Thornton's Guerilla_Blog

Carving nature at the joints

2009-12-30T12:15:00.000-08:00

The piece of writing you are about to read is the first article that I feel could be posted, and relevant, both on my philosophical blog http://www.straightblastgym.com/blog/index.html , as well as my training blog http://aliveness101.blogspot.com/ . For me, this is a bit of a personal victory.

For more then a decade now I have been interested in what the philosophical implications of the Aliveness method might be. Their practical, functional use within combat sports and martial arts is at this stage, past the point of contention. In the last few years of teaching, and in the essays I have written over that time frame, I have fleshed out all the concepts anyone would need as it relates to functional, efficient training. My last Aliveness blog essay went into comprehensive detail about all the methods of drilling, and what the Alive process itself entails. The evidence for how these methods work is overwhelming. And, to date there remains no rational arguments left unexplored, or yet uncorrected, related to how, and why, Alive training functions the way it does.

However, to be able to link a process that is completely functional and empirical, Aliveness, to something that also applies to other aspects of human life, to objective questions from other fields of knowledge, and to have that something also be a thing that gives the maximum amount of space possible for human creativity, intuition, and dynamic quality; and to have these two things, once linked, turn out to be one and the same ‘thing’, that is to me what Aliveness can, in it’s best uses, represent.

What exactly that linking point is, has probably occupied more of my thinking and contemplation over the last few years, then any other single topic. And now that I am comfortable stating what I believe that connection to be, I find it is time to connect these two bridges, the tool of Aliveness, and the tool of critical/rational thinking.

The irony for me is this, now that I have connected these two methodologies, using the argument I detail below, I finally feel free to separate these two aspects of interest into different infrastructures. Through SBGi I plan to continue teaching, writing, and exploring the combat sports. At this stage of my life, I gain more personal satisfaction from coaching and watching my students grow and achieve, then ever before in my career. And through my gym, my seminars, my teaching, the Aliveness blog, and other media we produce, the SBG will remain a combat sports and martial arts organization.

In addition, and completely separate to the SBG, I will also be starting the Aliveness Foundation. The Aliveness Foundation is a vision I have had for a long time, and now that this final connection has been made, I feel it is time to put it into action. It will serve as a non-profit group, with advisors, experts, and authors from various fields. And it will focus on activities, events, media, and overall support of critical thinking, rational problem solving, and the Aliveness method as applied into other fields outside those of the martial arts.

I will detail more about the Aliveness Foundation in the coming months.

Now onto the connections; in order to make my full argument I will need to describe what I consider to be four different methods of problem solving, or for lack of a better term, answer giving systems. The first is the Aliveness method, the second is the more traditional martial arts method, the third is the scientific method, and the fourth is the method of superstition, or religion. As with any argument, we must come to a consensus on terms before we can really move forward. So here are my definitions, ones that I think many, if not most readers will find recognizable.

Let’s start with Aliveness. In short, Aliveness is a process for the discovering of truths. And in the specific case we are using right now, Aliveness is a training method used within martial arts. Within that realm, Aliveness is the key to being able to discern fantasy from reality, function from mere display, and truth from fiction.

For something to be considered Alive within the martial arts or combat sports world, it needs to contain three key elements. The first is timing, the second is movement, and the third is energy. By timing we mean to say, unpredictable. If it is in a pattern, or a repeated series of sets (kata, form, or djuru), then it is not Alive. In these cases it would contain no timing.

Movement means, not static. This often translates as footwork when standing, and body movement on the ground. It is pushing, pulling, moving, clinching, and releasing, if it does not involve movement, then it is not Alive.

And finally, energy, which in this use means simply, resistance.

This is all well known information by now, but if you have not previously read the Aliveness FAQ found at http://www.straightblastgym.com/aliveness101.html or the Aliveness 101 blog found at http://aliveness101.blogspot.com/ then you will want to review those first.

Over the years I have heard, read, and answered all the arguments that people will attempt to throw up against Alive training. Fallacies such as, it’s too dangerous, you can’t just throw people into sparring, some people need dead patterns, you can’t just start with resistance, it’s just for the young and healthy, or the dead patterns are for ‘self perfection’ falsehood, have all been asked, answered, and dealt with in great detail. As have dozens of others. So with this article I am going to be doing something else, I am going to be comparing it to it’s practical and philosophical opposite, as well as it’s intellectual counter-part.

I should also be specific here as to what exactly I mean when I use the term ‘scientific method’. This is a quote that illustrates my larger point:

"The real gulf is not the gap between the arts and the sciences, but the canyon between those who practice genuine scientific thinking (whether or not they have a scientific background) and everyone else, including many scientists and engineers highly trained in narrow specialties." - Lewis Jones

What Jones was talking about there is a rational, skeptical, critical thinking point of view that focuses on actuality. A form of naturalism that doesn’t seek to invoke anything superstitious, or super-natural, without solid evidence; and as Carl Sagan so aptly said, “extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence”. What I am talking about is ceasing to pretend to know things, which we do not know.

I am talking about applying an evidenced based approach, to our answer-seeking method.

It is worth pointing out that even highly educated scientists, can often be easily fooled, through various forms of simple trickery. The past history of frauds like Uri Geller, and the SRI tests, are classic examples. The British writer Jon Ronson (author of ‘Them’, and ‘The men who stare at goats’) has also documented this sort of goofy lunacy, as has Michael Shermer (why people believe weird things), and many others. It should be noted that in my writing here, I am using strong critical thinking skills, and the term ‘scientific method’, interchangeably. That does not therefore mean that all scientists have at their disposal strong critical thinking ability. Much of science is highly specialized, and they can be as susceptible to magical wish thinking, and superstitious ideas as the rest of us are. Here is a brief clip by James Randi that illustrates my point perfectly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbwWL5ezA4g&feature=youtube_gdata

Now that we have the definition of Aliveness out of the way, and a broader meaning given for the term scientific method, let’s look at the other kinds of answer giving systems. One of the best ways to understand both traditional martial arts, and Aliveness, is to compare the two side by side. In that way, the methodology of both tends to stand out clearer.

Aliveness is not a noun. It is a process, a verb, a method designed to help us discover the most effective curricula. The truth of what works, and what doesn’t in a given set of circumstances. Traditional martial arts, is not a verb but a noun. It is a fixed bit of curricula, set in time, and unchanging.

Aliveness always involves some form of competition, some level of resistance. What is done is tested. What is functional becomes apparent. And the form will follow the function. A traditional martial art requires no competition, and resistance is often simulated in patterns, rather then done in real time. The function is based on the form, or style, and the style is passed down from successive generations.

Alive arts like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Boxing, etc, evolve. They evolve in terms of training methods, curricula, and understanding. Traditional martial arts place a value in the length of time a particular pattern of movement, a dead pattern, has remained unchanged, the older, the better.

The scientific process is not a noun. It is a process, a verb, designed to help us discover the veracity of a particular thing, phenomena, or objective question; a method for getting at the truth in actuality, which is often referred to as, reality.

All forms of superstition, and by definition religion, is a fixed bit of suppositions, unchanging, and unsupported by evidence (if they are supported by evidence they become science).

The scientific process is a form of competition. In this case, a competition of ideas, proposals, hypothesis. Through repeated experiments, peer review, and various forms of competitive resistance by other experts in the field, a hypothesis goes through a series of battles before it ever becomes a theory.

Religious dogma is by definition the opposite of this; unsupported by evidence in the actual world in which we live, it is passed on through means of “faith”, which in this case is simply belief without evidence. Superstition is by definition, belief in spite of the evidence, rather then because of it. And religion is by definition, that.

Science evolves in terms of method, curricula, and increased understanding. Religion places a value in the length of time a particular supposition has remained unchanged, the older the better.

It is in this sense more then precise to say that traditional martial arts, is religious-like dogma, in physical form.

It is a dead pattern, and one supported by the exact same arguments, and using identical forms of spurious “evidence”, as people adopt when attempting to defend any other form of superstition, or religion.

And likewise, it would be equally proper to say that Aliveness is a process for discovering truth in physical combat, in the same sense that science is the process for discovering truths as they relate to the natural world. Both are answer-giving systems that rely heavily on evidence, and this evidence is gathered through experimentation, through resistance, through self-correcting mechanisms, through competition.

One word you will see repeated a lot as I write this is, competition. It should be noted that when I use that word in this piece I do so according to its original meaning, com (more then one), petition (to grow), com-petition, to grow together. That process of growth occurs only through resistance, through struggle. This competition needs to contain a self-correcting mechanism, one that is based on empirical evidence.

And that is exactly what both Aliveness, and the scientific method embody.

Before we start looking more at what the result of applying that self correcting mechanism is, lets look at the various types of arguments people use in order to rationalize both dead patterns, and superstition. Generally speaking I have only ever seen three arguments used to defend these bad theories. Here they are:

Argument one, it is true. Or as it relates to martial arts, it works.

Argument two, it is helpful. It should be noted here that this is an entirely different, and unrelated argument to either it is true, or it works. In this case the person may well be conceding that okay, it is not real, it wont work, but. . . .insert reason why it helps a particular individual anyway. We will address this idea as well, but please note it is a completely different form of apologetic.

Argument three, attack the messenger. In this case the individual avoids defending the superstition all together, and instead looks to attack the opposing point of view. i.e. science is just another form of religion, or you Aliveness guys are so arrogant, etc. This is usually the easiest argument to deal with, because it contains within it, its own admission that their position is indefensible through rational argument.

If anyone can relate a fourth form of argument that doesn’t fall into one of these three categories, I would love to hear it. But as of yet, and looking through the historical record, this is all that has come up. I am going to deal with all three arguments, but let’s start with the argument that what is being proposed is true, and/or, it works.

The argument that something is true within the natural world, or that something works within the natural world; in other words any proposition that makes empirical claims about the nature or reality, is by definition, testable. It can, theoretically, be proven, or disproven through experiment. This is a key point to remember.

Throughout history members of the various priesthoods have always tried to claim that certain areas of thought, or knowledge, or human interest, were by proxy off limits to rational experimentation. They were the realm of cultural superstition, of religion, the pastor, the witchdoctor, or the shaman. They were not to be questioned. This ban was enforced, and still is enforced, through various methods. And these methods fluctuate in severity based on the culture, tradition, and age.

For example, the reading of certain books, by certain Christian sects within the USA is often highly discouraged. The claim that a book may be ‘demonic’, or lead to some form of sin, has often been used as a tacit form of censorship. Another method is the excommunication of members, which can often have severe and damaging effects on families. Cults like the Mormons, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as many fundamentalist sects still practice this. Churches, and “faiths” of all types have always tried to restrict access of their members to contrary points of view, and certain facts. Whether it was done by torture, the burning to death of dissenters, the threat of mortal sins, excommunication, or just an overall cultural aversion to opposing points of view, the objective is always the same. It is about enforcing a certain amount of ignorance on its members.

The more dangerous the religion, as an example fundamentalist Islam, the more important the enforced ignorance of its flock becomes. What educated, or healthy woman is going to agree to wear a bee- keeper suit for her husband, or find it acceptable to walk ten paces behind him in public? What informed youth would choose the story of a talking snake and magical fruit, over the rational, beautiful, and factual reality of evolution through natural selection?

In traditional martial arts, this same form of enforced ignorance is critical.

Should the students be allowed to spar, or attempt the movements they are being taught under resisting circumstances, the illusion that they work tends to disappear really rapidly. As such, a litany of various excuses has been developed to prevent, or at least delay, this from happening. The adage that the particular martial art is “too deadly”, or too dangerous to be used against resisting attackers is a common one. Anyone who has spent one day in a gym that practices an Alive method knows this fallacy to be absurd. I am sure many of you reading this, can think of a few more excuses you may have heard over the years. They are worth noting, the similarities between these apologetics, and those found within religion, tend to be identical.

This brings us to the distinction between the two methods.

When using a rational, scientific method for answering an objective question, you might start with a clarity of purpose, as it relates to what you are attempting find out.

For example, the question “should there be chairs in the family room?” is more of a subjective question. Though I do believe that even here, rational thinking will likely provide the best answer. It is safe to say that two reasonable people could have differing opinions on this particular question, and both may be able to draw up valid points in their positions favor.

Where as with the question, “are there chairs in the family room?”, it is safe to say that should two people have differing opinions on this subject only one will be right, while the other must be wrong. * And it is with these kind of empirical questions that the scientific process has proven itself beyond all doubt, to have absolutely no equal.

*(If you disagree with the proposition that there is such a thing as an empirical question, one that has a right, and a wrong answer, then this is the wrong article for you. I would stop reading now, and head here: www.elsewhere.org/pomo )

My argument from this point forward is fairly straightforward. Should a form of superstition, or religion, make empirical claims about the nature of reality, which upon investigation and testing turn out to be accurate, then they eventually become part of science.

Likewise, should one of the tools, or methods, used in traditional martial arts prove to be functional, after being tested, then you will find they become adopted by the combat sports that use that delivery system, or range.

If a scientist makes the claim that he or she has evidence of a worldwide flood within the last ten thousand years, you can bet it will be scrutinized. Should it turn out to pass the test of evidence, should other experts in the field be convinced by the evidence found in the various scientific fields (geology, etc), then science will change its operating paradigm. That is perhaps, the most beautiful thing about science. Its adherence to the truth, its self-correcting mechanisms, tends to punish those who make claims unsupported by evidence. However, should the evidence turn out to actually be there, then it eventually becomes accepted, taught, and built upon by a successive generations of humans. This is precisely how we as homo sapiens have advanced from the brutality of the stone age, to our own modern era.

Alive arts operate in the same way. For example, you cannot fake talent at Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, anymore then you can fake being able to speak Spanish, or playing the guitar. These are testable claims, and one need only ‘roll’ with a BJJ instructor to know whether he or she really knows the art form. The Alive method, in this case a ‘roll’, operates as a self-correcting mechanism, which will not allow the deception to stand.

Contrast these methods to those of religion, superstition, and traditional martial arts. Where as in science one is severely punished for pretending to know things one doesn’t know; the very definition of religious clergy is in one sense, built on pretending to know things, which we as rational human beings, know they don’t know.

Can you think of any method that enforces a rigorous demand for evidence more then the scientific process does?

Can you think of any field of human knowledge that has less need for evidence when it comes to objective claims about the nature of reality, then religion, or cultural superstition does?

Of course, we know factually speaking, that a worldwide flood never covered the Earth within the last ten thousand years. Just as we know, factually speaking, that no touch knockouts, or pressure point attacks, have as much chance of ending a violent encounter against an aggressive, determined attacker, as prayer does. Which is to say, none.

Any empirical claim about the truth of traditional martial arts, religion, or any other form of superstition, is usually pretty easy to deal with. Whether it is no touch knock outs, young earth creationism, ESP, levitation, demon possession, or the existence of the loch ness monster, you will find time and time again that nothing which could truly be called evidence by educated, or rational people, ever exists.* And this is why those defending superstition tend to use other things they label as “evidence”; three other things to be precise.

*(For those interested in the detailed arguments against those who defend religious superstition as true, go here: http://www.straightblastgym.com/blog/2008/12/sacred-and-superstitous.html For those interested in the detailed arguments against those who defend traditional martial arts superstition as being functional, go here: http://aliveness101.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-aliveness.html

With all three arguments, the it’s true argument, the it’s useful argument, and the attack the messenger argument, there remains only three forms of pseudo-evidence that I have ever seen used. Here are the three substitutes for evidence:

1- The appeal to authority, or to its old age.
2- The use of anecdotal stories.
3- The argument of taboo.

Let’s start with the appeal to authority. In religion it goes something like this, “Mohammed descended to heaven on his horse”. Question, “how do you know?” Answer, “because the Koran says so”. And that is always the immediate end to any rational discussion. Another example is the following proposition; Jesus was born from a virgin. How do we know, because the bible says so; again, no rational dialogue can proceed from there. As has been pointed out by other authors previously, even if we had a time machine and could transport ourselves back to the time and place of the birth of Jesus, it would still be difficult to prove anthropogenesis.

In traditional martial arts the same line of reasoning is used. For example, when it is pointed out that a particular series of movements, or ideas, simply isn’t functional, the reply follows, “Well, Grandmaster X did it that way”, or perhaps “We have been doing it this way for 1000 years, therefore we know it works!”

Of course the grandmaster X argument is identical to the ‘because the bible, or because the Koran says so argument.’ But, the ‘we have been doing it for generations this way’ argument (its age), attempts to bring in another line of reasoning. The fallacy that because something has been done for a long period of time, in a very particular way, it must therefore be true, or work; this is of course false. But it is a common form of argument in both traditional martial arts, superstitious forms of medical treatment, and religion of all types. And it often has horrifying results as it relates to increased suffering of humans, animals, and the ecology in general.

One quick note of interest here, many people falsely assume that for something to remain within a human society or culture for generations, it therefore must have some evolutionary use. This is both a fallacy, and a misuse of evolution. Because something can replicate, does not therefore mean that something is beneficial. As an example, every human culture on planet earth also has the common cold. The human body itself is filled with billions of tiny visitors. Some are useful, some are harmful, and many are benign. The argument that because something is old, it therefore must be, by proxy, useful, or even helpful, is a canard.

What is really fascinating is that many human beings seem to find the ‘evidence’ particularly compelling, when it is set thousands of years in the past. Isn’t that odd?

Traditional martial arts tend to use the same form of daft reasoning. For example, most traditional martial arts come complete with creation mythologies. These usually involve founders with extraordinary powers, or abilities. In the Chinese martial art of Wing Chun, one myth related to its creation involves a blind nun. In this particular case we are being asked to believe that a martial arts system, one that has shown itself to be less then effective when matched against Alive arts like boxing, Muay Thai, or BJJ, or when placed within an MMA environment, becomes particularly deadly when it is practiced by a small woman, who is completely unable to see.

As with most martial arts myths, the more outlandish the claim, the more backwards it is in terms of rationality, the more likely it is to instill a faith like fervor in it’s adherents.

Take for example miracle stories. I will use an analogy given by the author Sam Harris, Sai Baba in India. Sai is a living ‘guru’, who as of now has millions of followers. Over one million people showed up in person to his birthday celebration some years ago. Part of his shtick is the performing of miracles. He heals the sick, materializes objects out of thin air, and has even been said to raise the dead. He has performed all these ‘miracles’ in front of hundreds of thousands of people, literally. And you can bet that many of them would be happy to swear an oath in writing that what they saw was a ‘real’ example of super-natural powers.

Since Sai Baba is a contemporary character, you can find lots of his so called “miracles” on YouTube. I imagine that most of you will find them to be as utterly unimpressive as I do, but see for yourself. To me, these are things that any third-rate magician could easily do. And I can equally imagine that most Christians, Muslims, and believing Jews that are reading this, will find themselves equally unmoved by Sai’s supposed “powers”.

That stated, the believing Christians, Muslims, and Jews will find similar stories about miracles performed by Jesus, Mohammed, or Moses to be exceptionally compelling, even to the point of declaring them as a form of ‘evidence’ for a theological claim, once they are written in a scroll whose date of origination is usually decades (sometimes longer) post event, and whose witnesses have all passed away several thousand years ago.

How many believers have ever really stopped to think about how utterly insane that is?

At this point many religious people will call full stop, and they will play the faith card. The faith card is simply this; it is a matter of faith. And on that note, all possibility of mature dialogue is ended. And that is the moment of admission by them, that there is no evidence for the particular proposition being espoused.

All of us within the world of the rational, reality-based community have a fundamental, and unmistakable responsibility when this happens. It is on us to explain to them, that the faith card simply cannot be allowed in adult conversation.

Imagine the following scenario, I state the following proposition, the Earth is 10,000 years old. You, being blessed with an education, disagree, and state that the Earth is in reality billions of years old. When pressed for evidence of that proposition you present a mountain of data gathered from various scientific fields, geology, archeology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, etc. When I am pressed for evidence for my belief that the Earth is 10,000 years ago, I state the following, the Earth is 10,000 years old because Master X said so. Who is Master X you say? Master X knows all; master X is never wrong, and therefore my proposition is correct.

That, in a nutshell, is the faith card. And as you can see, it should never be allowed in adult, public discourse, be it political, scientific, or social. The moment we allow a belief without evidence, “faith”, to be entered into the public dialogue, is the moment we concede all the advances of the enlightenment, and negligently allow the forces of barbarism and superstition the fuel needed to drag us kicking and screaming back into the dark ages of ignorance, and human stupidity.

In fairness to many religious believers, not all will retreat to the faith-card. Many sincerely believe that they actually do have rational evidence for their belief in the super-natural. It’s worth remembering that as of 2008, more Americans believed in the literal existence of angels, then they do the reality of mankind’s evolution.

As sobering as that statistic is, there is contained in it a small kernel of hope. Of this majority, there is little doubt that most know next to nothing about the science of evolution itself. It’s not as if they have been presented with the actual facts behind the truth of evolution, and chose instead to belief in imaginary flying spirits. Theirs is simply a position rooted firmly in ignorance. Even the religious believers, who ‘think’ they understand evolution, tend to get their information from Christian, or other religious sources, and this propaganda always turns out to be upon investigation, at best a silly caricature, and at worst, just plain lies.

So why the hope, because if they believe they have a rational basis for their belief, if they believe they have something that constitutes evidence, then they can (potentially) be engaged rationally. They have entered the realm of testable facts, the sphere of objective reality. And within that realm, all questions of the Earths age, of the creation of cultural mythology, of the origin of the variations of species, all claims related to the natural world, can be dealt with on a case by case, fact by fact basis. And it is here, that science will have no peer. As long as the individual remains open to the evidence, the broader rational, and scientific method can’t lose.

The same can be said of any traditional martial artist who makes objective claims about the nature of reality. For example, a Kung Fu expert who claims to have developed a method for escaping a particular grappling hold, is making any easy to test, empirical claim. You can bet that should that Kung Fu expert be onto something, every BJJ athlete in the world will want to take a lesson, and gain that advantage. But as all readers experienced in BJJ know, what is more likely to happen is that the above stated Kung Fu expert will find themselves easily, and completely controlled on the ground by any blue belt or better, who is within a reasonably close weight class.

At that point the traditional martial artists, like the religious believer above, is confronted with a choice. A choice that for some, depending on the time invested, the money that could be lost, and even the feeling of embarrassment that is engendered upon admission, can actually be quite hard.

Do they follow the evidence, acknowledge the reality of the situation, and change their belief. Or do they maintain their fallacious ideas, in spite of, instead of because of, the evidence?

Many a martial arts master, and many a dedicated pastor, or priest, has been confronted with this dilemma. And for every one that goes with truth, a few more will find themselves falling back into the Concorde fallacy:

“Name given by evolutionary biologists to a form of suboptimal behavior found among wasps and policymakers. Certain species of wasp are observed to defend their nests with an amount of energy proportionate to the amount they have spent on building the nest. It would be more efficient for them to defend them with an amount of energy proportionate to the cost of an alternative and the strength of the aggressor. Likewise, wasteful public expenditure on the supersonic aircraft Concorde was defended on the grounds that a great deal had already been spent. But this argument is fallacious. What has been spent has been spent, regardless of what happens now. Spilt milk cannot be unspilt. Spending on Concorde should have been judged by the expected value of the extra spending being contemplated, and on that alone.”

“I don’t need faith, I have experience.”
- Joseph Campbell

When it comes to questions of truth, to propositions about whether something is, or isn’t, or how something is, or isn’t, the competitive environment, repeated experiments, and peer reviewed process of science has shown itself to be the most honest form of answer-seeking that we as human beings have.

Although the world is filled with critics of the scientific method, none so far has ever been able to offer a better, or even comparable, alternative method.

Can you find another for of dialogue that enforces accuracy better then the scientific process does?

Likewise, when it comes to the truth in combat, to questions of whether something does or doesn’t work within a given environment, the competitive process, repeated experiments, and over all curricula of progressive resistance found in the Aliveness method has shown itself to be unmatched in terms of producing functional, testable results as it relates to students ability to perform against fully resisting opponents. And although it has its share of critics, none has offered a viable alternative. Can you think of a method that enforces honesty, and truth as it relates to physical performance, more then the Alive method, and its associated arts do?

It should also be noted, that just as there is no Japanese math, or English math, there is really no Japanese Aliveness, or English Aliveness. The science of math, since it objectively true, transcends all cultural boundaries. The science of Alive training, since it is objectively true, transcends all cultural boundaries. Multiplication is multiplication, and a choke is a choke. An experiment set up to determine the validity of say, gravity, should be held to the same standards whether it takes place in a laboratory in Russia, or in Massachusetts. Likewise, a training drill set up to work a grappling skill, say passing the guard, shouldn’t have to vary based on the native language being spoken. As human beings built with two arms, and two legs, the science of fighting, like the science of arithmetic, should transcend cultural boundaries. That is, if it is based in truth.

So as we can see, the argument that something is true within the natural universe, immediately imposes itself upon the scientific method, and the Aliveness process. If it is a claim about natural phenomena, then science can answer it better then any other methodology that mankind has at its disposal. And if it is a question as to whether something works or not within the laboratory of human combat, then it can be tested, and studied through the use of the Alive training methods. And like science, it remains the most viable method we have for determining what works, and what doesn’t against resisting opponents.

If instead of testing these objective claims within the realm of competitive, rational thought, drilling, and experiment, its claimants seek instead to use appeals to authority, or ancient history as some form of pseudo-evidence, then it should be carefully noted, and explained that neither of these rationalizations constitutes evidence. If what they are claiming is true, then it can be tested now, regardless of the culture, or era, the claim is said to have sprung from.

And if they refuse to even enter the realm of rational dialogue, and instead play the faith card, then that should also be noted, and all of us have an important responsibility at that point to exclude that individual from engaging in any further adult dialogue on the topic. At least until such time as they are ready to allow their ideas to be subject to the competition of beliefs that is found in sane, rational debate.

Because master x says so, the Koran says so, the bible says so, your guru says so, or you simply “feel” it to be so, is not in and of itself a valid reason worthy of discussion. And it is certainly never evidence of anything other then your own belief.

It is in reality, a failure to even engage the topic honestly.

“The problem of human suffering is never too much rational thinking, or too high a demand for evidence. But the solutions are. … Reason is nothing less than the guardian of love."
- Sam Harris

This brings us to form of argument number two, anecdotal evidence.

Whenever I had a dialogue with a believer in something absurd, as an example homeopathy, one of the forms of pseudo-evidence that often gets tossed out is anecdotal, i.e. I knew this person, or this many people, and when they came in with such and such illness, I gave them such and such item, and they got better. Ergo, the “medicine” helped the illness.

It is sad to me that in the year 2009, understanding why these stories don’t constitute evidence for anything, is still something that is lost on so many people.

The need for double blind, controlled studies as they relate to medical treatments, and the utter foolishness that is homeopathy, is well documented. And a very tiny amount of research, combined with a little sincere, critical thinking will open up a wealth of information for anyone looking. So I won’t bore the reader too much with these lessons. But I do think it is important to notice that this same sort of illogical anecdotal reasoning is prevalent when defending all forms of superstition, including traditional martial arts, and religion.

The religion some of my family belonged to would hold yearly gatherings, or conventions, in large public forums. As a child I remember listening to a regular segment that was often labeled “experiences”. Most of the time these were anecdotal stories that were intended to serve as some form of evidence related to the existence of God. There would be some scary situation, being stopped by soldiers, secret police, lost in a jungle, something like this, and then there would be some sort of resolution that pointed towards a personal gods (or angels) direct involvement in the affair. i.e. “Oh my sister was once helped by one of you people, you are free to go”, etc. These were always a bit dramatic, and in retrospect as an adult, a bit silly. Of course these stories were, if true at all, nothing more (even in their best form), then coincidence. And as pattern seeking mammals, especially superstitious pattern seeking mammals, it is no surprise we inject superstitious, super-natural meaning, into what is nothing more then the daily workings of a very small, natural world.

But, that does not mean that most of the people who hear these stories understand the truth, that for multiple reasons, anecdotal stories cannot be considered evidence. It is something that is often worth explaining, step-by-step if need be.

Anytime anyone posits an anecdotal story about something supernatural, bringing in Occam’s razor is not a bad idea. For example, imagine this scenario:

Person A) “I once heard that person X had a grandma, and she said her dog was possessed by a demonic spirit, and the preacher came and he cast the demon out, and the dog jumped in a well and died. “

Person B) “Really? Let me ask you a question, which do you think is more likely, that the story is somehow made up, there was no dog, no preacher, and no demon: or, that the story is true, but the dog happened to have a case of rabies, as one possible hypothesis, a disease we know animals can get, and it happened to fall into a well; or, last but not least, that there is living amongst us invisible spirits called “demons”, which we have absolutely no scientific evidence for, and for which all the stories that involve their supposed existence seem to turn out, upon investigation, at least so far to be, untrue, but, in this one particular instance happened to be real. And in their brilliance, they decided to invade the body of a dog, as opposed to say a playboy bunny, or a race car driver, and that dog, upon hearing some magic words, read aloud, by an old man that happens to also believe Noah’s Ark is a historical fact worthy of study, drove the possessed animal to plunge, against all instinct, to it’s own death at the bottom of a well. . .

. . . now really, which of those three, do you find more likely?”

If person A has ever seen an episode of Scooby Doo, you might be in good shape.

A little humor here is not misplaced. In fact, I think it can be useful. As long as its mixed with a general sense of sincerity, good will, and no malicious intention. Pointing out the derangement of certain ideas, by logically laying them out step by step, by comparing their more likely alternative answers, or by using an analogy related to something equally as insane, is often the most compassionate things we as human beings can do for each other. We tend to spend so much time keeping each other’s costumes on straight, that a little honest feedback is a true gift whenever it is offered freely.

Traditional martial arts are filled with anecdotal stories. Whenever a particular curricula, set of movements, or training method is shown to be non-functional as it relates to resisting attackers; there is always someone with a story about John Doe, who just so happened to use a flying monkey beak, double spinning upside down crescent kick, or no touch knock out to disable an attacker outside a Taco Bell in Fresno California.

The simplest way to proceed here is to explain to whomever is attempting to use these stories, that all forms of martial arts have such tales. No matter how absurd, or how ridiculous the movements are, you can bet that there will be someone, somewhere, especially on the internet, who will swear they know of its practical use on a particular occasion. As such, are we then to fall back to a relativistic position, and conclude that no motions, or methods, are generally more effective then any other? Of course not, that would be as absurd as claiming that witch doctor is just as good at helping patients needing open heart surgery, as a cardiac surgeon is. Nobody can, or should, ever take the all arts are equal idea seriously.

Since we know, factually speaking, that some motions, methods, and delivery systems are more functional within given circumstances, and ranges; the question then becomes one of analysis. This is where the Aliveness method has no peer. Through various forms of resistance, the given functionality of a particular set of movements can be thoroughly put to the test.

Again, arguments about certain motions being too dangerous, or other such fallacies used to rationalize against the use of Alive training, have been thoroughly debunked in my previous works. So I wont bore the reader with re-writing those detailed explanations. But they can be found on the Aliveness blog, in the Aliveness FAQ, and throughout the rest of the media, and materials available at the www.straightblastgym.com website.

In terms of testing, it is worth keeping a few points in mind. In my previous articles on martial arts as they relate to measurement, belts, and drilling, I discussed in great detail the importance of any method, or set of movements, being useful not just to one or two given subjects, or athletes, but to an entire gym full of people. In a good gym, everyone should advance in skill; everyone should be able to see marked improvements in functional performance against resisting opponents. Not just a few star competitors, or exceptionally gifted, strong, or athletic specimens.

Those adopting the Alive drilling methods laid out in my previous training article will find this to be the case. Whether new to the sport, or advanced, whether young, or much older, whether male, or female, whether in Sweden, Iceland, Ireland, England, Canada, or the USA, the success of these training methods over broad populations of subjects, in varying areas across the globe, has been repeated. This is the peer review; experiment repeating process of Alive training.

And this is the opposite of anecdotal evidence.

This process is not just within SBG, but also within the various sports themselves. The fact that all freestyle and folk style wrestlers emphasize the same principles of hip placements and weight placements on various takedowns, has to do with the science behind how the body best works in that environment. Wrestlers, due to competition, have pretty much sorted that out. Likewise, in broader environments such as MMA, you may not see just one delivery system anymore, like wrestling, or BJJ. But you will see the same set of delivery systems used. In particular you will see a boxing, or Muay Thai stand up base, a wrestling form of takedown defense and offense, and the positions and submissions of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu on the ground. This isn’t a coincidence, and it doesn’t vary based on location. You won’t find fighters on the east coast of the USA using primarily wing chun for stand up, while the fighters on the west coast use some form of boxing. In both cases, on both coasts, it almost always involves some form of boxing based stand up. And any exception to that is always the exception that helps to prove the rule.

Of course the reasons these same arts are used by the majority of all fighters, is because this is what works in that arena of resistance. This is the natural evolution of curricula that began the moment Rorion Gracie started this sport in the United States.

So evidence as to a training method, or curricula working, is much the same as any other form of evidence used for an objective, and testable claim about the natural world. It should be repeatable, it should transcend culture, and it should apply to a broad base of subjects from all over the world. And if it is tested in an Alive, competitive, resisting environment, and it meets the above criteria, then you are probably onto something functional; something that can be built upon, a principle, or idea that will advance human understanding in that particular field. In short, you will be onto something, true.

Now that we have dealt with the first two forms of pseudo-evidence as they relate to a thing being ‘true’, the argument from authority or age, and the argument based on anecdotal tales, we are left with the last form of pseudo-evidence true believers will often bring out; the taboo argument.

The argument from taboo is really simple, it goes like this, “you shouldn’t say that, I am offended.” That is it. That is the entire proposition. It fails to address whatever the dialogue is even about, in any way, shape, or form, and instead says simply, we shouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with.

This line of reasoning is strange from the get go, and the more you ponder it, the stranger it becomes. And this is the case for whatever superstition we are talking about, be it traditional martial arts, the belief in ghosts, or religion.

Let’s take martial arts as our first example. Any martial art that claims to work, which is the first form of argument we are discussing right now, the it’s true, it works argument, is making what amounts to an empirical claim. So isn’t it odd that many people ‘feel’ it is offensive to have such claims challenged? Imagine instead of martial arts that we were discussing engineering. Let’s say that we are discussing methods for building a bridge. One person claims they have a different style of bridge building, and upon inspection we realize that this method is mistaken, and will likely collapse under the pressure of weight, or certain weather conditions. Would it be impolite at that point to bring up this weakness in the design? Would our fellow engineers storm out of the room and declare, “I am offended, how dare you criticize this bridge building method!”?

It is true of course that some people become attached to certain ideas that they have. And having a mirror held up to them, which shows clearly that the idea, or concept, is in fact wrong, can sometimes cause an emotional reaction. But because some people (certainly not all people), can exhibit a tantrum, doesn’t therefore mean that we should just ignore the correction of bad ideas, in the off chance that people of lesser emotional maturity may find themselves offended.

It is worth adding here that the kind of false knowledge that tends to get people hurt, isn’t always about not knowing something at all, it is often about thinking you know something, when in truth you don’t. And teaching people a form of fighting, that doesn’t actually work in a fight, can in certain circumstances, be as detrimental to human well being as poor bridge design, or quackery based medical treatments.

The scientist, and author Richard Dawkins tells a story in his lectures of an older professor of biology who had been working on, teaching, and lecturing on a particular pet theory he had as it relates to a nuanced detail involved in evolution through natural selection. One day in his lecture hall, a younger, visiting professor gave a talk that point by point, dismantled the older professors theory. After the lecture, Dawkins tells of the entire hall remaining silent, until the older professor stood up, applauded, and congratulated the younger scientist on proving something wrong, that he himself had believed for several decades.

If we are interested in truth, if we are sincere in our dedication to actually knowing what is, then the beautiful example the older professor gave to those students should be the attitude we all strive to emulate.

You can see the same phenomena in action daily, in my own gym. I have watched some of the top coaches share information with each other, and when one athlete has come up with an easier, simpler, more effective method for teaching, drilling, or performing a particular action, the immediate result is almost always one of pleasure, gratitude, and the following “Now I have a better way to do this, thank you.”

Because in both the scientific method and the Aliveness method, what we are seeking after is the most efficient, functional ways to perform things in actuality, the truth outweighs any pet theories any coach, or athlete may have. Changing, and thereby improving how we do what we do, is an ongoing, never ending process. And just as with all fields of science, I fully expect my students to take the art farther then I myself have. This is part of the beauty of reality based thinking process. And this is also what makes it the direct opposite of, religions or superstitious dogma.

The taboo against criticizing religion is in one sense, even stranger then the taboo against criticizing martial arts or engineering. If a religion makes no empirical statements about the nature of reality, or how human beings should behave, then it becomes a non-issue. But, all religion, by definition, makes these sorts of empirical claims. In fact, it’s easy to point out that religion itself cannot exist, unless it does make these sorts of declarations about actuality, or how it should be. And as stated before, the moment a proposition is made about the nature of reality, the natural world, or even how we as animals should behave within it, you have trespassed into the realm of science, and rational thinking. This is why it should be so obvious to every thinker that the late Stephen Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria argument is nothing more then a poorly thought out delusion.

As we speak there are Christian pastors and missionaries in Africa that are actively preaching the ‘sin’ of condom use, in areas that are ravaged by AIDS. There are religious groups in various states that are preparing petitions to ban gay and lesbian Americans from being able to marry each other. There are suicide bombers strapping on explosive vests, in the belief that they will have an amazing sex life post death. And there are millions of women unable to go to school, and forced to wear bee-keeper suits, all because of faith based beliefs which hold no more basis in factual reality then does the idea that Earth rests on the back of a turtle. And because it is all being done in the name of some “faith”, we as rational human beings are supposed to render the topic off limits in terms of criticism, satire, and the reason based debate that we would apply to every other field of human knowledge?

When we really think about this we should all realize, that it is truly demented.

Once any religion, faith, superstition, or cultural myth, seeks to impose some form of behavior, ethic, or claim in, and or about the natural world, they render themselves subject to the same level of rational debate, dialogue, and criticisms that we give every other field of human endeavor, be it engineering, medicine, economics, or psychology.

The fact that some people will cry taboo, and claim that they are offended is never evidence in favor of tempering our criticism. It is in reality, further evidence of the need for more scrutiny as it relates to all such faith based ideas. It points to the possible hypothesis that through natural selection, as well as human design, the virus of the faith meme, has itself promoted this taboo as a means of self-replication. This is a topic I will write more about in the future, but at this point I hope I have made it quite clear, the idea that faith based ideas should somehow be rendered immune to same level of rational dialogue, debate, and criticism that we afford all other empirical claims, is itself nothing more then a erroneous, poorly thought out, myth.

That covers all three forms of pseudo-evidence offered up for the first argument of superstition, traditional martial arts, and religion; the it’s true argument; the appeal to authority or its age, tales of anecdotal evidence, and the appeal from the perspective of taboo.

Now let’s discuss the second form or argument, the ‘it is useful’ debate. As mentioned previously, we need to note here that the claim is no longer being made that the thing being discussed is true, but rather, that it is useful; useful in fact, despite the reality that it may in truth just be a delusion. This is a common form of argument, and can be a little more nuanced then the ‘it’s true’ idea. So let’s get into it.

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is then to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
– Carl Sagan

This form of argument is actually quite common in martial arts, but it is not usually the first argument to pop up, you often have to weed through the first two in order to get to it.

Many years ago I spent an afternoon with a friend who happened to have been a lifelong practitioner of Aikido. I was at the time a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and fairly competent on the mat. The day started off with some sparring, and after a few rapid taps by the Aikido player, it became pretty clear that nothing that could be construed as ‘functional’ was really being displayed from Aikido. His insistence that I pretend to attack him by chopping him on the top of his head quickly fell by the wayside, and every other form of grab, hold, strike, or movement, resulted in predictable outcomes. Fortunately for me I also happened to have a blue belt with me, who was much smaller (maybe 150lbs), and who was able to do everything I did to the Aikido player, though the Aikido player was easily 220+ lbs. This helped magnify the reality of the situation.

To anyone knowledgeable in Alive arts, BJJ, or MMA, these results are absolutely no surprise, and certainly nothing to gloat over. They are a repeatable, and easy to replicate experiment. Any decent purple, or even blue belt would likely be able to perform the same feat, as the Gracies proved time and time again when they first came to the States. There is a very valid reason why the traditional martial arts are not part of the MMA arena; they simply cannot compete against functional arts. Instead of a sport, it becomes a beating, a spectacle.

I want to inject another important principle here; all solid scientific theories should be able to make predictions. And Aliveness is no different. I would propose the following experiment, followed by my prediction.

First I would gather three groups of people, with various ages, weights, and heights. Each group should have the same amount of age, weight, height, individuals, and none of the individuals in the group should have any previous martial arts, or combat sports experience at all, this includes wrestling, boxing, etc.

One group should receive 40 hours of training in an Alive martial art; this could include just BJJ, or an MMA style mix (boxing/wrestling/BJJ).

One group should receive 40 hours of training in a traditional martial art; this can be the above-mentioned Aikido, Kung Fu, Karate, Silat, etc.

And the third group, should receive no training whatsoever.

At the end of the 40 hours, the groups will be gathered for the first time together, at which point each member will be matched with a height/age/weight member from the other group, and they will be asked to spar in an MMA style environment according to various criteria that would have been pre-set prior to the experiment. Of course safety would be a prime consideration, but using the modern technology of training equipment, it is reasonable to say we could create some fairly realistic full contact scenarios. A simple one would be a single 5-minute round, or to submission or knockout. All matches would be recorded, and available for public view. As would be all the previous 40 hour lessons from both the traditional, and Alive training classes that lead up to this point.

Here is my prediction, the group trained using Alive training methods, will dominate, by all means of measurement, the group trained in traditional methods. And, no matter how many times this experiment is repeated, the majority of matches will be won by the group trained with Aliveness.

Furthermore, I have a second prediction. The group that receives no training whatsoever, will do as good, and perhaps even better, against the group trained using Alive training methods, as the traditional martial artists did. Though in the end, no matter how many times the experiment is repeated, the group trained with the Alive training methods will always win the majority of those matches as well.

Back to the Aikido situation, what is interesting is the conversation that followed this encounter. The battered ego of the Aikido player could no longer rationalize the practical use of the movements, though a few attempts were made to state that some ‘master’ somewhere would likely have fended off the attack, upon sincere reflection it became pretty clear that this also, was nothing more then a pipe dream. This man had spent more then a decade faithfully learning Aikido from many of its top proponents. There was simply no place left to hide for an argument based on the arts actual use against a resisting attacker.

And this is when the conversation turned from it works, to, it’s useful.

And this brings me to why I needed to describe the results of the physical performance of the art first. Only after being faced with the truth of the situation, did the practitioner then move on to this second form of argument.

The Aikido player began to try and describe the other benefits of the art, starting with increased self-esteem, and confidence. I was tempted to ask how his confidence felt now, after the thrashing he just experienced, but my sense of empathy got the better of me. I figured he was already having a hard enough time wrestling with those results, considering he seemed to believe sincerely at the start of the morning, after having invested more then a decade of his life, that he had some useable skill. And now that it was lunchtime, that had all been suddenly, and dramatically been shown to be otherwise.

So instead I asked him this, what benefits as they relate to increased self-esteem, or personal confidence could one gain from an art like Aikido, that one could not gain in even more abundance from an art like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu? Especially considering the fact that BJJ has one huge advantage, in the actuality that it also happens to be true. It is real; having skill in BJJ means something functional, in the same sense that having skill at playing basketball, or tennis means something functional. It is a testable skill that can be demonstrated under fully resisting circumstances, against non-compliant opponents.

At this point I did bring up the mornings events as an example. Surely the confidence of my 150 lb blue belt friend had been bolstered a bit, due to the fact that he had easily, gently, and totally dominated a much larger man who was resisting to the best of his ability. While, at the same time, surely my Aikido practitioner friend must be feeling at least some sense of loss as it relates to confidence, based on the fact that he started the morning quite sure he was capable of something, directly because of his Aikido skills, and ended the morning having to face the fact that he couldn’t do that same something, despite all his Aikido skills.

There was a lot to ponder there, and after some awkward silence the rationalizations resumed, “well” he stated, “Aikido is a healthy form of exercise, and I have met many friends through it. It is a great social network.“ And here I don’t disagree, except to say that having observed his Aikido class, it was pretty obvious that a BJJ class, or any Alive art, provided a better workout. And, that this social network certainly exists in Alive arts as well. In fact, in many ways it’s magnified. You may find police officers, doctors, lawyers, construction workers, and students, all rolling competitively with each other, against each other, on the same mat. It’s quite remarkable in some ways, and it would be hard for me to imagine more of a social meritocracy then can exist in a well-run BJJ school.

And, I added, all this has the additional benefit of also being done in the name of skill set that is actually functional, that has the added benefit of being true.

And this is where my Aikido friend left the ‘it’s useful’ argument, and ventured into the last pseudo argument possible, and usually the last one used, the attack the messenger technique.

The conversation usually goes something like this, “Aikido teaches humility! And you guys are all jocks, the values of humility, and respect found in traditional martial arts are just absent in what you do. All you guys care about is being able to beat people up.”

I would like to note here, that this is an argument I do take seriously. There are many things far more important then being able to fight well. And if learning that skill set also came with, by proxy, bad social habits, poor attitude, or an overall vulgar effect on human decency, then it wouldn’t be of interest to me. But having been involved with martial arts all my adult life, and having been involved with the combat sports prior to the inception of MMA, I know full well, based on experience, that Alive training and respect for other human beings, and yourself, are never mutually exclusive things. In fact, I would take this one step further. Done correctly, Alive training is vastly superior to anything found within traditional martial arts, as it relates to positive effects on peoples characters, and lives.

Watching my friends Aikido class that evening, I noticed a few things. Besides the plethora of Birkenstock sandals found outside the door, there was a pretty intense, almost palpable air of self-righteous arrogance. It’s the kind of atmosphere I had experienced in many a traditional martial arts school. Those who had been there longer had a social class that was set apart, there was a tremendous amount of posturing, and the Instructors, when demonstrating on their students, used unusually rough treatment. In fact, I couldn’t really imagine using that much force on a partner who isn’t resisting at all, but rather doing everything possible to play along with choreography (after all, it doesn’t work, if they don’t). In short, I have always heard that traditional martial arts led to a certain sort of humility, but having been around many traditional martial artists, and traditional martial arts schools, I have to admit, I have never witnessed this effect.

For contrast, we need look no further then a well-run BJJ school. Because Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu uses Aliveness, there is a level of enforced humility that is impossible to bypass. At least so far as it relates to your ability within that art. Everyone, and I do mean everyone in BJJ, must tap out. In fact, it is impossible to achieve any level of measurable skill at all without being tapped out hundreds of times. This is the reality of the art, it can’t be faked anymore then you can fake speaking French. And that reality can have a dramatic, and truly healthy effect on human beings; true confidence, one based on measurable skill, growing awareness of ones body, of what its capable of, and more importantly sometimes, what it is not capable of, can all have really positive, healthy effects on the human psyche.

A traditional martial art can never offer these potent benefits, even if it wanted to. Because in order for these healthy by products of training to manifest, what you are doing has to be real.

In fact, because the entire affair of traditional martial arts is built upon a false-hood, the idea that it is functional in a fight, those that remain within it find themselves over time having to defend positions of authority that in actuality, are based on a lie. And this can make people who otherwise somewhat insecure, and uncomfortable in their own skin, highly insecure, and really uncomfortable.

We also have to be honest and state that you can certainly have thugs, who also get good at BJJ. And you can have very kind, decent people, who find themselves wrapped up in the world of traditional martial arts. But in both cases I would argue that they exhibit the behaviors they do in spite of, not because of, the art itself. And we can certainly see the truism, that Alive training, and the high human values of respect, love, and kindness, are never mutually exclusive.

After observing the Aikido class that evening, I pointed out to my friend that despite the realities of the afternoons event, none of the Instructors on the mat seemed to be informing the students that what they were doing was actually just for exercise or ritual purposes, and actually had little to no benefit as it relates to actual self defense. This, to me, seemed obviously duplicitous. “They (the students in this case) all know that.”, he stated. So I asked the following, how do they know that, when most have less experience with this art then you do, you have been practicing for over a decade, and until this morning you didn’t seem to know that?

At this point I had exhausted his patience as it relates to having his own dissonance placed in plain view, and his closing words to me were the following “Well everyone has to figure out the truth for themselves!”

And there you have it readers, that, in a nutshell, is how a ‘sophisticated’ clergy class is created. You will have a group of reasonably intelligent people, who upon receiving an education, realize that what they are teaching, preaching, or repeating, is anything but ‘true’, at least as it relates to the factual use of that word. And as a means of self-preservation for their position, they adopt a relativistic view. One that allows them to continue the deception, while at the same time blaming the parishioners themselves for being too ‘simple’.

How often do you hear of a high ranking member of any church, standing in front of his congregation and explaining truthfully that the genesis story, with its talking snake, and Noah’s flood, is not a literal truth? These same men, when pressed in debate, laugh away those who naively believe these things to be literal, but within their own denominations you will almost always find a large majority who do take it literally. A majority that does reject the reality of evolution, and that does think that the garden of Eden was a real place, which housed two people named Adam and Eve. Who is responsible for that? Does the clergy that otherwise claims to know better, hold any responsibility whatsoever as it relates to being honest with their flock?

Does the traditional martial arts ‘master’, who knows what he is offering is anything but functional, have an obligation to his students to explain that?

That is the final point as it relates to the attack the messenger argument. I do believe they are half right, it is true that we shouldn’t be the ones to point out to their flocks, their students, their congregations, that what they are learning isn’t true, or isn’t real. But not because it is wrong to do so; but because it is they themselves, the traditional martial arts masters, the clergy, the pastors, and the clerics who should be the ones doing this. And when those same ‘masters’, or clergy men point their angry finger at us, in an attacker the messenger sense of the word, feel free to explain to them they have every right to point that finger of responsibility, and every right to be angry. It’s just that it’s pointed in the wrong direction; it should be aimed at their own selves.

So these are the three arguments for dead patterns, be they religious, or physical:

It is true, real.
It is helpful.
Attack the messenger

And these are the three forms of pseudo-evidence for each:

The appeal to authority, or to its old age.
The use of anecdotal stories.
The argument of taboo.

Before moving on, lets take a little deeper look at the ‘it is helpful’ argument, as it exists within religious communities. Speaking for myself, I take this line of reasoning far more seriously, especially as it relates to social well being, then I do the ‘its true’ idea. The idea in 2009 that any particular religion, Christian or otherwise, is actually true, is so far out there in terms of plausibility, that I think humor is often the best way to deal with it. In other words, the belief that Genesis is a real account of our origins isn’t something that should keep anyone up at night in contemplation. Nor are silly proclamations of end times, or the lunatic ramblings found in Revelations. This is true regardless of how many inane television shows pollute the airwaves with ‘prophecy’ specials, or 2012 prediction episodes based on Mayan calendars, that some how get aired on the very poorly named, “history”, channel.

However, pulling the rug out from under people who otherwise might find them selves badly needing to believe in a delusion, despite the fact of it being a delusion, is something that all thoughtful humans should probably take seriously. In fact, to date this is the only valid rationale I have ever seen for religious superstition. And what it boils down to, once you wade through all the attached cultural ornaments, is the human connection that comes from a shared experience with a social network of likeminded people.

As homo sapiens, we evolved as social creatures. And loneliness, as well as the fear of death, can have frightful, and life-altering effects on even the most rational people. None of us, atheist or otherwise, should callously disregard this notion.

The work of Ernest Becker (The denial of death), as well as the more recent studies on what has become known as ‘terror management theory’, all have things to say in this regard. Though I am not positing the truth or falsity of Becker’s overall thesis, recent studies do seem to show that humans, once reminded of their own death (even at a subconscious level), tend to show altered behavior patterns. And in that sense much of the ritual we may find within certain superstitions, may in fact be a cultural response to this fear; a form of terror management. And, as mentioned above, the social networking that comes from the gathering of human beings on a regular basis, seems beyond much doubt, to be something we as social animals need in order to maintain an overall sense of well being.

So the question for all free thinkers is this, does science, or history itself, show us that we need to have the specific form of superstition known as ‘religion’, in order to maintain this social network, or cultural ritual, aimed towards increased human well being?

I think that answer to that question is a resounding, no. But, at the same time I think it then becomes our responsibility to make sure we inject as much healthy family, social, and tribal networking as we can. In other words, it is on us to replace the institutions based on superstition, with their sane secular counter-parts. To that end I have composed a list of qualities I think a healthy social network, or event, should incorporate:

It should be, authentic
It should be, challenging
It should be, joyful
It should be, creative
It should be, egalitarian

We, as creative, intelligent, and free thinking individuals are more then capable of creating institutions, organizations, and social clubs that include all of the above listed attributes. And we never need to lie to our children about where we come from, or why the world is the way it is, in order to do it.

History is replete with brilliant, noble, and brave human beings, who managed to face the harsh reality of existence, without falling back on fantasy based superstitions, or mythological tales taken literally. The revolution of the enlightenment was in and of itself, proof of the human ability to bring light upon our own existence. We need not languish in the dark recesses of super-natural apprehensions, or age-old cultural fears. The reality of our own existence, indeed of the existence of the universe itself, the amazing truths science can tell us about it now, are so powerful, so beautiful, so awe inspiring, that the only way anyone could find themselves drawn away from their verity, and pulled back into the shadowy recesses of religious fabrications, is to remain woefully, or willfully, ignorant. Because when compared side by side, the claim that all religious theory appears impoverished, including that found within the east, isn’t just an understatement, it is an inevitability.

In closing I want to quote from a book that every time I read from it, makes me want to give up writing non-fiction. The lucidity of thought, and careful, surgeon like precision of word use, is something I can only hope to aspire to. The book is Daniel Dennett’s ‘brainstorms’, and in this particular passage he is discussing how he came to his theory of consciousness. His approach was a bit different then many of his philosophical contemporaries. Rather then follow out each line of reasoning developed over the centuries, and look for the perfection of words that might prove one true over its counter-part; he instead dove into what modern science said about consciousness, and he modeled his thinking around that.

Otherwise stated, instead of the traditional method of following a form to determine a function, he let the function, determine the form of his theory. He states it brilliantly here:

“Since I think my theory carves nature at the joints, I am inclined to claim that it is the traditional pattern that is misshapen.”
–Daniel Dennett

And that, in summation, is exactly how I feel about Aliveness.

- Matt Thornton, December 26th, 2009

The sacred and the superstitous. . . .

2008-12-28T22:22:00.000-08:00

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is then to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan

It’s been quite some time since I sat down to update this blog. I have been writing, thinking, reading, and above all else living; but I wanted to give my thoughts proper time to settle before putting them out there in this format.

I am happy to say I recently married a very bright and beautiful partner, my wife Salome. Our wedding was a great day. To have friends from all over the world visiting us in November for the ceremony reminded me of how blessed I have been in my life. I don’t count many things to be of greater value then an authentic and true friend. I’d be lucky to have one, or two, within a lifetime. To have accumulated the ones I have around me now, the wild community of the most sincere and amazing humans, is a fortune I won’t pretend to have thus far earned. But I intend to do it justice in the coming decades.

Along with spending time with my children, two teenage boys who live with us, the gym, the community of people within it, and my financial obligations, I have had the inevitable questions that I imagine most of us ponder as our responsibility grows with our age. And all of that has helped to keep a puzzle continually popping into my conscious thoughts. The question is this: "Do you feel that what is practical always matches what is important?"

As that question has percolated in my brain, other concepts and ideas have become clearer to me over the years. Much of it is related to this blog, and all the things I have written about and experienced over the last decade. To explain this in a manner which will hopefully remains lucid and clear to the reader, I will have to weave some personal background in, along with the broader topics of rational thought, superstition, religion, metaphor, values, and my relaxation into the realization that I am now a confirmed atheist.

What follows is a brief outline of a book I have been working on. And I intend to expand greatly on many of these ideas as the years go by.

I have come to believe, for many reasons that I will attempt to lay out in this piece, that one of the great objectives of the 21st century will be separating the sacred from the supernatural. And within the last couple years of my life, it has been a personal and internal process, I have myself have engaged in; one that has left me happier then at any point previous. And one that has cleared the way for me to write in a manner, and on a topic, which I find both practical to everyday living, and important within our current social time frame.

In short, the contemplation I have engaged in over the last few years has helped me to answer the question that lingered in the back of my thought process. It blended the practical with the important. And it showed me that we can indeed have a life which is filled with joy, and at the same time, aesthetically pointed towards the profound. We don’t need to focus our awareness on the trivial, on the consumption of the material, or the hamster wheel of the mundane, in order to be ‘practical’, or happy.

And here is the part that caused the greatest personal shift for me, and the one which I will attempt to articulate in as clear a language as possible. That in so doing, we do not need to take anything on faith. We never need believe anything on insufficient evidence.

We do not need to look to the superstition of religion in order to experience the majesty of the truly sacred. They are not the same, in fact they need not be related; and that in addition, one is clearly true and therefore profound; while the other is clearly false and therefore at best, an impediment.

Here is my argument, and something that by the end of the piece I hope to have convinced you, the reader of, through the power of human reasoning.

That transcendent, does not mean supernatural.

That it is in reality, doubt that propels us forward. And it is belief without evidence (faith) which actually holds us back. That doubt, is always the fuel of the real truth seeker. And belief/faith, is the parking brake that is clutched by the hand of fear; by the mind afraid of revealing its own nature. Doubt is the fuel of the mystic, and the scourge of the clergy. And religion (all religion) by its very design, is something that creates a state of arrested development in an individual’s spiritual growth process as a human being.

To demonstrate this I will need to do a few things. First, I will have to draw a distinction between deism and theism. Secondly, I will have to show how both are clearly false, or at the very least hold the same amount of evidence for their reality as does the belief in the tooth fairy. Third, I will try and explain why clinging to belief in the supernatural, or for that matter anything for which there is not sufficient evidence, is in fact a danger to both the individual, and the society at large. Fourth, that real human values, have absolutely nothing to do with the superstition of so called “sacred” books. And fifth, that the reality of the universe, a universe devoid of the supernatural, the superstitious, of the gods and devils of our ancestors, is in and of itself, not just sacred enough; but in actuality, far more sacred, far more profound, far more majestic, and far more numinous then any of the make believe religious stories we tell each other about it.

And in conclusion I will try and explain that this is done with the intention of description, not prescription. I am not offering any substitute, or alternative form of dogma. I am not selling any form of faith. There is no alternative religion being given.

My description of a process, one involving real critical thought, skepticism, introspection, attention, and contemplation, does not in any way negate the beauty of authentic surrender, the value found in the release of anxiety, fear, and judgment, the non-dual realization, and reality of the inter-connected nature of all things, the values (worth) of compassion, the understanding that the increase in compassion is the direct result of our ability to see ourselves in others, the understanding that compassion itself is the building block of true ‘morality’. And the truth that doubt, skepticism, and its marriage with intuition and inspiration, can indeed carry us to a greater aesthetic appreciation of transcendent moments.

The truth I have experienced in my life so far is this, the realization that those moments of peak experience give us, and the depth of their profundity, is actually cheapened by the inclusion of superstition.

And when we let go of all that we hold no evidence for, we are actually given a freedom we would otherwise not experience. A freedom which offers us the volition to move forward to a greater, and deeper understanding of the universe we live in, and the way we live within it.

“There is a real value for the profound in our lives. We do not need to waste our lives on the pursuit of the trivial. But does that mean that we ever have to lie to ourselves or our children in order to experience the profound? I think it’s obvious we don’t. Yet all faith based western religion is predicated on the idea that you do. That you must lie to yourself, that you must stifle doubt.” - Sam Harris

To give some context to this journey I need to offer a little personal background. This is something I have not done previously in my writing (beyond the background related to my work trade of coaching) for various reasons. And before I do, I need to explain something very important about the distinction between my job, and my personal beliefs on the nature of the universe.

First off, I don't want there to be any confusion regarding the philosophy of SBGi, and my own ideas regarding atheism, religion, philosophy, or dog training.

Those of you that have trained with me in person during the last couple years know that when I am teaching a seminar or Martial Arts class, I am teaching a seminar and Martial Arts class. I don't wax philosophically about the worth or lack thereof as it relates to religion, or other such topics. It is not what I am getting paid for. I don't think it would be fair to the students who are attending the class. When I am teaching a class, I am there solely to teach the skill sets of BJJ, MMA, etc. Anyone’s religion, politics, philosophy or beliefs is irrelevant in that context. Everyone is welcome to attend, religious, republican, atheist or otherwise.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

I will also say this, I went through a brief period of a few months, many years ago, where I considered moving my own teaching into a more philosophical area, i.e.: adding things like Yoga meditation into my classes more, as well as more discussion of philosophy, etc. I saw it as more of a lifestyle (health & well being) market, as opposed to a strictly Martial Arts market. In fact, on my last trip to Africa several years ago I had a discussion about the potential of this market with Rodney King. For my own reasons I decided completely against this approach. I have no interest in becoming anyone's "life coach", and I saw a lot of danger for both the students and the teachers; the whole guru/mentor trip is easy to get lost in, and I want no part of it. It is always a trap.

My writing on this topic should be understood as something completely distinct from SBGi, or my job as a coach. SBGi is a Martial Arts and sports organization, based around Aliveness. That is enough.

That stated, I do see some parallels in the thinking processes people have as they relate to both religion, and traditional martial arts. There is the same level of distinct cognitive dissonance in both. And as a consequence, I think the arguments against both tend to follow very similar patterns.

When I first started to write and teach about Aliveness I was hit with the charge of being to aggressive in my presentation. Ironically this charge was often leveled at me by people who otherwise claimed to agree with my views. In other words, ya we agree the whole thing is nonsense. But why say it? Just let them be, and we will continue to train our way.

“The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.”
– Thomas Paine (American hero)

As far as I am concerned there are two problems with that point of view. First, it denies the reality that many of us, myself included, started with traditional martial arts, JKD, Karate, or otherwise, and through our own experience, we came to realize that much of it was nonsense. And part of why we went through that process, rather then cutting straight to the functional/real delivery systems of boxing, wrestling, or BJJ was because those that came before us of whom we had contact, and discovered the truth, didn’t find it necessary, convenient, or simply couldn’t be bothered to be blunt about the fantasy paradigm they had left behind as not practical. And that greater shift in the zeitgeist only occurs when at least a few, do speak out loud. To that point I will always be a bit grateful to Alfonso Tamez, who was an JKD instructor who wrote a piece in the early 80’s which spelled out the truth related to martial arts. He did take the time to leave a trail of bread crumbs, and a few of us followed.

Secondly, there is hidden within that mindset which says leave them be, a deep undercurrent of arrogance. It is incredibly condescending to assume that others will not be capable of being persuaded to see reality as it is, simply because it may have taken you so long.

The analogy there with religion could not be clearer. Religious moderates of all faiths fail to realize that they have reached the point of ‘moderation’, in their views and ideas, precisely because the rational thinkers that came before, sacrificed enough energy, and time, to at least attempt to persuade a large enough segment of the population that they were wrong. And this is always done through the same process, the power of reason.

The church did not discover that the earth revolved around the sun, and it wasn’t a deeper reading of scripture that convinced most ‘moderate’ Christians that evolution is indeed a reality, or that the earth is not 6000 years old. Those advances came as a direct result of persuasive arguments. And when those arguments where first given they went against the tradition of the time. But only always. And as such, the moderates became moderate as a direct result of someone speaking out, and offering an alternative to the traditional paradigm of the era. An alternative based on evidence, the powers of rational thought, and human reasoning.

“The engineer says the bridge will hold; the doctor says the infection is resistant to penicillin, these people have defensible reasons for their clams about the way the world is. The mullah, the priest, and the rabbi do not.” -Sam Harris

The second point is similar. I have spoken with more then a few scientists and doctors, all of whom realize that religion, and belief in folk gods, be it Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, or Jehovah, is clearly absurd, yet who at the same time seem to adopt an attitude that even though its obviously not true, those masses of individuals who seem to believe it is, must need it. And although I agree that it is a far more trivial topic, this is still the same exact argument people made as it related to traditional martial arts. Even a small bit of contemplation reveals this attitude as profoundly condescending. Though they themselves find no need for the superstition, the unwashed masses must. I am not convinced.

At this point I think its probably useful to confess a bit of personal background. I was raised in a deeply religious family. My father was an agnostic, something which I am really grateful for, because he was the only link to rational thought within my family life. My mother’s family, including my mother, are all fundamentalists. As a child I was given a bible that had pictures of little dinosaurs within the cover. And they believe that the garden of Eden, talking snake and all, is a literal telling of our human origins. Convinced that the world as we know it will end with Armageddon within their lifetime, two of her brothers refrained from having children. And for them, Satan is a literal spirit being who roams the universe seeking to do evil.

I fully realize that is all insane, but before we all laugh at the silliness we should remember the fact that according to recent polls 46% of Americans take a literalist view of the bible. That means that they believe Noah actually took two of every type of animal on a boat, including the millions of species of insects, and that man as we know him to be, is about 6000 years old; a date that is off, factually speaking, by about 246,000 years at least.

So while it is easy to laugh at this all as an educated adult, along with the humor we should rightly be a bit terrified that this level of ignorance and superstition still exists within a large population of our adult population.

And to be clear, though these religious ideas are clearly stupid, in the most accurate sense of that word; that does not mean that the people who believe them are stupid. My mother’s family was not the victim of unusually low IQ’s, nor for that matter is 46% of the American population.

What we have here is a level of cognitive dissonance that we as rational human beings must confront. If we don’t, the results could be catastrophic for us a species. And harmful to those we love who still find themselves trapped by the nonsense and superstition of a demon haunted fairly tale.

It should be carefully noted by all seekers of truth that the will to believe and the wish to understand are two completely different things.

And only one propels us forward.

“Tell a devout Christian that his yogurt makes a man invisible, or that his wife is cheating on him, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity,. . . . . and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.” -Sam Harris

There is a tendency within the liberal community and among more enlightened thinkers, one that I think is born of semi-noble intentions, to speak softly as it relates to any public challenge or criticism of religious thought. Part of it is an effort of tolerance for the cognitive dissonance of others. And in some circumstances I can see the value in that. And part of it is simply the failure to realize that for some reason, we as a society at large have granted religious superstition some form of immunity from rational discourse which we accept in no other area or realm of life.

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage to reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” – Thomas Jefferson

If a scientist like Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins writes a piece pointing out the absurdity of some form or religious belief, they are attacked from all sides. And quite often the most emotional outbursts scream out from the liberal side. It seems to come as a shock to many on the left that religion, or especially the concept of faith itself, should ever be scrutinized or publicly questioned.

I wonder how many of us have stopped to think about how strange this truly is?

Imagine for instance that instead of religion, Dennett wrote a critical article about say, the military industrial complex. Perhaps he writes a very well documented piece about something GE is doing as it relates to weapons manufacturing. Do any of us hear the voices of the left rising up in shock at his gall to even address such an issue? Of course not.

Why is religion given a pass?

It is a curious question, especially when we take into account the dramatic effect it has on all our lives. The attacks of 9/11 are an obvious example of that. Many on the left would like to lay the blame for that attack, and the hundreds of others suicide bombings, primarily on political and socio-economic circumstances. But do any of us truly believe that absent the superstitious belief in Allah, an afterlife, and it's promised sexual offerings of virgins, those attackers would have flown the planes to their deaths?

Despite the patendtly absurd nature of the beliefs themselves, we as a society have to come to grips with the reality that through the mechansim of cognitive dissonance many otherwise educated, and intellgent people, can come to believe (to the point of suicide, or murder), in extremely stupid ideas. Ideas which hold no basis in fact.
And when pressed about the fairy tell reality of their belief system, the fallback position is always the same, faith.

So regardless of how little we like the idea of offending believers, the need to teach people the value of doubt, skeptical thinking, and the skill sets required to scrutinize supernatural claims, becomes very important. Encouraging religious believers to not believe, is indeed paramount to our own well being.

Having engaged at this point in hundreds of conversations and debates with believers, I am fully aware that some will throw out ad hominem attack that goes something like this, “well you clearly have some sort of built up anger from your background with religion, and that must explain your current point of view.” So for clarity, I should give you a bit more personal history.

When I left home at a fairly early age I had not rejected all of my religious background. Nor did I then, or now, hold any resentment related to it. It was simply what it was, my mother, like most religious people, had been raised that way by her mother. Uneducated about science, or the true nature of reality, she had no other belief system to hold onto. And my background as a child has given me a sense of understanding related to the topic, the people who believe it, and the nature of cognitive dissonance that those believers have to cling to, that someone not exposed in the way I was to literal belief in superstition, would otherwise not have.

After I left home, and entered life as an adult, I had a series of what for lack of a more descriptive term I would call transcendent experiences. I want to be absolutely clear here in explaining, without any attempt at false modesty, that I do not believe that this made, or makes me, in anyway different from anyone else; or in anyway, “special”. Point of fact, over the decades I have met many people who have had similar experiences as those I have had. I do believe that it is far more common then most of us may realize. And one of the only legitimate criticisms that I think can be leveled at the new atheists, or the movement towards rational thought, is that we somehow deny the importance, or validity of such experiences. This is a mistake. And it is also not accurate.

“The bible. That is what fools have written, what imbeciles command, what rogues teach, and young children made to learn by heart.” – Voltaire

Anytime we discuss religion, it is worth noting that most all religious believers are themselves atheists, as it relates to other peoples gods. Of course most non Muslim people, even those who hold strong religious beliefs from other factions, such as Christianity, realize that there is an obvious and solid reason to encourage people to not believe in the nonsense that is the Islamic version of an afterlife. In fact there are many. We have seen what the effect of believing that, death through holy war warrants one a harem of virgins, can do. It is destructive, not just to the individual, but to everyone. The list of destructive beliefs as it relates to religion is quite long; in fact too long to list. And every one of those beliefs is a button that once pushed creates a cause and effect that hurts, rather then helps human development.

What I am advocating in this piece is simply this, that we apply the same level of rational thinking, critical analysis, and mindful contemplation to ideas we formulate about the great existential questions, as we do to say, building a bridge.

And if we applied the same overall demand for evidence to the dogma of all religions as we did to the field of engineering, then there would be Mormons, no Scientologists, no Jehovah’s Witnesses, no Christian Right, no Islamic states dressing women in bee keeper suits, no prop 8 in CA, no Jerry Falwell, no attempt to hold back condoms from 3rd world nations, and likely no suicide bombers.

In addition, all the folk gods, from Krishna to Apollo, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Jehovah, and the entire lot of them, would be relegated to the same status of any other fictional character of mythology. And along with their departure we would also lose the absolute certainty of the believers, all of which is based on equal evidence, that their god is the one true god. That is clearly the path mankind has to take if we are interested in the truth, and in our own self preservation as a species.

"In our next presidential election, an actor who reads his bible would almost certainly defeat a rocket scientist who does not. Could there be any clearer indication that we are allowing unreason and otherworldliness to govern our affairs?” – Sam Harris

I fully realize that not all superstition is the same, ie: the beliefs of a radical Muslim may indeed be more threatening to the masses then say the belief in the virgin birth of Jesus. But the fact remains that both rely on the same rational fallacies. And to call a spade a spade we must be honest about that.

I am not going to spend too much time addressing the believers who are so certain of their own religious dogma that they actually claim not just to know that there is a god, but to know what that gods name is, what his thoughts about human behavior are, and what our over-all purpose is. These believers are so far out of the realm of adult thinking, the only thing we really can do is more or less exclude them from the conversation.

However, I don’t think it is at all inappropriate to ask such believer for evidence. The idea proposed by some scientists of ‘non overlapping magesteria’ is something I simply don’t find truthful, or helpful.

The reality is that most religious people, and most religions, do make claims that by their very nature are testable through the tools of science. And furthermore, these same claims are used as valid reasons for specific social and political policies; policies that effect all of us, whether we believe or not. Therefore, we not only can expose such beliefs to the light of rational thought and the demands of evidence, we must.

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
–Thomas Jefferson

For example, if someone says they know for sure that Jesus is the son of god, or that the Koran was the last true revelation from the one true god, it is perfectly reasonable, and in fact I think important, to ask why.

There are some common responses you will find when dealing with these types of religious believers. For example, for people who are born again Christians, a common answer tends to be that they have had some sort of experience which showed them that Christ was indeed god; the age old argument from personal experience.

The first question I usually ask is whether or not they had considered that had they been born and raised in India, they might have seen, or felt, Krishna, instead of say, Jesus. Or had they been born in Saudi Arabia, had they considered that they may have felt the prophet Mohammed.

Believe it or not, it is actually quite easy for some people to overlook this fact, especially if they have never spent much time traveling in their life; or if they have little, to no real education in the field of comparative theology, or more properly put, mythology. The reality that believers from other parts of the world believe just as strongly in their gods, for the same exact reasons, using the same exact arguments, doesn’t always occur to them.

“Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.”
– H.L Mencken

Following this line of questioning, I ask them if they had considered that the vision, feeling, or emotional response was really just a biological function of the mind and body; and not in and of itself anything that could rationally be called “evidence” for the existence of a supernatural being; let alone one with a specific name.

Truth be told, many people have no real understanding about the fact that an emotional response is never by proxy, evidence for anything. This is made obvious by how humans relate with one another.

Furthermore, individuals who have never experienced the effects of hallucinogenic drugs may have no idea just how powerful the mind itself can be. The reality that our everyday subjective experience is created and sculpted through the nervous system, and within our brain, isn’t something that every individual has come to grips with yet. One of the more positive benefits of hallucinogenics is the fact that they can help reveal to the individual just how important our own brain can be in altering our view of what reality is. And to be clear, I am not advocating for or against their use in this piece. But I do think it is pretty obvious that individuals who have tried mushrooms, or LSD, at some point in their lifetime will have a leg up on those that have not, in so far as it relates to understanding the effect our own chemistry can have on our perceptions.

Another thing that can help is having experience with the mentally ill. Sadly, for a good portion of our history over the last couple millennia, superstitions beliefs relegated the mentally ill to the realm of religion. It was thought that they were possessed by ‘evil spirits’, or demons. Thankfully, only the most impoverished places on earth still hold to this ignorant view. Modern science has helped to prove beyond all doubt that mental illness is simply an issue related primarily to brain chemistry. But since we know, factually speaking, that even a very minor shift in brain function can cause dramatic, and sometimes devastating effects on how we see reality itself, shouldn’t that give us pause to think that most ‘religious’, or ‘spiritual’, experiences may also be related to altered brain chemistry, and not instead the evidence of any supernatural force?

“Do you think I am superstitious? I am a super atheist.”
–Mohandas K Gandhi

I am not in anyway attempting to mitigate, or marginalize the importance of numinous experiences here. As I have previously written, I do think that the mystical experience can have profound, lasting, and positive effects on individuals. And there has been volumes of research that has shown that to be true. But, I also think it’s something that should be left to modern forms of science and study. And it is within the realm of science, as well as art, poetry, music, movies, etc, that these things should be explored. Not the superstitious fantasy world of made up deities, and their associated religious, and cultural dogma.

In his book “The End of Faith”, which had a large impact on me, Sam Harris articulates the importance of the transcendent experience in the last portion of his work. And he does so in an eloquent manner that I can’t hope to replicate. Richard Dawkins, another proponent of rational thinking, and a confirmed atheist, has written some very beautiful and profound texts that would be fitting for any mindful event, funeral or otherwise. And Carl Sagan waxed poetically about the nature of the universe, and its grand majesty, in a way that no cleric could ever attempt to touch. And there is a very good reason for that. When Carl Sagan spoke of such things, he did so without pretending to know things that he didn’t know. And that is something that no religious priest, rabbi, mullah, preacher, or missionary can ever do when talking about religion.

“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for ever thinking I shall ever change them.”
– Abraham Lincoln (after the death of his son Willie)

On top of this, Christopher Hitchens has written eloquently about the respect and care he has for religious icons, architecture, and symbols. It was not atheists who blew up mosques, desecrated temples, or blasted millennia old Buddhist statues out of existence, it takes a believer to do that.

As a skeptical person, I obviously believe that the evidence on this matter is pretty clear. People have visions, or emotional responses to various stimuli, or circumstances. It’s not surprising that the nature of those visions or feelings tends to be associated with the religious superstition of their cultural upbringing.

Or stated another way, which is more likely, that despite all evidence to the contrary, there is indeed a personal god. In fact, that gods name is actually Allah, or Jesus, or Jehovah, or Krishna, or (insert deity here) and that he/she/it chose to reveal themselves through a very subjective, private feeling.

Or, that human beings are prone to have emotional, and even hallucinatory experiences under certain circumstances.

The answer is self evident for anyone honestly looking for the truth.

“As men’s prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

In 1970 AH Maslow wrote the classic book, ‘Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences’, and in it, he talked about the importance these experiences can have on an individuals life.

I don’t think it takes even the slightest measure of “faith” to be persuaded by Maslow’s argument.

His points, and those of countless others who were before him and who have followed him, about the worth of such transcendent, numinous experiences is one that can made with the full weight of scientific study, and rational thought.

There is no need to pretend to believe the absurd, in order to value the profound.

We as atheists would be making a mistake, perhaps the only mistake, when we attempt to marginalize such experiences as something unworthy of attention. As I have shown above, anyone who actually takes the time to read the literature put out by the most well known atheistic thinkers will see clearly that they don’t make this mistake. But I still think it is important to take the time to point that out, and here is why. Because when we don’t, what we do is allow religion, superstition, the ‘new agers’, and all the associated con artists, full reign over the topic. We allow them to hijack peak experiences.

When in reality, the superstitious, and the sacred, have never truly been related.

Once you get past the argument from personal experience, the next answer many theist believers have, especially those of the fundamentalist bent, is that there belief is based on some form of ‘evidence’. This form of argument is absolutely testable using the modern forms of science and rational thought. And we have an obligation, if we are sincerely interested in the truth, to do so.

A simple example of this goes as follows. Questioner, why do you believe Jesus is the son of god? Believer: Because the bible says so. Questioner, other “holy” books differ, for example, the Bhagvad Gita would say it was Krishna, or the Koran would say it was Allah. Believer, yes, but the bible is the one true word of god. Questioner, what is your evidence for this claim? And from here a long list of supposed evidence is brought forth by Christian believers of all denominations.

“As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the word of god. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book.” - Thomas Paine

To be clear, there is of course absolutely zero evidence of any sort that the bible is anything other then just man made. And there is no credible scientist or scholar anywhere who claims there is.

But most believers are neither scientists, or scholars, and most don’t even understand what would actually constitute “evidence” to begin with. So a certain amount of patience is required here, and if the person you are speaking with is sincere in their belief, its worth taking the time to walk them through each of their claims step by step, and show them that everything they thought of as evidence is in reality, anything but.

As I ventured through my 20’s and into my early 30’s the intensity of the next few peak, or numinous experiences shocked me enough to drastically change how I viewed the nature of reality itself, and as consequence how I started to relate to other people around me. The exact nature, or definition of these experiences is at this point not something that I feel needs to be written publicly, or in any detail. It really doesn’t matter to the overall point of the text, or my greater argument. And as I stated, I don’t think it was anything all that unique. But their overall effect on my life has so far been one of very positive growth; and an increased realization, or insight, one that has helped me over time to form deeper connections to loved ones, and the environment around me.

“He who has made great moral progress ceases to pray.”
– Immanuel Kant

As the years went by I found myself telling a few friends and associates of some of my experiences, and what I felt the related insights were. This was a good process because for one, I realized that a good portion of them had at some point in their life, experienced the same thing. And two, it helped weed out a few relationships with people that clearly weren’t on the same page, and at any sign of anything beyond the superficial were headed out the door. Moments like this help us discover who our true friends and loved ones are. I am grateful for all the relationships I have had in my life, including those I no longer have. They all had a lesson, and a value. But I am also grateful for the ability to discern between an authentic friend, and someone who sees friendships as something akin to a networking strategy. It helped to teach me about the true worth of authenticity.

The bible is filled with an incredible amount of absurd claims, contradictions, and superstitions.

For example, many fundamentalist believers do in fact think that the Noah’s ark story is real. And as silly as that claim is, it is also something that can be shown to be patently false. There are no legitimate geologists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old, or that within the last 10,000 years it was covered by water. People have spent lifetimes studying the history of this planet, and building upon that knowledge through the vigorous demands of evidence, peer reviewed study, and the world of facts. The idea of the historicity of Noah’s ark has as much reality, factually speaking, as does the idea that the earth is flat.

But the only way to really prove this to truly deluded believer is to have them spend at least a little bit of time studying legitimate science. Even a small amount of education on the topic can wake them up to the truth that what they have believed all this time is nothing more then an old mythological fairy tale. One created long before mankind knew much about the true nature of the planet, or the universe. One created when even the most educated people knew about as much about the earth as the average 1st grader does now.

As always, the real problem is ignorance, and the real solution is education.

To encourage the believer to seek out that education, one thing I find useful to ask them is this, if you really want to live your entire life based around the belief that the bible is true, wouldn’t it benefit you to test the claims of the bible against the reality of what science factually knows about earths history?

And if you don’t, doesn’t that show clearly, through your own actions, that what you are interested in is not in fact the truth? After all, if you were really interested in finding out the truth, why be afraid to test a belief?

“Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
–Isaak Asimov

Whether they follow through with the actual research or not, by leaving them with that question you are doing them a great, and compassionate, service. Even if they are too afraid to look critically at their own beliefs now, they may seek out the truth at some point. And you have given them at least one key thing they will need when they take the first steps on that journey.

I had grown up reading Krishnamurti as a teenager. And although I was never really able to follow clearly his line of reasoning until I was in my early 30’s, I still found myself compelled to absorb his lectures and conversations. Because I never heard of these kinds of ideas being expressed outside a religious context, I, like so many who came before me, found myself feverishly searching through every religious, new age, Christian, Eastern, Buddhist, Sufi, and mystical text, for any sign of confirmation, or validation, as it related to the things I had experienced first hand. Along the way I accumulated a truly massive library, and met a staggering number of teachers, gurus, and writers, who wandered within visiting distance of where I was at the time.

Much of it, in fact I would safely say most of it, I found myself discarding as nonsense. And a small percentage of it showed itself to be truly insightful for me. The Upanishads, Shankara, and the talks of Ramana Maharshi certainly make that list for me. As did most everything Alan Watts, or Joseph Campbell put out.

But all that consumed, I still found myself in the difficult position of sharing time and space with religious believers, and the cultural decorations of superstition that inevitably attached themselves to the truth in the same way a barnacle attaches to a boat. And sometimes the layers of nonsense where so thick, that the truth within the teaching became buried under a pile of dogma. Dogma that I could no longer pretend was anything other then just as silly, and just as potentially dangerous, as the ridiculous theology of my childhood.

“Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt.”
–Clarence Darrow

Just about the time all this was coming to a head, I ran across the previously mentioned book called ‘The End of Faith’, by Sam Harris. I would strongly suggest that book to everyone, religious or otherwise, because it clearly, factually, rationally, and logically lays out the case against religion, and the very concept of ‘faith’ itself, in a manner of writing I find to be most effective. One that is clear, simply stated, truthful, and blunt.

Although I may not agree with all the political arguments related to terrorism that Harris advocates for, his overall thesis against faith itself is nothing short of rock solid; and I was persuaded by his argument.

There are a couple things to point out here. The first one goes to all the people who say that to have conversations like this is fruitless, that you will never convince anyone who believes anyway, and because it won’t really matter in the big scheme of things. I am living proof that both arguments are false.

For one, I was persuaded by rational dialogue to let go of the things for which I had no evidence. And secondly, that letting go process had a profound and positive effect on my life, and therefore the broader environment around me. I am quite sure I am not the only one, and as the minds of a few believers who are bold enough to at least question their own version of reality begin to change, so to do the relationships around them, and ultimately to some degree, the over all society.

Another form of ‘evidence’ some believers will offer is that of ‘prophecy’. This is perhaps the simplest to deal with, because a working knowledge of science is not needed in order to demonstrate the silliness of this idea, just good common sense.

This topic came up in conversation with a relative once. When asked for any evidence that the bible is anything other then man made, the answer given was ‘prophecy’. In particular, the idea that the bible declares that in the “end times”, there will be “wars and rumors of wars”.

“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path of genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”
- Albert Einstein 1934

One of the saddest aspects of fundamentalists Christians is their adherence to the belief that theirs is always the “last” generation. That Jesus will be coming back like some sort of super hero within their lifetime. And that everything thereafter will be groovy. Every generation of Christians, starting with the first, believed this to be true. And each generation has seen a great deal of suffering caused by this particular superstition.

I mentioned to this relative that the world has always had “wars and rumors of wars”, and that I would like them to name a time when that hasn’t been the case on earth. And furthermore, that there is larger majority of this planets population living in relative security, as compared to times past, then ever before.

And very quickly the subject changed, to disease.

“Well the bible also predicted great disease and famine in the end times”. Again I asked, when had their not been disease? In fact, at one point nearly half of Europe’s population had been killed due to disease. And thanks to the germ theory (science), anti-biotics (science), vaccines (science), and modern medicine (science), there is no time in the past that I would rather live then now, as it related to disease prevention.

Finally my relative said “well at no time other then now, has mankind ever had the ability to destroy itself”. I believe in this case they were referring to nuclear war. And I then reminded them that the bible makes absolutely no mention of ‘mankind having the ability to destroy itself’, let alone nuclear war.

At this point we had exhausted all the so called “prophecies” of the bible, and my relative was simply making up prophecy and attributing it to the bible. I felt the best thing to do there was to simply point that fact out to them. If you are going to make up prophecy then its no longer prophecy, it is fantasy.

“It is time we admit that faith is nothing more then the license that religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail.” -Sam Harris

When it comes to the idea of “prophecy” the case study of Nostradamus is useful here. Bookstores are littered with books related to the ‘amazing’ prophecies of Nostradamus. Even the history, and discovery channels have been infested with shows on the topic. People love the idea of knowing the future. Whether its biblical prophecy, fortune telling, or astrology, the evidence in favor of each ends up being the same, non-existent.

At first glance, the predictions of Nostradamus, written in a short poetic format called “qautrians”, seem fairly accurate. He appears to predict WW1, WW2, the Kennedy assassination, and even the name of Hitler. In fact, given the vagueness of the Bibles prophecies, Nostradamus seems downright detailed. But upon closer examination the whole thing quickly falls apart. With names being attributed to quatrains that were in reality meant to mean something else, with quatrains being written post-event, and back dated to appear to be prophetic, and of course with the tried and true vague generality that marks all forms of “prophecy”, such as astrology, and leaves the interpretation open to the reader. Anyone taking the bible prophecies seriously would be well served by taking just a little time to see how things like Nostradamus’s quatrains, and astrology work in the minds of believers. The mechanisms are always the same. And it always turns out to be utter nonsense.

“The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.”
– Thomas Paine

So again, anyone claiming “evidence” for the belief in a particular god, especially one with a specific name, has at that very moment impeded on the world of facts, reality, and science. They have stated something testable, and opened the door for a rational dialogue which points out to them step by step, what the word ‘evidence’ actually means in the adult world of ideas.

There is a great value to this conversation. And I would discourage anyone from taking too seriously the pessimistic warnings of people who claim that religion, and superstition (belief without evidence), are things doomed to be with us forever. The garbage can of bad ideas is filled with hundreds of thousands of gods that society as a whole no longer takes as being any more literal then they do Othello. And at some point in the future I believe enough critical mass of rational thinkers can be reached so that we render the archaic god of Abraham to the same level of seriousness that most of us give to Thor. And that will be a beautiful thing for all mankind, and this planet.

“Imagine if we lived in a society where people spent billions of dollars of their personal income each year propitiating the gods of Mount Olympus…”
- Sam Harris

If we value the truth, if we believe that the truth is something worth pursuing, in and of itself. Then we must not give up. We cannot concede to the ignorant arguments of the religiously brainwashed, simply because we can’t be bothered to correct their absurdity. The negative consequences can be seen throughout our world when we do. Whether its stem cell research, birth control, or suicide bombers, ideas for which there is no evidence can harm more then just the individual believer.

Once you dispense with theism, the specific belief in a personal god, there is still deism to deal with. It might be useful here to go back into a little more of my personal history. During my journey through the world of the comparative mythology, I quickly realized that the idea of a specific cultural god being true was more or less absurd. But I had not by any means ruled out the idea of ‘a god’. One who is simply described differently, at different times, by different cultures. And it was during this time frame that I became fascinated by a pseudo-scientific idea that was being marketed to the public at large called ‘intelligent design’. According to the propaganda, some scientists had discovered holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution, holes which were so vast that they pointed to the need for some sort of designer; to the existence of God.

I have no science background. I am currently a very interested layman, but at the time had read very little on real science. Having been educated in the American school system, and raised by a superstitious family, I had little to no factual knowledge of evolution. The religion I was raised in wrote a book on the theory, one that attempts to discredit it. But as I later found out as an adult, the book is so badly written, so factually incorrect, and so childish, even someone with the educational equivalent of 9th grade biology would be able to render it a laughing stock. So I was ill equipped to evaluate the claims of these ID proponents.

“You are of course right to believe that there is more to life than simply understanding the structure and contents of the universe. But this does not make unjustifiable claims about its structure any more respectable.”
-Sam Harris

Being intensely fascinated by the topic I set about reading their work. Starting with the “text book” that they attempted to get placed into the curriculum in Kansas (Of panda’s and people), and continuing on with some of their other work, Michael Behe’s ‘Darwin’s black box’, and some other books not worth repeating. And though I have no formal education in biology, or science, the arguments put forth by these authors still struck me as hollow. For one, claiming ‘god did it’, is never really an answer to any serious scientific question about the universe, for reasons I will explain later. But in addition to that, there is the curious fact that none of these scientists had subjected any of their work to peer reviewed research. Peer reviewed research is the ever important checks and balances system of real scientific theory, and it is the thing which prevents science from ever becoming the utterly arrogant farce that is religion.

And finally, there is the fact that 99.9% of all scientists in the field, men and women who have built upon all the knowledge of those that have come before and who have spent entire lifetimes studying in one very specific field of scientific research, completely disagreed with the ideas and conclusions the ID proponents were offering. All of those things amounted to solid reasons for being deeply skeptical of all that ID claimed. And all of those things spurred me on to further research on the topic.

What followed was a few years of science reading. My favorite authors turned out to be the more popular ones like Dawkins and Dennett, primarily because they wrote in a manner accessible to someone who, like myself, lacked a biology degree. But there were many other good books as well. One worth repeating here is called ‘Intelligent Thought, science versus the intelligent design movement’, edited by John Brockman. It is a series of essays written by experts in the field, which literally destroys point by point, the entire public relations scheme that is “intelligent design.” I would highly recommend that book to anyone interested on the topic.

“Creationists are funny. They want to be taken seriously as scientific and have their comrades writings taught as science to our children in schools. But their attitude is unscientific. Rather then engaging in open minded investigation to figure out how things are done, at first glimmer of mystery they throw up their hands and say it’s beyond science. This is like not knowing how a magic trick is done and thinking no one else can know either.”
– Dorion Sagan

The bottom line is simply this, the evidence for our evolution as a species is truly beyond dispute. Evolution is not just a ‘theory’, in the common use of language sense of that word. Evolution is a fact. And there is no scientific reality to the ID movement. It is simply creationism, repackaged in a sort of trojan horse way.

As someone who was raised around deeply religious people, I can tell you that most of the time they have absolutely no idea how crazy, or far out there, their own religious beliefs are. Do you really think that most kids raised in a Mormon community, by Mormon parents, with Mormon friends, have stopped to fully realize how insane the teachings of a con man like Joseph Smith actually are? Until they step outside that bubble, the idea that the garden of Eden is located in Missouri, and that God is an old guy living on a planet, seem perfectly normal.

Likewise, for the child of Jehovah’s Witness parents, the belief that a spirit being called the devil was hurled down to earth in 1914, or that the Earth was covered by a world wide flood less then 6000 years ago, seems perfectly sane. It is only if they are introduced to the world of facts and science, and even then, have the strength of mind to be able to subject these ideas to the floodlight of rational thought, will any of them come to understand just how loony the nonsense that was taught to them truly is.

Remember there can be strength in numbers. For example, to most Catholics I am sure that the belief that mumbling some mumbo jumbo over a bowl of frosted flakes would turn the cereal into the body of Elvis, would seem like something only a lunatic would believe. But when millions of them believe that a cracker transforms into the body of Christ, that seems rational. Sometimes it takes someone who is willing to compare those beliefs with other things that are equally rational, such as say the belief in the literal existence of the god Apollo, or the belief that Elvis is alive and well, selling slushys at a 7/11 in Modesto CA, in order to reach them.

“It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. . . if there is something in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
– Albert Einstein

So this leaves just a few basic arguments in favor of a ‘god’. Here is a conversation I had related to Deism, and my related answers. I have edited some of it for brevity. But I think it cuts right to the heart of the issue.

"Matt, as a self identified atheist, do you look around and confidently think that all of this -- the earth and everything beyond it -- the entire universe and all that is in it -- started by chance, or do you make room for the idea that we do not really know how all this started."

I don't know of any rational thinker or legitimate scientist who claims to "know" how the Universe, or life as we know it on earth, first occured. What they do have is various theories and hypothesis. From what I read (and to be clear I am just a curious layman), they are getting closer all the time to answers. But real knowledge (aka: science) doesn't pretend to know things, it speculates and tests. Which is of course what seperates it from superstition/religion.

"If the answer is the latter, does that in any way challenge the definition of atheism?"

There is no challenge to atheism there. Because we don't know something yet, or because science hasn't reached a great consensus on a topic related to the universe yet, does not therefore mean we should then fallback and say that must mean Apollo, or Zues, or Jesus, or any other make believe god did it. That is the silly god of the gaps argument. When our anscestors didn't understand where rain came from they assumed it must be related to god. It's sad people still do this simply because the breadth of our questions has grown.

"If there is some room for the idea of a prime mover, does it deserve our awe and wonder?"

A couple of things to consider here. First of all a "prime mover", or a god, or an intelligence, is never a real answer to a question like 'where do we come from'. It is in reality a failure to even ask the question.

But only always.

It is very similiar to people who say that aliens planted the seeds of life on earth. Though that may or may not be so (to be clear I don't believe there is evidence for that, but lets play along), it still begs the question, where did those aliens come from? To answer the question of where did intelligent life come from, by positing a greater form of intelligent life, be it aliens, god, or a prime mover, is simply to create a bigger problem. After all, where did that come from? So until such time as evidence for some 'prime mover' shows up, and to date I have yet to see any, its simply a failure to even attempt to answer the question.

And regards awe, I find the reality of what scientists tell us about our universe, which includes everything from black holes, to the real possibility of parallel universes and dimensions, to be Infinitely more awe inspiring then any creation myth I have ever read. Be that the one contained in genesis, or the idea that our planet rests on the back of a giant turtle. And to be clear, I suck at math and wont pretend that I can really even properly comprehend just how amazing our actual universe is. But I do know that the reality of it is much cooler then the made up fiction of religious belief.

“Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do not have moral obligations towards rocks. To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively of negatively, questions of morality apply.”
- Sam Harris

Helping religious believers to compare the ideas of their own superstition with that of any other superstition that is not their own, is often very helpful in breaking through to them. After all, no Christian is compelled by the evidence Muslims offer that the Koran is the final true word of the one true god. And to date, I have met no Muslim who believes that Zeus is actually responsible for lightening. And why should they be? When we calmly demonstrate to them that their own long held beliefs hold an equal amount of evidence, which is to say, none, there is nowhere for their minds to go except back to the faith argument.

And this is where we have to explain that faith itself, that is belief in something for which there is no evidence, is not in any way, shape, or form, noble.

It is in fact the mechanism by which very bad ideas get passed down from adult to child. It is nothing more then the circular reasoning believers offer to themselves and each other when reality tells them the truth, that what they believe is simply false. In the same sense that the tooth fairy is false, or the idea that Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle is false.

Some will be too scared to face that reality, but others won’t. And they make it all worth the effort.

“What about all of the good things people have done in the name of God? It is undeniable that many people of faith make heroic sacrifices to relieve the suffering of other human beings. But is t necessary to believe anything on insufficient evidence in order to behave this way?”
-Sam Harris

And just to be clear, despite my opinion that some things can only be accomplished with bluntness, I don't think that is the route everyone should take, most of the time. I think there is a time and place for all of us to be blunt. And I think it is important that some people, such as Dawkins and Harris to remain blunt and lead the charge. But for the rest of the community I would simply advocate what they did with the gay rights movement. Make no secret of your non belief. Be open about it. And then lead a good, loving life alongside the believers. Just being out there is enough. Knowing that you are a non believer, and knowing that you are open to converse with them on the topic should they wish it, you create an open door that a few brave believers may have the tenacity to breach. But in order to do that you have to be honest about what you believe, whether you adopt the agnostic or atheist tag, it does us all good when you are open about it.

"You choose to speculate that science will someday find an answer to the start of all things and that that answer will not involve a prime mover in any way, shape or form" . . . . . . . "Again, it would seem more intellectually honest to say that without absolute evidence we cannot eliminate the idea of a prime mover. . "

What I stated was that to date I have seen absolutley no evidence to suggest a 'prime mover', a god, or anything of that sort. Let me try and be very clear here. I don't really know of any atheists who do absolutely rule out the possibility of some sort of god absolutley, or as you prefer to say 'prime mover'. Even Richard Dawkins prefers to use a scale when speaking about this. As an example, 10 being absolute certainty that no god exists, and 1 being that one does. Most athiests I am aware of would rate themselves a 9, Dawkins included.

Just because there is as of now no evidence or logic behind the idea of something, does not of course mean we can absolutley rule it out completely. This is the same for the tooth fairy, and santa claus. I cannot absolutley rule out the possibility that a tooth fairy exists. In the sense that the evidence absolutley proving the non existence of the tooth fairy is not absolute. Yes that is very true. However, I would not call myself a 'tooth fairy agnostic', for the same reason that I do not refer to myself as a Quezecoatal -agnostic, or a Thor agnostic, or a Jesus agnostic. Bertrand Rusell's tea pot analogy answered this question for me sometime ago. I understand that others with similiar views may still prefer the term 'agnostic', but for reasons of clarity as it refers to the common use of language I myself find atheist much more accurate.

I don't consider non belief in the tooth fairy to be a question of faith, anymore then I consider the belief that if I throw an object in the air gravity will cause it to fall back down, to be a question of faith.

And I certainly wouldn't ever equate it to the sort of faith people who believe in a personal god claim to hold. Those are two very different things, factually speaking.

When you attempt to answer the question, 'where did intelligent life come from', by positing an even greater form of intelligent life, you only compound the problem. And if you add to it that this intelligence is 'a force beyond my comprehension', all you do is relegate the question itself to a position beyond science. A position beyond testing, argument, or the tools of rational inquiry. This is what mankind has always done with questions they felt no answer was available for at the time. The majority handed it over to the clerics and witchdoctors, and instead of true knowledge mankind got superstition aka:

religion.

What if Darwin had said simply "God made it, and God is a force beyond our comprehension". That was after all the common paradigm at the time. Where then would modern biology be? God, the force, aliens, the flying speggetti monster, Jesus, Krishna, the prime mover, whatever name you want to insert, is not an answer to the question of life, it is simply a failure to seek further human understanding of our universe.

In that sense Monty Python was quite correct, science class would consist of a short one line sentence to all of life's great puzzles. . . . ."god did it".

“The average Christian sitting in the average church listening to the average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance unimaginable in scientific discourse.”
- Sam Harris

If evidence were to arise that pointed to some form of great intelligence which designed the universe, I'd love to see it and be very interested in it, to say the least. But in the absence of such evidence I see no more reason to posit a belief in some sort of personal creator diety, especially one with a cultural name such as Odin, Alah, Jesus, or Thor, then I do to posit the belief in the tooth fairy. And I certainly see the destructive nature of such beliefs systems posing a great threat to the future survival of our species. Each believing it holds the answers from the one 'true' prime mover, and each holding an equal amount of evidence for that said belief.

Which is to say, none.

Another argument some religious believers put forth is that religion itself, whether true or not, is a force for good. And along with this argument you will usually also find the fallacy that it has been atheism which has done more harm in the 20th century. This give and take answers both issues.

"People of faith do a lot of positive things because of their "stupid" belief system. History is absolutely littered with men and women who made great leaps in science, art, music, philosophy, politics, education, medicine, etc"

Though I think it's obviously true that many people who seemed religious have done many fantastic things, I think it's far less evident that they did so due to their religious beliefs. Mother Theresa, as one of many examples seemed to want to do 'good'. However, a strong case could be made that she created far more suffering then she relieved, due directly to her religious beliefs.

As far as science and art are concerned, it is true that the vast majority of great European scientists and artists in times past all claimed to be Christian. However, it is worth remembering that they were frequently tortured and killed if they did not. The wealthiest patron for artists was most often the church. And professing non belief was not an option for an artist, or tradesman seeking to feed their family.

In short, I do think a strong case could be made that the good deeds were in fact done in spite of the superstition/religion of the times. Being a non believer, or rational thinker was a rare option that was usually only available to the well connected and wealthy, such as Voltaire. For the vast majority, it was either be a Christian or else.

“The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has recorded have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.”
– Mohandas Gandhi

Christopher Hitchens offered an excellent challenge about this very topic as he went across the country earlier this year debating believers. It is simply this, name one act of charity, goodness, or kindness that can not, and is not also performed by non believers. As of yet, nobody has been able to do that.

Now here is an even easier follow up question, name an act of destruction, suffering, or evil that can be directly traced to a form of religious belief.

As we all know, that list is almost infinite.

The belief in the end times, in demons, devils, and sky gods, the bronze age edicts against things like homosexuality, birth control, etc, these are clearly all destructive beliefs. And as our knowledge of science and technology increase, making things like weapons of mass destruction easier to create, these belief systems become incompatible with human survival. It is conceivable that you will soon have a Muslim fanatic who actually does believe that his murder of innocents will warrant him a great sex life in heaven, who holds a PHD in biology or physics, and decides to perform the obvious in accord with his own deeply held "faith".

The idea that any groups "god" is the one true god, is in and of itself dangerous. As is all form of superstition. And no form of good ever requires the belief in things for which we hold no evidence.

Regarding the ‘dangers’ of atheism, the examples of Stalin and the Nazis are often pointed out by believers. This tactic has become even more prevalent due to the really silly movie ‘Expelled’, which attempts to lay out this fallacious argument. Here are some key points about that idea.

You stated: "All of those regimes were first and, formost athiest in their beginnings"

Which is simply a funadamental misunderstnding of what athiesm actually is. A-thiesm is not a philosophy. It simply dentones a lack of belief in 'God', period, end of sentence.

The destructive nature of all superstition, including of course religion, is really beyond dispute. Anyone sincerely looking at the evidence would be overwhelmed by the over all harm religion has had, and sadly continues to have. But athiesm is not some sort of philisophical counter-point. It's simply the statement of non-belief.

In the year 2008 we shouldn't need a term like athiesm any more then we should need a term like a-astrologist, or a-unicornology. I don't need to state my non belief in astology or unicorns because most intelligent folks already acknowledge it's nonsense. Of course religion is just as non-sensical, factually speaking anyway, as the belief in unicorns is, yet due to rampant ignorance the term a-theist is still quite useful.

A lack of a belief in something is not a dogma or philosophy. I don't believe in the tooth fairy either (for the same reasons I don't believe in Apollo, Odin, Quezecoatal, or Jehovah), yet my non -belief in the tooth fairy does not constitute an "anti-tooth fairy" dogma. Simply the lack of belief in imaginary things.

“One if often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.”
– Bertrand Russell

Another things that happens quite often when discussing this topic with people is that they become extremely emotional, and try and argue that by arguing against religious belief, against dogma, that you are in truth “attacking” religious people. This is clearly poor reasoning on their part, but here is how I typically answer that particular reaction.

I have no issue with Christians, anymore then I do Muslims, Scientoligists, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, Mormons, etc. I have met kind people of all faiths, and of none. What I object to is superstition itself, not individual people.

I don't think pretending to know answers to things that nobody truly knows answers to is healthy. I don't think labeling a young child a mormon, a muslim (or any other such thing) makes anymore sense then labeling a child a conservative, or a liberal. And of course, I don't think we need religion in the year 2008 anymore then we need the belief in witches, or that Zeus is the cause of lightening.

But none of that is an indictment against the potential kindness, or lack thereof of any person of any belief. There are many kind people who still hold to destructive, or at best false beliefs. The fact that they hold that belief doesn't by proxy mean that they won't be kind. And the fact that they are kind doesn't mean that the belief itself is not destructive. Some good common sense will tell you that.

In closing I want to point out a few key things. And I hope I articulated my reasons behind these points in a clear enough fashion.

First, if what we are truly seeking is the truth, then it should be carefully noted that the will to believe, and the wish to understand, are two completely different things.

And only one propels us forward.

We can’t accept something on no evidence “faith”, simply because we wish it to be so. When we do, we are no longer looking for the truth, but instead attempting to console ourselves with a delusion.

Second, that religion, faith, dogma, and belief of all sorts, is never, and should never, be rendered immune to vigorous questioning. The tools of rational and critical thinking are the most powerful allies we have on the search for truth. And when we relinquish our responsibility to use these tools when questioning others, or ourselves, or we fail to hold to even the most basic standards of ‘evidence’ for beliefs which are clearly making testable claims about the nature of the universe we live within, then we leave the world a bit darker.

The superstition that is religion can only thrive within that darkness. Religion has been given some sort of place in polite society where it is assumed to be immune from the sort of rational questioning we would give any other topic of human endeavor; and that is neither justified, or healthy.

Third, that the growth of religion, particularly of the fundamentalist kind, threatens all of us. And that is true whether we participate in the belief, or not. Not all religions, not all beliefs are equally dangerous. But any belief that is not supported by evidence poses a potential threat to us if we allow it to enter the public discourse of adult decision making.

“The fact that an unjustified belief can have a consoling influence on the human mind is no argument in their favor.”
-Sam Harris

Fourth, that questioning religion, superstition, dogma, belief, and especially the very idea of ‘faith’ itself, is never arrogant. It is in reality, a required step for all seekers of the truth.

True arrogance is the religious mind, the mind which not only claims to know that there is in fact a god, but also claims to know what that god thinks, wants, and is named.

When it comes to the great existential questions, the fact remains that scientists are ready to admit that they do not know. In fact, scientific discourse is perhaps the most honest form of dialogue in existence as it relates to forthright humility.

“Faith” that you know something about the nature of the universe, something which is in reality based on no evidence whatsoever, and therefore requires the use “faith”, is in truth, the highest form of arrogance known to man.

If you start with the premise that belief without evidence is noble, everything else falls apart. It has to.

And finally, fifth, that skepticism itself is the highest “spiritual” path. If by spiritual you mean, truth seeking.

There are far better reasons to treat others well, to help alleviate the suffering of others, and to be “good”, then an imaginary sky god and his ever present make believe security camera.

People who want to become like the Buddha, or like Jesus, seem to think that they have to believe the preposterous in order to move forward. The highest states, the states of unconditional love, do not require that you believe anything on insufficient evidence.

You don’t have to cling to imaginary things in order to go into the laboratory of your own relationships. Discover for yourself the different perspectives and truths that can alter your life for the better. And question all of it with the full light of human reasoning.

Without believing things we have no evidence for we are forced to enter the full presence of the current moment in order to experience the reality of true happiness. We don’t give ourselves a future ‘out’. And that absence of theological or dogmatic grounding is positive. It is true, it takes courage to let go. And yes, surrender is the key, and yes, now is the objective. And in that clear and naked honesty, we are in no way diminishing either the mystery, the love of life itself, the depth of human connection, the intimacy, or the potential for growth; point of fact, we just clear the way for a more authentic approach.

“Religious thought is an attempt to find an out here there is no door.”
–Albert Einstein

The action of true spirituality is engaged realism. And suffering is the result of a kind of ignorance. Not the ignorance of sincere not knowing (as a child), but rather ignorance of mis-knowing. Thinking reality is other then it is, and pretending to know things which we truly don’t know. Religion is in that sense, the formalized clinging to missknowing.

It is ritualized ignorance.

True spirituality begins with the process of letting go of all this. Releasing our attachments to the things we pretend to know, and having the courage to observe things as they really are in the moment.

True spirituality is dependent on equal measures of courage and surrender. And it never requires that you lose your respect for either intuition, or mystery. The respect of knowing how much we truly don’t know, and the respect that comes with understanding what a massive role all our millions of years of evolutionary honed intuition plays in its future discovery.

I am not suggesting the dismissal of the role creativity, inspiration, and dynamic quality plays in our lives. To the contrary. I am suggesting we clear a larger path for them.

I strongly suspect that Spinoza was right That Schrodinger, Emerson, Whitman and Watts were right. And I believe their journey was credible. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the supernatural. And understanding the distinction, that ‘I believe I know’, and ‘I know’, are two very different things, is critical to the truth seekers path.

Authenticity is the only true spiritual way. And the context of it is always the same, surrender. In this case, surrender to reality itself.

The ironic truth is that at the same time as we seek to learn about how to be happy alone, within ourselves, not due to external circumstance; we must simultanously seek to attain deeper, more authentic, and more intimate relationships with others.

It’s a balance act.

And it is not something we should ever attempt through a process of imitation. Imitation of the good, is never goodness, it is only imitation. I do believe, based on evidence, that it is in reality the truth which ultimately sets us free. And we have to be authentic to who we actually are, not who we want to pretend to be, or what we pretend to know, in order to even begin the first steps on that journey.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
–Phillip K Dick

Suggested reading:

-The end of faith by Sam Harris

-The god delusion by Richard Dawkins

-The atheist universe by David Mills

-Letter to a Christian nation by Sam Harris

-God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

-The portable atheist by Christopher Hitchens

-The ethics and selected letters by Baruch Spinoza

-Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell

-Intelligent thought “essays on science versus the ID movement” by John Brockman

-Religions, Values, and peak-experiences by AH Maslow

In my next entry I will expand some more on the concept of ‘values’. Their relationship, or lack there-of to superstition/religion. And how they effect our lives and happiness.

And I would also like to make this offer, if you are a believer, and feel you have a reasonable claim to your belief, a rational argument, then please feel free to e-mail me. I can be reached at straightblastgym@hotmail.com future responses may be used on the blog, but I will honor everyones privacy.

Live your life fully.

Rapture of Being Alive . . .

2007-10-01T23:33:00.001-07:00

Yes.

Music and Life. . .

2007-09-05T17:28:00.001-07:00

Of music, goals, gurus, life coaches and dance . . . . . a video from a man who used words far better then I ever could. On the list of people I have admired and learned from, place the late, great Alan Watts right at the top.

"Civilized people, whether Western or Eastern need to liberated and de-hypnotized from their systems of symbolism . . . . the so called physical world, and the so called human body are a single process. Differentiated only as the heart from the lungs, or the head from the feet."
- Alan Watts

You can't be a true atheist if you have not read Alan Watts.

"Each entered the forest that he had chosen where there was no path and where it was darkest"

The miracle . . .

2007-09-03T02:30:00.000-07:00

The miracle of love

comes to us

in the presence of the uninterpreted moment.

To live content with small means; to seek elegance rather than luxury, and refinement rather than fashion; to be worthy , not respectable, and wealthy, not rich; to study hard, think quietly, talk gently, act frankly; to listen to stars and birds, to babes and sages, with open heart; to bear all cheerfully, do all bravely, await occasions, hurry never.

In a word, to let the spiritual, unbidden and unconscious, grow up through the common.

This is to be my symphony.

- William Henry Channing

Follow your Bliss.

Notes on risk. . .

2007-05-21T22:49:00.000-07:00

The courage to Love is the courage to affirm against tradition whatever knowledge stands confirmed in ones own experience.

And that love is always perfect confidence.

A note from the late great Joseph Campbell:

There’s one quotation I ran into in La Queste del Saint Graal which hit me as being the essence of what I’d call the European or Western spirituality. The knights of King Arthur’s court were seated at table and Arthur would not let the meal be served until an adventure had occurred. And, indeed, an adventure did occur. The Grail itself appeared, carried by angelic miracle, covered, however, by a cloth. Everyone was in rapture and then it withdrew. Arthur’s nephew Gawain stood up and said, "I propose a vow. I propose that we should all go in pursuit of this Grail to behold it unveiled." And it was determined that that was what they would do. And then occur these lines which seem to me so wonderful:

"They thought it would be a disgrace to go forth in a group. Each entered the forest that he had chosen where there was no path and where it was darkest."
- La Queste del Saint Graal

I am headed overseas until June. . . . .carve your own path. It's always ready for you, provided your prepared to ignore everyone else who claims to know what you should be doing instead.

Most people are not prepared for that, not by upbringing, not by religion, not by school, and not by birth. They never will listen to their own inside voice, in exclusion to the authorities. It becomes not a life less ordinary, an adventure, joyful, unique and built solely for you. Rather, it's played safe, and instead it is nothing but the wasteland. Their is a better way, and it doesn't involve teachers, gurus, clergy, psychologists, new agers, or 'life coaches'. It involves just you, your heart, your soul, and a little silence.

"Each entered the forest that he had chosen where there was no path and where it was darkest"

Namaste.

Walking needles. . .

2007-01-03T12:59:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine here in Portland told me this today.

“If you look at the wisest people, you will find that most of them live alone.

It’s not because they are playing the field, chasing skirts, or anything like that. That would be equally painful. . . . It’s because they look outside at all this we see (waves arms around) and they realize that’s not it.

Sure it’s all attractive, the beautiful woman, cars, possessions, money . . . but they have realized that all of it is temporary. And all of it brings suffering.

They have learned through experience that they have to look within, that the happiness is inside, not outside, reached through self inquiry."

He continued. . .

"You know, you really can’t tell anything from the cover, from a persons looks, from the wrapping outside. We all claim to know that, but I am always still learning it.

Take her for example. . .(referring to a very pretty young woman we both just saw). . she is beautiful no doubt. Thin, nice breasts, pretty eyes, sexy haircut, cool clothes, all that stuff. . .but inside, inside she’s terrible. . . . .”She’s angry?” I asked. . . . yes, she’s just awful. See you just can’t tell from the outside. . . .”she’s angry then” I repeated. . . .part of it’s hormonal, sure.

But no, she’s just viscous inside. See you just can’t ever tell."

He continued. . .

"See there are primarily two types of people in this world. Think of them as giant walking needles.
One type comes at you, pushes in the needle, and sucks all the life and energy from you that it can.

The second type comes at you, inserts the needle, and injects this poison drug inside you. . . . .walking needles".

He continued. . .

"I was out on New Years eve, and I decided to take a walk down the waterfront. And it was a beautiful evening, and as long as I was down there on the waterfront it was really nice.

But, just one block away, one block up, by the Dixie Lounge and Chinatown. . .just one block up, it was hell. . . . . “drunks everywhere” I said. . . .Yes, woman drunk, all pushed up, sucked in, decked out. . . men drunk, blind, stupid, all of them looking so incredibly hungry.

It is a hell. . . .hell for sure.

Those are those needles I am talking about."

He continued. . .

"But there is another type of person. They are very rare, extremely rare. It’s someone who brings you pure joy. It’s very rare, and it’s such a blessing when you find them.

When you see the man with a woman like that, so joyful, you know he’s found that. . . . . .Somehow, she just knows how to nourish the joy in you. . . . . . .It’s amazing to see the change.”

“Don’t forget that. . . . .remember that”,

he said as I left.

You is. . . .

2006-11-27T02:47:00.000-08:00

. . . time.

You IS Time

Fortunate Son. . . . .

2006-08-01T07:30:00.000-07:00

“Whether the Universe is a concourse of atoms, or nature is a system, let this first be established, that I am part of the whole which is governed by nature; next, I am in a manner intimately related to the parts which are of the same kind with myself.”
- Marcus Aurelius

This also is vanity
- Ecclesiastes

It’s been awhile since I have updated this BLOG. . . . .it’s been about family, friends, and the Portland Summer, with the colors of Fall giving way to 90 degree weather, and a cool breeze.

There has been loss of friends and loved ones. Reminders to remain Authentic in relationships, and grateful for knowing those that meet along the way.

We can’t be free in any fashion if we hold the hand of fear. But we can always be thankful.

I spent one of the best Months of my life in Iceland.
I had my back tattooed.
And I jumped out of an airplane at 10,000 feet.

I went to Canada, then Singapore, an amazing zone on the map of Asia. This was followed by Nevada, and then the UK and Scotland, where I am currently.

Words of advise, count your shots when in restaurants, and count your blessings when you melt into rhythm while standing in a natural hot springs and experiencing the sensation of cold hail hitting your shoulders

I don’t have anything to express regarding all this except thank you, to those I’ve met, and those at home. I am fortunate.

“Loss is nothing else then change. But the universal nature delights in change. . .and will. . .to time without end.”
-Marcus Aurelius

We are all one.

I could go on about the land of ice and snow. Or my beautiful friend who shares a drink and smile with me when I come back to PDX. Or the Indian man that sat next to me on the way to Canada and began explaining how nice it was when you meets you. Or the question of the Month about “Why is he smiling when she is standing on him” . But at this moment that ain’t happening.

Instead I will just say that the only real demon/daemons I can actually locate, the one we all face in our own perfect time (myself included always), seems to be fear (which is a story / thought). And it has so many faces. . . .and it’s better then okay. Absence of fear, even if for a moment, is the joy that can’t be faked. And right action at right time is found there. In that there is no trying, no potential, no loss, no gain, no effort, and no rules. If someone is trying to sell that to you, don’t buy. It’s always free, and always you.

Don’t be afraid. And if you are, don’t worry. You will get home one way or the other.

“Either the gods have no power. If, then, they have no power, why do you pray to them? But if they have power, why do you not pray for them to you give you the faculty of not fearing any of the things which you fear, or of not desiring any of the things which you desire, or not being pained at anything, rather then pray that any of these things should not happen, or happen?. . . .. Not to pray: How shall I not lose this. . . but to pray: How shall I not be afraid to lose this? Pray this way, and see what comes.”
-Marcus Aurelius

My perspective at this moment is as follows. . . .hold those you love, and let them know how you feel. We never know how long they will be here for that. Listen carefully, something fantastic is reaching out to you in all those moments. And it’s only found when you stop trying.

“Let us be honest, let us have the courage and candor to say: “We do not know”. If by any possibility the existence of a power superior to, and independent of, nature shall be demonstrated, there will be time enough to kneel. Until then, let us stand erect.”
- Robert Ingersoll

Nobody in hospice ever wished they worked more. But they do want to know about this planet we share, and the regret of not traveling enough is topped only by the desire for more authentic and open connection in human relationships. More love and openess, more time with those they cared for all Years. Those are the only regrets.

The rest is profit for greedy old men, and the worship of Mammon.

There is no value in that.
Even if you win the rat race,
your still a rat . . . .

Serve something more meaningful. . . . . .and when that genuine smile pops up, the one that arises without effort and despite your opinion. . . .in that authentic space, just to the left, that’s where I’ll meet you. It’s the autonomous free zone. . .our real home.

After all. . . . .all spiritual practices are illusions, designed by illusionists, to escape illusion. And the illusion is that you are not already free.

With
inner freedom
from the snare
of image induced
illusion, delusion
and obsession,
two or more
can merge
and flow
into
the Eternal Sea
of
Love’s
Infinity,
with
myriad millions
expressing
Love and Life
in ceaseless
and joyously
changing
expressions
of
rhythm
color
and tone.

Ultimately they shall find for themselves that there is in reality only one “I”, which appears as innumerable egos, which are in fact all as temporary as passing shadows.

Parvati is calling me, I gotta go.

***

My work. . . .

2006-04-08T23:30:00.000-07:00

"Spiritual practice can never be fulfilled by imitation of an outer form of perfection."
- st John of the cross

I am going to Iceland in a day or so. I wanted to post something before I went that honestly reflected what I see in my best moments. In my worst moments this is all forgotten. Which is why I think they are my worst moments, at the time.

How do we love ourselves? = By not seeking approval outside ourselves.

It is only then that we are able to realize that we already have it.

Polite behavior is full of approval seeking disguised as consideration. When you say or do anything to please, get, influence, or control anyone or anything, FEAR is the CAUSE. . . .and PAIN is the result.

Manipulation is separation.

Separation is painful.

If you act from fear, there is no way you can receive love, because you are trapped in a thought about what you have to do for it.

"Our greatest blessings come to us by way of madness provided the madness is given to us by divine gift." -Socrates

For the personality, love is nothing more then an agreement. If I agree with you, you love me. And the minute I don't agree with you, the minute I question one of your sacred beliefs, I become your enemy.

Then you start looking for all the reasons why you are right. . . .this causes you to stay focused outside yourself. . .that is a form of self medication . .when you stay focused outside yourself and you believe your problem is caused by someone else, rather then by your attachment to the story. . . .you are your own victim.

we chase the bigger house, nicer car, larger bank account, better performance, and "positive" image. . . .until we again become frustrated with the limitations of the new form. All form is limited. And in that frustration we seek more, and more, and more. . .until we realize it is never the 'right' form. It can never bring real happiness, real peace.

Until I realize what it is beyond all form, through all form, and surrender to that.

My understanding of a person is always limited by what I think I already know. And it is true to say that I no longer believe anyone can 'change' their mind. I think you can question the mind. . .and if the questioning is sincere, then that can change the experience of thoughts.

Can I always remember the clear distinction between those two above ideas? One is authentic, and one is just an effort to manipulate. One sweeps the patterns under the table. The other cleanses them with light.

The fake smile is easy to spot, it is deliberate, and designed to extract some sort of reaction or perception from and in you. It is designed to manipulate for gain.

"You see the fact that your spiritual journey is an entirely different ball game from the path you thought you where on. It is very difficult to make that transition."
- Ram Dass

Now think of the real smile. It cannot be faked. How does it feel when it occurs? Can you always remember the difference?

Here is what I think. . . .we fear that we wont be able to tell the difference, and that fear brings about a defense which 'wants'.

The 'want' is a fear, two sides of the same coin. And the fear creates a desire. Which is almost rudundent in that desire is fear.

If the desire is strong enough. . .which is to say the fear present enough, then we will forget to notice the difference between the fake, and the geniune smile. We are too busy in those moments being distracted, and so we don't get to really feel that geniune human connection.

Long story short what fools us about peoples true motives is the fear that we are going to be fooled. Without that fear we see everything. Without desire we cannot possibly be fooled.

Think about it, without any expectation of a non existent future all there is to experience is the truth of the present moment.

There are no new thoughts. There is nothing new under the sun. It's all a reflection. . . with every moment being exactly every-thing. But only all the time.

When Jesus said, "I am the vine and you are the branches" he could have also stated "You are the Vine AND the Branches."

After all, is he talking about ONE plant or TWO there?

Manipulation is separation.

It is about Natural Being versus Trying. . . .

you cannot try to be humble. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try to be sincere. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try to be genuine. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try to be giving. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try to be authentic. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try and be ecstatic. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
You cannot try to be good. .

it just IS.

"If you begin to understand what you are without trying to change it, then what you are undergoes a transformation."
- J. Krishnamurti

People who aren't interested in seeing how everything is good, get to be right. But that apparent rightness comes with disgruntlement, depression, and separation.

What I need is what I have. This is not something to believe; rather, it is the way things are right now, whether you believe it or not.

"Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof" - The Buddha

Freedom is awareness not moved by fear or desire.

Freedom is Love.

Who knew?

*(Warning: Any expression of Matt's personality is a direct indication of a desire for something, and therefore occurs out of need. But only ever yours. Matt's personality has been shown to be harmful in large doses, so please stick with doctor recommended dosage. Though Matt's personality is sometimes absent, this is not an indication of an enlightened state, but rather may simply be a sign of fatigue. In the event of sudden realization matt's personality may become absent, in which case the makers of Matt's personality assume no responsibility for any harm this product may cause.)

Even if it was only for the Nerfman you gave me, my Love for you could never pass away.

+++ +++ +++

Either - Or & Other. . . .

2006-03-20T23:49:00.000-08:00

I have always been on the side of the heretics and against those who burned them, because the heretics so often turned out to be right. . Dead, but right.
-Edward R. Murrow.

I returned a few weeks ago from a great trip to Ireland. I left the next weekend for Berkeley CA, and have been more or less on the move since. So it has been a busy six weeks.

On this last trip to Ireland I took long time Portland Instructor and friend Travis Davison. We started the journey in Dublin, at John Kavanaghs Gym. While we were at Johns I was able to watch a very interesting documentary called "The God who wasnt there". You can see info regarding this movie here:

http://www.thegodmovie.com/pagan/

Its an interesting movie that points to the mythological, rather then historic, origins of the Christian Religion. And although none of that was new for me, it did strike me as obvious that if there was a time when people needed to watch something like this, it was now. Especially in this Country.

The part of the film that really hit me wasn't the mythological aspects of the Christian religion. Those are really easy shots to launch. What struck me was the visit the narrator of the film takes back to his fundamentalist Christian school of childhood.

Having questioned and overcome his fundamentalist roots, he asks for an interview with the current principle. Who happened to be the same administrator who was there when he was a child.

The question he asked was simply this:

"Do you think its ethical to teach children this mythology, under the guise of being factual?

Do you think its a healthy, and moral thing to do to teach children nonsense, like the idea that they will burn in eternal hellfire if they don't believe as you do?"

The principle was clearly taken back by the line of questioning. And that is what really caught my senses the most. . .he was not used to being asked questions like this. And that is because we as a society don't ask these questions of these types of people.

And the thing is this. . .they are damn good questions.

Consider this. . .should someone who believes that the Earth is actually 6000 Years old, that Adam and Eve were real people who really did eat from a piece of fruit after having a conversation with a talking snake, and that at somepoint their anthropomorphic Father God (always male) will come back to Earth to save them . . . . should someone who believes that be allowed access to nuclear weapons?

Perhaps the answer is yes . . . if they have shown themselves to be rational the rest of the time. But shouldn't we as a society at least be asking these kind of questions?

And furthermore, have you heard these types of questions asked recently?

We have handed the keys to the asylum over to the inmates without ever asking these basic questions, and then we wonder why things seem so backwards so much of the time.

We had the privilege of spending a longer period of time in Northern Ireland on this last trip. In the past I had only visit for a day or two at a time. I wanted to learn as much as a could from the people who lived there about what this old conflict was really all about. What is really going on with the whole Catholic - Protestant strife.

There is a lot of History to the whole issue. And I would encourage anyone really interested to do research. The history of the Irish struggle for Independence, the repression by the British, the Ulster Irish (many who migrated to the USA), the Loyalists, the whole thing is a very interesting piece of the human story.

But barring that, here is my readers digest version which has been reduced to my own subjective vision at the time. In short, these are just my own opinions, and can barely represent a small fraction of how complicated the whole system can be.

It comes down to the Age old evil of the "Other". The cornerstone lie which states that those "people" over there, aint you.

And I will say this, Religion (in this case Christianity) has as usual been absolutely no help in this regard. But I don't really think it is the major problem either.

The problem is attachment to a simplistic model of "who" we are. This seems to exist in its strongest form when juxtaposed against "an-other" that is not you. And if this image is threatened in anyway it always tends to turn violent.

This is a necessity because, like all forms of fundamentalism, it cannot be backed by rational thought.

And we will call this above stated problem, 'Loyalists'.

For their side it really doesn't seem to run any deeper then "We are - (insert nation/race here) - and we will stay that way!" The simple minded evil of Nationalism.

On the Catholic side it is a bit more complicated. *(note: sarcasm. ..its actually really frickin complicated). The history of the Irish Catholics under prodestent British rule is filled with an incredible amount of injustice, bigotry, and repression. It seems like the British operated more or less a plantation system. With the oldboy network receiving the land, thanks to the Queens good grace, and then farming it out to the Irish Catholics who were kept in a constant state of second class citizenship.

In short the Irish Catholics had a damn good reason to want freedom from the British. They had a cause.

Take a good look at some of the murals.

I have to admit that while I try and stay as objective as possible when I travel to places like this, you can't help but see the obvious difference between the artwork of the Loyalists factions, and that of the Irish Catholic areas.

Notice that the Loyalists Art always seems to have a gun pointed in your face, and the overall craft of the work itself is pretty poor. Then look at the artistry and images of the Catholic Art.

That is the difference between a genuine cause . . . . and the cause of "We aint them, we are better".

I would also like to say that we had a fantastic time in Northern Ireland. Everyone we met was hospitable, friendly, and good spirited. It is a great place, and much of the tension seems to be slowly going away, even if the murals remain.

It looks like a whole lot of that stress started to pass about the same time Thatcher left office.

What a coincidence.

I also dont think we have any room to speak when it comes to the issue of ignorant fundamentalists. After all, many of them our running the government of this Nation now.

I think it is fairly obvious that ALL conservatism is based on fear, always. And fundamentalists in all forms, are extreme versions of this phenomenon.

In the context of an Administration that out sources people to other Countries so they can tortured, such as Uzbekistan where they like to boil people alive, has just been caught wire tapping its own people, and too many other things to write at the moment. . . .what can you really say? These people not only belong out of public office, they belong behind bars.

It will take decades to sort out all the damage these War profiteers have done to our Nation. Sadly, their right wing familiars will distract their own voter base with meaningless issues, and superficial ploys to elicit emotional reactions, such as the "war on Christmas" and other such nonsense, and so it goes. And people consistently fall for it. In that sense, we get the government we deserve.

But here is the thing, the really silly ploys like 'wars on Christmas', will fall apart completely on their own. Witness Bill O'Reilly who went on the David Letterman show and when cornered by Letterman to produce some evidence of this nonsense trotted out one of three stories he offers. The one related to a school play.

The problem was of course that O'Reilly is completely dishonest. The play was actually a Christmas play, one that goes from church to church in that area. And Letterman, having Millions of times the viewers that O'Reilly has, allows O'Reilly to make his point for him.

For those willing to pay attention this is a daily affair, as these simplistic reactionaries make up the facts as they go. But it's only a matter of time before even the people who tend to fall for these slogans begin to realize they have been duped. And that the O'Reillys, Hannitys, and Limbaughs of the world consistently lie to them on a daily basis.

This shows an unbelievable amount of disdain for the intellect of their own fan base. As for now they simply take it for granted that their "folks" wont ever fact check. But that will change.

Let me state again that I am an absolute optimist. I think that every generation becomes more aware, more rational, and more evolved in terms of consciousness then it's preceding generation.

There are always exceptions of course. And they let us measure the change. But as a general principle I can see that reality tells us this is so. And for proof I would offer history itself.

For example, the idea that owning slaves is ok, or that women should not be allowed to vote, or hold property, the lack of any labor laws, or any child labor laws, segregation as a concept, that mass murder of Native Americans is a good thing. . . .the list goes on and on.

All these things are now considered absurd. But there was also a time when to question any of these things you would have been considered a 'radical'. And you would certainly have been out of the mainstream. Out of step with the public opinion of the time.

The vast majority of the population is completely opposed to all of the above now. Yet at one time in our society, all of the things above where considered the "norm".

Now, anyone advocating these positions would be considered a bigot. And rightfully so.

And just like when members of our generation look back on our great grandfathers generation, and they cannot understand why mixed race couples dating was considered 'immoral' and illegal by the majority at the time. . .there will be a time when our grandkids will look back on our generation with a certain wonderment at how so much of our population could be so backwards, on so many things.

One of the main conservative myths is that are ancestors (even our grandfathers generation) where some how 'more' moral.

This idea is of course completely backwards factually speaking. And yet it is always a side belief of conservatives. A poorly thought out assumption based in ignorance and supported by fear. But one that they absolutely need in order to preserve the terror of the unknown future. . .something that is key to the whole paradigm.

Try reading "Huck's Raft", a historical account of the methods considered 'normal' when educating young kids in the past. To say that they were disgusting would be an understatement. To say they were common place would be factual.

Obviously, many of the people advocating certain conservative positions in our time will eventually be labeled bigots as well. And they will be just as embarrassed regarding their past positions, as Jerry Falwell is regarding his support of segregation.

I think about our imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WW2, and I am reminded of current affairs. I think about civil rights for minorities, and I am reminded of current affairs.

So with all that said I have to explain my reasons for being such an optomist, and they are pretty simple.

People die, I am an optimist because people die.

The bitter old men who argued for slavery didn't change their minds. They eventually all died off. The bigots in the South who argued for segregation didnt wake up one day and realize that we are all equal in Gods eyes. Nope, most of them just died off.

And currently?

Sure we have some lunatic fundamentalists that conclude that two women, or two men, who love each other and wish to have all the rights that come with a full legal commitment, should never be allowed to do so. . .and some how they also feel its their business to tell them no. In their twisted logic, they fear it will affect their own marriage. Bizarre but true.

Besides the obvious stupidity that says someone "chooses" to be gay, or straight, there is the reality that many of these people already raise children. Many of these couples are families, and are raising healthy, happy, beautiful kids. And yet we would deny our brothers and sisters the right to legally make this relationship official?

Why? Because we have taken seriously the ramblings of a few loud mouth simpletons who believe that a rapture is going to come take them out of their SUV's sometime soon, and homosexuality is a choice. After all it must be in order to be a sin to God right?

But here is my reason for optimism again. . . .when polled as to whether gay marriage should remain illegal, 80% of the youths under the age of 25 stated flatly, absolutely no.

So no, the current generation of bigots probably wont come around. A few might, and there is always that hope for the individual. But in large number no, they wont change their opinion.

But, they will all die eventually. And that is how our system betters itself.

When society as a whole is undergoing major changes in perspectives, it will always cause a certain fear based backlash by the cells of the organism which can't adapt.

Sometimes the entire process may take several generations, as the old cells need to die off. But they always do, and change always occurs. And I would offer, always for the better.

Fundamentalism is just a contraction to the past based on fear, ignorance, and self hatred, and it always fails.

The only question is whether or not it will occur in our lifetime, or our grandkid's lifetime.

That is my own optimistic view anyway. And as I stated, its a fairly easy case to make when looking back on history.

If you have read this BLOG before then I can imagine this question:

"How can you judge fundamentalism as obscene, if you also believe everything is in the end ruled by determistic laws. Without any force of free will?"

There are a variety of ways to explain that process, and apparent contradiction in paradigms. We could say big picture, small picture. Or using Buddhist terminology we could say absolute and relative truths. The difference between the two in conversations causes an extreme amount of confusion at times.

As a practical example, I would say that slavery in the USA was by definition, "obscene". At the time however many religious people used scripture as a rationalization for it's existence.

Now that may seem silly to us today, and I would agree that most Christians in the USA would call slavery "obscene" now, in 2006.

However, I would also point out that many, not all, but many "Christians" 200 Years ago would not call slavery obscene. In fact, it may have seemed out of the mainstream to think so.

Segregation is another good example. How many white Southern Christians believed segregation was 'obscene' in the 1920's?

I have no doubt that some did, but was it the majority?

Again, I would bet that the majority, though not all, of Christians in the South would now say that segregation is obscene.

But I also know that as recently as the 1960's it was a huge controversy that Billy Graham did not allow segregation in his services. And as a result, he was often barred from using churches, and found himself having to rent out town halls, and other buildings, for his preaching.

That said, the current generation certainly finds slavery and segregation to be obscene. At least the majority within this Country.

I would call that process of change evolution.

Not evolution of the biological kind, but rather an evolution of thought, of consciousness, of the 'grid', or what we perceive as reality for our world. And I think that in retrospect we came to that position through a process of trail and error.

Through suffering.

And we. . .using "we" in the broadest sense, as in mankind, culture at large, etc, learn from those experiences. . .and that changes our reality.

And that is the answer to the question, as well as a very important point. . . .I am not a believer in "destiny".

There is an assumption that if their is no 'free will' as it is thought of by most people, then everything must therefore be fate. And that is not factual.

One does not automatically imply the other.

You can think it out yourself and realize that for yourself. I will write more on this later.

I was asked in a round about way recently, by a semi sincere questioner, as to whether my business was affected in the middle part of the Country. The unstated implication being that the sharing of views as I try and do, and as I try an encourage, would show a negtaive effect on my job.

All I could really think as he was wandering around that topic was this. . ."Are we really that F^*$ing shallow?"

Cesar Chavez told his early supporters that it would be a hard sacrifice when it comes to starting the union. That some of them would serve as posts, and others as boards, and that together they would form the bridge. Understanding that many others would walk over them to a better place. And he spent 22 hours a day organizing, while living his own life of relative poverty, in order to do just that. Here was a true American hero. A man who sacrificed much. . .

. . . .and we are afraid to stand up to a local Church which wants to ban Catcher in the Rye cause it aint Christian enough? Or we find ourselves worried that by stating the obvious against those that take the positions of bigots, we may turn a few people away?!

Would we let something as minor as that scare us off from standing up for what we believe in?

Do we really still believe that the pursuit of wealth is where its at? Have we never actually read what Jesus Christ had to say on that topic?

Have we figured out yet that being in the 'majority' isnt usually a good thing? And that being 'radical' is rarely a bad thing?

Are we really that fucking shallow?

I think we are much stronger that that.

So the question is, if change occurs, if evolution is a reality. . .does that therefore mean there is a 'designer' a planner, or even an 'individual' who is "free" (also, does one 'automatically' imply the other? You can use reasoning and conclude it does not) to make that change.

And I think that question has already been answered. . . . .and I also think it will take us several generations for the implications of that answer to really sink in, and filter through our cultures. And I think that will be a good thing when it does.

And by good thing, I use 'good' not in a "moralistic" sense of the word, but good in a practical sense. . .ie: less suffering, more happiness and Love.

On pretending to know what God does or does not do on tending his garden...

"God is the Garden"
- Albert Einstein

*** *** ***

Superstition, sustention, & sanity. .

2006-01-31T16:17:00.000-08:00

I am headed to Ireland tomorrow.

I have a lot of things I want to write about regarding the "either - or - us - them" weirdness that seems to be invading the American consciousness. I'll hit all that when I get home.

In the meantime I wanted to share this piece written by Thomas W. Clark. I think it points to a really important debate that is the hidden force behind the so called "culture war" that is raging in the USA at the moment.

The age old battle between superstition and science, progress and stagnation, patterns and freedom, left and right, all comes down to a single point of contention. . .the irrational belief in a certain kind of individual 'free will'. And understanding the distinction between these two models is, in my own opinion, the most important social issue all of us will deal with in these next few generations.

Underneath arguments about crime and punishment, overseas policy, warfare, education, poverty, and "values", underneath all of it, exists this one simple distinction in understanding. And I believe firmly that it will, in the end, be the decisive shift in thinking that will move us all, entire societies, forward to a more enlightened, loving, and happy place.

Here is the passage from Thomas Clarke's article:

"In his book The Moral Animal. Wright predicts that the increasing success of scientific explanation will compel us to admit that "we are all machines, pushed and pulled by forces that we can't discern but that science can." But, he argues, it is through understanding these forces, not denying them, that we might become truly moral animals and responsible citizens.

Virtue, like crime, has its roots not in a mysterious freedom of choice, but in concrete social circumstances which we can learn to control. While making his case, Wright points out that Charles Darwin never bought the free will myth either, although he kept quiet about it.

Not surprisingly, however, Wilson and Wrights prescription to abandon free will is a very tough sell, since most of us resent the seemingly drastic drop in status implied by full-bore determinism. Few of us want to concede our souls to mechanism.

For example, consider that commentaries on the new genetics often include reassuring references to a human exemption from causality. On these accounts, the environment, or character, or perhaps some non-physical personal essence, gives us a special freedom. Determinism is restricted to what is clearly biological, leaving wiggle room for the self-made self.

Cases in point: At a conference on genes and society in Cambridge last year, a speaker worried that we are succumbing to genetic determinism, the idea that DNA shapes nearly everything about a person. But such determinism is false, he argued, since the environment too contributes heavily to behavior and personality. The soothing implication was that environmental influences are somehow less constraining than genetics.*

*(Ask yourself does the idea that 'environmental influences are somehow less constraining than genetics' make sense?)

Similarly, in a Time magazine profile of DNA researcher Dean Hamer, J. Madeleine Nash wrote that "What people are born with, says Hamer, are temperamental traits. What they can acquire through experience is the ability to control these traits by exercising that intangible part of personality called character." Here again, experience (read environment) and character come to the rescue, overriding the mechanistic clockwork of our genes.

However, its been clear for some time that environmental influences are no less determining than genetics, and that character is set by circumstances as much as biology. As B. F. Skinners work in behaviorism showed, the molding effect of the environment is powerful and often predictable, and recent research on the neural "reward pathway" in the brain has laid the groundwork for understanding precisely how the self is shaped by experience.

Science holds that we are, in toto, the products of a prodigiously complex dance between nature and nurture, which means that it banishes the self-originating self just as surely as ghosts and goblins.

But even scientists who realize that the environment offers no refuge from determinism will sometimes flinch, and offer the traditional reassurance that we might be miniature first causes.

Speaking at another conference on genetics, Francis Collins, director of the National Center for Genome Research at the National Institutes of Health, said "Even when we completely understand all of the genes, what happens to us will be a result of interactions of genes, environment, and free will, which wont go away as a consequence of understanding our biology" (emphasis added).

Some hope to find free will lurking in the indeterminacy of quantum physics, or in the unpredictability of chaotic systems, but it seems strange to suppose that people should be held responsible for what befalls them haphazardly.

Others will insist that, like God, we have powers of self-creation that transcend science and the natural world. But as British philosopher Galen Strawson reminds us in a recent Times Literary Supplement piece on free will, no finite creature whether material or ethereal can literally bootstrap itself into existence.

Even though determinism presently disturbs us, as science progresses we might eventually get used to the idea of being very complex, but non-mysterious organic mechanisms, or "meat machines," as artificial intelligence guru Marvin Minsky, Stephen Pinkers colleague at M.I.T., so unpoetically puts it.

Well see, following Wilson and Wright, that we are still gripped by morality and that the law doesnt lose its teeth. Nor, just because we admit that we havent built our motives and character from the ground up, will we become any less unique, or creative, or committed in what we do. Cravings, ambitions, and altruistic concerns will still have their way with us.

However, we might become a little less egocentric in taking credit for our accomplishments, and a little more wary of piling on blame for "failures of will."

By dropping the idea that people essentially create themselves, well likely pay more attention to fostering the social and economic conditions which bring out the best in us.

And to the extent that the notion of uncaused free will fuels the desire for retribution, support for the death penalty and other needlessly harsh punishments should diminish.

Of course there is no telling exactly how things might change, were we to accept the fact that its not just genes that determine us, but our surroundings as well.

But if we find ourselves regretting the loss of what now seems an illusory freedom, we are more than compensated by knowing that to have what we want . . . even poetry . . . we need not be more than we actually are."

- Thomas W. Clark

Questioner: One seer speaks in the terms of Christianity, another in those of Islam, a third of Buddhism, etc. Is that due to their upbringing?

Ramana: Whatever may be their upbringing, their experience is the same. But the modes of expression differ according to the circumstances.

Questioner: Last night you said God is guiding us. Then why should we make an effort to do anything?

Ramana: Who asks you to do so?

+++ +++ +++

Darwin, Purpose, & Electric Gold. . .

2005-12-16T01:37:00.000-08:00

A friend recently said to me that the only good reason to ever write, is because you have to.

I have not had to write in awhile. So other then a few notes, quotes, and memos, I have not sat down to put much out. A lot has happened within the last several Months. And those experiences have floated about in memory for a bit, until I realized I had to write. So here it is, and on a positive note, I also view it as a kind of safety mechanism. It helps ensure a sense of authenticity. I am not a good enough writer to ever fake that.

To begin with I had the chance a few weeks ago to attend a live video conference with the movie Director David Lynch. What interested me was not just the fact that it was David Lynch, who is brilliant, but also the title of the video conference. . . .consciousness and unity as related to the creative process.

Talk about a title.

He began by talking about recent revelations that have occurred to him, and how this relates to the unicity of mind, universe, and self. But I was hooked at unicity. He spent a lot of time talking about meditation, and tapping into that dynamic source of mind for creative breakthroughs in Art, and meaning. He talked about the importance of Authenticity, and he had an obvious faith based on past observation, that if you truly were following your bliss, then all else would follow. He expressed that the variety of Artistic mediums he used was directly related to the need he has to stay creative. And I am really sure he expressed all of it much better then I am writing above. I didn’t take notes, and I didn’t try and memorize his exact use of metaphor. But he used a lot.

He then fielded a whole lot of questions. A lot of these were related to movie making, which was interesting to me in the sense of anyone who is great at their craft being interesting when they share the discoveries that have come as a result of that. And he also answered a few about movie stars I can’t remember.

But two questions in particular really captured my attention.

The first was a question asked by a clearly uber cool, way too hip, angst ridden, I am a dangerous artist type. He questioned Lynch on the ‘edge’ that might be lost when an artist takes on that optimistic, evolution of consciousness, there is only one, type of realization. How that may lead to a more soft and fluffy type of message. . .to the loss of that crucial hint of darkness, the loss of that artistic edge.

Lynch, without pausing even a breath for thought, ripped open the questioner immediately by saying. . . .yes, I used to be that person myself. I used to think that playing that dark, moody, artist role would get me laid more. And it did. And I identified with that, and so I thought I needed it for that quality. But then I realized that was just an act. It was bullshit. And it left me. . . . . . . . . the questioner sat down.

The second question was about the process of revelation. The movement of real transformation, which seems to also at times lend itself to severe emotional lows. The highs of authentic introspective realizations can often mark just how low the daily operating level of consciousness we each display can be. Which when measured against such an extreme high, or chased after, becomes a low which can feel seriously debilitating at times. It was a process that every authentic artist, craftsman, thinker, lover, or joker, knows all too well.

Everyone nodded at the problem presented.

So when dipping as far into that dynamic well as you are proposing Mr Lynch, how can we prevent those lows?

Again, without any pause, Lynch started asking the questioner to close his eyes and visualize something in the mind. He said:

“Imagine that mind is like the empire state building. And it has thousands and thousands of rooms. And many of those rooms remained unused, are dark, dusty, and have not been opened in years.

And then imagine that the Empire State building produced this amazing energy. And this energy was beautiful, like ‘electric gold’. . . .but sometimes this energy gets stuck, sometimes it doesn’t come out of the building as it should. So you have to get inside the building and clean it out.

So you have hundreds of these robots. And these automatic robots go through the building, room by room. They enter all the old rooms which had not been cleaned in decades. And they clean each room. . .step by step, through the entire building”

Now the small crowd at the video conference is looking around nervously? What is he saying?

And then he said. . .”And you have to imagine that those robots tend to kick up a lot of old dust, a lot of old stuff, and its going to float in the air for a bit, and make things murky. . . .he paused. . . . .But the thing is, the electric gold just keeps flowing through.

I might have just massacred David Lynch’s metaphor here. But trust me, I had an honest moment of. . .”Oh”. He is a great speaker, and you can’t possibly plan what he brings in the moment.

Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.
-Mark Twain

I watched an interview with two of Americans top scientists in the fields of biology, and evolution. James Watson, and E.O.Wilson talked about Darwin, evolution, and DNA. It was one of the most fascinating interviews I have seen in a long time.

What struck me were their answers to questions related to modern day evolution. Does what we know of evolution, DNA, and conditioning leave room for “evil”, for that sort of ‘choice’?

No, and the realization of that can lead to a different take on crime and punishment, and civilizations as a whole.

Does mankind still evolve?. . .absolutely.

Then the natural question. . . . . is man evolving for the ‘better’?

And the answer was that the preponderance of evidence suggests that we are evolving to be nicer human beings.

When asked how that relates to the incredible extremes of violence we now seem to have, Wilson’s answer was. . .”Just imagine what it was like 20,000 Years ago.”

He had a point.

“It is remarkable how much trust we have in each other as human beings now. All things considered.”

I want to sit in a room with those guys and ask them a hundred questions.

I’ll share the one minor point I had with how they presented their ideas. They rejected flat out the process of revelation, as a tool. That would be fine, except they then went on to articulate the fact that Darwin was perhaps the most important man who ever lived. Also ok. But this belief was based on the fact that for whatever reason, Darwin was able to, by simply looking around at his surroundings and thinking, realize to a large degree where we all came from.

It was similar to how I have heard Scientists, who are really familiar with the history and theories of Albert Einstein, describe the process he used when realizing his world changing revelations. A paradigm shift so vast, that only an incredibly creative, intuitive pull of energy, can bring it into focus.

It is the kind of thing that comes through to us. . . . .if I wanted to go out on a limb I could even describe it as God reaching out and making contact with itself.

So at that level of realization, what similarities would a Darwin or Einstein share with say a Shakespeare, or Mozart? Speaking only for my own idea on the subject, I think that thing they share sometimes gets undervalued by experts that come from fields that measure nature. And I think that is probably just fine.

I think that is what poetry is for.

It is you who will define which I you think of, when you say I.
-Ram Dass

A Bodhisattva set off on a journey to meet the Buddha. As he walked he ran into a man on the road sitting in the lotus posture meditating. Only this man had not bothered to find a shady spot in the road, so his skin had become rough. When the Bodhisattva asked the man what he was hoping to achieve, the man said he believed absolutely in the force of will. That if he just had the strength, the power, the discipline, then he would be able to achieve freedom. And then he said. . . . . “when you see the Buddha ask him long it will be until I become enlightened”. . . and the Bodhisattva agreed.

A few days later the Bodhisattva came to a different man who was camped by the side of the road. This man was dancing, laughing, and singing. There were children playing about, and women dancing and laughing, food, and wine, and a festive, joyful mood. And then the man stopped dancing for a brief moment, and he asked the Bodhisattva . . . .”when you see the Buddha ask him how long it will be until I become enlightened.”. . . .and the Bodhisattva agreed.

He then went on and had his meeting with the Buddha.

On the way back he ran across the man he had met first on his journey . . . .by this time the man was almost dead. He had worked himself ceaselessly during the day, and had maintained an austere meditation practice in the evening. . . almost dead, absolutely miserable, the man asked the Bodhisattva. . . .”when did the Buddha say I would attain enlightenment?!”. . . .”The Buddha said, 6 more lifetimes". . . . . .”oh that’s horrible, I can’t stand it!”, yelled the man. And he began weeping.

A few days later the Bodhisattva ran into the second man he had seen on the road. When the man saw the Bodhisattva approaching, he stopped dancing and ran over to greet him. . . . .”when did the Buddha say I would attain enlightenment?!”. . . . . . “You see that large tree over there, the one with all those leaves? The Buddha said that every leaf on that tree represents a hundred more lifetimes”. . . . . . . . . .. . . .”Is that all?!” said the man, and he began dancing and singing, even more joyfully, exuberantly then he had before.

And at that moment he became free.

”I'm curious to know where J.Krishnamurti states there's free will.”

"From a scientific point of view, the question either is not raised, because free will appears only as a subjective feeling and never as a verifiable fact; or should be answered in favour of determinism, because there is no verifiable evidence that any personal decision is not a reaction to prevailing circumstances, an automatic response to biochemical reactions in the brain.

For all materialists, who consider the mind to be a function of the brain, there can be no free will. Only if the minds or the souls are independent entities is it possible to assert their freedom, whereas if they are mere processes or functions of the body no such freedom is possible.

The decisive question, thus, is whether the soul is a separate, independent entity. For a dualist philosopher, it is. But then he has to face the problem of how to explain the interaction between body and soul: if the soul is a separate substance, an entity which does not depend on the body, then how is one to account for the remarkable effects of physical conditions on the soul's reactions, or inversely how is one to explain the supposed control of the soul over the body?

For a nondualist, who sustains that everything appears in Consciousness, and that there is only that One Consciousness, there is no such thing as free will, because all individual body-minds are not real entities, but mere appearances without substance. Where there is no real doer, there cannot be a free will.

What regards Consciousness Itself, being the only and ultimate subject, It is not an object. It is thus free of attributes or qualities. It is free of action, free of decisions, free of choices, free of will. It is pure Freedom."

Miguel-Angel Carrasco

I think the problem that some very rational people have with the idea that we as human beings are evolving, and that this evolution is for the better, is that it seems to posit a kind of “purpose”. And that raises a lot of flags for a lot of really bright people.

But my take on it is this, the above stated distaste for the concept is based entirely on a simple confusion between consciousness, and time.

All biological and organic things have a sense of time. That is, they are temporary. They are governed by a set of guidelines we call chemistry and physics, and like all things that can be measured, are transitory. And I think that is an important thing to remember, especially when it comes to happiness.

Evolution, or the reality of it, is a fact. In the sense that the Sun, or stars are a fact. The idea that humans are evolving to become "nicer" is simply the preponderance of evidence, as agreed upon by people who have the greatest expertise in their specific fields of measurement.

The idea that this is a "purpose" is a linkage we make in our own minds, but not actuality itself. They can be independent, that is things can be evolving for the better, while at the same time lacking a purpose. It is only desire that creates a purpose. That does not mean that 'purpose' is an actual thing. Purpose is subjective, except as related to measurable phenomena.

But even here a better term might be likelihood. . . .it is likely, that when throwing a ball into the air, it will fall back down. We call that gravity. This does not therefore mean that gravity is the purpose of that phenomena.

They have asked people who were in the last stages of a terminal illness, what things do they most regret, or wished they had done in their lifetime.

Nobody said they wished they had made more money, or worked harder.

The two most common answers were these. . . I wish I had spent more time with those I love.

And I wish I had traveled more, and related more to this planet, this home we share.

“If at first an idea is not absurd, there is no hope for it.”
-Einstein

***

8 December 1980. . . .

2005-12-08T01:31:00.000-08:00

"I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong." - John Lennon

"I'm not going to change the way I look or the way I feel to conform to anything. I've always been a freak. So I've been a freak all my life and I have to live with that, you know. I'm one of those people."
- John Lennon

"You don't need anybody to tell you who you are or what you are.

You are what you are!" - John Lennon

"You're just left with yourself all the time, whatever you do anyway. You've got to get down to your own God in your own temple. It's all down to you, mate." - John Lennon

9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980

“The nature of the Universe loves nothing so much as to change things which are and to make new things like them. For everything that exists is in a manner the seed of that which will be.”
- Marcus Aurelius

+

Imagine. . .

2005-12-05T00:22:00.000-08:00

Lennon of course. . . . . .but I realized that a lot of us still have this dream.

And although a lot of people may call it naive, it may be only if I demanded to see it in my liftetime.

But I think I have reconciled with the reality that it will most likely take many-many generations for this revolution of evolution, this change in consciousness, to take place.

And I think the genuine feeling within oneself that the whole process, the passing of the generations, and the long evolution of time itself, is truly ok, or better stated, incredibly miraculous. . .is a cool thing.

And without a doubt, something worth waiting for.

I don't have much else to say at the moment. Except that maybe everything else I have written here has been true. But only as seen from a point in time. Just like everything else, including our own being. And it's all ok to say, and think through. And that life does not have to be a constant struggle.

Love is joy.

'If I was in your position, I'd put down all my ammunition

I'd wonder why it had taken me so long.

But lord know I is not you
And if I was I wouldn't be so cruel
Cause waiting on Love ain't so easy to do.'

-Jack Johnson

Death never hails
Recycled cans
Get well cards to the hostage vans.

- Beck

Those lyrics have been in my head lately, now they are in yours.

"Question Authority, and think for Yourself."
- Timothy Leary

*

Incarnari, Anger, & Maya. .

2005-10-20T01:15:00.000-07:00

Erwin Schrödinger was not a crazy hippie.

Erwin Schrödinger was born in Vienna in 1887. In 1933 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics, and is widely considered to be one of the most brilliants Scientific minds of the last Century.

I wonder how many people will read Erwin Schrödinger’s classic, “What Is Life?” and instead of memorizing and the regurgating some selected passages which allow one to be graded on a scale as compared to how well others memorize and regurgitate. . . . .instead of that hamster wheel route. . .I wonder how many people will join him on that great search?

The original Catholic publishers of What Is Life refused to publish the book.

Regarding Anger. . . .

Cells communicate. That is how the organism operates, grows, changes, moves, rests, and evolves . . . . .cells communicate.

As I see it, the cell/human primate communicates through a few basic means. . .sound, sight, modes of touch, and the exchange of symbols/items. When the signal is interpreted a certain way, the cell moves on, or the cell joins a larger structure for a period of time.

Could we say is as it should be?

If so, then there is no rational reason for the existence of anger post the event itself. And by that I am not implying that there should not be anger. . . . .to the contrary. Instead I am asking. . what evolutionary function does it serve, and why would it have been a trait that stays from generation to generation?

“Of course, as soon as a goal is conceived, spontaneity is at once destroyed and the self-consciousness of the ego-entity, with its sense of personal doership, takes over. From then on, the vision is pin pointed on the goal, thus missing everything really worthwhile in life.

The ‘purposeful’ life indeed misses the purpose of day to day living, which is to enjoy the unity in the duality and the multiplicity of life. It is only when the ego-entity realizes this fact that there springs the sense of total freedom, and then comes the floodlight of true vision, which misses nothing and enjoys everything. Then spontaneous action, not being in conflict with the natural course of events, with What Is, enables the man of true understanding to be fully receptive through his senses to the entirety, of the universe.”
-Ramesh Balkesar

I would offer that one theory for its life span as a program would be that it serves a useful function to the organism. On both a large and local scale. In the moment its uses are clear, as a means of self preservation of the species. But beyond the event itself. . . what about the lasting anger brought about through memories of a past event, bitterness, anguish, harshness, animosity, malice, irritability, hatred, malevolence, and all the overall misery such thoughts bring. . . .what purpose would they serve?

I have given that a lot of thought, having experienced that state my self. . .many times (anger). The only rational answer I can find is this. . . .those emotions serve as warning signals. . . signals primarily to the organism feeling them primarily. . . .and they are a warning that that person is ignoring something. And as long as that some-thing is ignored, some form of anger will arise.

Part of the mechanism of that anger seems to be an internal story, one that when repeated elicits a certain reaction. . .emotional, train of thought, experience. I recognize that this sounds like an inter related chain of events which feeds of itself, a story creates anger, the anger is a warning that the story is serving in some capacity as a mask, covering a broader, deeper issue that the individual themselves is trying to ignore.

Therefore, the only logical response is to invite it. . .and then to look through it, under it, behind it, at what is really going on. And the more we push it away, hide, ignore, as opposed to invite, open to, and observe, the angrier we will feel.

It is a warning signal to the organism that something is not right. The something is inside the organism itself, and it is not being looked at by the organism itself. . . .so a warning signal is fired up. Someone committed to misery as a form of self identification will ignore the warnings, and in so doing increase their frequency, and intensity. . .until at some point, some time, it breaks down, and breaks out.

“How can I tell what I think until I see what I say?”
-E. M. Forester

So the only rational option is. . . .invite it.

I believe this is why all the great spiritual mystics, prophets, and leaders, have always warned against anger. By warning I mean describe, and by describe I mean understand. Not because it is a “sin”, or even because it will most likely be part of a much larger chain of events which usually bring more sorrow to all parties involved. Even though that last sentence is factual. No, I think they all spoke about anger as they did because they knew that the size and frequency of it was a direct link to the internal sirens that attempt to wake us when we stray to far from the path of freedom, truth, and love.

But that is just my opinion now.

I am asked a lot about goal setting. It is a good conversation starter because the views I have expressed on the subject seem so counter-intuitive. But if I were to speak the absolute truth then I would have to admit that life as contracted ego is always a form of hell. That is, always when measured against its alternative, an open, present, and loving state of being. . .now. One equals competition with all ‘others’. And one equals communion with all ‘others’. Just a taste is enough to make me thrash about in the darkness and shadows for a few Years. Its just another way of avoiding the obvious, the decent of the curtain.

To miss nothing, and enjoy everything.
To own nothing, and feel everything.
To want nothing, and be everything.

“The nature of the Universe loves nothing so much as to change things which are and to make new things like them. For everything that exists is in a manner the seed of that which will be.”
- Marcus Aurelius

Maya = that which can be measured

That which can be measured = Temporary

But only always.

Maya - Temporary - Always

Kant declared ‘freedom of will’ to be one of only three metaphysical problems beyond the grasp of the human intellect. . . .and I don’t believe him.

The basic problem I believe many people think exists with this concept is a potential for misuse in terms of behavioral changes. The idea/fear that without a belief in personal thought, choice, and responsibility, the world as we know it would fall into some form of immoral chaos.

Kropotkin’s anarchist theory fits well here. The established harmony of the universe cannot be disturbed because all things within the universe are interrelated. Likewise, social order will emerge of itself, even from anarchy if people are left alone to find for themselves what pleases them and are allowed to follow their nature and bent of mind, because individuality is intrinsic in the community and the order of nature is not a forced order.

The idea/fear that without a belief in personal thought, choice, and responsibility, the world as we know it would fall into some form of immoral chaos. . . . doesn’t make sense in light of a concept which would if true, be operating presently.

Which makes the only relevant question, how am I behaving now, and has this information effected behavior.

There are people who are stuck, fixed, generally set, in the idea that they need a belief in personal will. . . .the fear being that without it their own life would be far more painful.

When in reality, using this concept, even the choice to believe in ‘choice’ would be determined.

“No problem can be solved by the consciousness that created it.”
-Albert Einstein

Jon Franklin, in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Molecules of the Mind, asserted that our belief in free will is itself determined:

“And so, multileveled Mother Nature, wry and cruel but at times strangely benevolent, has inserted a mechanism, in the human mechanism, to prevent that mechanism from fully comprehending its mechanistic nature.”

But there is a glitch in the system. Derrida knew where it was, but the expression of that is impossible. It can only be pointed to, or symbolized in one form or another.

“Do you understand the depth of this mystery?
Man who is so little among the visible creatures,
a shadow and a dust grain, possesses in the
centre of his being God in entirety.”
- St Symeon ‘the New Theologian’ (949ad)

Schrödinger called the Upanishads, “this grandest of thoughts”, and often makes reference to Vedantic visions in his work.

“Consciousness is the only one, singular, identifiable with its universal Source. The perceived spatial and temporal plurality of consciousness or minds is just an appearance or illusion.”
-Erwin Schrödinger

“Knowledge, feeling and choice (which you call your own) are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive being.”
-Erwin Schrödinger 1925

“Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown (perhaps therefore, a more appropriate word could be ‘Unicity’); that there is only one thing and that what seems to be plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced through deception.”
-Erwin Schrödinger 1944

“There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one Mind.”
-Erwin Schrödinger 1955

“The plurality of sensitive beings is mere appearance (maya); in reality they are all only aspects of the ONE being.”
-Erwin Schrödinger 1961 (shortly before his death)

If you find the concept of non-doership, which Buddha phrased as: ‘Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof”. . .acceptable because it appeals to your sense of logic and reason. . . .but you cannot truly surrender to the reality of non doership, then pay attention to what Francis Crick (who won the Nobel Prize in medicine for deciphering the DNA code), had to say on the subject:

“You, your joys, sorrows, memories, ambitions, your sense of identity, free will and love are no more then behaviors of a vast assembly of nerve cells.”

People have often wondered how we could believe for so long that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and regarding this question Wittgenstein replied:

“How would it have looked, if it had looked as if the Earth went around the Sun?”

Think about it. . . .the same.

So it is no wonder people hold so tightly to folk theories.

“All reality is one in substance, one in cause, one in origin.”
-Giordano Bruno (16th Century)

Note to self: Giordano was burned at the stake by the Conservative Church of the time

I have friends that wonder why bother with the any of this at all. But I have a fairly firm conviction that if every individual ego does a thorough and honest investigation into their own personal experience, they will come to the unmistakable conclusion that every single action that they thought was ‘their’ action turns out in reality to be a reaction to an earlier happening over which they had absolutely no control.

But only every single time.

I am not talking about the surrender of defeat. . .that is the path all people who offer a method revolving around ‘action’ will be forced to admit at some point. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a much higher level of surrender.
One that remains stronger then any show of force, will, or effort, by its very nature, at every single moment.
But if we are not independent entities, with choice of action, and responsibility for that action, then how do I conduct my daily life in the world? Or from another thought process. . .how can I stay moral, stay ‘good’, with such a belief system? Or more properly stated, why would I? After reading those last two sentences it must be obvious why I would refer to those questions as coming from a shallower thought process, because the answer to the question exists within the belief system itself.

“The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me”
- Meister Eckhart

“The I with which I see god is the same I with which God sees me”

“Racing along from subject to subject – a drifting panorama of ever changing, ever dissolving views manufactured by my mind without any help from me.”
-Mark Twain

I have read theories that matter/energy is a product of consciousness. That matter occurs within consciousness. And I have read theories that consciousness is created as a by product of matter. That matter precedes consciousness. But both theories assume two. In Hinduism this is known as Advaita = “not two”. In Buddhism this is called co-dependent origination, and interconnected whole. And in Christianity it is the trinity. But I don’t think an accurate understanding of any of the above set symbols points to a different actuality.

“Do you think I know what I am doing?
That for one breath or half-breath I belong to myself?

As much as a pen knows what it is writing,
Or the ball can guess where it is going next.”
-Rumi

To put it another way, I believe we recognize the habits and tendencies (vasanas) that we have learned to accept totally, as ‘good’. Though I believe understanding their purpose as related to Love. . .we see our true selves in that reflection. . .and when we recognize the potential of the union of two into one, we “fall” into Love.

When we fail to acknowledge a reflection of self that we don't understand or accept, then we carry an anger that arises when the image of that past reflection rises up as a story. And that is the warning. A warning which grows until the reflection is seen as it actually is. . . .'I'.

Who in their right mind would want to live forever. Only a very cursory thought process can allow that horror to seem like a great thing. Upon deeper reflection it became so obvious to me that the re-organization of the whole into many-many-many different points of observation, being, and time, is without a doubt real, compassionate, and selfless Love.

”Ultimately there is only one thing in the universe, God or Substance, that which is in Itself and conceived through Itself.”
- Spinoza

I observe any object, and that object is still ‘in’ consciousness, as all objects appear in consciousness. But I forget the screen when the movie is really fascinating. So time being based on movement, and movement being based on space, serve as one and the same thing. So you have to ask, in a world without movement could the concept of time even arise?

Einstein’s basic conclusion was that matter was a curvature of space-time. Otherwise stated matter can be reduced to space time. Which essentially means matter = space-time.

Could matter (space-time) exist without an observer?

“The primary substance of the world is infinite, eternal and all encompassing.”
- Anaximander Milates (Ancient Greece)

The Sanskrit word ‘Maya’ has multiple meanings. These include:

To measure, matter, veil, and dream.

The unknown cannot be expressed in terms of the known. Except to say, return to now.

A very sincere seeker went to Ramana, and with tears in his eyes, confessed that he was a simple man and learned discussions went over his head and his confusion remained. He requested, with much emotion, that Ramana would very kindly tell him in very few, simple words what he should do as spiritual effort.

Ramana said: “Just relax. . . . .and let go.”

“That not everything is going to be the way you think it ought to be. And I shall be free. I shall be me.”

***

Redemption. . . .

2005-10-05T23:39:00.000-07:00

. . .its the only song I am hearing now.

I am blessed beyond any measure with a small pool of human beings, family and friends, that have stood with me through all sorts of drama, climbing, falling, and stupidity.

And when I really sit and look honestly at that, my entire being radiates with a kind of joy that is only experienced with genuine gratitude.

That is not the gratitude of achievement. Because the kind of gratitude I am talking about is one of those things my ego can never know. It requires no defense, and it needs no explanation.

And when I forget it I am closed off, and when I remember it I am open. Only one of those states would I call awake, and you can guess which one is better for everybody involved, myself included.

And here is the thing, it can only ever be experienced NOW.

If I attempt to plan, second guess, will into being, or in any way shape or form manipulate. . . .then it leaves me.

Or more properly stated, I leave it.

But try explaining that to ambition.

"If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord on the strength of a resolution taken once and for all. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about mans illusion that he was acting according to his own free will."
-Albert Einstein

On that note, I am headed to Alabama. See you on the other side.

Love Now,
There is no other time.

.

Losing Control. . . .

2005-09-12T02:36:00.000-07:00

. . . .is when you forget you are not in control.

Follow your bliss.

.

Further. . . .

2005-08-07T20:41:00.000-07:00

If you begin to understand what you are without trying to change it, then what you are undergoes a transformation.
- J. Krishnamurti

So I have gotten quite a few e-mails wondering when I would finally update this BLOG again. And the thing is, life had other plans. I've been diligently working on my tan, my surfing ability, and my quality time with everyone I love. But I have also been reading. In particular, 'Awake in the Heartland' by Joan Tollifson, 'The Mystics' by Aubrey Menen, and from a political bend, the works of a Christian writer named Bill McKibben, who recently had a fantastic article in Harpers magazine about the relationship between popular Christianity and American politics. Lots of good stuff. . .and my thoughts on all the above kind of blend in together below. I will throw it out there, and see how it comes together in the end. . .in some sort of cohesive theme. . . . . . .consider it an experiment in writing.

Are we really a 'Christian Nation'?

I know that the modern conservatives like to drive home their belief that this Country, the USA, was founded on Biblical Christian ethics. And since my family has been in this Country since signing the declaration of independence, and prior to that if you count my children's native American heritage, I was curious about the validity of this claim. And although I may not agree with them on many points, their view was pretty clear.

Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:

Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

* * *
I recently read a very interesting article in Harper's magazine that was written by Bill McKibben. The article is called the Christian paradox.

Depending on which poll you look at, close to 85% of Americans call themselves Christians. By way of comparison Israel is 77% Jewish.

However, only about 20% can cite any of the four gospels.
Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.
And three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that:

"God helps those that help themselves."

This statement was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin. And it appears nowhere in the scriptures.

18% of American children live in poverty. We come in nearly last amongst the wealthy developed Nations in childhood nutrition, infant mortality, and access to pre-school.

However, we have a murder rate that is five times higher then that of Europe. We have prison population greater by a factor of six, or seven. We are the only western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in States where Christianity is theoretically strongest.

Teenage pregnancy? We're at the top of the charts.

Something seems backwards here?

* * *
More Jefferson:

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

* * *

House majority leader Tom DeLay sat at a church one day listening to the pastor, urging his flock to support the administration, declared that "the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse." DeLay rose to speak, not only to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations. "Ladies and gentleman," he said, "what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God."

"The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today."
-Pat Robertson

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
-Pat Robertson, 1993 interview

* * *

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Love your neighbor as yourself: although its rhetorical power has been dimmed by repetition, that is a radical notion, perhaps the most radical notion possible.

The last shall be made first; turn the other cheek; a rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle. On and on and on. . .a call for nothing less then a radical, voluntary, and effective reordering of power relationships, based on the principle of Love.

There is no disputing the central message, nor is there any disputing how easy it is to ignore that message. Because it is counterintuitive.

To ignore it, or leave it to the bullies and the salesmen, and the televangelist sects, means to walk away from a central battle over American identity.

* * *

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -George Bush to a AA reporter Robert I. Sherman in August 27,1987

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens,nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman: (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.

From John Adams:
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams:
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Here's Thomas Paine:
The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

Finally, let's hear from James Madison:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

* * *
For the whole of the law is summed up in a single commandment, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Alabama as an example:
The richest Alabamans paid 3% of their income in taxes, and the poorest paid upwards of 12%; income taxes kicked in if a family of four made $4,600. a Year. Alabama was 48th in total State taxes, and the largest portion of that comes from a sales tax.

When a small tax hike was proposed to get the State out of a financial crises, and help the States school system. . .which again, is routinely ranked the worst in the Nation (and that is saying a lot!), it was voted down by a margin of over two to one. The opposition was led, not by the States wealthiest citizens, but by the Christian coalition of Alabama.

"You'll find most Alabamans have a charitable heart", Said John Giles, the groups president. They just don't want it coming out of their pockets.

A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven.

Jesus said, invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down.

Just kidding. . .

A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven.

Jesus said, sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me.

Slightly different message isn't it.

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."
-Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/21/93

Suffice to say, it is a historical fact that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews.

"The power of the "Christian" right rests largely in the fact that they boldly claim religious authority, and by their very boldness convince the rest of the population that they must know what they are talking about. They're like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track.

It coincides with what people WANT to believe.

How nice it would be if Jesus had declared that instead of sharing, our income was ours to keep. How satisfying it would be if we where told to hate our enemies. . .and maybe, bomb them?

Religious conservatives will always have a fairly easy sell.

It's hard to image a con much more audacious then making Christ the front man for a program of tax cuts for the rich, or war in Iraq. If some modest part of the 85% of Americans who call themselves "Christian" awoke to that fact, then the world might change in a very dramatic way.

For Christians the message of the Gospels is clear enough. If you have any doubts, read the Sermon on the Mount.

But it is most likely that the moneychangers and power brokers will remain ascendant in our "spiritual" life. Since the days of Constantine, emperors and rich men have sought to co-op the teachings of Jesus. As in so many areas of our increasingly market-tested lives, the co-opters, the TV men, the politicians, the "Christian" interest groups. . .have found a way to make each of us complicit in this travesty as well. With their help, we have made golden calves of ourselves."

- Bill Mckibben

Here are some quotes:

"Aids is not just God's punishment for homosexuality; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuality."
- Jerry Falwell

*(note: Approximately 14,000 new HIV infections occur daily around the world and over 90% of these are in developing countries. One thousand are in children less than 15 years of age.)

"Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it. ... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory."
- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart

The price of Liberty is constant vigilance. Religious fundamentalism and zealous patriotism have always been the forces which require the greatest attention.

* * *

I is what I is.

* * *

"I am walking through the park one morning and two Jehovah's Witnesses come toward me, both dressed in suits and carrying Bibles. The older one does all the talking.

Have you read the Bible? he asks me.

Yes, I reply.

Do you know what it says about the Kingdom of God? he asks.

It says the Kingdom of God is within, I reply.

No it says a new age is coming, the handicapped will be healed, there will be peace on earth, abundance for all. God's Kingdom is coming.

It's here, I say.

The younger man smiles.

You don't believe in the future? the old man asks me.

This is it, I reply.

And then I wish them a good day and walk on. The young man is still smiling.

- Joan Tollifson

Thanks Joan ; )

The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."
- Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, Supreme religious authority, Saudi Arabia, 1993

* * *

Is there anything else, but everything?

Astonishment, wondering, is, according to Aristotle, the birthplace of philosophy because it means that we have become aware of the miracle of "to be", of the astonishing fact that reality here and now is what we call existent. And in that, the mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, it is a reality to be experienced.

The Upanishads:

About 2000 Years before the bith of Christ a tribe living near the Aral sea in Russia migrated south. At some point the tribe broke into two parts. One turned west, and there is much evidence to suggest they may have been the ancestors of the Greeks. Another turned East to India. The invaders called themselves the Aryans, which means "noble", and the original inhabitants who where there previous to the arrival of the Aryans called themselves by many names, but most historians now give them the term of "Dravidians."

The native peoples had darker skin, and hair. They also had established cities, could build with bricks, and had created large fortresses. The Aryans were so far removed from having those them they did not even have a word to describe them. So they borrowed the terms of the original inhabitants.

The conquering Aryans took the darker skin native people as slaves, and felt that they should be kept on the lowest social scale possible. And it was in this environment of racism that the Upanishads took form.

The Aryans worshiped a nature God called Indra. They sang songs, prayed, and drank an intoxicant called Soma. It is genenerally assumed now that Soma was a Ethogen. . but we don't really know for sure.

The Dravidians also had their own Gods, but we are not quite sure what they were. We do know however that they practiced various forms of Yoga.

The Hymns, prayers, and mantras of the Aryans were later gathered together, long afterward, and put into a book called the Rig-Veda. And later they became a larger work know as the Vedas.

* * *

When in the 6th century AD the Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma about the holy truth, Bodhidharma answered:

"That principle exists in everything - There is nothing holy."

Emperor Wu: "Where can the essential meaning of Holy Truth be found?"

Bodhidharma: "In the immediate presence of boundless Unholiness."

Descriptions. . .or Prescriptions. . . .

"All descriptions of reality are inevitably incomplete and cannot capture actuality. The mind turns these inevitably inadequate descriptions into beliefs, and then into prescriptions for how to live a spiritually correct life.

Yet they are all just descriptions, not prescriptions, and we have as much "choice" in the matter as we do over the weather.

The impulse or thought to open your hand (or your mind) comes from beyond the person, as does the neuromuscular apparatus and functioning that carries it out. You as "Jane Doe" cannot choose something that is arising in consciousness. You as Jane Doe cannot "choose" to go off in a direction contrary to and independent from the totality, because you are not a separate piece. That separation is an illusion. But the totality functions through every Jane Doe. Our apparent capacity for discernment, our apparent ability to move our body, to direct our attention, and to apparently choose or intend, this or that is all part of the functioning.

The illusion is that we think that we as an independent entity are the source of it.
- Joan Tollifson

* * *

The Aryans developed a whole tribe of ruling class males. These where know as twice born, or born again, The first birth being when they left the womb. The second being when they where given a thread which hung across the shoulder and over the body. Hindu priests wear it to this day.

No one could join this new ruling class, you had to be born a Brahmin. According to this paradigm, a King ruled with the permission of the gods; but the Gods were permissive only at the request of the Brahmin. So the Brahmin became King makers, and King disposers.

To keep this immense power the Brahmins set up an elaborate social system, which is unique in history. They divided the subjects into four categories. At the top they of course put themselves. Next came Kings, and warriors. After them, and well downward in importance were the farmers, merchants, and tradesman. Below them, and last, were the laborers.

Below these four divisions was a group, which was left completely outside of society, slaves, scavengers, and workers in "unclean" professions, etc. These were called the untouchables.

* * *

For the person who really understands, the choice between free will and determinism is resolved. He realizes that for the ordinary person, when he thinks he is acting freely, his actions are determined by causes which are obscure to him, because he is not aware of them: in other words, when he thinks he is acting he is merely re-acting to exterior contacts. As long as there is an individual I, the phrase free will is a contradiction in terms, for will can never be free, being simply another word for volition, or desire, which is always based on an idea. The point is that as long as the decision is based on an idea, then the action is bound to the past, and therefore determined. The illusion of choice occurred because we made the mistake of considering the mind, which looks upon these things as standing outside the process of cause and effect. In actual fact, the mind is memory at any level, and as such entirely a product of the past, of conditioning. . .and therefore wholly determined.

People who do not understand this issue often mistake this idea for fatalism. But it should be clear from the foregoing that what has been described is the very opposite of fatalism.

-Robert Powell

* * *

The Brahmin controlled these five groups ruthlessly, and you could not move upward in the status of your caste. But you could fall downwards if you failed to obey specific rules.

Interestingly enough, Mahatma Gandhi renamed the untouchables The people of God. . .as he was one of the few who actually saw things right side up.

There are resemblances to this is Plato's awful "Republic", but that, fortunately, remained imaginary. For the Indians it was, and to some degree still is, very-very real. The authors of the Upanishads came from all castes, and universally considered the caste system itself to be absolute nonsense.

The Brahmins went after anyone that threatened the idea of their theocratic State with a pathological ferocity. And like all fundamentalists, they remained repressed, and intensely fearful of all things feminine. And of women in general. The "Laws of Manu" point to women as the root of all evil. No matter what the status of her husband was, women always remained at the lowest level of the four castes. Killing a member of a lower caste was a light crime. Killing a woman was no more serious. Legally it amounted to the same fine that being intoxicated in public would get you.

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

Many of the dialogues, teachers, pupils, and heros of the Upanishads were women. In fact, often times the writing takes the form of a reclusive sage speaking to a female friend who has followed him into the wilderness.

The authors of the Upanishads were real rebels, with a capitol R. And their ideas are so revolutionary that they can still make people incredibly uncomfortable, even to this day.

They were preceded by another group of rebels that paved the way for their work. And these rebels were called the "Nastikas".

Brihaspati was one such man. He lived aprox 500bc and we don't know much about him as his works were burned. However he was so irritating to the orthodoxy that they could not help but attempt to refute him, and in doing so they found it required to quote him. And it is from these fragments that we get an idea as to what he taught. He called the Vedas "claptrap", cooked up by a bunch of rogues. He described the Brahmin as lazy, and soft bellied. He was astonished that a people could be stupid as to have their lives regulated by a book of 'verses' (the Vedas).

The Brahmin replied that he was obviously the work of the Devil.

* * *

"She's a damn lesbian. I am not going to put a lesbian in a position like that. If you want to call me a bigot, fine."
- Senator Jesse Helms, explaining why he was opposing the appointment of a woman for a cabinet post.

"The notion of choicelessness is deeply upsetting to most people. It suggests that I'm nothing but a kind of robot. But when all sense of separation becomes transparent, there is nobody left to be a robot, or to care about being a robot. There is simply what is. Action can happen freely, without being bogged down in any kind of conceptual mirage. Truth can't be put into words.

Concepts can never catch the paradoxical Aliveness of the mystery.

They can only point to it.

- Joan Tollifson

* * *

Another critic was Charvaka, who maintained the same idea that the Scottish philosopher Hume did Centuries later. . . For Hume this was more of a philosophical musing, but for Charvaka it was ammunition against the idea that the Brahmin held some special power, which allowed them to control future outcomes.

The Brahmin said that a man should look upon touching a woman as though he were touching vermin. Charvaka said this was backwards, the "vermin" he said, were the priests themselves.

And women were sacred.

The abstinent run away from what they desire
But carry their desires with them:
When a man enters Reality,
He leaves his desires behind him.
- The Gita

Brihaspati, Charvaka and others could rightfully be called skeptics, agnostics, or even atheists, in ever sense of that word. And they started to gather a great following. But when the people asked them for advice on how to live, their answer was more or less eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you will die. And there is nothing beyond that.

And although that seems sensible at first, it has never served. It always leaves a feeling that the issue has somehow been dodged. There is something more then hedonism.

So they summed it up as this: The priests are preposterous, religion is nonsense, and obedience to these laws is foolishness. Yet still, there is something to be discovered.

And this is what the sages of the Upanishads set out to do.

"What I see now is that no one has any special authority to teach. It's made up. The Pope, the Zen roshi, the pastor, the abbot, the rabbi, the guru, the wizard behind the curtain, the doctrines, the lineages, the cosmologies. . . .it is all made up. Jesus and Buddha weren't sanctioned by anyone. They spoke from their own experience, from the heart. They weren't in anybodys lineage.

I'm not opposed to religious systems for those who want and enjoy them. But what has most deeply interested and drawn me is the Truth, the bare Truth. And that's simply what is. . .presence itself. . .the Aliveness here and now.

- Joan Tollifson

* * *

I do feel it is really valuable to know what mood the authors of the Upanishads were in when they set out, because I think it was very much like our own. They too where skeptics, and they did not believe in the way of life set up by the priests that came before them, or the ruling class which created the rules for the Social game. They wanted something more, something real.

The Brahmins who arranged everything fixed the stages of a mans life into phases. The first was that of a schoolboy. . .learn the rules, obey the rules, memorize things, and repeat them back. . . .it was here that he learned from the Vedas, and was taught scripture. This stage lasted 12 Years. Then came the stage of a householder, a married man, and a father. Obeying the rules laid down by the education, being a good citizen, and paying the Brahmin. When he became a grandfather he was ready for the third stage. . .retirement. This stage in mans life was called the staging place, or Ashram, and it was more or less a retirement community.

"If the protests of children were heard in kindergarten, if their questions were attended to, it would be enough to explode the entire educational system."
-Gilles Deleuze

Finally, for those who reached a ripe, old age, came the fourth stage. In this stage the old man gave up all his worldly possessions, took up a robe and a staff, and lived the remaining Years as a holy mendicant.

We still hold to three out of the four stages, even in the West.

The Sages of Upanishads turned this whole program upside down.
They didn't wait until they were old men. They retired NOW. And instead of memorizing scriptures, they looked inside themselves for answers, and what came about as a result of that was revolutionary. . .to say the least.

I personally find it somewhat ironic that some of the greatest changes this culture ever confronted came as a result of men who tuned in, turned on, and dropped out of the system. . . .and not those who stayed with the usual "program".

I also find it somewhat telling.

"Children start to believe that brands communicate their personal qualities, for example that they're cool, or strong, or smart. . . .Upon arrival at the schoolhouse steps, the typical first grader can evoke 200 brands."
- Juliet Schor

* * *

I think all of us have at some point experienced some form of existential crisis. And if we haven't yet, then we most likely will in the future. The only people who seem to avoid this fate, are those who lead terribly shallow lives. And to my sense of reasoning that is clearly a fate worse then death itself.

Consider this scenario. . .a girl is born. . .her parents tell her what is expected of her, her schooling, society, and culture does the same. She will have whole sets of ideas dropped into her head, and this education will serve as the programming she uses to evaluate potential success, failure, and meaning. As she ages she begins to dress, talk and arrange herself in such a way as to attract a lover. She may marry and have children. Accumulate, and lose, friends. Pass through various hobbies and interests, and eventually have her kids move out into their own life. . . . .her kids grown up, her husband losing his figure, and hairline, she decides to take a vacation. . . . . .

One evening she finds herself starring up at the nights sky and she realizes that she has never actually led a life of her own. Schoolteachers, parents, father, lovers, husbands, kids, they all ran her life for her. . . . and then she meets another person who specializes in understanding people who approach these topics. . .and they offer the usual advise. . . . .'To thine own self be true'. . . the immortal words of Shakespeare. . .she realizes she cannot be true to herself because, as she has now come to see, she really has no idea who her own-self actually is?

Who am I? How did I come here? Where am I going?

By concentrating on the first question the authors of the Upanishads realized they answered the rest.

This starts the whole affair, and the Upanishads call this the razors edge . . .a state of affairs were every step needs to be taken carefully, as the path is as narrow and slippery as a razors edge.

"The real job of any teacher is to make themselves irrelevant."
- Nirmala

A simple model for this offered by the author Aubrey Menan is as follows:

Imagine you are in a theater. You are on a stage, and you are the principle actor. There are others in the plot, but you take notice of them only when they come in on cue.

This is what most people would consider "normal".

After some time you may grow tired of playing the same role. This is the same as when an actor gets tired of playing the same part, no matter how successful, for too long a period of time.

And reality tells us that you may go over a scene over and over until you become completely bored with it. And this is good.

So you call your understudy, and step down into the auditorium to watch them play the role. They are so good that they might be yourself; but you are now in the stalls.

As you watch yourself from this perspective you grow somewhat detached. You may leap out of your seat in disgust, or anger, or delight at yourself. And for a time their may be considerable entertainment in this for you. You realize that in addition to being the principle actor, and the audience, you are also the playwright. It is, after all, your life you are observing.

Or are you the playwright?

The more and more you observe clearly, the more you recognize the reality that it is the other characters building the plot, dictating your movements as you are not acting, but re-acting. The lines are there to speak, but you recognize they are not yours.

We sit absorbed. . . . .the plot is more ingenious. . .all those people, relatives, friends, enemies, instructors, priests, politicians, conspiring so cleverly to make something you have thoughtlessly called "ME" for so long.

"Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof"
- The Buddha

It was a blank screen. . . .as the Years from infancy, childhood, and youth pass, innumerable people scribble on it, some writing names, slogans, advertisements, dogma, and manifestos. Others write abuse, slander, or insults. In the end, the blank white screen is covered in a mass of graffiti. . . one upon the other. . .scribbles on scribbles.

"Believe me, unless you change your whole outlook and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
- Jesus (Matthew 18:3)

The Sages of the Upanishads invite you to stand back and survey that wall. And if you actually do, then you can see how comic it is to observe some new person step up to it with the desire to leave his mark upon the others. What to do, what to think, who to make love to, who to like, who to hate, who to help, who to harm, the moralists, the politicians, the comics, the priests. . .it's all the same.

The authors of the Upanishads regarded them all with a smile, and they taught their disciples to do the same.

Awareness has no agenda. . . .

Now we might think that the answer is to wash this blank screen clean. . .but the sages were not naive in that sense. They say it cannot be done. It is a key point to understand, and understanding it is what allows one to discern the true from the false.

The Brahmins said that of course you could wash the screen clean. . .in a limited way. . .all you need is faith, belief, ideas, enough "will", or just the right spells. . . . .and should you be willing to pay them, they will gladly offer to help relieve you of such a burden. And these hucksters are still with us today in the form of modern self-help Gurus, charlatans, and pop psychology advocates.

The sages of the Upanishads dismissed this view as priestly trickery. Instead they substituted a doctrine of their own. It was profoundly original; it has no parallel anywhere else in the history of thought, and it was the heart of their teaching.

There is no reaching the Self. If the Self were to be reached, it would mean that the Self is not here and now, but that it has yet to be obtained. What is got afresh will also be lost. . . . You are the Self: you are already That.

- Ramana Maharshi

When we have taken the time to examine the stages of our lives. . .none of them can we call our own true selves.

The sages used the example of an onion. The various stages of our lives are the leaves, and since we are looking for our true selves we must peel them away one by one, in order to observe for ourselves what is inside. When you do this with a real onion you will be left with one single leaf left between your fingers. And the realization occurs that this too must be thrown away. Then. . . . you have nothing at all.

Excellent the Sages say, that is the answer.

And this answer has dismayed and repelled people for well over 2500 Years.

Some people puzzle over it, return to it, and finally understand it. But they have always been the minority, and that has been predicted as well.

From the mundane level of hedonists we step onto a platform of thin air.

I recognize that for people born in the west, and fixed with the accessory of this programming, an escape seems to be implied. And at first sight, that seems like what is being offered.

But that is backward, and upside down.

It does not bear examination.

The sages of the Upanishads have a message that is extremely alarming. So much so that great efforts have been made over the centuries to camouflage what they were actually saying.

In the classical age of Greece, the philosopher Democritus, merely by thinking about it, decided the world was made of atoms. This theory was considered extremely far fetched at the time. With the fall of Greece and its successor, Rome, it was replaced, after a long interval, by the theory that the universe was the creation of a beneficent God the father.

There were some doubters who considered this theory of the universe even more far fetched, but the Church burned a few of these trouble makers, and things settled down quite a bit. The Swamis and gurus, woops I mean Popes and priests, came up with the idea that the only way to understand this theory was to swallow it hook line and sinker. . .and they called it faith.

But that was what was actually backwards.

Just as Democritus, by thinking, discovered the atom, so the sages of the Upanishads discovered that picture of the self, which I have just described. It was a fact of their own experience. When they stripped away their worldly personalities and entered that natural state of consciousness, or Self, they discovered that had a sense of identity with everything around them. And they found that difficult to describe. Not this, they say repeatedly.

THIS they explained is THAT.

Or otherwise stated, I AM THAT I AM.

"In Him we live and move and have our being."
- Acts 17:28

The Catholic Church, and many other ill informed entities, will often label this idea as 'pantheism'. However, people who have thought deeply about these matters, the saints, sages, and Buddhas, have always viewed pantheists as off the mark.

As an example St Francis of Assisi had a genuine love for the beautiful things of creation. But when he sang about the sun and the moon, he did not call them "God". He called them his brother and his sister.

Like most philosophers, the Upanishadic sages dismissed pantheism. They saw it as a return to the old Vedic worship of the powers of nature. They took the word 'Brahma', and gave it an entirely new meaning. They argue that since, in the ultimate analysis, you could not distinguish your real self from the rest of Creation, then you were that Creation. You, as they put it, were Brahma.

They would have nothing to do with 'twos'. . .you and God. . .you and nature. . .you and Brahma. . .there is only one single thing at the end of it all. . . . ."I"

I IS what IS.

It is a simple doctrine and it was that simplicity that caused many of the issues. No sooner had it spread among the intelligent than a series of attempts were made to explain it away. Some of these attempts were dishonest. And sincere people, some with powerful intellects, who saw the potential consequences of the Upanishadic teaching, made some. And they could not believe that the sages could be so bold, so rash, and so potentially destructive. The possible dangers of this doctrine to those who believe in law, order, morality, and taking serious things seriously, are plain.

By the times the pandits (scholars) began putting the Vedas into Sanskrit, the texts had acquired all sorts of appendices. Among these were the Upanishads. Of which there are over a hundred.

And they are all available to you now.

If we think that emptiness means things cannot function, then, with an improper understanding of the view of emptiness, one will have fallen into nihilism. So, because one has failed to reconcile emptiness and the fact that things work, this view is incorrect. That is why it is said that the meaning of emptiness is to be understood in terms of Dependent arising.

It is necessary to come to an understanding of emptiness by eliminating the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism, and there are two separate means to do this. The extreme of eternalism, the misapprehended self, is eliminated by reasoning. And it is chiefly one's own experience which eliminates the extreme of nihilism. So when we are about to meditate on emptiness, be prepared to pinch your hand. If when you think you have understood emptiness, you come to believe nothing exists, then give yourself a good pinch. It will be that experience which will eliminate the nihilistic view.

- The Dalai Lama

Question: How can the world be an imagination or a thought? Thought is a function of the mind. The mind is located in the brain. The brain is within the skull of a human being, who is only an infinitesimal part of the universe. How then can the universe be contained in the cells of the brain?

Ramana: So long as the mind is considered to be an entity of the kind described, the doubt will persist.

But what is mind? Let us consider.

The world is seen when the man wakes up from sleep. It comes after the "I" thought. The head rises up. So the mind has become active.

What is the world?

It is the objects spread out in space. Who comprehends it? The mind.

Is not the mind, which comprehends space itself space?

So that's the story. . .and with that I will leave this keyboard, and head out into some sunshine, surf, and travel to Ancient lands. And remember, these are just ideas. Don't let them scare you.

Enjoy the Summer.

"I and this mystery here we stand."
-Walt Whitman

Reality Tunnels. . . .

2005-07-07T02:35:00.000-07:00

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
- George Bernard Shaw

What if we could experience everything that happens on this planet, all at once, all at the sametime.

How would that be?

Reality tunnels are the myopic thoughts that we repeat often enough to use as stories of self identification.

And reality tunnels create the way we percieve the world at any given time.

This is what I mean. . . .

If someone says, "XYZ is a terrible bastard". . .it of course does not mean that XYZ is in reality a terrible bastard. All it means is that this one particular individual holds a belief, a thought, that XYZ is a terrible bastard. . . another individual might say instead, "XYZ is an incredible person". . . .it also does not mean that XYZ is an incredible person, it just means that individual holds the thought that they are. . .no more, no less.

All of us recognize the above as true. Most people would say that we could sum it up simply with the fact that people hold "opinions". But that is only half the story. . .how are those opinions formed?

As an example, one individual may claim XYZ is a miserable bastard, and when asked how they came to that conclusion they will relate some sort of story which is meant to verify their opinion. . . ."well one day XYZ said this to me. . .and I just think that. . . . .etc."

Now for purposes of learning, lets assume the story is true. If the incident actually did happen exactly as that single individual believes, does that therefore actually make XYZ a bastard?

Are you first grade?

Everyone reading this has probably attended first grade in the past. . .most likely, many Years ago. So are you first grade? If not, are you your wedding day? Are you your drivers license test? Are you a trip to the dentist?

If the answer to the above is no, then you most likely recognize that you are not any one particular experience you have ever had. You HAVE experiences. . .which is to say your bodily senses relate feedback to you. . . .but are those experiences you? Is that bodily feedback you?

So XYZ is not one particular experience, and neither is anyone else.

"Start a huge, foolish project, like Noah. It makes absolutely no difference what people think of you." -Rumi

Some people may say individuals are not those experiences, but that how individuals relate to different experiences can serve as an accurate means to measure their value.

And although that seems to be the average point of view, it is in reality backwards.

If we assume for a moment that this were true, it still completely ignores the process by which that "experience" with XYZ was processed.

For one thing the experience itself was viewed from a particular place, at a particular point and time. And their may have been much more to that particular experience then could be perceived by the senses at that one point in space and time. Other bodies at different locations, or slightly different times, witnessing the same event, may all have very different versions of how it occurred. . . . .and this is just due to the limitations of our own nervous system.

Next, the particular observing bodies color the experience. . . .which having now past, is in reality just a memory. . . .with the flavor of all their own, personal, past experiences, all their conditioning, social, cultural, educational, family and relationship related. Their own beliefs, opinions, ideas, values, and sense of self worth, all serve as filters through which the memory of that particular experience is perceived, understood, and communicated.

So given all those filters, all those layers of programming, and given the single point of observation in space and time, it's clear that any single persons opinion about a past experience does not relate the reality of what that experience was actually like. . . .ever.

But that has not even begin to scratch the surface when it comes to how incredibly wrong individual opinions can be.

"The only thing that we can know is that we know nothing and that is the highest flight of human reason." -Leo Tolstoy

Next we need to talk about measurement. The individual who relates their opinion of XYZ, when asked, attempts to validate that opinion with the re-telling of some experience they hold in the form of a memory. And we know that this memory is simply the experience as perceived from one particular point in space time. And we know that this experience, once perceived from a particular space and time, is then colored by all the previous experiences, opinions, ideas, concepts, and beliefs that the person telling us the story has had.

But their is another important question to ask. . .once this experience is perceived by an individual, and once that perception becomes a memory which is then stored in a highly conditioned mind. . . .(mind is conditioning, the grid). . . . .then how does that one particular individual judge the actions of another person within that experience? And by judge I mean place a value on the person based on their actions in that event. I am not implying that it is outrages if they do so, or even that their is anything wrong in doing so. . .I am asking 'how' exactly it is done? By what mechanism does it occur?

And the answer is obviously, by comparison to another memory. . . .but only always.

We all know this to be true. In otherwords, we don't know we are missing something until we know it exists somehow. Someone not knowing it exists, would not miss it, and therefore their perception of an event may be much different from someone else who has had it. By 'it' I mean anything, and by perception I mean their view of reality.

But even degrees of having, and degrees of knowing, can have a drastic effect. Consider this. . . someone used to high quality food, will notice when the food becomes simply average, and they may likely view that change as a "negative". Someone used to poor quality food may also notice when the food becomes instead average. But they will most likely view that change, that experience, as "positive".

Now the question is, was that change in food positive or negative?

And if your answer is, "it depends on the individual". . .I would only add, exactly.

"None attains to the Degree of Truth until a thousand honest people have testified that he is a heretic." -Junaid

So we know that an individual who relates their opinion of XYZ, when asked, will often attempt to validate that opinion with the re-telling of some experience they hold in the form of a memory. And we know that this memory is simply the experience as perceived from one particular point in space time. And we know that this experience, once perceived from a particular space and time, is then colored by all the previous experiences, opinions, ideas, concepts, and beliefs that the person telling us the story has had. And finally, we know that when that tainted memory as viewed from a very limited space and time is judged, measured, compared, it is then used a tool to measure other individuals value as based on their reaction to it. . . . .in other words, "I think the food has gotten worse! I know the food has gotten worse. He keeps saying the food has gotten better, but I know it has gotten worse!". . . . . .frustration as viewed from an individual reality tunnel.

And we call that normal.

A dog barks wildly everytime strangers come to the door. . . .one stranger, upon leaving the front door, says "that dog is vicious!". . . . . .A dog barks wildly everytime strangers come to the door. . . .the family inside loves how gentle the dog is with the family, and everyone in the house. And what a good watch dog he is. . . . ."that dog is wonderful". . . . . . .

Which is the dog, vicious, or wonderful?

If your answer was, "of course it depends on the circumstances". . .I would only add, exactly.

Here is where it gets really crazy. . . .all these tiny, distorted, little points of view, are accumulated by individuals. . . .they are collected in a limited number. . .while supplies last.

What I mean is this, what can you remember from July 7th 1987 at 4:40 pm PST? Can you remember exactly what you where doing then? How about where you were? Who was around you? How about the weather that day?. . . . .no luck?

What do you remember?

We all have a very limited amount of memories we recall enough to recognize as "known".

How many memories can you actually recall in this moment? And if you can recall anything, how vivid is it? How about the Year before? How about all your Years?

Now out of all those memories. . . .how much of your life so far is not remembered?

Do you remember more moments, in terms of minutes of the day, then you have forgotten? How many minutes in 1987 can you remember? How many minutes total where there in 1987? See how incredibly minuscule the amount of individual memories are when compared to the reality of the time itself?

How are those memories picked?

What makes them more vivid then the others? What causes you to recollect them? It is some form of collection process. . . .some sort of selection process we engage in to choose which memories we hold, and which we don't recall. . . .it is a collection of memories to form a story. . .the story validates our sense of self. . .it is the story of I.

A re-collection. . .a recollection.

This brings up yet another point. So although we realize that an individual who relates their opinion of XYZ, when asked, will validate that opinion with the re-telling of some experience they hold in the form of a memory. And we know that this memory is simply the experience as perceived from one particular point in space time. And we know that this experience, once perceived from a particular space and time, is then colored by all the previous experiences, opinions, ideas, concepts, and beliefs that the person telling us the story has had. And finally, we know that when that tainted memory as viewed from a very limited space and time is judged, measured, and compared, it is then used a tool to measure other individuals value. And we know that that value will then be compared against the individuals own personal "me" story. . .which IS their own limited collection of previously stored memories. . .and from that small string of past memories, an opinion is reached.

I think it is clear the above stated is fact, but what is amazing is that though we now this, we still give credence to the concept of opinion itself. Opinion as drawn from a single reality tunnel.

Some people right here might say, "yes, but when I hear the same opinions from multiple people, then I place more weight in them." Or perhaps. . ."Yes, but if I hear an opinion from 'this' particular person, I tend to believe that".

And that sounds like common sense, but it is in reality completely upside down.

"Cling to the sacred and disdain the profane and you will be sunk in an ocean of life and death forever."

Multiple people simply means multiple reality tunnels. . .each built in the same fashion as the above stated one was. And the degree to which their consensus can be valued as accurate is related to how far back in the chain of perception we want to go. . . .in other words:

Straight minute by minute account of the events themselves. . .least subjective. . .but still limited by a particular point of space and time, and still taken through certain filters (most of which occur without us consciously realizing it).

Feeling, or overall opinion of the account. . . .far more subjective. . .limited in space and time, taken through many patterns, and then measured against the tiny me story or the individual relating their perception.

Opinion on the value of the experience itself. . . .completely subjective. . .based solely on the previous memories of observing individual.

So if we just want a minute by minute account, we may find the various witnesses disagreeing greatly (this often occurs with multiple witnesses to a single event). . . .but we also find them agreeing on a few key observations of the event itself. So this holds some value. But if we begin asking how the individual felt about the experience. . .now things become very different.

This is not quite as true if the experience is highly extraordinary in comparison to more common experiences. If it is really unique, then many of the observers may share in similar feelings related to the event. And in my opinion, this is part of the value such experiences hold. But if it is a more average experience, that means the individuals will all have had similar experiences in the past, and therefore, far more memories to measure the experience against, and as a result. . .far different reality tunnels.

And finally, if we ask these multiple observers of a single events what the event itself meant, after it has transpired, then no two answers will be exactly the same. . . . .(and that doesn't mean that they should be either).

If we say, "yes, but if I hear an opinion from 'this' particular person, I tend to believe that". This just means that we have discovered a community of people, or person, who share similar reality tunnels. . .similar opinions on the way the world is. . . . .and it is in our nature to do that. It is in our nature for cells to link with cells that they can communicate with. And for cells which cannot communicate, to go separate ways, and find cells with which they can communicate.

That is how we put ourselves together.

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
- Will Rogers

Now we get to the really-really crazy part. . .people then take these reality tunnels, and often based solely on them, they go out and perform certain actions. And that call it "free will".

And to top it off, if the actions begin producing negative consequences, these same individuals may go on to believe that the remedy for that is MORE actions! The root cause of the reality tunnel is seldom ever addressed. . . . after all, it's the decision maker.

And even when the root cause of ignorance (good synonym for reality tunnel) is known, people will often still believe the idea that the solution lays with more action. As if an invisible hand could move inside the mind and change the thoughts one thinks like moving around building blocks, or turning dials.

Insane but true.

How do we free ourselves of reality tunnels?

How about realizing we have one to begin with. And then observing it in the moment.

When we start to see the absurdity of opinions it may seem weird how they are given much time by our awareness at all. But then we have to remember, they almost always are. And they cause dissention within families, as one individuals version of reality, "reality tunnel", conflicts with anothers. And this carries itself all the way up to the level of global politics. . . . .it's worth remembering that Millions of people have been slaughtered in bloodshed and wars over things as absurd as reality tunnels, since recorded history.

After all, aren't you proud to be an (insert your nation here)?
Isn't (insert your nation here). . . the best Nation on Earth?

"I think this Country is the best! I know this Country is the best!. He keeps saying his Country is better, but I know he is wrong!"

As stupid as that above stated dialogue is, welcome to Nationalism.

"What are you, some sort of Socialist!"

Some people take comfort in holding tight to reality tunnels which display the world in stark contrasts, a reality of black and white.

Others, who may be more mature, claim instead to see reality as having more shades of grey.

I say it's neither.

I say reality is always moving.

And if that where actually the case, wouldn't trying to hold on to any opinion about reality be exactly the same as trying to measure a single point is the middle of a flowing river. . . . .what is it NOW. . .ok how about now, and now, and now, and now, and now. . . . .and so on.

Trying to know yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth.

Or so the opinion goes.

Satsu lost one of her beloved grandchildren and exploded in a torrent of tears. A neighbor remarked to her, "I heard you received a certificate of enlightenment from Hakuin himself, so why are you carrying on so?"

"Idiot!" she said. . . "This is just how I feel at this moment!"

Authenticity, Ecstasy & Iceland. . . .

2005-06-26T22:16:00.000-07:00

. . . .no man can create a Zen garden like this.

If you begin to understand what you are without trying to change it, then what you are undergoes a transformation.
- J. Krishnamurti

Act One:

au·then·tic·i·ty
n.
The quality or condition of being authentic, real, genuine.

I have just returned from a two week trip to the UK and Iceland. I didn't bother to keep a daily log, check e-mail, or wear a watch. So in attempting to relate the events I will have to go with an overall theme, and feel, rather then a minute by minute account. And that will be far more accurate.

It was 24/7 daylight the entire time we where there. So here is the scene. . . . .

I started the trip in Manchester UK. My first night there we stopped into a small jazz club, along with friends from Estonia. Live Jazz, when done well, seems to be a great method for experiencing different states of consciousness. The musicians wait until just the right moment to enter into the music, like surfers waiting for just the right time to catch a wave. Once in . . . they are gone, and what is left is the music itself, with itself.

This music is impossible to plan, and that is exactly what makes it so dynamic, so valuable, so worthwhile.

I taught a few sessions on slow rolling with an emphasis on the three stage formula of slow down, let go, and observe position. Slow down the tempo, the pace. . .let go, don't rely on muscular contractions to hold onto to any single position. . . and, observe where you are in that moment.

Slowing down means relaxing. And relaxing cannot be emphasized enough. Letting go means exactly that, releasing.
And to observe means being fully present to what is now. This allows the athlete the ability to respond in time. They are more response able, which has to be the real meaning of responsibility.

On Monday we flew to Iceland. . these are pictures from the trip.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first create the Universe."
- Carl Sagan

As I stepped off the grid and into the countryside of Iceland, I was overtaken by a total sense of reverence.

The events of this trip always pointed back towards the same realization, the same theme, time and time again. The reality that trying to deal in cause and effect is truly absurd; that instead of that typical backwards vision we could be pointing the awareness inwards. We all have an innate ability to take ourselves inside, on an interior journey, which penetrates past the superficial layers of who we take ourselves to be at a cursory level.

And any attempt to work instead on the external levels of causality is not only superficial, it is absolutely upside down.

"People prefer to fight imaginary windmills rather then stare the dragon of their own unconscious in the eye. They are scared of the sacred."
- Georg Feuerstein

It is about Natural Being versus Trying. . . .

The truth of the sincere action is that it cannot be known by the ego, which will become prideful of it, ashamed of it, and always attempt to use it in some way shape or form for the purposes of manipulation.

you cannot try to be humble. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try to be sincere. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try to be genuine. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try to be giving. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try to be authentic. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
you cannot try and be ecstatic. .
you either are, or are not in the moment
You cannot try to be good. .

it just IS.

So the practice then is clearly observing which you are right now in the moment. . . trying only hinders this process of clear seeing. Seeing clearly is enough.

"Spiritual practice can never be fulfilled by imitation of an outer form of perfection."
- st John of the cross

In otherwords, to copy a virtue in another is copying, but never virtue.

We took a jeep way out towards a glacier, and visited a small mountian which we climbed up. The view from the top was undescribable. At one point I found a quiet spot on the edge of a cliff overlooking this large valley at the bottom of a glacier. The moss was close to a foot deep in places, having grown over hundreds of Years. It was softer then any carpet I can remember. I layed down in that area and hung my head over the cliff, watching the birds, the water, and breathing in the whole scene.

Reykjavik is also a beautiful city. . . lots to do and see.

The sun never sets here at this time of Year. The streets are filled with people at 3:30 in the morning, and it seems like noon. It's a good few evenings, and I remember as I look around that I never know exactly who I am talking to. Demons will disguise themselves as Angels, and Angels will take the form of Demons in places like this. And that is not a bad thing.

One day during the week we visited the natural hot spings known as the Blue Lagoon.

Iceland is one of those places with an ancient and deep biological memory. A land literaly glowing with a certain dynamic quality.

What I am talking about is this. . . .

Act Two:

ec·sta·sy
n. pl. ec·sta·sies

1. Intense joy or delight.
2. A state of emotion so intense that one is carried beyond rational thought.
3. The trance, frenzy, or rapture associated with mystic or prophetic exaltation

Control versus Surrender

Control is: - Surrender is:

Holding tight - Letting go
Try - Observe
Fight - Flow
Struggle - Release
Achieve - Dissolve

"As long as you want real power, you can't really have it."
- Ram Dass

"You see the fact that your spiritual journey is an entirely different ball game from the path you thought you where on. It is very difficult to make that transition."
- Ram Dass

The first and maybe biggest misunderstanding is that the individual can free himself, can become 'free'. . . .it is only consciousness that can become free of the individual, and not the other way around. But most everyone will see this inside out, most of the time.

"The soul attached to anything, however much good there may be in it, will not arrive at the liberty of the Divine."
- St John of the cross

Act Three:

Genialis Lectus

How rare is it that we let someone see who we truly are in the moment. How rare is it that we don't throw on yet another mask.

Any attempt to try, force, mimic, or otherwise manipulate, takes us immediately out of the realm of authenticity. It is just another mask, another filter between self and grace.

Salome, described as a fiery girl, was the daughter of Herodias and the stepdaughter to Herod, ruler of Galilee during biblical times. Legend has it that Herod was holding John the Baptist captive throughout a grand celebration. Herod demanded that his stepdaughter, Salome, dance for him as entertainment. In return for her impressive exertions, he promised,

"Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom."

Some say that Salome deferred to her mother, who suggested she ask for the head of John the Baptist (on a silver platter). And because Herod was a man of his word, he complied.

"The minute you don't want any real power you will have more then you ever dreamed possible."
- Ram Dass

Even the head of a prophet won't bring real freedom.

Fundamentalists will see John the babtist as the victim there. But that is completely backwards.

You cannot plan for it, imitate it, manipulate it, or bring it about through the petty force of will.

It is. . . .GRACE.

Final Act:

Indulgere Genio

As Allan Watts would say. . . . So what if everything becomes strange.

On the flight home from Iceland I get the morning paper and see the seminar written on its pages. I have no idea what it says as it is all in Icelandic, but I can understand the words Bob Marley and Vibe, so I know we must have done good.

Sometimes I lose my ability to speak. The farther I go, the less there is to explain to myself. And if I go to far, all I can do is smile.

On the last night of the trip Karl and I wandered back to the same Jazz club that kicked started the journey. Kali Ma in one of her many forms recognizes me across the room, and she lips I am right there with you.

Have I enjoyed my trip, she asks?

That's all that matters. . .that is all she say's she needs to hear. And I know the level on which she is absolutely sincere, I hear it that way. . . . and my answer is a complete YES, authentic in every sense.

And there is no reply for that, because that takes her up as well. She drinks from my glass. And it is time to go home.

Talem vidi qualem capere potui

I saw her as such, in the way in which I was able to understand her.

It is not about cause and effect.

It is always inside.

And it's Now.

.

I Realize. . . .

2005-06-07T00:13:00.000-07:00

. . . .that when I said this in the last entry:

"Scientifically speaking, we never see anything as it occurs real time. We can only perceive what has already happened. This has to do with the way the nervous system and brain operates, and it is a fact. In short, what you consider the present moment, is in reality always a memory. It is the remembered present."

That some people may like to quibble about whether or not it is actually always a 'memory'.

But just remember this. . .

Reality tells us that the moment you think about anything, that anything is a memory. But only every single time.

Have a beautiful series of days. See you after Iceland.

"One day the sun admitted
I am just a shadow
I wish I could show you
The infinite incandescence."
- Hafiz