Much Ado About Nothing?

By Jack Ohman, for the Sacramento Bee

Everyone not living under a rock is probably aware of Ebola right now, especially since mainstream attention got a boost when patient zero Thomas Duncan unwittingly imported it into the US from Liberia last October 1. The timing of TV shows like The Last Ship and The Strain have certainly helped thrust the subject of pandemics into the spotlight.

Just like any tragedy, there are many opinions going around, including conspiracy theories. One of the more popular conspiracy theories is the "global depopulation agenda" supposedly being instituted by those working towards a New World Order. In fact, as far back as 2006, University of Texas professor Dr. Eric Pianka advocated the mass culling of 90% of the world's population through the use of an airborne Ebola virus. Creepy, huh?

There are others who contend that it's all an elaborate ploy for pharmaceutical companies to make a killing with vaccines, the way Tamiflu was pushed in the wake of the H1N1 scare. Actually, one of the more far out conspiracy theories I read about came out soon after the disappearance of Flight MH370 back in March. The theory goes that MH370 was actually diverted to the US military base in Diego Garcia via remote control (like a drone) and that a team from the CDC and its counterpart from the People's Republic of China were scrambled and sent there. Since, in hindsight, it turns out the Ebola virus was starting to rage out of control in Africa at about that time, one has to wonder if there really was something to that particular conspiracy theory.

On the other hand, both government and medical officials keep stating that there is nothing to worry about, that Ebola does not spread easily. A few outlets have even mentioned other threats and diseases that kill thousands of Americans each year (also refer to the infographic image) but don't make the news like Ebola does, the implication being that Ebola is being hyped by fear mongers.

Be that as it may, something was lacking in the CDC response to the initial Ebola outbreak. Two healthcare workers got infected after treating Duncan (compare this to Doctors Without Borders where they were able to treat thousands of Ebola-infected patients before doctors started getting infected), there were missteps in decontaminating the apartment complex where Duncan stayed, and one of the infected nurses was even allowed to fly by the CDC despite having a fever.

Even if Ebola was not as scary as portrayed by media, people may have more to be concerned about government ineptitude (or nefariousness, if you believe the "depopulation" theory) than with the virus itself. Add to this the fact that the US continues to accept flights from Ebola-affected countries and hasn't secured illegal immigration in its southern border and it's easy to see why some people think that the US government wants Ebola to spread inside the country.

Nevertheless, there are signs of hope. Aside from the two nurses who were caring for Duncan, no one else Duncan had come in contact with has come down with Ebola and the Spanish nurse who contracted Ebola has apparently fully recovered. Even more goods news is the report that Nigeria has managed to become Ebola free with no new outbreaks for the past 42 days. It's encouraging because Nigeria's case shows that a country doesn't need to be a first world nation in order to effectively handle Ebola.

Still, Ebola remains a major concern. As long as air travel continues unabated across the world, it's still possible for Ebola to slip in even to those countries that have managed to stamp it out or into areas that haven't had an Ebola infection before, as evidenced by the latest news that a New York City doctor who just came from West Africa has tested positive for Ebola. Mutation is also another concern, although health officials keep downplaying that possibility.

But then again, in the book The Hot Zone, author Richard Preston relates a 1989 incident at a primate quarantine facility in Reston, Virginia where an Ebola virus quickly mutated and started to spread among the primates like influenza. When samples were sent to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), two USAMRIID scientists accidentally exposed themselves to the virus when they wafted the flask. Although airborne and lethal to monkeys, thankfully that particular strain was effectively harmless to humans. However, the incident still shows that the possibility of Ebola becoming airborne is not as remote as we are being told to believe.

Given the above, is there anything the individual can do? The answer is yes. Since Ebola is a virus, the only way to fight it is through the body's immune system. Medical care can only help insofar as providing the patient enough nutrition and keeping the patient hydrated and clean, but the real battle can only be fought by the patient. Therefore, it makes sense to simply strengthen one's immune system and keep it that way, and this would be important even without the Ebola crisis anyway.

Fortunately, instead of sitting down just waiting for a vaccine, there are many natural ways to improve your immune system right now. Turmeric, cayenne pepper, Vitamin D through sensible sun exposure and apple cider vinegar are just some of the natural supplements you can take everyday. Getting enough sleep and exercise (not too much, since overtraining can actually reduce your immunity) also help.

Another important thing to note is that 80% of your immune system is located in your digestive tract, so keeping your beneficial gut bacteria at an optimal level is paramount. You can do this by consuming more fermented foods, kefir and yogurt (go organic, as much as possible).

While doing the above won't guarantee immunity or even survival, better health still leads to a better life even if you never encounter Ebola (and hopefully never will). The important thing is that you can be proactive and not give in to the fear, because the response is literally in your hands!

The Mid Life Crisis and Its Significance In Astrology

Source: blog.brazencareerist.com

Recently I got to talk with an astrologer and one of the topics we talked about was the mid life crisis. Apparently, in astrology the mid life crisis is quite real and important. Here's how it was explained to me.

We understand the mid life crisis as a period of reflection and sometimes confusion about one's place in life. It can also be one of those times when someone earning a six or seven-figure salary suddenly drops everything and gives it all up to start a band, or something else that's not as financially lucrative. Crazy, right?

This period of reckoning happens most intensely from age 42 until 49. However, it's possible for a person to start questioning himself/herself even as early as the mid-thirties, just as it's also possible for the period to last up to the age of 51.

In order to understand why this period happens, we need to know a little of what astrology does. In astrological terms, every person has a "destiny" (we do have free will). The positions of the planets and stars at the time of a person's birth determines, in very large part, a person's interests, talents and life events that the person is expected to go through in this lifetime.

More often than not, we are molded by what society expects from us, and thus we start to live according to the standards that have been set down for us. It's not like Divergent where you need to be part of a faction to be accepted in society, but sometimes we make our choices more out of pragmatism or social pressure than true desire.

Sounds preposterous? Well, did you know that before World War I, women really didn't mind having armpit and leg hair? But shortly after World War I, a massive advertising campaign dubbed "The Great Underarm Campaign" slowly changed market attitudes so that it would now be anathema for women to show off hairy underarms (or legs) in public. Read 5 Basic Facts of Life (Were Made Up by Marketing Campaigns) to find out what else we've been manipulated into accepting as part of daily life.

In astrology, the farther you get from expressing your true or inner inclinations, the more you start to feel that "something is missing." While this line of thought may only tease one's mind while young, it takes on more significance as one's 40s draws closer. The intensity of this period differs from person to person, but generally speaking the farther one is from the point of "this is how it's supposed to be" or "I am doing what I am supposed to," the more intense the self-questioning is.

In biblical terms, a mid life crisis can feel like the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel (Genesis 32:22-32). The outcome will mark you and leave you changed forever.

The question is, why does the mid life crisis happen at the period that it does? What's so special about the 40s aside from it being the midpoint of average life expectancy?

The number 40 appears many times in Biblical scripture. The 40 years the tribes of Israel wandered the desert, Jesus fasting for 40 days and nights, the 40 days and nights it rained during the Great Flood, etc. They all refer to periods of testing and judgement.

But the number 40 can also mean the start of a journey. After all, isn't there a saying that life begins at forty? And it's more than just a joke to play down one's age. Traditionally, a man is only initiated into the study of the Kaballah once he reaches the age of 40.

From the astrological point of view, the planet Saturn exerts its influence more strongly in a person's life during one's 40s. As it turns out, in Franz Bardon's hermetic system, Saturn is the sphere where the Lords of Karma reside. So esoterically speaking, it means that this period puts more focus on one's life karma than at other points in one's life.

Resolution doesn't necessarily involve giving up or changing one's career. If you've always wanted to be a doctor and have a successful practice, any period of self reflection may simply involve adding another specialty or moving from clinical to administrative duties.

According to the astrologer I talked to, there are three outcomes that can be expected from a mid-life crisis:

1. The person recognizes what he/she really wants to do in life and does it regardless of the social cost,

2. The person comes to terms with not being able to follow his/her true inclinations (usually because of financial responsibilities like sending his/her kids to school). It's also possible the person may try to incorporate some aspects of his/her passion into his/her regular life without making too many waves.

3. The person is unable to come to terms with his/her life and a breakdown happens (not necessarily leading to a room with a padded wall, but the person can develop vices, be more hot tempered or just have a general air of disgruntlement; he/she can also start to develop serious illnesses at this point, i.e. a breakdown of health).

But whether one goes through an actual mid life crisis or not, I think the most important take away is that it's not so much about following your dreams as it is about being at peace with where you decide to take your life. In that sense, you are taking responsibility for your choices and when the self-questioning begins, you will find out whether you can really stand by your choices or not.

The Dilemma That Is Abortion

Source: flickr.com

I'd like to touch on the topic of abortion for now. Yes, it's quite a controversial and sensitive topic, but I've been seeing some articles on abortion pop up on my Facebook feed now and then so I thought I should at least give a stated opinion about it. I know this won't end the pro- and anti-abortion debate, but speaking only for myself, I know where I stand and why I stand for it.

In general, I am against abortion. Why? Let's first go to the end.

What bodily function do medical personnel check to see if a person is alive or dead? The heartbeat. If the heart stops beating, the person is dead. The heart = life. Now, what is the very first organ that forms after the sperm fertilizes the egg? The heart. When you look at the ultrasound screen and see that pulsing point of light that is the heart, you know the fetus is alive and the fact that you're going to have a baby hits you.

The fetus is not just another part of a woman's body that shoots itself out after nine months. It is another life. The difference between the heart of a fetus and an adult is merely one of degree. So whenever an abortion is performed, a life is snuffed out. There's no getting around that.

That is why I cannot understand the logic that would support abortion in the name of freedom of choice alone when to kill a baby after it is born would be called infanticide. All I'm saying is that abortion and infanticide are two sides of the same coin, and the only thing separating the two is a mother's womb.

But aren't there instances when abortion may become necessary? Yes, I understand that if the life of the mother would be placed in jeopardy if a pregnancy were continued, like in an ectopic pregnancy, it would be best to abort that pregnancy. But these are extreme circumstances where a decision is not (or at least should not be) arrived at lightly (just like the decision to take a life in self-defense).

But what about pregnancies due to rape, or when there is a genetic defect / illness detected in the fetus? Now those are tough calls, and are difficult on so many levels. I won't presume to advise what the decision should be except to say that any decision should be arrived at with careful deliberation.

I hope that, when faced with the question of abortion, the woman would at least be aware of what she is really deciding for. Abortion goes beyond the right of a woman to do what she likes with her own body. She is not only deciding for herself, she is deciding the fate of two lives. And unlike a newborn baby that can at least breathe on its own or even be given up for adoption, the fetus is totally and utterly dependent on the mother for its survival. The fetus has no choice in it at all.

The decision whether or not to abort is, in the end, a decision whether or not to take a life. A woman should ask herself, what is she trying to gain in exchange for a life? Is that goal worth taking a life for? Can she live with that choice? That choice, and it is such a heavy choice, should be weighed with all the gravity such a decision deserves.

The decision whether or not to take a life merits nothing less.

Wealth and Spirituality = Oil and Water?

Source: http://www.stat.org.au/

I recently read an article entitled How Materialism Posing as Mysticism Limits Consciousness and Subverts Spirituality. The article makes a lot of interesting presuppositions and I agree with its basic premise...to a certain point.

It's true that there are charlatans who fleece unwary believers of their money, and even in genuine spiritual/esoteric organizations there are unscrupulous individuals who are either power-tripping or out to amass more money at the expense of others (usually both). However, equating the use of the Law of Attraction with greed, as the article seems to imply, would be an oversimplification of the complexity of living in the modern world.

We are aware, at some level, of the rising level of inequality between the rich and the poor. In fact, I've heard many references about the 1% that controls majority of the world's wealth and resources. So for the rest of the world population that has access to much less, keeping one's financial neck above the water can become a daily challenge. Especially now in a tepid world economy, there is a lot of motivation for the breadwinner to provide a better life for one's loved ones.

Of course, the Lord Jesus did say that you cannot serve both God and mammon. However, while there are yogis, hermits and sadhus who renounce everything of the world, including ties to family, there are those who want to be spiritual yet still live within the framework of mainstream society. And as such, these people still need to live within the norms of that society, and that usually means having a roof over your head, feeding your family, sending your kids to school and other banalities expected of normal people. Even in alternative or off-the-grid communities, the demands of daily survival still require the acquisition and use of material resources.

Just like in most subjects that deal with the spiritual and esoteric, discernment and balance should be the key. It's hard to be spiritual when your stomach is growling or if you see your loved ones suffering and you can't help because you lack the means to do so. It's simply Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs at work.

Given the above considerations, I wouldn't call using the Law of Attraction so that you can create the conditions that would provide a roof to stay under, feed your family three square meals a day or pay your child's tuition as "worshiping mammon."  Not having to worry about paying the bills on time or wondering where your next meal will come from would certainly free up a lot more energy to engage in spiritual practices and help other people as well.

But that's the key distinction that I think spiritual seekers need to keep in mind. We need to earn enough to be able to discharge our earthly responsibilities without this drive devolving into the pursuit of wealth for the sake of wealth itself or to merely maintain or acquire greater social bragging rights.

Of course, what constitutes "enough" will differ from person to person. For example, someone who is married, has a housing mortgage and needs to send children to school will need much more compared to someone who is single. I do think it's possible to achieve that material balance, but I admit that it's easy to get lost in the effort itself, and I think that's the danger that the article I mentioned earlier was trying to point out. But while the struggle to maintain a balance is hard, isn't that what the spiritual development process is also about?

So don't worry if you're trying to use the Law of Attraction in order to improve your lot. Just remember why you're doing it. And don't feel guilty if you get rich, because I know of wealthy people who help their financially challenged siblings or send their nephews or nieces to school if the child's own parents couldn't afford it.

It's not just the tool itself, but the way that you use the tool that determines if your effort will lead to good or ill.

Homeostasis

Source: geograph.org.uk

In one of the episodes of The Big Bang Theory, the character Dr. Sheldon Cooper mentions that he is a fan of homeostasis or in layman's terms, the state where things don't change. Sheldon Cooper hates change (and is shown going bananas every time there is a major change) and who really likes change, especially when it's sudden?

Change can be especially painful when it's not planned for and like a kick to a house of cards, it throws the careful order we've built into our lives into disarray.

On the other hand, I recently watched a documentary called Varanasi, India: "Beyond" and in this film the interview with an aghori sadhu touched a chord within me for some reason. The sadhu mentioned that everything was an illusion. No surprise there. It's a concept that's pretty much standard fare for Buddhism and other esoteric religions.

And then the sadhu continued by saying that because everything is illusion, everything is subject to change. The people around us, the things we own, even the buildings and structures themselves could all be gone in an instant, because that is precisely what underlines the impermanence of this reality.

So this begs the question, if an individual resists change and cannot accept it, does it mean that person is more enmeshed in maya than the one who can embrace change or at least not unduly agonize over it?

And so we find ourselves at the heart of what esoteric spiritual practices have been teaching us for all these ages: detachment. Detachment allows us to more easily embrace the inevitable change that life brings.

Careers can end, friends will move on, loved ones will pass, even our bodies will eventually be gone. It's simply inevitable, but detachment should allow us to experience those changes without getting hitched on the idea of what we have lost but rather to accept that it simply is and move on and adapt from there.

It's not a comfortable thought, but if it was easy then we wouldn't need lifetimes to mark the way along our trek to enlightenment.

Markers

lifestyle.howstuffworks.com

We are so attached to the things that describe us. "That's the dude who's good in programming." "He likes role playing games." "She's a really good artist." "He really gets along with people." I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. These descriptors are important in the sense that they give a point of reference that others can relate to when they interact with you.

The problem arises when you lose the very thing that used to describe you. That's why losing a job is so stressful. Or why it's so frustrating not to be able to do a sport anymore because of chronic injuries. And why it's so traumatic to lose someone. In each case you lose a reference point, a marker on how you, and others, see yourself and your place in the world.

I'm not saying it's unimportant, just that it's nice to have a little perspective. The easiest example would be a sensory deprivation chamber. Without the physical cues, then it's impossible to physically act. That's why there are emotional cues, mental cues and spiritual cues, and these are the cues that we attach to ourselves so that we may function, albeit temporarily, in this world.

And why not extend this thought to the premise that perhaps the personality, from the point of view of the soul, is one such anchor to the workings of this world? If we didn’t have an identity or personality, there would be nothing to segregate us from the All, because spirit is homogeneous. So there must be an anchor point that allows the spirit to differentiate.

If a career, for example, is the reference point that most people identify with, then perhaps for the soul it’s the personality or identity it uses to differentiate its existence in this world. And going higher in the spiritual realms, as described by the sages of old, the individual self-identity becomes the illusion and as we move closer to the Source, less and less of what differentiates us from others exists until there is only One.

Encountering God

sgsphilosophy.webs.com

I recently read an article and watched a video where the late Prof. Antony Flew admitted to the existence of God. What makes this admission particularly interesting is that Prof. Flew used to be a prominent atheist. In fact, you may say that the atheist community viewed him as one of their "champions" so his sudden conversion must have come as a shock, to put it mildly. You can watch one of his taped interviews here:



According to Prof. Flew, you should start from the position of atheism when trying to answer the question of whether or not God exists. Only when one has found evidence that points to the existence of God can one admit to a theist doctrine. Apparently, Prof. Flew reached that point in 2004 (the year he converted) when he pointed out that the symmetry and intricacy of nature suggests the presence of intelligent design in all things.

Interestingly, using the existence of the created as evidence of a Creator is similar to the position of Master Choa Kok Sui in his book The Existence of God is Self-Evident. In one passage Master Choa writes:

"The existence of God is self-evident. It is amazing that those who have eyes do not see. The existence of a camera factory is self-evident by the existence of the camera. The existence of God is self-evident, by the existence of the eye, which is infinitely more complicated than a camera."

Of course, not everyone comes to the same conclusion even when faced with the same evidence. During a dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury held at Oxford University, Prof. Richard Dawkins (another prominent atheist) recognized the beauty and elegance of creation without attributing all of it to a Creator. However, he did admit that he wasn't 100% sure that God didn't exist.

Going back to Prof. Flew, despite his conversion to theism he was still decidedly anti-religion, and I can totally understand why. Religion, more often than not, is the human understanding / conception of God codified into dogma. The problem with this set up is similar to the problem of pork barrel in the Philippines.

Ronald Mendoza, an Associate Professor of Economics at the Asian Institute of Management and Executive Director of the AIM Policy Center, recently wrote an article clearly describing how pork barrel funds skew local and national governance in such a way as to encourage political dynasties and cronyism. His personal take on pork barrel is that:

"It has distorted how citizens think of our local leaders and the role they play in our democracy. Those who defend the pork barrel and the "good" that it can still be shown to do, do not touch on how much better our leaders could behave in the absence of pork, and in the presence of clear, accountable and evidence based allocations (which are the complete opposite of the pork barrel system we have)."

Religion has indeed helped a lot of people and provides a systematized storehouse of spiritual knowledge for the masses. However, just like the pork barrel system, organized religion is set up in such a way that it is vulnerable to exploitation. In a previous article, I briefly touched upon why large spiritual groupings still tend to have bad eggs, so you can see how the problem can be magnified in the case of religions whose congregations number in the millions or even billions.

Recognizing both the benefits and the shortcomings of organized religion, I am of the opinion that it is every person's duty to veer away from blind obedience to religious authority and dogma and instead discover for oneself the esoteric and spiritual truths that religions contain. The Dalai Lama certainly got it right when he said, "My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness."

Be that as it may, Prof. Flew's epiphany (if it may be called that) proves that encountering God is always a personal experience. I see that as a good thing because such an experience supersedes one's philosophy, educational attainment or status in life. You cannot be told what to believe and what to experience, and we need that in a time when there is so much mental noise from our environment and our way of thinking.

The ancient sages said that in the space between sounds is emptiness and silence, and in that emptiness and silence there is God. In trying to study and understand nature, we often forget that we are also nature itself. When we talk about creation, we are talking about us. It is a simple and inseparable truth, yet we often overlook this. When we get to the basics, and remove all the fluff, then even something as simple as watching a falling droplet of water as it catches the rays of the morning sun becomes something sacred. It becomes profound because we are aware of that moment. And in that moment, there is God.