Comments on the Concept of Evil (by Bob Griffith)

Prologue: In a post entitled “God’s Disclaimer” I took it upon myself to speak for the Supreme Being, distancing the Deity from the remarks of a Colorado State Representative and internet televangelist named Gordon Klingenschmitt. In March of 2015 a pregnant woman was attacked in Longmont, Colorado and her unborn child was cut from her womb and died. Mr. Klingenschmitt used that tragedy as a platform to condemn the practice of abortion (which had nothing to with the event) stating, This is the curse of God for the sin of not protecting our innocent children in the womb.” My friend Bob Griffith commented on that post and began a discussion relating to concepts of good and evil – mostly considerations of evil in our world – that deserves serious consideration. What follows is an edited combination of several of the points Bob made in his comments which are significant beyond the immediate context of Klingenschmitt’s remark.

-law

COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPT OF EVILBob Griffith

There is a form of self-aware evil in human beings which is embraced by choice and practiced consciously, but Klingenschmitt doesn’t strike me as a focused and committed over-achiever who is evil by choice and is in conscious pursuit of his own ends by any means. His evil is of the common- as-dirt variety. He’s ignorant. Ignorant of his own evil, and ignorant of his real and true nature. When it comes to which is the worst kind of evil I couldn’t say. Consciously evil people in pursuit of their own selfish ends have done a lot of damage down through history. But the evil which is not aware of its own nature and considers itself to be righteous, true and good has done just as much, if not more.

Evil has its amateurs and its professionals. Mr. Klingenschmitt may be an amateur, but he’s a well-educated monkey. He’s learned to cloak his ignorance of God with an assertive projection implying scholarship, study, evaluation, and correct conclusions. Yet what he says belies the presence of any of that.

It is telling that while folks like him characterize themselves as part of a religion that has the name of Christ in it, they embrace the ways and means and practices of the Old Testament, which Christ sorted out, clarified, and healed.

It is equally telling that they claim to be cleansed and sanctified by the sublime compassion and heroic sacrifice of a being who offered himself willingly as the final Divine sacrificial scapegoat. All sins were taken with Him when He was killed. They were removed, expiated, which is the function of a scapegoat. Fear, punishment, all the vices and sins and negative aspects of humanity were removed, and the admonition of the act was explicit: If you remember me, you will remember that I have shown you how to remove those things from yourselves. Remember me. Do it. Go and sin no more. And when you do, remember – no scapegoat is necessary. That act is over, it is finished. Embrace the forgiveness of yourself and others which I have shown you, and carry on the best you know how. Be compassionate, be connected, serve others, love one another.

Yet rather than partake of the meaning of that sacrifice and remember that it was to be the last blood sacrifice necessary for their own salvation, there are people who remain ignorant of what Christ taught and did, and instead continue to make scapegoats of others. They remain ignorantly entrapped within that ancient human archetypal motif which Christ transcended. Such activity is hardly “Christian.”

That’s enough of that, it’s an entire subject of its own. I’ve said enough to start a personal consideration of the matter in that light for anyone inclined to do so.

Next: The relative and absolute values of good and evil are interesting things, and may be considered in the context of A Course in Miracles or the Tao Te Ching

As to Miracles, the Course observes that “To be born again is to let the past go, and look without condemnation upon the present.” The Course then goes on to observe that when we see time as past, present and future we are imprisoned, and when we see time as a continuous unity we are free. The transformative perspective shift which reveals that continuity is the Miracle.

After that is this: “The miracle enables you to see your brother without his past, and so perceive him born again.”

Miracles is focused on teaching an awareness of continuity, and in this instance does not complicate the mission of the lesson with the concept of simultaneity, that is, that both perspectives are possible at the same time, or continuously.

Nor does ACIM, there at least, go into the fact that bilateral conscious dualism is the realm of both prison and freedom. ACIM is rightfully concerned with teaching the student how to transcend the belief that the realm of separations is all there is, and instead to know the realm where there are none.

Similarly, in the perspective of the Tao Te Ching there is yang and yin – not opposing fragments but complementary parts of, again, a continuous unity. Again, fragments and a unified whole existing simultaneously.

When I observe that a man is a misguided and self-deluded monkey it does not mean that I banish him to a place outside the Sonship, or the continuous unity of all things. It does mean that in the simultaneous existing realm where dualism, opposites, and separations exist, I have located his position there. A Son of God trapped in a self-inflicted prison isn’t that hard to see.

You may ask why it is evident and unmistakable rather than obscure and dubious in a place where shades of certainty and uncertainty exist across a full spectrum between dark and light. Why nothing more than just an opinion?

Because.

(That’s Mrs. Cosmopolite’s Rule Number 79, which applies to many situations and was first recorded by Lu-Tze in Terry Pratchett’s Thief of Time.)

Because we do know. Because we are all God as well as individual, finite, separate beings. We are inseparably united and simultaneously fragmented. We know imbalance, we know balance, and we know that thing where balance and imbalance are not applicable.  If we choose to. 

Seeing or believing this in the realm of seeing and believing is, by the nature of the realm, an optional choice. When the option is rejected, only dualistic fragmentation is embraced.  The degree to which individuals separate themselves from a simultaneous consciousness of unity and proceed to see and believe in only the selfish agenda – rather than know the existent fact of the unity of all – well, that is the degree of imbalance and separation which they attain and manifest in their deeds and speech and actions. They then typically proceed to make a monkey of themselves, and lock themselves up in their own imprisoning cage. I know this because I have done it many times myself. As we say around here, “That’s how we learn.”

If “value” is an assignment of the worth to a thing, then that value exists only because there is a place where things can be broken up into relative pieces. That would be the place of dualistic, existential experience where we perceive poles of light and dark and the points between. Individual perception is the local function which navigates space and time and local circumstance and interprets what we perceive in terms of how it relates to our individual situation. This perspective sees what it sees in terms of what is good or bad for itself, and is concerned with that.

There is also a perception available to human beings which is not local, and does not involve plus or minus values because it is not local, not within the self. It is the perception of what is. It is perception of the absolute thing which exists as it is, and is the unchanging object of all personal, local interpretations. It is seen by all from different local perspective points, but it’s location and nature does not change. It is not plus, not minus – it is simply what is. It’s the basic indivisible singularity which is the “that” and the “thou” of “That art Thou.”

It exists beyond perception, and would exist even in the absence of perception. Yet it, too, can be perceived “locally,” because it is present there. It is present everywhere. It is the absolute fundament of everything, unchanging, not subject to value assignations because it has none. It is the value, the first and last value, the only value – indivisible and whole. It is the primal author of all perceptions, of all prophets and religions and viewpoints.

And we can perceive it because it is us.  If we choose to. 

11 thoughts on “Comments on the Concept of Evil (by Bob Griffith)

  1. Hey guys,

    This post reminds me of a Facebook conversation I had last week with my cousin. She and I are of a very different sort and she posted a photo that suggested that we should “let God back in schools” with small children hugging each other. It was just the trigger to set me off. Here is what I wrote:

    “Just like racial minorities, there are religious minorities too. Not everyone is Christian and it would be very unfair to the non-Christians to allow this. It is tough enough for non-Christians to not be “normal” like every other Christian. I work in a middle school and this school has many Christians. I am certain that those few who are not Christians feel strange enough. School is tough on anyone who does not fit “the norm”. Our country was built on equality and the whole reason, in my mind, for no religion in schools, is to help everyone feel that they are equal. Even if that means what religion you are. Plus, if that were allowed, what would it be? Catholic? Lutheran? Methodist? Something else? Not everyone is Christian, but even amongst Christians there is not always agreement on what is right.

    Would you say that the school is mostly white so it should be a white school? That would be appalling, wouldn’t it? What would the non-whites do? Just leave? We’ve been there. It was horrible and we don’t need to go there again.”

    That comment sat with me all day. I felt somehow mean for saying it, but I was really upset with what, in my mind, was an offensive statement to me personally. In the end, I decided that I had not given her viewpoint any voice in my mind. WHY did she want to let God back in schools? I assumed the worst from her. I took it personally.

    I tell this story because the only way we have to transform ourselves as ONE HUMANITY is to take ownership of each and every action we personally make. It is very tempting and natural to get upset when someone like Mr. Klingenschmitt opens his mouth. But he is just another lesson for each of us in forgiveness. Our anger does not serve our moving forward as one.

    In my mind, my anger at my cousin’s seemingly insensitive post was FULLY JUSTIFIED. Anger is always fully justified to those who are experiencing it. That is the fuel that anger needs to continue. There is NO doubt that the words of Mr. Klingenschmitt inspire anger in me also, but is that what is required here? Is that what will bring humanity through this age of darkness and fear?

    With my cousin, I have created a chasm through my anger. I could allow that chasm to continue or I could consider it my responsibility to understand what is truly behind her statement. Aren’t we all moving in the same direction? Or at least trying to? If I am to have faith in mankind, I have to believe that we are. And people like Mr. Klingenschmitt are merely confused. I was confused too. We all have our moments when we fail.

    I loved your reminder of Jesus. I try to think of him when I am trying to understand Christians. He was an incredible human being, if that is what we would call him. If it were down to just deciding “What Would Jesus Do”, I think I could be Christian. Unfortunately, the entire message has gotten rather garbled and contaminated with fear. We can bring it back, though. We just need to forgive like Jesus taught us to.

  2. Diversity of perspective is a natural thing, and my comments reflect my own perspective on both the source of our all-inclusive commonality and the separations of individual identity, which exist simultaneously together.

    You’ve made some good observations, Amy, about the separation of church and state, and anger, and the response to separation which involves tolerance, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. There’s something I want to clarify about the tone of what I have written before I comment on your observations.

    It is natural to perceive that anger could be present in my words. I am human, and anger is something we all experience and learn to deal with, so of course there’s a bit of that in there. On my path I’ve been availed of trusted mentors, Teachers and Guides who have been quite direct and firm with me. I’ve been chafed by experts who pulled no punches, not because they were angry with me but rather because, like the proverbial mule that needs to be slapped between the eyes, first they had to get my attention. Once they had it they extended tolerance, compassion and understanding in immensely greater measure.

    That being said, I would like to say it is possible to regard what I have written not as a pejorative rant or slap so much as a dispassionate observation of certain manifestations of humanity which need to be looked directly in the eye and spoken firmly to.

    Parents do this all the time. I am not saying I am the parent here. What I am saying is that many human beings have learned that it is possible to be angry with the behavior of a person and simultaneously be compassionate and understanding toward them. As it is expressed in some places, we learn to “hate the sin and love the sinner,” although in my perspective “hate” does not apply. Hate means going the wrong way in my world. It is the child of fear, and fear is the child of ignorance.

    So as far as this particular “sin” and “sinner” are concerned, my expression of how to respond is to firmly and directly suggest that it might be a good thing to stop for a moment and think about whether or not their little light has gone out.

    My perspective could be metaphorically expressed by saying that on that divine ground from which all prophets, religions, and saviors spring there is an altar, and on that altar there is a burning candle. In humanity’s history we have identified certain beings who have gone there, lit a candle of their own, and brought that light back here to the existential realm.

    Christ was one of those beings, and many candles have been lit at His in the darkness He sought to illuminate. The problem being, of course, that some candle-bearers appropriate the light for themselves and their own special glory rather than carry it forward for purposes of sharing, and don’t realize that the moment they do this – well, the light goes out.

    The example and lesson Christ gave us with regard to scapegoats is very applicable to the subject of anger which you bring up here. When we think of anger as being something which can be ignored or eliminated rather than dealt with as a part of our human experience, we miss part of the lesson.

    Christ was angry about just this sort of thing. He overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the temple because they were making a profit for themselves from the blood of innocent sacrificial animals, and there was some real heat in His words to them about that. Yet the thing to be remembered is not that anger, it is how it was dealt with and the response it brought forth.

    How can anyone miss the significance of an act which sought to end, once and for all, a practice and belief which had become so twisted and buried in darkness that it acted out the thought that only death could purchase life? Christ established a bridge with one end rooted in that dark past and the other landed upon the threshold of a new kingdom of light where the blood of innocents was not necessary.

    And yet that simple fact has been easily missed by a multitude of people who believe that Christ’s blood and death purchased their life, and who, without thinking about it, continue to believe in the very thing that Christ sought to end – the blood sacrifice, the power of the scapegoat, the corruptions attendant within the establishments of local temples serving only the powerful, self-righteous few.

    They are not carried over the bridge to the new kingdom. They remain in the dark place where only the death of the non-believer, or their submission to conscription by the righteous group, will save and serve us all. Sacrifice and blood, enforcement and exclusivity and separation – that’s their ticket to salvation, and not the compassion, tolerance and forgiveness which you recognize and speak of.

    I share Christ’s moments of anger about such things. It is not my purpose to justify the presence of whatever anger there may be in my words with the fact that Christ, too, experienced anger. It’s a part of my experience, it was a part of His. I share the impatience He often spoke with toward the disciples, admonishing them to listen, to pay attention to his meaning and absorb it into their hearts rather than take the words alone and transpose them into interpretations which suited their own personal purposes. I also share His response to point toward a re-choosing of belief which involves compassion, tolerance and forgiveness – and also simultaneously make no equivocation about the dark behind us, which is too often still with us, or the light which can be embraced instead.

    Enough said.

    The principle of separation of church and state is a local principle which has come forward out of human history as a response to the divisive effects of religion. Those divisive effects time and time again have proven to be the result of one group’s over-reaching desires to require that their perspective becomes exclusive, and enforced upon all.

    Every religion is entitled to a soapbox. We are human. We share, compare, and discuss and so move ideally toward a consensus which serves all. Yet the evidence of history proves to us that no religion profits humanity when it self-entitles itself to a lever of coercion like an army sent forth to conquer, or when it manages to enforce overbearing powers upon infidels, non-believers, racial groups, or peaceful, cooperative, tolerant others whose only disqualifying trait is a different perspective.

    Once the choice for the personal agenda is made, when the “special” group decides it is to be the enforcer and arbiter of all beliefs, it sets up a condition wherein opposition, suppression, enforcement, and disenfranchisement become useful tools, and such movements come to a place where an “army” is a necessity, because anger and opposition will, sooner or later, be a common response to their insistence upon their own exclusive preeminence.

    Where does that anger come from? Does it rise first in the ranks of the special group? Is the resultant reaction to their actions a reflection of their own condition? Does the anger of opposition come into being as a response to the anger which created it?

    Those who have joined together because they feel fearful, unsafe, alone, affronted, or endangered by those who do not share their perspective don’t really address those issues. Have they created the anger in the world from their own anger by projecting it there, and then following through with actions which make it “real?” Do they create their own angry adversary? Yes, they do. Yet in establishing themselves within a boundaried keep surrounded by battlements, and marching out to enforce the rules of the keep upon the world, they really don’t have the time or inclination to consider these questions, let alone rethink things in the light that perhaps the “adversary” they have created is a self-inflicted delusion.

    Yet this all happens in the place where individuals have forgotten their common connection and mutual universal source. A push creates a retaliatory shove and there’s a scrum between groups. Such groups are not collectively pushing toward the goal of light and away from the goal of darkness in the dualistic realm. They are merely pushing and shoving one another to a different place on the field, a different perspective point, and usually with a lot of force.

    Religions and indeed all groups of humanity can become separated from the universal, common source which we all share. It could be argued that all groups have the good intention to point to the light for all, but that intention fails when their attention becomes focused upon their particular message, their particular pointing finger, and not upon the place the message has come from, or what, ideally, they are pointing at.

    I’m not able from my own perspective point in the dualistic existential human experience to say that here we are all moving in the same direction, or at least trying to. Here we are moving in many different directions. Or drifting. Or stuck.

    In terms of the Tao, which I know you are familiar with, we are imbued with Yin and Yang, the separate complementary forces existing simultaneously within the Tao. The predicament we all have is that we are simultaneously imbued with the essence of a totality which has no relative values, and an existence which superimposes over that essence an overlay of personal individuality, and personal values. As a result we always see each separately. We say, “Here is the Tao, and here is the existential realm of our self-imposed dualistic perspective.” And we seek to join the two together in our words, actions, and deeds.

    The trick is to see through that overlay, and let the essence of the Tao enter into this place of separations. In the sense that this essence is the author, the creator, and the underlying substance of all of us, yes, it is appropriate to have faith in mankind.

    We just need to remember that our faith is not well-placed in the separations we perceive, but rather in the focus of our attention upon the substance of what we wholly are. If we are to coexist as a reflection of the One even though we are simultaneously separated from it, then so long as we see the two worlds, the Tao and Humanity, we need to seek balance there for ourselves – and when we can, help those who have lost theirs. Forgiveness is a good step in that direction. One of the first of many. As I recall, the one after it is one which involves the admonishment to “go, and sin no more.”

    • There is a quotation that is usually, but erroneously, attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (It was actually in a book about Voltaire written by Beatrice Evelyn Hall under the pen name of S. G. Tallentyre.) I think that at least a simple majority of people in our society would say they agree with that statement – and it seems Bob and Amy have both said as much here.

      Exactly how far the right to say things that are controversial should be taken has been in the news the past few days because the Pen American Center has decided to give its annual Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was the target of a deadly attack in January. The attack was in retribution for cartoons and sarcastic journalism critical of radical Islam, as well as some traditional Islamic beliefs. Several prominent writers have refused to attend the upcoming ceremony objecting to the demeaning manner in which Charlie Hebdo has regularly portrayed the minority Muslim population of France. Cartoonist Gary Trudeau (“Doonesbury”), for example, has recently said that some of the drawings found in Charlie Hebdo have “wandered into the realm of hate speech.”

      In the realm of what is good and evil, it would seem that sometimes the content of what is said is not as important as the motivation behind it. There is “hate speech” meant to denigrate and threaten racial, sexual, religious, cultural and other groups that should not be tolerated in a civil society. While I personally hate to give any more attention to Mr. Klingenschmitt and his remarks, I feel that it is perhaps worthwhile to look at what he said in that context.

      I do not feel that his statement that a violent act against a pregnant woman and her unborn child was the vengeance of God against a society that is “not protecting our innocent children in the womb” amounts to “hate speech.” It is despicable speech, and I consider it even worse than despicable because I think it was a statement made for the primary purpose of putting the speaker into the spotlight to advance his political career.

      After those remarks were criticized and disowned by the Republican caucus of the Colorado House, I predicted that Klingenschmitt would not be re-elected to the House because he could not be supported by either God or fellow Republicans. Well, it turns out that I am probably right with that prediction. Last week he announced that he does not intend to seek re-election to the House – rather, he is going to run for the Senate next year.

      According to the Denver Post, what was “billed as a town hall meeting turned into a half-hour tease” for the announcement of his candidacy. The Post further reported that “Klingenschmitt said he fasted for 72 hours before the Wednesday night meeting and asked for God’s advice on his political future.”

      Thus, it seems that Klingenschmitt has again forgotten what Jesus taught. In Chapter 6 of Matthew’s gospel, He told His disciples to fast in private and not make a public spectacle of it “as the hypocrites do. … Truly, I tell you, they have received their reward in full.”

      Amy has pointed out that people who say things like that are “confused.” That is probably true. I guess the appropriate inquiry, then, is what the rest of us should do when we encounter, or are assaulted by, such confusion. We also have to wonder if “confused” is the correct word for someone who is using religious speech for personal self-promotion.

      Yes, I think it is. It is a different kind of “confusion,” but the mark of a seriously confused person.

      Similarly, separation of church and state and the role of religious beliefs in the education of our children are important issues, the discussion of which often adds to the underlying confusion in most of our minds. Mahatma Gandhi is reputed to have said something like, “If you Christians would behave more like your Christ, then the whole world would be Christian.”

      Unfortunately, all Christians do not do so. Neither do all Muslims act like Muhammad or all Buddhists act like the Buddha or all Taoists follow the teachings of Lao Tzu (Laozi). There are different religions and different spiritual systems because each individual in the world is at a different level of spiritual development. We all know the story of the Tower of Babel and the confusion that resulted from the imposition of different languages. Today we have a Babel of religious beliefs. Are they all taking us in the same direction? In the macro-sense, they must be since there is probably a single destination for everything on Earth. In the micro-sense, while we are here, it is much more difficult to see a commonality.

  3. There is a lot to address here. My original point was about the seductiveness of anger and how this can drive us to step into that space that creates us as separate. How DO we hold our space of connectedness in a world that seems to do everything it can to make us separate? It’s a tough battle that can only begin inside each one of us.

    When I read the story of the woman whose baby was cut from her, I was shocked and appalled. I was further shocked and appalled when I read the words that Mr. Klingenschmitt said in reaction to this event. What am I supposed to do?

    You, Louis, as a teacher sort, decided to admonish him with this post and that is very commendable. Perhaps Bob was right that Jesus may have done the same thing and I can humor myself by envisioning just how that conversation would go. I think that you are correct in thinking that we need some anger and some discussion of such things – ideally with awareness that this is consciously maintaining our separateness in order to make a point. Sometimes you have to join someone where they are at (separateness) in order to make a point.

    Recently there was news of a pizza joint that had decided that serving gay couples was against their religion. The backlash was so strong that they had to close. But then, surprisingly, they were able to raise a significant amount of money through an online fundraising campaign from people supporting their actions. That conversation, like the one we are discussing here, left me wondering which direction we are really going here. “We” being collectively, humanity. The discussion with the pizza story makes us consider if the freedom for one group of people to do what they feel supports their own version of what is right from their own religious perspective should override the rights of people to be treated fairly? I think not. One freedom is clashing another. Does the freedom of [borderline] hate speech override the freedom of people having to hear those awful words, as in the case of Charlie Hebdo? Again a situation of being treated fairly overrides.

    Bringing this back to the case of Mr. Klingenschmitt, clearly he is suffering from the public humiliation from having his entire political party disown him. We hope that he will learn. The pizza shop owners are out of business. If enough of us stand up, perhaps even with a bit of anger, and state the injustices, then maybe things will get better in the end. In the days of the civil rights movement during the 60s in the U.S., there was certainly a lot of discord before people finally agreed that it was not OK to treat people of other skin colors as lesser people. It took a lot of anger and angst to make that happen, I guess, because separateness is where people were at. We are still there, but our conversation has gone a level deeper. I say hoorah for the argument. We will get there. This is just the ugliness before the break.

  4. Good thoughts all round. It is a thin edge upon which to keep one’s balance when we seek to maintain right speech and right action toward others and at the same time bring a light forward into a dark place. Angst and anger are part of the mix, of course. The better part is how that discord is met, as you both clearly see.

    Both Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King modeled that. I loved the quote from Ghandi, Louis, in which he gently suggested that Christians could be more Christ-like in their behaviors. And Amy, you are right on point when you speak of the difficulty of maintaining our connection in the presence of separations.

    There was a lot of angst and anger created by the unjust conditions which Ghandi and King – and in this context, Jesus, too – sought to confront and correct. Yet they found a path of right speech and right action which, while firmly confrontational and deeply committed to the correction of the words, deeds and actions of their unbalanced fellow human beings, was peaceful and non-violent. And firmly rooted.

    If we are deluded, our intention to be so will be revealed. If our intentions are pure and helpful, and our roots set in firm ground, then that too will be revealed. I think the internal environment and internal intention of every speaker is manifested outwardly in their speech and actions. I also think that how such speech and action is perceived by others is wildly variable because that, too, depends on the internal environment and intentions of the listener.

    Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, meaning is in the ear of the listener. So when we speak, if we are firmly rooted, we speak our truth and release it, trusting it will go where it will go and do what it will do to serve the internal root of our intention. When we listen, if we have ears which hear, we will get the message.

    Yet how can we be certain our roots are indeed in the firm ground of the Tao, and the intent of our speech and actions grounded in the essence we all share, when simultaneously we exist in a condition which holds the possibility that we are not? Can we be sure that we are not mistaken, deluded, twisted, bent or diverted from conscious awareness of our essence by our individuality, our ability to choose, by the unassailable fact that separation from the godhead is a very real option in the dualistic realm of our existence?

    Human beings recognize that diversion from the consciousness of our essence is a fundamental mistake we are all involved in. Christians call this “sin,” and say that because we have this possibility on board in our human repertoire, and it is actively in play to some degree in everyone, that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

    The Buddhists believe that the extent to which we divert our attention from consciousness of our essence is the extent to which we develop “defilements” of that essence in our character and speech and actions.

    I’ve spoken about this before, and the short answer to those questions is “Because.” Our being has a causal root, and every “being” thing shares that cause. The best that translates for me in the moment is: We Be of The Cause. We are of the Tao, we are of God. When we are conscious of that, our roots are firm.

    • Amy and Bob, you both have inspired me to be more conscious of trying to move away from separateness; which is to say, thinking less from my ego-self and more from that part of me that thinks such movement is possible. I feel that is important because.

      I have asked a few other people whose opinions I respect to write something about their perceptions of good and evil and the neutrality of events and the sonship and all. I hope they are willing to do that.

      I am going to limit my comment at this time to see what other thoughts may be expressed over the next day or so.

  5. Pingback: #WhatAreYouWorkingOn – No. 5 | Tao Te Ching Daily

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *