Friday, October 26, 2018

“I Shouldn’t Use the Word ‘Should,’ Should I?”

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness

“Should” is a pushy word.

I know a lot of people use it without intending harm, but the instances are few when “should” may be appropriate.

One of the few, for example, is if you were to adopt a dog. The former owner might say to you, “You should feed the dog two times per day; once in the morning and once in the early evening.” The owner need not say, “you should,” but at least in my view, I don’t see any harm in using such phrasing.

Otherwise, “should” is often problematic because it tends to be interpreted as unsolicited advice, something that nobody likes receiving. It likewise carries an implication that the one being “should-ed” isn’t “good enough,” is flawed in some way, etc.

In an ideal world, if the word “should” were still in existence, this perception would not arise. As life is, though, “should” tends to trigger peoples’ weak self-images.

Rather than thinking, “I’m not always right, and I can freely consider what this person is suggesting and then do some research and make an informed decision,” the tendency is to react with, “What!? Are you saying I’m wrong? Are you saying I’m not smart enough? Are you saying I’m not capable enough?”

This goes for even the simplest of things, so caution is best.

Dissatisfied Want

A very common theme with “should-ing” is that the givers define their personal level of satisfaction by whether or not others are doing what is acceptable to them.

“Should-ers” press others to change under the faulty belief that it is their right and responsibility to change them. Since “should-ers” see others as the problem instead of themselves, their hope is that others will change and thus bring to them the selfish and “satisfying” ends they desire.

“Should” Denies Reality

A prime example of this can be seen in the perspective of a great many parents and, in even greater part, “authority” and society as a whole with regard to education.

If you get a “C” on a math test, your parents might well tell you, “You should have done better.”

Holding on to false expectations about your performance, they say this because they wish to vicariously live those coveted “A’s” through you, their child. They define themselves—their worth—by how they, family, friends, and so on judge themselves and each other in relation to society’s “Almighty Standard.”

But here’s the thing: You shouldn’t have done better because you didn’t.

There’s only now and “what happened and has passed.” So unless you really should have gotten a higher grade but you got a “C” because your teacher hates you and deliberately manipulated your score, “should-ing” is irrelevant.

Nothing except exactly what had happened “should” have happened because nothing else did happen.

Your parents could say, “You should have done better.” Or they could say, “You should have removed that bowl of beef stew from the microwave before your test.” Both are absurd because they have no bearing in reality. They have no relevance to the singular experience that has come and gone. (Unless leaving your beef stew in the microwave caused you heinous anxiety that distracted you during testing.)

You got a “C” on the test. Congratulations. You achieved the exact mark you were supposed to achieve. Hopefully on your next test you’ll again get an equally perfect grade.

Who Cares?

People beat up themselves and each other madly over this stuff.

Students (nearly all of us) acquire such a hefty burden of, You’re not good enough unless… Peoples’ value is heavily judged—as in, their worth as human beings—by their intellectual ability across all “authority”-designated subjects.

But really, why should anyone care so much whether or not anyone fails social studies and is only par at math, especially if they excel in music or science or writing? (And everyone excels at something, even if they’re not yet sure at what.)

None of these subjects have any bearing on who we inherently are as humans. And while some subjects (such as math) are useful to the average person, although typically only at basic levels, any given subject is generally appreciated and thus desirously expanded upon by only a relatively small set of people who truly do gravitate towards it.

Does a farmer need to know how to implicitly differentiate a function or what the key supreme court cases were in the 1970’s?

Does an English-speaking math whiz from the USA need to know the capitol of Yugoslavia or the Spanish-to-English translation of, “Mi pollo está muy frío en la bañera”?

Does an artist need to memorize the periodic table or know how the Krebs Cycle works?

Do any of them care?


And what about all the subjects that everyone would do well to know—for the sake of sense, sanity, and/or survival—but are completely absent from the vast majority of curriculums?

What about basic skills such as cooking, first aid, house maintenance, emotional management, etc.?

How come no one is talking about all the “F’s” that people are indirectly receiving on these? How come no one is demanding passing grades on these most basic of life skills? Shouldn’t more people be learning these without needing to join Boy or Girl Scouts or having to first wreck their lives in order to realize that maybe they're imbalanced emotionally, "normal" though they may seem?

Self-Study for the Win

I’d say that on average throughout all of my schooling I was a “C” student.

I’ve no doubt that this was due to disinterest and a weak “have to prove myself” mindset. I’d felt the latter, yes, but it had been thoroughly overshadowed by the “I’m a failure” mindset.

Now here’s the ironic part: As poorly as I’d done year after year after year, I’m currently (so I’d like to think) quite a “well-rounded” person.

This is with very little thanks to the education system, and greatly in thanks to my own naturally-developed interest in a diverse range of topics.

I’ve taken it upon myself to learn via countless books, videos, websites, classrooms, and first-hand experiences in all sorts of areas that have interested me—many of these areas being a combination of ones that the education system had tried to stuff down my throat before I was ready and ones that the system refuses to touch.

With minimal exception, I’ve become far smarter, wiser, and more intelligenter … ;-) …in all the ways that matter to my specific life purpose, personal interests, and needs than anything conventional schooling has been able provide for me.

Rounded Schmounded

These “higher education” “authorities” will argue that students must (i.e.: “should” with force) take a variety of courses unrelated to their areas of interest in order to be “well-rounded.”

Do you know what I have to say about that?

Well-rounded, my ass.

If anyone actually still thinks that Big Education has the best interest of the people, they are so sorely deluded.

Here is but one massive example of why they don't, and it comes straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth… or maybe from the literal donkey’s mouth, because, man, these people are nothing short of asses…

Project Veritas
Undercover Common Core Vid: Exec Says "I hate's all about the money"

Set Your Own “Bar”

Every healthy being has an innate drive to be better today than yesterday.

Trouble is, most people don’t have an accurate sense for this drive because they’re too caught up in the need-to-be-good-enough rat race dumped on us by “authority.” What would otherwise be self-competition with a full dose of self-acceptance is instead competition-against-other with a nasty dose of self-loathing.

“How good am I compared to ‘The Almighty Standard’?”
“How good am I compared to those who have reached ‘The Golden Bar’?”

Folks… To hell with “The Almighty Standard” and “The Golden Bar,” and to hell with those who set them.

It can’t even be said that the system is broken because for something to be broken is to say that the thing must have formerly been whole. Yet any and all of these systems, as created by those who call themselves “authority,” have been inherently distorted from the get-go—by design.

Any how can they not be? They’re built on a foundation of “shoulds” which are marketed deceptively and thrust upon us by threat and force.

It’s time to move on, people.

It's time to learn to trust in ourselves; to be who we truly are instead of who some selfish external "authority" says we "should" be.

For it is from this space and only this space that we cease to "should" others and "should" ceases to hold power over us.

This is the space of freedom.

Friday, October 19, 2018

You Be You, and I'll Be Me

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness

When we’re unaware of our true reason for being here, especially if we’re prone to getting carried away by our emotions, we can tend to involve ourselves in situations that aren’t exactly ours to be involved in.

This doesn’t mean that our actions will inevitably cause trouble. Maybe or maybe not.

This is more along the lines of unwittingly being a kind of haphazard justice warrior; this is to say, we seek to change everything because we’re not sure where we specifically belong.

Below are 3 situations and some key points within each. These should serve well to put this concept in a proper context and help you to better navigate through your own similar experiences.

Situation 1: Lack of Emotional Control

I once went to a Neil Diamond concert. The next day I began reading the local newspaper’s review of the concert but stopped about halfway through.

Being a writer and having gone to the concert, I fell into a minor rage because the reviewer’s writing ability and presentation of information seemed to me so poor.

What the hell is wrong with this guy? Did he even go to the concert? Did he ever pass second-grade Language Arts class? You don’t say this! You don’t write like that! How does this idiot have a job?

I immediately decided to write to the place that carried the review about how disturbed I was by it. I went to my computer, I opened Word, and I just sat there. Nothing happened. I soon realized that I blew things way out of proportion.

Even if it were so that I had decided to take a poll and the vast majority of people had agreed with me that the reviewer’s writing ability sucked and he’d done no justice to the concert, the truth is that such would be quite irrelevant because the judgments would be mere opinions. (…And you know what they say about opinions…[If you insist... "Opinions are like assholes: we've all got 'em, and they both stink."])

The thing is, to do what I’d reactively intended to do was not in my place. I don’t mean this in the sense that if I’d written the message and the reviewer had read it then he might have felt really crappy. The reviewer’s quality of writing certainly hadn’t brought a smile to my face, though I’d not meant harm to the guy; my anger-driven need to write a letter was more about the company/editor/whoever for publishing what I perceived to be such a load of garbage.

As I sat at my computer, blank, I realized how I had nothing to say because my only backing was my intense negative emotion: it was a “force wall” that demanded action yet inhibited all flow.

And when the energy subsided some time later, I still had nothing to say. It seemed to me that any effort would be an enormous waste of time and more energy.

The best thing I could do in this situation was to ask myself, What is the programming that got triggered within me that caused such a strong reaction?

Key Points
In the emotionally-suppressive atmosphere that is an embedded aspect of our culture, emotional expression doesn't always come easy, and when it does, sometimes it comes too easy and with less-than-wonderful implications.

It’s therefore not uncommon for our emotions to get the best of us. They can carry us away by fueling aberrant thoughts, skewing our perception, and propelling us into misguided behaviors.

We would thus do well when we experience a burst of emotion to take a pause and simply be with it; to look at it, feel it, and ask what it’s really about.

Emotion is just grand when we express it healthily, but when expressed contrarily we can potentially and unnecessarily put ourselves and others through a lot of hurt.

Situation 2: False Responsibility

Several years ago, the city I live in privatized the water.

Within a very short period of time, our tap water had become quite hard. To this day, the water continues to harden at an incredible rate.

Wherever there’s a tiny drop of water left to dry, a mineral deposit is left behind. Wherever surfaces experience frequent wet-dry cycles, the rate of mineral build-up is ridiculous. When making tea, for example, the water must be boiled quickly and poured immediately or else there will be a layer of minerals floating atop the tea. Similarly, I’m sure to always dump out the old teapot water before boiling more, and I vinegar-clean the teapot every week or two.

On several occasions, I’ve wanted to send a letter to city council urging them to do something about this issue. I still haven’t done this and don’t think I will.

As much as over-mineralization is bad for health, bad for plumbing, and looks ugly wherever water has a chance to dry, I’ve increasingly felt that it’s not in my place to say anything.

I suspect that the reason for this is that I’m not here to play an activist-type role; I’m not here to get into politics or law or social or infrastructure change or anything like that.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m here to rip down The Old so that The New can have life. But my role is more about directly helping individuals (and thus the collective) to heal their bodies, to change their minds, to feel their emotions, and to awaken to their true spiritual natures.

So yes, for now I have to drink lousy water (and hardness is hardly the worst of it). But playing the role I’ve come here to play is the best thing I can do.

Key Points
There’s only so much that any of us can do and only so much that we’re meant to do.

We have each come here with a unique purpose, and it is in finding and living these respective purposes that we best serve ourselves and others.

By all means, a given individual could be, say, a passionate traveling hula hoop salesman by day and a writer of activism letters to congress by night. There’s no reason to get stuck thinking that reaching beyond our primary purpose is flawed.

It’s just that we would do well to be clear within regarding any tasks we engage in: positive change is halted when we force movement, but it becomes much more probable when we do what comes to us naturally.

Situation 3: Parent-Pleasing

There is a trap that all of us fall into in one way or another… well, more like one way or thirty others… or four-hundred.

This is the trap of parent-pleasing.

With variations from person to person, we may enroll at a parent approved-college, get a parent-approved job, buy a parent-approved car, marry a parent-approved spouse, follow a parent-approved religion, and so on. (Mind you, the approval doesn’t have to be overt.)

Most of the time we believe we’re doing these things for ourselves, but if we’d take the time to look within, we’d find that we’re doing them for approval, for validation, for love.

And although we may push the feeling off for a whole lifetime, there does come with this behavior a sense of wrongness as though something isn’t in resonance.

Maybe we procrastinate and become easily exhausted once starting our activities. Maybe we feel like we’re forcing ourselves into a certain lifestyle. Maybe we have to work ever-harder in order to feel “satisfied.” Maybe we express resentment toward those who have what we want because we're subconsciously afraid to give the same to ourselves for fear of parental disapproval.

Whatever the case may be, rather than doing what is ours to do, we do what our parents (and in the wider scope, “authority”) want us to do.

Key Points
We’re all born into this disease of society, and the only way out is for us to heed the signs that life presents and then make the effort to release our parental attachments.

We’re not here to live our parents’ lives. We’re not here to make our parents happy or to satisfy them. We can’t.

Happiness and satisfaction come from within, and the reason our parents are neither happy nor satisfied, and thus making expectations for us, is because they’re under the same spell that we are. They’re living their lives in an effort to please their own parents (even if they’ve long since passed).

Just as their parents had made expectations of them and had enforced their ways using various means of withholding love, so do our parents do the same to us.

But this can’t go on. We have to break the cycle.

We have to break the cycle, and we can do this by recognizing the cycle is there to begin with, resolving the broken programming, and then doing what we’ve truly come here to do.

You Be You, and I’ll Be Me

Interestingly, the idea offered here is as obvious and simple as it is difficult to integrate and enact.

Yet this is the ultimate task set before each of us: to be ourselves.

My hat (if I were wearing one) is off to anyone who can do this.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

To Abort Or Not To Abort? That Is the Question.

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness

Is it right to abort a fetus?

The correct answer is…

Right or wrong is irrelevant.

And unless we’re directly involved—i.e.: the partner of the pregnant woman, a requested advisor, or, ultimately, the pregnant woman herself—what anyone else chooses is most likely none of our business.

If a mother, or parents, choose abortion, that is theirs to live with. Whether they are okay with it or feel terrible afterward, that is theirs to live with.

You and I have no right to tell a woman down the street or sixteen-thousand miles away what she should or shouldn’t do with her unborn baby (unless she asks us for advice), and it’s not our burden to carry if she so chooses abortion.

Abortion is an ethical/moral choice, and these types of choices are some of the most personal. There aren’t and cannot, therefore, be any hard-set rule that suits all people of all times and all places under all circumstances.

Religious Arguments

In all likelihood, the first line of defense for what may currently appear as a "Pro-Choice" argument (it's not) is people's religious beliefs.

“But God says…”

Does he? Does he, really? Or is that what religion says that God apparently says?

“Abortion is killing. It’s goes against the 5th Commandment.”

Do you know what’s funny about this, in a very sad kind of way?

Consider one organization that’s forever touting the Ten Commandments: The Roman Catholic Church. They’ve always been adamantly against abortion and contraception, yet the Church is both directly and indirectly responsible for more bloodshed, torture, and death than any other entity on the planet!

“Thou shall not kill! Thou shall not abort fetuses!” Give me a break! Somehow it’s just dandy to slaughter untold millions of innocent non-believers, but it’s not okay for anyone, ever, to abort an unborn child.

The other problem I see with religious arguments is two-fold:

One, religious people tend to be stubborn and closed-minded. Whatever their religion, they are given “the truth” and they often hold on to this “truth” as though there is, most certainly, no other way. Very possibly fearing eternal damnation for failed adherence, personal change and alternative perspectives remain unthinkable.

Two, religious people tend to believe only what they’ve been taught to believe: ideas, concepts, dogma, doctrine, biblical verses, and so on. These are intellectually-based teachings, and they remain intellectual. There is very little heart-based awareness to be found.

Yet, it is this very heart-based awareness which is so desperately needed to adequately grasp a topic such as abortion.

Soul Choice and Agreement

So many people think death is a horrendous thing, but here’s the deal: It’s not.

We’re eternal souls wearing temporary flesh suits. When these bodies expire, our souls pass beyond The Veil and are later reborn into new bodies in another time and place.

Each of these embodied experiences, or lifetimes, is an opportunity for a soul to fulfill certain learning experiences decided upon prior to incarnation.

Sometimes, it is a soul’s choice to experience abortion.

You see, although it doesn’t appear as such from this side of The Veil, we cannot experience any interaction with another soul unless it has been agreed upon by our souls that it will be so.

When a mother chooses to abort her fetus, each has agreed with the other on a soul level—which is to say, it’s unknown to the physically-embodied human’s limited conscious awareness—to have this experience.

Because this is soul-desired, as outsiders we cannot say exactly what the purpose is, other than that as Romans 8:28 puts it: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.”

Admittedly, this quote is taken out of context. And so although it may seem atrociously misplaced, I want you to bear with me for a moment.

Suppose a woman had been spiraling down a negative path in life. When she found out she was pregnant, she decided to have an abortion. What she didn’t expect, however, was that in doing so, she’d become overwhelmed with sorrow. And it was this sorrow that woke her up, so to speak, and not only helped to set her on a much better life path, but enabled her to help those who are themselves struggling to overcome their own abortion-related dilemmas.

In this instance, no, the child had never been born. But, should anyone see the bigger picture, how can anyone say that it’s a horrible thing? Two souls made an agreement, and one of them, as an unborn child, gave of itself to help this tragically lost woman to find her way in life.

How many women might now find healing due to this woman’s support? How many women might now forgo abortion and choose to give their unborn children life due to this woman’s support?

Of course, the story of this one woman is not the story of all women who choose abortion. What of the women (or others who’re directly involved) who don’t feel sorrow or don’t get the impetus for a more positive path?

One of humanity’s greatest problems is that we see and judge by what is immediately in appearance before us. And unless something has become an accepted norm (like schooling, for example, in which it’s perfectly acceptable to go $75,000 into debt over the course of years before beginning to pay it off), we lean heavily toward rejecting what immediately appears to us as outrageous.

We have to understand that our ability to see The Truth is so incredibly small. We have so many beliefs and fears that paint our worldviews in so many different, and usually erroneous, ways. We have no idea how things are going to work out in 700 years, 700 days, or even 700 milliseconds from now. We have little to no idea what our own soul paths are, much less the soul paths of anyone else.

We have no room, then, to say that abortion is wrong or bad in all circumstances. If abortion is here, and it is, then God knows about it, and God will find a way to take care of it to any extent that it needs to be taken care of.

God’s work is an “inside job,” meaning that God works for the higher good through willing souls who incarnate here on Earth, however brief their lives may be.

Beliefs and fears be damned, people need to find some inner-clarity and learn to put some trust into God. Although we may be repulsed by the appearances of such a circumstance as abortion, the greater good is always part of the design. Sometimes this simply isn’t evident and takes much longer to manifest than we would like, but our gross misinterpretation of reality and the subsequent force we use in attempt to hasten certain ends definitely doesn’t help.

Duality: The War that Cannot Be Won

For the abortion issue to come to its optimal conclusion (whatever that may look like), the following must be recognized:

Individually and collectively, Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers are playing the same separatist, “us vs them” game. Neither side is actually better than the other because both continue thirsting for “war.” Neither side can or will ever win because neither wishes to engage their heart center.

And just like the mothers who abort their unborn babies, so too are the Pro-Lifers and the Pro-Choicers in a soul agreement:

“Let us fight each other. Let us battle each other until we are exhausted; until we come to see, individually and collectively, that fighting is not The Way. Let us battle until we remember that loving acceptance of other is The Way; until we remember that loving acceptance of other is The Only Way.”

In duality, there is no push without a pull, and no pull without a push. As long as there are those willing to fight against abortion, there will always be those willing to fight for abortion, and vice versa. Both parties hold equal responsibility for the abortion war’s perpetuation.

Abortion or otherwise, although “the enemy” appears to be working against us, he is instead pushing us to exhaustion that we may detach and become free. If we wish for “the best,” we must find our heart centers, and we must remain there.

Realizing unconditional love and acceptance of others, whatever their choices may be, is the soul lesson. We must make our embodied choices wisely if we wish to pass.


In the fight of “Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice,” each side is forever attempting to thrust upon the other their own set of ethics.

Although at the soul level this is a choice, in embodiment this is interference. The former has a higher purpose, while the latter is merely selfish.

Forcing our position onto others removes from them their right to make free will choices.

How do any of us like it when someone tells us how we “should” do something when we’ve not asked, when we’re not ready to hear it, when we’re not ready to make that change?

We hate it. We get angry. We push the other person away.

So why would we then force our agenda onto others, and regarding such a potent moral issue, at that?

Just as we have life lessons to learn, so, too, do others have life lessons to learn, and we must all learn them in our own timing and in our own ways. To attempt intercession for others as though we know better is to bring harm and reveals that we, in fact, don’t know better.

However, if we truly want to know (and to do) better, then we need to…

Change the Cause, Not the Effect

If you’re of the mindset that abortion is totally okay, and I believe it to be totally wrong, it’s a complete waste of time, energy, and resources for me to attend a March for Life in DC, to post trite bumper stickers on my car, or to use arguments such as, “Unborn babies are God’s children,” “Abortionists are murderers,” or other similar personal perspective-focused ideas.

As “obvious” as these “facts” may seem to me, to you, the Pro-Choicer, these ideas will appear as though I’m trying to jam my opinion down your throat—because that’s exactly what I’m doing—and you will take up a defensive position automatically. The same would be so if you, a Pro-Choicer, try to outright dump your beliefs on me.

That said, we must gain an understanding of other peoples’ beliefs and emotions since these are the cause of their current behavior. Absent force (and thus harm), it’s impossible to change another without stirring them internally, without giving them personally-resonant reasoning to consider our alternative as viable.

Yet in order to gain this understanding, we are required to first come to understand ourselves.

Which leads to a fascinating plot twist:

We cannot understand ourselves unless we change. But in changing, we must come to the realization that we’ve changed the cause and so there must result a different effect. Indeed, provided enough self-understanding, we might well find that the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice duality is not ours to engage in.

After all, the most likely reason this dualistic experience had been so prevalent in our life path is because of our own internally-resonant imbalance with regard to it. When we wholeheartedly decide to leave the drama, the drama will leave us.

Alchemizing Sadness into Compassion

Seeing that a relative few folks may "get" the message and walk away but most probably wouldn't, there might arise concern for the perpetuation of the abortion war. This may cause sadness.

“I’m doing the inner work and I’m seeing positive changes, but unborn babies are still being aborted, people are still forcing their ideas down others’ throats, and the suffering goes on.”

In such cases, it’s useful to see that these circumstances will exist wherever there is duality consciousness.

It doesn’t matter if the argument is about abortion, nationality, race, religion, or what the optimal food is to eat for breakfast on the second Saturday of November. As long as there is separation consciousness, there will be things that sadden us. Yet it is of individual choice whether we will attach, and thus increase duality and suffering, or become unattached.

Nothing needs to be said about the consequences of attachment, for that is what the majority of this writing is about.

As for detachment, although this might sound impersonally numb, it actually allows more feeling and more heart awareness than any other state.

Detachment opens us to a tremendous level of compassion and understanding. We become able to see from a much wider, unconditionally loving and accepting perspective.

From this space of empathetic clarity, we can then intuitively act or stay in any given situation for the highest good of self and other.

Indeed, this is the state of being "in the world, not of it" because labels and sides such as "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" become irrelevant.

We allow ourselves to be who we truly are, to express what naturally comes through us, without the interference of external indoctrination and regardless of what anyone else says. We willingly allow others to make their own choices with the understanding that it's okay and they have their own paths to follow just as we have our own. We become "Pro-Wisdom," "Pro-Acceptance," "Pro-Compassion," and spontaneously live whatever these qualities may call for.

And detachment removes us from the karmic, push-pull drama of the abortion war, which is, consequently, the fastest way to bring it to it's optimal conclusion.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

L'ego Your Ego

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness

Ego is not the enemy.

Your ego is not your enemy.

That’s what you may believe, and that’s what New Age-y disinformation may contend, but such is untrue.

Ego is simply the placeholder of personal identity.

All is One, and the One is All. However, we do experience ourselves, illusorily, as separate from this One, or Source, or God. To differentiate and perceive ourselves this way, as “self,” even to the slightest degree, we must take on a personal identity.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this.

If egoic identity is distorted—“I am this; I am not that. This is good; that is bad. They are better than; I am less than. I should always be happy; I should never be sad.”—it’s not appropriate to label it as “bad” or “wrong,” as such, but rather that it’s duality.

Duality is a chosen experience of varied depths of imagined separation. It can be said that the “problem” of ego arises when one becomes so attached to their beliefs about “who I am” and “what it’s all about” that they no longer know themselves as an integral, if appearing distinct, part of everything. They therefore live as though their illusory perceptions of “self and other” and “me vs them” are “reality.”

At this point, a being ceases to learn, change, and evolve naturally due to an innate drive, but may learn, may change, and may seemingly devolve because it’s too busy comparing “Where do I stand in relation to others?” rather than, “Am I being better today than I was yesterday?”; it’s too busy saying to others, “Look at what special me did,” rather than saying to itself, “I feel good about what I’ve accomplished today, regardless of whether anyone approves or knows of it or not.”

The ego always does exactly as it should. It’s just that, in duality, the investment we’ve placed into the ego is so blown out of proportion and so distorted that we can come to think, and believe others when they tell us, that ego is inherently a bad thing and we need to get rid of it.

Ego is one of the greatest constructs in existence.

We just need to learn how to manage its contents appropriately so that we can consciously utilize it for our highest good.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Reincarnation: Why the Denial by Western Religion?

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness

"Hence, as long as one believes that the evil man wears horns, one will not discover an evil man."
--Erich Fromm

The Big Question

Why does Western religion deny the existence of reincarnation?

To answer this, you have to understand the full context.

What Is Reincarnation?

Reincarnation can be described as "the occurrence in which a given soul incarnates into a variety of physical bodies over the course of many lifetimes."

Defined simply and taken at surface value, it doesn't seem there's anything particularly troubling about this. Unless someone is super-identified with their body, is it really that big of a deal if a soul experiences life in a variety of forms and genders in many times and places? Seemingly not.

So if reincarnation is a fact of existence, why would religions, the organizations that claim to know "The One Right Way to God" and "The Truth of Life," continually deny reincarnation's validity?


What the Catholic Church, for example, will say is, "Because the Pope says reincarnation doesn't exist," or, "Because the Word of God that is the Bible—as written by inspired prophets and interpreted by the best scholars—says reincarnation doesn't exist."

Such claims may sound legitimate to the naively faithful, but in reality such reasoning is quite flawed.

Religions use tactics like this in order to direct people to focus on what is happening on their left, as it were, in order to distract them from the less-than-kosher, and often downright evil, activities they are perpetrating on the right.

The Dark Agenda

It begins with fear.

Western religion has always been about inherent inner-filth and subsequent punishment. "Do as the Church/God/Jesus says or you will burn in the fires of eternal damnation in hell. You only get one life to live, so you better not screw it up."

Knowing no better and looking no further, people believe this and it causes them anxiety. "Oh, God! I could go to hell! Forever! What do I have to do to be saved?"

The religions respond with a whole slew of dogma that is overly mysterious, laws that are impossible to follow unerringly, and teachings rooted in “negation over integration” (for instance, "Abstain from sexual practice," instead of, "Understand your sexuality, accept it, and integrate it to become whole and balanced.").

Congregants often being too stubborn and fearful (commonly labeled “faithful”) to look elsewhere, the overly mysterious remains as such even though outsiders may know the truth. The struggle to follow impossible laws is maintained as legit, and the faithful blame themselves for being inherently sinful and willingly absorb the guilt. The stance of "negation over integration" is cause for disaster: Those who choose this path must end up either doing more of what they wish not to do or suppressing what they seek to negate and taking up other negative activities (such as drinking or smoking) in order to cope with the consequent stress.

Adherence is ever a struggle, and this is a serious problem. "You've sinned!" they admonish. "Get to confession! Do penance! You must become worthy in the eyes of God."

Oh, the weight of guilt!

Knowing no better and fearing that any other way is even worse (because this is "The One Right Way"), people become completely obedient to their religions.

Obedience means that one has ceded their inner-power to another. People become dependent upon their religions. "We are unworthy, helpless victims! Save us!"

This allows the religions to seize humans like they are property. And the more property the religions amass, the more power and control they gain.

It's only then natural, of course, to charge property tax, only in this case it's called tithing. "It's your spiritual obligation to pay us at least 10% of your total yearly earnings."

Money! Money! Money! And the levels of power and control increase.

Sometimes religions become so rich and powerful (a-hem… the Roman Catholic Church…), they amass so much property, both people and possessions, that they needn't answer to anyone for anything. They can be the largest crime syndicate on the planet, but they remain immune because they quite literally own and manipulate everything. So powerful, yet phenomenally tricksy, do religions become that very few people ever realize the power the religions wield. And those very few who do realize and speak up are easily snuffed out.

The Real You

What I didn't say when I defined reincarnation was this:

Reincarnation means that we have countless opportunities to learn and grow and stumble and fall and get back up and learn some more and fall again and heal and evolve in to ever-wiser beings.

Reincarnation implies that we are each our own saviors.

Religions don't own us: they are not our masters, and we are not their slaves.

Religions have taken everything from us, and we owe them nothing: no money, no obedience, no personal power—nothing.

In reincarnation, although any given being may have to pay a heavy karmic price for serious harm they've perpetrated against another, their "hell" would be temporary—there is no such thing as "eternal damnation."

Accordingly, although we will all bring some degree of karmic hardship upon ourselves, we are always, always, always, unconditionally loved by God. This means that we never even have to ask God for forgiveness, because God does not perceive any aberration within us, but sees only a reflection of His own self.

We are made "in the image and likeness of God."

Reincarnation implies that souls are eternal and indestructible.

With reincarnation, rampant guilt, anxiety, and fear have no place.

We are loved, and we are safe.

1 Reason Why

And that is why Western religions deny reincarnation:

They're absolutely terrified that we will remember who we truly are.