Contemplations of a Rogue Mystic.

Dino Meurs

© 2010 Dino Meurs Cover art © 2009 by John Hart Studios and used by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the author. Exception to the rights reserved: Reviewers may quote brief passages in a review to be printed in a newspaper, magazine, journal, or blog. I would like to thank my girlfriend CC for understanding my mood swings while I’m writing. When things are flowing, I’m happy but when things are going slow, I get frustrated. During the former, I have a tendency to get lost in what I’m doing and during the latter, the frustration shows in my voice and it sometimes sounds as if I’m taking it out on her. Without her patience and understanding, I would be lost. Thank you for putting up with me, honey. I wish I could thank everyone who, through the conversations we’ve had over the years, have helped in shaping this book. That list would be at least a hundred pages and might not include everyone. To the best of my knowledge, I have not directly quoted anyone other than the citations I provide. This is a work of creative nonfiction; the subject matter is nonfiction; the talks, as they are depicted, never took place. They are put together with rewritten bits and pieces of things I’ve said online over the years. Throughout my writing, you will run across the word “-O-”. This is my spelling of the word we pronounce as “God”; it is not to be taken as the “name” of another God. I use this spelling as a visual symbol of my nonimage of the Divine Oneness; when you read the word, it is pronounced “God”

Opening Remarks. >I have a question, Dino. You keep referring to yourself as a “rogue mystic”. Why use a term with the negative connotations? I use the term in the connotation of a person who has blazed his own path. 1. Unorthodox and unpredictable: acting independently and using unorthodox methods that are unpredictable and are likely to cause trouble 1 Most people gain mystical insight by following traditional schools of mysticism - they find themselves in the presence of a Master who guides them to mystical insight. This did not happen in my case. The mystical insight came first and then I had to build a working vocabulary to explain it to myself. It was quite a few years between the initial experiences and my finding out there was such a thing as mysticism. I will confess that was a fairly confusing period - having these strange thoughts that I could not put words to. The frustrating part of this is that I cannot lay claim to any one tradition and yet I find a certain amount of truth in each tradition. I can yap in Zen terms, but I’m not a Zennist. Although

I can sit here and talk in Taoist terminology, I did not follow a Taoist sage. Sometimes I sound like a Western mystic but I cannot call that my tradition as I have major differences with the West in my image of -O-. While I agree with the Buddhists there is no personal -O-, I do not believe it is a hindrance to talk about -O- “as if” he exists. Nagarjuna is right when he says all concepts are empty, but as we realize this emptiness, we must also realize that we humans communicate through our concepts. Our goal of communication is best approached with the attitude of “this is what it is like” rather than “this is what it is”. While I’m absolutely convinced of the validity of my path, I’m not so convinced that I feel I must stand on a street corner and tout it as the path for all people. What I’m trying to accomplish is to talk about why I feel my path is right for me. The most I can do is share my thinking, the main reasons being that it helps clarify my thoughts and perhaps promote a healthy dialogue between those who have the same basic thoughts on the matter. I may talk about knowledge being incomplete, another may talk about doubt, and yet another may talk about the apophatic approach; we are all talking about the same basic idea.

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

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

is. Is a theological image a representation of the Divine or is it a representation of the Divine? I choose to think it is the latter. The mistake of Theological Positivism is this concept is what -O- is, the mistake of Theological Negativism is the assumption the concept of -O- is false. Theological Positivism goes too far in one direction, Theological Negativism goes too far in the other. The concept God is an image; the concept notGod is also an image. …if, for example, you have a window on which there is a fine painting of the sun, your act of faith in the real sun will be to scrape the painting off so that you can let the real sunlight in. So, in the same way, pictures of God on the window of the mind need scraping off, otherwise they become idolatrous substitutes for the reality. 2 In the West, we have the old story of a dead nature that is to be placed under control. From birth to death, we constantly push nature around, never realizing that push implies pull. The implications of Quantum Theory are that we cannot isolate anything except the universe as a whole. The old stories of our relationship with nature are as outdated as the story of the great machine. Hindu philosophy has taken another path concerning the relationship; the universe is organic, cooperative, and the mind vs. matter debate sources of analogy that do nothing more than explain the impossible. Rather than pave the entire countryside to protect their tender feet, the Hindu took to wearing sandals and paying attention to the path ahead. Ancient Eastern knowledge of the unity of the universe is a new discovery of Western Science. The new story is that we are nature at its most self aware (As far as we know). We held the belief that we were a different breed of animal whose workings

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

universe - Western troubles spring, in part, from the preference for stained glass windows. The Western attitude is one that prefers a painting of the sun on the window rather than let the actual sun shine through. Any truly spiritual person will take a razor to the painting. Jesus has told us there is no place we can look where -O- is not. The Western campfire story of man being created in -O-s’ image is the same as the Hindu saying, “Thou art That.” Chuang Tzu related a story about not being able to decide who he is after a dream; is he Chuang Tzu dreaming he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming it is Chuang Tzu? In the West, there is the duality in oneness; the eye in which I see -O- is the eye in which -O- sees me, which gives me an image of -O- as the two headed puppet on Sesame Street, there is the eye of -O- on one side, and the eye of man on the other. Perhaps enlightenment comes about when there is recognition in an eyeball-to-eyeball stare. >>I immerse myself in gnowing It is enough That He Is. I’m perfectly willing to let -O- be what -O- will be and not question why things are this way, as I know if I could question him as to “Why?”, his answer would be “Why Not?” >I find it confusing that although you deny that God is a being, you talk about him as if he is. Spirituality is emotional and intellectual, as I’ve yapped about elsewhere, and talking about -O- as if he were the reality satisfies the former. It is no different than talking about an electron as if it really were a little planet circling a little sun. While I may not ascribe to the idea of -O- as a being, -O- is a living reality that exhibits masculine, feminine, and gender neutral aspects. I’m not saying -O- is a male when he slaps me upside the head for screwing up or that she is a female when she

kisses my skinned knee or that the spirit is some sort of gender neutral ghost; these are but attempts to say what cannot be said. >>This is why I am against the idea of -O- ‘taking sides’ in a war, for if -O- loves our neighbor as much as he loves us, does he take sides in our squabbles? >I never thought of it quite that way. This has always been a sticking point to me for I never could accept the claim that -O- was ‘on our side’ in a conflict. It seemed wrong to me then although I could not articulate what I felt was wrong. Each of us is an avatar of -O-, making the idea he takes sides rather absurd. He Loves each of us equally and if I were to ascribe to the notion -O- were a physical being, I think war makes him cry. As far as I’m concerned, using the claim that “-O- is on our side in this” automatically delegitimizes the cause. To teach that -O- hates is blasphemous and should not be tolerated with the silent treatment that implies condoning. -Oloves us so much he gives us the freedom to obliterate it all if we chose to do so; He would neither help nor hinder.

Reality is unity within duality. Yin and Yang are complimentary aspects of a deeper unknown rather than conflicting opposites. These are not static relationships however, they are dynamic balances of growth and retreat of the sides. Positive balances Negative, High completes Low, Right cooperates with Left, Outer is supported by Inner, Rational is illuminated by Intuition, Order arises from Chaos, Hard balances Soft. While the universe may be “made up” of myriads of particles (Hard), the particles partake of the same energy, just in different patterns. The same holds true for waves (Soft), they are but different patterns of the same energy. It makes no difference whether the event in question is a quark or a beam of red light, they both share the same basic energy of the universe. These patterns are not in competition with each other but in harmony. hard is true, soft is true, but, neither one, in and of itself, is True™. This is why I like using the Yin Yang symbol, the curvature implies dynamic interplay and the areas of opposite colors within each color implies that nothing is purely one or the other. Each side of a duality is true but truth is the innerreaction; there must be a buyer and a seller for a sale to take place. >>Reality is unity within duality…Each side of a duality is true but Truth is the innerreaction… >You talk quite a bit about “within” but what about “outside”, does that not go with the “unity within duality”?

The central mistake in metaphysical thinking is the idea that ultimate reality is “beyond”. We are the surface, or the “outside‟ if you will, looking inward. If metaphysics is “beyond”, why are metaphysical truths thought of as “deeper truths”? We look at it as being held together from the outside rather than holding together from the inside, preferring the machine for the flower. In order to discover what makes up an atom, we do not look outward, but inward and the further inside we look, the less it appears like a machine. To paraphrase Alan Watts, no matter how finely we cut the grape, all we are going to see is a surface and when we turn a line on its edge, we get a circle. We can yap all we want to concerning the Yin and Yang sides of the issues all we want without coming close to saying what the Tao is in essence. Yin is one aspect of reality, Yang is another aspect of reality. Yin and Yang can be comprehended only in relation to each other. The Tao is the source of both Yin and Yang. A positive is defined by the counterexample of a negative. “This” is “This” only because “That” is “That”. Being is known by contrast with nonbeing. The spiritual is known through the material. “There” is implied by “Here”. Self↔Noself Material↔Spiritual Emptiness↔Suchness All things are fundamentally devoid of intrinsic reality as separate entities because all things are expressions of the same reality. In Taoist terminology, West is Yang, or concrete, while East is Yin, or abstract. Western thought is guilty of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness in that only the concrete is considered and the East is guilty of the same in that the concrete is ignored.

Neither side is true in and of itself in the same manner that neither Yin nor Yang is the Tao. One area this is evident is in our -O-images. Let us look at the basics of these -O-images as image rather than actuality. Theological discourse comes in two flavors, positive and negative. Singular | Manifold Exclusive | Inclusive Personal | Apersonal In one respect -O- is singular but the One is an expression of the Many. He is singular in that there is nothing but -O-. He is manifold in that there is nowhere he is not. It all depends on how we choose to image him. He is exclusive and inclusive in the same manner. He is personal in that is how we understand and explain but the reality itself is not a person. No matter how we choose to image him, we all talk about the “root and ground of being”, which indicates -O- “comes from the inside”, as it were. The one is not a reality that is “outside” all this for the “inside” and the “outside” are but two sides of the same coin.

Reality is an ongoing cycle of nonbeing to being to nonbeing. I have always been disappointed by those who limit their thinking of human evolution to whatever will prove out to be the first species of Homo, for that is but link of a long chain of events that leads back to the Big Bang. Rather than lament our descent from the trees, celebrate our ascent from the source of all; humans are a natural and integral part of the universe. As Carl Sagan used to say - “We are star stuff come alive.” Equally disappointing is the idea the Big Bang was the beginning rather than this beginning. It stands to reason that if it happened once, it can happen again and it has happened before. >>It stands to reason that if it happened once, it can happen again and it has happened before. >Would you elaborate please? In Western thought, time is thought of as a linear type of reality; there was a beginning and there will be an end. Bibleism posits the beginning about six thousand years ago and say that no one but -O- knows when the end will be. Scientism posits the beginning at some 12 or so billion years ago and says there isn ’t enough evidence to say when or how it will end. Both sides posit reality as a one shot affair; creation will not happen again and the big bang is treated as an event will never be repeated. The view of time as a separate dimension that flows at a set pace is undergoing a change that was started when the great and exalted Uncle Albert showed us that time and space are relative aspects of a deeper reality. As I stated earlier, I do not ascribe to the idea

that creation is a done deal; if that were the case, how did a Wolf become a Pekinese? If there was enough energy for this bang, why assume it has never happened before nor will it ever happen again? >>My complaint about Creationism… My complaint about Evolutionism… >You make a compelling case for your point of view about who we are and how we got here, but there is the question of where we go from here. With Bibleism, we are going to spend eternity in either Heaven or Hell. If it is the former, we exist in the Divine Presence. We will exist in “purified” bodies that have no function other than to house our souls so we can all sit around in church and gaze on his presence and sing of his glory, Forever and Forever, Amen. If it is the latter, we will exist in the Divine Absence, with the same type of “purified” body that has no function other than to house our souls so we can receive all the unimaginable torments that awaits us, Forever and Ever, Amen. With Scientism, we came from nothing and return to nothing and the whole question is meaningless because there is no way one can verify knowledge of prelife or afterlife. The Bibleism story is predicated on the idea that each human has an individual and eternal soul while the Scientism story is predicated on the idea that we are merely temporal with consciousness replacing soul. Each side is partial truth but neither one, in and of itself, is the whole truth. Both Bibleism and Scientism agree that we have only one life to live here on earth, although these two groups will never admit an agreement nor will they admit that all Religions say pretty much the same thing. Hinduism posits a soul that is individual; they just have a

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

each day of Brahma, it can be said there is a beginning and an end initiated by -O- with the difference in understanding being that this is not a one shot deal. Our punishment is not off in some distant future; human trials and tribulations are the result of what has happened in the past. >>Panencarnation offers a new view of our relationship with the universe…the point is made that we are the universe becoming alive and -O- becoming aware. >This sounds like you are attempting to start a Faith based on the Gaia Hypothesis. What I am doing is starting with the Oneness of mystical experience and taking it to its logical conclusion, which is a certain misunderstanding of Gaia. What I am interested in is promoting a spiritual outlook that looks at what we all have in common, rather than what we have in difference. I am also interested in promoting the idea that there really is no difference between the spiritual outlook and the material outlook in the long run as they are both outlooks on the one and same reality. There is a certain alogicical component in the Gaia Hypothesis that is hard for me to ignore as a mystic and that is the concept of the world as a living reality. One thing I have felt in mystical experience is that of being a conduit for the universe to look back on itself, for when the ego steps aside, there remains a sense of a living reality. This makes a certain sense when one looks at life as an evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang and continues on. If we decide to take the time, we can, in theory, trace the past of any atom in our body to the moment of the Big Bang. Gaia makes sense when one realizes that life is not something imposed on it from the outside, but rather a symptom

of a living universe. To paraphrase what others have said, there is no visible permanent connection between our individual brain cells yet we consider ourselves conscious. Let us move that imagery a level higher to where each human being is a cell in the planet’s body. The planet is a living, aware beingness whose Self-awareness is a hypostasis of the individual and collective consciousness. Every living organism we know of has sense organs of some form so I submit that it is not a stretch to think of humans as the sense organs of the planet. >>This whole concept of life and the universe as a one shot thingie is very limiting. >What do you mean? Ego is nothing more than hypnotized nonego. I submit that through the socialization process, we have become hypnotized into an incomplete view of ourselves. From our earliest memories, we are told who we are and we have come to believe it. Breaking this spell liberates us to be who we truly are. This liberation removes what is the greatest fear of human life, the fear of death. Once upon a time i was dead and then i was alive a time will come when i will be dead again, but the I within me does not undergo this. It is this within that is the centermost reality that can never die because it is never born; it is more me than “Dino” can ever be. To paraphrase something Alan Watts talked about - By means of death, reality provides itself with a periodic forgettory as well as memory. This periodic forgettory and memory is an important concept. When -O- forgets itself (‘itself’ is a less that adequate phrase, but I cannot think of an appropriate term), a person is alive, when -O- remembers, that person is no longer alive. -O- is infinite, there can be an infinite number of forgettories going on

at the same time without -O- becoming less than infinite. Life is a cyclic process, there is no beginning, there is no end, and there is no pause for enjoyment in Heaven or punishment in Hell. We see that everything in the universe is cyclic, yet we have this idea that life does not follow this pattern. People spend much mental energy being concerned about what is going to happen after we die and are not the least bit interested in what happened to us before we were born. This is a lopsided approach as life comes from somewhere, returns to that same somewhere, in a never ending process of dancing in and out of the Divine Play. In order to truly know who we are, we have to trace ourselves to the beginning. This beginning is not the mistaken idea that we began at our conception. Our beginning can be traced back to the moment of the Big Bang. This is not to say that this manifestation of the universe is the first and only; as stated earlier, the universe is a system where everything recycles. There is no reason to assume the universe itself is immune from this process. Let us go back to the Hindu campfire story of reality being the dream of -O-. According to this story, -O- dreams for a while and on occasion, wakes up and remembers who He is, then once again returns to the dream. There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something. 3

I realize the idea of multiple big bangs is conjecture at this point in our scientific knowledge, but it makes more sense to assume that if the big bang happened once, it can happen again than it does to assume all this is a one-shot affair. Now suppose this is the case; there would be no Beginning and there will be no Ending. Rather than being eternal, reality is timeless. With each successive creation, what we experience as time would start anew, just as the universe starts anew. The history of each incarnation of reality may not be identical. It might be somewhat akin to the concept of Transmigration, the basic energy recycles and remains the same, but each cycle is somewhat different in how the events play out. Life plays itself out in one story in one lifecycle and plays itself out in another story in another lifecycle. There is no beginning (in the sense of “it all started at this time”) we can trace ourselves back to. There is no ending we can look forward to (in the sense of there being an “end of time”). If we say our beginning started with the big bang that started “this” universe, we ignore what may have happened “before”. If we say reality ends with the collapse of “this” universe, we neglect to consider what may come about “after”. It seems to me that we make a major mistake when we consider this appearance of reality to be the only one that ever will be.

For every action, there is a reaction. The existence of Antimatter in the quantum level of this Universe implies the existence of an Antiuniverse. The action that brought about Yang Reality brought about Yin Reality. I choose to call our Universe Yang as it is hard and impinges on our senses. (Matter here considered antimatter there?) Yang/Yin Matter, Yang/Yin Life, Yang/Yin Mind, Yang/Yin Universe [Including Yang/Yin Time.] “Our” death in the Yang Universe gives rise to “our” birth in the Yin Universe and “our” death in the Yin Universe gives rise to “our” birth in the Yang Universe. The Wheel of Life, symbolized by the areas of opposite colors in Yin Yang Symbol, is the “method” whereby Life is recycled between the Yang and Yin Universes. Doing good brings about receiving good while doing bad elicits receiving bad. If you wish to be respected, treat others with respect and if you do not wish to be treated as a mere object, do not treat others as mere objects. This is not limited to interpersonal affairs, it is to be extended to the entire universe. We cannot live without eating - it is an unfortunate truism that our food comes from once living plants and animals. Give thanks to these by preparing and eating your meal in a healthy manner and with gratitude. The Earth gives us our body and provides us with what we need for life, we should treat the planet with the respect it is due. Doing good is reward in and of itself. There is no need to do good for reward nor is there need to not to do good so as to avoid punishment. The Golden Rule of all faiths is a guideline that

shows how to do good - it matters not if one follows the positive or the negative reading as doing good and not doing evil is the same behavior. At all times, be the best person you can be. No matter where you are or what you are doing, give it your best shot. If you are a President and C.E.O. of a major Corporation or a janitor in that Corporation, be the best you can be. If you work as a ditch digger, dig the best you can. You cheat yourself when you settle for doing less than your absolute best. You cheat others by being less than your best because it shows them it is OK to not shoot for the stars. >>The action that brought about Yang Reality brought about Yin Reality. I choose to call our Universe Yang as it is hard and impinges on our senses. >This almost makes sense but it is unlikely to ever being proven. This is one of those “act as if” type of thingies. I agree it may never be proven, but it is a good point to contemplate. There is a certain Yin Yang symmetry in the idea in that bad actions “here” would result in a less than ideal life “there” and good actions “there” would result in a good life “here”. Perhaps we reap the rewards or punishments for our actions in Yang reality while we exist in Yin reality and vice versa. It would behoove us to good in this reality so we can continue by doing good in that reality, so we can continue doing good in this reality, and so on. Suppose, for example, our “death” in Yang reality is our “birth” in Yin reality and vice versa. It would go a long way to providing an explanation for memories of “past” lives and the occasional communication with our dearly departed. It could be that we are in some form of contact with our loved ones in “that” reality in the same manner those in “that” reality are in contact

with us. Perhaps the Wheel of life moves us back and forth in an analogy of the Conservation Laws. (From a discussion about not being attached to our desires.) >>Doing good brings about receiving good while doing bad elicits receiving bad ... This is not limited to interpersonal affairs, it is to be extended to the entire universe. >But, Dino, is there not a risk of losing incentive to achieve great things, without desire? I shoot for the stars in everything I do because I'm not attached to the desire for success and not attached to the desire to avoid failure. My incentive is to try my best. If my attempt fails, I figure out what I did wrong, adjust my methodology, and try again. If I succeed, I figure out what I did right and try to climb higher. One can achieve greatness when one is not afraid to fail in the attempt. (From a discussion on rational and emotive based behavior.) >>Life is a balance of living in the mind and living in the heart. When we let one dominate, we are less than fully human. >I submit it is imperative that one subordinates the heart to the mind else we end up in trouble. The balance I refer to is where neither mind nor heart are subordinated. Mind keeps heart from being unthinking - heart keeps mind from being unfeeling. >How does a person make a judgment call about moral behavior? “heart” and “mind” must work as a unity for a person to be moral.

A fully integrated person does not need a reason to act morally, they simply cannot engage in immoral behavior. “heart” and “mind” do not work as a unity, they are a unity. The separation is a linguistic, not an existential, state of affairs. heart | mind (Linguistic) heart↔mind (existential) >How does one discriminate between what is good and bad if neither “heart” nor “mind” are in control? If there is no choice but to behave in a positive manner, why bother with discriminating between good and bad? I cannot commit murder, for example, but that is not because my heart tells me not to nor that my mind tells me not to, it comes from the very center of my being, which is prior to either. Listening to the heart and listening to the mind are reflective thinking. Reflective thinking is a function of the ego.

We are all Icons of -O-. We make a mistake when we identify ourselves with our egos. Contrary to popular belief, our centermost reality is not the ego but that reality which is underneath. This underneath reality is -O-. The ego that is me is only relative to the ego that is you, neither you nor I are fundamental realities in and of ourselves. Without “you” there would be no “I”, without “I” there would no “you”, and without -O- there would be neither of us. >>Without “you” there would be no “I”, without “I” there would no “you”, and without -O- there would be neither of us. >You have said before that we have a mistaken sense of identity. I’m not real sure I understand what you are talking about. The failure to recognize the unity of nature has led, predominately in the West, to the concept of the undying soul. Each human has but one soul, never changing from start to finish, making a brief stop here on the way to either Heaven or Hell, where it will spend the rest of eternity. Sometimes I try to figure out if our souls begin at conception or if there is a massive storage locker somewhere that we are stored in until it is our turn on the stage. It seems absurd that, in a universe in which everything recycles and flows, the human soul is a static entity that spends most of time in cold storage. Those of a nonreligious frame of mind consider the ego to be active only during the persons’ life, there is nothing before or after death, do the best with what you have. In a perfect example of confusing the map with the territory, we have forgotten that

Persona, (from which came the word “Person”) is a mask worn by the ancient Greek actors. When the play is over, the actor can remove the persona in order to take up another role. It is like the Olympic Flame - is the flame at the Games the same as the one lit in Greece, or is it a continuation of the same process? One common theme running through the Worlds’ great religions is that the individual, however frustrating the earthly life may be, is precious in the mind of -O-. The individual may be treated shabbily as a test of conviction, friends and family killed in a battle that teaches a lesson in maintaining your place in the scheme of things, towns and countries ravaged in a fit of anger, and countless other atrocities. -O- even loves those he sends to Hell for eternal damnation. The person is precious in the mind of -O- but in a way we usually ignore, each individual is like a sense organ for -O-. This way, the boss can relax and enjoy the ride without having to do the driving. Just as a competent actor refuses to be typecast, -O- does not ride a single vehicle but rides in many at the same instant. The trouble is with the way the issue is viewed; we concentrate on each particle and ignore the resulting wave pattern. We have even assumed that individual particles are eternal and unchanging entities operating in a manner similar to the laws of physics. In a simple mistake, we have a habit of ignoring the background and missing the forest for the trees. The feeling of self is as universal as particles exhibiting wave patterns. self and other is another field in the universal pattern of up↔down, in↔out, yes↔no, and on↔off hidey-holes in the cosmic dance. The Hindu myth of the soul donning a new set of clothes is a good metaphor, as long as we remember that the one is donning the many in the same span of time. There is value in the particle only image of consciousness - it allows us to keep

track of Who, What, Where, When, and Why. It is more social convention than physiology and in the long run, causes much psychological and spiritual confusion. Both the new physics and ancient knowledge point to the change and transformation that occurs in the universe, telling us that this is a normal aspect of what is. Particles, like egos, come, often change, and go. Where this place of coming and going is located is anyone’s guess and I seriously doubt if the somewheres are different. The transformation of particles as they come and go is like the transformation a person experiences between birth and death. We come from some-where, grow and change, going back to some-where after we die. From the biological point of view, the brain is the center of consciousness. One way of stating it is that the brain is the organ responsible for the particle aspect of consciousness, in which consciousness itself is the wave aspect. Each time a new being is born, the universe reappears to itself in a renewed condition, thus helping to keep down boredom. I have problems with the particle only approach to consciousness as it gives an extremely limited picture of the world. Just as the physical universe has both particle and wave aspects, so does consciousness. The particles can be viewed as concentrations of energy in the wave pattern we call “The mind of -O-”. This wave pattern is Not a static one, as normally considered in the West, it is a dynamic one that flows and changes while it influences other patterns that, in turn, influence it, much like a position keeping loop in an analog computer. If one could picture a spherical lake with a continually rippling surface, one could, perhaps, have a rude analogy of what consciousness would “look” like to an outside observer, the ripples forming patterns on an otherwise still surface.

The concept of the individual soul is an eccentric train of thought. I have always had a hard time accepting the theory that whatever this thing we call our soul is, it only makes one brief appearance in all the time there is available to the universe. The idea that each of us remains in some kind of limbo from the moment of death until Judgment Day seems to be nothing more than begging the question. Where were we before birth, in that same Limbo? On the same token, I have a problem with the concept of reincarnation, as it is popularly misunderstood. This idea seems to me to be the opposite of the onetime incarnation. Although I have this feeling of identity, “I am”, it seems obvious to me that the same “I am” is felt by all living beings. Take the arms in a spiral galaxy, each arm is not permanent, but part of the on↔off pattern of the stars in the galaxy. Each new star is not the reincarnation of a particular dead star; rather, it is the continuation of the pattern. The pattern of consciousness is similar except the spirals protrude in all directions. This implies a new sense of identity for us. We find that we are connected to all there is, not as flukes, but as an integral harmonic of the pattern. Rather than being loaded down with the predestine of -O-s’ plan, we are responsible for whatever course of action we choose to take. As the particle aspect of the mind of -O-, each of us is important as we form a unique viewpoint in which -O- the seeker is hidden, and as the wave aspect, we help form and are formed by the hologram. When I think of “ -O-s’ mind”, I think of it as preconsciousness instead of consciousness. The “details” of the universe are taken care of by the limbic system of the Self. Another way to view the particle aspect of consciousness is as a probability wave, neither existing nor not existing, the pattern dissipates in one place and the pattern reforms in another

place. It is not a one for one trade of bodies; consciousness arises whenever the conditions are conducive. There is a very strong probability that the identity that goes by the handle Dino, which could be said to be a reincarnation of me will not exist again. The energy that was me is reformed into parts of more than one me, like particle creation in high energy physics. If there is anything to be afraid of, it seems to me that eternal life and total recall would be the prime candidates. It would be like an on without an off for contradistinction. To have a constant on would be like an 8-Track tape recorder that was constantly recording, but without the use of the erase head. >>As Icons of -O-, it is up to each of us to let His light shine through without concern for getting anything in return; It Does Not Matter how we get treated in return, for that is the other person’s karma to work out. We honor the -O-head within others when we traverse the path of compassion for our fellow human beings. >Are you saying that human nature is Divine? The nature of humanity is divine. One of our problems is assuming that we are discussing human nature from the point of view of the individual rather than the species. In doing this, I submit we lose sight of the bigger picture that at the core, humanity is one. I’ve said many times that we have more in common than we do in difference and we waste too much time and energy in quarreling about those differences. The overwhelming majority of the differences people have are social in nature and I’m not condemning society as without the social order, we would be in one heck of a mess. We look to law to protect ourselves from the brutes among us and end up concentrating more on the brutes than the saints.

There is not a moment of our growth that we do not spend in learning our place in the grand scheme of things and the importance of fitting in, whether it comes from the church, the state, the teacher, or the boss. Our preachers remind us almost daily we are sinful creatures who are an inch away from the ultimate spanking. Our politicians act as if they are doing us a favor while they keep us under their thumbs in the name of national security. Education is attempting to churn out cogs in the wheel of commerce by molding students into widgets. Our boss wants team players because he is afraid someone with an idea may want his job. We have certain roles we are expected to play as males and females. Madison Avenue goes through millions of dollars each year telling us what to wear and what to buy. As far as I’m concerned, this is a degrading look at humanity because it appeals to our lowest common denominator; I submit we should be spending more time looking at our highest. No one human is better at her core than any other human is at his. Humanity is neither African, European, nor American in culture. We are neither all male nor are we all female as a species, and as a people we are neither all sinners nor are we all saints. Although all people have to eat to survive, we have different diets based on pretty much the same ingredients. I don ’t know if there is a culture without music, but I highly doubt it and there is a wide variety of musical styles. There is more than one language in the world and we are all talking about the same reality. Humanity as a whole can be discussed in nondualistic terms the same way we can discuss -O- as a totality; we are a unified diversity. Each human being is an avatar, or emanation of -O-, but that does not mean one should go around acting as if one was -O-

incarnate. There is nothing special about something all people have in common, yet most fail to realize. Those who claim enlightenment and act as if the world must bow to them behave in a sacrilegious manner for the mystical experience is a humbling event. All faiths teach humbleness as a goal in our behavior, all have teachings about false pride, and even the secularists agree that too much pride is a dangerous state of affairs. Humbleness does not mean the lack of self-pride, it means that one does not carry around an inflated ego One of the major mistakes in philosophy is that of reification, the act of endowing reality to an abstract entity. The so-called dualism of nature is a prime example of this habit. Many of these dualisms are a matter of linguistics and one of these is the infamous mind↔body problem. This dualism is nothing more than a linguistic convention used to explain why and how chunks of matter act as if they matter. As put by Alan Watts, most people view themselves as “Egos encapsulat ed in a bag of skin”, with some preferring the ego and some the bag. There is no way to explain mind without body as they “gowith” each other as in flower and bee, fish and water and bird and sky. There is no telling when this duality first arose. It could have risen as a result of dreams and hallucinations that did not correspond to physical reality. However it came about, it has been around so long that it is considered a reality. Many traditions make claims of reality for one side and falsity for the other - both East and West have schools of thought that claim mind is real while body is an illusion and the other way around. The term “Mind” is used generically in the East and individually in the West, where “Ego” or “Spirit” are other terms for this illusion. What is this illusion?

Perhaps the best analogy is that “Ego” is a miniature version of oneself sitting in a complex control room. This room is a treasure house that would delight the hardiest science fiction fan. In this room is an outstanding video system, a rather nice audio system, the various systems for controlling and manipulating the body, and a computer that has more ability than what we know to do with. The religious version of this would have us believe that the main difference is that the ego will be In charge of a purified body after Judgment Day. In the majority of Western naturalistic traditions, the ego is a peculiar, and accidental, arrangement of matter. Naturally, these are exaggerated a bit; sometimes the best method of pointing out a problem is to stick ones’ tongue about half way through ones’ cheek. These trains of thought do have one thing in common; the ego is a separate reality than the surrounding environment. The myth of our separation from nature shows up plainly in our attitude toward the environment. The illusion of the universe as alien and dumb (as in stupid) combined with the abuse of the divine instructions in Genesis, has given us (especially those of Western society) a history of treating the planet obscenely. Humanity is the only species on Earth that not only ignores the ecological limits; it is the only one that eradicates the “lower” animals because they are “in the way”. The adherents of the religious version set their sights on a mythical elsewhere, leaving little but contempt for the planet. The followers of the scientific version have the same basic attitude. Not only are these attitudes an insult to the role Earth has played for us, they give us an excuse not to worry about the only home we have - for a while, at least.

Imagine what life would have been like had ecological conditions not been what they were. What do you imagine humans would be like on a planet that only had large island continents like Australia? Try to imagine how different American history would be if there had not been a land bridge between America and Asia way back in the past. There is little telling what life would have evolved into if the ozone layer were only half as thick. There are many ways the Earth and the universe could have evolved to preclude life as we know it yet, here we are. Of course, if it had happened another way, there would probably have been the same general mistakes and someone to attempt pointing them out. As far as we can determine, all life exists on Earth (although there IS the possibility of life elsewhere), and people seem to take it all for granted while our leaders seem ready to throw it all away with the push of a button. Along with being injurious to Earth by our actions, we are adding insult to injury by setting our eyes on salvation elsewhere, or by considering all this a statistical quirk of nature. We learn about the universe through language. What we are not taught however is that language is a social convention. One problem is that language is mechanistic and causal, thus giving one a map chock full of things, which does not match the territory. It was bad enough to have made the split in the first place and I think we blew it by forgetting that the split was a matter of linguistic convention to begin with. Now we are so used to the “Duality” that attempting to change it is a scary proposition. The illusion of the “Ghost in The Machine” becomes even more absurd when one realizes the explanations of quantum mechanics are about the intelligent behavior of nothing. At the subatomic level of nature, the causal “Laws” our bodies

are subject to are statistical probabilities of energy level interrelationships. Subatomic particles and minds are what must be if we are going to understand what is going on.

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

spiritual insight and I submit the insight is prior to the story at the start of the movement. The main purpose of religion, in my mind anyway, is that it is a unifying force and there is nothing more unifying than a family picnic. The variety of religious expressions is one of the beauties of the whole shebang. We cannot have a symphony that consists of a single instrument playing a single tone, can we? I would no more suggest that we all abandon our differences for our similarities for variety is the spice of life; human spirituality needs Roman Catholicism just as much as it needs Zen Buddhism. >>…looking for one world faith, yet they miss the point of what The One Faith is, and that is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” >I have to tell you that I never thought I would hear you say there is “One Faith”. Are you not doing what you criticize others for doing? This is the difference between faith and belief, the former confessing the isness while the latter idolizes the whatness of -O. In many cases, this idolization crosses the line and becomes blasphemy. -O- does not turn his back on his worshippers, no matter how they approach him. My major complaint against Western theological thinking is this idea that belief (the recipe) is more valuable than faith (the pudding). To claim there is one valid confession as to the nature of -O- denies the infinite possibilities of -O- to be what -O- will be. -O- can no more be pinned down to one confession just as cooking cannot be daffyfined by a regional cuisine, in other words. The thing is it Does Not Matter in the least that you worship -O- as an Orthodox Jew, or that our friend over there worships as a Lutheran Christian, our pal over there that is a Zen Buddhist,

our cohort in crime over there follows Transcendental Meditation... well, you get the point. The thing that Does Matter is that we all worship. Although each of us here in St. Pete’s Bar and Grille has different misunderstandings of -O-, we do not use our belief as a club to beat each other up with. We can agree to disagree for we have just as much in common as we do in difference. As far as I’m concerned, this commonality is the highest expression of faith as a living reality. So, to make a long story short, I am not doing what I criticize others for doing. I am not telling anyone his or her belief is wrong (except for the Theology of Hate). The worst I do is to say the belief is incomplete, but ya gotta keep in mind that I include my misunderstanding as incomplete as well. I am not using incomplete in the pejorative sense for there is nothing wrong in confessing that -O- is much greater than anything that can be said. We make a major mistake when we let what we worship get in the way of that we worship for the what of Hinduism is just as incomplete as the what of Judaism as is the what of Greek Orthodox Christianity as is the rest of the isms. >>The only time I use “Christianity” and “False” in the same sentence is when I talk about how it would be false if I were to follow said path. >If you believe so strongly in your position, why do you not attempt to convert others to your POV? I’m not looking to convert others (Except those who preach a Theology of Hate), I’m just an old hippie that happens to enjoy yapping about this stuff. The religious stance a person takes is between -O- and that person. It Does Not Matter to me that you are Christian and are likely to remain so. Our friend over there is Jewish and I’m happy for her. It would be rather rude of me to

tell our Muslim friend that he is wrong in his belief. I would be a bit hypocritical to compare faith to a stew and then say it can only contain beef. Walking that path makes a mockery of faith in my opinion, for belief is talk while faith is experience. If others wish to accept my ideas, it will be because they find them plausible, not because I’m running around nailing lifts on the native’s feet. The world is far too crowded with believers that are all surface and no depth and I have no desire to contribute. >>The main purpose of religion, in my mind anyway, is that it is a unifying force… I would no more suggest that we all abandon our differences because variety is the spice of life; human spirituality needs Roman Catholicism just as much as it needs Zen Buddhism. >This is where I’m confused - to be unified, wouldn’t we all be worshipping the same God in the same manner in the same place? Are you suggesting that we all attend church together and celebrate some hybrid religious ceremony? We are unified in we all have faith that -O- is. Our thinking the name is the thing leads us to confrontations in theological dialogue; no matter which name we attach to the reality, it is the source of all names. This is not meant to degrade religion as a “Delusional” enterprise as it does not follow that because there are many names for the same reality belief is delusional; it is allusional. As far as I’m concerned, the vast variety of -O-images illustrates that -O- is much grander than anything that can be said. No matter how finely crafted the words, they come utterly short when compared to the real thing and one makes a major mistake in preferring the menu over the meal. Having one form of religious celebration would be like having one choice on the ballot or a solitary cuisine, it takes away from the beauty of the whole enterprise. Some Americans

vote Republican just like some Americans are Buddhist, some vote Democratic just like some are Lutheran. There are Americans who prefer Chinese cuisine and vote Independent, some who prefer “Down Home Southern” and vote Republican, some who lean towards vegetarianism and vote Democratic, and some who dine from all cuisines and choose not to vote. Each is unified in that each vote (One by being a nonvoter.), each are religious, and each are American. It is the variety that makes political activity so lively and the same is true concerning religious activity. Gosh no, on the hybrid ceremony, although it would be neat if we could all get together for a family picnic every once in a while. Perhaps we should work at starting a new tradition where once a year, we set aside all theological differences and come together in true ecumenical fashion to celebrate the Isness of That which by many names we call “God”. A celebration of this type would definitely punch holes in the Theology of Hate and help promote a Theology of Loving Tolerance. This would go a long way towards making Western spirituality more appealing as the main thing driving people away from church is the constant spitting and contention that goes along with the claim of being the One True Religion© and in many cases in Christianity, the One True Denomination©. We can celebrate that -O- Is, that we all teach compassion and love for our fellow human, and that life is a gift from -O- without arguing, other than in a philosophical sense of the term, over the particulars of our respective theologies. The main purpose of religion, in my mind anyway, is that it is a unifying force and there is nothing more unifying than a family picnic. The variety of religious expressions is one of the beauties of the whole shebang of human spirituality and in one

way or another, we are unified in that we all agree -O- Is. We cannot have a symphony that consists of a single instrument playing a single tone, can we? I would no more suggest that we all abandon our differences because variety is the spice of life; human spirituality needs Roman Catholicism just as much as it needs Zen Buddhism. We are mistaken by assuming that “Unity” entails doing the same thing the same way; we all eat, but some of us prefer one cuisine over all others. Some of us listen to jazz, some to pop, some to classical, etc, but in the long run, we all listen to music. This drive to be numero uno has reduced religion to the level of politics where it is more orthodox to attack others for a minute difference than it is to celebrate what all hold in common. Rather than celebrate our mutual belief in the Isness, we spit at each other over the Whatness of our respective -O-images. This is another area where America can sparkle. Being an American is not limited to being Christian just as it is not limited to being Democrat or Republican. Why anyone would want to reduce to beauty of a symphony to a single tone is utterly beyond me. We need to go beyond the idea that religion is one thing and one thing only and move on to the idea of embracing the spiritual unity of religious diversity. One problem with the spontaneous nature of my mystical experiences is that I do not belong to any one school of thought. If someone wishes to learn from a Sensei, they follow the path set out before them - “This is how I learned it. If you wish to learn it for yourself, do this and that.” You learn from those who went before and follow a map, as it were. With the traditional approach, the question is “How do I get there?” while my question is more like “How do I show others how to get here?” (With “Here” being a psychological state.)

I have come across some tricks to help smooth the way for the experience, but I cannot teach them without touching upon Zen. I cannot call myself a Zennist although others have. I cannot endorse the Zen path as that is not the one I traveled. Although I sometimes call myself a Taoist, it is more like a Taoist explanation of where I’m at without saying how I got here. While I often talk about -O- in what sounds like Hinduism, I cannot say that is the Total Truth, no matter how good it feels emotionally. There are times one must discuss -O- in the Feminine aspect, requiring one to talk of the Goddess - I suppose at those times you could call me a Celtic Taoist. Elsewhere we have discussed my respect for certain areas of Christian Philosophy. I respect much of what my Jewish friends have to say but I cannot do more than join them in the Hyphen Nation. One of the threads I tried to start a long time ago (before Internet) was along the lines of “What would you ask -O- if you had the right to ask one question?” If I had to chance to question Him, I would ask him why He gave me the mystical path. There are no regrets, don’t get me wrong; however, it is hard to tell someone how to get here when I got teleported and have no idea how it happened. Sometimes I find it real aggravating that He would pull that kind of practical joke on me and have to fight the desire to smack Him upside the back to the head. It is real frustrating that I do not have a tradition to fall back onto when attempting to talk about this stuff, for like I said in the talk about the faith of Jesus and the Religion about Jesus, the “Problem of Authority” is sure to raise its ugly head. >>You learn from those who went before and follow a map, as it were. With the traditional approach, the question is “How do I get there?” while my question is more like “How do I show others how to get here?”

>Why not draw your own map? The terrain is all the same, as you have said before. One more map will not hurt. If I did attempt a map, it would have to be a three dimensional holographic image in order to show all the commonalities we share and it would more than likely look like a tree. The roots of the tree would represent mystical experience, the trunk representing belief in the Divine, the major branches representing various theologies, minor branches representing various schools of thought, the twigs representing various denominations, and the leaves representing the believers. One uniting factor in all Faiths is a belief in the Divine and it is from this central belief that we all branch out. Take Christianity, for example. The branch called Roman Catholicism may be a different branch on the tree of Christianity, but it is still part of the same trunk as the Southern Baptist and the Quaker. Theravada, Mahayana, and Zen Buddhists may be on different branches, but they are on the tree of Buddhism. Ultimately, each Faith is a different branch of the same tree, for the Taoist, the Hindu, and the Muslim all have faith in the Divine. As I have said many times, we all have faith in the Is part, we just differ on the What part. Being able to draw a map depends on knowing how one got to that point. What does an eight year old know about traversing the mystical path? At the time of my initial experiences, all I knew of religion was the Presbyterian church my grandparents went to and the Baptist church my mom sent us kids to. All that was on my mind concerning matters of religion at the time was the differences in the teaching of the two churches concerning the campfire stories about -O-’s Nature. A spot on a map indicates one has traveled a path that goes from point A to point B, but I cannot fill in the from - to area of the map. For me, it

was more like the transporter in Star Trek, one instant I was there and all the sudden I was here. I must reiterate that “here” and “there” are misleading terms. This idea that using the terms “here” and “there” in the Spiritual sense as being equal to using them in the Physical sense is what leads people to assume a map is needed to facilitate their “arrival” in Nirvana. It all stems from our view of the metaphysical as “beyond”, as I talk about elsewhere. Heaven, Nirvana, Moksha, Satori, or whatever you want to call it, is an internal state of mind, not some “place” in some outer dimension. The terms “here” and “there”, used in Spiritual language, are relative, as are “particle” and “wave”, when used in Quantum Mechanical language - it all depends on how you look at it in the latter and what you make of it in the former. As put in Buddhist terms, “Samsara is Nirvana”; the Sacred and the Profane are continuous territory, in other words. Rather than draw a map, I’m more interested in compiling a thesaurus. The Divine is the Divine, whether one is discussing it from a Christian or a Taoist perspective. Salvation may mean one thing to a Buddhist and something else to a Jew, but the idea of Salvation is a common concept. One thing that saddens me is the common assumption that if one does not believe in the Biblical Image, one does not believe in -O- at all. This is especially true in Christian thought, where the argument is limited to Believers against Atheists, which are but two of the many participants in the discussions at St. Pete ’s Bar and Grille. Not having traversed a path to get here, I can see where we all are talking about the same mountain, just from various sides. The problem I have with maps is they imply competition, which is a wrongheaded approach as far as I’m concerned. Spirituality should be a uniter in that we believe, not a divider by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All knowledge is incomplete. There is always more that we don’t know than what we do know. The beauty of the search for knowledge is that it is a never ending quest. I doubt if anyone has really considered what it would be like if we knew everything - it would have to be boring to never be able to discover something new. >>Materialism is as incomplete as Idealism. >Can I ask what you mean by “incomplete”? I don't think we can honestly say, “The materialism only approach is the total truth when it comes to understanding reality.” I feel the spiritual aspect is just as valid - as long as it isn't taken as the sole truth either. The problem is that we treat our statements as if “This is what it is.” when what we should be doing is treating them as if “This is what it is like.” I realize that I come off sounding like I firmly believe that what I’m yapping about is the absolute truth but I take my ontology with more than a few grains of salt. I take a pragmatic approach to my ontology - it works for me but your mileage may vary. >>What we know (Statements of the mind) should be balanced by what we gnow (Statements of the heart). >I’m having a hard time understanding the difference between a statement of the mind and a statement of the heart.

Statements of the mind are statements of facts, Statements of the heart are statements of concepts. The statement “Two plus two equals four.” is an example of the former and “ -O- Is.” is an example of the latter. For far too long, the West has concentrated on factual knowledge at the expense of conceptual gnowledge in the secular sphere and the opposite in the religious. I submit this is due to spokespeople on both sides of the issue pounding their respective pulpits, hoping to gain converts. What these people fail to understand is this is not an either |or issue that can be resolved by picking one and ignoring the other. This type of approach is like grabbing a snake by the tail - it can twist and bite ya in the butt. The radical proponents of statements of facts would have us ignore statements of the heart while radicals on the other side of the aisle would have us do the opposite. One is not required to surrender their rational knowledge in order to believe in the existence of -O- nor is one required to surrender belief in -O(conceptual gnowledge) to accept empirical knowledge. Where the realist makes their biggest flaw is the assumption that if the Biblical -O-image is wrong, there is, therefore, no -O- at all. The idealist makes a flaw in the assumption that reality is not to be trusted for “The ways of -O- are not our own.” - idealism requires realism in order to stay out of the clouds but at the same time, realism needs idealism to keep us from being distracted by the mud squishing up between our toes. >What you are saying, then, (Scientism is just as incomplete as Religionism, only it is incomplete from another direction.) is that we cannot have complete knowledge in any field of study. It sounds dismal and skeptical to me.

Far from dismal, my efriend, but a sheer delight. Think about it for a while, do you not find learning to be exciting? Maybe I am a bit strange (MAYBE???), but I find learning to be a blast. I have been working through Temp agencies for over 20 years and although the pay is not great and the benefits are little, if any, I have had a blast learning many new things. Among the things I have learned is being a machinist working with tolerances of .0001”, assembly of medical devices, shipping and receiving in various warehouse style companies, ISO 9000 level inspection of tubing to be used in the nuclear industry, tree trimming, working in the kitchen at an airport, and working in a lettershop. I read an essay by Lewis Thomas, about how the Introduction to Science classes should be titled “The Things We Do Not Know”. Along that train of thought, I would add that one of the textbooks should be “The Wisdom of Insecurity”, by Alan Watts. Science has gone through the same kind of internal belching in clinging to graven images of the mind that religion has and needs to pay attention to the same message. In all the various assignments I have had as a temp, the one thing I have noticed is that if a person is burned out on the job, it is because they know all about it and have nothing new to learn. >>All theologies/theories are equally incomplete. >I really feel rather sorry for someone like you who places so little trust or confidence in his own belief system, to repeatedly call it, as well as all others, “incomplete”. I have utmost trust and confidence in my belief system. I am not going to be silly enough to claim that because it works for me, it must be what everyone else must believe or be doomed to Hell. As for calling it “incomplete”, it is. I am only human after

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

safer life if one knows what is coming, but, how long could one remain tied to apron strings before one wanted a taste of adventure? I would prefer to walk around a corner to see either a beautiful sunset or a charging dragon without foreknowledge, thank you. This does not mean that I am against knowledge, as much as it may sound to some people - it is nice to know the chances of meeting a dragon are less than seeing a sunset.

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

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

reality. Out of compassion, -O- has rigged it so that he comes to us rather than making us climb to him. One of the things discussed about the enlightenment experience that is constant across all traditions and that is that it is a blissful experience. It has been described as an Infinite Joy at being right here - right now! The peace that surpasses all understanding barely scratches the surface of the experience yet says more than it does. Sometimes the experience is so intense it can only be yapped about in sensual terms, thinking of -O- as the ultimate lover. No matter how it can be daffyfined, it seems to me the bliss of beingness is sanctification in and of the whole process dancing in and out of the light. Out of infinite love, this sanctification is given freely and completely. It is not something we have to struggle to obtain, it is something we just have to reach within and accept. The only area I find myself in despair is in attempting to discuss the idea that one can have a -O-image that is nonbiblical. No matter how eloquent I think I am, it is hard for people to accept a -O-image that does not include the old man sitting on the throne handing out harsh judgments. There have been times that in the middle of rambling on about the peace of -O-, I’ll look over and see a semi blank stare with a “what the heck are you talking about” look to it and realize that what I need is the Vulcan mind meld because all the pretty words don ’t amount to squat. The Buddha was right to hold up a rose and smile nothing else could say it better. >>Life is a cyclic process, there is no beginning, there is no end, and there is no pause for enjoyment in Heaven or punishment in Hell. >I have been contemplating this since you first mentioned something like it in a conversation long ago. I have to admit that

while it may never been proven, it makes a lot more sense than any other stance I’ve heard. >I was a devout Christian for most of my life and struggled with the despair of knowing that no matter how good I behaved, I was nothing but a sinful creature doomed for Hell. I became a secularist but eventually found that stance to be the cause just as much despair because at the end of the day, so to speak, it all became meaningless. More than anything else, the idea that -O- would condemn someone to eternal damnation in Hell for being exactly as they were created to be is what drove me on the path I’ve followed. As I’ve yakked about elsewhere, the tenor of my mystical experiences is that of being unconditionally loved, not in spite of, but because of, all my warts and scars. The image of -O- that I was taught in the Baptist Church I attended never made sense when I compared it to the image I was getting through my initial mystical experiences and the image that was presented in the Presbyterian Church my grandparents attended. There was a difference between the latter church image and the image I received in mystical experience, to be sure, but the idea of a loving God wasn’t all that different. I’ve had many friends over the years that worship, not out of their love for -O-, but because they were mortally afraid not to. They took worship as a duty to be performed in order to be kept out of Hell. Never once was their worship a celebration of love and honor and I find this saddening for worship that is based on fear is nothing more than mere compliance. This is no more profound than obeying the speed limit. I quickly became dissatisfied with the secular approach myself. There is some truth to the approach, but there are just way too many loose ends dangling on the edges of the tapestry. I think the idea that mind is nothing more than a byproduct of

brain activity to be a puerile campfire story at the best. It is absurd to assume that the physical is all there is to reality. As far as I’m concerned, all the secularist approach does is become a race to see who can be the least imaginative when it comes to the explanation of reality. We are told this story that an unintelligent universe produced intelligent beings, which is like saying that apples may grow on orange trees. It didn ’t take too long before I became less than impressed by the materialistic image of the universe as machine - I think I made it half way through the Intro to Physics semester. The Western image of the Vengeful Old Man on the throne was replaced with the blind and dumb mechanism. We got rid of the fear of eternal punishment in Hell and replaced it with a mechanical universe and a meaningless life. This was called progress, but to my way of thinking, all we did was take a step sideways by replacing one absurdity for another. How the secularist could fail to realize their image was just as absurd as the religionist has never failed to astound me. At least some of the religionists had the concept that good behavior would result in eternal reward in some type of heaven; with the secularists, all good behavior got you was to be remembered with fondness. All the secularists did was replace the fear of Hell with the fear of being remembered with animosity. In this regard, the Western secularist is just as wrongheaded as the Western religionist is. The Western religionist stubbornly clings to the idea “This is what God is”, refusing to grant validity to other -O-images. The Western secularist stubbornly clings to the idea that seeing as how science disproves some things said in the religious texts, “All images of the Divine are invalid.” It doesn’t matter to a Taoist that science has shown that the Six Day Creation Story is wrong. Taoism does not hold with the

story either. That science shows the Theory of Evolution to be a valid campfire story has no adverse effect on Hinduism, which has long held to the concept of evolution. The Buddhist and the secularist both agree that death is a natural part of the overall process and not the result of our supposed ancestress ’ disobedience regarding the eating the fruit of a certain tree in a mythical garden. >>All this may have come about through a series of random chances but that is not the point - ya gotta admit this is a pretty impressive show and the fact that we can make sense of quite a bit of it is a remarkable statement in itself. I don’t see how anyone can look at it with anything other than an attitude of “Wow, this is awesome.” >I can’t say that I’ve heard it put this way before. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. Things may have been entirely random and chaotic at the start of this show, but look at the patterns that have come to exist from that chaos. Somehow, energy became inorganic matter then some of it became organic matter then some of it became living matter then some of it became sentient then some of it became intelligent enough to make a fairly accurate guess as to how it came to be. As impressive as the campfire story of how it came to be is, consider how awesome that it came to be is. Consider this - billions of years ago, the atoms that make up your body were bouncing around in a star. Now you are sitting there reading this little ditty; if that doesn’t impress the heck out of you, I haven’t done my job. If you cannot stand on a mountaintop and gaze upon the stars in complete and utter awe, there is no magic in your life. After all, what it means to be a human is that you are nothing other than reality looking out upon itself.

Dino’s Daffynitionary. Campfire story, Campfire stories (plural) My chosen term for the myths we live by. I feel (Although there may never be proof one way or the other) these stories originated in our earliest history as we gathered around our campfires.. I use the term to honor our ability to tell stories that help us make sense out of all this. Dictionary Approach and Thesaurus Approach. In the former, the definition is the reality and in the latter, the definition is an aspect of reality. Claiming the Biblical Image is the One True Image of -O- is a Dictionary approach. Claiming the Biblical Image is but one of many aspects of -O- is a Thesaurus approach. Daffynition. {Daffyfinable, daffyfined, daffyfine, undaffyfinable, daffyscribe} When the definition of a word or concept is treated as the reality of the concept, it becomes a daffynition - that which is taken to and or beyond a logical absurdity. For example, the sound “Whiskey” will not get a person drunk. Herenow. The state of being in the Present Moment. Holyverse. My mythunderstanding of the universe in its’ Totality. Immortality, Unmortality, and Amortality.

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

worldviews. The idea that a Human is a created being that is a separate reality than physical reality is a memetriement built up of memes (The arguments for the infamous Mind/Body Nonissue, for example.) Mythunderstanding. Our understanding of reality based on the mythos we tell about it. (The Nature of Reality, The Nature of -O-, Human Nature, etc) Oneitis Our assumption the “One” of mathematics is an explanation of the “One” in metaphysics. Panencarnation. The concept that each living being is an avatar of -O-. Unlike reincarnation, there is only one soul doing all this incarnating. Panencarnation is similar to the Buddhist concept of transmigration with one exception; -O- is the one being reborn. [This is a play on the concept of Panentheism.] Pansophy Universal wisdom or knowledge Pragmystic One who takes up a mystical practice upon seeing the positive effects it has had on others. Rational Knowledge and Arational Gnowledge. (To Know and to Gno.)

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

Sticktoitiveness The determination to stick with a plan of action no matter how many times you have to start over. Symphonia Religiosa. An allusion of the various Religions to the various instruments in a Symphony Orchestra. Each instrument compliments the other and although they may be playing a little differently at each moment, there is a theme to the symphony they all play to. Theobabble. Theological discourse taken with a grain of salt, a dash of self-deprecating humor, and a tongue stuck halfway out the cheek. Theodalatry. The act of worshipping a theological concept as if it were the reality. The word “God” is not the reality. Theonary. A dictionary from a particular religion. Theosaurus. A thesaurus of Religious understanding.

1 Encarta World English Dictionary © 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. 2 Alan Watts, various lectures an essays 3 The Complete works of Chuang Tzu, Translated by Burton Watson.