contemplations of a rogue mystic

8/3/2019 Contemplations of a Rogue Mystic

1/68

Contemplationsof a

Rogue Mystic.

Dino Meurs


2/68

2010 Dino Meurs

Cover art 2009 by John Hart Studios and used by permission.

All rights reserved. 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.

I would like to thank my girlfriend CC for understanding my

mood swings while Im writing. When things are flowing, Imhappy but when things are going slow, I get frustrated. During

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

patience and understanding, I would be lost. Thank you for

putting up with me, honey.

I wish I could thank everyone who, through the conversations

weve had over the years, have helped in shaping this book. That

list would be at least a hundred pages and might not include

everyone. To the best of my knowledge, I have not directly

quoted anyone other than the citations I provide.

This is a work of creative nonfiction; the subject matter is

nonfiction; the talks, as they are depicted, never took place. Theyare put together with rewritten bits and pieces of things Ive said

online over the years.

Throughout my writing, you will run across the word -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


3/68


4/68

Opening Remarks.

>I have a question, Dino. You keep referring to yourself as a

rogue mystic. Why use a term with the negative connotations?

I use the term in the connotation of a person who has blazed

his own path.

1. Unorthodox and unpredictable: acting independently and using

unorthodox methods that are unpredictable and are likely to

cause trouble1

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 tobuild a working vocabulary to explain it to myself. It was quite a

few years between the initial experiences and my finding out

there was such a thing as mysticism. I will confess that was a

fairly confusing period - having these strange thoughts that I

could not put words to.

The frustrating part of this is that I cannot lay claim to any

one tradition and yet I find a certain amount of truth in each

tradition. I can yap in Zen terms, but Im not a Zennist. Although


5/68

I can sit here and talk in Taoist terminology, I did not follow a

Taoist sage. Sometimes I sound like a Western mystic but I

cannot call that my tradition as I have major differences with the

West in my image of -O-. While I agree with the Buddhists there

is no personal -O-, I do not believe it is a hindrance to talk about

-O- as if he exists. Nagarjuna is right when he says all

concepts are empty, but as we realize this emptiness, we must

also realize that we humans communicate through our concepts.

Our goal of communication is best approached with the attitude

of this is what it is likerather than this is what it is.

While Im absolutely convinced of the validity of my path,

Im not so convinced that I feel I must stand on a street corner

and tout it as the path for all people. What Im trying to

accomplish is to talk about why I feel my path is right for me.

The most I can do is share my thinking, the main reasons being

that it helps clarify my thoughts and perhaps promote a healthydialogue between those who have the same basic thoughts on the

matter. I may talk about knowledge being incomplete, another

may talk about doubt, and yet another may talk about the

apophatic approach; we are all talking about the same basic idea.


6/68

-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 sees 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.

>>One -O-image is as finite as any other one is and none should

be treated as Idols, for they point to the truth.>Are you willing to say that your -O-image is a pointer as well?

But 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


7/68

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 and 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. At times -O- is like

the stern father administering punishment to an errant child, but

that is not what -O- is. Sometimes -O- is like the loving mother

who kisses the boo boos away, but that isnt -O- either.

The main problem with theological discourse, in myopinion, is based on the concept Theology implies a Theos,

with Theos being defined as a Supernatural Being. 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 amistake. 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 things thatare said about-O- but that does not falsify whatever the reality


8/68

is. Is a theological image a representation of the Divine or is it a

representation 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.

if, for example, you have a window on which there is a finepainting 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.

2

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 concerningthe relationship; the universe is organic, cooperative, and the

mind vs. matter debate sources of analogy that do nothing more

than explain the impossible. Rather than pave the entire

countryside to protect their tender feet, the Hindu took to

wearing sandals and paying attention to the path ahead. Ancient

Eastern knowledge of the unity of the universe is a new

discovery of Western Science. The new story is that we arenature at its most self aware (As far as we know). We held the

belief that we were a different breed of animal whose workings


9/68

were totally unique. Genetic research gives validity to the ancient

Buddhist notion that all life is a variation of the same theme;

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 howthings 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, thecosmic 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. What this means is a history of the

universe becoming more aware of itself, from the viewpoint ofEarth. The eyes have often been labeled as the windows of the


10/68

universe - Western troubles spring, in part, from the preference

for stained glass windows. The Western attitude is one that

prefers a painting of the sun on the window rather than let the

actual sun shine through. Any truly spiritual person will take a

razor to the painting.

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

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

-O- sees 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 immerse myself in gnowing It is enough That He Is. Im

perfectly willing to let -O- be what -O- will be and not question

why things are this way, as I know if I could question him as to

Why?, his answer would be Why Not?

>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 meupside the head for screwing up or that she is a female when she


11/68

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.

>>This is why I am against the idea of -O- taking sides in a

war, for if -O- loves our neighbor as much as he loves us, does

he take sides in our squabbles?

>I never thought of it quite that way.

This has always been a sticking point to me for I never could

accept the claim that -O- was on our side in a conflict. Itseemed wrong to me then although I could not articulate what I

felt was wrong. Each of us is an avatar of -O-, making the idea

he takes sides rather absurd. He Loves each of us equally and if I

were to ascribe to the notion -O- were a physical being, I think

war makes him cry. As far as Im concerned, using the claim that

-O- is on our side in thisautomatically delegitimizes the cause.

To teach that -O- hates is blasphemous and should not betolerated with the silent treatment that implies condoning. -O-

loves us so much he gives us the freedom to obliterate it all if we

chose to do so; He would neither help nor hinder.


12/68

Reality is unity within duality.

Yin and Yang are complimentary aspects of a deeper

unknown rather than conflicting opposites. These are not static

relationships however, they are dynamic balances of growth and

retreat of the sides. Positive balances Negative, High completesLow, Right cooperates with Left, Outer is supported by Inner,

Rational is illuminated by Intuition, Order arises from Chaos,

Hard balances Soft. While the universe may be made up of

myriads of particles (Hard), the particles partake of the same

energy, just in different patterns. The same holds true for waves

(Soft), they are but different patterns of the same energy.

It makes no difference whether the event in question is aquark or a beam of red light, they both share the same basic

energy of the universe. These patterns are not in competition

with each other but in harmony. hard is true, soft is true, but,

neither one, in and of itself, is True. This is why I like using

the Yin Yang symbol, the curvature implies dynamic interplay

and the areas of opposite colors within each color implies that

nothing is purely one or the other. Each side of a duality is truebut truth is the innerreaction; there must be a buyer and a seller

for a sale to take place.

>>Reality is unity within dualityEach side of a duality is true

but Truth is the innerreaction

>You talk quite a bit about within but what about outside,

does that not go with the unity within duality?


13/68

The central mistake in metaphysical thinking is the idea that

ultimate reality is beyond. We are the surface, or the outside

if you will, looking inward. If metaphysics is beyond, why are

metaphysical truths thought of as deeper truths? We look at it

as being held together from the outside rather than holding

together from the inside, preferring the machine for the flower.

In order to discover what makes up an atom, we do not look

outward, but inward and the further inside we look, the less it

appears like a machine. To paraphrase Alan Watts, no matter

how finely we cut the grape, all we are going to see is a surface

and when we turn a line on its edge, we get a circle. We can yap

all we want to concerning the Yin and Yang sides of the issues

all we want without coming close to saying what the Tao is in

essence.

Yin is one aspect of reality, Yang is another aspect of

reality. Yin and Yang can be comprehended only in relation toeach other. The Tao is the source of both Yin and Yang. A

positive is defined by the counterexample of a negative. This is

This only because That is That. Being is known by

contrast with nonbeing. The spiritual is known through the

material. Thereis implied by Here.

SelfNoselfMaterialSpiritual

EmptinessSuchness

All things are fundamentally devoid of intrinsic reality as

separate entities because all things are expressions of the same

reality. In Taoist terminology, West is Yang, or concrete, while

East is Yin, or abstract. Western thought is guilty of the fallacy

of misplaced concreteness in that only the concrete is considered

and the East is guilty of the same in that the concrete is ignored.


14/68

Neither side is true in and of itself in the same manner that

neither Yin nor Yang is the Tao.

One area this is evident is in our -O-images. Let us look at

the basics of these -O-images as image rather than actuality.

Theological discourse comes in two flavors, positive and

negative.

Singular | Manifold

Exclusive | Inclusive

Personal | Apersonal

In one respect -O- is singular but the One is an expression of

the Many. He is singular in that there is nothing but -O-. He is

manifold in that there is nowhere he is not. It all depends on how

we choose to image him. He is exclusive and inclusive in the

same manner. He is personal in that is how we understand and

explain but the reality itself is not a person. No matter how wechoose to image him, we all talk about the root and ground of

being, which indicates -O- comes from the inside, as it were.

The one is not a reality that is outsideall this for the inside

and the outsideare but two sides of the same coin.


15/68

Reality is an ongoing cycle of nonbeing to being to nonbeing.

I have always 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 ourdescent 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.

>>It stands to reason that if it happened once, it can happen

again and it has happened before.

>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 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 and the

big bang is treated as an event will never be repeated. 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


16/68

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?

>>My complaint about Creationism My complaint about

Evolutionism

>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 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 DivineAbsence, 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 awaits 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 eachhuman 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 samething. Hinduism posits a soul that is individual; they just have a


17/68

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 timelessness and cyclic

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 nothold 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, there is

only nowhere. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, 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 seriesof Big Bangs/Big Crunches. Seeing as how time begins anew


18/68

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.

>>Panencarnation offers a new view of our relationship with the

universethe point is made that we are the universe becoming

alive and -O- becoming aware.

>This sounds like you are attempting to start a Faith based on theGaia 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 at what we all have in

common, rather than what we have in difference. I am alsointerested 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 universeto 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 notsomething imposed on it from the outside, but rather a symptom


19/68

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 body. The planet is a living, aware beingness whose

Self-awareness 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.

>>This whole concept of life and the universe as a one shot

thingie is very limiting.

>What do you mean?

Ego is nothing more than hypnotized nonego. I submit that

through the socialization process, we have become hypnotized

into an incomplete view of ourselves. From our earliestmemories, 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 methan 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


20/68

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

interested 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 systemwhere 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.

There 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 reallysaid something or whether it hasn't said something.

3


21/68

I realize the idea of multiple big bangs is conjecture at this

point in our scientific knowledge, but it makes more sense toassume 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 would be 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 ofreality to be the only one that ever will be.


22/68

For every action, there is a reaction.

The existence of Antimatter in the quantum level of this

Universe implies the existence of an Antiuniverse. The action

that brought about Yang Reality brought about Yin Reality. I

choose to call our Universe Yang as it is hard and impinges onour senses. (Matter here considered antimatter there?) Yang/Yin

Matter, Yang/Yin Life, Yang/Yin Mind, Yang/Yin Universe

[Including Yang/Yin Time.] Our death in the Yang Universe

gives rise to ourbirth in the Yin Universe and ourdeath in

the Yin Universe gives rise to ourbirth in the Yang Universe.

The Wheel of Life, symbolized by the areas of opposite colors in

Yin Yang Symbol, is the method whereby Life is recycledbetween the Yang and Yin Universes.

Doing good brings about receiving good while doing bad

elicits receiving bad. If you wish to be respected, treat others

with respect and if you do not wish to be treated as a mere

object, do not treat others as mere objects. This is not limited to

interpersonal affairs, it is to be extended to the entire universe.

We cannot live without eating - it is an unfortunate truism thatour food comes from once living plants and animals. Give thanks

to these by preparing and eating your meal in a healthy manner

and with gratitude. The Earth gives us our body and provides us

with what we need for life, we should treat the planet with the

respect it is due.

Doing good is reward in and of itself. There is no need to do

good for reward nor is there need to not to do good so as to avoid

punishment. The Golden Rule of all faiths is a guideline that


23/68

shows how to do good - it matters not if one follows the positive

or the negative reading as doing good and not doing evil is the

same behavior.

At all times, be the best person you can be. No matter where

you are or what you are doing, give it your best shot. If you are a

President and C.E.O. of a major Corporation or a janitor in that

Corporation, be the best you can be. If you work as a ditch

digger, dig the best you can. You cheat yourself when you settle

for doing less than your absolute best. You cheat others by being

less than your best because it shows them it is OK to not shoot

for the stars.

>>The action that brought about Yang Reality brought about Yin

Reality. I choose to call our Universe Yang as it is hard and

impinges on our senses.

>This almost makes sense but it is unlikely to ever being proven.

This is one of those act as if type of thingies. I agree it

may never be proven, but it is a good point to contemplate. There

is a certain Yin Yang symmetry in the idea in that bad actions

here would result in a less than ideal life there and good

actions there would result in a good life here. Perhaps we

reap the rewards or punishments for our actions in Yang reality

while we exist in Yin reality and vice versa. It would behoove usto good in this reality so we can continue by doing good in that

reality, so we can continue doing good in this reality, and so on.

Suppose, for example, our death in Yang reality is our

birthin Yin reality and vice versa. It would go a long way to

providing an explanation for memories of past lives and the

occasional communication with our dearly departed. It could be

that we are in some form of contact with our loved ones in that

reality in the same manner those in thatreality are in contact


24/68

with us. Perhaps the Wheel of life moves us back and forth in an

analogy of the Conservation Laws.

(From a discussion about not being attached to our desires.)

>>Doing good brings about receiving good while doing bad

elicits receiving bad ... This is not limited to interpersonal affairs,

it is to be extended to the entire universe.

>But, Dino, is there not a risk of losing incentive to achieve great

things, without desire?

I shoot for the stars in everything I do because I'm not

attached to the desire for success and not attached to the desire to

avoid failure. My incentive is to try my best. If my attempt fails,

I figure out what I did wrong, adjust my methodology, and try

again. If I succeed, I figure out what I did right and try to climb

higher.

One can achieve greatness when one is not afraid to fail in

the attempt.

(From a discussion on rational and emotive based behavior.)

>>Life is a balance of living in the mind and living in the heart.

When we let one dominate, we are less than fully human.

>I submit it is imperative that one subordinates the heart to themind else we end up in trouble.

The balance I refer to is where neither mind nor heart are

subordinated. Mind keeps heart from being unthinking - heart

keeps mind from being unfeeling.

>How does a person make a judgment call about moralbehavior? heartand mindmust work as a unity for a person

to be moral.


25/68

A fully integrated person does not need a reason to act

morally, they simply cannot engage in immoral behavior. heartand mind do not work as a unity, they are a unity. The

separation is a linguistic, not an existential, state of affairs.

heart | mind

(Linguistic)

heartmind

(existential)

>How does one discriminate between what is good and bad if

neither heartnor mindare in control?

If there is no choice but to behave in a positive manner, why

bother with discriminating between good and bad? I cannot

commit murder, for example, but that is not because my heart

tells me not to nor that my mind tells me not to, it comes from

the very center of my being, which is prior to either.

Listening to the heart and listening to the mind are reflective

thinking. Reflective thinking is a function of the ego.


26/68

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 youthere would be no I, without Ithere would no

you, and without -O- there would be neither of us.

>>Without youthere would be no I, without Ithere would

no you, and without -O- there would be neither of us.

>You have said before that we have a mistaken sense of identity.

Im not real sure I understand what you are talking about.

The failure to recognize the unity of 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 personslife, there is nothing before or

after death, do the best with what you have. In a perfect example

of confusing the map with the territory, we have forgotten that


27/68

Persona, (from which came the word Person) is a mask worn

by the ancient 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 as the 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 competentactor refuses to be typecast, -O- does not ride a single vehicle but

rides in many at the same instant.

The trouble is with the way the issue is viewed; we

concentrate on each particle and ignore the resulting wave

pattern. We have even 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 ofignoring 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 inthe particle only image of consciousness - it allows us to keep


28/68

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, theuniverse 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 mindof -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, theripples forming patterns on an otherwise still surface.


29/68

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 issimilar 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

predestine of -O-splan, 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 inwhich -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.

Another way to view the particle aspect of consciousness is

as a probability wave, neither existing nor not existing, thepattern dissipates in one place and the pattern reforms in another


30/68

place. It is not a one for one trade of bodies; consciousness arises

whenever the conditions are conducive. There is a very strong

probability that the identity that goes by the handle Dino, which

could be said to be a reincarnation of me will not exist again. The

energy that was me is reformed into parts of more than one me,

like particle creation in high energy physics. If there is anything

to be afraid of, it seems to me that eternal life and total recall

would be the prime candidates. It would be like an on without an

off for contradistinction. To have a constant on would be like an

8-Track tape recorder that was constantly recording, but without

the use of the erase head.

>>As Icons of -O-, it is up to each of us to let His light shine

through without concern for getting anything in return; It Does

Not Matter how we get treated in return, for that is the other

persons karma to work out. We honor the -O-head within others

when we traverse the path of compassion for our fellow humanbeings.

>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. Ive said many times that we have more in

common than we do in difference and we waste too much time

and energy in 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 upconcentrating more on the brutes than the saints.


31/68

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 each year telling us what to wear and what to

buy. As far as Im concerned, 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 ourhighest.

No one human is better at her core than any other human is

at his. Humanity is neither African, European, nor American in

culture. We are neither all male nor are we all female as a

species, and as a people we are neither all sinners nor are we all

saints. Although all people have to eat to survive, we have

different diets based on pretty much the same ingredients. I dontknow 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 thatdoes not mean one should go around acting as if one was -O-


32/68

incarnate. 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

in a sacrilegious manner for the mystical experience is a

humbling event. All faiths teach humbleness as a goal 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

so-called 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 AlanWatts, 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 other 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. However it came about, it hasbeen around so long that 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 Mindis used generically in the East and individually

in the West, where Ego or Spirit are other terms for this

illusion. What is this illusion?


33/68

Perhaps the best analogy 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.

In this room 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 onestongue 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 loweranimals 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.


34/68

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 to imagine 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 ouractions, 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 theterritory. 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 absurd 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


35/68

are subject to are statistical probabilities of energy level

interrelationships. Subatomic particles and minds are what must

be if we are going to understand what is going on.


36/68

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 aparticular 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.

>>Spirituality is the hub while science consists of the spokes andreligion functions as the rim on the wheel of reality.

>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


37/68

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 Roman Catholicism just as much as it needs Zen

Buddhism.

>>looking for one world faith, yet they miss the point of what

The One Faith is, and that is -O- is and the rest is commentary.

>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 idolizes 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) ismore 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 asa Lutheran Christian, our pal over there that is a Zen Buddhist,


38/68

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. Petes 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.

So, to make a long story short, I am not doing what I

criticize others for doing. 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 weworship 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.

>>The only time I use Christianity and False in the same

sentence is when I talk about how it would be false if I were to

follow said path.

>If you believe so strongly in your position, why do you notattempt to convert others to your POV?

Im not looking to convert others (Except those who preach

a Theology of Hate), Imjust an old hippie that happens to enjoy

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 isJewish and Im happy for her. It would be rather rude of me to


39/68

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 thatpath 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

natives feet. The world is far too crowded with believers that are

all surface and no depth and I have no desire to contribute.

>>The main purpose of religion, in my mind anyway, is that it isa unifying force 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.

>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. As far as Im concerned, the vast 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


40/68

vote Republican just like some Americans are Buddhist, some

vote Democratic just like some are Lutheran. There are

Americans who prefer Chinese cuisine and vote Independent,

some who prefer Down Home Southernand 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, although 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 thistype would definitely punch holes in the Theology of Hate and

help promote a Theology of Loving Tolerance. This would go a

long way towards 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, that weall 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 thebeauties of the whole shebang of human spirituality and in one


41/68

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 isnot 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 mysticalexperiences 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.)


42/68

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. There are times one must discuss -O- in the

Feminine aspect, requiring one to talk of the Goddess - I suppose

at those times you could call me a Celtic Taoist. 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 youhad 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 realfrustrating 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

Authorityis sure to raise its ugly head.

>>You learn from those who went before and follow a map, as it

were. With the traditional approach, the question is How do Iget there? while my question is more like How do I show

others how to get here?


43/68

>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 a map, it would have to be a three

dimensional holographic image in order to show all the

commonalities we share and it 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 variousdenominations, 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 Roman Catholicism may be a

different branch on the tree of Christianity, but it is still part of

the same trunk as the Southern 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

the campfire stories about -O-s Nature. A spot on a mapindicates 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


44/68

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

thereare 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. It all stems from our view of the

metaphysical as beyond, as I talk about elsewhere. Heaven,

Nirvana, Moksha, Satori, or whatever you want to call it, is an

internal state of mind, not some place in some outer

dimension. 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 draw a map, Im more interested in compiling a

thesaurus. 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. This isespecially true in Christian thought, where the argument is

limited to Believers against Atheists, which are but two of the

many participants in the discussions at St. Petes Bar and Grille.

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 a wrongheaded approach as far as Im concerned.Spirituality should be a uniter in that we believe, not a divider by


45/68

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 only this is what God Is.

The absurdity, in my thinking, 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.


46/68

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 onecan 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


47/68

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 theprecept?

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 do not think it is appropriate to

include me in a blanket 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 onespanties in a knot

over something that is no longer the case.


48/68

We need to leave her at the river, as it were. 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. You see, hanging onto all this anger from

the past causes more problems than it is worth, as 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 theroot 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 tasks 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.) Iknow 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


49/68

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 asa badge of honor. There have been situations in my past that

have been less than enjoyable but I see no reason to bitch 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 now that an earlier

relationship was far from congenial where 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 thesituation, all it means is that one should let go of the anger, lest

one becomes the anger. Think about it, what good does it do to

still be 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 needs to make the best of the situation by living in

the here and now. It is more honorable to work on peacefully


50/68

resolving an issue than it is to keep up the traditions of anger and

revenge. It is more important to working on preventing slavery

than it is to be angry at 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 forrevenge 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 even 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


51/68

having all that adrenaline in my system. 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 plus 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, withrare 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 ispossible. 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.


52/68

All knowledge is incomplete.

There is always more that we dont know than what we do

know. The beauty of the search for knowledge is that it is a never

ending quest. I doubt if anyone has really considered what it

would be like if we knew everything - it wou

contemplations of a rogue mystic

Documents