Karma - 1

Aphorisms on Karma

The following, among others not yet used, were given to me by teachers, among them being H. P. Blavatsky. 

Some were written, others communicated in other ways. 

To me they were declared to be from manuscripts not now accessible to the general public. 

Each one was submitted for my judgment and reason; and just as they, aside from any authority, approved themselves to my reason after serious consideration of them, so I hope they will gain the approval of those my fellow workers to whom I now publish them. -- William Q. Judge

(1) There is no Karma unless there is a being to make it or feel its effects.

(2) Karma is the adjustment of effects flowing from causes, during which the being upon whom and through whom that adjustment is effected experiences pain or pleasure.

(3) Karma is an undeviating and unerring tendency in the Universe to restore equilibrium, and it operates incessantly.

(4) The apparent stoppage of this restoration to equilibrium is due to the necessary adjustment of disturbance at some other spot, place, or focus which is visible only to the Yogi, to the Sage, or the perfect Seer: there is therefore no stoppage, but only a hiding from view.

(5) Karma operates on all things and beings from the minutest conceivable atom up to Brahma. 

Proceeding in the three worlds of men, gods, and the elemental beings, no spot in the manifested universe is exempt from its sway.

(6) Karma is not subject to time, and therefore he who knows what is the ultimate division of time in this Universe knows Karma.

(7) For all other men Karma is in its essential nature unknown and unknowable.

(8) But its action may be known by calculation from cause to effect; and this calculation is possible because the effect is wrapped up in and is not succedent to the cause.

(9) The Karma of this earth is the combination of the acts and thoughts of all beings of every grade which were concerned in the preceding Manvantara or evolutionary stream from which ours flows.

(10) And as those beings include Lords of Power and Holy Men, as well as weak and wicked ones, the period of the earth's duration is greater than that of any entity or race* upon it.

* 'Race' does not mean ethnicity, but concerns Life-Waves of incarnating human beings.(11) Because the Karma of this earth and its races began in a past too far back for human minds to reach, an inquiry into its beginning is useless and profitless.

(12) Karmic causes already set in motion must be allowed to sweep on until exhausted, but this permits no man to refuse to help his fellows and every sentient being.

(13) The effects may be counteracted or mitigated by the thoughts and acts of oneself or of another, and then the resulting effects represent the combination and interaction of the whole number of causes involved in producing the effects.

(14) In the life of worlds, races, nations, and individuals, Karma cannot act unless there is an appropriate instrument provided for its action.

(15) And until such appropriate instrument is found, that Karma related to it remains unexpended.

(16) While a man is experiencing Karma in the instrument provided, his other unexpended Karma is not exhausted through other beings or means, but is held reserved for future operation; and lapse of time during which no operation of that Karma is felt causes no deterioration in its force or change in its nature.

Why women are the talkative sex

Women do really talk more than men, a study has concluded

American researchers found females are the more talkative sex because of a special “language protein” in the brain.

The study, compiled by neuroscientists and psychologist from the University of Maryland

The research concluded that women talked more because they had more of the Foxp2 protein.

The research, published in the Journal of Neuroscience, found that higher levels were found among humans that were women but in rats they were males.

Their findings come after it was previously claimed that ladies speak about 20,000 words a day – more than 13,000 more than men.

This study is one of the first to report a sex difference in the expression of a language-associated protein in humans or animals,” said Prof Margaret McCarthy, who led the study.

The findings raise the possibility that sex differences in brain and
behaviour are more pervasive and established earlier than previously appreciated.

In their study, the researchers attempted to determine what might make male rats more vocal than their female friends.

They separated four-day-old rats from their mothers and then counted the number of times they cried out in the “ultrasonic range”, the frequencies higher than humans can hear, over five minutes.

While both sexes emitted hundreds of cries, the males called out twice as often, they found. 

But when the pups were returned to the same cage as their mother, she fussed over her sons first.

According to tests compiled on the parts of the brain known to be involved in vocal calls showed the male pups to have up to twice as much Foxp2 protein as the females.

The researchers then increased the production in the brains of female pups and reduced it in males.

This led to the female rats crying out more often and their mothers showing more interest to them. 

In contrast, males became less “talkative”.

The researchers then tested samples from ten children, aged between three and five, which showed that females had up to a 30 per cent more of the Foxp2 protein than males, in a brain area key to language in humans.

Based on our observations, we postulate higher levels of Foxp2 in girls and higher levels of Foxp2 in male rats is an indication that Foxp2 protein levels are associated with the more communicative sex, said Prof McCarthy, from the university’s School of Medicine.

Our results implicate Foxp2 as a component of the neurobiological basis of sex differences in vocal communication in mammals.

Allan Savory

Recently I cam e across this video clip at TED and recommend you now do the same.

The implications of Allan Savory's work are enormous and are desperately needed by the planet at this time.

Have a look

_http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

Just plain evil

He did not vote in the interests of the British people.

He did not vote in the interests of the bees.

He did though protect the interests of the commercial producers of the neonicotnoids, Bayer and the rest.

And what am I talking about?

.

Britain opposed an EU pesticide ban on neonicotinoid pesticides blamed for bee deaths around the world.

.

Extraordinary steps were taken by the British Government to head off a proposed EU ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, which have been widely blamed for bee deaths around the world

.

The Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, circulated a note to all 27 EU member states saying there was not enough evidence yet for a ban, which environmental campaigners have increasingly called for and is already supported by 13 EU countries. 

.

In a Brussels vote on a ban recently, in which the UK Government abstained, the necessary majority could not be reached and the issue remained deadlocked. 
.
The British abstention was widely criticised.
.
However, under EU rules, if the deadlock continues, the European Commission, the EU civil service which proposed the suspension of the three most widely used neonicotinoids, can bring a ban in of its own accord. 
.
It is this move Mr Paterson is seeking to head off by persuading other member states that the evidence is not there – although 30 scientific papers have linked the substances with harm to bees in the last three years. 
.
Every single one of these  papers have been dismissed by Mr Paterson and his British officials.
.
The UK note to all EU agriculture ministers challenges Brussels to present scientific proof based on “real-world, not theoretical” studies that pesticide poisoning is to blame. 
.
It says: “All pesticide use should be controlled so as to prevent unacceptable effects on non-target species and the environment, as well as preventing harmful effects on human health.
.
The French have what Mr Paterson calls  "so called real world studies", they banned these substances in 2005 and their hives are recovering.
.
It's the manufacturers that have provided fudged figures.
.
These substances have shown to have an effect on bees at Sub-Lethal doses as low as 6 PPB, yes that's Parts Per Billion. 
.
The bees lose their ability to navigate and find their way back to the hive and that's why no dead bees are located in or around the hive.
.
As was said many years ago in the 1890's there would come a time in this world when evil would no longer bother to hide..
.
We are now living in those times

As goes one..............

So go the rest

Here we show some thoughts about the shift in power from doctors to government.

The waning of professional power is portrayed as being in the interests of patient autonomy.

But its replacement by corporate power within a market economy may compromise patient

autonomy even more destructively.

It is the interests of corporate profit that underpin the diminishing of both patients and doctors to replaceable units.

One of health need and the other of healthcare provision. 

These trends are generating huge and increasing commercial profits and are shifting attention and investment within health care from the sick to the well, 

From the old to the young and displacing care mediated by touch with a system driven by paper and computers.

These trends operate in the interests of politicians because a system in which the agents are interchangeable is much easier to organise and to control 

And it also minimises the possibilities of physicians and patients forming political alliances with the potential to draw public attention to the deficiencies and failure of government. 

The trends operate in the interests of global capital because markets are maximised wherever consumers and employees can be standardised.

Yet, the exercise of power always breeds resistance. 

As Eliot Friedson puts it, “substituting [bureaucratic] arrangements for trust results actually in a Hobbesian situation, in which any rational individual would be motivated to develop clever ways to evade them to lead to manipulation of the system to the detriment of policy intentions.”

I think we see these processes in action across the public services.

On top of all this, also as part of the culture of control, we have powerful new strands of rhetoric about risk and safety.

The one to be minimised, the other maximised.

Aims which are now assumed to trump other equally valid aspirations such as allowing

children to explore, to play freely and to learn from their own experience.

The rhetoric of risk trades on a politics of responsibility, which transmutes into an increasingly oppressive social obligation. 

We are encouraged to be afraid or ashamed of what we eat and drink and breathe and to avoid a whole panoply of different risks and to lead ever more regulated lives devoid of fun and thrills.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists tried to stem the tide in a 2002 report: 

“Strict adherence to guidelines, for fear of risk,should not be allowed to stifle responsible, innovative practice or the patient’s choice of alternative based on population data to individuals and the increasingly heavy hand of bureaucratic surveillance seems likely to impede

sensitivity, flexibility and innovation in the delivery of care. 

The standardisation of professionals is welcomed as a way of eliminating the worst of practice, but it may also eliminate the best. 

Is this a beneficial exchange?

Dr Iona Heath

5 - Riddles

.1. A murderer is condemned to death. 

He has to choose between three rooms. 

The first is full of raging fires, 

the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, 

And the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years. 

Which room is safest for him?

2.  A woman shoots her husband. 

Then she holds him under water for over 5minutes. 

Finally, she hangs him. 

But 5 minutes later they both go out together and enjoy a wonderful dinner together. 

How can this be?

3. What is black when you buy it, red when you use it, and gray when you
throw it away ?

4. Can you name three consecutive days without using the words


Wednesday, Friday, or Sunday?

5. This is an unusual paragraph.  

I'm curious as to just how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it.  

It looks so ordinary and plain that you would think nothing was wrong with it.  

In fact, nothing is wrong with it! It is highly unusual though.  

Study it and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd.  

But if you work at it a bit, you might find out.  

Try to do so without any coaching!


THE ANSWERS TO ALL FIVE THE RIDDLES ARE BELOW:


Answers:

1. The third room. Lions that haven't eaten in three years are dead.
That one was easy, right?

2. The woman was a photographer. 
She shot a picture of her husband, developed it, and hung it up to dry (shot; held under water; and hung).

3. Charcoal, as it is used in barbecuing.

4. Sure you can name three consecutive days, yesterday, today, and
tomorrow!

5. The letter e, which is the most common letter used in the English
language, does not appear even once in the paragraph.

Coming your way soon

Augmented reality car windscreens

They will display phone calls and GPS information

Technology firm Harman is previewing its interative car windscreens at the Geneva Motor Show, which it claims will "transform the car into a mobile office - safely."

Harman's head up display system (HUD) shows the driver things like speed and distance to the car in front.

Incoming phone calls with the picture of the caller.

Weather conditions.

Arrows for navigation, directions and warnings of looming collisions.

This is a large amount of information being delivered into the driver's line of sight 

But Hans Roth, Harman's Director Technology Marketing, believes the information is delivered seamlessly enough that it won't be distracting nor dangerous.

With a wave of the hand, Mr Roth demonstrates how a driver could reject incoming information and silence phone calls should they feel the need.

HUD technology is already present in various luxury cars.

Mr Roth says Harman is working with car  makers to incorporate many of these new features into the next generation cars.

Over and over again

Legalised Cannabis Supported By More Than More Than Half Of Britons

The majority of Britons support a softer stance on cannabis laws, according to a survey by an independent think-tank.

More than half the public - 53% - support legalising the production and supply of cannabis or decriminalising its possession, a survey ordered by the Transform Drug Policy Foundation found.

Transform's Danny Kushlick said the world has changed and politicians should listen

Just one in seven support heavier penalties and more being spent on enforcement for cannabis offences, the campaign group found.

While around two thirds - 67% - support an in-depth review of policy options for controlling all drugs.

Transform head of external affairs Danny Kushlick said: "These results show just how far ahead of politicians the public are.

While Labour and Conservative politicians shy away from the debate on drugs, around half of their supporters want to see legal regulation of cannabis production and supply or decriminalisation of cannabis possession.

And a significant majority want a comprehensive review of our approach to drugs - including consideration of legal regulation.

The survey found that 70% of Conservative supporters and 69% of Labour supporters also feel this way and want a review of all policy options.

Pressure on the government to review its drugs policy has stepped up in recent weeks amid calls by various MPs to decriminalise the possession and use of all illegal drugs.

While the supply of the most dangerous substances should remain banned, users caught with a small quantity of any drug should not be penalised, members of the all-party parliamentary group for drug policy reform said.

And the influential Home Affairs Select Committee said there was a case for a fundamental review of all UK drug policy "now, more than ever" and called for a royal commission to consider the decriminalisation of illegal drugs.

But prime minister David Cameron rejected the calls on the grounds that the government's approach is working.

Mr Kushlick went on: "Politicians have repeated their 'tough on drugs' propaganda for so long that they assume the public are more fearful of change than they really are.

In fact the world has changed, and the public are far more progressive than was thought, right across the political spectrum.

At the very least the government should heed long standing and growing calls for a review of all policy options, including legal regulation.

Transform is a registered charity, which began as an independent campaign group in 1996, before achieving charitable status in 2003.

The survey, conducted by Ipsos Mori, involved face-to-face interviews with 946 adults between 25 January and 5 February.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "Drugs are illegal because they are harmful - they destroy lives and blight communities. Our current laws draw on the best available evidence.

Our laws enable us to target the people involved in the illegal drug trade and to seize and destroy harmful substances so they do not end up on our streets.

A fine example of a bullshit PR spin by civil servants who apparently live on a different planet.

If drugs are quote "harmful" then why not ban alcohol?

"Our current laws draw on the best available evidence", this is an outright lie as the government's own commissions have said the current policies are not fit for purpose.

The current drug laws do not work, period

The current laws criminalise young people

Fill the prisons, costing taxpayers a fortune.

Create useless and harmful divisions between the Police and citizens.

Remove a large revenue source from the Treasury. 

One could go on however the politicians are cowards who do not want to engage in any public discussion on this topic.

One day reality will catch up with them

One day they might even do something constructive

One day they might even realise that they can make money from legalising drugs

Watch them go then!

Falling faster than thought

• 
  

Austrian Felix Baumgartner fell even faster during his historic skydive last October than was originally thought.
.
Subsequent analysis has revealed that the jumper attained a speed of 1,357.6km/h (843.6mph) when he leapt from his stratospheric balloon.
.
It is about 15km/h (10mph) above what was initially reported.
.
Baumgartner's stated aim was to become the first person to break the sound barrier unaided by a vehicle. 
.
This he did. 
.
His final Mach number was 1.25.
.
But although his vertical velocity has been revised upwards, the 43-year-old's jump altitude has been corrected downwards slightly.
.
The additional analysis shows the Austrian stepped out of his special capsule at 38,969.4m (127,852.4ft), a reduction from the previous estimate of 39,045m (128,100ft).
.
Baumgartner's "space jump" was made over the New Mexico desert, US, on 14 October 2012.
.
Millions across the world followed his progress on internet video feeds as he climbed slowly into the sky in his 55-storey-high helium balloon, before making a rapid, 10-minute descent to Earth, with just under five of those minutes spent in freefall.
.
The biggest moment of drama came when the Austrian went into a spin as he hurtled towards the ground, turning at a maximum rate of 60 revolutions per minute.

.
He had to use all the skills picked up in more than 2,500 career skydives to recover a stable configuration and complete the dive safely.
.
Baumgartner's feats bettered the marks set 50 years previously by Joe Kittinger.
.
The now-retired US Air Force colonel leapt from a helium envelope in 1960. 
.
His altitude was 31,300m (102,800ft), but his top speed was just short of the sound barrier.
.
Kittinger, now an octogenarian, was integral to Baumgartner's team, providing the Austrian with advice and encouragement throughout the project.

Although the jump had the appearance of a stunt, Baumgartner and his group of experts continually stressed its high scientific relevance.
.
The researchers said it provided invaluable data for the development of high-performance, high-altitude parachute systems, and that the lessons learned would inform the development of new ideas for emergency evacuation from vehicles, such as spacecraft, passing through the stratosphere.
.
Together, we proved that a human in freefall can break the speed of sound returning from near space, going through a transonic phase and landing safely on the ground," said Dr Jonathan Clark, a former space shuttle flight surgeon and the Red Bull Stratos medical director.

.
That was a big part of the programme, and monitoring the mission was a meaningful event in aerospace medicine and physiology.
.
The revised data will now be submitted to the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI), the official world body that oversees these types of records:
.
Maximum Vertical Speed*: 1,357.6km/h (843.6mph/Mach 1.25)
.
Previous estimate: 1,342.8km/h (833.9 mph/Mach 1.24)
.
Highest Exit (Jump) Altitude: 38,969.4m (127,852.4ft)
.
Previous estimate: 39,045m (128,100ft)
.
Vertical Freefall Distance*: 36,402.6m (119,431.1ft)
.
Previous estimate: 36,529m (119,846ft)

*without drogue or stabilisation device

.

Jonathan Amos

And he alone knows this feeling, well aside that is from Kittinger who broke the then altitude record in 1960.

For the rest of us it just another piece of information.

Think a moment if you can of what it would feel like to be encased in a spacesuit 127,852.4 ft above the Earth knowing that you are going to jump out seconds later.

A one off feeling and something that stays with him and him alone for the rest of his life.

And where will he turn to next, what can follow such an experience?

A man used to base jumping and high adrenaline sports.

If he is fortunate he will turn his energies towards his inside world

The world of inner potentialities 

The evolution of his consciousness.

The place all of us must turn if we are to grow

Will he?

Will we?

Just how things are

Few people have time to think much nowadays

For most people it's just a hassle to get through each day

Never mind thinking about weird things

Well maybe some are not so weird when they are likely to affect us all.

My life allows me to do some of this thinking so from time to time I like to share

You might not agree with everything I write

That's fine if I provoke you to look at things differently

Shake your perceptions of how things are

That's fine too

Ever thought about how some things are mega stupid?

Here's one

We build huge plants to create and transmit energy, electricity

We then need huge power lines to carry the output of the plants

In other words huge distribution networks

Networks that are then tied together so that one plant can support the others if they need to shut one down

Or if one goes offline for any reason

When things go fine no problem

But if there is a problem then it is not so fine

Note what happened in Japan.

Note what happened after Sandy on the East Coast of the US or in Canada a few years ago

Or what happens every day in India

Or Pakistan

If we had built smaller plants to serve local needs then things would be safer, more secure

We did not

Why not?

Economies of scale.

Money talks it is cheaper to build a few big plants than lots of smaller ones.

Can we do anything about this?

Yes we could change the policies that encourage the building of big plants.

Will we?

No way, too many vested interests want to keep our big plants.

When things become so interdependent the potential for disaster, of whatever kind or shape, increases.

We are in that situation with so many things that one unexpected event will bring untold consequences. 

By then of course it is too late to do other than to curse those who approved such short sighted policies.