Reblog of an Excellent Article

“Ed.–this is the best and clearest exposition I have ever read on the subject of the completed soul vs the evolving soul and the need vs desire for reincarnating in a physical body.

” The Real Driver of Evolution

(Posted on February 11, 2015 by J Douglas Bottorff on http://dougbottorff.com/2015/02/11/the-real-driver-of-evolution/

” Question: ‘If I understand what you have written about soul evolution, you basically say it does not happen, that the soul is already complete. How do you square this with the fact of evolution itself? You surely can’t be saying human evolution does not exist. The evidence is too overwhelming. I’d love to see you address this. ‘”

“Physical evolution is an undeniable fact. I am totally intrigued by the sciences that look into our planet’s past and piece together the ever-evolving story of earth and its inhabitants, which obviously includes us. When considering the notion of evolution in a spiritual context, many people mistakenly assume that the evolutionary process is driven by some cosmic need to express a completed state of perfection in the visible world. The process of evolution is seen as leading to something.

“This is a false assumption. The thing that drives evolution is adaptation to the present environment. The successful species adapts to environmental changes. The species that do[es] not adapt goes extinct. In other words, the organisms that we see alive today have achieved the state of …adaptation to the current environment. They are fulfilling their purpose and are currently as perfect as they need to be (italics mine).

“In the spiritual community, there is an idea that the human brain and body will one day be so highly evolved as to express the full spectrum of what we call Christ Consciousness. This too is a false assumption. The physical brain and body will never be able to express the infinite capacity of the soul. This is not what the physical organism is designed to do. The physical brain and body are designed to allow the soul, for whatever reasons we choose, to interface with the material environment. If you decide to see all the country you live in, for example, you can jump in your car and travel. When your interest in this kind of travel begins to wane, you stop.

“In spiritual circles it is commonly accepted that we each have a spiritual or astral body. This body is seen as having no restrictions. We accept that it never gets ill, hungry, fatigued and is not restricted by time and space. When some describe the evolutionary goal of our physical body, they describe what the astral body already does. They envision the physical body evolving to a state of non-restricted immortality already enjoyed by the astral body. This is redundant and totally misses the point of the physical body. The physical body, like the car, allows us to interface with the material world. When we no longer wish to do this, we stop taking on a body.

“The physical body and brain are now perfectly adapted, as evolved as they need to be, to experience our sojourn in the material realm. This material vehicle is perfectly adapted to our current environment. It is not the purpose of the body to become like the soul. The body and its brain will never reach a capacity where it can fully accommodate the complete spectrum of the soul’s capacity. This fact of physical restriction should not be taken as evidence of an unevolved soul.

“The body is subject to and restricted by material laws. Those who think it is the mark of soul evolution to be able to levitate the physical body, walk on water or travel without the aid of some material vehicle are attempting to force the body into service it was never intended to perform. The body has but one purpose and that is to allow interaction with the material realm. If we would rather levitate than walk, then we will stop taking on a physical body. The fact that we have taken on a physical body, with all its restrictions and maintenance needs, means that we have done it, not because the universe is forcing us to learn lessons yet unlearned, but because we, for whatever reason, wanted to.

“I believe when we took on this body that we knew what we were getting into. The lifespan of the average body is but a flash in the pan of our immortal existence. The fact that we lose sight of our immortality through a preoccupation with the care and keeping of the body does nothing to hinder or change the nature of the soul. We’re not here in this body to develop the soul. To the contrary, we’re here in this body as evidence that our soul is so developed that we’ve decided to take a trip into the material plane.

“To take this trip we have taken on the most highly evolved vehicle available. Evolution is not a means to some future end. It is a process whose success is measured by the fact that it is currently producing an organism capable of fully interfacing with the present environment. Measuring the capacity or state of the soul by weighing it against the present capacity of the brain and body is comparing apples to oranges. The body and its brain will never be able to express the full capacity of the completed soul. It doesn’t need to.”–J. Douglas Bottorff

Advertisements

The Law of Divine Order

Some of us may be stuck in using metaphysical “buzzwords” that cause us to assume “the universe” will take care of what we need, or some situation, if only we “surrender”, believe we have already received it, and let our positive thoughts attract positive results. It doesn’t work quite that way. We still have to be the hands, feet, ears, eyes, and brains of the process.

I think there is a natural order, as a law (not a force or mechanism) concerning how the world works for civilized people, and how human nature works: cause and effect, act and react. If you are wise, you have learned that there must be some benefit for everyone involved in any deal or contract. If you invoke Divine Order, you commit to working for a good or love-inspired outcome for everyone involved. With this attitude, you often find that obstacles disappear, change, or are no longer a problem, and people and authorities are willing to give you the help you need. That’s what happened to me when I applied for a place in the PTA Program in 1991 at UTPA. I also found that some decisions I had made many years ago, and some work I had done, prepared the way for success when I needed it.

If you don’t think of a [universal] Law as being an edict that is handed down by some authority, but as a consistency that can be relied upon to operate in all similar conditions, then it just IS, whether we believe in it or not, and it doesn’t change unless there is a fundamental change in the make-up or nature of the universe.
That idea is hard to wrap one’s mind around, since humans are used to thinking in practical microcosms, where the origin of the Law appears to be from “above”, from a more vast or general realm, as part of a Plan.

Oh, but there surely must be a Plan, we think! Some higher authority surely must know why I am here, why these things are happening, and how and when it will all finally resolve after a certain divine being returns to earth. Maybe not. A Plan implies an intentional outcome, and if that is the case, then it is already decided what that outcome will be, and nothing I do makes any difference [except to me.] No matter which choices I make, or how much I learn, it does not change the outcome. So much for free will.

So I don’t think there is a Plan in the sense that it is a Destiny, either personal or collective. I think each of us has enormous power to make our desires and intentions take form, and it is up to us to get the cooperation of others who have their own desires and intentions. As a race of human conscious beings, we also have enormous power to shape our future on this planet and in this universe, as long as the universal Law is recognized for what it is, and properly used (in co- operation) –not obeyed.

See my other related essays on this blog by going to: https://b4i4get.wordpress.com/category/ideas/  (or clicking on the word, “ideas” under “Categories” in the right-hand sidebar.)

 

Politically-Correct Football

No Violence, Please!
No Violence, Please!

I just heard on the radio news that the Texas high school sports team names of Warriors, Indians, Redskins, and Rebels will be banned. What will we now replace them with? Kitty-cats, Hamsters, Bunnies, and Puppy-dogs?

Well, to be politically correct in our new gentle society, there should be nothing in the names to denote killing, warlike aggression, ethnic slurs or stereotypes, or anti-social behavior. Really? Isn’t the idea of physical sports games to score more goals or points than the other team by out-running them or blocking them or knocking them down and taking the ball away from them?

Football and hockey are especially violent. Players are required to wear padded uniforms and helmets, but they still get hurt. Many men–and some women–enjoy the primitive aggression of these games, either by active participation or by watching the games from the stands or on a wide-screen TV with other “fans.” The more action, the more they yell and cheer.

Does this help to vent or provide a healthy outlet for normal aggressive urges? It is claimed that without sports and other dangerous competitions, a society controlled by laws and regulations against aggression and injury will in time turn against each other or the government with riots and destruction. (Prediction: One day it will be a major discovery that terrorists were never allowed to play or enjoy viewing football games with their friends.)

Football teams are usually named for animals with predatory or aggressive behavior, though there are notable exceptions. Team sports are competitive, and someone is expected to win. But to take away any “hurt feelings” caused by politically-incorrect names, perhaps we should change them to something more socially and culturally responsible. But wait: that could have the psychological effect of taking all the “fight” out of the players. And do you think anyone would watch a game between the Cleveland Cooperators and the Washington Compromisers? 😉

Sis  G.

ON JOY, OR LACK THEREOF

Perfect Expression of Form
Perfect Expression of Form

1.

Joy is a state of being,

Not of having.

In the moment that it comes,

There is supreme wellbeing–

Instant and independent of one’s physical state.

And then, too quickly, it departs,

Leaving only the memory

Of having been,

And the longing to know it again.

2.

Too long have I maintained

An even temper, a stoic response

To misfortune, loss, or pain.

Too long since I have laughed aloud,

But merely showed the tired nod

Of mirthless affirmation.

I am not unhappy;

I do not lack for what I need.

Most of what I wished for has been mine.

The heart beats, the lungs breathe,

The body moves at my command.

Yet, incessantly the mind reflects

Upon its ultimate destination.

3.

What has made it worth the years?

Why did I wake and work and sleep?

Why did I eat and grow and learn,

And why did I birth my babes?

Only a few jewels worth the cost:

Discovery–a problem solved.

Beauty of perfect execution

And perfect expression of form.

Falling in love. Need I say more?

A first taste of something delicious.

A cat or dog who loves you,

As much as you love it.

Getting warm when you are cold.

And joy–out of nowhere, for no reason,

Often just when it’s needed:

The sense of one’s True Home.

KLM 082813

The Generic Linguistic Placeholder

 BKELEC“WIDGET” is my favorite term to call an object when I don’t know its proper name. I first heard it used at least ten years ago, and was charmed by it immediately, but it is much older than that.  Its first use in print is said to be as a “hypothetical product” of a factory in a 1924 play. I suspect that’s how the now legitimate generic name for a small, functional application on a webpage was born: some web designer did not know what else to call a small functional application, so s/he called it a “widget.” And it stuck. Now everyone with a webpage, blog, or smartphone knows what a widget is.

This is not true of the perhaps dozens of other habitual terms that we substitute for the correct one because we can’t think of what it is called, or never knew in the first place. The most popular slang term now used among younger people is “thingie.” Before that one came along, what you used as a placeholder depended on what your friends were saying, or what you grew up hearing in whatever part of the country you lived.

I’m going to list every generic placeholder that I have ever heard used in place of the correct name for an object  (or person.) I invite you to add one or more that are new to me, in your  comments.

THINGAMABOB DEMOFLOTCHY DOOHICKEY WHATCHAMACALLIT WHOSIS   WHATSIS  WHOOZAWHATSIS  WHATSHISNAME  WHATSHERFACE    THINGAMAJIG…….???

I really thought I knew more, but I can’t remember DIDDLYSQUAT anymore! What’s in  your vocabulary?–Kaye/Sis G

I Might Have Been a Hippie

I might have been a hippie

If I’d ever had the chance.

I might have joined a commune

And learned to Sufi dance.

I might have found Nirvana

By intoning yogi chants.

But I missed the 1960s;

I never got a glance.

——————————————————-

I was a stay-at-home mom in the 60s. Part of that time I lived on a farm, 12 miles from the nearest town and no neighbors that we knew. That does not seem like “isolation” now, when I start up the car and drive 8 miles to church or 15 miles to the doctor, or make a 54-mile round trip to attend a friend’s birthday party. But back then, I did not have my driver’s license yet, and we did not have a TV. All I knew about what was going on in the world was what I heard over the radio.

I listened to the Beatles singing “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” while I cooked supper with a baby on my hip. I even sang along, “…I can’t hide…I can’t h-i-i-de!” And my son asked me quite innocently, “Why can’t you hide?” 😉

It was in that kitchen that I heard the news that President John F. Kennedy had been shot. I had cast my first vote for him in the 1960 election, and I was stunned. I was not really a Democrat back then–I just preferred him to the other candidate.

I read Ayn Rand in the 60s, as well as the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads–a strange juxtaposition. Both philosophies have stayed with me, and now the “Atlas Shrugged” movies are finally being made and shown.

Rand’s philosophy energizes my self-respect and willingness to do what I have to, and what I love. The Hindu philosophy fills in the gaps that Rand does not care about: where I came from and where I will go when I die. She also did  not believe that any of us were “put here” for a specific purpose, whether our own choice or God’s. It is up to each of us to make the most of our lives while we are alive. So, I have what I think is a logical belief that I am here because I am necessary. My influence will remain in the memory and DNA of those whom I have left behind, and my energy will become part of something else.

I have wondered a lot of late, whether it is better to embrace religion or to cast it aside as magic and superstition. Whatever the “truth” is, or whether it is even relevant, I know that when I die, I will either find out that there is an afterlife, or else I won’t be around to care. Either way, I have come to believe that it is better to leave this life holding someone’s hand, either a loved one’s, or an angel’s.

But I digress… Sure, back in the late 50s, I drank too much sometimes (but didn’t smoke any pot) and could have gotten into a lot of trouble if I had not married a good, responsible man, had several children, and left any possibility of a career undeveloped for 18 years. It seems that I always had to stand on the brink of disaster, or have a door slammed in my face, before I realized that I had to start off in a new direction. And the new door always opened as soon as I accepted the opportunity.

I finally became a hippie in the 1980s, just long enough to open up my creative writing, singing, and healing abilities. I also traveled a lot, went to retreats, met some fascinating people, and had a lot of fun before I went back to school and learned some marketable skills.

And yes, I even smoked pot a couple of times. (I didn’t like it.)

What does 7.9% Unemployment Really Mean?

…is it a straight percentage of all the people between the ages of 18 and 65 who could be working for wages, but are not, because they can’t find jobs? Of course not. Some of these people own businesses, are self-employed, or work for cash at whatever they can do. Some of these people are artisans and craftsmen who make items and sell them. Some of them (though not so many now) are famers and ranchers. Some are investors, buying and selling; some are artists, musicians, and writers. Some even make a living by panhandling. And some sell their bodies in one way or another for money…

How does the US Government calculate the percentage of people who are unemployed each month? A more fundamental question  is, “What is this figure a percentage of?” (Yes, I know I ended that sentence with a preposition, but it reads better that way.)

Moving on–is it a straight percentage of all the people between the ages of 18 and 65 who could be working for wages, but are not, because they can’t find jobs? Of course not. Some of these people own businesses, are self-employed, or work for cash at whatever they can do. Some of these people are artisans and craftsmen who make items and sell them. Some of them (though not so many now) are farmers and ranchers. Some are investors, buying and selling; some are artists, musicians, and writers. Some even make a living by panhandling. And some sell their bodies in one way or another for money.

So who are the people who are represented by unemployment figures and percentages? First, notice that they are reported in round figures–9,000,000 today–a frank estimate. How are the figures gathered? They are reported to the government by employment agencies where people who work for wages come because they have lost a job that they had and are looking for a new job. They come there to collect unemployment insurance checks, and in order to collect them, they must be looking for work. People laid off from jobs where they did not have unemployment insurance, or who were fired for cause, do not collect unemployment checks and are not counted (at least this used to be the case.) People who have never had a job yet don’t count.  Also, those who stop looking for work and are no longer in the “system” are not counted. Those people may become part of another government system of welfare recipients, who may be employed or underemployed, but no longer have to be.

Did anyone think the government got its unemployment figures and percentages by sending counters around to knock on doors and ask if the people living there are employed?

Did anyone think the government sent out surveys in the mail or made phone calls to every household in the country asking how many of the residents were employed, unemployed, looking for work, how long, or had given up?

Even if government did such things as samples of the national population, and even if they gave them a dollar to answer the questions and paid the postage to mail back the envelope, could the results of such methods of counting be useful or reliable?

So what does it REALLY mean when we hear that the percentage of unemployed people in Amercia is, say, 7.9% and inching up to 8.0%? It means that OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR WAGES, FOR EMPLOYERS WHO PROVIDE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (GUI), THAT PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION SYSTEM AND WERE LOOKING FOR WORK IN THE MONTH JUST PASSED——IS 7.9%. Edit the statistics to include only certain high-risk ethnic groups, and the numbers go much higher.

More meaningful to most people is how many of their family members, neighbors, friends, and former co-workers are out of work. But it’s apparently the best that the government can do to keep a running count, and the method that produces the most cosmetic figure for the public media.–Kaye