Chapter 5

Holes in the Spiritual Neighborhood

This will sound like another contradiction, but from my vantage point in the affluent suburbs of Washington DC, life is pretty good. People are working. People own their own homes—big homes at that. Our bellies are full. Our kids get twelve years of free education. Look at the rest of the world. There are countries in Africa in perpetual civil war. In parts of Asia families exist on a dollar a day. In Latin America they live on less than that.

Hey, we live like kings here. So we have a little crime—what's the big deal? Besides, where would you rather be? Russia? China? Why are we so well off and those other countries so poor? We must be doing something right.

Think about it. We've got it good. You don't want to mess around with this. It's the American way man! Besides, I work hard for my money. I deserve what I've got. Look, I vote every four years, I obey the law. What more do you want? If I want to come home at night, grab a cold one and stretch out in front of the tube, that's my privilege. It's what freedom is all about.

Tough position to argue against, isn't it? And why should we even try to argue? We do have it good. In some respects, Americans have it better than anyone has ever had it. Technology has made life very comfortable. At least for some of us. But not exactly for everyone. And therein lies the problem. Those of us who are comfortable are a bit too much so. We aren't able to see things from the perspective of the have-nots. Even people who come up from poor backgrounds quickly forget what it was like to be just scraping by. You might have to fight your way to the top, but once you get there, you never have to look back again. But not everyone can win at this game. Moreover, not everyone is disposed to playing the game this way. I don't mean to disparage those who glory in the success of modern capitalism, and I'd be lying if I said I haven't benefited from being raised in an industrialized nation, but however much we are doing right in this country, it is simply not enough when people are hungry.

There are those who believe poverty is normal, that there must always be a certain percentage living on the edge. But there is nothing normal about suffering. I don't want to suffer. Do you? Does anyone? We're settling for far less than we should in this regard, and I submit the reason is that collectively we have no heart. Just as we saw the lack of compassion in Camp Springs, it's apparent the rest of the country is also deficient in this critical commodity. Again, I fall back on the one-person argument to buttress my claim. If one person is hungry or one person is without a home, then something is wrong—not wrong with that person, but wrong with us. Now imagine not just one hungry person, but thousands, millions. Imagine 17,000 people literally dying from hunger. This is the number given by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization for deaths due to malnutrition daily, worldwide. And this figure is just for children![1] The mind can hardly grasp it. Seventeen thousand ... what does it mean? It could be twelve. It could be sixty-three. It could be a million. For most it's just a number and nothing more. We are numb to misery of such magnitude.

Economists get nervous when you raise arguments like this. They won't suffer the least criticism of the free-market system. But my complaint is not so much with the system as it is with the people who participate; that is, those whose success depends on exploiting others. And when you come right down to it, that includes anyone with a bank account and an insurance policy. The champions of capitalism believe that creating more billionaires somehow elevates the rest of us. It's clear they don't inhabit the same world with the homeless, the hungry and the disenfranchised. You can't understand the perspective of the poor when you live behind locked gates, high walls and security systems. Moreover, material wealth does not carry with it a right to control someone else's life. If you can't associate with common people, if you can't live in their world, you have no business dictating their economy, their culture or their future.

Once again we come back to growth of character. Whatever compassion exists in people's hearts, it is not surfacing, not to the extent it should. Forget the 17,000 number—it's irrelevant. The only number that matters is one. If you can't help one person, you can't help anyone. This argument is based not in abstraction, but in reality. I personally experienced the reality of seeking, and failing, to secure help for one person who was living on the edge right under our feet in Camp Springs. You don't address a problem like this by tinkering with the system. You must tinker with individuals. And you start with the people in your own backyard. In order to fix the problems of the world, you must bring the problems back to your home turf, expose the link between the residents of your community and the other inhabitants of the planet. That link is a deep one; it's more substantial than headlines in a newspaper or video from an overseas correspondent. There is a profound connection between you, me and the rest of the world, and when the connection is not realized, we all pay the price. But you don't have to bring your community down to establish the connection. You don't have to lower your own comfort level. In fact, if the approach is right, we should all become more comfortable. The problem is we are not setting our sights high enough.

The Prince George's police, for example,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . text truncated


But we still haven't explained how any of this yields the infinite. We might convince ourselves that Blake, Shakespeare and the author of the Tao had an experience of some sort that inspired them to compose their respective verses, but the authors don't provide much information about how they got there. Did they look inward? Did they practice the subjective approach, turning their attention toward the knower? Were they detached? Perhaps they practiced nothing. Perhaps it all came naturally. Moreover, how do we know what they experienced was the real McCoy, The Infinite itself, and not some quasi-infinite pretender?

We can't see what another person sees, so we'll never know for certain what was going through the minds of these poets, but in the case of the Tao Te Ching, we have a pretty good clue. The line, "When thoughts are finally still, the way of the world is revealed," gives us a specific instruction: Go to the place where thoughts are quiet—the answer lies there. That must be where thoughts originate. But what is left when there are no longer any thoughts? Or should I say, who is left? From the subjective approach it's clear. What remains is awareness. Pure, self-referring awareness on its own. Uncontaminated by sensations, emotions, desires or even thoughts. That's where we find the knower, the silent witness, the "I." It's also where we experience timelessness, the infinite aspect of existence.

I wish you didn't have to take my word for this, but that's the position I'm in. We're talking about a purely subjective experience. Since objective methods cannot measure subjective phenomena, strictly speaking you cannot prove with logic that experiencing pure awareness is how one finds the infinite. We can, however, construct an interesting argument that makes use of the fact that the human form is partly physical.

A person's physiology is composed of organs, among which is the nervous system, including the brain. Thought activity, which is non-material, manifests in the material realm as electromagnetic brain waves. The brain is a conglomeration of cells, molecules, atoms and, at the deepest level, subatomic particles. In concert these particles of matter generate electrical impulses that direct the functioning of the rest of the body, including, it would appear, the activity we perceive as thinking. To get to the source of thought from the material side then, we must determine how all of this atomic activity came about. For the sake of argument, let's ignore the fact that most of the cells in your body die off and are regenerated every few months. Let's pretend the matter that forms a person's body originated with the DNA molecules of his parents. If we follow the course of evolution backwards in time, we ultimately find that the DNA of all living organisms came from non-living dust and rock. The rock, in turn, came from the formation of the stars and planets, which, according to the physicists, coalesced from huge volumes of hot gas. There is good evidence the entire universe and all the material in it originated with the cosmic, balloon-like expansion of gaseous matter out of a point of singularity fourteen billion years ago, give or take. Space and time itself began at that one point, which has been nicknamed the "big bang."

But a point of singularity, remember, is an abstract element of logic, a concept we created in our minds. It represents the infinite, and as such has no measurable material form.[11] Thus, the entire universe arose from abstraction and organized itself in an orderly way into material units, from which the human body—yours and mine in particular—was formed. Sometime during the growth of this body it developed an awareness of its own existence and formed logical ideas about its origin. So, we have the universe coming out of abstraction, forming a body, and then rediscovering its abstract nature through thought. When you realize the implications of this argument, it's very startling. Mind-boggling, in fact. You ... me ... we are the universe, and we're having thoughts about it. Each one of us represents the thinking universe. When you, the universe, examine yourself through self-awareness, you examine the infinite, because that's where the universe, you, had/have your origin, in a singular point of abstract infinity.[12]

The conclusion is astounding, yet the reasoning is solid. What's interesting is that even though the argument makes use of evolution, it doesn't necessarily contradict those who say the human species was created, rather than evolved. In both views we find the passage of time is an illusion. To have been created means man arrived on the scene in a timeless moment. This is consistent with the big bang theory which says the universe, meaning us, arose from a timeless point. Moreover, despite the amazing result, the argument is not terribly complicated. You don't need to know much physics or biology to follow it. Yet as simple as it is to construct, few people seem to get excited about this. You would think if one discovered he or she were the universe, he would at least let the neighbors know; maybe throw a little party for himself ... perhaps a barbecue ... the guests could gather 'round and sing "We Are the World" ... something.

The problem, again, is that although it's fairly easy to follow the reasoning, the experience is another matter. But what a difference it makes when one begins to sense the connection between himself and the universe. As the sense grows, you start to live the "harmony of wholeness" spoken of in the Tao, where you are acting in the ever- changing, finite world, while at the same time aware of your position in the silent, absolute, infinite world.

The Bhagavad-Gita puts it this way:

Yogasthah kuru karmani

-or-

Established in Yoga, perform actions[13]

In this context, the Sanskrit word "yoga," or union, signifies awareness. It's the union of one's individual awareness with the cosmic awareness—the awareness of the universe. When the mind settles down, and pure awareness ("samadhi" in Sanskrit) is experienced, the union becomes manifest. When we spoke of refining awareness, this is what we were talking about.

There do exist methods that allow you to get beyond thought in this manner, that bring out the perceptual distinction between the finite and the infinite. Transcendental Meditation (TM) does this. It's a technique whose origins lie in the Vedic tradition of India. His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a modern-day sage from this ancient tradition, initially offered Transcendental Meditation in the late 1950s, and has been teaching it ever since.[14] There are actually myriad ways to improve one's experience of the infinite, but Transcendental Meditation may well be the easiest. It takes you directly to the transcendental source of thought, to a state of restful alertness where the mind becomes "established in yoga." It's a natural mental exercise. What takes a bit of time and practice, however, is the "perform actions" part of the prescription. In the typical waking state of consciousness, we are consumed by our actions, so fully involved in activity that we lose our sense of self. Most people live their entire lives this way, with a constricted, objectively fixed awareness that never looks back on itself. But through habitual exposure to pure, unbounded awareness, a person (and his physiology) gradually becomes infused with the qualities of that unbounded state. One begins to live as though one were indeed the expression of the universe. It's deep stuff, and perhaps more than a little confusing to those who haven't thought about it before, but there's no other way to put it. Your everyday activity takes place as usual, while at the same time you don't lose sight of that other part of you, the interior part, that connects to the timelessness of cosmic existence.[15]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . text truncated


In the last chapter we pointed out that political leaders today assign little importance to these matters, that questions of existence, spirituality and the infinite side of life have no place in their agenda. What about our leaders in the field of science? Do we find any recognition from that quarter?

Reading some of the popular literature—books by Carl Sagan (Cosmos), Michio Kaku (Parallel Worlds), Brian Greene (The Elegant Universe) and others—scientists appear as disinterested in spirituality as the politicians. More precisely, they do consider questions of life and existence, but frame them in a purely objective structure. Clearly, we can't generalize about all scientists, but you get a taste of how theoreticians approach this topic from a 2002 lecture by cosmologist Lawrence Krauss. Talking about the fate of the universe and whether life will go on forever, Krauss states:

If quantum mechanics ultimately governs the universe starved for energy, independent of what we don't know about the laws of physics and cosmology, and everything else, consciousness must end.


Responding to a question about the existence of God, he says:

Heaven is not a physical thing ... I refuse to either prove or disprove the existence of God. I refuse to even think about the question because I get along pretty well without it.[16]


Physicist Michio Kaku also postulates the end of intelligence. Discussing the implications of applying the second law of thermodynamics to the entire universe, he writes:

But no matter how one looks at the question, the oscillating universe, like the open and closed universes, will eventually result in the destruction of all intelligent life.[17]


The comments of Krauss and Kaku illustrate a brilliant intellect without a subjective component to balance it. Krauss begins his talk with a quote he picked up during a sociology class at university, saying, "Things are going to get unimaginably worse, and they're never, ever going to get better again." He's referring to the fact that physicists have no clue about the nature of the newly discovered dark energy, the mysterious force that is pushing the cosmos apart; how all bets are off when you have to consider the energy of the vacuum in calculating the ultimate fate of the universe. But Krauss does not reflect on the original meaning of the quote, which comments on the sorry state of modern society, a state that science played a big role in bringing about. Krauss and his colleagues may believe they're getting along okay without considering God, but reality contradicts them. There are, of course, people who are godly—in name anyway—who are just as deficient in subjective experience as the physicists, but they do not give us the nuclear warheads, B-1 bombers, cruise missiles and anti-personnel mines that we get from the scientists. It is through science that we clear-cut forests, bulldoze mountains, poison rivers, pollute the atmosphere, pave nature, kill culture and create an economy that perpetuates poverty. Certainly, it's the politicians who orchestrate this ungodly destruction, but the scientists lend them the baton. We have a three-headed hydra running the world in this age: lawyers, bankers and scientists—but the wits reside in the latter. Take away the brain and the beast cannot function.

Whether it's God, a cosmic intelligence, a divine creator or a Gaia hypothesis, these scientists had better start considering something beyond their equations. Kaku does, at least, give a nod to indigenous knowledge when he relates the Norse legend that describes the cataclysmic end of Middle Earth, pointing out parallels in modern theory. He explains that certain solutions to Einstein's equations involve "freezing cold, fire, catastrophe, and an end to the universe"[18] brought about by a big crunch (the reverse of the big bang), a big bounce (an oscillating universe) or a big freeze (as stars and galaxies race beyond our event horizon). But Kaku relegates the Norse knowledge to an inferior class when he describes it as "mythology whispered around campfires."[19] I suggest he and the others are not appreciating that these legends cannot be understood in the same manner that we accumulate objective information. Interpretations using purely intellectual faculties cannot be applied. More precisely, they can be applied, but in a very different context.[20]

As for heaven not being physical, this is what we get from the material approach: Consciousness is a CPU, and a thought is a computer instruction, purely mechanical.

But the cosmic mind doesn't only manifest in physical forms and forces; rather, there is an intelligent component. The universe exhibits an evolving morality that does not fit the mathematical model; heaven, hell, angels, devils and all the rest are right here, in this moment. It's a key point, and objectivists are not getting it. Read, for example, Carl Sagan's description of the proper orientation for a civilized society. He talks about a "deprovincialization of the human condition," [21] where scientists convince government to seek contact with extraterrestrials. He worries about us holding on to "conventional perceptions" in which "energies are directed exclusively inward" and "society falters." [22]

Granted, an objective scientist's field of endeavor necessarily involves an outward search, but Sagan's comments reveal a deeper deficiency, a blind spot to something fundamental. Here we have a man whose research yields weapons of death yet who presumes to advise governments on questions of life. He tells us to abandon our inward exploration, but it's clear he doesn't grasp the nature of such an exploration—he's not seeing the connection between the inner and the outer. He speaks as if a spiritual advisor, but he doesn't know what spirituality is. It's the same with everyone who clamors for us to launch spacecraft and explore planets. They are not recognizing the special relationship we humans have with this planet, a relationship that can't be synthesized or "terraformed."

As for consciousness coming to an end, it's not possible because it never had a beginning; consciousness sits outside of space-time boundaries. The human species cannot be extinguished because we are, in essence, non-material. You can't appreciate this point intellectually; rather, you must experience unboundedness directly. So yes, we do live in dismal times when such as Lawrence Krauss, as intelligent and educated as they are, ignore fundamental spiritual truths upon which the future of humanity truly does depend.[23]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .text truncated


Points Of Agreement Among Camp Springs Clergy

Follow the Example of Jesus.

Every Christian minister without exception bids his congregation to follow Lord Jesus. Clearly to emulate Jesus means taking responsibility.

..... Jesus the man.

Humans as divine beings.

Several pastors describe the intimate connection between God and man. They speak of God's presence within each of us, and how our actions are divinely directed.

Comments regarding the infinite aspect of life.

The notion of eternity, of eternal life or infinite existence is a recurring theme.

Be fully in the present, the here and now.

It's said that we must live for today, that tomorrow never comes. Several Camp Springs ministers have recognized this is more than a cliché, that something deeper is involved.

Turning one's attention toward the self.

There is an internal "me" at the basis of one's being. Some pastors have suggested we need to find out what that is.

Distinguishing action from non-action.

Certain ministers have made at least indirect reference to this distinction. They contrast talking and doing, marking the difference between abstract ideas and concrete activity.

Distinguishing the material and the non-material, the mind and the body.

It's clear we must grasp this distinction in order to understand the nature of existence. More than one cleric has touched on this point.

Regarding the notion that heaven is here on earth.

Heaven can be experienced on earth; we make the world the way we want it, either a heaven or a hell. I've heard this message from several preachers.

Comments regarding courtesy.

You don't often hear sermons that specifically address this topic, but it's clear that kindness, generosity and decency are fundamental to every denomination.

The importance of community and civic involvement.

Many clerics make the point that religion and community life are not separate at all, but closely intertwined. They urge parishioners to get involved and be active.


Figure 5.2 Agreement among Camp Springs clergy

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .text truncated


To sum up, there will be two levels of garden zone leadership:

Possible sources for this leadership are::

Naturally a fifth source would be responsible adults already residing in the community, but how you would assess a resident's qualifications is not at all clear. In particular, it's difficult to judge whether a person is spiritually qualified. We hear the term "spiritual leader" quite often these days, not just for members of the clergy, but for individuals involved in some very diverse activities. Yet I wonder how many of them are spiritual in the manner described in the Tao Te Ching and the Bhagavad-Gita—experiencing the "harmony of wholeness"?

Not only is it difficult to determine the spirituality of another person, it's hard to be certain of your own evolutionary progress. We've talked a great deal about what spirituality is supposed to mean, but it is such an elusive entity that I dare not speculate about how spiritual I, myself, really am. The most I can say is I might have glimpsed the expanse of life's inner side on occasion. The best we can do is to start our program and see who volunteers their service. If there are folks with refined awareness out there, my sense is they will come forward naturally.

[1] "No drop in world hunger deaths," BBC News, December 8, 2004

In 2012 the charity Save the Children reported that malnutrition contributes to the deaths of 2.6 million children annually—7123 per day—and that 500 million children could grow up physically and mentally stunted over the next fifteen years.

"500m children 'at risk of effects of malnutrition' BBC News, February 15, 2012

[2]. Cf. section 3.4, on extensions of reality.

[3]. Set theory gets into cardinality, describing how one infinite set can be larger, in a sense, than another, as with the real numbers and the integers.

[4]. Superstring theory postulates that the big bang could have been a big bounce. It seems as distances get very small, diminishing to the Planck scale, there is a bizarre circumstance where the properties of these super small strings begin to reverse course, as if the strings were getting larger instead of smaller, with no experimental way to know the difference. In this way physicists can avoid the singularity arising from general relativity's description of the big bang. An intelligible discussion of string theory is contained in Brian Greene's book, The Elegant Universe, (New York, Vintage Books, 2003) .

[5]. Modern physics has begun reckoning with these questions, uncovering deep relationships between thought and matter. Quantum mechanics connects the scientist to the phenomenon measured, where the mere act of observing affects the outcome of the experiment through the "collapse" of the wave function. Einstein's relativity examines the changes in the laws of physics—or, more precisely, the lack thereof—as one's "frame of reference" changes, revealing fundamental relationships between the observer and the observed. Mass and energy, it turns out, are really the same stuff, as shown by the famous E=mc2 equation. At a basic level, there is no distinction between "solid" matter and non-solid, logical/mathematical waves. It's all one field, including us, the conscious human investigators.

[6]. "And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice."

The Bible, (King James Version) 1 Kings 19:11

[7]. Ray Grigg trans., The New Lao Tzu, A Contemporary Tao Te Ching, (Rutland, Vermont, Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc., 1995) ch. 3 (41), p. 6

[8]. William Blake, Auguries of Innocence

[9]. William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii

[10]. Ray Grigg trans., The New Lao Tzu, A Contemporary Tao Te Ching, (Rutland, Vermont, Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc., 1995) ch. 54 (10), p. 71

[11]. A singularity is a discontinuity in a function, a point where the value returned by the formula makes no sense. Plot the equation y = 1/x and observe the behavior of the curve at the point x = 0. That's how the big bang looks to physicists .

[12]. As mentioned above, string theory eliminates the singularity at the big bang, substituting instead a particle of something—an object many orders of magnitude smaller than an atomic nucleus. In that unimaginably small space, the whole of the vast cosmos was contained in seed form. To physicists the notion of infinity is anathema. They can't formulate theory without it, but to have an equation yield an infinite result upsets the apple cart. They are thus more comfortable with this other notion, wildly fantastic though it is, of an incredibly small, but nevertheless finite beginning.

In The Elegant Universe (New York, Vintage Books, 2003), Brian Greene states, "it is truly beyond the pale to imagine [the universe] crushed to a point of no size at all" (ch. 10, p. 254). But I rather think it's beyond anyone's pale to consider this minute cosmic kernel from which emerged everything that would come into existence for the next 14 billion years: every atom, every molecule, every star, every galaxy and, let's not forget, every human being. It was all contained there, as was everything that will ever come into existence for countless epochs to come. The key question is, where was this seed, and, moreover, when was it? William Blake provided an answer: It's there in the palm of your hand, right at this moment. Greene gives no sense of having had such an experience, no sense of the role of the self, the conscious observer. His perspective represents that of mainstream science—purely objective, without recognition for the universal intelligence expressed in their own theorems.

[13]. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, The Bhagavad-Gita, A New Translation and Commentary Chapters 1-6, (Fairfield, Iowa, Age of Enlightenment Press, Fifth Printing, 1984) ch. 2, v. 48, p. 96

[14]. Westerners take Maharishi to be a Hindu priest—he's actually a guru, which doesn't have a true counterpart in Western culture—but, more fundamentally, he represents a long line of indigenous masters of the Veda, a tradition that predates Hinduism. Veda means knowledge. It's a 5000-year-old science maintained through oral recitation by generations of Indian families. But again, more fundamentally, it's a timeless philosophy with cosmic origins. Maharishi's own master was Swami Brahmananda Saraswati (called Guru Dev by his followers) who inspired him to offer the teaching outside of his native land.

Editor's Note: Maharishi departed this earthly life in 2008.

[15]. The author is not a spokesman for the TM organization. Transcendence is a subtle experience, but a key one, and Maharish's group has trademarked TM, TM-Sidhi, Yogic Flying, Consciousness-based Education and several related names to protect the integrity of their programs and distinguish them from the profusion of quasi-spiritual practices offered to the public. No one has a monopoly on transcendence, of course, but the spiritual path has been so widely misinterpreted that it behooves us to take care about preserving authentic knowledge.

[16]. Lawrence Krauss, Lecture: "Life, the Universe, and nothing: The future of life in an ever-expanding universe." Santa Barbara, Oct 23, 2002

[17]. Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds, (New York, Anchor Books, Random House, Inc., 2005) ch. 10, p. 291

[18]. Ibid., p 288

[19]. Ibid.

[20]. The alternate interpretation I have in mind is described in the book Human Physiology, Expression of Veda and the Vedic Literature by Tony Nader, MD (Maharishi Vedic University, Vlodrop, the Netherlands, 2000). It's actually more than an interpretation; it's likely the only valid intellectual handle we have on the heretofore occult myths of indigenous tradition. Nader places them in a physiological context, explaining how universal intelligence takes material form by way of the human nervous system. It's quite profound and truly astonishing that such knowledge was maintained through a purely oral tradition, quite likely around campfires.

[21]. Carl Sagan, Cosmos, (New York, Random House, Inc, 1980) ch. 12, p. 311

[22]. Ibid., p. 314

[23]. Reality contradicts objective science not just in terms of God as a moral consideration, but in that the newly discovered dark energy is, in fact, not physical. According to physicist John Hagelin, it's a quintessence that doesn't interact with ordinary particles and forces other than in this one way, to tear space apart. It acts on nothingness, propelling the expansion of the cosmos. He describes it as a transcendental component comprising roughly three-quarters of the universe, with dark matter and ordinary matter comprising the other quarter.* It thus seems that if Lawrence Krauss can't consider heaven because it's not a physical thing, he ought to drop his inquires into dark energy as well. Here is Hagelin from a press conference (3/3/2004) commenting on a question about Vedic engineering:

"The whole emergence of the cosmos, as governed by Einstein's electrodynamic field equations ... is fueled by ... vacuum energy. Vacuum energy is a purely unmanifest impulse ... within the unmanifest source of the manifest universe. Modern physics ... has discovered the unmanifest ... and this latest discovery shows that not only does this unmanifest exist, but it is, in fact, the prime mover. It is the origin of the emergence of the entire universe. The so-called vacuum energy, or dark energy, isn't energy. It isn't matter. It's neither particle nor force ... It is purely transcendental in its nature. It is invisible ... transcendental to the laws of physics. But these fluctuations in the vacuum ... fuel the emergence of the entire universe in the so-called early inflationary epoch of the universe. In the first fractions of a second following the [big bang], the emergence of the universe ... and the immediate expansion of the cosmos by about a hundred powers of ten ... was fueled by a purely unmanifest impulse known as dark energy or vacuum energy in the language of modern science, or the vrittis of atma, impulses of the self, in the language of Maharish's Vedic science."

Hagelin has cited a passage from the Rig Veda that appears to verify modern cosmological findings. The so-called purusha sukta says "Tripadasy amritam divi pado 'sya vishva bhutani" (Mandala 10, Hymn 90), which roughly translates to, three-fourths of purusha (reality) became unmanifest (went up) and the other fourth remained to form the world. Thus, several thousand years ago the ancient rishis cognized by searching inward what modern science just now discovered by searching outward.

* See the comments of John Hagelin appearing in the on-line journal The Bleeping Herald, (Volume 1, Issue 7—November 2005) titled "Deeper into the dark: Interview with John Hagelin" by Cate Montana. See also Hagelin's 2004 talk on dark energy archived in the "Fairfield Life" Yahoo group, post titled "Dark Energy - Vrittis of Atma (12 Feb 2004 Conference Call)" posted the same date.

[24]. I'd like to point out that space colonization violates our geographic axiom in ways that can't be overcome. The notion that we can jump ship from planet Earth is folly, not just in a practical sense, but also in terms of man's natural evolution. Scientists who postulate escape to other stars, galaxies and parallel universes exhibit a flawed understanding of our place in this universe. Man's connection to the planet doesn't involve theory; rather, it's a cognition. The earth is part of us, and we are part of it. And no matter how many astronauts we send to Mars, there will never be a community there because this geographic cognition will forever be lacking.

By the same token, no intelligent aliens would ever travel here. If they were truly more evolved, they would realize what we are realizing—that abandoning your natural habitat to venture into the lifeless void of space is madness. An advanced civilization would understand the importance of preserving one's planetary environment.

[25]. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ch. 3

[26]. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journal entry, December 1845

But a short thirty years later, the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, speaking as Father Zossima in The Brothers Karamazov, offered this observation:

"For in our age all men are separated into self-contained units, everyone crawls into his own hole, everyone separates himself from his neighbor, hides himself away and hides away everything he possesses, and ends up by keeping himself at a distance from people and keeping other people at a distance from him. ... Everywhere today the mind of man has ceased, ironically, to understand that true security of the individual does not lie in isolated personal efforts but in general human solidarity. But an end will most certainly come to this dreadful isolation of man, and everyone will realize all at once how unnaturally they have separated themselves from one another."

Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. David Magarshack (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1979) bk. 6, ch. 2, p. 357

[27]. M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum: Community-Making and Peace, (New York, Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1987) Intro., p. 17

[28]. Ibid., Intro., p. 17

[29]. Ibid., Ch. 1, p .25

[30]. Ibid., Intro., p. 17

[31]. Amitai Etzioni, The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda, (New York, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1993) Intro., p. 15

[32]. Ibid., p. 15

[33]. Wendell Berry, Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community, (New York, Pantheon Books, 1992) ch. 8, p. 117

[34]. Ibid., p. 119

[35]. Ibid., p. 133

[36]. One aspect of community we haven't specifically brought out is health. In determining the factors that affect the quality of life and in our assessment of community strength, there has been a tacit assumption that our theoretical communities are healthy. If it's given that community members have adequate food, shelter, are working and so forth, you might easily make this assumption. But in many cases people are not very healthy at all. A great many of us are overworked, overfed, over-medicated, stressed and generally out of balance. Our physical health is intimately connected to collective awareness and, hence, to spiritual health. A state of poor health among its members weakens the shared spirit factor and thus weakens community.

[37]. In The Republic, when asked which of the existing societies are suitable for the development of the rare person who has a truly philosophic mind, Socrates answers,

"There isn't one ... which is just my complaint. There's no existing form of society good enough for the philosophic nature, with the result that it gets warped and altered, like a foreign seed sown in alien soil under whose influence it commonly degenerates into the local growth. In exactly the same way the philosophic type loses its true powers, and falls into habits alien to it. If only it could find a social structure whose excellence matched its own, then its truly divine quality would appear clearly, and all other characters and ways of life stand revealed as merely human."

Plato, The Republic, trans. Desmond Lee (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 2cd Edition (revised), 1987) section 497b, p. 293

[38]. Matthew 15:14 "Leave them; they are blind guides."

Matthew 23:17 "You blind fools!"

Luke 6:39 "Can a blind man lead a blind man?"

John 9:41 "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

The Holy Bible, New International Version, (New York International Bible Society, 1978)

Compare this to Plato:

"But surely 'blind' is just how you would describe men who have no true knowledge of reality ..."

Plato, The Republic, trans. Desmond Lee (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 2nd Edition (revised), 1987) section 484c, p. 277.

Compare also to the Upanishads:

"Living in the midst of ignorance, wise in their own eyes, thinking themselves scholars, fools go round and round, running here and there, like the blind led by the blind."

The Upanishads: A New Translation, trans. Vernon Katz & Thomas Egenes (New York, Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2015) Katha Upanishad, 1.2.5, p. 50

[39]. The TM-Sidhi program is based on formulas found in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, a seer of the Vedic tradition.

[40]. Lynne McTaggart, The Intention Experiment, (The Free Press, New York, 2007) ch. 12, p. 184

[41]. Apparently these ideas aren't as novel as they seem. A group of concerned Prince Georgians invented a new dance called the "Pride Slide" and they've been practicing it alongside the busy Central Avenue artery. Some of our most respected civic leaders are out dancing in traffic!

[42]. Jimmy Carter, George Bush, Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Reagan, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Colin Powell. "The Presidents' Summit on Americ's Future", Philadelphia, April 26-29, 1997.


© 2015 Alexander Gabis