The sky and the earth

What keeps up on the Earth? Gravity. Had it not been for gravity, we would have shot up towards the sky. This possibility is equally available to everyone. The way to the sky is open to all in the same manner at any time and at any point of the earth. It is true that we cannot overcome gravity by our bodies, but is that also true for what’s inside our bodies? And what happens with it when the bodies die? Does it also die?

Some time ago I watched a science-fiction film in which people found a way to escape from the deadly conditions of life on the earth by setting up stations for survivors in another galaxy where everything was the same as the earth except that there was no sky and there was artificial light. The possibility of flying up into the sky was not available there and this was clearly seen in the life of the main heroine who had discovered the formula for the salvation of mankind from the ecological catastrophe but died at the end of the film. She had found a way to preserve life, but had not found a way to avoid death. And although she hadn’t died at 10 or 20, she died at about 100.

In a way, it doesn’t matter much whether one dies at 10 or 20 or even at 100: one does die! It would matter if one didn’t die ― ever!  Nobody likes death and nobody lives with the expectation that he is going to die ― so much so that we do not even believe that will happen. Any time I have been close to death because of an accident or an illness and I have got away with it, I felt immense relief. But any time that has happened I have also known, and I know now that there will come a time when I will not get away with it.

That doesn’t mean that we should constantly live with the fear of death. But it does mean that we should not live as if we would never die. We should live as truthfully to reality as we can. We are born without wanting it and we die without wanting it, but we live to a different extent the way we want it. The fact that we are born and die without being asked, but in between we can live as we like, speaks more in favor of our having to bear the consequences for the way we have lived than not having to bear any consequences at all, the more so as we constantly bear some of the consequences of our choices even now, like the effects of the food we eat every day or the effects of our moral preferences like being honest or dishonest or being loyal or disloyal. The question is: Does this freedom bear upon what happens with us after death? And does anything happen at all?

Let us suppose that nothing happens. One dies and this is the end. What happens to the visible person, the body, happens also to the invisible person, the soul: Both stop to exist. The end of the one who has lived as an angel and the end of the one who has lived as a villain is the same: Both vanish into nothingness. Well, if I were a villain, I would profit from that hypothesis. I can live as badly as I like (lying, stealing and killing) and have as much pleasure as I want, and I will never bear any consequences for the evil things I’ve done both before and after my death. But if I were an angel, I would not profit at all: I would suffer all kinds of evil like violence, exploitation, persecution, pain and even death, but I would not receive any reward or compensation ― only loss. Having said this, it is not surprising why so many people choose to live as villains ― being a hero is senseless and useless. It is surprising however why some people choose to live as angels.  Of course, real life is much more complex and most people have different degrees of the villain and the angel in them but this is a topic for another discussion.

Let us suppose now that man’s existence does not end with death. The question in that case is: What happens after that? The answers to it are many and they often contradict each other. So, which of them is the right one? Well, there is only one sky and only one earth here and we have only one choice: the purity and endlessness of the skies or the mud and the limitations of the earth. Any particle of evil in the soul is like the mud of the earth which ― if there is no water ― dries up and hardens as those parts of the earth that make up a wasteland. The more the mud and the less the water to dilute it or wash it away, the larger and barer the wasteland. I believe this is the future of the one who lives like a villain now after he dies. He will continue to walk along the road he has chosen to walk now, and this will make him be like those parts of the earth that illustrate the state of things lacking water here. Unlike the angel who, having tasted the purity of the sky now, will continue to ascend and partake of other spheres of infinity then, prompted and shown by the galaxies here.

How can we get rid of mud? The answers to this question are also many and contradictory, but all of them are verifiable. The bad thing is that if one tests the wrong one, one will have to pay the price of testing it. The good thing is that one can give up testing it, having paid the price. The problem is that one may like the wrong answer and never get to the right one, but the good news is that the opportunity to try again is always here, the way the sky is always here and equally accessible for all who are still alive. The truth is as close and obvious as the sky. We only have to acknowledge it and accept it. It will do the job it is meant to do. The same is true for the lie. It will also do the job it is meant to do. It’s as simple as that.



This entry was posted on 28/02/2019, in Postink.

Is the Emperor naked or dressed?

We all know the story of the naked Emperor whom everybody applauded for the magnificent new clothes he was not wearing until finally a brave boy from the crowd shouted, ‘He’s got nothing on!’, and the Emperor became a laughing stock. Up to now I have always identified myself with the crowd, thinking that, being well-clad, I surely am not a laughing stock. Today, I first thought that I may also be naked (in part or in full) without realizing it and I was terrified that I may also be a laughing stock totally and utterly! Why is that so? It’s because shame is shame by its very nature, and nothing and nobody can turn it into glory whatever efforts they make to disguise it or refine it. What I want to say is that the Emperor was an object of shame all the time – not only after the boy gave publicity to the fact.

My using such outrageous comparisons when talking about nakedness is not accidental. I am doing it because I think the way we understand it and demonstrate it (or not), reveals something basic about our real nature. Why do I think so?

Let me use an illustration to answer this question. If someone takes off all his clothes and becomes fully naked but is also dirty,what will we say about him? Most of us will say that he is insane. What will we say if the naked person washes all his dirt but remains naked? Will we say that he is normal? Most of us won’t. Why? Don’t we all agree that nakedness is the most natural thing in the world? Aren’t we born naked and don’t we go into the bathroom naked?! Yes, we do, but we all know too well that soon after that we have to get dressed or else we run the risk to suffer damage or bad health. The only situation in which nakedness is natural when we are not alone, is the sexual act of which we all dream to be an expression of a unique relationship between two people who separate themselves from all the others to connect inspirit, soul and body and become one whole, thus making themselves alone, which puts them in the category of those that are born naked or go into the bathroom naked.

Why, however, does the person who is not ashamed of showing his nakedness to the others bring shame upon himself instead of glory?Because of the effects. If he is dirty or ill or defective, and this is revealed by his nakedness, the others would feel embarrassed, disgusted, threatened or otherwise disturbed. As a result, they won’t want to communicate with him and will alienate themselves and finally separate from him. If the naked person is healthy and handsome and in perfect shape, the others might feel ugly, humiliated, sexually aroused or otherwise perturbed. The result is again unwillingness to communicate, alienation and separation. And this is not good for anyone because love, in all its forms (including the sexual act) is impossible without us joining and sharing what we are and what we have.

Full nakedness, however, is very rare in public places. What is much more common is partial or ‘covered’ nakedness in the form of low necklines, drop waist pants, short skirts, transparent blouses and underwear instead of clothing. Would we say that nakedness, when not full, is quite acceptable? We would if the person, who is showing parts of his or her body which are not customary to be shown, is acting with the purest and noblest of motives, having no desire to arouse, seduce or humiliate the others. Honesty says that when someone starts doing something, he has to finish it, and if he can’t finish it, he shouldn’t start it at all.

Must we cover ourselves from head to toe in order tobe dressed properly? I have my answer to this question but I believe it’s up to everyone to decide what to cover and what not, as God has given us the freedom to make our own choices, bearing the respective consequences of them: shame orglory depending on what we have chosen to do.

In the end, I would like to answer my first question,‘Is the Emperor naked or dressed’? Obviously, he is naked and because he is naked, he is no longer an Emperor, for what makes an Emperor look like an Emperor but his clothes?!



This entry was posted on 12/12/2018, in Postink.

Is that the end?

Is that the end 1


If we want to stay alive, we need to eat and drink. If we stop, we will soon die. We will die even if we
don’t stop, but not so soon. The body dies but does what’s inside the body (let me call that “the soul”)
die too? Does it stop being or does it continue to exist somewhere else? There is no proof of that; and
probably there can’t be. For if it continues to exist somewhere else it is no longer part of this world and
can no longer be perceived by the means of this world.

I had a daughter who died when she was ten months old. My mother died when she was 59 and my
father ‒ when he was 79. People die at different ages, having lived different lives, being themselves
different. But they all start and end their lives in the same way and no one can change that. We would
change it if we could. I, for example, would like to change the way women give birth to their children
and make it painless. I would also like to make all the bad things like illness, violence, exploitation,
disaster, etc. disappear.

I can’t change those, but there is something I can change: my own reaction to what happens to me; the
way I perceive things and what I do as a result of this perception. And this, done day after day, adds up
to what constitutes my life making it what it is and me what I am.

My body, though, can’t do that: it can’t change anything it does. If it changes it, it becomes ill or dies.

Hence, there is a very basic difference between the body and the soul: the body has no choice but to
function the way it is made to function, whereas the soul can choose what to do and how to do it. I can
choose whether to work or not and how much and intensively to do that. The one who chooses not to
work can also choose the way how to do that, i.e. he may live like a beggar or like a thief. This is in case
we both have equal opportunities for work. If we don’t, then other people’s wrong choices have caused
the emergence of the problem with unemployment. Because if there is so much work around that needs
to be done and the banks are full of money that can be used to pay for it, I see no other reason why this
should not happen.

If the body and the soul are so basically different in life, why shouldn’t they be so in death as well?


This entry was posted on 27/04/2016, in Postink.

Why family?


One of my students told me once, “If you want to disqualify a spy, ruin his family.” This was an interesting statement from a woman whose job is to investigate and write about people’s lives. She knows what she is saying. We all know what she is saying. She is a famous journalist. “Why family?” I asked her. I don’t remember exactly what her answer was, but she said something of the kind, “Because family provides stability, security, confidence…”

She had no family then. I had no family then either and I still have no family. May be you, too, have no family. More and more people have no family. More and more children are born out of wedlock. Marriage is increasingly considered an anachronism and a burden and singleness is hailed as the paragon of freedom and happiness.

Is that true?

Let me give you an example from my cooking practice. If I make a cake without following all the necessary directions or using all the necessary ingredients and my attempt ends in a disaster, does this mean that cake is bad? Also, I may ruin the cake as often as I can, but there will always be a good pastry chef who will make it the right way and it will taste wonderfully. Who is the loser then? If I have all the skills and ingredients to make my cake as delicious as his but I don’t, I will lose from this, won’t I?

Let me ask you again, is family a bad thing?

Two days ago I went to a park to sunbathe. Right in front of where I was there were three trees ‒ one standing by itself and the other two standing together with branches intertwined, as if embracing each other. I looked at them and smiled. I am not smiling now, though… Even the trees know how to support each other better than we do…

Is it so great to be able to always do what you want, without anybody standing in your way or disturbing you? Is it so gladdening not to do what somebody else tells you to do and not to reckon with somebody else’s needs? Is it so rewarding to go where you want, when you want and as you want? As a matter of fact, this is impossible and almost nobody wants it really. (Because it would mean that they would have to go and live in a place with no people at all.) What most champions of freedom want is, “Freedom for me and no freedom for you. Me doing what I want and everybody else doing what I want.”

Freedom is a serious thing. The greater the freedom we have, the greater the responsibility we bear and the more important the consequences of what we do. It is not by chance that most people shirk responsibility. In my opinion, they shirk freedom, too, but they won’t admit it. Let me illustrate this with the carriage, the coachman and the horses. A carriage can be drawn by one or several horses. If it is drawn by one, the coachman drives it by holding just one bridle. If it is drawn by three, he drives it by holding three bridles. When is the carriage bigger and when does it carry more passengers? And when does the coachman experience greater joy? Of course, if the place of the coachman is taken by someone who is not a coachman by profession, he won’t be able to control the horses and won’t experience the joy of driving the carriage by holding all the three bridles, but this is not the case with the family. Everyone is born as a result of a relationship between a man and a woman and if he wants to have children he should also connect with a woman or a man, respectively.

The question is: what should this relationship be ‒ permanent or temporary? I know most of the answers for both situations. I have observed them and heard them all my life. You also know them. You have also observed them and heard them all your life. My question is: not what this connection IS, but what it MUST be. And the answer is very simple, of course: what you want it to be for yourself or for your parents. What relationship do you want for yourself? What relationship do you want for your parents? Do you want a relationship, in which you can permanently rely on someone to take care of you when you need to be taken care of or do you want a relationship that is transient and fragile? Would you rather your father was always there to help your mother when she needed help (and the other way around) or would you like to have to rush to him or her every time a disaster befalls?

Why family?

“Divide and rule.”

Family always means 1+, and 1+ is always bigger than 1. Whatever befalls 1+, the probability of crushing it is lower than when it befalls 1!

We become weaker when we are alone. All of us! Without exception!


This entry was posted on 17/05/2015, in Postink.