The Real Numbers

Thanks to Mark Franzen.

The real numbers...

You better check all this out. We’re getting screwed big time, but our children and grandkids are really going to be killed in this fiasco. We are being mis-informed, ill-informed or not informed at all, and maybe even lied to by our legislators. We’d all better be hammering on them hard for answers. It’s real easy to contact your rep on line!

Bailout Price Tag: $3.5T So Far, But 'Real' Cost May Be Much Higher
Posted Nov 12, 2008 10:16am EST by Aaron Task in Newsmakers, Recession, Banking
Related: AIG, FNM, FRE, XLF, ^DJI, ^GSPC, C

While the government is clearly spending a lot of taxpayers' money to bail out financial firms, the tally is even bigger than most Americans (economists and pundits included) are probably aware or willing to admit.

The bailout bonanza has gotten so big and happened so fast it's the true cost often gets lost in the discussion. Maybe Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke prefer it that way because the tally so far is nearly $3.5 trillion, and that's before a likely handout for the auto industry.

Yes, $3.45 trillion has already been spent, as Bailoutsleuth.com details:

* $2T Emergency Fed Loans (the ones the Fed won't discuss, as detailed here)
* $700B TARP (designed to buy bad debt, the fund is rapidly transforming as we'll discuss in an upcoming segment)
* $300B Hope Now (the government's year-old attempt at mortgage workouts)
* $200B Fannie/Freddie
* $140B Tax Breaks for Banks (WaPo has the details)
* $110B: AIG (with its new deal this week, the big insurer got $40B of TARP money, plus $110B in other relief)

Tallying up the "true" cost of the bailout is difficult, and won't be known for months if not years. But considering $3.5 trillion is about 25% of the U.S. economy ($13.8 trillion in 2007) and the U.S. deficit may hit $1 trillion in fiscal 2009, hyperinflation and/or sharply higher interest rates seem likely outcomes down the road.

At the very least, the possibility of the U.S. losing its vaunted Aaa credit rating -- which determines the Treasury's borrowing costs -- cannot be discounted.

Moody's has already said it's not in jeopardy of being lowered. But we really can't put much stock in what Moody's -- or S&P or Fitch -- say after the subprime debacle, can we? More importantly, the price of credit default swaps on U.S. government debt has been on the rise since the bailout train got rolling, as Barron's reports.

In other words: Money talks and B.S. walks, to quote Spinal Tap.
*******

More ACIM

*******

I do not feel that we might ever find full and detailed agreement re acim in this life; and that is okay. Different strokes... But I have no need in the world for any "authoratative" holy book; my life is not runfrom any book, but from the living Spirit, Who has written the "'Word of life" on the heart. After that, all books become disposable, or, at least, only options. None is mandatory, and none needed for the discovery/maintenance of faith.
*******

Healing, Faith, and ACIM

*******

Even more important than learning on the Way is unlearning, which precedes it and makes the "soil" fertile for the growth of new ideas. So, most must begin by unlearning.

This is because there are a plethora of false and illusory paths in spirituality-- systems of illusion made more complex by intellect.

Usually, upon discovering the Power of Mind, one labors under the misconception that she has made a "brand new" and very exciting discovery! She is often unaware that this path, which teaches that the conscious mind can do anything, has been suggested thousands of times, and deeply and thoroughly explored. It has been embraced and practiced, often to the very end, when people discovered-- always to their amazement and astonishment-- that it did not work; in the end, it is a "fairy-tale" of desperately "wishful thinking." These schools of metaphysics have been around since the time of ancient India.

Many of these systems rely on the claim to literal historicity of the Gospels. If Jesus performed those wonderful "tricks," it must have been because he had found some kind of "secret," as in a special affirmation. But if these are allegorical or symbolic tales, then the actions of Jesus, within them, were also symbolic.

This is the case with several "godmen" stories from ancient times. In fact, Christianity is unique in that, in its fundy forms, at least, it insists that the Gospels are literal histories. This is very popular, and is how the tales are presented, for example, in popular theater and popular literature. But today, many educated scholars agree with the famous Dr. Carl Jung (died 1961), who thought all the Gospel accounts to be allegorical. (This means that they represented events within every spiritual life, including yours.)

Historically, a number of cults have arisen based on the idea that the Gospels were literal history. These include, famously, the Christian Science cult and its "spinoffs," including the modern cult based upon A Course in Miracles. (Btw, this book is dramatically over-named, guilty of false advertising. It is NOT a "course in miracles," as that word is generally understood in popular usage.)

Happily, a "cult" is a fairly clearly defined nomenclature among sociologists. It is a cohesive social group, large or small, in which beliefs and actions of members are controlled strictly by a book, or a leader, or both. The right to independent thinking is taken away, and the dogma of the leader/book replaces it. The book/leader is regarded as infallible, unquestionable, and inerrant. No one who has followed the sociology of recent religion can possibly deny that some ACIM groups do
fall within this definition. People often balk at the word "cult," but it is not necessarily an "attack-word," but rather a convenient sociological term, no more.

Agreed that it is better to avoid cults or cultlike groups, and turn our attention to the "tried and true" megasystems that have proved themselves over millennia! We of the Love-tradition are deeply rooted in such venerable traditions as Taoism, Zen, Buddhism, Christianity, and others. You cannot go far wrong when studying and following the spiritual "giants" of history.

You are not alone in discovering that the cosmos will "force" all of us, however gently, into a position of absolute trust (faith). Faith is not a state that we are capable of generating ourselves. If a mad murderer said that he was going to shoot you in the head if you did not believe that the moon was made of green cheese, no matter how desperately you wanted to believe, you could not force "faith" in the ludicrous statement. Instead, faith must grow, gradually through knowledge, experience, and wisdom. People who "grunt and groan," trying to force faith to grow in themselves, through suggestion or autohypnosis, are destined to disappointment. In the end, faith is not something that we can "get" or "create," but is the gift of Love (grace, God).

There is a dangerous, and antispiritual, tendency for people to stop cold with intellectual development. They are often paralyzed or petrified at the stage of "right belief." They actually think that their conscious belief-pattern makes them "spiritual" or "enlightened."

But enlightenment is a matter of the Way that you behave, how you live, not just how you think or believe.

Love is a matter of "right action," not just "right" beliefs.

Earthlife passes rather quickly; and as we move even closer to our higher Selves, which are by nature timeless, the measurement of time becomes less and less relevant. For the higher Self (Soul) and highest Self (Spirit) operate outside of time altogether.

The only "plan" that can be discerned, in this or any other life, is education in Love. Each and every exam or challenge keeps bringing us back to the question, "Was maximum Love reflected in that interaction?" And when the answer is no, we get to take the exam again.

Please do not misunderstand these words. Your "defense" of ACIM implies that you felt that it was being "attacked." It was not; as noted honestly and clearly, the book contains some good and useful thought, although it likely contains nothing really "new." It is a book that collects some of the best ideas from twelve-step and other, related, programs of recovery. But it is galaxies away from being "a new revelation of God."

It is spiritually perilous to seek "new bibles" on our spiritual journey. For, as independent spiritual beings, we are not to look to books to somehow replace our interior growth into understanding. This invalid "short cut" is enormously popular, and has been for centuries. It is just so much easier: Let others make the interior voyage; I don't have to do it myself; I can just read about them." But it simply doesn't work that way; there can be no "vicarious enlightenment."

I have also carefully read ACIM, every word. But unlike others, I did not have the "golly, gee whiz!" response. I was not dazzled. It was not a breathless experience. It was not even exciting. I found the presentation and style rather ordinary. Fire-works did not explode in the Soul or heart. Of course, this is simply a matter of personal choice and response. The fact that the book is quite ordinary does NOT imply that it is "wrong," or "uninspired." (Your words imply that you might have made this "leap," which, I hasten to assure you, is unjustified!)

You rather seriously misunderstood another statement of my email: When discussing the joining of the sperm to the ovum, the implication was that our present conscious mind did not exercise any control over the process. Of course, we designed the process at the Soul-level of Mind. And of course, we participated in the dna-selection and design of our present physical form. Yes, "separation," as has been stated again and again, is the primal illusion that stands at the root of all others.

*******

Healing and the Conscious Mind

*******

We are aware of the regrettable fact that a cult is growing around ACIM (the book A Course in Miracles). That is really too bad, for it does have a number of good teachings. It is largely the common sense (anything but common) of the twelve-step programs. We do not subscribe to the mythical superstition that this book is infallible, incapable of error, or that it was "channeled from God," or "actually" written by Jesus Christ. This is, you might recognize, the same lie that fundies have been telling for years about the Bible; it serves only those who are too lazy, too ignorant, or too weak to think for themselves.

One problem with healing is that people want to assign very simplistic causes to diseases. If disease has a very simple cause, then it also has a very simple solution. Usually, it is something along the lines of "changing your thought-patterns."

This simplism not only "blames" the sick person, instead of extending compassion to her, but it is absurdly simple. It is, in fact, far too simple to account for the facts.

Simplicity, of course, has a very wide place in the philosophy of enlightenment. But intellect also has its proper place. For, historically, many people who never allowed a "negative thought" within a hundred yards of them have suffered from some major illnesses. To claim, or to imply, that all illness is the result of "negative thinking" simply does not tally with the known facts-- of history or of medicine.

The conscious mind is not the "cause" of all illness. It can and does affect the body, but its power is not unlimited. If these "positive thinkers" were right in their simplistic explanations, everyone would have followed them years ago, and there would be no serious health-problems in our world. For mind-based systems of "positive thinking" have been widely available, to everyone, for well over a hundred years, in just recent history.

For an example, the cult called "Christian Science" (founded 1879) ascribes all illness to "wrong" thinking. Yet this is a microcult, with only a few million members worldwide. But if Mary Eddy's theories were correct, if her "practice" actually worked, by now, the cult would have converted the entire world. You could not keep people from converting to the cult! It would be madly, astonishingly popular, and you could not pull people away with bull-dozers. And no Christian Scientist would ever suffer from any major disease; they would all, and always, enjoy perfect health.

But this has not been the real situation "on the ground" (in the real world). These facts show its flaw: There are still practicing Christian Scientists (as members call themselves) who become very sick with major illnesses; indeed, despite continuous practice and programming, some die every year, making the cult lethal for sick people.

The whole idea of "mind-healing," or healing through exclusively positive thinking, underwent a massive revival in the US and the whole world in the 1890's, and millions converted to various related "positive thinking" schools. But many, if not most, remained either sick or poor, or both. Why?

Because they mistook the conscious mind for the Mind of God, the One. The conscious mind is indeed a part of the great Mind that controls the universe-- indeed, creates it. But the conscious mind has never been assigned control of the material cosmos, including the body.

The best that this little mind can do, say the wise Taoist sages, is to learn cooperation with the cosmic Mind of God; and this includes acceptance-- the opposite of trying to change everything, and trying to force the universe to be the way that we personally want it to be. This "grunt and groan" struggle to control the universe produces a person of increased tension, and it amplifies fears.

But the philosophy summed up by Jesus is very different: (He was also a Taoist) in his famous words to God: "Not my will, but thine."

This is also the foundation of the Model Prayer that we should pray always: "Thy will be done."

This "thy will" recognizes a pre-existent will in the great Mind that rules the cosmos. God has plans, and outcomes, that He/She wants, and they are not always what we want. Jesus, unlike "positive thinkers," who want to grab hold of the cosmos and alter it according to their personal wills, saw a distinction between his personal will and the will of God. It is only when we lose this distinction (usually, because we want so powerfully to believe that God's will is always the same as our personal will) that we "fall" for the easy but ineffective "wishful thinking solutions" of "positive thinking."

Yes, positive thinking can change very much in our lives. It is wonderfully superior to negative thinking. But, as human beings, we have limits regarding our control of the cosmos, and this is the one fact that extremists of "positive thinking" do not want to recognize:

In the end, the cosmos, including our births (we had nothing to do with them, as the conscious mind that now exists, except peripherally) and our deaths, are not controlled by us personally. Where was "your" mind when the sperm first entered the egg, and formed your current body? No, this was not controlled by you, but by Nature (symbolized by the ancient Christians as the Goddess Sophia).

Our only task is to use these lives to learn to cooperate with Sophia, our "heavenly Mother," and with Love, our "Father." So, we do not have strictly to regulate each and every thought, always fleeing from the "demons" of negative thinking. For this is how "positive thinking" can increase the "demons" of fear.

Instead, we follow the words of Jesus' most "Taoistic" sermon, the famous Sermon on the Mount, and live like the birds and the flowers, who know, and need/want to know, nothing about "positive thinking."

We can then simply relax and trust, "going with the Flow." When Jesus said his famous words, "Lest ye be as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom," the Greek word translated "little children" means literally "nursing infants"-- another group of minds that knows nothing about control or "positive thinking."

This Taoist life of full trust (faith) is far better, for it is God-dependent and not egocentric or human-dependent. Human beings have tried, metaphysically, for thousands of years to control the cosmos with their conscious minds; the idea goes way back to ancient Greece; it was not invented by the "modern cult" of Christian Science. (Similar ideas were also found in ancient India.)

The key, for us, is to find the courage to dare to trust. For, deep down, many of us distrust the universe. We might even distrust Love. For we have never found any solid evidence of a "God" "out there," in the universe.

This is simply because there is no God in the universe. That is, there is no "exterior" God. God does not exist in the universe. But, as Mind, the universe exists in Him/Her. This is the beautiful and glorious discovery of the mystic, and it frees us from all desperate illusions and delusions.

Mind alone is Reality, so the mystics called God "Reality." This is one meaning of Jesus' famous words, "You will know the truth [reality], and the truth [reality] will set you free." (Jn. 8:32) Reality, the truth, is God in the world, and in the heartmind. It alone can free us from desperate illusions, bathing us in the Light of sweet, saving Love.

*******

"A Course in Miracles"

*******

I read acim several times, and have given it many years of concentrated thought and quality-time. So, ideas about the book are not superficial or knee-jerk responses.

The book is fine. It has much common sense. It reminds irresistibly of a Twelve Step meeting. In some psychological "pop" jargon, it gives good advice that is workable.

The book, not surprisingly, was written by a couple of psychologists. That in itself is neither a plus nor a minus! But most psychologists do have a fairly good grasp on the normal, healthy functions of the human mind; so, they can help others.

Still, as the absurdities of the Freudian era so convincingly demonstrate, psychology is never perfect. So, I do have several questions about the book:

First, it is clearly over-named. The book says nothing about "miracles" as that term is generally understood in religious history or spiritual psychology. It was given this captivating name to grab attention, and it did. But it definitely needs a title that promises less, for it does not deliver anything promised by this attention-grabbing title. It does not
"teach miracles."

Second, the good book has become the recent center of a cult. There are several "true believers" who see the book as the "new Bible." If acim says it, it must be true; if acim does not say it, it probably does not matter! This cuts true believers off from all future growth. For no one can live her life most effectively by "living by the book," following only one book-- even one as fine and eloquent as the Bible.

We always need to be open to other resources, other sources of truth.

True believers think themselves "enlightened" over all others. I went through this spiritual disease, called "superiorism," while in the cult. It is a very dangerous mindset, for it tells you that you are getting better as you become sicker.

Is the book good reading? Yes! But was it written by Jesus Christ, channeled? No, it was, like all other books, written by human beings. The book can be wise, but it is not infallible. It has good, but not great, ideas. It is well-written, but probably does not contain a single original thought.

Read it, enjoy it, take notes and learn from it. But please try to exercise common sense and avoid the cultism that has accreted aroundcertain groups.
*******

"A Course in Miracles" and the Dreamworld

*******

I like some of the content of the book A Course in Miracles, but the book is seriously over-named. It is clearly not a "course in miracles," for it does not tell how to do miracles, in the accepted definition of that word. So, the title is actually a bit absurd. Despite the "grabber" of a name, no doubt to sell more copies, it does contain some good and useful material. It is largely an adaptation or modification of much of the Twelve-Step program material.

Sadly, a cult is forming around the book. It is seen as the "new Bible." Believers are gathering, and dividing themselves spiritually and socially from "inferior" non-believers. I do not accept the dogma that the book was "written by Jesus Christ," as believers insist.

Nor do I see the book as infallible, as many believers are starting to claim. The book was written by a psychologist, not by Jesus. A realistic, practical assessment tells us that we can include this book in our libraries and sources, but we cannot reasonably join the cult that is forming around the book, without sacrificing our independence and other freedoms.

There is nothing particularly original, and certainly nothing "spectacular," about the book. The writing is clear but ordinary. It contains a few good ideas, but, again, has nothing to do with miracles in the usual definition of that word.

Re your inquiry about the "reality" of the everyday world. It is true that the great saintmystics, particularly of Indian tradition, point out that our world is a "virtual" one, or, a dream. No material object is real. They are all products of Mind. They are dreamimages, or "virtual" reality.

But Mind is real. Since this Mind indwells you, this means that you-- and all other thinking beings-- are real. That is why human and other sentient (self-aware) life is so sacred. All thinking and aware beings are real,and holy.

Life on earth is a great school. We do things, and accomplish tasks, not so that they will last forever (they do not), but so that we can learn from them. Every minute is valuable because we can learn from that moment, and enrich our minds and hearts.

The whole "show" is about Love. Earth is a Love-school. So, every event and situation is designed to help us learn to love ourselves and other creatures. Just as a little child can learn about real estate and real money by playing Monopoly, although it is "just a game," we can learn very much about ourselves, and about compassion, goodness, and kindness from the various environments to which earthly life exposes us.

Every person is of inestimable value. So, we are here to learn to "invest in people," not just bucks and unreal material things. (The reason that they can never satisfy is that, deep down, we know that money and "stuff" are unreal.)

Your friend has gone way too far, and has misunderstood everything important, if he says that human beings are illusions. Instead, they are a part or expression of Mind, or Reality. In an unreal world, human beings are certainly, and very, real indeed.

In spirituality, we are always talking about "sentient" beings. These are self-aware beings. This category includes most of the higher mammals, and certainly, includes all human beings. Any creature who can say, "I am," with meaning, distinguishing herself from other creatures, is a "sentient" being. (This category includes all developed brains of mammals, but does not include reptiles, amphibians, fishes, insects, microrganisms, etc.)

Deliberately harming any of these sentient beings can create terrifying and disastrous karma. This is where the principle called ahimsa enters the life of the wise. For this principle is taking a vow never deliberately to harm any sentient being.

So, your grand-daughter, like yourself, is both real and sacred. She is to be treated with kindness that, in its fullness, blossoms as Love. Love is the most important principle in the enlightened life.
*******