Aaron

Hello Jack, I'm not saying this to upset you or antagonize you, but I do believe I know what's being talked about here. What is being referred to as the "primordial purity of the original basis" is what I call the spirit, others call it the god spark, god-self, etc. It is something that encompasses everything, it has been here from the beginning and will be here at the end. From my experience one becomes aware of it when they completely let go of all thoughts and ideas, when one ceases to see the world as the entirety of reality and can see a realm of existence that transcends it, yet is right beside it. I have experienced this on several occasions during meditation, and I have explained the experience to others long before I heard it described here. It came to me the first time in a sudden flash, when I had achieved complete stillness of mind, no thought or action, just a complete and utter emptiness. When it happens it's as if nothing exists, at least not as you sense it. If you asked me to describe it I would say it as if the universe is not a jumble of things, but just one thing, a thing without form or any real characteristic, not even being. Trying to attach a feeling or definition is impossible because it has no form to define. It's like you feel nothing, for a moment you are not there. I once told people that it's like you are connected to everything that exists, that you are not simply one simple individual but the entirety of everything that exists. I experienced this several years ago on several occasions after years of daily meditation (at one point in my life I meditated an hour to two hours daily.) After reaching this state I stopped trying because it is extremely humbling. Yes you feel an immense degree of peace afterwards, but I honestly believe that if your house is not in order, that you cannot appreciate it, and at that time I couldn't. If you want a true scale of what your self is, that experience gives you a true scale. From my experience I could see how infinitely small I actually was, how my belief that I was somehow important (more important) than others wasn't true and that really nothing is important. We are all simply ants dragging grains of rice back to the colony. At least that's how it made me feel. (Note I can still reach this state today, but I choose not to for the aforementioned reasons.) You don't have to believe me. Perhaps I misunderstood what is being said, but regardless, I don't think that alone was enough for me to achieve any form of real awareness, because now after years of meditation I think there's more to it. I tried to come up with an explanation of what that is, but I can't. It's not something I can describe. Perhaps one day I'll be able to, but right now it's like trying to describe a shadow in a pitch black room. Aaron edit- With what I just said, I should add that I have no doubts about what reality is, but there's no way for me to prove it to you. What concerns me now is not the nature of the spirit (hence the reason I've never really gone into great depth about that) but rather the way we define reality. I had this experience before I delved into Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other -isms, so trying to explain it was very difficult. I think much of my research into these religions was to understand completely what I had experienced. Perhaps the fact I could not explain it is a good indicator that it was not an enlightening experience, but rather a sudden awareness.

Hello Manitou, I can understand your aversion to books. The reason I mentioned Allan Watts "The Book" is because if I didn't know any better, I would've assumed you had read it. Much of what it talks about is the idea that we are God asleep and the process of being and also becoming aware, not only physically, but experientially, of our existence as God. No need to read it, I just thought you might gain some insight. My own belief is that, even though we should define our own beliefs, as I mentioned, we shouldn't dismiss those who came before. We shouldn't stop learning because we think no one knows anything, or we've learned as much as we can, and the only way we can learn now is to experience it for ourself. Many people have learned magnificent things that they are more than willing to share, but if you close yourself off to that, whether it is pride or ego, then you deprive yourself of that source of knowledge. That's one of the reasons I disagree with the notion of giving up ideas and beliefs entirely, because it says that everyone who has lived before us has not learned anything of value, that only we can learn what is valuable. That's almost like saying, "I am the center of the universe and the universe revolves around me." I can only speak for myself, but if I took that approach I would've never been able to achieve sobriety because I didn't know how to get sober, it was only through the guidance of others, and through their shared experience that I was finally able to understand what sobriety was about and what I needed to do to achieve it. Anyways, you're free to give up on books and knowledge, but I think there's this idea that somehow thinking is bad that is misunderstood by the Western World. They hear phrases like, "be done with learning and you will have no more vexation" and believe that it's telling people to stop learning, when that's not it at all, it's talking about learning for the sake of learning, amassing knowledge with no real purpose. Anyways, I'll leave it there. I didn't mean to offend you by recommending you read "The Book". I appreciate your opinion and you're free to have it. Aaron edit- I wanted to add that I in no way believe one shouldn't begin to define their own understanding of the world through their experience as I mentioned to Jack, but rather that we can do that and still learn at the same time. We just need to be able to examine things critically to determine what is valid to our experience and what isn't.

Hello Jack, I agree with you, it's only by letting go of beliefs that we can really experience things as it is, in fact I think it was mentioned previously. The purpose of my practice is to get back to the original nature, to understand what we are at our fundamental basic level, but there are experiences I've had that lead me to believe that certain things are real, even if I cannot prove them to you. For instance I do believe the spirit is eternal, even if the mind and body aren't. I had this belief before I learned about Buddhism and Taoism and it was this belief that led me away from Christianity and caused me to examine other philosophies. It's been two decades since I first had that spiritual experience and as time goes on I've begun to examine my life, how the experience of self relates to me, rather than the philosophy surrounding the nature of one's self. When I talk about the mind-body-soul being one, it's because I feel it on a deep level, but also I can see it on an intellectual level. I think being done with beliefs doesn't mean that we cease to have opinions and ideas, but rather that we examine the world and from that examination take our ideas from how we experience the world. So these days, though there may be some philosophies that have led me to lean in one direction or the other, I do believe my general practice is becoming one devoid of dogma and religious ideology and rather one based on the very basic human experience as I know it. Anyways, I think you've made a good point and I do think it's what we should all aspire to, examine our beliefs, understand where they come from, so that we can decide whether or not they are valid in relation to our own human experience. Aaron

Hello Jack, I was going to message you, but I think you brought up an important topic that needs to be addressed. In regards to sexual predators within the monasteries, the point of my argument (and own opinion) was that religions do not ultimately heal deviancy, and they do not help someone transcend who they actually are. In another thread I've commented on compassion for others, including sexual offenders. My argument isn't that we shouldn't show them compassion, but that we need to be sure that they do not cause any more harm and that those who have allowed them to cause harm are held accountable. Compassion isn't necessarily forgiving others when they do something wrong, sometimes it's teaching them that they've done something wrong through correction, other times it's ensuring that they don't cause anymore harm, for their own sake and others. There aren't very many black and white topics out there, but I think when it comes to sex offenders, regardless of where they are, it's very black and white. We, as compassionate individuals, are responsible for ensuring that they do not harm the innocent. This doesn't mean killing them or imprisoning them for life, some prisons are reporting that they have around an 85% success rate in treating sex offenders who actively participate in their treatment. Just a request, if anyone wants to talk about this, could you start a new topic and message me? I would be happy to discuss this with you, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread anymore than it already has been. Aaron

That's very Vendantic. If you haven't already, you should read Allan Watts "The Book". From my own personal beliefs I would argue that you're probably correct, but there's no way of knowing until we reach that final step. Aaron

Hello Otis, I recently watched a program on Nova about the human brain. One segment of the show talked about Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, a process whereby scientist stimulate sections of the brain with strong magnetic impulses in order to disrupt the electric current in the brain. What they found was that they could not only stimulate physical responses, such as cause a finger to twitch, or cause someone to slur their speech, but they were also able to affect such things as defining moral intentions and also alleviate depression. This process seems to prove that consciousness, thought, actually does reside within the brain and that the perception that it arises from an outside source may not be completely true. Now on the flip side there have been studies where people have been able to perceive what other people were thinking or feeling in another room, just by concentrating on the other person. Although scientists are not completely sure how this works, it does seem to lend to the idea that on some level we can detect the conscious actions of others on some level. Aaron

Hello Stan, In my non-scientific opinion we are a bit of both. Again, in my opinion (that stems from a deeply religious experience) I believe our spirit continues to pass on from lifetime to lifetime until we reach a point where we understand what we're doing here, then we cease to return. I can't prove this at all, the only reason I believe it is because I experienced something so profound that there is no doubt in my mind. I also think the spirit, the part that continues on is our self, just as much as my body and mind. Yes the body and mind may cease to exist, but what truly makes us, us, is the singular being that is the mind, body, and soul as one while it does exist. Aaron

Hello Shaktimama, Obviously this was just a misunderstanding. If you say it was a coincidence then I'm sure it must have been. Aaron

Hello Cadet, As Otis said, many of us feel this way. I respect philosophies and examine them, but eventually I take what I think is beneficial and leave the rest. The fact is every philosophy has something beneficial, the trick is digging through all the moral and religious dogma to identify exactly what that is. Aaron

Hello Adept, I want to clarify that I have no more of a problem with Buddhism than I do Taoism, Christianity, or Islam. In my mind they all serve a purpose and if one wishes to practice one of these religions they should be able to. I made that comment to explain that I'm not making these assumptions based on ignorance, but rather based on what I know about the religion. In fact I have a great deal of respect for Zen and Ch'ang Buddhism. If I made comments that seem to be attacks, they weren't, rather they were examples of why I feel Buddhism doesn't work for me and what eventually led to my current beliefs regarding self and the nature of self. I am not inclined to argue, in fact it pains me to argue. I would much rather have a kind and courteous conversation about a topic, one that doesn't attack someone, but rather discusses the topic at hand. That's what I think we should aspire to here. You have your opinion and I have mine, rather than continue to try to prove which opinion is wrong I say lets discuss the differences and accept that we have differences of opinion. Aaron

I remember saying, "many, many, many books about Buddhism" at one time, is that a reference to that comment in the Nature of Self Thread? No offense, but this seems to be a thread started at my expense. In fact it seems that you're referencing my past thread on the Nature of Tao as well, when you say, "kinda like describing the Tao." I'm sure you think this is clever, but I find it quite childish. I would suggest if you have issues with me, rather than attack me in an open thread, that you message me regarding those issues. In the end what does diminishing me actually do for you? Aaron

Hello Vortex, Zen tells you to think when you are given a koan. It is through paradox that realization comes. It is through confusion that clarity arrives. There are many different schools of Zen, so not all schools practice kaons, but they do all use the same method for achieving clarify. On another level, unless one is sent to a monastery at a young age, something must happen for someone to desire to begin their practice. Sometimes that comes from a general knowledge of the philosophy. One becomes aware of the philosophy and decides that it is something that they want to practice. After deciding to practice, one must give up the desire to practice in order to practice. Essentially one must understand the need to not have a need, which only occurs through contemplation (i.e. thought.) So yes, the practice of Zen is intended to help someone behave on an intuitive level, to exist in the moment free from distraction, but ultimately this cannot be achieved without first contemplating that need. I hope that answers the question. Aaron

Hello Moth, From my own experience, I arrived at the same conclusion as you. My hate stemmed from fear, mostly steeped in insecurity. Whether it was a fear of being hurt, losing something, or having to do something I didn't want to do. In the end what I learned is that wishing hate away rarely works, it takes work to be rid of it. For me hate and anger were symptoms of a greater problem, those conditions in my ego that had been created through past experiences. In order to be rid of them, it wasn't simple enough to just acknowledge they were there, but rather I had to take action to be rid of them. What I ended up doing was praying/wishing/hoping for the best for those people I hated. Now I didn't stumble upon this approach myself, rather someone advised to me practice it. What I can say is that it absolutely works for me. I still may get angry, but I rarely remain angry. I know it's not as mystical as allowing the emotion to arise, examining it and letting it go, but what I can say, is that if you have problems with just letting go, perhaps this approach can help you. I wish you the best, Aaron

Hello Shaktimama, I understand your point and it was funny, but my question is this, can we have the nothingness without the something that surrounds it? The nothingness, the void from which all things come, is dependent on all things that come from it (imo). Nothingness and somethingness are both inter-dependent, they are not separate experiences, but rather different ends of the same experience. With that being said, it is fine to understand that the nothingness creates something, but it also essential to understand that the somethingness is required for us to be able to experience the nothingness. So let me clarify what I was talking about when I said contemplation is necessary to find enlightenment. There is this paradox that occurs within Zen teaching, the idea that in order for one to cease thinking, one must first think. It is only by exhausting all possibilities that some can give up those possibilities and move on. For some it's not so hard, they're not so attached to this world, they can let things go easier and submit to their practice. For me, it took a great deal of contemplation before I understood it was more than just contemplation. For me it took a great deal of introspection to understand the true nature of my ego and the constructs that were created by social conditioning. It was only through this introspection that I was able to grasp the slightest glimmer of my original nature. I think the problem that is arising is that we are assuming that there is one definition for the word enlightenment, rather than there being numerous definitions. It stems from this desire to say, "my ideas are better/truer/purer than yours." Perhaps what we need to do is accept that other people can have different ideas and rather than say, "you're wrong!" We could say, "well I appreciate your ideas, would you like to hear what I think?" If we can approach it from this angle, then my idea of enlightenment doesn't have to mean the same thing as yours. In the same way we can talk about this topic without feeling the need to call others out or make comments that are intended to diminish others. Well that's all I have to say. Aaron edit- Also I agree, you can tell a lot by how someone acts, rather than what they say.

Hello Manitou, This is true of every book, but at some point you will have read it enough that reading it more is pointless. I read the Tao Teh Ching every night before I went to bed for nearly twenty years. Before that I had been reading a chapter of the bible, it seemed like a logical evolution to me, since I no longer believed in Christianity, but I was interested in the Tao. A few months ago I had a conversation with a friend and I realized that continuing to read the Tao Teh Ching every night was pointless, that I could use that time for practical purposes. Since that realization I haven't read the Tao Teh Ching once, except for a chapter here or there that pops up on the forum. For me the Tao Teh Ching was a stepping stone for a higher understanding. It was like primary school and now I'm entering college, I'm beginning to understand things on a whole other level that I didn't before. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but it's how I've been feeling lately. Aaron

Hello Lucky, Rather than make snide comments like this, could you just let this go so we can get back to discussing the topic of the thread in a civil manner. Aaron

Hello Cowtao, Two things. First, I'm not asking people to talk about what I want to talk about, but rather pointing out that what several people were discussing had nothing to do with the topic of self, in the context of this thread. Their opinion was that there was no self, that it was an illusion. My argument and the original intent of this post wasn't regarding that at all, but rather that self does exist and my hope was to talk about the nature of self in that regard. What happened is that I was inundated with people that seemed to think my idea was an affront to Buddhist philosophy. In defense of my argument I cited reasons why I felt the Buddhist method of enlightenment was no more valid than any other, including my own. With that said, in the end no one can prove they are enlightened or they have reached an enlightened state, rather it is a state of consciousness and ego, even if that state of consciousness is the absence of consciousness. Otis made this abundantly clear and I agree with him. I regret my behavior now and I see that I didn't go about it in a way that was harmonious with others. I am human and I am not perfect. I do fail, but my intentions weren't to upset or diminish people, but rather validate a point that I thought deserved to be validated. If I did upset anyone then I am sorry. I think that this thread still has potential and the topics that we're addressing are of the utmost importance for anyone that seeks awareness, awakening, enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it. I think that ultimately it is the knowledge of self that will lead one to understanding the actual nature of self. With that said, I hope we can continue this dialog in a kind and compassionate manner, respecting each other. One point that I especially enjoyed in your post, and something I think I've been trying to allude to is that when one does reach a degree of awakening that they can begin to experience a place of non-distracted beingness. I believe I have experienced that on several occasions and it's an indescribable experience. I also agree with you in regards to the connected nature of life and death. I think people are so caught up in duality at times that they rarely understand that everything is connected. Birth and Death are just the beginning and end of the same experience. It's the same with good and evil, right and wrong, hate and love, and the list goes on. As long as we cease to see how these abstract ideas are essentially just the beginning and end of the same experience, we will never really be able to understand them. I think when you talk about one who has reached enlightenment having problems with extreme emotions, that's part of it, the realization that these emotions are not separate, but rather expressions of the same experience in different ways. Again, my apologies for any misunderstandings. I do hope we can keep this dialog going and that we can remember to respect each other and show compassion for each other. I will do my best to continue this discussion with that in mind. Peace be with you, Aaron

Hello Jetsun, I don't want to have this discussion here, since it's off-topic for this thread. The only thing I would ask is if you actually read both of the articles? If not perhaps you should check out this blog which has links to numerous other incidents of the sexual abuse of children by Buddhist monks. http://mysticbanana.com/how-would-one-go-about-practicing-traditional-theravada-buddhism-in-the-west.html Please message me if you want to have a discussion about this. Aaron

Hello Jetsun, Here are the links that were originally posted in the Repression and Supression of Sexuality thread... http://www.lamashree.org/dalailama_08_childabuse_tibetanbuddhistmonasteries.htm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/abuse-alleged-at-monastery-for-tibet-exiles-698788.html These actually were not the first times I'd heard about this. If you do a search on the internet I'm sure you'll find many more. The fact is that it's just coming to light and the social stigma attached to these acts is preventing many of the victims from coming forward. I wouldn't make the allegations if there wasn't some evidence to back them up. Again, I didn't want this to be the focus of this thread. If you want to discuss the topic of sexual abuse in Buddhist monasteries, I recommend you start a new topic. My point is that the belief that one can transcend emotion and ego is illusory. And even more importantly that one should not be considered enlightened just because they've passed a test, but rather one's actions should dictate that (Of course that's a topic for another thread as well). The purpose of this thread is to discuss the nature of self. I don't discourage people from providing evidence to support their claims, but lets not let the evidence become the focus of the discussion. Aaron

Hello Jack, I'm really not angry, if I sound stern, it's only because I'm tired of having this discussion. I disagree with you, it's as simple as that. I don't want to continue to debate it, because I've already stated it numerous times and it's not changing anyone's mind. What I will say is that what we're finding is that the Buddhist religion is as corrupted at the heart as the Roman Catholic Church. Evidence of the systematic cover up of the sexual abuse of boys in monasteries is coming out. Whether it's the monasteries in Tibet or Shri Lanka, take your pick. What I can assure you is that it's a practice that's occurring within the entire Buddhist religion and the people covering up this abuse and moving the abusers to other institutions are those leading the religion. In another thread evidence has been mentioned that points to the Dali Lhama's involvement in these cover ups. The fact is the abuse could not have escaped his knowledge, but he did little to nothing to stop it. The reason is simple, the monastic life is the lifeblood of the institution, to openly state that a large number of the senior monks within these monasteries were raping children and forcing other brothers to engage in sexual acts would damage the image of the organization. When I say it's like any other religion that's what I mean, the base desires of the ego perpetuate the direction that the religious institution takes. Religions are inherently founded on the principle that man can rise above the nature of the ego through divine intervention, but what we find is that this is not true. Man is man and no amount of practice diminishes that. If it seems like I dislike Buddhism, that's not true. I think a lot of the principles in Buddhism are beneficial on the whole, but if one does not objectively examine the end result, one cannot understand whether or not the practice works. You have admitted that you haven't reached complete enlightenment, so what you are claiming is merely an assertion of what others have told you. What I am claiming is based on what I know about Buddhism and the monastic life. Now what Buddhists can do is continue to ignore this abuse and encourage the victims to remain silent out of shame or admit what's going on and go from there. But even if this occurs I think it's important to examine the practice as well, to admit its flaws. The Roman Catholic Church has failed to do this, but I sincerely hope the Buddhist Institutions don't follow suit. Invariably what you find is that with power comes corruption. That enlightenment does not remove the inner demons that plague man, that at best it just makes one more aware of it. If you disagree with my notion of enlightenment that's fine, but I think most people that are not Buddhist, that do not have a bias can see that I'm not making my assertions simply out of ignorance, but rather through knowledge and experience. I have experienced the union of the mind and body. I know that I am my body because I feel it. I know my spirit is alive because I experience it. I have compassion for others, not because it's the moral thing to do, but because it's the correct action. I am constantly trying to allow the highest forms of virtue to arise from my spirit, my original nature, because I understand that it is an essential part of me as a human being. I know that in order to reverse the conditioning that has occurred within my own mind-self, that I must be willing to awaken and allow my spirit to work through me. If that's not the highest form of enlightenment, I'm fine with that. For me I follow the path of my own heart, not the path that I have been directed to take. I believe that by following what's within my heart, my spirit-self, that I am also following what's within the spirit-self that resides within you, for both of our spirits are the same and connected. You may not feel the connection, but it is there and if one is willing to open themselves to it then they will feel the unending peace and serenity that abounds from it. I am sorry if it seems like I am making a personal attack on you, that's not the case. I am stating what I believe is inherently harmful within religions. I don't want to argue about this, but rather make people aware of another way to look at self that is different from what they might have been taught to believe. If it seems like I'm fighting, I'm not, I just understand that sometimes one must stand against the rushing water, because if they don't, they'll simply be drowned in the waters of ideology. I say this sincerely, peace be with you and yours. Aaron edit- Also I would ask if we wish to talk about Buddhism as a religion that we take that discussion elsewhere. My hope is that in this thread we can continue to examine the idea of self without pointing fingers and telling people that they're wrong, but rather debate the philosophies and ideology surrounding the self. In regards to your comments about Taoism, I think that the original texts surrounding Taoism, the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu make no mention of the self or ego as it's described in Buddhism and that only after Buddhism began to influence Taoism were these ideas integrated into Taoist philosophies. For me the Taoist idea is simply a watered down adaption of the Buddhist, which was adapted so that the Taoist temples didn't alienate the masses and the emperors.

Hello Jack, No offense, but I have read many, many, many books about Buddhism and it's no different from any other -ism. It promotes a moral agenda and offers something that is unattainable as a reward for following that agenda. I no more believe in the Buddhist idea of enlightenment than I do the Christian concept of heaven. That's the end of the story for me. Buddha is no more real to me than Christ or Lao Tzu. Maybe they were all real people, but somewhere along the lines they became deified and made to be more than human, when in fact they weren't. I asked once and I'll ask again, please go somewhere else to spread the word of Buddhism. Even if my opinion is wrong, I can guarantee that I wont be swayed. Not because I'm stubborn, but because I don't believe in the four noble truths or the eightfold path. Now if you continue to wish to debate this, I will be happy to go over exactly why Buddhism fails as a religion and how the enlightened masters are still being controlled by their passions. I really want to be compassionate, but I don't think compassion is sitting around and allowing you to bully people until they agree that you're right and they're wrong. It's really up to you. Aaron

Hello Dear Buddhists, It's nice to know that you are so open to other people's ideas. I thought you might be close minded like the Christians. That was sarcasm, but I'm allowed because I don't believe in the four noble truths or the eightfold path, or that some designated form of practice will help me to achieve enlightenment as it's intended. The experience that you have is the experience that has been expressed to you over and over. Simple fact about meditation, you are highly suggestible in that state, much like dreaming and hypnosis. If someone tells you that you will experience something and sends you off to meditate, more often than not, you will experience what they tell you. Step back, examine yourself, realize what you really are and then you will see the world as it really is. Your problem stems from the fact that I've told you that you are mistaken. You repeat the same phrases over and over like you're either trying to convince yourself or me. I would suggest that you just live life and let it help you decide. Good luck on your journey, but this thread isn't about the Buddhist's idea of true self, so in the name of right speech and right action, if you cannot help but spread your religious ideology, please start another thread for that discussion, but I really would rather not have it sidetrack this discussion anymore. You will not agree with me and I will not agree with you, so further discussion will warrant nothing but suffering, so again, I implore you, for the sake of compassion and tolerance, please stop pushing your ideology on me and this thread and allow others to disagree. Aaron

Hello Lucky, Thank you for your advice. I'm sure that what you believe to be enlightenment differs from what I believe it to be. If you need to be right, then you're right. There is no right or wrong though, only what is. I am sure you've already been told what that is, so you know what to expect. I was not so easily convinced and had to look for the answers. Good luck on your travels, but I've been down the path you're talking about and found it to be less than satisfactory. You will find that suffering does not pass, the body does not pass, that the shedding away of reality only takes place within your consciousness. When you think you know what reality is, we will still be right here. Peace be with you. I would also recommend that you not blindly hold onto what others have told you. Religions tend to lay out the "truth" and discourage you from believing that anything is different from the truth. I'll give you another little tidbit of insight, there is no right or wrong, so all the right speech (which you need to work on, i.e. sarcasm) and right action that you're doing will amount to very little in the end. At least from my own experience. Accept what you are and then you can begin to learn the nature of reality as it is, not as it is defined and taught to be. Aaron edit- Also, if you believe that you will achieve enlightenment without contemplation and introspection, I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening.

Hello Lucky, I can't speak for everyone else, but I have directly experienced these things. I have experienced and understood the nature of the mind and body and how they are connected. I have experienced the nature of the body and universe and how it is connected. I have also experienced the nature of the spirit and how it connects me to all things. This is not simply contemplation, but a deep experiential awareness of these things. I think the problem that you are having is that my experience with reality and the nature of reality, differs from what you've been told to expect. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Mandrake, I think of consciousness, as you describe it, as the spirit. I think the term consciousness gives us a misunderstanding of it's actual nature, since it does not think or contemplate, rather it is the impulse that drives all things to be. When I talk about the mind-self and the physical-self, I talk about those parts that definitely reside within us. The consciousness that exists within all things, the god spark, or Tao, or whatever else you want to call it, is something entirely different, something that can't be quantified by science, so you have your right to have doubts. With that said I think we all feel this consciousness on some level, and as I pointed out to Manitou, it's the reason why we ask the question, "why?" I hope that clears things up. Aaron