For a variety of reasons, I have not kept up with these reflections.

Some years have passed since I first started them and much development has taken place in so many ways in the global community. There are many commentaries now available online.

In time, I might decide I have something useful to add but for the moment, the following link might be found useful

As time goes on I will post more of links.

The death of former Labour Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, on the eve of this year’s federal election is a stark reminder of the different roles played in the development of Australian Social and Political life, since the Whitlam Government.  Put simply, most significant social change has come through Labour Governments.  The role of the Liberal Party being largely to peg back Labour changes in favour of vested, elitist, interests, for example, Health Insurance and Medicare.

Social change, initiated by the Labour Party, although, at times, limited by pragmatic concerns, has led to greater equality.  The Liberal Party, usually, as Scott Morrison has played on, under the guise of supporting everyone to have a go, has supported the growing gap between rich and poor in our society.

With so much at stake in this election on the fundamental issues of climate change and social equity, I wonder why anyone would really consider more of Liberal dysfunctionalism.

Hannah Betts in her article in the age 23/05/18 ‘Backlash likely but give Meghan a chance to shine’, that Meghan, now Duchess of Sussex acting abilities are a strength but also could make her vulnerable. Her ability gives her the appearance at least, of appearing engaged. After watching the Royal wedding like millions of other people, it would seem to me that most of the people present at the wedding and especially the Royals, could do with some coaching in how to at least appear engaged, but more importantly, how to be engaged in the moment.

Yet it really should not be about acting. Mindfulness, in all its various forms, needs to be central to social etiquette. 

Those who are arguing for people to vote ‘No’ in the Same Sex Marriage Debate are like a confused ostrich with its head in the sand and not realising that it has its head in the sand.  The confusion and blindness comes from failing to make a distinction between law and morality.  The law defines what are minimum acceptable standards within the society.  Morality, ethics or ultimate ideals, are a different level of debate.  There are many behaviours and practices in our society that are legal but that do not necessarily conform to higher human values.  For example, the laws that allow such inequality of wealth to grow and develop.

Given that there are very few who would argue that same-sex relationships should be illegal, then the only just choice is to give these relationships  a legal status so that people in these relationships have the rights and protections at law that the social respect for human rights necessitates.  The same can also be said of ‘de facto’ relationships.

Similarly, the various arguments about the quality of parenting that same-sex couples might give their children, are quite irrelevant.  We cannot really legislate the quality of parenting and the love that two people and their extended family, might or might not give their children.  The complexity of hetero sexual relationships and the families developed from them, are very complex.  Many do not conform to the ideal argued for by the ‘No’ supporters in the debate.  To not acknowledge this and set much higher values that same-sex couples are to be assessed by, is totally unjust to say the least.

Rather than the vitriolic, divisive  and unloving debate, that we at times are degenerating into, we need to focus on being a more loving and caring society where people from whatever their background, can be encouraged to develop their full potential as a human being.  In other words, to reword, for our current society, the old saying ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ to ‘it takes a community, it takes a society to raise a child’.

Consequently, the only just response to the debate about legalising ‘Same Sex Marriages’ is to vote ‘Yes’.

Groundhog Day, an extreme cinematic exploration of the ‘déjà vu’ experience that many of us have in our lives.  This election seems like Groundhog Day.  After 3 years of tumultuous and largely ineffective government, the Liberal government now tries to present itself as a government of order and stability.  It is as if Tony Abbott never happened.  Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison after some nine months of wandering around offering very little strong direction in government, now present themselves as a government with stability and an economic plan.  It is hard to believe that they can be straight-faced given what happened in the Abbott prime ministership.  It also seems that many political commentators are also being sucked in because there does not seem to be very much outrage about the audacity of the government’s approach

I have published on this website, a booklet on ‘Prayer & Meditation’.  Written over thirty years ago, it is a simple introduction to the subject.  The booklet starts at the very beginning and assumes no knowledge of prayer or meditation. Yet, although basic, it also includes some deep mystical insights.

The booklet does not seek to explain in great depth, but rather, being somewhat cryptic in style, points to directions that can be explored.  It provides keys for the imagination to explore prayer and meditation.

Although prayer and meditation begin with our intentional effort, the exploration soon leads the practioner, into places where God is more the initiator than we are.

The booklet was written in 1983, for the Mothers’ Union in the Anglican Diocese of Bendigo, and, consequently, was written for a Christian audience.  Yet, it has many universal undertones.  Prayer, silent prayer, meditation and contemplation, quickly leads us into mystical experience of God, the realm where most major religions, truly converge.

An example of the pamphlets universal undertones is given where Elijah, one of the greatest prophets of Israel, is led by God to the ‘Holy Mountain’.  He hides in a cave, (representative of the inner place), when God calls him from the cave:

“The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.”

(1 Kings 19:11-12 NIV)  (You might like to read from v1 to v12)

The Hebrew word for ‘gentle whisper’ or ‘still small voice’ is demahmah, which means a soft murmuring sound.  The word is onomatopoeic, that is it means as it sounds.  The 19^th Century, Hebrew linguist, Gesenius, said that demahmah was related to the Sanskrit word ‘Ohm’, representing and then leading to an experience of ‘the primal sound of the universe’ or possibly, what scientists call the sound of ‘the Big Bang’ that still resonates throughout the universe.

This booklet has been updated since first posted in 2016.

A Council for the Clarifying of Ideologies in every secular democracy, at least, would be a very significant way of responding to the dangers presented by Daesh (IS) and other extremist groups.  A number of people have been saying in the light of recent terrorist attacks in various parts of the world, and particularly last week in Paris, that ultimately, Daesh (Islamic State) will only be defeated through the clarifying of ideologies, rather than on the battlefield.

Will Malcolm Turnbull becoming Prime Minister, make a difference?  The answer probably lies in a critical question raised by opposition leader Bill Shorten, ‘Is this is a change of style rather than substance’?

Malcolm Turnbull announced his leadership challenge saying that his government would be a truly Liberal Government, focusing on the market, the individual and that his government would be a traditional Cabinet Government based on inclusiveness, and advocacy, explaining policy rather than just using slogans.

In his interview with Leigh Sales of the ABC 7.30 report he spoke of how wealth was not