b75 (5.22-2.2015): the bliss of marriage

the bliss of marriage [i]
by marita l. bliss

people often imagine the bliss of marriage: together, loving each other forever, raising the perfect children, traveling together, co-ordination, co-operation, co-Union, etc.
 
but have they ever imagined the other side of the coin?
 
what if your loving partner just happens to turn pissy, or angry, or needy, or addicted?  what happens when you’ve made the legal commitment to stay in it (“till death do us part”), but you re-cognize that you don’t even like each other’s behavior?  what happens when (due to those mutual dislikes), you no longer even desire to have sex with each other, or even touch each other, or even to speak kindly to each other?  what happens then???
 
what happens then, young jedi… is this:
 
you’re f---ed (and not in a good way).
 

• now you’ve got to beg for a mediocre lifestyle,

• now you’ve got to hope for a reasonable settlement,

• now you’ve got to split things up,

• now you’ve got to rationalize the break-up by cutting-down your former lover,

• now you’ve got to explain it all… again and again, and again,

• now you’ve got to be alone: no touch, no love, no plans, no partnership, and

• now you’ve got to wonder if you ever even want to start the whole process over again, because you never, ever saw this catastrophe coming… and your loving side probably won’t see the next one coming, either. 

now you can’t leave.  now you can’t just ‘go home’.   now your partner can extend his/her period of pissy-ness (or violence, or whatever…) for hours, for days, for weeks and even for years!!! 
 
now the burden is on you to play the bad-guy role, the breaker-upper role, the failure role… unless you decide to staaaaaaaaaaaay… and live in mutual love/hate/cohabitate for the rest of your time on this planet earth. 

‘till death do us be miserable beyond all belief.

 
the bliss of marriage is a mirage.
 
if you’ve got bliss… if you click… if you love what you’ve got… then why not just keep doing what you are doing?  why change it?  why f--k it up?  why turn bliss-ness into hellacious-ess???  why regress????
 

---

[i] martino , j . (5.22-2.15).  the bliss of marriage. book 75: lost & found. © 2015 by joal martino.

b75 (4.28-1.2015) my own research on the bible

my own, personal research on ‘the bible’ [1]

by anonymous (my own, personal belief: G∞d. Is. Love)

my own, personal research leads me to believe (not ‘know,’ but believe), that, in regard to ‘the bible’: 

1. there isn’t one ‘bible’.  there are many versions, in many languages, with many editions and many translations. 

2. ‘the bible’ (in this essay, from here on out) refers to the many, many, many bibles that, while similar in many ways, are different from each other.  there is no such thing as ‘the bible.’  there are various bibles that stem from pieces of interpretations of ancient artifacts (all of which were created/written-down by men). 

3. the bible(s) is a compilation of stories:
1. stories that were passed down, from generation to generation -- by word of mouth, via song, and through poetry.  i’ve tried to translate poetry (from another language).  have you?  it’s an exercise in extreme futility.  as one might imagine, poetry doesn’t translate well at all.  once translated… you’ll then need someone to interpret the translation!
2. word-of-mouth (as you surely know) is also a poor, ineffective method of transferring any kind of information.
3. men (not women) were in charge of the story-telling, writing, editing, translating and publishing processes of the bibles.
4. no one knows who wrote what, and no one bothered to write down who edited what, and no one seems to care who translated what.
5. men wrote it, men edited it, men translated it, and men edited it (again and again).
6. even today, it is men (mostly) who are in charge of how to interpret it. 

4. the type of men who would have had the wherewithal to oversee the writing and ‘publishing’ of the bibles were, and are, men of power (men of control, men of war). 

5. the biblical god is not ‘loving.’  pick any page of the old testament, read on, and it will not take you long to find verses that show the biblical god to be angry, jealous, vindictive, punitive, vengeful, sexist, prejudiced and judgmental.  ‘he’ is a murderer (in fact, ‘the flood’ was the largest premeditated, mass murder/genocide of all [earthly] time)! 

6. there are many, many, many more than 10 commandments.  the biblical god does not follow his own commandments, and you know that this is true.  example: “Thou shalt not kill.” 

7. the biblical god is preoccupied with blood: blood sacrifices to himself, especially. 

8. the biblical god is an egomaniac… a raging lunatic… and, oh, occasionally: loving.  he’s a lot like an angry, mean (but sometimes okay) alcoholic dad… probably like the ones who wrote and edited the bibles! 

9. no one knows if Jesus really existed.  no one knows if Jesus is god.  many of the stories of Jesus are stories of love, and many other stories show Jesus to be an egotist, as well as a trouble-maker.

10. Jesus gave ill-advised directives that only an idiot would follow: “leave your home, your wife, your job, your friends, your family… and follow me.”  that, my friends, is not good advice.  who else but a few down-on-their luck fishermen would ever drop everything (yes, everything) to follow a long-haired homeless man -- around and about an obscure countryside? 

11. Jesus (if he existed) was a charismatic hippie who was more likely to get his followers killed than to ‘save’ them from anything.  don’t get me wrong: i Love the Love theme and the hippie theme.  i also like the idea of turning water into wine (especially on friday evenings). 

12. back to ‘god.’  wait… uh… Jesus is god.  whatever. 

13. when an all-knowing, all-loving, all-caring god determines that the best way to ‘forgive sins’ is (a) to impregnate a young palestinian virgin, (b) to have one [and-only-one] ‘son’ (c) to set the causes in motion that lead to his ‘son’ being nailed to a cross and murdered in public, and (d)… after all of that, to make a change in the rule that “The only sins that are (really) forgiven are those of followers who believe in me” … i can easily deduce that no ‘God’ made up that bullshit.  Men made it up.  i tend not to worship a dad who would blood-sacrifice his only child. 

14. “flood a planet, and drown ‘em all!”: when an all-loving father decides that his best plan for dealing with some unruly children is to kill every, living thing on the planet (including innocent babies, innocent women, innocent kittens, innocent puppies, innocent fig trees, etc.)… then he’s just proven that he is not all wise.  he is not all-loving.  he is not even nice (for god’s sake)! …and (let’s not forget) he didn’t just kill them, honorably.  he drowned them! 

         the equivalent of that would be your creepy next-door-neighbor (a) creating a garden, (b) noticing some weeds, and then deducing that his best course of action was to take his kids, your kids, and all the neighborhood kids into his bathroom and hold their heads in the toilet until they drowned.  oh, and then he’d do the same to your parakeet and tomato plants.  this is the kind of biblical god that people actually worship???

 

15. when one of the bible(s)’ greatest heroes ‘orders’ the killing of women and children, but then relents, allowing the virgin girls to be kept alive – only to be given to soldiers (as the spoils of war)… we’ve got a divinely-inspired problem.  by the way, when only the virgin women are kept alive, and when they are ‘given’ to soldiers to “do as you wish,” and when soldiers “do as they wish,” those 10-13 year-old girls aren’t virgins anymore!  what happens to them then?  nice attempt at divine inspiration, moses! 

16. when one of the bible’s heroes can ‘buy’ a wife (as property) with 200 foreskins… we’ve got divinely-inspired insanity.  adultery, murder, slavery, and the systematic slicing-up of men’s penises.  david must have been divinely-inspired… or he had some divinely-inspired penis envy. 

17. when a fig tree doesn’t bear fruit for the main character (Jesus), and, pays the price of death… we’ve got a divinely-inspired-angry (or hangry) writer. 

18. when a man lives in the belly of a whale for 3 days, we might have divine bullshit, but the writer (and the believers) show little-to-no knowledge of human (or whale) anatomy. 

19. when a ‘devil’ has power, and when god ‘bargains’ with the devil, we’ve got something other than an all-powerful, all-wise, biblical god.


20. when gods (and angels) come to people in dreams, and when dreamers tell us that their dreams are real, and when we believe them, the problem isn’t god.  the problem is us. 

21. when gods ‘choose sides’ in race, in war, and/or in super bowl victories, we’ve got to wonder if it’s god, or if it’s men, playing god.  did god deflate tom brady’s balls? 

22. my deduction: men of power, playing god.  men wanting to control.  men in charge.  men, writing the his-story.  old men, creating gods in their own, white-bearded image.  men, hood-winking a never-ending flock of sheep who are too lazy to research (or critically read) their own holy books, or too tired and overwhelmed to realize bullshit when they read it.  men and women, telling outright lies to young, impressionable minds… and then wondering why their own children lie when they are all grown up. 

23. believers are not believers: while it is true that ‘believers’ might believe men who tell them how to interpret insane information from an insane compilation of stories, they do not believe a lot of things:
1. they don’t believe everything they hear.
2. they don’t believe everything they read…and they don’t/can’t read others’ holy books.
3. they don’t believe everything they see.
4. they don’t believe everything that somebody tells them.
5. they don’t believe politicians and/or used-car salesmen.
6. they are not ‘believers.’  they simply choose to believe stories that they’ve been told by men, based upon little-to-no evidence, without ever, ever questioning their own religious beliefs. 

24. i could go on (literally) for volumes (after all, the bibles do), but i’ll close with this:
1. is your god ‘male’?
2. how do you define ‘male’?  does your god have a penis?
3. if he has a penis, what does he use it for?  urination?  sperm? (ewww…)
4. if he doesn’t have a penis, wouldn’t that make him transgender (or non-gender)?
5. does your god have a mouth?  why?
6. does your god look like an old white, bearded, european male?  why is that?  have you ever contemplated that?  who do you think wrote, edited, translated and published the kjv?
7. would you describe ‘love’ as a ‘masculine’ characteristic, or more of a feminine characteristic?  is ‘murder’ (inspired by angry, vengeful, parental rage) a loving act?
8. has your god shown up lately?  no, not as a piece of toast, or ‘in a landslide,’ or ‘as a cloud,’ or ‘in a dream,’ or…  (fill in the blank ____________ illusion), but…
9. has your god ever shown up, except for in the eyes and dreams of very questionable people?
10. would you let your grandkids hang out with that preachy, loud guy-in-the-street who swears-by-god that he sees, hears, and communicates with the one-and-only god? 

…why on god’s given earth would you ever, ever, ever worship (and pray to) the god of the bibles?  

---

 [1] martino, j. (4-28-1.15). my own research on the bible. book 75: lost & found. © 2015 by joal martino.

 

b75 (3.20-2.2015): jesus in the clouds

jesus in the clouds [1]
by iseewha t. i. wannasee

jesus in the clouds
mary (on tv)
god appears in apple/core (at least that’s what eye see)

there’s no doubt that deity is sending signal now
jesus in a slice of bread? i just believe it:

(wow)
________________________________
 

• those who believe that god shows-up in clouds, bread, roses, sun spots, etc., never ask the all-important question, which (shockingly enough) is “why?”  why??????????? 

• why would god, or jesus, or mother mary, or any spiritual being, “show-up” in such an intangible, refutable, unbelievable way? 

• in other (slightly more direct) words: if your god(s) wanted to ‘show-up,’ why wouldn’t "he" do it in a way that was irrefutable?  why would he play games with the heads of believers and non-believers, alike?

• why show-up half-way?  why screw with people?  why, if you are going to show some kind of ‘proof’ that you are there… why not prove it?   the (obvious, and only) answers: 

1. gods can’t, or
2. gods can, but simply won’t. (which means that they play with our heads)… or
3. gods (as we don’t know them) don’t exist.
4. there is no #4, except for the ‘believer’ responses:
1. “the lord works in mysterious ways” or
2. “you’ve got to have faith” or
3. “there must be a reason” or
4. “it’s beyond our comprehension” etc., etc.

• ...and why would a god allow people (by the millions) to be born-into "wrong" religions... knowing (since he knows all) that they'd be indoctrinated into the wrong cult -- and never even get a chance to believe in him... just why would he allow that to result in millions-upon-millions of souls being deported to an ever-lasting hell? 

what is important to note is that the problem (here) is not “God" and it is not Jesus.  Love is Perfectly Perfect, calm and cool, flowing through All.
 
the problem is men.  men who attempt to explain the sightings, the clouds, the roses, the apparitions, etc., with bullshit.  wo/men are the problem, not God.  the problem is one of control, not Love.

Love is not a problem. Love IS the Answer (and the Question).  

Love has never been a problem, and could never, ever be the problem.

---

[1] martino, j. (3.20-1.2015). jesus in the clouds. book 75: lost & found. © 2015 by j. martino.

b75 (2.26-1.2015): "losing your virginity" (is a misnomer)

‘losing’ your virginity (is a misnomer) [i]
by l. ostinspace

mary was a virgin (right?)
so, unto this day
people use ‘virginity’ in self-obsessing ways
____________________________________ 

• to ‘lose’ your virginity assumes that there was something to be "lost."  

let's find out. :)

• what if we thought of it outside of the biblical ‘loss’ framework, and defined it as a gaining of experience, on this, the planet earth? 

• yes, it’s another ‘snow day’ in north carolina.  that being said, it’s a given that i’d end up watching videos and reading articles that i’d never, ever see on a normal day. 

• the ‘losing virginity’ piece interested me, because of the innate bias surrounding the idea that ‘virginity’ was something to be kept and valued. 

• as a male, i’ll state plainly that, when it comes to first-time sex with a woman, the last experience that you’d want is one with a virgin.  you’d want someone who was comfortable with sex, someone who was comfortable with her body, someone who was comfortable with sexploration, and yes, someone who was comfortable! 

• any girl/woman who has been brought up to believe that she’d be ‘losing’ a prized possession would most likely have some thoughts/ideas/anxiety about the situation. 

• if you’ve ever had good sex, you know that ‘anxiety’ was probably not high on the list of emotions that transpired during the experience. 

• someday, women will re-cognize that they’ve been fed a diet of bullshit by men (and women) of power who sought to control female sexuality. 

• don’t let them tell you that you are ‘losing’ your virginity.  instead, tell those old, dried-up, limp elders that you are intelligent, you are aware, you are in touch with your body, you are in charge of the situation, and that you decide what to do with what you’ve got. 

• ‘losing’ your virginity (is a misnomer).

---

[i] martino, j. (2.26-1.2015). losing your virginity. book 75: lost & found. © 2015 by joal martino.

b75 (1/21/2015): momentary pleasures

momentary pleasures
by p. l. easure

alternative title: demons vs. Angels

momentary pleasures
long and lasting pain
one lasts for a moment; the other (now/again)
one leads to the other, but you’re never sure (which way?)
momentary pleasures are the things we seek (today)
____________________________________ 

 

• every living thing strives to experience one thing, and one thing only… during every, single moment of its life: the experience of pleasure. 

• at times, the experience of pleasure is experienced as (even the slightest) movement away from pain. 

• there is no doubt that certain (momentary) pleasures can lead to (what feels like) everlasting pain.  ((one example: chocolate orgasm martinis > unwanted weight gain)). 

• but isn’t it possible that a pain-full experience could lead to the desire for something more pleasurable?  doesn’t the flu result in the desire to simply be absent of symptoms? 

• is it possible that the pain-pleasure cycle is akin to the inspiration-expiration cycle – the union of opposites that (obviously) is the basic necessity for life itself? 

• does every, living thing calculate the cost-benefit analysis of the pleasure-pain cycle, and does every, living thing make a calculated choice (in each now moment) that weighs the experience of now pleasure against the potential of (future) pain? 

• if so… isn’t every living thing experiencing its highest possible sense of wellness, in every, single, solitary moment?  isn’t it possible that every, single, living thing is (relatively speaking) Bliss? 

• if the Uni-Verse (One-ness, God, the Absolute, the Is, etc.) is in-deed Love… doesn’t it make sense that Love would experience Her-self by experiencing that which She is not? 

• is your most feared enemy, in Reality, your most wanted Angel? 

-the beginning J
__________________________
[1] martino, j. (1.21-1.15). momentary pleasures. book 75: lost & found. © 2015 by joal martino. 

b75 (1/17/2015): incandescent guru

incandescent guru [1]
by gee u. r. you

incandescent guru
walking down the way
talking about what it is that we should do (or say)
taking in the admiration of disciples, now
incandescent guru: he’s the hope, the way, the tao
____________________________________
 

• if it is (really) true that (in order to progress along the path) one needs a guru, then who was the guru to the first guru? 

• somewhere along the line, we assign magical, mystical powers to extra-ordinary people, and the aura gives them the impetus to inspire and to change lives. 

• the problem occurs when we see them in their true light: when they are frustrated, egoic, anxious, aging, sick.  when the guru is exposed, it is not he who has changed, but we – the perspectives that placed him up on the pedestal in the first place. 

• the benefit of being an invisible god is that you can’t get caught with your pants down. 

• from deepak choprah, to the pope, to the dalai lama, to the latest sports hero… human beings have flaws. 

• maybe the key is to see beyond those flaws… the way that new lovers see beyond. 

• but is this reality? 

• but does it need to be?

--------------------

gee, you are you (GURU!)!

__________________________________
[1] martino , j . (1.17-2.15). incandescent guru. book 75: lost & found. © 2015 by joal martino.

b75 (1.15.2015): meditation or medication?

the choice is (literally) ...y/ours.

___________________________________________

* pencil drawing "prayer posture" from the yoga series by joal martino. 

* pictures by microsoft clipart.
* not in a book... since the pictures are not mine.

-composed during the expression of book 75: lost & found. 

b75 (1/9/2015): i beat you

i beat you [1]
by sel f. esteem
 
the cowboys beat the redskins
the angels beat the whores
it doesn’t make me better (just because my team beat yours)
 
chess, cricket, spring olympics, honeymoon (or crew)
it doesn’t make me better (when i claim that i beat you)
____________________________________
 

• in sports, politics and war… there will always be strap-hangers who feel that, just “because mine beat yours, i’m better than you.” 

• on planet earth, whole towns/cities/states and nations can suffer dramatic changes in self-esteem because of a ‘win’ or a ‘loss.’ 

• but what if it’s just a myth?  what if “i beat you” simply means that “i’m an a--hole”? 

• when my very sense of self-worth can be affected by the results of a handful of 19-year olds, playing (a game) with a ball -- then my sense of self-worth needs a major reality check. 

• if my team beats yours (or vice-versa) is says nothing about who is better than who.  even if i beat you, right now, that doesn’t mean that i am better than you. 

• in fact, why do we want to be ‘better’ than anyone else?  who came down (from on-high) with those directions? 

• instead of ‘being better,’ why not just ‘Be’? 

________________________
martino, j. (1.9-1.15). i beat you. book 75: lost & found. © 2015 by joal martino. 

b75 (1/3/2015): lost & found

lost & found [1]
by i. m. lost
 
stumble round the house… with nothing left to do
fifty-six years old (i’m told) and wondering “what’s new?”
glass of wine in hand (it seems there’s lots of that around)
feels as though (i’m lost) of course, just hoping to be found
____________________________________
 

• there are times, after trips and connections and holidays and experiences…

 

• …when i contemplate the big picture: death, afterlife, Be-ing, the Uni-verse, etc.

 

• there are a million things that i could/should do, but i find myself (here), writing to you, as if you could hear me (now), or care (then), when.

_____________________________________
[1] martino, j. (1.3-1.15). lost & found. book 75: lost & found. © 2015 by wellnesseducation.us

b74 (6.16-3.2014): time, it flies (Here/Now)

time, it flies (Here/Now) [i]
by t. imeless
 
time (it flies) hello/goodbyes,
who, what, where, when, why, how
i stop and look into y/our eyes, oh,
time, it flies (Here/Now)

______________________
[i] martino, j. (6.16-3.14). time, it flies (Here/Now). book 74: round trip © 2014 by joal martino.

b73 (2.13-1.2014): sen sationalism

sen sationalism [1] 
by zen sation 

although it might seem like a conspiracy, it is just human expression (coupled with capitalism).

every channel, website, commercial, newscast, etc. has one, ultimate goal (which you already know is not to report the truth).  this is different, however, from a conspiracy to lie.

the goal is simple: to get you to tune-in.  heck, we even do this (in the human sense) as part of the dating and mating game.

businesses make $$ (and people gain power) when they have y/our attention.  by design, the ‘news’ that gets reported/emphasized will be the stuff that gets y/our attention.  the photos, the verbiage and the predictions will sensationalize exponentially – knowing that today’s story will become yesterday’s news old.

that's why the news gives us the most sensational aspects of:

• storms
• catastrophes
• human drama
• war
• nature

are they lying?  are they 'bad'?  are they manufacturing the news???  that is for the (individual) viewer to decide. *

as consumers/viewers, it is our responsibility to re-center, and to re-cognize that newsmakers don’t care (so much) about reality as they do about getting us to tune-in.

again and again. 

_______________________________

[1] martino, j. (2.13-1.14).  book 73: round trip © 2014 by joal martino. 

* truth be told, it is we (by our attention to it) that brings the (apparently external) news upon ourselves. 

b77 (1.21.2014): posturing and posing

posturing and posing
child, mountain, moon
upward-facing dog (we might be forward/folding, soon)
stand up for y/our future
balancing (an act?)
postures/poses/changes (does it matter?)

welcome (back) 

____________________ 

martino, j (1.21.2014). posturing and posing. book 77. round trip. copyright 2014 by joal martino.

*note: the video is not part of the e-book, but it is blogable.

*amy cuddy provides one of my favorite ted talks of all time!

b70 (5.30-1.2013): death/life/death/life/death

death/life/death/life/death [1]
by dead o. r. alive
 

from the moment born, until the final gasp of breath

brother, be forewarned, your future:

death/life/death

 

every morning sunrise

every evening (set)

every day: a chance to meet with those of whom you’ve never met

every thought: a path to future pleasure/future pain

every-thing (again, again, again, again, again)

 

so here you are: a tiny interplanetary being

so here you are, apart: but yet a-part of everything

so here you are: a sister/brother/parent/husband/wife

so here you are:

death/life/death/life/death/life

____________________________

 

·       there is no way (that we know of) to escape death.

 

·       have you ever wondered if the same is true for life?

 

·       in other words, what if the Spirit-world requires us to incarnate?  are there Spirit-essences, sitting around (enjoying their Spiritual experiences), who are destined to ‘die’ into physical form – and who experience subsequent ‘birth’ on ‘planets’ in a Uni-Verse?

 

wwwwhaaaaaaaat????

 

·       what if G∞d recycles?   what if the death/life/death/life/death/life experience is a part of the fabric of Is-ness?  what if it’s none of our business?

---

[1] martineau, l. (5.30-1.2013). death/life/death/life/death. book 70: re-View. © by wellnesseducation.us 

b77 (3.3-1.2013): the ghost in the machine

the ghost in the machine [i]
by eye i. I
 
holographic Universe
micro-scopic Dream
in it, people wonder why we’re here and what it means
in it, only memories of what we’ve touched and seen
in it, maybe wIe are just the ghost in the machine
_________________________________
 

• wave forms of the present pass through receptors that provide us with the sense experience of space and time (touch, smell, hearing, sight, taste, and intuition). 

• intuition is akin to a sixth-sense that integrates all of the sense-able, sense-ory information that an individual is able to assimilate, in the present Now moment. 

• as wIe appear to pass from one dream-world to the next, our previous dreams tend to fade away, leaving us with the newer Dream and the newer ‘memories’.  the new Dream (of course) comes complete with some type of stimulation or drama. 

• this is why nobody’s world, anywhere/anytime is devoid of complications, challenges, and ‘good/bad’ scenarios.  there is no Perfect, Bliss-full world, b/c such an existence would be boring. 

 
 
 

---

[i] martino, j. (3.3-1.2013). the ghost in the machine. book 71: lao j. onitram © 2013 by wellnesseducation.us. 

b72 (2.6-1.2013) endings or beginnings?

endings or beginnings?

by b. e. ginning

endings or beginnings (what's the message that we send)?

maybe it's the Same (here in this game of let's pretend)

___________________________ 

* let's pretend is a game that allows us to imagine that we are experiencing a different world than the real world.

* what if our (start/stop, good/bad) life (on planet earth) is deeply embedded in the game, while the Real World sits back in Co-experiential Harmony? 

* could a game of beginnings and endings exist within a Larger  framework that doesn't end when the game is over? 

_________________________ 

written during book 72: re-view.