Beautiful Nonsense.

Dino Meurs

 2010 Dino Meurs. All rights reserved. Cover art 2009 by John Hart Studios and used by permission. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the author. Exception to the rights reserved: Reviewers may quote brief passages in a review to be printed in a newspaper, magazine, journal, or blog. Throughout my writing, you will run across a word spelled -O-. This is my spelling of the word we pronounce as God; it is not to be taken as the name of another God. I use this spelling as a visual symbol of my nonimage of the Divine Oneness; when you read the word, it is pronounced God I would like to thank my girlfriend CC for understanding my mood swings while Im writing. When things are flowing, Im happy but when things are going slow, I get frustrated. Du ring the former, I have a tendency to get lost in what Im doing and during the latter, the frustration shows in my voice and it sometimes sounds as if Im taking it out on her. Without her p atience and understanding, I would be lost. Thank you for putting up with me, honey.

Opening Ramble.
Most people gain mystical insight by following traditional schools of mysticism - they find themselves in the presence of a Master who guides them to mystical insight. This did not happen in my case. The mystical insight came first and then I had to build a working vocabulary to explain the experiences to myself. As an experiment, I decided to write this manuscript out as if I were a guru giving satsang. I do not consider myself enlightened, nor do I consider myself a guru. Im just an ordinary person who enjoys talking about this stuff The area Ive yapped about the most is the monistic implications of nondualistic philosophy; a stance Ive referred to as both Neomonism and Sunyatatha. Neomonism plainly states that reality cannot be pinned down by an either or description and is expressed through the language of the mind. No matter how precise we get in our daffynition of this and that, all we can do is accept the paradox that reality is like Yang and reality is like Yin without being either. Sunyatatha recognizes that neither Sunyata nor Tathata are the truth of reality and is expressed through the language of the heart. Another topic I have yapped about is our mistaken self identity, particularly in Western culture. We have been taught to believe we are, as Alan Watts put it, Egos enc apsulated in a bag of skin Some schools of thought embrace the Ego while other schools embrace the bag, giving rise to the Mind/Body campfire story. We become trapped within Oneitis by assuming they are

different realities operating in some kind of parallelism. Drop Oneitis and you will come to realize the Mind Body unity. This leads us to another campfire story that adds to our mistaken self identity. We are taught to believe the Divine and the Material are separate realities. There is no real difference other than we use the language of the heart to discuss the Divine and the language of the mind to discuss the Material. As with all other dichotomies, this one is linguistic, not existential. We daffyfine Divine as thus and so and Material as so and thus, then we fall into the trap of Oneitis. Reality cannot be reduced to something that can be totally daffyfined in one language alone. The Divine goeswith the Material just as much as the Material goeswith the Divine, not as two separate and independent things, but one <something> else. The interconnectedness of all Religions is another area I enjoy talking about. Religion actually has more in common than it has in difference within itself. Hindus, Jews, and Christians each have their particular -O-image, but the commonality is they all believe in the concept of -O-. Each Faith has a version of the Golden Rule and would have us love our neighbor. Does it really matter if she holds Family Piety because of Confucian teachings while he honors his Mother and Father because of Biblical teachings? A topic that comes up frequently concerns what I call a Theory of Incompleteness. Reality is infinite while language is finite; no matter how much knowledge we gather, there is more to learn. The way I see it is what we know impresses me and what we have yet to learn inspires me. Many people take this theory to be a source of despair for they equate incompleteness with uselessness. Just the opposite is projected by this theory, as

it is, in my mind, the newness that makes things interesting. I have sincere doubt that anyone who desires infinite knowledge has thought this out. Just imagine how boring it would get after a few million years of nothing new. While Im on the subject of incompleteness, I wonder if those who claim they can completely know -O- actually think about what they are doing. It seems a bit pretentious to me to think one can take an infinite, reduce it to a finite and still call it infinite. That is like saying that light only comes in one color. All major Religions attest to the Infinity of -O-, making an act of claiming a particular -O-image IS -O- idolatrous, and when the claimant also states that everyone must adhere to that -O-image, they step into blasphemy. I want to dissuade you of any notion that because I call our Mythos Campfire stories, I have no respect for them. I use the same term when I talk about my own stories. I have a high respect for them; in my opinion, they were the driving force in our acquisition of knowledge. We study a story and learn more, thus modifying the old understanding of the story, and this leads to further study and deeper understanding. I feel that our storytelling ability helped cement the social order, giving rise to our success as a species.

The monistic implications of Nondualism. >Gurus keep telling us all this is unreal. This seems to be an unbalanced stance. It is both real and unreal. It is both transitory and permanent. It is both painful and blissful. It is both existence and nonexistence. It is both material and ideal. The key phrase in all this is both for we cannot have one without the other. As Nagarjuna put it - All things derive their being and nature by mutual d ependence and are nothing in themselves. This is where I feel the mistake of the Neo-Advaita nondualist lies. They choose to divide reality into the relative and the absolute. One side of this supposed duality, what they call relative, is not true in the absolute sense therefore it is false. In this respect, they act like Monists. This is like saying that because neither the head nor the tail side of the coin is the truth of the coin, the coin is false. It is not a question of Is it A, or is it B? It is a question of What is it that manifests as A and B? Both are allusions to a deeper truth; neither one, in and of itself is The Truth. Reality is <Something> that manifests as either A or as B and it is this <Something> we should be focusing on in our search for the answer. This is why I call my philosophy Neomonism. It is nondualistic except it is positivistic rather than negativistic in that reality is not considered an illusion but rather as an all usion - that which points to a deeper truth. It would be nice to retain the term illusion but the connotation of fake is what the

nondualists have been using to promote their message. From the Latin word ludre, we get the English word illusion, and ludre means to play. Neomonism is based on the monistic implications of nondualism; another way of saying everything is One, but it is not the One of traditional monism, which I feel is a mistake. This mistake is caused by what I call Oneitis; the assumption the One is either this or that; the or assumption leading to our conf usion. We should not confuse the one of mathematics, which is singular, with the one of metaphysics, which is manifold. As far as Im concerned, the best method to understand nondualism is a study of the Yin Yang symbol of Taoism. It does not follow that because neither Yin nor Yang is the whole truth they are illusions as, the typical nondualist is fond of teaching. The worst that can be said is that each is an allusion; a pointer toward a deeper truth. We can explain the world as material (Yang), but that is an incomplete answer and we can explain the world as ideal (Yin), but that too is an incomplete explanation. Do not fall into the trap of saying Yin only is real or Yang only is real, else you end up trying to walk a straight line with one foot nailed to the floor. To go anywhere in philosophy, other than back and forth, round and round, one must have a keen sense of correlative vision. This is a technical term for a thorough understanding of the Game of Black and White, whereby one sees that all explicit opposites are implicit allies - correlative in the sense that they gowith each other and cannot exist apart. Alan Watts I cannot comprehend how someone can claim to be a nondualist while yapping like a monist, calling this true and that false. In the way I see it, nondualism does not recognize a

separation of essence in whatever we call this and whatever we call that because this separation is linguistic, not existential. The Self is so only because it is defined that way and the same is true concerning the self. It is not the case that the Self and self are two separate or distinct essences, but one essence that has two patterns of behavior, much like an electron can be either a particle or a wave, depending on how we choose to look at it. When we say this is relative and that is absolute, we must a lso say that is relative and this is absolute; they are coexistent; defined by each other. Chuang Tzu talked about this giving rise to that. You cannot have the idea of nothing without the correlate idea of everything, just as you cannot have everything without the correlate of nothing. When you recognize the emptiness of this and that, as independent entities, you come to recognize that from Sunyata arises Tathata, or from the other direction, depending on how you choose to view it. That which is empty is that which is full, or as it is said in the Heart Sutra, form is emptiness; emptiness is form. From this recognition comes an ontological concept I call Sunyatatha. All things are devoid of independent existence. (Sunyata) All things manifest from the same Source. (Tathata) All things can be said to neither exist or not to exist. Sunyatatha is my attempt at comprehending the dualistic appearance of Reality. As indicated by the Sunya portion, Reality is Empty, but as indicated by the Tatha portion, Reality is Full. While this may seem to be contradictory, it is only so linguistically as the actual nature of Reality is not a choice between Sunyata and Tathata as the One True Story. There is truth in

Sunyata and there is truth in Tathata but Truth can be found in neither story alone. We make a major mistake in imaging dualism as contradiction; I submit the dualism should be imaged as paradox. The solution to the question of dualism is realizing the dualism is a logical paradox rather than an existential state of affairs. All things are Empty - that does not mean they are False. All things are Full - that does not mean they are True. We can almost wrap our minds around Emptiness and Fullness but Reality is not subject to either rational or intuitive logic. Sunyata is true but we should not dwell there. Tathata is true but we should not dwell there either. They are not independent of each other and cannot exist apart from the other. Emptiness is one aspect of reality; suchness is another aspect of reality. Emptiness, can be known, is true, but is not real. Suchness can be known, is true, but is not real. Tao is true and real, but cannot be known in the same sense that we know One plus one equals two. Rather than contradiction, this is paradox. Emptiness is a partial understanding; Suchness is a partial understanding. The reason they are partial is that neither alone is Reality. They are coexistent - without Emptiness, there would not be Suchness. There is no inherent Tathata; there is no inherent Sunyata. By inherent, I mean an independently existing reality. With the negation of inherency, contradiction is replaced with paradox. When one thinks contradiction, one is thinking dualistically, as in there are two distinct realities, one of which cannot be true. When one thinks paradox, one is thinking in a nondualistic manner, as in there is a unity that can be explained two ways, neither of which is true.

One cannot pretend to understand Sunyata and lay the claim that Nothing exists. As Nagarjuna wrote; All things d erive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves. If Sunyata were truly empty, what is nothing mutually dependent upon? If Tathata is truly thusness, what is it mutually dependent upon? Without Yin, Yang would not exist and without Yang, Yin would not exist The in and of itself part of Sunyata, which I feel has been ignored by fans and critics alike, gives one a different concept of the relationship of oneself to others, and by extension, -O-. In and of myself, I do not exist as a separate entity. In and of yourself, you do not exist as a separate entity. You are you because I am I, and that goes for all of us. You are just as much an Icon of the Divine as I am, thus deserving of respect in equal proportion to the respect I wish to receive. Drop the idea that this is true and that is false. Both campfire stories are incomplete. The use of the term incomplete is not to be taken in an insulting manner. It is an admission that we are not in possession of complete knowledge. No matter how much knowledge we have gained, there is still much we do not know. For all our trying, we still cannot say exactly what mind is and from the study of the sub quantum realm, we have found there is no there there. Incomplete does not mean either true or false, it means I dont know. Keep in mind that this I dont know is not an anti intellectual stance. It indicates a willingness to keep ones mind open to a deeper understand ing as more evidence is discovered. I realize that when I start yakking about something, I come across as if I know the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt. At most, all we can do is describe what it is like at the surface of our understanding. Alan Watts wrote a little blurb about his

grandchildren and him looking for the inside of a grape. No matter how many times he cut the grape in half, all he found was surface. The inside was always hidden from view. This is true for everything, once we cut something in half to peer inside, the inside transforms to outside, making the essence of a thing the inside - inside of the thing. The closest we can come to speaking the truth is to say This is what it is like, as far as I can tell. Have you really contemplated what it would be like to be Omniscient? It sounds to me like a hellish state of existence. The enjoyment of an evening walk would seem to be lessened if you knew that at such and such a spot, and such and such a time, you will encounter a lovely sunset. I have a hunch that after a few hundred billion years, one would be desperately seeking the surprise button.

The Trap of Oneitis.

Nondualism has fascinated me since I was introduced to the academic study of philosophy. One of the first issues we studied in the Introductory Class was that of whether Rationality or Intuition was the source of true knowledge. It struck me almost immediately the answer depended on the context. When one is communicating in the language of the mind, rationalism holds, and when one is communicating in the language of the heart, intuition holds. The language of the mind can be thought of as Yang and the language of the heart as Yin in the Tao we call Mind. It is not the case that we have a rational mind and an intuitive mind working side by side, no matter what it looks like it is doing. My main objection to the Nondualistic approach is over the use of the term illusion The term is commonly taken under the connotation of false, which leads to a negative attitude about physicality. I prefer to use the term allusion, taken under the connotation of a pointer at a deeper truth. The sides of an apparent duality are allusions that point to a deeper truth. Reality is not this. Reality is not that. Reality gives rise to this and that and is neither, in and of itself. Our calling metaphysical truth Deeper Truths makes a lot of sense when viewed this way. Our hassles in discussing the apparent dualism arise from a condition I call Oneitis, but it is called Monism, an assumption that one or the other side of an issue is the truth. I submit this is a mistaken approach because we confuse oneness in mathematics

with oneness in metaphysics. Consciousness is neither rational nor intuitive it is a rational intuitive unity that is harmonious. It is neither Mind nor Body; consider the Taiji; neither Yin nor Yang that comprise the entire image. This either/or stuff is linguistic, not existential. Compounding the issue with Oneitis is our campfire story of the metaphysical as beyond the physical. This is only part of the campfire story for at the same time, the metaphysical is within the physical. To have an outside, one has to have an inside, and the Divine Oneness is neither exclusively. Outside and Inside are linguistic conventions that have no more reality than this and that. Thinking along the terms outside is a cons equence of the language of the mind while thinking along the lines of inside is from utilizing the language of the heart. A coin is one of the best examples; we do not have a thing called tails sitting next to a thing called heads; what we have is a tails/heads unity. It is from that unity the coin becomes valuable; we could not spend them in the marketplace if we were to file off one side of the coin. In the language of the mind, gravity is the reason water flows downhill while in the language of the heart; it can be said it is the nature of water to flow downhill. We need to get away from the idea that one or the other campfire story is the truth, because it depends on the context of your discussion as to which language you are using. Neither language, in and of itself, is The Truth, at most it is partial truth. Always keep foremost in mind that these languages are harmonious compliments rather than the conflicting opposites we are taught. Problems arise when we take our campfire stories as absolute rather than relative truth. We are not in possession of infinite knowledge therefore we should not make the claim This

is it While the campfire story told in the language of the mind has much validity, there are aspects of reality it ignores in order to make things fit. The same can be said about the campfire story told in the language of the heart Find the middle ground where they have commonalities, allowing one to shed light on the other. Drop your clinging to the idea of Oneness in a mathematical context. Reality is neither Material nor Spiritual in essence; it is a <something> from which Material and Spiritual arise. It is this <something> that nondualistic philosophy alludes to as it points a finger at the Moon.

On Certainty.
>You have said many times that all knowledge is incomplete, yet you talk and write as if you are dispensing the absolute truth. Is this not being inconsistent? The things I yap about are true for me, but I do not take them as absolute truth for everyone; all images are finite constructs. They are how I express my understanding and it is completely beside the point if anyone agrees with me or not. Im more than willing to admit that I may be mistaken in my misunderstandings. Take, for example, the way I discuss -O-. I talk about what -O- is like for me and the things I say are not meant be taken as saying that you must believe the same way. It matters not to me if you accept what I say as absolute truth; all that matters is that we not beat each other up over our differences. Another example, in talking about human nature, one person believes we have a dual nature and I believe in a nondual nature. We have, for the sake of simplicity, three ways of looking it the difference. One, I could be right and he could be wrong. Two, he could be right and I could be wrong. Three, we could both be wrong. I think it is fun to share our equally incomplete views and relate this sharing to triangulation - each view is a different angle and between all of them, we might get close to pinpointing the target. One connotation of the word agnostic is that we will never completely know -O-. I think this is applicable to knowledge in general as well; there is only so much finite beings can know

about infinity. It seems to me that if we were to learn everything, we would lose something vital and would start stagnating. As far as the idea of complete knowledge goes, I think that is a scary proposition. That is why I call my theory of knowledge Inco mpleteness. Many people have said they think it would be pretty cool to know everything, but I doubt if they have really thought that idea out. Can you imagine how boring it must get after a while to have no surprises to make you go wow? Without the unknown, it seems to me the mysterious grandeur of reality would vanish and we would be left with an image of something as stimulating as institutional oatmeal. Carl Sagan stated that one could know why a sunset is red and still enjoy it. This is true up to a point as far as Im concerned; I think it would be more like watching a magic show; you can know how the trick was pulled off and still enjoy the showmanship, but that beautiful mystery of the show is reduced. Be certain, there is nothing wrong with that. An excess of certainty, as with any excess, is not a good thing. Look at the changes in say, Astronomy since the early days and how certainty has played a role in the rancor against change. Each shift in understanding of the structure of the Cosmos was met with resistance simply because the holders of the outgoing understanding assumed they knew the truth. As far as Im concerned, this is backwards thinking; I find learning new things to be a great deal of fun. I spent quite a few years working as a temp and one thing I noticed was that the least content with their jobs were mostly those at the top of their trade. You are the only one required to believe your campfire story in the same manner as everyone else. No matter how strongly you feel, it is counterproductive to stand on a soapbox

on the street corner, pontificating. This is not to say we should not share our various campfire stories. It is through gentle debate that our understanding grows, with the key word being gentle. There is much wisdom in the saying that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Disagree all you want, just do not be disagreeable while youre doing it. We have to keep in mind that in this game of Black vs. White, Tweedledee and Tweedledum agreed to have this debate in the first place. Not a one of us is omniscient and we make a mockery of ourselves when we act as if we are. It is best, in my mind anyway, to approach the debate by humbly offering your opinions. Many arguments lose their luster when the debate devolves into a personal argument. We should look at the sharing as a joyful opportunity to deepen our understanding rather than as a gleeful opportunity to act in a holier than thou manner. Be more than willing to admit that you can always learn something. I have yet to run across anything written that says that to understand something is to condone it; it makes no sense at all to critique something you do not understand. The funny thing is that in the process of coming to understand another point of view, you come to a deeper understanding of your own point of view. Our understandings are evolving on a continuous basis, which leads me to ask how anyone can claim possession of the complete truth. Rest assured, the more we learn, the more there is to learn, in a constant growth of knowledge. To me, this constant learning is a joy, for the more I understand, the more I realize reality is an awesome marvel. Yes, we have learned a great deal over the years, Im not going to deny that. It is what we know that impresses, but if you think about it, it has always been that which we dont yet know that inspires.

There is nothing wrong with the recognition that our knowledge is incomplete. It does not mean we are idiots because there are things we do not yet know; all it means is that there are things we do not know yet. We should not take pride in knowing one thing that another doesnt know, for that other person knows a thing we do not know, and that can be said about everyone. Just as we have a greater knowledgebase than our ancestors did, we need to keep in mind our descendents will have a larger knowledgebase than we do. I know youre going to tell me that Im inconsistent on this. First, I say that it is OK to be certain and then, I yap about being willing to be uncertain. What Im saying is to be certain about what you do know but be uncertain in thinking that you are in possession of Absolute Knowledge. There is no sense in any of us taking our incomplete knowledge and using it as a club to beat up on anyone elses incomplete knowledge. Remember, the other person has as much faith in their campfire story as you do in yours. Allow them this right if you wish that right for yourself.

On Incompleteness
x>I take it you are saying that we cannot have complete knowledge in any field of study. It sounds dismal and skeptical to me. Far from dismal, it is a sheer delight. Do you not find learning to be exciting? Maybe I am a bit strange but I find learning to be a blast. I have worked through Temp agencies for over 20 years and although the pay is not great and the benefits are little, if any, I have had a blast learning many new things. Among which is being a machinist working with tolerances of .0001, working on assembly of medical devices, Shipping and Receiving in various warehouse style companies, ISO 9000 level inspection of tubing to be used in the Nuclear Industry, tree trimming, working in the kitchen at an airport, working in a lettershop, and many other skills. I read an essay by Lewis Thomas, about how the Introduction to Science classes should be titled The Things We Do Not Know. Along that train of thought, I would add that one of the textbooks should be The Wisdom of Insecurity, by Alan Watts. In all the various assignments I have had as a temp, the one thing I have noticed is that if a person is burned out on the job, it is because they know all about it and have nothing new to learn. Im skeptical of the idea that we can completely know anything. What could be any more dismal than having complete knowledge? Can you imagine how boring that must be after a while? If there is any image of Hell that scares me, it is one of an

eternity of knowing everything and every event beforehand. Sure, one can have a safer life if one knows what is coming, but, how long could one remain tied to apron strings before one wanted a taste of adventure? I would prefer to walk around a corner to see either a beautiful sunset or a charging dragon without foreknowledge, thank you. This does not mean that I am against knowledge, as much as it may sound to some people - it is nice to know the chances of meeting a dragon are less than seeing a sunset. >It sounds like you are either unwilling or you are unable to verify anything. Unwilling in the sense there is no way for a finite language to totally describe an infinite like -O-.I have no doubt as to the existence of that which I call -O- one the one hand, yet on the other, I feel that there is no accurately definition of -O-. The most I will say about -O- is that -O- is, the what -O- is cannot be defined as one cannot put a finite image to that which is infinite. On the same token, I have no doubt about physicality; my doubt is that one can accurately describe physicality without leaving something out of the equation. The thing is, once one claims absolute certainty, further knowledge becomes unavailable. One becomes closed minded and there is no possibility that one can find new evidence. As history has shown us time and time again, the more we learn, the more there is to learn. The agnostic attitude, in my opinion, keeps reality vibrant and new. My working daffynition of Agnostic is - Somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood.

People like to talk up the amount of knowledge we humans have gained since we dropped out of the trees. Yes, we have learned much since that point in history. My point is, in my opinion, we are focused in the wrong direction. What we have yet to learn is more important; what we do not know keeps things interesting. The state of not knowing, is not knowing nothing, as it seems to imply. In this state of mind, this and that still exist. They are viewed as correlative in the context of without that, this could not exist and the ultimate truth exists somewhere between the two extremes. We can say this is mind and this is body but we cannot say either A is true and Z is false or A is false and Z is true, for each statement is both true and false at the same time. We can say this is true and be partially correct. We can say this is false and be partially correct. We can say both this and that are true and be partially correct. We can say neither this nor that is true and be partially correct. >Your talks sound a lot like the Zen koan about If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there, does it make a sound? How could there be sound if there was no observer that had a sense of hearing? The tree falling causes vibrations in the air that are transformed into mechanical vibrations by the middle ear which are then transformed into nerve impulses that are then transformed into a pattern of synaptic impulses in a brain which is interpreted as sound. Where in all this is the entity sound? We cannot say the vibrations in the air is the sound as an observer who is deaf would only feel the vibrations. We cannot say the sound is the movement of the bones in the middle ear, we cannot say it is the nerve impulses, and we cannot say it is the

synaptic activity. The sound is a continuum starting with the tree falling to the observer interpreting all the events as the sound of a tree falling. We do not know things as they are; all we really know is how things appear. The universe of a millionth of a second ago is different from the universe of two millionths of a second ago. As we look at the sky, we do not see the universe as it is Right Now. When we take a picture of our sun, we cannot say with absolute certainty for example, This is what the sun is right now. The picture is what the sun was like approximately 8 minutes before the picture was taken. Looking at a distant star, what we are seeing is the light emitted by it a million years ago (To use an arbitrary number). If that star were to have exploded in the interval between the time when the star emitted the light you are looking at and the actual time you are looking at it, how would you know the star is still active? If this star were to cease to exist Right Now, we wouldnt know it for a million years, unless we develop faster than light travel. A million years ago, the star was X distance from us, but what distance is it from us at the present moment? Sure, we can use what we have learned about celestial motion to give us an answer to the where the star is, but this answer can only be stated as a rough approximation. We do not know absolutely that the star is at X location. The further the star is away from us, the greater the approximation. >I really feel rather sorry for someone like you who places so little trust or confidence in his own belief system, to call it, as well as all others, incomplete. I have utmost trust and confidence in my belief system. I am not going to be silly enough to claim that because it works

for me, it must be what everyone else must believe or be doomed to Hell. As for calling it incomplete, it is. Im only human after all, how in the heck could I have full knowledge of the infinite? Newtonian Mechanics is an incomplete understanding in and of itself of the physical world - that does not mean I have less respect for it than I do Quantum Mechanics, which in itself is an incomplete understanding. There is more to reality than a purely materialistic understanding. The fact I call theology incomplete is no way demeaning. It is, in my opinion, an affirmation of the highest order. -O- is much grander than anything we humans can imagine. That you restrict your image of -O- is saddening for you restrict -O-s ability to BE. When one focuses on a particular aspect of Infinity and claims that small portion is the whole truth, one commits idolatry. Once one takes that image and uses it to hold oneself as superior over another, the line has been crossed and the sin of pride is added to the sin of idolatry. There is more to reality than a purely spiritual understanding. Think about it. If I had so little trust or confidence in my belief system, would I be spending all this time yakking about it? Alan Watts wrote a book titled The Wisdom of Insec urity. I highly doubt if anyone would say he had little trust or confidence or that he was insecure in his belief system. Let us be pragmatic about this - we do not know everything. As long as there is one fact you do not know, you cannot say you have complete knowledge. It seems to me that you are misunderstanding incomplete in the context I am using it. I think it is totally fascinating that no matter how much we have learned, there is that much more we have to learn. What can possibly be more dismal than having complete knowledge? Can you imagine how boring that must be after a

while? One thing that scares me is the idea of an eternity of knowing everything and every event beforehand. Sure, one can have a safer life if one knows what is coming, but, how long could one remain tied to apron strings before one wanted a taste of adventure? I would prefer to walk around a bend in my path and confront either a beautiful sunset or a charging dragon without foreknowledge, thank you. This does not mean that I am against knowledge, as much as it may sound to some people - it is nice to know the chances of meeting a dragon are less than seeing a sunset. Our main problem is that we have come to believe that what we say about the world actually represents the world. The world seems to be dualistic; we have material and we have mental. It is the assumption of and as real that leads to problems. The validity of and only applies in the logical sense for mater ial and mental are, in actuality, two aspects of the same unity. We need the and to explain the world but it is unnecessary for our experience of the world. Chuang Tzu had the following to say. The Way has no boundaries; words do not have constant meanings. But because people want to say, this is..., boundaries were created ... The wise person does not deny these boundaries, but pays no attention to them. These boundaries are not real, in and of themselves. We operate under the assumption that the map is the territory and the menu is the meal. This is fallacious thinking; a map is a representation of the territory, it is not the territory itself. We do not confuse the chemical definition of salt for the salt itself and when we dine, we do not eat the menu. We take language beyond its limit when we take for granted it is anything more than a symbolic tool whose validity rests on common agreement as to what

the words stand for. A cat is a cat because we have agreed to use that word to describe it - we could have chosen to call it sneezle. >Does that mean we should throw away our images? We communicate through our images. What we need to do is stop clinging to the images as if they were The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth. As I stated earlier, we need a starting point in order to discuss these things. Reality is infinite and one cannot capture the infinite in an image, for an image is finite. An image is, to use a Buddhist turn of phrase, a finger pointing at the Moon. Let us not confuse the finger for the Moon. Images are helpful, we humans communicate in symbolic language, but past a certain point, images become roadblocks to understanding. If history has shown us anything, it is that our images are incomplete. At one time, we had an image of the Earth as at rest in the center of the universe. We once thought that atoms were the smallest bits of matter. We used to believe the stars had fixed positions in the heavens. There was a time we thought the Earth was flat. At one time, the dogma was that the orbits of the planets were perfect circles. We used to think time flowed at a constant rate for all observers. Our mental images describe the surface of a deeper reality. We call metaphysical truths deeper truths, do we not? The outer appearance of reality is noumenal and phenomenal while the inner workings is a unified wholeness that displays the polarities of noumenal and phenomenal. I prefer to use the term polarities rather than opposites for the reason it implies harmonious interconnection while op-

posites implies confrontation. Think of a magnet, it has a north and a south pole - if you cut a magnet in half, each half will have a north and south pole. As Alan Watts wrote on more than one occasion, the inside goeswith the outside, just as the north pole of a magnet goeswith the south pole, above goeswith below and left goeswith right.

Embrace the Beautiful Nonsense of Paradox. The daffynition of paradox that is my favorite; a paradox is an expression of a nondual truth; the Yin Yang nonduality is the best example. One mistake we make is the assumption that what we say about reality is what reality actually is. We have told wonderful campfire stories about how all this is material, many lovely ones about how all this is mind; in our arrogance, we proclaim this is what it is, when the truth is more like this is what it is like. Let go of the mistaken idea that the map is the territory. When we look at reality from one perspective, it appears to be Yin. Then we can turn around and view reality from another perspective and it appears Yang. Although each point of view can adequately explain reality, they cannot totally explain reality. Another mistake we make is the assumption there is a truth and the truth must be one or the other, a stance I have labeled Oneitis. These are actually two conjoined mistakes but they are so intertwined, it is hard to discuss one without talking about the other. Sometimes I think of them as symbiotic ideas for one cannot exist without the other. We can explain things through Yin and have an adequate campfire story on the one hand and on the other, we can explain things through Yang and have an adequate campfire story. We make a fundamental error when we chose either Yin or Yang over Tao, which is the whole of reality. The important thing to realize at this point is where the paradox resides, in reality or in the logical explanation. As

Chuang Tzu put it - this requires that and that depends on this. it sounds to me like this and that are symbiotic ideas as well. Reality has no problem of paradox; it is humanity that has a problem with paradox. The problem is that we have distracted ourselves with the question of Is it this or is it that? A far more important question is What is it that appears to be MindBody? The paradox of the Divine Oneness is there is no paradox. One has to wonder why reality appears paradoxical. I know this may be a silly notion, but perhaps paradox is what drives us to learn more about reality. There is an explanation of This and there is an explanation of That. One side comes up with a deeper understanding, which is followed by a deeper understanding by the other side, which is followed... and so on along the path of increased overall knowledge. The paradox does teach a nondual truth; reality is neither Yin nor Yang, it is Tao. Notice that I said reality appears paradoxical, not reality is paradoxical. The way I look at this is that the paradox doesnt arise until we try to explain the situation; therefore, the paradox is logical, not existential. Become comfortable with the idea of paradox, for all it is in the long run, is an idea. Reality is not Mind, reality is not Body; reality is a MindBody Oneness. Each side of the paradox is an equally incomplete campfire story about what is going on. The main factor in this idea of paradox is the biggest mistake we make, that of confusing the mathematical, with the philosophical, concept of one, and going on to misapply it. It completely slips our mind that mathematics and metaphysics are different languages, with the One of mathematics as singular; the One of metaphysics as pluralistic. This leads to Oneitis; the assumption the mathematical explanation of One also explains

One of metaphysics. Let go of Oneitis and you will find out that the paradox is an artifact of logical analysis, which gives us the impression that reality is put together of bits and pieces. In Chapter 48 of the Hua Hu Ching, Lao Tzu talks about realizing the Divine Oneness is the Divine Oneness whether one affirms or denies everything. He wrote; Do you wish to free yourself of mental and emotional knots and become one with the Tao? If so, there are two paths available to you. The first is the path of acceptance. Affirm everyone and everything. Freely extend your goodwill and virtue in every direction, regardless of circumstances. Embrace all things as part of the Harmonious Oneness, and then you will begin to perceive it. The second path is that of denial. Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth. Peel all the veils away, and you will arrive at the Oneness. Though these paths are entirely different, they will deliver you to the same place: spontaneous awareness of the Great Oneness. Once you arrive there, remember: it isn't necessary to struggle to maintain unity with it. All you have to do is participate in it. By every, he means exactly that. All matter, all energy, all conceptualization; nothing is left out, else it would not be Oneness. We make a mistake when we assume the Oneness we find through affirmation and the Oneness we find through denial are different realities. It is like a coin; the Oneness of Tathata is the same Oneness of Sunyata, the difference being nothing more than a matter of perspective. This is what I choose to call the beautiful nonsense of reality. The Divine Oneness is the Divine Oneness no matter how we choose to explain it. People get confused by the idea that one or the other is not The Truth That Explains All Things Wise and wonderful. When I use the word Nonsense, Im not using it in

a derogatory manner. There is no sensible reason as to why reality appears paradoxical, it does, and that is the nonsensical connotation I use. As Ive said before, become comfortable with paradox. No matter how hard you try, you cannot escape it. To paraphrase Chuang Tzu, there are boundaries between this and that; the wise ignore them. In the preconceptual state, the paradox does not arise because of the silence of the mind. The paradox arises when we ask; Is it Yin or is it Yang? and this is the wrong question altogether. The appropriate question is What is it that expresses itself as both Yin and Yang? We ask the wrong question through this confusion of what One means. Through the use of logic, one can describe reality quite well in terms of Yin. One can also describe reality through the use of Yang terminology. Where the hassle arises is from Oneitis, which leads to the idea of one or the other. All this does is to give us a partial view of reality because as we look at Yin, we ignore Yang, and vice versa. The paradox of Tao is that it is the source of Yin and Yang, yet it is neither. Although we communicate through language, we fail to realize that it is our clinging to Oneitis that gives rise to paradox. Although we admit to rational and intuitive modes of thought, we insist that our descriptions be governed by the rules of one or the other. Some take it to the extreme of either side, speaking solely from rationality, or solely from the language of the mind or solely from intuitiveness, the language of the heart. The sides can be thought of as wings; in order to fly, one must utilize both. For those of you who are not familiar with the concept of Oneitis, let me explain. Oneitis is the taking of one or the other side of a duality that is merely linguistic and idolizing it as a Law

of Nature. No matter how hard we try, this is just not going to work for Oneness is Inclusive. We get this Oneitis from either/or logic and demand that one is true while the other is false. Each is equally true and false because each is an equally incomplete statement about reality. Reality is not one or the other, it is a (Sound of a gong) that exhibits behaviors of this and that. The Divine Oneness cannot be limited to this or that and remain Oneness. Arguing, and here I use the connotation of presenting your case over whether this or that being the ultimate state of affairs sidetracks us from asking What is it that is manifested as this and that? Look at how long we have had this issue. In all these years with no solution, one should consider the possibility that one is asking the wrong question. From one point of view, reality is what it is. From another, it is what it is. The beautiful nonsense is that it is what it is, no matter what we think it is. If this sounds like my critique of Monism, it is. I submit there is no difference between the two other than name. Both stances seek to reduce reality to a mathematical oneness rather than inflate it to a metaphysical one.

The Failure of both Dualism and Monism. >You often say that dualism and monism both miss the point. If you would explain this, I would appreciate it. Dualistic thinking is the result of taking the surface appearance of reality as truth. Monistic thinking falls into the Aristotelian trap of thinking that reality must be one OR the other, which I submit is truly beautiful nonsense. One issue that has captured my attention throughout my study of philosophy has been dualism, and from the start, Ive had Yes, but... questions about the monist solutions that grew from dualistic thinking. Eventually these unanswerable questions lead me to question an assumption of dualism, that each side of the dualism is a separate entity. The issues of dualism have been argued for centuries without a resolution. I submit it is because we are asking the questions with faulty premises. Let us examine the premise of dualism; is it really the case that material and ideal are distinctly separate realities coexisting side by side? Monism is how we explain experience and dualism is how we explain reality. Our problem is that we mistake a logical quandary as an existential state of affairs. This is mistaking the menu for the meal. The Materialist chooses the Menu and the Idealist chooses the Meal. Why People are afraid to admit that Reality can be viewed with equal validity as material and ideal is beyond me. Body is valid, mind is valid; neither alone is the Truth. As Nagarjuna said, Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and

are nothing in themselves. The monistic approach is right, but for the wrong reason. Reality is a Oneness - Material and Ideal are aspects of an undifferentiated (Neutral) One. Our dialectic is about this oneness, it is not the oneness in and of itself. We make a major mistake when we assume that because language is dualistic, reality must be as well. Language needs subject and object, not Reality. Neither subject nor object, in and of themselves, is Truth - they are interdependent truths and cannot exist apart. Without one, we would not have the other. Subject is Yin, object is Yang, and reality is Tao. Consider the example of a coin - we do not have coins that only have heads or tails; coins are two sided, ne ither being intrinsically coin. Subject is a concept one can wrap their mind around. Object is a concept one can wrap their mind around. Talk about subject is just that, talk. Talk about object is just that, talk. They are ways to talk about Reality; they are not Reality Itself. This does not mean that talking about them is useless as humans communicate through the use of symbols. A logical paradox is not an existential state of affairs. The difference between subjective and objective as I see it - the former is how we experience Reality while the latter is how we talk about Reality. Our problem is that we confuse the Symbol for the Reality and as a result make Idols out of Icons. What can be more dismal than having Complete Knowledge? Can you imagine how boring that must be after a while? Sure, one can have a safer life if one knows what is coming, but, how long could one remain tied to apron strings before one wanted a taste of adventure? I would prefer to walk around a corner to see either a beautiful sunset or a charging dragon without foreknowledge, thank you. This does not mean that I am

against knowledge, as much as it may sound to some people - it is nice to know the chances of meeting a dragon are less than seeing a sunset. We make a mistake in imaging dualism as contradiction; I submit the dualism should be imaged as a linguistic paradox. The solution to the question of dualism is realizing the dualism is a logical paradox rather than an existential state of affairs. All things are Empty - that does not mean they are False. All things are Full - that does not mean they are True. We can almost wrap our minds around Emptiness and Fullness but Reality is not subject to either rational or intuitive logic. They are not independent entities and cannot exist apart from the other. Yin Emptiness/"This" is one aspect of Reality, Yang/Suchness/"That" is another aspect of Reality. Yin Emptiness/"This" can be known, is true, but is not real. Yang Suchness/"That" can be known, is true, but is not real. Tao is true and real, but cannot be known in the same sense that we know "One plus one equals two." Both Science and Religion are avenues of exploration and explanation of Reality. The task of Science is the exploration and explanation of the Material aspect of Reality. The task of Religion is the exploration and explanation the Ideal aspect of Reality. These are complimentary tasks; the only antagonism between these two approaches is with the Literalistas found within each task. The argument is with Theism espousing the concept of God as a Being with Conscious Intent. It cannot argue against nontheism except with the puerile exception of claiming that a Theology implies a Theos; dismissing it as philosophy. This is as absurd as a Biblical Literalist espousing the idea of a sixday creation. Science can neither prove nor disprove -O-; all it can do is to call into question things that are said about -O-. I doubt the

Materialist realize how inane his branding all Religion as false because of the evident falsity of some things in the Bible appears to those of us who do not have a Biblical based theology. What does it matter to a Taoist that Science can prove God did not hold the sun in one position in the sky so some guy could win a battle? There is nothing in Taoist literature that makes that claim. Buddhism has no problem with the theory of evolution. A Taoist is just as likely as is a Materialist to accept that the Earth is quite old and that dinosaurs existed long before humans did. A Hindu has no qualms with the idea that humans are not a separate kind of animal than the rest of the critters in the world. A Confucianist is not going to claim that death is the result of Original Sin as death is as natural as life. The Materialist makes the claim that everything can be explained on strictly material explanations. Their mistake is in assuming a bottom level of reality. One finds, at the bottom of the Quantum level of reality, there is no matter, nor is there energy; there is an undifferentiated nothingness. The Idealist makes the claim that everything is mental. In the end, there is the same undifferentiated nothingness as the Materialistic stance we cannot define what consciousness is. The problem is there must be inserted some kind of cosmic mind or God so that mentality can exist. Body is what it is - Mind is what it does. I submit the largest contributor to the problem is a co nfusion of concepts when we consider One. On the one hand One is singular - the mathematical point of view. On the other hand, there is the metaphysical point of view of One as unity. The trouble this causes is that it leads us to rely on a dictionary approach to understanding which leads to our squabbles over which dictionary is The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing but The Truth. One image may be explainable by another in a cir-

cle of daffynitions but it takes them all to understand what Andromeda is. In our discussions of this is This, and that is That, we have been so blinded by our dictionaries that we fail to recognize this and that are two aspects of the same whatever it is. For the moment, let us call Spiritual Yin and Material Yang. There is a certain amount of truth in the argument for Yin just as there is a certain amount of truth in the defense of Yang. However, neither Yin nor Yang by themselves can be called True, for The Truth is a reality that exhibits Yin and Yang characteristics Yin and Yang are how we talk about Tao, they are not Tao

On a Balanced Life. >You keep saying that we need to maintain a balanced life. In what way is life unbalanced? The imbalance I would like to discuss is the supposed dichotomy between the Spiritual and Secular aspects of life. One thing you must keep in mind about this so-called clash between Science and Religion is, in fact, a clash between Science and Western Religion. The argument is not between science and religion in general, it is between the literalistas in each field of study. On the one hand, we have the Bible thumpers who take the Bible as literal truth in all respects and on the other hand, we have the Science thumpers who take materialism as literal truth in all respects. In other words, it is the radicals on each side that keeps this so-called argument going. This is another example of what I refer to as the beautiful nonsense of reality. It is beautiful to realize there are two ways to describe reality and it is nonsense to think only one of them is the truth. The Theory of Evolution does not question a figurative Biblical account of creation; it questions Creationism, which is a literal account. Quantum randomness does not say anything about the existence of -O- but it does indicate that -O- might not be omniscient. All Astronomy can say is that -O- did not fix the stars in their positions. The lack of evidence for the Biblical Flood points to nothing more than the unreliability of the Bible as a true source of geophysical history.

The Biblical and Science Literalistas are equally hubristic by acting as if they have the authority speak for all of us on these matters. I find it somewhat amusing to listen to the arguments between the two camps as these people make idols out of images in their attempt to force all people to accept one or the other of the campfire stories as Truth. The Bibleist says only X is true while the Scienceism apologist says only Y is true and both fail to realize their respective images are irrelevant when it comes to Reality, which is at least A through Z. There is no reason to assume the Biblical Creation Story is more than headlines for the story of evolution, which started with the Big Bang, by the way. I agree with the concept of evolution but I do not agree with it being a blind, stupid process, taking place in a blind and stupid Universe. I agree with the concept of creation, but I see it is an ongoing thingie rather than something that happened back in the past. I highly doubt if the spokespeople on either side of this silliness stop to consider the lack of grandeur of the image of Reality they are attempting to foist upon us. The God of the Biblical Literalista is the Ultimate Neighborhood Bully; believe in Him or risk spending eternity in Hell. The Universe, according to the Materialistic Literalista is nothing but a collection of Stupid, Dead Matter reacting blindly to Physical Law. If we are flawed creations, the Fault is His for creating us this way. If the Universe is a nonliving machine-like thingie, I fail to understand how it could possibly come up with a critter able to make that statement. There is one area where these folks agree, and on this one point, the whole issue falls flat on its face. Both make the claim that the only valid definition of -O- is of a supernatural being with will and intent. The Biblical Literalistas commit Idolatry for

they break the commandment against graven idols; a mental image is just as much a graven image as one carved out of stone. Where the Materialistic Literalistas make a major mistake is the assumption that all -O-images are equally false. They make the claim that Logical Positivism is dead, but they show they are still caught in the grip of that stance by insisting the word God has only one meaning. Not all religions image -O- in this manner. The Tao is most certainly not a supernatural being with will and intent. Buddhism denies a personal -O-. Hinduism may have the surface appearance of being polytheistic, but the core philosophy has the notion that -O- cannot be imaged. It is not a choice between Theism and Atheism; both sides make themselves look foolish by ignoring the Nontheistic stance. From my point of view, there is no conflict between Science and Religion; they are complimentary aspects of the search to understand and explain the nature of reality. I can accept the concept of Creation and the concept of Evolution without falling into the morass of the ism part of each stance. I can accept the idea that -O- is without being a Theist. I can accept the idea there is no evidence for the Biblical definition of -O- without being Atheist. It does not bother me one bit that there are historical and scientific discrepancies in the Bible for the simple reason that the Bible is not my primary source of religious understanding. There is much that is of value in the Bible and it seems rather absurd to throw away the baby with the bath water. For example, I do not agree with the Christology that attempts to explain why Jesus had the right to give the Sermon on the Mount. That does not mean Im willing to throw out the Sermon.

On the same token, there has been much in the way of scientific understanding that has not been shown to be the case. There is no reason to consider science invalid for the simple reason that Quantum Theory gives us a different understanding of the universe than Newtonian Theory does. There have been situations where scientific concepts have been misapplied, but, just as where this has happened in religion, there is no reason to discount the entire process. This is another area where we fall victim to Oneitis, for we cannot have one without the other. The scientific aspect of life is like one wing and the religious aspect is like the other. With proper utilization of both wings, we can soar to amazing heights. Drop the idea that science and religion are conflicting opposites and realize they are complimentary aspects of a deeper unity. Rather than squabble over what this or that have in di fference, let us discuss what this and that have in common. Both science and religion are attempts at explaining reality. Science does this through the language of the mind while religion expresses itself through the language of the heart. At the deepest level of our understanding of the physical aspect of reality, there is a (sound of a gong) from which everything arises. At the deepest level of our religious understanding is a (sound of a gong) which is the source of everything. Other than how we daffyfine them, there is no difference between the Oneness of the language of the mind and the Oneness of the language of the heart. >Why is it that you never set aside time to celebrate that which is sacred?

To set aside special times is to set up a false frame of mind by saying this time is sacred and that time is not. All time and space is sacred for each and every instant is spent smack dab in the middle of the Divine Oneness. If one can escape from the presence of the Divine Oneness, then you could find times and places that are not sacred, but I submit you would have an easier time finding a squared circle. The only way one can have sacred time and non sacred time is to agree to define the two periods so. All the agreement accomplishes is change how we look at those periods; they do not change qualities themselves, a Sunday is a day in the same manner that a Thursday is a day. To use an example from Chuang Tzu; this (sacred time) gives birth to that (non sacred time). If we did not have an idea of time that is sacred, we would not have the idea of time that is not sacred. I choose to act as if all time is sacred, every place is sacred, and the living of life is worship.

-O- is and the rest is commentary. To me, the Isness of -O- is most important while the Whatness is less. It is not important that one person images G-d while another sees Buddha, another sees Tao, and so forth. Out of infinite compassion, each of us receives the -O-image we need and that in itself is cause for celebration. One -O-image is as finite as any other one is and none should be treated as Idols, for they point to the same truth. I fail to understand how people can confess that -O- is Infinite on one hand and attempt to restrict him to one daffynition on the other. It is a mistake to say -O- is this and not that for an infinite reality has room to be both and still be infinite. -O- is the source of all the images, not any one image in and of itself. In other words, you cannot restrict -O- to a thought in a box. >Are you willing to say that your -O-image is a pointer as well? Of course I am. It wouldnt be honest of me to say they are pointers and exclude mine from being in the same category, would it? My image is no less finite than any other image. First and foremost, we must accept the Infinity that we call by many names -O- is not an exclusive one but an inclusive many. This does not make any -O-image false as none of them are true; each but touches upon the surface of that which is. We are all pointing fingers at the moon but no one finger contains The Truth. No

matter how hard I try and rewrite what I say, it never seems to be anywhere closer to pointing out the grandeur. To limit -O- to a single image seems a bit wrongheaded and it scares me. How can we be so hubristic as to come to think we finite beings with finite languages can limit -O- to a single daffynition? I submit that the second we go beyond the point of Is pretty baubles on the seashore distract us. We weave these wonderful images in our minds but as a result, unfortunately, we have become so engrossed in the images we take them for the reality. In doing this we have mistaken the menu for the meal and all too often make Idols out of the images. To go beyond is, we must add like, for the best one can do is talk about What -O- is like. There are times -O- is like the stern father administering punishment to an errant child, but, that is not all -Ois. Sometimes -O- is like the loving mother who kisses the boo boos away, but that isnt all -O- is either. The main problem with theological discourse, in my opinion, is based on the concept Theology implies a Theos, with Theos being defined as a Supernatural Being with will and intent. Theos is affirmed by the arational logic of Theism, Theos is denied by the rational logic of Atheism. I use the term arational because of the negative connotation of the term irrational, which is bandied about as a semi polite insult by some and a downright insult by others. Should we limit Theos to this definition? I think this is a mistake. Theology includes nontheism if one is willing to define Theos as An image of the Divine. Tao is a nontheistic Theos - it is the Root and Ground of Being yet is neither Supernatural, nor is it A Being. Another problem is about what I call Theological Positivism. What is with this need to prove what -O- is with the same accuracy we can prove 1+1 = 2? We can falsify many of the

things that are said about -O-, but that does not falsify whatever the reality is. Is a theological image a representation of the Divine or is it a different presentation of the Divine? I choose to think it is the latter. The mistake of Theological Positivism is this concept is what -O- is, the mistake of Theological Negativism is the assumption the concept of -O- is false. Theological Positivism goes too far in one direction Theological Negativism goes too far in the other. The concept God is an image; the concept notGod is also an image. As said many times by Alan Watts if, for example, you have a window on which there is a fine painting of the sun, your act of faith in the real sun will be to scrape the painting off so that you can let the real sunlight in. So, in the same way, pictures of God on the window of the mind need scraping off, otherwise they become idolatrous substitutes for the reality. In the West, we have the old story of a dead nature that is to be placed under control. From birth to death, we constantly push nature around, never realizing that push implies pull. The implications of Quantum Theory are that we cannot isolate anything except the universe as a whole. The old stories of our relationship with nature are as outdated as the story of the great machine. Hindu philosophy has taken another path concerning the relationship; the universe is organic, cooperative, and the mind vs. matter debate sources of analogy that do nothing more than explain the impossible. Ancient Eastern knowledge of the unity of the universe is a new discovery of Western Science. The new story is that we are nature at its most self aware (As far as we know). We held the belief that we were a different breed of animal whose workings were totally unique. Genetic research gives validity to the ancient Buddhist notion that all life is a variation

of the same DNA pattern; what is unique about the commonplace? The complementarity of Neils Bohrs is another version of the Chinese Yin/Yang. Much of our problem is our mental image of -O- as a being some-where up/out there (point in any direction) looking down on the cosmic drama, directing the scenery and actors. This seems a rather backwards look at it when one seriously considers the proposition, as -O- is described as the root and ground of all being. Our view of an omniscient entity who has a plan is awkward, why should we think -O- is limited to one course of action? I think a truly creative -O- would play the whole drama impromptu. The most absurd attributes we have laid on -O- are that of total knowledge and conscious intent. He knows the length and breadth of the universe and, most especially, he knows how things are going to turn out. After a while, the benefits of this would make for a rather bland existence; if one knew every little thing that was, is and shall be, I doubt there would be any thrill in coming to a bend in the path and meeting a dragon. If there is a truth to the Death of -O- movement, it is because the Western traditions have bored him to death. If we must have an anthropomorphic image of -O-, the Hindu image of Shiva, the cosmic dancer will do just fine. As the root and ground of all existence, Shiva looks out through our eyes, hears through our ears, speaks through our mouths, and becomes aware through our minds. The history of the Human race is, among other things, an evolution of knowledge. This means is a history of the universe becoming more aware of itself from the viewpoint of planet Earth. The eyes have often been labeled as the windows of the universe; Western troubles spring from the preference for stained glass windows. The Western attitude is one that prefers a paint-

ing of the sun on the window rather than let the actual sunshine through. Any truly spiritual person will take a razor to the painting. Jesus has told us there is no place we can look where -Ois not. The Western campfire story of man being created in -O-s image is the same as the Hindu saying, Thou art That. Chuang Tzu related a story about not being able to decide who he is after a dream; is he Chuang Tzu dreaming he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming it is Chuang Tzu? In the West, there is the duality in oneness; the eye in which I see -O- is the eye in which -Osees me, which gives me an image of -O- as the two headed puppet on Sesame Street, there is the eye of -O- on one side, and the eye of man on the other. Perhaps enlightenment comes about when there is recognition in an eyeball-to-eyeball stare. >I find it confusing that although you deny that God is a being, you talk about him as if he is. Spirituality is emotional and intellectual, as Ive yapped about elsewhere, and talking about -O- as if he were the reality satisfies the former. It is no different than talking about an electron as if it really were a little planet circling a little sun. While I may not ascribe to the idea of -O- as a being, -O- is a living reality that exhibits masculine, feminine, and gender neutral aspects. Im not saying -O- is a male when he slaps me upside the head for screwing up or that she is a female when she kisses my skinned knee or that the spirit is some sort of gender neutral ghost; these are but attempts to say what cannot be said.

The Ongoing Cycle of Nonbeing and Being. I have long been disappointed by those who limit their thinking of human evolution to whatever will prove out to be the first species of Homo, for that is but link of a long chain of events that leads back to the Big Bang. Rather than lament our descent from the trees, celebrate our ascent from the source of all; humans are a natural and integral part of the universe. As Carl Sagan used to say - We are star stuff come alive. Equally disappointing is the idea the Big Bang was the beginning rather than this beginning. It stands to reason that if it happened once, it can happen again and it has happened before. Science says there isnt enough matter for the universe to be a closed system but I say we havent been looking that long, wait a few million years before we say that. >Would you elaborate please? In Western thought, time is thought of as a linear type of reality; there was a beginning and there will be an end. Bibleism posits the beginning about six thousand years ago and say that no one but -O- knows when the end will be. Scientism posits the beginning at some 12 or so billion years ago and says there isn t enough evidence to say when or how it will end. Both sides posit reality as a one shot affair; creation will not happen again. The view of time as a separate dimension that flows at a set pace is undergoing a change that was started when the great and exalted Uncle Albert showed us that time and space are relative aspects

of a deeper reality. As I stated earlier, I do not ascribe to the idea that creation is a done deal; if that were the case, how did a Wolf become a Pekinese? If there was enough energy for this bang, why assume it has never happened before nor will it ever happen again? >You make a compelling case for your point of view about who we are and how we got here, but there is the question of where we go from here. With Bibleism, we are going to spend eternity in either Heaven or Hell. If it is the former, we will exist in the Divine Presence. We will exist in purified bodies that have no function other than to house our souls so we can all sit around in church and gaze on his presence and sing of his glory, Forever and Forever, Amen. If it is the latter, we will exist in the Divine Absence, with the same type of purified body that has no function other than to house our souls so we can receive all the unimaginable torments that await us, Forever and Ever, Amen. With Scientism, we came from nothing and return to nothing and the whole question is meaningless because there is no way one can verify knowledge of prelife or afterlife. The Bibleism story is predicated on the idea that each human has an individual and eternal soul while the Scientism story is predicated on the idea that we are merely temporal with consciousness replacing soul. Each side is partial truth but neither one, in and of itself, is the whole truth. Both Bibleism and Scientism agree that we have only one life to live here on earth, although these two groups will never admit an agreement nor will they admit that all Religions say pretty much the same thing. Hinduism posits a soul that is individual; they just have a different understanding of who that individual is. Buddhism discusses

the human soul as well but has a different idea of individual and eternal. In Eastern thought, there is talk about the eternal, but eternity is conceptualized as a cyclic process rather than foreverness and linear. In other words, when this cycle ends, there will be another, just as there was another before this one. This is not to say there is no concept of repayment for sin in Eastern thought. Karmic justice is not an eternal thingie, for once a person pays for the crime, they quit doing the time. If you cause a death, somewhen your death will be caused, after which you will be back on the path to enlightenment. For those of you who consider abortion to be murder, think of it this way - an abortionist performs ten thousand abortions and as karmic punishment, they will undergo ten thousand abortive pregnancies before they are reborn. -O- is a strict disciplinarian but does not hold a grudge forever. In a manner of speaking, one could say that karmic justice is a spiritual aspect of the scientific idea of equal and opposite reactions. One does wrong and one gets wrong and if one does good, one gets good. One could also make the statement this is but another way of saying do unto others for the Hindus also believe in the idea that you shall sow what you reap. There is nowhere but here, no somewhen but now. Energy is neither created nor destroyed but instead, it recycles and changes. Assuming the human soul operates on another set of rules seems like spiritual pride to me on the one hand and defeatist on the other. One story within Hinduism talks about days and nights of Brahma, which lead to years, centuries, and so on. This can also be seen as reality going through a series of Big Bangs/Big Crunches. Seeing as how time begins anew each day of Brahma, it can be said there is a beginning and an end initiated by -O- with the difference in understanding being that this is not

a one shot deal. Our punishment is not off in some distant future; human trials and tribulations are the result of what has happened in the past. >It sounds like you are attempting to start a Faith based on the Gaia Hypothesis. What I am doing is starting with the Oneness of mystical experience and taking it to its logical conclusion, which is a certain misunderstanding of Gaia. What I am interested in is promoting a spiritual outlook that looks in celebration at what we all have in common, rather than in confrontation of what we have in difference. I am also interested in promoting the idea that there really is no difference between the spiritual outlook and the material outlook in the long run as they are both outlooks on the one and same reality. There is a certain alogicical component in the Gaia Hypothesis that is hard for me to ignore as a mystic and that is the concept of the world as a living reality. One thing I have felt in mystical experience is that of being a conduit for the universe to look back on itself, for when the ego steps aside, there remains a sense of a living reality. This makes a certain sense when one looks at life as an evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang and continues on. If we decide to take the time, we can, in theory, trace the past of any atom in our body to the moment of the Big Bang. Gaia makes sense when one realizes that life is not something imposed on it from the outside, but rather a symptom of a living universe. To paraphrase what others have said, there is no visible permanent connection between our individual brain cells yet we consider ourselves conscious. Let us move that imagery a level higher to where each human being is a cell in the planet s

body. The planet is a living, aware beingness whose Selfawareness is a hypostasis of the individual and collective consciousness. Every living organism we know of has sense organs of some form so I submit that it is not a stretch to think of humans as the sense organs of the planet.

Quick picking on Brother Ass. >It seems as if all traditions have some form of a story about the Fall of Man. Even the Evolutionists call it The Descent of Man. What is your take on this? I think they are looking at it completely backwards. We are not the result of a fall; we are the result of a climb from Emptiness to Fullness. Theoretically, one can trace an atom from their body back to the instant of the Big Bang and who knows how far back awareness can be traced. The Fall of Man, if you want to talk about such a thing, was total Identification with ego. How can we have fallen from Nothingness? We have emerged from Nothingness and are in the process of realizing Suchness only to come to the further realization there is no ultimate difference between Nothingness and Suchness. Look at it this way, we are a step along the way of some matter becoming alive, some of that living matter becoming aware, and some of that living aware matter becoming self-aware living matter. Perhaps the next level in Human evolution will be the emergence of Self-aware living matter. In other words, out of Nothingness arose a living sentient being capable of standing on the mountaintop, beat its chest and proclaim; I am. Now, if that doesnt impress the heck out of you, there must be something wrong. A deaf, dumb, and blind universe evolved a critter that can peer into the deepest depths and tell wonderful campfire stories about all this. I just have to

shake my head at how improbable all this is, yet here we stand in the middle of Glory. The heights we have risen to since our beginning show that we are far from a fallen species and I say this despite the mistakes we have made. That we have made mistakes means nothing more than we have made mistakes. We should not judge ourselves by the worst we can do; we need to include the best we can do as well. Collectively, we are no better than the worst of us and no worse than the best of us. The problem with judging the many by the few is that one ends up confusing the many for the few and the overwhelming majority of humans are decent. If one were to write human history based not on wart, but on scientific, medical, and technological b reakthroughs, Id be willing to bet it would paint a much prettier picture of Humanity. This is not to say that we forget what has happened - man up, admit to making a mistake, and then move on, vowing not to go there again. We find what we seek for; we look for brutes and act dismayed when we find them. I submit it would paint a more realistic image of Humanity if we celebrated the successes and the best of us. The trouble is that a pessimistic view of what Humanity is has a tendency to lead to a pessimistic view of life itself. Let go of all that that silliness of fallen species. Instead, look to our successes and ask where we can go from here. We have been here just a small blip on the Cosmic Clock, yet look at all that we have accomplished. Granted, some of our successes have caused problems, but the solutions to these problems are not insurmountable; all we have to do is agree that they can be accomplished. How a person can consider what a human being is and not be utterly amazed is beyond me. Think about it; through our

senses, reality has become aware. Our eyes translate a band of the electromagnetic spectrum into nerve impulses that our brains translate into the experience of light. Our ears translate pressure waves in the air into nerve impulses that our brains translate into the experience of sound. >You have said before that we have a mistaken sense of identity. Im not real sure I understand what you are saying. The failure to recognize the unity of man and nature has led, predominately in the West, to the concept of the undying soul. Each human has but one soul, never changing from start to finish, making a brief stop here on the way to either Heaven or Hell, where it will spend the rest of eternity. Sometimes I try to figure out if our souls begin at conception or if there is a massive storage locker somewhere that we are stored in until it is our turn on the stage. It seems absurd that, in a universe in which everything recycles and flows, the human soul is a static entity that spends most of time in cold storage. Those of a nonreligious frame of mind consider the ego to be active only during the persons life, there is nothing before or after death, do the best with what you have. In an example of confusing the map with the territory, we ignore that Persona, (from which came the word Person) is a mask worn by the a ncient Greek actors. When the play is over, the actor can remove the persona in order to take up another role. It is like the Olympic Flame - is the flame at the Games the same one lit in Greece, or is it a continuation of the same process? One common theme running through the Worlds great religions is that the individual, however frustrating the earthly life may be, is precious in the mind of -O-. The individual may be treated shabbily as a test of conviction, friends and family

killed in a battle that teaches a lesson in maintaining your place in the scheme of things, towns and countries ravaged in a fit of anger, and countless other atrocities. -O- even loves those he sends to Hell for eternal damnation. The person is precious in the mind of -O- but in a way we usually ignore, each individual is like a sense organ for -O-. This way, the boss can relax and enjoy the ride without having to do the driving. Just as a competent actor refuses to be typecast, -O- does not ride a single vehicle but rides in many at the same instant. The trouble is mainly in the way the issue is viewed; we concentrate on the individual particle and ignore the resulting wave pattern. We have assumed that individual particles are eternal and unchanging entities operating in a manner similar to the laws of physics. In a simple mistake, we have a habit of ignoring the background and missing the forest for the trees. The feeling of self is as universal as particles exhibiting wave patterns. Self and other is another field in the universal pattern of updown, inout, yesno, and onoff hidey-holes in the cosmic dance. The Hindu myth of the soul donning a new set of clothes is a good metaphor, as long as we remember that the one is donning the many in the same span of time. There is value in the particle only image of consciousness - it allows us to keep track of Who, What, Where, When, and Why. It is more social convention than physiology and in the long run, causes much psychological and spiritual confusion. Both the new physics and ancient knowledge point to the change and transformation that occurs in the universe, telling us that this is a normal aspect of what is. Particles, like egos, come, often change, and go. Where this place of coming and going is located is anyones guess and I seriously doubt if the somewheres are different. The transformation of particles as they

come and go is like the transformation a person experiences between birth and death. We come from some-where, grow and change, going back to some-where after we die. From the biological point of view, the brain is the center of consciousness. One way of stating it is that the brain is the organ responsible for the particle aspect of consciousness, in which consciousness itself is the wave aspect. Each time a new being is born, the universe reappears to itself in a renewed condition, thus helping to keep down boredom. I have problems with the particle only approach to consciousness as it gives an extremely limited picture of the world. Just as the physical universe has both particle and wave aspects, so does consciousness. The particles can be viewed as concentrations of energy in the wave pattern we call The mind of -O-. This wave pattern is not a static one, as normally considered in the West, it is a dynamic one that flows and changes while it influences other patterns that, in turn, influence it, much like a position keeping loop in an analog computer. If one could picture a spherical lake with a continually rippling surface, one could perhaps, have a rude analogy of what consciousness would look like to an outside observer, the ripples forming patterns on an otherwise still surface. The concept of the individual soul is an eccentric train of thought. I have always had a hard time accepting the theory that whatever this thing we call our soul is, it only makes one brief appearance in all the time there is available to the universe. The idea that each of us remains in some kind of limbo from the moment of death until Judgment Day seems to be nothing more than begging the question. Where were we before birth, in that same Limbo? On the same token, I have a problem with the concept of reincarnation, as it is popularly misunderstood. This idea seems

to me to be the opposite of the onetime incarnation. Although I have this feeling of identity, I am, it seems obvious to me that the same I am is felt by all living beings. Take the arms in a spiral galaxy, each arm is not permanent, but part of the onoff pattern of the stars in the galaxy. Each new star is not the reincarnation of a particular dead star; rather, it is the continuation of the pattern. The pattern of consciousness is similar except the spirals protrude in all directions. This implies a new sense of identity for us. We find that we are connected to all there is, not as flukes, but as an integral harmonic of the pattern. Rather than being loaded down with the predestined imagery of -O-s plan, we are responsible for whatever course of action we choose to take. As the particle aspect of the mind of -O-, each of us is important as we form a unique viewpoint in which -O- the seeker is hidden, and as the wave aspect, we help form and are formed by the hologram. When I think of -O-s mind, I think of it as preconsciousness instead of consciousness. The details of the universe are taken care of by the limbic system of the Self.

We are all Icons of -O-. We make a mistake when we identify ourselves with our egos. Contrary to popular belief, our centermost reality is not the ego but that reality which is underneath. This underneath reality is -O-. The ego that is me is only relative to the ego that is you, neither you nor I are fundamental realities in and of ourselves. Without you there would be no I, without I there would no you, without -O- there would be neither of us. >Are you saying that human nature is Divine? The nature of humanity is divine. One of our problems is assuming that we are discussing human nature from the point of view of the individual rather than the species. In doing this, I submit we lose sight of the bigger picture that at the core, humanity is one. As Ive said many times that we have more in common than we do in difference and we waste way too much time and energy in our inane quarreling about those differences. The overwhelming majority of the differences people have are social in nature and Im not condemning society as without the social order, we would be in one heck of a mess. We look to law to protect ourselves from the brutes among us and end up concentrating more on the brutes than the saints. There is not a moment of our growth that we do not spend in learning our place in the grand scheme of things and the importance of fitting in, whether it comes from the church, the state, the teacher, or the boss. Our preachers remind us almost

daily we are sinful creatures who are an inch away from the ultimate spanking. Our politicians act as if they are doing us a favor while they keep us under their thumbs in the name of national security. Education is attempting to churn out cogs in the wheel of commerce by molding students into widgets. Our boss wants team players because he is afraid someone with an idea may want his job. We have certain roles we are expected to play as males and females. Madison Avenue goes through millions of dollars per year telling us what we should wear and where to buy it. This is a degrading look at humanity because it appeals to our lowest common denominator; I submit we should be spending more time looking at our highest. No one human is better at her core than any other human is at his. Although all people have to eat to survive, we have different diets based on pretty much the same ingredients. I don t know if there is a culture without music, but I highly doubt it and there is a wide variety of musical styles. There is more than one language in the world and we are all talking about the same reality. Humanity as a whole can be discussed in nondualistic terms the same way we can discuss -O- as a totality; we are a unified diversity. Each human being is an avatar, or emanation of -O-, but that does not mean one should go around acting as if one was -Oincarnate. There is nothing special about something all people have in common, yet most fail to realize. Those who claim enlightenment and act as if the world must bow to them behave sacrilegiously for the mystical experience is a humbling event. All faiths teach humbleness in our behavior, all have teachings about false pride, and even the secularists agree that too much pride is a dangerous state of affairs. Humbleness does not mean

the lack of self pride; it means that one does not carry around an inflated ego One of the major mistakes in philosophy is that of reification, the act of endowing reality to an abstract entity. The socalled dualism of nature is a prime example of this habit. Many of these dualisms are a matter of linguistics and one of these is the infamous mindbody problem. This dualism is nothing more than a linguistic convention used to explain why and how chunks of matter act as if they matter. As put by Alan Watts, most people view themselves as Egos encapsulated in a bag of skin, with some preferring the ego and some the bag. There is no way to explain mind without body as they gowith each ot her as in flower and bee, fish and water and bird and sky. There is no telling when this duality first arose. It could have risen as a result of dreams and hallucinations that did not correspond to physical reality. No matter how it arose, it is considered a reality. Many traditions make claims of reality for one side and falsity for the other - both East and West have schools of thought that claim mind is real while body is an illusion and the other way around. The term Mind is used generically in the East and individually in the West, where Ego or Spirit are other terms for this illusion. What is this illusion? Perhaps the best analogy used is that Ego is a miniature version of oneself sitting in a complex control room. This room is a treasure house that would delight the hardiest science fiction fan with all the goodies. In this room there is an outstanding video system, a rather nice audio system, the various systems for controlling and manipulating the body, and a computer that has more ability than what we know to do with. The religious version of this would have us believe that the main difference is that the ego will be In charge of a purified

body after Judgment Day. In the majority of Western naturalistic traditions, the ego is a peculiar, and accidental, arrangement of matter. Naturally, these are exaggerated a bit; sometimes the best method of pointing out a problem is to stick ones tongue about half way through ones cheek. These trains of thought do have one thing in common; the ego is a separate reality than the surrounding environment. The myth of our separation from nature shows up plainly in our attitude toward the environment. The illusion of the universe as alien and dumb (as in stupid) combined with the abuse of the divine instructions in Genesis, has given us (especially those of Western society) a history of treating the planet obscenely. Humanity is the only species on Earth that not only ignores the ecological limits; it is the only one that eradicates the lower animals because they are in the way. The adherents of the religious version set their sights on a mythical elsewhere, leaving little but contempt for the planet. The followers of the scientific version have the same basic attitude. Not only are these attitudes an insult to the role Earth has played for us, they give us an excuse not to worry about the only home we have - for a while, at least. Imagine what life would have been like had ecological conditions not been what they were. What do you imagine humans would be like on a planet that only had large island continents like Australia? Try imagining how different American history would be if there had not been a land bridge between America and Asia way back in the past. There is little telling what life would have evolved into if the ozone layer were only half as thick. There are many ways the Earth and the universe could have evolved to preclude life as we know it yet, here we are. Of course, if it had happened another way, there would probably

have been the same general mistakes and someone to attempt pointing them out. As far as we can determine, all life exists on Earth (although there IS the possibility of life elsewhere), and people seem to take it all for granted while our leaders seem ready to throw it all away with the push of a button. Along with being injurious to Earth by our actions, we are adding insult to injury by setting our eyes on salvation elsewhere, or by considering all this a statistical quirk of nature. We learn about the universe through language. What we are not taught however is that language is a social convention. One problem is that language is mechanistic and causal, thus giving one a map chock full of things, which does not match the territory. It was bad enough to have made the split in the first place and I think we blew it by forgetting that the split was a matter of linguistic convention to begin with. Now we are so used to the Duality that attempting to change it is a scary proposition. The illusion of the Ghost in The Machine becomes even more a bsurd when one realizes the explanations of quantum mechanics are about the intelligent behavior of nothing. At the subatomic level of nature, the causal Laws our bodies are subject to are but statistical probabilities of energy level interrelationships. Subatomic particles and minds are what must be if we are going to understand what is going on.

All Religions are branches of the same tree. All Religions spring from the same source. Religion is formalized spirituality - spiritual experiences become codified into theological principles as people learn from the teachers. Each faith may express its picture of the Divine according to a particular understanding, but each one teaches the Divine Is. Think of a tree, -O- is the soil, mystical experience is the roots, spirituality is the trunk, each faith is a branch of the tree, each church, temple, synagogue, mosque, etc is a twig on the branch, and each church member is a leaf on the twig. >It sounds like youre saying that spirituality and religion are different. My way of looking at it is Religion is Formalized Spirituality. Theology is codified spiritual insight, in other words. As far as I know, no one religion has come into existence fully developed; we did not wake up one morning during the lifetime of Jesus to find a Roman Catholic Church in the Vatican, for example. Modern religions are offshoots of branches of earlier religions, which started as branches of earlier religions and in turn, the modern ones will eventually give rise to others. Buddhism arose in India from Hinduism, one branch in China morphed into Zen - there is no telling where that will lead. Religious language is how one attempts to make sense out of spiritual insight and I submit the insight is prior to the story at the start of the movement.

The main purpose of religion, in my mind anyway, is that it is a unifying force and there is nothing more unifying than a family picnic. The variety of religious expressions is one of the beauties of the whole shebang. We cannot have a symphony that consists of a single instrument playing a single tone, can we? I would no more suggest that we all abandon our differences for our similarities for variety is the spice of life; human spirituality needs Catholicism just as much as it needs Zen. >I have to tell you that I never thought I would hear you say there is One Faith. Are you not doing what you criticize others for doing? This is the difference between faith and belief, the former confessing the isness while the latter makes an idol out of the whatness of -O- In many cases, this idolization crosses the line and becomes blasphemy. -O- does not turn his back on his worshippers, no matter how they approach him. My major complaint against Western theological thinking is this idea that belief (the recipe) is more valuable than faith (the pudding). To claim there is one valid confession as to the nature of -O- denies the infinite possibilities of -O- to be what -O- will be. -O- can no more be pinned down to one confession just as cooking cannot be daffyfined by a regional cuisine, in other words. The thing is it Does Not Matter in the least that you worship -O- as an Orthodox Jew, or that our friend over there worships as a Lutheran Christian, our pal over there that is a Zen Buddhist, our cohort in crime over there follows Transcendental Meditation... well, you get the point. The thing that Does Matter is that we all worship. Although each of us here in St. Pete s Bar and Grille has different misunderstandings of -O-, we do not use our belief as a club to beat each other up with. We can agree to

disagree for we have just as much in common as we do in difference. As far as Im concerned, this commonality is the highest expression of faith as a living reality. I am not telling anyone his or her belief is wrong (except for the Theology of Hate). The worst I do is to say the belief is incomplete, but ya gotta keep in mind that I include my misunderstanding as incomplete as well. I am not using incomplete in the pejorative sense for there is nothing wrong in confessing that -O- is much greater than anything that can be said. We make a major mistake when we let what we worship get in the way of that we worship for the what of Hinduism is just as incomplete as the what of Judaism as is the what of Greek Orthodox Christianity as is the rest of the isms.

On Converting Others. >If you believe so strongly in your position, why do you not attempt to convert others to your POV? Im not looking to convert others to a different faith. I will admit that I would like to change the attitude people have concerning the lack of being able to disagree without being disagreeable. Im just an old hippie that enjoys yapping about this stuff. The religious stance a person takes is between -O- and that person. It Does Not Matter to me that you are Christian and are likely to remain so. Our friend over there is Jewish and I m happy for her. It would be rather rude of me to tell our Muslim friend that he is wrong in his belief. I would be a bit hypocritical to compare faith to a stew and then say it can only contain beef. Walking that path makes a mockery of faith in my opinion, for belief is talk while faith is experience. If others wish to accept my ideas, it will be because they find them plausible, not because Im running around nailing lifts on the native s feet. The world is far too crowded with believers that are all surface and no depth and I have no desire to contribute. I would not suggest that we all abandon our differences because variety is the spice of life; human spirituality needs Roman Catholicism just as much as it needs Zen Buddhism. >This is where Im confused - to be unified, wouldnt we all be worshipping the same God in the same manner in the same place? Are you suggesting that we all attend church together and celebrate some hybrid religious ceremony?

We are unified in we all have faith that -O- is. Our thinking the name is the thing leads us to confrontations in theological dialogue; no matter which name we attach to the reality, it is the source of all names. This is not meant to degrade religion as a Delusional enterprise as it does not follow that because there are many names for the same reality; belief is delusional, it is allusional. The variety of -O-images illustrates that -O- is much grander than anything that can be said. No matter how finely crafted the words, they come utterly short when compared to the real thing and one makes a major mistake in preferring the menu over the meal. Having one form of religious celebration would be like having one choice on the ballot or a solitary cuisine, it takes away from the beauty of the whole enterprise. Some Americans are Christian and vote Republican just as some Americans are Buddhist and vote Democratic. There are Americans who prefer Chinese cuisine and vote Independent, some who prefer Down Home Southern and vote Republican, some who lean towards vegetarianism and vote Democratic, and some who dine from all cuisines and choose not to vote. Each is unified in that each vote (One by being a nonvoter.), each are religious, and each are American. It is the variety that makes political activity so lively and the same is true concerning religious activity. Gosh no, on the hybrid ceremony; it would be neat if we could all get together for a family picnic every once in a while. Perhaps we should work at starting a new tradition where once a year, we set aside all theological differences and come together in true ecumenical fashion to celebrate the Isness of That which by many names we call God. A celebration of this type would definitely punch holes in the Theology of Hate and help promote a Theology of Loving Tolerance. This would go a long way to-

wards making Western spirituality more appealing as the main thing driving people away from church is the constant spitting and contention that goes along with the claim of being the One True Religion and in many cases in Christianity, the One True Denomination. We can celebrate that -O- Is, we all teach compassion and love for our fellow human, and that life is a gift from -O- without arguing, other than in a philosophical sense of the term, over the particulars of our respective theologies. The main purpose of religion, in my mind anyway, is that it is a unifying force and there is nothing more unifying than a family picnic. The variety of religious expressions is one of the beauties of the whole shebang of human spirituality and in one way or another, we are unified in that we all agree -O- Is. We cannot have a symphony that consists of a single instrument playing a single tone, can we? I would no more suggest that we all abandon our differences because variety is the spice of life; human spirituality needs Roman Catholicism just as much as it needs Zen Buddhism. We are mistaken by assuming that Unity entails doing the same thing the same way; we all eat, but some of us prefer one cuisine over all others. Some of us listen to jazz, some to pop, some to classical, etc, but in the long run, we all listen to music. This drive to be numero uno has reduced religion to the level of politics where it is more orthodox to attack others for a minute difference than it is to celebrate what all hold in common. Rather than celebrate our mutual belief in the Isness, we spit at each other over the Whatness of our respective -O-images. This is another area where America can sparkle. Being an American is not limited to being Christian just as it is not limited to being Democrat or Republican. Why anyone would want to reduce to beauty of a symphony to a single tone is utterly beyond me. We

need to go beyond the idea that religion is one thing and one thing only and move on to the idea of embracing the spiritual unity of religious diversity. One problem with the spontaneous nature of my mystical experiences is that I do not belong to any one school of thought. If someone wishes to learn from a Sensei, they follow the path set out before them - This is how I learned it. If you wish to learn it for yourself, do this and that. You learn from those who went before and follow a map, as it were. With the traditional approach, the question is How do I get there? while my question is more like How do I show others how to get here? (With Here being a psychological state.) I have come across some tricks to help smooth the way for the experience, but I cannot teach them without touching upon Zen. I cannot call myself a Zennist although others have. I cannot endorse the Zen path as that is not the one I traveled. Although I sometimes call myself a Taoist, it is more like a Taoist explanation of where Im at without saying how I got here. While I often talk about -O- in what sounds like Hinduism, I cannot say that is the Total Truth, no matter how good it feels emotionally. At times one must discuss -O- in the Feminine aspect, requiring one to talk of the Goddess. Elsewhere we have discussed my respect for certain areas of Christian Philosophy. I respect much of what my Jewish friends have to say but I cannot do more than join them in the Hyphen Nation. One of the threads I tried to start a long time ago (before Internet) was along the lines of What would you ask -O- if you had the right to ask one question? If I had to chance to question Him, I would ask him why He gave me the mystical path. There are no regrets, dont get me wrong; however, it is hard to tell someone how to get here when I got teleported and have no idea

how it happened. Sometimes I find it real aggravating that He would pull that kind of practical joke on me and have to fight the desire to smack Him upside the back to the head. It is real frustrating that I do not have a tradition to fall back onto when attempting to talk about this stuff, for like I said in the talk about the faith of Jesus and the Religion about Jesus, the Problem of Authority is sure to raise its ugly head. >Why not draw your own map? The terrain is all the same, as you have said before. One more map will not hurt. If I did attempt drawing a map, it would have to be a three dimensional holographic image in order to show all the commonalities we share and would more than likely look like a tree. The roots of the tree would represent mystical experience, the trunk representing belief in the Divine, the major branches representing various theologies, minor branches representing various schools of thought, the twigs representing various denominations, and the leaves representing the believers. One uniting factor in all Faiths is a belief in the Divine and it is from this central belief that we all branch out. Take Christianity, for example. The branch called Catholicism may be a different branch on the tree of Christianity, but it is still part of the same trunk as the Baptist and the Quaker. Theravada, Mahayana, and Zen Buddhists may be on different branches, but they are on the tree of Buddhism. Ultimately, each Faith is a different branch of the same tree, for the Taoist, the Hindu, and the Muslim all have faith in the Divine. As I have said many times, we all have faith in the Is part, we just differ on the What part. Being able to draw a map depends on knowing how one got to that point. What does an eight year old know about traversing the mystical path? At the time of my initial experiences,

all I knew of religion was the Presbyterian church my grandparents went to and the Baptist church my mom sent us kids to. All that was on my mind concerning matters of religion at the time was the differences in the teaching of the two churches concerning -O-s Nature. A spot on a map indicates one has traveled a path that goes from point A to point B, but I cannot fill in the from - to area of the map. For me, it was more like the transporter in Star Trek, one instant I was there and all the sudden I was here. I must reiterate that here and there are misleading terms. This idea that using the terms here and there in the Spiritual sense as being equal to using them in the Physical sense is what leads people to assume a map is needed to facilitate their arrival in Nirvana. The terms here and there, used in Spiritual language, are relative, as are particle and wave, when used in Quantum Mechanical language - it all depends on how you look at it in the latter and what you make of it in the former. As put in Buddhist terms, Samsara is Nirvana; the Sacred and the Profane are continuous territory, in other words. Rather than drawing a map, Im more interested in compiling a thesaurus, or perhaps an encyclopedia. The Divine is the Divine, whether one is discussing it from a Christian or a Taoist perspective. Salvation may mean one thing to a Buddhist and something else to a Jew, but the idea of Salvation is a common concept. One thing that saddens me is the common assumption that if one does not believe in the Biblical Image, one does not believe in -O- at all. Not having traversed a path to get here, I can see where we all are talking about the same mountain, just from various sides. The problem I have with maps is they imply competition, which is wrongheaded. Spirituality should be a uniter in that we

believe, not a divider by what we believe. Im not concerned that our friend over there is Jewish, this friend here is a Wiccan, that person over there is Buddhist, and so forth, what Im concerned is in the sharing finite images of the Infinite with each other, agreeing to disagree in the details. Whatever this Reality we call -O- actually is, the terms God, G-d, Allah, Brahman, Tao, Goddess, and so forth, are all equally Incomplete, for they are finite while -O- is Infinite. It is absurd to take the stance This and o nly this is what God Is. The absurdity is in thinking we can limit -O- to any one daffynition, which when you think about it, is disrespectful to -O- and is Idolatrous. I highly doubt -O- is concerned in how we believe, as long as we believe.

The past has been written - the future is a blank slate. It is silly to live in the past or focus on the future. Wisdom is to live in the Now. It does no good to stress out about what happened in the past as long it is no longer happening and it does no good to stress out on what may happen in the future, for one can take steps to reduce the possible hazards that may arise. When you focus your attention on what was or on what may be yet to come, you are not living in the here and now, which is where reality is. Not only do you deprive yourself, you deprive everyone around you when you are Therethen rather than Herenow. >>I submit we attach too much importance to the past. >Are you saying the past is of no importance? What Im saying is that we have a tendency to use the past as an anchor rather than as a springboard. Far too many of us hold on to the past with such a ferocity that it ends up getting in the way of our being able to enjoy the present. Someone in our past mistreats us and we end up mistrusting everyone else in our life, making relationships more difficult than they already are. We make a left when we should have made a right and spend the rest of our life being bitter about it. A little Zen story told from faulty memory,

It is common for Zen monks to travel from one monastery to another to further their studies. One winter, two monks were going to an isolated place in the mountains and came across a woman at a river crossing. Due to the recent rains, the river was swollen and running fast, which made the woman afraid to cross. One monk picked the woman up, carried her across the river, set her down and continued on his way. The next day, the other monk said, We are to have nothing to do with women. Why did you break the precept? The first monk responded, What are you doing still carrying her? I left her at the river. One of the major problems we humans have is that we are still carrying her in our minds while it is time to be getting ready for bed. In other words, we are so concerned about what happened years ago that we are missing out on the here and now. This is a common problem we all face, it is a problem of our own making, and solving this one problem would do wonders to enhance the peaceful coexistence of humanity. Now, Im fairly sure my ancestors had nothing to do with the American slave trade so I dont think it is appropriate to include me in a condemnation of whites for what happened. Even if they had participated somehow, I do not think the blame should descend to me for I had nothing to do with it. I find the concept of slavery appalling and consider the practice to be a black eye for humanity. This attention paid to whites for what happened in the past glosses over the fact the slavers had African help. At least in America, the situation is no longer condoned. Yes, it was a deplorable practice and deserves to be condemned, but that does not mean that one should paint all whites with the same brush. It is more important to concentrate on improving the

situation than it is to get ones panties in a knot over something that is no longer the case. We need to leave her at the river, as it relates in the Zen story related above. I highly doubt the monk who carried her across the river gave the incident a second thought and enjoyed the walk. It would be better for all involved with the present situation if we would let go of anger and concentrate instead on providing full benefits for all Americans. Look at the situation in Israel for a good example of not leaving her at the river. A long time ago, one side struck, causing the other side to strike back, which caused a retaliation strike, which caused another, ad nauseum, which does nothing but make both sides equally brutal and immoral. I do nothing to further peace by killing your son for the killing of my father, who killed your uncle. Hanging on to anger from the past causes more problems; it never solves the problem. Yes, it is important to keep the past in mind but we make the mistake of making it an anchor when it should be a lesson. The lesson is that it is the anger we hold on to that is the root of the problem and revenge only feeds the anger. This cycle needs to be broken before further progress can be made. One concept I find attractive in Buddhism is the idea that Anger is a persons worst enemy, which I find to be true. I have a hard time concentrating on my daily functioning when Im angry and people would rather not be around me. (Most of the time this happens, I would rather not be around myself either.) I know a few people who are angry about something that stopped over ten years ago and when they start their little spiel, I would like to walk away because I know from experience they do not appreciate the Zen story mentioned above and they see no problem with remaining angry. Much of the violence in the world is directly related to revenge, not to Ideology, as so many

of us wish to think. Benjamin kills Abdul and in revenge, the brother of Abdul kills the brother of Benjamin, whose sons kill each other, followed by nephews, and on down the family line. >>The lesson is that it is the anger we hold that is the root of the problems and revenge feeds the anger. This cycle needs to be broken before we can make further progress in anything. >Are you saying we forgive and forget? What Im saying is that one should move on and get over it. Once the situation is over, there is no reason to carry the anger as a badge of honor. There have been situations in my past that have been less than enjoyable but I see no reason to complain about them, because it wouldnt change a thing and if I hadnt been there, I doubt I would be here. Fretting and fussing over something that happened then keeps one from enjoying the savor of the now, which is more important. I submit that it is a huge waste of time and emotional energy to hang on to anger, especially if the situation that caused the anger is no longer taking place. Does it really matter in the here and now that an earlier relationship was far from congenial when those frustrations no longer exist? Nothing worthwhile is gained by hanging on to the anger and much is lost, as the anger you keep influences all around you. Letting go of the anger does not equate to forgetting the situation, all it means is that one should let go of the anger, lest one becomes the anger. Think about it, what good does it accomplish to remain mad with a person because they screwed up thirty years ago and you havent seen them in twenty-five? There have been many instances in my past that I could be bitter about but I cant see it doing any good as it would not change the fact that it happened; one should make the best of the situation by

living in the here and now. It is more honorable to work on peacefully resolving an issue than it is to keep up the traditions of anger and revenge. It is more important, as I see it, to work on preventing slavery than it is to be angry with people who had nothing to do with American slavery. Im positive things can be worked out faster without the devolvement into violence that seems to be so prevalent in much of the world. I know I keep harping on it, but the situation in Israel is a prime example of what happens when people hang on to anger as if it were some kind of badge of honor. Abdullah strikes out at Moshe, Ariel strikes back at Najid, leading to X striking out at Y in a never-ending dance of death and mayhem that no longer serves to settle the original issue. The way I see the situation, the issue of a homeland has become secondary to the honor of the feud in a fashion that puts the Hatfield and McCoy families in the status of amateurs. Peace will never come about as long as both sides hold on to the anger and desire for revenge with the willingness to act on it. Peace will never come about if both sides are willing to blow each other away because his brother killed your uncle. >>The point is that there is a difference between being angry and staying angry, the latter being our biggest problem. >What makes it our biggest problem? Ive said elsewhere that anger is a terrible burden and if Im going to carry that load around, it had better well be worth it. On the times Ive stayed angry for a long time about something, I found I was starting to like the adrenaline rush way too much. There were occasions that rather than walking away in time out, I would play my role in the argument just to get the rush, which did not help the situation in the least. Once the situation

was over, it took me some time to get used to not having all that adrenaline in my system. Dont misunderstand, Im not saying this makes the memories any sweeter, or that Im over getting angry; it makes it easier to leave them at the river and it makes me easier to be around. >>Look what happens when people stay angry, we get untold versions of the Hatfield/McCoy feud that goes nowhere, just like a person running around with one foot nailed to the floor. >Nice image. You make it sound easy but I find it hard to let go. To tell you the truth, the trip here from there was not easy. One of the unfortunate side effects of the adrenaline high is an intense feeling of aliveness; at the same time, it was the best and worst of times. Anything worthwhile is worth working at - a good fishing hole becomes great when one spends more effort in getting there. As the Chinese proverb goes, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. One cannot, with rare exception, get here from there in a single step, no matter how nice that would be. It took time to acquire the habit and it likewise takes time to kick the habit, and if nothing else, humans are creatures of habit. By letting go of the smaller frustrations, the larger ones become easier to handle until one eventually learns how to let go of it all. By no means is this an easy path but it can be traversed if you are willing to take the time, for it is possible. Believe it or not, it becomes easier to let go the more one practices letting go until one lets go of the idea of letting go.

There is no reason for despair. To let despair take over ones attitude is a mistake. There is no fundamental meaning to life but that does not mean life is meaningless as we make life meaningful in how we respond to the situations we find ourselves in. Go out away from city lights some clear evening and gaze at the stars; if youre not smitten with awe at the majesty, there is a profound lack in your life. >I gotta tell you that I find your approach confusing. The Quantum level of Reality is based on randomness and the individual eternal ego or soul is a mistaken concept and subject to the same randomness. Our station in life is predicated by something we may or may not have done somewhere in the past but you seem to say we are not supposed to take it personal. The physical realm is full of examples of suffering yet you chide us for the attempt to escape the suffering. How you keep from falling into despair is beyond me. Perhaps because I do not see any despair in it from the start. Yes, life involves sadness at times but as in all else, there is a balance of happiness. As Ive discussed elsewhere, many of the causes of suffering can, and have been, eliminated, bringing out more of the joy of existence. Does it really matter if there is no personal immortality when you consider what the centermost reality of your beingness actually is? The energy that makes up an electron is analogous to the spiritual energy that makes up the individual; the two energies are but different frequencies of the same underlying energy in a

stacked hologram with infinite reference frequencies in infinite directions. All this may have come about through a series of random chances but that is not the point - ya gotta admit this is a pretty impressive show and the fact that we can make sense of quite a bit of it is a remarkable statement in itself. I don t see how anyone can look at it with anything other than an attitude of Wow, this is awesome. We are wrong in crying about physicality being a burden - like something imprisoning the spirit. We fail to realize that it is through the physical that the spiritual becomes evident in an ongoing event where it becomes impossible to tell the difference between one category of the event or another. I realize that our individual consciousness is analogous to an individual brain cell that exists for a short time in the overall scheme of things but it is pretty neat to think of oneself as a sense organ for -O- in our avatar aspect. Normally the avatar is considered as being sent in times of troubles, but I have a hunch it more like the Ed Koch approach - Hi, Howm I doing? only on a much grander scale. It is through the physical that -O- becomes Aware and to think of physicality as an evil or a burden is a mistaken attitude to take. The mortal aspect of existence, rather than something to be cried about, is something to be celebrated for it keeps down the chances of boredom. By keeping in mind just exactly who I am at my core, there is no room for despair. It does not really matter that -O- chose a mortal to incarnate into as much as it is an honor that he would chose to do that sort of thingie. One thing I find real cool is that it happens to all of us, not just a select few - those of us who have climbed the mountain and those of us who stayed in the valley have the same centermost reality. Out of compassion, -O- has rigged it so that he comes to us rather than making us climb to him.

One thing discussed about the enlightenment experience that is constant across all traditions and that is that it is a blissful experience. It has been described as an Infinite Joy at being right here - right now! The peace that surpasses all understanding barely scratches the surface of the experience yet says more than it does. Sometimes the experience is so intense it can only be yapped about in sensual terms, thinking of -O- as the ultimate lover. No matter how it is daffyfined, it seems to me the bliss of beingness is sanctification of the whole process dancing in and out of the light. Out of infinite love, this sanctification is given freely and completely. It is not something we have to struggle to obtain, it is something we just have to reach within and accept. The only area I find myself in despair is in attempting to discuss the idea that one can have a -O-image that is nonbiblical. No matter how eloquent I think I can put it into words, it is hard for people to accept a -O-image that does not include the old man sitting on the throne handing out harsh judgments. There have been times that in the middle of rambling about the peace of -O-, Ill look over and see a semi blank stare with a what the heck are you talking about look to it and realize that what I need is the Vulcan mind meld. The Buddha was right to hold up a rose and smile - nothing else could say it better. >I was a devout Christian for most of my life and struggled with the despair of knowing that no matter how good I behaved, I was nothing but a sinful creature doomed for Hell. I became a secularist but eventually found that stance to be the cause just as much despair because at the end of the day, so to speak, it all became meaningless. More than anything, the idea that -O- would condemn someone to eternal damnation in Hell for being exactly as they

were created to be is what drove me on the path Ive followed. As Ive yakked about elsewhere, the tenor of my mystical experiences is that of being unconditionally loved, not in spite of, but because of, all my warts and scars. The -O-image that I was taught in the Baptist Church never made sense when I compared it to the image I got through my initial mystical experiences and the image that was presented in the Presbyterian Church my grandparents attended. There was a difference between the latter church image and the image I received in mystical experience, to be sure, but the idea of a loving God wasn t all that different. Ive had many friends over the years that worship, not out of their love for -O-, but because they were mortally afraid not to. They took worship as a duty to be performed in order to be kept out of Hell. Never once was their worship a celebration of love and honor and I find this saddening for worship that is based on fear is nothing more than mere compliance. This is no more profound than obeying the speed limit. I quickly became dissatisfied with the secular approach myself. There is some truth to the approach, but there are just way too many loose ends dangling on the edges of the tapestry. I think the idea that mind is nothing more than a byproduct of brain activity to be a puerile campfire story at the best. It is absurd to assume that the physical is all there is to reality. As far as Im concerned, all the secularist approach does is become a race to see who can be the least imaginative when it comes to the explanation of reality. We are told this story that an unintelligent universe produced intelligent beings, which is like saying that apples may grow on orange trees. It didn t take too long before I became less than impressed by the materialistic image of the universe as machine - I think I made it half way through the Intro to Physics semester.

The Western image of the Vengeful Old Man on the throne was replaced with the blind and dumb mechanism. How the secularist could fail to realize their image was just as absurd as the religionist has never failed to astound me. At least some of the religionists had the concept that good behavior would result in eternal reward in some type of heaven; with the secularists, all good behavior got you was to be remembered with fondness. All the secularists did was replace the fear of Hell with the fear of being remembered with animosity. In this, the Western secularist is just as wrongheaded as the Western religionist is. The Western religionist stubbornly clings to the idea This is what God is, refusing to grant validity to other -O-images. The Western secularist stubbornly clings to the idea that seeing as how science disproves some things said in the religious texts, All images of the Divine are invalid. It doesnt matter to a Taoist that science has demonstrated that the Six Day Creation Story to be wrong. Taoism does not hold with the story either. That science shows the Theory of Evolution to be a valid campfire story has no adverse effect on Hinduism, which has long held to the concept of evolution. The Buddhist and the secularist both agree that death is a natural part of the overall process and not the result of our supposed ancestress disobedience regarding the eating the fruit of a certain tree in a mythical garden. >>Something you said a while back has been sticking in my mind All this may have come about through a series of random chances but that is not the point - ya gotta admit this is a pretty impressive show and the fact that we can make sense of quite a bit of it is a remarkable statement in itself. I don t see how anyone can look at it with anything other than an attitude of Wow, this is awesome.

>I cant say that Ive heard it put this way before. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. Things may have been entirely random and chaotic at the start of this show, but look at the patterns that have come to exist from that chaos. Energy became inorganic matter then some of it became organic matter then some of it became living matter then some of it became sentient then some of it became intelligent enough to make a fairly accurate theory how it happened. As impressive as the campfire story of how it happened is, consider how awesome that it came to be is. Consider this - billions of years ago, the atoms that make up your body were bouncing around in a star. Now you are sitting there reading this little ditty; if that doesn t impress the heck out of you, I havent done my job. If you cannot stand on a mountaintop and gaze upon the stars in complete and utter awe, there is no magic in your life. After all, what it means to be a human is that you are nothing other than reality looking out upon itself.

Death of the ego is a mistaken idea. >You have said before that the concept of the death of the ego is a wrong-headed approach. Im not sure what you mean by this The biggest hindrance to spiritual progress, from my point of view, is this idea that without an ego (Death of the ego or Dying to the ego), we would have no sense of identity. Nothing could be further from the truth; the enlightened person still knows who she is. She still has bad hair days, she still has joyful days, she can still function in society, all that. What happens is more like a Copernican Revolution in that the ego is moved from the center of the psychological universe much like the sun was moved from the center of the geophysical universe. The Sun is still there even though we no longer image it as that which the universe revolves around; in the same manner, the ego is still there. Rather than identify oneself with being an isolated and separate thing among other things, one comes to the realization that ones identity is the whole shebang. It is not that the ego dies, it transforms much as a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly. The embryo does not die when it becomes a human, nor does a tadpole die when it becomes a frog. There is a wonderful campfire story based on the Hindu idea that -O- is dreaming all of reality. Just as we can become someone else in a dream, -O- does the same; it could be said that an unenlightened person is -O- not realizing He is dreaming that person. Along the same line of thought, sometimes we have what

are called lucid dreams, in which we realize we are dreaming - it could be said an enlightened person is -O- having a lucid dream. It is of utmost importance to realize that -O- is dreaming He is each and every one of us. One can say that each of us is an avatar of -O-. If you have qualms about a religious campfire story of our identity, view it from the perspective of this secular campfire story. Each of us is the Cosmos become alive and aware of itself as a living and sentient reality. Whatever was the result of the Big Bang became matter and energy; some of that matter became living matter - some of that living matter became sentient matter - some of that sentient matter became aware matter. Think about it, the Cosmos evolved a critter that can actually sit around with other critters and discuss theories about all this. What is considered death to the caterpillar is considered birth to the butterfly; an apt analogy of what happens to the ego upon Enlightenment. There is much more to us than the limited vision we are taught and we lose nothing by expanding our consciousness to recognize that each of us is an expression of the whole, to paraphrase Alan Watts. Far from killing the ego, this recognition gives the ego a new life, which is the true meaning of being born again. One does not move into a cave upon enlightenment, keeping the bliss for oneself; they become that bliss and share it with others. Elsewhere Ive commented that enlightenment gives a new life to the ego, which as far as Im concerned, is the true meaning of being born again. Thinking that enlightenment is the goal may lead one to become complacent; thinking further growth is not needed once they reach the goal. It takes time to mature in the physical and social aspects of our lives; we need time to mature after spiritual

birth as well. Acting compassionately, for example, goes from being the way to act based on understanding to being the way to act based on not having to think about it. Life is nonstop and it seems to me that thinking we can stop for a rest because we have accomplished something is a profound mistake. Enlightenment brings with it a sense of self responsibility to live up to the vision. One cannot talk about compassion without being compassionate or they risk seeing a hypocrite when they look into a mirror. Talking about the -O-head in me entails talking about the -O-head in you with equal sincerity, for you are no less an icon of -O- than I am. We cannot exclude anything if we are going to yap about the Divine Oneness or else we become liars. Enlightenment also brings with it a desire to share it with others. The living out of the vision and sharing with others in your daily life is expressed only through participation in life. The Buddha did not retreat into a cave upon enlightenment, nor did Lao Tzu hide himself in a bamboo grove. When I say a desire to share, Im not saying that one should run around nailing lifts on the natives feet. The enligh tened do not demand disciples and or forcing their opinion on others. A seed is sown - if it sprouts, fine - if it doesnt, that is fine as well. The joy is not in the convincing of others that you are right, the joy comes from sharing the vision in a manner that helps to bring us all closer to realization. How others react is not your responsibility; your sole responsibility is to live the vision as you see it. Most people run through life giving a sermon; the enlightened live the sermon. They dont run around telling others they have to live a certain way or else; what they do is show there is another way. If you ask, they do their best to point you in the direction you ask. If you dont ask, they still enjoy the frien d-

ship. The mission of the Bodhisattva is to save all sentient beings but they will not drag others to salvation. In my lighter moments, I can see a Bodhisattva reaching out, grabbing an ear and shaking it hard while telling the student to Pay Attention. As I wrote this, I got a flash of Yoda reac hing out and grabbing Lukes ear: Pay attention! Try said I not. Do, said I. Now, either do or dont do; no try. I suppose it would be as effective as getting smacked with the Masters fan in answer to a question. You cannot save the world from the world by running away because you dislike he problems. The problem with the Hermitage and the Cave, no matter how appealing they may be at times, is they reduce your opportunities to share the vision. Get out and participate. Illuminate the equality of all sentient beings by treating all sentient beings equally. Show the basic goodness in people by helping them see it in themselves. Help the downtrodden any way you can, even if it is a cheerful Hello backed up with a genuine smile from the heart. You are not faced with the dilemma of an either/or choice of being a monastic or a secularist. This is why I like that little saying I never go to church because I never leave church. As long as you pay attention, you can be in society without being tainted by society. When you do not confuse your wants for your needs, the circus run by Madison Avenue becomes funny in the sense of if I didnt laugh, Id have to cry. Believe it or not, you can live quite well without having to go through the madness of having to have the latest and best of everything. Living out the vision is accomplished with an attitude that maybe you just may inspire someone. Whether you do or not is of no consequence, just shine your light for all to see. This really isnt an apt metaphor, but inspire others to come to you as a

moth comes to a flame. Once they arrive, help them realize they are flames unto themselves.

Selflessness is not lostness. >The other day, I had a brush with the selfless and I ran away because I felt so lost. I dont want to spend the rest of my life feeling lost. The lost feeling is the ego trying to stay on center stage by using the oldest trick in the book. We all feel that losing the self means that one will spend the rest of their life wandering around in a daze. That is far from what happens. I realize this is a terribly clumsy way of saying it, but becoming selfless really isnt losing the ego, it is a hyperinflation of the ego. Rather than getting lost, one becomes firmly grounded in the realization that one is an expression of the Divine Oneness. All that is lost through the transformation of the ego is a limited idea of who and what we are. We spend our lives being taught who and what we are by society but the problem is that we are only taught enough to get by in that society. Let go of the idea this teaching is the whole campfire story about you for the social role is not who you really are. Being selfless is not a loss of identity; it is a different sense of identity. It matters not whether you listen to the religious or the secular campfire story, for both tell us that we are reality become alive and aware. This hyperinflation I refer to should not lead to egotism for the same thing is going on in each of us. How can I claim to be special or unique when we are all experiencing the same reality? You are just as much an expression of the whole as I am as is

the rest. Yes, you are a unique expression of that which is. So is our friend over there, and that one over there, and so on. I see no reason to get all fatheaded over having the same qualities as everyone else. Everyday life is still everyday life; one has to work to support the lifestyle they choose, we still know how to drive our cars, we remember to get dressed in the morning, stuff like that. The difference is in how we choose to look at it. When we let go of our attachment to the campfire story of who and what we are, we gain the freedom to be who and what we actually are. The story changes from who and what we are to who and what we are like. In the process, we allow others the same freedom. It is no longer the case that we desire to be on center stage; it is blissful to be onstage as it is. The ego does not vanish by being selfless because there is still a something remaining, a pure awareness that can be called preconsciousness. This something that never goes away is who you were before your parents gave you a name. Think of it as the you who witnesses reality, not the you who comments on reality, although they are the same you. It is a mistake to think one looses their uniqueness for everyone has their own unique spin on things. The community of the enlightened is not composed of robots following the same routine in a mindless metallic monotone. One person is going to have a slightly different view of the mountain than another person does simply because each person is reality viewing itself through a slightly different angle. One person has a focus in this direction, that person looks that way, and so on and so forth. It has been said many times that enlightened people exhibit a strong sense of personality, which they do You find yourself firmly grounded by the realization that you are the center of the whole, which can only be hinted at by

the image of a sphere, whose center is nowhere in particular and everywhere in general. It does not matter which direction you choose to look for the view is always semispherical and no matter where you are, you are always in the center. If you need to run to the store for groceries, no problem, as long as you keep in mind there is no need for a list. You can still handle all your social roles without missing a beat; in fact, we all spend much of our time on autopilot as it is. The difference being is that those with a self are being taken along for a ride and those that are selfless are going along for the ride. One thing Ive noticed is that the less self a person has, the more joy they have in life. It is almost as if the self is blocking the joy so that we have to depend on our ego for our pleasures. You see, the less self you have, the less personal you can take all this. Something bad happens because something bad happens, not necessarily to get at you, and if some bad juju comes your way through karmic balance, man up and take responsibility. Face obstacles with joy as lessons from life, not as if they were personal insults. Let go of your idea about what the self is, for you have been taught a limited image. Contrary to what the ego yammers about selflessness being lostness, this is far from the case. There is nothing to lose and in the process of losing it, you gain everything.

All this is such beautiful nonsense. >You spend a lot of time speaking about Sunyata. I fail to see how holding to Sunyata does anything but lead one into Nihilism. It is a misunderstanding of the concept of Sunyata that is responsible for this. The word Sunyata has been translated as Nothingness, unfortunately, with the negative connotation of the word attached. It is not nothingness, as in a vacuum; it is nothingness, as in a plenum. In contrast to the saying ex nihilo nihil fit, which means 'out of nothing comes nothing', I offer the following, ex nusquam venit panton, which translates to out of nothing comes everything. The core teaching of Sunyata is not that nothing exists, but that nothing exists in and of itself. In my opinion, it is the ignoring of this in and of itself aspect that gives rise to the misunderstanding. As far as Im co ncerned, this in and of itself is the prime teaching of Sunyata, as A is mutually dependent on NotA. The thing is that we do not have an entity called A and another entity called NotA existing in some side by side fashion. What we have is a <something> that manifests as both A and NotA. Sunyata does not mean this <something> does not exist, it means that neither A nor NotA exist as independent entities. Remember, Chuang Tzu talked about this giving rise to that. You cannot have the idea of nothing without the correlate idea of everything, just as you cannot have everything without

the correlate of nothing. When you recognize the emptiness of this and that, as independent entities, you come to recognize that from Sunyata arises Tathata, or from the other direction, depending on how you choose to view it. That which is empty is that which is full, or as it is said in the Heart Sutra, form is emptiness; emptiness is form. From this recognition comes a concept I call Sunyatatha. A. All things are devoid of independent existence. (Sunyata) B. All things manifest from the same Source. (Tathata) C. All things can be said to neither exist or not to exist. Sunyatatha is my attempt at comprehending the dualistic appearance of Reality. As indicated by the Sunya portion, Reality is Empty, but as indicated by the Tatha portion, Reality is Full. While this may seem to be contradictory, it is only so linguistically as the actual nature of Reality is not a choice between Sunyata and Tathata as the One True Story. There is truth in Sunyata and there is truth in Tathata but Truth can be found in neither story alone. We make a major mistake in imaging dualism as contradiction; I submit the dualism should be imaged as paradox. The solution to the question of dualism is realizing the dualism is a logical paradox rather than an existential state of affairs. All things are Empty - that does not mean they are False. All things are Full - that does not mean they are True. We can almost wrap our minds around Emptiness and Fullness but Reality is not subject to either rational or intuitive logic. Sunyata is true but we should not dwell there. Tathata is true but we should not dwell there either. They are not independent of each other and cannot exist apart from the other. Emptiness is one aspect of reality; suchness is another aspect of reality.

Emptiness, can be known, is true, but is not real. Suchness can be known, is true, but is not real. Tao is true and real, but cannot be known in the same sense that we know One plus one equals two. Rather than contradiction, this is paradox. Emptiness is a partial understanding; Suchness is a partial understanding. The reason they are partial is that neither alone is Reality. They are codependent - without Suchness, there would not be Emptiness. There is no inherent Tathata; there is no inherent Sunyata. By inherent, I mean an independently existing reality. With the negation of inherency, contradiction is replaced with paradox. When one thinks contradiction, one is thinking dualistically, as in there are two distinct realities, one of which cannot be true. When one thinks paradox, one is thinking in a nondualistic manner, as in there is a unity that can be explained two ways, neither of which is true. One cannot pretend to understand Sunyata and lay the claim that Nothing exists. As Nagarjuna wrote; All things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves. If Sunyata were truly empty, what is nothing mutually dependent upon? Without Yin, Yang would not exist and without Yang, Yin would not exist and without Tao, neither would exist. The in and of itself part of Sunyata, which I feel has been ignored by fans and critics alike, gives one a different concept of the relationship of oneself to others, and by extension, the entire Cosmos. In and of myself, I do not exist as a separate entity. In and of yourself, you do not exist as a separate entity. You are you because I am I, and that goes for all of us. You are just as much an Icon of the Divine as I am, thus deserving of respect in equal proportion to the respect I wish to receive.

How one comes to a nihilistic assumption from that is beyond me. One cannot help but love everyone equally. After all, we are all in the same boat, so to speak. There is a reason for being compassionate to others that sounds pragmatic but that is beside the point. By taking care of others, you end up taking care of yourself. If life were the riverbanks and compassion the river. it stands to reason that the deeper the river, the less chance youll have of running aground. The Nihilist, you must understand, looks around all this and takes the stance of It is all nonsense, so why bother? My answer to this is that it may be nonsense, but it is such beautiful nonsense; why not bother. Find the nonsense and point it out; perhaps we can have fun with it. Youre going to continue until you die, so why not keep yourself amused in the meantime. This is a wonderful comedy disguised as a drama going on here; as long as youre onstage, shine like the star that you are. There is enough misery in the world; why would anyone want to make a bad situation worse by expanding negativity? I submit one of the primary mistakes of nihilism is the misapplication of via negativa of philosophical study to the attitude one maintains about everything in general. One of the things nihilists cry about is there is no meaning to all this. That may be true but keep in mind that one of our most successful habits has been the bringing of meaning into all this. To despair because our campfire stories evolve as our understanding evolves is to miss the point completely. This newness is what keeps the campfire story fresh, and just as a physical campfire requires occasional refreshing with new wood, a spiritual campfire needs to be occasionally refreshed through new understandings. I may be a bit on the strange side, but I have a feeling that knowing everything would end up driving one into

despair, as there would never again be something new. As Ive said many times; What we know impresses me, but what we dont yet know inspires me. Reality is a blank slate upon which we attempt to provide meaning. Looking at it as meaningless is the wrong approach. Our task, if you wish to call it that, is to match the meaning with the reality, hopefully in a way that is complimentary. That is what our campfire stories are all about, attempts to provide meaning to all this. I find it odd that some people can think the Cosmos evolved a critter that was capable of sitting around and discussing the meaning of all this and not be inspired. To let despair take over ones attitude is a mistake. There is no fundamental meaning to life but that does not mean life is meaningless as we make life meaningful in how we respond to the situations we find ourselves in. Go out some clear evening and gaze at the stars - if youre not smitten with awe at the majesty, there is a profound lack in your life. One of the things discussed about the enlightenment experience that is constant across all traditions and that is that it is a blissful experience. It has been described as an Infinite Joy at being right here - right now! The peace that surpasses all understanding barely scratches the surface of the experience yet says more than it does. Sometimes the experience is so intense it can only be yapped about in sensual terms, thinking of -O- as the ultimate lover. No matter how it can be daffyfined, it seems to me the bliss of beingness is sanctification in and of the whole process dancing in and out of the light. Out of infinite love, this sanctification is given freely and completely. It is not something we have to struggle to obtain, it is something we just have to reach within and accept.

>I cant say that Ive heard anything like your statement of Wow, this is awesome. concerning reality before. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. Things may have been entirely random and chaotic at the start of this show, but look at the patterns that have come to exist from that chaos. Somehow, energy became inorganic matter then some of it became organic matter then some of it became living matter then some of it became sentient then some of it became intelligent enough to make a fairly accurate guess as to how it came to be. As impressive as the campfire story of how it came to be is, consider how awesome that it came to be is. Consider this - billions of years ago, the atoms that make up your body were bouncing around in a star. Now you are sitting there reading this little ditty; if that doesnt impress the heck out of you, I havent done my job. If you cannot stand on a mountaintop and gaze upon the stars in complete and utter awe, there is no magic in your life. After all, what it means to be a human is that you are nothing other than reality looking out upon itself.

Dont take it so seriously. >There have been many times you have mentioned the absurd ities of life and Beautiful Nonsense. It sounds to me as if you do not take any of this serious. Would you elaborate on this, please? What do you mean by serious? To me, it means co nducting ones business as if one were in a court of law. Yes, there are times one must act as if one were in a court of law, but that is not a full time affair. I prefer to think of my approach as Sincere. I like to think of my campfire story as being adequate while at the same time, Im willing to laugh at myself for my d elusions of eloquence. Serious is life and death. We are not going to get out of life alive anyway, so what is all the fuss about? It is in a comedic sense that I use the term absurdity. I find it amusing to listen to someone tell their campfire story as if that were the only one to be believed. It is your story of what it is like for you. I find myself just as amusing when I start spouting off, as I know I can come across as if I think Im the best thing that has come down the trail yet. Once I get going with the telling of my campfire story, it is quite obvious that although I say we can know it but not say it, I keep on trying, as if Im a glu tton for punishment. One side complains we only have one chance to get it right and the other side complains that we get as many chances as we need to get it right. This causes one side to concentrate on

getting it right out of a fear of eternal damnation while the other side concentrates on getting it right out of the fear of eternal rebirth. Both sides make the same mistake of assuming only they have the answer. I think they should be laughing at themselves and with each other at the heights of absurdities that they take their campfire stories. The grandest absurdity of all is our concept of the metaphysical due to an accident of history, that being the placing of Aristotles work on First Principles after the work on physics, as a Beyond reality all the time talking about metaphysical truths being Deeper Truths. It is those issues we call metaphysical that are pointers to a deeper reality we can only call the Divine Oneness. Not only are we asking the wrong question, we are looking in the wrong direction. Is there any reason not to be amused at that? Look at all the issues that we have reduced to the level of an either/or choice. Our mistake is that we assume one theory is the total truth. We have become so enamored of our campfire stories that we have turned them into idols and now commit Idolatry when we talk about them. The thing we fail to realize is that this Either/Orness we attach to Reality is a logical paradox rather than an existential state of affairs. Up to a certain point, the Monists are right. The same holds true for the nondualist. Where the Monist makes the mistake is in assuming what it is like is what it is. My problem with a nondualistic approach is that with both sides of the issue being unreal, what is causing all this commotion? To misparaphrase Chuang Tzu, Either gives rise to Or. In the Hear t Sutra, it would be Either is Or; Or is Either. It is nonsense to assume the campfire stories are anything more than stories about what it is like. Dont get me wrong; there

are some very beautiful campfire stories. It does not follow that a new understanding implies anything more than the old understanding was less complete than it is now. It is not the fundamentals of the story that change, it is the details that gain a deeper understanding. What I find sad is that all too many of us spit at each other over what we have in difference than share a cup of tea over what we have in common. Salvation means one thing to a Christian and another to a Buddhist but the concept is still Salvation. Leave right and wrong out of it and strive to understand the meaning the other carries around. You will find that in coming to a deeper understanding of how the other sees things, you come to a deeper understanding of how you understand things. There is no difference between acting from the positive or the negative interpretation of the Golden Rule other than the reason one is behaving in such a manner. Whether you refrain from telling falsehoods from one perspective or another, the point is that you are refraining from telling falsehoods. Feeding the hungry is feeding the hungry, whether you do it out of Karuna or your understanding of the injunction to feed the hungry. One does not gain moral superiority for traveling one side of the path or the other for they are the same path. Being serious about a stance is a danger to oneself and to others. It is a danger to yourself because it closes off your mind to all possibilities. It is a danger to others when you attempt to infuse your seriousness on others. The thing is, we are not faced with a dichotomy of being either serious or frivolous. Be sincere rather than serious; have some fun with it. Make your campfire story the grandest one around while recognizing the grandness in the stories others tell. A while ago, I discussed how a lack of humor has a negative effect and this is a prime example. We

need to learn how to poke good natured fun at ourselves in order to seek out the gaps in our understanding. Perhaps the biggest obstacle in being serious is that it takes all the beauty out of it; it is as if we are supposed to be satisfied with a black and white photo of reality. One day I was looking at a rainbow and it hit me. What an utterly absurd collection of events to have come about for this to happen. Through my limited understanding of Optics, I sort of understood the what of what was happening, but a question popped up asking ; the why of what was happening. Asking what is different than asking why; the former looks at what it is and the latter looks at why things are the way they are. So much of reality has been reasoned we are led to think reality is because of a reasoned mind that has a plan. This leads one to think there is a reason why all this happened, as if it were some kind of history lesson. I have a little secret Ill give away, even if it pisses off all gurus and teachers. It happened because it happened. There is no Master Planner guiding us to a certain goal; things that work together survive together. While it is nice to understand how we got here, it is more important to figure out where we go from here. The beauty of all this is that the entire thing is it sure seems to me that it is constantly poking itself in the proverbial ribs. Let go of the idea there must be a boss in charge of all this. Nature follows predictable patterns of behavior simply because that is the way Nature is. There is no off-screen director guiding this movie, for this whole thingie is performed ad lib.

Panencarnation. >You once said there is no escaping the continuous cycle of Nonbeingness to Beingness to Nonbeingness, yet you deny the idea of reincarnation. This seems a bit contradictory. It is only a contradiction if you accept the traditional concept of reincarnation. According to the direct reincarnation concept, the things that happen to a person in their present life are the results of what they did in their previous life or lives. As Ive yapped about, the ego, as popularly misunderstood, does not exist. The soul, as popularly misunderstood, is just as unreal as the ego. What does not exist cannot be born, die, and then be reborn. Direct reincarnation requires individual egos/souls that undergo the process, and the only individual is the Divine Oneness as an entirety. What Im proposing is something I call Panencarnation. One human dies and another human is born. The connections between them are that they are both humans and are both avatars of the Divine Oneness. There is, in my opinion, only one soul undergoing the cycle and that is what the Christians misunderstand as the Holy Spirit. While I agree with the Buddha that there is no soul, there is a something, if you will excuse the poor choice of words, which incarnates in each human being. This something incarnate in me is the same something that is incarnate in you and I cannot envision it as anything else than what we call -O-. Consider the game children play; Marco Polo - we are the Marco aspect of the game and -O- is the Polo aspect.

Rather than direct reincarnation, what I propose is something I call panencarnation. -O- is the Central Reality of all existence and when I say all, I mean all; there is nowhere -O- is not. To paraphrase something Alan Watts wrote, the meaning of incarnation is not that man has to climb to the infinite and become -O-, -O- has descended to the finite to become man. In line with your comment, at the time you mention, I was discussing the goals of immortality in Heaven and unmortality in Nirvana. These are completely mistaken goals as far as Im concerned. They are nothing more than running away because life is not blissful each and every moment - it is the same as bitching because vinegar does not taste like honey. What is behind this desire for individualistic Eternal Existence in Heaven (In its various forms)? I highly doubt if an yone who desires eternal heavenly existence has really thought about the matter. One would think that after a few million battles and feasts, the inhabitants of Valhalla might start thinking of other forms of entertainment. I would imagine that one could even grow weary of the Feasts in Paradise and consider stepping out for a beer and pizza. It is a bit on the strange side that everyone wants to go to Heaven yet people do not seem to be in a hurry to get there. This desire in the East for Eternal Nonexistence in Nirvana is a running away because this reality sucks at times. I submit there is as much joy in existence as there is pain and we make a mistake by concentrating on the painful aspect. We have overcome much of what made life painful and will continue to do so. I dont know if we will manage to remove all causes of suffering but you should keep in mind that the majority of suffering is caused by our mental attachments to likes and dislikes.

Reality is a system that recycles. We cannot assume that life itself is immune from this process and maintain an image of Oneness. Given that life did arise, we have to wonder what purpose did life arising in the first place serve. I know we can pretty much explain how life came into existence but that is not the question. Why is there life? To work on the goal of breaking the cycle of existence is to go against Nature, which is one understanding of the word sin. I cannot help but think that the entirety of existence is a religious experience in the deepest meaning of the phrase, which makes the desire to escape the Wheel of Life no more than a blasphemous ideal. Our true identity is much more than we are taught it is. At the very bottom of things, each of us is reality become alive and aware. It could be said that each of us is reality personified into actors that come and go in the timeless unfolding of the cosmic drama. Somehow, I get the impression that we are on the wrong track by attempting to shut down the show. It seems more important to vow to keep returning in order to do whatever one can to reduce the causes of suffering. Im not saying that we should go the other route and cling to life at all costs. The idea of Eternal Life is just as absurd as the idea of Eternal Nonlife. I doubt if anyone has really thought out what it would be like to be alive forever. Maybe Im looking at it wring, but it seems that after the first billion years, things would begin to lose their luster. Even if you restricted yourself to one Filet Mignon a year, how long do you think it would take for them all to start tasting identical? No matter how hard we try to ignore the fact no living being is immortal, we continue chasing that dream. It seems to me that if we do realize that dream, it will slowly turn into a nightmare. If we are going to have eternal life, we are going to need

eternal youth to go along with it. The rate at which the body ages leads me to think we would be spending most of our life confined to a bed in a Rest Home otherwise. This does not sound like a lifestyle I would like to live. People have a completely wrongheaded attitude about death as far as Im concerned. When I die, I will no longer exit, but that is of little importance, for that I who called itself Dino will. As much as I enjoy this rascal that goes by Dino, I realize he is not the real me any more than a single character defines an actors entire career (with rare exceptions, of course.) Ive said it before and Ill say it again; I think eternal life would end up a boring and hellish experience, even if we have eternal youth to go along with it. As I have said before, what is considered death for the caterpillar is considered birth for the butterfly. I submit it is our point of view that life is a one-shot affair that is the leading factor in our fear of death. This is not about the act of dying, but being dead; I will admit to being concerned about how I die and hope it is in my sleep. There is not one thing in all of reality that is eternal. What makes us think we should be immune from this? The story of the caterpillar and the butterfly just might be an allegory as to what happens to us upon death. We may not transform into another type of being but we perhaps transform into another being. We may or may not remember what went on before but I submit it really doesnt ma tter if you do or do not for one has no choice but to live in the present moment. Perhaps one could say that punishment would be coming back to a world worse off because we did nothing and reward would be coming back to a better world because we did something that mattered. The idea does make sense from the viewpoint of karmic justice and gives truth to the saying about what

goes around, comes around. Accept that you are coming back and your fear of being dead will go away. Do not cry that you cannot remember what went on before, for in the forgetting, things remain fresh. I would imagine that remembering them all would end up being the same kind of hellish experience as eternal life. >>What do you mean by this whole world view as a one shot thingie is limited? From our earliest memories, we are told who we are and we have come to believe it. Breaking this spell liberates us to be who we truly are. This liberation removes what is the greatest fear of human life, the fear of death. Once upon a time i was dead and then i was alive - a time will come when i will be dead again, but the I within me does not undergo this. It is this within that is the centermost reality that can never die because it is never born; it is more me than Dino can ever be. To paraphrase something Alan Watts talked about - By means of death, reality provides itself with a periodic forgettory as well as memory. This periodic forgettory and memory is an important concept. When -O- forgets itself (itself is a less that adequate phrase, but I cannot think of an appropriate term), a person is alive, when -O- remembers, that person is no longer alive. -O- is infinite; there can be an infinite number of forgettories going on at the same time without -O- becoming less than infinite. Life is a cyclic process, there is no beginning, there is no end, and there is no pause for enjoyment in Heaven or punishment in Hell. We see that everything in the universe is cyclic, yet we have this idea that life does not follow this pattern. People spend much mental energy being concerned about what is going to happen after we die and are not the least bit in-

terested in what happened to us before we were born. This is a lopsided approach as life comes from somewhere, returns to that same somewhere, in a never ending process of dancing in and out of the Divine Play. In order to truly know who we are, we have to trace ourselves to the beginning. This beginning is not the mistaken idea that we began at our conception. Our beginning can be traced back to the moment of the Big Bang. This is not to say that this manifestation of the universe is the first and only; as stated earlier, the universe is a system where everything recycles. There is no reason to assume the universe itself is immune from this process. Let us go back to the Hindu campfire story of reality being the dream of -O-. According to this story, -O- dreams for a while and on occasion, wakes up and remembers who He is, then once again returns to the dream. Chuang Tzu had this to say about the beginning. T here is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something. I realize the idea of multiple big bangs is conjecture at this point in our scientific knowledge, but it makes more sense to assume that if the big bang happened once, it can happen again than it does to assume all this is a one-shot affair. Now suppose this is the case; there was no Beginning and there will be no Ending. Rather than being eternal, reality is

timeless. With each successive creation, what we experience as time would start anew, just as the universe starts anew. The history of each incarnation of reality may not be identical. It might be somewhat akin to the concept of Transmigration, the basic energy recycles and remains the same, but each cycle is somewhat different in how the events play out. Life plays itself out in one story in one lifecycle and plays itself out in another story in another lifecycle. There is no beginning (in the sense of it all started at this time) we can trace ourselves back to. There is no ending we can look forward to (in the sense of there being an end of time). If we say our beginning started with the big bang that started this universe, we ignore what may have happened before. If we say reality ends with the collapse of this universe, we neglect to consider what may come about after. It seems to me that we make a major mistake when we consider this appearance of reality to be the only one that ever will be.

Riding an ox in search of an ox.

>I have been striving for many years in order to obtain enlightenment, but I have yet to arrive. What do you suggest? You say you have been striving for years to reach a goal; all you have been doing is chasing rainbows. Zen puts it precisely when it says that you are riding an ox while looking for an ox. Who is this I making that statement? Was it you who studied and practiced austerities or was it your idea of you doing all that while you watched? Rather than looking at enlightenment as a something that is added on, look at it as the blooming of a flower, from within. What is added on is what we identify with; our social identity. These are the things we have been taught about ourselves and one of those teachings is that we are not enlightened. These stories are taught us by people who have had them taught to them by people who have had them taught to them by people who have had them taught to them, and so on down thru history. Forget about becoming enlightened; concentrate on being the best person you can be in the present moment. You will come to realize that enlightenment has been looking out from your eyes all along. As Lao Tzu said in the Hua Hu Ching, Subtle awareness of the truth of the universe should not be regarded as an achievement. To think in terms of achieving it is to place it outside your own nature. This is erroneous and misleading. Your nature and the integral nature of the universe are one and the

same: indescribable, but eternally present. Simply open yourself to this. Keep in mind is that it is only as hard as you think, and it will only take as long as you think simply because that is what youre thinking it will be like. The longer you work at being the best person you can be, the easier it becomes. Im not yapping about being a perfectionist when I say to be the best you can be. Allow yourself the freedom to make mistakes. Making the occasional mistake is going to happen and it does not make you into a total failure. Forgive yourself and move on, promising not to make that mistake again. This is an example of how people try so hard, they get in their own way. Following the discipline will bring about results, people are told, so they practice as hard as they can. A little bit down the road, they get impatient and try harder, a little bit longer and this happens again. Relax and let it happen of its own accord. Enlightenment is not a state you obtain as a reward; it is the recognition of who you were before your parents gave you a name. The you that is experiencing the now here in this room is the same you that experienced being in your mothers womb. All that has essentially changed is your understanding of who you are.

Dont let your emotions control you >When you discussed the inner demons a while back, you said that it was best not to fight them. I thought they had to be fought. In that discussion, I was answering a question from a gentleman who had a teacher who taught to think of our emotions as demons to be fought to their death. I think this is a mistaken approach, for our emotions are integral to what makes us human. We would be less human if we subdued them. My point is that rather than control our emotions, we need to control our reactions to them. All fighting a demon accomplishes is to strengthen it. Suppose you get angry about something. It is not going to accomplish anything by fighting the anger as all suppression does is hold it inside and let it build upon itself. Be angry and let it pass by choosing not to react angrily. You may think your anger gives you strength but in actuality, it takes more strength not to react. This is one of my demons. I try to choose not to overreact, but sometimes it takes control and I tend to get stupid when that happens. Accept your demons and cherish them for the lessons they can impart. If you get the urge to drink to excess, think of how you will feel the next day. When you experience sadness, let your sadness flow through you - experience it in its fullness and it will go away quicker, to be replaced by the heights of joy. If you feel like being a jerk around people, think of how you feel being around someone acting like a jerk.

In my mind, the best thing to do with demons, after accepting them, is to make fun of them. When you make fun of the demons, it becomes easier not to act on them. My favorite method is to image my anger all dressed up in an outrageous golf outfit and going out to attend a formal ball. If something makes you angry, by all means, be angry. True mastery comes from not being controlled by the emotions; when utilized appropriately, anger is a goad for inspiration and when utilized inappropriately anger can make anyone act foolish.

On being your best friend. >You have said before that the path to inner peace starts by becoming the best of friends with yourself. Im confused because this seems to be an egotistical stance. This is an egotistical statement only if you identify yourself as your ego. Alan Watts often said - my overt life as an individual is being imagined by a hidden self that is much more the central me than my ego... This hidden self is what I was referring to in my statement. Who or what is this hidden self? On one hand, there is a spiritual campfire story about reality being a dream that -O- is having. On the other hand, there is a secular campfire story about how humans are the Cosmos become alive and aware. In the former, there is nothing but -O-, which makes -O- The Central Reality. In the latter, the Cosmos is all there is, making it, as I discuss elsewhere, The Central Reality. Both stories tell the same tale, using different languages and in essence are no different. Being the best of friends with this hidden self ultimately means that you are best of friends with the whole of reality, no matter which campfire story you choose to have as your personal mythos. As Lao Tzu said in Chapter 37 of the Hua Hu Ching Caring for them, she knows that she cares for herself. Giving to them, she knows that she gives to herself. At peace with them, she is always at peace with herself.

Indiscriminate Goodness. Be good to those who are good; likewise, be good to those who are not good. The first part of this is understandable, but the second does not make sense at all. Why be good to those who are not good, you may ask. In return, I say there is no reason not to, because good can be found in each person. It may take some effort, but it can be done. Even the worst person can still be an example of how not to behave, which is a good. Mother Teresa had a wonderful saying about this - Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway. You see, in the final analysis it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway. Do not think that being good to those who are not good is the same as condoning their behavior. One can do good by saying no to behavior that is not good. You can do this by pointing out that bad behavior is beneath that pers ons dignity. It is not going to help a person change for the better by being critical if you do not balance the criticism by also pointing out the good they accomplish. As the old saying goes - you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. The only thing being constantly critical will accomplish is to set up a barrier between you and the person you criticize. No matter what, you should not undertake this task with the attitude that you will bring about any changes in someones behavior. The most you should do is act with the hope you may

inspire them to act better; any more will cause you to sound like a holier than thou moralizer. All that will accomplish will be to make them stop listening to you. On the same token, do not be full of pride if they do change. If they change, that would be a good. If they do not change, that is good as well. You have done your best and that is all that you should require of yourself. There is no reason to beat your head against a wall simply because others are not willing to live up to a higher standard. Do not stop being an example because on day, the seed may sprout. The thing is, you see, you cannot make someone change their behavior; they have to want to make the change.

Some attachment required. One fact of life is the existence of suffering. Gurus tell us to be detached in order to transcend the suffering; this is a selfish attitude. You may have escaped the effects of suffering, but you have done nothing to reduce the causes. Be attached to the idea of trying to reduce all forms of suffering while hopefully inspiring others to try as well. It does not matter if you cannot accomplish great things; the point is to accomplish what you can. A Zen monk was seen by his disciple by the sea, where the tide had washed ashore hundreds of starfish. It was clear that they would soon die from exposure. The monk was tossing the starfish, one at a time, back into the sea, in a slow and meditative manner. Why are you bothering? The disciple asked the monk. The young disciple looked at the large number of starfish that were succumbing. It wont make any difference The monk stopped for a moment, and looked down at the starfish in his hand. It will to this one, he replied, as he tossed it into the sea. Gurus advise us to maintain an attitude of nonattachment through not judging what is right and what is wrong. I submit this should not be taken as a blanket statement for the simple reason that some attachment is necessary. >>I submit this should not be taken as a blanket statement for the simple reason that some attachment is necessary.

>Why do you say that? We are social animals and to some degree, all of us are attached to a social order. If we maintain an attitude of nonattachment, the problems facing society will never change. To paraphrase Plato; The penalty good people pay for indifference to public affairs is the degradation of society. There is nothing wrong with being attached to the idea of a civil society. We think to ourselves there isnt anything we can do because we are only one person. Do not be afraid to take that first step because you are only one voice. As the saying goes - A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. We are afraid to take that first step because we are afraid of what people will think. I submit that it doesnt matter in the least what others think as long as we remain civil in addressing the issues. You will find that by remaining civil in your critique, your single voice will in time become a thousand voices. If these voices remain civil, each of those thousand may become a thousand and so on until there are enough to make a difference. Freedom of Speech is a necessary attachment for society but I submit we carry this ideal too far. You have the right to criticize a persons political stance but you make yourself look like a cheap thug when you advocate physical violence because of your difference of opinion. How would you feel if the person you are advocating violence against stooped to your level and made the same statements about you? As far as Im concerned, your advocating violent behavior is a form of Hate Speech and should not be tolerated in our society but if it is, you should be held legally responsible if someone follows through with what you advocate. There is no harm in being attached to the idea of honesty. We do not trust a person or an organization that has been proven

to be dishonest. While it is possible to forgive the inadvertent telling of a falsehood, one should not forgive or ignore the deliberate and repeated telling of one. There should be no anger in your response; simply be calm in pointing out the falsehood and shun those who continue. Attachment to environmental concerns is the most vital attachment we need to have. There is not a single aspect of our lives that is isolated from the environment. What are we going to do to survive once the air and water become too polluted to breathe and drink? We have used the oceans as waste dumps to the point where a lot of sea food is unhealthy for us to consume. At the rate things are heading, the bees are going to be extinct in a few years. This will make agriculture a difficult, if not impossible process, for bees are a major factor in crop pollination. We need to move away from petroleum as a source of fuel for transportation and electrical generation purposes.

Our Treatment of the Environment. >You keep saying we need to treat the planet with respect. Why is this? Environmental concerns should be important to all people. When I think about how we treat the planet, I dont know whether to scream or cry. Our lack of concern for environmental issues is just downright absurd considering this is the only home we have. The way we treat the planet is the equivalent of breaking the commandment about honoring thy mother and father. We dishonor ourselves through the way we treat the planet. In the strictest sense of the term, we are blasphemous in our actions on caring for the environment. Much of this behavior can be traced to our mistaken concept that reality is nothing more than a dumb machine. Im not saying the Gaia Hypothesis is an actuality, but it is a story worth contemplating. My approach is to look at it in the manner that Confucius recommended about the -O-s - Act as if they exist. By acting as if Gaia is a reality, we would be treating the planet and ourselves in a more responsible manner than we are now. The way we are acting more as if we are a cancer that is out to kill the planet than being the intelligence of the planet working to keep itself healthy. We say family values are important but we do not act that way. Our treatment of Mother Earth and Father Sky is atrocious we have no respect for our parents. In our selfishness, we dismiss

our brother and sister humans as not being important enough to care about. We neglect our cousins by considering the needs of humans as more important than other animals - most of whom were here long before us. If we were to act the same way in Church, we would be asked to leave. We wouldnt consider tossing our trash on the floor of the church but we think nothing of tossing our trash on the altar of -O- that is the planet. When we put an addition on a church building, we do our best blend in said addition so it doesnt stick out like a sore thumb. This is rarely the case for the rest of the structures we place on Earth - instead of a judicious altering of the landscape, we break out the bulldozers and scrape entire areas flat. The way we are headed, Earth is going to end up looking like the planet Trantor in the Foundation Series, by Asimov. Trantor is a planet that has been almost completely covered with one huge building. Is this the fate we desire for Earth? For the majority of our history, our numbers were small enough that we could move to another area and let the area we left recover. It is no longer possible for large numbers of us to move to a fresh area while an older area recoups from the damage we have caused. At one time, large families were a necessary survival tactic for the Human species, but this is no longer the case. Each generation has to compete for a smaller piece of what is left over from the previous in a cycle where the pieces of the pie get smaller and smaller and the number of those who are competing gets larger and larger. In my opinion, we have gone past the point of diminishing return and are quickly approaching the point where life is will be nothing more than the sheer drudgery of surviving from one meal to the next. Not only are we humans in competition for a smaller amount of available resources, the rest of the animal kingdom is

caught up by our struggles and end up suffering and facing extinction. I submit the troubles our cousins are facing reflect badly on humanity as a whole. What right do we have to act inconsiderate towards the needs of the rest of the animal kingdom? It is highly inappropriate for a troop of monkeys in Brazil to lose their habitat because we humans need the wood to build houses. We strip vast areas of land of the natural vegetation to plant food crops and apply large amounts of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Not only do we end up with food that is not as tasty as it once was, there is evidence the pesticides and other chemicals we are applying to our crops are causing the decline in the honeybee population and we need them to pollinate our crops. Look at what happens when we convert empty land to housing. We encroach on the living areas of other animals, forcing them into smaller areas. When they come into our areas in their struggle for survival, we say they are a danger to our survival and eradicate them. It is we humans who were the original danger to their survival; their interaction with us is a result of what we did to them in the first place. We call ourselves wise yet we ignore the stupidity of our actions in our relationship with our cousins. If another nation were to encroach on United States territory for living space, we would call that an act of war yet we call our encroachment on the territory of wolves progress - a profound act of hypocrisy as far as Im concerned. It is long past time we reconsider our actions or we will reach the point where nothing we do will help alleviate the problems facing us. We need to slow down our rate of growth, as we no longer have to have ten children in the hopes that three survive to adulthood. At the rate we are going, of three children we have, one may survive because of a lack of resources. We need to reconsider how we are going to produce energy - it will not do

to have cars that get 100 miles per gallon of gas when we need the small amount of petroleum we are going to have in the future to produce the chemicals we need for our medical needs. We cannot maintain this attitude that because one answer to the problem will not solve the entire issue, we need do nothing at all. Every little thing we do will help to reduce the effects of total problem. It is foolish to complain about the cost of reducing pollution when the cost of not reducing pollution is going to be vastly greater. Complaining that taking care of the environment will reduce future growth ignores that it is unlimited growth that is the root cause of the problems we face.

Dinos Daffynitionary. Absolutelypositelyso An incontrovertible truth Blatherings One of the ways I describe my little ditties. Dictionary Approach and Thesaurus Approach. In the former, the definition is the reality and in the latter, the definition is an aspect of reality. Claiming the Biblical Image is the One True Image of -O- is a Dictionary approach. Claiming the Biblical Image is but one of many aspects of -O- is a Thesaurus approach. Daffynition. {Daffyfinable, daffyfined, daffyfine, undaffyfinable, daffyscribe} When the definition of a word or concept is treated as the reality of the concept, it becomes a daffynition - that which is taken to and or beyond a logical absurdity. For example, the sound Whiskey will not get a person drunk. Herenow. The state of being in the Present Moment. Holyverse. My mythunderstanding of the universe in its Totality.

Immortality, Unmortality, and Amortality. Immortality is Eternal Life in Heaven. Unmortality is Eternal Nonlife in Nirvana. Amortality is the Transmigration of the Spirit from one incarnation to another. Incompleteness. The concept that no matter what the field of study, there is always more to learn. In Science, for example, we can know everything about a quantity of water and the container it is in, but we cannot predict (Assuming a perfectly smooth interior) with accuracy where the first bubble will appear when we boil that water. In Theology, it is Agnostic in that a person, being finite, cannot know everything there is about -O-, but does not deny the existence of -O-. Loyal Opposition. {Orthomystic, as an efriend quipped.} The concept that one can agree with the basic premises of an idea (The concept that -O- is.) but disagree with the details (Such as what -O- is.). Lifestance A Persons world view. Literalista A person who takes their POV as literal truth. i.e., the Bible is literal historic and scientific truth. Meme/Memetriement. [Useful fictions for explanation.] A Meme is the mental equivalent of a gene. Genes shape the physical aspects of life and memes shape the mental aspects of

life. Individual Rights, Gender Roles, and Political Beliefs are examples of Memes. Mentrients are concepts that help form worldviews. The idea that a Human is a created being that is a separate reality than physical reality is a memetriement built up of memes (The arguments for the infamous Mind/Body Nonissue, for example.) Mythunderstanding. Our understanding of reality based on the mythos we tell about it. (The Nature of Reality, The Nature of -O-, Human Nature, etc) Oneitis Our assumption the One of mathematics is an explanation of the One in metaphysics. Panencarnation. The concept that each living being is an avatar of -O-. Unlike reincarnation, there is only one soul doing all this incarnating. Panencarnation is similar to the Buddhist concept of transmigration with one exception; -O- is the one being reborn. [This is a play on the concept of Panentheism.] Pansophy Universal wisdom or knowledge Pragmystic One who follows a mystical practice based on what one sees how it affected someone who has followed that particular practice.

Rational Knowledge and Arational Gnowledge. (To Know and to Gno.) Rational Knowledge is Empirical. Arational Gnowledge is Intuitive. Neither is truer than the other and they are complimentary. Together they are like the wings of a bird - in order to fly, we need both. Scientism (Also Scienceism) The treating of the Scientific Method as if it were a religious endeavor. Scietheism. Atheism based on Science. Separateness. Separateness is is a distraction caused by ego. Soulcology To me, the psyche and the soul are different ways of discussing the same reality. Therefore, Psychology and Soulcology are two ways of discussing the issue. Spitfest. A situation wherein people are no longer talking with each other but at each other, usually in a derogatory and insulting manner. Stereoscopic Consciousness. The act of using both Rational and Intuitive modes of thought in coming to a conclusion. This is like the use of the left

and the right eyes together to come up with stereo vision, which adds depth to the picture. Symphonia Religiosa. An allusion of the various Religions to the various instruments in a Symphony Orchestra. Each instrument compliments the other and although they may be playing a little differently at each moment, there is a theme to the symphony they all play to. Theobabble. Theological discourse taken with a grain of salt, a dash of self-deprecating humor, and a tongue stuck halfway out the cheek. Theodalatry. The act of worshipping a theological concept as if it were the reality. The word God is not the reality. Theonary. A dictionary from a particular religion. Theosaurus. A thesaurus of Religious understanding. Therethen. The state of being either in the Past or the Future. Whateveritis/Whoeveritis

The best phrase to use for when you are attempting to discuss the central truth of something.