candidates’ church chat erodes U.S. principles

Published on August 20, 2008 in enlightenment and pissed off. 0 Comments

Let’s be honest: Forum with Warren was religious test for McCain, Obama

Kathleen Parker
August 20, 2008

At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister—no matter how beloved—is supremely wrong.

It is also un-American.

For the past several days, most political debate has focused on who won.

Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn’t a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court?

Suffice it to say, each of the candidates’ usual supporters felt validated in their choices. McCain convinced and comforted with characteristic certitude those most at ease with certitude; Obama convinced and comforted with his characteristic intellectual ambivalence those most at ease with ambivalence.

The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state.

The loser was America.

In his enormously successful book, “The Purpose-Driven Life,” Warren begins: “It’s not about you.” Agreed. Nor is this criticism aimed at Christians, evangelicals, other believers or non-believers—or at Warren, who is a good man with an exemplary record of selfless works. Few have walked the walk with as much determination or success.

This is about higher principles that are compromised every time we pretend we’re not applying a religious test when we’re really applying a religious test.

It is true that no one was forced to participate in the Saddleback forum and that both McCain and Obama are free agents. Warren certainly has a right to invite whomever he wishes to his church and to ask them whatever they’re willing to answer.

His format and questions were interesting and the answers more revealing than the usual debate menu provides. But does it not seem just a little bit odd to have McCain and Obama chatting individually with a preacher in a public forum about their positions on evil and their relationship with Jesus Christ?

The past few decades of public confession and Oprah-style therapy have prepared us perfectly for a televangelist probing politicians about their moral failings. The Warren Q&A wasn’t an inquisition exactly, but viewers would be justified in squirming.

What is the right answer, after all? What happens to the one who gets evil wrong? What’s a proper relationship with Jesus? What’s next? Interrogations by rabbis, priests and imams? What candidate dare decline on the basis of mere principle?

Both Obama and McCain gave “good” answers, but that’s not the point. They shouldn’t have been asked. Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that “Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” or that McCain feels that he is “saved and forgiven”?

What does that mean, anyway? What does it prove? Nothing except that these men are willing to say whatever they must—and what most Americans personally feel is no one’s business—to win the highest office.

Warren tried to defuse criticism about staging the interviews in his church by saying that though “we” believe in the separation of church and state, “we” don’t believe in the separation of faith and politics. Faith, he said, “is just a worldview, and everybody has some kind of worldview. It’s important to know what they are.”

Presumably “we” refers to Warren’s church of fellow evangelicals. And while, yes, everybody has some kind of worldview, it shouldn’t be necessary in a pluralistic nation of secular laws to publicly define that view in Christian code.

For the moment, let’s set aside our curiosity about what Jesus might do in a given circumstance and wonder what our founding fathers would have done at Saddleback Church. What would have happened to Thomas Jefferson if he had responded as he wrote in 1781:

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Would the crowd at Saddleback have applauded and nodded through that one? Doubtful.

By today’s new standard of pulpits in the public square, Jefferson—the great advocate for religious freedom in America—would have lost.

Washington Post Writers Group

Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist. E-mail: kparker@kparker.com

we are perfect as we are

Published on August 19, 2008 in enlightenment. 0 Comments

…

This most exhalted of creatures must needs formulate a science; without it, he is bound to suffer this process of nature passively, and suffer it until the arduous task of awakening his consciousness has been achieved, meaning the consciousness of the eternal Being within us. Without that, what good is all the rest? What good all the endless discussions of philosophy? What good the science that destroys itself? What purpose in awakening every morning for the wearisome daily struggle to reach the evening in a state of exhaustion, to reach the agony of such an empty life?

If our existence were conducted in the spirit of truth, all suffering would be joyous, all effort fruitful; nothing would be worth troubling over, for the aim would illumine us, and this entire passage would be looked upon as a mere tragi-comedy, without importance in itself; only the aim counts.

As long as cerebral intelligence governs the world, it will be dominated by beings of inferior mentality, for man’s life will be but struggle of force and power, struggle of vanity, struggle of wealth, struggle for an existence whose aim is warped. All of life will be based only on the equilibrium of arguments where every affirmation can be contradicted, every proof destroyed and denied, making man the most ferocious of beasts.

But man is not a beast; he is animated. Man is an epitome of the cosmos, a creature housing a divine spark. Man is not an evolved amphibian, an animal form that has become what we are.

Man is perfect at his origin, a divine being who has degenerated into what we are.

…

– R.A. Schwaller de Lubics (The Egyptian Miracle)

Al Gore lays down green challenge to America

Published on July 18, 2008 in enlightenment, environmental and pissed off. 0 Comments

Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Friday, July 18, 2008

(07-18) 04:00 PDT Washington –

Al GoreFormer Vice President Al Gore, seeking to shake up an energy debate that is focused mostly on drilling, challenged the United States to shift its entire electricity sector to carbon-free wind, solar and geothermal power within 10 years, and use that power to fuel a new fleet of electric vehicles.

The goal is the most ambitious energy plan by a major U.S. political figure - and one many energy experts say is unrealistic. Gore insists the only real obstacle is the reluctance of America’s leaders to seek bold solutions to high energy prices and global warming. He likened his challenge to President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 call to put a man on the moon.

“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” Gore told more than 1,000 cheering supporters at the Daughters of the American Revolution Constitution Hall in Washington. “It represents a challenge to all Americans in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers and to every citizen.”

Gore is seeking to pressure the presidential candidates and Congress, which is in the middle of a fierce debate on energy policy. He said he has spoken to both Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama about his ideas. Obama issued a statement Thursday saying he strongly agrees with Gore’s goal.

New jobs, safer world

“It’s a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced, and one that will leave our children a world that is cleaner and safer,” Obama said.

McCain said that while he and Gore might disagree on some aspects of climate change, he supports the goals Gore outlined for developing wind and solar. “If the vice president says it’s doable, I believe it’s doable,” McCain said.

Gore’s challenge would require a massive restructuring of America’s electricity sector. The country currently relies on coal for about half of its electric power - 49 percent - followed by natural gas (22 percent) nuclear (19 percent) and hydropower (6 percent), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Renewable power accounts for 2.5 percent, although it’s growing rapidly in many states, especially California.

Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities that produce 70 percent of the nation’s power, said his group supports Gore’s call for more electric vehicles and a major increase in wind, solar and geothermal. But Owen said there’s no way renewables could meet all the country’s energy needs in 10 years.

“We cannot do the job with renewables and energy efficiency alone,” he said. “We have to have a balanced energy portfolio that includes all those things in even higher percentages, but also has to include nuclear. And we frankly think that nuclear should be increased.”

Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and 2000 Democratic presidential candidate, presented his challenge as a solution to three overlapping crises: an economic crisis fueled by rising energy prices; a global climate crisis; and a national security crisis fed by instability in the Middle East, the largest source of the world’s oil supply.

“We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet,” he said. “Every bit of that’s got to change.”

Gore said as the prices of oil and coal have increased, wind and solar have become more economically competitive. He noted that the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells fell from $300 per kilogram to as low as $50 per kilogram recently.

But Gore acknowledged that there are barriers to reaching his goal. The nation’s electric grid is still not sufficiently developed to move solar power from sunny states out West or wind power from windy states to power-hungry markets, he said.

A centerpiece of Gore’s plan would be to help beleaguered U.S. automakers produce a new national fleet of plug-in electric vehicles. Foreign competitors, especially Toyota, have taken a lead in selling fuel-efficient hybrids. Gore said U.S. automakers could regain their edge with new electric cars that can be plugged in at night - saving consumers money while reducing air pollution and U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Gore isn’t the only one touting a new energy plan focused on renewables. T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman who has recently invested heavily in wind, is pushing a plan to use wind power for about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity needs, and then use the natural gas that would have gone to power plants for new fuels for cars and trucks.

Gore has previously supported cap-and-trade schemes, which could raise revenue to subsidize renewable projects. But he said Thursday he also likes the idea of cutting the payroll tax and creating a new tax on carbon emissions, which would give a leg up to low-carbon sources.

Cheers against drilling

Gore drew his loudest cheers from a crowd packed with environmentalists when he denounced efforts, backed by President Bush, McCain and congressional Republicans, to boost oil drilling. Gore said, “It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil 10 years from now.”

Environmentalists have been disappointed at the recent energy debate, where even some Democrats have backed more drilling as an answer to $4-per-gallon gasoline. Gore’s speech could convince Democrats to take a different approach, they said.

“It’s a very aggressive, bold, comprehensive proposal and it’s great to challenge the politicians to go where they need to go,” said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski.

 

Throwing down the green gauntlet

Former Vice President Al Gore challenged the United States to produce all its electricity from carbon-free renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal within 10 years. His speech sparked strong reactions from all sides:

Gore: “Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the Earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand.”

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Democratic presidential candidate: “I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as president.”

Arizona Sen. John McCain, Republican presidential candidate, on Gore’s goals for more wind and solar power: “There may be some aspects of climate change that he and I are in disagreement (on),” but “if the vice president says it’s doable, I believe it’s doable.”

T. Boone Pickens, Texas oilman and wind-power booster: “Former Vice President Al Gore put forward a framework of a plan that is focused on global warming and climate issues. … My plan is aimed squarely at breaking the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our country. We import 70 percent of our oil, and that number is growing larger every year. Vice President Gore’s plan does not address this enormous problem.”

Jim Owen, spokesman for Edison Electric Institute: “We cannot do the job with renewables and energy efficiency alone. We have to have a balanced energy portfolio that includes all those things in even higher percentages, but also has to include nuclear. And we frankly think that nuclear should be increased.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.: “The vice president’s main effort is to mobilize the American people behind meaningful action and less talk about global warming.”

Gene Karpinski, League of Conservation Voters president: “It’s a very aggressive, bold, comprehensive proposal, and it’s great to challenge the politicians to go where they need to go.”

Former Rep. Bob Barr, Libertarian presidential candidate: “None of us can walk away from this issue without agreeing with him that we do have a very serious problem, and it’s only going to get worse unless we do something about it. … I hope to be a part of that, and I would like to see the free market take the lead, not the government.”

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash.: “It pointed out that the only way we have a chance to drive down oil prices is if we become free of the slavery of oil. If we can give Americans choices of electrical cars or … biodiesel cars, then and only then do we have a chance of dealing with this cost issue. That is why $4-a-gallon gas is not an enemy of action, it’s an ally of action.”

E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

here’s oil in your eye

Published on July 18, 2008 in enlightenment, environmental and pissed off. 0 Comments

Bush lifts drilling ban, oil execs leer, nation cringes, Obama sighs

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, July 18, 2008

I admit to bafflement. I admit to a bit of total confusion mixed with a certain level of stupefied awe and teeth-rattling frustration as to why anyone with the mental acuity of more than a housefly would think that stabbing more holes into Alaska and the eastern seaboard in the search for a few remaining precious drops of oil is a good idea, would solve anything at all, is anything more than the equivalent of hurling matches at the devil.

Perhaps I’m missing something. Perhaps there’s some dark, secret genius behind President Bush’s otherwise absolutely imbecilic and dangerous corporate-whore move to lift the federal ban on offshore drilling, a ban placed there by his own father, as Dubya actually stood there with a straight face and tried to imply that this insidious move was meant to impart something good and helpful for a gas-stunned nation, that he was “doing all he could” to help with prices at the pump, when you could actually see the oil dripping from his shivery bones and the giant hand of Exxon shoved up his weak little spine, making his mouth move.

Oh, I fully understand the corporate arguments, even the political ones. Asking why the oil companies are eager as rabbits on meth to gouge further into the planet is a bit like asking a surgeon why she wants to operate, or a lawyer why he wants to sue, or a snake why he wants to sink his fangs into a nice juicy rat and swallow it whole and smile for a week. It is, quite simply, what they do.

And politicos, well, they’re of course generally terrified of their own shadows, merely following what the people scream, and enough misinformed people scream about high gas prices and demand some sort of relief and, well, politicos from both sides of the aisle will say just about anything to mollify and deflect and pretend to care, even if it means lying, even if it means feigning total ignorance and blaming the oil speculators, even (or rather, especially) if it means an utter and complete shunning of the facts at hand.

And those facts sure seem irrefutable. All signs and every bit of data we have point to the glaring fact that, even if we sucked every available drop of oil from ANWR and the outer shelf and from every junior high school student in America, it would only be enough to satisfy our country’s rapacious needs for a matter of months. It would have no effect on overall demand. It would do zilch at the gas pumps. Prius owners would still be quietly snickering at every SUV from here to Atlanta.

But none of that even matters, because given the time it would take for exploration and to build the various pipelines and infrastructures, we wouldn’t even see a drop of that oil (or natural gas) for upwards of 10 or 20 years, at which point, if all scientific prognostications are correct — and they very much are — we’ll be well into the apocalypse. Or maybe just dead. Whichever.

So then, this sighing imponderable: How obvious can it be that drilling for more oil in the United States is pointless, pollutive, idiotic, will have zero effect on current gas prices, only benefits the oil magnates, Republicans, Bush himself, is overall a move in exactly the wrong direction?

I wouldn’t bother to ask, were it not for the voluminous comments and e-mails I still receive — and those I’ll surely get in response to this very column — those who snicker and whine and say hey, you know who’s really at fault for high oil and gas prices? You damn liberals! You’re holding us back! You and your communist environmental concerns won’t let good American capitalism drill for more!

Isn’t that sweet? Would that I had such power.

I can only reply: Yes, gosh, you are so right — what’s actually preventing us from solving the energy crunch are all those all-powerful hippies and their refusal to let the sweet, Christian oil titans maul the planet like a blind butcher hacks at a piece of veal. Oh, those poor oil companies and their $155 billion in staggering profits(.pdf) last year, the huge billion-dollar corporate tax breaks they enjoy, and which John McCain wants to continue. So unfair.

It all ends up in another big, throbbing, perhaps hugely rhetorical question: Is there some sort of line? Some sort of threshold where what seems brutally obvious to anyone who does even the tiniest modicum of research (or possesses that most rare of American traits, common sense), crosses over into common knowledge?

Where is the tipping point, that line where the mass populace begins to dial in, when even the most cold-hearted lib-loathing conservative — like those who are, right now, hating on poor little “Wall-E,” sneering that Pixar’s sweet little movie is nothing more than a typical liberal fascist fantasy of overconsumption and gluttony — even they begin to say, you know what? We might have this energy thing all wrong.

Maybe it’s actually not liberal claptrap to want to move toward alternative, sustainable, less pollutive energy sources, to upend the ultimately fatal petroleum economy. Maybe it can be profitable and sound and reasonable and even slightly healthy to disallow Shell and Exxon and the rest from slashing into remote wildlife preserves for no valid reason other than the usual: power, cash, distortion, a brand of outmoded gluttony that shames the world’s spiritual core. You think?

Yes, I realize what I’m asking is sort of futile, that trying to cut and paste a paragraph of logic and common sense and humanity into a bloody, violent book consisting solely of power and greed and deeply ingrained, world-class deceit is a fool’s game. The thoughtful utopian in you can sprinkle all the fairy dust of hope it wants, but the devil just laughs and keeps right on drilling.

Then again, if we don’t ask, if the media doesn’t investigate, if we just sit back and hope market forces take care of everything and let the economy choose our path out of our own self-made disaster, well, do we not merely invite more corruption, a deeply deformed sense of who we are and where we want to go? Or, to put it more technically, are we not just thoroughly fÑed?

Thoughts about this column? E-mail Mark.Mark Morford

Mark Morford’s Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate and in the Datebook section of the San Francisco Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing.

Mark’s column also has an RSS feed and an archive of past columns, which includes another small photo of Mark potentially sufficient for you to recognize him in the street and give him gifts. He also has a raw Facebo

are you ready to be AWAKENED?

Published on March 26, 2008 in just life. 0 Comments

a new earth

A NEW EARTH: AWAKENING TO YOUR LIFE’S PURPOSE

Building on the astonishing success of The Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle presents readers with an honest look at the current state of humanity: He implores us to see and accept that this state, which is based on an erroneous identification with the egoic mind, is one of dangerous insanity.

Tolle tells us there is good news, however. There is an alternative to this potentially dire situation. Humanity now, perhaps more than in any previous time, has an opportunity to create a new, saner, more loving world. This will involve a radical inner leap from the current egoic consciousness to an entirely new one.

In illuminating the nature of this shift in consciousness, Tolle describes in detail how our current ego-based state of consciousness operates. Then gently, and in very practical terms, he leads us into this new consciousness. We will come to experience who we truly are—which is something infinitely greater than anything we currently think we are—and learn to live and breathe freely.

– ECKHART TOLLE

Scientists: Soft, chewy Peeps nearly indestructible

Published on March 26, 2008 in geekie stuff and just life. 0 Comments

Peep Addict ATLANTA (CNN) — Inspired by a sugar rush after consuming several of the ubiquitous Easter confections known as Peeps, Emory University scientists James Zimring and Gary Falcon decided to try to find out just what it was they were eating.

Using everything this side of a nuclear device, these intrepid scientists conducted experiments to discover just what would dissolve a Peep. As CNN’s Ann Kellan reports, what they found was that these are some of the sturdiest birds not found in creation.

– CNN.COM

i saved another turkey today

Published on November 22, 2007 in enlightenment and environmental. 0 Comments

turkey love

today i did NOT participate in the genocide of innocent turkeys.

my employer even supplied several for a thanksgiving feast for us, their employees. a nice gesture… but one i easily refrained from. i still enjoyed QUITE a feast with many wonderful casserole dishes, yams, pumpkin pies, etc.

this picture caught my attention because when i was young, on the farm, i had a pet turkey named HENRIETTA. i loved her dearly. she would often come for affection and hugs. when she was small i’d walk around with her on my shoulder. hehe… when she grew up that could no longer happen! i did, when i could get away with it, sneak her into the house and she would sit on the back of my chair and watch TV with me.

today… i remember her and i miss her.

here is a website that has a great concept: MEATLESS MONDAY

even if you will not try to be a vegetarian… we ALL know that the reduction of meat in our diet is VERY good for us. this site’s concept is simply… no meat on monday!

;)

crazy about turkeys like i am? ADOPT A TURKEY!

they YOU TOO can have your own precious “henrietta.”

we now use 1.25 earths a year!

Published on September 17, 2007 in environmental. 0 Comments

What is World Overshoot Day?

Beginning on October 9th and continuing through the end of the year, the world will be living beyond its ecological means. Ecological Footprint accounting shows that, as of October 9th, humanity will have already consumed the total amount of new resources nature will produce this year.  

Each year Global Footprint Network calculates humanity’s Ecological Footprint (its demand on cropland, pasture, forests and fisheries) and compares it with global biocapacity (the ability of these ecosystems to generate resources and absorb wastes). Ecological Footprint accounting can be used to determine the exact date we, as a global community, begin running our annual ecological deficit. Designated “World Overshoot Day,” this year demand begins outstripping supply on October 9.

Overshoot has been called ‘the biggest issue you’ve never heard of.’ Yet despite its lack of publicity, its causes and effects are as simple as they are significant.In any given year, if trees are cut down faster than they grow back, then forests become smaller than the year before. If more fish are caught each year than spawn, there will be fewer fish in the sea. The consequences of our accumulating ecological debt also include global climate change, species extinction, insecure energy supplies, water shortages, and crop failure. 

As humanity’s consumption of resources increases, World Overshoot Day creeps earlier on the calendar. Humanity’s first Overshoot Day was December 19, 1987. By 1995 it had jumped back a month to 21 November. Today, with Overshoot Day on October 9, humanity’s Ecological Footprint is almost thirty per cent larger than the planet’s biocapacity this year. In other words, it now takes more than one year and three months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year.

What is Overshoot?

Today, humanity uses about 30% more in one year than nature can regenerate in that same year. This is called “overshoot”. An ecological overshoot of 30% means that it takes one year and about three months for the Earth to regenerate what is being used by people in one year, creating an ecological deficit.

We currently maintain this overshoot by liquidating the planet’s natural resources. For example we can cut trees faster than they re-grow, and catch fish at a rate faster than they repopulate. While this can be done for a short while, overshoot ultimately leads to the depletion of resources on which our economy depends.

Overshoot is like ecological overspending. Just as any business that does not keep financial books will go bankrupt over time, we must document whether we’re living within our ecological budget or running an ecological deficit that will eventually deplete our renewable assets.

 World Overshoot Day

How is Overshoot Day Calculated?

[ world biocapacity / world Ecological Footprint ] x 365 = Overshoot Day

Put simply, Overshoot day shows the day on which our total Ecological Footprint (measured in global hectares) is equal to the biocapacity (also measured in global hectares) that nature can regenerate in that year. For the rest of the year, we are accumulating debt by depleting our natural capital and letting waste accumulate.

The day of the year on which humanity enters into overshoot is calculated by calculating the ratio of global available biocapacity to global Ecological Footprint and multiplying by 365. From this, we find the number of days of demand that the biosphere could supply, and the number of days we operate in overshoot.

This ratio shows that in just 282 days, we demand the biosphere’s entire capacity for the year 2006. The 282nd day of the year is October 9th.

If you have further questions about the Ecological Footprint and Overshoot calculations, there are a number of resources available through our website to learn more: See the Living Planet Report for definitions, data and further information about overshoot. You can also read our methodology paper for a more technical overview of our calculation methods, and visit our glossary page for definitions of terms, or read more about it in our newsletter. If you have further inquiries about World Overshoot Day please contact Brooking Gatewood.

– THE GLOBAL FOOTPRINT

if i had no concept about myself, what would happen to me?

Published on August 29, 2007 in enlightenment. 0 Comments

Why have I, who have lived forty, fifty, sixty—or whatever number of years it is that one has lived—why have I gathered this store-houseful of what I think, what I feel, what I am, what I should be, this accumulation of experience, knowledge? And if I had not done that, what would happen? Do you understand? If I had no concept about myself, what would happen to me? I would be lost, wouldn’t I? I would be uncertain, terribly frightened of life. So I build an image, a myth, a concept, a conclusion about myself, because without this framework life would become for me utterly meaningless, uncertain, fearful: there would be no security. I may be secure outwardly; I may have a job, a house, and all the rest of it, but inwardly also I want to be completely secure. And it is the desire to be secure that compels me to build this image of myself, which is verbal. Do you understand? It has no reality at all; it is merely a concept, a memory, an idea, a conclusion.

The Collected Works, Vol. XV - 193

– JKrishnamurti.org - Daily Quote

trying to become something else

Published on August 19, 2007 in enlightenment. 0 Comments

The very awareness of what is is a liberative process. So long as we are unaware of what we are and are trying to become something else, so long will there be distortion and pain. The very awareness of what I am brings about transformation and the freedom of understanding.

The Collected Works, Vol. IV - 75

– JKrishnamurti.org - Daily Quote