The Masters of Enlightenment: J. Krishnamurti

“What Krishnamurti has done is to free spiritual life as science has done in other areas. He has maintained that one can be in total freedom from the very beginning to the very end, and he has stood for that, like a rock, for forty years. I think it may well take the world fifty more years to understand that. I think he is the man of tomorrow.”  – Vimala Thakar

The series on Spirituality continues with articles about people who were true Masters of Enlightenment.

What I mean by that term is that they were great spiritual teachers, and also people who lived by the creed they spoke.

They were beacons of light, capable of pointing a finger to help us understand the map of reality.

Today, for the first article in this series, I will profile Jiddhu Krishnamurti.

J. Krishnamurti was born May 12, 1895 in India, and died Feb. 17, 1986. He was a radical teacher of enlightenment and the truth.

I say radical because he advised people to break free of their mental shackles and discard dogmas, religions, philosophies, gurus, teachers and theories, and in its place search for the undeniable truth that lies at the heart of reality.

Krishnamurti was relentless in his denouncing of all organized belief, the notion of “gurus,” and the whole teacher-follower relationship. Instead he was single minded in his dedication to the work of setting man absolutely, totally free.

He constantly stressed the need for a revolution in the psyche of every human being and emphasized that such revolution cannot be brought about by any external entity, be it religious, political, or social.

Denouncing the concept of saviors, spiritual leaders, or any other intermediaries to reality, he urged people to directly discover the underlying causes of the problems facing individuals and society.

Such discovery he considered as being within reach of everyone, irrespective of background, ability, or disposition. He declared allegiance to no nationality, caste, religion, or philosophy, and spent his adult life traveling the world as an independent individual speaker, speaking to large and small groups, as well as with interested individuals.

Krishnamurti had first-hand knowledge of gurus and saviors, because he was raised to be a savior – at a young age, he was deemed to be the World Teacher by the Theosophical Society, a quasi-mystical organization founded in New York City in 1875 that had gained prominent international media attention and public interest and was very influential in Indian society.

The Theosophical Society had an estate in India, and in 1909 the 14-year-old Krishnamurti was living on the estate, because his father worked as a clerk for the Society.

Charles Webster Leadbeater was the President of the Society, and he noticed the young boy walking on the grounds. Leadbeater was a clairvoyant, and in the boy he recognized “a spiritual teacher and a great orator,” one likely to be used as the “vehicle for the Lord Maitreya” – the latter, according to Theosophical doctrine, an advanced spiritual entity that periodically appears on earth as a World Teacher to guide the evolution of humankind.

From that point on, Krishnamurti was groomed to be the World Teacher. He was privately tutored in India and Europe, and while in Europe met many prominent, and wealthy, people.

His daily program of studies included rigorous exercise and sports, tutoring in a variety of school subjects, Theosophical and religious lessons, yoga and meditation. At the same time, Leadbeater personally assumed the role of guide in a parallel, mystical instruction of young Krishnamurti.

Over the next few years, Krishnamurti continued his studies, but at the same time began going through a series of mystical and inexplicable life-transforming experiences. He would lapse in and out of consciousness, and described it to others as a “mystical union.” About the experiences he said:

“I was supremely happy, for I had seen. Nothing could ever be the same. I have drunk at the clear and pure waters and my thirst was appeased… I have seen the Light. I have touched compassion which heals all sorrow and suffering; it is not for myself, but for the world… Love in all its glory has intoxicated my heart; my heart can never be closed. I have drunk at the fountain of Joy and eternal Beauty. I am God-intoxicated.”

Over the next few years, these experiences intensified, and these, along with the death of his brother, to whom he was very close, led him to question everything about his journey as the World Teacher. He started changing his teachings and veered from Theosophy, and began to focus on concepts such as questioning authority and liberation, as opposed to following the teachings of any one person.

Finally, in 1929, without any warning, while speaking to the annual meeting of the Theosophical Society in India, he announced that he was disowning his role as World Teacher, and instead would focus on leading people to the unbridled truth. He said in part:

“I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along a particular path.

“This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies.”

From that moment on, Krishnamurti became his own man, and spoke out on the specifics of enlightenment. He spent the rest of his life holding dialogues and giving public talks around the world on the nature of belief, truth, sorrow, freedom, death, and the quest for a spiritually fulfilled life. He accepted neither followers nor worshipers, regarding the relationship between disciple and guru as encouraging dependency and exploitation.

He constantly urged people to think independently and clearly and free their minds of their own incipient dogmas. “All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary.”

Included in this was inward authority:
“Having realized that we can depend on no outside authority … there is the immensely greater difficulty of rejecting our own inward authority, the authority of our own particular little experiences and accumulated opinions, knowledge, ideas and ideals.”

Krishnamurti’s home base for the rest of his life was Ojai, California, where he could spend time sequestered in meditation and writing, and communing with nature, which from an early age was one of his passions.

From his home base his insights deepened and his influence grew. He befriended and collaborated with well-known philosophers, writers and scientists, which allowed his audience to broaden.

Over the years, his subject matter included psychological revolution, the nature of the mind, meditation, human relationships, and bringing about positive change in society. Maintaining that society is ultimately the product of the interactions of individuals, he held that fundamental societal change can emerge only through freely undertaken radical change in the individual.

“It seems to me that the real problem is the mind itself and not the problem which the mind has created and tries to solve. If the mind is petty, small, narrow, limited, however great and complex the problem may be, the mind approaches that problem in terms of its own pettiness… Though it has extraordinary capacities and is capable of invention, of subtle, cunning thought, the mind is still petty. It may be able to quote Marx, or the Gita, or some other religious book, but it is still a small mind, and a small mind confronted with a complex problem can only translate that problem in terms of itself, and therefore the problem, the misery increases. So the question is: Can the mind that is small, petty, be transformed into something which is not bound by its own limitations?”

Walking Through Illusion: A Book Excerpt, Part 3

The series on Spirituality continues today with the third and last installment of a three-part book excerpt of the author Betsy Otter Thompson’s book, Walking Though Illusion.

Here are links to the first two installments:
Walking Through Illusion: Part 1
Walking Through Illusion: Part 2

The first excerpt was the preface of the book, while the last excerpt and this one come from chapter 18. So now we continue on from last time with the last segment of chapter 18. At the end of the chapter is a worksheet with questions to ponder and reflect on.

Chapter 18

Identities

What is our real identity?

NAMES, TITLES, AND PLACES

LOSE THEIR VALIDITY AS SOON AS

YOU LEAVE THE HUMAN PLANE.

THE EMOTION BEHIND THEM

LASTS FOREVER.

Did Peter’s friends welcome Vrotskuv at the meeting he attended?

Some did; quite a few were resentful. Vrotskuv was a soldier as well as a stranger with nothing to recommend him but his need to find some answers. His constant talk of visions annoyed quite a few, some even questioned whether he’d had one. And those who did believe were envious. Why did this happen to him and not to us? He’s a nobody, while we’ve been following Jesus for years.

Vrotskuv discovered that those who had known me on a daily basis were every bit as individually disposed as those who hadn’t. In fact, several who’d known me as a friend were worried about their complicity in my fate. To appease their guilty consciences, they decided that any action they had or hadn’t taken was excusable since I had help in ways that they did not.

As they believed in special help, they created separation instead of oneness, and oneness with the whole was how I found my help. Unwilling to accept responsibility for their own victim mentality, they looked for someone to blame; Vrotskuv was handy. But even facing their angry accusations, Vrotskuv didn’t back down; he was more concerned with personal growth than impersonal resentment.

Did their feelings of victimization have any other drawback?

Yes, it caused them to forget the properties of spontaneous resurrection: self-responsibility, self-determination and self-enlightenment. As loss overwhelmed them and depression set in, they insisted that I would still be alive if people like Vrotskuv weren’t.

Even though I resurrected to prove I was alive, ego rebutted here as well: Only someone who rose from the dead can be the love of God. And holding this one definition to explain divinity, they lost all faith in themselves. Then, to feel better, they looked for agreement.

What about those who didn’t lose faith?

They were busy enacting their own resurrections.

Did anyone challenge Vrotskuv in terms of his vision?

Yes, but for him, the vision had been emotional; he didn’t see how anyone could successfully challenge that.

What did he learn from the few who were kind to him?

More about himself.

Did Vrotskuv think of you as wise?

Wise for my journey, yes, but he suspected that everyone was the wisdom of God personified in form.

How could all those people have been God?

Who else would God have been?

A divine energy that was met upon their death.

Why would God be revealed to them out-of-form but not in-form? Seeking answers where none existed was the ultimate frustration.

What about the God who greeted them when they died?

God greeted them most assuredly, but as soon as they were met, they knew they’d been this greeter many times themselves. Just as they loved and supported their friends in-matter, they loved and supported them out-of-matter. Some didn’t believe in the notion of God, but everyone knew the feeling of love; and everyone could expand it.

Did Vrotskuv see himself as a sensitive person?

He saw himself as an honest person. If he was cruel, he took responsibility for his cruelty. In his opinion, many followers did not. They rationalized their cruelty, calling it absolute truth. To Vrotskuv, their absolute truth was cruel because it said to others: We have the answer to heaven on Earth and anyone not believing in us will never find it. But anyone who claimed to have the one true answer to heaven on Earth had effectively shut the door to heaven. Heaven was felt through an open, accepting heart.

Yes, and if they knew something he didn’t, he wanted to know them better. He sensed that several hoped to establish more authority by insisting that true believers preached what they preached: that I was the Son of God and no one else was. Vrotskuv honored what he believed instead.

He knew that I had referred to myself as God, but he also knew that I had referred to my friends as God, and my enemies as well. Few were repeating that line. Government retaliation was still an active force. But even after it wasn’t, many followers didn’t want the masses seeing themselves as the same authority they were. Then they had a dilemma. How could they have faith in themselves while telling others that faith in oneself was unwise?

Vrotskuv decided to investigate within, sure in the knowledge that progress would always be obvious by the progress of those around him.

GOD IS THE LOVE WITHIN.

REALITY IS THE LOVE YOU LIVE.

YOU ARE THE EVERYTHING THESE TWO INCLUDE.

Worksheet Section:           

Chapter 18 – Identities

In your opinion, what qualities must a person have to live as God in humanness?

Where are some of those qualities being lived?

When those qualities are present, isn’t that person God-like?

When those qualities are absent, has this person suddenly ceased to exist?

Haven’t you learned more about who you want to be from who you don’t want to be?

Questions to Ponder:

• Who inspires me more: a perfect person, or a person overcoming obstacles?
• Who supports me more: a static person, or a person sensing potential?
• Who do I want to be more: a person smugly satisfied, or a person looking for growth?

THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT

YOU’LL EVER REACH

IS TO LOVE AND ACCEPT YOURSELF.

Personal Insights

I believe that God is a power within–not a power that is only met upon death. If that’s true, it simplifies things, don’t you think? No more dialogues about whose God is valid and whose God is not since every soul is equally valid. No more wars in the name of God since God is you, me, and everyone. No more posturing that God told me to do this and God told me to say that since God isn’t separate from the speaker. No more worries about taking the name of God in vain since you might as well be cursing yourself. No more religions claiming that they have the one true path, since every path that offers a person love is the path of true redemption. No more guilt for breaking God’s rules since the rules we have are the ones we’ve given ourselves.

Walking Through Illusion: A Book Excerpt, Part 2

The last article of this series on Spirituality was part one of a excerpt from the book, Walking Through Illusion, by Betsy Otter Thompson.

Betsy Otter Thompson is the author of a few books, including The Mirror Theory: The Way to Inner Peace, Resolution, and Transformation; Loveparent: How To Be The Parent You Hope To Be; and Lovehuman: How To Be Who You Love.

To visit her website, and/or to order a copy, visit Betsy’s website: http://www.betsythompson.com

In part one of this book excerpt, the Preface to the book was published. In this excerpt, we give you the first part of chapter 18. Next time we’ll have the concluding segment of the chapter.

Chapter 18

Identities

What is our real identity?

NAMES, TITLES, AND PLACES
LOSE THEIR VALIDITY AS SOON AS
YOU LEAVE THE HUMAN PLANE.
THE EMOTION BEHIND THEM
LASTS FOREVER.

Names, titles, and places were a part of your experience, though, weren’t they, Jesus?
Part of my illusionary experience, yes, but they didn’t reveal my inner journey, or the search for my reality.

Don’t we know more about your inner journey through the many stories told?
We know more about the inner journeys of the many different story-tellers, since each had a history of individual clarity.

Can those stories be trusted?
Why must they be? Only the love in those stories makes them relevant to you.

Was there an incident that was especially important to you?
There was one that involved a soldier by the name of Vrotskuv, who entered my life to confirm my faith in goodness.

Did Vrotskuv have any faith in you?
He gained more faith as he sensed my faith in him; he was the soldier responsible for delivering prisoners to the sites of their crucifixions. When the people lined the streets that day in loving support of me, they took up a chant to let me know of their presence. Vrotskuv got uneasy. Rightly or wrongly he saw them a threat. One voice inside his head urged him to hurt the heretic if he wanted to feel in charge. The other voice urged him to feel in charge by honoring the heretic.
Brushing the latter voice aside, he looked for an easy insult to show the crowd that he was the one in charge here. His opportunity came when I stopped to assist a fellow prisoner struggling under the weight of his heavy cross.
In the process of helping him to regain his balance, the robe padding my shoulder fell to the ground. Vrotskuv picked it up and stood there, daring me to defy him. Instead of seeing the anger he expected, he saw only love.
Startled, he couldn’t believe the message he was receiving: We are all in charge of ourselves in the love of God forever. Intellectually, it didn’t compute; emotionally, it impacted deeply, so deeply that Vrotskuv was determined to feel it again.

Because he wanted to cherish himself or because he wanted to cherish you?
Somehow they seemed like one and the same. Instead of seeing the thief who lived in Vrotskuv, I saw the God who lived in Vrotskuv and, then, he saw it too. That moment was so powerfully felt that it took a burst of chanting to get him back to the task. For the rest of the day, he thought about that encounter. What had he seen in my eyes that had stirred his emotions so deeply? Irritated that he couldn’t explain it, he grabbed the robe and set out to give it back, hoping a second encounter would clarify the previous one.
As he laid the robe at the foot of the cross and looked in my eyes again, the feeling returned. It deepened into a vision, revealing to him all that he had lived and all that he could live; an all-inclusive moment, neither human nor ethereal, but a feeling merging the two. Factored in time it equaled seconds; factored in emotion, eons.
It came to him, not as a payback for the past but as a blueprint for the future, whether that future was here or elsewhere, now or later, conscious or unconscious. After the vision ended, no words were shared but the message was clear: Welcome home. From that moment forth, everything Vrotskuv did was to keep that moment alive in whatever else he was doing.
In the weeks that followed, he located many of my friends, hoping that one of them would see him as I had. None did, but inadvertently he discovered why. I had accepted him unconditionally, knowing full well who he was and the job he was there to do. My friends accepted him grudgingly; fearful of what would happen to them if they didn’t. But even in the presence of fear and animosity, Vrotskuv courted their acquaintance, willing to endure any rudeness in order to find some answers.
Many introductions later, Vrotskuv convinced Peter to invite him to one of his meetings. It didn’t take long for Vrotskuv to notice a theme that kept recurring: We always find ourselves in the people we face. Pondering what that meant in terms of his interaction with me, he concluded that his heart had merged with mine, and to live that merger again, he had to live that merger with others. He found that union by asking how he’d feel if, every time he looked into the eyes of another, he felt my heart again. Naturally, as he told himself that I was in the every heart he faced, he couldn’t wait to find me there.

Did Vrotskuv feel terrible after stealing the robe?
He felt terrible when his mirror showed up to remind him of his behavior. He only stopped stealing when he knew himself as the person stolen from.

Would he have stopped stealing had he thought his behavior known?
Had he understood that others reacted accordingly, yes. Vrotskuv wanted honest people in his life. In the end, high-minded motives didn’t change his life; his desire to receive the honorable in others did. To stay mindful of his goal, he said to himself as he gave to others, Here is a gift to myself.

When his mirror was insecure, was Vrotskuv insecure?
Until he was honest about it; then honesty replaced insecurity.

Even if that honesty was horrible?
Honesty wasn’t horrible or wonderful; honesty simply was.

What did Vrotskuv learn about prosperity in this lifetime?
He learned that prosperity had more to do with abundance within than abundance without. But if Vrotskuv needed funds for his evolution, funds were made available.

Did he do something wrong if funds were not available?
Not if the right in his life was honored.

Did money come when Vrotskuv did what he loved?
Fulfillment came when he did what he loved. Fulfillment didn’t have any requisite look, only a requisite feeling.

What incentives did Vrotskuv need in order to live more wisely?
Incentives varied. They were anything from a new friend, to a new day, to a new lifetime, depending on what was needed.

Walking Through Illusion: A Book Excerpt, Part 1

The series on Spirituality continues today with a guest appearance by author Betsy Otter Thompson, who has agreed to allow a chapter from her new book, Walking Through Illusion be excerpted on the Low Density Lifestyle website.

Betsy Otter Thompson is the author of a few books, including The Mirror Theory: The Way to Inner Peace, Resolution, and Transformation; Loveparent: How To Be The Parent You Hope To Be; and Lovehuman: How To Be Who You Love .

A Philadelphia native with a B.F.A. from the University of Pennsylvania, Betsy worked as a commercial print model and acted in television commercials in Philadelphia and New York. From 1987 to 1999, she worked in Los Angeles at the motion picture and television company Castle Rock Entertainment as the Assistant to the Chairman and CEO. In August ‘99, she followed her boss to Warner Bros. and became his Executive Assistant, as he assumed the position of President and COO, and stayed until she retired in 2005. Betsy is now writing full time.

To visit her website, and/or to order a copy, visit Betsy’s website: http://www.betsythompson.com

Today we begin with the Preface to her book. Next time will be the chapter excerpt.

Preface

The heart is a magical organ. It pumps steadily or unsteadily according to how it’s treated. If we ask too much of the heart it gives off little signals warning of strained love. When the signals are ignored, the heart simply quits; not so different from other motors that aren’t well maintained.

Science tells us that hearts depend on the whole through which they function. My instincts tell me that hearts are independent. From my conviction that hearts are free to express from the depth to which they go, Walking through Illusion was written. Jesus is the energy that comes through my conviction.

What does it mean that hearts are free to express from the depth to which they go? It means that each of us is free to love in face of reasons not to. If we decide to love, the heart goes deeper to reveal our true identity. If we decide not to love, more opportunities arrive through which to challenge us to do so.

I receive my inspiration the same way an artist receives a vision or a musician receives a melody. I can’t tell you how it happens; I’m not sure myself. But if I asked an artist how she received her visions, or a musician how he received his melodies, wouldn’t they say something like this: I open my heart, feel what I need to express, and use my talent to do so. The same is true for me. I open my heart, receive a feeling, and let it express through my gift.

Inspirational writers have different ways of explaining their experiences. Some call it channeling, some call it the joining of conscious energy with the higher self within. Another calls it “a nonphysical energy present in all things that are physical.” (Abraham-Hicks Publications–September 16, 2008)

To me, it is the merging of energy. And, in this sense, my energy is merging with that of Jesus’. When we are together, the best in me is revealed. We all have inspiration to access since we all have hearts that can feel. How it is shared is as individually defined as the individual lives we are living. From the information shared with me, I believe that a few kind words to another are just as powerfully felt as the creation of a symphony.

My particular gift forces me to acknowledge the physics of action/reaction and the power it wields emotionally in every part of my life. When I first explored these physics–or the pulling of energy back to itself–I saw how it worked in the lives of those around me, e.g., an emotional action was taken by someone I knew, and I saw how it all came back to her through another. When I asked Jesus for an explanation, he said that she was receiving the mirror of her behavior.

When it came to my life, and how this theory was playing itself out, I denied my culpability, or the possibility that I had given the pain I had received. Had I been that cruel–and even if I had been, hadn’t my reasons been justified?

It didn’t take long to realize that justification carried no weight in the science of perfect balance. Excuses couldn’t change the course of the boomerang. Once it left my aura, it was on its path to others who were justifying their cruelty. In terms of the past and the pain I had created, that was not a happy thought. In terms of the future and the love I hoped to generate, it was empowering.

For the physics of action/reaction to be a viable theory, I had to acknowledge that equal justice prevailed in both directions (whether I liked what I received or I did not). But the more I enacted in positive ways and enjoyed the results that followed, the more I tested the power of physics in areas more demanding.

To me, demanding meant the depth to which I was willing to go to admit the pain I had given. Not easy. Who wants to admit to behavior in oneself that she has criticized in another? But as I faced my actions honestly and acknowledged the pain I’d attracted, I realized that I controlled receivership–at least in terms of emotion. This put me in the powerful position of creating what I preferred.

Awareness of action/reaction deepened my exploration of unresolved emotion. I have lapses now and then–more frequently than I like to admit. They occur when I blame others for the backlash I dislike.

Walking through Illusion is not the usual format for historical reenactments, but like any novel, it is the author’s interpretation of possible emotions that might have been experienced. The message is the gift, whether the history is taken literally or not.

Why were these particular people included in the story? I’m not sure. When the idea formed, some I chose consciously; some were chosen for me. As I wrote about these characters and the stories they had lived, I received page by page information that helped me to bring my own life into balance.

Early in the writing Jesus reassured me that the people in this book had lived their lives to the best of their abilities, just as I was doing. This revelation was important to me because, when I thought of them as somehow better than I was, a wall came up between their hearts and mine. When I remembered our oneness, the wall disappeared.

Before the writing began, I believed in a world of rights and wrongs. I saw the picture–or the view I saw with my eyes–as the measure of my existence. When the picture was awful, I thought I was helpless to change it.

Gradually, I learned that all my decisions had brought me growth in one way or another. I learned that taking responsibility for the love, or the lack of love in my life, was the tool through which to create a different life. My greatest hope is that you will sense your power from reading about these people and create the world of your desires.

Walking through Illusion was not written to challenge historical facts in other worthy books; it was written to challenge me to become accountable. Where once I‘d been dealing with guilt, I was finding growth; where once I’d been dealing with hate, I was finding compassion; where once I’d been feeling resentful I was feeling autonomous.

As Jesus talked about these people and how they hoped to walk through their illusions–as he had walked through his–I asked if they were equally important to him on his journey toward enlightenment. He responded that, yes, they were equally important in the moment they entered his life.

The questions in this book arrived through the same process by which the answers came: the union of two hearts that had promised devotion to one another long before this journey into humanness began.

To introduce the format in this book, I offer the following conversation with my collaborator:

What did walking through illusion mean to you, Jesus?
It meant the process by which I brought a body into illusion to help me remember what was real: emotion, or the part of me that still remained when illusion fell away. Therefore, the challenge was to walk through every illusion with a grateful heart in the knowledge that love was the force that had gotten me here in the first place.

Why did your illusion seem so real if it wasn’t?
Because illusion was the game I was playing then. Compare it to an evening at the theater which, incidentally, was my entertainment of choice. Naturally, I became involved in the drama acted out on stage. In the context of that arena, the play was real. However, I knew that, eventually, I would leave the theater and carry on with my everyday reality.
The same could be said of my time here on Earth; it was a play as well. When the play was over, I left the theater in which the drama was happening and carried on with my new existence–which then became my reality.

How did the concept of illusion versus reality relate to the theater?
The theater was the illusion through which the play was happening; my response to it was real. When the drama was unfolding in the theater, I accepted that illusion for what it was. When the drama unfolded in my life, I sometimes blamed others for the way the play was progressing.
I played a role the same as my friends played a role, and the same as the actors in the theater had played their roles–and all of us had chosen the parts we played. Our roles were no more real than the ones we saw in the theater. They were illusionary experiments to expand our hearts so that when we left those dramas, we had the needed emotion for the next performance taking our hearts even deeper.

Were the plays of your friends always valuable?
Their souls must have thought so or they wouldn’t have had them in them. When the drama was over, they reviewed their scenes, found the growth from living them and moved on to the next play that would further enlighten their souls.

Did everyone achieve the growth they sought?
Some did; some didn’t. It all depended on how they viewed the play–whether they took responsibility for their autonomy, or blamed others for the scenes they didn’t enjoy.

How could they further their autonomy?
By having faith in their journey; it was designed for inspiration. Without it, their souls would have been seeking a similar production anyway. The value they gave their play was the value attracted back. If they didn’t like their audiences, they had to value differently. Each and every person had a mind that could think independently and, thus, a mind that could recreate until the mirror they loved was present.

Before they arrived to live their roles in this drama, their souls decided when to join the play and when to exit the play. If they shared the love in their hearts as they went from scene to scene, eventually they walked off stage, right into the heart of God forever.

To be continued next time…

Movie Spoofs ‘R Us

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life: The Life of Python

If there’s to be a series on humor, which for the last few weeks, if I’m not mistaken there has been, then it would be remiss to not mention one of the funniest comedy groups of the 20th century, Monty Python.

They were a British comedy group that created the influential Monty Python’s Flying Circus, a British television comedy sketch show that first aired on the BBC in October 1969. From there, the Python phenomenon developed into something larger in scope and impact, spawning touring stage shows, films, numerous albums, several books and a stage musical. The group’s influence on comedy has been compared to The Beatles’ influence on music.

The television series, broadcast by the BBC from 1969 to 1974, was conceived, written and performed by Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin.

Their most current hit is the play Spamalot.

And so today, without further ado, are 10 of the funniest Monty Python sketches – of course, technically, the video at the top of the page, Always Look on the Bright Side of Life, is not a sketch but instead a segment from their film, The Life of Brian, but if you promise not to tell, neither will I.

The Economics of Cows

Today, even though this series is about humor, I thought it would be important to have an economics lesson.

It’s important for all of us to have a firm grasp on economics because economics is vital to the world, so as a public service, here are some basics on economics – call it Economics 101 – using cows as a helpful aid.

Once you master the economics of cows, you’ll be well on your way to a Nobel Prize in economics.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM — You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION — You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

FRENCH CORPORATION — You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION — You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon(tm) and market them world-wide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION — You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION — You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION — You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION — You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION — You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

A HINDU CORPORATION — You have two cows. You worship them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION — You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION — You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute.

ENRON CORPORATION — You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

ARTHUR ANDERSON, LLC — You have 2 cows. You shred all documents that Enron has any cows, take 2 cows from Enron for payment for consulting the cows, and attest that Enron has 9 cows.

COWS.COM — You own two cows, so you send a business plan to 20 venture capital firms about how you can make money by giving away milk and selling ad space on the cartons. As the venture capital runs out, you issue an IPO based on your projections that your research team will develop new milking technology any day now. When your milking engineers tell you that they can’t get any more milk from a cow by working 60-hour weeks, you offer them more stock options if they’ll work 80-hour weeks solving the problem. The good engineers, who might actually have solved the problem, all work until their options vest, then retire, leaving you with junior engineers whose options all become wallpaper in another year when the company collapses and liquidates all its cows to a traditional dairy farm started by one of the old engineers.

DISNEY CORPORATION — You have two cows. They dance & sing.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION — You have two cows. You patent them and sue anyone else who has them.

HOLLYWOOD — You have two cows. You give them utter implants and also teach them to bullet-dodge, wall climb and shoot milk out of their utters on command.

ANARCHISM — You have two cows. The cows decide you have no right to do anything with their milk and leave to form their own society.

DEMOCRACY — You have two cows. They outvote you 2-1 to ban all meat and dairy products. You go bankrupt.

DEMOCRACY — AMERICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk and then blame Japan while border guards beat up Mexicans sneaking into the country. People are outraged for a week or so and then go back to televised sports where there’s no violence.

LIBERTARIANISM — You have two cows. You let them do what they want.

MARXISM/LENINISM — The proletarian cows unite and overthrow the bourgeoisie cowherds. The egalitarian democratic cow revolutionary state with the cow party as vanguard disintegrate over time. Marx choked on a veggie-burger before he could explain what happens to the use-value, exchange-value and sign-value of bovine leather.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESSISM — You are associated with (the concept of “ownership” is a symbol of the phallocentric, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of nonspecified gender.

SURREALISM — You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Separated at Birth?

Ok, we continue on with the humor series, now that you know that even with April Fool’s Day over, it’s still ok to laugh.

In fact, as I pointed out in yesterday’s article, humor and laughter is such an important part of life – it will keep you healthy, happy, joyous and fulfilled, and will keep you living a Low Density Lifestyle.

So today, let’s look at various well-known people who obviously were separated at birth from their twin. My hope is that this article, written purely as a public service, will help these twins reunite.

If any of you reading this know how to facilitate these reunions, please feel free to do so.

Lady Gaga and Wilson, the face painted on the volleyball by Tom Hanks, in the film Castaway.

Lady Gaga again, this time her hair, and a croquembouche dessert.

Lindsay Lohan, and Gollum, from Lord of the Rings.

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine.

Madonna, and a frog. Please note: in no way do we mean to disparage this frog, or any frog, for that matter.

Mel Gibson, and the Burger King.

Rush Limbaugh, and Balthazar, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Please note: in no way do we mean to disparage obese demons such as Balthazar, or vampire slayers, for that matter.

Singer Bonnie Tyler, of Total Eclipse of the Heart fame, and the Bride of Chucky.

Zac Efron, and a well-groomed dog. Please note: in no way do we mean to disparage dogs that are well-groomed, or like to wear toupees, for that matter.

Ok, got it? If you see any of these twins separately, please notify the proper authorities so they can be reunited.

April Fool’s is Over: Can I Still Laugh?

Ok, so you may have figured it out. The last article, And Now For Some Serious News, was not serious at all. It was a total April Fool’s joke.

And it was also a good way to kick off the new series, on laughter and humor. Because although April Fool’s is over, it’s still ok to laugh.

In fact, if we don’t have a good sense of humor, if we can’t laugh easily, and especially laugh at ourselves, we’re in deep doo-doo.

If you want to live a Low Density Lifestyle, and feel light of body, mind and spirit, then being able to laugh easily is something that will help you get there. That’s why laughter is an essential aspect of living a Low Density Lifestyle.

It’s well known that laughter is good for the health. In one of the most famous and well-documented cases of how laughter can be healing, Norman Cousins, who went on to write about his case in his best-selling book, Anatomy of an Illness, healed from a terminal illness by watching funny movies.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle viewed laughter as “a bodily exercise precious to health.”

Studies have shown that laughter drops the blood pressure and is linked to healthy function of blood vessels. Laughter appears to cause the tissue that forms the inner lining of blood vessels, the endothelium, to dilate or expand in order to increase blood flow.

That makes sense, because when you laugh you can feel your body open up – this is the blood moving through the body and dilating blood vessels.

Other studies have shown that laughter can cause a drop in the blood’s concentration of the stress hormone cortisol. Because chronically elevated cortisol levels have been shown to weaken the immune system, this can help ward off disease.

And other experiments have indicated that laughter increases the activity of immune cells called natural killer cells in the saliva of healthy subjects.

Psychologists and mental health experts have also found that laughter and comedy can be a remedy for stress, depression, or just feeling down.

Laughter can also help with pain. As early as 1928, New York physician James J. Walsh noticed that laughter seemed to dampen pain after surgery. Since then, research has indicated that humor can have painkilling properties. One 1996 study demonstrated that patients who watched funny movies needed less of their mild painkillers after orthopedic surgery than did patients who viewed serious flicks or nothing at all.

In addition to suppressing pain, being funny and cheerful can cultivate friendships. Cheerful people have a lighthearted interaction style that facilitates bonding closely with others and builds social support.

So, over the course of this series, be prepared to laugh! (Even if the jokes aren’t that funny, laugh anyway to humor me.)

The Poetry of Leonard Cohen

I end this inaugural week of 2010, and the poetry articles that ushered in the year – as a way to help get us in a Low Density Lifestyle frame of mind – with the words of a master poet, Leonard Cohen.

Cohen, born in 1934, is a well-known singer-songwriter and author of many classic songs, including “Suzanne,” “Sisters of Mercy,” “Hallelujah,” “So Long Marianne,” “Who By Fire,” and “Everybody Knows.”

A few months I wrote an entire article about Leonard Cohen because of his fascinating life journey – the article was called The Spiritual Odyssey of Leonard Cohen.

He is truly a gifted individual and it’s safe to say, an icon.

At the top of the page, you can view his spoken word poem, A Thousand Kisses Deep. Here are the words to the poem:

Don’t matter if the road is long
Don’t matter if it’s steep
Don’t matter if the moon is gone
And the darkness is complete
Don’t matter if we lose our way
It’s written that we’ll meet
At least, that’s what I heard you say
A thousand kisses deep

I loved you when you opened
Like a lily to the heat
You see, I’m just another snowman
Standing in the rain and sleet
Who loved you with his frozen love
His second hand physique
With all he is and all he was
A thousand kisses deep

I know you had to lie to me
I know you had to cheat
You learned it on your father’s knee
And at your mother’s feet
But did you have to fight your way
Across the burning street
When all our vital interests lay
A thousand kisses deep

I’m turning tricks
I’m getting fixed
I’m back on boogie street
I’d like to quit the business
But I’m in it, so to speak
The thought of you is peaceful
And the file on you complete
Except what I forgot to do
A thousand kisses deep

Don’t matter if you’re rich and strong
Don’t matter if you’re weak
Don’t matter if you write a song
The nightingales repeat
Don’t matter if it’s nine to five
Or timeless and unique
You ditch your life to stay alive
A thousand kisses deep

The ponies run
The girls are young
The odds are there to beat
You win a while, and then it’s done
Your little winning streak
And summon now to deal with your invincible defeat
You live your life as if it’s real
A thousand kisses deep

I hear their voices in the wine
That sometimes did me seek
The band is playing Auld Lang Syne
But the heart will not retreat
There’s no forsaking what you love
No existential leap
As witnessed here in time and blood
A thousand kisses deep

And here are some additional Leonard Cohen videos:

The first video is Cohen doing his haunting and beautiful hymn, Hallelujah. Of this song Leonard Cohen says, “It’s, as I say, a desire to affirm my faith in life, not in some formal religious way but with enthusiasm, with emotion…. It’s a rather joyous song.”

The second is of singer/pianist Allison Crowe performing the same song – it’s really an amazing performance that will truly touch your soul. Many people have done this song; it was Rufus Wainwright’s version that was featured in the movie Shrek.

And the third video is of Leonard Cohen singing Who by Fire. The song features a saxophone introduction by the legendary sax player Sonny Rollins.

Next Page »