Consensus.

To start off, I need consensus. My starting point is that we all accept the discovery that we are results of an evolutionary process. More apt: there was life before humankind came into being. This is what I need you to accept, face value, from here I go on.

Accepting that life evolved over a long time, and accepting that we humans are a recent member of life’s species, you now have two choices; either you accept the commonly accepted scientific explanation of genetic  evolution, inheritance with ever so much change mixed in because this process is blind and has no purpose. And then there is this other notion; life has meaning, life has purpose, life is valuable. Why is it that this second notion spans all times, all regions and all ethnicities? Because there is a silent ‘my’ before all these convictions. How do you live when you don’t have meaning, don’t have purpose and you’re not valuable?

All religions, philosophies, ideologies are  our trying to answer the most important question: why am I here? The fact that we relate and depend on our neighbours morphed the question into; why are we here?

So, we have the scientific atheist view of a purposeless process of ‘survival of the fittest’ or an unfathomable range of religious and philosophical thought, trying to make sense of our life’s, give it meaning and valuable, or not.

Is life as in evolution a blind force, purposeless or is there meaning and purpose to be found at the centre of our existence?

Of course there is.

To accredit evolution with human values as blind, purposelessness is a compete misdirection when we are being introduced to the atheist explanation of life and evolution. You won’t find these values of blind and purposelessness ever again, it’s all about ‘surviving’. 

It’s all about surviving. Survival of the species, the fittest, it even penetrates our human experience on more than one level. For us surviving means many things; survive in business, in arts, faith..etc. But try and find a definition of the word and you’ll find there is none, really, Google it. Except of course the philosophical tautology; To remain alive.  

What does it mean, to remain alive? This actually is the real 64 thousand dollar question. And I will answer it.

I don’t need religion, no ideology or philosopher. I only need the self-ignored paradox of no purpose what’s whoever against there explanation of evolution where they defend another purpose;  survival! Which would make a nice scientific equation; to survive = meaningless. Of course for each and every one of us it isn’t.

When we accept that surviving is the one and only purpose of life, the question becomes more visible. If life is an intelligent agency with an obvious goal to survive, then we’re not here by accident. Like the camouflage of the leopard and the sonar driven bats, we too are here for a reason., that reason is for life to survive. But what is it we were evolved for? What is our special feature that might help life to survive indefinitely? What is it that life experienced and threatened her existence that we were a necessity for her to create? Exactly, God.

God is the almighty one. God proofed to be more powerful than life. God is the universe and the he judges us and more than once punished us. God is not something you can adapt to in the normal way, God comes suddenly and from beyond our direct environment. God is the universe that created life. God giveth and taketh away.

So the answer is simple; we’re here because life knows that we’re living on an unstable planet and to survive we need to leave our nest eventually. That’s why we were created and that’s why the most important scientist of today says exactly that; Stephen Hawkins. He just doesn’t know that it was all intended.

Lets answer some more questions. For life to survive indefinitely, human kind is the only species that ventured beyond this planet. We know since the early seventy’s that life had some disastrous experiences long before humankind came into being.  The cometh strike 65 million years ago and the end Permian extinction of 250 million years ago (years are human values). Conclusion: the planet almost killed us and later on the universe tried the same.  To survive we need to adapt to the universe and be able to leave the nest, earth. That’s where love comes in, or more accurately; do not do to another what you do not want another to do to you. This adage we find in all cultures through all times, but almost never practiced fully.

So what are we? We’re not the end station, that’s for sure. Sacrificing for the other is a rare feature within human life, but it is well admired. We are the intermediary species of life’s search for survival. Our (western) notion of freedom omits  the obvious; to stay alive you need to do stuff. It’s the stuff all life does to stay alive. That’s when we encounter our life-forces.

They say that if fish were philosophical they would discover the water they live in lastly. They are right. We too discover our core motivations when all else has been scrutinized.  And how embarrassing; we too saw nothing where all of it gathers. What do we do that all other life forms from day one did?

It’s not reproducing as western common believe states, of course it’s not, it’s feeding!

The purpose of life is to keep on living, survive. To survive life needs food, when fed she’ll reproduce.

Now the life force: why does life eat? If she doesn’t she’ll experience pain, hunger. Pain, hunger is the first motivator that made life eat. Hunger is pain, but pain isn’t our motivator to eat, it’s lust. Pleasure comes before the pain. When you do not eat yo9u get peckish, you’d like this or that to eat, but when you fail to eat for long enough, this puckishness will turn into hunger, pain, Then you do not care about what you eat as long as you’ve got food.

Pain and pleasure lie at the core of life’s consciousness. We’re just made in her image, to do battle with God and each other to accelerate our knowledge of where we are and how to survive. None of us are in expendable all of us are sacrificed.    

There was no way of knowing why we were here before the mid-seventies of last century. The discovery of mass-extinctions in life’s history was the first explanation of the universal end-times within most religions. Armageddon is what it is, you’ve seen the movie!  Life’s gonna tackle that!

The idea of death doesn’t make sense according to this theory of survival. Why do we die? We don’t.

Ever seen the birth of a lizard in the wild?  An ancient species alive long before us humans. It knows, reacts and acts with full knowledge from the moment it hatches. That’s original life. It isn’t bourn like we are born, clueless. It’s fully equipped and ready to go. It can even play dead when a predator comes near.

To be created in her image and in the image of God we were deprived of eternal life. For the first time a life form contemplated death. Life created the first philosophical life form.

So here you are, not the conclusion but a steppingstone. You are forgiven for all you’ve done that transgresses the  goal to survive. You won’t be punished for your sins.

Can you forgive yourself?

  

love thy neighbour...

Who or what is your neighbour or who or what is the other when we say; do unto others what you want others to do unto you, or when we say; love your neighbour as yourself.

The other, or neighbour is the one with the same needs you have. That’s all there is to it.

and there is this difference between wanting and needing something, go figure it out...

Bahá'í Faith:"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah

"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. 1


Brahmanism:
"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "


Buddhism:
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18


Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6.


Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23

"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4


Ancient Egyptian:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110


Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517


Islam:
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3


Jainism:
"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33


Judaism:
"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 
###########################################

Now internalize it!

Do not make others feel like you wouldn’t want others to make you feel.

Don not create feelings in others that you do not want others to create in you.  
Don’t make me feel stuff you wouldn’t want me to make you feel.
Don’t  create suffering for the other, because you don’t want others to create your suffering.
I hate it when they do that to me, so I won’t do it to others.
Why would I do that to him, when I would abhor it if he does that to me.

 Neurobiological theories

Based on discoveries made through neural mapping of the limbic system, the neurobiological explanation of human emotion is that emotion is a pleasant or unpleasant mental state

 

Many pleasurable experiences are associated with satisfying basic biological drives, such as eating, exercise or sex.

Biology, neurology, psychology

Pain and pleasure, in the broad sense of these words, are respectively the negative and positive affects, or hedonic tones, or valences that psychologists often identify as basic in our emotional lives.^[15] The evolutionary role of physical and mental suffering, through natural selection, is primordial: it warns of threats, motivates coping (fight or flight, escapism), and reinforces negatively certain behaviors (see punishment, aversives). Despite its initial disrupting nature, suffering contributes to the organization of meaning in an individual's world and psyche. In turn, meaning determines how individuals or societies experience and deal with suffering.

“where is the hunger, the pain we all feel when we cannot feed ourselves... (m42tijn)”

Hunger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the social condition. For the physical sensation, see Hunger (motivational state). For other uses, see Hunger (disambiguation).

Hunger is the most commonly used term to describe the social condition of people who frequently experience the physical sensation of desiring food.

“fuck you! We all frequently desire food, that’s how McDonalds got so big. It aching for food, suffering old-school, hunger, pain. Not desire. Fool.(m42tijn)”

Historical views of pain

Two near contemporaries in the 18th and 19th centuries, Jeremy Bentham and the Marquis de Sade had very different views on these matters. Bentham saw pain and pleasure as objective phenomena, and defined utilitarianism on that principle. However the Marquis de Sade offered a wholly different view - which is that pain itself has an ethics, and that pursuit of pain, or imposing it, may be just as useful and just as pleasurable, and that this indeed is the purpose of the state - to indulge the desire to inflict pain in revenge, for instance, via the law (in his time most punishment was in fact the dealing out of pain). The 19th century view in Europe was that Bentham's view had to be promoted, de Sade's (which it found painful) suppressed so intensely that it - as de Sade predicted - became a pleasure in itself to indulge. The Victorian culture is often cited as the best example of this hypocrisy.

The philosopher Nietzsche experienced long bouts of illness and pain in his life, and wrote much about the meaning of pain as it relates to the meaning of life in general. Among his more famous quotes, are ones specifically related to pain:

"Did you ever say yes to a pleasure?

Oh my friends, then you also said yes to all pain.

All things are linked, entwined, in love with one another."

"What does not kill me, makes me stronger."

The most fit creature would be the one whose pains are well balanced. Those pains which mean certain death when ignored will become the most powerfully felt. The relative intensities of pain, then, may resemble the relative importance of that risk to our ancestors (lack of food, too much cold, or serious injuries are felt as agony, whereas minor damage is felt as mere discomfort).

The Seven Human Needs are:

1. The Need for Security
2. The Need for Excitement and Creativity
3. The Need for Individual Strength
4. The Need for Love and Relationships
5. The Need for Expression and Contribution
6. The Need for Wisdom and Growth
7. The Need for Spirituality

No food we need, nah…fools!

In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or "qualia".^[1]

^{first quallia = hunger}

Eating is the ingestion of food to provide for all organism their nutritional needs, particularly for energy and growth. Animals and other heterotrophs must eat in order to survive: carnivores eat other animals, herbivores eat plants, omnivores consume a mixture of both plant and animal matter, and detritivores eat detritus. Fungi digest organic matter outside of their bodies as opposed to animals that digest their food inside their bodies. Eating is an activity of daily living.

Four Fs (evolution)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (February 2009)

In evolutionary biology, people often speak of the four Fs which are said to be the four basic drives or mind states that animals (including humans) are evolutionarily adapted to be good at^{[citation needed]}: fighting, fleeing, feeding, and reproduction. The last of these is not literally an F word, of course, and is a tongue-in-cheek reference to fornication or "fucking".

‘Drives or mind states’… please elaborate. In fear I fight or flee, it’ll hurt when I don’t eat. Pleasure I find when I act to ensure survival. (42)

To propose a purpose...

The purpose in life has different explanations from different life stances. It may differ substantially within the communities of each life stance, but the examples below are the purposes that are generally accepted as the main for each life stance.

Life stance	Main purpose
Buddhism	To help sentient beings end their suffering (see The Four Noble Truths) with Karma and Dharma methods.
Christianity	Love God, Love others. The Great Comission
Hinduism	To worship work (Karma) according to law (Dharma) without any thought of result, as said in the Bhagavad Gita.
Humanism	To promote human flourishing.
Islam	The Arabic word Islam means peace, submission and obedience to God's will.
Judaism	To serve God[9] and to prepare for the world to come[10] ("Olam Haba").[11]
Postmodernism	To create complex structures and interactions with purpose of joy and understanding.

Life...

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i. e., living organisms) from those that do not,^[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.^[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.^[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.
In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies. Both offer interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and both touch on many related issues, including life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife.

On the origin of Life...

Theory of Chemical Evolution

Back to Top
This theory is also known as Materialistic Theory or Physico-chemical Theory. According this theory, Origin of life on earth is the result of a slow and gradual process of chemical evolution that probably occurred about 3.8 billion years ago. This theory was proposed independently by two scientists - A.I.Oparin, a Russian scientist in 1923 and J.B.S Haldane, an English scientist, in 1928.

According to this theory,

• Spontaneous generation of life, under the present environmental conditions is not possible.

• Earth's surface and atmosphere during the first billion years of existence, were radically different from that of today's conditions.

• The primitive earth's atmosphere was a reducing type of atmosphere and not oxidising type.

• The first life arose from a collection of chemical substances through a progressive series of chemical reactions.

• Solar radiation, heat radiated by earth and lighting must have been the chief energy source for these chemical reactions.

This theory still reigns within western secular scientific thought. Within it we immediately find ideological paradox. The first of the four 'rules' is a denial of an old Greek philosophy where life continually emenates from 'dead matter'.

Theory of Spontaneous Generation

This theory assumed that living organisms could arise suddenly and spontaneously from any kind of non-living matter. One of the firm believers in spontaneous generation was Aristotle, the Greek philosopher (384-322 BC).

He believed that dead leaves falling from a tree into a pond would transform into fishes and those falling on soil would transform into worms and insects. He also held that some insects develop from morning dew and rotting manure. Egyptians believed that mud of the Nile river could spontaneously give rise to many forms of life. The idea of spontaneous generation was popular almost till seventeenth century. Many scientists like Descartes, Galileo and Helmont supported this idea. In fact, Von Helmont went to the extent stating that he had prepared a 'soup' from which he could spontaneously generate rats! The 'soup' consisted of a dirty cloth soaked in water with a handful of wheat grains. Helmont stated that if human sweat is added as an 'active principle' to this, in just 17 days, it could generate rats!
The theory of Spontaneous Generation was disproved in the course of time due to the experiment conducted by Fransisco Redi, (1665), Spallanzani (1765) and later by Louis Pasteur (1864) in his famous Swan neck experiment. This theory was disapproved, as scientists gave definite proof that life comes from pre-existing life.

This denial makes sense when it is stated as I just did, as an attack on this old Greek assumption. But they did not state it like that, and the results reverbarate to this day. It resulted in what some like to call the paradox or religion within science; the concept of 'something from nothing'.

To pursue scientific truths we require proof, seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these findings to make useful predictions. These scientific predictions are based on 'something from something'. This excludes the notion of 'something from nothing' as real, thus falsifialble. The religious paradox the secular scientific atheist lives in is its own explanation of how our universe began. The Big Bang theory in itself is the ultimate story of creation arising from nothing.

So it is with the origin of life, todays secular scientific thought will dismiss Aristotles theory with contempt , just to replace it with exactely the same theory, only reduced to 'one single critical moment' and 'just the right conditions' for Life to 'spontaneously generate' out of non-living matter.  

On the origin of Life...

Theory of Catastrophism

It is simply a modification of the theory of Special Creation. It states that there have been several creations of life by God, each preceded by a catastrophe resulting from some kind of geological disturbance. According to this theory, since each catastrophe completely destroyed the existing life, each new creation consisted of life form different from that of previous ones.

If the god Cuvier talks about here is the Abrahamic god, all powerful, all knowing and according to Christianity, all loving, why is it 'God' has to deal with 'Catastrophes'? Of course the god in this context is Life, dealing with her enviroment, adapting, surviving.

Metabolism is the result of our feeding. Hunger forces us to...

Metabolism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Cell metabolism" redirects here. For the journal, see Cell Metabolism.

Look up metabolism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Structure of the coenzyme adenosine triphosphate, a central intermediate in energy metabolism

Metabolism (from Greek μεταβολισμός (metabochode'), "outthrow") is the set of chemical reactions that happen in living organisms to maintain life. These processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments. Metabolism is usually divided into two categories. Catabolism breaks down organic matter, for example to harvest energy in cellular respiration. Anabolism uses energy to construct components of cells such as proteins and nucleic acids.
The chemical reactions of metabolism are organized into metabolic pathways, in which one chemical is transformed through a series of steps into another chemical, by a sequence of enzymes. Enzymes are crucial to metabolism because they allow organisms to drive desirable reactions that require energy and will not occur by themselves, by coupling them to spontaneous reactions that release energy. As enzymes act as catalysts they allow these reactions to proceed quickly and efficiently. Enzymes also allow the regulation of metabolic pathways in response to changes in the cell's environment or signals from other cells.
The metabolism of an organism determines which substances it will find nutritious and which it will find poisonous. For example, some prokaryotes use hydrogen sulfide as a nutrient, yet this gas is poisonous to animals.^[1] The speed of metabolism, the metabolic rate, also influences how much food an organism will require.

## within this scientific explanation we found another great paradox within the materialistic mechanical scientific explanation of life's origin; the inevetable antropomorphizing qualities of our existence. 'The organism determines' and 'which substances it will find nutritious'. These aren't qualifications of matter but of consciousness. ##

Alan Watts...

"...A thing is a think!'

or:

Whatever we believe is real, we've experienced. Our consciousness is based on the experience of differences within our own being. These differences are echo's of the original duality of our being. The duality of the opposites, crystalized in Pain and Pleasure and the Fear of Pain. The Yin-Yang of our being, the trinity of our consciousness. The original opposites of Pain and Pleasure first experienced as Hunger and Lust resulted in the first ever action taken by Life; feeding.

Radical Empiricism

"In its most radical forms, empiricism holds that all of our knowledge is derived from the senses. This position leads naturally to the verificationist principle that the meaning of statements is inextrically tied to the experiences that would confirm them. According to this principle, it is only if it is possible to empirically test a claim that the claim has meaning. As all of our information comes from our senses, it is impossible for us to talk about that which we have not experienced. Statements that are not tied to our experiences are therefore meaningless.

This principle, which was associated with a now unpopular position called logical positivism, renders religious and ethical claims literally nonsensical. No observations could confirm religious or ethical claims, therefore those claims are meaningless. Radical empiricism thus requires the abandonment of religious and ethical discourse, let alone belief." - http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/empiricism.html

"No observations could confirm religious or ethical claims, therefore those claims are meaningless"

Only when you forget about life's herstory on this planet; religious thought from Abrahamic origin tells us an All powerful God is up there. He has the capability to 'punish' us (comets, tectonic upheaval) but also It's what was allready there when we became aware of Him, It, it... whatever. We know we arose from this universe and we know it'll kill us if we do not adapt. That's what lies at the core of the three Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.... Now pair each one of them up with the one of the life forces.

Hunger or suffering is basic to the jewish story. Roaming the desert for 40 years, in search of the land of milk and honey. Judaism is the personifacation of hunger.

Look at Christianity, the protector of modern capitalism, the agent of lust. Don't get me started on all those pedophile priests. Christianity has sexuallity at his core, mostly fear thereof.

Islam. For both jews and christians today and in memory Islam equals fear.

I know this hasn't to do with anything factual and scientific. I know that all people within all religions experience all three force and none of them experience their religion as a metaphor for any thing, let alone a life force, it's still a remarkable coincidense when you find out the more eastern way of thinking about life and reduce their thoughts to the trinity of our consciousness;

Buddha tells us:

The Four Noble Truths Are:

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

  
1. The original suffering is not to be able to feed: hunger
2. Attachment is to cling. It is the other side of the coin, pleasure or lust. You'll first experience lust for food, then pain.
3. Cessation of suffering is in a real sense loosing your appitite. Fear does that to you...

4. well, its a guide to not suffering, a thing all life forms go for. For us it's more difficult... hence religion.
When we apply the 'Theory of Reduction' to our consciousness (senses as described above) and we incorporate this with the 'Theory of Evolution', starting out as single-celled microbes we arrive at the most logical, rational, foundational, coherent and reliable conclusion; hunger & lust is/are the life force. The third force, completing the trinity, is the Buddha's Third Noble Truth:  Cessation of suffering. (suffering is Buddha's first Noble Truth, i.e. Hunger, second is desire, i.e. Lust. It all describes our Original Consciousness) What is it that keeps us from suffering? It’s our Fear of suffering. It’s all over the place, we’ve known it all along; pain, pleasure, fear… It’s in all our metaphors, all our superlatives. Lust for this, Hunger for that, fear for this and fear for that. Freedom means doing what you want, desire. Pain is failing to do what you want. The origin of suffering is desire, 2^nd noble truth.

We are the ‘free’ to influence our own destiny, making choices. These choices are either based on one of the three life-forces, hunger, lust or fear. Or they are based on the hard-laboured new and inescapable force; Love. Not romantic love, not abstract emotions making us cry-kind-a-love, but practical love. Love that kept us alive.

This love, I’ve written about extensively in my blog “Hidden in plain view: Hunger is the Life Force” is the original love; mother-love.

At this moment we are deprived of the knowledge, gnosis, from which we came. Soon we’ll have to accept that for life to survive, we humans, created in the image of our creator, are ourselves creators and victims of our senses, our consciousness. Without us, life will not be able to create her/our next phase in life. By cannibalising on the consciousness of others, we created the extreme opposites within our consciousness, her, life’s experience.

The simple fact is that life eventually will have to leave this planet. For her to leave this planet she needs near-perfect Sophia’s. The near perfect woman. To experience the selfish atrocities together with the, less well known, deeds of altruism, she’ll be able to keep the good and discard the bad.

Out there in space we have no planet to fall back on, no save haven. We’ll be completely depending on and other. Depending on the other. Your neighbour. You don’t have to even like your neighbour, but you must love him. Whenever required, you’ll save his ass when you can. Don’t cause Hunger, don’t cause Pain, don’t cause fear. And when in Lust, refrain.

   

Trin

"The Trimurti (English: ‘three forms’; Sanskrit: त्रिमूर्ति ) is a concept in Hinduism "in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahmā the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver, and Śhiva the destroyer or transformer,"^[1][2] These three deities have been called "the Hindu triad" ^[3] or the "Great Trinity,",^[4] often addressed as "Brahma-Vishnu-Maheshwara." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurtitrimūrti

-          Here we find a glimpse of the concept which till today has been hidden; at the core of our creation lies a trinity. 

"In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् ) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.^[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead^[2] which is the Divine Ground^[3] of the primordial Being Hiranyagarbha and all subsequent Creation" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmanbráhman

Hinduism tells us that Brahman is the 'Divine Ground' of the 'Primordial Being': "According to the Brahma Purana, he is the father of Mānu, and from Mānu all human beings are descended". Or: "The first person created in one of the religious or mythical accounts of creation". Creation meaning: ""Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul.".

"Initially in ancient Vedic society, this position was achieved on the merits of a person's aptitude (Sam), conduct (Sam), and nature (Sam)."  - Cry 'uncle', three times, uncle Sam!

Aptitude, conduct and nature...

"Kshatriya (Sanskrit: क्षत्रिय, from Sanskrit: क्षत्र, ) or Kashtriya, meaning warrior, is one of the four varnas (social orders) in Hinduism" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshatriya  kṣatrakṣatriya

"Varna refers to the categorization of the Hindu society by four castes, hypothesized by the Brahmins and their sacred texts. This quadruple division is not to be confused with Jati or even the much finer division of the contemporary caste system in India.^[1] The four varnas, or chatur varna, are mentioned in ancient texts in the following (stratified) order, from top to bottom,^[2]

• the Brahmins: Scholars, teachers and fire priests
• the Kshatriyas: Kings and soldiers warriors
• the Vaishyas: Agriculturists and merchants
• the Shudras: Service providers and artisans "

-          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_in_Hinduism

Here we see one of the first and original evaluations of our human evolutionary path uttered before Jesus came along.  


It shows us where the battle takes place; on the one side we find soldiers and kings, on the other scholars, teachers and 'fire priests'. 

You see that superseeding our need for food and shelter (the Vaishyas: Agriculturists and merchants) and even far more removed from the "the Shudras: "Service providers and artisans" - "(Shudras) -assigned and expected role in post-Vedic North India was that of craftsmen and laborers"- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra

Hold this ancient valuation, definitions of early casts if you will, against our own, modern, society. You'll immediately see that at the bottom of Varna-list we find the so-called 'service providers'.

Who do we call service providers in our own modern European societies: Banks, insurance companies, health-insurance middle-men, home-loan providers, mobile phone operators, you name it. All they provide us with is 'services', we wouldn't die without them.

Immediately above in the Varna hierarchy we find;

·  the Vaishyas: Agriculturists and merchants " - These people provide more important stuff we need to survive. Vaishyas actually feed and clothe us. Shudra's claims to serve our existential needs, based on believe and superstition. Shudra's main benefactors are greed and fear. She, Shudra, only benefits when her clients believe that the material things they own need protection from theft, damage or destruction.

Our human history defines itself as the struggle between the two first Varna's: Between 'scholars, teachers and fire priests' ('fire priests' as in prophets, like our Abrahamic traditions tells us) and the Kshatriyas, Kings and soldiers. 

This 'eternal fight' between scholars, teachers and prophets vs kings and soldiers we see over and over again. Often disintegrating into scholars and teachers giving in to the soldiers of the kings. The mass murder of 'intellectuals' and other 'subversives' is part and parcel within any human society. Where-ever and whenever. 

At this moment in time, from my point of view, we live in a society that equates to 'the metaphorical dog taking of with the metaphorical bone, subversives and kings have been fighting about'. 

The banks took over our values while we were fighting either for power or equality.   

The Shudra's took over our moronic discourse and now we are all in debt to their speculation of values.

The only ones who kept toiling like nothing happened are "

·  the Vaishyas: Agriculturists and merchants". by which I mean the providers of basic human needs (i.e. life's necessities). They reside in us as a trinity.

Next to the Trimurti, a Hindu concept "in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahmā the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver, and Śhiva the destroyer or transformer,"^[1][2] These three deities have been called "the Hindu triad" ^[3] or the "Great Trinity", there is the concept of the three subtle basic components of sattva , raja, and tama or "The Gunas".

"Guṇa (Sanskrit: गुण) means 'string' or 'a single thread or strand of a cord or twine'. In more abstract uses, it may mean 'a subdivision, species, kind, quality', or an operational principle or tendency.^[1]
In Samkhya philosophy, there are three major that serve as the fundamental operating principles or 'tendencies' of (universal nature) which are called: , , and . The three primary gunas are generally accepted to be associated with creation (rajas), preservation (sattva), and destruction (tamas) (see also Aum and Trimurti).^[2] The entire creation and its process of evolution is carried out by these three major gunas"tamas guṇarajas guṇasattva guṇaprakṛtiguṇas

I highlighted the last part of the first sentence: operational principle or tendency. The three principles all living beings are blessed with is that when we do not feed we'll grow hungry (feel pain after pleasure) and when we do achieve feeding, fear will accompany our pain and pleasure (hunger/lust) paradigm.

I found this stat:

Sattva is when we achieve only doing those things we need for our immediate survival or when society needs stability in changing times. Hunger or pain is here the equivalent.

Raja; action and passion (read: pleasure, lust, courage and greed) equals the other side of hunger and pain. Without which neither could be experienced.

Tama: or as it says: Ignorance and Inertia. Ignorance stands for the third force emanating from the Tao ( as read in verse 42 from the "Tao Tse King"). That which we do not know, we fear. Tama is the equivalent of fear when placed within the 'Three subtle basic components of creation'.  

But they're not so subtle anymore: we eat because if we don't it hurts. When we eat timely no pain will occur because hunger doesn't get the time to develop. Lust is where we live without pain. But we know both; pain and pleasure. only because of this we know fear, completing the trinity of Life's consciousness.