Posts
Speak up on the real price of Kleenex!
Tell Kimberly-Clark, makers of Kleenex, to use recycled content material, not ancient trees!
Did you know that the price of disposable paper products such as Kleenex, Scott, and Cottonelle includes the destruction of an acre of ancient trees every 12.9 seconds?
Kimberly-Clark, maker of these products, refuses to use recycled paper even though they have the means to do so. Sign this petition to tell Kimberly-Clark to use post-consumer recycled content in their products!
Kimberly-Clark doesn’t want you to know that they use 3.3 million tons of virgin fiber annually to make their consumer products, which will ultimately end up in a landfill. Act now! Go to:
http://go.care2.com/e/lji/nh/E.ri
The virgin fiber comes from ancient trees in the Boreal Forest. This chain of trees, spanning the far Northern latitudes, is one of the largest ecosystems on the planet and one of the last great ancient
forests we have. Caribou, Lynx, Black Bear, Moose, Timber Wolf, over 200 bird species, and Wood Bison all make their homes here.
Act today! Tell Kimberly-Clark to stop blowing their noses on ancient forests! Sign this petition to urge Kimberly-Clark to use post-consumer recycled content in their products before they destroy every remaining tree.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Real Price of Kleenex
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
A Place for Certainty
There is a valid place for certainty. There is a valid place for commitment and belief, but not for closed-mindedness, or for a "superioristic know-it-all" attitude that denies realistic humility.
Jesus, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Patanjali, Al Hallaj, Solomon, Black Elk, and others made statements of their personal beliefs as if these represented truths that were reliable for not only themselves, but for others. This was not a "violation of the rights" of others for spiritual independence. In fact, in a world where so many are so wishy-washy, so absolutely uncertain and noncommital about everything and anything, it can be downright refreshing!:)
If you believe that anything is true, and you believe that those truths are accessible to human beings, and that some human beings have discovered those realities, it might be a mistake to believe that all their statements were simply personal opinions. On the other hand, if you do not believe these things, then you are free, of course, to dismiss all of them. But if you throw away all these great teachers, you might be tossing out diamonds with the morning trash.
We mystics have seen,and tried to use, these teachers as our models. So, at times, although we are not mindlessly dogmatic (our advice is, "question everything"), we do not always qualify every statement by the often cumbersome, "I think that...," "I believe that...," etc. For the very fact that one is saying it makes it fairly selfevident to the average intelligent person that it is what she/he believes.
Because we delete these phrases, does anyone have the right to assume that we think that we are speaking unquestionable and infallible truth? Does anyone have the right to accuse us of thinking that we have all knowledge, all understanding, all wisdom? This is not a response of an average or intelligent person, in our experience or opinion. (There's a qualifier.:)
A good teacher must speak clearly and carefully. But she need not be paranoid about being accused of the pomposity and arrogance of the delusion of omnipotence, unless, of course, she has made such an outrageous, bizarre, and incredible claim! (Some cult-leaders have implicitly or explicitly made exactly this claim.:)
A real part of spiritual and emotional wellness is to question everything said by everybody, and prove the "truth," or anything that you plan to believe, to your own satisfaction. Be as objective and detached as possible, be kindly critical, but do not go overboard even here. There is certainly a time and appropriate place for moderate skepticism, but cruel and closed-minded cynicism is better deleted. Still, you can always, and very safely, reject anything that is cruel, paranoid, or reeks, in your opinion, of stupidity or ignorance. Trust yourself.
Spiritual independence-- the ability to think on your own, to make personal decisions about what you want to think or believe-- is a core of spiritual adulthood.
Those who seek "daddies" to give them "permission" tend to be living out of the unhealthy "inner child." Sadly, they will have not a problem at all finding "teachers" (everywhere) who will accommodate and enable their weakness, for these are living out of the equally unhealthy "inner
parent." There is not an "adult" among them!
*******
Jesus, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Patanjali, Al Hallaj, Solomon, Black Elk, and others made statements of their personal beliefs as if these represented truths that were reliable for not only themselves, but for others. This was not a "violation of the rights" of others for spiritual independence. In fact, in a world where so many are so wishy-washy, so absolutely uncertain and noncommital about everything and anything, it can be downright refreshing!:)
If you believe that anything is true, and you believe that those truths are accessible to human beings, and that some human beings have discovered those realities, it might be a mistake to believe that all their statements were simply personal opinions. On the other hand, if you do not believe these things, then you are free, of course, to dismiss all of them. But if you throw away all these great teachers, you might be tossing out diamonds with the morning trash.
We mystics have seen,and tried to use, these teachers as our models. So, at times, although we are not mindlessly dogmatic (our advice is, "question everything"), we do not always qualify every statement by the often cumbersome, "I think that...," "I believe that...," etc. For the very fact that one is saying it makes it fairly selfevident to the average intelligent person that it is what she/he believes.
Because we delete these phrases, does anyone have the right to assume that we think that we are speaking unquestionable and infallible truth? Does anyone have the right to accuse us of thinking that we have all knowledge, all understanding, all wisdom? This is not a response of an average or intelligent person, in our experience or opinion. (There's a qualifier.:)
A good teacher must speak clearly and carefully. But she need not be paranoid about being accused of the pomposity and arrogance of the delusion of omnipotence, unless, of course, she has made such an outrageous, bizarre, and incredible claim! (Some cult-leaders have implicitly or explicitly made exactly this claim.:)
A real part of spiritual and emotional wellness is to question everything said by everybody, and prove the "truth," or anything that you plan to believe, to your own satisfaction. Be as objective and detached as possible, be kindly critical, but do not go overboard even here. There is certainly a time and appropriate place for moderate skepticism, but cruel and closed-minded cynicism is better deleted. Still, you can always, and very safely, reject anything that is cruel, paranoid, or reeks, in your opinion, of stupidity or ignorance. Trust yourself.
Spiritual independence-- the ability to think on your own, to make personal decisions about what you want to think or believe-- is a core of spiritual adulthood.
Those who seek "daddies" to give them "permission" tend to be living out of the unhealthy "inner child." Sadly, they will have not a problem at all finding "teachers" (everywhere) who will accommodate and enable their weakness, for these are living out of the equally unhealthy "inner
parent." There is not an "adult" among them!
*******
Cosmic History in a Nutshell
The ordinary,everyday world, or "dreamworld," was originally created by the One. But, believeing in free will, the One granted to other minds (souls) the ability to dream up amusements and entertaining scenarios of their own originality. Long story short, the souls enjoyed the dream so much that they willed themselves, quite daringly, to forget that they were dreaming. In this "fall from grace," or, "fall from Eden," they came to believe in the reality of the dreamworld, so believed that they were bioforms and nothing else. Believeing that they were animals, they began to sow the seeds of karma (ignorance) and suffering resulted from that, not from anything that the One directly created.
Individuals, suchas you and I, are real. The fact that they are minds makes them real. the possession of mind is the definition of being "real."
The mystic is a real individual. That word, by the way, means in-divided, or unified with the Whole. Minds only are sacred. This means that all persons ("masks") are real while we are on the "stageplay" of earth. And, being real, mystics do indeed, like all other human beings, have free will. this is limited by only karma.
The souls that came from the One have this capacity for evil or ignorance. This is because they willed themselves into amnesia so that they could play the game. By definition, however, the One is committed to the good. This commitment is directive and unbending, unchanging. The One has never fallen into the weakness or illusion represented by evil, and so, has never engaged in it. But "omnipotence" implies that the One is unlimited. so, yes, theoretically, It is capable of evil. It does not engage in evil for the same reason that we do not murder, take drugs, and sleep with strangers. We have interior codes of conduct, based on reason and Love, that are binding upon us. The One is Love itself, and cannot, by nature, choose to go against Love, in counterproductive ways. Of course, she could; but she never has, and never will.
This world, the dream, is real. But its reality is only relative, not absolute. Only Mind has absolute reality. But mystics have always said that the world, while being an absolute illusion, does have relative reality. That is, in fact, why the mystic must live in "two worlds". One is consensual reality, the other pure Mind.
It comes from God's great gift of free will. God (Love) will not "take over" as in a b-movie "possession." She waits to be invited-- and even then, it is not always easy for the mind of ignorance to stay on track. For earth has been a haven of ignorance for a long time.
In the beginning, the unexpected happened: Once the nonphysical souls arrived, to play on earth, the game began to change. They hypnotized themselves into amnesia. They forgot their nature as everlasting, nonphysical beings. They fell victim to the illusion that they were indeed animals, not souls, physical, not spiritual. This is, imho, illustrated by the story of Cain having killed his brother Abel. This was the grinding sound of the start of the great machine, the great wheels, of karma.
During the next few millennia, during "human history," these beautiful souls fell further and further into illusion-- killing and being killed, abusing, falling into violence and greed. All the fun, all the awareness, was draned from the game. No one even wanted to play any more. But, caught by karma, they had to return to the earth playground, now a virtual prison.
This is how polybiographic mystics explain the existence of so much "evil" in our world. But if we can remember our original connection with Love, and that we are actually incarnations of Lovemind, then the promise of Krishna is fulfilled, in the Celestial Song: We are released from the burden of karma, and find bliss as our natural state. This is moksha, or liberation, because a mind in bliss is slave to nothing.
This mysticism is a longterm path, requiring many lives to perfect. But some of us have been on this path already for many lives, so the situation is by no means hopeless.
*******
Individuals, suchas you and I, are real. The fact that they are minds makes them real. the possession of mind is the definition of being "real."
The mystic is a real individual. That word, by the way, means in-divided, or unified with the Whole. Minds only are sacred. This means that all persons ("masks") are real while we are on the "stageplay" of earth. And, being real, mystics do indeed, like all other human beings, have free will. this is limited by only karma.
The souls that came from the One have this capacity for evil or ignorance. This is because they willed themselves into amnesia so that they could play the game. By definition, however, the One is committed to the good. This commitment is directive and unbending, unchanging. The One has never fallen into the weakness or illusion represented by evil, and so, has never engaged in it. But "omnipotence" implies that the One is unlimited. so, yes, theoretically, It is capable of evil. It does not engage in evil for the same reason that we do not murder, take drugs, and sleep with strangers. We have interior codes of conduct, based on reason and Love, that are binding upon us. The One is Love itself, and cannot, by nature, choose to go against Love, in counterproductive ways. Of course, she could; but she never has, and never will.
This world, the dream, is real. But its reality is only relative, not absolute. Only Mind has absolute reality. But mystics have always said that the world, while being an absolute illusion, does have relative reality. That is, in fact, why the mystic must live in "two worlds". One is consensual reality, the other pure Mind.
It comes from God's great gift of free will. God (Love) will not "take over" as in a b-movie "possession." She waits to be invited-- and even then, it is not always easy for the mind of ignorance to stay on track. For earth has been a haven of ignorance for a long time.
In the beginning, the unexpected happened: Once the nonphysical souls arrived, to play on earth, the game began to change. They hypnotized themselves into amnesia. They forgot their nature as everlasting, nonphysical beings. They fell victim to the illusion that they were indeed animals, not souls, physical, not spiritual. This is, imho, illustrated by the story of Cain having killed his brother Abel. This was the grinding sound of the start of the great machine, the great wheels, of karma.
During the next few millennia, during "human history," these beautiful souls fell further and further into illusion-- killing and being killed, abusing, falling into violence and greed. All the fun, all the awareness, was draned from the game. No one even wanted to play any more. But, caught by karma, they had to return to the earth playground, now a virtual prison.
This is how polybiographic mystics explain the existence of so much "evil" in our world. But if we can remember our original connection with Love, and that we are actually incarnations of Lovemind, then the promise of Krishna is fulfilled, in the Celestial Song: We are released from the burden of karma, and find bliss as our natural state. This is moksha, or liberation, because a mind in bliss is slave to nothing.
This mysticism is a longterm path, requiring many lives to perfect. But some of us have been on this path already for many lives, so the situation is by no means hopeless.
*******
The First Earth-souls in the Dreamworld
Your assumption that the first earth-visiting souls would prefer the worlds of uninterrupted bliss to those of experience, together with the assumption that "escape" was a valid reason for the dream, both onstitute a very human set of assumptions. And they would work, and be correct, with ordinary human beings. But we are talking about nonphysical souls, whose patterns might be very different.
As nonphysical souls, they were able to explore a very wide spectrum of distractions, games, learning-agendas, lessons, and other pursuits. And though these are called "games" to imply that they were virtual realities (or dreams), we should not misinterpret these souls as spoiled and bored "brats" without depth, who wanted nothing but to kill time.
Most of the virtual programs, including the earth, were highly educational. Many, such as earth's, allowed them to explore various kinds of sensory systems that, as nonphysical entities, they did not enjoy in their everyday lives.
hese souls did indeed spend much time in bliss and other highly elevated, even some mystical, states. We cannot assume that they sought only "escape" from "boredom," as human beings so often do. No, instead, what they most sought was sheer variety. They were expert "psychonauts," and were intensely intent on exploring every nook and cranny, every cave and sea, of Mind and consciousness. So, they dreamed up innumerable realities, each very "real" while you were "in" it. Earth was only one of literally millions of experimental realities; but, being only a minor player, earthlife attracted only a few billion souls. (Other realities ttracted trillions, or quadrillions. These were analogous to blockbusters.)
The framework of this account, its basic matrix, was indicated, but not learly explained, in the altered state [mystical experience]. The blanks (details) had to be filled in later, but it did synergize with the gnosis experience. It "fit the data, lock-and-key." I really believe hat this is how it all occurred, but this does not have the status of "divine revelation," as that term is usually understood. But this "fleshing out" was a perfect fit for the "skeletal matrix" revealed during the mystical experience. No "infallibility" or "unquestionability" is claimed for these speculations.
They are more than guesses, more than hypotheses, but do not rise as high as "revelations."
The mystic does not see the world in such "black and white" fashion. The cosmos of Mind is extraordinarily complicated, intricate, and involved. So, when we discuss mysticism, we must make some extraordinarily fine distinctions, even if they are not convenient to the usual ways of thinking. The necessary distinction between "relatively real" and "absolutely real" is not arbitrary.
The mystic would be denying all of science to say that the world is "unreal," as might well be inferred from the ancient Sanskrit word maya, "illusion." But she does not really believe the world to be an illusion in the sense of a hallucination. She knows the world of everyday, ordinary life to be real. To deny its reality might make one appear to lean towards mental disorder. But we also need a convenient way of expressing that, although it is real, this world does not represent pure Mind. It is not "absolutely" real. So, the use of these two phrases --"relative" reality and "absolute" reality-- is a kind of shorthand compromise with the limitations of language. It is to clarify.:) Complex ideas cannot always fit within the limiting "straight-jacket" of "black-and-white" thinking. It's really that simple, and that complex!
In good and thorough philosophy, as you so well know, philosophers often have to make distinctions, and even definitions, that are sometimes non-traditional.
When you enter the deep waters of mystical philosophy, the distinction between "relative" and "absolute" reality is an intrinsic and necessary part of the argument. Mystics would say that the description of reality should not be compromised for convenience, or because we don't like the language. The bad news is, as long as we choose to share thoughts about Reality, these distinctions will have to continue; the good news is that they can be quite easily and readily understood: Only Mind is absolute; everything else is relative.:)
The cosmos does indeed contain graduations or increments of "reality" that do not conform easily to "black and white" distinctions, "either-or" thinking. If we are going to discuss the fine gradients of Mind, we must discuss this issue.
Of course, we must always be careful with generalizations, especially as we get into the more profound mental "worlds" of virtuality or dreaming. think of the argument, "all ducks have flat feet; my brother has flat feet; Meet my brother the duck!" Of course, you know about such snares, and have studied them more profoundly than I.
But the claim that a dream is real is different from the claim that the objects of that dream are real. If I dream that I find a box of gold coins, that dream is real. But I had better not try to sell the coins!
So, mystics do claim that the dream of this world is true, but that the objects of the dream are ultimately illusion. (Note the careful use of the adjective "ultimately." For even the objects of the d-world are d-real* within the dream. But they are not r-real.* If someone shoots a r-mystic with a d-rifle, r-she will likely d-die. Things are r-d-real within the d-dream, and this d-world is where we must live, at least, for the d-time-being. So, we have r-agreed, at a very deep r-level of r-Mind, to d-play by the d-rules of the d-game. R-Mystics cannot, for this d-reason, violate the d-scientific d-laws that govern the d-material and d-external world. There is nothing r-arbitrary or r-relative about this r-contract with r-Mind, or between r-Mind and d-mind.
I would love nothing better than to conform to your "either-or" thinking and give you a simple answer. But, alas, there is none. For we are really r-distinct from God on the level of the r-conscious d-mind. But, at other r-levels, we are not "distinct" in the sense of being altogether separate." when you take a drop of water out of the ocean, that drop is distinct as long as you have it in the dropper. But put it back in the sea, and it loses its distinction. When our d-boundaries disappear into r-Love, the same kind of event occurs. Both drop and ocean share the nature of water. And both we and God share the nature of Mind. Within the context of this d-world, we almost always take the form of d-ego-identity, social identity. But this d-"drop" can r-disappear, in an altered r-state, at any given d-moment.
*The d- before a word indicates that it is real only within the dreamworld. The r- before a word indicates that it has, or shares in, absolute Reality.
*******
As nonphysical souls, they were able to explore a very wide spectrum of distractions, games, learning-agendas, lessons, and other pursuits. And though these are called "games" to imply that they were virtual realities (or dreams), we should not misinterpret these souls as spoiled and bored "brats" without depth, who wanted nothing but to kill time.
Most of the virtual programs, including the earth, were highly educational. Many, such as earth's, allowed them to explore various kinds of sensory systems that, as nonphysical entities, they did not enjoy in their everyday lives.
hese souls did indeed spend much time in bliss and other highly elevated, even some mystical, states. We cannot assume that they sought only "escape" from "boredom," as human beings so often do. No, instead, what they most sought was sheer variety. They were expert "psychonauts," and were intensely intent on exploring every nook and cranny, every cave and sea, of Mind and consciousness. So, they dreamed up innumerable realities, each very "real" while you were "in" it. Earth was only one of literally millions of experimental realities; but, being only a minor player, earthlife attracted only a few billion souls. (Other realities ttracted trillions, or quadrillions. These were analogous to blockbusters.)
The framework of this account, its basic matrix, was indicated, but not learly explained, in the altered state [mystical experience]. The blanks (details) had to be filled in later, but it did synergize with the gnosis experience. It "fit the data, lock-and-key." I really believe hat this is how it all occurred, but this does not have the status of "divine revelation," as that term is usually understood. But this "fleshing out" was a perfect fit for the "skeletal matrix" revealed during the mystical experience. No "infallibility" or "unquestionability" is claimed for these speculations.
They are more than guesses, more than hypotheses, but do not rise as high as "revelations."
The mystic does not see the world in such "black and white" fashion. The cosmos of Mind is extraordinarily complicated, intricate, and involved. So, when we discuss mysticism, we must make some extraordinarily fine distinctions, even if they are not convenient to the usual ways of thinking. The necessary distinction between "relatively real" and "absolutely real" is not arbitrary.
The mystic would be denying all of science to say that the world is "unreal," as might well be inferred from the ancient Sanskrit word maya, "illusion." But she does not really believe the world to be an illusion in the sense of a hallucination. She knows the world of everyday, ordinary life to be real. To deny its reality might make one appear to lean towards mental disorder. But we also need a convenient way of expressing that, although it is real, this world does not represent pure Mind. It is not "absolutely" real. So, the use of these two phrases --"relative" reality and "absolute" reality-- is a kind of shorthand compromise with the limitations of language. It is to clarify.:) Complex ideas cannot always fit within the limiting "straight-jacket" of "black-and-white" thinking. It's really that simple, and that complex!
In good and thorough philosophy, as you so well know, philosophers often have to make distinctions, and even definitions, that are sometimes non-traditional.
When you enter the deep waters of mystical philosophy, the distinction between "relative" and "absolute" reality is an intrinsic and necessary part of the argument. Mystics would say that the description of reality should not be compromised for convenience, or because we don't like the language. The bad news is, as long as we choose to share thoughts about Reality, these distinctions will have to continue; the good news is that they can be quite easily and readily understood: Only Mind is absolute; everything else is relative.:)
The cosmos does indeed contain graduations or increments of "reality" that do not conform easily to "black and white" distinctions, "either-or" thinking. If we are going to discuss the fine gradients of Mind, we must discuss this issue.
Of course, we must always be careful with generalizations, especially as we get into the more profound mental "worlds" of virtuality or dreaming. think of the argument, "all ducks have flat feet; my brother has flat feet; Meet my brother the duck!" Of course, you know about such snares, and have studied them more profoundly than I.
But the claim that a dream is real is different from the claim that the objects of that dream are real. If I dream that I find a box of gold coins, that dream is real. But I had better not try to sell the coins!
So, mystics do claim that the dream of this world is true, but that the objects of the dream are ultimately illusion. (Note the careful use of the adjective "ultimately." For even the objects of the d-world are d-real* within the dream. But they are not r-real.* If someone shoots a r-mystic with a d-rifle, r-she will likely d-die. Things are r-d-real within the d-dream, and this d-world is where we must live, at least, for the d-time-being. So, we have r-agreed, at a very deep r-level of r-Mind, to d-play by the d-rules of the d-game. R-Mystics cannot, for this d-reason, violate the d-scientific d-laws that govern the d-material and d-external world. There is nothing r-arbitrary or r-relative about this r-contract with r-Mind, or between r-Mind and d-mind.
I would love nothing better than to conform to your "either-or" thinking and give you a simple answer. But, alas, there is none. For we are really r-distinct from God on the level of the r-conscious d-mind. But, at other r-levels, we are not "distinct" in the sense of being altogether separate." when you take a drop of water out of the ocean, that drop is distinct as long as you have it in the dropper. But put it back in the sea, and it loses its distinction. When our d-boundaries disappear into r-Love, the same kind of event occurs. Both drop and ocean share the nature of water. And both we and God share the nature of Mind. Within the context of this d-world, we almost always take the form of d-ego-identity, social identity. But this d-"drop" can r-disappear, in an altered r-state, at any given d-moment.
*The d- before a word indicates that it is real only within the dreamworld. The r- before a word indicates that it has, or shares in, absolute Reality.
*******
Our Plan for Victory in November
Dear Friends and Activists
We recognize that this November might be the last chance to save our country from the willful lies and dictatorial abuses of the bush administration. We recognize that, above all else, the majority of the country wants an END to the misuse of our military in the disastrous occupation of Iraq. And we recognize that if our candidates STAND UP for real accountability, the American people WILL turn out and vote for regime change in our own country.
THEREFORE, we need each and EVERY one of our participants to do the following:
1) If you have not already done so (and 6,000 of you already have), sign the Peace Pledge, that you will support ONLY candidates who commit to ending the occupation of Iraq, and to oppose any like wars of aggression. ALL our peace candidate action pages from now on will include signing on
to the Peace Pledge as an additional option, for example, Stacey Tallitsch.
ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/stacey/pnum320.php
2) Our peace candidates will be running direct "call to action" radio spots in their own districts, calling for an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq. If you have the ability to make a contribution to support these efforts, you can be assured that you are making an INVESTMENT in building a consensus on this issue, and letting the American people know that there ARE viable alternative candidates standing up for us now. You can hear the first of these inspiring new radio spots at this page.
CALL TO ACTION DONATIONS: http://www.usalone.com/stacey/donations.php
3) Even if you are not in a position to make a donation, we need to make 10 million phone calls to our fellow constituents between now and November. If you have not already done so, please sign up for the Blades of Grass initiative, and you can then participate in a virtual phone bank in support of any of the peace candidates in any district
BLADES OF GRASS SIGNUPS: http://www.usalone.com/bladesofgrass.htm
If each of us were to make just 10 calls a week, we could make all those calls with just 100,000 dedicated virtual phone bank participants. Then we'll alert you to let you know where your help is most needed.
Whatever you want to call it-- a war, an occupation-- it has to START stopping now. The American people know it. They understand it, and they will support candidates with the COURAGE to say so. Six months ago, John Murtha proposed redeploying by the end of the year. It should ALREADY be
happening. And if we just get out there and say so NOW, the American people will trust in our leadership come November.
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.
If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm
*******
Stop ExxonMobil from Killing Baby Polar Bears in the Arctic Refuge
Things aren't going well for polar bears. A bill now on the Senate calendar would allow oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – an important denning habitat for our imperiled polar bears and one of America's greatest natural treasures.
ExxonMobil Poses One of the Biggest Threats to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge!
Drilling wouldn't save consumers much more than a couple of pennies per gallon, but it could kill baby polar bears.
Pledge to boycott ExxonMobil until they stop driving the effort to drill n the Arctic Refuge!
No oil company has lobbied harder for access to the Arctic Refuge than ExxonMobil.
ExxonMobil may be a big company with big profits, but together, each and every person who buys gasoline can make a difference. With your help, we can send ExxonMobil a loud, clear message of change, now. Sign the petition to boycott ExxonMobil until they stop trying to drill in the Arctic Refuge.
ExxonMobil is using its record profits to push for drilling off our coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - drilling that would devastate our polar bears, sea otters and manatees and industrialize some of our last great wild places.
ExxonMobil has spent millions on high-paid lobbyists to kick open the door to this pristine wildlife refuge. In fact, it is the lone remaining major oil company in Arctic Power, a lobbying group whose sole purpose is to advocate for drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
And for what? New Arctic drilling might raise ExxonMobil's stock price, but it wouldn't save consumers much more than a couple of pennies per gallon - and then not for another 20 years.
The cost to polar bears could be much higher. Earlier this year scientists predicted that polar bears could be extinct within decades. And just last week, reports surfaced that habitat loss from global
warming may be pushing polar bears in parts of Alaska to eat their own – behavior not observed in 34 years of research on the area's bears.
ExxonMobil's Arctic drilling plans would make things even worse. Drilling activities can disturb sensitive polar bears, forcing them to abandon their dens and leaving their cubs behind to die.
Let's stop fueling ExxonMobil's destructive agenda -- pledge to boycott ExxonMobil.
We can make a difference! A couple of weeks ago, protestors at ExxonMobil's annual stockholders meeting grabbed headlines across the country, highlighting ExxonMobil's destructive agenda. Now it's our turn to make our voices heard…
Please pledge to boycott ExxonMobil until they stop trying to drill in the Arctic Refuge and along our coasts. And tell them you won't buy their gas until they stop fighting efforts to curb global climate change and get serious about clean energy solutions.
Your decision at the pump could make a big difference for our wildlife.
Thanks for acting today!
Hilary Stamper,
Care2 and ThePetitionSite team
P.S. ExxonMobil's agenda threatens more than just our Arctic wildlife. Despite widespread agreement on the harmful effect of global climate change, they still oppose meaningful action on the issue. Scientists estimate that global climate change could doom more than a million species to extinction. To learn more about what you can do to hold ExxonMobil accountable, please visit the Exxpose Exxon campaign's website: www.exxposeexxon.org. And don't forget to sign the petition to boycott ExxonMobil here.
*******
(Thanks to Mick Gallagher)
Monday, July 03, 2006
"Saved," "Sanctified," and "Speaking in Tongues"
The Scriptures do not speak specifically of "three" principles or manifestations of "grace." All that arises freely from God's infinite Love can be said to be "grace," from the air that we breathe to the
functions of your stomach or lungs. Daily survival is a matter of grace, and so is existence itself. In fact, there is no good in your entire life that cannot be traced directly to grace, from your ability to give and receive Love to the intelligence to read emails.
The three items that you mention are implied in Scripture, although not listed precisely.
They are:
1) "saved." This is usually interpreted as being rescued by God's Love from "original sin"-- a monstrous idea, never in the Bible, cooked up by an off-balance theologian named Augustine (born 354). This teaches the sad and scary idea that all babies are born "damned by God." This was
not because of anything that they did. You, and I, and everyone, was born "damned by God" because a couple, thousands of years ago, picked a fruit from a fruit-tree. This all goes back to the "literalization" of Genesis. (Many Biblical scholars think that the entire account of Genesis is an allegory, or symbol-story.) Because God, uncharacteristically, has, with a total absence of Love, damned you to burn forever, even though you, as an infant, have never done anything wrong, you must be "saved" from this evil and demonic god.
2) "Sanctified." This means "made holy or sacred." It certainly smacks of self-righteousness and superiority. It means that God has specifically and especially "chosen" you to be one of His "chosen
people." You are "sanctified" by grace, but so is everyone else. For we are all, bar none, the "children" of God, and we all partake equally of divine Love. People are so insecure, however, that they insist on living out of fear. And this fear, as a master, causes you to want to be "better" than others. (In psychology, this superiorism is called "overcompensation.") The person who brags, boasts, and struts her superiority does these things because, deep down, she feels dirty, inadequate, or inferior. When God calls us to mental balance and mental health, we no longer have to play this sick game.
Being "saved" from ignorance and from our own lower nature (which supports lying, bigotry, violence, etc.) and being "sanctified" apply to everyone. For in the end, the Christian Scriptures teach more than once, it is God's will that everyone should be saved. And it is also His will that everyone be "made holy" by grace. "Grace" means that you are made holy by what God wants to do; it is not up to you, and does not come to you because of anything that you do, or anything that you become. [For example, you cannot "get" grace by joining the Christian faith, a particular church, or by "confessing Jesus as your Savior." If the Spirit moves you to do this, fine. But it is still an "act," ("work") and we are saved, not by human acts ("works"), but by only grace.]
The third, "speaking in tongues," is technically called "glossolalia." It is sometimes a gift of God given in circumstances, such as at Pentecost, when it was needed to communicate. But in modern times, it has become a kind of "sign" that the Holy Spirit" is active within you. Sometimes, it is a true sign that this is so. But not always. Spontaneous glossolalia is very rare, but it has happened that some people who have never been to any church, who do not claim to be "Christians," have started speaking in tongues on a public street-- or, more likely, in a psychiatrist's office.
This can be, but is not always or necessarily, a 'spiritual gift" of the Holy Spirit (God). For, in the Unconscious, we all have memories of previous existences in which we have spoken different languages. If we get in touch with this part of the Unconscious, we all have the ability to find at least words and phrases whose meanings are unknown. These often represent memories of foreign languages "brought over" into this life.
Keep up the good spiritual work, my friend.:)
*******
functions of your stomach or lungs. Daily survival is a matter of grace, and so is existence itself. In fact, there is no good in your entire life that cannot be traced directly to grace, from your ability to give and receive Love to the intelligence to read emails.
The three items that you mention are implied in Scripture, although not listed precisely.
They are:
1) "saved." This is usually interpreted as being rescued by God's Love from "original sin"-- a monstrous idea, never in the Bible, cooked up by an off-balance theologian named Augustine (born 354). This teaches the sad and scary idea that all babies are born "damned by God." This was
not because of anything that they did. You, and I, and everyone, was born "damned by God" because a couple, thousands of years ago, picked a fruit from a fruit-tree. This all goes back to the "literalization" of Genesis. (Many Biblical scholars think that the entire account of Genesis is an allegory, or symbol-story.) Because God, uncharacteristically, has, with a total absence of Love, damned you to burn forever, even though you, as an infant, have never done anything wrong, you must be "saved" from this evil and demonic god.
2) "Sanctified." This means "made holy or sacred." It certainly smacks of self-righteousness and superiority. It means that God has specifically and especially "chosen" you to be one of His "chosen
people." You are "sanctified" by grace, but so is everyone else. For we are all, bar none, the "children" of God, and we all partake equally of divine Love. People are so insecure, however, that they insist on living out of fear. And this fear, as a master, causes you to want to be "better" than others. (In psychology, this superiorism is called "overcompensation.") The person who brags, boasts, and struts her superiority does these things because, deep down, she feels dirty, inadequate, or inferior. When God calls us to mental balance and mental health, we no longer have to play this sick game.
Being "saved" from ignorance and from our own lower nature (which supports lying, bigotry, violence, etc.) and being "sanctified" apply to everyone. For in the end, the Christian Scriptures teach more than once, it is God's will that everyone should be saved. And it is also His will that everyone be "made holy" by grace. "Grace" means that you are made holy by what God wants to do; it is not up to you, and does not come to you because of anything that you do, or anything that you become. [For example, you cannot "get" grace by joining the Christian faith, a particular church, or by "confessing Jesus as your Savior." If the Spirit moves you to do this, fine. But it is still an "act," ("work") and we are saved, not by human acts ("works"), but by only grace.]
The third, "speaking in tongues," is technically called "glossolalia." It is sometimes a gift of God given in circumstances, such as at Pentecost, when it was needed to communicate. But in modern times, it has become a kind of "sign" that the Holy Spirit" is active within you. Sometimes, it is a true sign that this is so. But not always. Spontaneous glossolalia is very rare, but it has happened that some people who have never been to any church, who do not claim to be "Christians," have started speaking in tongues on a public street-- or, more likely, in a psychiatrist's office.
This can be, but is not always or necessarily, a 'spiritual gift" of the Holy Spirit (God). For, in the Unconscious, we all have memories of previous existences in which we have spoken different languages. If we get in touch with this part of the Unconscious, we all have the ability to find at least words and phrases whose meanings are unknown. These often represent memories of foreign languages "brought over" into this life.
Keep up the good spiritual work, my friend.:)
*******
Philosophy and the "Eternal Now"
That really simplifies matters,.:) Thanks for the equation, as I understand it, of several synonyms. so, time-points=instants=moments.
I have a special attraction to verbal economy apparently not shared by many philosophers. For they seem to find it compelling to maximize the rate of "logomitosis," if I can so metaphorize. The personal orientation is quite the opposite.
Perhaps this verbal economy is the product of a mere pinhead.:) But it is felt that it has more to do with clarity, and lucidity of expression. And many philosophers have by no means mastered this crucial art of lucidity or limpidity of speech (writing).
The "eternal now" of mysticism seems much simpler (and thus clearer) to this nonphilosophic mind. It is really, really simple, both of comprehension and of example, simple in the mind, and simple in the world.
Your inquiry about a definition of "time" is indeed challenging and crucial to speaking about maya. The attempt to meet this challenge here would result (and has) in something such as the following:
Time is the backdrop, the background, created by Mind, for the occurrence of events. It is the mental potential in which an event or interaction can occur. It is the mental context that forces sequentiality upon events. It is an organizing mechanism of Mind so that It can perceive he universe in small quantities (called "events"), so as not to be overloaded with the massive perception of the whole temporal or spatial cosmos at once (in an "instant" or "now").
But it must be added that a careful definition of time is not very useful to the mystic, for to her, it is a part of maya. In the final analysis, time is a limitation of the faulty and tiny human mind. In the "eternal now," it simply does not exist.
A bit clearer than mud, it is hoped.:)
*******
I have a special attraction to verbal economy apparently not shared by many philosophers. For they seem to find it compelling to maximize the rate of "logomitosis," if I can so metaphorize. The personal orientation is quite the opposite.
Perhaps this verbal economy is the product of a mere pinhead.:) But it is felt that it has more to do with clarity, and lucidity of expression. And many philosophers have by no means mastered this crucial art of lucidity or limpidity of speech (writing).
The "eternal now" of mysticism seems much simpler (and thus clearer) to this nonphilosophic mind. It is really, really simple, both of comprehension and of example, simple in the mind, and simple in the world.
Your inquiry about a definition of "time" is indeed challenging and crucial to speaking about maya. The attempt to meet this challenge here would result (and has) in something such as the following:
Time is the backdrop, the background, created by Mind, for the occurrence of events. It is the mental potential in which an event or interaction can occur. It is the mental context that forces sequentiality upon events. It is an organizing mechanism of Mind so that It can perceive he universe in small quantities (called "events"), so as not to be overloaded with the massive perception of the whole temporal or spatial cosmos at once (in an "instant" or "now").
But it must be added that a careful definition of time is not very useful to the mystic, for to her, it is a part of maya. In the final analysis, time is a limitation of the faulty and tiny human mind. In the "eternal now," it simply does not exist.
A bit clearer than mud, it is hoped.:)
*******
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Sharing Without Dogma
As its foundation-matrix, from the experience came ideas that originated with the deep Unconscious. But these concepts have had to be filtered through an imperfect and completely human mind. That mind does a lot of editing-- logosurgery, including additions and deletions. So, all of my writings and teachings are presented, moderately, as only approximations to "absolute" or "perfect" truth. In other words, they are as close to reality as this mind, with all its limitations, can come.
These ideas are not shared to "change other people," much less, to "convert" them. They are simply shared because the Mind wants them shared. If they make sense to you, keep them, use them. If not, throw them out with the other trash, for they are nothing but "trash" if they are not practically useful.
*******
These ideas are not shared to "change other people," much less, to "convert" them. They are simply shared because the Mind wants them shared. If they make sense to you, keep them, use them. If not, throw them out with the other trash, for they are nothing but "trash" if they are not practically useful.
*******
Saturday, July 01, 2006
The First Mystical Experience
It is well past three in the morning, and it is a very beautiful, rain-washed morning, leaving a reflective patina on the leaves, andsweet negative ions in the air.
You write that you would like to hear about the personal mystical experience. It is quite beyond all words, but here goes an attempt at appproximation:
It started beside the ocean. There was something about the infinity of sea and sky that early morn that seemed to magnify the ambience that made the experience possible, perhaps inevitable. Suddenly, the whole world seemed to drop away and vaporize into what can be called only a "pool of undifferentiated Mind." This mind became huge, mushrooming into a great, enormous Mind, and dropped the body-image. This Mind was bright, blissful, and so utterly detached. None of the human problems even mattered. They were all the size of a grain of sand seen from a million miles away. The whole planet was sacred, and beautiful with a luminous glory, glowing with an ultrarapturous splendor that has never been seen since. The personal mind, compared with this massive, immense Mind was like a grain of sand compared with the whole earth. The only desire was to be absorbed by this Mind, and It, joyfully, wanted to absorb the personal mind! This was all suffused and permeated with a sense of ecstasy that was not caused by anything, but was intrinsic somehow to Mind Itself. Immutability was passionately wanted; this moment must never change into the next. If only this moment, this bliss, could last forever. The experience took a million years in five minutes. The personal self disappeared into a wave of what can be called only Love. The whole thing lasted only about twenty minutes. It occurred at age twenty-two.
You write that you would like to hear about the personal mystical experience. It is quite beyond all words, but here goes an attempt at appproximation:
It started beside the ocean. There was something about the infinity of sea and sky that early morn that seemed to magnify the ambience that made the experience possible, perhaps inevitable. Suddenly, the whole world seemed to drop away and vaporize into what can be called only a "pool of undifferentiated Mind." This mind became huge, mushrooming into a great, enormous Mind, and dropped the body-image. This Mind was bright, blissful, and so utterly detached. None of the human problems even mattered. They were all the size of a grain of sand seen from a million miles away. The whole planet was sacred, and beautiful with a luminous glory, glowing with an ultrarapturous splendor that has never been seen since. The personal mind, compared with this massive, immense Mind was like a grain of sand compared with the whole earth. The only desire was to be absorbed by this Mind, and It, joyfully, wanted to absorb the personal mind! This was all suffused and permeated with a sense of ecstasy that was not caused by anything, but was intrinsic somehow to Mind Itself. Immutability was passionately wanted; this moment must never change into the next. If only this moment, this bliss, could last forever. The experience took a million years in five minutes. The personal self disappeared into a wave of what can be called only Love. The whole thing lasted only about twenty minutes. It occurred at age twenty-two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)