Monday, September 18, 2017

Baba on Good and Evil

I have spoken to two people who converted to Christianity who made the objection that Baba does not teach that there is evil, and therefore there is no moral core in his teachings. I will show that neither are true, and that these charges betray a certain understandable ignorance of Baba's teaching.

Baba constantly emphasized good action, and did not tolerate immorality. But Baba's emphasis is on what is called in Christian mysticism mystical union, and not so much on the differentiation between good and evil, which are much more central in Christianity.

This does not mean that he did not discuss good and evil, or that he didn't emphasize the good as the way to that ultimate union with God. Baba says that the spiritual journey is one "from evil to good and then from good to God." (from 'Evil as a Relic,' Beams, p. 58)

Baba emphasized being good such as in sacrifice, honesty, cleanliness in action, and all the other traditional virtues. Clearly Baba always advises to do what is good.
So what do people mean when they say Baba had no doctrine of good and evil? There are a few ways that one could be confused by his words and come to this idea.

The first is that Baba said that evil does not exist as a force in itself, but rather is merely the absence of good.
[I]t is a mistake to think that evil is an irreducible active force by itself. (Beams p. 55) 
This could seem like Baba is saying there is no evil occurring anywhere in the world. Understood as such this would seem very contradictory to Christian teaching, which emphasizes the existence of evil and the battle we must wage against it internally and externally.

However, far from being in conflict with true Christian understanding, the statement that there is no evil as a force in itself is in fact the original Christian theological position on the subject. See Augustine's doctrine on absence of good.
Augustine. "What is Called Evil in the Universe is But the Absence of Good."  (source)
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine's view that evil is the absence of good is in fact one shared by nearly all philosophers since his time that have contemplated the subject. Just as cold is the absence of heat and darkness the absence of light, evil is but the absence of good -- though it can take on the mark of extreme cruelty, and Baba says as much.

Baba is saying that what is ontologically most real is the good, and this is consistent with Christian faith, even if many Christians are not aware of this.

Now the second reason that one could think Baba does not teach good and evil is that Baba said God transcends the opposites, hence good and evil as well.
Thus generally speaking, the path lies from evil to good and then from good to God, Who is beyond both good and evil. (Beams, p. 58)
This could seem at first glance to be saying that God is not good, or to espouse no difference or to be a relativist doctrine. None of these are what Baba means. What Baba means is that God is beyond all dualities of light and shadow. Just as the sun is light without shadow (hence as the source of light is beyond the distinction), God is the very source of the good, and is not only good but goodness itself. This is fully consistent with their being, in the final analysis, only good. It is our ignorance that creates shadow.

So Baba is in full accord with the Christian phrase, "God is good." Baba in fact teaches that God is "all merciful and eternally benevolent" (See The Master's Prayer).
Evil, in a general context is the absence or opposite of that which is described as being good. Often, evil denotes profound immorality. In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force. (Wikipedia, retrieved 9/18/17)
In Baba evil is not a supernatural force, but nor is it one in true orthodox Christian doctrine. The lingering sense of evil as a supernatural force in itself is a lingering remnant of Manicheanism, and not a true historical doctrine of Christianity.

Now as for the world of human beings, Baba definitely never implied there is no evil. Far from it in fact. Baba refers to "good and evil" in his major book God Speaks and there are dozens of references to evil in his Discourses. The chapter titled "Selfishness" speaks of it extensively. In Baba's short book Beams, an entire section is devoted to the topic of evil. (See "Evil as a relic," Beams, p. 55). In fact, I can find no book by Meher Baba where the word "evil" does not appear at least once. God Speaks, Everything and the Nothing, Beams, Infinite Intelligence, all make mention of it.

Now another charge could be that Baba taught situational ethics. But any Christian would agree that what stands as right and wrong depends on circumstances. Christians do not believe, for instance, that the Lord's commandment not to kill applies to self-defense, defense of another, the death penalty, or to just instances of war. Baba would agree.
Good as well as evil have an undeniable relationship with the circumstances. No judgment can be passed on the goodness of any action without considering the concrete context in which the judgment is called for. An act which is normally undeniably evil may under special circumstances be not only defensible but praiseworthy. Take for example an exceptional case. Suppose a mother has given birth to a baby and has not her own milk to feed it. The baby has to be fed on cow's milk, which is very difficult to obtain. A neighbor may have some cow's milk but the mother knows that he will not part with it for money or for any philanthropic consideration even though he does not need it for himself. Under such circumstances, if a person steals the cow's milk and feeds it to the new-born baby in order to keep it alive, the act of stealing is in this case not only justifiable but definitely good. (Beams, p. 56)
I don't think any Christian would disagree with that passage by Baba, even in light of God's eighth commandment not to steal. It is just common sense.

Now there is a quote by Baba that is not in any book by him, but is from an interview with a reporter of the Sunday Express in England in 1932, quoted in The God Man.
'There is no evil', he said. 'There are only degrees of good.' (The God Man, p. 99)
This quote has been distorted on the internet here (and here). The original words require explanation in light of the context in which it was said and what has been already said about Baba's teaching. The response by Baba was a terse answer to the question by the reporter, "Have you solved the problem of evil?" a question the reporter admitted had been crafted with the help of an oriental scholar, Sir Denison Ross, to trip Baba up. The words cannot be taken out of the context of Baba's wider teaching, and the reporter was satisfied. As explained, what is 'real' in Baba's teaching is God, who is absolute goodness, and all else is shadow born from our ignorance. Baba is referring to evil as not being a substance or force in itself, just as a shadow has no substance. As already pointed out, this is entirely concomitant with Augustinian Christian theology, and there is nothing startling in it when understood what he meant. That there are then only degrees of good immediately follows from that premise. Augustine also agreed that from the greatest perspective, i.e. God's point of view, all is perfectly good and right. Taken out of context, however, the terse reply by Baba could seem to dispute the existence of false and wrong action in the world of duality in which we live and breath, or to dispute that we must overcome such false action to achieve union with God - the source and existence of all good. As said, the only source of the actual quote is an interview in England with James Douglas of the Sunday Express, April 10, 1932. The words do not appear in any book by Baba, but correctly quoted is consistent with his teaching fully understood, as well as nearly all serious philosophy.

A final complaint by some Christians is that Baba lovers are often bad. They divorce, they do bad things, etc. Well this is a very ironic charge, since the same one is made constantly against Christians as a denouncement of their faith. That Baba followers and Christians alike often fall short of their better nature and higher aspirations is no reflection on the basic beliefs they try (imperfectly) to uphold and live. And certainly not a reflection on Baba himself.

Hence the charge that Baba does not make a distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, is the result of an understandable lack of a solid familiarity with his writings. I hope I have dispelled the notion.

I should add one more comment. The distinction of good and evil is problematic because what counts as good and bad in human activity is often merely societal convention, which changes over time. Baba thus changes the emphasis to the more spiritually germane distinction (in the bigger scheme of the goal of life to unite with God) of binding and unbinding action, i.e., those actions that enslave the soul in illusion and those that emancipate it. What retards the soul from union with God is bad because it does so, and what speeds union is most good because it does so. Good actions are less binding than bad actions, hence are the right actions. The emphasis is different, but the result is effectively identical. We must do good action to unbind ourselves from our mental impressions to unite with God. What is good is what unbinds and what unbinds is good, according to Baba. Hence Baba asks us to be good.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy is the study of abstract concepts.

Philosophers are engaged in questions on the most abstract level. Philosophy at one time or other is at the core of nearly every aspect of human life, from mathematics to technology to architecture, theology, and the institutions of society.

It is best to use examples.
  • Politicians are engaged in writing laws.
  • Law enforcement officials are engaged in enforcing the law.
  • Lawyers and judges are engaged in implementing the law.
  • Philosophers (like John Rawls) are engaged in studying what stands as justice, and thus what stands as just law.
  • A businessman, citizen, or government orders a building.
  • An architect designs a building.
  • A construction company builds a building.
  • A philosopher (like Roger Scruton) engages in study of aesthetics, what aesthetics is and is its worth, the proper balance of vs. and function, etc.
  • A school board determines curriculum.
  • A committee of experts write textbooks.
  • A teacher teaches what is in the textbooks.
  • A philosopher (like John Dewey) establishes the theory of education.
Each field has its most subtle level of theory, that deals entirely in concepts. It is the foundation of what others implement, sometimes without knowing it.

Behind every institution there is a philosopher underpinning, a conceptual theory.

Who stands as a philosopher changes with the times. In the 19th century many authors wrote poetically about abstract subjects, often from inspiration. Today, a philosopher only includes one who gives arguments for suppositions, and argues those points in clear language. Hence today many philosophers of the 19th century (like Emerson or Nietzsche) would not be deemed philosophers at all by today's standard.

However, both forms of philosopher deal with the same kinds of ideas and have the same kind of influence.

Philosophers are accused of various things by non-philosophers. One is that they deal in non-realities. In fact that is itself a philosophical claim, though an un-thought-through one, and an unargued one. What stands as real is part of ontology, a branch of philosophy.

Philosophers are often accused of being wordy. However, in modern philosophy there is an emphasis on being careful not to be misunderstood, and to be precise, which does require a lot of words at times. But all those words are necessary.

Philosophers are sometimes accused of making things hard by using big words. The 20th century philosopher Bertrand Russell quipped about this charge.
My mother-in-law, a famous and forceful religious leader, assured me that philosophy is only difficult because of the long words that it uses. I confronted her with the following sentence from notes I had made that day: "What is means is and therefore differs from is, for ’is is’ would be nonsense." It cannot be said that it is long words that make this sentence difficult. (My Philosophical Development, Bertrand Russell)
Philosophy has many branches.

Ontology is the study of being, or what stands as most real. What really is real?
Epistemology is the study of what we know and how. What stands as a justified belief?
Logic is the study of formal and informal methods for justifying belief.
Aesthetics is the study of how things appear to the mind.
Philosophy of Mind is the study of what is real, basically the same as ontology.
Metaphysics is the study of how things come into being, and requires inquiry into all of the above, as well as time and space. 

There are also social-political philosophers, who study the justification of the grounds of society such as justice, fairness, etc.
Philosophy of science studies and critiques the methods of science. In the 20th century it has proved important to science itself.
Philosophy of language has been particularly influential since the start of the 20th century. The most famous philosopher of language was Ludwig Wittgenstein.

In the past philosophers usually covered the gamut of all of these areas, attempting at times to work them into a cohesive system. Today philosophers are more prone to specialize.

Meher Baba once joked that philosophy is the simple made complicated. "A simple thing made complicated is philosophy." (Back panel of Stay With God, 1991) This seems to be Baba being good humored, and was meant to address the accusation by some of his mandali that Brabazon's book, released in 1964, was too philosophical. This web page gives some fair answers to this concern. Do philosophers complicate things or do they expose the world as the complicated mess it is?

Philosophy that makes the simple complicated is bad philosophy indeed. But even the notion of simplicity as a virtue of good explanations is the product of a 14th century Franciscan philosopher, William of Ockam. Baba knew that, and I believe was kidding around.

Baba said that after 70 years of his being laid to rest in his tomb, philosophers would come there to pay homage. (Lord Meher, 1986 print version, p. 5296)

One of Baba's favorite Christian saints was Augustine, one of the most famous philosophers of all time.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Vimanas belong to myth

"When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." — G.K. Chesterton
Ever since there have been scientific gadgets there have been pseudo-scientific-gadgets, also known as fantasy science or science fiction.

Now there is a failure of human imagination that it commits anachronistic thinking when imagining the past. This is where history and science fiction merge. Ancient Astronauts, a series on the History Channel, is a fine example of anachronistic thinking -- reading modern thinking about technology into the past.
anachronism: an act of attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong.
The machine age of the past 250 years has given much life to fantasizing about the ancient past in images derived from our present world, and even our present fiction.

Everything now unexplainable about the past, is explained in terms of machines projected into the past.

Indians are no different. Some 'modern' thinking Indians have their own anachronistic science fiction. They too read machines like our own into their ancient myths to 'explain' them.

A case in point is the vimanas of Indian mythology. Vimanas were palaces that flew, often carrying gods, especially Rama. Note that many things fly in ancient myth. Angels, cherubim, sprites, harpies, fairies, Pegasus, Hermes (the messenger god) with his winged ankles, Zeus in his chariot seen as the sun, and even Olympus can be seen as flying in the clouds. Ezekiel 10:9-10 tells us “And when I looked, behold the four wheels by the cherubim, one wheel by one cherub, and another wheel by another cherub and the appearance of the wheels was as the color of abery."

Imagine explaining all these in terms of our modern machines -- anachronistically.

Vimana flying palace
First of all a vimana is a flying palace or chariot described in Hindu texts and Sanskrit epics which was controlled by the mind. The Pushpaka Vimana of the demon king Ravana is the most quoted example of a vimana. Vimanas are also mentioned in Jain texts.

In keeping with the human frailty of projecting modern machines onto ancient mythic images, some Indians (and now western 'ancient astronaut theorists') have 'explained' vimanas as mechanical flying machines. The most quoted source of this is the Vaimānika Shāstra, written 1918–1923, and said to be channeled. The said-author, Subbaraya Shastry (1866–1940), gave the image below for his vimana flying machine.

Vaimānika Shāstra vimana illustration, drawn in Bangalor 1923
Note that this illustration directed by author Subbaraya Shastry in 1923 looks an awful lot like other imaginary images of how flying machines would look during this period.

Compare to the images below of pre-flight imaginings of what it would take to fly. Note the propeller, and the fins. And most importantly the common image of the contraption being built upon a boat shape, extremely common early thinking on flight.

These images were common to the era shortly preceding the book's appearance, which incidentally was only first discovered in 1952. In 1974 a study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at the Indian Institute of Science concluded that the aircraft described in the text were "poor concoctions" and that the author showed a complete lack of understanding of aeronautics.

According to the Vyamanika Shastra, here are the ingredients you will need to make a vimana aircraft.
Two parts of satva, 2 parts of shundilaka, one part of eagle bone, 5 parts of mercury, 2 parts of the foot-nails of sinchoranee, 6 parts of mica, 5 parts of red lead, 8 parts of pearl dust, 18 parts of the eyeballs of sowmyaka fish, one part burning coal, 8 parts of snake's slough, 3 parts of eyepigment, 6 parts of maatrunna, 10 parts of granite sand, 8 parts of salts, 4 of lead, 2 parts of seafoam, 3 parts of white throated eagle's skin, 7 parts of bamboo salt, 5 parts of vyraajya or white keg tree bark, these ingredients should be purified, and weighed, and filled in a beaked crucibleand placed in the furnace called chandodara and subjected to a 800 degree heat, and when dulyliquified, should be poured into the funnel of the kara-darpana yantra or hand-mirror mould. The result will be an excellent mirror in which will be reproduced minute details of the phenomenaoutside.
Next
Then get a Jyotirmukha or flame-faced lion's skin, duly cleaned, add salt, and placing in the vesselcontaining spike-grass acid, boil for 5 yaamas or 15 hours. Then wash it with cold water. Then take oils from the seeds of jyothirmukhee, or staff-tree, momordica charantia, and pot herb, in theproportion of 3, 7, and 16, and mix them in a vessel, add 1/64 part of salt. The skin should beimmersed in this oil and kept for 24 days in solar heat. It will get a scarlet sheen. The skin shouldbe cut to the size of the top opening of the vessel cylinder, with 5 openings in it. Cover the cylinder with the skin with bolts. All the 5 vessels should be similarly covered, and placed in the 5 selectedcentres on the peetha. Then 16 drona measures of asses' urine, 16 linka measures of minedcharcoal, 3 linkas of salt, 2 linkas of snake-poison, and 2 linkas of copper, should be filled in thevessel on the eastern side.
You will also need cow's urine, elephant's urine, and camel's urine. (source)

Today, vimanas are a popularly equated with ancient astronaut theories.

Giorgio Tsoukalos, History Channel's ancient astronaut guy
Ask yourself why the mainstream media so desperately wants you to believe this nonsense. People of the Bronze Age in all cultures had no problem imagining things that flew.

And the Bronze Age people of India were no different.

Birds fly, clouds glide through the air, and, in ancient thought, the celestial bodies traversed through the sky. To project machines and technology upon ancient imaginings of winged creatures and flying chariots and temples is a naive projection of our thinking upon the past, and betrays gross historical and theological incompetence.

Saturday, September 9, 2017

The problem of scale, maps vs. globes

I've noticed for some years that people have an odd notion of scale of the world. They will think that some disaster in one place, because they can imagine it, looms larger than it is in proportion to the Earth.

This brings up the subject of what stands as an accurate representation of the scale differences of places on the Earth.

The only accurate way to examine scale of places on Earth, is to look at a globe. What is very odd is that schools, libraries, and even colleges no longer display globes. They display world maps. But all two-dimensional representations of our three-dimension earth have to have distortions.

Below is a map called the Gall-Peters projection. It is currently being introduced into school-rooms in Massachusetts. Yet it is no less distorted than map projections it is replacing. In fact it is more-so.

Gall-Peterson map being introduced in Massachusetts

There are an unlimited number of possible ways of projecting the Earth's surface onto a two dimensional surface. But none of them give you an accurate description. This is because such a thing is impossible. Here is a list of projections from Wikipedia. And here on Google you can see that hardly any two maps are the same.

Now look at the map above. Notice how small Russia looks, like a long sliver. Look at Africa. It is not clear what Massachusetts schools are trying to teach their children. Why don't they study the globe if they want accuracy?

The map below is the popular Rand McNally projection I have on my wall. I bought it from Barnes and Noble.

The popular Rand McNally world map
It too gives a misleading idea of the size of land masses. For instance, Greenland (seen in pink at top) appears huge in comparison to the United States. To see how distorted this is, compare it to the photo below that I took of Greenland on my globe.

Globe depicting actual relative scale of Greenland. Compare to Rand-McNally.

Neither map projection above comes anywhere near giving people a sense of actual scale of landmasses. The only way that such a sense can be gained is from a globe. And yet you will hardly find a globe in any home or classroom in America.

There are many implications to this problem. The computer age has in fact in a sense dumbed our senses down, giving us a distorted 2-D perception of the world, and a deeply distorted sense of scale.

Now take a look at Russia in comparison to Europe on a globe. My globe was made in 1969 and still calls it the U.S.S.R. But the scale is what I am illustrating.

Russia on a globe

Maps have deeply distorted our geographical worldview. Maps are political, and so is the one being introduced in Massachusetts as an 'improvement.'

Maps are good for navigation and travel, but not for gaining an objective idea of world land-masses, scale, and proximity. Children should be taught the world on globes. Depictions of the Earth should not be used as political tools for indoctrination.

Now having seen the actual scale of Russia on a globe, compare to the two representations of Russia on the maps below, both in use in different parts of the world.

Russia absurdly diminished on a map in use
World map as it is seen in Asian countries
How you project the world onto a map alters how you look at it.

I have two globes and one large wall map, and I also use Google maps. I was surprised at the complexity of this issue when I went to research for this post. Maps are highly politicized propaganda tools. I am a big believer in using a globe to educate yourself, and in being aware of the subtle manipulation that world maps are used for.

One more funny map. This map is hysterical for how large it makes Greenland. 

It makes Greenland the size of Africa. Scroll up if you missed it, to see how small Greenland actually is on a globe.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Warnings by Baba

Baba gave a series of warnings in 1957 and 58, repeating them both in India and America.

The warnings were given in metaphors, rather than directly. They alluded to something that would challenge our faith in him, that he saw coming. The metaphors he used were:

a dark cloud
cobras tossed into a crowded room

He not only said that he 'saw' the dark cloud coming, but on several occasions oddly said that the dark cloud was watching him as well, noting this in the barn more than once whenever he coughed.
Then, before leaving the pandal, Baba sipped a little water, which made him cough. He recalled that the day before, at the same time, he had also coughed while drinking water. He remarked, "What is the significance of this? It shows that the dark cloud remembers me." (Lord Meher, 1986 print edition, p. 5305)
When Baba sipped a little water at 5:00 P.M., he again coughed. He commented, "Even in the first group I got this cough at this hour. Who is remembering me?" Eruch said that when Baba put this question to the first group, they could not answer. But Baba repeated that it was the "impending dark cloud" that remembers him. Baba confirmed this by remarking, "It is a fact that the dark cloud is coming and that cloud is remembering me." (Lord Meher, 1986 print edition, p. 5305) 
After the gathering had dispersed, Baba again coughed while drinking water at 4:35 P.M. When the third group came to see him five minutes later, Baba mentioned this and added, "I am feeling within my heart that this body will leave me soon. The dark cloud is fast approaching and has been remembering me for the past few afternoons. (Lord Meher, 1986 print edition, p. 5305) 
Baba mentioned the dark cloud fifteen times. Twice Baba said that he saw the dark cloud 'hovering' over him, and once that he saw 'its picture.' 

He associated the dark cloud with his coming humiliation.

Another term that Baba used several times was the anti-God thinking, an anti-God trend(s), and anti-God element(s). In 1948 Baba said to Ivy Duce:
Don't expect anything to be easy; life will be full of problems and the world even more so. In fact, in years to come the world will reach a zenith of anti-God thinking, immorality, lust and greed, because the ending of a vast cycle of cycles is taking place. But after the climax a new era of real brotherly love will be ushered in by God, who knows all that is going on. (Lord Meher, 1986 print edition, p. 3230) 
 And later he said this:
I have often referred in the past to the present world conditions and the anti-God trends prevailing the world over ­– Tibet being no exception. Leaders do not trust each other, and the entire world is getting more and more steeped in rank materialism.
 In 1963 Baba said:
Science and anti-God elements will reach their zenith in the nine months before I break my silence. (Lord Meher, 1986 print edition, p. 6170)

Sunday, September 3, 2017

Crowley invents the grey alien



The above image was drawn by British occultist Aleister Crowley in 1918. It is a god he called 'Lam.' The image proceeded to become the prototype for the now common 'grey alien.'

Crowley gave the drawing to his disciple Kenneth Grant in 1945. Grant went on to found the Typhonian Order, which, among other occult interests, focused on extraterrestrial life and daemons.



The origins of the grey alien are discussed in detail in the above video.



Chris White debunks ancient aliens painstakingly and lovingly, taking the viewer step by step through all the lies that are perpetuated on the History Channel series and mirrored elsewhere.

See also UFOs are a CIA PSYOP.

The 60s counter-culture was created



"Based on all the research that I've done, I would conclude that it was never legitimate from the start. . . that it was created as a psy-op from the beginning. . . I don't think it was ever the organic grass roots thing we're supposed to believe it was." – Dave McGowan (min. 8:01)





We're dying off and it's okay


We Baba followers are growing old and dying. And it's not so bad.

See also The Dying Out Faith that was the Psychodelic Baba movement

The Dying Out Faith that was the Psychedelic Baba movement

Frances Carr, the last person to be raised as a Shaker, died on January 2nd of this year.

Frances Carr, last lifelong Shaker
In Sabbathday Lake as in other former Shaker villages, Friends of the Shakers raise money to preserve archives and buildings. Many Friends attend Sunday services, but few opt to join the faith. . . In the meantime, the Shakers continue to look for recruits. Over the past 40 years, a few dozen have joined, but only a handful stayed. A decade ago there was a fourth Shaker at Sabbathday Lake, but he left when he fell in love with a visiting journalist. More recently, a young man joined, but left after a year. The Shakers pray for new movers. (source)

Cults and sects die out when the ideas that spawned them are no longer in vogue. The American Baba movement was an offshoot of the counter-cultural psychedelic movement of the nineteen-sixties and early nineteen-seventies. Psychedelic drugs were your ticket in in those heady days, drugs which members gave up (usually) as a sign of their inclusion.  

Yet times are changing. Drugs are no longer associated with 'search,' but with selfishness, lack of control, and mental illness. What's left of the counterculture, Burning Man, has morphed into mannerisms of CIA-established social memes and pseudo-spirituality.

But the smart young are becoming more conservative. They are getting red-pilled. They have never seen a world where traditional values were forced on them, but quite the opposite. And conservatism, meaning clean living, is now the new cool.

The Baba movement did not keep up. It still caters to nineteen-sixties anti-western audiences, thus is more tuned to Reformed Neo-Buddhists and Sathya Sai Baba followers than the young.

As of this year 90% of Baba followers in America are senior citizens, 65 or over. About 3000 born 1952 or earlier, while the remaining under-65 group number only about 300 strong Baba lovers nation-wide. There are even fewer younger ones in Europe. Hence the Baba followers have now entered their geriatric period.

Aging Baba followers in their geriatric period


The death of the movement will be slow. Women especially now live into their 90s. Click the statistical chart for women's aging below to enlarge it.

Current life expectancy for women in the US
So we oldies will be around for quite a while still, as we fade from history.

So what is the cause of this loss of interest? It has to do with change in trends. The anti-culture movement of the 70s was so successful that people have grown up since with no idea what they are opposing. The Baba movement was initially part of that oppositional movement, i.e. anti-Christian, anti-socially-Conservative, anti-Western, anti-History. But without anything to be against -- as those things are effectively destroyed for the young -- there is no energy.

Also the lack of philosophical thinkers in the Baba movement, due to being anti-Intellectual, led to it having nothing to say or add to postmodern fabricated memes. What sounded trendy fifty years ago just rings hollow and thin today.

Baba is still being sold as an option to Western cultural norms, which are no longer cultural norms. So it makes no sense. It has nothing to offer that relates to our current world. All its notions such as reincarnation can be found in countless groups nationwide. Also, its deep paranoia about American Christianity, and especially southern Christianity, makes the Baba movement simply seem stuck in a previous era. Many of the things they are paranoid about no longer exist. Down with America and down with Western Judeo-Christian values and traditions is just not a message that intelligent young people want to hear right now. It's incredibly out-of-touch.

All this is a good and natural thing, however. Baba often stressed that the old had to be moved aside to make room for the new and for rebuilding. Even the cultural destruction of the twentieth-century served a valuable part in paving a path for something to come, though it has not yet arrived.

See also, Death of the Meher Baba movement, and why it's a good thing

Moses splits the Red Sea



7 minutes without dialogue.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Postmodernism



Jordon Peterson is very popular among the millennial and Z generations. What he is saying is right.

Friday, September 1, 2017

On Third Wave Feminism



Karen Straughan is famous for being a controversial gender politics Vlogger and Men’s Rights Advocate. Because of the nature of the stances she takes, many people are keen to dismiss her without even considering her arguments long enough to refute them. Because so much of her work induces both feminist and mainstream outrage, it’s often unnoticed that Karen is also an incredibly interesting gender theorist and historian.

This fact is partly what seperates Karen from many other gender activists, be they be feminist or anti-feminist. If Gender Studies departments were open to diverse and provocative views across the ideological spectrum, Karen would perhaps be a celebrity academic on par with Slavoj Zizek. Like Zizek, Karen is one of the more fascinating intellectuals of the 2010s. She is fascinating, in part, because you can gain incredible insights from both agreeing and disagreeing with her. But unlike officially institutionalised intellectuals, Karen does not come from academia. She does not work from an ivory tower. She’s a working waitress who does Vlogs from her kitchen. In this way, Karen’s Vlogs are to conventional academia what punk was to stadium rock. Love her or loath her, she says what many academics are afraid to say.

(source)



This video of Canadian clinical psychologist Jordon Peterson is incredibly intelligent and interesting.

The Red Pill Continued

Young people taking the red pill.








Very articulate girl. At 9:25 she mentions a Paul Joseph Watson video. I link to it here. Her first video uploaded just 2 days earlier is here.


Same girl as first, 3 months later, in a church.

To understand what the red pill is, see my post The Red Pill Moment.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Moses gives the ten commandments



Why we can't destroy our world

The notion of a post-apocalyptic Earth is an old one in fiction, ever since the invention of the atom bomb. Yet you already had indications of the meme in War of the Worlds (1898). There are too many movies depicting a post-apocalyptic Earth to mention. It's a whole genre. A good example is The Road (2009).



There are a number of reasons why the concept of 'destroying the world,' while a popular image in culture, is not possible.

First of all, let's look closely at something Baba said about man's ability to destroy the world with bombs in 1957, after the first testing of the hydrogen bomb.
Scientists and statesmen now solemnly declare that if total war comes, the whole world may perish.
Note that Baba didn't say this was true, but carefully couched the remark in what scientist and statesman 'solemnly declare.'

Closer examination, with emotions detached, will show that such a scenario is not just unlikely, but physically impossible. And Baba never said it was possible. At least not with the weapons that currently exist.

I'm going to show this carefully.

First, let's take a look at the yield of the largest atomic bomb tested by North Korea. Below is the radius of the blast if perfectly airbursted (largest possible destructive power) over New York City.


Now here is the radius of destruction of the largest hydrogen bomb ever tested by the United States (Castle Bravo), if blasted over New York City. The image includes the fallout. The US no longer has these large bombs in their arsenal.

Largest hydrogen bomb ever tested by the US if dropped on NY (for scale)


The actual bombs that would be used in an actual all-out nuclear holocaust would be no larger than 1.2 megatons, the largest currently in the US arsenal. The blast of such a bomb is depicted below. It too includes the fallout.

Largest nuclear bomb in current US arsenal




However large this dot may seem over New England, to get a sense of true scale we need to zoom out. 

All the habitable land of the Earth (for scale)

What we learn from the image above is just how puny the blast of the largest nuclear bomb in the US arsenal really is when compared to all the habitable land of the Earth. Incidentally, the red marker in the above image is only a marker; the actual blast radius is far too small to be visible at this scale. It would be far less than a pin-prick.

In movies like The Road and Road Warrior, people cross the open lands of the Earth finding devastation everywhere. This is pure fantasy. There is no plan to bomb the countryside. That would serve no strategic purpose. Only cities (and military installations) would be targeted - not the great planes and mountains of the continents.

The thermal radius of the above largest US atom bomb is 8 miles. That means that the entire diameter (from end to end) of the radiation would be 16 miles across. That's 256 square miles. Compare that to the square miles of the habitable portions of the Earth, 24,642,757 square miles. That means that the largest nuclear bomb kill radius is 1/100,000 of the habitable land of the Earth. In other words there is 100,000 times more habitable land on the Earth than the largest atomic bomb in the current US arsenal could destroy. There are currently 15,000 nuclear bombs in the world, most of them much, much smaller than the bomb blast described, by many magnitudes. And most bombs that would be used would target other bombs. Hence the largest nuclear holocaust you could imagine would destroy a tiny fraction of the habitable land of the earth.

What about nuclear winter? Nuclear winter is a theory. In reality unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving. (source)

Naturally I am not advocating for nuclear war. But people ought to learn their facts. The above source is very helpful in doing so. In truth, the fictional books and movies about a devastated post-apocalyptic Earth are just that, fiction.

We would absolutely survive a nuclear war. And if people are not happy about that, there is something seriously emotionally wrong with them.

As I have said over and over in the last few months, people need to ask themselves why they need to believe in these things -- the JFK conspiracy theories, the 911 inside job theory, forbidden archeology, alien visitation, the pending collapse of civilization, three-quarters of humanity dying (something Baba did not say), and so forth. What psychological purpose do these habitual beliefs serve? Why do people cling so fervently to them?

The answer to that question remains a mystery to me. But it is more interesting to me as a question than the subjects themselves, and I believe it is a deeper question. I believe the time has come to question our assumptions. How can we be ready for Baba's manifestation before we can do that? I am startled how many people never do.

If there is one heresy that this blog commits again and again, especially in recent months, is its optimism. I have questioned our pessimism about our ancient past and our pessimism about our future. I hope I can inspire a few people to do the same. I am not naive. I look into things, and question broadly held assumptions. There is nothing naive about doing that. Quite the opposite is true. Beware of the mood our current culture is trying to put you in. And question what the deeper causes of this trend might be. Do not accept public assumptions at face value. Wake up and get conscious.


Nuclear bomb detonation information. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Myths about nuclear destruction. http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

Websites that explain the same thing I am:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a27736/blow-up-earth/

http://gizmodo.com/5899569/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-to-blow-up-the-entire-planet

https://qntm.org/destroy

Monday, August 28, 2017

God Speaks in a Nutshell

In 1962, at the East West Gathering, Baba asked Tom Riley if he had read God Speaks.

Tom answered, “Yes, Baba, I have read it three times.”

Baba then asked, “Can you sum up for me in a nutshell the essence of God Speaks?”

Tom thought a moment and then replied, “The whole of creation exists so that the Soul can find its way back to you.”

Baba beamed and made the sign of perfection. (source)

Recently I ran into Tom Riley on the Meher Center in Myrtle Beach and asked him to write what he said to Baba, and sign it. I post the note he made for me here.

Sunday, August 27, 2017

Why civilization won't collapse

There is an idea that man could drop back to the stone age, or lose his books and cease to know how to make electricity, etc.

While long an important part of some New Age eschatologies, this idea has become common among ordinary cynics, especially in America.

This could have something to do with the unprecedented national debt, and the sense that American hegemony, mostly based on illusions, will someday collapse. The comparison is usually the collapse of the Roman Empire, or the collapse of the Soviet Union, both of which we discuss further down.

Now while it is certain that the period of the unipolar world of American hegemony we have seen over the past 60 years will eventually pass away, the notion that civilization (here meaning technology) could ever collapse on the earth is an un-thought-through delusion.

Here's why.

The earth is made up of nations that, while they do interact economically and socially, they don't all interact at the same level. This has a great deal to do with the American penchant for sanctions. Sanctions on nations like Russia and Iran force those nations to become much more independent, and to produce domestic versions of nearly everything, and learn how to do everything.

Today Russia can produce nearly anything that can be produced, using its own raw materials.

These nations are less and less dependent on the world economy, or a global civilization as Americans see it. They are fully capable of being separate parallel societies.

There are many such independent nations or groups of nations. The point is that the whole world is not so interdependent as nations like America and countries in Europe are, that rely on Chinese-made goods and foreign oil for instance.

So, now imagine that the world economic markets collapsed. This would not effect nations that could go it alone.
_____

The only way that a nation could give up making electricity and maintaining a modern infrastructure is if it chose to do so. Or after some tragic war or series of cataclysms chose not to rebuild them.

Building them was a choice, and not building them would be a choice. Now it is perfectly imaginable that some Western countries could reach such a low level of morale, and be so socially sick, that they would lose their will to live. But this would not happen everywhere.

Now look at this. Imagine that 9/10 of the entire earth lost its desire to have electricity, communications, advanced weapons, and transportation. That's absurd, but let's go with it. Now immediately the 1/10 of the world that chose to keep and maintain those technologies would rule the whole world.

In fact that is largely what the early 20th century was. A tiny number of countries had advanced technology, while 90% of South America, Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Soviet Union, and Asia had little to none. This made those technologically advanced nations very powerful, and this essentially forced the other nations (like India, Iran, etc) to catch up, and some (like Saudi Arabia) to purchase the technology.

From what I know about Russia today, if the US chose to go back to the stone age, Russia would let them but not follow. They would be more than happy to be remain the sole modern nation. What's it to them? And they have everything they need to do so.

So this fantasy of a world without technology is a peculiarly American and Western European fantasy, which requires some psychological explanation. In short it's not a real thing.
______

The 'collapse' of the Roman Empire (usually said to be about 530 AD) is largely a myth, created by historians beginning with Edward Gibbon in the late 18th century.

In truth the Roman Empire continued in the East, where its main center of power and wealth had already migrated by 530 AD. This continuation included its aqueducts, straight roads, its form of government, and so forth. Knowledge of the Eastern Roman Empire is largely unknown to Americans today. See Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a collapse of a system and a regime, but not civilization. After a decade of confusion and poverty, the new Russia Federation has surpassed the previous state in all areas. And the advanced technology it enjoys in nearly all sectors is simply built upon systems in place in the old regime. Russia is ahead of the West in numerous fields including rocketry, nuclear medicine, grain exports, and civility. This would be a big topic in and of itself.

Empires rarely collapse. They change. The exceptions might be the Inca and Mayan civilizations. But that is impertinent to our discussion of lost technology, as these pre-Columbian civilizations didn't even have the wheel, let alone gun powder, phonetic writing, printing, or any advances of the Industrial Revolution for that matter. This was a collapse of Civilization, but not of technology. They were effectively stone-age civilizations.

No machine-age technology has ever actually been lost. Some will debate this, but if they look into it they will see it is true.

_______

Now let us take a worst case scenario of modern technological know-how being lost in most of the world. As I said, the only way that anything can be 'lost' is that a civilization loses interest in preserving something.

An example is the change of interest toward the spiritual in the Early Middle Ages, and loss of interest in the material sciences, in Europe. Few pagan books on philosophy were not preserved (copied), in the West, for about 500 years (from about 500-1000). But these books were preserved in other places, namely the Eastern Roman Empire and, beginning in the 7th century, in the Middle East, namely the capitals of the Arab world in Baghdad and later Spain.

Hence just because one section of the world turns its back on advances made in the past, other sections preserve and continue to develop it.

Colonialism is made possible by a more politically and technologically advanced society dominating a more primitive one.

So imagine a world where only one place maintained technology. This would immediately be the dominant capital of the world. It would dominate the whole world militarily and economically. The idea that no nation in the world would have any desire to maintain transportation and communication is absurd. And economies can be self sufficient. Consider Iceland, which due to its geothermal resources, produces electricity independent of oil. Why in the world would Iceland decide to give up electricity? It is cold and, for large parts of the year, dark. That would be an absurd decision. It would require a literal mandate to go about turning off the geothermal electrical plants, and throwing out the light bulbs. Why? It would never happen.

So just like Latin reading and writing were kept alive by monks in Ireland through the darkest period of the Dark Ages, electrical know-how would be kept alive somewhere — if not many places — and those would be the most powerful nations in the world.
______

Finally there is the mental image of a nuclear holocaust that 'wipes out' most of mankind, and we fall into a stone age. This image is distorted. Since 1945, a total of 2,053 above-ground nuclear tests have been conducted before they were banned in 1998. In this video you can actually watch them all. This includes hydrogen bomb detonations.



The Earth survived. Here we are. Now if an all-out nuclear war were to happen, it would be be nuclear nations, such as the United States and the Russian Republic, and be on heavily populated cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, and Washington, NY, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Obviously neither nation would bomb Siberia or the Rocky Mountains. Why would they? But these combined metropolitan areas are tiny as a ratio of the Earth's surface. And even their total destruction assumes that both nations have made a conscious choice to bring down the temple on themselves to harm the other. Let's say they did. Still that leaves 99% of the habitable regions of the Earth unharmed.

Nuclear winter? Many have questioned this scenario. But nuclear winter is not permanent. It is largely a publicity maneuver to make nuclear war unthinkable. Remember, 2,053 bombs were dropped on the surface of the Earth already.

People would survive a nuclear winter, at least in places. Note that it only takes a single organized nation, like Iceland, to preserve technology. Take a look at a map and you'll see that most of the world would be untouched by such a war.


People seem to have an attachment to believing in the end of civilization. The late 20th century saw a turn toward Medieval games, starting with Dungeons and Dragons. Here are the top 15.

While many in the West seem to be sick of their technological achievements, other nations don't share their disgust.

If I were to psychoanalyze this 'desire' for the world to blow up, expressed as faux fear, I would say that underlying it is what Baba called the disillusionment with the promise of materialism. At one time Western people bought the false hype that technology alone could bring happiness, and that God was no longer necessary. Secular society was pushed. And it is leading to more strife and anxiety and a sense of absence. Identity confusion, a loss of sense of purpose and design, and so forth, are at the heart of this desire for it all to be 'blown-up.' But it isn't necessary. Baba said that materialism and spirituality can live side-by-side. Each can have its place. And science can even be in service to the spiritual life.

I am supremely optimistic. I don't think technology will collapse. It never has in the past. It will flourish somewhere even as some societies feign giving it up. And it will forever enrich lives.

Conversely, I do believe that one day a time may come where a true destruction may come that man will not survive. But I don't think it is for a very long time. And then we will incarnate on another planet. Baba said as much.
If this world is destroyed today, evolution will start in another. Evolution consists of a fixed process of ages – stone age, vegetable age, worm age, and so forth. If this world is destroyed today, an interval will remain, but by natural processes new life in a new world will take millions of years to materialize. Millions of years are required for another world to come into being. (Lord Meher 4203)
_________

There is a fact that people don't (for some reason) like to admit. People survive things.

Think of poverty. Americans act like if our economy topples people are going to die. But look at Bangladesh, a nation that has survived decades of extreme poverty. Today they have 160 million people.

Name a place where poverty devastated the population? You can't do it.

Next there is disease. The discovery of germs as a cause of disease, and the development of sewage systems, has virtually eliminated mass-death from disease. This hasn't stopped people from fantasizing pandemics. But all such books and movies haven't changed the fact that they don't occur.

There are places in the world with dense urban populations where the conditions are almost unimaginable horrible. In fact, population-wise, these places mysteriously thrive. It's just one of those facts of life you have to face.

Currently the economy of Venezuela is in collapse. But the population does not budge.

The Post-World War II hyperinflation of Hungary held the record for the most extreme monthly inflation rate ever – 41,900,000,000,000,000% Yet the population remained stable.People just barter until things get better.

And what of war? Nope. Doesn't touch population if you figure births in other places. Over 60 million people were killed in WWII, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population. But with births over the course of the war, the population actually rose.

Sorry, we're not that easy to get rid of. People survive.

What about birth rates? Europeans have managed to lower their birth-rates to beneath sustaining levels. However, the birth rates of immigrants more than make up for it. People survive.


What about having just about nothing. There is an Island off Burma that is cut off from civilization for thousands of years, the inhabitants known as the Sentinelese. They have no domesticated animals, have not discovered the wheel, and don't even know how to make fire. Yet they are hanging in there just fine.

Sentinelese people as photographed from a ship

People survive.

_______

The following is the only way that technology could be 'lost' to mankind, sending us all back to the level of the Sentinelese.

At the base of technology is electricity. To go back to the stone age, man (all people in total cooperation) would have to give up not only electricity, but any documentation of how to produce it or what it is.

Obviously all of man on Earth would also have to agree to give up all knowledge of the internal combustion engine, and so forth, plus all records, and all records of all the science involved.

There are 195 countries in the world. Now it is hard to get even a few nations to agree on anything, and stick to their agreement. But for this to work all nations would have to agree to destroy their infrastructure and their books and records. This would involve literally going about blowing everything up, factories, laboratories, libraries, Universities, mines, airports, power plants, railroads, etc. Then they would have to disarm and destroy all their bombs and weapons and transportation and communication equipment, plus all the records of how to make them.

Now the problem would soon arise that the compliant nations, once they had done this, would have no way to verify that the other countries were going along with this project, because, of course, they would have no communication or transportation. Thus there is a very good chance that some would 'cheat.'

Now any citizen that did not comply with this, and say stored books and gadgets, could not be arrested. After all there would be no guns to arrest them with, or paddy wagons to take them to jail.

Anyway, after the big 'revolution' against technology and all the people who didn't like the idea were clubbed to death, those naughty nations that cheated, keeping their technology, would then instantly rule the world. Those nations could communicate and fly back and forth between each other, and have the only guns and bombs and things.

That nations that had complied with the new mandate and destroyed all their records would of course immediately be subjugated by the cheating nations as colonies.

Having deliberately destroyed all their Universities, books, and records, they of course would not really know what had happened. They might come up with some myths to tell their children through 'oral tradition,' to the delight of the cheating now empowered nations.

But let's be practical. Even this would not be achievable. For whole regions within nations would not comply. In essence only the people who really wanted to be stone-age actually would be. For it takes a lot of effort, and a lot of trust that others are doing so, which would require quite a feat of the will.

In truth the cheating nations would be the smart nations, and stand in rapt amazement as the stupid people went about committing technological and intellectual suicide. Hey, but weirder things have happened. So they'd likely just watch and accept the new power and authority handed to them.

Monday, August 21, 2017

Baba knows the present

I am of the opinion that Baba is never, ever teaching us history. He is always instead giving a lesson. To Baba the past is a frozen lake and is without meaning, as if it never existed. For him all that exists is the eternal present.

Now of the future, there is no way to know. The same may be so. Baba gave very conflicting accounts of dates in the future.

If anyone ever has the time, they could make a long list of Baba giving two or more contradictory accounts or dates for some event in the past or future.

But what Baba seems to be prescient on is the present. I'll give an example.

On March 15, 1941 Baba said several things about the ongoing war (WWII), and in the midst he said, "Russia holds the key."

At that very moment, far away in Germany, the Nazis were preparing the plans for Operation Barbarossa, the largest military operation in history. Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of Russia, which was the 'turning point' of the war.

I do believe that Baba knows the past, present, and future, exactly as he said he did. But I think he views the past, especially, as a fiction. This was the same view as Plato, who chose to communicate through myths and allegories -- often set in the past -- in order to convey his ideas.

With Baba I think every or most stories about the past are meant to convey some permanent immutable truth, and that the stories are in that sense allegories.

How I think Baba is planning to use the cultural amnesia of the last 50 years

At no time in history prior to the 1960s was there such a total forgetting of the past, and such a distrust of authority.

Beginning in about 1965, and still to this day, you have a forgetting of history. Today movies that 'look' like history, are more often than not just jumbles of different cultures. They confuse more than educate the young.

Game of Thrones, The Great Wall, Assassin's Creed, etc. etc.

Again and again it has been shown the young are ignorant of history.

Add to this the collapse of trust of authority, beginning with Watergate, which is now becoming the new normal.

This applies to authorities of science and history too, academics. People are more likely to believe a popular book they like than an 'authoritative' journal article that disagreed with their opinion. And there is some reason for that.

Collapse of faith in Church, parents, leadership, historians, and now loss of trust even in the mainstream media news. Poles show trust of mainstream news sources is at an all-time low.

Now none of this was by accident. But I won't digress into the set of events that led to this. It is enough to know that those who deliberately drove this wedge between present mankind, especially in the West, and their history and traditions -- did not have a clear idea what would rise up in their place. Perhaps some time I'll prove this with sources.

I think that Baba is going to bring something new, something that defies all past authority and goes against all convention. It will be so new that any memory of the past needs to be temporarily washed away -- to be regathered later after this event. For the past would stand in the way, just as any authority would, as all authority is rooted in the past and preserves the past.

This then is how I believe the hierarchy will use this Dark Cloud we are in. However, it is very important to keep our wits in this darkness. And not fall for the cobras.

And that's about all I have to say on this.

Learning from the mistakes of others

This is a sequel to We learn from our parents.

Now we need to discuss a couple of topics deeply related to 'you have to make your own mistakes.'

First of all, the source of this statement is mysterious. Why can't a person learn from another person's mistakes? Everyone knows that if a man leaps off a cliff and dies, we needn't repeat the act to see if it leads to our death. As I have said, all the social and physical sciences are built up upon experiments conducted in the past. And learning the results of these past experiments, by people who went before us, is called education.

This begins at home. Our parents pass down to us their own accumulated experience, plus the experience of others before them they were told of, and taking this advice begins a child's journey to maturity. The adage that a person must make their own mistakes (ignoring the results from the past) is itself a mistake in reasoning. And we will now explain why.

The notion that it is good parenting to allow, encourage, and expect your children to make their own mistakes regarding some things (like drugs) but not other things (like picking their nose) is based on the notion that one is being liberal - live and let live. Giving permission to explore and learn, and giving a person more individual sovereignty.

But in fact if one examines the language, they will see this is an illusion. The statement is an injunction of something one must do. They must rediscover the wheel. They cannot learn from others. Not only is this not true of smart people, it does not give children permission to make the right choice from the start.

Now this brings up the subject of "just say no." A lot of liberal Baba lovers find this saying, that they think was coined by Nancy Reagan (a conservative) to be useless and even harmful. Just look up the expression and you will see the media filled with such charges, and claims that it didn't work.

But what are the facts about 'just say no'?

When the Reagans moved into the White House in 1981, drug use, particularly among teenagers, was hovering near the highest rates ever measured. Of that year’s graduating class, 65 percent had used drugs in their lifetimes, and a remarkable 37 percent were regular drug users. Eight years after Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' campaign was launched, when the Reagans left Washington, only 19.7 percent of 1989’s graduating class were regular drug users, a 47-percent reduction. And the trend that began under their leadership persisted until it reached an all-time low of 14.4 percent in 1992, 61 percent lower than 1981.

So why do we hear that this was a terrible policy?

Let's see why in fact it worked. Notice that 'Just say no' a permission statement, and a positive suggestion. It says something you can elect to do. It tells you you have a right to say no. This, believe it or not, is not obvious to people. A store clerk told me that people will bring an item to the counter of a fancy store without knowing the price. Upon learning it, though they are shocked, they are often too shy to stop the transaction, as the feel they are obligated in some way, as if they have entered into some kind of agreement by coming up to the counter. If they have more than one item, they are more likely to shyly ask if they can put one back. Note the sense that we do not have permission to say not.

But telling a child that they can just say no to drugs empowers them. It gives them information that wasn't obvious. They are not obliged to take a reefer if it is handed. And so sure enough when they are surrounded by friends passing a joint, and they decline, they are amazed and empowered to learn that the people are not upset.

Compare 'just say no' to 'you have to make your own mistakes.' Note the difference. One is a suggestion, and an informing a person of their right. The second is a command to try the substance. It is basically insisting they 'have to' try drugs. Then where is the incentive to stop? The effects of drugs, especially marijuana, is such that it hides its own ill-effects from the user, and decreases incite, it does not increase it.

Now this may be a surprise to some, but the "Just Say No Foundation" was established by the PIRE Institute under the leadership of Allen Cohen, a Baba lover and a Sufi. (source)

So while telling your children: "You have to make up your own mind" or yourself "They have to make their own mistakes," sounds at first liberal and giving sovereignty, these statements actually aren't. They are restrictive, and they are even untrue. Smart parents teach their kids to study, not make absurd experiments. And as far as peer pressure, real freedom is giving your kids the knowledge that they have permission to say no, and make the informed decision. They do not 'have to' experiment.

Real education includes teaching a person to learn from experts the results of an act before doing it. It is not to test what the experts say is harmful to see if they are right.

For instance, we go to a doctor to learn our condition. We don't defy his suggestion to stay off of some product the doctor said is causing a reaction to see if he is right.

Imagine haring an investment advisor who says, 'Well people are losing money in X, Y, and Z, but you need to make your own mistakes. Why not learn from those who have lost and made money, and the expert telling you which ones. Imagine the advisor suggested investing in Y, but you felt that you needed to first try X, Y, and Z to make your own choice.
______________

So what's going on with this weird count-intuitive poor advice parents are giving their children.

Many of the sayings that hippies used in the 1960s, and many of the ideas they espoused, were first coined and developed by adult academics in the 50s, though obviously teenagers in the 60s had no way to know that. 'Turn on, tune in, and drop out' was actually coined by Marshall McLuhan (Canadian professor born 1911), who gave it to Timothy Leary. 'Do your own thing' (from Crowley's 'Do what thou wilt'), 'generation gap,' and 'youth culture' were fostered onto the youth, not coined by them. If you think about it 'youth culture' is an oxymoron and no teenager would have coined it. Many of these terms were created in places like Harvard and foisted on the youth of the 1960s to produce social change.

But most young people of the time fully imbibed these terms and ideas as real and immutable truths, when they were nothing but social experiments by an older class based on theories.

Erik Erikson
For example in the 1950s a professor at Harvard named Erik Erikson (born 1902) published his theory that if the parents allow the child to explore, they will conclude their own identity. If, however, the parents continually push him/her to conform to their views, the teen will face identity confusion.

This is not some ancient immutable fact, and introspection on a good reading of history shows it is baseless. It is from academics like these that we got our 'generation gap.'

When these kids from the 60s, brought up on slogans with these theories embedded in them, they thought that it was a natural thing for each generation to look down on their parents as "square."

So they didn't dare seem "square" or push their kids, or even instruct them on what Baba said. Instead they said implicitly 'do your own thing' and 'you have to find your own way.' And today their kids say 'you do you.' Proving that kids really do learn from their parents, even when it's misguided.

I was always instructing my daughter, as did my educated friends. We would tell our kids the consequences of actions, and about history and scientific thinking, and looking before you leap. We gave lectures like a professor, and our kids were interested.

But in the end my daughter likes me just as much as the kids of these ex-hippies love their 'groovy' parents. It's so sad they wasted all that energy. They basically wound up encouraging their kids to do drugs and have multiple partners and get lost in the world.

Kids are not this fragile. This parenting has, not suprisingly, become the most oversensitive generation in history, the most skinless. Words like 'safe space' and 'triggered' now fill the campuses of the kids of the hippies.

Back to Baba.

The culture does not generally agree with Baba about his indictments of marijuana. And certainly taking marijuana won't 'teach' anyone what Baba says is the case. Quite the opposite.
The best parent that believes Baba, would explain to their children they love how marijuana ruins lives, by pointing to examples and doing research. Read Allen Y. Cohen's article to them. Cohen is one of the most respected authorities on drugs, drug prevention, and drug rehabilitation in the world.

People will make mistakes, not just kids. And we will all inevitably do stupid things by mistake that wind up being self-destructive. But encouraging people to intentionally do destructive things in the name of learning from those errors is just confused. It is perfectly intelligent to learn from other people's mistakes. That is how societies are built, and what education is.


Addendum:

I think this is a needed ad-on. It is unpopular to state the obvious, that marijuana is a gateway drug. This statement is often misunderstood. No one is saying that marijuana will make someone take cocaine and then heroine. However, a person who has never tried marijuana is much less likely to ever take other drugs. In other words, statistically marijuana opens a gate open but doesn't push you through. Marijuana-use is virtually a necessary precondition for taking stronger drugs. Hence you are more likely to statistically, especially among boys.

This thus explains the numbers of children of Baba lovers dying of drugs, or winding up revolving through rehab, is directly connected to the way they were taught about marijuana by their parents.

This was not a reason Baba gave for not using marijuana. Hence even if you did not believe this (which is a statistical reality, but druggy people deny reality daily) it does not change what Baba said about the negative consequences.

Also, concerning Erick Erikson's theory. When you tell people about Louis Pasteur's discovery of germs and that they are a cause of infection and disease, and thus we in our culture now wash our hands after we go to the bathroom, we are not 'pushing them to conform to our views.' The difference can be subtle at first, and I discuss it in Two kind of parenting. When we teach our children, or point out to our children, facts and scientifically proven consequences, we are not pushing our views, but science, reason, and the law of cause and effect.

It is often said, 'Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' Imagine a national leader today hearing that Napoleon and Hitler both were defeated after invading Russia, and they decided they wanted to try it too. Can you imagine saying of that person, 'Well he has to learn from his own mistakes.' Why? Why can't he learn from the mistakes of others? Of course the answer that he not only that he most certainly can, but that it is the intelligent thing to do. Learning from the past practically is practically the meaning of education.