england is an imperial domain. so it is quite understandable that there are starkly different views of life of the lords and common folks, and how best it may be lived. but the imperialism was not england's creation, though all its former colonies copy and imitate the english ways of doing things. thus though india and the u.s. abolished the monarchy, india still has the two houses of parliament; the u.s has two parties, the democrat and republican, the so called common people's party and the rich people's party.
the rich controlled dissemination of information through the education and media has airbrushed the distinction between the two parties and the houses of congress. so, too, the state aligned religious establishments have been promoting the notions, that all religious ideologies are simply different routes to the same destination, which they are not. nor do they all have any common perception of truth in theory and practice. what they all have in common is the notion of belief taken for granted as truth. and belief, not being the matter of fact of anything, varies from person to person. that is why they differ within the same general label, such as protestants and catholics with still many sub sects in christianity; or shia and sunni of islam. even the non believing realist buddha's disciples are now divided into two with more than twenty sub sects. then, aided by states religions compete and even fight to kill, as did protestants and catholics in ireland, shia and sunni in the muslim land, and the christians and the islamic state are doing it now. each one is pushing the idea that one's own way of life is the right way.
seeing what is and responding to it accordingly requires the absence of preconceptions forming beliefs. thus it is that, despite the elaborate descriptions and ardently followed path, the believers have not found god they have read volumes about. nor have the theoretical physicists been able to come up with a proof even as a unified theory of cosmos that accommodates their individually theorized concepts. what is called a belief in common language is called theory among the intellectuals. and both the religious and scientific thinkers' concepts of time stretch far beyond the lifetime of so many generations. and as no one is living that long enough to refute their predictions, they enjoy their status.
if the problem is one and the perceivers are many, the issue becomes as many as are the personal motives of the persons seeing it. when all alone, the very seeing it also simultaneously activates appropriate response to it. one also sees that sometimes it requires a cooperative effort to do something. and, too, while discussing the issue with others, the different facets of the same matter give an opportunity to enable everyone an all rounded picture. this is how things are minded in awareness of what is. there the problems are the justification for having an organ called the minding mind, the brains.
the brains as the memory box is the creation of the conditioned living that itself moves along the set course, and all along the way things are expected to repeat as programmed. that is the storybook world in which no one veers away from the storywriter's plot. one's scripted role in a way of life is thus set in memory box that one opens to refer to when in doubt. ordinarily such life flows on in a channeled form, like an umpteenth performance in which every actor plays one's part with mechanical perfection. but even a well built machine is subject to the laws of elemental effects causing it to malfunction or just plainly stop being worn out. so, too, the master performer gradually gets tired of the dullness of the repeated act.
in a staged performance even one person's slip of tongue disturbs other actors' prescribed roles. actors cannot ask for pardon in the middle of play, as one would in a similar situation off the stage, correct mistake and get on with the motions of life. the mechanically industrialized work has physically rendered the worker acting as a component of the machine one works with, whether it be a power tool or an accountant's computer or gun or drone. and it has affected the directing authorities to perceive the work force as nothing but the tools required for the work to be done. a way of life thus regulated by the strict adherence to the rules of state, work, and culture has made people worse than actors, for the actors have an off the stage life, no matter how fragmented. people as identified by the various religious, state and commercial institutions have no off the stage life; from birth till death they are expected to act as scripted. when they do not, they are cast out and replaced, or even incarcerated, or put to death.
thus far all revolutions forming nations are masterminded by the textbook authority of the rich, who then transform any demand for change into the prisoners' riot to seek better living conditions within the prison cells; the workers' unions' well paid leaders negotiate for better working conditions and a little more pay of the workers. fearing the withdrawal of support from the rich the members of u.s. congress find it hard to raise the minimum wage even few pennies, though raising generously their own paychecks. marxism is said to have been refined in a coffee shop conversation between two well to do intellectuals, marx and engles.
as for the u.s., its founders found nothing new to fight for. its constitution does nothing of the sort idealized in its preamble - all men are created equal; life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and so on. its constitution is but an improvisation of the english idea, much like a contemporary piano player improvising a work of the original composer, who, too, had performed to entertain the european royalty. so what changed in the new world was in words, the deed remained the same old european. just look at the makeup of the three branches of the government, the legislative, executive, and the supreme court. nothing in their appearance and function permits the common folks to a life in liberty and pursue means and methods of happiness.
slaves are now called employees, and slave owners the employers. the metal chains are now replaced with the employment without which no unemployed person can sustain a living except as an employer or an outlaw. since this difference between the employee and employer is not made in different feathers of different specie, the rich and poor are maintained only through the words scripted in law and in a stage-like performance enforced with the power of gun.
the sustenance of birds of different feather in aviary and people brought together in workplace is the same, they both depend upon the feed provided by their captors. the big difference is between the way of life between the birds of feather flocking together and the people in communities. the birds' flocking together is natural, people's is unnatural, made up of dos and don'ts. so even when different birds are put together in an aviary, they do live without conflicts of interests, as birds do not impose their particular ways of life upon other birds.
when people from different places are brought together they all come with their differently formed list of dos and don'ts. when they see other people's different ways of life, it threatens theirs with the awareness that a traditional way is not necessarily the natural way. so the struggle forms to retain and even impose one group's habitual way of doing things upon others. and the group that is more powerful prevails. thus when the europeans entered the indian subcontinent there were hundreds of kingdoms fighting among themselves for the dominance. there was no one group of people called indians the english, french and dutch were facing. after acquiring dominance the english did strive to impose their ways of life upon the natives, and in matters other than the religious beliefs succeeded even at the great physical discomfort, such as imposing the cold climate english dress not practical under the tropical sun.
the european invasion in the western hemisphere also went through similarly violent forms literally wiping out the natives, making the whole western hemisphere into the four expanding kingdoms of europe, the english, spain, france and portugal, along with their internal squabbles of classes.
it is this old ideologically different feathering of the birds of the same species that then necessitates separating the birds of the same feather, the rich and the poor. since nature accepts no such distinctions between the two, the only way the rich can set themselves apart is through a stage-like setup, the gated community with the palatial number and size of the rooms and everything inside for the person in power.
constitution is nothing but the guidelines for the director of a staged performance. it is similar to the religious commandments. both look over the control of actors' acts in terms of what is not within the script. both leave out the codes of conduct of those in the audience, the persons of power for whose sake the actors are trained to act. the directing authorities, such as the president, the justices of supreme court, and members of congress and religious authorities are chief characters of the play, and are thus required to wear the specific costumes including the pins and stripes. dressed thus, the chief executive officer of the state can order a drone strike to kill innocent people of distant land, but would order arrest of a non violent protester within his domain; robed thus and sitting in a particular building called the supreme court, the nine members' opinion can send someone to the death chamber, thus giving their uttered thinking a special meaning of the word: opinion, while common folks' opinions are treated as just speculations.
an actor playing the role of the buddha may even mimic words of wisdom convincingly to onlookers does not therefore acquire enlightenment. nor is the role playing for him anything other than a means to an earning a good living. any such profound insights attached to actor are the onlookers' mistakes, that become a stepping stone for actors to climb high in the comfort zone. real life actors have thus become members of the governing body including the governorship and presidency with no training in the field.
now, if the aviary is tore down, the birds will fly off to places natural to their natural makeup. the fragile winged monarch butterflies fly thousand miles, and tiny birds are known to fly thousands of miles each way in their migrations. and while in the south or the north, they feel naturally at home living as comes natural to them.
but unlike the king's army landing upon a distant shore. birds do not claim the territory as their own. they do not plunder the resources and try to change everything to match their natural needs. birds' migrations are formed of their dietary needs related to the climates and seasons, they fly to where they are met. they do not collect, freeze, and ship the feed to distant places as people do.
the main difference between the birds and people is that the birds' way of life is very much a nature's expression of itself, while people's ways of life are rather a negation of nature; man in a tribal position of power over the tribe determines how his subjects must function to enhance his notion of who he is.
and who he is, is best described by one european man in his identity as poet in: "i think, therefore i am". man made up of thought, whether imposed or self inflicted, would not know where to go and live in freedom if denuded of his scripted existence.
habits are stronger than one's initial awakening.
ever wonder who you really are off the stage in your fearless observation of the self?
a state of being
that has no fixed identity
in a thought out state of existence,
like that of an actor
making an appearance
as someone one is not.
the actor make believably gets out
and plays someone else;
and in so doing
strives to acquire an identity
of an actor
who is neither the person who acts
nor the character one plays.