 September 2012

Was Jesus Married?

First, the name Jesus is meaningless. His name, and we all know whose, was Yeshûa, not Jesus. In Hebrew, Yeshûa (an abbreviated form of Yehoshûa), means “Yah is salvation”, that is in no way reflected in the Greek version of his misspelled, mispronounced name, which the ignorant religions adopted.
Why? And this is the punch line.
Because, once outside Israel, those in charge didn’t want anyone to know the meaning of his name. Instead, they wanted to make him into a Messiah, who died for their sins, and thus they could break ALL the commandments and still go to some elusive destinations they called heaven. The religious heaven is nothing more then a carrot, just as hell is a stick, both designed to control people. According to Yeshûa’s teaching, heaven and hell are both states of consciousness, not some harebrained idea devised by religions.
And this brings me back to Yeshûa’s marriage or lack of such. The matter is of no consequence. Moses taught people how to live, here on earth. Yeshûa taught people spiritual truth ONLY. Whether one married or remained celibate never entered into the picture. What our actions did to our minds, to our states of consciousness, was of primary importance. Of course, the two are interconnected, but one is the cause, the other the effect. Yeshûa was concerned with the cause.
In the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (Key to Immortality, logion 114), some of his disciples, probably as ignorant as most of us are today, wanted Mary to get out from their inner circle (just like the clique in the Vatican today), because “women are not worthy of the Life”.
To which Yeshûa replied:
“See, I shall lead her, so that I will make her male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Now, if we leave this to the avowed fundamentalists, Yeshûa would have to perform a surgical operation of great complexity. Alternatively, he was referring to her state of consciousness, offering to inspire her to be guided more by her conscious mind, then to react to her subconscious. In biblical symbolism, woman always symbolizes the human ‘soul’, or nephesh, which stands for the subconscious.
For those not aware of it yet, “living spirit” is consciousness aware of its divine attributes. ‘Raised’ consciousness is spirit. Read Isaiah 9:6 to see what I mean. It is not to be confused with the ‘animal’ consciousness that generates ego, or that which sets us apart. Nevertheless, the “living spirit” is omnipresent, whether we are aware of it or not.
Consequently, whether Yeshûa was married or not is only important to people who suffer from the need to control women, or for women who want to use this inconsequential tidbit to free themselves from such a control. Most women I know have freed themselves from the sacerdotal need to control others. 
More power to them

Saturday, 22 September 2012

Not of this World

I’ve struggled for years. I fought, rebelled, wouldn’t let go. Finally, I remembered. “Be in this world but not of this world”. How did Yeshûa know even then? In the meantime I fought, tried to persuade, point out that the reality we take as real—isn’t. It just isn’t real.
Never mind that we are essentially empty space.
If one lives, say, in England, and visits France, Spain, Italy etc, for a short while, one shall be ‘in’ those countries by not ‘of’ those countries. One shall be a passerby. I thought I was convincing. My friends called it mumbo-jumbo.
And then I had a dream.
Each day, around five in the afternoon, I lie down in my bedroom for a moment of quiet. I relax my body using self-induced hypnosis, then wait to see what, if anything might happen. Sometimes I try to induce some effects, but, well, more often then not, I fall asleep for about 10 to 15 minutes. Sometimes I dream.
This time I dreamed, with a difference.
I dreamed that I am lying down on my deckchair at my tiny terrace outside. Suddenly, without any warning, I was floating some 10 feet above the deckchair. Nice dream, thought. I looked over my shoulder and saw the land descending gently towards a lustrous expanse of water. In spite of its mirror surface, I knew it was flowing languidly from left to right. The next instant I was suspended the same 10 feet over its surface.
“Fantastic!” I thought. “I wander how it feels…”
Even as the thought was formulating in my mind, I found myself under its surface, floating, hardly feeling the caress of the tepid water, watching in utter amazement the individual grains of sand at the bottom. Towards the shore, multi-hued pebbles drew my attention. Then I became aware of the sunrays splitting its light into an iridescent kaleidoscope of colours caressing the liquid crystal around me.
It was then that I became aware that people like me couldn’t breathe under the water. The next instant I was hovering the same 10 feet over the deckchair, on my terrace.
“If I fall down from this height, I’m bound to break something”, I mused.
Even as a touch of fear set in, I opened my eyes to see the familiar ceiling and wall of my bedroom. I was lying, peacefully, on my bed.
In this world but not of this world…
Which was real, I wondered. Which is where I have my real being, and which is just a transient instant on my eternal journey. In my heart I knew the answer.
I learned another thing. I learned that heaven is not for the fearful. It is designed for the brave at heart. This fact is, perhaps, best exemplified by the courage of the two protagonists in my forthcoming historical novel Peter and Paul. They, too, searched for the true reality. The book tells you how they found it. 

Thursday, 20 September 2012


It has been known for some time that rats confined to a relatively small space, tend to develop aggressive characteristics. Recent research in the Central Animal Facility in Guelph, Ontario, confirms those established findings, and adds that if rats, in addition to spatially restricted confinement, are deprived of any ‘interesting’ activity (such as resting on a PVC tube, or gnawing on or pushing around a Nylabone, a nylon chew product) their stress factor is considerably increased.
Rats are mammals. So are we.
We live in ever more confined spaces, our technology deprives us of the use of the full capacity of our brain. More and more our electronic toys do our thinking for us. Even adding up.
As for ‘congestion’, the following is extrapolated from Wikipedia:

…the world population reached one billion in 1804. 123 years later in 1927, it reached two billion. By 1960, only 33 years later, it reached three billion; four billion by 1974; five billion by 1987; six billion by 1999 and, according to United States Census Bureau, we have reached seven billion by March 2012, although the United Nations estimated that we reach seven billion already in October 2011.
Some say we shall reach ELEVEN BILLION BY 2050.

As mentioned, rats when confined in small places and deprived of their ‘toys’ which stimulates thinking, go mad. They attack each other, seemingly without a reason. They are becoming vicious, murderous, ‘unreasonable’. In other words, deranged. Mad.
Remind you of anyone?
The other species which is acting in a similar way is called Homo sapiens, commonly referred to a men and women. Our religious powerhouses still advocate procreation at the fastest rate possible, presumably to gain additional ‘tithes’ they can collect from their newborn sheep. This is true of both: Islam and Christian religions, as well as political power-mongers who wish to increase their tax-base.
In the meantime, 35,676,000 rats are squeezed into Tokyo; 21,163,226 into the Metro Area of Mexico City; 19,672,582 into Sao Paulo; 19,439,000 into Cairo; and a mere 14,837,510 into Moscow. These are the most populous cages. By comparison, New York is a tiny cage confining only 8,244,910 of us.
Ah… sorry, I meant people—not rats.
Who knows how many rats there are in those cities? But they are going mad, anyway. Yes, both rats and people. Other animals will soon follow suit.

The only government that seems to care about the human race, a government that imposed restrictions on their population growth is the terrible, horrid, atheistic, communist government of ‘red’ China. They care. We, the enlightened, freedom-loving, democratic, religious bunch don’t give a damn. And, I strongly suspect, soon, very soon, we shall be damned. Or go mad.

Possible consequences of overpopulation are suggested in my novel Gift of Gamman, a Sci-Fi novel that might be of interest to you. Enjoy!

Tuesday, 18 September 2012

I and my Father

 He who initiated this discussion is no longer with us. He said, simply, I and my father are one. He was right, of course, it cannot be otherwise. All is One, thus the two cannot be apart. Not really. Not if you accept that there really only is One—that there is a single consciousness, which manifests in infinite diversity. Cosmos beyond cosmos, worlds without end. Yes, all expressions of a single consciousness. The Progenitor of them all.
It used to be that we thought the ‘visible’ stars constituted our universe. Now, according to the astronomers, they represent only 4% of the physical reality. The rest is “dark matter”, and mostly “dark energy”. One day they’ll discover that the universe they perceive is all illusory, that reality, the true reality, is only consciousness.
So what of ‘I’? What of my own individual expression of the omnipresent consciousness?
There is a well know saying that you are where your attention is. When you and I regard anything, when we place our attention on anything, anything at all, we do so from a single or singular point of view. By being omnipresent, the One can do so from infinity of viewpoints. Thus the expression of the infinite in us is always unique. Yet we, by looking out, so to speak, offer individuality of vision that is equally unique. No one can see what we see in exactly the same way. Thus, the two abide in indispensible, indivisible union. We truly are One.

I’d written an essay on the subject of: “I and my Father” in 1997. I read it today. Nothing has changed. In the field of consciousness, time is very relative. As with mathematics, it often stops. The stasis lingers for a little while—then starts again. We are suspended in that fleeting moment between the two chronological movements. Or, if you prefer, we move between the two moments of stasis. Your choice, depending on the scale.
If interested, the essay #13 in my collection is titled “One”, and is part of Beyond Religion volume II. In it I cite a statement by Daryl Reanney. He said: “…what the egoless mind sees is unity.” It is from a book he wrote, After Death, A new Future for Human Consciousness. It is a strange title, one might think, as Mr. Reanney was a distinguished molecular biologist, teaching at universities on New Zealand and Australia.
No priest I ever met said or implied such a thing. It took a scientist. A very rare scientist.
Nevertheless, I think he was right. 

Sunday, 16 September 2012

Immortality Now?

Such simple words yet so often so very misunderstood. There is another way to look at the concept expressed by Peter and Paul (above). You might say that Paul, going for ‘quantity’, embodies the past and the future. The long lost memories, the dreams of things yet to come. Peter, however, knows the truth. He knows that immortality is the quintessence of a single instant of eternity.
It is not easy to reconcile eternity with NOW. Yet, in a strange way they are synonymous. When you touch infinity, time stops. It is not that it is limited to a single instant. It is that the single instant embodies all eternity. There is no ‘was’ or ‘will be’. There is only IS.
And yet this enigmatic IS exists in infinite potential and in endless becoming. It sounds like an oxymoron but when you experience it, it will become real.
While the future, even though it already exists in its potential guise, due to its infinite possible configurations is unknowable, the moment of Truth encompasses all possible eternities. Perhaps that is why we, the Human species have called it the Divine. Though it cannot be embraced by our mind, it can be experienced by our consciousness, which has no limitations.
Because our consciousness is the individualization of the omnipresent Eternal. In consciousness we are inseparable from that that IS. There are ephemeral moments in our lives of indescribable joy, filling us with euphoria that sometimes lingers on for minutes; then dissipates into the illusion of our material life. Such moments are beyond anything offered by any religion. 

As we can see, such ‘isness’ cannot be put into words. Many have tried—few, if any, succeeded. We have the Songs of Solomon, Isaiah’s verses: “For unto us a child is born”, Jalaluddin Rumi’s euphoric aspirations… they come close, but…
We cannot define the indefinable without limiting it.
Our mind can handle the concept of NOW only as pertaining to the past—albeit, to billions of years. I attempted to do so in my novel NOW—Being and Becoming. Try it. You might like it. (If you are not yet a ‘Kindlite’, it is also available in paperback).

Friday, 14 September 2012

Peter and Paul, sequel to Yeshûa?

My new historical novel Peter and Paul is now in its final (proof) reading. Quite unwittingly, it became a natural sequel to one of my favourite bestsellers: Yeshûa—Personal Memoir of the Missing Years of Jesus. If you enjoyed Yeshûa, you’ll enjoy Peter and Paul. Guaranteed! (I don’t live in Jericho—I must blow my own trumpet!)
Seriously, I tried to be as historically correct as I could be, while delving into what, I thought, must have been the mindset of my two protagonists. Let us not forget that, with Israel under occupation, and the Roman Empire itself in a constant state of ferment, Peter and Paul were setting out against tremendous odds. In addition to obvious lack of funds, they were treated as blasphemers against the faith of Moses and the Prophets. The Jews, and pretty much everybody else, hated them. After all, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and others had their own, well-established, religions. The priesthood of each group was willing to fight for their personal convictions and interests—to the death. Not their own death, of course. And, as you will learn, the priests fight dirty.
There was a lot at stake.
We must not forget that the upkeep of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the countless magnificent temples of other various religions, took money. Lots of money. And other than in Israel, there were no official tithes. And even in Israel, the tithes had to support not only the upkeep of the temple. While there were many different tithes, or taxes, essentially the Hebrew law demands a 10% tithe to be paid to the Levites, who didn’t contribute anything to the economy. Rather like the overwhelming majority of the priesthood and the politicians of today. 
When all is said and done, the new Christians, who initially had been considered as nothing more than yet another Jewish sect (there were a few), yet were unwilling to pay tithes. Also, those in power claimed that only they, who had the monopoly on the established, ‘traditional’ interpretation of the Torah, were right. Again, rather like the Vatican or the fundamentalist sects today. Add the same aggressive rebellion of all the other religions of the day, and you have a beehive in which the new coverts had to navigate in order to survive. Many didn’t.
And we think we have it tough?
Today, our ‘governments’ will still put us in jail for not paying taxes (tithes imposed without our acquiescence), but at least we are unlikely to be stoned to death by a disgruntled group of politicians or civil servants. At least… not for now. 

Wednesday, 12 September 2012

Why Peter and Paul? (My forthcoming Historical Novel)

Dozens asked me this question. Peter and Paul symbolize the irrepressible duo, which defines the human entity. It is expressed in the saying:

“Many are called but few are chosen”.

In the historical context Peter stands for the chosen few. The few upon whose ‘shoulders’ the church was to be built. The word ‘church’, symbolizes the mindset, which adds up to the Hebraic nephesh, translated by biblical scholars as ‘soul’, which we know as the subconscious.
Paul, on the other hand, stands for the masses, “the ocean of thoughts”, or for the many that are called. Thoughts originate from past experiences as well as from the unconscious, i.e. the field of infinite potential. Yet the matter is not that simple. Without the masses regimented by Paul, Peter would have a hard time finding ‘the few’. Ergo, we (our tumultuous thoughts) are all indispensible. The cooperation between the two, between Peter and Paul, could be compared to a selective process. First get to all who show the slightest interest. Then get them more interested. Finally, those “chosen few” take it upon themselves to continue the good works. And what are the good works? They are a conscious commitment to the search for the infinite potential welling within us. They are the mindset that affirms the Psalmist’s statement: “ye are gods”.
It is a journey that ends in infinity.
Of course, the good works results mostly from restoring the balance. When we are told to feed the hungry, heal the sick, help the poor, it is not to become “holier-than-thou”. We may be feeding their bodies, but we hope that our ministrations will restore their faith in their purpose—that it will restore the balance in their minds.
Sooner or later we shall all learn that altruism is not an attribute of a generous person, but a trait necessary for our survival. Why, you ask?
Paul knew that, but he didn’t know why. Peter did.
Peter knew that at the very core of our existence we are all one. By giving to others, we enrich ourselves. We enrich our subconscious, i.e. our soul. 
This above is NOT a sermon. It is a statement that pertains to our survival. The consciousness we now display will remain in our subconscious forever. Or… be deemed unsavory, not worth saving, erased. It would be as though we haven’t lived.
It would be lost forever.
And that, my friends, is a very, very long time. Our true nature is revealed in the Gospel of Thomas, which I discussed in my book, Key to Immortality. You might enjoy it.

Monday, 10 September 2012

The Innocent

It is always a question of balance. With the neutral Creative Force[1] being omnipresent, we alone are responsible for maintaining the balance. If we forget that all realities are set on automatic, we’ll never understand their workings. The centrifugal and centripetal forces in our solar system work in synchronicity. Again, it is a question of delicate balance.

This holds true for material, emotional and mental realities. The law that enforces it is Karma, or the Law of cause and effect.
It has been said that, “It is better that a 1000 guilty get away than one innocent be punished unfairly”.
Actually the number varies from ten to a thousand, depending on the source. Some ascribe this law to legal theorist Maimonides. "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Others reach back to the ancient days: “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.” We all know the story.

Back to the Innocents.
The ‘non-righteous’ will have no choice but to restore the balance they upset anyway (omnipresent consciousness ‘operates’ beyond the limitations of space and time). We could eliminate them for they own good. Only to do that, we would have to be able to predict their future and we, well… we can’t even predict if it will rain tomorrow.
On the other hand if we were to eliminate a single ‘righteous’ one we would add to the mess created by others, without any positive return. And the constructive qualities of ‘good’ are so great, compared to the ‘bad’ ones that the math simply wouldn’t work. Look into the past. A few innocents have done more good than 1000s of guilty ones. The math really works.

But there is an overriding universal law that also comes into play. It asserts that love is the most powerful force in the universe. It is the force that holds the universe, indeed all of us, together. It could be compared to the centripetal force. Unfortunately, in a dualistic reality we must balance it with the centrifugal force, and… the opposite of love is power; [see Essay #5 Power, in Beyond Religion I] The material world isn’t, nor can it be perfect. But it creates conditions in which we, individualized units of consciousness, can learn the fastest.
Thus balance must be maintained in the material, emotional and mental realities. Either that, or we shall fall apart. Our consciousness operates from a very fragile, superbly balanced entity designed for learning.
It is up to us to make sure that we do.

[1] “…for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Matthew 5:45. [forget religion, these are facts].

Saturday, 8 September 2012

Killing is Such Fun!

 A few facts.
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, total world spending on military during 2011 amounted $1.74 trillion in USD. And the USA must be proud. They alone have spent $711 billion, which is more than twice as much as the next 4 big spenders put together. There is absolutely no doubt that the USA have the ambition to be by far the world’s biggest killers. Fun, isn’t it?
There was a time when Alexander the Great had that privilege, then the Roman Empire, and look what happened to them. There were others, before them and since. Do you remember many? Even history seems to have forgotten.
Perhaps there is something to the saying that “he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.”
Do you think this also applies to bullets? Bombs? Missiles? Other weapons of mass destruction?

There is an (unfortunate?) universal law that applies to all laws and to all of us, wherever we might be:

“Ignorance of law in no excuse for breaking it.”

If you jump of the roof, you will fall. If you don’t eat, you will starve to death; if you hit a wall, the wall will hit you back with equal if opposite force. There are also laws of ethics, of logic, and many others. Buddha, Socrates, Moses, Plato, Yeshûa, Newton, yes, men from all walks of life, tried hard to imprint some of those laws on the human mind. We are in danger of dying by a force equal to that by which we live. Be it a sword, or bullet or an a-bomb. In this life or the next. Balance will be restored.
The laws have nothing to do with any religion. If you don’t believe me, try my Dictionary of Biblical Symbolism. These really are universal laws. And by the way, you don’t have to drop a bomb to commit murder. The bodies don’t matter that much. As a matter of fact the physical bodies are not real. The murder, like adultery, takes place in your mind.

Nevertheless, the Great Masters spoke in vain. Some listened—the vast majority did not. Still don’t. That is why so many are called and only so very few are chosen. Yet, it is always our choice. We and only we can decide if we wish to be among the chosen few.
Most don’t. Most enjoy killing.

Thursday, 6 September 2012

Secrets Dispelled

The fundamentalists must have hated him, yet he used to fill the Carnegie Hall to the brim. 2,804 seats plus standing room. It was a start. Then came his books. His name was Emmet Fox. A man I admired for many years once said that wisdom is a perfect balance between knowledge and love. He considered these two as an amalgam that keeps the world together. Or so it seemed to me.
Emmet Fox was teaching us who we really are. Now he’s dead. Luckily, knowledge is omnipresent. Even the most paltry atom knows how to behave, how to act, which way to spin, how to hold on to its electrons. That’s a lot of functions, more than most people perform consciously at the same time.
No matter. They say we have evolution on our side. So they say. Actually we don’t, though scientists would never agree. Yet, whenever nature attempts to upset the status quo with most innocuous innovation, all established seats of power rise up in defense. They all, yes, all of them, want to confine evolution to whatever we, men, or better said, they—the scientists, say is the right change, the right direction to advance.
They, my friends, are wrong.
No weapon of mass destruction advances evolution.
No political system advanced us on the evolutionary path. There was hope for democracy until we saw the behaviour of both, the lower (the house of reps.) and the upper houses (the Senate) of the USA in recent years.
Likewise, no religion took us a step closer to becoming better people—some individuals, perhaps, but certainly not as a species.  Killing from 30,000 feet up in the air, suicide bombers, and priestly shenanigans with under-aged boys are living proof of this.
Furthermore, everything that advances our civilization seems to be in direct opposition to the advance of our culture. Look at any art form and compare it to the Renaissance. Barring exceptions, it’s pitiful.

We must choose. Either we shall continue to become more materially dependent on technological gismos of the very, very rich providers, or we shall turn the page and ask ourselves three little words.

Who am I?

And then we might attempt to define ourselves not by what we own, or whom we know, or what we can do, or how much money we make or have, or how many enemies we killed for the glory of “democracy”, not even how much power we wield—but who we really are.
Then, and only then, there is a chance to reverse the trend of devolution. Look around you. There is still time for the few. For the masses I lost hope. Perhaps you can reverse the trend at least for yourself. The book below might help. It dispels DELUSIONS. Believe me, there are many. More than most of us can handle.

Tuesday, 4 September 2012

An Alien amongst Us?

Just think. 200,000 leaves on a single oak. It’s like a small town of leaves, living together, in harmony, without strife or jealousy. Not at all like humans. And a clump of trees would be like a city, with each tree a borough. Finally we have a nation, I mean a forest—a multitude of towns and cities—the leaves growing into millions, many millions—still all living in harmony, without jealousy or strife. Still not at all like humans. Indeed, acorns are from an alien species.
Perhaps we just don’t like harmony.
And then we have a continent of forests. Reminds you of anything?
Each autumn the leaves turn yellow, just like human skin, then shrivel, just like human skin, and then die. We do, too, we just take a bit longer. But while the leaves live they, through the magic of photosynthesis, turns carbon dioxide into air that others can breath and enjoy their own life. Throughout their annual cycle they contribute to the life of others, they make the world a better, richer place.
Do we do that? Most of us? Do we make the world a better place? Annually?

Evolution brought us to a certain point and then we ate an apple. Both of us. Adam and Eve. (I know, it’s all symbolic). And thus, symbolically, this gave us the power to say no. No to nature, no to the gifts that the leaves still possess, while we seem to have lost ours. Whatever they were. Don’t you ever wonder what were our, human attributes? What was it that would make us superior to an oak tree that gives, year in and year out, all it has, to make this world of ours a better place?
And if you don’t wonder then should you be surprised that about a billion people think that fairly soon we shall all be recycled, to start again?
That’s what they think in the East.
Here many believe that on arrival in heaven, and for ever-after, we shall continue to wonder if ever, if in any single year, or throughout our lifetime, we contributed to our world as much as every oak does year in and year out.
At least when we die, our bodies, or ashes, fertilize the earth, (like the leaves do, every year) making this a better place. Perhaps we are worth more dead than alive.

Just wondering…

For the real story of Adam and Eve, you might try my essay #50, Eve, in Beyond Religion I Series. It is an inquiry in the Nature of Being. You might find it interesting.

Sunday, 2 September 2012

Autism and other mutations?

Not all is lost. Not yet. According to H.P. Blavatsky’s Esoteric Buddhism, we still have a few years of Kali Yuga in which to catch up. Almost another 320,000 years. But time flies. So lets hurry and get back to Charlie Rose.
The same series organized by PBS which compelled me to write “The Brain” blog, also brought us the program on Autism. Alas, as always, the famous doctors agreed that anything that deviates from the norm, from average, is a sickness.
“If you are not like me, you must be sick”, seems to be their dictum. Well, they’re almost right—in part.
Our way of life is organized to best serve those who conform to each other. We drive on the same side of the road. We eat similar foods (mostly triple burgers? I said similar, not same). We try to speak the same language although elocution seems to be a lost art. Etc, etc.
But there is a deeper, a much deeper problem.
The differences between us originate in 3 different sources. One, they can be genetic—we inherit our inadequacies. Two, we acquire them through lack of understanding how the world works (this includes the contagions). And three, it results from nature’s attempts to advance our evolution.
That item last has been discovered, though not yet confirmed by scientists, only some 5-6 years ago. Autism is the result not of deviations of a single gene, but whole groups of genes, which combine in a different order only AFTER they leave the donor. This is true of both sperm and/or ovum. By that I mean that BOTH parents were completely ‘normal’, meaning that they could cope in the environment in which most people function. Yet their child, male or female, is born with autistic tendencies, often demonstrating enormous skills/talents in some fields of endeavour.
In cases of autism, only one of the three causative factors is present. From perfectly ‘normal’ parents, in perfectly ‘normal’ environment, the children are wired differently.

This single fact will, one day, lead the scientists not to attempt (almost always unsuccessfully) to ‘cure’ the autistic condition, but try to cooperate with nature in her evolutionary attempts to advance our species.
Science, like evolution, advances very slowly—at snail’s pace. The material reality is a work in progress. Many mutations don’t work. But one day, some man or woman will become very famous by advancing the theory stated above. And then, usually it takes about 10-15 years before a discovery reaches the financial coffers that enable the ‘scientists’ to begin their research in earnest, we shall change our view of autism. We shall observe the children with curiosity and admiration as one would observe heroes who took the first steps to manifest Homo Superior.
If you are very young, and if you live long enough, you might actually see it happen. Good luck. Of course, once the ‘scientists’ recognize the truth of my words, we the ‘normal’ people will become redundant. Except for those who will be looking forward to their next reincarnation.
Like I said, we only have 320,000 years to go.