July 2003 Archives

When Pooky and I go on a roadtrip, we have a few scenic features we go out of
our way for: covered bridges, kooky roadside attractions, lighthouses, and other
things. We picked up a brochure of the Oregon coast lighthouses and we were
determined to see all 9, only until we realized that a few would be too much of
a pain to observe.
The Tillamook Lighthouse that precariously rests upon Tillamook rock that is way
out on the water, is now a privately owned columbarium. I'm glad the brochure
defined what a columbarium is, because I was thinking it was how your colon
looks after you swallow barium for an upper GI series. It actually is a place
where people's ashes are stored (presumably after cremation).

I'll put up a picture of the Tillamook Lighthouse later, but for now you can
enjoy this one that is still on land. I think this might be the Heceta
Lighthouse, but don't hold me to it! I think we saw 7 out of the 9 lighthouses.
We did see some covered bridges on our travels, and I'll get around to posting
them, too.
The coast was clear for our entire stroll up it. The mornings started off misty
and foggy which is typical, but by midday through the evening it was absolutely
marvelous!
The ocean does not provide that silence of the forest or the mountains because
of the continuous wave action and breezes and fierce winds, and the seaside
stench is almost unbearable at times (we did encounter some rather pungent fishy
smells that make a cat's tuna breath smell like roses). Yet, the sea beckons in
her strange, powerful way.

I think the English language should have a unique word just to describe
the immensity, girth, majesty, and noble presence of a redwood tree. Perhaps
those clever people who invented sniglets have such a word.
My stature is 5ft 6in. This should give you some perspective then on how a
relatively normal-size person measures up to your normal-size redwood. The tree
I'm embracing was actually two trees in one. The redwood clones itself by
producing little shoots that grow along side of it. Eventually this smaller
shoot merges into the parent tree.
I think we saw trees that were at best 1200-1500 years old. The real ancient
ones, which are up to 2000+ years old. We didn't see any of the old-timers
because they were secluded away in a very difficult to access area which would
have required forging a river!

Last week we took a very long drive to the Redwoods forests of northern
California. I have seen big-ass old growth trees here in the forest of
Washington, but could not imagine what a redwood would look like in person, even
though I had read up on all of the statistics about their height, diameter, etc.

When we finally got to the forest, I felt like a crazed Keebler elf! I really
wanted to live inside one of the hollowed out trees and become a cookie baking
gnome!
The forest has such interesting smells. We went to this one that was really off
the beaten path, and it had this scent about it that reminded me of semen, and I
was wondering what in nature would have that curious odor. Anyhow, the more
popular trails and trees had more earthy smells, like of fresh cut wood and
newly aerated soil.
Some interesting facts about the redwoods that we learned was that a fallen tree
takes about 400 years to decompose. The reason we didn't see very many animals
creeping around on the ground is that they all reside up in the canopy of the
forest.
I've always felt a presence around trees, as if they were really people inside
of the trunks. It's like how the tree-people are in the Two Towers movie. As a
child I had this swing set in the yard and there were these trees behind it that
seemed like two people just watching me, and I felt the trees weren't very
friendly, like they were two old coots that never had anything good to say about
anything.
Well, the redwoods had this kind of presence, but naturally on a much grander
scale! I definitely felt like we were being observed and watched by the trees,
and that they were checking us out, seeing if we were worthy. I tried to convey
as much respect and honor to the trees, but I just felt like I was coming up
short since the humans that came before were hell-bent to cut down as many of
their kin as possible.
The forest is such a marvelous place! It's got that stillness, that silence that
I felt up at Mount Rainier. You can't get that kind of silence in the city or
where people live. You need to get away from all of that to where Nature
dominates. It is truly energizing to be in the midst of that silence and just
absorb like a sponge that vibration.

Originally posted to a Yahoo group, Mary Summer Rain
My mind has been mulling over a few things, basically how everyone is feeling
anxious about both the dream posted that mentioned the date of July 17th, and
the impending major Earth Changes (and the fate of 2004). Some of you have
expressed your thoughts and feelings on the matter, and I am disheartened by
what I've read. I think that what Mary has been trying to convey to us is
getting confused and mixed up. I shall be using statements from Mary in
Pinecones to address what I am talking about or referring to.
First, I'd like to share what my understanding is of how visions (prophecies) of
the future work. There is actually some scientific theory behind my train of
thought. In physics, scientists have realized that at the quantum level (that
would be the subatomic level) that an observer "creates" reality in the sense
that when someone observes an atom/particle they make the wave function of it
collapse into one pathway out of an infinite number of probabilities. This is
what is meant by probabilities. That before the observation is made, there are
an unlimited number of ways for this particle to go. But when we observe it, we
make it pick one. With that being kept in mind....
Let's say you are standing at point A. At this point there are certain
probabilities (or potentials) that occur at point B. You see how things could be
at point B from point A from the vantage point of A. However, traveling to point
B will affect the end result, because as you progress through space-time to
point B, you have made all of these probabilities take a certain pathway (become
reality), whereas at point A they were only potential based upon what you had
already set in motion at point A. I hope I haven't lost anybody here, but the
upshot is, we can see glimpses of the future, but the future is yet to be
decided, which means that as we travel in time to that given point, we can
affect changes to either make that future come to pass, or we can make choices
to avoid that future.
Mary says two things that I think are relevant to this.
"Many of the Earth Changes may never have been a Probability if earthly mortals
had lived and loved for All instead of living and loving for self."
"Part of the message was Hope, so that everyone was given, right up to the last
moment, time to believe and...time to change their ways."
I interpret Mary to be saying in the first statement is that because of how we
have previously lived, we have caused certain Probabilities to manifest, whereas
if we had lived in a true state of Love, these probabilities would not have come
about. However, this does not mean that these probabilities are decided. They
are still a choice, a path to be determined by how we choose to live. In the
next statement she says, we have right up until the moment before the
probability is decided to change our ways. Which leads me to my next point. >
Why are we acting like the Earth Changes are a done deal? Why are we waiting
around for them to happen and not working toward either avoiding them all
together, or working toward lessening the severity of them? Yes, I agree that we
should prepare for the worst, but simultaneously work toward making choices that
will result in the most favorable outcome.
I've heard this sentiment by many who call themselves spiritual and follow a
non-Christian path that "the Earth needs cleansing anyway". To me this is no
better than the Christians wanting Armageddon so that all of sinners can be
cleansed, or the Muslins wanting Jihad so that all of sinners can be cleansed.
Mary says to that:
"Fatalism is the False Womb of the lazy, the irresponsible, the fearful.
Fatalism is Escapism for the weak and insecure."
That is rather harsh, but is she not stating a truth? I will not deny that the
earth does need a cleansing, but why must this "cleansing" come in the form of
horrible disaster, catastrophe and loss of life? This is a narrow interpretation
of what a "cleansing" is. To me, this cleansing is something that first happens
internally, and those internal changes then radiate outward, affecting all that
we encounter so that our external environment then becomes cleansed as well. We
need to clean out our old, harmful ways of thinking, of living, of being with
each other. We need to stop living the insane way that we do that harms and
kills our environment. We need to start living today the way Mary outlines in
Earthway, and the way that others have suggested that would result in our living
in harmony with our environment. These changes can be rendered now. We just have
to be determined to carry them out. Why do we need total devastation in order to
start living the way that we should? How is that going to change our hearts, our
minds, and our souls---that is, cause us to realize how we should be living?
This ties in with Mary's next statement:
"Humankind's harmful arrogance, prejudice, and intolerant ways created the
powerful negative vibrations serving as direct causal factors behind many
geological cataclysms, weather devastations, and catastrophic accidents.
Humankind's harmful arrogance, prejudice, and intolerant ways frequently create
the dynamic impetus---Negative Catalyst of Force---which may well yet destroy
this beautiful, innocent Earth."
I interpret Mary's words hear to serve as a wake-up call. The way we think, and
likewise, the way we act as a result of how we think, is what is destroying our
world. But she adds in the clause that although in the past we have caused all
of this harm and devastation, we haven't destroyed it all---yet. See, we have
this very important choice to be making about how we think and feel, and if we
continue on this path of how we think and feel, then yes, we will see mass
destruction, but if we stop it and go on the path of love and acceptance and
toleration, sending out positive vibrations, then we can start healing and
restoring the earth---and I would bet lessen the Earth Changes effects.
Lastly, while prophecies can come to fruition as envisioned, Mary states twice
in Pinecones two things that agree with each other about visions.
"The key to recognizing fulfilled prophecies is to look for their manifested
Spirit, not the letter of them."
"Controversy arises when one cleaves to the letter of how something is written
rather than seeing beyond to understand the spirit of same. Aesops' Fables and
Jesus' Parables are stories that teach the spirit of the law. Supposedly, St.
Paul said many things. Some statements were not aligned with the Truth, but one
of the statements attributed to him holds as true today as it did two thousand
years ago when he said, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
Many things in the Bible and the Gnostic Gospels (Nag Hammadi) are not to be
taken literally. They were written on many different levels. The same holds true
for all spiritual writings. Prophecies can come true, but I like to think of
them as warnings---of giant wake-up calls that tell us---be warned, you can
still divert or avoid this from happening. That is our gift of the prophecy.
As I step down from my soapbox, thinking of how to end this...I just want to
emphasize how Mary reminds us we have the choice to make. The choice is still
ours. There is still time.

I've been thinking too much about Starhawk's proposal to wage a war on the
battlefield of consciousness. Let's review the history of violence (read: war)
as a "solution" to social problems that arise between differing peoples.
We all know that if someone threatens your life, that is, they point a gun at
you, or they shoot your loved one, or your dog or cat, or whomever you feel love
for, you are going to eventually give into their demands because nobody wants to
die or suffer loss of life. It's simple enough, and somewhat effective. But the
problem lies in that the permanance of this type of solution is only temporary.
It is temporary because more people can be created, and if they are all brought
up to think differently than you do, and you find their way of thinking to be
offensive, you have more people to eventually kill again. The cycle keeps
repeating itself over and over.
Let's say we talk about Saddam Hussein. Everyone says he is a madman that can't
be dealt with rationally because he is insane. I don't know if suffering from
megalomania is a form of insanity---I think he is just out of control with ego
that was poofed up by his unlimited power in his country. Killing such a person
as him is only a temporary solution until the next despot comes into being. And
with the way patriarchal society fawns and praises ego-maniacal men, you could
say that society in general fosters the development of such crazy power-hungry
lunatics.
So if war doesn't solve the problem (it just adds to it) then what would bring
about lasting change? A different way of thinking. But that isn't easy to
accomplish. It takes years, patience, and determination. It is somewhat like a
battle of wills, but it's different than that.
Changing the way a person or a group of people or a society THINKS is hard work.
People generally like the way that they think and persuading them is going
against the grain.
Now, I would have to add the proviso to this train of thought that changing
consciousness and way of thinking doesn't mean converting, coercing, or forcing
ideas. The ideas or causes should be those that are just or noble. For example,
I would think most people would feel that changing mind-sets to end sexual
inequality is a just and noble cause, and that enforcing a particular religious
dogma onto people is not. Why is this so? Equality among the sexes is one of
those fundamental things that should not be denied. Even though many of the
world's religions teach a positive, loving message, I think a person's spiritual
journey is their own, one that they must take by themself. I'm not saying there
shouldn't be people to guide them and provide them with the wisdom of the ages,
but it's not something you need to have your mind changed about. The right to
choose which religion you want to practice, and religious tolerance/acceptance
would be noble and just causes or ideas worth changing minds for.
But how does one determine what is just and noble? It's a bit tricky, that's for
sure, but I think in our hearts and minds we know what is "right" from "wrong"
in such matters.
I think the best thing to do with the Iraq situation, and the entire middle
east, and the rest of the world is to start understanding who these other people
are. We shouldn't feel we're some puffed up better society of people just
because we are Americans. If we can understand them, and if they could
understand us, I think we could then reach a point where we see we are all
basically in the same situation, only a few trivial things are different in our
lives.
I guess it all sounds too Pollyannish, like something out of a happy Disney
cartoon or episode of the Brady Bunch. Yet, no one has tried this because we
still have this deep-seated testerone-driven leadership that feels the only way
to settle the score, to effectively handle matters is to blow someone's brains
out.
Maybe it's just we're afraid that if we can identify with "the enemy" we'll come
to realize that they are human, just like us. And maybe in the process of coming
to understand their position, and how and why they think they way that they do,
our own consciousness and treasured thoughts will change. Oh my! Change our own
thoughts?!?! How threatening indeed!
I can't count how many times my own beliefs have been threatened and challenged,
but I found a way to still hold onto my core sense of self and yet see the other
person's side of things.
Well, there's my mental lint for the day. Holiday is tomorrow and I probably
will not be too linty.

A couple of months ago when people were debating our invasion of Iraq, the proponents of peace were often sighted as not having a better plan or alternative. It got me to thinking back to a book I read in the early 90s, written by Starhawk called The Fifth Sacred Thing. I've decided to reread it because the theme of the book seemed to be very apropos to our country's current situation.

I came upon the following passage (down at the botton) that begins Starhawk's thoughts on non-violence and war, and I know that as the story unfolds she expands upon the theme. I wanted to share this with you because I've also been rereading some of Mary's works, primarily Pinecones. While Pinecones is a collection of her thoughts usually in snippet form, there is a theme to them, that being of consciousness and how our consciousness is limitless.

What strikes me most about this passage from Starhawk is the sentence "Armies and indeed, any culture that supports them must convince the people that all the decisions are made already, and they have no choice."

It is being revealed that the Bush administration wanted this war, and skewed the facts to get the people to support it (reports are coming forth from people in the CIA and other intelligence agencies). Notice how it's always stated, "We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction----yet." There is always a priviso attached to these statements as a means to justify the government's actions. In this way the case to convince the people was constructed. People who said they supported peace were eventually swayed by the government's crafted need to
invade Iraq. I find that scary. If our government can convince the people of this country that war is needed, especially when they lacked the hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction actually existing, imagine what else could be cooked up! People acted as if they had no choice in the matter---and I'm not sure why that is. Is the collective consciousness stuck and needs a kick?

Even more upsetting to me was that I found was a small grouping of people who also invoked the feeling of having no choice because Mary said in Phoenix Rising that these kind of wars would be part of the Earth Changes. This really upset me because Mary has always stated that we always, always, have the choice to make as to whether or not aspects of the Earth Changes will come about as foretold.

What is foretold is based upon people still making the same old choices they always have. How are we as a country---or a world---going to raise ourselves up, experience the kind of life Mary talks about after the Earth Changes if we aren't willing to choose them now?

"After the Uprising, we found ourselves caught in a dilemma. We knew that war was responsible for shaping the world into all the forms we wanted to change and yet there we were, surrounded by hostile enemies who might, at any moment, attack and destroy us. This was the dilemma that every peaceful culture has faced for the last five thousand years, at least. And this was our one advantage that we had history behind us. We had seen all possible solutions played out, from resistance to retreat to acquiescence, and we knew none of them worked. That saved us a great deal of time. We didn't have to waste our energies stockpiling weapons or drilling troops; we could jump right to the heart of the matter, which was magic."

"In what sense?" Madrone asked.

Lily nodded at Maya. "You remember that Dion Fortune quote you've always been so fond of? That magic is the art of changing consciousness at will? You can look at a war as a massing of arms and materiel and troops, but you can also see it as something else as a delicate web of interwoven choices made by human beings, made out of a certain consciousness. The decision to order an attack, the choice to obey or disobey an order, to fire or not to fire a weapon. Armies and, indeed, any culture that supports them must convince the people that all the decisions are made already, and they have no choice. But that is never true. So, mad as it may seem, this is the terrain upon which we base our defense of this city the landscape of consciousness." p.152

A zen master was asked,"Are there differences among
religions?"
He replied,"For those who have not realized their religion, there are differences. For those who have realized their religion, there are no differences."

Recently, on my continuing journey of spiritual growth and development, I came upon one of those "a-ha!" bits of information that proves to me that all of the major spiritual philosophies convey essentially the same message. The interconnections between the religions of the world is simply beautiful and awe-inspiring.

My discovery that jazzes my being is how Krishna and Jesus have many
similarities. I have previously studied the similarities between Jesus (and elements of Christianity) and the Pagan/Goddess religions that existed in Western European culture, finding strong evidence to support that Christianity borrowed heavily from previous religious practices and philosophies. I was unaware of the strong connections between Krishna and Jesus until now.

Take a moment to review some of the sites I have found and see for yourself. Then come back an read some more!

The Krishna
and Christian Jesus Parallels This site lays it out in a nice
side-by-side comparison chart.

Is Krishna
Also Christ?

Jesus
Christ is a Clone of Krishna

In the course of my readings,not suprising to me, what I could find on the Internet that were Christian sources had nothing good to say about Krishna, and totally discredited any "coincidences" between Jesus and Krishna. In contrast, Hindus are very tolerant and accepting of the similarities. I have found a similar attitude from Christians in regard to there being any similarity to Goddess/Pagan religions.

I am perplexed by this reluctance of the Christian religion to even remotely entertain the possibility that their religion has been influenced (and in some cases directly stole) ideas from those religions and philosophies that came before.

If someone of the Christian faith were to point out that Krishna wasn't real, I'd like for them to read the evidence that supports that Jesus wasn't real, either.

The bottom line here isn't whether or not Krishna or Jesus is real, and who came up with what religious idea or practice first. The heart of all of this is THE MESSAGE and not the messenger. It should not matter who first said it, or when it was first said. There is a universal Truth and Message spoken by Krishna and Christ, and that is to Love...not just any love, but Unconditional Love. Both spoke of the way, or the path---what have you---to God. It is through
Love that we align ourselves to The Divine. It's so simple, and yet we muck it up with all of this other crap and get into arguments with each other, go to wars, ad naseum.

Why is Krishna colored blue?

One of the theories is that Vishnu, because of his association with water, is depicted blue; therefore all his incarnations including Krishna, are shown as such. In Hinduism, persons who have depth of character and the capacity to fight evil are depicted as blue skinned.

The theory of the blue coloring of Krishna goes to the fact that the Creator has given the maximum of blue to nature i.e. the sky, the oceans, the rivers and lakes. The deity who has the qualities of bravery, manliness, determination, the ability to deal with difficult situations, of stable mind and depth of character is represented as blue colored. Lord Krishna spent his life protecting humanity
and destroying evil, hence he is colored blue.

(Excerpt above is from this website