Hey guys,

So this debate might be over since Andrew Cohen has come and gone and enlightened us all. . . but I'm wondering what people thought about the talks Cohen gave. Did it change your perception of what he meant in his first tenet? For me, and maybe I misunderstood him so let me know if you think I did, what I was thinking at first, in that Saturday night meeting was that no, my only desire is not enlightenment. I don't want that to be my only desire. And then I went back home after the meeting wondering what exactly it was I was doing and what my desires were. I mean, I spend all my time either working for the SKS or hanging out with people in it, or reading spiritual books (except for the occasional Harry Potter book—I know, sorry, I got sucked in . . .), or meditating or thinking about spiritual matters, or writing in my journal about the issues I'm stuck on. I spend vacations in monasteries . . . and I know this could be a description of many of our lives. So I got stuck. What am I doing if I am not seeking enlightenment? What am I doing if that is not my only desire? I can think of lots of things I am doing. I want to have solid friends—but there are easier ways to do that. I want to be successful—again, easier ways to do that. So there must be something about what I am doing that indicates that I do have "spiritual" desires whether you can call them desires for enlightenment or not. But I just know that my number one desire is not enlightenment. I just know it. And here's where the talk comes in for me. Cohen, I think, said to Kenny that we were wrong about the desire for enlightenment needing to be our *only* desire. He said that instead it should be the *number one* desire. That's different. That means that we do have other desires, but the desire for enlightenment takes precedence over all others. And I don't think that he just meant desires like food when we are hungry or sleep when we are tired. I think he was taking all desires into consideration. But then I think the question gets even harder, not easier. It isn't that you have no other desires. Then enlightenment is easy. Then the question is about waving a magic wand and suddenly having only one desire, which is for enlightenment. I think that I would want the wand to be waved over me. But that is not what happens. What happens is that we are faced with many desires and we have to choose to act on one. Cohen is saying that you must choose to act on the desire for enlightenment every time. That's tough.

OK, so I'm going on a little bit long here, but I have so much to say!! Back to whether I actually have a desire for enlightenment or not. I'm with Anna, we gotta say what that is. The way I always think about enlightenment is that it is some vague end goal of spiritual work which finds you meditating on top of a mountain or something. And I just don't think about spirituality that way. I see it as becoming more and more honest. And if enlightenment is simply being 100% honest, then yes, I do desire enlightenment. Do I always choose to act on that desire over all my other desires? NO WAY! Do I want to choose to act on that desire over all my other desires? I don't think so. If I have to choose to go off alone to meditate in the woods for three months in order to be enlightened when my family needs me to be with them, I'm choosing my family. I don't have a doubt about that. And I know very, very few people who I think would choose to go off alone to meditate in the woods when faced with that decision. And I mean if you KNOW FOR SURE that in order to follow that desire for enlightenment, you must go off in the woods—not, well, the really more spiritual decision might be to sacrifice your enlightenment for you family...

And one other thought about this desire for enlightenment . . . have you all ever read the excerpt from one of those Diamond Approach books called "The Land of Truth"? It's pretty short, and the basic story is that there is this man who "believed that the ordinary waking life, as people know it, could not possibly be complete." So he went around looking for answers. He had his highs and lows on the spiritual search and one day was kind of reviewing the things he had done and ended up encountering Khidr, "the secret guide who shows the way to Truth." And Khidr takes him to a place where everyone is in great distress - and this is because they revered self-appointed teachers. Then he takes him to a place where everyone is happy—and those are the ones who did not follow the signs to the truth, but rather, the signs to happiness. Then Khidr says he will grant the man one desire. The man says that he wants to know why he has failed in his search and how he can succeed.

"You have all but wasted your life," said Khidr, "because you have been a liar. Your lie has been in seeking personal gratification when you could have been seeking Truth."

"And yet I came to the point where I found you, "said the man, "and that is something which happens to hardly anyone at all."

"And you met me," said Khidr, "because you had sufficient sincerity to desire Truth for its own sake, just for an instant. It was that sincerity, in that single instant, which made me answer your call."

And the story goes on and the guy gets enlightened of course, but the part that really hit me about this is that it starts with just one brief moment of pure desire for Truth. I don't know what else to say about that . . .

----------
From: Kenny Felder
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Andrew Cohen's first tenet

Cohen definitely set me straight about his own message. I thought it was "want nothing else" and he corrected me, saying that's impossible: the real message is "want this *first*". Mary Alice frames the dilemma perfectly: "If I have to choose to go off alone to meditate in the woods for three months in order to be enlightened when my family needs me to be with them, I'm choosing my family." That's a much better way of asking the question than any of the (many) ways I have come up with. If you are really starkly faced with a choice of helping your loved ones (friends/family/sangha), or doing the right thing to get yourself enlightened, which would you choose? Here are some observations on *that* question.

• Augie has often said the opposite of Mary Alice—he would choose spiritual work over his family. Certainly, the thing I find most admirable about Augie has always been that he lives his life in such perfect consistency with his principles.
• Andrew Cohen has obviously made the same choice, following his star while his crazy mother writes hate books about him.
• A lot of people want to wiggle out of this choice by saying that there is no choice—your spiritual work will never call on you to let down your family. As Zach points out, that is just not true. Martyrs, fanatics, seekers, and holy men of every stripe seem to abandon all wordly responsibilities for The One Great Responsibility. THERE REALLY IS A CHOICE TO MAKE. Andrew said to me that "If God comes and tells you to go up in the mountains, and you even hesitate and ask 'What about my family?' you blew it; God walks."
• Anna's take on it (*is it just me, or does Anna always have some of the most right-on-target observations about any subject?) parallels very closely what Cohen told me. NOT "getting enlightened will help your family" and definitely NOT "find a healthy balance" but instead, "getting enlightened means knowing the truth and anything else means living a lie, and even if it's a pleasant lie, it's still crap."

----------
From: Chuck Eesley
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Andrew Cohen's first tenet

And I know very, very few people who I think would choose to go off alone to meditate in the woods when faced with that decision. And I mean if you KNOW FOR SURE that in order to follow that desire for enlightenment, you must go off in the woods—not, well, the really more spiritual decision might be to sacrifice your enlightenment for you family.

I know very, very few people who are anywhere near enlightenment too. Hmmmm.

If the really more spiritual decision is to sacrifice your enlightenment for your family, then I don't think we're really talking about a decision between enlightenment and family then (presumably enlightenment represents the more "spiritual" decision whatever that means, I guess that decision that means you are more honest with yourself) in that case we'd be talking about a decision between your *idea* of what leads to enlightenment and what you think is right for your family. I think that having to choose between family and pursuing truth can happen in real life. My problem is that it doesn't seem like the choice is always that clear. There's no one coming down from heaven and telling me clearly at each decision point this choice is enlightenment, that choice is family...it's more ambigious than that it seems? Or do you think it is that clear? Maybe it is if you are incredibly honest with yourself and can sort out which voice in your head is really being honest with you, but it seems to me that all too often that isn't the case, that there's more confusion in each decision than that. We're never that sure that the "enlightenment" choice will actually get us any closer at all. Besides, closer to what? Isn't it only OUR idea of enlightenment and how to get there that we're chasing? As Andrew pointed out, that can be the problem.

Finally, two points in response to responding to your family being the more spiritual decision. What do people think that the advice to young people who don't yet have families should be? It seems clear to me that it is don't start a family if you're serious about getting enlightened because it just causes problems. Anyone read Magister Ludi by Herman Hesse that we're reading this week for the house course? Dasa got a family and followed his responsibility to give his son security.

And as for responsibility to the part of the family tree we can't avoid my question is this...if you had a daughter and you really loved her and really wanted what was best for her, would you want her to sacrifice finding truth and living the life worth living in order to comfort you? Wouldn't you, in the end, feel better knowing that your daughter had the freedom to make that choice and to end up living it?

----------
From: Chuck Eesley
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Andrew Cohen's first tenet

Sorry, one more point...I think it's important to remember Andrew's point about choosing children or family first. We choose them first presuming (arrogantly) that we know what is best for them. If we can't see clearly if we admit that our fears and desires are confusing us in some important way and even more profoundly, if we can't see and predict the future, how can we say that what we want to do for them will lead to the best for them? The web of life is so complex, scientists can't even predict the weather a week in advance and we presume to be able to predict what is best over the course of another person's life? If we feel honestly that the other choice is the one that God would want us to decide on, then aren't we presuming that God doesn't know what he's doing?

----------
From: Rachel
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Andrew Cohen's first tenet

• first, why the assumption that we can be "closer" or "further" from enlightenment, when all the evidence suggests that it's such a complete shift from such distinctions?—a shift that transcends the way we typically quantify and categorize our lives.
• second, why such an emphasis on striving towards "enlightenment" per se? again: evidence suggests it's not the sort of thing you can save up for and purchase with enough books and good behavior.
• third, striving towards enlightenment comes from a ego-centered place. in a sense, that makes it no holier than any other ego-centered desire—it's all coming from the same place, that darn ego, which is exactly what we're trying to move past.

or: like MA said, maybe it's a better idea to sacrifice and be there for your family & loved ones—misguided and arrogant tho it may be—than to spend three months in the woods meditating by yourself, trouncing around after yet another ego project.

----------
From: Ed Cheely
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Andrew Cohen's first tenet

I'm not sure if putting forth this decision between "family" and "enlightenment" is really the best way to look at what Cohen seems to me to be teaching. He doesn't seem to refer to enlightenment much at all, but rather to "liberation" or freedom. And there's no question that for Cohen, this is the most important dimension of life. But the kicker for me is that (was it Bob Cergol who said this?) enlightenment is NOT an experience. And I don't think that Cohen is talking about striving for some far-off experience that will totally change you. What he's saying is that you need to look deeply into your own experience now, and into yourself, and if you do you're going to find some interesting things. For one (this is me talking now) there is a very distinct "me" that I drag around with me all of the time. Ed doesn't want to get out of bed in the morning. Ed has his feelings hurt when he's not invited somewhere. Ed gets a lot of satisfaction from sounding smart at a meeting. Ed has a hard time making decisions about how to spend a Saturday afternoon, because he wants to be as happy/productive/fulfilled as he can be by whatever he's doing. Ed finds himself being resentful when his precious time is taken by things outside of his control. I think you get the picture. We're TRAPPED! This is the BS that is my constant, every-day experience. Not only that, but half the time I have SONGS playing though my head, or I find myself playing out little SCENARIOS in my head that have no bearing on reality. And this is all produced by myself, by my mind. (Eckhard Tolle says a lot about this, too, which Don pointed out to me and which is really good). Yet there are occasional times when I act in accordance with life as it is. There's also what's possible in meditation, when you can start to get some distance from this constant mental chatterbox and see that it's not really you anyways. I think that's what Cohen was talking about more than anything else when he said we need to "see things as they are." To be free in the present moment, and to be able to act without fear or desire, is what enlightenment is for me. And that is a very real, very visceral goal. It's even available right now, but the problem is that our egos are so deeply grooved in. I was in church this morning and Eric and I were right next to this baby and its parents. And whenever that baby made a sound, its parents went into all kinds of fits to appease it. So from our very first months we are told that we are the center of the universe. And that's the problem. And when I look at that, and see myself as I live it, I get disgusted and want to do just about anything to transcend it.

But here's where it gets tricky, because now we're having to act on this desire (to be enlightened, or to be more real, or to be more honest, or whatever it is—just about everyone has words for it). Now we have choices to make, and the big one in this discussion seems to be family over freedom. The overwhelming evidence states that to come to the state of freedom that WE want—enlightenment—we need to give up everything. The reason for this is that it's WE who are the problem. Ed is the problem that Ed is trying to get rid of. And actually it's not Ed's family, or Ed's job, or anything else that is the real problem. It's just Ed. I think that what Cohen, and Jesus, and anyone else might be slamming is not our family—it's not really even the love we have for our family—it's the personal attachment that we have to these things where the ego rests and lives. My ego gets a lot of satisfaction in the love it has for my family. "Look at what a good son I am. Look at how much I care about my sister and want what's best for her. Of course I should go to Hawaii and sit on the beach with my family because I love them so much." It keeps coming back to the fact that there's nothing you can DO. We all want to make it some CHOICE that we can make, because making choices allows US to stick around. And sure, in my current state of affairs—not being a father and having to support a family—it doesn't seem to make much sense for me to go out and have a family and create one more attachment. And maybe some times you have to leave your family forever. But the moment you settle on that—complete renunciation of family and worldly attachments for the "spiritual path"—another wrench gets thrown in to the gears. Rose actually was hooking up with some lady and was all set to settle down when he went over the wall. It seems that Bob Cergol actually had to have a family in order to come to the freedom he's come to. I would say that about 98% of our life can be lived with perfect freedom, if we choose it, no matter what our obligations. The other 2% MAY require us to do something contrary to "enlightenment" in order to feed our family or something. The internal "letting go" is a lot harder than the external, even though some of the latter needs to happen as well.

----------
From: Mary Alice Scott
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Andrew Cohen's first tenet

So I gotta throw in one thing real quick, just because I gotta. What I meant to say by that comment about family that Kenny picked up on and disagreed with was different than what Kenny picked up and then what other people commented on. What I meant to say was that you can't use that "family might be the most spiritual thing" as an excuse to not do what you know is right if what you know is right doesn't happen to be family.

But you know, I never thought, not once, that "doing what is right" is different than the freedom that Cohen talks about, that isn't a choice you make. Cause then, as Ed says, it's still ME. Ha! What silly circles I run myself in trying to make the right choice. How frustrating.

----------
From: August Turak
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Andrew Cohen's first tenet

I've really enjoyed this. I especially liked Anna's piece about just wanting the truth because it is the only thing that is REAL. I also liked how many of you took the term "enlightenment" down off its pedestal and gave it definitions like 100% honesty etc. I am inspired to suggest that the Symposium publish and edited version of this....maybe Andrew would write a short little definition of the First Tenet or we could excerpt it. Then we publish this chain as an example of what being part of the SKS is like and what we do besides go to meetings. Then we point readers to the WEb site where they can continue the discussion and maybe we tell them that the best of these will be published next issue etc. etc. Another idea is to create an email data base for everyone who is A symposium subscriber. Then we email blast them things like this to get them thinking or other provacative material along the lines of what we are looking for. then they can write for us as more of a reaction than a composition and this would go further than just having a theme for an issue. Just some thoughts...

----------
From: Georg Buehler
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 3:22 PM
Subject: The first tenet, noch einmal

Once upon a time, back when I was a young bramacharya, I thought I was the kind of person who wanted liberation more than anything else. Over time, I realized that I didn't really want enlightenment more than anything else—I just knew that Enlightenment was the best thing I could possibly get, and I would hold out for the best as long as I could. It's easy to make that decision when you are young and free and feel like you have lots of time. (I loved Andrew's riff on the myth of thinking "I have time.") As you get older, though, you stop feeling like you have all the time in the world and realize that you are making some real sacrifices to pursue the work. Once I was faced with making some very real sacrifices for the sake of the work (which, as it turns out, was family) I got cold feet. I comfort myself with the fact that I married someone who was sympathetic to the Work, and who would work with me to build a community that would nuture as much of the spiritual as I could stand to face.

But something remarkable happened when I heard Andrew speak. Somehow, by some miracle, I began believing it was possible again. For the longest time I had stopped believing that enlightenment was possible for me. Andrew told me, quite clearly, that that was not true, that enlightenment was not only possible but even closer than I suspected. And ever since that night something in me has been different. My desire for the Truth is back. I remember why I started down this path in the first place. And I am also convinced that all this hand-wringing over what sacrifices one might be called upon to make is just the ego building its defenses. It might be better to just keep your eyes on the prize and wait for the time when God will ask for Jacob. You might be surprised by your answer, when the time comes.

* * *

BTW, one thing I noticed in the discussion is that everyone treated the "leaving family for God" as something vaguely immoral or selfish...something akin to foresaking your duty to go off and enjoy yourself. Perhaps a better analogy would be to think of it as a war, a righteous war in which your country is engaged. Your family needs you, wants you to be with them, and you want to be with them, too...and yet you know it is your duty to leave your family and go to war. Partially it's a duty to your family, because your family is threatened by this war...but it's also a duty to something larger and bigger and more important, something that represents all the families in your country, all the collective happiness in everyone in your world. I think almost all of us could watch a World War II movie and cheer on the man who hears about Pearl Harbor and enlists the next day. Yes, his family will suffer some because of his decision...but is it morally reprehensible? To save the Jews, to end of a Holocaust, to defend the helpless, to topple a reign of terror and destruction...is that worth the sacrifice of being with one's family? Well...yes. In fact, many tens of thousands of men made that decision, consciously and willingly..."and then they went and died for it." Why, then, are we so less willing to go to the front of a spiritual war, to fight against the root cause of all suffering, the Liberate millions of people suffering under the oppression of the worst tyrant of all, their own petty self-centeredness? Is not the suffering of a world without spirituality as collossal a tragedy as the loss of six million souls? If you think that the call to that fight is not important, not worthwhile, not MORAL...then you are like so many of the Germans in Hitler's Germany that closed their doors to the Jews.

Nobody said doing the right thing would feel good.

----------
From: Robert Mullins
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 12:51 PM
Subject: magic wand

My God, this is the most interesting thing I've just about seen my whole life. I'm sorry for jumping in here, especially since I have not read the whole email, however I was particularly intrigued by the "magic wand" idea. Of course I particularly would not want "all other desires" to just disappear. Why does it always seem that the order of achieving an enlightened disposition requires the abandonment of "self?" The person is made up of all these desires, we are just different kinds of people. As the French say, (pardon spelling) VIVE LA DIFFERENCE. Achieving transcendancy (in my opinion) does not require me to lose myself, but it may require me to change. After all if all your desires were taken away from you, what change has really happened? NONE. You are still the same you, only crippled. Change requires something else entirely. Since I am new at this I would like to keep it simple and short so as not to offend. Remember the guy in the story on the SKS "Who We Are" page? Back in 1996? The guy's name was Ken, and Ken didn't give anything up of himself except his fear of confrontation. But it wasn't really his fear he gave up. He didn't give up anything. He committed himself to something challenging and the fear just left. We work too hard trying to "not do the wrong things" when all we really need to do are the right kind of things, and the wrongs things will just leave. If we just do and challenge ourselves to do the "right kind of things" the wrong things won't want to hang around. Confronting fear makes us more fearful because that is what our mind is focusing on, however, instead of confronting fear, embrace being brave. Convince yourself of your bravery, get out there and sell tickets, like Ken. The question is not "how do I get over my fearfulness" but rather "how do I become more brave? In what ways today can I embrace courage?" Does any of this make sense to anyone? Now, to wrap this up. I happen to be a Christian, so I understand things from something of a Biblical context. I hope this does not put me on the "outs" with you all, because I think this is a great site and I would like to come back.

There have been many misconceptions about the Christian life, specifically by Christians and pastors, and not so much by those on the outside of the church. Those on the outside are simply reflecting the negative "vibe" as christians hold towards them. One of these misconceptions is the "trying not to sin" ideology. You have probably heard things like, "that is bad, don't do that, that is wrong". They have missed the point. Not sinning, comes from no real effort, you try to do the right things instead. Stop trying to not sin, who wants the guilt, you are going to sin anyway, I sin anyway. But I try to do good. I try to know my God. And by knowing God, I am that much more impervious to bad, after all it is a benefit to society if I am good rather than bad. Ken lost his fearfulness, and because he did (through sales, probably one of the most intense jobs in the world) he is able to provide people with the transportation they need. I know it sounds trivial, but cars are a very important part of our lives. I went on a lot longer than I had planned, and I wasn't even going to bring the "Christian" thing up, for fear of being an outcast. But I am on a spiritual journey as well, and I hope we have more in common through our desires, than we have in our differences of opinions.

----------
From: Kenny Felder
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: magic wand

Rob,

Being a Christian will certainly not make you an "outcast" in SKS. Many SKS members are devout Christians. Our founder and leader, Augie Turak, turns to Christians for much of his spiritual guidance. It is clear from your message that you are "one of us"—someone who takes these questions very seriously, and thinks hard about the answers.

Your point—that we should strive for the good instead of striving to eliminate the bad—is certainly well taken. There is no doubt that trying to "shout down" our fears or desires only gives them more strength.

At the same time, what do you do if you are a celibate monk who is suddenly tempted by a beautiful woman? Or a devout Hindu who smells a delicious steak? Presumably you should try to turn your attention elsewhere—pray, or help your fellow man, or some noble task that will refocus your energies. But why would you do that? Because your desire for that woman or that steak is, even in the heat of passion, subordinate to your desire to find God. I think this is what Andrew Cohen is saying—the desire for God (or Truth) must be placed above all other desires, at all times.

Where I have trouble with this personally is when it comes to my family. Can I possibly love God more than my children? Would God ever demand that I make such a choice? On the second point, I'm afraid, the Bible is emphatically clear. The apostles left their families to follow Jesus. More starkly, there is the story of God ordering Abraham to kill Isaac, as a test. What is being tested? Abraham's willingness to place God above everything including his beloved son. Abraham did not find it easy or painless, but he did what was asked. God, it seems, demands nothing less. And yet I'm not sure I'm capable of giving it.

----------
From: Robert Mullins
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: magic wand

Thank you so very much for your reply. It is amazing to find people who are searchers. Sometimes so many questions fill my head, I believe I have or am in the process of losing my mind. The interesting thing about Christianity is the amazing cohesiveness of it. While to many it would seem the bible contradicts itself, to those of us who believe and understand, there can be mysteries, and seeming paradoxes, but not the contradiction that many interpret through faulty hermaneutics. In the issue of the abandonment of self, there are many ideas at work. We want to believe that in some way we are seperate from what or who God is, and indeed we are, however we are forced to grapple with the question of purpose, and meaning in life. In order to understand God, many try to understand man, and in a very marginal way that is in effect true, the problem is that man is ultimately depraved. Now man has what Martin Luther called the (pardon spelling) Sensus Divinitatas, or a sense of the divine, which is the reason why cultures all over the world have tried to understand this higher power or this divinity, by creating for itself images of divinity. But the (seeming) only way to understand God, is to understand man, but with our depravity (a result of our federal representation in Adam) we cannot understand God. How is it possible to understand that which is perfect through that which is imperfect (man)? It's a crazy question, and I hope that I do not twist my words here. 1. is to know God is real, and that He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. In short He must be sovereign and infallible. 2. God made a way for man to know Him through, a.) the sensus divinitata. b.) the creation. c.) through his word. Pretty much in that sequence, we are aware of God through part a), we are proven his reality by b.) and we discover Him through c.). We do not discover God in terms of our own selves but through His beneficiality of giving to us all the tools necessary to know Him, except one. God bestows grace upon those whom He claims as His.

Now before I go on, I do want to be on record as saying that this is what I personally believe the word of God tells us. I also believe that the word of God was infallibly inspired by an infallible God, for whom we have no name, producing an infallible scripture through fallible man.

I am also racing through a lot of absolutes that I am taking for granted as far as your understanding of them, so I hope I am not out of order. I am writing as if you are Christian yourself, and are not ignorant of these things. I also have a tendancy to speak in absolutes, but please let me emphasize, I am trying to understand myself, what I truly believe so feel absolutely free to correct, challenge or disprove anything here. I promise I will take no offense, if you promise to be truthful with me. If I am out of my mind, let me know. hehhehe.

Now, knowing this we come to a passage in psalms or proverbs, (sorry bible isnt handy) that states we are hidden in God. Man in short is hidden in the very essence of the almighty, in other words, we can't even know ourselves unless we know God. So what appears to be an abandonment of self is really a discovery of self through the proper channels. The discovery of self outside of who God is, is really a fool's errand, and has been exemplified through todays modern thought, the psychologists, the sociologists, and today's new religious movements. Look at some of the skewed Christian cultures. Jim Jones started as a Christian movement, and what happend? Easily answered, he forgot God, and the pursuit of God, and the knowledge of God was not attributed of God, and according to Romans chapter 1 (I believe) God gave them up to their destruction. We know ourselves by knowing God and not some humanist entity. So by pursuing God, Abraham discovered something about himself, about the pedestal he put his son on, I believe it was the grace of God that enabled him to put his own son on the altar. The miracle here isn't that God provided the ram, but rather that God had provided Abraham the gift of such grace that Abraham would trust God so implicitly, that he would place the obediance of God above the love he held for his son. Nobody performs acts that contradict their own belief. It is an impossibility. I cannot act contradictory to my own sense of self worth. I do not make choices I do not want. Abraham didn't make a choice against his conviction in putting his son up on the alter.

When one is put to the test in a back alley by an unknow assailant crying out with loaded gun, "your money or your life." You have been limited to two choices through the coercive force of the gun, and you will make the choice that is most appropriate to what you believe. In short, you never make a choice you don't want to make. You may not like the choice you made, but you made the one you most wanted at the time of making it. So, when Abraham set his son on the alter, the choice he made was one which he WANTED to make, and it was not contradictory to his belief but rather as proof to what he really believed. Did he believe God would provide the ram. I'm not sure, but I do know this, he believed God, in that moment more than anything else otherwise his son would not have been anywhere near the altar. God did that for Abraham, He provided the belief, the grace to believe and the way out of bereavement throught the use of the ram. Did Abraham act contrary to himself, no, but he knew himself through the knowledge of God. Abandonment of self is the (please pardon the expression, no offense intended here) easy way out for people, christians and non-christians alike, who would rather seek self rather than seeking God. Self knowledge comes as a result of knowing God, the more we know of the divine, the more we are made aware of what lies below the divine. So, I am in certain terminologies a Christian Hedonist. I do not get along with many Christians because of my belief in God's absolute sovereignty, and I seem to enjoy the company of the "gentiles" because I believe God is who he says he is in His infallible word.

Now, in regards to the "celibate monk" or the "devout Hindu," those things reflect the desire of knowing God but through worldly means. They should try and stay true to what they believe is true, I can't ask them to do anything but that because they cannot. As well we are all slaves of our own version of what is right, which is why religions should not attack each other. And those of us who are Christian have no right to attack those who are "misled" (opinion terminology). If I believe God is sovereign, I must also believe that as God had to show me grace in order to believe, he must also do this for others for them to believe. My persuasion is ineffective unless God is applying his grace to my reasoned defense of the Christian faith. I cannot pursuade the hindu to forget his training, and it is not my job, so I can indeed co-exist with Him. I am however pressed by sacred scripture to provide a clear and rational response for my faith, without hate, without contmept. I have searched long for God, but not of myself but rather as a sign of the glory of God. I live in that which is subjective, but everything exists from the objective.

There is that which is of God we still do not understand, but the abandonment of self is really to focus on self. But the seeking of God leads to the inadvertant discovery of self and the world around us. Not seeking self for self's sake.

Hmmmmm, I think I am being confusing. Lets see, Ok, how about this.....The problem is not the ends, because we are all, in a certain light, seeking the same ends. The problem is in the means, and the means is dictated by what we believe. It is the proof of God's grace or His wrath.

Here I've rambled forever, when I need to be studying physics, but I wouldn't have done it unless I wanted to. LOL. Nothing can make me do what I truly do not want to do.

I want to pursue God at the cost of losing my self, because I know that there is something in myself that has to change in order to know God. That is why we fast meat, and become celibate and all that stuff, the thing is you do not discover God through those things, you do not discover whole truth through those things, but rather truth is revealed through God Himself for the glory of himself. It is a gift, towards us for God's ultimate ends. Some are enlightened, but most are just a 60-watt bulb who think they are. The difference between them is that they want to make you do "stuff," and doing stuff doesn't save you. As if it were possible, we believe there is a methodology, or a step-by-step process for salvation, and there isn't, otherwise it wouldn't be a gift. If I can go get salvation for myself, If I could through my own actions get enlightenment myself, I wouldn't need God. Am I responsible for my actions? You bet....but I am aware that it is indeed a personal God pulling the strings.

Ok, that's it, I'm done, I need to shut up before I wear out my welcome. Please, like I said before, I tend to drift toward absolutes, but if you disagree please tell me. Be honest, I love the volley. Is this a feasible answer, or does it fail rationale? Is it consistent enough. I must apologize for my ignorance, I am kinda new to this stuff, but these are answers to questions I've had since being a small child, and I have no formal schooling in theology, or in philosophy, so I am probably breaking rules of consistent thought all over the place. I appreciate so much your replying to my e-mail. I have been looking for people like you all my life. And now I feel a little less alone.

----------
From: Kenny Felder
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: magic wand

Wow! It is obvious that you are really burning with these questions. From my perspective—I think any SKS person would agree with this—that makes us brothers. SKS (unlike most groups) is not a group of people who all agree on the answers. But it is a group of people who are burning with the questions.

Just to put this on the table up front—I am not a Christian. As I said before, many people in SKS are. My best friend in the whole world is a Christian. I have some understanding of that belief system, and a great deal of respect for it. But that doesn't mean I believe it myself.

That being said, here are a few sort of random responses that your email evoked.

You talked about seeing God in man, and vice-versa. To me the key idea here is that God made man in His own image. What does that mean? Surely not that God has two legs with one foot and five toes each. It must mean that He gave man some divine spark, that can be used to trace back to Him. Augie was once asked by a church to give a sermon for the small children. He told them that God likes to play hide and seek. He hides in your heart. And religion is the clues he leaves so that you can find Him.

So if we are made in God's image, what's up with that "depraved nature" that we do so obviously have? We have pride and sloth and oh, say, at least five other sins. These are barriers that keep us from knowing ourselves, and from seeing the kingdom of God within us. There is nothing at all wrong with God. The only problem, the only obstacle to our knowing Him right now and immediately, is within us. So we have to look inside us in order to find the problem. Hence—the "SELF Knowledge Symposium." Not as in "morbid self-obsession" but as in "finding the Truth by understanding the self, and purifying the self to whatever extent is possible through our own efforts." Of course our efforts are insufficient. Of course grace is necessary. But we have to try, because—well, what else can we do?

This, to me, is the heart of the paradox that you are expressing, and we find it in every religion when that religion is pursued honestly. We find that we have a deep drive to know God, and we also find that our own efforts are wholly inadequate to the task. We are not smart enough to figure out God; we are not strong enough to fly to heaven; we are not pure enough to love only God; we have not the will power enough to give ourselves wholly to God. The more we try, the more our own inadequacy, or even depravity, confronts us. And yet, we are teased on by the promise that we can find God. Ultimately—perhaps!!!—the only result of prolonged honest searching is to confront our own limitations so thoroughly that, exhausted and beaten, we give up our arrogance and allow God's grace to shine through—only to realize that it has been available all the time.

----------
From: Robert Mullins
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: magic wand

Just a real quick note here. I feel I've made a friend here. So I want to kind-of clarify my intentions, so as not to offend. I appreciate your being straightforward about your belief. Now that I know, I can say that I am not one of those people who cannot have friends outside of my faith. I believe the bible is clear on this, and I have to go by what that tells me. It never makes any reference to those who are on the "outside" (for lack of a better term) of my faith. Now this statement brings questions from the Old Testament perspective of God hating his enemies, that many Christians refer to for abstaining from any "worldly" influences, but I will carefully dodge that part of it for now, hehehhe. So, to my point, I do argue, or debate passionatly for the belief I adhere to, but I want to make quite clear that it is not my intent to try to convince, or convert you. If by some event that happens then great, but with your best friend being a Christian, I will leave it to him, LOL. I hope you continue to respond to the e-mails I send, because I am learning a lot from you. Whenever I get an e-mail from you, and you pose objections to what I have written in past e-mails, I think to myself, "Hmmmm, oh yeah, what about that?" And then try to formulate a response to my own self on why I believe what I believe. So I think it is cool, that you are 'in a way' a sounding board for me, so that I am not in error, not just biblically but rationally. I believe that the interpretations of the Word of God should be rational, at least to some degree. So just to clear the air, I in no way intend to offend, convert or convince, but rather provide sound, reasonable discussion on the topic of who we are and why are we here. I am still searching the harder questions dealing with God's ultimate sovereignty and what that means, so I want to say again, how much I appreciate your discussion on these things. Let me know if I am getting too pushy or if you are getting tired of this exchange. I am enjoying it immensly, and have grown weary of "preaching to the choir" mentality of the Chritianity of today.

I will have something later in the ways of a response to your last e-mail later, when I try to sort it out for myself. Until then, thank you for your 'devil's advocate' (No pun intended) returns to my propositions.

----------
From: Kenny Felder
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: magic wand

Don't worry—I have not been even slightly offended, and I am enjoying the conversation immensely. Looking forward to the next round!

That's where we are right now! Click here to join the conversation, or...