Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Bittersweet Victory on Voting Rights Act

The Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that they are terrified of an honest vote that includes all registered voters. They illegally and immorally falsified the presidential elections of both 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio. They do this by throwing away tens, or hundreds, of thousands of votes of minorities. This is, to date, perhaps their biggest lie, of many.

Last week, the Senate reauthorized the expiring portions of the Voting Rights Act in a 98-0 vote, after more than ten thousand ColorOfChange.org members, along with folks from the NAACP and other organizations, demanded its immediate passage. Thursday, the President signed the act.

Thank you for helping to make this happen. While we believed that the Senate would eventually reauthorize the VRA, it wasn't clear that it would happen so quickly. Our actions left no room for any Senators to try to stall or undermine the act, as some members of the House had done just a couple of weeks before. Our collective effort shows that when we act together with a strong voice, we can make change.

The Fight Ahead – why no one should be clapping for Bush

Just before the Senate vote, President Bush addressed the NAACP and talked about his commitment to voting rights. Some Black members in the audience ate it up, and their cheering and clapping provided a great backdrop for his speech. That day, Bush declared himself an ally, but his administration's actions tell a completely different story. The record shows that his statements were just talk.

The truth is that the Bush administration has actively worked to undermine the VRA by gutting the Justice Department's ability to enforce it. Bush appointees have used their authority to approve controversial election plans that would disenfranchise minority voters, over the strong objections of career civil rights attorneys in the department.[1] A recent example is the department's review of a law passed in Georgia that would have required voters to present a photo ID to vote. The appointees overruled veteran attorneys who objected, and it wasn't until a federal court intervened that the law was struck down.[2]

In addition, Bush's appointees, breaking with tradition, have taken control of the hiring process in the Civil Rights division of Justice, and are replacing veteran civil rights lawyers with conservatives who have little or no interest, or experience, with civil rights law. Before the Bush administration changed hiring practices, 77% of DOJ Civil Rights division attorneys had backgrounds in civil rights- now only 42% do. And most of them got their "civil rights" experience defending employers accused of discrimination or fighting against race-conscious policies.[3]

It's clear that the stakes are high in the fight to protect voting rights. Winning reauthorization of the VRA was just one victory in a continuing battle. We can't just thank Congress and the Bush administration for the crumbs they throw at us, or be placated by sound bites. We deserve more; our democracy requires more; and we must demand it. Together, we are on our way to becoming a powerful political force. Thank you for helping us win this fight and for being a part of our collective effort to change the color of democracy.

Thank You and Peace,
-- James, Van, Clarissa, Gabriel, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org

1. Politics Alleged in Voting Cases, Washington Post, January 23, 2006
2. A weaker rights enforcer, The Boston Globe, July 26, 2006
3. Civil rights hiring shifted in Bush Era, The Boston Globe, July 23,2006
4. Civil Rights Focus Shift Roils Staff At Justice, Washington Post, November 13, 2005

Friday, August 18, 2006

What We Know and Don't Know About 9/11

Thanks to Bernadine Zenni.

What we know and don’t know about 9/11

Paul Craig Roberts

08/16/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- I received a number of intelligent responses from readers of my August 14 column, “Gullible Americans,” The letters deserve a reply. Moreover, some contain important points that should be shared with a wider audience. Pundits such as myself are not the only people who have interesting things to say. Considering the number of letters and the time it would require to respond individually, I am replying instead in this column.

Most readers from whom I heard understand the difference between loyalty to country and loyalty to a government. They understand that to support a political party or a government that is destroying the US Constitution and America’s reputation in the world is, in fact, an act of treason. Therefore, I did not have to read the usual drivel about how doubting “our government” is un-American.

Among the issues raised are:

How could the complicity of the US government, or some part of it, in the events of 9/11 be kept a secret? For the most part, this question comes from Americans who believe the government must have been, to some extent, complicit in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

How can we differentiate between the real facts, the 9/11 Commission’s reporting of the facts, and “conspiracy theories”?

What about the role of suicide flyers led by M. Atta?

What about the Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary that debunk the skeptics and support the official explanation of 9/11?

What about the role of the US media in propagandizing Americans with the official explanation instead of examining the explanation, especially with regard to such truncated hatchet-job interviews with 9/11 skeptics such as the hatchet jobs presided over by Donny Deutsch on CNBC and by neocon Tucker Carlson on MSNBC?

Why are so many Americans hostile to holding the Bush regime accountable for its obvious and documented lies, lies that have misled America to war and gratuitously slaughtered and maimed tens of thousands of people, including our own troops?

I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact.

We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.

We also know for a fact that the Air Force somehow inexplicably failed to intercept the alleged hijacked airliners despite the fact that the Air Force can launch jet fighters to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes. We also know that the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have just written a book that reveals that the US military lied to the Commission about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.

There are various explanations for this second fact. The military could have lied to cover up complicity or to cover-up its incompetence. However, no investigation has been made to ascertain the true explanation for the failure.

This leaves us with the incontrovertible fact that buildings cannot “pancake” at free fall speeds.

The only explanation known to science for the free fall collapse of a building, especially into its own footprint, is engineered demolition, which removes the supports for each floor of the building at split second intervals so that the debris from above meets no resistance on its fall. To call this explanation a “conspiracy theory” is to display the utmost total ignorance. Any physicist or engineer who maintains that buildings can “pancake” at free fall speed has obviously been bought and paid for or is a total incompetent fool.

The WTC buildings are known to have collapsed at free fall speed into their own footprints.

This fact does not tell us who is responsible or what purpose was served.

Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void. Some of the speculation is based on circumstantial evidence and is plausible. Other of the speculation is untenable, and it is used to protect the official explanation by branding all skeptics “conspiracy theorists.” I would not be surprised if some of the most far-out “conspiracy theories” consist, in fact, of disinformation put out by elements in the government to discredit all skeptics. But I do not know this to be the case.

How could government complicity be kept a secret? It can be kept a secret, because so many Americans are scientifically ignorant and emotionally weak. They are incapable of realizing the contradiction in the government’s claim that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, and they are emotionally incapable of confronting the evil of the Bush regime. Many Christians think that Bush is “a man of God” who is protecting American morality from homosexuals and abortionists. Others who wear their patriotism on their sleeves think Bush is standing up for America and innocent Israel, and that they must not let anti-American anti-war protesters cause America to lose another war and repeat the Vietnam experience. Americans are both ignorant and full of resentments against the left. This makes them easily manipulated by the neoconservatives who dominate the Bush regime and the media.

Also, many anti-war and anti-Bush online sites are scared of being called “crazy conspiracy kooks.” They protect their sites by staying away from the 9/11 issue, just as so many Americans are scared to death of being called “anti-semitic” and thereby do not dare criticize Israel no matter the heinous war crimes that state routinely commits. Of all the online subscribers to my column, only vdare.com and NewsMax had the courage to post my column. Realizing that even antiwar sites would serve as de facto gatekeepers for the neocons, I offered the column to ICH, whose editor cannot be intimidated.

The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. Whether the false reporting by Popular Mechanics and television are due to incompetence or to complicity in a government cover-up, I do not know.

We know nothing about alleged suicide flyers led by M. Atta except what the government has told us, a government that has lied to us about everything else, such as Iraq’s alleged WMD and alleged links to Osama bin Laden, and Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, a program for which the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors cannot find evidence.

According to reports, the BBC has found 6 of the alleged suicide hijackers alive and well in their home countries. I do not know if the report is true, but I do know that the report has been ignored and there has been no investigation. Both the US government and the US media have turned a blind eye. We have no way of knowing if Atta and his named accomplices hijacked the planes, or, if they did, whether they were dupes of intelligent services that pretended to be a terrorist cell and organized the cover for the engineered demolition.

The fact that we do not know any of these things, and the fact that the 9/11 Commission co-chairmen now tell us that their report is flawed, are good indications that we have no documented information of who was behind the plot, why it occurred, or how it operated.

With regard to the role of the US media, if it is indeed a media rather than a propaganda ministry, one reader cited remarks by the distinguished investigative reporter, John Pilger, made in an address at Columbia University on 14 April 2006:

“During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. ‘I have to tell you,’ said their spokesman, ‘that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don’t have that. What’s the secret? How do you do it?’”

This quote is probably apocryphal, but it is well used to make a valid point. The answer to the Russian’s question is that during the cold war the American public viewed the Soviet Union as a dangerous adversary and were amenable to reports to that effect. The fact that the Soviets were a potentially dangerous adversary made Americans blind to the roles of the US military-industrial complex, which benefitted financially from cultivating the adversary relationship, and the US government, which benefitted politically from cultivating the adversary relationship, in keeping the adversarial relationship alive.

The uniformity of the US media has become much more complete since the days of the cold war. During the 1990s, the US government permitted an unconscionable concentration of print and broadcast media that terminated the independence of the media. Today the US media is owned by 5 giant companies in which pro-Zionist Jews have disproportionate influence. More importantly, the values of the conglomerates reside in the broadcast licenses, which are granted by the government, and the corporations are run by corporate executives--not by journalists--whose eyes are on advertising revenues and the avoidance of controversy that might produce boycotts or upset advertisers and subscribers. Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home.

Despite the dark days in which we live, some readers find optimism in recent polls that show more than one-third of the US public now disbelieve the official account of 9/11 despite the Bush regime’s propaganda faithfully trumpeted by the US media. Bush’s own rock-bottom polls show that Americans, like the Russians of the Soviet era, can read between the lines of the propagandistic US media. Many Americans can still spot a liar and a cheat when they see one.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Thursday, August 17, 2006



You asked about the refusal to fight in war. People who refuse to fight in war are known as "pacifists." (This has the same root as "Pacific," as in the ocean, and means, "peaceful.") Pacifists have been with us for thousands of years. There are dozens of varieties, not just the Amish.

Many early Christians refused to support imperial Rome in its many atrocious wars, and they were tortured to death for their pacifism. Jesus Christ himself prophesied, "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." Jesus has no enemies on earth. For example, right at this moment, God loves the Iraqi people every bit as much as he loves Americans, Canadians, British,French, and other types of human beings. God loves Africans and Asians and Caucasians. He loves Jews and Christians and Muslims equally. God has no "chosen people."

God also has no "chosen country." Since he knew that God has no enemies, Jesus finished the puzzle by putting in this piece: "Love your enemies." Killing a person with brutality is no way to show Love for her/him.

Pacifists refuse to fight in human wars because they believe, correctly, that these are caused by the devil of fear (especially greed). Early Christians set forth the principle that, when there is a conflict between the two, "We must obey God as Ruler rather than men." (Acts 5:24). God does not work in this world through greed and murder. Those are acts of the devil, and service to it.

There is such a thing as "justifiable war," as when the nazis threatened to over-ride and conquer the whole world. "That is not at all what is happening when a giant, such as the U.S. steps on a third-world country and crushes the life out of it, murdering its women and children, and then, invading it.

But even in such a "justifiable war" as WW2, the true pacifist will refuse to engage, to fight. She would rather die, which is no "sin," than to kill, which is a sin.

Reincarnation and Luke 16


The Scriptures do not clearly state anything using the word "reincarnation." But this was a very common teaching among some of the Jews of the time, and was also embraced by many if not most of the nontraditional Christians called "gnostics." (These are not to be confused with the "cap G" Gnostics, small cultlike groups during the first two centuries. These were the mystics among early Christians.)

Jesus, and the angel, said that John the Baptizer was Elijah. In the Gospel of John, chapter 11, the disciples were passing a "man born blind." They asked Jesus, "Who sinned, this man, or his parents, so that he was born blind?" How could the man himself have sinned even before he was born, unless it had been in a past life? The disciples assumed that he had been born blind due to karma, but Jesus made it clear that the man had chosen to be born blind,so that God might be glorified.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, Job is identified as the "wises of the Orientals," according to some older translations. He said the famous words, "Naked came I from my mother's womb, and naked shall I returnthere."

Also, when Jesus asked his disciples whom the people thought that he was, they replied that some thought him to be Isaiah or "one of the prophets." Jesus never corrected the disciples, or gave lectures against reincarnation when they seemed to be discussing the subject. In fact, in some of the more ancient documents, he embraces the teaching, and so do some of his disciples.

In some documents, including the Indian classic Bhagavad-Gita, which was written as early as four hundred years before Jesus' birth, reincarnationis taken for granted. Also, the Indian classics the Upanishads were written even earlier, going back to from six to eight centuries before his birth. since Palestine was a very busy trade-route, there can be little doubt that a person of the time, who was religiously educated at all, could, and probably did, read these ancient works.

We know that the heretical Cathars believed in reincarnation, in the Middle Ages. These Christians traced their heritage to the early gnostic schools. Gnostics got their name from the Greek verb gnosein, which means, "to know, in a very immediate and direct way." This was the verb used by Jesus in John 17:3: "This is timeless life, to know you, the only true God..." Many if not most of the first Christians, in the first century, were gnostic Christians (mystics), as was Jesus.

Reincarnation was a universal beleif among mystics (gnostics), then as now. Most mystics from most countries, in all centuries, have believed it. How else can you claim that this is a just universe? Has anyone ever come up with a better explanation for the existence of evil and unfairness? I do not think so; before I embraced the idea, I carefully studied the beliefs of dozens of varieties of Christianity. The very final "piece" to that "puzzle" was the discovery that many types of early Christians also embraced it. For early Christians had a wide spectrum of beliefs; they did not all believe exactly alike. They did share a belief in the power of Love in the Christ-spirit, but had different views about many things. They were people of spiritual adulthood, spiritual independence. They did not share the leadership of one man, such as the pope, and did not share any doctrinal "tests of faith." Each was free to choose her or his own beliefs, depending on what the individual could prove to herself. It was a belief in freedom, as both Jesus and Paul indicate. (Jn. 8:32 and 1 Cor. 3:17) That freedom was sacred,a gift of the Holy Spirit.

The parable of Luke 16: 19, which includes a symbolic story of a man who died rich, and who had abused a poor man, uses the symbol of the rich guy waking up in suffering, and the poor guy going to the "bosom of Abraham,"which, to his Jewish listeners, meant paradise.

Almost all professional Biblical scholars believe that this, just like all of Jesus' other parables, was a symbolic story, not a literal one. (Indeed, the very meaning of "parable" is "a symbolic story.")

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

More Lovexpressions


It is undeniable that pure and complete Love defines the total nature of God, but much about Her is also summed up as cosmic and unlimited Mind, whose definition is the embedded context of Love, or Its "carrier-wave."

A can express her Love even when B does not know it, and in ways that B might not have even conceived. A Lovexpression need not confer with its recipient to be still genuine. If I send you a clock that is hideously ugly-- for example, a naked lady with the clock in her stomach-- and do it from a motive of pure Love, the gift-giving is unaffected by the fact that it is not exactly what you want. The Love, spectacularly imperfect, even misdirected, still represents a pure motive, and still creates the purest karma of Love!:)

If Love is their only motive, imho, it seems that almost anything that they do will be an expression of Love-- by very definition.

You seem to be assuming that if a person has Love alone as her motive, she is not capable of other interests or activities. But a motive of Love actually enriches other motives and other interests; it by no means drains life of its glorious, multiple, or fascinating diversities. Love extends, magnifies, and amplifies every element discovered, and all shared, in a full and glorified life, made ever richer by every expression of Love. For Love greatly enriches and embellishes life.

Love must exist in balance, for if It does not, Love can become disturbing, Its energy twisted, and Its energy moved into unhealthy areas. The human tendency to distort and warp can touch even this most splendid and glorious of cosmic resources. A twisted, misunderstood, and ugly "Love for God"-- or, at least, a defective interpretation of "Love"-- motivated Crusaders and Inquisitionists, and has stood behind wars, pogroms, pillaging, and evils of many varieties. So, it is very crucial-- indispensable-- to have a good definition of Love, and then, to balance selflove with other-love, autoagape with alloagape.

I wrote, "For she who does not love herself cannot effectively or deeply love others.

Love is one unified process, seamless, from one Mind. If you do not love the self, your Love-capacity is restricted, limited, and disabled. If you are so Love-challenged, unable to love the most intimate and wellknown mind ("your own"), you do not have the capacity or ability to love another effectively (practically, with real Lovexpressions). You might be limited to the pseudoagapic a-Love mentioned in the last email.

Loving others is a special and very complex ability, not comparable to other activities. For Love, to be complete, is not like writing checks. Love is a gift that entails a certain completeness in its Source and expression. To express the real thing, in any substantive way, Love must begin with selfacceptance, selfcomfort, selfreflection, selfunderstanding, and other rather complex but healing forms of selflove. Selflove entails humility and goodness, and is never arrogant. But if Love does not begin with a healthy and balanced selflove, the entire Love-"mechanism" is broke, and Love for others becomes ineffective, limited, partial, increasingly imperfect, and even crippled. For Love is a sinngle Whole; and this is what Jesus implied by the famous equation of behavior, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

If you love a doctor as a doctor, or a teacher as a teacher, or a wife as a wife, it is in these senses that you must try to love your fellow human beings as your Self. For they are all manifestations of your higher Self-- the highest Self, Brahman, the Creator.

You cannot serve others without having served the Self; you cannot like others without liking also the Self that indwells them. You cannot aid others without aiding the Self. You cannot understand others without understanding the Self. I will not create a boring litany, but you get the idea. Since the Self is within all, it is impossible to love the small self, or to love others, without loving the Self. In fact, it is impossible to love anything without simultaneously loving the Self Who is all things.

But even looking at the microself, the ego, you block the Loveflow and Loveglow when you do not love the self. Blocking the Flow resists it; resisting It cuts back the Flow; this restricts Love, and cuts it down to a trickle. we cannot force Love by an act of will; we must permit It in the Flow.

If a thief broke into your house, and held a gun up to your head, and shouted, "If you don't love me right now, I'm going to blow your head off!" you could not manage to love him through an act of will, even though you willed it with every micropsychon of your being! Love must be allowed. It is part of the Way that the human being P.L.A.Y.S. her life; this is the acronym for how the mystic becomes the vessel/conduit for God (Love): she Permits, Lets, Allows, Yields, and Surrenders. She either does this with fullness and completeness, or she does not. When she is successful in becoming the conduit for the Flow, she goes all the Way; perfect Love finds a perfect expression. A perfect expression-- which God the Self accomplishes, not the ego or social self-- finds perfect or full manifestation. A love that is healed and whole must include the self as well as the Self.

I wrote, "For selflove is as vviable and necessary an expression of true Love as is other-Love."

I fail to see any harm in giving pleasure to the self as an expression of selflove.

From the view of higher Love, there is nothing at all "wrong" with giving pleasure, including sexual pleasure, to the self, especially if this reflects what the other wants; thus does personal sexual pleasure express Love for the lover and the lovee simultaneously, making its expression even more complete....Good sex involves pleasuring both; and sensitive people are pleasured best when the self of the other enjoys the sharing. But neither does the mystic embrace even this fine principle absolutely or fanatically. For example, she does not condemn masturbation in moderation: Where is the harm that could and would make it a "sin"? As noted, there is no contradiction or inconsistency in seeking pleasure in good sex (that which does not harm), for both the self and the other.

For, in sensitive sex, each shares the pleasure of the other, and this keeps good sex from becoming mere shared masturbation; it makes it a real and deep sharing. Selfpleasuring becomes other-pleasuring....If both received genuine pleasure, this would make sharing sexually an expression of true Love for both by both.

Her skin's being stroked also pleases b. For her to receive of his Love is itself a supremely important way for her to give him Love. Love is a complex interactive process of continuous mutuality; so, whenever a allows b to love her, that is a real way to love him.

In the best Love-sharing, the way that you pleasure the other is also your greatest pleasure. The division and dichotomy disappear in the mutuality of the Love, and the "your" and "my" dissolve, absorbed into the sharing or oneness of the pleasure.

In Love, as is not true within other contexts, there comes a point where Love for the other merges, converges, with Love for the self. This is especially, but not exclusively, true when the sexual pleasuring of a is also the highest way of loving b. Perhaps it is also true that sheltering a is another way of truly loving b. Love is so widely comprehensive that loving a is sometimes the best and most complete way of expressing Love for b. Duality often disappears in Love, in a Way that is not directly comparable to any other psychological or spiritual function.

But, especially in sexuality, no choice is necessary: Both can be equally and simultaneously pleased by Love-sharing, as sex.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Impeachment Now

Theory Impeachment Now!


ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/stacey/pnum306.php

As a Congressman, I will not shirk away from my oath of office. Saying that includes the inherent responsibility to hold the balance of powers within their Constitutional function. It has been determined that the Executive Branch has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the public eye. Through illegal wiretaps, spying on American citizens, lying to start a war, sacrificing national security in lieu of petty political revenge and criminal neglect in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the
current administration has abused its privileged position for profiteering and selfish ambition.

To put it bluntly, "regime change" begins at home.

The problem we’re faced with is that the members of the Majority Party in Washington DC honestly believe that they are chosen by divine providence to rule the world. The error is clear. They have their jobs by our good graces, not the other way around. If we are to bring sobriety back to our system of government, we must first elect new leadership to lead the charge for change and hold all of those in the administration responsible for their actions.

We have been lied to, marketed to, misled, threatened, and pick-pocketed. Every one of the principles of our Constitution has been under attack, and dangerous power-grabs by petty tyrants imperil its virtue. Our children will now bear the brunt of this administration’s myopic and selfish ambition, and the very future of this American Experiment is in serious question. We must do what is necessary to save our Republic from predators who only seek riches and glory for themselves at the expense of the rest of us.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/stacey/pnum306.php

This alert is brought to you through the activism of Stacey Tallitsch, running for the U.S. House in the 1st Congressional district, and one of the leading progressive voices in the state of Louisiana. Many of you have already submitted his action page calling for the troops in Iraq to start coming home now, a policy that is more surely correct with every passing state of emergency in Baghdad.

Stacey has been running call to action radio spots in this district, calling for an end of the obstinate occupation of Iraq, a military escapade which has brought nothing but death and destruction to both their country and our own. And he has produced a new one on the impeachment issue. You can hear the new spot on this page.

RADIO SPOT DONATIONS: http://www.usalone.com/stacey/donations.php

Nobody can predict how a particular race will turn out. But we know that the spots we ran on impeachment had tremendous secondary impact, as TWO other groups were inspired to run their own call to action ads on this issue as a result of the investment we made in this action. If you are able to do so, please make whatever donation you can to continue the stand we are taking on issue after issue.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

Powered by The People's Email Network
Copyright 2006, Patent pending, All rights reserved.

Theory of Karma 3: More Goodstuff


The professional study of reptiles, herpetology, is also Mind; yet it would not be logical to ask a herpetologist about technicalities re the structure of biplane wings used during WW1. So, the fact that everything is mind does not imply logically that every science should be about every thing. And mystical artsciences are not about gyroscopes.

With Lovemind as our arche, we mystics are absolute monists. We believe that this deepest Mind is the Source of all reality; indeed, we believe that It is Reality Itself, and that "other" things in the cosmos are products of It, exist within It, and It within them. We feel further that dualism-- the illusion that anything or anyone does or can exist outside of, independent of, this Mind to be the primary mistake-- the "original sin," if you will. This is the basic dualism into which mind plummeted immediately after its fall from oneness, or the realization of oneness. This was the beginning of the game (Hindu lila). Dualism, particularly the sub-belief that the ego exists apart from the One, is the origin of all other errors.

We do not make any distinction between Mind and world. Mind is the "material" world, and the "material" world is all Mind.

In my book, Journey to the Center of the Soul, it is made quite clear, repeatedly, that we are monists.

For convenience, and for sanity, Mind has decided to divide data into compartments. Further, in the spacetime world, we simply do not have sufficient time to bring all the whole Unconscious to a conscious level. Nor is the conscious mind created for this function. It follows that, although Mind is omniscient, no particular mind is, or has to be.

There are mystical states, or peeriods, in which the Totality of Mind can be glimpsed, but not grasped, or processed consciously. The fact that Mind knows everything by no means implies that its sub-minds are also all omniscient. They were not dreamed into being for this purpose, but rather, to "lose themselves" in the maya-world.

The system is actually designed so that we can gradually grow into the larger (great) Mind. But this process is designed to occur gradually, and to require centuries of maya-time. Were we to emerge into It suddenly, we would likely overwhelm the neural and other organizational systems of the physical brain. As noted, the physical brain is not designed for this purpose. Instead, the way that the system works, we grow into knowledge, wisdom, and understanding gradually. Common sense and observation can extrapolate that the gyroscope stands through the interactions of mathematically related forces, a counterbalancing of gravity with centrifugal force, created by the energy of spin, but not every part of Mind (the mind of a dog, for example) is going to have this data at its disposal. Some minds, like some sciences, specialize in this kind of knowledge, and some minds specialize in different areas, so that Mind becomes, as the old mystics wrote, "all in all."

We must begin by understanding that Mind has willed Itself into voluntary amnesia, and other limitations, so that it can more convincingly, and with greater excitement, play the game of the "consensual" reality.

Of course, in the final analysis, Mind contains and knows everything. But this in no way implies that your dog, or you, should be able to repeat, word-for-word, the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nor has any realized mystic ever made such an outrageous claim. This is precisely why mystics say that most of this vast Mind is "unconscious." that means that it is not accessible to, or retrievable by, the conscious mind.

The Mind is limited by scientific "law" that emanates from a very deep level of the Unconscious, deeper even than soul-- the collective. From it arise all the laws of science, with all their implied and explicit limitations. Jesus reminds us, "Anything is possible," and, turned slightly, "Nothing is impossible," but some things and events are impossible within a certain context or "world."

As indicated by the excellent book The Tao of Physics, mystics long ago anticipated many of the most important discoveries (of observation) of modern quantum physics. Quantum physicists arrived at their conclusions by studying the ultimate substructure of the atom. Mystics studied only the deeper levels of the Unconscious. As psychonauts, they anticipated and prediscovered many aspects of Reality just now being uncovered by neophysics. One of these, btw, was the totally astonishing and unanticipated discovery that, at its basis in subatomic structure, there was nothing "solid" in matter. This contradicted, of course, not only
Democritus, but also Newton; for both believed in ultrasmall solid particles. In physics, the word "particle" does not refer to a tiny bit of matter; hence, it is a misnomer. It refers instead, to a probability-wave that is the ultimate source and substance of all matter.

There does exist a dualism in the world of maya. But, since it is itself illusion, mystics still consider themselves monists. The One, the Mind, dreams up everything. It dreams up even dualisms-- plural. We have several obvious dualisms in the dreamworld, including male-female, dark-light, good-evil. these categories, although not absolutely true or real, aid the mind to construct a sequential life, which is also based on the illusion of time. (Btw, mystics also said things about time that physicists are now starting to believe, such as the famous "eternal now.")

Again, and again, the mystic lives, must live, in two simultaneous worlds: the dreamworld of dualism, and the Mindworld in which dualism does not exist. Great mystical classics state that, to recognize Mind (Brahman) as all things is the essence of the intellectual understanding of enlightenment. But, after having seen this, the mystic returns to activities in the spacetime world, for it is there that most minds exist, and compassion impels their enlightenment.

Two worlds operate on different principles, and, in the dreamworld, dualism does indeed exist. But, since it is all created by the One, mystics are monists, not dualists.

We are all, and always, already complete. Buddhists say, "You are already the Buddha." And early Christians said, in precise symmetry, "You are already the Christ."

We do not "think the m-world is real. Yes, we act as if it were, for that is the nature of the game. That is the will of Love for us. This activity makes the mystic socially conscious and socially responsible. If the mystic embraced the kind of literalism that you suggest, she would be absolutely good for nothing, and for no one. She would be a complete and total apathist, complacent about everything. Mystics, in this dreamworld, have been great writers, teachers, poets, artists, leaders, dreamers, and even scientists. (Einstein said much of a mystical nature, for example.) The goal of a mystic is not to become an inactive, de-activated lump of selfrighteous complacency, but rather, a servant of compassion. A bull-headed insistence that everything is God, and so, it follows that the mystic need do nothing, leads to a psychological, emotional,and worse, spiritual deadend. This is but paralysis or petrification, in which progress, growth, and even activity, are absent in a nonproductive void. Sorry; mystics are not interested in apathy disguised as "faith" or "realization." We know God as Love, and prefer the service of Love,for that is the "will of God" (desire of Love) for us.

The mystic must live simultaneously in both worlds. I promise that this will be the last time that this is stated, after so many restatements. The mystic is not a nutcase who denies the solid world, anymore than is the physicist who does the same. (NOTE: This is not to imply that nonmystics are nutcases. It is simply seeing, and experiencing, the world from a different perspective. It works; it brings peace, serenity, acceptance of what cannot be changed, the power and courage to change the things that should and can be changed; it also brings Love, awareness, joy, wisdom, and many other extras. But the mystic is not out to grasp these "perks" as personal possessions; she pursues truth for its own sake, for truth is God (Truth=Reality=God=Love).

We know that the maya-world is not really-real. But, in order to live and function within the maya-world, we must respond to other people, to animals, and to objects as if they all possessed "independent" reality. This is no lie or hypocrisy, for they do possess some independent reality; it is simply not absolute. "When in Rome, do as the Romans," wrote the mystic Paul. That can mean, "When in the dreamworld, act as a dreamer."

Mystics do not give a care whether we are in any way distinguished from "other people." We embrace something because it makes sense, and because it explains realistically more facts than other views. If we found a view that made more sense than Mind=Reality, we would change our views and embrace that. (After thousands of years of mystical history, however, we must be honest and admit the improbability of this.) Mystics do not live by dogma, which we reject, if that term is defined as believing a worldview because it is "Scripturally correct," or "the only correct view" within a certain religion or Church.

Two simultaneous worlds-- one a game and the other Reality-- are simultaneously coexisting within Mind. Mind commands us, has made us, as human beings, to live in the dreamworld; but as Mind, or minds, we are also created to live in the Mindworld. we are all both; but because everything is Mind, there is no absolute dualism here.

The mystic will not walk in front of a giant truck, for this might kill her; at the least, it would show an absence of selflove for the body. But when playing Monopoly, you never mistake the board for the real world, nor the racecar, hat, or shoe for your true self. During the game, you implicitly agree to play by its rules. So, it is genuine immorality if you steal a bright orange $500 bill from another player. The rules of this world are also implicitly accepted, and agreed to, by the enlightened mystic. But still, she never mistakes the dreamworld (maya-world) for the Mindworld (real-world).

When dealing with people and other creatures, who call for compassion, she is called to assist and aid in the dreamworld, so she "descends" to that level. In soaring and personal meditations, dreamstates, and other altered states, she is free to transcend this world. Psychologist Viktor Frankl, the noted father of logotherapy, knew people who had mystical experiences of transcendence, and who found genuine peace, amidst the atrocities and horrors of the concentration-camps. This is but one of
many examples of how the mystical realization keeps the mystic sane amidst stresses. Closer to home, when our little house in northern Kentucky was completely flooded, Adamaria my wife was reminded, "None of this is really real. It will pass with, and vanish into, the great Flow of time. Meanwhile, our challenge is not to be controlled by the material world and its changes." She reports that this view was a tremendous aid during her hardest moments of struggle. Now that we are on the "other side" of those events, we can see what wisdom, detachment, and peace that their realization brought during a time of crisis.

This recognition of the relative reality of the m-world has nothing to do with the "convenience" of the mystic. But it has everything to do with her calling, which is to give aid, help, support, advice, teaching, comfort, and assistance to other living creatures. Kirk &Raven wrote somewhere that some philosophers gave little or no comfort by telling the people that their crises were mere illusions, and dismissing them as of no account. Love moves the mystic in precisely the opposite direction:
She never dismisses, ignores, or neglects the pain or discomfort of any creature as "mere illusion." Were she a fanatical literalist, the mystical view might move her in this destructive antiagapic direction. But, again, mysticism without Love is no mysticism. And, again, mysticism as only a worldview can evolve into an uncaring, apathetic, and antiagapic inactivity. Worldview + Love. Mysticism must have both to be complete. Worldview is the intellectual aspect of mysticism; but mysticism's enduring core, and its source of all activity, is Love.

I can become emotionally involved in the ideas and concepts of mysticism. That is what it means to say that the Way touches the heart (the feeling-centers). Mysticism is not a thing of the brain alone, as is so much of our spiritually dead culture. I know that mysticism is a Way that is very difficult to understand. And if I must repeat an idea a hundred times, well, then, I will repeat it a hundred times. Frustration arises with the incommunicability of the most important thoughts by the weirdly limited use of words. As is the case in neophysics and paraphysics, we are always running into the brick walls of paradox; yet your very literal mind often insists, as is your training, on a clear "black-and-white," or "either-or" distinction-- not always possible in a field as elevated above normal worlds and "laws" as mysticism can be, at its highest.

A conscientious teacher of mysticism MUST make this point: The worldview of mysticism, stripped of Love, is a dangerous one. An unstable mind could easily conclude that this world is all "just a dream," and so, "It does not matter what I do, whom I hurt or harm," etc. So my main teaching is agapology, not the dreamworld, because without Love, the idea of the dreamworld can very easily serve the lower nature. I remember referencing the "frankists," among the Jews, and the Carpocroatians among the Christians, who used the dreamworld and its relative unreality to justify every kind of crime, sexual abuse, and other forms of obscenity. Please excuse me if I ever over-emphasize this, but the danger is so very great here that this philosophy could easily ruin the life, or several lives, of the average person were it not complemented by Love.

We must both keep in mind that the fact that this distortion did not happen with you does nothing to imply that this destructive path is impossible for a less-stable or less-grounded mind than your own. When we first started communicating, you were a complete unknown. And it is much safer to err on the side of caution than to be careless.

Because something is real-true does not make it the wisest or best course within the context of a maya-world. As already stated, my intention is to be clear and lucid. Not every question contains simple or simplistic "yes" or "no" answers. Often, there are shades and graduations existing between the extremes of a clear "yes" and a clear "no." To be an honest person, these must be explored and explained when and where they appear.

For the same reason that you do not teach a two-year-old how to play with matches and gasoline, so at times it is inappropriate to try to teach a real-truth to those who are not ready for it. Perhaps they are not mentally, or morally, prepared to receive it. We must use good sense, and return to the basic question, "What is the most loving course here?" It would not be loving to teach the toddler how to play with matches, and it is not the best, or most productive or appropriate course, to teach the idea of a dreamworld to a criminal mind who might abuse it to rape,murder, steal, and then laugh. He might say that none of it matters, since "it is only a dream." Jesus taught the crowds by parables, but his disciples he taught the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," such as those teachings found in the Gospel of Thomas, written for mystics, not for traditionalists. Even despite this precaution, he was still murdered by fundies. But he taught this way, not for his own survival, but because different people require different styles of teaching, and even different teachings. (Of course, both his exoteric and esoteric teachings were truth, and neither falsehood.)

The mystic never "acts as if" the maya-world were "true," but she can play that game if that is the only one known to her listeners. This she does, not out of dishonesty or inconsistency, but out of Love for those who know only maya-reality.

The mystic can speak of both maya-reality and real-reality only to those who know that mysticism is safely fused with guiding Love. To teach a motorcycle gang, or a rape-gang, that this world is only an illusion or dream might not have the desired positive result of aiding in the will of God (Love) for the continued healing of people, and of the planet. Those called to be mystical teachers, such as myself, must make these decisions; and they are by no means academic trivialities, as they might seem.

The Way is inapproapriate for certain mindsets. The mystic is not at all worried about this, for she lives in fullest awareness that, when the time is right, all minds will emerge into full enlightenment; but some stilll have centuries or millennia to go.

The great mystic Solomon said, in his famous Ecclesiastes, "For everything there is a time, to every purpose under heaven." Since he was discussing the world "under heaven," he meant that everything in the maya-world had an appropriate time; and to do even a good thing, at the wrong time, might not have the best results.

The comparison of the world with a "play" is a fine analogy, but only approximates truth, for the play-world can make real-changes in mind; and so, the mystic is an actor, but not only an actor. While the world is not a real-world, the seeds in the mind, such as anger, joy, etc, can be real-alterations that go, in the Mind, beyond this world.

The teaching of mysticism has been illegalized more than once, especially in orthodox Christian, Jewish, and Islamic communities.

The good reason for the mystic to "play along" with the maya-world is not just a "justification" or "rationalization." She behaves as if the maya-world is true because it does actually possess a certain level of reality. But it is a secondary, relative, reality. It is not absolutely real. But neither is it as illusory as a nightdream or a play. The Docetist Christians taught that Jesus was a "phantom," but what they did not clearly teach was the rest of the mystical view: Everyone else is also a "phantom," when compared with the reality of the Mind. So, it is more like adream, an analogy that we often use, than a play where everyone knows that it is unreal. To further complexify matters, we must again deal with the scientific tendency to create neat , exclusive
categories. For when we move from play to dream, we are coming into areas of Mind; some of these are real. And so, the cosmos is not so neatly and clearly divided up into convenient maya-sectors and real-sectors. Could a mental event even combine the two, in one experience? I don't see anything but dogma that would make this synergy impossible. At any rate, as noted, because maya-realities are always creating real-realities, it seems intuitively inevitable that the two could merge in some mental events.

It is because of this amorphous, nebulous absence of clear boundaries that the mystic must pretend that the maya-world is real. And it is also due to her compassion, her agape. To use the analogy of a nurse who wants to heal, she must often go where the sick are, and not demand that they come to her (her Mindlevel). She plunges into the challenging nightmares of earth also as a model, an enlightened being who can demonstrate the Power and joy of enlightenment.

The mystic does not compare with the lying preachers among the fundies. She does not abandon morality (which means goodness) in the face of temptation. She is not a moral or ethical hypocrite. Many mystics have proved this by dying rather than lying. Here, as in all matters moral and ethical, we are dealing with intent. The mystic's intention is never to mislead. she would consider that wrong, simply and always. But you have left out another entire perspective here, and that is the one of paradox. The great mystic Lao Tzu wrote, "Truth is often paradoxical."

Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I," (jn. 14:23), but he also said, "The Father and I are one." (Jn. 10:30) It would be easy for an enemy simply to label him a hypocrite and dismiss anything else that he had to say. But spiritual people use precisely similar paradoxes all the time in their teachings.

If you were to ask a mystic, "Is the flame on that candle hot?" she would say yes. She knows that the flame, as Mindenergy, contains no intrinsic or inevitable heat. But, in the context of this world, denying the heat could result in terrible burns, or loss of property. A strong wind arose when a masterteacher was walking with two of his students. They were raving over how the colored flags were waving and flapping in the rushing winds. The teacher said simply, "The wind is not moving; the flags are not
moving; only Mind is moving." Yet no mystic could ever be "wrong" or "hypocritical" because she observed that, in the maya-world, both wind and flags were moving. So, a mystic could state the same truth by saying, "Flags are moving," and, "Flags are not moving." The Buddha said, "The Buddha does exist and yet does not exist. for it is beyond existence and nonexistence." Quantum physicists have said the same thing about ultrananomicroparticles. We must be careful not to judge transcendental mysticism within the limitations of the logic-bound human mind, lest we dismiss the most spiritual of all beings as "fools" or "hypocrites."

It is not hypocrisy because, while in the maya-worrld, mystics are subject to the "laws" of that m-world, and can be killed by trucks. [Of course, as souls, they never die, but that is a different question.] The mystic believes that she has a particular time to leave the earth, not set by randomness. Still, out of Love for her body, and not from hypocrisy, shhe tries to respect it. She avoids serious injury, eats healthy foods, exercises, etc. None of this can overcome karma, but these are all ways to practice selflove.

Love, defined as actions whose motive is to help other creatures, here enters the picture. The mystic believes in two aspects of life: 1) Karma guides all major events, and 2) Love guides her personally to alleviate suffering whenever and wherever possible. The second principle always overrides the first, in determination of her behaviors. So, she does not act like a predestinarian. If her husband, or his wife, were attacked, the mystic would defend her in struggle, often even to the death. Why is this not huypocrisy? Because Love is the motive that is one eighty from hypocrisy. Love not only insists on telling the truth.
Love is truth itself.

You are all intellect here. You are deleting, in mind, the major factor, and that is the directive energy of Love. From the intellect alone, to behave as if the world were sheer illusion (which it is) might force the neglect of Love, which the mystic is not allowed or permitted by her higher Mind. We had formerly discussed morality, and that moral or immoral behavior can indeed exist in a llucid dream. Moral and immoral behaviors are also real-realities even though these mental responses are created within the context of a maya-world. As the m-world can create r-realities within the mind that survives this world, so r-realities can
be created by m-activities. It is "truly wrong" to cheat at cards, checkers, chess, or monopoly, even though these are even less real than the m-world. Maybe these are games within maya. If it is possible to violate real moral laws within a game, it is possible to violate the r-law of Love within the m-world. And apathy or complacency constitutes precisely such a "sin." The goal of the mystic is "impeccable honor," which is not literal sinlessness, but rather, doing the very best that she can do always to respond to the direction of Love. For Love appears as kindness, compassion, empathy, sympathy, goodness, concern, care, service, etc.

The higher functions of Mind are regulated by Love or God. The events of the m-world do not control the free mystic, but Love might well move her to respond in a loving Way even if she knows that she is not in ultimate control of outcomes. for her goal is never control, or to push situations to come out the way that she wants them. Her goal is to exercise, or manifest, Love in every situation. In surrender to Love (God), she gives up all illusions of control, and does not act to control events. Technically, working for only Love, without aiming for results, is called karmayoga. This can mean living, practically, without expectations. This brings total equanimity. For example, I write these words to clarify my own mind to myself; I do not expect them to change or
"convert" you. Living free of expectations makes this peace possible.

Karma is the product (creation) of a larger reality, called "balance." A bit more complex, but more correct, is to see karma as the interaction between free will and balance. In physical (chemical) reactions, the cosmic "need" for balance is recognized within every chemical reaction. In matters of karmic morality, this balance expresses as justice, an intrinsic quality of Mind, which is Love. As a subset of Love, this justice did not have to be created as a "separate" or "apparently separate" item. All the elements of Love are intrinsic to Love and are regarded by mystics as axiomatic to the supreme Reality called the "Ultimate," the "Absolute," etc.

No matter how much you alter Mind, or Its manifestations and expressions, you cannot truly, genuinely separate anything or anyone from Mind. For this creates dualism, the first in a long series of illusions. A mind can believe itself separate from the Absolute, and this is "hell." But it can never be absolutely r-separate.

Every incarnation is not designed for the purpose of producing enlightenment during that current life. Souls are gradually creating enlightenment by "burning off" their old karma; in that sense, every life is about the movement towards enlightenment; but not every life is about high, or even increased, spirituality. Often, a soul will have many other types of karma to work out, and most of the energy of a particular life will be spent to work out those issues, including deliberate evil or harm, misunderstandings, bigotries, hatreds, forms of ignorance, and many related unspiritual or even antispiritual challenges.

At the close of the last letter, I was about to introduce a special kind of karma called "propitiatory" karma-- p-karma. In this type, the small mind can make a contract with the great Mind to take upon itself some of the karma of another. This is the karmic choice of a highly evolved Soul, very close to Spirit, for it is a gargantuan act of Love. It can typify, for example, the very admirable bodhisattva of Buddhist tradition, the "saints" of other traditions, or the saddhus of Hinduism.

Grace originates in Mind, and small minds also originate in Mind. And here, "originate" is also metaphoric, since the small minds also, and always, exist within the One.

It is impossible to add anything to a Mind that is already infinite. So, grace exists in infinite, unlimited supply. You cannot add anything to it. But you can add to your awareness of grace. Enlightened people realize that all beings and creatures live in one hundred percent grace and one hundred percent forgiveness. But free will gives each person her own "valve" to control the inflow of grace. So, although everyone is in pure, one hundred percent grace all the time, people experience different grace-levels when they are more, or less, ready to open up to grace. God, said Christ, does not "give the Spirit by measure." God gives it all to everyone, but we do accept It "by measure."

In your illustration of wanting to kill the kindergarten kids, but having forgotten to load your rifle, yes, you would indeed get b-karma for that. This is based on the sure and certain principle that karma arises, not from results, but from intention.

Old Christian theologians distinguished between "deliberate" and "indeliberate" sins. The indeliberate or involuntary error, mistake, or "sin" has zero karmic consequences. No being is ever held responsible for what she does in ignorance or darkness.

But can it not be argued that all "sin" is a product of deeper ignorance and darkness?

While this element and argument does have some validity, it is still a psychological fact that some behaviors/actions are deliberate, voluntary, and intentional. These are the ones alone that create karma.

If a person is foolish enough to be running down the hall with a sharp pencil, and trips, and stabs another, the runner, person a, will have no karma. But the victim, person b, is no doubt paying off a karmic debt by being stabbed, due to some time in which she likely stabbed another, voluntarily.

There are certain mental illnesses in which a person cannot resist trying to get others to hurt her-- various forms of masochism. These have their psychological roots in karma. Karma often sees to it that sadists and masochists find each other; they make a harmonious but terrible music.

Voluntarily stabbing someone with a sharpened pencil will produce negative karma, for it is a deliberately harmful act, even if you try to justify it. I do not think that this argument ["I was just trying to help her erase her old karma by stabbing her"] would hold up, in either a human or the cosmic court!

More Delicious Details about Love


Love makes sense in only a larger context of Mind, and in the context of an overall life guided by an active Mind. But to imply that anything is "greater" or "broader" than Love is apparently too contradict the mystical statement, "God is Love." But we must note that this statement does not by any means exclude that God is also other things, even broader things, such as underlying Mind. The statement could be more accurately stated, "God is cosmic Mind expressing Love." For it neither says nor implies, "God is only Love." God is, in Her totality, much too great to reduce absolutely to a single concept.

The construction of a shelter could well be the expression of Love. For without realistic and practical expression, "Love" dies into nothing but an idea or concept, and no idea is real Love, however elevated or noble. As "faith without works is dead," so truly, "Love without expression is equally dead." So, constructing a shelter could indeed be a viable expression or practical manifestation of Love. For if one loves the other, that Love demands actuall expression.

If genuine Love were in operation, these types of activity would be exactly the Love, for Love exists only within its expression. Without Lovexpression, there is no Love.

Giving pleasure to the self, as long as it does not harm the self or others, is a viable expression of selflove. By denying the pleasure of selflove, you are really limiting in a serious way others' truest and most elevated ability to love each other. For she who does not love herself cannot effectively or deeply love others. For selflove is as viable and necessary an expression of true Love as is other-Love.

I fail to see any harm in giving pleasure to the self as an expression of selflove. True, in history, we have a strong streak of asceticism, but, as the Buddha discovered, this is not a viable spiritual path. From the view of higher Love, there is nothing at all "wrong" with giving pleasure, including sexual pleasure, to the self, especially if this reflects what the other wants; thus does personal sexual pleasure express Love for the lover and the lovee simultaneously, making its expression even more complete. Only an oaf goes for sexual ratification that is only personal; good sex involves pleasuring both; and sensitive people are pleasured best when the self of the other enjoys the sharing. But neither does the mystic embrace even this fine principle absolutely or fanatically. For example, she does not condemn masturbation in moderation: Where is the harm that could and would make it a "sin"?

There is no contradiction or inconsistency in seeking pleasure in good sex (that which does not harm), for both the self and the other. For, in sensitive sex, each shares the pleasure of the other, and this keeps good sex from becoming mere shared masturbation; it makes it a real and deep sharing. Selfpleasuring becomes other-pleasuring.

Agreed that lying, by act or by claim, is dishonest. But if both received genuine pleasure, this would make sharing sexually an expression of true Love for both by both.

Achieving or discovering pleasure in sexual content brings joy to both, and hence, is an act of Love for both by both. Your problem here is that you seem to make a "black and wite" choice between pleasing a and b; but, especially in sexuality, no choice is necessary: Both can be equally and simultaneously pleased by Love-sharing, as sex.

What I would call an "abstract Love," or a-Love is an impossibility. For, as noted, that so-called "Love" can really exist without expression. So, a-Love is an existential impossibility, and an oxymoron. It is but a figment of literary and other forms of imagination. No, you do not have to be physically with the ones you love; but any Love must contain, even be defined by, real Lovexpression.

When Love is genuine and real, It compels people to think of each other. Depending on the type of Love, and Its powerlevel, some Love compels uninterrupted thought of the lover; but even a mild Love must compel the great pleasure of thinking about the beloved. Without this, all that you have left is the naked and cold abstraction of so-called "a-Love," which is no Love at all.

There is nothing "spiritual" or even genuine, about this kind of a-Love. Spiritual Love is defined by concern, aid, assistance, mutual enrichment, by doing, not just saying.

Real Love must have two aspects in order to be complete and real: 1) the "warm fuzzies," which is what many mistake for Love, when it is only one-half of Love. For real Love also contains, and must include, 2) action or behavior, manifested as service and/or friendship, and consisting of several varieties of Lovexpression. According to the type and powerlevel of Love, these can range through an entire spectrum of intensities; but if they are not present at all, neither is Love.

Any abstract "Love" is only illusion, for a full one-half, and often more, of all Love is Love-action or Love-behaviors.

Even the person of Love, the mystic, is never so one-dimensional as to be interested in only Love. Though she worships It, admits this, and though Love is the Center of everything in her life, this by no means prohibits a wide spectrum of other interests. Although Love is the most important part of, or interest in, her life, there is not a hint that the enlightened mystic becomes a Love-fanatic; indeed, to do so would violate a basic aspect of the Love-pattern, and that is moderation. Mystics seek the "Middle Path" of buddhism, which prevents "agapomania," or an unhealthy obsession with Love only. (This is so even though periods of agapomania can be healing and healthy.) Mystics can cultivate any interests in the world that are not directly antiagapic. Most of these, most of the time, are relevant to spirituality. But within that broad subject are hundreds of sub-subjects; and so, spirituality as Love amplifies interests, and does not confine or diminish them.

Despite our society's hatred of good and innocent sexuality, this is also a very valid Lovexpression, provided that neither a nor b has a sexually monogamous commitment to another. (Remember that ahimsa is not ascetic anti-pleasure, but demands that the mystic voluntarily hurt no one; and inappropriate sexual sharing would definitely hurt.)

Even conflict can be a rich store, or goldmine, of subjects to discuss. But so can the many forms of positivity, upliftment, goodness, compassion, Love, etc. We can invest virtually limitless time in the discussion of these and other complexities in our personalities. And Love by no means prohibits the discussion of conflict and/or interior challenges. For if conflict is a goldmine, and it is, Love is the mother-lode.

And not one of these items goes against a shared and luminous, very fulfilling, Love. For not one is designed to harm another being.

You write, "Clearly, this is a very different kind of love from 'love-only.'" Agreed that real Love has nothing in the world to do with a-Love.

We mystics love an entire series and spectrum of very different friends. We find their personal variations and varieties of interests and tastes only makes them more interesting. The fact that all who are cultivated on a deeper level of friendship are also interested in Love and good psychological expression and healing only makes them deeper friends, and deepens also our shared friendship, which is, imho, the way that things should be between friends. All of our friends share this belief in Love and its Power; but none is a fanatic, and none so monochromatic that she can speak of nothing but Love. Still, in the abstract, a person who spoke of nothing but Love would not be a harmful or terrible, boring fanatic. In today's diverse and varied world, she might actually be refreshing. For Love is as wide and splendid a topic as we are ever likely to come across. And agapology (the psychology of Love) is very, very deep, polyfaceted, and healing.

The Buddha is all about suffering with the subminds of the great Mind. That is why the Crucifixion is the ultimate symbol of the Christ or Buddha in our culture. There is no Love so real as that Love that suffers in our personal losses, and thus, acknowledges them as important. Suffering makes God human.

A part of spiritual culture and development is a growing sense of spiritual independence from too much human input. But the more spiritual being is arguably more in need of Love than the neophyte, who might well feel that she can take or Leave Love, or she might be even afraid of It. No matter how completely she grows, the mystic never "outgrows" the need for Love; for It is her sustenance, her interior nutrition, and she is not afraid or ashamed to request Love-- although loving people are rarely in need of such a crude request, and give Love in abundance, in many forms and powerlevels. This they do voluntarily, without the need for coaching or coaxing.

Theory of Karma 2: More Detail


Karma does not explain gyroscopic motions. Neither is karma designed to explain any of the other motions of "physical" objects in Newtonian mechanics or physics. For karma is a pattern and theory that does not apply to the so-called "physical" world of physics at all.

Indeed, karma dismisses and denies the existence of that world, within a mystical context. According to the mystical view, the "physical" and "external" world is really neither. For, as in the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads, it is all-- the entire cosmos-- Mind only.

Karma is a principle created by, and that regulates, Mind. So, it cannot be taxonomized with the accuracy and material division so convenient to taxonomies of physical objects such as plants, animals, or minerals.

Still, given this great difference, there is some classificatory activity that can and does apply to karma. For example, a major division occurs in types of karma.

Karma is generally dreamed into being by the Spirit (Coremind, Lovemind, or God), but always modified by the contents of the Soulmind. This creative Power has been likened to a bright white light shone through a red filter. The light of creation is analogous to this white light; the effects of soulkarma are like the red filter. By the time that we experience the pure white Light of creation (created by a perfect Mind, hence, Itself perfect), we know only a world of imperfection (redness), because the purest, flawless, perfect Mind has been "shone" through the "filter" of the soul, and has thus absorbed all the karmic material of the Soulmind in the occurring dream.

The two most basic forms of karma are: 1) b-karma, or "boomerang" karma-- reflective or reflexive, that "automatic" karma created by previous behaviors, or caused by the omission of positive behaviors. This is the "karma" about which everyone knows, and which many believe to be karma's only form.

But a second type of karma-- v-karma-- also exists: This is voluntary, optional, or elective karma. This is a lifetime-experience dreamed up by the Spirit (working through the Soulmind), and it is selected or chosen voluntarily by a soul in order to learn, or accelerate, a particular lesson. A soul might choose a limitation, for example (karma is often this) in order to work on humility, healthy interdependence, cooperation, interior insight, or any number of other spiritual qualities or

Thus, when we perceive a person with even serious limitations, we do not have the right to suggest or assume that she misbehaved or hurt others in a previous life. For not all karma, by any means, is the common b-karma. Much is also v-karma. As examples, some of the most enlightened saints, masters, sages, and teachers have often suffered from limitations-- some of them quite serious-- of the physical body. And they were not healed or cured during a lifetime. It stands to reason that the sould can create a "v-karmic contract" in which it agrees voluntarily to come to earth with an imperfect body in order to learn. This is not the usual "rebound" or "boomerang" karma, but a new karma created by the soul's obsession with growth and development. The truth here is scary to the ego, but is this: The soul will do anything necessary in order to accelerate enlightenment. This includes the choice of an uncomfortable lifexperience.

In this type of experience (v-karma), the soul decides before birth to select a dna sequence that will result in a weakness or imperfection. Unlike the "boomerang" variety (b-karma), this karma needs to be designed consciously by the soul, with awareness. (Some b-karmogenetic factors can be totally unconscious, and thus, aware or conscious activities are not necessary, but only a relaxation into the Flow.)

Love, with its intrinsic forgiveness, is the only force in the cosmos that can erase the effects of reflexive karma (b-karma)-- the more common type. That is why Love, in its largest and most "generic" definition, is the most important lesson of these earthly lives. In erasing the effects of b-karma, Love returns us to the state that, in Christian theology, is called "grace." We were all originally created by Mind fully enveloped and immersed in grace, saturated by it. Grace occurs due to the simple will of Love, and human actions can neither detract from or add to grace. It is simply a gift given by Love, for Love's own sake, and for no other
reason. It cannot be limited by human error, nor elicited by an act of human will; it cannot be made richer (although our experience of it can) or poorer.

There are, of course, varieties of intensity in b-karma, for it is first and foremost a system of perfect equilibrium, implying perfect justice. B-karma-creating acts (bkca's) performed during childhood, which we might call "c-karma," are not as deep or intense as that created during adulthood.

Karma is created by only a voluntary, deliberate, or "pre-meditated" act. The motive for the act must be conscious, and it must be an act of intent or intention. Any intentional act can and does create b-karma. But no genuine error can ever create any karma: We are never responsible for honest errors, and, hence, they have no karmic "price" or value. So, errors do not produce karma.

Old Christian theologians distinguished between "deliberate" and "indeliberate" sins. The indeliberate or involuntary error, mistake, or "sin" has zero karmic consequences. No being is ever held responsible for what she does in ignorance or darkness.

But can it not be argued that all "sin" is a product of deeper ignorance and darkness? While this element and argument does have some validity, it is still a psychological fact that some behaviors/actions are deliberate, voluntary, and intentional. These are the ones alone that create karma.

If a person is foolish enough to be running down the hall with a sharp pencil, and trips, and stabs another, the runner, person a, will have no karma. But the victim, person b, is no doubt paying off a karmic debt by being stabbed, due to some time in which she likely stabbed another, voluntarily.

Since karma is created by the deeper mind (personal unconscious, or, deper, the Soulmind), there is nowhere to go to escape from your own mind. As the old cliche jokes, "Wherever you go, there you are." You simply cannot escape your own mind, and thus, your own dreamlife.

If the world were a series of independent objects and random situations, as is usually assumed (but being disproved by physics), you could theoretically escape karma if you were clever or smart enough. But since world emerges from mind, there is nowhere and no way to escape karma.

It is produced by a specific aspect of Soulmind called the "Observer." This very carefully and accurately records in detail every voluntary act, like a hypertech recorder. This recording is the primary function of karma, step one of two. The secondary aspect of karma occurs when this Observer "plays back" the material recorded. That is experiential karma. We could divide these two parts of karma as i-karma, which is the mental imprint of karma, and e-karma, which is the experience produced by the imprint on the mind.

You could further define karma by its power or intensity. Even c-karma can be so graduated. A karma with a value of 1 could be a very minor, but still deliberate and hurtful, event or behavior. On a scale of one thousand, a 1000-karmic event could be the worst imaginable, such as the voluntary murder of many. A karmic event with a value of a thousand would likely require more than one single life to repay, and to set the cosmos in balance.

On that one thousand scale, most karmagenic events might have a value of only between, say, twenty to 200. That is, they are not karmic monstrosities, disasters, or catastrophes. (These last two words share a root in "astro," for negative astrological influences.:) Most lies, for example, are but "little white lies." Not that lies have true size or color, but most lies, though harmful, are not significant enough seriously to damage or to destroy a life.

These are cumulative, however. If you tell two lies each with a karmic value of twenty (insignificant), you accumulate a total karmic value of forty, so your karmic value is forty. If you tell ten such minor lies in a lifetime, your karmic value is two hundred-- the same as a much more harmful lie.

Activities are rated according to their 1) deliberateness, 2) your awareness of their nature, and 3) the quantity of mental, emotional,physical, spiritual or social damage that they cause. There are here two types of karma: s-karma, which deliberately causes harm to yourself, and o-karma, which deliberately causes damage to others. Each activity is rated according to the hurt or harm it engenders. A mild s-karma could be created, for example, by over-indulgence in junk food known to be harmful. Mild s-karma can also be created by indulgence in laziness. Much o-karma can be formed by careless but deliberate dishonesty, or promiscuous sexual behavior (that which does not express Love). [Mystics are very practical, and define "evil" as "voluntary harm," and "good" as (including attempted) volluntary healing.]

Worldenders" or "Armageddonists"


Items about "Biblical prophecy" and Israel's place in its fulfillment appeal strongly to fundamentalists and their ilk, i.e., extremist varieties of "Christianity" and affiliated organized religions. Mystics and very spiritual types do not generally show much interest in fortune-telling via "prophecies." The history of "prophecy" rather dismally proves that the major players, and major events, are always changing--in as little time as a week. Books about "prophecy" have predicted the "end of the world" literally thousands of times since a thousand years before the birth of Jesus.

These people, called "worldenders" or "Armageddonists," are people who have given up on life-- on wisdom, skill, ability, capacity, and often, on beauty and harmony among people.

The dismal line goes something like, "Human beings have created such a mess of things that they cannot solve these problems. To 'solve' them, God is going to murder the entire human race, or most of it, at a mass-slaughter called 'Armageddon'-- a massacre so bloody that it will make all of Hitler's evil look like Mary Poppins."

This kind of negative and monstrous "solution" arises from worshipping the "monstergod" of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. The proto-Jehovic god of the ancients was violent, merciless, antiagapic in the extreme. Most human beings were his sworn enemies. So, his "solution" was often found in war-- in which he murdered the "enemies of Israel," the "bad guys." For these were also Jehovah's personal "enemies." He was a god, not of Love, but one with many enemies. The God of Love has no enemies, for She/He loves "enemies," as Jesus recommended.

Christianity under Jesus' influence rejected this god for the God of Love, Who was Love Itself. there was not a particle of room for any evil at all in this God. He/She was pure tenderness, gentleness, forgiveness, compassion, kindness, reason, tolerance, patience, wise maturity-- in a word, Love.

The God of Love is a Presence in the heart here and now, and cares nothing for history. She/He has no "chosen people," and clearly has no "special favoritism" for a nation as tiny as Israel. In fact, to the God of cosmic spacetime, the God of Spirit, there is no special planet; all beings on all inhabited planets, all sentient beings, are equally sacred to Him/Her. So, the true God has no interests in human calendars, nations, or time-tables, and no interest in murdering, slaughtering, or massacring Her children.

The "chosen people" syndrome is a pathology that proves the parochial origin of the god of most churches. This does not even resemble the true God of Love, as far from this primitive god-image as an elephant is beyond a spider.

The mystic accepts all that is good, healthy, and universal from the Scriptures of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, native Americans, and others. But she is bound by the regulations of none. She does not buy into the quirky and odd, sometimes bizarre, theories of "prophets" promoted by particular faiths. Historically, "prophecy" has a terrible reputation and record. Ninety-nine percent plus of all prophecies ever uttered have not come to pass-- whether their origins have been traditional "prophets," channelers, psychics, or others. To check the validity of this, just go to a used-book store and purchase the book What the Psychics Predict for the Year 1988, editions also appearing for the years 1988-2006. And you will have proved beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt how false and erroneous prophesies have been. Also, carefully study the history of prophecy among Jewish, Muslim, and various Christian communities, and you will find libraries filled with prophecies of events that never happened. In modern history, as a tiny example, the "battle of Armageddon" was predicted to occur every single year since 1964, by some preacher, "inspired prophet," or some other crackpot who felt with all his/her heart that she/he had been vouchsafed a special vision from God. Similarly, dozens of books about Revelation, the last book of the Bible, have ended up on the trash-heap because they made unreliable and false prophecies. (Revelation as a symbolic allegory, not a prophecy, is studied in my The Apocalypse of Love: Mystical Symbolism in Revelation.)

The world is filled with hopeless, helpless people who have given up on life, who have given up on the world. I used to belong to precisely such a bleak cult, with a dismal view of the future. People who see themselves and others as losers often give up all hope of creating or redeeming a useful and good life. These people often see ecology as satanic, and even nuclear war as a good and welcome event. Talk about backwards values!:)

As the people of Love and freedom, we can celebrate every day our liberation from this huge collection of scary, terrifying, terrorizing false prophecies and desperate fairy-tales. We can live each day to the fullest, in full Love for ourselves and others. we celebrate each day, not as the beginning of the end, but the beginning of the beginning, the first day of eternity. We can thus afford to shrug off, ignore, neglect, and dismiss the wild-eyed predictions of those who quake with fear at the annihilation of order, and the rule of chaos in the streets. We can hold a healthy faith in the goodness of people. this means nothing more than simply that, under most conditions, most people will do most of the right things, will behave out of the deep compassion-nature, and will care for their fellow human beings. We mystics look to a future filled with God--Love, joy, and Light, and not to terror.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Listen to High Spirits Tonight at 9

Our radioprogram "High Spirits" will be on the air tonight, Sunday, August 6, at nine pm.
PLEASE NOTE: The time has changed since last week: Tonight, it will be on at nine pm, not eight pm. Please mark this on your daily planner, or calendar.

Calling the show is a quick, easy, fun, and free way to help bothyourself and our community. Please feel free, then, to call in during the show. Our local number is 749-1360, and the ld number is

Here are the instructions for audiostreaming our show tonight at nine if you live outside the Ohio area:
Go www.1360wsai.com

There is a link that says "listen live" click on that.
The next page you go to will have a link that says "listen now."
Click on that and you should be good to go.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Theory of Karma


Yes, the mystic is guided by the internally consistent cosmic view of karma. This provides a comprehensive and exhaustive perspective that explains, rather than just "explaining away," the events spacetime. Every Soulmind has a unique karma, although they share many factors in common, e.g., the generally "upward" or "progressive" movement from lesser to greater spirituality (goodness, Love, wisdom, etc.)

Souls all begin as split-offs from the one Mind, which, in Its attempt to fulfill and express Itself, "plays the role" of "separate" souls. To make the effect complete, Mind can use its omnipotence to will Itself into states of apparent limitation. It can "hypnotize" Itself into believing that It is limited mind-- yours and mine, for example.

Yes, a soul can regress as well as progress. Enjoying free will (which is not "partially free"-- not free at all), a Soulmind can commit any act which it desires or wills. It can perform acts of evil, ignorance, violence, laziness, stupidity, or a plethora of potential acts that will set the interior "wheels" of karma spinning. A Soulmind can even regress life after life, and can erase or neutralize many lives of good or positive karma. Most do not, because the Light brings wisdom, and wisdom, by its very nature, prevents and neutralizes the dominance of ignorance.

It is built into the Mind that goodness is pleasant and positive, and evil damaging, at many levels. Even those who, in ignorance, do not seem to recognize this, are still "constructed" along this pattern. It is an element called "conscience," and is a reliable guide.

A part of the Mind called the "Watcher" or "Observer" carefully records our every voluntary, deliberate behavior. This aspect of the Soulmind (Unconscious) keeps an accurate and continuously running account of all of our voluntary behaviors. It is likened to a tape-recorder, and it "records" in this life all the stuff that we will "play back" in our next life. This assures perfect justice and balance in life.

As noted before, other types of karma are optional or elective, chosen by the soul as a test or exam, to evaluate its progress. (Not all karma is the reflexive or reflective karma so well-known to everyone.)

To use your term, the "unique final destination" of the soul is enlightenment. This is return to Reality, the recognition of Reality or "truth." This is, ultimately, what all science and philosophy are about. This Reality is the one Mind. Many feel a certain anxiety when contemplating the return to this Mind, for it does imply the disappearance (absorption) of the egoself. But instead of seeing the Mind as overwhelming and dissolving the ego, you could also look at the process this way: The ego grows into a higher and higher Self, each more fulfilled, satisfied, and content than the previous one, life after life, until it starts to realize that it is the Mind of Love and bliss Itself. The primitive ego fears its vanishing into higher Mind or Self, but there is nothing to fear. For the natural and inevitable state of Reality (Mind) is pure, unabated joy, or bliss. We are made to fall in Love with Love, and, when we do, the result is ecstasy, true completion, closure,and absolute and total wholeness.

Our joy increases as Love expands, for Love-- of yourself, the world, other creatures, other people, and God the Reality-- is the most awesome experience in the cosmos. Also, we do not have to fear total integration, as we are all likely millions of years away from total Mind; by the time that final emergence into mergence actually ocurs, we will have been prepared entirely for it.

Meanwhile, all life-- every moment-- is training.

The mind does grow into a final state of joy, bliss, tranquility, enlightenment. But this is not at all a state of stasis; inactivity is impossible fort the Mind, which is by nature dynamic. So, there is a "final state," but it too is one of continuous action, interaction, experience, modification. It is paradoxically both the open door to further experience and the goal of all experience.

Knowledge is great, even fun. Ideally, it leads to that coordinated Whole called wisdom. But even wisdom, as fine as it is, is not enough to "get you there." For wisdom must blossom into the flower of Love, which alone can liberate us. Being "in Love with Love" (God) is an endless and eternally progressive state. Love, as noted, is the endgoal, but does not imply stopping or cessation; to the contrary, It calls us into further action and activity. Here, we run up against the paradox created by the limitations of words: The soul, like the cosmos, is an infinite progression, movement and activity without end. But there is also an endpoint of "active rest," an ultimate state o of completion, fulfillment, and closure that does not imply that progress is "over" or "done with."

For the Mind chooses to continue playing (lila) even from the position or viewpoint of total enlightenment. For It hungers for experience, and It is especially attracted to joy-bliss. In order to satisfy this real need, It has created ten thousand different forms and powerlevels of bliss, ecstasy, rapture, and related states of joy. Knowing them, with gnosis, is the reward of the timeless life.

Stop the 65% Deception

Right-wing elements in Ohio are pushing an education plan called the "65% Solution." A more apt name would be the 65% Deception. The 65% Deception, of which Secretary of State Blackwell is Ohio's leading proponent, requires that school districts spend at least 65 percent of their total budget on "classroom" expenses. While that might sound good on its face, the devil is in the details:

  • The 65% deception uses a decades-old formula that counts athletic equipment-- but not teacher training, libraries, nurses, or school lunches-- as "classroom expenses." It's a definition that makes no sense, and won't do anything to help students learn.

  • The 65% deception does not include any additional funding for needy school districts. Already struggling schools would be forced to cut funds from vital areas.

  • One-size-fits-all schemes like the 65% deception undermine local control of schools and fail to account for the individual needs of school districts.

  • 65% is a number that comes from nowhere. Research shows no relationship between student performance and any percentage of spending on "classroom expenses."

We are pleased to announce the release of a new resource for public education advocates in Ohio. Stop the 65% Deception! A Toolkit for Ohioans Who Care about Public Education is the first in a new series of special reports addressing threats to America's public school system. In this kit, you will find an analysis of the policy implications of the 65% Deception, information on the right-wing effort behind it, and the facts, figures, and messaging points to aid you in your activism.


The toolkit was created as a resource for you, the activist, to help you educate your community about the latest right-wing scheme to undermine public education. Read it, pass it on to your friends, and use the information to write letters to the editor of your local paper to call Secretary of State Blackwellto task for his support of this irresponsible measure. Ask candidates for office, on both the local and state level, where they stand on the 65% Deception.

Careful people supports school reform proposals that are honest, effective, and research-driven; these include proven solutions such as decreasing class size, increasing parental and community involvement in schools, and expanding professional development opportunities for teachers. The complex problems facing our schools require more than bumper sticker solutions.

See the toolkit at http://www.pfaw.org/go/65Percent.

Thank you for your help in the fight against right-wing efforts to weaken public education in America!

-- Your Allies at People For the American Way

(Thanks to Mick Gallagher.)

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

The Definition of "Psychon"


A "psychon" is a unit of mental measurement. It is that quantity of energy necessary for a single thought or thought-cluster to achieve conscious status or awareness. A thought emerges from the Unconscious, and requires a certain amount of energy to ascend into conscious awareness. The word is often used to indicate the weakness of a thought, as in "millipsychons," "micropsychons," etc. We could say, for example, that the shrub has "not a millipsychon's understanding of international geopolitics." Or, we could truthfully say, "He has not a micropsychon of compassion."

On the other hand, in its expansive forms, it can be used to indicate the greatness or Power of a thought or idea: "I have megapsychons of respect for my friends." Or, more mildly, "I have kilopsychons of interest in crystals." (Much milder interest could be expressed in decapsychons.")

More about "Psychons"

It was never claimed that a "psychon" for one person was exactly equivalent to a psychon of another. It is a subjective measurement, and can vary widely, depending upon 1) the person, 2) the intensity of the thought, and 3) any special or neurochemical circumstances.

For the sleep-deprived caffeine-addict, his personal psychon would have a higher value, in mathematical or comparative terms, than that of a person who spends much time, for example, in meditation. The value of a psychon depends upon mental clarity, and is of a far different value in a chemical-addict, including one who regularly over-uses alcohol or caffeine.

For this reason, that interior conditions are always changing, the value of a psychon can vary widely within the individual herself. This only reinforces a principle already expressed: The numerical value of a psychon does depend on the type of thought, or upon the individual thought. Psychons are used to analyze the individual. A psychon has no value in comparative or groupsychology.

It takes more, many more, psychons for a thought of childhood sexual abuse to rise to consciousness than the thought of a day at the beach, frolicking. The purpose of the psychon-measurement, or one of them, is to compare the psychonic levels necessary to bring a thought or thought-complex (aggregate) to the level of conscious awareness.

To draw from the Collective requires many more psychons than it takes to withdraw a conscious thoughtconcept from the preconscious mind, which is rather shallow. To draw from the personal unconscious might require many,especially if the thought is deeply buried, old, or defended. The Soulevel of Mind is even far deeper, requiring many more psychons than from the personal, and the collective even deeper than that. To withdraw thoughtconcepts from the Coremind, Lovemind, or God requires an entirely altered state, utilizing a major flowquantity of psychons. Oddly, and paradoxically, however, often after the mystical experience, the psychonic activity drops to zero in allowing the interior Light to shine through. For then, the higher Mind takes over, and psychonic measurements do not apply to It, since It is infinite, and is the Infinite.

It cannot, as noted, be "defined" as a single entity for all people. But within the context of any given person, it can be defined. Once the definition of a psychon is established for one person, that unit can be used to measure only her patterns. In the case of easily retrieved and accessible thoughtconcepts, a psychon can rather easily be defined, from the shallow preconscious mind, and this would be the standard. In cases of repressed trauma, for example, it might require anywhere from decapsychons to kilopsychons to withdraw a thoughtconcept or memory.

The "psychon," as a bottom-line or yardstick, is based on the amount of energy needed to withdraw a thoughtconcept or memory from the preconscious mind (easily, readily available and accessible) to conscious awareness. Multiples of the psychon, as noted, are required to access more challenging, repressed, suppressed, or defended memories or thoughtconcepts.

A psychon is a subtle and subjective measurement based on the individual mind. And it must be so defined. It is not directly comparable to the units of energy used in physics or medicine, or in machinery or devices, generally.