I No-Mind

I No-Mind

Not most people join elections. But most of those who join elections have this idea in them that there must be a politician out there that could finally deliver them from misery. So in a diligent manner they choose men to lead them. But constantly fucked-up; hope always derailed. I usually get annoyed by this. 

But now there something that changed in me. For me, people are free to do what they want. They are free to choose or not to choose their man for office. I am no longer disturbed.

No use to blame anyone. Not these people. Not even the politicians. Watching them is somehow a relaxing entertainment for myself. It is not a surrender. It is called contentment. I feel glad of being free of the struggle to change anything. 

Change comes and it will. It is the course of life, a life with a magnitude of force I have nothing to fight against. The only thing I can do is to have the opportunity to recognize that it is just the way it is no matter what extent of opinions I might have about it.

So, people will continue choose to form or dis-form a government, a society, a connection among each other. But no longer my concern how they do it. But this does not mean I remain dead. In my own terms I still move, breath, eat, enjoy sex and money. But I do what I do just for the sake of doing it. Again, it is just the way things happen. And when the time comes I became itchy again at throwing stones to people, I will do it. But not with a mind that I should do it. I will do it for the sake of just doing it. 

It is not an attitude of not caring about people. It is not "I don't care". It is "I no-mind."

BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE. In short, I will still be found  being annoyed by what most people do, specially this mockery about joining elections! (I just no-mind being annoyed)

As God to the Mind, so as Soda to a Cave Dweller

As God to the Mind, so as Soda to a Cave Dweller

Isolated tribe

The question about the existence of God is not really a problem. It is just a subject of curiosity

If a city dweller will asks an isolated Amazon tribesman how a Cocacola tastes like, the former would look stupider than the latter. But what really happens is that the dweller's curiosity will be aroused. Haven't heard of that shit. Haven't aware of it in his whole life. The city dweller must have brought one for that man. And his curiosity will be satisfied.

The question about the existence of God fires-up curiosity too in a larger scale. It may take a whole life to live with that curiosity and that curiosity becoming a burden and struggle in itself in finding the answer. Because there would be no one bringing an answer like that city dweller. And then suddenly you stumble upon the hint of the answer that you shouldn't have come across that question at the first place. Aha!

And then you surrender that you just can't do anything about it. And there you go, you already found the answer.

An Atheist, a Christian and a Monk

An Atheist, a Christian and a Monk

An atheist, a Christian and a monk were heard conversing with each other.

The atheist insisted to the two that there is no God in which the Christian had to protest against everytime. But the monk did not speak much and he let the two as they did most of the talking.

Everytime the Christian uttered the word God, he pointed up is finger up to the sky in which the atheist would chuckle everytime because he really believes there is no God up there and that the Christian was acting irrational. He said to the Christian, "how can you be so sure that God is up there where in fact this planet is oblate spheroid! It is not flat."

The monk couldn't help himself and he chuckled too. The atheist had a point. A man in the north pole and another in the south pole would point their fingers in opposite directions. This very fact, the atheist thought, the Christian had a hard time getting. On the other hand the Christian had a point too. The only plausible answer to the question of existence is to insist that there must be someone who started everything. Big bang must not have been a cause-less fart.

As the debate goes on, all the monk could do was to chuckle and laugh. He had a zero intellectual contribution to the subject the other two were so sweating about. Finally, the other two were annoyed. And they asked the monk about God. The atheist, "hey, skinhead, will you side with me?" And the Christian asked, "what is God to you?"

The monk pointed his fingers on them. And when a dog was just passing by, he pointed his finger on the dog too. The other two continued on their debate instead. They both thought that the monk is much more irrational than them. 

The E Question

The E Question

Too many questions. Countless. But there is only one which says it all: The E Question. Yes, the Existence Question. It only morphed into a multitude of forms, appeal and relevance. But they have the same root of itch. 

What am I doing here? 

Who am I?

Who are you? 

Where did I come from?

How did all things begin?

...and a lot more....

The question about existence comes in various ways. These questions basically ask the same thing, or express the same problem and expect to get the same answer. The answer being sought is hoped to finally end all questions. There is no bug as great as that elusive answer.

The Nature of Sacrifice along the Path to Happiness

The Nature of Sacrifice along the Path to Happiness

Fact: each man wants to be happy. No man has ever planned to be sadder each moment.  No one ever walks towards being a lesser happy each day. No one ever prepare for tomorrow with bitter tears as the goal. All actions are for the intent to be happy.

How about those men who take the bullet for others; those who make sacrifices? How would that qualify as an action towards happiness? Does that not contradict the idea that each man intend to be happy?

There is a simple answer to that. The question presupposes a false dilemma.

1.       Sacrifice is not unhappiness. It is not misery. Sacrifice is not synonymous with sadness.

2.       Happiness is an end. While sacrifice is a means. It is just one of the means to the end.

Sacrifice is not something that takes away happiness. Rather it is a way with hope to attain or reinforce happiness. Much like when a merchant who needs to give-up something he owns in an anticipation that at the other side of the bargain is a package of more happiness. Sacrifice is an important undertaking towards happiness.   Sacrifice, though implying burden on the one making a sacrifice, simply doesn’t contradict a man’s want to be happy.  

MonkeySocietyblog: What is MonkeySociety?

MonkeySocietyblog: What is MonkeySociety?

MonkeySocietyblog is an attempt to spread the message of individual liberty using the kind of spirituality the Buddha had taught people in ages.

MonkeySociety is a metaphor for a backward-thinking society. The term "backward thinking society" is a vague idea. There is no clear calibration from where the "backward" thing can be seen to begin. But there is an unwritten rule for it I think. A rule that can't be well described and expected not to be agreed upon by all men. It means only one thing and that is it uniquely depends on the person making such evaluation. In my case, it is I who holds the idea how backward my society is. In my viewpoint shall reside the basis of judgment when to call my society a backward society or in this blog's theme, a MonkeySociety.

Much of what's to be said in this blog is just an image of me and not of anyone else. Though it may appear  MonkeySociety is a group of people I wish myself not to be associated with, the paradox would be it is myself that is being described in all of its subtlety.

Why Socialism Naturally Appeals to Humans

Why Socialism Naturally Appeals to Humans

The common thing between Socialism and Anarchism is that they are both Utopian. These two ideologies talk about societies that are hypothetical, a form of society that can be attained only in theory. And along with these two social theories are the means by which men tried to utilize to attain what these ideologies represent. Unfortunately, what is happening is that every time men would try to push for it, the means to attain it collapses in chaos and the goal is always left far from reach. 

However, though the two share the same characteristic (both are unattainable), they differ on the means by which they are tried to be achieved. Socialism has this notion that a concentration of power to a few individuals or groups would bring the goal. On the other hand, Anarchism says that the goal can only be attained if the concentration of power is dissolved.