Introduction

This is a statement of some of my current positions on the nature of life and living,
particularly with reference to concepts of living spiritually that are commonly taught in
some quarters, and my responses to those concepts.

Here is my starting assumption.

ALL THAT EXISTS IS ONE THING.

This can be stated in many other ways; here are a few of them.

Everything is connected to everything.

Separation is illusion.

Reality is indivisible.

These are not propositions which I can prove in a rigorous way. In fact, the concept of
proof in that sense is contrary to the assumption. Since this is so, and since it’s
impossible for me to even accurately state the concept in human language (for reasons
which I hope will become clear as we go), the following is meant to be only some
suggestions pointing in the very general direction of the idea. With that disclaimer, here
we go!

On saying what you know

The history of human knowledge can be viewed as an accumulation of understandings

about how different aspects of existence are related. The natural sciences are all involved
with determining what influences what, finding “cause and effect”, expressing a
particular situation as a function of another, and so on. Every system of thought or belief
that has ever existed has in some way been an attempt to relate one thing to something
else.

Most of these attempts to tie things together have been incredibly wrong. The rest (oh,
pitifully small number!) have merely been inaccurate. [Dear reader, at this point you may
be tempted to put this document down and water the grass. I can only suggest that it
won’t hurt you to read another couple of pages or so, and then if you want to, you can
have a good laugh at my expense…. Or just take a nap.]

This is not to say that no useful “knowledge” is available. It is to say that what is
available is only useful. In other words, we do have some tools of thought and
understanding which we can use to serve our purposes (which, thankfully, include the
generation of new tools), but nothing we “know” is right, if by that term we mean
completeness, without need of further elaboration or new understanding, self-sustaining
regardless of what other reality(s) may exist, or be shown to exist.

Reality (existence, the universe, God, the Cosmic All) is indivisible in substance or
nature. The divisions we seem to see are the products of our finite minds, seeking
symbols to represent existence and so separating ourselves from it in our minds, rather
than affirming our oneness and complete “connectedness” with it. The ability we possess
to construct symbols, which expresses itself most fully in language, is itself one of the
most powerful tools we have; but it is only a tool, and does not lead us by itself to
“truth.”

Just as reality is indivisible, words are in their very nature dividers, or separators. That is
why they are useful tools. They allow a finite mind to grapple with the infinite a little at
a time, and to share the results with another finite mind, to a limited extent. By their very
usefulness, however, they contain a lie. They lull the user into the utterly incorrect belief
that there is some kind of direct correspondence between words or labels and that which
is, thus breaking out of the role of tool, and usurping the very place of reality itself (old
indivisible, remember?).

Consider the word “tree.” That to which we assign the term “tree” is actually part of a
greater system, consisting of soil, weather, climate, air, water, other trees, etc., and each
of the these things is in turn part of a yet greater system, and so on. If the tree is removed
from this context and place elsewhere, it won’t be a “tree” for long. Then we’ll call it a
“dead tree.” (Actually, “dead” is rather a useful term. It means to have the property of
having formerly been something, but not anymore. In other words, if something is dead,
it is referred to only in terms of its former form, since it no longer exists. !?!) Perhaps the
traps we lay for ourselves in words are beginning to show up a little more clearly. Even
though we need the term “tree” in order to communicate, and even to think in some ways,
the very use of the term can lead us to forget that:

All that exists is one thing

Everything is connected to everything
Separation is illusion
Reality is indivisible

What we must learn is this: nothing can be fully understood (known) without
understanding everything. That’s a very large bit to swallow. It seems to suggest that all
inquiry is essentially hopeless, human endeavor is basically pointless, knowledge doesn’t
exist, and let’s go jump off a bridge. (A cliff will do if you’re afraid of water.)

This may seem a somewhat bleak starting point, but its result is freedom, if freedom is
defined as finding out what is, and living in harmony with it. Many of us spend our lives
in pursuit of safety and security, and we hope to find it by discovering the “facts” upon
which we can rely in perpetuity.
A fact is only a statement, in symbols, whose connection to what is lies only in the
understanding (“mind”) of the originator or receiver of those symbols. In other words,
the “truest” statement in history has no meaning (certainly no “true” meaning) except in
the context of a user of symbols who understands their meaning in non-symbolic terms,
and who uses them as a tool of communication and thought, but does not attempt to bind
reality to the definable content of the symbols. The very concept of a fact may be
described as “truth in a statement” yet “truth” resides not in symbols but in
knowing/living/coexisting of/by/with “truth.”

This is obviously an insufficient statement of the situation, however (as all must
inevitably be). Our very beings are based on “truth.” We would not/could not exist if we
were not “true”; this is another way of saying we would not exist if we didn’t exist. What
is “true” is what is, that which exists: and now it’s time to recall the starting assumption.

ALL THAT EXISTS IS ONE THING

And so…..

There is only one TRUTH, and it is whole and indivisible into lesser “truths”; it cannot
be reduced to symbols; and the essence of the spiritual path is to affirm oneness of spirit
with that TRUTH, acknowledge origin and existence in it and live in awareness
of/in/though/by it.

Human language is limited in its ability to communicate or facilitate thought about

TRUTH; it’s bound by its humble origins as a means of sharing a sense impression (and
perhaps evaluation) with someone who did not have the same experience at the same time
with regard to the same external event. In other words, since the time may come when
I’ll see a dangerous animal that you don’t see (but you have seen other dangerous
animals), let’s agree that the sound “aieeeee!!!” means “I see a dangerous animal right
now!” and you should keep that in mind in determining your next course of action.

On saying what you see

The essential nature of language is agreed-upon symbols for common experiences. The
easiest kinds of experiences on which to agree are sensory. If two people look at a color
and agree on a name for it, their inner experiences of it need not be similar at all, merely
consistent enough to allow them each to recognize the color in their own terms and refer
to the symbol which has been chosen. The experience each one has of the color is
irrelevant to the ability of each one to use the symbol, so long as that experience is
consistent. This consistency of ability to recognize the applicability of a word to a thing
is an absolute demand of symbolic language. With a few exceptions, this process works
pretty well with regard to experiences through the five senses. It works less well for
intellectual experiences, though with care considerable reliability can be built into labels
for these as well. Even so, analogues to sensory experience are a constant part of the
descriptions given of intellectual experience, and often the words that are used are the
same as for sensory experience. For example, “thinking in circles” is a common phrase
to denote a thought process which appears to be leading to a new thought, but instead
returns to the starting thought. Typically, when an intellectual experience leaves all
possible reference or analogue to any sensory (physical) experience, it becomes
extremely difficult or impossible to communicate. Even so, a great many of the
analogues that are used to link intellectual and sensory experience communicate little or
nothing of value regarding the intellectual experience. Have you ever listened to a
physicist attempt to communicate to a non-physicist the meaning and ramifications of the
phrase “curved space”? Here is an intellectual experience which resides at the end of a
great many definitions of symbols which are defined only in terms of previously defined
symbols. If traced to the very beginning, this symbol definition train began with some
carefully designed and interpreted sensory experiences. By attempting to take a short cut
to understanding (the “curved space” analogy), nearly all of the substance of the
intellectual experience is removed. Note that the attempted analogy consists of two
things of which nearly everyone has had some sensory experience, and an attempt to
convert that fact to intellectual experience.

On saying what you feel

Emotional experience is virtually impossible to reduce to the exact definitions required of

symbolic language.

Sensory experiences involve something external to the language user, which can be
experienced by more than one person, and to which a symbol for the common experience
may be attached, regardless of the inner states of being associated with it. Intellectual
experience often begins with symbolic representation of something whose nature is
sensory, and then defines new symbols in terms of the old symbols, then defines yet more
symbols in terms of these newer symbols, and so on. All intellectual experience which is
communicable in symbols requires that all symbols (used in the process or
communicating it) are accurately definable in previously defined symbols. This is often
difficult, but not impossible.

Emotional experience is neither sharable in any immediate way (you can’t feel my anger
as I do, but we can both look at the color green), nor amenable to exact definitions of
terms, except in a theoretical way which may or may not represent the actual emotional
states. (“I am going to use the word “angry” to tell you how I fell, and I want you to
assume that I feel the same way you do when you use the word ‘angry’.”) This is why
there is more disagreement about the meaning of terms with any emotional content than
about most other aspects of language.

We find ourselves in the position of being unable to define a thing which nearly everyone
agrees is nevertheless “real.” (Interestingly, there have been attempts, mostly on the part
of extreme behaviorists, to deny that emotions do exist as a force in human behavior.
These persons would say that emotions are an illusion accompanying behavior, not a
driver of it.) We all feel something about nearly every aspect of our lives, but it seems to
be nearly impossible to actually communicate in words just what those feelings are. For
this reason, nearly all the real communication of feeling is on a non-verbal level, though
it may be associated with feeling terms.

The context in which I use the term anger, my tone of voice, my expression and body
language, the person to whom I use the term, how often I have been heard to use the term
in other contexts, and what is known about the nature of my relationship with the object
of my “anger” are all crucial factors in really understanding anything at all about my
internal state, or what I’m really feeling. Of these factors, context, tone, expression and
body language probably give the most accurate immediate indications.

In order to survive, most of us develop some level of ability to evaluate all those factors
just mentioned, because we learn early that how other people feel is important to how we
will be able to live; our most immediate evidence of this is how we are affected by our
own emotions. Because we have that personal experience of being affected strongly by
our own emotions, few of us doubt that others are affected in some of the same ways.
Nevertheless, none of us really manages to communicate our feelings in words alone
(with any degree of confidence, at least). If we do succeed at this, we’ll often find that
we have done it by verbally describing all or some of those non-verbal factors just listed.
An example that might be written in letter: “I was so angry at John for ignoring me at the
party (context) that I kept snapping at Fred (voice tone), even though it wasn’t his fault. I
went out on the veranda so no one would see my face (expression – no real information
here, but obviously our letter writer knew it would be a give away). I just kept my back
turned to John the rest of the evening (body language) and really played up to Fred to try
to make John jealous.”

Even with all this information accompanying the use of the term “anger”, we still have no
means of accurately determing for ourselves the inner state of the letter writer. The inner
state of the person we communicate with makes a difference even when the object we are
discussing is external to us. When that object is the inner state of either of us, it’s crucial.
We usually try to think how we would feel in the same context, if we were exhibiting
those behaviors. We may apply an adjustment factor (simple guesswork?) for how
different we think we are from the person who is describing the emotion (anger, in this
case).

The unsatisfactory nature of this process can be seen simply by noting how seldom we
feel that someone else really understands our feelings, or that we understand theirs. (If
you feel that you understand more often than you are understood, you aren’t necessarily
wrong; but lots of people feel the same way you do.) Yet feelings are a day to day reality
of living, and we must account for them in ourselves and others if we wish to live well. It
is unlikely to aid good communication (or thinking) to interpret terms of emotional
expression as if they could be precisely defined. In order to understand, one must listen
with one’s whole being to really hear what is being said. In order to be understood, one
must communicate with one’s whole being.
On saying what we experience spiritually

What is the relevance of this view of language to spiritual experience, particularly

thinking about spiritual experience and communicating it? Spiritual experience is far
more difficult to define than emotional experience. It is often so deeply entwined with
sensory, intellectual, and/or emotional experience as to be indistinguishable from them.
Finally, difficult as it is for us to clearly differentiate these experiences within ourselves,
seeing the influence of spiritual experience in the behavior of others is even harder. It is
just too easy to confuse it with other types of experience and motivation.

We cannot see another person’s spiritual experience in a direct perception (the way we
can perceive the object of another person’s sensory experience). There is no process of
definition, combination and redefinition upon which we can rely to bring us to that same
spiritual experience (as there can be with intellectual experience). There are no
reasonably definite non-verbal indicators to help us define the spiritual experience of
another (as there are for emotions, to some extent).

Some behaviors are defined as essentially spiritual by some religious traditions: speaking
in tongues, going into trance, self-mortification or fasting, acting outwardly loving,
“fruits of the spirit”, etc. At most, these may flow from some spiritual experience. They
are not the experience itself, though they may be evidence of it.

We often cannot even be confident within ourselves about what is spiritual, and what is
sensory, intellectual, emotional, or some interaction of them (virtually always the case).
Spiritual experience is not necessarily separate from these other types of experience, but
rather subsumes them while being more than their sum or interaction.

The limits of language applied to spiritual experience

Language flows from labels attached to direct sensory experiences; it defines new
symbols (flowing from these labels) that will facilitate having and communicating
intellectual experience; and it attempts (with varying degrees of accuracy) to attach words
to emotional experience. Of course, none of these is truly separate from any of the
others, and their interactions characterize human communication at its fullest. What is
important to understand is that the truly spiritual is beyond our five senses (or any
mechanical extension of them), impenetrable to pure intellect, and even slipperier of
definition than the most subtle emotion.

Spiritual experience often leads to sensory, intellectual, and emotional experiences and
their interactions, but none of these is TRUTH, none of them is the spiritual experience,
and any attempt to encapsulate in language an absolute, unshifting view of the oneness of
TRUTH (and experience with/in/of/by/through it) is doomed before it begins.

For….
There is only one TRUTH, and it is whole and indivisible into lesser “truths” without
distortion; it cannot be reduced to symbols; and the essence of the spiritual path is to
affirm oneness of spirit with that TRUTH, acknowledge origin and existence in it and
live in awareness of/in/through/by it.

Followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition may like the last paragraph more if they
substitute “God” for the word “TRUTH” and “He” or “Him” for the word “it.” Others
will prefer to substitute appropriate terms from their own traditions.

By the way, before you point it out to me, yes, I do think everything I’ve said about
putting eternal truth into language applies to this document as well -- especially this
document. So there, see…. I’m humble.

None of this should be construed as meaning that I think all religious traditions are equal;
equally true or false, equally powerful or weak, equally applicable to human living, etc. I
do not.

Some questions can be asked, however, that clarify the issues:

1) Do humans have an “inbuilt” spiritual sense of any kind?

If yes, then our task is to cultivate that sense, using all the sensory, intellectual and
emotional tools that we have, but we should not construe our task ⫗⓿ⒹᨌⓅ⒘‫ﯰ‬Ⓓ慨
⒃ ⒈‫ﮄ‬⒌ ⑊ ‫␬ײַ‬⒌‫ﭳ‬ffi␓‫בּ‬Ⓡ﫻⏭ￄ⒌ ᶩ ᄉ⽘ⴘ⬨츃⫯썖⬶얃⫿으⫦읒⬐웟◵욡 ড 웺웉遲웖
‫ﳘ‬줁 ‫ﴟ‬‫ﲼ‬‫ﲡ‬‫ﲣ‬‫ﳄ‬‫ﲑ‬‫ﳅ�ﳏ‬씒 ‫ﲶ‬쎄 ‫ﲴ‬욪 ‫ﳅ‬욈 ‫ﳄ‬훁 ‫ﳞ‬‫ﲴ‬盛 ‫ﲞ‬‫ﲿ‬‫ﳚ‬‫ﲹ‬‫ﲫ‬‫ﲢ‬‫ﲝ‬‫ﳎ‬‫ﳖ‬‫ﳎ‬
‫ﱰ‬Ɓᾇㅋ⻦Ⳬⳣⲛ ⲋⴅⴥ   Ⳋ⢧ฦ‫ﰊ‬‫ﴼ‬｢ฅ ﾸ⢹ﾓ⦲ｺ✄ￃ☲ｯ⚎ｸ⛁‫ﻥ‬Ⅴ ￗ
Ӏsensory, intellectual and emotional tools Ｕᄕㄥ⸬K
ⵟ⋧ⵃ⬉ⵃ⢽ⴜ ᨥⳭⳀⳳⲛ ⴭ
⨇
ﬗ ⴝ  ⴑ  ິ沈猪 ‫ ﱠ‬‫﯄‬‫ﴨ‬‫ﯨ‬Ͽ 퉤⋱
얫㇔쟪∛즋 ϣ 짱 ‫ﮗ‬짝﹡짂￫즯￉짋ﾙ줝ﾑ콗ﾷ‫￲ﵓ‬裏ﾋ練ﾢￆ탳쑕￫쫏ﾴﾑ  ‫ﵦ‬ﾦ st ﾑ
蘿ￏ+殮ￕ拏ﾸ拉ￆ羅襤籠ￒ虜浪ﾻ來ﾯ略ￓ   𢡊ￛ憐￶ 𢡊 ы⎈쮝⳹춯⦏쿻⡎킃⡤쿿⣦
퀼⢈퀞⤎퀌⢫픅㲨圠 ɂ 妪‚圮�喟︜噙 ‫ﹽ‬嗘 ች 噣 Ⱚ 啯嚮䥡 ⪷ ⪮ ⬧⊈⬟♗ ⭸♙⬖⫦䵑⪽娝⫥
嗹⪻啷⪾䒂⫀♪⪢⅔⪱②⫅╣⫄ⓡ⪀⒕⫬⒀⪸⒨⬢⒘≹⒢˞⑦⑭⑉渚⑩祈␯羽⒃﨡␾輪⒦
僧⏶紐⑶Ｍ⍤ᴶ⒵⺉ቩ ⨢ ⦴쬰⩡쌑⧑앃⩓웻⦷운⨔욬 ᚆ 욢 ‫ﮯ‬윢왨 ‫ﮨ‬웾 ‫ﲣ‬옢‫﯇‬탷‫﮲‬‫﮹‬祿 ‫ﯣ‬‫ﮣ‬‫﮷‬
‫ﮩ‬‫﮼‬캀‫﮻‬숔 ‫ﯛ‬앇 ‫ﰒ‬왑 ‫ﯹ‬찎‫﯌‬‫ﰔגּﯭ‬‫ﯞ‬‫ﯫ‬‫ﯹ‬‫ﰭ‬‫ﯺ‬‫ﰟ‬‫ﯴ‬‫ﮬ‬‫ﯘ‬‫ﮊ‬Ů´ゞ⸃
ⰜⰛⱄⰹⰁ Ⱌ Ⱌ⍢ ⍢ ‫ک‬龜‫ﳎ‬၀‫ ﻛ⦇ﻔ⤬ﺬ✇﹠▻ﻹ⛫ﺗ☉ﻮ‬ዋธ♱︢⬀
 け
ⵟ ⯴ ⱳ‫ⱉ﯀‬ᢆⱇⰅ ⭞
Ɒ⤎ Ⱇ∅ⰎΧⰞⰂ
⯲ special ⣼ഭ串‫ﯧ‬‫ﯦ‬‫ﰔ‬ (a position I believe contradicted
⮮
by certain scriptures)퉗윍쨟쮷쮼쭞쯭쯧챲챇臨‫ﰓ‬便
金퐾싅冷찊卵隸略퐙웵챈쥥쌮쮔얢창젋쭪으쬧쭈쮂爵쮀 
쭹쯎쯐쭯쮝쯪찡찝챺첗턃i‫ﲈ‬‫ﱀ‬‫ﴟ‬‫ﮩ‬֗  ▖ㄣⷶ
ⱙ ᱴÖ‫ﭣ‬︰ￏ｢이Ｒ웆＇즹ｩ즩ﾋ퍛＿８
 ‫ﵝ‬Ｎ ‫ﻒ‬Ｗ᪍ｊ Ⲽ ｱ⦁‫ﻷ‬⠺ҟᎲ⇅
ㅦ⻢ Ⳗ
Ⲁ Ⳕ⳽ⳕ⳧
ⴂ ⰹ Ⳕ ⳽ⲻ ⳕ Ⲹ ⴮ ⱽ ⳵ⰹ 
Ⲹ
ⲻ
ⴂ ⳧ ᩿‫ﵺ‬‫ﮆ‬‫ﲚ‬‫ﳍ‬‫ﱜ‬‫ﲘ‬‫ﯛ‬
‫ﳾ‬춞좲쭢첩찐큡ɑ‫⨆ﵥ ﮷‬惡➀掠▞流☖說▚煉⛌力᫜行 ‫ﮣ‬茶狀
阮尿礼 ‫ﻧ‬賓 Ụ 拓⮴練⢉咽⚻率⛱神✧履✊裏⛣龍✓零✵秊❈杻⛀零⛛易⚲履⑺飯 ਫ
寧勉彩ሄⰷⴅ⪌✦ ✦ ⤘‫ﯟ‬‫﯀‬Ⰱ 횵⾯앤⤬읊ෘ줼 ‫ﮗ‬즸 ‫ﱲ‬즖 ‫ﻉ‬짔？쥟
‫ﺵ‬즘 ‫ﺷ‬줙 ‫ﺹ‬쾪 ‫ﺼ‬‫ﺰﵗﺠ‬陸 ‫ﺮ‬＇‫ﻱ‬퀽 ‫ﻟ‬쒭＾욝＇팠 ‫ﻒ‬‫ﺱﴻﺩ‬福 ‫ﺤ‬‫ﺭ‬肋 ‫ﺋ‬撚 ‫ﺻ‬金 ‫ﻍ‬‫ﻥ‬‫ﻋ‬‫ﻕ‬秊 ‫ﺺ‬
旅［路 ‫ﻕ‬凉ｃ落 ‫ﹰ‬鸞ｕ퍩 Ỳ 쭋 ⵈ 춽⧿켭⡪켻⠑켾⣣컘⡘콝⣼쿌⠝펔㨩嗝 ř 姇 ‫ﻨ‬圦 ‫ﶭ‬
喤 ‫ﲪ‬嘯༒嗋⧢嘵ⷱ啦⫿噉⦺䚅⨦⠹⨰⍧⨲▂⨶❶⨯▾⨙㚫⧻呩⨡壮⨦嗖⧊凓⦶㗼⦼⦛ ⊂⧬⑵⦒⓸⧑
⦊⒐⧞①⤲⑺⣻ᅻ⑬⑆⑲療②輦  ⏽⑂吝⏅淚⒞༟⎝⩓ⒹᎥⱵ⦴  ⣔⥕쫓⧃싍⥪씬⤡욲⣸
웝⛁위෋욻욣윹練웳 ‫בֿ‬읫 ‫נּ‬욚 ‫ﭰ‬횈𢡊龎‫ﭐ‬龜諭엢﫲싯﫥왨 ‫ﬠ‬옳 ‫ﬨ�ﭧ‬兀﫧﫝 
靖ﬕ諭ﬗ᥉ ings about what they have read?
On the other hand, if we do have some built-in spiritual sense that is undetectable by
science, is it equal for us all, so that our “responsibility” before God is the same? Or is it
different for each of us, like our sensory ability, intellectual ability, and emotional nature?
Does the notion of being “chosen” by God stretch to his granting adequate spiritual
perception to His chosen, but not to others?

‫ﳆ‬