Dick Skep It is a fine line we walk - do we speak or stay silent. If we stay silent, people will have to stumble forward on their own with no guidance.

Without guidance, I would still be contemplating my navel and without further guidance, I will probably be locked at this stage of awareness for many lifetimes. What is one to do?

It is a quest - look for the "magic pudding". Once you find it, you will have all the proof you need. (It is very tasty as well!)

And we Dance/Dance/Dance.

Peggy- I am "witnessing" this and my mind knows impatience is showing but "witness" makes no value judgements.

Consequently, here goes - you really should engage your brain once in a while before you type.

At least Dick Skep is consistent, has a point of view which he/she defends and he/she does not ramble on with endless babble.

There, my mind and body feel much better though my Karma took a ding!

Bob, if you knew, you wouldn't have to announce that you know. Ya know?

and where's this magic pudding?

Dave R & Cathy - Your inputs and discussion on Quantum Physics and Manifestation were great. They were pretty much right on the money as far as we who know we know are concerned.

For Skeptics - You can [a] have faith alone in what the East has been saying for thousands of years, [b] you can choose to study the West's Quantum Physics which does prove from a scientific standpoint that we manifest everything, [c] you can meditate, go within and find all the proof you need that we manifest it all, or [d] you can choose to remain stagnant, keep a closed mind, do no exploration, remain in the dark and continue to show your ignorance.

Geoff - Being aware of being aware equates to "witnessing", i.e. - our Spirit watching with Detachment (thank you Carol) what our body and mind are manifesting. Also, (from experience) if one "witnesses" or is "truly aware" of any of their duality, that duality dissapates more and more over time.

That's "some" not "so"... :-)

Thanks Peggy!

Here is so food for thought

"I think I can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics" - Richard Feynman
"Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense" - Roger Penrose
" ... Nevertheless 60 years after the formulation of quantum mechanics there is still vehement discussion over its interpretation and range of application. That is something unique in the history of science." - Ilya Prigogine ( Nobel Laureate)

Interesting article on Quantum Mechanics
and
Quantum Mechanics and the Analysis of Behavior
and if that's not enough
Quantum Mechanics, Chaos and the Conscious Brian

Have fun!

It just occurred to me that for me honesty and integrity are more valuable than understanding Truth.

Chris, I like your post about how brilliant minds differ and I also appreciate the link that Dick posted.

Some of us scoff at the notion that manifestation has been proven scientifically. Such claims show a lack of understanding of scientific terminology and method. None of the scientists that were listed in a previous post as having "proven" that we manifest everything has actually claimed "proof." There may be supportive data but that is different. Einstein didn't proof the relativity of time and Darwin didn't prove evolution. That's why their discoveries are called theories and not laws. That doesn't mean that it is all speculation though. Again, there is a lot of supportive data.

Just because some of us object to the word proven doesn't mean that we discard the ideas all together. That, too, varies from person to person.

Maybe bias is natural with some scientists. Zukav and Stenger are both examples. But I won't discard what they say just because they are speculating.

One of the things that I dislike about Deepak's style is that he often says things like, "Science has shown us..." and then doesn't get specific about what studies he is talking about.

I know that you already know most of what I have said. I just wanted to let you know that I know. :-)

I loved the Mark Twain piece! I'm always pleased when I find something of his that I have either forgotten or never read. Like the point the piece makes too.

I have read somewhere that he believed in reincarnation. Very complex man.

And Mr. Poobah's commentary is a riot! Patchouli, huh?

And I keep forgetting to let Daniel know that I think he is gifted. The things he has posted are the sort of thing that I wish that I could write. They are almost a cross between essays and poetry.

Tom G., you certainly started my day with a laugh! Someone told me that I should watch King of the Hill and now I know why!!

The funny thing is, that picture really does look like me -- glasses and all.

The info is hilarious. There is a way, however, to make apple pie out of Ritz crackers. I will have to work on the guacamole...

Several years ago I had some email correspondence with Dr. Victor Stenger (See Dick's link). Dr. Stenger's position on Quantum Mechanics is not universal and there are many equally respectable and brilliant quantum physists that would disagree with his interpretations. He approaches the subject from a mechanistic, almost Newtonian perspective. I see this as a perfect example of how very respectable and brilliant scientists can disagree given the same data. In my mind, it is a good example of how human beings tend to interpret things differently depending on their initial bias. Given what I know about Dr. Stenger and the biases that he has admitted to me personally, I wouldn't conclude his position is iron clad scientific fact.

Dick

Your link was interesting...I just read the first page. I am put in mind of politics---with both "sides" seeming to have "proof" that their view is the correct or better one. I hate politics :-)In the holographic Universe, there is mention of a few modern day miracle workers--I cannot recall their names...my book is loaned out. "IF" miracles do indeed happen, as I believe they do, though I admit I have not witnessed any undeniable ones (have seen a few "small" ones--more like unusual happenings)--it stands to reason that there is actually a scientific explanation, simply one beyond our current general understanding (just like our current understandings would seem miraculous to someone from years gone by). Holograms and quantum stuff makes a lot of sense to me....seems to fit what I see in many cases (well, not the quantum stuff--too small ;-))

Anyway, thanks for the site!

Cathy

After reading several of Deepak's works regarding cell replication and re-programming, I would like specific information about cell replication rates for different parts/organs of the human body. Does anyone know where I can get this from? I work with 'Healing at a Cellular Level' Brandon Bays' The Journey and would find this information most useful in my practice.

"By honest I don't mean that you only tell what's true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind."

-- Richard P. Feynman

The Law of Detachment

In detachment lies the wisdom of uncertainty...in the wisdom of uncertainty lies the freedom from our past, from the known, which is the prison of past conditioning. And in our willingness to step into the unknown, the field of all possibilities, we surrender ourselves to the creative mind that orchestrates the dance of the universe.

Detached Involvement
Wisdom of Uncertainty
Infinite Possibilities

poo Mr Poobah and LOL!

hi Cathy, i liked your post to Dave and felt you made yourself very clear.

Hi Tom! :)

===========================================================
32 Characteristics of Enlightened Ones ===========================================================
The abbreviation "EO" is used for Enlightened One,
and if a pronoun is needed, the feminine is used.
===========================================================

1. There's nothing the EO *shouldn't* do - everything she does is spontaneous and Right.
2. The EO never has sex.
3. The EO never gets angry.
4. The EO never leaves the place where Enlightenment occurred.
5. The EO had free will, but lost it.
6. The EO has no emotional responses.
7. The EO has no more mind/body consciousness.
8. The EO has a mind, but it is non-reactive.
9. The EO has no more mind.
10. The EO knows she's an EO.
11. The EO has no consciousness of being an EO.
12. The EO actually is actually not an O at all.
13. The EO knows that the ego is carried in the blood, not the brain.
14. The EO is in constant knowledge of the Beloved.
15. The EO is in constant contact with ascended masters.
16. The EO, being Consciousness Itself, has the siddhi powers to manifest anything she wants in this world. Only her restraint and good taste keep her from exercising this power in a crass and show-offish way.
17. The EO must have been born in India to a Brahman family.
18. The EO has transcended each and every one of the 172 levels of consciousness.
19. The EO constantly sees a blue pearl at their forehead level, during waking, dreaming, and deep sleep.
20. The EO doesn't need to work for a living.
21. EO's are always teachers.
22. EO's never need to apologize.
23. One is not an EO unless everyone agrees.
24. The EO doesn't like heavy metal, rap, or country-western music, because these come from the lower chakras, whereas classical music comes directly from the Self, not filtered and distorted through the lower chakras.
25. The EO is God.
26. The EO can't be recognized except by another EO.
27. The EO can tell you what happens during deep sleep.
28. The EO doesn't spend very much time in the Internet.
29. The EO is happy all the time.
30. The EO is outside of time; other people are still in time.
31. The EO has no preferences.
32. There is a fragrance of patchouli that emanates from the EO.

One of the Mississippi's oddest peculiarities is that of shortening its length from time to time. If you will throw a long, pliant apple-paring over your shoulder, it will pretty fairly shape itself into an average section of the Mississippi River; that is, the nine or ten hundred miles stretching from Cairo, Illinois, southward to New Orleans, the same being wonderfully crooked, with a brief straight bit here and there at wide intervals. The two-hundred-mile stretch from Cairo northward to St. Louis is by no means so crooked, that being a rocky country which the river cannot cut much.

The water cuts the alluvial banks of the `lower' river into deep horseshoe curves; so deep, indeed, that in some places if you were to get ashore at one extremity of the horseshoe and walk across the neck, half or three quarters of a mile, you could sit down and rest a couple of hours while your steamer was coming around the long elbow, at a speed of ten miles an hour, to take you aboard again. When the river is rising fast, some scoundrel whose plantation is back in the country, and therefore of inferior value, has only to watch his chance, cut a little gutter across the narrow neck of land some dark night, and turn the water into it, and in a wonderfully short time a miracle has happened: to wit, the whole Mississippi has taken possession of that little ditch, and placed the countryman's plantation on its bank.

Pray observe some of the effects of this ditching business. The Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. It was eleven hundred and eighty after the cut-off of 1722. It was one thousand and forty after the American Bend cut-off. It has lost sixty-seven miles since. Consequently its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present.

Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and `let on' to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past, or what will occur in the far future by what has occurred in late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! Nor `development of species', either! Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--vague. Please observe. In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Click HERE if you think quantum physics proves that we manifest everything.

LOL!! But it's a great example of substituting a wish-fulfilling fantasy for understanding!

I read Deepak's lecture on Reincarnation with deep interest. It is refreshingly enjoyable and very convincing . It matched all the imagination that I had about reincarnation. However I have following questions: Deepak talked about transition/exchange of astral and earthy bodies and souls in the process of reincarnation. When we are at astral level, how do we feel about our sex/gender? Since we carry earthy images even at astral level, will we continue to have hangover of our gender at previous life at astral level too ? And how is sex of new earthy life decided ? is it decided at astral level by will ? Can you please highlight on these or recommend any of your previous write up /books that will give some light.

Dave

I apologize for not having well thought out responses, but my wee ones prevent that most days :-)

About the "universal truths" idea...I don't mean this to say that any specific God of any specific religion has the goods on ultimate truth ;-) And all that you had to say about how we are similar I like and agree with (There is some quote I can't find right now about religions being like a hand...the separate fingers seemingly separate, but traced to their roots, united...)anywho, what I think is that ultimate truth is akin to other invisible forces in our lives...like gravity. When we are little, and learning to walk--that is, ignorant of the laws of gravity, it all seems so tricky--standing upright, and moving forward. But once we master it, the laws of gravity actually allow us to run and jump and move about...this may not be so great an analogy ;-) But, my point--and I do have one ;-)--is that I think ultimate truth/God is there whether or not we align ourselves with or acknowledge it. Not knowing all about it, or not believing in it affects our experience in Life, but it does not alter the reality of it--just as not knowing about the laws of gravity affect us(at first as we learn to walk, and then later, when we can navigate but don't understand all the implications--like how flight might be possible etc...later still we learn to use the law to help us soar...) Because of the similarities of the nondual traditions and quantum physics, I personally believe that that is what the ultimate truth is--and really all religions at their core have some aspect of this, I think?...and I think that I can come to realize such truth with effort...because it is the core of who I am...my not being aware of this, does not make it not so

Goodness! I'm not being clear...but it is late and I won't get back to this until late tomorrow...Know that I understood your post and appreciated your thought process! Wish I had time to make mine more clear! :-) Sweet dreams!

Cathy

Hey Tom: Nice to see you.Your King of The Hill photo reminded me of the house 3 doors down.The guy and his friends hang out in front of the house with the garage door open displaying his car every Saturday. They look just like the charaters on the cartoon. I haven't watched it in a while, but I liked it.

Peggy! Coincidence! One of the characters, Peggy Hill, from one of my favorite TV shows, King of the Hill, is into Boggle. (^_^)

OCCUPATION:
Mother, housewife, substitute Spanish teacher.

PROUDEST ACHIEVEMENT:
Texas State Boggle Champion.

QUOTE:
"You cannot make authentic guacamole out of lima beans and Ritz crackers."

FAVORITE AUTHOR:
Nolan Ryan.

Some of the points that Chris raised in his post (the first one a few days ago) on "Truth" about how things tend to take on new meanings (new truths) as we change our scale of reference, reminded me of a book of pictures I found several years ago called Powers of Ten which this link will take you to. If you have a fast connection, or some patience, I think you may have fun checking out the things at this site. The URL is http://www.wordwizz.com/1uexp0.htm if you want it.

Yes, the concept of eternity used to boggle my mind as a youngster too. :)

Anyone for a game of boggle?

The proof is quite tricky. You need to recite, "What is my little puppy." aloud in public for three hours a day for a month and then you will know the truth.

Tongue firmly in cheek, but it does work. Believe me.

Being aware of being aware of being aware, etc., reminds me of when I was a child and would think about living in heaven forever...and ever...and ever. The concept still boggles the mind.

But then, I boggle easily.

Hi Chris,

I too have enjoyed reading your recent posts. For some reason, they remind me of something I have tossed around in my head from time to time. If I am eating an apple and I am aware that I am eating an apple then I am also aware of being aware of eating an apple and i am also aware of being aware of being aware of eating an apple. You can continue this sequence to 'infinity' in theory adding one more 'aware of being aware' to each chain. Personally, once I get past 4 or 5 occurences of the word 'aware' in one sentence it doesn't have much graspable meaning. Hope this makes some sense to anyon reading it. If it does, can you explain it to me? :)

Actually, i read somewhere that there is one group of yogis whose entire practice consists of saying in their minds "I am aware that i am doing such & such" throughout the day. For example, "I am aware that I am washing my hands" or "I am aware that I am sending typing this message to the Chopra forum" etc ... and they endeavour to maintain this level of awareness regardless of what it is they happen to be doing at the time. Very similar to the idea of mindfulness - in fact it may be merely one way of describing the technique of mindfulness. If indeed mindfulness is a 'technique'. Hope I haven't lost anybody. :)

Peggy, along these lines, you asked me a while back about dealing with anger. I read a useful tip somewhere or other that if you can 'catch' yourself in that moment of anger and internally say "I am aware that I am angry" then the anger tends to dissolve because your focus has been shifted from the exerienceing of anger to the observing of it. Hope this helps.

Interesting quote, Anne. Though I would question the use of the word 'every'. All sweeping generalisations are misleading. :)

From The Book of Questions by Gregory Stock:

If you could pass your whole life cared for in every way as you slumbered peacefully, entranced by wonderful dreams, would you do so?

On the off-chance that this link hasn't been posted before, it's what appears to be a reading list, with some commentary, of all sorts of books in the vein Bob F has suggested.

Cathy, I can accept your disagreement and would like to add just a little to what you've just said. First, I can see now that I do need to read "The Holographic Universe." (Others have been recommending that book for years.) Some of the other "popular science" books (I'm not meaning this in a disparaging way, since that's the level where I'm comfortable reading) on Quantum Theory have been enough to give me some notions and ideas about the weirdnesses going on at that level of Reality. I have read Zukav, Capra, and some neat books by David Peat, along with others in that vein. So "THU" is on my list.

Your words about "masters" and "knowing" and "evidence" are close enough to my own version that I won't quibble. And I certainly do *think* a lot about soul and spirit and mind, as well as watch any movies and TV programs with those topics that I can find. Bill Moyers had a great series on the subject a few years back.

But with all that, I'm convinced that we can only be guided or coached by the words we either read or hear from others (masters, practitioners, and laypeople alike) on the subject. It all boils down (at least for the present) to what's comfortable and personally acceptable or meaningful to us as individuals. There are no "universal truths" in that area, in my way of thinking. I'm happy for those who feel there are those "truths" but I would encourage the ones who feel that way to consider that not everyone has those same beliefs. And that's how I label them: beliefs.

If we are to learn from each other about what these beliefs can do for the betterment of our species, and to help to ensure that species will continue to exist, I see it as much more valuable to discuss not so much the differences in how we label them, or even to what degree or level we individually have understood them, but to try to share, and not to isolate. If things really are as great and sublime and all that as they are touted to be, why would anyone want to hoard or claim exclusive ownership of such a thing?

In short, "where are we alike?" is more meaningful than "where are we different?" if we hope to use these "truths" for a beneficial cause. Too many wars have been fought and too many of us have died over trivial differences in beliefs. Let's crawl down off the soapboxes and give each other a big hug, and laugh at how silly we can look trying to be "masters." :-)

Namaste'

Watch "West Wing" for the latest on "TOE".

Dave

You said:Unfortunately, the only evidence we seem to have for soul or spirit or mind is what "masters" tell us.

I would disagree, though I think I know what you meant? I think we each have glimpses of something "beyond" our everyday lives...which could be called soul or spirit...now I agree that most of us don't "know" what it is exactly we are glimpsing, or "know" much beyond our peek...and in that sense, yes, the "masters" are the connection...but, there is some scientific stuff that Bob mentioned that is enough like evidence to convince me--The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot is a good read. Even then, though, I suppose we are left to have to realize or experience for ourselves (as Chris said get naked and wet? ;-)) what is known to be there by the masters or the scientists--nothing new there, eh? :-) Perhaps that is how it should be...well, quite likely, actually :-)

Cheers!

Cathy

Geoff, I thought you might like this quote I just unearthed:

"There is in every madman a misunderstood genius whose idea, shining in his head, frightened people, and for whom delirium was the only solution to the strangulation that life had prepared for him."

So they've finally proven that we have a holographic universe! I wonder how the hypothesis was stated. Hmmmm.

Hypothesis: We manifest everything.

PROVEN! No more speculation! No more personal interpretations of data! The scientific proofs have been listed and experiments duplicated!

You would think there would at least be an article in Scientific American or a link on Yahoo.

Pardon the typo. A freudian slip perhaps? :)

Geoff, we all know you like to cover a bit of territory but penguin droppings, reproductive gizmos, 25,000 year old humans, reincarnations of people who are still alive ... are you sure they are giving you the right pills? :)

Is the story about the droppings an allegory that we can enhance our knowledge by looking in the most unlikely or uninviting places? :)

Thanks for the links, Dave. I too enjoyed the poem. And the one Geoff posted and the cartoon. Sounds like you're having fun wherever you are, Geoof. Keep posting - though maybe not so many penguin stories. Newcomers might get the wrong idea about this place. On the subject of Deepak, I have actually started reading "Everyday Immortality" and I'll let you know if it changes my life or my consciousness or whatever.

Cheers

Didn't mean to leave you out, Jamie! How have you been? What "road stories" can you relate? Still playing that harmonica?

Chris, thanks for the follow-up. I'm content to leave things essentially where you did, with the understanding that some of us who like things to be comfortable with our intellects aren't apt to change that part of our thinking just to gain those "truths" that can only be attained through ignoring logic and experience. I have no real problem with others choosing that route to their beliefs, as long as they don't insist that that's the only way those things can be known. If those "truths" are only accessible that way, I can leave them alone.

Geoff, thanks for the links and I'm glad "Thanatopsis" made a good impression on you. As for your story about the penguins, I saw a program just recently about Chinese scientists locating some Caucasian mummies in the deserts of western China. Their findings suggest that Europeans had wandered East at least in the pre-Marco Polo years, if not long before that. Chinese scientists are finding all sorts of neat things. To me it suggests that not everything coming out of the East is in disagreement with Western thought. :-)

Sure Can - Read anything on Quantum Physics written by Gary Zukav, David Bohm, Itzhak Bentov, Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, Werner Heisengerg, etc., etc.

The Scientists have proven that ours is a Holographic Universe for those who had a Western doubting mind - The East already new it for thousands of years

We create/manifest our world moment to moment.

Long time... Interesting read. Hi all! Missed U all been onthe road. Hi Kate, Dave. Lots of new names GREAT

Say, Bob, can you provide a link to that proof you mentioned? Or a reference or something? That thing about Quantum Physics?

Quantum Physics does scientifically prove that we manifest everything. Translated, it means that "life" as we manifest it, is just a "movie" which our spirit is witnessing.

There is very real proof that our Spirit exists. However, everyone has to go within to prove it to themselves. My experiencing it cannot be conveyed to you - it is something you have to do on your own.

"Meditate, Meditate, Meditate"

The cartoon is really funny! An alien contractor--an alien consultant? LOL! BTW, does anyone else wonder just exactly what led the Chinese to examine of penguin droppings?

Thanks for the comments Dave. Thanks also to Peggy, TO, Cathy

In my post I tried to carry a line of thought starting with the ordinary, day to day ideas of truth to the kind of ultimate Truth that spiritualists and philosophers sometimes talk about. I guess I was trying to contrast "ordinary" truth with "ultimate" Truth. They are different in the sense that the first has meaning only in the context of human consciousness, while the second simply IS and can't be put into a box of any kind (at least in my opinion, which of course is based on my consciousness and therefore only a "truth" of the first kind. :-))

It is hard for many of us to let go of trying to understand, or wrap our intellects around this stuff. Us intellectual types think that people who don't use their intellects are likely to fall pray of greedy charlatans and believe any old thing that comes along. I'm trying to point out that this is not necessarily true. It has taken some courage on my part to break ranks with the most cherished "dogmas" of my upbringing and approach my path of knowing, understanding or experiencing "Truth" from a whole different approach that does not involve my intellect.

I think it is fine to discuss this stuff and try and build better maps to whatever it is our goals are. I think for the skeptics and scientists out there it is important to realize that quite likely someone who believes in all this "spiritual mumbo-jumbo" has a different goal, and has different tests for truth than the strict empirical scientist. While common ground can be found if each is able to recognize that there are fundamental differences in approaches, these kinds of conflicts often just turn into an ego based arguments. The scientist is left feeling disgusted that someone could be so naïve and blind to the "facts" and the spiritualist is left feeling sorry for the scientist that they can't see what to them is right in front of their face. It is too clear and so it is hard to see.

Dave, I thought you might get a kick out of today's 'odd spot' from The Age:

Chinese scientists sifting through ancient penguin droppings have made a far more momentous discovery than they expected - evidence that the Earth went through a deep chill about 3000 years ago that lasted more than 1000 years.

Interesting question, Mark. Certainly spirituality seems to PLAY little role in the decision making that goes on in this world at the 'highest' levels.

BTW, if that Stonehenge cartoon did not display on your screen, click here to view it. I reckon it's funny but you know me ... :)

Dear People As the U.S. election draws near I find among my friends a division of thought . Some say vote for those who represent the issues that you believe are important. And others say no to logic implying and claiming that there is some sort of esoteric and un understandable reasoning or somthing that is more important as to why they dont vote for the person who best represents our own best issues. My reaction is that maybe this is special intrest that they wont talk about. My question is "Does Spirituality defy logic in the affairs of this world? Or is this mostly superstition?" Thanks a bunch.. Mark

Cathy,

No, I haven't read all the links in that file. :) I compiled that list of sites as a resource for our day program when I heard we were going to be having internet access. As I mentioned to Peggy, there's a vast range of opinions about 'mental illness' and what is the best way to help people through the experience. The sites I have listed reflect that diversity of opinion. I included Thomas Hora after you mentioned him here. Have fun exploring. :)

Interesting posts, Anne & Dave. I've always been fascinated by the debate between 'evolution' & 'creation'. I've visited a few discussion boards where the opposing sides really RIP into each other and it gets quite heated. Not like here. :) While I was an 'atheist' I was still always struck by the incredible way it all fits together and likelihood that creatures like us would evolve by 'chance'. I was always torn between the beauty and harmony of nature versus the chaos and disharmony of the human species. I'd say many people are wrestling with this (apparent) disparity in deciding what they believe about the BIG questions.

(There we go again ... do we actually 'decide' what we 'believe' and if so ... :)

I recently read a few arguments for and against the theory of evolution. One thing I'd never thought of before was the conundrum of evolution and sexual reproduction. A male and female would need to evolve at the same time and if their reproductive gizmos were not compatible then the species would become extinct. Makes you wonder. I've also seen an analysis of the monumental odds of even the simplest proteins evolving by 'random' processes and even then, as that author said, a protein in itself is not life. That's the crux of the matter. We're all fond of saying things like 'Life is like a box of chocolates' or "Life is a fruit salad." But how do we even define the word 'life'? One of my favourite quick meditations is to run through a few of the words we can't easily define but we all 'know' what they mean - life - love - energy - time - space - memory - imagination - normal - consciousness - awareness - bliss - etc ... most definitions are in terms of other similar words or concepts but these words are in a different category from the word 'tree'. You can point to something and say that's a 'tree'. Though not if you happen to be Chinese or French ... the puzzling aspect is HOW did the meanings of the 'indefinable' words get into us in the first place ... hmmm ...

Loved the Thanatopsis link. Thanks, Dave. As for everyone over 120 being dead, I am actually 25,000 years old next June and I've never felt better. Even my psychiatrist says I've never looked healthier. He says I may live forever at this rate if I keep taking the pills and avoid unpleasant thoughts. He used to be Al Gore in a previous life. :)

One good turn deserves another, so here's a link to one of my favourites that I've just been re-reading this evening - Vision of Awakening

Probably enough of my rambling for one day.

Namaste

The Law of Intention and Desire

Inherent in every intention and desire is the mechanics for its fulfillment...intention and desire in the field of pure potentiality have infinite organizing power. And when we introduce an intention in the fertile ground of pure potentiality, we put this infinite organizing power to work for us.

List Desires
Release to the Universe
Present Moment Awareness

Your popularity and success in the physical world depends upon your ability to like and trust other people and that depends upon your own ability to like and trust yourself. People will look at you and draw a conclusion of you and your status in the society, exactly the way you perceive of yourself. So, think very highly of you. Remember nature always wants you to succeed in life. Do not look for approval elsewhere, always look for aprroval from your inner deeper Self. It will solve all your problems. If you want to do anything, do it now .If you want to say something- say it now. Please start "Appreciative Inquiry" with yourself.( Thanks to Mr. Ravi Pradhan/Karuna Mangement who first introduced it among us in Nepal). Ask questions such as - What were the best things I did in my life that I can be so proud of? What factors made me successful? Do not blame yourself for any unfinished job. If success has not come in the way you expected, it must be your own subconscious mind that is preventing it. Just think deeply- why you could not do it. It may be something deep in your heart /soul that my be preventing you to complete that. Sometimes asking question like- did I really wanted to do it? will really help. Am I doing it because my father, my spouse or my boss wants me to do? But do not judge yourself harshly. because again, your ability to forgive others depends upon your ability to forgive yourself.

I have been the reader and the practitioner of Deepak Chopra’s books since long time. I have used his logic and ideas in my various sessions more divergently and they have produced marvelous

Cathy,

Unfortunately, the only evidence we seem to have for soul or spirit or mind is what "masters" tell us. Most of us recognize the difference between living things and dead things, especially those things that move about and grow and change. And many of us wonder at what the *force* behind that difference really is. But the only definitions of that force, as far as I can tell, are all these "mental constructs" that Chris has mentioned.

Personal persuasions, perhaps based on reading what others have thought, are our only ways of knowing the meaning and essence of soul and spirit and mind. It's like we all have a notion of these things, and hope there is some validity to them, but we haven't been able to verify their existence beyond the philosophical arena.

I live in hope that we can do that verification someday. Until then, it's a personal experience we can only talk about. That shouldn't dissuade us from the conversation. But it should make us hesitant to use the word "truth" about things we only imagine and think about. At least this much of Chris's statement makes good sense to me.

The transcript is funny -- and spooky too. Too close to the truth.

Speaking of taking the bait, TO, preschool is age appropriate. Get them when their minds are learning the most. Believe it or not, most teachers are not out there indoctrinating the kids with anything inappropriate. The things that used to be taught in kindergarten can be taught at a much earlier age.

Following your logic, why send them to school at all until their brains are fully formed (about age 15)? Just leave them at home with their fathers.

As a former teacher, I do support proficiency testing every year on every grade level. And I support teacher accountability. I don't believe that students' proficiency test scores should be used to evaluate the teachers though. I could go on but I don't want to get up to get the soapbox.

Finally, I taught students basic language skills and prepared them for Tennessee's annual proficiency test. I know what skills are tested and considered "basic." If GWB's language skills are a reflection of what he actually knows about basic grammar, he would never pass the test.

Almost all of us make grammatical and spelling mistakes and that doesn't bother me now that I've put down my red pencil. :-) But the ironies in the current political compaign abound. Here are a couple of quotes which illustrate my point:

"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometime until we get an objective analysis." -- GWB, Meet the Press, April 15, 2000

"Rarely is the question asked: "Is our children learning?'" -- GWB during a speech in Florence, South Carolina, January 11, 2000

Hi, Cathy! I guess if it were a perfect map of the territory, it would have to include an accurate depiction of the map itself -- which, in turn, would have to be a perfect map and have to include another map and so on...

Maybe our ultimate reality is represented by fractals. :-)

P>S>

the transcript thing was funny!!

also, I don't have time to explain myself too well, but a way of looking at this truth thing that helps me is this---maps and masters--to me--are pointing the way...the map is not the territory, but is is a useful representation of it (if it's a good map :-)). And masters can show me truth, tell me about truth etc..., but I have to go there myself to"know" it...though I think that the truth is there all the while, whether or not I am aware of it....I mean I think there are some ultimate truths that aren't a matter of perspective or opinion...

Peace! Cathy

Good stuff! :-) Chris, your "truth" post was enjoyed here--thanks! And Peggy, the post about taking more time and thought before responding, I take to heart! :-)

Bright Blessings! Cathy

Jim Lehrer: Welcome to the presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush.

The candidates have agreed on these rules: I will ask a question. The candidate will ignore the question and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to undecided women voters.

The opponent will then have one minute to respond by trying to frighten senior citizens into voting for him.

When a speaker's time has expired, I will whimper softly while he continues to spew incomprehensible statistics for three more minutes.

Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can you give us the name of a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her story in a way that strains the bounds of common sense?

Gore: As I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made love the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid marriage, the downtrodden have a clear choice in this election.

My opponent wants to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans. I, on the other hand, want to put the richest 1 percent in an ironclad lockbox so they can't hurt old people like Roberta Frampinhamper, who is here tonight.

Mrs. Frampinhamper has been selling her internal organs, one by one, to pay for gas so that she can travel to these debates and personify problems for me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.

Lehrer: Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.

Bush: Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging people, crying with them, relieving suffering anywhere a photo opportunity exists.

I want to empower those crying people to make their own decisions, unlike my opponent, whose mother is not Barbara Bush.

Lehrer: Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if Slobodan Milosevic were to launch a bid to return to power in Yugoslavia, would you be able to pronounce his name?

Bush: The current administration had eight years to deal with that guy and didn't get it done.

If I'm elected, the first thing I would do about that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies. And then Dick would present me several options for dealing with that guy. And then Dick would tell me which one to choose.

You know, as governor of Texas, I have to make tough foreign policy decisions every day about how we're going to deal with New Mexico.

Lehrer: Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.

Gore: Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly interested in. I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who was a victim of poison gas in World War I. I myself lost a leg in the Franco-Prussian War. And when that war was over, I came home and tenderly made love to Tipper in a way that any undecided woman voter would find romantic.

If I'm entrusted with the office of president, I pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat, foreign or domestic, by putting it in an ironclad lockbox. Because the American people deserve a president who can comfort them with simple metaphors.

Lehrer: Vice President Gore, how would you reform the Social Security system?

Gore: It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Lieberman and I have proposed changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give $50,000 to every senior citizen without having it cost the federal treasury a single penny until the year 2250.

In addition, my budget commits $60 trillion over the next 10 years to guarantee that all senior citizens can have drugs delivered free to their homes every Monday by a federal employee who will also help them with the child-proof cap.

Lehrer: Gov. Bush?

Bush: That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of Texas, I have to do math every day. I have to add up the numbers and decide whether I'm going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene or commit funds to reroof the sheep barn at the Texas state fairgrounds.

Lehrer: It's time for closing statements.

Gore: I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting politician, but I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to turning the White House into a lusty pit of marital love for Tipper and me.

Bush: It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by electing no one but Republicans.

Lehrer: Good night.

Anne, imagine my astonishment when I logged back on to find this Yahoo! article that might add to the contents of your post.

I think this is referred to as "serendipity" or your basic coinkidink. :-)

Anne, in the spirit of your post about nobody caring for the dying (especially materialists) and if you have never read Thanatopsis by William Cullen Bryant, this link is another I posted some time back. It was in the high school American Literature book and made a lasting impression on me.

It speaks to the issue your post raised.

Anne, I hope you accepted the attempt at humor in my last post to you. I realize you were quoting someone else's words and weren't automatically in agreement with their conclusions. In the spirit of "living forever" or the flipside of "everybody dies" this link might provide some useful information about the statement that "x-number or x-percent of all the people who have ever lived are alive today."

This can also be chuckled at. :-)

I'm sure I've posted this link before, but it's way back in the archives by now.

Anne, this is a quick response to your post about DNA, and materialists, where you say,

"Because the materialist knows he can't keep himself or anyone else from dying.

In fact, the materialist is a hypocrite and a fraud. He knows that organic molecules aren't life. He knows, after decades of trying, that life can't be created from these chemicals. Yet with a loud and confident voice he declares them to be the molecules of life."

Is it your position that someone else, or some group of someone elses, do have the ability to create life, or to maintain it? From what I have read, almost everybody born over 120 years ago is dead, regardless of whatever label they carried.

Chris, I have been looking over your recent post that went into some detail about Truth, and I'm finding it difficult to get past some of your points. At the risk of missing some of them, I'd like to start with a selection from your post of what appear to me to be conflicting ideas.

First you said, -- "I tend to think that the word "Truth" carries different meanings in different contexts." -- I don't think I can argue that point from anything in my own experience, and tend to agree that it is a good summary of the issue.

You go on to give some examples of what might be labelled simple or obvious truths that again I won't quibble with. And later you say: -- "There are a million such truths in my life and with my experience." -- Again, no big issues worth contesting.

However, this next paragraph appears to jump from those "simple truths" to an area I'm having trouble following. You say: -- "In a different context however, this ordinary meaning of truth seems a little inadequate. I may say that this table is made of wood, which is true in the context of ordinary human experience, but in a different context like that of chemistry, it is made up of groupings of hydrogen, carbon and many other atoms all bound together by electromagnetic energy. To an atomic physicist the same groupings of atoms are really just waveforms or strings of energy." -- On the surface, this appears to be reinforcing the ideas you stated in your first paragraph, and which I agree with.

However, when you begin the next paragraph, it looks like we've veered away from the "many truths" approach to a "THE Truth" one. You say, -- "Which of these is the Truth? I'd be inclined to say all of them like I'm sure most people today probably would." -- You then go on to state other positions that appear to be altogether separate from the first comments. You begin with, -- "Here is where I start to break from the ordinary empirical scientist on this. I would venture to say that the "Truth" about this table is that all of these intellectual constructs (wood, atoms, energy) are simply models and don't express what is really real since no map can ever completely describe a territory. At best, a map is useful, but to suggest that it is the "Truth" about the territory is a huge epistemological leap. The Truth about this table (in this context) can't be "known" because to "know" something is to have an intellectual model to deal with it, to compare and contrast with other similar experiences..."

It is here that I'm finding it difficult to follow your point(s). If you could pick up here, restating what you already said if you feel that will help, but at least giving some more support for how you make this jump from "many truths" to "THE truth," than maybe I can get a handle on what we're really talking about.

Referring to the various links that have been posted on the topic of Truth, I believe we're trying to skip some steps that may be blends of different "flavors" of truths and which may be analogous to trying to make wine out of grapes and asphalt (or some other weird concoction). In the interest of getting closer to an understanding of what Truth may imply to various readers here, I would hope that others will weigh in on these distinctions.

Chris, I hope you will see this as an honest (may I use that word?) attempt to reach some mutual understanding.

Feeling rather generous and in a caring and sharing mood, here's a bit more food for thought from the same source (well, I suppose everything has the same source really :)

Carl Sagan and other materialists on their television shows, in textbooks, classrooms, science magazines, newspapers and elsewhere, they really do claim with all seriousness that DNA really is the master molecule of life, and that organic molecules are the molecules of life - the stuff of life. They really do say that proteins are the building blocks of life.

When someone tells me that organic molecules are the stuff of life or the molecules of life, I conclude that these molecules are what life is made of - or at least made from. When someone tells me that DNA is the master molceule of life, I conclude that DNA is the very essence - the central core - of life; or at least is the material with which life can be created. When someone tells me that proteins are the building blocks of life, I conclude that life is built from - made of - protein.

So naturally I wonder: Since these organic molecules are the stuff of life - the molecules of life; since DNA is the master molceule of life; since proteins are the building blocks of life; and since these chemicals 'fill the universe' and are 'easily made', why are people allowed to die?

We all know that death causes tremendous suffering. Millions of people die every year and millions more suffer from the death of their loved ones. Have you ever wondered why such misery is allowed to continue when the stuff of life is so easily made? Haven't you wondered why we dont administer these life chemicals to the dead and bring them back to life? Indeed, why do we even wait for people to die? Why don't we have stuff-of-life stations, like gas stations, on every corner? People could be filled up with life at regular intervals and thus kept from dying!

If compassion for the mases is not something that the materialist can relate to, he should remember that it isn't just ordinary people like you and I who die. Great statesmen, artists, athletes, educators, and - most important - scientists also succumb to death. So, even if the materialsist don't like the idea of having millions of stuff-of-life stations all over the country, they should at least consider administrating "life chemicals" to the important people of society. And if they care only about themselves, they should use these molecules of life to keep themselves alive.

Why doesn't this happen?

Because the materialist knows he can't keep himself or anyone else from dying.

In fact, the materialist is a hypocrite and a fraud. He knows that organic molecules aren't life. He knows, after decades of trying, that life can't be created from these chemicals. Yet with a loud and confident voice he declares them to be the molecules of life.

Like most people, the materialist knows what building blocks are - they are used to build something. For example, concret blocks are the building blocks of walls, apartment houses and so on. So when a materialist tells us that proteins are the building blocks of life, he knows that we will think that life is built with proteins, just as a wall is built with bricks. Yet, although the materialist knows full well that life cannot be built with proteins, he persists in calling proteins the building blocks of life.

A corpse is full of organic molecules. DNA, protein - it's all there. There's no the decrease in the volume of this stuff of life at the time of death. The building blocks of life are present; yet life (the life that these building blocks have supposedly built) is missing. Materialists know this, but they can't explain how it could be that the stuff of life - the master molceule of life, the molecules of life, the building blocks of life - is present yet life is not present. Yet if you were to ask them about this obvious discrepancy; they would refuse to even entertain your question - they'd consider you naive and silly.

Greetings one & all,

Lively discussion again I see.

It might be good advice if we kept personalities out of the discussion for a while but that might spoil some people's fun. :)

Just on the subject of 'proof' & 'evidence' here's a little something I found in my surfing the other day:

Enjoy

QUESTIONER #6: If awareness and purpose are essential aspects of the self, then how come a person or self can sometimes become completely unaware abd thus have no feelings of purpose - for example, during deep sleep or under anaeshesia?

CHRIS BUTLER: A diamond is by nature sparkling and bright, even if it is covered with dirt or dust. Similarly, the self is intrinsically aware and purposeful, but these characteristics may be temporarily covered. You, the self, are not all-powerful. You can be covered up, controlled, and dominated by forces of amterial nature. You can fall into complete forgetfulness. But you still exist, and your essential nature doesn't change.

Obviously, if your awareness of your existence is temporarily covered by forgetfulness during deep sleep and anesthesia, then at that point you are not experiencing any feelings of purpose. But as your awareness again becomes uncovered, you again begin to experience some purpose to your existence.

Selves who are just slightly aware of their existence - for example, selves embodied in the lower material forms (species) - may feel very little purpose to their existence other than survival. Selves with somewhat greater awareness of their existence may see sensual pleasure as the purpose of their existence. Selves who are not only aware of their existence but also understand their actual identity as nonmaterial selves may see the purpose of their existence as much more than mere survival of the body or sense gratification. Not all selves wil always feel purpose (it depends on how much of their awareness is covered by the influence of matter). But selves - and only selves - can feel purpose.

QUESTIONER #6: How can you know that any energy other than matter exists if you can't see it? I can see the element matter, so I know it exists. But I can't see what you call the element "life" or "life force". I can't see the so-called "life particle". I believe what I can see

CHRIS BUTLER: Are your eyes all-powerful? Before you can reasonably claim that something doesn't exist because you can't pereive it directly, you must first prove that you are capable of perceiving everything that does exist. In other words, you must prove that your senses are all-powerful. But no one has been able to prove that his or anyone else's sense perception is all-powerful. Indeed, all evidence points to the fact that the power of the senses is very limited. Since you can't even perceive everything within the material dimension with your material senses, how can you possibly perceive the element life , which is an entirely different energy altogether? In other words, realistically you can't expect to perceive with material senses that which is in essence nonmaterial.

It is the height of foolishness to declare that something doesn't exist because you cannot see it. Such an arrogant declaration is actually an indirect claim to be God. Are you God?

QUESTIONER #6: I'm not claiming to be God.

CHRIS BUTLER: No? Who but an all-powerful entity can claim that he sees everything and that if he does not see something then it does not exist?

Yes - Love it !!!

Love it! (L)

apology accepted geoff. i luv how people take what is said and make grandiose assumptions about the meaning.

why did it bother you?

What's yer beef, man? Our town was so deprived we didn't have a kindergarten, so I've felt compelled to attempt learning the rest of my life. If you've learned it all, one way or another, keep it to yourself. You might spoil *our* fun! :-)

Let's hurry up the cloning of these little s__ts.

By kindergarten you "knew" all you needed to know, but now they have pre-school?????

The only "truth" for any of "us" is what YOU are doing in

THIS MOMENT

This sentence is false

A great case for Truth!

And that's the truth, pffffffffffffttttttttt!

Yes!

Does that include your own posts?

ALL

to, when you say "It's all bull____." just what does "all" refer to?

Chris, you explained it much better though.

Namaste'

To show my intellectual prowess:

It's all bull____.

Here's some ammo for the Truth discussion.

The road,
Pavement or gravel
Dirt or nothing at all
It relates to us not at all
Lying there
Not even waiting
Waiting involves relating
Just lying there
We take a step
And we begin to understand it
It doesn’t care
It really doesn’t
It just lies there
We take another step
And we begin to enjoy it
That gets the roads attention
It really does
When we begin to run --
To run and leap in the air
And we begin to love it
The road changes completely
It changes into the soles of our feet
Never leaving us
Never allowing us to stray
We are the road at last

And on the lighter side, check the third one down on this list of Groucho quotes.

greats posts everyone.
sorry i missed yesterday with Deepak's Spiritual Law so please forgive the double post.

The Law of Least Effort

Nature's intelligence functions with effortless ease...with carefreeness, harmony, and love. And when we harness the forces of harmony, joy, and love, we create success and good fortune with effortless ease.

Acceptance
Responsibility
Defenselessness

The Law of Karma

Every action generates a force of energy that returns to us in like kind...what we sow is what we reap. And when we choose actions that bring happiness and success to others, the fruit of our karma is happiness and success.

Witness Choices
Evaluate Consequences
Listen with your Heart

Not quite about "Truth" this item has some things to consider in that discussion.

Peggy, your words are wise and thought-provoking. I do intend to read more carefully the posts to which I'm giving this preliminary response. But there are just a few "first reactions" I would share.

Geoff, thanks for the clarification and explanation for the "Why does this bother me?" question. The question can be taken several different ways and at several levels. Many (if not most) of our words here have that characteristic. It seems to me that there may be times when just the words, without a context, can provoke strong reactions from those who read them in one context where the one who wrote them might be coming from a wholly different context. This would tend to underscore what Peggy has said.

Chris, thanks for the deeper explanation of your position on Truth. It will take a bit of digesting to be sure I see your additional points. My first reaction is that your idea of there being various ways we relate to Truth is fine as long as we don't confuse what it is we're talking about. Your table example is a good one for that purpose. I'll try to form a better response after some more thought. It's great to probe these things (these paradigms) if for no other reason than to sweep some of the cobwebs out of our "thinking closets." Thanks again for the detailed response.

My favorite college textbook was Language In Thought And Action by S.I. Hayakawa. He discusses the famous metaphor (The map is not the territory) that Korzybski introduced and makes this comment which I think is relevant to Chris's post and to recent discussions:

"...There are two ways of getting false maps of the world into our heads: first, by having them given to us; second, by creating them ourselves when we misread the true maps given to us."

To me that means that we should be very cautious about both our sources and our understanding and interpretation of what is being said. I see these two problems reflected in a lot of posts here, including my own. Maybe we need to slow down a little when we read -- especially before we respond.

Sorry for being so cryptic, Dave (& Dick). I posted that quick comment about "Why does this bother me?" after quickly scanning through the latest stuff and reading Dick's opinions of the Celestine Insughts and the Chicken Soup Books.

I apologise, Dick, if i am reading too much into your posts but your words seem to be expressing utter disdain for any human being who would dare read anything which is not on your apprved list. Such disdain would seem to be based on the belief that there is absolutely nothing of any value to any human being to be found in such books. This would seem to be a fairly dogmatic view for a supposed skeptic to hold.

I know a thing or two about disdain. It is not a healthy emotion. I used to express a lot of disdain once-upon-a-time. I used to read and re-read Nietzsche who is the king of disdain. I clearly remember one of his books saying, "This book is for the very few, What do the rest matter. The rest are merely mankind." Needles to say he eventually went completely insane.

I wish you a better fate.

Love the HappyLand link! Thanks.

Dick, come out of your shell...Tell us what you really think. But try to lighten up a bit. (sound of an old lady tittering...):-D

Chris, that's your most thoughtful post ever! You should publish. In truth, it is the work of a professional -- both in thought and style!

Thanks for the links Dave. I haven't had my philosophical brain picked like that in a while.

I tend to think that the word "Truth" carries different meanings in different contexts. As a human being I can fully agree that certain facts are true. I am sitting at my computer typing these words. That is undeniably true (at least from my perspective). There are also mathematical truths that are undeniable such as 1 + 1 = 2. I would suggest that it is true that my table is made of wood, that I live in Arizona etc, etc. There are a million such truths in my life and with my experience.

In a different context however, this ordinary meaning of truth seems a little inadequate. I may say that this table is made of wood, which is true in the context of ordinary human experience, but in a different context like that of chemistry, it is made up of groupings of hydrogen, carbon and many other atoms all bound together by electromagnetic energy. To an atomic physicist the same groupings of atoms are really just waveforms or strings of energy.

Which of these is the Truth? I'd be inclined to say all of them like I'm sure most people today probably would. Here is where I start to break from the ordinary empirical scientist on this. I would venture to say that the "Truth" about this table is that all of these intellectual constructs (wood, atoms, energy) are simply models and don't express what is really real since no map can ever completely describe a territory. At best, a map is useful, but to suggest that it is the "Truth" about the territory is a huge epistemological leap. The Truth about this table (in this context) can't be "known" because to "know" something is to have an intellectual model to deal with it, to compare and contrast with other similar experiences. To "know" in this ordinary sense is to imply subject and object, time and space. I would venture to say that my perception of this table is totally and completely my own mental construction since as best we can tell using the tools of our minds and senses (including all the technological gadgets we have created to extend our senses), it really is nothing more that a particular pattern of vibrating energy that my brain has interpreted using quite limited sensory organs as being solid, having shape and existing separate from me in space as we both (table and me) travel together in time. From a broader perspective, in fact from a perspective of Quantum physics and Relativity (and spiritually for that matter) there is no separation and no time that exists apart from my limited perception. To suggest then that I can know the Truth about anything empirical is to suggest a premise about reality that we are learning (quite paradoxically through empirical research) just isn't so, namely that I as observer am separate in space and time from that observed.

I guess I'm the ultimate skeptic. I'm even skeptical of those things that most skeptics take totally for granted such as time, space and the reality the world as we perceive it with cars, people, dogs, mountains, stars etc. Most skeptics are really only skeptical of intellectual constructs like the existence of UFO's or ESP. They don't tend to take it to it's ultimate extreme where one is forced to drop off the edge of intellectual constructs altogether into terra incognita as Robert Persig calls it. It is when we can abandon intellectual constructs that we can begin to really get a sense of "Truth" because we are no longer in the paradigm building business but in the business of simply Being present to Now and not processing our experience of Now through the intellect. Ordinary skeptics are on the path to a spiritual awakening in my opinion. Most of them would probably deny this tooth and nail, but that is just because they don't want to abandon their concealed faith in their own intellectual dogmas about Reality. Geoff is a great example of someone who has gone through this process. Like Robert Persig, it cost him his sanity (for a while), but I'd venture to bet that he has a much better grip on "Reality" than most of the rest of us.

A true turning point occurred for me when I recognized when I was in the paradigm building business vs. when I was having a direct personal experience. I'm a great paradigm builder and can easily be sucked into defending my model of reality when I perceive it is being attacked. I've come to recognize however that Spirit exists beyond this model building process (ego), and in fact can't possibly be encapsulated in any paradigm. The Krishnamurti quote describes this just perfectly I think. To argue that my paradigm of "reality" is more true than someone else is to miss the point completely. Some paradigms may be more useful in the sense that they are better predictors of events (like science), while some may be more useful in the sense that they help people live happier and healthy lives (like many spiritual beliefs), but they are both just maps. If you are insane enough to want to genuinely know and understand and experience "Truth" you just can't bring the map with you past a certain point. You have to get naked and get wet within the awareness of your own raw Isness. These words are really clumsy, and it is easy to get stuck on them. I'm sure some reading this are thinking that Chris' longest Forum post ever is really just a rambling bunch of non-sense and you are probably right. Everything I've said here are just words, and each person reading will project their own interpretation based on their own life experience. I really don't "know" what I'm talking about… :-)

Peace and Light…

Outside the house Mr. Simpson announced
that Sally couldn't go to the meeting.
He went on cleaning his blue Rolls Royce
and she ran inside weeping.
She got to her room and tears splashed the picture
of the new Messiah.
She picked up a book of her fathers life
and threw it on the fire!

She knew from the start
Deep down in her heart
That she and Tommy were worlds apart,
But her Mother said never mind your part...
Is to be what you'll be.

The theme of the sermon was come unto me,
Love will find a way,
So Sally decided to ignore her dad,
and sneak out anyway!
She spent all afternoon getting ready,
and decided she'd try to touch him,
Maybe he'd see that she was free
and talk to her this Sunday.

She knew from the start
Deep down in her heart
That she and Tommy were worlds apart,
But her Mother said never mind your part...
Is to be what you'll be.

She arrived at six and the place was swinging
to gospel music by nine.
Group after group appeared on the stage
and Sally just sat there crying.
She bit her nails looking pretty as a picture
right in the very front row
And then a DJ wearing a blazer with a badge
ran on and said 'here we go!'

The crowd went crazy
As Tommy hit the stage!
Little Sally got lost as the police bossed
The crowd back in a rage!

But soon the atmosphere was cooler
as Tommy gave a lesson.
Sally just had to let him know she loved him
and leapt up on the rostrum!
She ran cross stage to the spotlit figure
and touched him on the face
Tommy whirled around as a uniformed man,
threw her of the stage.

She knew from the start
Deep down in her heart
That she and Tommy were worlds apart,
But her Mother said never mind your part...
Is to be what you'll be.
Her cheek hit a chair and blood trickled down,
mingling with her tears,
Tommy carried on preaching
and his voice filled Sally's ear
She caught his eye she had to try
but couldn't see through the lights
Her face was gashed and the ambulance men
had to carry her out that night.

The crowd went crazy
As Tommy left the stage!
Little Sally was lost for the price of a touch
And a gash across her face! OOoooh.

Sixteen stitches put her right and her Dad said
'don't say I didn't warn yer'.
Sally got married to a rock musician
she met in California
Tommy always talks about the day
the disciples all went wild!
Sally still carries a scar on her cheek
to remind her of his smile.

She knew from the start
Deep down in her heart
That she and Tommy were worlds apart,
But her Mother said never mind your part...
Is to be what you'll be.

Dear Dick, Really enjoyed your Forum Friends page. Please include my picture below. Thanks.

Crown/Harmony Books

Comments by users are not endorsed by Random House. The Deepak Chopra Forum is intended to provide a place for the exchange of information, opinions, and comments. Random House does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify, or agree with the comments, opinions, or statements posted in the Forum. Any information or material placed online, including advice and opinions, are the views of those who post the statements, and does not necessarily represent the views of Random House. Privacy Policy