TODAY OVER THE AIR

Today on the Radio Show...

- What acceptance of euthanasia says about the meaningless of people's lives.

- From our listener email file, a response to Pantheism

- Do we live in the midst of a cosmic battle between angels and demons?

UPDATE: We didn't get to the cosmic battle segment, but we did talk euthanasia and I did respond to Audrey's email from last weeks show. The following is the essence of what I said. For her comments and our continued discussion, please click on the comments section of this post.

On Saturday’s show I basically argued that Audrey was a Pantheist and that Pantheism is false for the following reasons:

A. It is self-contradictory: Pantheism states that reason and logic and even thought are not reliable sources of knowledge. Instead of trusting propositional truth claims, we should rely on the experience of the great masters who have overcome reason and experienced oneness with the divine. However, notice that in explaining their position, pantheists are relying on reason and logic and propositional truth claims. They are telling people to abandon words and thoughts by using words and thoughts. This position is philosophically impossible. It’s like typing you a message explaining that I do not know how to type. It simply cannot be true.

B. The evidence of my experience cannot be explained within pantheism. Pantheists are big into trusting experience, and my experience tells me that pantheism is wrong. If pantheism is true, there is no such thing as good and evil, right and wrong. Also, there is no such thing as individuality or personality. To accept these propositions, I would have to deny everything I experience in the world and I see no reason to do that, especially when there are other worldviews (or at least one) which adequately explain my experiences. Can we really accept that what Hitler did was not evil and that he was, in fact, equally as "divine" as the rest of us. Can we really accept that our experience of individuality is an illusion?

I went on to explain that true religion does not paint a blurrier picture of reality or a more obscure picture, but one that is more solid and concrete. Who is more enlightened? The person who looks at earth from a million miles away and says "I see a sphere" or one who looks at it from the planet’s surface and says "I see lakes and trees and cities and mountains and people."

I closed the segment by quoting C.S. Lewis, who said that Pantheism was desirable not so much because it had supporting evidence, but because it required so little of its adherents. This is from Chapter 11 of "Miracles":

Men are reluctant to pass over from the notion of an abstract deity to the living God. I do not wonder. Here lies the deepest tap-root of Pantheism and of the objection to traditional imagery. It was hated not, at bottom, because it pictured Him as man but because it pictured Him as king, or even as warrior.

The Pantheist’s God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you. There is no danger that at any time heaven and earth should flee away at His glance.

If He were the truth, then we could really say that all the Christian images of kingship were a historical accident of which our religion ought to be cleansed. It is with a shock that we discover them to be indispensable.

You have had a shock like that before, in connection with smaller matters - when the line pulls at your hand, when something breathes beside you in the darkness.

So here; the shock comes at the precise moment when the thrill of life is communicated to us along the clue we have been following. It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. ‘Look out!’ we cry, ‘it’s alive’. And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back - I would have myself if I could - and proceed no further with Christianity.

An ‘impersonal God’ - well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads - better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap-best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband - that is quite another matter.

There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (‘Man’s search for God!’) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He has found us?

Comments

[Audrey]

Dear Don,

It was a delightful surprise to hear my letter read on your program last night! It's a good thing you began with it. The Inland Empire came in loud & clear, but once I reached Irwindale (on the Freeway) the reception cut out completely!

Your comments basicly dealt with my letter by labeling it "Pantheism" and criticizing it in terms of that. However, there is no such agenda here, & no point to make in terms of that Philosophy. In fact, I know little or nothing about it!

Therefore, many of your assumptions as to the points being made, were incorrect. Perhaps, there should be some clarification regarding some of the things you said last night.

(1) In the first place, from my View, there is absolutely NOTHING one is asked to believe. Rather, it is a suggestion to examine life firsthand, to discover for oneself "the Way things ARE." And surely, one cannot make that discovery, unless there is a willingness to LOOK. Normally, one looks through the screen of thoughts, which is the conditioning absorbed from society, & from what others have told us is true. But in that case, it is second-hand, and one has not discovered TRUTH at all! So, Jesus said that one must be like a little child. In other words: be receptive & open, to allow life to reveal its Truth to us directly, uncontaminated by thought.

(2) You said that there were no challenges or big questions that were asked. But, from my Understanding, that evaluation couldn't be further from the truth. This is a much more scientific, empirical, & logical approach to life than the way you represented it. Furthermore, it begins by asking the most fundamental questions, like: "Who am I?" "Why am I here?" "What is life all about?" But, instead of being satisfied with cliches & answers that have come from others (i.e. "I am a child of God"), there must be a firsthand experience in order to know what TRUTH is. By asking, "Who am I?" -- and inquiring within, one can follow the "I-thought" back to it's roots, & there discover "the I AM that I AM" and Source of all......the Universal Presence which is prior to all concepts. Not "challenging?" This is the greatest challenge & undertaking of all! -- far beyond mere "church-going."

(3) Another thing you said last night, was that "God is solid." Wow! Where did you come up with that explanation? The Biblical view is that God is Spirit, & is worshipped "in Spirit & in Truth." And obviously, anything that is solid is subject to change & dissolution. Most religions & philosophies agree that God is the Eternal Reality beyond birth and death.

(4) Are you familiar with Modern Physics? A phenomenal discovery was made by Franck (sp?) -- the scientist who has spent his entire life studying the atom. What he discovered was that there is no solid stuff! Matter arises from Formless Consciousness or Spirit. Isn't that amazing?! It is what spiritual mystics & seers have always been declaring -- and now the scientists are in agreement.

(5) Another thing you said was that there have only been 3 or 4 Enlightened Masters. Perhaps that is true in the Christian tradition, but it is absolutely NOT TRUE, when one looks into Buddhism, Hinduism, & Taoism. These ancient traditions have produced countless Enlightened Masters, whose writings throw much Light on the teachings of Jesus. In addition, there are at this moment thousands of Westerners who are actualizing the same level of Transcendent Consciousness (which in early times, was far more rare.)

(6) You said, "Jesus did not say we are all One." In my last letter, there was a wonderful quote by Jesus, "You have forgotten the One here-present, and do not know how to examine THIS moment." And, here is another one of my favorites:

Jesus said to them:

When you make the two One,
and make the inside like the outside,
and the outside like the inside,
and the upper side like the under-side,
and in such a way that you make the man
with the woman a single One,
in order that the man is not man and the
woman is not woman;.............
Then, you will go into the Kingdom.

There were other things that could also be commented on, but (my goodness) this is already a long letter! And, you still haven't answered the last one! -- hahaha. Hoping to hear from you again.

Best regards.............A

[Don]

Audrey -

Even though you had no agenda and do not label yourself a pantheist, you certainly hold to pantheistic beliefs and therefore I think the characterization was correct. I admit that radio does not lend itself well to specific debates about the individual points of your email, so I chose to take on your position in a more general sense. Also, I think my discussion was more applicable to the many people who agree with you in a general sense, but maybe not in your specifics beliefs.

Allow me then, to take on in writing your specific statements from this email. I will follow your numbering.

1.It is impossible to be “uncontaminated by thought.”And even if there was such a state, how would I know about it? It would have to be explained to me, through rational, propositional statements which I thought about. In fact, that is what you are trying to do - convince me that thought and words are untrustworthy by using words that I have to think about. This is what I mean by self-contradictory. If the mystics ever did reach a state of “stillness” or whatever, based on their words I should not trust anything they subsequently tried to teach me about it.

2. I have first-hand experience of myself and the one thing I know for sure is that I am not God. The other things I know is that I do not have answers within myself as to why I am here. Also, my experience tells me that evil exists and that I feel guilt, implying that there is a standard for right and wrong which I have transgressed.

If experience is the premier epistemology, how can you deny this truth that I have revealed to myself?

3.Most religions are wrong on this, at least to a degree. By solid I do not mean “made up of particles” but simply what we would consider more substantive. I think we are going to be amazed at how “solid” pure spirit really is. C.S. Lewis is most helpful on this and I highly recommend his story “The Great Divorce.”

4. Formlessness does not give rise to form - ever. Show me one instance in science where something formless creates form. Form is created by something else with form, which supports my theory that Creator God is more substantive than matter, not less.

5. I would like to interview some of these enlightened ones.

6. I know the Bible pretty well and I am not familiar with this quote. What is your source?

[Audrey]

Dear Don,..............................

You have stated in your letter of 2/27: "It is impossible to be uncontaminated by thought."
"One thing I know for sure is that I am not God."
"I do not have answers within myself as to why I am here."
"Formlessness does not give rise to form"

Your comments reveal (1) that you believe yourself to be separated from God & (2) that you have never inquired within. From the Bible, we learn: "Be still & know that I AM God.".....and also......."The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

When the mind is totally still, the "I-thought" (ego) does not arise. In meditation (awareness without thought), Unitary Understanding is revealed. Perhaps you have never read "The Perennial Philosophy" by Aldous Huxley. It is full of accounts of mystical, out-of-body experiences which have come to people spontaneously, through God's Grace. These glimpses are far more reliable than any words on a printed page. But, because you have apparently never known this experience, you are totally unconscious of the transcendent dimension, to which Jesus is referring, and from which the other Masters are speaking.

Meister Eckhart (an Enlightened Christian) has a beautiful quote: "To get at the core of God at his greatest, one must first get into the core of himself at his least, for no one can know God who has not first known himself. . . This core is a simple stillness, which is unmoved itself, but by whose immobility all things are moved and all receive life, that is to say, all people who live by reason and have their center within themselves."

In your Update Comments of 2/19, you said: "To accept these propositions, I would have to deny everything I experience in the world and I see no reason to do that." But, wasn't it Jesus who said, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." And, He has also said, "Be ye in the world, but not of it."

As to your comment, "They are telling people to abandon words and thoughts by using words and thoughts" that is taking the cart before the horse, or the "finger for the moon." The words & concepts are only pointing to that which is beyond words. As the Zen Masters say, "Don't take the finger (words & concepts) for the moon (of enlightenment) which it is pointing to."

You asked for the source of some of the beautiful verses of Jesus, quoted on my earlier correspondence. They come from "The Gospel of Thomas" -- The Secret Teaching of Jesus, which was unearthed about 50 years ago in the Nag-Hammadi find in Egypt. It is unfortunate that they were not included in the traditional Bible, because they are the most advanced & precise teaching of Jesus that we have available.

Finally, you said, "I would like to interview some of these enlightened ones." It is such a coincidence that this month's theme of my Newsletter is: "Awakening West" -- so similar to your radio theme last Saturday. So, I will e-mail you a copy of it. In it, you will find excerpts and websites for many Enlightened Westerners. Besides the ones featured, there are four additional sources with thousands of Masters & Teachers, that you can browse through. If any of your readers would like to receive the Free Newsletter, they can contact you for my e-mail address, to make a request.

It is so enjoyable having this dialogue with you.
Best regards..................Audrey

[Don]

Audrey-

Thanks for the reply - I appreciate your willingness to keep discussing! Your response seems to center on two basic areas in which you think I am mistaken (and neither of which addresses my actual objections from my last email, but we can talk about that another time.) They both have to do with sources of knowledge and how we interpret those sources of knowledge.

The first area is the realm of experience and the second is scripture. You appeal to my experience, the experience of mystics and to scripture to back up your claims and I disagree with your handling of all of them.

As for experience, I told you that my experience confirms for me that I absolutely am separated from God - at least in the sense that He is the Creator and I am the creature. My experience also confirms that I have transgressed the laws of my creator (I have guilt). These things I have learned from "inquiring within" - the very thing you accuse me of never having done. I, in fact, have "been still and known that God was God" and I came away from that more convinced than ever that I was not God.You seem to think that my experience is inauthentic or that I have misinterpreted it. On what basis are you making that claim? Experience is personal and subjective. Why should I agree with what you tell me about what my experiences have been or how I should interpret them. And why should I trust the interpretations of the experiences of some so-called "enlightened" masters? They could be lunatics, for all I know. Who are they, and who are you, as people who appeal to experience as solid epistemology, to tell me that my experience (and interpretation of it) is wrong?

You answer to this charge probably would be (or at least should be) that experience alone is not the sole source of knowledge. We also appeal to scripture (and, I would add, to reason and other types of evidence which you would reject). That is why you keep referring to the words of Jesus to back up your position.

I reject your appeal to Scripture on two counts. One, I don't accept the gospel of Thomas as authoritative - it is a gnostic, heretical work that absolutely doesn't not belong in the canon. Second, your interpretation of the words from the Old and New Testaments is simply wrong.

"Be still and know that I AM god" is an appeal to know that the "I AM" is god and that you - as a human - are not, so quit trying to be. It is an appeal to rest in the greatness and otherness of Jehovah.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is within you (or "among you")" is a statement by Jesus contrasting the popular view of the day that the Kingdom of God would be a worldy, political entity. The Jews were looking for Jesus to take down the Romans and install himself as ruler. He refused, noting that the kingdom is made up of those who have Jesus as Lord of all their lives, not those who carry his name into the political arena.

Jesus was not some enlightened zen-master. Why would he have been killed for something as innocuous as that? He was LORD of the universe, come to claim the allegiance of all those creatures that had rejected Him and set up a worldy system that denied his Lordship. This is what He was saying in the passages you referenced: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." And, He has also said, "Be ye in the world, but not of it."

To apply these passages in support of your worldview is simply ludicrous. "Losing your life" is not achieving some mystical out of body experience verifying your own divinity. In fact, it is the opposite. "Losing your life" involves laying down the false pretense that you deserve to run things, that you are the one who should be in control, in short, that you are god and humbly submitting as a penitent sinner to the HOLY ONE ("separate" one) who actually is God.

One final note about this paragraph in your email: "As to your comment, "They are telling people to abandon words and thoughts by using words and thoughts" that is taking the cart before the horse, or the "finger for the moon." The words & concepts are only pointing to that which is beyond words. As the Zen Masters say, "Don't take the finger (words & concepts) for the moon (of Enlightenment) which it is pointing to."

This just shows how irrational the zen masters are. The position you claim to hold is that words and thoughts are not reliable guides to knowledge (a position, by the way, which you continually deny in practice by writing to me). Rather, you say, we should rely on the experience of enlightenment. Using the analogy you give, this position is not describing taking "the finger for the moon" but in denying that the finger is a reliable guide for pointing to anything at all. I'm not mistaking words for the concepts they describe - I'm only pointing out that you yourself claim that words are not reliable in describing what is beyond words. It is self-contradictory - irrationality in its purest form - and therefore should not be believed.

Thanks again for taking the time, Audrey,

Don