Avatar and Spirituality

Spirituality is all over James Cameron's latest movie "Avatar", but not in places where you expect spirituality to be.

This review will assume that you have watched the film (warning, spoilers are included) as I will just lightly comment on the non-spiritual aspects of the film before getting quite in depth with the spiritual angle which I sense within the film.

I am not the typical movie watcher. I hardly watch movies since my short attention span would not allow me to stay put watching a movie. "Avatar" is nearly 3 hours long. But with all the positive reviews coming in from film critics and typical movie watchers, I could not help but watch it myself.



James Cameron has done it again. "Avatar" has greatly impressed a very large audience. Film critics as well as the typical moviegoers have given it an outstanding rating. The volume of movie tickets sold show the enthusiasm of the typical moviegoers to watch it. Other people like me who don't usually watch movies also end up seeing it. Several people are watching it multiple times probably impressed by the 3d version in several moviehouses.

Although the film's genre is science fiction, a broad spectrum of people are watching it too. The film has an anti-war theme. The humans even used the phrases, "shock and awe" and "fight terror with terror". The film could could even be considered environmentalist. This is not a typical war film like James Cameron's "Terminator" that appeals to your masculinity, but also a highly sensitive film that appeals to your feminine side with its angles of environmentalism and yes, spirituality.



Although some reviews have stated that some of the lines in the movie have been seen elsewhere, there are other angles which are quite new to me. In this film, the aliens are not exactly the enemy. The aliens are not the conquerors, but instead the ones to be conquered. The aliens though technically inferior, have a spirituality which is seemingly more evolved than that of humans.

Below is a good youtube that explains the planet Pandora



James Cameron has had this film in the back of his mind years back, but hesitated to produce it since the technology at that time was not good enough to create good visual effects. The first time I glanced at the trailer at "youtube", I assumed that the film was a cartoon.

James Cameron in this "youtube" post explains the techology in the film. The film is not an animation.



Although the CGI (computer generated imagery) and military hardware overwhelmed me on the onset, I was shocked to find the film with highly spiritual overtones.

This started as early as the first conversation between Jake Sully and Neytiri, a female Navi. After Neytiri rescues Jake from possible death due to his encounter with the animals, Neytiri raises her voice and says that he is "Like a baby". Funny, that Neytiri uses the word "baby". Neytiri feels that Jake is not killing the animals out malice or food. She feels that he is needlessly killing them since he could have prevented their attack in the first place. Some animals are territorial and Jake being in the wrong place at the wrong time has made him a victim. Being a baby would roughly be synonymous with being "ignorant". Ignorant in the sense that Jake does not know any better. Jake is also ignorant of the idea of living in harmony with nature. Neytiri assumes that Jake believes in control and not in harmony with the animals. Later in the film, this concept of "harmony with nature" will be one of the underlying themes of the movie which I find so beautiful. While highly capitalistic countries have underlying policies such as conquered or be conquered, this film promotes oneness not only with other tribes or god, but as well as the animals and the plants.

Spirituality then became even more obvious when Jake was brought to Neytiri's tribe and was face to face with Mo'at, Neytiri's mother. Mo'at was to decide the fate of Jake. Jake expressed willingness to learn the ways of the Navi, but Mo'at raised her voice and said, "It is hard to fill a cup that is already full". Jake replied quite quickly, "My cup is empty". These last two lines did it. I was hooked and was engrossed with the rest of the film, straining my ears to every line which any one of the Navi's said. Later even Jake became profound.

Just to show how profound those two lines were check out the quotes below.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/philosophy.htm

It's said that the only way to understand Buddhism is to practice it. Through practice, one perceives its transformative power. A Buddhism that remains in the realm of concepts and ideas is not Buddhism. The robes, ritual and other trappings of religion are not a corruption of Buddhism, as some imagine, but expressions of it.

There's a Zen story in which a professor visited a Japanese master to inquire about Zen. The master served tea. When the visitor's cup was full, the master kept pouring. Tea spilled out of the cup and over the table.

"The cup is full!" said the professor. "No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," said the master, "You are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

If you want to understand Buddhism, empty your cup.

As Neytiri goes around the forest with Jake, she teaches him the ways of the navi. Jake is taught to bind with a Direhorse by physically connecting his hair to the animal. Neytiri says, "The bond, feel her heartbeat, her breath, feel her strong legs, you may tell her what to do."

http://www.thewomenwarriors.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=602

One purely shamanic technique has been called grokking, a form of shapeshifting. The healer enters the etheric body and melds into that of the person, animal, or thing to be healed or repaired. Once consciousnesses are joined, the problem and solution are sensed and the defect fixed. You can grok people, animals, forces, or things.

Jake here is taught to bind with the animal so that the animal and him are one, so that they function as one living entity. Later, Jake will also use the same technique with a Mountain Banshee, a flying creature which Jake will learn to ride just as he rides his Direhourse. In some kinds of spirituality, when binding is done, the binder and bindee become one to such a degree that the binder does not have to use his intellect. He knows not because of logic, but he knows because in a way him and the object or living creature are one.

Later, even Jake and Neytiri bind to each other. Neytiri says, "inside. I see into you."

This binding and oneness is later explained by the film, Jake talks about what he is trying to comprehend from the Navi, he talks to himself and says, "flow of energy, spirit of animals, network of energy that flows through all living things".

Does this sound all too familiar? It should if you watch Star Wars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes

Obi-Wan: The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope

Ben Kenobi: Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.

James Cameron goes to great lengths to make the movie have a mass appeal. Even with the profound spirituality intact, he tries to make the whole thing sound logical. Grace, the scientist, tries to explain the whole interconnection thing scientifically, "its more connections to the human brain, get it, its a network, its a global network and the navi can access it, they can upload and download data, memories...". When you come to think of it, the interconnectivity of the Navi are indeed like computers on a network or on the internet.

My heart goes out to Jake when he says, "Everything is backwards now, out there is the true world and here is the dream." Jake has fallen in love with the Navi and their culture. From a relatively shallow perspective, we could say that Jake prefers his masculine physical self as an avatar than with his crippled self as a human. From the point of view though of a highly spiritual being that can go to the other side and come back to the material world at will, this material plane could be considered 'the dream'. Have you ever really thought why the movie has been such a success? The movie (at least for me) runs me through a range of emotions which is very different from that of other movies. It's as if I have been experiencing heaven and Pandora could be said to mimic heaven. Take off the vicious animals, fights between tribes and see what you have.

There are several scenes or even themes which are evocative of an incorporeal and heavenly world.

First of all the whole movie has a planet which is quite luminous. Below are accounts of near death experiences. A near death experience occurs when the spirit, soul or astral body of a person leaves the physical body and travels elsewhere. In the next cases, the astral body travels to another incorporeal world.

http://www.near-death.com/nightingale.html

My transition was gradual as a result of having a terminal disease - as opposed to a sudden one incurred from accidents, heart attacks, etc. I became aware of a "Being of Light" enveloping me. Everything was stunningly beautiful - so vibrant and luminous … and so full of life - yes, life! – in ways that one would never see or experience on the physical plane. I was totally and completely enveloped in divine Love. It was unconditional love … in the truest sense of the word. I was in constant communion with this Light and always aware of its loving presence with me at all times. Consequently, there was no sense of fear whatsoever … and I was never alone. This was a special opportunity to experience being at one with the ALL - never separate … and never at a loss.

The colors were so beautiful - watching the Light whirl all round me, pulsating and dancing … making whooshing sounds … and being ever so playful at times … then very serious at other times. Many things would take on a luminous glow - a sort of soft peach color. Everything was so vibrant - even when I saw deep space! I was constantly in a state of awe … There were always beautiful beings round me as well - helping me … guiding me … reassuring me … and also pouring love into me. I was never alone.

http://www.near-death.com/andreason.html

Glorious. There are many levels and dimensions in the Realm. There are great cities very similar to the ones we live in now, only these places have great harmony and balance to them. I saw whole cities made of gold and precious stones. One city that always stays in the back of my mind is a great metropolis made entirely out of what looked to be sapphires. It glows with the most luminous blue and white Light. It reminds me of a white Christmas tree with beautiful blue glass balls. I had a knowing that this place was where Loving Christ-like communicators choose to gather and exchange thoughts. There is a tremendous amount of Love and Grace in Heaven. No matter where you go, the feeling of Love and Joy is everywhere. There is no other place you would rather be.

Also notice the prevalence of the color "blue" in the quoted paragraph above. Blue, indigo, and violet is supposed to be colors denoting high evolution. Red, orange, green are supposed to be more "materialistic" colors. Yellow is supposed to be somewhere in between. Try to notice color themes in popular occurrences in life. When it comes to food, use less spiritual colors. Don't use blue, indigo or violet. Those colors don't turn on the appetite. Mcdonalds uses red. Jollibee, the competitor of Mcdonalds here in the Philippines uses orange. Blues are used to calm down people. Remember the "blue screen of death". This is the screen which the windows operating system uses when it encounters an error. I wouldn't say that the Navi are very calm, a lot of the Navi expressed frustration or even anger several times, but their high spiritual evolution is suggested by blue.

Several scenes in the movie also have material things which suggest spiritual counterparts.

Large trees to the Navi are very sacred. These trees could symbolize the connection of the Navi to their God Eywa. The trees could be said to reach up to the sky reminiscent of ancient people creating towers to reach god. When the Navi pray as one, they pray around the tree. Then there are also scenes where white luminous vines reach down the tree just short of reaching down on the Navi's heads. The vines could signify the energy of Eywa reaching down to heal the Navi. In one scene Jake even connects his hair to one of the vines and hears voices. The Navi have the capability to bind with everything, Jake binded with his Direhorse, Mountain Banshee and even the tree.

If you will notice, the large tree have double helices (plural for helix). Helices are sometimes used as the centers of objects or living entities. Energy is said to flow within the helix, similar to the center of a magnet. Humans are said to have these helices at their spines. Clairvoyants are said to see these helices even in the centers of angels.

Now talking of angels, remember the "seeds of Eywa"? These are those white things which enveloped Jake at the beginning of the film. That scene prompted Neytiri to bring Jake to her tribe. Did you notice the roughly 'spherical structure, with "hairs" emanating from the top, flowing to the bottom. They look just look like a magnet with one pole only visible. In spirituality, there is this saying that "like attracts like". If the "seeds of Eywa" were indeed angels, approaching Jake and engulfing him would definitely send a message to Neytiri.

http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm

So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.

Eywa is not your typical theistic God. Neytiri says, "our great mother does not take sides Jake, she protects only the balance of life." Well ok, at the end it seems that Neytiri ate her words, but if she said that, it's possible that Eywa has been doing that previously. The word "God" is different to different people. Some will consider God to be simply watching, but a lot(if you notice what people pray for these days) will hope that God can be "coerced" to side with them.

One scene which elicits a different kind of emotion is when Jake and Neytiri "bind". According to some websites, this sex scene will be available in the dvds. But even without any sex the progression in that scene when Jake is told that he can choose a woman makes it clear that they will finally make love. Under the tree with the luminous vines dropping, sex becomes a holy experience(vines as earlier discussed probably symbolize the energy from God). The holiness of the place is also reinforced when Neytiri says, "this is a place where prayers to heard and sometimes answered." Luckily for Jake and Neytiri, recreational sex is not a taboo with the Navi.

When Jake and Grace transfer from their human bodies to their avatars, one can see them as if going through a tunnel of light. Below is a summarization of people who have had NDE's (near death experiences)

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research16.html

One of the nine elements that generally occur during NDEs is the tunnel experience. This involves being drawn into darkness through a tunnel, at an extremely high speed, until reaching a realm of radiant golden-white light. Also, although they sometimes report feeling scared, they do not sense that they were on the way to hell or that they fell into it. Instead of a tunnel, some people report rising suddenly into the heavens and seeing the Earth and the celestial sphere as they would be seen by astronauts in space. Once on the other side of the tunnel, or after they have risen into the heavens, the dying meet people who glow with an inner light. Often they find that friends and relatives who have already died are there to greet them.

One twist to the experience is the final moments of Grace. Grace was said to go to Eywa. Grace experience brilliant light at the end of the tunnel.

Jake at the end had his permanent transfer to his avatar body done. He even hinted about it with his last line "my birthday after all". The line signifies his new life as if being reincarnated into a new body, but this time not of a human, but a Navi.

I have no idea if James Cameron consciously placed those symbolisms there or if his intuitive artists did under his supervision. Nevertheless what came out of it was a damn good movie which stirred the very innards of my soul.

As stated by Plato and also stated similarly in the book "Conversations with God"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversations_with_God

We are not here to learn anything new but to remember what we already know

Is one of the reasons of success of the movie due to our 'remembering' what we already know? Are we remembering a society or belief system which we existed in or believed in the past?

Just think of it, rather feel, what exactly in the movie "Avatar" did you get drawn to.

For those still curious about the spirituality of the Navi, hopefully we won't have to wait too long, James Cameron has stated that he plans to make a trilogy!

http://www.topsongs.ismywebsite.com/?p=3109

“We’ll follow Jake and Neytiri,” Cameron told MTV’s Josh Horowitz in an interview at the pre-release “Avatar” junket in London. “I have a trilogy-scaled arc of story right now, but I haven’t really put any serious work into writing a script,” he said.

Hopefully James Cameron will think by then that our "cups are not yet full, but empty." It is nice to see spirituality go mainstream with the same angle that "Avatar" has seemed to do. No moralizing, no need for faith, and a spirituality which is believable and one that resonates with the times.

Is 'Sexual Perversion' Unnatural?

I have heard of this angle of reasoning several times. I have read elsewhere that some religious people called the man-on-top position as the 'missionary position' since it was the position which us humans are supposed to use when making love. Any other sexual position is frowned upon. If that is true, than what a about all the other sexual activities which people engage in are they really considered perversions?

So what then constitutes perversion? Some say that it something which isn't normal, something which has no redeeming value, something which is done even though it is of no use. My goodness, if that is the case, why bother hitting on sex alone. There are so many things which man does which is not constructive at all, but still we humans do it because we are entertained by it. Life is to be lived and I do not find anything wrong with entertaining onesself as long as one doesn't hurt anyone else. With sex with two consenting adults what then is the problem with doing what they want.

For me, the whole idea is ridiculous. To show you how ridiculous I find it, just take a look at food. Food was meant primarily for sustaining us, entertainment is secondary. Sex was meant primarily for procreation, entertainment is secondary. If people can cook good meals, add seasoning and add artificial coloring to entertain themselves even when the resulting food has no additional nutritional value, then why can't we treat sex the same way.

To show you how much 'perverted' food is in comparison to sex, people now can't even recognize where there food comes from. Is a tomato a vegetable or a plant? Worse yet, where does chocolate come from. And how about food coloring. Why is banana catsup color red and not yellow, another 'perversion'. This 'perverted' food is not only entertaining us but is causing our deaths from wrong usage/consumption. I have heard from people travelling abroad that in some countries a sizeable percentage of people are obese, not only fat but obese. Some articles suggest that this country is losing it's competitive edge since a sizeble amount of their tax is now going to healthcare. Obesity as well as other diseases are preventable diseases. These diseases are not due to your genes but due to your lack of discipline to eat what is right.

Are you complaining that a lot of people are dying from HIV? How about the number of people dying from 'sedentary lifestyles' (http://www.newstarget.com/001547.html) According to that article 'Sedentary lifestyle causes more deaths than smoking, says study'. The website (www.newstarget.com) where that article comes from has so many more articles which explain how a wrong diet and lack of exercise cause disease or even death.

Let's say we meet 4 people in the afterlife, one obese, one a smoker, another a drinker, and the last a sexually liberated man. They all die early from their vises, imagine what each would say. The obese man would say that he wouild pig out everyday, that's why he died early. The smoker would say that he would smoke two packs a day, drunkard would say that he would get drink a bottle of scotch everyday, and the last one, the sexually liberated man would say that he would go to bed with a different woman every night. Who do you think lived a happier life.

The Middle Path

I just turned on my internet connection and on 'Yahoo' I see the article 'American Buddhism on the rise'. It's about time, of all the spiritual disciplines, I like Buddhism best. It is the most rational and most practical religion I have ever encountered.

One of the important features of buddhism is the idea of the 'Middle Path', in 'wikipedia' it is defined as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_path

'The Middle Way or Middle Path (Sanskrit Madhyama Marga, Pali Majjhima Magga) is the Buddhist philosophy expounded by Gautama Buddha. Sometimes summarised as the practice of non-extremism; a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and opposing self-mortification.'

Although I like Buddhism, I still make changes to ideas that I read. Attachment or craving is also an important facet of Buddhism. Craving is talked about in 'Four Noble Truths'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_noble_truths

'Nirodha: Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering:

It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, and non-reliance on it'

When we add the two ideas up, we can also say that the middle path is the path between 'craving' and 'not craving'. This is of course my idea, whether Buddha himself would agree with me is something else. To yet add another idea, I believe that staying statically in the center between 'craving' and 'not craving' is somewhat boring. So I personally 'oscillate between the two extreems' of craving and not craving. For a highly simplified idea of what I do, I go through materiality and live like a hedonist for a certain period of time, then when my mind is about to start getting attached, I withdraw to a period of non-attachment. When the non-attachment makes me regain my 'sanity' and begins to get boring, then I go back to my hedonist phase. (I have replaced 'craving' with 'attachment' since they are similar).

The procedure seems to work well for me, but some of my friends can't figure me out. Attachment to me is the start of suffering. If that is so, then what I did, is enjoy life without getting attached. Enjoy the moment, but don't expect it to happen tomorrow, don't expect your friends or loved ones to even be there tomorrow, but love them just the same. Be sweet and affectionate to everyone and anyone with no attachment on whether they are liars, hypocrits or whatever, just enjoy their company. Attachment need not be only on material things, but also on love, expectations and other personal relationships.

For a more in depth explanation, check out my previously published book which I have placed on the web.

http://rickym3.blogspot.com/2006/09/force-rediscovering-obvious.html.

The Philippines Isn't too Bad

After hearing so many times that the Philippines is financially deteriorating, I decided to ask people who grew up in the province. Just this week, I met a person who grew up in La Union. She said that life in her province isn't too bad. Actually based on the people I have asked in the past few months, it seems that life in the other provinces aren't also that bad. While income in the province is a lot lower than here in Manila, expenses are also much lower. With ten thousand pesos, all of the people I asked, claimed that one can leave a very reasonable simple life in the province. That amount of money would even include rent, electricity and water in a modest room which you need not share with anybody. That small room could even have a small kitchen.

Just a few years back, I had believed that life in the province was terrible. I would here stories of people with no jobs, or people who just aren't paid enough. I was told of stories in haciendas where people would remain poor. Yet here I was, talking to these supposedly poor people who work in manila with jobs as waitresses, bartenders and like that claim that life is fine in the province. So I asked them, if life is fine there, why did they come here. It seems that a number of the people who transfer here want to earn fast money working as guest relations officrs(GRO's) or work in similar industries. Others have just transferred because they find life in the province too dull. They say that sometimes the whole barrio is asleep by 8pm.

For those that come here due to poverty, I noticed that one major cause was having too many brothers and sisters. Their parents just could not financially support them. This condition was usually amplified if the parents would separate, or if the working parent would grow too ill to work. Sometimes, the children who come here are runaways who refuse to go to school or bolt from overly strict parents. Others are forced to stop school to work due to an unanticipated pregnancy.

If you notice, in the preceding paragraph, the reasons for poverty are really due to unforseen circumstances. Lack of planning, lack of discipline, or in the case of a parent not supporting his/her child just because he/she left his/her spouse for another person, lack of concern.

Filipino's are relatively a happy-go-lucky bunch of people. As I've heard, in other countries, you need an appointment to talk to your friend, in here talking and texting is a pasttime. In countries in the temperate zones, lack of foresight could be fatal in winter. With relatively better weather here, a lot of us have grown less determined to fight for survival. I also think Filipinos are too soft and too nice. When a worker does a job, sometimes he will not even quote his price, sometimes he just says that it is up to you. Worse, sometimes he may even refuse payment, even if he is poorer than the person he is doing the work for. In contrast there were two cases when a foreigner asked me to install internet on his computer. I just bought a 100 peso internet card to provide him with the service. After paying me for the card, they even insisted on giving me a few hundred pesos more.

I think that trouble starts when simple people work for ambitious people. Ambitious people will pay for what they can get away with, in contrast with what the work is worth. Simple people on the other hand will just take whatever is given. Is this what is happening to the provinces where poverty exists. Is this also what is happening in Manila. I really haven't interviewed enough people to say that this is the case.

What if the province only had simple people? Some would say that with no ambitious people, there would be no jobs. I don't think so, here in Manila, I have walked in these areas and have found that there are a lot of self employment which people could have. Some have a little grocery store. For those who can't invest as much, they could start a small tailoring business. They could fix electrical appliances. Others have little eating places, others sell rice, or barbecued food. In the province, I remember that our neighbor in the back even had a few pigs, and no, they didn't smell. Now, some people even sell cellphone load from their cellphones.

So we see that life is not so bad in the province. What surprised me though is that the person who I talked with a few days ago said that it is not hard even to be quite rich in the province. In La Union, she said that the people who have resorts which cater to tourists rake it in. I guess the idea is to cater to the people coming from Manila while having the low expenses in the province. She said that one just has to be hardworking to be fine. Take note, she said hardworking, she didn't say that one has to be intelligent or even have a college degree.

Reason, Gut Feel or Faith

A lot of religions are faith based. I got surprised when I found out that one was not. Buddhism claims to be logical. Buddha even went to an extent to show how logical he was by instructing the kalamas with what is known now as the Kalama Sutta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutra).

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing ;
nor upon rumor ;
nor upon what is in a scripture ;
nor upon tradition
nor upon surmise;
nor upon an axiom;
nor upon specious reasoning;
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over;
nor upon another's seeming ability;
nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher."
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

I find the writing, very nice, concise and direct to the point, something I frankly woulnd't expect from a religion. Buddhism though did not stop at rationalization, how then would buddha be able to explain his views on the afterlife and even his previous reincarnations. Although the public was urged to test ideas given by faith with logic, it seemed that the more enlightened ones would acquire knowledge from still other sources.

Different people have different ways of getting knowledge. Some use the words gut feel, intuition, even divine inspiration. I prefer to use the term intuition, 'gut feel 'to me sounds like I'm waiting for a disaster to happen and the term 'divine inspiration' seems to suggest that the person who gets the knowledge can not be questioned because it is from God. I feel that all intuition must be taken with a grain of salt and validated before being taken seriously. Schizophrenics also receive messages by hearing voices in their heads, but they are not necessarily correct.

Different strokes for different folks. I feel that if one is enlightened, or simply deeply intuitive, he/she must be able to discern what is right or wrong because he/she has evolved to such a state that just thinking of doing something bad is disgusting to him/her. This person does things not out of faith, not out of fear from retribution of people, not out of fear of going to hell, but simply because he/she knows what is right and wrong. Other people though who are not yet in this state, have to be told what to do, what is right and wrong. If this is the case, then so be it, it is best that they behave out of faith than out of intuition.

There are those who believe that man must believe in God. They feel that without any concept in God, man will go amock and do what is wrong. Excuse me, not all people are like that, there are people who behave even when they are not threatened. Buddhists are basically atheist, they have no belief in a creator God. How often have you heard of an unpleasant Buddhist. People who are inherently good are better than people who have to be threatened to be good. If you have a dog, would you want a dog who only behaves when it is on a leash, or a dog which behaves even when it is not on a leash.

Will Everything Ultimately be Answerable by Science

As of now, there is still much to be learned from about our planet. It's been a long time since man has even gone down to the bottom of the ocean. And there's definitely a lot more to be learned from our solar system(did you know Pluto is no longer considered a planet), not to mention all of the other galaxies.

A lot of ideas which before would be considered as givens are now being questioned. In the beginning there was Newtonian physics, then there was an extention of physics which was added by Albert Einstein. Mass of an object was not anymore constant. Time does not necessarily progress from past to present to future.

Luckily scientist know this and have no qualms about changing theories about the world. We have different theories how the universe was created. So much is changing.

Sometimes I begin to wonder, will the influx of new discoveries ever stop? And at the rate this is going, what shall we discover next? People are beginning to test cloning. Will immortality come in the future?

When I was young, I tried to read very hard a certain book. The book was 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics

The full title is 'The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism'. I remember that the heavy physics left me 'brain dead' and certain parts were such that I could make no sense of them at all. Some parts which I vaguely remember is that it was explaining that in Eastern Mysticism, Taoism states that there is Yin and Yang(Feminine and Masculine). In Science you shall notice that when you look at building blocks of matter we also have positive and negative charges of particles. Both show that polarity exists in a lot of things. In Easterm mysticism we are taught that with God, everything is viewed as one and that the separation of past, present and future does not exist. We are taught in Physics that in certain conditions time is not what it seems to be, time may even stop. Time are not viewed as a flow from past to present to future. That book was in 1975.

Will Science eventually catch up and explain the ideas in Easterm Mysticism? Will Science eventually explain the concept of God? How about the ideas concerning the afterlife. Is the law of karma really a scientific law which has somehow just been tied up to morality?

To make things worse, is God the one who made the laws of the universe, or is God just a more 'superior' entity which is still bound by the laws of the universe. If so, then God may not necessarily benevolent. Are we just creatures created by our creator for his/her pure pleasure and does he/she just consider us as one of the creatures, just the same way we enjoy watching animals in a zoo?

Blasphemous as those ideas may sound, you can't help but think. A number of religions though are based on faith, so with this, a lot of people don't think but just rely on hope.

Extending furthur, how about tackling the idea of religion. Is religion really a means to the truth, or was it made only to serve a purpose, the purpose to keep people good till they die, just the same way parents keep us good, by telling us to be good till Christmas so that Santa will give us good gifts on Christmas.

Could I request the readers to comment? I would want to know your ideas. I might follow up your comments with additional articles. Thanks in advance!

Suicidal Ants

http://www.stnews.org/News-1301.htm

When the experts looked to nature, they encountered suicide bombers among the ants. Bert Holldobler and Edward O. Wilson, in their book Journey to the Ants: A Story of Scientific Exploration, explain that the colony is the unit of meaning in the lives of ants. For the loyal, sterile worker ant, the key issue is the protection of both its queen ant and its worker brothers and reproductive sisters so that they can survive to establish new colonies. In one ant species, worker ants will voluntarily commit suicide to defend their colony, exploding themselves by muscular contraction to spray poison over their enemies. Holldobler and Wilson call destroying enemies by committing suicide in defense of the colony “the ultimate sacrifice in public service” for the ant.

Interesting. The problem with this idea, is that it seems to conflict with the the idea of natural selection'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. Natural selection works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in adaptations and speciation (see evolution).

Isn't 'natural selection' one of the ideas of evolution? As it says 'individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce', why then has this kind of ants survived? One possibility is that the specific ant specie which they are in actually thrives better due to this specific kind of ants within them, hence making this specie more survivable. I really don't know, we might as well ask a 'evolution' expert on this one.

Phone Telepathy

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/05/telepathy.reut/index.html

"Each person in the trials was asked to give researchers names and phone numbers of four relatives or friends. These were then called at random and told to ring the subject who had to identify the caller before answering the phone.

"The hit rate was 45 percent, well above the 25 percent you would have expected," he told the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

"The odds against this being a chance effect are 1,000 billion to one."

I still don't know if I'm capable of doing this. Too few people call me at home. I do however do something else which at times has freaked several of my friends. When people think of me, there are times when I call them up on the phone after or sometimes even during the time they are still talking about me. The time elapsed between they talking or even thinking about me varies. If we haven't talked for years sometimes the elapsed time is around two weeks, but if we are close and we have just talked within the week, the elapsed time can be minutes. We may all really be connected in some sort of way, just the same way people who are in love seem to know how their loved ones are.

What Sacrifice?

I just came from a talk this morning on volunteerism on helping the less fortunate. Some speakers described that they had transferred to volunteerism since their materialistic lifestyle then had left them feeling empty.

A lot of people assume that helping others involves sacrifice. I had believed this for years, that an 'investment' in sacrifice will give you a proper place in heaven. But as I grow. I discover that helping does give me pleasure so different from pleasure derived from material acquisition. If so, would this still be considered sacrifice?

Helping people involves a certain amount of love(for lack of a better term). I have yet to see religious scripture that doesn't believe in loving one another, and yet as people grow old if you'll notice, their love seems to only encompass their spouse and their children. When a person is not committed, they say that that person will grow up lonely. Huh? People have friends don't they, or do people think that friends are just there to be used. Who says that old people can't have young friends. If some people who are socially unequipped can find friends on the Internet, why can't old people find friends? Then when a person is childless they say he/she is unfulfilled. When he/she says that he/she will adopt, they say "but the kid is not your own blood!". Well, I still think that some people can love even though there is no commitment or if they are not related by blood.

Whatever happened to religiosity. Is religious hypocrisy alive and well on planet earth, or is or do people only want to believe the part of their religion that they agree with. And then I heard a woman say "but only God can give unconditional love". The bad thing is that people who can't give unconditional love sometimes actually look down on people who can give unconditional love. People who can give unconditonal love are not necessarily abnormal, it's just that they are not typical.

So the next time you look at a volunteer or a single person, look at him/her with a different set of eyes. Not only is he/she enjoying himself/herself, you may also be missing out on a big part of your life.

Who's the Coward

Euthanasia has always been a contraversial topic. A number of people claim that people do not have the right to take their own lives, even if they are bedridden with a terminal and painful disease. Some will claim that it is 'a waste of life'.

If a person who is in severe depression, incoherent and unable to decide for himself commits suicide, then I would call this 'a waste of life'. But for those who have lived fruitful lives and have been able to finish all their responsibilities and commitments, whose extension of life only causes them to be a burden to themselves and society, then I feel that suicide is justifiable. To call people who end their lives due to this reason, cowards, for me is unfair. If these people are cowards, what then are the people who continue their lives, finish their relatives' life savings only to die. What did they accomplish. Would it be fair to call these people cowards since they did not allow themselves to die gracefully hanging on to their last breath and not accepting their death while they profess that they believe in an afterlife anyway.

What about people who just will themselves to die? I have long suspected, that some people can will themselves to die if they have lost all purpose in life. My maternal grandmother, had been bedridden for several years. Her husband who had no known disease at that time then requested to lie down beside her side by side so that they both die at the same time. Considering the request silly, his relatives had him wheeled out of the room in his wheelchair. In two weeks he was dead. My paternal grandfather was the head of a top 1000 company here in the Philippines. At around 96 he retired. By that time, his hearing and memory were bad. Within the year his wife died. By around 97 he died. Suicide by my grandfathers is of course ruled out, but did my grandfathers will themselves to die?

I myself would want to die in similar cases. I find no reason to prolong living should I find myself a burden to myself and society. What will be my point in living? Even for selfish purposes, I find no good reasons. I remember reading somewhere that a person's 'status' in the afterlife would be partially dependent on his mental state upon death. If this is so, then the more I would want to die with no pain and stress.

Pluto is No Longer a Planet

It was quite a shock for me when I read on the internet that Pluto was no longer considered a planet. But what i admired though about science, was the speed in which the decision was made. It is nice to note that science is humble enough to accept that it does not know everything and that what may be considered true now may no longer be considered true tomorrow.

Imagine all the science books which may have to be revised due to this new truth. All the grade schoolers have to be told that what they learned last year is now quite different.

Looking at the webpage "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto", we see how the contraversy unfolds. Quoting from the webpage:

"Planetary status controversy
Pluto's official status as a planet has been a constant subject of controversy since at least as early as 1978, when Charon was discovered. Since then, further discoveries intensified the debate in the 21st century.

Omission from museum models
Museum and planetarium directors occasionally would create controversy by omitting Pluto from planetary models of the solar system. Some omissions were intentional; the Hayden Planetarium reopened after renovation in 2000 with a model of 8 planets without Pluto. The controversy made headlines in the media at the time. [20]

New discoveries ignite debate

Pluto compared to 2003 UB313, 2005 FY9, 2003 EL61, Sedna, Quaoar, and EarthContinuing advances in telescope technology allowed for further discoveries of Trans-Neptunian objects in the 21st century, some of comparable size to that of Pluto. In 2002, 50000 Quaoar was discovered, with a 1,280 kilometers diameter, making it a bit more than half the size of Pluto. In 2004, the discoverers of 90377 Sedna placed an upper limit of 1,800 kilometers on its diameter, near Pluto's diameter of 2,320 kilometers.

On July 29, 2005, a Trans-Neptunian object called 2003 UB313 (nicknamed "Xena") was announced, which on the basis of its magnitude and simple albedo considerations is assumed to be slightly larger than Pluto. This was the largest object discovered in the solar system since Neptune in 1846. Discoverers and media initially called it the "tenth planet", although there was no official consensus at the time on whether to call it a planet. Others in the astronomy community considered the discovery to be the strongest argument for reclassifying Pluto as a minor planet."

In contrast, take a look at this website :

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/churchissorry.html

"THE Archbishop of Canterbury and other church leaders apologised yesterday for wars, racism and other sins committed in the name of Christianity.

The leaders, who between them represent nearly every Christian in Britain, took time out from the universal rejoicing over what has been billed as the "birthday of Christ", to admit for the first time the harm
done by Christianity over the past 2,000 years. They said that it was "an appropriate thing to do at the
time of the millennium".

While vague in its outline, the apology was described by Dr George Carey's office as a "general confession" intended to cover both private and public wrongs."

I am giving the catholic church the benefit of a doubt. Is this actually the first time that they have publicly acknowledged for their wrongs? Does it take that many centuries to apologize to Galilieo, or is it because it is only now that they have realized that Galileo is correct?

The church contraversy can be seen in this webpage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy

"With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical".
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future."

Is Gnosticism on the Rise?

For the past few months, I have heard of this word crop up a number of times. In the "Judas Gospel" it was mentioned a number of times. In the internet forum which I visited, the term was also used when an ongoing discussion about God was in full swing. Even the movie "The Matrix", which I found quite profound and thought provoking was rumored to have a Gnostic theme. The funny thing is no one really would talk about it at length. Some Christian material which I have read mention it, but does not fully expound on the belief.

So as usual, I started researching with the help of the internet on my own. I took a look at www.religioustolerance.org. I like this site because it is very concise with its explanations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm

This webpage outlines the beliefs of the gnostics. The most notable for me are the following:

Deity: The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. (Demiurge means "public craftsman" in Greek.) This lower God is sometimes called Yaldabaoth or Ialdabaoth Jaldabaoth -- from Aramaic words meaning "begetter of the Heavens." This is Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). He is portrayed as the creator of the earth and its life forms. He is viewed by Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion, and prone to genocide. The Demiurge "thinks that he is supreme. His pride and incompetence have resulted in the sorry state of the world as we know it, and in the blind and ignorant condition of most of mankind."

Evil: They did not look upon the world as having been created perfectly and then having degenerated as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Rather the world was seen as being evil at the time of its origin, because it had been created by an inferior God.

Snake Symbol: Some Gnostic sects honored the snake. They did not view the snake as a seducer who led the first couple into sinful behavior. Rather, they saw him/it as a liberator who brought knowledge to Adam and Eve by convincing them to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus to become fully human.

Christ: The role of the redeemer in Gnostic belief is heavily debated at this time. Gnostics seem to have looked upon Christ as a revealer or liberator, rather than a savior or judge. His purpose was to spread knowledge which would free individuals from the Demiurge's control and allow them to return to their spiritual home with the Supreme God at death.

Goodness, when I saw this, I swear I did a lot of thinking. Everything you've learned in Catholic school has been turned upside down. Imagine, God the Father, a "defective, inferior Creator-God". I have to admit though that this theory would answer a lot of questions on why God in the Old Testament was not as likeable as his supposed son Jesus Christ. A lot of people who are against Christianity are against it because of the behavior of God in the Old Testament. There are many sources in the internet that have talked about this.

Two websites I have seen which are not afraid of voicing out there sentiments are:
www.evilbible.com
www.biblicalnonsense.com

From www.evilbible.com, specifically in www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

The act of murder is rampant in the Bible. In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or not being a virgin on your wedding night. In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of God's irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport. There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children.

The following passages are a very small percentage of the total passages approving of murder in the Bible. They are divided here into three parts: 1) Capital Punishment Crimes, 2) God's Murders for Stupid Reasons, 3) Murdering Children, and 4) Miscellaneous Murders. This list is long, but it barely scratches the surface of all the murders approved of in the Bible.

And from www.biblicalnonsense.com, specifically in http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter9.html

Without any conceivable doubt, I firmly believe that the Hebrew god is the most evil character of all time. Starting with the book of Genesis, we learn that he’s an insanely angry deity. Of the many atrocities committed in the Old Testament, God is usually the sole participator. The Genesis authors record the first such instance in chapters 6-8 as the account of Noah’s flood.

The reason that God decides to drown the entire world, killing nearly every living person and animal on earth, is his belief that people are evil and unworthy of existence (Genesis 6:5). So what if they were evil? As Lenny Bruce once exclaimed, “The fault lies with the manufacturer!” God allegedly created humans, yet he faults us for being guided by our desires, instincts, and natural tendencies. Since he’s supposedly omniscient, God realized how we were destined to turn from the beginning. He must also have realized that his lament would fuel the urge to destroy his precious creations, only to leave himself back where he started. Even so, he creates Adam, yet hundreds of years later, he drowns nearly all the men, women, and children on the face of the earth because he deliberately chose not to make us to his liking the first time.

Even if we suppose the adults deserved to die slow and torturous deaths, what association could we conceivably make between their decisions and the adolescent victims of the flood? Couldn’t God have just placed the innocent children and animals aside for a while so that they wouldn’t drown? If not, how about a humane death at the very least? Drowning is a horrible way for people to die. As a result of hopelessly treading water for hours, their muscles burned due to large amounts of lactic acid production. Once they finally gave up, went under, and held their breaths, acidic carbon dioxide eroded their lungs until the unbearable pain forced them to inhale where there was no air for them to breathe. The water brought into their lungs robbed their bodies of oxygen, causing them to go numb. As water violently rushed in and out of their chests, the currents eventually laid their heavily breathing, slowly dying bodies at the bottom of the ocean. The inhaled water caused their lungs to tear and bleed profusely. As their blood supply dwindled, their hearts slowly came to a halt. Even so, their brains continued to process information for another couple of minutes. They were patently aware that death was imminent, yet they could do nothing to speed it or prevent it. I imagine that their final reflections would have been on what they did to deserve such treatment.

Is Religion Logical?

Earlier, there was a caller on the phone and she asked me if I had a certain channel on my cable t.v. The caller was one of those people who preach religion. She was talking about salvation. To cut the conversation with her, I just claimed that I was a buddhist and that I didn't believe in God. She then asked me if I was worried about my salvation since I didn't believe in God. Knowing a little about Buddhism I said that salvation to me is not due to the belief in any deity but due to how you treat other people and thru discipline of the mind which can be acquired thru meditation. I also added that if she does not meditate, she herself may have trouble with her salvation. I further asked her why the God in the Old Testament is very different from Jesus Christ. God in the Old Testament was very strict with loyalty to himself and allowed slavery and polygamy to occur. After a few more discussions, she just closed the phone on me without any notice.

Religion is alive and well on earth. It is here to stay at least for the next few generations and will be shaping the political landscape of this planet. It is something so much a part of our lives and yet we must ask ourselves, is our religion necessarily true, or is it just there to give us hope and keep our ideas of right and wrong in place.

Even if we just take the bigger religions existing today, we can see the differences, differences which sometimes will even conflict each other, differences which will show that not all the teachings of the religions can be true at the same time. On Jesus Christ alone, some believe he is God and man, others belief he was a prophet at best. Some believe in a creator God. Buddhism has no idea of a creator God. If you include other groups outside religion, the situation even becomes messier. Some believe that Judas was bad, others that he was good. Some believe that Jesus Christ never got married, some believe he did. The variety is astonishing, and yet some people believe in their Religion with no question.

What is this thing called faith? According to Webster
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question

Funny, there is no mention about logic. Number 2 says, "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Is this true? If so, what is the difference between 'faith' and 'blind faith'. Is faith then synonymous with superstition?

Of course there are things we believe even if we currently have no proof. But personally, I feel that ideas based on faith should never be passed on as truth unless the ideas have passed thru a logical process. I went to a religious group before and they were giving me advice on life, and she said that that idea was "according to their spiritual book". That was the only time in my life that I have heard such a statement come from a religious person. I felt so elated knowing that some people still have the decency to separate belief and truth. Remember, beliefs are not necessarily true.

Other people believe in their religion because of their sheer number. They assume that if their religion weren't true, they wouldn't have had that many devotees. Haven't they heard of marketing? If everything was based on truth, there would be plenty of salesmen and marketing people out of a job. There would be a lot less commercials on t.v. and less billboards on the streets.

Answer the next few questions truthfully. What is your favorite country? What is your favorite school? What sex would you want to be if you were to be reincarnated? What is the best religion?

What is the similarity of all these questions? If you'll notice, the answers to them aren't always arrived at logically. A lot of the answers are heavily influenced by loyalty. Did you choose your religion due to loyalty? Does one have to be a statistician to say that the religion you are born into is usually the religion you will have, possibly for the rest of your life. When one strays from his/her original religion, the usual answer would be to give his/her religion a chance, he/she should read more. How about giving the other religions a chance. People hesitant to read about other religions are like people afraid to try out computers and get out of the stone age. It is not necessary to remain in the religion your were born into.

Others have transferred at times when they were depressed and their religion could not alleviate them. Then another religion lifted them from their depressed state. Should decisions be made in a time of depression? This is like a person who is heartbroken from a previous affair and was courted by a person. He/she then answers her/him on the rebound. Are decisions made in such circumstances necessarily correct or even reasonable?

When diffent theories come out which question previous beliefs, I get to see different writers stating that there is not enough proof to say such things. One even said that the new ideas would not stand in a court of law. The big question is will any religion really be able to stand an inquiry in a court of law. It is really a matter of relativity, all sides may not be able to give proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but some are just more believable than the others.

I feel that no belief system should claim or even insinuate that they are always correct. If all belief systems just claim that their ideas are 'theories' and based on certain spiritual books then there wouldn't be much argument, would there?

Isn't it Fair?

How many times have we heard of people complain of their crushes or current significant others not take them seriously only to find out that these complainers had been doing such things before. Funny thing is some of these complainers are seasoned players in the field who have just been hit by their bad karma.

Ever since I can remember I have seen this pattern recur to often. I used to have a friend who was gorgeous and according to her she was even invited to join a beauty contest. Being friends she would confide to me that she had five boyfriends. Being young and naive, I was never able to ask her exactly what kinds of relationships she was having. Was she really a girfriend or a one night stand. Point is she assumed she had five and she believed that they all loved her dearly. Being blunt and a concerned friend, I once asked her if she was afraid of her karma. She said that she was ready to face her karma. Being as beautiful and alluring as she was I believed she could pull it off. I figured she would replace any man whom would not succumb to her whims. One day she called me and told me that she was depressed because one of her boyfriends was two timing her. I was wondering what her problem was, she could easily find a substitute. Apparently she had fell in love with the guy and wanted to discontinue her relationships with the four others. I said she had five, while her boyfriend had only two and that she was still ahead. Apparently she didn't want that arrangement.

Funny how unreasonable some people can be. I knew of another person who had lots of men. It was a mixture of boyfriends, 'financiers' and I don't know what. After a few years she found out that her 'preferred boyfriend' had not only been cheating on her but had been living in with another woman right under her nose. Her friends and sisters told her that it was about time that she reaped what she had sown. I talked to her and she said that she should be allowed to have several, but her boyfriend must only have one.

This next one had a funny twist. This other woman had several boyfriends and one day her male friend warned her that she had to know something about her boyfriend. This girl was a little brainier, she assumed that her boyfriend was cheating on her so she had a ready answer. She told me that she would have said 'so what! I have two boyfriends as well'. It didn't go that way though. My friend was told that when her male friend was urinating in a public toilet, her boyfriend was looking at his private parts.

The usual answer of these people when I tell them that they are just getting back their karma is 'I don't mind getting dropped or fooled by the other men, but not by him.' Oh well, for all the religiousness of the Philippines we still have this. Initially I thought that this was a case of 'religious hypocrisy', but then I noticed that these people actually felt that they were doing nothing wrong. Can one be a hypocrit when one is in denial of his/her misdeeds? Was this a case of narcissicm instead? When one can love onesself so much that he/she feels that she deserves special treatment?

People love to be in denial. In denial that they are outright wrong. People should not expected to be treated fairly when they themselves aren't fair. And they shouldn't claim that they have changed to being monogamous when in fact they are still polygamous. It just so happens that their 'knight in shining armour' has come and that when he does not choose her, she reverts back to the wolf that she is. Do you really think that she really changed?

I have noticed a certain trend in relationships. When a player who toys with the feelings of people decide to 'change for the better' because of a certain person that he or she 'loves', that certain person ends up giving back the bad karma to the first person. Usually also, the first person still continues his unfair treatment of people and traumatizes himself/herself in the process for several more times. Marriage usually doesn't solve the problem, the person is stuck in a marriage which is usually the result of her/him on the rebound.

Separate Blog

I've decided to place my thoughts on a blog separate to my experiences due to a possible difference in the writing style. The previous blog which contains my experiences are usually written in a relatively more playful style since my experiences are done when I am in a more relaxed or even hedonistic mood. My thoughts on the other hand can be quite serious since ever since I can remember I used to be a truthseeker. I remember asking my parents where children came from when I was grade one. Probably one of the biggest questions I asked myself which changed me, was when I questioned my religion.

One day I asked myself, "If I were born in another religion,(I was born catholic by the way) would I still be a Catholic? Common sense tells us that people born Catholic will grow up Catholic, just as people born Buddhists will remain Buddhists. I then realized that religion(at least with me) is not decided on logic but on loyalty.

Our life's decisions are not always rational, sometimes it is based on instinct, and sometimes it is based on loyalty. We love to conform. Conformity does not disappear with intelligence or wealth. Sometimes intelligence and wealth even seem to strengthen our conformity specially when a known person of supposedly high stature endorses it.

After having this realization my views were to change so drastically that my very own parents would have a very hard time understanding me. These diverse ideas would range from relationships, religion, spirituality, paranormal, the meaning of life as well as other things. I intend to put those views here hopefully quite regularly so please come back often.