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.


Today an incredibly beautiful and gifted God’s creature made me ask myself the question: Why do we Why
exist as two-gender and not as one-gender or three-gender creatures? If God could create one-gender
plants, He could obviously create a one-gender human being as well, couldn’t He? And if He could create
two-gender creatures, He could create three-gender, four-gender, etc. human beings. Why did He
create us as men and women?

Before continuing reading my speculations on this question, I suggest that you take some time and
speculate on it yourself.

So then, let us first imagine what would happen if we were just one-gender creatures –men or women
or something in-between? Can you imagine that? There being only men or women or something in-
between all around us? I can – not only imagine it, but dare believe that if God had decided to make us
so, we would again be beautiful. Why? Because He does everything well. The world is full of evidence
for that. We would probably again be able to reproduce and experience supreme delight in any kind
of intercourse – not only the sexual – and we would work and create things the way we do. He could
have done the same for the three-gender and the four-gender creatures, had He created us such. But He
hadn’t. Why?

Because He is autonomous to decide what to do. He is the Creator and no one can change that, no
matter in what way or to what degree we want to. If someone wants to change their gender, they
can do that, and God will not stop them. But let them try to change the gender of all the people in
the world or the genetic mechanism by which all the people in the world are created! What will the
result be? I had a child with a damaged genetic mechanism and I know very well what the result is: an
extra chromosome in all the cells of the organism, and your whole life turns upside down – yours and
everybody’s around you. May we never lose our vigilance to such an extent as to allow someone to take
such a big bite of the “genetic pie”! Woe to us then!

I hope you have understood my argument in favor of a Creator. Because if you haven’t, I will ask you my
next question: Can any of you create just one living thing? Not a machine or a robot, but a human being
that exists independently having the mechanism to reproduce and the ability to think, feel, perceive,
assimilate, express or take free decisions, some of which you will not approve of, like, for example, being
willing and capable of killing his own Creator, that is you?

If there is a Creator and if He was killed by His creation, then why has He created us? I would again
suggest that you stop reading and think about it.
If I created a being with the capability and volition to do whatever they wanted to (because for most
of us “freedom” means exactly this), I would at least guarantee my own existence, wouldn’t I? Hence,
there is either no Creator, or this Creator is very weak and dull. The inference seems to gain greater
validity when we call to mind the enormous number of people killing each other. What, if not weak, dull
and evil, is the Creator who has allowed this killing to happen or has at least not taken the necessary
precautions to prevent it? Why has He not prevented it or why has He allowed it at all? I mean people’s
killing each other and Him, too? I think the answer to this question is very simple although thousands of
pages have been written on it: because he couldn’t avoid it. Let us not be duller and stupider than we
are: the Creator of such complex, intelligent, beautiful, capable, talented, powerful and having such an
enormous potential creatures as we do, cannot be weak, dull and only evil, among all. The abundance
of goodness everywhere around proves that. And the second answer that comes to my mind is that this
Creator values freedom so highly and is so unwilling to violate it that He has allowed the occurrence of
something that none of us would allow voluntarily and without resistance – His own killing.

If He was capable of doing this, anything else that does not correspond to His expectations is
inconsiderably small… And one of these inconsiderably small things is for us to part with the image in
which we were created. Because this is the answer to the question why human beings are two-gender,
not one-gender or three-gender beings: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God
he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). By “parting with the image in which
we were created”, I understand any thought or action that would lead to experiencing the combination
of good and evil and devaluating the human beings reducing them into an image of apes, for example.
By “inconsiderably small” I understand the value of the work of the Creator’s allowing His killing by His
own creations as compared to the value of the work of the creations’ parting with the image in which
they were created.

Let us now stand before the mirror and ask ourselves: “What do we see?” I suppose all of us would say,
“A human being.” Shall we give the same answer though if we stand before a gigantic mirror showing
the image of the Creator or a small mirror showing our past deeds? My answer for me would be: “Both
a human being and an ape”. Yours is for you to know. Maybe for you it has no importance at all, but
for me it has; because according to the Holy Scripture I will never part with this image: I will carry it
forever. And I don’t want to be carrying an image bearing the features of both a human being and an
ape. Human features are for humans, apes’ features are for apes.


This entry was posted on 12/05/2014, in Postink.