My last role in the university theatre at Cal was as Segismundo in my classmate Tony Taccone's thesis production of Pedro Calderón de la Barca's Life Is a Dream (La vida es sueño). Calderón was the great Renaissance poet of the theatre in Spain as Shakespeare was in England, and La vida es sueño is his masterpiece.
In the play Segismundo is a prince who's been imprisoned since his birth, never seeing another human being except his jailer, because of a prophesy that he would bring ruin to the kingdom. Without another heir, his father decides to test Segismundo by bringing him to the court. He's drugged and transported to the royal palace where he awakens to luxury, but with no social experience to temper his animal instincts, he kills a servant who angers him, attempts to rape a woman and attacks those who come to her aid until he's subdued, drugged again and returned to his prison. When he re-awakens in his cell, his jailer tells him that everything he remembers about the palace was only a dream. Unable to distinguish between the reality of his imprisoned life and that of his supposed dream, he has an epiphany, expressed in a soliloquy that recalls Hamlet's "To be, or not to be":
. . . ¿Qué es la vida? Una ilusión,una sombra, una ficción,
y el mayor bien es pequeño:
que toda la vida es sueño,
y los sueños, sueños son.
What is life? An illusion,
a shadow, a fiction,
and even greatness means little,
for all life is a dream,
and dreams themselves are only dreams.
Segismundo is freed by rebels and becomes the leader of their army, all the time convinced that he's acting in another dream. On the eve of the final battle in which he will overthrow his father's rule, he encounters the woman he attacked. Through her he comes to understand the thread connecting the episodes of what he has perceived as his waking and dreaming lives, and to face the reality that his choices and actions matter and have moral consequences, even if life is only a dream from which we awaken on our deathbeds.
I have a clear memory of Tony pitching the part to me. We were at a party, probably stoned, and with manic enthusiasm he described the story of the play and the character's arc, wrapping it up, "He achieves consciousness, man! He achieves consciouness!"
Consciousness. Christ consciousness, Buddha consciousness, cosmic consciousness. That was the quest for so many of my generation. We sought it with meditation and psychedelic drugs, we sought it in love and sex, tantric or otherwise. We took pilgrimages to find it, we pored over the writings of Alan Watts, Ram Dass, Carlos Casteneda, Black Elk, Hermann Hesse, Fritjof Capra and too many others to name, as well as sacred texts, especially of the Eastern religions. We looked for teachers, we taught each other, we sat up in all-night bull sessions fueled with music and pot, arguing what is real and what is not.
It's been decades since my life felt like a spiritual quest to me, though I still remember when nothing else seemed more important. Taking responsibility for a family had a lot to do with the change, as did succumbing to ambitions in the material world, but mostly I think I just settled into a comfortable homegrown roll-your-own flavor of pagan religious sensibility.
I don't believe that life is a dream, though a younger version of myself may have entertained the possibility. Didn't we all see that Twilight Zone episode? But even if it were true that the universe is maya/illusion, what difference would that make to the universe or to anybody's life within it? This is where we have our being, and if it isn't "really" real, then reality isn't a very well-defined concept. If when I die I wake up to a different reality, I suspect there'll be time enough then either to figure it out on my own or to get some help with the answers. In the meantime, who can say they know completely and with absolute certainty the nature of this reality, the familiar one we inhabit?
Once you open your mind to questions like that, you find yourself going down a rabbit hole, and the question at the bottom of the hole is what do you really know, or to put it a little more finely -- where's the line between what you know and what you only believe?
I find the answer to that question in consciousness, not cosmic consciousness, but my own consciousness, the one I wake up to every morning. Descartes wrote cogito, ergo sum -- I think, therefore I am -- one's conscious awareness of oneself is the evidence of one's own existence. Add to that incontrovertible self-knowledge two axioms -- that the world revealed through our senses is really there, and that we share it with other conscious selves -- and you have everything you need to construct from perception and experience a coherent and functional worldview. That's the intellectual journey upon which each of us sets out at the moment of birth, and if we stay mindful and open we get to continue the trip until our last spark of consciousness is extinguished.
On this trip we have the benefit of the accumulated experiences and speculations of countless generations before us, witnesses whose recorded testimony allows us to retrace the steps of observation and reasoning from the first ape to lift her eyes in wonder at the sky to our current understanding of the evolution of matter, energy and time, beginning with a burst of creation fourteen billion years ago. We hold in common this inheritance of settled knowledge and can feel as certain of what we've so far been able to discover and demonstrate as we are of our own existence and the reality of the physical universe.
But our inheritance is much richer than just our scientific understanding of the workings of matter/energy in time. It includes all the shared creative output of billions of minds, living and gone, preserved in oral tradition, marks on stone and paper, ordered binary arrays of electromagnetic impulses. Stories, poetry, music, dance, drama, paintings, tools, structures practical and esthetic, edifices of reason, and perhaps the very oldest creative impulse, progenitor of all others, wonder. Religious awe, if you will.
There's a lot of room outside what we know, individually and collectively, for what we can suppose to be possible. Many widely held beliefs, especially those founded in fundamentalist dogma, are demonstrably delusional. But where spiritual beliefs are understood to represent mysteries, where fantastical tales can be interpreted poetically and faith is tempered with doubt, there's great wisdom in religious tradition and systems of knowledge that predate the scientific method.
Is God necessary to explain the existence of the cosmos? I'd say no. Is God a useful metaphor for everything discovered and not yet discovered -- perhaps undiscoverable -- about the reality we inhabit? To me She is. She is the word spoken in a fourteen billion year old burst from the void, reverberating forward in time to this moment . . . and this moment . . . and beyond. And in one of the echos of that word, energy allows matter to arrange itself into elements and self-replicating spiral molecules that express as patterns of intercellular electrochemical interactions corresponding to dreams.
We minds exist, we know ourselves, we see each other, with each other we see Her, through our eyes She sees Herself.
Sum, ergo credo. I am, therefore I believe.


Salon.com
Comments
Holding on to that today.
Thanks for this piece.
Sure, I contemplate the cosmos with awe and wonder, not to mention the life after death thing. I also wonder about parallel universes, the existence of ghosts and UFOs. Religion is a whole ball of confusion in and of itself. What's it all mean? I don't have a clue, but it is fun to think about, isn't it?
First, "roll your own paganism" is one of the best lines I've ever heard---but beyond that---
What this piece prompts in my is a reminder to never, ever, ever, cut ourselves off from the context of the search for deeper meaning, religious awe and wonder.
In the Jeff Sharlet book "The family" that I'm reading now and am determined to finish; be traces the history of elite fundamentalism---not the fundamentalism of the masses---but the fundamentalism of power. And he uses a phrase that Doug Coe, who runs The Family, uses. The phrase is "Jesus Plus Nothing".
So think about the journey you describe here, think about the religious writing of ANY faith including Christianity. All of that is The family's NOTHING. There is only Jesus the man. And the belief that Jesus can be whatever I want him to be. In the case of the Family it;'s that Jesus was put on earth to protect the interests of the powerful. (Interesting twist huh?)
Your essay illustrates why Jesus plus nothing is such a cynical attempt at nothing other than power grabbing.
And when power grabbing replaces wonder and religious awe---there is trouble.
Finally, your point on what I know versus what I believe---if even 1/4 of the world understood that distinction---we'd at the very least all have health insurance.
Hands down most thought provoking piece I've mread here in many a moon.
Wish me luck at church. . . . .
I'm convinced that something exists because I see it when I open my eyes, I don't mind using the word God to refer to it, and I always refer to Her not so much because I'm sure She's femalie as opposed to male, but because I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I'm referring to Yahweh
I think being "willing to consider, listen, read and explore all those possibilities" keeps that spark of consciousness on the journey, it's good to be reminded from time to time that we're on that journey
thanks as always for your encouragement
I have to be honest and say I didnt get it all on the first read but those are the best kinds of things to read and experience; the ones that you have to come back to and reread and think about so that you can get all the ideas and the sustenance that are right there in front of us if we could just see it.
yes, the world can lead us to profoundly spiritual states, esepecially when we put distance between ourselves and the built environment, I'm glad to know some of those writers who inspired me continued to inspire you and others in succeeding decades
I think organized religion can be more an impediment to a sense of the spiritual than a help, but once you've had that feeling you don't have to be constantly re-experiencing it to remember that it was there
blessed be
I especially liked the line, "I just settled into a comfortable homegrown roll-your-own flavor of pagan religious sensibility." That about describes me too - after years of visiting other religions, spiritual quest, all that stuff.
Maybe too comfortable - hardly think about the Big Questions any more...
Love your last two lines.
Tho my Herself would be 'just' Earth consciousness. Anything beyond is too hard for my mind - like the new Hubble photos...lovely on an esthetic level, but to contemplate what they show, no, can't go there.
I remember simply falling back on a grassy hill gazing at the sky (unstoned, mind you) feeling at peace with the universe -- always reading, seeking, praying -- reaching out with ease. And then all the big life events occurred & I got busy, so the seeking got tucked into corners of free time & put off, condensed into Sunday morning church services. This church, that church, but always all I was really seeking was that feeling I had gazing from that hill into a clear blue sky.
Besides just being a great read, & kind of a nostalgic trip (remembering being young & searching & idealistic about every new idea --or every OLD idea), this post reminds me of the value of staying mindful & to keep seeking & not just settle in, mind-closed, with one rigid belief.
Thought precedes action, but action is required, too, else thought is meaningless. Yes, something must be imagined before it can be created, just as Einstein's "thought experiments" (wondering why and what if) led to Relativity and our greater understanding as a species. But that thought also led to the bomb.
Don't know exactly where I was going with that -- just following Locke's Association of Ideas, I guess. The point I was trying to make is that what makes us human, what gives our existence meaning is not mere thinking, but doing, becoming that which we were meant to be. Most of us don't spend near enough time thinking about that, and many of us never "become" conscious of what or who we really are.
And in the end, the paradox is that none of can ever know that, for we can know what we do (if we think hard and long enough about it), but we can never know what we do does.
as to keeping dream and reality separate, I've never found myself confusing reality with a dream, but when dreaming, it's common to forget there's a waking state that feels different, maybe we only think we're awake w0000-ooooo-ooooo . . .
life after death, ghosts, parallel universes, UFOs w0000-ooooo-ooooo . . .
who has clue? but like you say, it's a lot of fun to contemplate
thanks for checking in, my friend
yeah, this kind of speculation seems more characteristic of youth, maybe I'm entering my second childhood
thanks a lot for the kind words
Karen says there is a genetic component to the need for religion- and I've seen papers and books on the theory (thought not read them)- I wonder what they will believe thousands of years from now. What myths with be on top then?
Think I will go watch a Joesph Campbell cd I've been saving for a rainy day :D since you've put me in the right mood- Thank you!
I've seen Sharlet on the Rachel M show discussing that particular flavor of corrupting Jesus' message, what balls these guys have, they actually transform Jesus into the Anti-Christ with a straight face.
always glad to have provoked some thought, my friend
This is great. Just great. I want to read this again--there's so much here. You get at fundamental truths in this essay my friend.
religion doesn't have to for-us-or-agin-us, though organized religion and especially organized monotheism tends to drag spirituality down into that muck, turns awe into paranoia
thanks for the appreciation and encouragement
I know what you mean about "just Earth consciousness", Gaia is a beautiful goddess and mother, all-encompassing enough for most of human existence, now that we understand how inconceivably vast reality is, the mother-of-all seems so remote and unapproachable, Gaia is Her aspect that we know best, that cradles us and upholds us, she may have turned out to be just another local goddess, but she's ours, so much easier to know and love
blessed be
that experience of lying in the grass looking at the sky in peace and wonder is one I share as well, it seems to me that we folk don't spend enough time looking at the sky anymore, in fact, for a lot of people, they have to work at it just to get a chance to see the sky, we're so cut off from it
thanks for reading my piece, I'm glad you found value in it
Marcela
and I'm not sure I follow your paradox, I'd like to hear you expand on that further
thanks for being here
I don't think that spirituality and ritualism are necessarily connected, though in my experience they can be, I think your idea to watch some Joseph Campbell is a good one
thanks for reading and commenting, it's always a pleasure to know you've found my words worth the time
I probably ought to save this for a post, but here's the Cliff Notes version to add further confusion:
I believe we are all born with certain gifts granted us by God or genes, nature or nuture, it matters not, they're there. For most of us, life is an endless struggle trying to become what those gifts demand of us in return.
In my case, I've known since a very early age I was born to be a poet, but in the time and place I grew up that was not a fate for manly men. So I have fought against that fate, tried to be what I was not, with predictable consequences.
If one is fortunate (and I am), one finally comes to accept the teachings of a philosopher far more well-known than Descartes or Sarte, Plato or Kant -- I'm speaking of course of Popeye, who offered up a teaching most profound: I am what I am.
As for the paradox of which I spoke, it is this: Even when we finally accept our gift and try to make use of it by becoming what we are meant to be, we still can never know the fullness of ourselves because even tho' we can know what we do, we can never know what we do does.
This is my faith, my religion if you will: Call it the Pay it Forward Effect or the PayBack Effect, I believe that what you do comes back to you, so if you can't do good simply because it's the right thing to do, better that you do good than evil.
EoS (End of Sermon)
the faith that we are each born to be something, to express some potential that's uniquely our own, and unless we lay claim to our true selves that we'll won't fulfill our potential, that's a powerful and beautiful concept
I like putting Popeye in the pantheon, and as for the Pay It Forward/Back Effect, I love to catch examples of instant karma, they're everywhere and the best kind of teachable moment
your example of the bird draws me into another layer of speculation that I left out of my post, I spoke only of the community of human minds and left out entirely the possibility of other forms of consciousness and/or self-awareness, but our shared reality includes many other life forms on this world, and perhaps modes of awareness that we're unable to perceive
thanks for joining the conversation
William Blake wrote in, Milton: The Sky is an Immortal Tent Built by the Sons of Los ,
The sky is an immortal tent built by the Sons of Los:
And every space that a man views around his dwelling-place
Standing on his own roof or in his garden on a mount
Of twenty-five cubits in height, such space is his universe:
And on its verge the sun
rises and sets, the clouds bow...
"humanity is god enough to explain the beauty and miracle in life and evil enough to account for downright demonic behavior", humanity seems to me pretty puny and insignificant in the grand scale of things, not god enough for anything much bigger than our immediate and blinkered concerns, but I'll grant that most of humanity's gods, whether good or evil, have been created in our image, which I think shows an appalling paucity of imagination and goes a long way to accounting for the easy disdain for all other forms of life found in so many human cultures
thanks for the Blake, it's beautiful
"...one's conscious awareness of oneself is the evidence of one's own existence. Add to that incontrovertible self-knowledge two axioms -- that the world revealed through our senses is really there, and that we share it with other conscious selves -- and you have everything you need to construct from perception and experience a coherent and functional worldview."
That is a kind of triangulation that to me is intuitive but that seems to elude a large part of humanity. Reality is constructed, you work on it constantly, and you need others to work on it with you. It's not enough to know what you're experiencing to claim to have a grasp on reality. You have to enter in to what others experience, too. Fortunately, we are largely designed for the social interplay that makes that possible. Unfortunately, we aren't satisfied to report what we observe. We have to make up explanations for what we can't see.
I read somewhere that believing in something that you cannot see or demonstrate is the definition of delusion for medical purposes, but religious belief is excepted. In rational western medicine, religious belief gets a pass as no other delusion does.
Another random thought: in the work of constructing a conscious reality in conjunction with other beings, the legacy of knowledge that you refer to can lead to two distinct results: a conviction that there is no ultimate answer, which is the result I'm comfortable with, or a conviction that the ultimate answer is in one of the many threads of belief, most likely the one most familiar to you. The choice is made on the basis of temperament. Do you need, for emotional safety, to turn mystery into religion, that socially sanctioned delusion, or political or social orthodoxy? How much ambiguity can you stand? The greater your capacity for mystery and ambiguity, the deeper your satisfactions and the more resilient you will be throughout your life.
I recently watched one of those Bill Moyers interviews with Joseph Campbell, where he asked Campbell about religious faith, and Campbell replied that he didn't need faith because he had *experience*, meaning he had spiritual experience to draw on. This essay reminds me of that.
I never really thought that what happens to me after I die is important or relevant or knowable, so I always thought of it as strange that people would worry about it so much and try so hard to pin it down. Ultimately I came to a conclusion similar to yours: whatever this is, whatever I am, wherever I am, if I am, or am not, I am just going to live and be who and what I am, or what I seem to be or think I am, without worrying too much about seeking *answers* and *certainty*. How I choose to live is pretty much all I have.
Interestingly, what we have learned about what influences how we perceive the world we live in tells me nothing is static, not our observations, not the things that seem that they don't move, not the things that seem like they never stop moving, not the things we know are there but cannot see, nothing is completely what it seems to be. To me, it seems that the best we can do is actually cop to our answers to all these questions as being the best we have been able to conceive of up until now. I don't believe for a moment that this inquiry is ever complete and somehow, no matter what, I believe there is something Divine about it all.
I also didn't just do this in college. It has been central to my entire life and spiritual balance came of recognizing that we are all, indeed, doing the best we can spiritually.
I'd be a little more restrictive in my definition of delusion, not as "something that you cannot see or demonstrate", but rather as something which is demonstrably untrue, the willingness to give credence to something you can neither prove nor disprove is what I'd call faith, and I don't believe all faith is delusion
and I strongly agree that the "capacity for mystery and ambiguity" is a hallmark of a healthy adjustment to reality
the Campbell quote is interesting, I think many of us have had spiritual experiences, but it's easy to let the memory of those experiences fade, I find a good look at the night sky a potent reminder
afterlife's another question altogether, to so many it seems like the most important question they must have an answer for, and that need to know and fear of the unknown is abused by religious dogmatists
thanks for reading and commenting
I never took a single philosophy class, and very little math or science, but I believe the method of testing whether something is real has to do with it being falsifiable. Not false, just able to be proven false. Religious beliefs (though not the associated ethics) cannot be tested for truth or efficacy. I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to believe that Jesus sits at the right hand of God up in the stratosphere. I do think it's a struggle (one that many modern believers, including my husband, handle pretty effectively) to separate those doctrinal myths from any supposed social imperatives.
So, fine if you believe the myth, not so fine if that means you burn people at the stake in the service of it. If you can believe Jesus is floating up there somewhere--or even that there is a benevolent goddess who is the font of all fertility--why not believe that Sirenita consorts with the devil? Belief scares me instinctively, as someone who *for sure* would have been condemned as a witch or a whore or a heretic. That's why I instinctively file religious belief under "delusion," though I have a lot of respect for those who can harness myth in responsible ways.
I'd draw a distinction between old religious ideas and old religious institutions, the more that a spiritual idea or experience is codified, moderated, or compromised with a host culture, the further it recedes from authenticity in my opinion, I value individuality of spiritual expression, which as you point out brings with it a relative shallowness of development
I differ with you on falsifiability as a test of reality, to be falsifiable something must be reproducible under specific sets of test conditions, I believe a very small subset of real human experience meets that requirement, I value the gap between what we can know and what we can only surmise or speculate upon, for the same reasons that I value poetry, music, art and love, they don't lend themselves to description through the scientific method
and I certainly agree that any belief that justifies burning people at the stake or any of a host of other violations is reprehensible and to be condemned, if one's worship leads to inflicting pain, cruelty or oppression, then one is worshipping demons
I agree with those who have said one reading is inadequate to really appreciate this post. And I have appreciated it. Upon my first reading, I found myself with some thoughts swirling around, but with no time for them to settle, nor time to address them. So I have reread the post several times, and now have time to write something, time to place a few random thoughts into written form.
“Being is believing.”
Being is knowing. Being is reality, and the rest is just what we make it into. Sometimes I find it intriguing when we refer to “reality” as a “concept”. Rather than being a concept, I think it just is and our perceptions of it are concepts.
You write, “It's been decades since my life felt like a spiritual quest to me …”
Does it feel that way again? I get the impression you describe a sense of loss. Is there a magic that disappeared and has returned or, perhaps, has it merely changed?
For me, the quest for knowledge is, and always has been, a spiritual quest, which is one reason I am so adverse to religious dogma that discourages a quest for knowledge. I find it curious that the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is the tree that Genesis points to as the tree that bore the forbidden fruit and that tasting that fruit of knowledge was “the original sin”.
Knowledge leads us to a better understanding of what is, of the real beauty of this realm, as we are only barely able to perceive it. I often wonder why we discount what we perceive simply because we know there are things we do not, while simultaneously giving undue value and respect to imagined beings with absolutely no evidence of their existence, allowing those imaginary beings to interfere with our progress as a species.
You ask, “…where's the line between what you know and what you only believe?”
Where’s the line between what you believe and what you imagine? This ties in with the above statements about knowledge.
You write, “Is God a useful metaphor for everything discovered and not yet discovered -- perhaps undiscoverable -- about the reality we inhabit? To me She is.”
I know that in essence, you and I agree on these issues for the most part, but there is an interesting contradiction in the fact that you think God is a useful metaphor while I find nothing useful in the metaphor of God. So, do you and I compliment each other? Do we cancel each other out?
Dogma that makes knowledge a sin, or something to be avoided is not something I find “useful” at all, and instead it is significantly detrimental. I know your conception of “god” is without the dogma. However, “God” (with a capital G) is really inseparable from the dogma; using “God”, even conceptually, or metaphorically, brings confusion and unwarranted murkiness to any discussion about “reality” or “consciousness” or “universe” or “being” or any other topic of existence or of a spiritual nature.
I think your description of your conception of Her is beautiful, leading up to when you write, “…energy allows matter to arrange itself into elements and self-replicating spiral molecules that express as patterns of intercellular electrochemical interactions corresponding to dreams.”
Is “God” energy? Do dreams bring about reality? Does reality correspond to dreams? Life is not the dream. Our perceptions are our knowing, both within and despite our limitations.
I am, therefore I know.
Thanks, Roy.
re: being is knowing . . ., it was my intention in this piece to break down readers' assumptions about being, knowing, reality to a bare essential, then propose a way to put it back together conceptually, your construct is as good as anything I propose
re: the spiritual quest, yeah, it sometimes feels like a loss, but more often just like a change of life circumstances and focus, the magic definitely doesn't disappear, it's always there when you give it attention
re: knowledge and perception, you've got the raw material for a whole post there, brother, go to it
I'm not sure I'd put a line between what one believes and what one imagines, though I guess you can imagine things without giving them the full weight and credit of your belief
re: God as metaphor, I try to make it clear that where I use the big-G God word, I'm not referring to anybody's concept of Yahweh, and not positing a divine Creator, but I won't rule out the possibility of sentience on a scale as vastly greater than individual human consciousness as the whole of space/time, and God is the best word I know for such a possibility
" . . . energy allows matter to arrange itself . . ." was I think an unfortunate choice of words, not nearly as precise as the sense I meant to convey which is something like "matter with sufficient energy at its disposal is capable of arranging itself . . . etc", I don't equate God and energy
as to the relationships among dreams, reality, life, I don't know how I could any more specific than I was in this essay, which is deliberately open-ended, I embrace the mystery
thank you, Rick
The logos, the way, as a constant murmur in our ear, is a compelling idea, and you build beautifully to it here. I LOVE the play, the character who has, by enormous sacrifice, arrived at consciousness, uniquely, within a piquant and picaresque story.
I tried half-way thru this post to articulate to myself how some writers manage to talk about these ideas with a kind of authority, not OVER the material but from within, companionably within. You do this. It is partly from familiar techniques: you identify the ideas viz theater and writing and this establishes not just the big ideas, in an original and raw way, thru this character, but you also establish your accessibility to US, as one who works this material, makes sense of it for audiences, routinely. In ordinary ways. This makes us trust you.
But the more important value you bring is your genuine regard for the ideas. It makes the second half shine, and engross, especially for those of us who read those books and were up to dawn with other thinkers, taking positions and peyote and picking it all apart, trying to find the whole.
But you emerge radiantly at the end, humbling your own understanding with the useful caveats about religion and faith. You manage to convey -- without phony grad student deconstruction or naive hipster elaborations -- the rapture over the essential mystery of how THIS, all THIS, came about, and looks at itself, thru us.
With sincerity and some keen attention. Well done, Roy.
you do me great credit, my friend, in your analysis of my writing technique, I can't take credit for all the craftmanship you describe, especially re: establishing trust and authority by the device of speaking as a performer, that was happenstance, it's interesting to me that my wife Risa's response to that element of the piece was something like your own, but the truth is I'd decided to write a piece untangling some of the knots formed by the concepts of maya, knowledge and belief, and was looking for a personal hook, the resonance with my experience with the play occurred to me only several days after I'd begun working out the other themes I wanted to address, and in fact I was worried that it took over too much of the opening of the essay
those were the days, weren't they, when reality seemed almost inifinitely malleable with the assistance of hallucinogens, and night-long flights of fancy and possibility with compatible souls were so easy to come by
I'm so glad to have been able to share with you "the rapture over the essential mystery of how THIS, all THIS, came about, and looks at itself, thru us" and so honored by the regard of so gifted a writer as yourself
thanks for the prayer, it really speaks to me in its invocation of mindfulness in all things
namaste, and blessed be
I've always felt "I am," so the intensive quest to know has never taken its toll on my thoughts. Therefore, your closing is near perfection for my level of absorption. I'm sure to come back again.
"Going down the rabbit hole . . . . . Where is the line between what you know and what you only believe?" I love this line and so many others in your profound post.
For me, the answer is in the result within me. Does what I discover/know (believed or true) feed me, awaken me, strengthen me, teach me something that takes me towards the next level in this game of life that I desire and choose to play. If not, it is simply mental masterbation. If so, yippee.
I LOVE YOUR WRITING!!! Reading it is a definate level rise!
I am new to OS. Please come visit. Thank you!
by the way, I've read your last two posts and thought they were great, made you a favorite in fact, welcome to os