Considering only the body is real; whereas that may be true it does not prohibit the idea that the body could be house to or become the soul.

Inclined to develop soul, an immortal form of life, killing has to stop. This is almost impossible as an animal, but meditating on the problem by being vegan and see what obstacles there are to overcome.

Just because it seems impossible, doesn't mean the to attempt is fruitless. Bodies or forms that are parts of the universe, exist only within the confines of the material, and the unbounded will.

The will of the mind is limited by the unsustainability of the body, so immortal life cannot be of the body and hence not constrained by it's matter, hence the will can be unbounded.

Desire for immortality is fraught with the will of action in time. For whilst immortality must exist in space, desire is limited by the mind. To unchain the mind from the body is best started by unchaining the body from the concious, everyday mind, or mental processes.

Adopting regimes like religion, sustainability may help to control the chains and yet will also enforce them to discipline. The step of discipline only works in extreme, where it can be seen to be an infinite bond to the will.

Acknowledging will and desire without expectation is a key to immortality. Removing expectation is a step through the door.

"Pierre de Fermat showed that any prime number that could be divided by four with a remainder of one was also the sum of two square numbers.

So 41 is a prime, can be divided by four with one left over and is 25 (five squared) plus 16 (four squared).

e.g.
5(4+1), 13(4+9), 17(16+1), 29(4+25), 37(36+1), 41(16+25), 61(36+25)

So if it has remainder one it can always be written as two square numbers - there's something beautiful about that.

It's unexpected why should the two things [primes and squares] have anything to do with each other, but as the proof develops you start to see the two ideas become interwoven like in a piece of music and you start to see they come together.

He said it was the journey not the final proof that was exciting; like in a piece of music it's not enough to play the final chord."

There is a space travelled from there to here or thence to now some would throw, no matter the defining terms, space changes in time or there are changes in space who knows.

With no fixed point to measure from, no referee, and I am mindfull of space, most vacantly, as time seems not to have a point.

Measuring a yard a foot a mile, an indeterminate thing, could be a smile, avoid the stick, the start and end of a measured look. Repeatedly tested from head to toe the truth measure of life is always more or less than that assesed. Invariably as the starting point although available as a referenece point is never in the same place.

Each point is only defined by its distance form some other not some absolute fixed centre of being as though space is some spherical thing or any shape wherein there is a centre or indeed where anything stays the same position or even has such limits.

The relevant position of the earth to the sun is measured in various ways but most practccally in its shifting axial points to the sun providing the seasonal variations in aquired light.

Over such a journey through space with the sun the earth inclines this way or nay and repeats this trick within this heat some 365.25 days per feat.

And so we measure our axial incline all the better to define the planting times by the number of rotations we indulge until we engorge orselves on summers growth once more.

We call this revolution of worth a day and in one of these have our birth.

A day is now a measure of how long it takes but a name for the revolution it is just a fake. That we choose to use 360 degrees an approximation of our needs to predict the comming clime and whether to plant or reap the weather. Napoleon would have the rotations align with the simpleness of his mind and if he could have his way there would be but 100 days.

But here we measure such things by number and call them nights the time for slumber. A special change in space doth rear no time could offer such a place so dear.

Should there be no offsetting axis there would be no tempus relaxis, no season in which to sow nor one on holiday to go. We would not place birth within the year, unless of course the stars appear and against their majesty in black we measure forward by going back.

Without this tilt, it may come to notice that the stars align with the seeker and the sun every 365.25 and so the year is born afresh, yet each passing day and night are both the same whichever latitude maintained so of the clock that ticks what unit shall we use to flick over the work we do each day to value better each trick of how many apples we can pick, in the light of day or come what may. Sowing and reaping hand in hand no reason to fret when to give and whence to get. No moment or place could ever be more beautiful to forget

We measure worth by work done in an event of light of the passing sun. What need for hours this summers day? Yet some wouldst count the apples found and yet to fall across the zenith of this mighty hall . A meridian of passing event of spent love and consumer intent.

Now time is a concept all full of hope but nothing in this world does it denote.

Sa Ra Ta (Freedom, Energy and Sloth)

I've taken the above from the Hindi Gunas, Satva, Raja and Tama

I hope to clarify these three concepts using the abbreviated Hindi words as my version, their use in English (bracketed) is not only cheap and inaccurate but arguably not what any Hindu would agree with.

My main purpose is to use food consumption as not just a major example but to be what I consider the major part of our ritualistic consumption.

It is the ritual that becomes a polarisation on that something is done to have effect thence the notions of cause and effect come to mind, which I consider to be arrant concepts.

As I hope someone may find this a little entertaining and reflect on the ideas I would like clarify that in any practice or experiment it is utterly important to remove the thought of anyone else form the process. For example I present money as being a Tam concept and a very common part of most peoples thinking. It is wrong in terms of understanding these concepts if I were to compare my material wealth to that of another and consider my karma will be different as my Tam is different. Whereas the consideration in what karma I may have is how balanced my Tam is with my Raj.

Consider how many affluent people do charitable works in the belief that they are generating something good. Where does this idea of good come from. maybe form witnessing the poverty and starvation of others. Rich people give more to such causes yet arguably they taken far more than a fair share to begin with and it is doubtful nay impossible they they would give back more than they take.

Each of us can only consider our own assets and whether to offset any bad karma by doing some good.

But here is the crux or is that the crack, neither good nor bad karma should be actively gained. The idea of investing in such polarity undermines the nature of duality which presents itself to us in gender. Gender is a complimentary dualism genders are not polarised. There can be no men or woman's rights just the right to have a gender.

As most people juggle with the material world the destruction is usually thought of as being justified by the benefits, even to a point where people say they have created this or that from some destructive of killing process. To dig for more coal or chop down a tree to keep warm, to build shelters from destroying habitats of other creatures and to level habitats in the production of storable foods.

Clearly this need for good karma is inherent in our minds justifying our bad actions and so we develop meaningless concepts like sustainability and transition as though somehow we can undue the badness by limiting it or recycling the badness. Yes let;s recycle the badness rather than create any more, as if that means there's going to be any less badness.

The Sat view is to be free of karma, but this does not mean to raise to a higher level of conciousness as though height or higher vibrations will help escape this gravity. Ascendancy only enforces the opposite that there is something below, the bad lands. Thus the search for heaven or some, bad-karma free future that somehow was not built of the past. All this will do is double the karma and embedded the notion even deeper in the mind.

Restricting action although not increasing the satvic concept will leave space where neither Raj or Tam can thrive.

Food

A good experiment to test and not to better understanding is to consider food. No matter how rich in comparison to another someone is, proportionally they do not eat that much more food. Relativity is a problem, as anyone who eats anything eats infinitely more food than someone who s starving to deaths. The body, unlike banks can only store a few kilos not billions.

When food is eaten, in any die,t the karma also arrives in how it was produced. Is it a dead animal or vegetable, maybe its milk, honey, nuts or some other seed, maybe its fruit.

Anyone can grade their food, arguably the one consumption they are unlikely to relinquish, by attributing one of the three Gunas to it. Only once the product is destined for personal consumption does the karma begin. There is no use in considering what the supper-markets sell, what Monsanto 'creates' or which zebra the lionesses mind is set upon. All that needs to be considered is what you want. The more you want the more justification will come with it, more cause and effect.

If you would be free, be.

Along with any other polarised view I am not a supporter, so it is with interest that I consider such.

The general argument seems to be spearheaded by woman

"there is an over-emphasis on physical prowess as opposed to personality - and in fact women have always complained about this. We mostly like to get to know someone first - as a product of the childbirth and rearing dependency thing and because most of us are going to suffer if the person we choose is not what they seem and particularly if they turn out physically abusive in some way... Economic opportunity/security has a lot to do with generating this dynamic but even affluent women need to consider the `unknown` factor... "

and supported more, recently by those of the male persuasion.

My lack of support for this is similar to that I have for 'Fathers for Justice'. It is not that I disagree with their factual representation as I have felt hard done by, by the power the mothers of my children enjoy. But that's the point, it is power that people enjoy so much, so what if it's a woman rather than a man that wants or wields that power.

My experience is more of mother and father and here lies a door to my escapism.

First let me say that I have no support for any absolute right, human or otherwise and any such benefit or enjoyment is just an inherited or earned privilege or standing.

When those too weak to find a solution to exploiting a resource alone, they may co-operate or use, exploit or employ others to help. It is only economic sense to share the benefit amongst those in cahoots. The agreement to divide the booty is the rights each has subsequent to their effort in supporting the group gathering of benefits. It can be lost, stolen or forfeited. Such gain is not a right. Animals nor plants have a right to be, but those that enjoy being a consumer may eventually succumb to death and loose all 'rights' they enjoyed.

So having po-pooed rights, then where is the enjoyment in such an argument?

It's it's use in sexism and sex is my favourite subject, at least until both man and woman are resigned to history and humans are conceived and born in laboratories, something I have no interest in developing yet cannot forstall.

Within the benefits than both sexes may enjoy there has to be a contract. I am not aware of a contract that differentiates between the sexes, well not any that I am part of. So a parent may seem to have rights, but not the mother or father.A child is general entitled to access to its parents, but not necessarily a mother ad father. In same gender couples both their will not be a mother and a father. Law, or contract defines the 'rights' and once a child has been adopted the former father or mother is no longer a parent and can only use he term father and mother to describe the conception of the child i.e. biological mother. Such a mother has no rights.

Given the arguments above it is clear that a mother and father refer to the conception whilst parent alludes to the caring of the child. Parents should not exploit their gender in parenting which is exactly what 'Fathers for Justice' do, and it seems many if not the majority of female parents indulge in. That this is picked up also by infertile mangers of people, both young and old shows not only the weakness of the individual but a clear lack of identity and the need not just to shroud themselves in the warmth of company but to have a power over others.

The excuse that such people may have been abused when young does nothing to alleviate the continuing abuse that they inflict upon all sort of life forms whatever their nature.

Fighting for woman or men's right's is sexism, just as fighting for other animals is specism.

In human legal framework there is a basis that gender is not the deciding factor. So if the de facto best parent is the mother with her womb and breasts to succour the infant child, if she so chooses, then it's no surprise that those who support this have sexist views.

So to be picky and argumentative I have edited the earlier quote

"there is an over-emphasis on physical prowess as opposed to personality - and in fact women have always complained about this. We mostly like to get to know someone first - as a product of the childbirth and rearing dependency thing and because most of us are going to suffer if the person we choose is not what they seem and particularly if they turn out physically abusive in some way... Economic opportunity/security has a lot to do with generating this dynamic but even affluent women need to consider the `unknown` factor... "

• there is an over-emphasis on physical prowess as opposed to personality
• Prowess and personality are complementary attributes of consuming animals. That a more mindful one as a human may express more personality is no benign quality as it will only be used to benefit the survival of the owner, where it grows
• and in fact women have always complained about this.
• I'm sure often as a male i have winched at the prowess of the more powerful, whether that prowess is due to physical or mental ability, in fact I still cringe here and there, more so as i get older and I so the idea that all woman do is only true if all men do, not to be sexist.

What more could I say to combat such sexist views.

So having suffered as a child and been humiliated as a parent, due to none other than my own aberrations from those expected of me by me I would love a lover, someone who sees sexism as the mutual exploitation of gender.

Mothers and fathers are for the offspring of man and woman to exploit not for parents. Parents have no gender, but any gender can act as parent, whether equally should not be a divisive issue; and where one chooses to use it so they are being sexist and not a parent.