Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Crime and Punishment... Or, Crime and Crime

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness


“You do the crime, you do the time.”
--Authority

“Great idea! With a catchy phrase like this, people will really think twice.”
--No One Ever


As a kid I’d often run up and down the steps at home. My dad would see or hear me and punish me by making me walk slowly up and down five or ten times.

All I’d thought to do back then in response was grumble, hang my head and slump my shoulders, and then take the hike.

Now much more inquisitive, I have to ask:
  1. Had I really done anything wrong?
  2. If so, did the punishment fit the offense?
  3. Did the punishment have any value in curbing my behavior?

Had I really done anything wrong?

I would argue that I hadn’t. I would argue that wrongness is in the eye of the beholder in these types of situations.

This seems like one of uncounted instances that play out in everyone’s lives where a parent chides their child for “misbehaving” only because their parents had done the same to them. For reasons few people ever actually question, running on the steps is just an inherently “bad” thing that only “bad” people do.

If safety is a concern, is this concern realistic?

I would say not so much for the same reason that Mark Twain said, “I have lived a long life and had many troubles, most of which never happened”: people usually imagine far worse futures for themselves and others than they ever actually experience.

I was lucky enough to grow up in a time when kids still practiced the nearly lost art of playing outside. This caused me plenty more harm than running the steps ever did, yet I was never punished for it. What’s the difference if I run the steps or run a hill and climb a tree?

Did the punishment fit the crime?

To answer this question we must, of course, assume that I had done something wrong.

This is a hard swallow, but let’s pretend.

The most significant thing that comes to mind to answer the question is:

Punishment is horrendously subjective!

Couldn’t my dad have instead told me to walk up and down only once or given me the belt or taken away TV-watching for three days? Theoretically, yes.

I heard a story the other day in which a mother had left her kids home alone while she worked and had told them before leaving that if they wanted something to eat to call her. It ended up that she got home, saw that her son (perhaps 6 years old) had taken it upon himself to eat a canned spaghetti-type meal, and then beat him to death with an extension cord.

Did the punishment fit the crime?

Internally disconnected and without any “Healthy Standards for Human Engagement” rulebook, everyone’s left to do their own subjective thing. Such is hardly conducive to fairness and balance.

Did the punishment have any value in curbing my behavior?

Sort of, but not really.
The punishment was superficial because it didn’t in any way address the underlying cause of why I had been running to begin with (again assuming I’d done something wrong and hadn’t simply been being a kid and doing what kids do).

If my running had truly been a problem and the issue was then looked at in a truly helpful way, my thoughts are what would have to have been addressed rather than my behavior since behavior is informed by thought, not the other way around.

Regardless of the number of times that I had to walk up and down the steps as punishment, the only limitation I recall making was to temper my speed when my dad was around—but still run as usual when he wasn’t.

In other words, I partially stopped because I didn’t want to get punished, not because I came to see the light.

And if I was told things such as, “Stop running, you’re going to fall down the steps,” think about it—when do such cautionary statements ever work? We’re hammered day in and day out with cancer warnings, legal warnings, and numerous other warnings, and yet we all pretty much go on doing exactly as we’ve been.

If true, positive change is to happen, the mind must either willingly release its former view and/or be offered healthy reasoning that trumps everything it already holds as “truth.”

Yes-ish.
Why any punishment might have curbed my behavior comes down to three things: belief, fear, and/or trauma.

I think it’s inappropriate to say that I was ever traumatized by stair-running punishments, but, generally speaking, belief, fear, and trauma are what cause people to change their behaviors in these sorts of situations.

Nothing is healed and change is not willingly chosen. Rather, old programming is forcefully layered over with harmful beliefs, fears, and/or trauma for the sake of unnatural self-protection.

All in all, this parent-punishing-child scenario is how it’s been for ages. For some it’s not been as bad, for some it’s been far worse; in times past the punishments tended toward brutality, in recent times they’ve tended toward mildness. Nevertheless, the same threads are woven throughout.

Crime and Punishment in the World at Large

Although my personal stair-running “crime” and punishment scenario is quite minor, what underlies it is the very same thing that underlies the vast majority of crime and punishment scenarios around the world and through time.

Let's look at the questions asked earlier, but let’s change the wording slightly:
  1. Are any crimes actually being committed?
  2. If so, do the punishments fit the crimes?
  3. Do the punishments have any value in curbing future crime?

Are any crimes actually being committed?

People commit crimes all the time and we can say with certainty that this is so because crime, it could be said, is behavior that causes direct or indirect harm to others.

There are also definitely times when “crime” is merely a matter of stupid laws and conspiracy and profit, such as the illegalization of marijuana and putting people in prison for 20 years for carrying a mere ounce of it.

Assuming crime is legit, however…

If so, do the punishments fit the crimes?

Just like my story from home, although crimes are fairly well defined, there’s rarely if ever a standardized consequence for a given action. Worsening matters, our “criminal justice” system has been little more than a system in which so-called “justice” is meted out by criminals.

Two guys could murder their wives in an identical manner and receive the same charges, yet one could be sentenced to 10 years in prison and the other to 75 years. It seems more dependent upon whether or not the judge was angry because he ripped open the roof of his mouth while eating Cap’n Crunch that morning than do to any real desire for fairness and balance.

I understand that similar crimes may have differences from one another and so there may be some subjectivity and variation on punishment. But the general manner of punishing crime has been abusively arbitrary.

Add to this the fact that the whole legal/court/prison system here in the US is heavily monetized. To describe only one facet of this abomination:

If someone gets arrested, they might be told that even though they’re potentially guilty they can get out of jail until their court date by paying a bail fee.

So it’s like: You’re being convicted of murder, but we’ll let you out of jail until your court date because you paid us an (arbitrary) $50,000 bail fee… But the guy who would have been your cell mate and has been convicted of the same thing as you couldn’t afford his bail fee, so while you’re out free, he’s rotting in his cell for the next year until his own court date.

Do the punishments have any value in curbing future crime?

Make no mistake: crime and punishment is a Big Business.

Like all those fields that we have blindly depended on for eons to tell the truth, to find cures for disease, to end poverty, and all that stuff, crime and punishment has basically remained unchanged because it’s all about money and power.

If people were given paths to healing, knowledge, happiness, prosperity, and abundance, that would be at least a little bit detrimental to the Controllers, don’t you think?

So the area of crime and punishment has largely been designed to steer clear of offering ways to help offenders heal the very psycho-emotional beliefs, fears, and traumas that had set them up for prison time.

Heck, there are even those who, upon their release from prison, deliberately commit crimes and get caught once again because they know that in prison all their needs will again be taken care of.

I'm sure, too, that, if we don't live in such a place or time, most of us have heard about governments that have used “eye for an eye”-type punishment systems. Any half-reasonable person wouldn't dare to steal if they knew being caught would mean losing a hand or commit rape for fear of being castrated—but people have gone and done the deed and been brutally punished anyway.

Behaviors don’t change if minds don’t change, and minds don’t change so behaviors don’t change.

…But I suppose there’s the death penalty… In terms of potentially repeat offenders, that seems to work quite well in cutting down the crime rate…

It’s Not Enough to Merely Make Change—We Must Be It.

I fully accept that if someone is harming another then action must be taken so that the harm ceases.

The trouble is, whether a parent toward a child or the legal system toward a potential or known criminal, our methods of crime “management” and “prevention” have been so utterly deranged.

These methods don’t work, and when they “do” work, they cause people to take on negative beliefs, fears, and traumas which themselves drive people to commit more crimes in the future.

It is critical that people wake up to this fact and make an effort to turn the situation around.

For most people this will have nothing to do with involving themselves in the criminal justice system, and for everybody it will be internal.

"If People Want the World to Change for the Better..."

The way parents treat their children is in large part due to their own inner state but also is as a fragment of the local collective consciousness (for example, generally speaking, parents in the US raise their children how parents are taught to raise their children in the US; they don’t raise them like the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert).

The people who work the broken system, who create distorted laws, who lobby for special interests, and so on, they are there because it’s what resonates with the collective consciousness. Joe and Jane Citizen are the ones who put them there, directly or indirectly, and allow them to remain there.

What this means is that we each have to change ourselves in order to change our respective individual lives, and we must also change ourselves in order to shift the collective consciousness, both global and local, and thus deny support to the wicked.

As life-as-we-now-know-it is proof of, making up crimes is of no benefit; punishing people for these made up crimes is of no benefit; maintaining junk beliefs, fears, and traumas is of no benefit; meting out punishment for valid crimes without regard for the internal mechanisms that drive the negative behaviors to begin with is of no benefit.

And so we have to do something about it.

You do, and I do. We all do.

Because nobody is going to do it for us.

Even those who’re waiting for a savior of some kind, whether Jesus, the Fantastic 4, or a Powerball lottery win, even if a savior were truly coming, so what? That savior hasn’t come.

Does that mean we should just continue sitting here and letting the world go to hell? For how long?

If your child, father, or neighbor were drowning, would you just say, “Meh. Not my problem. They should have learned how to swim”?

As each of us is a piece of the whole of humanity, we have an inherent responsibility for each other.

More importantly, we have a responsibility for ourselves.

I hope you’ll take these responsibilities seriously.

It could be said to be a crime to do otherwise. The punishment is self-inflicted.

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

I’m Illogical and Gullible… So Say Illogical and Gullible People

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness



Like anyone who has researched conspiracy “theory,” alternate science, etc. and attempted to tell others of their findings, like anyone who has proposed a novel idea, I have been rejected over and over.

People have disgustedly told me things such as, “That’s illogical,” and, “You’re so gullible.”

Folks… I'll be honest… There's been at least a few times in my life when I've been guilty as charged. But I must tell you, these sentiments are hypocritical and therefore misplaced.

“That’s Illogical.”

Has anyone ever actually stopped and asked themselves what makes an idea “logical”?

The simple fact is that when a person has a belief—or, more likely, many beliefs—about a thing being a certain way, their mind becomes geared to perceive—to interpret, potentially even with wild distortion—exactly as their belief-filters cause them to perceive.

This means that a given person sees what he sees because he imagines he sees it, because he has beliefs that shape his perception such that he can’t not see it. Thirty-five people who witness the same event will all perceive it differently, each respective to their beliefs.

For most people, “logic,” “rational thinking,” and so on have nothing to do with “true facts” or open-minded thinking but with what any of them believe to be “true” or “factual”—and often, for fear's sake, what they want to be “true” or “factual.”

The scientist thinks he’s logical, does he not?
The religious adherent thinks he’s logical, does he not?
The psychopathic serial killer thinks he’s logical, does he not?
The average Joe Schmoe thinks he’s logical, does he not?

The truth is that most people are unable to exhibit true logic a significant percentage of the time.

It could be said that people generally have (for lack of a better word) “faux-logic” because they have an ability to correlate the contents of their minds (at least the contents they’re willing to look at) but they correlate it in a self-verifying way: information is believed to be “true” and thus perceived to be “true” and therefore all is accepted as connectable pieces of the same puzzle.

This is so even in a thoroughly cognitive dissonant mind. How can the unanalyzed mind know of its lack of harmony when all it sees is “truth”?

This is especially so considering that most people have strong egoic agendas to support their view of “how it is.” The ego loves to be a know-it-all and fill in any gaps of ignorance with half-truths and flat-out lies; the ego is totally not okay with the unknown.

To move toward and exhibit true logic one must be very willing to be wrong, one must be very open-minded; one must actively analyze and remove their faulty beliefs in order to see what is right in front of them rather than whatever they’d see had those perception-skewing beliefs existed.

“You’re Gullible.”

“And you're not?”

In calling me gullible, people mustn't have noticed that belief sets its believer up for gullibility by its very nature.

Common “logic” is a function of a person’s beliefs and beliefs are self-validating. This means that a person’s “logic” must inherently be skewed toward what is in alignment with their beliefs.

This means that people are going to be more likely to fall for what appears to them as “true,” even though it may not be, simply because it lies within the realm of what they already believe, and, in many cases due to fear, what they want to believe.

By all means, I’ve most certainly been guilty of being gullible.

But who do others imagine themselves to be to tell me when I’m looking through an alternate lens that they’d never dare to look through themselves that I am the one who’s in error, that I am the fool?

Judge not, for as you judge others so, too, do you judge yourself.

Be You, But Respect Me

By the nature of individual perception there must always be some level of subjectivity between viewpoints.

However, the more we analyze our beliefs and resolve the inconsistencies, the more we see life with an open-minded and objective view, and the more discerning we become regarding what is fact or fiction—regardless of its source or level of societal acceptance.

Might we still experience moments of illogic and gullibility?

Sure. But so what?

The aim, here, is not to be perfect. The aim is to be a decent human being who doesn’t get stuck in the rut of imagining that he or she somehow knows any more than the next person merely because their mind appears to “know” and be “logical.”

Of course the mind “knows” and is “logical”! The unanalyzed mind is arrogant and stupid like that! It’s the story of every mind’s life!

So let’s take some time to self-analyze so that we can not only perceive more clearly but also be more accepting of the perspectives of others.

We just might learn something.

Friday, August 16, 2019

Congratulations! ...Or Not.

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness



A high school senior is accepted into college…
A couple gets engaged/married…
A person gets a new job…

…and everyone congratulates them.

Except me.

This isn’t about withholding approval. Everyone does better when they’re given support, and I endorse this support when it’s due.

But in many cases, what have people actually done to deserve congratulations?

A high school senior is accepted into college.
What if this student doesn’t really want to go to college? What if this student had unconsciously applied only to schools he knew his parents would be proud of? What if this student has struggled madly to maintain top honors because his siblings have all gotten top honors and he fears looking like the family dunce?

The more one does self-inquiry and healing and gains self-knowledge, the more they open to an innate sixth sense regarding the truth of other people. The answers to questions such as those just posed become intuitively clear; many times the information pops into one’s awareness merely by being in the person’s presence, by “getting” the subtleties of their words and mannerisms and such.

With this awareness, offering quick congratulations is often misplaced. Not only have people not really done anything, but they’ve gone in directions perpendicular to their integrity.

A couple gets engaged/married.
What if a couple gets married because they fear resisting familial, societal, and religious expectation? What if, say, the woman is super dependent on the man to take care of her because when she was a child her father had heavily sheltered her? Or what if an arrogant man needs a weak woman to push around and take the blame for his woes?

It’s not like there’s any standard saying that certain criteria must be fulfilled and each partner must be free of an adequate level of fears, junk beliefs, and repressed traumas in order that they can see clearly enough to make truly healthy, satisfying relationship decisions.

Most often marriage is two people deciding to do what we’ve all been told is “what you’re supposed to do.” They don’t know their true motivations for being with those they choose to be with: they seek to wed a “second half” externally in attempt to satiate their inner void, rather than first integrating the fragmentary aspects of themselves within and realizing their inherent wholeness.

A person gets a new job.
What if the work a person chooses is heavily determined by the unconscious, childhood programming of what their parents want instead of what aligns with their true needs and desires? What if a person regularly takes new jobs because, driven by self-victimization, their jobs always turn sour and “the grass is [always] greener on the other side”?

Where peoples’ occupations are concerned, major negative attachments can typically be found.

In a way this is okay because the work people take on is one of the most significant metaphorical guideposts Life offers for the discovery of what each soul seeks for fulfillment. However, if people spend their whole lives polishing their respective guideposts but never actually read what they say or go where they lead—as happens with most people—well, was anything really accomplished? Has the soul received any nourishment?

Otherwise, work is simply what people do; it’s what Life does.

What Do I Tell People?

Being slow to offer congratulations, how do I respond to others who tell me of these things?

Since there are many varying scenarios in which any number of responses could be made, it’s difficult to answer this question too specifically. I make an effort to say what is in integrity and feels appropriate in any given circumstance. Often enough, I’ve found that I needn’t say anything at all.

When hearing first-hand, two general responses I’ve found to be useful are, “I wish you the best,” and, “Good luck.” If someone tells me, for example, that they got accepted into college, I might respond with, “Oh, yeah? Where to?” or ask for what degree.

These are situations that can potentially be awkward and uncomfortable but are unavoidable due to the facts that, one, I’m intuitively open to seeing into people well beyond their words and actions, and, two, I’m on a path that demands integrity.

Even if I don’t agree with others’ choices or am indifferent to them, it’s not in my place to be unkind or, in 99.9% of cases, to tell them why I see otherwise. But I can at least smile and be a decent human being in my response to them.

An Imitation of Life

We’ve all become like everyone else, and without conscious, self-healing work we will all remain this way: a product of the distorted world we live in.

Part of this implies that, in desperation for love and approval and such, we put great effort into constructing and maintaining facades that project an illusion of “fitting in,” of being “good enough.”

Even if deep down we disagree with others and the ways of the world or feel indifferent about them, we still congratulate others for their choices and walk those over-trodden paths ourselves. We live the status quo life wherein everyone abides by the same, lame status quo expectations.

We even go so far as to condemn any who show resistance to this norm.

How phony!

Awareness, Not Ignorance, Deserves Honor

I’m not opposed to giving support where support is due. However, the way people so quickly dole out congratulations to others is unreasonable.

What have people actually done?

How honest are people really being with themselves? And if not with themselves, then how with others?

It sounds awkward and perhaps silly to say it like this, but maybe it’s more appropriate to congratulate people later on in life, the gist of the congratulations being:
“I'm glad to hear that you two worked with a healer to resolve your differences. ‘Distance’ relationships are no fun, and if you'd have separated, each of you would have carried those same issues right into your next relationships. Now you're happier and closer than ever, and if you decide to have kids, they won't have to bear that added weight on their shoulders.”
Or:
“Congratulations on your realization, upon seeing that each successive job you’ve had has repeatedly failed the ‘6-month test,’ that your jobs haven’t been the problem so much as your lousy beliefs have been. Good for you for changing yourself this time and finding a new job that resonates at a higher vibration and is more fulfilling.”
To me, these are the kinds of things that are truly worthy of congratulations.

Because it is inherently every human beings’ right to be educated, to get married, to have a job, and so on, but it’s also then automatically the responsibility of everyone who wishes to follow such paths to heal their inner distortions so that they can do so in a truly positive, healthy, integrated way.

"If People Want the World to Change for the Better..."

Friday, July 19, 2019

Stop Being Sorry!

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness



Do you know what irks me?

When I read advice columns wherein troubled people tell the advice givers that they’re being treated like slime by others and the advice offered is, “Tell the person that you’re sorry but you don’t feel the same as they do,” or, “Tell them you’re sorry but you don’t subscribe to that kind of behavior.”

Folks… Stop being sorry all the time!

Drop the prim and proper, politically correct facade of self-repression, and just say what you mean.

It is your right as a human being to be respected simply because you are a human being.

By all means, it’s your responsibility to bend a little bit for others out of respect that we’re all different (just as others should do for you). But when, say, someone is in your house and pompously demeans you for the way you do things, you shouldn’t have anything whatsoever to be sorry about by standing up for yourself.

To be sorry about being yourself is to tell them, I accept that I am lesser than you, and so I must apologize for suggesting to you that you’re imperfect.

Is this really the message you wish to keep telling yourself about yourself?

Is this really the message you wish to keep broadcasting to the world about yourself?

It’s About Equality

This has nothing to do with anyone being greater or lesser. It’s 100% about being equals and demanding respect due to this fact.

Some people might argue, “But that’s my mother or best friend or dog trainer; I can’t treat them like that.”

Treat them like what?

They’re dumping their crap on you, and you’re sitting there taking it like a toilet during the Super Bowl.

If others are going to get all offended because you demanded respect, an action they will falsely imagine to be you making them look inferior, that is their problem, not yours. To the one whose consciousness is programmed toward taking offense, offence will be taken as long as they don’t get their way; your politeness in word choice is of marginal value.

Because it should be obvious, of course, that this has nothing to do with being a jerk. It’s your right to say something, but if you have inconsiderate guests at your house, for example, you can say, “Please take your feet off the table,” without adding, “you unconscionable dick,” to the end of it.

Imaginary Infringement

Another thing people are way too sorry about is in asking for what they want, as though living in integrity with their true needs and desires is automatically an infringement on others.

This makes for significant negative consequences.

For instance, consider a relationship in which one partner doesn’t ever seem to have an opinion. Even if this person comes across as opinionated when speaking with others, when their partner gets involved they opine less and lessen the value they feel of their opinions, and they allow their partner to “win” most, if not all, decisions.

There’s no balance in this type of relationship. In fact, they’re quite strained because there’s a constant power struggle between the “arrogant and mighty lord” and the “inferior and powerless victim.”

Even when circumstances are trivial, the negative consequences don’t actually change that much. This is for the reason that the small things are merely the pieces that make up the larger chunks of life.

To use an instance of a particularly bad case (but hardly unrealistic): A person could be pouring iced tea, this person could directly ask their guest if they’d like some iced tea, and the guest would say no because they feel guilty, perhaps because the tea-pourer would then have to get another glass out and later take the effort to wash it.

How inhibited must a person be that they cannot even accept a glass of iced tea that is already being poured?

If they feel so unworthy and guilty of asking for something so trivial that’s already within their reach, how much less so do they perceive themselves as deserving of the greater things of life?

Outside: “Yes, of course.” Inside: “No! Dammit!”

People are quite deficient when it comes to saying yes when they mean yes and no when they mean no.

People frequently don’t maintain boundaries regarding things that are truly in integrity with them yet they do usually maintain boundaries regarding things that aren’t.

Let’s use an example of a guy who washes his father’s car once per week. The guy doesn’t really want to do it, and many times he has to go out of his way to get it done. But every week, spoken or unspoken, he tells his father yes because he’s afraid to say no. All the while, if someone were to suggest to the guy that he not wash his father’s car because his father is taking advantage of him and he’s being weak, the guy would get all bent out of shape at the truth-speaker.

In terms of the guy’s father, we could imagine that if his son told him he didn’t want to do it anymore his father would start up with the persuasive arguments, the guilt-tripping, the intimidation, the claim of irresponsibility, and so on.

This is just one totally arbitrary example. I’m sure anyone could easily come up with countless more because this false yes-no behavior is so common. Saying yes when they mean no and no when they mean yes is a way of life for a great many people.

We’re programmed to expect that others should agree with us and that the discomfort of rejection that arises within us when they don’t agree is their problem. Since we don’t see ourselves as accountable, we dump blame on them. Unconsciously, this is an attempt to make others feel and accept guilt so that we don’t have to consciously face the discomfort of our own errors.

We’re simultaneously programmed to believe that the guilt others put on us is truly our own and that we’re best served by playing the victim card and giving in to their selfish expectations.

Guilt is a profound motivator. Unfortunately, more often than it not motivates us in unhealthy directions.

Guilt Is No Fun

I went to the grocery store the other day and parked next to a guy who was loading his groceries into his car.

The guy looked at me and said in a serious but loose tone, “Hey, sorry about the shitty park job. If I would have realized it before, I would have straightened it out.”

I said, “Eh, it happens sometimes.” Then in a deliberately hesitant voice while smiling and shaking my hand in an either/or motion, I said, “And, I mean, you’re kiiiindaaaa soooortaaaa in the line.”

As the words began coming out of my mouth I realized that what I was saying was a rote response based on stupid programming.

Truth is, the guy didn’t park terribly, but if the lot’s lines wouldn’t have been the double ones that are spaced ten inches or so apart, then he would certainly have caused a problem.

As I walked away I thought about how what I’d said was based on a false sense of guilt. He was clearly in the wrong and yet the first thing that came to my mind to say is what one would say who’s afraid to tell someone, indirectly and even if they’ve already admitted it, that, yes, they are in the wrong. Heck, I’d even gone so far as to help justify him as right!

I got annoyed, too, not just because of the stupid programming, but because I’d realized how much of a block the stupid programming causes.

I wanted to be light-hearted and humorous in my response, but it was inflicted with guilt. I thought that, since the guy immediately presented himself as friendly and open to humor, I should have responded to his apology with something to the effect of, “You know, you’re lucky I’m not a jerk or I’d have already called the parking authority and had your ass thrown in jail.”

Funny, right? I can be quick with the witty and humorous comments, but, my, oh, my, did that lame, prerecorded guilt-response ever come out in a hurry.

The Cause

This stupid programming and its resultant self-confidence destroying and self-sabotaging behaviors come from childhood.

For any given person it could come, for instance, from the childhood traumas of threats, abuse, and punishment and of religiously instilled guilt.

At such an early age children simply don’t have the capacity to understand the truth of difficult circumstances and to process and filter out the negative bits appropriately.

When parents are constantly on watch for their children’s misdeeds and are quick to punish, when children are being indoctrinated into a religion that is forever hammering it’s congregants with the idea that everyone is a sinner in desperate need for a savior lest they burn in hell forever, ignorant children with brains that still have years of development ahead can’t do much of anything other than accept that what is experienced and heard is true.

The guilt imbeds itself deep, and if the child is guilty, surely he’s worthless.

There’s also the explanation of weak, guilt-ridden parents. Even if children hadn’t experienced trauma, per se, parents who carry guilt, lack self-confidence and worth, and so on teach this same programming to their kids through their words and deeds.

Absent healing or other deliberate changes, the fact of the matter is that who children become as adults is little-to-nothing more than older versions of who they’d been programmed to be as children.

If they’d spent the early years of their lives endlessly slogging through the guilt bog, they’re not going to reach out for anything beyond—they simply don’t see it within themselves. I mean, they may reach, but what they actually grab onto, if anything, and what results of it won’t be quite what they’d hoped.

DANGER: Highly Corrosive!

Guilt eats away at everything.

For whatever we may want to say or do in integrity, guilt is there to say, “No, you don’t deserve it.” Guilt is there to say, “But if you get that then you’re going to make yourself greater than others, which means you’ll be making others lesser, and you’ll feel bad about yourself, will you not?”

And we believe the voice, right? Oh, how awful I would feel if I told my neighbor to stop letting his dog shit all over my lawn, and how awful I would make him feel.

And then we stand still, we stuff down our feelings and desires, and we live the lowlife of hunchbacks because we have no spines to support us.

We invite into our lives all number of coping mechanisms to deal with the repressed pain, to pretend the pain isn’t there.

We complain to others as though venting in irrelevant directions is going to alter the source. We get violent as a means of expressing our frustration at our inability to speak and act freely. We seek to control others as not to have to witness others getting what they want when we seemingly cannot. We become nosey and try to live vicariously through those who do get what they want. We feign indifference in attempt to hide how much we actually care. We repress our emotions in order to deny ourselves the powerful impetus of the need to move. We absorb ourselves in the TV, our “friends’” goings-on on social media, and so on while telling ourselves that these are “important and meaningful matters.” We get lazy and apathetic and just don’t give a damn whether we live or die.

It’s All Made Up

But guilt is nothing but programming.

It’s overwhelming, to be sure, but it’s just programming.

It’s the result of living in a super messed up world and as such is most certainly not an inherent part of who you or I or anyone else is.

This means guilt can be removed, and we can remove it.

Thank God.

Monday, July 8, 2019

It's the Thought That Counts… Very. Very. Literally.

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness



What you put out is what you get back…
So if what you think you’re putting out is not what you’re getting back,
then you’re not putting out what you think you’re putting out.

If

If you have thoughts of eating a banana, the result will not be you jumping off a cliff.

If you think about jumping off a cliff, the result will not be you eating a banana.

But if you think enough about either eating a banana or jumping off a cliff, and you think it with enough emotional drive, you will sooner or later experience the direct result of what you’d been thinking: you will eat a banana or jump off a cliff, respectively.

And, if you think enough about both eating a banana and jumping off a cliff, well, you may end up jumping off a cliff while eating a banana.

The Thought

This concept may sound obvious to the point of silliness when described in this way.

But a great many people live every day of their lives as if it weren’t so; as if their thoughts only matter when it’s convenient to them for their thoughts to matter.

It truly is “the thought that counts” because thought always precedes action.

Thought creates in spirit prior to physical manifestation. When fed enough energy, spiritual form manifests as physical form.

Thoughts matter because matter is physicalized thought.

This is especially true of subconscious thought. The band will play on regardless of whether or not the conductor is present—it’s just that, when he’s not, the result is a cacophony rather than a symphony.

Dateless

Consider the following metaphorical example of what so many people experience in all aspects of life, time and time again, in which regardless of how much physical effort they put in they just cannot accomplish what they’d set out to accomplish…

Suppose you’re looking for a relationship. You take actions such as connecting with people on social media and dating websites, regularly attending social events and getting involved in multiple recreational clubs, improving your dress and putting your charm on, and so forth.

Five years later, you’re at home depressed and despairing because you’d become far more active but, in five whole years, never had a single date.

Surely, action is not your problem. Indeed, if thought had no bearing on action, you should be doing just dandy.

But it’s the thought that counts, and you never wanted to face your beliefs—which are created by and then drive the way you think—that “Oral hygiene isn’t that big of a deal.”

Your bad breath is a repellent, and the rot on your teeth looks awful. You know it’s a problem, but your fear of going to the dentist, which you conveniently cover up with the “Oral hygiene isn’t that big of a deal” belief, had sealed your fate before you’d even begun.

First, Change the Cause

The physical world is all about appearances; the physical world is merely an effect.

Everything that happens physically is an effect, or a result/consequence of causal thoughts.

It’s very easy to get caught up in the world of things and believe that if we want different results then we must simply do more of what we’re already doing or do something different.

But since our thoughts precede everything, since thoughts are the cause of the physical, we must necessarily think differently to receive different effects in the physical.

Quite often this means that we have to address subconscious beliefs, fears, and repressed emotions and traumas. All of these things fuel the thoughts we have, usually for the worse.

You See As You Be

You must also be mindful that the range you perceive of the overall spectrum of life potentials, possibilities, and in-the-moment happenings is limited to your way of thinking.

Due to the Law of Free Will, it is not given to you to see what is outside of your range of beliefs (unless deemed necessary and/or appropriate due to some other higher, soul choice).

So, for example, you could be struggling to do a certain “thing” and repeatedly have crappy results. It doesn’t matter whether it’s something small that you tried a few times in one day and gave up or it’s something significant that has stretched out over the course of years or decades and you keep trying but keep crashing. The point is that your efforts forever go to pot.

This is due to what you’re thinking consciously and, mostly, subconsciously. If you would see and remove the offending patterns, you would most assuredly see positive results.

Out of the blue you’d get an a-ha! moment. Or suddenly a book that describes a viable solution would come into your life. Or you’d unexpectedly meet a random person at the bus stop who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows this other guy’s cousin, who could help you resolve your issue. Or maybe you’d just give up altogether because that “thing” simply wouldn’t resonate with you since it had been driven by “foreign” ideas.

“When the student is ready, the teacher appears.”

In this case, “When the mind is open, the ideal path appears.”

The End… Or Is It?

All I’ve addressed so far has been about this life, about living in a human body.

Obviously, this is crucial information because, well, life tends toward being flat-out sucky when we neither give our thoughts their due attention nor make any healing changes.

But what of thinking in the afterlife?

Before, after, and regardless of your body is your mind. Your body is dependent upon your mind, but your mind is not dependent upon your body.

Every day of your life, you have thoughts, thoughts, and more thoughts, most of which you have little if any power over as they play through your head and innumerable of which you seek to avoid by means of one coping mechanism or five others.

What do you suppose will happen when your body dies?

What do you suppose will happen when you no longer have a physical experience to distract your attention with, but only your mind’s raucous thought-causes that you’d never addressed while embodied?

Will you even know that your physical experience has ended, considering that all of your thoughts, and thus all your perceptions, are attachments to a physical body in a physical experience?

Avoiding your inconvenient and uncomfortable thoughts now may seem like a great idea, but when these thoughts are all you’ve got…

Sounds like hell, to me.

And what if your faith in religion and its “auto-save” feature ends up being a mistaken acceptance of one of the greatest lies ever told?

The importance of this issue cannot be overstated.

It truly is the thought that counts.

Friday, June 14, 2019

An Evidence-Free yet Indisputable Case for Intelligent Life Beyond Earth

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness



With the way people reject the suggestion that intelligent life may exist in locations beyond Earth, one might be led to wonder whether or not there is intelligent life on Earth itself…

Denial Is Unreasonable

To conclude that intelligent ET life is nonexistent, one mustn’t have put adequate thought into their analysis.

If one is as I used to be, a parroter of whatever I believed my peers and “authority” would grant approval for, then there isn’t much of any thought at all.

Of those who do think further, these often the more scientific types, the tendency is toward being so dependent on “authority” and “approved means” to tell them “what we know” while perceiving this information to be “fact” and “truth” that they’ve no mind left for what lies outside of conventional research and assumption.

The purpose of this writing is to look at a variety of concepts that, although they certainly aren’t evidence—and much less proof—of intelligent ET life, make a very strong case as to why such life could most certainly exist and we wouldn’t have a clue.

These ideas shatter any imagined validity in denial because denial assumes that all, or at least a satisfactory number of, avenues have been examined, but this is not the case.

Be aware that this is not a conspiracy-informed discussion. It could be described as an exposition on open-minded thinking and inquiry, and the shortsightedness that arises without them.

Similarly Dissimilar

Even if we unwisely assume that what “authority” tells us is all true and they really know no more than they tell us, so what?

How many millions of years has sentient life been on this planet and yet we, the most intelligent of creatures, have hardly been to the moon?

Is it really that implausible for even one or ten or one thousand other planets in this universe of unspeakable magnitude to have intelligent life of a similar or lesser status?

Life could even be the rule rather than the exception—we can’t see or travel to them, so why would we think that they should automatically be able to see and travel to us?

As for science saying that we’ve been sending signals out into deep space but haven’t received anything in return, again, so what?

Is anyone actually receiving them? Are any receivers of these signals not really receivers because, although intelligent, they don’t yet have the technology to receive and reply? Must the receivers of these signals necessarily respond?

Why does ET life have to behave exactly as we assume it should behave?

We Wouldn’t Know Unless We Knew, Right?

Of course, this less-than-or-equal-to status ignores the human- and Earth-centric arrogance of the required belief that no one is greater. (Even if it were true that no one is greater, we don’t know that no one is greater, and so the arrogance still stands.)

Since arrogance and ignorance go hand-in-hand, if we don’t want to be ignorant or arrogant, we must be open to the possibility that there is intelligent life elsewhere and that some is less advanced, some is equally advanced, and some is more advanced—potentially advanced enough that we couldn’t even see it if it were here.

Consider 3 categories of orientation of advanced, intelligent ET beings (excluding any mixing):
  1. Neutral
  2. Negative
  3. Positive
Neutral
These beings have no agenda other than pure observation. As such, they would not interact with us or allow themselves to be seen.

If they were here, we wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

Negative
There are two general ways of interaction with negative beings: they would try to control and/or destroy us either overtly or covertly.

Alhough negative ETs might initially observe us from a distance, the use of overt force, such as UFOs flying around blowing shit to smithereens and reptilians corralling humans in chains, isn’t at all apparent, so, potentially, since negative beings can never seem to keep themselves from meddling in others’ affairs, they could be here controlling us covertly.

We wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

Positive
There are two general ways that interaction with positive beings could take place: overtly or covertly.

Looking at the world’s state of affairs, what peace-desiring beings would want to fly into Earthly airspace? Even if they had reached the ground without being obliterated by missiles in midair, they would probably be quickly abducted by government officials and/or swiftly killed (literally or figuratively) because that’s what happens to everyone who lives and speaks of higher truth on this planet. So, if any such positive ET beings had any inkling of the danger of being here, they would not likely wish to make themselves known overtly. Furthermore, suddenly showing up by the hundreds, thousands, or even millions would scare the hell out of people, and that’s not peace-extending at all.

This leaves us to covert behavior: positive and merely observing, or positive and actually helping us in some way.

We wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

Otherwise, if a given race of ETs were technologically equal or even a good deal more advanced than us, what if, say, they lived halfway across the galaxy or in a different galaxy altogether. How long would it take them to get here, if it were possible for them, even at light speed? (The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across, by the way.) Or, of all the infinite places they could go, what’s to say they would necessarily come anywhere near here?

It’s so easy to say, “Science says…” or, “The New York Times reported that…” but who actually knows?

A person may well not even know that there are termites eating away at his or her own house until their foot unexpectedly falls through the floor, and yet somehow we know that there’s no one living on—or in—any far-flung celestial object? With such the lack of attention we give them, there could be people living deep inside the Earth's crust or the moon and we wouldn’t even be aware.

We wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

Keeping It Simple

In writing this, I admit that I’m skipping over a lot.

I’ve personally seen multiple UFOs, two of them so close I could almost touch them. I’m ignoring my own intuition and the self-knowledge that has come to me through QHHT (Quantum Healing Hypnotherapy) and Akashic Reading sessions. I’m making no suggestion of things I've found through 15+ years of conspiracy research. I'm bypassing scriptural references to ET races and all the spiritual (and other) information available about them. I’m avoiding the fact that, of the many thousands of worldwide sightings, abductions, and video recordings of UFOs over the decades, surely, at least one must be legit. I’m paying no heed to the half-assed, limited hangout, partial disclosure that’s suddenly burst into the mainstream even as reports and studies continue to come out saying that we’re most likely alone. I’m setting aside all the obvious marks (structures, artifacts, etc.) of other civilizations that have been left all over our world (and the Moon and Mars) and for which we have “no” explanation that necessarily point to unknown civilizations with advanced technology, potentially or necessarily of ET origin.

But do you know where skipping all that stuff puts me? Right here. Offering a simple case for intelligent ET life that, by pointing out a lack of evidence, cannot be thrown away as nonsense.

How adamant have people been about there being no ET life? How negative have people been toward those who believe in intelligent life beyond Earth? How closed-minded have people been about something that they cannot come even remotely close to proving false?

People have been so focused on what they apparently “know” that they've steamrolled right over everything they don't.

To Be Intelligent, One Must First Admit Ignorance

Arrogance says, “I know,” but in doing so it can’t help but admit to its own ignorance—the very thing arrogance is used as a shield from.

Can other places in this universe of unspeakable magnitude potentially have intelligent life, whether less, equally, or more advanced than us?

Of course.

Because, from an openly ignorant viewpoint, an absence of data isn’t proof of anything other than an absence of data!

We wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

Thursday, June 6, 2019

There's Nothing Left To Learn In the Old World

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness



The Old World is dying.

You may not think it because the Old World has so much momentum and, to many, a siren-song-attractive voice, but dying it is.

It’s for this reason that there’s nothing left to learn in the Old World.

A New World is being born, and the ways of the Old are becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

All the while, to say that there’s nothing left to learn in the Old World is not to say that there’s nothing left to learn from the Old World.

The Old must be let go of, but the New can only come as a consequence of learning from our errors, or that which has continually brought us more pain and suffering. We have to learn from the past so that we can release it and move into the future.

The Dead-End of Cancer Research

To explain what I mean, let’s consider cancer as an example.

The Old World perspective has the following focal point:

Here is a problem. How do we manage it?

Many people may believe that the medical establishment is attempting to find a cure for cancer, but this is not so since the basis on which the research is being done—which is subconscious to the vast majority of people—is inconsistent with a cure being available.

The way our collective lives unfold is nothing more than a mirror of what lies within us collectively.

Here in the US, when a person gets cancer they’re more or less forced to take any or all of three treatment options: radiation, surgery, and/or chemotherapy—all of which are damaging to the body and put cancer patients through a fantastical amount of pain and suffering before they experience a lull in cancerous activity usually only to have their cancer flare up and kill them.

So few people understand that the reason these three options are the only options is because as a collective we firmly believe that the medical establishment is doing all they can to seek a cure while using the best methods currently available. In a way people are horribly mistaken in this belief, but they’re also quite right in the sense that we’ve been pouring billions of dollars into cancer research seeking a cure.

Seeking. (And often, in the epitome of dead-end duality, fighting for a cure.)

This logic may sound so ridiculous because one must seek to find, but you must understand: The currently accepted view by the collective, if unconscious, is that cancer is here to stay. This means that cure-seeking is here to stay.

Remember the overarching viewpoint: Here is a problem. How do we manage it?

Our focus is not oriented toward solutions but merely management, and so there has to be another underlying assumption, and belief, that a solution may either never be found or is out in the future somewhere, maybe in the year 2046 or 2252.

So, if we “know” that cancer is here to stay, then how could we ever arrive at a cure?

A New View

We now need to shift our viewpoint:

Here is a problem. How do we prevent it from arising at all?

Instead of keeping on with potentially endless cancer research, which at this point is typically nothing more than a broken way of “looking forward,” we have to look backwards.

The fact of the matter is, we already know plenty about cancer and it’s hardly taken us anywhere. What we need to do now is say, “Hey, cancer never existed, or perhaps only very rarely at best, until the modern day. What happened?”

Well, we started…
  • spraying heavy metals in our skies,
  • including toxic substances in our cleaning products,
  • spraying our crops with pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides,
  • loading our vaccines with heavy metals and other toxic substances,
  • genetically modifying our food,
  • speed-growing cattle with poor diets and excess hormones,
  • IV-dripping cancer patients with a carcinogenic substance,
  • plentifully eating foods that contain little to no nutritional value,
  • bogging our bodies down with refined sugar,
  • allowing manufacturers do dump their toxic waste right into rivers,
  • absorbing 5G radiation from cell towers and other electronic devices,
  • and on and on.
You see, there’s really no need to do any further research on cancer, at least not in the Old World way so much of the research is currently done.

We might look into how a given substance is harming the body. For example, knowing that Monsanto’s Roundup is causing cancer is vital in order to get rid of both the product and the psychopathic company and to possibly find a means by which to neutralize the toxic substance glyphosate.

In large part, however, resolution is a matter of common sense: Quit it with all the toxicity! No one has ever polluted themselves and their world like we have, and no one has ever been so near to self-extinction.

When the Wright brothers were working out how to build a functional means of air travel, they never said, “Errmm… attempting to fly this particular model is clearly going to end badly, but let’s ride it off of that there cliff and pretend to fly before we crash and burn in the boulder field below. At least we can be remembered for going out trying.”

How incredibly foolish are we to see that nearly everything we do is destroying us and yet act either like it’s not actually that bad or like, “Well, it’s the best we could do.” Really? …Really!?

And I’m well aware that there are many alternative treatments to cancer that have been heavily suppressed since they actually work, don’t cause massive amounts of pain, suffering, fear, and death, and would put Big Pharma out of business in a hurry if they became known to the general public.

As critical as it is that these treatment alternatives become mainstream, it doesn’t in any way lessen the importance of what I said just a moment ago. Whether treatment is quick and pain-free or slow and agonizing, we’re all still living in a world where cancer-causing agents are bountiful.

To focus primarily on how cancer functions or how to keep it in check completely ignores the innumerable causes of cancer. Would these causes be addressed appropriately, cancer research would need only be done to the extent that cancer patients receive healing and that various methods be found to counteract any remaining cancer-causing threats (for example, plastic molecules that stick in the body “forever”).

Cancer could then become completely irrelevant to humanity.

Cancer is not a fact of life—it’s what we get for thoroughly ignoring the facts of life.

Wholeness

Existence is whole.

What this means is that there is no problem without a solution. Both arise together, although in the duality-minded, time-based form of experience they may seem to be separate, or a given solution may seem to not exist at all.

The Old World is dying, but it is a world of problems. We now have to accept these problems, which are the unresolved consequences of our past actions, as being in the domain of wholeness so that we can acquire their solutions and move on.

In the New World such problems don’t exist. The solutions aren’t of the New World either but are the steps we must necessarily take toward it.

It is our linking of problem to solution that releases us from the Old, dualistic view and lifestyle, reveals to us the non-dualistic nature of existence, and ushers us right into the New World.