Simon's Mental Logs

Criticism of theism and atheism

2012-01-17T08:29:00.000-08:00

I wanted to write down my criticisms of theists and atheists in this entry because I find it frustrating to discuss the subject matter with people on both sides who do not seem to comprehend what they are saying. They seem to be ignorant of their own illogical and hypocritical arguments while criticizing another's point of view. I want to point out some of what I consider illogical arguments and refute them. As a point of reference, I do not view myself as either a theist or an atheist. My beliefs are based on the notion that we could be considered "gods", but the word "god" does not make sense in that context as there would be no one to worship us (there is no point in worship in the first place, unless you believe your life is limited and in the hands of a deity). I consider all individual conscious beings as representative of the concept "god", and the collection of our consciousness is the "God" that monotheism understands, which is the will of us all as One. I explained before that the One became the Many (us), and that the Many will eventually become One again when the Many realizes their true nature through all experience.

First of all, the word theism is classically defined as a belief in a god or gods. The word atheism is the antithesis of theism due to the prefix 'a'. That means the classic definition of atheism is a non-belief in a god or gods. However, some like to argue that atheism is really the belief in the non-evidence of a god or gods, which is not the classic definition. If this was the case, then theism would mean the belief in the evidence of a god or gods as that would be the antithesis. But clearly this is not the case for those who believe in a god. The evidence is merely the reasons for their belief, not the fact of their belief.

As a point of reference, I'll define what I believe theism and atheism means first so that we aren't arguing definition right off the bat. If you don't agree with my definition, then of course my arguments against them may also differ.

A theist traditionally believes that there is a higher power than themselves who is the creator or benefactor of themselves and the world they live in. They believe that the deity is to be worshiped and obeyed for fear of disappointing or disobeying their will, some believing in a punishment or dire consequence upon their physical death for the disobedience. There are also those who believe in a more benevolent deity who would do no harm and instead provides us the life giving power out of pure love and goodness. There are also those who believe in deities who do not fit into either of these categories such as the Hindu gods or the Greek gods, etc. The basic premise, however, is that theists believe in a power or entity that is beyond or above themselves and they call them gods. These beliefs have come from many different sources, much lost through time. What we have today that refer to gods are typically ancient texts, discovered manuscripts and letters, or other sources of information such as wall writings that detail the cultural experiences and observations of their time which led them to the belief in deities. Back then, religion was their science.

An atheist traditionally believes that a god or gods cannot exist because there has been no observable evidence to suggest such a belief. The rational for this belief has traditionally been a logical argument, with claims of scientific evidence becoming the newest argument against the belief. The traditional logical argument has been the fact that nature is controlled by observable laws or rules and anything that breaks these understood or observed laws or rules must have a more obvious explanation than something that is extraordinary. Atheists typically use Occam's Razor as the basis for this belief, that if there is a simple explanation, then it is the more likely reason until proven otherwise. Traditional logic against a god also stem from their observation of mankind and human nature vs. the theological concepts preached by theists about an all-powerful, all-loving god. Because they reason that if such a deity existed, then god either made a mistake with mankind due to the apparent evil that exists and thus not all-powerful, or god does not care because god allows suffering and thus is not all-loving. The more modern argument against a god is their claim that science has understood enough of nature to no longer require a supernatural being to create the known universe. It also use Occam's Razor to argue that until evidence is provided for a deity, then a faith-based belief cannot supersede what we understand about the universe from scientific discovery.

I'm going to bullet point my issues with theism first since I've blogged about this point already:

The ancient knowledge typically is an interpretation of a personal experience. This leads to personal beliefs becoming a general belief. It can also cause a misunderstanding of the experience, which distorts the message.
People's beliefs tend to be based on other's beliefs rather than personal experience. This can cause deception by unscrupulous people for personal gain.
If physical beings were not the manifestation of spiritual beings, then we have no purpose for existence as our existence would be meaningless beyond death. If we have a spiritual being separate from the physical being, then we are controlled by another being, which begs the question "what are we and why do I exist". If we are a spiritual being and not a physical being, then we are immortal already and you just don't realize this.
What is "heaven" and what is "hell"? These are physical concepts projected into a spiritual domain. A spirit, by definition, does not have form as there is no such thing as "space", meaning distance between two points. If there is no space, then there cannot be "locations", except in the mind.
Many of the same points that atheists make regarding the religious notion of God also are valid points, such as why is there evil on earth if God is all loving, or why doesn't God intervene, etc.
Inability to listen and understand because their belief in a punishment is so great, they dare not disappoint their god or take chances with another belief.
Fear drives their motivation. Those who profess love typically do so out of fear, as true love would not instill fear, which should be more so for the god they believe in. This does not mean they do not love. It simply means they continue to love out of fear, whether they acknowledge it or not. If the reason for following is because one does not want to suffer punishment, then worship is an act born out of fear.

Now I'll bullet point my issues with atheism:

There is a tendency to misdirect the argument for theism at technicalities of the belief, such as "you can't prove that" or "you can't know that" or "you can't say that". Instead of trying to understand the point, it is typically ignored and the surrounding points are criticized.
The constant and incessant request for proof or evidence of a claim. In science, much of the knowledge is hypothesis and theories. They are theories based on observations and limited understanding, which the layperson calls evidence. Whatever evidence science has discovered are typically building blocks for a larger problem observed. But no evidence for a conclusion typically exists for the more complex issues. For example, science does not have evidence of creation. The Big Bang is a theory and remains a theory. So if science does not have evidence for anything of a philosophical nature, such as how the world began, or what is matter, and atheists believe the theories of science, why should theists provide evidence for their theories? Basically, it isn't about proof or evidence. It is about faith, and atheists choose to have faith in science as their religion, while theists choose to have faith in religion as their science.
The requirement that the claimant provide evidence is also a typical argument. The issue is they ignore their own claim because in their mind, they aren't making a claim, which is incorrect. To have any belief is to make a claim. To believe that gods do not exist is a claim and thus must require evidence according to the argument that the burden is on the claimant. To claim non-existence as a non-claim is illogical. Declaring anything is a claim. Saying nothing is a non-claim.
Atheists tend to be lazy in finding their own proofs. Rather than go and examine the claim and find a lack of evidence for it, they simply claim lack of evidence until produced because of the 'claimant must provide proof" assertion. The reason why this will never work is because they must accept the claimant's evidence first before they examine the evidence itself. If they sought proof or non-proof themselves, they would have a hard time arguing against themselves and so they must examine the evidence itself. But when someone with a claim they disagree with provides evidence, there is a natural tendency to reject the evidence because of bias, and so it becomes pointless to offer proof. The skeptic must find proof or the lack of proof themselves, IF they are truly looking for answers rather than simply seeking disagreement.
Skeptics will always find a way out because they do not need to accept anything as evidence. This is because nothing can be proven from within the system! It is all interpretation and observations, which is relative. There is no way anyone in this reality can prove something absolutely because you would have to be outside of the system to demonstrate you understand everything about the system itself. Otherwise, it can be claimed that you can't know everything to be able to prove it. Proof is simply a probability of certainty through repeatability. But even that is relative, since I can argue your conclusion is wrong. This is why it's pointless to ask for evidence. Belief will always be a personal issue.
Atheists cannot provide any evidence, whether it's science or otherwise, for any of their arguments because they claim something doesn't exist. The problem with this is that to know something does not exist with certainty, it requires knowing those possibilities cannot exist. To believe evidence does not exist also requires the knowledge of all evidence to make that claim. But they don't know and thus the constant request of proof by the claimant rather than seeking themselves. Rejecting evidence, whether valid or not, does not prove their position either, so I don't see how lack of proof proves anything except that no one knows, not that the claimant is wrong. Whatever evidence that is used for the non-belief is usually conjecture, personal bias, or a misunderstanding. This is the same issue for theists. The misunderstanding of certain concepts and ideas creates a false belief, which leads them to find more "evidence" for their misunderstanding because all knowledge is interpretations.
Using terminology as a basis for argument is another aspect of misdirection. Arguing that terms are changing or that they are incorrect demonstrates the lack of comprehension of the claim itself. The terms are defined in context within the claim, so to focus on a term outside of context is an error, but one the atheist does not recognize because they are myopic in the defense of their belief.
Occam's Razor is also misused. Their argument is that a SIMPLE explanation is the best until otherwise proven. The most simple explanation for existence is that we were created, just as nature procreates to perpetuate itself. We have an observable template in nature to explain physical existence. The key word is "physical". One must believe that physical reality is not the only reality to understand creation from non-physical. This requires understanding what "physical" really is, which is why I wrote the long entries about "proof of God". To argue that science is the more simple explanation is false, as science does not have proof, but only an explanation (the same as religion) composed of rather complicated theories of chance, random statistics, mathematical probabilities, specific and perfect conditions, and plenty of exceptions, etc., predicated on the belief that only physical reality exists. Science has not proven that creation was not designed, otherwise. Both science and I agree that we exist because of spontaneity. But that spontaneity was not by chance, but rather, OUR (the "I' without form) creative spontaneity.
In science, there is a method to test out a theory and so science tends to believe in that method as being more objective and thus harder to inject personal bias. In a faith-based assertion, it is a theory without any means for testing and so there cannot be any way to substantiate a claim. But even science has no way to substantiate the test results because the results are based on the test itself. The nature of the test is such that it is designed to demonstrate a certain result (ie. it is not open-ended, but "controlled"). The issue is with the conclusion drawn from the results. There are many possible explanations for many experiments, which is why science requires consensus. But again, consensus simply means a lot of people believe the same thing. You don't need an experiment to get a lot of people to believe the same thing. It simply requires personal belief. The experiment itself is designed to demonstrate their belief. Nobody creates experiments of an unknown result because they wouldn't know what to test for and so a test cannot be created. This is the issue with testing non-physical concepts; it's hard to come up with the correct tests that is conclusive. But it doesn't mean there isn't proof or evidence or that a test cannot be created. It may take a while, possibly never. Unless you want to volunteer and die to prove the metaphysical theories, I would suggest belief or non-belief would be better suited until the time comes when you have to take that test.

While I listed many criticisms for both sides in their beliefs (and I know both sides will dispute my arguments), I want to point out that it is because of personal belief that these issues exist, rather than as simply a criticism. All beliefs create reality, and thus when someone has a specific view of reality based on their belief, it is difficult to recognize or see beyond that reality. In their mind, no other possibilities exist because it would run counter to their beliefs. So the solution is to learn and understand the limiting beliefs one has so that you do not create a reality that is limited.

Into the Wormhole

2012-01-16T19:39:00.000-08:00

I was watching Into the Wormhole today, the episodes "Is there a 6th sense" and "Does time really exist" and I gotta say, I feel excited to hear that scientists are examining the same concepts I've written about. The only information I had in my writings were my basic understanding of science, my expanded understanding of our true nature (spirit/soul/energy) from what I've read, and trying to connect to my true self, my true nature, through medication and contemplation. Most of my writings is a product of this inner search and it has provided me with insights to write what I've written. It isn't a unique perspective, as Einstein, who is way out of my league in terms of knowing what he's talking about, is credited with much of the concepts being discussed. But for me to understand these things, not quite in depth, but fundamentally, tells me I'm on the right track in terms of searching for truths.

As I've written, all thought is energy that becomes manifest into reality. Until the thought exists, no reality of that thought exists. The show "Is there a 6th sense" gave some examples of the experiments done to demonstrate the notion that thought travels outside the body. This makes sense, if you realize that all of what we consider reality is not physical, but energy (everything and everywhere), and again, thought is energy which is projected out into reality. Seth in Seth Speaks talked about how the inner consciousness acts before the physical body acts. There was an experiment that seemed to demonstrate this, but the experimenter's conclusion seems to be different. The experiment was done to determine if one could see into the future and they were able to demonstrate this, but I believe what Seth said is more accurate, which is to say that our inner consciousness (energy that creates and holds together the the body) already experienced the energy signature of the thing being "seen" and the body reacts afterwards. Again, if all things are energy, it is the perception of that energy that occurs before the form of the body reacts. I also wrote about perception creating reality, that if one did not observe something, it would not exist. It is the observation of many that keeps something in reality. This was one of the examples of quantum mechanics on the show.

I wrote that time does not exist, but it is all "now" because all possibilities exist and what we perceive is different probabilities as moments in a sequence of moments. That means if all possibilities exist, then all moments exist simultaneously, and thus all time exists simultaneously. It is only the shifting of our focus that determines what "time" we perceive. All phenomenon in this physical world is a product of our bodies being a part of the same system with the same rules and the same physical nature. If you stand outside the body, then time does not exist because you are all possibilities as energy, infinite and never-ending. You simply "focus" by tuning into a specific energy state to "see" a specific time aka moment. That is what I believe memory is, a snapshot so to speak of the energy pattern defining a moment in time.

I'm not suggesting that I've come up with some new thoughts or that it is uniquely mine. I've noticed quite a few people are asking similar questions in the field of Physics and Quantum Mechanics regarding what matter really is. I'm just excited because I believe I've received these insights from my understanding of what I really am, a spiritual being in a physical form, and that knowledge is seeping into me by my superconsciousness (aka. my true self). I can't prove this, but that is my gut feeling, and I believe this is because I am trying to reconnect with my whole knowledgable self.

The point of this is to suggest that we are all learning to recognize our true nature in different ways, and it's only a matter of time before science understands the true nature of reality. This is the beginning of our enlightenment, to move beyond the illusion of the physical, back to the knowledge of our true selves. Quantum mechanics is a very interesting field and I believe it is this field that will open our understanding to the realization of our true nature.

What is the basis of my information?

2012-01-08T19:28:00.000-08:00

I thought I'd write down the progression of my beliefs and how I got to where I am today in case anyone wanted to check out any of the sources as well. This will be long.

I was born and raised in a Catholic family. I was baptized and confirmed into the church at a young age and went to a Catholic middle school and started at a Catholic high school before moving.

I went to college where I studied Cognitive Science (the study of cognition aka thinking) and on campus, was recruited into a Christian group, which was also a part of a larger religious organization whose mission was to try to restore Christianity to a more "committed" accountability. It was here that I studied the bible for the first time and learned much about the differences between Catholicism and mainstream Christianity.

After 10 years of being in the church, I left because I saw hypocrisy and faithlessness the same as in any other person of Christian belief. In other words, there was a man-made sense of faith which did not come from the individual themselves, but rather from other's pushing you to have faith. There was not the sense of individual relationship with God so much as a relationship with the church.

Another 10 years would pass in which I was a "Christian" by teaching, but did not view church or religion as a necessary means for worship. I believed in God, Jesus, prayer, bible, etc., but not necessarily practicing.

About this time, I was turning 40 and my body caused a scare. I knew 40 was a turning point in a person, but I didn't expect to be put into a situation where I was scared for my life. I literally thought I was going to die from the affliction I was going through. The doctor's didn't know what was wrong and attributed it all to stress. I had many panic attacks and had difficulty sleeping. A constant headache/head pressure ensued and I was unsure what was wrong or what would happen. It was because of this that I had a thought: "What happens when one dies?" I remembered the saying "go into the light" and "long tunnel" so I decided to Google "near death experience". It was to be the beginning of my new found belief.

I started by reading the first link I found: http://www.near-death.com/
I read all the "Notable NDEs" links and was pretty amazed at the accounts of different people from different times and different backgrounds describing their death visions. The common theme across them all were that they all continued to exist after their death, they felt love (if they were "in heaven") or complete darkness, separation, demonic presence (if they were "in hell"), they met angels, guides, loved ones, and others, and they were told they must return to their life to complete their mission. It was also at this site that I started to learn and read the accounts of Edgar Casey.

There were variations among all the near-death accounts; different visions, different situations, and different messages, and I did wonder a little why they all experienced different things, but it wasn't until I read the accounts at: http://www.nderf.org/ (in the Current NDEs and NDE Archives tabs) that I really questioned why some people had deep experiences, while others had very shallow ones.

I started to read various NDE books like "Journey Through The World of Spirit: God, Gaia, and Guardian Angels" by David Oakford, "The Message" by Lance Richardson, "The Place We Call Home: Exploring the Soul's Existence after Death" by Robert Grant and George Ritchie, and "Backwards: Returning to Our Source for Answers" by Nanci Danison. Of these books, I would say the experience of Nanci Danison is closer to my current understanding of life after death than the other books. The other books describe an afterlife that seems to be more personal belief oriented, where their beliefs created their experience in the afterlife.

The concept that your beliefs create your afterlife experience didn't make much sense to me at that time until I read the book "Seth Speaks" by Jane Roberts. Before I started reading "Seth Speaks", I read a book called "Journey of the Soul" by Michael Newton. "Journey of the Soul" was an interesting book to read because the accounts in that book were based on people being induced into a deep hypnotic trance and was lead through their most previous life's death into the afterlife. He calls this period of a person's spirit life as "Life Before Life" (LBL). From the questions and answers he received by his many clients, the picture painted a more highly organized and purposeful "world" where we are learning constantly about various aspects of our being. For example, the whole NDE experience I've read about up until this point didn't have much structure or consistency. After reading "Journey of the Soul", it described why that is and what ultimately occurs if someone who has died remained in the spirit world rather than returning back to their bodies. It was a real eye opener for me because if all the accounts were truly separate and independent accounts and not an author's interpretation, then there was very strong consistency in the accounts and their descriptions of the spirit world to be "made-up" or imaginary. This made it harder to discount the experiences. Not only that, the consistency of the descriptions of activity, organizations, personal interactions, etc. made it seem real.

After finishing "Journey of the Soul", I started to read "Seth Speaks". I've never heard of this book before, until a conversation I've had with a local psychologist who I found through Michael Newton's website on doing an LBL session. I was interested in asking some questions about life and such when he recommended I read "Seth Speaks". I got the book and read it. This really opened my mind to the ideas and beliefs I hold now. The whole notion of me being a spirit made much more sense through the reading of "Seth Speaks" than it did when I was reading the bible. In fact, after studying through what Seth was saying about our reality and our being, I now understand what Jesus was trying to say. I also understood what the bible as a whole is trying to say and it no longer was contradictory to me. The whole message was very simple and yet if you did not read what Seth was saying, it wouldn't be obvious. I forgot to mention that I also read some of the Gnostic writings of scripture such as the Book of John, the Book of Magdelena, and the Book of Peter. These books also describe the message of Jesus more in line with how Seth describes things, from a spiritual perspective rather than the traditional Christian perspective, which was from the physical. Of course, the Roman Christians at the First Council of Nicaea viewed the Christian Gnostic writings as heretical and most of the manuscripts were destroyed except some that were found in the desert of Egypt.

After reading "Seth Speaks", I read many other books by Jane Roberts. I also started to learn more about Buddhism by reading the book "Joyful Wisdom" by Yongey Mingyur. This book was recommended to me by my acupuncturist. I went to see her because I was still dealing with my head pressure and she was recommended to me by a coworker. I told her my symptoms and she said that it was because I have too much energy going to my head, and I was too "knowledgable", whatever that meant, and she needed to bring my energy back down to the "earth" (haha!). This wasn't the first time I've been told that my "spiritual eye" or the 3rd eye, was wide open. I went to a free class to learn about clarvoyancy and was told my 3rd eye was wide open. Being a commercial school, I brushed it off thinking they just want me to sign up. The acupuncturist also said the same thing and recommended I read "Joyful Wisdom" to learn about Buddhism and to ignore anything else. I brushed off the comment about ignoring other teachings, as I do not agree that limiting your information is good. But I did go and get the book and read through it. I learned that what Buddhists believe is the very basic principles of what Seth was talking about, but in a limited scope (I wrote about this previously). The other person to comment on my "3rd eye" being wide open was during a course I took (I actually paid for it) which was to help people sense energy. Since I already paid for it, I don't think there was any incentive to compliment me, but the person asked if I've done energy work before because I was so open. The instructor did not say the same to any of the other students, which also made me feel like it was not a sales job. I signed up for the course because I've seen and viewed what he teaches and trusted his abilities.

I am currently rereading many of the Seth books because it is enlightening for me, but after reading the above books, I've had many of my own insights, perspectives and thoughts that I've written to others and elsewhere. I'm also learning about Qi (Chi) Gong, as I have been a Tai Qi Quan practicioner for the past year. The principles of Qi Gong, which spans a few thousand years, speaks of the body's energy (qi) system in a similar way to those who can see the body's aura (the electromagnetic signature that the body's electrical system produces). Qi is the bioelectric signals, while the Aura is the effect of the current moving. It was because of my learning about the Auric body that I realized that the body itself is only energy. That energy is what I call my spirit. The energy bonds that hold my atoms of the body together can be thought of as the portion of "me". As I mentioned earlier, we use a portion of our energy to create our physical form.

So each piece of information can sound very far fetched and for most, unbelievable. But having read these different perspectives of the same subject, I am beginning to see the big picture. All of the information together makes sense and creates a vivid picture of reality as we see it today, as well as explain that which we cannot see. It is this fact that allows me to feel confident in my knowledge, unlike my time as a Christian. At that time, I only knew Christianity. All other beliefs besides *my* Christianity, through my prejudiced views of my faith, were wrong to me because I didn't know what they taught, I didn't even know what certain aspects of Christianity meant, and I just assumed I was right because I didn't know anything else. In other words, I was ignorant, just as many people are still today by being judgmental and prejudiced. This is the biggest reason for me writing my blogs. It's to try to let people know that there is so much information out there besides just religious texts that make sense together. Separately, it may not, but there are books like "Seth Speaks" that provide a different perspective of the world and reality.

Someday, I hope everyone will see a bigger picture than just the "I" centric view. Then there would be no more judgment, no more confusion, no more conformity. Everyone can be themselves and truly own their identity without fear or doubt.

New Age Belief?

2012-01-08T13:14:00.000-08:00

Some people have wondered if what I am describing is New Age. Although there are aspects of New Age beliefs, I do not see my belief as being New Age.

The term "New Age" comes from the label of a movement of thought started through the past century. Much of the insights seem to be derived from both individual philosophical thinking and extra sensory perceptions (channeling, mediumship, etc.). Many of the ideas I have come from reading of books by authors related to the New Age movement such as Jane Roberts and Rudolf Steiner. However, most of my thinking is the product of my own intuitions in addition to what I have read. Even as a Christian, I could see there were inconsistencies and idealistic human perspectives in the theology. Reading materials outside of religion has shown me that misinterpretations of concepts and ideas existed, not just within the religious framework, but in all beliefs. But this together does not mean I am a New Ager. There are just too many different points of views within New Age itself, just as any other religion.

I believe all differences of belief stem from the fact that each individual understands things differently based on their beliefs. Even my beliefs are very much limited by my current knowledge and understanding. That is why I do not believe anyone's belief is more correct than any other. It really matters not what anyone believes in terms of social beliefs (religion, non-religion, etc.). The only thing that matters in my opinion is to have an open mind to things you may not understand or believe, but most of all to be aware of your own experiences and intuitions. We each have our own experiences, understandings, and knowledge about the world and we color our view of the world through that lens of experience. It is because of this that I do not wish to be labeled any religious or philosophical point of view. It is simply my belief of reality.

As an example, I live my life in a secular way, while accepting that Jesus existed, but also that Buddha and all the other world's religious messengers existed. When I look at more and more religious theologies, I see the same message: that we are spiritual beings. I also hold to scientific facts. I recognize that in this reality, I am a physical being living in a physical world. I go see doctors when I feel sick, but I also believe in the fact that I am a spiritual being and have the same abilities as a God figure. I do not claim I have supernatural powers, but I believe we all have that ability to be discovered and trained. What I don't do is expect everyone has to be like me, or that they have to believe what I believe. That is why I do not accept religion as a practice because they typically require people to follow their set of rules and regulations. But I also do not accept atheism as a practice because it denies a possibility. I have not seen magnetic forces, but I know it exists because of the effects it produces. In the same way, I believe we are an effect of "spirit", whatever "spirit" is. So I can't say there aren't non-physical beings. From my perspective, I view myself as a non-physical being having a form that is physical and I tried to explain the reason for this in my previous posts regarding the existence of "God".

The central tenant of what I am trying to describe in my posts is that we should decide who and how we want to be and that if you want to change who you are, then it should be your decision, not someone or something else's. If you don't want to change who you are, then it is your decision also. No one should make you conform through threat or coercion. We are all free-willed beings and nothing should take away that freedom of choice. I'm not suggesting we should do whatever we want at the expense of others. However, even though some actions take away the freedom of choice of others, it also is part of learning. Our free-will exists so that we can utilize it in an educative and creative manner. All actions have consequences that exists for our learning and understanding, both "good" and "bad". However, not everyone recognizes the aspect of learning from their actions and thus continue to do things that are not beneficial or that they do not like or want to. On the flip side, those viewing actions from a 3rd person point of view make judgments without understanding either. They judge the consequence alone rather than the educational aspect from the action and consequence because they are trying to impose their own will upon others, thus denying free-will. The idea that "I know better" is incorrect. As I said earlier, we all only know what we each understand. Without being able to utilize our free-will, we cannot understand based only on another's point of view. When we see or hear another's point of view, it is an interpretation, not the actual experience.

Because I believe we are non-physical beings, there is no "end-of-life" consequence for anyone. In other words, there is no "death" as we perceive it, but only a changing of form back into non-physical. If we were to truly die, then life itself would be without any meaning, as the activities done during the short lifespan would be as if nothing occurred, and thus we would be fooling ourselves into thinking anything we do or say or believe matters. This is why I do believe we are spiritual beings in different form and that what we do does matter for our own development individually and collectively.

The freedom to choose to be as we wish of atheism, with the meaning and purpose to exist of theism. That is my belief.

Proof that "God" exists part 2

2012-01-06T06:41:00.001-08:00

There is a common theme among those who only seek scientific proof for evidence of something's reality. One theme is that evidence must exist with consensus before something can be proven to exist as a reality. The other theme is that purpose does not exist in existence. I will try to explain why these limitations of thought will hinder science from finding any evidence of non-physical concepts.

The main aspect of science is that for something to be evidence, it must be observable and repeatable. Otherwise, it is merely an error, an interpretation or an anomaly. The problem with this notion is that if one is trying to discover something that is not physical or not physically oriented, then how does one create an instrument to detect a non-physical thing? If one does not know what to look for as they are unable to describe a concept that is non-physical, then one cannot know how to design something to look for an unknown. An example of this is to try to explain what some word is. For example, how would you describe what a "dog" is in another language to someone who does not know nor has seen a dog before, so that they could find one? (As an aside, true image recognition in computing is incredibly difficult because how does one even recognize a form like a dog, given the infinite varieties that can exist, unless the concept is already understood within our "unconscious" mind before we consciously labeled it?) Therefore, science can only create instruments to detect physical things and thus never be able to gather any proof of non-physical evidence. However, there is evidence, if one were to accept circumstantial evidence. The other notion is that there is consensus of acceptance. The problem with this argument is that all forms in this reality are limited by the same limitations as the instruments. Our physical body is only geared to receive information within this reality (though our mind is not). Therefore, logically, people's common acceptance does not mean it is true. It merely means it is accepted to be true with the current understanding. Science has been proven wrong many times throughout history, so by that fact alone it should be known that consensus is not a basis for evidence (nor is scientific evidence infallible).

As I described in my previous post about the existence of "God", I wrote that science knows and understands to a certain degree properties of energy. They may not understand how it works, but they do understand that such a non-physical concept exists in physical terms. The whole of physical reality cannot exist without the properties of energy. So while science recognizes and accepts as evidence that energy exists, they have not proven it exists. They have only observed properties of energy and calls it energy. Isn't this the same as religions calling the properties of the soul/God as spirit? There is no proof that either exists, but only the observed properties and depending on your belief, it is accepted as either scientific or religious in concept.

The other hurdle for science to accepting an intelligent creator concept is the notion that purpose exists with physical existence. I believe the reason why those who reject the notion of purpose is because they do not accept that consciousness resides outside of the physical. If the consciousness exists outside of the physical, then it isn't hard to accept that intelligence can exist at a greater level. One can accept that we as individuals create purpose, but if you do not accept that the individual is something more than the body, then of course, there could not be something non-physical with intelligence which has created the physical. My personal belief is that we as non-physical beings created the physical as a portion of All That Is, not that All That Is alone created the physical reality and it is we who create this physical reality for our own purpose. The reason why we do not realize this while in the physical form is because when we incarnate into this reality as form, we are so focused on the physical data (sensory perceptions) that the portion of ourselves that we call the conscious mind is "tricked" into believing it is real and that nothing else is real. This intense focus blocks all other non-physical data (perceptions) and so for the most part, we ignore the information that comes from the intuitional aspect of our identity and rely solely on the physical data. But that is my philosophical belief. To prove such a thing "scientifically" is as pointless as it is to prove a non-physical reality exists with physical instruments. It can only be proven by the non-physical. I suggest that the mind/consciousness is non-physical because if all material things can be proven to be composed, not of particles of matter, but of energy, then thought/mind/consciousness is also energy and energy is non-physical. The other problem with denying purpose is that some refer to the question of "why" as really meaning "how". But that is a philosophical debate because in order to desire to know "how", one must recognize the importance of "why" for there to be a reason to know "how". The fact that one desires to know "how" is purpose ("Why" does one want to know "how"? To understand, which is purpose.) and so "why" exists before "how". "How" is meaningless if there is no purpose. Either purpose exists for all or purpose does not exist at all. The only way somethings can have purpose while others do not, is by the individual's choice to ignore or deny that purpose exists.

So why are we here? Why do we exist? Quite simply, because we are expressing our selves through physical form. We haven't so much "created" anything as much as we've transformed what we are into physical reality, at least a portion of ourselves. If you think of yourself in terms of energy, you've used a portion of of your energy to "create" or transform that energy into this form called the body. The universe is the collection of All of "us", which is also All That Is ("God"), each using a portion of their energy to create multiple and varied realities, as creatively as we would be creative in this world. What sets us apart from the "animals"? Our creative nature to turn something into something else. That is the nature of our physical being because it was always the nature of our spiritual being.

I am not trying to suggest that energy means "spirit", whatever it may be. I am merely suggesting that they are equivalents, although the terms are used in different domains (science and religion) and because of their common conceptual properties, they represent the same principle.

In conclusion, I have tried to explain in a more scientific term why the concept of "God" can exist. But as far as scientific proof is concerned, it isn't relevant. The only thing that is relevant when it comes to evidence is personal experience. It is only that which each individual accepts as something real or not real that forms their beliefs. If one chooses to ignore experience or has not experienced conditions outside of the "normal" physical experiences, then they will have a difficult time accepting other's non-normal experiences as real. This is the nature of self-deception. We interpret all physical data and that interpretation occurs because of our beliefs about reality and everything else. No one can tell someone what to believe. They must themselves find the evidence, if they seek it. Many do not seek evidence. Rather, they merely seek confirmation of their current beliefs and thus limit themselves.

Proof that "God" exists

2012-01-01T09:47:00.000-08:00

I've read various arguments on atheist websites on why they do not believe in "God" or other religious aspects of specific religions. Most arguments are geared against the Christian theology of "God" and the teachings. I will try to prove that an ever-present, all-powerful, all-knowing, infinitely expansive "God" exists in this blog. I may miss some arguments or counter-arguments, as well as fail at explaining certain concepts as I am not a physicist or mathematician, but hopefully it will be clear enough why "God" exists.

First of all, when I see the word "God" it usually is a defined in reference to the monotheistic concept of a singular god figure as I intend to prove exists: ever-present, all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinite. But the problem I have with the term "God" is that it can be misused to describe a personality, a being that is like us humans. In addition, it uses terms like "spirit" to describes what God is, which doesn't really describe anything meaningful. The term "spirit" is typical assumed to mean "non-physical". But as I will explain later, terms are simply a means for man to convey a concept using accepted sound structures. In other words, "God" does not necessarily need to be described with just an abstract conceptual term.

My definition of "God" is nothing of the sort. I prefer to describe "God" as All That Is or simply Source but for simplicity and recognition, I'll use the word God in its place. The reason God is not a single personality is because if we are all a part of God, then we are also a part of God's personality. We ourselves are not singular personalities, but that is another subject matter entirely.

We as physical beings know we exist because we experience the life within the body. We have conscious control over our environment and are able to express our inner thoughts clearly without any doubt. Most of us do not sit and wonder if I am "real". The nature of our existence proves to us that we are real, though what part of us is "I" is debatable. Because of this, we automatically take for granted all experience as real. That means the surrounding environment we are in is accepted as being real. In addition, we do not question that which we do not perceive as being unreal, if it follows the same principles and laws of reality of that which we do perceive. For example, you do not question the existence of another country that you do not see because you know it's composition is the same as the location you are at. However, our physical perceptions have limitations because of the need to interpret that perceptive data by the mind.

Early man did not know what the stars, sun and moon were. They were assumed to be gods because of their heavenly position and the way they overlooked man. They appeared to create destruction or cause suffering when at certain positions, so man feared and worshiped them as deities. Man's lack of understanding of astrological bodies created in their minds ideas about their reality. Today, we may find their misunderstanding to be unbelievable, but man even today have limited, if any, knowledge of other areas of reality. There is much knowledge and understanding at the conscious level that is not fully understood yet. Perception is limited by our conscious minds, though what you consider the "unconscious" mind is not limited as such since it does not limit its perceptions to the physical.

As I wrote in my previous blog entry (http://simon-mlogs.blogspot.com/2011/12/we-are-spirit-we-are-energy.html), the human body's perceptive ability is very finite and limited to very narrow spectrums. In order to know there is data outside of our physical observations, man must create instruments to detect such data. The basic problem with this is the fact that all matter resides within the reality of matter. Matter will always be limited to detecting matter. That is because man creates the instruments based on their expectations and assumptions. They look for something and create instruments to find that something. If they create the instrument appropriately, they will find it eventually if their assumptions were correct. But what is missing is the understanding that the basic structure of matter is not matter. Science assumes matter is composed of smaller and smaller matter, and yet they seem to ignore that "matter" is held together by energy. If you get to the core of mass, it is only energy. This can be proved by the fact that our body's perceptive organs only detect electrical signals as described by my last post. We know the electromagnetic spectrum is theoretically infinite. We use certain portions of this to our benefit. X-ray's, visible light, radio, etc. An electromagnetic field is a property of the existence of moving energy. When an electrical current exists, an electromagnetic field is created. How can there be an electromagnetic spectrum? Because energy is moving! There is an infinite spectrum because there are infinite levels of energy.

Now what is energy? That's the same as asking what is "spirit"? I cannot explain either, but I would argue that in terms of concept and definition, they are equivalents. Energy exists everywhere. Spirit exists everywhere. They are both non-physical and they both are necessary for existence. Your body cannot exist in its physical form without energy. You cannot continue to exist without energy (food and warmth). Things cannot be made without energy. Actions cannot be produced without energy. All of existence is composed and needs energy. Because of this, energy is life. According to the religious definition of spirit, it is what gives life. Based on the synonymity of the concepts of life and energy, and according to the religious definition, God is spirit. One could then argue that if the term energy is same in concept as the term spirit, then God is energy. Since the qualities of energy as we know it is everywhere and infinite, God is ever-present and infinite.

Next, you know you exist. I know I exist. I exist because I am consciously aware of my being. This does not require physical senses. I close my eyes and shut out all sensory perceptions and I can still know I exist. My conscious mind is the proof of my existence. The question then becomes what is conscious mind? I have said that the physical body is energy formed into what we perceive as matter. The perception of matter is based on the interaction at a sub-atomic level with electrical properties. Sensory data comes to the brain as electrical signals. The mind interprets that data and processes it. But if the body itself is a specific pattern of energy, then the mind must also be energy. How can I prove this? By the fact that the only thing that exists at this point of understanding of reality is energy. And yet I am conscious. Therefore, the only two things that exists are energy and consciousness. They may not be one and the same, but the fact that thought transferred in the body as an electrical signal as well (output) shows that there is some association between the two. The mind and energy are connected in some way just as sensory input is energy. This is difficult to give a conclusive proof because there is a juxtaposition of a concept with another concept. If I was a mathematician, I may be able to formulate the proof, but the only proof I can offer is that thought is the mind sending a signal to the brain no different than a touch or vision, which then transfers energy into action. Without the body, thought would become energy transference immediately. If you accept that thought is energy, then the conscious mind is energy. If there is infinite energy, and all of that energy is consciousness, then God is all-knowing, since all possibilities and all thoughts exists within the energy which is God.

If everything is energy and all forms are patterns of energy, then anything is possible through that energy. Conversion of energy into form is accepted as described by the periodic table. Each element is a combination of energy particles. Each element combines to form molecules. Each molecule combines to form matter. But in order to begin the process of transforming energy into something else, requires energy, just as energy is released when that form is deconstructed. A nuclear reaction is the breaking apart of bonds, which releases tremendous energy. Imagine how much energy is required to combine them! That energy cannot have randomly been injected to create form because of the laws of thermodynamics. First of all, energy cannot be added or destroyed, but only changes form. Secondly, in order to add energy to a system, you must have transference of energy from higher to lower, meaning energy is transferred away rather than gathered. In order to have a big bang, you must somehow increase the entropy of the system (add energy) to be able to generate work (release energy). For a system to gather energy spontaneously would mean it is a perpetual motion device, able to feed upon itself the energy necessary to do work. In other words, for matter to form from energy, it must gather that energy to form itself. In a random system, to gather enough energy to change forms would not be possible because it must overcome energy's natural stable nature. This alone must demonstrate the need for a catalyst, a force beyond the nature of the system. Any input means there is design or thought. If only energy exists and energy is thought, then it itself is the source and it itself consciously moved to create form. Therefore, that energy can overcome it's natural state, which is the epitome of consciousness: to act out of free-will. This means that God is all-powerful because it can act freely to overcome what we accept as laws of physics.

Also, the idea that we exist because of random chance cannot occur without a force causing motion or change. The reason is because something has to exist before it can interact into something else. The fact that something exists means that there is no beginning. In order for there to be a beginning, there must have been nothing to start with. If nothing exists, then no change can occur regardless of chance. When I say nothing, I mean both visible and invisible. If something that is not visible exists, then that is something still. For a change to occur from something, it must move into motion in order for chance to exist. Chance simply means that a possibility of something occurring exists because the system is always changing. If the system does not change, then there can be no chance of anything happening since a static system will remain static. An atom is never in a static state. From this fact, we know there is change in the system. This fact gives us the proof that there is energy in the system that gives "life" and that it cannot be chance that energy was created into the system from nothing. Where did energy come from? Does it have to appear from something or somewhere? Isn't energy, at the core, simply a concept, an idea, rather than something tangible? The concept of beginning is only a physical concept because to have a beginning means that something came from something else which came from something else, etc.. If there is no beginning, then something must just exist or nothing can exist at all as something cannot come from nothing.

Hopefully, I have been able to describe why God exists from a more scientific point of view (not in terms of classical scientific proof, but more in terms of circumstantial proof). None of my arguments is to say that God follows physical laws as I already stated that God can overcome such laws, but rather we can observe these laws in the formation of physical reality through the energy that exists, which I am calling God. From this, I postulate that energy is God because it is the one aspect of nature that exists in all things. But God, just like energy, is undefined. We define energy in a limited way, but it does not mean we understand it or know it. Only that we observe the principles of matter as a function of the concept we call energy.

Lastly, the notion that atheists do not accept religion is not invalid to a certain degree. The rejection of specific interpretations or belief systems of religion can be valid. I myself do not accept the traditional beliefs of various religions because I find that they are too restrictive in comparison to that which is possible through God. In order to have a God figure that is all powerful, then nothing can be restrictive in worship of that deity, for the worship must be representative of their deity's abilities. Yet this is clearly not the case for many religions including the traditional Christianity. But this too is due to a lack of understanding and knowledge. Just as early man worshiped the stars and the sun as deities, modern religious man worships deities with qualities closer to man's current understanding. The more understanding one gains, the more powerful the deity becomes, until they realize they themselves are eternal beings, a portion of All That Is.

We are spirit, we are energy

2011-12-28T19:06:00.000-08:00

Most people go about their lives convinced that what they see is the only real thing that exists. They see their body and their surrounding, they feel the clothes on their skin, the heat or cold in the air, and the ground underneath them. They hear the noise of everyday hustle and bustle. They smell the air and notice whatever aroma is there. They can taste the food and drink they consume. We take these senses for granted, which provide people the security of reality, without any regard to how they are able to sense such things to begin with.

During life science courses, one learns how the body works at a high level. The sense of sight occurs because the eye focuses reflected light energy (light energy is altered by interacting with another molecule which is also energy, creating the frequency of the light ray to change, thus appearing as different hues and intensity of color) to receptors on the back of the eye. These sensors then send an electrical signal to the back of the brain where it is supposedly converted into sight. No one knows exactly what the process of "converting into sight" is, but they know the brain handles this aspect. The sense of touch occurs when two objects come into contact. The contact, which at the atomic level is simply two sources of energy interacting, triggers an electrical signal up the nerves to the brain where the brain converts that signal into touch. The sense of hearing occurs when sound waves push and pull the ear drums, causing tiny vibrations which are picked up by tiny hairs. Those hair movements cause electrical signals to the brain which converts that signal into sound. The sense of smell occurs when tiny receptors in the nose pick up tiny particles in the air and an electrical signal is sent to the brain where it converts those signals into smell. The sense of taste occurs when the taste buds on the tongue pick up the chemicals and an electrical signal is sent to the brain where it is converted into the sense of taste.

As you can see, there is a commonality among the senses. They all send an electrical signal to the brain where that data is interpreted as sense data. But what exactly is doing the interpretation? The brain is just a big signal input and output organ. It responds to signals, but it itself does not generate any signal (even autonomic functions are not automatic. All output requires processing of the input to determine what response to have, which requires intelligent decision making). So then where is the mind to interpret the input and generate a signal to output?

Before I answer that question, the other question is why are signals electrical? If you've taken basic chemistry, you should remember the periodic table of elements. All matter is derived from the combination of these elements. What exactly are elements? The basic answer is simply an electrical charge, that's it! The heavier the element, the more charge it has. We call them electrons and neutrons, but that's because science attributes charge particles to each of what appears to be atomic components. But even these components can be broken down because something must be forming these charge components to give it that property. That is why scientists have looked into quarks as smaller elements. Even now, they look for another smaller component called the Higgs Boson, which they call the God element, in order to explain where mass comes from. I do not have a physics background. I am barely literate on any of this science stuff so I do not claim any authority on the matter. However, I do know very elementary concepts and at the end of it all, E=MC2 comes to mind. As well, the conservation of energy principle must also come into the picture.

Now if all elements are basically electrical charges, then all matter is simply electrical charges held together by electromagnetic bonds. Mass is derived as Energy divided by the square of the speed of light. So what is 1 unit of energy? I have no idea. But if Hydrogen is the first element, then it has the least mass. So what is mass? In my opinion, it is the attractive force that is affected by magnetic forces. With gravity, all matter that has an electric charge is attracted towards the core of the planet because the planet's size creates a large attractive force. The higher the element in the periodic table, the more mass there is. I'm referring to electromagnetic forces that all electrical charges produce. Electromagnetic forces extend forever out towards "space". We assume space exists between the non-visible areas appear to be devoid of charge. But what if all of "space" is not a void, but contains this stuff we could call elementary energy? We cannot even define what energy is except as a measure of work. But in terms of electromagnetic forces, energy can be thought of as the primary force that exists in all reality.

Going back to the concept of sense perception, we are able to have physical sensory perception because the body is able to convert the electrical properties of energy into data. Sight is limited because the eyes are only tuned to receive a very narrow band of electromagnetic frequency. But the more amazing thing is, if you realize all matter is electromagnetic in form, then we are always in contact with all energy as the conservation of energy dictates that no energy is lost, but only converted into another form. We are another form of energy. Physical reality is simply another form of energy. We can perceive this reality because the forms within this reality are capable of sensing that electromagnetic range of data. Now the question at the beginning was how does the brain interpret that data?

The brain itself, as stated, does not interpret any data. It merely picks up the data and something else (the mind) is able to interpret and act upon that data. Where is the mind? I submit that it is the electromagnetic force that holds us together as a form that is the mind. In other words, God is all energy in existence and we are a portion of that energy, which has been converted into physical form. But the body we call "I" is held together by electromagnetic forces. It is that force that I call "I", not just the material matter converted from energy into cells and organs. In fact, without the electromagnetic force holding the bonds of molecular structure together, nothing physical could exist. This fact in itself should hold the proof that the physical universe could not exist without intelligence. Energy itself has order and structure, which converted into matter. This cannot occur spontaneously as energy requires energy to convert into another form. That requires input. As I stated in previous posts, thought and emotion are projections of energy. This is consciousness and it is what we call the mind. So do you exist after death? You must because if consciousness is energy, then by the conservation of energy, your mind cannot disappear as it is energy. It simply changed forms.

So what does this have to do with spirituality? The point of this is to show that we are not physical beings, but spiritual beings. The physical form as we perceive it is merely an illusion by the physical senses and the mind interpreting it as being solid form rather than seeing it for what it really is: energy. But this too is by design. Our purpose in this form is to learn about ourselves as energy beings. By slowing down our thoughts through the medium of the physical form, we are able to learn how to control energy. Thought and emotion create action that is immediate and spontaneous. But this creates disorder because of our lack of control (think of us as spiritual babies). By having a physical medium, we slow down the process of converting thought into action. One must react to the thought before the action occurs and that is where the brain comes in. It is the baby sitter, so to speak, of our spontaneous and creative minds. Until we learn how to control our thoughts and emotions, all action will be regulated by the body in order for each one of us to learn the consequences of our thoughts and emotions. The idea of "judgement" isn't that someone else will judge our actions, but rather, we will judge ourselves whether we have progressed in our self control of thought and emotion.

Change and Spirituality

2011-11-20T10:10:00.001-08:00

As I continue on my journey to learn all that I can about the nature of Self, it's completely apparent that knowledge does not change a person. Knowing everything in the universe will not produce a more noble character or an enlightened spiritual entity. It is not knowledge that brings about change in a person. It is merely the beginning of understanding. But to truly gain understanding and wisdom, and thus create change in a person, one must practice behavior that will overcome the nature of our outer ego, the instinctive behavior of flesh. This is one of the basic messages of all religions, even in the esoteric circle.

If anyone is looking to find the truth, they must apply practical behaviors, which most religions describe in their teachings. It makes no difference what religion you ascribe to. They all teach a fundamental practice to produce change within a person's soul. What spiritual knowledge provides is the understanding of why the practices produce change in the soul, but it does not in and of itself produce that change. This is the difficulty in realizing true change in a person. It's plain to see that among the people, many are not as spiritually developed as they would profess by their religious speeches. This is true among all persons who ascribe to a particular spiritual belief. In terms of practices, many find it difficult to maintain their practice in this world because of the world and the life within this world. As Jesus said, one cannot serve God and money. They must choose one or the other. This is quite a difficult task if you have responsibilities to others. I believe this is the reason why the bible teaches celibacy. It is not for some religious ideals, but rather to remove any obstacles from the person who wishes to have no distractions from their practice. It is not a judgement on those who are not celibate. The need to take care of others force a person to choose money over God. However, this does not mean one cannot attain the goals of spiritual freedom through spiritual practices while making a living.

In order to produce the fruits of our labor through spiritual practices while living in the world, one must make every effort to be aware of their state of mind. When you find yourself focusing more on the problems and concerns of this world, then you are drifting away from the spiritual practice and thus forgetting your goal. So how does one prevent this? The only way is to practice being aware of your thoughts. In Buddhism, this is described as mindfulness, which is the act of observing your thoughts in order to be aware of your thoughts. In Christianity, the Bible describes it with the passage "watch your life and doctrine closely". The life is what you do because of your thoughts. Your doctrine is what you think and not just what you believe, for your thoughts come from your beliefs. In both of these cases, you are aware of your thoughts and actions from those thoughts. But not just your thoughts, but also your emotions which amplify your thoughts.

As I mentioned in my previous posts, your thoughts become reality by the very nature of thought. The nature is to create action when thought occurs. Without awareness, your subconsciousness will try to act out your thoughts. This can be seen when things occur to bother you and you act out your emotions and thoughts without control, such as expressing anger or frustration because of someone cutting you off on the road, or someone saying something that bothers you. Without awareness of all your thoughts and emotions, it is easy to act out those thoughts and emotions without your awareness. When you have awareness, then you have the opportunity to control your thoughts and emotions before they become action.

This ability to be aware of your thoughts and emotions require much practice and training. The Bibles says “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." The path of destruction is the acts that are contrary to our spiritual nature, which are the acts born out of a lack of love. This path is so easy to follow when one does not have control over their thoughts and emotions. If one is to get off this path and onto the narrow road, they must practice control over their thoughts and emotions, however they wish to practice this. Some will follow the Buddhist way of meditation. Others will follow the Christian way of practicing love for others. In either case, they are consciously being aware of their actions and it is this practice that must be maintained if one is to become enlightened in their spirit.

The idea of enlightenment simply means you are aware of your place among all of creation: that you and everything around you are One, that all beings are a part of All That Is and therefore worthy of love. This means you can love who you are just as much as you love those around you. If you cannot love yourself, then you will not love others. Love does not mean being egotistical. Love means that you are non-judgmental and accept everything as an experience, rather than a condition. In other words, you do not feel personally any negative or positive situations as being a part of you or act against or for you. Instead, if you look at it from the perspective of an outside viewer, then you are accepting the negative or positive situation as merely an experience and not something that is permanent. In this way, you are detached from the things of this world without ignoring the experience, which provides wisdom. This can only come about through practice being aware of your thoughts.

Buddhism and Spiritual Concepts

2011-11-10T20:59:00.001-08:00

Lately, I've been learning about the basic principles of Buddhism. It's very interesting to see how it correlates with spiritual principles and yet does not subscribed to spiritual beliefs in the esoteric sense. Rather it describes spirituality in terms of the mind and the concept of "emptiness" (the idea of recognizing limitless potential while having form that is temporary. Same concept as our soul, having a temporary body containing a limitless soul that is released). Having a Christian background, I immediately saw the same high-level message in Buddhism as there is in the message of Christ, that we are enslaved by the "sins of the flesh" and that we must be "saved". In Buddhist terms, life is pure dukkha, or suffering, and this is due to cravings and desires of attachment (this is the same concept as sins of the flesh). In order to be freed from this perpetual Samsara (karmic reincarnation due to attachment), one must follow the path of enlightenment (righteousness in Christian terms). The Hindu religion also has the same principle, that of an ignorance of their true self due to sinful cravings and attachments to the flesh.

The aspect that I find missing in all of these religious principles is the gnostic knowledge of the esoteric. But I believe this was planned in order to train people who follow these religions towards a spiritual understanding through practice and experience in order to know the truth, rather than simple knowledge of the truth. The great messengers all taught what to do to be "saved" because it trains the mind (soul) to become "free" of ignorance to our true nature. If the messengers spoke the gnostic knowledge directly to people, the people would not have understood and would not have known how to be freed from their ignorance of self. This is one area that religions are in conflict with each other to proclaim the "only way" to be saved, because the true message is completely missed as they try to demonstrate how their message is the only way.

In Buddhism, without knowing what their deeper/hidden teachings are, due to the tradition of passing the more esoteric knowledge from master to disciple, on the surface the teachings will no more explain why we exist in the first place anymore than many other religions. To the religious, esoteric knowledge may appear to be devoid of a purpose other than gaining some scary mystical concepts or evil powers of ESP. But esoteric knowledge is what helps us in our spiritual development. Why does Buddhism promote meditation? Why does Christianity promote prayer? These are both the same acts that you do in order to "know yourself". Meditation is the means to realize your inner self through contemplation and observance, while prayer allows you to speak to that which is not seen ("God", which is the spiritual father of "you" in All That Is). The aspect of esoteric knowledge that really helps one to gain perspective on their true nature is the fact that you know why these religious actions work the way they do so that you can gauge progress. It goes beyond Buddhist goals of enlightened inner peace. It goes beyond Christian joy of salvation. Esoteric knowledge gives you the understanding of how to be what you want to be, beyond the limitations of the physical. To be able to perceive beyond the physical senses, to know that your thoughts become reality, to communicate through the connectedness with All That Is (one with the universe). These are the elementary goals of each of us and the different religions and philosophies, when practiced, provide the beginning steps towards the higher goal.

Why do you practice a religion? Why do you do what you do? What goal do you seek by your beliefs? These are all fundamental questions one must ask themselves if one wants to start to know who they are, and thus know what they are.

In my belief, samsara is not because of karmic debt nor is it the cause of the next life incarnation. Rather, the next life in samsara is driven by the need to experience all aspects of being. If one acted in a negative manner in a previous life, it did not cause your next life. The next life, if the previous life was a "bad" life due to "karma", is designed for you to experience and learn what the other side of your "bad" actions will be like. It is an educational tool, not a punishment. Suffering through attachment is the consequence of our learning process. We begin each life anew so that we can experience what we need to learn without any prejudice from our previous life. Then the outer ego (the part we associate with "I") will not expect anything, but rather experience everything as it happens and hopefully learn through it, eventually leading to a release from attachment of things and concepts (rigid beliefs are a form of attachment). This learning process adds to the overall experience of our inner ego (the soul), and thus produces a wiser personality. And this wisdom gained through multiple varying life experiences, carry forward into our future lives until we become whole (inner ego, aka soul, and outer ego, waking conscious mind, no longer think, and thus act, independently).

Buddhism has many very useful practical knowledge. It also has many of the esoteric knowledge available in a way that is relatable in human terms. But one must not take those teachings purely at face value anymore than the teachings of Jesus. Jesus spoke in parables so that those who are ready and able to seek the deeper truths through their examination of themselves will understand once they have experienced what Jesus was talking about. The same goes for the teachings of Buddha. He gave practical instructions on how to become enlightened so that when one becomes enlightened, they can start to find the meaning behind the teachings.

Reality's many dichotomies

2011-10-29T13:53:00.000-07:00

There are many fundamental truths that can be seen in reality, but none more so than the dichotomy of all things. We see it in all of creation, and especially in the abstract. The concept of dichotomy is the basis for everything, the most obvious being life and death. In fact, I believe the genesis of All That Is came from the splitting of one into two or more.

At the beginning of All That Is, you had a single entity, which "slept". When it awoke, it became two from one. The moment this occurred, there was a birth of sorts. The one whole became a mind and heart, thought and emotion. From these two, comes the birth of everything else that is. As one, it could not share in its desires because desire could not form without a companion. Because of this nature, the one had to become two in order for each to compliment the other, thus making a whole. This is a fundamental dichotomy of God. God cannot express love without someone or something to express it to. Therefore, the fundamental dichotomy was that God must become two in order to be One. When this occurred, the Thought was able to express itself apart from the Emotion. The emotion, being the submissive to the thought, was the power behind making thought into reality. These two aspects of consciousness can be represented in many ways. Man and woman is one way, left and right, good and bad, right and wrong. They are all dichotomies because one cannot exist without the other. We use words such as left and right to express these concepts of opposites, but they do not hold meaning by themselves. In other words, "right" and "wrong" do not mean what we accept as those meanings. Rather, "right" simply is the opposite of "wrong". "Wrong" doesn't mean it's incorrect except by our societal definition of saying something is unacceptable, just as "right" doesn't necessarily mean it is correct unless agreed upon. It simple is portraying a dichotomy of opposites.

Now you may argue that Mind and Heart are not opposites, but then you must define what opposite means. Black and White are not opposites either. They are simply colors that we define as opposites. Right and Wrong are not opposites because one simply is the better choice over the other and it is the individual that decides whether they represent extremes of those possible choices. So the term "opposite" simply means they act in different capacities or descriptions, and yet are complimentary to the other. Even the concept of life and death are not opposites since you have to define living and not living. If living means you are conscious of your existence, then you cannot prove you cease to exist after death since the only proof of your conscious existence after death resides with you. Therefore, life and death are not absolute opposites. Rather, they are simply relative opposites based on a 3rd person perspective.

The idea of opposites exists because, as mentioned, you cannot experience one without the other. To have intellect, but not have any emotion associated with the knowledge means that the knowledge has no meaning. There is no reason for any intellect without an emotional component. In the same way, emotion alone is meaningless without having something to be emotional about. This is why "love" exists. Love as an emotion is pointless without something to express it to, which is why God used thought to create more entities from itself. Without more individual entities to share the thoughts and emotions with, God (from its perspective) becomes meaningless. So God itself became a dichotomy in order to express purpose in existence.

We too are learning through life about dichotomies. We judge everyday what is best for our lives, we seek purpose for our existence, we seek friendships and love from others. This is all possible because of the many layers of dichotomies at work. Our right brain vs. left brain. Our masculinity vs. femininity. Our choices in life between this and that. Dichotomies is what makes life possible by giving us freedom of choice.

Although we tend to see things as one out of two possibilities, that is not the nature of existence. It may appear to be this way because we choose to focus tightly in to a single set, but once you move your perspective back away from those limiting choices, you begin to see the dichotomy around the dichotomy, giving us more and more choices. For example, we see our consciousness as mind and heart. But within the mind and heart, lies the infinite aspects of thought and feeling. I think and I feel..I feel good or bad...I feel ok or great...I feel wonderfully alive or exuberant! As you dig deeper and deeper, each side has many more choices. Once you pull back, you can see the infinite possibilities from just two sides of the coin. That's because to get from one side to the other is an infinite number of steps in either direction, giving us infinite varieties and choices and experiences.

Time and the illusion of Time

2011-10-05T09:40:00.000-07:00

Time does not exist. Time is something we perceive because we do not focus on the moment, but rather we are focused on the progression of moments. Time does not exist because we are what we are at every moment. However, we interpret that passing of moments as time. This is all due to the nature of physical sensory perception.

In this body, what we interpret as time is the passing of actions. We perceive time as the passage from one point in space to another. In the mental state, you do not have passing of time because no action is done in sequence, but simultaneously to come to a new state. It is simply a change of state. In quantum mechanics, an electron does not exist anywhere and yet can be everywhere. The reason for that is because we observe the electron in a specific state at specific points of observation. Those observations are actions which progress sequentially. That progression of actions is the observed time. If you could observe change (i.e. all possibilities) simultaneously, then no passage of action has occurred, therefore no time has occurred. You might say "well, I thought and thereafter, I acted, thus there was a passage of time". But that is only the case in the physical realm where thought is translated by the brain into a physical action. In the mental realm, thought is not thought at all. It is action, which is interpreted as thought. The idea of thought leading to action is because of the reality of the body. Without a physical form, all actions are thought.

All exists at all times and nothing is static. All possibility exists at the same time. There are infinite possibilities of being. Each possibility is a state of being. That state of being is what you would consider "who you are" at the personality/psychological level at that moment. This is defined, in terms of a metaphysical condition, where your energy is of a certain quality or state. In terms of psychological condition, it is the state of mind and feeling. In this light, as your state of mind changes or your state of feeling changes, you change, but what you consider time has not lapsed. That's because no observable change of action occurred. And unlike in the physical realm, your state can change back to its previous state, thus the notion of going back in time. You can jump to the future by going to one of the probability states, but as you can see, changing states does not connotate actual time travel. You can jump to any state, whether its in this life's personality, or another life's personality. Changing of states is what the purpose of a life experience is all about. Going from one level of being to another through experience. You can only change states if you open your belief system to other possible states you can be. This is why belief creates your reality. Your state of mind is the only limiting factor to changing states, specifically, going higher in state or level of being. This is possible because once you are out of the physical realm, time does not exist. There is no space to traverse, no sequential action necessary. The idea that you think and then act is wrong. You act because that action was the thought, thus no time is passed. An act is simply a state of being. Changing states does not represent a passage of time because you can go back and forth along those state changes.

Consider your dreams. There *appears* to be no rhyme or reason in it, although there is which you probably don't realize, but that is not the point here. There are certain aspects that are familiar, but the dream seems to change states as you observe it. This is the same concept of time. You are observing something and that act of observing creates time. Because what you observe is set in space, time exists because you are referencing movement as passage of time through space. But if you were to step back and notice the viewer itself, you would realize nothing's changed and therefore no time has passed. If you were in a blackened room and could not see anything or feel anything or sense anything, you would not know what time it is, how much time has passed, etc. That's because you have nothing to observe as a passage of action. The sun changing its position is an observed passage of action. The feel on your skin is the passage of action. And so on it goes, that our physical senses give us the perception of space and motion and movement and changing within that space. If the sun did not move and the planets did not rotate, would you feel the passage of time? If you could instantly teleport to a location rather than moving linearly, would you notice the passage of time? If your body did not age, and you stayed the same in appearance, would you notice the passage of time? You might say, well, I believed this then, but now I believe this and therefore time has passed because I used to be that, but now I am this. But think about it. If you switched back to your previous belief, at what point in time are you in? If you keep referring back to a previous state to signify time passing, then at what point would you notice repetition and thus lose track of time? In other words, if your idea of time passing was through a state progression such as A B C B A B A B, which point are you at? Or what if you realized that you can be A B C at the same time? That is another state D. And if state D is the combination of A B C, at any moment you could be focused on state B. In other words, because you can switch between the states you are familiar with at will, time is irrelevant. It doesn't exist because at any moment you focus on a state, you are in that state. If you think about a previous state, you are that state. It is always "now" because action occurs when thought occurs, simultaneously.

The theory of relativity, I interpret, as being the observation of relative differences between states or moments in time. It is not just about one observer relative to another. But rather fundamentally, the observation of a change of state that is the relativity. This observation of change in state is considered time. We ascribe a fixed value to a time unit. But that is simply a mechanical way of measuring a number of changes within a set interval. If no change occurs within an observation, you could not determine from this a change of time as there would be no cues to give the mind an impression of time elapsing. It is because there are external cues that provide change of state that we inherently feel the impressions of time. Our bodies, the change in daylight, the invisible movements of the molecules even. But if you take away all those physical observables, you would not sense any change in time. Your inner consciousness does not think in linear fashion, though what we consider our consciousness (the outer ego) must see things in linear progression (time) because of the nature of action to reaction (a sensory input going to the brain and being interpreted into thought requires a linear set of actions because of the way the physical body works).

If there were no space, there would be no time. If there was no time, there would be no space. They are bound together and create our physical reality.

Traditional Christian belief

2011-10-05T07:57:00.000-07:00

I spent most of my college years in an evangelical-like Christian church. They taught a form of Christianity that said there is only one church, one truth, and they were that truth. For a while, I believed it based on their knowledge of the bible, but eventually, I realized something was not right with those beliefs. If they were the only truth holder, then we were the minority and every other "false-Christian" was the majority. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but for one Christian group to claim they hold the real truth really made me question what "truth" means. So I left that group to figure it out. It's very interesting what you will experience in life.

The thing I want to write about today is the basis for Christian belief, the foundation for today's interpretation of the bible. The argument the church I went to uses for believing in Jesus and the traditional interpretation of Christianity is as follows: Jesus is believable because the bible is true and reasonable. Either Jesus was a master liar, a psychopath, or the Son of God. So let's take this argument and see if it is reasonable.

First of all, this is not an exercise in denying Jesus' existence. This is only an exercise in determining if the "true and reasonable" argument works.

So, if Jesus was a master liar, then the story cannot be true. One problem with this argument is that there have been many liars in our history that men have followed. The church's argument is that people wouldn't die for it. Well, there's been many cases of people dying for their beliefs. Jonestown, Waco, Heaven's Gate, etc. They all died believing in what they believed and what their leader taught. Some may argue the people in Waco did not die for their leader, but that is not the point. They put their life on the line for their belief. So the argument that Jesus couldn't be a liar for a reason to believe is not a good one.

Jesus was not a psychopath, so we can believe in him. The problem with this argument is that their basis for this conclusion is purely based on anecdote. They use the gospels in the bible to determine this. But before you can accept the gospel, you have to accept the bible as the truth. I'll talk about this later. The premise that Jesus was not a psychopath is also an assumption without complete knowledge or details. I'm not suggesting Jesus was a liar or psychopath. Just that the arguments being made is not a reasonable argument. He could have been a psycho, but did not portray himself as such because of his psychosis. You see many people kill themselves for lesser causes, why not for a greater cause? Psychological problems is not easily seen, nor is it expressed by the individual, so there's no basis of fact for denying this possibility.

Jesus is the Son of God. So, because there is only 2 choices for Jesus' state that can't be true, therefore he must be the Son of God. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Most definitely not. Jesus could just be a messenger. Jesus could be a normal man. Jesus could be anything. But to jump to the conclusion based on what the gospels say makes little sense because you must first accept the claims to make this conclusion. Therefore, it isn't the claims that must be true and reasonable, but the source of the claim, the bible (as we do not have Jesus here to determine his authority).

As I mentioned, the belief in Jesus is really not the basis of belief, but the bible itself. Is the bible true and reasonable? It's interesting that the majority of Christians do not challenge the bible's authority. The logic for acceptance without question is that the Bible is infallible because it is the "Word of God" (they interpret the term "Word" to mean the bible or Jesus, as the living bible) and therefore, God would not allow His words to be distorted. How they came to this conclusion is mind boggling. We know the bible has been touched by men's hands. It has been in controversy many times, but people choose to believe it has not. The belief that one or two meaningless words changed does not change the message. But that is exactly why the content has to be suspect. If you can change one or two words here or there, how many other times has just one or two words been changed over the centuries? To ignore the power that the church had over men is to ignore men's ambitions. How were men controlled? By indoctrinating them with the idea that the church leaders are God's representatives and that they are the keepers of God's words. It wasn't until the printing press came about that men had the chance to study the bible for themselves. But if you look at the history of today's bible composition, you will see how easily it can be distorted and manipulated. The only basis for fact is the believer's faith. But that is not a basis of fact at all.

The conclusion is if the bible is not verifiable, then how can you accept its words directly as the true message of God? The interpretation cannot be verified because the original message may not be intact, so it cannot be used as a source of absolute truth. However, there is and always will be other sources of truth. The bible does contain truths, but it is hidden and not seen on the surface. No manipulation of words by men, no translation by language, will distort or hide the hidden message that is in the bible. That's because the bible does contain God's word in a form that Jesus called parables. But not just the parables, but even the old testament has the hidden message as well.

I believe the old testament is a large collection of parables written in story form. It is the message that man is made of body and spirit. That the spirit has lost its way and forgotten who it is and where it came from. A veil of ignorance has come down upon it and has become trapped in flesh. The old testament is filled with stories of Israel's captivity and bondage. The true Israelite, as Paul wrote, is what is inside of men, not Jews. He was referring to each person's own soul. The true Israelite is the metaphor for our souls. The soul, having identified itself as being flesh and not spirit, has become ignorant of itself. Therefore, it has become captive in a barren land of death and destruction. The body is the barren land and it dies. But God sends help when the people cry out. Moses, Jonah, Joseph, Joshua, David, etc. All led their people out of bondage. This is also the message of Jesus: salvation of the soul from "death", which is the body. It is the leading of our soul from the body's captivity that is the true message of the bible. And this message is consistent throughout the bible. If you read the bible with this context, it'll make some of the things written make sense. There are too many examples to write down here, but it explains what "Satan" means (Satan is the flesh, the great deceiver being this physical body, that you are a physical creature), it explains what Job's temptation and Jesus' similar temptation means (deny the spirit, live by the flesh), it explains why salvation is for all, not only the Jews because it is the salvation of our souls from ignorance of itself, not from the sins of the flesh (which is misinterpreted as well. Sins of the flesh means you identify yourself with the flesh).

So what is true and reasonable? It is not whether Jesus is the Son of God or not. It is whether the bible as interpreted by traditional Christianity is true and reasonable. From this, all other beliefs from the bible stems. Figure out what the bible's message really is, then you'll know if the bible is true and reasonable.

Your reality

2011-09-13T12:44:00.000-07:00

The old question "if a tree fell in the woods, and no one was around to hear this, did it really fall?" brings up a very valid point about our concepts of reality. The truth is, our reality is only that which exists within our field of physical senses. Beyond our senses, it is the realm of our mind that creates reality. In other words, that which we perceive from our sense of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell is interpreted in our mind as the reality within the immediate space around us. Beyond that, it is the perceptions of others in this reality that keeps things outside of our perception "real". This is possible because all living things are connected psychically with each other. The perceptions of one is shared among the collective consciousness so that together, we create the reality we perceive.

If only one person existed in this space, how would you know if there was anything outside of your range of physical perception in existence? You could not verify this information. Say, for example, you put a camera opposite the planet from your position. Even then, the reality of existence on the side of the camera is only possible because you observe an image from the camera. But you cannot prove that what the camera is showing you exists. Only that the camera has transmitted an image based on your idea of what it is looking at.

This is the concept of belief becoming reality. This deep thought is important because it sets into place the idea that your beliefs can alter reality. This isn't about some psychotic episode or mental breakdown of our idea about reality. Reality in this world exists because of the physical laws of this world and all of creation follows these laws. However, within these laws, our ideas about reality shape and form what we perceive through our senses. This is done at the energy level of all matter. At an unconscious level, the energy that binds the universe is able to shape and form that which comes from our individual and collective minds.

We've all said such things as "I'm feeling drained. I feel low on energy. I'm full of energy. That kid sure is energetic." Unconsciously, we know that existence is manifested by energy. We know consciously that we eat and breath to gain energy. The physical body is designed to breakdown food into energy and the parts of matter that is removed as waste is excess energy and therefore not broken down. So the question then is, what is the energy for?

The obvious use of energy in the body is to maintain itself. But this is done not only at the cellular level, but deeper, at the atomic level. Consider how our body is constantly dying and being reborn. You are not aware of this because it's at a cellular level. Each cell dies and a new cell replaces it. So in essence, you are being reborn all the time. And yet, your consciousness does not disappear. How is this so? It is possible because your essence is the energy that keeps the body together and regenerates the body. This energy is what you are made of at the core. When you eat and breath, you take in energy to replenish your energy body because you are expending energy to create this reality: your body, your environment, your reality.

Every night, you sleep. What occurs during your sleep is the main way of re-energizing your energy body. You leave your physical body with a small portion of your energy left behind to another dimension in order to learn and re-energize yourself. The energy you receive from food and air is just a small portion of the energy you need to maintain yourself. That is why when you lack sleep, you will fall into ill-health. Your energy body is not able to keep maintaining your physical body because it is not given the opportunity to replenish itself.

If you accept the idea that I put forth above, then you must realize that what you perceive to be your reality can be changed by your belief. You accept what you believe is real because of your senses. But if you override your senses by changing your belief, your energy body will accept that just as much as the information you pass along from your senses. That is because your brain processes the sensory input into thought/belief. That belief is processed by your "inner self", your true self, the energy body, and it manifests what it believes you believe so that there is continuity of reality. But if you changed your beliefs with expectations and deep desire, that thought will become your new belief and your energy body will manifest this new reality because it is what you perceive to be real in your consciousness.

Many people have demonstrated this unwittingly through prayer and positive thinking. They do not realize that it is themselves that has manifested their desires. They believe it was either God, luck, or external forces that provide their desire. But once you realize you are energy just as the universe is energy, then you can accept the notion that by your energy and the drawing of universal energy around us, you can create your own personal reality.

We are One

2011-09-11T11:28:00.000-07:00

Every day, we wake up, think of our day's plans and go about our business in the world. Every day, we are surrounded by people we know and are aware of, as well as those we do not know and ignore. But if you were to take a moment and see the vastness of people around you, you would be amazed to see how diverse, how multitudinous, and at the same time, similar to you they are. When you realize that these people all act and behave the same way as you, there is commonality found.

At a deeper level, there is more than just commonality. You and I are the same being. I am you, and you are me. But at the same time, I am me, and you are you. You're probably asking "What are you talking about?" Think of every person as being a cell within a larger body. Each cell has its own being. It acts everyday in its capacity, depending on the type of cell it is. These cells live and die, then is reborn as a new cell. In the same way, we also have our own being. We too act everyday in our capacity. We too live and die and are reborn. This is the cycle of life and is demonstrated by our bodies. How much more are we a part of the larger body of the universe. Everything in creation has a purpose in the larger body. But because we are part of the same body, we are the same being. Just as every cell in my body together make up "me", every one of us make up the same "I" or God or whatever you want to call the universe.

In the same way, our souls are individual identities, and yet we are one identity. In Genesis, the bible says we are created in the image of God. Too many religious people say that backwards. They project our image on God and make God a personification of us. The fact of the matter is that we are in the image of a spiritual being "beyond comprehension" as some like to believe. But we are only "beyond comprehension" because we do not accept our heavenly being. We see what we believe are faults and failures and from that assume we cannot be holy. In truth, there is no faults and failures. Only acts, whether consciously or unconsciously, that stem from our desire to be. If we did not desire to be (in other words, to live and act out of free-will), then we would not do anything. We would be motionless and have no being. Therefore, any belief that we are bad is faulty and without merit. When you realize this, you will see the divinity of our soul.

Some religious people do not accept their divinity because they misinterpret the notion of pride and humility. Pride is not the act of raising ourselves up. It is instead the ignoring of their self because they cannot accept that they came from God. Pride says I do not come from God because I am me and you are you. Humility says you accept your godliness because we are in the image of God. Humility says I am you and you are me, We are One. That is true humility, where you can accept your godliness the same as you accept another individual's godliness. Pride takes away not only your godliness, but everyone else, thus making each person separate from God. It is false humility that says only God is holy, and we are not holy, therefore we are apart from God. Put another way, it is saying we are apart from God because I do not see God in me, therefore I am not holy. This is pride because you assume you can exist outside of God, without God. But no one can have their being without God. Humility accepts this and therefore they accept that God is with them and that they are holy.

You are holy. You are godly. You are God! We are One as God. Eventually, everyone will realize this once more and return to God. What does "return to God" mean? Our focus, our will, our intent, whatever you want to call that part which acts upon our thoughts, will realize where it came from and will return back to where they came from. This does not mean we will lose our personalities or individuality. It simply means we will realize that there was and has always existed One, that we never was separate or apart from the One. Today, many are ignorant of this fact and live alone in their perception. They do not see their connection to everyone around them, or to the Godhead. They ignore their inner self because they do not seek. They do not seek because they are blinded by the world around them. The world they see is our inheritance. But by our ignoring our true selves, we have made a path of destruction, rather than construction. We exist in this world to realize who we are inside so that the inheritance given to us can be heaven on earth.

You must wake up from your deep slumber and open your true eyes, beyond the physical eyes, to see. Open your true ears, beyond the physical ears, to hear. Then you will know that We are One with God.

Answers to Questions, Part 3

2011-08-14T07:57:00.000-07:00

Q: Is the Bible true?
A: The Bible has truths in it, but to say that it is the only truth means that God has stopped communicating with the creations. This does not make any sense. To put things into perspective, you must realize that the Bible is a collection of stories and writings written down over centuries through verbal dictation and copied manuscripts. The key question, however, is what is the source of the message? Many believe they are messages from God and therefore infallible. I believe that the messages are spiritual insights gained by many who are psychically capable and have spoken or written the message down through their interpretations of the message. This cannot be helped. All messages from the spirit world come through the glass lens of the receiver and is translated into the language, local beliefs and culture of the receiving person. Communication outside the physical body is through emotions and thoughts (feelings, pictures, sounds, senses: universal communications), not words and speech which are local to a region and peoples. Because of this, some ideas come through to the receiver in a way they would understand, but may not necessarily interpret it appropriately. This has always been true as it was then. You see mediums today who channel messages from the spirit world that must interpret what they are receiving or they will simply forward the message to another and the recipient must interpret that message using their knowledge. I mention this because you can find many books today that speak of the spiritual nature, and yet the majority of people do not worship or exclaim these writings as the message of God. But back when the Bible came about, they were handled and passed down by the religious leaders because those who had psychic gifts were predominately a part of or joined the religious order in order understand what they were receiving. Over time, these messages with the receivers interpretations were presented to their followers as edicts from God without questioning or reinterpretation. The stories in the Bible are not simply words to obey as written. This should have been made obvious when Jesus said he spoke in parables. If the Jews did not understand the true message from the Old Testament about the coming of Jesus after thousands of years, can anyone truly say the true message of the New Testament was received properly? Those who point out the contradictions of the Bible and the believers who refute these contradictions prove to the fact that the message is interpreted and based on the reader's ideas of reality, come to different conclusions. Therefore, one should try to determine if they understand the message hidden in the bible and whether that message makes sense in context of a spiritual world. This can only happen when you release your conceptions and dogmas of religious principles and seek a deeper truth, that of a spiritual truth. The message of the Bible is a spiritual one hidden behind the physical words. In other words, if one reads the words as it would be applied to the imaginary "you", the human form, then you do not see the true message as all spiritual messages are targeted to our true form, that of our soul.

Q: What about Jesus?
A: What people do not realize about Jesus was that he was not the only "Christ" figure in the story. And yet, the Christian movement mainly focuses on Jesus. From my understanding, the Christ figure is really composed to John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Paul (Saul). John represents the passage of the old to the new. When John baptized Jesus, it was to signify the cleansing from the old to the new, which is moving from the focus of the body to that of the soul. That is why John was such a minimal part of the story, even though John was worshiped by his followers in the same way as Jesus, and he made way for Jesus. Jesus is the embodiment of the soul. His life characterized what spirit life is like, what we are like in spirit. Jesus expressed all his emotions no differently than we do: love, sadness, anger, and I believe other emotions that are not necessarily considered "good". But as I mentioned in my other posts, emotions exist and are not bad. They are a part of us, but we are to use all emotions in a positive way as emotions and thoughts are both transmission of energy we use to expression ourselves. Jesus could do things beyond what we believe we can. This is the outcome of the soul manifesting its reality upon the physical realm. He was demonstrating to us what it is to be living in spirit while in the flesh. Christhood is the same concept as enlightenment, which is to attain a full body/soul connection such that the soul is free to act from its creative consciousness while in physical form. Jesus' story is not a message of salvation of our bodies or even our souls. It is a message of awakening of our soul so that it is no longer enslaved by the body and the beliefs we hold about what is and isn't possible. That is the misinterpretation of the message of salvation. In other words, we are not saved to enter heaven. We are saved by awakening our unconscious "self" in the body. That is heaven, to be freed of the illusion of life and the limitations of prejudice and ignorant beliefs. Paul was the carrier of this message, but for some reason, Paul did not carry the full message and will return to correct this. That is the second coming of Christ. It is said that Paul will return as the Christ to correct the mistake of institutionalizing the message of spiritual salvation into a religious dogma. When Jesus came into flesh, he knew his purpose in life. Paul also knew before he was born that he was to take part in this drama, but the letters he wrote misconstrued the message of Christ. After Paul was taken to heaven (most likely a near-death experience) where Jesus met him the first time and converted him, he preached the message, but interpreted the message through the lens of his religious upbringing as can be seen in his writings regarding his membership in the religious community. Although he did not remain a part, it was this "tainting" of the message through interpretation that we have a religious Christian message today. There were other Christian teachings not mainstream that carries a different message, but those have long been suppressed by the Catholic movement after Emperor Constantine created the Roman national religion.

Answers to Questions, part 2

2011-08-13T14:56:00.000-07:00

Q: Which religion is right?
A: All and none. They are all right if it helps those who believe to learn to grow in love all during their life. They are all wrong because it limits the persons beliefs into a small box without understanding how limitless Source is. If one truly believed that Source/God is infinite in everything, then no single belief can ever define that. If we are from that infiniteness, then we are limitless and have no bounds. By putting restrictions, ideologies, barriers, whatever you want to call the rules, or "Laws" as Jesus put it, on the soul, you are basically saying the soul is not able to overcome those limitations. This is a major cause for people to have fears, doubts, and a general lack of faith, not to mention conflicts and strife among the human race. Those who believe God chose a single group to enter heaven must answer the question: "Did God create everything?" If so, then would God create something that cannot be forgiven (this question is based on the Christian belief that man needs salvation for "original sin")? If God cannot forgive, then how can God show unconditional love? Christians believe Jesus allows us to be saved. But again, if Jesus "saves" us, why would anyone be condemned if they choose not to follow Jesus? That means Jesus cannot save because it is those who accept Jesus who saves themselves, not Jesus. In other words, it is the act of the person accepting Jesus that saves them, not Jesus himself. If they do not need to do anything to be saved, then there was no reason for Jesus to save anyone since God simply need to say "you are saved". But this all assumes the idea that we as immortal souls need saving in the first place. The only salvation we need is from the ignorance of not knowing our true immortal nature and thus do not learn how to grow in our souls and finish our period of physical life incarnations. Other religions teach other aspects about heaven and hell, but there is neither. There is only that which you create in your belief. You are limitless creators learning to control your creative abilities. If you believe there is a heaven, you create that heaven. If you believe there is a hell, you create that hell.

Q: Are there UFO's or alien life?
A: There are other worlds, other dimensions, other realms, other possible time lines. In other words, there is an infinite number of possible universes out there because they are all created by us as spirits. Even this existence we live is the result of our soul manifesting reality for learning purposes. Whether extraterrestrials come and visit, I would not doubt the possibility anymore then I would believe that we are the only planet with life in this dimension, of the countless galaxies out there. If the goal of the soul is to grow in our ability to control our creative consciousness, then it's not hard to believe that there are incarnations of souls that have physical forms capable of controlling the flesh through the spirit and have much further advancements not only in technology, but in psychic abilities as well. To overcome the laws of nature is nothing in spirit since those laws only apply to this physical realm. If the spirit of Jesus could make a man walk on water and rise from the dead, that spirit in every man which comes from the same Source as that of Jesus, is capable of creating vehicles that can overcome the laws of gravity.

Q: What happens when a person dies?
A: Their soul identity (the "I") will vacate the host body when it decides the time is proper. This can be well before actual bodily death to just after. Sometimes, the soul will depart before the time in the body is supposed to be over. In those cases, they will either be asked or told to return to complete their life mission. They do not have to accept as it is their choice to return or stay, but if they end the life prematurely, they will most likely have to re-experience what they were to experience in another life. After death, your consciousness will reside in spirit form, and the personality of that life will remain as a part of you. In other words, you do not become "holy" or change mentally, or anything like that. You are still "you", both the good and bad. What each person experiences depends on what beliefs they have accumulated. If they believe they were bad and must be punished, they may experience a sort of "hell". If they believe they will go to "heaven", they may experience a heavenly surrounding. If they believe in nothing, they may experience "nothingness". It really depends on each person. At the initial stage, some may be visited by deceased relatives or friends, they may be visited by religious personalities, they may be visited by their spirit guides, or they may not be visited by anyone. This period is a transition period, where their questions are answered, their "shock" is relieved, their fears subdued by the feelings of love. This feeling is typically the receiving of energy from the other souls. Feelings and thoughts are all forms of energy, so the feeling of love and peace is you being filled with energy. When you incarnate into a body, your soul does not completely enter the body. A portion of your soul energy remains in the spirit realm. When you return from your incarnation, that portion of energy which lived the life will return to the rest of your soul energy, bringing with it a feeling of "home", strength, and remembrance as you regain completeness of all your personalities. Any negative habits from the life consciousness that we do not cling to will be cast off once we fill up with energy, sort of like an energy shower cleansing. Each life is another personality you gain and will be invaluable to your soul as a life memory that you will draw upon for wisdom, understanding, and pleasure through reliving your favorite moments. As I mentioned, what defines you as the personality in life does not go away. You decide what "you" are in spirit just as much as you define what your reality is. Everything is based on your desires and decisions, and nobody forces anything upon you. You have complete free-will. That is why we are always learning to control ourselves by our own desire for that control. No one, not even God, forces you to be someone else as that would betray God's desire for each of us to be unique individuals. We are each perfect in our own design. It is not our personality that defines perfection, but our ability to create and define our personality that makes us perfect. After we are oriented back into the spirit realm and have cast off the illusion of the just-finished life, we are able to reflect upon the past life to learn from our triumphs, our mistakes, and gain wisdom from that experience. There is no judgment except self-judgment as that is the only way to learn from our mistakes. So no one should fear judgment in death, because as immortals, judgment would not create change. If in death we were to face judgment by others, it only lead to bitterness and hatred, which is what happens so many times here in the physical reality.

Answers to questions

2011-08-13T09:53:00.000-07:00

Today, I want to put in writing what I believe are answers to questions people may have. These aren't to say they are right. Only that they are logical and right to me.

Q: What is God?
A: I believe that "God" is an infinite conscious energy. You can "see God" in creation just by studying atomic and sub-atomic structure. Everything in the physical world is held together by the invisible electromagnetic energy, even though you can only see the results of the massive combination of this electromagnetic energy with some of that infinite energy having been converted into matter. I don't know what this energy is called in the spirit realm. I use the term "energy" in this reality because that is the closest word I can use to describe what God is in this language. You could call it vibrational energy as well, since it also exhibits the properties of infinite frequencies. The word God is also limiting. It is a word made up to describe something that has personality, but God is not just one personality. "God" is the combination of All That Is (I prefer to call God, Source since that is where everything that is came from) because our energy comes from God's energy, and yet because the amount of energy is infinite, we never left God as the Source of all energy. We are merely portions of that infinite energy into separate identities just as what we perceive as reality is a portion of that energy converted into matter. Sort of like a symphony where multiple instruments create music, each having its own unique characteristics and frequencies, but contained within the whole song.

Q: Why does God ignore us?
A: God does not ignore us. In fact, it is because God pays attention to us that we have our being. What the question is really asking is, "Why doesn't God listen to me?" The reason why people do not feel God's presence is because they do not know what to look for. They send out a wish list and expect the wishes to come true. God is not a genie or a lottery ticket. We exist in this life to learn from it. Every situation and circumstance we encounter is a blessing, whether good or bad, because we can experience it and hopefully learn something new from it. From our human perspective, we may not see it this way, but if you realize what you really are, that you are not the physical being you believe you are, then the perspective can change and you start to see the truth. God does not ignore us. But God does not interfere with our lives because, whether you believe it or not, we choose the life we have. What you believe is manifest into your reality. You may feel like that's some fantasy, but every doubtful thought, every denial of truth, makes those doubts and lack of faith become more real. For the Christians, this is what true faith is, to believe you (your true self) can move mountains and it will be done. God does not need you to pray for this or that. It is in your own power to make those desires come true, if you believe.

Q: Why is there evil in the world?
A: The reason why this question is asked is because people naturally desire peace and harmony or are afraid for their safety out of the survival instincts. But not everyone desires or demonstrates peace and harmony, unfortunately. This is the consequence of free-will and learning, not some temptation of an evil spirit or demonic being (though that is also a possibility if one is given over to suggestion). It is not something that exists outside of our own desires and beliefs. Evil is the manifestation of an individual's own desire or belief, just as much as Good. And this is exactly because we have free-will. If God desired only good in the world, then God would not have given us free-will. An individual can only be an individual if they can choose to do whatever they desire in their infinite creativity. If you take that away, then there is no free-will and no individuality. This does not mean there isn't consequences to our acts, both good or bad. However, you must realize that judgment and judgmental attitudes perpetuates bad behaviors. People have a hard time not feeling judgmental because they think that if they don't discourage bad behavior through judgment, it will continue. But this is a wrong belief. Good and bad will always exist because of free-will. It is only the individual that can decide to act one way or another. All judgment of another does is to instill evil in the one who judges. This can easily be seen as revenge and violence which comes from hatred, jealousy, anger, etc. These feelings are NOT bad. They are real, just as much as love, kindness, etc. What is wrong is to act upon those feelings in a way that is not beneficial. For example, if you're angry, redirect that energy towards helping others not fall into such acts.

Q: What is our purpose in life?
A: We exist in this world to live and experience this three-dimensional life. We are immortal souls who are training to become co-creators with the living Source. This is obvious even in this life. We create our own reality every time we desire to do something. You think "I want to go to Disneyland" and you make the plans and do it. It may appear obvious and not very creative, but you transformed thought into reality. It's even more obvious for those who create things for a living. It is in our nature to transform thought into reality. As a software engineer, I enjoy thinking of ideas and making them real (at least in the computer realm). 3D video games can be thought of as a rudimentary beginnings of creating other realities and worlds. Why isn't everyone creating something in this life? That's because we are not all at the same level of spiritual development in terms of transforming our energy into reality. Some are relatively new souls (only having a few life incarnations) while others are older souls who are near the end of their reincarnations. How is it that we are aware of abstract concepts such as math, astrology, and physics? Because these ideas existed before the physical world existed (in fact, all things that we accept as real in this physical world existed in the mental/spiritual world before it became physically manifest. This is the nature of thought becoming reality. The mind is the birthplace of all reality). It is also what the physical world is created from, which we call laws of nature. These laws were defined beforehand, otherwise, you could not have an ordered creation. It is impossible to have creation that obeys laws before those laws existed. Even the fact that you have a Big Bang is evidence of natural laws at work (laws of conservation of energy, kinetic vs potential energy, E=MC2, gravity etc. - notice they all deal with energy, which is what I defined as "God" as well as everything in the spirit world). In the same way, we are learning what those laws are (not human laws) and learning through life how to work within those laws to be creative in a positive way. Some live lives that are very difficult while others live lives beyond our human imagination. This is all of our choosing by our beliefs, whether you believe it or not, in order to learn in all circumstances. Those living harsh lives will grow much faster and stronger as a soul (assuming they learn from their circumstance, not everyone does) than those who choose a life of simplicity and low challenge simply because there is more to learn in such harsh realities. You must remember that life is short because it is not our real life so whether you have a good life or a bad life, they'll both end and each soul will be their immortal selves again to reflect and gain wisdom from their just-ended lives. It is like a student having a hard time in the subject of math while in grade 3. But we know the harder we work, when we are finished with that grade, we move on to the next. Those who do not work hard may have to repeat the grade, or worse, go back a grade. Those who move forward will take their knowledge gained to build upon even more knowledge. This is the same analogy as a soul who is working to evolve itself into perfection, our graduation being to merge back into the Source (God), to become co-creators. But unlike our physical lives, we have eternity to learn. Until you grasp eternity, life, with its limitations of time and space, will seem so much more real than it really is.

Belief and Reality

2011-08-08T22:10:00.000-07:00

Today, I want to talk about our beliefs and reality. But first, I want to say that what I write is what I believe to be truth and it is written so that others may hear my beliefs so that they can form their own beliefs. I have no intentions of forcing a belief upon anyone. Each person has to form their own convictions about truth so that from that they can act upon their convictions. It does no good if people are simply fed what to believe, not knowing why or what it is that they believe. It is because of this that I want to help people use their own intuition to seek the truth within themselves; to not deny their spiritual nature because of tradition or fear from misunderstanding.

The majority of people in the world today grow up religious to some degree. Most people do not grow up thinking "I live now, but death brings nothingness." This, in my opinion, is a way to rationalize things in the world they see as evil by denying a moral spiritual world. The rational is that if there was a moral spiritual world, then evil should not exist in the physical world. In the same way, religion says "I live now, but death brings nothingness to those who are evil." To me, this is the same view as an aethist, except they believe in a God who will destroy evil while protecting those who claim to follow God. So on the one hand, you have a group of people who show a fairness of judgement, where everyone disappears at death. Then you have another group who believes in an unfair judgement, where some are granted life in paradise, while most end up in torment. Of course, the majority thinks they will be in paradise and not judged to hell because one sin isn't the same as another. They believe in degrees of sinfulness.

If I were to choose my ideal belief based on these two beliefs only, I'd probably prefer the salvation route because at least I have a chance to live on after death (at least in my mind, I'd be able to do enough to be saved). There would be no purpose or reason for me to live if I believed that at death, darkness becomes eternal for all. It would be very difficult to show love, since I would not want my loved ones to disappear. And yet, many who do not believe in life after death believe that their loved ones continue on through our memories. The funny thing about this belief is that it is true to some degree. Which brings up the topic of this blog: What is belief and what is reality?

The notion of faith and belief is an interesting subject. How is it that we can have faith and beliefs? What does it mean to have faith and why? What purpose does faith and belief have as an animal? As I wrote in my previous blog, without our soul in the body, the body itself is merely another species of animal with its own consciousness. When we look at a dog, can we perceive the dog having faith or a belief? What about a fish or a beetle? Dog owners will claim strongly that their pet is another member of their family. How can this be? This is an interesting pychological behavior of people that you do not typically see in other animals, one species accepting another as a member of its family. So where does these behaviors and mindsets come from?

At a deeper level, our souls are all connected to every thing in existence in a network of connections. If there was a movie made about the spirit world, The Matrix would be the closest one to the spirit reality. In the Matrix, people are sleeping and dreaming inside capsules. Their everyday life is a dream created in the mind of person. And yet, to that person, everything is real. It isn't until someone shows them the way to the truth, revealing the reality outside the dream. In our lives, we believe that what we sense with our body is real. We believe that everything we see is the extent of reality. If we can touch, taste, smell, hear, and see something, it is the only thing that is real. But if that is the case, does that mean our thoughts are not real simply because it cannot be sensed by those 5 physical senses? Does that mean our feelings for our pet are not real because those feelings are not capable of being physically sensed? Does that mean our memories are not real since they are no longer in this physical reality?

At this point, most people would define what "real" means as something based on the 5 physical senses. But if that is the only way to define real, then those who believe in a spirit world could not justify the soul since the spirit world cannot be sensed by the physical senses. Those who do not believe in the spirit world would have no basis for memories or feelings since they do not have real form. You cannot feel emotion since you're really just feeling an interpretation of emotion by our mind, not the emotion itself. So then what does it mean to say something is real?

I suggest that in order for something to be real, you only need to believe it is real. In other words, you accept something as having form, even without form. I know my thoughts are real, because I perceive them, through another means beyond the 5 physical senses. You might be asking, "isn't the brain a sensory organ as well?" I would say "yes", but what does it sense? If it's simply the neurological stimulation from the body, then that would be limited to the 5 senses. But what if the brain is actually a sensory organ for the unseen part of our body? The electromagnetic stimulations of the soul? If we as spirit is energy, then this makes sense. The brain is just one big organ that takes electrical signals and interprets them. Why would it be difficult to believe that it couldn't pick up the electrical signals of our soul energy? Makes you think, doesn't it? :)

So then, what is reality? If things without form such as belief is also real, then does that mean what we perceive by our senses are not the only things that we should consider reality? If the brain can pick up electronic signals, and the world is filled with electromagnetic energy (without which nothing could exist), then maybe our bodies can pick up on those electrical signals outside the body. Indeed, this is why there are some who are able to perceive things that others do not. Things that appear to not exist in real space, and yet are perceived as real by those who are sensitive to such energies.

Ultimately, this begs the question: if reality is what I believe, then can my belief create my own reality? If my body perceives through electrical stimulations from the physical sensory organs of which the brain is one of them (and without our consciousness of mind, the brain is no more be able to perceive as a rock could perceive the ground it rests on), then could we perceived things that are not what we consider real? This is all dependent on each of our own beliefs. If you believe that heaven is made of clouds and angels, then that is what you will perceive because it is your belief. If you believe that there is no existence after death, then that is what you will perceive. If you believe in a fire and brimstone hell with demons and devils, then that is what you will perceive. If these kinds of beliefs exist upon death, that will be your reality until you choose to change your beliefs. Eventually, we will be guided by our loving spirit guides (we all have one or more), who greets us upon death whether you recognize them or not, to the truth, and our perceptions about reality will no longer be distorted, but this too depends on your acceptance of what is real based on your beliefs.

So, if reality is what you believe, then don't you think you should consider what you believe more carefully?

Science and "God"

2011-08-07T18:08:00.000-07:00

I was watching the show The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation. They were discussing Stephen Hawking's declaration that God does not exist because of time and whether he is right or how God and science can coexist, if at all. Here's my view on this.

First of all, the concept of "God" has to be defined. Without explaining what "God" means, it's impossible to explain creation. Some religion views God as a personality while others view God as an indescribable being; someone like us in consciousness. But this is backwards. God is not "like us". We are like God. So what is God like? God isn't a being per-se. God is what exists. What exists is what we can imagine. Imagination is truth and reality because it exists by mere thought. Because thought exists, it is real, even if we do not perceive it in terms of physical reality. It is real because we created it in our mind. Therefore, God is anything and everything because we can imagine anything and everything through our mind. God is that mind which creates and it is the created. In other words, God is the Source of all that is.

In terms of science, think of God as that which allows matter to exist. By Albert Einstein's law of matter, E=MC2, God is the energy which allows matter to exist. Without energy, matter cannot exist and without energy matter cannot sustain itself. Matter is composed of that which cannot be seen, and yet we can measure to a small degree, it's existence. So for the question of beginning, the beginning wasn't matter, but energy. And energy is not visible. It is experienced. People believe energy is just a form without substance. But what if energy has substance? What if energy is conscious? That would be one possible explanation for where consciousness lies. That could also be one possible explanation for where creativity resides. That is my belief, that energy is alive and conscious. It is that which allows existence, not only in the physical realm, but in all other forms and dimensions.

So let's ask the question "where did energy come from?" What is energy? Since you need energy to create matter, what is the source and beginning, if any, for energy? That really should be the question of science, not looking for the beginning of matter. If you can determine where and what energy is, then you will have the answer for where matter came from.

Energy does not need to be converted into matter. In fact, the reality that we perceive isn't the only one that exists. It is merely one of an infinite number of realities that exists because of infinite frequencies within energy. Electromagnetic energy is the basis for all matter. We are also composed of electromagnetic energy. What you see as your body, as your car, as everything around you, is at its core held together and created by electromagnetic energy. But we do not see that. Rather, we see the larger end result of that energy in the form of cells, composed of molecules, composed of atoms, composed of energy. The universe is a mathematical formula. You can see the pattern of math in the universe in many everyday things. For example, if you look at a leaf, you can see the fractal patterns on the surface where the veining occurs. If you look at the branch, you can see the fractal patterns of the leaves. If you look at the tree, you can see the fractal patterns of the branches. Going on the other, If you look at the leaf, you can see the fractal pattern of the cells. If you look in the cell, you can see the fractal pattern of the molecules. If you look at the molecules, you can see the fractal patterns of the atoms. In fact, everything at the molecular level is like a tiny version of the infinite universe and from the infinitely small to the infinitely large, it is all composed of electromagnetic energy across the infinite spectrum of frequencies. Creation follows the law of electromagnetic energy. If energy is conscious, then you have God.

How does one prove that energy has consciousness? This requires proving that consciousness exists. What is consciousness? It is the idea that we are aware of ourselves. It has nothing to do with being aware of things outside of ourselves. That is merely a mental belief because our physical senses provide stimulation to our mind and the mind interprets outside as reality. So if we identity with ourselves individually and believe we exist, that is consciousness. How does one prove this? How does one prove that something else is not conscious? Most people would say a plant is not conscious or that a rock is not conscious because it does not interact or communicate with us. But if the definition of consciousness is communication or movement, then the wind could be considered conscious since it makes noise and moves. If that is the definition of consciousness, then water is conscious. A computer is conscious by that definition. The point here is that we cannot tell what is conscious outside of ourselves. Just because you can communicate with another person does not mean you proved they are conscious. You can only state that they are able to communicate no differently than a dog but we put other people at the same level as us because we understand them through communication. You might be thinking "wait a minute. You're suggesting that everything is conscious then because everything is composed of energy." That is correct. I am saying that consciousness isn't in the brain or in the heart or anything of the physical body. It is the energy that forms and keeps the body form together that is our consciousness. And along that thinking, everything is conscious, even though we cannot physically communicate with our mouths.

If we expanded our mental/psychic ability to communicate through energy, we would be able to see and communicate with everything in existence. That is why there are those who can communicate with spirits, animals, plants, etc. Many do not believe this is possible because they themselves cannot experience this. Even those who believe in a heaven have a hard time accepting this because they have a limited view about the spirit world. But that is a poor excuse for denying the ability or the idea about energy as being conscious. To reason that because I do not experience something, no one else should be able to since it is not my reality, demonstrates a lack of understanding about the spirit world no different than those who believed that the Sun was a god, or that the earth was flat or that it was the center of the universe.

So what is the universe? It is a physical creation of the Source mind, Source being all the energy that exists. We as souls are all a part of the Source, as individual consciousnesses acting together. Space and time is the result of converting energy into three dimensional matter. Without matter, energy simply exists; time and space have no meaning because it always is. If you look at a sine wave, it goes to infinity in both positive and negative direction without end. At any given point, it's form exists. It does not move except if you shift an artificially created frame of reference. That is called a phase shift, but the wave itself did not move. Only the reference. In the same way, by changing frequency, amplitude, and reference, you can create different realities because of the energy it is. But the wave always exists at the same frequency, amplitude, and reference everywhere concurrently, thus time and space have no meaning. This is our true nature. This is the timeless, spaceless, infiniteness of God and our souls. But unlike the simple mathematical formula for a sinewave, the energy is infinite and has consciousness because it can act upon itself through its own free-will. I do not know how energy is conscious or has free-will, but if consciousness is the ability to take form through thought, then energy is the means for that form and thus is conscious because it took the form of that thought. Form does not have to be physical no more than our memories take physical form. And yet, we know our memories exist.

The true multiverse is the mind. If the mind can think it up, it becomes reality, not simply in metaphysical terms, but at the energy level because we as consciousness is energy. The law of conservation of energy states that you cannot lose energy. If our physical being is made of matter, the energy used to create that matter is returned as energy. One could think of that energy as our consciousness. In this form, science and religion can come together to explain physical reality. Both must answer the question, "What is energy?" When this question is answered, science and religion will become one.

Spiritual vs. Religious - Justice

2011-08-07T14:08:00.000-07:00

In this post, I want to discuss religious perspective about justice and whether it is logical or not. I won't really discuss the non-religious perspective much since they have no belief in life after death, but I will touch upon it.

The religious world believes in a spirit world, one that is not physical in nature. They believe that we have a spirit and that God created that spirit at birth and that God is Spirit. They believe that Jesus was the son of God, made flesh by the Spirit (capitalized to signify God's spirit, vs. any old spirit). They believe that the three, God, Spirit, and Jesus, are the "Holy Trinity". Not all Christian sects believe in this concept, but many do as this was a belief passed through the generations by the Roman Catholic teachings.

So here is where my point of view diverges from those of mainstream religion, specifically Christianity as other non-Christian religions have their own various perspectives on spirituality. I believe that we are not just a body with a spirit in it given to us by God. I believe that the spirit IS the "I" of who we believe we are and not something that just simply resides in us. Many Christians believe that the spirit in us is something that we receive either through "praying Jesus into your heart" or by baptism. So the question then becomes "what is the purpose of receiving a spirit from God?" The Christian belief is that it is the "wise councilor" to help us. This is true, but where I differ in the understanding is that it is not some distinct and different being that resides inside of us to council us. Rather it is the identity of who we are that councils us. That spirit is us. When Christians say "the Holy Spirit floated onto the tops of the people" or that it resides in us, they misinterpret what it means. The Holy Spirit is the term used to describe our created being. We are Holy because we were created by the Creator. We are Spirit because we do not exist naturally as physical beings. Instead, we reside in the body. This has tremendous implications for Christian theology.

If the spirit inside of us is the real "us", then did we really become "born" at physical birth? Christianity believes this to be true, and thus requires salvation because of our sinful nature. But even if the spirit was created at conception, then how could an all-knowing, all-loving God condemn a mere infant to eternal separation? I say infant because relative to eternity, our meager 50, 80, or even 110 years of life in this body is nothing. We do not have enough experience to know right from wrong anymore than a baby does when it does something. As adults, we can see a child doing something and it is us that decides if something is right or wrong. Most of us know that a child does not do wrong because they do not understand what is right or wrong. We as adults teach the child this concept over their growing period. And the concept was taught to us. So does God, knowing we are mere infants, ignore the fact that we do not know what do we is wrong? Does he judge us for doing wrong with such severe punishment when even we as human adults do not punish our own children when they do something they don't know is wrong?

Now if my supposition is correct and we are spirit created long before our birth into flesh, then there might be reason for judgement and the need for salvation. But, then the question is if we existed before birth, is this birth the first and only birth as flesh? If not, then why were we not condemned for our previous life? If we were saved for our previous life, why do we not stay and reside in heaven if we were not judged for our last life? If this is our first life, then why did we become flesh and do we need saving from the sins of the flesh or the sins of the spirit? If it is the sins of the flesh, the same problem as punishing infants occurs. If it is the sins of the spirit, then does that mean evil exists in heaven? This brings up a different point. Can God create something evil? If God can create something evil, then is God perfect? If he cannot create evil, then can there be evil spirits since everything created by God exists in God and nothing in God can be imperfect (i.e. Heaven is inside God and spirits exists in Heaven)? If we exist outside of God, then does God not exist everywhere? Some may say God gave us free-will and so we choose to do right and wrong. But if God gave us free-will, is there really such a thing as "right" and "wrong"?

My perspective on the spirit and flesh is that the Creator cannot create "evil" spirits. Therefore our belief in evil spirits, demons, and the Devil are creations of our own minds to explain why people do unloving acts. If you think about it, our concept of right and wrong, good and evil, are merely degrees of love towards another living thing or themselves. We do not say someone does evil when they tear a book or kick a rock. We do not say an earthquake is evil when it kills hundreds or thousands. We do not say a bear is evil when it strikes a person down or another animal to eat? And yet, we describe human interaction with other humans as evil when the act causes harm. This is not to excuse or condone such acts, but merely to explain that the idea of good and evil are terms we as humans created to judge other HUMAN acts. But what if our idea about what a human is, is wrong? In other words, most people believe humans are different from other living things. But I suggest that human beings are no different than any other living creature. It is merely an animal with its own instincts and behavior. I don't mean to suggest that humans do not posses qualities above mere animals or that it is without its own consciousness, but if you realize that without our eternal soul residing in the flesh, the human being would merely be another animal. Would you say that an animal is "evil" when it acts like an animal?

So again, what is spirit? Do we exist as everlasting and eternal spirit as "I", directing and guiding the human animal, or are we newly born dumb and ignorant spirits created at birth? Or are we the human animal with just a consciousness, and that it is a different spirit of God that guides us? If you believe we are merely animals and that the spirit of God dwells in us through our act of conversion, then how do we enter into a spiritual heaven if we are flesh? Is the flesh converted into spirit? Are we given a spiritual body as some believe? How does our identity (ego) get transferred into this new spiritual body? What is *that thing* which is our identity in the flesh if it's not spirit? In other words, what is the containing thing or object we can identify as "I" in a human body if it is not spirit?

On the point of judgement of right and wrong, many have a hard time overcoming the need for justice. This is due to the desire of our human nature as aggressive creatures to punish wrong doing. But this mindset is no better than that of the wrong doer. People believe in this so strongly that they do not see their own unloving actions as being wrong, but justified. They justify themselves and their actions as being right because they believe they are fighting evil. They misinterpret "an eye for an eye". The universal law of nature is defined by the phrase "an eye for an eye", and it does not mean a person is the judge of others. The universal law will apply itself to everyone in its own form of justice, which the Creator designed into existence when he gave us free-will. It is the means to control the imbalance between our positive acts and negative acts, or as some call it, karma. Why people do not see this law in action is because they do not perceive reality beyond this one life. In other words, people's ignorance about the true spiritual nature of themselves creates a fearful world where their life exists merely in physical form this one time. Once that physical life ends, their existence and meaning for existence ends forever. Even if they believed in an after-life, their restricted belief of eternity causes a desire and need for justice through judgement, hence the religious projected need for salvation from judgement.

If people understood the purpose of physical life, and their own eternal soul, they would not see a need for personal justice in their current lifetime. This is why an understanding of the spiritual reality and who they truly are is so important. If you believe that your soul needs salvation, of course there is fear. How do you know until the time of judgement comes upon you that you are saved? You will not know until it's too late. If you believed you are truly saved and have no fear, then there is no desire for justice as your salvation should be the most important aspect of life.

What about those who do not believe in an after-life? They probably have the most reason to desire justice, but even then, it seems illogical to have strong emotions for justice since their own existence and that of others have no meaning. To live and forget takes away any reason to remember. If the only joy comes from the moment, then death has no negativity as they would not realize they are dead. It would only be those remaining alive who seek justice because they had something taken away and the moment did not bring joy to them. If there is no life after death, what does it matter as all the bad memories would disappear? If the human body was created without an eternal purpose, why do we need emotion? Why do we feel a sense of justice? Animals do not have such thought when they kill another animal. They know it is a part of their nature and when they die, they do not concern themselves as it is natural. This seems to be the same philosophy of an atheist, that death is natural and we return to nothingness. But this begs the question, what is consciousness? It isn't a physical thing. Scientists know the brain acts upon consciousness and vice-versa because the brain can function without having consciousness, and consciousness can exist without the brain function (as exemplified by the many accounts of near-death experiences). It's easy to dismiss such experiences since the critic themselves have not experienced it and can only speculate upon the cause, but none-the-less, their speculation alone is not fact to dismiss the experience anymore than the experience is a fact of truth. The only truth is that a person claims to have experienced something while they were clinically brain dead and until proven that they did not experience something, the experience itself, ignoring the content, exists as fact.

So what is the purpose of right and wrong? Is there such a thing as right or wrong? I believe there is loving another and not loving another. The difference in terminology is important because the words "wrong", "evil", "bad" connotate something that should not be done. But if they were not allowed, then we do not have free-will. We cannot choose right because there would be no wrong. We could not understand why good is good and bad is bad. Therefore, justice has no purpose since we were given the right to choose between loving and not loving for all of our benefit. It is a benefit because we do not exist merely for this one lifetime, but many lifetimes. Through those many lifetimes, we learn and understand both sides of being loved and not loved and our soul grows from that. Our physical bodies is merely a costume we wear during the lifetime to act out a play of our creation. We are learning from playing that part and seeing the reactions, the consequences, the feelings from everything we experience in life including those around us, whether we consider some actions "good" or "bad", and take it with us into the next life as a lesson learned. This is why we are spirit. If we were not spirit, we could never learn from our actions because our existence would be so fleeting and the atheist view would be correct because our memories would disappear.

Peace out.

Spiritual vs. Religious

2011-08-07T13:04:00.000-07:00

This post is off-topic from what I've planned to blog here, but I've had some major revelations in the past year that has changed my perspective about what is real and what is not real. I plan to post my thoughts from this point forward in order to understand my own beliefs and determine what does and doesn't make sense.

When I hit 40 years of age, my body changed suddenly. I felt like something wasn't right and have gone to doctors and specialists more times in the past year than I have in my entire life. It was during this period that a sense of impending doom came over me and led me to seek what death would be like.

I always grew up religious. I was born and raised in a Catholic family as a child and been down that path until I reached my college years. It wasn't until my sophomore year in college that I was exposed to the bible through a "non-denominational" Christian movement. During the next 10 years, I would read and study the bible from Genesis to Revelations, learning much about God, Jesus, and religion. This stage changed my views on Catholicism and what religiousness meant. I realized how different various religious sects were and how similar they were also. I had a great time with my new friends and was very zealous for God and Jesus during those early years, but only because I thought I had found the "Truth" and wanted to share it with everyone who cared to listen.

As is the case with anything new, the newness eventually disappeared and the monotony of Christian life began to settle in. This caused me to question my beliefs and faith. How can life lose it's joy when I believed that Christianity is the truth and life and love? My life didn't feel that much different than before I became a born-again Christian, even though my mind believed I was different. This made me question what faith meant and what religion's purpose is. It also made me question what Jesus' message really is.

Upon further examination, I came to realize that the questions and doubt in my mind came from the church's teachings and practice, as well as how Christianity seems to interpret the Bible. I felt that faith does not come from doing this and that, but rather we act because of our own convictions. But when the church, religious leaders, and those in the congregation needs to push you in a certain direction, it made me realize that my faith wasn't really mine at all, but rather those around me. That's when I decided to seek my own faith and leave the church because I felt it was creating a group of followers rather than leaders. I believed that true Christians were leaders of the faith. I believed that if you couldn't lead someone, you weren't able to express your faith completely, which meant your understanding of your faith was lacking. That meant you didn't have faith, but rather a mere agreement with those around you to believe the same thing. This isn't faith. This is simply comfort in numbers. So I left without seeking another church because I saw that all churches were the same by design.

For the next 10 years, I went from feeling guilty about "leaving God" because I had left the church, to feeling indifferent about church, to having no interest in being a part of a church. Church became just a group of people to feel secure together, being taken advantage of by their leadership through fear, guilt, and compulsion. I tried to share my new belief that churches had a negative effect on people because it made them comfortable in a belief without having any responsibility for their own faith. But even with this thought, I was still seeking God in my heart.

As I mentioned, I went through a physical condition which I still have no idea what it is/was when I turned 40. In my mind, based on the symptoms, I felt I had a terminal illness because I never felt bad like this before and having lost a friend recently from a brain tumor, I felt that I too must have contracted a fatal disease. It was during this period of my life that I started on the next leg of my spiritual journey.

One night, I had a thought. "What will it be like to die?" That question brought up in my mind the old stories about entering a dark tunnel and going into the light. These stories were typically told by people who had died and survived death. So I decided to look up near-death experiences. What I read simply amazed me! I was reading about people's experiences with life after death! Their stories were different in some ways, but similar in others. That similarity is what caught my attention immediately. To think that people from all different walks of life, beliefs, and times would have a similar experience made me think there must be some truth to this. So I kept reading more and more stories. The more I read, the more I came to the conclusion that religion is man-made and that "God" as the religious community likes to label the Creator, is not what they believe. Their idea of God is so limited in their thinking that it does not do justice by the label "God".

As I continued to read more about what life after death was like, many questions I had while I was of the Christian faith had been answered. Questions such as "why must I be saved?", "why is there evil?", "why doesn't God answer us?", etc. These are questions that both the religious and especially the non-religious ask or use as the reason for not believing in a Creator. The religious use those questions to basically put themselves down to a low level, as one being unworthy and in need of saving. The non-religious use those questions to deny the existence of the Creator and to deny their own true nature. But even these stories of near-death experiences did not answer all of the questions I had. So I kept searching for more information.

For me, the deepest question I had was "Why am I conscious of this life in this body in this time?" I could not understand why I am experiencing life as I am, what consciousness is, why I see out of these two eyes and why my life is the way it is. I'm not referring to the decisions and actions I've taken to bring me to this point in my life. I'm talking about the fact that I am aware of myself in this body and experiencing this life right now. How can I "Be"? It was also this question that made me believe that the religious belief that Jesus came to save us from eternal damnation could not be true. If it was true that God must save us from death, then why do we exist in this imperfect form when God created us this way?

As I kept digging, I came to a couple of books that seemed to have all the answers, at least for the questions I had at this point. These books spoke from people who were experiencing spiritual reality without the veil of ignorance. One problem I had with the near-death experiences was that people did not seem to know what they were experiencing and many were not very deep experiences. I could not understand why that was because if we all die and are taken into "heaven", why is it that everyone sees something different? It wasn't until I read about life between life that some of those questions were answered. I now understood that those who do not die completely have not truly put off their human ego and are seeing what they create in their mind as reality. Because of this, those spirits on the other side tasked with helping those who have recently died create a sort of fake play to help transition the newly deceased back into the spiritual reality. This may sound foolish, but if you realized what we perceive as reality isn't reality, how would that affect a person's psyche? Most likely, it would create a barrier to those not able to cope with the truth (ie. deny the truth) because of their strong belief in one reality. You can see this in people today. Many people believe strongly in one belief or another. For example, many religious believe that heaven consists of the Pearly Gates or Gates of Hell, with angels and demons. I'll talk more about our concepts of reality in another post, but for this point, our beliefs is our reality and that reality becomes manifested by our spirit body. In "life", you do not believe that you create your own reality, but rather believe reality is outside of your control. Once we are in the spirit body through death, the same holds true until the truth is revealed and acknowledged by us. That truth is revealed by those spiritual guides and helpers through the transition period. It is this point that I realized why so many near-death experiencers had differing experiences.

In closing this post, I would like to conclude that my journey into understanding reality is just beginning. My hope is that some others will be helped in this lifetime through my understanding. I do not claim to be some wise-man or a guru. But I do believe my purpose in life is to help people and the way I believe I can help is by helping people understand why they are here. Unlike my time as a Christian, where I would try to force my beliefs upon people in order "save them", my goal now is to educate people on a different perspective about reality and allow those who listen to come to their own conclusions about their reality. I do not believe anyone needs saving from anything except their own limiting beliefs. It is people's beliefs that create reality. Why is there evil? Because people believe in it. Why do people do evil? Because they choose to do it. No excuses, no finger pointing, no scapegoats. Simple as that.

Peace out.

Mac Office 2008 key

2009-10-31T10:17:00.000-07:00

I installed my copy of Office 2008 on my mac, but unlike the Home and Student edition I bought, the Special edition only allows one main installation. I didn't know that, since I got that version through a special offer from Microsoft. I assumed it too would have 3 installation limit. Since I already installed it on my two Macs, I needed to uninstall one and install a new copy. But I found another user (Link) who had a similar issue and his solution was simpler and less time consuming. I only need to go through the setup assistant again to enter my new key.

To change the serial number, product key, CD key, license key, or whatever you want to call the string of characters required to activate a Microsoft product on an existing installation of Office 2008 for Mac, follow these simple steps:

1. Quit all open Office applications to prevent them from clobbering your work
2. Delete the file /Applications/Microsoft Office 2008/Office/OfficePID.plist
3. Delete the file ~/Library/Preferences/Microsoft/Office 2008/Microsoft Office 2008 Settings.plist
4. Launch one of the Office applications to go through the Setup Assistant and enter the new license key

World economy unsustainable - mother of all ponzi schemes

2009-06-08T17:46:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder how everyone can supposedly get richer? Compared to the 1930's the average worker in the US earns significantly higher wages today than they did nearly 80 years ago. At the same time, the cost of goods has also risen but at a slower pace. Why is that? On the surface, the answer is obvious: inflation. But what exactly causes inflation?

Assume the economy had a total of $10 dollars, and 5 people lived in this world. Assuming each person received $2 each, there would be $10 of total money supply in the system. Let's say one person is smarter than the others. He invents the wheel. Each wheel costs $1 each and it costs 50 cents in material and labor. 2 persons think it's helpful for them, so they each buy one. That leaves $1 to 2 persons, the 1 person hires the 2 that didn't buy a wheel at a rate of 50 cents each wheel. That means at the end of 1 goods cycle, 1 person would have $3, 2 persons would have $1 plus a wheel, and 2 persons would have $2.50. The world economy still only has $10 of total money supply, but now 2 persons converted 1 of their dollar into a wheel. Unless those two can figure out how to take money from the other 3 using that wheel, they'll never have more than $1 now. What this example shows is that in a closed economic system, you have a balance between money supply, labor, and goods. The money supply is constantly shifting between people as they trade the money for goods. No good will sell for more than can be afforded by the people (since they can only buy what they have money for), and the amount of goods available would never go beyond the total demand. If one couldn't afford to pay, they could borrow from another with the intent of paying that back. Although they could lend and borrow, the key difference between reality and my example is that there would be no interest due and the credit would come out of their pocket! With no interest due, even with credit, there would remain $10 in the entire economy and every good would still remain at fixed prices. The only effect would be the borrower would have more money in hand, but they would still have to repay the money somehow.

Now what happens when the population grows? Let's say the world grows by 7 person that year. We now have 12 persons in the world, but still only have $10 in the economy. Eventually, those 7 extra persons will add to the work force and the net effect will be a lowering of wages due to an increase of labor. But along with that come more efficiency leading to higher productivity (assuming a perfect world where everyone contributes work). Therefore, even though the population grew, the supply of goods grow as well due to an increase in productivity. This leads to lower wages, but it also leads to lower prices and this reduction of money supply in the economy (because the population grew, but the total amount of money stayed constant) is called deflationary. Again, the net money supply remains constant.

Granted, this is all a bit of an "Amish-world" scenario where every member of society contributes work when capable, and everyone buys within their means.

Now let's take a look at what happens when one person who lends, we'll call him brother Fed, decides he wants to be paid to lend his hard earned money. He adds a surcharge called "interest" to the amount due. Now, if a person borrows $1, and the lender charges him 10% to borrow it, the borrower must repay $1.10. How does he repay that? In our fictional world, he would have to work harder to earn that extra 10 cents, or forgo buying something to save that 10 cents. So as you can see, interest alone is not a big deal, since it just means the borrower must be more productive in his earnings or consume even less.

Now let's suppose the same borrower goes to brother Fed, and brother Fed decides he's not willing to risk all of his hard earn money. So instead, he gives the borrower his money in the form of an IOU. The IOU is good because brother Fed says it's good and he's got the net value to back it up. The other 10 persons in this world decides that's as good as cash and accept brother Fed's IOU. What just happened? Well, brother Fed in essence, introduce $1 of new money into the world economy. Now, we no longer have $10 in the world, but $11! $10 is real, $1 is imaginary. But the world moves on because the IOU is accepted as tender so the net effect is to have an economy worth $11! Now that is a big problem! We just introduced $1 into the world that didn't exist anymore, but productivity hasn't changed at all! In fact, Brother Fed, the lender, still has his $1 that he didn't lend, and the borrower has his original $1, but he also has this imaginary $1! They're both going to compete for the same amount of goods, but with 1 person with more money than they normally would have, they can afford to buy more than their share of goods, taking supply away from the other people! Now those people either accept paying higher prices for the goods to compete, or they go without.

As you can see from my example, there were at least two consequences to the introduction of imaginary money into the world. One, prices will go up above the equilibrium due to an increase in money supply, NOT goods supply. However, that's just the initial effects. The other major consequence is that those who live within their means can no longer afford the rising prices as much as they could before. Therefore, their standard of living has just dropped. Unless they can earn more to compensate, they will eventually end up in the poor house! A side effect to prices going up is that with the extra money, the borrower can invest that extra money into other things rather than goods or labor. Specifically, one could spend that money on advancements in technology. With an investment in technology, you could increase productivity without increasing labor cost. That can have the effect of increasing goods supply, but initially, it will affect prices due to the increased upfront cost for the technology (capital investment). Over time, however, the increased productivity will eventually lead to an oversupply, and lower prices, if demand grows.

I mentioned two concepts in my example, interest on borrowing, and imaginary money supply based on credit. What happens when these two combine? Bad things happen. Very bad things. In fact, this is the start of a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment term used to describe a situation where money is invested, but not enough money is made on that investment to repay the original investor. In order to repay the original investor their due return, more money from more investors are needed. Eventually, only those initially in the scheme get paid while the masses afterward get less and less of their money back. With interest and imaginary money, you have the same problem. When someone borrows money from the bank, that money is imaginary money. It's created out of thin air as an IOU. That's why it's called credit. The bank is crediting your account with that amount you're borrowing. It can be withdrawn as cash, but it's still imaginary money that was introduced into the economy out of thin air. Now the bank wants you to repay that money with interest. But here's the catch. The interest due is NOT created out of thin air as imaginary money. In fact, you have to earn that interest from the existing money pool.

So going to my example of brother Fed. He lends an IOU, but also charges 10% interest. The borrower must not only repay that IOU, but he has to either earn that 10%, or go without to save that 10%. But remember, because of the introduction of imaginary money, the cost of goods just went up! Now people will have to spend more of their limited money to stay alive. How does the borrower repay that 10%? Most likely, he'll invest that borrowed money and make it work for them. But that just means less money in the hands of the other 11 people out of 12. Now those other 10 (assume the lender is ok because of his little business making money out of thin air) can't survive due to prices increased from an increase in money supply. They go to brother Fed and ask for a loan to pay off their bills. They too owe 10% on the borrowed, but now Fed has just added even more imaginary money into the world. Now imagine everyone doing that over and over, not only to pay for goods, but also to repay their old debt obligations! Can you see how you can never have enough real money to pay back the imaginary money, nevermind the interest? This is a classic ponzi scheme! You borrow more money to repay borrowed money.

Our world is no different today from my example. Our money system used to be backed by hard commodities (gold). Today, it's just a piece of paper, an IOU. That in and of itself would be ok as a means of value exchange, as long as the money supply equaled the world net worth (ie. no imaginary money). But add the Federal Reserve, banks, and fractional reserve lending into the picture, and now you've got a world of imaginary money making its way into the economy! Ever wonder why prices keep going up and wages keep going up? That's because the money supply is constantly increasing. This is what leads to inflation! Why do we need inflation? Because we owe creditors not only the principal amount borrowed, but interest that wasn't created as imaginary money. Like I demonstrated in my example, with the increase in money supply in the world, you have an increase in spending capacity, and increase in productivity due to technology or a change in labor costs, either up or down, depending on the use of the debt. When wages drop, the worker might have to borrow to buy goods they want, which sustains or increases demand, which can cause prices to rise. When wages increase, that extra money supply in the economy creates more demand for the same supply, causing prices to rise. In either case, the effects of borrowing is felt throughout the economy as strong demand. If people didn't borrow imaginary money to exist, there would not be an increase in money supply to create more demand, as people would be used to living within their means (no money, no buying).

This example is my plain English description of what happens when interest and credit through fractional reserve lending exists. I didn't even mention the additional burden on the economy through taxes and non-productive costs.

Can a world exist where interest and imaginary money didn't exist? Unfortunately, no. That's what we call utopia, or paradise, or heaven. It's where people are not filled with greed, wants, desires, and selfish motivation. Instead, we live in our world, where those who have seek more, and those who don't borrow to have. This is what leads to destruction of civilizations because the basic human desire for more leads to corruption and ultimately to their demise.

So why did I write this? In the hope that people will realize that borrowing money for the sake of spending it is not good for them, or the country, or the world. It's what has caused the current economic crisis, and it's what will eventually lead to a decline in living standards as the have's continue to take from the rest of the world through interest and imaginary money, while the have-not's pretend to have by borrowing from the have's.

How to kill sessions in Oracle

2009-06-08T15:59:00.001-07:00

To kill a session in Oracle, first find the SID and serial # of the session:

select sid, serial#, username, status from v$session where username=upper('username');

Next, use the alter system command to kill the session (note the SID and serial # in single quotes):

alter system kill session 'sid, serial#';

Connect to remote Oracle server using SQL*Plus

2009-06-08T15:58:00.001-07:00

To connect to a remote Oracle instance using SQL*Plus, at the prompt enter:

> connect username@hostname