Once the format was settled, I got flying. I decided that it could not be a grim portrayal of the situation. It had to be upbeat. It had to highlight the potential without undermining the seriousness of the ground reality. When I asked Celia her take on the focus of the video, she confirmed my own angle. That was good news. I felt I could not just go and distort what she had shot in almost 10 hours of tape. If it served some higher purpose, praise be to God! Alhamdulilah! (That's something I have learned from my Arab and Muslim friends).
How do I even start? Where do I start? It was a difficult decision. In the beginning, I was only concerned to make a fund-raising video. So I started chopping up pieces that were good, and had some meaningful insights from all the individuals that were interviewed, interspersed with sights and sounds of Kathmandu and Hetauda. It was good that there were some artistic sections--no I am exaggerating! Well, I am referring to a little snippet of music that went along with this sign that said: Let there be peace! And there was a section with a Nepali folk song. I grabbed those real fast. I would definitely use them. I grabbed all the snippets with children doing their things. Then I separated out the more serious interviews with the adults.
I tried to put some humor--crosscut the serious interviews with children's upbeat natur--before the message got too depressing, or turn away viewers. I felt it was important to show the reality of the school--how it looked, how student studied. As they say a picture speaks louder than the words--ok okay, those are not the exact words, but why use a cliche when you can be creative?
I had Purna, Rob Buckley, Juliana and Elizabeth Wickwire. When I reached my first review phase, it was about 20 minutes long. I knew I had to put Kirk later, but at that point, the video was meant to be only for fund raising. So I got a little creative. I wanted to get a feedback before I went and made it unbearable to watch. I asked Bruno Pareyra, who runs Ram TV programs twice a week to view it and tell me honestly what he thought. I am glad I asked. He told me that it was hard for him to understanding English coming out of Nepali tongues. At that instance I had placed all the Ms. Wickwire's interview intact toward the latter half. That was too lengthy and had to be chopped up to prevent it from being dull--despite all the interesting facial expressions, her ability to express concisely, and create new words in the process if she had to.
I agreed with Bruno's take. That set me into a new phase....
Friday, August 26, 2005
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Making of a documentary
I had barely started to learn digital editing three months ago when I took on the challenge of producing a documentary. I am passionate about serving my home town in any way I can even though I am eight thousand miles away. But passion, as it turned out, was not enough. I also had to dig in and utilize the other two p’s—patience and perseverance.
First, I got a two-hour VHS tape from Celia (She’s a soul, I believe, who has come down to help humanity). She had reduced her 10 hours of DV tapes into 2 hours and expressed her desire to trim it to 20-30 minutes show. God bless her heart! That was a big help for me. Initially I was wavering on whether to make one cut or two—one for fund raising (maybe 20 minutes long for Celia) and the other—30 minute long—to enter into documentary festivals. Yea, I am ambitious!
I got off on a wrong foot. After a few tries, I managed to upload the 2-hour footage into a computer. The editing program we use here at the Communication, Drama and Journalism Department is Adobe Premiers 6.5. I used a swappable drive, 40 gigs. The misstep was regarding the format. Since Celia had shot it in Nepal, I assumed, she might have used PAL. Well, no! It was in NTSC—a system used in North America and Japan, she convinced me. So I uploaded the whole thing in NTSC program after a few weeks break, maybe it was a month. At this juncture I was working for the publicity of dramas we stage at our two theatres. I was not even working for the TV production yet. The first glimpse of the digital editing I had was during the production of a 30-second public service announcement for my first play publicity—Once Upon a Mattress, a mucical.
But anyhow, the first step had been taken. I was off from the starting line, to say the least. I was hoping to be Seabiscuit—a perennial underdog that pulls it off. I had started working for TV production officially, so I was getting more exposure into intricacies of editing and god forbid, the cabling of the equipments. I was so green that I cannot believe I thought I could do this. But well, it seems it is always the people who know “nada” or “muy poco” that believe they can do things the rest of the world knows better—just like George Bush believing he can graft a flourishing democracy in Iraq under the supervision of mighty US military. Sorry, I cannot help but take a shot at this folly.
But my folly was less troubling; It cost no lives, only umpteen hours of frustration. Or what other people would call frustration and I call it a learning experience—or a test of the will—or the struggle of man against the machine—or maybe the test of my will against the devious, temperamental and thwarting nature of computer software and glitches. Or it was me vs. Adobe Premiere. Most likely it was me vs. me.
To be continued…
First, I got a two-hour VHS tape from Celia (She’s a soul, I believe, who has come down to help humanity). She had reduced her 10 hours of DV tapes into 2 hours and expressed her desire to trim it to 20-30 minutes show. God bless her heart! That was a big help for me. Initially I was wavering on whether to make one cut or two—one for fund raising (maybe 20 minutes long for Celia) and the other—30 minute long—to enter into documentary festivals. Yea, I am ambitious!
I got off on a wrong foot. After a few tries, I managed to upload the 2-hour footage into a computer. The editing program we use here at the Communication, Drama and Journalism Department is Adobe Premiers 6.5. I used a swappable drive, 40 gigs. The misstep was regarding the format. Since Celia had shot it in Nepal, I assumed, she might have used PAL. Well, no! It was in NTSC—a system used in North America and Japan, she convinced me. So I uploaded the whole thing in NTSC program after a few weeks break, maybe it was a month. At this juncture I was working for the publicity of dramas we stage at our two theatres. I was not even working for the TV production yet. The first glimpse of the digital editing I had was during the production of a 30-second public service announcement for my first play publicity—Once Upon a Mattress, a mucical.
But anyhow, the first step had been taken. I was off from the starting line, to say the least. I was hoping to be Seabiscuit—a perennial underdog that pulls it off. I had started working for TV production officially, so I was getting more exposure into intricacies of editing and god forbid, the cabling of the equipments. I was so green that I cannot believe I thought I could do this. But well, it seems it is always the people who know “nada” or “muy poco” that believe they can do things the rest of the world knows better—just like George Bush believing he can graft a flourishing democracy in Iraq under the supervision of mighty US military. Sorry, I cannot help but take a shot at this folly.
But my folly was less troubling; It cost no lives, only umpteen hours of frustration. Or what other people would call frustration and I call it a learning experience—or a test of the will—or the struggle of man against the machine—or maybe the test of my will against the devious, temperamental and thwarting nature of computer software and glitches. Or it was me vs. Adobe Premiere. Most likely it was me vs. me.
To be continued…
Friday, August 19, 2005
Educational goals!
I had an interesting interview for a TA position this morning. It brought out a point that ails America. As mentioned earlier in fear and love blog, it seems the primary reason for failure of American public education system might be the "fear." There is fear that the ones with the most potential and promise might actually fulfill that potential, so the schools only meet the minimum neceassary, just in case the rest who are not the best and the brightest will not feel too bad about themselves. Similarly, there is fear to promote social good, just in case the "evil" also make use of the same facilities that can promote social harmony. No wonder, the students become apathetic and dwell in a morass of ignorance while the world continue to pay for the follies of the mighty ones. It is easier to rule a flock of sheep than pack of wolf. But the price paid for producing sheep will be beyond our imagination. The mighty shall fall when the they choose the convenience of ruling over the sheep rather than producing those who question their every move and are not afraid to let them know of their follies.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Bush's moral corruption
The deadline for the constitution for Iraq is MOnday midnight. The report is that Sunni demand will be sidelined to meet that goal--under the pressure from Bush administration. It is pretty amusing to see how the administration is downplaying its goals in Iraq of a full-fledged, prospering democracy so that they can claim "victory" and wimp out like a dog with its tail between its legs. There were many people who could have told this administration and neocons that democracy does not come from a graft but have to be rooted from cultural trnasformation. Apparently noone in the hawkish administration have learned anything about the cultural component of democracy. The price is misery to the world. But that is not all, Krugman in his opinion piece today aptly summarized Bush's agenda and approach to his governance:
"But the campaign for privatization provided an object lesson in how the administration sells its policies: by misrepresenting its goals, lying about the facts and abusing its control of government agencies. These were the same tactics used to sell both tax cuts and the Iraq war."
Was he successful in anything he attempted in his life? NO! Why would he be successful in being a president? But there is a deeper forces at work. American people are as much to blame for reelecting Bush. Being ignorant and arrogant, not using their good judgement about the lies being fed to them, taking for granted that the world had to tow to the American policy... Leadership is only a reflection of the people. Leadership is one of the most important components in a country's standings and course. Bad leadership--defined by ignorance, out of touch with reality, full of deception, unconcern for the people--world over had led those countries to their misery. Thanks to Bush and his hawkish cohorts, USA now joins that corrupt deceitful world of morally deprived leadership.
"But the campaign for privatization provided an object lesson in how the administration sells its policies: by misrepresenting its goals, lying about the facts and abusing its control of government agencies. These were the same tactics used to sell both tax cuts and the Iraq war."
Was he successful in anything he attempted in his life? NO! Why would he be successful in being a president? But there is a deeper forces at work. American people are as much to blame for reelecting Bush. Being ignorant and arrogant, not using their good judgement about the lies being fed to them, taking for granted that the world had to tow to the American policy... Leadership is only a reflection of the people. Leadership is one of the most important components in a country's standings and course. Bad leadership--defined by ignorance, out of touch with reality, full of deception, unconcern for the people--world over had led those countries to their misery. Thanks to Bush and his hawkish cohorts, USA now joins that corrupt deceitful world of morally deprived leadership.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Bush hiding behind bush (helicopter)
The news below shows the moral bankruptcy of a man who believes he has a mandate from God to impose his "foolhardy" will on the innocents and the world.
Bush ducks mother of dead soldier
President using helicopter to enter, leave Texas ranch to avoid confrontation
By ALAN FREEMAN
Friday, August 12, 2005 Updated at 3:45 AM EDT
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Washington — As the Iraq war continues to produce growing U.S. casualties and shrinking public support, President George W. Bush was forced yesterday to confront the protest of a grieving mother of a soldier killed in the war. But he still won't meet her.
As Cindy Sheehan camped out on a road leading to Mr. Bush's ranch near Crawford, Tex., for the sixth consecutive day, insisting she wants to speak to the President personally, Mr. Bush said he sympathizes with her plight, but rejected her call to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Ms. Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in an ambush in Sadr City, Baghdad's sprawling Shia neighbourhood, last year, just five days after he arrived in Iraq.
"I begged him not to go," says Ms. Sheehan, 48, who travelled from her home in California to try to speak with Mr. Bush as he spends his summer vacation at his Prairie Chapel Ranch. "I said, 'I'll take you to Canada,' but he said, 'Mom, I have to go. It's my duty. My buddies are going.'
Advertisements
"I don't believe his phony excuses for the war," Ms. Sheehan has said of the President. She said she believes the war is really about oil and making Mr. Bush's friends richer. "I want him to tell me why my son died."
Anti-war activists are converging on Crawford, eager to seize on Ms. Sheehan's newfound notoriety and telegenic appeal to get their message across.
On Saturday, Mr. Bush dispatched deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley and deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin to meet with her to try to defuse the situation, but it just gave Ms. Sheehan more attention.
Mr. Hadley said that Mr. Bush is very sensitive to the losses being sustained by military families, pointing out that he has already met privately with the families of more than 200 of the fallen.
"He believes that they are engaged in a noble cause and it's terribly important for the safety and security of our country. And he respects her views, but respectfully disagrees."
Yesterday, Mr. Bush felt obliged to respond himself. "She feels strongly about her position and she has every right in the world to say what she believes," Mr. Bush told a news conference. "And I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."
Mr. Bush said he grieves for every death in Iraq. "It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one. I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place."
Yet there was no sign Mr. Bush intends to meet Ms. Sheehan. In fact, there were reports he is travelling solely by helicopter when he leaves the ranch in an effort to avoid racing past the protester in a limousine.
"The President says he feels compassion for me," Ms. Sheehan said, "but the best way to show that compassion is by meeting with me and the other mothers and families who are here.
"All we're asking is that he sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us before the next mother loses her son in Iraq."
Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas who has studied Mr. Bush's rise, said: "For him, meeting this woman face to face would be blinking. His whole game is to be confident and to appear never to doubt and never to waiver. It's this idea of determination."
And unlike government leaders in a parliamentary system who are challenged directly by their political opponents, Mr. Bush can easily shelter himself from such confrontations.
"He would not trust himself in a face-to-face meeting and neither would his staff. These guys like control," said Prof. Jillson, who added that Ms. Sheehan's protest in itself may not be that significant but it comes at a time when many Americans are reconsidering their views of the Iraq war.
Approval of Mr. Bush's handling of the conflict has dropped to as little as 34 per cent of people surveyed, according to a recent poll conducted for Newsweek magazine.
But only 33 per cent of Americans say the solution is withdrawing all troops, according to a recent Gallup Poll. Another 23 per cent say some of the troops should be withdrawn while 41 per cent say troop levels should remain the same or be increased.
Ms. Sheehan's protest comes at a particularly bloody time for U.S. troops in the war as roadside bombs aimed at patrolling soldiers have become increasingly sophisticated and lethal. According to Associated Press, at least 1,841 American troops have died in the war since March, 2003, including 37 since the beginning of August.
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said he strongly disagrees with those calling for troop withdrawal. "Pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy ..... [that] the United States is weak and all we've got to do is intimidate and they'll leave."
Bush ducks mother of dead soldier
President using helicopter to enter, leave Texas ranch to avoid confrontation
By ALAN FREEMAN
Friday, August 12, 2005 Updated at 3:45 AM EDT
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Washington — As the Iraq war continues to produce growing U.S. casualties and shrinking public support, President George W. Bush was forced yesterday to confront the protest of a grieving mother of a soldier killed in the war. But he still won't meet her.
As Cindy Sheehan camped out on a road leading to Mr. Bush's ranch near Crawford, Tex., for the sixth consecutive day, insisting she wants to speak to the President personally, Mr. Bush said he sympathizes with her plight, but rejected her call to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Ms. Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in an ambush in Sadr City, Baghdad's sprawling Shia neighbourhood, last year, just five days after he arrived in Iraq.
"I begged him not to go," says Ms. Sheehan, 48, who travelled from her home in California to try to speak with Mr. Bush as he spends his summer vacation at his Prairie Chapel Ranch. "I said, 'I'll take you to Canada,' but he said, 'Mom, I have to go. It's my duty. My buddies are going.'
Advertisements
"I don't believe his phony excuses for the war," Ms. Sheehan has said of the President. She said she believes the war is really about oil and making Mr. Bush's friends richer. "I want him to tell me why my son died."
Anti-war activists are converging on Crawford, eager to seize on Ms. Sheehan's newfound notoriety and telegenic appeal to get their message across.
On Saturday, Mr. Bush dispatched deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley and deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin to meet with her to try to defuse the situation, but it just gave Ms. Sheehan more attention.
Mr. Hadley said that Mr. Bush is very sensitive to the losses being sustained by military families, pointing out that he has already met privately with the families of more than 200 of the fallen.
"He believes that they are engaged in a noble cause and it's terribly important for the safety and security of our country. And he respects her views, but respectfully disagrees."
Yesterday, Mr. Bush felt obliged to respond himself. "She feels strongly about her position and she has every right in the world to say what she believes," Mr. Bush told a news conference. "And I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."
Mr. Bush said he grieves for every death in Iraq. "It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one. I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place."
Yet there was no sign Mr. Bush intends to meet Ms. Sheehan. In fact, there were reports he is travelling solely by helicopter when he leaves the ranch in an effort to avoid racing past the protester in a limousine.
"The President says he feels compassion for me," Ms. Sheehan said, "but the best way to show that compassion is by meeting with me and the other mothers and families who are here.
"All we're asking is that he sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us before the next mother loses her son in Iraq."
Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas who has studied Mr. Bush's rise, said: "For him, meeting this woman face to face would be blinking. His whole game is to be confident and to appear never to doubt and never to waiver. It's this idea of determination."
And unlike government leaders in a parliamentary system who are challenged directly by their political opponents, Mr. Bush can easily shelter himself from such confrontations.
"He would not trust himself in a face-to-face meeting and neither would his staff. These guys like control," said Prof. Jillson, who added that Ms. Sheehan's protest in itself may not be that significant but it comes at a time when many Americans are reconsidering their views of the Iraq war.
Approval of Mr. Bush's handling of the conflict has dropped to as little as 34 per cent of people surveyed, according to a recent poll conducted for Newsweek magazine.
But only 33 per cent of Americans say the solution is withdrawing all troops, according to a recent Gallup Poll. Another 23 per cent say some of the troops should be withdrawn while 41 per cent say troop levels should remain the same or be increased.
Ms. Sheehan's protest comes at a particularly bloody time for U.S. troops in the war as roadside bombs aimed at patrolling soldiers have become increasingly sophisticated and lethal. According to Associated Press, at least 1,841 American troops have died in the war since March, 2003, including 37 since the beginning of August.
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said he strongly disagrees with those calling for troop withdrawal. "Pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy ..... [that] the United States is weak and all we've got to do is intimidate and they'll leave."
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Fools rush in...
where angels tread.
Remember the saying “Fools rush in where angels tread?” That is Iraq for you. This president who thinks that intelligent design is an alternate theory to evolution has proved beyond doubt that the higher one did not actually bestow him with much intelligence. But he is the president of the United States so the media is rightly interested in his views. As we all know, he believes he has a mandate from God so whatever he thinks and does is the right thing to do. That is why US is in a serious downhill slide in its so called misguided “war on terror.” Instead of winning the world on its side, which is absolutely necessary for this kind of effort, he has alienated the world against U.S.. He continues to pokes the world in the eyeball. If he had his way, he would take the world back to pre-renaissance enlightenment days.
When he meant Iraq would be democratic, did you actually believe it? It seems he demonstrates his “foolhardiness” even more successfully in Iraq. Of course, for him democratic Iraq means nothing more than a written constitution. That’s it. See, how they are already talking of precursor to another “mission accomplished” to withdraw substantial troops from Iraq. Glaringly, there is no choice—recruitment is dismal. Those willing to fight and die for Bush’s lies are dwindling by the minute.
But that is not the end of Bush and neocons’ agenda.
We are having a debate about teaching “intelligent design” as an alternate theory to Evolution? Dang! That intelligent design has obviously left some hole in Bush’s brain. But it would be interesting to see how this hacking of science will damage U.S. position further. There are ample opportunities for the up and coming civilization to consolidate their position. Everything about Bush and the conservative America smells regressive and ethnocentric world dominion views. That is not something that would help the world. Not by a long shot. Not always can the mighty one that falls can recuperate--especially when the critical point has been crossed. Let’s just hope that such a point has not been crossed yet.
Remember the saying “Fools rush in where angels tread?” That is Iraq for you. This president who thinks that intelligent design is an alternate theory to evolution has proved beyond doubt that the higher one did not actually bestow him with much intelligence. But he is the president of the United States so the media is rightly interested in his views. As we all know, he believes he has a mandate from God so whatever he thinks and does is the right thing to do. That is why US is in a serious downhill slide in its so called misguided “war on terror.” Instead of winning the world on its side, which is absolutely necessary for this kind of effort, he has alienated the world against U.S.. He continues to pokes the world in the eyeball. If he had his way, he would take the world back to pre-renaissance enlightenment days.
When he meant Iraq would be democratic, did you actually believe it? It seems he demonstrates his “foolhardiness” even more successfully in Iraq. Of course, for him democratic Iraq means nothing more than a written constitution. That’s it. See, how they are already talking of precursor to another “mission accomplished” to withdraw substantial troops from Iraq. Glaringly, there is no choice—recruitment is dismal. Those willing to fight and die for Bush’s lies are dwindling by the minute.
But that is not the end of Bush and neocons’ agenda.
We are having a debate about teaching “intelligent design” as an alternate theory to Evolution? Dang! That intelligent design has obviously left some hole in Bush’s brain. But it would be interesting to see how this hacking of science will damage U.S. position further. There are ample opportunities for the up and coming civilization to consolidate their position. Everything about Bush and the conservative America smells regressive and ethnocentric world dominion views. That is not something that would help the world. Not by a long shot. Not always can the mighty one that falls can recuperate--especially when the critical point has been crossed. Let’s just hope that such a point has not been crossed yet.
Comparing home and here
It is a good weekend for me. Tons of things to do for the last week of the second summer session. I am taking Diffusion of Innovation course with Dr. G. Armfield. It is a fascinating topic--much use in the real workd situation.
I talked ot my mother in Nepal. My $5 phone card gave me 14 minutes. That is a remarcable improvement over what used to be back in 1993 when I got here. But I paid $12.00 to a West Texas lady for a haircut--my first since January when I left Arizona. Come to think of it. I never paid more than Rs 10.00 for my haircut in Nepal. That was less than a US$ .25 at that time. It is also one of my favorite stories I tell folks in US. The other one is how much my rent was--about $20.00 for a two bedroom and a kitchen in a nice cement constructed home in Balkhu, Patan.
I talked ot my mother in Nepal. My $5 phone card gave me 14 minutes. That is a remarcable improvement over what used to be back in 1993 when I got here. But I paid $12.00 to a West Texas lady for a haircut--my first since January when I left Arizona. Come to think of it. I never paid more than Rs 10.00 for my haircut in Nepal. That was less than a US$ .25 at that time. It is also one of my favorite stories I tell folks in US. The other one is how much my rent was--about $20.00 for a two bedroom and a kitchen in a nice cement constructed home in Balkhu, Patan.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
A Shining Example: Everest of Apple
Today, I wrote to the Everest of Apples charity in Japan, which is a unique effort to utilize community to help another community. Basically, it is designing a community-based charity model in Japan and helping community-based educatinal and development model in Hetauda, Nepal. Here is a little introduction on them:
"Everest of Apples was founded in 2002 as a nonsectarian charitable organization by the JETs of Aomori Prefecture, Japan. Everest of Apples (E of A) focuses its efforts primarily on the Prajwal School, a unique nonprofit primary school in Nepal.
E of A suppports the Prajwal School in close cooperation with NEST, a nonprofit organization in Nepal. We chose to work with NEST because of their proven commitment to addressing such important issues as gender inequality, high illiteracy rates, and poor educational standards in general. On a very basic level, E of A and NEST share both the belief that education is a right for all, and the vision of a more equitable future.
Our support of the Prajwal School is funded entirely by charitable donations, the majority of which come from members of the JET Program residing in Aomori Prefecture, Japan."
CHILDREN! EDUCATION! EQUALITY
What a wonderful vision to look forward to and work for!
"Everest of Apples was founded in 2002 as a nonsectarian charitable organization by the JETs of Aomori Prefecture, Japan. Everest of Apples (E of A) focuses its efforts primarily on the Prajwal School, a unique nonprofit primary school in Nepal.
E of A suppports the Prajwal School in close cooperation with NEST, a nonprofit organization in Nepal. We chose to work with NEST because of their proven commitment to addressing such important issues as gender inequality, high illiteracy rates, and poor educational standards in general. On a very basic level, E of A and NEST share both the belief that education is a right for all, and the vision of a more equitable future.
Our support of the Prajwal School is funded entirely by charitable donations, the majority of which come from members of the JET Program residing in Aomori Prefecture, Japan."
CHILDREN! EDUCATION! EQUALITY
What a wonderful vision to look forward to and work for!
Monday, August 01, 2005
Loneliness vs. Solitude
Loneliness
1.the state of being alone in solitary isolation [syn: solitariness]
2.sadness resulting from being forsaken or abandoned [syn: forlornness, desolation]
3.a disposition toward being alone [syn: aloneness, lonesomeness, solitude]
Solitude
1.The state or quality of being alone or remote from others.
2.A lonely or secluded place.
As we see, dictionary seems to place loneliness and solitude as synonyms, hence an equal footing. I argue that there is something deeper and more fundamental difference between these to states. They are not the same.
Here is my take. Loneliness and solitude are related to spiritual state. Loneliness is something one experiences because a person feels a spiritual disconnect with the higher one. In this disconnect, one can feel that there is no one else present, although spirit can never be alone.
Solitude is a state a soul wants because it already knows its connection to the higher spirit. Therefore, the spirit purposefully seeks solitude in order to escape from the cacophony of life to be one with the eternal source of life.
1.the state of being alone in solitary isolation [syn: solitariness]
2.sadness resulting from being forsaken or abandoned [syn: forlornness, desolation]
3.a disposition toward being alone [syn: aloneness, lonesomeness, solitude]
Solitude
1.The state or quality of being alone or remote from others.
2.A lonely or secluded place.
As we see, dictionary seems to place loneliness and solitude as synonyms, hence an equal footing. I argue that there is something deeper and more fundamental difference between these to states. They are not the same.
Here is my take. Loneliness and solitude are related to spiritual state. Loneliness is something one experiences because a person feels a spiritual disconnect with the higher one. In this disconnect, one can feel that there is no one else present, although spirit can never be alone.
Solitude is a state a soul wants because it already knows its connection to the higher spirit. Therefore, the spirit purposefully seeks solitude in order to escape from the cacophony of life to be one with the eternal source of life.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Bush, Neocons support Osama's fondest wish
Osama’s contention was that superpowers can be defeated. At that time he was battling the Soviets in Afghanistan. We know how that ended for Soviets and led to political exacerbation within the U.S.S.R. The Soviets were defeated in many ways. Osama then turned his sights toward the remaining superpower. His blow to the U.S.A made the world gasp in horror. But that in itself could not have made USA vulnerable. He got help from the U.S.. How? You might ask.
This is how I view it. Beyond any human law, there is a divine law and there is a cycle or morality in human civilization that helps people rise and fall. Those who hold the high moral ground and value it with everything they got, prosper. First thing USA did was lost that moral high ground that had been burning bright. When Bush invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, the sponsoring motive was not deposing an evil dictator or fighting terrorism, neither was it fighting freedom, or fighting terrorist over there in order not to fight them over here. There were all glossed over reasons to whitewash American people who are themselves willing to be lead down the path of ignorance. I have observed how ethnocentric majority of Americans are. So it was not hard to persuade them to go to war. From the gut reaction, they followed their hollow president—an immoral leader, like the ones in the rest of the countries of the world. Bush’s motives consistent with the neocons’ dreams were greed, ethno centrist aspiration and basic misplaced vengeful cowboy justice that were asynchronous with the fundamental laws of the universe.
Since the fundamental reasons of invading Iraq was morally unjustifiable, USA is now hopelessly bogged down in an attritional struggle. It is proving to be the bite that was too much to swallow. And it will turn out to be the downfall of this great nation. Wasn’t the mighty Roman Empire brought down by the Barbarians? Anyway, the prognosis goes like this.
1. The U.S. society is getting weaker from within because of the domestic policies that reward the rich and punishes the poor. It is like building a castle over the running water. The water is the tide of history. The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. The weakest members of the society are getting shafted from all angles. From jobs and wages to healthcare and even family structure with both parents having to work and not properly bring up their kids etc. So internally its social structure is crumbling little by little. The rich are having a ball and they think the world is just fine—well, it is for them. The neocons’ hold on the political process from judicial activism is going to divide the society even severely. This in particular is going to be harder to address and will have debilitating effect on social discourse.
2. The globalization has also placed US in a weaker position. The competition is with China and India like economy and workers so the labor movement is getting weaker and losing their bargaining power. The recent split is one example. On the other hand, China is financing U.S. borrowing spree and its deficits. Once Euro becomes attractive, China might diversify its currency diversify its investment.
3. The Iraq war will be costing an arm and a leg for years to come. The money management is horrendous. Corruption and greed is fostering misuse—spell Halliburton. Bush cronies never have had it so good. The oil market is booming and they can’t get enough dough. Iraq’s spin off has been the Guantanamo prison. It is making crystal clear how the U.S. stands morally naked. At the same time, the recruiting for Osama is phenomenal. Compare that to US recruitment to sustain its troop—it is now recruiting from Guam and the likes. The shadowy world of terrorism is the perfect enemy that can bring down mighty empires. The terrorist cells are so dispersed and so autonomous, they can hit anywhere anytime that will damage U.S. interests.
I will probably elaborate more on these points in future, as I view the underlying historical march of human civilizations. But Osama believed that he could defeat both the superpowers. He just might, as he has the best associates in Bush, neocons, and American people—just like in his fight against the Soviet empire. And Iraq is a quagmire that U.S. pride will not let it go? And what does the Bible says to the Bible-loving president and the Neocons? Pride before Fall. Osama's fondest wish.
This is how I view it. Beyond any human law, there is a divine law and there is a cycle or morality in human civilization that helps people rise and fall. Those who hold the high moral ground and value it with everything they got, prosper. First thing USA did was lost that moral high ground that had been burning bright. When Bush invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, the sponsoring motive was not deposing an evil dictator or fighting terrorism, neither was it fighting freedom, or fighting terrorist over there in order not to fight them over here. There were all glossed over reasons to whitewash American people who are themselves willing to be lead down the path of ignorance. I have observed how ethnocentric majority of Americans are. So it was not hard to persuade them to go to war. From the gut reaction, they followed their hollow president—an immoral leader, like the ones in the rest of the countries of the world. Bush’s motives consistent with the neocons’ dreams were greed, ethno centrist aspiration and basic misplaced vengeful cowboy justice that were asynchronous with the fundamental laws of the universe.
Since the fundamental reasons of invading Iraq was morally unjustifiable, USA is now hopelessly bogged down in an attritional struggle. It is proving to be the bite that was too much to swallow. And it will turn out to be the downfall of this great nation. Wasn’t the mighty Roman Empire brought down by the Barbarians? Anyway, the prognosis goes like this.
1. The U.S. society is getting weaker from within because of the domestic policies that reward the rich and punishes the poor. It is like building a castle over the running water. The water is the tide of history. The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. The weakest members of the society are getting shafted from all angles. From jobs and wages to healthcare and even family structure with both parents having to work and not properly bring up their kids etc. So internally its social structure is crumbling little by little. The rich are having a ball and they think the world is just fine—well, it is for them. The neocons’ hold on the political process from judicial activism is going to divide the society even severely. This in particular is going to be harder to address and will have debilitating effect on social discourse.
2. The globalization has also placed US in a weaker position. The competition is with China and India like economy and workers so the labor movement is getting weaker and losing their bargaining power. The recent split is one example. On the other hand, China is financing U.S. borrowing spree and its deficits. Once Euro becomes attractive, China might diversify its currency diversify its investment.
3. The Iraq war will be costing an arm and a leg for years to come. The money management is horrendous. Corruption and greed is fostering misuse—spell Halliburton. Bush cronies never have had it so good. The oil market is booming and they can’t get enough dough. Iraq’s spin off has been the Guantanamo prison. It is making crystal clear how the U.S. stands morally naked. At the same time, the recruiting for Osama is phenomenal. Compare that to US recruitment to sustain its troop—it is now recruiting from Guam and the likes. The shadowy world of terrorism is the perfect enemy that can bring down mighty empires. The terrorist cells are so dispersed and so autonomous, they can hit anywhere anytime that will damage U.S. interests.
I will probably elaborate more on these points in future, as I view the underlying historical march of human civilizations. But Osama believed that he could defeat both the superpowers. He just might, as he has the best associates in Bush, neocons, and American people—just like in his fight against the Soviet empire. And Iraq is a quagmire that U.S. pride will not let it go? And what does the Bible says to the Bible-loving president and the Neocons? Pride before Fall. Osama's fondest wish.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Communicating: Listening for guidance
I have talk with my landlady Billie about God quite often. It is not hard to understand the hold of religion and faith since we are indoctrinated in our formative years. Not many people believe God is communicating with them. That is not a true understanding. Here, I will share with you an important passage from the book, I have been telling you about:
The question is not to whom God talks, but who listens?
Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what’s true for you about something, look to how you’re feeling about it.
Feelings are sometimes difficult to discover—and often even more difficult to acknowledge. Yet hidden in your deepest feelings is your highest truth.
I also communicate with thoughts. Thought and feelings are not the same, although they can occur at the same time. In communicating with thought, I often use images and pictures. For this reason, thoughts are more effective than mere words as tools of communication.
In addition to feelings and thoughts, I also use the vehicle of experience as a grand communicator.
And finally, when feelings and thoughts and experience all fail, I use words. Words are the least effective communicator. They are most open to misinterpretation, most often misunderstood.
Why is that? It is because of what words are. Words are merely utterances: noises that stand for feelings, thoughts, and experience. They are symbols. Signs. Insignias. They are not Truth. They are not the real thing.
Words may help you understand something. Experience allows you to know. Yet there re some things you cannot experience. So I have given you other tools of knowing.
Now the supreme irony here is that you have all placed so much importance on the Word of God, and so little on the experience.
In fact, you place so little value on experience that when what you experience of God differs from what you’ve heard of God, you automatically discard the experience and own the words, when it should be just the other way around.
Many words have been uttered by others, in My name. Many thoughts and many feelings have been sponsored by causes not of My direct creation. Many experiences result from these.
The challenge is one of discernment. The difficulty is knowing the difference between messages from God and data from other sources. Discrimination is a simple matter with the application of a basic rule:
Mine is always your Highest Thought, your Clearest Word, your Grandest Feeling. Anything less is from another source.
The question is not to whom God talks, but who listens?
Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what’s true for you about something, look to how you’re feeling about it.
Feelings are sometimes difficult to discover—and often even more difficult to acknowledge. Yet hidden in your deepest feelings is your highest truth.
I also communicate with thoughts. Thought and feelings are not the same, although they can occur at the same time. In communicating with thought, I often use images and pictures. For this reason, thoughts are more effective than mere words as tools of communication.
In addition to feelings and thoughts, I also use the vehicle of experience as a grand communicator.
And finally, when feelings and thoughts and experience all fail, I use words. Words are the least effective communicator. They are most open to misinterpretation, most often misunderstood.
Why is that? It is because of what words are. Words are merely utterances: noises that stand for feelings, thoughts, and experience. They are symbols. Signs. Insignias. They are not Truth. They are not the real thing.
Words may help you understand something. Experience allows you to know. Yet there re some things you cannot experience. So I have given you other tools of knowing.
Now the supreme irony here is that you have all placed so much importance on the Word of God, and so little on the experience.
In fact, you place so little value on experience that when what you experience of God differs from what you’ve heard of God, you automatically discard the experience and own the words, when it should be just the other way around.
Many words have been uttered by others, in My name. Many thoughts and many feelings have been sponsored by causes not of My direct creation. Many experiences result from these.
The challenge is one of discernment. The difficulty is knowing the difference between messages from God and data from other sources. Discrimination is a simple matter with the application of a basic rule:
Mine is always your Highest Thought, your Clearest Word, your Grandest Feeling. Anything less is from another source.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Being One with your True Self
Begin by being still. Quiet the outer world, so that the inner world might bring you sight. This in-sight is what you seek, yet you cannot have it while you are so deeply concerned with your outer reality. Seek, therefore, to go within as much as possible. And when you are not going within, come from within you as you deal with the outside world. Remember the axiom:
If you do not go within, you go without.
Put it in the first person as you repeat it, to make it more personal:
If I do not
go within
I
Go without
You have been going without all your life. Yet you do not have to, and never did.
There is nothing you cannot be, there is nothing you cannot do. There is nothing you cannot have.
For thousands of years people have disbelieved the promise of God for the most extraordinary reason: they were too good to be true. So you have chosen a lesser promise—a lesser love. For the highest promise of God proceeds from the highest love. Yet you cannot conceive of a perfect love, and so a perfect promise is also inconceivable. As is a perfect person. Therefore you cannot believe even in your Self.
Failing to believe in any of this means failure to believe in God. For belief in God produces belief in God’s greatest gift—unconditional love—and God’s greatest promise—unlimited potential (44).
If you do not go within, you go without.
Put it in the first person as you repeat it, to make it more personal:
If I do not
go within
I
Go without
You have been going without all your life. Yet you do not have to, and never did.
There is nothing you cannot be, there is nothing you cannot do. There is nothing you cannot have.
For thousands of years people have disbelieved the promise of God for the most extraordinary reason: they were too good to be true. So you have chosen a lesser promise—a lesser love. For the highest promise of God proceeds from the highest love. Yet you cannot conceive of a perfect love, and so a perfect promise is also inconceivable. As is a perfect person. Therefore you cannot believe even in your Self.
Failing to believe in any of this means failure to believe in God. For belief in God produces belief in God’s greatest gift—unconditional love—and God’s greatest promise—unlimited potential (44).
What is hell?
I had hard time sleeping last night. I work up around 12:40. I knew I would not be able to go to sleep so I read the "Conversations... and started typing the passages I really liked. This one is about hell...according to God:
What is hell?
It is the experience of the worst possible outcome of your choices, decisions, and creations. It is the natural consequences of any thought which denies Me, or says no to Who You Are in relationship to Me.
It is the pain you suffer through wrong thinking, Yet even the term “wrong thinking” is a misnomer, because there is no such thing as that which is wrong.
Hell is the opposite of joy. It is unfulfillment. It is knowing Who and What You Are, and failing to experience that. It is being less. That is hell, and there is none greater for your soul.
But hell does not exist as this place you have fantasized, where you burn in some everlasting fire, or exist in some state of everlasting torment. What purpose could I have in that?
Even if I did hold extraordinarily unGodly thought that you did not “deserve” heaven, why would I have a need to seek some kind of revenge, or punishment, for your failing? Wouldn’t it be a simple matter for Me to just dispose of you? What vengeful part of Me would require that I subject you to eternal suffering of a type and at a level beyond description?
If you answer, the need for justice, would not a simple denial of communication with Me in heaven serve the ends of justice? Is the unending infliction of pain also required?
I tell you there is no such experience after death as you have constructed in your fear-based theologies. Yet there is an experience of the soul so unhappy, so incomplete, so less than whole, so separated from God’s greatest joy, that to your soul this would be hell. But I tell you I do not send you there, nor do I cause this experience to be visited upon you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever and however you separate your Self from your own highest thought about you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever you deny your Self; whenever you rest Who and What You Really Are.
Yet even this experience is never eternal. It cannot be, for it is not My plan that you shall be separated from Me forever and ever. Indeed, such a thing is an impossibility—for to achieve such an event, not only would you have to deny Who You Are—I would have to as well. This I will never do. And so long as one of us holds the truth about you, the truth about you shall ultimately prevail (40-41).
What is hell?
It is the experience of the worst possible outcome of your choices, decisions, and creations. It is the natural consequences of any thought which denies Me, or says no to Who You Are in relationship to Me.
It is the pain you suffer through wrong thinking, Yet even the term “wrong thinking” is a misnomer, because there is no such thing as that which is wrong.
Hell is the opposite of joy. It is unfulfillment. It is knowing Who and What You Are, and failing to experience that. It is being less. That is hell, and there is none greater for your soul.
But hell does not exist as this place you have fantasized, where you burn in some everlasting fire, or exist in some state of everlasting torment. What purpose could I have in that?
Even if I did hold extraordinarily unGodly thought that you did not “deserve” heaven, why would I have a need to seek some kind of revenge, or punishment, for your failing? Wouldn’t it be a simple matter for Me to just dispose of you? What vengeful part of Me would require that I subject you to eternal suffering of a type and at a level beyond description?
If you answer, the need for justice, would not a simple denial of communication with Me in heaven serve the ends of justice? Is the unending infliction of pain also required?
I tell you there is no such experience after death as you have constructed in your fear-based theologies. Yet there is an experience of the soul so unhappy, so incomplete, so less than whole, so separated from God’s greatest joy, that to your soul this would be hell. But I tell you I do not send you there, nor do I cause this experience to be visited upon you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever and however you separate your Self from your own highest thought about you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever you deny your Self; whenever you rest Who and What You Really Are.
Yet even this experience is never eternal. It cannot be, for it is not My plan that you shall be separated from Me forever and ever. Indeed, such a thing is an impossibility—for to achieve such an event, not only would you have to deny Who You Are—I would have to as well. This I will never do. And so long as one of us holds the truth about you, the truth about you shall ultimately prevail (40-41).
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Understanding Creation and the Self
This section is pretty powerful in our development. How to think, speak and act. Here is another exerpt from Conversations with God:
The challenge is one of discernment. The difficulty is knowing the difference between messages from God and data from other sources. Discrimination is a simple matter with the application of a basic rule:
Mine is always your Highest Thought, your Clearest Word, your Grandest Feeling. Anything less is from another source (4).
Now the task of differentiation becomes easy, for it should not be difficult even for the beginning student to identify the Highest, the Clearest, and the Grandest.
Yet will I give you these guidelines:
The Highest Thought is always that thought which contains joy. The Clearest Words are those words which contain truth. The Grandest Feeling is that feeling which you call love.
Joy, truth, love.
These three are interchangeable, and one always leads to the other. It matters not in which order they are placed.
Having with these guidelines determined which messages are Mine and which have come from another source, the only question remaining is whether My messages will be heeded.
Most of My messages are not. Some because they seem too good to be true. Others, because they seem too difficult to follow. Many, because they are simply misunderstood. Most, because they are not received.
My most powerful messenger is experience, and even this you ignore. Especially this you ignore. Your world would not be in its present condition were you to have simply listened to your experience. The result of your not listening to your experience is that you keep re-living it, over and over again. For My purpose will not be thwarted, nor My will be ignored. You will get the message. Sooner or later.
I will not force you to, however. I will never coerce you. For I have given you a free will—the power to do as you choose—and I will never take that away from you, ever.
And so I will continue sending you the same message over and over again, throughout the millennia and to whatever corner of the universe you occupy. Endlessly will I send you My messages, until you have received them and held them close, calling them your own (5).
My messages will come in a hundred forms, at a thousand moments, across a million years. You cannot miss them if you truly listen. You cannot ignore them once truly heard. Thus will our communication begin in earnest. For in the past you have only talked to Me, praying to Me, interceding with Me, beseeching Me. Yet now can I talk back to you, even as I am doing here (6).
If you believe that God is some omnipotent being who hears all prayers, says “yes” to some, “no” to others, and “maybe, but not now” to the rest, you are mistaken. By what rule of thumb would God decide?
If you believe that God is the creator and decider or all things in your life, you are mistaken.
God is observer, not the creator. And God stands ready to assist you in living your life, but not in the way you might expect.
It is not God’s function to create, or uncreate, the circumstances or conditions of your life. God created you, in the image and likeness of God. You have created the rest, through the power God has given you. God created the process of life and life itself as you know it. Yet God gave you free choice, to do with life as you know it.
In this sense, your will for you is God’s will for you.
You are living your life the way you are living your life, and I have no preference in the matter.
This is the grand illusion in which you have engaged: that God cares one way or the other what you do.
I do not care what you do, and that is hard for you to hear. Yet do you care what your children do when you send them out to play? Is it a matter of consequence to you whether they play tag, or hide and seek, or pretend? No, it is not, because you know they are perfectly safe. You have placed them in an environment which you consider friendly and very okay (13).
Of course, you will always hope that they do not hurt themselves. And it they do, you will be right there to help them, heal them, allow them to feel safe again, to be happy again, to go and play again, another day. But whether they choose hide and seek or pretend will not matter to you the next day, either.
You will tell them, of course, which games are dangerous to play. But you cannot stop your children from doing dangerous things. Not always. Not forever. Not in every moment from now until death. It is the wise parent who knows this. Yet the parents never stops caring about the outcome. It is this dichotomy—not caring deeply about the process, but caring deeply about the result—that comes close to describing the dichotomy of God.
Yet God, in a sense, does not even care about the outcome. Not the ultimate outcome. This is because the ultimate outcome is assured.
And this is the second grand illusion of man: that the outcome of life is in doubt.
It is this doubt about ultimate outcome that has created your greatest enemy, which is fear. For it you doubt outcome, you must doubt Creator—you must doubt God. And if you doubt God, you must live in fear and guilt all your life.
If you doubt God’s intentions—and God’s ability to produce this ultimate result-then how can you ever relax? How can you ever truly find peace?
Yet God has full power to match intentions with results. You cannot and will not believe in this (even though you claim that God is all-powerful), and so you have to create in your imagination a power equal to God, in order that you might find a way for God’s will to be thwarted. And so you have created in your mythology the being you call “devil.” You have even imagined a God at war with this being (thinking that God solves problems the way you do). Finally, you have actually imagined that God could lose this war.
All of this violates everything you say you know about God, but this doesn’t matter. You live your illusion, and thus fuel your fear, all out of your decision to doubt God (14-15).
But what if you made a new decision? What then would be the result?
I tell you this: you would live as the Buddha did. As Jesus did. As did every saint you have ever idolized (15).
The challenge is one of discernment. The difficulty is knowing the difference between messages from God and data from other sources. Discrimination is a simple matter with the application of a basic rule:
Mine is always your Highest Thought, your Clearest Word, your Grandest Feeling. Anything less is from another source (4).
Now the task of differentiation becomes easy, for it should not be difficult even for the beginning student to identify the Highest, the Clearest, and the Grandest.
Yet will I give you these guidelines:
The Highest Thought is always that thought which contains joy. The Clearest Words are those words which contain truth. The Grandest Feeling is that feeling which you call love.
Joy, truth, love.
These three are interchangeable, and one always leads to the other. It matters not in which order they are placed.
Having with these guidelines determined which messages are Mine and which have come from another source, the only question remaining is whether My messages will be heeded.
Most of My messages are not. Some because they seem too good to be true. Others, because they seem too difficult to follow. Many, because they are simply misunderstood. Most, because they are not received.
My most powerful messenger is experience, and even this you ignore. Especially this you ignore. Your world would not be in its present condition were you to have simply listened to your experience. The result of your not listening to your experience is that you keep re-living it, over and over again. For My purpose will not be thwarted, nor My will be ignored. You will get the message. Sooner or later.
I will not force you to, however. I will never coerce you. For I have given you a free will—the power to do as you choose—and I will never take that away from you, ever.
And so I will continue sending you the same message over and over again, throughout the millennia and to whatever corner of the universe you occupy. Endlessly will I send you My messages, until you have received them and held them close, calling them your own (5).
My messages will come in a hundred forms, at a thousand moments, across a million years. You cannot miss them if you truly listen. You cannot ignore them once truly heard. Thus will our communication begin in earnest. For in the past you have only talked to Me, praying to Me, interceding with Me, beseeching Me. Yet now can I talk back to you, even as I am doing here (6).
If you believe that God is some omnipotent being who hears all prayers, says “yes” to some, “no” to others, and “maybe, but not now” to the rest, you are mistaken. By what rule of thumb would God decide?
If you believe that God is the creator and decider or all things in your life, you are mistaken.
God is observer, not the creator. And God stands ready to assist you in living your life, but not in the way you might expect.
It is not God’s function to create, or uncreate, the circumstances or conditions of your life. God created you, in the image and likeness of God. You have created the rest, through the power God has given you. God created the process of life and life itself as you know it. Yet God gave you free choice, to do with life as you know it.
In this sense, your will for you is God’s will for you.
You are living your life the way you are living your life, and I have no preference in the matter.
This is the grand illusion in which you have engaged: that God cares one way or the other what you do.
I do not care what you do, and that is hard for you to hear. Yet do you care what your children do when you send them out to play? Is it a matter of consequence to you whether they play tag, or hide and seek, or pretend? No, it is not, because you know they are perfectly safe. You have placed them in an environment which you consider friendly and very okay (13).
Of course, you will always hope that they do not hurt themselves. And it they do, you will be right there to help them, heal them, allow them to feel safe again, to be happy again, to go and play again, another day. But whether they choose hide and seek or pretend will not matter to you the next day, either.
You will tell them, of course, which games are dangerous to play. But you cannot stop your children from doing dangerous things. Not always. Not forever. Not in every moment from now until death. It is the wise parent who knows this. Yet the parents never stops caring about the outcome. It is this dichotomy—not caring deeply about the process, but caring deeply about the result—that comes close to describing the dichotomy of God.
Yet God, in a sense, does not even care about the outcome. Not the ultimate outcome. This is because the ultimate outcome is assured.
And this is the second grand illusion of man: that the outcome of life is in doubt.
It is this doubt about ultimate outcome that has created your greatest enemy, which is fear. For it you doubt outcome, you must doubt Creator—you must doubt God. And if you doubt God, you must live in fear and guilt all your life.
If you doubt God’s intentions—and God’s ability to produce this ultimate result-then how can you ever relax? How can you ever truly find peace?
Yet God has full power to match intentions with results. You cannot and will not believe in this (even though you claim that God is all-powerful), and so you have to create in your imagination a power equal to God, in order that you might find a way for God’s will to be thwarted. And so you have created in your mythology the being you call “devil.” You have even imagined a God at war with this being (thinking that God solves problems the way you do). Finally, you have actually imagined that God could lose this war.
All of this violates everything you say you know about God, but this doesn’t matter. You live your illusion, and thus fuel your fear, all out of your decision to doubt God (14-15).
But what if you made a new decision? What then would be the result?
I tell you this: you would live as the Buddha did. As Jesus did. As did every saint you have ever idolized (15).
Turning points in life
Reflection of one’s life is an important tool to gauge one’s own place and destination. I can identify certain points in my life that changed the course to get to the point I am today.
1. Before I was even 6 months old, I had a bout of double-pneumonia. In the just settled area of the inner-Terai there were no medical facilities. A “compounder”(a junior healthcare provider) who checked me gave his verdict: it was all up to the higher one, he had no remedy to offer. Followers of Ruth Montgomery would accept that at this juncture a “walk-in soul” inhabited my body. I believe there was no reason for me to survive, otherwise.
2. In 1973 I won a national scholarship to attend an elite school in Kathmandu after coming first in the district level entrance exam. I remember being posed questions in math that I had never heard of before. They were later found to be binomial math. Apparently I did well.
3. In 1980, I was on the top 10 in the national School Leaving Certificate (SLC) exam, first ever for someone from my Makwanpur district. It gave me a mini celebraity status in my community in that people liked being seen in my company and took pride in telling they knew me personally. But that created an expectation that would propel my future path. “You have to get out of here, you’ve no future in Nepal,” people would tell me.
4. In 1988, I was still in Nepal. I had not done well in the science campus after I had excelled in school. It was a different culture. Most of my peers had gone abroad to study. I had completed my two-year stint at Civil Engineering College. I got hired at Sindhupalchok-Dolkha Landslide Project (SDLP) a Swiss emergency relief project designed to help the victims of flood and landslide from the previous monsoon. Stationed in a remote area called Budepa (3:30 hours walk from the nearest road head). I was a site supervisor for constructing a suspended bridge. Many children would come to ask for work since their parents had been neglecting them. Nearest school was about an hour walk for them. At that time I felt that to change things in Nepal, it has to be done at the policy level from the top. In order to achieve that one had to get a higher degree. My resolve to do that took me to Lincoln School as a first step in understanding if I could handle the US education. I felt I was more than able to.
5. My most significant turning point came in 2004. I call it my moment of epiphany or providence. I had made it all way into the doctoral program in Arizona State University when I got married in 2001. Things had gone horribly wrong—mental illness played a big part in it. But I agreed for a divorce in 2004. Needless to say, I was stranded in a strange city with all the odds stacked against me, barely a friend, and practically homeless. During on one of my morning prayer sessions walking around the lake in front of the city hall of Rapid City, I stood facing the rising sun and watched the glorious reflection in the lake. There the moment occurred.
6. I had been volunteering for Stephanie Herseth’s Congressional campaign and had met some good people. After my divorce was finalized I decided to return to Arizona as an out-of-state volunteer for Kerry-Edwards campaign. That move brought me in contact with fine people like families of Harriet MacCracken and Ed Stump whose compassion and help brought me back to Angelo State University to complete my second Master’s degree (Communication).
7. I found Nepal Education Support Trust (NEST). I used to search the Internet for developments in my home town trying to find people or organization who I could help make difference. Through NEST I have now become affiliated with people around the world who believe in making a difference through interpersonal efforts.
8. I came across the Neale Donald Walsch book. More turning points remain, for sure. And I will be there to reflect on my life in constant search of grandest vision, purest thoughts, and truest joy.
1. Before I was even 6 months old, I had a bout of double-pneumonia. In the just settled area of the inner-Terai there were no medical facilities. A “compounder”(a junior healthcare provider) who checked me gave his verdict: it was all up to the higher one, he had no remedy to offer. Followers of Ruth Montgomery would accept that at this juncture a “walk-in soul” inhabited my body. I believe there was no reason for me to survive, otherwise.
2. In 1973 I won a national scholarship to attend an elite school in Kathmandu after coming first in the district level entrance exam. I remember being posed questions in math that I had never heard of before. They were later found to be binomial math. Apparently I did well.
3. In 1980, I was on the top 10 in the national School Leaving Certificate (SLC) exam, first ever for someone from my Makwanpur district. It gave me a mini celebraity status in my community in that people liked being seen in my company and took pride in telling they knew me personally. But that created an expectation that would propel my future path. “You have to get out of here, you’ve no future in Nepal,” people would tell me.
4. In 1988, I was still in Nepal. I had not done well in the science campus after I had excelled in school. It was a different culture. Most of my peers had gone abroad to study. I had completed my two-year stint at Civil Engineering College. I got hired at Sindhupalchok-Dolkha Landslide Project (SDLP) a Swiss emergency relief project designed to help the victims of flood and landslide from the previous monsoon. Stationed in a remote area called Budepa (3:30 hours walk from the nearest road head). I was a site supervisor for constructing a suspended bridge. Many children would come to ask for work since their parents had been neglecting them. Nearest school was about an hour walk for them. At that time I felt that to change things in Nepal, it has to be done at the policy level from the top. In order to achieve that one had to get a higher degree. My resolve to do that took me to Lincoln School as a first step in understanding if I could handle the US education. I felt I was more than able to.
5. My most significant turning point came in 2004. I call it my moment of epiphany or providence. I had made it all way into the doctoral program in Arizona State University when I got married in 2001. Things had gone horribly wrong—mental illness played a big part in it. But I agreed for a divorce in 2004. Needless to say, I was stranded in a strange city with all the odds stacked against me, barely a friend, and practically homeless. During on one of my morning prayer sessions walking around the lake in front of the city hall of Rapid City, I stood facing the rising sun and watched the glorious reflection in the lake. There the moment occurred.
6. I had been volunteering for Stephanie Herseth’s Congressional campaign and had met some good people. After my divorce was finalized I decided to return to Arizona as an out-of-state volunteer for Kerry-Edwards campaign. That move brought me in contact with fine people like families of Harriet MacCracken and Ed Stump whose compassion and help brought me back to Angelo State University to complete my second Master’s degree (Communication).
7. I found Nepal Education Support Trust (NEST). I used to search the Internet for developments in my home town trying to find people or organization who I could help make difference. Through NEST I have now become affiliated with people around the world who believe in making a difference through interpersonal efforts.
8. I came across the Neale Donald Walsch book. More turning points remain, for sure. And I will be there to reflect on my life in constant search of grandest vision, purest thoughts, and truest joy.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Our motivating emotions: love and fear
I share with all this morning a passage from the book "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch. This book has been a tremendous reading and leads to direct experience of God, if that is what one is looking for. Below is an exerpt I was reading this morning as God communicates:
All human actions are motivated at their deepest level by one of two emotions—fear or love. In truth there are only two emotions—only two words in the language of the soul. These are the opposite ends of the great polarity which I created when I produced the universe, and your world, as you know it today.
These are the two points—the Alpha and the Omega—which allow the system you call “relativity” to be. Without these two points, without these two ideas about things, no other idea could exist.
Every human thought, and every human action, is based in either love or fear. There is no other human motivation, and all other ideas are but derivatives of these two, They are simply different versions—different twists on the same theme (15-16).
Think on this deeply and you will see that it is true. This is what I have called the Sponsoring Thought. It is either a thought of love or fear. This is the thought behind the thought behind the thought. It is the first thought. It is prime force. It is the raw energy that drives the engine of human experience.
And here is how human behavior produces repeat experience after repeat experience: it is why humans love, then destroy, then love again: always there is the swing from one emotion to the other. Love sponsors fear sponsors love sponsors fear…
…And the reason is found in the first lie—the lie which you hold as the truth about God—that God cannot be trusted; that God’s love cannot be depended upon; that God’s acceptance of you is conditional; that the ultimate outcome is thus in doubt. For if you cannot depend on God’s love to always be there, on whose love can you depend? If God retreats and withdraws when you do not perform properly, will not mere mortals also?
…And so it is that in the moment you pledge your highest love, you greet your greatest fear. For the first thing you worry about after saying “I love you” is always whether you’ll hear it back. And if you hear it back, then you begin immediately to worry that the love you have just found, you will lose. And so all action becomes a reaction—defense against loss—even as you seek to defend yourself against the loss of God.
Yet if you knew Who You Are—that you are the most magnificent, the most remarkable, the most splendid being God has ever created—you would never fear. For who could reject such wondrous magnificence? Not even God could find fault in such a being.
But you do not know Who You Are, and you think you are a great deal less. And where did you get the idea of how much less than magnificent you are? From the only people whose word you would take on everything. From your mother and your father.
These are the people who love you the most. Why would they lie to you? Yet have they not told you that you are too much of this, and not enough of that? Have they not reminded you that you to be seen and not heard? Have they not scolded you in some of moments of your greatest exuberance? And, did they not encourage you to set aside some of your wildest imagining?
These are the messages you’ve received, and though they do not meet the criteria, and are thus not messages from God, they might as well have been, for they have come from the gods of your universe surely enough.
It was your parents who taught you that love is conditional—you have felt their conditions many times—and that is the experience you take into your own love relationships.
It is also the experience you bring to Me.
From this experience you draw conclusions about Me. Within this framework you speak your truth. “God is a loving God,” you say, “but if you break His commandments, He will punish you with eternal banishment and everlasting damnation.”
For have you not experienced the banishment of your own parents? Do you not know the pain of their damnation? How, then could you imagine it to be any different with Me?
You have forgotten what it was like to be loved without condition. You do not remember the experience of the love of God. And so you try to imagine what God’s love must be like, based on what you see of love in the world.
You have projected the role of “parent” onto God, and have thus come up with a God Who judges and rewards or punishes, based on how good He feels about what you’ve been up to. But this is a simplistic view of God, based on your mythology. It has nothing to do with Who I Am (17-18).
Having thus created an entire thought system about God based on human experience rather than spiritual truths, you then create an entire reality around love. It is a fear-based reality, rooted in the idea of a fearful vengeful God. Its Sponsoring Thought is wrong, but to deny that thought would be to disrupt your whole theology. And thought would be to disrupt your whole theology. And though the new theology which would replace it would truly be your salvation, you cannot accept it, because the idea of a God Who is not to be feared, Who will not judge, and Who has no cause to punish is simply too magnificent to be embraced within even your grandest notion of Who and What God is.
This fear-based love reality dominates your experience of love; indeed, actually creates it. For not only do you see yourself receiving love which is conditional, you also watch yourself giving it in the same way. And even while you withhold aned retreat and set your conditions, a part of you knows this is not what love really is. Still, you seem powerless to change the way you dispense it. You’ve learned the hard way, you tell yourself, and you’ll be damned if you’re going to leave yourself vulnerable again. Yet the truth is, you’ll be damned if you don’t (18).
Fear is the energy which contracts, closes down, draws in, runs, hides, hoards, harms.
Love is the energy which expands, opens up, sends out, stays, reveals, shares, heals.
Fear wraps our bodies in clothing, love allows us to stand naked. Fear clings to and clutches all that we have, love gives all that we have away. Fear holds close, love holds deare. Fear grasps, love lets go. Fear rankles, love soothes. Fear attacks, love amends.
Every human thought, word, or deed is based in one emotion or the other. You have no choice about this, because there is nothing else from which to choose. But you have free choice about which of these to select (19).
There are no “shoulds” or "shouldn’ts” in God’s world. Do what you want to do. Do what reflects you, what re-presents you as a grander version of your Self. If you want to feel bad, feel bad (38).
But judge not, and neither condemn, for you know not why a thing occurs, nor to what end.
And remember you this: that which you condemn will condemn you, and that which you judge, you will one day become.
Seek rather to change those things—or support others who are changing those things—which no longer reflect your highest sense of Who You Are.
Yet, bless all—for all is the creation of God, through life living and that is the highest creation (38).
All human actions are motivated at their deepest level by one of two emotions—fear or love. In truth there are only two emotions—only two words in the language of the soul. These are the opposite ends of the great polarity which I created when I produced the universe, and your world, as you know it today.
These are the two points—the Alpha and the Omega—which allow the system you call “relativity” to be. Without these two points, without these two ideas about things, no other idea could exist.
Every human thought, and every human action, is based in either love or fear. There is no other human motivation, and all other ideas are but derivatives of these two, They are simply different versions—different twists on the same theme (15-16).
Think on this deeply and you will see that it is true. This is what I have called the Sponsoring Thought. It is either a thought of love or fear. This is the thought behind the thought behind the thought. It is the first thought. It is prime force. It is the raw energy that drives the engine of human experience.
And here is how human behavior produces repeat experience after repeat experience: it is why humans love, then destroy, then love again: always there is the swing from one emotion to the other. Love sponsors fear sponsors love sponsors fear…
…And the reason is found in the first lie—the lie which you hold as the truth about God—that God cannot be trusted; that God’s love cannot be depended upon; that God’s acceptance of you is conditional; that the ultimate outcome is thus in doubt. For if you cannot depend on God’s love to always be there, on whose love can you depend? If God retreats and withdraws when you do not perform properly, will not mere mortals also?
…And so it is that in the moment you pledge your highest love, you greet your greatest fear. For the first thing you worry about after saying “I love you” is always whether you’ll hear it back. And if you hear it back, then you begin immediately to worry that the love you have just found, you will lose. And so all action becomes a reaction—defense against loss—even as you seek to defend yourself against the loss of God.
Yet if you knew Who You Are—that you are the most magnificent, the most remarkable, the most splendid being God has ever created—you would never fear. For who could reject such wondrous magnificence? Not even God could find fault in such a being.
But you do not know Who You Are, and you think you are a great deal less. And where did you get the idea of how much less than magnificent you are? From the only people whose word you would take on everything. From your mother and your father.
These are the people who love you the most. Why would they lie to you? Yet have they not told you that you are too much of this, and not enough of that? Have they not reminded you that you to be seen and not heard? Have they not scolded you in some of moments of your greatest exuberance? And, did they not encourage you to set aside some of your wildest imagining?
These are the messages you’ve received, and though they do not meet the criteria, and are thus not messages from God, they might as well have been, for they have come from the gods of your universe surely enough.
It was your parents who taught you that love is conditional—you have felt their conditions many times—and that is the experience you take into your own love relationships.
It is also the experience you bring to Me.
From this experience you draw conclusions about Me. Within this framework you speak your truth. “God is a loving God,” you say, “but if you break His commandments, He will punish you with eternal banishment and everlasting damnation.”
For have you not experienced the banishment of your own parents? Do you not know the pain of their damnation? How, then could you imagine it to be any different with Me?
You have forgotten what it was like to be loved without condition. You do not remember the experience of the love of God. And so you try to imagine what God’s love must be like, based on what you see of love in the world.
You have projected the role of “parent” onto God, and have thus come up with a God Who judges and rewards or punishes, based on how good He feels about what you’ve been up to. But this is a simplistic view of God, based on your mythology. It has nothing to do with Who I Am (17-18).
Having thus created an entire thought system about God based on human experience rather than spiritual truths, you then create an entire reality around love. It is a fear-based reality, rooted in the idea of a fearful vengeful God. Its Sponsoring Thought is wrong, but to deny that thought would be to disrupt your whole theology. And thought would be to disrupt your whole theology. And though the new theology which would replace it would truly be your salvation, you cannot accept it, because the idea of a God Who is not to be feared, Who will not judge, and Who has no cause to punish is simply too magnificent to be embraced within even your grandest notion of Who and What God is.
This fear-based love reality dominates your experience of love; indeed, actually creates it. For not only do you see yourself receiving love which is conditional, you also watch yourself giving it in the same way. And even while you withhold aned retreat and set your conditions, a part of you knows this is not what love really is. Still, you seem powerless to change the way you dispense it. You’ve learned the hard way, you tell yourself, and you’ll be damned if you’re going to leave yourself vulnerable again. Yet the truth is, you’ll be damned if you don’t (18).
Fear is the energy which contracts, closes down, draws in, runs, hides, hoards, harms.
Love is the energy which expands, opens up, sends out, stays, reveals, shares, heals.
Fear wraps our bodies in clothing, love allows us to stand naked. Fear clings to and clutches all that we have, love gives all that we have away. Fear holds close, love holds deare. Fear grasps, love lets go. Fear rankles, love soothes. Fear attacks, love amends.
Every human thought, word, or deed is based in one emotion or the other. You have no choice about this, because there is nothing else from which to choose. But you have free choice about which of these to select (19).
There are no “shoulds” or "shouldn’ts” in God’s world. Do what you want to do. Do what reflects you, what re-presents you as a grander version of your Self. If you want to feel bad, feel bad (38).
But judge not, and neither condemn, for you know not why a thing occurs, nor to what end.
And remember you this: that which you condemn will condemn you, and that which you judge, you will one day become.
Seek rather to change those things—or support others who are changing those things—which no longer reflect your highest sense of Who You Are.
Yet, bless all—for all is the creation of God, through life living and that is the highest creation (38).
Monday, July 25, 2005
Working on the documentary
I have been working on the tape a wonderful friend Cecilia sent me. She shot a whoel bunch of video while she visited Hetauda, Nepal in her fact-finding mission about the NEST educational efforts. I am waiting for the rest of the material she shot when she visited Hetuada in 2004. Initially it started out as something I could use for my practice in digital editing. Then it became a quest for 20-minute video for fundraising. Now I am taking it to the next step--enter into documentary festivals. We had a studio shoot today for the community show, which turned out to be a total fiasco (but we are not going to talk about it...ssssh). Interesting thing during the shoot, however, was that this documentary could get an airtime in the Angelo State Ram TV. Now, that is one positive development. Other positive things associated with it: I have been offered help by Bruno, Paul and Ms Turner from the Communication, Drama and Jouralism Department. Marie from Canada has volunteered to help me find some documentary festivals to show it. The message: Doing something good is good for our soul. Getting the soul aligned with our true purpose in life will open all the doors in the world. It leads to happiness and living of a purposeful life, as it was meant to be lived.
Start of a new process!
Let me put it simply. The fundamental problem in life and its disconnect is a result of our spiritual deficiency. I want to pursue and share how this disconnect is the root cause for our ailment in personal, social and global affairs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
