The End of Journeys

Innovation is the spark which brings wise traditions to life

2008-12-07T10:53:00.000-08:00

Ramanuja was a brilliant educator...There is a story about him and a teacher that he studied with. The teacher gave him a sacred mantra which was so powerful supposed to take him to heaven. The teacher gravely cautioned him not to share the mantra with anyone - it was not to be given out indiscriminately and doing that carried the apparent penalty of going to hell. Ramanuja promptly went away and taught the mantra to hundreds of people. The teacher was furious. He demanded to know what the hell Ramanuja thought he was doing. Ramanuja simply replied that if one man had to go to hell to liberate hundreds of others then it was the most empowering use of the situation. The teacher was speechless. Great men are always great innovators and selfless (as far as is practically possible).

Having seen up close the education systems of several countries around the planet...I know an innovator when I see one. Ron Clark is a wonderful example:

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=qc9TrHlqq_I
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=LOxHZVx7XHs&feature=related
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x56m62_ron-clark-story-2006_shortfilms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Clark

India needs a revolution in education. The law here says that a school cannot be a business. Absolutely stupid! Every school is a business...if you don't get the business side right its very very hard to get decent education. Of course you can go to an extreme on this and there are of course lots of expensive mediocre schools. But in India the mass of schools have teachers who are not paid even close to a dignified wage. That MUST change. Now there is a challenge.... Something tells me this is the next evolutionary wave in the work that Mohammmed Yunus pioneered - taking micro-finance to education.

If we don't value our teachers...our world is not a very intelligent place. Which is more often than not what it sadly is.

Some background on Ramanuja from Wikipedia:

His life:

From a young age, his intelligence and ability to comprehend highly abstract philosophical points were legendary. He took initiation from Yadavaprakasa, a renowned Advaitic scholar. Though his new guru was highly impressed with his analytical ability, he was quite concerned by how much emphasis Ramanuja placed on bhakti. After frequent clashes over interpretation, Yadavaprakasa decided the young Ramanuja was becoming too much of a threat and plotted a way to kill him. However, Ramanuja's cousin Govinda Bhatta (a favourite of Yadavaprakasa) discovered the plot and helped him escape. An alternative version is that one of Yadavaprakasa's students plotted to kill Ramanuja as a means of pleasing their teacher, but Sri Ramanuja escaped in the afore-mentioned manner. Yadavaprakasa was horrified when learnt about the conspiracy. Ramanuja returned to Yadavaprakasa's tutelage but after another disagreement, Yadavaprakasa asked him to leave. Ramanuja's childhood mentor, Kancipurna, suggested he meet with Kancipurna's own guru, Yamunacharya. After renouncing the life of a house-holder, Ramanuja travelled to Srirangam to meet an aging Yamunacharya, a philospoher of the remergent Vishishtadvaita school of thought. Yamunacharya had died prior to Ramanuja's arrival. Followers of Ramanuja relate the legend that three fingers of Yamunacharya's corpse were curled. Ramanuja saw this and understood that Yamunacharya was concerned about three tasks. Ramanuja vowed to complete these--

* Teach the doctrine of Saranagati (surrender) to God as the means to moksha.
* Write a Visishtadvaita Bhashya for the Brahma Sutras of Vyasa which had previously been taught orally to the disciples of the Visishtadvaita philosophy.
* That the names of Paraśara, the author of Vishnu Purana, and saint Śaţhakopa should be perpetuated.

Legend goes that on hearing the vow, the three fingers on the corpse straightened. Ramanuja accepted Yamunacharya as his Manasika Acharya and spent 6 months being introduced to Yamunacharya's philosophy by his disciple, Mahapurna although he did not formally join the community for another year. Ramanuja's wife followed very strict brahminical rules of the time and disparaged Mahapurna's wife as being of lower subcaste. Mahapurna and his wife left Srirangam. Ramanuja realized that his life as a householder was interfering with his philosophical pursuit as he and his wife had differing views. He sent her to her parent's house and renounced family and became a sanyasin. Ramanuja started travelling the land, having philosophical debates with the custodians of various Vishnu temples. Many of them, after losing the debates, became his disciples. Ramanuja standardized the liturgy at these temples and increased the standing and the membership of the srivaishnava school of thought. He wrote his books during this time. Ramanuja, who was a Vaishnavite, might have faced threats from some Shaivite Chola rulers who were religiously intolerant . Ramanuja and a few of his followers moved to the Hoysala kingdom of Jain king Bittideva and queen Shantala Devi in Karnataka. Bittideva converted to Srivaishanavism, in some legends after Ramanuja cured his daughter of evil spirits, and took the name Vishnuvardhana meaning "one who grows the sect of Vishnu". However, the queen and many of the ministers remained Jain and the kingdom was known for its tolerance. Ramanuja re-established the liturgy in the Cheluvanarayana temple in Melukote In Mandya District and Vishnuvardhana re-built it and also built other Vishnu temples like Chennakesava Temple and Hoysaleswara Temple.

The setting of his life:

By the 5th century, the South Indian religious scene was diverse, with popular religion existing alongside Vedic sacrifice and non-Vedic traditions like Buddhism and Jainism. Indeed, the title character of the sixth century Tamil Buddhist epic Manimekalai is advised at one point to study the various Hindu schools of philosophy, such as Sankhya and Vaisheshika as well as Buddhism, Ajivika, Cārvāka, and Jainism. It was in this context that fears of a Buddhist or Jain takeover spurred a large Hindu revival that reached its peak in the 7th century and continued nearly into the 2nd millennium.

The popular aspects of this revival took the shape of several mystical and passionate bhakti movements, represented on the Vaishnavite side by the twelve alvars. The alvars came from a variety of social strata; their ranks include shudras and one woman. The intense devotionalism of their poetry and insistence that caste and sex are no barrier to a relationship with the Divine is uncharacteristic of classical Vedic thought, which laid a strong emphasis on the performance of the social and religious duties proper to one's place in the social structure. Some of these were collected into a definitive canon known as the Nālāyira Divya Prabandha, or "Four Thousand" Divine Composition, by Nathamuni in the 10th century, and came to be seen as a source of revelation equal in authority to the Vedas in the Śrīvaiṣṇava community.

On the philosophical side, this period saw the rise of the Vedanta school of philosophy, which focused on the elucidation and exegesis of the speculative and philosophical Vedic commentaries known as the Upanishads. The Advaita, or non-dualist interpretation of Vedanta was developed in this time by Adi Shankara and later by Mandana Mishra. It argued that the Brahman presented in the Upanishads is the static and undifferentiated absolute reality, and that the ultimately false perception of difference is due to avidya, or ignorance. Sri Adi Shankara was regarded one of the most profound scholars and preached to uphold the basic tenets of Vedic philosophy.

The goal of proving the Vedantic legitimacy of the popular conception of a personal deity and a genuine personal identity essentially characterizes Ramanuja's project, and the Advaitin school presents a natural object for his polemics. It is this synthesis between the classical Sanskrit writings and the popular Tamil poetry that is the source of one of the names of Ramanuja's system: Ubhaya Vedānta, or "Vedanta of both kinds."

Happiness versus the Corporatocracy

2008-11-05T13:39:00.000-08:00

Today was an important day. Senator Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. I'm white and I grew up with a black sister and a family who passionately believed in human rights. My parents helped Chilean political refuges fleeing the insanity of General Pinochet to find a home in England. They had arrived on a ship into Liverpool when I was a little boy. They were warm-hearted people, educated and penniless. Hernan was a highly respected lawyer. One of his clients was a general in the army and, luckily for Hernan and his wife, the general was fond of him. He came to Hernan's office one day and told Hernan to leave on a bus for Peru with his wife that night or he would most likely be imprisoned or dead the next morning (for being a liberal). Good people who had been betrayed by their own country. They were victims of a military coup that had been sponsored and helped by the CIA and the top levels of the US government:

"American media in general ignored completely the role that the American government had in the crimes of not just the coup, not just the reign of terror which Pinochet's secret police extended around the South American continent and across the globe—including the worst terrorist act on U.S. soil prior to 9/11, the assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Karpen Moffitt in 1976 in Washington, D.C.—but also multiple attempts to overthrow the democratic government of Chile in the years prior to the coup. These efforts were coordinated from the very top of the American government, by President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger."

Ethan Heitner

The world is a big place full of real estate and wilderness (which is also real estate in the eyes of the profit-minded) and it is also full of small powerful elite groups of people very focused on controlling who controls big patches of that real estate and wilderness and what they can get out of it to improve their lot. Abraham Lincoln once said that the greatest art of the future would be making the most of a small plot of land. I don't think he meant it in quite the same, almost tribal mentality, that the corporatocracy world views the same philosophy. Maybe he foresaw, like Malthus, the consequences of a coming time - a time like today - when there would be almost 7 billion people on the planet. A crowded very challenging time when the competition for resources and power takes center stage. We would be wise to listen to the wisdom of the Iroquois and think and act soundly:

"In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." From the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy

The Founding Fathers of America were a fresh and welcome moment in human history. They believed in a government of the people, for the people and by the people. They were amazing men. Jefferson even made his own version of the Bible - he went through it and wrote down every passage where Jesus was quoted speaking in the Bible. Jesus may be many things - and I am not one to get into the politics of Christianity or religion in general - but one thing can be said of Jesus - his message of selflessness, forgiveness and love is a powerful and compelling one. A man with such meditations in his mind framed the Declaration of Independence.

It focused on individual rights and the right of revolution. Abraham Lincoln, beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, provided a reinterpretation of the Declaration. He stressed that the unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" were not limited to the white race. "Jefferson and those who shared his conviction" created a document with "continuing usefulness" with a "capacity to convince and inspire living Americans." The invocation by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address of the Declaration of Independence is perhaps the best take on Jefferson's famous preamble:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes, the birth of the United States was a very welcome thing. At the same time, not one treaty made with the original custodians of that land - the Native American Indians -was ultimately honored. And they were truly people who took care of the Earth with responsibility and affection. Instead one of the worst cases of genocide in history was ruthlessly and systematically carried out.

The Enlightenment brought us Descartes and Newton and a mechanistic world view that heralded great scientific change for the world. "I think therefore I am," was that time's ode to the magnificence and power of the intellect. But thought and reason alone are not the pinnacle of man's potential (indeed thought can be a prison and a cruel master). Thought can build powerful machines and create elaborate and carniving ways to conceal the truth and blind justice. It can do terrible things in the name of vested interest. But only the heart can make use of thought with any wisdom. Reason married with insight and compassion all attuned and in harmony is the pinnacle of our potential.

The President of America is a powerful man and an inspiring leader can bring about important changes with the people behind him. But let us not forget that the world is full of armies poised to attack and defend. Let us not forget that the nuclear submarine - one of the most expensive technological creations of mankind - is a living definition of something that has no creative purpose whatsoever. It is not productive in any way. It's goal is solely destructive. Of course, there is that argument that the nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines that carry them are acting as keepers of the peace by preventing wars - and in a way that is an important truth. But we still miss the ultimate point. Where there is defense there is a sense of lack, a vulnerability. There is also justification for attack. But we are not the body. We are not the little identities that we assign to the body. We are something much vaster than all of that and we belittle our selves when we do not see it. As the Buddha said the greatest of all taints is the taint of ignorance.

The word "art" comes from latin. It means skill. In that sense anything that we give our full attention and heart to can become a skill. Lincoln predicted that the greatest art of the future would be making the most of a small plot of land. With a planet way overloaded and stressed for resources because of the demands of approaching 7 billion people it is easy to see his point. Lincoln's statement is also a challenge to us. It challenges us to live with attention; to live in such a way that the heart leads the mind. It challenges us to make a fair world.

Today was an important day because a black man became the President of the United States of America. In fact he is a black man and a white man. He is the child of two races - one, a persecutor and the other, the persecuted. The world's tribes have had a long and bitter history with their neighbors and we are a long way - collectively at least - from living the truths that Jefferson held to be self-evident: "that all men are created equal." But today was an important step. This does not mean we are all equal in ability or possibility but we are all equal in intrinsic value. Every seed of potential, nurtured with love and care and wisdom, is worthy and contributes to the needs of the whole.

When Nelson Mandela came to power he brought his angry and frightened people together in unity by bringing both victims with grievances (blacks and whites) and their persecutors (blacks and whites) together to find common ground. He created a special court for this very purpose. It was not a court that dealt out punishments. But it was a court that focused on airing negativity and anger with the explicit goal of replacing it with forgiveness, healing and reconciliation.

I wonder if there would be so much terrorism and war - economic and physical - in this world if man had learned to lead the mind by the heart? The solutions to the world's problems do not ultimately lie in the hands of governments and presidents - though they can do a lot (especially if they humbly follow their mandate as servants of the people). Communism and capitalism are not going to change man deeply fundamentally profoundly. Only humanism has the capacity to do that.The real solutions lie in the hands of individuals. Individuals who are interested in meaning and happiness. Individuals whose minds are liberated from the shackles of vested interest, prejudice and tribalism (nationality, racism, xenophobia etc); whose consciousness actually sees the grave and very human responsibility of taking care of life on this planet as is fitting of our role as its present custodians and guardians. The flowering of such a mind only comes about in the right atmosphere - in an atmosphere where education can transform and sculpt in the right way.

Michelangelo once said, when asked how he created David, " I took away all that was not David." That's what education means. "Ex-ducat/ducare." To pull out what is within.To pull out what is potential. Within man there is a potential monster and a potential saint. Whatever your job is - whether you are a scientist or a teacher or whatever - is irrelevant. Only your example counts. You can be a monster or a saint whatever your position or status. The highest refinement of education is to bring out the highest compassion within us - as well as our unique abilities and channel them towards productive and creative ends. That means no nuclear submarines. Imagine if we really made productive and creative use of the world's armies! If used wisely what outstanding humanitarian works could be carried out! Imagine if we could find a way as individuals to share this planet with fairness and affection...without being blighted by extreme greed (I concede that lesser greed can be good for bolstering economic systems) the divisive forces of '"us" and "them"'-mythologies and prejudice.

Yes, it is a wonderful day for democracy. And there are many reasons to celebrate and cherish this moment. But it is also a good moment to reflect that the only meaningful change is change within individuals. And that a new and enlightened world order will only come about when people, to paraphrase the last words of the Buddha, really really do their best. Lincoln has made clear the challenge. To make good use of a small plot of land (and I have attempted to put it in its right context today here). Jefferson made clear the goal: happiness and liberty.

Would Gandhi be a good example of the kind of logic that might bring it about? When asked if he wanted to bring about independence to India and oust the British he said naturally that was what he wanted but outcomes are difficult to nail, and even when we have the best of intentions - nothing is in our hands. The only thing in our hands is how we go about doing things. Gandhi said his way was non-violence and he lived what he said. As the Course in Miracles says: "In my defenselessness my safety lies." It is not easy or difficult to give up the illusions of ignorance nor is it easy or difficult to subdue the taints and mis-perceptions that control our minds. It is not about "easy or difficult." It's about the resolution and the determination to find a way to do exactly that. A transformation in consciousness is what it is about. And it starts and ends within the individual. Within you and I.

Communities that foster service as the highest goal and who nurture individual worth and tolerance know that humanity's problems cannot be solved externally.

Margaret Mead put it all into perspective:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

We need a new yoga of economics. But a new economics will only come about with a transformation of consciousness for economics is, after all, just a map of our collective motivations. The streams and rivers of money in this world and the intentions that push them along are like the nerve system of the body of humanity. If the decision-making Central processing unit is in harmony then the nervous grid or network works well; it distributes power and wealth fairly throughout. When our intentions are wise and they are applied wisely and effectively the world has the potential to become a sane place.

The consciousness of the whole is affected by every thing we do. And in the end all we have to look to is the example of our actions. When we are ruled by the mind we react and perpetuate ignorance. When the heart leads a sane mind we act decisively (in alignment with Life Forces) and from another level of consciousness. Yes. Obama is a wonderful symbol of what might be in a world that desperately needs a different way to go forward. But at the same time the old human problems remain. We can judge and alienate or we can encourage as the Buddha did: "Do your best." Like the Buddha we must extend compassion and we must not suffer the fool within us (or those outside of us) gladly - we must go to the very root of ignorance and uproot it courageously and lovingly. As custodians of the Earth we must outgrow the tribal mentalities that keep us at loggerheads.

The last President of America and the last Prime Minister of Britain lead the world into an unprovoked and unjustified war; war which was really about the geopolitics of oil. The rhetoric that they were bringing freedom is not even worthy of comment for freedom was the last thing in their minds. Control and power was what it was really about. As a race we now face the colossal challenges of overpopulation and the environmental strain it brings. The clash of ideologies and power that produces terrorism, not to mention the horrible dictatorships and cruel economic disparities that are to be found around the world, are all things that demand our attention. With prudence, skill and heart we can conquer all these problems.

The American poet Carl Sangburg wrote in his introduction to The Family of Man:

There is only one man in the world
and his name is All Men.

Whether you are born in China or France or Palestine...the mind of man is no different. Fear and ignorance is not Russian or American. It's universal. It does not matter where you are from or what God you believe in. What matters is that you and I outgrow our fear and conditioning; what matters is that we somehow come to see our essential sameness (for our differences amount to very little) and find the treasures of consciousness and meaning that lie within. When we live with that as our focus, unity and peace are inevitable.

The only world that is worth celebrating, the only world that is going to have any meaning is one without borders; one which unites and cooperates as one family. You don't see borders from space. From space you see a shining jewel in the vastness of the void. Ours is the space age - the age of One family. The only borders in truth are in the mind. And with each of us the responsibility lies to pull them down. To see the good in every one, to make the most of our potential... to be responsible for our own small plot of Earth.

2008-10-24T11:19:00.000-07:00

The days are dying now.
Ebbing, flowing,
Passing out of fashion.
Gleaming with the only promise worth keeping.

What remains at the end of the day...
when the shadows descend on the twilight world?

Languages take time to learn.
Horizons stretch to far away places.
The animals leave footprints.

Options are many.
Yet only two paths.
One leads deep into the forest
of dead ends.

The other is a mesh of scaffolding.
In the end
nothing remains of the scaffolding.

The senses agitate the mind,
forever delivering fresh desires to cloud perception.

Can you build a life that stands for something yet does not leave a trail?
Each new dawn beckons with silent suggestion.

Bliss

2008-10-24T10:56:00.000-07:00

'When we are active and truly enthusiastic about our lives and jobs, we are often much happier. When individuals don't enjoy their jobs or aren't pleased with some facet of their life, they tend to have less energy; they gain weight, can't get sound sleep and experience lethargy. When we engage in activities that we enjoy and have an occupation that excites us, we feel beeter about ourselves, have greater self-esteem, wake up energized, laugh a lot more, and live longer. Having enthusiasm in our lives can be self-sustaining and affect our outlook more than we realise.'
Ron Clark high school teacher

Life takes care

2008-10-24T08:40:00.000-07:00

Tara Singh once asked Krishnamurti does life take care.

Krishnamurti replied, "Yes, but only when you COMPLETELY let go."

What does it mean to completely let go?

Maybe it means to be able to live without an agenda, without fear...with a mind open to insight.

Monsoon child

2008-10-24T02:44:00.000-07:00

in the darkness
alone
with the memory of everything

the land is old beneath
the soil accomodates the shifting centuries

freed from the lasoo of the past
we're nothing.
nothing with very high expectations
nothing without passion

the pitter patter aqua night
rain comes falling
washing problems into the thick earth
I lie still; watchful for the kiss of sleep

softly like a february morning
you see the sea-mist rise
heaven and hell are not the end of the road. they are the opposite sides of the road...we wander from side to side along the way...

the road is a flat strip.
after roads came runways
..planes taking off.

We must take off;
...off the heavy masks deceiving us
In transcendence levity is everything.
Then follows the light

Intelligence operates like a happy virus

2008-10-17T10:43:00.000-07:00

Thought is not intelligent.

I suddenly had this conception that intelligence, in a way, is like a happy virus. A virus is very simple (like intelligence) and it has transcription reading abilities - it can read the stuff of thought (which is very complicated) and find out what is relevant and what is not (a virus immediately on entering the cell makes a beeline for the nucleus and the genetic material - the heart of the matter).

A very simple thing enters a very complex field and somehow reads it and if effective brings about a profound change in the way the system is run. In truth, viruses don't generally spread happiness -they are very good at spreading pain and misery and yes they completely change the structure and wiring of the system in which they exist. But as a metaphor the happy virus makes a lot of sense - a virus that brings about healing and happiness and sanity is - metaphorically at least - intelligence. Of course, one is not talking about intellect - which is often a very dull and blunt instrument. One is talking about intelligence - which is powered by insight and vision.

If you have struggled in business this will make you feel much better :)

2008-10-17T03:41:00.000-07:00

The story begins in the early 1950s when a bright young geologist named Eugene Shoemaker paid a visit to Meteor Crater in Arizona. Today Meteor Crater is the most famous impact site on Earth and a popular tourist attraction. In those days, however, it didn't receive mane visitors and was still often referred to as Barringer Crater after a wealthy mining engineer named Daniel M.Barringer who had staked a claim on it in 1903. Barringer believed that the carter had been formed by a ten-million-ton meteor, heavily freighted with iron and nickel, and it was his confident expectation that he would make a fortune digging it out. Unaware that the meteor and everything in it would have been vapourized on impact, he wasted a fortune, and the next twenty-six years, cutting tunnels that yielded nothing.

Success

2008-10-16T03:45:00.000-07:00

People who are unwilling to risk failure are not capable of achieving big successes. The careers of the inventor Thomas Edison and the comedian Charlie Chaplin serve as good examples. Without Thomas Edison, we might still be reading in the dark today. But you know that Edison discovered the lightbulb after a thousand different attempts? When asked what he had learned from those one thousand mistakes, Edison responded that he found one thousand ways in which a lightbulb could not be made. During his early days in London, people threw things at Charlie Chaplin to make him off the stage. Would we be enjoying the starring film roles of this famous comedian today if he had taken those audiences' reactions to heart and stopped pursing his dream to become an actor? Learning to cope with failure makes you strong enough to view every defeat as another step toward success.

Education and Writing

2008-10-15T22:03:00.000-07:00

The most valuable of all education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do, when it has to be done, whether you like it or not.

Aldous Huxley

Writers write to influence their readers, their preachers, their auditors, but always, at bottom, to be more themselves.

Aldous Huxley

Thoughts on a balanced life

2008-10-15T10:54:00.000-07:00

What happens to the flow of thought and life to make us dip down into depression? The Buddha sort a reason for suffering. He found the source in the mind and the solution lay in a very disciplined mind.

Some thoughts follow on how to avoid being sad and negative:

1. Develop interests: "You are what your deep, driving desire is. As your desire is, so is your will. As your will is, so is your deed. As your deed is, so is your destiny." Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

2. Identify and Fix your personal problems

3. When you complain, cry, talk of sad feelings, or discuss problems, your friends and loved ones probably respond with sympathy and tender loving care. Unfortunately, these loving responses reward and help maintain the depressive behaviors. Some friends or family even take over chores for a depressed person who stays in bed or asks for help. Again, this rewards the passive or dependent behavior. Perhaps you reward yourself when you drown in negative thoughts or self-pity. Many depressed people eat, spend money excessively, abuse addictive substances, or have sex without love to feel better. Eliminate these and any other subtle rewards for depressive behavior.

BUT - also remember that talking through your problems with loving friends is also healthy if you do it in the right way. Bottling up frustration and anger is not healthy at all.

4. Exercise

5. Eat right

6. Sleep enough

7. Don't compare yourself with others.

You have a unique talent that no one else has and a unique way of expressing it. Find out how you can use that wisely.

8. Meditate - Keep the bowl of the mind empty...don't clutter it with the noise of the old. That way there is space for the new.

9. Pranayama - without breath you have nothing

10. Find ways to give things to people that will inspire them (that takes some creative thinking but builds strong and meaningful friendships).

11. Wherever possible avoid the news - if you want to know what's happening in the world The Economist has a very good view of the world. But the view that is most important is the one created by your attitude (to both the good and bad things that befall you).

12. Find ways to work and live in which you are not dependent on another and when you feel you are and you don't have that person to rely on - then think creatively about how to do things differently. Empowering yourself by finding ways around the impossible builds self-esteem.

The only Symbol that makes sense today

2008-10-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

I read once in a book on Tibetan Buddhism that life is infinite and every culture has attempted to draw a symbolic map of that infinite field and our place in it - and each map is called a monad. There may be many cultures all with different monads or symbolic maps, but they all point to something which lies beyond what can be described. Any monadic symbol is only as valuable as the degree of faith an individual has invested in the symbol. And because of the nature of human consciousness some symbols are going to resonate for you while others won't. Some people get moved by Hanuman, others by Christ...still others by Spinoza's God. So there is no universal symbol. In the end it's not the symbol that is important anyway - the important thing is the transcendent experience it points to.

Mankind, up until recently, has been a spread out bunch of (often warring) tribes all looking for meaning in the universe. Somehow language developed for communication and with it came the collective unconscious/collective mind (which was there in animals but on a much more primitive and instinctive level). And with the development of the collective unconscious/collective mind (society) came the subconscious (individual mind) which threw up all kinds of symbols to the conscious mind in man's search for meaning. And the web of those symbols gave us dreams and myths. A myth is a society's dream and a dream is an individual's myth. Since the dawn of time we have looked to the symbols of our dreams and myths (for Beethoven his relationship to his art was his relationship to God) to point to the deeper truths (which of course are things which cannot be defined for they are too vast and so defy description - the description the symbol is never the thing itself). But until recently those symbols have not necessarily been universal. In the West for example an owl represents wisdom, yet in certain cultures (China, Egypt, India) the symbolic meaning of an owl is associated with death. It was revered as being the guardian of the after-life - a highly respected emblem indeed, but at the same time, for many it became a negative symbol.

Many symbols have great power - the Christian cross symbolizes the power of forgiveness - that life is something eternal bigger than the illusion of the body....The Aum Symbol (Amen sounds suspiciously similar - no?) in Buddhism and Hinduism relates to the the Eternal Syllable. According to the Mandukya Upanishad, "Om is the one eternal syllable of which all that exists is but the development. The past, the present, and the future are all included in this one sound, and all that exists beyond the three forms of time is also implied in it" Om is not a word but rather an intonation, which, like music, transcends the barriers of age, race, culture and even species. It is made up of three Sanskrit letters, aa, au and ma which, when combined together, make the sound Aum or Om. It is believed to be the basic sound of the world and to contain all other sounds (Aa starts at the back of the mouth and ma finishes the sound at the front with pursed lips...then silence). It is a mantra or prayer in itself. If repeated with the correct intonation, it can resonate throughout the body so that the sound penetrates to the centre of one's being, the atman or soul.

Why no universal symbol though? Until now mythologies have all been based on in-group mentalities. The borders of our universe have been forests and seas and an "in-group"-myth protects us and makes sense of the world within our borders. It explains the world for our particular tribe. But of course such limited group mythologies don't work anymore. Look at the clash between the Muslim world and the largely judeo-christian world of the West that is going on today. They are all part of the Abrahamic tradition but they still clash because they are not all-embracing mythologies - they are mythologies with very clear fences and borders - which worked perfectly well in another age - but which are no longer suited to where technology has brought us (ie a world without borders - the rocket engine, the radio, the internet, etc has destroyed all of that). In a way the only mythology that can work today is the myth of Buddhism which sees every individual as a potential Buddha being. Now of course enlightened Christians can say the same of the Christ. The Christ is not a man. It's an energy that resides within us - the "anointed one" of correct perception. And of course the word Krishna comes from the same linguistic root. To be blessed with the insight of knowing what your true nature (and consequently the true nature of your fellow human) is of course what all the wise ones are talking about (and it's the task of the spiritual life). But sadly the religions that dominate in the world today are not ones lived out by enlightened people - they are based on outdated mythologies that persist in creating and maintaining fences between "my group" and the "other." Which is foolish and very destructive in a world where technology has made a mockery of all the traditional borders. Our common humanity is the only sane focus left to us.

So what will the new myth be? What will the new symbols be? When the astronauts first went to space and started photographing the Earth - then, for the first time ever, we got to see the real borders of our home. A beautiful green and blue globe floating in the emptiness of space. And maybe that is the most universal of symbols in today's world. In biology today there is even one view of life (the Gaia hypothesis) that sees the planet as an organism - in which all of life is intricately connected in a marvelous homeostatically-balanced experiment floating in the darkness of space.

Einstein once said, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. In his book The World as I See It, he wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

In Spinozism, the concept of a personal relationship with God comes from the position that one is a part of an infinite interdependent "organism". This of course maps back well to the Gaia hypothesis and the views of modern quantum physics which have proven the interconnectedness of everything (see http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=G5poD3nXdJ8&feature=related ). Spinoza taught that everything is but a wave in an endless ocean, and that what happens to one wave will affect other waves. So Spinozism teaches a form of karma and supports this as a basis for morality (see http://www.waterwind.com/spinoza.html).

Additionally, a core doctrine of Spinozism is that the universe is essentially deterministic. All that happens or will happen could not have unfolded in any other way. Spinozism is closely related to the Hindu doctrines of Samkhya and Yoga.

Einstein was most influenced by Spinoza's thesis of an unrestricted determinism and the belief in the existence of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the harmony and beauty of nature.

Of course our newest myth is science and it's interesting to see how the greatest scientist of our age saw God (see above). Scientists may argue science is not a myth. But it is a myth. A myth is just the current map man is using to explain the world around him - how it works, our place in it etc and like every myth science has heroes and tricksters, holy grails and tales of sacrifice. A scientist might argue that 3.14 or pie is a universal symbol for truth and in a way it's as good as any. Indeed it was one of the symbols NASA used when it launched its space probes into the deepest darkest reaches of space. Yet I think the only symbol truly worthy of our attention today is the planet.

Will leave you with the words of Joseph Campbell and Chief Seattle (who poetically resonates with the way Einstein and Spinoza see things). In Chief Seattle's words there is this overwhelming sense of reverence for nature and the feeling that we need to honor all creeds and that is really at the heart of challenges of our age and I know of no greater symbol for that than the planet herself.

"Myths and dreams come from the same place. They come from the realizations of some kind that have then to find expression in symbolic form. And the only myth that is going to be worth thinking about in the immediate future is one that is talking about the planet, not the city, not these people, but the planet, and everybody on it.
And what it will have to deal with will be exactly what all myths have dealtt with - the maturation of the individual, from dependency through adulthood, through maturity, and then to the exit; and then how to relate to this society and how to relate this society to the world of nature and the cosmos. That's what the myths have all talked about, and what this one's got to talk about. But the society that it's got to talk about is the society of the planet. And until that gets going, you don't have anything.this is the ground of what the myth is to be. It's already here: the eye of reason, not one of nationality; the eye of reason, not of my religious community; the eye of reason, not of my linguistic community. Do you see? And this would be the philosophy for the planet, not for this group, that group, or the other group.
When you see the earth from the moon, you don't see any divisions there of nations or states. This might be the symbol, really, for the new mythology to come. That is the country that we are going to be celebrating. And those are the people that we are one with.

Bill Moyers: No one embodies that ethic to me more clearly in the works you have collected than Chief Settle.

Joseph Campbell: Chief Seattle was one of the last spokesmen of the Paleolithic moral order. In about 1852, the Untid States Government inquired about buying the tribal lands for the arriving people of the United States, and Chief Seattle wrote a marvelous letter in reply. His letter expresses the moral, really, of our whole discussion.

"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

"Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.

"We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are a part of the earth and it is a part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky creast, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man, all belong to the same family.

"The shining waters that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell our land, you must remember that it is sacred. Each ghostly reflection in the clear waters of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.

"The rivers are our brothers. They quinch our thirst. They carry our canoes and feed our children. So you must give to the rivers the kindness you would give any brother.

"If we sell our land, remember the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sight. The wind also gives our children the spirit of life. So if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow flowers.

"Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our mother? What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth.

"This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

"One thing we know: our god is also your god. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap comtempt on its creator.

"Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered? The wild horses tamed? What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted by talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is it to say goodbye to the swift pony and the hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival.

"When the last Red Man has vanished with his wilderness and his memory is only a shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, will these shores and forests still be here? Will there be any of the spirit of my people left?

"We love this earth as a newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. So, if we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it as we have cared for it. Hold in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you received it. Preserve the land for all children and love it, as God loves us all.

"As we are a part of the land, you too are part of the land. This earth is precious to us. It is also precious to you. One thing we know: there is only one God. No man, be he Red Man or White Man, can be apart. We are brothers after all."

My actions are the ground on which I stand

2008-10-08T03:04:00.000-07:00

My Actions Are The Ground On Which I Stand

I am of the nature to grow old.
There is no way to escape growing old.
I am of the nature to have ill-health.
There is no way to escape having ill-health.
I am of the nature to die.
There is no way to escape death.
All that is dear to me and everyone I love
are of the nature to change.
There is no way to escape being separated from them.
My actions are my only true belongings.
I cannot escape the consequences of my actions.
My actions are the ground on which I stand.
--Buddha

Belief

2008-10-08T03:00:00.000-07:00

"Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it ... or
because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it.

Do not believe what your teacher tells you
merely out of respect for the teacher.

But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,
you find to be conducive to the good,
the benefit,the welfare of all beings,
that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide."

--Buddha (Siddarth Guatama)

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

--Buddha (Siddarth Guatama)

Taizokai

2008-10-08T02:58:00.000-07:00

"Taizokai is all about looking deep inside of yourself. It's like the micro-view of the universe. The kanji "taizokai" roughly translates to "the secret of the fetus". The concept is basically trying to bring yourself back to the most beginning form (like when you're still inside your mother's womb) and try to understand the universe at the most basic level. In other word, try to understand the meaning of life.

This stage of the practice contains a lot of visualization and is a huge jump from what I have been doing before. This is also consider as one of the most difficult part of my practice. At the end of my journey, around January, a ceremony will be done where I have to be blind-folded and throw a flower onto this mandala. Where the flower landed will represent how well my practices/meditation was during the next two months. Or many people believe it represents how do I shape my world (since each buddha represent a kind/set of wisdom, landing on which buddha represent what kind/set of wisdom one accumulate during the meditation process.) My mom was the only person ever, in our temple's history, who got the highest recognition for Taizokai. She landed right at the middle of the mandala. Talk about high pressure for me eh?

My master/sensei did gave everyone a personal tip for this stage of the practice, and mine was pretty interesting. Since he finds the major obstacle (or karma, if you fully understand what karma means) for me in my practice is that I seem to be not "growing up", he wanted me to visualize myself to be an old monk during the Taizokai practices. He wanted me to literally think that I am with white hair and wrinkles and doing practices. " - from Buddhist student blog

Joseph Campbell: An Open Life

2008-10-08T02:57:00.001-07:00

Today, all historical circumstances are changing, and we no longer have the enclosing horizons that shut us in from knowledge of other people -- new worlds are breaking in on us all the time. It's inevitable that a person with any sense of openness to new experience will say to himself, "Now, this won't do, the way we're living." Do you see what I mean? And so, one goes out for one's self to find a broader base, a broader relationship.

On the other hand, there's plenty of reason for those who don't have this feeling to remain within the field because our societies today are so rich in the gifts that they can render. But if a person has had the sense of the Call -- the feeling that there's an adventure for him -- and if he doesn't follow that, but remains in the society because it's safe and secure, then life dries up. And then he comes to that condition in late middle age: he's gotten to the top of the ladder, and found that it's against the wrong wall.

If you have the guts to follow the risk, however, life opens, opens, opens up all along the line. I'm not superstitious, but I do believe in spiritual magic, you might say. I feel that if one follows what I call one's "bliss" -- the thing that really gets you deep in your gut and that you feel is your life -- doors will open up. They do! They have in my life and they have in many lives that I know of.

There's a wonderful paper by Schopenhauer, called "An Apparent Intention of the Fate of the Individual," in which he points out that when you are at a certain age -- the age I am now -- and look back over your life, it seems to be almost as orderly as a composed novel. And just as in Dickens' novels, little accidental meetings and so forth turn out to be main features in the plot, so in your life. And what seem to have been mistakes at the time, turn out to be directive crises. And then he asks: "Who wrote this novel?"

Life seems as though it were planned; and there is something in us that's causing what you hear of as being accident prone: it's something in ourselves. There is a mystery here. Schopenhauer finally asks the question: Can anything happpen to you for which you're not ready? I look back now on certain things that at the time seemed to be real disasters, but the results turned out to be the structuring of a really great aspect of my life and career. So what can you say?

And the other point is, if you follow your bliss, you'll have your bliss, whether you have money or not. If you follow money, you may lose money, and then you don't have even that. The secure way is really the insecure way and the way in which the richness of the quest accumulates is the right way.

...There's a kind of regular morphology and inevitable sequence of experiences if you start out to follow your adventure. I don't care whether it's in economics, in art, or just in play. There's the sense of the potential that opens out before you. And you have no idea how to achieve it; you start out into the dark. Then, strange little help-mates come along, frequently represented by little dark fairy spirits or the little gnomes, who just give you clues, and these open out. Then there is the sense of danger you always run into -- really deep peril -- because no one has gone this way before. And the winds blow, and you're in a forest of darkness very often and terror strikes you.

...Well, mythology tells us that where you stumble, there your treasure is. There are so many examples. One that comes to mind is in The Arabian Nights. Someone is plowing a field, and his plow gets caught. He digs down to see what it is and discovers a ring of some kind. When he hoists the ring, he finds a cave with all of the jewels in it. And so it is in our own psyche [and organizations!]; our psyche is the cave with all the jewels in it, and it's the fact that we're not letting their energies move us that brings us up short. The world is a match for us and we're a match for the world. And where it seems most challenging lies the greatest invitation to find deeper and greater powers in ourselves. - Joseph Campbell

Various Quotes from Joseph Campbell

2008-10-08T02:55:00.000-07:00

Various Quotes from Joseph Campbell

http://www.JCF.org

Life is like arriving late for a movie, having to figure out what was going on without bothering everybody with a lot of questions, and then being unexpectedly called away before you find out how it ends.

One way or another, we all have to find what best fosters the flowering of our humanity in this contemporary life, and dedicate ourselves to that.

I don't believe people are looking for the meaning of life
as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive.

What each must seek in his life never was on land or sea. It is something out of his own unique potentiality for experience, something that never has been and never could have been experienced by anyone else.

Your life is the fruit of your own doing.
You have no one to blame but yourself.

The way to find out about happiness is to keep your mind on those moments when you feel most happy, when you are really happy — not excited, not just thrilled, but deeply happy. This requires a little bit of self-analysis. What is it that makes you happy? Stay with it, no matter what people tell you. This is what is called following your bliss.

We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
so as to have the life that is waiting for us.

The adventure of the hero is the adventure of being alive.

There are certain moments in life when you can have insights that can go past the pair of opposites. It's as though you can see in that moment a deeper truth, as if the opposites open and you can see into the unknown.

Schopenhauer, in his splendid essay called "On an Apparent Intention in the Fate of the Individual," points out that when you reach an advanced age and look back over your lifetime, it can seem to have had a consistent order and plan, as though composed by some novelist. Events that when they occurred had seemed accidental and of little moment turn out to have been indispensable factors in the composition of a consistent plot. So who composed that plot? Schopenhauer suggests that just as your dreams are composed by an aspect of yourself of which your consciousness is unaware, so, too, your whole life is composed by the will within you. And just as people whom you will have met apparently by mere chance became leading agents in the structuring of your life, so, too, will you have served unknowingly as an agent, giving meaning to the lives of others, The whole thing gears together like one big symphony, with everything unconsciously structuring everything else. And Schopenhauer concludes that it is as though our lives were the features of the one great dream of a single dreamer in which all the dream characters dream, too; so that everything links to everything else, moved by the one will to life which is the universal will in nature.

It’s a magnificent idea – an idea that appears in India in the mythic image of the Net of Indra, which is a net of gems, where at every crossing of one thread over another there is a gem reflecting all the other reflective gems. Everything arises in mutual relation to everything else, so you can’t blame anybody for anything. It is even as though there were a single intention behind it all, which always makes some kind of sense, though none of us knows what the sense might be, or has lived the life that he quite intended.

This is the challenge of a marriage [or committed partnership]. What a beautiful thing is a life together as growing personalities, each helping the other to flower, rather than just moving into the standard archetype. It’s a wonderful thing when people can make the decision to be something quite astonishing and unexpected, rather than cookie-mold products.

When you make the sacrifice in marriage,
you're sacrificing not to each other
but to unity in a relationship.

You must have a room, or a certain hour or so a day, where you don't know what was in the newspapers that morning... a place where you can simply experience and bring forth what you are and what you might be.

- Joseph Campbell

road trip pictures...

2008-09-04T10:11:00.000-07:00

Better man

2008-09-04T07:39:00.000-07:00

Just spent time roaming the forests and mountains of Sri Lanka...inspired by cutting the dross out of life and the profound teaching of Buddha - the buddha taught that there is nothing...

There is nothing - just emptiness...This is a powerful teaching because in our world we always want to have something...to say, "there is something." But actually there is nothing.

When one looks at the body (rupa - form), feelings (vedana in pali), perceptions (sanna), the mental formations (sankhara which includes the will) or consciousness (vinnana), for each one of these - there is nothing there. However, it is very difficult for people to accept such a teaching: that there is nothing.

At the same time I heard this song by Robbie Williams in a department store in Colombo - there is nothing...and yet human affection is pertinent...valuable...If one really gets the deep teachings of Buddha and Yoga...one comes to that clarity... that there is great beauty beyond our delusions. How to see through the illusion of stuff... and love another with that wisdom and compassion permeating all that one does...The song below is beautiful - it speaks of human weakness...the need for solace and love...Then there is the voice that is beyond need and that has conquered emotion...that has come to know the mirror of a still mind and what it shows us...such a mind is freed of the fears below...such a mind still wants to love and be loved but it is not dependent in any way...

Send someone to love me
I need to rest in arms
Keep me safe from harm
In pouring rain

Give me endless summer
Lord I fear the cold
Feel I'm getting old
Before my time

As my soul heals the shame
I will grow old through this pain
Lord I'm doing all I can
To be a better man

Go easy on my conscience
'Cause it's not my fault
I know I've been taught
To take the blame

Rest assured my angels
Will catch my tears
Walk me out of here
I'm in pain

As my soul heals the shame
I will grow old through this pain
Lord I'm doing all I can
To be a better man

Once you've found that lover
You're homeward bound
Love is all around
Love is all around

I know some have fallen
On stony ground
But Love is all around

Send someone to love me
I need to rest in arms
Keep me safe from harm
In pouring rain

Give me endless summer
Lord I fear the cold
Feel I'm getting old
Before my time

As my soul heals the shame
I will grow old through this pain
Lord I'm doin' all I can
To be a better man

The moon floats above the pines

2008-08-12T22:43:00.000-07:00

The moon floats above the pines
And the night veranda is cold
As the ancient clear sound comes from your fingertips.
The old melody usually makes the listener weep.
But Zen music is beyond sentiment.
Do not play again until the great sound of the Way
accompanies you.

Zen Master Hsuieh Tou 980-1052 AD

the hundredth monkey

2008-08-08T09:43:00.000-07:00

In the autumn of that year an unspecified number of monkeys on Koshima were washing sweet potatoes in the sea. . . . Let us say, for argument's sake, that the number was ninety-nine and that at eleven o'clock on a Tuesday morning, one further convert was added to the fold in the usual way. But the addition of the hundredth monkey apparently carried the number across some sort of threshold, pushing it through a kind of critical mass, because by that evening almost everyone was doing it. Not only that, but the habit seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously, like glycerine crystals in sealed laboratory jars, in colonies on other islands and on the mainland in a troop at Takasakiyama.

From Wikipedia: Critical mass:

Critical mass is a sociodynamic term to describe the existence of sufficient momentum in a social system such that the momentum becomes self-sustaining and fuels further growth.

As a simple example, consider a big city. If a person stops and looks up at the sky, nothing will happen. People nearby will go on about their business. If three people stop and look up at the sky, perhaps some people will momentarily turn around, but then continue on their way. But only a small number of people is required— say, 5 to 7 (depending on such factors as the culture, time of day, width of the street, etc) — to cause others to stop and look up at the sky, too. This number is called the "critical mass" or tipping point.

Social factors influencing critical mass may involve the size, interrelatedness and level of communication in a society or one of its subcultures. Another is social stigma, or the possibility of public advocacy due to such a factor. Critical mass may be closer to majority consensus in political circles, where the most effective position is more often that held by the majority of people in society. In this sense, small changes in public consensus can bring about swift changes in political consensus, due to the majority-dependent effectiveness of certain ideas as tools of political debate.

Critical mass is a concept used in a variety of contexts, including physics, group dynamics, politics, public opinion, and technology.

Barriers to evolution

2008-08-06T02:57:00.000-07:00

"Do you know what it means
to have psychic experiences?
To have the experience,
extrasensory perceptive
experience, you must be extraordinarily mature, extraordinarily sensitive, and therefore extraordinarily intelligent; and if you are
extraordinarily intelligent,
you do not want psychic
experience."

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Gift to the future

2008-08-06T02:52:00.000-07:00

An authentic creation
is a gift to the future

- Albert Camus

Tolerate experience...

2008-08-06T02:37:00.000-07:00

Joy, sorrow, heat, cold are temporary
experiences arising out of contact with sense
objects, O son of Kunti. You must learn
to tolerate them O descendant of Bharata.

-Chapter 2, Sloka 14

Bhagavad Gita

The mode of Goodness

2008-08-06T02:32:00.000-07:00

One who does his duty without attachment to
the modes of material nature, free from egotism
and with determination and
enthusiasm is said to be in the mode of goodness.
- Chapter 18, Sloka 26

Bhagavad Gita

Suzanne

2008-08-05T10:35:00.000-07:00

Suzanne
Suzanne takes you down to her place near the river
You can hear the boats go by
You can spend the night beside her
And you know that she's half crazy
But that's why you want to be there
And she feeds you tea and oranges
That come all the way from China
And just when you mean to tell her
That you have no love to give her
Then she gets you on her wavelength
And she lets the river answer
That you've always been her lover
And you want to travel with her
And you want to travel blind
And you know that she will trust you
For you've touched her perfect body with your mind.
And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone
And you want to travel with him
And you want to travel blind
And you think maybe you'll trust him
For he's touched your perfect body with his mind.
Now Suzanne takes your hand
And she leads you to the river
She is wearing rags and feathers
From Salvation Army counters
And the sun pours down like honey
On our lady of the harbour
And she shows you where to look
Among the garbage and the flowers
There are heroes in the seaweed
There are children in the morning
They are leaning out for love
And they will lean that way forever
While Suzanne holds the mirror
And you want to travel with her
And you want to travel blind
And you know that you can trust her
For she's touched your perfect body with her mind.

There are a few ways to feel this song and the most prominant one is looking at Suzanne as an manifestation of the Anima – (• Jungian term for the feminine principle residing in the male psyche.). With all the anima symbols here it's hard to deny that to myself. The idea of suzanne as 'our lady of the harbor' really strikes something inside of me. He refers to her as an almost holy entity after refering to jesus as an almost human being, this would lead me to believe that Cohen believes human beings are in fact divine.

The standard doctrine of anima and animus illustrates the problem very nicely. We say that when we fall in love we project our unconscious contra-sexual component onto our partner, and this invests our beloved with numinous significance. We leave the realm of the merely personal and the boringly everyday and enter an archetypal arena in which we are god and goddess to one another. So far so good. This even seems to be an inter-psychic theory -- if we stop at this point.
But the theory goes on. It says that insofar as we have projected our own unconscious material onto our partner, we do not see her for the unique individual she is. We are blinded by our projection. True enough, there has to be some “fit” between our projection and the person of our beloved. There has to be a “hook” on which we “hang” the projection. But the projection itself, the anima or the animus, distorts our perception of the person who means more to us than all the world. It is an illusion, a falsification.
No doubt it is gratifying to be a goddess intimately involved with a god. But eventually another more sobering truth will come out. The day will surely come when one or both of us becomes dissatisfied with this illusion. We will complain that we are misunderstood. Or our beloved will react with rage to the confinement in which our projection imprisons her. She is not the woman we want to believe she is. There’s a whole lot more to her. She feels that she has become nothing but our sexual object or our gratifying fancy. If we cannot see her for who she is, she wants to be rid of us.
This sounds like a typical course of events, and Jungian psychology is prepared with an explanation. We have not been relating to our beloved at all, but only to the projection we have hung upon her. Our anima or animus has been nothing but a mask which hides our beloved from our sight. Now comes the hard part. We have to “withdraw the projection” in order to see her for who she is.
As soon as we begin speaking of “withdrawing the projection,” however, we revert to our solipsistic, intra-psychic language. The person of our beloved -- who she is in herself -- is left entirely out of account. “Withdrawing the projection” takes me back to my own, private individuation project. I’m now given the task of seeing what this archetypal image of a woman or a man has to do with my psychology. It’s time for me to withdraw from the illusion and distortion of a human relationship based upon projection and have a confrontation with my own unconscious material. It’s time for “inner work.” Projection is a distortion and therefore a mistake of possibly even neurotic dimensions. But it is also an opportunity. For projection is always the arena wherein we catch our unconscious dynamics in action and are provided with the challenge of coming to terms with ourselves.
There is a tremendous amount of value in this Jungian doctrine. It takes seriously the naïveté of our conscious assumptions and wisely puts us on the track of our own wholeness. It surely addresses the issues more adequately than does the persona field inhabited by most of our American psychotherapists -- who will say that we have simply fallen in love with the wrong person. We’ve got to get out of this relationship and find someone better suited to us. “Find another girl and marry her.”
Jungian psychology is much wiser and deeper than this. But what about my beloved? What happens to her while I withdraw into the hermetic efforts of my inner confrontation? If she is no more than the occasion for my grappling with my unconscious, we are not describing relationship at all. We’ve slipped into extreme solipsism in which relationship -- the deep and extended encounter between two psyches -- is merely an “epiphenomenon” of internal psychic dynamics.
Alternately, we may imagine that our partner, too, has been shocked into an internal struggle. Perhaps each of us finds our own analyst and separately pursues a private goal of greater wholeness. Sometimes this actually happens. Both parties do a sizable piece of “inner work” and eventually return to their relationship much better equipped to avoid their old projection habits.
We like to think they’ll live happily ever after -- even though no one ever does. But let’s be as optimistic as possible. Let’s assume they have a successful marriage, enjoy one another as life-companions, have a satisfying sex life, and -- at the end -- have themselves buried side-by-side beneath a rosebush in honor of Tristan and Isolde.
Does any of the magic of Layla and Majnun remain for them, once they have “withdrawn the projection”? Do the birds cease to sing their messages of love? Will it ever occur to them to say that they are but the veil that hides the face of Layla? Will they ever be madder than a thousand Majnuns? What happens to the archetypal and numinous, once it’s no longer flying in the air between them? --when, in their sagging middle-age, they tool through the mall in their Volvo?
The persona field has an answer for this. Romantic Love is a short-lived affair, an interval of delicious madness which, unfortunate as it may seem at the time, will be out-grown as the partners learn to join forces, facing the everyday details of their hectic and ephemeral joint life with maturity and responsibility. When the thrill is gone, something more sober takes over. According to this view, the numinous and archetypal constitutes a gratifying fling whose purpose is to seduce us into playing the game of the nuclear family. Even the great twentieth-century philosopher of Erotic Love, Julius Evola, says that Eros is incompatible with marriage -- which he sees as characterized by a kind of “sentimental affection.” If the tumult of Eros has to give way to placid sentiments recommended by the persona field, it’s no wonder we recoil from that smug formula “withdrawing the projection.” Keep your old Volvo, I’ll take a Miata!
I have another objection to the standard doctrine of anima and animus. If projecting them means that we are masking one another, conjuring up a fanciful and illusory folie à deux, dealing in falsifications rather than the truth, what are we to make of all those marvelous synchronicities, when we read one another’s minds and telephoned at just the right moment? Are these not real and significant events? Do they not demonstrate that -- however incompletely and sporadically -- we are in accurate communication? And right from the moment we fell in love? Does Majnun not see the face of Layla? Not just the jut of her nose and the limpidity of her eye, but does he not see who she is? Perhaps he hasn’t the faintest idea whether she can cook, whether she lives in chaos or compulsive order, whether she’s in the habit of replacing the cap on the toothpaste tube. But doesn’t he know her more essentially than that? Does he not know what makes her tick?
When we drink the Love Potion with another, we are surely blinded to the hectic and ephemeral, the sober details of everyday life. But what impresses us most is that we see more deeply and essentially than ever before. Entering the self field is an originary experience. Communication is immediate, vivid, and deeply confirming. We feel seen and understood, and our beloved agrees. The distortion is not here. It is somewhere else. For, if we remember what it’s like in the first tumultuous weeks or months of a powerful erotic relationship, we know that there are moments of truth that take our breath away. Sometimes they’re flattering, and sometimes humiliating. But there’s no doubt that deep realities have been uncovered. If we’re honest with ourselves, however, we’ll also recall embarrassing moments of shocking misunderstanding. Some, we are able to dismiss as innocent stumbles, aggravated by our nervousness and the fear that we may be in over our heads. Others are more insulting, bring us up short, make us want to flee or fight.
It won’t do to characterize Romantic Love as covering our beloved with the deceptive mask of our anima or animus. Too much is going on for that. Much -- perhaps all -- that goes on in the self field will never be shown to be false. The doctrine of anima-projection declares that love is always blind. It may indeed be blind in several ways, but it’s also clear-sighted.
When we learn to “breathe water,” when we “become river head to foot,” we come to see with the eyes of the fish -- Jung’s pre-eminent image for the Self, and Rumi’s model for the subtle life of the self field. When Romantic Love is nothing but projection, and projection masks and hides our beloved, we are attending only to those clumsy land-lubbing creatures who merely get their muzzles wet. We become those clever bears who bash the salmon up out of their subtle river and snarf them down to support a lumbering life-style.
What about fana’? What about that sublime “passing away” from our power-driven strategizing in the hectic life of the persona field? How can our narrow and one-sided ego be annihilated for the sake of baqa’, the discovery of our greater Being, if all is premised on illusion? How do I “pass away” through my beloved, when she is hidden behind a mask of my own neurotic devising? Does not the prospect of our transforming fana’ shimmer before our eyes immediately upon swallowing the Potion? Is this not our first and lasting hint of the truth to which our erotic involvement is guiding us? No doubt we remain ignorant in these first sublime moments of the obstacles that lie before us, temptations to abort the disturbing prospect of annihilation -- of dissolving into the we. Drinking the Love Potion is a dangerous and tricky affair. But it opens our eyes to a visionary Truth akin to what alchemists called the albedo -- that shimmering glimpse of the goal of the work, seen in the light of the moon. We see truly, even though a great deal of work has still to be done.
The Jungian theory of anima projection and its withdrawal presents us with a false dichotomy. It implies that in the beginning all is blindness, and in the end all is sight. If we attend carefully to our experience, however, we see that this is not true. In the beginning our eyes are opened and we see in a powerful and new way. We may be drawn to false conclusions and unrealistic scenarios for the future. But the flashes of rightness in our initial vision are confirmed in the end. A painful refining process has to take place through the agency of the Naked Sword, if we are to become Majnun and not Heathcliff. But Heathcliff, too, was right when he declared that Catherine Earnshaw was his life and his soul. His mistake was to try to posses her -- to bash her up onto the bank where he could snarf her down. It never dawned on him that he was to “pass away” through her.
I have combed the Collected Works in search of a passage to give us some hint of what Jung meant by “withdrawing the projection” -- apart from dispelling the illusion of the anima-mask. I found only one, at the beginning of the chapter on “The Mana Personality” in Two Essays (CW 7, ¶ 374-377). He describes it as
. . . the conquest of the anima as an autonomous complex, and her transformation into a function of relationship between the conscious and the unconscious. With the attainment of this goal it becomes possible to disengage the ego from all its entanglements with collectivity [that is, the persona field] and the collective unconscious. Through this process the anima forfeits the daemonic power of an autonomous complex: she can no longer exercise the power of possession, since she is depotentiated. She is no longer the guardian of treasures unknown; no longer Kundry, daemonic Messenger of the Grail, half divine and half animal; no longer is the soul to be called “Mistress,” but a psychological function of an intuitive nature, akin to what the primitives mean when they say, “He has gone into the forest to talk with the spirits” or “My snake spoke with me” or, in the mythological language of infancy, “A little bird told me.”
Those of my readers who know Rider Haggard’s description of “She-who-must-be-obeyed” will surely recall the magical power of this personality. “She” is a mana-personality, a being full of some occult and bewitching quality (mana), endowed with magical knowledge and power. All these attributes naturally have their source in the naïve projection of an unconscious self-knowledge which, expressed in less poetic terms, would run somewhat as follows: “I recognize that there is some psychic factor active in me which eludes my conscious will in the most incredible manner. It can put extraordinary ideas into my head, induce in me unwanted and unwelcome moods and emotions, lead me to astonishing actions for which I can accept no responsibility, upset my relations with other people in a very irritating way, etc. I feel powerless against this fact and, what is worse, I am in love with it, so that all I can do is marvel.” (Poets often call this the “artistic temperament,” unpoetical folk excuse themselves in other ways.)
Now when the anima loses her mana, what becomes of it? Clearly the man who has mastered the anima acquires her mana, in accordance with the primitive belief that when a man kills the mana-person he assimilates his mana into his own body.
Well then: who is it that has integrated the anima? Obviously the conscious ego, and therefore the ego has taken over the mana. Thus the ego becomes a mana-personality. But the mana-personality is a dominant of the collective unconscious, the well-known archetype of the mighty man in the form of hero, chief, magician, medicine-man, saint, the ruler of men and spirits, the friend of God.
This is an exciting and vivid passage, but not a model of clarity. To unravel what Jung is saying, we have to recall the central argument of Two Essays, which Jung alludes to here in the second sentence. Individuation is a process of differentiating oneself from the two collectivities: that of the persona field and that of the collective unconscious. We must establish a living relationship with these two domains, but not be absorbed by either of them. He says nothing about what the persona field contributes to anima possession -- although the example of Heathcliff gives us a hint of this -- the aim of incorporating the woman who carries our anima projection into our persona strategies.
Most of the passage describes the archetypal power, or mana, of the anima and how it takes away the personal autonomy and free decision power of our ego. What he says about feeling powerless in the face of the anima’s occult and bewitching mana, which overwhelms me with ideas and emotions that are simultaneously unwelcome and yet so compelling I can’t give them up -- all this we know quite well.
But how do we get out of this predicament? What does it mean to withdraw the projection? This is where the passage becomes confusing, for Jung gives us two quite different answers and doesn’t take pains to keep them separate. He gives the more satisfactory solution in the first sentence: to withdraw the projection means to transform the anima “into a function of relationship between the conscious and the unconscious.” The anima then becomes “a psychological function of an intuitive nature, akin to what the primitives mean when they say, ‘He has gone into the forest to talk with the spirits.’” He might well be describing Majnun.
Thus, the first and better solution to the problem of anima projection means that I detach the unconscious image which masks my beloved and bring it back inside, where it ceases to be an image for me to worship. It ceases even to be the object of my meditation. It is no longer even an image. Instead, it becomes transparent, a kind of channel for intuition that puts me into reliable touch with archetypal realities that are greater than I am and which have important things to say to me -- like the birds that sang for Majnun and Layla.
No doubt you’ve noticed, here, that there’s no talk of the person of my beloved. She’s evidently merely an occasion to provoke me into doing my “inner work.” We’ve slipped into solipsism again. But a truly new idea is articulated. The anima -- or animus -- becomes a “function of relationship” and a channel for intuition. Anima and animus are no longer functioning as masks, but have become something more like lenses to bring intuitive reality into focus.
For me, this is the essential meaning of anima and animus, and I will develop the metaphor of the lens at some length in a moment. But first let’s deal with Jung’s second solution to the problem of withdrawing the projection. In the last two paragraphs, he tells us that it is possible for my ego to become inflated with the mana, the archetypal energy that formerly belonged to my anima, so that I come to identify with the great man, the hero, the saint, the shaman. Obviously this is a dangerous, near-psychotic, and probably short-lived attack of grandiosity. Very likely an enantiodromia will follow, and I will become powerless and depressed. If individuation is to take place, the mana -- or psychic energy -- has to leave the ego and take up its rightful place in the Self. Jung begins describing this process six paragraphs after the passage I read to you, in ¶382, and finally makes it explicit in ¶399.
By this round-about argument, he brings us back to the first solution, again. The anima is a lens which brings intuitive realities into focus; and these realities belong to the Self. It is a mistake to attribute them to our beloved and no less erroneous to attribute them to our own ego. The anima is a lens to bring the Self into focus.
This is a very powerful formulation, and it comes close to describing the phenomenology of Romantic Love, as I have been articulating it. Take fana’, for example. When the anima ceases to be a mask which hides my beloved and becomes the lens that brings my Self into focus, my identity is radically altered. My ego gives up its implicit and unexamined claim to be the center of my existence; and I establish a living relationship with my greater Being. My old ego-centered attitude has passed away (fana’) and I have been immeasurably but humbly enlarged (baqa’).
But still the old Jungian solipsism has not been vanquished. There is no more mention of my beloved. I’m getting carried away by my own private individuation project. The woman I thought “I loved with a love that is greater than love” has fallen entirely out of consideration. A process that started out as a deep, transforming encounter with another human soul has led me back into myself. Love has become no more than an epiphenomenon of the internal dynamics of individuation.
What’s the solution to this problem? Is erotic love nothing but a passing fancy? Does it have to give way to the “sentimental affection” of a bourgeois marriage? Am I forever condemned to my Volvo station wagon? And what about all the truthful and accurate impressions I derived of my beloved in the first moments after we drank the Potion? Wasn’t I seeing her through the lens of my anima even then, and not just hiding her behind the mask of my complex?
I think the answer to these problems -- the accurate phenomenological account of what happens in Romantic Love -- is to be found in the metaphor of the lens. The lens brings my beloved into focus, and it brings my Self into focus. It does both things at once. For in the originary experience when I see my beloved’s essential being and know what makes her tick -- in that same moment I also know myself more essentially than I have ever done before.
As long as we inhabit a Cartesian world where I exist in absolute separation from you, we have to devise artificial means for bridging the gulf that divides us so that we can communicate. It seems a contradiction to say that a single lens can bring these two disparate realities into focus at once. Jung avoids this apparent contradiction by ignoring the person of my beloved. He leaves us with the impression that love begins in interpersonal blindness and leads onward to solipsistic sight. I no longer see my beloved, I see my Self. There’s no doubt that this constitutes a real accomplishment. But love, relationship, the interpersonal -- or if you prefer, the transpersonal -- is lost. We are no longer speaking of two psyches, but only of one. The Love Potion has become a mere memory of the past; and the Naked Sword is all that remains.
I’m not willing to repudiate the Love Potion and that originary experience of inter-psychic oneness. However blind my love madness has been, I cannot overlook those powerful impression I had right from the beginning that I knew my beloved more essentially than I had ever known anyone before -- or the synchronistic experiences that confirmed that my beloved and I had established a deep and accurate connection. Even after the Naked Sword of separation has made it impossible for us to meet, these magical and occult communications may continue. We will each know when the other is depressed, elated, or obsessed with our relationship -- at least occasionally.
Not content with solipsistic impressions, I’ve pursued them. I’ve compared notes with former lovers and learned that my emotional life and theirs manifests a striking parallelism. A woman I was involved with thirty years ago can still send me a silent message to call her on the telephone. She becomes angry when I don’t do so. Evidently distance is no problem, as we live on opposite coasts. Others have called me, precisely at moments when something in my present life has reminded me of powerful moments that occurred in connection with them years before -- sometimes joyous, more often painful. Women have told me that they are still in emotional connection with ex-husbands. They know when the man they haven’t seen in years has fallen into one of his characteristic funks. They may even intuit quite accurately what has occasioned that funk.
All this reminds me of those well-known stories of how mothers remain in emotional contact with their children after they have left home. How do they know the moment their son has died in a war, days before the Department of the Army knocks on their door? And how is that they also sometimes know that despite the Army’s best intentions, the announcement of their son’s death is in error, that he continues to live?
In order to comprehend all these events that are unknown and ridiculed by the Cartesian assumptions of our Western persona field, we have to postulate that a deep unity binds us with one another -- a unity that lies outside the frame of common sense reality. How do our pets know that we are about to leave on a trip without them? Do they not follow close to our heels for a day or so before we leave? Even our cats bear a hang-dog look as they stretch out in front of the door, hoping to keep us home or to be taken along with us. Some twenty years ago, Tompkins and Bird (in The Secret Life of Plants) published the results of electrical conductivity experiments on house plants and discovered what appears to be something like an emotional connection between the plants and their owners -- even when the owners were away from home.
Such data as this make it inconceivable that we are not in deep emotional connection with one another, even if we generally ignore or overlook the evidence. My experience with dream-groups and with group supervision of analytic candidates has shown me again and again that the group very soon establishes a creative sort of participation mystique, as though a single psyche is directing us all, speaking now through one of us and now another. The uncanny accuracy by which our various impressions are organized and revealed suggests that we are being guided by some spirit of unity. It has none of the political correctness, polite evasions, and paranoid fear of rejection that characterizes the persona field; but it seems to be a force-field all the same. It’s deeper, more essential, in fact “originary” in its manifestations. I call it the self field.
At bottom, we are one. Our efforts to develop an independent ego-existence induce us to overlook this oneness, for it is dangerous. Our precarious ego-identity is constantly in danger of dissolution -- and far more completely than Jung’s experience in Africa, where he escaped radical egolessness but suffered several days of diarrhea.
In the last decade or so, psychology has begun to speak in terms of field theory. It is only the most recent academic discipline to do so. Events that cannot be explained from the viewpoint of Cartesian subject/object dichotomizing seem to have forced psychology to follow the example of physics.
In its own twentieth century crisis of unknowing, modern physics has gravitated to the image of “field” to account for sub-atomic events that can no longer be understood on the Newtonian analogy of ricocheting billiard-balls. Thus there is a magnetic field, a gravity field, an electron/positron field, and so on, each understood as a polarity of forces describing a “cloud of probabilities.” This vague region only becomes “specified” as a “particle” with a definite location or velocity when an experiment is performed which forces the “cloud” to “collapse” into a specific event.
Rupert Sheldrake has extended the metaphor to include the processes of biology and consciousness. His “morphic fields” determine, for example, the embryological process whereby a cell of a general type becomes “specified” as a neuron or a liver cell for the future chick or child. In Sheldrake’s view, every organism is comprised of a hierarchy of morphic fields, each organizing all the lower-order fields. His theory bears a strong resemblance to the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. For Sheldrake, particle fields govern the components of the atom; these are in turn organized by atomic fields, molecular fields, cellular fields, and so on. Cells are organized by tissue fields, tissues by the fields of specific organs, like the liver or the brain; and the full complement of our organs is harmoniously governed by the morphic field of the whole organism. But fields do not stop there. They also organize consciousness -- very much as Jung’s postulate of the archetypes claims that our psychic life is organized by invisible factors.
Jung speaks of how the leaf-cutter ant and the yucca moth “know” how to recognize the right moment for their highly complicated mating rituals. Because the adult insect lives such a short life, there is never any possibility to learn this behavior from other individuals. He calls the archetypes in-born capacities for apprehending the right conditions and guiding our behavior.
Sheldrake is intrigued by how an English bird, the blue tit, learned almost overnight to steal milk from bottles left on door-steps at dawn. Knowledge of milk-stealing spread not only all over England, but even across the sea in Holland -- despite the fact that these birds can’t fly that far. Even more remarkably, the birds were deprived of milk bottles throughout the Second World War, during which generations of blue tits were born and died who’d never experienced milk-stealing. Yet when the milk bottles reappeared on door-steps at the end of the war, the practice was resumed. How do they know these things? How do they stay in unconscious contact with one another over such great distances and gaps of time? Sheldrake thinks they tap into established “morphic fields.” Jung calls them archetypes.
In similar manner, I postulate that the persona is not simply a mask we don for social purposes, but a field of ideas and assumptions that influences our thinking, feeling, and behavior much the way iron filings arrange themselves above a magnet. The persona field is a powerful emotional/ideational force that sets the conditions of my participation in society. My persona is the strategy that I pursue to negotiate these field-like realities. It is the realm of collective consciousness, characterized by social activity, belonging, and alienation. It affects our politicians, our news media, our academics, and our net surfers. It affects everyone of us more strongly than we care to admit.
There is another oneness as well. I call it the self field. In this conception, my Self is not merely the morphic field that organizes my personality at a deep and comprehensive level. It is also my participation in the oneness of humanity, and even humanity’s oneness with the natural world. It is the self field that I encounter when I meet my Layla or my Majnun. The transpersonal oneness of the self field is the source of that originary experience by which we become Adam and Eve, Isis and Osiris, Orpheus and Euridice.
The anima and the animus are the lens which brings the self field into focus. The lens of the anima doesn’t look in two directions at once, focusing simultaneously on my isolated Self and the isolated Self of my beloved. Rather our two Selves participate in the oneness of our we, the originary unity out of which our ephemeral Cartesian egos have been differentiated. To drink the Love Potion means to have our eyes opened to this oneness that pre-exists our meeting, and even pre-exists the formation of our ego-identities. Our anima and animus come into play not primarily in the form of mask-like images by which we hide one another from sight, but rather as lenses onto this unitary field. The synchronicities that astonish us and confirm our deep connection stem from this originary oneness -- the self field which generally escapes our notice as we go about our hectic and ephemeral lives, negotiating our survival strategies in the persona field.
Erotic love seems to deepen and ground our ephemeral existence, precisely because it brings unmistakably to our awareness the deep unity in which we are all sharing all of the time. The fiction of our independent existence as egos is necessary for survival, and the self field threatens this ephemeral and fragile life in the domain of space and time. We have to keep these greater realities at bay. But as we conduct our one-sided ego-centered existence in the world of the everyday, inevitably we feel a vague longing for something more substantial, something more ultimate, something that will satisfy us wholly. When we meet our Layla or our Majnun, the bottom drops out of the ephemeral world we’ve taken for granted and the originary ground of our existence is revealed. We are embedded in the field of the Self, like an unformed particle in the electron/positron field. The uncertain cloud of probabilities collapses at the moment of our meeting, and the formerly invisible self field becomes the focus of our attention.
The illusion that I cannot live without my Catherine Earnshaw is a false conclusion, but an understandable one. For, like Heathcliff, I remain ignorant of the self field that grounds my existence so wonderfully until the day I lay eyes on my Cathy. In that moment, my anima emerges from the shadows and becomes the lens that brings the self field into view. Now that I know of this reality, what I cannot live without is my lively sense of being rooted in that ground of personal existence, my oneness with all creation. Drinking the Love Potion with my Cathy has brought us both into focus, as standing on that common ground of oneness. I sense my wholeness; I sense ours; and I catch sight of the greater field in which we have our joint Being.
This one little move is all we need to open up Jungian psychology to the greater reality of interpersonal dynamics. We can even keep our Cartesian egos. What we have to see is that our isolated sense of subjectivity is grounded in a pair of unities -- that of the persona field and that of the self field. Individuation means differentiating ourselves from these two collective fields while maintaining a living relationship with both of them. Falling in love is that moment when our anima or animus comes into play for us as a lens. Like finding a Corinthian capital on a busy twentieth century street, the lens of our anima enables us to transcend time, and returns us to the originary world before egos had developed, to that time before time, in illo tempore, as Eliade never tires of reminding us.
But: what, you will ask, about that old Jungian doctrine of the anima-mask? Have I not agreed that this traditional teaching has a lot of practical truth value for us? Isn’t it true that sometimes what seems to start out as Romantic Love turns out to be a private illusion, a self-deceiving infatuation? Aren’t raw youths prone to fall in love with movie stars and teachers and even classmates who are not only unaffected but even refuse to give them the time of day? Aren’t these undeniable proof that the anima image may indeed function as a mask to keep us locked in a private, neurotic fancy?
Yes, indeed. And it also happens when a real relationship has begun -- when two people have drunk the Potion and are mutually involved. In such a case, when I become attached to a particular image of my beloved, my attention has been distracted from the self field, and my anima ceases for a time to function as a lens. I’ve caught sight of a rainbow colored salmon in the subtle river of the self field, and become obsessed with bashing it up onto the bank where I can make it part of my lumbering life in the everyday world of the persona field. The anima or animus becomes a deceiving mask only when I’ve lost sight of the self field. Only when the lens becomes occluded. Only when I’m caught in one of my habitual complexes.
Obviously this happens often enough, and much of the work of a long-term erotic relationship has to do with letting go of those literalized and rigid images. In this sense, the lens of my anima might be thought of on the model of a movie-projector lens. I only get to know my beloved in her wholeness, when I do not stand in the way of the myriad images that manifest her many facets. An image becomes a mask only when I cling to it and resist the flow of life. The metaphor of anima and animus as lens opens up the experience of Romantic Love in several directions. Allowing the many facets of my beloved to pass by my gaze without attaching myself to any one of them, is the very model of yogic meditation. I maintain my one-pointed gaze, and neither resist nor cling to any of the images or emotions that come before me.
Romantic Love may also describe the dynamics of a relationship of mutuality, not only in the first weeks or months after drinking the Potion, but over the long haul as well. Even in my sagging middle age, when my lover and I have been married for decades, my anima can continue to be a lens. My partner and I can still focus on our self-field unity, with all the numinosity and synchronicity that attend to that originary realm. Even on our thirtieth anniversary, we can still claim in all honesty to be madder than a thousand Majnuns, for what still transpires between us on the plain of the self field always epitomizes madness for conventional attitudes. When Majnun says that he is but the veil that hides the face of Layla, what he means is that his ego is an ephemeral illusion, a mere veil, before the self-field reality of his oneness with his beloved. Those who have the eyes of the anima to see will know this.
If anima and animus are understood to be lenses onto the self field, we find ourselves in a good position to understand the experience of Jelaluddin Rumi, Teresa of Avila and Ignatius of Loyola, who began their search for God in the halls of Venus. Having become acquainted with the lens that brings the self field into focus, they were able to go beyond the confessor who came last year in a brown habit and this year in a black robe. Bringing the deeper reality into focus, and not becoming stuck on any particular image, they saw through the shapes of the bottles and contemplated the wine of divine love. For the self field is not limited to my essential being and yours; but the greater Self that comes to presence is also Khidr, the Holy Ghost, atman, and the Tao. It is no accident that mystics the world over have used the analogy of erotic love to describe their love affair with God.
Many of the alchemists worked with a soror mystica, a mystical sister, for precisely this reason. They gave one another the lens of the anima and animus so as to focus on the field where lead can become gold through the erotic agency of Mercurius. The philosopher’s stone is an image of the self field.
Shamans, too, have learned to see through the lens of the anima and animus. Their healing work requires, as Eliade says, that they have become experts in soul. They diagnose their patients by entering the self field, where they see in an essential manner so as to know when the soul is missing and how it may be restored. Anima and animus are the lens by which they see into this deeper oneness of the realm of the soul. Their spirit guides and instructors are often beings of the opposite gender.
When the anima and animus are a lens onto the self field and the persona is our strategy for negotiating the field of collective consciousness, Jungian psychology is opened up to the interpersonal dynamics by which it gathers its data and performs the work of analysis. Intra-psychic dynamics are not compromised. We can still talk that language when it suits us -- when we wish to understand what is going on within a single individual. But now we also have the tools to talk about what goes on between us when we relate to one another. We don’t have to forget the person of our beloved when we discuss the transformations of Romantic love.

"Of course Suzanne goes beyond simple "I wanted her,I couldn't get her" thing.I always thought it was about mystical experience,and the similarity between love/sex and love/god.Mystics are said to have some kind of orgasm feeling when they reach god.Better when they feel the energy of god flowing through them.Body and mind overlap.Maybe I'm just stating the obvious,I'm new to this group,but that's the first thing that this song suggested to me.
The water symbolizes feelings and subconscious,so it's associated with Suzanne (=someone you dismiss as "crazy" with your rational intellect)and Jesus (because faith is not a rational thing,but only "drowning men could see him",that could mean "only those who are in distress",but also "only those who dive deep into the subconscius mind)...it's kind of Jungian: it's a song about Anima,I guess.About the feminine part who nurtures ("feeds you tea...") and is deeply associated with water and water-like objects (like the mirror)..."

Land of the Chicken Kings

2008-08-04T11:07:00.000-07:00

I found this beautiful piece of writing on the net after searching out a strange message I had on waking...

Jen on Mar 10th 2008 10:42 pm

Today on my way home from work, I stopped at an apple stand on the side of the road.

As I got out of my car, a seven year old boy stood across from me at the edge of the gravel driveway. The back of his heels brushed up against the knee high grass as he contemplated my arrival. He was dressed for summer in a pair of worn Levis, no shirt and no shoes. He looked at me with a face carved from generations of American Indian ancestors and eyes exactly the color of the hazy afternoon sky behind him, the blue a startling contrast to his dark hair that fell to his waist. After deciding that I wouldn’t be trouble, he smiled an impish grin and deftly twisted around to face the tall grass.

“I am Oak Zavala*! King of the Chickens!” he called.

His hair became a sparkling cloud of mahogany as he jumped into the air and then landed again in the grass. Chickens squawked and scattered as he ran through the field, hopping on every third step. His laughter filled the wooden apple shed as he hunted his prey.

It feels like spring.

*Not his real name. Duh.

The message I had was: "Land of the Chicken Kings"

When I read the post above...I wondered if the land of the Chicken Kings is the land where life is better lived...where simplicity and spontaneity have their own natural pertinence. I wish to enter the land of the Chicken Kings...Such a home was my home in youth...but as I traveled...the city and the demands of modern living blinded me at times...hopefully I have grown wise/young to all that now!

Tara Singh – Simplicity & The Art of Living

2008-07-30T17:01:00.000-07:00

Are you busy – yet unfulfilled and exhausted? There is another way to live.

Simplicity is the answer to our craving for more – more love, more money, more recognition, more time. Simplicity is not cleaning out the garage.

Simplicity is coming to wholeness within.

Simplicity offers contentment in exchange for activity, new values in exchange for time – worn goals.

Simplicity is essential to serene living. Its inner riches cannot be threatened. A sane response to an uncertain economy, simplicity frees you from self-concern and allows you to discover self-reliance. As you reach out to others without fear or calculation, your natural goodness flowers in caring relationship and true productivity.

True leadership

2008-07-25T08:13:00.000-07:00

A person who no matter how desperate the situation gives others hope is a true leader

Daisaku Ikeda

Happy....Chreativity!

2008-01-13T11:06:00.000-08:00

...I remember walking around a village in Ecuador with a friend from Chile. He commented how if he were an alien it would seem to him that "Coca-cola" was a universal greeting. It is remarkable how one finds coca-cola signs in the remotest of villages in Ecuador - almost every other house seems to have one. As I stray further and further from childhood I see how many things - though commonplace elsewhere - appear alien to me now. I would never chop a tree down to celebrate the birth of Jesus. A tree is to be celebrated in its natural setting...not dying in the corner of a room. I would never go to church to find answers. I would never send so many Christmas cards - sorry, I like to write to people when I have something to say, not when tradition decrees a hollow greeting...though I admit it is comforting to be reminded that you have not been forgotten by the world...I would never identify with a country or a religion because that would make no sense to me. To know my own consciousness is the only thing that makes sense (agreed that can come about through certain religious disciplines and reflections).
When I last visited my parents my father shared a poem with me written by a manically-depressed comedian.

'When I was small and five
I found a pencil sharpener alive!
He lay in lonely grasses
Looking for work.
I bought a pencil for him.
He ate and ate until all that was
Left was a pile of wood dust.
He was the happiest pencil sharpener
I ever had'

Spike Milligan...

The thing that life is about for me is creativity....

Freedom and the end of Judgment

2008-01-13T10:50:00.000-08:00

You have no idea of the tremendous release and deep peace that comes from meeting yourself and your brothers totally without judgment. When you recognize what you are and what your brothers are, you will realize that judging them in any way is without meaning. In fact, their meaning is lost to you precisely because you are judging them. All uncertainty comes from the belief that you are under the coercion of judgment. You do not need judgment to organize your life, and you certainly do not need it to organize yourself. In the presence of knowledge all judgment is automatically suspended, and this is the process that enables recognition to replace perception.

- A Course in Miracles

Interesting thoughts from Castaneda

2007-12-29T20:23:00.000-08:00

A key aspect of the teachings of don Juan, as recounted by Carlos Castaneda, was the necessity of the "self" to die. "It is imperative to leave aside what [don Juan] called 'personal history'," Castaneda told the Chilean magazine Uno Mismo in 1997. "To get away from 'me' is something extremely annoying and difficult. What the shamans like don Juan seek is a state of fluidity where the personal 'me' does not count." For Castaneda, "the personal me" was a subject of constant fluctuation and revision.

I Did Not Die

2007-12-29T01:21:00.000-08:00

They read this at my Grandmother's funeral recently...beautiful...

Do not stand at my grave and forever weep.
I am not there; I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn’s rain.
When you awaken in the morning’s hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and forever cry.
I am not there. I did not die.

Author Unknown

You cannot stay on the summit forever

2007-12-28T09:15:00.000-08:00

You cannot stay on the summit forever; you have to come down again... So why bother in the first place? Just this: what is above knows what is below, but what is below does not know what is above. One climbs, one sees. One descends, one sees no longer, but one has seen. There is an art to conducting oneself in the lower regions by the memory of what one saw higher up. When one can no longer see, one can at least still know.
– Rene Daumal

Born to serve

2007-12-15T12:54:00.000-08:00

Death comes softly.
Like a welcome friend.
You have waited long for this moment.
The death of something stubborn.

Attached and grasping.
It falls into the abyss.
Down. Down. Down.
Out with the cold wind of night.
Gone.

The Bodhi tree welcomes the dawn.
The clatter of a heron's wings rising from
the marshes...
The silent bubble of a brooding brook.
The song of morning; the last sound you hear.
Then tears and the end of memory.
Hope and doubt are gone
Certainty; the remains of the day.

Fear will not hold you in her grip.
Money can't seduce you.
Vice will disown you.

You will die to the last of yourself.
The flames from the cinders of your funeral pyre
shall lick at the sky,
Dance and swirl over foreign waters.
Until the phoenix remembers to wake from its restless
sleep...

The end is behind us;
The end of puzzles, the end of time.
Dreams scattered far and wide.

After the sacrifice...
The blessing....
Will be revealed to he who is born to see

The Books that Changed my Life

2007-12-13T21:56:00.000-08:00

There are so many wonderful books out there. But I suppose, like people in our lives, only a few deeply touch us. There have been many books that have influenced me profoundly. One book that deeply affected me was called “The Power of Myth with Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers”. It was actually a PBS television series. I think what moved me so much about the book and the series of interviews on video was that it helped me see how important the literature of the spirit is to young people trying to find meaning in a world which is at once chaotic and materialistic. It helped me see that all of us, who are interested in finding meaning and value in our lives, must go on a hero quest; a journey into the mythic realm. Transformation of consciousness is not a simple matter but that is what the myths of different cultures are all about and it is what we must examine if we wish to get to the core of what it means to be alive.

To find a meaningful purpose we have to find ourselves…and for that we need to decipher our
make-up. We need to access the literature of spirit ; the language of myths and dreams. Joseph Campbell said that: “Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths.” When I discovered Campbell, I began to see the importance of comparative mythology in a world that has - economically and politically - become a global village. A new myth needs to arise out of the new world order to unite us as one family - the family of man. But such a myth can only come from an understanding of the deep challenges that lie embedded in the stories of the rich cultural traditions of the world. Campbell points out that: “One of our problems today is that we are not acquainted well acquainted with the literature of the spirit…What's moving people's lives is the stock market and the baseball scores. What are people excited about? It's a totally materialistic level that has taken over the world. There isn't even an ideal that anybody's fighting for.”

So we must have goals, focus, interest. All of that is essential. But it's not something that we can impose on ourselves from outside. Those things have to come from within. Finding out what it is that inspires and moves us takes careful listening and observation of ourselves. When young Native American men were initiated into the ways of manhood they were guided with this advice: "As you go the way of life, you will see a great chasm. Jump. It's not as wide as you think."

Campbell believed passionately that we must follow that thing which gives we love. He called it "following your bliss." He said, "The heroic life is living the individual adventure. There is no security in following the call to adventure. Nothing is exciting if you know what the outcome is going to be...You enter the forest at the darkest point, where there is no path. Where there is a way or path, it is someone else's path. You are not on your own path. If you follow someone else's way, you are not going to realize your potential." He warns us that what we don't experience positively we will experience negatively, that when challenges come getting a comedic view of our situation gives us spiritual distance...having a sense of humor saves us.

I think I was most moved by Campbell because he helped me see that society is not particularly interested in the individual finding himself. Society is interested in profits and jobs. That's necessary of course and perfectly fine. However, life is much deeper than that and we forget it at our peril. The mind has enormous potential but it can be easily stifled by routine, temptation and half-hearted efforts to discover what is important within us. Campbell points out that "the goal of the hero trip down to the jewel point is to find those levels in the psyche that open, open, open and finally open to the mystery of your Self being Buddha Consciousness or the Christ." That's the journey which all of us have to take. It is all about finding that state of grace, the still point in your mind where commitment drops away.

I suppose the other books that have influenced me are the wonderful “Yoga Sutras” by Patanjali. They seem to be the the most comprehensive biography of mankind's catalog of shortcomings and potentials that it is possible to find. Jiddu Krishnamurti has also had a profound impact on me. His conversations in "The Awakening of Intelligence" - particularly the closing chapters with David Bohm are so clear , insightful and sane. Biographies of Abraham Lincoln as well as his own writings have inpsired me too. Lincoln was a man of tremendous vision and wisdom. I love reading about his challenges on my dark days. It helps me to put things into a bigger perspective. The poetry of Walt Whitman and the wandering observations of Henry David Thoreau give me hope for the future of man. For me, they are two of the most important voices of the new world. "The Ecology of Commerce" by Paul Hawken is the kind of book which should be taught in business schools. If we could only follow Hawken's visionary approach to business.

In the world of fiction I have been moved by many books. I think "The Kite Runner" stands out though. It's a chronicle of life in Afghanistan in modern times. When I think of all the terrible things that are happening in our world this book seems go to the heart of problem. It doesn't offer solutions. It just paints the problems in a very brilliant way. Man's inhumanity to man, the clash of cultures, racism, exploitation...the old and the new. When I read it I was deeply moved. It told such a touching and human story. It left me wondering how Afghanistan will ever heal, how man's intolerance of difference will ever be overcome...and in the contemporary situation thinking along those lines is very important. I also immensely enjoyed "The Count of Monte Cristo". It's a work of genius.It makes us confront the meaning of human destiny and forgiveness in a very original way. Finally, one of the books I most treasure is "West with the Night" by Beryl Markham. She only wrote one book yet Hemmingway said she wrote better than he did. And I agree. It's a beautiful story about the early days of the airplane in Africa. But it's more than that.

"You can live a lifetime and, at the end of it, know more about other people than you know about yourself. You learn to watch other people, but you never watch yourself because you strive against loneliness. If you read a book,... you are avoiding yourself. The abhorrence of loneliness is as natural as wanting to live at all. If it were otherwise, men would never have bothered to make an alphabet, nor to have fashioned words out of what were only animal sounds."

The book describes the thrills and dangers of hunting on the African plains, then shifts to explore the different qualities of silence or what it is like to fly alone over water for forty hours:

"Being alone in an aeroplane for even so short a time as a night and a day, irrevocably alone, with nothing to observe but your instruments and your own hands in the semi-darkness, nothing to contemplate but your own small courage....such an experience can be as startling as the first awareness of a stranger walking by your side at night. You are the stranger."

Discovering the stranger within, for me at least, is what life is really about. This is because I am of the conviction that if we know ourselves we can be a light to others. It is neither easy or difficult. We have to learn to go beyond the pairs of opposites to find out what is important.The challenge is to find our way (not imitate someone else's way). It’s not something which can be fomulated. It takes a lot of honesty, reflection and hard work. It takes guts and a lot of determination.

5 Chapters

2007-10-13T10:59:00.000-07:00

Birthday poem - I was 33 last Friday

That pale gray face of a seasoned sailor.

Shaped by a thousand moonless conflicted dawns.

The dinner on the table for the children outside playing football.

The football field.

* * *

Aging and death spawn philosophy.

The philosopher who sees there are no answers to his questions...is a mystic.

All men work.

Only the mystic knows the purpose of living; it is not work.

Only the mystic knows how to work.

* * *

He lived centuries in a year.

Left the imprint of example.

enough.

* * *

I outgrew the sea when I was 8.

Yes, I sailed again a handful of times...

Even a long voyage through the eye of a hurricane.

But the sea was behind me by then.

The dislocated scenery of many places made me want to settle down.

I became a farmer.

Ploughing the land of mind to find a stable harvest.

Dedicated to becoming an expert in irrigation.

* * *

The days are dying now.

Ebbing, flowing.

Passing out of fashion.

Gleaming with the only Promise worth keeping...

POSTSCRIPT:

"Whatsoever is rightly done, however humble is noble".

"Small things make perfection, but perfection is no small thing."

Henry Royce (Mechanic)

"There was an artist in the city of Kouroo who was disposed to strive after perfection. One day it came into his mind to make a staff. Having considered that in an imperfect work time is an ingredient, but into a perfect work time does not enter, he said to himself, It shall be perfect in all respects, though I should do nothing else in my life. He proceeded instantly to the forest for wood, being resolved that it should not be made of unsuitable material; and as he searched for and rejected stick after stick, his friends gradually deserted him, for they grew old in their works and died, but he grew not older by a moment. His singleness of purpose and resolution, and his elevated piety, endowed him, without his knowledge, with perennial youth. As he made no compromise with Time, Time kept out of his way, and only sighed at a distance because he could not overcome him. Before he had found a stock in all respects suitable the city of Kouroo was a hoary ruin, and he sat on one of its mounds to peel the stick. Before he had given it the proper shape the dynasty of the Candahars was at an end, and with the point of the stick he wrote the name of the last of that race in the sand, and then resumed his work. By the time he had smoothed and polished the staff Kalpa was no longer the pole-star; and ere he had put on the ferule and the head adorned with precious stones, Brahma had awoke and slumbered many times. But why do I stay to mention these things? When the finishing stroke was put to his work, it suddenly expanded before the eyes of the astonished artist into the fairest of all the creations of Brahma. He had made a new system in making a staff, a world with full and fair proportions; in which, though the old cities and dynasties had passed away, fairer and more glorious ones had taken their places. And now he saw by the heap of shavings still fresh at his feet, that, for him and his work, the former lapse of time had been an illusion, and that no more time had elapsed than is required for a single scintillation from the brain of Brahma to fall on and inflame the tinder of a mortal brain. The material was pure, and his art was pure; how could the result be other than wonderful?"

Thoreau (Walker)

"Life begins when you have something to give."

Tara Singh (Example)

"Guru Dronacharya once decided to test his students. He hung a wooden bird from the branch of a tree and then summoned his students. One by one, he asked his students to aim for the eye of the wooden bird and be ready to shoot; then, when they were ready, he would ask the student to describe all that he was able to see. The students generally described the garden, the tree, flowers, the branch from which the bird was suspended and the bird itself. Guru Dronacharya then asked them to step aside. When asked what he could see, Arjuna told his Guru that he could only see the bird's eye. Another story says that Arjuna once noticed brother Bheema, who was a voracious eater, eating in the dark as though it was daylight, and realized that if he could practice archery in the dark he would become vastly more proficient."

Anecdote from the life of Arjuna. A man dedicated to rising to his highest potential. He found his goal and let nothing distract him.

"We learn by practice. Whether it means to learn to dance by practicing dancing or to learn to live by practicing living, the principles are the same. One becomes in some area an athlete of God.”

Martha Graham

"Inner peace can be reached only when we practice forgiveness. Forgiveness is letting go of the past, and is therefore the means for correcting our misperceptions."

Gerald Jampolsky

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.
Dalai Lama

Everything is practice.
Pele

Nothing can be more absurd than the practice that prevails in our country of men and women not following the same pursuits with all their strengths and with one mind, for thus, the state instead of being whole is reduced to half.
Plato

The practice of forgiveness is our most important contribution to the healing of the world.
Marianne Williamson

Apathy can be overcome by enthusiasm, and enthusiasm can only be aroused by two things: first, an ideal, with takes the imagination by storm, and second, a definite intelligible plan for carrying that ideal into practice.
Arnold J. Toynbee

A Teacher is a Window

2007-09-29T11:57:00.000-07:00

A Teacher is a Window

There is a girl of about 5 or 6 and her younger brother playing now.
And long ago - in another age - a pair of sisters in their early 20s are worrying about one another...
Serious and academic.
The tunnels of their fondness go deep.
Yet the world aches with pain.
Those tunnels never reach yonder shore.
They could.
But they don't.

I know that now.

The closeness others have...
I don't have that.
Like a piece of clothing that looks uncomfortable or awkward on us..;
That is true for me
with closeness.
I don't know if I ever had it.
Perhaps.
In fleeting moments.
All I have ever really had is the fabric of my questions;

the call of nature.

Maybe that closeness that others have is a shawl they wear to avoid the darkness of their own silence.

Huddled up close...
Too close;
For knowledge.

I have ruggedness.
Ruggedness is my dependent "leather bag."
(I don't have a leather bag.)
I have ruggedness.

I have determination and independence.
But not closeness.
Closeness is hollow in comparison.
I am perennially out.
Out shopping for freedom.

There's nothing in the stores that is worth buying.
Freedom is the only priceless thing.
It's elusive though.
The slave traders drive a hard bargain.
That's the way of nature.
It's not unsurmountable though.

If I thought it were...I don't know where I would be.
Perhaps drinking beer in a roadside tavern.
"Ox-bow lake"- syndrome I call it.

The alternative is a very isolating goal.
It isn't meant to be.
I mean, there are thousands of other people on the road with you.
The same road.
But when you turn inward...all you have is the noise of the sea in your ears.

You have to go beyond that somehow.
Focus.
Find your North-West Passage.

The teacher is a window.
Look to him to penetrate the ice flows
of solitude.
He won't hold your hand.
He is not a crutch.
A teacher is a window.
He gives you a clearer view...of the terrain that awaits you.

There is no cafe on the corner...
And most people who appear are blips on the screen.
They pass quickly.

When my lunch and books are emptied out of whichever bag I might be carrying...
His smile is all that is left to carry.

My teacher warned me once that if you want what is worth having
you have to sacrifice everything to the journey.
The blips on my screen pass quickly.

Devotion

2007-06-17T08:33:00.000-07:00

In the humdrum city, there is a temple.
A line of beggars outside,a priest within.
Everywhere, the noise of asking.

Quiet: the far away wood.
Unheard: the hungry bird.
Sublime: the sunset not witnessed.

The devoted see the tainted treasure no one knows is lost.
No needy prayers gather on their lips.
In the midst of noise
they are our silence.

Seeing is believing?

2007-03-21T09:44:00.000-07:00

You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

Obi Wan Kenobi

Be wary of the ships you build, the ships you choose to travel on...

2007-01-19T21:46:00.000-08:00

Any institution gives truth a bad name, after a certain amount of time they exist just to keep themselves running.

Daniel Manning

The night I saw Christmas Die

2006-12-25T10:56:00.000-08:00

Night was falling

Falling like a shroud upon the tears that knew not where to flow

A half moon stole out into the peripheries of evening

The river wound its way through the landscape of impregnability

Beauty stood stock still in the wilderness of grasping children.

The night I saw Christmas die...a hollow chorus gave the reasons why:

"a time for family on the birthday of a savior"

But when I looked down I saw spread all around

Fear wrapped up in a gift package of pain

Churches decked out in shadows and blame.

Love, my friend...

Is kind of hard to find

Never reveals itself to you by being kind

A list of Interesting people

2006-12-13T01:01:00.000-08:00

1. David Bohm
2. Jiddu Krishnamurti
3. Buckminster Fuller
4. Jeffrey Sachs
5. Frithjof Schuon
6. Rene Guenon

Finding the Heart in the Stone - the evolution of man and the roadblocks along the way

2006-12-07T17:45:00.000-08:00

From Tara Singh's biography at the end of his book "A Gift for All Mankind."

"He discovered that humanity's problems could not be solved externally...
he devoted several years of his life to the study and practice of yoga..."

Human nature is something we don't know much about. Doubtless there is a rich and complex human nature, and doubtless it's largely genetically determined, like everything else. But we don't know what it is. We know that human nature, and that includes our nature, yours and mine, can easily turn people into quite efficient torturers and mass murderers and slave drivers and so on. We know that. You don't have to look very far. But what does that mean? Should we therefore not try to stop torture? If we see somebody beating a child to death, should we say, well, you know, that's human nature? Which it is, in fact, an emergence of behavior based on the combination of human nature and certain pressures and circumstances. There are certainly conditions under which people will act like that. But to the extent that the statement it true, and there is such an extent, it's just not relevant. Human nature also has the capacity to lead to selflessness and cooperation and sacrifice and support and solidarity and lots of other things, too.

Where do values come from?

That's an interesting question. Any answer that we give is based on extremely little understanding, so nothing one says is very serious. But I don't see how it can fail to be true, just from the conditions of moral judgment it seems to me that it must be true that moral values are basically rooted in our nature. The reason I say that is pretty elementary. Undoubtedly, the way in which we look at things and judge them and assess them and so on has a significant and notable cultural factor. But that aside, we are certainly capable, and everyone does, of making moral judgments and and assessments and evaluations in entirely new situations. We do it all the time. We're constantly coming up with new situations. We may not consciously evaluate them, but we certainly are at least tacitly doing it. It's the basis for our choice of action. So we're constantly making all kinds of judgments, including moral judgments and aesthetic judgments and all sorts of others about new things and new situations. Either it's being done just randomly, like you pull something out of a hat, which certainly doesn't seem to be true, either introspectively or by observation, or else we're doing it on the basis of some moral system that we have in our mind somehow which gives answers, or at least partial answers, to a whole range of new situations. Nobody knows what that system is. We don't understand it at all. But it seems to be rich and complex enough that it applies to indefinitely many new situations. How did it get there?

Maybe it's an axiomatic system. I'm sure this is false. You could imagine it's like the axioms of number theory. It's a bunch of principles from which you can deduce consequences, saying this action is preferable to that one. I'm not making that as a serious proposal, but that would be what such a system could look like. Or it could be like language.

A serious proposal I suspect is more like what we know about language. A lot is known: that there are basic fundamental principles that are invariant, sort of fixed in our nature. They hold for all languages. They provide the framework for language. They allow a certain limited degree of modification, and that modification comes from early experience. When the options of variation are fixed, you have a whole system functioning which allows us to do exactly what you and I are doing, namely to say new things, to understand new things, to interpret new expressions nobody has ever heard. Qualitatively speaking, that's what the system of moral judgment looks like. So it's conceivable that it has a similar kind of basis. But we have to find the answer. You can't just guess. You could say the same about ...

It can't be simple. It can't be "Thou shalt not kill," obviously.

No. Because that's not what we decide. We decide much more complex things. So what are they? We have good reason to believe that they're there because we can in fact make relatively consistent judgments, understood and appreciated by others, sometimes with disagreement, in which case you can have moral discourse. And it's under new conditions and facing new problems, and so on. Unless we're angels, it got into the organism the same way other complex things did, namely, largely by a genetically determined framework which gets marginally modified through the course of probably early experience. That's a moral system. How much variation can there be in such moral systems? Without understanding, we don't know. How much variation can there be in languages? Without understanding we don't know.

By variation, I mean from individual to individual or from culture to culture, and so on. We can make a fair guess that it's not much variation. The reason is quite elementary. The system appears to be complex and determinate, and there are only two factors that can enter into determining it. One is our fixed internal nature, and the other is experience. And we know that experience is very impoverished. It doesn't give a lot of direction. Suppose somebody asks, Why do children undergo puberty at a certain age? Actually, nobody knows the answer to that, so we're talking about a topic that's unknown. But there are only two factors that can enter into it. One is something in pre-puberty experience that sets you to undergo puberty, some effect of the environment, say, peer pressure, or somebody told you it would be a good idea, or something like that. The other is, you're just designed so that under certain conditions and at a certain level of maturation, hormones, this and that, you undergo puberty. Everybody assumes the second, without knowing anything. If somebody came along and said they think that it's peer pressure that causes puberty because you see other people doing it and you want to be like them, without knowing anything you just laugh. The reason you laugh is very simple. The environment is not specific enough and rich enough to determine this highly specific change that takes place. That logic holds for just about everything in growth and development. That's why people assume without knowledge that an embryo will become a chicken or a human depending on its nature, not depending on the nutrition that's fed in, though its needs the nutrition. The nutrition doesn't have enough information to cause those highly specific changes. And it looks as if things like moral judgment are of that character.

Q: As are, you would say, rules of language, perhaps even concepts?

Yeah. For rules of language and for concepts, there's a fair amount of understanding of the matter, especially rules of language. In fact, that's the area of human intelligence where there's most understanding. But almost everything has more or less the same logic. As I said, it's not different from the logic of embryological development. In fact, it's kind of similar to that. I think a reasonable judgment at this point would be that things like moral evaluation are similar. Actually contributing to this is the fact that you can have moral discourse. Take an issue on which people are really split. Take, say, slavery. If you look at the debate over slavery, to a certain extent it wasn't just an intellectual debate, obviously. It was a struggle. But insofar as it was an intellectual debate, and it was, partially, there was a certain shared moral ground to it. And in fact the slave owner's arguments are not so simple to answer. In fact some of them are valid and have a lot of implications, and they were taken seriously by American workers in the late nineteenth century.

Q: You take better care of the slave if you own it than ...

Exactly. You take better care of your car if you own it than if you rent it, so you take better care of your worker if you own it than if you rent it. So slavery is benevolent. And the free market is morally atrocious. Workers who organized into the Knights of Labor and other working-class organizations in the late nineteenth century, you look back at the literature and you see a strain running through that says, look, we fought to end slavery, not to impose it.

Q: So somehow there are these moral principles or something that you understand that you have to appeal to even if what you're doing is rather venal.

In fact, I think it's extremely rare for even an SS guard or a torturer or whatever to say, I'm doing this because I like to be a son of a bitch. Everybody does bad things in their lives, and if you think back, it's rare that you have said, I'm doing it because I feel like it.

Q: You reinterpret the components of it so ...

So it fits the moral values that you share with other people. I don't want to suggest that moral values are uniform; if you look across cultures you do find some differences. But when you look at different languages you also appear to find in fact radical differences. You know they can't be there. Because if the differences were really great, it would have been impossible to acquire any of the languages. So therefore they've got to be superficial, and the scientific question is, prove what must be true by the logic of the situation. I think the same things must be the case for moral judgment, too. Going back to your original point, we can't reasonably doubt that moral values are rooted in our nature, I don't think.

Q: But if that's true, I've always had to think about it in such a way that for me the image of a human being is a creature with certain kinds of needs and desires and potentials and capabilities and that the fulfillment of those is social, that the fulfillment of those doesn't entail that one crush another, that one be on top of another, that one gain at another's loss and so on. If that's true, and if people have this shared set of values, then you have to explain why everything is as corrupt and hierarchical and war-laden as it is.

First of all, why not ask another question: how come there is so much sympathy and care and love and solidarity? That's also true.

Q: That's the reverse. That's the way I answer it all the time.

There's no such thing as, Why is there so much of this and so much of that? There is what there is. What there is is doubtless conditioned by the opportunities and choices that are imposed and available in a particular social, cultural, and even physical setting.

Q: Someone might say, just to clarify what all this means, to truck and barter is human.

Someone can say it, but there's no reason to believe it.

Q: Why isn't there any reason to believe it? The person's argument is, Look around. Trucking and bartering everywhere.

And you look at peasant societies and they lived for thousands of years without it. Take a look inside a family. Do people truck and barter over how much they're going to eat for dinner? Certainly a family is a normal social structure. You can't exist without it. And you don't have trucking and bartering in it. If you look back at the history of trucking and bartering, say, look at the history of modern capitalism, here we know a lot about it. First of all, peasants had to be driven by force and violence into a labor system. They didn't want it. Then there were major conscious efforts made to create wants. There's a whole interesting literature about want creation. It happened over a long stretch in the evolution of capitalism, but you see it encapsulated briefly when slavery was terminated. It's dramatic to look at those cases.

Q: You see it all the time on TV.

Creating wants, yes. But I'm talking about conscious discussion of the need to do it. In the early 1830s there was a big slave revolt in Jamaica, which was one of the things that led the British to decide to give up slavery, that is, it was not paying any more. Within a couple of years they had to go from a slave economy to a so-called "free" economy. But they wanted it to remain exactly the same. They understood this. You take a look at the parliamentary debates. They're very conscious that they've got to keep it the way it is. The masters become the owners. The slaves become the happy workers. We've got to somehow work it out.

Q: Distribution of wealth and power, keep it. Slave relation, dump it.

Yes, they wanted everything to remain the same except not formal slavery, and the problem is, how do you do it? There's a lot of open land in Jamaica. If you let the slaves go free, they're just going to go out on the land and settle and be perfectly happy and they're not going to work for the sugar plantations. How are we going to force them to work on the plantation? Two things were decided. This was the period when everybody was talking about how marvelous free trade is, the government's not allowed to intervene and you can't help people in the Irish famine a decade away and that sort of thing. But in Jamaica it was a little different. There they said, we'll use government state force to close off the lands so people can't go to the land. And since all these workers don't really want a lot of things, they're just going to satisfy their needs, which they can easily do in this tropical climate, we have to create wants. We have to create a set of wants so that they desire things which they now don't desire. And the only way they'll be able to achieve those desires is by working as wage labor in order to get them. There was conscious discussion and in fact extensive efforts made to do exactly what you see on TV: create wants so that people would be driven into a wage labor society which they don't want themselves. That pattern is done over and over again through the history of capitalism. In fact, what the history of capitalism shows is that throughout people had to be driven into situations which are now claimed to be their nature. If the history shows anything, it's that that's not their nature.

Q: But of course if you erase the history, erase the evidence, and look only at a snapshot of the present, it's a consistent hypothesis that maybe it is natural. It becomes a compelling legitimation.

Sure. But again, by that argument, you could justify slavery. Take a snapshot of a slave society, and probably under most circumstances most of the slaves not only accept it but want it to stay that way. That's the only way they can survive. They look to the master to protect them. They don't want to give that up. Same about feudal societies. Same about absolutism. Probably the same about prisons, if you bother to look.

Q: So what is it about the society we live under that is at the core of what's wrong? What's got to go?

In my opinion, every form of authority and domination and hierarchy, every authoritarian structure has to justify itself. It has no prior justification. It has to prove that it's justified.

Q: What kind of authoritarian structure?

Anything.

Q: Something where one person has more power than another.

Yeah. Like you stop your three-year-old kid when he's trying to cross the street. That's an authoritarian situation. It's got to be justified. Okay, I think in that case you can give a justification for it. The burden of proof is on the person exercising the authority, invariably. Most of the time, when you look, these structures have no justification. They have no moral justification. They have no justification in the interests of the person lower in the hierarchy, or other people, or the environment, or the future, or the society, or anything else. They're there in order to preserve certain structures of power and domination that benefit those at the top. And every time you find that, it's illegitimate and it should change. And we find it everywhere. We find it in all kinds of human relations, crucially in economic relations, which are at the core of how any society functions. What's produced, what's consumed, what's distributed, what decision was made. These things help set a framework within which everything else happens. And they're completely hierarchic and authoritarian.

Q: It's also true that how people live their lives in their homes, how people regard one another, sets a framework in which even work is affected. All these things mutually interact with each other and affect one another.
And in every one of them that you look at, there are questions about authority and domination that ought to be raised constantly, and that very rarely have satisfactory answers. Sometimes they do, I think, but it has to be shown. As a matter of fact, you can even ask the same about your relation to animals. The questions can be asked there, too, in fact are being asked.

Q: You're an animal rights activist?

I think it's a serious question. To what extent do we have a right to torture animals? I think it's a very good thing that that question ...

Q: Torture?

Experiments are torturing animals, let's say. That's what they are. So to what extent do we have a right to torture animals for our own good? I think that's not a trivial question.

Q: What about eating?

Same question.

Q: Are you a vegetarian?

I'm not, but I think it's a serious question. If you want my guess, my guess would be that ...

Q: A hundred years from now everyone will be.

I don't know if it's a hundred years, but it seems to me if history continues--that's not at all obvious, that it will--but if society continues to develop without catastrophe on something like the course that you can sort of see over time, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it moves toward vegetarianism and protection of animal rights. In fact, what we've seen over the years--and it's hard to be optimistic in the twentieth century, which is one of the worst centuries in human history in terms of atrocities and terror and so on--but still, over the years, including the twentieth century, there is a widening of the moral realm, bringing in broader and broader domains of individuals who are regarded as moral agents.

Q: Nothing could be happening to that underlying, wired-in, inate, intrinsic character... That can't be changing.

No, but it can get more and more realized. You can get a better and better understanding of it. We're self-conscious beings. We're not rocks. And we can get more and more understanding of our own nature, not because we read a book about it. The book doesn't have anything to tell you, because nobody knows anything. But just through experience, including historical experience, which is part of our own personal experience because it's embedded in our culture, which we enter into.

Q: So then it's plausible that vegetarians, animal rights advocates and the like are just a couple of steps ahead in discerning something about ...

It's possible. I think I'd certainly keep an open mind on that. You can understand how it could be true. It's certainly a pretty intelligible idea to us. I think one can see the moral force to it. You don't have to go back very far to find gratuitous torture of animals. In Cartesian philosophy, for example, where it was assumed ... the Cartesians thought they had proven that humans had minds and everything else in the world was a machine. So there's no difference between a cat and a watch, let's say. It's just the cat's a little more complicated. You go back to the court in the seventeenth century, and big smart guys who studied all that stuff and thought they understood it would as a sport take Lady So-and-So's favorite dog and kick it and beat it to death and so on and laugh, saying, this silly lady doesn't understand the latest philosophy, which was that it was just like dropping a rock on the floor. That's gratuitous torture of animals. It was regarded as if we would ask a question about the torturing of a rock. You can't do it. There's no way to torture a rock. The moral sphere has certainly changed in that respect. Gratuitous torture of animals is no longer considered quite legitimate.

Q: Maybe what's changing is the understanding of what an animal is, rather than some of the underlying moral values.

In that case it probably was, because in fact the Cartesian view was a departure from the traditional view, in which you didn't torture animals gratuitously. On the other hand, there are cultures like, say, fox hunting, aristocratic cultures that have fox hunting as a sport, or say, bear baiting, or things like that, in which there actually was gratuitous torture of animals. In fact, it's kind of intriguing to see how we regard this. Take cock fighting, in which cocks are trained to tear each other to shreds. Our culture happens to regard that as barbaric. On the other hand, we train humans to tear each other to shreds. It's called boxing matches. And that's not regarded as barbaric. So there are things we don't permit of cocks that we permit of poor people. There are some funny values at work there.

Q: It's peculiar. But of course we don't pay the birds, whereas we pay the boxers handsomely. We assume that they suffer.

But everybody knows that you don't find people going into professional boxing from wealthy families. That tells you something right away.

Q: So if authority relations are the things that are suspect, the things that have to be undone, what are the institutions that basically embody that? Presumably private ownership.

Private ownership's an obvious one. Patriarchic relations are another. Relations of race discrimination and oppression are others.

Q: How about the market?
The market itself, just by its very logic, induces oppressive relations very quickly, simply because of the inequities it produces.

Q: That's where the justice or equity in some sense is the thing that's abrogated by authority, the thing that you want to justify.

I think authority and justice are incompatible, except in very rare instances, namely, if the authority can be justified. And maybe sometimes it can. Like the case of caring for children. I think there it can be justified. Or suppose we had a catastrophe, let's say. Suppose a hurricane swept over this place and a couple of people who for some reason happened to have their heads screwed on sort of took control and told us, do this, do that, do the other thing. I'd follow them. I wouldn't know what to do. If they seemed to understand what has to be done, had presence of mind, some understanding of the situation, I think I would willingly grant them the authority to make decisions that I don't feel competent to make, and I'd rather have them make them. So I grant them the authority to do it. That's a situation of authority. But we agree to it.

Q: Suppose somebody comes along and says that most working people in fact are granting the authority of their employers and bosses on the grounds that they don't have the expertise, the knowledge, the skills, etc., and they also don't want the burden and the responsibility?

I would ask the same question that we would ask of prisoners. Suppose somebody said the prisoners are voluntarily granting the authority to the guards. I'd believe that when it's proven. The burden of proof, again, is always on the person who claims that the authority is justified. I think that's a fundamental moral principle.

Q: Sure, but if you want to make a counterargument...

It may not be that simple. In fact, it's not that simple. Let's make it realistic. The way things are now, and this has been true throughout modern history, people have chosen to go to jail because they can survive. If you're starving to death on the outside, freezing to death, there are many cases, and there are cases right now where they go out and break a window and say, hey, put me in jail. It looks like he's choosing to be kicked around by the warden.

Q: Because it's better than another horrible situation.

It's true in a sense.

Q: It's also true that people choose to work for employers who will exploit them because there's no other option.

You have to look at the range of options that are not only objectively available to them, but that are subjectively available. How are they allowed to think? How are they able to think? There are all kinds of ways of thinking that are kind of cut off from us, not because we're incapable of them, but there are various blockages that have been developed and imposed that keep us from thinking about them. Actually, that's what indoctrination is about. And I don't mean somebody giving you lectures. Sitcoms on television, sports that you watch. Every aspect of the culture involves some form of expression of what a proper life or a proper set of values are, implicitly. That's all indoctrination, and that cuts off opportunities. And often just straight violence. If people cannot find what their own values are except through interaction, what's called political theory, there's not much theory to it, it's truisms, but one of the traditional ideas of political theory for hundreds of years has been that in order to maintain absolute control--what we nowadays call totalitarian societies--what you have to do is isolate people. People have to be isolated in order to be controlled. And once they're isolated they're easily controlled because they don't even know what they think. You're sitting alone in a room and you don't even know what you think. Again, in science, it's a commonplace. You work together. There's no other way to work. In order to have ideas or understanding, you have to sort of bounce them off other people and see what their reactions are and learn from them. That's the way you even find out what your values are, or your interests, or anything else. Keep people isolated and they don't have subjective options, even if they have objective ones. And unless those options are opened up, both subjectively and in fact concretely, namely you can do something about it without suicide or suffering, then to claim that people choose their oppression is completely meaningless. They choose it under conditions where there isn't a choice.

Q: Suppose somebody said that that kind of observation is taken from on high. Who are you to decide that what somebody else is choosing has been constrained? Who are you decide? Once you start doing that ...

It's for them to decide. I agree. I think it's for the people to decide. But the point is the people should be given every opportunity to make a considered choice, meaning an opportunity to think through the options and so on. For example, I've just been reading a novel by an Egyptian novelist who won the Nobel Prize a couple of years ago about life in Cairo, I think it was in the 1920s. The central story is a woman who lives under the iron rule of her husband. She's a total slave. In a big tragedy, she gets kicked out for this or that infringement. Her life is destroyed because she loved being a slave. She was able to take care of the house, and she had her domain in which she was not out of the house, but that's ok, because the husband is the god, that sort of thing. You can imagine the rest. Did she choose that? I don't know if it's an accurate depiction of some society. But it could be. In fact, I'm sure it is of some societies. Did she choose it? In a sense, yes. Is it therefore her nature? In order to know the answer to that question, you have to put that same person in other circumstances.

Q: People have a remarkable talent for making the best of whatever situation they're in, and that's obviously a tremendously advantageous quality. But it's also a quality that leaves you trapped in circumstances that are far less desirable than you might otherwise attain.

That's the point of isolation--cut people off from thinking through and perceiving the opportunities that are available to them. Leave them only making do with things as they are.

Q: So suppose we eliminate these obstacles to human beings being free and liberated and fulfilling themselves. What does that mean? What kind of a society is that?

Clearly, there's been one label given to this--socialism--over the years.But nowadays people claim this failed, that something went wrong.
First of all, I don't know that anything went wrong. We may not be ready for it. But there was a period in history when we weren't ready for ending slavery, either. There was a period in human history when conditions, including subjective conditions, were such that ending slavery wasn't in the cards. You could argue--I don't agree with it--one could argue that conditions are such that we need the degree of hierarchy and domination that exists in totalitarian institutions like capitalist enterprises in order to satisfy our needs, at least so far in history.

Q: With central planning or dictatorship ...

It could be argued. I don't believe a word of it. But the point is somebody would have to argue it. If you look at what actually happened, the concentration of force and violence was such as to guarantee certain outcomes. Those outcomes destroyed incipient efforts at cooperative worker control, say. There have been efforts in that direction for hundreds of years. They regularly get crushed. And they get crushed by force. The Bolsheviks are a perfectly good example. In the stages leading up to the Bolshevik revolution, up to October 1917, there were incipient socialist institutions being developed--workers' councils, things like that. They survived to an extent, but not very long. They were pretty much eliminated. You can argue about the justification, but the fact is that they were pretty quickly eliminated. Some people want to justify it. The standard justification is, Lenin and Trotsky had to do it because of the contingencies of the civil war and survival and this and that.

Q: There wouldn't have been food otherwise, says the apologists.

Right. That's the only kind of justification that immoral acts can possibly get. That's the only kind of justification that authority can ever get. Look, we needed it. It's like my hurricane example. Under dire conditions you accept authority.

Q: Actually, it's exactly analogous to the hurricane example.

Exactly analogous. The question is, Is it true? There you've got to look at the historical facts. I don't think it's true. In fact, I think these structures were dismantled before the ...

Q: Yes, they were. But does a Lenin or a Trotsky sincerely feel that they're like the couple of people who are running through the streets helping in the hurricane, or are they just aggrandizing their own wealth and power and status? Or it is the same thing?

I think it's the same thing. We don't want to be cavalier about it. It's a question of historical fact and what the people really were like and what they were thinking, and you've got to find out what the answer is. But my feeling is, reading their own writings, that they knew what they were doing and it was understandable and they even had a theory behind it. It was both a moral theory and a socio-economic theory. First of all, as good orthodox Marxists, they didn't really believe that a socialist revolution was possible in Russia, which was just a peasant backwater. So they were carrying out a kind of holding action, waiting for the iron laws of history to grind out the revolution in Germany, where it's supposed to come. You know the story better than I do. That's what's supposed to happen by historical necessity, so they're going to hold on until it happens, and then Russia will be backwarder than it ought to be. Well, it didn't happen in Germany. They also thought that in this pre-capitalist society, Russia being a deeply impoverished Third World society, basically pre-capitalist, except for little pockets here and there, it was just necessary to beat the people into development. They had to be turned into what Trotsky called the "labor army" in order to carry out forced development, which would somehow carry them over the early stages of capitalism and industrialization to the point where then the iron laws of history would start to work because the master said they were going to. So there was a theory behind it, and a moral principle. It's going to be better for them in a while.

Q: So these could be understandable and even honest mistakes, or they could be natural outgrowths of a worldview which says there are relatively few people who are exceptionally smart and should run the show.

That was Bakunin's prediction, about half a century before, that this was exactly what was going to happen. He was talking about the Marxists at that time. That was before Lenin was born. His prediction was, the nature of the intelligentsia as a formation in modern industrial society is that they can become managers. They're not going to become managers because they own capital. They're not going to become managers because they've got a lot of guns. They're going to become managers because they can control and organize and direct what's called knowledge and so on.

Q: Information and skills and access to decision-making.

And he says they're going to become a Red bureaucracy, because that's in their interests. He didn't say that's the nature of people. I don't know how much he thought it through. But reading back, we shouldn't say they are going to do it because that's the nature of people. It's that the ones who don't do it will be cast by the wayside. The ones who do do it will make out. The ones who are worthless and brutal and harsh enough to do it, they're the ones who are going to survive in this kind of system. The ones who try to associate themselves with popular organizations and to help the people themselves become organized and to serve the people and that kind of thing are just not going to survive in these situations of power.

Q: Supposing you have a relative advantage on information and knowledge. How do you explain that to yourself?

It's not too dissimilar from having a great amount of wealth, material wealth. You either have that material wealth or knowledge by virtue of somehow being better or by virtue of somehow unjustly having more than you deserve. It's a lot easier to assume that it's because you're better. Why is it "better"?

Q: You're in the lead.

But all kinds of people are better at all kinds of things. There are things that I think I'm better at than the guy across the street. There are things that the guy across the street's better at than I am. Who's better?

Q: You have a healthy view of the situation. There's an unhealthy view of the situation which says, The reason why I have three cars and a huge house, etc., is because I am a different kind of human being. I am superior. It's like racism, except it doesn't have skin color as its ...

Everyone has some particular distribution of traits. You're better at some things and worse at others. This guy is a good violinist. This guy can't hear straight. This guy can fix mechanical things and understand them. The other one can't. If it wasn't true, I'd want to commit suicide. Living in a society of clones would be worse than death. If everybody was alike it's not like living at all. You should enjoy and appreciate the variety. The fact that other people can do things that I can't do is a source of appreciation. I don't feel bad if I can't play the violin like somebody else. If I can't solve physics problems like somebody else, fine. It makes me happy. You do what you do. Getting back to your point, the particular distribution of traits that I have, partly just by nature, partly by the advantages that I've had through life, which were plenty, in the case of the guy with three cars, there's a particular collection of traits plus luck. And the traits might be viciousness, aggressiveness, willingness to undercut others, and so on, whatever that collection of traits is, they're the ones that are valued and supported in particular social arrangements. So the Mafia don has traits which are rewarded under particular social situations. Hitler had traits which were rewarded under those social situations. That part's true, in that sense. It doesn't mean that they're better. It means that they're better adapted to getting ahead under particular conditions.

Q: The person in that position can have your understanding of the situation or can have an understanding of the situation that it's just basically theft or can understand the situation as a proper reward for somebody who is a superior being.
Usually people will pick the last one.

Right. That's my point. But once you pick the last one, if you're Lenin or Trotsky or whoever, then the understanding of society that you come up with tends to reflect that. So you come up with yourself as a central actor, even a savior. You think there's a hurricane coming and I have to save everybody from it, when in fact there is no hurricane coming, or, in any event, the only solution is for people to be saving themselves, not having their means to do so taken away by you. There was the possibility of real democracy and real participation instead. But you see a hurricane because the role of savior is the one you want to fill.
And that's where I come back to what I said before. The burden of proof is always on the person who claims the right of authority. So if you see a hurricane coming, prove it. If you can convince me that there's a hurricane coming, and that you're the person who ought to direct people, okay, maybe so. But you've got to prove it. I don't have to disprove it. I don't have to disprove anything. I can just say, You haven't proven it. Period. And then I win.

Q: And beating you over the head till you agree or holding all the cards and allowing no one to play unless they agree, is of course not proving it, it is coercing it...

Yes, and so that's the sense in which the burden of proof is on those who claim the legitimacy of authority. And that's true whether it's a factory, a family or any other social arrangement. I think that that burden can very rarely be met. It seems to me that part of real education, if we ever allowed such a thing, would be to make sure people understand very early on that that's where the burden of proof is. I think you don't have to try to teach it to people, however. I think they know it. You have to keep it from being driven out of their heads. And it is driven out of their heads. It's driven out of their heads very early on just by the structure of the educational system.
Kids who are too independent quickly get into trouble and are kept in line. Again, we don't want to be glib about it. Again, the burden of proof is always on whoever it is that claims that the child has to be controlled. Maybe the child is being independent and should be encouraged. It's just personal experience. As a kid I happened to be lucky enough to be until I was about twelve in an experimental school run on Deweyite lines by Temple University which happened to be a very free and open and independent place where they encouraged independence and creativity and so on. It was very constructive. It was a shock to me when I got into City Academic High School for upward-striving kids who were going to go off to big colleges and discovered what authority really is like in educational structures. I never had that before. And it certainly requires justification, and I doubt that justification can be given in a great many cases. A lot of even the stupidity of education has a social function, namely, preventing independence. You're given some stupid assignment in eighth grade, and you'd better obey.

Q: I've noticed that the public school system teaches not just obedience but also endurance of boredom, the ability to sit and watch the clock and not run out of the room, which of course is exactly the skill that one has to have to work in a capitalist firm.

Punctuality. My oldest friend, who happened to emigrate from Eastern Europe when he was fifteen or so, once told me that he went to a school in New York for bright kids. One of the things that struck him right off in comparison with his earlier education was that if you got a C on an exam, nobody paid any attention. But if you came two minutes late, you had to go to the principal's office--meaning you're being trained for docility, obedience, punctuality for an assembly line job.

Q: I remember even at MIT I was always astounded by the extent to which the education was faculty coming in and writing textbooks on the wall and never once talking about the creative aspect of what they do, or never literally doing it with you, but rather just reproducing stuff that you could go off and read in any event.

It surprises me when you say that.

Q: As a undergraduate.

In graduate school it's just not like that at all. In fact, graduate school is kind of like an apprenticeship. You're working together. Clearly that's the mode of education that makes some sense. The words are horrible: "master" and "apprentice," but the reality is interesting...
It's because you're learning a craft. Apprenticeship doesn't mean necessarily following orders. You can contribute and have your own ideas and learn at the same time. Doing science properly just isn't something you can teach. No one knows how to teach it. You just kind of get the idea somehow. It's like learning how to ride a bike or build a table. The way you get the idea is by working with people who somehow got the idea. You get something from them, and in science certainly you contribute to them. Everybody knows in the sciences that an awful lot of good ideas are coming from young people. That's just standard.

Q: All your ideas come from students.

It's just not even a question. You just take it for granted.

Q: So you get the ideas from the students. Supposing we had a society with no authority, where's the drive? Where's the momentum? Where's the pressure to advance and grow? These are questions this discussion probably raises for some people.

First of all, the "pressure to advance," you have to ask exactly what that means. If you mean the pressure to produce more, who wants it? Is that necessarily the right thing to do? That's not obvious. In many areas it's probably the wrong thing to do.

Q: Therefore the criticism that having this degree of freedom will remove that type of pressure isn't criticism at all. It's a compliment.

Let's go back to the period when people had to be driven. It's still today. People have to be driven to have certain wants. Why? Why not leave them alone so they can just be happy and do other things? The only drive there is, ought to be internal. Take a look at kids. They're creative. They explore. They want to find out everything, try out new things. Why does a kid walk?

Q: They have plenty of energy, curiosity, desire, but they don't want to work themselves to death.

Why does a kid walk? Say you've got a kid who's a year old. He's crawling fine. He can get anywhere across the room he likes really fast, so fast his parents run after him to keep him from knocking everything down. All of a sudden he gets up and starts walking. He's terrible at walking. He walks one step and falls on his face. If he wants to really get somewhere he's going to crawl. So why does the kid start walking? To do new things. That's the way we're built. We're built to want to do new things, even if they're not efficient, even if they're harmful, even if you get hurt. I don't think that ever stops. You want to explore. You want to press your capacities to the limits. You want to appreciate what you can do. The joy of creation is something very few people have circumstances to experience much. Artists have it. Craftspeople have it. Scientists have it. Most people don't have the opportunity often, in our society. But if you've been lucky enough to have that opportunity, you know it's quite an experience. It doesn't have to be discovering Einstein's theory of relativity.

Q: Your way of expressing it is so different from ... I remember--we won't use names--a physicist at MIT who gave a big talk and described the pleasure and the joy of creativity and wished that so many people, 99% of the population, who don't have the capacity to experience that and to enjoy that, could have that capacity. But since they don't I'll at least try to convey to them the pleasure that I get out of having a new idea.

I think that the physicist didn't want to think. Whoever it was knows perfectly well that anyone can have that pleasure and that whoever it was had that pleasure many times in his life just by seeing what other people have done.You can also have it at many different levels of ...When you read a proof and finally figure out what it's about, it's exciting. And it could be Pythagorean's theorem ... tenth grade as well as quantum mechanics, or whatever ...That's exciting. My God, I never understood that before! That's creativity, even if somebody proved it 2,000 years ago. Every physicist has gone through that plenty of times. You keep being struck by the marvels of what you're discovering, and you're discovering it, even though somebody else did it already. And if you can add little bits to that here and there, that's exciting. I don't have any reason to believe what that physicist said ... And I think the same is true of a person who builds a boat. I don't see what's fundamentally any different.

Q: It doesn't seem to be any different at all as far as creativity and pleasure of accomplishment, etc., unless of course an onus is put on it.I wish I could do that. I can't. I can't imagine doing it.

But there's one sense in which it's different. That is there's a social difference between those kinds of acts that can accrue power and the kinds that won't. The skills of building a boat are different than the skills of, say, conducting a meeting. Or for that matter being compelling verbally is very different than, say, running quickly, at least in most societies.But the skills to which rewards and power accrue are violence ... I don't mean necessarily in a bad society, I mean even in a good society. In a good society the person who can make an argument and express herself well is going to be more influential if that isn't equalized somehow.

I've been in situations, and I'm sure you have, when I knew I was presenting the right argument, but I couldn't convince anybody. Because they decided to do something else. It happens all the time. It happens in personal life, in family arguments, social situations, and so on. Unless the person who--maybe some Martian watching this can say, Jones won the argument. But unless Jones has the power to implement it, it doesn't make any difference.

Q: If you're working with a group or you're in some kind of organization or whatever, a business, whatever it might happen to be, and suppose there is a degree of equity and fairness, at least formal, with regard to decision-making, and you all sit around and make decisions, and one or two people have knowledge of how the whole operation works and have at their fingertips a whole lot of information and facts about what's going on and also are very verbal, and some of the other people have productive skills and various other skills that are associated with the business, but don't have that information at their disposal, there isn't any doubt in my mind who's going to win nine times out of ten.

Win what?

Q: Policy decisions.

The policy decisions. And who will win the decisions about how it's actually implemented? The people with the productive skills.

Q: No. Not necessarily at all.

Why not? They're the ones who are going to do it. In a society with equity. We were assuming a society with equity. Nobody has any power. They just have different capacities.

Q: One person, one vote.

All right, the person who makes the more convincing argument, assuming rationality, should convince the others. But then the person who implements the decisions will do it his or her way.

Q: Clearly the situation will be much better if everybody comes to a decision with a degree of confidence and skills and so on that's commensurate to participating.
That's what it means by being convinced. If you are convinced that this is the right thing to do, it doesn't make any difference whether somebody else had the idea or you had the idea. You're equally convinced. If you're not convinced, something went wrong. Then it was a situation of power and not a matter of greater capacity to work things out.

Take a Yugoslav firm in the market system. The workers appoint a manager. The manager makes a whole array of decisions that are the same as a manager would make in the Ford Motor Company. The workers in fact agree that the manager's decisions make sense and should be implemented. They can't make the decisions themselves, necessarily, because they don't have access to the facts. Still the situation is pretty disgusting.

There's a situation where there's a difference of power, and the power translates into access to ...

Q: What if the formal power rests with the workers?

There's already a presupposition: the manager had more information and the manager got that because the manager had more power. Otherwise the manager wouldn't have had more information.

Q: The manager's job is to oversee all this information and put the stuff together.
But if you divide jobs up that way you're imposing relations of power.

Q: Exactly. That's what I'm getting at.

But if we extract the power from the situation it won't be true. If everyone has the same access to information, it still may turn out that the guy who happens to be the manager comes up with the best idea and everybody says, Yeah, that's the best idea. Okay, fine. That's not a problem. We know that it's not going to happen consistently. There's one area of human life that I know of which kind of approximates an equitable situation. It isn't really equitable, but it approximates one. That's a scientific laboratory, a scientific enterprise, where you have a senior professor who won a Nobel Prize and you have an undergraduate assistant, a lab technician and so on. If it's really working well, there's a lot of cooperation. And you see it. It is not the case that the person with the more publications comes up with all the answers, by no means. If they're really working together and trying to achieve something ...

Q: Then it's a collective, or something. If you don't have structurally imposed differences in decision making power or in access to information needed for developing agendas and positions, fine.

It may be that the guy with the Nobel Prize will often come up with a good idea. Maybe not. In fact, in these situations it typically isn't the case. It's often the graduate student.

Q: After they've got a Nobel Prize they're already too old.

Probably. Or they're too stuck in their ways. But the senior professor often has a contribution to make that's unique: experience, remembering something that somebody did four years ago that nobody else ever heard of. There are all kinds of ways in which people contribute to collective decisions. I don't see any reason to believe that, say, a decision in a factory is so infinitely more complex than working on an advanced scientific problem that you can expect one person to always have the right ideas. That's not going to happen. If it happens, it's because of power differences.

Q: An imbalance in access to decision making or information or skills critical to it...

And then we're back to where we were: eliminate the power differences, or strive to eliminate them.

Q: Let me switch gears a minute. Back to the question of animal rights, the broadening understanding of human values and all that. How do you react to the debate around abortion?

I think it's a hard one. I don't think the answers are simple. It's a case where there really are conflicting values. Most human situations, the kinds of things we're in all the time, it's very rare that there's a clear and simple answer. Sometimes the answers are very murky because we have different values and they just conflict. At least our understanding of our own moral values is not like an axiomatic system, where there's an answer and not some other answer. There are what appear to be conflicting values which give different answers. Maybe because we don't understand them well enough, or maybe they really are in conflict. In this case they're straight conflicts. From one point of view, a child up to a point is an organ of the mother's body. The mother ought to have the decision what to do. And that's true. From another point of view, the organism is a potential human being, and it has rights. And those two things are in conflict. One biologist I know once pointed out that you could say the same thing about women washing their hands. If a woman washes her hands, lots of cells flake off, and in principle those cells have the genetic instructions for a human being. You can imagine a future technology which would take one of them and create a human being from it. He was making it as a reductio ad absurdum argument, but because there's an element of truth to it, an element so tiny that it makes it a reductio ad absurdum argument, but it's not like saying something about astrology. What he's saying is true.

Q: There's a related argument I've found tough to deal with. Suppose you have a person who is a surgeon who is so skilled she is the only one who can deal with this particular kind of ailment. There's a sudden outbreak of the ailment. It only takes five minutes for the person to do what they do, but only they can do it. So you could literally have an assembly line because there are so many people struck with this ailment, an assembly line of people flowing past this person. So if this person goes to the bathroom or goes to eat a meal or goes to do anything, more people are going to die that would have been saved had she not done that. What's this person supposed to do?

It's like triage. A person is going to have to make an impossible choice among alternatives. It's easy to construct situations like that. That's what they do in philosophy seminars all the time. We don't agree with torture. There was an article in Newsweek by a philosopher whose hidden agenda was that you shouldn't criticize Israel for torturing Arabs. The argument was like an elementary philosophy seminar. People say torture is bad. But is it really bad? Suppose there was a doomsday machine that was about to go off and blow up the universe. There was one person who knew how to stop it, but he wasn't telling us how to stop it. The only way you would get it out of him was by torturing him. Under those circumstances would torture be okay? You say, Okay, under those circumstances. Then, Aha! You're not opposed to torture. Let's move it a little bit over. You get into what's called a "slippery slope argument." You can play this game all the time. You can make up situations in which usually conflicting values lead to what would ordinarily be ridiculous conclusions under other circumstances. And the trouble is, life often poses such circumstances. You don't have to make them up. The abortion issue is one where life is posing those choices.

Q: You think that the choice there isn't that it is or isn't a person. You just basically have to admit that it's a potential person, it's an actual organ in a sense.

We don't have have a clear conception of what a person is. I think a reasonable proposal is that it changes from an organ to a person when it's viable. But that's arguable and it's not very clear when it is. That's why this biologist pointed out it could be when the woman was washing her hands, depending on the state of technology. But that's life. You're faced with hard decisions of conflicting values.

Q: Changing gear again: Take the last thirty years, say, from the New Left to the present, and look at it as a span of political activism in the U.S. Leftists seem to do this, as far as I can tell, very infrequently. Try and basically say, What lessons are there in that? Is whatever we achieved the most we could have achieved? Did the people who were acting, were they doing basically about as well as one could expect, or were there horrible failures? Was there some impediment that was being overlooked, some obstacle to having greater success that we just didn't think of and we didn't deal with, and had we dealt with that we would have done better? In other words, how do you view the period? Certainly people of my generation, a great many of them, right now are very frustrated. They're feeling like, Thirty years ago I made this choice. It's thirty years later and it hasn't gone where I thought it was going to go.

I think, first of all, where they thought it was going to go was pretty unrealistic. I think if you look at what's happened in thirty years, it's a lot better than it was. A lot of this stuff got started during the Vietnam War. At the ideological level, all of us who were opposed to the war lost flat out within the mainstream institutions. The question now is, have the Vietnamese done enough to compensate us for the crimes that they committed against us? In the newspapers or the journals or the books that's the only question you're allowed to discuss. If you want to be part of the educated culture, the elite culture, the only question you can pose. I actually have been through a lot of the newspapers on this, out of curiosity. Also the POW issue. George Bush gets up and says, The Vietnamese should understand that we bear them no permanent grudge. We're not going to make them pay for everything they did to us. If they finally come clean and devote their entire lives and every last resource they have to searching for the remains of one of those people they viciously blew out of the sky, then maybe we'll allow them entry into the civilized world. And there won't be one editorial writer or columnist who will either fall on the floor laughing or else say, this guy's worse than the Nazis. Because that's the way they all are. The only issue is, Will we forgive them for the crimes they committed against us? So at that level, we just lost the whole discussion. On the other hand, let's go to the general population. To this day, after twenty-five years of this endless, unremitting propaganda, to which no response is ever tolerated, 70% of the population disagrees with the elite culture. That tells you there's a victory at this level. If 70% of the population, after all this brainwashing, still says, as late as 1990, the war was fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake, something got through.

Q: Absolutely. And it tells us that for a period of six, seven years, however many years, the activism that people engaged in had a tremendous and long-lasting effect. But it doesn't answer people's concern that after thirty years the size of our organizations, the degree of organized dissent, the ability to amass new movements when new crises arise, or even, much more important, the ability to have sustained movements which are striking at ongoing institutional structures, on these axes there doesn't seem to be ...

I think that's an inaccurate reading of history. In fact, I think the opposite is the case. The last big such crisis was the Gulf War. I just disagree with a lot of my friends on that one, including most activists on the left. They regarded what happened as a catastrophe for the left, and as a proof of what you just said. I regard it as the opposite. This is the first time in history that I know of that big demonstrations started before a war. Take a look at the Vietnam War. After all, Kennedy started bombing South Vietnam in 1961-62. It was years before there was significant opposition.

Q: That was my impression, too. I was incredulous at the speed at which the movement was able to make itself felt, visibly, around the Gulf...

It was unbelievable. The thing that we should remember is, people in power know it. They might not want us to know it, but they know it. It's even clear from their own documents, as well as from what they do. The day the ground combat started in the Gulf War a very important document leaked. It was sort of buried in the papers, and most people missed it. It was the last paragraph of an article on something else. They leaked an early Bush administration planning document on Third World intervention. What it said was--and it still holds--that in the case of confrontations with much weaker enemies--meaning anyone we're willing to fight--we must not only defeat them but we must defeat them decisively and rapidly because anything else will undercut political support. That's a tremendous victory for the left. These guys understand that they don't have the option of carrying out intervention unless they carry out decisive, rapid victories over totally defenseless enemies before anyone notices, after having first demonized them.

Q: I agree with you completely about the speed and scale of the response. And yet, it is the case that you describe having to argue with most of your friends. I encountered the same situation. It's a remarkable fact that we don't seem to be able to perceive, as a movement or as a body of people, our own effectivity.

Of course nobody wants you to see it. In order to perceive it, it's as if you lived in a world where everybody told you--television, radio, books, everything else--that the world is flat. It's Winston Smith in 1984. He's trying to hold on to the truth that two plus two equals four. Everybody says two plus two equals five. He remembers inside that two plus two equals four. It's hard to hold on to that truth. Especially when you're isolated.

Q: So what's the trick?

The trick is not to be isolated. If you're isolated, like Winston Smith, you're sooner or later going to break, as he finally broke. That was the point of Orwell's story. That's the whole tradition of totalitarianism: keep people isolated and you can get them to believe anything. The genius of American democracy has been to tolerate the formal freedoms that have been won through popular struggle but to eliminate any substance from them by just isolating people. And people are isolated. They're stuck in front of the tube. There are no associations. That's part of the fervor behind getting rid of unions. They're one of the natural means--not the only one--by which ordinary people come together. So you've got to destroy them. That's one of the reasons why it's very important that we have no real political parties, because people could get together and do stuff.

Q.But what it says is that a left which creates a culture and which creates the possibility of actually working together, being friends, communicating with one another will be much less susceptible to this coercion. When I consider now versus thirty years ago, I have this feeling that's there a fundamental change, as atomized as it was then, it's much more so now. People just don't have friends. Nobody has people who they trust, who they're friends with, who they interact with on a regular, ongoing basis. Not nobody, but there's much less of that there was then.

I'm not so sure there's less of it. I suspect that there's probably more of it, but it's in different circles. So for example, take the big movements of the last ...

Q: I'm not talking about movements. I'm talking about just normal, everyday life. My parents, my friends, all the people I know.

So what about the people in Witness for Peace, for example? They're mostly church-based, and their friends and associations are usually through churches, often even fundamentalist churches. But they have real friends and associations and work together.

Q: That's one of those institutions ...

But these things bring in huge numbers of people. That's why I say I think it's shifted. In fact, it's shifted towards different sectors of the population. In fact, they've become a lot more mainstream. During the sixties, it was kind of kids at universities who were the ones who had these associations and the political activism to a significant extent. There was a lot of that. Not everything, of course, but that was quite a bit of it. It's true, there things have in fact declined. But other parts of society have increased and are deepened.

Q: The left has never offered it per se. The CP did, once upon a time. But the modern left, from the new left to now, has offered rallies and demonstrations. It's offered teach-ins. It's offered talks. But it's never offered ...

What do you call the ... what do you think the right name is for these church-based Central America solidarity groups? Are they "left"? I would call it left.

Q: They are setting a better model, perhaps, than anything that the left has had to offer.

I don't think they're all that separate. A lot of people in them are people who came through sixties experiences, which affected everything. They affected the whole culture very broadly. The reason that so many things grow out of the churches is that that's the one kind of organic institution that hasn't been destroyed. They don't come out of labor unions in the country because we don't have unions. If I give a talk in Europe, up till pretty recently, even now, it could often be in a union hall. Not necessarily labor people, but just community people. I can't remember ever having done that in the U.S. It's usually a church. That exists. That's the one institution that hasn't been destroyed. So that's where things, all the movement offices are in the basement of some church. They're around.

Q: That's always been true.

Because that's the only thing that's around. But out of that have come other things, people who would not regard themselves ... they never read a Marxist-Leninist book in their lives and they don't care. Maybe their background is liberation theology. I think that's part of our movement, at least I've always regarded it that way. And the same with people who are involved in all sorts of other issues.

Q: To what extent would you consider yourself somehow part of the same movement as Marxist-Leninists?

There are personal friendships and contacts, but I don't really feel much empathy with it. For one thing I don't understand a lot of it. What I do understand I usually don't like. I don't want to say that I haven't learned anything from them or that I don't hold personal relations; in fact I do support all of the groups and will continue to as long as they do things I like. But I do feel a certain closeness ... the beliefs of the church-based groups are just incomprehensible to me, but I do feel a certain empathy with them that I don't feel with what are called official left groups.

Q: You'd rather have them at your side, in some sense.

Yeah. Like when I went down to Nicaragua and I lived in the Jesuit house. I was wondering, What the heck am I doing here? But that's where I felt at home.

Q: They were ethical.

Some sort of shared values. For me personally it was sort of weird, because just out of personal experience, aside from having nothing to do with organized religion or anything, I happened to grow up in an area in Philadelphia which was Irish and German Catholic, mostly. We were the only Jewish family around. I grew up with a visceral fear of Catholics. They're the people who beat you up on your way to school. So I knew when they came out of that building down the street, which was the Jesuit school, they were raving anti-Semites. So childhood memories took a long time to overcome.

Q: As long as we're switching over, we have the church as an institution being a possible place where people can talk, develop ideas, develop agendas. But what about the church as an impediment to social change?

That's what it's been through most of its history. What was remarkable in the last thirty, forty, fifty years is a radical change in the church, the Catholic Church, and which also showed up in many of the Protestant churches. There was a big change. The reason why the U.S. launched this terrorist war in Central America was to destroy this. People now talk as if the big enemy is Islamic fundamentalism. But they're forgetting something. For the last ten years the big enemy has been the Catholic Church, more of an enemy than Islamic fundamentalism. They had to destroy it. When Americas Watch did their wrap-up study on the 1980s, they pointed out that it was a decade framed by the murder of the Archbishop in 1980 and the murder of six Jesuit intellectuals in 1989. That wasn't accidental. The main target of attack was the church, because it had become a part, not entirely, but part of it had become a church devoted to liberation, to the poor. Sectors of the church did undertake what they called the preferential option for the poor, and very consciously. They recognized that for hundreds of years it had been the church of the rich and the oppressors, who were telling the poor, This is your fate. Accept it. A critically important sector of the church changed, important enough to include the dominant elements among the Latin American bishops, which set off the atrocities over the last ten years, in which the U.S. has vigorously participated.

Q: The change is just an accident of history?

I don't know enough about the internal dynamics of it to explain it.

Q: What do you think religion is?

Obviously, it means something to people, a lot. It doesn't to me. I don't understand it. I sort of understand it, but I can't empathize with it. To me it's just another set of irrational beliefs. You can believe this, you can believe that if you want. I don't understand why people should need irrational beliefs. Apparently many people seem to find a good deal of fulfillment in it.

Q: Including lots of scientists. I was quite struck by that recently, finding all these physicists, chemists, biologists ...

Honestly, I'm pretty skeptical when I read that stuff.

Q: Some of those interviews are astounding.

I remember once a close associate of Einstein's once told me, as a sort of a semi-joke, Einstein was always saying famous things ...

Q: He always talks about God.

She told me that when he says God he means "I." "God doesn't play dice with the cosmos" means "I don't believe in this stuff." When scientists talk about God and this, it reminds me a little bit of when Robert Oppenheimer used to talk about Persian poetry. One of the ways in which scientists try to look like, well, ... if they're not really civilized beings, the way they try to look like civilized beings is by doing things that they think are deep. Like you read Persian poetry or you think about Buddha or something like that. But that's always struck me as something of an affectation. It's striking that this kind of talk about God was not true of the generation of scientists, say, from Boer, Planck, Max Born and Einstein, the great period of modern science. It wasn't true. And there was a level of culture and civilization there that was real, that was not duplicated in twentieth-century America. I think this is true of a lot of things. For example, I don't think people of that generation would have named their particles "quarks," trying to show how smart they are because they read Finnegan's Wake. They didn't have to show anybody how smart they were. They were smart and cultivated and educated. You didn't have to make everybody remember, He read Finnegan's Wake.

Murray Gell Mann is quite smart.
"Smart" and "cultivated" are not the same thing. And it's not a matter of persons. It's a matter of the whole intellectual culture. The intellectual culture of Central Europe.

Q: It's also what's supported and what's not.

The intellectual culture of Central Europe out of which a lot of this grew was qualitatively different from that of twentieth-century America.
I recently read a book by a guy named Steven Weinberg, who's a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, very, very brilliant. And it is quite fascinating. The book not only makes difficult ideas accessible, but it's written in a very straight-forward way with no pretense. It feels wise, almost elegant in some sense.
I knew him when he was at MIT, and I felt that.

Q: A lot of these guys can write that way, which you don't find coming out of the soft sciences. You won't find an economist writing a book about economics like that.

That's true. First of all, there's not much to say. But it's certainly true. On the other hand, you were talking about the novel ... this turning to divinity, and does the Big Bang tell us something about the creator. I think it's fairly recent in science. It's a pretty common thing. A lot of people write popular books about science now. They think you have to say that. And they didn't think they to say it forty years ago. And that's a cultural change.

Q: It is a kind of different dimension, when you're talking forty, fifty years ago and you're talking about particles in the lab. Now they're talking about one-trillionth of a second after the whatever it was at the beginning.
I don't think in terms of a conceptual revolution it's anything like the early quantum theory.

Q: No, it's not.

OK, so why didn't they say it? I think it's because they came from a different intellectual culture, where you didn't have to show that you were capable of dealing with the so-called "big ideas," because you were.

Q: That's America.

Yeah, I think that's twentieth-century America, a technological civilization.

Q: It's remarkable how religious this country is.

It's unbelievable. It's not just that it's religious ... if you look at the comparative studies, there's a lot of comparative studies of religious beliefs. The U.S. is off the chart. It's like a devastated peasant society.

Q: If you watch TV and watch sports events where they interview people after they've done an event, regarding China you hear jokes about how they used to say, I read Mao and he helped me jump and taught me how to do this high jump and I won the Olympic event. But that's also the way the Americans sound. Except it's God. The first thing out of their mouth is always, I thank God.
It's shocking, just looking at the studies, which are interesting. I was just looking at one by Andrew Greeley which was a cross-cultural study. It turns out that 75% of Americans literally believe in religious miracles, for example. You can't find that anywhere else.

Q: But what does that mean? Deeper, what does it mean if you go up to somebody on the street and they say, I'm one of those 75%? What does that mean?

Either it means that they think they have to say it or they literally believe it. Either way it's the same. It shows that there are features of the society which are off the chart with regard to industrial societies. I have a feeling that it may be related to the sense ... there are other things which are striking, too. There is an increasing sense that nothing is responsive to me. The institutions don't work for me at all. In fact, that figure goes higher and higher every year. It's now hitting over two-thirds of the population, which is astonishing. 83% of the population thinks that the entire economic system is inherently unfair.

Q: But the two together ... think that the economic system is unfair, they also think that there's nothing that they can do about it.
That's why I think they're connected.

That's why I say it's like a devastated peasant society. In a society where people feel, I can't do anything, you turn to something supernatural. It's happening in Central America right now. The evangelical churches coming down with the story, Don't worry about this miserable existence. It doesn't matter anyway. Things will be better later. They're gaining considerable success in the wake of murderous destruction of social reform movements.

Q: There's an element which makes sense. If you live under those conditions, then they're not likely to change unless you're trying to eke out the best possible existence you can, this kind of thing.

Maybe. These are phenomena that have been looked at for a long time. Walter Dean Vernon was one of the social scientists who looked at it about ten, twelve years ago. He wrote about back to the nineteenth century there seemed to be a correlation between the lack of, say, worker organization and other popular organization in the U.S. and the lack of political differentiation and political ideal and so on on the one hand and the surprising degree of religious commitment on the other. It's possible that they're correlated. If you go back, there are other things to look at. The cheriastic elements in the church, millennial movements in the church, we're on the verge, the Messiah is coming, or wait till the Messiah, that kind of businesses, did regularly arise and was often even stimulated at times of social struggle or the collapse of social struggle.

Q: That's oppression.

That kind of thing. A.P. Thompson writes about that in The Making of the English Working Class at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It goes right through the nineteenth century in the U.S. Actually, business even supported evangelical preachers to try to ... in fact, you see it right now in the Islamic world. Take these 415 people who were kicked out of Israel from Hamas. Israel had supported the Islamic fundamentalist movement openly, as a counterweight to secular nationalism, which is what really bothered them. They were afraid of secular nationalism which would make accommodations, proposals, they would have to deal with these issues politically, which they didn't want to do. It got to the point where they were literally shipping Islamic fundamentalist young people to break up strikes by secular nationalist students on the West Bank. Well, they got what they wanted. Islamic fundamentalists. And it's happening throughout the Arab world, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which people talk about as this horrible thing which is very perplexing. Part of it is a reaction to the failure of secular nationalism. That failure has a number of reasons, one of them being Western hostility to it. Sure, you take away people's hopes and they'll turn to something else.

Q: Next time we get together, perhaps we should start there, trying to work through what there is to be hopeful about, what, in more detail, is the goal we are striving for, what, in more detail, are the structures standing between us and that goal, and even, in more detail, what kind of activism and organization on our part might overcome those obstacles and attain the sought goals. But, for now, Thank you.

- Interview with Noam Chomsky.

They say "Evil prevails when good men fail to act."

"When you depend on a person you will be lost; you wither away. So don't. That is what I have been saying. One has to find out through right education, this source which is imperishable, for then there will always be this extraordinary creativity. Then you will never be depressed; you will never be lonely. "

J Krishnamurti

...all around there is insanity and within our mind too...but when a mind comes to peace, when a mind transcends illusions and faces facts...then the still quite voice of insight and intelligence can come to the fore:

The view of A Course in Miracles:

Judgment is symbolic because beyond perception there is no judgment. When the Bible says "Judge not that ye be not judged," it means that if you judge the reality of others you will be unable to avoid judging your own.

The choice to judge rather than to know is the cause of the loss of peace. Judgment is the process on which perception but not knowledge rests. I have discussed this before in terms of the selectivity of perception, pointing out that evaluation is its obvious prerequisite. Judgment always involves rejection. It never emphasizes only the positive aspects of what is judged, whether in you or in others. What has been perceived and rejected, or judged and found wanting, remains in your mind because it has been perceived. One of the illusions from which you suffer is the belief that what you judged against has no effect. This cannot be true unless you also believe that what you judged against does not exist. You evidently do not believe this, or you would not have judged against it. In the end it does not matter whether your judgment is right or wrong. Either way you are placing your belief in the unreal. This cannot be avoided in any type of judgment, because it implies the belief that reality is yours to select from.

You have no idea of the tremendous release and deep peace that comes from meeting yourself and your brothers totally without judgment. When you recognize what you are and what your brothers are, you will realize that judging them in any way is without meaning. In fact, their meaning is lost to you precisely because you are judging them. All uncertainty comes from the belief that you are under the coercion of judgment. You do not need judgment to organize your life, and you certainly do not need it to organize yourself. In the presence of knowledge all judgment is automatically suspended, and this is the process that enables recognition to replace perception.

You are very fearful of everything you perceive but have refused to accept. You believe that, because you have refused to accept it, you have lost control over it. This is why you see it in nightmares, or in pleasant disguises in what seem to be your happier dreams. Nothing that you have refused to accept can be brought into awareness. It is not dangerous in itself, but you have made it seem dangerous to you.

When you feel tired, it is because you have judged yourself as capable of being tired. When you laugh at someone, it is because you have judged him as unworthy. When you laugh at yourself you must laugh at others, if only because you cannot tolerate the idea of being more unworthy than they are. All this makes you feel tired because it is essentially disheartening. You are not really capable of being tired, but you are very capable of wearying yourself. The strain of constant judgment is virtually intolerable. It is curious that an ability so debilitating would be so deeply cherished. Yet if you wish to be the author of reality, you will insist on holding on to judgment. You will also regard judgment with fear, believing that it will someday be used against you. This belief can exist only to the extent that you believe in the efficacy of judgment as a weapon of defense for your own authority.

Your words should reflect only mercy, because that is what you have received and that is what you should give. Justice is a temporary expedient, or an attempt to teach you the meaning of mercy. It is judgmental only because you are capable of injustice.

I have spoken of different symptoms, and at that level there is almost endless variation. There is, however, only one cause for all of them: the authority problem. This is "the root of all evil. "Every symptom the ego makes involves a contradiction in terms, because the mind is split between the ego and sanity, so that whatever the ego makes is incomplete and contradictory. This untenable position is the result of the authority problem which, because it accepts the one inconceivable thought as its premise, can produce only ideas that are inconceivable.

The issue of authority is really a question of authorship. When you have an authority problem, it is always because you believe you are the author of yourself and project your delusion onto others. You then perceive the situation as one in which others are literally fighting you for your authorship. This is the fundamental error of all those who believe they have usurped the power of God. This belief is very frightening to them, but hardly troubles God. He is, however, eager to undo it, not to punish His children, but only because He knows that it makes them unhappy. God's creations are given their true Authorship, but you prefer to be anonymous when you choose to separate yourself from your Author. Being uncertain of your true Authorship, you believe that your creation was anonymous. This leaves you in a position where it sounds meaningful to believe that you created yourself. The dispute over authorship has left such uncertainty in your mind that it may even doubt whether you really exist at all.

Only those who give over all desire to reject can know that their own rejection is impossible. You have not usurped the power of God, but you have lost it. Fortunately, to lose something does not mean that it has gone. It merely means that you do not remember where it is. Its existence does not depend on your ability to identify it, or even to place it. It is possible to look on reality without judgment and merely know that it is there.

Peace is a natural heritage of spirit. Everyone is free to refuse to accept his inheritance, but he is not free to establish what his inheritance is. The problem everyone must decide is the fundamental question of authorship. All fear comes ultimately, and sometimes by way of very devious routes, from the denial of Authorship. The offense is never to God, but only to those who deny Him. To deny His Authorship is to deny yourself the reason for your peace, so that you see yourself only in segments. This strange perception is the authority problem.

There is no one who does not feel that he is imprisoned in some way. If this is the result of his own free will he must regard his will as not free, or the circular reasoning in this position would be quite apparent. Free will must lead to freedom. Judgment always imprisons because it separates segments of reality by the unstable scales of desire. Wishes are not facts. To wish is to imply that willing is not sufficient. Yet no one in his right mind believes that what is wished is as real as what is willed. Instead of "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven" say, "Will ye first the Kingdom of Heaven," and you have said, "I know what I am and I accept my own inheritance. "

Spinoza's child

2006-11-28T12:08:00.001-08:00

Have you read spinoza or about spinoza?
All I know about spinoza is his belief in a non-interventionist god and a verbal-punch-up with liebniz about the role of god in the world
Do you think non-interventionist... - or just non-traditional - ie god was not a retributional presence - but rather an infinite harmony? I guess your term makes me wince - I think my phrase appropriates his views better - but i know where you are coming from.
thats very tambouriney christianity
Eh?
I think spinoza was going with god making the rules of nature and just sitting back
Ok thats what i meant... we make our own beds - we have to lie in them...so dont blame god
because you did it sort of thing. I think there is a lot of wisdom to that.
Exactly 'God helps those who help themselves'
ie God does nothing - we do it ALL.
But its a very comforting alternative to non-belief though
God is the intrinsic plan. I believe that this world has nothing to do with god - its a creation of the ego and that our reality is beyond this world and god has no conception of this world because its not his creation. WE are his creation - but we have somehow forgotten that and created an illusionary idea about what we are - which is based on fear and limitation and yet mingled with beauty too (because beauty is our essence)...ie the world/the body-mind labarynth.
Do we all share the same illusion?
Until we wake up -then we see through it. Though I suppose everyone has there own private hell.
How do we wake up?
When we have a mystical experience with our essence -but that is not the answer to your question. That is the answer to the question: what happens when we wake up? To answer your question - the how question is complicated but i suppose it has something to do with the substance of the "I" thought - is your "I" hitched to a sense of exclusion and pettiness or does it transcend limitation completely? Coming into some direct relationship with the essence of the substance that lies beyond the illusions that blind us. I suppose every real mystical tradition has its ways

I just read the Tao of Physics- recommend it to you interesting - a book written by a physicist which parallels the insights of particle physics and quantum mechanics with the continuous flow models of eastern spirituality.
Yes, I've heard of it. Murray-Gelman, a particle physicst blames himself for those books by calling particle heirarchys the eight-fold way.
But jokes aside there is a lot of parallels between the discoveries of modern physics and the kind of views that are common to the likes of spinoza and the budda et al
I agree. But some new-age things are beginning to sicken me. A book on Jung that I just listened to was impossible for me.
Well i dont know if it is new age that i am spouting. I agree with Einstein that science and religion are not separate...and I don't know how you qualify experiential meaning - one can live by dogma and infer whatever one wants to fit ones model of how things "ought to be (according to the dogma you subscribe to)" or one can be honest about the multi-faceted nature of the psyche and the universe - and if one does the latter - I don't think one can ignore the limitations of the mind... and hence the significance of symbolism (and hence the role of mythology in the shaping of our finite relationship with the vastness of the cosmic mystery)
Its not Jung's theorys that I was having a go at, symbolism and the role stories play in one psyche are important...it's the music they played throughout and the voice of Michael York in the book on tape I just listened to - that got me!
Oh ok :)

Birthday

2006-10-05T12:07:00.000-07:00

It happens to most of us. We leave school and we get on a bus. We leave university and we get on a bus. We leave one job and we get another job and we get on a bus. This really hit me today in a dream that took me forcefully into the first day of my 32nd year of life on this planet. Where does the bus lead? It leads to work. It leads to a position...it lead's to a title and a paycheck. When you dream of a bus - it means your life is going along with the crowd and maybe it's a bit too normal for what might be healthy. But then this was MY dream. And I am not sure I have ever gone along with the crowd. Actually, I think I have mostly made a habit of hurling hand grenades into the crowd. To hell with the crowd...Pour gasoline on convention and lob in a lighted match.

But today this bus had an interesting passenger. There was me (ok, two interesting passengers). Then there was a bunch of teachers from the local American International school. And there was my yoga teacher. Showing up for work at the crack with the best of them. It was a big thing for me to see that.

There is a line in the Spiderman movie which I always warmed to. "With great power comes great responsibility." I believe that. But at one point does one recognize the center of power in one's life?

I once knew an older man who was a model for me. He was a good man. He had a lucrative job and he took care of his family. He went to the office every day and every day was much the same as the day before - one board meeting to the next. He was comfortable and life was predictable. He read voraciously on planes. He was always on a plane traveling from one hotel and corporate meeting to the next. He was a model for me because I looked to him and I saw sacrifice. He was also everything that I saw as deadly. I could not see a thread of passion in his life. I could see conformity, I could see obedience to the system. But no passion. The comfortable life. The number crunching inevitability of it all. I wanted to be a whale researcher or a rock music lyricist or a poet or a wildlife cameraman or a....Well, today when I saw the yoga teacher got on the bus...something clicked for me as it never had before. I saw two worlds merge in that simple act.

The world of my adventurous spirit merged with the world of the family man whose life example was so deadly for me. And I understood that synthesis to be the root meaning of the word "extraordinary." To be extraordinary one must wear the mask of the ordinary...go along with the crowd, ride the bus, follow the rules of the society...but do it all with a revolutionarily different inner story going on. My spiritual teachers have not been ordinary men. They are as extraodinary as you can find - if you knew how to find them that is. Very few would recognise his extraordinariness...because most people are blind. Ordinariness is a blind man riding the bus of routine and never seeing beyond the surface of things...taking pleasure in this, grumbling about that. Extraordinariness is a man with 20-20 vision riding the bus who sees at every level. He rides the bus like the ordinary man... but he is outside the field of the normal. He consents to ride the bus because that is the way of living in the world and being of service to it.

It's like the Roald Dahl book "Witches" I am reading to a kid right now. Only a trained eye can identify a witch. They always wear gloves. They have no toes, their saliva is blue and their scalp itches because they are all bald and have to wear wigs. Oh and their nostril openings are slightly bigger than the average person. I once heard my teacher say "Most of you will die without knowing who you are." It's true. It's also true that we all have to take that bus. The one who knows who he is and who rides the bus...he's living in a whole different field of reality...but he still rides the bus...he still partakes in life and that was the big lesson for me. Give yourself wholeheartedly to the task of honoring the system. Settle down to the routine of it all...but only if you are following a bigger path - for that keeps you sane and connected to what matters (money does not matter, prestige does not matter, position does not matter, authority does not matter - these are all insubstantial things)...otherwise you need a crisis to wake yourself up - because the alternative is deadly comfort. As Socrates (or Plato?) once said "the unquestioned life is not worth living"; equally the life of comfortable obscurity which is devoid of passion is deadly.

I'm on the bus...but I came on it only recently...and begrudgingly - after a lot of defiance and kicking and screaming and soul searching and experimentation...I could not find peace for many years until I had resolved the dilemma of matching my passion with the mundane realities of bodily existence. Ans that was the best birthday present - to see that my mundane teaching and business life is linked to my passion (which is what my yoga teacher represents to me - passion)...When you are on the bus and your heart is fully engaged - then you know you're blessed. As you mature...the true gifts of living come upon you when the subtle awareness dawns in you that the real rewards of experience are born of extending yourself in service to others. The privelege of a lifetime is being who you are. Yet that only holds meaning for us if we fully extend who we are. It is through being of service to others that we come to see ourselves and we have to ride on the bus to accomplish that.

Letter from Friend in America

2006-09-17T21:37:00.000-07:00

Nathan,
Good to hear from you. Yes, the media and a lot of good people have begun
to speak up against this president and this war, at last. There are even
those who take the radical approach and suggest we talk to our enemies
rather than just try to kill them. Those crazy folks think that violence is
wrong and only makes the problems worse. I'm sure that as this country is
pushed closer to a police state the voices will become louder before they
are silenced. If this admistration continues to control all the branches of
government for two more years I fear democracy will lose and facism will
again raise its ugly head.
The winding road that Patanjali speaks of leads both ways. Some walk the
road to the top of the mountain of hope and peace and others walk down the
road to death and dispair but both believe they walk with god. Me, I just
want to sit by the side of the road offering love and understanding no
matter which way the traveler is going. I think if we could all just get
off the road and sit down together we would forget which way we are trying
to go and be happy with where we are now. There are other paths that go
around the mountain and avoid the deep canyons. These paths are narrow and
winding, quiet, rarely tread. The humble paths are taken by the old and the
children in an attempt to avoid the terrible traffic between heaven and
hell and right and wrong. I sit here across this ocean between us and think
of what is happening today and wonder about tomorrow and the only thing I
can think of is a line from movie called "War Games". The young computer
savy kid saves the world from a real nuclear attack by engaging the
military computer in a game of tic-tac-toe that it can't win. "The only
way to win is to not play the game."

peace

billy

Prayer

2006-08-21T23:32:00.000-07:00

May the impoverished of the world claim back their dignity...

A lovely couple lines from Matt in Shanghai

2006-08-21T00:01:00.000-07:00

Of course over the next few weeks there will be lots of headaches, and scanning
through job sites, and decision-making, and stress, and interviews, and
Chinglish phone calls; but it occurs to me that - just for that one moment when
you resolve to quit something dull and do something new, and suddenly you can
see all of life's possibilities: in that moment, you are free.

First Know Yourself

2006-08-18T00:45:00.000-07:00

Can we attain Jnana through your grace and teach it to the people of the world?

First know yourself; leave alone the idea of teaching others. If the world and its people remain after your realization you may teach them. Trying to help the world without knowing yourself will just be like a blind man trying to treat the diseases in the eyes of others. First clear your own eyes. If you do this you will see the eyes of all others as your own. Then, if you see the eyes of all others as your own, how can you exist without helping them?

Ramana

Intelligence means not falling into the grooves which society sells us

2006-08-17T21:53:00.000-07:00

He was, though, good at boy-things, the cadet force and football. After deciding against the army and civil engineering, he went to Sheffield University to study maths and financial accounting, although he actually spent all his time performing. 'I was putting on shows at college, taking them to Edinburgh, and my brother would say, "Hmm, not very good, is it?" I'd say, "You're not supposed to say that." What about, "Lots of energy"?

'Not very good' however, remained the general verdict for a long time. He dropped out of university to concentrate on comedy, but it was 10 years before he got a Perrier award nomination in 1991. His doggedness in the face of all the evidence is impressive. 'Cleverly, I did work out that if I got a degree it would be more difficult to stick at it. I'm 89-90 per cent certain that I wouldn't have fallen back on it because I've wanted to do this from the age of seven. But it would have been much more - it was accounting for God's sake, you can get a job with that no matter what the economy's doing. So I burnt my bridges with a flamethrower.'

He started out performing sketches, 'and that didn't get anywhere, so I tried street performing and I was awful at it. It came to the point I was performing in Covent Garden with a partner and I thought, everyone doesn't like this, I don't like doing it, we're getting no money, so ... I'll just carry on doing it.'

Eddie Izzard

Dream this morning

2006-08-07T04:22:00.000-07:00

Arrival at the goal depends on the intensity of the dedication to the intention.

- Interestingly, this is the 21st Sutra of the First Chapter of the Yoga Sutra

tivrasamvegaanaamaasanah

A crooked world - despair? hope?

2006-07-30T13:24:00.001-07:00

The Buddha said that life is suffering. But there is a way. A way out. For the noble ones.

India is not an enlightened society. There are many things which disgust me in this country. In places though, there is reverence. I am fond of yoga and the teachings of the Buddha and Krishnamurti as they do not preach. They admit the power of faith. They are the religions of humanism. Religions in the best possible use of that word. For me there is no God in religion. The word "education" means in latin (ed - ducat-ducare): "To draw out (that which is within)." That is religion. Religion is a fire which burns the seeds of inclinations which lead to sorrowful consequences.

I have met monks who are mere civil servants. I have met teachers who are administrators. Sea fish born in a tank unaware of the ocean.

We must be strong. Temptation is strong. But we must be stronger. Krishnamurti once said this of hope:

"I hope I am not offering anybody any hope (Laughter). That would be a most terrible thing. If you are looking for hope - from me or from another - then you are avoiding the despair which is what actually is. Do please follow this. Can you look at that despair, which is what actually is - not the hope which is merely a supposition, something you wish for - but actually look at the fear and despair? Can you look at it without hope and without condemnation? Can you see it actually as it is, be directly in contact with it? This means looking at it non-verbally, without any fear, without any distortion. Can you do it? If you can look at "what is" absolutely without any distortion, you will see that the whole thing undergoes a tremendous change: it is no longer despair, it is something entirely different. But, unfortunately, most of us are conditioned and we are always hoping for the ideal, which is an escape. Putting away all escapes, all hopes - not in bitterness or with cynicism but because you see that there is only this fear and despair - then you are left free to look. And when the mind is free, is there despair? "

Questioner: Is sex always an escape?
Krishnamurti: I wouldn't know. (Laughter) Is it to you? You see, that's just it: it becomes an escape when it is the only thing wherein you feel free of your daily misery, effort and contradiction; and so it becomes a door through which you can escape. And if you do so escape, that very escape breeds fear. But if you are aware that it is an escape, then everything changes.

Excellent videos

2006-07-23T05:44:00.000-07:00

http://video.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp?r=1&ean=715098764627

Reflections on depression

2006-07-23T05:39:00.000-07:00

Depression is not a light issue - it takes enormous sensitivity and affection and patience to get to the bottom of it. I once read somewhere that depression was anger which we have not learned to unravel and understand- that somehow gets channeled within us and which gets locked inside us. I feel that the dream I had is symbolic of that process in you. To define it simply as anger is to oversimplify the process of depression - but it makes some a lot of sense on many levels...The sense of struggling with unconquered (and often unidentified) frustrations within and without that pulls us down into a mental darkness not easily shirked...

Creating community a la ancient Chinese...

2006-07-22T02:15:00.000-07:00

Manifestation of holding together.
In the hunt the king uses beaters on three sides only
And foregoes game that runs off in front.
The citizens need no warning.
Good fortune.

In the royal hunts of ancient China it was customary to drive up the game from three sides, but on the fourth the animals had a chance to run off. If they failed to do this they had to pass through a gate behind which the king stood ready to shoot. Only animals that entered here were shot; those that ran off in front were permitted to escape. This custom accorded with a kingly attitude; the royal hunter did not wish to turn the chase into a slaughter, but held that the kill should consist only of those animals which had so to speak voluntarily exposed themselves.

There is depicted here a ruler, or influential man, to whom people are attracted. Those who come to him he accepts, those who do not come are allowed to go their own way. He invites none, flatters none - all come of their own free will. In this way there develops a voluntary dependence among those who hold to him. They do not have to be constantly on their guard but may express their opinions openly. Police measures are not necessary, and they cleave to their ruler of their own volition. The same principle of freedom is valid for life in general. We should not woo favor from people. If a man cultivates within himself the purity and the strength that are necessary for one who is the centre of a fellowship, those who are meant for him come of their own accord.

Buddhism and the Purpose of Life

2006-07-18T01:22:00.000-07:00

There is something very deep in the following quote. It relates to the purpose of life:

"Macbeth was not blessed with an understanding of the Four Noble Truths. Near his death he says about life:

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing. (Act V. sc.v 27-30)

Contrast this with the perspective the poet Wun-Men speaks of when we have refuge in the Four Noble Truths:

Ten thousand flowers in spring
the moon in autumn,
a cool breeze in summer,
snow in winter.
If your mind isn’t clouded by unnecessary things,
this is the best season of your life."

What do you hear?

2006-07-02T05:57:00.000-07:00

A line from the new Superman movie:
Superman takes Louis Lane high up in the heavens above the Earth...he wants to communicate the essential teaching of the compassionate heart - the voice of he who is no longer living for his selfish desires...but who is living according to the wisdom of the Dhamma.

"What do you hear?" he asks.
"I hear nothing." she says
"I hear everything.
I hear all the suffering....all the cries for help. This is why the world needs me."

Reminds me of that beautiful line in the Gnostic Gospel of St Thomas:

"Cleave a piece of wood, I am there. Lift up the stone, you will find me there."

He, who is no longer separated from life, is beyond illusion. In the great silence is contained the everything.

The Inner World

2006-07-02T05:56:00.000-07:00

Today I will meditate no matter how tired I think I feel. I will not allow myself to be a victim to noise while trying to meditate. I will transfer my consciousness, like a yogi, to the inner world.

Yogananda

Lessons from Yogananda

2006-07-02T05:54:00.000-07:00

"I will speak the truth, but will at all times avoid speaking unpleasant or harmful truths. I will offer nothing but kind criticism."

Paramahansa Yogananda

Notes on Thatcherism

2006-07-01T10:13:00.000-07:00

It is the most negative spin on Thatcherism, the notion that she encouraged a climate of selfish, uncaring greed.

Margaret Thatcher, the Conservative British prime minister from 1979 to 1990, was an outspoken devotée of Hayek's writings. Shortly after Thatcher became Leader of the party, she "reached into her briefcase and took out a book. It was Friedrich von Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. Interrupting [the speaker], she held the book up for all of us to see. 'This', she said sternly, 'is what we believe', and banged Hayek down on the table." [1] After winning the 1979 election, Thatcher appointed Keith Joseph, the director of the Hayekian Centre for Policy Studies, as her secretary of state for industry in an effort to redirect parliament’s economic strategies. Likewise, some of Ronald Reagan’s economic advisors were friends of Hayek. [2].

Hayek wrote an essay entitled Why I Am Not a Conservative [3], (included as an appendix to The Constitution of Liberty) in which he disparaged conservatism for its inability to adapt to changing human realities or to offer a positive political program. His criticism was aimed primarily at European-style conservatism, which has often opposed capitalism as a threat to social stability and traditional values. Hayek identified himself as a classical liberal, but noted that in the United States it had become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the older sense that he gave to the term. In the U.S., Hayek is usually described as a "libertarian", but the denomination that he preferred was "Old Whig"

Having heavily influenced Margaret Thatcher's economic approach, and some of Ronald Reagan's economic advisors, in the 1990's Hayek became one of the most-respected economists in Eastern Europe. There is a general consensus that his analyses of socialist as well as non-socialist societies were proven prescient by the breakup of communist Eastern Europe.

It is the widely held view of Thatcherism, and the attitudes she encouraged, that her critics would say she amply demonstrated herself when she made the famous quotes about "no such thing as society" and that the Good Samaritan could only engage in his act of kindness because he was rich.

It is a view of her legacy that persists to this day. There is, of course an alternative view.

That is, that the first woman prime minister grabbed Britain by the scruff of the neck, took on vested interests such as the unions and shook industry, business and ossified institutions until they squealed.

She pioneered privatisation, encouraged enterprise, freed people and business from an over-intrusive state and promoted self-reliance and family values.

In the 1930s Hayek enjoyed a considerable reputation as a leading economic theorist but his models were challenged by followers of John Maynard Keynes who argued for more active government intervention in economic affairs. The debate between the two schools of thought remains unresolved today, with Hayek's position gaining currency since the late 1970s.

"Thatcherism" is characterised by a free market economy, monetarist economic policy, privatisation of state-owned industries, low direct taxation but conversely higher indirect taxation, opposition to trade unions, nationalism, centralism, as well as checks on the size of the Welfare State and local government. "Thatcherism" may be compared with Reaganomics, Rogernomics and Ruthanasia. She was deeply in favour of individualism rather than collectivism, with a mantra for self-help.

Mrs. Thatcher believed in economic liberalism and claimed in 1983 that "We have a duty to make sure that every penny piece we raise in taxation is spent wisely and well. For it is our party which is dedicated to good housekeeping—indeed, I would not mind betting that if Mr. Gladstone were alive today he would apply to join the Conservative Party"

Changes to the power of the trade unions were made gradually, unlike the approach of the Heath Government, and the greatest single confrontation with the unions was the NUM strike of 1984 to 1985 in which the union eventually had to concede. Whether these confrontational tactics ultimately benefited Britain or not, they destroyed the post-war consensus of British politics. In 2001 Peter Mandelson, a member of parliament belonging to the British Labour Party closely associated with Tony Blair, famously declared that "we are all Thatcherites now".

Thatcherism as a form of Government

Another important aspect of Thatcherism is the style of governance. Britain in the 1970s was often referred to as "ungovernable". Mrs Thatcher attempted to redress this by centralising a great deal of power to herself, as the Prime Minister, often bypassing traditional cabinet structures (such as cabinet committees). This personal approach also became identified with a certain toughness at times such as the Falklands, the IRA bomb at the Conservative conference and the Miner's Strike.

Sir Charles Powell, the Foreign Affairs Private Secretary to the Prime Minister (1984-91, 96) described her style thus, "I've always thought there was something Leninist about Mrs Thatcher which came through in the style of government - the absolute determination, the belief that there's a vanguard which is right and if you keep that small, tightly knit team together, they will drive things through... there's no doubt that in the 1980s, No. 10 could beat the bushes of Whitehall pretty violently. They could go out and really confront people, lay down the law, bully a bit".[5]

Collectivism versus Individualsism: Some consider an early example of collectivist political philosophy to be Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract, which maintains that human society is organized along the lines of an implicit contract between members of society, and that the terms of this contract (e.g. the powers of government, the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens, etc.) are rightfully decided by the "general will" - that is, the will of the people. This idea is part of the philosophical foundation of democracy.

Monetarism is a set of views concerning the determination of national income and monetary economics. It focuses on the supply and demand for money as the primary means by which economic activity is regulated. Monetary theory focuses on money supply and on inflation as an effect of the supply of money being larger than the demand for money.

Monetarism today is mainly associated with the work of Milton Friedman, who was among the generation of liberal economists to accept Keynesian economics and then critique it on its own terms. Friedman and Anna Schwartz wrote an influential book on the monetary history of the United States, Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960, and argued that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Friedman advocated a central bank policy aimed at keeping the supply and demand for money at equilibrium, as measured by growth in productivity and demand. While most monetarists believe that government action is at the root of inflation, very few advocate a return to the gold standard. Friedman for example views the gold standard as highly impractical. The former head of the United States Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, is generally regarded as monetarist in his policy orientation.

Critics of monetarism include both neo-Keynesians who argue that demand for money is intrinsic to supply, and some conservative economists who argue that demand for money cannot be predicted. Supply-sider Jude Wanniski declared monetarism a failure because it assumed that the velocity of money is roughly constant [1]. Joseph Stiglitz has argued that the relationship between inflation and money supply growth is weak for ordinary inflation, as opposed to hyperinflation (meaning perhaps more than 10% year-over-year) which is almost universally regarded as an effect of government spending at a time when output growth can not absorb it (See inflation by government spending). In an interview with Milton Friedman (published in the Financial Times 6 Jun 2003) Milton Friedman even seems to repudiate the monetary policy of monetarism and is quoted as saying "The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success," ... "I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did."

Though monetarism is commonly associated with conservative economics and economists, not all conservatives are monetarists, and not all monetarists are conservative

She supported the US bombing raid on Libya from bases in the UK in 1986 in defiance of other NATO allies. Her liking for defence ties with the United States was demonstrated in the Westland affair when she acted with colleagues to prevent the helicopter manufacturer Westland, a vital defence contractor, from linking with the Italian firm Agusta in favour of a link with Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation of the United States. Defence Secretary Michael Heseltine, who had pushed the Agusta deal, resigned in protest at her style of leadership, and remained an influential critic and potential leadership challenger. He would, eventually, prove instrumental in Thatcher's fall in 1990.

The UK was widely seen as the "sick man of Europe" in the 1970s, and some argued that it would be the first developed nation to return to the status of a developing country. Instead, the UK emerged as one of the most successful economies in modern Europe. Most people today realize that this was due to Margaret Thatcher's policies.

Critics of this view believe that the economic problems of the 1970s were exaggerated, and were caused largely by factors outside any UK government's control, such as high oil prices caused by the oil crisis, leading to the high inflation which damaged the economies of nearly all major industrial countries. Accordingly, they also argue that the economic downturn was not the result of socialism and trade unions, as Thatcherite supporters claim. Critics also argue that the Thatcher period in government coincided with a general improvement in the world economy, and the buoyant tax revenues from North Sea oil (although this is sometimes a double-edged sword; see Dutch disease), and that these were the real cause of the improved economic environment of the 1980s rather than Margaret Thatcher's policies.

Perceptions abroad broadly follow the same political divisions. On the left, Margaret Thatcher is generally regarded as somebody who used force to quash social movements, who imposed social reforms that disregarded the interests of the working class and instead favoured the wealthier elements of the middle class and business. Satirists have often caricatured her. For instance, French singer Renaud wrote a song, Miss Maggie, which lauded women as refraining from many of the silly behaviours of males – and every time making an exception for "Mrs Thatcher". She may be remembered most of all for declaring: "There is no such thing as society" [7] to reporter Douglas Keay, for 'Womans Own' magazine, 23 September 1987 [8],going on to emphasise the importance of families and individuals in the fabric of British life. On the economic and political 'liberal' right, Thatcher is often remembered with some fondness as a conservative who dared to confront powerful unions and removed harmful constraints on the economy, though many do not openly claim to be following her example given the strong feelings that highly ideological Lady Thatcher and Thatcherism elicits in many.

The Unhealed Healer - reflections from A Course in Miracles

2006-06-26T10:16:00.000-07:00

1 - I have special powers that others don't.

Magic always sees something "special" in the healer, which he believes he can offer as a gift to someone who does not have it. He may believe that the gift comes from God to him, but it is quite evident that he does not understand God if he thinks he has something that others lack. T111f/120

1 - I, along with everyone else, have all of God's qualities. We were all created equally. Differences in ability are only temporary.

Healing perceives nothing in the healer that everyone else does not share with him. T111/120

2 - I want a fair exchange for what I have given you.

The unhealed healer wants gratitude from his brothers, but he is not grateful to them. That is because he thinks he is giving something to them, and is not receiving something equally desirable in return. T112/121

2 - I lose nothing by giving, I only gain.

Never forget you give but to yourself. Who understands what giving means must laugh at the idea of sacrifice. W345/354f
You learn first that having rests on giving, and not on getting. T102/110
The cost of giving is receiving. T256/275

3 - I need to heal the body/personality/situation of my client.

At worse, they (therapists) but make the body real in their own minds, and having done so, seek for magic by which to heal the ills with which their minds endow it. How could such a process cure? It is ridiculous from start to finish. P8

All material means that you accept as remedies for bodily ills are restatements of magic principles. This is the first step in believing that the body makes its own illness. It is a second misstep to heal it through non-creative agents. It does not follow, however, that the use of such agents (e.g. pills, surgery etc) is evil. T20/24

3 - All sickness and suffering originates in our minds. There are no exceptions. To try and heal something other than the mind "makes the error real".

Psychotherapy is the only form of therapy there is. Since only the mind can be sick, only the mind can be healed. Only the mind is in need of healing. P1

The acceptance of sickness as a decision of the mind, for a purpose for which it would use the body, is the basis of healing. And this is so for healing in all forms. A patient decides that this is so, and he recovers. If he decides against recovery, he will not be healed. Who is the physician? Only the mind of the patient himself. Ml7/18

4 - Although I do not feel the love of God, I know what to do to heal you.

By definition, he is trying to give what he has not received. T159/171
It is not their hands that heal. It is not their voice that speaks the word of God. They merely give what has been given them. M18/19
You do not understand how to overlook errors, or you would not make them. It would be merely further error to believe either that you do not make them, or that you can correct them without a Guide to correction. And if you do not follow this Guide, your errors will not be corrected...the way to undo them, therefore, is not of you but for you. T157/168

4 - Only the love of God heals. As I join with you the love and light of God fills our minds.

The therapist sees in the patient all that he has not forgiven in himself, and is thus given another chance to look at it,open it to re-evaluation and forgive it. P13
A therapist does not heal; he lets healing be. He can point to darkness but he cannot bring light of himself, for light is not of him. Yet, being for him, it must also be for his patient. The Holy Spirit is the only Therapist. He makes healing clear in any situation in which He is the Guide. You can only let Him fulfil His function. He needs no help for this. He will tell you exactly what to do to help anyone He sends to you for help, and will speak to him through you if you do not interfere. T161/172f

5 - My client is an innocent victim of circumstances beyond his control.

Listen to what the ego says, and see what it directs you to see, and it is sure that you will see yourself as tiny, vulnerable and afraid. You will experience depression, a sense of worthlessness, and feelings of impermanence and unreality. You will believe that you are helpless prey to forces far beyond your own control, and far more powerful than you.
T425f/456

5 - There are no victims. We all choose how we want to react to the lessons of life.

It is impossible that the Son of God be merely driven by events outside of him. It is impossible that happenings that come to him were not his choice. His power of decision is the determiner of every situation in which he seems to find himself by chance or accident. T418/448

6 - I have pity for the pain you are suffering.

To empathise does not mean to join in suffering, for that is what you must refuse to understand. That is the ego's interpretation of empathy, and is always used to form a special relationship in which suffering is shared...The clearest proof that empathy as the ego uses it is destructive lies in the fact that it is applied only to certain types of problems and in certain people. These it selects out, and joins with. And it never joins except to strengthen itself. T307/330

Pain is a sign illusions reign in place of truth. It demonstrates God is denied, confused with fear, perceived as mad, and seen as traitor to Himself. If God is real, there is no pain. If pain is real, there is no God. W35l/361

6 - I acknowledge your pain and I empathise with the strength in you. My loving presence reminds you that the light of Christ is within you and that you can choose again.

Yet of this you may be sure; if you will merely sit quietly by and let the Holy Spirit relate through you, you will empathise with strength, and will gain in strength and not weakness. T307/330

The only meaningful contribution the healer can make is to present an example of one whose direction has been changed for him, and who no longer believes in nightmares of any kind. The light in his mind will therefore answer the questioner, who must decide with God that there is light because he sees it. T160/172

A sick person perceives himself as separate from God. Would you see him as separate from you? It is your task to heal the sense of separation that has made him sick. It is your function to recognize for him that what he believes about himself is not the truth. It is your forgiveness that must show him this. Healing is very simple. M54/56

Nothing is in Our Hands

2006-06-26T10:12:00.000-07:00

Nothing is In Our Hands

Life is never inhibited by Ignorance
It passes on its message
Generation to generation
In the murmur of each moment
Unfolding.

Unperturbed by false authority.
The thread of Loveliness
is never lost to itself.

The mighty River does roar.
And at its source a vast, sacred pool.
Cradle of secrets.

Intelligence washes over us.
I hear sighs of lamentation rising to heaven.
I observe the grasping of the fearful.
I am The silent, heartfelt witness;
Disciple to the Sun.

Within us, an immutable stone,
bombarded by an endless batallion
of marching waves.
Mirror to the Mysterious Moon,
Ever waxing, ever waning...
Ever falling into itself.

En passant...

Our bodies are fashioned
from collected dust and clay
In a sad and wilting hallucination.

Yes, the leaves will fall from the trees...

Dusk will bring shade to those weary of the heat.
The angry will be nourished by the love of wholesome things.
Thunder and lightning shall bring respite to the lunatic.

To live by the grace
of hidden music
That is Living

Nothing is in Our Hands

The original meaning of Bhikkhu (an appelation for a Buddhist monk) - 'one who sits with his own terror.'

The Psychodynamics of Intention and Right action in a Healing Relationships

2006-06-25T15:55:00.000-07:00

I once asked my teacher, who guided me to go and earn some money - as he had once been guided by his teacher in turn - what was most important, to accomplish the task before me. He turned and smiled to me "Purity of heart. Purity of heart is everything he said."

In the Course in Miracles there is a beautiful line about the nature of the healing relationship - it is a line which deserves serious meditation for any would be healer: "One rule should always be observed: No one should be turned away because he cannot pay." (P-3.III.6:1)

The central theme of a life is a person's Dharma. Dharma implies living a virtuous life - a life attuned to one's inner capacities and potentials. I always feel like the best way to appreciate Dharma is to consider the life of a great being. For example, one could take Shakespeare or Mozart or Hafiz or Rumi. How could Shakespeare, Hafiz and Rumi not write?! How could Mozart not compose music?! Life, when it is lived attuned to our inner potentials, is a song of gratefulness to our Creator....We may not all have the kind of genius of a Shakespeare or a Mozart...but we all have unique things to offer - and this is the critical issue - to live our truth and to do it with conviction and devotion.

A life that is lived well requires a stable mind - and when we are grounded in ourselves that means living out our inner potentials. It means being self-reliant. It means being a selfless example to others. The greatest teacher is he who teaches by example. But how does one represent a selfless example to the world and balance that with self-reliance?

Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay "Self-Reliance" states that 'Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.' This is nowhere better brought to the fore than in the story of a great Sufi saint who came into a town and spent a week dragging a dead dog tied to his waist around the streets. This man was the real thing - a real Holy man ('holy' etymologically means to have a mind that is whole - not fragmented and hence conflicted - ie a mind that can be like a still pond - a mind that can reflect the true nature of our inner selves). He was totally wise to the foolishness of his fellow man. He practiced what is a dying art - ie he was an exponent of the school of crazy wisdom.

His teaching was plain and simple. "I am just imitating you who look upon me as crazy. I drag a dead dog around - but you are no different - you are attached to the "dead dog" of the body. Blind allegiance to its unending demands keeps you bound to the world of Maya...you are tied to Samsara by your own actions only...see the ludicrousness of your lives and let go the attachments which keep you bound and foolish." Only one man in the town saw the genius of the saint's actions and he knew him to be a great being.

Every one else decided this man was insane. Blind, regimented thinking and the habit of not questioning things deeper kept them all from self-reflection and deep transformations. In his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance Robert Persig writes that, of all the people in his parish, none is likely to make the bishop more uncomfortable than the saint. A being who is freed of the shackles of desire and conformity - is a being untainted by fear - a being who cannot be blinded by dogma or doctrine; who is immune to any authority beyond that of the Author Himself.

Joseph Campbell wrote that "the society is the enemy when it imposes its structures on the individual. On the dragon there are many scales. Every one of them says "Thou Shalt." Kill the dragon "Thous Shalt." When one has killed that dragon, one has become The Child."

He adds that when we "come to the highest order of love...compulsive, uncontrollable, illicit love, where there is nothing but love and you are totally ripped out of yourself in relation to God. You are le fou, the crazed one who's gone mad with love....When you follow your passion, society's help is gone. You must be very careful. You're completely on your own."

This is the Path. You give up everything for That. The way of insecurity is the way of the only Real security. The way of security is the way of vested interests and attachment. Those who see the truth of this are privy to the sticky illusions of the world. You cannot move in this field of endeavor unless you have come across urgency in yourself. Everything which binds you must be dropped - or you are not able to move forward into newness. As Sri Ramakrishna put it: "Do not seek illumination unless you seek it as a man whose hair is on fire seeks a pond."

To be sane, to be free we must follow Emerson's dictum: "Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist." One must go deep into the mind to give the world anything authentic. Yet, society is so formulated that it is completely set against such a movement. As Campbell put it: "The function of the orthodox community is to torture the mystic to death: his goal."

The journey inward is a journey full of challenges. This is especially true in the modern context where the commercial realities of our world so dominates our actions. Emerson gives some advice on how to live authentically in the passage below:

"Trust thyself, every heart vibrates to that iron string. To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,—— and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts: they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty. Great works of art have no more affecting lesson for us than this. They teach us to abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else, to-morrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another.

There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till. The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried. Not for nothing one face, one character, one fact, makes much impression on him, and another none. This sculpture in the memory is not without pre-established harmony. The eye was placed where one ray should fall, that it might testify of that particular ray. We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents. It may be safely trusted as proportionate and of good issues, so it be faithfully imparted, but God will not have his work made manifest by cowards. A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work and done his best; but what he has said or done otherwise, shall give him no peace. It is a deliverance which does not deliver. In the attempt his genius deserts him; no muse befriends; no invention, no hope."

And Thoreau adds - as if in chorus with the above sentiments:

"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."

So "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius."

It takes a great deal of courage in our convictions to live that way. Emerson saw that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." So how does one come to clarity and consistency? The first two limbs of the path of yoga give us some clues: Yama and Niyama.

Before I go into that, I want to share one more line by Emerson. He said that "To be great is to be misunderstood." When Jesus stormed into the temple he had a great deal of clarity. He was very much misunderstood by the establishment though. He, however, very much understood the ways of the mind - and, by default, he understood the vested interests and fear-mongering ways inherent in the ignorance that dominated the minds of the religious establishment and of the political elite of his time. To them he was undoubtedly a threat; the public liked him, indeed they may have been paying more attention to him than to the priests. The public listened to his lucid explanations of what was amiss in the religious establishment.

Jesus's teachings threatened the Temple's income and the sources of income for the Temple priests. At that time, Jewish people could only enter the Temple if they were ritually pure. Almost everyone arriving in Jerusalem for Passover was deemed ritually unclean. They had to use a mikveh before they could fulfill their religious obligations. Mikvehs are ritual baths which Jews use in order to purify themselves before any act of worship. The priests controlled the mikvehs and charged people to use them.

Jesus said that the whole thing was rubbish. He taught that the Kingdom of God was available to everyone and they didn't have to go through these rituals or pay the money in order to get there.

I come back again now to that quote in the Course in Miracles: "One rule should always be observed: No one should be turned away because he cannot pay." The Course is attributed to the voice of the Christ consciousness - it is interesting to hear that quote again in the context of the above story. Jesus was indeed a great being. He knew that healing relationships were polluted and destroyed by vested interests. He knew that one could never buy one's way to God.

The greatest way to teach is by example. Everything we do sets an example to the world of the principles we live by. I had a teacher who was an impeccable being. Impeccability is what the first two limbs of yoga strive for in the character. The yoga teacher Krishnamacharya was a man of impeccability. He was also a man who lived a life true to his dharma. He was guided by his teacher to go and teach yoga. This was at a time when yoga was looked down upon in India. Krishnamacharya was supremely well qualified and he could have taken up professorships at any number of prestigious institutions...but he went ahead and taught yoga. His teaching was a sign of his humble devotion to his teacher. He did it not for money - but out of love and gratefulness for what had been imparted to him. He suffered many hardships taking that path. But, as he was not in it for money or fame or for any kind of vested interests whatsoever, he was content and protected by life forces.

To rise to the example of individuals like Krishnamacharya in today's world takes a lot of determination and discrimination. It also demands guts. Jesus warned "Do not cast your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet and turn and tear you." In Buddhism the central thought is compassion without attachment. To be a healer one must have compassion without attachment. That includes no attachment to the fruit of our actions. To live an authentic life and to be a healer is very challenging.

Sharing the gift of healing in a rational life is full of pitfalls. There is a quest every healer must take alone. He or she must go down into their own depths and bring something back which the world lacks - lacking it, the world does not know that it needs it. And so, on the return, when you come with your boon for the world and there is no reception, what are you going to do? There are three possible paths.

Joseph Campbell elucidates further:

"One answer is to say "to hell with them. I'm going back to the woods." You buy yourself a dog and a pipe and let the weeds grow in the gate. You have come back to the world with your gift and people look at you with glassy eyes, call you a "kook", and so you retreat. This is the refusal of the return.
The second way is to say, "What do they want? You have a skill. You can give them what they want, the commercial way. Then you have created a whole pitch for your expressivity, and what you had before gets lost. You have a public career, and you have renounced the jewel.
The third way is to try to find some aspect of the domain into which you have come that can receive a little portion of what you have to give. You try to find a means to deliver what you have found as the life boon in terms and in proportions that are proper to the world's ability to receive. It requires a good deal of compassion and patience. Look for cracks in the wall and give only to those who are ready for your jewel."

Krishnamacharya, Jesus, Rumi...they all took the third path. It is a path that does not compromise ones integrity. The other two paths do. The spiritual life cannot be commercialized. The spiritual life cannot be commercialized. I repeat that to lay emphasis on it, because in today's context it is a very strong temptation to think that it can.

A serious student will do whatever it takes to learn the teachings of life. If he needs to earn more money to be more stable in the world of Maya - if that will help him rise to his destiny he will do that (and he will do it without compromising his integrity). If he needs to give up the world and go and become a monk - he will do that. He will do whatever Life requires of him. It might require a lot of steadfastness and patience. Whatever he is required to do - if he is following Life's curriculum (rather than the ego's) he will be totally transformed by the process.

The trick is to be free of attachments of any sort. A good story to point out the inherent difficulties in this challenge is that of the meeting of Jesus with the rich man - as reported in the gospels. Jesus said to his disciple after this meeting: "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24.

The occasion of the saying, according to the gospel writers, was after a rich young man had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should first, keep the commandments (he listed only those concerning duty to men - but similar in a way to the first two limbs of yoga - yama and niyama), sell all his possessions, and give the money to the poor, and then to come, follow Jesus. Because of his great wealth, the young man was unwilling to do this. The point I believe that Jesus was trying to make was that if one is attached to anything one cannot know liberation from the defilements of the mind.

In the case of the rich man his attachment was greatest to his money and his position in the world. I don't believe Jesus' statement here is an indicment to all of us to give up our last penny to the poor and follow Jesus – i.e. to interpret this statement literally would be a mistake. I believe it is rather Jesus' way of pointing out that a selfish life is full of hidden misery and that to live sanely in an insane world one must recognize and let go of all our attachments.

In the case of the rich man he would have done well to follow Jesus's advice - for how many people have the opportunity to meet a teacher of Jesus's caliber in the flesh? The wider point though, for all of us - is not to be a slave to money or vested interests or anything...but rather to be a humble servant to our dharma - which means discovering what right speech and right livelihood are for our individual selves.

Just as a serious student must drop everything for a real teacher... a serious teacher should do whatever it takes to share the teachings if the student is truly serious. That is where money and society and expectations have to be thrown out. In the realm of love, money is nothing...in the realm of love, society is lost and blind.

A teacher must be devoted, inwardly loving and totally lacking in expectations of his or her students. Where there is expectation we are planting the seeds that sprout a sickly weed which stifles our being and campaigns to justify anger. Clearly, there is no love in such approach. Outwardly, a teacher must be appropriate in his behavior (sometimes the mask he wears is strict and distant; at other times warmth and affection accords better with the moment - it all depends on the needs of the student). Whatever is requisite of the teacher, he/she unambiguously aware (if he/she is a real teacher that is) that when it comes to the realm of healing - money and worldly position count for nothing...our motivations and intentions tell the real story. As my teacher said "Purity of heart is everything." Nothing happens without it.

The spiritual disciplines imparted by the teachings of Patanjali are not a model for a business but they are most definitely a model for discovering our real nature by unraveling the illusions within the mind and attuning the mind to the light of intelligence. However, if followed appropriately they will help us to be more honest and exacting in our business life. Ultimately yoga is a way of living - following its principles leads us to a life of joy amidst the sorrows of the world (sorrow is the inherent way of the world). The first two limbs of the eightfold path are as follows:

Yamas - restraints

1. Ahimsa - Non-harmfulness
2. Satya - Truthfulness
3. Asteya - to not steal
4. Brahmacharya - to maintain celibacy (traditional interpretation) - sense control (broadest meaning)
5. Aparigraha: absence of avariciousness, non-appropriation of things not one's own.

Niyamas - observances

1. Saucha: in the traditional codification, this item is listed under Yamas; this word means purity (eating clean food, keeping the body and mind clean etc).
2. Santosha: contentment.
3. Tapas: austerity.
4. Svadhyaya: self-study or study of spiritual scriptures.
5. Ishvarapranidhana: self-surrender/attunement to spirit/devotion to Ishvara - that supreme being/consciousness which is not infected with defilements/to take Ishvara as the exemplar of the values which you yourself strive to encompass (as laid down by the teachings of the Yoga Sutra)

These preliminary steps along the way are things which must be imbibed into the core of our being throughout the journey into yoga/our minds. To be content with what one has, to be attentive to the movement of thoughts in the mind, to be attuned to the inner teacher within us and to respect the teachings of the tradition we find ourselves attuned to (if we find ourselves in personal relationship with a teacher that is - some students transcend the need for a teacher, for example the Buddha made the journey completely alone) - these are all essential to rising to an impeccable state of being.

Only with these as givens can we move forward into the deeper levels of the transformative psychic experience (which is the path of Yoga). Speaking truth and being free of envy and having faith in life forces are also critical things (Emerson made poetry out of such sentiments in the previously quoted sections).

So, to sum up, it is essential that we be humbly aware of our own shortcomings and that we constantly reflect on them. That is the way of Svadhyaya or inner growth. It is essential that we be inwardly and outwardly honest. It is essential that we are self-reliant (hence poverty is not a state conducive to yoga - indeed poverty - whether spiritual poverty (which can manifest itself as attachment to money and worlldy power) or material poverty is a disease of the mind and disease is one of the obstacles to coming into the state of awareness that the path of yoga would have us venture into).

It is essential that we live selflessly in a selfish world - figuring out that equation takes a great deal of individual discernment. One must feed oneself...and one must figure out a way to be of service to our fellow man - but that service must be wisely put into practice ie, it is far better to teach a starving man to fend for himself than to give him scraps of food from your table.

It is essential that we do not commercialize healing...for then you throw the baby out with the bath water...and what you end up doing is anything but healing. It is essential, equally that we do not give blindly our pearls of insight to those who would only act to ridicule them. At the same time, no one should be turned away because he cannot pay. To the real teacher one serious, penniless student is a greater prize than a truckload of half-interested millionaires! It is essential that we calmly and inwardly question and test everyone - especially the teacher. For blind faith is not the way of intelligence nor is it the way of the noble heart.

Anger and the Buddha

2006-06-25T04:38:00.000-07:00

Holding on to anger is like grasping hot coals with the intent of throwing it at someone else: you are the one gettting burnt first.

Buddha

A grove

2006-06-25T03:59:00.000-07:00

A grove means a haven of peace
Staying in your groove = staying in your haven of peace as you move forward through life? :)

A Renaissance of the Spirit

2006-06-19T08:15:00.000-07:00

I have been reflecting a lot recently on the dynamics of purpose. The world is a mess. We are the consciousness of that world. To heal it we must look within - not condemn ourselves or others with crushing judgments.It takes great discipline to find the right qualities within us to approach our selves and our challenges with deep compassion and wisdom. Discipline is the ordering faculty of intelligence. We require it to simplify our lives in the right way.

The discipline which is imposed by an outward authority is not the discipline of love. It is the discipline of fear. Life is dynamic - it takes a mind unblemished by expectation to completely let go. And if we are attached to anything then fear is our way, our approach...our avenue of "development"...

I always find it interesting that Jesus went out into the desert. I don't know if any of you have spent time in a desert. But a desert is an extraordinary place. It is a very stark place on the surface of things. And yet it is not a dead place. Life is there...I find it interesting that Jesus went into the desert because in a way he went into the desert of himself too. When you reduce things to their very essence...to the fundamentals...and you ask yourself very testing questions...questions that can scorch who you think you are - like a hot sun...you are challenged to survive in a psychological environment that may be totally alien to that which you are familiar with.

When all is lost...when the world that you believe in is burnt to ashes...it is then that there can arise an opportunity within us for a renaissance of spirit. Do you cling to life....do you cling to your hopes...to your dreams....Is anything worth clinging to? Or must you let go of everything...sort of come to yourself armed only with the resoluteness of desperation...and guts? Desperation when focused is a very powerful force. If we handle it wisely it is that force of intention that leads to revelation and insight.

When you look at what is without evasion...then you must be very bold, very serious...and very sensitive to the mystery of living; very clear about the tenaciousness of fear. Then - and only then - there is an opportunity for a renaissance of spirit.

Idea = to observe

2006-05-16T02:21:00.000-07:00

I know idealism is not playing on the radio right now, you don't see it on TV, irony is on heavy rotation, the knowingness, the smirk, the tired joke. I've tried them all out but I'll tell you this, outside this campus— and even inside it— idealism is under siege beset by materialism, narcissism and all the other isms of indifference. Baggism, Shaggism. Raggism. Notism, graduationism, chismism, I don't know. Where's John Lennon when you need him.

Bono

External change

2006-05-16T02:18:00.000-07:00

I didn't expect change to come so slow, so agonizingly slow. I didn't realize that the biggest obstacle to political and social progress wasn't the Free Masons, or the Establishment, or the boot heel of whatever you consider 'the Man' to be, it was something much more subtle. As the Provost just referred to, a combination of our own indifference and the Kafkaesque labyrinth of 'no's you encounter as people vanish down the corridors of bureaucracy.

Bono

To fall over is natural - to get up and keep moving is what takes something extraordinary

2006-05-16T02:15:00.000-07:00

My heroes are the ones who survived doing it wrong, who made mistakes, but recovered from them.

Bono

South India - challenges

2006-05-13T22:21:00.000-07:00

The elections just finished here...and I find modern South Indian culture so sad. Virtually all politicians here are movie stars. The movies seem so primitive - so stupid. There are no inspiring films depicting the life of a great scientist or meaningful political struggle. It's all swaying hips and silly songs. Whole film genres just don't exist here - drama is all about guns and overacting superstars that get paid silly amounts of money. All the leading men seem so ugly - with smacking great big foreheads, arrogant swaggers and angry faces. Women are either rich ladies with pathetic worries or smirking love interests that are paid to gasp and squeal... For such a great country as India - it is really quite a sad reflection of modern times to see what the locals here champion as entertainment and political process. In the latest election the leading parties pledged free tvs, bicycles and land for voters! It's sick.

No country impresses me when it comes to politics - with the possible exception of the Scandinavian countries...but Tamil Nadu seems particularly sick. Ahhh, I feel better now to have gotten that off my chest.

Response to Brian

2006-03-13T22:02:00.000-08:00

"All terms are potentially controversial, and those who seek controversy will find it. Yet those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however, be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense against truth in the form of a delaying maneuver. Theological considerations as such are necessarily controversial, since they depend on belief and can therefore be accepted or rejected. A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary. It is this experience toward which the course is directed. Here alone consistency becomes possible because here alone uncertainty ends."

From a Course in Miracles - Clarification of Terms

Yoga says the same and if you find a man who can see (which is the purpose of yoga to see without misperception interfering) - then such a man is truly worthy of your attention. But you have to have some developed intelligence yourself to spot such an individual!

Such a man knows where the shoe pinches....in terms of the mind - is it harmful to refer to one so wise over technical matters (is not the issue of seeing with a clear mind all about technicalities)? Krishnamurti was never against the role of a teacher. He was against the pedestals we put them on, the dependence we build around them - for he knew that such things had nothing to do with pure observation/direct perception/freedom. Such attention is demanded of us if we wish to embark on a real relationship with another human being (the essence of what all learning is about - finding out what "seeing" means).

There are other forces in life Brian - beyond following how you or I might interpret the many word poems K left us....

For me it boils down to whether I am doing my best -and whether I am following my gut. I don't trust man's thought system - I have a limited trust in my ability to discriminate - and I smile when I hear you quote that truth is not at the feet of some teacher nor in India - funny... because you are right! :)

Krishnamurti on the word "idea"

2006-03-12T05:15:00.000-08:00

Krishnamurti also says in a video I saw quite recently that the meaning of the word, the root of the word, 'idea' is to 'observe' - guess you have to subscribe to the special edition Krishnamurti dictionary.

The imperativeness of order

2006-03-09T10:02:00.000-08:00

It's hard for a person, even who's well intentioned, to come through with
what they say they are going to do, when they are inherently disorganized, or
overwhelmed. This certainly applies to me, as well. YOU?

Story

2006-02-28T21:28:00.000-08:00

The word story is intended to alert the reader to the fact that, however closely the narrative may fit the facts, the fictional process has been at work.

Bruce Chatwin

Instinct and story-telling

2006-02-28T21:26:00.000-08:00

Bruce Chatwin, (1940-1989) British novelist and travel writer

There is a connection between instinct and story-telling.

Shivaratri

2006-02-26T07:51:00.000-08:00

Maha Shivratri or Shivaratri (Night of Shiva) is an Hindu festival celebrated every year on the 14th day in the Krishna Paksha of the month Phalguna in the Hindu Calendar. The most significant practices on this day are offerings of Bheel (Bilva) leaves to the Lord Shiva, fasting and all night long vigil.

Legends
There are many stories associated with Shivaratri and its origins.

Samudra manthan
During the samudra manthan by the gods and demons, haalaa-hala, a poison came out of the ocean. It was so toxic, that it effects would have wiped out the entire creation. At this juncture, as per the advice of Vishnu, gods approached Mahadev and prayed him to protect life by consuming this poison. Pleased with their prayers, out of compassion for living beings, Lord Shiva drank this poison and held it in his throat by binding it with a snake. The throat became blue due to the poison (Thus Lord Shiva is also know as Neelakantha) and Shiva remained unharmed. The doctors advised gods to keep Lord Shiva awake during the night as part of the therapy. To amuse Shiva and to keep him awake, the gods took turn performing various dances and playing music. A vigil was thus kept by the gods in contemplation of Shiva. As the day broke out, Shiva, pleased with their devotion blessed them all. Since then, on this day and night - devotees fast, keep vigil, sing glories of Lord and meditate.

Assurance
After creation was complete, Parvati asked Shiva of which rituals pleased him the most. The Lord replied that the 14th night of the new moon, during the month of Phalgun, is my most favourite day. It is known as Shivaratri. Parvati repeated these words to her friends, from whom the word spread over all creation.

The Hunter
Once upon a time, a hunter worshipped Lord Shiva unknowingly on Shivaratri. He did this by dropping bheel leaves on a shiva linga at the base of a bheel tree from its branches where he was hiding and fasting all night. For this he was forgiven of all his sins. This forms the basis behind the offerings of bheel to the Lord on Shivaratri.

From Wikipedia

Be true to yourself

2006-02-26T04:12:00.000-08:00

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell; my blessing season this in thee!

Shakespeare

Peace and Identity

2006-02-12T07:35:00.000-08:00

The key to who you are

Desperate facts

2006-02-10T13:02:00.000-08:00

The problem with seriousness
I mean if you are looking for love
Not something soppy
Not something a pop song might sell you
But something serious
The problem with it - is that it takes such sensitivity
Such diligence
Such patience
Such determination
Such humor

The way I see it, is this: life is raw.
Every one comes with their burdens and do what they do.
Then they have a kid or two.
Then, inevitably they dedicate themselves to that...and it is as if a great rush of ocean water comes and washes them away.
So people can help in little ways.
But the problem is that people are so self-involved with their little focus...
The me and mine...
Worshipping their gods in their temples....following their gurus...
Rarely pausing to find out with any depth what the hell they are doing it all for.

I think we demand far too little of life.
We settle for petty things.
I think we climb ladders without asking why. I mean ladders of progress.
But all too often - they end up leading us into cul-de-sacs.

Of course there are those fighting to survive.
And when you see the sickness of it all.
The whole rotten mess.
The madness of communism and the greed of capitalism...
If you are not angry...not reeling at the madness of little people with the rules and regulations...then you become sort of amalgamated - or you become an escapist and decry it all in bitter solitude.
Anger is a tremendous force.

I am not sure if, in the beginning stages, of human psychological evolution - if anger is an impediment. Equanimity - the goal of yoga - takes enormous guts. I mean it might be accessible in moments - to us all...but to really want to come to a state of equanimity....you have to be on fire and you have to be desperate.

Desperation, Thoreau remarked is the hallmark of a man who has everything but wisdom (or words to that effect). But I am not sure if that is entirely true. There is a quality of desperation that is valid - but it somehow lacks this sense of weakness which is typical of what we concieve of when we think of desperation. There is a bold desperation. A desperation that does anything to breathe. That can lift crushed cars from bodies in pain. That kind of desperation when focused is the same raw energy - at source - as anger....And if we are honest about it...it is not necessarily a bad thing.

On the contrary - it can inspire great things.

I don't think the psychology of positive mind states is a clean book. I think it takes a bit of dirt - I think idealistic altruism is the biggest cop out ever...I think organized religions are sicknesses. I think Jesus walked into the temple and overturned the tables of the money lenders because he was thoroughly sickened by man's inhumanity to man - depravity, laziness and cunning all go hand in hand.

I think if a man can observe...and if he knows what determination is...he becomes a very dynamic force in nature. I think he is what one might call dangerous.

It is funny to note that the way of capitalism leads to oligarchies. Huge corporations with a few fat men at the top who tower over us buying up every thing they can in the thirst for self-boosting mergers... and, ultimately, selling us all short.

In America and South Korea today (and elsewhere) there are these huge churches rising up - mimicing the corporations - huge bundles of drifters being tied together like blind theives...

The ant is a fine success story in evolution...it lives for its herd. I think that is a grand design in nature. But in man it leads to a dissolution of meaning - material success takes over and the loss of love is the price we pay for a very primitive form of efficiency. The church madness that organzied religions manifest in a corporate minded economy is entirely based on this. It has nothing to do with the true wisdom of selflessness...and everything to do with the blind following the blind.

Love is of another order. Yes, it takes learning to serve...You must love doing what you do - you must figure out how to honor whatever way life has gifted you with to function sanely in an insane world. I don't think it boils down to aphorisms and group education. I think that is the anithesis of intelligence - that just makes us into swotting children looking to get top marks on a silly test.

These are some of the background reasons why it is so hard to admire anyone. Because there are so many sticky traps...to fall into. So many ways to become blinded by our own gullibility. Until this is faced - depression is inevitable - as there is not the intelligence to look deeply and discern the tremendous pile of bullshit which most of us buy. What am I talking about? I am talking about the sad and limited thing that most of us call "our life." Waking up is a desperate act because it means throwing all that nonsense out...but that is rather rare in this world...people are generally far too precious and far too lazy.

It is a rare human being who ever learns the truly meaning and value of discipline.

Admiration

2006-02-10T10:54:00.000-08:00

The saddest thing in the world? Untapped potential.
The next saddest thing in the world? Fat, rich people.
Another terrible thing: idealistic altruism

Why?

Because they are all such a waste.

The best things in the world: honesty, determination, genuine selflessness.
Thinking outside the box. Humor. Humility.

Make yourself a mule and someone will ride you.

It's hard to admire people...because people are so imperfect.