• Like
The dawn of intelligence by kerry craig walker very latest 4 12 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

The dawn of intelligence by kerry craig walker very latest 4 12 2013

  • 8,996 views
Published

The Dawn of Intelligence …

The Dawn of Intelligence
THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE by Kerry C. Walker The question we must ask ourselves is this—Is the intelligent, sane, rational mind really a mind that is completely different than the mind that believes in religion?

Edited by Dr. John A. Henderson.

In this book we are going to question if an outside energy exists. We are going to be looking into whether or not there is an energy that operates outside of man and if there is energy outside the pseudo-religious trappings man has imposed upon himself. In order for one to look into this, one must first be intelligent enough to look into and set aside, or go beyond, if you will, what man has accepted as being sacred. Therefore we will look into religion as a process of education, and not as a matter of what to believe and what not to believe, of doing rituals or clinging to some superstitions.

"To live intelligently and to be whole human beings is a process of learning about ourselves and learning to be creative in the art of living so that we are no longer frightened, mediocre human beings. Only then will there be a chance for a better world." For cover of the book and additional information about the author search Wildman Walker's blog.

Published in Education , Spiritual , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • This is the latest version of my work. I offer my work to the you for free. I want this book to be available to anyone and everyone. If you find any mistakes please feel absolutely free to let me know. Peace and blue skies...

    my email address is kerrycw1@gmail.com and my phone number is 423-260-5803
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
8,996
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
7
Comments
1
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590(A) Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker Attention: Editorial Department Having been brought up in a loving but dysfunctional Christian family, I began to question religion at a very early age. My uncle was a preacher and he and my aunt were fanatically religious as, to a lesser extent, were most everyone else in this fairly large extended family. Religion was strongly imposed on me by certain members of my extended family, although not so much by my own mother and father. My father was a Christian who often questioned religion and he was also a Mason and he became Master of his lodge, and my mother was a Christian, but she did not impose it on anyone. She lived by example instead of imposition. I graduated from college near the top of my class in winter of 1977 with a Bachelors degree in Architecture. It was just after graduation that the initial research for this book began. I first looked into the bible and read it and studied it in detail, and shortly after this close study of the bible I read a book by J. Krishnamuti entitled The First and Last Freedom that questioned and rejected religion and delved into the problems of the conditioned mind. It was strange how I walked right over, and out of hundreds of books, I picked out this book. I read the back cover which stated, “In The First and Last Freedom he cuts away symbols and false associations in the search for pure truth and perfect freedom. Through discussions on suffering, fear, 1a
  • 2. gossip, sex and other topics, Krishnamurti’s quest becomes the readers, an undertaking of tremendous significance.” A short time later I began to research everything related to religion and religious philosophies and philosophy in general. I studied histories of religion, origins of religion, conflicts of religion, and so on. I literally read or looked into most every book that was related to the subject. On the subject of Evolution, I have been a student of the subject for nearly thirty years. I have communicated with Anthropologist Richard E. Leakey, Director/Chief Executive of the National Museums of Kenya. I communicated by phone with the late Professor Stephen Jay Gould, a well known paleontologist that worked at Harvard, as well as to communicate with Joe Huffstetler of The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, and Peter R. Hoover of the Paleontological Research Institute. I have also had correspondence with those associated with General Paleontology in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I have spent many hours at the University of Georgia, in Athens, studying evolutionary processes and the fossil record and many more hours of in home study through books and magazines and on the computer. I have continued to keep up with every new discovery and I have studied each in detail. I have also had deep interest in the study of Astronomy and all aspects of science related to the study of the Cosmos. Although not used directly in this book, for my 2a
  • 3. own interest I have pursued a better understanding of complex calculus (integrals) and the basics of quantum physics and quantum mechanics. I have studied the work of scientists and researchers that are within, as well as outside of, the mainstream theories. I have found there to be problems with some conclusions made by science and deemed as “facts” in the past century. I have written an essay on this entitled “The Problem with Conclusions” and it will be included in this book. I have done research in the area of nuclear arms and other environmental concerns, as well as an uncovering of facts behind governmental misguidance and fraudulent organizations. I have studied nutrition and diet and, although I’m not a strict vegetarian (although I have been one in the past), I eat very little meat and have learned the many reasons for such a diet, both physiologically and environmentally. The research in these areas and other areas went on during the course of the last thirty years and has been supplemented by observations made by the author during this time. This book is a product of this research and these observations. This book is a serious and realistic expression of a truth that withstands any intelligent and open minded argument. I hope you will give it serious attention as you read my thoughts and commitment to this project. Kerry Craig Walker 3a
  • 4. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590(A) Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker On Readership Targeted This book is for anyone that is beginning to question the belief systems of religion or for those that already question them. This is a book that is desperately needed and should be accessible to anyone through bookstores, public libraries, and college libraries throughout the country. Its time has come. When one looks at books in the religious and philosophy sections of public libraries, especially the smaller rural ones, there are literally no books, with few exceptions, that question religion. This is not a sign of intelligence, much less literary freedom. Those that go into a library should have the chance to look into both sides, but instead they are bombarded with books that propagate religion, mainly Christianity. There is, all too often, literally nothing to read in libraries outside the major cities that look at the facts of religion and what religion has actually created, nor anything that reasons for the rejection of them. In some of the better colleges and universities the situation is not as bad, but even in this case, if a book such as this were available it would condense the time for research. One’s research would not be such a lengthy process because one would not have to turn to so many different books to find the truth, unless of course one felt 4a
  • 5. the need. Nevertheless, this is a book that a student should have access to, rather than not. If marketed correctly this book could do well in the bookstores, and if I may point out; with all the books of nonsense that are found in the bookstores, why should this one be denied? As to readership, this is a book that could be for anyone, and thus should be accessible to anyone through bookstores and libraries everywhere. The Author _________________________________________________________________ 5a
  • 6. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590(A) Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker The reason for this book I feel an important need to put together a book that will contain the basic information that one would need to come upon an insight into the art of living. It will enable one to understand where one came from, with its mysteries, and why one has psychological fear and how to rid oneself of fear. This book will open the door to why there are religions and what it really means to be religious, whole and un-fragmented. It will enable one to come to terms with death; why humans are not what they should be, and why they conform when they should not. It will allow one to face the facts of one’s conditioning and how the conditioned mind is destroying the world. It will delve into how this conditioning forms the self, the ego, and the importance of ridding oneself of the overriding concern for the self through a self-knowledge that is not based on supposition or belief. It is only in the understanding of certain facts that one can understand the movement of truth and the importance of that movement. This work will convey a truth that will withstand any open minded argument; that the world is corrupt and 6a
  • 7. disintegrating because the consciousness of human beings has been corrupted, and that you are the world. It is in only in the understanding and rejection of that which is false that one can come upon that which is true. In this one can understand the true nature of love and right relationship, and in this understanding one will not only grasp the art of living, but will be life itself. This is a simple and natural way of living that mankind has been denied, except in rare occasions, because of the imposition of fear through false belief systems that create confusion and an escape from what is true. It is to this book that much of my energy has gone. Though I have been detoured by the demented and bizarre power of those that bind together to destroy any flower in culture with their wretched acts of dishonesty, deception, and hatred, all in the name of a religion that nature left to itself would refuse to own. Though I have other talents that I have pursued, when I turn away from this, as I have tried, the observations I see around me continues to bring me back to this work. It is in my mind by truth that I should write this book and give another a chance to learn. Kerry Craig Walker _________________________________________________________________ 7a
  • 8. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590(A) Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker The question we must ask ourselves is this—Is the intelligent, sane, rational mind really a mind that is completely different than the mind that believes in religion? THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE — The book to end all such books. By Kerry Craig Walker Edited by Dr. John A. Henderson In this book we are going to question if an outside energy exists. We are going to be looking into whether or not there is an energy that operates outside of man and if there is energy outside the pseudo-religious trappings man has imposed upon himself. In order for one to look into this, one must first be intelligent enough to look into and set aside, or go beyond if you will, what man has accepted as being sacred. Therefore we will look into religion as a process of education, and not as a matter of what to believe and what not to believe, of doing rituals or clinging to some superstitions. To live intelligently and to be whole human beings is a process of learning about ourselves and learning to be creative in the art of living so that we are no longer frightened, mediocre human beings. Only then will there be a chance for a better world. 8a
  • 9. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590(A) Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker Contents page Preface 10 Introduction 13a What is meant by “intelligence” 17a I To Question Religion 1 II Organized Conflict 23 III Have You Looked Here? 46 IV To be a Nonconformist 100 V On Evolution 125 VI The Elimination of Metaphysics 195 and the Personal God VII The Unfortunate Journey 201 On Education 238 On Organizations 242 On Goals 247 On Law and Society 249 On Love 268 To be a Light to Oneself 270 On Health and Environment 274 On Self Understanding 283 The Problem with Conclusions 288 VIII We Have Been Told 291 Epilogue 313 Footnotes/References 317 9a
  • 10. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590 Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker PREFACE In writing this book I’m going to use a great deal of information that looks at religion with doubt. I have done this for a reason, and that is because one must understand the importance of questioning everything, including the author, in order to arrive at the truth. In looking into the truth in regards to religious beliefs we should never stop doubting, because doubt, as Galileo taught, is the father of discovery. In order for us to understand anything we must begin by understanding ourselves, and the only way to do that is by participating and not just being an onlooker. I must say that I have been hesitant to start this book because I felt that there was something else that I would come upon that should be in a book of this sort. But, as it has been said, if an author waited for perfection to get started he would never start at all. It is suggested that the reader participate in this book and not just read it for mere entertainment. I’m not going to use a bunch of technical explanations or expressions in most of this book because I do not think they will help get this message across to others. Although the chapter “On Evolution” will have technical 10a
  • 11. names and words, the names are not important and I will explain the meaning of any technical word or name when necessary. I’m not saying that I agree or disagree with personal philosophies of the people from whom I have quoted in this book, nor would the author ask that of you, for this book is not written so one can merely agree or disagree with it. Rather it is written so that one may come to what is true by discarding that which is false. I’m also not going to attempt to compare all the various religions with each other, for that is not my intent. One can be grateful that Comparative Religions has been replaced by the History of Religions, and it is hoped that if anyone should have the need to understand the history of various religions, that they should be wise enough to turn to other sources and look into the histories for themselves. As most people know, religious propositions are controversial, and some process of validation is necessary. Throughout our society there is no complete agreement about the existence of God, about life after death, or about who should be the religious authority. Such controversial matters are not something that should be sidetracked and ignored. The only questions worth asking are often controversial. Religious controversy should be welcomed as long as it is carried out with gentleness. 11a
  • 12. It is tremendously important that we find out “what is true” and not just what we have been “told to be true”. The reader does not have to think this way or that way, or in any particular direction in order to read this book. All I am saying is that this should at least be looked into. The Author _______________________________________________________________ 12a
  • 13. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590 Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker INTRODUCTION As was mentioned in the preface, this book will be looking into religion with a questioning mind, with a sense of skepticism. In the first chapter entitled “To Question Religion” I draw on my studies of philosophers and writers and the facts I have learned in the nearly 30 years of studying this subject---and I think once you have looked into something and seen the truth of it for yourself, without any outside influence, it becomes yours. One might add that the reader should be serious about this chapter as well as the rest of the book, if something is to be learned from it. After all, it is only by being serious about life that we learn not to take life too seriously. The next chapter, called “Organized Conflict”, moves from there to look into facts about religion and gives the reader clear observations of why organized beliefs create instability and conflict, and this is done without boring the reader with an endless supply of comparisons. One will simply be looking at certain observations as they present themselves from the other side of the coin, as it were, and it is not my intent to step on anyone’s toes by doing so. 13a
  • 14. From there, The third chapter, entitled “Have You Looked Here”, will look directly at actual, unedited excerpts from the encyclopedia that help portray the circus that is born out of religion. The reader is then presented with a chapter called “To be a Nonconformist” which is composed of the works of what many in society and in the better universities has considered great thinkers, yet were nonconformist. It presents interesting facts about religion by the author and offers evidence of the simple intelligence that is capable of standing alone by refusing to go along with a neurotic and chaotic society and the bizarre belief systems that have created it. Moving on to Chapter five, “On Evolution”, the reader is taken through the facts behind evolutionary processes, yet the author questions the traditional acceptance of some facts ascribed to them. This work demonstrates how we must also question the conclusions and established facts of science as well as the problems presented by such conclusions. Several interesting and colorful pictures and diagrams accent this chapter. In the next chapter, “The Elimination of Metaphysics and the Personal God”, I explain why I have not covered any of the many metaphysical arguments in this book as well as to explain the problems with the concept of a personal God. My work in this chapter helps uncover the problems of this concept, using the help of a 14a
  • 15. few wise men along the way, and then proceeds to allow the reader to uncover the truth of this for him or herself. The next to last chapter is called “The Unfortunate Journey”, and is composed of a series of writings by the author that began in 1977, when the search for truth began. These writings continue through both the times of confusion and clarity, until a sudden insight took place. It was then that the author was able to see through this blind illusion of traditional religions and all the rest of it. It continues on from there with works written after this initial transformation and deals with some of the struggles faced by the author. This chapter is subtitled with the author’s views on subjects that range from “law and society” to “health and environment”, and the on such topics as “education” and “love”. It also details the bizarre case of the State of Georgia’s failed attempts to destroy a nonconformist by criminal acts in order to manufacture the guilt of an innocent man, a man that was, in fact, the victim of a violent crime. The final chapter, entitled “We Have Been Told”, presents the views of what many consider the greatest thinkers in history, who have warned of the dangers of organizing any religious belief or idea. They taught that a movement that is not always changing, is already dead, and point out that we must find the truth for ourselves and must be totally responsible for our own actions. These are words that convey the reality of a direct perception that is brought about through an 15a
  • 16. intelligence that has its foundation in love by an understanding of truth—a truth that is not an invention of man. Kerry Craig Walker ___________________________________________________________________ 16a
  • 17. What is meant by “Intelligence”? A prerequisite for this book is to understand what we are looking to get at when we use the word “intelligence”. We are not talking about an intelligence based on knowledge alone, or the accumulation of knowledge to pass certain exams and to become a PhD and so on. (Not that there is anything wrong with having a PhD or any specialized degree, or knowledge in most forms, so don’t jump to that conclusion.) We will learn by doubting and it is by doubting that we will discover what is true and this doubt will bind us together, but we should doubt with an open and inquisitive mind. It is the object of this book to enable the reader to find out who he/she is, and to come upon self-understanding. To get the reader to consider whether or not it is possible for there to be an intelligence, which is not necessarily your intelligence or my intelligence, but an intelligence that operates when we understand ourselves completely and go beyond the content we call knowledge, and therefore self. The basis of this is an observation, which goes beyond the confines of the psychological knowledge within your brain, and the psychological contents of my brain. Thereby going beyond this fixed knowledge and conditioning, and observing what actually is. The observer may come to realize that the psychological content of man, of the brain, are often illusions, and not reality—illusions to be projected, protected, hurt, and all the rest. Reality exists outside of this content, and in pure observation. Then the observer is not separate from the observed. This is the only 17a
  • 18. way that we can look into what is true and what is false without our own opinions, prejudices, conclusions, conditioning, and so on, getting in the way. I think you’ll find that beyond this content is an intelligence that operates naturally and, for the most part, effortlessly, without the constant function of will. I state this as a fact and that it is the only hope for man. Then each one of us will have minds with a natural order connected to the natural order of the cosmos, and we will see that everything is interconnected. This does not mean that we see everything and do everything the same, only that there is no conflict in this dialogue of open minds that recognizes the fallibility of man, and questions everything. Each one of us should see that our conscience is not separate from the conscience of the rest of humanity and there is universal intelligence. (If you don’t understand this, no worries, keep on reading, because if you read this entire book you just might.) _____________________________________________________________ 18a
  • 19. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590(A) Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker TO QUESTION RELIGION Chapter I “Never stifle doubt, for doubt is the father of discovery.” Galileo For many years we have been witnessing a campaign for the revival of religion that is being carried on with all the slickness of modern day advertising. Most everywhere one looks and almost everywhere one goes, we are being bombarded with religious propaganda. The politicians are talking about god, and making sure they are looked upon as dutiful Christians. There have been attempts, and some have been successful, to inject religion where the Constitution expressly prohibits it. Few of us are taught to question religion and, outside the classrooms of some of the better colleges, the negative side of religion is rarely presented. One may research the negative side to religion via the internet or through some of the better libraries and book stores, but how many are taught to do this? In fact, for the most part, we are taught quite the opposite---we are taught not to question religious beliefs. 1
  • 20. It is important for us to question and to doubt, because religious offensive is on a grand scale. If the propaganda and imposition of religions remains unchecked, the trend will make those who are not part of traditional religions into second-class citizens. In all of this the proper mood is the mood of doubt. It may be reasonable to call Descartes the father of modern philosophy because, even if we do not accept his conclusions we should accept some of his method: Start by doubting what we can doubt, and demand evidence at every point. This is the best antidote to superstition. The act of doubting shows a concern for the truth. To many Americans have no concern for the truth and those that are not concerned for the truth do not bother to question, because questioning requires thinking, and thinking requires doubting. The dangerous man is not the man who questions, but the man who is indifferent. I care therefore I doubt is at least the beginning of a valid method in examining the philosophy of religion. It is important to find out if religious beliefs are a product of heritage and our conditioning. So what we should do is look into religion openly and intelligently, but with a questioning mind, so that one can determine truth. Most are indifferent about attitudes towards religion. After considering the facts about the world around us, one should either accept or reject a religious belief. If there is one thing clear about religionists, it is that, though they may subscribe to a 2
  • 21. particular religion and have striven for intellectual integrity within it, they have, over and over, expressed their serious doubts about such beliefs. It is difficult to rid our minds completely of the haunting suspicion that the entire religious structure may be nothing more than the illusion of some grand and beautiful castle in the air. Could it be that there is no being worthy of our commitment? Perhaps god is just an idea in human minds, an idea as insubstantial as a mirage in the desert. It may be easy to construct theories about the world or to create beliefs, but we know many of these are purely fanciful. Once we realize that they are fanciful they should have very little effect upon either our thought or our conduct. The grandeur of a dream provides no certainty that it is anything more than a dream. Our lack of belief in gods and religions is increased by our study of history and a study of the universe. We are well aware of how people continued to talk confidently about the gods of ancient Greece long after they were sure that these were fictitious beings. We are in a similar situation. The millions who flock to church on Sundays to pray and to hear sermons are exercising their imaginations. Their prayers, as well as their answers, are a product of their own thought. It is likely that the only energy is that of the cosmos and that there is no “Supreme Being” that can listen and respond. To say that we know better by the light of faith is not a convincing answer; the early Greeks had faith, but their faith was centered on nonexistent 3
  • 22. objects. Our major concern must be the concern for reality. We want to know, not what would be nice and comfortable, but what is. We are fortunate to be living in a time in history that enables us to find truth. In regards to the truth of religion, one needs but to do the research. In a way that has not been possible before, the truth of religious philosophy is now both possible and necessary. It is possible because our time is marked by reason and logic. It is necessary because new challenges are arising every day in a world with advancing science and technology along with increasing populations. There is no subject matter more important than religion, yet people continue to have absolute dogmatic religious beliefs. They will say they believe in the bible, but have not read the bible or if they have read the bible they are afraid to question it. Others may be very dogmatic about a particular belief one moment, then, moments later, contradict that belief by their own actions. We should not be indifferent about our religious beliefs when they involve the most fateful questions? Many people know little about the religion they claim to believe in. They may say it is very important, but they obviously ignore it. Over 60 percent of Americans claim affiliation with some form of religion, and many of these are indifferent to their beliefs. (This statistic varies from different sources, some claim a higher percentage, but I felt the ballpark of 60 percent makes the point). 4
  • 23. The church in America has had its periods of quiescence and its periods of upheaval. The period after the Civil War was a time of relative stability and steady growth. It marked a time when church membership and church attendance was the norm for the American middle class. This era also marked the spawning of the Social Gospel and the appearance of a succession of fiery evangelists and the growth of cults and new religious groups. The relative quiescence and identification of organized religion with its secular setting were healthy for church growth. Church membership grew from an estimated 6 percent of the population in 1776 to 16 percent by 1850. The churches a half-century later could count one-third of the population as members. The proportion rose to more than 50 percent by the mid-1920’s and reached two-thirds during the 1950’s. (According to my studies of various statistics, these are as close as it gets). The Social Gospel was given formal approval in a social creed adopted in 1908 by the Federal Council of Churches, forerunner of the present National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States. The notion that the gospel commanded people to be better citizens and to undo injustices inflicted by an indifferent and often corrupt society, on the poor, the weak, and the oppressed, began to be injected into theological discourse and to influence the policies of major churches. 5
  • 24. What became referred to as Social Christianity subsided somewhat during the 1920’s for several reasons—One of the reasons was that it called forth a counter- movement on the part of fundamentalist churches, which formed their own federation and began to press their influence that much stronger. Another reason was the fact that science was clearly unraveling some of the “Biblical Facts” and more people began to question the validity of these beliefs. This contest between Fundamentalism and Modernism was impressed on the nation during the famous Scopes trial of 1925, when an obscure biology teacher in Tennessee was charged with the offense of teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution, which was in defiance of the state law that forbid the teaching in public schools of anything contrary to the biblical story of creation. Although I do not endorse this theory of evolution in its purest form, the facts behind evolutionary process on our earth cannot be denied. (One should read my writings and study my work On Evolution in Chapter 5 to learn what I have come to understand.) Other reasons for this brief stagnation in the growth of Social Christianity was the fact that people were becoming more educated and beginning to feel free to question such belief systems. In all of this we learn that we must not accept something as being true just because we have been told it was true or because it would be nice if it were true. It is, of course, important to have an awareness of order, but when one attempts to come upon this awareness through a means, which has been laid down by man, one should at least question its validity. Too many live under some system without 6
  • 25. seriously questioning that system. What is even more confusing, there are those who continuously question the system under which they live or profess to live. More should be willing to investigate their religious beliefs. We shouldn’t simply accept what tradition and heritage have lain down—the religious vitality of our time is so great that it must be studied, questioned, and even opposed when found to be false or harmful. It cannot be neglected. Religious phenomena are abundant and varied, but do they have any grounding in reality? In spite of the current vitality of religion in the Western World, (as well as other parts of the world), this question is an exceedingly important one in many minds. How is one to begin to know the truth to such momentous questions? In dealing with these matters we are concerned with the logic of religion. It is obvious that any revelation should be tested by reason. There are many false claims based on revelation. We should be aware that many revelations are false, because there are absolutely contradictory claims in them. It cannot be true that there is only one way for man to find God and that there are many ways for man to find God. The elimination of contradiction must be recognized as a necessary condition for any sane, rational discussion. When there is a contradictory revelation we know that something is wrong. There are many contradictions in Christian beliefs. For example, out of the seemingly infinite, the Roman Catholic view is that theirs is the only true church whereas the Protestant view is that the Christian 7
  • 26. fellowship is so rich and varied that it can take on many valid forms. Here we know somebody must be wrong. If there are conflicts and contrasts of revelation between two groups of Christians, there are greater conflicts when other sects are involved and even greater conflicts when other religions are involved. If a belief system based on supernatural powers is found to be false it has no foundation in reality. If any religion or any part of a religion is false, we should give it up. To continue a faith merely for gratification or because it is socially or financially useful is to deny what is asserted—If a religion is not true wrong actions will come out of it. If a religion is not true, it is evil. I am often amazed at how little people know about what they profess to believe. It is obvious that most belief systems are based on conditioning. Most people say they believe something to be true but have not investigated it. This problem of “blind faith” appears to be rampant. For many years I have talked with people about their religious beliefs, and over these many years there have been many different forms of expression for various beliefs. There are also those that you have heard time and time again, with all the quotes they repeat and so on. But what is even more startling is their ignorance of a bible that they often profess to be the “Word of God”. If these people really believe this to be the words of God, it looks like they would want to read it from cover to cover and find out what God said. Of course, if they did read it from cover to cover without fear of questioning it, they 8
  • 27. would find out the truth about this wretched book with all of its contradictions and they would read about a very vengeful and violent god. Religious beliefs are not as pervasive as they appear in the United States. When suddenly asked about what they believe, they usually give responses that go back to the time when they last talked about such questions, often many years ago. People who say they believe in the literal interpretation of the bible do not know what is in the bible, and would be rather surprised if someone told them. People may say they believe in immortality and yet be hard put to say whether they believe that one goes to heaven or hell right after death, or whether one is consigned to one or the other only after some last judgment. To most people who believe in immortality via the Christian belief, it has never occurred to them that there is a difference. Belief in heaven is far more popular than belief in hell, and few of those who claim to believe in hell consider the prospect that they might go there— Hell is strictly for others. Theologians equivocate about the different beliefs in hell, leaving unclear whether they believe in it or not, or for what precisely people are damned eternally; yet these same people preach and write about God and His relationship to man. To bring up the subject of hell is widely considered indelicate, although it would be difficult to think of a more important question than whether some or many humans 9
  • 28. are headed for eternal torment and torture. What reigns supreme in matters of organized religion is thoughtlessness. Why is it that so many are evasive about the subject? Even in the Sunday schools they attend they learn nothing about religions other than their own, and little about their own. Secondly, most people, including the educated, are religiously illiterate. People read all kinds of material that have no lasting value, but they may never read those works that may allow them to learn to understand themselves and to eliminate the fear of the unknown. To single out those who are opposed to traditional religions for failing to make their position better known makes little sense. If someone publishes a book that deals critically with religion and the truth about religion and reaches a wide audience, he should not allow the thoughtlessness of those that do change to reflect his own failure to bring about this change. Nor would it be gracious for him to recite a long litany of people who applauded this or that book privately but failed to champion it publicly. But it needs to be said that the greatest failures are not from those who reject traditional religions, but, rather, from the thousands that have not spoken out. To think that the beliefs which so many pay lip service to are profound, is like saying that the fact that many men wear neckties points to a deep and profound stance. In both cases we are confronted by unthinking conformism. It is easier to 10
  • 29. conform and to be superficial about life. Making people more thoughtful is not enough as long as there are real or imagined penalties for not conforming. Throughout history there have been penalties for not conforming. In some eras there were more penalties and punishments for non-conforming, and in some eras there was more freedom. I have often been asked, “What are those who are aware of all this to do, if anything? Do we need a new strategy…?” I am not an “organization man”, and have gone it alone for a long time, but I would certainly welcome more support. I do not see this as a battle between the children of light and the children of darkness; rather, it is up to those who see through this nonsense of organized religion and the subsequent confusion and neurosis in our society to refuse to be a part of it. There are faults greater than a stubborn belief in immortality. One good example would be for a person to be aware that a belief is false, then not have the courage to admit it. It is foolish to be enraged by false or confused beliefs. I feel, quiet frankly, that I have no dependence as a writer or a speaker to get people to think more conscientiously. I have learned not to expect anything from anyone when it comes to psychological attitudes and beliefs, and if I were to expect people to be more aware, I would be disappointed. I see people just the way they are, as long as they bring no harm to me or to others. It is up to the individual, and not to me, to see through this blind illusion. For a long time even those who felt this obligation, have leaned over backwards not to deal too critically with truly vital questions. It is often considered 11
  • 30. a virtue—indeed a necessary condition of respectability—not to deal with anything outside normal academic questions. In fact, it has become fashionable not to deal with the truly important questions, at least not very painstakingly. I wish more intellectuals, scholars, teachers, and writers would deal critically with the most important questions of faith, morals, and politics. People like those described above may not necessarily be pernicious, what is disheartening however is that even the best universities in a wealthy country that prides itself on its colleges, should provide such a poor education. It is sad that, in a democracy in which there is so much freedom to speak, write, and to learn, people are so unconcerned about truth. Religious beliefs and their influence on our daily lives and on our culture need to be considered in this larger perspective. It behooves us to be serious about what we know about organized religion, to either accept it or reject it, but not to be indifferent to it. We cannot be true to our responsibilities as human beings if we believe lightly or if we reject lightly any significant conviction. It wasn’t long ago that belief in purgatory flourished in the Roman Catholic Church, and to this day in many pockets around the world belief in purgatory still exists. Purgatory simply is where one goes before being judged and then sent to heaven or hell. Throughout church history the time spent in purgatory could be shortened by giving up material possessions, or by giving money to the church, or by the purchase of certain relics. For example, one might buy the leg bone of what 12
  • 31. was said to be a saint, and this would give them a better bargaining position and could therefore shorten their stay in purgatory, hopefully getting a faster shot to heaven. Most Catholics have abandoned belief in purgatory because it has no apparent New Testament basis. Many have given up belief in hell, for reasons just indicated; now all that is left is belief in heaven, and even that is the subject of endless jokes. This alone should convince us of the importance of finding out what is true for ourselves, and in this logic we must discover, not according to any psychiatrist, philosopher, priest, or authority, what actually is true. One can only wonder why education in the area of religion is so poor. Why the lack of insight into our religious beliefs? It is strange indeed how so many are able to maintain their traditional faith while at the same time they entertain philosophical and scientific notions which make their faith impossible. But what is this faith that people have? And why does it take on so many different forms? The logical result of the notion of something existing for one person and not for another would refer merely to what is in the mind of the “knower”. But, obviously, when men have worshiped God they have not supposed that they were worshiping ideas in their own minds, for these would not be worthy of worship. One cannot and must not underestimate the power of imagination. History shows us how powerful is man’s imagination. Consider the many gods of the past and the many bizarre beliefs that have now been abandoned. All over the world man’s imagination has created things as being sacred; and what thought creates as being 13
  • 32. sacred, thought begins to worship as being sacred. So it is thought worshiping thought, or thought worshiping itself. It is a form of self-delusion or self-worship. Of man’s many characteristics, perhaps the most significant is his imagination. It is the true key to his success, but it may also be the key to his neurosis, and, ultimately, the cause of his failure. As far as we know, man may be the only animal capable of cognitive reasoning and logic, at least to such great extent. He is capable of mentally bringing any specific thing in the world into conjunction with any other. He can fantasize while he is awake and steer his fantasies in any desired direction. He can combine experience with imagination and test the resultant thought within his mind for practicality. Man’s brain can become, as it were, a screen from which he can project and construct ideas. There, future can be blended with past, components removed and replaced with others, the flow of ideas accelerated, slowed, or repeated at will. But, at times, man’s thought processes may turn illusion into reality, and, therefore, man’s conclusions that result from these thought processes may be wrong. This process of imagination can lead man to a state of neurosis, or, in extreme cases, psychosis, in that his rambling thought processes cannot be stopped and his imagination controls him. This process is often accelerated by man’s constant pursuit of pleasure, or by this idea of becoming or state of acquisitiveness—to become psychologically something more tomorrow that he is today. 14
  • 33. We need to ask ourselves: Could this process of imagination be responsible for inventing the religions throughout the world? Once we understand the processes of thought and the power of conditioning the answer to this question is fairly simple and obvious. Let us go a step further and ask ourselves if this process of thought is responsible for creating God and if man has unfortunately been conditioned to believe in God. This does not deny the extraordinary mystery and wonder of life, nor does it deny the existence of some unknown natural energy behind the processes of life and our awesome universe. I no longer have an interest in formal theology, but I am not irreligious. I have a strong ethical sense, and I think we should love, and that love should be the foundation for any intelligent life. We are all part of the universe, a cosmos, that has certain forms, patterns, and interrelations, and the possibility for order does exist. But I do not know what this energy is, so it remains in the realm of the unknown, and this fact may always be so. That these natural forces are there may be observed, but to name or label these forces is the problem. In other words, the idea of God is a wonderfully convenient abstraction through which we can satisfy our yearning for order in the universe. If things go wrong, the concept of God not only can give us hope and succor, but since the universe is too big for most of us to comprehend, it also relieves us of some responsibility. Of course there are the many beliefs in God, but the approach is human and not celestial, in that man made God and not vice versa. 15
  • 34. It would indeed be nice if there were a God who was both creator of the universe and a benevolent provider, if there were a heaven of total peace in a future existence. But this may be just how we wish it for ourselves. There is probably no one on this earth that wishes more than I do that a tangible supreme being or biblical god made me, after all I have been through, but unfortunately “he” didn’t. Creation is not as simple as that. (Many readers may ask, “What it is that you have been through.” I don’t want to talk about my past, for the simple reason that what I have come into is unrelated to the past or to what I did or did not do. Even though many events happened to me because of my insights into the truth, my past has no relation to this work. Having said that, I will mention as a means of making a point that some negative events happened to me as a result of my observations and the dishonesty of those with belief systems, and one such event is covered later in this book. I will say that one is lucky to have not been killed or literally burned at the stake by the believers, although in their actions of brutality they did come very close.) Beliefs, which become dogmas, are not the residue of sane rational thinking, nor the final result of awareness; they are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most insistent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength is in the strength of their wishes. Most of us are aware of how those that are psychologically weak and helpless need someone to cling to, and one may be aware of how fear creates a 16
  • 35. feeling of helplessness as well as distort one’s perception. It is out of these fears that father figures, this time a more powerful one called god, came about. Most of us are afraid to put what we believe to any kind of test. We either don’t have the intelligence to question what we believe or our conditioning, coupled with fear, prevents us from looking at anything different from what we were taught. A belief that has never been questioned is unworthy of be called a belief. It is important to inquire and to question what we have been told is true. We must not continue to tolerate the beliefs in which our environment has conditioned us to think to be true, just because we are part of that environment. In other words, we should not tolerate false beliefs just because they are accepted by society. In any case we can be sure that the truth about religions will be hidden from those who, in an effort to get along with everyone, approach it in the mood of tolerance. The notion that religion is a nice thing for those who are interested in it is absolute nonsense, because it shows a primary confusion about the nature of the subject studied and it is condescending. To go along with the belief of another just to be accepted by them, is wholly unproductive. More people should ask themselves if it is fair or right for them to condition or to expose their children to which they are indifferent. And is it fair or right for people to impose on those around them a belief to which they are indifferent? In spite of their indisputable lack of authenticity, religious ideas have exercised the very strongest influence on mankind. 17
  • 36. In order for us to decide whether to accept or reject certain claims, we must be committed to the truth. We can find truth; we only need to do the research. Not what we believe to be true, or have been conditioned to believe, but that which is true in reality, and that which is ultimately concerned about mankind and this earth on which he lives. It is the truth about man that he is ultimately concerned about that which determines his ultimate destiny beyond all preliminary necessities and accidents— yet it seems we continue to overlook the problems that threaten to destroy us. Even with mans ability to adapt to change, it is amazing that the Church has survived as it has over the years. With all the different sects (over 250 of them) and all the different rituals and beliefs that stem from this one bizarre religion, Christianity, one would think more people would see through all the nonsense. Fortunately, many have. There have been many who have stopped giving, or at least have been reluctant to give money to the Church. The reason for this is not because people are without funds or that they are ungenerous, it is because they are aware that their money is being used for purposes that they simply do not approve. They are finding that much of the money is being used for the mere growth of the church itself and other monies are being filtered down and going for purposes other than it was intended. 18
  • 37. This is especially so when it appears to people that their money is being handed over uncritically to movements that foster violence and use anger as a force for good. From the annihilation of the American Indians, to the prison movement, to the slave trade and the more recent actions in the Middle East, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are good examples of such violence. The intolerance by some church members and the violence and hatred on individual levels is pervasive and yet the root causes stemming from the mindset of those with these bizarre beliefs are almost completely ignored. The problem is even worse when some prominent church leaders actually announce their support of violence as a method of social change. In fact the very nature of religion is to bring harm to the nonbelievers—the scriptures themselves command such violence. If we could make a list of the individual acts of violence that have been carried out by church members it would stretch from here to kingdom come. Then there is all the nonsense that goes on with the fundamentalist churches. I have always been able to see through the circus of the fundamentalists as many others have, but the recent explosion of sex scandals, fraud, and misuse of funds by the fundamentalists, as well as the strange tactics of acquiring those funds has brought many more to the realization of this circus. Pope Benedict XVI has reaffirmed the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a doctrine that says other Orthodox Christian Churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches. When the 19
  • 38. United States Senate allowed the history-making event of someone from the Hindu religion to do the opening prayer, many Christians met it with outrage and called it an abomination. This simply shows the intolerance of many religious activists and many others associated with the Christian religion. They may want to proselytize and impose their religion in the public square, but it is clear that they mean only their religion! Some are now asking if the organized Christian Church should be approaching its demise. Perhaps, they say, after generations of existence, it is time for the church to realize that it is near the end of its tether and accept the reality that it will eventually cease to be. This observation is being seriously put forth not only by those who are consciously outside or antagonistic to it, but by those who are devoted members and supporters. Most members of religion are superficial about their beliefs and go to church on the basis that it is a good thing to do, and it makes them feel better about life. It is these people that unthinkingly support the propaganda of religion and raises the billions of dollars that continue to be spent in building these structures for worshiping a god that does not exist. We must admit that many are refusing to be part of Christianity, and that is creating some dark days for the church. Many devout people are clearly discouraged, and the reasons for their discouragement are fairly obvious. There is, in the church, a sharp division marked by mutual distrust and many are beginning to question their beliefs. No one that is reasonably aware of contemporary events 20
  • 39. can find it difficult to see why vital new movements often negate the church. This is because most churches have become organizations, intent only upon their own survival, and constructed on a foundation of lies. Many people who call themselves Christians seem to have gotten lost in the idea of being forgiven, to the point that they think they may just as well be sinners since they will be forgiven. Even more alarming is how people who call themselves Christians will bring harm to a non-believer by any means possible believing all the while that God is on their side. It is as if their very beliefs sustain them in a state of pathological dishonesty and a denial of the truth about anything, including the truth about their own lives. Their lives revolve around the illusions of these beliefs and the continued effort to sustain them. But, if we could go a little deeper, could it be that it is the effort that is produced by these false beliefs and the avoidance of reality that create the problems in the first place? Over the past centuries there have been many accounts of churches and church leaders who have predicted the return of Christ and the literal end of the world. Over and over men have claimed to be able to read the signs of the future, but the humbling fact remains that all who have announced Christ’s return or the literal end have been wrong. In practically every case concerning the literal end, the prophetic interpretations are different from that which is described in the bible. If one looks at the whole context one cannot possibly extract the meaning that has 21
  • 40. been laid down as prophecy by those that claim to have interpreted it. Then there are all the superstitions that perpetuate Christian belief… The general public feeds off anything concerning life after death, psychic phenomenon, the paranormal, miracles, the crafts of mediums and mentalists, and everything supernatural. The greed factor keeps the producers of such programming hard at work. Yet the fact remains that no one has been able to prove supernatural powers! In fact those that claim to move objects with the power of the mind, the faith healers, and those that claim to use supernatural powers in their magic, have been debunked time and time again. The propagandist for such nonsense, in the name of the all mighty dollar, does a grave injustice to mankind. Misinformation like this—of people who claim they can subvert nature, communicate with the dead, or that they can do real miracles and they want to get paid for it…has a negative influence on society. In fact we are responsible for our own actions, and superstitions cloud an individual’s ability to function sanely and rationally, and to come to terms with life and death. The greatest of teachers and the wisest of men sought to set man free of all superstitious practices and to center on the truth and on that which is real. ___________________________________________________________ 22
  • 41. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590(A) Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker ORGANIZED CONFLICT Chapter II “Why doest thou prate of God? Whatever thou sayest of him is untrue.” Maister Eckart * * * * * It would be nice if one could look at the history of all organized religions, and see the evil that has come out of their beliefs. The study of histories of the religions of America alone would be overwhelming. More difficult for the historian than the newness of America is the complexity of its makeup. The compounding of this country’s ethnic or religious diversity has continued almost unabated for centuries. There have been many who have broken away from mere obedience of the so-called moral law and have maintained that faith alone was necessary for salvation. Those that have broken away from tradition, some more radically than others, have been continuous. From Giordano Bruno in the second half of the 1500’s to Mistress Anne Hutchinson in the 1630’s to Timothy Leary in the 1960’s. There have been those who have questioned the entire structure of religious beliefs, but maintained that the religious mind was completely 23
  • 42. different from the mind that believed in religion, from Thomas Paine in the second half of the 1700’s to J. Krishnamurti for the 1900’s; I place myself among these. Many strong religious beliefs and insights into the holistic and un-fragmented mind have not been neatly housed in churches. The extreme variety of the American religious heritage is the central problem for anyone who would undertake even a synopsis of their histories. By 1700 a traveler making his way from Boston to the Carolinas would encounter a variety of Congregationalist, Baptist of several varieties, Presbyterians, Quakers, and several other forms of Puritan radicalism; Dutch, German, and French Reformed; Mennonites and radical Pietists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics of many varieties; here and there a Jewish congregation and a few members of Freemasonry, Hermeticism, Alchemy, and even a few Roscrusians; and of course a vast number of the unchurched—some strongly alienated from any form of organized religion. And as the years passed the variety would rapidly increase. By the 1920’s the Monophysite Church of Armenia—the oldest established church in Christendom—had put down American Roots, as had each of the three main branches of the Syrian Church: Jacobites, Nestorian, and Orthodox. Virtually every surviving heresy and schism in Christian history had its representatives in America as did the many new sects, and new sects continue to be formed. One thing that can be noticed about Christianity in America is that it possesses characteristics of its own. It is not only different from that which existed in Europe 24
  • 43. at the time of settlement of the colonies, but it is different from that which exists in any other location of Christianity. Christianity here has been shaped by Americans to suit Americans. It would be even better if I could go a step further and show a comparison of the many different forms of beliefs in the many different sects in this country, but again the task becomes overwhelming and I should have to keep you here until kingdom come, if you will pardon the expression. In looking at the histories one could probably see many of the different beliefs as well as the conflicts within them, but, as mentioned, the variety and complexity is too great. One historian had set out to write a history of American Christianity, and, after looking into the many religions, stated, “I found the project to be so difficult that I abandoned it…The coherence of the facts in the religious history of our land cannot yet be seen. The facts themselves are abundant to embarrassment, and they cannot be strung upon any single thread that I have been able to discover.”(1) If one were to look into the history of this planet from about six or eight thousand years ago until present, since the beginning of so-called civilization, one would find that all though history man has exploited and used his power, whether politically, or religiously. It seems that where there is man, there is good and there is evil; but where man is ambitious, exploiting his ideas, and attempting to dominate and control others, there is very little good. 25
  • 44. If one thinks he is good, but is unaware of his evil, that will lead him to doing wrong yet not realizing that he is doing wrong. He will justify his evil doings. But if one believes he is evil, without being aware of his capacity for good, he may be overcome or obsessed by evil. The symbols for “good” and “evil” are inventions of thought, and it is this process of thought that brings about the many problems. Thought creates or invents those labels given to good and to evil; thus, without the movement of thought, except when necessary in order to perform a specific task, evil would not exist—at least not in any relationship with the good. But it should also be considered that if it is the actions of this constant chattering of the ambitious mind, the constant movement of thought with its superficial reactions, that has created these distinctions, then one must surely go beyond those labels for any radical change to be made. In other words, this complex and uncontrolled movement of thought, if at once observed and understood—and on most levels brought to an end—brings about a natural state of being, without supposition or belief. In this state man recognizes his capacity for goodness and love, and observes the beauty in nature and in the world around him. All the thought created illusions as well as the motives that sustain them disappear because the observer is no longer separate from the observed. It is like three good scientists looking through a microscope and observing the same thing. The history of man is so filled with problems created by man’s own hands, with a little good mixed in, that true philosophy must inform him of both the root of his 26
  • 45. greatness and the root of his misery. When we look directly and honestly at the overall picture of the history of mankind, the greatness of man gets lost in the misery. The question is__ Why?__ Why has man always lived in strife? Destroying each other in the name of God, Country, or whatever. There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages. From about 476 A.D. and up until 1100 A.D., man not only ceased to advance in the world of art, science, medicine, and technology, but in many ways he actually went backwards. This continued in some form until as late as the 1400’s, particularly in the field of medicine. Could it be that as we sit here in this modern world, with all the modern communications, transportation, surgery, and so on, that we are still living in the remnants of the Dark Ages? It seems to me that we are in many ways. We are now living in a world that should enable us to find out many of the facts that help explain everything from the physical forces of our planet to the physical forces of the universe. Though we can still live with a sense of wonder, we are able to learn more about our marvelous earth and this incredible universe than ever before. As far as we know, wherever we go in the universe certain laws of physics apply. There are the unknowns, like the lack of a complete understanding of evolutionary processes or the understanding of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, yet we are in a position to explore our existence unlike ever before. Information such as this is placed at our finger tips by science. But if we have insight through science we must 27
  • 46. realize that it can go in two directions. Science can either be concerned with world order and with the future of mankind, or, as we so often see, it can be concerned with short-term benefits that only benefit the few. We should also look at the problem with conclusions in science, because some of these conclusions may be in error and lead us astray as history has demonstrated in certain areas of established “scientific facts” that are later found to be wrong (see my writings on The Problem with Conclusions in Chapter 7). Education through science could enable us to live a good life, by giving us the ability to have an awareness of the information that would develop characters productive of harmony rather than strife. At present it is treating us like guinea pigs, filling us with misinformation and propaganda about just about everything from food and medicine to politics and war. Our children are being taught that it is acceptable, even noble and patriotic, to kill others, and even to die, because men of politics are willing to sacrifice the future of mankind for their own momentary prosperity. But this phase will pass when men have acquired the same understanding of themselves as they have of the physical forces of nature. Then men will understand their motives, and understand their responsibility to stand against all forms of greed, deception, and corruption. Then we will truly be free. Much of the current thought and literature of today is concerned with the terrible problems that confront man. Speakers and writers addressing these problems often find it difficult to express the serious nature of the contemporary 28
  • 47. human situation without losing the interest of those concerned. It is difficult to get people to understand the importance of an attitude of negation, to negate the negative, when so many are caught in this attitude of blind and naïve optimism. We cannot think in realistic terms concerning the present state of mankind unless we are adequately aware of the environment that surrounds us. We cannot afford to ignore the unpleasant, perhaps disastrous future that awaits us all. It is only by bringing man (and this includes woman) to an awareness of this that he can hope to change. We can go on using the systems that have failed us for millennia or we can discard all that and start anew. This, it seems, may be the powerful and as yet untried resource whereby we can meet the problems of this age with confidence. It is not a conviction which ignores the struggles that face man even if he learns to understand himself; nor is it based on a naïve assumption that the problems of man arise from causes which will easily disappear once he approaches them with a serious determination to resolve them. And, most important of all, it is a conviction that is aware of the fact that the ultimate source of the problems that plague man is man himself. Why is it so difficult to convince ourselves that each one of us is part of the whole of mankind? The simple truth is that the state of each one of us, is not separate from the rest of mankind. In other words, we are the world. Most of us don’t want to face this simple fact. We make excuses and say things like, “The world is in a period of 29
  • 48. transition and new birth, and this justifies the conflicts and tensions which confront us.” Or we say, “It is all in God’s hands”. Or we say, “It has always been like this and always will be.”—This is our dilemma and our challenge. We must look for the proper place for religious thought and ask ourselves if these many processes and inventions of thought should be organized. There are many that would like to dismiss religion as being an important subject of present day discussions, and honesty requires us to admit that the state of religion around the world is not one of universal vibrant health. The influence of religion on society varies from locality to locality and this condition is affected by local as well as worldwide conditions. However, one could not be far off by saying that religion as a whole, along with the rest of the world, is facing problems that threaten to destroy it. The ideas of religions are failing to measure up to the responsibilities of the time. All religions must plead guilty to this. The religions of the world not only find themselves confronted by many intelligent movements that are in opposition to them, but they are inheritors of a tradition of opposition to each other. Faced by deeply concerned people who have come to reject them emphatically, they are also in a state of conflict in their own institutions. Religion is the chief opponent of religion. This situation of conflict is not just the result of traditions of the past. Much of the history in the western world has been furnished by the conflicts between 30
  • 49. religions and within religions, as well as countless and incalculable wrong actions that have been taken against humanity because of such beliefs. Then there are all the conflicts of the religions of the east! But these conflicts between religions are much more than the continuation of age-old misunderstandings—they are the problem of organizing any spiritual or supernatural belief. The history of Christianity is a record of constant conflict. From time immemorial there has been conflict caused by Christianity and conflict within Christianity itself. There have been only brief moments in history when the conflicts of Christianity appeared to be resolved, but these resolutions were ones of appearance only, and not of fact. Christianity has often stepped in and created conflict with established morals, customs, and religions in particular geographic locations. This was especially true of the Mediterranean and European areas. It was only when the church had apparently succeeded in its purpose that the conflict temporarily subsided. The modern secular lifestyle that developed in the West again brought conflict to Christianity. As time went on some groups of the Christian faith would actually attempt to merge with the modern secular life, while others were to remain in opposition. Scientism, nationalism, colonialism, capitalism, industrialism, socialism —these and similar movements within western life, each presented both opportunities and problems to the separate branches of the Christian religion. The well-know conflict between Christianity and science is but one example of religion 31
  • 50. confronted by a problem of great magnitude—a problem that it cannot escape, though it is trying, without weakening itself and strengthening its opponent—as in many cases of like nature, Christianity’s claim to having met the problem is more superficial than it is actual. The conflicts between Christianity and the realities that exist are antagonisms that are often sidestepped by the lay members of the church. They have brought about a way of life in which the divisions and hostilities of the two realms are either overlooked or forgotten. In some cases they seem to adjust the claims of one area to compensate for the demands of the other. For many who are outside the church, the conflict seems no more apparent. Though they may look upon the practice of Christian worship with little or no profoundness, they do not commit themselves to the negation of it. And many people, when confronted, claim that there may still be something in the Christian faith that holds meaning to them. It is fairly obvious that this is merely because of their conditioning and their inability to stand outside the pack, as it were. Some of these have developed the habit, or they have been conditioned or programmed mentally, to participate in occasional Christian rites, and they often give lip service to the basic dogmas of Christian belief in its broad form. They cannot make Christianity a central part of their lives, yet they cannot bring themselves to turn their backs on it completely. They are victims of conformism, caught in the illusion of conditioning, tradition, and habit, but they are unaware of their tragic situation. 32
  • 51. Though it is true that both Christianity and the western world each played a role in shaping each other, they remain in conflict because the heart of Christianity is not concerned with the all consuming passion of material existence. Many in the Christian faith have apparently become neurotic to the extent that they live, on the one hand, a material existence yet on the other hand negate that existence. In many ways those caught up in this aspect of the Christian faith are in direct opposition to the very welfare of mankind itself. Caught in the contradiction of wishing material well being for man while giving lip service to beliefs that are not controlled by the material, Christianity has not escaped being criticized by its adherents as well as its foes. It is, indeed, difficult to believe that Christianity is against human preoccupation with the material things of this world, for when one looks around at the over-all Christian picture one sees a life style contrary to this. This is not surprising since most Christians know little to nothing about what it is that their faith actually teaches, and those few that do are constantly baffled by contradictions. Yet, all too often, both the ill informed and the well read are unable to look unless what is being presented is directly related to their view on Christianity. This unwillingness to look is the nature of Christianity. In Christianity no area of life can exist which is outside or beyond that which is of Christian concern. 33
  • 52. Christianity is a religion of human beings as well as a religion from a divine source. As it seems to maintain its contact with humanity it is succumbing more and more to the demands of humanity. Everything about Christianity seems to have to bend from the divine to meet the human needs. The Christian religion, like its people, finds itself disjointed. In fact it is because the religion has been so inconsistent and contradictory concerning the unity of existence that western Christians themselves have lost any consciousness of that unity, if any conscious unity ever existed. There are some within the church that are not only ready to admit to this but who are looking to every means to call Christians to the task of breaking down the barriers between the secular world of today and the Christian religion. They are the ones who are often accused of being revolutionaries, even anti-Christian. As they look to bring every human action under the judgment of God they are met by the realization of the times, which have concluded that there is no God, or if there is, he has separated himself from intervening directly with human life. Not only does Christianity find itself in conflict in meeting human demands, it also finds itself in conflict within its own 250 plus institutions or sects. There is no way that one can believe in the beliefs of one sect totally and wholly, without in some way, being in contradiction with the beliefs of another. On top of this, there are often conflicts within a single sect. “The churches have at times been a force for social reform, at other times a bulwark of status quo. Often the two tendencies have caused conflicts and rifts between a single denominational body.” 34
  • 53. The institutional conflict within Christianity is largely due to the tension between that of authority and the concept of freedom, which is ever present within religion. The amount of authority that should be placed on its people has always been a problem for religion. Christianity has been put into the position that it must answer the question of whether faith will be bound by authority to the degree that religious insight will be limited to those forms acceptable to that authority, or whether greater or even complete freedom shall be allowed. Will not such freedom by its very nature serve to weaken the supremacy of the authority? A problem during the history of Christianity, especially for the west, is the fact that different sects have been strung in opposition to each other on the basis that separate groups are claiming to possess absolute truth. Though the past century has seen less open conflict between some of these groups, the problem still exists. It is difficult to understand why religion has become so important when there is so much contradiction and conflict within religion. One of the most obvious conflicts in terms of organized Christianity is found in the different expression of belief in the Protestant and Roman Catholic faith. Outside of the many differences in basic beliefs there is the one main conflict and that is the Protestant rejection of papal authority, and the Roman Catholic’s insistence upon that authority. 35
  • 54. The relationship between religious power and political power has always been an interesting one in that it has often blended the propaganda of a particular religion with that of politics. Many politicians have done so without having had any or little prior religious relationship. Though there has always been the mixing of the two, the separation between religion and political authority has long been advocated, at least in theory. But in recent times the touting of religious affiliations and beliefs by politicians has expanded and this has contributed greatly to the religious and secular division in western culture. Yet it is only through the separation that is supposed to be a foundation of our country, that religious liberty or freedom from such religions can be insured. It would be sad to see any particular religion imposed on the people by a political power. Since the beginning of American society there has been a peculiar relationship between religion and politics. Numerous observers of the American scene have maintained that the political health of our society is nurtured by the “vitality of the churches”. It should not be surprising then that today there appears to be a linkage between the crisis in the churches and the condition of our country overall. The political institutions are in as much turmoil as the churches. Both are caught in a revolution of moral and ethical codes and there are many people who are questioning the overall system. 36
  • 55. Many argue that the notion of a crisis in American religion is an invention put forth by the intellectuals. They may have a point. Recent surveys show that some 40 percent of the population is ether attending a service via the television or in church every Sunday; religious books make up one of the most expansive sectors of the publishing industry; and college students continue to crowd religion courses. The fact of crisis, however, cannot be dismissed that easily. Although the institutional aspects of religion may go on working in what may appear to be a successful way, if the spirit or the truth has gone out of them the prognosis for the future is not good. Observing these institutions in over twenty years of study, it does appear that the spirit has gone out of them and I’m afraid that the truth was never there. As I interpret the mass of hard data, I cannot help but see that the fortresses of faith are going through the most profuse alterations in history. The credibility of the church is being challenged on many fronts. Traditional creeds are being drastically revised. Hallowed canons are being shelved. Religious practices and rituals are being changed daily. Church leaders are being faced with new, bold, persistent demands—many questioning the actions of the church. Are we really as religious as we appear? The root meaning of the word religion means to be whole, un-fragmented and as taken from Sanskrit, it means “to bind all the energy in one place to come upon that which is true”. Are we perhaps only 37
  • 56. superficially religious? Indeed America appears to be facing a seeming paradox; organized religion is increasing its influence on society, but morality is losing its influence. Is it any wonder that these bizarre beliefs that are out there in la la land would bring about problems for the young, and problems for our culture? The state of our country offers abundant evidence that religion is not producing a positive outcome. The U.S. has one of the worst records in the world in terms of criminal victimization. Our judicial system is broken, and we put innocent human beings in jail and let criminals off the hook because of this bizarre legal system that has its foundation in this ever so strange religion. We live in a “rip-off” society and every day we read of consumer fraud, political corruption, judicial corruption, police corruption, tax cheating, bribery, payoffs, and so on…. In talking with Christians I’m often amazed at how frightened they are to look at the reality of death, as well as the reality of life. They cannot simply look at what is. If I point to any indication of the falseness of their faith, they clam up and refuse to listen or to look. Not only are there divisions within Christian ranks, they are accompanied by a conflict of thought within the Christian faith. This conflict of thought within Christianity is obviously the major reason for the divisions within the organizations that have formed from the faith. One cannot help but be aware of the fact that the inability of Christianity to meet the problems of mankind stems almost entirely 38
  • 57. from the clash in theological interpretations, which has plagued Christianity throughout history. At this point it is necessary that we understand the limitations of thought. It may be difficult for many of us to see the fact that knowledge is limited therefore what thought creates is limited. If one understands this it becomes fairly simple for one to understand the nature of human frailty, as well as to be conscious of the need for man to have freedom from institutional limitations. As with all religions, Christianity has an ongoing problem with superstition and the tendency of its followers to hold on to beliefs of the past, which are now challenged as not being worthy of belief. Most Christians are guilty of this. This reveals itself in every form, in fear from belief in the Devil and in hell, with its eternal punishment and suffering, to the world of witches, the illusions of angels, and so on. All of this points, again and again, to the neurosis and conflict that is ever present in the realms of thought within the Christian faith, and to the limitations of human thought in general. What this points to is not only the conflicts within the slightly odd minds of the Christian faithful, but to what exist only in the believers mind. The differences in belief concerning the literal interpretations of the bible as against the symbolic view that human beings are fallible in both its productions and interpretation, has created and continues to create a conflict between Christians, 39
  • 58. even though they may be motivated by “Christian love and brotherhood”. Those that consider themselves to be Christians and who are earnestly seeking to be worthy of this religion, are often confronted by others that say they are not really Christians if they do not accept the biblical interpretations as the literal word of God. The religious attitude of the world today is confronted by an awareness of the problems with organized beliefs, as well as the continued conflict in the atmosphere of suspicion and fear. The future of both the sane and rational attitude of man himself depends upon the extent of this awareness. Can there be any choice? When President Reagan came into office secular politics made a tragic transformation. At present historians are not likely to use the term “secular politics”. With the making of 1983 the “Year of the Bible” by Proclamation 5018, filed not long after Congress passed law 97-280 on October 4, 1982 declaring the western bible “The Word of God”, secular politics and the Constitution went out the window. This was followed by a Proclamation by executive order, Executive Order 6100, on February 22, 1990 by President George H. W. Bush making 1990 the “International Year of Bible Reading. With the “Ten Commandments” hanging in our courthouses in towns throughout the country and the bible being taught in public schools, it would hardly seem appropriate to use the term secular politics. 40
  • 59. If we go back a few more years, on August 27, 1987, while George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, he stated that non-believers should not be considered citizens or patriots, and that this was “one nation under God”. Because this man’s belief in god invokes the “Christian God”, his statements would also apply to anyone that did not believe in this concept of a creative energy, higher power, or god, or for anyone that had a concept of a natural energy behind creation. There are many that feel that these actions are a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, and upon close examination of the Constitution one must admit that this is obviously the case. When historians wrote on “the principle separation between church organization and political authority” they must have never dreamed of this taking place. Should we not have church-state separation and the intelligence to recognize that only by such separation can individual liberty and freedom be insured? It was the intent of the first U.S. Congress that the Government not interfere with the Christian religion or any other religion or lack of religion. Now not only is the Government becoming involved with religion, they are actually endorsing it through law. I have read and studied the writings and beliefs of our founding fathers and they would roll over in their graves if they could! Why do we even have a Constitution that clearly calls for the separation of church and state? There is nothing in the 41
  • 60. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights that says anything about Christ, Christianity, or the bible. In fact the terminology just talks of a Creator and natural rights, but nothing about this bizarre religion. Thomas Paine was sickened by what he found in the bible and he was abhorred by it. Abraham Lincoln constantly made fun of the bible and had his thoughts on this religion been known and not altered by a journalist to paint a completely erroneous picture of him as a “Church going bible believing Christian” he might never have become president. In 1797 the Treaty of Tripoli (the Treaty of Peace and Friendship) was ratified (which means it was formally approved and invested with legal authority) by the United States of America and signed by Joel Barlow, the United States consul- general. The fact is the treaty was approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the United State Senate by a unanimous vote. Article 11, reads: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religions; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussumen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, 42
  • 61. that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." “Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May of 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.”(2) In the history of the United States the viewpoints of religious beliefs have gone unchallenged for decades, and now those that question the validity of religions must come together and stand their ground. We are now reaping the harvest of generations indoctrinated from infancy to believe in untruths. In addition, Public Law 97-280 states “that renewing our knowledge of faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people,” and it rules that the United States has a “national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scripture.” 43
  • 62. I have read the bible four times from cover to cover, and I have done extensive research to understand what the scriptures say, and I find overwhelming evidence of a vengeful god along with pages and pages of disturbing scriptures. There is absolute proof that this is not a “Holy” book, but a very wretched one. If we look at what we did to the Indians, it is no wonder we had this book in hand! But there are hundreds of gods and many so-called “Holy Scriptures” throughout the world, all different and all claiming to be the one and only God. Is it right to limit all people in the United States to but one book of scriptures? Even if one believes in that one book, and having read it, feels it is the truth, this can hardly be fair to those who believe in a different religion or those who believe in a different God. Nor is this fair for those who have freed themselves from the illusions of any religious belief. Under Public Law 97-280 a study of the “Holy Scripture” may well be made a part of every public and private school curriculum, and all those attempting to prevent any American citizen from acquiring “knowledge of and faith in God through the Holy Scripture” may soon be said to be attempting to weaken America. Individuals and organizations who advocate the banning of the bible from public schools or who actively oppose any bible study group or interfere in any way with the Christian religion would be guilty of violating this law and guilty of sedition against the United States of America. 44
  • 63. Pastor Sheldon Emry wrote, “What this will be is another significant step by our nation and our people toward that day when every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father.”—That attitude is another step further back into the Dark Ages?—And if history holds true it will lead to more conflict. If the religious influence of the United States has the power to force their beliefs on all of the citizens, to the exclusion of those who have different beliefs, then those who are free from religious beliefs will live in a country whose government imposes on an essential freedom. _______________________________________________________________ 45
  • 64. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590 Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker HAVE YOU LOOKED HERE? Chapter III * * * * * One could go on and on about the many conflicts, problems, and contradictions that are within and have been created by traditional religions. I have compiled some terms that may be of interest to those that want a better picture of the many problems that are brought about by religion, or for those who would just like to look into it for fun. It is interesting to note Webster’s definition of Christ and Christianity. Although there is no clear historical evidence of Jesus Christ’s existence, it is interesting to note that he was referred to as “Jesus” or “Jesus of Nazareth” for several hundred years after his alleged existence and then he was referred to as “Jesus the Christ”. The word “Christ” meant “anointed”. The name “Christ” took on many different meanings over time, such as Messiah, king, and so on. Sometime around the mid 800’s, and during a big Church convention, it was decided to drop the “the” from the term “Jesus the Christ” and to call him “Jesus Christ”. This was, in my opinion, the birth of Organized Christianity. Webster, in his definition of Christ, made this fact known. 46
  • 65. I have also included explanations of “God” and “Personal God”. * * * * * Christ: 1. the Messiah whose appearance is prophesied in the Old Testament. 2. Jesus of Nazareth, regarded by Christians as the realization of the Messianic prophecy: originally a title “Jesus the Christ”, later used as part of the name “Jesus Christ.” Christian: 1. a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the alleged preaching’s of Jesus. 2. a decent, respectable person 3. in general, anyone born of Christian parents. 4. in church history, (a) a member of a sect which is the offshoot of three other churches, which rejects creeds, accepts the Bible literally, and believes in open communion and immersion (b) one belonging to a similar sect called 47
  • 66. “Deciples of Christ” or “Campellites”. * * * * * God God, Deity or Supreme Being. There are numerous theories as to the origin of the belief in God or Gods. Some of them negate religiosity by ascribing its origin to fear, to the objectification of desire, to priest and state craft, to hallucinations prompted by mind altering plants, to social injustice, to dreams and trances, and so on. Most of the early gods had their origin in man’s emotional response to beneficent phases of the natural world—the dawn light which banished the cold and dangers of the darkness, the warming, stimulating sun, the storm rain which brought refreshment to the land and crops after drought, the cooling winds, the fresh life giving waters, the fertile, food-producing earth, and so on. Each of the major monotheistic world religions worships a Supreme Being, who is the sole god of the universe, the maker of all things, omniscient and all-powerful. God is also good. In ancient Israel God was named Yahweh. The God of the Hebrew Bible also became the God of Christianity, but generic words, such as theos in Greek or Deus in Latin, were often used to refer to him. In Islam the term is Allah. Great diversity and much controversy are found in theology today by those who hold different ideas of God. The categories of consciousness, intelligence and purpose as applied to God are in question. Ideas differ with respect to the 48
  • 67. personality of God. Differences also appear regarding the creativity of God. The date and criteria of the many claims by which God may be known are in dispute. Tracing its origin back to primitive revelation cannot prove the reality of God. In virtually every case the idea of God has been determined to be an invention of thought where its only existence is in the minds of man. Nearly all scientific claims make it clear that God has been invented, but a few scientists consider the possibility that, outside of God, there is a natural energy, a cosmic energy, that operates on living things. Personal God Personal God, Persons as we know them are social, that is, they enjoy persoal relations. A “personal God” suggests one who can carry on such a relationship and can respond to prayer. The broadest definition of this term is a God who is a personal being, i.e. a being with a personality, including the capacity to reason and feel love, as in the cases of Zeus, Apollo and Athena and other deities common to European Pagan polytheism. In the case of the Christian belief in the Trinity, God is an impersonal “ousia” or substance, manifested in three “hypostasis” or persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These views are intended to challenge the concept of deity which is a guiding principle, a blind creative force or a philosophical ideal. 49
  • 68. A narrower interpretation of a personal God is a deity who takes a personal interest in the world in general and worshippers in particular. This view is intended to challenge a deistic outlook. A still narrower definition would be a God whose personal interest in worshippers is so great that the deity communicates directly with them and actively intervenes in their lives through miracles. * * * * * It would be best if everyone could understand the problems brought about by religion, but unfortunately many people are not able to do that. It is then necessary to look into religion to get a view of the nonsense that goes on within them. On the other hand, it is amusing to those who have realized the truth about religion. I have chosen terms that are related to Christianity, but if we were to look into all the various beliefs, ideas, and contradictions that are found in Christianity it would probably take more pages than are in the thickest book. So we are going to look at just a small portion of this bizarre religion. The Bible is made up of many books, and in turning from one writing to another the reader soon realizes that not only the literary style but also the ideas and attitudes change radically. It is believed that the bible took shape over a period of more than a thousand years. Among the writers that contributed to its contents 50
  • 69. were Jewish patriots and world prophets, emotional poets and imaginative historians, mystical idealists and cynical illusionist, not so kindly teachers and some unsophisticated scholars. Some writers had a tribal religion based on primitive fears and superstitions; others propagated the concept of supernatural belief systems that they claimed led to God. The writers of some stories in the Bible are unknown. There is much debate as to the authorship of the Bible. To follow are examples of what one can find in relation to biblical “facts”, and related topics. If looked at with an unconditioned and open mind, one can see the circus that is born of religion. * * * * * Bible (Western and Eastern Orthodox) Sacred scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. The Jewish scriptures consist of the Torah (or Pentateuch), the Neviim (“Prophets”), and the Ketuvim (“Writings”), which together constitute what Christians call the Old Testament. The Pentateuch and Joshua relate how Israel became a nation and came to possess the Promised Land. The Prophets describe the establishment and development of the monarchy and relate the prophets' messages. The Writings include poetry, speculation on good and evil, and history. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible includes 51
  • 70. additional Jewish writings called the Apocrypha. The New Testament consists of early Christian literature. The Gospels tell stories of the life, person, and teachings of Jesus Christ, although there is no clear historical evidence to support these writings. The Acts of the Apostles relates the earliest history of Christianity. The Epistles (Letters) are correspondence of early church leaders (chiefly Paul) and address the needs of early congregations. Revelation is the only canonical representative of a large genre of early Christian apocalyptic literature. Genesis First book of the Bible. Its name, taken from its first verse, means “origin of generation” or “beginning.” Genesis provides the creation story for Judaism and Christianity and begins the history of the Israelite people. In addition to God's creation of the universe, it includes the story of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and God's covenant with the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concluding with the story of Jacob's son Joseph. It is traditionally ascribed to Moses, but modern scholars have identified at least three literary strains in it, dating from 950 to the 5th century, though incorporating material from much earlier. It is one of the five books that make up the Pentateuch (Torah). 52
  • 71. Adam and Eve In the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, Adam and Eve are the parents of the human race. Genesis gives two versions of their creation. In the first, God creates “male and female in his own image” on the sixth day. In the second, Adam is placed in the Garden of Eden, and Eve is later created from his rib to ease his loneliness. For succumbing to temptation and eating the fruit of the forbidden tree of knowledge of good and evil, God banished them from Eden, and they and their descendants were forced to live lives of hardship. Cain and Abel were their children. Christian theologians developed the doctrine of original sin based on the story of their transgression; in contrast, the Quran teaches that Adam's sin was his alone and did not make all people sinners. Cain and Abel In the Hebrew scriptures, Cain and Able were the sons of Adam and Eve. According to Genesis, Cain, the firstborn, was a farmer, and his brother Abel was a shepherd. Cain was enraged when God preferred his brother's sacrifice of sheep to his own offering of grain, and he murdered Abel. When God asked where Abel was, Cain pretended ignorance, saying, “Am I my brother's keeper?” God punished Cain 53
  • 72. by sending him into exile but marked him with a sign as a warning to others, promising that he would be avenged if he were killed. Eden (Hebrew for delight) Eden was the garden created by God as home for Adam and Eve. They were expelled from the garden and condemned because they disobeyed God’s command and obeyed the commands of a serpent, and ate of the fruit from the tree of knowledge. In the garden God made “to grow every tree that is pleasant for food.” The tree of life also grew in this earthly paradise. The garden was watered by a great river that, according to the description, divided into four “heads” after it left Eden. The Garden of Eden has been located in many different places, including Babylonia, Arabia, India, Palestine, Syria, Mongolia, and, especially, Armenia and the lower Euphrates Valley. Ark In the Old Testament, the large boat built by Noah, at the command of God, to house Noah, his family, and a pair of every kind of animal on earth. Using exact specifications given to him by God, he built the ark of gopher wood, an unidentified 54
  • 73. wood, and made it waterproof with pitch applied both inside and out. The ark had three stories, or decks, with a door in the side and one window. The vessel was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high as described in Genesis. Deluge The flood, according to Genesis 6-8, covered the whole earth and destroyed all mankind except Noah and his family. God sent the flood because of the wickedness of mankind. As commanded by God, Noah built an ark and took into it his family and a pair of every living creature upon the earth. The waters began to subside after 150 days, and the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat. After the flood God sent a rainbow in the sky as a covenant that He would never again send such a flood upon the earth. There are discrepancies in the story as to the number of animals taken into the ark and as to the cause and duration of the flood, indicating that the story is based on two are more older stories. Flood traditions are found among many peoples of the earth, the most interesting being a Babylonian story that is quite similar to that of Genesis. Most scholars believe that the biblical story is based on the Babylonian tradition, or that both are derived from an older story. 55
  • 74. Noah According to the biblical story, Noah was the son of Lamech and ninth in descent from Adam. He was a man of blameless piety, who was chosen by God to perpetuate the human race after his wicked contemporaries had perished in the flood. On God's instructions, Noah built an ark and took into it one male and one female of each of the world's animals. After the waters receded, God set a rainbow in the sky as a guarantee of his promise never again to curse the earth. Noah was the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, from whom the entire human race is supposed to have descended. Noah is also said to have been the originator of vineyard cultivation. Cherub According to the Old Testament, cherubs, were sent as guardians to keep Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden after their sin. Later in the story, after the Ark was made, cherubs were placed on the mercy seat, their outstretched wings overshadowing it. They stood for the presence of the Lord, and for His divine protection and un-approachability. 56
  • 75. Tower of Babel INCLUDEPICTURE "http://tbn0.google.com/images? q=tbn:33iLdgxOmt3BnM:www.sacred-texts.com/etc/tl/img/babel.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET In the Hebrew scriptures, the Tower of Babel was a high tower built in Shinar (Babylonia). According to Genesis 11:1–9, the Babylonians wanted to build a tower “with its top in the heavens.” Angry at their presumption, God disrupted the enterprise by confusing the languages of the workers so that they could no longer understand each other. This brought about the many different languages. The tower was left unfinished and the people dispersed over the face of the earth. The myth may have been inspired by a tower temple located north of the Marduk temple and known as Bab-ilu (“Gate of God”) which was one of the wonders of the ancient world. In later times the ruins were used for building materials. Today an empty crater marks the site of the tower. 57
  • 76. Methuselah Methuselah, in the Old Testament (Genesis 5:25–27), was the longest-lived of all human beings. According to the story, he was the son of Enoch and the eighth in descent from Adam and Eve. He is said to have died at the age of 969 and was the father of many children, including Lamech, the father of Noah. Angel (Gk. messenger) Spiritual being superior to man but inferior to God. In the Bible, angels appear on Earth as messengers and servants of God. Angels form an integral part of Judaism and Islam. In Christian theology, there is a hierarchy of angels consisting of nine orders: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. Archangel Archangel, an angel, or heavenly being, of higher rank than angels. In Jewish and Christian literature, the four best known are Michael, Gabrial, Raphael, and Uriel. In Islam, it is believed that four archangels guard the throne of Allah (God). 58
  • 77. According to Christian tradition, archangels belong to the eighth of nine choirs of angels. Arranged according to their importance, in descending order, these choirs are seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominations, virtues, powers, principalities, archangels, and angels. Michael Michael (archangel) was one of the seven archangels in Jadaism, Christianity, and Islam, presumed to be leader of the angels (see Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1) and guardian angel of Israel. His name derives from Hebrew words meaning one who is like God. In Christian churches he is known as Saint Michael. According to a collection of apocalyptic writings known as the Book of Enoch, Michael and his command of faithful troops defeated the rebellious archangel Lucifer and his followers, casting them into Hell. In the Talmud, Michael’s relationship to the other angels is compared with that on Earth of the high priest to Israel; thus, he is considered the immediate lawgiver to the prophet Moses on Sinai (see Acts 7:38). Michael has been known as the patron of the sick and of grocers, sailors, and soldiers; he is also the patron saint of Germany. In art he appears holding scales or a banner and flourishing a sword against a dragon. Beginning in 1970 Michael's feast day was combined with that of the archangels Gabriel and Raphael on September 29. 59
  • 78. Gabriel Gabriel is an angel of high eminence in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim tradition. He is one of the four most often noted archangels in Judaism and Christianity, the others being Michael, Raphael, and Uriel. Gabriel is the heavenly messenger who appears in order to reveal God’s will. In the Old Testament, Gabriel interprets the prophet's vision of the ram and the he-goat (see Daniel 8:15-26) and explains the prediction of the 70 weeks of years (or 490 years) for the duration of the exile from Jerusalem (see Daniel 9:21-27). In the New Testament, he announces to Zacharias the birth of Zacharias's son (see Luke 1:11-20), who is destined to become known as John the Baptist, and to Mary that she is to be the mother of Jesus Christ (see Luke 1:26-31). Among Muslims, Gabriel is believed to be the spirit who revealed the sacred writings to the Prophet Muhammad. Gabriel is the prince of fire and the spirit who presides over thunder and the ripening of fruits. He is an accomplished linguist, having taught Joseph the 70 languages spoken at Babel. In art he is generally represented carrying either a lily, Mary's flower, at the annunciation, or the trumpet he will blow to announce the second coming. 60
  • 79. Annunciation Annunciation, in the New Testament, the announcement to Mary by the angel Gabriel that she would be the mother of Jesus Christ (see Luke 1:26-38). Gabriel appeared to Mary and called her blessed among women. He told her that she was to bear a son, who should be called Jesus Christ, and that the child would be the Son of God. Mary answered, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” The Feast of the Annunciation is observed on March 25. Saint Anne Saint Anne (also Ann or Anna), was the mother of The Vergin Mary. Her name Anne is a Greek rendering of a Hebrew name, Hannah. According to the non- canonical Gospel of James, Anne and her husband Joachim, after years of childlessness and after praying for a child, were visited by an angel who told them that they would conceive a child. Anne promised to dedicate the child to God's service. Joachim and Anne are believed to have given Mary to the service of the Second Temple when the girl was three years old. Her feast day is July 26. 61
  • 80. Holy Ghost In Christian theology and belief, the third person of the Trinity was the Holy Ghost, the others being God the Father and Christ the Son. The Holy Ghost is the spirit of Christ that can be related to by the faithful. According to the Bible, anyone who speaks against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven in this world or the world to come. Many laws are on the books for it to be a crime for anyone to speak against the Holy Ghost. Idol Idol, an image that is worshiped as a god or as the embodiment of a god. An idol is not always a man-made image; it may be some natural object, such as stone, an animal, or a piece of wood or metal, in which people think they recognize the presence of god. The worship of idos is called idolatry. The Christians, the Jews, and the Moslems have always condemned idolatry. Yet Christians often worship images that represent God. According to scripture the Bible makes clear that no image should be worshiped, but this is often contradicted by Christian behavior. 62
  • 81. Islam forbids the use of any religious images, and the Eastern Orthodox Church long ago banned icons, or images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, or the saints, except in paintings, mosaics, or low relief. Sculpured images are forbidden because they are considered idols. Immaculate Conception Immaculate Conception, Roman Catholic dogma holding that from the first instant of its creation, the soul of the Virgin Mary was free from original sin; this doctrine is not to be confused with that of the Virgin Birth, which holds that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin mother. Despite divergent scholarly opinions, the Roman Catholic Church has consistently favored belief in the Immaculate Conception; a festival of that name, the significance of which is now indefinite, was celebrated in the Eastern church as early as the 5th century and in the Western church from the 7th century. Opposition to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was conducted in the 12th century by the French monastic St. Bernard of Clairvaux and in the 13th century by the famous Italian philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas. Among those who supported the doctrine was the 13th-century Scottish theologian John Duns Scotus. The theological controversy over the Immaculate Conception gained momentum in the 19th century. Finally in 1854, Pope Pius IX issued a solemn decree declaring the Immaculate Conception to be a dogma or “of faith” essential for the belief of the universal church. Under the title Immaculate 63
  • 82. Conception, the Virgin Mary is invoked as the patron of the United States, Brazil, Portugal, and Corsica. The feast of the Immaculate Conception is December 8. Offertory Offertory is a part of the service in Christian churches. In the Roman Catholic service the term offertory refers to the priest’s offering to God the bread and wine which are to be used in communion. A selection from the Psalms, recited or sung at the time, is also called the offertory. In Protestant churches and in mainstream Christianity the term refers to the collection of money accompanied by music. Our Lady of Fatima Our Lady of Fatima is the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary by those who believe that she appeared to three shepherd children at Fatima, Portugal on the 13th day of six consecutive months in 1917, starting on 13 May. The title of Our Lady of the Rosary is also used in reference to the same apparition; the children related that the apparition specifically identified herself as "the Lady of the Rosary". It is also common to see a combination of these titles, i.e., Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima (Portuguese: Nossa Senhora do Rosário de Fátima) 64
  • 83. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d2/Our_Lady_of_Fatima.jpg/180px- Our_Lady_of_Fatima.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Our Lady of Fatina And just for fun…. 65
  • 84. CHICAGO - (KRT) - Obdulia Delgado turned toward the on ramp of the Kennedy Expressway when she saw something in the middle of traffic that made her stop. She saw the image of the Virgin Mary in a large yellow and white stain on the concrete wall at the Fullerton Avenue entrance last week. “I was so stunned I couldn’t move. People were honking,” said Delgado, 31. “It was a dream. I don’t even know how I got home.” By Monday morning, dozens had gathered to see what they believe is the image of the Blessed Mother beneath the underpass. Groups of people filtered past the site all day, some lighting candles and leaving flowers, others praying the rosary. Most snapped pictures with digital cameras and cell phones, saying the image became clearer in pictures, especially at just the right angle. Sunday Sunday is a day for rest and worship among Christians, (although some Christians use Saturday as a day for worship, claiming biblical reference to the seventh day). Sunday is the first day of the week. Government offices, most businesses, and many stores are closed on this day in Christian lands. The name Sunday comes from the Anglo-Saxon Sonnendaeg, a translation of the Latin dies soli, or day of the sun. Ancient Teutonic tribes set aside a day to worship the sun. 66
  • 85. Sabbath Sabbath (Hebrew Shabbat, derived from the verb shavat, “to rest, cease”), a holy day of rest observed by the Jews and some Christian denominations on the seventh day of the week (see Saturday) and by most Christians on Sunday. Some Christian sects, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, still observe the Sabbath on the seventh day. As Christianity drew apart from Judaism the first day began to replace the seventh as the day of worship, and by the early fourth century Sunday had, for the most part, become the Christian Sabbath. The origin of the Sabbath is uncertain, but it is apparently connected with the Babylonian shapattu, the 15th day of the month, on which the full moon occurs, and the Babylonian cycle of “evil days” every seventh day. Many ancient civilizations kept a weekly day of rest, but the Hebrews were the first to make it a holy day. This was in accordance with the Decalogue and to commemorate the Creation. The Bible describes the Sabbath as a reminder of God's rest after the biblical story of creation (see Exodus 20:11) and of the liberation from Egypt (see Deuteronomy 5:15). The prohibition of work (see Deuteronomy 5:12-14) is never fully explained in the Bible. Among the specific kinds of work prohibited are the kindling of fire (see Exodus 35:3), plowing and harvesting (see Exod. 34:21), and cooking (see Exod. 16:23). The rabbis of post-biblical times derived from Scripture 39 categories of prohibited activity. These main categories and their derivative prohibitions form the basis of modern Orthodox and Conservative Jewish 67
  • 86. observance of the Sabbath. The Reform and Reconstruction movements view the laws as advisory rather than binding. Messiah Messiah, in theology, the Anointed One, the Christ. It was the Hebrew word for the promised ultimate deliverer of humankind, assumed by Jesus and given to him later by Christians. The English word is derived from the Hebrew māshīah, meaning “anointed.” In the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, this word is translated by the word Christos, from which “Christ” is derived. Hence the name Jesus Christ identifies Jesus as the Messiah, although Jewish religion asserts that the Messiah is yet to come. The concept of the Messiah combines the Hebrew ideal of a Davidic king with the priestly tradition exemplified by Moses. Christians have also seen in certain passages in the Old Testament Book of Isaiah a third characteristic of the Messiah, that of the suffering servant (see Isaiah 53). In Christian theology Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of all three concepts. 68
  • 87. According to the first three Gospels, the messiahship of Jesus was proclaimed by angels at the time of his conception (see Matthew 1:20-23), at his birth (see Luke 2:9-14), and during his baptism (see Mark 1:11). It was later acknowledged by demons (see Luke 4:41) and, finally, by St. Peter and Jesus himself (see Matthew 16:16-17). According to the Gospel of Mark (see 14:61-64), it was Jesus' admission that he was the Messiah that led to his crucifixion. The Christian belief is that Jesus rose from the dead as Christ or the Messiah and ascended into Heaven. From its theological usage, the term has come to be applied more loosely to be any looked-for liberator of a country or people or to an expected savior in any of the non-Christian religions. Cross Ancient symbol found in many cultures, but more popularly associated with Christianity. In general, one straight body placed at any angle across another. In ancient times a piece of wood fastened across a tree or upright post formed a cross, on which criminals or anyone ordered crucified by the ruling power would be executed. It had, therefore, a place similar to gallows as an instrument of punishment. There are several shapes of crosses throughout history. The cruciform design consists essentially of two lines that intersect to form right angles. There are many variations. The tau (Greek letter t) cross, for example, is T- shaped; the Saltire, or St. Andrew's cross, is X-shaped. In the Latin cross, the short 69
  • 88. horizontal member is near the top of the longer vertical member; in the Greek cross, the members are of equal length and intersect in the center. The Russian cross has two unequal horizontals set on the vertical member above a small slanting bar. The cross of Lorraine has two unequal horizontals; the papal cross has three unequal horizontals, with the shortest near the top end of the vertical member. The Maltese cross is a Greek cross with V-shaped members widening from the center and being notched at the ends. The crux ansata (Latin for “cross with handles”), or ankh, is a tau cross with a circular loop above the horizontal bar. The Celtic cross is like a Latin one with the addition of a circle surrounding the intersection. In the swastika (fylfot cross) the members, of equal length, are bent at the ends. The cross, as a basic design motif, appears in the pottery, weaving, carving, and painting of many cultures. It may be simply decorative, or it may have symbolic meaning. The tau cross, for example, was a symbol of life to the ancient Egyptians; when combined with the circle (as in the crux ansata), it stood for eternity. For most ancient peoples the Greek cross was a metaphor for the four indestructible elements of creation (air, earth, fire, and water), thus symbolizing permanence. The swastika, with the ends of its cross bars bent to the right, was common in both the Old World and the New World. It originally represented the revolving sun, fire, or life and later, by extension, good luck. To Buddhists, a swastika represented resignation; to the Jains, it symbolized their seventh saint. To Hindus, a swastika with arms bent to the left symbolized night, magic, and the destructive goddess Kali. In mid-20th- century Germany, the right-facing swastika was the Nazi party emblem. 70
  • 89. The cross was also used in the ancient world as a symbol of execution by crucifixion. In Roman times only the lowest class of criminals was crucified. In Christianity the cross became not only a symbol of the shameful death of Jesus Christ as a criminal on a tau-shaped Roman cross, but also of his subsequent resurrection to eternal life and of his promise of salvation to Christian believers. The Greek letters Χ (chi) and Ρ (rho), the first two letters of the Greek word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ (Christos), were superimposed to form the chi-rho, which, as the monogram of Christ, became a pervasive decorative element in Early Christian and Byzantine Art. Crucifix/Crucifixion Crucifix, to the Roman Catholic Church a symbol of Christianity, consisting of a cross of wood or metal, to which is attached an image of the crucified Christ. The inscription INRI, which is found at the top of the crucifix used in the Roman Catholic Church, is composed of the initial letters of the Latin, Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews.” This was the accusation, written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek characters, placed over the head of Jesus as He hung on the cross. On the crucifix of the Eastern Church, the image of Jesus is painted, rather than affixed to the cross. Crucifixions were carried out for the execution of criminals, or anyone ordered to die, by nailing or binding to a cross. It was a common form of capital punishment 71
  • 90. from the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD, especially among the Persians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, and Romans. The Romans used crucifixion for slaves and criminals but never for their own citizens. Roman law provided that the criminal be scourged before being put to death; the accused also had to carry either the entire cross or, more commonly, the crossbeam from the place of scourging to the place of execution. It is believed the practice was abolished in 337 by Constantine the Great out of respect for Christ, who it was believed died on the cross. The crucifixion of Christ between two thieves is recorded in the New Testament by all four evangelists (see Matthew 27:33-44; Mark 15:22-32; Luke 23:33-43; John 19:17-30), although there is no clear historical evidence that this event occurred. The significance of the crucifixion has been a subject for theological discussion throughout church history. Easter Easter is an annual festival commemorating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Western Christianity, Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. In Eastern (Orthodox) Christianity, it is celebrated on a Sunday between April 4 and May 8. 72
  • 91. Maundy Thursday Maundy Thursday, the Thursday before Easter Sunday, observed by Christians in commemoration of Christ's Last Supper. The name Maundy is derived from mandatum (Latin, “commandment”), the first word of an anthem sung in the liturgical ceremony on that day. In Roman Catholic and many Protestant churches, the Eucharist is celebrated in an evening liturgy that includes Holy Communion. During the Roman Catholic liturgy, the ceremony of the washing of the feet, or pedilavium, is performed: the celebrant washes the feet of 12 people to commemorate Christ's washing of his disciples' feet. European monarchs also follow this practice. In England a custom survives of giving alms (“maundy pennies”) to the poor; this recalls an earlier practice in which the sovereign washed the feet of the poor on Maundy Thursday. In most European countries, the day is known as Holy Thursday. Dogma Dogma, an authoritative and precisely formulated statement of a religious doctrine through a church sect that is advanced, not for discussion, but for belief. In its strict sense, the term seems to be peculiar to Christianity. To qualify as a dogma, the formula must fulfill two conditions: It must be derivable from revelation, as 73
  • 92. attested by Scripture and tradition; and it must be promulgated by some widely recognized ecclesiastical authority. Dogmas have usually been formulated at times of doctrinal controversy, in order to clarify the orthodox teaching in the face of heretical aberrations. Some dogmas formulated by ecumenical councils in the early centuries of the church still command the assent of the great majority of Christians in both the East and the West. Such, for example, is the definition of the person of Christ by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Other dogmas come from later times and are binding only within the Roman Catholic Church. Such are the Marian dogmas of the immaculate conception (1859) and the assumption (1950) and the dogma of papal infallibility (1870). Even the most revered dogmas are, like all doctrinal statements, affected by cultural relativism and thus from time to time must be rethought and restated. Terms such as substance, nature, and person, used by the Council of Chalcedon, reflect a philosophical framework that is now obsolete. Nonetheless, the governing intentions of the ancient dogmas still serve as norms for theological discussion. Baptism Baptism (Greek baptein, “to dip”), in Christian churches, the universal rite of initiation, performed with water, usually in the name of the Trinity (Father, Son, 74
  • 93. and Holy Spirit) or in the name of Christ. Orthodox and Baptist churches require baptism by total immersion. In other churches, pouring (affusion) and sprinkling (aspersion) are more common. Most churches regard baptism as a sacrament, or sign of grace; some regard it simply as an ordinance, or rite, commanded by Christ. Water was used as a symbol of purification in many religions at a very early date. In the ancient world, the waters of the Ganges in India, the Euphrates in Babylonia, and the Nile in Egypt were used for sacred baths. The sacred bath was also known in Hellenistic mystery cults. Jewish law provided for the use of water in ritual cleansing (see Leviticus 11:25, 40; 15:5-7); and Elisha commanded the Syrian commander Naaman to dip himself in the Jordan River to be cleansed of leprosy (see 2 Kings 5). Well before the 1st century AD, converts to Judaism were required to bathe (or baptize) themselves as a sign of entering the covenant (tebilath gerim). Some of the later prophets envisaged that Jewish exiles returning home would cross the Jordan and be sprinkled with its water to cleanse them of sins prior to the establishment of the kingdom of God (see Ezekiel 36:25). In this tradition, Jesus' older contemporary John the Baptist urged Jews to be baptized in the Jordan for the remission of sins (see Mark 1:4). Jesus was baptized by John at the beginning of his public ministry (see Mark 1:9- 11). Although it is uncertain that Jesus himself baptized, the risen Christ commanded his disciples to preach to and baptize the nations (see Matthew 28:19) as the sign of God's coming rule. Thus, from the outset, baptism became the Christian rite of initiation (see Acts 2:38). 75
  • 94. Like the baptism of John, Christian baptism is “for the remission of sins.” Largely under the influence of St. Paul, it came to be understood also as participation in the death and resurrection of Christ (see Romans 6:3-11). It is also the sacramental means by which converts receive the various gifts of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 19:5-6; 1 Corinthians 12). Baptism was often called illumination in the early church. It came to be regarded also as the renunciation of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and as the act of joining the community of the New Covenant. The rite of baptism was gradually embellished. The earliest Christian writings, such as the Didache, describe a very simple service. By the 3rd century, however, baptism had become an elaborate liturgy. The Apostolic Tradition (circa 215; trans. 1937), by the theologian St. Hippolytus, describes, as parts of the rite, a preparatory fast and vigil, a confession of sins, the renunciation of the devil, and a washing with water, followed by a laying on of hands or an anointing with oil. In the West, the laying on of hands and anointing evolved into the separate sacrament of confirmation. Infants were probably baptized in the early church, following the Jewish understanding that even the youngest children belong to the covenant community. Indeed, the Apostolic Tradition explicitly provides for it. Nonetheless, because postbaptismal sins were regarded as unforgivable (or could be forgiven only once), baptism was often postponed as long as possible. Between the 4th and 6th centuries, however, as the attitude toward postbaptismal sin relaxed (because of the development of the penitential system), and the fear of dying unbaptized increased, infant baptism began to be required. 76
  • 95. Most Protestant churches adopted traditional views and practices regarding baptism, although often stressing its covenantal character more than its relation to sin. Baptist and Anabaptists, however, insisted on adult baptism, on the ground that only adults can be guilty of sinful acts, repent, and understand salvation—a view also adopted by Pentecostal churches and neo-Pentecostal groups. Samson Samson, in the Old Testament, Hebrew hero and for 20 years 12th judge of ancient Israel (see Judges 13-16). It is stated that he was the son of Manoah of Zorah, of the tribe of Dan. Manoah's wife was barren, but an angel appeared to her and promised a son and said the boy should be a Nazarite, that is, a consecrated person. No razor was to touch the boy's head, and it was through the supernatural strength with which his hair endowed him that Samson performed his great feats, including the strangling of a lion and the slaying of a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Finally he was betrayed by a Philistine woman, Delilah, who had his head shaved and then handed him over to the Philistines. His eyes were put out, and he was forced to perform servile labor. Later, at a festival in honor of Dagon, the Philistine deity, Samson was exhibited as a public spectacle (see Judges 16:23- 30). By this time, however, his hair had grown back; he exerted his great strength 77
  • 96. and pulled down the pillars of the house in which 3000 Philistines had assembled, burying the multitude and himself in the ruins. The story, set in the 11th century BC, apparently underwent editorial revision. Its legendary or even mythical character seems obvious to many scholars. The meaning of Samson's name, “the sunny one,” and the nature of some of his exploits suggest that Samson was originally a hero of the sun cult. Samson is recalled in the New Testament for his faith (see Hebrews 11:32-34). Goliath Goliath, biblical giant of Gath, in Philistia, who, as representative of the Philistines, challenged the Israelites to send a champion against him so that the issue of the war between the two tribes might be settled by single combat. According to the account in 1 Samuel 17:50, Goliath was killed in the resulting contest by a stone shot from the sling of David, the youthful champion of the Israelites who later became their king. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, Goliath is killed by Elhanan, an Israelite warrior in the service of David, after the latter is made king; other versions of the story designate a brother of Goliath as the victim of Elhanan (see 2 Samuel 21:19). Halloween 78
  • 97. Halloween, is a holiday celebrated on the night of October 31, most notably by children, who, in a tradition commonly known as trick-or-treating, dress in costumes and go door-to-door to collect sweets, fruit, and other gifts. It began with the autumn festivals of the ancient pagans. In the old Celtic calander Halloween was New year’s Eve. It was said that Samhain, god of death, gatherered wicked spirits to turn ten into animals, and witches rode broomsitcks or black cas. At midnight bonfires were lighted to frighten away ghosts and goblisns. Jack-o’-lanterns originated from this custom. Several other western countries have embraced the holiday as a part of American pop culture in the late twentieth century. Halloween is now celebrated in many parts of the western world, most commonly in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and sometimes in Australia and New Zealand. In recent years, the holiday has also been celebrated in some parts of Western Europe. The term Halloween (and its older rendering Hallowe'en) is shortened from All- hallow-even, as it is the evening of/before “All Hallows’ Day”, also known as “All Saints’ Day”. It was a day of religious festivities in various northern European Pagan traditions, until Popes Gregory III and Gregory IV moved the old Christian feast of All Saints’ Day from May 13 to November 1. In the ninth century, the Church measured the day as starting at sunset, in accordance with the Forentine calendar. Although we now consider All Saints' (or Hallows') Day to occur one day after Halloween, the two holidays were, at that time, celebrated on the same day. Liturgically, the Church traditionally celebrated that day as the Vigil of All Saints, 79
  • 98. and, until 1970, a day of fasting as well. Like other vigils, it was celebrated on the previous day if it fell on a Sunday, although secular celebrations of the holiday remained on the 31st. The Vigil was suppressed in 1955, but was later restored in the post-Vatican II calendar. In Ireland, the name of the holiday was All Hallows' Eve (often shortened to Hallow Eve), and though seldom used today, the name is still well-accepted, albeit somewhat esoteric. The festival is also known as Oíche Shamhna (or Samhain) to the Irish, Samhuin to the Scots, Calan Gaeaf to the Welsh, Allantide to the Cornish and Hop-tu-Naa to the Manx. Halloween is also called Pooky Night in some parts of Ireland, presumably named after the puca, a mischievous spirit. Many European cultural traditions hold that Halloween is one of the liminal times of the year when spirits can make contact with the physical world, and when magic is most potent (according to, for example, Catalan mythology about witches and Irish tales of the Sidhe). Vandals Vandals, ancient Germanic tribe of Jutland (now in Denmark), who migrated to the valley of the Odra (Oder) River about the 5th century BC. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD they settled along the Danube River. They entered Gaul (now France) in 406, invaded Spain in 409, and fought in the latter country against both the Visigoths (another Germanic tribe) and the Romans. Gaiseric became king of 80
  • 99. the tribe in 428, and under him the Vandals achieved their greatest power. They moved to North Africa the following year and there defeated the Romans. Gaiseric’s sovereignty was recognized by Roman emperor Valentinian III in 422. The Vandals predominated in what is now Algeria and northern Morocco by 435 and conquered Carthage in 439. Their navy ruled the western Mediterranean Sea, and they looted and plundered in Italy, including Rome in 477. The tribe was Arian and it dealt severely with Orthodox Christians. The Vandals' power began to decline after Gaiseric's death in 477, and in 534 they were defeated by the Byzantine general Belsarius. The modern usage of the word vandal reflects the dread and hostility the tribe precipitated on other people by their looting and plundering, especially in Rome. Santa Claus Santa Claus, legendary bringer of gifts at Christmas. He is generally depicted as a fat, jolly man with a white beard, dressed in a red suit trimmed with white, and driving a sleigh full of toys drawn through the air by eight reindeer. Santa (also called Saint Nicholas and Saint Nick) is said to visit on Christmas Eve, entering houses through the chimney to leave presents under the Christmas tree and in the stockings of all good children. Although this familiar image of Santa Claus is a North American invention of the 19th century, it has ancient European roots and continues to influence the celebration of Christmas throughout the world. 81
  • 100. The historical Saint Nicholas was venerated in early Christian legend for saving storm-tossed sailors, defending young children, and giving generous gifts to the poor. Although many of the stories about Saint Nicholas are of doubtful authenticity (for example, he is said to have delivered a bag of gold to a poor family by tossing it through a window), his legend spread throughout Europe, emphasizing his role as a traditional bringer of gifts. The Christian figure of Saint Nicholas replaced or incorporated various pagan gift-giving figures such as the Roman Befana and the Germanic Berchta and Knecht Ruprecht. The saint was called Sankt Nikolaus in Germany and Sanct Herr Nicholaas or Sinterklaas in Holland. In these countries Nicholas was sometimes said to ride through the sky on a horse. He was depicted wearing a bishop's robes and was said to be accompanied at times by Black Peter, an elf whose job was to whip the naughty children. The feast day of Nicholas, when presents were received, was traditionally observed on December 6. After the Reformation, German Protestants encouraged veneration of the Christkindl (Christ child) as a gift giver on his own feast day, December 25. When the Nicholas tradition prevailed, it became attached to Christmas itself. Because the saint's life is so unreliably documented, Pope Paul VI ordered the feast of Saint Nicholas dropped from the official Roman Catholic calendar in 1969. The term Christkindl evolved to Kriss Kringle, another nickname for Santa Claus. Various other European Christmas gift givers were more or less similar to Saint Nicholas: Père Noël in France, Julenisse in Scandinavia, and Father Christmas in England. 82
  • 101. The American version of the Santa Claus figure received its inspiration and its name from the Dutch legend of Sinterklaas, brought by settlers to New York in the 17th century. As early as 1773 the name appeared in the American press as “St. A Claus,” but it was the popular author Washington Irving who gave Americans their first detailed information about the Dutch version of Saint Nicholas. In his History of New York, published in 1809 under the pseudonym Diedrich Knickerbocker, Irving described the arrival of the saint on horseback (unaccompanied by Black Peter) each Eve of Saint Nicholas. This Dutch-American Saint Nick achieved his fully Americanized form in 1823 in the poem A Visit From Saint Nicholas—more commonly known as The Night Before Christmas—by writer Clement Clarke Moore. Moore included such details as the names of the reindeer; Santa Claus's laughs, winks, and nods; and the method by which Saint Nicholas, referred to as an elf, returns up the chimney. (Moore's phrase “lays his finger aside of his nose” was drawn directly from Irving's 1809 description.) Hell Hell, in theology, any place or state of punishment and privation for human souls after death. More strictly, the term is applied to the place or state of eternal punishment of the damned, whether angels or human beings. The doctrine of the existence of hell is derived from the principle of the necessity for vindication of divine justice, combined with the human experience that evildoers do not always 83
  • 102. appear to be punished adequately in their lifetime. Belief in a hell was widespread in antiquity and is found in most religions of the world today. The concept in general Christian belief is based on the fear of eternal torture by fire for the unsaved after death. Among the early Teutons the term hell signified a place under the earth to which the souls of all mortals, good or bad, were consigned after death; it thus denoted a conception similar to that of the Hebrew Sheol. Among the early Jews, as in other Semitic nations, existence in Sheol was regarded as a shadowy continuation of earthly life where all of the problems of earthly life came to an end. Later the dictum of the prophet Isaiah that the king of Babylon shall be “brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit” (14:15) gave rise to the concept of various depths of Sheol, with corresponding degrees of reward and punishment. Early Christian writers used the term hell to designate 1. the limbo of infants, where the unbaptized enjoy a natural bliss but are denied the supernatural bliss of the vision of God; 2. the limbo of the fathers, in which the souls of the just who died before the advent of Christ await their redemption, and which is mentioned in the Apostles' Creed, “He [Christ] descended into hell”; 3. a place of purgation from minor offenses leading inevitably to heaven (see Purgatory) and 4. the place of punishment of Satan and the other fallen angels and of all mortals who die unrepentant of serious sin. The last of these interpretations has the greatest acceptance today. The duration of the punishments of hell has been a subject of controversy since early Christian times. The 3rd century Christian writer and theologian Origen and 84
  • 103. his school taught that the purpose of these punishments was purgatorial, and that they were proportionate to the guilt of the individual. Origen held that, in time, the purifying effect would be accomplished in all, even devils; that punishment would ultimately cease; and that everyone in hell eventually would be restored to happiness. This doctrine was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, and a belief in the eternity of the punishments in hell became characteristic of both the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church. It also passed into the creeds of the churches of the Reformation but the doctrine of hell was rejected by many of the more radical thinkers of the Renaissance. Miracle Miracle (Latin mirari, “to wonder at”), an event, apparently transcending human powers and the laws of nature and attributed to a special divine intervention or to supernatural forces. Stories of miracles are a common feature of practically all religions. In some societies, a shaman is believed to have the power to heal through contact with outside forces. Many religious leaders and founders—including Zoroaster, Confucius, Laozi (Lao-tzu), and Buddha—have been credited with miraculous powers. Moses and the prophets of Israel were said to have performed miraculous acts at God's bidding. Muslim tradition includes accounts of the miracles of Muhammad, such as his extraordinary healings. 85
  • 104. More attention has been given to miracles in Christianity, however, than in any other religion. Miracles have been ascribed not only to Jesus Christ but also to several of his immediate followers and to Christian saints up to the present time. The miracles of Christ recorded in the Gospels are an integral part of the New Testament narrative and include raising the dead, transforming water into wine, feeding thousands with a small amount of food, casting out demons, and healing the sick and deformed. The most important miracle of the New Testament is the resurrection of Christ. Under the influence of Greek philosophy, Christian writers came to accept the idea that miracles possess evidential value, that is, they provide evidence that God is at work in the world. More recently, as a result of the historicocritical method, the Gospel miracles are widely regarded as having been written more to inculcate religious truths than to record historical events. Thus, the significance of the miracle lies in its meaning rather than in the event itself. From this point of view, the primary aim of a miracle story is to show that God directs and intervenes in human history. Superstition Superstition, a belief or practice generally regarded as irrational and as resulting from ignorance or from fear of the unknown. They were once serious beliefs, and many are associated with religion. It implies a belief in unseen and unknown forces that can be influenced by objects and rituals. Magic or sorcery, witchcraft, and the 86
  • 105. occult in general are often referred to as superstitions. Examples of common superstitions include the belief that bad luck will strike the person in front of whom a black cat passes or that some tragedy will befall a person who walks under a ladder. Good luck charms, such as horseshoes, rabbits’ feet, coins, lockets, and religious medals, are commonly kept or worn to ward off evil or to bring good fortune. Superstitious beliefs go back to the time when science did not exist and people told myths, or stories, to explain natural happenings, and this behavior continues on many levels in the modern day world. In general, superstitious practices and beliefs are most common in situations involving a high degree of risk, chance, and uncertainty, and during times of personal or social stress or crisis, when events seem to be beyond human control. All religious beliefs and practices may be considered superstition by unbelievers, while religious leaders often condemn unorthodox popular practices as a superstitious parody of true faith. Ritual Ritual, ceremonial or symbolic act given importance by repetition. Rituals often accompany rites of passage and religious observances and often involve life long repetitive religious practices. 87
  • 106. Tithe Tithe (Old English teotha, meaning “a tenth”), generally defined as the tenth part of fruits and profits justly acquired, owed to God in recognition of his supreme dominion, and paid to the ministers of religion. Many ancient peoples practiced tithing. It is an institution of undetermined antiquity, common to many religions. Tithing was adopted in principle by the Christian church from its founding and was subjected eventually to formal legislation by the Synod of Tours (567 AD) and the Synod of Macon (585). The institution was later enforced by civil authority (the late 8th-century Capitularies, or decrees, of Charlemagne), recognized in pre-Norman England, and sanctioned by English statute law in 1285. In such cases tithes were exacted as church levies or by the government for the support of state churches. Tithing has continued in modern times in the established Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Austria and Hungary, but elsewhere has been replaced generally by other systems of voluntary support of the clergy. Gospel Gospel, one of the four books depicting the life and teachings of Jesus Christ that begin the New Testament; selections from these books are read or sung in Christian churches during worship services. The English word Gospel is derived from the Old 88
  • 107. English godspel (good tidings), which is a rendering of the Greek evangelion (good news). Scholars generally agree that all four Gospels, which are written in Greek, draw on earlier Aramaic oral or written sources that preserved many of the actual works and sayings of Jesus. The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are called the Synoptic Gospels (Greek synoptikos,”viewing at a glance”) because they provide the same general depiction of the life and teaching of Jesus. They narrate almost the same incidents, often agreeing in the order of events, and use similar phrasing. In many instances they use identical phrasing. This indicates that one may have been written from the other, or from information derived from the same written record. Until the 19th century nearly all scholars and theologians believed that Matthew was the earliest Gospel. Mark was believed to be an abridged version of Matthew. Luke, which appeared to based on Matthew and Mark, was believed to be the latest of the three. With some modification, this remains the view of some conservative scholars. Today, most other scholars accept some modified form of the two-document hypothesis, first developed in the latter part of the 19th century. According to this hypothesis, Mark is the earliest Gospel and provided much of the narrative material, as well as the chronological framework, for both Matthew and Luke. A collection of sayings (with a few narratives) of Jesus, which may have been written in Aramaic, was the second main document, or source, employed by Matthew and Luke (a number of scholars, however, do not agree that it was a single document). This document provided the material lacking in Mark and then, apparently, was 89
  • 108. lost. It usually is designated as Q (German Quelle,”source”), but sometimes as Logia (Greek for “words” or “sayings”). The authors of Matthew and Luke may also have drawn material from other sources available to them individually. Predestination Predestination, a term used in Christian theology, derived from the Latin words meaning determined beforehand. In general, it means that God in the beginning so made the universe that everything that occurs in it is inevitable. More specifically, the teaching that the eternal destiny of a person is predetermined by God's unchangeable decree. Predestination does not necessarily imply a denial of free will, however. Most exponents of the doctrine have maintained that it is only the individual's final destiny that is predetermined, not the individual's actions, which remain free. The doctrine customarily takes one of two forms: single predestination or double predestination. Single predestination is the less severe form of the teaching. It is based on the experience of the presence of God and his love, and on the concurrent understanding that God grants the gift of his presence as an act of sheer grace. In order to emphasize that God's gift is independently willed by him and is in no sense a response to some human act, some Christians have asserted that their relation to 90
  • 109. God depends only on God and on God's eternal decree established before the foundation of the world. This point of view is implied only twice in the New Testament, in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1. “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. ... And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Romans 8:29-30). These verses imply single predestination, because they concern only predestination to life with God. Double predestination is a conclusion deduced from single predestination. If some are to enjoy God's presence by his eternal decree, others must then be eternally separated from God, also by his decree. Because salvation and glory are predestined, it follows that condemnation and destruction must also be predestined. The first theologian to enunciate a doctrine of double predestination was St. Augustine in the 5th century. He has not, however, had many successors. The best- known exponent of double predestination was French reformer John Calvin: “We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he determined within himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others” (Institutes 3. 21. 5). Purgatory 91
  • 110. Purgatory, in Christian theology, state of purgation, in which, according to the Roman Catholic and Eastern churches, souls after death either are purified from venial sins or undergo the temporal punishment that, after the guilt of mortal sin has been remitted, still remains to be endured by the sinner. The ultimate happiness of their souls is supposed to be thus secured. On the existence of purgatory Greek and Latin churches are agreed; they also agree that it is a state of suffering. Although the Latins hold that this is by fire, the Greeks do not determine the manner of the suffering, but regard it as being caused by tribulation. The Council of Florence (1439) left this free for discussion. The medieval doctrine and practice regarding purgatory were among the grounds for the protest of the Waldenses and were rejected by the Reformers. Protestants held that salvation had been achieved for humankind by Christ and was obtained by faith in Christ alone. A belief in an intermediate state and a period of education and probation on the other side of the grave has been held and taught in the Anglican church. The British religious leader John Henry Newman drew on the theology of purgatory for his poem “Dream of Gerontius,” which the English composer Sir Edward Elgar set to music as an oratorio under the same title. Ten Commandments Ten Commandments or Decalogue, designation for the precepts that, according to the Old Testament, were given by Yahweh (God) to Moses on Mount Sinai. 92
  • 111. According to Exodus 31:18, they were inscribed on two stone tablets by the “finger of God”. In most descriptions it is viewed that God used a bolt of lightning to engrave the stone tablets. Moses is said to have destroyed the tablets in anger over his people's abandonment of their faith. He was then commanded by God to hew and inscribe new tablets; these were deposited in the Ark of the Covenant. Because the Decalogue was revealed before the other parts of the Covenant between Yahweh (God) and the Hebrews, it enjoyed a unique status in the religion of ancient Israel. The Ten Commandments formed the basis of all Israelite legislation, and they are frequently alluded to in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:3-4, 11-13; Psalm 15:2-5, 24:4; Jeremiah 7:9; Hosea 4:2). Two different versions of the commandments are given in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but the substance is similar in both of them. The Exodus version differs from that in Deuteronomy in giving a religious motive, instead of a humanitarian one, for observing the Sabbath; also, in prohibiting covetousness, it classifies a man's wife with the rest of his possessions, instead of separately. Traditionally, the commandments have been enumerated in three ways. In Jewish tradition, the commandments are organized as follows: 1. the prologue; 2. prohibition of the worship of any deity but Yahweh (God), and prohibition of idolatry; 3. prohibition of the use of the name of God for vain purposes; 4. observance of the Sabbath; 5. honoring of one's father and mother; 6. prohibition of murder; 7. prohibition of adultery; 8. prohibition of stealing; 9. prohibition of giving false testimony; and 10. prohibition of coveting the property or wife of one's neighbor. Most Protestants and Orthodox Christians combine the prologue and the 93
  • 112. prohibition of the worship of any deity but Yahweh as the first commandment, treat the prohibition of idolatry as the second commandment, and follow the traditional Jewish enumeration of the remaining commandments. Roman Catholics and Lutherans follow the division used by 4th-century theologian Saint Augustine. The prologue and first two prohibitions are combined, and the last is divided into two that prohibit, individually, the coveting of a neighbor's wife and of his property. Thus, the enumeration of the other commandments differs by one. Medieval Scholastic philosophers and theologians, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure, held that all the commandments are a part of the natural law and are therefore knowable to all thinking people. They maintained that God made the tablets containing the commandments for Moses to remind humankind of its obligations, easily forgotten because of original sin. Actually, these scholars were echoing a similar idea expressed by early Fathers of the Church, such as Tertullian and Augustine, that the commandments had already been engraved on the human heart before they were written on the tablets of stone. Sacrifice Sacrifice (Latin sacrificium, originally “something made holy”), a ritual act in which a consecrated offering is made to a god or other spiritual being in order to establish, perpetuate, or restore a sacred bond between humanity and the divine. 94
  • 113. Offerings may consist of humans or animals (blood offerings) or fruits, crops, flowers, and wine (bloodless offerings). Sacrifice played a central role in many ancient religions. The ancient Greeks sacrificed animals (such as goats, sheep, horses, dogs, and cattle), sometimes consuming part of the offerings in a celebratory meal as a way of establishing communion with the gods. In Mexico before the Spanish conquest of the 16th century, the Aztecs offered human sacrifices to the sun god, a practice that took as many as 20,000 lives a year. During the earliest period of Hinduism, the Vedic period, Hindu priests offered humans, animals, and plants in sacrifice at certain stipulated times. The ancient Chinese also practiced human sacrifice and made offerings of domestic animals and of food to gods and to ancestors. Sacrifice has never been practiced in Buddhism, although devotional offerings of incense, lighted candles, and flowers are made to the Buddha, which is in contradiction to his teachings. Sacrifice was an essential and elaborately prescribed part of Judaism until the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. Among the many sacrificial rites of ancient Judaism were those for thanksgiving and for expiation of sins. In Christianity the belief that Christ was crucified on the cross is considered an exemplary and perfected sacrifice offered to expiate the sins of humanity. Throughout the writings of St. Paul, Christ is identified as a sacrificial victim (see 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephresians 5:2; Hebrews 10:12-13). The Eucharist has been associated from the beginning of the Christian church with the sacrifice of Christ, 95
  • 114. and in some Christian churches, notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Eucharist is interpreted as a form of participation in Christ's sacrifice. Lucifer Lucifer, (Latin for light-bearer), name for the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star; Vulgate translation of the Hebrew expression for bright one. The Hebrew prophet Isaiah used the term in a satirical allusion to the king of Babylon, describing the frustrated ambition of the morning star to rise higher than all the other stars: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning (Isaiah 14:12). This passage evidently reflects an episode from a myth of Baal, known to scholars through Canaanite texts recovered at Ra Shamrah in Syria. In the New Testament, star imagery is applied to the figure of Christ: In 2 Peter 1:19 he is called day star (Greek phosphoros), and in Revelation 22:16 he is called morning star. The identification of Isaiah's Lucifer with the Devil began with Saint Jerome and other Fathers of the Church, who held that Jesus implied the identification when he said, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). Consequently, in Patristic literature, Lucifer is used as a synonym for Satan. 96
  • 115. Exorcism Exorcism, practice of expelling or casting out demons or evil spirits from people or places that are possessed, or are in danger of possession, by them. Exorcism usually is performed by a person with special religious authority, such as a priest or shaman. The practice was common in ancient societies and was based on the practice of magic. An opinion once prevailed that persons afflicted with such disorders as psychosis, insanity, or epilepsy were possessed by evil spirits. Ancient Babylonian civilization, in what is now Iraq, had special priests who would destroy a clay or wax image of a demon in a ritual meant to destroy the actual demon. The ancient Egyptians and Greeks had similar rites. Many religions in various parts of the world continue the practice of exorcism. The Bible includes a number of references to demons and exorcism. The New Testament describes occasions when Christ expelled evil spirits by prayer and the power of his command. In the Roman Catholic Church, exorcism is an order that priests may practice with special permission. It is mainly used as a preparation for the sacrament of baptism. Throughout the history of religion, the perceived ability to perform successful exorcisms was paramount for power and recognition of competing Christian sects. In many such cases, scholars question the authenticities of these performances. 97
  • 116. Millennium Millennium, period of 1,000 years. The word millennium is derived from the Latin words mille, which means “thousand,” and annus, “years.” In various Christian doctrines, millennium refers to a 1,000-year period foretold in the Bible’s Book of Revelation during which time, many people believe, the Kingdom of God will be established on earth. These myths project stories involving the apocalypse (the end of the world) and where Jesus Christ will return to earth and defeat Satan at the battle of Armageddon and begin the reign of Jesus Christ on earth. The concept of the millennium is not only associated with Christian thought, however. Many cultures of the world have similar beliefs about the imminent transformation or end of the world and the creation of an age in which human suffering and violence will be eliminated. The idea probably originated with the Jews, who believed a Messiah would come to rule the earth for a long period. Christians believe that Christ is the Messiah. Western scholars commonly use the term millennium to refer generally to any new age of holiness, harmony, and earthly perfection. Similarly, the word millennialism is used to describe beliefs about an imminent apocalypse, the salvation of the world, or the creation of an earthly paradise. Such beliefs have existed throughout history and are still held by millions of people today. 98
  • 117. Armageddon Armageddon, battlefield described in the Bible in Revelation 16:16 as the scene of the predicted final struggle between good and evil. The name may be taken from that of the battlefield Megiddo (see Judges 5:19) in the Plain of Esdraelon, which was well known because of the many battles that were fought there between the Israelites and their enemies during the biblical period. Hence, the term has been applied to any great conflict or slaughter. The end of the world, some people believe, will come in the final battle of Armageddon, and that this battle has been predetermined by God and is therefore inevitable and not in the hands of mankind to control. [And that’s scary, very scary] ___________________________________________________________ 99
  • 118. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590(A) Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker TO BE A NONCONFORMIST Chapter IV “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Ralph Waldo Emerson * * * * * People are always trying to run with the Joneses, to run with the pack, as it were. It can be likened to the nature of the animal kingdom in which these animals run in packs, often blindly and stupidly. Everyone’s running around trying to achieve his/her own particular success, with their own particular ambition, and often never 100
  • 119. stop to look at themselves directly or in perspective with the world around them. Society does not like anyone who steps outside of its madness and into the real and creative reality and Emerson makes his observations clear: “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of ever one of its members. Society is a joint- stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most requests is conformity, self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.” One of the oldest and most common aspects involving members of a society is the religious influence. It is rare that anyone will accept a religious belief that is outside or contrary to that of the society in which that person lives. In fact, the more we look at religion, the more apparent it becomes that religious beliefs are a product of environment and conditioning. The more we study religions the more we realize that the religions of the world are marked more by differences than by similarities. 101
  • 120. Man can come up with all kinds of fables that have no bases in fact, and if one of these fables attempts to take precedence over another it causes all kinds of wrong doing, whether it be in the way of violence or misinformation or what have you. Therefore, it is important that we look into finding, not what we have been taught or what we believe to be true, but what is true in reality. It is, of course, important that we do this for ourselves and not according to any authority. But to find out for ourselves it is often helpful to look into the works of others who have attempted to do the same. With all the influence from others, especially in terms of religion, it is difficult to live outside of this influence—but that is the most important thing—to live without being influenced by anyone, and to learn for ourselves what is true. We should become aware of what is true outside of any conditioning forces around us. Over the years of seeking that which is true, it has been interesting to observe how those that lay claims to belief in God live. In most cases there has been nearly total contradiction in the way they believe and in the way they live, and I have yet to see anyone live via the Christian faith and not contradict their own beliefs. Each Christian mentally writes their own version of the bible in which they define what God desires and approves of. They create truth, their version of truth. Could this be because their beliefs are a denial of truth, a hindrance to an every changing reality? Why are there so many contradictions to the ways that Christians believe? Do we have the right to impose these bizarre beliefs on others? 102
  • 121. In relation to the bible and the seemingly never ending problem theologians have in finding what is true in biblical Revelation, Hendrik Kraemer states: “The problem of how to relate intelligibly the biblical Revelation to the many religions and the diverse claims for truth, has always occupied the minds of theologians.” If we study the history of philosophy, we find that it will teach us that to impose any belief on another of a spiritual kind creates conflict and chaos. In writing on philosophy Kraemer says: “We study the history of philosophy, not so much to learn what other men have thought, as to learn to think.” Since the major religions all imply that they are the truth, we know that only one can be right or they are all wrong. If we choose Christianity it only leaves us with the first choice, since it tells us that it is the ONLY WAY. As Kremer put it: 103
  • 122. “This apostolic outreach implies the certainty of a given knowable truth, superseding and transforming all truth by which man may live, and unveiling the falseness and distortion inherent in all human thinking and actions, even the most sublime.” But how can a religion based on a book with so many contradictions and so many scriptures that point to an angry, vengeful, and violent God, bring about harmony in a human being? In his work Kraemer was later to do the obvious, to tie both Christianity and ancient philosophy together, and one might add, he seems to get to the reality, as well as the suspicion of both: “And yet the meaning of philosophy underwent an essential change by finding philosophy’s task already performed, in a certain sense, by religion. For religion, too, afforded not only a sure conviction as a rule for the guidance of personal life, but also in connection with this, a general theoretical view of all reality, which was the more philosophical in its character, as the dogmas of 104
  • 123. Christianity had been formulated entirely under the influence of ancient philosophy.” Religious beliefs often correspond with ancient philosophy, and, on the other side of the coin, many aspects of philosophy stem from religion. If it is true that religion and philosophy go hand-in-hand, it might be best that we question both since history has shown us that neither has been able to solve our difficult problems, and have, often, only added to them. Erich Fromm makes this clear: “Yet modern man feels uneasy and more and more bewildered. He works and strives, but he is dimly aware of a sense of futility with regard to his activities. While is power over matter grows, he feels powerless in his individual life and in society. While creating new and better means of mastering nature, he has become enmeshed in a network of those means and has lost the vision of the end which alone gives them significance— man himself… While becoming the master of nature, he has become the slave of the machine which his own hands built. With all his knowledge about matter, he is ignorant 105
  • 124. with regard to the most important and fundamental questions of human existence: what is man, how he ought to live, and how the tremendous energies within man can be released and used productively.” Many of us understand the conditioning forces that make us and that we are brought up under, and yet we are afraid to look at anything that might be contrary to what we have been conditioned to believe or that which is so much a part of our lives. Unlike any other point in history, we now have the opportunity to question everything, and we have the necessary information to find the answers. As Erich Fromm so eloquently puts it: “Man is not a blank sheet of paper on which culture can write its text; he is an entity charge with energy and structured in specific ways, which, while adapting itself, (usually) reacts in specific and ascertainable ways to external conditions.” 106
  • 125. While it may be true that every normal human being has a kind of moral sense by which he can distinguish right from wrong, the development or non-development of that sense is largely a question of upbringing, conditioning, and propaganda. When extremely strict Christian parents bring up a child, if that child attempts to live outside of Christianity, he will in all probability suffer an extremely bad attack of conscience. If he is brought up to regard sex as an unclean and reprehensible act, he will suffer similar pain of conscience if the forbidden act arises. The voice may sound like the voice of God, but it is nothing more than the early conditioning forces of his upbringing. As long as we continue imposing these beliefs on our children and on those around us, how can there be freedom? People have varying beliefs about God, so what makes one so sure that the way one believes is the one right way? Belief is a personal thing and it is not something that should be imposed on another. Yet, that is what we are doing when we bring our children up to think this way or that way, or teach them what to think, instead of how to think. In the preface for his book Man for Himself, Erich Fromm states: “I have written this book with the intention of reaffirming the validity of humanistic ethics, to show that our knowledge of human nature does not lead to ethical relativism but, on the contrary, to the conviction 107
  • 126. that the sources of norms for ethical conduct are to be found in man’s nature itself; that their violation results in mental and emotional disintegration…If man is to have confidence in values, he must know himself and the capacity of his nature for goodness and productiveness.” We are brought up to believe and practice some form of belief system or to be practicing members of some organization—The Hindu, the Moslem, the Buddhist, the Christian, the Communist, or the atheist…Therefore, we respond to a challenge which is new, according to an old pattern of thought and that response will be based on a belief system that has no corresponding reality and, therefore, no validity. The religions of the world have created this problem—the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Muslim, the Christian—all of these religions create conflict, even though they preach brotherhood. If society is run by individuals who cannot distinguish between that which is true and that which is false, and are judging and building our culture based upon these bizarre belief systems, we can only expect the neurotic and contradicting social structure that we have in place today. In this modern world, we exist in a time in our heritage where we continue to raise symbols to the ranks of dogmas. We continue to have government systems, laws, and actions that are in direct correlation to these bizarre beliefs. The new religion is now the worship of the State in conjunction with the worship of these conditioned ideas. 108
  • 127. “The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them. But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day…Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great spirit has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today.—Ah, so you shall be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, …. and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton… and every pure and 109
  • 128. wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” Ralph Waldo Emerson It is only by serious, open-minded, and realistic observations of the belief systems of the major religions that we can come to a creative understanding of ourselves. Beliefs in ideas that are propagated by strongly conditioned minds and the actions resulting from these beliefs cannot bring us to solutions of our many problems. It is only through a creative understanding of ourselves that there can be a creative world, a happy world, a world where these false belief systems do not exist. A world without these false belief systems and the resulting ignorance that they create would be a happy world. It would be a world without the conditioning forces which compel men to undertake inappropriate action, a world without the hollowed dogmas from which the greatest injustices are justified and the worst crimes are rationalized. It is said, “God’s service is perfect freedom. Conversely, perfect freedom is the service of God.” John Trueblood states, “God is not the object of ultimate concern if He lacks the simple majesty of the freedom which man undoubtedly has.” And Hans Denk wrote, “God forces no one, for love cannot compel, and God’s service, therefore, is a thing of perfect freedom.” But does perfect freedom exist and can the mind free itself of its conditioning? Perfect freedom does not exist and the mind will 110
  • 129. never be free of all of its conditioning. Our only hope is to learn about the world around us and to understand why this freedom does not exist, and to understand the different aspects of our conditioned minds, and to go beyond that conditioning. Why does man not learn from history? History shows us that beliefs divide and also breed conflict. There have been so many wars, so much pain and suffering, people have been tortured and killed in the name of God, and we go on killing in the name of God. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Why”? Some organizations have recognized this problem and have attempted to deal with liturgies and creeds. A quote from the Masonic Charity Lecture is one example of this. I’m sure this will red flag many Christians who are anti-mason, and let me make it clear that I am not an advocate for masonry and do not endorse masonry or any other such organization, but that does not change the reality of this statement. “And finally, Charity may be love, the love for one’s fellow man. It is a blight upon our civilization that more misery has been caused in the name of liturgies and creeds, and more pages of history have been stained blood red by articles of faith, than all the crimes committed for which individuals have been punished.” And it goes on to say, “Charity seeks to point the way to men of all faiths to meet on the level and recognize the universality of the brotherhood of man. Of what relevancy is the faith of a hungry child? Is he no less hungry if his faith be different from yours.” The simple truth is that people of different faiths will never meet on the same level and religions, with completely different gods that are antagonistic to each other, can 111
  • 130. never be brought into unity. Although in recent history, a few attempts have been made to bring all faiths together, including Gandhi, they have all failed miserably. The reality of feeding the hungry is so simple – less meat consumption – and this would solve many of our problems of health, pollution, and several other problems, yet the mentality of the masses is far too complex for its simplicity. And this intelligence would also bring about the need to do something about the mass numbers of people on this earth simply by not having so many children and for each one of us to live simpler. We should ask ourselves what does faith have to do with feeding a hungry child? If we continue to condition our children to follow this or that religion, this or that belief, whether of the right or of the left, we will surely be encouraging our own destiny. Organized religions with their “holy books” and their mediators, perpetuating their dogmas through rituals, offer only a false solution to our basic problems. It is through understanding ourselves and not through belief in some fanciful far out symbols that man comes to clarity of reality. Again, we should bring our children up to be taught how to think and not what to think; they should learn to face their conditioning and resist being turned out in a mold of mediocrity. We should learn family unity and family planning outside of the stranglehold of these belief systems. A man named J. Krishnamurti, who lived in this country since around the age of 22, spoke throughout the world for sixty years about the importance of psychological freedom. On speaking on education he states: 112
  • 131. “If we are being educated merely to achieve distinction, to get a better job, to be more efficient, to have wider domination over others, then our lives will be shallow and empty…Though there is a higher and wider significance to life, of what value is education if we never discover it? We may be highly educated but if we are without deep integration of thought and feeling, our lives are incomplete, contradictory and torn with many fears; and as long as education does not cultivate an integrated outlook on life, it has very little significance. In our present civilization we have divided life into so many compartments that education has very little meaning, except in learning a particular technique or profession. Instead of awakening the integrated intelligence of the individual, education is encouraging him to conform to a pattern and so hindering his comprehension of himself as a total person.” 113
  • 132. Is it really important to have a job that makes a lot of money? To continue profit making even though it is harmful to the planet or to human health, and even though there may be alternate means of doing the same thing. To continue just so big corporations can stay in power and people can keep their specific jobs. But isn’t it really just so the people in power can make tons of money? It seems odd how many people go on performing jobs that are ethically dishonest and wrong, just so they can keep earning a living. But I guess it doesn’t matter, since they are forgiven and Christ died for their sins!—We cannot overlook the proposal that man’s belief in organized religion is largely responsible for producing a violent, dishonest, chaotic, and neurotic society. Those who are intelligent and who are concerned with the future of mankind are rejecting religions. Many who have derived their deep concern through a particular belief, and those who are deeply religious, are also questioning the actions of traditional religions. There are those within the churches who are becoming aware of the problems of organized belief and are beginning to see through the circus of religion. They are often the ones who are being put under so much pressure from the church and are being accused of being revolutionaries and anti-Christian. They are confronted by the conviction of others within the church who believe the established order of things is somehow divinely ordained, and that the control of this so-called divine order should be in the hands of Jay-a-sus the LAWD! 114
  • 133. “Belief inevitably separates. If you have a belief, or when you seek security in your particular belief, you become separated from those who seek security in some other form of belief. All organized beliefs are based on separation, though they may preach brotherhood.” J. Krishnamurti The natural trend however seems to be to go along with whatever society has to dish out, then we are considered normal. We are conditioned to run with the pack, and are afraid to stand alone. When one no longer wants to conform to society, he is considered a problem. And, all too often, instead of deriving a creative energy from this refusal to be part of a chaotic and dishonest society, with all of its corruption, we tend to succumb to society and we become the problem projected by the fears of society. We become alcoholics or drug addicts, or we become so fearful that we are as base as the latter. And it is these people that could help transform our society, if they would get their act together and stop being so cynical. It is sad to see people who could be helpful in turning this world around, reducing themselves to mere guinea pigs. And most of them are young. Yet it is the young that are less likely to be conditioned, at least not to the point where they won’t listen or to the point that they don’t stand a chance of understanding the stupidity of their conditioning. 115
  • 134. Most of us have come to understand that thought has created or invented the Devil. Yet when someone does something “bad”, Christians are still caught in the absurd superstition that the Devil is responsible for making them do it. I fully believe that this idea of the Devil has manifested itself in so many minds and in so many ways that the belief alone has created countless wrong actions and relentless suffering. We must come to the realization that we are all responsible for our own actions. As Emerson once said, “Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world.” Just as Emerson, I have had people constantly attempting to “importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church.” And in the words of Emerson, “What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within?…No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or to this…I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions.” It is interesting to read how the word “Devil” is described in the American Educator Encyclopedia: “DEVIL, a term sometimes referring to evil spirits or demons in general, but more often used for Satan, the supreme chieftain of all demons and the source of all wickedness. Satan appears in all major religions, being 116
  • 135. known as Ahriman in Zoroastrianism and as Iblis in mohammedanism. Although the primitive Jews believed in evil spirits, Judaism did not develop the concept of Satan until late Old Testament times; even then he was usually subordinate to God. In the New Testament he was regarded as the archenemy of God. It was the Devil who tempted Jesus in the wilderness. In Mathew 12:24 he is referred to as Beelzebub, “the prince of the devils.” Belief in the Devil remained strong and widespread until the seventeenth century. Almost everyone believed that the Devil was constantly trying to win human souls; hence his wiles must be countered by exorcism and other religious rites. In art and literature the Devil was frequently pictured as a man-like creature with horns, a forked tail, and cloven hoofs. In modern times the belief in a personal Satan has waned, but it is still held by several Christian bodies.” It is interesting to note the word wilderness. The root meaning of that word, means a dry isolated place, or desert, and later became used by Christians as a state or a place away from God. It was often, as taken from the bible, thought of a place that was barren, sometimes dark, infested with beast, serpents and robbers. It has 117
  • 136. pits and the shadow of death is there. In more modern times Christians began to refer to nature as the wilderness, and the woods and forest became an evil place. For this reason early settlers would clear all the trees around their homesteads to prevent their children and family members from entering the wilderness around them. To many early Christians, nature was essentially a place “away from God”. For me, and others who love nature and walking or camping in the woods, this concept is very strange and clearly demonstrates another powerful example of the illusions of religion. It is sad to see those that cater to tradition, living their daily lives thinking that they are such as angels, if I can use that word (angels, of course, are another invention of thought), always pointing their fingers at others. As they strive in their blind ambitions and desires, they fail to see the madness they create. To go along with the psychosis of those that claim God spoke to them in an audible voice or that have literally seen God, there are also those that claim to have literally seen the Devil. What other kinds of madness lurks in the mind of man. A brilliant philosopher, Spinoza shares his view: “We see men sometimes so affected by one object, that although it is not present, they believe it to be before them; and if this happens to a man who is not asleep, we say that he is delirious or mad. Nor are those 118
  • 137. believed to be less mad who are inflamed by love, dreaming about nothing but a mistress or harlot day and night, for they excite our laughter. But the avaricious man who thinks of nothing else but gain or money, and the ambitious man who thinks of nothing but glory, inasmuch as they do harm, and are, therefore thought worthy of hatred, are not believed to be mad. In truth, however, avarice, ambition, lust, etc., are kinds of madness, although they are not reckoned amongst diseases.” The importance of understanding ourselves is rarely dealt with in modern life. We are so busy listening to the voices of authority that we seldom have time to listen to ourselves, and when we get a chance to be alone it is usually clouded by some kind of entertainment, no matter how mediocre, no matter how absurd. Few of us ever know what it is to be alone. We rarely get close to aloneness and when we do get close we quickly turn away, because we are frightened or lonely. We have so many escapes, through TV, radio, computer, or reading a novel or newspaper, or we find anything to keep us busy; we are always escaping being alone. But as long as we escape loneliness we will never come face to face with 119
  • 138. ourselves. Think about it. Who are you with when you are alone? You are with yourself. So if we are afraid of being alone, it is essentially being afraid of ourselves. In order to be alone we must realize that we are not separate from that which is alone—we are not separate from loneliness. To realize that is to realize what is, then reality comes into being. Only then is there a chance to go beyond loneliness, as made clear by Erich Fromm: “Humanistic conscience is not the internalized voice of an authority whom we are eager to please and afraid of displeasing; it is our own voice, present in every human being and independent of external sanctions and rewards. What is the nature of this voice? Why do we hear it and why can we become deaf to it? Humanistic conscience is the reaction of out total personality to its proper functioning or dis-functioning; not a reaction to the functioning of this or that capacity but to the totality of capacities which constitute our human and our individual existence. Conscience judges our functioning as human beings; it is (as the root of the word con-cientia indicates) knowledge within oneself, knowledge of our respective success or failure in the art of living. But although conscience is knowledge, it is 120
  • 139. more than mere knowledge in the realm of abstract thought. It has an affective quality, for it is the reaction of our total personality and not only the reaction of our mind. In fact, we need not be aware of what our conscience says in order to be influenced by it… However, learning to understand the communica- tions of one’s conscience is exceeding difficult, mainly for two reasons. In order to listen to the voice of our conscience, we must be able to listen to ourselves, and this is exactly what most people in our culture have difficulties doing. We listen to every voice and to everybody, but not to ourselves. We are constantly exposed to the noise of opinions and ideas hammering at us from everywhere: motion pictures, newspapers, radio, idle chatter. If we had planned intentionally to prevent ourselves from ever listening to ourselves, we could have done no better. Listening to oneself is so difficult because this art requires another ability, rare in modern man: that of being alone with oneself. In fact, we have developed a phobia of being alone; we prefer the most trivial and even obnoxious company, the most meaningless activities, to being alone with ourselves; we seem to be 121
  • 140. frightened at the prospect of facing ourselves. Is it because we feel we would be such bad company? I think the fear of being alone with ourselves is rather a feeling of embarrassment, bordering sometimes on terror at seeing a person at once so well known and so strange; we are afraid and run away. We thus miss the chance of listening to ourselves, and we continue to ignore our conscience.” One problem that has existed throughout history and still exists is the idea that in order for man to be himself, he must be only for himself. Modern culture is plagued with selfishness. One can see, more than ever, this attitude of selfishness in children and in the young, especially in the middle and upper class. But with so much emphasis placed on competition and ambition, and with parents sustaining this idea of becoming, is there any wonder? We are so concerned with our children being “good” and with them turning out like we want, that we tend to bring them up with a very superficial attitude. We are afraid to be real with them and to let them be who they are. These images that we create make it difficult to say who is the “good” child and who is the “bad” child. As Erich Fromm points out, “The good child may be frightened, and insecure, wanting 122
  • 141. only to please his parents by submitting to their will, while the bad child may have a will of his own and genuine interests but ones that do not please the parents.” Why is it that so many of us succumb to these voices of authority and so few question the authoritarian nature? There are dozens who claim to be an authority on how we should live, and more are popping up all the time. The masses attempt to learn about life by listening to them! Erich Fromm goes on: “The authoritarian conscience is the voice of an internalized external authority, the parents, the state, or whoever the authorities in a culture happen to be. As long as people’s relationship to the authorities remain external, without ethical sanction, we can hardly speak of conscience; such conduct is merely expediential, regulated by fear of punishment and hope for reward, always dependent on the presence of these authorities, on their knowledge of what one is doing, and their alleged or real ability to punish and to reward. Often an experience which people take to be a feeling of guilt springing from their conscience is really nothing but their fear of such authorities. Properly speaking, these people do not fell guilty but afraid.” 123
  • 142. We all are overwhelmed with the power of technology, religion, and freedom in the hands of authoritarians. Should we be afraid and just go ahead and let them run us, and be certain of disaster? Or is the question limited?—and there is little more that we can do but to refuse to be part of their overall strategy and ignorance. I think no one has put it better than J. Krishanmurti: “If, living in the world, you refuse to be a part of it, you will help others out of this chaos—not in the future, not tomorrow, but now. Surely that is our problem. War is probably coming, more destructive, more appalling in its form. Surely we cannot prevent it, because the issues are much too strong and too close. But you and I can perceive the confusion and misery immediately, can we not? We must perceive them, and then we will be in a position to awaken the same understanding of truth in another. In other words, can you be instantaneously free?—because that is the only way out of this misery. Perception can take place only in the present; but if you say, “I will do it tomorrow”, the wave of confusion overtakes you, and you are then always involved in confusion. Now is it possible to come to that state when you yourself perceive the truth instantaneously and therefore put an end to confusion? 124
  • 143. I say that it is, and that it is the only possible way. I say it can be done and must be done, not based on supposition or belief.” THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590 Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker ON EVOLUTION Chapter V “Wonders are many, and none is more wonderful than man.” Anitgone Sphocles As one looks into the various reasons that man has turned from God, the one that stands out the most is the theory of evolution. Many people feel that if they accept the observations that life evolved over long periods of time, they eliminate any wonder that God had anything to do with it. Do the observations of evolutionary processes eliminate any cosmic force or energy? Does it eliminate the forces within these organisms, which are energy? What these observations do accomplish is to completely eliminate the validity of the story in Genesis. This, in turn, wipes out the validity of the bible and the religion that was created out of it, Christianity. Let me first say that it is important to read this chapter in its entirety before drawing any conclusions on evolution. I have learned that most people come to the 125
  • 144. knowledge of an individual’s viewpoint only from reading excerpts from their writings. This is the problem with human knowledge, in that conclusions are often erroneously drawn that differ from the writer’s intent. This is where arises the observation that “knowledge” can often become ignorance. For example, if I have “knowledge” that the earth is flat based on information I have acquired and have been conditioned to believe, it will be difficult to accept the new observation that the earth is round. This is supported by the fact that it took a few hundred years after learning this simple fact for the majority to accept it, and by the mid 1700’s there were still many people that refused to believe it. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace advanced the theory of evolution in their paper “On the Tendency of a Species to Form Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.” Even though many people claim that this theory gives strong support to the elimination of any force or energy, neither Darwin nor Wallace would completely dismiss the need for either a known or unknown force in this evolutionary process. In his “Origin of Species”, Darwin suggested that in the formation of the eye, a force is a work bringing about alterations, which inevitably improved the image produced. (1) In the chapter on religion, in Darwin’s Life and Letters, he again made the point that the universe could not have existed without the aid of some force or forces, but that any naming of the origin of that force was beyond the powers of the human mind. (2) 126
  • 145. Wallace later wrote “The World of Life” in which he asserted that the events we witness in nature “necessarily imply first a Creative Power, which so constituted matter as to render these marvels possible. Next, a directive mind which is demanded at every step of what we term growth and often look upon as so simple and natural a process as to require no explanation, and lastly, an ultimate purpose, in the very existence of the whole vast life-world in all its long course of evolution throughout the eons of geological time.” (3) There are many other examples in “Darwin’s Life and Letters” of how Charles Darwin questioned himself and the observations that there was no energy behind the processes of evolution or in the processes of natural selection. One may question whether Darwin or Wallace was able to escape the forces of their early conditioning. The question of the existence of some energy at work in these processes will be explored later in this chapter. It is important to point out that Darwin was steadfast in his theory of natural selection for the later years of his life and up until his death. In 1972 a new theory sprung up in the scientific community called “Punctuated Equilibrium”. This is just a fancy way of saying that instead of species evolving gradually over long periods of time, as Darwin suggested, the proponents of this 127
  • 146. theory believed that evolution proceeds in discrete leaps. Paleontologist (one who studies fossil records) John Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge collaborated on this theory to resolve a problem with the fossil record—the inability to find fossils to represent the transitional forms between species, or the “missing links”. They claimed that rather than species transforming gradually and shading one into the next, most species in the world evolved relatively quickly, in terms of geological time, and have persisted virtually unchanged for millions of years. In a series of fits and starts, species mutate and create new adaptations. (4) I have to give this theory some weight, because I see the probability of an occasional mutation that will start the species off in a new direction. Some species may make rapid changes in short periods of geological time. The theory of punctuated equilibrium is an inference about the process of macroevolution (The combination of events associated with the origin, diversification, extinction, and interactions of organisms which produced the species that currently inhabit the Earth) from the pattern of species documented in the fossil record. In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional forms are found. In short, it appears that species remain unchanged for long stretches of time and then are quickly replaced by new species. However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms that bridge the gaps between the two species are sometimes found in small, localized areas. 128
  • 147. Having looked into the processes that bring about a fossil, or bone turned into stone, and the rare occasion of this taking place, it is not surprising that we find few transitional species. One should study the complex process of how fossils are formed. Later the theory of evolution was brought back into focus as Richard Leakey, a renowned expert on evolution, points out in this quote taken from “The Making of Mankind”, a video done not long after Gould presented his “new” theory. “So evolution may not be a gradual process, but one punctuated by sudden leaps or periods of rapid change, followed by long periods when animals don’t change. Our story is no different from that of other animals. But this presents us with a problem. If speciation occurs rapidly, and occurs in small populations, it’s perfectly reasonable when you consider the difficulties of fossils being preserved and then found, that we are going to seldom find the so- called missing links, the examples of a species in transition. Nevertheless, having said that, I think it’s fair to say that when we do find a fossil, the fossil is almost certainly going to be representative, in a very real sense, of the stage of the population that it comes from. It’s most unlikely that a fossil will be representative of a freak. The 129
  • 148. mathematical probability of finding a freak is so extraordinary as to be difficult to consider.” If paleontologist are fortunate enough to find a population that is well represented in terms of numbers and is found in a situation where they can trace it over long periods of time, then the chances would be greater for locating these missing links or transitional species. What appeared to be a good example for demonstrating these transitions turned up in Lake Turkana amongst the fossil shells that litter those deposits. What they found is a series of snails, one old and one younger snail, and a series of snails in between. Some snails were more like the older and some more like the younger. It was a group of snails that appeared to be in the act of evolving from one form to another over a period of time. I attempted to get pictures of these snails, but, as it turned out, there was a problem with the dating of the snails and the entire example turned out to be misleading. Examples that are said to represent or prove the existence of transitional species exist but many are often of so basic a species that they are not worthy of consideration. The better examples can be found by a study of “transitional species”. 130
  • 149. Richard Leakey continues… “I find it very strange that today many people still think of evolution as just a theory. I’m convinced, and I think many others are as well, that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate evolution as a fact. The process of natural selection works. It has worked in countless instances that can be well documented. I also am puzzled, and indeed I find it very arrogant, that many people think that if evolution occurred it occurred because we were to be produced, that we are the end product, the inevitable end product of natural selection. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are here as a result of a series of accidents, if you like. There was nothing pre- planned about humanity. One can demonstrate that if certain events hadn’t happened we wouldn’t be here today. But we do have fossils that demonstrate the process by which we arrived. We can document the transformation of an ape-like creature through a series of steps to what we are today, fully modern human beings.” Many people believe that divine intervention or some supernatural being actively guided the evolution of human beings. A prerequisite for being a scientist studying evolution is not to consider any outside energy. Science cannot comment on the role that supernatural forces might play in human affairs. But scientific studies have 131
  • 150. concluded that the same forces responsible for the evolutionary processes of all other life forms on Earth can account for the evolutionary processes of human beings. Studies of the fossil record through evolutionary biology have made it clear that human beings arose from ancestral primates (not monkeys). Among the broad spectrum of the scientific community there is no significant doubt about the evolutionary relationships among primates, which includes humans. The hominids are the members of the biological family Hominidae (the great apes), which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. In looking into some of the examples of transitional species or “missing links”, I have found some impressive examples. Ambulocetus was an early cetacean that could walk as well as swim. It is a transitional fossil that shows how whales evolved from land-living mammals. Its name means 'walking whale'. Having the appearance of a three-meter long mammalian crocodile, it was clearly amphibious, as its back legs are better adapted for swimming than for walking on land, and it probably swam by undulating its back vertically, as do otters, seals, and whales. It has been speculated that Ambulocetids hunted like crocodiles, lurking in the shallows to snatch unsuspecting 132
  • 151. prey. Chemical analysis of its teeth shows that it was able to move between salt and fresh water. Ambulocetus did not have external ears. To detect prey on land, they may have lowered their heads to the ground and felt for vibrations. The reason why scientists consider Ambulocetus to be an early whale is that it shares underwater adaptations with them: it had an adaptation in the nose that enabled it to swallow underwater, and it shared ear structure with whales, enabling it to hear well underwater. In addition, its teeth are similar to those of cetaceans. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/Ambulocetus.gif/180px- Ambulocetus.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET Paleontologists have also discovered fossils of a species that provides the missing evolutionary link between fish and the first animals that walked out of water onto land about 375 million years ago. Well preserved fossils were found in 2004 on Ellemere Island in Nunavut, Canada. 133
  • 152. The newly found species, tiktaalik roseae [pronounced tikta:lik], has a skull, a neck, ribs and parts of the limbs that are similar to four-legged animals known as tetrapods, as well as fish-like features such as a primitive jaw, fins and scales. The adaptation of a neck would give more freedom of movement for hunting prey either on land or in the shallows. It also has eyes on top of its head instead of on the side, as did its earlier ancestors. Also notable is the spiracles or openings on the top of the head and just behind its eyes, which suggests the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key trait for land living creatures to help support their body weight. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably weren't used for walking, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, much like a pushup action. The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex its fin like a wrist joint. These fossils are the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. 134
  • 153. "Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life," said Neil Shubin, professor and chairman of organismal biology at the University of Chicago. Some may wonder how they found a creature that lived in such warm conditions in Canada, so close to the North Pole. The explanation for this is complex. Scientists have proven through detailed studies that the continents have moved over eons of time. It is called plate tectonics or, the term I like better, continental drift. Through detailed investigations of soil samples and by other complex means, scientists have determined what continents were attached to other continents in the distant past and how they have moved over time. The location of these fossils in Canada was in fact near the equator long ago. This is also why they find fossilized vegetation from rainforest in some of the coldest, as well as some of the driest locations on the planet. You can go here and observe a computer animation of continental plate movement for the past 200 million years. 135
  • 154. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/0405chicago.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET A reconstruction of Tiktaalik alongside a cast of its fossil 136
  • 155. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Tiktaalik_skull_front.jpg/1 80px-Tiktaalik_skull_front.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify- clip.png" * MERGEFORMATINET Tiktaalik skull showing spiracle holes above the eyes. And there is yet another good example of transitional species, or fossils between two stages of development. Pakicetus (below left) is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull. 137
  • 156. A skull of the beluga whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms. Well let me introduce you to Aetiocetus (middle). INCLUDEPICTURE "http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ev olibrary/images/lines/pakicetus_ nostrils.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "http://evolution.berkeley.ed u/evolibrary/images/lines/aet iocetus_nostrils.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ev olibrary/images/lines/beluga_nos trils.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET The evolution of the horse involves the gradual development of the modern horse from the fox-sized, forest-dwelling Hyracotherium. Zoologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of the modern horse's evolutionary lineage than that of any other animal. 138
  • 157. http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm INCLUDEPICTURE "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dd/Horseevolution.png/250px- Horseevolution.png" * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE 139
  • 158. "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Eohippus.jpg/250px- Eohippus.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Chart depicting horse evolution Hydracotherium How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if you insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium- Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after? 140
  • 159. Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory. [And there is other evidence for evolution that is totally independent of the fossil record--developmental biology, comparative DNA & protein studies, morphological analyses, biogeography, etc. The fossil record, horses included, is only a small part of the story.] Creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed "lack" of "transitional forms". It is amazing how many places there are on the World Wide Web, and in books, magazines, newspaper articles, and T.V. where people state that there are no transitional fossils. They often claim that evolution predicts a continuous process between each fossil organism and its ancestors, and how, instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, even with the remoteness of fossils being produced by nature, there are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a 141
  • 160. direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older organism to a more recent organism. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera (a grouping in the classification of living organisms), and we find many other sequences between higher groupings of organisms that have been given a formal taxonomic name such as species, genus, family, etc, that are still fairly well filled out. The following are fossil transitions between species and genera: Human ancestry: There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior. 142
  • 161. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa. O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil. Planktonic forminifera: This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten- million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event. Lake Turkana mollusc species (although there were some problems with dating). Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also changed over during this time. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic period. 143
  • 162. The following are fossil transitional examples between families, orders, and classes: Human ancestry: Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking. Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors. Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards. The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is fairly robust. 144
  • 163. There are several good examples of transitions between fish and tetrapods (land- living vertebrates). Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees: in particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees. The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla (a major group within a kingdom): The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The 145
  • 164. undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia. Another popular view among skeptics is that that Arthropods (Members of a major group or phylum of invertebrate animals with hard exoskeletons, segmented bodies, and jointed appendages; includes crustaceans, insects, spiders, etc.) arose suddenly in the fossil record and that there are no transitional fossils leading up to them. Anomalocaris, from the Cambrian and Precambrian, has a pair of segmented appendages, indicating arthropod affinities, but it also seems to have lobopod legs. The related Opabinia also apparently had lobopod legs. Other rare Cambrian and Precambrian fossils show some promise of shedding more light on relationships. For example, Spriggina, another Precambrian animal, has a head shield similar to trilobites. Ancestral echinoderms (the large group of animals characterized by five fold symmetry and a skeleton of calcite plates. Examples include starfish, sea urchins and sea lilies) have been found that are intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Animals in which the first opening that appears in the embryo becomes the anus while the mouth appears at the other end of the digestive system). 146
  • 165. Bats are one of the least understood groups of modern mammals -- there are no known bat fossils from the entire Paleocene. The first known fossil bat, Icaronycteris, is from the (later) Eocene, and it was already a fully flying animal very similar to modern bats. It did still have a few "primitive" features, though (unfused & unkeeled sternum, several teeth that modern bats have lost, etc.) INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/bat-9.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 147
  • 166. Photo courtesy Georgia Museum of Natural History The Seminole bat is one of the many bat species native to the United States. Seminole bats live mostly in the woods, where they hunt flies, beetles and crickets, among other insects. See more pictures of bats. 148
  • 167. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/bat-4.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Photo courtesy Heurisko Ltd The blossom bat of Australia is one of the smaller flying foxes. Blossom bats feed mostly on flowers and nectar, but will also eat some fruit and leaves. Not all bats use echolocation to find food. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/bat-8.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 149
  • 168. Photo courtesy Georgia Museum of Natural History Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is a microchiroptera species found in the southeastern United States. The oversized ears help the bat accurately pinpoint its prey by complex and sophisticated echolocation techniques. Bats really stand out in the animal world. They are the only mammals that can fly, and they live much of their lives hanging upside down. Most species are only active at night, dusk and dawn, spending their days in dark caves. Many bats have 150
  • 169. developed adaptations that let them find their way (and their prey) in complete darkness. Bats are also well known for sucking blood, though in actuality, there are only a few specific species that feed this way. In cultures all over the world, these peculiar qualities have captured the imagination of storytellers and their audiences, who have attributed mysterious, supernatural qualities to these animals. Unfortunately, these tales have given bats a notorious sinister reputation, while in actuality most bat species are harmless. By studying these cool creatures one can sort out the facts from the myths and see how bats do the amazing things they do. Then one can learn the many ways in which bats help humans and what could happen if these animals aren't preserved. Echolocation in bats is an adaptation for catching insects. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/im ages/evo/bat_echolocation_225.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET 151
  • 170. To help them find their prey in the dark, most bat species have developed a remarkable navigation system called echolocation. To understand how echolocation works, imagine an "echo canyon." If you stand on the edge of a canyon and shout "hello," you'll hear your own voice coming back to you an instant later. The process that makes this happen is pretty simple. You produced sound by rushing air from your lungs past your vibrating vocal chords. These vibrations caused fluctuations in the rushing air, which formed a sound wave. A sound wave is just a moving pattern of fluctuations in air pressure. The changing air pressure pushes surrounding air particles out and then pulls them back in. These particles then push and pull the particles next to them, passing on the energy and pattern of the sound. In this way, sound can travel long distances through the air. The pitch and tone of the sound are determined by the frequency of the air-pressure fluctuations, which is determined by the way you move your vocal chords. When you shout, you produce a sound wave that travels across the canyon. The rock face on the opposite side of the canyon deflects the air-pressure energy of the sound wave so that it begins moving in the opposite direction, heading back to you. 152
  • 171. In an area where atmospheric air pressure and air composition is constant, sound waves always move at the same speed. If you knew the speed of sound in the area, and you had a very precise stopwatch, you could use sound to determine the distance across the canyon. Let's say you're at sea level, and the air is relatively dry. In these conditions, sound waves travel at 741.1 miles per hour (1,193 kph), or 0.2 miles per second (0.32 kps). To figure out the distance across the canyon, you would clock the time between when you first started shouting and when you first heard your echo. Let's say this took exactly 3 seconds. If the sound wave were moving at 0.2 miles per second for 3 seconds, it would have traveled 0.6 miles (0.97 km). This is the distance of the total trip, across the canyon and back. Dividing the total by two, you get 0.3 miles (0.48 km) as the one-way distance. This is the basic principle of echolocation. Bats make sounds the same way we do, by moving air past their vibrating vocal chords. Some bats emit the sounds from their mouth, which they hold open as they fly. Others emit sound through their nose. It's not fully understood how the bat's sound production works, but scientists believe that the strange nose structure found in some bats serves to focus the noise for more accurate pin-pointing of insects and other prey. In the case of most bats, the echolocation sound has an extremely high pitch -- so high that it is beyond the human hearing range. But the sound behaves the same 153
  • 172. way as the sound of your shout. It travels through the air as a wave, and the energy of this wave bounces off any object it comes across. A bat emits a sound wave and listens carefully to the echoes that return to it. The bat's brain processes the returning information the same way we processed our shouting sound using a stopwatch and calculator. By determining how long it takes a noise to return, the bat's brain figures out how far away an object is. The bat can also determine where the object is, how big it is and in what direction it is moving. The bat can tell if an insect is to the right or left by comparing when the sound reaches its right ear to when the sound reaches its left ear: If the sound of the echo reaches the right ear before it reaches the left ear, the insect is obviously to the right. The bat's ears have a complex collection of folds that help it determine an insect's vertical position. Echoes coming from below will hit the folds of the outer ear at a different point than sounds coming from above, and so will sound different when they reach the bat's inner ear. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/bat-2.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 154
  • 173. Photo courtesy Heurisko Ltd The ghost bat is Australia's only carnivorous bat species. Using echolocation, ghost bats hunt for large insects, lizards, frogs, birds and even other bats. A bat can tell how big an insect is based on the intensity of the echo. A smaller object will reflect less of the sound wave, and so will produce a less intense echo. The bat can sense in which direction the insect is moving based on the pitch of the echo. If the insect is moving away from the bat, the returning echo will have a lower pitch 155
  • 174. than the original sound, while the echo from an insect moving toward the bat will have a higher pitch. This difference is due to the Doppler effect, which you can read about in How Radar Works. A bat processes all of this information unconsciously, the same way we process the visual and aural information we gather with our eyes and ears. A bat forms an echolocation image in its head that is something like the image you form in your head based on visual information. Bats also process visual information -- contrary to popular belief, most bats have fairly acute vision. They use echolocation in conjunction with vision, not instead of it. The most striking things about my studies of the bat is that it clearly points to some unknown energy; possibly some form of cosmic energy of some kind working possibly on the energy within the organism, to aid the direction in the design processes over time. This energy is certainly not any of the tangible gods that man has created and is not namable. The imperfections in these processes are proof of this. If anything it would be energy from the cosmos, such as cosmic rays or dark energy, or some force as yet unknown that provides some form of intelligence in the processes of evolution and of life itself. I should make it very clear that this statement, if understood completely, gives no support to Creationism, nor does it give support to the Intelligent Design ID-iots of Christianity or any other religion, in that it does not preclude a purposeful and systematic process of design. My observations clearly tell me that this energy is not supernatural. In fact, if some 156
  • 175. unknown form of intelligence does exist in the realm of the cosmos, and I sense that it does, I would think it to be a natural energy. Scientist have come to realize that there is an energy, called “dark energy”, plays a role in the expanding universe, as well as to keep galaxies from getting too big, and puts them on a permanent diet. There are other aspects of this energy at work and we will learn more in the future…It appears that this energy is the creative energy of the cosmos. Cosmic rays are believed to play a role in evolution, says Dr. Nathan Schwadron, a senior research scientist at the Southwest Research Institute. "Cosmic rays are a double-edged sword. They cause genetic mutation and are harmful to living organisms, but on the upside stimulate biological evolution," Schwadron said. "Cosmic rays are our only available sample of matter from the far reaches of the distant galaxy, and from other galaxies. They can tell us a lot about what's in the universe, and we can now use them to study what's in the Kuiper Belt. Their relationship to the creation or maintenance of life is also worth a closer look." Everything is composed of energy. Matter is simply energy in a condensed form. Matter and energy can be transformed into one another (E = mc²). All mass is composed of matter, which, again, is condensed energy. Over the course of the evolution of he Universe, high concentrations of energy gradually cooled and expanded, giving way to the first particles of matter (electrons, 157
  • 176. protons, neutron, etc.). Next to develop were Atoms, from the lightest elements, such as hydrogen and helium, and eventually extending into heavier and more complex atomic compositions. Clouds of matter in the expanding Universe condensed to form galaxies, stars, and planets. On Earth (and possibly elsewhere) the interactions between energy and matter combined to form the complex aggregations we call living organisms. Compounds of carbon atoms have played a huge role in the evolution of life on Earth. Every aspect of life is connected to the transformation of energy. The energy from the Sun is the fuel for life and there is a close relationship in the chemical makeup of both. I’m finding atheists, deists, agnostics, researchers and some good scientist who are willing to consider the possibility that the cosmos may be responsible for life, as we know it. This is not some far out mystical conception; it is a realistic and probable scenario. The simple fact is we are energy, and all living things and non-living things are energy. The entire universe and the entire cosmos is energy. Having said that, if we consider the intelligence of this infinitely small and insignificant piece of matter called the brain, how can we not consider the possibility of some form of intelligence or directive energy of the universe or the infinite cosmos? 158
  • 177. One very interesting aspect of evolution in the mammal is the ear. The mammal ear is a very precise system for hearing—Three tiny bones, known as ossicles—the hammer (malleus), anvil (incus) and stirrup (stapes)—work together to move sound from the outside world to the tympanic membrane, otherwise know as the eardrum. From there, the sound is transmitted to the brain and informs the listener about pitch, intensity and location. But it has been a mystery how this delicate system evolved from the cruder listening organs of reptiles. Paleontologists have scoured fossil records and search the world over for signs of how the jawbones of reptiles migrated and became the middle ear of mammals. The fossil record demonstrates the theory that mammals evolved from their reptilian ancestors, and it has been theorized that some of the jawbones that were used by reptiles were transitioned over time and eventually were no longer used in the jaw structure of mammals. Early in the evolution of the therapsids (a group of primitive reptiles) arose a group called the cynodonts (The most successful group of therapsid reptiles, and were also known as the dog teeth. They were not only the longest lived but also they are the direct ancestors of today's most successful group of mammals, so in effect our direct ancestors. They are found from the Late Permian to about the middle Jurassic). These early mammal-like reptiles changed their teeth from being designed for catching and holding prey and then swallowing whole, to adding specialized teeth, including molars, designed for better mastication of food allowing for quicker digestion. In reptiles, all the teeth are alike, being replaced alternately along the jaw in waves from the back of the jaw to the front. Larger, but similar teeth replace the earlier 159
  • 178. teeth. As the cynodonts progressed toward today's mammals, this process was replaced by the characteristic pattern of one set of deciduous teeth followed by one set of permanent teeth. The permanent nature of teeth enabled a specialization of teeth to serve specific functions. Additionally, the jaw of the cynodonts reduced the number of jawbones. This freed up the superfluous bones to evolve into an entirely new function, becoming the malleus, incus and stapes of the mammal's inner ear. Improved hearing gave these creatures a better awareness of their environment and, in turn, this increasing sensitivity called for a greater capacity for processing the auditory information in the brain. Recently Zhe-Xi Luo of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh and his colleagues have found one: Yanoconodon allin, appears to be an intermediate between modern mammals and their distant ancestors. “It helps to show a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears,” Luo said. More importantly, the nearly complete fossil shows a separation between the jawbones and the inner-ear bones, but one that is incomplete. Yanoconodon’s stirrup, anvil and hammer bones are still connected to the jaw by another bond—a bone that is gone from adult modern mammals. In fact, they display the same layont as mammal embryos do today, before the cartilage precursors of the jaw and ear bones separate during gestation. Essentially this indicates that reptiles have a jaw full of ear bones and that mammals have an ear full of the jawbones of reptiles. The 160
  • 179. proportion of the ear bones is already like those of modern mammals in this animal, but the reptilian connection to the jaw is retained. This indicates that Yanoconodon not only picked up the higher frequencies associated with the hearing of modern mammals, but also the vibrations transmitted through the ground as reptiles do. It would appear that this creature had not completely lost its ability to detect ground vibrations through the jaw, but had also gained some of the abilities of modern mammals to hear airborne sounds. It could represent a key middle step in the evolution of the exquisitely sensitive modern mammal ear. Scientists determine how animals are related by comparing the characteristics they share (or don't share). In my detailed studies of evolution, these determinations are questionable. But the fact that evolution took place is as obvious as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. This transitional species do exist and this term “missing link” needs to be tossed into the garbage can. "Missing link" is an inappropriate term when referring to a transitional form not yet discovered in the fossil record. "Missing" usually describes something that was supposed to be present but has disappeared for unknown reasons — if, for example, a favorite book suddenly disappeared from your room. But you wouldn't describe the book as "missing" if you had lent it to a friend and expected it to be gone. The same arguments apply to so-called "missing links." Biologists know that 161
  • 180. fossilization is a chancy process — most things that have lived on Earth are eaten or rot away before they can be fossilized. Very few organisms wind up in situations in which fossilization is possible and have body parts that can be preserved in fossils. Thus, biologists expect that most intervening steps of an evolutionary transition (such as vertebrates' invasion of the land) will not be preserved in the fossil record. Occasionally, we get lucky and discover a transitional form that has been preserved in a fossil — but that does not imply that its ancestors, descendents, or other organisms that once lived on Earth are "missing." Co-evolution The term co-evolution is used to describe cases where two (or more) species reciprocally affect each other's evolution. So for example, an evolutionary change in the morphology of a plant, might affect the morphology of an herbivore (an animal that is adapted to eat primarily plant matter) that eats the plant, which in turn might affect the evolution of the plant, which might affect the evolution of the herbivore...and so on. First some definitions: co-evolution is a change in the genetic composition of one species (or group) in response to a genetic change in another. More generally, the idea of some reciprocal evolutionary change in interacting species is a strict definition of co-evolution. 162
  • 181. At first glance (or thought), it might seem that everything is involved in co- evolution. This assumption might stem from the fact that virtually all organisms interact with other organisms and presumably influence their evolution in some way. But this assumption depends entirely on ones definition of the term Co- evolution. Co-evolution is likely to happen when different species have close ecological interactions with one another. These ecological relationships include: Predator/prey and parasite/host Competitive species Mutualistic species 163
  • 182. Plants and insects represent a classic case of co- evolution — one that is often, but not always, mutualistic. Many plants and their pollinators are so reliant on one another and their relationships are so exclusive that biologists have good reason to think that the "match" between the two is the result of a co- evolutionary process. 164 IN CL U DE PI CT UR E "ht tp: // ev ol uti on .b er kel ey .e du /e vol ibr ar y/i m ag es /d ot _cl ea r.g if" * ME RG EF OR M AT IN INCLUDEPICTURE "http://evolution.berkeley.edu/e volibrary/images/evo/bull_thorn _acacia.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET
  • 183. But we can see exclusive "matches" between plants and insects even when pollination is not involved. Some Central American Acacia species have hollow thorns and pores at the bases of their leaves that secrete nectar (see image at right). These hollow thorns are the exclusive nest-site of some species of ant that drink the nectar. But the ants are not just taking advantage of the plant — they also defend their acacia plant against herbivores. This system is probably the product of co-evolution: the plants would not have evolved hollow thorns or nectar pores unless their evolution had been affected by the ants, and the ants would not have evolved herbivore defense behaviors unless their evolution had been affected by the plants. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/Bombus_6867.JPG/250px- 165
  • 184. Bombus_6867.JPG" * MERGEFORMATINET Flowers and the bees that pollinate them are one example of co-evolution. They have both co-evolved so that both have become dependent on each other for survival. 166
  • 185. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.saburchill.com/images03/0088.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Butterflies are liquid feeders that drink nectar. The butterfly has long tube-like mouthparts which are normally coiled under its head but which it can extend to reach the nectar at the base of a petal. As it feeds, pollen sticks to the butterfly's body. This pollen is then carried by the butterfly to the next flower that it feeds on. Another interesting aspect of butterflies is the fact that the coloration on the butterfly’s wings consist of an extremely fine dust. Scientist have learned that this dust is extremely light, almost weightless, as not to hinder the butterfly’s ability for flight. It also amazing how this fine dust can be placed on the wings in an often incredible displays of colors and geometric designs, with very precise placement as for one color not to run into the next. On top of all this, the placement of this dust on the separate wings is identical, so that one wing is the reverse duplicate of the other. 167
  • 186. Moths feed at night so flowers which are pollinated by moths only open at night. These flowers are usually pale-colored or white so that they can be seen more easily when it is dark. They only give off scent at night when they are open. The flowers of the tobacco plant, evening primrose and honeysuckle are pollinated by moths. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.saburchill.com/images03/0092.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET One type of flower, called a stapelia, grows in southern Africa and it smells like rotting meat. Its flowers have brown, wrinkled petals covered in short hairs. The flowers look like the skin of a dead animal. The flower even produces heat to make it appear as if it is in the process of decaying. All of these tricks are so convincing that flies not only visit the flower but also lay their eggs in it. When the eggs hatch there is no food for the maggots and they quickly die. The flower, however, was pollinated by the egg-laying flies. 168
  • 187. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://members.iinet.net.au/~barryg/27x.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Other examples of co-evolution include pollination of Angraecoid orchids by African moths. These species co-evolve because the moths are dependent on the flowers for nectar and the flowers are dependent on the moths to spread their pollen so they can reproduce. The evolutionary process has led to deep flowers and moths with long probosci (long flexible snout). 169
  • 188. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.saburchill.com/images03/0093.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET One of the most amazing displays of co-evolution is the Bucket orchid. Bucket orchids are epiphytes (also known as air plants) that sprout on trees in the wet tropical forests of Mexico, Central America, and South America. The flowers grow in clusters, and on the front of each flower are two winglike sepals. Just behind the sepals is a small floral "bucket," which gives the plant its popular name. By the time the flower opens (often with an audible popping sound), two special glands have already started to secrete a liquid “oil” that drips into the bottom of the bucket. The flowers now begin to produce a fragrance that proves irresistible to the metallic green male euglossine bee. The fluid dripping into the bucket is not a nectar, nor is it the source of the scent. The droplets serve a different purpose entirely. 170
  • 189. Soon after the orchid blooms, male bees, responding to the scent, start to swarm around the flower in a state of great agitation. They hover and try to land, seeking a foothold on the mesochile, a tubular section that connects the bucket to the stem and front of the flower. From the slippery surface of this erect and slightly curving vertical shaft, the excited bees use their front legs to collect a scented wax from just below a bonnet-shaped structure called the hypochile. The bee uses the hairs on his legs to transfer the aromatic substance to special pockets on his hind legs. He will later use this potion to help him attract females during his courtship dance. Different species of Coryanthes attract different species of bees, because each male bee needs to have a very specific sort of scent. Only after the male bee has collected enough perfume is he ready to fly off in search of a mate. In a mad rush to get at the limited amount of perfume, many male bees can be attracted to the same flower. The flowers stay in bloom for only a few days, and the eager insects engage in a considerable amount of head butting, shoving with their midlegs, and jostling for position beneath the hypochile. Occasionally one of the bees either loses his footing on the slick surface of the shaft and falls into the bucket, or gets knocked in when his wings collide with a droplet coming from one of the flower's faucetlike glands. Once within the fluid of the bucket, the bee has only one means of escape: a narrow tunnel that leads through the front wall of the flower to daylight and freedom. Just at the entrance to this tunnel, on the inside wall of the bucket, is a step 171
  • 190. that the sodden male uses to climb out of the fluid and into the passageway. He then slowly squeezes and wiggles his way forward. But before he reaches open air, the bee must pass beneath a "twin pack" of pollinia--sacs containing thousands of pollen grains--situated at the roof of the tunnel on the anther, the male part of the flower. At a precise moment, the pollen disengages and becomes lodged or “tagged” on the bee's back at the spot where the thorax and abdomen are hinged. By the time the bee has climbed free of the tunnel, the pollen is attached between his wings like a small backpack. Once out, the bee--wet and disoriented--pauses to dry himself on the flower's lateral sepals. His ordeal may have taken as long as forty-five minutes. In order for Coryanthes speciosa to be pollinated, a bee carrying pollinia must then be lured to another blooming orchid of the same species, fall into the bucket, and negotiate the floral obstacle course a second time (the chances of this happening are remote, and consequently pollination occurs infrequently). On the bee's visit through the second bucket orchid, a catch mechanism on the roof of the escape tunnel grabs the pollen backpack. By this time, the pollen has dried and diminished in size, so that it fits nicely onto the pistil, the flower's female component. In this way the bucket orchid is pollinated, and with luck a seed pod will eventually form. 172
  • 191. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.answersingen esis.org/creation/images/v 19/orchids_diagram.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Designed pollinators through evolution 1. Bees become attracted to the flower of the Coryanthes orchid. 2. The bee slips and falls into the ‘bucket’. 3. Because of the angle and slipperiness of the interior walls, the bee is forced to exit through the narrow ‘escape tunnel’, conveniently aided by a step and hairs suitably placed near the surface. As it does so, pollen sacs are glued to its back by the plant. The bee then visits another flower, and after the process is repeated again, the flower has a mechanism like a wedge that protrudes down from the top of the escape hatch, and this time it removes the pollen from its back, completing fertilization. 173
  • 192. Another interesting orchid reproduction strategy is that of the dancing lady orchid of South America. These produce many tiny flowers that are positioned so they "dance" even with the slightest breeze. These flowers are lively enough so that small aggressive bees—thinking they are intruders—attack them and in the process are dusted with pollen. Co-evolution also occurs between predator and prey species as in the case of the Rough-skinned Newt (Taricha granulosa) and the common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). In this case, the newts produce a potent nerve toxin that 174
  • 193. concentrates in their skin. Garter snakes have evolved resistance to this toxin through a set of genetic mutations, and prey upon the newts. The relationship between these animals has resulted in an evolutionary arms race that has driven toxin levels in the newt to extreme levels. (see Red Queen). INCLUDEPICTURE "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Taricha_granulosa.j pg/240px-Taricha_granulosa.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Rough-skinned Newt Co-evolution does not imply mutual dependence. The host of a parasite, or prey of a predator, does not depend on its enemy for survival. There are many misconceptions about natural selection. Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it’s tempting to think that some all- powerful tangible “being” designed everything along the way. But this is not what natural selection is like at all. 175
  • 194. First of all, natural selection is not all-powerful in that it does not produce perfection. The genes of an organism need only be good enough to produce offspring into the next generation—they don’t have to be perfect. This is made clear by looking at the many imperfections in organisms that have succeeded, if only for a period of time, along the way. It is also made clear in humans and other animals by the observation that “bad” genes often get passed on and many humans as well as other animals may have genes for genetic diseases or genetic imperfections. Simply put, no population or organism is perfectly adapted. Second, it’s more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather then as the guiding hand of some heavenly father. Although there may be some unknown energy at work, possibly some cosmic effects on mutations, in the final analysis natural selection is the result of variation, differential, reproduction, and heredity. I may not go so far as many scientists by saying that evolution by means of natural selection is completely mindless and mechanistic, but I will state with certainty that it is not the work of any of the many gods that man has created. As to the question of “goals” or if natural selection is striving to produce some “final result”, that is certainly doubtful, and may be anybody’s guess. I can say that the actions of humans by unhealthy diets and other activities that are damaging to the planet and to the well being of nature, and to humans themselves, produce unnatural effects to “natural selection”. 176
  • 195. There has been a long search for a workable evolutionism. We have “natural selection”, “gradual change over time”, “Punctuated Equilibrium”, “Punctuated Gradualism”, and all the rest. Sorting through the issues is difficult for most people, because it is so complex. Most scientist have only one view of “science” and that view excludes any form of outside energy or some energy acting within organisms. Then, on the other hand, we have scientists who are Creationist and proponents of Intelligent Design. There are these two contrasting views of reality. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I will insert what I wrote on evolution some time ago…This shows some evolution in my thinking. I had put the quote from time magazine at the end because it lent support to my observations. “ON EVOLUTION” As I write this one’s mind is focused on this unknown energy behind creation, with its evolutionary processes. I think it’s important to start by being in a state of not knowing and to remain in this empty state, being no-thing. This is the only way 177
  • 196. to be open-minded and to learn, as well as to keep this sense of wonder. Therefore, I am not saying that I know it all, because really I know nothing, but I will share with you what I have learned. Having been involved with looking into this thing called “evolution”, and the energy behind living things off and on for over a quarter of a century, and having communicated with and studied some of the experts on the subject, such as Richard Leakey and Stephen Gould, and having spent countless hours studying paleontology and the fossil record, I can tell you that the evolutionary processes (or changes over time) are observational facts. Although I question some of the conclusions of science and the so-called experts on evolution and on conclusions on the fossil record, and their purely limited aspects of natural selection---the simple fact is that these processes themselves, with their mutations as they occurred along the way, is still reality and the “what is”. On the other hand, one of the prerequisites to becoming a paleontologist (someone who becomes an expert in the study of the fossil record) is to not consider any outside energy when dealing with this subject. This is obviously a closed minded approach. Although this energy is not namable, its existence in the realm of creation and design is obvious. There are too many examples that have such intricate design characteristics that an outside energy had to contribute to its existence. There is no reason for an insect that has wings that look just like a leaf of a tree to end up with this as a design based on natural selection alone. And then for this creature to have the capability of perfect aerodynamic flight with these wings is well beyond the result of natural selection left to its self. 178
  • 197. Take a creature that can not only change its color to mimic the colors that it rests on, but that can also change its skin to match the texture of these objects. This design may also beyond the scope of natural selection alone. Consider the echolocation system used by bats and the biosonar used by whales and dolphins. There is no reason for the processes of natural selection alone to have brought about this ability. Where would nature have selected such technology? Having spent a great deal of my time over the past years looking into origins of religions, histories of religions, and all aspects of religion, the best explanation to all of this has nothing to do with religion. In fact, it is not even a “supernatural process”, and is in fact a natural process. The best explanation to this sense of wonder is the observation that the energy behind this process of design is the infinite cosmos and the energy within the organism. When we consider the ability that this little speck of matter called the brain has and its ability to function and to think---what about the infinite cosmos and the energy in it, and its ability to function?! This would explain why energy is not the tangible god of the many religions and why it does not have direct communication with us as the religions claim. This does not mean that we cannot absolve ourselves for energy to relate to the organism, but certainly not on the verbal level, or any direct level of communication. If the energy behind creation could relate to humans on this level, it would simply speak to us and let us know of its existence or it would let us know by some form of communication or action. This energy is simply not capable of this type of relationship or action. 179
  • 198. This observation that the cosmos is the energy behind creation and life itself solves all the nonsensical views of all the religions. This also solves the problem of “if there is a maker, then who made the maker?” The infinite cosmos has always been, and there is no need for a maker. Some refer to this energy as the Creative Intelligence; the Indians called it the Great Spirit; some say Higher Power, and others may refer to this unknown energy by the name God---The name is not the thing. The difficulty lies in breaking through the conditioning on both sides of the issue. Has thought invented God? I can tell you with absolute certainty that the religious views on this subject are absolute nonsense and that thought has created and invented all of these gods, just as I can tell you that some of the conclusions by science are not fact. Start by knowing nothing and remaining nothing and you can come upon the moving truth, as long as you continue to be nothing and live a very simple life. This does not mean that you don’t retain the knowledge that you have accumulated based on experience. In fact you will retain it better and there will be no decay of the mind before death. Being simple does not mean being mediocre; in fact a simple life can be a very exiting life, because it is a life based on reality and truth. It is only in dying while living that we come to realize that we are nothing, and this brings about the only true wisdom. There is nothing more sacred than the “what is”. 180
  • 199. Kerry Walker written some time ago… Canton SUPERNOVA! “For the first time, modern scientist had the opportunity to observe close up, by astronomical standards, natures most spectacular display. They could train sophisticated instruments on an exploding star and analyze in detail a phenomenon fundamental to the structure of the universe and indeed life itself. An overstatement? Hardly. The stupendous processes that lead to and occur during a supernova are responsible for the production of most of the elements in the universe. These elements are hurled into the cosmos by the force of the supernova blast to form great clouds of gas and dust and starting the formation of new stars and planets. Thus the planets and any life that evolves on them consist of elements forged in supernovas. Furthermore, these stellar explosions generate energetic particles, known as cosmic rays, that can cause mutations in terrestrial organisms and may have played a direct role in the evolution of life on earth. In a very literal sense, says University of Illinois Astrophysicist Larry Smarr, ‘we’ are the grand children of supernovas.” 181
  • 200. Supernova! Time, Vol. 120, No. 12 (March 23, 1987), pp. 60-61 INCLUDEPICTURE "http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/icons/adv_snr.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET AFTER BEFORE Suddenly it flared into view, shinning with the brilliance of a hundred million stars. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 182
  • 201. We must look at the materialist paradox and the study of species in evolution. Consider the definition of materialism in terms of philosophy. ma·te·ri·al·ism (m INCLUDEPICTURE "http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET -tîr INCLUDEPICTURE "http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET - INCLUDEPICTURE "http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET -l INCLUDEPICTURE "http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET z INCLUDEPICTURE "http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET m) n. 1. Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. 183
  • 202. Is mind matter? Is feeling matter? First of all, this definition is correct in stating that thought is matter. Thought is a material process, and when the brain chatters on and on without direction, this is a form of neurosis and more people that are always full of knowledge should look into this. But is there a state of mind that brings this constant movement of thought to an end and uses thought only when necessary? This is a mind that is operating naturally and is therefore operating sanely and rationally. This brain is mind and mind is energy. Therefore, it is no longer matter. This mind will not deteriorate before death, as will the brain that operates in constant thought. I’m saying that thought is matter. And that there is a movement that goes beyond thought and becomes energy. Then we are energy and this is the only natural state of being. In terms of natural selection, in the accepted since of the term, humans would have no more worth than that insect that sucks your blood. There may be some truth to this in terms of evolution in its truest sense, but I tend see the reality that we are the product of millions of years of evolution and a few billion years of processes on this planet. Having understood this to be true, it seems that one has developed the intelligence to put extraordinarily more weight on the significance of another human life, or the life of animals, over the life of some insect. Having said that, I have found in history and I have personally observed where those with belief systems care about someone that has no belief systems about as much as they do the 184
  • 203. slug in the garden. I have witnessed the other side of the coin as well, where the hard-core atheist that lives without any sense of wonder and does not contemplate the mysteries of our universe or energy, becomes a harmful parasite to everyone and everything around him. Belief and disbelief can be opposite sides of the same coin. I have been working diligently on this chapter in this book for many years. You see there is a natural energy at work in the processes of evolution, probably a cosmic energy. Look at the power of supernovas and the cosmic rays they produce! There is dark energy, and neutrinos, and electromagnetism and so on. There appears to be some form of energy at work and I observe some form of intelligence, but it is not the gods that man has invented, nor is it the intelligence of a “Supreme Being”. It is a different intelligence, which is the intelligence of energy, and of the cosmos. If this energy is operating, it is a “natural” energy and nothing “supernatural”. You can’t create a religion out of it! The fact is everything is energy. For scientists to make claim that there is no energy involved in the processes of evolution and gene selection is a very dangerous conclusion, and it may be wrong. Evolution is the cornerstone of the processes that brought about life on earth. It unites all the fields of study under one umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a grasp of it. One common mistake is in believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate science and mistakes filter into journals and texts. For 185
  • 204. example, some biology text, proclaim, "It was Charles Darwin's great insight that organisms are all related in a great chain of being..." In fact, the idea of a great chain of being, which traces to Carl Linnaeus (Carl von Linné), was overturned by Darwin's idea of common descent. It should also be noted that Darwin stated, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could have not possibly been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”(5) One has demonstrated this “break down” in natural selection standing on its own in examples thus far, and if we look at the molecular level and their processes there are more examples of this break down, but one will not go into these examples in this book. It is however hoped that if the reader feels the need, he or she will look into bacterial flagellum and other examples of this break down in the micro world. Misunderstandings about evolution are damaging to the study of evolution and biology as a whole. People who have a general interest in science are likely to dismiss evolution as a sound science after listening to all the pop science nonsense that abounds. The other problem with evolution with regards to science, is the reluctance of scientist to ponder some unknown cosmic energy at work in symphony with these processes of natural selection. 186
  • 205. The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case. Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. For example, all the details of patterns of relationships are not fully worked out. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community as well as by many people in society at large. It is a solid theory of how life came about on earth, but one may still ponder what energy or energies may be at work in unity with natural selection. The examples of design in evolution are so vast that to go into all of my studies on this subject would contain volumes. In my studies of the many designs in evolution of the different types of eyes and the complexity of the designs of the eye would be so long and complex that a separate book could be written on this incredibly interesting subject. New fossil finds are constantly changing the theories of how evolution took place and future finds will continue to affect these theories. This will never change the observations that natural selection, and some unknown cosmic forces, or even some unknown cosmic intelligence in conjunction with the energy within the organisms is at work. The evolutionary process is a substantiated and clear reality. I use the term “design” as a description of the processes of the evolved morphology of organisms. Numerous organisms and changes in these organisms over time provide superb examples of evolutions in action. These organisms, and the 187
  • 206. changes in them over time, make it quite clear that evolution occurs and one does not need to evoke “intelligent design” by some tangible god or being to explain them. To do so would only detract from the idea of an omniscient being by having God making constant errors in the many flawed and dead end designs of organisms and never making a “perfect” one. I say this because many people manipulate what I say to support their views on religion, intelligent design or creationism, and I want to make it clear that I do not share those beliefs. Evolution is a remarkable and well-documented process, and man will continue to learn about its complexities through new evidence and he will continue to explore the mysteries behind it, but only if he goes beyond the traditional concepts of religion. As for the scientists, there are those that ponder this theory, and some who consider it a realistic possibility. When I inquire into what atheists think about the theory that cosmic energy may play a role in the evolutionary processes, they usually respond with, “I have no idea…” or “I couldn’t tell you” or “your guess is as good as mine” or just simply “I don’t know”. And of course there are those that refuse to even consider the possibility. As for me I will continue to learn and to question, and I will continue to live with a sense of wonder until the day I die. Because when I die all thought that has been manifested in my brain as consciousness comes to an end. 188
  • 207. “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about.” -- Richard Feynman (1918-1988) (Nobel Prize for Physics 1965) In the words of Stephen Jay Gould, “We will not protect what we do not love.” We should add… ...And we cannot love if we don't understand ourselves. 189
  • 208. 190
  • 209. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.morning-earth.org/Graphic- E/6Princmages/EARTHPHASE.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 191
  • 210. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/animal-camouflage- 5.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 192
  • 211. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/animal-camouflage-2.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 193
  • 212. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/animal-camouflage- 4.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 194
  • 213. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/animal-camouflage- 195
  • 214. 6.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 196
  • 215. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/animal-camouflage-3.jpg" * 197
  • 216. MERGEFORMATINET 198
  • 217. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/spider-26.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 199
  • 218. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/spider-27.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 200
  • 219. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/spider-37.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET 201
  • 220. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/squid-11.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Squid: Their entire bodies turn red when they are angry, and exhibit different colors to express different moods. 202
  • 221. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.mbl.edu/mrc/hanlon/images/octo_camou.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Where’s the octopus? Oh, that is the octopus. “Nature encourages no looseness, pardons no errors” - Ralph Waldo Emerson “I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection.” - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species 203
  • 222. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.nhm.org/africa/science/mantid.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Praying mantids are predatory insects that are camouflaged to resemble leaves, branches or, as shown above, flowers. When suitable insect prey get too close, the mantid will grab the prey by its powerful forelegs and eat it alive. 204
  • 223. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.thewildones.org/Insects/jwKatydid3.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.thewildones.org/Insects/jwKatydid1.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET 205
  • 224. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.thewildones.org/Insects/jwKatydid2.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.thewildones.org/Insects/jwKatydid4.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET 206
  • 225. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.thewildones.org/Insects/hawkMoth.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET This moth caterpillar defends itself by mimicing a snake. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webunits/adaptatio 207
  • 226. ns/images/leaves.gif" * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webunits/adaptatio 208
  • 227. ns/images/18_monarch.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Take a look at these two butterflies. One is a Monarch and very yucky to eat. The other is a Viceroy and very yummy. If an animal eats a Monarch butterfly and HATES it, it will stay away from ALL butterflies that look like Monarchs. This helps the Viceroy because many animals mistake it for a Monarch. 209
  • 228. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webunits/adaptatio ns/images/18_beetle.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Beetle that looks like a bee 210
  • 229. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webunits/adaptations/scarletkingsna ke.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Scarlet Kingsnake INCLUDEPICTURE "http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webunits/adaptations/coral. 211
  • 230. jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET Coral Snake The Scarlet Kingsnake looks a great deal like the Coral snake to ward off predators. 212
  • 231. INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.nl.edu/academics/cas/las/science/images/looper2.jpg" * MERGEFORMATINET The case of the “camouflage looper” “An important research goal in ecology is to identify the selective pressures that have caused most herbivorous insect species to feed on only a few closely related plant species. As you have seen, insects are well known for evolving precise color 213
  • 232. patterns that make them cryptic (difficult to see) when they sit on their preferred host plant. One hypothesis to explain narrow diets is that, in most herbivorous insects, there would be selection against feeding or laying eggs on plants where the insect blends in imperfectly and is consequently more vulnerable to predation. Natural selection should lead to a narrowing of host range to those plant species on which the insect blends in best and is least likely to be eaten by visually hunting predators. The case of the “camouflage looper” (see photo) may provide evidence supporting this hypothesis. Caterpillars of this species feed on flower petals and while feeding, glue pieces of petals to their backs. As a result, the looper is well camouflaged no matter which plant it feeds on. If natural selection by visually hunting predators is responsible for narrowing of the host plant ranges of herbivorous insects, the camouflage looper should be found on a wide range of host plant species, as it is equally cryptic on every plant. Recent searches in area prairies support this prediction. We have found camouflage loopers feeding on a variety of unrelated plant species, including species in the milkweed, mint, and composite families.” Paul Gross First of all, I don’t think the looper that is lavender in color, and moves onto a yellow flower, is nearly as well camouflaged even with these pieces of petals glued on 214
  • 233. its back, just as the yellow looper would be more easily spotted on the lavender plant. It certainly would not be “equally cryptic on every plant”. But by cutting pieces of the flower and gluing them on their backs they certainly become far more cryptic than before. It causes one to ponder how these insects have acquired the knowledge that they can hide themselves by gluing pieces of petals on their backs. Obviously, some process of natural selection is at work, but is there something more? What is the energy behind this looper? Is there some unknown cosmic energy or cosmic intelligence at work? THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590 Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker The Elimination of Metaphysics and the Personal God Chapter VI “The religious mind is entirely different from the mind that believes in religion.” J. Krishnamurti * * * * * An explanation should be given for why I do not deal with metaphysical arguments in this book. Metaphysics is, in general, nothing more than a speculative philosophy. It is absurd to rack one’s brain trying to understand something, and once it is finally understood for it not to have any significance. 215
  • 234. There have been many philosophers who did not seem to understand (or they understood and did it for recognition or gratification), the unavoidable contradiction to pure reasoning that human limitations introduce when postulating metaphysical arguments, and who would produce complex arguments based on certain principles, yet leading to contradictory conclusions in reasoning about them. The battlefield of these endless conflicts is called metaphysics. This is the problem with dealing with religion on purely an intellectual level, in that our intellect often becomes ignorance in another form. Metaphysical arguments have dealt with everything from first cause arguments to moral arguments on the existence of God. The concept of a personal God has also been dealt with in umpteen different ways through metaphysics, and it is this concept that has caused problems for centuries. The problem with this concept of a personal God is that the image one has for his God differs from the image of another’s concept of God, thus everyone runs around with different or varying images of God. If one has a concept of a personal God, one’s concept is a part of one’s own consciousness, therefore whatever one thinks, one may feel God is a part of it, no matter how bizarre the thought. In other words, one’s personal God merely becomes a projection of one’s own mind. 216
  • 235. “During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Devine Being in prayers and plead for fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just and omni-beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts 217
  • 236. before such an Almighty Being? In giving out punishments and rewards He would, to a certain extent, be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? This main source of the present day conflicts between the sphere of religion and science lies in this concept of a personal God.” Albert Einstein Paul Tillich was one of the most influential Protestant theologians of the twentieth century, yet he questioned the concept of the “God Man” and, in fact later in life questioned the bible, especially any literal translation of it. Tillich said “Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt.” In speaking on the biblical Revelation Tillich speaks on his observations about any literal acceptance of the bible and on the personal character of God as a “myth”, and he states: “Where the myth is taken literally, God is less than the ultimate, he is less than the object of ultimate concern, he is not God in the infinite and unconditional sense…” 218
  • 237. If there is one thing has been displayed over the years, and which has been confirmed time and time again, is the truth to the statement, “Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth.” When speaking on belief in God, J. Krishanmurti, one of the most remarkable men in history states: “Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.” It could also be said the metaphysical arguments are a denial of truth, because they impede objectivity. The fact that people believe in different ways is proof that these beliefs have no reality whatsoever. Reality is what one is, what one thinks, what one does, and belief in a personal God is an escape. There is a connection between this concept of a personal God and neurosis, and religious beliefs are a form of neurosis and this neurosis is a symptom of moral failure and one’s inability to be honest. In fact, any honest observation would claim that society as a whole is neurotic and this neurosis stems from these varied expressions of moral conflict 219
  • 238. derived from these false belief systems. Success in coming to terms with one’s neurosis depends on the realistic understanding and solution of one’s moral problem, and this can only be brought about by freeing oneself from the stranglehold of religious thinking. Naturally, most Christians will retort that man is a fallen being and only God can restore the pristine state of being. The Christians believe that the natural man is neurotic or wretched and born into sin, and that the believer is made wholesome through God. The study of history and the simple observations of the actions of these people that believe in this religion clearly demonstrate the fallacy of this last statement. One should point out that these same people with these bizarre and contradictory belief systems also claim that salvation and virtue cannot be attained by a persons deeds and actions, and that a person’s good deeds mean nothing! It is up to each one of us to be serious enough to find out for ourselves what is true. We need to ask ourselves if this knowledge, which has been put there by thought, which is a product of fear, which is a product of thousands of years of conditioning, of propaganda; does it have anything to do with this since of wonder, or is that something entirely different? That is, is it only when we are free from any belief—so that there can be no pattern of action based on belief—either in God, or in socialism, or imperialism, or atheism, or some kind of religious formula, some dogma from which we are conditioned; is it only then that reality can come into being? 220
  • 239. We must learn to think for ourselves, and to be certain, and not to be conditioned by others what to think. We need to teach our children rightly, so they can learn what freedom really is and what intelligence really is—only then we can bring about a new group of people, a new society. We have for millennia depended on outside agencies to change us, to bring about a culture of goodness and love. But no outside agency is going to change us; we must do it within ourselves. One must first understand oneself, be a light to oneself, and then one may proceed from there. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590 Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker THE UNFORTUNATE JOURNEY Chapter VII “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about.” -- Richard Feynman (1918-1988) (Nobel Prize for Physics 1965) * * * * * 221
  • 240. During the course of our lives it seems that all of us, at some time or another, are searching for truth, whatever that may be. In order to find “truth” we turn to this book or that book, this authority or that authority, this religion or that religion. The author has been a victim of this, in that over the years of seeking truth, the symbols had at times become more important than what the symbols stood for, or the symbols themselves did not represent truth. It is sad to see how many of us fall victim of this, and how our lives are ruled by propaganda—and propaganda is not truth. The author feels fortunate to have found out what few will ever understand in their lifetimes. And the few that have realized the truth about religions have not been as young, and if they were young they were probably ridiculed most of their lives as the author has been. There are others in the past who stood up for the truth and who were tortured or killed. The author has also seen the sad reality of this and is lucky to be alive or not imprisoned by a society of believers who will do whatever it takes to prove that their religion is the only way. The following pages will be composed of writings that were written by the author after graduation from college in 1977, when the questioning of truth began, and continued through both confusion and insight until 1992. It was then that the author was able to see through this “blind illusion” of tradition with the belief systems of the many religions, and it was only then that a true transformation was possible. 222
  • 241. It is important that we are brought up in an environment of love rather than the idea or symbol of love, because idea is separate from action, and symbols are not truth. This is very difficult to implement in a world where our entire system is based on ideas and symbols. In the search for the energy that is beyond self and that has its foundation in truth, I had to endure the most difficult pressure from those who would impose their conditioned beliefs on me. But their persuasion never took hold because there was something in me that would see through any conditioned belief. If there is one thing that all religions have in common it is the fact that they have all tried to get man to go beyond “self”; to make him realize that the psychological content, the “me”, the “I”, were an illusion. But how is one to ever get beyond the self if one is always building up the self with illusions that never allow a person to contemplate truth. I am convinced that there is an energy that operates on man and other living things, and that this energy cannot relate to us in any verbal sense. This energy relates to man in the creative sense, through the senses, as energy relating to energy. This is energy, probably a cosmic energy, which simply effects man naturally. 223
  • 242. In the pages that follow are writings that are representative of the author’s relationship to this energy and his struggle with society and tradition to find its origin. One must admit that once this book is finished, one would hope not to read any so-called sacred scriptures again, and that people will come who will learn the truth at a younger age than the author, and that they will not have to deal with the so- called holy scriptures and their nonsense, and in turn, will not contribute to the suffering as I have. * * * * * This world is in desperate need of change. People don’t care about people and they live and relate through images. * * * * * I am what I am…but I cannot seem to be what I am because of others. What am I to do? I must not be dependent on others. This understanding that I have is a good understanding. 224
  • 243. * * * * * When I say I love God, it’s neat because I’m talking to God in me, yet it’s not the same as saying I love myself. * * * * * I have figured out that the so-called friends that I had most of my life were never really friends at all. As heartless as it may seem they would be glad to hear of me or some other friend loosing something or something bad happening to them. Sometimes it would not be different with me either. We didn’t honestly want to help each other. It was more like we got satisfaction out of something hindering them and not something that would benefit them or help them. There was always jealousy, one always wanting to be better than, or to have something more than the other. You call this friendship? A friend is someone you can relate to, and truly relate honest feelings, not just talk. Someone you can 225
  • 244. trust, and count on, and someone that will benefit you by knowing, and them from you. This is a friend. Why do we call this sanguinary relationship “friendship”? * * * * * Why, why, why are people the way they are?! How can people call this superficial relationship friendship, love or relationship period?! How is one to find a life of peace in this society that is so corrupt and so blind of its corruptness? Is this so-called belief in God through their own sect, their own religion, which is nothing more than a division that society has created and altered to fit society, and is based largely on propaganda and money, really what God would want? Could it be that most of us are hypocrites and don’t live our lives through truth or love? * * * * * 226
  • 245. Can I be what I am in a world that won’t look at me for what I am? Then what am I to do? Run away from the world perhaps? That seems to be my only choice. People don’t want insight into anything that would truly make this world a better place to live and save this world we’re on. People are conditioned by society as well as others, and by themselves. We live in the past! I must not be this way! * * * * * Humans are a very fearful species, and out of this fear, among countless other distortions, comes jealousy. People are actually scared of doing what is best for fear another might catch on and also do what’s best. They then would become jealous of that person?! What is their problem? * * * * * God hasn’t laid down anything, only man has. So if you are rooted to your ideas, your beliefs, you are outside of any intelligent manifestation. It is only when 227
  • 246. you are free from religious belief or idea, and make no conclusion that your look with love. Only then are you with the perfect manifestation, pure truth, and perfect freedom—just the way it is. * * * * * I have gained much knowledge of myself and a great deal of insight into the illusions of God and the fears that brought about this illusion, just as these fears have brought about the illusions of gods in the many native tribes and other cultures around the world. These fears have brought about the belief in reincarnation and all the other ghosts that man has created in an effort to escape or turn away from death and at the same time turn away from life, love, goodness, and truth. The world is so full of corruptness, everybody cheating and deceiving each other, that without goodness and truth to think about, I would be sickened and filled with utter frustration. To be corrupt, and without goodness and truth, is the way of life in this world, with few exceptions. Does anybody care? They may say they do but it may be 228
  • 247. another lie. If we would open our eyes and truly look at what we see we would observe how messed up this world truly is and we would start doing something to change it. Instead we blind ourselves of it and say that it has always been here and always will be, or that it’s God’s will, thus the only action taken is the wrong action. We live in a world where if you don’t know someone you don’t care what happens to him or her. A world where ideas of goodness, truth, and love are wrapped in the illusions of these bizarre belief systems. * * * * * I have had a hard time finding people who will let me share with them what I have come to understand. Sure, I have found plenty who will listen, and most who listen see the truth of what I say, but then they seem to get lost in the words. Or they are frightened by the words and run back to their illusions. They don’t seem to understand that the word is not the thing. * * * * * 229
  • 248. I have tried to share what I have come to with my friends. What better place to start? But I’m afraid they have run me into a brick wall, only for me to get lost in what they don’t understand. Why should I get lost in what they don’t understand? I know I should not, but it has led me to confusion because it seems so obvious and clear to me for a time, as it first appears to seem to them, for them not to want to live their lives by the truth of what they see. But they just seem to throw it away after I have gone. Truth seems like such a difficult battle at times, and in the world we’re in, like one that can’t be won. In the beginning I was grateful for it seemed that many had seen the truth in everything that I shared with them. But as I saw them a number of times, I began to realize that most acted as if we had never talked and others were afraid to face me when we met again. Others just got lost in the words, leaving few, if any, who could be said to have a chance to live their lives through the truth I put before them. These were people, most who were supposed to be my friends, people that I care about. Others were my family, my mother, father, and two brothers, all people 230
  • 249. I love very much. And because these people were so close to my heart and did not learn the truth they saw or did not even care to listen, I found myself getting lost in thoughts of them. I have lost track of time that has gone by in the months and years of seeking truth, finding truth and becoming my own teacher and my own disciple, and then losing touch with truth through others. Why is it that something can be so simple and clear to me, yet so distorted and unclear to others? * * * * * Just after graduation from college my mind really started stirring for wanting to understand what religion was all about. Was it something that people had cultivated or was there something to it? When I was younger and growing up I somehow believed that, although I did not know God then that someday I would. Then came the time when the need to know if God was real or not was more important than anything else. It was time to find out. 231
  • 250. “What would be the best way to try to find God,” I asked myself. The answer to that was simple. Read God’s word; simply read the bible very slowly and with more care than I have ever read any book in my life. So I borrowed the next-door neighbor’s bible and commenced with so much vigor and delight that I must have already had myself convinced that the finding of God, communication with God was only pages away. For I thought surely after all the things I had been told and disputed before, that in the reading of the words I would see the truth of God in them. As I started reading about who begot whom, I was already taken into the words. I read about how God created the earth, how he created everything, how he said let there be the beast of the field, the foul of the air, the firmament in the heavens, and how everything that was upon the earth was created. Then it says he brings forth light by saying, “Let there be light”. Then out of the dust of the earth he creates man to be in his own image, and to know only truth and goodness. Then God places this man in a garden full of fruit trees called the “Garden of Eden”. In the Garden of Eden there were fruit trees all about, but there was one fruit 232
  • 251. tree that was different from all the rest in that it contained in its fruit the knowledge of “good and evil”. God told the man, who was called Adam, that he could eat from every tree in the garden but he was not allowed to eat from the tree in the midst of the garden for it contained the knowledge of good and evil. Then the story tells how God made Adam fall asleep in order for God to remove one of his ribs, and from the rib of Adam God made woman, who was called Eve. Then in the next verse comes a serpent, or talking snake. The talking snake told Eve that they should eat from the tree of good and evil, and that if they do they will be as Gods and know good and evil. So she grabbed a piece of fruit and took a bite and then she handed it to Adam and he ate some of the fruit. Because they ate of this fruit, God condemned mankind on the face of the earth from that time on. He gave him sin, sickness, pain, disease, hate, sorrow, fear, anger, frustration, confusion, and made him ashamed of himself. Is this not an act of vengeance? Would God be vengeful? But I thought God created man in his own image? Obviously he must have! 233
  • 252. Why would an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God have to test his creation? And yet this infinitely powerful God had to call out to Adam when he got back from wherever he went because he could not find him in the garden. Where was God at the time? God didn’t even know Adam had eaten of the “forbidden fruit” until he saw that Adam was ashamed to be naked. This God of infinite love, infinite understanding, infinite truth, and infinite compassion, couple with infinite power, condemned his highest creation. In truth Gods actions in this story would be far more severe than say for me to pour a glass of milk and place it on the table and tell my brother not to drink of it. Then come to find out that my brother drank of it, thus taking a gun a blowing his brains out. God’s vengeance and violence was obviously of greater magnitude than this, for God condemned and destroyed all of mankind. This God destroyed his own creation. Why didn’t God just change him? With all of God’s power, why didn’t he just zap Adam and Eve away and try again? In fact it says in this story that God saw his other creations before man, and that he saw that they 234
  • 253. were good. Which implies that if something wasn’t good he could change it and make it good. Or better yet, it would have been far less amazing than creating the universe in six days to have said “let there be goodness upon the earth,” and then the story would have gone on to say, “and there was goodness and He saw that it was good”. Why is it that God had immense power in the beginning? Power that was magical beyond imagination, and then as time goes on his power dwindles to only being able to relate to one prophet at a time. Then God attempts to have one man convince the whole world of his existence, and supposedly die for everyone’s sins. What happened to all of God’s power? How could one man convince all mankind to follow something that they knew nothing about and were by God’s own actions, rebellious to change. In church history one stipulation of being a Christian is to take the bible literally, as it stands. Most of the more intelligent Christians admit that this story cannot be taken literally, but say that they consider it to be a symbol of God’s word. Others say that our 235
  • 254. interpretation might not be the same as God’s, and all other kinds of nonsense. From my point of view, it should be accepted as how it stands or rejected entirely. How can something be a symbol of the truth? It is either true or it is false, and in this case it is clearly and undisputedly false. * * * * * When you lie, it’s you who lie. Nothing has made you do it, and it is only you that is hurt by it in the long run. If you are evil, it is only you that is evil. Nothing has made you that way. If you are good, it is only you that is good. Nothing has made you that way. * * * * * In seeing the way people live their lives; competing, struggling, playing games, and living through others—it seems to me that they are missing the whole point of what life is. 236
  • 255. In truth there is so much wrong with the world that for one to live in truth, or even seek truth, one must break away from the neurosis of society. I wonder what people think when I try to give them insight into the understanding I have. There seems to be little concern for what seems to me to be important and what the world is in such need of. Maybe I’m not good at putting the understanding I have across to them, but it seems to me that they just don’t want to listen—and this I do not understand. It often seems, at first, that they do understand and that they do want to listen, but for some reason they are not capable or just don’t care to continue with what they understand but just so far. And their minds seem to close like a vault door and I know not the words that will re-open it. It’s funny you would think that the frustration of this lack of insight in others would begin to push my door closed, but it only seems to open it wider. It is so simple for me to observe these people as they walk away or change the subject to something worthless or to something that will not help them to understand themselves or this art of living. And as I observe I can 237
  • 256. only see more understanding in what I say and wish I could convey this understanding that much more—so it goes on. * * * * * To be religious, whole and un-fragmented, you should not be part of any religion or sect, for if you are some religion you are part of a division. How can one be whole when one is divided? Do you think God would want a divided world? * * * * * We must look into the organized religions. We must see the propaganda, with its dogmas, and discover what it really means to understand. We must look at the truth before it is too late. * * * * * The hardest thing is to face what we are. Not telling someone that we are something that we’re not, or that 238
  • 257. we can do something that we might not be able to do. To understand ourselves we must simply be just what we are. * * * * * Certainly it is only when one has no belief that one’s mind can come to a serene, undistorted state, and it is only the undistorted mind that is free from conflict and fear, and that can have this sense of wonder—and stands a chance of finding what is right and not what it likes. * * * * * It is not standing up for what you always thought was true that matters. It is admitting to yourself that you were wrong—that matters. * * * * * 239
  • 258. If we would open up our eyes we would see through this illusion. Most of us just follow the pack. We live through others, thus we never come to what we are. * * * * * Truth is revealed only to those who meet the conditions. It is only when one watches one’s mind constantly, examines every thought, that one can stand a chance of meeting the conditions. * * * * * Why is it that what I have come upon seems so simple and obvious, yet others cannot see it at all? It is a thousand times easier to kid oneself than to know oneself. * * * * * Do not take my word for it, but wonder if there is a state where you condemn nothing, justify nothing, and 240
  • 259. live with such love and understanding that the mind is in a constant state of serenity and peace. * * * * * People using Jesus as a crutch are missing the whole point of truth. Their minds are able to look only when what is being said is directly related to Jesus. If this invention called Jesus Christ was to appear as someone who could not be recognized as Jesus, as would certainly be the case, he would be rejected by most everyone, including his followers, and thought of as a lunatic. * * * * * So let us say there is God or some force. What does he or it want from you? How is this force going to affect your life? No God has laid down anything. God does not look down on you as someone peering down from the sky ready to strike you down on your first wrong move. When people commit terrible crimes God does not 241
  • 260. strike them down with a bolt of lightening. You have free will and this projection called God has nothing to do with your actions, only you do. Only you are responsible for your actions. What you do and what you are is your affair, not God’s. You have been given the ability to know truth and love, and it’s only in this that there is peace. People that believe in God destroy the lives of those that don’t or those with different beliefs. You have evolved a brain that has the ability to know how you would like to be treated and to know how you should treat others. So the effects that take place from you affect your life, except of course when those with beliefs destroy it! * * * * * One must understand oneself before one can go beyond self, but absolve self without self-knowledge or through religion can bring about a dangerous mind. * * * * * 242
  • 261. I promise not to tell you what I think, if you promise not to talk to me. * * * * * You can ask me any question that you like. I can only answer the question and maybe help you understand why I gave you the answer that I did. But it is up to you to understand the answer. * * * * * You have to look with love in order to see. Not necessarily with a smile, but just with love. * * * * * Something must be done about all the corruption. Why all the corruption?—government fraud, judicial injustice, companies making food with additives that are harmful to children…It is this: We have people that are in charge that just don’t care about anyone but themselves and the money to be made, even at the 243
  • 262. expense of our well-being and our health. Big business all over the world has made their ambition and the money to be made more important than people’s lives! It is only we that can save ourselves from catastrophe! * * * * * There are few of us who realize the dangers of imposing religious ideas and beliefs on our children and on those around us. Having gone through the trip on a religious plane based on religion beliefs, I have seen how dangerous it was for me. * * * * * When one becomes accustomed to fear, the brain becomes dull. When one becomes accustomed to habit and their life becomes routine, their brain becomes dull and is not active. In any specialized career, though the brain may be partially active, on other levels it may become inactive. 244
  • 263. * * * * * It is interesting to see how many people in the executive world become self-centered and play games with their egos to the point that their level of intelligence becomes that of an idiot. * * * * * We cannot go on living under the belief that God wrote the bible and that everything that happens is part of God’s plan. * * * * * People have the impression that because I’m not working in my field, and sometimes not at all, and am pursuing something different, that I’m wasting my time or that I’m running away from society. Even if I tell them that this understanding and what I’m learning from this understanding has given me a mind that is loving, truthful, and capable of love and a mind that understands where I came from, they still say I should 245
  • 264. give it up and just keep a job. I guess it’s not important to them that I understand fear and death, and how to live without these bizarre psychological fears. What does it mean to have a mind that observes without the observer and sees thing for what they are? A mind that is not condemning, justifying, comparing, or unwilling to look at all. And in this understanding one has true compassion for others and does not live in the past—conditioned by parents, teachers, friends and the whole of society, with all of their images along with your own image that you have of yourself. To be of all that is to live a life that is free and capable of looking at what is right and what is wrong, and not because someone has told you that it is right or that it is wrong. A life that is in a constant state of learning and is often filled with joy—but they still think the same! * * * * * 246
  • 265. I think the people that are following the religions of the world are, for the most part, those that are perpetuating the most evil on mankind. I say the word evil only in the sense that their actions have a degrading and an overall negative influence on mankind. These people who don’t have a grasp on reality are usually grasping for some illusion that is beyond life. Why is it that, having looked into the religions of the world, including Christianity, I have seen the falsehoods in them? I think it is obvious that most of our actions in relationship to religious beliefs are a product of conditioning, and this conditioning is closely related to tradition. I’m not giving you an ideal to live by so there can’t be contradiction in what I say and, therefore, I can’t be giving you something that is false. We should be concerned with all of mankind and we should have a global outlook, because your consciousness is not separate from the consciousness of the rest of mankind. We each make up this culture and this world. This is a fact. The problem of attachment and detachment, which we call relationship, and the problem of sex, which can 247
  • 266. only be solved when viewed as neither a pure thing or impure thing—this whole problem of existence—will never be overcome as long as there are these false beliefs. It is this idea of becoming something more psychologically, you in your way and me in mine, that is creating most of our problems. When this is understood, not just intellectually, but actually understood, then relationship is no longer a problem. It is without a beginning or an end. If we continue to seek entertainment, religious or otherwise, and are not concerned about the future of mankind, mankind will have no future. We should all realize that we are all standing on the same ground. This is our earth. * * * * * September 23, 1992 Tonight I realized how God is just an illusion. I now realized that the God that had such a drastic effect on my life—that I had brought my mind to get in touch with so many times and that I though on occasion had 248
  • 267. saved my life—but had also brought so much confusion —made sex into so much of a problem; something to avoid—Oh, how I have been tortured by sex!—Or I should say the avoidance of it! I have realized that the God that I had turned in such drastic directions in trying to find Him was nothing more than an illusion. An illusion put together by thought—thought that is a product of thousands of years of conditioning. Have I found myself right back where I started from? No! Because now I know that there is the unknown, and that to know is to not know and to live with wonder. That there is this infinite cosmos and that order can be brought about in life, but it must be done without this idea of becoming and without authority of any kind. * * * * * November 17, 1992 I have said that the God I tried so hard to get in touch with was not real. My mind has been through so 249
  • 268. much effort of trying to go beyond self and then to end up in more self-centered activity, and in that there is so much confusion. It is not God, because God has been put there by thought, yet there is something else, something sacred, some energy, and it can only be found by right thinking. I cannot convey what this is, but it is not the God of religion or tradition, but something that is not nameable —energy. I have been through drugs and lust and now I have no desire for drugs or any form of escape. Only the understanding of ourselves can bring about order. It is a beautiful night and the air is cold and crisp. It is only through right living that one can be truly content and see the beauty that is around them. * * * * * January 25, 1993 Any thought is a product of thinking, which is a process of intellect. Therefore thought can be a product of right or wrong thinking. But if thought is a product 250
  • 269. of belief or disbelief may lead to ignorance or stupidity. Thus so-called intellect can often be ignorance in another form. * * * * * February 23, 1993 If that which makes up the content of religion is not true, then the religion is false. If a religion is false it imposes pressure on people where there should be no pressure. Any pressure distorts. Whether it be political, legal, economic, or religious. If you lay on your back and place a concrete block on your stomach, it will distort. In much the same way any pressure distorts the brain. The overall complexities of religion and their falsehoods, as well as actions taken from them, distort the brain. All religions have been put there by thought, invented by man, and therefore they are false. One can find many things in the so-called great religions that are false. If we follow any false doctrine it will create evil. 251
  • 270. We cannot ignore the chaos that has come out of the societies by following false doctrines. If a religion is not true, it is evil and evil will come from following it. We must realize that it is all just a state of mind and is the natural condition of man when freed from the stranglehold of religion and these conditioning forces that bring distortion to the human mind. * * * * * April 13, 1993 To understand oneself there need be no direction. As long as there is psychological direction, the desire to become psychologically something more, the brain cannot function orderly and a neurosis develops, at times leading to psychosis. In this state of becoming the brain is put under a strain or pressure that may lead to a number of other problems, physical as well as mental. The problem is recognizing this symptom. Most people live their entire lives in this state and not 252
  • 271. understand its consequences. When the brain operates with this idea of becoming, with direction, it becomes habit, and the mechanical processes of thought try to remain in control. But something happens that breaks the continuity there is reaction that causes stress and mental pressure. This can cause further mental deterioration. This deterioration can also be imposed on another by the wrong and harmful actions of others towards a person that has no cause for their actions. Although this deterioration may be brief or at varying intervals during the course of one’s life, when that continuity is broken in old age there is often a continual deterioration of the brain. * * * * * April 25, 1993 The ancient’s in their attempts to bring about control and order, laid down the foundation of the Christian faith. But if it was laid down by man, and not by God then it is false in its claim. Though it has been supported throughout history by philosophical systems 253
  • 272. that also sought to bring about control and order out of the chaos of the world, we cannot overlook the fact that it has not do so. As long as we follow that which is false, disorder, violence, and wrong action will come of it. History has shown this to be true. * * * * * July 10, 1993 It was a warm but pleasant evening and just about dark, and the trees and everything was still. The only movement was the lightning bugs. There were hundreds of them, lighting up and dashing about, with seemingly not direction in mind. Belief of any kind distorts true observation and perception. If I’m a Christian what good is it if I don’t have love and compassion? And if I do have love and compassion and it comes from these belief systems, what will happen if someone steps on my beliefs? 254
  • 273. We should learn to respect all life, the lower as well as the so-called higher. When there is disrespect for lower life forms we will, all too often, disrespect higher life forms as well. If we teach our children to respect all life and all nature—and not through these stupid belief systems—but, rather, through understanding nature, we will bring about a new culture. One that is not violent. October 21, 1993 Not too long ago I would have said that I would not deny God, even though I said that God was the unknown. But if it thought that has created and invented God, then the God we have projected must be an illusion. If there is a force, a cosmic energy of some kind, it is unknown and any naming given to it would be wrong. Therefore, anyone that has named this energy by the word God, or any other name, would be in error. * * * * * 255
  • 274. March 13, 1994 One must realize that the self, the ego, this psychological content is thought, it is matter, and it is a projection of knowledge manufactured by thought. It is a material process. But in realizing this, one tends to project and name something beyond, usually as God. What must be understood is that any projection and the naming of that projection is also an illusion, an invention of thought. * * * * * March 18, 1995 This God by name is an illusion that has been laid down by the projection of human thought. The forces of the cosmos are unnamable and are therefore separate from what man has laid down through religion. Though I have realized that “God” is an illusion, I have also realized that the self, this psychological content, is also the mechanism of thought and it too is an illusion. This does not mean that we forget what we have learned, 256
  • 275. only that the mind is still and focused on what is at hand. We have been taught and conditioned to operate in the constant mode of thought and to carry it around with us in constant operation. This becomes a burden to the brain and to its operation and is not the natural state of the mind. It has been said that man may have taken a wrong turn in the distant past. But man did not take a wrong turn, as he never understood the problem with this building of the self with its projections and, except in rare cases, never came to this awareness or insight as a whole. This is very strange, because this is a simple and natural state of mind. * * * * * September 29, 1995 Shortly after this I have my feelings turning around again, only this time they did not stop in the place they were before. Again I had the feeling that something was operating outside of myself, some energy that was here 257
  • 276. operating, yet it was not there because of belief or because I had subjected to any projection. I had freed myself from all beliefs, and of the psychological past, yet there was still something there, some energy, some feeling of intelligence outside of me. I feel quite certain that this energy was coming from the cosmos. * * * * * The last entry (not dated) When thought looks into what has been called truth and finds it to be false, thought should reject that which is false. And after one see that thought has created these things that are false one should realize the limitations of thought, and one this is realized there is a natural transformation in consciousness. This is a natural state. In this state, in respect to the many belief systems, there is nothing more to investigate. * * * * * On Education 258
  • 277. Few of us look into what it really means to be educated. Most of us think of education as the accumulation of knowledge, of facts and experiences. We think we are being educated when we are taught and then merely repeat what we have been taught and to fit into a certain groove like a bunch of trained monkeys. It is important to learn certain technical knowledge, to learn certain skills, how to drive the car, how to build the bridge, how to perform surgery, or how to use a computer, and so on. But our educational system is not designed to teach us to look into the education of life. We are so busy gathering knowledge or with our own self- centered activities that few of us ever look into the right education of living and understanding the many problems of life. Yet it is only education that will teach us the importance of honesty, goodness and love and only this education will bring about a better society and a competent society. It is important to question if education is only the process of learning to read and to write, and to cultivate memory in order to pass some examinations and to acquire specialized skills in order to get a job. Or is education more than this—and it is also important to learn about the other complexities of life—and not through some stupid belief system and going to church on Sunday. There is also sex, ambition, envy, patriotism, love, violence, war, religion, God, and then at the end of it all there is death. And then there is man’s relationship to 259
  • 278. man, which is society, and so many other things. We are not being educated to meet all the complexities of this difficult life. If no one is going to learn about these things in order to teach them, then one must learn about them on their own. There is a difference between learning and being taught. We should continue to learn and to live with a sense of wonder throughout life. The educational system that is now in place is teaching us to fit into this society and to develop capacities for earning a livelihood within a specific pattern. Our parents are concerned with us having careers and financial security and they tell us how much they love us. This is not saying that our parents don’t love us, only that they want us to fit into a society that they are afraid to question. The government wants to turn out efficient bureaucrats to run the state or good industrial workers to maintain the economy, and proud solders that will happily go to war and kill the enemy. And our parents and educators are right there to support them in this. We are taught to be “good citizens” and be respectably ambitious, everlastingly acquisitive, and to subtly participate in the socially accepted ruthlessness, which is called ambition and competition, so that we can be secure. This is the reality of what it is to be a so-called good citizen. But is it good or is it something very evil? This is not being cynical and is being realistic in the observations of our present day society. 260
  • 279. We may gain possessions and positions of power, but if we lose our simplicity to care for another, and to observe nature, and become dead to that sense of wonder, life is barren. If we are compelled and conditioned to adhere to certain duties and responsibilities without the freedom to explore our own creativity, as a painter or writer, or what have you, then education becomes a form of compulsion or exertion of authority, and this is not love. First of all we must come to terms with the simple fact that government and society are not concerned with freedom, because they want us to conform to tradition and to accept ambition and competition as the natural way of life. They have brought about this violent and antagonistic society and they want us to follow blindly in their footsteps. Neither the government nor the present day teachers or our parents want to educate us rightly, because if they did this country and this world would be entirely different, and there would be no war. Especially the kind of stupid wars like the one we are in now. Education is something more than just being instructed in specific fields of mathematics or literature. It is a cultivation of a mind that questions and doubts so as to be put into a position to come upon truth. Education should work to bring about a mind that is not self-centered and that is serious enough about life to go beyond the petty fears and learn not to take life too seriously. 261
  • 280. Education should give the freedom to explore and teach the importance of eating the right food and staying physically fit, with emphasis put on the importance of studying hard and not being lazy, and being good at sports, not to beat anther but to amuse oneself and for the exercise. Most importantly education should teach students how to deal with the problems of life, not through some religion or some philosophy based on the supernatural, but as a human being, in order to understand themselves and to keep growing and learning. If we have not been taught goodness and love, and if we have not been given the freedom to question everything, we have not been rightly educated. * * * * * On Organizations The problem with organizations is that somehow the organizations become more important than what the organizations stand for. The Christian Children’s Fund, for instance, is trying to help the needy children by providing them with food, 262
  • 281. clothes, and so forth. But while they collect millions of dollars to spend on food for those that are starving and living in poverty, only a small percentage of this money goes to the cause, and all the while the parent organization called “Christianity” has spent and continues to spend billions of dollars on land, buildings, and other assets as well as the cost of maintaining these assets. Therefore the organization becomes more important than the cause and it becomes more important than the people it is supposed to help. Take the March of Dimes, for another example. Here’s an organization put together to help prevent birth defects, yet they do little to combat the causes of birth defects, and you could probably go to a thousand parents whose child was born with a birth defect and not one of them received help from this organization. The problem is the organizations are intent on their own survival and they build on some so-called great cause and loose sight of the actual problem they are trying to solve. There are so many environmental problems, problems with food additives, and so on, yet this organization does not concern itself with these problems. And then there are the people that head these organizations—Who becomes important, the people they are supposed to help, or those at the head of these organizations with their ambitions and egos? 263
  • 282. As the following diagram demonstrates, the organization loses sight of the problem or never gets to the root of the problem, and continues to circle around and around the problem, and deals only with the resultant problems that the main problem creates. diagram here There are many organizations, religious, business, government and political, and so on. In order to live in a complex social structure, organizations are need for communication, travel, upholding law, food, cloths and shelter, and for all the business of living together. But these organizations must be organized efficiently and humanely. They cannot be setup to only benefit the few, but must be for everyone, without divisions of nationality, race, or class. In order for all people to live happily and contently, both physically and mentally, there must be sane, efficient, and rational organizations. But we do not have such organizations in the world or in this country. The organizations operate under the mode of religious beliefs and control with their inherent contradictions and there is disorder because there is division. There are various forms of brutality and war, and millions go hungry and live in poverty while 264
  • 283. there is vast prosperity. There is government corruption a demented power that will destroy an individual with impunity by illegal acts and then simply cover for these illegal acts by more immoral government actions. This is a simple fact and the public is afraid to face this fact, or they understand the truth of this but fear their own government and don’t have the guts to stand up to them. Then there are the many organizations of belief in terms of religion. These are at the root of the many problems because they breed division, disunity, hatred, and war. The very morality that man has pursued through religion with the many false beliefs systems it incorporates and the confusion they create has lead to this disorder and chaos. Therefore the freedom that should exist in a sane and rational society, and the freedom the individual should have in life, is distorted by these organizations that have their foundations rooted, in some form or fashion, in some specific religion. Inwardly and outwardly we are born into these organizations and into a specific social structure, and if we question this structure and refuse to be a part of the ignorance in nonviolent way, we become the target of this monster. Government in this great country is responsible for the destruction of millions of lives and there are over a hundred thousand people in prison that don’t belong, many of who are completely innocent and had no affiliation with the crime they were arrested and convicted of. Yet the public stands by and does nothing. Neither society or government appreciate that flower that comes along and operates in 265
  • 284. absolute truth and refuses to be a part of any form of deception, including religion or a confused, violent, and corrupted government that operates through it. Each one of us should realize the simple fact that we create this society with its disorder and the walls between people. What each one of us is, society is. Society is not different from us. The conflict that is created by each one of us by being ambitious, envious, fearful, possessive, and of some specific religion, is all defused into society. Therefore our responsibility is to change, and to help others change, without violence, domination over others, or motives that bring harm to others. Where are we going start? We must start with freedom. Only where there is freedom is there understanding and love. It is not about choice, because choice is often based on confusion. This understanding and love will bring about an intelligence that will show us who we are and when we should cooperate and when we should not. If one really knows exactly who one is and is capable of seeing the false as the false and the true as the true, and is capable of living a life of honesty and integrity, then he or she will gather together a few who have a similar understanding. The few may grow into many, but that is not your concern. It is only in this understanding and the total action on part of each individual that a completely different world will come into being. 266
  • 285. * * * * * On Goals Out of a hundred wise men, if you were to ask each one what is the definition of success, each one would probably give a different answer. But if you were to ask each one what his definition of failure was, most all of them would give the same answer. Failure is the inability to reach the goals in one’s life, whatever they happen to be. Having looked into what my goals in life should be many years back; I began to inquire into the very nature of pursuing goals and the constant chattering of the brain fueled by ambition. The very word “pursuing” means to chase after in order to overtake or capture. I began to realize that to have a psychological goal is not necessary. I have explored the nature of this process of “becoming” something more or something better psychologically, or for the brain to project a constant projection of some end or result. Being aware of the activities of the brain, I realized that the brain operated much more efficiently and was sharper when this idea of “becoming”, or the projection of a result, was not in progress. At the same instant I realized this idea of a psychological goal, this ideal of trying to become something better through the inner processes and express it in the outer, was an illusion. It was 267
  • 286. when these processes stopped that I walked the walk of what I am, without becoming and therefore without contradiction. In it would be fair to say that at the moment, having realized that any psychological goal is an illusion and brings about disorder, contradiction and neurosis, I reached the ultimate goal in life. This does not mean that I have become stagnant or lazy, quite the contrary. One then has more energy and this energy begins to question everything. Not to the point of being a radical pessimist, but there is passion, and one’s begins to look in a new way. The organism frees its self from the confines of its contents as knowledge and experience and begins to look with new eyes, eyes that are without self, seeing clearly, and being aware of what is. This does not mean that one has amnesia and forgets all the one has learned, on the contrary, the mind keeps this knowledge and experience in a completely different location in the mind and, in fact, the mind functions more acutely. In this natural state one is not concerned with becoming in the realm of the psychological, but rather there is only a state of being. An action and awareness comes out of this that no idea or philosophy can touch. Those that have come to this state operate in absolute goodness, with an understanding that is often attacked by those who are in a state of becoming. In fact those who are in a state of becoming will often destroy others in their path, and often justify the harm they bring to 268
  • 287. others. Those who have had their goals threatened have committed countless atrocities. In terms of actual physical accomplishments, such as physically constructing a house or log cabin, both on the list of my accomplishments, things are dealt with on a moment-to-moment and day-to-day basis; and the resulting accomplishments with persistence and a little good luck produce the end result. This is not something that is far out, but it is very close, and really quite simple— This is truly the natural state of man and woman. * * * * * On Law and Society Many of our laws are good, designed to protect the people, and this we cannot deny. But there is a problem with the way the law is enforced. Could it be that many of those that are in charge of enforcing the laws are also creating many of the problems and contributing to disorder? But what can be expected from people that go around in fear couple with this narcissistic feeling of authority most of the time? —Fear combined with authority breed distortion, incompetence, and wrong actions. 269
  • 288. This combination of fear, couple with little education, along with the power of authority, can produce a man or woman with little integrity. In fact it can at times reduce human intelligence to that of a moron. This is not to say that there are not good people involved in law enforcement, because there are. These are officers who have an understanding of who they are and have gone beyond self and refuse to allow a uniform or a badge to create this demented power of authority. They are also those that often have difficulties in their jobs because of their refusal to be a part of a band corruption. Having said that, there is also the problem with some of the laws themselves. Who makes the laws? The Christians have been noted as saying “There is no law laid down that has not been laid down by God.” Yet our laws vary from state to state, just as our rights do. Obviously any laws that were laid down by God would not vary. Many laws are a direct result of Christianity. Laws that make crimes out of things such as adultery, having sex out of wedlock, oral sex (or sex period), using profanity, indecent exposure, using God’s name in vain or any sort of blasphemy against the “holy ghost”, and so on. And it is very scary indeed to think that these people that believe in this religion are, for the most part, those that are making judgments about an individual and enforcing the law. 270
  • 289. Why do we stop one problem and almost completely ignore another? We have laws that are enforced against the public, yet those that enforce these laws can violate the same laws with impunity. Immunity Law actually protects these people for crimes that they commit in the judicial process. Is it because the laws are written for a neurotic society by a neurotic society? A. P. Herbert, author of Uncommon Law, summed it up in 1936 by saying… “The general mass, if they consider the law at all, regard it as they regard some monster in the zoo. It is odd, it is extraordinary; but there it is, they have known it all their lives, they suppose that there must be some good reason for it, and accept it as inevitable and natural.” When one looks at the operation of society as a whole, one can only wonder why it has become such a mess. Why all the confusion and neurosis? Why all the corruption? Even our legal system, which we blindly say is the best in the world, is broken, and thousands of innocent human beings are put into prisons for exaggerated crimes, and all too often for crimes they did not commit, while the real perpetrators are free to strike again. 271
  • 290. The prosecutors in this country, along with other officers of the State, have, all too often, used unethical and even criminal acts in order to convict an innocent man. The mindset of the District Attorney’s offices throughout America are set up to focus on evidence that will result in a “win”, and to eliminate evidence that would hinder the success of their case. Their only intent is to win a case. The process is so bizarre that it goes beyond insanity. The system is simply not set up to be a truth finding process.— I know this all too well, as I was the victim of “the law” several times in my life, with my first arrest as a teenager for a crime I had no affiliation with. In 1986 I was harassed by an “informant” for months that came by continuously looking for drugs, and refused my demands to stay away. I had been clean and sober over a year and a half and was a strict vegetarian. I stupidly broke down and got the “informant”, Jerry Law, and his “friend” (the narcotics officer), a small amount of dope with their money and ended up relapsing on the drugs and nearly died, and this low class scum got my addiction on another role. I have had completely false allegations filed against me by women in a mode of vengeance, with no due process of law, and I have been blackmailed for money with the government right there to help. I have filed policed reports time and time again in order to have a record of the facts of incidences as they accrued, but not one police report has ever been completed by an officer of the state that contained the facts as I gave them. 272
  • 291. The trauma of these false arrest and the subsequent processes that take place are extremely unhealthy to the individual as well as society. I was the victim of a violent crime several years ago by an extremely unbalanced female and then I was falsely arrested as the perpetrator in the town of Canton, Georgia. A place that I called home and loved so much in a wooded paradise. I filed a police report the same day of this tragedy, and my report was never investigated and was missing critical information that I gave the officer. I had a severely blackened eye and a deep bruise to my chest, as well as a bruise on my left arm caused by the person that was now considered a “victim”. The “alleged victim” filed a police report several days later, and this report contained nothing but lies and untruths. In fact, an interview with this “alleged victim”, who was bi-polar and had other mental problems, by the lead detective contradicted every statement made in the falsified police report and the story changed drastically. The detectives never investigated my report and when they came out to my home to investigate this bogus report filed on the 19th of September from an incident that happened on the 16th of September, they set the stage for a four year nightmare of manufacturing my guilt. When I pointed out a bruise on my chest, the detectives were more interested in where a towel rack was pulled from my bathroom wall where the “victim” said that she fell in the tub. Too bad she fell into the tub by 273
  • 292. accident and admitted as such in another interview, and this “incident” happened in a Holiday Inn Hotel room in a different town and not in my home as was indicated on this bogus police report filed several days later. When the detective, Mr. Peavy, asked if he could take a picture of a piece of evidence, I obliged, and then after the Polaroid picture was taken of my crossbow, I asked the detective to take a picture of my severely blackened eye. He held the camera up and “acted” like he pushed the button, and then smirking with a slanted grin showboat mannerisms said, “Oh we must be out of film.” They had only taken one picture and they claimed they had no more film. Then this detective asked if there were any witnesses, and I said, “Yeah, there was a witness, and he’s driving up right now.” After a pause and as the witness came up my long driveway, I said, “Do you want to talk to him?” This “investigator” Peavy responded with, “No, that won’t be necessary sir, have a good day,” and shook my hand and left. The government set out to manufacture my guilt by ignoring the only witness at the scene and virtually every piece of evidence of proof for my innocence. Then the lead detective had a professional transcriber, Mary Wilson, alter a transcript of a recorded conversation that exonerated me. The state ended up “misplacing” and later “loosing” this tape that contained a conversation I had with the states witness that cleared me. In a second interview with the alleged “victim” by investigator Massey from the District Attorney’s office, the “victim” rambled on incoherently for over half an 274
  • 293. hour producing a psychotic babbling of lies and inconsistencies. During this interview this investigator inquired if I was an “atheist”, which I’m not. One can only wonder what my beliefs have to do with an investigation? The next thing I know is I’m being served with a “Stalking Temporary Restraining Order” from this same woman. The fact is I had nothing more to do with her and over the next couple of years I was stalked by her and had the police called on me several times for no reason in her continued attempts to have me falsely arrested again. The government went on to ignore more exculpatory evidence when collected for the state by Detective Preston Peavy, even though I attempted to point it out to him. The now former detective Peavy, who is still a cop, was the main culprit behind these crimes committed against my family and me. Because of the crimes committed against me by Preston Peavy and his back-to- back attempts to ignore and alter exculpatory evidence, my charges were upgraded by a Grand Jury a felony. Here I was the victim of a violent beating, and dominated and controlled by an unbalanced female, and then falsely arrested for misdemeanors consisting of simple assault, simple battery and obstruction of a 911 call, when the simple fact was I had committed no crime and was, in fact, the victim of these crimes. Now my charges 275
  • 294. were upgraded to felony aggravated assault along with the other two charges. If convicted of these charges I was facing 20 to 30 years in prison. The state was notified by my attorney to preserve the evidence Mr. Peavy had collected and informed them that this evidence was now crucial to my defense. I finally got my day in court and before my trial began this evidence was brought into the courtroom. I took one look at it and saw that it had been altered to eliminate the exculpatory evidence. The government altered the evidence before my trial to eliminate it completely; evidence that had now become, because of the dishonest actions of a crooked cop to alter and ignore other evidence leading up to my trial, the crux of my defense! My attorney, Jeff Rusbridge, demanded that my charges be dismissed because evidence critical to my defense had been altered. An expert witness along with my attorney viewed this evidence shortly after my arrest, and the expert witness concluded that it was definitive proof that the accusations against me were not true. Judge Sumner did nothing about this act of Felony Tampering with Evidence, and allowed my nightmare to drag on and on, and after the judge alluded to some hearings to look into who may have altered this evidence, I heard nothing for nearly 2 ½ years after my trial ended before it ever got started. 276
  • 295. I had crime after crime lodged against me: By the perpetrator; “Aggravated Battery”, “Obstruction of a 911 call”, “Simple Battery”, “Terroristic Threats”—and by the state; “Violation of Oath of Office”, “Felony tampering with Evidence (3 counts), “Interfering with the apprehension of a criminal”, “Perjury”, “Obstruction”, and “actions unbecoming of an officer”. Finally, after this long delay with these completely false charges hanging over my head, I demanded my charges be formally dismissed. Three days later I got a date for a new trial scheduled for the very next month! But after nine more months of trial calendars and several trips to the courthouse for trial, the state never gave me another chance at trial. I faced them head on and I finally won this bizarre battle that lasted for over four long years, and all my charges were finally dismissed. I lost everything and my life was ruined, and my 80-year-old mother who had Lupus, spent the last four years of her life, only to die at 84 two weeks before I received the order of dismissal in the mail. These crimes committed against me and my family have been covered up and ignored by the prosecutors, the sheriff’s office, the Governor, and the GBI. And this is in America! I confronted the media, The Cherokee Tribune, that covered up for the corruption in this case and never investigated this travesty of justice…I was not content with the fact the Preston Peavy was “demoted” to Uniform Patrol. It did not sit well with me that he was still a cop, and I continued to stand up for the truth. 277
  • 296. This man is no longer an officer of the law in any capacity. Then there are the guilty criminals that get off or accept some lenient plea agreement because of the same broken system. Nothing was ever done to the person that committed the actual crime of Aggravated Assault and several other crimes against me, and then committed perjury by filling false police reports and falsified other sworn statements, and nothing has been done to these Officers of the State that committed these heinous crimes against me and put my family through pure hell. Of course much of the problem lies in the area that so many recognize as a culprit, money. But I do not agree with this philosophy entirely, in that it seems to me that if we had a better understanding of ourselves in this art of living, money would not be such a problem. If we were to isolate the problem of drugs for a moment, we would begin to see another culprit in operation here, namely society itself. People are forever taking about how unhealthy drugs are for people, and this cannot be denied, but on the other hand we are pushing the impression that everyone that does drugs is a “bad” or “evil” human being. Society says that everyone that does drugs are criminals, are selfish, are mentally unstable, and so on. But this is just simply not true. If an individual is a good person, smoking pot is not going to make him into a “bad” person. A person that smokes pot, or even gets involved with some other drug, is not necessarily an “evil” person, and it is very detrimental to the masses that use 278
  • 297. marijuana, or some other drug in some form or fashion, to be programmed to belief that they are bad people. This country is plagued by drug use, as well as alcohol use, and to label these people as “evil” is not going to help solve the problem. For the past century, the drug laws have been no less than insane, especially when concerning marijuana. This attitude creates more criminals and lends itself to a society that is plagued with alcohol and drug abuse. A recent government study claims that one out of every 12 of America’s full time workers—well over 10 million people—have illegal drug or alcohol abuse problems serious enough to require treatment. On the other side of the coin, some people can be in a very serene, rational state of mind and be under the influence of pot (although this may not be a lasting or continuous state). This is not an attempt to justify the use of drugs; on the contrary, if you use any drug you will become dependent on that drug. But shouldn’t we at least be intelligent enough not to paint as illusionary picture about the drug users as the drug users have about drugs? By doing so we will indirectly be encouraging drug use as well as more demented actions from that use. Of course as you know the present drug crisis has become big business and the insanity of those practicing and believing in organized religion all too often support and sustain these drug laws. If the operations of society as a whole are to ever operate with a sense of order, we as human beings must first recognize that each one 279
  • 298. of us make up this culture and it is only going to be by bringing about an understanding of ourselves and our relationship to society and to each other that we can ever stand a chance to bring this order about. And only by this understanding will we recognize the fact that the human brain can be programmed, conditioned; and it is only then that we will be capable of realizing what we are programming him to be. “Young people today have been misnamed the ‘self- centered generation.’ In fact, they have a strongly developed sense of service to society with many hoping to enter the ‘helping professions’, including social work. They would, therefore, likely look unfavorably upon one recent estimate that American churches spend over 80 percent of their revenues for internal purposes, leaving less than 20 percent for the poor and oppressed.” George Gallup, Jr. “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a joint- stock company, in which the members agree, for the 280
  • 299. better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most requests is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.” Waldo Emerson Is there any wonder that there is so much violence in our society? Not only inward violence but the outward violence that exist in this country. Every time the T. V. is turned on, with few exceptions, there are displays of violence; people killing people, raping people, kidnappings, stealing from people, even displays of torture. Even the cartoons are full of violence! Why is it that those responsible for all this, don’t understand that they are programming people to commit violence by conditioning them through violence? Isn’t it obvious that if the human mind sees violence from infancy on through adulthood that it is more likely that this mind will contain images of violence and therefore will be more likely to commit a violent act? 281
  • 300. We must realize that the brain is likened to a computer and can be programmed biologically, intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically. Most parents are so afraid of their kids not conforming to the norm of society. They are usually those who were afraid to do what they really wanted in life, and out of this fear they would seek security by conforming. This process of conformity that was often combined with the acceptance of “religion”, even to the extreme of being a “born again Christian”, often came after years of questioning such nonsense. Now these same parents are “happy” only if their kids are as blind guinea pigs following along with the norm of a neurotic society. You may have, for example, the parents of a child that, when the parents were younger, went through a time of rebellion and questioned religion. As time went on they began to conform to society in order to get and keep a job and to fit into whatever society had to dish out. They succumbed to the pressure and figured this was the only way out. They became “Christians” and accepted “THE LAWD” as their personal savior, and from that point on, for the most part, they began to live a very uneventful and routine life. Now they bore a child and they want their child to be a “Christian”. But as the child grows older, there is so much to question about this religion, and so much that is bizarre and unrealistic, that the child begins to rebel against the imposition of this strange religion and blind sublimation to it. The 282
  • 301. child studies science and astronomy and becomes very interested in learning about the universe, and as the child stands staring at the moon and the stars, the child wonders just where Christ really is. The child becomes confused and escapes from the confusion of having to deal with this strange psychological state of his parents, in that what they see is illusion, and all the child sees is reality—and the child doesn’t understand how to deal with it. Then one night the child comes in late, with angry parents waiting up, appearing a little drunk, and the parents loose touch with Je-ay- sus, as well as any sanity. And instead of being friendly and understanding they give the child some absurd lecture and strict punishment, or in the more extreme case, the child is verbally and physically abused. Parents don’t want their children to question or doubt, it scares them too much, and they don’t want to have to deal with it. They just want their child to be a “Christian” like they are, and to be a “good Christian” child. Of course, it usually only gets worse… Parents want kids to conform to society, but will they not be conforming to all the corruption and deception that is rampant among those that make up our society, with all the illusions and the neurosis? Why is it so surprising that they are trying to escape this?—And that by escaping the unessential they turn to the unessential? The sad fact is that, like their parents, most of the young are unaware of how the public pressures affect them or the effects these pressures have on them. The 283
  • 302. general public is like one big animal with blurred vision and fear of government and most everything else that lurks around him. William Hazlitt put it bluntly by stating: “There is not a more mean, stupid, dastardly, pitiful, selfish, spiteful, envious, ungrateful animal than the public. It is the greatest of cowards, for it is afraid of itself.” It is odd how “freedom” is defined in this great country. Are people really free if they are forced to have certain beliefs? Are people free if forced to support a chaotic, corrupt, and violent government, by law? Are people free if forced to go to war for causes they do not support? There is corruption in everything from military spending to the paving of roads. Our “legal” or so-called “justice” system is broken and in need of repair. And the list goes on and on and on. The only way out of this chaos is to refuse to be part of it. J. Krishnamurti gives a brilliant answer to this problem: Question: How can we reconcile the demands of society with a life of total freedom? 284
  • 303. J. Krishnamurti: What are the demands of society? Tell me please. That you go to the office from nine to five, or the factory, that you go to a night club for excitement after all the boredom of the day’s work, take a fortnight or three weeks on holiday in sunny Spain or Italy? What are the demands of society? That you must earn a livelihood, that you must live in that particular part of the country all your life, practice as a lawyer, or a doctor, or in the factory as a union leader, and so on. Right? Therefore one must also ask the question: What is this society that demands so much, and who has created the wretched thing? Who is responsible for this? The church, the temple, the mosque, and all the circus that goes on inside them? Who is responsible for all this? Is society different from you, or have you created the society, each one of us, through our ambition, through our greed, our envy, our violence, our security in the community, in the nation—you follow? We have created this society and then blame the society for what it demands. Therefore you ask: Can I live in absolute freedom, can I reconcile with society and myself seek freedom? It is 285
  • 304. such an absurd question. Sorry, I’m not being rude to the questioner. It is absurd because you are society. Do we really see that, not as an idea, not as a concept, or something you must accept? But we, each one of us on this earth for the last forty thousand years or more, we have created the society in which we live: the stupidity of religions, the stupidity of the nations arming themselves. For goodness sake, we have created it because we insist on being American, or French, or Russian. We insist on calling ourselves Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and this gives us a sense of security. But it is these very divisions that obstruct the search for security. It is so clear. So there is no reconciliation between society and its demands and your demands for freedom. The demands come from your violence, from your own ugly, limited selfishness. It is one of the most complex things to find out for oneself where selfishness is, where the ego very, very subtly hides itself. It can hide politically “doing good for the country”. It can hide in the religious world most beautifully; “I believe in God, I serve God,” or in social help—not that I’m against social help, don’t jump 286
  • 305. to that conclusion—but it can hide there. It requires a very attentive, not analytical, but an observing brain to see where the subtleties of the self, of selfishness, are hidden. Then when there is no self, society doesn’t exist; you don’t have to reconcile with it. It is only the inattentive, the unaware who says, “How am I to respond to society when I am working for freedom?” You understand? If I may point out, we need to be re-educated, not through school, college, university—which also condition the brain—not through work in the office or the factory. We need to re-educate ourselves by being aware, seeing how we are caught in words. Can we do this? If we cannot do it we are going to have perpetual wars, perpetual weeping, always in conflict, misery and all that is entailed. The speaker is not pessimistic or optimistic, these are the facts. When you live by facts as they are, not with data produced by the computer, but as you observe them, watching your own activity, your own egotistic pursuits, then out of that grows marvelous freedom with all its great beauty and strength. 287
  • 306. * * * * * On Love What is love? We must discover what love is by looking into what love is not. We must first be intelligent enough to put aside our preconceived views and look into something different from the known or from our preconceived ideas. In order to love we must first be free. We cannot love if we are tethered and held in control. Therefore love is not possession and attachment. As long as we possess another or attach ourselves to another this is no freedom and therefore no love. This is made clear by the motives that take place by those that possess another, when that relationship comes to an end and then love is turned into butchery and hatred with its demented acts of vengeance. Love has no motive and when we love we will never do anything to another that will make a difficult life more difficult. Bringing harm to others is not love. This does not mean that we do not care for another and have interest just of our own. If we love, although we may have our own particular interest, we also have the more general interest; those that bring more creativity to ourselves and yet benefit others. 288
  • 307. We are not separate individuals as we are being taught. This is not to say that your body is not unique, because it is, there is no body exactly like yours on this earth. But we are not separate in consciousness. We all have feelings and we all feel pain the same, and there is a universal consciousness of all of us. Love is not emotion. To be full of emotion and call it love is to be trapped in the prison of emotion. Emotions can just as easily turn to resentment and anger, and that is not love. Love is not creating an image about another and building on this image day after day and bringing about habit. We should look to each day, each moment, with new eyes so that we are learning and growing all the time. It is only in the freedom that comes from understanding ourselves, and being able to be alone with ourselves, and learning to go beyond self. We cannot practice love, it is not acquisitive and all ideas about love or freedom are no good. We must truly be free, and that means freedom from the stranglehold of religion and all that nonsense, and then we can love. * * * * * 289
  • 308. To be a Light to Oneself Having been brought up under the imposition of Christianity, I have met the conditioning on that level as well as many others. By the time I graduated from college in 1977 and after struggling though four and a half years of Architectural Engineering, although I did very well, I began to wonder about life and about God, so I read the bible from cover to cover. I began to question the validity of this religion and I began to realize just how much I was conditioned or programmed to believe certain things. I sought to find the truth of this conditioning as well as the truth about religion. I found myself caught like a prisoner between the walls of conditioning, and I wanted to somehow find a way out. I began to read every book in the library that had anything to do with religion or philosophy. I had so simply uncovered the truth about the origin of my conditioning and my beliefs. Unfortunately by the time it reached a precipice I succumbed to the pressure of others and became too confused to deal with the problem rationally. I felt I had something to tell the world, but if it was just me against the world, that was too much for me to handle. I got into drugs 290
  • 309. and alcohol and sought to escape through them as well as entertainment and the pursuit of sexual pleasure. But I could not let it go that easily from my thoughts. I bounced back and forth from the acceptance of God and religion and questioning these beliefs. For many more years I researched, studied, and observed the processes of conditioning, from the outward conditioning of religion and tradition to that of the inward conditioning, and how this inward conditioning was expressed in the outward. At times I had fallen victim of the very things that I had rejected and the pressures of society to accept religious beliefs were relentless. People with beliefs have ruined my life and some have done everything they can to bring me harm with their lies and even threatened my life. It has been thirty years since I started my quest for truth. I it has been over fifteen years since I found the truth that would set me free and I am fortunate to be able to write about this truth that is still with me, as further attempts by those with beliefs and by those in our government that have these strange beliefs to put me in prison for crimes I did not commit by manufacturing my guilt were unsuccessful. I faced this bizarre unbalanced female that beat me severely, and a government that is more bizarre the she is, head on and won the long and strange battle. 291
  • 310. I got clean and sober over fifteen years ago, when I had this insight, and I have remained clean and sober ever since. I had my dreams fulfilled by building a home that I custom designed on a lot that was by the Etowah River and Lake Allatoona, one of my father’s and my favorite places to come all of life. I physically constructed this 4800 square foot home from the ground up, working nonstop for over two years. I lived a life of order and put everything in its proper place, and had my boat, my ATV, motorcycle, motor home, and all the things to enjoy life. All to be taken away by those with belief systems and their lies and the evil they perpetuate. What is the truth that I found over fifteen years ago? The truth is no one knows the truth, because truth is always changing. It is simply to free oneself from the stranglehold of religion and to have self understanding that can change with truth and is capable of constant learning and living with a sense of wonder. I’m no longer dependent on any belief, or any stimulation from such beliefs, nor am I dependent on you reading this, or on anyone. I have seen the understanding that so many dream of, and the illusions of self, and I have the patience that goes along with it. I’m free from fear and will face anyone or anything head on. I have broken out of the prison of society and the prison of conditioning, and if I can keep this government from putting me in prison just for the sake of their evil power, I want to set others free. 292
  • 311. We all need to ask ourselves why we have conflict in relationship. Between husband and wife, between friends, and so on. And when we put that question to ourselves it is important that we look at the problem directly and for ourselves, and not according to any specialist or some jerk on T. V. that says he can tell us how to live. And that includes the author, because I’m not attempting to impose anything on you. I have merely pointed out certain things that I have found to be facts. So it is not up to you to agree or to disagree with these facts, anyone can do that, but to find out the truth for yourself. Why is there conflict in relationship? Is it because of possessiveness, attachment? Is it because we are self-centered and always striving to fulfill our needs at any cost? Is it because you are going your way and I am going mine, and you have your set of beliefs and I have mine? Society teaches us that we are individuals, totally separate from each other, with very little in common. But that’s not true. We are not separate individuals. We all feel pain the same and we all have basically the same needs. We each have joys, sorrows, anxieties, difficulties and so on. We are not separate individuals, we are human beings, and I think if you are serious enough you will see this. We should go into this problem and look at it unemotionally, objectively, without motive, and without belief systems to cloud what we see. But if we interpret this with motives, it is the same old stagnant mind that is interpreting, or your motive prevents you from being serious. 293
  • 312. Is it possible to be a light to oneself without motive? To look with eyes of wonder without direction and to inquire into an art of living that has no motive, and is without this idea of becoming more and more psychologically. Then we may find that which is truth, or love, or what you will and we will no longer live with the illusions of beliefs systems. * * * * * On Health and Environment Big business in this great country is so concerned about money that they don’t even care about people. These corporate giants have done everything from making baby formulas that cause damage to infants, to putting chemicals in food that can cause short term and long term problems. They produce building materials that are known to be harmful for humans to be close to or in contact with, yet they use them anyway, and they promote products that are extremely harmful to people’s health, and so on. A few giant multinational corporations are often at the head of the various world corporate structures. These structures often have syndicated operations within them 294
  • 313. and are, at times, government related. To many of these corporate structures money has become more important than people’s lives. It is up to each one of us to find out what is good and what is not good for our health. I’m not talking about becoming a fanatic about all this, because that is not healthy either. Nearly 2500 years ago Hippocrates, The Father of Medicine, was concerned with the human diet and he advocated a good diet for health. He recommended pure air, water, and sunshine, along with a healthy diet, and was already looking into preventive medicine through nutrition and state of mind. In his ideas he was way ahead of his time and is still ahead of most of us in this day in age. It seems that if we are to bring about better health we need to first concern ourselves with nutrition and the elimination of many saturated fats. We should consider how the meatless diet, or a diet low in meat intake, not only promotes health but also has many other benefits. We are able to make better use of our land, and release millions of tons of soy and grain proteins to feed hungry people. This diet also drastically reduces pollution caused by corporate farms that is destroying so many streams, lakes and ponds, and eventually the rivers and oceans. The use of energy it takes to cook cadavers would be radically cut along with a reduction in green house related emissions, thus helping to turn back the tide of global warming. 295
  • 314. This diet would reduce animal suffering and animal cruelty, and its nice not to have to kill animals in order to feed our face. It is good that we stay away from meat in our diet, but if we replace our protein with soy products, rice, beans, peas, bread, and so forth, we may be missing essential vitamins. So it is important that we supplement this diet with fresh fruits and vegetables. It is interesting to note that the study of DNA and human diet has found that a low calorie intake is a healthier diet and that the high calorie intakes can cause a more rapid physiological breakdown as well as other adverse health problems. Thomas A. Edison wrote, “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.” It is important that we have a state of mind that is not all consuming with self, and, again, it is important that we don’t become obsessed with diet. I have found one of the most powerful aspects of human health is getting past ourselves and not stressing over every aspect of life, and this includes eating. There is a great deal of evidence that a diet low in saturated fat, especially animal fat, helps to prevent cancers, heart disease, strokes, and even memory lose later in life. This diet also would help prevent many of the present health problems and 296
  • 315. diseases, and the genetic transfer of these same diseases and others in subsequent generations. In intense and detailed studies of evolution I have been amazed to find the ancestors of modern man were fruitarians. If we go back thirty or forty million years, man’s ancestors were basically fruitarians, and consumed no meat, and later merged into combination fruitarians/grass and leaf eaters. It was not until about two or two and one half million years ago that some of the species that were possible candidates for predecessors of modern man began to eat meat. In a detailed study of the fossil record and the health conditions of fossils, such as tumors and gum disease or the lack thereof, it shows that the possible ancestors of man were free from disease for a very long period of time. It was not until the hominid species began to consume meat that a whole array of bone diseases, tumors, gum diseases, and arthritic conditions appear in the fossil record. In fact, since the time that these species began to consume meat the fossil record is filled with evidence of disease, and because of the slim odds of a fossil being preserved it is very unlikely that those fossils would be representative of a freak. In other words, it is most probable that these fossils represent a very real picture of what was taking place among a wide scale of the population. 297
  • 316. The basis of this is made apparent by studying the physical makeup of the human as compared with other animals in nature. Most people ask, “But isn’t it natural for people to eat meat?” And the answer is no. We know that the diet of any animal corresponds to its physiological structure. Human physiology, bodily function, and digestive system are completely different from those of carnivorous animals. According to diet vertebrate animals can be divided into three groups: meat eaters, grass and leaf eaters, and fruit eaters. Let us look closely at each and see where humans fit in. Meat Eaters Carnivorous animals, including the lion, dog, wolf, cat, etc., have many unique characteristics that set them apart from all other members of the animal kingdom. They all have a very simple and short digestive system—only about three times the length of their body. This is because flesh decays and becomes rancid very rapidly, and the products of this decay poison the blood stream if they remain too long in the body. So a short digestive track was evolved for rapid expulsion of putrefactive bacteria from decomposing flesh, as well as stomachs with ten times as much hydrochloric acid as non-carnivorous animals (to digest tissue and bones). 298
  • 317. Meat eating animals that hunt in the cool of the night and sleep during the day when it is not as hot do not need sweat glands to cool their bodies, therefore they do not perspire through the skin, but rather, they sweat through their tongues. On the other hand, vegetarian animals, such as the cow, horse, zebra, deer, etc., spend much of their time in the sun gathering their food, and they freely perspire through their skin to cool off their bodies. The most significant difference between the natural meat eaters and other animals is their teeth. Along with sharp claws, all meat eaters, since they have to kill mainly with their teeth, possess powerful jaws and pointed, elongated “canine” teeth to pierce tough hide and to spear and tear flesh, as well as to crush bone. They do NOT have molars (flat back teeth) which vegetarian animals need for grinding their food. Unlike grains and other vegetarian foods, flesh does not need to be chewed in the mouth by these animals to digest it; it is digested mostly in the stomach and the intestines. Carnivorous animals, for example, will hardly chew at all before swallowing their food, and this is especially true for cats. Grass and Leaf Eaters Grass and leaf eating animals such as the elephant, cow, sheep, llama, etc., live on grass, herbs, and other plants, much of which is coarse and bulky. The digestion of 299
  • 318. this type of food starts in the mouth with the enzyme “ptyalin” in the saliva. These foods must be chewed well and thoroughly mixed with ptyalin in order to be broken down properly in the stomach and digestive system. For this reason, grass and leaf eaters have twenty four special “molar” teeth and a slight side to side motion to grind their food, as opposed to the exclusively up and down motion of carnivores. They have no claws or sharp teeth and they drink by sucking water up into their mouths as opposed to lapping it up with their tongues as meat eaters do. Since they don’t eat rapidly decaying foods like the meat eaters, and since their food can take a longer time to pass through, to better absorb nutrients, they have much longer digestive systems—intestines that are about ten times the length of the body. Interestingly, recent studies have shown that a meat diet has an extremely harmful effect on these grass and leaf eaters. Dr. William Collins, a scientist in the Maimonedes Medical Center, found that the meat eating animals have an “almost unlimited capacity to handle saturated fats and cholesterol”. On the other hand, if a half pound of animal fat is added daily over a period of time to a rabbit’s diet, after about two months his blood vessels become caked with a fatty buildup and the serious disease called arteriosclerosis develops. 300
  • 319. Human digestive systems, similar to the rabbit’s, are not designed to digest meat, and they often become diseased the more they eat it. The Fruit Eaters These animals include mainly the anthropoid apes—humanity’s closes ancestors. The diet of these apes consists mostly of fruit and nuts. Their skin has millions of pores for sweating, and they also have molars to grind and chew their food. Their saliva is alkaline and like the grass and leaf eaters it contains ptyalin for pre-digestion. Their intestines are extremely convoluted and are about twelve times the length of their body, for the slow digestion of fruits and vegetables. Human Beings Human characteristics are in every way like the fruit eaters, very similar to the grass and leaf eaters, and very unlike the meat eaters. 301
  • 320. The human digestive system, tooth and jaw structure, and bodily functions are completely different from carnivorous animals. As in the case of the anthropoid ape, the human digestive system is about twelve times the length of the body. Human skin, like the anthropoid ape, has millions of tiny pores to expel water and cool the body by sweating. Humans also drink water by suction like all other vegetarian animals and the tooth and jaw structure is vegetarian. Human saliva is alkaline and contains ptyalin for pre-digestion of grains, fruits, and vegetables. Humans clearly are not carnivores in terms of their physiology—the anatomy and digestive system show that humans have evolved for millions of years living on fruits, nuts, grains, and vegetables. The transition to the consumption of meat because of environmental conditions was not conducive to a healthy organism, and the processes of evolution have not corrected this problem. Furthermore, it is obvious that our natural instincts are non-carnivorous. Most people have other people kill their meat for them and would be sickened if they had to do the killing themselves. Instead of eating raw meat as all flesh-eating animals do, humans boil, bake, or fry it and disguise it with all kinds of sauces and spices so that it bears no resemblance to its raw state. A cat will salivate with hungry desire at the smell of a piece of raw flesh but not at all at the smell of fruit. If man could delight in pouncing upon an animal, tear its still-living limbs apart with his teeth, 302
  • 321. and suck the warm blood, one might conclude that nature provided him with meat- eating instinct. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger he will eat fruit because it tastes so good. Scientists and naturalists, including the great Charles Darwin who presented us with the theory of evolution and natural selection, agree that early humans were fruit and vegetable eaters and that throughout geological time human anatomy has not changed. The great Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus, best known as a botanist, states: "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." * * * * * On Self Understanding When one looks up at the sky and observes the moon one knows that the moon exist as a fact, a reality. We also know that the moon revolves around the earth much like the earth revolves around the sun. And, although many are not aware of it, the solar system revolves around the galactic center much in the same way. These are facts. 303
  • 322. Thought has nothing to do with creating the planets, the suns, the many galaxies, or with creating nature, the trees, plants, the flowers and so on. But, just as one is aware of the moon, one must be aware that thought has created all the literature in the world. All literature has been put together by thought. This is a fact. So one is able to see that thought has created all the scriptures throughout the world—the many thousands of so-called sacred scriptures—which are just another form of literature. Having said that, it is obviously thought that is responsible for creating all the religions and the content of the many religions around the world. If you see this as a fact, just as you see the moon, if you see it as a fact now, why should it become an illusion tomorrow? If you see moon as a fact now, why does it become an illusion, an image tomorrow? Once one understands these simple facts, there is a tremendous evolution in intelligence. Not the intelligence of a clever man or someone who has read a great deal, but a kind of universal intelligence. Then one sees the ignorance in the human being that has been the cause of so much suffering, anxiety, pain, torture, and so many wars. Man has changed very little psychologically over the last many thousands of years. Technologically he has come along way, better bathrooms, better communications, better transportation, and so on, but psychologically he has 304
  • 323. remained the same—still confused, still dominating others, still ruthless, still depending on superstition for security and happiness, and still creating wars. There are two reasons why man exists today and they are survival mechanisms and sex drive. Not sex for love or even sex purely for pleasure, but sex to procreate and to continue the species. And these survival mechanisms show themselves in the form of dominance, competition, possession, and so on. Once these facts are understood we begin to see the sorrow of humans. And with this sorrow for the human being living in ignorance, there is born compassion, and from that compassion and the observance of these truths, there is an understanding that is the ending of sorrow. No matter what we do, if we don’t understand ourselves it will inevitably lead to problems, disorder, and confusion. Even if we are attempting to do something good or something that will benefit mankind, whether in the form of good works, or in the form of some organization, if we don’t understand ourselves, even though some good may come out of it, in the long run we will perpetuate disorder and more of the same old problems. What is the best way to go about understanding ourselves? We can try to understand ourselves by taking one thing at a time and looking at by looking at that one specific thing and by isolating it attempt to deal with it. That would mean that 305
  • 324. we would have to isolate just one of the many beliefs that we have, just one of the many habits that we have, just one of the many images that we have about ourselves and about another, and so on. But while we are trying to isolate one of the innumerable things that we have been conditioned to believe, or just one of the innumerable habits, that have become a part of us, we remain neurotic and confused. Therefore it is in this confusion that we try to deal with whatever problem we have isolated. And since it would take a lifetime to isolate every aspect of our conditioning and our many habits, and since it is the confused person that is examining them, it becomes hopeless and futile. On the other hand, instead of dealing with one aspect of our conditioning or one isolated habit, one at a time, we could look at all of them at a glance. If we were to sit down somewhere alone and observe our life, the confusion, the anxiety, living on the edge of sorrow, our many beliefs, and so on, one would for that moment see all of it at one glance. And for that moment we would see things as they are without any beliefs or illusions, and would look at oneself for what one is. At that moment one would see the whole of it and break through most of the conditioning, and for that moment one would have self understanding and psychological order. Now by remaining with this fact and not escaping from it, this order that comes out of this understanding continues and there is an ending of sorrow. But most of us run away from what we are, or as soon as we look at ourselves for what we are we say, “find, I’ve done that”, and then run away by any means of 306
  • 325. escape. Or we are afraid of what we see and escape from it before we even look at ourselves at all, so the wave of confusion overtakes us. It is important that we continue to watch ourselves, and we see that self-knowing is from moment to moment. Only then do we cease to perpetuate disorder, and we bring about a natural state of order. It is only through self understanding that we can ever hope to bring about a better world, a world with less confusion and more order. This is a natural state of anyone once he/she goes beyond the stranglehold of religious beliefs and the many conditioned responses that come from these beliefs. Without self understanding each person will perpetuate chaos and confusion, and your consciousness is not separate from the rest of mankind. But if each person frees themselves from confusion, by understanding themselves and bringing about love and order, each person perpetuates love and order. This love and order is then created in the world, because you are the world. * * * * * 307
  • 326. The Problem with Conclusions I THINK it is important for us to understand the problem with conclusions. The entire structure of knowledge is based on conclusions. I say this is wrong. I’m not saying that we should stop investigating and inquiring into any of the many fields of study—that would be ridiculous—but that we need to STOP coming to these conclusions and then calling any ONE conclusion a FACT. We say that North America was inhabited 11,500 years ago, and all indications from the excavations and the studies indicate this. So some individual gets credit for coming up with this knowledge and he pats his big ego and then becomes popular and makes money on his discovery and then his knowledge becomes FACT. Now we say it is a FACT that North America was first inhabited around 11, 500 years ago. And this remains a FACT for some time to come. But then another fellow finds other sites and in his research he determines that North America was first inhabited around 35,000 years ago and this process starts all over again, and then this new data comes to be accepted as a FACT. We have done this behavior in the fields of history, religion, mathematics, physics and quantum physics, paleontology and evolution, and in the field of astrophysics and every field of knowledge that we investigate. Then these conclusions become the basis for our further studies, calculations, and so forth, and because the conclusions were wrong and in FACT were not FACTS, we are led astray and so much time is wasted. By coming to these conclusions that are WRONG and then moving on by using the data from these conclusions, it may take years or decades or even hundreds of years to get back on track, if we ever get back on track. Now, I propose a system where we no longer call a conclusion a FACT and simply call it the CURRENT THEORY or the CURRENT OBSERVATION. This allows for those that are doing further research or moving from this CURRENT OBSERVATION or CURRENT THEORY to proceed with caution and to even question the information that they have acquired. Let’s take the field of physics for example. We come to these conclusions and then we move on to call some conclusion a FACT. Even if it goes by some name that has the word THEORY in it, it still becomes accepted as an accepted conclusion or FACT amongst those in the specific field of study. In the case of Einstein’s THEORY OF RELATIVITY one may spend months and months in his attempts to 308
  • 327. understand this theory and go through all the mathematical equations to grasp the accepted FACT of this information and then after several months of studying this information one finally understands the accepted information and in that same instant that this accepted theory is understood one realizes that it is WRONG. In fact one later comes to realize that the accepted FACT of MASS is WRONG. There is this insight from all this study and persistence in attempting to understand these principles and suddenly one comes to the OBSERVATION that MASS may not exist at all, and that everything may be ENERGY. It may be that only because of electric and magnetic energy fields (electromagnetism) and certain other very complicated principles (which I will not go into here because of their complexity) that this ENERGY is held together as MATTER, and is therefore should not be considered MASS. Now look at how physics has gone on for so many years from these WRONG conclusions, so most everything else is WRONG. I’m not the only one that has come to this OBSERVATION, and there are others. This fellow by the name of Bruce Harvey in the UK came to this OBSERVATION and has facts to back it up (learn more by putting his name in a search engine). You believe in your views about gravity because you have been conditioned to believe in it. Did you know that science has learned that Newton's law of Gravity may not be the whole story? Science has learned that gravity may not be ONLY because of "the objects attracting each other". Some scientists now theorize that a warping of space, by spacetime curvature contributes to gravity. This gets into some very complex shit like electromagnetism and quantum mechanics that very few people can understand. There is also the rope theory and this is a far more simple theory that few scientists will consider because it overrides their accepted theories. Therefore gravitation, as we know it, is still a theory and we may come to learn that there are other aspects to this force or this energy, or what you will. In the field of astronomy or, more specifically, astrophysics, we find conclusions that have been made in this field of knowledge that have been blown completely out of the water. Just look at the knowledge based on THE BIG BANG THEORY (which I think is a plausible theory), and the BIG CRUNCH THEORY, and then look at the knowledge of our universe. We now have come to the realization of the possible existence of DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY (learn more by putting these names in a search engine), which may make up some 96 percent of the known universe, yet the scientist know little to nothing about it. The CURRENT OBSERVATION or the CURRENT THEORY on DARK ENERGY is that it is creating a repulsive energy and causing the expansion of the universe to be in a state of continuous expansion and it seems to be actually accelerating. This contradicts all the KNOWLEDGE and all the CONCLUSIONS that I learned just fifteen or twenty years ago. Now let’s take the field of paleontology (the study of the fossil record). If we study this field we find that certain conclusions have been made and have been accepted as FACTS and then we come to find out that the FACT was incorrect or even, as in one case, a fabricated fossil and not the truth at all. This science also tends to 309
  • 328. overlook the possibility of some sort of cosmic energy playing a part in evolution. In my studies of evolution I have seen evidence that this may indeed be true. Some Astrophysicists and other scientist believe that cosmic rays from supernovas could play a role in evolution. One can show through examples and with mathematics that the cosmos is full of energy and that the many components of our cosmos contain the necessary ingredients to form a "thinking" cosmos. Could the cosmos itself be the creative energy of our universe and the directive forces in nature working along with natural selection? Could it be that there is an "outside" energy working with the energy within these organisms? Humans tend to focus on those things that support their view and exclude those that don’t. Greed, ambition, and even knowledge can get in the way of truth and open- mindedness and we need to put a stop to this or at least slow it down and I think using the principle I describe here will help do that. Science puts forth evolution based solely on natural selection and usually refuses to consider any outside energy, even if this energy is a natural creative energy of our cosmos. Scientist within the established media claim to know a great deal about physics and mathematics, but they are willing to propagate information that may be false and often refuse to consider evidence that demonstrate possible errors. Scientist claim to know a great deal about the universe and the cosmos, but they actually know very little and there are still many unknowns. Scientist claim to know what the center of this earth looks like and they put pictures in text books to represent this knowledge, but in actuality they know virtually nothing in reality about the deep interior of this earth. In fact we are still learning about the deep oceans and our rainforest and we continue to find new species of life in the water and on land. I can make examples in every field of knowledge where this problem applies. I could produce examples in the field of HISTORY and, especially, in the field of RELIGION but I would have to keep you here until KINGDOM COME (sorry, pun intended) or for much longer than you may like so I will end it now by saying we simply need to stop this insidious behavior of coming to conclusions in any field of knowledge and we should begin calling the information we have by the description of CURRENT OBSERVATION or CURRENT THEORY. This will hopefully bring about a completely new attitude in all these fields of study. P.S. I received an email from this physics genius, Bruce Harvey, in the UK. It was good to hear that he read my work. He also clarifies and makes a very profound statement concerning what I have said here by saying, “I’ll add my current thoughts about how the human mind works—We have an innate ability to come to ‘conclusions’ based on inadequate and unreliable information. Because our brains are designed to do this, we all too easily fall into the belief that our ‘conclusions’ are logical deductions derived from sound axioms.” 310
  • 329. THE DAWN OF INTELLIGENCE Kerry C. Walker 4590 Knox Bridge Hwy Canton, Georgia 30114 © 2007 Kerry C. Walker We Have Been Told Chapter VIII “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein * * * * * The greatest thinkers throughout history have warned us of the dangers of following any particular philosophy, any organized spiritual belief, or any established spiritual idea. They have taught us that a movement that is not always changing is dead. They have told us that we each must find truth within ourselves, and that each of us must be utterly and totally responsible for our own actions. Socrates was one of the greatest philosophers of Greece. Because of his morality, honesty, and interest in all mankind, Socrates was highly esteemed by the greatest 311
  • 330. thinkers of his day. Those that opposed his idea of a just government hated him. Because his ideas were contrary to public opinion, he was accused of corrupting the youth with heretical religious views. He was tried before a court of citizen jurors and sentenced to death about 399 BC. Plato said of him, “Thus died the man who of all with whom we are acquainted was in death the noblest, in life the wisest and most just.” His death convinced Plato that a political career was not possible for an honorable man under the conditions of the times. Socrates formulated no system of philosophy, nor did he commit his ideas to writing. What we know of him is from Xenophon’s memorabilia and Plato’s dialogues. His great influence on mankind is largely due to how he lived, and how his talks were made practical in his life. He was governed by his high sense of virtue and obeyed conscientiously the promptings of an inner voice, which he declared to be a never failing counselor. Even though he followed no philosophy it is said that he attained an inner strength and a spiritual peace that gave him a place almost alone among the world’s greatest thinkers. Chuang Chou, 340 to 280 BC, is considered by modern experts on Chinese philosophy to be among the most brilliant of all the Chinese philosophers. Aware of the unity of the universe, he longed for “the transcendental bliss” which brought peace of mind and enabled man to live harmoniously with nature. Chuang Chou was fond of destroying superstitious and renowned illusions. 312
  • 331. A Chinese monk of the 9th century, Rinzai Gigen, attempted to set men psychologically free. He said, “Buddha is not to be attained. There is no real Dharma; it is all but surface manifestations, like printed letters on a sign board to indicate the way.” He went on to say, “I have no dharma to give…try not to depend on anything…There is no Buddha, no Dharma, no training and no realization. What are you so hotly chasing? Putting a head on top of your head, you blind fools, your head is right where it should be.” His teachings migrated to Japan in the 13th century and were altered to be more mystical, and thus more popular. He became known as “Rinzai Zen”. Victor Cousin, another great thinker, said “we could either submit again to ancient authority, and return to the Middle Ages, or continue our trouble motion in a circle of worn out systems which mutually destroy each other, or finally disengage what is true in each system, and have a philosophy which will be superior to all systems, which shall no longer be this or that philosophy, but philosophy itself.” Ralph Waldo Emerson teaches us “nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind.” The elder Henry James asserted that Emerson “had no conscience, in fact he lived by perception.” Emerson looked upon consistency as the hobgoblin of little minds. In Self-Reliance, he stated: “With consistency a great spirit has simply nothing to do.” In History, he declared: “It is the fault of our rhetoric that we cannot state one fact without seeming to belie some other.” When Emerson spoke of the realm of reality, which embraced the mind and the spirit, it was with 313
  • 332. certainty and strong conviction, not theoretical knowledge. He distinguished between philosophers like Spinoza, Kant, and Coleridge and others like Locke, Paley, Mackintosh, and Stewart. He held that the former spoke from within or from experience as parties to or possessors of the fact; and the others spoke from without, as spectators whose acquaintance with the fact came from the evidence of third persons. He treated the latter and their doctrines contemptuously, and characterized them as coarse translators of things into conscience, ignorant to the illusions of the self and to true relationship that goes beyond self. The latter relationship was the only thing that mattered to Emerson—for him no facts were sacred; none unworthy but which became instantly important when they indicated or symbolized the history of the living spirit. He believed that the worth of any individual man or woman was derived from the universe, which contained all human life and was therefore mysterious. He regarded every man and woman as the entrance to the universal mind, capable of feeling and comprehending that which at any time befell any human being. Aristotle grew dissatisfied with the Platonic Theory that only the general “idea” of a thing, rather than the individual thing itself, has reality, and later came to hold that the individual thing itself is the final reality. James Creighton, another renowned thinker, who was born in 1861 and died in 1924, lived during an upheaval of religious propaganda. To have his own philosophical system would have been contrary to Creighton’s fundamental 314
  • 333. conviction that human thoughts are never completely the work of an isolated mind. Creighton emphasized the necessity to read the facts in a new way. He conveyed the importance of being free from psychological dependence. “It is obviously wrong,” says Creighton, “to assume as the fundamental reality a self-centered individual whose activities are all centered on his own ambition, his own goals, and his own happiness.” Einstein tells us that “The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma conceived in man’s image.” J. Krishnamurti, 1895 to 1986, points out that belief is a denial of truth; a hindrance to truth, and that idea is always separate from action. He was born in India, educated in England, and has spent most all of his life in the United States. His books are to be found in the philosophy section of most bookstores and he is taught in more colleges and universities than any philosopher in history, yet what he said is totally outside of traditional academic philosophy. He speaks to ordinary human beings, not to any special chosen few, and he has been heard and read by millions—probably by more than any individual philosopher who is part of the contemporary academic tradition. These are just a few examples of how some of those who are considered to be among the wisest of men in history, have warned us against following any religious belief, or any established idea about spirituality. The following pages contain quotes 315
  • 334. from other great thinkers that support, again and again, the need for us to find the truth for ourselves and within ourselves---and to understand who we are. The reader should be aware that these quotes do not necessarily reflect the author’s views, but rather an evolution in his views over a period of many years. ********************** “In good time you shall see God and its light, you say. Fool, you shall never see what you do not see today!” Angelus Silesium “Verily oneself is the eye, the endless eye.” Upanishads “Why dost thou prate of God? Whatever thou sayest of him is untrue.” Eckhart “Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.” Thomas Aquinas “Only the spirit gives life; the letter kills.” St. Paul “As the Godhead is nameless, and all naming is alien to him, so also the spirit is nameless; for it is here the same as God.” Eckhart 316
  • 335. “Be ye lamps unto yourselves. Be your own reliance. Hold to the truth within yourselves as to the only lamp.” Buddha “And he who claims a reward because of his virtue, has thereby forfeited his right to maintain the claim, since that is not virtue which looks for reward.” Felix Adler “What could begin to deny self, if there were not something in man different from self?” William Law “In other living creatures ignorance of self is nature; in man it is vice.” Boethius “Once the noble Ibrahim, as he sat on his throne, heard a clamor and noise of cries on the roof, also heavy footsteps on the roof of his palace. He said to himself, “Whose heavy feet are these?” He shouted from the window, “Who goes there?” The guards, filled with fear and confusion, bowed their heads, saying, “It is we, going the rounds in search.” He said, “What ye seek?” They said, “Our Camels.” He said, “Who ever searched for camels on a housetop?” They said, “We follow thy example—Who seekest union with God, while sitting on a throne?” Jalal-uddin Rumi “Would you know whence it is that so many false spirits have appeared 317
  • 336. in the world, who have deceived themselves and others with false fire and false light, laying claim to information, illumination and openings of the divine life, particularly to do wonders under extraordinary calls from God? It is this: They have turned to God without turning from themselves; would be alive to God before they are dead to their own nature. Now religion in the hands of self, or corrupt nature, serves only to discover vices of a worse kind than nature left to itself. Hence are all the disorderly passions of religious men, which burn in a worse flame than passions only employed about worldly matters; pride, self-exaltation, hatred and persecution, under a cloak of religious zeal, will sanctify actions which nature, left to itself, would be ashamed to own.” William Law “…see all things, not in a process of becoming, but in Being, and see themselves in the other. Each being contains in itself the whole intelligible world.” Plotinus “There is a small class of scholars whose aims and pursuits are of a different character. They value literature not as and end, but as an instrument to help the solution of problems, that haunt and agitate the soul. They wish to look into the truth of things. The universe, in its mysterious and terrible grandeur, has acted on them. Life is not regarded by them as a pageant or a dream; it passes before their eye in dread and solemn beauty; thought is stirred up from its deepest depths; they become students of God unconsciously; and secret communion with the divine presence is their preparation for a knowledge of books, and the expression of their own convictions. Their writing, accordingly, whenever they appear, will be alive. They will probably offend or grieve many, who make the state of their own minds the criterion for truth; but, at the same time, they will be welcomed by others, who find in them the words they were waiting to hear spoken.” George Ripley “There is nothing true anywhere, the True is nowhere to be found. If you say you see the True, this seeing is not the true one. 318
  • 337. When the true is left to itself, there is nothing false in it. For it is Mind itself. When Mind in itself is not liberated from the false, there is nothing true; nowhere is the True to be found.” Hui Neng “A man must become truly poor and as free as from his own creaturely will as he was when he was born. And I tell you, by the eternal truth, that so long as you desire to fulfill the will of God and have any hankering after eternity and God, for just as long as you are not truly poor—He alone has true spiritual poverty who wills nothing, knows nothing, desires nothing.” Eckhart “Indeed, the saving truth was never preached by the Buddha, seeing that one has to realize it within oneself.” Sutralamkara “True words always seem paradoxical, but no other form of teaching can take its place.” Lao-Tse “Who then are the true philosophers? Those who are lovers of the vision of truth.” Plato “If the way which, as I have shown, leads hither seems very difficult, it can nevertheless be found. It must indeed be difficult since it is so seldom discovered; for if salvation lay ready to hand and could be discovered without great labor, how could it be possible that it should be neglected almost by everybody? 319
  • 338. But all noble things are as difficult as they are rare.” Spinoza “Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes (and politicians) of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet as one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusions of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, so, nor the human race, as I believe—and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.” Plato “The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it.” Albert Einstein “There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide.” Ralph Waldo Emerson “Man has now been deprived of freedom of choice and bound over to miserable servitude.” John Calvin “The only reward for virtue is virtue; the only way to have a friend is to be one.” Ralph Waldo Emerson “All men by nature desire to know.” Aristotle 320
  • 339. “A wise man learns more from failure than he does success.” Benjamin Franklin “It is needless to multiply examples. The important point is that, in all that differentiates between a good life and a bad one, the world is a unity, and the man (or woman) who pretends to live independently is a conscious or unconscious parasite.” Bertrand Russell “PHILOSOPHY, at present day, can do only one of these three things: Either abdicate, renounce its independence, submit again to the ancient authority, return to the Middle Ages; Or continue its troubled action in the circle of worn out systems which mutually destroy each other; Or finally disengage what is true in each of these systems, and thus construct a philosophy superior to all systems, which shall be no longer this or that philosophy, but philosophy itself in its essence and in its unity.” Victor Cousin “Let us learn the revelation of all nature and thought; that the highest dwells within us, that the sources of nature are in our own minds.” Ralph Waldo Emerson “Great truths do not take hold of the hearts of the masses. And now, as all the world is in error, how shall I, though I know the true path, how shall I guide? If I know that I cannot succeed and yet try to force success, this would be another source of error. Better then to desist and strive no more…But if I do not strive, who will?” Chuang Tzu “Fools regard themselves as awake now—so personal is their 321
  • 340. knowledge. It may be as a prince or it may be as a herdsman, but so cock-sure of themselves.” Chuang Tzu “Talk as much philosophy as you please, worship as many gods as you like, observe all ceremonies, sing devoted praises to any number of divine beings—liberation never comes, even and the end of a hundred eons, without the realization of the Oneness of self.” Shankara “This Self is not realizable by study nor even by intelligence and learning. The Self reveals its essence only to him who applies himself to the self. He who has not given up the ways of vice, who cannot control himself, who is not at peace within, whose mind is distracted, can never realize the Self, though full of all the leaning in the world.” Katha Upanishad “Having realized his own self as the self, a man become selfless; and in virtue of selflessness he is to be conceived as unconditioned.” Maitrayana Upanishad “We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents.” Ralph Waldo Emerson “If you love, you may do what you will. But if you start by doing what you will, or by doing what you don’t will in obedience to some traditional system or notions, ideals and prohibitions, you will never love.” Aldous Huxley “In every region and at every period of history, the problem has been repeatedly solved by individual men and women. Even when they spoke and wrote, these individuals created no systems— 322
  • 341. for they knew that every system is a standing temptation to take symbols too seriously, to pay more attention to words than to the realities for which the words are supposed to stand. Their aim was never to offer ready-made explanations and panaceas; it was to induce people to diagnose and cure their own ills, to get them to go to the place where man’s problem and its solution present themselves directly to experience.” Aldous Huxley “To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost… Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato and Milton is that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men, but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the luster of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.” Ralph Waldo Emerson “In our theories as to the practical relations of men in society, we have at length come to see that it is necessary to read the facts in a new way. If it is true that the individual , as a moral, political, or religious being, includes as an essential element within himself relations to his fellow men that involve some form of organized society, then it is evidently a wrong scientific procedure to assume as the fundamental reality a self-centered individual whose activities are all concerned with the promotion of his own happiness.” James Creighton “Understanding demands self-knowledge, which is not an affair of the moment; learning about oneself is endless and the beauty and the greatness of it is that it is endless. But self-knowing is only in the active present; it has no continuity as knowledge. But what has continuity is habit, the mechanical process of thought. Understanding has no continuity.” 323
  • 342. J. Krishnamurti “Belief inevitably separates. If you have a belief, or when you seek security in your particular belief, you become separated from those who seek security in some other form of belief. All organized beliefs are based on separation, though they may preach brotherhood.” J. Krishnamurti “Time is the enemy, meet it and go beyond it.” J. Krishnamurti ************* The following quotation is from Ojai 1983 public talk, and the first sentence in paragraph 13 seems very relevant. In the beginning of the talk he suggested talking things over "as two friends walking in a wooded lane"--and he refers to 'my friend' in the quote below [thought I'd mention that so it is not confusing]. J. Krishnamurti Ojai 4th excerpt from Public Talk 22nd May 1983 “We ought to talk now about what is religion. Because religion has apparently, from the most ancient of days, has played an extraordinary part in life. Each civilization, however ancient, have had their idea of religion: worshipping the sun, worshipping the trees, worshipping thunder, lightening - probably that's better than all the other things. From the most ancient days man sought something beyond himself, transcending himself; the ancient Sumerians, the ancient Hindus, the Egyptians, and much later Christianity and still later Islam, all those people through generation after generation of thousands and thousands of years, have established various kinds of religion. And out of those religions came culture, civilization. Christianity, Buddhism – Buddhism exploded all over Asia, and Christianity is doing the same in the Western World, trying to spread its own doctrine, its own philosophy, its 324
  • 343. own saviour and so on. Man has been seeking throughout his days if there is something beyond. And in his search for something beyond, thought created God. Please, don't get upset with it, examine it. My friend says, I'm not upset, but I'm listening. I'm cautious; I don't want to become an atheist, a non- believer, but I am willing to listen to you. Thought has created that thing which we call God. Because ourselves are so confused, so insecure, so uncertain, so fearful, suffering, lonely, and I do not know how to solve all those, and I look for somebody outside, somebody to guide, somebody to protect, somebody to give me security. Thought is perpetually seeking security. And as it discovers there is none as long as there are individuals fighting each other, as long as groups are separated from each other, as long as there is tribalism of any kind, there must be wars, insecurity, no protection, therefore thought says, let me have some great figure, father entity - or mother entity, whichever you choose. Both in India, there are many gods and goddesses, there are about 300,000 of them. You can choose one or two as you please; that's more fun. But to have only one god is rather tiresome. But man has always sought this thing. And the priest comes along - he is like the rest of us - he says, I'll help you. He becomes the interpreter, because in the ancient days the priest was the only person who was capable of reading and writing. He interpreted that which he called God. And then he invented all the paraphernalia to make himself important, the robes, mitre, you know, the whole circus. So man, in spite of all the churches and temples and mosques, has always sought something beyond. And that which is beyond is not to be described or put into words; but a man who discovers it, sees something beyond. His friend says, let's get it organized so we can spread it to all the people. So organizations, religious organizations, kill truth. I hope my friend sees the fact. So we are asking, in spite of all the religions and their nonsense, meaningless words and rituals, with their dogmas, and superstitions -it's really a network of superstitions - whether in spite of all that, what is religion. 325
  • 344. The word religion has no etymological meaning. They haven't been able to discover the origin of that word. But generally it's ascribed as 'attention'. To be attentive, to diligently work, think, act, live, behave. And, in asking this question, whether there is something sacred beyond all thought, we're going to enquire together into that; whether in spite of all man's endeavor, his superstitions, his rituals, the terrible things they have done in the name of religion - I wonder if the Christians realize they have killed more people than anybody else - in spite of all that, is there something holy, something totally sacred, not invented by thought, which is not the result of some romantic, sentimental imagination; or sentimental longing? Putting aside all that, we are asking the question of each other, if there is something sacred - not something which is sacred to you and not to the other. Which is beyond all time and measure.” In April 1985, at age 90, J. Krishnamurti spoke to an invited audience at the United Nations in New York, where he was awarded the United Nations 1984 Peace medal. Of J. Krishnamurti’s three last public talks (the last talks before his death) given in Madras, this is the last part of the second talk. Public talk January 1, 1986* “We are trying to find out what it means to die, while living—not committing suicide; I am not talking about that kind of nonsense. I want to find out for myself what it means to die, which means, can I be totally free from everything that man has created, including myself? What does it mean to die? To give up everything. Death cuts you off with a very sharp razor from your attachments, from your gods, from your superstitions, from your desire for comfort, next life and so on and on. I am going to find out what death means because it is as important as living. So how can I find out, actually, not theoretically, what it means to die? I actually want to find out, as you want to find out. What does it mean to die? Put that question to yourself. While you are young, or when you are very old, this question is always there. It means to be totally free, to be totally unattached to everything that man has put together, or what you have put together—totally free. No attachments, no gods, no future, no past. See the beauty of 326
  • 345. it, the greatness of it, the extraordinary strength of it—while living to be dying. You understand what that means? While you are living, every moment you are dying, so that throughout life you are not attached to anything. That is what death means. So living is dying. You understand? Living means that every day you are abandoning everything that you are attached to. Can you do this? A very simple fact but it has tremendous implications. So that each day is a new day. Each day you are dying and incarnating. There is tremendous vitality, energy there because there is nothing you are afraid of. There is nothing that can hurt. Being hurt doesn’t exist. All the things that man has put together have to be totally abandoned. That’s what it means to die. So can you do it? Will you look into it? Will you experiment with it? Not just a day, but every day. Your brains are not trained for this. Your brains have been conditioned so heavily, by your education, by your tradition, by your books, by your professors. It requires finding out what love is. Love and death go together. Death says be free, non-attached, you can carry nothing with you. And love says, love says—there is no word for it. Love can exist only when there is freedom, not from your wife, from a new girl, or a new husband, but the feeling, the enormous strength, the vitality, the energy of complete freedom.” The Last Talk* Saturday, January 4, 1986 “Will you kindly participate in what the speaker is talking about? Will you not only follow it, but together participate in it, not just think about it or just casually pay attention to it? One or two things must be made very clear. This is not a personality cult. The speaker has an abomination of all that; everything he is saying is contradicted if you personally worship an individual, or make him into a god. What is important is to listen to what he has to say, share it, not only listen, but actually to participate in what he’s saying. We have talked about life, the very complexity of life, the beginning of life. What is life; what is the origin of all this, the marvelous earth, the lovely evening and the early morning sun, the rivers, the valleys, the mountains and the glory of the land which is being despoiled? If you say the origin of all this is “god”, then it’s finished; then you can trot along quite happily because you’ve solved the problem. But if you begin to question, doubt, as one should, all gods, all gurus, if you begin to question all that man has put together through a long evolution down the corridors of history, you find this question asked: What is the beginning, what is the origin, how has all this come about? I hope you’re asking this question; don’t just listen to the speaker, but share it, tear it to pieces. Don’t, please, accept anything he says. He’s not your guru; he’s not your leader; he’s not your helper. That is the platform, that is the beginning, of this talk. 327
  • 346. This is a very serious talk and unless your brain is actually active, one’s afraid that you won’t be able to follow. It would be useless for you and for the speaker to listen to a lot of words, but if we could together take a very long journey, not in terms of time, not in terms of belief or conclusions or theories, but examining very carefully the way of our lives, fear, uncertainty, insecurity and all the inventions that man has made, including the extraordinary computers, if we take a very long journey into this, where are we at the end of two million years? Where are we going, not as some theory, not what some wretched book says, however holy it is, but where are we all going? And where have we begun? They’re both related to each other: where we are going, where we began. The beginning may be the ending. Don’t agree. Find out. There may be no beginning and no ending and we’re going to investigate into that together. From the beginning of time right down to the present day, man has always thought in terms of religion. What is religion? Man has always sought something more than this world. Men worshipped the stars, the suns, the moons and their own creations; there has been tremendous endeavor, effort, energy, spent on ancient temples, mosques and the churches of course. They have spent tremendous energy on this. What is the spirit of man that has sought something beyond the world, the daily agony, the travail, work, going to the factory, to the office, and climbing the ladder of success, making money, trying to impress people, trying to command? Are you agreeing to this? It is a fact whether you agree or not. They’re all seeking power in some form; they want to be at the center of things—in Delhi, or here, or in America or in other places. They want to be there. We’re asking: What is religion; what has made man give enormous treasures to a temple; what made him do all this? What is the energy that was given to all this? Was it fear? Was it seeking a reward from heaven, or whatever you like to call it? Was seeking a reward the origin? You want a reward; you want something in exchange; you pray three or five times a day and you hope in return some entity will give you something, from a refrigerator to a car to a better wife, or better husband, or you wait for grace, something that you can hope for, cling to. This has been the history of all religions. God and money are always together; the Catholic Church has tremendous treasures. You have it here, too, your various temples, puja and worship and all that triviality; all that is really nonsense. We are attempting to find out by inquiring very, very deeply what religion is; it is obviously not all this money- making stuff. We are asking: What is that which is nameless, which is the supreme intelligence, which has no relationship with all our prayers, will all our gods, with all our temples, mosques, churches? That’s all man-made. Any intelligent man must put all that aside and not become cynical, not become merely skeptical, but really have an inquiring brain, a brain that’s active, a brain that inquires into everything, not only the outside world. Have we got a brain that is inquiring into its own thoughts, into its own consciousness, into its own pains, sufferings, all the rest of it? Have we got such a brain? 328
  • 347. Here, we must separate the brain from the mind. The brain is the center of all our nerves, all our knowledge, all our theories, opinions, prejudices; from college, university, all that knowledge is gathered in the skull. All the thoughts, all the fears are there. Is the brain different from the mind? If you seriously pay attention to what the speaker has asked, is there a difference between the brain, your brain, what is inside the skull with all the knowledge you have gathered, not only you, but your forefathers and so on, for two million years? It’s all encased in there. So, that brain will always be limited. Don’t agree; this is much too serious. And is the mind different from this, from my consciousness, from my daily activities, from my fears, anxieties, uncertainties, sorrow, pain and all the theories which man has gathered about everything? The mind has no relationship with the brain; it can communicate with the brain, but the brain cannot communicate with it. Don’t agree, please, that’s the last thing to do. The speaker is saying the brain is the keeper of all our consciousness, of our thoughts, of our fears and so on, and on, and on. All the gods, all the theories about god and all the unbelievers, it’s all there. Nobody can dispute that unless he’s a little bit odd. This brain, which is conditioned by knowledge, by experience, by tradition, cannot have any communication with that mind which is totally outside the activity of the brain. That mind can communicate with the brain, but the brain cannot communicate with it because the brain can imagine infinitely; the brain can imagine the nameless; the brain can do anything. The mind is too immense because it doesn’t belong to you; it’s not your mind… We have also to inquire—this is a very serious subject, don’t agree or disagree, just listen—in what is creation…Invention is totally different from creation. Invention is based on knowledge. The engineers can improve the jet; the improvement is based on knowledge. So we must separate invention from creation. This requires your total energy, your capacity to penetrate. Invention is essentially based on knowledge. I improve the clock; I have a new gadget. All invention is based on knowledge, on experience; inventions are inevitably limited because they’re based on knowledge. Knowledge being forever limited, inventions must also be limited. In the future there may be no jets, but something else that will go from Delhi to Los Angeles in two hours; that’s an invention based on previous knowledge which has been improved step, by step, by step, but that’s not creation. So what is creation? So what is life, life in the tree, life in the little grass, life, not what scientists invent, but the beginning of life, life, the thing that lives? You may kill it but it is still there in the other. Don’t agree or disagree, but see that we are inquiring into the origin of life. We are going to inquire into the absolute— something that’s really marvelous. It’s not a reward; you can’t take it home and use it. What is meditation to you? What is meditation? The word, in common language in the dictionary means: to ponder over, to think over and to concentrate, to learn to concentrate, not let your brain wander all over the place. Is that what you call meditation? Be simple, be honest. That is what? Every day taking a certain period and going to a room and sitting down quietly for ten minutes, half an hour to 329
  • 348. meditate? Is meditation concentration, thinking about something very noble? Any conscious effort to meditate is part of your discipline of the office, because you say: “If I meditate, I’ll have a quieter mind, or I’ll enter into another state.” The word meditation becomes mechanical because you are exercising energy to concentrate on a picture, an image, or an idea and that concentration divides. Concentration is often divisive; you want to concentrate on something, but thought wanders off; then you say you mustn’t wander off and come back. You repeat this all day long, or half an hour. Then you come off it and say you have meditated. This meditation is advocated by all the gurus, by all the lay disciples. The Christian idea is: I believe in god and I’m sacrificing myself to god; therefore I pray for my soul. Is all this meditation. I know nothing about this kind of meditation; it’s like an achievement; if I meditate for half an hour, I feel better. Or is there a totally different kind of meditation? Don’t accept anything the speaker says, at any price. The speaker says that is not meditation at all. That’s merely a process of achievement. You have one day not been able to concentrate; you take a month and say: “Yes, I’ve got it.” That’s like a clerk becoming a manager. So is there a different kind of meditation which is not effort, which is not measurement, which is not routine, which is not mechanical? Is there a meditation in which there is no sense of comparison, or in which there is no reward or punishment? Is there any meditation which is not based on thought which is measurement, time, and all that? How can one explain a meditation that has no measurement, that has no achievement, that doesn’t say: “I am this, but I’ll become that?” “That” being God or super-angel. Is there a meditation which has nothing to do with will—an energy that says: “I must meditate?” Is there a meditation that has nothing to do with effort at all? The speaker says there is. You don’t have to accept it. He may be talking nonsense, but he sees logically that the ordinary mediation is self-hypnosis, deceiving oneself. And, when you stop deceiving, stop all that mechanical process, is there a different kind of meditation? And unfortunately, the speaker says: “Yes.” You can’t get at it through effort, through giving all your energy to something. It is something that has to be absolutely silent. First of all, begin very humbly, very very humbly and, therefore, very gently and, therefore, no pushing, driving, saying: “I must do this.” It requires a tremendous sense not only of aloneness, but a sense—I mustn’t describe it to you because then you’ll go off on descriptions. If I describe it, the description is not the real. The description of the moon is not the moon and a painting of the Himalayas is not the Himalayas. So, we’ll stop describing. It’s for you to play with it, or not to play with it, going your own way with your own particular achievements through meditation, reward and all the rest of it. So, in meditation which is absolutely no effort, no achievement, no thinking, the brain is quite, not made quiet by will, by intention, by conclusion, and all that nonsense, it is quite. And, being quite, it has infinite space. Are you waiting for me to explore? So, is your brain ever quiet? I’m asking you. Your brain is thinking, fearing, thinking of your office work, of your family, what they will do, your sons and daughters; thinking, which is time and thought. Is your brain ever quiet? Not made quite by drugs and by whisky and various forms of drugging yourself. You drug 330
  • 349. yourself when you believe. You drug yourself and say: “Yes, this is perfectly right; the Buddha has said that, therefore it must be right.” You’re drugging yourself at the time; therefore, you have no energy of that kind that demands the penetration of something immense. So, we’re now going back to find out what creation is. What is creation? It has nothing to do with invention. What is creation, the origin, the beginning? What is life? Tell me what you think of it. What is life? Not going to the office and all the rest of it, sex and children, or no children but sex and so on and so on and so on. What is life? What gives life to that blade of grass in the cement? What is life to us? Not all the things that we go through—power, position, prestige, fame, or no fame, but shame: that’s not life; that’s part of our mishandling of life. But, what is life? Why are you listening to me? What makes you, if you are listening at all, listen to the man? What is the motive behind your listening? What do you want? What’s your desire? Behind the desire there’s a motive. So what is desire? Desire is part of sensation, isn’t it? I see this beautiful clock (or beautiful car) or an ugly clock (or an ugly car); it’s a sensation. The seeing brings about a sensation. From that sensation, thought comes and makes an image of it. That is, I see this clock (or this car), rather nice, I would like to have it. The sensation of seeing, then thought coming and making an image of that sensation; at that moment, desire is born. It’s very simple. Is there a brain, your brain, which is not muddied up, muddied by environment, by tradition, by society and all the rest of it? What is the origin of life? Are you waiting for me to answer it? This is much too serious of a subject to play with, because we are attempting to inquire into something that has no name, no end. I can kill that bird; there is another bird. I can’t kill all the birds; there are too many of them in the world. So, we are inquiring into what makes a bird. What is creation behind all this? Are you waiting for me to describe it, go into it? You want me to go into it? Why? (From the audience): To understand what creation is. Why do you ask that? Because I asked? No description can ever describe the origin. The origin is nameless; the origin is absolutely quiet; it’s not whirring about making noise. Creation is something that is most holy; that’s the most sacred thing in life and if you have made a mess of your life, change it. Change it today, not tomorrow. If you are uncertain, find out why and be certain. If your thinking is not straight, think straight, logically. Unless all that is prepared, all that is settled, you can’t enter into this world, into the world of creation. It ends. This is the last talk. Do you want to sit together quietly for a while? All right sirs, sit quietly for a while. 331
  • 350. May we get up and go now?” *This was talk number three of four scheduled talks. This was J. Krishnamurti’s last talk of many that spanned over 60 years. He died on February 17, 1986, aged nearly 91. ************ “What is the new instrument that will put an end to all this misery? You see, there is a new instrument which is the mind, which is intelligence.” --J. Krishnamurti “The greatest art is the art of living, greater than all things that human beings have created, by mind or hand, greater than all the scriptures and their gods. It is only through this art of living that a new culture can come into being.” --J. Krishnamurti ************ “There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles and piles of trials with smiles, for it riles them to believe that you can perceive the web that they weave, and keep on thinking free.” Author Unknown 332
  • 351. EPILOGUE We have looked into a great deal during this book. We have learned the importance of understanding ourselves, and that wherever we go and whatever we do we take ourselves with us. We have learned that we need not follow anyone in order to come to self- understanding. We need not follow any system and no one can be our guide. We have learned that all of the various religions and the various philosophical systems are not going to help us. We know that there are numerable books that tell us how we should live and what we should do to bring about a better life. What habits we should form and what habits we should get rid of. How we should set goals, be ambitious, and make more money. The list never ends, but we know that none could give us the tools that we have now, self understanding. In understanding ourselves, we become aware and one can see that after thousands of years, none of these have solved our difficult problems. In truth they have only added to them. Man is like he was thousands of years ago, still brutal, and still confused. There has been a war almost every year for the past 5,000 years. 333
  • 352. There have been and continue to be the many divisions between humans that have bred and continue to breed conflict. We have tried everything, and nothing has brought about understanding and order. We must turn to ourselves for this understanding, because any understanding outside of ourselves has little significance. We have learned about the overall problem with religion and any organized spiritual belief. But we have also looked into a great deal of knowledge. This was necessary to open the door for the rejection of certain sets of symbols and beliefs, and to break free of this conditioning. It would be nice if none of us had ever read or been exposed to the many so-called sacred scriptures and were simply brought up with love, compassion, understanding, and freedom, but unfortunately that is not the case. It is important that we understand that although this knowledge is important for self-understanding, this knowledge carried around content is not conducive to or necessary for that understanding. We are fortunate as humans to be living in this century and for the first time in history we are in the position to find truth. It is a wonder that so many people go on accepting the beliefs the environment imposes on them, when the only task is research. Yet all over the world people go on accepting beliefs and living in some false happiness, mixed with confusion, misery, despair, anxiety, and sorrow. 334
  • 353. This book has taught us how important it is for us not to depend on anyone. We have learned that if we continue to condition, to brainwash our youth into having psychological dependencies we will continue to be divided and we will continue the confusion. We must stop imposing our fears on the youth. We have learned that God is an illusion that compels men to take wrong action, and to justify the worst crimes. It is important for each one of us to understand the many illusions of thought. Each one us must come to understand who we are and realize that this psychological content is an illusion—an illusion to be projected and protected. This illusion of thought creates the tendency for individuals, nations, races, and social groups, to see one another as fundamentally different and separate. This is the major source of wrong actions and conflicts in individuals and, thus, in the world. By self-understanding one recognizes the essential interrelatedness of all things, and in doing so brings about a more holistic and harmonious state of mind, creating universal intelligence. The dawn of a new instrument is love through intelligence, and it is only this intelligence that will bring about a better world. 335
  • 354. MEDIOCRE: (root meaning) -- Half way up the mountain. RELIGION: (root meaning) -- To gather or to bind together all your energy to come upon that which is true. -- To gather all the energy in one place. MEDITATE: (root meaning) --To measure. Thought is a material thing – it is a form of measurement. All forms of belief, all psychological knowledge, all symbols, are a product of thought, are material, and are a form of measurement. Meditation is freedom from the measure. Knowledge— as psychological—is of the past—but will project into the future. * * * * * IDEA: (Greek – observation, a form, the look or appearance of a thing as opposed to its reality, to see) 1. a thought, mental conception, mental image, notion. 2. an opinion or belief. IDEAL: (Fr. – ideal ; LL – idealis -- existing only in idea) 1. existing only in the mind as an image, fancy, or concept; visionary; imaginary: distinguished from real, or material. NEUROTIC: 1. pertaining to the nerves. 2. of, characteristic of, or having any of various psychic or mental disorders characterized by special combinations of anxieties, compulsions, obsessions, phobias and sensory manifestations, without apparent organic or structural injury or change. ALONE: (root meaning) – all and one -- single; solitary; separate from others or from the mass; without 336
  • 355. the presence or aid of another. COSMOS: (Gr. kosmos, order, harmony, ornament, hence the world as an orderly system.) 1. order; harmony. 2. the universe as an embodiment of order and harmony; the system of order and