Festive Greetings

Open Book

Once an acquaintance with a human being named “ ”... heck what difference it makes. I liked and despised him for several rationale but none the fewer he was an open book everyone he met, which he is till date. He was an idyllic example of Black and White persona, no shades of grays in between; maybe he had some polarizing filter on to hide those shades. But lately I have started to see those gray shades, honest – witness this on his blog here.

There are Nuclear Scientists and here is this Exceptional Copywriter.

I exhibit some of his works in my next post.

Meditation

Meditating does more than just feel good and calm you down, it makes you perform better – and alters the structure of your brain, researchers have found.

People who meditate say the practice restores their energy, and some claim they need less sleep as a result. Many studies have reported that the brain works differently during meditation – brainwave patterns change and neuronal firing patterns synchronise. But whether meditation actually brings any of the restorative benefits of sleep has remained largely unexplored.

So Bruce O’Hara and colleagues at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, US, decided to investigate. They used a well-established “psychomotor vigilance task”, which has long been used to quantify the effects of sleepiness on mental acuity. The test involves staring at an LCD screen and pressing a button as soon as an image pops up. Typically, people take 200 to 300 milliseconds to respond, but sleep-deprived people take much longer, and sometimes miss the stimulus altogether.

Ten volunteers were tested before and after 40 minutes of either sleep, meditation, reading or light conversation, with all subjects trying all conditions. The 40-minute nap was known to improve performance (after an hour or so to recover from grogginess). But what astonished the researchers was that meditation was the only intervention that immediately led to superior performance, despite none of the volunteers being experienced at meditation.

“Every single subject showed improvement,” says O’Hara. The improvement was even more dramatic after a night without sleep. But, he admits: “Why it improves performance, we do not know.” The team is now studying experienced meditators, who spend several hours each day in practice.

Brain builder
What effect meditating has on the structure of the brain has also been a matter of some debate. Now Sara Lazar at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, US, and colleagues have used MRI to compare 15 meditators, with experience ranging from 1 to 30 years, and 15 non-meditators.

They found that meditating actually increases the thickness of the cortex in areas involved in attention and sensory processing, such as the prefrontal cortex and the right anterior insula.

“You are exercising it while you meditate, and it gets bigger,” she says. The finding is in line with studies showing that accomplished musicians, athletes and linguists all have thickening in relevant areas of the cortex. It is further evidence, says Lazar, that yogis “aren’t just sitting there doing nothing".

The growth of the cortex is not due to the growth of new neurons, she points out, but results from wider blood vessels, more supporting structures such as glia and astrocytes, and increased branching and connections.

The new studies were presented at the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting, in Washington DC, US.

• > Original article

Pay it forward

Everyone says they want to make the world a better place and young Trevor McKinney is no exception. Only he isn't just using words, he is using an idea. What would happen if three people were given a favor and, instead of paying it back, they paid it forward?

Trevor is an intelligent and caring young boy who has seen first hand that the world can be a very unkind place. When his mother, Arlene, isn't out working long hours she is home drinking her sorrows away. Trevor's father is an even worse drunk who has only taught Trevor the value of neglect and abuse. School is no picnic either, as the school bully sees little Trevor as a particularly good mark. Just when things couldn't look any worse for Trevor, something happens.

While in class one day, Trevor's new teacher, Mr. Simonet, asks the class to involve themselves in a project, to find something that each of them can do to make the world a better place. While most children come up with heart felt but mostly implausible ideas, Trevor comes up with something special. What if he gave out three random favors to three individuals in need, and instead of paying him back they passed on three favors to someone else, and then those people did the same? Would it change people's lives or would the chain break shortly down the line? Eager to see his idea blossom, Trevor begins his project and thus starts a train of events with such impact that no one, not even Trevor, could have imagined its results.

My final observation on Pay it Forward is that not only is it a more than worthwhile film, it also promotes a truly inspiring and powerful message that really reminds you about the good in the world and the changes just one individual can make. Seeing this kind of message is really something everyone can enjoy so, as can be told, I would certainly recommend this film to anyone. In my humble opinion, watching this great piece of film work truly seems a favor and anyone that takes my recommendation and agrees, please don't pay me back by thanking me for telling you about it, when your done viewing just tell three friends about it and Pay it Forward.

"THIS MOVIE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT BE MISSED!!"

• Official Website - http://payitforward.warnerbros.com/

Quality Cinema

After a long time a good movie, it was Yuva last time.

I am neither a writer nor a film critic but I liked a review written by Sandeep Bajeli.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story is interwoven with the life-stories of three college friends – Siddharth, Geeta and Vikram who are drawn into the swirl of contradictions of the time, throwing them in different directions. The three friends represent three contesting ideologies but the momentous period of history offers them two paths – either be in the rat race for ‘success’ building up careers, serving the system or listen to the call of history, lending one’s voice to the voiceless thereby going against the system. While Siddharth plunges whole-heartedly into the movement, Geeta wavers and backs out, Vikram remains indifferent, untouched by the prevailing current. Even though ideologically poles apart, Siddharth and Vikram have one common interest – Geeta. They both are in love with the same woman. Geeta, on the other hand, loves Siddharth for all that he stands for. The first half of the film reflects on the larger political discourse, the latter half shifts focus to explore the intricate tangled relationship of the three protagonists in the midst of the sharpening of social contradictions.

Nevertheless, what the film ultimately seems to suggest is that the emancipatory project in the face of an all-powerful state is an impossibility. The early revolutionary enthusiasm and optimism shown in the film is overtaken by a feeling of despondency and inertia, the empathy with the ideals of revolutionaries replaced by sympathy of the doomed souls who tried to make a difference. At a time when changing the world is urgently on the agenda what we need is an inspiring hero who can brave the harshest condition and illuminates the path of revolution and not a hero who ultimately joins the ranks of defeated heroes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Superb direction, vibrant cinematography, slick editing, lovely music and superlative performances from all three protagonists make for a thoroughly satisfying cinematic experience. The surprise package is Shiny Ahuja, whose model-boy looks belie a prodigious acting talent. Both Kay Kay Menon and Chitrangda Singh deliver superb performances with Chitrangda looking stunning throughout. People say she looks like Smita Patil, yes she does. While the film is not without its faults, including the occasional stilted dialogues and imprecision in the narrative, the overall effect is good enough to make you forget these. If you happen to come across this movie don't miss - it's worth the time.

P.S Donot forget listening to Mirza Ghalib's gazal -

Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi ke har Khwaish pe dum nikle,

bohut nikle mere armaan lekin phir bhi kam nikle

Muhabbat mein nahiin hai farq jiine aur marane kaa,

usii ko dekh kar jeete hain jis kaafir pe dam nikale

...trust me it will make a whole lot of difference!

• Read the full review here.
• Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi - Official website.

Break Free...

"somebody sent this thought to me..."

As I was passing the elephants, I suddenly stopped, confused by the fact that these huge creatures were being held by only a small rope tied to their front leg. No chains, no cages. It was obvious that the elephants could, at anytime, break away from their bonds but for some reason, they did not.

I saw a trainer near by and asked why these beautiful, magnificent animals just stood there and made no attempt to get away. "Well," he said, "when they are very young and much smaller we use the same size rope to tie them and, at that age, it's enough to hold them. As they grow up, they are conditioned to believe they cannot break away. They believe the rope can still hold them, so they never try to break free." I was amazed. These animals could at any time break free from their bonds but because they believed they couldn't, they were stuck right where they were.

Like the elephants, how many of us go through life hanging onto a belief that we cannot do something, simply because we failed at it once before?

TRIANGLE OF LIFE

EXTRACT FROM DOUG COPP'S ARTICLE ON THE "TRIANGLE OF LIFE"

My name is Doug Copp. I am the Rescue Chief and Disaster Manager of theAmerican Rescue Team International (ARTI), the world's most experienced rescue team. The information in this article will save lives in anearthquake.

I have crawled inside 875 collapsed buildings, worked with rescue teams from 60 countries, founded rescue teams in several countries, and I am a member of many rescue teams from many countries. I was the United Nations expert in Disaster Mitigation for two years. I have worked at every major disaster inthe world since 1985, except for simultaneous disasters.

In 1996 we made a film which proved my survival methodology to be correct. The Turkish Federal Government, City of Istanbul, University of Istanbul Case Productions and ARTI cooperated to film this practical, scientifictest. We collapsed a school and a home with 20 mannequins inside. Ten mannequins did "duck and cover," and ten mannequins I used in my "triangleof life" survival method.

After the simulated earthquake collapse we crawled through the rubble and entered the building to film and document theresults. The film, in which I practiced my survival techniques underdirectly observable, scientific conditions, relevant to building collapse, showed there would have been zero percent survival for those doing duck and cover. There would likely have been 100 percent survivability for people using my method of t he "triangle of life." This film has been seen by millions of viewers on television in Turkey and the rest of Europe, and it was seen in the USA, Canada and Latin America on the TV program Real TV.

The first building I ever crawled inside of was a school in Mexico City during the 1985 earthquake. Every child was under their desk. Every child was crushed to the thickness of their bones. They could have survived by lying down next to their desks in the aisles. It was obscene, unnecessary and I wondered why the children were not in the aisles. I didn't at the time know that the children were told to hide under something.

Simply stated, when buildings collapse, the weight of the ceilings fallingupon the objects or furniture inside crushes these objects, leaving a space or void next to them. This space is what I call the "triangle of life". The larger the object, the stronger, the less it will compact. The less the object compacts, the larger the void, the greater the probability that the person who is using this void for safety will not be injured. The next time you watch collapsed buildings, on television, count the "triangles" you see formed. They are everywhere. It is the most common shape, you will see, in a collapsed building. They are everywhere.

TEN TIPS FOR EARTHQUAKE SAFETY

1. Most everyone who simply "ducks and covers" WHEN BUILDINGS COLLAPSE are crushed to death. People who get under objects, like desks or cars, are crushed.
2. Cats, dogs and babies often naturally curl up in the fetal position. You should too in an earthquake. It is a natural safety/survival instinct. You can survive in a smaller void. Get next to an object, next to a sofa, next to a large bulky object that will compress slightly but leave a void next to it.
3. Wooden buildings are the safest type of construction to be in during an earthquake. Wood is flexible and moves with the force of the earthquake. If the wooden building does collapse, large survival voids are created. Also,the wooden building has less concentrated, crushing weight. Brick buildings will break into individual bricks. Bricks will cause many injuries but less squashed bodies than concrete slabs.
4. If you are in bed during the night and an earthquake occurs, simply rolloff the bed. A safe void will exist around the bed. Hotels can achieve a much greater survival rate in earthquakes, simply by posting a sign on the back of the door of every room telling occupants to lie down on the floor,next to the bottom of the bed during an earthquake.
5. If an earthquake happens and you cannot easily escape by getting out the door or window, then lie down and curl up in the fetal position next to sofa, or large chair.
6. Most everyone who gets under a doorway when buildings collapse is killed. How? If you stand under a doorway and the door jamb falls forward or backward you will be crushed by the ceiling above. If the door jam falls sideways you will be cut in half by the doorway. In either case, you will be killed!
7. Never go to the stairs. The stairs have a different "moment of frequency" (they swing separately from the main part of the building). The stairs and remainder of the building continuously bump into each other until structural failure of the stairs takes place. The people who get on stairs before they fail are chopped up by the stair treads - horribly mutilated. Even if the building doesn't collapse, stay away from the stairs. The stairs are alikely part of the building to be damaged. Even if the stairs are not collapsed by the earthquake, they may collapse later when overloaded by fleeing people. They should always be checked for safety, even when the rest of the building is not damaged.
8. Get near the outer walls of buildings or outside of them if possible - It is much better to be near the outside of the building rather than the interior. The farther inside you are from the outside perimeter of the building the greater the probability that your escape route will be blocked.
9. People inside of their vehicles are crushed when the road above falls in an earthquake and crushes their vehicles; which is exactly what happened with the slabs between the decks of the Nimitz Freeway. The victims of the San Francisco earthquake all stayed inside of their vehicles. They were all killed. They could have easily survived by getting out and sitting or lying next to their vehicles. Everyone killed would have survived if they had been able to get out of their cars and sit or lie next to them. All the crushed cars had voids 3 feet high next to them, except for the cars that had columns fall directly across them.
10. I discovered, while crawling inside of collapsed newspaper offices and other offices with a lot of paper, that paper does not compact. Large voids are found surrounding stacks of paper.

Spread the word and save someone's life...

(Courtesy - Doug Copp, American Rescue Team)

The Cookies

At an airport one night, with several long hours before her flight, she hunted for a book in an airport shop. Bought a bag of cookies and found a place to drop. She was engrossed in her book but happened to see that the man sitting beside her as bold as could be, grabbed a cookie or two from the bag in between them, which she tried to ignore to avoid a scene. So she munched the cookies and watched the clock, as the gutsy cookie thief diminished her stock. She was getting more irritated as the minutes ticked by, thinking, "If I wasn't so nice, I would blacken his eye." With each cookie she took, he took one too. When only one was left, she wondered what he would do.

With a smile on his face, and a nervous laugh he took the last cookie and broke it in half. He offered her half as he ate the other, She snatched it from him and thought....ooh, brother! This guy had some nerve and he's also rude. Why he didn't even show any gratitude! She had never known when she been so galled. She sighed with relief when her flight was called. She gathered her belongings and headed to the gate, refusing to look back at the thieving ingrate. She boarded the plane and sank in her seat, then she sought her book.

As she reached in her baggage she gasped with surprise. There was her bag of cookies in front of her eyes. If mine are here, she moaned in despair, the others were his. And he tried to share. Too late to apologize, she realized with grief, that she was the rude one, the ingrate, the thief! How many times have we absolutely known that something was a certain way, only to discover later that what we believed to be true... was not?

Always keep an 'Open Mind', Because... You Just Never know.... You might be eating someone else's cookies.

Exterior Influences

Old Man. What are the materials of which a steam-engine is made?
Young Man. Iron, steel, brass, white-metal, and so on.

O.M. Where are these found?
Y.M. In the rocks.

O.M. In a pure state?
Y.M. No--in ores.

O.M. Are the metals suddenly deposited in the ores?
Y.M. No--it is the patient work of countless ages.

O.M. You could make the engine out of the rocks themselves?
Y.M. Yes, a brittle one and not valuable.

O.M. You would not require much, of such an engine as that?
Y.M. No--substantially nothing.

O.M. To make a fine and capable engine, how would you proceed?
Y.M. Drive tunnels and shafts into the hills; blast out the iron ore; crush it, smelt it, reduce it to pig-iron; put some of it through the Bessemer process and make steel of it. Mine and treat and combine several metals of which brass is made.

O.M. Then?
Y.M. Out of the perfected result, build the fine engine.

O.M. You would require much of this one?
Y.M. Oh, indeed yes.

O.M. It could drive lathes, drills, planers, punches, polishers, in a word all the cunning machines of a great factory?
Y.M. It could.

O.M. What could the stone engine do?
Y.M. Drive a sewing-machine, possibly--nothing more, perhaps.

O.M. Men would admire the other engine and rapturously praise it?
Y.M. Yes.

O.M. But not the stone one?
Y.M. No.

O.M. The merits of the metal machine would be far above those of the stone one?
Y.M. Of course.

O.M. Personal merits?
Y.M. PERSONAL merits? How do you mean?

O.M. It would be personally entitled to the credit of its own performance?
Y.M. The engine? Certainly not.

O.M. Why not?
Y.M. Because its performance is not personal. It is the result of the law of construction. It is not a MERIT that it does the things which it is set to do--it can't HELP doing them.

O.M. And it is not a personal demerit in the stone machine that it does so little?
Y.M. Certainly not. It does no more and no less than the law of its make permits and compels it to do. There is nothing PERSONAL about it; it cannot choose. In this process of "working up to the matter" is it your idea to work up to the proposition that man and a machine are about the same thing, and that there is no personal merit in the performance of either?

O.M. Yes--but do not be offended; I am meaning no offense. What makes the grand difference between the stone engine and the steel one? Shall we call it training, education? Shall we call the stone engine a savage and the steel one a civilized man? The original rock contained the stuff of which the steel one was built--but along with a lot of sulphur and stone and other obstructing inborn heredities, brought down from the old geologic ages--prejudices, let us call them. Prejudices which nothing within the rock itself had either POWER to remove or any DESIRE to remove. Will you take note of that phrase?
Y.M. Yes. I have written it down; "Prejudices which nothing within the rock itself had either power to remove or any desire to remove." Go on.

O.M. Prejudices must be removed by OUTSIDE INFLUENCES or not at all. Put that down.
Y.M. Very well; "Must be removed by outside influences or not at all." Go on.

O.M. The iron's prejudice against ridding itself of the cumbering rock. To make it more exact, the iron's absolute INDIFFERENCE as to whether the rock be removed or not. Then comes the OUTSIDE INFLUENCE and grinds the rock to powder and sets the ore free. The IRON in the ore is still captive. An OUTSIDE INFLUENCE smelts it free of the clogging ore. The iron is emancipated iron, now, but indifferent to further progress. An OUTSIDE INFLUENCE beguiles it into the Bessemer furnace and refines it into steel of the first quality. It is educated, now --its training is complete. And it has reached its limit. By no possible process can it be educated into GOLD. Will you set that down?
Y.M. Yes. "Everything has its limit--iron ore cannot be educated into gold."

O.M. There are gold men, and tin men, and copper men, and leaden mean, and steel men, and so on--and each has the limitations of his nature, his heredities, his training, and his environment. You can build engines out of each of these metals, and they will all perform, but you must not require the weak ones to do equal work with the strong ones. In each case, to get the best results, you must free the metal from its obstructing prejudicial ones by education--smelting, refining, and so forth.
Y.M. You have arrived at man, now?

O.M. Yes. Man the machine--man the impersonal engine. Whatsoever a man is, is due to his MAKE, and to the INFLUENCES brought to bear upon it by his heredities, his habitat, his associations. He is moved, directed, COMMANDED, by EXTERIOR influences--SOLELY. He ORIGINATES nothing, not even a thought.
Y.M. Oh, come! Where did I get my opinion that this which you are talking is all foolishness?

O.M. It is a quite natural opinion--indeed an inevitable opinion--but YOU did not create the materials out of which it is formed. They are odds and ends of thoughts, impressions, feelings, gathered unconsciously from a thousand books, a thousand conversations, and from streams of thought and feeling which have flowed down into your heart and brain out of the hearts and brains of centuries of ancestors. PERSONALLY you did not create even the smallest microscopic fragment of the materials out of which your opinion is made; and personally you cannot claim even the slender merit of PUTTING THE BORROWED MATERIALS TOGETHER. That was done AUTOMATICALLY--by your mental machinery, in strict accordance with the law of that machinery's construction. And you not only did not make that machinery yourself, but you have NOT EVEN ANY COMMAND OVER IT.
Y.M. This is too much. You think I could have formed no opinion but that one?

O.M. Spontaneously? No. And YOU DID NOT FORM THAT ONE; your machinery did it for you--automatically and instantly, without reflection or the need of it.
Y.M. Suppose I had reflected? How then?

O.M. Suppose you try?
Y.M. (AFTER A QUARTER OF AN HOUR.) I have reflected.

O.M. You mean you have tried to change your opinion--as an experiment?
Y.M. Yes.

O.M. With success?
Y.M. No. It remains the same; it is impossible to change it.

O.M. I am sorry, but you see, yourself, that your mind is merely a machine, nothing more. You have no command over it, it has no command over itself--it is worked SOLELY FROM THE OUTSIDE. That is the law of its make; it is the law of all machines.
Y.M. Can't I EVER change one of these automatic opinions?

O.M. No. You can't yourself, but EXTERIOR INFLUENCES can do it.
Y.M. And exterior ones ONLY?

O.M. Yes--exterior ones only.
Y.M. That position is untenable--I may say ludicrously untenable.

O.M. What makes you think so?
Y.M. I don't merely think it, I know it. Suppose I resolve to enter upon a course of thought, and study, and reading, with the deliberate purpose of changing that opinion; and suppose I succeed. THAT is not the work of an exterior impulse, the whole of it is mine and personal; for I originated the project.

O.M. Not a shred of it. IT GREW OUT OF THIS TALK WITH ME. But for that it would not have occurred to you. No man ever originates anything. All his thoughts, all his impulses, come FROM THE OUTSIDE.
Y.M. It's an exasperating subject. The FIRST man had original thoughts, anyway; there was nobody to draw from.

O.M. It is a mistake. Adam's thoughts came to him from the outside. YOU have a fear of death. You did not invent that--you got it from outside, from talking and teaching. Adam had no fear of death--none in the world.
Y.M. Yes, he had.

O.M. When he was created?
Y.M. No.

O.M. When, then?
Y.M. When he was threatened with it.

O.M. Then it came from OUTSIDE. Adam is quite big enough; let us not try to make a god of him. Adam probably had a good head, but it was of no sort of use to him until it was filled up FROM THE OUTSIDE. He was not able to invent the triflingest little thing with it. He had not a shadow of a notion of the difference between good and evil--he had to get the idea FROM THE OUTSIDE. Neither he nor Eve was able to originate the idea that it was immodest to go naked; the knowledge came in with the apple FROM THE OUTSIDE. A man's brain is so constructed that IT CAN ORIGINATE NOTHING WHATSOEVER. It can only use material obtained OUTSIDE. It is merely a machine; and it works automatically, not by will-power. IT HAS NO COMMAND OVER ITSELF, ITS OWNER HAS NO COMMAND OVER IT.
Y.M. Well, never mind Adam: but certainly Shakespeare's creations--

O.M. No, you mean Shakespeare's IMITATIONS. Shakespeare created nothing. He correctly observed, and he marvelously painted. He exactly portrayed people whom NATURE had created; but he created none himself. Let us spare him the slander of charging him with trying. Shakespeare could not create. HE WAS A MACHINE, AND MACHINES DO NOT CREATE.
Y.M. Where WAS his excellence, then?

O.M. In this. He was not a sewing-machine, like you and me; he was a Gobelin loom. The threads and the colors came into him FROM THE OUTSIDE; outside influences, suggestions, EXPERIENCES (reading, seeing plays, playing plays, borrowing ideas, and so on), framed the patterns in his mind and started up his complex and admirable machinery, and IT AUTOMATICALLY turned out that pictured and gorgeous fabric which still compels the astonishment of the world. If Shakespeare had been born and bred on a barren and unvisited rock in the ocean his mighty intellect would have had no OUTSIDE MATERIAL to work with, and could have invented none; and NO OUTSIDE INFLUENCES, teachings, moldings, persuasions, inspirations, of a valuable sort, and could have invented none; and so Shakespeare would have produced nothing. In Turkey he would have produced something--something up to the highest limit of Turkish influences, associations, and training. In France he would have produced something better--something up to the highest limit of the French influences and training. In England he rose to the highest limit attainable through the OUTSIDE HELPS AFFORDED BY THAT LAND'S IDEALS, INFLUENCES, AND TRAINING. You and I are but sewing-machines. We must turn out what we can; we must do our endeavor and care nothing at all when the unthinking reproach us for not turning out Gobelins.
Y.M. And so we are mere machines! And machines may not boast, nor feel proud of their performance, nor claim personal merit for it, nor applause and praise. It is an infamous doctrine.
O.M. It isn't a doctrine, it is merely a fact.
Y.M. I suppose, then, there is no more merit in being brave than in being a coward?

O.M. PERSONAL merit? No. A brave man does not CREATE his bravery. He is entitled to no personal credit for possessing it. It is born to him. A baby born with a billion dollars--where is the personal merit in that? A baby born with nothing--where is the personal demerit in that? The one is fawned upon, admired, worshiped, by sycophants, the other is neglected and despised-- where is the sense in it?
Y.M. Sometimes a timid man sets himself the task of conquering his cowardice and becoming brave--and succeeds. What do you say to that?

O.M. That it shows the value of TRAINING IN RIGHT DIRECTIONS OVER TRAINING IN WRONG ONES. Inestimably valuable is training, influence, education, in right directions--TRAINING ONE'S SELF-APPROBATION TO ELEVATE ITS IDEALS.
Y.M. But as to merit--the personal merit of the victorious coward's project and achievement?

O.M. There isn't any. In the world's view he is a worthier man than he was before, but HE didn't achieve the change--the merit of it is not his.
Y.M. Whose, then?

O.M. His MAKE, and the influences which wrought upon it from the outside.
Y.M. His make?

O.M. To start with, he was NOT utterly and completely a coward, or the influences would have had nothing to work upon. He was not afraid of a cow, though perhaps of a bull: not afraid of a woman, but afraid of a man. There was something to build upon. There was a SEED. No seed, no plant. Did he make that seed himself, or was it born in him? It was no merit of HIS that the seed was there.
Y.M. Well, anyway, the idea of CULTIVATING it, the resolution to cultivate it, was meritorious, and he originated that.

O.M. He did nothing of the kind. It came whence ALL impulses, good or bad, come--from OUTSIDE. If that timid man had lived all his life in a community of human rabbits, had never read of brave deeds, had never heard speak of them, had never heard any one praise them nor express envy of the heroes that had done them, he would have had no more idea of bravery than Adam had of modesty, and it could never by any possibility have occurred to him to RESOLVE to become brave. He COULD NOT ORIGINATE THE IDEA--it had to come to him from the OUTSIDE. And so, when he heard bravery extolled and cowardice derided, it woke him up. He was ashamed. Perhaps his sweetheart turned up her nose and said, "I am told that you are a coward!" It was not HE that turned over the new leaf--she did it for him. HE must not strut around in the merit of it--it is not his.
Y.M. But, anyway, he reared the plant after she watered the seed.

O.M. No. OUTSIDE INFLUENCES reared it. At the command-- and trembling--he marched out into the field--with other soldiers and in the daytime, not alone and in the dark. He had the INFLUENCE OF EXAMPLE, he drew courage from his comrades' courage; he was afraid, and wanted to run, but he did not dare; he was AFRAID to run, with all those soldiers looking on. He was progressing, you see--the moral fear of shame had risen superior to the physical fear of harm. By the end of the campaign experience will have taught him that not ALL who go into battle get hurt--an outside influence which will be helpful to him; and he will also have learned how sweet it is to be praised for courage and be huzza'd at with tear-choked voices as the war-worn regiment marches past the worshiping multitude with flags flying and the drums beating. After that he will be as securely brave as any veteran in the army--and there will not be a shade nor suggestion of PERSONAL MERIT in it anywhere; it will all have come from the OUTSIDE.

(A citation from an essay 'What is Man?' by Mark Twain.)

Woman to me...

(But obvious, not originally written by me - but does it matter? Read on...)

An angel of truth and a dream of fiction,
a Woman is a bundle of contradictions.

She's afraid of a wasp,
Will scream at a mouse,
But will tackle her husband alone in the house.

She'll take him for better,
She'll take him for worse
She'll break open his head and then be his nurse.

But when he's well and can get out of bed.
She'll pick up the tea-pot and throw it at his head.

Beautiful and keen sighted yet blind,
Crafty and cruel, yet simple and kind.

She'll call him a king and then make him a clown.
Raise him on a pedestal, then throw him flat down.

She inspires him to deeds that ennoble man,
Or make him her lackey to carry her fan.

She'll run away from him and never come back,
But if he runs away she'll be on his tracks.

Sour as vinegar, sweet as a rose
She'll kiss you one minute, then turn up her nose.

She'll win you in range, enchant you in silk
She is stronger than brandy, milder than milk.

AT TIMES REVENGEFUL, MERRY AND SAD,
SHE HATES YOU LIKE POISON,
BUT LOVES YOU LIKE MAD.

Aura

Everything has an aura.

Some people can see past the 3D color/aura spectrum and see the frequencies of light that are streaming through now. These colors may appear as a rainbow or twin rainbows. An aura is the electromagnetic field surrounding an object. Some people refer to this field as a bio-energy field. In truth this energy field not only goes around you, but moves within your body as well. It is not just the outside of your body that is made of electromagnetic energies, every part of your and everything your experience in third dimension. Auras vibrate to different color, sound and light frequencies.

Auras can be seen physically, or sensed psychically, or both.
To practice seeing auras - have the subject stand in front of a white background and look to the side of their body - either side is fine. Daylight is often the best light as the sun's rays are full spectrum. If you watch the person for a minute, you will see their electromagnetic energies as sort of wavy lines of energies. This looks a lot like the energy you see when you are watching an airplane taking off in a movie.

Please do not strain you eyes. Relax. You might want to let your eyes go a little out of focus while you are looking for an aura. You may only see the aura for a few seconds, then it will disappear. After you see that energy, you may also see or sense a color frequency, maybe two or three colors, in the aura. After several minutes you should be able to see some sort of energy field around the person, even if you cannot determine the color.

Remember that auras change all the time according to the person's mood and environment. Anything that can affect an electromagnetic field can affect a change in one's aura. As everything that is in our reality is created from electromagnetic energy, everything has an aura - plants, animals, etc.

If you would like to see your own aura, find a mirror that is in a well lit room. Relax. Look at your head or head and shoulder area. Focus on one side of your head. Soon you should be able to see the electromagnetic energies as a field of light - around your head.

Do you want to feel the electromagnetic energies coming from your body? Try holding the palms of your hand facing each other - about two inches apart. Wait a few second. You will feel something. If you hands are nervous and cold, that will hamper the energies.

Once you begin to feel the sensation of electromagnetic energies between your palms, move them slowly to and fro. You will feel the movement of your aura. Look between your hands to see the electromagnetic energies, your aura. Try moving your palms further and further apart slowly. See how far you can go before you no longer feel the 'pull'. Remember to check periodically by moving your hands slightly and slowly. Now try pointing your fingers towards each other and feel those energies. Again move your fingertips to and fro. You can repeat this with another person.

Aura energies are linked to colors, the chakra system, musical tones/notes, as they all resonate to the same frequency. Sound, light and color are all interconnected at source.

So as you see all things are connected by the flow of the electromagnetic energy fields that create our reality!

(Content courtesy - Ellie Crystal)

Why Fight The Feeling?

“Whatever you believe with feeling becomes your reality.”
-Brian Tracy

Have you ever found yourself fighting a tempting feeling, giving it everything you’ve got to keep from giving in to that urge to do something you know you shouldn’t do? Of course you have; in fact, we all have from time to time. At these moments of truth, your level of self-discipline determines which path you’ll take.

The persuasive pull of temptation can prove to be too great if you cannot consistently summon sufficient self-discipline to keep yourself headed in the right direction. In these instances, fighting the feeling can be a good thing; especially when those ‘feelings’ are likely to do us more harm than good.

“Seeing is believing, but feeling's the truth.”
-Thomas Fuller

But what about those times when we fight the feeling to do those things that we desperately need to do, that we long to accomplish? You know what I’m talking about here, don’t you? Sure you do. Like those times when you know you need to do this or do that, but you also realize that the ‘this or that’ is going to require you to roll up your sleeves and get to work. And getting to work may not seem like a pleasing prospect, especially when compared to lying on the couch or just goofing off.

So we allow the temptation to slack off to override our ardent desire to put our best to the test. Instead of passionately pursuing our dreams with every ounce of fervor and fire we can muster, we allow ourselves to languish in abject mediocrity, falling well short of our realizing our abundant potential. Is this the way you want to go through life; lying around and taking it easy, never showing the courage to reach out and go for the brass ring of life? Or would you prefer to make your life everything you’ve ever dreamed it could be — and more?

It’s up to you — and your ability to take your feelings and out them into action.

“I think one's feelings waste themselves in words; they ought all to be distilled into actions which bring results.”
- Florence Nightingale

Sometimes the only discernible difference between succeeding and falling short lies in your ability to do whatever you know needs to be done — whenever it needs doing — regardless of whether you feel like doing it or not. Oh, I know that sure sounds like a lot of extra work and effort, but watching others thrive while you struggle to barely to survive isn’t all it’s cracked up to be either, is it?

By developing the self-discipline to get up and go — and keep going through thick and thin — you pave the pathway to a life filled with riches well beyond anything you’ve ever imagined. And getting up and going is not nearly as hard as you may believe. The secret to turning yourself on and keeping yourself revved at full throttle is as simple as counting to 3.

“You can come to understand your purpose in life by slowing down and feeling your heart's desires.”
- Marcia Wieder

The first step is to open up and FEEL your heart desires, to discover the wealth of ability that already lies buried within. You’ll discover it is far easier to do those things you love to do than it is to force yourself to do something you dislike or disinterests you. If you’ll just slow down and step off of the merry-go-round of life for a few moments, taking the time to tune into your heart’s desires, you’ll be amazed at what your heart will whisper in your ear.

It will help you tap into your unique gifts and talents. But feeling the feeling is not enough; you have to bring these feelings to life. Which leads us to the second step in the process of making your life everything it could be and should be: taking action today. Instead of allowing another precious day to erode into the past, why not turn the tables in your favor and put these invaluable assets to work for you right now, boldly forging your destiny on earth starting today?

The final piece of the puzzle is commitment. Once you get momentum moving in your favor, you’ve got to make certain that you don’t stop no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT! You’ve got to go with the flow that emanates from deep within you and keep moving towards the attainment of each and every dream you hold in your heart. NO MATTER WHAT! As Melba Colgrove said, “Joy is the FEELING of grinning on the inside.” When you give in to the feeling and start grinning on the inside, it’s a sure bet that you’ll be grinning from ear to ear on the outside as well.

The Bottom Line: Whenever and wherever the feeling grabs you, grab it and get to work.

WHAT IS TRUST?

TRUST - A TERM USED MUCH TOO LOOSELY!

Is trust a word you use to describe how you feel about your bank manager because you trust him with your money that he will not run away with it? In that case, trust is something that is reinforced by the law. The law stops the bank manager from running away with your money not your trust of the bank manager.

Is trust a word that you use for the person who you asked to get you tickets for a concert? Well, maybe, this person is doing a favor to you by a moral or ethical reason that this persons parent has instilled into them as a child. The person will get the tickets because he or she said so and her or she has made a moral commitment to you.

Is trust the word a soldier uses when he describes his relationship with his comrades? To some extent this is true but loyalty and training becomes part of the equation.

Trust can be interpreted in many ways.

Real trust is very uncommon. The true meaning of trust can only be found when individuals willingly enter a state of mind that will allow trust to blossom or mature. There are many levels of trust and all of these levels can be achieved by creating a euphoric, blissful, non-static, barrier free state of mind. This level cannot be forced, it has to be searched out in the mind of each individual and the path has to be taken by the individual alone. Someone who has been there can help with the journey but it is still a journey that must be taken alone.

Complete trust cannot be achieved on it's own. Complete trust will not stand-alone without other feelings being involved. Trust is only a word with no meaning until it is supported by truth.

I am going to call this the TRUST/TRUTH/CHAIN.

Trust cannot become an entity unto it's own without truth being part of trust. For any relationship to be trustful, truth must be part of it. Part truth will only create part trust. This is where barriers are thrown up to disguise the truth that in turn disguises trust. It seems to be human nature to throw up barriers to the truth. We are taught at a very early age that there can be advantages to withholding the truth of ones feelings or of knowledge of something. Usually it is the perception that the real truth can be used later for bargaining or to inflict an insult upon another person. Also, secrets are kept back behind barriers in the trust/truth chain. A secret may keep the individual from getting into a self-destructive relationship with the person whom you are shielding the truth from.

OH what a mess the human mind can get itself into.

Just consider a society where no one holds back the truth. Wouldn't that differ so greatly from today's culture?

For the unique individuals who can reach the true trust/truth level there will naturally occur another level. It is a level that very few people in history ever reach. It is the highest level of the trust/truth chain.

I am going to call this the TRUST/TRUTH/LOVE CHAIN.

There is no greater state of mind a mortal human being can achieve. The only experience one can reach after the trust/truth/love level is the feeling that many people have reported about when they have had near death experiences and have seen and felt a love and compassion beyond words and explanation.

The love in the trust/truth/love chain can be of many different levels also. It can be an emotional and physical love. It can be a closeness that is beyond friendship but still not associated with a physical/sexual relationship. It can be a love that is between sexes .It can be a love between a mother and daughter or father and son or a love between two friends of the same sex or an intense friendship between two of the opposite sex.

The highest level of love is so very uncommon. It is a level where both parties seem to know what the other is feeling or thinking all the time, even if they are miles apart. This level of love is the most compassionate, blissful, unrelenting and infinite love capable in the universe. Classic love stories thrive on our minds willingness and dreams to reach this level and many times the authors of these stories can produce a momentary acceptance of a vision of complete T/T/L Chain. But alas, the human mind closes the T/T/L Chain down by throwing up barriers. The authors of these classic love stories have an insight into the true T/T/L Chain and they have tried as best as they can to pass on their own feeling or the feelings that they know are correct to their readers.

There is hope; a level of consciousness, of mind, of bliss can be achieved through T/T/L. It is up to the individual who wishes to peruse it. I believe a combination of verbal therapy, touch therapy and message therapy can help induce the T/T/L Chain but again it is up to how much the individual wants to achieve it. Maybe, someday the human race will enter into a society that emphasizes T/T/L rather than deceit, mistruth, and all the other feelings and correspondence we use to reach our selfish and greedy existence.

A true T/T/L society is where trust is paramount because everyone is truthful with one another. And if everyone is truthful with one another then love will prevail.

Once the barriers of distrust, untruth and hate disappear, something else has to take its place.

I often wonder about the animate kingdom where instincts take precedence. Or do they? Canadian geese and swans are but a few species that mate for life. If the mate dies, usually the other mate dies a short time later. There must be something in these animals that goes beyond procreation. Maybe in the animal kingdom, love between the mates is paramount. Their minds have not developed enough to let or require trust and truth become part of their equation for ultimate existence.

To the reader:
The T/T/L Chain described in this essay can be expanded upon by discussion and I encourage it. The human mind is a universe until itself. As infinite as the cosmic universe.

Article courtesy: Murray Brown

Eid | Diwali

Friends greetings !!

Free Will

(A citation from an essay 'What is Man?' by Mark Twain.)

A conversation between an Old Man (O.M) and a Young Man (Y.M)

Y.M. What is your opinion regarding Free Will?
O.M. That there is no such thing. Did the man possess it who gave the old woman his last shilling and trudged home in the storm?

Y.M. He had the choice between succoring the old woman and leaving her to suffer. Isn't it so?
O.M. Yes, there was a choice to be made, between bodily comfort on the one hand and the comfort of the spirit on the other. The body made a strong appeal, of course--the body would be quite sure to do that; the spirit made a counter appeal. A choice had to be made between the two appeals, and was made. Who or what determined that choice?

Y.M. Any one but you would say that the man determined it, and that in doing it he exercised Free Will.
O.M. We are constantly assured that every man is endowed with Free Will, and that he can and must exercise it where he is offered a choice between good conduct and less-good conduct. Yet we clearly saw that in that man's case he really had no Free Will: his temperament, his training, and the daily influences which had molded him and made him what he was, COMPELLED him to rescue the old woman and thus save HIMSELF--save himself from spiritual pain, from unendurable wretchedness. He did not make the choice, it was made FOR him by forces which he could not control. Free Will has always existed in WORDS, but it stops there, I think--stops short of FACT. I would not use those words--Free Will--but others.

Y.M. What others?
O.M. Free Choice.

Y.M. What is the difference?
O.M. The one implies untrammeled power to ACT as you please, the other implies nothing beyond a mere MENTAL PROCESS: the critical ability to determine which of two things is nearest right and just.

Y.M. Make the difference clear, please.
O.M. The mind can freely SELECT, CHOOSE, POINT OUT the right and just one--its function stops there. It can go no further in the matter. It has no authority to say that the right one shall be acted upon and the wrong one discarded. That authority is in other hands.

Y.M. The man's?
O.M. In the machine which stands for him. In his born disposition and the character which has been built around it by training and environment.

Y.M. It will act upon the right one of the two?
O.M. It will do as it pleases in the matter. George Washington's machine would act upon the right one; Pizarro would act upon the wrong one.

Y.M. Then as I understand it a bad man's mental machinery calmly and judicially points out which of two things is right and just--
O.M. Yes, and his MORAL machinery will freely act upon the other or the other, according to its make, and be quite indifferent to the MIND'S feeling concerning the matter--that is, WOULD be, if the mind had any feelings; which it hasn't. It is merely a thermometer: it registers the heat and the cold, and cares not a farthing about either.

Y.M. Then we must not claim that if a man KNOWS which of two things is right he is absolutely BOUND to do that thing?
O.M. His temperament and training will decide what he shall do, and he will do it; he cannot help himself, he has no authority over the mater. Wasn't it right for David to go out and slay Goliath?

Y.M. Yes.
O.M. Then it would have been equally RIGHT for any one else to do it?

Y.M. Certainly.
O.M. Then it would have been RIGHT for a born coward to attempt it?

Y.M. It would--yes.
O.M. You know that no born coward ever would have attempted it, don't you?

Y.M. Yes.
O.M. You know that a born coward's make and temperament would be an absolute and insurmountable bar to his ever essaying such a thing, don't you?

Y.M. Yes, I know it.
O.M. He clearly perceives that it would be RIGHT to try it?

Y.M. Yes.
O.M. His mind has Free Choice in determining that it would be RIGHT to try it?

Y.M. Yes.
O.M. Then if by reason of his inborn cowardice he simply can NOT essay it, what becomes of his Free Will? Where is his Free Will? Why claim that he has Free Will when the plain facts show that he hasn't? Why content that because he and David SEE the right alike, both must ACT alike? Why impose the same laws upon goat and lion?

Y.M. There is really no such thing as Free Will?
O.M. It is what I think. There is WILL. But it has nothing to do with INTELLECTUAL PERCEPTIONS OF RIGHT AND WRONG, and is not under their command. David's temperament and training had Will, and it was a compulsory force; David had to obey its decrees, he had no choice. The coward's temperament and training possess Will, and IT is compulsory; it commands him to avoid danger, and he obeys, he has no choice. But neither the Davids nor the cowards possess Free Will--will that may do the right or do the wrong, as their MENTAL verdict shall decide.

Man The Maker Of His Destiny

Man The Maker Of His Destiny - We are responsible for what we are, and whatever we wish ourselves to be, we have the power to make ourselves. If what we are now has been the result of our own past actions, it certainly follows that whatever we wish to be in future can be produced by our present actions; SO WE HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO ACT.

Man is man, so long as he is struggling to rise above nature, and this nature is both internal and external... And if we read the history of nations between the lines, we shall always find that the rise of a nation comes with an increase in the number of such men, and the fall begins when this pursuit after the Infinite, however vain the utilitarian may call it, has ceased. That is to say, the mainspring of the strength of every race lies in its SPIRITUALITY and the death of that race begins the day that spirituality wanes and materialism gains ground.

You have to GROW inside out. None can teach you, none can make you spiritual.There is no other teacher but YOUR OWN SELF.

MAKE YOUR OWN FUTURE. "Let the dead past bury its dead". The infinite future is before you, and you must always remember that each WORD, THOUGHT and DEED lays up a store for you, and that as the bad thoughts and bad works are ready to spring upon you like tigers, so also there is the inspiring hope that the good thoughts and good deeds are ready with the power of a hundred thousand angels to defend you always and forever.

I am sure NATURE will pardon a man who will use his reason and cannot believe, rather than a man who believes blindly instead of using the faculties He has given him... WE MUST REASON; and when reason proves to us the truth of these prophets and great man about whom the ancient books speak in every country, we shall believe in them. We shall believe in them when we see such prophets among ourselves. We shall then find that they were not peculiar men, but only illustrations of certain principles.

Go on doing good, thinking good thoughts continuously, that is the only way to suppress base impressions. Never say any man is hopeless, because he only represents a character, a bundle of habits, which can be checked by new and better ones. Character is repeated habits; and repeated habits alone can reform character... The chaste brain has TREMENDOUS energy and GIGANTIC will power.

We can overcome the difficulty by CONSTANT PRACTICE. We must learn that nothing can happen to us, unless we make ourselves susceptible to it.

`It is the coward and the fool who says, "THIS IS FATE”- so says the Sanskrit proverb. But it is the strong man who stands up and says, "I WILL MAKE MY FATE ". It is the people who are getting old who talk of fate. Young men generally do not come to astrology.

The Man-Machine Again

Man is a mere machine and his mind works automatically and is independent of his control--carries on thought on its own hook. Yes. It is diligently at work, unceasingly at work, during every waking moment. Have you never tossed about all night, imploring, beseeching, commanding your mind to stop work and let you go to sleep? You who perhaps imagine that your mind is your servant and must obey your orders, think what you tell it to think, and stop when you tell it to stop. When it chooses to work, there is no way to keep it still for an instant. The brightest man would not be able to supply it with subjects if he had to hunt them up. If it needed the man's help it would wait for him to give it work when he wakes in the morning. It begins right away, before the man gets wide enough awake to give it a suggestion. He may go to sleep saying, "The moment I wake I will think upon such and such a subject," but he will fail. His mind will be too quick for him; by the time he has become nearly enough awake to be half conscious, he will find that it is already at work upon another subject. Make the experiment and see.

As a rule it will listen to neither a dull speaker nor a bright one. It refuses all persuasion. The dull speaker wearies it and sends it far away in idle dreams; the bright speaker throws out stimulating ideas which it goes chasing after and is at once unconscious of him and his talk. You cannot keep your mind from wandering, if it wants to; it is master, not you.

The mind is independent of the man. He has no control over it; it does as it pleases. It will take up a subject in spite of him; it will stick to it in spite of him; it will throw it aside in spite of him. It is entirely independent of him. Yes, asleep as well as awake. The mind is quite independent. It is master. You have nothing to do with it. It is so apart from you that it can conduct its affairs, sing its songs, play its chess, weave its complex and ingeniously constructed dreams, while you sleep. It has no use for your help, no use for your guidance, and never uses either, whether you be asleep or awake. You have imagined that you could originate a thought in your mind, and you have sincerely believed you could do it. Yet you can't originate a dream-thought for it to work out, and get it accepted? And you can't dictate its procedure after it has originated a dream-thought for itself? No, correct? So then the waking mind and the dream mind are the same machine? There is argument for it. We have wild and fantastic day-thoughts? Things that are dream-like? And there are dreams that are rational, simple, consistent, and unfantastic? Dreams that are just like real life; dreams in which there are several persons with distinctly differentiated characters--inventions of my mind and yet strangers to me: a vulgar person; a refined one; a wise person; a fool; a cruel person; a kind and compassionate one; a quarrelsome person; a peacemaker; old persons and young; beautiful girls and homely ones. They talk in character, each preserves his own characteristics. There are vivid fights, vivid and biting insults, vivid love-passages; there are tragedies and comedies, there are griefs that go to one's heart, there are sayings and doings that make you laugh: indeed, the whole thing is exactly like real life.

A man's mind, left free, has no use for his help. But there is one way whereby he can get its help when he desires it. When your mind is racing along from subject to subject and strikes an inspiring one, open your mouth and begin talking upon that matter--or--take your pen and use that. It will interest your mind and concentrate it, and it will pursue the subject with satisfaction. It will take full charge, and furnish the words itself. There are certainly occasions when you haven't time. The words leap out before you know what is coming. Well, take a "flash of wit"--repartee. Flash is the right word. It is out instantly. There is no time to arrange the words. There is no thinking, no reflecting. Where there is a wit-mechanism it is automatic in its action and needs no help. Where the whit-mechanism is lacking, no amount of study and reflection can manufacture the product.

Men perceive, and their brain-machines automatically combine the things perceived. That is all. Take the example of a steam engine. It takes fifty men a hundred years to invent it. One meaning of invent is discover. I use the word in that sense. Little by little they discover and apply the multitude of details that go to make the perfect engine. Watt noticed that confined steam was strong enough to lift the lid of the teapot. He didn't create the idea, he merely discovered the fact; the cat had noticed it a hundred times. From the teapot he evolved the cylinder, from the displaced lid he evolved the piston-rod. To attach something to the piston-rod to be moved by it, was a simple matter, crank and wheel. And so there was a working engine. One by one, improvements were discovered by men who used their eyes, not their creating powers, for they hadn't any - and now, after a hundred years the patient contributions of fifty or a hundred observers stand compacted in the wonderful machine which drives the ocean liner. Also lets talk about a Shakespearean play. The process is the same. The first actor was a savage. He reproduced in his theatrical war-dances, scalp- dances, and so on, incidents which he had seen in real life. A more advanced civilization produced more incidents, more episodes; the actor and the story-teller borrowed them. And so the drama grew, little by little, stage by stage. It is made up of the facts of life, not creations. It took centuries to develop the Greek drama. It borrowed from preceding ages; it lent to the ages that came after.

Men observe and combine, that is all. So does a rat. He observes a smell, he infers a cheese, he seeks and finds. The astronomer observes this and that; adds his this and that to the this-and-thats of a hundred predecessors, infers an invisible planet, seeks it and finds it. The rat gets into a trap; gets out with trouble; infers that cheese in traps lacks value, and meddles with that trap no more. The astronomer is very proud of his achievement, the rat is proud of his. Yet both are machines; they have done machine work, they have originated nothing, they have no right to be vain; the whole credit belongs to the law of their make. They are entitled to no honors, no praises, no monuments when they die, no remembrance. One is a complex and elaborate machine, the other a simple and limited machine, but they are alike in principle, function, and process, and neither of them works otherwise than automatically, and neither of them may righteously claim a PERSONAL superiority or a personal dignity above the other.

(A citation from an essay 'What is Man?' by Mark Twain. If you are interested in this Essay please let me know along with your email IDs I will be glad to send it across, trust me it is a good read.)

The history of God

(Note : To all who believe in GOD, please do not get offended I respect your belief, the following post is a citation from an article by Davide Andrea, so please no hard feelings, you always have the option of leaving this page anytime - thankyou.)

Roughly speaking, the human brain developed the Biological God soon after it started developing reasoning, to keep up with reasoning as it started asking existential questions. Unable to explain the experience of the Biological God, humans attributed the phenomenon to external forces, and created the Cultural God.



In the future, reason will be enhanced, while spirituality will be much reduced, though not eliminated. As the Biological God has had less and less effect compared to the juggernaut of organized religion, mutations that reduced the Biological God have not been eliminated by evolution, so, in general, the phenomenon of the Biological God has decreased over the centuries.

Humans developed Animism first, in which humans projected the biological God externally, onto objects and forces in nature. Then came Polytheism, which projected the biological God externally, onto an imaginary Pantheon ("All the Gods"). Finally, humans simplified the Pantheon into a single Omnipotent, Omniscient, Creator.



While developing new forms of the cultural God, humans retained the old forms. Today Animism is still present in Africa and is on the rise with "New Age" beliefs; Polytheism is still strong in Asian cultures (such as Hindu); while Monotheism continues to make inroads thanks to world imperialists who tend to be followers of the Abramic religions (Jewish, Christian, Moslem).

Morality as a socially stabilizing force

For a long time, reason has been overpowered by spirituality, stifling research and discovery. Today, reason has been freed from the bounds of spirituality, which on one side has allowed humans to greatly expand its understanding of the world, but on the other side has weakened social morality. That morality may be based on unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary rules, but it has given society an effective constraint to a damaging free-for-all. Humans now need to develop a different self regulating force, based on reason instead of tradition and spirituality, to replace the moral code, if they want to continue functioning as a society.



Should Reason displace God?
No.

Even if the existence of the Cultural God is disproved, it should be purely for scientific (philosophical) reasons. In that case, the absence of a Cultural God (and the existence of a biological God) should be taught in school, but not in antithesis of spirituality. The dichotomy between Science (reason) and Spirituality (Religion, Astrology, Superstition...) is a false one. These are not at opposite ends of the same axis, but are instead orthogonal, and therefore independent. One can be as little or a much spiritual as one wants, regardless of how little or how much one uses reason.

Spirituality is what makes humans what they are, and is consistent with what humans experience. Spirituality answers existential questions and in so doing gives humans a reason to continue living. (Here I neatly bypass the philosophical question: "Should we strive for the continuation of the human race, or is it OK for it to become extinct?".)

It is possible that further evolution may give the human race a reason to continue existing, either by eliminating existential questions, or by finding a more compelling answer to them. Until then, humans will ask existential questions, and spirituality will answers them neatly. If we assume that the human race, as presently developed, must remain on Earth, spirituality must remain for at least a while longer, to justify the human race's existence and regulate its society.

Does God exist?

(Note : To all who believe in GOD, please do not get offended I respect your belief, the following post is a citation from an article by Davide Andrea, so please no hard feelings, you always have the option of leaving this page anytime - thankyou.)

Does God exist? Yes! No!
Of course, it depends on the definition of God.

Here I use 2 definitions:
1) The "Biological God", as a phenomenon of the human brain.
2) The "Cultural God", as a creation of human society.

Yes, the Biological God exists.
No, the Cultural God doesn't exist per se.

A person isolated from society from birth may still experience the Biological God, but would either not have a Cultural God, or would create his/her own version of it from scratch.

Now I will outline a theory that could explain our experiences of God, and yet allow for its non-existence. This theory is (yet) unprovable, but so is the existence of God. Of course, many more theories have been and will be proposed.

My wish is to give Agnostics an alternative to the views presented by religions, and let him/her apply Occam's razor ("the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected").

The Biological God.
Love, anguish, serenity, hate, intuition, conscious, self, and many other phenomena of the human brain are accepted as just that. Yet Humans aren't able to accept God as simply one more phenomenon of the human brain: the experience of God, and the need for a ultimate figure who gives meaning to our lives, are just that strong.

Why does the Biological God exist?
The Biological God developed in the human brain at the same time as Reason did.
Mutations resulted in both phenomena. In a very simplistic view, assume that these resulted in beings will all 4 permutations of these mutations.



The beings that gained reasoning invented the concept of "meaning" and started to ask "Why are we here? What's the meaning of life?" (these are two of the so called "existential questions"). Of those, the ones who realized that there is no "meaning" to life, lacked the motivation to live and procreate. On the other side, those who also developed the concept of God, created answers to the existential questions, and, satisfied, proceed to live and procreate. Their progeny retained both mutations, and today's humans are both smart and experience God.

Another way of looking at this is that God led to religion and morality; and that those led to social order; and that social order gave humans the stability they needed to survive and procreate. That social order balanced the individualism and freedom that reason gave humans. A tribe that evolved with too much reason and not enough religion would have self-destructed and become extinct.

The point is not "why do humans experience God". That is, don't ask why humans both have reasoning and believe in God, while other Primates don't (we assume).



Instead, understand that if there hadn't been a mutation in certain humans to counteract the logical consequence of reasoning alone, there would be no humans today to ask the question "is there a God?". It is just by chance that those mutations occurred, and that they occurred in such a way to make humans what they are now. There were far many more Primates that didn't develop reasoning (to the extent that Humans have), and some of them still remain today. And there were far many more mutations that did result in reasoning, but not the biological God, and those beings became extinct because they didn't have reason to exist and procreate.



The chance of humans developing both reasoning and the biological God are vanishingly small, so this appears very unlikely (let's say, a 0.0000000001 % probability). But look at it the other way: if those mutations hadn't occurred, and in exactly that way, we wouldn't be here today asking those questions!

Those mutations did occur (that's a 100 % probability), and here we are, asking these questions.
Had there been other sets of mutations, such that other, quite different sentient beings had resulted (also with a vanishingly small probability), they might now be asking what the chances would be for evolution to result in beings exactly like them. But those mutations would have occurred (that's a 100 % probability), and here they would be, wandering what the chances were that they would have developed.

The Cultural God.
Humans created the Cultural God because of their experience of the Biological God, and due to their need to provide default answers when reason can't.

We already explored the Biological God. Let's explore the "Default God".
As Reason answers more and more questions, people need God less and less as a default explanation of the unexplained. This would imply that the portion of questions answered by Reason (science) is asymptotically approaching 100 %. Form this, one could predict that one day the Default God will no longer be needed.



However, the unexplained questions increase as more questions are answered, so it is not clear that Reason will one day explain everything that is presently attributed to God.

So, we said that the experiential God is a biological phenomenon, and that we may predict that the external God as a default explanation for the unexplainable may one day become unnecessary. All this could be stretched into a proof of the nonexistence of the Cultural God.

Even if Humans disproved the existence of the Cultural God, culture has such a momentum that eradicating God purely on rational grounds will be nearly impossible.

Next post - "The history of GOD"
P.S Read this blog too...

Is there a God?

(Note : To all who believe in GOD, please do not get offended I respect your belief, the following post is a citation from an article by Davide Andrea, so please no hard feelings, you always have the option of leaving this page anytime - thankyou.)

So Is there a God? Does it matter?
No, it doesn't, other than the fact that it's such a big deal to so many people. So why bother? Well, spectator sports fascinate many people, even though they are so inconsequential; so please forgive me if I waste effort on this question. Consider it a hobby of mine.

Let me say here that I am not a scientist, nor a theologist, nor a philosopher. My education of these matters has many holes. While I believe that everything I express here has been stated before, I'd be hard pressed to come-up with specific references.

Could humans experience a non existent God?
I am going to use 2 analogies to show how it's possible that
a) God (as normally defined) doesn't exist, and
b) humans experience God and talk as if it existed.

The first analogy is a well known optical illusion. Take two identical lines:



Their length can be made to look different by adding arrow ends:



We know that the lines are equally long, but we feel that the top one is longer. We recognize that our brain is fooled into thinking that the top line is longer, even though we rationally know they are both the same, and we are simply amused by that fact.

Similarly, you may know that there is no God, and yet experience it. You could decide that your brain is fooled into thinking that there is such as thing as "God", even though you rationally know there's no such thing, and be simply amused by that fact.

The second analogy is the expedient of stating that the sun raises from the East and sets in the West. We know that the earth is not flat, and we know that it rotates around the Sun. Yet. we don't think twice about the terms "sunrise" and "sunset". These expressions are left over from a simpler time when people didn't understand astronomy. We keep on using these expressions because are very ingrained in our culture; and if we came-up with physically accurate expressions, they would be a mouthful.

Similarly, if one day we were to prove that there's no God, we'd still use the word "God" as an interlocution ("God you look good!") and as a Creator ("God's creatures"). These expressions will remain from this simpler time when people don't understand the true nature of God. We'll keep on using these expressions because they will remain ingrained in our culture, and because physically accurate expressions will be too complex to use in everyday language.

So, the possible absence of God doesn't preclude us from experiencing it. And God would remain in our culture even if its existence were disproved.

So far, I didn't disprove the existence of God. I simply showed that it's possible that God doesn't exist, despite our experiences and our culture.

Now, in the next post I will state a theory that would allow the non-existence of God yet explain how humans experience God.

Discover Reading

'What we see depends mainly on what we look for.'
- Sir John Lubbock







(All 3 images are copyrighted works of Sharpe Blackmore Euro RSCG produced for Licenced To Learn)

No Soul

Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends upon a parent. For self-preservation man has conceived of the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically.

According to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world.

- Buddha on Nirvana (picture courtesy http://sudo.ch/~dkocher/gallery/albums.php)

Two Quotes, to Quote

Life was not a valuable gift, but death was. Life was a fever-dream made up of joys embittered by sorrows, pleasure poisoned by pain; a dream that was a nightmare-confusion of spasmodic and fleeting delights, ecstasies, exultations, happinesses, interspersed with long-drawn miseries, griefs, perils, horrors, disappointments, defeats,humiliations, and despairs--the heaviest curse devisable by divine ingenuity; but death was sweet, death was gentle, death was kind; death healed the bruised spirit and the broken heart, and gave them rest and forgetfulness; death was man's best friend; when man could endure life no longer, death came and set him free.

- Letters from the Earth (Mark Twain)

It is human life. We are blown upon the world; we float buoyantly upon the summer air a little while, complacently showing off our grace of form and our dainty iridescent colors; then we vanish with a little puff, leaving nothing behind but a memory--and sometimes not even that. I suppose that at those solemn times when we wake in the deeps of the night and reflect, there is not one of us who is not willing to confess that he is really only a soap-bubble, and as little worth the making.

- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography

A Loss which filled me with knowledge!

This year, my father left his body, his presence on my life left an permanent impression on my mind. This event opened a bundle of encyclopedias in front of my eyes as flowers bloom in spring, telling me 'what life is all about'.

What I see now is crystal clear water, earlier which used to be a misty dark scene. I am deep down in water - breathless.

Absolute changeless permanent reality, the unconditioned, itself alone is, all else has always been, is, and always will be just a state of make-believe fiction, a state of delusion worn like a costume with multiple fabricated viewpoints, with each self-sustaining itself in a self-perpetuated state of self-ignorance, until each decides to come to closure through self-enlightenment and self-awakening

things are created, they are inherently subject to decay, and then finally, they are dissolved again

(now... say to yourself the following)

all that is created is impermanent, subject to alteration and change, and being such, all impermanent things are inherently a state of ill-being.this being so, it is not fitting to say that which is ill that am I, that is mine, that is my self.

do I understand? every iota of everything is just make-believe fiction and none of it exists in truth and when this is seen as the way things truly are then that is the end of all anguish and the end of the continuation of what never existed in truth to begin with

-Essence Buddha's Teachings

MAN THE MACHINE

A Human: Yes. Man the machine--man the impersonal engine. Whatsoever a man is, is due to his MAKE, and to the INFLUENCES brought to bear upon it by his heredities, his habitat, his associations. He is moved, directed, COMMANDED, by EXTERIOR influences--SOLELY. He ORIGINATES nothing, not even a thought.

Readers : "Oh, come! Where did I get our opinion that this which you are talking is all foolishness?"

A Human: It is a quite natural opinion--indeed an inevitable opinion--but YOU did not create the materials out of which it is formed. They are odds and ends of thoughts, impressions, feelings, gathered unconsciously from a thousand books, a thousand conversations, and from streams of thought and feeling which have flowed down into your heart and brain out of the hearts and brains of centuries of ancestors. PERSONALLY you did not create even the smallest microscopic fragment of the materials out of which your opinion is made; and personally you cannot claim even the slender merit of PUTTING THE BORROWED MATERIALS TOGETHER. That was done AUTOMATICALLY--by your mental machinery, in strict accordance with the law of that machinery's construction. And you not only did not make that machinery yourself, but you have NOT EVEN ANY COMMAND OVER IT.