Category Archives: Wise Inspiration


Jesus Message.

Today I call on your true self which is I within you. It is your spirit yet my breath. We are one, the world thinks not and divides us by making you believe and act as complete separation from Love or my oneness in truth. I have not left you ,yet you leave me each day to accept the fallen you as the real one. Your mind is opened to accept just as your parents accepted, you are not to be love but you can pretend to be. They show you the way and of course you end up having this separated thinking to live for another generation. I tell you now you are all beautiful within you, I know for I AM the life you breathe. You just need to live the light and truth and be one with me in your love. Then live it out towards others and know you are blessing them as you live out your beautiful life energy. When you make a mistake or go wrong and into separation, admit it, learn from it and love more than you have before you knew I AM the loving truth. Dont try to live by the worlds ways and by mine at the same time for you will be torn in half and to be love in oneness cannot be possible. I came to you so you can have your true life back, and because through the I AM that created you only my death could forgive you and give you the path back to a true future which I may add when You arrive in the new future truth many wonderful and exciting times will open up with no pain or separation involved.

Thank you Jesus for this understanding, and the Joy of what is possible. forgive us and bring us home to your Joy and the truth of who we are. Luke Le Bree.


The Last Word:

“Dreams are today’s answers to tomorrow’s questions.” ― Edgar Cayce


The age of becoming one with all things and loving all things as a collective of Gods Children, has arrived. Tremble not as a individual in stepping out to embrace all in Gods love , but know you are a part of the whole that is preparing not only the ones of the earth but in all that have been witnessing this time in space and the minutest of life forms. You are the living love of our Lord Jesus and in ownership of this, cry aloud for you are beholding the beginning of the end, (Old Order ) and walking in the Divine truth of the steps that will prepare you for your uplifting ( Rapture ).
As a family let your love be a powerful compassionate light of understanding and release your remaining separation from your family so you are united in the Love that comes direct to us and not only as from the light of a book.
( Be not afraid to be the love I offer you so you can return to me as one and a perfection of it. Judge not yourself in stepping into my light for this makes you whom I have known from the beginning. )
Release my brothers and sisters the garments of the passing era that where you hid your secrets, for Jesus revealed himself as one like yourself in appearance and wore what you wore but never did he claim to be anything he was not. For now the time approaches when the Holy Spirit will clothe you anew on that day of your full return to Light and all that you are, will be so.
Take each day one at a time and feel the true joyful love that is uniting you to Truth and eternal oneness of all that will be revealed in the times that lay ahead of you, even this day. Blessings and in Prayer I share this with you.



O my dear friends it has become clear that we are on the threshold of one ot the greatest happenings to take place in our lives, no wait it is here and already preparing you.
You are awakening to truth and it is unlimited in what you will experience, for its in every direction as well as within and without. It is seen and will bring all to your awareness and peace to your mind. It is unseen and your heart will find its home of Love and all lusts of the past will lose control of you for the wholeness of life has arrived and filled the sensations to unlimited beauty that they could not fully understand until these very moments we live.
This awakening is the complete surrender to the Holy Spirit that has been experienced and has been a motivator for your focus in a world completely captivated by its sensations and power to control ( Ego). But what you had was a looking glass into the illusion, knowing it was not functioning correct but you could not see how big the dysfunction was with mankind or even yourself.
Now beautiful ones , see anew, for the Spirit of God is flowing across the world to awaken its own. To be able to see clearly the illusion as it really is. UNDERSTAND IF ITS NOT LOVE IT IS THE ILLUSION. All the people of the passed even the most brightest , kindest, could not have seen how every thing you have learned in your education systems or within your homes was that of the deceivers who fell from grace and challenged you to defy them, for they had revealed themselves as the enlightened as well as the polarity of greed and destruction.
I will as well as many others, will write on these things as Jesus through the Spirit of the fullness of life guides us and all his children home. I love you dear Lord , I love you dear brothers and sisters.



An apology is the act of declaring one’s regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, harmed or wronged another. Some apologies are interpersonal (between individuals, that is, between friends, family members, colleagues, lovers, neighbours, or strangers). Other apologies are collective (by one group to another group or by a group to an individual). More generally, apologies can be offered “one to one,” “one to many,” “many to one,” or “many to many.”

While the practice of apologizing is nothing new, the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first witnessed a sharp rise in the number of public and political apologies, so much so that some scholars believe we are living in an “age of apology” (Gibney et al. 2006) or within a “culture of apology” (Mills 2001). A gesture formerly considered a sign of weakness has grown to represent moral strength and a crucial step towards potential reconciliation. Individuals, but more often states, churches, the judiciary, the medical profession and universities publicly issue apologies to those they have wronged in the past. Crimes ranging from personal betrayals and insults all the way to enslavement, violations of medical ethics, land displacement, violations of treaties or international law, systemic discrimination, wartime casualties, cultural disruptions, or political seizures constitute reasons for public expressions of regret.

What apologies are, and which goals they can promote, are objects of inquiry for a number of academic disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, including philosophy, political science, theology, psychology, history and sociology. Authors have been preoccupied by an array of questions: What are the validity conditions for an apology? Are these the same for interpersonal and collective apologies? And what purposes do apologies serve in human societies?

1. Interpersonal Apologies (“One to One”)

a. Types

In interpersonal apologies, an individual acknowledges and promises to redress offences committed against another individual. Such an apology can be performed in private (for instance, when one family member apologizes to another within the walls of their common abode) or in public (when individuals with public profiles apologise to their spouses, friends or colleagues for their blunders in a highly mediated fashion). Although, in a broad sense, everything is political, interpersonal apologies can be political in the stricter sense when the offender and the offended are politicians, public officials or representatives of political organizations. Clear examples of interpersonal political apologies are Senator Fred Thompson’s apology to Bill Clinton for insinuating that the latter had been involved in corruption or the apology by Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey for referring to Representative Barney Frank, a Democrat representing Massachusetts, as “Barney Fag.”

b. Validity Conditions

In order to count as valid, an apology must meet a number of conditions. While there is great variation among authors on the number and exact role that different elements play within an apology, there is a growing consensus that an authentic apology implies: an acknowledgement that the incident in question did in fact occur and that it was inappropriate; a recognition of responsibility for the act; the expression of an attitude of regret and a feeling of remorse; and the declaration of an intention to refrain from similar acts in the future.

Authors dealing with the interpersonal apology position themselves on a continuum, ranging from rather lax to very stringent requirements that an apology must meet in order to be valid. Nick Smith provides us with the theoretically most systematic and normatively strictest account of the interpersonal apology, listing no less than twelve conditions for what he calls a valid “categorical” apology: a corroborated factual record, the acceptance of blame (to be distinguished from expressions of sympathy as in “I am sorry for your loss”), having standing (only those causally responsible for the offence can apologise), identification of each harm separately, identification of the moral principles underlying each harm, endorsement of the moral principles underlying each harm, recognition of the victim as a moral interlocutor, categorical regret (recognition of the fact that one’s act constitute a moral failure), the performance of the apology, reform and redress (post-apology), sincere intentions (lying when apologizing would only double the insult to the victim), and some expression of emotion (sorrow, guilt, empathy, sympathy) (Smith 2008). To the extent that an interpersonal apology fails on any of these criteria, it fails to achieve the status of a proper apology.

Whether one has a more lax or a more strict understanding of the validity conditions for the interpersonal apology, the offended individual has the standing to accept or reject the apology.

c. The Goals of the Interpersonal Apology

Normatively, interpersonal apologies are meant to recognise the equal moral worth of the victim. While the offence cannot be undone, the act of acknowledging it recognises the offended as an equal moral agent. Psychologically, an apology aims to meet the victim’s psychological needs of recognition, thus restoring her self-respect (Lazare 2004). Diminishing her desire for revenge, healing humiliations, and facilitating reconciliation are hoped for, but empirically contingent, effects of the apology. A cathartic effect on the guilty conscience of the offender is one other psychologically desirable consequence of a successful apology.

If the apology is accepted and if the offender is forgiven, the moral status quo ante (of equal moral worth of the offending and the offended parties) will be restored. However, forgiveness follows the apology only when the victim undergoes a deep psychological change: when she gives up her moral anger and the desire for revenge. Forgiveness should not be confused with forgetting, which is involuntary and does not presuppose a “change of heart.” While possible, forgiveness is neither necessary nor a right that the offender can claim once she has apologized and shown remorse. Forgiveness remains the privilege of the offended. In addition and contrary to some religious traditions, philosophers have usually argued that forgiveness should not be understood as the victim’s duty, nor should it be conceived of as a test of her good character.

2. The “One to Many” Apology

a. Types

The “one to many” apology can be either private or public, and can be political or non-political. For example, when one individual apologizes privately to her family, group of friends, neighbours, or colleagues for an insult or any other moral failure, we are talking about a non-political “one to many” apology. Public figures sometimes choose to communicate their regret via mass media, and then the apology is public and non-political. For example, actress Morgan James apologized to the cast and crew of the Sondheim musical “Into the Woods” for disproportionally criticising the New York production using language that was too strong. On the contrary, when a politician or official apologizes to her party, her voters or the nation for a wrong, we are dealing with a political public “one to many” apology. Kaing Guek Eav’s (a.k.a. “Duch”) apologizing to the Cambodian people for his actions in the S21 prison or Richard Nixon apologizing to his supporters and voters for the Watergate scandal are just two among many examples of “one to many” public political apologies.

b. Validity Conditions

When an individual apologizes to her family, to her group of friends, or to the nation, we apply the same standards of validity that we apply to interpersonal apologies. Minimally, an apology by one to the many must include an acknowledgement that a wrong has been committed, acceptance of responsibility, a promise of forbearance, expression of regret or remorse and an offer of repair. She who has committed the wrong has the proper standing to apologize.

Things get complicated when we consider who accepts the apology. The size of the group is an important variable. A family or a group of friends can come together and decide what to do in response to the apology. A corporation or a village can organize a consultative process and determine how to react. In fact, under the banner of “restorative justice”, an entire literature addresses the ways in which communities can heal broken relations and re-integrate those among their members who have gone astray (Braithwaite 1989). But how do large, unorganized groups, such as nations, accept an apology? Many critics of restorative justice have pointed out that such a conception of justice does not make much sense outside small, closely knit communities. Can there ever be consensus about how to deal with officials’ expressions of regret within the large, pluralistic publics of today’s societies? Elections and opinion polls are probably the only – imperfect – mechanisms for gaining insight into whether an apology has or has not been accepted by the members of the polity. While a great deal of attention has been paid to the normative pre-requisites of a valid apology, there are no systematic studies regarding their effect on the public culture of the societies in which they are offered. This is an important lacuna in great need of remedy.

c. The Goals of the “One to Many” Apology

The purposes of the non-political “one to many” apology overlap with those of the interpersonal acts of contrition: recognizing the victims as moral interlocutors and communicating the fact that the offender understands and regrets the violation of their legitimate moral expectations, thus making a first step towards a desired reconciliation.

Beside the acknowledgement and recognition functions of the political variety of the “one to many” apology, such acts also seek to satisfy the publicity requirement and set the record straight, re-affirm the principles the community abides by and, in giving an account of one’s personal failures as a politician or representative, they individualize guilt. Strategically, such acts may be employed to minimize political losses, save one’s political career and, if that were not possible, to insulate one’s office or party from the negative consequences of a particular person’s misdeeds. It may also be used to increase the chances of a pardon in case the misdeeds are of a criminal nature.

3. Collective Apology (“Many to Many” or “Many to One”)

a. Types

Collective apologies take two forms: by “many to many” or by “many to one”. In the case of “many to many” one group apologizes to another group. For instance, the French railway company SNCF apologized for transporting Jews to the extermination camps during the Nazi occupation and the Vatican apologized to women for the violations of their rights and historical denigration at the hands of the Catholic Church. In the case of “many to one” a group apologizes to an individual. Clear examples are the apology by the Canadian government to Maher Arar for the ordeal he suffered as a result of his rendition to Syria or corporate apologies to individual clients for faulty services or goods.

When looking into collective apologies, the state has received most of the scholarly attention as perpetrator and apologizer. In addressing the issue of state apologies, we can speak of three contexts where such acts are considered appropriate: domestic, international and postcolonial. In the domestic realm, political apologies address injustice committed against citizens under the aegis of the state. Canada’s apology and compensation to Canadians of Chinese origin for the infamous “Chinese Head Tax” law and the United State’s apology and compensation for American citizens of Japanese descent for their internment during World War II are relevant examples. In the international realm, political apologies are important diplomatic tools and usually address injustice committed during wartime, but not only. In this category, we could discuss Japan’s “sorry” for the abuse of Korean and Chinese “comfort women” and Belgium’s expression of regret for not having intervened to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. Finally, one can identify postimperial and postcolonial relations as a context, somewhere between the domestic and the international realm. Australia’s and Canada’s apologies to their Aboriginal communities for forced assimilation policies, Queen Elizabeth’s declaration of sorrow for Britain’s treatment of New Zealand’s Maori communities, and Guatemala’s apology to a victimized Mayan community constitute important illustrations.

b. Validity Conditions

When applied to collective apologies for harms and wrongs featuring multiple perpetrators – oftentimes committed a long time ago – many of Smith’s criteria for a categorical “sorry” do not hold. Consequently, those who measure collective apologies against the standards for interpersonal apologies argue against the very idea of collective apologies, and especially against the idea of collective apologies for injustices that took place in the distant past.

First, adequately isolating each and every offence inflicted upon the victim(s) can be a daunting task when dealing with multiple perpetrators. Secondly, what do we mean by collective responsibility? In what way can we plausibly speak of collective – as opposed to individual – acts? Third, who has the proper standing to apologize for something that the collective has supposedly perpetrated: the upper echelons of the chain of command or the direct perpetrators? What about those members of the group who had not been involved in the violations? Fourth, can groups express remorse and regret? How can we measure their sincerity and commitment to transformation and redress in the absence of these emotions? Fifth, things are further complicated because often there is no consensus behind a collective’s decision to apologize.

Most of the time, some members of the community reject the idea of apologizing for a past wrong. They see public contrition as a threat to the self-image of the group and as an unnecessary tainting of its history. All recent examples of collective apologies have turned out to be controversial and antagonizing, so much so that some scholars have argued that the lack of consensus constitutes an insuperable obstacle to collective apologies. Last but not least, who should accept these collective apologies? The answer appears to be clear in the case of a “many to one” apology. But what about a “many to many” scenario? The direct victims? What about their families? And what if the members of the group that the apology addresses cannot agree on whether to accept the apology or not?

All these problems are amplified when the direct perpetrators and victims no longer exist. In such cases, there is no identity between perpetrator and apologiser or between the victim and the addressee of the apology. What is more, the potential apologizers and addressees of the apology often owe their very existence to the fact that the injustices had been committed in the past, as is the case, for example, of almost everyone in the Americas or Australia today: without the injustices committed against the First Nations and without the slave trade the demographics of the continents would look different in the 21st Century. For them to apologize sincerely, i.e. to express regret for the very events that made their existence possible, would be impossible.

One way of circumventing the identity problem is to argue that, even if they are not the direct victims, the descendants of victims suffer today the repercussions of the violations in the past. For instance, one might argue that African Americans experience today the socio-economic repercussions of a history of discrimination and oppression that goes back to the slave trade. Consequently, they are owed an apology. White Americans, on the contrary, have been the beneficiaries of the same violations, even if they are not the direct perpetrators thereof. As involuntary beneficiaries of violence they might express regret for the fact that they owe their existence to injustices committed by their ancestors.

Yet the problems do not stop here. Immigration adds to the complexity of the identity problem: should recent immigrants apologise given that they have not even benefitted from the past injustices and they do not owe their existence to the perpetrators of past injustices?

Another way of dealing with the question of the validity of collective apologies is to give up the interpersonal model and think of them as a rather distinct category, whose purposes and functions differ from those of interpersonal apologies. Thus, scholars have argued that it is normatively sound to ascribe responsibility to collectives or institutions as continuous in time and as transcending the particular individuals constituting them at a certain moment. In addition, collectives are responsible for reproducing the culture that made it possible for atrocities to go on uncontested. Therefore, collective responsibility requires that groups’ representatives acknowledge the fact that an injustice has been committed, mark discontinuity with the discriminatory practices of the past, and commit themselves to non-repetition and redress.

Collective responsibility must be conceptually distinguished from collective guilt, a philosophically more problematic notion. For example, a present government who has not committed any wrongs can still take responsibility by acknowledging that wrongs have been committed against a certain group or person in the past, that it was “our culture” that enabled the abuses, that the abuses have repercussions in the present, and that they will not be allowed to happen again. A pledge to revise the very foundations on which the relations between various groups are established within the polity and material compensations for the losses incurred by the victims give concreteness to the apology. In this sense, it can be safely said that collective apologies have both a symbolic function (recognition of the offended group as worthy of respect) and a utility function (the apology might bring about reparations to the victims and might lead to better inter-group relations).

If the issue of collective responsibility is addressed in this way, we then need to turn to the question of who has standing to apologize for the collective. Unlike interpersonal apologies—where the offender has to apologize to the offended—collective apologies depend on representation, or, in other words, they are done by proxy. If we understand collective apologies as symbolic acts and if we agree that collectives can take responsibility for past wrongs even if their current members did not commit any of the past offences, then a legitimate representative – perceived by the collective as having the authority to speak for the collective – has the standing to apologize.

Naturally, the affective dimension of the collective apology becomes less significant if we give up the interpersonal model. The representatives offering the apology might experience feelings of contrition, remorse and regret, but their emotional response is not a necessary condition of an authentic apology by collective agents such as churches, professions, or the state. While representatives speaking on behalf of the group or institution may experience such emotions, the sincerity of the act should not be measured in affective units. The “sincerity” of collective apologies should be measured in terms of what follows from the act. Changes in the norms and practices of the collective, reparations, compensation, or memorialization projects give concreteness to the symbolic act of apologizing.

Last but not least, to whom is the apology addressed? Theorists who do not take the interpersonal “sorry” as a template for the collective apology argue that they are addressed to a number of audiences. First, apologies are directed towards victims and their families and their descendants. Secondly, they are addressed to the general public, with a view to communicating that what happened in the past is in great tension with the moral principles the group subscribes to and that such abuses will not be tolerated ever again. Lastly, the international society – or more abstractly humanity as a whole – is the indirect audience of a collective apology.

c. The Goals of the Collective Apology

If we agree that we can speak meaningfully about public expressions of regret by institutions, then we will also think that they do not serve the same purposes as interpersonal apologies. Such acts aim to restore diplomatic relations, restore the dignity of insulted groups, extend the boundaries of the political community by including the formerly disenfranchised, re-establish equality among groups and recognize suffering, and stimulate reflection and change in a discriminatory public culture. They could also mark a (re-)affirmation of the fundamental moral principles of the community, promote national reconciliation, strengthen a principle of transnational cooperation and contribute to the improvement of international law and diplomatic relations, make a relationship possible by creating a less hostile environment for special groups, and mark a society’s affirmation of a set of virtues in contradistinction to a past of exclusion.

Theological approaches to the functions that collective apologies can perform add to the scholarly reflection about these political practices. In her path-breaking book on the religious dimensions of collective apologies, Celermajer uses insights from the Jewish and the Christian notions and institutions of repentance in order to support an account of collective apologies as speech acts through which “we as a community” ritually express shame for our past, appraise the impact of the past on the present and the future, and make a commitment to change who “we” are by bridging the gap between our ideals and our practices (Celermajer 2009). Other scholars have made reference to the Christian notion of covenant so as to theorise apologies as “embracing” acts and as mechanisms of possible reconciliation. Contributions by theologians thus illuminate one more normative source for the multi-faceted practice of apology: religious traditions.

d. Scepticism about Collective Apologies

While many scholars see public apologies as creating a space of communal reflection and restoration, there are strong sceptical positions that see such official acts as nothing but a “smoke screen” meant to hide the intention to avoid responsibility or further projects of assimilation and discrimination. On the basis of normative inconsistencies associated with current practices of apologies, realist scholars have objected that apologies are a form of “sentimental politics” that serves as a “seductive, feel-good strategy contrived and promoted by governments” to compensate for the lack of redistributive measures. On this view, apologies allow political elites to take the higher moral ground against those who came before them—unfairly applying current standards to the past, thus committing the sin of presentism – and to capitalize electorally.

Defenders of the value of collective apology respond that the presence of strategic reasons does not necessarily doom such practices to irrelevance. True, unless coupled with compensatory schemes and a renunciation of oppressive practices, such declarations of sorrow are signs of hypocritical and meaningless righteousness, far from appropriately addressing the atrocities for which they are issued. Compensation without an apology is also insufficient, as it cannot symbolically affirm the value of the victims. In addition, it might send the wrong signal – that of trying to “buy” the victim’s forgiveness, thus doubling the insult. To the extent that they live up to the tasks they set themselves, i.e. to the extent that they take concrete steps to address injustice symbolically and materially, apologies are “sincere”.

A different kind of criticism comes from conservative commentators who tend to be averse to the idea of apologizing for a past of state-sponsored violence. The fear that discussing the past might damage the community’s self-image pervades many democratic societies with a history of injustice. Turkey’s refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide and the US’s problematic relationship with its long history of racial discrimination are two notorious examples where a discomfort with the past prevents sincere processes of national reckoning.

In response to this line of critique, one can argue that democratic elites can employ two strategies: encourage everyone to participate in a political ritual of contrition and assume the unsavoury past or invite resistant groups to conceive of honesty about the past as an act of courage, not an injustice. A rhetorically powerful appeal to positive feelings of courage, rather than shame, to pride, rather than repentance, could persuade citizens to see the apology as a sign of strength, and not one of weakness.

4. Theatricality and Non-verbal Apologies

The theatrical or ritualistic dimension of the collective apology cannot be omitted from any comprehensive discussion of the practice. While public interpersonal apologies by celebrities can be analysed in terms of their theatrical aspects – just think of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Tiger Woods publicly apologizing to their spouses – it is usually collective political apologies that make a more interesting object for this type of inquiry.

Rhetoricians have pointed to the need for the apologizer to establish a special relation between herself and the audience. She should be able to give meaningful expression to common sentiment and avoid being perceived as out of touch with the public. Timing, the rhetorical register used, the tone, the educational and memorialization projects that precede the apology, and the theatrical props used should enter the consideration of those who want their apology to resonate with the wider public. Thinking of the apology in terms of theatre allows us to grasp not only the validity and power of the performance by the apologizer but also the choice that the spectator has to either accept or reject the authority of the apologizer.

While apologies have been mostly studied as verbal (oral or written) acts, some scholars have recently turned their attention to the non-verbal dimension of the practice. Willy Brandt’s kneeling in front of the monument dedicated to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1970 or Pope John Paul II leaning against the Western Wall and slipping a piece of paper containing a prayer into its crevices have been interpreted as acts of apology, regret and sorrow for the suffering of the Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany and the Catholic Church, respectively. Looking into gestures, bodily posture, location and emotional expressions allows us to understand the complexity of factors that enter into an apology that resonates with its audiences, thus adding richness to any analysis of such practices.


What is Philosophy?

At its simplest, philosophy (from the Greek phílosophía or phílosophía, meaning ‘the love of wisdom’) is the study of knowledge, or “thinking about thinking”, although the breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions:

the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic) (Wikipedia)
investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods (American Heritage Dictionary)
the study of the ultimate nature of existence, reality, knowledge and goodness, as discoverable by human reasoning (Penguin English Dictionary)
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics (WordNet)
the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of man and his behaviour and beliefs (Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary)
the rational and critical inquiry into basic principles (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia)
the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)
careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct (The Philosophy Pages)
As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term “philosophy” meant the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and comprised ALL areas of speculative thought, including the arts, sciences and religion.

Philosophical questions (unlike those of the sciences) are usually foundational and abstract in nature. Philosophy is done primarily through reflection and does not tend to rely on experiment, although the methods used to study it may be analogous to those used in the study of the natural sciences.

In common usage, it sometimes carries the sense of unproductive or frivolous musings, but over the centuries it has produced some of the most important original thought, and its contribution to politics, sociology, mathematics, science and literature has been inestimable. Although the study of philosophy may not yield “the meaning of life, the universe and everything”, many philosophers believe that it is important that each of us examines such questions and even that an unexamined life is not worth living. It also provides a good way of learning to think more clearly about a wide range of issues, and its methods of analyzing arguments can be useful in a variety of situations in other areas of life.

Philosophy is such a huge subject that it is difficult to know how to break it down into manageable and logical sections. Perhaps the most basic overall split at the highest level is geographical, between Eastern Philosophy and Western Philosophy (with, arguably, African Philosophy as a possible third branch at this level).


Through the play of the mind in dreams and deliriums nearness appears as a great distance
and a great distance appears as proximity. Through the force of the mind a great cycle of time
appears as a moment and a moment appears as a great cycle. The unreal world appears as real
whereas it is in reality a long dream arisen in our mind. This world is nothing but a long dream. The
mind sports and creates an illusion. Through the play of the mind the dream-world appears as real.
The following story will illustrate this fact.
Lavana was a king of the country of Uttara Pandava. He was once seated on his throne. All
his ministers and officers were present. There appeared at this time a Siddha or a magician. He
bowed down to the king and said, “O Lord! Deign to behold my wonderful feats.“ The Siddha
waved his bunch of peacock feathers. The king had the following experiences. A messenger from
the king of Sindhu entered the court with a horse like that of Indra and said, “O Lord! My master has
made a present of this horse to you.“ The Siddha requested the king to mount upon the horse and
ride it at his pleasure. The king stared at the horse and entered into a state of trance for two hours.
Afterwards there was relaxation of rigidity of his body. The king“s body fell on the ground after
some time. The courtiers lifted the body. The king gradually came to consciousness. The ministers
and the courtiers said to the king: “What is the matter with your majesty?“ The king said: “The
Siddha waved his bunch of peacock“s feathers. I saw a horse before me. I mounted on the horse and
rode in a desert in the hot sun. My tongue was parched. I was quite fatigued. Then I reached a
beautiful forest. While I was riding on the horse, a creeper encircled my neck and the horse ran
away. I was rocking to and fro in the air during the whole of the night with the creeper encircling my
neck. I was shivering with extreme cold.
“The day dawned and I saw the sun. I cut the creeper that encircled my neck. I then beheld
an outcaste girl carrying some food and water in her hands. I was very hungry and asked her to give
me some food. She did not give me anything. I followed her closely for a long time. She then turned
to me and said: “I am a Chandala by birth. If you promise to marry me in my own place before my
parents and live with me there, I will give you what I have in my hand this very moment.“ I agreed
to marry her. She then gave me half of the food. I ate the food and drank the beverage of Jambu
“Then she took me to her father and asked his permission to marry me. He consented. Then
she took me to her abode. The father of the girl killed monkeys, cows and pigs for flesh and dried
them on the strings of nerves. A small shed was erected. I had then my seat on a big plantain leaf.
My squint-eyed mother-in-law then looked at me with her blood-red eyeballs and said, “Is this our
would-be son-in-law?“
“The marriage festivities began with great “clat. My father-in-law presented me clothes and
other articles. Toddy and meat were freely distributed. The meat-eating Chandalas beat their drums.
The girl was given to me in marriage. I was named as “Pushta.“ The wedding festival lasted for
seven days. A daughter was first born of this union. She brought forth again a black boy in the
course of three years. She again gave birth to a daughter. I became an old Chandala with a large
family and lived for a long time. Children are a source of grief. Miseries of human beings which
arise out of passion take the form of a child. My body became old and emaciated on account of
family cares and worries. I had to undergo pain through heat and cold in the dreary forest. I was clad
in old ragged clothes. I carried loads of firewood on my head. I was exposed to the chill winds. I had
to live upon the roots. I thus spent sixty years of my life as if they were so many Kalpa-ages of long
duration. There was severe famine. Many died of starvation. Some of my relatives left the place.
“I and my wife left the country and walked in the hot sun. I carried two children on my
shoulders and third on my head. I walked a long distance and then arrived at the fringe of a forest.
We all took a little rest under a big palmyra tree. My wife expired on account of long travel in the
hot sun. My younger son Pracheka rose up and stood before me and said with tears gushing out of
his eyes: “Papa, I am hungry. Give me immediately some meat and drink or else I will die.“ He
repeatedly said with tears in his eyes that he was dying of hunger. I was then moved by paternal
affection. I was very much afflicted at heart. I was not able to bear the distress. Then I made up my
mind to put an end to my life by falling into fire. I collected some wood, heaped them together and
set fire to them. I stood up to jump into the fire when I fell down from throne and woke up. I now
find myself as the king Lavana once again and not as a Chandala.“
This story illustrates the heterogeneous actions of the mind. The experiences of the state of
trance or delirium, the experiences in the waking state and those in dream are all similar. The
Samskaras are ingrained in the mind equally in all the states of consciousness. The misery of
Samsara is equally felt in all the states of the mind when it is vigorously working. Whatever we see
is only a manifestation of the mind. It is quite illusory. Time is but a mode of mind. Centuries are
passed for but five minutes and vice versa. Within two hours, king Lavana had experienced such a
diverse life of sixty years.
None can say whether his life as king was true or as Chandala. Whether this is a dream or
that is a dream we cannot say. Instead of thinking that the king dreamt of a life as Chandala, we can
as well consider that a real Chandala dreamt that he was king Lavana. Both are unintelligible and
unreal modes of imagination. Our whole life on earth is a similar play of imagination. Our states of
consciousness contradict themselves when we try to reconcile them. We cannot say whether we are
dreaming or waking. To us every state of imagination seems to be real. We may be in this world
building castles in the air while sleeping on the bed in some other world. Nothing can be given as a
proof for the reality of the world in which we live. If all of us now experience a common world it
may be due to an apparent accident in the similarity of the states of consciousness in us. And
moreover there is no guarantee that all of us look at the world in the same fashion. The world
changes from person to person and to the same person at different conditions of the mind. This is the
state of dream and waking.
We are so much engaged with the present state of the mind and so attached to the persisting
condition of imagination, that nothing but the actual present seems to be real. We forget the past and
ignore the future. We think now that the dream of yesterday is a falsity. And in the state of dream we
apply the same conviction to the waking state also. Are we not mere slaves of imagination? Our
individual life is thus proved to be a fallacy and a vile creature of the modes of imagination, which is
itself an illusion!

Thought for YESTERDAY is gone.
Tomorrow never waits for anyone.
Don’t ever take your LOVED ones for granted
Realise you never know what’s really behind those eyes .
When confronted with your own immortality
You will understand, that all you thought about yourself is never really mattered at all.
Until we meet again on some sunny day be kind to your self. You are truly LOVED by the Lord. Mim MARSHALL


When I reach the end of this journey into Canberra. I have walked over 5,550km doing the walk for justice in the foot step of my ancients an the first walk for justice in history in the southern hemisphere.

Truth and justice well lead the way for this country to heal and to move this country forward for better future for all. Our time has come and we waited for 229 year for this to happen and it is the right time for this to happen an that is a treaty to heal the nation.

I we’ll speak out about the issue my people an none indigenous people from community, homeland, station, town and city about the injustice that taking place throughout this country. The truth is the truth and it is the only way to move forward.

It is time for political from both side and the governor general to set down and it time to listen. No more we shall not live a lie. It is time for the truth to be heard.

-The spirit walker-