It's real!

What is real? What is not real? Recently heard a speech suggesting that our sub-conscious mind cannot differentiate between real and unreal events. However, if an event occurred, then why is it unreal? Even if it is a dream. Instead of unreal, I would say outside the currently quite well scientifically described world. In other word, the religious world called it spiritual. Enjoy this fun commercial, although Karma may not be fun.

Getting un-lost

Yesterday my brother casually shared with me a teaching in buddhism: (roughly) Since even [buddhism] laws [that helps one to get enlightened] can be forgo, isn't it more forgoable for secular things which are non-laws. An analogy is in order to get from the current shore to the opposite enlightened shore, the teachings/laws that we follow/practice towards enlightenment are like the boat that bring us across to the enlightened shore. When we reach there, we will forgo the boat since we don't need it.

Relating to another question from a cousin that why some Christians say they cannot enter temples, while some like one of our aunt could? This idea comes to me:

Generally speaking, religions [not in their institutionalised manner] seek to help people who are lost in the secular/temporal world to become less lost or more un-lost. However, it seems to me that many, while becoming un-lost in the secular world, are getting lost in some particular religion institution that they are in. These are what many called the religious people.

I don't consider Jesus and Buddha as religious people. That's why they were unwelcome and kicked out by the religion institutions of their times.

Global warming? Yes, but...

Recently watched a documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that admits global warming as true, but disagree that it is man-made and/or CO2 caused. I think these few arguments, if correct, are significant:
1. CO2 produced by human is < 1%, while the main contributor is the ocean.
2. CO2 levels correlate with global temperature over millions of years, but lagging behind by few hundreds years, which implies that CO2 level is the affected by global temperature.
3. This is the most important but non-scientific reason: it has become politically correct not to go against the claim that Global warming is caused by man-made CO2.

[However, I should also point out that the producer may not be that trustworthy after checking him out on the wikipedia.]

In buddhism, there is this concept of wu-chang, meaning non-constant, or ever changing. To me, constant or without change is as if dead. Even our body temperature fluctuates. How would one expects global temperature to be constant? Thus, global warming is probably just as natural a phenomenon as the 4 seasons in a year, but not a problem to be prevented.

Another article I read suggested that as the river water level rises as the ice on top of high moutains melts, it will affect the communities residing in the vicinity, and cost them their land and homes. The time frame was reported as a "short" 40 years. It seems to me that human communities are assumed to be stupid to remain there for 40 years waiting to be drowned. It seems to say that human "owns" the land and therefore nature is wrong to take their "possessions" from them.

Nevertheless, I am not suggesting that we ignore all the good recommendation to reduce pollution, conserve resources, and etc. However, we should not go to the extreme to deny the poor africans and yet to developed regions to use electricity, and therefore cannot develop and remain having poor quality of life.

Being religious

Religious teachings are generally considered good, or support the concept of serving others.
However, I observed most religious people seem to place self-interests on-top, or behind those of others. When faced with the challenge of risking one's spiritual and/or physical life for the betterment of others, only the true religious people overcome at ease and naturally.

Consider the famous story of two monks helping a lady across a river. The younger monk might have worried that he risk his spiritual health by touching the lady.

Consider shutting communication channels between "believers" and those whom the believers' higher authority labeled as evil. The "believers" prefer not to risk their chance of getting into Heaven, by not willing to have contacts with those whom they consider are not getting into Heaven.

Yet we see in movies, and some times also in real life, some heroic acts of taking high risk to save others.
Yet Jesus were among those whom the authority had considered not holy.
Yet a famous buddhist quote says "Should I not go to hell [to help], who shall [I ask to] go?"