Saturday, 30 June 2012

The Nine Billion Names of God


In 1953, Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story entitled: “The Nine Billion Names of God”. In it he proposes that when all the names of god are recited, the world will end.
That would be a good exercise for atheists. It would keep them busy.
My favourite name, though not strictly identified as god, is Tao. Lao Tzu says that “It is always impartial, it is always on the side of the just man. “
God, by any name, is whatever we decide it is.
There is this great presumption, particularly on the part of the self-proclaimed atheists, that if you believe in anything at all, you are ‘believer’, and thus a religious person. What balderdash! (Sorry Dr. Dawkins). Every scientist believes in science, thus no scientists could be considered an atheist. To them, science is inerrant and thus divine.
Poor Stephen Hawking. Most count him among the greatest scientists of the modern era. And he, this great mind, has stated that there is no heaven. That heaven is a fairy story. Obviously he never looked into a newborn baby’s eyes.
Semantics. It’s all semantics.
I suggest many deny heaven because of what religions have done to the concept. If you haven’t already, I suggest you read my blogs about heaven. Or read a less serious version in Beyond Religion vol. III.

In the past, all we had to do was to exclude the Old Man with a long beard, a god created in our image and likeness, to be counted among the enlightened people, who freed themselves from the Big Guy up there, and stood on your own two feet. Ah, yes, two feet is still mandatory.  A prerequisite. Any more than two and we are not “in the image and likeness”, or, the other way round. How do you know that god doesn’t have four legs? Or six? I would have thought god can have any number of legs hesheit wants to, and it’s none of our business.
I suggest that dismissing the Old Bearded Man, does not make one an atheist. It just means one began growing up. I firmly believe in the benevolence of the Universe. The Universe(s) is not god, with or without a beard, but if the universe weren’t benevolent then why would there be flowers in such diversity of colours? No, it’s not for the bees—they can see only some colours. What would instill in us the awareness of beauty that is not necessary for our physical survival?
So few of us seem to realize that the so-called scriptures (which simply means “something written down”) seldom if ever dealt with religion. They were the inspired thoughts of those before us who listened to their unconscious. To the Self within them (or without, if you will) and tried, with such means as were at their disposal at the time, to bring them out into the open.
That’s all folks! 

Thursday, 28 June 2012

The Mystery of Self

Self is the opposite of Ego. At all times Self is using, or attempting to use, its powers to enrich the Kingdom of Heaven. That’s right. Kingdom of Heaven is not a dead place where dead people, the ‘good’ ones, retire to do nothing forever after. Surely, that would be hell! If I must, I would rather compare heaven to an immense Disney Park where people can do whatever they want, for (almost) as long as they want, without ever any harm coming to them.
Back to Self.
Our Self programs us—the biological robots—to gather new experiences. As we know, computers can be programmed to function for hours, sometimes days or even longer, without additional human input. It depends on the software, of course, or in our case on our subconscious. More about that later.
Thus we, the biological computers, can work for a while on our own, yet without an occasional input from Self, we soon degenerate into walking in ever decreasing circles.

People continuously confuse ego with Self. Ego is what separates us, what gives us different personalities, while Self is what makes us one. Self gives substance and makes the wonderful statement In Pluribus Unum possible.
Yet, as entities possessed of ego, we have duties.
Even if we do not identify with our body as the only source of our awareness (the scientists do), we must still look after it, even as we look after our cars, computers and other material possessions, without actually identifying with any of those extensions of our personality. Some people seem to. They identify with money, position, fame, etc., although such are all imaginary and transient.
The climatic changes that are coming—the onset of which is already observable—will place enormous pressures on human survival. Inundations, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, forest-fires, arid spells, runaway pollution, global warming, and various pandemics are already here. In time mass suicides will ensue—also already visible—which will grow and continue until at least some of us will learn to treat what we experience as observers. With profound, benevolent indifference, while simultaneously making a greater effort to work for the common good. Until we learn that we are in this world, but not of this world, yet hold some responsibility for it, even as a child has for his or her toys.
Until we learn that as Self we are immortal, and as such create our own heaven and hell. 

How do we recognize actions inspired by ego versus those inspired by Self?  That’s easy. Whatever is for the greatest good of the greatest number is inspired by Self. We are One, remember?
No one will convince me that man’s genius, which put man on the moon, is not capable of redirecting clouds from causing floods in some area to discharge over forest fires instead. The latter would have been inspired by Self.
Putting man on the moon was 100% ego.

A further discussion of the subject of Self is in my Beyond Religion Volume 1. 

Tuesday, 26 June 2012


If you wait long enough and I don’t die in the meantime of old age, or be otherwise terminated by one of my many religiously inclined friends, who are probably convinced that I am an emissary of the devil himself, then TRUTH will be my next book.
The purpose of the book will be not to tell anyone anything they don’t already know. It will only serve to remind us all of the knowledge that resides deep within our subconscious.
Also, it seems only fair that having written DELUSIONS, which questions our perception of reality, I should also try to share with you all what I consider to be real. In fact REAL is an alternate title for the book—if it ever happens. There are so many subjects (an infinite number?) that could be included that, without further ado, I shall tackle some of them right now.
It seems that I have already started. Some of these blogs will serve as the skeleton on which to hung my personal, often very personal, reality.
In my book I shall discuss items that I consider have been distorted from the original sources, on which various religions claim to draw their authority. The same will apply to the scientific theses, which I find ridiculously dogmatic.
My book will owe a great deal to the many scriptures of ancient past, which, in my view, have never been intended to act as basis for forming secular religions—religions based on power, fear, reward and punishment, mind-control, and, most of all—money. Likewise the veracity of scientific research if not related to the amount of public money third-rate scientists spend in their laboratories.
It seems that I only disagree with about 3 to 4 billion people. Of those that remain, perhaps some will share some of my views. If they do, I feel they will be happier for it. For now, I shall continue to impose on your peace of mind until there is no one reading my blogs any more. At the moment, the numbers are growing. Perhaps my effort is worthwhile. You alone will judge.

Sunday, 24 June 2012

Are We the Living or the Dead?

Whatever is omnipresent has nowhere to go. It is already there. That would include whatever anyone calls God, with all Her or His attributes. (At least in Hebrew YHWH represent both the masculine and the feminine principles, which would make SheHe androgynous). We can only assume that those attributes include consciousness, intelligence, benevolence, and a few other traits without which our physical universe would have disappeared long ago.
Here we shall tackle consciousness.
It, in its omnipresent state is static, and dynamic when individualized. The individualized unit of consciousness expresses itself in movement. This movement can be in space or in time. This movement we refer to as life.
That’s you and I. We are individualized units of consciousness in movement. When our bodies are ‘dead’, they are no longer conscious. The consciousness had left our bodies. Where did it go? It was here a minute ago…
Most of us still appear to think that the state of consciousness is generated by our physical bodies. Ask any scientist. They have no idea how, of course, but they insist that it is.
Not so. Our physical bodies are essentially dead until consciousness enters them. I say essentially, because there is a rudimentary consciousness generated by biological/physiological form as in all animals and plants. That is why the discussions regarding abortion are so abortive. Try my article “Blood Bath” in my collection of essays Beyond Religion II.
In some ways the “lifers” are right. A fetus is moving thus life is in it. Even as it is in sperm. Or in a blade of grass. But aren’t we taking about a different sort of life? Different consciousness?
We are talking about self-awareness. Or… the awareness of Self. Of our REAL SELF. Unless we are aware of Self, we are not… not really alive. As yet. Or as Buddha would put it, we are not yet awakened.

The mystery of life is that we are both, static and dynamic. For a little while, we abide in a state of duality.
So… life is consciousness?
In the physical reality, life means only one thing: change. Or movement. A transient condition which only stops when we vacate our physical bodies. Unless we were more than our bodies, we would never inhabit them, giving them Life. Note the capital L. Life having the potential of becoming aware of Self. It seems like a fair arrangement.

Friday, 22 June 2012

Which way to Heaven?

Are we Evolving or Devolving?
Not a pleasant thought to contemplate.
Someone once said that: “All great labor-saving devises are invented by lazy men.” Of course. Why else would they invent them?
What we must also ask ourselves is whether were are better disposed toward survival in the 21st century then we were, say, some thousands or even millions of years ago. Or at least before the industrial and technological “revolution”.
I gave it some thought.
If there were a sudden climate change, how would we cope? Wouldn’t we, the preponderant majority of us, wait for the government(s) to tell us what to do? Where to go? How to get there?
Because 99.99% of us are reactive. Everyone who identifies with his or her physical body depends on reactions to/from their senses, other people’s senses, ideas. Only a tiny percentage of us act on our own cognition. About one person in a thousand. Probably fewer.
We have become so interdependent on each other, on other people—even on other people doing our thinking for us—that we would sit by our TV sets and wait for instructions. Then… we would complain that those came too late, and most probably were not very smart.

And now imagine living without your everyday toys. Electric heating/air-conditioning, stoves, TV sets, radios, i-pads, automobiles, airplanes, and a plethora of other technologically advanced gadgets.  Without our toys we would be lost. By now, we have regressed to a state of being babes in the woods.
Evolution has taken good care of other species. They can run faster, lift heavier loads, fly, swim under water, and, yes, and even survive another ice age. We wouldn’t.
Some years ago, I read about a Tibetan monk who wanted to advance to the next level of esoteric Buddhism ladder. He was told to take eight wet blankets, sit outside on the snow, and dry them by the morning. He had to do it by generating heat from his naked body. No… no gadgets. The monk succeeded. Who would you say was more advanced from the evolutionary standpoint? He or us?
If evolution is the art of physical survival, then we are already dead. Well, the vast majority of us. Unless, of course, unless real evolution has nothing to do with our bodies, with the physical universe, with our physical survival. Unless, in the event of another ice-age we, the real we, would simply wait for ‘things’ to improve, and then look for the best animal we could enter to continue in our need for becoming.

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

Heaven: Now or Later?

In order to decide, we have to have some idea what heaven is, or what is meant by heaven. What are benefits of obligation of heaven. Unless we know, what is the point of being there?

This very question prompted me to embark on my last (soon to be published) historical novel, Peter & Paul. Unbeknownst to most, they, Peter and Paul, had to deal with the same subject some two thousand years ago.
Yeshûa, who later became known as Jesus, (a meaningless translation of the inspiring Hebrew word meaning ‘deliverance through Jah’), taught that heaven is within us. The actual phrase, I believe, was “Kingdom of God is within you”. Since God is generally reputed to be in heaven, I find that close enough. By the way, God being omnipresent makes consciousness omnipresent too. We are only individualization of that single consciousness. (“I and my father are one”, “I am within you, you within me…” et al, remember?).
For some reason various religions obliterated all that. I suppose there is no money in a heaven that is here and now. All religions advocate that to reach that kingdom we have to die first. That may or may not be true, but it has NOTHING to do with the teaching of the Bible.
Look it up.
And thus, in spite of what priests, imams or any other assortment of padres of all faith told me, I decided to enter my Kingdom here and now. And once you try it, you’ll find it quite easy. After all, heaven is neither more nor less than a state of consciousness—albeit, a glorious one! And, after all, this is what, in fact, what we all are: individual (indivisible) units of the Omnipresent Consciousness. Our reality depends simply on where we place our attention. The stuff we experience with our physical senses is just a transient, ephemeral, dream. I also play the game, but I don’t take it too seriously.
As for entering the awareness of heaven, in my case it took about ten years of daily contemplation—just ten, or a little more, minutes a day. It’s worth it.

PS. Re “individual units”: individual, in Latin, means indivisible.  Thus, in a way, we are all One.

Monday, 18 June 2012

The Assumptions of Matrix or the Chicken and the Egg

The Assumptions of Matrix or the Chicken and the Egg

If Artificial Intelligence is advanced enough to build a reality depicted in the movie, then it would not need the humans to provide the electrical input necessary for them to function. There are many other, much more efficient methods of producing electricity, already present in nature.
And surely, they, the AI machines, wouldn’t keep us around for any other purpose.  Ergo, I like the film (#1 only) but philosophically it’s a bit shallow.
Once again, the idea is based on the assumption that our, i.e. human intelligence is derived from our biological structure (brain and nervous system). 
Not so.
Remember, we, our bodies, are made up of about 10 trillion cells, and about 100 trillions other living entities (bacteria, viruses and less advanced units of life) that use us as their farmlands to propagate and sustain their own lives (read Delusions). Under the circumstances I prefer the view that we, you and I, are independent, non-physical discrete units of intelligence, which use the physical human bodies to advance our need for evolutionary becoming.
Sorry Messrs. Larry and Andy Wachowski, but you both have it the wrong way round. Biology and/or technology do NOT produce intelligence, but intelligence produces the material-biological-technological reality we all enjoy. Should we, the incorporate units of intelligence, find a more advanced entity, be it technologically or biologically produced, we’d simply use the more advanced entity through which to advance our becoming.  
I (humbly) suggest you read some of my books; and I mean just… fiction, like your movie.

Saturday, 16 June 2012

History reaches beyond its time

 In my next 4 blogs I shall discuss 4 interconnected subjects. They all began (strangely enough) in my new novel, “Peter & Paul”, but within the novel, they could not have been advanced beyond their historical context. I shall elaborate, briefly, on the  following subjects:
1. The fallacy underlying one of my favourite films Matrix.
2. Who decides if we attain (aspire to) heaven before or after death.
3. Does technology advance or retard our evolution.
4. Does reality consist of matter or of energy (i.e. is it static or malleable).

You are welcome to make your comments.

Thursday, 14 June 2012

The Question of Free Will

I retain the title “Peter & Paul” (my new historical novel) for this blog because, on closer examination, Peter and Paul represent two different approaches regarding our reality. The book, of course, discusses this in much greater detail. Here, however, I might mention that the principal difference between P&P is how they regard the world we live in, and the ensuing consequences. And make no mistake about it, there are consequences.
We must begin by deciding if the world (the physical reality) is something into which we were “dropped” by the gods (Elohim is Hebrew by Gods (also “objects of worship” — note: plural in both cases), or if we are the creators of the world we live in (Ye are gods).
Depending on which (biblical or any other) model we espouse to navigate the vicissitudes of our lives, the choice we make will affect our reality for… eternity? Even if, ultimately, there is but one reality. Enigma?

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

Life is Good!

 While Peter and Paul is edited, just a note to share with you the thought that Amazon isn’t all bad. After small successes in the sale of my books in the UK and Canada, USA being the main market, last month I sold a number of books in Germany. In the meantime I also had (miniscule) sales in Australia and New Zealand.
And today, for the very first time, I had a sale in Italy. Only the first, but… we live in hope. Finally, at long last, I can claim to be an international author, while writing only in English.
As I was saying, life is good. Three cheers for Kindle!!!

Saturday, 9 June 2012

One Just Man

For a little while, to acquaint my readers with my Trilogy, One Just Man (Part one of Winston Trilogy) is yours to download for FREE at Smashwords.

Friday, 8 June 2012

A Point of Interest

While my book Peter and Paul is being edited, I want to share with you a point of interest.

Although the Polish writer and Nobel Prize laureate Henryk Sienkiewicz had written a book Quo Vadis, on which a famous Hollywood epic of the same name has been based, both, the book and the movie perpetrate great historical error. Although they present a lot of the action taking place in the Rome’s Coliseum, in fact, the arena has been built only two years after Nero’s death, in 70 AD.
My novel corrects this mistake. 
You may soon find other items of interest which result from my in-depth research about Peter and Paul and Nero, and a number of others things.