[this text is a couple of years back; only yoga4d.com and
yoga6d.com are my websites -- reusch alias a.t. alias weber etc]




stein von reusch





miss yoga wint:
rocket fuel for free thought
































ebooks by stein von reusch in the miss yoga wint elibrary
standard in all miss yoga wint complete distributions
from http://www.wintuition.net and the mirror-sites www.yoga4d.com, 
www.yoga5d.com and www.yoga6d.com,
by stein von reusch

copyright stein von reusch
license GNU Free Documentation License
see description of the GNU GFDL at www.gnu.org/copyleft













INTERACTIVITY
ECONOMY










/ Briefly, why do you think economical questions are in such focus 
today? They sometimes seem to be more burning than anything else -- 
political, religious, biological, psychological. When it comes to 
money and the distribution of resources, nothing else seems to 
matter.

: Hasn't it always been that way? And then there were prophets that 
said: Thou shalt not fear! Look to the lillies in the field, they 
neither toil nor weave, and yet they have better clothes than you. 
Or whatever they said. I don't read scriptures. But the theme has 
been there, and is. The overthrowing of aristocracies with the 
incredible waste of resources, the barbarism of communism, at 
present the tyranny of megalomaniac global companies -- and what 
next?

/ It is a gloomy picture, is it not?

: I am not sure that it is gloomy. The future is open, don't you 
think? And we make the future what we want to make it into.

/ Yet on these questions, perhaps there are very few who has the 
power to sway the political or whatever development than it takes.

: Who has swayed more than Dostovjetski, with his book 
"Inquisition"? Where they attack the prophet in the name of the 
prophet, do so willingly, with admitted hypocracy. Political power 
without poetic power is a short-lasted thing. 

/ Does the real power lie with the poets?

: What is the Northern American constitution, if not a poetic work? 
And the foundation of the French revolution, is it not poetic? And 
both are related to Voltaire and all that. Aristotle, who with 
great diligence simply noted down, and in part cocreated, what was 
thought of as 'common sense', became one of the greatest challenges 
to the Christian Church with its one book. There were suddenly two 
authorities, the Bible, because you would be killed if you did not 
support it, perhaps; and Aristotle, because it made a lot of sense 
in itself, quite simply. Eventually, Aristotle won, and became the 
Western atheist science, with its atheist materialism and atheist 
egotistical economy.

/ Which is not the last word on these issues.

: I hope not! There must be more.





/ You say that Aristotle shaped the culture so that it became more 
materialistic?

: Of course, it is something a great many people have noticed. It 
is nothing original in that remark. He was a dooropener to the 
willingness to go through discourse and to some extent visual and 
auditory perception and so on to come to a great deal of stuff. Of 
course he was mistaken on many points and of course a great deal of 
people have worked on that but he laid a paradigm, a set of 
prejudices. In Chinese and Indian and other dominant cultures, they 
have had similar characters. But for the technological power that 
emananted out of the industrialism and science based on 
materialistic atheistic thinking, this has come to influence 
economy tremendously, even in rather secluded regions of Earth, it 
seems.

/ What do you mean, secluded regions?

: Well the founder of the pop group Pink Floyd sings about this, 
doesn't he, how Sahara becomes a Japanese golf resort and McDonalds 
and Coca-Cola turns up in Tibet. Entertainment is God, all that 
blah. Of course, it is probably only a question of time before 
travelling far far beyond the globe is commonplace, and then there 
are all these new places without shopping centres, whole planets 
waiting for Coca-Cola! 













/ I have looked up the word 'economy' in the dictionary, and I see 
that its roots involve the ancient Greek word for house as well as 
the suffix -nomy, which may mean something like pattern or order or 
law. 

: Yes, some people speak of the original concept of economy as 
simply 'household'.

/ You have begun to talk about interactivity economy. Why?

: The reason, I think, involves the sense of tension between 
economy and ecology. When economy means something too narrow, too 
limited, so that we bring in another term, which in its roots means 
nearly exactly the same, ecology, then it appears to me that all 
our concepts are too limited. 'Ecological eggs', for instance. They 
speak of eggs that are brought forward in a way that involves 
friendliness to the animals and birds involved, ecological milk. 
Ecological corn, that the soil has not been treated with too many 
chemicals but things that are friendly towards nature and towards 
human cells are used instead. If ecology means longsightedness in 
resource development and economy means shortsightedness then we 
need something else, a third word, which does not divide in this 
stupid manner!

/ Why cannot the word simply be 'ecology'?

: Ah yes, that reminds me of something else. Ethymology is not just 
something we get rid of. It tends to travel into the subconscious 
mentality connected to a word. If the root of the word is 
household, what about the sense of energy connected to having cash 
in the pocket and going to a cinema? What about the sense of value 
or high price on a painting involving real gold? What is the price 
of a book? How does the communication take place, between people 
who interchange a car? What is involved when somebody buys eggs 
from happy hens rather than eggs from sad hens, at a higher price? 
What about sponsoring an ideal organisation anonymously? The roots 
in ecology and economy lacks something: they lack action, 
interaction, energy, activity, process. They lack the sense of 
technology, also, interactive technology. So I searched in my own 
silence and meditation for a long while and then the term popped 
up: Interactivity Economy. An economy of generosity, of the energy 
of communication. Do you see?

/ You seek to bring everything that goes on in the name of 
'economy' today, including 'ecological economy' and many other 
things, into a single new concept.

: Well, not just a single concept, it can be several concepts. But 
I am looking for a more comprehensive sense of wholeness. And I 
want to understand the distribution of resources as a whole, not 
divided up according to this or that oldfashioned theory of how 
egotistical human beings might be. I want to understand electric 
money, I want to understand the joy of collaborating with others in 
a trustworthy and also intuitive fashion; I want to understand the 
money of science and state alike. I want to understand how economy 
can also be beyond the concept of money completely. In 
'interactivity economy' I feel a burst of energy, and I intend to 
bring out the logistics as well as the logic or language of this 
wholeness, and I invite others to join with me in this research 
project.












/ Do you have a basic economical theory?

: Do you? Do you have a basic theory of the psyche of people? If 
you have, then you have stagnated; if you claim that you don't have 
such a theory, you may have stagnated without knowing that you have 
it. Most people believe in Freud without even knowing what he said, 
because his utterances have seaped into culture. Much the same goes 
for economical theory. 

/ Do you mean that every basic theory of human facts is wrong?

: Once you have a fixed set of opinions or conclusions, at least, 
then you have stopped exploring. And I think that there is always 
infintely more to explore, even of essential things. 

/ But how can you even begin to talk about a subject such as 
interactivity economy, then?

: By declaring it an actual area, it is something actually going on 
-- people do communicate, they do exchange energies, they do delve 
into dialogue, they do set prices on artworks, they interchange 
artworks, they interchange other resources, they do give money to 
the poor, they do lend each other things, and so on. Interactivity 
economy actually goes on and you don't need a theory for it to say 
that it goes on, much as you don't need a theory of sunlight to say 
that there is sunlight, when there is. It is there. And we are free 
to explore it.

/ That's clear. Is there an area of interactivity economy that can 
elucidate itself, so to speak, with unusual clarity?

: I think that there are many areas that can do so. I am 
particularly fascinated about the interactivity economy in the art 
world. There is something utterly pure about this interactivity 
economy because, for once, it is something done by heart and 
perhaps bought or purchased or sponsored by heart, and yet it is 
solid in pecuinary terms. There may be a lot of money involved, you 
can buy a hundred apartements for a good Van Gogh; some achieve Van 
Gogh-like prices while they are active as artists while Van Gogh 
himself of course did not and that is somehow also charming, as an 
afterthought.

/ The miserable artist vs. the successful artist.

: Yes. I know of a very successful artist who often says that there 
is nothing worse than a successful artist! The point is of course 
than we would like to see somebody certainly doing something from 
his or her heart and when there is a lot of money, resources, and 
successes involved then can we be sure that the person is not 
hypocritical, cynical, manipulative, just a 'business man'? So we'd 
say, if the person doesn't have success in social terms but looks 
like he or she has a great joy in what is done spiritually, being 
mystical and changing names a lot perhaps, then the person is 
charming and there's an integrity to that.

/ But the distinction success versus not success isn't all that 
crucial for an artist?

: Of course not. It is a matter of clothing, in a sense. You may or 
may not be vain about these clothes, the clothes of success, the 
titles you are offered, but in essence what matters is whether you 
have integrity in what you are doing.









/ In the art world, as we talked about last time, there are the 
exceptional cases of the schizophrenic artist like Vincent Van 
Gogh, who reaches, posthumously, prices that are incredible, you 
can buy a skyscraper or just about it for a couple of his pictures. 
But then we have contemporary art which to quite a few people seems 
obsessed with its own theories in perhaps a rather cold and life-
distant manner.

: Fortunately the art world, despite fashions, is bound to 
challenge itself.

/ You mean that no particular inclination will last for very long?

: As soon as there is a concept explaining a certain piece of art 
then somebody will form an antithesis to that concept. To me, art 
is about something else than pursuing a set of concepts, or to work 
within a reference frame like that of socalled 'art history', which 
is really a very subjective afterthought, skimming a small 
selection of that incredible diversity which humanity pours out in 
the name of art every season.

/ You speak of an energy of communication.

: Really it is Frans Widerberg, a painter, who talked about this to 
me. He said that money is a form of energy because -- and notice 
this interesting form of reasoning -- because prices fluctuate. 
Prices move about. So they move, so they must have energy. Energy 
involves the potential for movement, or, when it is actualized, 
kinetic movement. So that brought me into the notion of potential 
economy or potential capital versus kinetic or realized capital. A 
forest is a great deal of potential capital. And that should count, 
even if it is not used.

/ Could you give more examples?

: You have an apartement or an extra office that you use only, say, 
every third day or so. The other two days it is still there, it is 
a potential energy, a potential capital. It is ownership or real 
estate perhaps but the sense of energy is there, constantly. You 
have the keys in your pocket. The keys involve the capacity to 
actualize this energy, to make it moving about and kinetic. 

/ Why is this so important?

: What is the difference between a plan and a key to a house? A 
plan to go to Venus may or may not be actualized; but a key to a 
house is a direct instrument of actualisation. Some plans involve 
certainties as to how something can be actualized, and in that way, 
they attain to great energy. This is a mental phenomenon. You have 
on your wall a painting and if you have a plan to swap it for a 
brand new car, you can do it, perhaps given thirty days, a contact 
with a gallery and a little negotiation. Potential capital may be 
there for years and years, even generations, even many generations. 
It contributes to our sense of intensity and capacity, even 
potency. It is a form of economy, of the interactivity economy, 
that creates great excitement and fun. 

/ Are you saying that ecological values can be dealt with in this 
way? As a potential capital that should be given a value though 
there is no plan to utilize it?

: Of course. The potential capital of a mountain like Mount Everest 
could measure far more up than ownership of the city of Manhattan. 
Utilisation is a different form of energy. A different form of 
capital.













/ I know you don't want to make a formula or a quick description of 
things, but can you try to say something essential about 
interactivity economy, for those who are completely new to the 
concept?

: Okay, I'll try. But let me first explain what you just said, 
namely that I am avoiding making a formula out of things. Whenever 
we conceptualize something towards a theory, a fixed set of 
conclusions, then we impose something almost fascist-like on the 
mind. And by the turn of centuries, somebody might get fanatic 
about a textbook and they might torture people who don't believe in 
that book. It has happened over and over again and there is really 
no point in being overly modest about the possible implications 
about any text: it may be radical, so let's make sure it is 
radically good. And so I would say: I give energy, and so do you, 
to an area of exploration. Let us at once say that we can be 
radically wrong in everything we say; let us at once say that 
unless everything we say is doubted and the reverse opinions are 
actively considered, then we may merely be contributing to making 
another terrible system. All attempts to make a system where there 
should be the free enterprise of open thought is, I feel, almost an 
evil act. There should be no system, just open avenues of 
exploration. Does that make sense to you?

/ Yes, although I hesitate to see whether humankind can do 
completely without systems of every kind.

: I don't mean it in a fanatical sense. We need calculators 
sometimes, of course.

/ Right.

: So let us merely be aware that when we make a list of words that 
we are going to talk about, or consider our 'values' or 
'priorities', or when we make a scheme of what Aristotle or the 
Pope or the President said,  then that scheme has little to do with 
reality. Reality is a territory that might be infinitely rich. Let 
us now explore. What was your question again?

/ The quintessence of interactivity economy, as you see it.





: Yes. Really, please, I do not have a fixed opinion here. I am 
listening to what you are asking afresh in this moment. My mind is 
open to perceptions. Interactivity economy, what is it? Can we 
explore it together?

/ But you coined the term, so you ought to mean something in 
particular with it.








: I think I have already explained that I went into meditation to 
find something that felt whole, a word that points towards 
something holistic about the human communication, and the 
communication in general -- not just human, and this is an area I 
am sure will be more active in the centuries to come -- and 
communication in which generosity as to resources, and interchange 
of resources, and development of resources, are involved. But not 
limited to that either. I wonder how we should enquire into it. 
Perhaps through the concept of energy.

/ I think you have spoken about potential energy and kinetic energy 
in an economical context. That seems highly interesting to me. Is 
that concerning the quintessence of interactivity economy?

: To a great deal. How many types of energy are there? How many 
types of resources, or capital, are there?

/ Are there more than potential and kinetic? Potential meaning that 
it can be turned into movement, it can be made something which is 
part of interchange.

: But you see, even potential energy is in some sense kinetic and 
kinetic energy is in some sense potential, when you look at it very 
closely. So I wonder if we should say that energy is whole and 
essentially undivided and then we can, for the sake of emphasizing 
contrasts in thought, point out that here is an aspect -- let us 
call it potential. Here is another aspect -- let us call it 
kinetic. And then we ask: how many contrasts are there?

/ Well, then, perhaps infinitely many contrasts.

: Exactly. But if we are a mediocre professor in a mediocre 
university we might want to say, there are, by god, seven. Or 
three. Or eighteen. And then we create discipleship in which on 
blackboard these three, seven or eighteen hundred forms of energy 
is repeated endlessly, to the stagnation of their minds and other 
people minds. I want to avoid all this. So also let us discuss it, 
let us enquire afresh -- that is why we do these recordings, of 
conversations not mere prose. Not mere description, but questions, 
and more questions, and then sometimes answers that lead to more 
questions. 

/ Will people get clearer in this way?

: Or perhaps they will realize that they are confused, and that is 
not such a bad thing, if they are. It is a start, to get honest 
about one's own confusion. Then clarity may begin to come when we 
start realizing that there is something beyond thought, which can 
be an instrument in our perception. 

/ Silence?

: Or something. Let us not make that into a formula either, but 
there is a meditation going on in between all these words. Do you 
feel it?

/ Yes, when we talk. But sometimes, directly after, I feel that it 
is easy to live according to this. And after a while, it tends to 
fade. Is there anything that can sustain the energy of enquiry?

: You see, you are telling me something interesting right now, 
something creative, because you are honest. Honesty involves its 
own intelligence and creative compassion. You are saying: there is 
an energy of enquiry. This energy, you say, you would want more of. 
Would you be willing to pay money for it? You see, that would be 
part of interactivity economy. Would you be willing to buy a book 
which offer you more of the enquiry energy?





/ Yes, perhaps I would.

: So let us say that there is an energy of enquiry, an enquiry 
capital. There is a potential capital, a kinetic capital, an 
enquiry capital. And if you get hungry for enquiry capital you 
transform money -- kinetic capital -- into enquiry capital. And as 
you explore more and more, you may build up a spiritual integrity. 
Which we could call a spiritual capital. And so on: interactivity 
capital, the energy of interaction, when you do things 
synchronistically. Language capital, which you build up by reading, 
writing, talking together, challenging your mind and all cliches, 
starting afresh with new words, making new languages even. We have 
a technology or science capital, of course, in terms of the 
machines we have or can make and and can use. As you build up 
programming skill capital, you enhance the machine or technology 
capital, because you can not only program but unprogram the 
machines, you can make them do anything, not just something.

/ Gosh. Interactivity economy is a vast field then, of so many 
forms of energy, resources, or capital. But still you did not quite 
answer my question, did you? Namely how to sustain the energy of 
enquiry, that I get when I talk with you, -- how to have it 
constantly.

: You talk with me or you do something that builds up tremendous 
clarity and you ask: can the energy be there all the time. Not that 
you crave, but you see that it is meaningful to dance, to make art, 
to be creative based on this energy rather than going on low-key 
all day long. That is a meaningful question, a meaningful demand. 
And you ask me: How? 







/ I know there is little point in asking 'how', but I feel the 
question should be asked, anyhow.

: Anyhow! Quite. 

/ Well, is there an answer?

: You ask a question: can this energy be sustained? All day long? 
From when you wake up until you go to bed? But rather, perhaps, ask 
what is it that you are doing that puts that energy into conflict 
with itself. 

/ You mean it would be there if there was no conflict, no activity 
that spoiled the energy?

: Of course, wouldn't it? 

/ Then perhaps I should do nothing, be perfectly idle!

: I am not so sure. Is that what a child is doing? But if you 
follow what you think is your duty, then that duty, that imposing 
on your activity according to a pattern of greed or achievement, 
may limit your energy and then if you ask, do you have a pill? a 
recipe? then of course there is no answer. But if you keep up the 
enquiry, you ask all the questions all the time and you live by 
them, and you let that which they lead to take over, you loose 
yourself in high-speed synchronicity, then...

/ High-speed? Slow, it be better.

: Slow? Why slow? That's yet another concept, from Zen or 
whereever. There is something beyond the speed or slowness of 
thought and that is this flame of attention, when you enquire 
beyond any concept. You don't put it into some words and think that 
by repeating exactly these words it will be there tomorrow. So you 
enquire afresh tomorrow. You let your mind explore how it can go 
beyond itself! Which is to go beyond selfcentredness -- and I am 
not talking of becoming a 'socialist'. I am talking of not having a 
centre, not a word-centre, that tries to push something onto your 
own mentality.


















/ When we talk about interactivity economy, do we talk of it as an 
ideal or as something already in function?

: Good question. When we talk of love, do we talk of it as real or 
as an idea?

/ Is that the same question?

: Not necessarily. But can we start with love, please? That is a 
real issue, it concerns absolutely everyone. You turn on the radio 
and there is the word 'love'. They scream, 'I love you because I 
hate you, I hate you because I love you', and sell millions of 
records. Or they say, 'I will always love you tenderly, I will 
always take care of you, you can do what you want', and as soon as 
a person turns the back on the other, then there is envy, jealousy, 
hatred. So is there love in this world?

/ Sometimes, perhaps.

: Sometimes, as a lie, or are you honest -- do you sometimes have 
love?

/ I know of many people who would say that they have love. For 
someone or somebody and that it is lasting.

: So is this a conclusion or is it reality? Do you follow?

/ I don't think many people would see exactly the difference.

: But do you?

/ I must think about it.

: Okay. 

/ Do you say that love, in some kind of divine, generous sense, is 
a human possibility? The love that can never become hatred?

: I wonder if it isn't. 

/ But you do not shout it out.

: Of course not! Then it becomes the idea, the formula, the recipe. 
'You must turn the other cheek' all that blah, which has led to 
nothing, except wars, hypocrisy, this ugly church.

/ So what is one to do?

: If one wants love? Perhaps begin to explore what is not love. 
Begin by negation.

/ Why?

: Why negation?

/ Yes.

: When we have a tendency to look to so many things as possibly 
love and yet it may be something about it that can turn to revenge, 
hatred, jealousy etc, then perhaps we can learn about what it is 
that is not love, learn about it so that it falls away, and clears 
the way for this otherness that is love.

/ This otherness that is love...it sounds like something beyond 
human beings, somehow.

: Is love a human artefact? Obviously not.

/ What is it then?

: Is it a form of energy? And yet we have the mental energies of 
fear, bitterness, egotism. Do you see how it influences us, do you 
see how we live by limited forms of emotions? And there is all the 
time this other option available. Love. Whatever you call it. The 
word is not the thing, you know.

/ Is this love really a possibility? Or is it a romantic idea?

: Let us explore it. Is it an impossibility? Then we can still 
explore it, but if we assert that it is impossible, we block our 
exploration. 

/ So you say, let us neither conclude the one or the other.

: Quite!

/ And then what?

: Then we should admit what is going on, not just listen to what 
words people are using -- let us watch very closely what goes on in 
the psyche of this and that individual. Let us watch what goes on 
inside ourselves. There is a lot of these other things. What are 
they doing to us?

/ They keep us back.

: And what is it that is keeping us back?

/ Egotism?

: Let us not just give an answer but ask again for fresh answers. 
And ask again for the sake of awakening our attention. Are you with 
me at all?

/ Yes, but I know of people -- many people, in fact! -- who would 
say that we are not talking business, we are merely psychologising 
and there is no limit to it, you will never change man anyhow and 
all that kind of thing. They would rather talk about the latest 
products and the prices and the markets and everything else they 
attribute to the entertainment section or the lunch break or the 
philosophers.

: Are these happy people?

/ They may claim that they are.

: But are they?

/ No. Perhaps not. I don't think so.

: So they have a concept of their life: they day is to consist of 
this and that activity to reap resources, power, money, and then it 
is to consist of some other activities to spend them, so that they 
get a little satisfaction.

/ Perhaps they would say it is a crude summary.

: But you can go along with it?

/ Yes I can.

: So, what has happened to humanity? When more and more people 
simply drop all pretense of looking for anything deeper, what is 
the point? It is a carry-over existence.

/ What do you mean? Carry-over?

: Well a form of survival. You just entertain, get comfort, reap 
some prestige, get some sexual activity, and in all of this, we try 
to make a form of science -- Economy, Pscychology, Sociology -- and 
these large terms don't mean a thing, do they?

/ So is this part of negation?

: I think yes. To me I mean by negation like when you empty 
yourself, not out of bitterness or anything, but you get into a 
sense of there being nothing at all. You pay attention to feeling. 
You watch the thought forms that come up, and they may speak to you 
of something that you may want to clarify or heal somehow, and you 
do it, and you pass on to the next thoughts. Then eventually you 
may come to a pleasant quietness, and something fantastic may 
happen in this quietness.

/ Love?

: Well, yes.





































/ Last time we talked a little about love, but I feel that the 
theme is too big that we leave it just like that. You talked about 
meditation, remember? And in this quietness, love can come about, 
you said. But I don't think that is the clearest statement in the 
world about it, considering all the confusion that might already 
exist connected to the word 'love'. And then I'd like us to discuss 
interactivity economy somehow in relation to it, if we can.

: What, interactivity economy in relation to love?

/ Yes, if possible.

: Sure, we'll try that.

/ So what is love to you?

: I thought we explained that. You go through a negation of 
jealousy, envy, ...

/ Wait wait. How do you do that?

: How do you what?

/ Negate jealousy, for instance.

: Because you spend time on it. You explore it. You get fascinated 
about its structure, you see how thought and emotion, not just 
verbal emotion but a vague goaloriented kind of thought or 
attachment is weaved into it. You study it and you learn about it 
and so you charge up your capacity to give swift attention later, 
when seeds of it are sown. And so when it arises, if it does at 
all, you know all about it already and you empty yourself 
instantly. Your mind is all free.

/ And the same for other kinds of limiting feelings? This sounds a 
little like Spinoza's system, in which he counts hilaritas or 
joyous freedom as one of the expanding feelings, and as to limiting 
feelings he counts bitterness, envy and so on.

: Yes yes. Yet when you make a system then it's not it, is it?

/ Why? I know you have talked against systems before, but tell me 
why it is so wrong to make a system such as in psychology.

: Why not make a system? Why make a system? For when you make a 
system is there any mentality to it? It is a parrot language then, 
rather than a living language. The quest is to give attention, is 
it not? And if you make a system then it imposes certain qualities 
as high value and the rest it dismisses implicitly. Like a program, 
a hypnosis. It is sleepwalking to believe in systems, I feel. It is 
a theme for many books, not just a few minutes inside another 
dialogue. I am not trying to make it sound mysterious, I hope.

/ But in essence, what is wrong about having a system?

: If you have a system, are you not a mechanical entity?

/ Not if you don't believe in it entirely.

: So, that's it then, you doubt the system, you don't let it 
dominate you.

/ Then it's okay?

: I can't see why not. You use the calculator but you don't try to 
calculate God or Life with it. You use it for adding the price of 
tomatoes to the price of yoghurt, say. The sloppy system, the 
system we don't believe in is okay, I guess. But then there is a 
transition, from not believing in it to believing in it, which may 
come much sooner than you might think at first. You may say, Oh, I 
am so free! And yet the system is there and it is destroying 
something very subtle. You must watch it, no? Think for yourself!

/ Then to love.

: Love. So what is love to you?

/ To me personally?

: Yes.

/ The love of someone who is somehow beautiful inside, at least, to 
me; I sense something radiate and there is an energy.

: And bonding, resonance, and all that. Yet what is the essence of 
it?

/ The essence of love? Perhaps it is a perfume of reality, in spite 
of the fluctuations of some many other things in life. I don't 
know.

: You don't know. That is really a beautiful thing to say about 
that which many people regard as the most important thing of 
everything, is it not? 

/ Yet the young delve in it and those who are more established in 
marriage and the such tend to speak of Art and Higher Values and 
Societal Good as well as their own money-making and prestige.

: Which is to say, when love is gone, then all the other mediocre 
things enter.

/ When love is gone? Is that your view of marriage?

: What is marriage but institionalized prostitution? Come, face it, 
it is a church thing, a thing created to make sex in a limited 
context legal. I think the great belief in this little concept is 
destroying a lot, and the overemphasis on this little concept is 
creating a great deal of trouble for the children who, in the 
beginning perhaps, may be brought up inside its cozy context.

/ This is a big theme.

: Yes, perhaps it is too big for this context. I would say, though, 
that more important than any concept we put to each other or to our 
relationships is this spirit of love. Now can we -- to help you 
along bringing it in connection with interactivtity economy -- 
retain a sense of love while we create? You see I have this image 
in mind that each can be as a fruit tree, creating more and more 
fruits, all the time. Different fruits, fruits for people to reap 
and eat and so on.

/ Can there be economy on that basis?

: As I see it, it is perhaps the quintessence of interactivtiy 
economy. You create. Some consume, you consume yourself also when 
you turn on the classical radio channel and an orchestra, through a 
recording, pours out that which Beethoven created one day. The 
creativity is the off-spring. Then around it a wealth of 
interactivity happens. 

/ So you see the relationship to the world as something that 
happens almost inevitably when there is creativity?

: Inevitably, quite.

/ Many people feel that they should be 'discovered', such as when 
they make music, and they are angry that only a few people get 
'discovered' and are hailed or hyped by the commmon media and 
brought into the focus by many.

: Well, it is a corrupt system. It is indeed a system, a system for 
putting some people up and keeping the rest down. So one must 
develop new ways. But I feel that if you listen to yourself and 
your heart tells you to make more, you just make more and more, and 
you should not really be too oriented about who or what is doing 
what to your fruits.

/ Your tree keeps on producing a diversity of fruits, just letting 
go of them?

: Letting go rather much. You may add a name tag for practical 
purposes so as to feed back some resources, some activity 
potentials, and so on. You may add a bank account number as well! 
As I do, to some of my products. Because after all the tree needs 
sunlight and water and soil and all that and if people have these 
things, then they would probably want to give it in return for 
these fruits.

/ Isn't it a bit idealistic? Wouldn't many say that it is simpler 
and better to oriented oneself at once to a market?

: There is a role to every kind of thought, perhaps, occasionally; 
and you may get humble, dialogic and full of a learning attitude 
that is not harmful by listening to what people say that they want. 
We are doing a little of it here, are we not, when we discuss 
rather than me sitting down to write prose. So the discussion 
allows the person who is producing to listen, to get a sense of 
what happens out there, not just be navel-focussed. 

/ But you would not advice strong orientation towards the effects 
of one's actions.

: You see, all this is intertwined with ethics, as well as with the 
capacity of thought, and the capacity of that love in our hearts to 
reach perhaps much further than thought.

/ How do you mean?

: You listen within yourself when you create, if you feel free in 
your creationship, your creative activity. You listen within and 
there is something to thought that is noise, symbol, socialisation, 
and you go beyond all these associations and there is a flash of 
what you ought to do. To know what such a flash is takes a certain 
amount of leisure and exploration and learning by doing but it 
comes, some day; and when you have that flash you can trust it, 
perhaps, that it comes from a love, an energy, that knows that this 
is just right to do. It is not something thought could have planned 
that way unless it had every kind of information to an infinite 
extent and even then it would be uncertain. Love is a greater 
computer! To put it that way. Or love is the greater Uncomputer, as 
I like to put it.

/ Uncomputer! 

: Like Unconscious. The Unconsciousness, that feeds Consciousness. 
So Uncomputer, the source of insight into the machinery of what 
might happen. It is a metaphysical concept. I like it a lot. One of 
my products, the Y4d programming language, has it in its full name 
-- Wintuition:Net Uncomputer Yoga4d language, or y4d for short. 
Uncomputer means that there is something organic, with insight into 
the construction and the change of computers, somehow. 

/ Sounds like a God concept.

: Well perhaps it is. Or it is near that. But where were we? The 
tree is producing, the fruits are coming. Yes, to me, that is the 
quintessence of the economy of tantric generosity, of free 
generosity. You are not just a tree -- let's not get stuck on any 
metaphor. You are as if copulating the complementary aspects of 
yourself and you produce by that. So there is a tantric generosity 
in it, and that is in essence interactivity.

/ Tantric generosity. You have the masculine and feminine energies 
within yourself, for instance, and they blend?

: They blend and something new comes up. That is part of it. So a 
richly creative person does not have a limiting self-concept nor 
does the person obsessively put himself or herself above others in 
a quasi-hierarchy. There is a networking and yet each person can 
tap godhood and through this can create something entirely new and 
important.

/ Thank you. We must explore much more. I am getting more and more 
confused as we explore.

: I think that's a good sign, don't you?









/ What advice would you give to a young person starting out, not 
perhaps wedded to any particular educational direction yet, open to 
various opportunities?

: Well I would perhaps not give any fixed advice at all but rather 
have a dialogue. It is a very interesting situation and I feel 
everybody can tell themselves, "I love myself as a young person", 
because that speaks of incredible potential. Or credible potential, 
rather. The sense of youth is given to everyone who is willing to 
admit that life has a future.

/ Life has a future. Not just the individual.

: You see to some extent the concept of the individual may be a 
complete illusion, and as soon as we point this out, we must say 
that this in no way entails that one should be swallowed up in a 
communist sense by a group or a social game. We are talking 
cosmically, life goes on and in some sense life is you. Now 
interactivity economy is all about that.

/ Explain.

: Well, interactivity economy sees you as an infinitely creative 
person and sees your creativity as part of something that has 
infinitely many effects. If you were to live with all the effects 
of your actions for many centuries, at least, you would certainly 
act in a more coherent, responsible manner, you would be less 
concern with immediate market fluctuations, you would see to it 
that what you produce does not breed fanatism or violence at all, 
and so on. So if you reidentify with life as a whole then you are 
naturally responsive, responsible. And it is in each person an 
infinite capacity, an infinite responsibility and power, it is 
there already and once you start actualizing it, you actualize 
interactivity. You learn that there are actions or activities 
rather which are full of synchronicity and you learn to balance 
them and dance with them.

/ You say that interactivity has its own synchronicity. I am not 
sure everybody knows that term, synchronicity.

: Carl Gustav Jung suggested that meaningful coincidences can be 
called 'synchronicities', and he discussed this a great deal with 
various brainy people like Freud and Wolfgang Pauli, the physicist. 
Freud rather dismissed him and that summarises Freud's attitude to 
much of the paranormal or that which expands beyond the mediocre 
normality that Freud typically exposed. Pauli was broadminded 
physicist and rumours had it that laboratory experiments on the 
quantum level did usually tend to break down when he entered a 
laboratory. That became the 'Pauli effect', as a joke among 
laboratorists. Jung was clever about introducing this concept 
without loading it too heavily with any belief and in that way he 
introduced a concept that keeps on renewing itself and my feeling 
is that it will always do so, like a fresh mountain river. I really 
love the concept but let's not forget that it is just a concept. If 
synchronicity is a form of perception, as it is to me, then nothing 
is not synchronicity.

/ Nothing is not synchronicity. You mean you see meaningful 
connections everywhere?

: Of course.

/ Then how is that related to interactivity economy?

: How is it related to any creative process? You see that when 
something is beyond the sphere of control it need not be chaotic. 
So you can spend a lot of time deciding on something and yet when 
you start doing it, you feel that the action speaks to you, from 
one moment to the next. As it speak, and if you don't just assert 
your ego with your goals and your fixed plans, then you move with 
them, and that has its own intelligence.




/ You speak of the creative process for an individual who seeks to 
invent something new, for instance?

: I speak of any activity at all! All activities involve feelings, 
don't they?

/ Yes.

: All activities involves coincidencies or fluctuations also, don't 
they?

/ Yes, sort of.

: They do! No action is just as thought or imagined, because there 
are always features going beyond thought or imagination or any area 
of control. Arne Naess speaks of it as 'emergence', he gave me an 
example: you bring together people who ordinarily would not talk 
nicely and they talk fantastically well. This is something that 
just 'emerges' and he points out that we tend to expect emergence 
in daily life, in addition to typical causation with its 
probabilities. 

/ Of course a clairvoyant or prescient person could feel this...

: Of course. If you are sensitive.

/ So, again, if you look at some economical system, or organism, or 
whatever you would like to call it if you don't like the word 
'system', then how would the interactivity exhibit itself?

: See, it is exhibiting itself all the time. There is no such thing 
as finite, fixed, certain prediction. The fluctuations are there, 
the synchroncities are there. 































/ We need to talk about technology. Technology in relation to 
interactivity economy, technology in relation to the future.

: Well if you look to H G Wells and other writers of technology-
oriented fantasy literature, it turns out that a lot of things can 
indeed be predicted. 

/ Many would feel, perhaps, that they are most interested in things 
that are near to them in the present.

: To me, the distant future is not distant. It is near.

/ In what sense? Do you feel it?

: Of course.

/ How?

: How do you feel anything? It is just there.

/ In what sense?

: In the sense that it is there. I cannot avoid it. The future 
speaks to me. I am sensitive to it, I must have a dialogue with it 
whatever I intend to do.

/ And if you don't have that dialogue?

: Then, unless the dance is already on and the dance reflects the 
sense of what is right, completely right, from one moment to the 
next, to do, then I must meditate.

/ And if you don't meditate and just jump into action?

: Then is it action? Or is it merely reaction, a response from 
memory, from greed and all the rest of it?

/ Is greed memory?

: In one sense it is, isn't it? For where else is greed in you, 
than in that portion of mind which has a strong reference to the 
past? So when you act determined by greed, it is the past in you 
that acts.

/ Whereas your present, what would that be?

: That would be the part that has reference to the future. And that 
is infinite. Therefore, when you have responsibility, you relate to 
yourself as you are, now. It is not just a romantic idea.


















/ To talk about technology, also in relation to economy, where 
would you begin?

: I would begin by first realizing that the impact that technology 
has on human consciousness is not small at all. It is everywhere, 
whether we like it or not. And there is no reason that it should 
grow smaller. It is a matter of time before human beings meet up 
with other beings that are fully capable of doing every kind of 
smart, cunning, intellectual action, whether these beings are 
crafted or engineered by human beings or whether they are 
discovered in some other way is not the most important issue 
perhaps. And that will make it sound strange to talk about 'human 
being' as the synonym with 'intellectual being', as is more or less 
the case today, except among those who have trained chimpanzees or 
studied dolphins or elephants and so on very closely.

/ Is this, the matter of the perception of who or what that has 
intelligence, the most important thing that technology opens up for 
us?



: Maybe. In the long term, I think it could be, because it makes 
the idiotic repetitions of many socalled holy scriptures seem to be 
what they are, just repetitions, rather than truth. So technology, 
in the positive sense, opens up for the intermingling of ideas, the 
discernment of what might be true in cultures and the realization 
of the illusions in them, but of course technology can also be used 
to wipe away life and also the life of the creators of the 
technology unless we watch it.

/ Would you say that it is possibly a good thing that humanity puts 
itself, as it were, on the cliff's edge? Could it stimulate 
awakening?



: So far I haven't seen much of that effect, but it could be. In 
any case, I feel that we should not forget that we are constantly 
forging new technologies, and these contains seeds of very 
different futures within them. If we feel at leisure to look into 
the world as it may be say, in five or five thousand years, then we 
will get a lot of hints as to what kind of technology we should 
upplay and what kind we should downplay. Or we will at least get a 
tremendous sense of awe for what is to come, and the enormous 
responsibility everyone has now, when we do something in the 
technological realm.

/ Well, what do you see when you look into the future that far?

: To me five hundred years or so is not much. I do not think in 
terms of years as essential. It is all a flowing of contrasts and 
as I stretch my gaze I see many possible scenarioes. Few of them 
are nice but some of them are really nice and then we must make 
selections.

/ Could you give some examples?

: Examples of this kind is something given to anyone who sits down 
to write a science fiction novel, who does it late at night, and 
dreams about it. It is an amazing process. Please, do not press me 
to give an example, because every instant we choose to bring 
forward as an example in a context such as this -- a book -- may 
affect how we think about the future. It is not something we should 
just carelessly throw an image about.





















/ We must go into the question of visual images. Technology has 
made the spread of visual images, as well as moving images, 
something that is done in a matter of seconds, at the cost of 
practically nothing, through wires or by air, digitally, perhaps. 
What has this done to human consciousness?

: We have always been in love with fairy tales, haven't we?

/ Is that what it is about?

: You see the enormous posters -- in marxist countries like China 
they do not accept it, nor in fundamentalist countries like Saudi-
Arabia, -- of girls kissing girls, dressed in next to nothing, with 
the stamp of a commercial company on the lower right side of the 
poster. These images may be many man-sizes, they may be at all 
critical passages of a city, next to hospitals, sites for elderly, 
and across kindergartens. Of course it does something to human 
consciousness. As does the portraits of poor and diseased 
associated with certain regions of the world, spread by journalists 
and by help organisations in the hope that this will entice action 
of a right kind. Images affect feelings directly, like music, more 
or less. I do not condemn it necessarily. But yes, let us explore 
what kind of effect it has on us. It is a new theme and an old 
theme and in the future there may be even more pressing things, 
like coherence technologies aiming at sending images even more 
directly into our bodies and minds somehow -- just wait and see! So 
let us explore this fascinating and terrible and terrific theme.




























/ Well, you seem to use a lot of images, on your digital websites, 
for instance. 

: I do.

/ Why?

: Why not? It affects the mind to see healthy skin, to see an image 
of sunlight if it is cloudy outside, to have a picture of an 
enormous mountain on one's wall if one is in a city. These are 
reminders on meditation. I do not necessarily want it in connection 
with an empire-like fascistoid exploitative company like Hennes & 
Mauritz, who pay Indian girls next to nothing to imitate original 
fashion design made in Paris. There are worse companies but it is 
just too close to prostitution. 

/ And prostitution, ultimately, is an evil or sinful thing?

: To use any such words requires great caution. But when you don't 
do something on a heart-basis -- and I very much doubt that the 
people in a company like Hennes & Mauritz have chosen by heart to 
exploit tiny girls in India to imitiate the design made in another 
context, it smacks of ruthlessness and cunningness, doesn't it? It 
has something of that flavour.

/ So how would the world be if it had no such cunningness?

: It would be a remarkably beautiful place, don't you think?

































/ When scientists talk about economy, they may speak of the 
distribution of resources, and the psychological pursuit for use 
and fun and similar things; they may speak of the effect of certain 
attempts to regulate the whole flow of money or of other aspects of 
the economical environment. 

: Yes. What is the question?

/ Is it all a waste to speak of economy this way?

: I do not say that.

/ But you do challenge the foundations somewhat?

: Look, we have a barbarious system. 

/ So it is all crap or nonsense in some way?

: Obviously! Society is a mess and it inculcates this mess by 
education and parenthood and various kinds of pressure into the 
individual, the young person. It is a reflection of a barbarious 
state of consciousness.

/ There has been attempts to formulate an economy of compassion 
rather than the rather darwinistic idea of survival of the fittest, 
competition and all that.

: Who is there to compete with? You compete with yourself daily if 
you're an artist. Not with yourself as of the past, but you compete 
with this moment's impulses, this moment's thoughts, so that 
something fresh can come up. So you are immensely active and this 
is not to be reduced to competition on a market, to getting a 
price, though such factors may play in here and there, though not 
deeply, perhaps. Not if you have understood yourself.

/ So the reason that society has this barbarious trait, or worse, 
is that consciousness is in a mess.

: Of course.

/ So then the economical sciences, are they missing the point 
somehow?

: If they merely seek to describe what is going on, calmly, they 
would take into consideration that humankind may have some 
potential that is completely different than what is now being 
actualized. And there is a validity to describing 'what is', to see 
it clearly. Yet if you then begin to assert that 'since everybody 
is an egotist, then so and so', you have done an arrogant 
theoretical act, in which you impose the role that people may take 
occasionally as the norm or the necessity. There is no such 
necessity.

/ Is there any economical necessity at all?

: Look, do you love life?

/ Love life? I guess I do.

: Not guess. Do you love it?

/ My life only?

: No no no. Life! Life as such.

/ Do I love life as such? Well sometimes I do, when I walk in the 
forest and so on.

: Not sometimes. Do you love life? And if you only do it sometimes, 
then that is not much, so enquire into it. Find out what is 
preventing you, if anything, from really loving life and yourself 
as a young, new person, infinitely. There should be nothing at all 
preventing you from loving life. Then in this love, of course, you 
see to it that the plant was water, that the cat has food, and you 
kiss the flower as it bursts out and shows itself, and you dance 
and create things; and so you naturally partake in the distribution 
of resources. I do not see that egotism comes in at all if you love 
life.

/ You may reap up a lot of fruits for your own party with your own 
friends and so on. Is not that egotism?

: Not necessarily. You sense what is right to do, and what is 
untastely, vulgar; you sense that if you do a certain thing it will 
just be vain, just a showing off, but if you do the other thing 
then it is a refined goodness to it, it is righteous, you sense 
that it has the quality of art and esthetics to it.
























/ What is egotism?

: I'd rather ask, what is the psyche? Because when we say 
'egotism', then we merely talk of the illusion that perpetuates, 
perhaps, through one psyche communicating with another psyche. You 
have this name I have this name you earn that much money I earn 
this much money you have a car I have a car you have that book 
published I have this book published. All these contrasts, that we 
come to emphasize as essential differences, when they are not. The 
psyche is responsible for all that. Do you have an energy that can 
bring about a revolution in the psyche -- not just your psyche, but 
the psyche of humanity?

/ Is there a psyche of humanity?

: Is there not? Do you think that you are sharply divided from the 
rest? Or is your psyche just a particular makeup, the same dough in 
a different oven perhaps? Forgive me if I point it out, but is that 
which goes on inside you not the same, practically, as what goes on 
in practically everyone else?

/ Are you different?

: I challenge myself in each moment to get an energy that is not 
this mediocre energy that comes out of the TV, out of the media, 
out of the many comments that comes out of people's lips in the 
name of 'philosophy' and what not, I challenge myself in each 
moment. I do not say: I am different. I challenge human 
consciousness because I feel that human consciousness, quite 
frankly, is one of the sickest things. 

/ So you are condemning it.

: If you say that the wall is blue when it is you are not 
condemning it unless you have striven all your life to see all 
walls as nonblue. If I see that something is sick and I want to 
avoid it, then if you point it out, then I might say: Oh you are so 
bitter and so full of criticism and you are so condemning and do 
please get enlightened and turn the other cheek and don't critize 
and judge so much! You see? Rather, there is great fun and love in 
relating to 'what is' instead of trying to avoid it.

/ And in all this, we are also interested in the distrubution of 
goods and useful things and how to bring homes to everyone and so 
on.

: Of course, you do not exclude the social realm.

/ And what do you find there?

: Where? In the social realm?

/ Yes.

: I find that the confusion there matches the confusion within. 

/ So is there only confusion?

: Look, you can always find the light points here and there. You 
can see it in yourself when you attend to that concert, when you go 
dancing and you don't drink, you just dance for that has its own 
trance. Its own silence, its own joy, its own effortlessness. I 
dance every morning, I actually do. Though it may sound silly but I 
do it; in the beginning I did it because my stomach, my gut feeling 
told me to, but then it became natural. Do you see? Society could 
be all dance.

/ Interactivity.

: Dance! That's interactivity, you are engaging in activities in 
relationship. That is really what the essence of 'interactivity' 
is. And when you do this, will you not find that those activities, 
those processes, have their own intelligence? So you get your 
apartment or house, you get your website, you get lots of money in 
your bank account not by marrying to the money nor by working eight 
hours pr day on something you don't like, but by challenging 
yourself to come up with fresh energies and fresh products brought 
forward from your own silence every day. That is an awakened life.

/ What kind of awakening? 

: Artistic awakening, social awakening, spiritual awakening, 
biological awakening -- are not all these forms of energy one 
energy, the energy of love?



































EXPERTISE IN HEALING












/ Healing. What does the word signify to you?

: First of all I am not allergic to that word, although some are. 
They might feel that a word intrinsically can be a cliche. Or that, 
by mentioning a word that is also mentioned by unserious people, 
you are yourself unserious. I do not believe in either. A word of 
the kind that is found in a typical dictionary is not itself a 
cliche, if you discover a real meaning to it and find a connection 
with reality, and use it coherently in that sense. Next, the fact 
that a word gets popular among a group of people does not mean that 
this group has any sense of ownership to the word. The word is 
still free, still open to be used in serious ways. Having said all 
that, let us enquire into the word, what it means and so on. And 
why it is tremendously important, to heal, to be engaged in 
healing, and to really have knowledge and expertise in it.

/ Is this not a matter for doctors?

: Healing is a matter for everybody. Even a plant heals itself if 
one of its leaves get a wound. Healing is a natural function of 
life. Doctors are merely catalysts for healing. But in the sense I 
wish to use the word, it is a healing not so much of anything in 
particular at the physical level as psychic healing. The word 
'healing' ultimately, of course, means simply 'make whole', and it 
has the same root or stem as that which constitute the word 
'health' as well as 'holiness'. It is a marvellous concept. 

/ Psychic healing. Explain.

: You know what it is, don't you? There are wounds there that must 
be healed, too. You sense something is wrong and you can change 
something at a mental level and then you subtly change the flow and 
ebb of things. You know it. Everybody does it, to some extent, but 
most have little expertise in it. Most do it unconsciously rather 
than consciously. It should perhaps best been done semiconsciously. 

/ Is it a difficult thing to learn?

: Hm. Is healing a difficult thing to learn? When it is the most 
natural thing in the world? Perhaps the most natural thing in the 
world is among the most difficult thing. It may be more easy to 
learn something artificial, construed, like the binary digit system 
of present-day computers. But our whole world lends itself to 
healing. I wish to speak of it as a world-view, not merely a 
technique or a practise or a question of colors or cards or any 
system. It is a vast approach. I guess it is difficult, yes, if you 
wish to master it. And yet none of it has perhaps mastered it 
totally for healing is life touching itself, and as life is an 
unfolding process, infinite and changing, so also must healing be. 
You follow?

/ You seem to not be willing to confine it, then.

: That's just it. That is precisely it. Do not confine the sense of 
what healing means. Learn to un-confine it. It is a neverending 
quest, but with marvellous results. You asked if healing is not 
only for doctors. But what if we all made ourselves into doctors of 
the synchronicities which span the world. Why should only some be 
the messiahs, and the rest go trodding along? 

***


/ When we heal, what do we really do? Can I ask such a fundamental 
question, or such a simple-minded question, or do you think it is 
silly? Or can we only discuss healing in terms of examples, 
results, concrete practises?

: I do not think it is silly at all. It is often through the simple 
questions that we can come to the most penetrating insights. Let's 
see. What is healing? What do you feel yourself?

/ I think the connotation of wholeness is important. Healing -- 
wholeness. That these two belong together. That healing involves 
making more of a good thing, the good thing being wholeness.

: Yes. Yes. But that sounds all too much like an idea, however much 
I agree.

/ What do you have in mind, then?

: Let's go more slowly. You see, there are different ways of using 
language. Some insist that language is about expression. I do not. 

/ What is it to you? And why is it not about expression? I do not 
quite follow.

: Expression means that you are there, as you are, and you remain 
as you are, and then your emotions and/or your ideas follow. You 
use language to convey information. It is rather like the state 
office that is being criticised for acting irresponsibly, and it 
answers with creating an information burea. Creating a new 
broschure. Expression can be concealment, you follow? Expression 
preserves the ego. 

/ What has this to do with healing?

: It has to do with slowing down the ego, and that has a lot to do 
with healing. Bringing the ego to dissolution. You see, what is the 
alternative to use language as expression?

/ I don't know. To question?

: Which is what?

/ To dissolve thought! Not to express thought, nor to express 
emotion, but to dissolve thought and emotion. What for? Dissolve 
even the purpose. Why? Dissolve even that why. Dissolve, suspend. 
Bring to peace. And then in that peacefulness, there is attention, 
and when there is attention -- then, does it not happen, that there 
is healing? -- do you follow.

: I think so. You are saying that, or asking rather, whether we can 
use words to go beyond words.

/ That's exactly it. Not that 'you' or 'I' go beyond words, but 
that the words do not express, do not make an impression, but that 
they bring, or convey, or stimulate, or induce that egolessness 
which is also silence.

: How can they do that?

/ By never asking 'how'.


***


/ Can love work miracles?

: Of course. Doesn't it all the time? 

/ When we have it.

: So why don't you have it all the time?

/ It is difficult, sometimes. Habit takes over where infatuation 
begins. And so on.

: What is love, to you?

/ A state of exhilleration, I guess.

: Look into it. What is love?

/ I guess I don't know. Except as a state I recognize.

: Which could be drug-induced. It could be a mere state of intense 
excitement. If you look into it, what happens to the ego when there 
is love?

/ Gone.

: Ask it. Don't merely answer from memory. What happens to the ego 
when there is love?

/ Do you have the answer?

: I know nothing of the answer in terms of words. I am asking a 
question that is vibrant and I know it is not enough to throw words 
at it. Love. What is it? And what happens to the ego when there is 
love? Look into it, please. Sense it. Don't merely answer. Aren't 
you quiet in relation to an immense question? Otherwise, how can 
you get into truth?

/ There is no repetition, then.

: Look, see, I am asking something very simple: What happens to the 
ego when there is love?

/ There is empathy.

: Which means what? Don't stop there. Don't guess. This is not an 
examination!

/ There is not just the ego, but something other than that. The 
sensitivity to another.

: So, what is it that happens to the ego? What does love do to it? 
Does love do anything to it at all? Or is the ego exactly the 
avoidance of letting love act on you? You follow?

/ You are saying...

: Not saying! Asking.

/ Okay, asking, you are asking whether the ending of the ego is the 
beginning of love.

: Isn't it? 

/ But that is what I said.

: No. You said that love drives the ego away. I am asking, is it 
not so that love does not touch the ego? That in fact, love exists 
when the active avoidance of the touch of love has ended? That the 
inertia of avoidance is the ego, and this has to end for love to 
be?


***


/ What is enlightenment and how does it stand in relation to the 
question of healing? I wonder if you could go into that question.

: Part of enlightenment is hunger for more enlightenment, hunger 
for more of the kind of insight that leads to enlightenment. Have 
you noticed that most people either think they are already 
enlightened (when they are not), or else think it is impossible or 
an illusion in all cases somehow? And the most rewarding standpoint 
for most would of course be to cease going to the false extremes 
and going instead to the truth of the middle: they are not 
enlightened but they could be, and, yes, it has immense importance. 
When they become aware, at least, of the possibility of liberation 
then the hunger of insight is awakened. This hunger can drive an 
individual to do great things. 

/ How does it stand in relation to healing?

: You see, enlightenment is not just another attribute, feature, or 
idea. It is not something extra to taking responsibility -- it is 
the only way to really take responsibility. For oneself, for 
others, for life. 

/ And how do you do that?

: You don't do it by looking for a method. You work. You aspire. 
You draw strength from the forest, from those few who are not out 
to sell a system, and who do not try to dull the mind by telling 
either that you already are enlightened or that enlightenment does 
not exist. You look away from Freud, the existentialists, the 
dogmatic atheists, you look away from all sorts of fundamentalism. 
Isn't there a great healing in that?

/ On an abstract level, perhaps.

: Not abstractly! It is concrete healing. You see, the source of so 
much sickness or illness is misuse of power. When you have power -- 
and everybody, even children, has at least some power -- then 
everything you think, every little reaction, every memory, every 
dream, everything! -- becomes relevant. And it touches others, it 
makes a difference. This is responsibility. To realize that you are 
not an island, you are not an entity to yourself, and it is merely 
about 'setting a standard for your own expression' or some quasi-
protocol like that. To have power means that you constantly touch 
others and you touch yourself. And you change others, you change 
yourself. So there is empathy. And if you have illusions, if you 
have ego, you don't see what you are doing. So power creates 
illness when there is lack of responsibility; and the highest 
responsibility is to be enlightened for then you know what you are 
doing. 

/ This is a lot. Could you go slower?

: It's merely a background. What is it you wish to explore?

/ I asked, originally, how healing and enlightenment are related to 
each other.

: They are the same thing!

/ If they are the same thing, why do we have different words for 
them?

: They are aspects, then, of one and the same process. Different 
aspects. But you cannot ultimately get all the way to healing 
unless you get that hunger for insight.

/ The insight that there is no 'how'.

: Exactly. Among other things.

/ And the other things would be...?

: The ending of fear. The understanding of desire. But more subtle 
things also -- not just the ending of anger, bitterness, anxiety -- 
all such things of the ego. You must know yourself by paying 
attention, from one moment to the next. Not merely read theories 
about yourself, or reading the horoscope or other such nonsense. 
You must understand the greatness of your own psyche. And as you 
understand, you begin to come to deeper quietness.

/ In the beginning, it may be frustration and confusion to 
understand how much we don't understand!

: So you go beyond that. You must pray, demand, affirm to get 
complete and not partial understanding.

/ It is said by some that the unconscious mind does not understand 
the word 'not', so we should not include it in a prayer or 
affirmation.

: Certainly does it understand 'not'. It just looks at things from 
many different perspectives -- not only the sentence, it looks at 
the type of words you are using. The real teaching is to say: if 
your examples, your metaphors, your selection of words, are 
typically in the negative, then that is also what you are getting. 
Even though the socalled 'morale' is positive.

/ This must be a key to healing.

: Surely it is. That is simple stuff. You surround yourself with 
symbols of wholeness and harmony and it takes courage, perhaps, to 
stand against the rather trash and death oriented mass media and 
make your own 'mass media', your own flow of media and mediation, 
which can become a meditation on life.

/ That is healing, isn't it -- meditation on life.

: Yes. When you go deep into healing you will know that there are 
far more subtle states of mind than there are emotions. Of emotions 
we can count a few, and then they blend and so on. But when you go 
deeper, you find love, playfulness, humour, tenderness, 
sensitivity, freedom, intelligence, compassion, beauty, truth, 
compassion and so on and on and these subtle states -- you learn to 
recognize them -- they are what healing is about.

/ So you face something and then, -- do you pay attention or what, 
what happens really when you heal?

: You radiate attention of some kind. Marcello Haugen, the 
mysticist, used to say that health is a right kind of temperature 
of sorts in the body and when there is, say, too cold temperature 
then attention as if it were heats it up and restores balance to 
the flow. He was a great healer.


***


/ When we heal, we get into an ecstatic mood, do we not?

: Yes. Healing, or the making of coherence, is participation of 
what it most deeply mean to live. It is intrinsic with feeling.

/ I know it is no point in asking 'how', but if we are not going to 
ask 'how', what is it that we can do to get into it?

: First recognize that life without healing is based on superficial 
causes and effects, mechanically, of the push-pull type.

/ For if there is no healing there is only machine? Healing is the 
ingredient of flow, so to speak?

: Yes. Healing is where the future comes in.

/ Explain.

: This is really simple. Health involves a potential for great 
action, learning, teaching, love-making; a potential involves the 
future; healing is the restoration of health not only physically 
but also mentally, socially, sexually in all ways, at all levels. 
So the future is salvaged.

/ The future is real?

: Of course. Not as a mechanical future in a deterministic fate-
like sense. But the future is real as the infinite perceptiveness 
of consequences. And the sensitivity to shape those consequences 
with an intent of beauty. 

/ Does this happen naturally?

: When we are not hypnotised or conditioned to merely carry on. 
Wodehouse, the comedy writer, said that there are two ways of 
writing -- it is essentially the same in writing as in living, I 
think. He said one way of writing is to write like music, with a 
great deal of improbabilities and rhyme, as it where, in the story 
--- like he does. The other way is to 'go deep down into reality 
and not care a damn'. Of course this reality is merely a part of 
the whole reality. For taken as a whole, it is music.

/ Taken as a whole, it is music. Or can be?

: Well, can be, when we realize that things have a potential for 
infinite change, and this change is wholesome, and comes about when 
we learn to give attention.

/ What relevance does this have, say, to politics? Or to situations 
of dictatorship or the like?

: Dictatorship is like an illness. A very severe kind of illness, 
and politically, there will usually be many developments that lead 
up to it for decades. The attentive, sensitive, caring individual 
with great action potential would sniff it out and change things 
long before they go that far. Then, when it has gone as far as 
dictatorship, it might be that some kind of surgery is necessary, 
or else it can persist with incredible suffering for those 
concerned and breed more destructiveness which can reach other 
places.

/ Military action?

: Yes well a police kind of protectiveness to ensure that 
individuals are not bullied around by force makes sense, does it 
not?

/ Police is usually an in-state affair.

: But we are talking globally. When states are erected or shaped so 
that they violently treat individuals who are not violent 
themselves, things have gone very wrong; someone ought to rescue 
those individuals -- even if by drastic means. I think that is a 
civilisation healing. The most agile, intelligent action does not 
involve violence at all. And that is exemplified in the martial 
arts by aikido. Going far in that regard may even create capacities 
to dismantle a dictatorship by swift action by night, as it were, 
by a small supertrained group, without blodshed. But this requires 
a great deal of preparation, not just more bomb budgets.

/ So you actually mean that the word 'healing' is relevant on all 
levels, not just the individual level.

: Look it is a natural law. One of the few. That the enhancement of 
wholeness of coherence, at all levels, happens when there is 
attention. In that way it is possible to see the TV age as somewhat 
of a blessing, because what is shown on television is a barbarism 
that has gone on for millenia but never before documented in 
bloody, ugly detail. Rather, much have been brought further in a 
glorified mythic version as the fighting between great people in a 
great way and all that jam. 

/ Enhancement of coherence. Is it in all areas clear what that 
means?

: Harmony or wholeness as a concept is not something we can enforce 
with much luck. Luck comes from realizing that harmony is a 
question of very sensitive perception, but that everything in 
Nature collaborates to give you that perception. It is infinite and 
not reducible to mechanical means or methods.


***


/ I believe that you have said, somewhere, that the future is 
significant in healing; that it is about the restoration of the 
future, so to speak. But isn't the now at least of equal 
importance? For that seems to be the impact of the traditional or 
ancient teachings, as of zen etc.

: First of all I am not concerned with traditions, which may be 
little more than traditions of lies and misuse of power, but with 
seeing. And I am not interested in forming another tradition but in 
stimulating seeing, so what I have said is really not the issue, is 
it? But what you yourself see. Then, the now contains everything 
that exists, that is real, that is actual. This now, then, also 
contains the future inasmuch as this future has any kind of 
existence. The now contains the future. There is no contradiction. 
But please, let us not merely shuffle words around but actually 
explore. What do you mean by 'the now'?

/ The sense of the world right now is the 'now' for me, I guess.

: The sense of the world. But deeply, what is it? A second? Three 
seconds? An atomic moment? 

/ I wouldn't divide it up.

: Ah! So you say that, essentially, the now cannot be counted. For 
counting is based on dividing up.

/ Yes. 

: Do you see what that implies? Do you see that if you do not 
engage in counting, then the whole spectacle of ageing and 
belonging to an age group and growing up and being wise only when 
one gets older -- all that belongs to a tradition of dividing up 
time? And you don't want to divide time? So you approach time as a 
whole. That is healing.

/ How do you mean, not dividing time up is healing? Because you 
reach tranquility then?

: Not only that, but if you don't divide time up, then you do not 
give any importance to certain kinds of events...

/ Such as what?

: Well, I was thinking of how scared people are of the thought of 
approaching bodily death. They are not scared of death, perhaps, 
but of that closing down period; in philosophizing over that, they 
may come to some kind of irresponsible, boring, shallow rush in 
which the lemon of life is to be squeezed as much as possible, as 
it were. Do you see the stupidity of all that? Do you see the utter 
stupidity, and the irreverence towards life, of visualizing that it 
is the bodily death that really matters? 

/ Are you talking of the immortality of the soul?

: No, not anything of that mental habit, the habit of talking about 
a soul in certain religions. I am talking of life as the great 
soul, the great movement, where we really belong. Not merely belong 
before or after bodily death. I am talking of life as our essence, 
our personality as it were. Do you see this? I don't want to give 
it as a description. But do you see, or sense, rather, that life is 
your real persona? That the bodily persona is merely the mask?

/ You speak of some kind of cosmic soul. Of course, the hindu have 
spoken of this a great deal, among others.

: Yes yes. But not as that intellectual idea. But as a reality that 
is beyond counting somehow. You don't merely say: look here is the 
concept of purusha, brahman or whatever they call it. They say it 
has this and that characteristic and they have a few boring 
anecdotes -- with salt in water and the other one and this and that 
legend by Shankara and so on -- but all this is too feeble, too 
small, to wake up humanity. You give insight food into life as an 
uncountable whole to the hungry, and they get even more hungry! A 
tradition only has a finite collection of tales and then it is dry, 
then it is up to the priests, the gurus, the shamans to fill in the 
extras to make daily life a passable time, while we wait for the 
great enlightenment. There is another way altogether, to all this, 
I feel. There is an urgency in me to say: there must be an 
enlightenment, an awakening in everyone, it can be, it must happen, 
it will happen, do work for it, it has immense joy. It will be 
dancing in the street. It may sound silly but it is not that which 
has been said before. Much more refined. More individual. Creative.

/ Certainly it has been said before by some of the great teachers.

: Well, who are they? People who are arrogant claim that people who 
are doubting the great teachers are arrogant. You see the 
hypocrisy? But it is arrogancy toward this marvellous instrument of 
perception that one's own mind is not to doubt. And I doubt, I 
doubt the great teachers. Where are they? What has it lead to, what 
they did? There is barbarism, vulgarity, a progression towards 
decline. And as a contrary movement, there is life itself, and if 
we can leave our vulgarity and our foolish gullible acceptance 
whether of atheism or any of the other dogmas, then we can come to 
that immense healing within. Now. And this is a now which is 
infinite for we do not divide it up and count it. The counting we 
engage in is other than the dividing up kind of counting. It is by 
rhythm, musically, we relate to this time. You follow? Never mind 
if you follow or not. We must explore more, dissolve our mental 
habits by exploring more, more, more. Then we will all not just 
come to it, but live there. It is easy, if we give it time.

***


/ What is healing? I do not mean the dictionary definition.

: Okay, let's enquire. When does healing not occur? By negation, we 
can come to the positive. It does not occur when we avoid giving 
attention. So give attention!

/ Is that enough?

: But what is giving attention? Attention means to see. It is the 
necessity of seeing. So thought is like a tape, plastered to our 
perceptions. If you tape together that which naturally moves apart 
in perception, then it is an illusion of togetherness. If you tape 
sharply apart -- different colors of your tape to emphasize the 
difference -- that which naturally moves together in perception, 
then it is an illusion of difference. So you must be humble to your 
perceptions. You give attention and that melts something.

/ Say, I'm in a relationship. I mean a sexual, personal 
relationship, like when you live together with someone, perhaps in 
marriage. Then I am tremendously attracted to a third person. How 
can this be healed?

: Are you against being attracted?

/ But then I close my eyes and it is the person who is not 
physically there I am making love to.

: Does this not occur to everybody?

/ Do you mean it should not be healed?

: But what is relationship about? Attraction involves the 
development and refinement of an esthetical sense, which never dies 
or whithers, not even among the very, very old. It goes on and it 
renews itself. And so suddenly it leaps, like a tiger from the 
bushes, to a new prey. If you follow all these bursts of attraction 
then is there a lasting relationship?

/ So it should be healed.

: But what might have to be healed is what you mean with a 
relationship. There is the infatuation because you have just found 
a toy that matches your inner visions. The other is a dildo to your 
own experience. Then the toy gets boring because it is too 
familiar, and you love it because of familiarity, which is 
something else than infatuation. The relationship goes on because 
you act as one body. You live with your own body and you do it 
beyond infatuation. You do not throw your body away when you are 
not infatuated with it. You renew your own relationship to your 
body, and you talk with your body, working on it, doing yoga each 
day in a new and different way. You vow never to make a movement 
that is not dance. You meditate on what you can do which is new 
today, and also vital, so that you never have a routine. All the 
time questioning, attention, healing.

/ Hm. I see. 

: So in seeing anything, not merely superficially, not jumping from 
one tape of thought to another, not just surfing the network of 
fixed concepts, you relate to it, you respond. Which is something 
else than this quest to express oneself and then the quest to get 
others to pay attention and be an audience to your own expression -
- perhaps because you never paid attention yourself, so it is to 
make up for it. Or you do it because you think you are fulfilling 
an obligation to God when it is only the obligation of the tapes of 
your thought, derived from a book which may not be all that wise. 
Though all your teachers have read it and agreed that it is 
brilliant. You may not think it is brilliant in your heart but you 
think that they are right that only the learned can tell. Whereas 
in fact only children can tell and adulthood means being able to 
translate the information from the child within to a humble adult 
intellectual apparatus, humble to that child information.

/ Do all people see themselves?

: As they are? Many of the most thinking individuals, who knows 
what it means to be a materialist, an atheist, a reductionist, a 
what-not-ist, they are curiously unable to see how they may fit 
their own categories. They think their knowing of it is sufficient 
to transcend it. As if by condemning reductionism they are not 
reductionists thereby. But this is not a question of voting; to see 
is to step out of the network of thought, lean back as it were. Not 
ask how to see but just see. Not just see as with the eyes but 
sense with all your being, all your person. And when you do it the 
most creative and remarkable thing happens.

/ Do you heal by affirming health?

: I spoke to my friend, Frans Widerberg, the painter. He is the one 
who really convinced me to look more into the questioning approach 
of Krishnamurti and Bohm and be less certain that science as 
quantum theory can answer things -- for a theory is a question of 
reference, but in The Ending of Time, he said, they talk 'without 
reference'. I knew Bohm and knew that book well, long before he 
mentioned it, but he made me think back on it and start that 
approach over again, perhaps -- or something like it. Well, anyway, 
I said to him recently: There are two kinds of magic, the magic of 
similarity and the magic of contrast. And he replied: There are two 
kinds of magic, the magic of what you want, and the magic of what 
you don't want! That's the understanding and the humour you need if 
you are going to do affirmations.

/ I don't quite follow.

: Then no matter. But unless you bring in the opposite of what you 
want to at least some very slight extent, you are a fanatic, and a 
fanatic don't get anything right, ever. That's a law. Even the 
natural laws are not fanatic. They wriggle.

/ As in the dao, with yin and yang.

: Except I hope you realize that these two principles are not the 
principles of harmony and disharmony, but rather, the harmony is 
there when the two principles are balanced. 

/ What is the difference?

: Well, harmony is not either night or day but it is night and day, 
rest and activity, in balance. And once you realize that yin and 
yang is an example of such an expression, then you also realize 
that this balance is wriggling, too.

/ If it wriggles too much...

: Then it gets wrong, of course.

/ Is there a 'right'?

: In each moment there is a right action. But don't go nuts in 
trying to find it. You have other things to do as well! I'm just 
joking.

/ You have other things to do?

: Joking, I said. If you really wish to heal, you need to work out 
a vision that you can bond to, far beyond any question of personal 
survival, reputation, and so on, but of course you want to take 
care of such issues as survival and reputation and so on also. But 
they are not top priorities, they come more down the list. 
Otherwise it is all vanity. So at the top, some vision that you can 
loose yourself in. A good novel, I like sci-fi, crime novels, and 
hippie-style novels these days, and I forget myself. But I forget 
myself having already forgotten myself in some vision.

/ You need to forget yourself double up!

: That's it! Double up. Triple. Forget, -- or, what's that other 
word, leave, transcend...

/ Go beyond?

: Yeah. In meditation there is no meditator. You know? The action 
that is...who you are, when you are nothing. It is absolutely 
obvious to everyone who has ever done anything requiring peak 
performance that there are moments of excellency and utter clarity 
and brilliance of movement in which there is no self. This is what 
we need. So the fruits of our actions are what we are, so we must 
pay attention to what we are. When are have tranquility, clarity, 
then whatever we turn to has that. You see people who are full of 
aggression, trying to be polite -- they have this sluggishness of 
response; because their initial inward response is anger. And they 
stop themselves from showing that so a second passes, then another, 
before they calculate a polite response. I much favour the polite 
response but goddamn why don't they do some real sincere self-
hypnosis and get rid of their angry attitudes so that they can 
function more with a sense of dance and ease. Like writing all the 
reasons for anger and throwing it, then affirming, "I am grateful, 
I am grateful" until they get blue and red and every primary color. 
That's healing. Not just accept and tolerate but actively transform 
and make of oneself a radiant, translucent, enlightened mind. 

/ When is the response we have in relation to one another a healing 
touch?

: When there is no motive. Which is something completely, wholly 
other than merely thinking that there is no motive, assuming it, 
asserting it. You need to realize that thought is a subtle form of 
matter and this matter is something you can pick up. It moves 
around and you can move around anything you are moved around by. 
You can influence that which you are influenced by, on the subtle 
level. It's all telekinesis. Your self-forgetting or going beyond 
yourself, finding that state of exuberant nothingness demands that 
you meditate and actually uncover your motives and then make them 
playful, absorbing them more and more into the light. All this is 
done by visualization, you need to do it when you awake. As a 
golden sphere that expands around you and everything not golden is 
healed. Sometimes people are stuck in an fixed aggressive attitude 
that is no perception, but a habit, only a habit, and on consulting 
with your deepest love for all reality, you are allowed to as if 
close them out. That is rare. Apart from that, you let that golden 
light expand and it heals, you heal.

/ Without effort?

: Dance, -- I hesitate to say 'without effort'. Dance. No motive. 
Awareness, attention -- there are slight elements of subtle action 
in it. The subtle action feels relatively effortless. As long as 
there is any action at all though, it may from some perspective be 
right to call it 'effort'. Like in the phrase, 'make great 
efforts'. It means great actions. Patanjali, who is the supposed 
author of the yoga sutras, an excellent little script and 
fortunately too cryptic to nurture fanatical people, usually, -- he 
used to say, it seems, that there is nothingness with a seed and 
without a seed. I am not saying I support every word in it. Far 
from it. You see, you relish in meditation and that is, if there is 
no motive, it is sheer ecstasy. Like Aldous Huxley spoke about but 
without the moksha bit. Every kind of ecstasy, in every kind of 
amount, is available to the vegetarian yoga-based brain. Absolutely 
every state of mind. To every degree. There are no limits at all. 




***


/ Does music have a relationship to healing?

: The music of the spheres, it listens to itself and therefore it 
never finishes. Healing is a participation in that, the process 
that I have called, sometimes, the great Uncomputer.

/ Which is...

: Which is the untangling of the mechanisms of the universe, the 
predictions within predictions we call time, that lead to the 
infinity of guidance from the quantum potential, or whatever we 
call it. Louis de Broglie called it the pilot waves. It is a 
principle ignored by many physicists due to a certain fashion that 
may recede, as other implications of this science is worked out.

/ Where does the great Uncomputer come in?

: It comes in by reflecting on what happens when the universe which 
is creating itself is also listening in to the effects of it so 
doing. This is an infinite process, you see, and it creates more 
and more structure that reflects this listening.

/ It sounds something like what Goedel proved in mathematics, that 
self-reference is beyond the mechanical.

: Yes. Well, Goedel operated within a framework of counting, a 
digital framework essentially. I have another framework, which I 
call the analogs. A different type of number. And the reason is 
that I find the typical framework of mathematical logic in the 
twentieth century as shortsighted when it comes to the infinity 
concept.

/ So you don't entirely vouch for Goedel's results?

: They are perhaps a little more domain-confined than what they 
have been portrayed as. I am still working on how to express this 
more clearly so we will come back to this in some other context, 
some other time.

/ What about time? How does time come into the healing process?

: I once read a very interesting summary of a ph.d. done on a 
London university on parapsychology. It turned out that when the 
students were asked to focus mentally on the whole result rather 
than being concerned with means, then they got better results. The 
results were further strengthed if they had a rather complete trust 
in them also, after having performed the focussing. You see? You 
focus, then let go. Having trust. And you give time, in that sense 
-- you give time, also to the Universe to do some work.

/ Is the Universe real? I mean as an organic process?

: What is the alternative? It is woven together, it appears; it is 
highly organic; if my own musings on science are correct, it is not 
easy to speculate that it is somewhat aware of itself; if it is 
possibly somewhat aware of itself it might presumably be speculated 
to be intensely aware of itself.

/ What are humans in relation to that? Midgets?

: Dust? Or is the question as foolhardy as the question of a cell, 
or an organ, in relation to the whole human body -- what role have 
I, and so on. There is a consciousness of the whole body and this 
consciousness is intensely dependent on its constitutents. Even the 
very small. It is said that pain is registered in the brain, if you 
have a toe that has pain it is a nerve connection up to the brain 
and that is why it is conscious and all that. So that is 
practically ninety-nine percent correct. But then we must not 
forget -- the cells in the toe may also have pain. It is not just 
the brain that has pain! A more subtle kind of pain. Now, if you 
are truly sensitive, you can pick this pain up before it reaches a 
manifest level and becomes a signal to the brain. And as long as it 
is this subtle, you can also influence. And this is of course what 
healing is about. Living in the intent of beauty.

/ Beauty comes in...how?

: Beauty, as balance, harmony, the promise of future, the 
possibilities -- the flood of music that makes things suddenly 
worthwhile. If you know the beat, the rhythm, if you get that music 
on, then you are swayed away from concerns -- and that is truth. It 
is not an escape. I mean, music can be an escape but if you are 
aware of everything that happens it is a wonderful thing. 

***



/ What is healing? We seem to be never finished with that question.

: Good. Let's keep it open.

/ You train yourself in healing by...doing what? Living healthily?

: Yes. Also that. And by exploring loneliness.

/ You are much alone, aren't you?

: And with people. In cycles, it alternate, all the time.

/ What do you mean by 'exploring loneliness' exactly?

: It is a condition leading to terrible suffering in many.

/ How can you tell?

: Isn't it obvious? Do you have to be telepathic to realize it? 
Despite the statistics on 'how happy people are' -- the thing is, 
few admit it.

/ Do they even know if they are lonely?

: You see, that is why we said, earlier I think: seeing is a 
necessity. And in seeing, healing is already beginning to occur.

/ Why is that so? What is it with seeing that makes it so vital?

: Hm. It is essential to reality -- can we say that? Essential to 
the natural change of reality. What conceals itself persists.

/ For a while, but if it has false grounds, it, too, vanishes.

: Yes. Yet it then vanishes in a destructive way, like the conquest 
of a dictator by unleashing powers that strike down on a lot of 
people.

/ Attention can heal...everything? Everywhere?

: There is no limit to it. But we must explore loneliness to 
understand how to unleash attention as a healing agent, a 
nonviolent agent.

/ So loneliness prevents good action from arising, is that it?

: A lonely person may invest a tremendous lot of time to draw 
people to him, and this time and energy could have been devoted to 
acting according to the heart.

/ The heart, in this sense, is the spirit.

: Of course.

/ So loneliness prevents a natural flow of...what can we 
say...goodness?

: I would say humour.

/ Why humour?

: Doesn't humour characterise health? And lonelinessl, it is the 
severe outlook, the frozen attitude, focussing on the pains instead 
of bringing forth what can be brought forth of love, laughter, 
dance. 

/ So humour in the body...

: ...is a healthy body. Quite.

/ Is this the temperature of the body you spoke about earlier?

: You see there is a lot of myths behind every word. Humour is part 
of it. It is not the myth I am interesting in though -- but rather 
the direct perception.

/ Some people say that emotion is the basis for perception. Other 
people say that it interferes with perception. What is your 
approach?

: Please, I am not an approach! You perceive. In that perception 
you are sensitive, you sense, you relate, with feeling intensity 
also. Or the emotion flows from the ego. Isn't it simple?

/ And the ego is that loneliness, we spoke about?

: The ego is that which makes life not as wonderful as it can be. 
If you have an optimistic outlook on people, then, when you meet 
them, you meet them by seeing how lovely they can be, when they 
have no ego.

/ What happens then? When you get to know them?

: Well, perhaps you knew them by far the best at that first moment. 
For what you then get to know, with most people, as it has been at 
least, is the ego structure. And of course we get bored with that.

/ So to be a less boring person, be without an ego?!

: Of course. Ego is resistance to humour, the dance of life.

/ And this dance of life has something infinite about it. Is 
counting of years an illusion?

: Any form of counting as 1, 2, 3 must have not psychological 
significance.

/ But it is an illusion?

: The finite is an illusion, I would say.

/ How would you then plan something?

: If you plan with a friend who is truly sensitive, do you have to 
use numbers? Make up a word.

/ If we go into dance, how is a body to dance its way out of 
loneliness?

: How is a body to dance itself out of loneliness... it is quite a 
question. What is dance? Let's explore that first.

/ Movement to rhythm?

: Please. Don't be so superficial.

/ Dance is a relationship to the heart.

: Deeply, what is dance?

/ Freedom from the ego.

: That's part of it, isn't it? There is no ego and, what happens 
then?

/ No loneliness either.

: But if you have loneliness to begin with, then, if you come into 
dance, that is the vanishing of loneliness, right? There is no 
sequence. It happens simultaneously.

/ I see.

: So what is dance?

/ Dance is perception-action. Can we say that?

: Perception-action. You perceive and in that perception there is 
also the action. So up comes the question of intention.

/ Dance happens without intention?

: Not so fast. What is it that is fruitful to intend?

/ Fruitful to intend -- you'll find that out by intuition, won't 
you?

: Yes, but listen to the question -- what is most fruitful, at the 
level of intention? 

/ You mean, what is it most fruitful to plan to do?

: That is exactly the point. Intention is an action, a subtle 
action. It is not a plan. You walk with a certain intention and 
that is a different walk than if you walk with another intention.

/ How does this relate to healing?

: How does this relate to relationship? You approach another, do 
you have a sense of flexibility, playfulness, perceptiveness of 
intention or do you go by habit, self-satisfied? The right 
intention is the healing intention.

/ Does this also go across the air, as it were? I mean, one speaks 
of hands that can heal.

: Of course. It is just a particular intention. It is an orgasmic 
current, as it were, flowing from one body to another.



***



/ What is the infinite?

: Now you are asking. Well. Rhythm. It is alive.

/ Rhythm? It has cycles?

: Of course. Don't you feel it? You sit upright, you let your back 
neck or jaw muscles subtly aid the blood flow upwards, you watch 
beyond every thought and sense the infinite directly.

/ How does these rhythms transpire?

: Either the infinite is one static block like some of the ancient 
Greek philosophers hoped to prove, or it is in movement. The 
movement most similar to the sense of the infinite is rhythm. You 
can feel it directly when you are absolutely silent.

/ Absolutely silent. Is it possible? Without a drug?

: Certainly.

/ And then what happens?

: Time as counting, time as thought, even thought vanishes. There 
is renewal, there is that bliss which is nothingness. You can have 
it right now.

/ Now. No preparation necessary.

: No initiation from a Tibetan master or an UFO necessary. You just 
sit and watch your thoughts, see them as time. Then the moment 
opens up, the universe is in it, you sense that there is nothing to 
worry about. That it all was there all the time.

/ Then I might say to myself, "Now I am enlightened."

: Why say anything? Don't cling to what happens. It is in infinite 
supply.



***


/ When we heal, we are engaging in what seems to be the most 
nonviolent -- or least violent, rather -- action that it is at all 
possible to engage in. Do you agree?

: Well I am against comparison. There is a lot of snobbish self-
satisfaction in comparison. If what you do is right, it is right.

/ How do you distinguish between right and wrong?

: How? How! How! The endless hows! Don't you just know?

/ But it can be my bias.

: So get rid of bias!

/ And then...?

: Then what, sir?

/ What is the meaning of the whole enterprise?

: Does the ocean ask of the meaning of its flow?

/ It flows.

: Yes. And there's a beauty in that. There is no self, then.

/ I know of people...

: Talk of yourself!

/ Okay. What I wanted to ask is what it means to live in this 
harmony when the subconscious or unconscious mind may have buried a 
lot of condemnation, worry, negative self-appraisal, even hatred, 
and so on. 

: How to get out of it?

/ Well. Not 'how' but...

: Do it!

/ What? Step out?

: Yes. Step out of humanity's consciousness and come to compassion. 
The land of compassion or truth. 

/ For the consciousness of humanity is ego-tainted?

: Not only that, but it has immense sorrow. 

/ And you leave it, then what?

: Then you are nonviolent. Not as a scheme, but as a wonderful 
life. I hesitate to use the phrase 'a life'. It sounds finite. 
Wonderful living. But then one merely thinks of houses and so on! I 
hope one day we have made a better language than English.

/ You say nonviolently. What about war? Is it always wrong?

: Krishnamurti used to say that if parents really loved their 
children, there would be no wars. For if parents love their 
children, they will never allow them to be soldiers. It is naive 
but beautiful. A little truth it is.

/ But what do you say? Is it always wrong?

: If you are supremely intelligent -- not merely as brain 
intellect, but intelligent because you do not repeat what others 
say -- even though I just repeated! -- but you speak what you live 
as a truth, then you will find other ways. Always.

/ Yet, if we take as starting-point a rather chaotic situation, 
with dictators here and there and not much enlightenment, then 
what?

: Then what, sir?

/ Then could it ever be justified to kill somebody for a political 
reason?

: Never. 

/ But a mass-murderous dictator...

: If violence can be accepted it must be in order to stop a much 
greater violence. You slap the face of someone who is about to push 
a button that can do physical damage to another person. You support 
the speedy removal of a dictator who is on a daily basis murdering 
people, even if this removal is not intelligent, in the ultimate 
sense. You support it because you must go a middle way and not just 
drink herbal tea and pray when a house is burning.








Hillsides
 
 
 


This is an open-ended, short story. 



* 


He woke up, after a short dream. He had fallen asleep in the 
countryside. To him that was a luxury -- sleep, grass, day 
combined. To some it was barbarism, uncivilised. He wondered how 
many years there had been civilisation? He sought in his mind for a 
number that might answer his question...5683? Perhaps soon 5684. He 
wondered what it referred to -- the creation by God of Earth 
according to bible fundamentalism? He hoped not. Whatever God had 
created, he is still creating, she is still creating, it goes on 
and on as it has gone on for millions of years. The patterns of 
coincidences inevitably speaks of hands of synchronicities, 
composers of pattern divine. 


Who's behind all this? Well, never mind. The divisions, he always 
felt, spoke of difficulties in the minds of those who related them. 
The minds, love, the god in our hearts, this reality, the flight of 
that bird, the structure of that wellgroomed orchid, where's the 
division? Ah, the love of pantheism. What was the dream about? 
Well, never mind. Oh yes, civilisation being 5683 years today, in 
his imagination. What was before civilisation? Agriculture, 
hunting, fishing, love-making, nail-cutting, massage? Gourmet 
dinners all day long? Jumping and climbing in trees? Will we ever 
find out? Will we ever find a civilisation that is civilised? What 
did Gandhi, again, say about this...some interviewer asked him, 
'what do you think of human civilisation' -- or was it 'what do you 
think of western civiliation'; not that these two questions are the 
same. And Gandhi replied, didn't he, 'I think it would be a good 
idea.' 


He arose and proceeded down toward Venice. He could sense his lust 
for bread. The smell of a bakery would guide him, he thought. I 
wonder if I could find an outdoors bakery with pretty girls with 
black hair and an open mind, no brothers around. With legs and feet 
all shiny and ready to be assaulted by a stranger's mind, and they 
would delight in it, they would need an extra fantasy to carry home 
to their dreary life; the notion of a new prophet, a new mohammad, 
a new life-saver coming down from the deep dark forests to save 
them, to tell them to be true to their inmost desires of their 
hearts.' 


Would he meet such girls today? Or, he reasoned, he should be more 
interested in conversations with men. There were too many girls in 
his life, too few men. A little balance. Is he not, after all, a 
balanced person, who feels he can have a role for everyone, not 
merely for those pretty sweet young ones? He had a friend once who 
said: look, healing a beautiful girl does not count as altruism. 
No, perhaps not. 


Someone had to take care of the beautiful girls, he reasoned. And 
why not him, the best? He sighed, too much self-confidence. Pride 
is really not a nice thing to wear. Joy, yes. Pride, no. He had a 
tiny thing which showed pictures when he clicked it, a camera. He 
clicked himself, at an arm's distance. Yes, he could see pride in 
his face. 


He affirmed, "no pride", and clicked again. 


It was still there. Hm. He meditated for an instance, then said, 
"joy and strength". That's masculine -- joy, it radiates 
independence, clarity. Strength, unruffled by whatever happens, 
that's masculine, free from pride, but self-asure enough to do 
anything right. A girl could say "joy and prettiness". She would 
emphasize tenderness, he would emphasize force; both joy; their 
blending, beauty. Or so went the theory this afternoon... 


He shot another image. Okay, much better. Not the obscene attitude 
of pride, but the lanky masculine, slightly tanned face of 
something with a certain open outlook on life, male and well. 





* 


What could happen in an afternoon like this? Anything at all. 
Anything good, anyway. 


He went down and found his bakery. No girls there but the bread was 
awesome. Then a girl came. Then another came. They all sat down. 


Like a gardener of the world's wild plants, he tended to these 
instances of a flowering humanity with great care in his mind, if 
not also his body. In his mind, he caressed their legs silently. 
Not staring, just feeling them over, sensing how they sensed him, 
sensing their fears, their resistance, their longing. 


One of them had greed in her, greed for him -- the long one over 
there. Her eyes flickered enough that he could walk over if he had 
anything smart enough to say to convey indifference yet placitude, 
that odd combination so often necessary to open a combination; as 
if interest of a mutual kind is never enough, except in vulgar or 
drugged states. But what is sex except vulgar? Ah, anyway. 


Why is it that a partial a woman is so much more interesting than a 
whole woman, with few exceptions? Women's minds were so different 
at this point, they claimed, at least, that he would hardly speak 
in gender-neutral terms about this. He knew of women of astonshing 
radiance who claimed that what they would fall in love with, 
concerning a man, could be a gesture; the way he tilted his head; 
how he walked or became suddenly silent. Was it really that it was 
about for them? Their minds clicked differently, no doubt -- yet 
some were more men than he, and shared a lot. Their notion of 
grabbing the whole of a situation could drive a piecemeal-oriented 
male to insanity; and it was the piecemeal-orientation that made 
males carry out reckless, even inhumane projects; their minds 
fluttered in pleasure over a brilliant little fragment of 
something, whereas women more easily would turn in disgust unless 
it was a whole as a composite reality, full of gossip and smalltalk 
and small flowers and pink ponies, made while they cook soup. He 
hated that wholeness/smallness that made women go in circles; yet 
realized it would be terrible if everyone went in lines. A society 
of males would be a disasterous thing, like a rocket, destined to 
go nowhere but further, never resting. A society of women would be 
pre-civilisation. Better in hugely many ways yet unbearable even to 
themselves. Much as women didn't like the progressive lines and 
mistakes of men, they thrived in the protection that the erections 
of men had created around them, to protect them from weather and 
poverty and what not. 


He didn't believe much in the essential equality of the feminine 
and masculine, he reasoned. It was one of the greatest blunders of 
all time to equate them; just as great as to ignore the feminine, 
like Buddha did. 


He thought about Buddha. Buddha is great for gays for he is 
adequately feminine himself, and at the same time has the virtue of 
not understanding women the slightest bit, except that they may be 
ruthlessly attractive. He wanted to say to Buddha, if he met him, 
look: they say you have left your wife and kids. tell me why you 
don't go back to your kids and be enlightened also there. I find it 
a little difficult, at least, to believe your talk of compassion 
unless you also take care of them. You have started something -- 
not a mere thing, but a life. 


Yet, he sighed, Buddha was among the best of the crap of the 
religious founders, he felt ill at ease with an attack on this nice 
guy. 





* 


He felt around drowsily in his white, large bed. He was alone. None 
of the pretty ones came with him; he didn't try at all, because he 
was so saturated with beauty inside himself this afternoon anyway, 
without them. 


He felt the smoothness of the bed, looked out through the open 
window at the large trees and old buildings barely discernable 
between their massively hanging green leaves. Peace was upon him, 
he felt. 


What was the trouble with socalled 'human loving'? One thing: 
noise. If people only knew what it means to give each other peace. 
Instead they seem so often to want bondage, seek bondage, seek 
noise. Why? He didn't know. 


There is something like hypnotic peace, a peace in which you 
reinvent yourself, find new clarity, becoming able to see another 
human being afresh -- even someone you don't like. So that there is 
no more like or dislike, just an affinity that becomes love. 


You see, personal love is never love. He thought about it. Sexual 
love, sexual -- if it is really sensual, sexual, devoted to body 
touch -- it is not really personal. It is a body thing, body 
glistening with satisfaction, with subtlety. The body pulsating, 
the body dancing. It is dance, that's it, he thought. Sex is like a 
dance. You don't talk about the neighbour when you dance. No 
chatting, no bondage. No slavery to another's ego. 


You feel the rhythm, you engage in the movement, you let the moment 
speak of its own beauty and you are its transparent instrument. 
Delightful thoughts. 


Then, he mused, we have human relationships. Oh, what ugly things 
these may easily be! If we don't watch it, there is little 
relationship, just brain noise, the noise of another's name and 
telephone number, and one's own name, the noise of clashing self-
descriptions, of clashing lies, or lies against frankness. 


Personal love is a lie, he thought, it is just ego-connection. 
Then, something far, far beyond the brain and its noise, yet 
something the brain could relate to, is this wind gently stroking 
his face, coming through the leaves into his room, and leaving 
again. This impersonal satisfaction of life whispering unto itself: 
I am alive, I love it. This burst of godhood which exists in 
absolutely everyone, politician and child alike. He could think of 
no greater polarities than that, as far as human beings go: 
policitican versus child. A child equals god. A policitican equals 
-- everything what it means not to be god. Whatever that should be 
called. Inert matter. 





* 


He slept. He dreamt a long dream about the valley he had just been 
in, about flowers becoming angels kissing him all over. Sensual 
living incorporated, that was him. Incorporare sensualismus. 
Perhaps. He didn't know a word Latin. 


Slight warnings, arrows, areas of danger -- he sensed it in his 
dream. He healed it somewhat even in his dream, and as he awoke, 
thought about these hints of danger. And sought to visualize that 
he really healed them, too. To him, the word 'healing' was as 
second to his nature as the word 'body', or even the body physical. 


Life was about healing, for him, life healing life. Love was 
healing, baroque music was healing, a pretty face was healing. Good 
writing was healing, and good reading, too. A cup of coffee could 
be healing. 


Healing, not of anything in particular, just of the capacity of 
life to heal life. Healing of the drugged brains, so they need no 
more seek drugs to have ecstasy. Healing of matter, so it became 
energy and light, the light of ecstasy. 





* 


He hoped he looked good enough for this girl who was his 
conversation partner this meal. Alisa. They had an agreement on 
this lunch, made last week. 


They lunched at an outdoors caf�, overlooking one of the canals. 
The fresh air reached them through the waters, and the smell of 
people, nice smells, this day. And children's screams and shouts of 
joy while they played danced in his ears much as the reflections of 
sunlight on these waves. 


Alisa had been one of his sexual partners for a while, a young 
asian/european naturally tanned petite sweetheart with a golden 
tongue, metaphorically, and a golden skin, literally. She spoke a 
rather aristocratic British English with a faint chinese accent, 
had been well groomed by a political mother and father, whose 
wealth and influence was pretty immense. 


She thought of herself to be pretty and young, and she was; but he 
could never detect anything like arrogance in her. She never spoke 
badly about anyone, except to the extent "I do not understanding 
his attitude to..." whatever it was. Not understand. That was, 
apparently, the severest attack she could make on anyone or 
anything -- that she could not understand. 


He wondered if she always did understand. That she did understand 
what the ego was all about, how it might generate emotions that are 
just completely different than the real feelings of the heart, and 
confuse people and their actions. All that enlightenment stuff. 
Perhaps she just knew it. It was difficult to tell. 


She seemed to be one of those individuals who could just save Earth 
if she got that kind of power, but probably she was not ambitious 
enough to try to grab much power; and her lack of ambition was part 
of her sincere deep tranquility; her lack of ambition made her 
spend hours in yoga for the delight of it; it made her dress 
herself in silk and spend time with her hair so it could be that 
river of shine when she walked about. She was a...there the word 
came again...flower. He always used that word when a girl seemed to 
him particularly interesting. A male chauvenist, no doubt. But he 
insisted he was not, for he could use it about old girls as well -- 
as the head of the Theosophical society, when he had met her. She 
must have been seventy, at least, a dancer. Wearing Indian sari, 
she sat in a sofa in perfect tranquility and ease with her legs 
under her, to her side. Seventy and sweet as a rose. He even gave 
her one. 


Well, anyway, Alisa. She said something about the world politics, 
how she couldn't understand something about its level of 
consumption. There we went again. She couldn't understand it. Then 
it had to be truly terrible. 


A child came running to them -- to her, mostly, and asked if she 
could teach Alisa's hair. Alisa smiled and her golden face became 
full of that kind of love you don't really think human beings are 
able to show just like that. The kind of love you imagine, with 
closed eyes, that some angel would have if you could see the angel 
very clearly, an angel woven of the orgasms of all the gods, an 
angel dedicated to spread compassion, to heal by radiance. Healing. 
Her face was perhaps so healing he could cry. He felt he had to be 
healed infinitely more when he saw her like that, healed, so he too 
could smile like that someday. Yet perhaps this was exactly the 
infinity of healing, that you know it can always be a new infinity 
to it, you bow in humility to what healing means, bow to the beauty 
of this woman, and you don't try to copy it. You just say: I 
surrender. And you don't surrender; that's part of the game of 
life, you don't surrender at all, and yet fully surrender. The 
moment is all that happiness and all that sorrow that such full 
compassion can bring. Yet you know that the moment is a mere 
meditation. There can be infinitely more of them and they are all 
infinitely different. There is no persistance. But you can forget 
that there is no persistance, forget that you are meditating, 
forget her, forget yourself, and see only the child over there. No 
more I-Thou, just Thou. Then not even Thou. A blissful nothingness. 
He felt himself disappearing, and came back, perhaps five seconds -
- it could be five millenia -- later. The child was touching her 
and Alisa touched the child's head, patted it, and then the child 
run off somewhere around the corner, probably to her mother. 





* 


It was afternoon. They had walked from their lunch-place to a place 
in a park, sunlit in parts, in part shaded under a groovy tree. 
Alisa put her legs under her, yogaish, and he watched her 
admiringly. Her profile was noble -- in the way which socalled 
'noble' people rarely is. She was unsnobbish yet had that ingrained 
pride of being a gorgeous human being. Yet not pride perhaps... 
more indulgence, even infatuation with herself. She had a twin 
sister, and they shared a natural, obvious and shameless 
infatuation for each other. Of course. How could they not. If one 
of them was unbearably attractive, then two of them was... out of 
reach by the inflation of the words implied in 'unbearable'. Two of 
them was really too much. Happy that he could be with only one of 
them, he decided to take her into a difficult theme. He thought of 
his dream; he had done much subtle healing, almost on a 
subconsicous level, and he found it so exceedingly easy when with 
Alisa. 


'Alisa, you who see so much,' he began, a little pompous perhaps, 
but she really travelled a lot, and met many eyes -- 'there is a 
theme I am working on, I mean I need to intellectualize it. I have 
sensed it, I haven't yet come up with the proper words for it.' 


'What is it, dear?' she asked, as if it were not a trouble in the 
world. She couldn't have been more accurate in the inflexion of her 
voice if he was a kid of age five and he had just bruised himself, 
and come in crying; she was the younger one but she could be his 
mother in a moment. She soothed him, she knew she did; she probably 
enjoyed it, too, he reflected. For he was one who valued her 
compassion, who regarded it as real strength, and who sought to 
relate something of that sense in his piano productions, musical 
concerts, whatever; so she could perhaps feel -- if she was 
interested in this sense -- that her radiance was conveyed to 
others by conveying it to him. They could reach the farthest 
shores, as it were, by his musical touch, his concerts, his 
audience; and so her flowering prettiness had a deep function, as 
if she had a child only better, in a sense, for this concerned so 
many. Perhaps she thought like this. He reflected that he did not 
knew her really well, yet. She was so tranquil, so harmonious, that 
if there were any shadow side to her, he had not seen it at all. 


'Well, you see,' he began, tentatively, 'I have thought about how 
nice people can be on the surface. And then, when you shine a 
little attention on them, also sexually, some of them turn up with 
quite other energies than this. You know what I mean.' 


'Yes...' Alisa thought about this. 'You mean that they carry shame 
on the sexual level. Or aggression. Or what not. And this comes up 
if somebody looks under the surface.' 'Yes, exactly,' he responded. 
She always took things in the best meaning. He imagined how a woman 
from the district might have responded to the very same sentence: 
"You bastard! You mean that you can't touch their butt as often as 
you like!" But then he would have anticipated that response and 
spent some fifteen minutes laying out the context that Alisa took 
in a flash. Or perhaps carried with her, happy and optimistic as 
she was about humanity. 


'So, I have come to sense something, it frightens me to talk about 
it in case it is severely wrong, and yet it seems to me impossible 
to disregard it anymore. That there is a darkness about some. Have 
you noticed it? Or anything like it?' She thought about this then 
nodded. 'Go on', she said. 


They talked long into the afternoon. Then evening. They slept 
together. Next day they gathered some food and went into the 
forest, ate some of the food on the way and headed towards a lovely 
building, a place where they sold food, and there was a fire there. 
They could watch all the way to the sea. 





* 


His dreams the last night were postive, the sense of warning gone, 
and something good had come instead. The talks must have healed it, 
he thought -- the talks he and Alisa had had about darkness and the 
importance of trusting what one senses before one's 
intellectualizations; then intellectualize as much as one pleases 
in order to quicken one's sensing of it. They had agreed that, 
perhaps completely unwittingly, some people engage in activities -- 
they are not born that way -- that makes the radiance very shallow, 
and whatever they touch, they fragment. It is not really darkness. 
Alisa had said, 'Is it not rather that some people don't understand 
goodness -- they are running away. They don't sense it as a force, 
like we do. I have a sense of a mother goddess, always. She is 
always with us.' The word 'us' referred to she and her twin sister, 
usually. She continued, 'When they don't know of this thing, they 
do it on a mechanical basis, whatever it is that they are doing.' 
He had objected that some of them may talk about goodness, may have 
studied the literature of the mysticists, may have meditated on 
healing, and she said that that is not the same as taking it 
utterly seriously, so seriously you rely on it. 'For there may 
still be fear,' she said. 


In that way, she had urged him to take the perspective that it is 
not a darkness that is willed, it is rather a consequence of lack 
of relationship to one's own heart, and the goodness that is there. 
It is a running away from the elementals of life, as she put it. 


The seaside seemed very blue, and there was a whitish fog above it. 
It must be quite hot. It seemed light and clean, offering itself, 
virgin-like, happy and gay with the day. The valley down towards it 
seemed light green and they went down for a swim and said goodbye 
in the city. She had to go away for two days. Their kiss was warm, 
warmer than ususal but it always seemed warmer than ususal, he 
thought, with her. **







Poems on eyes



1 

They say: I feel like you...
watch me. Told me. Those blue eyes,
watch me from above. So sexy.
Sexy. She told me, did you see
how he looked at us? It's there.
The girls chatting. That's what my
cunt is saying -- we're chatting,
is that enough? No, I am shameless,
if you want to know, blue-eyed God.
Do you read my mind? Do you read my cunt?
Pussyreader? Sister-reader? Lovemaker.
You blue eyes, go home and honk yourself.
Wanna be with you, forever, sex,
forever eyes on me like that, babe.
Sexy eyes, what are you thinking now?
Do you think my think? Read my cunt!
Sweet lips, pen moving...your eyebrows,
your cheekbones. Ready for marriage?
I'll split after a year, maybe. But not
one night. All life blue eyes. A year
one life. Many years, many lives. Maybe all yours.




2

Christ! Speak from thighs.
Feel! Touch my look.
Thighs look. I begin to wail...
unless the wash of colours
become settled on my gait.
Between me.
I am between me,
don't you see?
See? See! Eyes,
they're for seeing, right?
Eyes coloured by
their own colour,
sexifying my limbs, why?
Why the shine? Why?
Why my gait
if not for your shine




3

Branching infinites,
dots between dots,
always more between-ness.
Have you not yet discovered
between-ness? Or are
you one or the other?
Do you see the colour?
Do you take in the green?
Do you train the green,
to welcome the light
in you that's you?
For love is perfect kindness,
perfect dance. Sweet silence
Sit still. Watch the point.
Perceive the perceiver,
And time stands still.
So by infinite regress
there is infinite progress,
irreversible, all in an instant
of unpredictable grace




On Dance




If you will, and I will,
dance!, and dialogue shall be

Dance! For Your God is...God as dance
as love, is love, as dialogue, as beauty: The heartbeats




Dance is neither chaos nor control,
but the coherence of creation
Beyond pain, yet compassionate
The dance of responsibility
of the quietness as it pulsates within



Make love to the notion of love
beyond the limitations of nondance
beyond the borders set by attachment:
Let love flourish, make love to neighbours;
condemn not love but generously support it;
have no ego but see that you are love,
that each is love, at the bottom under pressures
at the depth of the psyche, under the superego
at the core of every personality:
there is love, condemn it not, but breathe fire
into it, so its water comes aflame and boils away its ego



Sit still also, for dance is the effortlessness:
The intelligence of finding the path of utter
freedom from all resistance, of all selves
The spontaneous intelligence: Nature's own law:
Complete coherence without lifting a finger,
being the greatest dancer, beyond comparison

I say, there is no a priori
as distinct from any a posterori
and no language game
distinct from any other game
and no dance of a private mind
distinct from any other dance



the burden of distinction
must be proved: I play along
without distinction



to me, any information is open
for my being is dance,
beyond information:
I do not tear open in fake
transparency and the slowness of thought
what happens in the immediacy of dialogue,
of dance, of making love to your neighours




 
What is life?
What is consciousness?
What is feeling?
What is dialogue?
What is orgasm?
It is all...no label will do,
but it is all...really no thought either,
and yet it is all...dance, isn't it?


You may ask: Why dance?
What is dance? But you know.
Without knowing, you dance.
The breathing, you heart.
Each interval of silence
between your moments of thinking
that you know.
The interval of nothingness
which is the fire of being.


Why dance? If life is dance,
then why not enact something else?
If life is dance, why talk about it?
Why not just do it?
And yet we have such brains
as love to make things complex
and engage in subtleties
such as to cover up 
the dance in ourselves.


I say the shiver of orgasm
is love, the dance of love
is what makes us truly human
To let the rhythm go
everywhere, where you have mind





What is dialogue? Is it to suspend?
I see respect, for the essence of all:
that each carries the best of all
 
 




You watch what you do
perhaps it is the computer in you
yet you watch, you suspend, you wait
the watching with the intent of beauty
the watching with the intent of harmony
watching, the future watching the present
the coherence of what is to come
watching over the dance of the present
wiping the ego out
you watch



You watch and there's an immediacy
in that watching
no labelling, no conceptualization
you watch, you relate, you love
what is watched is no longer a thing
it lives, and it is your life:
the watcher dissolves



Isn't this love?







 
 
 


















































THE SANE MIND



















What I will say is like an array of stars communicating with 
another array of stars. The linear logic will not do. Nor will the 
form of a 'story'. You are your own story. I will but give a 
vocabulary of insight. Feel free to use it. The pieces fit in 
innumerable jigsaws.

To have a mind at all is to have something that is a little crazy. 
That is the fluctuation, which gives the mind something of that 
unpredictable nature which it has, in its authenticity.

I beg you give time, in leisure, to dwell on these possible 
insights, which are all just so little crazy as to make up 
something that is right in the heart, even if 'wrong' by some 
temporary societal standards. Humbly, I suggest: Wisdom comes this 
way. Not by anectodes, stories, but by those open thoughts which 
all have a questionmark associated with them.

This is transparent knowledge, knowledge which you can see through, 
rather than accumulate. Knowledge which tells of itself not to take 
itself too seriously. I have lived according to these insights for 
years, and I am so supremely happy it is hard even to begin to 
describe it.












The giant oak had shed its last leaves that night, it seemed, so as 
to get ready for the winter. Strangely the brilliant nightsky 
seemed to move through it, now that the leaves did not prevent the 
sight of them. One could stand under the tree, which was dividing 
itself into two large thighs, as it were, feeling utterly protected 
and watched over. The wariness was gone, it was ready for another 
three-hundred and fifty years.

The silence that night moved into sleep. Doors were opened, some 
tiny doors perhaps shut. As water, creation seemed all waves. It 
was an ecstatic night.

Who blows the winds that makes the waves? Do the gods blow 
electrons into existence? What mind blows itself up?

The most dangerous thoughts are the poetic ones, for they may touch 
truth in a humble instant. They may say: Love is all this life, 
impersonally. The sense of love is beauty itself.









He had been invited to give a talk at the Mensa club in that city 
where he stayed, the kind of club where the members take pride and 
prestige in swiftly solving some graphical and verbal schematic 
tests. The quick and clever ones get a high score, mistakenly 
considered 'intelli-gence'. He told his dancer friend, who joked, 
'You should call the talk to the Mensa Club, About intelligence.' 
He joked back, 'And the subtitle ought to be, How to get it going'. 

Who are the most arrogant? Those who make a test and call it 
'intelligence test', or those who ironize over that type of action?

Among the animals humanity has tolerated we find ducks. The 
knowing, rather kind-seeming eyes of ducks instill peace in a human 
being. They paddle on with their pink-orange ores and are hopeful 
for at least a piece of interracial communication if not also some 
fragments of dried bread, tossed on water. They get startled by 
adults, generously give plenty of space to dogs, but are 
unfrightened of children.

You want to know yourself. All the way through. There may be ten 
thousand more layers to your own motives than what you have 
verbalized to yourself. How do we ever come to translucence? By 
asking again and again?









Each tree has its signature. Especially the more ancient ones. The 
younger may have tremendous sap, but consciousness demands also 
staying power.

He wandered between trees in the park, feeling changes. Feeling the 
city through its nature is the only way to reveal all its secrets. 
It is the power of silence to make the unknown burst into visual 
and verbal expressions, all of a sudden. This is called 'insight', 
I think. Some may say 'intuition' instead. Or even 'intelligence'. 
The words don't matter so much but the dance does.

The language of insanity, as a form of gossip applied to an unruly 
person, a free thinker, or someone apt at trance-like moods, 
requires tiger-like action: the gossip must be shattered, by verbal 
force  and insight. Society, as it is, is constituted by neurotics 
and their categories are dull and uninteresting
yet sometimes dangerous enough that they must be stopped. It is 
evil to say of a person that he or she is insane.









The psychological power of silence reigns in the words, the great 
deep dark forests. Change man by going there and meditate!

It was still gray weather, but it had begun to clear, and threads 
of gold occasionally became visible in the cloudy evening sky. 
Wandering in the woods was a wet affair. Somehow, though, the 
organic substance of silence permeated everything here, and it 
entered and left the human brain of the walker as if skin were no 
barrier.

Silence is coherence, could we say that? Or is silence perhaps 
about love?

The questions deepened as the walk carried on and inwards, past 
darkbrown wooden houses from an earlier culture, by lakes and tiny 
rivers, and the signs and sudden view of an elk.

The brain that has not silence is clouded. Is enlightenment perhaps 
to have the ecstasy, the sense of biologically rich silence in 
oneself all day long, practically every day? It is possible to live 
that way and this writer does.









The sound, sane, healthy mind, with integrity, is organic in its 
subsistence, its perception, rather than merely cultural. Culture 
offers little but names, categories, numbers, and some fashionable 
moves and manners of talking and doing. The health of mind requires 
a relationship to that which we actually are rather than merely to 
that which culture portrays us as.

The openminded pantheist sees infinite talent in all, and the view 
of life is therefore profoundly impersonal. As the observer is the 
observed, the world is sensed through calmness and no drugs are 
necessary. The sense that everything is alive suggests a rather 
vegetarian inclination. It suggests an anchoring in honesty and 
clearsightedness through synchronicities, going beyond likes and 
dislikes of the conditioned kind.

That night the clouds dispearsed, and made sky ready for the gold 
of the morning. Birds, late in learning
before the winter, or perhaps accepting winter conditions, 
fluttered in delight as the sun rode up with majestic colors 
abounding. Anyone who has been in California knows what it means to 
trust light.








The girl was rather young and very fair, blond, somewhat etheral, 
perhaps striking at times. The self-assurance she had as a teenager 
was gone, she said. Her father no longer lived, much had happened 
recently, and although generally happy with her husband and little 
child, she had pangs of anxiety. She seemed quite sensitive and 
intent on being honest about everything, and thinking it all 
through. Yet, perhaps, she rediculed a 'too spiritual' standpoint. 
She described how her intuitions about things she feared sometimes 
came out surprisingly right, though.

'So I don't know what to do. The anxiety bites in me. I know 
rationally I shouldn't worry so much yet perhaps, even rationally, 
I should.'

Have you observed the anxiety, not tried to do something with it?

'Well, I notice it. But I do try to get rid of it.'

Perhaps giving attention is the key. Not trying to do anything at 
all with it but creatively, in leisure, explore it deeper and 
deeper.

'How do you do that?'

You watch how motives tend to shrink attention, for instance. You 
are getting honest to a point where it starts overflowing into a 
profound sense of tranquility. Ultimately attention and tranquility 
is one. Then there is no more anxiety, except, perhaps, in days in 
which there's a lack of sleep.

She thanked me and told she'd be interested in more conversations 
about this with me.







He gave a talk for an almost full little room at a spectacle of a 
giant fair involving every sort of spirituality. His theme, by 
invitation, was intuition. To his surprise he found himself talking 
to quite an influential little group, representing some of the 
cultural elite in that city at the present. At the outset, he'd 
felt he would talk psychologically more than spiritually, yet at 
the end of the talk, a discussion involving many spiritual 
questions came up and the atmosphere was both warm and engaging.

Afterwards, they invited him to some cafees and eating-places, and 
a young, smart-looking girl who had  already got a novel or two 
published spoke in earnest to him.

'I have heard so much about you. Some of my closest friends tell me 
that you are mad.'

Why do you think they say that?

'I don't know. I judge everything for myself, and now I have heard 
you and seen you, and as we talk now, my own judgement is that you 
are brilliantly dialogic and I do not think you are mad at all.'

Does anybody know what madness is?

'It's difficult. The concept is complex.'

And he told her how, when he had left the role of editing and 
governing the magazine that she later came to work for, and gone to 
another part of the world, an embittered friend (who later 
apologized), an angry college, and a frustrated woman in the city 
to which he moved, had telephoned each other and others to exchange 
gossip about his intense writing activities. Small pieces of 
perhaps factual  information were taken out of context and suitably 
altered to suggest a pattern of madness. When he returned for a 
brief six-day visit to his old place, that place was almost 
bursting with a gossip he could do little with.

'But you should have addressed it!'

There is some charm to such rumours if they are not too strong. If 
you are to transform your consciousness, must you not expand beyond 
normality and so touch something potentially crazy? One of the 
things that really upset them was that I said that I felt I had 
surpassed the type of enlightenment that Buddha portrayed. I might 
have said it weaker, but it came out much stronger and without the 
dialogic, playful, funny context in which it was said, and so they 
were all sure I had become megalomaniac but none of them really 
asked me or even admitted they were saying it in between 
themselves. I heard it later, from others. From what you are 
saying, some of the gossip still goes on, after all these years. If 
you cannot say such a thing without somebody throwing that kind of 
category at you, if you cannot write for days and night and come 
into a delightful ecstatic yet shivering mood without the rest of 
society deeming you out of your mind, then what kind of society 
have we made?

'I really believe in you.'

It doesn't matter, does it? To believe or not believe in one 
another, but to label one another with such a category, and not 
even admit it to the person in question -- that is not the kind of 
communication I 
would like to encourage.

'What happens when one doesn't sleep, but write for two or three 
days?'

What happens, of course, is that you get the kinds of thoughts you 
would have treated in a dream when you are awake. And if you are 
aware that this is what is going on, and I always am, then you will 
not get confused at all. You will listen to it, attend it, watch it 
become silent, and sleep it out. But something can open up in your 
brain if you gently, harmoniously, without drugs, push it a little 
like this. It  certainly opened me for new waves of intuition and 
ecstasy to do these experiments, and there is a hint of that which 
is utterly nonnormal or even crazy in it, but just a hint, and 
unless you have that hint with you, how can you do anything 
creatively? Take Salvador Dali. You don't have to conclude anything 
about being a genius but if you are a pantheist, like me, you 
attribute the genius potential to each moment, not to this or that 
person or buddha or yourself. That is what I meant -- I do not look 
up to the Buddha image anymore. 

'Then what is insanity?'

Perhaps we should rather ask, what is sanity? Do you live in 
complete harmony with yourself?

'No I don't think so. I sense loneliness in me often.'

So let's explore.

They explored long into the night, affectionately. New energy 
opened up in between them as they did.










Prejudice is the past of the mind imposing itself on the presence 
and as such shooting itself into the future. Pre-judice is post-
judice, it stems from the past of thought and has nothing to do 
with clear thinking.

Most people have, as of today, gone at schools where picking up a 
pen means producing something of use. This use has corrupted the 
mind. The limited shortsighted practical fruitfulness of writing, 
in terms of rewards and punishments from teachers and others, have 
made language suited to purpose seem 'true' if it works according 
to purpose. With such minds, gossip spreads like wildfire in dry 
grass. Intuition would be the water preventing the fake fire of 
gossip-turned-prejudice. Intuition would be the dance beyond 
purpose, in which languaging is a meditation, and truths perhaps 
are touched.








The evening were full of party-happy people, strolling by the big 
window of his office where he worked late at night. The summer was 
still present, and the moods were to make the best of the rest of 
it, it seemed.

Late in the night, a woman with very long, very shining straight 
hair, pouting lips, clear skind and knowing yet young eyes looked 
searchingly through the office window.

Their eyes met, he waved her in, it had been a strange day, he had 
been swimming 6.30 in the morning then later his best friend had 
turned up unexpectedly announcing marriage, then after all this and 
a party this nightsun of a girl enters his office and his mind 
reels.

He looked at this quiet elegant statuesque goddess of the night and 
said that he felt like giving her some of the most far-reaching 
insights into life, cosmos and everything. They spoke into the 
night of the sexual energies which weave mind and constitute the 
pulses of all life. They spoke in new and grand, magnificent 
concepts and she didn't tell anything about herself in the 
practical realm.

Many weeks later she wrote a thick letter and taped it to his 
office-door. They gradually found ways of  communicating more with 
one another, giving each other energy, quietness, explorativeness. 
The intensities could make havoc to a feeble mind. Their intensity 
in meeting awoke something new, a sort of kundalini glow. It still 
exists, at this very moment of writing.







Since early childhood, I have experienced ecstasies of meditation, 
like many others.

I have been very experimentative. Fortunately, I have a solid 
harmonious family background, and a father whose scientific mind 
has had dialogue and empathy as priorities.

So in my own experimentations, I, too, have set harmony, empathy 
and dialogue first. I have never used drugs, except tried cannabis 
enough to know what it can give and then bore of it. When I have 
written or explored, I have done it in a context of classical 
music, healthy food, much walks, and good friends, with whom I have 
checked for the feasibility of the results.

Occasionally, when a sexual relationship with a girl has given rise 
to psychological conflict, there has been a little disharmony. But 
never anything serious.

Gradually, or in steps, the sense of an active awareness that the 
observer is the observed has come, with its tranquility. It may be 
enlightenment, I'm not sure, for there are so many conflicting 
definitions of the term. But I've come to find a light in myself 
that is unceasing.

And I do not bear grudge against anyone who might have 
characterized my experiments negatively, of course. I am free of 
that. The sense of love has become all-pervading.






It seems to me that there are two sorts of people who are most 
likely to hold on to any scrap of gossip that somebody else may be 
'mad', 'insane', or 'crazy'.

The first type is the person who feels so estranged from society 
that it feels comfortable to suggest that others are estranged as 
well. This is said perhaps with a motive to make oneself appear a 
little more normal.

The second type is the person who feels so estranged from himself 
or herself, and so enslaved in the tightness of normality, that it 
is fascinating and terrifying to describe somebody as outside the 
field of normality altogether.

Both types of persons may incite society to act, with its brutish 
systems, against innocent free-thinking individuals. The 
arbitrariness of the use of the concept of 'insane', 'mad' or 
'crazy' leads me to say: it is evil to characterize anyone, for any 
reason, by any such terms. It is a fascist type of action to utter 
such a statement, since psychiatric hospitals, along with prisons, 
are among the most brutal actions that society can possibly apply 
unto any of its individuals. And we know too little of mind to 
declare anyone insane. So I will not further contribute to a 
discussion on these terms. I find them boring and irrelevant.



























































THE SUN IN THE MIND






















(ESSAY)




TYPED IN ALMOST VERBATIM
FROM THE CAFE NOTES 
OF ONE AFTERNOON;
LINESHIFTS ACCORD TO
THE LINESHIFTS IN THE NOTES









Some people tell of me
that I am full of
a dialogic, open,
and even self-sceptical
attitude as I give a
talk, but that when
I write, my viewpoints
tend to become categorical
and almost dogmatically
certain. To me it's a
surprise to hear this,
because I do not know
that I have any viewpoints
at all. I explore, I sense,
and as I ask a question,
I have a perception, and this
I may transform into words.
If I do this in the
context of giving a talk,
where people of many
different inclinations
are listening, not just
the spiritually inclined,
but the atheistically inclined,
the angry political, the
snobish 'fine-cultural', and
so on, then what I 
sense in the moment
may be that questions
will do more work
than mere recounting of
perceptions. Yet the questionmark
is with me in every little
thought, so do I need to write
it always?!

For viewpoints are
such a stagnated thing,
are they not? Yet unless
we go and explore every
little possible perception to
its outermost borders (if any),
then I doubt that we
can have the power,
the clarity, and the
strength to be supremely
dialogic in meeting each
other, and in asking
anew in the next meditations.

Let me give an
example. I once run a
dialogic magazine in Norway,
Flux. I gave it name,
together with a woman 
and a man, and 
I was its head for
almost four years.
During that time I wrote
some nine interviews I had
recorded with the dialogic
ecophilosopher Arne Naess.
I wrote about my meetings
with the dialogue physicist
David Bohm, and interviewed
a large amount of thinkers,
while also giving more and
more talks about the
importance of such thoughts as
analogic (wave etc) logic rather 
than digital (either-or) logic.
I even gave a talk
on this in the
Norwegian Parliament.
Increasingly, I found
myself restless and
undialogic, even powerless,
inside. I had not
my own word, I had
but the words of
both-and nice open
thinking at han. I did
not feel enough meditative
power, and as I abruptly
left the post and started
over with meditative writing
in Manhattan, a little group
of confused friends
chatted themselves into
believing I had gone
mad, and wanted me
to return to Norway
so that they could
perhaps offer me to
'rest' in a hospital.
Of course, as soon as
I found out that they
had chatted like this,
I phoned them all,
gave them a little
lesson, and of course stayed on,
happily writing and exploring, 
in Manhattan for
another nine months.
For six days only, somewhat later,
I returned to tell them to
shut up and accept the idea
of evolution in a person
through explorative writing,
and to stop that terrible gossip.
In any case, I wasn't mad,
and nobody put me into hospital
and I never met with, nor have
met with since, any psychologist
or psychiatrist except informally,
on parties and so on.
But I realized how simple it is
to begin to talk about a person this way,
and to start to see every action
in the false web of the language of insanity.
A friend of mine, a wonderful
and intelligent woman, did not have
as much luck as me. Some people
started talking about her,
and her parents wanted her to
always get up at eight o'clock
as normal people do, according to them.
She did not get to bed usually before
five or six in the morning, and
because of the compulsion of normality
in the parents towards this young woman,
they forced her to go sleepless 
into the day. After several weeks
of this, then of course certain
natural symptoms of sleeplessness
occurred, and of course some idiots
around her gathered and forced her
into hospital. Only when I shattered
the concept of getting up early in the morning
did the parents allow their young daughter
to sleep out, and that was all she needed!
Blasted be the psychiatrists,
they are such damned fools to
play that role that they are playing.
Once the girl promised herself
to sleep enough, and if she haven't slept enough,
to be much more sceptical to her own thoughts,
she never had any such problem again.

In any case, the year after I stayed
another three months in New York city,
with an increasing sense
of having found my own word 
and perception as I pursued my writing,
of course never using drugs, living healthily,
dancing much, doing some yoga, and so on.

After a couple of years,
more and more of my old
friends began to appreciate
that I had done the
exact right thing, and brought
a new integrity and
clarity to myself.
Eventually, I found that
they all completely embraced
my new approach, and appreciated
my words far more than before.
I knew this would happen
because as soon as I started
the writing process a tremendous
sense of happiness came to me,
and it has really never left,
although sometimes it is fierce
as joy and other times a mild
sense of compassion for all.

When you go to the outsider position,
you need to stay on to it,
and then eventually you will 
win and gain success among 
the good ol' insiders as well.
One must never give up when one
starts with explorative, meditative
writing, being oriented towards
ecstastic harmony, enlightenment,
and all that. One must push
through like a flower breaks a stone.

In Norway, there's
a little language called
'Norwegian', a plain
flavour of Danish,
influenced by English
yet without anything of
the richness in meaning
of the typical English
word. This, although
my mother tongue,
is a language fit to
describe material
reality and simpleminded
feelings, in a rather
political fashion, leaving
little room for pantheistic nuances.
While English is something
of a risky business
for one who has it
as a second language,
it is nevertheless used
by billions, many of
whom has come to
it in teenage years,
if not even later.

Norwegian is a
language that enforces
normality in that
descriptions of people
is simple-minded. The
Norwegian translation of
'insanity' is simply 'wrong' (gal).
What if a person
is 'wrong' in relation
to society, yet
right in relation to
his or her inner
ratio, spirit,
or heart? Society
deems a person
either evil or insane
if the person is
upsetting its system
in an unpleasant
way, and
my sense of it is
that all uses of such
absolute negatives
are indications of
confusions, projections,
and lack of contact
with reality.
Like Colin Wilson
in 'The Outsider' or
J.Krishnamurti in
'Freedom from the Known',
I feel that integrity
will come to a person
only in being willing
to resist the known,
the normal, and the
systemic approaces to being. 



















2



The Sun in the Mind is
my chosen title of this
text because one night I
awoke and said it: I must
write a text called The
Sun in the Mind. The dreams,
the night-ecstasy, the silence
within sleep produces this
insight, and who am I
to argue against it?

And then I feel the
title lifts up a great fact:
that the mind is not a mere
auxillary phenomenon, with
the Sun being merely in
the senses. It is its
own light, perhaps, I
would say, the central
light.

If we let this light
speak, what would it
say? (Rather than letting
merely an oft-repeated book
be quoted, as fundamentalists
do: the best quote from the
Christian bible is perhaps the
quote where Jesus speaks again
who were 'learned in the scriptures'! An
amazing fact that priestly
education completely
surpasses the implications
of this remark. The 
letter-quoter is, quite
simply, not spiritual, but
merely parroting the
expression of someone else, --
whether or not this someone
else was spiritual, it does
seem to remove the
content from the form of
the quote to live by quotes,
does it not?

Whether you do
yoga, dance, breathing exercises,
Feldenkreis, Alexander,
tantrism or some athletic
sports, you can enter
mind-states comparable with,
and even exceeding, that
which the most
sophisticated of drugs
can give. I have discussed
this with spiritually inclined
people who have also tried
Moksha and all the rest of it,
and they entirely agree, it seems.
A drug may for some
have been a dooropener
if taken in a
profoundly pantheistic --
harmonious spirit
and context. But only
in cases of several
problemetic minds, may
it approximate anything
like a necessity to
try something like LSD
to create the necessary
'opening of the doors of
perception', as Aldous Huxley
would have it.
The Sun in the Mind
is available for all.

I ask again: if
we let the light
begyond all culture,
the core of the
mind, speak
directly, what
does it say?

To me, it says,
for instance, that
the most prevailing
views of evolution of
life and human beings
are more off the
track than those
occasionally echoed
by fanatical sects.
Many people may seem
to confuse conformity
with clarity (encapsulated
in the loved phrase
'common sense dictates
that...'). They 
may not even know
that their daily
actions are strongly
affected by a
subtle set of theories
which may be profoundly
ungrounded.

However, since something
of what intuition or 
light say, or whisper,
or suggest, is
wildly other than
Bible- or materialistically
influenced views, I sometimes
wait long before
speaking them, because
I do not like
to give to many
grounds for attacks
on my sanity 
at once! (this,
I hope, is understood
in a half-joking tone).















































THE FEELING OF DANCE














Synchronicity is the quality that the ego can't reach, the ego is 
not fast enough, thought is not fast enough. So when there is the 
ultimate high speed of silence then there is the quality beyond the 
ego control quality, the quantity beyond the ego control quantity, 
the knowledge beyond ego control knowledge, and then the erotic 
begins.






In this there is economy, the economy of interactivity, or the 
interactive potential, which becomes organic and kinetic in its 
inflow and outflow, in its orgasm in mind and body and spirit. This 
economy is the burst of communication between human beings and 
between human beings and all existence and between any kind of 
fully aware being or potential.




To live in this state is beyond drugs, for drugs are mechanical and 
like a metronome strikes the same pace again and again and the 
brain gets bored but what the brain does not bore of is the evernew 
rhythm of orgasm in evernew ways and dance is the science of 
creating rhythm anew in each moment, so that the moment becomes 
transparent towards eternity.






This is then a song that requires the fake normality to be switched 
off. Therefore it is a benefitting thing if you realize that the 
extraordinary powers are ordinary and that the state of human mind 
when dominated by ego is subnormal and subordinary. Some people 
claim that certain drugs open doors. All my doors of perception has 
been opened by writing, meditation, walking, yoga, and the erotic 
laboratory in bed through dance, and in awakening, dancing in the 
morning, and swimming much.











The dance that is the enlightenment of mankind is simulatenously 
tantric and pantheistic, it denies the fallacy of atheism as well 
as the fallacy of dogmatism. There is no bible except the rhythm of 
freshness in this moment and no proasic statement will do; poetry 
touches the truth of newness and descriptiveness doesnsn't. Words 
as these are not to be read but danced; there is no control but 
improvised choreography; and nothing is not erotic.







Unless your words make perfect sense in a thousand years, they do 
not make sense now; if you are merely contemporary and not also 
eternal, you are not erotic enough to embrace life; and then, if 
you merely embrace culture, what you express contributes to a dead 
and lifeless culture. Nature transcends the people that transcends 
nature, and she cleans up that way; unless people love nature which 
is to love sex which is to love themselves then there is no 
pantheism in the mind and no relationship to the subtler aspects of 
reality, and then the cells decay and vanish. The love of life is 
inaccessible to the cynic, to the druguser, to all the idiots who 
have shaped culture: you may say, please, talk both-and, talk 
wavish, do not say such sharp either-or critical things. But I am 
saying: get the guitar tuned so you can play both-and with it, but 
you do not play with a guitar which is both tuned and not-tuned. It 
is either tuned or not tuned so prefer the tuned one. Which means 
to have a mind that loves nature loves life loves young skin and 
therefore loves newness and does not enter into the many fallacies 
of fundamentalistic counting culture.





You want me to talk slower? Then you are not fast enough. You want 
me to express it in a single simple argument? Then you are not 
complex enough. Then go to sleep so you can come to me in your 
dreams, for then your brain is both fast and complex, and it is 
also sensual and erotic and it does not suppress what I am here 
talking about.








You find places in humanity in which the subconscious is directly 
accessible, and if you speak words into this subconscious, you 
change humanity and all species to which humanity relate directly. 
No doubt one day the word 'humanity' will feel as constricting as 
to speak of 'us in the tribe' for life takes on evernew forms. We 
speak so lovely of compassion being 'humane', but it is not merely 
humane, it is natural; should the ant that shows compassion speak 
of being 'ante'? Compassion is an aspect of the law of life, the 
laws that are not shaped by humans but which are the foundations of 
which the energy of matter and of life are weaved of. These 
foundations involve consciousness, freedom, ecstasy. They do not 
let themselves become formulaes.

If you notice what happens in this text then you see perhaps that 
whenever I say anything that can become a system I provide an anti-
system, I provide transparency, I provide a non-formula when 
something looks like a formula: then I doubt even this, for doubt 
is yet another foundational aspect of life, one of the nameless 
lawless laws of the will of life.






Walt Whitman had speed but he also had alcohol, and alcohol made 
him too humble to keep his speed up: like the Indians, alchol broke 
him down: like most of the human species, he let himself be drugged 
and beaten by alcohol, the king and the queen of human 
consciousness, the problem of all problems.







Have you noticed how cheap newspapers love to suggest, on 
frontpages, that it is good to use drugs, to eat fat, and so on? 
They do it in the hope that many people will get stupid by 
following their advice, stupid enough to buy their newspapers. It 
is called market liberalism.

I do not favour control but I favour small economies in interplay 
and this is part of the feeling of dance. A dynasty never dances, 
an empire never dances. Dance is the individual and the other 
individual and the third individual and they make love and they 
change the world. The endavour to make Manhattan blossom again, 
they swiftly conquer the fanatical streaks in humanity and they 
activate the potential for life to discover that irreversible 
potential to live in enlightenment, in ecstasy all the time without 
a drug, by a behavioural creativity installed in the brain through 
proper insight.

I use language to conquer the grip that thought has on the mind. I 
use language to destroy description and get perception. I use 
language to deconstruct the structure of thought, the structure of 
false culture that has prevented the genius potential for being 
awakened in all human beings. I have my own sense of value and 
quality and most word production pass as garbage or near-garbage 
and I am not in favour of the morbid entertainment stuff of 
Shakespeare or the many socalled religious texts. Most of the 
famous, hailed, historical texts have inspired violence, and that 
includes Nietzsche's little excrements. The truth lies in the love 
that the newborn has, not in these old unerotic scriptures.

I can sense something sensual in almost every tradition, in almost 
every socalled religious text, in almost every one of the socalled 
great books, and if we eclectically gathered these sensual parts we 
would have dance, and that so especially if we forgot which part 
that came from where.

I do favour a sort of confusion but it must be a transparent 
confusion, consciously willed, because we have understood the 
sharpness in the structures that confine human beings at present. 
To understand a computer is a necessity in order to make an 
uncomputer. To understand thought is a necessity in order to make 
an unthought. To understand bondage is a necessity in order to make 
freedom. To understand atheism is a necessity to blossom in 
pantheism. 

Most people stop their dance by a belief in numbers and counting 
and arithmetic, and if they are not fanatical in terms of a bible 
they are usually fanatical in organizing their thoughts about 
people and things through numbers. Numbers are all illusions except 
when they are brought in as rhythm, nonmechanically and 
organically; then they are swayed in ecstasy and I can say 777 or 
1335 and I know something of the magic of these symbols and, 
suddenly, no more number. I am not a number you are not a number he 
she it is not a number we are not numbers they are not numbers 
nobody is a number. So there is no Kabbalah, no I Ching, no Tarot, 
no Astrology, there is just Godhood Beyond Formula in us all, the 
nameless flower, the river of ecstasy, the intensity of copulative 
insight beyond any systematized approach, beyond the notion of 
'help' and 'tradition' and 'master'. This is art; the rest is 
machine and we don't need it.

Imagine what happens many summers from now: some will have the 
resources to go far far away from the present places of habituation 
of human beings. Imagine what will happen then: they will come back 
for resources. Imagine what will happen then -- especially if they 
send some type of robots or artefacts to come back for resources. 
There are so many imaginations and all of them speak of sincere 
trouble unless we have compassion and by compassion we make soft 
lines where sharp quadrants might otherwise have cut blood. We see 
that nothing in cosmos is the same, there is no identity, there is 
a flow and ebb of contrasts and similarities. Nothing is different, 
there are but contrasts; nothing is but same, there are but 
similarities. Therefore dance is king, is master, is guru, is the 
path to orgasm and orgasm the path to insight and this is not a 
statement within a conditioned mind such as of the Kabbalah; this 
is a statement of youth, and the rest is longing for the lost 
fatherhood or motherhood. When people go to a guru, a master, a 
tradition it is also a wish to be one such oneself; and in both 
cases it is the ugliness of trying to install parents in oneself 
and outside of oneself instead of having healed one's wounds 
carefully through meditation. One rushes ahead and gives lectures 
on secret traditions and gives courses and makes oneself into 
advisors and healers and really, it is just more of the circus. 














Slow or velocity?

Silent, moving slowly, walking around a city, not noticing anything 
but everything. In the rhythm, the brain is reborn, thought is 
absent, perception present. If there is tiredness, or loneliness, 
one tires of tiredness and instead of loneliness one becomes all 
one, all whole, and there is walking. And the walking never ends, 
it goes on and on and there is silence and sunlight, and the rush 
of cars and the playing of children and the seagulls do not 
interfere with this silence, it is all part of it. As is the winds 
on the mountains when you have gone close to the little fire inside 
the little cottage and the tea water is boiling. If there is any 
problem, such as plutonium lost, then make a cup of tea; let's 
think.

In trying to escape from oneself, one buys bigger and bigger 
television sets, computer screens, robots, yachts, and climbs 
bigger and bigger mountains and then one realizes that in the 
microscale there is the wholeness, the macrocosmos, and in the 
silent moment, there is all velocity, total speed.








In looking into ancient books, in looking into the faces of 
children, in looking into stones, shop windows, jewels, newspapers, 
we may have flashes of energy but there is but one energy and that 
is the energy of coherence. The energy of coherence is the energy 
of freedom from mental conflict. Mental conflict is the state of 
not meditating, not writing, not looking into thought, going around 
with unfinished chatterings. It matters little to look to Zen or Mu 
or Samadhi or Guru Dev what matters is the unruffled, energized 
state of looking at thought, of enquiring, of dancing, of 
whispering to oneself those truths that this moment can bear or 
should bear to hear.

There is walking and in walking there is freedom. In the pursuit of 
comfort there is no energy, it is not in the car that we find the 
highest meditation -- unless it is the driving along a countryside, 
before and after walking, in the refreshment phase of the body and 
its nervous organism, then driving can be a meditation. Watching a 
movie can be a meditation, listening to a talk can be a meditation.

Unless we find meditation we have neither speed nor slowness, we 
have neither thought nor nonthought, and all erotic renewal has its 
base in meditation and so it is there we must go. Not to the 
technique of it but to the activity per se, the activity that 
creates clarity by being guided subtly by the whisperings of the 
heart from one moment to the next, in the intent of beauty.









What is energy, psychologically or mentally speaking? If we enquire 
into energy, as the feeling of life at its peak, we are enquiring 
into the meaning of existence, are we not? You can repeat 
'existentialism, existentialism, existentialism' endlessly; you can 
declare how important it is to be 'sad, sad, sad' incessantly, or 
you can say how important it is to deconstruct or condemn America 
or to pursue a tradition or to realize that one is small or to 
repeat the word 'nothingness'. But all these abstractions and 
distractions are not the energy, not the peak of the vulcano 
exploding inside us with love and affection, isn't that right? 

I would say: as long as we pursue a theory, a formula, an idea, 
then we are somehow not quite sane, not quite in coherence. And so 
we can say: humanity has taken a wrong turn and let's explore 
energy, not the energy of vitamin B merely but the energy of 
compassion, of passion, and let us see if we can think and feel it 
all afresh, apart from our typical prejudices and socalled 
'values'.

I wonder, can we get hungry for insight material of this sort? Can 
we realize that we are already starving for it? You can't explain 
easily what it means to go to a mountain if you try; you can't 
really give the mountain to another, can you? You can say: I went 
there, and something totally beyond anything I had ever experienced 
before occured to me, and it was wonderful; how about trying it, 
you too? But you cannot explain the mountain. You cannot hold the 
ocean of nirvana in your hand and shed it over another. You can 
say: look, there is something here. Let's explore. But in this 
exploration, you are not explaining life to the martian, you are 
not explaining it even to yourself. Energy is energy. If it is 
erotic, that is not something to be explained. It is there. It is 
to be sensed, or lived, somehow. 

So I wonder why we generate all these movies and novels and why we 
have all these universities when we so little pursue freedom from 
thought, freedom from prejudice, and instead cultivate. If we 
cultivate the word nothingness, then that is not nothingness. If we 
cultivate the word energy, we have a word -- energy -- we don't 
have energy, the meal; we merely have energy, the menu. 

So to go from menu to meal, from theory and idea to living it, then 
let us feel afresh everything. Those who have the shine of youth to 
them and who may not have tried much they may be cocksure on a 
certain ideology and after five years they are ten times as 
depressed because the ideology turned out to be as rotten as 
everything else tried the last ten thousand years. So they are 
optimistic on behalf of thought whereas we ask: can we be 
optimistic on behalf of nonthought? Which is not to merely go 
dancing, or take a drug: it is to awake to a natural dance, a 
natural erotic dance insight and if you have tried a drug, then 
understand the state of mind and get it without a drug. Because the 
repetition of a chemical is not what we are talking about at all! 
And that's that.







So I am going to be terribly open, not just honest, I hope I am 
always honest, but I am going to say things that I would perhaps 
have preferred to whisper, and then only in private, late at night, 
over a cup of tea or preferably some wine, to a close friend. And 
the first thing -- it is really embarrasing -- is that I am 
fundamentally happy. It is embarrasing to admit it because I 
associate this kind of statement with an illusory mind but I say 
this and know it's not an illusion, and it has nothing to do with a 
drug. It is a happiness, an energy of sorts, that is recreated 
daily through my actions, and these actions have a meditative kind 
of intent and these are what I am writing about. They make me glow 
inside and it has the perfume of ecstasy and it is in me every day, 
or else I would never have talked about it, I wouldn't have written 
all these books I am pouring out every year and giving all these 
talks I am giving every year. I have a happiness that is completely 
independent on fame or sexual action or anything like that; it is 
there because there's an insight into energy. And this energy 
recreates its own coherence and it's a subtle matter and the second 
thing I want to admit, since I am going to be very open about 
everything, is that I find that nobody understands this what I am 
talking of as yet. I have tried to avoid this insight but it is 
there: nobody understands it as yet. It is going to change, because 
I express so much it is like a fresh river of insight and it is for 
anyone to bath in and it is bound to suddenly, by analogy, recreate 
itself in someone, then in someone else, then in many, then in all, 
without me trying to explain anything at all. It must simply happen 
because this energy is so fierce it has got to happen. More wine, 
waiter. Let's talk about the weather or somethin'.










So I say that it is possible to absolutely completely fundamentally 
change consciousness, change the mind, revolutionize the mind, from 
its core, so that it goes from having a center and a periphery to 
living in this ecstatic unboundedness. And that state of mind  has 
its own energy and its own luck, its own high-speed synchronicity 
which is also perfect solitude, silence, love. All these good 
things go together, like when you care for a plant; you see to it 
that it has light and love and water and well-tempered air and that 
it is not bumped into but protected somehow also physically. All 
these things go together and then there is immense flowering; and 
the mind is similar. When you get all good things together in the 
mind then it is flowering. 










I know that it is easy to critisize the kind of texts I am making 
that it is too complex, too technical, too difficult to get clear 
about, or they don't even get past the first sentence, or it seems 
to have no relevance at all to their actual problems, or is the guy 
insane, or whatever they say. But I am not saying that the text is 
to my own liking or that it spells true according to a scheme of 
likes and dislikes. I start with the very easy, fundamental insight 
that nothing of what humanity has given itself in the past has 
worked. Humanity is, I think we can say, if we merely pay attention 
to what is going on, not just in the socalled 'news', but by 
travelling and not just repeating cozy thoughts, in a solid state 
of mess. People live insanely and in a cynical manner and they 
engage in fornification on that basis and reproduce cynicism in 
their children. We do not have an education that prevents these 
things, but rather we have forms of educations that turn out people 
factory-like to fit into this mess of a society with all its quasi-
jobs, erected to give people a sense of meaning or happiness 
whereas in fact it tends to condemn them to a life of boredom, from 
which there are few escapes but the superficial and tiring forms of 
entertainment offered through technology of various kinds. Games 
and all the rest of it is part of the scheme of distracting people 
from the fact that they feel that something is deeply wrong. And I 
think that there is a way out of all this and it begins in saying 
that our psyches are repeating habitual patterns that prevent a new 
energy from arising from inside, an energy that involves a new form 
of unlimited compassion for all. And that compassion has its own 
ecstasy, health, renewal and intelligence. This is a statement that 
is intended on a level which goes underneath of loneliness: I am 
claiming that loneliness is an expression of illusions. If you have 
loneliness, you have illusions. This is, of course, in stark 
contrast to that which most of mass-culture is talking about -- 
where it is proposed, for instance, that if you are lonely, then go 
out and drink and dance and make love to somebody. I am all for 
dancing and I am all for love and also making love but not as an 
escape, but as an expression of an abundance within, that is 
created in solitude, through meditative work.








What is attention? You attend to a tree, to a passing woman, to a 
thought, to a feeling, to a bodily sensation. That still has the 
sense of there being a 'you' giving attention to something, a 
'thing', a 'process'. Then attention can turn inwards. It can go 
into a sense of pressure somewhere, and it can sense that there are 
vague fantasies or images or sounds or thoughts associated with 
this pressure, and it can give quiet attention while also healing. 
This is a remarkable process. It is possible to transform the 
experience of this moment completely by a few minutes of attention 
turning on itself, and it is an art, a creative thing, something 
that happens as if by benediction, not at all by technique. It is 
an art, we could perhaps say: the art of giving attention to 
attention, expanding inwards, reaching energy.

Why should anyone care to look into themes of this sort? Well, you 
want to drive, say, a thousand miles or something with a car, and 
nobody would then say: why should anyone bother to look over the 
car? Why should anyone bother to check for gasoline stations or 
electricity stations or whatever your car is running on, if not 
love and fresh air? Why should anyone bother whether the 
foundations are right and harmonious? Because unless the 
foundations are somehow in tune and healthy then nothing else will 
work. So this is a foundational enquiry and it is not merely taking 
a drink and saying, 'everything is all right' when it certainly 
isn't. This is an enquiry that can create an infinity of joy from 
within, even perhaps without needing much change in the 
environment. You can change completely the life feeling, completely 
and absolutely, and it is all about a new way of using the brain. 

We might think that the brain is such a perfect instrument it 
cannot possibly make any mistake but Nature is full of 
experimentation and playfulness and we have these brains that are 
so structured that each individual has his or her own anatomy, as 
it were, when it comes to the billions of nervous cells and there 
trillions and trillions of connections. 

The anatomy of your brain is influenced by genes but the 
information content of your brain is far greater than that which is 
describable by the content of each cell with its genetic 
information, I have been told. It makes sense: the brain is shaped 
and influenced by perceptions and its chemicals and material 
background is just that -- a background. It is a startingpoint.









There is love when you don't fight your own energy. You can read a 
novel in which somebody is portrayed as perfectly vain, perfectly 
superior to feelings, perfectly rational, perfectly idiotic, 
perfectly robotic but human beings aren't that way, fortunately or 
unfortunately. They have many levels many aspects many features and 
lots of them are erotic, lots of these aspects intermingle thoughts 
and feelings in a dialogic way, relating to perception no dogma.

You can protest as much as you like against a societal system or 
something and feel pure and innocent and earnest but unless you 
have radically transformed your mind and started dancing in all you 
do you are still mediocre, like it or not.

Why write it in this way, why not write it in a nice and cozy way? 
But it is not a question of being nice or not nice but of being 
friendly to facts, being honest to one's own perception, relating 
to what is there rather than what should be there. When we relate 
to ourselves as we are we can also transform ourselves because then 
we don't waste conflict in trying to impose the ideal, the 'what 
should be'. Then dance begins. Or rather, the dance that is beyond 
beginning and end is there. As ecstasy, health, rejuvenation, love, 
compassion, sex, sensuality, and tremendous orgasm potential in 
each moment.











There is no identity and there is no absolute difference. The world 
is an ocean of energy diving itself according to contrasts and 
similarities, then blending back in again. So the nervous aspect of 
the organism devours contrasts and similiarities and the endless 
repetitions of the sects and the marriages and the institutions 
have little to do with life as it essentially is.

Essence is sex, is copulation, mani-copulation, manipulation, 
attraction, change, the intent towards harmony. It is rhythm and 
the engagment in rhythm through resonance across vast distan ces. 
The person who abides in sexuality and in selfsex and in othersex 
is also spiritual, always; there is no end to the life when life is 
loved consistently and wholly. This is something beyond the 'I' 
seeking gratification by blending with someone representing 
something that oneself perceives to be lacking. It is the 
complementation of life towards itself, beyond the need of a 
mirror. You do not need to investigate which name you have nor what 
particular gaze you have, you need to get the speed of 
synchronicity high enough to enter into its consequent orgasm 
without a limit.

People who think this way talk this way act this way have no end to 
their paradisic sense of life and in this there is great passion 
for all, passion for life, zest for life, and this involves a 
compassion that changes everything that is false. The person that 
knows the intimacy and danger of severe beauty can change 
everything around him or her.










She loves you, you love her; you love him, he loves you; all these 
words speak of nonlocality, of contact between distance, of the 
orgasmic currents that fill the heavens. If we could see the 
universe as it really is, we would have no end to our ecstasies. If 
we could see that dancer, how lovely she is; the wholeness of which 
we are all a part. We do not need a bible or prophet to spell it 
out, do we? It is a quesiton of opening the inner eyes, the eyes 
that are also between our legs.








Why, when or where can we be happy? Happiness is a feature of 
existence, not of achievement. Happiness is not a goal, nor the 
result of goals; it is an aspect of not shutting oneself of from 
the flow.











Why shouldn't we dance? All existence cries for dance.







There are a thousand reasons to masturbate, if you want communion 
with God. There is no absolute evil but there is an absolute good. 
The absolute good flows in the veins of all existence. Its flavour 
has the perfume of ecstasy, it is dance, it is freedom, and in this 
freedom, there is spontaneously compassion beyond any concept of 
"rights". The necessity is in listening to the heart, not to the 
Bible or to a prophet; and in listening to the heart, within your 
loving silence, you listen to God, and you do not say: the name of 
God is G-O-D or A-L-L-A-H or anything else, you do not say the name 
is the thing, it is A, B or C, it is beyond A, B or C. And in this 
beyondness, in daring to live it, in daring to walk up to the 
highest mountain of ecstasy within us, we live a paradisic life in 
which there is no absolute sin, just the goodness of listening to 
the heart and acting in accorance with the heart, in the highest 
integrity. And this turns out to be dance. Not 'dance' as a 
professional or amateurish word, but dance per se.





So the feeling of dance resides in the limbs when you have 
meditated.
















On  Safe Temporary Sleep Depletion


I have heard of many famous artists and others who have, like 
myself, experimented consciously and successfully with very 
occasional sleep depletion. They have endavoured to channel the 
tremendous energy so released by harmonious artistic expression, 
such as poetically inclined writing on spiritually warm subjects. 
This is what I call 'safe temporary sleep depletion'. The theme is 
called to mind because I have heard of people who have done it in 
less safer ways, and it occured to me that the territory better be 
mapped so new wanderers may know aforehand of a few of the big 
possibilities as well as of the hints of possible big trouble. If 
you know what to look for and have an idea of how to avoid the 
trouble before it even begins, it can get safe even to walk in high 
mountains. 

First, let us briefly recount what occurs normally in sleep. There 
are myriad flowing images, positive and/or frightening, words, 
sounds, chattering, eroticism, and it is all suffused with strange 
meaning and that which may seem natural during sleep may seem 
absolutely wierd during ordinary daywaking. Let us also briefly 
note that during dreaming (which it seems everybody does a lot, 
even though not everybody remembers it, though alcohol abuse can 
change dreaming quantity), associations tend to be all deeply 
meaningful somehow.

If the brain is not given the free time and space to roam and as 
such create order in this way, with the sensory organs and muscles 
temporarily suspended somehow, then it will try to do so in the 
wakeful state.

So every kind of psychotic state, with fears, voices, 
hallucinations, and all the rest of it is to be expected after 
continous activity for a day, a night, a new day, then especially 
on the second night and third day. Longer than that it is not 
advisable to go except under fakiric conditions and proper 
pretraining. It is by knowing that the inward intensity is a direct 
product of sleep depletion that one does not take it seriously at 
all, and as such in no way get a trouble with it.

The foundation for doing such an experiment seems to me to be good 
physical health, and good mental harmony. An inclination to walk 
much is vital, for in walking a natural rhythm harmonizes the 
brain. The proper training in a dialogic (both-and) language, with 
doubt of own thoughts (voices etc), is vital, as is the training in 
a poetic rather than merely a prosaic language, so one can have a 
'verbal contact' with one's mental state. I'll return to this.

It appears to me that sleep depletion is safe only if drugs are 
avoided (though vitamins and good food concentrates are of 
tremendously positive value and prevent detoriation of the skin 
etc). We must not do too many things at once that can upset the 
fine conditions of the mind. It's vital to avoid everything from 
alcohol and cannabis to amfetamin, LSD, mescalin and so on. And if 
there's an emotional trouble, such as depression over a 
relationship lost, or experience of violence during childhood, or 
other such things, then the trouble should be adequately healed (no 
matter how long it will take) by affirmations, meditations, 
explorations, and giving time to it before sleep depletion is 
undertaken. 

Why should anyone want to experiment with occasional sleep 
depletion? For a simple reason, perhaps: to activate the mind in 
new ways.

The sleep/dream state involves tremendous energy and creativity and 
the question is how to harmoniously harness all this energy. One 
will easily appear manic or worse to others unless one carefully 
watches it (and where one looks for what is fruitful, always -- 
fruitfulness also in the social realm, bearing in mind that the 
sensory organs make gradually less and less impact on the mind as 
sleep depletion gets stronger, unless one deliberately opens 
oneself to them) and so it is vital to do sleep depletion 
surrounded by harmonious conditions, and to avoid contact in such 
experiments with those who could get scared by it. You should check 
this first and make proper arrangements: do not take chances with 
exposing yourself after, say, 30 or so hours of practically no 
sleep, to somebody who might call on a doctor to put you by force 
to a psychiatric clinic. Unfortunately, in the West, they do not 
tend to distinguish sleep deprivation from a real mental problem, 
and so many make a problem where there is none. Another thing: do 
not assume that you can stay awake enough to drive a car or do 
anything that requires any amount of continous alertness at all. 
You can fall asleep standing by merely closing your eyes and 
letting go and so please take no chances.

In general, then, avoid talking about what you think to people who 
think it is interesting to talk or read or write about 'insanity', 
'madness', or the like: they'd love to apply their amateurish 
knowledge to a possible first-hand case, perhaps or probably behind 
your back, spreading gossip that can do a lot of serious harm. 
Don't push it.

It is possible to endavour to create entirely new mental states 
during sleep depletion, states that you can take with you 
afterwards. We can characterize imagination as consisting of two 
types of fantasies, one subjective, and one possibly objective. 
This is a key point, and I advise that the following remarks are 
contemplated seriously before trying sleep depletion.

Where there is a burst of fantasies, then some of these fantasies 
may have the sense of being completely effortless and go along with 
a harmonious and compassionate inner sense -- these are possibly 
objective. 

The other type of fantasies are subjective, as they are the product 
of such conflicts in the mind as have the sense of effort.

The really remarkable feature of the mind and its intelligence is 
that the fantasies that are effortless and possibly objective and 
be remarkable clairvoyant. This may all of a sudden be part of the 
natural and spontaneous functioning of the mind if you do this 
experiment right. 

Please also read a lot about synchroncities, the sense that life or 
experiment is 'talking to you'. For there is again two ways in 
which this talking can happen, one is by means of nonsensical 
associations that are rather subjective and born of conflict within 
you, confusions and so on. And the other sense of synchronicity is 
that which is based on harmony within (don't lie to yourself about 
the degree of harmony, though), and which playfully may suggest 
many dancing possibilities, in a dialogic sense. If you get 
negative synchronicities then don't trust them first time aroound 
in this area, for there is much to be learned about distinguishing 
the subjective confusion from what is possibly objective, and if 
you get dogmatic on this, it is nothing less than a mental problem. 
So the dialogic spirit is a strong prerequistite or else we may 
breed a form of fanatism in ourselves by trying this experiment.

Unless you do pay attention to the harmony of mind, and now we come 
again to the question of writing and such, the clairvoyant 
fantasies may be mixed with all sorts of illusions. Those who get a 
serious mental problem out of this are those who take illusions to 
be objective and who cease to be dialogic about this. My own 
grounding was a lot of reading in the dialogue philosophy of David 
Bohm and that proved helpful and sufficient to make stable harmony 
in me.

In short, I strongly recommend writing as stabilizing and 
harmonizing factor along with walking. Plenty of writing, writing 
that you can throw afterwards if you please. The joy and the 
quality of new insights coming in such a state is closely linked to 
poetic, meditative, free writing for the love of it. After many 
hours of writing you may find that you have no more opinions to 
state, so new thoughts begin invent themselves spontaneously, in a 
quite remarkable plasmatic-fluid process. In this respect, the 
entirely new may occur in the mind, and we may have the inklings of 
a revolution of consciousness.

You need an anchoring in something like walking and writing, and 
possibly also in good companionship with friends, when you do it. 
My feeling is that in general parents should be avoided because 
they tend to be overcautions, and remind yourself too much on the 
childhood condition where other people take responsibility. Do it 
standing alone, psychologically speaking, at least if you feel 
mature enough to do it. If you are in doubt whether you are mature 
enough to do it, consult people that are regarded as wise and 
knowing and that has a great deal of experience through decades 
with people trying various things. Sleep depletion is serious 
enough to warrant the best of preparations, like climbing a glacier 
or doing paragliding. It is not something you just jump into; and 
you should love your life enough to do it carefully and in the 
right ways. Don't try to prove that you have no fear, but rather 
care for your life. That caring is immensely important, whereas 
fear is a small thing. Don't worry about fear but love life, love 
your body, love the integrity of your mind, and watch these jewels 
and don't loose them, please.

You can decide to this with friends who know things about 
meditation and who are not scared but fascinated about such 
experiments. Together you can weave amazing mental energy which can 
possibly affect all. Don't get overconfident in any new area of 
activity though you may have beginner's luck. Be ready to admit 
that anything you say may be an illusion. You need to get to know 
the territory, not just shout out that now you can heal everybody 
or now you know the evolution of life on earth as it really is or 
some other stuff like that. And, please, do not believe that any 
tradition, sect, group, Kabbalah, Tantra, Dao, Qi Gong or anything 
else have got it all completely laid out; don't try to live up to a 
system but do it anarchistically (I suggest you consult 'The 
Anarchistic Logic of Love' available at www.wintuition.net if you 
find this aspect of it revolting).

Writing is not merely an expression of the state of mind, it also 
feeds back to the mind. A rhythm of word formation, along with an 
intent of harmony, gives and nurtures harmony in the mind while the 
mind can process its energy in a free way. Coherence can build up. 
Without coherence, no enlightenment.

Say, for instance, that after you acquire rather 'clairvoyant' 
fantasies of an effortless kind, you suddenly get a sense of a deep 
problem. The wrong action then, it seems, is to write this out, or 
even worse, talk about it. So the solution is to recognise the 
negative or painful aspect of the fantasy (or voice), and instantly 
meet this fantasy with a bunch of harmonious fanties (and 
affirmations etc). This has two functions, at least.

The first function is to give the mind more harmony, so the 
fearfulness does not spread and take root or anything like that.

The second function is that you may actually be able to heal 
something 'out there', in reality. It may be something in your body 
or mind that is being healed, or something in the possible future 
of a city or whatever that you can touch somehow, perhaps on the 
intention level so as to reduce the chances of the negativity being 
put into operation. Such is commonplace in the life of an awakened 
mind. Healing is a an art of dealing with vague features in a way 
that constantly intends harmony and beauty. There is no limit to 
how much we can learn about this, it is an art that is forever new.

The rule, to speak of it that way, is that 'anything you are 
affected by, you can effortlessly and instantly affect'. 

Furthermore, the future is open and if you possibly have an 
'objective fantasy' about something, then it is not implausible 
that you can affect this future somehow. 

In terms of language, do not say things like 'it is certainly so' 
or 'it can never be so' or 'it is impossible that'. Stay to 
formulations along the line, 'it is possible that', or 'it is 
probable that', or 'I feel that it is likely that', or 'I don't 
feel that it is likely that'. Do this throughout the sleep 
depletion and at least for a week or two afterwards, and then 
emphasize uncertainties somewhat less; but it is important for the 
dialogic approach to what you do that you not dabble in certainties 
and necessities and impossibilites when you are really a beginner 
in this mountain of mind energy. And if you feel inclined to say 
that God Lives In Us then say it of your neighbour not just of 
yourself, so that you don't get megalomaniac, please.

Say, you have written harmoniously and inventively for hours and 
hours, you have walked and slept and hour or two (no need to be 
fanatical), and written more. Then you sense something 
disharmonious, like a possible infection or something. Instead of 
writing that, you use your mental energy deliberately to give 
positive attention from many angles at once, visualizing flowers 
and lights and good symbols crisscrossing the thought of the 
infection or whatever, also touching its various possible sources -
- think about it in a vague sense, let yourself be as vague as you 
feel you should be. To allow vagueness is a great key in all 
sincere clairvoyant or healing work; if you make things over-
precise you are likely to mess things up.

After having healed, you keep on writing generous words on a 
general level, perhaps now vaguely oriented towards healing 
infections, say, but not concretely oriented towards it. You may 
write, say, 'When you entertain a sense of love for all then all 
the cells in your body have a good time in playing together, and 
fending off any illnesses'. Speak as if you were a wise person, and 
then you are.

You see how high harmony writing involves a peaceful combination of 
affirmation and insight. You describe something but you emphasize 
the positive. The negative you deal with instantly at the mental 
level but what you express and focus on is really the positive. You 
do not avoid the negative but you give rapid creative crisscrossing 
lightgiving attention to it and as such instantly heal it and then 
you are at liberty to write the positive and it's honest, too.

After the energy comes and you sense perhaps that it is easy to 
overtalk or overwrite or think that you never want to sleep again 
or anything like that then, after lots of cups of hot tea with a 
little milk or just hot water with a little milk and sugar, writing 
quietly in bed, you will gradually get drowsy and want to sleep and 
then do sleep and sleep a lot, fifteen hours, twenty hours, sleep 
as much as you please. Scientific evidence that have been reported 
in newspapers suggest that sleep can be 'made up for' by sleeping 
more later on, and this will do much good for you. Get rejuvenation 
back, get your beauty sleep. It will be a wonderful sleep and the 
dreams will be fantastic. Don't have horror books in your sleeping 
room and get all symbols of death and illness away from your walls. 
You are hypersensitive when you have done sleep depletion and so 
you should be surrounded by pink and quiet.

Sleep is renewal, resillience, rejuvenation and only the most 
miserable people on Earth constantly lack the immense luxury of 
much sleep for longer periods of time. Perhaps, though, there are a 
few who might have different brains, different minds, so that they 
actually need almost no sleep. It is unlikely for a creative 
writing person that this is so. 

If you can't get to sleep, go for a long walk, then write or read 
with more hot cups of water with a little milk. (By the way, it's 
okay to start the sleep depletion with one glass of red wine but no 
more alcohol at all; but rather drink tons of tea and just 
occasional coffee; tea is very healthy but add milk to the tea to 
avoid the colouring effects of tea on teeth).

The experiment can, in fact, change your brain structure so that 
you can reconnect the verbal and imaginatory areas to more silent 
areas of the brain, just to mention some of the many possibilities 
involved. For the restructuring to be good you must have nutured 
coherence or natural harmonious wholeness. You can gently activate 
the 'intuitive voice'.

By keeping up writing after normal (or more than normal) amounts of 
sleep in the following months, emphasizing harmony, and not 
constantly talking about the experience and its ecstasies and 
clairvoyancies, if any, but letting go of it, you can achieve the 
sense that your silent perceptiveness actually talks to you. You 
must not be dogmatic and say that it says only the right things. It 
still depends on your harmony and such.

Dance much. Dance always. Dance all the time. Dance when you write, 
dance when you sit still, dance when you walk, dance in order to 
clarify the energy and rejuvenate your body and rid you of 
illnesses. Dance to see things more clearly. Activate the 
sensuality and sensitivity of your body. Do it in the morning, in 
the afternoon, in the evening, in the night, do dance in sleep; 
train yoga so you can dance better but do not merely do yoga or 
something without dancing movement because you need the movement to 
get the energy flowing around everywhere in a nice way.

The more harmoniously activated state of mind you have, the more 
you also have aptitude for trance or samadhi, as well as an 
actualization towards possibly a lasting awakening -- a theme I 
develop in much of my writing elsewhere. Here I have talked of 
structural necessities, but there is a mental art to maintaining 
awakening that is just as necessary, and without it, the structural 
changes of the brain here involved need not be experienced as 
positive. For instance, you may find that the brain chatters more, 
not less, afterwards; that you require more sleep than before, not 
less; and that doing things that you don't completely like exhausts 
you more, not less. So any structural change has implications and 
not all of those implications may be to your liking. It is your own 
responsibility, and you must live with whatever changes that come. 
The changes may not be the one that you thought they would be. You 
must consult your own intuition as to whether you should do such an 
experiment before you do it, and it is your own word on this you 
must set first, and you must remember that afterwards: it was your 
own decision, nobody else forced you to it; and so this, whatever 
is the effect, is what you will live with. 














On The Priority Called 'Life'



In all our pursuits the question of their ultimate meaning tend to 
face up with questions of time and an eternal existence, if there 
is any. There has been an overreaction, I feel, in the Western 
cultures, against the traditional Christian Dogma of life after 
death; the overreaction asserting blindly that death is a final 
stop and that's that.

Clearly, as with all the other illusory concepts of the imagined 
'absolute negative' -- such as 'evil' or 'insane', 'death' is 
another such. Good is the basis, sane is the basis, life is the 
basis, and with this basis we can have a strong or weak relation, 
but we cannot severe off our relation to this basis. This is the 
careful way to put it. You watch the leaves fall but the tree 
persists, and so the forms of life come and go, perhaps, as the 
tree of life -- to use a metaphor, not referring to a tradition -- 
persists. 

Anyone who has gone even superficially into a meditative state 
senses that matter is somehow founded on mind, and mind is beyond 
locality and not personal. This wholeness is pulsating and silently 
alive, and as ground of being it is sensed directly to be both 
selfrenewing and unwithering. This shows that the ego in the 
personal sense is not worth clinging to, but to speak of the 'death 
of the ego' seems to me to be a bit too strong language. Let's say, 
'the ending of the ego', at most.

To take an impersonal silence is then to realize that mind in its 
fullest involves a spontaneous and natural embracing of all life. 
Life is not a current and the forms of life something else, like 
pieces of wood floating around in the current, but rather the forms 
of life are as if constituted by complementary spiralling vortices 
in this current.

That is to say, the foundational energy is life or, in a different 
and also valid perspective, deeper than energy is life.

If we now briefly turn attention to the renewal of a form of life, 
as the human body, we see that it is in its meditation and coherent 
reenergizing from within that it renews itself, suitably aided by 
nutrition, sunlight, walks, dances, and the tantric/erotic. We see 
also that breakdown of body as bodily death, while not death in any 
deep sense, is merely a product of incoherent fluctuation. 

What does it take to grow a plant? A balance, as an expression of 
care, involving light, water, temperature etc. But arbitrary 
fluctuation of this is enough to create distortion. So it is 
meditative preservation of coherence and its balance that allows 
life to take on a consistent form.

A living form can last forever, and we would say of the form then 
that it is immortal or eternal. But life itself is already immortal 
or eternal. Any absolute negation is an illusion, though it takes 
infinite care, of course, for a living form to last forever. Yet 
the meaning of life lives in sensing the impersonal aspect of life 
and only briefly do we need to give attention to death. 

To make the approach to life much clearer, it is possible to say 
that intuitive living matters more than survival. It is possible to 
follow gut feeling and the whispers of the heart to a point where a 
decision must be made: the following of the inner whisper of life 
is more important than to do concrete physical obvious action to 
ensure survival of one's own body -- if there's a conflict between 
the two, which it usually isn't but can be. At least apparently so.

So the sense of life is more important than the sense of avoiding 
physical vanishing, and this insight eliminates basically all fear 
of death while simultaneously installing a real love of life, so 
that life will be forever renewing.

Love of life, of course, is infinitely erotic. It is yoga in all 
areas of life, as dance and health. This is the priority called 
'life', and it naturally lends itself to vegetarianism and 
ecologically caring lifestyles, to great sexuality and spiritually 
and artistic creativity without any system or dogma at all, and in 
endless exploration forever.








On Getting Rid Of Number Fascism



Fascism, or fallos-ism, the fascination with the monolithic organ 
of erect and hierarchical and violent control, is not just a 
question of people taking dictatorial and tyrannic control, or 
machines doing so, but of false mentalities doing so.

The only philosopher I know of that has in the past concisely 
expressed a full anti-thesis to all forms of fascism is Martin 
Buber in his 'Ich und Du'.

Anybody who is stupid enough to engage in socalled 'front-edge 
technological development' is adding to the stock of possible 
fascist tools, adding to the struggle of the children of the future 
to rid themselves of tyrannic, fascistic forms of control. 
Nanatechnology and future forms of coherence technology, along with 
genetic technology and future forms of quantum technology are cases 
in point. Computers are already used for severe control over 
humans. 

Yet the ground of fascism lies in the mentality that is obsessed 
with counting, with finite rigid order, controlled by a centre. If 
existence is a movement without essential division and without 
essential finiteness then the concept of the static finite is a 
sheer illusion.

This pertains, then, to all the numbers that we use. Except as a 
temporary tool of thought to initiate the dance, numbers of the 
finite kind exemplify the type of repetition that keeps the mind 
from leaping into the infinity perception and that keeps the heart 
from resting in an abundance of love. Instead, even walking becomes 
a question of counting steps, miles, or minutes; going up a 
mountain becomes a matter of metres; and wisdom a matter of years 
or beauty a matter of lacking them. 

All forms of counting are expression of stagnation, except when 
they are not used as a habit. The human body initially grows 
through certain stages it is true, then however, the flower is 
unfolded and what happens is a question of mentality and life-
style. If the energy is coherent, if the days are spent in love not 
sorrow, then coherence is retained. Why then count seasons?

I have devised a way in which you can show to yourself that the 
concept of a set of all the numbers is an illusory concept, unless 
you are prepared to admit that there are infinitely many infinite 
numbers. This is part of a thesis called 'The Psychology of 
Computation', created in an academic context, and available at 
www.wintuition.net/downloads/. 

The argument is rather involved as it challenges the whole concept 
of mathematics in its counting foundation of many generations of 
mathematicians; so a great deal of cultural assumptions are 
challenged.

Watch this

     .
    .    
   .
III
II
I

Here, consider that the question of what direction the growth 
towards infinity happen in is all we need to consider and perceive 
clearly to undo the belief in the finite as somehow clearcut. It 
seems deceptively simple unless you take a break and watch it for a 
long time. 

Good luck!



















Having done this, I will give you a few hints for your own further 
work. Clearly, the notation for finite numbers doesn't matter much, 
so if 1=I, 2=II, 3=III, 4=IIII, we get a sense of size of the 
number by looking at its width, quite simply.

As we proceed upwards, we proceed rightwards, in width. The two 
directions are linked (are they not?). So infinity upwards implies 
(doesn't it?) infinity rightwards. This shows (does it not?) that 
as soon as we think of all finite numbers we also think of some new 
kind of infinite numbers. Please pay attention to the notion of the 
word 'all' in the just said sentence; we do not say merely 'as high 
as this or that limit', but we say 'all'. The notion of 'all' 
numbers means that whatever number we give, there is an infinity 
more than this number. But then we have infinitely many numbers 
'upwards'. So we have an infinity 'sideways' as well. This implies 
the width of infinity!

The infinite numbers can be suggestively written as III... But 
further analysis (in the thesis) shows that there are infintely 
many of them and that III... cannot really describe any one of them 
in particular. In fact, we have a whole new kind of number, not 
finite (nor based on adding something to the collection of all 
finite numbers, because we can't add something to an illusion; and 
so we have something that is contrary to Cantor's 'transfinite' 
numbers as well...). In this new kind of number, it is the movement 
towards infinity that somehow must be capable of contrasting itself 
with itself so as to generative a diversity.

And so on and on. If we now realize all this at a glance we have no 
more systems. 

For a system requires the notion of the closed-off finite thing in 
interaction; but here we really are having infinities in 
interaction beyond any formula, system or finite set of numbers or 
operators.

So the infinite is ground and this is also non-definite or vague, 
and if we try to make the vague specific (if anyone tries to make a 
system of the infinite) then it is a new illusion of the finite. 

In short, even our mentality is essentially infinite, not just 
reality, life, etc; and so we can conclude that strict finite 
mathematics and its limit concept is, apart from temporary utility, 
military purpose and so on, a complete illusion.

Culture then does wrong in assigning numbers of any kind to people, 
houses, plants, cars, machines. The numbers reflect an illusory 
attempt to control and make a system where there is really none.

There are but waves in the ocean, vortices, currents of life 
meeting life without any counting or digital forms of symbols or 
letters.

This is a statement that is evident if one is awakened, so no 
awakened person can subscribe to Kabbalah or Kundalini or 
Acupuncture or Tarot or Physics or any other counting-based system, 
except as a heuristic, fallable 'rule of thumb', at best. 

We can then say that the emptying in oneself of numbers as well as 
letter fascism creates a life in infinity, of unending bliss and 
variation. This requires a great deal of exploration, in a renewing 
sense, and not just as a conclusion. In the sense of 'shutting 
down', there is no conclusion. That is just it: no shutting down, 
no finiteness; there is the movement of the infinite, which is 
rhythm blending in and out of each other, in resonances which speak 
of love and coherence. And this has its own intelligence, the 
intelligence of renewal and rejuvenation. Have good sex.

























































HOW TO BE GENEROUS












Imagine that the mind is a landscape. Imagine that attention is 
like a comet of light, with mysterious properties. As attention 
enters any region of the landscape, it changes. Initially, it heats 
up, it becomes vulnerable to change, it becomes activated. You give 
attention and you give it to features, which you allow yourself to 
think of in a vague sense.

When you give attention, you heat up and start healing, or 
purifying, the thought mentality in that aspect of the mind. 
Complete the purifying in each instant. 

When thought in yourself is not just this controlled thing, but you 
let it fly, and you have perhaps written for thirty consequtive 
hours about love and life to activate it such (slightly 
schizophrenic activation is the sanest thing of all), then thought 
starts reporting from levels of perception underneath conscious 
verbal acknowledgement. I am looking for words to express something 
new now, something I do every day, if 'do' is the right word, yet 
something I have not spoken about often enough, if at all, to 
really know how to say in a compressed way. So I will expand it 
first, and let it come in a compressed, swift, smart way later.

Thought is flying, you give attention. Two kinds of reports of 
possible perceptions may arise in each moment, the kind that is 
felt to be harmonious, whole, good, and the other kind, which is a 
report of something that ought to be purified (I prefer that word 
to 'healed', sometimes) at once. Now we do not need to know what it 
is that we purify when we purify it. We need to know that we are 
going to purify something, perhaps, but not what it is. In fact, it 
may be a burden to know what it is.

I don't think examples will do. Either you understand it or you 
will understand it at some other time, perhaps through these or 
other words. Examples make things look too simple, they may show a 
simplicity that is not really there. 

So you give attention, thought comes. Then suddenly thought 
reports: Now you are getting a great gift of money from somone. 
Good. You register that. You know how to put money into good 
circulation to create good things, you are not afraid of money, you 
are told by thought that something is occuring somewhere and you 
leave it perhaps at that. The next moment thought says, there is 
something you perhaps ought to know, ... And you may have a 
distinct feeling that it is something not quite so harmonious. 
Perhaps someone is jealous or something; in any case, you stop the 
thought momentarily and you ask: Is this a good thing? And you feel 
it, you have perhaps tought your hands and fingers to lift slightly 
to indicate a 'yes', from deep within the perceptive quietness of 
the mind (I hesitate to say 'from deep within the unconscious', 
because it is conscious in some sense, isn't it?). 

So you get an answer. It is good? If it is, you let the thought 
come; savour the good things, you deserve that. Perhaps the thought 
is: Somebody really got enlightened in this moment! And the other 
kind of thing, that it is not good, not harmonious, lead you to 
instantly visualize rays or light or something, gently give 
attention, as in pulses, until you feel: now that -- whatever it 
was, I don't need to know -- has been purified, or healed, or 
cleansed. 

You may find sometimes that something is too deep to heal just like 
that. It may take time, or you must intensify your silence and 
attentive energy to do it instantly. Perhaps there are so many 
things and your energy is so that you feel you should give lasting 
attention to very many things. So you may say: for each breath, or 
for each lift of a fingertip, I will give a purifying impulse to 
whatever it is, somewhere, out there, in myself and/or others 
(there is no sharp distinction between your mind and anyone else's, 
of course). So you go on, perhaps give pulses in beats of three and 
three, perhaps varying, perhaps aiding by vague ambigous happy 
visualisations, perhaps sometimes a little more concretely -- like 
transforming a dark cloud, through its passage into a distant sun, 
into something that is burned, cleansed, so only pure white powder 
is sent into the distant sun and really purified there, so fresh 
energy is released.




This text is a trance. How can I say it: for it is written in 
trance, as everything else I do. That is to say: Your attitude or 
whatever we should call it becomes part of your action and it 
becomes part of the result of action. So the world can be changed 
if you are active with a changed mind. That is logic; argue not 
about effects because arguments may fail to cover the scope of the 
effects of meditative actions anyway.



Love, as it is, maybe, ...This most important word, most easily 
sold, most easily lied about perhaps, trampled on, misused, 
exploited, severed, combined with false opposites like hatred and 
bitterness, associated with loyality based on fear, and yet it is 
altogether completely different in every way isn't it? And love is 
none of these things we say, is it? Love is not clinging, it is not 
based on fear, and fear has the grip, admit it, on everyone here on 
Earth, not because Earth is wrong but because our conceptualisation 
and our complexification of persistence leads us to feel, if we're 
honest about it, that things are not as they seem or they won't 
happen as they are expected to when we are children. Love is this 
sense, this awesome, terrible, fantastic sense, that you suffer-
with, you sense the sorrow of her lovely brow, her face, she's 
concerned that she's getting old and yet she is so young and her 
worry is so young and she is so terribly in love, so terribly 
attached, she don't know what to do, she thinks she has found 
someone who is eternal and she feels, perhaps, she is not eternal, 
she will wither and she is in sorrow and the sorrow is deep and she 
will only admit it if cared for in so many hours, cared for, 
kissed, cared for so she knows that she is trusted and she is 
trusting. She will give herself then, she will tell it all. She 
will tell how frustrated she is that there is really no one she can 
confide in. That she is worried sick about death and illness, that 
she has a child, perhaps, and she is willing to give her life for 
him, she might say, and she really means it, and she is sensitive 
enough to pick up dangers all over the place. And her friends won't 
listen to her and they say, go take a pill, put on another record, 
see a shrink. And her very old friends, in the sense they've known 
each other for years and years, they are supposedly the nearest 
thing one could ever get to each other, and they don't have that 
sensitivity she is having. So love speaks within her and to her and 
yet she has sorrow. She has sorrow for she has love but she also 
has fear and loneliness and the pain of withering and she's beyond 
all that but can't feel it enough, except in glimpses. In glimpses 
she is beyond all that but otherwise there is drink, alcohol, these 
things that are the small escapes and she wants only to be a little 
girl, a little nice good-looking girl again and things could be so 
different and why are they that way? Why? 

So love, if you have it, you sense the stream of sorrow of humanity 
it may be her or him or this or that kind of sorrow but it is 
sorrow, not just sadness, not just apathy, but sorrow. It is there 
and it flows through all and love is that you say, all living 
beings are watching the flow of life and in this flow we attach and 
make ideas and not just conscious ideas but attachments so deep 
that they feel like the very foundation of everything. These 
attachments, these programs, we do not know them perhaps but they 
make themselves felt. And if you have love you will not easily 
dismiss it and say, just get rid of your attachments. It is true 
but it is also too cheap to say that. You don't throw that out when 
someone looks you in the eye like that, and begs you to understand. 
Right? You don't say, get out of your clinging, all forms are 
changing, when someone is terrified about living. You don't come 
with your old dogma and old enlightenment insights and quote 
Shankara or Siddharta or this or that heraclitan philosopher do 
you? You don't perhaps for you know that the music of this moment 
is meant for you to melt with her eyes, or the gaze in her eyes, 
you watch and she watches and you and her has that question, that 
love, that mutual care and in that there is a flower, something 
blossoms, it is not -- oh, now we must get marriage! Now we must 
get to bed, rip of all the clothes, feel the body! It is not: you 
are the one, the star, there is nothing else. There is something 
beyond name and body and form and even beyond that moment and that 
is the flame of love, the current of love and of course perhaps you 
do indeed go to bed and the flame of love is in your kisses and in 
that sobbing that you may feel that she has within her and will 
perhaps come to two days later, when the business of life is again 
the same insensitive thing to her perhaps. Or will it change? Can 
you change it for her? Can love change it for her? Can you promise 
to always be there for her and not close yourself in tightly in 
anything that says: exclusive love here, and just indifference 
everywhere else, except for the fluctuations of flirting? Can you, 
are you, serious about living as love? Can you see that life is 
talking through you to another, the other is life talking through 
the other to yourself, life is talking with life, life is melting 
with life, life is loving life through its many forms? Can you see 
it that way, maybe?

So you mustn't stop with talking about the things that look so 
terrible; look, tell her, tell yourself, tell him: life is greater 
than all these things we talk about, isn't it? Life, that ocean, 
you can't keep it within any of these concepts, can you? Ask, don't 
throw the same old things you've always told others at her, at him. 
Stay true to this moment, be humble to it, be arrogant to your own 
opinions, to everything of the past. Feel her face, see that the 
light in her face comes to shine and be purified and altruized as 
you talk with her, as you fondle her, as you hold her knees and 
feel her thighs quietly, not as seduction as much as care, you 
protect her, she can feel protected by you, protected -- though the 
Earth may be swirling into heavens we know nothing about, though so 
many things are happening in this terrible world humankind has 
weaved, so full of wars and suppression of women and of children, 
of millions, who are starving so some cunning corrupt presidents 
can have their Mercedes and caviar and fresh running water in their 
bathtub with golden taps, dollarbills as toiletpaper, a private 
baroque orchestra and a little opium with their slave women in the 
evening, along a private movie -- you see the cunningness, the 
brutality, the terribleness of humankind and you tell her, perhaps, 
that you see love now as something different, a current that may 
have been a flash here and there and sometimes given a word, a say, 
but really love has not done its job because we have actively 
prevented it, have we not? And you ask not her but you ask the 
moment, you awake attention in it, you say, you ask: is death 
death? Is illness illness? Is insanity insanity? Or are all the 
three but small factors or features or even to some extent, perhaps 
a great extent, illusions, and there is life, the greater thing, 
which is not an illusion?

So this is something large, something beyond vanity, something 
beyond the attempt to save one's little life to say: perhaps there 
is nothing to save because life has been there all the time and it 
doesn't end and it speaks in us and lives in us, like the tree of 
life and we're the blades of that life.

You two don't stop talking, do you? You talk with a friend over 
life and you know something, you know that you two slender human 
beings have nerves not just fat, you have nerves and sensitivity 
and not just drunken laziness and cliches and career ambitions, you 
have nerves and you are nervous, positively and perhaps also 
negatively speaking, about life. You are nervous, you have energy, 
you feel things, you sense something of the future and she tells 
you: she is afraid. She is afraid because she sees possibilities of 
danger. And you say, perhaps, I'm only guessing -- do you say: if 
you sense a danger before it arises you can act on it. You can 
change that possibility from being a possible danger to being a 
probable safety, because the future is open and sensing allows you 
to influence.

So you intuit something and before you even come to fear it you 
save the good, you make good, you make whole, you holify, you do 
not just sense what is to come but shape what is to come, you learn 
the two-way process -- is that what you tell her? Because you live 
it, not that is just an idea to you? Or do you both say, we don't 
know, we must explore, we must keep up the dialogue, rather than 
you trying to exploit the situation and say, I'll save you, believe 
in me, I am your guru and you're my disciple and your real name, I 
feel, in essence, is so-and-so. So you don't want any exploitation 
and no dishonesty and it is not just about you two and yet it is 
essentially about you and it is essentially about her. And the 
amazing thing happens, it is not you as soul nor her as soul but 
you as spirit and her as spirit and spirituality is a flowing 
oneness in undivided movement is it not?

Souls are multiple and spirit is one, there is the holy spirit or 
whatever one calls it and it is there exploring saying, for God's 
sake -- don't take the ego so seriously! Let it be transparent! For 
there is something entirely different, entirely completely 
different than the little loneliness and that is the silence of 
solitude and creative solitude with love in it and it has no 
borders and no center, it flows on and it loves every form in 
utmost detail and it loves the galaxies and it is indeed somehow 
the ground of all existence is it not? So all are somehow so 
ultimately completely good at bottom and no matter their ego 
levels, you say to each other, are we not always somehow radiating 
the love?

She tells you, she asks you, perhaps: Is it so that one must be 
loved by father, by mother, or else everything else will be just a 
striving to get it? There is no limitations, there are movements of 
love, of compassions, in between you two, and others go by and they 
are not really jealous or envious or anything because they sense 
your light, they realize you are not out to capture her or she to 
capture you or anything but you two have a dialogue and in that 
dialogue there is a light, unlike anything that they've seen that 
night, or any night, for that matter, perhaps. There is something 
unique, it is as the Bible saying, 'where two are gathered in my 
name' and here the name is love. 

And in the name of love, she asks, not you, not herself, and both 
you and herself, must one be loved by one's parents or else one is 
desolate inside and all career striving has that edge of hardness 
of wanting this love?

And as she puts that question you both see it, you don't have to 
say it and yet perhaps both of you feel that something should be 
said, you feel it -- that you can't really look for evidence of 
this love always, you must meet it by other ways, deeper ways, you 
must of course feel that you are loved and yet the eyes, the 
history of the eyes, the history of what has been experienced may 
be bitterness for some or for many, I don't know. It may be an 
experience of one bitterness and hardness after another for so many 
and what are they to do? They must of course just tell their little 
child ego within that they are loved, loved infinitely and they 
know it is not true and yet it is true because each has this love 
infinitely at bottom somehow, though the mother was drunk and the 
father left or was beating and all those horrible things that can 
have happened and that are not illusions. And yet they are somehow 
a little illusion because deep deep deep within there must be 
somehow affection, it is there. Affection is there and love is 
there and the person though adult must tell himself or herself, I 
am loved by my fathers and my mothers and metaphysically make it 
feel true. As an antibitterness, say it again and again and 
realize, letting go is only possible when we stop dividing our 
essences from each other, no matter what we have done to each 
other.

Not just between individuals but between families, groups, nations, 
socalled ethical divisions, socalled racial divisions, other kinds 
of divisions, all these divisions speak of something superficial or 
sensory-bound taken more seriously than this love that flows 
between all beings.

And so you ask each other, now that we feel it, we have an ecstasy 
don't we? And can we have this ecstasy somehow together now this 
moment and the next minutes and hours and we have this joy and 
playfulness and though adult we feel like children playing and 
there is summer holiday or christmas tomorrow and not a worry in 
the world, can we have this pastless love and yet really care for 
each other and for the moment and for the future and so also not 
get so hooked that we cling? For we can always contact again, we 
can talk again, we can explore more, and renew the sense of it, 
gather, nourish, feel it more and more and there is no limit to it.




A dancing universe doesn't play according to the logic of a little 
game made up in thought. Your life is not just 'your' and life is 
not just 'a life'; the notion of living is what we can indicate 
when we say life, and living has no beginning and no end. And 
living floats in and out of various spheres and levels and groups 
of interconnectedness and, strictly speaking, there is no death. To 
understand all this is meditation and it is not merely about an 
idea or quoting some scriptures. 




When you go into your mind, what do you find? You find that there 
are no limits, that there is no permanency, but infinite subtle 
feeling and all-connectedness. So your mind is your aspect of the 
mind.














Before the technological inventions of clock, standardized 
calenders, and mass media with their standardization of the view of 
time and progress and duration by the many; before even the 
organised religions, then there were ways of watching the world in 
which it was unthinkable that great pieces of art would not last 
forever. There were of course many ways of watching the world but 
in some of them, endurance, recreation, or the preservation of 
beauty as something infinite would be seen as the fact. Other views 
were more alike atheistic materialism in seeing forms as transient. 
Now I will make a statement: art can last forever. 

That which does not have a limited psyche but which is organic 
through and through, that which breaths and is translucent and has 
its own light, that will not wither but withstand reality; it is 
its own reality and other realities will dance around it in 
coherence. That kind of art has endless future; make just so art 
and you have endless good future yourself as well.





















Keys For Rejuvenation

Rejuvenation is not something for the lonely heart that wants a 
younger body so as to mesh with other young people; rejuvenation is 
the principle of life that uphelds life. It is the principle of 
youth also: that growth in a natural good speed of healthy new 
cells matches the degree to which pollution, irritation, 
frustration and rather random fluctuations make them go away. The 
mechanical thing is to break something down, as a hammer strikes 
down a beautiful golden watch; the intelligent thing is to build 
something like that beautiful golden structure. Rejuvenation is the 
intelligent thing and pollution and these rather random factors or 
fluctuations are the mechanical things. Like gravity, the pull 
down. Growth pushes up, towards the Sun, the stars. 

So to live in rejuvenation is to live. Live is this balance: that 
the light or coherence within rejuvenates the body and mind and all 
there is to it, while there are fluctuations and frustrations that 
rip bits and pieces of it apart, and resillience is that the 
rejuvenation springs into extra intensity when the ripping apart as 
sprung into extra intensity, so that old wounds are healed, so that 
firmness of skin is regained, so that the body temperature is 
restored after it has been too high or too low. Etc.

The cells responds, all the organism respons, to the mental state 
of radiant love and they respond to what you love, what you are 
attracted to. When you feel that somehow all existence is Godhood, 
all existence calls for love to itself, when this boundless love is 
infinitely established -- these are strong words, but I feel they 
are called for, because this is a strong matter and not just a 
comfortable little exercise we can do in addition to an otherwise 
weak or shallow type of life -- when this love is firmly 
established, then there is balance between growth and decay so that 
the body replenishes itself, the mind renews itself. 

The time in the cells tick until you are about twenty or twenty one 
summers old and then they have no more information about any 
necessary change of the human body, unless you have another type of 
cells than that which characterises most human beings on Earth. I 
mean, if you are a result of some genetic technological experiment 
you may have a different growth schedule and I do not know about 
that. The natural case is that when we have reached past puberty 
then we are done, and if we live in a good way, we renew us from 
there on. The wear and tear is determined by innumerable factors 
and some forms of wear and tear are tough to reverse and others are 
easy to reverse but basically the quest should start with where you 
are now, and say: let's make the best of this situation, renew the 
life through a love of life, renew the mind through a love of life 
also, let us not dream of things that are so unrealistic that we 
may become a little peculiar in getting lost in these dreams. This 
is a realistic pursuit: let us start with 'what is', with where we 
are, with what we are, and say: certainly there is life here! And 
certainly we can nurture this coherence, love ourselves in a 
refreshing, renewing sense, and in this sense use the word 'youth', 
which has little to do with actual 'amount of seasons' after the 
mentioned point.

This is a pursuit of love and as the brain is very complex we 
should look into questions of how the brain work also, because it 
is important that the brain, important as it is to the body, is 
with us all the way. 















The key to rejuvenation is that the intent of what is to come 
creates, insofar as it is stretched long enough forward. If your 
intent is such that if it is prolonged infinitely without causing 
any problems for anyone, then it's good, and then you rejuvenate.

Life is such that anything you want clearly, stretched into the 
future with all your being, creates organising events working 
backwards from this possible or probable future. But if it is your 
ego that wishes something, it is pointless; this is a universal 
law, it is nothing beautiful in an ego that wants something for 
himself or herself or itself. Why? Because there is too little 
expanse, too little wind in that. It is life wanting something of 
life that creates real magic. And the name of that magic is, above 
all, love or empathy or compassion or whatever we call it 
(compassion really means passion for all).

There is nothing you cannot do, given infinitely much time; but 
only if you count, you will think in terms of finite amounts of 
time. The absence of counting involves the soft necessity of acting 
by love in a way that includes time as duration, as flow, as 
process, but which does not, in general, look much to calculator, 
clock or calender. The 'c' in the English language refers to 
Sanskrit 'kut', which means to divide, and the division is found in 
the English words 'calculator', 'computer', 'clock' and 'calender'. 
The division works in the dance, as a floating count; but not as a 
foundation for life. Life is ambigious, vague, open, and forms 
crystallize themselves 














It is part of rejuvenation to change one's environment subtly and 
without violence, in all ways so as to encourage wholeness, 
balance, sanity, purity, sensuality, uplifting energies. People 
full of hypocrisy, who have done much wrong, but who may have some 
power, may try to put reflections of their own decay up as a kind 
of 'fashion', in the hope that others will be fooled to like what 
they have made of themselves; but the true ones love life and love 
youth and thereby create energies of divine sensuality in all that 
they are doing and do not go to false means and their inward 
ugliness.

Rejuvenation is to say nothing and do nothing that is not a soft 
necessity of attention and empathy in this moment, and that creates 
a tremendous discipline inside, to have this as a challenge in each 
moment, every day. Rejuvenation says: sleep much, and meditate even 
more; keep much alone, so that you can be social all the way 
through, and not as a closed oyster bounce off life on the outside. 
The energy of love protects you when it is strong and by this 
energy you can be open, but to make it strong you must spend enough 
time alone and then TV must be turned off and newspapers with their 
fantastically idiotic headlines must be ripped apart and not even 
be in sight. Look at flowers, not headlines; look at faces, not 
clothes; look at bodies, not fashion; look at the life in your 
face, and ask yourself: are you really living all the way or just 
some of the way? And it is not that somebody is hindering you, not 
that you need to switch girlfriend or boyfriend or husband or wife 
or boss or anything, but that you give loving transforming 
attention to all life, all of you, all that is you in every sense, 
and all that is everyone, not imposing your own sweat on anyone, 
not fooling yourself into thinking that you are much more charming 
than you are, but being honestly aware and having an infinite trust 
in the charm of potent silence.











Potent silence is intensely erotic and the erotic has been and will 
always be the key to rejuvenation. For some irrational reason, many 
cultures think that the erotic depends on genitals; but life is 
inherently erotic at all levels and in all ways. The touching of a 
hand is intensely erotic if done without a self; the dance of a 
bird is sensous and erotic in every sense; and when the genitals 
are in that dance the ecstatic aspect is infinite. That ecstasy, 
however, is somehow available all the time for all beyond any 
question of genital focus. It is one of the greatest fallacies to 
think of the erotic as something depending on hormones; it is 
dependent on play, that's all. And in this play there is the 
discovery of energy through contrasts, similarities, and multiple 
possibilities of contacts and near contacts and we have in the 
complementarity of the squarish and the rounded as well. The 
squarish, as a kind of male energy perhaps, points outwards; but 
anything rounded points as it were inwards (I am grateful to Frans 
Widerberg for this observation). We see then that girls enjoy 
looking at girls and even when a girl wants a man, it is also 
herself as an object she wants; and the male energy reaches outward 
and allows that which is reaching inward to reach even more inward. 

It is rejuvenating to be erotic in each moment, with a refined 
taste.

















When we explore the erotic, we are facedwith an honest situation in 
which our actual, not imagined or conditioned attractions do play a 
most important and sincere role. If we react according to memorized 
imprints of what to despise, we may deprive ourselves the joy of 
being attracted to an aspect or feature of the situation which is 
indeed worthy of being an object of attraction. The desires in us 
do not need to be compelled by our egoes. We can leave our egoes 
and find our true attractions and true desires. In this we evoke a 
constant new erotic energy. In this honesty, we may discover that 
role-playing or role-taking is part of the complementarity of the 
erotic energy of life, and these roles undergo changes as we enact 
them. There is no limit to the possible roles we may take and yet 
the complementarities, that the sum total of all roles played in a 
situation adds up holistically to a coherent whole, is a principle, 
we might say, of all good jazz jam sessions or improvisation 
sessions.

In rejuvenation, we may for instance evoke childlike player between 
three adults, say a man and two women, clothes on, playing about 
for some fifteen hours or so. What happens to the bodies when this 
is allowed is, in essence, that all core hardness of ego inside the 
body can be wiped out in favour of an allpresent kind of dance, 
which is intensely rejuvenating. Of course, what is required to 
maintain the balancies and the possible stirrings of egotism in the 
form of jealousy and enviousness is that warm compassionate self-
irony and jokefulness that constantly emits a goodnatured playful 
response in each moment. The characteristic of freedom is humor.












Sexuality is humor, it exists between the thinking 
complementarities of the rounded and the square, the centripetal 
and the centrifugal, the feminine and the masculine, on all levels 
of reality and the microscopic levels are the macroscopic levels. 
That is a metaphysics which is pantheistic, adventurous, dialogical 
and real. A principle of life is that living creates living, life 
creates life, and rejuvenation is a basic principle of life. So you 
will rejuvenate that which you live; you live thoughts, and the 
brain rejuvenate; you live dick, and your dick rejuvenates; you 
live feet, and your feet rejuvenate, etc. 

The key is to step out of two views of future, both of which are 
prevalent still on most parts of the globe, if I'm not mistaken: 
the view that the future is fixed and the view that the future is 
not. The view that the future is fixed makes a person careless, not 
heeding needs for vitamins, for affirmation, for prayer, for ethics 
or morale. The view that the future is not may make a person 
somewhat more enthusiastic about the present but without the 
coherence of realizing that the person is indeed going to live, 
with all feeling capacities intact and so on, with the consequences 
of what is started. You see the ambitious cruel cunning people who 
live arrogantly and laughingly without thinking that there is a 
future and then you meet them again in that future and they look as 
if they have gone through Sahara without more than half a water 
bottle; they look dried up, they hadn't counted on there being a 
future and that shows on their cells. Their miserable expressions 
add to the sadness of humanity; for the future is real, and deny it 
not. But the future is glad to talk to the present about what it is 
likely to come up with and receive a sense of possibilties of 
change through resonance. That is rejuvenation. That the future is 
open and real; open to change but real before it is real, so to 
speak.

















The future is open and yet the life in you has deeper meanings 
relative to the whole of comos. Society is not the source of 
happiness for the individual but rather the cosmic work, so to 
speak, the cosmic relationship, that the individual creates in 
himself or herself through rightness in what is done, is the source 
of happiness. Those who think that society offers happiness may not 
say it to themselves, but when you look back on what they spend 
their time and energies and emotions on doing, you can see that it 
is the reaping of rewards and this is egotism and it is very ugly 
and very sad, and leads not to happiness, nor health, nor 
rejuvenation. Rejuvenation comes from humility to the greater 
rightness of compassion which goes beyond all borders of the known. 
Society offers a lot of things to the individual who does this, no 
doubt; but the real happiness comes from this source which is 
immanent in all and called on when you let yourself be a waterfall 
-- or waterrise, we should say -- of pure energy, the energy of 
righteousness. This righteousness is as the righteousness of dance, 
it is right in the moment for reasons of the whole moment and its 
movement or flux, and its rhythm, beyond what can be apperceived 
through the senses. It must be felt through the meditative mind 
when it listens to the whole cosmos, the all-existence of all that 
is. This is no small task but it is easy to do once you are quiet; 
and the quietness that comes from doing good and harmonious things 
is akin to the greater quietness that comes when the mind is 
meditative and listens well. That is rejuvenation.








Painting is about improvisation, it is about getting out of your 
ego, into the flow of doing something rightly without knowing why, 
without even trying to know why. The rightness is the energy of 
intense, unlimited harmony, that harmony which is great enough to 
encompass great conflicts or disharmonies or complementarities, 
rather, such as the dance of woman and man, or the dance of gods, 
or the dance of nuclear particles. 
To teach yourself painting -- and there is no one but yourself who 
is the ultimate teacher of yourself -- is then a question of 
teaching yourself how to acquire a certain meditative dance with 
the paintbrush and the colors, leaving results which then 
communicate with your dance and this process keeps on renewing 
itself without limits. You can train yourself to improvise on the 
piano, and that is of far greater importance than merely imitating 
good play according to a rigid set of notes; and you can train 
yourself to improvise on the canvas, and that is of far greater 
importance than merely imitating good paintings according to a 
rigid set of concepts, ideas, or paradigm paintings.
As any writer knows, the books you write affect your life. You get 
the kinds of events that are symbolically called for in the books 
that you publish -- not all of them (fortunately), but some of them 
with startling precision. The same is also true for music, movie-
making and of course painting, as well as any art. Art refers to 
the future, not just the past; and the present moment contains 
seeds of future and the future is no illusion. We might say that 
the future should be more properly called 'the futures', for it is 
an open dancing movement and dialogue which is affected by what we 
do now. The future or the futures are not fixed, not determined, 
but open, and yet this openness is affected by your art. You 
artistic activity does have an effect, also on the future of your 
artistic activity, but not just on the future of the artistic 
activity, but also on other people and therefore on the world. To 
disregard this responsibility in a folly attempt to speak of 
'atheism' means to turn a great part of oneself off and one's art 
will be sullen and lack glow, and it will not have energy, then. 
Greater than the attempt to imitate beauty is the attempt to find 
the energy of greatness and majestic powerful harmony for energy 
implies beauty but the imitation of beauty implies nothing at all.




When you paint, you are doing something perhaps meditative. Not 
everybody knows at once what that words mean. It means, among other 
things, that it takes time, it has rhythm, it gives a soothing 
relaxation -- and that's just the start. As a meditative activity 
is performed a great deal, and creatively, with an intent of beauty 
or harmony, then there can come bursts of ecstasies.
	For most it may be meaningful to train the left hand, if one 
is not already using the left hand, to paint. For a person who is 
used to doing many things with the right hand, the right hand may 
still be used to cover a large area swiftly, such as when doing 
background painting (thanks to Margaret Hemsen for this point, who 
realized that she was ambidextrous at my suggestion and half a year 
later enrolled for a significant art education).
	When doing meditative writing, you are not supposed to have a 
clear purpose nor plan as what to write; you are supposed to think 
generally and not too much in particulars; you are supposed to 
offer surprising combinations of thoughts in a coherent and 
meaningful way. What is it to do the same in painting or drawing?
	One may spend time with a pen and paper before doing it in the 
more demanding, and costly, context of, say, golden paint and black 
oil paint on canvas or special paper. With pen and paper, think 
landscape, look for landscape, let lines be drawn with playful ease 
beyond any disposition or idea of any particular landscape. Then 
perhaps move the page sideways and let the lines flow to indicate a 
surging movement upwards, as close to a tornado. Then maybe move it 
upside down and make additional lines, indicating a float in 
cosmos, orgasmic-like.
	I was taught by Frans Widerberg, my art teacher, to both think 
and say sentences that float, just as his images always happen in a 
region in which gravitation doesn't work as expected.
	The sense of freedom of body emanates if you let the floating 
lines, the spaciousness, the landscape-like feeling of the lines 
also somehow spontaneously become a body but then there are three 
rules of thumb. Rule one, don't try any anatomical feature of the 
body in a closed-off manner unless you are absolutely sure you got 
it photographically correct or artistically masterful; rather just 
let lines float through somehow, and let the mind itself make up 
the anatomy if it wants. In other words, don't draw something that 
could be a foot if it is wellformed; let everything you draw be 
wellformed so be purposedly vague and indicative and hesitant in 
your suggestion of anatomy if it comes. This brings us to the next 
rule of thumb.
	The second rule, when an anatomical shape of a beautiful body 
seems to arise somehow out of the floating lines of movement and 
space, then don't crave that shape but let it come a little more, 
perhaps, and then let go of it and let the lines dance as they wish 
and see if other shapes come out as well. It is part of this rule 
of thumb to at some stage perhaps strengthen the anatomy that 
appear at the same time most true and right and energetic to your 
mind, let it become more and more salient. This I wrote about as a 
feature of how matter comes into being, by 'salient' intersections 
of 'coherence fields', in a metaphysical/artistical treatise I 
published some time ago, "Sex, Meditation, and Physics". The sense 
of it was that each field of correlation or coherence is infinite 
but can resonate or cohere with other fields and as they do this, 
some features becomes very clear and this is indeed matter; that is 
how material energy arises out of more subtle energy and it is 
relevant for the metaphysics of painting if you wish to do it 
meditative.
	The third rule of thumb is to stop exactly when the impulse to 
stop arrives in your intuition, sign the shape gently, and set it 
aside; and then intuition may tell you not to keep it or to do 
something with it a day or a week later but when you get the knack 
of it, your intuition tells you to stop because you really got 
something profoundly indicative and yet not so clarified that it is 
dull and obvious.
	Now these three rules of thumb can and should be broken and 
this is necessary to do painting and drawing and other graphical 
work in other kinds of styles than the ones I prefer. If you really 
know how to paint human skin in human skin colour and enjoys detail 
and are found of seeing things through the sensory organs of the 
eyes and relating energy in this way, then by all means adopt but 
from somewhere you'll get the impulses to do a painting and why not 
in this way? For I feel that all conscious work by human beings in 
some way begins by the subtle and moves towards the manifest.












 
/ If humanity is in a state of turmoil, to some extent, and 
somebody claims that it is just the nature of things, of genes or 
whatever, and no point in attempting to create more goodness, just 
look at your own business, then what would you reply?

: You see I have no fixed reply. Each situation, each question, 
each moment is unique, is it not? And if you have the courage to 
engage in dialogue and be humble to the moment you'll listen. So 
what is your question? Your own question?

/ My question is: could it be that it is how it should be, all 
things connected with the state of humanity, even though there are 
wars and poverty and so on and many crises and all that?

: You are asking whether things are as they 'should' be. So who is 
the agent saying 'should'? Is it the 'should' of ideals, snobbish 
or otherwise? Is it the 'should' of the heart, saying, Look, can 
this be what love is? Is love getting its chance? Or is it the 
'should be' of tradition, of scripture, with all its rules, written 
at the top of the mountain and delievered along with the talking 
burning bush and all that?

/ Are you saying love is not getting its chances?

: I am not saying anything, I am asking. Do you know what dialogue 
is? Could I ask you that question before we go into all the 
difficult themes you are pointing to?

/ Sure. Go ahead. Ask me what dialogue is.

: What is dialogue?

/ Talking together? Being open to viewpoints?

: You see to me dialogue is none of these things, or these things 
are merely the beginning. You may have a theme, a purpose, when you 
come to a dialogue. Do you have that?

/ I may think of a theme in advance.

: And what does that do to your mind? Do you follow?

/ Can dialogue be completely without a theme?

: Can it not? Can it be completely without a purpose? Rather than 
it being a means to exchange some viewpoints, to put forward a 
theory, some ideas. You see, to me dialogue is holy.

/ Is it a state of mind?

: Yes. Keep on exploring, don't stop there.

/ You seem to speak of dialogue as a kind of meditation. But can it 
also have viewpoints that are in contrast with each other?

: Of course. If your intent is to perceive, to feel, not merely 
have a fixed viewpoint, you can listen to various perspectives. 
It's not that you try to defend, self-righteously, implicitly, your 
own projects and your own ego image and all that. Rather, you say: 
speak of what you see now, be loyal to your own perception in this 
moment and not loyal to your project, your boss. Can we do that 
together? Can we ask such questions so as to see all anew?


/ So can dialogue change the world?

: Can dialogue change the world. What a question, I love it. Can 
dialogue change you? If it can change you, it can change the world. 
Because the world is an expression of ourselves, is it not?

/ So you say, or imply, that it is really no point in going on 
complaining about the world.

: Of course not! Nor is it a question of 'putting up' with it. You 
see it -- you see how institutions who proclaim doubt and dialogue 
and science may not at all live up to it, you see how people who 
you thought might have integrity will, in a situation where they 
have influence, just add to the corruptedness of it all, perhaps. 
You see it, but talk about it? Talk about the individuals and the 
institutions that do not engage in open-minded dialogue and you 
only feed them energy. Let's rather explore what dialogue is. 

/ So you are saying, then, if I understand you correctly, that 
nothing has to be the way it is.

: Of course not.

/ Why is that so obvious to you?

: Is it not obvious in itself? You explore and in that exploration 
you give attention, and that attention allows you to see something 
new, and if you see something new you will act in a new way. Seeing 
and action, these are not two different things then. Seeing is the 
revolution. Dialogue is to step out of nonseeing.


/ Suppose I'm the principal or manager of a large academic 
institution, say, a university of some standing, like MIT, 
involving many prominent and prestigious professors. And I have 
heard what you say about dialogue, and I may have read something in 
Karl Poppler's books, his thoughts and views on what he calls 'The 
Open Society'. I may have read David Bohm's, 'On Dialogue'. I have 
browsed through the criticism of Arne Naess' on forms of science 
that are monolithic, and how he says that enquiry and openness and 
doubt forms the foundation of good science. And, as a manager, I am 
employed because I have not only shown brilliance, but I have also 
shown care and willingness to accept status quo. Not being a rebel, 
I mean.

: Yes yes. What is your question?

/ Well, what am I to do?

: What are you to do? How can I tell you?

/ But when you talk about dialogue, you talk about something that 
is, generally speaking, not the case.

: Of course not.

/ Why is that 'of course'?

: Well, that's the insight we begin with, isn't it? We begin with 
seeing the rottenness of society and we don't hesitate to call it 
that although it does not imply at all that we condemn in any way; 
we merely see it for what it is, and of course all the large 
prestigous institutions that represent the society, even if they 
are an elite, are at least tainted by that. That is why I say 'of 
course'. But it doesn't have to be that way.

/ That is what I mean.

: So are you asking me, How can you, if you are employed to run a 
prestigious scientific institutions in a context which is corrupt, 
in which dogmatism of a subtle kind is preferred and dialogue 
except on certain very limited and technical tasks is brushed away 
as insigificant, how can you do a job that is wholly uncorrupt? Is 
that what you are asking?

/ Yes. And not only that, but can I change it?

: Let us go into it slowly. After all, at the end of the corrupt 
communist system of Russia, with its socalled 'Soviet Union', there 
was a head -- Gorbatchev. And he seemed to be of a different breed, 
he wanted change, and so on. And of course as soon as he did not 
use military power to enforce his views he was swept away by the 
changes he allowed, along with Soviet Union, and then Russia came 
back and had a chance to do things through openness. So he actually 
succeeded though he did things that might have gone very wrong 
also, and in terms of his personal career, the outsider, Jeltsin, 
came in and replaced him as president pretty soon as these changes 
occured. Now is there anything in that change, from the worse to 
the better, is there anything at all that we can learn when we talk 
of something entirely different than mere political change, namely 
that of creating an atmosphere of enlightenment where it is 
prevented? Can you as a boss, a leader of some standing in an 
institution of some standing, although it may be corrupt in its 
way, create that change?

/ Yes, can I?

: So you are the head of something large and partly uncontrollable 
unless you are very intelligent. If you are more intelligent than 
it you can head it and it won't take you away when you do the right 
thing. But you can't just do the right thing and except it to 
accept it, right?

/ You are saying something important here, I think. You are saying: 
Don't expect talks of integrity to make any impression on a false 
system, even if you are leading it.

: Of course not. That's so obvious. So can you change it? And do 
you also see the fallacy of that question? Because you may yourself 
be corrupt. And then you are corrupt trying to change something 
that is corrupt and it won't be done even half-way. Whatever 
changes you implement they may not be even near to be enough to 
actually open up for a new atmosphere of exploration, openness, 
everything that went on in the name of nonviolence by Mahatma 
Gandhi and much more, also such things as Jiddu Krishnamurti 
discussed with David Bohm, and even more. 

/ You say: No point in trying to affect the system unless I am 
myself radically clear.

: Clear, awakened, and so on.

/ So what should I do? Give up my position?

: Well, you have to do something while you keep on exploring. But 
this exploration may take time, you need to give it energy, you 
need to have leisure. So you may want a partner, a wife or husband, 
and you may want kids, and a new car or two besides, and maintain 
your social standing by attending to this and that party and how 
many seconds do you have left pr day to explore the clarity of your 
mind?

/ Can it be done at all?

: Of course! Don't, if I may point it out, assume that things 
cannot be done. Rather explore how to do them, or just do them.

/ Is it realistic to change society?

: Is it realistic to change yourself? If it is, then society can be 
changed; if it isn't, then society will go on having one form after 
one another and no lasting harmony or peace on Earth will be found. 
So the key is to turn within and ask there. Now I wonder: why are 
so few doing that?

/ Perhaps because they have much pain. Or because they think that 
they are already free. Or that they don't think they can change 
anymore than they have already.

: So have they changed already?

/ Changed, how?

: Changed, so as to be awakened, not living according to the 
slavery of conditioning and the memorized kinds of desires and 
fixed ideas.

/ Then perhaps nobody is changed.

: So, what do you do? I ask not you directly, but I ask it as a 
challenge that I feel anyone should ask to himself or herself: what 
can you do to awaken yourself?

/ Perhaps meditate more.

: Do this more, do that more. But please, what is the core of the 
issue?

/ I don't know.

: So can you stay at that not-knowingness? Because it is very 
honest and honesty, you know, shouldn't be a sparse commodity in 
the quest of enlightenment, to say it mildly.

/ What do you mean?

: I mean that if you can stay to simple honest and not just 
saturate all your activities with a desire to prove yourself then 
you can find an explorative quality, saturated with humor and 
blissful energy, and you can and will actually get there.

/ Where?

: To whereever you want.

/ Mars?

: That is so silly, to explore outer space when we have not even 
done our homework in our own house.

/ So to work toward enlightenment is possible?

: Naturally.

/ And it is about...what?

: You question. You talk to a friend who also question. Some of 
your friends may be interested in questioning, not just pretending 
and trying to get a position and acting as if everything is okay. 
Thinking they know what love is, perhaps. 

/ So you should question yourself, also as what love is?

: Again, naturally. 

/ And you end up with...nothing? You just keep on exploring?

: There are points of yes and no-saying.

/ What if I find that people are too evil or something?

: Then I suggest you explore goodness.

/ What if one of my friends are in my mind all the time reflecting 
something very bad, something evil.

: Then go for a walk, pay attention to flowers, to trees. You must 
explore goodness, degrees of goodness.

/ You say, don't exactly avoid the darkest of all dark themes, like 
evil and insane and so on, but focus on the good?

: Of course.

/ What is it that makes that so important?

: Otherwise the focussing will bring you down, tear you to pieces.

/ Isn't the negative things real?

: To some limited extent but do you know the absoluteness of 
goodness? Have you sensed that light? Do you know that saneness, 
and felt its health? Then why should you focus on people who 
cultivate some illusory idea of the opposite if you haven't yet got 
that goodness? And once you have a sense of it, live with it, and 
you don't forcefeed people with this, so you stay focussed on that 
which has light and let the other wither. You do not give energy to 
the badness, the problem.

/ Is goodness absolute? And if you say it is, how can I really 
understand it all the way through, not as an idea, merely?

: Let us explore. Goodness is what? You can discard a lot of what 
is said about love, love contains all, and so on. Love is the 
greater but yet when you have it do you have the craving involved 
in a socalled 'exlusive love relationship'? Do you have its envy, 
its fear, its callousness? Or is it so that when you have love, you 
are also good? Let us explore, in many conversations. As a burning 
flame.

/ Good.


/ Is love security?

: When you ask a question like that, do you want me to say 'yes' or 
'no' or something, or are you oriented towards insight?

/ I need insight into that.

: So why don't you ask yourself?

/ When I ask myself, how do I get up a proper answer?

: You ask and your question is a kind of prayer, it requires a kind 
of fulfilment. And you ask and keep on asking, perhaps varying the 
question, until the answer somehow comes. Perhaps it comes as a 
question that solves the original question. But it must have 
substance. It is actually something other than an idea.

/ The answer to my question as to whether love is security is 
something else than an idea.

: Yes.

/ How does it feel? How do you feel when you know that you have got 
something for real?

: Is it a state of wholeness? You see you are very secure when you 
have that wholeness, although you may not have a conclusion in it.

/ Which is to say, love doesn't need conclusions?

: Is love a humility toward 'what is'?

/ What if there is no such thing as 'what is'?

: I didn't say it was a thing.

/ But what if it is an illusion that anything exists? That only 
nothingness is real?

: So be it. You could still explore whether a humility toward this 
nothingness makes any sense.

/ Could it be? That nothing exists?

: Do not say to the child who cries that she doesn't exist. Do not 
tell to one who has got chopped of a leg in a war that the war 
doesn't exist. Please. The barbarism of humanity is real, it is 
part of truth, we might say. Desktop philosophies can portray 
reality as nothingness but there is also the suffering of humanity, 
the pains, the psychological pains and the physical pains. And the 
joys, they, too, for those who have them, are real. So when we 
explore love we ask: can we step out of the transition of time, 
somehow, and find another, not time-dependent consciousness? And is 
this love, which this implies, anything such as that which we have 
come to talk of as 'security'? That is the question, isn't it?

/ Suppose I say: I do not want to give much reality even to wars, 
they are like movies, though it may feel terrible. It is an 
illusion of feeling.

: ...Pause... Is life real to you?

/ That, too, is an illusion, I feel.

: Is an illusion real?

/ No. Nothing exists. 

: ...Pause... Is this a statement of complete insight, of 
actualised insight, or is it a cold and bitter heart that has 
sought refuge in the idea, almost as hatred, that nothing is real 
at all, that all life is an illusion? Think about it, don't answer 
easily, if I may point it out. To put it in other words: Are you 
completely free from the self-therapeutic point of view in what you 
are saying? Or is it your pains, your own inward psychological 
pains that are expressing themselves thorugh the clothing of a 
particular language? Again, please think over it. Don't just throw 
out a mechanical answer, if I may put it out.

/ It is the latter. It is a mechanical answer, based on pain. 
Nevertheless, I do think it is a realizable position, that 
Nothingness is real, and nothing else is.

: But if it is your pain, then why not drop the idea and rather pay 
attention to your pain? For then, when they fall away, and you do 
not need the clothing of such a language, you may come to see 
whatever is the case. But as of now, it is a mere prejudice. And an 
escape.

/ I do not know if I agree to you there.

/ You give talks in various places to people from all walks of 
life. Do they change?

: You are asking, are my talks efficient? You see, I am not so 
concerned about that perspective. If what I say is what I honestly 
live, then it can be effective, but I don't think it is my role to 
make it effective. It is a suggestion. It must be picked up by the 
individual.

/ But is it picked up?

: I think that the question is wrong. I could say yes or no but in 
both cases we are not exactly in the right question. If you are a 
changed person, you do not try to effect a change, you do not try 
to help others to change. Rather, you are a light in what you are 
doing -- you do not say, 'I am a light', but you can't help it. And 
that light has its own laws. If you try to use or utilize that 
light it would be something else again.

/ This is all terribly abstract.

: It is really simple. Are you yourself changed?

/ No.

: Then why do you bother with the effects of my talks? Why do you 
not ask yourself why you yourself have not changed? 

/ It is difficult; but I think it would encourage others if they 
saw that they could change completely based on what you are saying. 
Otherwise it may appear impossible; something one can only do if 
one has extraordinary skill, extraordinary interest, extraordinary 
capacity to deal with these matters.

: What matters? You live, perhaps, according to plan and purpose. 
If you narrow your living into your own purposes, then that is a 
certain quality of distortion, your heart may want to do fifteen 
other things in each moment and you narrow it down. So somebody 
comes along and says, 'Hey, you don't have to do it that way.' And 
you look at that somebody and they have their glow, their 
generosity, their gratefulness, they do not appear to be having a 
problem at all. Now, are you then capable of not condemning that? 
Can you, even if you live falsely, and you have gone a long way 
into living falsely, not condemn another who is living in a 
completely different manner and making it?

/ What do you mean, 'making it'?

: I mean that the person is obviously enjoying himself or herself. 
Can you stand that? Can I stand that, if I live falsely, I have 
clipped away what I really want to do for the sake of a 'reason' of 
economical security, prestige, and innumerable things I do not even 
talk to myself about -- and you just skip it all and say, 'There's 
a different way.'


/ Why do you do all the things you are doing? You are writing, 
giving talks, programming, etc. What's the point of it all? Why 
don't you just enjoy life and so on?

: Well, perhaps I do enjoy life tremendously. Have you thought of 
that?

/ But you do so many things!

: And?

/ Well, is it not also a matter of leisure?

: You may not believe it, but I have a great deal of leisure as 
well. 

/ Even though you do all these things?

: Yes. For when you do not do things contrary to your heart, will 
you not also have the space to sit down and just listen -- to life, 
to your thoughts, to classical music? And lie down and let 
meditation wash through you. And there's immense joy in that, when 
you have laid the foundation of harmony, of doing harmonious things 
only. See, if I didn't unfold what is there for me to unfold, then 
how could leisure be equally strong in me?

/ So you say that you create as part of a kind of entertainment or 
joy.

: Of course.

/ Even, would you say, to create is a form of entertainment?

: There are shallow and deep forms of entertainment. You entertain 
your spirit, your heart, your sense of wholeness when you do 
something which is right to you.

/ How can I find out what's right for me?

: First of all, don't narrow it in. Explore. Be very honest to what 
you feel, and yet don't draw large conclusions from small 
experiments. Don't be to insistent on having a logical scheme that 
explains to yourself or to others what you are doing. Explore 
beyond categories. Explore, give attention, find out what's on your 
heart to express. You may be surprised to find out when you begin 
to find out, that there is no conclusion at all.




/ I think I have understood, broadly speaking, how you speak about 
enlightenment, what you mean by it. Now I would want us to go 
through it all very simply, as simple as can be done, yet not miss 
out anything important. Can you do that?

: Sure. Where would you want to start?

/ What about fear. I have fear, I know I have. Most people do. It's 
a real thing. Can one do something about it, you think?

: Of course.

/ Well, can we begin there?

: Why not? I think it is an excellent place to begin. How would you 
enquire into the total and absolute ending of all fear, so that it 
is not just a piecemeal enquiry, an analysis that is going to take 
years and years?

/ Can one do it holistically?

: Holistically, yes. So you would want, if you understand you 
correctly, to understand the whole root or ground of fear rather 
than any of its manifestations.

/ Yes.

: So what is the ground of fear?

/ Perhaps it is attachment.

: Perhaps. But, if I may suggest it, sense now fear as a whole 
phenomenon at a deep level in your mind, don't struggle, don't 
concentrate, just playfully imagine and trust that you can be in 
touch with fear as whole. Or holistically, as you said. Are you 
doing it?

/ Yes. I think so.

: Don't try to do it, just observe, or watch, or be with fear 
rather. Not observe as thought going on. You are seeing a human 
phenomenon, a phenomon common to all human beings, deep deep in the 
brain, perhaps even to some extent in the genes, though we don't 
need to say that it is deterministic or anything. It is there, but 
it need not be there. Can we agree to that? Or not agree, but do we 
see it together, now, as we quietly, unhurried, explore it 
together?

/ So what is that ground of fear you were speaking of?

: I ask you. Is fear existing only on its own, or is it something 
that it derives from? Is it just floating there, or has it a 
connection to something?

/ To desire.

: It's pretty obvious, isn't it? At least we can sense so generally 
speaking. You may have a strong fear for something and then when 
you look for desire it is not obvious whether it is one or another 
desire, it can be anyone of fifteen or a dozen or a combination and 
it is all mingled up. But when fear is not dominant, when it is 
more subtle, you listen more deeply, and you sense that it 
resonates, don't you?, with something you cling to. Clinging, 
attachment, desire -- it is all much the same kind of process, 
isn't it? Do you see it all? So we begin by fear and then as we 
gently, playfully talk about it and almost hypnotically give 
attention to it we find that we talk naturally, feel naturally, 
also desire, attachment, clinging. Are we together?

/ Yes. It is very clear to me now, as we talk.

: So this clarity, can we see that this clarity is honored, and 
also that we doubt it enough to ask whether it is complete? Are 
there more features, or elements, to this phenomenon to fear 
somehow? I am asking not you, not your intellect, I am asking 
space, mind, the human mind. Is there more?

/ Fear, clinging. I guess love is something else. But what about 
attraction? Jealousy? Anger?

: Good, you bring in more things. And so when you are jealous, you 
are also clinging, you are attracted, but you may want to pretend 
that you are not. So you are attracted and attraction in itself is 
perhaps natural. Can you rather than fight attraction let yourself 
admit to the strength and energy and beauty of attraction, and also 
not cling, but let go? 

/ I don't quite follow.

: It's simple. All I am saying is that attraction is natural. You 
see a flower, you may want to kiss it, okay?

/ Okay.

: So then from that attraction, that sense of beauty, that 
sensuality, you start craving. And craving gives the jealousy if 
somebody else gets to kiss that flower -- I'm talking 
metaphorically (perhaps).

/ Yes. Craving gives the jealousy.

: So instead of then hating, when it is not yielding to you, you 
can give more space. You can say: Yes, I'm attracted. No doubt, I'm 
attracted. And that is somehow love, or it involves love. But I 
don't need to crave, I can give space, I can be generous, I don't 
have to need, need, need. I can be attracted and enjoy attraction 
even though I don't get to own what I'm attracted to. Is that so 
difficult?

/ It is subtle.

: But is it difficult?

/ Maybe not. Giving space, does it come natural to the mind when it 
sees all this?

: Not maybe that you have to say it, 'give'. But you rather realize 
flow, generosity, love, nonclinging, movement. That relationship is 
movement, that you respond not if you crave. Response is 
responsibility, response-ability, and you do this if you have 
freedom and love. That is it, right? Freedom and love. Which is an 
altogether different energy than fear.

/ Yes.

: So what is hatred? Do you have hatred? You said you have fear and 
it is easy to say, perhaps; but it is more tough to admit that one 
has hatred because it is a beastly feeling, no? And yet we must be 
honest, or else all the fun goes out of it.

/ Hatred, yes. Hate. Is it the opposite of attraction?

: Be careful there. Love can be something more than just 
attraction, right? So hate implies some rejection but hate is more 
than the rejection of a badsmelling odour, like some old food which 
you put to the bin. That is rejection but it is not hate, right? So 
hate is rather a psychological effect of craving. And love, is it 
not altogether a different spirit somehow?

/ This is not the common view in culture, I think. It is typical to 
say that hate and love are related, whereas indifference is 
something else.

: So indifference is a coldness that may be born of rejection, 
disappointment -- it is all craving-related, is it not? Like 
hatred, but a different make-up of the problem. I know that in some 
buddistic teachings they speak of indifference in so great terms 
but I wonder if the sense of what they referred to in the original 
Pali, the mother-tongue of Gothama, if I got it right, was not 
something more in the sense of peace and balance. Balance, rather 
than imbalance, right? Which is harmony.

/ So if I have disharmony, then what? I will think about it along 
these lines?

: What will you do if you have disharmony? You can have a theory, 
'I have disharmony because I have craving, because I have 
disappointments, and the sum of all these disappointments and these 
cravings are my ego, or a great part of my ego; so I must end the 
ego, once and for all, and get enlightened.' You can have this 
theory and you can repeat it but will that affect your disharmony?

/ Perhaps not.

: Obviously not! And yet you may be on to something. Rather than 
drinking alcohol or taking a drug or running around complaining to 
people or putting on music so load there is no thought because it 
is all pressed out of your brain for the volume of the music -- 
rather than escape falsely, you can perhaps explore it, right? And 
give attention, afresh, creatively. Find new words, write. You 
write, you sit quietly, you explore. You do not know the end of the 
sentence that you begin to write and you write quietly and lovely.

/ What happens then? I explore and I get rid of fear and all that?

: Take it easy. You have a fixed purpose when you write and that 
purpose will create effort inside you, won't it? For purpose is 
again craving. Do you see the beauty of it?

/ So no craving. But explorative writing, giving attention. But no 
purpose? Why then write at all?

: So you are asking questions now, you are asking and that has its 
own burning intensity, does it not? We begin by recepies and by 
fixed opinions. But now we are asking and we are getting into 
asking such questions as evoke space in the mind, rather than words 
and thoughts. And you ask, why write and explore when there is no 
purpose? It is a beautiful question. Is there an activity that is 
guided by something beyond purpose? And what is that? An intent of 
beauty, perhaps? Or empathy?

/ Empathy with whom?

: With yourself? With the world? You see, you can also explore who 
you are in all this. You are, if you enquire into it, not merely 
this or that role or name or form or job or skill or interest, 
obviously. You are something beyond all that and yet we identify 
too easily and then, when we identify, there is the illusory 
division of self from world, of observer from the observed. And you 
see, in a flash, when you explore, that the observer somehow is the 
observed, not through these words perhaps but in your own words and 
in your own musical, rhythmical sense. It is just wholeness and 
this wholeness acts through you and then you see: when you enquire 
into your own craving and loneliness and all that, you do something 
that has a feeling of love in it. What you come up with may have a 
general value, right? Not just for you yourself. Now go and stay 
with these questions, don't settle, don't get stuck on a formula 
and think that it is that easy. It is a living thing and it demands 
daily care, like a flower, where you have to be the sun, the light 
of attention. Be a light to yourself. Shift the words around and go 
beyond the words altogether. You can do it. Explore it. Keep on 
writing, throw it if it doesn't feel good afterwards, keep it if it 
feels good. Build up the fire, the fire of enlightenment. Never say 
it's impossible. Go ahead, go now. You can do it.



/ When you work toward enlightenment, and you create certain 
things, instances of enquiries, as it were -- it can be notebook 
writings, photographs, paintings, even programs, and I know you do 
a lot of computer programming as well as all the other things -- 
then will you say, "Now I am free, now I don't want to carry any of 
all these things any further, I will drop all notebooks, discard 
all programs, get rid of the paintings?"

: Of course not.

/ Why is that so obvious? Haven't the mysticists throughout the 
ages, the great masters, spoken about letting go of the past?

: I am sure they have, if only I knew who they were. Look, if we 
are going to refer to assumed authorities then it is another type 
of discussion than the one I would like to go into.

/ What is your kind?

: Our kind. The kind of conversation where we talk as friends, 
looking into life based on our own perception, speaking of what we 
see. Etc. Do we need spiritual authorities to guide us there? And 
if you see the danger of calling on them, you won't speak of 
'masters through the ages'. It is a lot of pumping up of empty 
words because you do not have the radiance of trust in what you 
perceive, so you bring in some artificial external force to your 
words.

/ Apart from that, what do you feel about carrying on one's 
notebooks and all that?

: If it has light, then keep it. 

/ And if it doesn't?

: Then enquire most carefully over an extended period of time 
whether or not it has light in it. Because once discarded, there is 
no retrieval, of course. And so you must be clear about it. If your 
mind is foggy then you may take what has light in it to be 
something else.

/ So suppose you enquire and you find out to keep a lot of your 
works. Then could you tell me how this resonates with being free 
from the past?

: Yes. Let us explore what it means to be free from the past. 

/ The past as memory, for instance.

: So you enquire, you have the insight -- let's say -- the insight 
that the ego is not enough. You see it. It is not a sentence to 
you, you can sum it up with a million sentences or none or paint a 
picture of it but the insight is a general vague but clear sense of 
a wholeness of something beyond the verbal and image level. It is a 
perception. You realize it, as you realize the color red. You have 
that insight. Is it at all any element of accumulation in it? 
Please let us think afresh. I am not asking rethorically. Is there 
any element of accumulation or memory or change of memory somehow 
through such an insight?

/ Hm. It would be tempting to say that it is beyond memory.

: But let us be very careful, we are saying something new -- do you 
follow? You are having this insight and where is it? And memory is 
as if the quintessence of the past and the insight, is it 
absolutely gone the next morning? Of course not. So can we not say 
that there is an element of storage, if not accumulation?

/ Yes I think we can.

: So it is a storage of light, eh? Like Bach's music, it is light 
perhaps. It has its own resonance, humanity has its own memory of 
Bach and it is not the personal thing at all. It is not his name. 
It is the music, the beauty of it, it persists, it cannot other, 
for it has its own vitality, beyond any ego. It has just got to go 
on.

/ So you are saying that there is a past to the mind.

: In some sense. Isn't it? For how else can you work toward 
enlightenment, generously, also so as to make so to speak a culture 
all on your own?

/ What sense of culture?

: A culture of, well, -- of persistance to awakening. You build a 
lot of things in this persistance, you create a greater persistance 
than that of the newsmedia and so on around you. They are strong 
but you are stronger, you have what Spinoza called fortitudo; you 
have generositas; you have hilaritas -- all these terms and the 
term we must add to it, which Spinoza seemed a little fuzzy about, 
but which we must have, with total priority: compassion for all. 
Compassion, love for all. So you make a computer program guided by 
this passion, this compassion, and everything about it becomes a 
resonance chamber for your intelligence.

/ Are you saying that intelligence is to some extent part of the 
environment? The physical environment? That through your works, as 
you have them around you, that is part of your mind of insight?

: Of course! Exactly, that is how it is. And you have no right to 
delete light. That's it: you have no right to delete light. What 
has light must persist. There must be no burning of the library of 
Alexandria if there is even one book of light in it. As for the 
rest, we can't be sure, and so it is possible to come to a dialogic 
responsible care for the past. Not just this hippi thing of 
overthrowing everything past and pretending that they are not going 
to persist into the future.











/ May I be a little private with you? I have enquired on my own 
quite a lot, I think, and there's a number of questions I have 
which I do not know what you would think of, which I do not find in 
your other writings -- though it may be there, I haven't read every 
word.

: Go ahead, ask anything. I have no secrets.

/ You see, I have done and I am doing many things, things that 
girls do often these days. You know me as a woman, and you know 
that I have done a lot of modelling, acting, performances and so 
on.

: Yes yes. What is your question?

/ Please, I do not have the questions outlined very clearly. Let it 
come. I must talk myself into it. I have prepared myself but I 
forgot my notes. First I want to ask you about esthetics. Is 
esthetics important to you?

: That is a big question. I think I have explored it in a book 
called 'A tiny notebook'. First of all, we must enquire into what 
we mean by 'esthetics', whether it is a system of stagnated, fixed 
ideas or opinions, or ideals set by a stagnated, materalistic 
culture. For such an esthetics I do not have. But if you say, what 
is esthetical is beautiful, not just beautiful in surface but 
inwardly too, then it is allimportant, as love, as freedom. You 
know, that is not a simple question.

/ That is a beautiful answer, though. I am quite satisfied. Next I 
want to ask from the perspective of someone who has sought to be 
very clear about these matters and perhaps, perhaps not, have some 
enlightenment.

: Yes.

/ I want to know, is it always wrong to have a quarrel? Or, to put 
it in other words, more directly perhaps, do you ever quarrel with 
anyone?

: Well, yes. If you play music in a jam session, there can be drums 
occasionally. It may still be part of the music.

/ How can that be if you are interested in having harmony always?

: But harmony may be stale. There's room for some tension, don't 
you think? 

/ So there is still harmony even though you have a verbal fight, 
say, and raise your voice? Harmony to some extent, perhaps?

: It can be. If you have the foundation of clarity and not throwing 
negative affirmations at someone, if you are aware of yourself 
without judgement, knowing what is going on, you want get into an 
evil fight. It will be a quarrel and it won't go on for many 
minutes and it won't carry over and you'll learn about some new 
forms of conflict through it, fast; and you won't judge the other 
afterwards nor yourself. You'll see, you will have this experience 
as well. If it is your ego reacting that is something else, then it 
will go on and seethe with problems, like a virus. But if you have 
no ego will you never ever raise your voice? I don't think Tina 
Turner would agree -- I am not saying she has no ego or that she 
has an ego, but I have heard her music, and it has terrific 
screaming in it. 

/ Terrific screaming! So a moderate proportion of quarrel if you 
know what you do.

: Only if you enquire deeply you can see that there is no role that 
is identified with awakening.

/ So. Good. Now I have another question: Suppose I am really fond 
of sex, I have several partners, and there's a jealousy issue. As a 
woman, with my modelling career and all that, I tend to attract a 
lot of men to my attention; and then they can get nasty at me and 
toward each other and even toward themselves because of jealousy or 
envy or whatever it is.

: Yes?

/ Yes. 

: Why?

/ Well, is it wrong? I don't know why. Or I do not, it is the age-
old problem, that's all. Alpha males and so on. They don't stand 
competition.

: But do you put them up against each other?

/ I don't think so. It has happened, though it is not the thing I 
usually do.

: You seem aware of these things. But you are asking anyway. You 
are asking, perhaps, correct me if I have understood you unclearly, 
whether you can more deftly relate to several men -- and women, 
perhaps, don't leave them out -- without arousing jealousy and so 
on. Are you not also implying that question? 

/ Yes, I guess. 

: Then perhaps, if you look into it, you will be able to see such 
mechanisms of jealousy very clearly aforehand. You don't go around 
assuming that everyone is enlightened but you relate to the reality 
of the situation. You may be clear yourself, but there's a lot of 
products of unenlightement around us as the shapes of these 
computers, the layout of the magazines, and so on, and also people 
are acting based on ego. You see all this and you relate to the 
world, not just to your dreams, not just to a particular feminist 
reader or something, and as a woman you ask: what has energy, 
truth, or beauty in it -- is it to see, or not to see all this? And 
if you see, can you not always find ways in which you make it easy 
for people to relate to the best in themselves through you? I put 
it up as a challenge, not as a question to say 'yes' or 'no' to, if 
you agree that it is a challenge, that is?

/ Thank you, yes, I do agree. It is very clear.








/ When you work, when you make things, compose, play music, sing, 
paint, draw, whatever, how do you know whether you have good energy 
or good synchronicity or whatever you call it associated to what 
you make? How can you ever be sure? Can one be sure? I am asking 
because I am constantly making things and I realize that the 
educational systems have focussed on making people conform to 
systems even though they may say the opposite. I am trying to stand 
aside from systems, but I am worried about the effects on my life 
of what I do. Is there a key?

: When you say that you are worried about the effects on your life 
of what you are making, do you thereby already sense or perceive a 
relationship?

/ Not clearly. I have my own guesses, that's all.

: But you are concerned with good synchronicities. What does that 
concept mean to you, really?

/ Good luck, I guess. Like good karma.

: So you want to make something and you'd like it to have an effect 
on your life toward prosperity, youthfulness, health, sex, such 
things?

/ Yeah. I guess.

: So is it all a self-centered pursuit, then?

/ What do you mean? Like egotism? If that's what you are saying, 
then I do not find it easy to go beyond all sorts of egotism.

: That's at least very honest. But you want to enquire into good 
synchronisticies, good energies, you would like life to act through 
you, so that you naturally get good resonances, the highest forms 
of energies rushing through your blood, your mind; you'd like life 
to be at an apex all the time and without any drugs or artificial 
solutions. Is that right?

/ That is right.

: And then I ask: Who, or what, perhaps, is the agent of all that 
wanting? Is it a cluster inside you, a center dividing itself off 
from the world, being lonely, wanting a solution? Or is it life 
within you that says: Life, sure, life is wonderful, life is the 
thing, I love, but there is no 'I' in it. Which is it?

/ I am not sure. Perhaps it is the cluster. How can I step out of 
it?

: So if you really want to have good energy, do you see that you 
must let go of illusions? 

/ Illusions? Not quite. Aren't illusions good sometime?

: They can be nice, sure, but when we use the word 'illusion' it is 
typically to say: Look, you have got here not just enthusiasm, but 
expectation, and this expectation is a form of clinging. And so you 
are vulnerable, the expectation inside you is vulnerable. And that 
vulnerability creates a constant stream of fear and anger inside 
you.

/ Is it not good to be vulnerable?

: I wonder about that. Perhaps, if you are asking about sensitivity 
-- is it not good to be sensitive? And then we can say, of course, 
be sensitive. But if there is the vulnerability at the emotional 
level, it means people will have a hard time being honest to you 
because you can get upset by being reminded on reality.

/ Sensitivity. Sensitivity does seem to imply vulnerability, 
though.

: So is there another vulnerability that is really strength? Let us 
enquire more into all these questions.


/ To live holistically, what is a key point, would you say?

: Holistic living. That would imply wholeness, health, clarity. 
What is it that gives wholeness?

/ Perhaps enquiry into wholeness.

: Enquiry, attention, perhaps the cultivation of creative rites or 
rituals, not the rituals of religions.

/ What do you mean by rites? Could you give some examples?

: Say, you tell yourself: I rejuvenate! Each time you go to bed to 
sleep. That is something you can do with a creative spirit, you do 
it so as to reinvigorate your sense of it. Then after two seasons 
or decades...you may want to have something completely different. 

/ Could living itself involve rhythms that can be said to be 
holistic?

: Of course, of course. Rhythm is a form of resonance, creative 
resonance. The body has rhythms and they change, as your mind 
changes, as the needs of the body changes. By recreating resonance 
you can creatively reestablish rhythms. 

/ Such as?

: Such as the rhythm involving dance in the morning, a sense of 
golden light concerning all living beings, a feeling of care as 
ground for your activities rather than worry, and so on. 

/ You don't merely decide to do something like dance in the 
morning.

: Certainly not. Decision may be a forcing based on ego-purposes, 
it narrows it in. You must pray to dance, pray for great dance, but 
also pray to really want it. When you want it, then you do it. When 
you don't want to do it, there mustn't be forcing or else the fun 
and the spirit goes out of it.

/ This is contrary to the scheme of training many athletically 
oriented parents gives the their children, isn't it?

: I don't know their schemes but unless it is effortless it is 
neither true nor fun.







/ All the things you are talking about, are they for humanity? 
Because humanity don't change. That's obvious. If you look at the 
news, if you watch how things develop, you see that they don't 
develop. So why not join the cynical bunch and make the best of it 
while it lasts? I don't mean this but I want to hear what your 
response would be if somebody said this!

: You are worried about society. But why don't we look a little to 
the individuals that are around. Are you saying that individuals 
don't have a cosmic life, that they don't have a sexual life, if 
society is not a good society? 

/ Remember I am not saying these things. But if I were defending 
the point of view of cynicism, I would say, perhaps, that all the 
things that you are talking of makes less sense when there is not a 
society that cares for it, when humanity don't care, then why 
bother?

: But let us go slow. What is meaning? What would be a meaningful 
life for an individual? What is the pinnacle of meaning anyway, is 
it people areound you or is it somehow you yourself? You have a 
heart, right? I am not asking you, but do you have the feeling that 
everyone has a life in their own, on their own -- do you?

/ Of course.

: So is there a heart in the individual who is saying: This is 
right, that is right, and stay on doing these things, don't waver, 
tune to the things which are true to you.

/ Okay...so you are saying this would outmaneuver cynicism somehow?

: Not outmaneuver, but I am saying: can you outmaneuver yourself? 
If you have read novels or seen movies inspired by Machiavelli, the 
authors conjure up fantasy people that has no heart; they are happy 
and so on based on things that only a robot, stupidly programmed, 
could be satisfied with. And I ask: do you have a heart? Do you?

/ I do. But...

: But what? Not everybody?

/ Yes everybody. But not everybody listens to it. And when those 
who don't listen to their heart comes into power, they make society 
into a terrible thing. 

: So make it better. But unless you live righteously, you won't 
have the right kind of energy to make it better, or make it good. 
So, what you are really asking, perhaps, is: can we have complete 
energy, clarity, love, meaning and so on in ourselves when things 
around us fall apart?

/ Yes. When people pull it apart...

: So do you feel that your way of living is dependent on others?

/ Well, to some extent.

: Yet can your mind, can you find a way in which your mind can 
renew itself and have great love and clarity despite the 
environment? Absolute independence from the environment -- can you 
put that up as a challenge?

/ I think it is difficult.

: So?

/ But not impossible.

: So that's it.

/ But what is the key to such an independence?

: Sex, perhaps. 

/ To have sex?

: To engage in a sexual perception at all levels. A sensual, 
erotic, sexual contact with yourself.

/ Even if you don't feel very sexual to begin with?

: The feeling of not being sexual is an illusion, it is ego, it is 
stagnation. Can't you sense the sexual energy? It is everywhere, 
except where the ego is.


/ When you speak of taking sexual energies seriously, I am led to 
ask myself, 'Should not sex happen within the situation of loving 
another'? Should it at all be a widespread energy or even attitude? 
What do you say?

: I think you're right. You must question. What is love and what is 
sex? Is there a difference, or are they somehow the same energy, or 
two aspects of the same energy? You see, you must enquire. Not 
merely think that you know everything about love and everything 
about sex and then you enquire into their relationship. You must 
suspend your knowledge about these things. Then awareness comes. In 
that awareness, you are open and creative. You are not certain, nor 
merely uncertain, in the sense insecure. In that security, of not 
being certain, you can find out anything for yourself. You don't 
need me or anybody else, you can enquire and find out.

/ But love and sex usually involve at least one another!

: Love and sex involve not just yourself, not just your ego, the 
'I'. But even your body is something beyond your ego, do you 
realize that?

/ Not quite. How can that be? The ego is me, is it not?

: The thought of you is the ego, but the body is something beyond 
that thought. 

/ The thought of me is the ego.

: To put it a little superficially. But you, psychically speaking, 
and you physically speaking, -- that's not exactly the same, right?

/ Some people say that we think with the body and so on.

: Of course! When there is health! Now the ego is perhaps something 
that resists the body, or life in general: the ego is a structure 
of likes and dislikes and not intelligent at all. Can you see that?

/ It's a little unclear still. What exactly is the ego? I say I am 
such and such a person, and that is more than the body -- it is not 
less than the body!

: Well the ego is a way of perceiving, or dividing rather. It is a 
cluster that makes you very angry if somebody opposes your 
ambitions, say. The body may be a temple of silence. When you 
dance, do you have an ego? I mean, you may have an ego, but is it 
the ego that rules the dance, when you dance well?

/ Now it is getting clearer. For I know what it means to loose 
oneself in dance.

: So let us go further than merely that. For the sexual experience 
is a question of going completely beyond the ego, the narrow 
division attitude. You experience life as dance, you have your body 
and you listen to it but you also listen to the body of another, 
and beyond that, you listen to life pulsating and silently 
copulating.

/ You don't mean physically copulating?

: Well, that too. But sex is an experience.

/ So you have that sexual experience in relation to all?

: In a sense, yes. And that doesn't mean that you have your 
genitals into action with all. It is mind-sex. Which also can 
become genital-sex when you meet somebody to your liking.



/ When you plan or make decisions, how do you do it intuitively, so 
that you know that you are right? And do you ever change plans? I 
do not know you well enough personally and privately yet to be 
aware of these things as to you; but I am sure you have thought 
about it. And, if you'd like, I want to know what you think about 
my opinion of sex as a distraction, that it takes a lot of time and 
energy and gives too little back when you want to create something 
else. But I am not certain this is my opinion for when I dance a 
lot, in those periods -- for as a little girl I trained a lot of 
ballet and the like -- then I want more sex and I realize my own 
inner sadness. What is this -- is it a ral sadness? What has it to 
do with sex? And with dance? Does dance release it somehow? Can we 
go into all these things, please? I know it's a lot to ask but 
these questions are of burning interest to me. So can we do that?

: First of all, are you aware of all your problems, or do you just 
want to solve them? If you just want to solve them, then they are 
abstract to you, you do not relate to them. And then your solutions 
will be inevitably superficial, they will not be lasting, complete 
or penetrating. You will feel that there is a wall or frame or 
bottom and beyond that there is sadness, something unpenetrable. To 
go beyond all your problems, all your sideissues, as it were, you 
must have the transparency, the transfluency, the flow, the 
unbounded wholeness in movement that comes from giving attention. 
Then you don't ask for solutions but you allow them to present 
themselves in your healing attention.

/ Fine. I don't know if I understood all that but it seemed right 
at that moment when you spoke it. So can you apply it to sex, 
somehow?

: Must I do it for you? Can we not give this attention that we have 
by virtue of being alive, by virtue of being expressions of life, 
of the sound of the stars, as it were, and find out, for enquiry is 
part of life, is it not? 

/ When I enquire into sex I feel it is a terrible distraction.

: No that is not an enquiry, that's a conclusion. Do you know the 
difference? A conclusion is a concluding down, a shutting, and 
enquiry is openness. A direct reversal of conclusions, not that you 
conclude the opposite but you reverse the shuttingness.

/ Reverse the shuttingness, quite. So sex can be opened beyond 
conclusions, then? What does it mean in practise? It still takes a 
lot of time and energy,  I feel.

: I wonder if it takes time or gives time. Do you do things that 
are fully of your heart, or do you concentrate, you push aside the 
central question, the core question, and you force yourself into a 
plan? And then, confronted with that plan, the wholeness and 
delight of yoga, sex, walking in nature, having leisure is at odds 
with the little plan made by the shallow ego? Is it so? I don't say 
that it is so but enquire more. Another time.



/ What is the importance of sexual activities to you? Why do you 
talk so much about it? Is it for all or just for some? 

: Well. Let's explore it all. Is sex just a fantasy, is it just for 
biological procreation, is it just for the young? Obviously not. Or 
what?

/ No, I agree. Perhaps. I think it is for all, somehow. 

: So we enquire with dignity, with responsibility. In the name of 
lust for sex, just like in the name of lust for money, prestige, 
power and the like, much has happened. It is not to say that  money 
is bad in itself or that prestige is bad in itself that the lust 
for it has led to much shit; the same with sex. The Augustinians 
and the Lutherians and the adherents to every religion and every 
religious sect have their own peculiar forms of condemnation of 
either sex or women or both.  So let us step out of all that, 
please. Let us give unbounded attention.

/ One might say that the teenager and the young adult is sex 
oriented but that hormons are other for old people; besides which 
it is not so easy with an old body to acquire new sexual partners 
perhaps, at least not the sexual partners that may reflect 
something of that which one was strongly attracted to as a young 
person -- unless it is love and the sexual feeling that comes from 
loving someone affectionately, as can happen even in very old 
marriages.

: I am not experienced with all that,  I don't know. But even if 
sex is basically self-sex, even if it is based on reading and 
writing, painting and playing music, watching life and flowers 
everywhere, it is still sex, I do not merely think that sex is 
genital sex although it can be. And sex in the sense of 
playfulness, humor, shamelessness in a good way is important, I 
think also for people of a hundred summers and more; this much I 
have been told by people who has a first-hand experience.

/ So you don't think that sex is too limited a concept?

: Not at all.

/ What is great sex, then?

: What is great to you? Let's enquire.

/ I think that which is great sex for me involves the new and 
unprecedented, some experience that takes me out of my self as I 
know myself.

: So that is meditation, right?

/ You could call it that.

: Now can that happen all the time? Can you have a renewal in 
relation to yourself, a constant orgasm as it were?

/ Not without difficulty.

: But with difficulty, could you do it?

/ Perhaps. Do you have it?

: I have some sense of it, yes, some sense of orgasm having an 
eternity of persistence through my mind and you can redicule me for 
saying it but it is so. 








/ Intuition and logic -- what do you choose, when logic says A and 
intuition says not-A?

: These are but words. How do you know what intuition says? Do you 
enquire, do you get silent, do you listen beyond all thought? And 
if you do, how can you say that listening does not have its own 
logic? What is this logic you speak about? You see, these are 
subtle matters and unless we give a lot of good quality time and 
leisure to our thinking about this, we may rush into a lot of 
conclusions and think that we follow intuition when we don't and 
think that we follow logic when we merely go along with a limited 
path of reasoning and not any deep logic at all. So what is it? 
What is real intuition to you? Could we please enquire and not just 
be certain to begin with?

/ I am listening to what you are saying, I know that intuition is 
difficult sometimes. Yet I have an experience of an intuitive voice 
and sometimes it speaks against logic.

: Like when?

/ Well, perhaps in questions of money or travel, there are 
pointers, logically speaking in one direction, and then intuition 
may say something else. Or that which I call intuition anyway.

: These pointers, what are they?

/ Perhaps it is about simple pieces of information. Information 
that suggests a logical path of action in the common sense 
language. And then the heart or my gut feeling may indicate 
something else.

: What happens when you act contrary to gut feeling?

/ Well I'd like to say that it always goes wrong when I act 
contrary to gut feeling but it's all very confusing. I don't know 
yet.

: So you enquire more. That's good.

/ But how is your life on these matters?

: As to intuition?

/ Yes. And do you have any conflict at all in you? When you make a 
decision, is it all clear to you always what to do?

: You see clarity is about openness too.

/ How do you mean?

: There is something which we may call a 'natural action'. It is 
natual for the flower at the apple tree to transmutate into a small 
fruit, it is natural for the fruit when mature to come off in the 
hands of someone plucking it easily, and so on. The natural action 
prompts itself into being. But does the flower always know when it 
will happen that it gives way to the next phase? Indeed, does it 
has to know what will come in the next phase exactly? There is an 
innocence of not knowing. When you have this, you have the security 
that let you be completely tranquil and completely uncertain at the 
same time. Then you cannot but do the right thing.

/ Hm. It's interesting and yet I don't quite grapple with it.

: What is your problem?

/ It's just too many emotions. Perhaps the issue is somewhere else, 
in my attitude about life or something.

: Your energy is dense?

/ That's just it! How did you know?

: If your energy is dense, explore it. Explore also lightness, and 
light; explore and visualize, meditate, write, find out what you 
identify yourself with, perhaps it is possible not to identify with 
any project, any name.

/ You seem to operate with several names, several websites, several 
homes, and so on -- several girlfriends even -- and is this 
conscious?

: Again, I would say: it is natural. It is not that I decided, 'now 
I must develop more names' or something. It just felt the right 
thing to do to experiment on this.

/ Some might criticise this as unfounded or unreal or indication of 
lack of coherence.

: Of course, those who identify stability and identity in a fixed 
sense with happiness, they can criticize it. For instance, they may 
think that a person is crazy if he or she starts reinventing 
himself or herself. Whereas I would say: unless you shift role you 
won't see the role as role and then you don't know what 
authenticity is.














Soft necessities constitute new kinds of logic, a new kind in each 
logical situation.

There are no numbers, strictly speaking, for a number means a 
member of an infinite set of something well-defined. But once 
something well-defined is set to characterize an infinite set, it 
tends to undefine itself, and the limits of the set becomes soft, 
its size and upper level members vague, ambiguous and infinite. 
This occurs even when we write '...', indicating 'et cetera', in a 
context like 3.14151926... This means that we have not got finite 
set and every infinite set in some sense contains all, in the sense 
that thought blurs in perceiving the mental content of it and 
discovers that it cannot meaningfully prevent anything from 
entering into the set. The proper foundation of mathematics is 
therefore in the infinite in the ambigious and not well-defined 
sense; any finite formalism must be considered a temporary floating 
abstraction without any strict value, pragmatically justified by 
its temporary engineering fruits. There is no foundation for 
applied mathematics in pure mathematics, except if pure mathematics 
is dissolved.



*



Seamless. If a logic is not seamless, it does not exist except as a 
finite and temporary illusion. If it is seamless, it does not exist 
as a mechanical thing. It is not a machine that can be permuted.

Mathematics did not worry about a foundation, then came people and 
worried about it. They thought that since mathematics is an 
offspring of techniques, then there can be a master technique at 
the foundation. Of course it couldn't. Then art is the foundation, 
and that is a nonsystem, a nontechnique; there is no foundation and 
that insight is the foundation, coherent and consistent. It is 
consistent in that there is nothing that is disallowed a priori, 
and nothing shown a posterori, and nothing is wholly wrong nor 
anything wholly right, except that absence of everything. It is the 
mystical foundation that is true; and this is a nonfoundation, it 
has no letter, it has only the love of art. This love of art makes 
us realize, oh over there, in that thing or phenomenon looking like 
a hole, black or hairy, out there in the center of a galaxy, it 
seems to be radiating something that has a certain input feature 
and a certain output feature. Then someone might jump into the 
fallacy of misplaced concreteness and say: It's a computer. It is 
an uncomputer, of course; not a computer. A computer is part of the 
fixed finite temporary illusion of mind; what exist is this dance 
that is the foundation proper.


*


You hold something steady and let the rest move; and you do not 
even hold this too steady, not rigid. Then in the frame, the wave 
dances, but it dances outside of the frame as well and you don't 
stop it. But the fundamental mistake is to think that the fact that 
the wave dances outside of the frame also is the same as to say 
that it dances completely independent of the frame, which it 
doesn't. For the frame is itself a temporary wave structure, 
composed as it were of complementary vortices feeding each other 
and making a temporary crystallisation possible. Then the waves 
around dances and they relate and refer and respond and it would be 
totally different with no frame at all and yet that would be 
meaningful as well: different but also meaningful. And then when 
there is no frame, the startling thing happen, that waves far 
apart, having gone free, start combining into forming new temporary 
crystaliisations, new frames, and in this dance between the 
analogue and digital we have the true mathematics, which can never 
be written down but only sensed in a divine flash, beyond all 
ideas. The fact that this has not become part of socalled 'academic 
institutions' means that these institutions have ushered illusions 
into people, into society, into young people; the fact that they 
have come to believe in frames as stable, even when constructed, 
means that the only real dance has been across but never only 
within these institutions; their significance has been as much in 
their darkness as in their glimmers of light: that only in being 
free of them it is possible to see the truth. And the truth, when 
seen, is not the truth, when said. That which is said is something 
else, or it is said poetically but not descriptively, not formally 
but as a reflection of a perceptive dance, like perhaps these 
motions of letter-signs after one another, but then it is not in 
their repetition but in their re-analogizing in a fresh dancing 
mind that truth can be rebound, rediscovered. Truth is not in the 
sentence, nor shown by the sentence, but it reverberates when the 
sentence is, beyond all frames, enacted by life itself through an 
instrument of life, such as you yourself.

To live so as to do such enactments is to be a mathematician, and 
it has nothing whatsoever to do with memory or the mastering of any 
technique, nor is it of help to have memory or the mastery of a 
technique, nor can any amount of socalled 'references' provide much 
of anything but a fog of clouded half-bred thoughts to an otherwise 
fresh work; and a real academic institution would be one that 
devotes itself to glimmers of light and fresh dance in their own 
elegance quite apart from the fog of reference. As nothing can be 
repeated anyway only illusions are worth referring to, when one 
erects new illusions; truth has no reference at all, and can never 
be repeated, not even once.



*


Energy without friction, metaphorically speaking, is the aim of 
logic, not truth in the imitating sense. If that which is spoken in 
response to a question engages fresh energy in the minds present, 
if it enhances alertness, then it is logical, but if it is spoken 
in false reverence to a past authority of the mind, then no matter 
how cleverly it is construed, it is illogical. So truth is an 
offspring of the energy of awareness and all falseness is over-
repetition.


*

*

*

If we cannot close a set in thought properly off, then the thought 
of the set is rather as the thought of a rather bounded wave but 
not wholly bounded wave in quantum mechanics. You try to put the 
wave in a box but the wave spreads out anyhow and touches all the 
universe. So you try to put the thought in a category box called 
'set' and it turns out it spreads out anyhow and touches all the 
universe.

So tell me: can you clearly now entertain the notion anymore that 
mathematics is a language game of construction only, whereas 
physics is nothing but an application of mathematics? Or is it so 
that any real thought in mathematics spreads out and touches 
domains other than the language itself, in fact, ultimately, 
touching all domains?

So if physicists like to say that anything might be connected with 
anything then should thought be different? Should there be a 
discipline in which we imagine that thought is able to seal itself 
off from the world and call itself 'pure' and thereby imply that 
the world is 'dirty'? So there is no pure mathematics except 
meditation. And the alternative is not merely 'applied' mathematics 
but rather that there is a relationship of some kind; that there is 
a perception of some kind; that there is a correspondence of some 
kind.

And thinking is not completely separable in terms of 'fields' but 
rather all thinking is also thinking-about. 

*

The infinite is not conquerable by thought. Our brains, magnificent 
structures as they are, cannot therefore comprehend the totality of 
ethical implication of any of its proposed actions unless it lies 
down all activity except the sensitive activity of listening. This 
listening is not merely through the ears but it is a listening to 
the structure and form of the fluctuations at the quantum level, 
and it requires an extraordinary quietness and silence for it to 
pick this up, rather than eradicate it through statistical noise. 
In picking it up, it will know for fact, in a multidimensional way, 
what is to come and its degree of harmony or coherence or empathy, 
given that the action proposed is fulfilled. This may not be 
coherent and the brain, if enlightened, if it is suffused with 
goodwishes, also to itself, will then propose a change to this 
action. What this change is can also be, of course, rather 
apperceived than proposed, by same such silence.










To play, as children are playing, perhaps, when you're adult, is 
both healthy, humorous and can be outrageously erotic, and give the 
best orgasms. Your prettiness should not depend on make-up or 
things that can fall off during play, you should dance by yourself 
every day to get your muscles toned and you should stretch every 
day to get them free enough to engage in play, perhaps also 
strengthened here and there, especially if you have some constant 
pain in some muscle parts. But let the man be masculine, make 
yourself petite enough compared to him and in that way you will 
feel the complementarity of your own feminine parts and his 
masculine parts. The complementarity is like a battery, and when 
the battery connects, it is orgasm.


Your prettiness can be your friend or your enemy in getting supreme 
orgasms. If you learn how to make your prettiness expand 
indefinitely and become part of your surroundings, part of the way 
you work, part of the way you affect the world and part of the way 
you recreate your mind, then you will understand that it's all 
about rhythm and so is orgasm. It's about timing and 
appropriateness and coherence, not just symmetry and so on, but 
coherence, rhythm of features and moves and sentiments. Orgasms is 
a prettiness that washes through the body and beyond, into the 
bodies that are with you. Jealusy is not part of orgasm, that is 
one of the things you must understand: that everyone deserves 
infinite love and everyone can be infinitely beautiful -- or else 
it is an egotistical thing and that stinks of old fish. Do not be 
an egotist nor reduce yourself by describing yourself in belittling 
terms. Be enough pantheist to see greatness in all life and be 
enough polytheist to love many and accept that many loves you.



To get such great orgasms with a man there is the issue of having 
both clitoric and vaginal stimulation at the same time, and to have 
the leisure and the play involved in getting a contact between the 
man and yourself. You may discover that there is an electricity of 
sex in having clothes on and once the clothes are off, there is a 
different kind of energy, more shared, less polarized; and so it is 
a great sexuality in having clothes on, because the skin has not 
yet exchanged its polarized forces. So the feminine may be very 
feminine and the masculine may be very masculine and once all 
clothes are off, there are different conditions to upheld this 
polarity and this is easy if you actually copulate all the way. But 
there is this half-well-done thing called 'condoms' and it is of 
course extremely important because of several key issues -- not 
making babies when you don't really want to, and keeping 
probability of transferring anything infectious down. So condoms 
are important but at the same time, condoms may take a lot of time 
and attention especially if the condom is really tight and the man 
really big somehow, down there. So then you should pay enormous 
attention to the quality of condoms, that they are roomy and have 
an interesting inner environment for that long thick thing which is 
going into them; and their exterior out to be wet and interesting 
and happy for your vagina. All this is involved to get really great 
orgasms and no doubt a great deal of further technological 
development should happen on the condom area but at least do get 
the best ones.






















Heal Humanity Fast

Healing is the creation of generosity towards the future, towards 
ourselves in the future, towards ourselves as we are connected in 
evernew ways in the future, towards, therefore, essentially all 
life since nothing can be considered at 'cut off' anyway. We could 
coin the word 'generositize'. Let us step out of recepies and fixed 
answers; this is not an examination. We need a bunch of words for 
all the things that are important for us, so we can go on 
improvising in how we think and talk and feel about it, how we 
relate to it; we shouldn't stick to one or two as if 'master 
words', there are no 'master words', just as there are no spiritual 
authories. If you are going to buy a violin, talk to a violin 
master, but ultimately it is your gut feeling that decides whether 
to buy A or B or do something else. Spiritually, you come to learn 
how to make decisions and when there is not a single decision that 
is not made this way, then you are whole. 

So what is it to create generosity in ourselves and in others? What 
is it to 'generositize'? What is it to make conditions for the 
creation of beautiful golden fruits and the conditions for them to 
be picked up? We see that these are two things, or two processes or 
phenomena: the creation and the exchange or interaction. In 
quietness, spending time in meditation, walking by our own, not 
talking, not listening all the time to radio or TV, not reading all 
the time, but writing, sleeping, taking cat naps, dancing on one's 
own, doing yoga, perhaps to reggae music! -- all these things are 
involved in the creative solitude of coming up with impressions and 
expressions suitable for these impressions, impressions arising out 
of the silence deep within oneself. 

Then, having had the time to create, one can have the time to share 
and exchange and let inspirations and other fluids of good nature 
flow between people. And in the social realm, to be truly creative, 
involves laying the foundation for this creativity -- to 
generositize. 

Think of anyone you like, say the word, 'generositize!' several 
times, then be quiet. In that quietness, hold the image of that 
person, as general or vague or abstract as you would like, and let 
light shine and wash the person and so all becomes a radiant star 
about that person. The person quietly becomes generositzed. Then 
forget all about it, but trusting that it has an effect, but forget 
about it, leave it, ignore it, discard it, let the universe and the 
person act on its own accord and do not go pettily around looking 
for immediate benefits of your work. You are generous in doing the 
work of generositizing. Now do it with all humanity. Just that -- 
all humanity. 


















Wisdom implies that we have no egoes. When we have been brainwashed 
by our culture to brainwash each other more and more to adopt the 
ego-stance in ewhatever we do -- or the socialist stance, which is 
merely another form of egotism, this time extended to portray the 
society as self -- or any other form of egotism, such as scripture 
fundamentalism (the book is my ego) -- then we must step out of 
this brainwashing. However the instrument that is tainted by this 
brainwashing, or even formed and shaped by it, namely thought and 
the likes and dislikes of the mind, cannot therefore be trusted 
when we are about to find freedom from it. We must explore within 
ourselves, by hanging on to questions for which we deny ourselves 
the impulse to answer quickly through memorized responses, whether 
there is something that is not conditioned within us, which can 
speak to us somehow; and which can teach and train us and unprogram 
us, as it were, from all our conditioning and brainwashing. And 
this is what could heal humanity, if we found it, and let it be 
described, without fear of who said it first or anything like that 
-- if we poured on each other a new sense of culture of 
unconditioning and the undoing of brainwashing, then our brains 
could find that they are bathed in a secure intuitive state through 
this new culture. Then this culture can set us all free. This is a 
great potential now that technology can reach everyone in some way 
or another, at least in affluent regions of the world. If we could 
use this potential not to further the hypnosis of commercial 
companies with their expertise in sublimininal programming to make 
people buy their silly products but rather actually to use 
technology to ask questions in common, to give meaning to dialogue, 
to furnish the deepest questions of life with a sense of the 
mysterious and to step, thereby, completely out of the dogmas and 
forms of conditioning of humanity's consciousness stream, then all 
humanity could open up, and be healed -- fast. It is possible; I 
assert it, for I see that it is so; but please feel free to explore 
it for yourself whether it can be the case. But in order to explore 
a possibility, please do not begin by asserting an impossibility. 
It is only one thing that is impossible, and that is to give 
evidence for an impossibility.





We will proceed to present questions through the sense of a 
conversation. The thought that talks and talks is not insight; 
insight involves the space between question and another question, 
which may question the premises of the first question. This space 
changes humanity; no monologue will ever change humanity. This 
space was opened by Socrates but misused by Platon the older Platon 
got, to implement thoughts on fascistic state control of people and 
slavery and so on. In the beginning of his writing career, Platon 
had fresh memory of Socrates, it seems, and the account of the 
Symposium can bring anyone to tears -- and, above all, it does not 
end in a victorious conclusion of one or another kind. It opens up 
and yet it is only one text and one text becomes its own monotony 
unless challenged by a million other texts. Shakespeare grabs the 
notion of conversation but utilizes it mostly for purposes that are 
very narrow, namely that of entertainment and that makes it a 
falsely used power -- as far as I can see. What will change and 
what must change us is that willingness to feel afresh, 
meditatively, what to think and do in each moment. It comes from 
dialogue, also with ourselves...
/ What are computers doing to humanity?

: Computers are an extension of our thought processes, are they 
not?

/ Yes. Perhaps they can be seen that way. But the enhanced 
electronic communication, does it not lead to a breakdown of 
traditional hierarchical structures in society?

: The real life of humankind has always been network-like, rather 
than hierarchical, I feel. So we have some electronics that mimick 
that, okay, that can have an influence.

/ But it won't save us or anything?

: Obviously not! A hierarchical structure may just strengthen 
itself when exposed to a great diversity of anarchistic impulses. 
Has the sense of dialogue in humanity been enhanced after ten years 
with Internet? 

/ There are signs of both.

: So, perhaps, we see that young people utilise this form of 
communication; and they always do the new thing, the evernew thing 
of mingling sexually and so on, the feeling of great future, of 
crossing all known barriers. They have always done that and if they 
did it all the way, maturely, they could each time change the 
world. The hippies and all that -- instead it gets politics, drugs, 
and unpaid bills and too many babies without proper conditions for 
growing up safely and happily and so on. And at the same time, 
universities and states are more tradition-bound than ever, they 
hold on to their old things while the young mix every idea that can 
gathered with all other ideas.

/ Could it not be that it is 'the last vestige of the empire' and 
the hierarchical structures are bound to fall?

: See, they are bound to fall, are they not? But not because of 
technological impact because that can always be utilized in this 
and that direction. It must fall, the hierarchies must fall, 
because of the coherence of the networking alternatives.

/ You speak of anarchism.

: I abhor all -isms, pantheism and anarchism inclusive, but if we 
take away the dogma and the politics and the communism from 
anarchism and we say of pantheism -- I sense that God is immanent 
not just transcendent, but perhaps also transcendent -- then we 
have at least an exciting worldview to explore and meditate 
through. We can do something without harsh control, without 
hierarchies, that's anarchism really.

/ And you still believe in enlightenment for all?

: Still? I have hardly begun. I am just warming up, enlightenment 
is just another word of course, like love is a word, like insight 
is a word, but there is a content to how we might use these words 
that can really change everything.

/ Does this notion of change not imply that you in fact condemn the 
world?

: I criticize it. I am not sure you would call it condemn if you 
looked into what that word means. See, do you not want to criticize 
a dictatorship? They bully people and hey, even the baddest of 
democracies beat the best of dictatorships, don't they? That is 
criticism. Then you say, oh so terrible you condemn. But it is not 
condemning, it is respect for individuals and their potentials and 
we say now that there is something which is completely unleashed, 
some greatness, and it will come to be unleashed. There is no 
condemnation in that, it is a great love in that. Do you see the 
beauty of it?















You achieve everything you really want when you find out what you 
really want, and not just want in a phoney way, and take that real 
want with you in silence to listen to the intelligence of love 
whisper to you heart what to do, or it shouts to you, playfully; or 
this love dances in your limbs and you cannot do it wrong.






















































THE ANARCHISTIC LOGIC OF LOVE







Is love personal or is it, in some joyous sense of course, 
impersonal? Is love merely that genetic thing of lusting for a 
fierce power or shape that matches a genetic imprint? Is love 
carried on a sexual wave or are the sexual waves carried on a love 
that is unbounded? Can love be the borgouise thing, or, like music, 
is it the impulse of freedom?
	Is love that of a female form seeking strength, or of a 
masculine strength seeking a flower to land his genes on?
	What kind of love begins everywhere and ends nowhere?
	What kind of love is unconditioned, both with regard to genes 
and culture?


Love, affection and compassion. These and other sense of the world 
are as basic to life as dot and circle to geometry.
	Barbarious system-followers wade in "impossibilities". Love 
always sense the smooth possibilities. Love is the winner, even 
when at times a barbarious system seems self-confident.
	You must stand alone or else you have no integrity. You must 
be loyal to your heart not to a club. And be then who you are when 
you are honest to your own perception, and appropriately arrogant 
to systems. For systems are evil and you are not.
	To the one grounded in love, everything is possible. A system 
controlling work or rites or rituals is a denial of the inner 
spirit, the good spirit of the free heart.
	Love is not mere sensuality and dance in the streets, but 
that, too. It has its own intelligence and its own logic and we'll 
go into all that.
	What is most important in compassion is, I think, to realize 
that if compassion is our daily potential, then we must manifest it 
by cleansing our energies each morning (as we start the day), and 
giving immense attention to staying pure and beautiful in inner 
radiance energy throughout the day and night.
	When compassion is most needed, then we might give in and 
become self-pitying sulking people, but please don't do that!!!!
	We must do away with self-pity, and gather our harmonies by 
dance in the morning (as we begin the day), right food, great 
writing, painting and music, and play with logic and even perhaps 
mathematics as well. We must radiate what we want, compassion. And 
there is no room for self-pity in this, is there? No room for 
sulking! With immense strength, based on compassion, we become a 
danger to all systems!!!!

In our culture there is perhaps an importance given to the term 
"politeness". Another such term might be "status". And we see that 
those who crave for these things easily become mediocre in what 
they do and in what they radiate. While I prefer a dialogic tone is 
it not right to hate (in some sense) mediocrity -- which is not at 
all the same as to hate the living being behind that mediocrity, 
simply because the living being has many other potentials than 
that. Is there anything wrong about demanding excellence, at least 
of oneself?
	Is it not a part of compassion, both in ourselves and others, 
to urge excellence in all that we do? I think that when attention 
is given to why we are mediocre, then we are no longer mediocre, 
isn't it so? Let us enquire each by ourselves and listen beyond 
agreement or disagreement, if I may point it out. I do not 
represent dogma or a system of belief.
	We stand free as we do not carry out fearbased actions to 
protect a fake status or prestige. But then many institutions might 
fall, if we stopped doing that. And, considering the influence they 
have, perhaps they should fall. So the inner revolution implies an 
outer revolution as well. Compassion, which really means a passion 
to sense, care, take pity in, as well as to heal, not just one 
another but all others, is the urge of a quiet revolution. Nothing 
will be the same afterwards. We can all do it, since we are alive; 
no thought, no condition set by environment need have dominance 
over us. We can be, and we are when we realize that we are, 
sovereign, in some sense. 

When somebody, who may be representing a system or just himself, 
tells you not to consider yourself so important, how do you respond 
to that? Is not your life, your honesty, the protection of your 
integrity immensely important? Are you going to downplay the fact 
that you have an urge for excellence and righteousness at the very 
core of your heart? For each do, I think, when they listen well to 
themselves. Test it. Don't you want to play the games you play as a 
child well, to perfection, isn't that a part of the joy of it? And 
does this intention every end? Do we not want to do things so that 
they have superior quality? 
	So this is about, isn't it?, not to let oneself down.

Compassion involves seeing and feeling everything in experience 
through a pure oceanic inward meditation. Unless you wake up your 
meditation before you being "doing things", then what is the 
instrument with which you experience? 
	It is then but a clutter of past experiences, and then the 
experience is the experiencer. 
	The new, the evernew, comes in with the meditation in which 
there is no meditator, just oceanic silence. Isn't it so? Let us 
enquire together.

If you belong to an organisation, you do not belong to yourself. 
That is a simple fact. You can try to belong to both the 
organisation and yourself, but quickly you will find that you must 
choose. Unless, that is, the organisation makes absolutely no 
demands on you but then you would not speak of 'belonging' to it 
anyway.
	When you choose yourself, your own heart, your own integrity, 
you get good and pure energy. Then you are responsible, it is not a 
self-centred matter. Rather you are heart-centred instead of 
organisation-centred. 
	You acquire, in this way, transformative powers. No 
organisation can stand that. You can transform the world, quite 
simply. 
	Organisations, especially socalled "spiritual organisations", 
involve the desire for you to be compliant, to put up with things, 
to let yourself down so as not to let it down. 
	And such things make up the organisational ego, and it is a 
disaster to support it. It is barbarious, even spiritually 
criminal, to support a priesthood, a corrupt or hypocritical 
university system, a fashion society, a dance group, or a business 
which is not in every way absolutely open, transparent, dialogic, 
wholesome and intelligent. Certainly there must be dance groups, 
clothes companies, academies and so on that have integrity -- find 
these! But let us not lie to ourselves and think that we can be 
honest in the evening, exploring meditation and so on, while we go 
around trying to fool ourselves during the daytime.

Compassion is that true spirit of integrity. 
	There is spontaneous design, emerging from silence, when there 
is compassion. How do I know? How do you know? Either it is a 
conclusion or you fold in your process of dancing and writing so 
you reach ecstatic silence. 
	Silence in the mind is a very subtle, highly intelligent 
process that can also whisper, or speak quietly. Like the stars 
that you see when the artificial lights are temporarily switched 
off. You switch off thought by attention to thought and then there 
is the delievery of intuition, through your heart, to your 
conscious mind. You note it down in writing, or speak it aloud, and 
that cleanses the channels within you. You become the loadspeaker 
of quiet intuitions. And there is great love and beauty to that.

Tear the systems away. We were not born to be robots. In having 
compassion for all life, attain to immense energy and shout 'No!' 
to the exact misuse a system may tro to offend you with. Be exact, 
don't slash people or people's heart, don't lash out against the 
human being but against the machine, the enemy of the heart.
	Lash out against the systems. Walk carefully, paying 
attention, and always keep in mind that a living being is an 
infinite potential, even if there is only finiteness in his or her 
actions at the moment. It is the finiteness you question, not the 
validity of life! So the obvious necessary dictum in a true inner 
revolution is, of course: Never kill.

Compassion admits of no system. There are open rules, of course, 
such as the rule to stay pretty much at the table at the cafe that 
you have chosen, and pay for your tea or coffee or whatever. But a 
system is that thing which would tell you were to go, how long to 
stay, and what to do when you're at the table. People misuse 
computers for purposes of control and enforcement of lifeless 
systems. Learn to program so you can unprogram these computers.
	If we are simple-minded, immature and inexperienced, then let 
us be honest about it and gently deliberate to make ourselves 
subtle-minded, mature and at least relatively experienced, before 
deciding what to invest energy into.  Otherwise immense energy is 
wasted into silly pursuits. 
Ultimately, perhaps, we work for all, and in particular we work for 
the children of the future, the children of the world. And in some 
sense we all have the children aspect within ourselves alive. 
Thinking about this makes one think about truth. I would go as far 
as to say that those who do not work for all the children of the 
world do not have any contact with themselves, with nature, with 
anything. 
	Every piece of information, every symbol, that you accumulate, 
have an effect on the luck you have. For the fact that you can play 
or unfold the information later makes an impact on you already now. 
So the way to rid yourself from bad influence of the past is to 
transform it.
	Only the man who is free fromsystems has the full power of 
intuition. You can try to escape from this fact but the sense of 
the importance of being free from systems, I think, will always 
come back to us, at regular or irregular intervals, until we all 
face up to it and live in pure undiluted anarchistic love and 
responsibility fully and irreversibly. Then we will always be in 
renewal and it'll be a great joy. We can have it already now, for 
fortunately it is but ourselves who compell us to go on with a 
system. At least, that is, if we live in a fairly democratic region 
of the world. This is perhaps an apolitical (non-political) 
approach, except so as to work for the sovereignity of all 
individuals beyond any concept of country, state, company, 
organisation or system.

When the oceanic feeling is near, you always have horizons, and it 
shows itself as a golden glow deep within your eyes. Then love can 
also be intercourse, and also relationship, of course.
	The views of love are not the energy of love, of course. Love 
is that which renews. If you have love, you are not greedy but 
generous, yet sharp against those who merely enforce a system on 
others. That is the key, I feel. To say: I love life! I love you as 
a human being, but then I strongly object towards the fatigue of 
your system. Mathematical or otherwise, a system is finite but life 
is, in contrast, absolutely unbounded and creative, obviously. In 
realizing the unboundedness, there are the playful confinements of 
energy as marks on paper, as dance in a room, as talk on a stage, 
and so on, but its care is transcendent, translucent, open.
	The openness that is an ideal or idolization, however noble it 
may seem, is not the truly worthwhile openness of each  thought in 
your own mind to yourself so that you know yourself, in each moment 
anew. With such knowing yourself in each moment anew you will find 
that you know the thoughts of others and that may not be anice 
things always, unless they purify themselves, something you cannot 
just demand. You can, however, anarchistically maintain your own 
joy, clarity and beauty of mind, and radiate attention constantly, 
and something in terms of unexpected miracles, synchronicities and 
the joy of holiness will always happen around you and in the houses 
and so on where you are. This is a real fact, surrounding the 
enlightened or awakened individual, not quasi-"enlightened" 
according to the dogma of a tradition, a system, or a belief-set as 
to reincarnation, but it belongs to, or happen to, one who is a 
light to himself or herself. Without any limits, this light is its 
own goodness and care, and it heals all that it touches. And it is 
also a danger to the falseness of society. 
	Some day this simple sense of infinity will be there, not just 
available to all, but actualized in all. Until then, before as 
after, the maintenance of insight requires its constant, daily 
renewal. But then we must not accumulate emotional bitterness nor 
anything like it. When we understand that people don't know what 
they're doing, don't even know themselves or what they're thinking, 
then we call them mediocre but we do not get bitter for their 
actions. They will come along to insight, perhaps or certainly, as 
life moves on.
	Love creates an orgasm in each step. Love evokes joy, joy not 
only in the head but in the genitals, in the hands, feet, hips and 
so on. Did you know all the world can be felt as a vibration in 
joy? That is, at least, when there is no violence. Then the oceans, 
the trees, the jumping deers and the girls sitting beside you all 
partake in the very same meditation.
	Gracefully, even the slightest touch is then ecstasy. This 
ecstasy is also godhood. No bearded angel can tell you this. This 
is the soft porn of insight, drinking love in each second, coming 
up always refreshed.
	Joy creates a change-about in consciousness. The girl's limbs 
respond to your touch, you kiss her orchid, there is the spasm of 
delight which is god in man.
	Anybody who has an urgency, an appetite, for genuine insight 
will fearlessly find those who live every day in generating such 
insight. They will come and be alive together, have orgasms 
together, and they will not condemn each other. 
	Open up the dance in your limbs. That is the strength you need 
to handle society, so it does not merely handle you. You enact the 
generosity of radiating compassion, and draw nourishment and 
strength from teachings like this. As sex and in other ways, you 
come together with another who is doing the same. You kiss, you 
fall upwards, you mingle the energies and swing the societies. 
Societies might call you 'barbars' for you are anarchistic and have 
love and the logic of love is pulsating in everything you do and 
say. But these societies know only the rotten order of control, for 
they are rule-based and so they really are just factors of chaos, 
except for a little bit of lucky wellfare here and there; and of 
course free individuals with compassion would want to take care of 
the sick and elderly in a decent manner; would want to see that 
roads are okay and that electricity and water supplies flow, and so 
on. But we do not need the rottenness of these ugly quasi-
civilisations to do this, with all their power-play and insane 
views of health and happiness.
	Compassion involves unlimited order. Come, come together and 
the spasms of delight shall shake the foundations of society. Your 
orgasms will shake the hypocrisy out of humanity and dissolve it 
forever. This is our task and it is an immense one so we better get 
going with our own meditations and get deep in them, rather than 
wasting time with merely talking about "shift of worldviews" or 
getting the "horoscope" mapped in hunt for a better sex partner or 
more money or whatever. Those who are not self-centered nor 
politically worried but who go all the way to the pure flow of the 
spirit are the winners, the conquerors, the foundation-layers of a 
totally new civilisation, one with the heart intact, pulsating and 
joyous. They will be able to unfold more of the logic of the love 
in anarchism each day. They will make another type of schools, or 
gardens of learning; they will not enforce the false dogmas of 
academic institutions, but bring out the best in science and in 
open-mindedness. They will not gather in greedy, powerhungry 
monsterous "companies" but rather do things informally and ask what 
each can give rather than try to get, get, get, and be so cunning 
that the light is lost. 
	People who are light to themselves do not, I think, hide in a 
closed partnership, that would be yet another form of hypocrisy 
again. You open up, recreate the lost waves of love and peace, and 
care for each other's flesh so it pulsates and glow and renews 
while living inspired lives without an end. This has no limits.
	You two, or however many you are then, are in contrast, for 
each of you are wonderfully similar in yourselves. And the contrast 
recreates the poles of a battery of love, so that sparks of heart 
and fluid light emanates and resurges always between you and in 
evernew pathways, as your attention expands beyond itself 
creatively all the time. The world, verily, is between you. And 
nothing shall be the same.
	Dare to dance. Don't have a day without it. Dance is the 
essence of health, learning and insight. It shows how lack of 
control, freedom from hierarchy, is the jubilation of orgasm, is 
wholesome and harmonious, yet intensely unpleasant for the ego-
freaks. Remember that even the worst of egoes have a potential to 
dismantale their own selfcentredness, and so do not lead anyone 
into death.
	Life will always reign.
	When you work from compassion and its intelligence, life 
renews in you in freedom from every sort of limit, including 
counting. You do not count freedom. Freedom is flow.

Who is beautiful? Do you think that if you saw God as God really 
is, God, the source of all the real and genuine beauty, love and 
goodness, you would get something that you would instantly 
characterise as beautiful? Only if you have no ideals. Without 
ideals you will see authentically, respond to it, even sexually. 
And this is a copulating creation.
	New ecstasy in each moment is given to one who has no ideals, 
no corruption of any goal, but who lives in affectionate renewed 
touch with reality in each instant.
	So what is beautiful? However you look by nature, don't clog 
it by false play, overeating, hypocrisy, goalmindedness, self-
centeredness. Be alive. Write and give talks, when you're 
enlightened. Write and experience relationship. Have sex and joy. 
Watch the seeds of desires grow and change, and learn to create 
playfulness and grace in every stiff point in your mind.

You rule your life when you dissolve your will and listen instead 
to the whispers of your heart in silence and adopt to these 
whispers as your determination, most playfully, not craving respect 
but simply respecting this playful and most humorous and sexual 
process.
	If you write, connect to somebody who reads. If you talk, 
connect to somebody who listens. If you radiate health, connect to 
somebody who drinks in your looks. If you are playful, connect to 
smebody who responds to that playfulness and encourges it to deepen 
and take new and exhillerating pathways of joy. Will is an illusion 
and those who merely seek to enforce their will are just enforcing 
their stupidity. Anarchism means to love. 
	Anarachism means to explode the tyranny of any saviour, and be 
yourself holistically. It means to be free from thought-control, 
and live by the dance of intuitive coherence and its 
synchronicities. It has no violence, supports no system, enrolls in 
no military, does not make of oneself an "agent" of a hypocritical 
thing, and has no indulgence at all in any form of racism 
whatsoever.
	Whatever you do, do it deeply, strongly, with quality, and in 
great quantities, perhaps. Quantities of quality! Not waiting to be 
"discovered", you let your own inner light guide you, and you do 
not regret if a university or a company or a newspaper or something 
else does not back you; for you have the authority of the quiet, 
compassionate heart, so your works have integrity and they will 
live, whereas those systems will whither, especially if they turn 
you down. That is a quiet law of life and it is inescapable. What 
has love and its beauty will endure. 
	What others pay attention to is their business. You will find 
that which is absolutely independent of recognition by mums, dads, 
priests, gurus, friends and states. In standing alone, radiating 
truth, sensing joy in life, namelessly, you will open up to what 
sex really is. For the first time, perhaps; what was before was 
performance, sports. Then you can form amazing relationships, for 
you do not attempt to "handle" life, such as the cunning ones do, 
but rather life is dancing and you are this life, not cutting off.
	In having this loving logic of anarhcism others who are tuned 
to that mind-state will come along and you will enjoy each other 
and there will be much love. And this is not the self-indulgance of 
a "pair" or a "group", but rather that open-mindedness taken a step 
further.
	You as man will know that penetration of the woman is a 
reconnection of substance as well as essence, and this is a 
wonderful point of creation, a flow involving goodness and 
innocence, to be done as much as possible between free people who 
like each other, and without child-making as any necessity at all, 
of course. What has virtue, virginal virtue, is the orgasm based on 
compassion; not closing oneself of for the sake of some dark 
tradition.
	Combine yourself then so as to nurture the joys of each of 
your cells, of every organ, not just the physical organs, but your 
entire spiritual being, which ultimately has no end. You want it 
and you can get it. You have shamelessness and pulsating joy, an 
awe of the meditation inside and between the legs as well as inside 
and between the ears, and that is how the right others will feel 
when they watch you or are near you. It is exploding joy.
	Freedom is not to fulfill the criteria of others, not even 
your ballet teacher. You know that, right? Freedom requires immense 
energy, that of truth not thought. Do you see the difference?
	We all know of people, fortunately or unfortunately, who has 
glittering eyes and great passion but then switch, become borgouis, 
and they let not just you down, but themselves. If you tell them 
this in a careless tone they might turn you, the representant of 
life, into a temporary 'persona non grata' but really it means that 
they themselves have said good-bye to life. You win, and they 
wither.  They wither not because you want them to wither, of 
course!, but because they do not respect life anymore. With luck, 
something will happen to them so that they become interested in 
life, not just status or prestige, again. But can anyone force them 
to do that? Obviously not.
	Compassion bears no lies except as jokes. Those who 
hypocritically associate with "right" people will get real sex only 
if they open up to truth again. And the option of opening up is 
now, in each moment.
	You can do it, you can open anywhere, at least briefly. You 
must want the magic to come out of this moment, and let the dance 
wave of all inner awareness manifest. In this, let us not say, 
"tomorrow", don't let time wait, but come on to time, now.
	You ask, maybe, "why?" And the why is a shock, it has no 
answer, you are questioning the habit of nonloving, of computerized 
behaviour. And in the question there is freedom, if only the 
question is listened to, attended to.
	You ask "why?" and since the ego has no answer, then, in that 
moment, the jewel of godhood manifests.
	You have the masculine power of touching another with sincere 
inner force and the feminine power of evoking the masculine to 
touch your inner organ of truth and lust. Your behaviour together 
is dance, and in being physically apart you still dance mentally 
together. As sex creates telempathy, or the radiating of empathy in 
a telepathic sense, your physical body is as if also within her or 
his awareness, and then wholeness is boundless. Even in walking 
down the street, you are as if copulating the world. This is 
godhood. There is no separation of God and sex. 
	It shows the staleness of traditional religions that they even 
begun separating God and sex.
	Your body is the universe.  The universe pulsates in orgasms 
as you pulsate in orgasms. In your silence the holiest of holy 
enacts itself. No socalled "spiritual hierarchy" can compete with 
the anarchy of orgasm and its logic, the sovereignity of the 
sexual, individualistic, playful outlook and insight into all life 
processes.
	An anarchist must ask: can I myself renew and accept that 
those who are not pantheists, that those who are bound by the false 
time of a false system die? Of course you can evoke you potential 
to heal, to suggest a pathway out from their hellish hierarchy to 
your paradisic anarchy. They will then perhaps come, perhaps not; 
and if not, they might die on their own accounts of their false 
actions, and can one accept this? Can you let those who say goodbye 
to life say it, and not say it yourself to your own life? Can you 
refuse to let the others pull you down to their rotten core? Can 
you stay grounded as an ever-renewing tree despite the seasons of 
others? This is the harsh but necessary question, that there must 
be somebody left to care for life, to care for the coming 
generations. Let them go if that is what they think they must, but 
do not go yourself, but stay tuned to life, stay dancing, stay 
rejoicing in breathing, pulsating, rhythm, tasting, eating, 
swallowing the joys of this wonderful planet. But you will not be 
unnecessarily harsh, right?
	A contemporary note. Before the Internet, anarchy mean having 
incredible faith int he validity of one's own papers, despite the 
brute use of money by those in power (when they decided to publish 
everything else). With the Internet, you can stand by your products 
in sincere generosity and offer the flow to the world, in silent 
compassion.  This is a new factor in human consciousness and let's 
affirm that it will never vanish, but that unfiltered, free 
sharing, also of sexuality in the nonviolent, nonraping sense 
between consenting adults, and of absolutely free religious 
thoughts, of thoughts transgressing the stagnation of the 
university systems, and so on, -- let us affirm that such 
intellectual and sensual generosity will always be an option.
	Some might say to you, if you explore all these things, that 
you should lower oneself down, accept socialistic money as it were, 
wellfare or a shit job, or something like that. But they say it to 
you perhaps only because they try to convince themselves that their 
own shitty lifestyle is correct, and it has nothing at all to do 
with you. You have excellence if you let go of the soddy way to get 
money. And with compassion, it is possible to ask for gifts from 
those who have resources, and get it, so your body can renew and 
your house can be maintained, that you can travel and write and 
have fun as well as do good works and good talks.
	The right way to get any resources at all is to get it as gift 
to you as a person, a process, as someone who has integrity in 
bringing life and teaching together. You get it by sending out a 
general request while being in general generous, and let 
particulars dance without you concentrating on any one of them. I 
have literally done exactly this when I needed to upheld my writing 
and work in Manhattan, at a time when I had no apartement, no job, 
and no money left; not even a credit card or a working license. Of 
course, it worked.

A simple anarchist, with the intelligence of compassion, can 
nonviolently destroy an entire university system, or any other 
system for that matter. It requires an arrow of logical insight 
that touches the anchor point in the system. It falls and quietly 
or noisely the rest of the system falls, before anyone (except you 
and your friends) know what happened.
	It is impossible to buy off an anarchist. He or she won't be 
flattened by lies, for the insightful penetration is too deep and 
too strong. 
	Idiots march together, idiots march to a leaer, idiots become 
leaders, idiots like symmetries of compulsory order, and idiots 
throw geniuses out of their sect. "For idiots only": This ought to 
be the sign over the entrance-door of every hierarchical 
organisation. The top leader is the bottom idiot.
	Fanatism is not based on a relationship to facts, but on 
taking ideas more seriously than perception. If the world is 
rotten,cold, indifferent -- the manmade part of it, that is -- then 
one who is not fully willing to verbally, at least, express that 
fact and act on it with integrity is fanatical, is corrupt, is a 
hypocrite. Compassion involves being in touch with reality and with 
life, rather than defending rottenness in the name of humility. If 
it is arrogant to state the fact, so be it. Do not shroud falseness 
in a veil woven of politeness. Do not drink herbal tea with 
dictators hoping to to convert them to democracy. The cunning ones 
must get no energy at all from you. Look away from their 
newspapers, do not watch their TV channels, do not partake in 
gossip feeding their egoes. 
	The anarchist does not live for effects, but for the content 
of this moment's meditative process. The whole notion of 
"anarchism" is freedom from bondage with regard to effects, 
realized, actualized, not as the practising of an idea, nor as the 
categorisation of oneself according to a label, going around and 
with ugly pride say, "I am an anarchist". It has nothing to do with 
that at all.  It is about the abomination of self, and not with 
glorification of petty poets like Nietzsche.
	Some speak of how little time they have, how succesful they 
are, and give ghastly obnoxious comments on how deep their 
affection is for you or anyone else who stand outside of their 
system and range of control, and you are, of course, not flattered. 
You see through it, not impolitely, but directly. With gentleness 
but clarity, you point out that they lead false lives.
	

When you have pain, give attention. If the pain is such that you 
get more of it when you give attention to it, give even more 
attention. 
	To increase attention then, perhaps after a hot bath, by 
yourself, quietly lift a finger three times then wait then three 
then wait. In each lifting, move attention. It moves and heals, 
moves and heals. As it moves more and more and healing happens 
deeper and deeper, increase the interval. Leave then all 
repetitions, sit in silence. If you have a pen and like to write, 
write what comes to mind of positive remarks to yourself about 
something with wisdom.
	Then sit in silence. Let all violence within vanish. Let truth 
be love inside. Let the distinction inner - outer even vanish in 
your quietude, peace and eventually, perahsp, with luck, also 
bliss, joy and compassion.	
	When you are utterly free from violence within, you know what 
love is. And you have stopped complaining, craving and recklessly 
wishing for support or proof of love from the world or even just a 
single other. Then you care for yourself holistically. Like an 
owen, your generosity radiates.	
	As generosity radiates, out and out and out, you enhance your 
awareness that all life is one. You do not even eat chicken then, 
if that involves participation in felt violence for them. It is not 
fanatical, you simply love and pity too much. You can tell a 
professor who is corrupt to shut up but you don't even kill an 
insect.

When you are confused, when you have read a little bit here and 
there about attention and so on -- 'presensing', God knows what -- 
then if you set up your own little magazine, company, club, school 
to teach it, you teach confusion. You add to the problems. You 
pretense of clarity is just a further pollution.
	To be clear, you must meditate. To meditate, the attention of 
every kind must be given, in movements. Each aspect of the 
confusion is present in any modality, touch, sound, rhythm and so 
on. Each has its own form of attention. Don't be attached to any 
one in particular. When the mind is whole and attention is vast, 
then attention heals or 'makes whole' as a matter of spontaneous 
movement. When the mind is cluttered, then we may say 'healing' and 
so on to remind ourselves of the capacity of attention to do just 
so. When we spend time enough in silence, we renew.
	Pain is not just physical but, in many cases at least, if not 
in all cases, a manifestation of subtle thought patterns. In the 
immediacy of flowing attention, the thought patterns are abstractly 
(as it were) moved, reorganized, and directly out of the perfume of 
attention, pain dissolves.
	As pain dissolves, the golden sphere of full attention re-
emanates around the body. It expands and you are a sun to humanity. 
You do not need physical travel to do this; you do not need a 
physical sex partner to do this; you do not need money to do this; 
and if you do it, then the effortless inner love power emanating 
from you will call on whatever you require. Do what is effortless 
from where you are standing, and which is relevant to where you are 
going. And where you are going is where there is dancing wholeness 
in all areas of life.
	Is not pain a form of clash inside, diverting attention from 
itself? And so unless this is understood, then one acts in a 
stupid, imprecise manner, causing unnecessary damage.
	When one knows the unnecessity of pain, the much more 
intelligent power of compassion comes. This is the ending of 
violence.

Before we look to the illusion of mathematics, the idiocy of fixing 
thought into a system, let us feel a breeze of its occasional 
greatness and subtle order.
	There we see that the future is a potential in change. That 
change is a reflection of symmetries and contrasts, and the 
unfoldment of a process a perspective, in change, on change. 
	So by attention, limited to no place, you can deepdive into 
any place. And in deepdiving, be careful, and do come back to that 
marvellous temple that the body is. Creation emanates through an 
interplay of intelligences of a subtle order, in which all is 
meditating, pulsating, breathing on and through one another 
indefinitely and with inexhaustible energies, beyond any limited 
conception of time.
	Then see the danger of making a habit out of any set of 
perceptions. See the danger of erecting axioms, a fundament, a 
platou. See the danger of having unalterable rules. See the pompous 
pretense in speaking of 'proof' concerning what is really just an 
argument from premises, and a fallible argument as well. See the 
commonplace mistake of regarding anything spit out by these rules 
as necessarily true in any way.

Some day human beings will probably leave Earth, perhaps out of a 
necessity related to conditions on Earth, to changes in the Earth's 
Sun, or just as an urge to get to somewhere else in the vast 
Universe, rather like a young woman who wishes to leave the 
parent's nest and open up.
	When this happens, then most likely it will involve technology 
of some kind that requires a pretty fierce insight into process of 
matter and reality. Science fiction writers indulge in the term 
"hypertravel", in which, by coherencies in which distance is not an 
issue, a rather instant though dangerous transmission could occur.
	Let us hope that technology of such a fruitful, even perhaps 
necessary kind, can be made without us first messing up life here. 
This, I guess, stated as positively as possible, we must all pray 
for. 
	I can see that, therefore, fundamental physics as a pursuit 
can, one day, be intensely fruitful, even vital. As I've pointed 
out (see Wintuition:Net:Pro periodical and Yoga6d:Com periodical 
2003/4), fundamental physics is an impulse that is so wrought with 
dangers that the mature individual would restrain that impulse in 
himself or herself. For just as an apparently innocent equation on 
energy, such as the wellknown one by Einstein, can become an 
instrument of global destruction half a century after its 
publication, so can new developments in fundamental physics yield 
even greater potential terrors, if possible.
	Meanwhile, the planet works, sort of. I suggest we give 
ourselves the leisure to step out of our little genes. Let us give 
ourselves freedom from all strife except the purely practical one, 
and each day devote time to spiritual revelation through 
openhearted meditation without a master.

By 'freedom from philosophy' I do not mean freedom from what the 
word 'philosophy' means in its ethymological sense, namely 'love of 
sophia', or 'love of wisdom or the goddess of wisdom'. Rather, of 
course, I wish to indicate the importance of being free from any 
systematic approach to philosophy, and in particular, any 
philosophical system, ideology or ideosyncracy.

Some time ago, I thought that by exploring worldviews, through 
science and philosophy, much in the world would be changed, and 
people would be heightened in their awareness of enlightenment 
potentials. A philosophical system can be switched with another, 
and people may spend tremendous energy in fighting one and building 
up a new. And now I ask: Is it really worth the while? Does it go 
to the core? Will a switch from say, a local deterministic 
worldview to a nonlocal and open worldview do away with the ego? 
Obviously not! For the ego is a much more subtle matter and it 
requires a great deal of exploration and self-insight to maintain 
that freedom in a mature sense.
	Then, those of a different inclination will inevitably object 
along these lines: But surely it is better than nothing to swap a 
stagnant worldview preventing enquiring, preventing even the idea 
of enlightenment from appearing rational, to a different, more open 
worldview. Say, for instance, in a classroom of pupils. If they get 
a sense of potentials for inner freedom they will be encouraged to 
explore and so on.
	And I wonder, perhaps there is no progression, step by step, 
to enlightenment. Okay, so you're an atheist, then what? WIll not 
the hole in the ego that a sudden penetrating meditation gives be 
at least as powerful in this context as the hole made in the ego of 
one who has a more foggy and open worldview? Is the priest, 
preaching his illusions, and that of his organisation, any closer 
to enlightenment than a scientist who believes that experiments on 
rats show all there is to say about the world? Do we get closer to 
enlightenment by going from the philosophical system of Aristotle 
to the philosophical system of Shankara or Spinoza?
	I know of eminent thinkers who have spent considerable time 
together with people who has devoted themselves to meditation. Did 
the meditation of these people flow into these thinkers, somehow? 
Surely the thinkers thought new thoughts but did the playfulness 
and deep-attentiveness as if fly into them for that reason? 
According to legends, the mere presence of an enlightened one will 
change others. But if a self-centered person is in a forest, will 
the forest enlighten this person? Obviously not. Just as there is a 
legend about the disciples of the Buddha engaged in hefty quarrel, 
not letting the Buddha even have a word when he came around to 
listen to them!
	So a system may give detailed information on the types of 
feelings, thoughts, etc, that characterize freedom or awakening. 
Will that systematic philosophy set even a single person free?
	Is it not the so that, metaphorically speaking, there are 
prisons of quasi- or near-enlightenment outside one another, and 
that by going from one to another there is still the confinement of 
the ego and no freedom? So does it matter to replace one system of 
philosophy by another? Is it not the question of getting out of 
conclusion and even hidden dogma altogether?
	If you really love truth or wisdom, then that love is an 
energy unconfinable to the cage of a system.

The in-betweenness is God, isn't it? Every man lusts for the in-
betweenness of female legs. Every discussion partner wants the in-
betweenness of dialogue to arise. A human society without in-
betweenness is a machine. Just as certainly, a logic without in-
betweenness is dull, a tautology, incapable of reflecting the 
genius, incapable of representing deep change.
	Dance occurs in between the poles erected as markers for time 
and space, location and destiny. Freedom lives in being unbounded 
in feeling and thereby also in perception and so also in action, 
unbounded from all the points of either-or-ness as of a stagnant 
discipline.
	The reason, I guess, one should not drink alcohol regularly is 
that one must not loose memory of the important nuances of in-
betweenness that makes dialogue a high-powered energy thing.
	If you are in love with somebody, what is it except the in-
betweenness you get an energy kick from? Do you love the account 
number? Do you love the waist-line? Or is it the dance of in-
betweenness that awaken you to yourself?
	If you are absolutely awakened to your own in-betweenness, and 
you meet somebody else who is absolutely awakened to her or his in-
betweenness, then there is immortal, indestructible love. Which 
means that if everyone awakens, then everyone is in love with every 
onelse. Okay, that must mean that marriage and child-making and so 
on cannot be determined only by love, because there is just too 
much love around. And it is part of awakening not to be jealous of 
all that, but support the mutuality and in-betweenness of love.
	When you have love, you see the truth of something, even the 
truth in the falseness. So in your perception, there is beauty. And 
so you experience a world of beauty being intensely  aware of all 
that is going on without justifying corruption.
	When you look closey as to that which pass as "proofs" in the 
present culture of academic logic, you may find that much of it 
doesn't hold up. Take, for instance, the socalled "reductio ad 
absurdum" proofs. We start with an assumption that we think is 
wrong, bring forward an absurdity, and go back and conclude that 
the assumption is proved wrong. What is wrong with that? That which 
may be wrong with that is exactly the same kind of thing as when as 
scientist tries to apply Karl Popper's notion of "falsification". 
Say, you wish to test a theory. So you deduce an implication, and 
go to the laboratory, and you find that the research brings up a 
negative result. Any sane, decent scientist can tell you that it 
takes a lot more to do anything near of a "falsification" of a 
theory. Because there may be any number of mistakes in the 
background web of assumptions, as well as in the line from theory 
to experiment. In academic logic as it has been practised in the 
twentieth century, you often find that the works are 
unquestioningly arguing that they know exactly where it went wrong, 
when they get an absurdity.
	Examples may be misleading but if you have ever had a fractal 
pattern on a computer screen, generated by a program online, so you 
may magnify any part of it indefinitely, you have a sort of example 
of this. Suppose your assumption is, "if I magnify the fractal 
pattern I will see new, and not quite similar, patterns, however 
much I enlarge." So you pick a part of the factal and magnify. Then 
you might or might not get a new pattern. You have not "falsified" 
your assumption if you don't get it. If the program is correctly 
made, and if you use it correctly, then you may have magnified a 
non-border path of the fractal. It is only in being precise in 
where you look that you get a "verification".
	However, if you are a person with plenty of reading behind 
you, then you may know of typical pathways in thinking about these 
issues. You do not do the "lateral thinking" that Edward de Bono 
talks about, then, unless you consciously take the stand of the 
outsider, questioning everything.
	Krishnamurti had the genius to take again and again the 
"outsider" stand, but people within his organisation, like former 
Brockwood head Scott Forbes, started sometimes to act like 
"insiders". Only the fool is an insider.
	As in the case of the fractal, people have come to disregard a 
vast range of naturally occuring phenomena like telepathy for a 
long time, simply because they didn't get it to work in their crude 
and off-the-point initial experiments.
	Intelligence is a question of being suddenly precise, as a 
matter of perception that is not merely the dictate of the past and 
its systems, experiences, failures, successes and loyality 
concepts. You must step outside of the groove of a particular 
system of logic to do right to the inner order or analogy or 
"logos" of the situation, which is its logic proper. Each question 
ultimately has its own logic.
	I will, for once, give a rather morbid example. A close friend 
of mine had an argument with me in a car one night, in which he 
said, along with his buddhist friends, that "we're all mortal", and 
that this is something one must remember all the time, and so on. I 
didn't like his tone and I offered the to him rather preposterous 
view that "that is an assumption, even a prejudice". He is 
generalizing from other's morbidity, in the past, to his own in the 
future. This generalization cannot be verified. But worse, of 
course, he is emphasizing it, thinking it would clarify his rather 
confused life at the time if he kept on thinking about it. The 
example is morbidfor not only did he refrain from answering my 
calls after that, but half a year later he died in a street 
accident on a holiday with his buddhistic girlfriend.
	So a person must take responsibility for the kind of life he 
is generating through his assumptions, perceptions, logic, 
compassion and his language. Those who emphasize morbidity a great 
deal may wither away more quickly, perhaps in anticipation, perhaps 
in affirmation. I think greatness involves living life profoundly, 
and not be so selfcentered that the on-off of birth vs death is 
one's constant concern.
	Logic is also a question of polarities, of logic. Sharp use of 
logic dcan slash another's sloppy use of logic, but then somebody 
must be there to read both and do so objectively, dispassionately, 
and in perceptiveness of the background web of assumptions called 
on by both.
	Does this make any sense to you? Do you have the compassion of 
wakefulness to abide by clear thinking for its own sake?
	I think that the world, for many, is a structure of 
disappointment, guilt, shame, revenge, and so on. I wish to say 
that there is only one contrast to this, and that is infinite self-
insight.

I love that which has no opposites? No matter how we might feel in 
drugged states, then it is the life feeling we wake up with that we 
can profoundly explore and radically transform by the attention 
that is called 'meditation'. Those who go to a psychologist are 
obviously not artists. An artist is obviously one who has no need 
for someone to console his or her hurts, give a pill, become cold, 
attempt "normality" and other confusions. An artist basing his or 
her artworks on a life dullened by a psychologist, priest or guru 
is a fake, and ought to explore masterless meditation. Without a 
technique, life, daily life, can become a fearless ebb and flow of 
meditation.
	Those who live by assumptions are fakes, no matter what they 
do. Somebody who thinks that the world is more or less "rational", 
is wasting his or her life into supporting it or perhaps modifying 
it.
	What is not a waste? Love. But then people confine love 
perhaps into a belief,k in God or Jesus or Mohammad, or into the 
companionship with another. Really, the core of a belief is cold 
indifference to life.
	In enquiring meditatively into love, as with any other 
question, we can solve all problems, open up and face all 
challenges.
	And then there is an art of negation. We must not wait with 
solving the last of our confusions until we have got "recognition", 
"marriage", "confirmation", "status", whether through education or 
in some other manner.
	And since life is something wholly other than movies and 
cartoons, the language or logic of life and exploration into love, 
the language of our endavour of insight, must be based not on 
movies, cartoons or on mere "manners of talking". For we have a 
life to live, and to live it fully, sensing its infinity, we need a 
certain dynamic, living, warmhearted precision, abiding in the 
moment, through its tranquility and spontaneous expression of the 
heart. Then we are poets, and artists, whether or not we paint 
pictures or make verses. Don't accept it, enquire into it.
	When our feelings are clogged so the logic of the mind will 
suffer. Then intense quietness is required. Attention emphasises 
healing, the thinker moves out of its monotonies, and attention 
goes in circles, spirals, evolutions. You should not, perhaps, act 
aggressively towards anyone "of the system" as long as you struggle 
with yourself, and when you have love, you have nonaggressive 
means: speaking precisely, nonaggressively, is enough. For even one 
true sentence, spoken by one who lives in truth, can change the 
world.
	Thought is part of the world, but the world is bigger than 
thought. Truth is that field of relationship, or the lack thereof, 
between thought and the world, and this truth is always self-
reflective. For thought is part of the world so the dance of 
relationship between thought and the world is also part of the 
world. Then truth exists as part of the world, the dynamic field of 
interconnectedness.

Is sex not based when all the world is loved, for you have 
penetrated your own pains and their grounds with your meditative 
attention? So sex is about meditation, and, as I pointed out in my 
first little book(let), "Sex, meditation and physics", there is 
nothing like sex when it is founded on an insight into the nonlocal 
interconnectedness of all reality. Then sex is like a ballet of the 
spirits, whether it happens in couples or not. With the reality of 
telempathy, even in self-sex, you can partake in a world of sex and 
orgasms, as you meditate and have sex with yourself. 
	The presence of another individual in this, beyond questions 
of hetero, homo, bi, iso, or pan-phili (iso- meaning the same), 
involves such an intense shared joy that it is also a danger. For 
if the other person, unlike you yourself, perhaps, have not come to 
live in such ecstasies by himself or herself, then what will be 
generated except almost infinite attachment? And attachment is 
within the field of the known. So if you come to be a tantric 
expert, then you live in daily sexual energy ecstasies beyond 
technique or partner, and then you must take care also not to scorn 
anybody with unbearably joyous sex, the type of joy that maybe they 
do not recover from even after half a century with other partners. 
Realistically, the ultimate of sexual joys need be shared with 
enlightened partners, basically of the complementary gender (not 
emphasizing the point, since both masculine and feminine roles can 
be played and enjoyed by every flexible ego).














































THE HOPE FOR PANTHEISM






Chapter 1



/ You have entitled these discussions 'The hope for pantheism'. 
Could you briefly explain what you mean by this?

: Yes. There are certain features of atheism that cause people to 
feel inclined towards it. It promises a certain relief from dogma 
and stagnated viewpoints. However, atheism -- the denial of godhood 
in our reality -- leads to no deep sense of meaning. For those who 
seek both an end to dogma and also a sense of a higher guidance, of 
a not quite defined sort, pantheism offers hope. This is to put it 
very simply. It really deserves a whole book, at least.

/ But to get started, what do you mean by pantheism?

: First of all, I see pantheism as points of views that are loosely 
connected, perspectives that each stand by themselves or by your 
own individual understanding. Any kind of -ism may be a limitation. 
However, pantheism is not at present associated with any strict set 
of dogma. It suggests something religious, the 'theism' part; and 
it suggests that this has something to do with everything or all, 
the initial, 'pan' part. Any dictionary would tell you this.

/ Why is there a hope associated with this?

: Originally, in many religious texts, talk of God means talk of 
the infinite or indefinite, that which is beyond image and thought, 
that which goes beyond our egos entirely. The mysterious, the 
unknown; which nevertheless can be sensed, somehow. Then, in 
various religions, people, icons, names and even places and 
institutions were asserted to have a particular affinity to 
godhood, to God. Pantheism is a much more promising approach, for 
it is free from the elitism associated with these dogmatic forms. 
It also seems to be more realistic, both scientifically and 
intuitively -- and of course, this is something we must look 
carefully into. If it is merely anti-elitist, or anti-this or anti-
that, then it is not a viable position in itself. But pantheism is 
more an approach to life as a mysterious, great whole, a whole in 
which we are in a neverending quest. But it is also a whole in 
which we can find fulfillment, fulfillment of constantly new kinds. 
Pantheism suggests very creative living, it suggests an exploration 
of meditation and intuition but also of science and psychology, of 
technology and literature; it suggests that there can be something 
godlike in our relationships as well. And anyone who comes from a 
religious background will be aware of statements of this sort in 
every religion. So everyone will find something here.

/ Why hasn't pantheism caught on by itself, then, before now?

: Would you prefer a God you have a clearcut name for, and a 
clearcut image of, or would you prefer a God who is a mystery? Or 
none at all? If you have a definite image of God, or declare that 
you do not believe in the existence of any kind of God or Allah or 
Samadhi or Brahman or Jahve or whatever, then you have a certainty, 
there is the question of trust, of getting something definite -- 
like being married. Pantheism, or pan-en-theism, panentheism 
meaning God-in-all, is much more of a blur, initially. So it is 
harder to understand. It is tougher to live with a lot of undefined 
relationships, it appears. And yet, when we accustom ourselves to 
it, it turns out that this works even better.

/ But in the way in which you present pantheism, it would seem that 
the natural transgression would be from a particular religion to 
pantheism, rather than through atheism?

: It could be that way. But when people have spent a lot of energy, 
perhaps also blood and tears, in a particular direction and it 
somehow doesn't seem to work out, then is it really so strange that 
we get a period with the opposite kind of view? The tendency is to 
make up for the years of suppression with the possibility that most 
of their religion may be based on illusions.

/ So after a religion, atheism may seem promising...

: Yes. And then atheism, of course, has its own set of very strong 
problems. But these problems are different. It is no longer a 
question of how close one is to belief, how righteous one is. 
Rather, the question is whether the kinds of pleasures and 
securities offered to others are also offered to oneself, and what 
one can do to get more of it, and so on. It is really a political 
development. Atheism leads to political engagement. Then, when all 
this gets profoundly boring -- but there are a lot of possible 
pathways here, and so it takes more time to get bored with it! -- 
when it finally gets boring, pantheism is an option. It is the 
third state. 

/ The first state being religion of a definite kind, the second 
state atheism. And the third is pantheism. Is this the final stage?

: That would depend on how open we make the definition of this 
term. We can make it narrow and then it will be merely one stage 
among more stages to come. We can -- and this is my approach here -
- keep the term so open that it is the logical third complementary 
approach to the first two. The definite religions of Christianity, 
Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism and so on all have their opposite 
in a rigid denial of the possibility of anything beyond matter and 
physically measured energy being real. Both of the first stages are 
rigid, but opposite in that the first insists on the reality of 
something infinite, and the second reverses this belief. The 
opposite of this rigidity is something like pantheism, in which a 
sense of the invisible is kept open, even nourished, as a trust, 
but no definite images are made.

Before we go on, I would like to say that since atheism is in many 
ways equally rigid in adherence as a religion, it is not strange 
that we see all kinds of alternations between the two. For 
instance, after being bored with atheism, one may come to a 
religion; then, being bored with both of these approaches, 
pantheism may appear.

/ Okay. I have two questions now. The first is, isn't pantheism as 
you describe it very close to Buddhism and to Daoism? And the 
second question is, are you using the word 'pantheism' in an 
unusual sense? Usually, it is suggested that pantheism is a denial 
of the possibility of a God that stands outside of reality. 
Pantheism, it says in some books, I believe, means that God is 
simply our reality.

: Let us take the last question first. Pantheism as defined by 
people who adhere to a definite religious system is often presented 
that way, but the roots of the word are simply, as said, 'all' and 
'God'. There is no sense of exclusion of the possibility of a God 
outside of reality at all. Rather, it is simply an assertion that 
there is a presence of this God-sense everywhere, but certainly not 
to the denial of a transcendent God. As I use the term, and as I 
think many others who are not out to attack the term would use it, 
pantheism (including panentheism) supports all possibilities of 
transcendent Gods, as long as reality gets its share.

Now to answer the first question, about Buddhism and Daoism. I am 
willing to say that every religious system I know of not only has 
elements which are pantheistic, but they can also be given 
interpretations which are almost completely pantheistic. For some 
religious systems, such as Christianity according to Martin Luther, 
this takes a lot of work, and the results may not be all that 
convincing. For other religious systems, such as Buddhism and 
Daoism, the pantheistic interpretations arise far more easily. Yet, 
when someone adheres to Buddhism, it typically involves a lot more 
of a fixed, definite, even organized kind of interpretation than 
what we would here like to associate with pantheism. But if someone 
begins, let's say, with Buddhism and comes to be pantheistic in 
this sense, we could call it something like 'pantheistic/buddhist'; 
and then we can have 'pantheistic/daoist' and so on. But if you 
make the last part of the couple rigid -- the 'buddhist' or the 
'daoist' part -- then the first part, the 'pantheistic' part 
disappears. For pantheism cannot embrace, support or encourage 
rigid approaches.

/ Okay. The stage is set for our book of discussions about the hope 
for pantheism. 

 






Chapter 2

/ I wish to address the question of belonging. 

: Belonging, yes.

/ For we would hardly have religions -- nor nations, for that 
matter -- unless human beings sought to be together and felt 
something about being together and labeling this association.

: Okay.

/ So can pantheism answer that?

: Answer the question of belonging?

/ Yes.

: Certainly. I feel it can. The sense of trust, the sense of being 
connected to life -- we all want that. It is far deeper than any of 
the signs or symbols connected to a particular religion. And yet, 
we must also very carefully look into the backgrounds for 
loneliness. We may be plagued by loneliness for reasons connected 
to our illusions. When these illusions are uprooted, I think we can 
come to new forms of belonging, which do not depend on a fixed 
religion. Is this too complex to discuss already in the beginning 
of the book?

/ It may be, but let us try. You say that loneliness may be the 
reason we seek forms of belonging?

: Of course. Loneliness is, or can be, a very painful thing; it is, 
by some, perhaps by most, dreaded. Writers may feel that they are 
not lonely when they write well, the flow of the writing has its 
own company of imagined beings, as it were. I have heard a painter 
friend of mine, Frans Widerberg, say the same about the flow of 
painting. It is as if a society of beings exists associated with 
the painting. Creative people -- and we are all creative, in our 
essences, as children all are -- can then feel an easing of 
loneliness by other activities than by directly associating with 
them. And this is involved in belonging. I can imagine a dogmatic 
Christian taking refuge in re-reading stories of biblical 
characters over and over again. The comfort of the known provides a 
rhythm to daily life. Then, occasionally, he or she will meet with 
other people of similar faith and the feeling is strengthened even 
more. Bohm, the physicist, called this a 'collusion' -- a shared 
illusion. 

/ Why is this an illusion?

: I am not saying it is always an illusion. I don't think a writer, 
painter, or artist in general can be said to make illusions, at 
least not to him or herself. They are aware that they themselves 
are in some sense originators. But when we take these stories, and 
the symbols, the signs, and the forums we make, the churches and 
the institutions, to be somehow real, as existing 'out there', then 
it becomes a question of illusion or collusion. 

/ So? What is the importance of that?

: An illusion is pleasant to some extent but it is also immensely 
painful, at least in two ways. One of the pains happens 
concurrently with the pleasure, but is hidden underneath it, as it 
were: the pain of not being connected to reality, to life. You 
know, at some deep level, that you are fooling yourself if you feel 
you are. And so there is pain involved here. Someone watching the 
faces of people in a group where there are plenty of illusions can 
surely read out pain there: certain asymmetries and so on, suggest 
that there is nothing like deep happiness in it, except, perhaps in 
glimpses. But those glimpses may come from other reasons than those 
they would like to think. A man sees a pretty face at a Christian 
summer camp and feels a surge of joy inside, and says, "Oh, I am so 
in love with Jesus!". But really he may be in love with that face, 
and the prettiness of that face may in fact invoke real joy in him. 
The other kind of pain associated with illusions comes later -- 
when the illusions break down. They have a tendency not only to 
break down but to break down violently. Like preventing a river 
from flowing -- it justs keeps growing until it overflows anyway. 
An illusion is a kind of blocking of life and life won't have that. 
A Buddhist would say it is 'bad karma'. 

/ So you say we must be free from illusions, somehow. Will this 
lead to a sense of increased belonging, you think?

: Well, not automatically, perhaps. But if we want a kind of 
belonging that is real I think we must go to pantheism. The 
belonging in question is the belonging to life as a whole, not 
broken up in particular groups, associations, clubs, or connected 
to particular slogans, books, institutions, stories and so on. And 
it is possible to anchor oneself in this belonging and so it will 
keep feeding good situations, where we do in fact relate to people, 
to books, to institutions, but there is fundamentally no such thing 
as a strong illusion in it. Rather, the freedom is complete at an 
individual level and so the whole spirit of life in the person is 
adequate to live at a religious level. A mere 'member of a group' 
does not have much affinity to reality, but is a slave to illusions 
and their present and future pains. These members of groups may 
have to engage in drugs of various kinds to lessen their pains. The 
real belonging starts in being free from illusions. I think we must 
enquire a lot more in order to come to a greater clarity in 
expressing this. It is important. It is for later chapters.










Chapter 3


/ We left last time with a sense that more has to be said about the 
notion of belonging.

: You know, the word 'religion', as it exists in English, draws on 
Latin roots which seem to mean something like belonging, or a 
'binding back', a connection back to the whole. I must say 
something personal at this stage, for after all, we are not 
pursuing pantheism or the religious sense of life merely as 
intellectuals. We pursue it, if we pursue it at all, as human 
beings with hearts, and we have lives to live, and we won't let 
ourselves down. So the question you must ask, I feel, if you may 
let me point it out, is: What does pantheism really lead to? Is 
there ecstasy, life, love, hope, compassion in it? Is it a real 
life, or is it not? 

/ Okay. Your passion for pantheism must have be grounded. Is it 
real? What does it lead to? I throw the question back to you!

: Thank you. Yes, pantheism -- the word may not be the thing, it is 
merely a pointer -- but anyhow, what I mean by pantheism really 
works. It is a life in ecstasy, in a sense of wholeness, 
participation, great beauty. I am speaking from personal 
experience. There is a great deal of psychological subtlety to get 
into it. 

/ What do you mean?

: Suppose we read a book like J. Krishnamurti's "Freedom from the 
known", which has a number of viewpoints and questions. Let us say 
that we have read it, and let us say that "we agree". This is 
hypothetical. The book is very close to something like pantheism 
anyway. But we simply agree. Then what?

/ I don't quite follow. What are you really asking?

: I am asking for the validity of agreeing about a number of 
viewpoints. In this realm, that is of a certain value but it is not 
of a great value.

/ What is it that might have great value, then? Meditation?

: Let us move slowly. If intellectual agreement is not enough, what 
is enough?

/ Enough for what? A spiritual life?

: Let us keep the words simple. Enough to live with a sense of the 
religious, beyond any system, beyond any dogma. To have that sense 
of life as a whole, so that when we walk down the street, we might 
as well be dancing, for the love is in the limbs -- the sense of 
life dancing. That sense. Happiness. Joy. Intellectual agreement is 
okay but it isn't enough for that. Right?

/ Well, Aristoteles spoke of the joy of intellectual understanding, 
didn't he?

: It may occur. I wish to enquire a little more deeply though. If 
we have a set of points of views about pantheism, will that make us 
sense the spiritual aspect of life by itself? Or must we come to a 
deeper kind of change than mere agreement?

/ Deeper, of course.

: Yes, but what kind of deeper change? If intellectual 
understanding is not enough, if agreement is not enough, what is 
really enough?

/ Dedication, perhaps?

: A passion, a dedication. Is that enough?

/ Is it enough for you?

: I wish to avoid answering the question directly and merely point 
out that our organism, the human body, the human being as a whole, 
is far more than mere intellect. There is passion, there is 
practice, decisions, how you make decisions. There is a whole life. 
And pantheism, the living in accordance with godhood, requires 
something on all these levels. Exactly what? Let us find out, let 
us circle around it and sometimes dip deeply into it, and learn 
more and more. I think everybody can come to it, no matter 
background, age or present life situation. 











Chapter 4


/ Pantheism -- the word seems to suggest that God or godhood, at 
least, is everywhere. God is also in human beings. Is that so? And 
if it is so, why is there so much hatred, bitter conflict; why are 
there wars every year? What is the solution to all of this?

: I feel, instinctively, that somehow, we will come to pantheism 
and we will leave nationalism and the rigid adherence to any symbol 
system behind. As to wars, nations -- the very idea that there are 
nations -- tend to upset emotions. "Do not invade our territory!" 
"We have the right to defend ourselves -- if so by preemptive 
attack!" And all that. If we had cities and loose confederations of 
cities with no authority to any King or President at all, then we 
would only have to defend this open democracy of cities, we would 
not have the artificially erected barriers of nations, which are 
really arbitrary groups of cities. 

/ Do you feel that democracy has anything to do with pantheism?

: Well, loosely so, I do. Pantheism suggests that there is a 
decentralized power, in a sense -- if God is everywhere, it or she 
or he is also everywhere in the body, in the brain cells, in all 
the neurons. So psychologically it is a whole-body approach. But if 
God is everywhere, God is also in every person, somehow, 
everywhere. And we must somehow let this godhood speak through 
everyone and not overrule anyone by military power. The freedom to 
think, to be in dialogue, to express a variety of opinions, to 
engage in actions that do not harm other living beings, and so on -
- if we mean this kind of thing with democracy, then this seems to 
be the kind of society and globally loose structure we need. 

/ What if someone wants to grab power in a limited area? Would 
there be a planet police or something?

: Let us not be unrealistic. Some kind of a police system seems to 
be called for, -- even in a healthy body, the immune system is 
there, right? And it is, in fact, a little active all the time, due 
to natural radiation and such. This little activity keeps it awake. 
Now if people are not treated violently when they speak their 
opinions, against the structures of power and so on, if there is 
real democracy of some kind, and not dictatorship, not fascist or a 
fascistoid regime, then do we not want some kind of as-little-
violence-as-possible way of defending this? And this would be some 
kind of police. However, they, too, must have rules under which 
they act, and these rules must be very carefully looked at, and 
openly revised. I favour Aikido in what it claims to be able to do 
in terms of nonviolence; to defend without engaging in violence but 
rather through intelligent action seems right.

/ Before we leave this theme, do you think a dictatorship can be 
rightly invaded by democratic regimes from the outside?

: As you state the question, completely free from alternative 
interpretations of the situation, I am inclined to answer 'yes' if 
by 'invasion' we mean 'non-violent invasion'. That is, if people 
from the outside can help people free themselves of a militant 
paranoid suppressive regime, that's good; however it may be that 
the situation can be seen correctly from other perspectives in 
which such an invasion is asking for a lot of trouble. 

/ Let us turn our attention to the idea of God or godhood as being 
within, somehow, also all people. How can we both think this and 
also realistically appreciate all the brutal, violent, ungodly 
activities human beings have partaken in?

: It is very simple. You may have a Mozart record and a record 
player, and yet you may not play it. It is there, it is a 
potential. But the record player may be out of tune and produce 
only noise, for instance. The reality of something divine is still 
there. The fact that we do not see it -- in a butcher like Hitler, 
who, with his acting capabilities, seemed to seduce millions into 
believing in his powers for a few years, it is hard to see any 
trace of godhood. In such an individual, the ego is making noise, 
it may be quasi-clever noise, noise that works for a little while, 
then the noise becomes self-destructive and it all ends. 

/ So to come to a Pantheistic sense of other people, we must look 
'under their skin', so to speak?

: We must look pretty deeply. The atheists don't really look 
deeply, because they have concluded that what appears to the 
senses, more or less, is all that exists. Then they may have 
personal opinions, and shallow stupid concepts like 'tolerance' 
become all-important. When atheists talk about 'love' it is little 
more than I-me-mine having sensual experiences, desires, passions, 
and grieviances in relation to another. It is all very self-
centered and the atheist begs for tolerance from others to keep on 
being self-centered. A Pantheist is not someone who has hatred 
against the self, but a Pantheist has the joy of seeing so much 
more all the time.

/ Next time we will ask about that, shall we? The joy of seeing 
more -- of seeing the invisible.

: Okay.








Chapter 5




/ Seeing the unseen. Watching the invisible. Sensing that which is 
beyond the senses. It sounds like a string of paradoxes -- and yet 
it is not, according to the mysticists of all ages. Yet what is 
mysticism? And what is its connection to pantheism? And how, above 
all, do we come to achieve this?

: If I may point out, it is possible to tune the mind so that it 
takes in reality more as a dance than as bits and pieces of 
information. This dance contains information of a kind that goes 
beyond the senses. This dance guides the mind of the Pantheist. It 
is a dance which is like the moment in tennis in which everything 
is right -- effortlessly -- the ball is hit in the perfect manner, 
and it is a perfect shot though it seemed impossible, more or less, 
to achieve it. Suddenly it all comes together. Then there is dance, 
and this is a state of mind of meditation, the state of mind which 
a Pantheist must seek. How does it arise? Let us enquire into it.

/ Is there no paradox to you in the statements, 'seeing the unseen' 
and so on?

: The paradox is only there if you do not switch context when you 
go from the first part of the sentence to the last. The first part 
contains the word 'seeing'. So the context here is seeing with the 
mind, seeing as sensing very deeply. The last part of the sentence 
contains the word 'unseen'. That is in the context, of course, of 
what is seen and unseen by the eyes. So, when you interpret it, 
'seeing with the mind (what is) the unseen by the eyes', you see 
that there is no paradox. 

/ But speak of the state of mind of the Pantheist. Does he or she 
see everyone as having a God-glimmer? A God-light? And what is 
'God' or 'godhood' anyway, to the Pantheist?

: Now you're asking. The state of mind is lucid, illuminated, of 
course. The enlightened mind has love for all but may act strongly 
when required. The love for all is, we might say, the 'pan-
compassionate' state of mind. When we all feel that we stem from 
the same source -- as Charlie Chaplin said, that the force of life 
in the saps of the trees is the same in all human beings -- then it 
is not difficult to feel a love for the essence, so to speak, for 
all. At least verbally. We can assert, 'everyone is good deep 
down', and then be aware of how this depth has been covered up with 
ego-elements, preventing this compassion from flowering.

/ What, exactly, prevents compassion from flowering? Is it fear?

: Fear, rage, loneliness, desire, but, deeper than all that, it is 
the stagnation of not meditating. The sages all speak of that -- 
the importance of solitude, and of being creative in that solitude. 
You go into your own chamber, if you have one -- or make a circle 
in the sand if you live outdoors! And in that circle, in that 
chamber, you engage, creatively, in some activity that encites the 
mind to its own infinite dance. Now you asked, "What is God?"

/ Yes.

: Have you got the answer?

/ You mean right now? I have a sense of it, perhaps.

: Which is what?

/ A sense of this love.

: So that's that. God is love, love is God. But you may want to 
push it, "What is God? What is godhood? Is it really that? Is it 
this? Is it a being?" Now what do you think?

/ What do you see?

: We can talk about that later, but what do you think God is?

/ I don't know.

: Which is, by the way, not such a stupid starting-point. The Cloud 
of Unknowing, wrote the mysticist Meister Eckhardt, where there is 
no image, not even a knowing of God, there God is. Now, if we 
really want to pursue the possibility of whether God is a being, 
whether there are beings, such as angels, and an archbeing, or two 
archbeings, or whatever, how shall we go about it?

/ Well, how can we enquire into that which we do not see?

: We must develop powers of intuition -- or else rely on the 
verdicts of others. Which do you prefer?

/ Intuition!

: So, this is something a Pantheist must work at. You see, it is 
here also we come to the question of faith. For intuition may be 
that subtle whispering from godhood beyond, or within, ourselves. 
And if we have no faith we have no intuition, perhaps. It is the 
believing person that has this intelligence.

/ That is the opposite of what Jiddu Krishnamurti said in "Freedom 
from the known", by the way. I wouldn't have mentioned that unless 
you yourself hadn't mentioned this book in our previous 
conversation.

: Again, let us remember that that which may seem to be opposite, 
contradictory, or paradoxical, may not be so if we switch the 
context. Krishnamurti was an artist within his own context, which 
he changed a little every decade, but it was fairly clear. Belief 
for him was a no-go, and he would never publish a book in favour of 
any -ism. But this stance on words may not be as fruitful as we 
would like to think. Belief certainly has other senses than the 
narrow ones that he ascribed to it. Pantheism is an -ism that 
certainly can open up the mind to a transformation akin, perhaps, 
to the one Krishnamurti talked about. However much I fancy some of 
his texts, and his great energy in pursuing a set of questions, I 
must confess that I find my own intuition whispering to me that he 
was not quite transformed; that he indeed had fears himself; and 
that his language was not as fruitful as it could have been. 
However, he is miles ahead of those whom he found it natural to 
criticise, such as Osho, charismatic Christians, and so on. 

/ So you say that pantheism involves a belief?

: Why can't we say that? A belief in that which is beyond, and 
which is somehow life-affirmative, intelligent. Something that we 
can listen to and work with, learn to work with. In our daily 
lives. So that we reshape our lives into greater and greater 
artworks, each day.

: We must come back to these questions, also the question of God 
and godhood, and how to develop intuition -- in later chapters.








Chapter 6


/ We must explore happiness, joy, I feel. Because this is a theme 
that perhaps occupies a great deal of those who wish to explore a 
new spiritual path. Is there a promise of happiness in pantheism? I 
would like us to enquire into it afresh, bring up new issues, show 
how pantheism really can be viable. How are we going to get into 
this theme?

: It is easy. Begin with your worldview. How you see people, how 
you see life. Do you see it as a whole or as broken up? Reflect on 
it, don't answer immediately. Whole or broken up? A flowing whole, 
or bits and pieces here and there, and the 'I' solidly in the 
centre? Reflect on your worldview. Everyone has one, it may be 
subconscious or partially conscious or fully conscious, perhaps. 
Let us make it conscious!

/ Why should making oneself aware of one's worldview make such a 
big difference?

: Here's a visualization for you. Imagine all living beings 
everywhere as made of a living kind of gold.

/ Gold.

: Quite, gold!

/ Why gold?

: Because we are picking a mineral of a noble kind, which shines 
more or less like very healthy skin shines -- different colours 
depending on the angle of light and viewpoint. It is a document of 
health to have a golden radiance. Let us imagine every living being 
-- as gold. A living gold, a moving gold. And let that sense of the 
universe come into the mind and its emotions and feelings about the 
world more and more. Vaguely imagine everyone transmuted into a 
happy, living kind of gold. Yourself as well. Do you get it? Feel 
it?

/ Something feels different, yes.

: So that's pantheism!

/ Why?

: It is a change of worldview. It is not an 'I', ashamed of itself, 
with its own stinking ambitions, condemning and being condemned, 
and all that. Man vs. woman, child vs. adult, adult vs. old, this 
group vs. that group, this nation vs. that nation, this religion 
vs. that religion. We are beyond that in our visualization, in our 
fresh worldview: we see each human being, and each living being 
generally, as somehow godlike.

/ Suppose I say: This is a nice visualisation, sure, but I like to 
keep my feet on the ground.

: So what is it to keep your feet on the ground? Stick to what you 
see with the eyes?

/ Something like that.

: And I would like to question that. I say, what the eyes take in 
is suited to the needs of the body, in an immediate physical sense, 
to take care of oneself. The eyes have been developed through 
millions of years of natural evolution -- I am not saying there 
have been no spiritual hands in this evolution, but much good 
science suggests strongly that millions of years of evolution have 
indeed happened. It doesn't have to be Darwin only. It can be much 
more refined. But evolution has happened and so we have eyes and 
ears and fingers and so on which are tailor-made by this evolution. 
And the question is not to be a slave to them, but to see their 
role.

/ And what is the role of the senses if not to show us what the 
world is like?

: The role of the senses is to show us what the world is like only 
inasmuch as we need it for physical survival. To see the world as 
it is we must close our eyes. We must go beyond the mechanisms that 
we have abstracted through our senses.

/ Why?

: Because that which comes in by the senses is just a partial 
reflection. So when we visualize every living being as light, as 
gold, as -- whatever, goodness, love, liquid diamonds -- then we 
are pretending to have senses that can see the wholeness of life 
instead of the contrasts, the pieces. And maybe we do have such 
senses.

/ We do have such senses as can see pantheism?

: Well, we might have senses which enable us to see the world as a 
whole, subtle senses, refined senses, senses made of subtle matter, 
which are able to provide a sense of grounding for pantheism -- and 
maybe for much more. And this, I would claim, is to have one's feet 
on the ground. To realize the limitation of the sensory organs and 
then proceed to investigate how the mind can feel the world as a 
whole, beyond the senses.

/ It sounds like hypnosis.

: So maybe we are hypnotized, by Kant, by our sensory organs, by 
Plato, by Shankara, by God-knows-who, and we need a counter-
hypnosis. We need to dehypnotize ourselves I would say. And by 
suitable visualizations, we can reach the essence.







Chapter 7




/ I wish to address the question of good and evil in relation to 
pantheism. Of course, as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel has 
pointed out, it seems more difficult to believe in God in light of 
the atrocities committed, for instance in the second World War. For 
how can a God permit this, if God is almighty and also good? Wiesel 
has asked whether God has given up on us, given humanity up. Could 
it be?

: Well, we are still around, aren't we? So there must be more 
chances. 

/ Does pantheism offer any solutions other than that we have been 
given up, or that God does not exist?

: Of course. You only have to go to the Dutch philosopher Spinoza 
to get a sense of a solution. As he puts it, we are the hands of 
God. Unless we realize our authentic nature, which is ultimately 
one with godhood, we will not act out this authenticity. And not 
acting from our source, from our origin, is how he defines evil. 
Evil and good are thereby not symmetric, you see. Good is the 
wholesome action, the whole action, the action that comes from the 
whole of yourself. But evil is a fragmented action, it flows from a 
little part of yourself, and the solution lies in becoming whole 
again.

/ How can this be achieved?

: This takes meditation, it takes creative work where we distill 
that which is the most whole about ourselves and stick to that, no 
matter how much of a storm of events there may be around you. 

/ But more precisely, what is the solution to the problem of a good 
and almighty God, permitting the atrocities?

: Let us enquire. When a body has an infection, what does it do?

/ It enhances its temperature and does other things which puts the 
immune system into action.

: Right. So gradually, but not at once, the infection is gotten rid 
of. First the body does things to enhance its own strength, and it 
learns about the nature of the virus or whatever. Then it acts, 
more and more directly to get rid of it. Usually it succeeds. Yet, 
an infection is not entirely what we would call 'evil', right? It 
is an abberation, in a sense, but it is also part of life. It is a 
question of a certain limited wholeness of the virus or whatever, 
against the greater wholeness of the body and the family to which 
that body belongs and so on. 

/ The greater wholeness wins?

: Well, not always. It is also a question of what we mean by 
'greater'. But now let us consider the notion of war. Imagine that 
God exists and has the capacity to stop people from, say, enrolling 
as soldiers into that war. How should God go about doing it? Let us 
give you the role of God for a day. How would you do it?

/ Hm. Let's see. I could, for instance, conjure up images of how 
terrible the war might be in the minds of those who are about to 
enroll.

: So, perhaps this in fact happens. But then they may have been 
taught, by advertisements from the government, to ignore such fears 
and to not think of pain but only of the 'pride of defending the 
right and good of the nation' and such things.

/ Well, I could stop them from enrolling, if I were God, more 
physically.

: Make them ill?

/ Perhaps. Or temporarily unable to move.

: Would that be good? Is that how you teach a child something? By 
putting the child in a room every time the impulse to act in a 
problematic manner arises? And lock the room? Or worse, make the 
child ill?

/ But if I were God I would go rather far to stop the terrible 
things, such as torture, that sometimes happens.

: But how far? And would you prefer to engage in all events, all 
the time, or rather let humanity learn, evolve, find out, discuss, 
have a dialogue, and do this on the basis that there are certain 
patterns in reality which are dependable?

/ So you argue that the stability of reality may matter more to God 
than the suffering of a person.

: I am merely beginning to point out some of the difficulties in 
intervening, even if I were God. Now, to come closer to Spinoza, 
and to pantheism also, let us say that we are part of the body of 
God somehow.

/ Then you are, in that case, saying that this body of God is 
acting against itself in terrible ways, sometimes.

: If this were a biological body, it would have a name: illness. To 
put it in other terms, the universe may have the flu.

/ This sounds to me similar to what I have heard some kabbalists 
say. For instance, in Russia, some centuries ago, the Tsar might go 
to the kabbalists and make them meditate on the wholeness of the 
universe so that rain would come, and so on. Of course, it usually 
worked.

: Of course. 

/ But are you saying there is no problem of good and evil to a 
Pantheist?

: Let's not accept any cheap solutions here. There is the question 
of wholeness, of resonance, of love, if you wish. And how to act 
from this love or sense of goodness, and move beyond the ego. And 
the ego has a great deal of hold on the psyches of humanity, as 
humanity has been: and the Pantheist must of course address this, 
also in his or her work. We'll come to that.







Chapter 8



/ What is goodness? I feel we ought to explore this theme a lot 
more. If we   prefer not to have a bible full of rules, telling us 
exactly what kind of actions are good, then what meaning does the 
word 'goodness' have? Can we really separate good from nongood, 
apart from what the books tell?

: Of course. We can.

/ But many people, at least those who incline towards atheism, 
don't like this word at all. They feel offended. I have met many 
who feel that the step from talking and believing in goodness to 
condemning other people in the worst of ways is short.

: The ego separates the world into what it likes and dislikes. When 
it grows bored with something it likes, it moves into the dislike 
category, the 'bad' category. Then, when it forgets what it 
dislikes, it may put something from that category into the 'like' 
category, the 'good' category. This is entirely an issue of 
condemnation and acceptance, all on behalf of the ego. The 
Pantheist sees this but does not identify with the ego.

/ You mean the ego also operates within the Pantheist?

: Not strongly. After sufficient exploration and meditation, a 
person can say, strongly and intensely to himself or herself: I 
believe in God, I believe in love, and I believe that God-love 
exists in every human being. I determine to live according to this, 
or to the whispers of this, even when it is hard to listen to it, 
and hard to follow it. I will follow this rather than my dislikes 
and likes, I will follow this love-for-all rather than the whims of 
my ego, or the whims of other people's egos. Something like this 
anyway. I don't mean it as a formula.

/ So the Pantheist can state: I believe in God. Just like that. It 
sounds like monotheism.

: Remember we began with the discussion on the progression from 
rigid atheism and rigid belief in a religious system over to 
pantheism, which is nonrigid. It does not preclude the belief in 
God.

/ Okay. Now what about goodness? Is it that which is in alignment 
with God? If so, how do you work it out -- say, if you want to 
become a vegetarian? How can you know whether that has to do with 
goodness or not?

: Good. Let us be concrete. I feel an inclination to become a 
vegetarian. Perhaps I saw a movie, or I talked to a pretty face, 
shining when she or he said that vegetarianism is it, won't you 
join? And the body felt extra alive at that moment, and pleasure 
was recorded as being connected to that thought. Now the Pantheist 
does not preclude pleasure but wants to go deeper still.

/ So you go deeper into the question.

: Yes. How do you go deeper? You must first detach yourself from 
any preconceived conclusion. You must neutralize any desire to 
either say 'yes' or 'no' in relation to it.

/ How?

: Well, for starters, say it, mentally: I am now free from bias. I 
am now free from desire, at least with regard to any answers to 
this question. I am now free from prejudice. And so on. It helps to 
write it. It helps to say it aloud, if one is by oneself. It helps 
to sit still and just feel alive to all possibilities, and remind 
oneself that the landscape of possibilities is open.

/ So you come into a tranquil state with regard to the judgement 
you are about to pass.

: If you want to call it 'judgement'. It is more like an effortless 
decision.

/ How does it come?

: It simply comes. Once you achieve neutrality and tranquility and 
fearlessness in relation to a question, the answer presents itself. 
For instance, I may sit very symmetrically, quietly, with a 
straight back, and feel whether I feel inclined to nod when I ask 
the question -- "am I vegetarian from now on?" or whatever it is. 

/ The nod is always the 'yes'? Could it be another response?

: Yes of course. It can be any response.

/ How do you know whether the response is to be interpreted as yes 
or no or something else?

: You begin by asking that. You ask yourself, how is a 'yes' 
response...and wait! Just wait. Your eyes, if you are outdoors, 
may, for a brief instant, look close to the sun. The index finger 
of perhaps the left hand may gently rise. If nothing happen, demand 
a response! This is to teach self-communication, communication with 
your own depths, communication with your own psyche and its 
subconscious parts. 

/ Why should I trust these answers?

: You begin by experimenting more than trusting. You trust the 
possibility of getting the right answer, you trust that there is a 
God and this God is love for all somehow, and that you are in 
contact with this God. That is all part of pantheism. This God is 
everywhere but it may also be personified, this is all capable of 
being embraced by pantheism as I present it here. In any case, you 
trust the possibility of a right answer but you need to experiment 
and play with it in leisure, over a great deal of time, to find out 
how the right answer feels. 

/ How do you experiment?

: You play with it! You ask, for instance, the same question a 
number of times, and check for coherence or consistency in the 
answers. You swap the formulations, you try to get answers while in 
different contexts, and so on. Eventually you get the knack of it. 
You may find that, especially as concerns relationships, the 
answers vary a lot. It is not always right to do something that it 
is right to intend to do, for a while.

/ It is not right to do something that you intend to do?

: Not always. It may be important to nourish an intention to do a 
certain thing, and yet suspend the action in itself. 

/ Why?

: Because our intentions shape ourselves, shape our personality, 
shape our radiance. Sometimes we need the intention for a while, 
not carrying it out, and then we simply find that it is right no 
longer to have the intention anymore. Everything has an effect! And 
the question, as to your original theme of goodness, is what is 
fruitful. The question of fruitfulness is a gret and wonderful 
theme, we should go into it.

/ Fruitfulness. Is that the same as goodness?

: Isn't it? Fruitful, also economically. Sexually, socially, 
morally, cosmically. And it is fantastic to find actions which are 
fruitful in all these regards.

/ Those are the good actions?

: Yes yes. But we must explore more!










Chapter 9


/ Fruitfulness. We should discuss that theme.

: We must discuss time.

/ Time?

: The landscape of time. How events spread out. How things can be 
sensed before they manifest.

/ Are you psychic?

: Everyone is psychic. It is a question of relating to your own 
sensitivity.

/ What do you mean?

: You can see the faces of those who are about to go into a meeting 
where there will be tension and problems. They look sleepy, 
desolate, asymmetric. You can tell by the body language of people 
what they are about to experience.

/ How do you explain that? In terms of worldview, for instance?

: My worldview, the worldview I advocate as natural in pantheism, 
is that the events that manifest have partially manifested long 
before they manifest in full. And this is a mechanism the universe 
provides in order to allow us to foresee what happens and change it 
if we don't like it.

/ Wow. So you are saying that scientists who talk about cause-and-
effect working from the past to the present are merely presenting 
half of the picture. Do I understand you correctly?

: I think so. You see, scientists who have looked a great deal into 
the fundamental patterns of energy flow tend to operate with some 
kind of future or futures, rather, in their equations. It began 
with Einstein, of course. But in Einstein's equations, there was no 
need for multiple futures. One future would be enough. So this 
encouraged Einstein to become, or remain, a determinist -- one who 
chooses to believe that everything follows a course which is 
already there, long before it is followed.

/ Whereas you feel that although the future is there in some sense, 
...

: It is changing. The future is changing. Which is to say, we have 
a multiple-future situation.

/ I believe I have heard that the American Indians have something 
like this faith.

: Yes. And in physics, there is of course the popular 'many worlds' 
interpretation of quantum physics. However, I think this 
interpretation should blend a little with a single world 
interpretation. The clue is to think of the future is many, and 
what actually unfolds as not so many. 

/ What makes the decision?

: You see, that is their lacking parameter. That is when you get 
fruitfulness, goodness, the spiritual aspect in. What lacks from 
physics as it has been in the twentieth century, at least, -- but 
which I am working to get it, also in a mathematical sense, if I 
may humbly point it out -- is a selection according to coherence, 
to wholeness. When multiple paths are present, some have greater 
coherence or fruitfulness if chosen, and they are chosen.

/ Is this evolution, as you see it?

: I suggest that a pantheist thinks of matter as alive and 
intelligently alive. Sometimes chunks of matter do not exhibit much 
of this aliveness, for a while, but given time, this aliveness 
manifests. And this aliveness comes by a 'tendency of coherence', 
as I call it, inherent in the essence of energy. So, when you think 
of causal effects from the past to the present, then you are 
thinking of just an aspect of the energy processes. To think of 
energy as a whole, think of multiple possibilities of wholenesses, 
of coherences, and of how the greater coherence is always sought. 
However, there is no end to the diversity of evolution if this is 
the goal, for there is no final coherence or wholeness anymore than 
there is a final poem or a final theory of the universe.

/ I have heard that you have made a mathematical proof that there 
cannot be 'theory of everything'.

: Well, yes. If by such a theory we mean a theory that can really 
tell everything there is to tell about the patterns of movement of 
energy in the universe, then it cannot be both valid and complete. 
If it is valid and complete, then it would be able to talk about 
everything in the universe, in detail, including computers, and 
including computers which implement a version of this theory. That 
creates a self-reference which the computer cannot handle, a self-
reference which is mathematically equivalent to the well-known 
halting problem in mathematical logic. For a pantheist, it can be 
interpreted this way: the patterns of this universe has an order, 
but it is not an order of the kind that a mechanical computer, no 
matter how big, no matter how many years into the future, can 
implement. The order is more subtle, has a greater sense of 
infinity, we might say, than any computer program.

/ Is this really proved?

: Yes, when we add suitable additional assumptions -- such as the 
computers being digital, not analog, and so on. But I am using the 
standard vocabulary of cognitive science, which I have been 
educated in, and mathematical logic, which is really part of 
cognitive science, when I made this proof. It is no surprise to 
those who have assimilated the depths of G_del's theorem, but many 
physicists and scientists haven't really understood that this 
theorem actually concerns them. Now they might understand that.

/ We should maybe not go too far into mathematics here.

: No, but it is always good to know that if you want to look up the 
mathematical part and spend the extra time needed to learn it, it 
is possible to do so, and you'll find that nothing is in direct 
contradiction with what we say here about pantheism. 






Chapter 10



/ It seems that as more and more billions of people try to live 
together on this planet, the potential for wars is at least not 
decreasing. 

: What are you trying to say?

/ Is a war ever meaningful? Are you a passifist?

: Very briefly, if a body has an illness -- every time we talk 
about the state of the planet, I find it fruitful to talk of a body 
-- if a body is ill, then there are two ways of interacting with 
the body to get it well again. One is to tone the natural immune 
responses of the body, by vitamins, herbal concoctions, energy 
boosters; by exercise and healthy food; by sauna and good sleep; by 
leisure, play and laughter; and even by prayer. And then there are 
kinds of illness which have taken on such a material quality, so to 
speak, that material action -- not mere interaction -- is required. 

/ What do you mean? Is that an analogy to war?

: Isn't it? There are situations in which every kind of 
acupuncture, energy boosting, etc etc is not adequate. It may be 
tried first but then, at times, sometimes more radical, material 
cause-effect kinds of actions must be attempted. The scalpel of the 
doctor may have to open the body, change something inside in a very 
physical way, then sew it together, nicely and beautifully. That is 
the other way of handling a problem. The first way is interaction, 
the second is action. However, if you push the potentials of 
interaction, you will find that nearly always, interaction can be 
the way. But I cannot rule out the validity the noninteractive kind 
of action in some special cases.

/ How do you transfer this to a global political situation?

: If I were a prime minister of some sort, in charge of security 
questions, I would devote a great percentage of the resources to 
develop an Aikido-like immune system for the freedom of every 
individual -- on Earth, or at least in my domain of juridiction. 
Since I do not believe as much in nations as in individuals, it 
would be of prime importance to secure the possibility of creative 
flowering of individuals everywhere. If a portion of the globe, 
lots of people, are kept in severe leashes by torture and murder, 
then it would be of the utmost importance to explore subtle means 
of actions to undo this dictatorship without undoing any 
individuals. In that sense I am a passifist, a very active 
passifist. However, if the state of affairs has gone very far, and 
if the time to prepare the more subtle actions have been wasted, it 
may be that a more direct physical form of action, on the principle 
of absolute least causalities, can be justified on the grounds of 
the risk of the spread of this fascistoid illness on Earth. 

/ When you say this, do you take a political stance?

: You see I am not a believer in 'politics', I am a believer in 
life, and in acting on the basis of loving life everywhere, and 
taking responsibility everywhere, in order to secure individual 
freedom, and the freedom of people to relate to each other. 
Sometimes control is valid, sometimes other forms of action, at all 
times a great deal of intelligence must be evoked, and much 
prayers, for leadership to happen correctly. It is as difficult as 
life itself and bears no -isms, except, perhaps, something as 
undogmatic as pantheism. Which implies, of course, that more 
important than socalled 'race', skin colour, hair colour, language, 
belief system, or whatever, is the fact that all living beings has 
a God-glimmer inside, each individual is infinitely valuable and 
nobody is fully bad or evil.

/ Nobody is completely evil.

: No such thing as complete evil exists anywhere. Actions may be 
evil but they rip a person apart if they are evil. The person in 
essence is complete only if the person is good. If the person is 
incomplete, then evil actions can manifest but these cannot be 
upheld forever. You see, even the force of Hitler came to an end, 
after not all that many years.

/ But that was a result of strong attacks by the British and 
others.

: Yes, and we can always argue whether the attacks were way too 
strong. The thing about the socalled information age is that we now 
have access to a lot more information, day by day, in the events of 
our planet, at least. Some day this will undoubtably include many 
other planets and places of living. And the presence of information 
allows a new form of precision to come in, if there is a problem. 
The precision allows a military installation to be destroyed rather 
than the thousands who live nearby. And I believe this is the only 
times such things as anger can be said to be fruitful: if a person 
say, "I will destroy that other person", then, perhaps for the 
first time, you can show anger to that person and say, "that is not 
the way! stop his action, but do not stop the person!" And I would 
say that that is infinitely more compassionate than the dogma of 
equanimity in buddhism which emits the attitude, "suit yourself!". 
It is uncompassionate to be always without emotion. Yet, when the 
emotion of anger comes in without precision, it creates a lot of 
damage and the results are not fruitful, generally speaking. 

/ What do you mean by precision? That something is exactly met?

: Yes. The word for it in Sanskrit is of course "Siddhi". It is, 
interestingly enough, also the word for every sort of paranormal 
powers like levitation and invisibility. You hit it straight on. In 
the Christian tradition, the word that become the modern English 
'sin', was a translation from the Greek 'hamartia', and this seems 
to be a negation of the Siddhi, a negation of hitting directly the 
mark. 

/ So to sin is simply to miss the mark. Hamartia.

: Quite so.

/ But how can one make a proper diagnosis of a world situation -- 
isn't the presence of information a problem, when we talk of 
information overflow etc?

: Not if you know how to listen to yourself when you listen to the 
radio or whatever. You tune in and ask: is this real? Is this a 
biased interpretation? Is this simply a lie? And you must not be 
prejudiced and say, "I approve of everything that the republican 
party says in these questions. Too much is at stake." You must 
listen to each proposed fact separately and make up your own mind, 
and stand by it no matter what the people around you do. If we all 
did this it would be an amazing civilisation.

/ So sometimes war can be justified?

: Violence is the last refuge of the immature, I think Isaac Asimov 
wrote, more or less than, in the character of Hari Seldon of the 
Foundation series. If we work on premonitions, on insights of a 
deeper kind than mere cause-and-effect, as it appears, looking from 
the present onto the past according to the history writers, then we 
can anticipate and work out routes aforehand in which violence is 
not really necessary. However, we must also not be biased by this 
point of view and make it fixed. Pantheism requires this, right? 
That we do not have any fixed view but a solid trust, after all, in 
the godhood in all. This trust enables us to transcend any 
viewpoint. Humanity has transitions, we do not necessarily progress 
slowly but all of a sudden all of humanity may change very deeply 
and very positively. This pantheistic change may occur, it may even 
occur soon, relatively speaking. This is the hope of pantheism 
also. But prior to that, we must take care that as much as possible 
of Earth has freedom for individuals, has security, that there are 
no bases in which weapons of mass destructions are being made for 
the silly purposes of a morbid terrorist group or anything like 
that. 











Chapter 11




/ So what is the grounding, the root faith, so to speak, of a 
pantheist? There is no system. Presumably no particular prophet or 
teacher to rely on. No particular holy book. No temple, mosque or 
church. No institution or community. What uphelds the pantheist? 
And what is the core of the faith of the pantheist?

: Nature. Life. The holiness of life, the dance of life in the 
limbs, the spring sense of life. The harmony of nature, the harmony 
of every kind of exalted art, the presence of sensuality and 
sexuality even in and between people, in all living beings. The 
sense of compassion when divisiveness comes to an end -- a 
compassion that entails that you feel something of how other people 
feel, and have a sense of healing relationship to them. That you 
have a sense of faith in the holiness of all life, and that you 
partake in it, and change it. That all your actions matter, that 
all your intentions, even, every kind of feeling and emotional 
aptitude -- all of yourself is significance. All of everyone is 
significant. We are all partaking in godhood. That is the root 
faith, the core faith. And if you have a worldview in which this 
sense of harmony and love of life penetrates you, you find 
intimations of godhood everywhere. You don't need a church for it. 
You don't have to have a single book for it.

/ Do you read novels?

: I do. Why?

/ Why do you need them?

: I didn't say I need them. It's entertainment.

/ Like what?

: Must you ask? Like Ian Fleming's 'Goldfinger'. Superficial, 
funny, the good people win. But it has style and a great deal of 
humour. Why not drink in this entertainment? 

/ But do you see that most people want something very stable to 
hold on to?

: I do.

/ What is the pantheist response to it?

: First of all, do we believe in God somehow? If we don't, we have 
only ourselves to rely on. The atheist may have a fun time reading 
a novel -- speaking about novels -- like 'The Dice Man'. In this 
book from the late 1960s, a psychiatrist experiments with a dice, 
to reach a zen state where his ego, his own self, no longer makes 
the decisions. He writes a list of likely actions, and some strange 
ones, and lets the dice select. In giving himself over to the 
'power of the dice' as he puts it, he becomes a 'Dice Man', and he 
proceeds to teach other people this as well. 

/ Does life become more harmonious for that reason?

: Well, this man speaks not so much of the importance of harmony as 
of the importance of chaos. He leans on Nietzsche and others in 
this regard. Nietzsche was never particularly fond of the cardinal 
virtue of compassion. He spoke of pain and took delight in pain, 
and of hatred of weakness; he spoke of power but not as much the 
power of love, the power of empathy, the intelligence of love. So 
the ingredient of chaos becomes rather to big in Nietzsche's 
ambitious attempt to overcome the deficiencies in the Western 
philosophy and it is not so strange that he finally becomes mad. 
You see, the brain thrives on harmony. Harmony is greatest when it 
has an element of chaos but the chaos must not be too great, 
otherwise fear and stupidity may set in.

/ So you say that the pursuit of harmony is greater than the 
pursuit of chaos?

: Of course. 

/ But what if I say, "I find harmony dull"?

: Then I would ask you to look into your state of mind. It may be 
so disharmonious that you only find particular forms of disharmony 
interesting, forms of disharmony which matches your inner state.

/ Then what?

: Then ask yourself whether you are truly happy in the state of 
mind in which you are living. If you are truly happy, you should be 
able to sit silently and meditate and still be happy. If you are 
not, you are probably escaping from yourself. In that escape, 
harmony may seem threathening and dull. But if you start being 
honest to yourself, I do not think it will be that way. In fact, I 
think harmony can be the greatest of joys, because something 
happens to the brain cells, to the heart, when you drink in the 
harmony of right food, beautiful music, watching flowers, talking 
compassionately with others and so on. It is living on an 
altogether different state of being.

/ Is this the God of the pantheist, then? Harmony? Dear Harmony, 
give us our daily bread?!

: Harmony is a key word, I feel. But just as the word 'compassion' 
may feel strange to many, 'harmony' and indeed every word which 
can, in an altered state of consciousness, come to have ecstatic 
meaning, all these words may seem dull.

/ But you are saying that this dullness is...

: ...little more than an escape from yourself.

/ Which brings us back to meditation.

: Yes. But when you are on an escape from yourself, you don't want 
to stop escaping. You don't want to meditate then. And if you pick 
up meditation, it is likely a rigid form of it, which provides some 
sense of continued escape. Of course, the ordinary escapes from 
oneself don't really work. Drugs don't work, they just relieve the 
symptoms of being caught in ego-control.

/ What is the real release?

: Explore. Think. Have dialogue. Write. Read poems. Write poems. 
Make paintings. Put on classical music and intend, demand that a 
real change of your brain is going to happen. Sit still, breathe, 
write every association, throw it away. You must change the sense 
of time.

/ We have talked of time in an earlier discussion. You said 
something of time as a landscape.

: Step out of the story of your life, and into a sense of possible 
much greater stories. You know how you feel when you get into a 
great novel. You sort of adopt its sense of time. As you read on, 
the story unfolds within you and you experience meaning. Now, most 
people have certain elements of imagined past and imagined future 
that determines the meaning of most of the rest that happens. The 
pantheist does something with his or her sense of time until that 
sense of time is no longer bound by the ego.







Chapter 12



/ You haven't shown a path, yet, to pantheism.

: The path is attention.

/ Why attention? And how?

: Who is you is giving attention?

/ Well, that's hard to say. It is my mind, perhaps.

: Which is to say, something very essential about you.

/ Right.

: In fact so essential that it is rather impossible to say that it 
is this part or that part of you.

/ Yes.

: Which means, furthermore, that when we give attention then we are 
applying as if the essence of ourselves to be in touch with 
something.

/ I can see that.

: That is pantheism. To do that in relation to all life. Really 
give attention.

/ Suppose I try that for a day...

: ...not just for a day!

/ Please, I mean to say: Suppose I give attention a whole day long, 
and I don't feel much different at the end of it. What would you 
say?

: Ah, you see, to give attention is not something we just do. It is 
a creative thing. Like water flowing down a mountainside, the 
patterns of the mountain affect how the flowing of water occurs. 
The quest in pantheism is to get a real waterfall of attention -- 
unlimited attention.

/ How do we get that?

: By praying. By demanding it. By experimenting with the laser 
beams of attention and let them rinse your mind, rinse your 
perspectives on the world and on the times to come, and make you as 
child again.











Chapter 13



/ How did you get enlightened?

: If we want to use that word, "enlightened", or "illuminated", or 
whatever, let us first describe what we mean by it in the context 
of pantheism. You remember we talked about the novel about 'The 
Dice Man'? Well, the Dice Man sought a kind of enlightenment 
through giving himself over to a kind of chaos, the kind of 
limited, controlled chaos that selecting between the options that 
dice exhibit. Of course, it is his own hand casting the dice, and 
so we might surmise that his subconscious mind might give a certain 
alteration to create a certain result. Let us call it a primitive 
way of consulting with the soul. 

/ So you are saying that it is not quite free chaos. It is not 
random.

: Obviously not. Yet, what intelligence has he put into giving the 
alternatives of the dice? What state of mind is he when he casts 
his dice? So it may not only be a rather controlled process but 
also a biased process. 

/ What has this got to do with enlightenment?

: It serves as an illustration as to what it may look like, from 
the viewpoint of the ego, to give oneself over to attention.

/ How did this happen for you?

: Wait a moment. Let us suggest a little more clearly what is wrong 
with the Dice Man approach so that we get a sense of enlightenment 
proper, in a pantheistic context. 

/ Okay.

: What may be a right element in the rather chaotic approach of the 
Dice Man is the perception that the ego, as long as it has control, 
makes a mess of our lives. It may put a rationale on the actions, 
but what it produces is really mostly a mess anyhow. This is so 
especially, I think, when you see it from a social level. There are 
exceptions, when you see great artists like Bach or Beethoven. But 
while child life may be fantastic, most adult life seems dreary 
with the wrong kind of routine, loneliness and the forms of habit 
that keep life limited. So some release is required. But what kind 
of release?

/ The release of enlightenment, perhaps.

: Yes. But then we must realize that not everything that is beyond 
the control of the ego is the same. It is not that there are only 
two possible kinds of things in the world, "controlled" and 
"uncontrolled". Rather, it is a question of two dimensions, at 
least. One dimension is the dimension of control versus lack of 
control. The other dimension, crossing this as it were, is the 
dimension of coherence or harmony. 

/ Back to harmony. 

: But harmony is important. What is an orchid without harmony? What 
is the golden shine of the hairs of a child unless it is harmony? 
What is Mozart's music without harmony? Take away harmony and music 
becomes a sledgehammer, take away harmony and a watch becomes a 
piece of junk.

/ What's wrong with that?

: Well, lack of harmony generally means internal conflict. Which 
means a breakdown.

/ Then there are people who say that that is okay, for breakdown is 
part of life.

: Is that satisfactory? The fruit tree has a coherence great enough 
to make marvellous fruits, and you say, "It is part of life to 
break down, so let's chop down this tree?" That is the barbarious 
attitude. The approach of loving life is to be tender towards 
harmony and not disrupt it. Gravitation is easy, the uplifting of 
natural form requires great intelligence, and is evidence of the 
spirit of life. Henri Bergson wrote about this, of course.

/ So do you say that enlightenment involves the caring for harmony?

: Care for coherence! And if you wish to cast dices, cast dices to 
select what you are going to select, and do it in a harmonious 
state of mind. Cast dices as to how you are going to cast dices. 
Unless every part of the process is upturned by fresh attention, 
unless every aspect of your activity is illumined by your own 
attention, you are not enlightened. Nevertheless, it looks a little 
bit like giving up control of the ego. But the pantheist gives over 
the control to God. Can we say that? 

/ It sounds much like how the religious people talk.

: But the word "religion", or "re-ligare", may mean "to bind back", 
as I think I have pointed out earlier. So it is a question of 
relating to this wonderful wholeness of life and let that whisper 
through you. Then you must be very silent so you can pick up that 
whispering, that secret joy, that hidden light. When it comes, you 
must know how to enhance the wave, to thrive on silence, to go 
beyond your ego limitations and let attention take over. That is 
enlightenment from a pantheistic perspective -- to let attention 
take over.

/ Now I can perhaps ask, "How did it happen for you"?

: Yes, go ahead and ask.

/ Well, how did it happen for you?

: It was a realization, a kind of shock -- positively speaking -- 
that all dances of events flow out of the same or a similar process 
as attention. I am it, this process of attention to attention 
creating life is what I am, I am not separate from it. It is an 
ultimate security. I realized that no matter what happens, I feel 
this complete security for the flow of attention is the same 
everywhere, the same in us all, and through its multiple 
perspectives the world comes into being and the world is being 
changed, all the time. It is one and the same source and the 
realisation was that everything is transparent to it.

/ But concretely, what did you do?

: Nothing. Yes I did something. I prayed a lot, for complete 
transformation, after a period in which I came to feel some fear. 
Nothing happened at first. Some weeks went past, I started working 
on various projects, forgot a little about the prayers. I felt 
good. Then meditations came -- I have always meditated regularly, 
ever since early teenage, and I have written about meditation. I 
published a book about it, a small book in English and Norwegian, 
privately, entitled "Sex, Meditation and Physics". You know -- 
tantra, mantra and yantra, as they say in Sanskrit. But attention 
has been here or there. I realized that we are living in attention, 
attention fills us, everything is made of attention meeting 
attention. It is one and the same energy. Some months later I have 
played with calling this energy by the somewhat odd name of 'the 
uncomputer'.

/ Uncomputer?

: Uncomputer. We say 'unconscious', right? We say even 
'unconsciousness' sometimes. So from consciousness there is the 
realization of unconsciousness, that both exist. From the 
realization of the computer there is the realization of the 
existence of the uncomputerized, or the uncomputer in short. It is 
a noun because I wish to indicate its real existence. Yet it is 
under reality, so to speak. Of course the notion of the 'computer' 
is relatively new in human thinking. It was introduced in the wake 
of Kurt G_del's work in the 1930s, by Alan Turing and others, in 
mathematical logic. Then later came physical versions of the idea. 
But the idea is very simple: it is the notion of the absolutely 
contextfree rule, which determines what is to happen absolutely 
clearly, based on simple, usually numeric, input. With this little 
concept you can build mostly everything that a route procedure can 
do. You can make inventive programs which can mimick our ability to 
learn and perceive. But there are things a computer cannot do, in 
principle. Earlier on I mentioned that a computer cannot calculate 
the physics of the universe, no matter how big it is or how fast it 
is, no matter to what precision its measurement data may have. Even 
if these data are infinitely precise, the computer can't work out 
the course of the universe. The universe, in a sense, is an 
uncomputer.

/ Hm. Will it catch on, do you think, in science?

: It may seem rediculous to predict about that, but as a matter of 
fact I do feel fairly confident that this term will catch on, 
because it is an almost direct logical consequence of the work Kurt 
G_del did, and he is regarded as one of the foremost mathematicians 
in the recorded history of mathematics so far, without doubt. This 
is a shared view, this is not just my own opinion. The consequences 
of this work is something which will inevitably roll into human 
consciousness and change us. The changes are yet to come. But we 
can anticipate them if we, like I do, study intensely and for years 
what really lies within that proof and meditate on it. And then, 
with great force, all of a sudden, the word 'uncomputer' came, and 
unleased, as if with a command inside me, a sense of a new 
metaphysics being born.

/ Is this something like David Bohm's 'implicate order', which he 
describes, among other places, in 'Wholeness and the Implicate 
Order'?

: The implicate order is a very general concept, much like the 
concept of a number. As he used the concept, mostly anything can be 
'an implicate order'. He said for instance that a grammophone 
record is an implicate order and the playing of it makes an 
explicate order. So it doesn't say very much to say, 'yes, the 
uncomputer is an implicate order', for it is trivally true. But 
more importantly, it is a very active concept because it suggests 
that what underlies even 'the implicate order' of our reality is 
beyond computation. And it is by attention to its 'computers' -- 
that is, its more explicate forms -- that the computers change and 
new computers are made. So the programming process in a sense is 
like the creation process. That is pantheism!







Chapter 14




/ We left the previous discussion talking about enlightenment and 
pantheism, among other things. You said that enlightenment happens, 
if I recall correctly, at least in your case, by a realization that 
'we are all made by processes of attention', or something like 
that. Could you elaborate on this?

: I am talking of enlightenment as an irreversible process, let me 
first point this out. It is not the mood of a day. Most meditators 
experience that, all of a sudden, they have days in which 
everything and all seems bathing in bliss. They may have such a day 
once a year or more often, depending on how much energy and time 
and deliberation they devote to their meditation. They may sit 
still for hours as in the Vipassana Meditation Centres made by the 
buddhist monk Goenka, for instance. They may do it through dance, 
as in the Waldorf Schools made by Rudolf Steiner. There are dozens 
of ways. The emphasis is on attention and on being creative with 
regard to attention -- or just focussing on nothingness.

/ So enlightement is irreversible. In what sense?

: In the sense that if enlightenment comes, it does not pass away. 
Though the meditation may pass away.

/ Please explain that. If the enlightenment remains but not the 
meditation, what is then the enlightenment?

: The enlightenment is the fundamental perception of all reality as 
a fluid process of attentiveness, perceptiveness, that there are 
coordinating forces. This understanding admits to a mutation of the 
brain cells. They physically alter in their activity. There are 
certain regions of the brain that are under-active, who, in some 
schizophrenic states, appear to be over-active. When the activity 
is balanced, and coherent, then there is enlightenment. This is the 
basis for living in meditation. It means that meditation comes 
completely natural in that state of mind, perhaps, in a sense, it 
goes never away, but is always there mildly. But the readiness to 
go into meditation even infinitely is always there. The 
understanding of reality is irreversible once it occurs.

/ So what relationship does the meditative state of mind, when it 
comes to someone who is not yet enlightened, have to enlightenment 
-- and how does this tie in with the faith in pantheism, exactly?

: This is very complex unless you have experimented with it for 
yourself for a long time. But briefly, the meditative state of 
mind, when it comes to someone still living by his or her ego, is 
simply a burst of energy, like taking a pill, rather. The energy 
does not penetrate through the entire psyche, but portions of it 
keeps itself from being exposed to attention. Enlightenment is that 
no portion is being shielded from attention. That is a lasting 
transformation. All the psyche is revealed, as a whole, not just a 
bit of it. It is a total karma dissolution, to put it in more 
buddhistic terms. I doubt, therefore, the validity of mere sitting, 
sitting, sitting. You must experience life, enter into 
relationship. You must have faith in the intelligence of life, call 
it God or Samadhi or Allah if you wish, or something else - and 
call on this by prayers and affirmation. The faith in pantheism 
enhances itself when you see its fruitfulness. When it explodes, 
you give yourself over to living by attention, and by the leisure 
of sleeping as much as you need, living very healthily and not 
upsetting people needlessly, and so on -- and then the faith 
becomes the enlightenment that you need.

/ You say living healthily. Is this part of pantheism?

: Of course. You honor the body as a temple of the spirit. You 
understand and appreciate the mystery of each and every cell in the 
body, it is as if a coordination of infinitely complex beings make 
up your own organism, and that is, in a much deeper sense than any 
book like the christian bible, something holy. The body is holy, or 
can be. You must understand that the coordination of the body is 
not merely mechanical. There is nothing that is ultimately like a 
computer -- we are all reflections of the uncomputer. A computer 
that changes is not a computer, it is the uncomputer. Or the 
changes are by the uncomputer. If this makes any sense to you.

/ But what is health? Can you define it?

: Let us suggest a definition, then. I would suggest that health is 
the beautiful and elegant spontaneous, effortless coordination of 
the organism with itself and with its surroundings at all levels 
and at all scales. It is a dance of being. This dance of being 
involves rejuvenation, the regeneration of the seeds of information 
as to how this coordination should happen within you. And this 
dance of being happens more deeply when there is tranquility and 
the bathing in attention. It is also a dance of being which is 
capable of expressing itself in terms of fruits for other beings. 
And I would say, it is part of health and rejuvenation to let this 
expression happen, creatively. So a child is intensely healthy -- 
and happy as well, presumably -- when the child is allowed to be 
creative and give great attention to the products, the fruits of 
this creativity.

/ And adults, they should avoid working in a limited field, or 
what?

: Absolutely. Several limited fields are okay, if there is the 
intention to expand. You give creative, playful, selfcritical 
attention to your products, and when you find that they have 
excellent quality, you start letting other people enjoy them -- 
through important acts of generosity, not giving it to people who 
wants it only halfheartedly, but giving it to those who really 
signals that they have joy in getting it. And the greatness, the 
genius of having a mind -- which is a particularly of every living 
being and not in the least, human beings -- is that it can be 
everlastingly creative. It is not a question of 'what society needs 
to have'. It is a question of what you yourself needs to express to 
ensure your own generosity to yourself as well as to others.

/ Are you saying that everyone ought to be not mere consumers of 
music, but composers of music; not mere readers of novels, but 
writers of novel, and so on?

: Why not? Why should the adult have such hopelessly reduced 
demands of himself or herself compared to that of the child? I 
believe even Freud, who otherwise did not have such great views of 
children as more recent scientists, spoke of the intelligence of 
the adult as meagre compared to the 'brilliant intelligence of the 
child'. Why should we be so limited?

/ I can hear the socialists and others complain that 'not everybody 
can be prophets, some of us has to do the dirty work'.

: Who said anything about avoiding the dirty work? I said, do more, 
do not do less. Do more of the things you want to do, and so crave 
less in terms of entertainment and reckless exploitation of a 
nature which has already been pushed beyond any sound level anyhow. 












Chapter 15 



/ Truth. Let's talk about that. And let's talk about your 
relationship to science, and how you portray pantheism with regard 
to science. Is pantheism a dance around the gold calf of science, 
or what?

: You said the word 'truth'. I prefer truth to science, when they 
two goes apart! And science is a label of a very large set of 
activities which somehow involves a pursuit of truth, but which 
obviously, more or less obviously, fails in many regards. For 
instance, there are hidden premises involved in much research, 
premises which involves theories and worldviews foreign to the 
scientists involved, and which they cannot air without getting 
their careers in trouble. So there are political and financial 
reasons why science is not the entirely multi-perspective seeking 
of objective knowledge it would like to say that it is. However, it 
provides a great deal of data, empirical data, reports of summaries 
of very careful research from laboratories and fields and so on, 
and we can, democratically as it were, elaborate our own theories 
or models of these data. 

/ So you are in favour of science but prefer to select your own 
theories and so on?

: Not exactly that, but I prefer to distinguish between theory and 
data, to some extent. Arne Naess, a philosopher of science of some 
magnitude in the field, also a founder of deep ecology, suggests 
that we should use the word 'research' and the word 'science' with 
a rather clear separation. Research is what we do when we very 
carefully report on what we see and find out. This is something we 
all can do, and there is no reason why research should start with 
the theories that scientists usually talk about. Your research can 
concern pattern formation in butterfly wings outside your mountain 
cottage, for instance. Science, however, is a more socially 
constrained term, in which the theories over these data have been 
launched and to some extent discussed -- hopefully, but not always, 
in an objective way.

/ Where is truth in all this? We mustn't make it too complex!

: Well, truth is our great pursuit, that which brings us together 
and connects us as living beings. We may not all be interested in 
science, but we are all, at some deep level I surmise, interested 
in 'what is', in actuality, and in what it makes sense to say about 
'what is'. To talk about something 'as it is' is to some extent 
what truth or at least, true statements is about. However, truth is 
also a question of a multiplicity of perspectives.

/ You may have one perspective on God, and I may have another 
perspective on God?

: Well, you may have several perspectives on God inside you, or 
indeed on anything, and so may I. There is no reason why we should 
stop at one or two. And in a reality as rich as ours, somehow we 
need a multiplicity of perspectives, and also the grouping of 
mutually excluding perspectives, and so on, at higher and higher 
levels, to get a sense of the truth as it is in itself beyond all 
this. This is an open-ended philosophy. It says truth is possible, 
but it doesn't say exactly how.

/ How does what you say stand in relation to traditional organized 
religions and to pantheism?

: I foresee a mass-emigration from the remnants of the large 
organized religions to pantheism. This is the logical result of 
applying science to an open-ended philosophy, as we just talked 
about. In this, there is a hope for pantheism. For pantheism 
answers the need to meet a complex world with a multitude of open 
pathways, where pleasures, pains and opportunities mingle, and 
where each individual must develop his or her own intuition. And in 
this, a faith which does not seem stupefying, but a solid faith 
which can bring a certitude to the individual throughout all these 
changing processes, is needed. Then truth is multiple-perspective, 
and by intuition and insight derived from meditation, we can come 
to that sense of things which guides us in action. It is not so 
that we must close down the perspectives in order to act, but 
rather, there is a spontaneous 'calculation', if that's the word, 
so that some ordering between the perspectives occur.

/ I think we must simplify our language at this point.

: Yes, certainly. But it is good to have said a few things which 
can be dug into by those who wish. 












Chapter 16



/ Let us talk a little about pantheism in relation to the organized 
religions, the large religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and so 
on.

: Well, pantheism -- again and again I emphasize this -- must not 
be portrayed in exclusion from monotheistic, dyatheistic (two-God) 
or polytheistic religions. Rather, pantheism involves, in the root 
of the word, an emphasis on 'all', on 'allness', signified by the 
word 'pan'; and the remainder of the word signifies God or godhood. 
So, there is no need to put pantheism up as one point among many, 
and further differentiate such things as 'panentheism' and so on. 
There is no denial in pantheism. Pantheism does not deny a 
transcendent God. Pantheism does not deny that human beings may 
have a particular cosmic role. Pantheism does not deny that a human 
being can pray and receive individual guidance. Pantheism embraces 
these possibilities or probabilities, with a faith which is 
nonrigid, not systematized, not made into an organized thing. 
Pantheism does not, by nature, have a priesthood. 

/ And you say that it does not equal buddhism or daoism?

: Buddhism goes some way in answering this, as does Daoism, but 
they are still too rigid, too much their own systems. We need 
something beyond the system now. And we need to have more than 
meditation techniques and moral rules, I feel. We need a faith 
capable of bring a transformation to the overall psyche of the 
modern man or woman.

/ The modern man or woman may be concerned with such things as not 
getting unemployed.

: Now just look at that issue for a moment. What is so dangerous 
with being unemployed? Look at the word 'un-employed'. It signifies 
leisure, free time -- time to meditation. What is wrong with that? 
It is really not unemployment which is the problem. Rather, the 
problem is how to get resources distributed in a way that is fair, 
when robots do much of the work that people could have done. If a 
factor owner has fifteen hundred employers, and can dismiss 
fourteen hundred of them due to new machines, then he or she can 
get a lot richer, because there are now only machine maintance 
costs, not employment costs. But rather than he or she getting 
expontially richer, the fair thing would be to redistribute 
resources to these individuals. There is no reason at all, as far 
as I can see, to put people into every kind of silly job positions 
just to 'keep them employed'. We need leisure, we need the luxury 
of spare time, and we need resources such as food, clothes, 
shelter, money for transportation and entertainment, and so on. 

/ This is utopia, though. Reality is a grim economical market 
structure in which the individual who may be interested in your 
pantheism may have to support his or her family.

: I am aware of that, but let us not always think in a self-
centered, worrying manner. Let us always think also on behalf of 
societies, and we'll put our own challenges into a perspective 
where they matter less and may more swiftly be given a solution. A 
pantheist would pray, pray to the spirit of life, pray to the 
intelligence of life, to the compassion which is the source of 
reality, to support him or her with everything that is valuable and 
important. And he or she would pray for creativity, for strength, 
for generosity, giving when it is important to get, and not only 
then. We must teach each other again the laws of generosity, to act 
according to an intuition which speaks of what to give and to whom 
and when, rather than insisting on the buying-selling situation all 
the time. Faith can bring new kinds of community economies into 
being as easily as that. For instance, there are exchange rings or 
'local exchange trade systems', LETS, in play in mostly every 
country. These are beginnings of other forms of economies. 

/ But practically, do you really think prayer on this level works? 
How would you pray?

: How do I pray? I pray a lot. I start every morning visualizing 
the world and feeling what needs light, golden-white light, and/or 
affirmations of health, wholeness, goodness. I visualize myself 
protected, visualize and affirm the wholeness of all my activities 
and their fruitful successes. I ask for money if money is needed, 
and sometimes explain the reasons. I may say 'Dear God' as a 
heading, I may say 'Dear Origin', I may invent something, I may use 
a mantra or a sound that feels to reflect the origin somehow. For 
me, this is part of economy. Then there is the part of doing 
everything that is in your heart, neither more nor less. Neither 
more nor less -- do you understand the implications of that?

/ You don't do more than is on your heart in the sense that you 
don't do things you do not feel for. 

: Yes. And you do not do less than it feels for -- and you will be 
astonished how much you feel like doing once you really start 
opening up to your heart. You may want to invent a new language, a 
new form of music, write new types of novels, you may want to make 
new schools, caring for the individual richness of the children and 
ensuring spiritual growth on a nondogmatic, dialogic basis in them 
all; you may want to work for a new kind of world integration, 
without the nonsense of nationalism; you may want to do so many 
things. 

/ I can accept that as a possibility, but what would be the driving 
force? What drives a pantheist when the world looks grim?

: Remember not to look only with your eyes, but close your eyes and 
feel the world, feel not only your own ego and its little things. 
Step outside of your ego and climb, in your mind, to the top of 
your golden mountain of enlightenment, and feel the world from 
there. Don't get hotheaded but know that each and everyone has in 
him or her the duty to nourish, strengthen, achieve and maintain 
the enlightenment of all the beings there are. This is not just a 
calling for an occasional buddha every four hundred years or so. 
Every cell in the body must support the health of the whole body. 
Every human being must support the health of humanity. And that 
includes, of course, the mental health. It is not 'every cell to 
itself', and it is not 'every human being to himself or herself'. 
That would be fragmentation. Economy, as spiritually, demands that 
we recognises the allness in all and works, creatively, through 
art, science and religious pursuits, to reflect that greatness and 
beauty. The less dogma, the more curiosity and wonder, the better. 
With a deep radiant faith in an all-compassionate God we will 
develop a strong capacity to think telepathically and 
clairvoyantly, and that will also helps ensure economy. It helps 
me. I know when I should ask a rich man or woman for support for a 
project, and how, and for how much; I just listen within and then I 
know. I didn't always, I have learned to do it. You can also do it.

/ Well, but if I have to cover immediate expenses, is there 
something I can do at once?

: Sit still, pray for it, happily, and stay confident afterwards. 
If you get an opportunity to help anyone with anything then grab 
the chance. Be generous yourself with that which you can be 
generous with.

/ Then it will come?

: Always. When you listen inside for your own currents of 
generosity then, if what you require money for is right, you will 
sooner or later meet someone who has opened this generosity in 
himself or herself and can help you out, somehow. 

/ You seem to have a spirit of playfulness and calm constantly. Is 
that a prerequisite?

: You see, if you wish a multiplicity of perspectives on what you 
do, on what your appearance is, on what the world is, and so on, in 
order to get a sense of fact and of the truth of a matter, then you 
need playfulness of mind. Playfulness means that you are not rigid, 
right?

/ Yes.

: So in being playful, not fearful, but playfully aware, you let a 
dance of perspectives occur, and you get a constant sense of 
perception. Then you express these perceptions in creative work. 
You must have channels to express them, or you get filled up with 
too many unused perceptions and that can create rather unhappy 
states of mind. Expression of what you honestly perceive is very 
healthy, it clears the channels of your body, so to speak. You get 
radiant, and this radiance helps enormously when you require 
support for your activities. You got to have courage.









Chapter 17



/ A person who seeks to find his or her own way in a society of 
competition, chaos and perhaps hardened traditions, who may be 
married or not, who has a family to support or not -- would you say 
that pantheism offers clear help? If so, could you spell it out?

: Yes. Pantheism offers help. Of course. It makes the person 
anchored, not merely in society, but in a sense of life as a whole. 
You are no longer alone, but you are as a blade or a fruit on the 
tree of life. The energy of life is the same in all, and you learn 
how to communicate with this energy. You speak to it and listen to 
it and communicate with it. Together with life, so to speak, you 
find out, your work out, you enquire into supporting yourself and 
your family. Then you go beyond.

/ What do you do then?

: You do what love to do, you find out what you love to do and then 
you do it. As you begin to do what you love to do you'll find your 
heart opening in delight, joy and happiness, you'll find your 
health getting a lot better, that you rejuvenate and stay vital, 
and you'll find even more activities which are supported by your 
heart. Pantheism is the growth of love in all areas of your life.

/ There is love, and yet the world may seem hard. At times, strong 
action -- even violent action -- may be called for, to save 
individual lives. Would you turn the other cheek, always?

: 'Turning the other cheek' is one of a series of Christian phrases 
to signify the humility of a human being towards life, towards the 
life of other human beings at some level also. But you do not turn 
the other cheek if somebody is about to smash a child or commit a 
series crime. You stop the other. Yet spiritually, you turn the 
other cheek by not being against the person in his or her essence, 
only against the action and the action pattern.

/ So you can act strongly. You can shout, you can hit, if so need 
be.

: Of course. You do what love commands you to do.

/ But love is always positive, is it not?

: It is positive to the life in the other individual, not to the 
denial of life in the other individual. With precision, love can 
command you to speak out against the ego of another, with little 
sense of mercy. Sometimes that is required, it is right, it will 
create a suitable effect with no lasting problems of health or 
anything. 

/ So love whispers, or speaks to you. How do you pick it up? 
Meditation, tranquility, sitting still?

: You stay tuned to life and you watch what is going on. If a 
dictator prohibits people from leaving his or her uglified country 
then that is wrong, and to pray and even help precise, nonviolent 
military actions to get the dictator away is right. When the 
military actions are so as to create a lot of sideeffects, then 
they can be too wrong that we can support them. Strong action must 
be precise. Love is always precise, it does not want any individual 
to come to harm. Not even a dictator. A massmurderous dictator 
should be told a lesson, perhaps in a prison for a long while, 
though.

/ Hm. A pantheist has love for all and may yet go as far as 
supporting, to some limited extent, actions which may lead to 
killing of people.

: To a very limited extent, but it is also a question of fierce 
realism and avoding even greater harms. I have had a year-long 
friendship with a philosopher who is much older than me. Arne Naess 
is not only a leading exposer of the passifist thinking of Mahatma 
Gandhi, he was also so during the second World War, when he helped 
the resistance movement against 'hitlerism', as he calls it. He did 
not want to use weapons himself but accepted tasks of transporting 
weapons for the resistance movements against the German soldiers 
who had installed a hitler-regime in Norway during the war. It is 
fine preaching passifism of a fundamentalist kind as long as you 
sit by your table thinking and writing, but sometimes reality 
demands just a different level of action. It is best to be prepared 
for that -- even for a pantheist. Love for all does not mean that 
we get stupid and avoid doing the right things to save many when we 
can -- even though it means that some are not saved. 

/ The intention, though, is to save all.

: Of course. No life is 'expendable'. And transferred to more happy 
social circumstances, such as employment in a company, it is 
rubbish to say that all individuals are 'replacable'. Nobody is 
replacable once they start unfolding their real spiritual role.

/ Explain.

: Can you replace Mozart with Beethoven? People who start unfolding 
their intuitive potentials do so in ways which are not identical at 
all. Only military behaviour is identical. In natural, creative 
work it is an illusion to imagine that anyone would do identical 
work to any other. And a company which fails to draw on the 
uniqueness of the flowering of each of its individual is not a very 
interesting company.

/ Then perhaps not many companies today are interesting!

: Well, there you are. So start new forms of companies. Perhaps 
looser associations should be preferred, where people have a 
greater responsibility to come up with a variety of creative goods 
for others. In exchanging these, new forms of connectedness with 
people would provide new rings of exchange.






Chapter 18



/ We need to talk about the adult theme of sexuality, in a 
religious context. It is not always easy to discuss.

: I agree, we must talk about it. How shall we begin?

/ Let's begin at a metaphysical level. The ancient Indians, along 
with a great deal of other, notably shamanistic cultures, suggested 
that the world came or comes into being by copulations among the 
gods. Does pantheism as you put it say anything about this?

: Well, I think it is softly in support of these kinds of views. 
Rather, perhaps, I should say that one who has a faith of a 
pantheistic kind may come to such a metaphysical picture as this, 
but this is not a requirement for a pantheist. It is a possibility, 
not a necessity, within a pantheistic framework or viewpoint.

/ But it certainly helps putting sexuality in place, if you do in 
fact have such a metaphysics, where sex is somehow at the essence 
of the universe, doesn't it?

: Oh sure. Sex can no longer be such a rather bizarre little thing 
as christian church fathers like Augustine sought to make it into. 
To point out something of the silliness of the history of 
christanity (which is shared with several other large religions), 
Augustine, after having been with a number of women, declared, and 
made it part of the christian curriculum for centuries to come, 
that women are "dirty" because they have "two dirty holes" and that 
babies are born sinful because they are born in proximity to these 
dirty holes. You see the kind of fanatically anti-female attitude 
that went along with the fanatically anti-sex attitude. Sex is of 
course such a great biological attraction that a religion would be 
smart either in denying as much of it as it can or else embracing 
as much of it as it can. 

/ Whereas pantheism does neither?

: Well, pantheism is a love of the spirit of life in all, but 
sexuality, for instance as exploited through prostitution and 
clothing industry with their advertisements, is not always an 
honoring of the spirit of life. 

/ When is sex an honoring of the spirit of life?

: Obviously when love is involved. 

/ So would then sex be right, if love is involved, without 
marriage?

: Where does the concept of marriage come from? Most societies have 
it, and most of them have it, of course, to create a solid, 
working, dependable frame within which childraising can happen with 
less effort and less problems than a man or a woman travelling 
alone with a child or with several children. So marriage does have 
a function in relation to children, and children may be a result of 
some sexual activity. When there is intelligence in relation to the 
sexual activity, proper means of protections, protection both 
against viral transfer and conception, with consenting adult 
partners in an honest framework, then I cannot see that there are 
rational, moral, social, sexual nor religious reasons why sex 
cannot occur. 

/ So far we have spoken about the place of sex, in terms of rules 
or what should be allowed. There is more to sex than that!

: Yes. As I pointed out in my little book, "Sex, Meditation and 
Physics", and as I am sure many others have pointed out, the 
orgasmic state, or sexual arousal, involves greater coherence of 
body and mind, and this coherence is a kind of meditation in the 
genital areas and in the body in general. It is healthy, it 
benefits intelligence, and so on. 

/ Is there a condition for it to be in this way, rather than be an 
issue of shame and so on?

: For many, indeed for most, the psyche is full of issues about 
sex, and a great deal of self-enquiry about this, with ruthless 
honesty about what fears are actually involved, what one really is 
trying to fulfill in looking for this or that in sex, and so on, 
over a great deal of time, would be beneficial. Then a purification 
of the intentional level can occur; after which sexual energies can 
flow in new ways. This does not always need a partner, far from it. 
Selfstimulation can and should occur as part of a playful, humorous 
giving of pleasure by the body to itself. There is no age limit at 
all about this; and we should be tranquil about it and quietly, 
esthetically, letting every individual, at any age, engage in it. 

/ What about women liberation?

: For many centuries in most parts of the globe, by far, women have 
been suppressed, and the pendulum should swing but also women need 
to learn to balance with regard to men, and not overdo the 
'compensation' which they rightly deserves. Pantheism suggests, of 
course, a supreme equality, no limits at all, of any kind 
whatsoever, due to gender or other features. Every being reflects 
God, and there is no such thing as a dogma putting one gender down 
in relation to the other gender -- nor any such thing as a skin 
colour to be in any way superior. 

/ Why hasn't this come more naturally before?

: Power greed. Muscles grabbing around the softer forms of the 
woman and considering the woman property more than being. The 
conditions have been ridified into the rediculous aspects of most 
religions. Science and its first phase of industrial materialism 
slowly set women free, gave women the obvious rights of voting and 
so on. Pantheism then gives both men and women back their sense of 
relationship with something beyond matter, beyond themselves -- 
perhaps a little like Martin Buber's I-Thou. I predict that the 
future will see a lot more of philosophies of Buber's kind. We have 
had tons of the individualist stuff of Platon and Nietzsche, and it 
has led to fascism and totalitarianism, to imprisonement of women 
and to slaves. Every individual matters infinitely and this 
significance blossoms only in relationship, in I-Thou 
relationships, in love relationships -- and in sex relationships.












Chapter 19



/ Suppose I want to develop a sense of righteous action, intuitive 
action, cultivating the right kind of energy in my daily life. How 
would I begin, as a pantheist?

: You would probably want to begin by meditation. You would 
probably want to draw in a sense of the greatness of life, and 
appreciate life, and honor life. Then you would request that this 
life acts through you with regard to your present primary 
intentions, which should all have some generous aspects about 
themselves, and that you should be guided by love, by God, in all 
you do. You should request this fiercely, yet playfully. With 
strength and determination. You need great strength because you are 
about to set on a journey which will physically alter your brain 
and set your mind free from the false forces of humanity -- and 
that is no small task.

/ I demand this and I demand that, but what will I do when the 
intuition is to become my real life? What is the practise I will 
engage in?

: Remember it must come from within, but you can experiment to help 
it unfold. For instance, you can go for long walks and describe 
certain issues of life to yourself, and watch how your body goes 
through phases of feelings as you quietly talk to yourself. You may 
discover that your eyes tend to look at things which provide a 
commentary from your subconscious mind as to what you say.

/ But suppose right now, for a few minutes, which I take from in 
between the many activities I have, I want to develop intuition. 
What is the ultimate 'crash course' in developing good intuition? 

: Okay, massage your whole body for a few minutes, from bottom and 
up, then sit still, say something nice, pantheistically nice, like 
'love for all' a few times. Then sit absolutely still and say, 'I 
am more and more intuitive every day, and I win by using 
intuition'. Say it and feel it and be still. Then ask something 
which is not of great importance to you to know, but which you 
don't know now but will come to know soon, like 'what is the weater 
tomorrow?' 'what will I have for dinner tomorrow?' 'what will I 
discuss on the phone next time I receive a phone call?' And for 
each question, let answers come up and then give a number, say, 
from one to five, as to how credible you feel that the answer is.

/ How do you decide how credible the answer is?

: You make yourself neutral with regard to each question -- I 
forgot to say that, but that is very important. Tell yourself to be 
free from fear and desire and illusions and so on. When you are 
going to judge as to how credible the answer is, then propose a 
number very quietly, that reflects it - say, five for completely 
reliable and one for completely unreliable. Before you say it 
aload, feel the number you are about to propose as if in your gut 
feeling. Just sense, quietly, if the stomach is warm upon your 
saying of it. Don't say it unless you feel that somehow your body 
agrees. Change the number until you find a number that your body 
warmth supports. It may take time -- let it take time. Then you 
will get it done maybe much faster later; while there are questions 
which will take time later also. The most difficult questions may 
take weeks and months, even for trained intuitionists!

/ Thank you, that was practical.







Chapter 20


/ Do you believe that enrollment in a monk or nun order of a 
buddhistic kind can bring progress in the path towards 
enlightenment, as the buddhists typically claim?

: Much as I would like to believe that, I simply cannot bring 
myself to believe it! I think the Buddha made a mistake there, if 
the munk and nun order indeed was his creation. He did make 
mistakes, you know. After all, it is remarkable how well-tempered 
and culture-independent his teachings appeared to have been, 
considering his environment and that his travel experience could 
not have been anything near that of a typical man or woman of 
today. Yet, even if we believe the legends, Buddha changed his mind 
about things. First he did not want to enroll women into his order. 
Then, very late in his life, he accepted them after all, and 
created a nun order. What was that all about? So if we tend to hold 
the belief that nothing he did had anything to do with the 
limitations of his present culture, that does not seem to stand up 
very well. And the notion of progression towards enlightenment 
through having a master was, and still is, to some extent, a deeply 
ingrained bias in the Indian culture.

/ What is your proposal here, then?

: My proposal is that the notion of progress towards enlightenment 
is, in most cases, an illusion. Enlightenment is a sudden thing. It 
comes as a byproduct of right activity, but that activity is not 
likely to be all of the kind that consciously intend enlightenment. 
In fact, my proposal is that the greater part of our activities 
must have a much broader focus than personal enlightenment, and 
only some of them should have this perspective or focus. Otherwise 
it becomes too much of a tight grip according to the ego.

/ What do you mean?

: It is not playful, openminded, open-ended enough if you enroll 
into something in order to become enlightened.

/ What is, again, the notion of enlightenment in pantheism?

: As I see it, it is the realization, the awakening to the direct 
or immediate, ongoing and irreversible fact of pantheism or 
godhood-everywhere. It is a realization of the fact that the 
observer is the observed, that there is no division, and a profound 
sense of a fire of love beyond any conscious observation. It is an 
alternate fire. I call this paravana, for this not merely the 
extinguishing of a light or a desire, as in the concept of nirvana.

/ Paravana is enlightenment? What does the word in itself mean, in 
its roots? Is it 'vana' as in nirvana?

: Yes. The 'vana' may be translated something like flame or desire. 
The 'nir' is obviously a negative term, an annihiliation of the 
latter. So I go to greek and find 'para' there, as in 'parable', 
'parabole' and 'parapsychology'. It means on the side or different. 
Alternate fire, that is how I prefer to put it. 

/ And paravana would be the natural concept of enlightenment in 
pantheism?

: I think it is.

/ You say that there is no progression to it, it is sudden. Could 
you elaborate on what that might mean, and what it means to work, 
for oneself, to come to it, then?

: As J. Krishnamurti very forcefully pointed out, as few others 
have, perhaps an occasional zen teacher here and there, most people 
love to speak about time and progression when it comes to 
enlightenment, because that can explain that which their ego is 
still not able to give up, as it appears to them. It is as if they 
are saying: I am still a brute, but I won't be in the future, so 
can you please leave me alone to be brute a little more!

/ Not to be enlightened is to be a brute?

: Of course.

/ What do you mean?

: Enlightenment means that you no longer resist the impulses of 
your heart, you no longer enforce your prejudices, fears and 
inbuilt traumas on your decisions and actions, it means that you 
realize the immense responsibility we have in all our actions to 
act with empathy, compassion, wholesomeness and intelligence, 
rather than merely insisting on a few 'rules' or making for oneself 
a 'standard' of action. To avoid this challenge is to live as a 
brute, and do ugly actions. I am sorry to say it, but that is 
exactly how it feels to me.

/ How can you at all manage to live happily in a society, then, if 
this is your view of most actions?

: You see, you do not fight fact, but appreciate it and intend to 
heal it. It is there. You learn to live with the facts, and the 
facts are changing all the time. It may be ugly in some ways but 
you know that the potential is that everybody can be enlightened, 
absolutely everyone, sooner or later.

/ Isn't that an escape?

: You mean that it is an idea that the ego clings to, another form 
of 'becoming' or progression, another form of delay of personal 
transformation? It can be. But I am fairly sure it isn't for me. 
You see, when you feel full of this light of love within, when you 
live as a pantheist in this sense -- awakened -- then you do not 
feel compelled to judge in the sense of hatred. You see the facts 
but you also see that they can change. You also intend, as a 
healing factor, to do things that can allow this change to occur. 
That is not a false escape. I am willing to say it is a true 
escape. If you do not permit yourself to have the intention or 
passion of awakening all, then the fact of the brutality is a lot 
more tougher to face, of course. Because then you are avoiding to 
intend the obvious.

/ I hear that, but I remember phrases from the teachings of 
enlightenment by various people that any motive of action is 
harmful to the action.

: Let us not be caught up in words. The word 'motive' may signify -
- now I am giving maximal credit to your quotes -- that there is 
effort in the mind, with regard to the action. That there is not 
the quality of listening deeply and acting with wholeness. Rather, 
the ego implants its wishes on an action and forces it to go in a 
different direction than your godhood within, to put it that way. 
To have a passion and its intention is altogether different than 
that. Passion is compassion, the action of the whole of you, not 
merely a fragment of yourself. If you look to Spinoza's teachings, 
passion means hilaritas, the joy of the whole organism. Having a 
motive is titilatio, a pleasure of a fragment, a mere portion of 
the organism. Hilaritas is beneficial to freedom, to awakening. 
Titilatio may inhibit freedom.

/ Do you suggest that a pantheist looks eclectically to past 
teachings?

: Everybody is a teacher. The look a child can give you is a 
teaching look. The timing, the contours of his or her eyebrow, the 
overall expression of the face -- that is a master teaching you how 
to be human. The children are teachers of enlightenment.

/ Why do they seem to loose it, then?

: Well, because they must learn certain skills, such as reasoning 
in relation to action, that may limit their relationship to fact, 
to themselves, to other people, unless it is taught with unusual 
skill by adults who are themselves enlightened.

/ We teach our children to be un-enlightened?

: Of course.

/ So this is a challenge for schools, then.

: And parents. But we must not forget that children can be quite 
brutal as well. I am not saying every moment is equally bright. So 
it is an immature form of enlightenment and it vanishes, to a large 
extent, exactly because it is immature. Mature enlightenment is 
enlightenment proper, and it does not vanish, no matter 
environmental pressures.

/ But more generally, would you advice people to read socalled 
religious texts, or teachings of a buddhistic kind, a zen kind, a 
dao kind, or whatever?

: I think a mature, adult individual who is preparing himself or 
herself to be enlightened should travel a lot, learn to have a 
fluid, playful, yet logically grounded dialogue with every kind of 
personality in every kind of culture. I think the person should 
acquaint himself or herself with every kind of recorded idea in 
human history, from every kind of culture, but not chaotically nor 
as a system, but in order to think and reflect on each idea, to go 
through each idea and get his or her own sense of reality through 
it, not being gullible, not accepting Kant or Wittgenstein or 
Krishnamurti. We have had a few teachers, some of them were rather 
clear, but feel quite free to check with your own intuition whether 
anyone was absolutely enlightened.

/ What does your own intuition say?

: Ah, does it really matter? Fish your own fish! The rod is there!










Chapter 21



/ I have a practical question.

: Come with it.

/ You speak, sometimes, of the importance of going beyond time.

: Living in the timeless, yes.

/ Yet society as it is, at least around me, configures itself 
according to clock and calender.

: Quite. Do you feel a conflict? You shouldn't.

/ Why not?

: Because time is part of the timeless. Processes unfold. You must 
learn to predict how they unfold, to sensitize yourself to upcoming 
events.

/ Explain.

: Say, you make an agreement with another individual to meet and do 
something. How do you do this?

/ Well, I reason whether it is in alignment with my priorities, and 
with what I feel like doing, and so on. Then I conclude I want this 
agreement.

: That's all good and well and fruitful. But there is a final stage 
before any agreement is reached, isn't there? A stage of silence.

/ Silence?

: Silence. You reason and reason well, and that is valid, to some 
extent. Yet, as all who have looked a lot into formal logic knows -
- and why shouldn't everyone look into this delightful piece of 
easy mathematics! as important as numbers! -- if you shift the 
premises, then the conclusions shift, and the premises come from 
something else than logic. 

/ Please explain this, it is fuzzy to me.

: You are about to make a decision as to something you are going to 
do in the future, say. And you say, "I am interested in such-and-
such activities these days; this activity benefits what I am 
interested in; so I conclude that I am in favour of it". But if you 
change the premises, the first parts of this reasoning, the 
conclusion may change. For instance, you may remember that you have 
something else to do in that week; you may remember that you have 
changed priorities; you have recognize a sense that the person may 
actually not be there though he or she promises too -- there are so 
many possibilities, in fact infinitely many. 

/ So what do we do, then?

: You go through what you think is probable, and then become 
silent. You have got to feel it through. There is a moment, or 
should be a moment, of a silent pause, a sense of the wholeness of 
yourself and of how you feel in that future, doing that, and this 
moment will guide you.

/ Thank you.

: You're welcome.










Chapter 22



/ I wish to discuss political issues with you -- and hear your 
views about what you could think or imagine to be an utopian state, 
if any; and how this ties in with pantheism.

: Ough! Do we have to? If we are going to have this discussion, I 
first want to point out that, as far as politics goes, any 
particular political view is neither a prerequisite nor a direct 
logical implication of pantheism. We merely discuss possibilities, 
compatible possibilities. Do you know of the structure of deep 
ecology, as it was founded by Arne Naess and others?

/ Not much.

: Well, deep ecology is a set of some eight points, which are all 
very general. They do not say how it is you come to believe in 
these points -- one of them being that 'nature has value in itself' 
-- nor do they assert exactly what you should do if you believe in 
them. It is more like a tunnel, through which we may stream a lot 
of different worldviews, and drew widely different courses of 
actions from. Do you see the similarity?

/ You mean to say that pantheism is like deep ecology in that it is 
a tunnel, capable of holding a variety of religious and political 
views?

: Something like that. As I said, any political view is not a 
necessity in any way, as far as pantheism goes. There are 
likelihoods, probabilities, perhaps; there are plausible ways of 
thinking, that's all!

/ Okay. Granted. Can you imagine an utopian state?

: No, I cannot: a 'state' is a fragmentory concept to me. Isn't it? 
How can you define a state unless it is by some set of borders?

/ Do you wish every culture to mingle, then?

: That does not follow. We have different languages and cultures, 
we have different city-cultures and country-cultures, but I do not 
see that the concept of the state or the nation is of all that 
great importance. 

/ Yet there are people who have adherence to religious scriptures, 
which say...

: No! Adherence to a scripture is adherence to a folly! We are not 
robots, and the written texts are not our programs. Unless we rid 
ourselves from fundamentalism, letter-reading of texts, and start 
thinking for ourselves, we will get the worst kinds of atrocities. 

/ Nevertheless, the political situation also involves people who 
relate this way to texts.

: I see. You are asking how to relate to this, and whether it does 
not make sense to shield oneself, perhaps in a state, from these 
people.

/ Yes. They might invade you, overtake your cities and so on, in 
other cases.

: I do not know if I follow that. A free city should have some kind 
of police that protects it. It may even have a military apparatus 
for strong defense. I do not see that a state is necessary to 
protect individuals.

/ But who is in command of that police force or that military 
force, if not a state?

: Who is in command of anything? You see, in ancient Greece they 
had slaves and no real power for women, and on these very 
unfortunate conditions, the philosophers, such as Platon and 
Aristotle, sought to construct ideas of how things ideally should 
be. But with this brutal prejudice, they did not get very far. And 
none of them would have anything of democracy. They did not want 
people to have power. A lot of fascism came from these socalled 
wise people's thinking. Add Nietzsche, with his horrendous aversion 
to what he called 'weakness', and you had the horribe foundation 
for the fascist tradition of Italy and the nazi-fascism of Germany, 
and the marxist-fascism of Russia, China and many other countries, 
and countless ruthless dictators in latin America. Even the 
socalled 'democracies' denied women and indigenous people rights, 
women who were beautiful and independent were burned, millions of 
American Indians were maimed by the invaders and occupiers of the 
American nations; the Sami in Northern Norway, especially the 
shamans, were destroyed, in the most brutal ways. This brutal thing 
has just barely began to end. 


















Chapter 23




/ I think we should talk more politics.

: Yes.

/ Do you feel that pantheism is most in favour of democracy?

: Yes, if the alternatives involve any form of limitation of 
personal creativity.

/ But why was democracy so little approved of by the major Greek 
philosophers?

: The reason is simple, but not very wise, as far as I can see. The 
reason is that when compulsion and overuse of brute force is 
already in effect, then the silly decisions of a bad democracy may 
appear at least as harmful as the decision of a rather 
clearthinking individual. The wise tyrant and all that. But the 
principle of regarding every human being as a piece of holy life, 
whose creative expression must be guarded, though perhaps 
counselled, must never be upset by a pantheist. A pantheist can 
never accept any form of fascism or dictatorship.

/ I thought you said that you can draw no political inferences from 
pantheism.

: Not when it comes to particulars, and not with certainty -- as 
far as this or that nonviolent approach goes. But from the outset, 
there are constraints, there are limits as to what it makes sense 
to accept as a pantheist, and certainly, a tyranny, a dictatorship, 
a military hold on people so as to suppress their creative, 
artistic expression, or their moving about to other parts of the 
world -- any such violence against human beings cannot at all be 
accepted by a pantheist.

/ What about violence against animals?

: The same applies. But there I agree with Arne Naess, that it 
makes sense for human beings to put a certain priority on their own 
kind, and then show compassion to other beings as an extension of 
this. 

/ Can you tell what you think would be the ideal political 
situation, what it makes sense to work for -- what kind of 
democracy and so on?

: Yes. Again, this is not something I think is necessary to 
pantheism, but natural in it: I think we should have a leaderless 
democracy. I think we should utilize our communication technology 
to make it possible for everyone to have a say about everything, 
and have no leaders with any mandate of power at all. That is one 
point, and it is not entirely unrealistic. After all, it was merely 
a practical installment that people votes on people to decide for 
them. Now we have technological opportunities to have an actual 
government by the people.

/ Why should this make a great change?

: I think possibly it could make a great change, because everyone 
could at all times influence anything they like. That is a very 
radical shift of consciousness. It mirrors more closely how we 
might imagine the neurons collaborate in the brain.

/ Any further conditions for this to be fruitful?

: Oh yes, we must investigate a lot of conditions, experiment, be 
playful, work it out. Again utilizing communication technology, 
anybody at all could create newspapers, magazines, TV stations and 
so on. I think this -- the free flow of information -- could 
effective replace the need for advertisments. Paid advertisements 
are often little more than paid lies. If we take away that thing, 
but have a completely free press in all ways, then journalists may 
or may not be biased or affected by gifts and so on, but some 
journalistis and media would get a reputation of honesty.

/ You would sensor advertisments?

: No sensorship. But I would propose, in a democratic spirit, for 
voting, as all people could propose, that while there is freedom of 
expression for everyone, we should print information as we find 
interesting and not be on the mercy of paid information. I have a 
further point about this, as long as we remember that these are 
merely my personal opinions, compatible with pantheism but not 
necessary in it: I think we should not have money. Rather, people 
should have full freedom to work out whatever forms of exchange 
they feel like -- such as the local trade exchange systems or 
exchange rings that already exists around the world.

/ Is that realistic?

: Why not? 

/ But many have found money practical?

: Yes, and still more have found that they have becomes slaves of 
the conditions that money power people set for them.

/ This sounds, in that respect, as marxism.

: I think marxism does not work, because it is too onesided in how 
it characterises societies, it is too empty in how it consider the 
importance of individual freedom, and too negative in how it 
considers competition. Marxism does have some points of criticism 
which may be valid, apart from the severe lack of validity and 
meaning of the rest. I am most strongly against the crimes against 
humanity that communism in almost every form has led to. I have 
disregard for the anti-individual and anti-spiritual aspect of many 
forms of socalled 'socialism'. It is important to start any 
political thinking with a great emphasis on the uniqueness of each 
individual,