Those in the middle of the herd are protected. That's the situation of those of us in the "developed" world.

However, the herd has to have margins and existence for those at the edges is, by definition, marginal. They are vulnerable -- to predators, to stronger herd members who can steal their food and push them to the edge, to famine and drought and natural disasters.

The noble goal of morality is to improve life for everyone. But it's not possible for all members to be at the center of the herd. There will always be a margin and life at the margin will always have the possibility of breeding resentment and envy. Some will always have more status than others and may resent that and take violent action in response. Of course, the privileged ones will respond violently when/if they feel threatened.

Life is a photo album.

At each moment, a page turns.

Once a page is turned, it's gone. There's never a second chance to look at a picture that has passed.

I find some pictures pleasing, others less so.

Sometimes I don't look at *this* picture because I'm distracted by *that* one. But *that* one is just another picture in the album, another page being turned.

I can look at the pictures or close my eyes.

Sometimes I close my eyes because I think I don't like the current picture.

But by the time my eyes are closed, I'm not ignoring the one I didn't like, but the next one.

Sometimes it seems I can choose to look at this picture or that one. Maybe so.

Sometimes it seems I can choose to look at the picture or close my eyes and ignore it. But even if I can choose, the choice winds up applying to the next moment, not the one I'm in when I make it.

Is ignoring the picture ever a good idea? Is it ever something I want to do? Can ignoring a picture ever bring satisfaction? Can ignoring *this* picture ever avoid pain in the moment without bringing a less desirable picture down the line? How would I know?

Words cannot contain what is. Rather, what is contains all words. Words are just concepts that attempt to point at it.

"Truth" is the idea that an idea (a thought) can accurately reflect reality. It's a lie. It can't. However, most human beings hold the concept of "Truth" sacred. That is, they believe it exists, they believe in it, and they search endlessly trying to find it, or trying to prove that they have found it.

If all is Consciousness and Consciousness is all, what is a who? Who is God? Who am I? All just ideas in Consciousness.

All there is, is energy. We can call it Love or Consciousness or Light or light or whatever we like, but it's all there is and it's all the same. It's what sees through your eyes and hears through your ears and experiences your life. It's what determines your choices. It's completely impersonal and mechanical. It has no values, no morals, no point of view. Rather, it contains all values, morals, and points of view.

The operation of the energy never goes wrong, never makes a mistake. It always operates perfectly. From the (apparent) relative human point of view, it seems possible for bad things to happen. It seems possible to make a mistake. Energy always operates exactly as it does -- no bad or good, no mistakes or corrections. Just what happens -- light shining, particles moving, thoughts streaming, humans living, everything happening.

Nearly all of the problematic thinking, the thinking that causes
suffering, is about blame and credit. Who did this? Who did that? I
did! You did! They did!

We hold the idea of free will sacred. We want recognition and credit
when we do something 'good'. We want to blame somebody when 'bad'
things happen.

But each event has billions of causes. How can one be singled out and
held totally responsible when the event depended on all of them? What
happens is what happens. 'Free will' implies that it could have
happened differently. What does it mean to say that it could have
happened differently? 'I' could have made a 'different choice'?
Really? Could I? How? I made the choice I did. If I had made a
different one, looking back at it, it would seem just as inevitable as
the one I made. The choice made is a function of what went before,
what information is available in the moment, what seems best. The only
way I would have made a different choice would have been if something
else seemed best at that moment, and it didn't.

But all this 'I'ing is misleading, too. The one the choice is being
attributed to isn't there any more than the choice is. There's just
what happens, what appears.

Thinking about this is just thinking. Thinking can lead to a
conclusion that 'I' am real, that 'I' have 'free will', and that 'I'
am 'responsible' for 'my' 'choices'. Watching the process carefully
can also lead to a conclusion that all there is in each moment is
awareness watching the appearance unfold. Both of these descriptions
are just descriptions. Either can be believed. Neither can be proven
or disproven. Neither is 'the Truth'.

But seeing the complexity of causation and the emptiness of the ego
idea can allow the sense of responsiblity to relax and with it, all
the psychological baggage that it engenders -- guilt, sin, shame,
pride, arrogance, malice, spite, humility, jealousy, envy, and so
forth, so that suffering can be seen through.

'Finding fault' and 'assigning blame' creates a mentality of
victimhood and is an immature and painful way to live. 'Taking
responsibility for oneself' is more mature and creative and leads to
less suffering. Seeing through the ideas of ego and responsibility
leads to freedom from suffering. Painful events may still happen, but
without being "my fault" or "your fault" or requiring forgiveness or
recompense.

'Taking responsibility for oneself' creates an unbearable burden for
the one attempting to take responsibility. Reality is just too complex
and doesn't do my bidding. The people who seem to be truly sane and at
peace are the ones who, in one form or another, have let go of trying
to run the world and are willing to accept what is, as it is.

All that's really needed is careful watching. What is can be seen by
looking, not thinking.