Here’s a little song (if you can call it that) that sums up how so many scientists can feel awe, delight, and a sense of mystery when contemplating the universe – without any hint of gods, religions, or any other superstitions. I enjoyed it so much that I’ve watched it three times already.

This reaction to the mystery of the universe fits so well with that found in Zen. You don’t go looking for worlds beyond, for strange powers or for any creator behind it all – you just open your eyes and your mind to everything that is here now. Underlying this is the Buddhist conception of dependent arising which basically means that everything that happens is related to everything else, and everything happens because of the causes and conditions that precede it.
As Dawkins says “Matter flows from place to place, and momentarily comes together to be you. Some people find that thought disturbing. I find the reality thrilling.”
So do I.
Please forgive my long silence but I have been over-worked and unwell – very un-Zen. So I am trying to throw off some of the excess work and let myself recover. I hope to get back to this blog in due course.

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

26 Responses to “”

  1. puerhan Says:

    Great find, nice remixing of the quotations!

  2. jamesfkh Says:

    Hello Sue,
    I really enjoyed reading your book. I studied consiousness some years ago at Goldsmiths as an undergraduate under Max Velmans and have always found it intriguing. However, I have also studied and sat zazen for the past few years usually managing 45 minutes to an hour a day. I came up against many of the problems you did , that fear of the great void and letting go . I persevered and found that fear subsiding but as i felt I was moving out into the void I still felt something wasnt quite right. I kept on again and realised that what I thought was the void was just an idea I had of nothingness, an intellectual concept my mind had concocted. I was wondering if this was what you were having trouble with at the end. As I let go of the concept I was rewarded by a move closer to the truth so to speak. It also began to radically change the way I viewed consciousness.
    It became clear to me that consciousness is a continuum . By this , of course, I do not mean the everyday consciousness as defined by most people. I mean the very basic or pure consciousness which constitutes the now experience. This is not to say it is a continuum in a religious , ” higher power” sense. It makes sense to me to see this from a purely scientific point of view. Apart from solving questions on an individual brain level, seeing it as a continuum is much more in keeping with science on a larger scale. I dont think anyone would disagree with the idea of consciousness being intimately bound up with space, time and energy. Well , if we viewed it as a kind of energy , a sort of dark matter radiating through us we could say that it was continuous in the same way as space or time. This solves many problems such as those of its lack of location and boundaries. It also allows us to examine whether it may display any similar properties in relation to space and time . I believe it does. Firstly, to extrapolate from a large scale example , if we look at the absolute now experience of consciousness as a kind of singularity in a black hole we see that in the same way that the laws of physics break down on approach to the singularity the laws of psychology break down on approach to the “now”. On a smaller scale, we enter the crazy world of quantum physics where both classical physics and psychology certainly break down. I know these are far removed from our ordinary view of consciousness but I believe we need to look for other examples from science and the behaviour of space, time and energy to get a better understanding. As the universe started as a singularity , it would seem apparent that any energy contained in it would be continuous unless shown to be otherwise. It may seem counter-intuitive to see consciousness like this but as we can see on a quantum level many things behave counter-intuitively.
    From a Zen point of view too it makes perfect sense. I believe this is the source of the great sense of “oneness” of which enlightened people speak.
    Well, that was how Zen changed my view of consciousness. I hope you gleaned some interest from it and look forward to any comments.
    Jim

  3. davidorban Says:

    Get well!

    We were missing you… 🙂

    David

  4. tenzenbookblog Says:

    Hi Jim,
    Sorry for the slow response. I have been thinking about your comments about the void and whether I too was just struggling with my own idea of the void. I have talked to John Crook quite a bit about that interview and other events and I still do not know.
    What I am facing now is the realisation that I probably need to confront some very ordinary fears and anxieties and that these mundane things may be the real obstructions. For someone so anti-therapy this is a bit challenging!
    Thanks for your comments about consciousness too.

  5. jamesfkh Says:

    Hello Sue,
    Great to hear from you. It is such a struggle when you are confronting the void. I dont think there is anything ordinary about the anxieties and fears that you face. I remember feeling tense when facing it – thinking I will lose my mind in the void or will it just snap under the strain. Then, I realised that the fear was just a generation of my mind and I was attaching to it. When I ignored and forgot it I made progress and realised there was nothing at all to fear.
    However , I think having studied consciousness brought extra problems in that I had extra expectations of what meditation would bring and what was to be experienced. I am sure you must have the same trouble. All these things I had to forget – ideas of a void, a God or no God, concepts of myself , space , time and even enlightenment. I realised the void was part of me all along. What I was afraid of was losing structures my mind had generated in order to make sense of my surroundings. When I saw that they were concepts like any others floating around my mind , then letting go of them was not a problem. My mind didnt collapse without them. It did become a lot lighter.
    I must say though that these things only came about after about 20 minutes into my meditation sessions. I think at least 30 to 40 minutes a day is necessary for getting into deep meditation . For most of us its a big ask but what we are trying to do isnt easy. Good luck with your sessions and hope to hear from you again.
    Jim

  6. peeked Says:

    Hi Sue,
    I think I know what you mean. My teacher, Shinzen Young talks about getting therapy for his problem of procrastination. After decades of meditation, and apparent “enlightenment”, he still made use of conventional therapy in dealing with this ordinary problem. He says he found it successful.
    I still have resistance to this idea. I have my own procrastination and I have trouble dealing with “clutter”. I have a recommendation of a good Jungian psychotherapist that I could go see, but my ideals still prevent me from trying it out.
    Anyway I have confidence in your abilities, and I think you will find your way. I will keep checking your blogs.
    All the best,
    Peeked

  7. jacques79 Says:

    Ok, so lets take a look on scientific achievements – actually lets investigate which of the deepest human question science’s successfully solved. By those I mean such a questions as:

    – What’s reality? Whats the essence of it?
    – Who we are and where we come from?
    – What’s the meaning of all this, whats the meaning of life?
    – What’s our place in universe?
    – What’s the meaning of suffering?
    – Is there a God – in a sense of something absolute, infinite?

    Those are I think some of the really vital and important questions to any thinking man. Do you seriously claim that science can ever provide satisfactory answers to them? What science has really done so far was that it turned those questions into vulgar materialism and give us false feeling that we got the questions we were looking for. And we’ve belived!

    Whats even worse is that when we tend to take science too seriously is that it confuses and deforms our perception. Let me put here two examples of that:

    – suffering. According to science there is no meaning of suffering. Things just happens all around and that sometimes causes pain and suffering. All happens just by pure accident and random chance. Well this is just absurd, total denial of any mature spirituality (spirituality – not religion). The more you are conscious and aware of your life and condition the less you belive in accidents. The world is not smth apart from us; the world is smth we are grown in and smth by what we grow up. Trully, on th deepest level, we are the world and we create the world. Note that this sounds similar to Zen techings.

    – consciousness. Perhaps the most confusing area of scientific investigations. According to science, consciousness is (in the best case) by-product of brain activity. Worse than that, there is general agreement that consciousness plays no role in mind activity. Well this is just another confussion in science. Actually consciousness is the only thing that exists, thing that truly creates the whole fenomenal world. What normally scientists mean by consciousness is just by-product of that, modified by intellect, by habits, by instincts – by all that staff (often rubbish) we acquire during the lifetime.

    Once again – there is no mature spirituality without vital and dominant role of consciousness and self awarness. We even don’t need Zen or buddhism to prove that. Those who don’t understand this fact are in my opinion pretty confused people, people not necessarily stupid byt people that often overestimate reason and try to put it to all vital questions, all aspects of life.

    The effect is that we have denied the very existence of the only thing that really matters, thing that should play the most vital role in people’s life – the fing that is in such a shortage nowadays.

    I think we are slowly – very slowly – coming to conclusion that there are serious limitantions of science and reason that we just cannot avoid or deny. We are coming to conclusion that science is not the best tool to investigate deepest human questions and problems. And the last conclusion is that if we overestimate science, if we loose attention (if not to say – consciousness) of what we actually do with science and what we really can expect from science – it causes mass of confusions and dangerous misunderstandings.

    If you doubt of what I’m saying – look to your heart, not mind but heart. Zen is much closer to human heart than to the his reason.

  8. tenzenbookblog Says:

    Is it not odd, then, that the heart sutra says “There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no cessation of suffering, and no path” ? Is this not the conclusion that a thoughtful reflection on scientific knowledge suggests?

  9. jacques79 Says:

    But this is just misleading and strained interpretation Susan. If we really need some useful knowledge we need a completative knowledge or wisdom that truly applies to everyday human concerns – not necessarily in the sense of some highly methaphisical or sophisticated ideas. And – in my opinion – even less in the sense of scientific discoveries.

    Of course I acknowledge the deep wisdom of Heart Sutra but that’s not what I ment, I ment something what could apply to life itself. Heart Sutra is not less than juzt ultimate recognition of the condition of things and I’m not sure this is the same what “scientific knowledge suggests”.

    As Wilber (very interesting and smart guy, unfortunatelly usually misunderstood by scientists) says we just cant ignore upper left quadrant any more (subjectivity, psyche, self-awarness etc) – and the best example of that are the failures of modern medicine. Scientist are not able to acknowledge the fact that human diseases are mostly conditioned by various emotional and psychical issues – not just by blind forces in the “outside” world as science states (thats what I’ve meant in previous post). I have to say Susan, I’ve Phd in biology, but I learnt more about suffering, about causes of diseases, about the very meaning of life from a few so called New Thought books – than form the all of the scientific text-books I’ve managed to read. And – what’s even more important – that has radically changed the way I look at the world. And gave me the sense of what we loose by uncriticall gloryfication of science and nothing-but-3-person-perspective.

    Among these books are those of Louise Hay (Heal Your Body: The Mental Causes for Physical Illness and the Metaphysical Way to Overcome Them, Inner Wisdom, The Power Is Within You) Colin Sisson (Inner Adventures, The Next Step) or Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose). These books are not only highly spiritually grounded texts – they truly respond to serious human questions and show the path to inner true and wisdom. When I talk about these issues with scientist they usually laught at me and call it blashemy. I admit this is just depressing and annoying that kind of blindness.

    Do you laught at me as well Sue? Or are you going to treat science the same way the majority of scientists do – like some kind of religion? “Science can explain everything”, “The last great mystery of science” (about consciousness) – these are your quotes, aren’t they? Even Richard Dawkins seems to be more cautious.

  10. jacques79 Says:

    Here’s an interesting Ken Wilbers article which introduce to the integral approach to science and spirituality – and to the so-called problem of “flatland” which basically appears when we tend to overvalue one of the quadrants (full explanation of the concept of quadrants to be found in the article).

    This is not confusing, this is quite enlightening – just judge yourself.

    http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/cowokev8_intro.cfm/

  11. jacques79 Says:

    Forgive my emotions, but you see Sue – I’m like that, I’m not a robot, anyway don’t feel that way. 😉 Isn’t it part of scientific methodology to hide one’s own emotions? You know, I think that there’re sometimes moments in live when you just have to trust yourself and forget much of that you have been told or learnt so far. I’ve fallen in love with science since early childhood and still love it – but I just can’t pretend that there is everything allright with our approach to science and with the world-view that is now beeing built on this approach.

    I know what you’re thinking – I’ve been there, too. But what I’m beggining to see now is slightly different, I’d even say somehow it seems to be much more air in the air.

    There is what Ive found about Wilber’s concept of “flatland”, especially scientific “flatland” – difficult to spot by scientist themselves, much easier by the people who’s gone beyonde scientific limitations (and that crazy nothing-but-3rd-person-perspective):

    “Wilber uses the term flatland to describe what happens when one or more of the quadrants is ignored or undervalued. Science describes our external world. Science is a world view that measures our ‘reality’. Whatever can’t be measured in some way is deemed to be unreal or valueless. Values, feelings and intuition have no part in the
    scientific world. Scientists have created a flatland where the whole left side of the four quadrants have been flattened into the right. the more science does this (thesis) the more there is a reaction from people not prepared to live in such a polluted flatland (antithesis).

    We can also create a flat land when we cut ourselves off from higher levels of development. A tribal society generally makes a sharp distinction between those who are in the group and those who are outside the group. They create a flatland by denying equal status to outsiders. There are usually strict rules governing enforcing
    co-operation within the group such as a ban on violence to members but an encouragement of violence towards outsiders, especially if they may be a threat. They have created a flat land by ignoring the common humanity we share.

    Where we went wrong in the West Our scientific view of life has created a severe flatland. In science there is no ‘I’. A scientist doesn’t say, “I ran an experiment” but rather,”an experiment was run”. The
    scientist has disappeared. There is no room for thoughts and feelings only measurements of what is out there. The left hand interior side of the quadrants has been denied and flatlanded into the right. The material side of life is all important not the internal and spiritual. The inner world has been left and we have lost the link to our unity in the world. Gaia has been lost and she is beginning to complain.”

    You can say now: “Ok, ok but this is just what we have discovered? So why are you tussling? Just accept how the thing are”. Than I can say: “yea? This is what you have discovered yousing your tools and methodology of science on the field that is incompatibile wtih this approach. The same way I can ask you: what’s actually science about? Objective reality out-there? Is it really such a long time since you’ve discovered that matter itself is literally made of nothing? So, why haven’t you become solipsysts yet”?

    Ok, this was just a piece of joke. What I’m trying to say is that science has become some kind of chimera – living its own life and loosing its essential roots in philosophy; chimera that is still closed to dialogue with mature spirituality. Whats worrying is that even spiritually – opened scientists like you seem to support naive materialism and scientific flatland, poisoning the very roots of modern science.

    No wonder that so many people turns away from science. Anyway what really seems to be un-Zen is that narrow-mindnesses of scienctific approach. In my opinion, here is the biggest tension between science and Zen. What was once its greatest strength and advantage now seems to uncover its limitation.

    Ps: I’ve had to say that piece of criticsm – altought I still regard you honest and brave scientist I admire in a way. But you see, sometimes honesty and bravery is too little – or rather too much, when you stick to this kind of attitude. I hope you didn’t have too much trouble with my english, I rarely use it, kind regards Sue.

  12. tenzenbookblog Says:

    No need to hide your emotions. I talk about some of these issues in the introductory chapters of 10Zen.
    I do think science has changed a lot and is much more accepting now of the fact that the scientist has to be part of the science. All that “the experiment was done ….” stuff has mellowed in many areas of science, especially in psychology where the experimenter is often implicated in the results (e.g. with experimenter effects).
    I have personally never been able to separate my science from the rest of my life which has good and bad sides to it. If you’re interested have a look at my autobiography
    In Search of the Light: The Adventures of a Parapsychologist, Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, 1996 See http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Adventures/Light.htm

    Your English is fine!

  13. jacques79 Says:

    Thanks, Sue.

    I just can’t imagine living in the flat Universe where is no room for consciousness, for inner life, for values. Universe where we’re nothing but zombie-boxes for replicators, driven by blind forces (sounds like invitation to suicide, doesn’t it?). I think there are more and more resons to doubt this is truly comprehensive picture of ourselves in this world – and find more holistic, more integral approach to both science and spirtuality, all the exteriors and interiors, left quadrants and right quadrants.

    Even if ultimately all of them are just the emptiness.

    This, I deeply belive, is the direction we need to head for. Maybe Zen is coming just in time!

  14. jacques79 Says:

    I think you’ll enjoy this, Sue:

  15. tenzenbookblog Says:

    Yes “ultimately all of them are just the emptiness”.
    This is not a “flat universe”. It is rich and full, and yet all of it empty of self nature. Consciousness is not a power or force or indeed any distinct thing at all. There is just this integrated universe in which we suffer the illusion of imagining that we are separate from everything that is “not me”. An apparent inner life emerges, values emerge, selves emerge, from mindless bits of stuff.
    This is no reason for suicide.
    See if you can imagine it.

  16. tenzenbookblog Says:

    I only endured about 3 minutes of it. No, I do not enjoy that sort of stuff. It plays (like “What do the bleep ..”) on what people want to be true. Look, really look, and it is not like that, I would say.

  17. jacques79 Says:

    “There is just this integrated universe in which we suffer the illusion of imagining that we are separate from everything that is “not me”. An apparent inner life emerges, values emerge, selves emerge, from mindless bits of stuff.”

    Here I got you Sue. 😉 Look, for me it sounds like hopelessly disintegrtaed Universe. It tells more about the way you look at the world, than about the world itself. For example: what do you actually mean by “mindless bits of stuff”? Don’t you realize that all that “stuff” emerges from our common mind, common consciousness? The same way I might say: “It all emerges from a bits of mind”. These are just two sides of the one coin, indeed!

    As Buddha said: “The mind is everything. What you think you become.” Yeap – context is everything.

    You know Sue, I’ve recently read (second time) your “Meme Machine” and I found you world-view hopelessly materialistic: we’re nothing but pieces of matter, brain and memes and we should better surrender to them and all those unconscious forces “outside”. Well, you see, for me these are just partial truths – and may also appear a bit misleading truths if we cling to them. Look, I’ll put it shortly: if you regard science as a main guidance in life, than fine, nothings wrong with that, but don’t expect that science itself can offer us some final or comprehensive answers – it simply cannot.

    Of course you can disagree with that opinion, but that would have more in common with religion than philosophy and sceptical enquiry.

    Ps: After all, we are all mystically interconnected in this world, aren’t? Perhaps this is one of the greatest mystery itself.

    Regards from Poland, Wroclaw. 😉

  18. jacques79 Says:

    Ups, forgotten about the video. 😉 So, you say:

    “I only endured about 3 minutes of it. No, I do not enjoy that sort of stuff. It plays (like “What do the bleep ..”) on what people want to be true. Look, really look, and it is not like that, I would say.”

    Yeap, I’ve heard that argument from you several times already and it sounds a little bit worn out. That’s a pity you wasn’t patient enough to watch the second half of the video (ok, first was a bit of junk). There is more about spiral dynamics, integral psychology and philosophy. They are all solidly grounded in the modern psychology and sociology, as well as many other disciplines, including eastern spirituality and perrenial philosophy. I have no idea Sue whats “populistic” about these ideas??? Whats populistic in the integral approach to the domains of science and spirituality?

    Explain it to me, Sue.

  19. jacques79 Says:

    Ok, no explains. Sue knows already everything (“mind emerges form the mindless bits of stuff”) and now wants Zen to get confirmation.

    You know where’s the problem Sue? You are trying to look at the mind scientifically as if it was something to be explored “outside”. So, lets try to estabilish its location (brain?, neocortex?), properties, lets measure it, etc, etc..

    But you see, the problem is that mind has no location, no properties, no measurements. Mind is EVERYWHERE. Its functions don’t start in the neocortex and end in the spinal cord; it pervades and fills everything; it takes the forms (“bits of stuff” as Sue says) in accordance with conditions.

    This is typical for our Western way of thinking to look for the mind in the realm of objectivity (specifically – in the brain). But, for instance, typical, not educated chinese considers this matter in a much more subtle way – he would never hit to an idea that his mind is by-product of brain – he would rather point at his heart or chakras (or hara-point). By the way, this is – in my opinion – much closer to the truth.

    So, lets settle the facts: mind has no location, no size, no measurable properties – but it contains everything, it is a matrix of everything, substance of everything.

    So lets suppose now that Sue says this: “but it means nothing, I’ve heard that, its bla bla, new-age bullshit, I can’t measure it, it’s no explanation, of no use”. So what’s the mind then? It’s something that has to be felt, breathed – not measured or known in a any scientific way. If you want to know the mind, you have to put aside all these scientific methodologies and attitudes, as well as – quite typical for science – arogance.

    Then you will see everything in a brand new way.

  20. tenzenbookblog Says:

    Hopelessly materialistic? I’m a monist, yes. I think there must be only one kind of stuff in the universe i.e. I reject dualism in all its forms. But I don’t know how best to describe the one-stuff. Mind? matter? something else altogether?

  21. tenzenbookblog Says:

    Spiral dynamics has many problems. For example it uses the term “meme” but not in the way it was originally defined by Dawkins or in any way that is used in any other area of science. Wilber’s theories have many, many problems, widely discussed in the literature. The perenniel philosophy (although there are probably many versions, not just one) does not fit with some truly fundamental scientific findings. These ideas remain popular nonetheless.

  22. jacques79 Says:

    Yes, but the point is that Wilber himself consider his “theories” rather as a “maps” of all major domains of human creativity (science, spirituality, arts), or a kind of attempt to make some integral worldview based on these disicples – than any sort of theory in a scientific sense of the word. Integral philosophy simply cannot be “scientific” as science itself is only a part of human activity. This is just a map of reality, this is philosophy! But it doesn’t mean it’s worthless – I found it inspiring in many, many ways. Wilber was the first philosopher that opened my mind to spirituality.

    Look, Sue, I’m not trying to make you belive in anything – I’m just trying to open your mind and investigate the topic a little bit deeper.

    I just don’t belive we’re mere subjects of the blind forces acting apart or independently of us (our subjectivity). This just stays in the contradiction with every mature spirituality (including buddhas teachings). And – what’s funny – looks like this assumption only works in the science!

    There are also more and more evidences supporting integral worldview – including, for instance, succeses of the integral approaches to medicine that cease to take humans as mere robots any more – and thus encourage us to look “below” and find real, mental causes of so-called physical dysfunctions (which we tend to think we are generally not responsible for). This is a real shift in human perception, I would say – we’re growing up.

    This is really our mind, our thinking that co-creates the world. If you don’t spot why this could be so and how, I’d suggest you’re not looking at the the very bottom of the topic. You know, I’m scientist myself and I have delt with it more than with anything for last 15 years – I’d say I got some idea what science is about, as well as what science is not about.

    Here’s another video of Loise Hay (forgive me Sue;). Perhaps you’ll find it intelectually disappointing again but the truths is that this teachings WORKS, it truly works with the people. They induce real changes in mentality, in health, as well as physical body. This is more than new-age bullshit, many of these teachings are based on buddhist theories of mind and eastern spirituality in general.

    This is already all I wanted to say, I’m not a sort of meme preacher, so relax (altought I’m as stubborn as you seem to be;). The rest is up to you.

  23. jacques79 Says:

    “The perenniel philosophy (although there are probably many versions, not just one) does not fit with some truly fundamental scientific findings.”

    Maybe some examples Sue? Or maybe you still confuse domains of spirituality and science? Try to turn everything into boring, grey scientific flatland.

    Don’t you understand that dualism is becouse of intellect – not becouse of consciousness or any kind of dychotomy that we can observe objectively (flash/spirit etc)? How can we expect that the intellect can solve a problem that’s of his own production?

    How can we expect that intellectual solutions can provide us some deep and real sense of unity, meaning and fulfillment in life? How can we expect science could offer us some truly “fundamental findings”?

    Looks like you think that everything valuable in spirituality is the doctrine of anatman, no-mind etc. All the rest has to be flatlanded into the science. You forget about whole buddhistic studies on consciousness (alaya, vijnyna) metempsychosis, karmic laws, prajna – ideas which are now being adopted in new Western spirituality.

    This is what me and Wilber mean when we talk abaut the “importance of left hand quadrants” and thats why wilbers philosophy is so important and up-to time.

    It prevent us from tyranny of purely intellectual perception and one-eye-blindness.

    Are you people totally confused?! Wake up!!!

  24. jacques79 Says:

    “Emty-handed I go and yet the spade is in my hands;
    I walk on foot, and yet on the back of an ox I’m riding;
    When I pass over the bridge,
    Lo, the water floweth not, but the bridge doth flow.”
    Fudaishi

    And how does it fit with fundamental scientific findings? Gosh, it barely does! 😀

    Ok Sue (Zuza in polish;), let me put it this way:
    “What if…
    I said that whole universe, everything that you can see is your mind and your body?
    I said that everything that happens to you, come to bring you the enlightement?
    I said that this world is neither a battlefield, nor mere display of brute forces – but garden of eden that we have never left?
    I said there are no “bits of stuff” that drive us – but the whole universe among with “bits of stuff” emerge in the depths of ourselves, from our common spirit?
    I said that whole worlds and universes are to be found on the tip of your fingernail?

    Well, how do these statements fit with the “fundamental scientific findings”? Looks poorly, doesn’t it? But this is something what I feel intuitively, deep in my heart Susan. This is also something that enlightened people tell us.

    I don’t belive that mechanically thinking mind can ever reach the Truth. Do you? What we find by mechanical thinking is just… another mechanical thinking.

  25. jacques79 Says:

    Remember Zuza, no offence to you! You are funny! 🙂

    Have a nice struggle with all the hard problems! 🙂

  26. tenzenbookblog Says:

    What if?…. I would agree with you.
    But I would not agree that this conflicts with fundamental scientific findings, nor do I understand what you mean by “mechanical thinking”.
    Is feeling deeply in one’s heart really such a good guide to what is true? Of course not. People have felt all sorts of false, cruel and terrible things intuitively in their hearts, as well as the good and true.
    Is there a truth to be reached? Do minds reach truths?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: