What is religion anyway?

As readers may have worked out, my interest is focused on my inner life and self-consciousness, rather than the external world of the senses. So inevitably the word "Religion" crops up, along with "Spirituality". I am not a big fan of these words, as they have endless connotations enabling a thousand interpretations and meanings. That the words are confusing is not surprising, given the thousands of religions and religious texts and the endless parade of people claiming to be spiritual. So what exactly do I mean by these terms? Are they applicable at all?

 Swami Vivekananda describes religion like this:

"Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this Divinity within, by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work, or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy — by one or more or all of these — and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details."

 His comments on existing religions represents my own views:

Religion, as it is generally taught all over the world, is said to be based upon faith and belief, and, in most cases, consists only of different sets of theories, and that is the reason why we find all religions quarrelling with one another.

These theories, again, are based upon belief. One man says there is a great Being sitting above the clouds and governing the whole universe, and he asks me to believe that solely on the authority of his assertion. In the same way, I may have my own ideas, which I am asking others to believe, and if they ask a reason, I cannot give them any. This is why religion and metaphysical philosophy have a bad name nowadays. Every educated man seems to say, "Oh, these religions are only bundles of theories without any standard to judge them by, each man preaching his own pet ideas." Nevertheless, there is a basis of universal belief in religion, governing all the different theories and all the varying ideas of different sects in different countries. Going to their basis we find that they also are based upon universal experiences.

In the first place, if you analyse all the various religions of the world, you will find that these are divided into two classes, those with a book and those without a book. Those with a book are the strongest, and have the largest number of followers. Those without books have mostly died out, and the few new ones have very small following. Yet, in all of them we find one consensus of opinion, that the truths they teach are the results of the experiences of particular persons. The Christian asks you to believe in his religion, to believe in Christ and to believe in him as the incarnation of God, to believe in a God, in a soul, and in a better state of that soul. If I ask him for reason, he says he believes in them. But if you go to the fountain-head of Christianity, you will find that it is based upon experience. Christ said he saw God; the disciples said they felt God; and so forth. Similarly, in Buddhism, it is Buddha's experience. He experienced certain truths, saw them, came in contact with them, and preached them to the world. So with the Hindus. In their books the writers, who are called Rishis, or sages, declare they experienced certain truths, and these they preach. Thus it is clear that all the religions of the world have been built upon that one universal and adamantine foundation of all our knowledge — direct experience. The teachers all saw God; they all saw their own souls, they saw their future, they saw their eternity, and what they saw they preached. Only there is this difference that by most of these religions especially in modern times, a peculiar claim is made, namely, that these experiences are impossible at the present day; they were only possible with a few men, who were the first founders of the religions that subsequently bore their names. At the present time these experiences have become obsolete, and, therefore, we have now to take religion on belief. This I entirely deny. If there has been one experience in this world in any particular branch of knowledge, it absolutely follows that that experience has been possible millions of times before, and will be repeated eternally.

Uniformity is the rigorous law of nature; what once happened can happen always.

The teachers of the science of Yoga, therefore, declare that religion is not only based upon the experience of ancient times, but that no man can be religious until he has the same perceptions himself. Yoga is the science which teaches us how to get these perceptions. It is not much use to talk about religion until one has felt it. Why is there so much disturbance, so much fighting and quarrelling in the name of God? There has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause, because people never went to the fountain-head; they were content only to give a mental assent to the customs of their forefathers, and wanted others to do the same. What right has a man to say he has a soul if he does not feel it, or that there is a God if he does not see Him? If there is a God we must see Him, if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite. The modern idea, on the one hand, with the "learned" is that religion and metaphysics and all search after a Supreme Being are futile; on the other hand, with the semi-educated, the idea seems to be that these things really have no basis; their only value consists in the fact that they furnish strong motive powers for doing good to the world. If men believe in a God, they may become good, and moral, and so make good citizens. We cannot blame them for holding such ideas, seeing that all the teaching these men get is simply to believe in an eternal rigmarole of words, without any substance behind them. They are asked to live upon words; can they do it? If they could, I should not have the least regard for human nature. Man wants truth, wants to experience truth for himself; when he has grasped it, realised it, felt it within his heart of hearts, then alone, declare the Vedas, would all doubts vanish, all darkness be scattered, and all crookedness be made straight. "Ye children of immortality, even those who live in the highest sphere, the way is found; there is a way out of all this darkness, and that is by perceiving Him who is beyond all darkness; there is no other way."

To me, all the religious organisations have no value unless it consists of those who have experienced the infinite and are able to help others experience it. It's clear that a pope is the head of a wealthy business organisation based on the teachings of a long dead master. They sell insurance for when a person is dead - after all, nobody has come back to complain that they didn't get what was promised. And the pope is just an example of one religious head. There are the Ayatollahs and Rabbis and those utterly dreadful fundamentalist preachers who use fear as their weapon to extract every penny from their ignorant followers and all those who offer spurious methods for achieving "heaven", whatever that is.

Every priest whose only knowledge is that of books, is of no help in achieving a real experience of God within themselves.

The solution is simple: if you want to experience the Infinite yourself, find someone who is alive and experiences this wonderful feeling directly in their life and ask that person to kindly show you the way to experience it within yourself.

What's the difference between Adults and babies?

Stupid question? Well, there are differences, which I find fundamental today and which - had I or my parents realised this earlier - might well have helped me to become a more fulfilled person in this life.

There are the obvious differences of size and physical ability, but that's not what is interesting. And what is interesting depends on what your purpose is in life. If you want to become rich and famous and successful, then the difference is invisible and uninteresting to you. If, however, you are interested in the development of conscious awareness, then understanding the differences can be hugely educational and beneficial.

 It's taken me 'till now to realise what a baby can teach me. In my specific case, could have taught me :-)

Consider this: when a baby arrives in the world, it has to instantly adjust from the protected environment of the womb, where Mum does it all, to suddenly a, to us now, unimaginably different environment with light and noise and having to instantly learn to breath. That is a quite staggering event. However, that newborn child knows nothing else. All that is what starts to come next. It is, however, equally true that this child is closer to it's inner life at that time, than to anything externally. And from that, I can learn a little bit of what I've lost; that simplicity of just being, full of trust, no discrimination except feeling okay or not feeling okay, which they know how to show. That's it. Everything else is accepted without being questioned or catalogued or anything. Baby is happy or not. Not means that this body is bothering it in some way, so Waaah! When the bother is gone, no more Waaah!

Baby also doesn't have an awareness gender, nationality, religion, station in life, roles, responsibilities, colour, wealth, tradition, rituals - although many will be subjected to some or all within hours, days, weeks, months, years, rest of life! And so we loose our freedom and become the slaves of the outside world and forget the freedom of the inside world. How sad! How unnecessary!

As the child grows up and learns more of our perspective, it still retains that simplicity for many years, before we drum it out of the child. Sadly, we fill it with so much nonsense, instead of realising that there was a time when we saw the world like that and it was great. What happened to us? Why did we let go of that and fill the world full of wonder with a world full of "facts" and in time lost the magic of that time. To me, we lost something important then, something worth putting effort into trying to regain, if possible.

I've moved a long way from that child-like simplicity, although externally I can at least say that I've stopped accumulating stuff quite some time ago. I also take part in the Swiss fetish of being the best recyclers in the world - don't believe me? Check it out. :-)
But de-cluttering my mind. Now that is a truly herculean task! I started on this path in 1975 and my experience is that it's not so hard dealing with the more obvious, surface things. But the deeper, lost in early childhood, that takes the rest of your life. But the important thing, is to keep at it - it's worth it. 
I like to compare it graphically with an image typical in the rural parts of Switzerland. The farmhouses typically have a cowshed and barn all under one roof with the main farmhouse and attached - on the side facing the road - is where the straw and dung from the cowsheds was stacked and then moved to where it was turned into silage. So this dung heap is years old, as old as you are now, in fact. And your job is to clean it. Getting rid of the big pile is relatively easy, with a pitchfork and a barrow, no problem. But then comes the rest, where it takes a bit more work, pitchfork no use. Finally, everything is gone. But is it? What are all those deep brown stains in the concrete? They've got to go too, I'm afraid. And that's why I say it'll take the rest of my life. But I'm good with that. It's about the doing.

It's not about becoming a baby where everything is done for me - I sincerely hope it won't happen like that - but it is about seeing the world in a simpler way, with less judgement, with less expectations, with less anger, with less fear and with more acceptance and even thankfulness. Anyone who knows me will have heard me say how thankful I am for the life I currently lead, here in safe Switzerland and truly, I am grateful. And those are nice feelings. So, I'm going to carry on doing what I do, to live as close to the moment as I can, so I can enjoy the maximum that moment contains. 

What makes us human

 What makes a human being human? We have a lot of attributes, but which one are the ones that are part of our basic nature?

 I find this Video which Prem Rawat made on the 19th of April 2020 during lockdown, makes it very clear. In it, he answers precisely this question. Maybe you'll agree.

Frightened of death? Why?

I've been listening to a radio programme, where there was a discussion about the fact that for many people the Corona virus has confronted them unavoidably with the reality of their own mortality. And the question was, why are we so frightened of a fact which is true from the day we are born?

It is also true, that most people try to avoid this subject. I remember as a child of maybe 8 or 9, my little sister Suzanne died at the age of about 4 and we siblings, were not allowed to go to the funeral or in any way take leave of her. It was done to spare us our feelings, I guess. Death always seemed to be something to avoid talking about.

 So, again, why are we so frightened to look at death as a fact and discuss it? I have personally started to compile all the documents necessary for my executors to be able to take care of anything left behind after my demise: will, prolonging life in hospital or not, funeral details, all the endless bills which have to be stopped, i.e. rent etc. plus, of course, ensuring that this information is known and available when the time comes. My nearest and dearest all have the same reaction when I mention all this - the taboo of death sits very deep.

So how do I look at it? Well, it doesn't frighten me, perhaps, in part, because I have been very close to death on more than one occasion during my life, some occasions due to my own stupid actions, some not.

Through my teacher, what I have learnt is that it's life which is important, the bit between arriving in the world and departing it. I don't know what came before, and I don't know what's coming afterwards and I don't care - it'll take care of itself when the time comes and my worrying or being frightened changes nothing at all except that I am missing the moment speculating about something which hasn't happened and which I can't prevent.

I do my best to be present in the moment and that means ignoring that which isn't happening at the moment. The reality of the moment is life, everything else exists in one's head and that isn't real.

The various religious organisations pretend that they understand what happens when you die, citing a possible great future which you can achieve by believing their words and if you don't listen to them you'll end up in a really bad place. Ignore them: they have no more idea than you do, after all, they are alive and not dead, so it's all guesswork. Do what you can and ensure that you enjoy the life you have within the the means available to you and be aware, we always live in hell or in paradise, depending on our state of mind and circumstances.

The blame game using the example of the USA

In order to avoid responsibility, you have to be able to pass it on to someone else who accepts that responsibility or, alternatively, you don't look for someone willing to take on the responsibility and just blame others for all you do that goes wrong or all that you didn't do but should have because you had the responsibility.

The big problem with this is, that in the end, nothing gets done and many people have to suffer as a result.

I find the USA an excellent example of the problems of the world. I have a friend who is into conspiracy theories. I've tried to point out some of the flaws in her arguments, but without success. According to these theories, there are invisible evil forces in the world who are doing all in their power to have power over all humanity and as such are persuading people to do their evil will. I keep pointing out to her, that there is a much simpler explanation for the craziness in the world, and that is ignorance and stupidity.

I have sometimes toyed with the idea of describing nations in terms of the growth phases of individual human beings. According to that idea, I see the USA as a teenager. They are brilliant, full of ideas and believe that they are always right. Couple that attitude with "Living the American Dream" which encourages the citizens of the USA to have money as their God and with that, permission to trample all over others on their way to what is seen as the top. Greed.

So, President Trump exemplifies this attitude brilliantly, currently. Today I read that he has stopped contributions to the World Health Organisation, blaming them and the Chinese for the Coronavirus disaster in the USA.  Of course they are also responsible for all the climate change problems as well. The fact that he ignored it when he had the chance to do something and then put a number of incompetent people in charge, including his son-in-law who has no background in any of the requirements needed to deal with this huge problem. He cannot lead in a crisis so he lashes out and blames others. The result: more people are dying in the USA than anywhere else from this virus.

In all situations, we see him claiming the high moral ground without having delivered anything. During his tenure, he dismantled the health care that his predecessor had built up for low income families. And exactly these - as always - are those dying in their droves at present. His focus is on the economy - which he doesn't really understand - and not on the people for whom he carries responsibility together with the office of President. To put it crudely: f**k the people, get on with making money. The background to that is his own business empire which is suffering under lockdown and he's never been particularly successful as a business man. However he is very successful at marketing himself. And that has carried him through till now.

The real question for him now, is: will enough people be convinced by his BS to re-elect him? If yes - and people are both stupid and ignorant and don't inform themselves - then I see a very sad future for all of us. I really hope people start to look a bit more closely at the Trump administrations results and not the rhetoric.

Once this panic is over, what will happen? Well the choice is in taking personal responsibility for your life or handing your life over into the slavery of idiots. What will you do? Past experience suggests, that most people on the planet want to get back to the hell they had before, because it might be hell, but it's their hell and they are comfortable in it. The opportunity this Virus has offered the world to reset itself and focus on the really important and not rush back into greed and hate mode, is really here now. I doubt the opportunity will get used.

Love as modern slavery

As the lockdown for Coronavirus continues, so the domestic violence crimes are increasing. Of course, only those reported are in the statistics, if a all. So why is that?

To me, the answer can be found in two areas which we have defined as "Fact" - at least in our heads.

The first answer I offer is, that when a person isn't at peace with him or herself, then it's not going to be long before you are not at peace with others.
The second answer is that the domestic situation started with a misconception as to what love is.

Let me expand on this.

Of course, in my view, there is only really one answer, but two aspects. If you are filled with love, you are automatically filled with peace. But let's focus on that word: love.

Love, defined as an intense feeling of deep affection. Affection for what? To me after a lifetime of longer and shorter relationships (in my case, with women), it's clear that we use the word "love" in a number of different ways. So let me tell you first what that word means to me.

Love is the feeling which enables me to accept the moment as it is without judgement. It is not a feeling that comes from the outside - it is not a feeling dependent on another person or situation, although these things may lead me to that feeling, but the feeling is mine. It is a feeling that wants to give, not one that wants to take. It is in the deepest sense, the basis of life; love on a level which passes understanding, is the creative force of life and as such impersonal but utterly inclusive.

So how is that word used in our largely fake world? Well the first word that comes to mind, is that it is a statement of ownership.
"This is my wife; this is my husband; this is my woman this is my man; this is my child; this is my house; this is my dog; this is mine, mine, mine". These are the possessive pronoun we use all the time to identify a relationship: me and my or mine. You belong to me and I belong to you. Love is exclusive between us.

I hope that just reading the paragraph above makes it clear that whatever the meaning of the word love as it's used, has nothing to do with my own definition. It seems utterly absurd to me that we look and use the word love in this narrow and exclusive manner. But that is now part of the culture.
Even sicker to me, is that in 99.99% of all cases, it's the man who is the possessor and the woman the possession. The absurdity of this  is enough to make anybody feel disgust. 

We use love to mean so many wonderful things, including generosity, , caring, empathy support, etc. And yet, in the same breath we can just as easily talk about what it means for a woman to be loved as a possession: you belong to me - exclusively; You have to obey me in all matters; you have to be there for me when I want; you are a chattel to be taken up at will and chucked away as easily. That is loving a woman as a possession. Pathetic. This is modern slavery and it's practiced all over the world.

Listening to our love songs, reminds me of the absurdity in the lyrics. What are the common themes in love songs. So here are a few repeated sentiments:

• I'll be yours forever, you'll be mine forever
• Please be mine
• I'll always be here for you
• I'll never leave you
• I'll never let you go
• You are my everything
•  etc, etc,
• My heart is broken because you left
• You treated me unkind
• You treated me unkind, now I'm going to get my own back 
• I'll never love again
• I'm lost without you
• I'll die without you
• etc, etc

Look at these statements that we hear in almost every love song or poem. They hark to some idea of romantic love which has never existed. But each one of those statements contains a threat of something awful being the case if our love should end or not be reciprocated. Love and threats do not go together in my definition of love as a universal feeling. Hurt and pain are the inevitable results of the kind of love based on property and ownership and (usually) macho threats.

Love has no boundaries. Love is an outpouring of a feeling which encompasses those it touches. It accepts others as they are, because the lover accepts him or herself completely.

So how to get away from the slavery of what people usually call love? The statements listed above are also filled with expectations relating to the other person (and sometimes themselves). And the twin to expectations is disappointment. The disappointment of unfulfilled expectations leads us almost inevitable to the blame game. I feel shitty because of you. It's your fault this has happened. You don't love me any more. Etc. Add to that pressures from family, religion, tradition, social conventions and the pressure is enormous for both men and woman to make commitments most regret later, although, generally speaking, it's usually stacked in the man's favour, of course. How can love be involved in this? Passion, yes, but not love. And I doubt anyone who has been in a relationship would deny that the Initial passion faded and was replaced with other things, together with the respect previously shown that person. And that's not love. Love lasts and doesn't change, so what's going on? More importantly: why the heck do we keep on doing this to ourselves? Clearly, because we don't love ourselves enough to say I'm not going to do what all these conventions tell me I must. It's not me.

So that's how we get to domestic abuse and violence. The world and in particular the partner, are not conforming to my expectations and wishes, therefore the world is wrong, not my expectations and wishes, and so I'm justified in trying to make the world conform to my expectations. And that usually means those nearest and dearest, if that's the right expression. If this describes you, learn to and sit on the toilet before you freak out and close your eyes and take ten deep breaths, focus on each slow in-breath and on each slow out-breath. You will feel in a better position to look at the problem again for which you were about to use violence as the solution and see if there is another way, or if it's even important. And ask yourself why it got so uptight - what had you been thinking about that threatened you? And work on that. That's constructive use: get to know yourself better.

Because if you don't change then you practice a kind of love which is creepy and disgusting. If you use the word "love" to mean this, you are in for endless disappointment and unhappiness. Look at what's real and then get real yourself. You are always both the problem and the solution.

Greed is a sickness based on duty

Greed follows us everywhere. And it never leads to anything better, but tends to become satisfied at the expense of others. I once had a boss, who told me that the objective was that "somebody else does the work and somebody else pays". This may well be a great adage at work or anywhere, if you don't give a hoot about whoever does the work or whoever has to do the paying.

Swami Vivekananda links greed closely to duty. The need to fullfil one's duty is cited as the reason for greed:

How easy it is to interpret slavery as duty — the morbid attachment of flesh for flesh as duty! Men go out into the world and struggle and fight for money or for any other thing to which they get attached. Ask them why they do it. They say, "It is a duty”. It is the absurd greed for gold and gain, and they try to cover it with a few flowers.

What is duty after all? It is really the impulsion of the flesh, of our attachment; and when an attachment has become established, we call it duty. For instance, in countries where there is no marriage, there is no duty between husband and wife; when marriage comes, husband and wife live together on account of attachment; and that kind of living together becomes settled after generations; and when it becomes so settled, it becomes a duty. It is, so to say, a sort of chronic disease. When it is acute, we call it disease; when it is chronic, we call it nature. It is a disease. So when attachment becomes chronic, we baptise it with the high sounding name of duty. We strew flowers upon it, trumpets sound for it, sacred texts are said over it, and then the whole world fights, and men earnestly rob each other for this duty's sake. Duty is good to the extent that it checks brutality. To the lowest kinds of men, who cannot have any other ideal, it is of some good; ...
Swami Vivekananda

When I think of the educational system I was put through, then it is clear what the Swami means about duty and greed being rationalised. We are basically taught that our job in the world is to get as much wealth as possible: it's your duty. And this is promulgated in so many different ways. If we were truly aware of how fragile our lives are, then why would we want to spend our time running after possessions, which we cannot take with us when we die? 

I'm all for being comfortable, but that can be achieved with very little. The thing that needs to be most comfortable, is me, inside, where my feelings are, where the feeling of comfort resides. Getting stuff and putting all your effort into that, covering it up under the guise of duty - I have to feed my family, I have to take care of this and that and them.... - is all BS - you are doing it because in your greed, you think and even believe, that you will be comfortable and at peace with yourself if you have more, more of everything. That is where it really has become a disease. A disease that has led to vast amounts of cruelty, death for countless people just because someone wanted to have something, be it money, land, possessions or even people.

If that describes you, then you are a very sad person completely lost in the delusion that possessions will bring lasting peace and happiness. Please note: it has never happened up till now, and it's not going to happen in the future. Those feelings we so desperately hunt for with our greed, is inside and for that you need nothing more than yourself, together with clarity, thankfulness and empathy. Go for that - it's worth it?

Do rituals help me become conscious?

Where is the world awake? In the senses. People want to eat and drink and have children, and then they die a dog's death. ... They are
always awake for the senses. Even their religion is just for that. They invent a God to help them, to give them more women, more money, more children — never a God to help them become more godlike!
Swami Vivekananda

In the current Coronavirus situation, many people turn to their rituals to help them. At the weekend it's going to be Easter weekend and currently, most religions seem to be ready to conduct their rituals online, in some virtual form. Maybe it will help the Christians, I don't know.

What I really don't know, is how a ritual is supposed to be helpful.

All religions seem to claim that their rituals are both a reminder of the truth contained in their belief and a way of consolidating the belief by bringing a large number of people together to conduct the rituals as a group. The rituals I have seen and even participated in, demonstrate to me that the rituals and the outward appearance are far more important than any content that they may have had originally.

Easter is a particularly disgusting ritual to me. On Good Friday, Christians "celebrate" the death of their Master Jesus. On Sunday they celebrate the "Arisen Christ". How about celebrating the Life of Christ? After all, it's what he preached that's important, isn't it? The death of a person is never as important as the life. 

Personally - just to say it - I find the idea of life after death the most absurd thing to speculate about. Christians like to cite the Bible stories of how one person spoke to the gardner and later believed that person to be Jesus. Hmm. How would such a person telling such a tale be viewed today? And the other proof cited, is a known opponent called Saul, who claimed to have bumped into Jesus on the road in the middle of nowhere, unfortunately, while he was all alone. And suddenly he's in charge, running a club and building the rituals. I'm sorry, but please look at these books with today's eyes, not those of ignorant people from 2000 years ago. If it's not directly applicable today, then what use is it?

I build habits. Some good, some bad, just like anyone else. For example, I had built up the habit of going to the gym Monday, Wednesday, Friday mornings for a 2 hour workout. This kind of habit, becomes a ritual and serves the purpose of ensuring that I actually do something rather than find an excuse not to do it. I also meditate for an hour every morning, which helps me to focus, especially inwardly. These habits or rituals help me to develop what's good in me and to look after my physical and mental health.

The kinds of rituals I see in religion, seem to me to be designed for showing off. Opportunities to show how godly one is in front of the neighbours. It's about the external show. I'm sure there are exceptions which prove this particular rule. As a child I remember having to go to Church and Sunday School, where I was indoctrinated with the local version of whatever religious place I was taken/sent. I was very good and even won some Bible reading contests. I also read the whole Bible and found it utterly contradictory and - for every day life - pretty useless. After all, this was the 20th century, not ancient history.

So, my recommendation is: build good habits. Habits which remind one that kindness and empathy are the best way of living in this world; Habits which allow the love inside oneself to manifest itself towards the external world; Habits which help one grow in clarity. And for that, nobody needs religious rituals. Be who you are and you are as all others. Enjoy life and help others enjoy life.

What does life after death mean?

"That is another great lesson. Spirituality can never be attained unless all material ideas are given up. ... What is in the senses? The senses are all delusion. People wish to retain them [in heaven] even after they are dead — a pair of eyes, a nose. Some imagine they will have more organs than they have now. They want to see God sitting on a throne through all eternity — the material body of God. ... Such men's desires are for the body, for food and drink and enjoyment. It is the materialistic life prolonged. Man cannot think of anything beyond this life. This life is all for the body. "Such a man never comes to that concentration which leads to freedom." 

We have identified ourselves with our bodies. We are only body, or rather, possessed of a body. If I am pinched, I cry. All this is nonsense, since I am the soul. All this chain of misery, imagination, animals, gods, and demons, everything, the whole world all this comes from the identification of ourselves with the body. I am spirit. Why do I jump if you pinch me? ... Look at the slavery of it. Are you not ashamed? We are religious! We are philosophers! We are sages! Lord bless us! What are we? Living hells, that is what we are Lunatics, that is what we are! 

We cannot give up the idea [of body]. We are earth-bound. ... Our ideas are burial grounds. When we leave the body we are bound by thousands of elements to those [ideas]. 
Swami Vivekananda

 According to Swami Vivekananda, if there is life after death, it is not anything we can imagine. How can it be? We are alive, not dead right now, and all we have known is being in a body. Quite clearly, the body stays after death. That means that we do not have eyes or a nose or hands or any parts of the body after death - we leave that physical container behind.

And there we have it: nobody has any idea what it's like being dead. This has huge implications. Specifically, that whatever religious organisations may tell us, they have no more of a clue as to life after death than anybody else. 

Why do we even want to know if there is a life after death? Certainly we cannot imagine what it would be like, if we accept that we won't have a body. So why do people all over the world talk about a life after death? And does it matter?

To me, I don't care if there is a life after death. What I really care about is this life and what I do with it. I am a seeker of truth; a seeker of reality. So what I've learn't is that almost everything is transitory, including me. Truth is not something so malleable that it changes all the time. Not by my definition.

To me Truth with a capital T is something eternal. It's something that doesn't change. So it can't be related to the body, which, in my 72 years, I've seen change substantially over time. So what is it related? What is it that's unchanging?
That of course, is the challenge: finding the answer to that question. I can say this much: I know that I have to look inside me for that which is eternal, which doesn't change. It's what I refer to as the creative force which brought the molecules together to form me, sustained this form until the end and then allows those molecules to disperse again. From dust we came and to dust we go - that's the physical body. But the creative force which currently sustains me, doesn't turn to dust; it's not a set of molecules, It's what activated those molecules which constitute my body.

And that power, that creative force, is within me right now, so it must be possible to be aware of it, to connect with it and experience the real detachment from the endless distractions of the physical world.

Alone is not alone

Now that most people are under some kind of lockdown, more and more people are feeling frustrated, frighted and in many cases, lonely. I live on my own, in a block of flats and hardly see my neighbours. I don't have many friends and I keep in touch with them using WhatsApp, Skype and Email. I've even had a virtual lunch with my almost 3 year old grandson.

And I don't feel lonely. And there's a good reason for that.

Over the years, I've learnt that real life happens inside me. The outside is there and I interact with it, reasonably successfully, but it doesn't hold my attention for long, because inside there is so much to discover about me. And I'm always there. And yet, I know so little about me.

Take a really simple example. There are people who do fire walking, i.e. they can walk barefoot over glowing hot coals. Can I do that? If someone else can, then I can too. All it takes is the right kind of mental training that is used for that practice. Have I learn't to control the relevant nerves in my feet? No. But I could.

I'm not advocating that we should start walking on coals during the corona virus crisis. What I'm trying to point out is that we generally speaking, control very little of our body. Mostly, because we have never been taught how. And why not? Every athlete knows that what is possible is only possible through dedication and training. Endless training. To me, our educational system is very badly skewed away from the important stuff. We are not really taught the basics of how to get on with each other and how to gain control over ourselves.

Find out why you feel the way you do about things. Why do you feel lonely? Why do you get annoyed by certain things? Why do you dislike somebody specific? Start asking yourself question about your own behaviours and reactions to situations. Fascinating stuff.

I used to practice Kung Fu and really enjoyed it, because it made me focus, on every aspect of my body; it's position; posture; breathing, etc. It helped a lot and if you weren't concentrating, the chances were that your sparring partner would whack you. We need to learn to concentrate.

So, being on my own is a great opportunity to get to know me. There's loads to learn :-)

Nationalism - a fundamental Illusion of Freedom

One of the things I read a lot these days, is about the rise of Nationalism in many places. If ever there has been anything more illusory than nationalism, I'm not aware of it.

What on earth makes people think that one piece of dirt is better than another piece of dirt? A friend of mine told me the story once of being given a tour of the UNO buildings in Geneva and one of the comments made by the guide was that "the worst thing in the world, is frontiers". At present, with so much turmoil in the world, where so many are fleeing from war and poverty, we can really see the value of national frontiers. Yesterday, 3 Eastern European Countries were found guilty of violating EU common Law, by refusing to take in any Asylum Seekers of Migrants. Which countries? Those who relied on others to take them up when they were subjected to war and and a repressive regime and grinding poverty. And this is the reaction when it happens to others. I wonder at the mentality which is able to forget their own history so quickly and ignore their hearts so completely.

The big illusion here, is that people spout the phrase "we want to be free", without realising they are actually in shackles. Freedom from what? Free to do what? Nationalists base their argument on such a stupid idea: We'll be alright if we get rid of the foreigners. How utterly absurd!

In what way would a country be better off? I look at any country and see the dependence each one has on all it's residents, who a) pay taxes b) work mostly for peanuts c) cost us not very much > so net result: better off. Where I live, we would not have a health service if it wasn't for the many foreign doctors and nursing staff, cleaners and porters. In the UK, where I lived for half my life, exactly the same can be said. In both countries, we will run out of food if we don't have the foreign labour to help with sowing and harvesting. I know it's very similar in most countries. Except in poor countries, where the foreigners come from to help us out. isn't that crazy?

So the nationalists get rid of the foreigners. Then what? I suspect that their economy would be down the tubes within the shortest time. Who would want to move there? Oh, you can't, foreigners not allowed. So, a country would loose a lot of it's own talent which would seek better opportunities elsewhere, and would, in the end, be considerably worse of than it is now. Who would trade with a country which rejects all foreigners. Foreigners won't want to do business with you then.

In another way, this idea is an illusion based on an illusion. Looked at from space, national borders are largely invisible - what we see are geographical contours. Animals, plants, insects, weather, etc., none of which understand national borders. If you look at maps from different ages, we see that borders have constantly changed. No country today looked the same 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago, in terms of it's boundaries. So what exactly are nationalists going on about? 

In fact, looked at closely, it's not even nationalism; its racism! I heard somebody on a radio show once point out that if you ask a black person what it's like to be black, you will probably get an answer. If you ask a white person what it's like to be white, you probably won't get an answer, because (and I'm white) it's not a relevant question for us. What the hell?! That is what racism is like: when we whites have to seriously think about what it means to be white, it'll be because we are racially discriminated and that is not currently happening.

So nationalism and racism are closely linked, if not identical. And in both cases, they are based on an illusory concept, that one group is better than another. What kind of measuring stick is being used? In what way better or worse? Different, I get, but better? The whole thing falls apart if it was actually possible for a country to completely shut itself off from all others. North Korea has had pretty good go at this kind of nationalism. Is that where a Steve Bannon or a Salvini or an Orban, etc, would feel at home? Maybe, but only if they were in charge.

The saddest thing of all is that most people aren't like that at all, but they allow nationalists to be voted in, just because they want to believe their problems are somebody else's fault and not their own. And now, A virus, which also knows no borders, has arrived and the nationalists blame the foreigners who bring it in, even though most of the transfer has taken place through business travel and holidaymakers from all those countries. But still: blame it on the others, that'll sort it out!