Tuesday, 29 January 2013


Most religions, and as often scientific communities, speak of mysteries of god and/or the universe. Yet, at the same time, none are so critical of other faiths as leaders of various religions, and the professorial scientists of past scientific achievements. This surely must be the greatest enigma.
The first group deals with the impossible to prove, invisible, unimaginable, indefinable—all traits that hardly lend themselves to certainty that they are, or could be, right.
The second group is in a constant state of denial, convinced that although all religions are wrong, they, and only they are invariably right. What this group of the illustrious scientists seems to forget that they are all laughing in derogatory convulsions at many ‘scientific’ achievements of a hundred years ago. They consider it unconscionable that hundred years from now, they too will be laughed at as primitive quasi-scientists, walking in circles admiring their own navels.
This is the nature of physical progress, or, to invert the concept, of progress of physics. The wisest thing to do is to accept that magic of today will be the science of tomorrow. On the other hand, it might lead us to believe that some concepts confined to religions today will, over time, become accepted as scientific theories. Speaking only for myself, I am prepared to bet my bottom dollar that this will happen, though, of course, I shan’t be here to brag about it.  Nevertheless, what I am leading up to is that criticism almost invariably diminishes the critic, not that which is criticized. That which is criticized is little more than a toy the scientists play with. (No comments about the pot and the cattle, please!)
If past experience is any indication of the future we are about to face, then we can be sure of only one thing. As times goes on, we know less and less about the great teachings of the Great Avatars, and more and more about the material reality, which is, in most respects, only imaginary; as in empty space; as in that which is in constant flux; in constant movement, turmoil. As that which changes faster than we can observe it.
So much for science.
We have long forgotten what was the original reason for religions. As for the scientists, they can be proud of knowing more and more about near-empty space. About virtually… nothing.
Sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it? Isn’t there a danger that future generations will laugh at us? That, too, is an enigma. Perhaps we got it all wrong. Perhaps the fellow in the Lakeshore Hospital had it right; the fellow in NOW—Being and Becoming. You decide. 

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Sunday, 27 January 2013

Are we Born Equal?

It has become politically correct to say that we are all born equal. This is, of course, a blatant lie. Politicians are in a habit of avoiding the truth like plague. But even for them to suggest that after millions, perhaps billions, of years of evolution any two entities, any two individualizations of the Whole, might have accumulated the same measure of experience, is patently absurd.
Years ago, Thomas Jefferson and later Benjamin Franklin had it right. They stated in the “immortal declaration” that all men (speaking generically, I hope) are created equal.
Not born—created.
And there’s the rub, as William would say.

Sometime in the hoary past, perhaps a countless number of creative cycles in which universes had been born, with or without big bangs, and then disappeared again, perhaps into gigantic black holes which occupied no space at all…
…perhaps, once upon such a time, the Whole decided to individualize Itself into countless, absolutely countless shards of mirror in which to regard Itself. That is when we, you and I, had been created. Not out of nothing, we always existed, only we became temporarily fragmented, each one of us carrying the full imprint of our origin. A little like our bodies carry the imprint of our origin in our DNA.
It is this act of creation, of individualization, that made us all equal, for the simple reason that we had been all created of the same stuff, of the same Consciousness, which is the only indestructible trait we carry with us for all time and beyond.
Of course, if we equate ourselves with our physical shells as the only expression of our individuality, then we are also wrong. We are born with very different physical potential. Even physically we are all endowed with different attributes—this is why there is only one gold medal at the Olympics, and why there are so many different disciplines. But, those shells we use to compete with each other are just… shells. They are the magnificent biological robots which each one of us developed over billions of years. Once an amoeba, a single-celled organism, we grew and advanced to become the human entities we are today. No two are alike—but each an every one of them, of us who occupy those wondrous constructs, are endowed with truly divine potential. With the potential of our Source. Of Infinity.
Aren’t we lucky?
It is a long journey. We have billions of years behind us, we have probably billions in front. Some of what we might do with this time is described in Winston’s Kingdom, of my Winston Trilogy. You might enjoy it. You might like it even more is you start at the beginning—with One Just Man

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Friday, 25 January 2013

Could Atheists be right?

On January 18th, 2013, Jason Palmer, the Science and Technology reporter for the BBC News, stated, in writing, and in the same article, two propositions, which, apparently to him, are not in contradiction to each other:

1. “The Universe's highest-energy light could finally yield clues to the nature of the "dark matter" that makes up some 85% of the Universe's mass.” 
2. “The current theory holds that 75% of the Universe is dark energy, 21% is dark matter, and just 4% the kind of matter we know well.”

And, allow me to repeat, this very same scientific establishment has proven that the remaining 4% of “matter as we know it” is 99.9999999999999% empty space.
So much for scientists, Mr. Atheist. So much for things you think you can touch and feel and pretend that what your physical senses tell you are real. Good luck, only please, don’t tell that to any physicist or any other self-respecting scientist, or they’ll laugh you out of your reality.  

So… what is real?
As Aldous Huxley has said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.” Or… set you free? As always, I suppose, it’s your choice.
There are, unfortunately, no shortcuts. You may sit under a Bodhi tree for countless years and be none the better for it. You might, on the other hand, wake up one day, and suddenly, yes, quite unexpectedly, feel that something stupendous has taken place. That suddenly the reality that you always regarded as the real thing is no longer… well, was no longer real. That reality has taken on a new, wondrous dimension, that it widened, and grew, and spread to the ends of the Universe, and that somehow, by some strange unexplainable means you became an indivisible part of this wonder of wonders.
And a moment later things will return to ‘normal.’ The same reality, which took you along the passage of time into the illusory reality which, once again, surrounds you. Only this time you will smile, to yourself, and to all the atheists in the whole, wide world. Because you’ll know something they don’t.
And then you’ll smile again. Because you’ll also know that it is only a question of time. You will know that one day a lightening will also strike them, and fill their hearts with wonder.  And then they too will smile. Perhaps, a little like Mona Lisa.
And if you think this is strange, try my Enigma of the Second Coming. It will surprise you a lot more. 

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

A Word about Music

There is a New Age religion is which called the religion of the Light and Sound of God. If such description satisfies their believers, than the noise which is substituted for music in just about all TV and movie productions must be the sound of Satan, assuming of course, that it was impersonated, as always, by a pretentious note-juggler in a human form.
Yet not only the Eckists, as I believe they call themselves, but the admirers of Shakespeare, must shudder, and the bard himself must be turning repeatedly in his grave for the same reason. “If music be the noise of hatred”, rather than “the food of love”, as he suggests in his Twelfth Night, then the present day ‘musicians’ are fully vindicated.
Some say there is progress, other, particularly most of the Eastern Philosophies, assure us that we are regressing. From the original Eden, the Golden Age, we are sinking and have reached the Age of Kali, the last and lowest state of consciousness, also known there as the Iron Age.
But we mustn’t worry. It all goes in cycles.
So it is with music. Having started with jungle drums in the darkest Africa, we grew in cycles until Mozart and his contemporaries reach the acme of melody, harmony, and, in my opinion the absolute peak of beauty in his Requiem, matched only by J-S. Bach in some of his unaccompanied sonatas.
And then came the American Idol. The only good part, again in my ears, is the fact that the cacophony which the jungle drums make drown, at least in part, the ejaculations which the “artists” spew into the microphones, partially, but regrettably not wholly, inserted into their gaping orifices.

I know. I’m old. I’m of the last vestiges of the age of melody, harmony and beauty—of the short spell of the Renaissance. I don’t belong in this world. I still dream as Anne did in my Avatar Syndrome of recreating the essence of the inspiration, which guided the past masters of composition. Alas, they are gone. And don’t worry—I, too, will pass, soon enough. The masses will be free to enjoy the jungle drums of old, of the primitive sounds which led humanity to the masters that are now long gone. In the meantime, I offer you a little poem I once wrote as a tribute to the Idol. I was jealous of the Americans, so I created a Canadian Idol of the North!

My grunts vibrate over the North Pole,
travelling right thro’ the growing ozone hole,
then bounce and rise to the silvery moon…
I can scream, and howl, and sometimes even croon!

Then I overdo acting, like some misbegotten hams,
And I roar louder, to drown the deafening drums.
I throw my weight around, jerk for all I’m worth!
‘Cause I’m the First, the Only, Idol of the North!

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Monday, 21 January 2013

Saints and Sinners

I must have horrified the practitioners of various religions by one of my blogs, in which I held that there is no such thing as good and evil. At least, not in the sense in which various religions give it their meaning. We know now that the biblical word ‘sin’ is the translation of a Greek word derived from archery, meaning: “missing the mark”.  
This leads us to saints and sinners. Let’s face it, both, saints and sinners miss the mark on occasion, but that’s no reason to send anyone to eternal damnation. Nor keeping your ship on a straight keel makes you a saint.
Saint means one thing and one thing only. It means whole. Complete. All that you are meant to be. If you achieve such a state of consciousness, you can, and usually do, make miracles. The word saintly, or holy, as in “holy bible”, is derived from Old English word: ‘halig’ of Germanic origin. It is related to Dutch and German ‘heilig’, meaning ‘whole’. Hence “holy bible” implies that all we need to know can be found within its voluminous pages. It helps, of course, if we understand what the ancients were talking about two or three thousand years ago. My Dictionary of Biblical Symbolism may be of some help in that.

So to get back, again, to saints and sinners, we are told that we must strive to become all that we can be. This attitude has little to do with teachings of most religions, least of all, of the sacerdotal interpretations of the scriptures. There is no money in making people all they can be. In fact, it might raise undesirable competition. Hence, the meaning of sinner has been adapted to suit the organizations, which make money out of their version of various scriptures, mostly by the use of the stick and carrot technique, while ‘holy’ is reserved to things or organizations like holy church, holy days of obligations, holy grail, various holy scriptures, holy trinity, not to mention holy moly, holy cow, and “holy Moses”.
No disrespect intended, but the meaning of the word has changed fundamentally. Originally, only that which was in the image of the Whole, was identified as holy. Nothing else. Things change…

Hence, saints and sinners. To repeat, saints are people, men and women, who have reached completeness. Who are whole, or holy. Who identify with all that they are—in consciousness, mind, emotions and body.
Sinners are the rest of us, who have not yet reached this exalted state. Who are still missing the mark. The bull’s eye. But… well, some of us keep trying.
Don’t we?

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Saturday, 19 January 2013

The Signs

These words refer to the Armageddon, which will take place in the heart and mind, or better said, in the consciousness of every individual, and well precede the moment of enlightenment. The scriptures deal almost exclusively with the state, or states, of consciousness—not with physical phenomena. The apocalyptic nonsense you read on the New York bestseller lists is just that—nonsense.
Nevertheless, it is up to us to observe and draw conclusions from the consequences of the state of consciousness which we, as a species, have achieved after a few billions of years of evolution. It is not a pretty sight. Rather then elevating the awareness of the life-force within is, we seem to concentrate more and more on our bodies, on our physical comfort, on satisfying our ego, which keeps us apart, rather then our consciousness which brings us together.
What humanity seems to have forgotten in the miasma of materialism is that there is only one, single consciousness—life, if you prefer—and we, yes, all of us, are no more than individualizations of this Singularity. And what really matters are the prerogatives of the Totality, and not of particular men or women. If we chose to separate ourselves from the dictates of the Age, we merely get ‘recycled’, as, regrettably, most of us seem to be doing. Hence, the evolution of consciousness is slowing in direct proportion to the material evolution taking place.
The balance is always maintained.
For an causal observer, the meteoric advances in the development of electronics gives us a clear sign where the world, the physical/material world is going. As we, as a species, have failed to become united under the banner of united consciousness, we shall do so under the micro-voltaic impulses of electronic devices. If you observe the world as I do, you’ll see that it cannot be otherwise. My Aquarius Trilogy will show one way in which it can happen. But, of course, the ways are infinite. And even my vision will take time to put on paper. In the meantime, I hope you’ll enjoy part one of the trilogy, Wall—Love, Sex, and Immortality. It is but a foretaste of things to come. A gentle hint. Enjoy it.
If you do, perhaps you’ll choose to join the few for whom the present reality is already not… real. And you’ll become, at least in part, immune to the forthcoming changes. Perhaps. 

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Thursday, 17 January 2013


At first sight, for reasons not quite clear to me, perhaps fuelled by fear, we don’t seem to notice the changes that are transforming our world in recent years. Yet, surely, one would have to be blind not to notice that slowly but truly we are careering steeply into the Age of Anarchy.
But not all is lost. Like everything else, this Age is transient.
No matter what causes the upheavals we witness, their purpose has invariably positive aims. We are about to make gigantic steps in electronic evolution, which is likely to make many a labour done at present by men—obsolete. I am not a prophet, but an observer of trends, rather as a meteorologist observes air currents. And, indeed, just as a meteorologist—I can be wrong. By a year or two. Perhaps by a decade. But, trust me, our world order is in the process of changing diametrically.
The new scheme of things, which is creeping upon all of us, is as unavoidable as all the past rudimentary changes that took place, periodically, throughout history. You can read about some of them in my Visualization—Creating your own Universe. Unfortunately, what we cannot do is to stop the unfolding of reality, any more then we could stop the Earth spinning around our sun. Nor, hopefully, would we want to. But what we can do is to prepare to absorb the shockwave, which is approaching us.
No, not a tsunami. It will not be a consequence of any physical upheaval. It will be born from a change that is taking place in human consciousness.
A revolutionary change.
A hint comes from the Zodiac. In the Age of Aquarius, ever man will assume responsibility for watering his or her own garden.
People always seem to confuse such deductions with religious prophecies. Not so, unless one equates all things with religion. Nor is it science, which tends to study only the past—or the results, rather than the process itself. No. This is the study of the present, and drawing conclusions that are already shaping our future.
The vision of such is so real to me, that I am gathering evidence which will enable me two write two novels, the Pluto Effect and the 7th Race. Both are provisionary titles, but both will form a trilogy as continuation of my already published novel The Wall, which is destined to form part one of the Aquarius Trilogy.
Our “free will” is limited to temporary resistance of the whirlwind in which countless zillions of cycles of energy and matter swirl to construct for us an illusion of the world we consider to be real.
Wait and see. Only please, keep your eyes open, and if you don’t want to, then, when ready, read my book. I will not keep anything from you. Trust me, if you enjoyed my “Wall ”, then you’ll love the next two.
And if not, well, I will have enjoyed writing them. 

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

Action and Reaction

There are about 7 billion of us on Earth, and pretty much all of us have the same potential. Contrary to popular belief we are not born equal—our birthright is dependant on accumulated Karma—but we all have equal potential to overcome our difficulties, no matter how varied they are. We mustn’t forget that all the Universal Laws (which some people tried to regiment into religions with very dubious results), deal not with the ephemeral, transient, imaginary reality, which most of us mistakenly recognize as real, i.e. the material universe, but with the true reality, wherein thoughts and emotions are the building blocks of what we consider real.
Pretty much all of us are capable of great deeds and great misdeeds. Our scope is near-infinite. There is however one trait which distinguishes us more from each other than any other. And this trait is expressed in our choice of action or reaction. Most animals are capable only of reaction. They react to their environment, to the dictates of their hormones, their genetic predispositions, their instincts.
Sadly, this applies to the vast majority of men and women, to the members of the illustrious Homo sapiens.
To most of us.
If it hadn’t been for the apple, which Eve procured for us in the Garden of Eden, we would continue to react without discrimination to all of the above and then, more often than not, blame others for the results.
Some of us, the few, those who decide to be among the chosen few, are determined to be proactive. To be motivated by action, not reaction but action, motivated by not instinct but by intuition. Instinct is the result of the sum-total of our accumulated knowledge, I call it our subconscious. Intuition motivates us to action not previously experienced. It is risky, often requiring courage; it also often forces us to swim against the popular current, it propels us into uncharted waters of reality. It inspires us to go, “where no man has been before”.
Writers who dream of such challenges often resort to science-fiction. Only there they can spread their wings, cross new horizons, perhaps even avoid ridicule, and at best, not be jailed or condemned for daring to think differently from most others.
I, too, dared to do so. Actually, I do so in all my books. I deal with human potential. With the potential of the few who dare to act, and not just react. But if you need the veil of science-fiction to protect your sanity from venturing too far, then I suggest you try my Gift of Gamman. It is about the few who dared, who risked their lives, to try to help the many. Isn’t this always the case?

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Sunday, 13 January 2013

Judgment and Condemnation

A long time ago, a man advised us not to judge others, lest we might be judged. Two thousand years ago, the teacher did not have modern language, nor modern scientific knowledge, to explain his thoughts in a manner, which would be easily understood to modern man. So it is with the question of judgment.
In a court of law, we witness many cases (some enacted on TVs), wherein the two advocates present countless arguments for and against the accused, to enable the jury to “pass judgment”. Yet, no matter how we try, we can only condemn the deed, never the perpetrator of such. Why?
If we judge a man’s or a woman’s body, then the medical profession can furnish us with a great deal of knowledge why he or she might be guilty or innocent. Mental aberration, various psychological disorders, chemical imbalance in the brain, etc., etc..
But no matter how we dissect the brain and its functions, man is more than the sum of his physical parts. The best I can do to illustrate the problem is to compare man to an iceberg. Wikipedia tells us that:

Because the density of pure ice is about 920 kg/m³, and that of sea water about 1025 kg/m³, typically only one-ninth of the volume of an iceberg is above water.”

A similar comparison can be advanced in relation to the ratio between a man’s conscious and unconscious functions, only, in all likelihood, the ratio would be more like a thousand, if not a million, to one. This would mean that no matter how well we amass our evidence in a court of law, we can only judge, at best, one-ninth of a man, or one-ninth of that which motivates his actions.
A poor judgment indeed. 
Of course, we must never confuse trying to help someone, leaning over a precipice, with judgment that carries overtones of condemnation. It seems to me that discrimination should enable us to recognize the difference between right and wrong—not to result in unjust or prejudicial treatment of those who disagree with us. The first is a sign of compassion, the second of only partially founded judgment.
In my sequel to The Avatar Syndrome, the Headless World—the Vatican Incident, I try to illustrate the problems issuing from judgment. You might enjoy it.
Hence, it is better that a hundred seemingly guilty men go free, than that one innocent be judged unjustly. Do we need laws? Of course. As always, many will continue to judge, and only a few will refrain, and thus not accumulate negative Karma. But it is not the judgment, as such, which leaves us carrying the burden. It is the punishment we met without sufficient knowledge. It is of imposing punishment we must beware.
But that’s the way the world is designed: for the many and the few. It is always our choice to which group we choose to belong.

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Friday, 11 January 2013


“Let the dead bury the dead?” Rather harsh words from the Prince of Peace, don’t you think? But, how many of us ask ourselves “why”. Why did Yeshûa refer to “ordinary” men, perhaps women, as the dead? Buddha gave us a hint. Perhaps Yeshûa could have said, “let those who choose to sleep, remain sleeping.” Perhaps he was just making a point.
Nothing would change, of course. The “dead” would remain the dead. Those who were asleep were not ready to wake up. Only they could decide if and when they would become alive.
But… why dead?
Well, it seems to me that in Yeshûa’s eyes alive was only that that was, or is, immortal. If we ask anyone if they deem themselves immortal they’d probably reply, well… ah… you know… what do you mean immortal? Doesn’t everyone die, sooner or later?”
This is the question I intend to answer right here.
If you or I indentify ourselves with our physical or material body, or possessions, than we no only identify ourselves with that which even we know is transient, but which, in essence, is empty space. Which is an illusion.
The problem with immortality is the same as with infinity. It has neither beginning nor end. If we think that we came to being only at the moment of our birth, then, obviously, we disqualify ourselves from being immortal. And Yeshûa considered only the immortal as alive. Only that which is indestructible, which cannot be broken or hurt. Ever.
That which can be injured physically, emotionally, mentally, is not immortal. The first is the most ephemeral, the second lasts longer, and the ideas born in the unconscious and brought to fruition through our mental process have the longest shelf-life. At some level they continue to exist, by our standards, almost forever. But they are not immortal. Only our raised consciousness can aspire to that term.
Not the ephemeral, reactive consciousness born of the magnificent biological robot we call our body, our temporary abode, but that which uses this creation to gather new experiences in the realm of the immortal. And therefore, whatever does not qualify as such, is dismissed, as though it never existed. If anyone is not aware of being immortal, then he or she isn’t. It’s as simple as that. We and we alone create our reality. No one can do it for us.
As always, it is our choice.
Perhaps reading my Key to Immortality might help.

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Wednesday, 9 January 2013

The Art of Giving

A strange thought came to me, probably inspired at the subliminal level by something I’d heard or read, that the best way to get is to give. This does not apply, of course, to people to whom possessions, physical, material possessions, are of importance. On the other hand, until an ebook was invented, for writers at least, the problem of giving carried considerable financial burden
Printing + postage of a book to anyone in our large, ocean to ocean to ocean country made giving almost prohibitive. I don’t mean a copy or two for our friends, or for publicity purposes, but hundreds if not thousands of copies to total strangers, who might, just might, enjoy our efforts to entertain them.
As it happens, the very fact that our presents go to total strangers, who, in all probability will never take the trouble to say “thank you” (let alone express their gratitude within the review column), makes the act of giving somehow nobler. Ah… “to give and expect nothing in return…” didn’t someone recommend such an action a long, long time ago?
Alas, for a quite a while a writer, or at least any writer I know, could not afford it. And then, lo and behold, an ebook was born. Now, all who aspire to give can do so without incurring any expense. Of course, by selling the book we would make thousand and thousands of dollars (should we be so lucky), but not making money is not the same as having to advance money one doesn’t have. In other words, one cannot give what one doesn’t have.

I am reminded of an elderly aunt of mine who looked with compassion at a girl suspected of practicing the world’s oldest profession. She looked at her, smiled and said, “She is engaged in a wonderful trade. She has it, she gives it away, and she still has it.”
A little like me, now. I have an ebook, I give it away, and I still have it. I can only hope that my books will turn out to be as popular as the profession of the girl who caught attention of my aunt.
I decided that every week, at least one of my ebooks will be offered for free on Amazon Kindle, or elsewhere. Look for it. It will be yours to keep, with no obligations.
Just promise me, from afar, that you will try to enjoy it, even as I enjoy giving it to you. I will not always tell you which one, and on which day, but the presents will be there every week.

 Just this once, I’ll start you off. Until midnight today, my second historical novel Peter and Paul is free for you to download at Amazon Kindle. Join the many hundreds who already have their copy. Next week, you’ll be on your own.

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Monday, 7 January 2013

For Writers Only

Few writers seem to realize that the prerequisite to writing is having something to say. We have video and audio recordings of what is, what transpired, while only writers have the privilege to show what could be—even if later it were to be converted to other media.
Ah, yes. Something to say…
That, according to the majority, leaves us with sex and murder—like 90% of programs on TV and the movies, often on our news, too. Unless one could describe such the way Shakespeare did, such liberties should be redundant.
Thankfully, there is a small group of people who seem left out from this prevailing mainstream; people who stand apart from the masses that populate this glorious planet of ours. As so often these days, they are the unknowns.
They are the few. I learn from them, daily.

I’ve chosen to write about the Human Potential. Not many people do. Not about our propensity for accumulating material goods; those are transient—ephemeral—while our potential is not only infinite but also eternal.
I wonder how many people, including the so-called, successful amongst us: the CEO, the presidents, those to whom leadership has been entrusted, how many of them ever wondered what was, what is, meant by the ancient biblical phrase: “Ye are gods”. If those men, or women, belong to any organized religion, then they would have to take this expression as blasphemy. After all, this is exactly how this phrase had been treated some 2000 years ago. The fact this potential had been made for all men and women didn’t help. Blasphemy punished by crucifixion.
Had the psalmist been wrong? After all, he was one among the many; yet only human. “Only” sounds like such an inadequate word when speaking of Human Potential.

Well, after some 50 years of daily contemplation, I decided that the ancient scribe was not wrong. I concluded that he was describing our, human, ultimate potential. Or as Buddha would put it, about our potential once we wake up from our slumber. 
I hope some of my blogs might serve to stir some of us from our slumber. And then, after some considerable thought, some of us will awaken to the realization of the truth, to the unadulterated joy of the Human Potential.
--> Perhaps, as suggested in Winston's Kingdom?
Good luck. 

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca

Friday, 4 January 2013

Religion for Few or for Many?

This takes us back, again, to Peter and Paul. Peter did not create any religion; Paul did. Paul created organizational means of controlling the masses. Religion was never intended for individuals. It has been said that John the Baptist baptized with water, but he that came after him will do so with the Holy Ghost. Peter knew that. Paul, on the other hand, knew, from the very beginning, that in order to have any influence over people you had to organize them. He also learned, quickly, that contrary to popular belief and frequent denials, people want to be told what to do. They do not want to accept responsibility for their thoughts, actions, even beliefs. They would rather have someone else to blame.
Like the devil, for instance?
No such entity existed before the early Church invented him. He had a dual function: one, to instill fear—always the best emotion to control people, and two, to give people someone to blame for their own mistakes.
Remember that before the Judeo-Christian philosophy took root, there was also no such thing as sin. One made mistakes, one paid for them. Then “sin” became another means of scaring people into obedience, thus making them easy to control.
Religions in the pre-Christian times had very different purposes. Originally their intent was to awaken people to their true potential.  
Then… things changed.
The previous intent could only work for relatively small number of people who were in frequent touch with those who new the truth. As the population multiplied at a rate comparable only to the lowest levels of animal life, this no longer offered sufficient means of enlightening people. What Paul realized was that if he can control the masses of possible acolytes, or candidates for further study then, in time, at least some of them, could be instructed in the truth.
We know now that his method failed.
What he didn’t count on was that having been so successful in his endeavours, the Church amassed such power that it became subject to the indomitable laws which power breads; it became subject to the law of corruption. There is ample evidence that this corruption, which reached its peak during the Spanish Inquisition, neither would, nor could turn its direction without yielding at least some of its power. From imposing physical torture and murder on the disobedient, the church turned to anathema, to “eternal damnation”, which was one of the biggest lies ever introduced by any power-yielding plutocracy.

Nevertheless, while “the many” remained under the dark shadow of the Church, “the few” freed themselves from its clutches, and began to study, again, the original teaching on which the Church claimed to have based its power. Such people, the seekers of truth, live quietly, usually quite unknown to the general public, certainly unknown to the Church.
If anyone is interested in furthering his or her own studies, the Dictionary of Biblical Symbolism should help. Good luck. 

Wednesday, 2 January 2013

Liberty Repealed

The Land of the Free? You are kidding, right?
“Spread you legs wide, Madam, and hold your arms out.” Did you ever try refusing this command at the airport? We are free to obey or be arrested. Our choice.
Freedom? Not in Europe, North or South America, or most of Asia. Not my idea of freedom. In Canada, you are not even allowed to die at the time of your choosing. Liberty?
“Life is not fair, but God is good,” assures us the televangelist, pastor motivational speaker, and author, Robber Schuller. Some twenty people had given him 5 stars on the Amazon for this unprecedented pearl of wisdom.
Does Schuller’s statement sound like freedom to you? Life’s not fair? And whose fault is that? He, even as all religions and governments, continue to poison peoples’ minds with such statements. This is part of the carrot and stick syndrome of controlling people. How could life be unfair if god is good? If you love your child, would you be unfair to him or her? Would god do any less then you? Isn’t he supposed to be almighty? What sort of god does Schuller believe in?
And finally there is the popular dictum of most religions: “If you don’t do as I say, you’ll go to hell.” Or to jail. Your choice.
“Keep them scared and ignorant. This will make them easier to control,” is the motto that motivates all who are in power, the world over. In the western cultures, some of us have been brought up to believe the psalmist who said that: “ye are gods”. What a shame that our leaders have long forgotten this assurance, and are determined to turn us into obedient slaves.

But the truth will still set us free.
And when it does, in that instant we shall realize, suddenly, like a flash of lightning, that life—god notwithstanding—is always fair. That we can no longer blame anyone for the reality we have created through our own efforts—knowingly or not.
But to realize this truth we must earn our freedom. We must liberate ourselves from those who wish to curb our freedom, supposedly for our own good. Instead of listening to pompous TV preachers we must set aside a quiet time, everyday, during which we must learn to listen to our inner voice. Our inner voice. Not someone else’s microphone boosted harangues—political, economic, or religious. The truth, whatever it might be, lies within us. Within our hearts. Then Freedom will be our, again.

On a lighter side, if you’d want to see not so much what is, but what could be, you might like to read Part Three of my Winston Trilogy. It is called Winston’s Kingdom. You might get an idea how you could build yours. Of course you might enjoy it even more if you’d read Parts One and Two of my Trilogy first.
As always, it’s up to you. 

My webpage is http://stanlaw.ca.
Ask about FREE downloads at mailto:stan@stanlaw.ca