Just some stuff to think about. It's easy to say that man created everything, but what created us? What started the world? The Big Bang theories is more far-fetched than a belief in God... which is also a little less insulting than "invisible pink unicorns". If you go down that road then please keep going... what created god? If you say he was always there as I am pretty sure you will because I don't think you will settle for an infinite chain of regression of gods creating gods ... then I can say: the universe was always there and the Big Bang is simply the current iteration of it - so the world as we know it had a beginning. Putting god into the equation is simply adding unnecessary clutter to the question. Men have become more integrated with each hit they absorbed. Either they ran away or they had to grow. Do or die. If you do -- that's what is meant by integration, or crystallization -- only then do you live. Or else -- remember the dog's death -- one dies; one is dying every moment. Only the great musicians know that a musician of the musicians can play music with anything.The person who tortures himself in this world is passing through a fire test of his trust in God. Jesus belongs to these masochists. Mahavira in India belongs to these masochists. And thousands of saints were only famous because there was no competing with them; they were far ahead in torturing themselves in every possible way. People were cutting their genitals, women were cutting their breasts -- and religions were supporting it. Naturally these people were miserable, but misery became now a kind of investment. You be miserable here and all the pleasures of paradise will be yours forever. The misery is only for one life; the reward is for eternity. The others who worshiped these masochists were sadists; they enjoyed people torturing themselves. They worshiped a person more if he tortured more; if he fasted for months, he became a great saint. If he became just a skeleton, millions came to worship him, but their psychological joy was seeing somebody torture himself. And, of course, they fitted together perfectly. The sadists became disciples, followers; and the masochists became prophets, messiahs, saviours -- and they were complementary to each other. And nobody thought that this is a very sick psychology. But religions were becoming prosperous, and people were engaged in this stupid game. They had no energy for any revolution against the politicians.

http://talesfromcafequeequeg.blogspot.com/2009/06/tales-from-cafe-queequeg-full-draft.html

 

Just off the highway to Rochester, Minnesota,
Twilight bounds softly forth on the grass.
And the eyes of those two Indian ponies
Darken with kindness.
They have come gladly out of the willows
To welcome my friend and me.
We step over the barbed wire into the pasture
Where they have been grazing all day, alone.
They ripple tensely, they can hardly contain their happiness
That we have come.
They bow shyly as wet swans. They love each other.
There is no loneliness like theirs.
At home once more,
They begin munching the young tufts of spring in the darkness.
I would like to hold the slenderer one in my arms,
For she has walked over to me
And nuzzled my left hand.
She is black and white,
Her mane falls wild on her forehead,
And the light breeze moves me to caress her long ear
That is delicate as the skin over a girl's wrist.
Suddenly I realize
That if I stepped out of my body I would break
Into blossom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57SR7-z26Es

The ancient Chinese philosophy of Tao sees everything in the universe as interdependent and constantly changing. We, like everything else, are part of this process. Change is natural. The best way to live is to remain open to the natural flow of change and move with it, i.e. going with the flow, rather than trying to swim upstream. We do our best when trying to act in accordance with nature, using minimal interventions rather than strong force. Thus, in the Taoist view, we do not need to struggle to change ourselves. Rather, we need to be aware of the world around us and our place in it – and remain open to moving with the changes that take place and involve us. In other words: be here now, fully and alertly. Krishnamurti (1895-1986) was an Indian thinker who had a most extraordinary life. Much of his philosophy is of direct relevance to people who work in education. The following passage is part of Krishnamurti´s answer to a child who asked, „How can you change yourself?“: „When people say „I am changing from this to that“, they think they are moving. They think they are changing. But in actual fact, they have not moved at all. What they have done is projected an idea of what they should be. … But it is not a movement. They think it is change, but what is change is first to be aware of what actually „is“ and to live with it, and then one observes that the „seeing“ itself brings about change.“ This is a very powerful guidance on a way to change. He is arguing against setting up distant goals and trying to reach them. If you are fully aware of the present and what „is“, he suggests, then that awareness, of itself, already produces change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulkm1DlZ5k0

If a field-worker „goes native“ and forgets to keep his mind coldly aloof, he is said to have lost his objectivity, which is actually no more than a way of describing things in accord with the metaphysical preconceptions of Western culture. My own approach to Asian philosophy was part of an individual philosophical quest. I am not interested in Buddhism or Taoism as particular entities or subjects to be studied and defined in such a way that one must avoid „mixing up“ one´s thinking about Buddhism with interests in quantum theory, psychoanalysis, Gestalt psychology, semantics, and aesthetics, or in Eckhart, Goethe, Whitehead, Jung, or Krishnamurti. I feel about academic „subjects“ just as the Balinese feel about „Art“ when they say, „We have no Art: we just do everything as well as possible“. It was the same, too, for such a scientist als Gregory Bateson, who in conducting a course of study he would give three or four set lectures about specific topics or methods, and for the rest of the semester simply discuss whatever happened to be of interest to him at the time. In this way his students were able to join in the experience of a creative imagination iin process: actually doing science instead of merely learning about it or preparing for it. In a similar way Alan W. Watts would announce in the formal catalogue the offering of a course in Lao-tzu or Chinese Zen, and simply make sure that the students had access to the relevant literature, that they understood ist historical background, and were familiar with ist main technical terms. For the rest, he would use the original texts as as basis for rambling reflections that might take them into Tantric yoga, optical illusions, metalinguistics, biological systems-theory, and hypnosis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnlRROkCu2A