If people can be divided into two categories, it would be into those that simply are and those perpetually trying to become as they think they are not. If the latter would first find out who they are, perhaps there would not be this great necessity to feel that they should be anything else other than they already are -- for it is the understanding of one as (s)he really is that is the great transformative power -- and not rejecting what one is while thinking that (s)he should be any other than they already are. It might be that one already is the person (s)he thinks (s)he should become -- but never knows that until (s)he first discovers the person (s)he is. Thus the wisdom of the ancient guidance, "Know yourself."
I think that goes a long way in saving the energy that many expend to become "somebody" -- something they presume they are not. And why is this? This culture and education system presumes that we are born nothing and only through this mass conditioning that we manifest into anything -- rather than understanding that from the very beginning, one is a distinctly unique individual, and discovering that uniqueness allows that potential to blossom to a much greater benefit to society at large than simply in trying to make everyone into the same model of "success" few can even recall whose idea of that it was in the first place. It is this very approach that assures that many will be failures -- as the few who succeed in this ideal are bound to be a rare few -- and not necessarily because they are deservingly so but because with any cultural ideal, only a few flourish with those talents while the majority will be disadvantaged -- because they are not encouraged to develop those talents in which they have a greater ability and value, not only for themselves but as contributors to the greater enterprise of society, which is to draw upon all the intelligence and skills existing in the population pool.
However, there is a tendency for those of any advantage to want to leverage that advantage in creating a greater disadvantage for all those not in that privileged circle. This is the strategy that evolved under conditions of scarcity, even if only perceived or contrived. It is a strategy that wastes human resources when the reality is that of abundance -- in thinking that there can only be one winner, or a few, and the rest must be losers -- when the reality actually allows for the possibility that there can be as many winners as we allow each other to be. That seems to be the difficult realization to accept as we embark on a new millennium of human evolution -- that one's gain does not need to come at another's loss, for there is enough for all -- as long as a few, or one, does not feel he must have it all -- at the expense or the detriment of every other. That is the simplicity of life -- and every other approach makes life difficult and a struggle for all.
Even a winner in that scheme of thinking is a loser because he loses out on all the contributions of the others -- thinking it is only his own efforts that amount to anything and deliberately attempts to belittle and devalue the efforts of any other because it is a threat to his own self-esteem and self-importance, when in fact, the individual who can appreciate the importance and contribution of all the others, is the prime mover in any society; that is the real leader and not the personages striving against every other for singular primacy -- always to be the most important, the most popular, the most powerful, the smartest, the most righteous, etc. These are simply the most tiresome persons to be around, to be associated with, to be aligned with. And they wonder that despite all their efforts to win respect and gratitude, it is never forthcoming, thus setting off an even greater effort -- with the same frustrating result. Nobody can give another the respect and gratitude he does not have for himself, and the striving to attain it only emphasizes this deficiency for everyone else to witness.
The scientist or artist does not need to win everybody else's approval before proceeding; he needs to value what he does before anybody else will be convinced of that value also. A clear sign that one does not believe in the validity of what he is doing is the amount of effort expended in convincing others of that validity before he himself can accept it and act on it That is quite the wrong way to go about it. So education that uses the motivation for the approval of another is bound not to convey efforts that can be sustained in the lack of such an appreciative, ingratiating audience. Therefore, most of the great breakthroughs in human understanding that actively questioned the sanctioned mode of thought would never have come into being and prevailed -- for lack of that understanding in any other. Edison, Galileo, Jesus, Krishnamurti -- could not hope that the masses would embrace the new ways of thinking their uniqueness allowed them to see so clearly -- before they would live in that reality. That was the truth of their own being -- and that simplicity made them the revered persons they symbolize for all generations to come. They didn't go around proclaiming to be "right;" they simply lived it. And that is how they gained the respect and gratitude of those who came after them. Had there been opinion polls at the time, 99% would have proclaimed them to be quite wrong in their thinking because it didn't conform with what the masses were so convinced was right -- and the only way of living. In hindsight, many believe that any right-thinking person would have seen the obvious sensibilities of what they were talking about and would have undoubtedly fancied themselves on the side of history, as it played out -- but in every time and place, people think what is right is what they are used to seeing and think the prevalence of such thinking must surely argue for the superiority and inevitability of those conclusions -- without having to consider any alternatives. So they defend the status quo as though they were the Ten Commandments, passed down from the gods themselves -- to only a chosen few.
Thinking for oneself is a relatively modern invention. It is still true in these times that many think the height of intellectual sophistication is to repeat conventional wisdom until the experts inform us otherwise. A cliche is not a strategy -- even as much as it is repeated. It is nothing but mind candy -- meant to make us fat and indulgent. That is not to say that one should never indulge but it should not be one's steady diet. An exclusive diet of anything makes the body and individual unresponsive to the old, as well as removing the possibility of obtaining the nutrients of any fresh and varied input. Some project that the body is naturally inclined to be resistive to any new input, fresh ideas. That is nothing more than the projection of an indolent, closed, narrow mind; it is not the inclination of human nature to be that way. The best in human nature strives for the unfamiliar, the unknown; only the weak and frightened withdraw from those opportunties into the security of the known, the trite, the safety of the well-worn path. It is in those moments one discovers what the person he uniquely is -- where mankind has not gone before. That is his unique contribution to human understanding.
Many despair that there is anything they can contribute because they will not venture to the frontiers of their own knowledge and their own past -- but the greater life obviously lies beyond those limits. And so they concoct fantasies, delusions of a greater life they can only imagine -- and project that everybody lives that way, in their lies and deceptions, never daring to actually confront reality, discovering life beyond the well-worn cliches. And so they worship heroes, look up to leaders and anyone willing to lead them -- the demagogues of every stripe and persuasion. Real leaders never think of having followers; they know that where they go, few can keep the pace. In fact, they don't even know where they are headed -- only that wherever it leads them, they are well-prepared -- but they cannot speak for any other, never presume to. It is the person who knows he only speaks of his own truth that is ultimately credible -- and trusts that others can come upon their own truth too. That is real human relationship -- mutual respect and trust, and not the desire to control and manipulate another. When human relationship is thus understood properly, all those issues deriving from manipulation and distrust don't arise. All those issues really boil down to the fact that there is no authentic relationship between the one and the other. But our delusion does not allow us to admit that fact right off the top -- thereby trying to render rational what is inherently irrational. It is as though one says, "There is no problem -- except this, this and that." So which is it? Obviously the situation is so rife with problems that surely it makes more sense to begin all over freshly than try to resuscitate a hopeless consumption of evermore human resources to these ends -- based on flawed premises and assumptions.
Fortunately, a flawed solution never needs to be undone when the proper response is immediately effected -- as long as there is no requirement to save any of the ineffective one. The algorithm is best written wholly right, from the beginning. We don't need programs that only correct badly written ones. They can be conceived entirely without the errors -- just done right from the beginning. Everything that preceded just got one to this powerful realization and the opportunity to implement this new simplicity in understanding, producing a greater efficiency and economy. There is nothing forboding in this mention of "economy." It means nothing more than the relationship of inputs to outputs and the context in which this all takes place most effectively.
Economics is no longer just the work that economists do; it is the basic equation of life -- for every responsible, freedom-exercising individual. Gone are the days in which one can expect to be "taken care of" if one simply votes for the candidate promising the most. Politicians are no more leaders (or divinely-appointed for that matter) than anybody else can be. But neither does that make them any less deserving of the same respect we give to any other. It is a function that some are more skilled at than others -- just like all the others. Where it gets distorted is the carryover notion that such distinctions are divinely-inspired rather than merely the consent of the governed that makes it so. This is one of the great delusions recounted throughout history and the source of most of the recorded problems and conflicts. Otherwise, most people get along fine with one another, naturally solving problems rather than perpetuating them. It's the demagogues who want us to believe otherwise, want to create divisions and conflicts -- and then want to be our leader in these wars.
We're not talking about World War III here; the wars are a lot more subtle -- but not much. Often they are the battles between husband and wife, co-workers, one generation against all the others, any self-defined few against the others. The divisions are not natural; they have to be created by devious minds -- those who can profit from these battles. The spoils might be better pay -- to keep them ahead of all the other "less deserving." For these purposes, people are organized into standing armies ready to strike on a moment's notice -- the signal from The Leader. "We have to stick together or we all perish," they convince themselves. Often, these associations have no formal organization or hierarchy other than the most ruthless drive out any dissenting voices to the self-appointed, self-absorbed leadership. It can be a mob or just one deluded person. All that is necessary is the separation and division from all other lives -- psychologically. The physical isolation and alienation need not be apparent. The tell-tale sign is that everybody not in the circle is "Stupid" -- merely awaiting deserved deception, exploitation and abuse because others do not approach every transaction with the same cynicism for advantage that they do. The assumption among people of honor is that fairness is the unspoken standard, and when it is violated, there is no next time. Never mind the opportunity to get even -- there is no next time.
Rather than emboldening the unscrupulous mind, they interpret that finality as a recognizable boundary while those who extend the play another round legitimize those behaviors by their complicity. The hostilities escalate to unspeakable horrors -- all in the name of justice, even evoking the will of God to their side, or at least, the weight of history. Fortunately for most, they eventually arrive at a breaking point before irreparable damage is done. The successful in life break the cycle of mutually-destructive tactics while those who fail, repeat those patterns subsequently with others -- until perhaps one day, they encounter someone who knows what they are doing, and they are all about. That is another opportunity for deliverance. The opportunities constantly arise -- but many have stopped looking; they'd rather find solace in replaying the past as though that were enough to revise the outcome. Meanwhile, the present is lost to this past. Eventually, one's only hopes are deferred beyond this lifetime.
I don't think that is the intent of the message of the Great Ones. By death and resurrection, they're referring to this life and not another. One can be reborn in this life and it may be essential to sustain viability in it. That is the infinite in the finite -- when one is born anew to each day. With modern technology, literal lifetimes of work can be accomplished in moments. Individuals can become virtual, entire industries. How long does it take now to transmit a message to the other side of the world? How long to calculate a 10-digit figure by a 10-digit figure? In many cases, the calculation has already been done -- merely awaiting a request for it. Seldom is one required to reinvent the wheel -- or any invention, before he can perform his own uniquely-appointed task. That is the facts of the world we all encounter each day -- that it is the collective efforts of all who live presently and have ever lived before, doing the best they could at the time -- with what they understood.
All that is lacking now is the creativity to use them in ways never thought of before because those options were not available before. How long does it take to spellcheck a lengthy document? In one sense, it is a more unforgiving world -- because most of the excuses are no longer plausible: Can't write because one can't spell? Can't budget because one can't add or subtract, divide or multiply? Those capabilities are programmed and designed into the tools now -- just as in the wheel or the hammer. However, one still can't force another to use them if they have a mental bloc against using them.
It might not be entirely their fault; they may have been taught that learning anything new is difficult and arduous -- and forced upon them when they have no real interest or makes no real sense. That learning can be self-directed has been disabused by the professional educators -- when really, if those inclinations exist at all, they are the preferred and most effective approach. Instruction should be student-driven rather than instructor-imposed -- when there is a reasonable presence of sincere interest. The presumption that people don't want to learn has to be re-examined. Granted there is predictable resistance to learning that which is irrelevant but nobody refuses to learn that which conveys real usefulness and advantage. In many academic institutions, academic traditions are merely all that is taught -- and not the skills required to live in the present real world, which even "these instructors" have great difficulty with. Expertise in solving problems of the past is no indication of ability to solve the problems of the present moment, as they are happening, as they reveal themselves. Instead of seeing the present difficulty wholly new, such conditioned minds insist that the present is merely a past problem requiring the past solution -- which they are familiar with -- even if it merely defers and perpetuates the problem to yet a future opportunity for repetition. Of course, such "solutions" are the problem.
So once we clear the air, what is left? It is the simplicity of life -- we either know or we don't know, and there is no pretending we know when we don't. How uncomplicated can it be? Such an unfettered mind can learn everything it needs to -- and wants to, when it accepts its own lack of understanding. The problem is presuming we know when we truly don't.
Those most resistive to change will try to convince others (as well as themselves) that nothing ever changes -- and history is just waiting for the new course of events and developments to run their brief course and return to "normalcy" -- the unchanging world in which they are the great experts at explaining. Such people are great at explaining the past -- or the future, while dismissing the present moment as an aberration not worthy of their attention, and therefore are always out of touch with what is happening. But they will go on at great length as to what has happened or will be happening, thinking that is what is important and implies the present understanding. However, it is not the past and future that implies the present but the present understanding (through action) that implies the past and the future. This is the critical understanding and action which is the significance of life at any moment, under any conditions; this is the moment of truth -- and all else is irrelevant. And what is meant by present understanding and action is not merely one's past knowledge put into action but the active present process of discovering the present as the only reality -- without the preconceived notions of what has been thought in the past, with their cliches, rationalizations, excuses, justifications, propaganda, opinions, biases. Can one approach and appreciate the present moment as an opportunity that has never existed before and thereby turn that moment into one of pivotal significance -- or lose it like countless others by just proceeding as one and many others have done countless times before, ensuring the inevitability that this time will be just like any other in the past -- full of longing and remorse for a new course not taken? The history of the world, like every other time before, is created in the present moment -- and decisively is not, simply recounting all the other moments that have passed before. That is how "history" is rewritten in this time, in the very understanding of this term. When this is understood, life has significance and meaning in every present moment, in every action undertaken; this is the course of history, and every other course in history is seen for what it is -- merely a glorified form of gossip-mongering for those with nothing better to do with their time, by those who have no idea of what is going on. They are not even amusing; they are just time-wasters, wanting you to join them in that complicity of that uselessness and the futility in the importance of present action.
Those who complain longest and loudest at the lack of time in which to accomplish those things they need to in contemporary life, are invariably those who waste the most time in unproductive activities such as this -- while ignoring the possibilities of productive actions they can take right now that would create further abundance of resources (time and energy) that further expands their possibilities and options, creating its own momentum. Frequently, they are discouraged by all the things they feel they have to accomplish to effect even the littlest of changes. But it is the little changes that produce great things and not great changes that produce little things -- so they are discouraged by the wrong way in thinking of these things. Thus they thoughtlessly discard a cigarette butt while despairing of how the world's environment is being hopelessly polluted and defiled by the major corporations (or anybody else but themselves). While this irony may be easy to see, less so may be how polluting the culture with bad ideas is similarly impacting the world -- or society as we live it. That would be, propagating and perpetuating counterproductive notions of how the world is and one's impact on that world by mindlessly repeating those cliches and slogans (often cloaked as great conventional wisdom or even academic knowledge) that merely sustains and justifies the unsatisfactory status quo. The great responsiblity of every citizen in any society is not merely to perpetuate the traditions and symbols of his culture but to evolve them to ever greater heights. In that lies his own greater rewards -- and not simply striving for a greater share of stagnant or diminishing productivities. If one senses that he is in such a circle of limited prospects, he is wise to expand his vision beyond what that circle has to offer -- for the greater possibilities obviously lie beyond them.
Wise decisions inevitably expand subsequent choices while the unwise further drive one into the corner requiring the inevitable desperate responses of those who feel they have no choice -- or whatever ones he has, are worse. These people are likely to feel (and pride themselves on it) that they only work (well) under pressure or great stress -- while not considering that good decisions reduce those very pressures and stresses they have grown accustomed to relying upon as as their motivators. While it may be true that a great financial crisis may have led one onto the right path, one would hardly think that increasingly greater financial crises would be an indication that they had truly found the road to prosperity -- that not having further such crises would perhaps better indicate. Naturally such problem-solving leads one to think that history always repeats -- rather than there are solutions that truly solve these difficulties and allow one to move on to higher challenges. Such people are therefore convinced that all of their lives will be this perpetual struggle for subsistence -- even when their circumstances have changed significantly enough to make these dire consequences seem remote! So while they may have become "rich" materially, they remain psychologically impoverished, and think that happiness lies on the accumulation of just one more million...and the one beyond that. Conditioned by their difficult years, they can never allow themselves to feel that they are well-off, still think they have to contest and begrudge every dollar with every other person in this world -- even when long past the need, and aware that the needs of others may greatly exceed their own. It's just obsessive-compulsive behavior now, lacking any real justification by one's present circumstances. Those changes don't make a difference -- no matter how much one has.
At what point is one well-off? Contrary to what most seem to think, it is that point at which he allows himself that luxury of thinking so. Obviously, the person in real need does have to find his next meal, should replace the rags wearing through at the crotch, does need to inquire about his options for safety and security that night -- but the generalized preoccupation with lifetime, guaranteed safety and security at the highest level of fulfillment one can fancy, is not attainable because it is a psychological deficiency and not a material one. Anybody demanding absolute certainty has absolutely no idea of what in the world is going on. This is a world of uncertainties and risks -- but that doesn't mean randomness either. The absolute mind will insist that either there is absolute certainty or there is absolute randomness -- and not the whole world of uncertainties, risks, probabilities, not knowing, finding out, discovering, creating, observing, chance, timing, luck, as well as good planning and execution. That is the joy in life; that is all there is -- is that enough? But before one hastily answers negatively, has one really seen and done it all? -- or is it what one has actually seen and done is not enough to make any pronouncement at all without seeming premature and presumptuous?
It certainly seems that those who talk about knowing the most, are those with the least amount of actual experience -- which allows them the certainty they would not have otherwise. When beliefs are not borne out by the facts, there are usually two responses: the vast majority of people will immediately abandon that belief and dismiss the notion that they were ever among the believers -- while a small minority will become even more steadfast in the belief that vindication and validation for that belief is imminent and inevitable, despite whatever evidence to the contrary. Because of the conviction required to hold such views in light of all the evidence, they have to be unceasingly vigilant and relentless at propagating their views or they would be quickly forgotten. And so they often dominate media, which uses a criteria of giving the most attention to those aggressively and relentlessly promoting their views. That is the manufacture of "news" -- its reason for being. If there were no news that had to be hotly contested in the opinion columns, what would be their reason for its continued existence? So as news dailies begin to disappear because of a lack of appetite for such public debate/argument over every issue imaginable, the remaining few argue more vehemently for the increasingly critical need for the survival of the remainder -- and not waking to the realization that that kind of media (of information-brokering) has outlived its time and purpose, in favor of new forums that are proliferating daily. But that kind of news is not in the interest of the old-line opinion-shapers and king-makers to reveal.
Those require a climate of confusion to perpetuate the need for the middle-man -- the information broker. Yet most on the cutting edge of what is happening these days, are aware that the barriers to information have virtually disappeared and realize that these middle-men are more filters from good information than the dispensers of them because their knee-jerk response is to immediately dismiss "anything that seems too good to be true." So what is left? Only the mind-numbing repetition of bad ideas. Any good idea is immediately discarded before serious consideration. In this way, obviously, one comes to dismiss most new information -- or merely sorts the new into the old categories, missing its significance as the new. Fortunately, we don't see too many cultures like these anymore, and certainly, none flourishing, thriving, prospering. It is the culture of impoverishment -- the zero-sum society. There is never any moving ahead for the society as a whole; only those who win and the most that lose but even winning in those terms doesn't amount to much. The victories are always hollow, giving rise to ever greater dissatisfactions, discouragement, disillusionment, dis-ease, despair -- after having begun with such great expectations. However, at the first sign that all is not going perfectly as one envisioned them before theory hit reality, at the first difficulty, everyone is in full retreat, routed into mass confusion, disavowing they ever believed in the first place -- really. Such populations become more cynical with each (success)ive failure.
There are only a few isolated pockets still resisting the world movement into the 21st century. What they are offering as an alternative is a movement back into the 19th century -- or even the 18th. They maintain, nothing has changed, and eventually if not imminently, the world must crash back into their reality -- the vision that they've been the keeper of the flames for. So they view the rising prosperity in the world (without them) with increasing envy and fury. The world should beat a path to their truth, their vision -- with them on the top, they in the know, simply because that's the way it's suppose to be. Why? THAT'S THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
Needless to imagine, such people don't get very far in this world until the day they make the headlines with their final act of frustration and desperation. Their understanding of the world doesn't allow for any other outcome -- a happy ending. Anger and outrage are the only emotions they know -- and were encouraged to express. Their vision of the world has angry, vengeful, petty gods -- who even feel threatened by mankind and so undermine them, lest they get ahead. It should be obvious that such "gods" are projections of childish insecurities. There are no positive outcomes; life must end in tragedies. Prosperity must end with the mother of all battles for survival; a rising stock market must end in a horrific crash. Those who are happy are only taunting fate. "It must all end badly," they shake their heads in feigned sorrow. One can see their excitement as they recount the horrors and miseries. People of these dispositions tend to gravitate to certain professions. When hearing of a problem, there are two typically human responses. Most will solve or eliminate the problem; the much smaller few will attempt to further exploit the victims. They are the Iago's of the world -- full of cunning and mischief.
Overcoming failures is just the entry tests for competency; the next challenge is handling success well -- but many will not leave the comfort of those easier tests and undermine whatever success they have so that crises reappear to motivate them. And so life is a continual series of crises just one misstep away from utter catastrophe. That they can ever pull ahead enough to have a reserve for dealing with the unexpected is an alien concept. They enjoy the thrill of mere survival, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory when it is apparent that they've established momentum in a new direction. The ease bothers them. They do not feel right when things go too smoothly. That instead produces an instinctive suspicion that something must be wrong. Things are too good to be true; that has to be "fixed." Dysfunction, folly, disaster must be the norm, for that is all they've known -- and want to know.
Meanwhile, the world of possibilities that are today's actualities, are resisted -- and they proudly point out how futile and vain it is to have hope and a positve outlook in life. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. To believe that things work, and work out, requires simply an awareness of how life has been so far -- with a reasonable expectation that they will continue in the momentum that works. Failing strategies rightfully extinguish themselves. That is the simplicity of life. It is brutally efficient in that way.
Evolution is the mandate to proceed in ways that work. It is not a long ago finished story but an ever accelerating one. But rather than leading to greater complexity, it weeds out the frivolous and arbitrary choices.