Aristo Tacoma
Dedicating Oneself to Beauty
Book published by
Yoga4d von Reusch Gamemakers, 2009
ISBN 978-82-996977-5-0
[see also]
[Yoga4d index: nf00004]
Copyright author, all rights reserved.

: What is it that makes people like something so
intensely that they say it is beautiful? Or someone?
/ I have a completely different perspective. For me,
beauty doesn't have anything to do with mere liking,
however intense it may be.
: Is it that clear-cut in praxis?
/ What being clear-cut from what?
: I mean, to like something, versus, ehm, beauty.
/ You are asking, is it a clear-cut distinction between
liking and beauty?
: Yes.
/ Oh, definitely.
: Which is not to say that not liking..
/ Of course not. Not to like is not the same as to say
that it is beautiful. It is a different dimension
altogether. As far as anything can be different in a
world that is whole!
: So if somebody stands in front of a painting and say,
"I like it"..
/ Haha. It doesn't really say anything. It is nice
manners to say such a thing.
: So you wouldn't automatically condemn..
/ Obviously not. You don't yell, 'Got ya!' or anything
like that if somebody speaks of liking a sculpture, a
face, a body, a painting, an art beach, a newspaper
heading. Like and dislike are psychic things. To speak of
likabilities in daily life makes for an easy-goingness.
It is only the rough, uncough person with uncultivated
manners which insist on coming along with the deepest
values and most lofty perspectives during daily life
social interaction.
: But you wouldn't say that it is impossible to like
something which is beautiful?
/ That would be rediculous. But it is possible to dislike
anything great -- that is exactly what the ego is all
about. Beauty is the defeat of the ego. It is putting
aside all your private concerns and personal worries and
psychological suffering and all that, and giving yourself
over to that beauty perception which carries all the
universe. Beauty perception is a service to God. And if
you deny the value of beauty in any area of life, then in
that area you are a shameless atheist, in that area ego
has taken over and made you decay.
: So there is no alternative but to honor beauty?
/ None! The sole alternative -- and that is the
definition of selfishness, of over-estimation of one's
own importance as a small human being, is that one gives
a credibility to the subjective, to one's own concerns --
the sole alternative to objective beauty is to choose
decay, and to choose decay is egotism, and egotism is the
ending of that person. So when you fight against ego, you
fight against your ending. Of course you cannot end
completely, you can merely achieve pain by sustaining
: Yes.
/ Come, what are you thinking of?
: No, I was just thinking of those who -- perhaps out of
some eagerness to go beyond their earlier days in this
incarnation -- seems eager to embrace, wildly, danger,
also such danger as involves pain and possible decay.
/ That's just ego.
: As simple as that.
/ As simple, and as complex as that. But ego is no simple
thing. In fact, after infinite progress in humanity on
how to fight its own egotisms, its several forms, in each
soul, there is still infinite progress to come, for one
is not done with this task. Ego is subtle and once it is
fought shall we say at one refinement level, there is
more such level.
: But are you saying that those who rush for decay -- or
danger -- or claim that they want to experience pain --
are lying to themselves?
/ Let us distinguish between being in a state of severe
lying to oneself, and being in a state where one is not
lying severely to oneself. A righteous person can accept
pain, can accept danger, can accept bodily death when it
is right, therefore also euthanasia. A righteous person
can explore the forms of intensities in sexuality, for
instance, which involves the pain of healthy,
nondestructive whipping, bondage -- being tied up -- anal
activities, and such. A righteous person doesn't destroy
beauty. A righteous person doesn't accept a nonrighteous
impulse to throw oneself at the flames in a vampyric
roast. But a righteous person challenges her own fear to
do anything that is righteous -- also to throw oneself on
the flames when that is right. And righteousness means
that there is a direct link with some intensity -- not
absolute intensity, mind you -- to godhood, to God, the
one and only God. Which is the source, through the intent
of God, of beauty.
: Pleasure seeking, attachments, laziness, overeating, 
lying -- there seems to be so many challenges for a 
person who wants to live wholeheartedly and righteously 
-- and then there is the burden of the unpredictability 
of life, the insecurity, the fears, the occasional money 
troubles, not winning out in beauty competitions, 
self-condemnation -- so many things. How can there be 
discipline, the discipline of acting rightly no matter 
what, given all these various forms of possible 
complications that exist?
/ Have you ever been silent? 
: Silent? You mean, meditation in silence? I have. 
/ Then you know something of Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott. 
Which -- from the german -- means, Have Mercy, My God -- 
in the sense, Please Forgive Us, God. You have something  
of that sense in you. In your silence. Right? 
: I think I do, yes. 
/ Then that is the source of discipline. I don't mean it  
simply. It is not a trick. I mean, you really, really 
have to answer to what you do. All your actions count. 
It is not about being absolutely right all the time no 
matter what, as you almost implied in your question. It 
is about having a stronger leaning towards higher 
goodness than what you would have if you didn't have 
that.. urge in you, which comes from Erbarme Dich, Mein 
Gott -- I mean, that feeling. Also in that music.
: I don't entirely understand how it is the source of 
discipline relative to all these very strong addictions 
to pleasure and such.
/ So it has to be spelled out. It is right to spell it 
out, although I'm naturally very uncomfortable in having 
to do so. As is obvious when you hear what I have to 
say. This is a new feature of actuality space -- I mean, 
this is not part of the past which up to a point was a 
simulation. This is how it is in the real, actual, 
manifest world -- this, what I will now say, and I don't 
say it lightly, but I know it is true.  
: It has to do with mercy? With forgivingness? 
/ And the opposite -- for a while. You know, each large 
society with complexity must have many forms of 
institutionalized pain-giving to combat pleasure-seeking 
when it goes on too intensely; sensuality must be kept 
in bound; overeating kills the beauty of a person etc. 
But there is something far far more severe.
: God's punishment? 
/ Yes. It is rediculously severe compared to what human 
people can do onto each other. The soul is the feeler of 
pain, the soul and the spirit feels what the body 
experiences but they also are immortal entities of 
feeling and thinking and learning and they always learn, 
and they always must learn, that is a natural law, that 
they are propelled towards ever-greater enlightenment, 
never to become absolute, but to become more and more 
refined, only God and his three top muses Lisa, Athina 
and Helena having absolute enlightenment. This is the 
truth, how I see it, it's been with me for all this time 
and all the productions flower around this and the 
coherence of all this proves it, I feel. So I say, 
AMFAP: have as much faith as possible. Don't try to have 
absolute faith in absoluteness, but have the relative 
faith, as much as you can, in absoluteness -- in the 
absoluteness of the rulership of God and his muses; and 
their submuses, who are literally the bosses of the 
synchronicity of humanity -- the muses and God himself 
also influences these synchronicities.
: So you are saying that unless somebody behaves rightly  
-- fairly rightly, relative to what could be if there 
were no -- fear of God?..
/ ..yes. 
: Then synchronicities come -- those characterised by 
little goyon, not the good synchronicities..
/ ..yes. The other kind. They punish. They punish so 
severely, ruthlessly, they maim and slaughter the ego 
until it is reduced to a screaming set of tears -- for 
otherwise, the natural law that there is a progression, 
a propelling towards enlightenment could not be upheld. 
Nobody can escape punishment for wrongness. That's an 
absolute requirement. That's part of the determinism of 
the universe. That, too, is in Erbarme Dich, Mein Gott. 
Get serious, man. Yes to parties, yes to indulgence in a 
lovely meal, yes to superfantastic orgasms and orgies, 
but it has to be within the bounds of righteousness -- 
that you eat not too often, and exercise much, and that 
the orgies do not go on for one minute more than they 
can relative to the society-foundational tasks, or the 
cosmically righteous tasks, a person has to engage in. 
Those who merely dive into pleasure dive not into death 
-- for there is no death ultimately, since the souls and 
the spirits do not depend on any particular body but 
always persist and always feel, it is the real sense of 
"I", deeper than any name you choose for yourself, it is 
the experiencer and witness of all -- those who merely 
dive into pleasure without care for righteousness have 
to be metered out the most severe punishments. The more 
severe, the more cunning synchronicities might be woven 
around them, as a net to capture them in, as one might 
capture fish. Ugly fish has to be beaten into beauty. 
The word 'ugly' in English both means bad in action and 
bad in looks. But if there is to be progress in this 
universe, by each incarnation there is more beauty for 
that soul -- you can always look forward to it. But to 
deserve that, you must act better and better, not worse 
and worse. And to act better and better, something must 
happen to those who fall into any type of cunning, those 
who try to assert one thing against God, against 
wholeness, politically or whatever, or who just radiate 
: You say that for this progress to go on, then if a 
person does a lot of reckless things and the body 
suddenly dies -- before the negative effects have played 
themselves out in this or these souls' life in that 
/ Exactly. Then it happens in the interval between the 
former body and the next body, or something like that. 
The punishment has to come, and has to be severe enough 
and it is. There is really no mercy in that sense: each 
person's ego has to be nearly killed, over and over 
again, until it becomes adapted to getting tinier. I am 
saying that the pain given to those who are not 
righteous -- and by "righteous" I mean, living up to all 
these things we talk about, in connection with 
nonfiction discussions over enlightenment, -- that pain 
is extreme. It is torture. God's torture of humanity: 
that's not something you want to lie to yourself about. 
You want to understand that it is part of God's 
compassion for all that there is compassion for the 
growth of enlightenment for all and for the future of 
all -- and this compassion must express itself as the 
worst, most severe, most damaging kind of torture of 
soul and spirit and by bodily experiences, too -- when 
an ego has bitten itself onto a person like an infection 
that doesn't go away. The pain will be screamingly, 
shockingly intense, absolutely hellish, there will be 
nothing, and I mean nothing, but pain -- a universe of 
pain, for the souls and spirits who deny righteousness 
too much, or who deny God too much, or who deny the 
muses and their wisdom and beauty. This pain, even if it 
is just ten seconds, fifteen seconds, is practically 
unbearable. And there is no escape from it. It goes on 
until a person begs for mercy and promises to improve 
but it still goes on after that.
: Why? 
/ Why it goes on even after a person cries for mercy and  
promises to improve? 
: Yes. Isn't it enough? To get that.. confession? 
/ It is not enough. It must be a pain so severe that the  
person will never ever go back and do it wrongly again. 
It mustn't be a pain that can be turned off with the 
click of a button, or that one can pay oneself out of, 
like when you pay for five minutes with a tantric 
computer game and forget your worries. This is God's 
teaching to humanity by hellish torture for as many 
minutes, or hours, as need be for each soul or each 
spirit who has failed too much to really start wanting 
to learn. To start wanting to have discipline, to be a 
disciple of God and his muses. There is a total feeling 
of fresh freedom in deciding in earnest to be an as 
total slave as possible to God and his muses. To live 
with that freedom has glimpses of infinite joy and the 
passion to do right comes from that.
: One of those things that alternate in my mind is to 
see clear-cut-ness, I mean, such as complete smoothness, 
or the completely straight line, as beautiful, versus to  
see fuzziness, or line upon line in pleasant chaos, and 
diversity of colors such as with the lights of a city 
late at night.
/ Yes. What's your question? Whether one or the other is  
more beautiful? 
: Yes. That's my question. Is chaos somehow beauty, at 
least sometimes, or some forms of chaos? Or is it to be 
/ I wonder if we can divide it up that way. Surely the 
path that a setting or rising Sun may broadly paint in 
gold on a lake a quiet day may be very pure, very 
straight, very simple. And yet if you look more 
carefully, it is extremely diverse. I wouldn't say 
"chaos". Nothing has chaos in it for real. It may be 
very rich in contrasts and similarities, that's all. 
: But is it beautiful? I mean, does it like take both 
diversity and simplicity to make beauty? Or more one or 
the other?
/ Of course you have a point in asking, for once we say 
that beauty is objective, such questions make quite a 
lot of sense, possibly. Yet there is something about the 
individual also, who is part of that objective reality. 
And it doesn't have to do with mere vision. If you have 
a long, hot bath and get quite thirsty, and in that heat 
and in that thirst you are given a cup of really clean, 
pure and also cool water, there is a sudden ecstasy. 
This is luxury. To be given lukewarm water while having 
a hot bath is something that is probably at most mildly 
pleasant. But the contrast of yourself being very warm 
and also very thirsty with getting that cold water 
creates an experience of luxury, an experience of 
abundance, and there's a generosity in it, and beauty as 
well. But take this cup of cold water to another who 
seeks a hot cup of coffee, not because she is thirst but 
because she's cold and drowsy and want the energy of 
coffee and the heat of holding the cup. That cold cup of 
water holds no message. This is not to say that the 
experience of beauty is subjective. It is an objective 
experience, but in that objective experience there is 
the individuality and also the bodies differ, to some 
slight extent.
: Does that mean that simplicity CAN be beautiful, just 
as diversity CAN be beautiful?
/ Yes. If you're hungry, food is beautiful.  
: I can be hungry for simplicity. 
/ Quite so.  
: Or I can be hungry for a diversity. 
/ Exactly. Or for a combination. And not just any 
simplicity, or any diversity. It has got to make sense. 
: Can a person be mad? I mean, insane? Does the concept 
at all make sense, or is it merely the worst type of 
characteristics one can give of a person with whom one 
/ This is tremendously complicated. It is not an easy 
question at all. I'd say, a person can be factorised, 
fragmented into too many bits -- in the mind, I mean -- 
in a sense -- for us to say that this person qualifies 
as having a human mind. But who are to say this? In a 
concrete situation, anyone who is human has also some 
slight bit of the neurotic. Which is not to say that 
they are some slight bit insane. One doesn't fall down 
from a height some slight bit. But the definition of the 
human mind is that it has relative insight only, and 
therefore always some confusion. There is nevertheless a 
priority of goodness, not just self-preservation, but 
wholeness of life, protection of the future and so on 
and so forth. When these priorities are altogether 
shattered, the person may still have a very beautiful 
smile in a physical sense, may still sit still in a 
physical sense, and speak rational in a verbal sense, 
but the mind that produces this beauty, this stillness, 
and these words, is simply not there. It is produced but 
by neuronic firings cascading off in bundles of 
fragments no longer coherently held together by soul. 
: Like a machine? 
/ Like a machine, yes, but with all the apperances of 
liveliness and mindfulness.
: So who can tell? You can tell, right? 
/ I can, yes. 
: Would you say for instance that someone who is 
criminal is insane?
/ Not necessarily. Quite possibly but not necessarily. 
: There are no obvious marks or tokens? 
/ You see, in the past of human society, you have had 
people throwing accusations at people that they exist in 
a state of self-delusion whenever they have said 
anything which other people consider seriously wrong. 
But if there is disagreement -- I think you touched this 
point yourself -- then you may say, 'I disagree with you  
there, I think otherwise of the fact of the matter 
myself, and here is how I think about it.' This is 
normal in human discourse. This is healthy. This is the 
type of slight conflict that healthy sane people have. 
Now if one person says of another person that the other 
has illusions, or is deluding herself, since she says 
such and such -- then she is engaging in filthy 
: You are saying it has nothing to do with what the 
person says?
/ It is a very complicated thing. How can anyone judge 
over the wholeness of the mentality of a human being? 
: It requires an intuition going beyond the human level? 
/ It sure does. 
: Does this imply, sir, that you see it so that the 
concept of insanity cannot have any practical 
significance in the running of a society?
/ Affirmative. 
: Could not this mean that someone who is, by her 
insanity, seriously upsetting others, will have too much 
liberty -- I mean, if society has no right to impose or 
attribute the concept or label of insanity on anyone?
/ It is for that we have criminal laws. 
: Right.  
/ I mean -- again, this is very complicated -- if no 
human being has not full understanding enough to qualify 
another human being as insane, then also it makes no 
sense for a society to do so; but then also it makes no 
sense for a society to have any laws about insanity. 
However, it does make sense to have laws which protect 
its citizens and the future coherent beautiful 
unfoldment of the society, its existence into the 
glorious future, from erratic behaviour, theft, 
merciless violence, the throwing about of threats, the 
disruption of important societal functions, the 
formation of mob-gangs or drug-circles or the lending of 
money on dishonest premises or the stealing of 
identities to circumvent natural bounds set by society 
on the individuals so it can flourish as a whole -- such 
rules do exist. Such rules will sooner or later be 
touched by a person disrupting -- for any reason, be it 
insanity or not -- and when these rules are touched 
seriously enough, that person will be charged by 
criminal offence -- without the needless attribution of 
any form of insanity, mild or otherwise. Besides I don't 
think you can speak of 'mild' insanity. If a mind has 
fallen down the cliff of fragmentation, it is no longer 
a mind, and such a fall is not mild. So protect your 
wholeness, and your priorities of goodness.
: I would so much want to understand more about 
enlightenment. It seems, as you speak about it, to be 
somehow the drive of the universe?
/ Yes. 
: Is it one understanding, or many? 
/ If it had been just one understanding, there would 
only have been one type of enlightenment, and so no 
progression, no refinement, after it would have come; 
and so this enlightenment would have been absolute, not 
relative. But humans have relative understanding. So 
enlightenment comes, and then in similar long steps, 
refines, and this keeps on and on. But if there are many 
understandings, it would mean that what is earlier said 
about enlightenment would no longer hold after that 
which has been said have been understood. And this is 
also not so.
: Neither one, nor many understandings. 
/ Nor anything in between. The words are the same. How 
penetrating that understanding is, and how much 
self-reference the universe has in that your 
understanding, that evolves. 
: What does self-reference mean? 
/ It means you understand that your mind drinks of the 
fountain of Mind, with capital M. This is the grander 
reference, and your mind partakes in it. The reference 
within yourself is back to yourself in a larger sense -- 
put very simply. It is actually exceedingly complex.  
: Too complex that any understanding can easily occur? 
/ We're talking a million years or so -- I'd say perhaps  
at most a millenia more than that -- between each step. 
You may think it is funny that it is possible to give a 
number to it -- how humanity, its souls and spirits 
evolve and all that. But after all the buddhists, 
certain branches of it anyway, used to do this in 
plenty, for centuries prior to the 20th century. There 
is nothing new about giving quantities to this type of 
thing. Of course one may argue that some may have luck 
and stumble upon a deeper understanding earlier. But it 
is washed out by waves of duration, if it is too early 
for the rest of humankind to pick it up. 
: Is enlightenment noticable? 
/ Oh yes. 
: I mean, in terms of crime statistics and such? 
/ Oh, definitely.  
: So it is not just an imperceptible transition deep 
within, not just a little bit more happiness. It is a 
society change also.
/ Enormously so. 
: Is beauty the way to it? 
/ Yes.  
: Bodily beauty, sexual beauty..? 
/ Yes, and also beauty in whole society. Its art, also. 
In the dance and dialogue of conversation. Look, just so 
it is said: even after enlightenment, and after each 
million-years step of evolution of refinement of that 
enlightenment ad infinitum, there will still be terrible 
accidents, fierce violence, gang clashes, wild killings,  
theft, cunning, insanity, the assault from within the 
mind of extreme sadness and sorrow in some, and so on. 
All such nasty things are part of human nature. But 
harmony, love, compassion, sex in all its girl-bisexual 
beauty, tantrism, meditation, dance, massage, art 
unfoldment, nannying, school teaching, currency trading, 
neopopperian research in a light sense, space travel -- 
all these things are so much more the human nature. And 
it is to give what is most rational, most sane, most 
beautifully balance and hopeful more the upper hand that 
enlightenment is about. But all sorts of potentials for 
wars and so on continue to exist, the human ego, though 
more and more defeated by each such grand step in the 
discourse humanity has with itself, continue to exist. 
Without strict boundaries for the unfoldment of each 
person's life, all possibilities for extinction of the 
human race by bloody meaningless wars and shoddy 
political ideologies and false beliefs of every type 
still exist. Enlightenment merely means that there is 
less ground for the ego to grow on, or the ground has 
changed so the flowers of meaningful dialogue and 
beautiful expressions and beautiful dance and to take 
things in the best meanings rather than based on 
jealousy and envy and rage, -- the flowers of meaningful 
dialogue and beautiful expressions have better 
conditions for growing. You follow? It doesn't mean a 
kingdom of heaven in the silly old christian sense. It 
means a kingdom of much love but still with some hatred, 
though less hatred than before; and this reduction of 
hatred is from within, based on a thousand or so 
millenia of self-dialogue and self-critical awareness in 
beautiful dance and expression and experiments within 
the boundaries of a well-designed society, which has 
both simplicity and diversity, but not the type of 
diversity which allows the production of nuclear bombs 
or biological virus bombs or other types of things which 
create fear and disillusionment in humanity.  
: You are saying this here, in Oslo, in the context of a 
planet whose society is getting every decade more full 
of bombs of all the worst kinds, in addition to all 
sorts of indications that the supporting nature climate 
is breaking down. This planetarian society is broken 
down into segments which are full of sexually repressive 
laws, ageist laws, and, in some parts, also full of 
corruption, gang violence, and the propaganda of hatred 
against other nations on this planet. 
/ That's how it is, yes. Obviously it must change. Can 
it change here? I don't think so. But let's not be so 
rediculously contemporary. There is a determinism at the 
deepest level, as I have said. Here, beautiful humanity 
is destined to come into the society of sexual dialogue, 
freedom from sexual repression, the fullness of an 
encouragement of beauty, the joys of the best features 
of democracy and righteous forms of business enterprise 
of the 'small is beautiful' type of capitalism, 
interactivity economy -- all these things will come. You 
must ask your soul, is it not so? Will there not be 
somewhere -- in this grand and lovely universe -- in 
some incarnation sometime soon, relative to the first 
thousand millenia of growth towards the first phase of 
enlightenment -- that a kingdom of heaven will be 
formed? Obviously. It is the reverberance of that which 
keeps humanity up at present. Everyone must do what 
makes sense to do at present, as far as the external 
environment goes, and look to the laws and not try to 
fight against them, even if they are wrong, for they are 
much, much stronger than any individual. But it is not 
by looking at all this that peacefulness comes to a 
human heart -- but by going beyond that which the 
earlier Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem-Brundtland 
once called (in connection with the United Nation's 
first big environmental planetary report), "the tyranny 
of the immediate". Lift your gaze! The statistics of 
Earth is not the statistics of the future. The problems 
of conversation of Earth are far more considerable than 
the problems of the conversations of the future. And 
nothing, not the slightest speck of dust anywhere, is an 
expression of indeterminism or chancelike chaos. There 
is no chaos -- rather, there are extremely minute as 
well as extremely big expressions of utterly fine-tuned 
mechanisms guiding all. And these mechanisms also have 
in them, indeed are in several ways carried by, an 
ethical scheme of reward and punishment at the level of 
your soul, and your spirit, so you can grow, so you must 
grow, so humanity must grow, so there is no retardation,  
but only progress. I know this may be hard to see at 
present, and indeed there will always be times in the 
future where one must remind oneself on this to better 
see it. This is where I call for AMFAP -- As Much Faith 
As Possible. Do not chide yourself for having little 
faith one evening after a quarrel. Rather, go for a long 
walk and remind yourself of AMFAP, of having faith after  
all, of knowing that temporary emotions will pass away 
and grander feelings will come again in the morning, or 
a morning a week from now. You may have to say, 'I 
apologize', to someone, so other people also hear it: 
but that will be far less painful than to avoid saying 
it when it has to be said. This, too, you can work out 
in your walk. Or you have a wound, it heals within say 
three weeks; or a bad cold, making you somewhat feverish 
so it is hard to walk, but you know the pain will 
reside. And this is the way you must relate to duration, 
to upcoming time, when there is pain: to know that there  
is less pain, and still less pain, in the future. You 
accellerate out of pain, so to speak. 
: Will humanity come to be completely painless? 
/ You are completely painless in flashes where you have 
the greatest intimations of God. 
: To learn more about this, should we cultivate the art 
of listening so as to correct one's own thoughts?
/ Don't attack the person if you disagree with what the 
person said, don't work out cunning ways of arguing but 
allow reality to win over opinions.
: Will then quarrel never happen? 
/ That's unrealistic. A person has a dignity, and there 
is a sense in which a falsely put argument against a 
person deserves a verbal defence even in loud words -- 
at times. It is demanding a great deal of self-insight 
to land at the right boundaries as to how far one can go 
in defending one's righteousness in a conversation in 
which one has been unjustly insulted -- for instance by 
another portraying one's opinions as sick, not merely 
wrong but as expressions of sickness. If you merely turn 
your other cheek to such blow you will probably get 
another blow, and then another; and if all righteous 
people do this, nonrighteousness will overtake. So one 
cannot say, quarrel is necessarily a bad thing in all 
cases. Some quarrels are made necessary by some people's 
lack of sincere approach in a conversation. But the 
stamash person knows that words are one thing, and 
actions another. One doesn't go from word-hitting to 
hand-hitting. Relative to an official person, outside of 
a late-night conversation between two equal friends, 
there may be laws prohibiting certain verbal expressions 
and so there, the wrong words may lawfully lead to 
physical counter-actions by the police. But a quarrel 
between friends should happen in awareness that words 
should concern the theme, not the person, and not lead 
to meaningless eruptions like, 'I never want to see you 
again!'. One must know that there will always be more 
meetings with everyone, for humanity has a fixed number 
of souls and spirits.
: I think you say somewhere that it is not necessarily 
one soul pr body.
/ Far from it. Yet it is the soul that is your more 
intimate experiencer or witness as you gaze upon that 
sculpture, or make love to another. And still more 
deeply, your spirit. So these are three levels, you can 
intuit it if you like, it is very clear: the body, the 
soul, the spirit. And each level has some level of 
freedom of movement so to speak, ruled by deeper laws 
and guided by the higher beings, the muses you know.
: I wonder.. you know I have some training in painting..
/ I know that. You are good, too, girl!!! 
: Oj thanks. I like to hear that. But I wish to think 
through, if possible, more about why it is so that 
intuition approves of a painting that I may think that I 
like, but yet it may disapprove of another painting that  
I may also think that I like. What is it that it -- "it"  
meaning intuition -- sees that I don't see? Is my 
question confusing?
/ I perfectly understand what you say. Your question is 
apt put. You find yourself liking something, and 
sometimes that coheres with your more deeper sense of 
it, your intuition, your conscience of beauty, as it 
were, and sometimes it doesn't. Is there a rule for it? 
Obviously it isn't. Right? I mean, here at the manifest 
level of things, we can't list all the rules for what 
beauty is all about. Yet your intuition has a sense of 
it all. Right?
: Yes. I know of this and that consciously, but.. 
/ Exactly. But you don't know it all. Yet all enters 
into the decision, the question -- 'should this painting 
be retained as is?' And still you may get a sense that 
it should be retained even though you later on, before 
giving it on to others to look at, get a fresh intuition 
about it -- that something has to be changed, or that it  
doesn't work out after all. 
: In the latter case, was the earlier intuition wrong? 
/ One of them were. Or rather -- if you allow me to 
point it out -- intuition is a word you can take great 
care to apply to only such cases where it is definitely 
right. If there was a situation in which you had a sense 
that something was right, then later on you have a sense  
that the same thing is not right -- not beautiful -- 
then one of them may be an intuition. 
: I don't know how quite to phrase this question.. I am 
not used to talking to you but I have read..
/ Yes yes. What's on your mind? We can work out the 
question together.
: This thing about being obedient to the innermost 
whispers of intuition, obedient to beauty..
/ What about it? 
: It is not easy. 
/ Or it is easy, if you get the knack of it. 
: Yes. But how to do it?  
/ How to engage your own sense of things for real? 
Rather than be a victim of opinions and hearsay?
: Yes. I mean, I hear this, I hear that, I try to 
imagine what is my own innermost feelings but I feel 
like.. swaying. Like the most recent argument compells 
my mind in that direction, and my emotions follow. You 
see, the difficulty is that I don't think my meditation 
goes deep enough. So how to deepen it to grow more 
/ So we have to be silent. 
: Yes. 
/ I mean, even now. Otherwise it is just more opinions. 
: Yes. Thoughts and emotions clutter up. 
/ Like the little lights. The lights which are near, the  
many lights in the night which are strong only because 
they are near, like thoughts and emotions. And the 
vastness of the joyous stars in the nightsky, when it is 
clear from clouds, that vastness requires that all the 
near lights from the city are not blocking your view, 
not blending your intuition. Thought mustn't blend your 
intuitive eye. Right?
: Right exactly. 
/ So we must also understand something about how 
thoughts and emotions, while they have a very, very 
important function, also to some extent are like food -- 
they have to be digested, they have to move, chemically 
you know, through the body. You have to have the motion 
around them, with them.
: Exercise. Like stamash. 
/ Like stamash. And like walking. Have you tried, when 
you are in such a situation where you can get late up in 
the day and sleep really much, to go straight for a 
really really long walk without as much as a drop of 
coffee or breakfast? You just get your clothes on, 
freshen yourself up for a minute, and out into -- 
sunlight, perhaps. Or night-time. And you may find that 
you can walk with an extraordinary energy. What happens 
: I clear up. I know about that, yes. That peculiar 
/ So you walk and you can allow the thoughts which 
circulated, after the most recent intense discussion or 
most recent intense experience -- these thoughts, you 
can allow one by one present themselves. It happens 
: I may want to find out something then. They may come 
as questions.
/ Good. So you ask.  
: While I walk? 
/ While you walk. You shouldn't make a fool of yourself 
and start talking to yourself nervously but allow the 
thought to be whispered inside you as a question, 
perhaps not moving your lips at all if other people are 
around. And your feet, touching ground, alive with the 
joy of walking, they can reflect the state of your mind 
as you ask the question. The state of mind as a whole 
may not sing clearly an intuitive answer as a sound 
inside you, but if you ask your feet, you may find that 
they subtly alter direction of your walk as you ask. 
Have you tried that?
: I am not sure. 
/ So you walk on a path which has some width to it; and 
the question is there -- is it so and so? If you ponder 
at many things at once, select one of them, -- and if it 
is a complex question, extract a simple one. A yes/no. 
Simple and concrete and not assuming too much. And you 
say to yourself, -- for the next, well, thirty meters or 
so I will walk right in the middle of this path, in the 
golden middle so to say, if the answer as I feel it now 
is 'yes'; and if I go a little to the right or left then 
I take it that I give myself a 'no' as for this 
: But how will I allow the feet to pick the path on 
their own, rather than overriding their choosing the 
path being middle or not with my own likes and dislikes 
and fears and so on?
/ Brilliantly put. You have to tell yourself, remind 
yourself, that after all fact is more important than 
opinion, that you can be a friend with facts, or facts 
can be friends, rather. They can be friends. You don't 
have to override anything. You tell yourself to relax 
after you have put the question and focus on allowing 
the energy naturally in your feet to move you on. And 
you see.
When we are together in exploring beauty, we are doing 
the world's most important task. Beauty is God. Has 
anyone said that before? Probably. To take two very 
commonly used words, and positive at that, and put the 
most common word of all between them -- the word "is" -- 
is something bound to happen very often in any 
imaginative society. But far more strongly it has been 
said, Love is God. God is Love. Now we are going to muse 
a little together, if you are with me, the writer or 
speaker, on how it could be that Beauty is God. God is 
  I wish to go from one to the other. From Love to 
Beauty. I feel like thinking about these concepts now 
with the capital L in Love and capital B in Beauty but 
that doesn't mean that we're into new concepts. We are 
rather just focussing them more essentially, more 
  I wonder what comes to your mind -- yes, I know, by 
the way -- when we say the word "love". Of course, what 
comes to the mind of lovely, harmony and 
hormone-equipped lovely teens, bursting with eager 
desire to embrace the bodies of one another, is sex. And 
so sexuality is definitely and strongly and vividly a 
part of what we mean by Love, there is no denying that; 
and we will definitely include sex in Love. 
  But when you tenderly care for an artwork, taking 
time, you sense a force of affection, you go slow and 
you love what you are doing and there is love, there, 
too; a love more general, we might say, than mere sex 
although it enters into some parts of sex anyway.
  And then when you look at the upcoming generation of 
children and feel the importance of protecting their 
beauty, their healthy beauty, and honoring that beauty, 
you are by virtue of your affection for beauty also 
honoring the existence of humanity. Imagine how terrible 
it would be if affection went to care for that which is 
wrong, while ignoring that which is beautifully healthy. 
So those who are so healthy they can represent where 
humanity is going, how humanity is a coherent whole in 
evolution, they would be ignored; whereas those who want 
to get some affection from anybody, they would have to 
inflict some damage on themselves. Now, then, that's not 
how it is. The loving healthy beautiful mind embraces 
the loving healthy beautiful body and radiates care and 
love there. And this also can heal what can be healed.
  One might ask, does not love also have a connection to  
the pain of those who suffer? So as to alleviate pain? 
But here we have to explore a little bit what the role 
of pain is. For pain always have a psychological 
function. It is there for an individual to learn and 
heal and do things better and wake up to the challenge 
of improving in this area also. Some pains represent 
illnesses of a kind that makes the body go away 
altogether: but as you trust reincarnation, as you are 
not merely believing in what the eyes see and ears hear 
and what the fingers of the body can touch -- but as you 
trust the subtler levels of mind and feeling and finer 
shades of emotion and conscience and deeper levels of 
awareness beyond personal memory, you will have a sense 
of the greatness of soul which is the quintessence, 
together with the even more magnificent greatness of the 
spirit, which is the human being in total sum. And so 
you have no fear, nothing to speak of anyway -- at least 
when you remind yourself strongly of the immortality of 
soul -- as for the withering away of the body. No matter 
what type of pain it is, then, it has a function, a 
reason, a rationality, a ratio, and it begs you to 
listen to it, with affection and care and insight.
  In some circumstances, such as giving birth to a 
child, the pain may have to last for a little while 
before it goes away; and it is good to relate to the 
process a bit more giddy, as it were. And then a little 
bit of this and a little bit of that can be added to a 
soft drink or to a pill and it can meaningfully 
alleviate the pain. But that is something extraordinary 
and unusual and not something we should get anywhere 
near depending on. For we must in some sense love pain, 
love what pain is doing for us -- which is not at all to 
seek pain, quite on the contrary -- but it means that 
when pain is there, it is part of what makes humanity 
propell itself onwards and love more and better and do 
more and better art and act more beautifully and create 
more beauty -- it is part of the creation of beauty that 
pain comes when we do it too wrong. Put very simply. But  
you know what I mean, I think. 
  There is, for instance, the pain which comes when you 
dig another's ego and dig the companionship with the 
other and the dig your own ego and suddenly the other is 
not there -- for several possible reasons. If you knew 
the future in detail and knew the dates you would have 
told yourself to be flexible in your digging in on new 
attachments. But as you didn't know, and perhaps counted 
on things just getting on and on continously at the 
manifest level of superficial companionship and 
friendship, you didn't bother to tell yourself to have 
flexible expectations and letting go of attachment at 
the personal level and rather just have attachment to 
God and the muses and your existence as immortal soul 
and spirit. So you got stuck on the material level and 
suddenly the intense psychological frustration of 
feeling that what you were leaning on and what you were 
embraced by and standing on, even, is not there at all, 
and you feel twice fool: fool for relying on someone who 
you by a general abstract logic could see you should not  
rely on; and fool for being thrown into all this 
suffering, this indication of lack of enlightenment. Now 
at once: do not chide yourself for psychological pain. 
If you really get into pain, it is because it was a new 
situation, something you haven't encountered before, not 
even in a previous incarnation of which you typically 
won't remember details, for it is rather about 
remembering insights. So make the beautiful effort to be 
grateful for your experience -- even of pain. Be 
grateful and assert that you will extract some insight, 
not a political insight mind you, but a self-critical 
psychological insight. Not a quasi-insight, condemning 
some authorities; but a real insight, going within 
yourself and telling yourself to be more playful, less 
demanding and craving of individuals, more generous, 
more plural, more open to a variety of experiences not 
just one and one name and one companionship. And so 
society, if it is a good society, offers you various 
jobs, not just one job, and various activities each 
week, not just one and the same activity and then sleep; 
and if it is a good society, it also helps you to combat  
that which so easily can ruin the beauty and health and 
future of a human body, namely overeating or eating of 
too much cookies and candies and things which are overly 
fat and sugared. So you should appreciate some bounds, 
the bounds on pain-alleviating substances, the bounds on 
availability of food. That is why money, in a good 
society, shouldn't have anything such as limitlessness 
about them in what they can provide for a person. Money 
for one person opens up such and such but money for 
another person opens up such and such and there should 
be bounds on what is transferrable. Not all things are 
goods of an equivalent kind: each person should 
appreciate if a society puts bounds on how much can be 
accumulated of this and that, even if the person has a 
lot of money. It shouldn't be possible to bribe whether 
a person or a machine -- a machine cannot be bribed but 
one can try to hack on the machine to make it do what it 
would otherwise not do -- for if you appreciate the 
natural impossibilities a society make, you will feel 
more at ease in doing healthy things which provide real 
  Say, you want to go for a long walk at the end of 
which there is a delicious and healthy promise of sweet 
yoghurt or something suitable for walking back to where 
you came from. But if during this walk you have in your 
hands a lot of things to chew on, and you don't want to 
chew on these things -- even if they are really tasty -- 
then all through that walk there is the friction between  
the natural inclination to chew on what's near and to 
stick to the decision of not doing it. Take this as a 
general image of what good impossibilities are all 
about: if you walk with your hands free from such 
extras, you won't have that extra friction, and you will 
literally walk with greater ease. You will have a more 
smooth ride, it will be far more fun and you won't be 
nearly as exhausted when you arrive at your destination 
for that part of the walk. And then the sweet promise 
will be all the more sweet, and you will feel that you 
deserve it.
  So impossibilities are part of what a society must 
implement for beauty to grow. And so I say, it is lack 
of love if a society is not made so as to cultivate the 
right type of impossibilities. 
Do you listen to beauty? The word "listen" means, does 
it not, that we are absolutely tranquil inside -- at 
least for a moment. In that moment, in that glimpse of 
quietness, eternity, of creative intelligence, of 
awareness, something comes forth from a deeper source, 
the deeper recesses of all that is -- God, as source, 
also of our most intimate feelings, resolutions, ideas. 
And the muses, of course. The muses are as if the hands 
of God. It is all a wonderful structure. I say this not 
as belief, but as perception. It is how it is.
  And so beauty connects this most deepest source within  
you, what you love the most and most dearly, beyond all 
your surface patterns of attraction -- beauty is a 
perception arising from the depths within you, the 
source of all -- and connecting you with something 
beyond you, which is more or less manifest. 
When the sun shines on a large metal structure, it may 
give some pang-like sounds on occasion -- as it heats 
up, in some parts more than in other parts, it expands. 
And partial expansion creates a tension. Take this as a 
metaphor, an image over how it is to be a human being on 
the way to a new insight: you have been stiff, now you 
are getting flexible, you are being heated up by the sun 
of attention as it shines on an experience; there is the  
sense of pain as something in you gets more heated up 
than the rest of you; and so you have to stick this pain 
out and not fight it. You have to have AMFAP -- As Much 
Faith As Possible, that the attention within you that 
you give to your experiences and to all humanity and to 
God and to your prayers and to your painting and so on 
-- beyond the "you", beyond the persona, beyond the 
ownership greed, beyond territorial ownership whether of 
job, people, things or status, or even your own body -- 
this attention is always of the good. Attention creates 
the liveliness of something in you that spreads to the 
rest of you if it is cultivated nicely. You keep on 
doing what you know is right also when you have pain, 
also when you don't quite feel like it: you do not let 
yourself become a slave of temporary emotional swinging 
patterns. You do persist in what is righteous also when 
it is not quite fashionable in a club. For these clubs 
and these false manners and false forms of hysteria that 
some people may get into, though they may laugh 
sarcastically at the idea, these things are temporary 
and vanish quickly, next season they are as forgotten as 
if they never happened -- but what is not forgotten 
within you is how well you did in succeeding not to 
succumb to them. You stuck to righteousness.
  It is part of the flexibility of the human body to 
engage in sexuality. Sexuality stimulates the heat of 
the body but also, like the Sun shining on metal, it 
makes the body more flexible, more apt, more ready to do 
everything. The more a person constrains sexuality, the 
less the person explores wild sexuality and pushes the 
limits and opens the doorways of the genitals quite 
strongly, the more dangerous child-birthing can be, the 
more complicated it is to have a motivation to avoid 
false forms of eating, and so on. Sexuality is a dance, 
a laughter, an attention-glow swinging itself through 
the body and those who are the enemies of beauty -- 
because they are trapped in the illness of a selfish 
wave of thinking -- they say that sexuality is something 
only some should do, rather than all; or that one has to  
be above a certain number of centimeters or have a 
certain numbers of seasons behind one before one can 
begin, or that one should only do it with so and so and 
only do it with those who are like oneself or who have 
not got more seasons than oneself behind oneself. Those 
who limit sexuality are against God, they are against 
conscience, they are sinners relative to human health. 
How do you listen to something which is true? I mean, 
truth is such a gift. It is like a sudden fragrance in 
the street; your nostrils quiver, something awakens 
within you, and it may suggest a place you can go and 
get goodness going for you, right? And so, when 
something is spoken which is true, you may not quite 
understand it consciously, I mean at your most conscious 
level, your brain level, -- but still you resonate with 
it at the level of soul and spirit, and to resonate is 
always something muse-guided and God-guided, there is no 
chaos to what resonances happen. You resonate, you sense  
something in what is spoken on the level of a religious 
truth, and what happens to you? How do you listen to it? 
How do you let the dance of something true enliven you 
and propell you towards greater enlightenment?
  Beware motives when you listen. It is not about 
listening in order to try to extract a quote that you 
can "use" in an argument the next day. It is not about 
giving you a muscle -- actually, naturally you will get 
more good muscles for argument if you do listen well. 
But if you listen with a selfish interest in grabbing 
something you are not really listening, are you?
  So how do you listen? And who do you listen to? If you  
listen to a human being you are listening to a person 
with an ego, but whom whoever may go beyond this ego in 
lucky moments, and the ego may not be too dominant. And 
so when you listen to a human being talk you must not be 
gullible. You have the right to preserve a kind of 
ambigious silence, or radiate a sense of -- yes, I 
listen, but I also am perceptive, it may be that what 
you say is right and it may be that I perceive right but 
I will want to let things show themselves. 
  Then it is the question of listening to someone who is  
a concrete competence in a concrete field and still they  
may have ego there and make mistakes there, but you 
recognise competence and respect it; and you do not 
claim that you have competence in any field in this 
incarnation unless you have spend lots of hours in 
playful self-critical attention and self-dialogue and 
exploration, looking at what you do and letting go of 
all that is bad about what you do. You must let go of 
all bad paintings, for if you stick to even one bad one, 
you will automatically begin to justify this bad one by 
the successive paintings you make. And if you write a 
note to yourself, and you keep onto a false sentence in 
the beginning of that note, then the rest of the note 
may be little but an attempt to make noises to support 
the noise you put in there at first. So competence is 
about getting rid of attachment to ugly stuff.
  And so when somebody have competence, you feel their 
experience field, as a resonance area around that 
person, a magnetism, which is not to say blind obedience 
to another human being -- for only to God should one 
intend strong, absolute obedience -- and to God's 
highest muses, Lisa, Athina and Helena -- these names 
are not coincidental, they mean a lot -- they are 
exclusive names for three exclusive higher beings, and 
their names bring along with them a surname, Salinger, 
which has a nonhuman meaning, -- you must give space in 
your mind to the reality that humans are like shadows of 
the lights of these higher beings. And so human language  
is similarwise. 
  So how do you listen to something which is true? You 
catch yourself in having a desire, listening to the flow 
of truth: for the flow, like when wind blows on the 
water of an outdoor swimmingpool, allows for a soothing 
presence of attention to embrace whatever is other than 
its rhythm. The rhythm and arrhythmicality of truth, -- 
for it goes beyond mere rhythm, and is greater than any 
wave -- allows whatever comes forth of ego to be seen as 
such, fast. You see your desire, and end it; you see 
your fear, and end it; you see your attachment, and end 
When I say that all human existence is absolutely free 
forever of all seriously negative things such as "evil", 
such as "demon", such as "devil", such as "satan", then 
it also means that the only enemy which exists is the 
temporary and relative and actually rather small enemy 
called 'the ego', -- and this little enemy is also the 
creator of some level of healthy conflict which spurs 
creation onwards. This healthy conflict can sometimes 
taste very sour. It can sometimes seems very brutal, 
very wrong: but do not let appearances, do not let 
temporary appearances, no matter how grotesque, defer 
you from the point of view of immortal growth, immortal 
soul, the immortal longing for ever-greater beauty, and 
the fact that this is a world completely dominated by 
  Sometimes, however, some people get into such an 
accusing, self-pitying, aggressive streak that they seem 
to be enemies of all that is good: but they are not. 
They are merely miserable, and deal with their miserable 
condition in the shoddiest and ugliest of ways -- by 
trying to make things miserable for others. But this 
state of being miserable is temporary, and if someone 
who is miserable would see that state rather as a cold 
or flu or a scratch that passes away when due attention 
has been correctly given to it, and one has done the 
healthy things, then one would either get out of that 
misery because it heals; or, if it can't be healed, then 
that person is at the end of her bodily incarnation but 
then the soul will get a healing and there will be a new 
and ever healtiher body and even more beautiful body 
next time on. So there is, in a deep sense, absolute 
continuity and absolute goodness. All else is a matter 
of temporariness, of learning and so on. And it is of 
great matter, when we endavour to live as beautifully as 
possible, to limit all human conflict such as quarrel to  
a minimum: which doesn't mean that we are putting up 
with nonrighteous behaviour in order not to have 
conflict (but nor do we want a tyranny in which 
everything is absolutely correct; we must allow 
something of the vague incorrectness up to a limited 
point, otherwise it is too artificial).
  So if someone seems to be in a mood to say very 
drastic, very wrong things, make an effort inside you 
not to get into a similar mood -- but merely point out 
that it is wiser to avoid saying such strong things. 
What you say will stick; what the other say, if they are 
very bad things, will be things that the other has to 
apologize for -- at least to the muses (and that's where 
it matters). As soon as the quarrel resides, make an 
effort to avoid needless reference to it; go beyond it; 
exude an as positive body language as possible; do some 
easy practical things which tend to put you and others 
into a good mood; and soften it over. If something is 
seriously wrong it will always be healed quickly, and 
the more quickly the more seriously wrong they are. That 
is the nature of goyon, of life. The word "goyon" means 
strong and good synchronicities or karma -- it means the 
way in which cause-and-effect is an appearance, that 
there are deeper patterns of ethical lawfulness in all 
events which exhibit themselves through remarkable 
so-called "coincidences", and also as luck for those who 
have been most good. To this you must put your trust 
when you desire revenge and so on: you mustn't try to 
put yourself up and above as judge. There is only one 
judge, God, and his muses, and they are totally ruthless 
when they have to be in order for things to get going 
the way they want it to be, and they are the origin of 
all and have the right to set the course and no human 
being has the right to influence that in any other way 
than in good ways. So goyon means that you build up your 
luck-potentials by being righteous. 
  And being righteous doesn't mean to merely avoid 
pleasures. Some pleasures, like sex, between anyone and 
anyone, are always right when it is practical time for 
it and practical room for it. Some pleasures, like food, 
are only some times a day, and then only in some forms, 
right. Some pleasures, like enacting fierce stamash 
force in the line of duty may be rare or hardly occuring 
at all, from one season to the next, and totally wrong 
to go and look for. Some pleasures, like making a club 
of people who are so lazy and stupid that they have 
absolutely no rules governing themselves, are always 
wrong. And there may be fascinations, fantasies in sex, 
which on the level of fantasies have some righteousness 
about them but if put into practise -- the eating of a 
body -- would be rediculous.
  Many pleasures co-exist with small or large pains, at 
times or always. 
  If you are righteous, you do not put up with the pain 
of dressing in a way that portrays you ugly, if you have 
the time and the means to dress in a better way; or if 
it is a hot day, and the laws of society are as liberal 
as they should be as to how one dresses, you may go out 
on the street clad in a g-string and high-heeled shoes 
and that's it: and this you do if your body is a 
generous act of beauty, lifting up the spirits of 
others. Because you have meditated, you have eaten well, 
you have got massaged and done sex well and exercised 
well and walked much, so your skin is toned and your 
legs look fit -- and you don't fool yourself. You are 
objectively beautiful. So you radiate this objective 
beauty into society and make everything work out more 
beautifully. This is part of righteous pleasures.
  It is also righteous to tell yourself over and over 
and over again to appreciate, when you are a girl, the 
beauty of other girls; and even be eager for it, no 
matter how dangerous the beauty of others can be 
relative to your own options. This is a great 
meditation, to embrace beauty, to be dedicating yourself 
to beauty as greater than own survival. To go beyond 
your self, and live up to beauty, also sexually: that is 
a masterpiece of meditation, of God-prayer. Beauty is 
absolutely immortal and absolutely right. And so also is 
protection of beauty completely right, even when that 
protection has in it components which seen in isolation 
are very ugly -- like when someone is trying to upset a 
good society. 
: I wonder at people, sometimes. I mean, in 
relationships, or what we call it -- friendships, 
presumably friendships -- and then there are people who 
want to control. So shamelessly, -- that's how I find 
it. I wonder why -- what is control all about? How can 
it be attractive for anybody to exercise control over 
other people? I don't mean professionally, where 
somebody is paid to be an assistant or something. I mean 
privately, in love affairs, and this issue of so-called 
"loyality". The lengths to which some people can go.. 
sorry, perhaps I'm rantering.
/ No no. Go on. Or rather, let's crystallize a question.  
You are saying -- asking, rather -- what is control? 
What is control all about, in human affairs?
: Yes. Exactly. 
/ You rightly drew the line between a professional 
situation, where somebody is hired as -- slave, whatever 
-- it is a temporary assignment, there are rules 
governing the situation, there is usually a payment 
involved; after a month or a week or an hour there is a 
freedom which is regained and all through it, there is 
the liberty within of knowing that this is merely a job 
one has taken on -- a well-defined job, perhaps. And you 
are asking about something different, namely the subtle 
control, the control which hides itself under the cloak 
of loyality or generosity or a wish for others to be 
generous. Hidden control.
: Yes. It can also be relatively much in the open. I 
mean, it seems some are without shame about this. They 
seek control over several people who are gathered 
freely, fill up the time with boring stories which do 
not have any point other than to nail somebody down 
psychically. They do so and appear filled with 
themselves. And naturally they appear so filthy, so far 
from worthy of being loved, when they act like that. Had 
they been a little humble, they would have reached that 
approval which they perhaps seek. So is that it? That 
they seek approval?
/ No. I don't think one who seeks control really seeks 
: What is it then? It must be something. It is not 
control for its own sake.
/ I agree, it's not for its own sake that control is 
sought. There is a motive there, surely. It is, of 
course, to get the energy of others -- an energy that 
the controlling individual has not deserved. 
: I see. Yes that makes sense.  
One of the interesting features about human orgasm is 
that, though lusty, it does look -- and sometimes sound 
-- from the outside as if the person who undergoes it 
has some pain. In many cases, naturally, there is indeed 
some pain involved; but even if it isn't, the same 
characteristics appear -- the tension, the cry or 
tendency to cry, the look that has a peculiarly acute 
expression, neither obviously glad nor sad but vaguely 
shocked, perhaps pleasingly shocked, perhaps indeed also 
with smile and laughter but not at all necessarily so. 
If the person does laugh, it is on top of it, with it 
like a dance; and if the person does smile, it is a 
smile more as in a trance than the smile in a dialogue. 
It is an expression of oneness, a freedom from duality.
: I wonder about that term "equanimity". I take it to 
mean that in relationship you are completely calm, 
unruffled, not upset, no matter how you are fared with 
-- or what? Is that an illusion?
/ Yes, I think that is an illusion. I mean to say, I 
don't think it is an appropriate ideal in full. It is 
too stringent. It has to be an inclination, merely. 
Being calm relative to that which is nonsense is 
obviously extremely valuable. And if someone is 
undignified, then one may find it right to be very 
polite and gracious but impersonal, not getting 
entangled. But in some cases, to lay the foundation for 
future good collaboration, one have to state something 
about how one thinks communication ought to go. And this 
may not be entirely equanimous -- if that's a word. It 
may have some level of engagement, agitation in it -- 
and on some occasions, it is righteous. But that is not 
to say that both sides are righteous. It is quite often 
so that only one side is right. It is rarely so that a 
balance between two agited sides are right.
: But is there -- not a trick, but a method, or an 
approach or something to keep on to one's harmony more 
generally, I mean more often?
/ You mean, if somebody is insulting, days in a row 
perhaps, and you have to be around this person more or 
less -- can you somehow step out of it? Can you have a 
harmony even when exerted to a disharmonious influence?
: Exactly. Is it possible? 
/ Certainly. You will have to take on a perspective on 
what's happening, a grander perspective. You do this, 
naturally, after carefully looking into whether you are 
really acting righteously enough yourself. Or whether 
there is indeed something you have done or are doing 
which somehow righteously unleashes this insulting 
behaviour from another. If there is no lack of 
generosity in yourself, but you are subjected to an 
ungenerous, grumpty treatment by another, then you are 
subjected to what we can call "dis-information". But 
that means, disassociate yourself from it. It doesn't 
concern you. Disinformation is just that: it doesn't 
have any information content for you, no relevance. It 
is nothing. It is the other talking to herself. The 
condemnation which exudes from the body language or the 
direct words or actions by the other is a condemnation 
of an image the other has in her own mind, it is she 
condemning herself, -- it is disinformation, it doesn't 
concern you. 
: That sounds like it. But how can I.. take on this 
perspective, as you say?
/ It may at first be difficult -- let's grant that there  
is an evolution in mind. This is part of the flexible 
spirit. You'll get at it, better and better.
: Is there any limit to what is beautiful? 
/ How do you mean? 
: I mean, is there any limit to what is.. I should say, 
what CAN be beautiful -- for instance as regards 
violence, the terrible, all that?
/ Could you be more precise, miss? 
: I have heard you speak of harmony, health, prestine 
youth, dance -- all such coherent good things as part of 
beauty. But then also scenes with a nightsky of stars, 
or ripples of waves. How about let's say a stamash 
/ It can be beautiful, oh sure. If it isn't, it isn't 
: But how far can one go? Suppose there is a police 
/ Ah, I think I know what you are driving at.  
: Well, can it? 
/ Can what? 
: Suppose there is an annihilation of life.. 
/ Is it righteous? For if it is not, it is not a 
beautiful action; and so it doesn't have beauty, it is 
not beautiful.
: Whereas if it is righteous, then even if it is an 
/ If it is righteous, it is coherent. It is part of the 
universe ebb and flow of what protects its future 
unfoldment. Only in the nonlogical "tyranny of the 
immediate" perspective is it then possibly somewhat 
: The righteous action -- even as killing -- is 
beautiful. Has beauty. Is art.
/ Yes, there is no doubt; except that you need plenty of  
doubt as well as faith and great intuition to pinpoint 
that which is righteous. But then, if somebody in the 
line of duty as police, say, does martial arts so as to 
delete even human life, then, even as it is from a 
near-sighted point of view terrible, we cannot deny 
that, as far as righteousness, it has great, even 
enormous beauty. 
: I believe I once heard you say 'all sex is right'.  
/ What? If I did, it was a statement I came with given 
certain -- shall we say, preconditions. For instance, 
what do you mean by the word "sex"? Do you mean merely 
the physiological exercise? But then obviously the 
statement is wrong; not that I could possibly say it in 
that sense!!! But if you by sex mean that you are acting 
out of the tantric flow of all that is without restraint  
based on bourgeoise inhibitions, without boredom 
radiating from the ego, without nervousness based on 
lack of experience or some experience of pain -- then, 
naturally, it is also right, rigtheous, good. For if it 
really comes from a deeper conscience, it is also not in 
conflict with the boundary we must set for ourselves in 
all action, so that important duties for society and for 
our physical flourishing are not upset. So this is sex 
in the ULTIMATE sense -- that you are not restraining, 
based on meaningless fear, that which is the real 
/ What about the sizes of genitals, growth of the 
person, opening up, virginity, all that?
: As anyone who has worked a lot with any type of 
muscular exercise, be it dance, stamash, stretching or 
whatever, whether one is preteen or teen, knows that the 
body is in constant flux. It is changing based on what 
we do. The mind is learning and the body is learning -- 
or shall we say adapting -- and those who ignore such 
work have unflexibilities and restraints and lazinesses 
in their bodies and/or in their mind making them unfit 
for most forms of action. So we need hard great 
education and work on body as well in order to 
accomodate the greatest of experiences, to make room for 
: Without that.. 
/ Obviously -- without that there is no point. For 
instance, a very young girl getting pregnant when she's 
hardly had any dildo experience might be too tight to be 
able to give any birth at all, and so puts herself as 
well as upcoming child to danger. One mustn't condemn 
sexual practises, one mustn't condemn wild masturbations 
with tools and all such things, and then on the other 
hand condone, support, pregnancy and birth. For if the 
latter comes without the former, there is danger.
/ Will the beauty of sex enable selflessness for an 
art student?
: You obviously think about something there. Speak your 
/ I mean, I have had sex experiences recently which has 
made me see so many things -- in the days, hours, even 
perhaps weeks after -- which before was closed to me, -- 
also in painting. After the sex, I saw that I was stuck 
in one way of doing things, and suddenly, as a spiral of 
learning, I didn't seem to have.. self, if that's the 
/ A letting go of ego in sex. Marvellous. Of course. The  
mind attains to a young brilliancy of going infinitely 
beyond any stale pattern when it is exposed to the 
beauty in sex. Which is not merely the performance of 
: No, it is the beauty of the bodies, threesomes, 
foursomes, really attractive girls, as I'm bisexually 
attracted to, you know..
/ I know, girl!!! 
: So anyway these girls make my mind less made-up about 
what's what, if you know what I mean. Intuitions start 
racing in about new forms of beauty, new constellations. 
Just as you can see stars in a new way, drawing new 
imaginary lines between them, so also can I see so many 
things after sex.
/ You feel like opening up. 
: Exact. Opening up. Is it real? Is there a real 
selflessness there?
/ It is an intimation of it. I mean to say, if it is not  
in sex -- of a great, diverse, young-cultivating kind --  
not merely as hormones and all that body chemistry which  
keep you in shape, but also that -- as touching, visual,  
dance, scent, all of it, and the mind-play, and the 
laughter, -- if it is not there you get a sense of that 
absoluteness at bottom of all reality, then where can 
you get it? And simultaneously, there is the truth that 
this sense of the absoluteness has mindfulness and 
awareness about it. It is not that you NEED this or that 
physical activity but you need a right ripe full life 
and then it spurs on this meditation.









: I think you often talk of "purification" and likewise,  
in connection to meditation and also in connection to 
sex and, if I understand you right, so as to have a 
beauty perception.
/ Of course. 
: But -- if you forgive the silly question! -- how does 
one begin purifying oneself? I mean, practically?
/ It is not a silly question at all. I think that before  
we start doing anything about purification of oneself 
practically, we would do well in spending some minutes 
reflecting, as deeply as possible, perhaps, over the 
whole theme of pureness and purity and such 
philosophically. So we understand it more thoroughly -- 
not that you aim at full, complete, absolute 
understanding. It is not a matter of categories at all! 
The total understanding is only for God and his muses. 
But we can approach it at the humane level by saying 
that your body obviously knows the difference between 
good health and having an infection, such as a wound 
which hasn't healed yet; and in some sense, the wound 
represents a lack of purity and in some similar sense, 
being in good health represents purity. Or coherence. 
You follow this line of reasoning?
: Yes, I think I do. What is coherence exactly? 
/ Coherence is the well-being of hanging together, put 
very simply, firmly and excellently with oneself, and 
beautifully so, and without any much noise or trash. The 
word "cohere" is composed of "co", meaning together, as 
in "compassion", and "here", which is a root also found 
in such words as "adhere" -- such as when we say, please 
adhere to the principle of being a good listener! So you  
connect with yourself -- co-here. It is a refined word, 
ultimately it reflects physics, imagination, the 
universe as is the mind of God in the berkeleyan sense. 
All that. It is a lovely word. Wholeness is related, as 
far as concepts go. You are a whole human being, you 
have a whole body.
: I see. And so purity, where does purity come in? We 
have this wholeness or coherence.
/ Wait, do you really have it? For you ought to intend 
to have much of it, and more each millionth year, say. 
It is a growth towards enlightenment, then a growth in 
enlightenment, to increase in coherence, and that there 
is universally less pain and suffering, stepwise. The 
ego is about suffering, the ending of the ego is not 
lasting in a full complete total manner for any human, 
but the ending of the ego is a cleansing, a 
purification, a deletion of noise, of psychic trash, we 
might say. And that is an increase of coherence.
: Enlightenment is an increase of coherence. 
/ Naturally. 
: Would you say that sex purifies? Or is that that one 
must be purified to really have sex?
/ Both. The means are the end in all good things.  
: What turns a young girl on? 
/ You mean, what turns a young girl on sexually? 
: Yes. Really on. What is the key? 
/ You want to know so you can entice her for the 
unfoldment of all your lesbian dreams -- you and your 
other girlsfriends?
: Exactly. 
/ Well, nothing wrong with that motive. Let's go into it  
all. But first, let us pay a little bit attention to a 
phenomenon not entirely peculiar only to the 20th 
century, because it has gone on for as long as there 
have been humans around, but it was especially noticable 
then. There were guys such as Osho (as he called 
himself), who attracted thousands and yet more thousands 
of admirers, disciples, they donated all their big or 
tiny wealth to him, he grew fabulously wealthy and 
looked like an old, greedy, self-interested wrinkled man 
in the end, and he died early, of drug abuse; and threw 
drugs into the air where he orchestrated enlightenment 
talks, so-called, for his many folks. Now there was a 
laughter over him, for sure; and he was a professor, no 
less, in religious studies or philosophy or some kind of 
thing like that -- I am no expert on him, thank God. 
  Anyone who is in the slightest serious about truth, 
love, the quality of compassion, the growth towards 
nirvana, the deepening of meditation beyond the 
frontiers of thought and desires, must know that the old 
web that this man Osho wrought around himself stunk with  
ego. And those who don't see that, don't want to see 
anything seriously well at all. They are simply looking 
at somewhere else. 
  And it is not so easy as what Jiddu Krishnamurti said 
-- about him, it seemed -- when he said, -- there are 
these gurus who say that you can do what you want -- and 
of course they grow immensely popular.  
  For it is not a key to become popular merely to say, 
Do what you want. That is not the key point.
  The key point is rather the whole context, if we shall  
give such a worthy word to these rotten, decayed 
anti-teachers of the past where Osho sort of crown the 
lot, with his ninety or so Rolls-Royces in stark 
contrast to the filth and utterly severe poverty of the 
India which he came from -- an India where kids get a 
hand or leg cut off so they can extract more pennies as 
beggars during day-time, when they are not picking bits 
and pieces from the mountains of trash, or are asleep 
together with tons of insects in the street at night. 
The utter insensitivity of the man Osho is all the more 
amazing because people with a great deal of training, 
education, cultivation supported him and supported his 
claims that he was enlightened; and indeed that he 
perhaps was the only one enlightened around. They took 
his laughter over the misery of the world as a token of 
his greatness. How did it all come about? What was going 
on there? 
  Now, is this at all interesting to you? I promise 
we'll come around to your highly interesting question 
about sex soon enough.
: Pray go on. I am all ears for this. 
/ Then all is as it should be. Well, I'll try to put it 
brief. You see it is interesting to put a diagnosis on 
the situation, rather as when you have caught a certain 
cold or flu and got rid of it after some days or weeks 
of minor or strong fevers or colds or throat pains or 
headaches, then you have built up a superb extra 
resistance in the body for just that virus. You have 
become immunized. Now I suggest we should look to Osho 
in order to dissect the virus that Osho represented -- 
a particularly filthy type of ego. And we should do so 
all the more since there were some avenues where he had 
got the rather right teaching -- put in rough words 
(such as his lack of condemnation of group-sex for the 
very young).
  And so, if you now know something of what I call 
"simulation space", where there was a certain simulated 
battle between a good side and a side which cannot exist 
in this real world of ours --  
: ..I have heard you talk about it, yes. I find it more 
clear now than before, but it is still a bit complex to 
/ All right. In any case, if the good side -- let's say 
that at the time of Osho there was still a battle 
between a good side and a not good side. Are you with me 
on this? 
: Sure. Go on. Which side was Osho on? 
/ Obviously the bad side. Right? Now, however, -- and 
this is the interesting point -- he used, with expertise 
even, all the words belonging to the good side. At least  
more or less. I mean, he parsed through all the variety 
of commonly known religious teachings. All of them. He 
talked with a professor's knowledge of a great deal of 
themes, and they recorded and printed hundreds of 
volumes with his talks. It is not that he was entirely 
lazy. No, he was very intense. But if you look at that 
intensity, you begin to see something interesting: he 
was able to portray, with prestige, a break-down of 
everything good -- to be what goodness is all about. A 
break-down of enlightenment -- to be what enlightenment 
is all about. It is no longer the combatting of desire. 
It is now suddenly -- in Osho's distorted mind -- rather 
that you are living out your desire, not bothering about  
the effects. 
: How terrible!
/ Yes. But do you see the trick on the mind? In the name  
of goodness, in the name of enlightenment, he calls -- 
and that is his "context", by the way -- that is what I 
meant by introducing the word "context" a little earlier 
on when I talked about Osho -- his context is knowledge 
about goodness, put very simply. And this knowledge -- 
the prestige, rather, surrounding this knowledge -- 
allows people to shamelessly give up their struggle for 
wisdom, for righteousness, for goodness, for the awe of 
humility, for true beauty, for enlightenment -- and 
still get all the prestige of those who engage in that 
struggle. At least, that was their hope. Of course it 
didn't work for long -- or at all. But it worked to some 
extent, at that time (simulation space). Do you see? 
: Interesting. You are saying that these people -- his 
disciples or whatever -- in some sense perhaps knew what 
was going on? But went with it all the same, because 
they didn't really want enlightenment, only the prestige 
of being associated with someone who is enlightened and 
to be near that and possibly in that? But that they 
really saw through it?
/ Obviously they did.  
: So you say that a whole bunch of people in some sense 
threw themselves to the flames of badness, of evil, 
while shouting, with pride, that they were pursuing a 
great and noble path of enlightenment?
/ That is what I say. Do you sense it? 
: Yes. It sounds like the arch-ego. 
/ Don't name it as that. There is no arch-ego. There is 
just the varieties of noise, silly oppositions to the 
flow of goodness. Now, in any case, all that shit of 
Osho is gone, gone, gone, forever, though there are some 
wrinkled old disciples trying to sell his books here and  
there still, and some are sticking to the ugly names he 
gave them still. But to destill it, to spell it out so 
clearly as at all possible: when someone is very 
intensely pursuing a certain project, a certain 
programme, a certain politics, a certain ideology, a 
certain idea, it may not be because they believe in it 
themselves. It may be that they rather want to have the 
popularity that otherwise would befall God.
: Right. 
/ So they put up an alternative to God -- darwinian 
evolution, marxism, boundaryless capitalism, 
complementarity, subjectivism, intersubjectivity, 
constructivism -- and they don't really believe in it 
themselves. They know, instinctively, they are entirely 
on the wrong track as far as reality goes. But they hope 
to divert attention long enough, for many people enough,  
that a whole lot of people will grow less certain about 
God and his plans. Instead of meditation, instead of 
God's intent -- beauty -- they will gather people around 
themselves so as to discuss the importance of their new 
Concept. Contemporary art. Maoism. Structuralism. 
Modernism. Postmodernism. Globalism. Fluxism. 
Whateverism. They gather people, they get popular for a 
while, they get some party invitation and some 
invitations to influence people, they get a sense of 
belonging with someone -- and it all hinges upon the 
illusion, the hypnosis, the mass-conditioning being 
sustained for a certain while, suppressing the deeper 
sentiments about God, goodness and reality.
: Gosh. 
/ Yes. That's the shape ego may take. And so you must 
watch out. You must really watch out when someone has 
that cold intensity in her eyes -- speaking again and 
again about something. Next season it might be about 
something else. The point is to distract from 
righteousness, and get the popularity of God -- well, 
you see the point. Now what was your question again?
: What turns girls on. 
/ Yes. So let's use that word "on" in the adverb sense 
also. Right? As adverb it describes other adjectives. If 
something is a hot party, -- well, that's good. Parties 
shouldn't be cold, they ought to be hot. But in what way 
hot? If we say "on hot", that means that they are 
tantrically enlightened. They are tantrically 
high-going. They are sexually stimulating. And so you as 
a girl want to make other girls on hot on you. 
: On turned on. 
/ Haha. Or something like that. All right. So you are 
asking this with an enormous flexibility of mind. For it 
is not that you work out a recipe and you try it out and  
get sad if it doesn't work. Like painting, you must 
flirt with yourself and the painting and with the time 
of the day you paint, or time of night, and -- it just 
has to be a cosmic flash, a synchronistic flash, it is 
suddenly right. Beyond desire; even though there was a 
righteous intent, born of meditation, to come into a 
high state of attractiveness. Nothing is wrong with 
that. You are a generous individual if you radiate 
beauty, if your breath is fresh, if your smile is 
symmetric and your face is glowing and flushed prettily 
when you smile; and you have the sensitivity to say the 
extra bit it takes to get a flirt going when another is 
ready. But the same person may have a headache or her 
period or be concerned about something, or not had her 
bath or whatever, the next day. You cannot demand your 
attractiveness to work with equal efficiency at all 
times nor in a fixed way in relation to anyone. 
: I need to be flexible. 
/ Very, very flexible. So it is not about the total 
flexibility which God ultimately has -- God and his 
muses, in all their renewal and infinite rejuvenation. 
It is about learning how to adopt to circumstances as 
well as grounding all your activity on righteous 
intents. You see, that means -- in a sense -- no desire. 
So here we break with Osho. Desire is a fixed thing -- a  
person can say to herself, 'I am beautiful' ten million 
times and that lack of improvisation, that stale 
repetition, that fixed desire, breeds an ugly radiance; 
and the person lacks self-perceptiveness, lacks 
self-criticism -- and so gets pain -- and so takes to 
daily use of drugs (like Osho did). Without the drugs, 
their state of mind fall to depression; which means, 
they are already depressed. And depressed people are the 
lowliest types of beings. They have nothing to 
contribute with at all. Anyone who loves God does not 
allow herself to get depressed. The extent of happiness 
will vary, but depression -- never.
: Never ever? 
/ All right, we can discuss the word "depression". 
Sadness at some times, yes. But not getting into months 
of sulking. Of alcohol-drinking. One must really watch 
oneself from falling to an atheistic path just because 
one has had one or two complicated experiences. For it 
can destroy the patterns of the brain which allow joy to 
come naturally. And there is nothing attractive about 
the depressed person. A joyous person, a normally joyous 
person who has an hour of sadness can attract because 
this is not depression, this is curable, this is not 
apathy or gloominess or sulleness, or the coldness of 
the virus of self-pity. A sudden sadness can be cured, 
the girl is beautiful with all her joy, she wants to be 
cured, you can cure her, for you are beautiful yourself, 
and you do it, if she allows you to, and all that. 
: So that brings us back to the question: what gives me 
the attractiveness that turns other people on, for real?
/ You see, this is the dance of beauty in our minds, to 
ask such questions. Beauty, like coherence, is something 
infinite -- I'd say nothing is more infinite. And I'd 
say that if you are going to be truly attractive, you 
need to know about beauty from so many angles you 
entirely forget about yourself, and that you are able to 
see yourself from a third perspective as it were. You 
can see yourself with an artist's eye. You can see the 
girl you are standing in front of, or sitting beside, or 
whatever, with an artist's eye. And the artist's eye is 
full of perspectives. It is not just this one or the 
other one. It is not thesis and anti-thesis, that 
marxist stuff, nor is it one type of beauty, one type of 
waist-line, one type of tit, one type of foot, one type 
of leg, one type of jaw. Rather, you awaken yourself to 
beauty. You watch hundreds of very young very tantric on 
hot photos every day. You paint or draw or read sexually  
and you engage your body genitally and bring yourself to  
orgasms and you vary; you don't do it with just one, 
just do it wildly in mind and not quite as wildly in 
manifest reality, but wildly in the sense -- you bath, 
you swim, you drink the ocean of a pletora, a pleroma, a 
plurality of wildly different yet totally beautiful, 
totally young, totally coherent glowingly beautiful porn 
images and beauty feelings when you see young girls 
around you. You must KNOW beuauty -- which is to say, 
resonate with it, resonating over dancers -- you know 
that phrase. Resonating over dancers. Your mind must be 
like the horizon, fleeting over the sun-tanning golden 
nude bodies, fondling them, caressing them, these dancer 
legs, these thighs, these shapely feet, these long 
slender lines, these perfectly rounded thigh muscles, 
the flat stomach, and the pregnant stomach, the shapely 
jawline, the massively curly or straight and shining 
hair on the head, the sparkles of lust and fun in the 
young eyes, the straight teeth, eager to bite a nipple. 
You must awaken yourself. You must love to love life. 
You must do a lot of this preparation, so much you 
forgot about when you begun. You must learn to enjoy 
this beauty entirely without jealousy, entirely without 
envy, and yet not declare yourself entirely without 
jealousy nor entirely without envy for it is beyond 
human capacity to be rid of such things altogether 
entirely. But you have the right and you have the duty 
to strive to get beyond envy and beyond jealousy. That 
is really the key.
: Thank you. 
: I wonder.. I am sure it is a foolish question.. 
/ Sometimes the foolish questions are the really, really  
good ones. Clever questions may get you nowhere. Try the  
philosophical ones. Drop the political ones. 
: But is there a key to beauty? 
/ Is there a key to beauty? Is that your question? I 
don't think it is foolish.
: No? 
/ No. 
: Well, is there? 
/ All right. So the question is lingering in our minds 
-- is there, or not, a key to beauty. You may have asked 
it ten million times before, counting all your 
reincarnations. And is there such a thing as to have the 
beginner's mind to a particular question? Can you be 
completely young relative to a question, even though 
your soul has propelled itself through the millions and 
yet more millions of seasons and incarnations and all 
that? At some time it will -- though humankind is a 
new-born race at present -- and will then the question 
have any less relevance? You follow?
: Yes. You can always ask it anew. 
/ That's it! Always. Which doesn't mean you just ask it 
and leave it there. You may ask it -- or any other 
question -- and leave it at the threshold of conscious, 
manifest, normal thinking about it, having the intent to 
get into it. And then your mind subtly organises 
thoughts around it, if you don't drug yourself, if you 
stay on hot and all that.
: But if I ask it, I always think of a certain 
girlfriend of mine. She's SO beautiful.
/ You think that? Well that's good for her, that you 
think that, you are beautiful yourself. But see, if you 
want to ask about beauty, you should also ask about 
ideals -- and about being playful -- and not getting 
stuck in any ideals. She may -- this girl you talked 
about -- she may have some features you earnestly would 
like to see more of. Right?
: Right. Yes, that's true. 
/ Now there may be other things, other features, other 
quests, -- and entirely different ideals meet up to 
them. So beauty is not just that girl, -- right? So you 
fight your own attachments, your own longings, and you 
fight also any tendency to compare simplistically. There 
is then an infinity of beauty. Not that everything is 
beautiful, not that everyone at all times, are 
beautiful. The fullness of beauty is a coming together 
of much good goyon, it is a result of earlier good 
actions, the cosmic budget accumulating through and 
across incarnations. 
: I wonder about how it is that I can find even a street  
with city buildings, evening-time, with rain pouring 
down, lights here and there some reflecting in the wet 
street, some reflecting in the metal of the buildings -- 
how I can come to find something like that so intensely 
beautiful. I mean, it is not sexual at all, is it?
/ I know what you mean. I feel that way, too. But beauty  
is not dependent on things being fully organic. And 
anyway, there is, I find, something intensely organic 
about how lights reflects both in water and on shining 
metal surfaces, bronze or steel or such. Imagine the 
same scene with only cement-dry buildings, and streets 
which were equipped with some kind of strong pump 
leaving not a drop on them, even as it pours down. Then 
the wet, delightful city night would be a dry night, 
despite that it pours down. Reflection is a playfulness 
that reminds us perhaps of lovely blonde curls in a 
sunny day, or of the sparkles of the arch of 
good-looking eyes in a symmetric, free, frank, and 
sexually inviting smile.
: I wonder about sarcasms. The irony that aim at 
striking others, with a mischievous smile. How is it 
that anybody can be so cruel -- and so shameless, so 
ugly in themselves that they attain to a sarcastic 
radiance and wear it even with pride? I just don't get 
it, how some people are.
/ Now let's say as Jiddu Krishnamurti used to say -- 
"you are humanity, humanity is you". He said a lot of 
things which are woven into more nuanced expressions, 
based on more profound and more real insight, in what I 
say -- all right, that is not a modest statement, but 
this it how it goes, how I see it. But when we speak of 
people being so and so and how terrible it is, then let 
us also keep in mind that singular identity: that there 
is a greater fact than the fact that you are an 
individual, and that is that you are a member of the 
rose of humanity. You are partaking in making up the 
lovely flower of humanity, the lovliest flower there is. 
And if you know anything about fractal similarities and 
fractal contrasts, then you will appreciate that an 
artwork has got to have some measure of moderate 
conflict to be real. If it comes too easily onto you, if 
it argues too little with itself, -- then it is a 
re-presentation, rather than a presentation; an artwork 
must have the immediate in it. Now we are using the word 
"immediate" in a positive sense, as beyond the mediate, 
beyond media, beyond measure, beyond thought. So the 
artwork is real, direct. And humanity is God's artwork. 
And God's mind contains this artwork -- that is the 
berkeleyan philosophy, -- which is not to say that we 
say it is all in the mind, it is not all in the human 
mind. Rather, the human mind and the human body and 
nature and all the muses even are all in God's mind, and 
this is vast and encompassing and a wonder even to God 
himself. So let us keep in mind the vastness, the 
infinity, even as we look at some more finite aspects of 
humanity, its social life, its commercie, its coins and 
dollar bills of legal tender, and other legal tender 
things, such as young elegant females.
  Now why are anybody sarcastic? Do you have any idea? 
: Well, that is what I was asking about. 
/ But surely you must have some idea. Have you never 
been sarcastic yourself?
: I have, yes. 
/ Why? Do you recall? 
: Hm. Yes. I felt that some girl had achieved great 
social prestige and influence without deserving it -- 
and it looked like this would continue for months and 
yet more months, so that all circulated around her; and 
I saw a crack in the facade, and pointed it out -- and I 
did so with a smile. For I knew the girl was up to 
something non-good. It turned out to be the undoing of 
that prestige, eventually it came all into the open. But 
for a while I couldn't even critisize without myself 
being harassed. Then suddenly it changed. Soon after I 
was sarcastic. I am not saying I caused it. But I say 
that I didn't feel like apologizing to anyone for that 
sarcasm -- it was something that had to be cured, in our 
social environment.  
/ All right, all right. Yet perhaps it is always 
important to have a note of doubt in oneself later on, 
so that you are prepared -- you are surfing the thousand 
millenias of reincarnation, and in between each, and 
also within each, there are judgement moments. There is 
a balance, of goyon. The judgement is harsh, but fair; 
and if it is not harsh, then humanity would fragment, 
fall apart, and greater enlightenment would no longer 
its future. So harsh justice at a synchronistic, goyonic  
level is a necessity. This is more than merely being 
vaguely fair. Now I am not judging you in what you did. 
From what you say -- and I don't presume that I want to 
look into it now -- it sounds like you did the right 
thing. You were hitting, psychically, at someone who 
were full of ugly ego-radiance. I imagine you did the 
right thing.
: Thank you. 
/ Anyway, why are people sarcastic? There is a very 
simple reason why wrong sarcasm comes into being -- in 
contrast to a righteous sarcasm, which can delineate the 
pathways of the anger and aggressiveness which protects 
a higher truth. The righteous sarcasm is a psychic 
stamash, a psychic kick-boxing. The non-righteous 
sarcasm is something entirely different -- it is a 
diversion tactics. A person wants to distract attention 
from something.
: I see. From what? 
/ From -- whatever the person is ashamed about. 
: It seems to me that many of the most horrific 
incidents in the 20th century, and even some wars -- 
also in the 19th century, and early 21st century -- are 
related to the apparently insatiable thirst humanity has 
for drugs. Could you say something about that -- and 
about your attitude on this issue?
/ Yes. You are right -- there are countries such as 
Mexico, Columbia, Afganistan and many others where no 
less than the entire population is in a sense held 
hostage by the tremendous amount of violence and 
killings associated with drug dealing. And those defying 
laws and using drugs e.g. in the U.S.A. or middle east 
or Europe or Australia may be tender young lovely girls 
about to enter a dance hall, popping a pill for some 
dollars and allowing herself to do things more fluidly 
and with less fear than she perhaps would otherwise have 
done. Now a recent research in the sexual behaviour of 
girls in Australia revealed that there is a tendency -- 
which, in an isolated sense nobody should condemn -- of 
younger and younger girls having more and more sex -- 
with reports of those who are twelve or fourteen and 
have had certainly more than twenty sexual partners 
already. They define the word "tween" as in-between 
adolescent and pre-adolescent, and find that tiner and 
tiner children are being dressed up as sex dolls by 
parents eager to comply with the new types of needs.
  Now some people connect drug abuse and sexuality: I do  
not. But there is a truth in the fact that certain drugs  
alleviate fears -- and humanity has an absolutely 
barbarious past in ugly muhammedanism, ugly christendom, 
ugly judaism, and other ugly religions whose main focus 
has been the absolute condemnation of the free-wheeling 
sexuality of women. The good parts of these religions I 
have discussed elsewhere; but as I see it, it is the 
residue of those imbecile, low-brained condemnations 
which still infiltrate the human psyche and which lead 
people to go to drugs including alcohol in order to get 
a temporary sense of shamelessness where their more 
healthy interests in beauty, also the beauty of nude 
other young and also adult young human beings, are being  
  So the drugs may be seen to have some such purpose, we  
might say: namely to tell the human mind that the 
condemnations of the past are insignificant. Do dance! 
  But then there is the other feature of drugs -- I once  
wrote to a newspaper and got it inserted, a little 
comment, where I said something which got quite a lot of 
attention, it created quite a lot of stir. I said that 
it is not that drugs make immoral behaviour, but it is 
rather that parties shouldn't anymore be defined in 
terms of a little or big hardcore which regards with 
suspicion those who do not use drugs or alcohol, and who 
regard non-drug-users as "outsiders". For those who do 
not use drugs, I said, want to preserve their natural 
human brain instead of getting a cheap substitute type 
of brain which comes by intoxicating the natural 
synaptic connections of the brain by strong chemicals.
  I completed the little comment by saying -- "-- with 
all respects" -- with regard to the author of the 
article who was in favour of allowing people to "pop a 
pill" before entering a dance hall. 
  Of course, it was a crashing, crushing type of comment  
-- for after implying that the author of the newspaper 
article himself had a 'cheap substitute brain' I say, 
"with all respect". Peculiarly, it made me very popular 
with a certain segment of the population who want to 
preserve their intelligence and their conscience and 
their wholesomeness and who still want to enter the 
wildest, most sexually liberated dance places and 
parties without being labelled as non-normal intruders 
just because they don't touch intoxicating drugs.
  And so this is as far as I can tell the real real 
reason for the use of drugs: it is to try to balance out 
in a lazy-man's way the residue of the ugly parts of the  
religions which have hypnotised the human mind to regard  
sexuality as a "sin", as "evil", whereas sexuality is an  
exploration of beauty. 
  And so, putting this in perspective, we see that drug 
use have a long history. Sigmund Freud was reputedly a 
drug addict; and the fictious stories about Sherlock 
Holmes -- thought drawing vaguely on some inspiring 
characters that the author knew -- implies that Holmes 
is some sort of drug addict; and this was written in the 
19th century. It is said that England bombed China until  
Hong Kong was given to it, for a century or so -- of 
course China got Hong Kong back later on -- but that 
this was all due to China not wanting England to indulge 
in its drug trade; and the drug trade again found a 
fountain of supply for England in its conquests also in 
India. So we see that at least in recent history, drug 
use has defined wars -- and there are wars going on with 
hundreds of people being killed every months at present,  
in Afganistan and other places, which are more or less 
defined by opium trade.
: But you seem to say that there is a feature of drug 
that might have some use, occasionally?
/ Yes. No. I don't quite know. I know that there are 
pains which are at some medicinal stages quite pointless 
to endure, for health issues which will cure themselves 
in a matter of days if left to themselves. Pains which 
are so intense they should be alleviated at least 
somewhat; so that the body can get some sleep and rest 
and some pleasure so its healing fluids can more quickly 
do their work.  
: But when does it become an addiction? 
/ You see that's the point. Most drug abuse began by 
people who wanted to say to themselves, 'this is easy to 
control, I do not succumb to this.' But in the words of 
the sister of the present prime minister of Norway, who 
I once had the fortunate opportunity to ask about the 
matter, as she had a luxurious flat next to mine -- a 
girl who has become well-known in media for being frank 
and forthright about her heroine abuse -- she told me 
this: It is not that the heroine becomes an obsession 
because it is so great, so ecstastic. It doesn't. 
Perhaps the very first times. She went on to say that 
the key point is rather that "without it, life seems 
pointless. One comes into taking it in order to come 
back to normality. Without it, all is a great minus. One 
comes back to the zero-point by taking it -- it is not 
about it giving happiness." I am grateful to Ninni 
Stoltenberg for being so honest about this; it is about 
the only time I have talked to anyone who has use this
perhaps the most strong drugs in the world; and I have 
no experience at all of any drugs whatsoever except
the weakest of them all, cannabis, and then only a 
handful of times long in the past.
  And so that is the tragedy about the decay that too 
much use of too strong drugs is all about. People 
decline inwardly, and the drugs which at first seemed to 
open up something new, become expected by the brain 
chemicals so that without them, the brain doesn't even 
function at the normal level. This is what I mean by 
getting a 'cheap substitute brain'. 
  But I have had many friends who have been using the 
most weak drugs on a daily basis. One might think that 
they get only good things out of them -- certainly they 
would easily say that themselves, several of them. But 
watch them after a year, and you'll catch their hands 
shaking uncontrollably so they can't even hold a cup of 
coffee -- and the coffee only makes them worse. A key 
point in detecting who is on drugs is often -- not 
always, but often -- that they don't stand coffee. The 
coffee is a very very mild drug, but it tends to 
accellerate the effects, such as nervousness, that other 
drugs may create.  
: But can any drugs be right in a non-medical sense, in 
order to enhance certain experiences?
/ Vaguely, on occasion, I would say yes. Tobacco is a 
very mild drug -- one might also say that the key 
chocolade substance is a very very mild drug -- and, a 
very slight exposure to something like this -- and 
perhaps also alcohol -- no more than a minute once a 
week certainly cannot create any problem with the brain; 
but it may create a sense of an 'on hot' party.  
: Tell me about goodness and beauty.  
/ Goodness and beauty. Goodness, beauty and silence. We 
should explore the three together, I feel. Three is a 
wholesome unit. Four also. It is important not to 
emphasize 'the one and the other' too much, we mustn't 
fall into the pitfall called 'dualism'. Dualism meaning 
that two, two, two is emphasized -- as thesis, 
antithesis. Rather, we must explore the order of cosmos.
: The order of cosmos. Like the stars in heaven? 
/ Like the patterns of the stars in the nightskies, 
also. But the order of cosmos is also your body, your 
face, your mind, it is the structure of a flower, the 
way a rose smells. It is the sweetness of your thought, 
the length of your legs, the shapeliness of your feet. 
The cosmos is all this, all humanity, all muses, all 
planets. Cosmos is the mind of God. And so, when we talk 
about the order of cosmos, we are talking of -- well, a 
tiny element in God's much vaster mind, to be more 
precise. And it is a wonderful element. When you look 
into a fractal structure, -- fractal meaning that there 
are patterns of similarity and patterns of contrast 
which repeat -- such as in the very simple program 
called Spring in the Lisa GJ2 Fic3 programming language 
-- Spring shows you something through the computer.
: Yes. I have often wondered where all that -- order, I 
suppose it can be called, comes from.
/ Exactly! Now without the mind of God there would be no  
computer. Do you see that simple point? 
: If all and anything is within the mind of God, then 
also the computers.
/ True. But see also that there could have been a 
different reality, where the computers weren't possible. 
So the computers are there by intent. This is something 
entirely other than what the materialists, who would 
like to flatter themselves with sweeter words -- 
'metaphysical naturalist', for instance -- in the 20th 
century, would accept. They think of the computer as a 
construction which is done primarely by human mind and 
human thought. They don't realize how it is all far more 
deeper than that, how anything and everything came into 
being through an immense simulation, with the mind of 
God, in a berkeleyan sense, driving it all -- and then 
suddenly it shifted gear. Simulation became actuality. 
Which meant that God stepped more fully in, took over; 
his intent is goodness, goodness rules. So, insofar as 
beauty is goodness, beauty rules. 
: What, then, is the source of conflict? 
/ It is an important question. But once you admit the 
shallowness -- even from a physics point of view -- of 
the materialist position, and do not succumb to the 
fairy tales in the so-called bibles of the past -- then 
you will see that the mindfulness of the entire 
existence flows on and on also through some moderate 
degree of conflict. Not all was taken away, by going 
from simulation to actuality. But goodness, relative 
goodness and the total goodness of God himself directly, 
with his top three muses, rules in a sovereign manner. 
There is nothing else but relative goodness and 
absolute goodness. And within that relativity there can 
be a moderate degree of conflict.
: Something can be more good, and something rather less?  
/ Yes. 
: But nothing can be very much less? 
/ True. Goodness is now, and forever, the only force. 
The force of life, the force of love, the force of 
anything that exists. It is goodness that decides the 
fate of a star, the creation of a planet, the swift 
changeover from focus of one galaxy to another, as for 
human life -- and these changes always goes on. It is a 
graceful journey towards something ever-greater; this 
duration, this process of evolution is beyond the little 
time that is thought. It is the greater sense of time, 
within the determinism of goodness, of God's intent. So 
that's one meaning of the letters and digit "GJ2" -- a 
graceful journey towards -- something evergreater. A 
greater fiction, God's fiction, a threesomeness which 
shows that there is always an onwardness, and always a 
multiplicity. Threesomeness implies foursomeness implies 
fivesomeness, and so on. It is not just one and not just  
two. It is God holding the threesomeness and letting it 
evolve, and the threesomeness is many-some-ness. So it 
is a kind of actual fiction in operation, in flux, and 
so that can be one meaning of the letters FIC3. A 
graceful journey, GJ2, towards the evergreater 
God-fiction with threesomeness and many-someness, FIC3. 
The God-fiction being our manifest reality, your 
manifest world, and all the more subtle levels of 
reality which holds your immortal soul and spirit and 
the activity of all the muses.
: Does one ever meet a muse in the manifest world? 
/ There are some questions like that -- I'd better say, 
"yes!" -- but which perhaps you should leave gently into 
the tenderness of innocence. Or else you'll see half 
humanity running around with claims that they have met 
muses on the street and the muses said so and so and we 
get a circus going. Let some things be very sweetly 
inside your prayers, inside your meditations, not talked 
too much about. For insofar as they are real, and very 
very powerful, far more so than you could ever imagine, 
they do not like disrespectful talk, and once anyone 
gets into the mood to chatter about them, it can so 
easily become disrespectful. Chatter is something which 
belongs to the simulation past. Wars were created 
through chatter. By chatter, people got maimed by other 
people. One must have the fear of God and fear of muses 
which make one not chatter about greatness, just imply 
that you honor it through most or many or sometimes all 
of your actions, and inclinations of tone voice, and 
what you say and what you don't say. You see?
: Yes. Thank you for your guidance on this. Could we say 
something more about beauty and goodnesss -- and 
silence, the third?
/ Yes, for sure. You see, the more important a theme is,  
the less we plunge into it, the more we make sure that 
there is no noise or debris or chaos around it. We must 
not try to get a grip on a theme. No theme of importance 
can be controlled. Reality is not for control by human 
thought. So, in a living reality, you must endavour to 
clean away your ego, as much as possible, so as to flirt 
with the more deep features of reality. And then the 
muses come forth and help you, subtly, by coincidences, 
synchronicities. There is great beauty in that and, as 
you know, they have great beauty. The greatest beauty 
there is. So when a human being aspires to beauty, it is 
never a total beauty, and one must have the humility to 
avoid using words or indicating things by action which 
could be contrary to this. You can dream about the 
muses, you can masturbate over them, over them and their 
consort, God, and you can endavour to get new insights 
into the flow of beauty, into beauty in its essence, 
that way -- and there is no end to it. And my claim, my 
sincere claim, is that every thousand millenia, there is 
a fundamental deepening of beauty and goodness and 
silence and truth and love and enlightenment for all 
humanity. For you, too. You have something concrete to 
look forward to.
: Will I remember much of what I have done earlier? 
/ The most important you always know that you know, know  
that you have known, know that you have been through and  
understood -- the most beautiful feelings, once they 
come, come easily again. There are several ways in which 
there can be concrete memories inside that, and some may  
be having a beautiful validity for goodness in the 
future, and then those memories are carried on. But the 
human brain, even the human mind or soul, and even also 
the human spirit -- the vastest of all three -- must 
have an economy of limitation in how much is carried 
: Is that what is called karma? 
/ I don't quite feel the word 'karma' is so fitting as 
the more precise word 'goyon'. For 'goyon' means good 
synchronicities. It means also that you deserve good 
synchronicities, good luck. And so you build up goyon by 
good actions, by cultivating a flowering in goodness, by  
avoiding temptations to breed conflict, avoiding 
dualism, avoiding trying to assert your little self up 
against the greater beings -- humanity must look up to 
the submuses, and even more to the top three muses and 
to God most of all, and this humility gives goyon. So 
you see this word 'goyon' doesn't have duality. It is 
clearly on the side of the good -- the goodness of the 
yoni, or the female genitalia, is one of its key essence 
meanings, or the most essential meaning. Yoni, a 
sanskrit word. But it is the female vagina in a holy 
sense, not just the particular body you have now. 
Whereas the word 'karma' as introduced in ancient India 
and talked much about also by Gothama Buddha can mean 
also bad things are carried on and they have to be 
'worked off'. But Buddhism, however sweet in ethics at 
some points, lack God. They can say that God is just 
meditation, just silence, just the force of love, but 
that is not the full insight into the being at the 
essence; and not both points of view can be true. So 
buddhism, as such, is false; and we can still respect 
that some buddhists have had a great deal of openness 
for alternative understandings of the universe than that 
which Gothama the Buddha came with, as he himself said 
that he himself should be doubted if reality turns out 
to be other than what he said. At least, legends have it 
that he said something to that effect, and most 
buddhists have acknowledged that statement as authentic.
  And so I say, the Buddha was wrong about the essence 
of reality. He spoke of it as impersonally pantheistic. 
This is not how it is. Reality is not a mere emergence 
in a fluid, decadent mind without structure. It is not 
like ice which emerges of water which cools. Rather, 
there is a brilliantly active and fantastically creative 
and inventive being who daydreams not just the manifest 
universe but all of spaceduration, all the levels 
underneath the manifest. 
: He creates also the muses? 
/ He does, and that is why the word 'goddess' does not 
have any real reference. There is no goddess, unless it 
is spoken about in a sexual sense for the sake of 
entertainment. But a muse has so immense powers, yes 
infinite, that she is a goddess relative to the feeble 
power alloted to human beings. But it is part of their 
immense respect for God that they do not play around 
with such words as imply anything to the extent that 
they are greater than God. 
: Does such a God-concept exist in the simulation past 
of humanity?
/ Here and there somewhat. You have Zevs or Zeus, who 
became in name-traditions, Deus, said to be fair and 
honest and yet ruthless in his judgements over all 
others -- nobody was more powerful -- and he was very 
sexual, and so Pallas Athena, the beautiful warrior 
goddess that the greek city Athens was dedicated to, in 
some sense was a muse relative to him as God. Since at 
that time English wasn't a manifest language the words 
must be given a shift when translated anyway. Then there 
is Skandia, with many similar features, in India, and 
hinduism has every sort of myth for every taste of the 
ego and some of them are touching, like Skandia, on the 
notion of one personal being daydreaming all reality 
into existence by his mind. There are interpretation 
possibilities in judaism and in christianity -- 
especially coptic christinanity -- along this way. There 
are remnants of Zoroasterianism which possibly might 
indicate something like this. There are fairy tales or 
stories about Gods, such as Tor, in the Norse mythology, 
which are akin to Zeus in several regards. A modern 
myth, Tolkien, has a gay named Bombadil, of all things, 
which probably is who Tolkien saw as the real but 
somewhat secretive God of goodness with at least one 
muse consort at his side, the blonde leggy girl who all 
the hobbits, the little human-like fellows, fell so in 
love with. Tolkien was a believer in Christ, in 
Christos, as a representative of God, and he was a 
believer in angels, too. So he re-represents the 
atrocities of human war in simulation past as a fairy 
tale of very silly, very ugly, very life-hating beings 
against not very silly, more good-looking, more 
life-loving beings -- associating total goodness and 
total power over the snare of the ego -- the ring -- 
with this fellow Tom Bombadil, who can change shapes of 
himself and make the ring of power vanish and re-appear 
and who seems unconcerned with all except with beauty; 
but who clearly is The Ruler, you might even say The 
Ultimate Bomber -- for God is the most powerful, and can 
be said the only winner of any war. So if God doesn't 
approve of something, it is by synchronicities bombed to 
pieces. This is the ruthlessness of God that God must 
have in order to fortify goodness. To avoid criticism of 
the ruthlessness, the tyranny of God, is a necessity if 
you want to be a member of his creation. Any other 
attitude by God would be to allow bad segments to grow 
and go to war against good segments. That doesn't happen 
in actuality; it used to happen in simulation space to a  
limited degree. The real goodness always is a total 
: What then is all the war-like activity at Earth in 
2009 all about?
/ It is the bad against the bad. Not the absolute bad, 
for no such thing exists. There is no devil, no demon, 
no satan, no demon-helpers, nothing demonic, no evil. 
There is only goodness. But something in this goodness 
has less of that goodness manifest in itself -- less 
goyon. And so, as a temporary phase, people with little 
understand fight, and they fight against people with 
little understanding. It is stupidity set against 
stupidity. It is not anything really bad about them. And 
so the war is not really a war. It is just idiotic 
childish stupidity armed with weapons that they 
shouldn't have got in the first place. It is an 
expression of an idiotic societal structure, with too 
much liberty in terms of violence, and too little 
liberty in terms of sensual intensity, way too little. 
Half the media are concerned over whether a guy who has 
been on the run while making the greatest artworks for 
thirty years should be jailed, possibly for many many 
years, over the fact that he had perfectly harmless sex 
with a teen or preteen thirty years ago -- and the other 
half of media, except when there is an earthquake, is 
concerned about how this and that chap bombed eighty or 
eight thousand people in this or that region of the 
globe. And the two idiotic things are connected. The 
first idiotic thing is that people live in an age where 
they claim to be sexually liberated but there is nothing 
more to that sexual liberation than that some has had 
more sexual partners than one or zero. The second 
idiotic thing is that weapons are around, so that one 
person's slight anger can mean that next day he has 
killed fifteen people at his school and then himself -- 
because he got into his grandfather's arsenal and picked 
a kalashnikov or AG-47 or whatever silly names they give  
to these penis-compensations called "guns". 
  So all the bloody violence doesn't mean one little 
thing. It doesn't mean that there is any real war going 
on -- there isn't. All the real wars were in simulation 
past and so not real either. They were merely a clearing 
up, before creation happened for real. This reality is 
based on people who are all rather similar, all rather 
good, only that some have decayed into some bad habits, 
-- for some people e.g. the pirates off Somalia coast, 
these bad habits involve pointing guns at large ships 
containing valuable containers. And so they get hold of 
these containers or get some ransom money and they are 
off and buy a car and show it off to the girls. This is 
not evil -- it is just silly. Silly games, but armed 
with weapons humanity shouldn't have and won't have. It 
is a temporary phase. It won't keep on for long for 
obviously this planet will be finished off as far as 
life possibilities go before too long, due to this and 
that and the other thing, all boiling up together -- it 
is entirely obvious for all to see, if they bother to 
look at it at all. Whether it is this summer or the 
other one or three hundred summers from now is not for 
me to say and not for anybody to say for there are 
certain levels of the determinism of reality which are 
not to be exploited in human thought and made part of 
what the human ego can devour and fiest upon. But it is 
certain that humanity has an infinite future, and that 
that future must involve an infinity of varities in 
terms of planets and even, at rare occasions, change of 
galaxies. So that humanity can find new rest-places in a 
playfully restless universe in continual 
self-recreation, and not get stuck in their own 
pollution so to speak.
: I see. How many people do you think see it how you 
just said it?
/ Hardly any, for it is too unpleasant and too wierd 
compared to the hypnosis projected daily in the tons of 
fragmented and trashy news media and the amateur 
journalists with their so-called "writing web logs" and 
all that -- and, as you know, I don't want to form a 
sect either, because there is no truth in trying to get 
into the discipleship and closed commitee kind of thing, 
and truth is truth and truth takes care of itself, it 
doesn't need an organisation of truth. And yet anyone 
will admit every one of the points I say if you calmly 
have a dialogue with the person on a friendly basis over 
some hours, with good coffee and great walks included. 
It is just that taken together it is too much of a 
package for people, they are afraid they will get nuts 
if they try to hold it all together. I mean, there are 
exceptions -- you, for one -- but most do not hold it 
consciously together in the least. 
: You seem to be saying that in some sense, all agree at  
/ Absolutely. They do. Humanity is really one. They 
don't really have all these assumedly Big 
Contradictions. They are really in great, huge, almost 
embarassing agreement. But it is a sentiment that is, as 
of 2009, extremely rarely expressed. So you have to see 
that the human mind has a chatter level. This chatter 
level can contain the nastiest of words. It can say of 
peole, even of whole nations, that they are evil. For 
instance, in the antisexual, book-based tyranny called 
"Iran", they have a kind of God-praying event where it 
is almost considered as important to say of God that God 
is great as to say of USA that USA is satan and death to  
USA. So they chant it, tens of thousands idiots chant 
Death to USA, while they really are chanting, We are 
Idiots. For USA is just a bunch of loosers just like any 
other nation on Earth. Earth, humanity, are loosers in 
the game of ego. Earth's nations are all looser-nations. 
Not one of them have any glorious future. That is an 
absolutely obvious point of view if one has any level of 
intuition or insight at all. Iran, USA, Europe, Norway, 
South Africa, you name them -- these are all merely 
entirely temporary structures and not one of them are 
evil. They are just idiotic names for idiotic groups of 
people without any significance whatsoever except so as 
to make some entertainment in the daily news. And so the 
chanting that God is great is good, is the only thing 
that makes sense; but the chanting that a nation is 
saton or demonic or evil is the proof of the brittleness 
and untruth of the past religions -- that they can lead 
anybody, and let alone tens of thousands, into such mass 
hysteria is just fantastic. By the way, any human 
society that is built so as to let tens of thousand 
human beings chant together is built for 
self-destruction. It is like an enormous weapon, and 
that weapon will spell the end of that society. For the 
ego of one person can then get into a hysteria 
accelerated by the egoes of the thousands around this 
individual, and so we get mass-hysteria, which is 
mass-stupidity. The mass-stupidity is found also in 
christianity, in hinduism, in marxist or communist 
China, everywhere. At the same time, there are more and 
more atom bombs, and when the time comes that egoes get 
so sulking and so insane that they like Dr Strangelove 
in the Peter Seller movie want to use the atomic bombs 
to appeace their insane minds, that is the end of human 
civilisation -- at least when it happens in the core 
rulership of one hugely atomized nation like USA.
  So there are an infinity of possibilities for humanity  
to self-destroy as far as Earth go. And so this is bound  
to happen. It is entirely deterministic, entirely 
obvious. And it is also entirely obvious for anyone who 
has prayer, who has intuition, that there is not going 
to be any kingdom of heaven merely at the soul level. If 
there is going to be any kingdom of heaven it has got to  
be so as to allow reincarnation into a material society 
which has to be free from the idiotic features of the 
past; it has obviously got to be a distributed 
compassionate anarchy, but with the strict bounds 
necessary to disallow the ego to re-arm itself and 
re-group itself. It has to be utterly satisfying 
sexually for all involved, totally, and that has to be 
blended with religiousness and art in an absolutely 
convincing way, without hatred. And it has to have the 
mercy of God and the ruthlessness of God in preventing 
decay. This obviously is meant to be and obviously not 
on Earth but obviously it is meant to be a human real 
manifest existence, and human beings on Earth are 
obviously the only human beings we've got. So it means 
that Earth will have to be left and of course there a 
certain role of mechanics and all comes in, but it is 
not enough with mere mechanics, for there are no 
suitable alternative places for humanity anywhere near. 
Nowhere near in the Milky Way, anyway; and beyond some 
gas molecules, no human being has managed to warp any 
sizable material structure far away crossing the speed 
of light limit. Gas molecules have shown nonlocality; 
that's as far as mechanistic physics has got and that is 
about as far as it will ever get. There is a component 
they don't have and that component is the benevolence of 
God, and without that, nothing will work for real. God 
must be in a warp otherwise there will be no warp. And 
this little bit is not something any equation can 
handle. They don't even have got a nonmessy mathematics 
for their present little tricks. They are entirely 
without a foundation in reality, these physicists; and 
their logic is either poor or they pretend that they 
don't see the illogic of it all.
: Still, you say, it is all relative goodness. 
/ Yes. It is ego-entertainment. Science at present is 
ego-entertainment, like most other things. Few things 
are essentials. Sex is an essential. Beautiful art is an 
essential. Vegetarian healthy food and supplements are 
essentials. The laughter of young girls and their 
musical voices are essentials, not merely to make more 
and more music, but to find the real good quintessential 
and perhaps rather arrythmic music and then understand 
that all else is the sweet melody of girls talking and 
girls reading stories about sex to each other. That is 
the akin to the muses in many ways; and that is pleasing 
for this origin. And so human civilisation at Earth is 
an utterly temporary phase; rediculous, empty, shallow, 
producing nothing anymore of any import to speak of. And 
so if you want to live a good life, you mustn't at all 
worry in the slighest about what's on the news. You 
mustn't even worry about your own bodily existence. You 
must dedicate yourself to the feelings which flow from 
the grand and glorious future, beyond all the religious 
books of the present, beyond all the news of the 
present. And this beautiful feeling, this silence, is 
what you get in meditation, with long long walks without 
thinking about who is enemy or whatever, for there is no  
enemy. There is only this fantastic beauty of the future  
which drags all souls towards it, and they must not look  
at the trash of the present. There will always be 
something trashy about all present moments, speaking 
relatively, but one must learn to love the future and 
drink a salvation from it, so as to clean up and purify 
the present.
: Interesting. Now what you say implies to me, then, 
that if anyone shouts to another that he or she is evil, 
then the shout is having no meaning. 
/ It has no meaning. It is absurd. It is rediculous. 
Which is not to say that it doesn't imply something one 
ought to pity, for any such attempt at invocation of the 
bygone past of dualism is indicative of the person not 
having real contact with himself or herself.
: Is the person insane? 
/ That may be likely. But it can also be, given the 
present climate, that the person is merely engaging in a 
habitual type of temper tantrum which is having no other  
element in it than mere manners of talking picked up 
from the environment. 
: Is someone who is insane also not evil? 
/ There is no evil, nor can there ever be. There is 
nothing at all that is contrary to God's intent. God's 
intent, which is the meaning of the word "goodness", is 
the only thing that exists. In this intent there is 
evolution, meaning also some level of moderate conflict. 
Can some people die in this conflict? At the bodily 
level only. Can a part of this body die before the rest? 
Obviously. And so if the brain ceases to be that 
multi-dimensional transformator for the subtler levels 
of reality it is like a computer running away on its 
own, without the grounding it should have in being part 
of a network which is cared for by proper programming. 
The proper programming of human souls and spirits are 
done by muses and their submuses. But if the brain is 
not coherent enough to be a receptor for this work, but 
spins off on its own, there is soulless behaviour. And 
this soulless behaviour can often emerge as a result of 
a mixture of bad genes, much drugs and plenty of 
disappointments sexually, while in an environment 
hostile to alternative ways of thinking about wholeness 
-- alternative relative to the trash materialistic 
culture, that is. 
: Bad genes doesn't mean "bad" in the sense of not good? 
/ You are right in correcting me there. Bad genes in 
this sense merely means that they do not have full 
adequate stamina at some points, and allow then the 
infection of a breakdown of coherence of the brain to 
take part.
: Is there no treatment for this? 
/ You see, I have an entirely different perspective on 
it. As I see it, there is no experience in a person 
without the soul being there and doing the experience. I 
mean this literally. Steer into the water, if you like, 
or steer at a flower, or at somebody's face or foot or 
pussy, if they agree with you as an experience. Steer 
and then feel you staring. Feel the fact that you are 
indeed gazing. Don't goggle. Never goggle. Be relaxed, 
don't stare in the sense of being a starer. Have relaxed 
eye-lids, have a ready smile, move if you like, but have  
some seconds without looking strange in which you simply  
see. But check how you look privately with a camera 
first so you understand how to have a relaxed meditative 
gaze, an artistic look while you do it, for you must 
watch over your own radiance, you are an interactor, not 
merely a spectator. And while you have this seeing going  
on, let all thoughts be silent if they wish; and if they  
don't wish to, emphasize silence. Watch it all. If you 
like, bring in the word GOODNESS again and again but 
gently, with a pause, and with an uncertainty when you 
are going to say it, inside, as a whisper in thought. 
When you are about to say it to yourself, don't say it: 
and then wait and either say it or don't say it as a 
surprise to yourself. In each such surprise to yourself 
there is an intensification of attention. This is 
something I have talked about in that foundational 
little booklet of mind called JOY and the Human Brain as 
a Quantum Unit. You have to get your mind into the state  
where it is utterly sensitive relative to the least 
energy element in the brain. Then attention pervades 
more and more -- coherence takes more and more over. The 
rediculous school of meditation called 'Maharishi 
Transcendental Meditation' or something to that effect 
-- utterly rediculous like all other schools of 
meditation, of course -- nevertheless had some elements 
of simple truth in them when they spoke of the brain 
coherence as increasing when one does samyama, or the 
togetherness of attention with the whisper of a solidly 
good intent. They were overcooked on hinduism and wanted 
a world government and all that, but there were some 
elements -- not treated in terms of honest scientific 
work, unfortunately it was presented as scientific when 
it was just positive affirmations of what they wanted to 
have achieved, mostly -- but still, there were some 
elements there. Naturally Maharishi, like the advaita 
vedanta teacher Klein, and most other guru-groups across 
the world, saw their teacher or teachers become senile 
after a while. 
  Anyway, let us not have the connotation of liers and 
guru-groups and self-important therapy-groups and 
wishful thinkers about intuition and so on when you are 
endavouring to explore silence. Silence is your contact 
with God's mind. It is the miracle of creation. If your 
silence doesn't feel ecstatic, then your silence is not 
quite silence, but it has subtle ego-noise in it. It is 
at those points you should find a fresh creative word 
each day in meditation, and allow it to blend a little 
if you like. Perhaps not every day but once in a while. 
Not repeat Hare Krishna or Hare Rama like the idiotics 
of the nonsensitical Krishna Consciousness society did 
-- making people stupid as if they were on cocaine or 
metamphetamine or something because they wouldn't change 
the sound. The same sound over and over again makes 
people stupid -- Krishnamurti rightly pointed this out, 
Jiddu Krishnamurti that is, not the self-over-cooked 
lier called U.G.Krishnamurti.
  So you watch -- the text in hinduism I most care for 
is that called Yoga Sutras, but it is not absolutely 
true, it is just a weak beginning, it too must be 
completely left behind -- but it speaks of watching with 
a seed, and without a seed, and the union which comes 
when the flow of attention no longer is fixed by the 
  And when you watch -- the foot, the wave, the cloud --  
you watch that you are watching. You can do this with 
enormous intensity AFTER you have meditated with closed 
eyes and you can meditate with closed eyes AFTER you 
have had sex or masturbated, which is also a form of 
sex, and done so with great delight and with a great 
deal of computer images of great-looking very young 
girls without any decay about them -- so they are 
muse-like, angelic in their elegant faces, smooth in 
their long thighs. So you get all your energies going, 
they becomes rhythmically and arrythmically coherent, 
you meditate, and you watch. And as you watch, you watch 
the watching, not speculate over it, but as in a new 
dimension. You watch the watching and that stream IS the 
soul. And its most subtle features IS the spirit. And 
so, you can ask yourself, as Ramana Maharishi -- another 
Maharisha, not so circus-like as the other one I 
mentioned -- 'who am I', -- without taking the word 'I' 
too seriously. So you realize that in being present to 
your watching, there is a quietude there, a wholeness 
there, a fullness there, even elements perhaps, at least 
sometimes, of an ecstasy there, and this is what you are  
most about -- and that is immortal.  
  And so, you don't stop there. You then realize that 
you are having a sense of life which is not "I" against 
the "You" nor against anything such as "It". Rather, it 
is -- as they say in Bob Marley's songs -- I-and-I. The 
one I that is I-and-I. I is watching I-and-I. The soul 
of what you watch, if you watch another human being, is 
like another leaf of the same tree of goodness, the same 
tree of humanity which springs directly from the mind of 
God and his muses.  
  Do you understand? 
: Yes. I think so. It is very complicated but perhaps I 
understand it a little bit.
/ That's the spirit. I mean, that's the attitude. To be 
affirmative but yet appreciate that there is more to it 
than what you consciously fathom -- at any point now, or 
anytime, anywhere in the universe. There is always an 
on-goingness, which is not a thing of the ego. Jiddu 
Krishnamurti was very, very wrong whenever he 
over-stated the absence of cosmic time -- and the only 
time he began correcting this bad habit of his was in 
his conversation with David Bohm in the Ending of Time 
towards the last seasons of his life. 
  For one cannot deny evolution of the soul even though 
the ego finds it a pleasing thought that there is 
evolution. Whatever the ego finds pleasing may be an 
illusion or it may be fact, but one cannot draw an 
inference from the fact that something is in danger of 
being an attachment from the point of view of the ego to 
the conclusion that it is in itself a barren illusion. 
The ego must stop to try to control time. The ego of 
Einstein had to be stopped -- as I did with the proof in 
my exam thesis -- the ego that tried to hold to time and  
twist it to become a kind of fixed icy non-time. The 
materialists then come with their idea of coincidences 
and noises which are the off-spring, they think, of 
causes operating from the past -- or from, in the more 
sophisticated cases like Ilya Prigogine, a statistical 
indeterminism. But both these causes-from-behind and 
this statistical indeterminism are but facets of 
atheism, denying the deeper cosmic order which is the 
real source of I-ness, soulfulness, spiritedness, and 
love and sexual love also. So Ilya Prigogine was as 
wrong as Niels Bohr and as wrong as Albert Einstein. 
David Bohm was fuzzy, I am not saying he was clearly 
wrong but I suspect his conception had some level of 
determinism at bottom which lacked a meaningful godhood 
and in some sense was a kind of polished materialism. I 
give nothing more to Louis de Broglie but I saw in how 
de Broglie took Bohm's work in the early 1950s and used 
it to break clearly and completely and forever (and in a 
way de Broglie spelled out affirmatively in the decades 
to come, with full force, also in the 1980s), that de 
Broglie broke utterly with the Niels Bohr Copenhagen 
Interpretation and found his way around the von Neumann 
proof by means of Bohm's work, by introducing 
nonlocality, by realizing that the pilot waves of his 
has gotta reflect the world nonlocally and not through 
einstein's lens of the speed of light. And this became 
in turn the starting-point for formulating a source of 
the pilot waves in terms of a modelling over the models 
from which reality emerges, a super-model concept, the 
supermodel theory as I published it in 2004, privately. 
This intuitively I speak of as how God has organized 
reality in his mind, and it is the textbook of the 
muses, I would say, as for the most general features of 
spaceduration. These are huge, grande words, and if 
any simple human you met on the street said it that 
person would naturally be called megalomaniac and 
insane. But I am seated in the safety of all my coherent 
productions, my smile, my rejuvenation, the respect that  
naturally comes to all my works at all levels -- the 
fact that I enjoy all this respect and still happens to 
be perhaps the only ardent writer that is fully honest 
and fully fearless -- allows me to say also such 
enormously grand things and they stand, they are 
simply what I have said before in a more explicit form. 
I am not saying that all my words are truth entirely. I 
am saying that all my words are truthful, but when I say 
something not entirely true, it is to protect a greater 
truth that must be protected, not because I don't know 
better nor because it would be better to say it other 
than how I say it.
  So, you watch, you meditate, you end the time of 
thought -- its expectations -- and you come towards the 
time of God, the cosmic order. You sense yourself as 
alive, as lively to your own perception, your own 
seeing. You see that long thin ankle, that shapely foot, 
you feel a tingling of all the energies your sex and 
your meditation have coherently released in you, and you 
feel the quietness in you is bursting with creative 
awareness, with effortless wakefulness, with great 
intelligence, with great silence, the great samadhi, the 
great wholeness. Some days this come much easier. Some 
nights, after a great deal of sex, you will find that 
the energies of such meditations can come for hours into 
the early day, and then you have to sleep, for the brain  
gets so exhausted on occasion by all this. It is hard, 
cosmic work for a human being to meditate.
  And you don't talk too much about what you do. When I 
say what I say, I say it after tens of thousands of 
earlier productions not just as informal texts, but in 
terms of investigations into science, in terms of 
programming of computers, in terms of talks I have given 
on so many occasions, in terms of healings I have done, 
in terms of all the intuitions I have correctly given to 
people on concrete things and which have proven 
themselves on several occasions with enormous intensity 
-- and so there is not any sincere accusation against me 
for being in a peculiar kind of rapture of illusion or 
self-delusion or anything like that when I say what I 
say on the nature of essential reality. But you who look 
into it from a more sweetly innocent angle, you must not  
suddenly talk as if you were me, for you must take it 
lightly or else the burden of too much talk about this 
will make others burden you with propositions about your 
brain falling apart. So you must do this quietly, swim 
in this ocean of my works as much as you like but 
exercise and laugh and go to parties and make spring 
black/impressionism paintings and try to win some money 
on currency transactions and massage your feet in the 
morning and do exercises and masturbate plenty and, if 
you are young and healthy and know a little what you are 
doing, and take responsibility for yourself, have lots 
of groupsex and dance yourself and your girlfriends into 
groupsex and do so without reliance on drugs -- and so 
also swim in these words. Drink them in, let them honor 
your meditations, but don't speak about them, if I can 
most respectfully point it out, as if others hadn't 
heard about them; or as if whenever another say 
something contradictory to what you think I say, that is 
necessarily a contradiction also in meaning. For the 
same meaning can be said in innumerable ways, and one 
thing said can have almost as many meanings.
  But you go back to watching the other human being. You  
sense your "I". And it is something I wish to press onto  
you now: give it time, regularly. It is not something 
which will have much meaning if you quit it after 
fifteen seconds. If you are tired of it, try it another 
day, but don't give in to the constant noise and rush of 
non-meditative living. Non-meditative living is merely a  
forerunner of self-killing. Self-killing, or euthanasia,  
is something a body should do when it is right and then 
without a word or a whisper to another and without any 
preparation in terms of how one is living. One should do 
it because the body isn't right to support one's soul 
and for no other reason. One shouldn't do self-killing 
half-ways for years and years by drugs and lies and 
non-meditative living and meat-eating or cannibalistic 
eating. The muses eat spirit-stuff, they can convert any 
material beautiful body to spirit-food which they drink 
in with a smile, without getting fat, without getting 
the negative types of hormones that eating killed beef 
can give. But humans cannot eat meat without becoming 
rather rotten inside. Only the muses, in their 
sexuality, can be fully vampyristic or cannibalistic, 
the muses and the submuses, and so the fantasies of all 
human beings can dance with this but a human being 
cannot do such a thing in manifest reality without 
becoming a whack-job, whacko, a nuthead, off her rocker. 
So human beings must go to soy beans and extra their 
omega-3 from it and sesame seeds and make yoghurt based 
on soy and get plenty of nuts and raisins and wheat and 
oat and barley and all such things, and potatoes and 
lots more -- without the dogmatism whether of socalled 
macrobiotics or Rudolf Steiner or anything else -- and 
raise from the cannibalistic ego-structures which crave 
meat. One must watch calories, and deny oneself food 
beyond a certain level, relative to how much exercise. 
One must limit food, otherwise the decay in food will 
make one decay in all other actions in life. And one 
must sleep a lot, and appreciate the types of music that 
are harmonious. All these things come more and more 
easily as enlightenment comes, and then enlightenment 
refines itself -- in common jumps for all humanity each 
thousand of millenia. These things are true, you can try 
to deny them but not for long. It is so it is, it is 
bound to be realized more and more by all.
  But so you watch another, you allow silence and love 
and goodness and beauty and truth to come into the 
watching. You sense the reality of you watching. And 
then you look to the sheer existence of the other -- Das 
Ding An Sich -- which is something you sense 
immediately, it is not so that you actually by mere 
human sensory organs fully take in more than an 
appearance -- but rather, denying Kant and kantianism, 
you embrace Das Ding An Sich interobjectively, as Du, 
but not merely in the dualistic sense of Martin Buber's 
Ich-Du, nor merely in the triadic sense of his 
Ich-und-Du-und-Gott, but rather, you appreciate that it 
is in some sense your own essence which is God, and that 
God actually creates the other to which your human 
sensory organs have been so kind as to give you some 
glimpses of. These organs are good to guide attention. 
But attention is non-kantian. Attention is immediate. It 
is not about trying to be empathic. It is not that you 
in any way mirror the other. This has got nothing to do 
with mirrors. This is not a trick of the neurons. This 
is not something a darwinist nor a neo-darwinist nor 
anyone obsessed with trying to get a grip on human 
dialogue or altruism or the breakdown of it can 
understand -- for it goes beyond the domain and field of 
human speculation and ego.  
  In your silence, there is the fullness of existence, 
and essence; you feel, by all the preparation -- yes, 
you must in contrast to what Jiddu Krishnamurti said, 
but in alignment with what he himself ardently and 
without fail practised, prepare -- by all this 
preparation you meditate as you are using your good eyes 
and good human sensory organs in appreciating the other.  
Then there is nothing about I and You and the other is 
not merely into your own companion space or anything 
like that. It is rather that in the full berkeleyan 
sense of a flowing existence which is all in God's mind, 
a leaf on the tree of goodness is quivering together, 
quaking together -- I am not for the Quakers, by the 
way, with their hypocritical notion that they are 
friends with Jesus by their silence -- but one leaf is 
quaking together with another, and then with yet 
another, and with more and more. You sense another human 
being also coming into it. And a fourth. And a fifth. 
You sense, by your mind, that more and more humanity is 
coming into your attention field. And all of Nature, all 
the stars, all the planets. All existence. You can move 
your gaze, you still feel that the tree of goodness is 
all that is, the essence of it is the mind of God, and 
the mind and heart of God is everywhere, and his muses, 
they are nonlocally rather everywhere also, ruling all, 
guiding all, also this moment. You feel it? Do you feel 
it now? How you as one meet the other and there is two, 
and then you go to zero, neither you nor the other, at 
the same time as you leave the two and come to three, to 
four, to five, to allness of existence. There is a 
meditation in that. There is silence. There is beauty. 
Whatever you do which rather fully expresses this sense, 
in a self-critical yet playful manner, and which you 
feel this way about the next day, and the next week 
also, might be superbly good art, art really worthy of 
your soul/spirit at its best.
: I can feel the beat of it while you talk. 
/ The beat. Quite. So in the 20th century, some who 
tried to write into meditation called themselves 
beatnicks, or something like that. Speaking about the 
beautification of existence, of attention. But we don't 
have to call ourselves anything in particular. The 
process is universal, it exists beyond any -ism in any 
phase of humanity. 
: Is it the arrythmetic? 
/ Rhythm and the natural going beyond of rhythm belong 
together. Sometimes rhythm brings you nearer to what you 
need to sense the meditation fully, sometimes the beat 
of the arrythmic -- like the little informal piano piece 
I did record once, which I call my own Koeln concert, 
with all my typical lack of modesty -- since it was 
inspired by a thousand listenings of the first ten 
minutes or so of a real concert in Koeln by K. Jarret -- 
but without the contemporary aggressiveness he tends to 
put into his improvisations -- anyway, sometimes the 
beat of the arrythmic will take you where you have to 
go. If you stick too much to rhythm, you may find that 
the ego comes into a control position. So when one 
should dance to loud music, that loud music ought not to 
have a mechanical fixed beat. But when the radio is on 
in the background as a vague and creatively stimulant 
fluctuation of sorts with its news and its sensual 
stories and musical voices it can also have some minutes 
of regular beat without that becoming a source of 
egotism. The radio has a little speaker, a weak 
amplifier, it doesn't impose itself with its regular 
beat whenever one of the songs with regular beat comes 
on air. But the loud dance hall music, the loud dance 
music in a loud and happy party, if that has a regular, 
or mechanical-rhythmic beat, it will support the ego: 
and it is then people take to drugs to combat the ego,  
but that's the wrong way to combat it -- it actually 
benefits the ego in the long run. For it deprives the 
brain of the coherence it needs to fight that ego from 
within. A very mild drug administered at occasions which 
require fearlessness of an extraordinary kind and not 
availble whether in ordinary stores nor on any so-called 
"black market" or market which happens in secrecy 
wouldn't be a thing of the ego, when done righteously 
and with a meaningful understanding of all that is 
involved. So also for a reincarnation station etc. You 
see these things I explore with the Anaiis Blondin 
writings. When I write the stories, a lot lot lot lot 
more has happened than what I write. The stories I write 
are really tiny excerpts of a vast matrix of events. I 
run them rather fully -- not so fully as manifest space 
-- but I run them fully, to see how people react, to 
test how humanity would respond to such and such 
technology, and there is a great deal of individuality 
to the emotions there. In some sense, then, it is a real 
training ground. Similar but at another, more 
erotic-dynamic level, with the Manhattan Transformation. 
We might say the latter is more the spirit, the former 
more the soul. And the manifest reality needs of course 
both for the fullness of its depth. It is not just 
manifest reality and then God as Martin Luther, author 
of protestant christianity, seemed to would have it. He 
rightly protested against the corruption of the catholic 
priests, but his alternative was even less sensual than 
the already barren catholisism, which still exists with 
all its hypocrisy, -- anyone member of catholisism today 
is an enemy of humankind.  
  So when you meditate, you stand free from gossip, 
fully free from organisations. You are not the member of 
a political party, you do not vote on political parties.  
If you vote, it is to liberate sexuality. Anyone calling  
themselves "christian" in terms of politics today must 
be kept out of office for they are even worse than the 
socialists, they are even more selfish than the social 
democrats, trying to limit people with anti-pedophilic 
laws which ultimately limit all people's goodness 
intensity and full sexuality artistic vigor -- so the 
christian parties perpetuate drug abuse and wars, for 
they are still wrapped up in anti-sensual anti-child 
ancient dualism. They do not understand that they are 
enemies of human life, the christian political parties. 
The narrow-minded mild not-too-big capitalism social 
democrats are slightly better; not that I vote on any 
such shit. But they are slightly better, and of course 
much better than arch-socialists, who think they know 
anything about compassion when they put their ugly 
anti-beautiful politics into place in order to ensure 
that people don't become jealous of beautiful people by 
trying to get the beautiful people away; and rather just 
protect nature and animals. Compassion is only won by 
laying off politics. The way humanity has made politics, 
it is something one shouldn't have much off.  
  And so when we leave the rhythm of politics, which is 
not evil, it is just not so good as much other things 
which can be good -- politics is really only about what 
laws should be given to the police -- and the police 
when it has good laws is good, but not so on Earth, of 
course, -- when we leave the rhythm of politics, we come 
into the truer rhythm, and also transcendence of rhythm,  
which is meditation. One cannot like Maharishi Mahesh 
Yogi try to make a political party out of natural laws, 
out of meditation. It is not ever going to be a party. 
As long as there are parties, civilisation has not yet 
truly started.
  And so we need to have an anarchistic understanding of  
beauty, and of meditation, and of love. We must be 
violently against violence, violently against ugliness, 
but otherwise anarchistically liberated from the 
categories of thought, Kant or Einstein or Bohr or 
otherwise, marxist, darwinistic, neodarwinistic or 
whatever. There is no Islam. There is no Hinduism. There 
is no Judaism. There is no Christianity. There is no 
Daoism. There is no Buddhism. There is only God's mind 
and heart, carrying all existence, and these little 
folks inside that existence shouldn't brand themselves 
and their little books with the label "truth". That is 
hubris. It is hubris to say, "I am a muslim". It is 
hubris to say, "I am a christian". It is hubris to say, 
"I am a hindu". It is hubris to say, "I am a buddhist". 
It is hubris to say, "I am a daoist" -- or marxist, 
atheist, darwinist, or whatever, socialist, capitalist. 
What you have to say is that you don't know. You want to 
have faith -- say that. You want to have faith. You hope  
to have more and more faith in God. You don't come along  
with these brands unless you are a clown. But reality is  
not a circus and you are not a clown. 
: There is just this beautiful existence. Beautiful 
people. Beautiful flowers.
/ Well, flower child, that's it. But then within this 
existence there is expectation. And when you expect, you 
are trying to beat the beat of existence without your 
own thought-frequency, so to speak. You are not 
playfully lingering on to next moment's meditation, 
rather you are trying to cement an earlier's moments 
form as if it could contain meditation, as if it could 
contain ecstasy. And so enlightenment is about the 
intent of teaching to yourself, with yourself as the 
only disciple and only guru, apart from God and his 
muses, and the truest statements written, with yourself 
as disciple you teach yourself to let go of specific 
expectations and yet have great hopes on behalf of all 
humanity for all souls and all future.
: Can I have ambition? 
/ Naturally. You are young, you feverently want to learn  
to make better feet in your sketches, you make yourself 
an ambition -- next month I'll get it! That's an 
ambition. Or you have never really practically 
understood currency trading, what it means to have a 
good exit strategy or what it means to put in a proper 
upper and lower bound on prices when you want to reap 
some profits. You haven't understood it and you say, 
wihtin this season I will! And that's ambition. Now can 
you have that ambition without putting self in it? You 
see what I mean?
: It means I can let go any moment. 
/ Well, let's not overstate it. But it is something like  
being able to let go -- quite easily, shall we say, -- 
and also so that you don't do a thousand things to 
prevent others from getting just as good or even better, 
and you don't get irritated and angry just because 
somebody is a bit demanding of attention from you just 
when you are working on this. You must be humane and 
compassionate as adult and as child, not separation 
there -- there is no truth to the notion that some are 
juveniles, and others are adults. All human beings are 
children; all children have immortally aged souls and 
spirits and are adults; but all must respect the changes 
of body and the importance of training and education and  
time for meditation and, sometimes, times for mild 
recovery of light bruises. And then there are bruises 
which lead to bodily death, and that is one of the many 
many events which a human being must learn flexibility 
and fearlessness in relation to. So you have ambitions 
but you can redesign them, when it is called for: that 
is your intent. And it may be called for because you in 
meditation sense that your conscience wants to re-direct 
your course. You must not then say, 'steadfastness in my  
early plan no matter what is most important.' Most 
important is obedience to goodness, loyality to your 
conscience with goodness, loyality to God and his muses. 
It is not so important what you planned -- except when 
that plan is good, and pressures from the environment 
are more of the slightly chaotic kind, to use that 
: Would you say that such slight chaos in the 
environment is still part of goodnewss?
/ Yes, nothing is not part of goodness. All is part of 
goodness. But you must weigh carefully in your honest 
love-meditation, when you are saturated with love and 
joy after sex and after good exercise or after good 
sleep, what has more goodness in it and pursue that. You 
must incline towards the highest goodness that you 
appreciate, and not assume that it is ever absolute. But 
it is to be firm and steadfast in being above the lower 
forms of relative goodness. And this means that you are 
utilizing your human existence to your fullest capacity. 
For an animal like a bird, or even more a nature plant 
like a flower, cannot have all this flexibility of 
decision and judgement in its existence, for it lacks 
not only the richness and fullness and capacity of the 
human brain and her very refined and beautiful body -- 
the most beautiful thing in manifest existence -- but 
also the soul level and the spirit level. So nature, 
however rich in beauty, exudes its perfumes in 
perfection as an honoring of human joy, human beauty, 
human altruism, human compassion, human care, human 
love, human dialogue, human sexuality, human meditation, 
human truth -- by which I mean, the highest truth that 
humanity can have in this world which is entirely based 
on relative goodness and absolute goodness without any 
room, ever, for anything such as evil, demon, devil or 
satan. There is no death-impulse in existence, there is 
only righteous-impulse, and this righteousness can have 
as impulse to eradicate something which has fallen a bit 
low in relative goodness, -- and it operates on a mild 
level when you say 'no' to an artwork you just have 
done. So you push the delete button and prefer a higher 
goodness. This is the human truth. The human beauty is 
all the beauty you are dancing in, when you see human 
being, from when it has soul, as sexual, sensual, 
dancing, without counting seasons or years, without 
trying to put people into age-groups, without counting 
the number of sexual partners or sexual experiences. It 
is very important to leave off counting that which 
shouldn't be counted. Do you see that?
: I always try to avoid counting where I don't have to. 
I think it is so rediculous when someone tries to 
convince others of having more status by citing how many 
of this and how many of that they have in their past. 
/ Exactly. So numbers have a role -- such as, when you 
number a series of sketches you have drawn in the LAB 
program in the computer, and you have them in a folder, 
and you have a certain order to them. There is a natural 
order to how you read the pages in a book, you have 
perhaps a number for the book as well. Or you are doing 
a job together with others, or which others rely on that 
you do on a certain standard time, and so you count the 
minutes and hours enough to keep on to that schedule 
with a fair amount of persistency. That is meaningful 
counting. But whether it is two or four or five seasons 
since you last fucked someone, does it matter? Does it 
not matter more that you are wishing all the beauty in 
this day and in all upcoming days and nights, let's also 
say nights -- than that you go on counting the past? So 
this is part of beauty, silence, goodness. That we count 
what ought to be counted but don't attribute any 
significance to these simple finite numbers beyond that 
they order some things. They should never order people.
: I agree. Is that also what you mean by the arrythmic? 
/ Yes. Precisely. Bravo. For the arrythmic is only a 
transcendence of rhythm is if it a transcendence of what 
can easily be counted. So that was one of the goals with  
the Koeln piano session for me, forty-five minutes, 
after quite a lot of earlier experimentation -- to make 
it so that one couldn't really tell all of it by any 
form of notation. And it reached that, I feel.
: I like it enormously. It has some sadness in it, 
though, also, doesn't it?
/ I am glad you point that out. Yes it does. A bit too 
much perhaps? But that's how it goes, without the human 
melody, with just those tones: for it has to be real, it 
is not the fullness of the suffering in the couple of 
minutes of the Erbarme Dich aria. But it has an 
intimation of that seriousness of meditation which goes 
all the way back to God's pain also. There is a pain in 
material existence. You know what it is composed of?
: The stuff, the atoms and all that? But I thought you 
said that it is part of God's mind.
/ It is. But what part? Have you thought about why it 
had to be a simulation space at all? Why it had to 
happen all the things that had to happen there? And have 
you thought about what had to be done about that which 
no longer exists, which never can exist -- that evilness 
or dualism which was part of simulation space? All of it  
-- and them -- and Satan -- was grounded to 
unconsciousness and yet there was a pain left in all 
that, impersonally, and it became the material 
existence. It couldn't be taken altogether away without 
only the joy of God's mind existing, but in this joy, 
all is dancing with absolute enlightenment. So the 
inertia of matter, to put it by that peculiar label -- 
inertia, the sluggishness of matter -- it had to come by 
means of some pain. Do you see now? 
: Oj. 
/ Yes. It had to come from somewhere. So the 8-sphere 
theory, it is really very complex, and entirely linked 
with what I say of simulation space; and the Erbarme 
Dich, Mein Gott song, tells not just of the ending of 
all evil, and Satan and all Demon-helpers and all that, 
but it tells of the ending of all those people which God 
after all had created in a temporary form -- God had 
created his little opposites, nurtured them for a little 
while, which apparently was stretched out for fifty 
thousand years and fifty billion years and so on. It 
apparently was stretched out but it was a pain of half a 
day's creation, and all these beings had to be 
eradicated and yet not absolutely. That tiny little bit 
which is left of them has got no consciousness nor can 
it ever re-gain that, the person aspect of it is gone, 
but there is a little bit pain. And that is the 
noise-element of the ego. That is the tendency of some 
synchronicities to work out some pieces of problematic 
temptations towards the not quite righteous which still 
: And when there is more enlightenment, there is less 
/ Exactly. There is less universal pain. The pain of 
matter, the residue of the simulation space dualism, 
becomes reduced -- stepwise -- as a result of the 
collective effort of humankind to reach more 
enlightenment, and then stepwise more and more 
refinement of enlightenment.
: I have to ask just so I have asked it, but I am sure 
it is a very silly question, why not give total 
enlightenment to all at once?
/ For then there would have been no evolution, and so no  
duration, and so no entertainment, no growth, no 
aspiration, no conflict, just the fun-joy soup of 
nothingness playing with itself inside the imagination 
of the fun-loving God behind all that is. So he needed 
to stretch something out -- that's the 8/16-sphere -- 
all that. But it is only possible to stretch something 
out if something is prevented from full free flux. It 
has to have a firm limitation. And this limitation could 
only come by means of some kind of lasting, infinitely 
lasting but gradually more endurable punishment of 
sorts. It sounds perhaps a bit strange to put in the 
word 'punishment' but the point is that God really has 
no mercy, cannot have, if there is going to be a true 
driving onwards towards ever-greater enlightenment. 
There has to be a metering out. One can pray for mercy 
but what will happen is that, at best, one will get a 
way to meet what one has done so as to improve one's 
goyon in relation to it -- but if it is not done, it has 
to be met then within the space of two incarnations. And  
that will be torture of the soul, so it promises aloud 
not to repeat such lack of enlightenment. Now this is 
terrible, but the joys are meant to gradually increase 
more and more, and if there was no initial conflict, no 
initial dualism in simulation space which now is 
entirely over, there would have been no possibility for 
something to stand out as more beautiful than anything 
else, and so the stretching-forward towards the growth 
in goodness, the flowering in goodness, is only possible 
by means of the relativeness. 
: Fantastic. It is such an order to it. I feel it now, 
the way you speak.
/ Well, that's encouraging. I hope we got somewhere. It 
is quite an ordeal for me to spell out so many things 
without it getting an edge to it that can be too 
severely misinterpreted. But I needed to say enough that 
we cover so many areas of shall we say daily concern of 
people that we could link it all up with just about 
every field of endavour that we -- or some of us, anyway 
-- have talked about earlier, including computing, 
including physics, including the subtle finesses of 
meditation, as well as the grander views of metaphysics. 
It might be seem like a patchwork otherwise, and it is 
rather an intensely and very critically correct woven 
whole, in which goodness forever is all that rules all, 
without any exception.
: Unity. 
/ Or wholeness. It is a rich word, wholeness. Healing 
means, going towards more and more wholeness. So the 
word 'healing' is what you should stick to when you 
have pain, rather than the word 'blame'. Healing of 
yourself, healing of your goyon, healing of what you 
have done, healing of your plans. So it coheres more and 
more with that infinite goodness with is God. And the 
muses are here, all over the places, trillions of them, 
to help you. They are your rulers, your masters, under 
God but infinitely stronger than humans. Humans are 
entirely weak compared to the weakest of submuses. And 
so there is a hierarchy of strict goodness, a hierarchy 
of strict determinism, in which only a few facts at any 
time are meant to be understood, and in which at times 
great challenges occur so that all must look to their 
ego within and see if they can defy their ego and 
encourage themselves to have even greater faith in God. 
Without giving God the ugly names of the past world 
religions. Of all the names of the past world religions 
which make any sense at all, except perhaps Zeus to some 
extent, the greek word Christos but understood in the 
coptic-ethiopian sense as one and the same as God and 
not merely a human incarnation of God, have something to 
it. The other words, Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Brahman, 
Allah, Dao, Ishwara, and all the rest of it, Krishna too 
by the way -- all the rest of the names of God and gods 
can go. Samadhi is nice as an expression, of wholeness 
and joy and acceptance; nirvana as more purely ecstatic 
a word. God works because is it so woven into natural 
good English and English is by far the best language for 
faithful human strong thinking about God and goodness 
that humanity has encountered in themselves. So the word 
"God" is a good one, naturally. But the brands of the 
world religions MUST be left aside if humanity is to 
come fully to an AMFAP, As Much Faith As Possible. And 
this is the key to come to real meditation. Real sex. 
Real tantrism. Real drugfree joy. Real progress in 
enlightenment. This has always been an undercurrent in 
what I said but I have said it with increasing 
expliciteness as the seasons went by. You must be able 
to say, "I do not know" at the same time as you say, "I 
endavour to have as much faith as possible". I do not 
know is not a negative statement if you by it mean that 
you only have relative knowing, which lingers towards 
truth without capturing truth. But you must lean on the 
faith in the absolute God as the one totality.