Success� We all aspire to it, talk about it, envy those who achieve it, we think about it, fight for it. It is really worth it. Success comes with reaching our aims and it brings us incomparable satisfaction and happiness. That gives us a unique opportunity to be happy every day, if we achieve small goals every day and step by step we will be approaching our GREAT dream.
Recollect your studies at college, when you had to combine work and study; when you had a very tense schedule, when your only solution was a custom term paper to get through the semester. But you stood it. By achieving mini goals every term, at last you reached the main aim � successful graduation. And that is why you are a successful person. But one of the qualities of a prosperous person is that he is always striving for perfection and will never rest on his laurels. So, let's go further and develop ourselves�Close your eyes for a minute and imagine a successful person. Is he rich or poor? Surely, most of us associate success with rich people. So, success and wealth are inseparable from each other? Yes, it's likely to be so. But wealth is not a target for a successful person. It is just one of the steps to reach a global aim.
What do you think are there any objective reasons, hindering success? It is a fact that there some outer reasons, not depending on you, for example war, flood and so on. And what about objective sound reasons? If you find one, we will debate it with you. But so far I dare say there is none!!!! All the reasons are subjective (inner) and thus � every one can get rid of these reasons, changing something in himself. We create the greatest obstacle in achieving success with our fears, complexes and diffidence. And then, what are the keys to success? Read through the following features and think which of them you have and which you still have to acquire.
1)Clear objective. Without the aim, no achievement is possible. A thoroughly equipped ship with wonderful crew will arrive nowhere if it hasn't any course of direction.
2) Accurate strategy. Unplanned success is a planned defeat. Accurate and logical strategy helps to realize the grandest projects. A successful person fulfills a small portion of his great plan every day. If you stick to your plan, then you will be able to realize everything you want. And if you want, you have a potential.
3)Positive attitude. Positive thinking, positive attitude to the world work wonders. You live in the world you create for yourself. You want to live in a wonderful world � think about something wonderful! Stop being afraid of failures and you will reach your success.
4) Faith in success. Faith strengthens your potential, and doubts destroy it. If you have some desire, leave all your doubts behind. Just believe in the possibility of its realization and you will have not so many obstacles in your way.
5)Education and training.Being aware of your desires without any action will lead to nothing. Only actions, supported by knowledge will result in great success. Constant training, constant improvement of your professional knowledge, - these are the features that distinguish a successful person. Our world is ever changing, and only on condition of applying your new knowledge you can keep pace with time.
6) Self �improvement. It helps us to change for better, overcome our complexes and fears, get rid of diffidence. Remember, that everything depends only on you; you are master of your fate, your success and happiness. And if you don't possess all the listed above qualities, then you will be able to develop these features improving yourself. The only thing that does not depend on you is strong desire; it is given to us by Nature.
7) Self �confidence helps us to get top results where there is no premise for it. Fighting with your complexes, the person is approaching the ideal and makes the best of the work.
This article is merely a presentation of philosophy of success. These are only words, though wise and true. But you are able to turn this philosophy into a powerful tool for improving your life from now on. And then the philosophy will revive and you will benefit from it greatly. This simple philosophy will become your strategy, your guiding thread in achieving success. I am sure it will lead you to great success.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Dog Whispering: origins of a phrase and a philosophy
What Is Dog Whispering?
Dog whispering is more than a matter of talking nicely to your dog.
It's about understanding your dog by reading and interpreting its body language. In turn, you communicate your response to your dog through your body language and actions. From an outside perspective, the calm yet firm way of the whisperer gives the impression that he or she has a bond with the animal that is more natural, or even mystical.
That Movie
The phrase itself is a borrowing from "horse whisperer," which became popular after Nicholas Evans' 1995 novel of the same name was made into a Hollywood movie starring Robert Redford in 1998. The story centers on a real life horse trainer, Irishman Daniel Sullivan. In the early 1800s, Sullivan gained notoriety all over England with his uncanny ability to train and rehabilitate problem horses. He kept his techniques mostly secret and passed them down to his prodigy Willis J. Powell, who took the knowledge overseas to the Americas. There it was passed down again and again in the same way until this secretive method was ultimately revealed more openly.
The idea of "whispering" as a form of training and especially rehabilitating problem horses began to be applied in a wider sense, not only to cattle and livestock, but also to domesticated pets, especially dogs. Dog whispering, like horse whispering, places a heavy investment in understanding the dog by studying their behavior, and responding to them with calm and firm guidance in turn.
That Guy
The best known dog whisperer today is Cesar Millan, who gained fame with his television series, The Dog Whisperer, on the National Geographic Channel. Originally from Mexico, Millan came to the United States in the 1990s. Knowing he had a proven ability to communicate with dogs in a healthy, productive, and humane way, he set out to help dog owners do the same.
Millan's techniques emphasize the importance of establishing yourself as a confident and dependable leader, and his philosophy revolves around the principles of "exercise, discipline and affection."
Nothing Too New
Even though Millan popularized the "Dog Whisperer" tag, and "dog whispering" has become a very hot topic in dog obedience training, the method and techniques it refers to are not necessarily new, nor are they unique to Cesar Millan. Though it should be said that Millan is a genuinely intuitive and caring dog trainer (or "rehabilitator," as he calls himself), and he offers a great deal to troubled dogs � and troubled trainers.
Dog whispering as a dog training philosophy has been around for as long as there have been owners and trainers who deeply understand and respect these animals on their terms and "in their language." It simply occurred under different names.
Either way, those who embrace this philosophy all have one thing in common: they treat dogs neither as humans on four legs or as personal servants at our command, but as dogs.
Dog whispering is more than a matter of talking nicely to your dog.
It's about understanding your dog by reading and interpreting its body language. In turn, you communicate your response to your dog through your body language and actions. From an outside perspective, the calm yet firm way of the whisperer gives the impression that he or she has a bond with the animal that is more natural, or even mystical.
That Movie
The phrase itself is a borrowing from "horse whisperer," which became popular after Nicholas Evans' 1995 novel of the same name was made into a Hollywood movie starring Robert Redford in 1998. The story centers on a real life horse trainer, Irishman Daniel Sullivan. In the early 1800s, Sullivan gained notoriety all over England with his uncanny ability to train and rehabilitate problem horses. He kept his techniques mostly secret and passed them down to his prodigy Willis J. Powell, who took the knowledge overseas to the Americas. There it was passed down again and again in the same way until this secretive method was ultimately revealed more openly.
The idea of "whispering" as a form of training and especially rehabilitating problem horses began to be applied in a wider sense, not only to cattle and livestock, but also to domesticated pets, especially dogs. Dog whispering, like horse whispering, places a heavy investment in understanding the dog by studying their behavior, and responding to them with calm and firm guidance in turn.
That Guy
The best known dog whisperer today is Cesar Millan, who gained fame with his television series, The Dog Whisperer, on the National Geographic Channel. Originally from Mexico, Millan came to the United States in the 1990s. Knowing he had a proven ability to communicate with dogs in a healthy, productive, and humane way, he set out to help dog owners do the same.
Millan's techniques emphasize the importance of establishing yourself as a confident and dependable leader, and his philosophy revolves around the principles of "exercise, discipline and affection."
Nothing Too New
Even though Millan popularized the "Dog Whisperer" tag, and "dog whispering" has become a very hot topic in dog obedience training, the method and techniques it refers to are not necessarily new, nor are they unique to Cesar Millan. Though it should be said that Millan is a genuinely intuitive and caring dog trainer (or "rehabilitator," as he calls himself), and he offers a great deal to troubled dogs � and troubled trainers.
Dog whispering as a dog training philosophy has been around for as long as there have been owners and trainers who deeply understand and respect these animals on their terms and "in their language." It simply occurred under different names.
Either way, those who embrace this philosophy all have one thing in common: they treat dogs neither as humans on four legs or as personal servants at our command, but as dogs.
Is Muay Thai what you are really looking for
In summary, there is always only one answer for this question : If you would like to discover whether Muay Thai is suitable for you, just come to visit several Muay Thai gyms and try a first lesson (certainly most of Muay Thai gyms offer free introduction class) and see whether you want to learn it!!!
As I mentioned that everyone can learn Muay Thai. However, I would like to explain more on that as there may be some of you who have different background of martial arts training, from beginner to expert boxer, then I want to contribute some suggestion which based on my personal opinion to several group of Muay Thai learners
I. New to martial arts, no previous experience and looking for something to learn to find out which martial art is the best.
Every martial arts have their own uniqueness and are the best of its kind. Some of you who are in this group may have seen many of tournaments that Muay Thai wins against other kind of martial arts or have seen what Tony Jaa perform in the movie and think that "Yeah Muay Thai is awesome, I need to learn that". I can say that if you want to learn Muay Thai because of this, it's not wrong, but this is only a bit of Muay Thai philosophy that you have seen from those fights or by watch the movie. And when you decide to apply for a camp, start to learn it and be with it for a while, you will see Muay Thai is much much more than in the movie or in the ring fights. The process of training itself, especially, for ones who want to be a professional boxer, is hard and requires a lot of dedication. More than anything, Muay Thai has a lot of history and believes behind the arts, believes and the fighting technique can not be separated.
I am quite disappointed that even in Thailand today, some Thais learn to be a boxer just because they want to earn money, some Muay Thai camps now have become more commercial and the worst thing is most of Thais who love Muay Thai keep watching the fight and turn it in to a betting game!!!.
So if you are about to decide to learn Muay Thai, please make sure that you find out more about it's history, style and believes in order to understand more about it, and then let's go to the answer I mentioned above.
II. Have some background of other kind of martial arts and want to learn Muay Thai to gain more experience and learn variety of martial arts.
If you are the people in this group, I would like to say thank you for interested in Muay Thai. Your background and knowledge of martial arts will benefit to your Muay Thai training and you will find it easier to practice than who have just started. As I suggest above, it is good to learn Muay Thai philosophy and believes along with the art of fight which I think it's necessary for Muay Thai learners at any level. So let's move on and learn Muay Thai to get variety of martial arts and maybe you can mix all of techniques that you learn and apply for your best performance in actual self-defense situation.
III. People who are interested in Muay Thai from the start, dedicate to the training and intend to become a Kru/master or grand master of Muay Thai and teach others.
If you are a person in this group, I have no further suggestion because I can assume that you have made a great commitment to learn Muay Thai and see it really suitable for you. Please receive my great appreciation for interested to become one of the Muay Thai heritage. Just one thing that I beg you please keep doing is to teach others on what you have learnt from Kru, as well as maintain the Muay Thai philosophy along with the art of fight, then people will learn Muay Thai "BY HEART" not only learn for the fight.
As I mentioned that everyone can learn Muay Thai. However, I would like to explain more on that as there may be some of you who have different background of martial arts training, from beginner to expert boxer, then I want to contribute some suggestion which based on my personal opinion to several group of Muay Thai learners
I. New to martial arts, no previous experience and looking for something to learn to find out which martial art is the best.
Every martial arts have their own uniqueness and are the best of its kind. Some of you who are in this group may have seen many of tournaments that Muay Thai wins against other kind of martial arts or have seen what Tony Jaa perform in the movie and think that "Yeah Muay Thai is awesome, I need to learn that". I can say that if you want to learn Muay Thai because of this, it's not wrong, but this is only a bit of Muay Thai philosophy that you have seen from those fights or by watch the movie. And when you decide to apply for a camp, start to learn it and be with it for a while, you will see Muay Thai is much much more than in the movie or in the ring fights. The process of training itself, especially, for ones who want to be a professional boxer, is hard and requires a lot of dedication. More than anything, Muay Thai has a lot of history and believes behind the arts, believes and the fighting technique can not be separated.
I am quite disappointed that even in Thailand today, some Thais learn to be a boxer just because they want to earn money, some Muay Thai camps now have become more commercial and the worst thing is most of Thais who love Muay Thai keep watching the fight and turn it in to a betting game!!!.
So if you are about to decide to learn Muay Thai, please make sure that you find out more about it's history, style and believes in order to understand more about it, and then let's go to the answer I mentioned above.
II. Have some background of other kind of martial arts and want to learn Muay Thai to gain more experience and learn variety of martial arts.
If you are the people in this group, I would like to say thank you for interested in Muay Thai. Your background and knowledge of martial arts will benefit to your Muay Thai training and you will find it easier to practice than who have just started. As I suggest above, it is good to learn Muay Thai philosophy and believes along with the art of fight which I think it's necessary for Muay Thai learners at any level. So let's move on and learn Muay Thai to get variety of martial arts and maybe you can mix all of techniques that you learn and apply for your best performance in actual self-defense situation.
III. People who are interested in Muay Thai from the start, dedicate to the training and intend to become a Kru/master or grand master of Muay Thai and teach others.
If you are a person in this group, I have no further suggestion because I can assume that you have made a great commitment to learn Muay Thai and see it really suitable for you. Please receive my great appreciation for interested to become one of the Muay Thai heritage. Just one thing that I beg you please keep doing is to teach others on what you have learnt from Kru, as well as maintain the Muay Thai philosophy along with the art of fight, then people will learn Muay Thai "BY HEART" not only learn for the fight.
Low carb diets: Are they safe
Low carb diets are currently the most popularity type of diet regimen being used by many fitness conscious people. The low carb philosophy is taking the world by storm as millions of people are now trying out this new diet in the hopes of losing excess weight and fat.
Proponents of the low carb diet philosophy are also saying that aside from losing weight, it also has other inherent benefits. They said that it lowers cholesterol, helps control diabetes or completely stop it from developing in certain individuals. These are claims that seem to have been supported by actual facts as followers of a low carb diet plan have reported the same thing.
This is well and good because it is a good development to finally find a diet plan that is not only going to help you lose weight but will also have very noticeable and significant medical benefits.
But it cannot also be denied that there are many diet plans out there that are either not effective, bogus or even harmful and have a detrimental effect on one's health. So the question also remains. Are low carb diets safe?
Not surprisingly there are certain arguments that are being presented against low carb diets and ultimately there are also moves to debunk the low carb diet philosophy. In fact, in 2004 a Canadian court made a ruling that foods that are sold in the country are prohibited from being marketed with reduced or no carbohydrate content. This is because, as the court ruled, carbohydrates have been seen as having no health risks. The ruling also stated tat all packaging that has and indication of "low carb" or "no carb" be phased out by 2006.
According to some critics and detractors of the low carb diet philosophy there are side effects to following this diet regimen. Some of the side effects of consuming low amounts of carbohydrates include ketosis. This is a certain metabolic state that is characterized by headaches, nausea, tiredness, dehydration, and dizziness. There is also the emanation of an sweet-smelling breath odor. There is also a chance of constipation because dietary fiber is usually cut down in the prepared dishes. In fact, because of the prevalence of constipation among Atkins Diet followers, there is now a clear guideline for the addition of fiber supplements during the induction stage.
The cutting down of calories that are taken from carbohydrates and replacing them with calories taken from meat may also increase the likelihood of raising the intake of both saturated fat and cholesterol � and this could increase your chances of getting heart disease. It has also been a contention that with the lessened carbohydrate � increased protein intake the kidneys will have to work harder to flush out impurities in the body. There is also a marked change in the acidity levels of the blood which can result in bone loss.
But according to trials made to prove the hypothesis, there was no evidence that following a low carb diet will damage the kidney or result in bone density loss.
Proponents of the low carb diet philosophy are also saying that aside from losing weight, it also has other inherent benefits. They said that it lowers cholesterol, helps control diabetes or completely stop it from developing in certain individuals. These are claims that seem to have been supported by actual facts as followers of a low carb diet plan have reported the same thing.
This is well and good because it is a good development to finally find a diet plan that is not only going to help you lose weight but will also have very noticeable and significant medical benefits.
But it cannot also be denied that there are many diet plans out there that are either not effective, bogus or even harmful and have a detrimental effect on one's health. So the question also remains. Are low carb diets safe?
Not surprisingly there are certain arguments that are being presented against low carb diets and ultimately there are also moves to debunk the low carb diet philosophy. In fact, in 2004 a Canadian court made a ruling that foods that are sold in the country are prohibited from being marketed with reduced or no carbohydrate content. This is because, as the court ruled, carbohydrates have been seen as having no health risks. The ruling also stated tat all packaging that has and indication of "low carb" or "no carb" be phased out by 2006.
According to some critics and detractors of the low carb diet philosophy there are side effects to following this diet regimen. Some of the side effects of consuming low amounts of carbohydrates include ketosis. This is a certain metabolic state that is characterized by headaches, nausea, tiredness, dehydration, and dizziness. There is also the emanation of an sweet-smelling breath odor. There is also a chance of constipation because dietary fiber is usually cut down in the prepared dishes. In fact, because of the prevalence of constipation among Atkins Diet followers, there is now a clear guideline for the addition of fiber supplements during the induction stage.
The cutting down of calories that are taken from carbohydrates and replacing them with calories taken from meat may also increase the likelihood of raising the intake of both saturated fat and cholesterol � and this could increase your chances of getting heart disease. It has also been a contention that with the lessened carbohydrate � increased protein intake the kidneys will have to work harder to flush out impurities in the body. There is also a marked change in the acidity levels of the blood which can result in bone loss.
But according to trials made to prove the hypothesis, there was no evidence that following a low carb diet will damage the kidney or result in bone density loss.
Surrender and Acceptance
One of the most useful concepts to grow spiritually and becoming
happier is the method of acceptance or surrender.
I have personally found this method to be perhaps the most
workable and useful in retaining my poise and staying happier as
I go through life. Partly because of my upbringing no doubt, I
have had a life�long habit of being very self critical and
judgmental. I have the habit of criticizing and feeling bad
about myself for every little thing that happened to me �
internally or externally. I tried to reason my way out of this
habit but it did not work � the habit is still with me. I also
feel guilty many times during the day when I am caught up with
my memories of times when I behaved badly.
For anybody in this situation, or anybody who feel negatively
about himself or the situation in which he finds himself the
proper attitude is that of acceptance and surrender. Surrender
to the thoughts and feelings which arise in you. If you are
feeling bad about yourself, or your relationships, or your work
or anything about your life�situation welcome and accept that
feeling. Surrender to it, perhaps it was what was meant to
happen at this time. Watch the feeling with as much detachment
as you can. It will pass as it must; all things in this world
are impermanent.
In the classic spiritual bestseller � The Power of Now � Eckhart
Tolle advises us to treat whatever negative feeling that arises
in your mind as a message saying, "Attention � Here and Now.
Wake up � Get out of your mind � be present".
Surrender does not mean resignation to your life situation. If
you are stuck in the mud you don't say "I resign myself to being
stuck in the mud" and do nothing about it. If you have lost your
job, if you find yourself trapped in a bad relationship or in
any situation that you find intolerable then obviously you must
do something about it. We all need to plan and work to change
certain aspects of our lives. I am not telling you to blame your
fate or destiny for everything that happens and do nothing about
it.
What I am asking you to do is to surrender to everything, which
is happening to you � internally and externally at this
instant in your life. If you are trapped in the morning rush
during your daily long commute to work, then accept whatever is
happening � inside and outside � at that instant. Surrender to
your feelings of freedom, irritation and frustration. Don't
repress those feelings � accept them, surrender to them.
Surrender to the long life of cars or the crowd in the bus or
local train. Accept your present situation � at that instant �
fully and without reservation. This should not prevent you from
changing what can and needs to be changed. Perhaps you can get
another job, or shift to another branch of your company closer
to your home. Perhaps you can take the bus to your office
instead of driving yourself. You can make use or your daily
commute by reading a newspaper or a book or doing some work.
Change what can be changed, surrender to what is happening at
this instant � the one thing that you cannot change.
happier is the method of acceptance or surrender.
I have personally found this method to be perhaps the most
workable and useful in retaining my poise and staying happier as
I go through life. Partly because of my upbringing no doubt, I
have had a life�long habit of being very self critical and
judgmental. I have the habit of criticizing and feeling bad
about myself for every little thing that happened to me �
internally or externally. I tried to reason my way out of this
habit but it did not work � the habit is still with me. I also
feel guilty many times during the day when I am caught up with
my memories of times when I behaved badly.
For anybody in this situation, or anybody who feel negatively
about himself or the situation in which he finds himself the
proper attitude is that of acceptance and surrender. Surrender
to the thoughts and feelings which arise in you. If you are
feeling bad about yourself, or your relationships, or your work
or anything about your life�situation welcome and accept that
feeling. Surrender to it, perhaps it was what was meant to
happen at this time. Watch the feeling with as much detachment
as you can. It will pass as it must; all things in this world
are impermanent.
In the classic spiritual bestseller � The Power of Now � Eckhart
Tolle advises us to treat whatever negative feeling that arises
in your mind as a message saying, "Attention � Here and Now.
Wake up � Get out of your mind � be present".
Surrender does not mean resignation to your life situation. If
you are stuck in the mud you don't say "I resign myself to being
stuck in the mud" and do nothing about it. If you have lost your
job, if you find yourself trapped in a bad relationship or in
any situation that you find intolerable then obviously you must
do something about it. We all need to plan and work to change
certain aspects of our lives. I am not telling you to blame your
fate or destiny for everything that happens and do nothing about
it.
What I am asking you to do is to surrender to everything, which
is happening to you � internally and externally at this
instant in your life. If you are trapped in the morning rush
during your daily long commute to work, then accept whatever is
happening � inside and outside � at that instant. Surrender to
your feelings of freedom, irritation and frustration. Don't
repress those feelings � accept them, surrender to them.
Surrender to the long life of cars or the crowd in the bus or
local train. Accept your present situation � at that instant �
fully and without reservation. This should not prevent you from
changing what can and needs to be changed. Perhaps you can get
another job, or shift to another branch of your company closer
to your home. Perhaps you can take the bus to your office
instead of driving yourself. You can make use or your daily
commute by reading a newspaper or a book or doing some work.
Change what can be changed, surrender to what is happening at
this instant � the one thing that you cannot change.
Life is Perfect
It's always easy to find something that isn't right about the world. Here in Michigan, for example (and I suspect this is also the case elsewhere), we complain in the winter that it is too cold, and in the summer that it is too hot. The economy could certainly be better, and we could have more, and do more. It's easy to adopt the "glass is half-empty" philosophy.
How would life be different if we accepted the premise that "life is perfect?" Could it be that things are always the way they are meant to be? This might be easier to accept when things are going well than when it's too hot, when the stock market is down, or when we are in a state of ill health. But what if all things happen for a reason, in ways that we may not always understand?
Life is perfect. Perfect doesn't necessarily mean great, or the way you want it to be. Rather, perfect refers to the way it is meant to be, in the present moment.
Why is life perfect? Think about all that is good in the world, and in our lives. First of all, if you're reading this, that means you're alive. Beyond that obvious example, we could all list dozens, if not hundreds, of things for which we are grateful. There are so many wonderful things happening in our lives---right now.
This idea will be viewed by some as extreme. "Yes," you say "life is good. But perfect?"
All I can say to you is "try it on." Embrace the idea that life is perfect. If you can own this concept, truly adopting it as a philosophy, it will cause you to move ahead significantly in your personal development. Allow yourself to experience the perfection of the moment. Make the most of today, the present, now.
How would life be different if we accepted the premise that "life is perfect?" Could it be that things are always the way they are meant to be? This might be easier to accept when things are going well than when it's too hot, when the stock market is down, or when we are in a state of ill health. But what if all things happen for a reason, in ways that we may not always understand?
Life is perfect. Perfect doesn't necessarily mean great, or the way you want it to be. Rather, perfect refers to the way it is meant to be, in the present moment.
Why is life perfect? Think about all that is good in the world, and in our lives. First of all, if you're reading this, that means you're alive. Beyond that obvious example, we could all list dozens, if not hundreds, of things for which we are grateful. There are so many wonderful things happening in our lives---right now.
This idea will be viewed by some as extreme. "Yes," you say "life is good. But perfect?"
All I can say to you is "try it on." Embrace the idea that life is perfect. If you can own this concept, truly adopting it as a philosophy, it will cause you to move ahead significantly in your personal development. Allow yourself to experience the perfection of the moment. Make the most of today, the present, now.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Peace On Earth, A Wonderful Wish, But No Way
When asked, "If you could wish for one thing only, what would that wish be?" almost everyone; from beauty pagent contestants, to politicians, to religious leaders, to children, to the average person on the street states, "Peace On Earth" or "An end to all wars". Those wishes, while exemplary, are meaningless. As long as humans exist there will never be peace on earth.
Throughout the history of humankind there has never been peace on earth. Cavemen fought other cavemen over territory, food and even women. Cain killed Abel over God's respect. Gabriel blew down the walls of Jericho. America fought the Revolutionary War for freedom and brother fought against brother in our Civil War for more freedom. There have always been wars and there will always be wars.
As long as humans can think, there will be wars. Wars over such concepts as freedom, honor, dignity, etc.. Wars over territory, greed, power, prejudice, etc.. War is a part of human nature. For example, every human being is prejudiced. If they don't like some race, nationality or religion, they don't like short or tall or fat or skinny or smart or not smart or loud or quiet people. Some people don't like children, some people don't like old people, some people don't like people with pets, or people that play their music too loud, or bad drivers, or people that believe in God or people that don't believe in God. What is right and proper to some people can be wrong or even enraging to other people.
Religion can not stop wars, in fact many wars are fought over religion (Note: I believe that religion is used as an excuse for war not the real reason for war.). Christians fought against Muslims during the Crusades, Many Muslims want death for all non believers. The Catholic Church killed heretics during the Inquisition. The Nazis killed millions of Jews and then started killing Catholics. The Russians under Stalin killed anyone even remotly religious. Protestants killed other Protestants for being the wrong type of Protestant. Muslims killed Muslims for being the wrong type of Muslim. Don't forget about Atheists (I believe that Atheism is also a religion, it is a religion of non belief.), Stalin was an Atheist and wanted to get rid of all religion. Most of China's leaders are Atheists and have jailed and killed huge numbers of religious people. History is rife with various types of religious battles.
The main reason for war, however, is the lust for power. The power to make others do and believe as you do and believe, the power to make other people render unto you what you believe is rightfully yours, the power to make other people treat you as you believe you should be treated, the power to gain what you want (ie: money, love, respect, etc.), the power to punish others for doing things that you don't believe they should do, the power to keep other from having things or thoughts that you don't have. In other words, the power to be, in some ways God, to make everyone else in your image with you as their ruler.
As long as people have the ability to think, there will be greed, envy, prejudice and anger. As long as those things exist, there will be wars. Most people believe, either religiously or secularly, in the rules set down in the Ten Commandments, but very few people can follow those rules all of the time because our ability to think causes us to want. Wanting causes us to break some or all of the rules. Humans are not perfect. If they were they would not be human.
Throughout the history of humankind there has never been peace on earth. Cavemen fought other cavemen over territory, food and even women. Cain killed Abel over God's respect. Gabriel blew down the walls of Jericho. America fought the Revolutionary War for freedom and brother fought against brother in our Civil War for more freedom. There have always been wars and there will always be wars.
As long as humans can think, there will be wars. Wars over such concepts as freedom, honor, dignity, etc.. Wars over territory, greed, power, prejudice, etc.. War is a part of human nature. For example, every human being is prejudiced. If they don't like some race, nationality or religion, they don't like short or tall or fat or skinny or smart or not smart or loud or quiet people. Some people don't like children, some people don't like old people, some people don't like people with pets, or people that play their music too loud, or bad drivers, or people that believe in God or people that don't believe in God. What is right and proper to some people can be wrong or even enraging to other people.
Religion can not stop wars, in fact many wars are fought over religion (Note: I believe that religion is used as an excuse for war not the real reason for war.). Christians fought against Muslims during the Crusades, Many Muslims want death for all non believers. The Catholic Church killed heretics during the Inquisition. The Nazis killed millions of Jews and then started killing Catholics. The Russians under Stalin killed anyone even remotly religious. Protestants killed other Protestants for being the wrong type of Protestant. Muslims killed Muslims for being the wrong type of Muslim. Don't forget about Atheists (I believe that Atheism is also a religion, it is a religion of non belief.), Stalin was an Atheist and wanted to get rid of all religion. Most of China's leaders are Atheists and have jailed and killed huge numbers of religious people. History is rife with various types of religious battles.
The main reason for war, however, is the lust for power. The power to make others do and believe as you do and believe, the power to make other people render unto you what you believe is rightfully yours, the power to make other people treat you as you believe you should be treated, the power to gain what you want (ie: money, love, respect, etc.), the power to punish others for doing things that you don't believe they should do, the power to keep other from having things or thoughts that you don't have. In other words, the power to be, in some ways God, to make everyone else in your image with you as their ruler.
As long as people have the ability to think, there will be greed, envy, prejudice and anger. As long as those things exist, there will be wars. Most people believe, either religiously or secularly, in the rules set down in the Ten Commandments, but very few people can follow those rules all of the time because our ability to think causes us to want. Wanting causes us to break some or all of the rules. Humans are not perfect. If they were they would not be human.
Comment On the Importance of Human Life
The preservation of human life is the ultimate value, a pillar of ethics and the foundation of all morality. This held true in most cultures and societies throughout history.
On first impression, the last sentence sounds patently wrong. We all know about human collectives that regarded human lives as dispensable, that murdered and tortured, that cleansed and annihilated whole populations in recurrent genocides. Surely, these defy the aforementioned statement?
Liberal philosophies claim that human life was treated as a prime value throughout the ages. Authoritarian regimes do not contest the over-riding importance of this value. Life is sacred, valuable, to be cherished and preserved. But, in totalitarian societies, it can be deferred, subsumed, subjected to higher goals, quantized, and, therefore, applied with differential rigor in the following circumstances:
1.. Quantitative - when a lesser evil prevents a greater one. Sacrificing the lives of the few to save the lives of the many is a principle enshrined and embedded in activities such as war and medicinal care. All cultures, no matter how steeped (or rooted) in liberal lore accept it. They all send soldiers to die to save the more numerous civilian population. Medical doctors sacrifice lives daily, to save others.
It is boils down to a quantitative assessment ("the numerical ratio between those saved and those sacrificed"), and to questions of quality ("are there privileged lives whose saving or preservation is worth the sacrifice of others' lives?") and of evaluation (no one can safely predict the results of such moral dilemmas - will lives be saved as the result of the sacrifice?).
2.. Temporal - when sacrificing life (voluntarily or not) in the present secures a better life for others in the future. These future lives need not be more numerous than the lives sacrificed. A life in the future immediately acquires the connotation of youth in need of protection. It is the old sacrificed for the sake of the new, a trade off between those who already had their share of life - and those who hadn't. It is the bloody equivalent of a savings plan: one defers present consumption to the future.
The mirror image of this temporal argument belongs to the third group (see next), the qualitative one. It prefers to sacrifice a life in the present so that another life, also in the present, will continue to exist in the future. Abortion is an instance of this approach: the life of the child is sacrificed to secure the future well-being of the mother. In Judaism, it is forbidden to kill a female bird. Better to kill its off-spring. The mother has the potential to compensate for this loss of life by bringing giving birth to other chicks.
3.. Qualitative - This is an especially vicious variant because it purports to endow subjective notions and views with "scientific" objectivity. People are judged to belong to different qualitative groups (classified by race, skin color, birth, gender, age, wealth, or other arbitrary parameters). The result of this immoral taxonomy is that the lives of the "lesser" brands of humans are considered less "weighty" and worthy than the lives of the upper grades of humanity. The former are therefore sacrificed to benefit the latter. The Jews in Nazi occupied Europe, the black slaves in America, the aborigines in Australia are three examples of such pernicious thinking.
4.. Utilitarian - When the sacrifice of one life brings another person material or other benefits. This is the thinking (and action) which characterizes psychopaths and sociopathic criminals, for instance. For them, life is a tradable commodity and it can be exchanged against inanimate goods and services. Money and drugs are bartered for life.
On first impression, the last sentence sounds patently wrong. We all know about human collectives that regarded human lives as dispensable, that murdered and tortured, that cleansed and annihilated whole populations in recurrent genocides. Surely, these defy the aforementioned statement?
Liberal philosophies claim that human life was treated as a prime value throughout the ages. Authoritarian regimes do not contest the over-riding importance of this value. Life is sacred, valuable, to be cherished and preserved. But, in totalitarian societies, it can be deferred, subsumed, subjected to higher goals, quantized, and, therefore, applied with differential rigor in the following circumstances:
1.. Quantitative - when a lesser evil prevents a greater one. Sacrificing the lives of the few to save the lives of the many is a principle enshrined and embedded in activities such as war and medicinal care. All cultures, no matter how steeped (or rooted) in liberal lore accept it. They all send soldiers to die to save the more numerous civilian population. Medical doctors sacrifice lives daily, to save others.
It is boils down to a quantitative assessment ("the numerical ratio between those saved and those sacrificed"), and to questions of quality ("are there privileged lives whose saving or preservation is worth the sacrifice of others' lives?") and of evaluation (no one can safely predict the results of such moral dilemmas - will lives be saved as the result of the sacrifice?).
2.. Temporal - when sacrificing life (voluntarily or not) in the present secures a better life for others in the future. These future lives need not be more numerous than the lives sacrificed. A life in the future immediately acquires the connotation of youth in need of protection. It is the old sacrificed for the sake of the new, a trade off between those who already had their share of life - and those who hadn't. It is the bloody equivalent of a savings plan: one defers present consumption to the future.
The mirror image of this temporal argument belongs to the third group (see next), the qualitative one. It prefers to sacrifice a life in the present so that another life, also in the present, will continue to exist in the future. Abortion is an instance of this approach: the life of the child is sacrificed to secure the future well-being of the mother. In Judaism, it is forbidden to kill a female bird. Better to kill its off-spring. The mother has the potential to compensate for this loss of life by bringing giving birth to other chicks.
3.. Qualitative - This is an especially vicious variant because it purports to endow subjective notions and views with "scientific" objectivity. People are judged to belong to different qualitative groups (classified by race, skin color, birth, gender, age, wealth, or other arbitrary parameters). The result of this immoral taxonomy is that the lives of the "lesser" brands of humans are considered less "weighty" and worthy than the lives of the upper grades of humanity. The former are therefore sacrificed to benefit the latter. The Jews in Nazi occupied Europe, the black slaves in America, the aborigines in Australia are three examples of such pernicious thinking.
4.. Utilitarian - When the sacrifice of one life brings another person material or other benefits. This is the thinking (and action) which characterizes psychopaths and sociopathic criminals, for instance. For them, life is a tradable commodity and it can be exchanged against inanimate goods and services. Money and drugs are bartered for life.
Philosophy as a science
Philosophy is considered a science but it is difficult to say, when one has to compare with an ordinary science, for example biology, or chemistry. This is a question that turns into a burning problem among the scientists and linguists all over the world. Can philosophy be a science? What does philosophy operate with? It operates with categories, which can be as wide and as interchangeable as one can only imagine. Ordinary science operates with definitions, which are quite limited in their field of research. Ordinary science uses terms and laws of that very science to continue the research, uniting with the others in very rare cases. Philosophy gets into the sense of every science trying to achieve results.
We also can not call philosophy a supra-science, for it also uses hypothesis and arguments to state the opinion. But there is the obvious thing: there are now laws in philosophy and never will be, for the science changes with the age, the needs, beliefs and requirements of the citizens. To prove your opinion, you can write the definition essay and state all the facts and arguments you know to prove one way or another. This is also a nice way to research the problem and see what the solution is. But you have to research it carefully;
Otherwise definition essays will not be fruitful. As all sciences philosophy has gone through its stages of development. Some scientists believe that the crib of philosophy was mythology and religion. If to see the principles of life and some primitive morals stated in some myths we may see that the statement is quite true and philosophy still continues to develop out of social beliefs and ideas. Philosophy is a science which is obligatory learned by every college student in order for him to establish his own philosophy of life.
It is quite exciting to find answers to ever existing questions: who am I? What do I know? What can I know? What am I destined to do? Here is one more interesting observation. You can see that all famous philosophers were researching other science fields also. For example, Freud, Yung, Kafka and others were doing research in linguistics and social sciences. Their numerous creations are the pride of human history for they revealed some secrets that remained undiscovered for a long time before their great contributions.
There are so many currents and branches, so many schools of philosophy that it is hard to decide, which one do you prefer and agree with. This much depends on the country, family, society you live in. This is one more difference between philosophy and other natural sciences. The law is stable for any country; gravity exists in India, same as in Brazil.
Philosophy is a hard science, for it is very difficult to understand the sense of the dogma reading it only once. It is of course, not easy, but gives credit for you if you get interested and somewhere, being at the social event you quote one of the famous doctors of philosophy and make a great impression of an educated and intelligent personality
We also can not call philosophy a supra-science, for it also uses hypothesis and arguments to state the opinion. But there is the obvious thing: there are now laws in philosophy and never will be, for the science changes with the age, the needs, beliefs and requirements of the citizens. To prove your opinion, you can write the definition essay and state all the facts and arguments you know to prove one way or another. This is also a nice way to research the problem and see what the solution is. But you have to research it carefully;
Otherwise definition essays will not be fruitful. As all sciences philosophy has gone through its stages of development. Some scientists believe that the crib of philosophy was mythology and religion. If to see the principles of life and some primitive morals stated in some myths we may see that the statement is quite true and philosophy still continues to develop out of social beliefs and ideas. Philosophy is a science which is obligatory learned by every college student in order for him to establish his own philosophy of life.
It is quite exciting to find answers to ever existing questions: who am I? What do I know? What can I know? What am I destined to do? Here is one more interesting observation. You can see that all famous philosophers were researching other science fields also. For example, Freud, Yung, Kafka and others were doing research in linguistics and social sciences. Their numerous creations are the pride of human history for they revealed some secrets that remained undiscovered for a long time before their great contributions.
There are so many currents and branches, so many schools of philosophy that it is hard to decide, which one do you prefer and agree with. This much depends on the country, family, society you live in. This is one more difference between philosophy and other natural sciences. The law is stable for any country; gravity exists in India, same as in Brazil.
Philosophy is a hard science, for it is very difficult to understand the sense of the dogma reading it only once. It is of course, not easy, but gives credit for you if you get interested and somewhere, being at the social event you quote one of the famous doctors of philosophy and make a great impression of an educated and intelligent personality
Omens superstition or reality
As soon as we hear this so-called word 'Omen' we squeeze our nose and feel like the people of this modern age. The people who are living in the 'Scientific era' and this appears to be a matter of great shame if they believe upon this seemingly trash. But I ask you one question and please give me your answer right straight to your heart. Have you ever searched about these things like an unbiased scientist? Science says that we must leave out some of the things since they are nothing but mere co-incidences without any significance at all. Conversely, saints say in the God's creation everything has reason. Who is right saint or scientist? Have you ever taken enough pain to search out the reality? Or you just veiled yourself in the scientific dogmatism as soon as you come across these things? Tell me are you just the gramophone that runs on to sing the already recorded song? Newton invented the theory of gravity since he did not pass on the so-called common phenomena occurring from centuries. He got something uncommon in the falling of the 'Apple'. The 'Apple' which has become legend now. If Newton would have passed on this incident as mere co-incidence he had lost his eternity. He got eternity because he saw the uncommon in the common. He was not a common man who sees everything without any new perspective at all. But what about you? Every man is a born scientist; once he understands that he has also the same mind as all have. The difference borders on very thin line when we turn ourselves escapists to say 'Friends we are not scientists we are common human beings'.
In the Vedas it is written in the clearest of terms that the whole universe is nothing but an idea. I took this truth straight to my heart. Then I heard Vivekananda's saying that 'Everything has reason in this universe. So, we can't say anything unreasonable'. I engraved this quotation deep into the pigeonholes of my brain and went on unveiling the truth especially of the omens. I decided right then that I would not take any of the incidents or co-incidents on physical level rather I would locate the thought behind it. Since the Vedas say life is nothing but the mass of thoughts.
The case is the same, which I discussed, in my last article 'Free will exists or not'. The hero of this case history is the same young man. Here is the story:
I don't remember the exact month and date of this incident. But more or less it was the evening of April, 2004. I was preparing to go into my meditation room. Just in the mid-way the young man called me back "Bhaiya (brother) just give me five minutes". I came back in utter frustration thinking that boy had no sense. When he knows that I am going to meditate why he is disturbing me a lot? He could have waited for a while. Why this boy seems to me always impatient? Always involved into his problems without caring a bit about others?
However, I suppressed my emotions since I did not want to hurt him. He asked me "Brother do you think I can be a Pilot because since 4 years I have been struggling hard without finding a ray of hope in my way?" As soon as he asked the question I started noticing some strange phenomena occurring around me which I will discuss later. After noticing all the phenomena I told him he would be a Pilot undoubtedly but after going through lot of uncertainties and unexpected hindrances. He asked what kind of uncertainties and obstacles would be there? I told him that I couldn't say right now. But still you would have a last laugh I am sure. He went back to his home with little satisfaction and lingering hope.
Before telling you what happened around me to enable me to peep into young man's future just add something into your mind. Whenever any idea takes birth in your mind it gives birth to another chain of baby- thoughts outside. I call these baby-thoughts the voice of God. However, you must have proper eyes to behold these infant- thoughts. They contain in themselves all the possible outcome of your idea. They tell the future.
Now recollect the boy called me in the mid- way when I was going for meditation. And I came back in utter frustration. Now, stop and observe. The idea of becoming Pilot germinated in the young man's mind. That idea gave birth to another idea of putting obstacle in spiritual journey of mine and then went on projecting the idea of frustration on my part. When anybody is going for worship and somebody stops him, do you think it is a good omen? No, someone is going for a good work and you are putting obstacle it is a sheer sin on your part.
So, precisely, his idea initially gave birth to twin brothers namely the idea of obstacle and the idea of frustration. Then I noticed during my conversation that my child was wailing as the roof might have fallen upon him. The idea is of weeping. Then I felt greatly disgusted thinking he must went away. I lost my whole interest in his question. The idea was of disinterestedness.
Right then I heard a noice of falling of some utensils in my kitchen. The idea is of falling or disturbances whatever you may term as. But at last I saw my mother was lighting incense in front of a deity. The idea was of spiritual blessing.
So, now note down the different ideas, which took birth as soon as the question emanated in the young man's mind. They were namely obstacles, frustration, disinterestedness, weeping, falling and at last spiritual blessing. Therefore, I told him that he would become pilot but only after going through a lot of lean phases. The boy became pilot in November 2004. Before November 2004, the boy got lot of opportunities, tons of hopes, host of assurances but without any fructification at all. He became entirely hopeless. A part of it I also shared with him. Since I was doing experiment if it might succeed it will boost me up to go further. Or I will stuck right there. However I am grateful to god he showed me the right way.
Now go slightly deeper. Remember from the seeds of the previous karmas your future- tree blooms. In other words your past- deeds decide the future since karmas are the root cause of the forthcoming incidents. Okay I found the future interwined in the present but was it possible to locate his past karmas as well out of the same events happened around me? Now recollect the incidents again namely wailing, falling of utensils and obstacles in spiritual journey of mine. Don't you think there was a kind of violence in all those incidents? As I told you that my child was weeping as 'roof might have fallen over him'. The falling of utensils naturally would create lot of harsh sounds. The obstacles in my spiritual journey resulted in good amount of frustration on my part. It made me highly irritated. I was finding myself unable to face the boy even for a moment.
And those all were done by his single question. Why his question created such a turbulent atmosphere? So, there must be something behind his question also. And that 'Behind' obviously was his karmas which he did in his last births. The severity and the violent nature of the omens clearly showing the karmas were very far from being good. However, karmas emanate from a particular habit. The habit was his selfishness, which projected the question. So, behind his karmas his tendency of selfishness must be responsible. And this selfishness must be great because the omens were bordering upon abnormality. God message was clear "the boy would not be able to start his career unless he uproots his inherited root of selfishness".
However, at last the burning of incense in front of a deity was like the silver lining between the dark clouds. It was clearly indicating that the boy would be able to eradicate his deficiency of selfishness, which simultaneously led to start his career.
But why this so called selfishness caused hindrances in his career? It is the mystery, which I leave upon you to unravel.
In the Vedas it is written in the clearest of terms that the whole universe is nothing but an idea. I took this truth straight to my heart. Then I heard Vivekananda's saying that 'Everything has reason in this universe. So, we can't say anything unreasonable'. I engraved this quotation deep into the pigeonholes of my brain and went on unveiling the truth especially of the omens. I decided right then that I would not take any of the incidents or co-incidents on physical level rather I would locate the thought behind it. Since the Vedas say life is nothing but the mass of thoughts.
The case is the same, which I discussed, in my last article 'Free will exists or not'. The hero of this case history is the same young man. Here is the story:
I don't remember the exact month and date of this incident. But more or less it was the evening of April, 2004. I was preparing to go into my meditation room. Just in the mid-way the young man called me back "Bhaiya (brother) just give me five minutes". I came back in utter frustration thinking that boy had no sense. When he knows that I am going to meditate why he is disturbing me a lot? He could have waited for a while. Why this boy seems to me always impatient? Always involved into his problems without caring a bit about others?
However, I suppressed my emotions since I did not want to hurt him. He asked me "Brother do you think I can be a Pilot because since 4 years I have been struggling hard without finding a ray of hope in my way?" As soon as he asked the question I started noticing some strange phenomena occurring around me which I will discuss later. After noticing all the phenomena I told him he would be a Pilot undoubtedly but after going through lot of uncertainties and unexpected hindrances. He asked what kind of uncertainties and obstacles would be there? I told him that I couldn't say right now. But still you would have a last laugh I am sure. He went back to his home with little satisfaction and lingering hope.
Before telling you what happened around me to enable me to peep into young man's future just add something into your mind. Whenever any idea takes birth in your mind it gives birth to another chain of baby- thoughts outside. I call these baby-thoughts the voice of God. However, you must have proper eyes to behold these infant- thoughts. They contain in themselves all the possible outcome of your idea. They tell the future.
Now recollect the boy called me in the mid- way when I was going for meditation. And I came back in utter frustration. Now, stop and observe. The idea of becoming Pilot germinated in the young man's mind. That idea gave birth to another idea of putting obstacle in spiritual journey of mine and then went on projecting the idea of frustration on my part. When anybody is going for worship and somebody stops him, do you think it is a good omen? No, someone is going for a good work and you are putting obstacle it is a sheer sin on your part.
So, precisely, his idea initially gave birth to twin brothers namely the idea of obstacle and the idea of frustration. Then I noticed during my conversation that my child was wailing as the roof might have fallen upon him. The idea is of weeping. Then I felt greatly disgusted thinking he must went away. I lost my whole interest in his question. The idea was of disinterestedness.
Right then I heard a noice of falling of some utensils in my kitchen. The idea is of falling or disturbances whatever you may term as. But at last I saw my mother was lighting incense in front of a deity. The idea was of spiritual blessing.
So, now note down the different ideas, which took birth as soon as the question emanated in the young man's mind. They were namely obstacles, frustration, disinterestedness, weeping, falling and at last spiritual blessing. Therefore, I told him that he would become pilot but only after going through a lot of lean phases. The boy became pilot in November 2004. Before November 2004, the boy got lot of opportunities, tons of hopes, host of assurances but without any fructification at all. He became entirely hopeless. A part of it I also shared with him. Since I was doing experiment if it might succeed it will boost me up to go further. Or I will stuck right there. However I am grateful to god he showed me the right way.
Now go slightly deeper. Remember from the seeds of the previous karmas your future- tree blooms. In other words your past- deeds decide the future since karmas are the root cause of the forthcoming incidents. Okay I found the future interwined in the present but was it possible to locate his past karmas as well out of the same events happened around me? Now recollect the incidents again namely wailing, falling of utensils and obstacles in spiritual journey of mine. Don't you think there was a kind of violence in all those incidents? As I told you that my child was weeping as 'roof might have fallen over him'. The falling of utensils naturally would create lot of harsh sounds. The obstacles in my spiritual journey resulted in good amount of frustration on my part. It made me highly irritated. I was finding myself unable to face the boy even for a moment.
And those all were done by his single question. Why his question created such a turbulent atmosphere? So, there must be something behind his question also. And that 'Behind' obviously was his karmas which he did in his last births. The severity and the violent nature of the omens clearly showing the karmas were very far from being good. However, karmas emanate from a particular habit. The habit was his selfishness, which projected the question. So, behind his karmas his tendency of selfishness must be responsible. And this selfishness must be great because the omens were bordering upon abnormality. God message was clear "the boy would not be able to start his career unless he uproots his inherited root of selfishness".
However, at last the burning of incense in front of a deity was like the silver lining between the dark clouds. It was clearly indicating that the boy would be able to eradicate his deficiency of selfishness, which simultaneously led to start his career.
But why this so called selfishness caused hindrances in his career? It is the mystery, which I leave upon you to unravel.
A Brief History of Creation
What is the loop of Creation? How is there something from nothing?
In spite of the fact that it is impossible to prove that anything exists beyond one’s perception since any such proof would involve one’s perception (I observed it, I heard it, I thought about it, I calculated it, and etc.), science deals with a so-called objective reality “out there,” beyond one’s perception professing to describe Nature objectively (as if there was a Nature or reality external to one’s perception). The shocking impact of Matrix was precisely the valid possibility that what we believed to be reality was but our perception; however, this was presented through showing a real reality wherein the perceived reality was a computer simulation. Many who toy with the idea that perhaps, indeed, we are computer simulations, deviate towards questions, such as, who could create such software and what kind of hardware would be needed for such a feat. Although such questions assume that reality is our perception, they also axiomatically presuppose the existence of an objective deterministic world “out there” that nevertheless must be responsible for how we perceive our reality. This is a major mistake emphasizing technology and algorithms instead of trying to discover the nature of reality and the structure of creation. As will be shown in the following, the required paradigm shift from “perception is our reality fixed within an objective world,” to “perception is reality without the need of an objective world ‘out there,’” is provided by a dynamic logical structure. The Holophanic loop logic is responsible for a consistent and complete worldview that not only describes, but also creates whatever can be perceived or experienced.
Stating that it is impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond one’s perception is not saying there is nothing beyond perception, only that if there is anything, then whatever that is, is indefinite. It could be argued that the existence of physical laws, the universal perception that the apple falls to the ground is proof of an objective reality. However, this universal agreement is also our perception. It could be argued that if we cannot decide what to perceive, and everybody perceives the same physical reality, then there must be some lawfulness that dictates how we perceive and therefore, this lawfulness could be external to our perception. However, this lawfulness, as we shall see later on, is the precise lawfulness that creates perception, the process of definition, which is not external to perception (this process creates the perceived and the perceiver, which then gives meaning to this process – a loop – but about that, later). It could be argued, that hitting our knee on the table – whether we believe in the table or not – will hurt. The table is external to our body, but not to our perception. What then is perception? It is relating, a process of definition, defining and thereby rendering meaningful what has been perceived.
What then is this process of definition? It is creating borders within which one’s perception gains meaning. The word “definition” comes from the Latin de finire, meaning, making finite or limited. In Hebrew, definition is HAGDARA (הגדרה), meaning, to border. Any definition necessarily implies what the definition is not, or stated differently, to have meaning, whatever is defined explicitly includes the meaning by implicitly excluding everything else. Consequently, to define means to place the defined object within borders that by default create something beyond the borders of the definition. What is this something beyond the defined? The implicitly excluded everything else, or in other words, the indefinite. The paramount importance of incorporating the indefinite within a consistent logical structure cannot be overemphasized. The indefinite itself is a paradox, and incorporating it within the Holophanic logical structure engenders the loop of Creation where the dynamic structure of paradoxes is both the creative force of existence, and also the proof of the necessity of existence.
To better grasp the impetus of Creation, let’s look at the indefinite and paradoxes. What does “indefinite” mean? Anything as long as it is not specified (not defined); anything that appears both within and beyond the borders of the definition and thereby rendering the border superfluous, which means, no border, no definition. If nevertheless we would attempt to define the notion “indefinite,” then that’s a paradox because if we succeed, then it is defined, which contradicts its meaning – its indefiniteness – and the word “indefinite” means that it cannot be defined. This is an example of a paradox, that in essence means, if it is what it is, then it is not what it is, yet if it is not what it is, then it is what it is. A paradox is a creature that consists of a structure (how it is defined, the dynamic process on its way to stabilization) that contradicts its significance (what it is, the stabilized entity). What characterizes a paradox is the motion between its structure and significance, where the structure implies that its significance contradicts its structure, and vice versa.
Another example of a paradox would be “wholeness.” Wholeness (totality, infinite, boundless) can only be wholeness if we can find a way to define it so that it includes everything and there is nothing beyond it. However, if we define wholeness, then to have meaning, it must be bordered within the walls of the definition, which implies that there is something beyond this border, in which case it is not wholeness. Or in more formal language, wholeness is only wholeness if it is not wholeness, which is an inconsistency. If we are satisfied with that, then we have completed the definition of wholeness. However, if we try to include the beyond created by our earlier definition within the borders of our next attempt at defining wholeness, then we gain a new definition of wholeness, which by the sheer structure of the process of defining creates a new beyond. In this case, the process of defining wholeness will be consistent but incomplete, and wholeness will remain indefinite.
Contemplating the paradox of Creation, the ancient Egyptian myth of Creation springs to mind, the myth of the self-creating god, Amun (or Amon). Amun masturbated and swallowed his semen, after which he spit it out in the form of a ball, thereby impregnating his mother, the sky. And only then, was he born. Thus Amun was his own father. Those pious who discovered the illustrated version of this myth in Karnak covered up the erect phallus of Amun, and with it, this story of Creation was laid into obscurity. The Holophanic model of Creation could regard this Egyptian myth as Amun retromorphously creating himself. I have coined the word retromorphous to mean, defining in retrospect, turning non-being into the potential of whatever the observation is made from, or in other words, creating the past from the present, creating the source from its outcome, which is the basis of complexity in the context of the loop logic. That is, only after Amun was born can he give meaning to his mother, the potential from which he emanated and to the process that created him (as represented by masturbation and incest) whereby he was born. Of course, neither the sky nor the masturbating Amun have meaning until Creation takes place de facto and Amun emerges. I find this an enticing illustration of the basic paradox of existence.
So how can there be something from nothing? What is “nothing?” Nothing is what didn’t turn into the potential of something. If there was something from nothing, then that nothing would have turned into the potential of something, because when we ask, how is there something from nothing, we ask this question from something, when something already exists. If we take a deeper look at “nothing,” we’ll discover that “nothing” is a paradox. Any definition is something, so if we defined “nothing,” then it would become something, which contradicts its essence of being “nothing.” Another way of looking at “nothing” would be by means of it being something that is meaningless. That is, “nothing” could be something that does not relate and that no thing or no one relates to. That is, if there was something totally alone in the universe, then that would be nothing, but it would be meaningless. If such existed, its existence would be external to our perception, and as such, this “nothing” would be indefinite.
We said that the indefinite could be anything, as long as it is not specified (not defined). However, if we nevertheless tried to define “nothing” (the indefinite), what would we get then? Since “nothing” is non-definable, it is transparent as the object of our inquiry. So when we attempt to define it, all we have is what we put into it, which is the process of definition. “Nothing” stayed nothing, we didn’t define it, only made the process of definition explicit. “Nothing” gains meaning when we fail to define it; but having tried, we are left with a bonus, a something, which is our process of defining “nothing.” Creation of something from nothing is not a function of defining something, but a function of attempting to define “nothing.” And then, if that process of definition – which already is an existence – looks back at its origins, if this process of defining investigates into its own genesis, then what does it see? It sees itself. It sees the process of definition – self-reference.
If there is nothing external to perception, then this process of definition is the overall wholeness, the creator of meaning when it can relate to itself. However, to have meaning, the process of definition has to be defined; this definition would be a self-referential quasi-infinite and continuous process of establishing borders that create the indefinite beyond that establishes borders creating the indefinite beyond that establishes borders… which means, wholeness would continuously and forever fail to define itself while succeeding to define something – anything but itself.
Is there a lawfulness responsible for any and every existence? An electron and a dog are very different creatures; so what invisible lawfulness is responsible for the existence of both? What kind of lawfulness would fulfill such demands? The answer is, isomorphism — the same logical inner structure in entirely different representations. Whether an electron, a dog or the weather, each could be a different realization of the same inner logical structure. Creation of anything is the creation of meaning, which is an act of definition. The act of definition attempting to define itself is consciousness. So consciousness, or the soul if you wish, is not some invisible copy of our body carrying our identity, but the lawfulness of Creation expressed as our individual qualitative essence. Of course, it has been endlessly stated that we are God, that we are parts of God, and similar phrases. This is true, but true in the sense that God is the lawfulness that unfolds Creation, and this lawfulness is inherent in all creation including the creatures therein. It could be argued, that a soul, a person is more than mere definitions and intellect. If this logic is the logic of anything and everything, then it should be able to delineate the logical structure of experience as well. Indeed.
Anything that has meaning has to be defined, which places it somewhere on the scale between the continuous and the discrete, between the indefinite and the definite. The indefinite, continuous, infinite tends in the direction of the meaningless, whereas the meaningful is at best imprecise. Experience is the process of attempting to define the indefinite. When we try to capture an experience in a description, we are actually defining our attempt at defining the indefinite. The experience is continuous whereas its description, the definition is discrete. Just as we can never define wholeness, we can never define experience. Any description, any definition, is by nature discrete, whereas the net experience is continuous. So when we have an experience or perception and we become aware of having that experience, then we give it meaning by defining what it is. By doing this we create a discrete replica of the experience, yet the experience remains continuous and non-definable, non-discretizable. Experience is connected to learning. The person encounters something new. How do we know that something is new? Because it is inconsistent with our system. So when we interact with it, we have to integrate it, to assimilate it into our system. If we met something that was not new to the system, then our system would recognize it as part of itself. When that recognition does not occur, the system is interacting with something new. That is the impact. The system adjusts to include the new – that is the change. One’s selfhood is the path of changes following one’s experiences.
Our knowledge of the experience – whatever it might be that we experience – makes it exist for us. We could say, one only experiences when one is aware of experiencing. How do we know that we are aware of experiencing something? By experiencing it, we experience the awareness of experiencing. In this sense, experience and awareness of the experience, experiencing the awareness of the experience, being aware of experiencing the awareness of the experience, etc. is an infinitely continuous chain, which is what defines what experience is (not the interpretation of a specific experience, but experience in its general sense). And that’s the definition of experience: an infinite loop of the process of becoming aware.
When “nothing” is the limit of both the totally indefinite and the totally defined, then that’s like a circle of going from something to nothing to something to nothing, etc. The ‘going’ here means perception. “Nothing” is only a notion that has meaning if it has been perceived, in fact, a paradox. If it really is “nothing,” then it cannot be defined, and hence, it has no meaning. Yet if I relate to it, then it is something. So whenever I relate to “nothing,” whenever I say, Creation of something from nothing, that “nothing” has meaning for me, and hence, it is significance — it is something just like any other something. That is, the structure of “nothing” is the same structure as that of something. Essentially, something from nothing is formation, not Creation, since nothing is also something. Then what is Creation? Creation is rather the creation of nothing from something, because Creation is the process of definition, and when we define, we create the indefinite beyond the definition, which at its limit is nothing, and only then can we have something from nothing… Oh yes, the loop. A true loop is only such if it contains its own source. If nothing can be proven to exist external to perception, then logic must be a loop, and existence is a logical necessity inferred by the loop.
Including the indefinite in the process of definition has far reaching consequences. It means that the tools of the definition are necessarily included in the definition. It means that meaning can only occur when there is both definition and also experience. It means that consciousness (whether it succeeds to define or not) must be part of science or any so-called objective endeavor. It means that any and all perception includes experience. The interaction with the indefinite, the experience, is what gives meaning to the defined. Perception, meaningful definition, can only occur in a highly flexible complex system that can learn and change. That’s the difference between us and an electron, which only has fixed relations, and consequently, limited interactions. An electron always succeeds in defining, or it would be more correct to say, it can only interact with what it succeeds in defining. If it encounters the indefinite, it assumes a state of superposition.
Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define God, the totality, we could not define God, because by the act of definition we would create the beyond, what is beyond God, which contradicts God’s totality. Therefore, no definition of God would do justice to God, and every such definition would truncate God’s wholeness. If God is indefinable, then God is indefinite. If God is indefinite, then I create God by the implication of the act of definition – any definition, because every definition creates the beyond, the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition. In that sense, this is consistent with the statement that I create God by my perception (definition). This does not say that I perceive God, but that my perception implies the existence of the indefinite (God). This means that if I perceive a dog, this perception implies the existence of God. If I perceive that I perceive, then that implies the existence of God. If I perceive dust, a table, an idea, whatever, then that implies the existence of God. If I experience, then that implies the existence of God. That’s because any existence implies the existence of God. And that’s because any existence is such if it relates or is related to, if it has meaning, if even partially it has been defined, which means, its mere definition implies the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition, it implies God, the indefinable. So one cannot directly perceive God (perhaps that is why it was stated in the Bible that no one could see God’s face and live = exist – “no man shall see me and live…” – Exodus 33: 20), but only know about God by implication, which means, the implication of the indefinite – God – is what attributes meaning to any existence.
However, “God” does not equal “indefinite,” but the process that implies the existence of the indefinite is what could be said to be God, since that’s the process of Creation. This is the process of Creation that both creates something, existence, and also nothing, the indefinite. This is why this logic is a loop
In spite of the fact that it is impossible to prove that anything exists beyond one’s perception since any such proof would involve one’s perception (I observed it, I heard it, I thought about it, I calculated it, and etc.), science deals with a so-called objective reality “out there,” beyond one’s perception professing to describe Nature objectively (as if there was a Nature or reality external to one’s perception). The shocking impact of Matrix was precisely the valid possibility that what we believed to be reality was but our perception; however, this was presented through showing a real reality wherein the perceived reality was a computer simulation. Many who toy with the idea that perhaps, indeed, we are computer simulations, deviate towards questions, such as, who could create such software and what kind of hardware would be needed for such a feat. Although such questions assume that reality is our perception, they also axiomatically presuppose the existence of an objective deterministic world “out there” that nevertheless must be responsible for how we perceive our reality. This is a major mistake emphasizing technology and algorithms instead of trying to discover the nature of reality and the structure of creation. As will be shown in the following, the required paradigm shift from “perception is our reality fixed within an objective world,” to “perception is reality without the need of an objective world ‘out there,’” is provided by a dynamic logical structure. The Holophanic loop logic is responsible for a consistent and complete worldview that not only describes, but also creates whatever can be perceived or experienced.
Stating that it is impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond one’s perception is not saying there is nothing beyond perception, only that if there is anything, then whatever that is, is indefinite. It could be argued that the existence of physical laws, the universal perception that the apple falls to the ground is proof of an objective reality. However, this universal agreement is also our perception. It could be argued that if we cannot decide what to perceive, and everybody perceives the same physical reality, then there must be some lawfulness that dictates how we perceive and therefore, this lawfulness could be external to our perception. However, this lawfulness, as we shall see later on, is the precise lawfulness that creates perception, the process of definition, which is not external to perception (this process creates the perceived and the perceiver, which then gives meaning to this process – a loop – but about that, later). It could be argued, that hitting our knee on the table – whether we believe in the table or not – will hurt. The table is external to our body, but not to our perception. What then is perception? It is relating, a process of definition, defining and thereby rendering meaningful what has been perceived.
What then is this process of definition? It is creating borders within which one’s perception gains meaning. The word “definition” comes from the Latin de finire, meaning, making finite or limited. In Hebrew, definition is HAGDARA (הגדרה), meaning, to border. Any definition necessarily implies what the definition is not, or stated differently, to have meaning, whatever is defined explicitly includes the meaning by implicitly excluding everything else. Consequently, to define means to place the defined object within borders that by default create something beyond the borders of the definition. What is this something beyond the defined? The implicitly excluded everything else, or in other words, the indefinite. The paramount importance of incorporating the indefinite within a consistent logical structure cannot be overemphasized. The indefinite itself is a paradox, and incorporating it within the Holophanic logical structure engenders the loop of Creation where the dynamic structure of paradoxes is both the creative force of existence, and also the proof of the necessity of existence.
To better grasp the impetus of Creation, let’s look at the indefinite and paradoxes. What does “indefinite” mean? Anything as long as it is not specified (not defined); anything that appears both within and beyond the borders of the definition and thereby rendering the border superfluous, which means, no border, no definition. If nevertheless we would attempt to define the notion “indefinite,” then that’s a paradox because if we succeed, then it is defined, which contradicts its meaning – its indefiniteness – and the word “indefinite” means that it cannot be defined. This is an example of a paradox, that in essence means, if it is what it is, then it is not what it is, yet if it is not what it is, then it is what it is. A paradox is a creature that consists of a structure (how it is defined, the dynamic process on its way to stabilization) that contradicts its significance (what it is, the stabilized entity). What characterizes a paradox is the motion between its structure and significance, where the structure implies that its significance contradicts its structure, and vice versa.
Another example of a paradox would be “wholeness.” Wholeness (totality, infinite, boundless) can only be wholeness if we can find a way to define it so that it includes everything and there is nothing beyond it. However, if we define wholeness, then to have meaning, it must be bordered within the walls of the definition, which implies that there is something beyond this border, in which case it is not wholeness. Or in more formal language, wholeness is only wholeness if it is not wholeness, which is an inconsistency. If we are satisfied with that, then we have completed the definition of wholeness. However, if we try to include the beyond created by our earlier definition within the borders of our next attempt at defining wholeness, then we gain a new definition of wholeness, which by the sheer structure of the process of defining creates a new beyond. In this case, the process of defining wholeness will be consistent but incomplete, and wholeness will remain indefinite.
Contemplating the paradox of Creation, the ancient Egyptian myth of Creation springs to mind, the myth of the self-creating god, Amun (or Amon). Amun masturbated and swallowed his semen, after which he spit it out in the form of a ball, thereby impregnating his mother, the sky. And only then, was he born. Thus Amun was his own father. Those pious who discovered the illustrated version of this myth in Karnak covered up the erect phallus of Amun, and with it, this story of Creation was laid into obscurity. The Holophanic model of Creation could regard this Egyptian myth as Amun retromorphously creating himself. I have coined the word retromorphous to mean, defining in retrospect, turning non-being into the potential of whatever the observation is made from, or in other words, creating the past from the present, creating the source from its outcome, which is the basis of complexity in the context of the loop logic. That is, only after Amun was born can he give meaning to his mother, the potential from which he emanated and to the process that created him (as represented by masturbation and incest) whereby he was born. Of course, neither the sky nor the masturbating Amun have meaning until Creation takes place de facto and Amun emerges. I find this an enticing illustration of the basic paradox of existence.
So how can there be something from nothing? What is “nothing?” Nothing is what didn’t turn into the potential of something. If there was something from nothing, then that nothing would have turned into the potential of something, because when we ask, how is there something from nothing, we ask this question from something, when something already exists. If we take a deeper look at “nothing,” we’ll discover that “nothing” is a paradox. Any definition is something, so if we defined “nothing,” then it would become something, which contradicts its essence of being “nothing.” Another way of looking at “nothing” would be by means of it being something that is meaningless. That is, “nothing” could be something that does not relate and that no thing or no one relates to. That is, if there was something totally alone in the universe, then that would be nothing, but it would be meaningless. If such existed, its existence would be external to our perception, and as such, this “nothing” would be indefinite.
We said that the indefinite could be anything, as long as it is not specified (not defined). However, if we nevertheless tried to define “nothing” (the indefinite), what would we get then? Since “nothing” is non-definable, it is transparent as the object of our inquiry. So when we attempt to define it, all we have is what we put into it, which is the process of definition. “Nothing” stayed nothing, we didn’t define it, only made the process of definition explicit. “Nothing” gains meaning when we fail to define it; but having tried, we are left with a bonus, a something, which is our process of defining “nothing.” Creation of something from nothing is not a function of defining something, but a function of attempting to define “nothing.” And then, if that process of definition – which already is an existence – looks back at its origins, if this process of defining investigates into its own genesis, then what does it see? It sees itself. It sees the process of definition – self-reference.
If there is nothing external to perception, then this process of definition is the overall wholeness, the creator of meaning when it can relate to itself. However, to have meaning, the process of definition has to be defined; this definition would be a self-referential quasi-infinite and continuous process of establishing borders that create the indefinite beyond that establishes borders creating the indefinite beyond that establishes borders… which means, wholeness would continuously and forever fail to define itself while succeeding to define something – anything but itself.
Is there a lawfulness responsible for any and every existence? An electron and a dog are very different creatures; so what invisible lawfulness is responsible for the existence of both? What kind of lawfulness would fulfill such demands? The answer is, isomorphism — the same logical inner structure in entirely different representations. Whether an electron, a dog or the weather, each could be a different realization of the same inner logical structure. Creation of anything is the creation of meaning, which is an act of definition. The act of definition attempting to define itself is consciousness. So consciousness, or the soul if you wish, is not some invisible copy of our body carrying our identity, but the lawfulness of Creation expressed as our individual qualitative essence. Of course, it has been endlessly stated that we are God, that we are parts of God, and similar phrases. This is true, but true in the sense that God is the lawfulness that unfolds Creation, and this lawfulness is inherent in all creation including the creatures therein. It could be argued, that a soul, a person is more than mere definitions and intellect. If this logic is the logic of anything and everything, then it should be able to delineate the logical structure of experience as well. Indeed.
Anything that has meaning has to be defined, which places it somewhere on the scale between the continuous and the discrete, between the indefinite and the definite. The indefinite, continuous, infinite tends in the direction of the meaningless, whereas the meaningful is at best imprecise. Experience is the process of attempting to define the indefinite. When we try to capture an experience in a description, we are actually defining our attempt at defining the indefinite. The experience is continuous whereas its description, the definition is discrete. Just as we can never define wholeness, we can never define experience. Any description, any definition, is by nature discrete, whereas the net experience is continuous. So when we have an experience or perception and we become aware of having that experience, then we give it meaning by defining what it is. By doing this we create a discrete replica of the experience, yet the experience remains continuous and non-definable, non-discretizable. Experience is connected to learning. The person encounters something new. How do we know that something is new? Because it is inconsistent with our system. So when we interact with it, we have to integrate it, to assimilate it into our system. If we met something that was not new to the system, then our system would recognize it as part of itself. When that recognition does not occur, the system is interacting with something new. That is the impact. The system adjusts to include the new – that is the change. One’s selfhood is the path of changes following one’s experiences.
Our knowledge of the experience – whatever it might be that we experience – makes it exist for us. We could say, one only experiences when one is aware of experiencing. How do we know that we are aware of experiencing something? By experiencing it, we experience the awareness of experiencing. In this sense, experience and awareness of the experience, experiencing the awareness of the experience, being aware of experiencing the awareness of the experience, etc. is an infinitely continuous chain, which is what defines what experience is (not the interpretation of a specific experience, but experience in its general sense). And that’s the definition of experience: an infinite loop of the process of becoming aware.
When “nothing” is the limit of both the totally indefinite and the totally defined, then that’s like a circle of going from something to nothing to something to nothing, etc. The ‘going’ here means perception. “Nothing” is only a notion that has meaning if it has been perceived, in fact, a paradox. If it really is “nothing,” then it cannot be defined, and hence, it has no meaning. Yet if I relate to it, then it is something. So whenever I relate to “nothing,” whenever I say, Creation of something from nothing, that “nothing” has meaning for me, and hence, it is significance — it is something just like any other something. That is, the structure of “nothing” is the same structure as that of something. Essentially, something from nothing is formation, not Creation, since nothing is also something. Then what is Creation? Creation is rather the creation of nothing from something, because Creation is the process of definition, and when we define, we create the indefinite beyond the definition, which at its limit is nothing, and only then can we have something from nothing… Oh yes, the loop. A true loop is only such if it contains its own source. If nothing can be proven to exist external to perception, then logic must be a loop, and existence is a logical necessity inferred by the loop.
Including the indefinite in the process of definition has far reaching consequences. It means that the tools of the definition are necessarily included in the definition. It means that meaning can only occur when there is both definition and also experience. It means that consciousness (whether it succeeds to define or not) must be part of science or any so-called objective endeavor. It means that any and all perception includes experience. The interaction with the indefinite, the experience, is what gives meaning to the defined. Perception, meaningful definition, can only occur in a highly flexible complex system that can learn and change. That’s the difference between us and an electron, which only has fixed relations, and consequently, limited interactions. An electron always succeeds in defining, or it would be more correct to say, it can only interact with what it succeeds in defining. If it encounters the indefinite, it assumes a state of superposition.
Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define God, the totality, we could not define God, because by the act of definition we would create the beyond, what is beyond God, which contradicts God’s totality. Therefore, no definition of God would do justice to God, and every such definition would truncate God’s wholeness. If God is indefinable, then God is indefinite. If God is indefinite, then I create God by the implication of the act of definition – any definition, because every definition creates the beyond, the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition. In that sense, this is consistent with the statement that I create God by my perception (definition). This does not say that I perceive God, but that my perception implies the existence of the indefinite (God). This means that if I perceive a dog, this perception implies the existence of God. If I perceive that I perceive, then that implies the existence of God. If I perceive dust, a table, an idea, whatever, then that implies the existence of God. If I experience, then that implies the existence of God. That’s because any existence implies the existence of God. And that’s because any existence is such if it relates or is related to, if it has meaning, if even partially it has been defined, which means, its mere definition implies the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition, it implies God, the indefinable. So one cannot directly perceive God (perhaps that is why it was stated in the Bible that no one could see God’s face and live = exist – “no man shall see me and live…” – Exodus 33: 20), but only know about God by implication, which means, the implication of the indefinite – God – is what attributes meaning to any existence.
However, “God” does not equal “indefinite,” but the process that implies the existence of the indefinite is what could be said to be God, since that’s the process of Creation. This is the process of Creation that both creates something, existence, and also nothing, the indefinite. This is why this logic is a loop
Words To Live By
Watching the news the other day, it occurred to me that people who have "words to live by" often begin to attack and even kill others. I thought back to my own angry youth, when I could easily use words to justify violent thoughts which might have become violent actions. Words are tools, and yet it seems that they can be more dangerous than gunpowder.
Imagine two men facing each other, pointing past one another. One is pointing at a tornado that is coming, and the other at a raging fire headed towards them. Each sees their own truth and is angry at the sight of the other's hand. Each feels that the other's hand is "wrong." This may seem silly, but replace the tornado and fire with any modern issues, and the hands with words, and this scene describes how we often try to communicate.
We point past each other with our words, arguing as though we are looking at the same facts and experiences. We want to prove our words are the right ones, instead of learning to look at what the other's words are pointing at. Words are seductive, and for all their undeniable usefulness, they also can lead us away from understanding when we focus on them, when we make them more important than the truth they are meant to point at.
There Are No Words To Live By
This isn't just about communication with others. We focus on, and get trapped in a net of words that we use to explain the world to ourselves. We call things "right" or "wrong" for example, according to how they compare to our "definitions." Unlike mathematics, though, word formulas and definitions can never be so precise. They cannot encompass the whole truth of reality. For example, with the least effort, you can create a circumstance where "stealing" would be right, and "helping" someone wrong.
This isn't an argument against using language or logic. It is just that both only go so far. Like a car that takes you across the country or world, they are useful, but like a car, they are only useful in certain ways, and you have to get out of them when you arrive at your various destinations. Taking a car to the lake isn't a problem, but taking it into the lake is. This is what we do when our words and logic take us to dangerous situations.
Can having words to live by be dangerous, though? Absolutely. I once heard an otherwise compassionate person say he was against animal cruelty laws because he couldn't find a logical and defensible set of words to defend them. If he saw a new machine, would he refuse to believe it existed until he could explain it and describe it? Reality, and the reality of right and wrong exist outside of words - they are not the words themselves.
I watched a man say on the evening news that we have the right to drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq, and that we should. As he explained why, you could see that whatever compassionate impulses he had, they were over-ruled by his total allegiance to his words, logic, and where these take him. It never occurred to him that maybe there is truth outside of his words and logic.
It's great to have guidelines, like "don't lie," or "we have the right to defend ourselves." It is even better to remember that these rules will someday fail us, and we will have to make new ones. Words are just tools. There are words to die by, but there are no words to live by
Imagine two men facing each other, pointing past one another. One is pointing at a tornado that is coming, and the other at a raging fire headed towards them. Each sees their own truth and is angry at the sight of the other's hand. Each feels that the other's hand is "wrong." This may seem silly, but replace the tornado and fire with any modern issues, and the hands with words, and this scene describes how we often try to communicate.
We point past each other with our words, arguing as though we are looking at the same facts and experiences. We want to prove our words are the right ones, instead of learning to look at what the other's words are pointing at. Words are seductive, and for all their undeniable usefulness, they also can lead us away from understanding when we focus on them, when we make them more important than the truth they are meant to point at.
There Are No Words To Live By
This isn't just about communication with others. We focus on, and get trapped in a net of words that we use to explain the world to ourselves. We call things "right" or "wrong" for example, according to how they compare to our "definitions." Unlike mathematics, though, word formulas and definitions can never be so precise. They cannot encompass the whole truth of reality. For example, with the least effort, you can create a circumstance where "stealing" would be right, and "helping" someone wrong.
This isn't an argument against using language or logic. It is just that both only go so far. Like a car that takes you across the country or world, they are useful, but like a car, they are only useful in certain ways, and you have to get out of them when you arrive at your various destinations. Taking a car to the lake isn't a problem, but taking it into the lake is. This is what we do when our words and logic take us to dangerous situations.
Can having words to live by be dangerous, though? Absolutely. I once heard an otherwise compassionate person say he was against animal cruelty laws because he couldn't find a logical and defensible set of words to defend them. If he saw a new machine, would he refuse to believe it existed until he could explain it and describe it? Reality, and the reality of right and wrong exist outside of words - they are not the words themselves.
I watched a man say on the evening news that we have the right to drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq, and that we should. As he explained why, you could see that whatever compassionate impulses he had, they were over-ruled by his total allegiance to his words, logic, and where these take him. It never occurred to him that maybe there is truth outside of his words and logic.
It's great to have guidelines, like "don't lie," or "we have the right to defend ourselves." It is even better to remember that these rules will someday fail us, and we will have to make new ones. Words are just tools. There are words to die by, but there are no words to live by
When the Morning Dawns
The following article covers a topic that has recently moved to center stage--at least it seems that way. If you've been thinking you need to know more about unconditional love, here's your opportunity.
When darkness turns to day, the sun moves over the horizon and touches everything in sight. This movement across the landscape brightens everything. Such an illumination awakens us all. We rise with energy moving in and through us allowing us to create a new day. A day unique from all the rest and creatively woven into our soul.
This is the landscape of our soul. As you can see, nature has a way of showing us just how powerful we are. The same power that created the moon and the stars and the movement of all space and time lies within the human heart. It is the heart of creation itself, and perhaps, the heart of our Creator.
Human beings are fortunate to be able to be aware of our awareness. This awareness gives us an opportunity to reflect on our soul and find blessing in being alive. Our consciousness of a creative force inside us guiding us into this world, through it, and eventually to our eternal home allows us to fulfill a purpose on this earth.
Such a purpose is beyond our own ability to really know. Yet, we can open our heart enough to allow our purpose to find us. This is done by recognizing that the things in life that really matter ARE the things in life that isn't matter.
Yes, it is our soul's longing to fulfill the purpose for which we came to earth for. No one really knows how a baby is conceived totally. Science and human understanding still hasn't been able to fully comprehend such a force of nature. We can only embrace what is beyond us and find a way to bring into being forces of nature such as a tiny child.
When a child is born, we are in awe. The miracle of birth creates something inside us all. It is the remembrance that life does not come from us. Instead, life comes through us. As such, we are living in a dream come true. All of us are probably living our soul's purpose more than we know, and even, can know. It is the mystery of all mysteries.
This does not explain why some of us find peace and other's find pain. But, such a philosophy will enable us all to find grace in knowing our lives create in our world facets of ourselves we all are a part of. An understanding of such grace gives every one of us a chance to find mercy and grace and the same unconditional love we came into the world with when we were born.
Samuel Oliver, author of, "What the Dying Teach Us: Lessons on Living"
When darkness turns to day, the sun moves over the horizon and touches everything in sight. This movement across the landscape brightens everything. Such an illumination awakens us all. We rise with energy moving in and through us allowing us to create a new day. A day unique from all the rest and creatively woven into our soul.
This is the landscape of our soul. As you can see, nature has a way of showing us just how powerful we are. The same power that created the moon and the stars and the movement of all space and time lies within the human heart. It is the heart of creation itself, and perhaps, the heart of our Creator.
Human beings are fortunate to be able to be aware of our awareness. This awareness gives us an opportunity to reflect on our soul and find blessing in being alive. Our consciousness of a creative force inside us guiding us into this world, through it, and eventually to our eternal home allows us to fulfill a purpose on this earth.
Such a purpose is beyond our own ability to really know. Yet, we can open our heart enough to allow our purpose to find us. This is done by recognizing that the things in life that really matter ARE the things in life that isn't matter.
Yes, it is our soul's longing to fulfill the purpose for which we came to earth for. No one really knows how a baby is conceived totally. Science and human understanding still hasn't been able to fully comprehend such a force of nature. We can only embrace what is beyond us and find a way to bring into being forces of nature such as a tiny child.
When a child is born, we are in awe. The miracle of birth creates something inside us all. It is the remembrance that life does not come from us. Instead, life comes through us. As such, we are living in a dream come true. All of us are probably living our soul's purpose more than we know, and even, can know. It is the mystery of all mysteries.
This does not explain why some of us find peace and other's find pain. But, such a philosophy will enable us all to find grace in knowing our lives create in our world facets of ourselves we all are a part of. An understanding of such grace gives every one of us a chance to find mercy and grace and the same unconditional love we came into the world with when we were born.
Samuel Oliver, author of, "What the Dying Teach Us: Lessons on Living"
The Basics of Western Astrology Explained
Introduction:
This article covers the basics of Astrology and how they are inter-related. Astrology is defined as 'the art or practice of determining the supposed influences of the planets and their motions on human affairs and human disposition'. From this practice a horoscope can be produced - a diagram (or chart) of the relative positions of planets and signs of the Zodiac at a specific time, usually the time of birth. A forecast can then be produced.
The Zodiac:
Western Astrology originated way back, around 500 BC, with a concept called the Zodiac being developed. This comprised of an imaginary sphere surrounding the earth, which followed the path of the Sun through the constellations during the year. The Zodiac was split into twelve sections, each named after the specific constellation noted in that area.
Elements:
Many ancient philosophies used a set of classical elements to explain the way nature behaved. Each sign was connected to one of the classical elements (fire, earth, air, or water) and was also related to a region of focus; social, personal or universal.
* Water signs are related to growth processes, identification and emotion. In tandem with the other elements, water feels that fire will make it boil, air will evaporate it, but earth will shape and channel it.
* Fire signs are related to action, passion, and energy. In tandem with the other elements, fire feels that earth will smother it, water will drown it, but air will fan and enliven it.
* Air signs are related to thought, perspective and communication. In tandem with the other elements, air feels that water will obscure it, earth will suffocate it, but fire will inspire and uplift it.
* Earth signs are related to sensation, stability, and practicality. In tandem with the other elements, earth feels that air will dry it, fire will dry it, but water will refresh and nourish it.
Modalities:
Each sign is connected to one of three modalities; cardinal (sometimes referred to as movable), fixed, and mutable.
There are four quadrants following the order of the zodiacal signs, with three signs in each. Each quadrant describes a season, beginning with a cardinal sign, continuing to a fixed sign, and ending with a mutable sign.
Modalities and Related Zodiac Signs:
* Mutable signs are related to adaptability, resourcefulness and holism. They are Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces.
* Fixed signs are related to determination, focus and individuality. They are Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius.
* Cardinal signs are related to creativity and initiation. They are Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn
This article covers the basics of Astrology and how they are inter-related. Astrology is defined as 'the art or practice of determining the supposed influences of the planets and their motions on human affairs and human disposition'. From this practice a horoscope can be produced - a diagram (or chart) of the relative positions of planets and signs of the Zodiac at a specific time, usually the time of birth. A forecast can then be produced.
The Zodiac:
Western Astrology originated way back, around 500 BC, with a concept called the Zodiac being developed. This comprised of an imaginary sphere surrounding the earth, which followed the path of the Sun through the constellations during the year. The Zodiac was split into twelve sections, each named after the specific constellation noted in that area.
Elements:
Many ancient philosophies used a set of classical elements to explain the way nature behaved. Each sign was connected to one of the classical elements (fire, earth, air, or water) and was also related to a region of focus; social, personal or universal.
* Water signs are related to growth processes, identification and emotion. In tandem with the other elements, water feels that fire will make it boil, air will evaporate it, but earth will shape and channel it.
* Fire signs are related to action, passion, and energy. In tandem with the other elements, fire feels that earth will smother it, water will drown it, but air will fan and enliven it.
* Air signs are related to thought, perspective and communication. In tandem with the other elements, air feels that water will obscure it, earth will suffocate it, but fire will inspire and uplift it.
* Earth signs are related to sensation, stability, and practicality. In tandem with the other elements, earth feels that air will dry it, fire will dry it, but water will refresh and nourish it.
Modalities:
Each sign is connected to one of three modalities; cardinal (sometimes referred to as movable), fixed, and mutable.
There are four quadrants following the order of the zodiacal signs, with three signs in each. Each quadrant describes a season, beginning with a cardinal sign, continuing to a fixed sign, and ending with a mutable sign.
Modalities and Related Zodiac Signs:
* Mutable signs are related to adaptability, resourcefulness and holism. They are Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces.
* Fixed signs are related to determination, focus and individuality. They are Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius.
* Cardinal signs are related to creativity and initiation. They are Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn
Enlightenment is not just one state
Many people has the notion that enlightenment is one state. Many also believe that when it is attained, a person is forever in that state.
The following is not a definitive article on this subject. It is just an expression of my own thoughts.
My opinion is that enlightenment is not just one state but is a progressive and gradual establishing of states of consciousness.
I, myself have not reach the end of the road. But from years on a spiritual quest, I can safely say that enlightenment happens in a series or stages of self-realisations and self-discoveries.
Usually there is a difference between an initial awakening and a later stabilisation of that stage that happens through practice or experiences. The initial awakenings are new discoveries about the dynamics of consciousness, while the stabilisation is the assimilation of what is being discovered into one's life experience. Sometimes, a new discovery can completely over-rule or modify upon an older one.
Almost all stages of enlightenment can be said to be associated with Presence. However, the enlightening Presence comes in various degrees of intensity and clarity. The degree of intensity is directly dependent on the level and depth of one's clarity as well as one's realisations/discoveries.
Also, as one progresses along, the relationship or connections of oneself to the universe and existence at large also becomes clearer.
Below very briefly illustrates the progressive and stage-based nature of enlightenment:
When one first begin meditating, one may first experience the all-pervading Presence. This Presence, is most often experienced when thoughts are momentarily suspended. This Presence which exists in the Eternal Present Moment is our true self.
However such an experience can only be classified as an awakening to the true self.. which is no-self. This is because, after the meditation, the Presence seems to have disappeared. One cannot understand and find the connection of presence to our everyday life. Therefore one will have difficulty re-acquiring the Presence. And it takes many stages and series of realisation to understand the relationship of Presence to our phenomenal world. It can be said that the prolonged sustaining of Presence is dependent on the stages and depth of realisation.
Also, during the earlier stages we may mistaken another state to be the pure presence. For example, we may mistaken 'I AM' for pure presence. This is because the thinking mind has created a reflective image of Pure Presence. This reflection of the absolute is 'I AM'.
Usually, in order to pass through the 'I AM' stage, the person must move unto even deeper understandings. These understandings may include realising that one's personality is not the doer of action. This stage may persist for a while before the person realises the illusion of subject-object division. This stage involves recognising the hypnotic impression of there being an observer and the being observed. Here is where one begins to see through the illusionary nature of our phenomenal world.
I cannot comment on the stages before me as they are beyond me. Nevertheless, one can still see from the above description that enlightenment is not so straight-forward after all.
For your necessary discernment. Thank you for reading
The following is not a definitive article on this subject. It is just an expression of my own thoughts.
My opinion is that enlightenment is not just one state but is a progressive and gradual establishing of states of consciousness.
I, myself have not reach the end of the road. But from years on a spiritual quest, I can safely say that enlightenment happens in a series or stages of self-realisations and self-discoveries.
Usually there is a difference between an initial awakening and a later stabilisation of that stage that happens through practice or experiences. The initial awakenings are new discoveries about the dynamics of consciousness, while the stabilisation is the assimilation of what is being discovered into one's life experience. Sometimes, a new discovery can completely over-rule or modify upon an older one.
Almost all stages of enlightenment can be said to be associated with Presence. However, the enlightening Presence comes in various degrees of intensity and clarity. The degree of intensity is directly dependent on the level and depth of one's clarity as well as one's realisations/discoveries.
Also, as one progresses along, the relationship or connections of oneself to the universe and existence at large also becomes clearer.
Below very briefly illustrates the progressive and stage-based nature of enlightenment:
When one first begin meditating, one may first experience the all-pervading Presence. This Presence, is most often experienced when thoughts are momentarily suspended. This Presence which exists in the Eternal Present Moment is our true self.
However such an experience can only be classified as an awakening to the true self.. which is no-self. This is because, after the meditation, the Presence seems to have disappeared. One cannot understand and find the connection of presence to our everyday life. Therefore one will have difficulty re-acquiring the Presence. And it takes many stages and series of realisation to understand the relationship of Presence to our phenomenal world. It can be said that the prolonged sustaining of Presence is dependent on the stages and depth of realisation.
Also, during the earlier stages we may mistaken another state to be the pure presence. For example, we may mistaken 'I AM' for pure presence. This is because the thinking mind has created a reflective image of Pure Presence. This reflection of the absolute is 'I AM'.
Usually, in order to pass through the 'I AM' stage, the person must move unto even deeper understandings. These understandings may include realising that one's personality is not the doer of action. This stage may persist for a while before the person realises the illusion of subject-object division. This stage involves recognising the hypnotic impression of there being an observer and the being observed. Here is where one begins to see through the illusionary nature of our phenomenal world.
I cannot comment on the stages before me as they are beyond me. Nevertheless, one can still see from the above description that enlightenment is not so straight-forward after all.
For your necessary discernment. Thank you for reading
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)