🚀 go-pugleaf

DrPostman <Looky@mysig.foremail> wrote in message news:<fs8ei0tic3e5846cj5niqo2eo6ei5lj1h3@4ax.com>...
> >> Here is a more pertinent link:
> >> http://www.ufowatchdog.com/burischdirtbag.html
> >> He really is nothing but a dirtbag who's been exposed.
> >> Saucerheads can't stand it.
> >Bruce Damer on 'A Universal Mind State:' "The number of distinct
> >pathways inside your brain outnumber the number of particles in
> >the universe. So we might speculate that perhaps the human mind
> >is capable of containing a simulacrum of the entire universe.
<snipped>
> Posting rants like that don't do anything more than hurt your
> arguments, if you really have any at all.

Who has time to argue? You? Not Me! http://tinyurl.com/6fec9

An Infestation Of Demons
By George Paxinos
4-17-4 : http://www.countryjoe.com/wwwboard/messages/184.html

 ---

The Origins of Torture in Endured Child Abuse
by Alice Miller
http://www.naturalchild.org/alice_miller/origins_torture.html

Alice Miller: The Childhood Trauma
http://neuro-mancer.mgh.harvard.edu/ubb/Forum217/HTML/000009.html
I gave this lecture at the Lexington 92nd Street YWHA
in New York City on October 22, 1998, and could not
answer all the questions I was asked due to a lack of
time. The audience was very interested in getting more
information and deeply involved so I can only hope to
be able to come again and to discuss these issues in
a meeting with an open end, without time limitations.
If you have comments to make to this text, you can
send your letter to my publisher at the address below.
Thank you for your understanding. --Alice Miller
Letters can be sent to:
Alice Miller
c/o Pantheon
201 East 50th Street
New York NY 10022-7703
USA

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Miller: The Childhood Trauma
Since adolescence I have wondered why so many people take pleasure
in humiliating others. Clearly the fact that some are sensitive to
the suffering of others proves that the destructive urge to hurt is
not a universal aspect of human nature. So why do some tend to solve
their problems by violence while others don't?

Philosophy failed to answer my question and the Freudian theory of
the death instinct has never convinced me. Nor could I make sense of
genetic explanations of the evil, of the naive idea that a human
being can be "born bad." Nobody could answer the crucial question:
How is it that so many turn-of-the-century German children were born
with such malignant genes that they'd later become Hitler's willing
executioners? It has always been inconceivable to me that a child
who comes into the world among attentive, loving and protective
caregivers could become a monster. Then, by closely examining the
childhood histories of murderers, especially mass murderers and
dictators, I began to comprehend the roots of good and evil: not in
the genes, as commonly believed, but in the earliest days of life.
Today, neurobiological research seems to fully corroborate what I
discovered almost twenty years ago.

At that time I quoted in For Your Own Good at length the pedagogical
advice given to parents in Germany a century ago, and detailed what
I believed to be a connection between the systematic cruelty of
these methods and the systematic cruelty of Hitler's executioners
forty years later. The numerous and widely-read tracts by Dr. Daniel
Gottlieb Schreber, the inventor of the Schreberg�rten (the German
word for "small allotments"), are of major interest here. Some of his
books ran to as many as forty editions around the year 1860, and
their central concern was to instruct parents in the systematic
upbringing of infants from the very first day of life.
Many people--motivated by what they thought to be the best of
intentions--complied with the advice given them by Schreber and other
authors about how best to raise their children. Today we would call
it a systematic instruction in child persecution and maltreatment.
One of Schreber's convictions was that when babies cry they should be
made to desist by the use of spanking, assuring his readers that
"such a procedure is only necessary once, or at the most twice, and
then one is master of the child for all time. From then on, one look,
one single gesture will suffice." Above all, these books counseled
that the newborn child should be forced from the very first day to
obey and to refrain from crying.

We all know--or, today, we should all know--that physical punishment
only produces obedient children but cannot prevent them from becoming
violent or sick adults precisely because of this treatment.
This knowledge is now scientifically proven and was finally
officially accepted by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1998.
Contrary to common opinion prevalent as recently as fifteen years ago,
the human brain at birth is far from being fully developed. It is
use-dependent, needing loving stimulation for the child from her first
day on. The abilities a person's brain can develop depend on
experiences in the first three years of life.

Studies on abandoned and severely maltreated Romanian children, as
an example, revealed striking lesions in certain areas of the brain.
The repeated traumatization has led to an increased release of stress
hormones which have attacked the sensitive tissue of the brain and
destroyed the new, already built-up neurons. The areas of their brains
responsible for the "management" of their emotions are twenty to
thirty percent smaller than in other children of the same age.
Obviously, all children (not only Romanian) who suffer such
abandonment and maltreatment will be damaged in this way.

The neurobiological research makes it easier for us to understand
the way Nazis like Eichmann, Himmler, Hoss and others functioned.
The rigorous obedience training they underwent in earliest infancy
stunted the development of such human capacities as compassion and
pity for the sufferings of others. Their total emotional atrophy
enabled the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes imaginable to
function "normally" and to continue without the slightest remorse
to impress their environment with their efficiency in the years
after the war. Dr. Mengele could make the most cruel experiments
with Jewish children in Auschwitz and then live for thirty years
like a "normal," well adjusted man.

Those turn-of-the-century children who were "subjugated by looks"
and systematically subjected to obedience drilling were not only
exposed to corporal correction but also to severe emotional
deprivation. The upbringing manuals of the day described physical
demonstrations of affection such as stroking, cuddling and kissing
as indications of a doting, mollycoddling attitude. Parents were
warned of the disastrous effects of spoiling their children, a
form of indulgence entirely incompatible with the prevalent ideal
of rigor and severity. As a result, infants suffered from the
absence of direct loving contact with the parents, which also
caused certain areas of the brain to remain underdeveloped.

I found it logical that a child beaten often and deprived of
loving physical contact would quickly pick up the language of
violence. For him this language became the only effective means
of communication available. However, when I began to illustrate
my thesis by drawing on the examples of Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
Ceaucescu, when I tried to expose the social consequences of child
maltreatment, I first encountered strong resistance. Repeatedly I
was told, "I, too, was a battered child, but that didn't make me
a criminal." When I asked these people for details about their
childhood, I was always told of a person who made the difference,
a sibling, a teacher, a neighbor, just somebody who liked or even
loved them but, at least in most cases, was unable to protect them.
Yet through his presence this person gave the child a notion of
trust and love.

I call these persons "helping witnesses." Dostoyevsky, for
instance, had a brutal father, but a loving mother. She wasn't
strong enough to protect him from his father, but she gave him
a powerful conception of love, without which his novels would
have been unthinkable. Many have also been lucky enough to find
"enlightened" and courageous witnesses, people who helped them
to recognize the injustices they suffered, the significance the
hurtful treatment had for them, and its influences on their whole
life. They may even suffer much in their life, may become drug
addicted, and have relationship problems, but thanks to the few
good experiences in their childhood usually do not become
criminals. The criminal outcome seems to be connected with a
childhood that didn't provide any helping witness, that was a
place of constant threat and fear.

In my book The Untouched Key I mention the severe trauma that the
child Pablo Picasso underwent at the age of three: the earthquake
in Malaga in 1884, the flight from the family's apartment into a
cave that seemed to be more safe, and eventually witnessing the
birth of his sister in the same cave under these very scary
circumstances. However, Picasso survived these traumas without
later becoming psychotic or criminal because he was protected
by his very loving parents. They were able to give him what he
most needed in this chaotic situation: empathy, compassion,
protection and the feeling of being safe in their arms.
Thanks to the presence of his parents, the two enlightened
witnesses of his fear and pain, not only during the earthquake but
also throughout his whole childhood, he was later able to express
his early, frightening experiences in a creative way. In Picasso's
famous painting "Guernica" we can see what might have happened in
the mind of the three-year-old child while he was watching the
dying people and horses and listening to the children screaming
for help on the long walk to the shelter. Small children can go
unscared even through bomb-raids if they feel safe in the arms
of their parents.

It is much more difficult for a child to overcome early
traumatizations if they are caused by their own parents.
In my book Thou Shalt Not Be Aware, which has now come out
in a new edition, I analyze the childhood of the writer Franz Kafka.
I try to show that the nightmares he describes in his stories recount
exactly what might have happened to the small, severely neglected
infant Kafka. He was born into a family in which he must have felt
like the hero of The Castle (ordered about but not needed and
constantly misled) or like K. in The Trial (charged with
incomprehensible guilt) or like The Hunger Artist who never found
the food he was so strongly longing for. Thanks to the love and
the deep comprehension of his sister Otla in his puberty, his late
"helping witness," Kafka could eventually give expression to his
suffering in writing. Does it mean that he therefore overcame his
traumatic childhood? He could indeed write his work, full of
knowledge and wisdom, but why did he die so early--in his
thirties--of tuberculosis? It happened in a time when he knew
many people who loved and admired him. However, these good
experiences could not erase the unconscious emotions and memories
stored in his body.

Kafka was hardly aware of the fact that the main sources of his
imagination were deeply hidden in his early childhood.
Most writers aren't. But the amnesia of an artist or writer,
though sometimes a burden for their body, doesn't have any
negative consequences for society. The readers simply admire
the work and are rarely interested in the writers' infancy .
However, the amnesia of politicians or leaders of sects does
afflict countless people, and will continue to do so, as long
as society remains blind to the important connections between
the denial of traumatic experiences in early childhood and the
destructive, criminal actions of individuals.

Anyone addressing the problem of child abuse is likely to be
faced with a very strange finding: it has been observed again
and again that parents who tend to maltreat and neglect their
children do it in ways which resemble the treatment they
endured in their own childhood, without any conscious memory
of their early experiences. Fathers who sexually abuse their
children are usually unaware of the fact that they had
themselves suffered the same abuse. It is rather in therapy,
even if ordered by the courts, that they can discover, sometimes
stupefied, their own history. And realize thereby that for years
they have attempted to act out their own scenario, just to get
rid of it.

The explanation of this fact is that information about the
cruelty suffered during childhood remains stored in the brain
in the form of unconscious memories. For a child, conscious
experience of such treatment is impossible. If children are
not to break down completely under the pain and the fear,
they must repress that knowledge. But the unconscious memories
of the child who has been neglected and maltreated, even before
he has learned to speak, drive the adult to reproduce those
repressed scenes over and over again in the attempt to liberate
himself from the fears that cruelty has left with him. Former
victims create situations in which they can assume the active
role. In this way the emotion of fear can indeed be avoided
momentarily--but not in the long term, because the repressed
emotions of the past don't change as long as they remain
unnoticed. They can only be transformed into hatred directed
towards oneself and/or scapegoats, such as one's own children
or alleged enemies. I see this hatred as a possible consequence
of the old rage and despair, never consciously felt, but stored
up in the body, in the limbic brain.

The German reformer Martin Luther, for example, was an
intelligent and educated man, but he hated all Jews and he
encouraged parents to beat their children. He was no perverted
sadist like Hitler's executioners. But 400 years before Hitler
he was disseminating this kind of destructive counsel.
According to Eric Ericson's biography, Luther's mother beat
him severely even before he was treated this way by his father
and his teacher. He believed this punishment had "done him good"
and was therefore justified. The conviction stored in his body
that if parents do it then it must be right to torment someone
weaker than yourself left a much more lasting impression on him
than the divine commandments and the Christian exhortations to
love your neighbor and be compassionate toward the weak.

Similar cases are discussed by Philip Greven in his highly
informative book Spare the Child. He quotes various American
men and women of the church recommending cruel beatings for
babies and infants in the first few months of life as a way
of ensuring that the lesson thus learnt remains impressed on
them for the rest of their life. Unfortunately they were only
too right. These terrible, destructive texts which have misled
so many parents are the conclusive proof of the long-lasting
effect of beating. They could only have been written by people
who were exposed to merciless beatings as children and later
glorified what they had been through. Their cruel beliefs
could only grow up in the darkness of their own cruel and
repressed infancy. Fortunately, these books were not published
in forty editions in the USA.

As the example of Luther shows, nothing that a child learns
later about morality at home, in school or in church will
ever have the same strong and long lasting effect as the
treatment inflicted on his or her body in the first few days,
weeks and months. The lesson learned in the first three years
cannot be expunged. If the body of a child learns from birth
that tormenting and punishing an innocent creature is the right
thing to do, and that the child's suffering must not be
acknowledged, that message will always be stronger than
intellectual knowledge acquired at a later stage. Greven's
examples eloquently demonstrate that people subjected to
maltreatment in childhood may go on insisting all their lives
that beatings are harmless although there is overwhelming evidence
to the contrary. Can a person who still supports corporal
punishment of children be considered as somebody who has overcome
his or her abuse? He may still remain a blind victim who refuses
to face his history and to work on it. Instead he will give
destructive advice until his death and continue to ignore the
child's pain, because his view of reality is severely distorted
by early unconscious experience. On the other hand, a child
protected, loved and cherished from the outset will thrive on
that experience for a lifetime and develop empathy for others.

It is interesting that almost all rescuers of Jews during the
Holocaust who were interviewed reported that their parents had
attempted to discipline them with arguments and support rather
than punishment. They were not beaten. People given early
affection and support are quick to emulate the sympathetic and
autonomous natures of their parents. Common to all the rescuers
were self-confidence, the ability to make immediate decisions
and the capacity for empathy and compassion with others.
Seventy percent of them said that it only took them a matter
of minutes to decide they wanted to intervene. Eighty percent
said they did not consult anyone else.

This attitude, prized in all cultures as "noble," is not
something instilled in children with fine words. If the
behavior actually displayed by caretakers is such as to
contradict their own words, if children are spanked in the
name of lofty ideals, as is still the custom in some
parochial schools, then those elevated sentiments are doomed
to go unheard or even to provoke rage and violence.
The children may end up aping those high-minded phrases and
mouthing them in later life, but they will never put them
into practice because they have no example to emulate.
In my most recent book, Paths of Life, I try to illustrate
this dynamic by describing Hitler's childhood, a childhood
that offers us many still untouched keys. Hitler's specific
problems with Jews can in fact be traced back to the period
before his birth. In her youth, Hitler's paternal grandmother
had been employed in a Jewish merchant's household in Graz.
After her return home to the Austrian village of Braunau,
she gave birth to a son--Alois, later to become Hitler's
father--and received child-support payments from the family
in Graz for fourteen years. This story, which is recounted
in many biographies of Hitler, represented a dilemma for the
Hitler family. They had of course an interest in denying that
the young woman had been left with a child either by the
Jewish merchant or his son. On the other hand it was
impossible to assert that a Jew would pay child-support for
so long without good reason. Such generosity on the part of
a Jew would have been inconceivable for the inhabitants of
an Austrian village. Thus the Hitler family was faced with
the insoluble dilemma of devising a version that would serve
to nullify their "disgrace."

For Alois Hitler the suspicion that he might be of Jewish
descent was insufferable in the context of the anti-Jewish
environment in which he was raised. All the plaudits he
earned himself as a customs officer were insufficient to
liberate him from the latent rage at the disgrace and
humiliation visited on him through no fault of his own.
The only thing he could do with impunity was to take out
this rage on his son Adolf. According to the reports of his
daughter of a former marriage, Angela, Alois beat his son
mercilessly every day. In an attempt to exorcise his
childhood fears, his son nurtured the manic delusion that
it was up to him to free not only himself of Jewish blood
but also all Germany and later the whole world. Right up to
his death in the bunker, Hitler remained a victim of this
delusion because all his life his fear of his half-Jewish
father had remained locked in his unconscious mind.

I have set out these ideas in greater detail in my book
For Your Own Good. One can find them highly unsettling and
in no way sufficient to explain Hitler's actions. Not all
his actions, I agree, but certainly his delusions. And those
delusions were at the very least the foundation of his actions,
as all our unconscious emotions can become. I can certainly
picture the boy Hitler swearing vengeance on "the Jews,"
those monstrous fantasy-figures of an already diseased
imagination. Consciously, he probably thought he could have
led a happy life if "the Jew" had not plunged his grandmother
into the disgrace that he and his family had to live with.
And it was this that in his eyes served to excuse the beatings
he received from his father, who, after all, was himself
"a victim of the evil and omnipotent Jew." In the mind of an
angry, seriously confused child, it is only a short step from
there to the idea that all Jews should be exterminated.

Not only Jews. In the household of Hitler's family lived for
years the very unpredictable schizophrenic aunt Johanna whose
behavior is reported to have been very scary for the child.
As an adult Hitler ordered to be killed every handicapped and
psychotic person to free the German society from this burden.
Germany seemed for him to symbolize the innocent child who had
to be saved. Consequently, Hitler wanted to protect his nation
from the dangers he himself had faced. Absurd? Not at all.
For an unconscious mind this kind of symbolization might
sound very normal and logical.

Besides those fears connected to father and aunt there was
his early relationship with his very intimidated mother, who
herself lived in constant fear of her husband's violent
outbursts and beatings. She called him "uncle Alois" and
endured patiently his humiliating treatment without any
protest. Adolf's mother had lost her first three children to
illness and Adolf was her first child to survive infancy.
We can easily imagine that the milk he drank from his mother
was in a way "poisoned" by her own fear. He drank her milk
together with her fears but was of course unable to understand
or integrate them. These irrational fears--that an outsider,
watching his speeches on videos, can easily recognize--stayed
unrecognized and unconscious to Hitler until the end of his
life. Stored up in his body, they drove him constantly to new
destructive actions in his endless attempt to find an outcome.
To his dying day, Hitler was convinced that only the death of
every single Jew could shield him from the fearful and daily
memory of his brutal father.

In the absence of positive factors, affection and helping
witnesses, the only course open to the mistreated individual
seems to be the denial of personal suffering and the
idealization of cruelty with all its devastating after-effects.
Undergoing an exceedingly humiliating and cruel upbringing at
the pre-verbal stage without helping witnesses may instill into
the victim admiration of this cruelty if there is no one in the
immediate vicinity of the child to query those methods and stand
up for humane values.

Therefore it didn't surprise me that in the childhood of people
who later became dictators, I have always found a nightmarish
horror, a record of continued lies and humiliations, which, upon
the attainment of adulthood, impelled them to acts of merciless
revenge on society. These vengeful acts were always garbed in
hypocritical ideologies, purporting that the dictator's exclusive
and overriding wish was the happiness of his people. In this way,
he unconsciously emulated his own parents who, in earlier days,
had also insisted that their blows were inflicted on the child
for his own good.

In the lives of all the tyrants I analyzed, I also found without
exception paranoid trains of thought bound up with their
biographies in early childhood and the repression of the
experiences they had been through. Mao had been regularly whipped
by his father and later sent 30 million people to their deaths
but he hardly ever admitted the full extent of the rage he must
have felt for his own father, a very severe teacher who had tried
through beatings to "make a man" out of his son. Stalin caused
millions to suffer and die because even at the height of his power
his actions were determined by unconscious, infantile fear of
powerlessness. Apparently his father, a poor cobbler from Georgia,
attempted to drown his frustration with liquor and whipped his son
almost every day. His mother displayed psychotic traits, was
completely incapable of defending her son and was usually away
from home either praying in church or running the priest's
household. Stalin idealized his parents right up to the end of
his life and was constantly haunted by the fear of dangers,
dangers that had long since ceased to exist but were still present
in his deranged mind. His fear didn't even stop after he had been
loved and admired by millions.

The same might be true of many other tyrants. They often drew
on ideologies to disguise the truth and their own paranoia.
And the masses chimed in enthusiastically because they were
unaware of the real motives, including those in their own
biographies. The infantile revenge fantasies of individuals
would be of no account if society did not regularly show such
naive eagerness in helping to make them come true. Mad tyrants
would not have any power if society understood that it is their
damaged brains which are constantly driving them to avoid dangers
that no longer exist.

Naturally, my references to Schreber and his methods are not
sufficient to explain the history of the Holocaust but they do
explain a lot. However, in no way should this explanation lead
to an exoneration of the perpetrators, relieving them of their
responsibility by declaring them "sick." No upbringing, however
cruel, is a license for murder. But blaming the whole thing on
a defective genetic blueprint doesn't make much sense either.
As I asked before: Why should there have been so many people
born in Germany thirty or forty years before the Holocaust with
such a fateful genetic disposition? I do not know of any
gene-researcher who would try to answer this question.
It is quite absurd to assume that some people are born with
the genetic program to later become anti-Semites, racists,
lynchers or rapists. The almost total neglect or trivialization
of the infancy factor in the context of violence sometimes
leads to explanations that are not only unconvincing and
abortive but which actively deflect attention away from the
genuine roots of violence.

Also, the existence of exceptions showed again and again that
propaganda and manipulation at school alone were not
sufficient to transform people into mass murderers.
Only men and women who had experienced mental and physical
cruelty in the first weeks and months of life and had been
shown no love at all could possibly have let themselves be
made into Hitler's willing executioners. As Goldhagen's
archive material shows, they needed almost no ideological
indoctrination because their bodies knew exactly what they
wanted to do as soon as they were allowed to follow their
inclinations. And as the Jews, young or old, had been
declared non-persons, there was nothing to stop them indulging
those inclinations. But no amount of indoctrination alone, at
school or wherever, will unleash hatred in a person who has
no preconditions in that direction. It is well known that
there were also Germans, like Karl Jaspers, Hermann Hesse and
Thomas Mann, who immediately recognized the declaration that
Jews were non-persons as an alarm signal and the rallying cry
of untrammeled barbarism.

Doubtless there are people who grew up with loving and
protecting parents who could later find a kind, sympathetic
partner, could organize their life and become good parents,
even if they had to go through the horror of a concentration
camp during their adolescence. On the other hand, the lives
of many were broken, even without catastrophic experiences
in their later life. They just couldn't find the way to
liberate themselves from their old fears, never identified
as such. From many cases of survivors I learned that it was
the quality of their infancy that determined the way they
overcame later threats, including the Holocaust.

Adults who grew up without helping witnesses need the support
and assistance of enlightened witnesses, of people who are
well aware of the dynamics of child abuse, people who can help
them to take their feelings seriously, understand them and
integrate them, as part of their own story. In an informed
society, adolescents will have the luck to talk to others
about their early experiences. They will be able to verbalize
their truth and to discover themselves in their own story,
their own tragedy, without avenging themselves violently for
their wounds, or to poison their systems with drugs.

I have wrongly been attributed to the thesis according to which
every victim inevitably becomes a persecutor, a thesis that I
find totally false, indeed absurd. To say that every cow is an
animal doesn't include the statement that every animal is a cow.
It has been proved that many adults have had the good fortune
to break the cycle of abuse. Yet I can certainly aver that I
have never come across persecutors who weren't themselves
victims in their childhood, though most of them don't know it
because their feelings are repressed. The less these criminals
know about themselves, the more dangerous they are to society.
So I think it is crucial to grasp the difference between the
statement, "every victim becomes a persecutor," which is wrong,
and the statement, "every persecutor was a victim in his
childhood," which I consider true. The problem is that,
feeling nothing, he remembers nothing, realizes nothing,
and this is why surveys don't always reveal the truth.
Yet the presence of a warm, enlightened witness ... therapist,
social worker, lawyer, judge ... can help the criminal unlock
his repressed feelings and restore the unrestricted flow of
consciousness. This can initiate the process of escape from
the vicious circle of amnesia and violence.

Working toward a better future cannot be done without
legislation that clearly forbids corporal punishment toward
children and makes society aware of the fact that children are
people too. The whole society and its legal system can then
play the role of a reliable, enlightened and protecting witness
for children at risk, children of adolescent, drug addicted
criminals who may themselves become predators without such
assistance. The only reason why a parent might smack his
children is the parent's own history. All other so-called
reasons, such as poverty and unemployment, are pure
mystification. There are unemployed parents who don't spank
their children and there are many wealthy parents who maltreat
their children in the most cruel way and teach them to
minimize the terror by calling it the right education. With a
law prohibiting corporal punishment towards children, people
of the next generation will not have recorded the highly
misleading information in their brain, an almost irreversible
damage. They will be able to have empathy with a child and
understand what has been done to children over millennia.
It is a realistic hope to think that then (and only then) the
human mind and behavior will change. With a law that forbids
spanking every citizen becomes an enlightened witness.

� 1998 Alice Miller. All rights reserved.

 -------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Miller was the first person to make the connection
between corporal punishment and the potential damage it can
do to children. Her latest book is Paths of Life, Pantheon.
Check out Alice Miller's Web Site at
http://www.naturalchild.org/alice_miller/index.html
 ---
The Origins of Torture in Endured Child Abuse
by Alice Miller
http://www.naturalchild.org/alice_miller/origins_torture.html

***
Doctors Without Borders
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/index.shtml
"Divine Reality is a limitless ocean of consciousness
and individual awareness is a jar." -Ramakrishna
http://www.ramdasstapes.org/ramakrishna.htm
The WHOLE is greater than the SUM of the individual PARTS...
http://www.countryjoe.com/wwwboard/messages/184.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib333.htm
http://www.room23.de/1629.html
http://tinyurl.com/6fec9
***