Deeply honored and delighted to hear from you.
Truly, I don't know if my response is intelligible. But responding, and "thinking
through" was real useful for me! Thanks.
In response to the email I received from you, I'm really, really, really pleased
to have the opportunity to share my thoughts on the following I, II, III:
I. REGARDING "TRUTH," AND "TRUE BELIEVERS" (in my
early morning email)
Two weeks ago I placed the following in
the most prominent (upper left) position of
my YouTube Chan (
http://youtube.com/StarLoving1 that is up to about 540
subscribers now, growing by about 1 per day thanks to the support of a few Angels):
""True Religion subordinates EVERYTHING ELSE to, and values ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE the practice, spread and maintenance of Universal Love. Today there are no True Religions. There ARE a few INDIVIDUALS (1 in a million) who are OF the True Religion - Universal Love - including some of you. :-)" SL "
The following, friend, is an expansion of this quote above relative to my email sent to you earlier today,
and your email to me. Please feel no obligation to either read this lengthy response, nor to comment back.
But Thank You. You stimulated extremely useful thought within me. Thank you for that.
And if you DO wade into the following, "sorry" in advance for not being more concise, and a better
communicator. I have so very many limitations.
Friend - I believe that there IS ONE Truth about the "physical" laws of the universe -
from the macro, down to the micro,
by whatever name, in whatever language, as taught by whatever school! And further,
as humankind strives to grapple with the underlying Truth, we Humans will forever
be in a position of merely APPROXIMATING the truth; but generally getting closer. Now, staying within the
realm of scientific pursuit for a moment (is there Truly any other?) most people would
agree that some "schools," and CERTAINLY some individuals pursue the Truth
more effectively than others (an Einstein being toward the top)! For example,
a "school" (high school or university for example) that is controlled by "Fundamentalist
Christians" probably would do a far inferior job of ascertaining / approximating the Truth,
year in and year out, than would a secular university - Harvard for example, particularly
if the "science" in question has to do with Evolution. Right?
As an aside, can we imagine
how ludicrous it would be, how impossible it would be to hear from a great Truth Seeker
like Einstein - 'I am great, I am of superior competence BECAUSE of the "School" I am affiliate with!'
(In Einstein's case his affiliation, his "school," his "religion" would be in Truth not some man-made edifice but rather -
BELIEF IN, PURSUIT OF, PRACTICE OF TRUTH! (Same exactly with Gandhi, King, Jesus....)
Well, as respects the concept (and NOT what is the common usage, arguments, dogmas, etc) of the phrase
"True Believer" - what I, SL, mean by "True Believer" is a person that is a devoted "Believer in Truth"
(one who deeply believes that in fact THERE IS A "TRUTH" TO BE PURSUED - A "SOLUTION" THAT
IS BY AND LARGE MORE HELPFUL TO HUMANITY THAN ANY OTHER (FOR EXAMPLE THAT
"BREATHING" IS BETTER THAN NOT BREATHING), EVEN IF WE CAN ONLY EVER KNOW
THAT "TRUTH" APPROXIMATELY!!!).
Also by "True Believer" (I wish I had used a different term, because I rarely if ever use it;
I can't recall EVER using it before) SL means in the email of early this morning - one who Believes there
IS A TRUTH ABOUT HOW HUMAN BEINGS CAN BEST LIVE AMONG ONE ANOTHER.
And further, friend, SL has for the last 5-10 years, after exhaustive study which continues, concluded
that this one, best way is UNIVERSAL LOVE as the preeminent guiding faculty.
(Universal Love being that part of the Human nervous system that
others have defined as Empathy / Compassion / Wisdom / Humanity, or Supra-consciousness,
or The Highest Form of Human Intelligence, or (by the likes of King, Gandhi and Jesus as) God / Truth / Love.
To SL these are all, exactly the same Truth, dimly grasped as of yet, by different words; and that
for which the likes of great, Healthy Humans that we revere hold to be of the highest value, even more
valuable than their life itself; because it IS Life itself.)
Many people mistakenly believe that what "defined" Teresa of Calcutta, or MLK Jr, or Gandhi,
or Jesus... was their "Religion" - Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, Jew.... NO!!!!!!! Absolutely not!!!!!!!!!!!!
Their "religion," that which they were True Believers in was Universal Love, Universal Brotherhood,
Family of Humanity, Truth (capital T)... by whatever name. For them, their "Christianity," or "Hinduism..." they
would describe as "a" MEANS by which they pursued attainment their True Belief; the MEANS by which
they Actualized Universal Love - but THEY, unlike the masses, never confused, NEVER confused
their True Belief - Universal Love - with their means ("religious" practice, in part) of arriving there.
[My personal belief is that a Gandhi, King, Jesus... if alive today, with the benefit of today's scientific,
and other knowledge... would fully agree with me, that although the word and concept "God" is an
indispensable, man-made construct, that with virtual certainty "God' IS two things, and two things
ONLY:
1. A man made construct, like "math," or "north" indispensable in navigating Reality to best advantage for all; and
2. Absolutely TRUE, in the sense that "hearing" is true, or "sight' is true. That is "God," which
is best understood as, and called "Universal Love,' is a feature, a segment of our Nervous System that
IS the Highest Form of Human Intelligence, that is Divine (Indescribably wonderful in its Humility,
Wisdom, Brilliance, Constructiveness, Creativity, Otherishness...);
that Universal Love is the ENTIRE and ONLY "solution" to the
Human condition (in the same sense that "keeping our eyes open" is the indispensable solution
to human navigation and movement day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. EXACTLY in
this way is our mental faculty of Universal Love / God indispensable.)]
And my friend, if there should come a time that I imagine that King,
Gandhi, Einstein, Jesus, Dave Delinger... were here with us today,with all of our learning and science, that
they would NOT passionately agree with me in the above, THEN I will consider these Beliefs by which I now Live -
probably WORTHLESS.
And, those few, those 1 in a million (including Atheists; ESPECIALLY Agnostics! :-) ) that with all of their
Being seek True Belief (Universal Love / Truth ), they are the MOST "OFFENDING of creatures" to we clinically
sick masses - and that is why we Crucify them, kill them, drive them out, with all of our fury.
II. REGARDING "NOR EVER APOLOGIZE" (in my
early morning email)
Hmmmmm. Really, the purpose of the email of early this morning, couching it in the notion of a True Believer,
arbitrarily, a True Buddhist, was to articulate my resolution to a struggle I've been in
often throughout my life, and very recently due to a specific
incident. Are there times to "apologize?" Oh my goodness YES!!
But when that which one does to
OFFEND, is out of ones Truest, Most Other-centered Belief System, most Responsibly held, one's
"Being" if you will, THAT is NOT a time to Apologize; to do so would be a Lie! How can we in good
conscience, morality and accountability "apologize" for who and what we are?
My dad, the most wonderful person I've ever known, died at the hands
of a surgical team. For all I know if he had had a different team, or if he had had no operation at all, he might have
lived another 15 years or so. An operation that pre-op had a prognosis of 98% success and 3 hours duration, went
12 hours, and he died; he never came out of the O.R. alive.
The team did not apologize to us, but my dad died in their care. Profoundly "Offensive!!!!!" But I did not
take offense, and should not have. They, in my eyes were, and are "True Believers." They, with their Lives
"worshiped" the Truth - they were among the top rated teams for such surgery in the world - I had and have every reason to
believe that they were doing to my dad what they "Believed" to be what he needed. And I am so grateful that they did!
Were they sorry for my dad's death? My guess is, they were almost as sorry as I; feeling almost as much pain as
I did, and do.
But "apologize?" For doing their best? For "being" the best they could be?
My early this morning emails said "Nor EVER apologize" meaning to imply the rest from the context of the email -
for doing your best, being the best you can be, being what your are... in service of others, ON BEHALF OF others. To be"Sorry" and to
express the same? Yes. "Apologize" in that circumstance? No.
Permanently remove yourself from the situation? Maybe!
Avoid INFLICTING yourself in the future. Accept banishment? Maybe!!!
But "apologize" for being who you are and delivering the best service you can possibly deliver? No. Right?
III. REGARDING "REASONABLY PERCEIVES" (in my
early morning email)
Hmmmm. I don't know how to explain that except with the following: 'Anyone that is not mentally impaired almost
certainly "reasonably perceives" that Einstein was an extremely proficient scientist.'
Love you my friend, and grateful for you.
Your brother,
Start
