beautiful nonsense

7/30/2019 Beautiful Nonsense

1/130

Beautiful Nonsense

Dino Meurs


2/130

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 re-

trieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means with-

out 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 usethis 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. Dur-

ing 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 pa-tience and understanding, I would be lost. Thank you for putting

up with me, honey.


3/130

Opening Ramble.

Most people gain mystical insight by following tradition-

al schools of mysticism - they find themselves in the presence of

a Master who guides them to mystical insight. This did not hap-

pen 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 themost is the monistic im-plications 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 pre-

cise 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 Sunyatanor 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 encapsulated in a bag

of skin Some schools of thought embrace the Ego while other

schools embrace the bag, giving rise to the Mind/Body campfirestory. We become trapped within Oneitis by assuming they are


4/130

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 dichoto-

mies, 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

else.

The interconnectedness of all Religions is another area Ienjoy 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 teach-ings?

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 incompletenesswith uselessness. Just the opposite is projected by this theory, as


5/130

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 highrespect 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 story-

telling ability helped cement the social order, giving rise to our

success as a species.


6/130

The monistic implications of Nondualism.

>Gurus keep telling us all this is unreal. This seems to be an un-

balanced stance.

It is both real and unreal. It is both transitory and perma-nent. It is both painful and blissful. It is both existence and non-

existence. 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 de-

pendence 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 be-

cause 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 that manifests as either A or

as B and it is this 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 allu-sion - that which points to a deeper truth. It would be nice to

retain the term illusion but the connotation of fake is what the


7/130

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 confu-

sion. 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 theworld 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. Thisis 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


8/130

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 al-

so 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 eve-

rything, 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 onhow 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; empti-

ness 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, Reali-

ty is Empty, but as indicated by the Tatha portion, Reality is Full.

While this may seem to be contradictory, it is only so linguisti-

cally as the actual nature of Reality is not a choice betweenSunyata and Tathata as the One True Story. There is truth in


9/130

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 contra-

diction; 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 sub-

ject 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 independ-

ent of each other and cannot exist apart from the other. Empti-

ness 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 beknown 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. Byinherent, I mean an independently existing reality. With the ne-

gation 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 man-

ner, as in there is a unity that can be explained two ways, neither

of which is true.


10/130

One cannot pretend to understand Sunyata and lay the

claim that Nothing exists. As Nagarjuna wrote; All things de-

rive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are noth-

ing 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 sep-

arate 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 de-

serving of respect in equal proportion to the respect I wish to re-

ceive.

Drop the idea that this is true and that is false. Bothcampfire 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 orfalse, 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 understanding as more evi-

dence 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 ofour understanding. Alan Watts wrote a little blurb about his


11/130

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 con-

templated 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 love-

ly sunset. I have a hunch that after a few hundred billion years,

one would be desperately seeking the surprise button.


12/130


13/130

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 al-most 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 likeit 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 ap-

parent 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


14/130


15/130

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 Ma-

terial nor Spiritual in essence; it is a from which

Material and Spiritual arise. It is this that

nondualistic philosophy alludes to as it points a finger at the

Moon.


16/130

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 con-

structs. They are how I express my understanding and it is com-

pletely beside the point if anyone agrees with me or not. Im

more than willing to admit that I may be mistaken in my misun-

derstandings.

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 tak-

en 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 ex-

ample, 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 nev-er completely know -O-. I think this is applicable to knowledge

in general as well; there is only so much finite beings can know


17/130

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 Incom-

pleteness.

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 isreduced.

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 certain-

ty has played a role in the rancor against change. Each shift in

understanding of the structure of the Cosmos was met with re-

sistance simply because the holders of the outgoing understand-ing 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 howstrongly you feel, it is counterproductive to stand on a soapbox


18/130

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 of-

fering 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 admitthat you can always learn something. I have yet to run across an-

ything written that says that to understand something is to con-

done 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 under-

standing 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 thatwhich we dont yet know that inspires.


19/130

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, theother 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.


20/130

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 findlearning to be exciting? Maybe I am a bit strange but I find learn-

ing 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 Intro-

duction 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 completeknowledge? 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


21/130

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 with-

out 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 veri-

fy anything.

Unwilling in the sense there is no way for a finite lan-

guage 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-. Themost 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 Agnos-

tic is - Somebody denying something is knowable: somebody

who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that some-

thing can be completely understood.


22/130

People like to talk up the amount of knowledge we hu-

mans 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 thisand 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 isthe sound as an

observer who is deaf would only feel the vibrations. We cannot

say the sound isthe movement of the bones in the middle ear, we

cannot say it is the nerve impulses, and we cannot say it is the


23/130

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 knowthe star is still active? If this star were to ceaseto existRight Now, we wouldnt know it for a million years, un-

less 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 thestar 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


24/130

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 re-

spect 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 abil-

ity 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 ofpride 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 Insecu-

rity. I highly doubt if anyone would say he had little trust or

confidence orthat he was insecure in his belief system. Let usbe pragmatic about this - we do not know everything. As long as

there is one fact you do not know, you cannot say you have com-

plete knowledge. It seems to me that you are misunderstanding

incomplete inthe context I am using it. I think it is totally fas-

cinating 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 completeknowledge? Can you imagine how boring that must be after a


25/130

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 with-

out foreknowledge, thank you. This does not mean that I am



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 men-

tal. It is the assumption of and as real that leads to problems.

The validity of and only applies in the logical sense for materi-

al and mental are, in actuality, two aspects of the same unity. Weneed the and to explainthe world but it is unnecessary for our

experienceof 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 atten-

tion to them.These boundaries are not real, in and of themselves. We

operate under the assumption that the map isthe territory and the

menu is the meal. This is fallacious thinking; a map is a repre-

sentation 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 sym-bolic tool whose validity rests on common agreement as to what


26/130

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 plan-

ets were perfect circles. We used to think time flowed at a con-stant rate for all observers.

Our mental images describe the surface of a deeper reali-

ty. 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 oppositesfor the reason it implies harmonious interconnection while op-


27/130

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.


28/130

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 sayabout 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 perspectiveand 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 la-

beled 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


29/130

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 un-

derstanding 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 appearsparadoxical, not reali-

ty isparadoxical. 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 storyabout what is going on.

The main factor in this idea of paradox is the biggest mis-

take we make, that of confusing the mathematical, with the phil-

osophical, concept of one, and going on to misapply it. It com-

pletely slips our mind that mathematics and metaphysics are dif-

ferent languages, with the One of mathematics as singular; the

One of metaphysics as pluralistic. This leads to Oneitis; theassumption the mathematical explanation of One also explains


30/130

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 ex-

tend 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: spon-taneous 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 denialare 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 re-

ality. 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 andwonderful. When I use the word Nonsense, Im not using it in


31/130

a derogatory manner. There is no sensible reason as to why reali-

ty appears paradoxical, it does, and that is the nonsensical conno-

tation 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 thisdoes 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 orthe 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 uti-

lize 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 otherside of a duality that is merely linguistic and idolizing it as a Law


32/130

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 caseover 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. Ifthis 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.


33/130

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 ap-pearance of reality as truth. Monistic thinking falls into the Aris-

totelian 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 questionslead 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 weexplain 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 Ma-

terialist 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


34/130

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.

Languageneeds 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 re-

ality is Tao. Consider the example of a coin - we do not have

coins that only have heads or tails; coins are two sided, ne i-

ther being intrinsically coin.

Subject is a concept one can wrap their mind around.

Object isa 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 subjec-

tive and objective as I see it - the former is how we experience

Reality while the latter is how we talk about Reality. Our prob-

lem is that we confuse the Symbol for the Reality and as a resultmake 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 com-

ing, 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 with-out foreknowledge, thank you. This does not mean that I am


35/130



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 sub-

ject to either rational or intuitive logic. They are not independent

entities and cannot exist apart from the other. Yin Empti-

ness/"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 inthe 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 Reli-

gion is the exploration and explanation the Ideal aspect of Reali-

ty. These are complimentary tasks; the only antagonism between

these two approaches is with the Literalistas found within eachtask. 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 six-

day creation.

Science can neither prove nor disprove -O-; all it can dois to call into question things that are said about -O-. I doubt the


36/130

Materialist realize how inane his branding all Religion as false

because of the evident falsity ofsomethings 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 bottomof 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 men-

tality can exist. Body is what it is- Mind is what it does.I submit the largest contributor to the problem is a con-

fusion 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

whichdictionary is The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing butThe Truth. One image may be explainable by another in a cir-


37/130

cle of daffynitions but it takes them all to understand what An-

dromeda 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. Howev-

er, 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


38/130

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 di-

chotomy 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 sci-

ence 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 anoth-

er 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 Bibleas a true source of geophysical history.


39/130

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 evolu-

tion but I do not agree with it being a blind, stupid process, tak-

ing place in a blind and stupid Universe. I agree with the concept

of creation, but I see it is an ongoing thingie rather than some-

thing 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 Re-

ality 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 flawedcreations, the Fault is His for creating us this way. If the Uni-

verse 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 beingwith will and intent. The Biblical Literalistas commit Idolatry for


40/130

they break the commandment against graven idols; a mental im-

age 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 The-

ism and Atheism; both sides make themselves look foolish by

ignoring the Nontheistic stance.

From my point of view, there is no conflict between Sci-

ence and Religion; they are complimentary aspects of the searchto 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 andscientific 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.


41/130

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 rea-

son that Quantum Theory gives us a different understanding of

the universe than Newtonian Theory does. There have been sit-

uations where scientific concepts have been misapplied, but, just

as where this has happened in religion, there is no reason to dis-

count 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 f-

ference, let us discuss what this and that have in common.Both science and religion are attempts at explaining reali-

ty. Science does this through the language of the mind while re-

ligion expresses itself through the language of the heart. At the

deepest level of our understanding of the physical aspect of reali-

ty, 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 wedaffyfine 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?


42/130

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 sa-cred, and the living of life is worship.


43/130

-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 fi-

nite 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 In-

finite 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 aninfinite 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 theyare 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


44/130

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 ad-

ministering punishment to an errant child, but, that is not all -O-

is. Sometimes -O- is like the loving mother who kisses the boo

boos away, but that isntall -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 Beingwith 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 irra-

tional, which is bandied about as a semi polite insult by someand 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 Be-

ing yet is neither Supernatural, nor is it A Being.

Another problem is about what I call Theological Positiv-

ism. What is with this need to prove what -O- is with the sameaccuracy we can prove 1+1 = 2? We can falsify many of the


45/130

things that are said about-O-, but that does not falsify whatever

the reality is. Is a theological image a representation of the Di-

vine 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 as-

sumption 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 any-

thing except the universe as a whole. The old stories of our rela-

tionship with nature are as outdated as the story of the great ma-

chine. Hindu philosophy has taken another path concerning therelationship; 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 ani-

mal whose workings were totally unique. Genetic research givesvalidity to the ancient Buddhist notion that all life is a variation


46/130

of the same DNA pattern; what is unique about the common-

place? 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 be-

ing 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 awk-

ward, why should we think -O- is limited to one course of ac-

tion? I think a truly creative -O- would play the whole drama im-

promptu.

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 thiswould 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 anthro-

pomorphic 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 stainedglass windows. The Western attitude is one that prefers a paint-


47/130

ing of the sun on the window rather than let the actual sunshine

through. Any truly spiritual person will take a razor to the paint-

ing.

Jesus has told us there is no place we can look where -O-

is 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 but-

terfly dreaming it is Chuang Tzu? In the West, there is the duali-

ty in oneness; the eye in which I see -O- is the eye in which -O-

sees me, which gives me an image of -O- as the two headed pup-

pet 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 elec-

tron 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 reali-ty 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.


48/130

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 ofevents 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 thisbeginning. 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 ofreality; 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 isnt

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 isundergoing a change that was started when the great and exalted

Uncle Albert showed us that time and space are relative aspects


49/130

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 purifiedbodies that have no func-

tion 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 purifiedbody that has no func-tion other than to house our souls so we can receive all the unim-

aginable 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 Scientismstory is predicated on the idea that we are merely temporal with

consciousness replacing soul. Each side is partial truth but nei-

ther 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 differ-

ent understanding of who that individual is. Buddhism discusses


50/130

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 pun-

ishment, 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 ofequal 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 oth-

ersfor the Hindus also believe in the idea that you shall sow

what you reap.

There is nowhere but here, no somewhen but now. Ener-

gy is neither created nor destroyed but instead, it recycles andchanges. Assuming the human soul operates on another set of

rules seems like spiritual pride to me on the one hand and defeat-

ist 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 initiatedby -O- with the difference in understanding being that this is not


51/130

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 cer-

tain misunderstanding of Gaia. What I am interested in is pro-moting 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 ma-

terial 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 Hy-pothesis 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 some-

thing 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 planets


52/130

body. The planet is a living, aware beingness whose Self-

awareness is a hypostasis of the individual and collective con-

sciousness. Every living organism we know of has sense organs

of some form so I submit that it is not a stretch to think of hu-

mans as the sense organs of the planet.


53/130


54/130

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 breakthroughs, 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 gothere 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 re-

alistic 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 oursuccesses 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 insur-

mountable; all we have to do is agree that they can be accom-

plished.

How a person can consider what a human being is andnot be utterly amazed is beyond me. Think about it; through our


55/130

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 hasled, 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 every-thing 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 an-

cient 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


56/130

killed in a battle that teaches

beautiful nonsense

Documents