bligity blog

~OSHO~

hunabku — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:38:46 GMT

Looking at a sunset Looking at a sunset, just for a second you forget your separateness: you are the sunset. That is the moment when you feel the beauty of it. But the moment you say that it is a beautiful sunset, you are no longer feeling it; you have come back to your separate, enclosed entity of the ego. Now the mind is speaking. And this is one of the mysteries, that the mind can speak, and knows nothing; and the heart knows everything, and cannot speak. Perhaps to know too much makes it difficult to speak; the mind knows so little, it is possible for it to speak. "I am here to seduce you into a love of life; to help you to become a little more poetic; to help you die to the mundane and to the ordinary so that the extraordinary explodes in your life." Just one quality of the buddha Just one quality of the Buddha has to be remembered. He consists only of one quality: witnessing. This small word witnessing contains the whole of spirituality. Witness that you are not the body. Witness that you are not the mind. Witness that you are only a witness. As the witnessing deepens, you start becoming drunk with the divine. That is what is called ecstasy. “Fools laugh at others. Wisdom laughs at itself.” "When you are no more, only then for the first time will you be." ~Osho~

Howard Zinn: Anarchism Shouldn't Be a Dirty Word

hunabku — Wed, 21 May 2008 01:37:29 GMT

Howard Zinn: Anarchism Shouldn't Be a Dirty Word Ziga Vodovnik CounterPunch Posted May 17, 2008 Howard Zinn, 85, is a Professor Emeritus of political science at Boston University. He was born in Brooklyn, NY, in 1922 to a poor immigrant family. He realized early in his youth that the promise of the "American Dream", that will come true to all hard-working and diligent people, is just that -- a promise and a dream. During World War II he joined US Air Force and served as a bombardier in the "European Theatre." This proved to be a formative experience that only strengthened his convictions that there is no such thing as a just war. It also revealed, once again, the real face of the socio-economic order, where the suffering and sacrifice of the ordinary people is always used only to higher the profits of the privileged few. Although Zinn spent his youthful years helping his parents support the family by working in the shipyards, he started with studies at Columbia University after WWII, where he successfully defended his doctoral dissertation in 1958. Later he was appointed as a chairman of the department of history and social sciences at Spelman College, an all-black women's college in Atlanta, GA, where he actively participated in the Civil Rights Movement. From the onset of the Vietnam War he was active within the emerging anti-war movement, and in the following years only stepped up his involvement in movements aspiring towards another, better world. Zinn is the author of more than 20 books, including A People's History of the United States that is "a brilliant and moving history of the American people from the point of view of those who have been exploited politically and economically and whose plight has been largely omitted from most histories" (Library Journal). Zinn's most recent book is entitled A Power Governments Cannot Suppress, and is a fascinating collection of essays that Zinn wrote in the last couple of years. Beloved radical historian is still lecturing across the US and around the world, and is, with active participation and support of various progressive social movements continuing his struggle for free and just society. -Ziga Vodovnik: From the 1980s onwards we are witnessing the process of economic globalization getting stronger day after day. Many on the Left are now caught between a "dilemma" -- either to work to reinforce the sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control of foreign and global capital; or to strive towards a non-national alternative to the present form of globalization and that is equally global. What's your opinion about this? *Howard Zinn: I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization. In a certain sense the movement towards globalization where capitalists are trying to leap over nation state barriers, creates a kind of opportunity for movement to ignore national barriers, and to bring people together globally, across national lines in opposition to globalization of capital, to create globalization of people, opposed to traditional notion of globalization. In other words to use globalization -- it is nothing wrong with idea of globalization -- in a way that bypasses national boundaries and of course that there is not involved corporate control of the economic decisions that are made about people all over the world. -Ziga Vodovnik: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon once wrote that: "Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order. " Where do you see life after or beyond (nation) states? *Howard Zinn: Beyond the nation states? (laughter) I think what lies beyond the nation states is a world without national boundaries, but also with people organized. But not organized as nations, but people organized as groups, as collectives, without national and any kind of boundaries. Without any kind of borders, passports, visas. None of that! Of collectives of different sizes, depending on the function of the collective, having contacts with one another. You cannot have self-sufficient little collectives, because these collectives have different resources available to them. This is something anarchist theory has not worked out and maybe cannot possibly work out in advance, because it would have to work itself out in practice. -Ziga Vodovnik: Do you think that a change can be achieved through institutionalized party politics, or only through alternative means -- with disobedience, building parallel frameworks, establishing alternative media, etc. *Howard Zinn: If you work through the existing structures you are going to be corrupted. By working through political system that poisons the atmosphere, even the progressive organizations, you can see it even now in the US, where people on the "Left" are all caught in the electoral campaign and get into fierce arguments about should we support this third party candidate or that third party candidate. This is a sort of little piece of evidence that suggests that when you get into working through electoral politics you begin to corrupt your ideals. So I think a way to behave is to think not in terms of representative government, not in terms of voting, not in terms of electoral politics, but thinking in terms of organizing social movements, organizing in the work place, organizing in the neighborhood, organizing collectives that can become strong enough to eventually take over -- first to become strong enough to resist what has been done to them by authority, and second, later, to become strong enough to actually take over the institutions. -Ziga Vodovnik: One personal question. Do you go to the polls? Do you vote? *Howard Zinn: I do. Sometimes, not always. It depends. But I believe that it is preferable sometimes to have one candidate rather another candidate, while you understand that that is not the solution. Sometimes the lesser evil is not so lesser, so you want to ignore that, and you either do not vote or vote for third party as a protest against the party system. Sometimes the difference between two candidates is an important one in the immediate sense, and then I believe trying to get somebody into office, who is a little better, who is less dangerous, is understandable. But never forgetting that no matter who gets into office, the crucial question is not who is in office, but what kind of social movement do you have. Because we have seen historically that if you have a powerful social movement, it doesn't matter who is in office. Whoever is in office, they could be Republican or Democrat, if you have a powerful social movement, the person in office will have to yield, will have to in some ways respect the power of social movements. We saw this in the 1960s. Richard Nixon was not the lesser evil, he was the greater evil, but in his administration the war was finally brought to an end, because he had to deal with the power of the anti-war movement as well as the power of the Vietnamese movement. I will vote, but always with a caution that voting is not crucial, and organizing is the important thing. When some people ask me about voting, they would say will you support this candidate or that candidate? I say: "I will support this candidate for one minute that I am in the voting booth. At that moment I will support A versus B, but before I am going to the voting booth, and after I leave the voting booth, I am going to concentrate on organizing people and not organizing electoral campaign. -Ziga Vodovnik: Anarchism is in this respect rightly opposing representative democracy since it is still form of tyranny -- tyranny of majority. They object to the notion of majority vote, noting that the views of the majority do not always coincide with the morally right one. Thoreau once wrote that we have an obligation to act according to the dictates of our conscience, even if the latter goes against the majority opinion or the laws of the society. Do you agree with this? *Howard Zinn: Absolutely. Rousseau once said, if I am part of a group of 100 people, do 99 people have the right to sentence me to death, just because they are majority? No, majorities can be wrong, majorities can overrule rights of minorities. If majorities ruled, we could still have slavery. 80% of the population once enslaved 20% of the population. While run by majority rule that is OK. That is very flawed notion of what democracy is. Democracy has to take into account several things -- proportionate requirements of people, not just needs of the majority, but also needs of the minority. And also has to take into account that majority, especially in societies where the media manipulates public opinion, can be totally wrong and evil. So yes, people have to act according to conscience and not by majority vote. -Ziga Vodovnik: Where do you see the historical origins of anarchism in the United States? *Howard Zinn: One of the problems with dealing with anarchism is that there are many people whose ideas are anarchist, but who do not necessarily call themselves anarchists. The word was first used by Proudhon in the middle of the 19th century, but actually there were anarchist ideas that proceeded Proudhon, those in Europe and also in the United States. For instance, there are some ideas of Thomas Paine, who was not an anarchist, who would not call himself an anarchist, but he was suspicious of government. Also Henry David Thoreau. He does not know the word anarchism, and does not use the word anarchism, but Thoreau's ideas are very close to anarchism. He is very hostile to all forms of government. If we trace origins of anarchism in the United States, then probably Thoreau is the closest you can come to an early American anarchist. You do not really encounter anarchism until after the Civil War, when you have European anarchists, especially German anarchists, coming to the United States. They actually begin to organize. The first time that anarchism has an organized force and becomes publicly known in the United States is in Chicago at the time of Haymarket Affair. -Ziga Vodovnik: Where do you see the main inspiration of contemporary anarchism in the United States? What is your opinion about the Transcendentalism -- i.e., Henry D. Thoreau, Ralph W. Emerson, Walt Whitman, Margaret Fuller, et al. -- as an inspiration in this perspective? *Howard Zinn: Well, the Transcendentalism is, we might say, an early form of anarchism. The Transcendentalists also did not call themselves anarchists, but there are anarchist ideas in their thinking and in their literature. In many ways Herman Melville shows some of those anarchist ideas. They were all suspicious of authority. We might say that the Transcendentalism played a role in creating an atmosphere of skepticism towards authority, towards government. Unfortunately, today there is no real organized anarchist movement in the United States. There are many important groups or collectives that call themselves anarchist, but they are small. I remember that in 1960s there was an anarchist collective here in Boston that consisted of fifteen (sic!) people, but then they split. But in 1960s the idea of anarchism became more important in connection with the movements of 1960s. -Ziga Vodovnik: Most of the creative energy for radical politics is nowadays coming from anarchism, but only few of the people involved in the movement actually call themselves "anarchists. " Where do you see the main reason for this? Are activists ashamed to identify themselves with this intellectual tradition, or rather they are true to the commitment that real emancipation needs emancipation from any label? *Howard Zinn: The term anarchism has become associated with two phenomena with which real anarchists don't want to associate themselves with. One is violence, and the other is disorder or chaos. The popular conception of anarchism is on the one hand bomb-throwing and terrorism, and on the other hand no rules, no regulations, no discipline, everybody does what they want, confusion, etc. That is why there is a reluctance to use the term anarchism. But actually the ideas of anarchism are incorporated in the way the movements of the 1960s began to think. I think that probably the best manifestation of that was in the civil rights movement with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee -- SNCC. SNCC without knowing about anarchism as philosophy embodied the characteristics of anarchism. They were decentralized. Other civil rights organizations, for example Seven Christian Leadership Conference, were centralized organizations with a leader -- Martin Luther King. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) were based in New York, and also had some kind of centralized organization. SNCC, on the other hand, was totally decentralized. It had what they called field secretaries, who worked in little towns all over the South, with great deal of autonomy. They had an office in Atlanta, Georgia, but the office was not a strong centralized authority. The people who were working out in the field -- in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi -- they were very much on their own. They were working together with local people, with grassroots people. And so there is no one leader for SNCC, and also great suspicion of government. They could not depend on government to help them, to support them, even though the government of the time, in the early 1960s, was considered to be progressive, liberal. John F. Kennedy especially. But they looked at John F. Kennedy, they saw how he behaved. John F. Kennedy was not supporting the Southern movement for equal rights for Black people. He was appointing the segregationists judges in the South, he was allowing southern segregationists to do whatever they wanted to do. So SNCC was decentralized, anti-government, without leadership, but they did not have a vision of a future society like the anarchists. They were not thinking long term, they were not asking what kind of society shall we have in the future. They were really concentrated on immediate problem of racial segregation. But their attitude, the way they worked, the way they were organized, was along, you might say, anarchist lines. -Ziga Vodovnik: Do you thing that pejorative (mis)usage of the word anarchism is direct consequence of the fact that the ideas that people can be free, was and is very frightening to those in power? *Howard Zinn: No doubt! No doubt that anarchist ideas are frightening to those in power. People in power can tolerate liberal ideas. They can tolerate ideas that call for reforms, but they cannot tolerate the idea that there will be no state, no central authority. So it is very important for them to ridicule the idea of anarchism to create this impression of anarchism as violent and chaotic. It is useful for them, yes. -Ziga Vodovnik: In theoretical political science we can analytically identify two main conceptions of anarchism -- a so-called collectivist anarchism limited to Europe, and on another hand individualist anarchism limited to US. Do you agree with this analytical separation? *Howard Zinn: To me this is an artificial separation. As so often happens analysts can make things easier for themselves, like to create categories and fit movements into categories, but I don't think you can do that. Here in the United States, sure there have been people who believed in individualist anarchism, but in the United States have also been organized anarchists of Chicago in 1880s or SNCC. I guess in both instances, in Europe and in the United States, you find both manifestations, except that maybe in Europe the idea of anarcho-syndicalism become stronger in Europe than in the US. While in the US you have the IWW, which is an anarcho-syndicalist organization and certainly not in keeping with individualist anarchism. -Ziga Vodovnik: What is your opinion about the "dilemma" of means -- revolution versus social and cultural evolution? *Howard Zinn: I think here are several different questions. One of them is the issue of violence, and I think here anarchists have disagreed. Here in the US you find a disagreement, and you can find this disagreement within one person. Emma Goldman, you might say she brought anarchism, after she was dead, to the forefront in the US in the 1960s, when she suddenly became an important figure. But Emma Goldman was in favor of the assassination of Henry Clay Frick, but then she decided that this is not the way. Her friend and comrade, Alexander Berkman, he did not give up totally the idea of violence. On the other hand, you have people who were anarchistic in way like Tolstoy and also Gandhi, who believed in nonviolence. There is one central characteristic of anarchism on the matter of means, and that central principle is a principle of direct action -- of not going through the forms that the society offers you, of representative government, of voting, of legislation, but directly taking power. In case of trade unions, in case of anarcho-syndicalism, it means workers going on strike, and not just that, but actually also taking hold of industries in which they work and managing them. What is direct action? In the South when black people were organizing against racial segregation, they did not wait for the government to give them a signal, or to go through the courts, to file lawsuits, wait for Congress to pass the legislation. They took direct action; they went into restaurants, were sitting down there and wouldn't move. They got on those buses and acted out the situation that they wanted to exist. Of course, strike is always a form of direct action. With the strike, too, you are not asking government to make things easier for you by passing legislation, you are taking a direct action against the employer. I would say, as far as means go, the idea of direct action against the evil that you want to overcome is a kind of common denominator for anarchist ideas, anarchist movements. I still think one of the most important principles of anarchism is that you cannot separate means and ends. And that is, if your end is egalitarian society you have to use egalitarian means, if your end is non-violent society without war, you cannot use war to achieve your end. I think anarchism requires means and ends to be in line with one another. I think this is in fact one of the distinguishing characteristics of anarchism. -Ziga Vodovnik: On one occasion Noam Chomsky has been asked about his specific vision of anarchist society and about his very detailed plan to get there. He answered that "we can not figure out what problems are going to arise unless you experiment with them. " Do you also have a feeling that many left intellectuals are loosing too much energy with their theoretical disputes about the proper means and ends, to even start "experimenting" in practice? *Howard Zinn: I think it is worth presenting ideas, like Michael Albert did with Parecon for instance, even though if you maintain flexibility. We cannot create blueprint for future society now, but I think it is good to think about that. I think it is good to have in mind a goal. It is constructive, it is helpful, it is healthy, to think about what future society might be like, because then it guides you somewhat what you are doing today, but only so long as this discussions about future society don't become obstacles to working towards this future society. Otherwise you can spend discussing this utopian possibility versus that utopian possibility, and in the mean time you are not acting in a way that would bring you closer to that. -Ziga Vodovnik: In your People's History of the United States you show us that our freedom, rights, environmental standards, etc., have never been given to us from the wealthy and influential few, but have always been fought out by ordinary people -- with civil disobedience. What should be in this respect our first steps toward another, better world? *Howard Zinn: I think our first step is to organize ourselves and protest against existing order -- against war, against economic and sexual exploitation, against racism, etc. But to organize ourselves in such a way that means correspond to the ends, and to organize ourselves in such a way as to create kind of human relationship that should exist in future society. That would mean to organize ourselves without centralize authority, without charismatic leader, in a way that represents in miniature the ideal of the future egalitarian society. So that even if you don't win some victory tomorrow or next year in the meantime you have created a model. You have acted out how future society should be and you created immediate satisfaction, even if you have not achieved your ultimate goal. -Ziga Vodovnik: What is your opinion about different attempts to scientifically prove Bakunin's ontological assumption that human beings have "instinct for freedom," not just will but also biological need? *Howard Zinn: Actually I believe in this idea, but I think that you cannot have biological evidence for this. You would have to find a gene for freedom? No. I think the other possible way is to go by history of human behavior. History of human behavior shows this desire for freedom, shows that whenever people have been living under tyranny, people would rebel against that. ***His new book Anarchy of Everyday Life -- Notes on Anarchism and its Forgotten Confluences will be released in late 2008.

Feeling

hunabku — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:15:55 GMT

Feeling Think less, feel more. Intellectualize less, intuit more. Thinking is a very deceptive process, it makes you feel that you are doing great things. But you are simply making castles in the air. Thoughts are nothing but castles in the air. Feelings are more material, more substantial. They transform you. Thinking about love is not going to change you. Thinking is very much loved by the ego, because the ego feeds on the fictitious process ... Change from the mind to the heart, from thinking to feeling, from logic to love. ~Osho~

Noam Chomsky on Israel, Lebanon and Palestine

hunabku — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:47:17 GMT

Noam Chomsky on Israel, Lebanon and Palestine http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14404.htm By Kaveh Afrasiabi of Global Interfaith Peace 08/07/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Do you agree with the argument that Israel's military offensive in Lebanon is "legally and morally justified?" Noam Chomsky: The invasion itself is a serious breach of international law, and major war crimes are being committed as it proceeds. There is no legal justification. The "moral justification" is supposed to be that capturing soldiers in a cross-border raid, and killing others, is an outrageous crime. We know, for certain, that Israel, the United States and other Western governments, as well as the mainstream of articulate Western opinion, do not believe a word of that. Sufficient evidence is their tolerance for many years of US-backed Israeli crimes in Lebanon, including four invasions before this one, occupation in violation of Security Council orders for 22 years, and regular killings and abductions. To mention just one question that every journal should be answering: When did Nasrallah assume a leadership role? Answer: When the Rabin government escalated its crimes in Lebanon, murdering Sheikh Abbas Mussawi and his wife and child with missiles fired from a US helicopter. Nasrallah was chosen as his successor. Only one of innumerable cases. There is, after all, a good reason why last February, 70% of Lebanese called for the capture of Israeli soldiers for prisoner exchange. The conclusion is underscored, dramatically, by the current upsurge of violence, which began after the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit on June 25. Every published Western "timeline" takes that as the opening event. Yet the day before, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother, and sent them to the Israeli prison system where they can join innumerable other Palestinians, many held without charges -- hence kidnapped. Kidnapping of civilians is a far worse crime than capture of soldiers. The Western response was quite revealing: a few casual comments, otherwise silence. The major media did not even bother reporting it. That fact alone demonstrates, with brutal clarity, that there is no moral justification for the sharp escalation of attacks in Gaza or the destruction of Lebanon, and that the Western show of outrage about kidnapping is cynical fraud. Much has been said about Israel's right to defend itself from its enemies who are taking advantage of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, thus causing the latest chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do you agree? NC: Israel certainly has a right to defend itself, but no state has the right to "defend" occupied territories. When the World Court condemned Israel's "separation wall," even a US Justice, Judge Buergenthal, declared that any part of it built to defend Israeli settlements is "ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law," because the settlements themselves are illegal. The withdrawal of a few thousand illegal settlers from Gaza was publicly announced as a West Bank expansion plan. It has now been formalized by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with the support of Washington, as a program of annexation of valuable occupied lands and major resources (particularly water) and cantonization of the remaining territories, virtually separated from one another and from whatever pitiful piece of Jerusalem will be granted to Palestinians. All are to be imprisoned, since Israel is to take over the Jordan valley. Gaza, too, remains imprisoned and Israel carries out attacks there at will. Gaza and the West Bank are recognized to be a unit, by the United States and Israel as well. Therefore, Israel still occupies Gaza, and cannot claim self-defense in territories it occupies in either of the two parts of Palestine. It is Israel and the United States that are radically violating international law. They are now seeking to consummate long-standing plans to eliminate Palestinian national rights for good. The United States has refused to call for an immediate cease-fire, arguing that this would mean a return to the status quo ante, yet we are witnessing a "back to the past" re-occupation of parts of Lebanon, and Lebanon's rapid decline to political chaos by the current conflict. Is the US policy correct? NC: It is correct from the point of view of those who want to ensure that Israel, by now virtually an offshore US military base and high-tech center, dominates the region, without any challenge to its rule as it proceeds to destroy Palestine. And there are side advantages, such as eliminating any Lebanese-based deterrent if US-Israel decide to attack Iran. They may also hope to set up a client regime in Lebanon of the kind that Ariel Sharon sought to create when he invaded Lebanon in 1982, destroying much of the country and killing some 15-20,000 people. What will be the likely outcome of this "two-pronged" crisis in Lebanon and the occupied territories, in the near and long-term? NC: We cannot predict much. There are too many uncertainties. One very likely consequence, as the United States and Israel surely anticipated, is a significant increase in jihadi-style terrorism as anger and hatred directed against the United States, Israel, and Britain sweep the Arab and Muslim worlds. Another is that Nasrallah, whether he survives or is killed, will become an even more important symbol of resistance to US-Israeli aggression. Hezbollah already has a phenomenal 87% support in Lebanon itself, and its resistance has energized popular opinion to such an extent that even the oldest and closest US allies have been compelled to say that "If the peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance, then only the war option remains, and no one knows the repercussions befalling the region, including wars and conflict that will spare no one, including those whose military power is now tempting them to play with fire." That's from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who knows better than to condemn the United States directly. What steps do you recommend for the current hostilities to be brought to an end and a lasting peace established? NC: The basic steps are well understood: a cease-fire and exchange of prisoners; withdrawal of occupying forces; continuation of the "national dialogue" within Lebanon; and acceptance of the very broad international consensus on a two-state settlement for Israel-Palestine, which has been unilaterally blocked by the United States and Israel for thirty years. There is, as always, much more to say, but those are the essentials. Noam Chomsky is Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is the author of numerous books, and his latest is Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2006). Kaveh Afrasiabi is the founder and director of Global Interfaith Peace, and a former political science professor at Tehran University. He is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press).

Hizbollah Is Not A Terrorist Organization

hunabku — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 05:58:35 GMT

George Galloway - Hizbollah Is Not A Terrorist Organization http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14391.htm One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter George Galloway has spoken out in support of Lebanon, saying he believes Hizbollah is justified in defending Lebanon against Israeli attacks . The Respect MP also lambasted media coverage of the war and said the UN resolution means nothing. Video. Click here to view http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14391.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rabbi Against (Zionism) Fox interview of a Rabbi against Israels zionism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjnvQHWyLE I found this very intersting. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Diclaimer: To my Jewish friends... I am not anti semitic, I just dont agree with the view that Isreal Is in the right and Lebanon is in the wrong. Just as I dont agree with america's involvement in the middle east. All war is fucked up and wrong!!!

one awakened person can awaken the world ~OSHO~

hunabku — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:35:38 GMT

There is no evil and there are no evil forces in the world. There are only people of awareness, and there are people who are fast asleep -- and sleep has no force. The whole energy is in the hands of the awakened people. And one awakened person can awaken the whole world. One lighted candle can make millions of candles lit without losing it's light. ~Osho

The Biofuel Illusion

hunabku — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:20:40 GMT

The Biofuel Illusion There's been a lot of talk lately about the promise of biofuels -- liquid fuels like ethanol and biodiesel made from plants -- to reduce our dependence on oil. Even President Bush beat the biofuel drum in his last State of the Union speech. Fuel from plants? Sounds pretty good. But before you rush out to buy an E-85 pickup, consider: -- The United States annually consumes more fossil and nuclear energy than all the energy produced in a year by the country's plant life, including forests and that used for food and fiber, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Energy and David Pimentel, a Cornell University researcher. -- To produce enough corn-based ethanol to meet current U.S. demand for automotive gasoline, we would need to nearly double the amount of land used for harvested crops, plant all of it in corn, year after year, and not eat any of it. Even a greener fuel source like the switchgrass President Bush mentioned, which requires fewer petroleum-based inputs than corn and reduces topsoil losses by growing back each year, could provide only a small fraction of the energy we demand. -- The corn and soybeans that make ethanol and biodiesel take huge quantities of fossil fuel for farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizer. Much of it comes from foreign sources, including some that may not be dependable, such as Russia and countries in the Middle East. -- Corn and soybean production as practiced in the Midwest is ecologically unsustainable. Its effects include massive topsoil erosion, pollution of surface and groundwater with pesticides, and fertilizer runoff that travels down the Mississippi River to deplete oxygen and life from a New Jersey-size portion of the Gulf of Mexico. -- Improving fuel efficiency in cars by just 1 mile per gallon -- a gain possible with proper tire inflation -- would cut fuel consumption equal to the total amount of ethanol federally mandated for production in 2012. Rather than chase phantom substitutes for fossil fuels, we should focus on what can immediately both slow our contribution to global climate change and reduce our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels: cutting energy use. Let's be bold. Let's raise the tax on gasoline to encourage consumers to buy fuel-efficient cars and trucks. We can use the proceeds to fund research and subsidies for truly sustainable energy. Let's raise energy efficiency standards for vehicles, appliances, industries and new buildings. Let's employ new land-use rules and tax incentives to discourage suburban sprawl and encourage dense, mixed-use development that puts workplaces, retail stores and homes within walking distance of each other. Let's better fund mass transit. Let's switch the billions we now spend on ethanol subsidies to development of truly sustainable energy technologies. And why not spend money to make on-the-shelf technology like hybrid cars more affordable? Fuel-efficient hybrids aren't the final solution, but they can be a bridge to more sustainable solutions. The focus on biofuels as a silver bullet to solve our energy and climate change crises is at best misguided. At worst, it is a scheme that could have potentially disastrous environmental consequences. It will have little effect on our fossil fuel dependence. We must reduce energy use now if we hope to kick our oil addiction and slow climate change. Pushing biofuels at the expense of energy conservation today will only make our problems more severe, and their solutions more painful, tomorrow. By Julia Olmstead, AlterNet. Posted July 7, 2006 http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/38540/

What is the Federal Reserve? educate your self

hunabku — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:37:00 GMT

What is the Federal Reserve? educate your self Steven Moorman Professor Van Der Slice US HISTORY 104 Industrial Revolution What is the Federal Reserve? The Federal Reserve is not in anyway federal, nor does it have anything in reserve. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation, out for profit. It is the fourth central bank in America and on December 22, 1913 was granted the unconstitutional right to print and coin money, as well as set interest rates for the United States economy. The United States Constitution strictly prohibits any institution, except Congress, from issuing our money in America. In fact, the US Constitution clearly states in Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 5 that congress alone shall reserve the right to: To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins, and the standard of weights and measures. This means our coins are supposed to contain a specific and just amount of precious metal, in which the coins today contain none. The Federal Reserve System is divided into 12 Federal Reserve Districts, with branches all over the United States. Twenty-five branches of these banks serve particular areas within each district. These branches do not compete with each other, they work together cooperate with other banks around the globe. There are three ways the Federal Reserve creates money out of absolutely nothing. First, they turn a profit through the Federal Open Market Committee (FMOC). This is an operation that buys US government bonds and federal agency securities, or IOUs issued buy the government, on the open market to add more money into circulation. When the bond matures the government is forced to pay it back with interest, this is a debt-based monetary system. The second way the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing is through a special Discount Window, also called fractional reserve banking. Our banking laws in the United States only require banks to keep a small fraction of money on hand as a reserve against withdrawals. This also allows them to loan out as much as 10 times the amount of money in the reserve and to charge interest on money they dont have. This allows banks to put more and more money into reserves which enables them to put more money they dont have into circulation (This is a prime example of the imaginary tax, Inflation!). The third way the Fed debases the money supply is a process called reserve ration manipulation. Banking laws allow the Fed to change the reserve ratio from 10 to 1, to virtually any figure -- 20 to 1, 40 to 1, 60 to 1, or even eliminate the reserve completely. Under the Federal Reserve System this process can be repeated over and over again until our money supply is hyper-inflated and destroyed. The Federal Reserve is the accumulation of centuries of banking practices built on usury and debauchery of currency through dishonest weights and measures. The architects of the FED represented and estimated of the total wealth in the entire world. The seven men were Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, Paul M Warburg, Benjamin Strong, Frank A. Vanderlip, Abraham Platt Andrew, Henry P. Davison, and Charles D. Norton. These men all met in Jekyll Island on November 10, 1910 to secretly draft the Federal Reserve. All of these men represented the interest of a hidden circle of International Bankers. At the middle of this circle of bankers was the Rothschild family, who today, are said, to control almost half of the wealth in the entire world. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild said, Let me control a nations money and credit and I care not who writes laws. Such is the case with the present day United States of America. By now it should be deeply understood that war can be very profitable for specific groups of people, especially a money lender or international banker. The House of Rothschild, the head monetary scientists of their time, mastered the technique of instigating wars and subsequently drowning countries in debt. Mayer Amschel Bauer was born in 1743 in Frankfurt, Germany. After learning the family business, money lending, he changed his name to Rothschild. Rothschild quickly and greatly multiplied his fortune by secretly financing wars in Europe. Mayer Amschel Rothschilds son, Nathan Rothschild, who was known to be the cleverest of the 5 children, employed the use of spies to report on the outcome of the battle of Waterloo. Nathan Rothschild, with exclusive news of the defeat of Napoleon, sold all of his fortune in the British stock market. With the outcome of this battle unbeknownst to most of the wealthy British tradesmen, this move by Nathan gave the impression that Napoleon had been victorious. Everyone knew that if Napoleon defeated England that the first order of business would be to take over British banks and confiscate the money supply. So, in a panic, investors in the British market quickly liquidated their assets. When the market soon bottomed out, Nathan Rothschild quickly bought back everything at a fraction of its worth and completely cornered the market. Nathan Rothschild knew that politicians lack the courage to tax, so they borrow to finance war as well as many other government operations. Privately owned central banks like the Bank of England and her daughter, The Federal Reserve, with their fiat money (money not backed by gold) has guaranteed war as a permanent fixture. To ensure their position as the worlds wealthiest family, the Rothschilds have financed almost all of the key figures in history. The Cecil Rhodes monopoly on the South African diamond mines and gold fields, the Harrimans Railroad empire in America and Soviet manganese production, the Vanderbilts in the railroads and the press, and Andrew Carnegie in the steel industry were all financed by Rothschild. Their capital and financial influence has almost single handedly shaped the rate, pace and sequence of the development of our modern civilization. They dominate international transactions on behalf of most of the nations of the world, they are the largest international financiers in recorded history. J.P. Morgan was their chief agent in America. He turned Wall Street in a dominated Morgan-institution. The Rothschilds used great financial panics, like in 1907, to create leverage necessary for their agents J.P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, and others to convince the American Government that the only way to avoid these types of periods of financial upheaval, would be to create a privately owned central bank in America. In 1912 the Jekyll Island strategist laid down the following plan of action in order to convince congress and the public that their findings were in the publics best interest. First the group had to trick the public into believing the bank was part of the government; dont even call it a central bank. Next they would form regional branches to create the appearance of nullified Wall Street control. Then begin with fair banking principles, and then quietly alter the objectives in favor of the money trust. They would then utilize the Panic of 1907 to coerce national support for sweeping new monetary reform. They would offer the Jekyll Island plan as a solution to the problems of currency drains and panic runs on the banks. They would also get Universities to endorse the plan. Finally, in what perhaps the slickest move of all, the bankers themselves would have to denounce the plan to trick the public into believing that Wall Street was not in favor of it. The Money trust knew the only way that they could get Americas fourth privately owned central bank signed into law beyond a doubt would be to rig the 1912 election. The presidential election of 1912 started out with only two candidates running for president: the democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, and the Republican William Howard Taft. By the time of the actual election there were three candidates running. William Howard Taft was the incumbent of the money trust, and the trust knew that he wouldnt sign the Federal Reserve Act, even though he was a friend of Big Business. So they decided the run the oldest trick in the book. They shifted some of the votes from Taft by the running the republican, Teddy Roosevelt, as the bull moose (progressive party) candidate. It worked to perfection, splitting the vote, guaranteeing the White House to their hand-picked, hand groomed puppet candidate, Woodrow Wilson. This shows the political partisanship is unimportant to the Money Trust and that they could care less about whether a Republican or Democrat sits in the White House. In 2000, Bush ran as a Republican. In 1912 Wilson ran as a Democrat. Both of these men received the blessings of the money trust. Wilsons presidency almost simultaneously began with his signing of the Federal Reserve Bill into law. The advent of the Bush administration commenced with an international war on terrorism. In both instances the monetary costs to the public were extremely high. Calling the 1912 election a rigged election is not an outrageous claim to make at all. In 1912, no one could ever dream that the Republican bankers were working feverishly behind the scenes to elect a Democrat to the White House, but they were. Woodrow Wilson was funded by J.P. Morgan and Company, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and Paul Warburg/Jacob Schiff. Roosevelt was also funded by J.P. Morgan and Company through their newspaper propagandists, George W. Perkins and Frank Munsey. These two men jointly contributed millions to facilitate Tafts political extermination. Within the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company Felix Warburg was openly backing Taft so that the public would think the Money Trust wanted Taft to win. The Warburg/Schiff faction was also joined by the Rockefellers National City Bank in backing Wilson. With Woodrow Wilson finally in office, it was time to move the Federal Reserve plan into its final phase. A new bill was needed to fool the controlling populist wing of the democratic congress. The Money Trust assigned Colonel Edward Mandell House to the role of Chief Advisor to President Wilson. As a member of the London Connection, Colonel House worked more than anyone to get the United States into WW1 on Englands side. With influence of House on the President, the Money Trust secured the massive war loans to England and France for the Morgan Conspirators. Colonel House became a constant guiding companion to President Wilson in all areas of policy favorable to the Money Trust. In 1912 the international bankers, working to get the worlds ultimate banking scam through Congress, cleverly recruited the Democratic Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, Congressmen Carter Glass from Virginia. Glasss job was to publicly condemn the bankers decoy bill in the Congress, the Aldrich Bill, while at the same time resurrect it from the dead. Glass staged public hearings, which were essentially rigged to disallow Rep. Charles Lindberg, father of the famous aviator, and the rest of the opposition in Congress. Glass was joined by Senator Robert L. Owen in sponsorship of the new Glass-Owen plan. The Glass-Owen bill was filled out with alternative components, only taking on an appearance of compromise. In reality, it was the same Aldrich bill but with enough alterations to fool the Populist Party. Their goal was to get the bill passed and to perfect it later. On December 22, 1913, all of the Senators, except three, had gone home for the Christmas Holiday. Their fellow senators failed to formally adjourn, leaving the floor open for business. By a unanimous vote of only three, the Federal Reserve Act sneaked though the Senate after already passing in the House. The bill was signed into law the very next day by the puppet for the Money Trust, Woodrow Wilson. By giving the Federal Reserve the unconstitutional authority to issue money created out of nothing at all, and control the credit of the United States, it ultimately controls our economic destiny. The second most powerful tool to wage war on the middle class is the graduated income tax, and the Federal Reserves collection agency, the IRS. The federal income tax has not always been around, and neither was it created as a means to run our government. The fact of the matter is that after the Federal Reserve bill became the law of the land, the bankers had to trick Americans into believing that taxes on your income fun the government and not their inflationary scheme of creating money out of nothing. There are all kinds of taxes in America: state tax, excise tax, sales tax, property tax, inheritance tax, but the bankers created the worst tax of all, inflation. The money trust knew that if the American people ever realized that the economic dynamics of having a private central bank like the Federal Reserve was creating a burdensome and perpetually expanding unseen tax to be borne by every American citizen, that both elected officials and the public would revolt. Public ignorance was extremely vital in the success of this scheme. This is the first reason for the tax; if the government eliminated the income tax and simply opted to run the nation on monetized debt (monetized bonds or government issued fiat money), the people might just wake up and understand that the Federal Reserve was the burdensome debt machine that it really is. The second reason for the tax was to provide the ruling class aristocracy and free market elitist a lethal weapon to be perpetually used against the politically deaf, dumb, and blind middle class. One week prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve bill, Congress pass a bill legalizing a federal income tax as a means to guarantee the national debt. The federal income tax has not always been around, even though the bankers had tried to create one prior to 1913. In 1895, they tried to establish a similar federal income tax and the Supreme Court found and income tax at the federal level to be unconstitutional. The bankers had to get the income tax established or all the work they had done in creating the Fed could be abolished in a popular revolt. With this knowledge, Senator Aldrich hurried the 16th Amendment to the Constitution through Congress, establishing the income tax. But the 16th Amendment was never fully ratified, so our federal income tax is not only unconstitutional, but it was rammed down our throats in a vicious attempt to choke the life out of any potential thrust toward true prosperity, sovereignty, and independence by the American People. After the Federal Reserve Bill was passed the Fed had full abilities to create periods of economic booms and busts. This method of expansion and contraction of the money supply only benefits the stockholders of the Federal Reserve because it creates misdirected meaningful bank reform, prevents debt-free currency like President Lincolns greenbacks from returning, grants bankers the right to arbitrarily create 90f our money supply by using the dishonest fractional reserve principle, grants overall control of our money supply to the jurisdiction of a few men, and establishes a privately owned central bank with a high degree of independence from the government. The Federal Reserves unconstitutional right to manipulate the economy through raising and lowering interest rates played a massive role in the roaring 20s and the following depression. Between 1920 and 1929 a period of economic booms and busts culminated with the greatest fleecing of the American people in history. At the beginning of WW1 the Fed inflated the economy to finance it, causing a rise in prices. In 1920, the Fed raised interest rates to tame inflation. Recession follows, wiping out small business and farms. In 1921 the Fed lowers interest rates to halt recession and help European trade. The debt grew and so did inflation. In 1923 the Fed tightened interest rates to stop inflation. In 1924, the Fed lowered interest rates to banks, creating 500 million in new money, leading to a rise in prices. In 1926 the Florida land boom collapses, and the economy follows. In 1928, the Fed raises interest rates to halt the boom. Then the Fed instituted time deposits, requiring a smaller amount of bank assets upon which they are loaned. This offsets the Feds contraction of credit. Then the Fed bails out the British pound, increasing our money supply by 2 million dollars. In the summer of 1928 the Fed sold Treasury Bonds on the open market, raising interest rates. This severely contracted the money supply and choked off credit, bringing a decade of speculation and investments to an abrupt end; the roaring 20s were over. The Federal Reserve had successfully pulled off the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of capitalism. In the Aftermath of the great depression the Fed began to slowly relax interest rates by pumping tons of fresh money into circulation. FDRs New Deal, which swept him into office, was designed and created to prop up the failing economy. But in spite of all economic recovery the economy was no better off in 1939 than it was in 1930. It was not until the outbreak of WW2 and the massive industrial preparation for war, which created millions of jobs that the depression was finally brought to an end. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud. Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed: 1. Rothschild Bank of London 2. Warburg Bank of Hamburg 3. Rothschild Bank of Berlin 4. Lehman Brothers of New York 5. Lazard Brothers of Paris 6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York 7. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy 8. Goldman, Sachs of New York 9. Warburg Bank of Amsterdam 10. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York. These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America where our forefathers were fighting their own government, they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt. The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank: First National Bank of New York, James Stillman National City Bank, New York, Mary W. Harnman, National Bank of Commerce, New York, A.D. Jiullard Hanover, National Bank, New York, Jacob Schiff, Chase National Bank, New York, Thomas F. Ryan, Paul Warburg, William Rockefeller, Levi P. Morton, M.T. Pyne, George F. Baker, Percy Pyne, Mrs. G.F. St. George, J.W. Sterling, Katherine St. George, H.P. Davidson, J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life), Edith Brevour, T. Baker. The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nickname T&T club -out Thursday...in Tuesday with lucrative salaries. Additionally, the FED started buying up the media in the 1930's and now owns or significantly influences most of it. Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest. Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free. Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED's books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it. Congressman Wright Patman was Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. For 20 of those years, he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913. Congressman Henry Gonzales, Chairman of a banking committee, introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 almost every year. It's always defeated, the media remains silent, and the public never learns the truth. The same bankers who own the FED control the media and give huge political contributions to sympathetic members of Congress. THE FED FEARS THE POPULATION WILL BECOME AWARE OF THIS FRAUD AND DEMAND CHANGE. We, the People, are at fault for being passive and allowing this to continue. THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, A GOVERNMENT BOARD, HAS CHEATED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY THE NATIONAL DEBT SEVERAL TIMES OVER. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks acting together have cost this country dearly. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; the rich and predatory money lenders. This is an era of economic misery and for the reasons that caused that misery, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are fully liable. Half a million dollars was spent on one part of propaganda organized by those same European bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion in regard to the Federal Reserve Bank. Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has USURPED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT CONTROLS EVERYTHING HERE AND IT CONTROLS ALL OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. IT MAKES AND BREAKS GOVERNMENTS AT WILL. No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. These evil-doers have robbed this country. What the Government has permitted the Federal Reserve Board to steal from the people should now be restored to the people. Our people's money to the extent of $1,200,000,000 has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Federal Reserve Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. The greater part of our monetary stock has been shipped to foreigners. Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should American Farmers and wage earners add millions of foreigners to the number of their dependents? Why should the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world? The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. FAITHLESS GOVERNMENT OFFICERS WHO HAVE VIOLATED THEIR OATHS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND BROUGHT TO TRIAL. If the media is unbiased, independent and completely thorough, why haven't they discussed the FED? Currently, half the states have at least a grass roots movement in action to abolish the FED, but there's no press coverage. In July, 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9f the stock in CBS. Furthermore, the bank had gained interlocking directorates with ABC. In 1974, Congress issued a report stating that the Chase Manhattan Bank's stake in CBS rose to 14.1nd NBC to 4.5The same report said that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms. After this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7f ABC, and today the percentage is most likely much greater. It only requires 5wnership to significantly influence the media . This is only one of 300 wealthy shareholders of the FED. It is believed other FED owners have similar holdings in the media. To control the media, FED bankers call in their loans if the media disagrees with them. History shows that Americas economic chaos, enslavement, and global capital dilemma, was caused by abandoning principles of fairness and honesty in favor of the dishonest methods used by the central bank. The stock market crash of 1987, the further loss of economic sovereignty through so-called free trade agreements like NAFTA and FTAA, are undisputedly the result of central banker policy. They control how much your mortgage payment is and whether or not you have a job. We will never get out of this economic slavery without monetary reform. They are the architects of the New World Order. They are the rulers of the world. Every day I hear people complaining about what they don't like about our government and media, but not one of them are willing to put forth an effort to try and change it, especially when it comes to their personal lives. We are as much a slave on a personal level, as our government is to the international bankers. We keep right on using the tool they put out here to control us, credit cards, and we are imprisoned by it. We are no longer willing to save up to buy something, we have to have it right now, so the Government has made it easy to have what you want without the having to save for it, (CREDIT). Don't you think it funny that in a land with so much wealth, only 2 PERCENT of the people own their homes? (CREDIT). Do you know 60 PERCENT of Americans have at least 3 Credit cards used to it's maximum? (CREDIT). Do you know that only 1 PERCENT of the people have their car paid for? (CREDIT). To be free, you must throw away your credit cards, and NEVER buy anything that you cannot afford at the moment of purchase. We will never be a free people until we rid ourselves of the burden placed here to control us, and when we stop renting from the powers, the power will cease to exist. I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of our nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hand of a few men. We have come to be one of the most worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson There is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, [and] so pervasive, that they had better not speak about their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. -Woodrow Wilson Thankyou for educating yourself... you deserve it By Mc Moorman

growing Kombucha!

hunabku — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 03:25:17 GMT

started growing/brewing Kombucha not long ago. I am in love with this little cultre!! : ) Its pretty damn easy for the most part. But I think it will take a few more brews to get that perfect taste. Kombucha tea is AMAZING stuff. It has a large amount of L-theanine. Which is an amnio-acid that has the ability to bypass the blood brain barrier. L-theanine is found in green and white tea as well. Great stuff for depression and mood. relaxes you by helping to increase alpha-brain waves, electrical brain activity commonly present when you are very relaxed, literally putting you in a better mood. increases GABA (gamma-amino-butyric acid), an important inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain. if you have never tryed it before, go get you some! This shit rawks!

the lovers Osho Zen Deck

hunabku — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:37:25 GMT

"What we call love is really a whole spectrum of relating, reaching from the earth to the sky. At the most earthy level, love is sexual attraction. Many of us remain stuck there, because our conditioning has burdened our sexuality with all kinds of expectations and repressions. Actually the biggest "problem" with sexual love is that it never lasts. Only if we accept this fact can we then really celebrate it for what it is - welcome its happening, and say good-bye with gratitude when it's not. Then, as we mature, we can begin to experience the love that exists beyond sexuality and honors the unique individuality of the other. We begin to understand that our partner often functions as a mirror, reflecting unseen aspects of our deeper self and supporting us to become whole. This love is based in freedom, not expectation or need. Its wings take us higher and higher towards the universal love that experiences all as one." That says it all! I am greatful for the heart breaks Ive had. Led me to where I am now. Your heart only gets broken cus you leave it clossed. Open up!

Gautam Buddha and the murderer Angulimal

hunabku — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:35:36 GMT

Gautam Buddha initiated a murderer into sannyas--and the murderer was no ordinary murderer. Rudolf Hess is nothing compared to him. His name was Angulimal. Angulimal means a man who wears a garland of human fingers. He had taken a vow that he would kill one thousand people; from each single person he would take one finger so that he could remember how many he had killed and he will make a garland of all those fingers. In his garland of fingers he had nine hundred and ninety-nine fingers--only one was missing. And that one was missing because his road was closed; nobody was coming that way. But Gautam Buddha entered that closed road. The king had put guards on the road to prevent people, particularly strangers who didn't know that a dangerous man lived behind the hills. The guards told Gautam Buddha, "That is not the road to be used. This is the place where Angulimal lives. Even the king has not the guts to go on this road. That man is simply mad. "His mother used to go to him. She was the only person who used to go, once in a while, to see him, but even she stopped. The last time she went there he told her, 'Now only one finger is missing, and just because you happen to be my mother... I want to warn you that if you come another time you will not go back. I need one finger desperately. Up to now I have not killed you because other people were available, but now nobody passes on this road except you. So I want to make you aware that next time if you come it will be your responsibility, not mine.' Since that time his mother has not come." The guards said to Buddha, "Don't unnecessarily take the risk." And do you know what Buddha said to them? Buddha said, "If I don't go then who will go? Only two things are possible: either I will change him, and I cannot miss this challenge; or I will provide him with one finger so that his desire is fulfilled. Anyway I am going to die one day. Giving my head to Angulimal will be at least of some use; otherwise one day I will die and you will put me on the funeral pyre. I think that it is better to fulfill somebody's desire and give him peace of mind. Either he will kill me or I will kill him, but this encounter is going to happen; you just lead the way." The people who used to follow Gautam Buddha, his close companions who were always in competition to be closer to him, started slowing down. Soon there were miles between Gautam Buddha and his disciples. They all wanted to see what happened, but they didn't want to be too close. Angulimal was sitting on his rock watching. He could not believe his eyes. A very beautiful man of such immense charisma was coming towards him. Who could this man be? He had never heard of Gautam Buddha, but even this hard heart of Angulimal started feeling a certain softness towards the man. He was looking so beautiful, coming towards him. It was early morning... a cool breeze, and the sun was rising... and the birds were singing and the flowers had opened; and Buddha was coming closer and closer. Finally Angulimal, with his naked sword in his hand, shouted, "Stop!" Gautam Buddha was just a few feet away, and Angulimal said, "Don't take another step because then the responsibility will not be mine. Perhaps you don't know who I am!" Buddha said, "Do you know who you are?" Angulimal said, "This is not the point. Neither is it the place nor the time to discuss such things. Your life is in danger!" Buddha said, "I think otherwise--your life is in danger." That man said, "I used to think I was mad--you are really mad! And you go on moving closer. Then don't say that I killed an innocent man. You look so innocent and so beautiful that I want you to go back. I will find somebody else. I can wait; there is no hurry. If I can manage nine hundred and ninety-nine... it is only a question of one more, but don't force me to kill you." Buddha came very close, and Angulimal's hands were trembling. The man was so beautiful, so innocent, so childlike. He had already fallen in love. He had killed so many people... He had never felt this weakness; he had never known what love is. For the first time he was full of love. So there was a contradiction: the hand was holding the sword to kill the person, and his heart was saying, "Put the sword back in the sheath." Buddha said, "I am ready, but why is your hand shaking?--you are such a great warrior, even kings are afraid of you, and I am just a poor beggar. Except the begging bowl, I don't have anything. You can kill me, and I will feel immensely satisfied that at least my death fulfills somebody's desire; my life has been useful, my death has also been useful. But before you cut my head I have a small desire, and I think you will grant me a small desire before killing me." Before death, even the hardest enemy is willing to fulfill any desire. Angulimal said, "What do you want?" Buddha said, "I want you just to cut from the tree a branch which is full of flowers. I will never see these flowers again; I want to see those flowers closely, feel their fragrance and their beauty in this morning sun, their glory." So Angulimal cut with his sword a whole branch full of flowers. And before he could give it to Buddha, Buddha said, "This was only half the desire; the other half is, please put the branch back on the tree." Angulimal said, "I was thinking from the very beginning that you are crazy. Now this is the craziest desire. How can I put this branch back?" Buddha said, "If you cannot create, you have no right to destroy. If you cannot give life, you don't have the right to give death to any living thing." A moment of silence and a moment of transformation... the sword fell down from his hands. Angulimal fell down at the feet of Gautam Buddha, and he said, "I don't know who you are, but whoever you are, take me to the same space in which you are; initiate me." By that time the followers of Gautam Buddha had come closer and closer. They were all around and when he fell at Buddha's feet they immediately came close. Somebody raised the question, "Don't initiate this man, he is a murderer!" Buddha said again, "If I don't initiate him, who will initiate him? And I love the man, I love his courage. And I can see tremendous possibility in him: a single man fighting against the whole world. I want this kind of people, who can stand against the whole world. Up to now he was standing against the world with a sword; now he will stand against the world with a consciousness, which is far sharper than any sword. I told you that murder was going to happen, but it was not certain who was going to be murdered--either I was going to be murdered, or Angulimal. Now you can see Angulimal is murdered. And who I am to judge?"