Today, I confess I was once a ladies man. That’s right; I was a Casanova of note in my heydays. I have been involved in many “casual relationships” – from Zodwa, the love of my life – greater for being unfulfilled, to Busi, the terrible kisser, to Nompilo who earned her stripes as the first woman to infect me with a sexually transmitted disease and, to Thule – perhaps my original yellow-bone, a village beauty, and snazzy dresser who died prematurely.

Out of all my “casual relationships” only one stands out. I had something special with my close friend turned lover named Cebisile (the one who helps with a good plan). In the modern parlance, my relationship with Cebisile could be described as “friends with benefits.” Cebisile and I knew that we were in a “casual relationship.” I was free to date other women. I guess, she too if she wanted was free to date someone else. But, she chose me, warts and all.

Psychologists have long warned that true love and commitment are a rare find. They insist that a lot of times romantic relationships are not based on love at all but are casual and sexual in nature. I know many a girl who would scoff at the idea of a “casual relationship” that they would rather choose to live with the delusional white lie that their relationship is a more formal romantic relationship. Cebisile and I had no delusions of grandeur.

Cebisile was short, fair in complexion and always full of beans. It was this natural cheerfulness that drew me closer to her. She was a charmer extraordinaire. Cebisile’s presence in my life did wonders to my ego to no end. Yet, she wasn’t my ideal girlfriend as I preferred them tall, slender and yellow-boned. But, Cebisile was cut from a different cloth; she had that “thing.” To borrow from the Songs of Solomon, Cebisile had dove’s eyes, teeth like a flock of shorn sheep, and her lips were like a strand of scarlet. I wouldn’t necessary say I was head over heels for Cebisile. Nonetheless, we had a good show except that we never had sex.

Yes, you read that right. No sex – full stop. A Casanova was once involved in a sex-less casual relationship. It wasn’t a about hormonal issues – menopause or childbirth that are often blamed whenever a woman loses her libido. Cebisile’s libido was in full throttle. As for me, it wasn’t that I suddenly had a lower than normal testosterone levels. I was as red-hot blooded like all other philanders. Truth is we made a vow of sexually abstinence. And, this had nothing to do with religious reasons. In fact, I had no idea why would a woman in her twenties say no to sex but yes to a relationship with a famous womaniser.

Although, I was puzzled by her no-sex stance, I played along largely because I valued my friendship with her. I must admit, I wanted more.

I will be telling a lie if I say I was looking forward to Cebisile’s first sleepover at my humble abode. Oh Boy! I should have. Cebisile gave me free lessons in sexual pleasure devoid of penetration. After our first carnal encounter, I almost fell in love with her. In all my casual relationships, the one I had with Cebisile was second to none for that year.

We spent a lot of quality time together with Cebisile until we lost contact. The last time I saw her late in 1998, she was still gentle but frail. We exchanged telephone numbers again and agreed to meet to rekindle the old flames of our “love” affair. We never did.

I only learned about the untimely death of Cebisile in the mid-2000. I was going through my old diaries when I chanced upon her Telkom telephone number. I dialled the number and voice on the end of the line said, “Let me call an adult.” I knew something big had happened to my dearest Cebisile. The elder squandered no time. She simple announced that Cebisile was late and was buried last year (1999). But why am I telling you this story? Wait. I learned later from other family members that Cebisile had died as a result of AIDS-defining clinical conditions.

Cebisile was for the lack of better phrase my soul mate. I am grateful to her for protecting me and loving me completely to the detriment of her own happiness. Cebisile put her whole being to the service of those like me who were at the time ignorant about the virulent HIV/Aids epidemic. In the mid-nineties, some of us knew very little about various forms of protecting oneself against HIV. The use of condoms was intermittent. And, there were no anti-retroviral drugs to halt the spread of the disease once infected. The only method that truly worked was sexual abstinence. To this day, I salute Cebisile for loving me truly enough to want me to live a HIV/Aids free life. May her sweet and gentle soul rest in peace!

Being critical of Buddhism isn’t easy.

Buddhism is the most likable of the major religions, and Buddhists are the perennial good guys of modern spirituality. Beautiful traditions, lovely architecture, inspiring statuary, ancient history, the Dalai Lama — what’s not to like?

Everything about Buddhsim is just so… nice. No fatwahs or jihads, no inquisitions or crusades, no terrorists or pederasts, just nice people being nice. In fact, Buddhism means niceness. Nice-ism.

At least, it should.

Buddha means Awakened One, so Buddhism can be taken to mean Awake-ism. Awakism. It would therefore be natural to think that if you were looking to wake up, then Buddhism, i.e., Awakism, would be the place to look.

::: The Light is Better Over Here

Such thinking, however, would reveal a dangerous lack of respect for the opposition. Maya, goddess of delusion, has been doing her job with supreme mastery since the first spark of self-awareness flickered in some chimp’s noggin, and the idea that the neophyte truth-seeker can just sign up with the Buddhists, read some books, embrace some new concepts and slam her to the mat might be a bit on the naive side.

On the other hand, why not? How’d this get so turned around? It’s just truth. Shouldn’t truth be, like, the simplest thing? Shouldn’t someone who wants to find something as ubiquitous as truth be able to do so? And here’s this venerable organization supposedly dedicated to just that very thing, even named for it, so what’s the problem?

::: Why doesn’t Buddhism produce Buddhas?

The problem arises from the fact that Buddhists, like everyone else, insist on reconciling the irreconcilable. They don’t just want to awaken to the true, they also want to make sense of the untrue. They want to have their cake and eat it too, so they end up with nonsensical theories, divergent schools, sagacious doubletalk, and zero Buddhas.

Typical of Buddhist insistence on reconciling the irreconcilable is the concept of Two Truths, a poignant two-word joke they don’t seem to get, and yet this sort of perversely irrational thinking is at the very heart of the failed search for truth. We don’t want truth, we want a particular truth; one that doesn’t threaten ego, one that doesn’t exist. We insist on a truth that makes sense given what we know, not knowing that we don’t know anything.

Nothing about Buddhism is more revealing than the Four Noble Truths which, not being true, are of pretty dubious nobility. They form the basis of Buddhism, so it’s clear from the outset that the Buddhists have whipped up a proprietary version of truth shaped more by market forces than any particular concern for the less consumer-friendly, albeit true, truth.

Yes, Buddhism may be spiritually filling, even nourishing, but insofar as truth is concerned, it’s junkfood. You can eat it every day of your life and die exactly as Awakened as the day you signed up.

::: Bait & Switch

Buddhism is a classic bait-and-switch operation. We’re attracted by the enlightenment in the window, but as soon as we’re in the door they start steering us over to the compassion aisle. Buddhists could be honest and change their name to Compassionism, but who wants that?

There’s the rub. They can’t sell compassion and they can’t deliver enlightenment.

This untruth-in-advertising is the kind of game you have to play if you want to stay successful in a business where the customer is always wrong. You can either go out of business honestly, or thrive by giving the people what they want. What they say they want and what they really want, though, are two very different things.

::: Me Me Me

To the outside observer, much of Buddhist knowledge and practice seems focused on spiritual self-improvement. This, too, is hard to speak against… except within the context of awakening from delusion. Then it’s easy.

There is no such thing as true self, so any pursuit geared toward its aggrandizement, betterment, upliftment, elevation, evolution, glorification, salvation, etc, is utter folly. How much more so any endeavor undertaken merely to increase one’s own happiness or contentment or, I’m embarrassed to even say it, bliss?

Self is ego and ego is the realm of the dreamstate. If you want to break free of the dreamstate, you must break free of self, not stroke it to make it purr or groom it for some imagined brighter future.

::: Maya’s House of Enlightenment

The trick with being critical of so esteemed and beloved an institution is not to get dragged down into the morass of details and debate. It’s very simple: If Buddhism is about enlightenment, people should be getting enlightened. If it’s not about enlightenment, they should change the sign.

Of course, Buddhism isn’t completely unique in its survival tactics. This same gulf between promise and performance is found in all systems of human spirituality. We’re looking at it in Buddhism because that’s where it’s most pronounced. No disrespect to the Buddha is intended. If there was a Buddha and he was enlightened, then it’s Buddhism that insults his memory, not healthy skepticism. Blame the naked emperor’s retinue of tailors and lickspittles, not the boy who merely states the obvious.

Buddhism is arguably the most elevated of man’s great belief systems. If you want to enjoy the many valuable benefits it has to offer, then I wouldn’t presume to utter a syllable against it. But if you want to escape from the clutches of Maya, then I suggest you take a very close look at the serene face on all those golden statues to see if it isn’t really hers.

People who are suffering from schizophrenia show numerous symptoms, and they can be categorized into three categories: positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and cognitive symptoms.

Positive Symptoms: The symptoms included in this category are hallucinations, delusions, thought disorder and movement disorder. Hallucinations are things a person sees or hears but actually do not exist in real life. Most people suffering from this mental disorder also hear voices in their heads. Meanwhile, delusions are beliefs that are not true or logical. When patients have delusions, they believe that they are famous figures or believe that other people are trying to harm them. Thought disorders refer to unusual ways of thinking and movement disorders refer to repetition of certain movements.

Negative Symptoms: These symptoms are more difficult to identify as they can be mistaken as depression. They include the lack of will to do regular activities, lack of expression, speaking very little, and lack of initiative.

Cognitive Symptoms: These symptoms are subtle and they include memory problems, lack of insight, and difficulty in focusing attention.

After identifying the symptoms, you may have questions about the treatment options. Are treatments for schizophrenia available? Yes, there are some options available and you can read the explanation as follows:

1. Antipsychotics: This is the most common medication for this mental disorder. 70% of people use this medication and it is proven to be effective in reducing relapse rate up to 40%. Typical antipsychotics include Haloperidol, Thorazine and Fluanxol. These medications are effective in treating the symptoms especially the positive ones.

2. Antidepressants: These medications are recommended for people who are suffering from schizoaffective disorder. They reduce symptoms of depression that most sufferers experience.

3. Psychotherapy: This is the most recommended treatment for schizophrenia sufferers. Psychotherapy is behavioral treatment that can reduce relapse rate to only 25%. There are some types of psychotherapy such as family therapy, cognitive therapy, psychoeducations. They help schizophrenics overcome the symptoms and help them to interact in society. Another important treatment is social skills training; this is a training to teach patients in dealing with social situations.

4. Alternative treatments: These treatments are available but a patient is not recommended to choose them without getting medical treatment first. Alternative treatments will be more effective when they are combined with antipsychotics and managed under a doctor’s supervision. In some cases, dietary supplements can also help in reducing schizophrenia symptoms.

Actually, there is currently no cure for this mental disorder but the treatment options above are available today. In most cases the treatments show effectiveness in reducing symptoms and preventing relapse. However, the treatments should be given for a life time.

Have you ever heard the phrase people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones? Maybe your more familiar with what Jesus said he that is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7). Before you begin to attack or find fault in others examine yourself first.

Imagine a family of people that keep their house dirty but they tell all of their neighbors to keep their house clean. That family is living in delusion because they have not taken care of business themselves yet they point fingers at others. In many ways the church has grown to become the hand that points an index finger only to discover three fingers pointing back at us.

There is so much controversy amongst believers about how non believers speak harshly against the word of God. In many fellowship circles the topic of discussion is what an entertainer, rapper, or politician has said against the Bible. The words of non believers shouldn’t surprise Christians because honestly they don’t believe in God. To hold a non believer to the standard of respecting Jesus would be like holding a Christian to the standard to speak well about atheism.

Our early brothers and sisters lived and served God in pagan lands where many idols where worshipped but their focus was on the word of God. They presented the gospel of Jesus Christ and they engaged in battles with others when necessary. The bulk of their day was not consumed with what the pagans where doing to disrespect Jesus rather the focus was on spreading the gospel and converting non believers.

Jesus has called all of us to be about our Fathers business and to focus on building the kingdom of God. We need more focus on spreading the gospel to non believers instead of debating non believers about their beliefs. We were all once lost and it was the word of God that opened our eyes and we should use that same power to open the eyes of others. The love and grace of God saved my life and was more powerful then someone shouting to me at the top of their lungs that I was wrong for practicing atheism or dabbling in Islam and Buddhism.

The sad truth is that we focus so much on non believers that we neglect to take care of home first. There are many false churches and false pastors leading whole congregations into destruction and blaspheming the name of Christ. We should focus on cleaning house and teaching the real gospel to those within are family because the hypocrites are giving us a bad name. Many preachers are teaching the doctrine of demons and preaching for lust and gain and at the end of the day the only thing many Christians say is did you hear that celebrity or politician say that about God. Let’s focus on teaching the word of God and let the Holy Spirit do its job on saving the world through us.-Amen

For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?-1 Peter 4:17

Who’s Normal?

They Say You’re Crazy; How the World’s Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who’s Normal by Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D.

Peaking out: How My Mind Broke Free from the Delusions in Psychiatry by Al Siebert, Ph.D.

Practical Psychology

Here are two books from PhD psychologists, one American, one Canadian, which raise the question, “Who decides who is normal?”

Both authors vigorously challenge the generally accepted view that psychiatrists are best-placed to decide who is normal and who is not.

Are psychiatrists (and other therapists) themselves “normal”? Hardly. How can anyone who chooses to listen to other peoples’ miseries day in and day out, be considered normal, if by that we mean “average” or “typical”? We therapists are clearly not normal, we are a minority and we are unique. So are people in other professions. So are you.

Normality is notoriously difficult to define. What we usually mean by “abnormal” is insane, psychotic, mentally ill. Some authors [most notably psychiatrists Thomas Szasz (The Myth of Mental Illness) and Peter Breggin (Toxic Psychiatry)] attack the very concept of “mental” illness, saying this is a metaphor mistakenly made concrete, or that drug treatment only adds to a sufferers’ woes, that so-called mental illness is more appropriately called “problems in living” and “treated” either by the courts or with exceptional care, empathy and understanding.

Thirty years ago Dr Siebert was committed to hospital as a “paranoid schizophrenic.” He claims he was sane, that at the time he was going through a “developmental crisis”. His book, written in an engaging as-told-to fashion with colleague Sam Kimball, PhD., recounts his experience — and the ideas which led to his (semi-voluntary) incarceration.

Clearly Dr Siebert, at the time about to begin a post-doctoral fellowship, upset his psychiatric colleagues with his unusual ideas and his wife with his mysterious silences. Dr Siebert was caught up with his insight that basically we are all selfish, that even so-called altruistic behaviour is based on self-interest. (This became the foundation of his work and book on The Survivor Personality).

Peaking Out vividly describes life in a psychiatric ward. While benevolent, his keepers nevertheless labelled Dr Siebert as mentally deranged and could not see beyond the label. His claim of curing — by suspending labelling and truly listening to — a woman who heard the voice of God, was ignored by the authorities.

It is not clear why Dr Siebert chose to publish this book now (and reveal “a secret kept hidden for thirty years”). But his indignation at what he considers the abuse of power by some psychiatrists on his person is matched, if not exceeded, by the wrath of Dr Paula Caplan about the audacity of psychiatrists to decide who is not normal, not through science and evidence, but through bias and politics.

Dr Caplan, a Canadian with equally impressive authoral and teaching credits to Dr Siebert, attacks the process by which psychiatrists devise the content of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, popularly know as the DSM.

This volume purports to define mental illness with the same certainty and precision with which physical illness is described. It is an obvious attempt to achieve a degree of respect and scientific authority similar to that which is generally awarded to other medical doctors.

But the DSM IV, like its predecessors, is a farce. This is the only conclusion you can reach after Reading Dr Caplan’s very detailed account of the partisan bargaining (“horse-trading”) that goes on in the determination of what will and what will not be included in the volume.

An expert in research, Dr Caplan points out the dearth of data on which DSM IV is based. She became involved a few years ago when the committee (all white men of a certain age) sought to make PMS a mental disorder. The fight was tough, the feminists lost, but not until furious arguments had been aired from both sides in psychological journals and the media.

Only arrogance (or desperation) can explain how male (and some female) psychiatrists dare to pretend that human mental disorders can be reduced to the kind of specific disease data applicable to say, measles.

Dr Caplan goes out of her way to be charitable about the motives of the perpetrators of DSM IV. Nevertheless, one has to suspect that power and money (DSM IV sells hundreds of thousands of copies and is a required reference point for much insurance reimbursement, not to mention hospital funding etc., especially in the United States) are main motivations of DSM’s authors.

Perhaps, as Dr Siebert claims regarding his persecutors, DSM authors have convinced themselves of their righteousness and of the need to force good upon sufferers, even if the sufferers have not requested such help.

History, including the history of psychiatry and “mental health,” is replete with examples of well-meaning people forcing what they thought was right onto bewildered victims. The perpetrators are deaf to any ideas other than their own. Belief systems are notoriously hard to change.

Look at Sigmund Freud’s absurd notion that little girls want to have sex with their fathers. I was astonished by Dr Caplan’s assertion that many therapists still practice orthodox Freudianism: hiding behind a couch, refusing to believe their patients’ accounts of incest, etc. Perhaps this horror persists only in Toronto?

Two examples will suffice to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of DSM IV: over the years homosexuality has gone from being classified as a mental disorder to being covertly included, to being not listed in the current DSM. Can a disease cease to be a disease? Either homosexuality never was a mental illness, or psychiatrists bowed to public pressure. Obviously, though, the inclusion or exclusion of homosexuality was not based on science.

The other example is the rebuff with which Dr Caplan and her colleagues were met when they tried to have the stereotypical “female” descriptors in DSM matched with a description of typical male behaviour as a mental illness.

Surely the biggest irony about the dangerous DSM IV is that, while it purports to list every mental disorder in exhaustive detail, it offers no solutions, no treatment guidelines. Could this be because, in reality, we know so little about the mind — and even less how to cure its disorders?

Most of what we as therapists do is art, intuition, relationship. Medicalising problems in living, as DSM disciples are wont to do, is a disservice to clients and to therapists. Clients, because they need care, not categories. And therapists, because such illusory certainty leads us, like Dr Siebert’s colleagues or Dr Caplan’s detractors, to join together in a collective delusion of being scientific.

Read Dr Caplan’s book and weep for the thousands of people (mostly women, of course) whose lives have been damaged by being labelled with the stigma of a mental illness, when in reality their only problem was that, like Dr Siebert, they dared to be different. Or human.

The recent election in Great Britain showed the United States what many of us have known all along. The conservative view is well enforced and in play in both countries. It is obvious to one who has half a brain that conservative views equate to the trickle down view of the controlling oligarchy ruling class. Ever since Richard Nixon every President since has endorsed this misguided concept of the trickle down theorists. It is this conservative view that has only increased the wealth disparity gap to unprecedented proportions.

Since 1970 the wealth disparity gap has undermined the American way of life and destroyed the “American Dream” for millions of Americans. Yet, the voting public continues this delusion by voting Republican conservatism in practically every election. The three Democratic Presidents since the 1970’s though not so much endorsed republican conservatism did nothing to close the wealth gap and improve millions of American chances at obtaining that all elusive “American Dream.”

Now, we have 2 Democratic Presidential candidates that continue to draw massive public support but are being ostracized, ignored by the media and even their own Democratic party including their fellow members of Congress. It is the media and many members of Congress though who are indebted to Corporate Conglomerates. In England the conservative party that continues to rule is mainly financed by the Bank of England which by the way is sympathetic and tied to the Rothschild’s much like the Federal Reserve.

Today, one can see why the media and so many members of Congress are doing every thing possible in trying to sabotage these two Presidential candidates from ever getting the Democratic Nomination. The Progressive movement of FDR pulled this nation out of the Depression. and stimulated the economy to heights never before seen. Sadly though for over 50 years government policies have only entrenched the trickle down approach in dealing with the economy. As we are seeing today the trickle down theory only has entrenched the ruling class that has isolated itself from the rest of the nation. Preserving their status-quo is essential for them to keep a tight grip on their power, control and their wealth.

So when we have two progressive candidates winning massive support of the public that are viewed as a threat to their control over the nation and their wealth by the elites they will go out of their way to stop them form getting a hold of the reigns of power in government. Trickle down economics has never worked to restore the vitality, the health, and the economic growth of a nation. We see it in England and in the United States what the conservative view has and is doing to both countries. Restoring the Democratic way of governing is contrary to the conservative movement we are seeing in both nations today.

If the voting public continues to be delusional of what a conservative agenda is doing and has done to this country we would be wise to look back in history to grasp the knowledge of what many former Presidents have undertaken in using a progressive agenda. In every instance progressive platforms has always improved a nations ability to restore economic vitality for all. Today, we desperately need a progressive agenda that only these two Presidential candidates will bring for this country.

Morgellons disease is an unexplained and controversial skin problem. Unfortunately, this condition is not common and it is hence poorly understood. It is characterized by small particles of fibers that emerge from skin sores. Patients also feel experience a stinging feeling on the skin or feel as though something is crawling on them. There are facts you should know about the Morgellons disease.

Because MD is not understood in detail, some practitioners treat this condition as a delusional infestation. This means that patients receive cognitive behavioral therapy, counseling, antipsychotic drugs or even antidepressants. Other doctors will even treat the concern as an infectious skin cells problem.

Some of the signs and symptoms allied with MD include skin sores or rashes that are extremely itchy and a crawling sensation under or on the skin as though an insect is biting, stinging or crawling on you. Patients also feel fatigued, have challenges concentrating, fall into a depressed mood and suffer from short-term memory loss. The most obvious symptom is threads, fibers or a black, stringy material on or in the skin.

MD can interfere immensely with the quality of life of a patient, mainly because of the intense itching and open sores. The results of studies conducted by different groups over decades are conflicting though multiple results have shown a possible link between MD and Borrelia spirochetes. However, the Disease Control and Prevention centers have ruled out any chances of the concern being caused by parasites or infections.

Practitioners refer to MD as an unexplained dermatopathy because the fiber samples from skin wounds are cotton. This concern is more prevalent among middle-aged white women and its signs and symptoms are quite similar to those of mental challenges that involve delusional infestation or rather false beliefs regarding infestation by parasites. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive diagnosis, guidance or treatment of this disease.

There are specially formulated salt baths that may aid in managing and alleviating this health concern. Salt baths, typically referred to as Morgellons bath can help in removing the stuff on the skin. Regular baths with essential oils could also help to accelerate healing of the sores. Fill your tub with warm water and add these products and then soak for at least one hour. This should help to remove the buildup of cysts. You can rinse in the shower afterwards.

The symptoms of MD are distressing and that is why you need compassionate treatment. Begin by establishing a relationship with a proficient and compassionate health care team and work with a practitioner who acknowledges the concern and not only devices a treatment plan, but also does thorough exams. As the patient, your patience is necessary because any ethical doctor must first consider other evidence-based treatments before considering an MD diagnosis.

Keeping an open mind is necessary if you want to find lasting relief. In certain cases, there are solid reasons for a practitioner to recommend mental health therapy. Treating concerns like anxiety and depression can help to understand the skin sores better when your thinking, moods or behavior is not influenced by mental health problems.

Infinity

A rather large quantity. And a concept we may have encountered, and possibly struggled with, in an occasional math course.

But why bother talking about it? Infinity hardly seems relevant to the practical matters of our normal day, or even our abnormal days.

Well, possibly, but infinity does pose a high intellectual intrigue. So a few minutes with infinity should provide a strong mental challenge and a diversion from the tribulations of our normal day. At least enough to warrant a few minutes consideration.

And dismissing infinity as irrelevant misses at least one relevant aspect of the concept.

God.

Believer or not, searcher for faith or not, detester of the concept or not, God, whether as an object of faith, or an ultimate question, or an irrational delusion, God looms as unavoidable. God either serves as guidance for our life, or poses questions bedeviling our minds, or lingers as an outmoded concept born of ancient history in pre-scientific times.

And a major tenet in most theologies, and in philosophy in general, points fundamentally to an infinite God – infinite in existence, infinite in knowledge, infinite in power, infinite in perfection.

So as a passing, but intriguing, diversion, and as an attribute of a spiritual figure deeply imbedded in our culture and our psyche, infinity does provide a subject worth a few minutes of our time.

So let’s begin.

How Big is Infinity?

Strange question, right. Infinity stands as the biggest quantity possible.

But let’s drill down a bit. We should apply some rigor to examining infinity’s size.

Consider integers, the numbers one, two, three and up, and also minus one, minus two, minus three and down. We can divide integers into odd and even. Common knowledge.

But let’s consider a not-so-obvious question, a question you might have encountered. Which is larger, all integers, or just even integers? The quick answer would say the group of all integers exceeds the group of even integers. We can see two integers for every even integer.

If we have studied this question previously, however, we know that answer is wrong.

Neither infinity is larger; the infinity of all integers equals the infinity of just even integers. We can demonstrate this by a matching. Specifically, two groups rank equal in size if we can match each member of one group with a member of the other group, one-to-one, with no members left over unmatched in either group.

Let’s attempt a matching here. For simplicity, we will take just positive integers and positive even integers. To start the match, take one from the set of all positive integers and match that with two from the set of all positive even integers, take two from the set of all positive integers and match that with four from the set of even positive integers, and so on.

At first reaction, we might intuit that this matching would exhaust the even integers first, with members of the set of all integers remaining, unmatched. But that reflexive thought stems from our overwhelming experience of finite, bounded sets. In a one-to-one matching of the rice kernels in a two pound bag with those of a one pound bag, both finite sets, we well expect the one pound bag to run out of rice kernels before the two pound bag.

But infinity operates differently. An infinite set never runs out. Thus even though a one-to-one matching of all integers verses even integers runs up the even integers side quicker, the even integers never run out. Infinity presents us features counter-intuitive to our daily experience filled with finite sets.

And so with fractions. The infinite set of all fractions does not exceed the infinite set of all integers. This really throws a counter-intuitive curve, since we can not readily devise a one-to-one matching. Would not the fractions between zero and one loom so numerous that no matching can be created? But that would be wrong.

To see why, let me suggest a web search, on the following phrase, “bijection rational numbers natural numbers.” Rational numbers, i.e. ratios, are the fractions, and natural numbers are the integers. The matching proceeds with 45 degree marches down and back up a grid of the rational, i.e. fractional, numbers.

A Bigger Infinity

We might now conclude that infinity stands undefeated, and that no set, however constructed, would escape the rigor of one-to-one matching.

If you have studied this question before, you know that does not hold. The set of real numbers, i.e. numbers with digits to the right of a decimal point, exceeds the set of all integers.

Wait though. If we exercise enough cleverness, might we find a matching of real numbers with integers?

No. A proof, well examined, exists that we can not so find a match. We can thank the mathematician Georg Cantor and mathematicians following him for the rigorous development of how infinity works.

Now the proof. Take the first integer, one, and match that with the real number 0.0111111… where the digits of one extend rightward forever. That falls well within the properties of real numbers, that no limit exists to the number of digits in the decimal portion.

Take the second integer, two, and match that with real number, 0.1011111… where the digit one repeats to the right forever. Take three and match that with 0.1101111… again with the digit one repeating to the right forever. Proceed similarly with each integer. In this way, by placing a zero in the slot corresponding to the right decimal position equal to the integer being matched, we match every integer with a unique real number.

Now we can construct a real number not in the matching, via a process called diagonalization.

Start with the integer one, and pick a digit not in the first position to the right of the decimal of the matched real number. Let’s pick 2, as that differs from the zero in the first right position in the real number we just matched with one.

The first position of our (potentially) unmatched real number contains a 2 just to the right of the decimal.

Now consider the integer two, and pick a digit not in the second right position of the matched real number. Let’s pick 3. Put that digit in the second position right of decimal of the real number we look to construct. That real number now starts with.23 We continue the sequence. We march through the integers, and in the position with the zero in the matched real number, we put alternately 2 and 3 in the corresponding position of the real number that we look to be unmatched.

We proceed by this process, which marches diagonally down the positions of the matched real numbers. In this example, we create the real number 0.2323232… with 2 and 3 alternating forever. That by construction does not lie in the real numbers we matched to integers, since our constructed real number 0.23232.. contains a digit not present in any matched real number.

Of importance, this diagonalization process works regardless of any matching we attempt. We can always construct a real number by sequentially picking a digit not in each real number of the attempted match.

Why in rough terms does this work? Real numbers, in an informal sense, present a double challenge. Real numbers first extend upward in size infinitely, to larger and larger quantities, and extend downward infinitely, splitting numbers to smaller and smaller distinctions, infinitely. This double extension allows real numbers to outrun the integers, and even fractions.

A Bigger Infinity

We have not finished with the sizes of infinity.

To explore these increasing sizes, we must introduce power sets. So far in this discussion, our sets have consisted of numbers. The set of integers comprised a set of all natural or counting numbers, the set of fractions comprised a set of all numbers resulting from the division of two integers, the set of complex numbers (not discussed here, but used as an example) comprise numbers containing the square root of negative one.

Sets can contain other things, of course. We can construct the set of cities that have won professional sports championships, or the set of individuals that have climbed Mount Everest. Sets can contain sets, for example the set of the two member sets that comprise an integer number and its square. This set equates to {(1,1),(2,4),(3,9),… }.

Sets can be subsets of sets. The set of cities that have won championships in four or more professional sports represents a subset of the those that have won championships in any one of the sports. The set of integers that are integer cubes (say 8 or 27 or 64) represents a subset of the set of all integers.

The Power Set is the set of all subsets of a set. In other words, take the members of a set, and then construct all the various unique combinations, of any length, of those members.

For example, for the set (1,2,3) eight subsets exist. One is the empty set, the set with nothing. (Yes a set containing nothing comprises a valid set.) The other subsets list out as follows: {1},{2},{3},{1,2},(1,3},(2,3},(1,2,3}. The power set of the set (1,2,3) contains those eight members. Note (3,2) does not count as a subset, since (3,2) simply flips the members of the (2,3) subset. Rearranging set members does not count as unique for power sets.

Power sets grow rapidly in size. The power set of the first four integers contains 16 members; of the first five integers, 32 members; the first ten, 1,024 members. If so inclined, one could list out these subsets in say Excel. Don’t try that for one hundred integers. The spreadsheet would run a billion, billion, trillion cells, or ten to the power of thirty.

We can see the next step. Take the power set of the (infinite set) of integers. If the power set of the first 100 integers looms big, the power set of all integers must loom really big. How big? How many member reside in the power set of all integers?

An infinity greater then the infinity of the integers.

Let’s demonstrate by attempting to match the set of integers with its power set.

Match the integer one with a subset having all the integers except one. Match two with a subset having all the integers except two. Do the same for three. All integers now sit matched with a different subset, and, if we think about it, those subsets are infinite in size. How? We have specified that each matching set be all the integers except just one member, and an infinite set minus one member remains infinite.

So we have matched each integer with an infinite-sized subset element within the power set. What remains unmatched? Any subset of integers a finite size. Thus our matching shows the power set of integers greater in size than just the integers.

And On and On

Without demonstration, the power set of integers equals, in size, the number of real numbers. I say without demonstration, since the proof involves a fair bit of math.

But let’s move upward. If we postulated the power set of the set of integers, we can postulate the power set of real numbers. And yes just like the power set of integers contains more members than the set of integers itself, the power set of real numbers contains more members than the set of real numbers.

We can envision this through a rough consideration of number lines, just an image we can grasp. Take a number line of real numbers. That number line extends in both directions, and the points on the line represent the real numbers.

We can mark-off our normal three-dimensional world by taking three number lines and crossing them at right angles. These three crossed lines create axes that mark off the familiar height, width and depth of our daily experience.

But now cross not just three real number lines, but an infinite number of real number lines. We can not readily visualize more than three dimensions, much less infinitely many, but mathematically an infinite dimensional space stands as valid. This crossing gives us an infinite number of infinities. While not precise, our imaging an infinite number of infinitely extending real number lines provides a view of the power set of real numbers.

We can continue. We can take ever larger power sets, infinitely. Our mind may fail grasping this, but the math remains solid. For every infinite set we can create, we can create a larger one by taking that sets power set. No limit exists to how many ever larger infinities we can create.

Back to the Finite

But now let’s go the other way. Making the infinite finite.

Consider this famous paradox. If we give a turtle a head start, we appear to never be able to catch up. For when we get to where the turtle previously resided, the turtle has moved on. And when we arrive at that new turtle position, the turtle has moved further. The turtle will always arrive at a new position ahead of us, as we move to catch up to its previous position. And this goes on infinitely. You can’t catch up.

But, go try this in real life. Maybe not with a turtle, but say a toddler. We will assume, for most cases, you run faster than the toddler (if not consider an infant in crawling stage.) You catch up. No problem. Every time. Despite the toddler or infant moving ahead as you arrive at their last position, you catch up.

How do we resolve the paradox? How in real life do we catch up, when in descriptive form we always seem, infinitely, to be behind one step.

We do so by realizing that an infinite sequence can reach a finite limit.

So while with power sets we expanded the infinite to larger and larger sets, we will now take an infinitely long sequence and chop the sequence down to the finite.

Consider the time to catch up. Assume we move twice as fast as the turtle/toddler/infant. Give the pursued a two second head start. We need one second to reach that head start spot. The turtle/toddler/infant moves ahead in this one second, a distance that we can cover in one-half second. In that half second, the turtle/toddler/infant moves ahead a distance we can cover in one-quarter second.

Our total time to catch up, if we ever do, equals the sum of those fractional seconds, which decrease by a half for each segment of the race. As an equation, this infinite sum of fractions looks as follows:

Time = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +…

That sequence extends forever. How can we total this sequence, since it extends infinitely? We deploy a bit of cleverness. Multiply this sequence by one half on both sides. Some of you may likely have seen before. Multiplying by one-half gives the following.

½ * Time = ½ * (1 + 1/2+ 1/4+ 1/8 +… or

½ * Time = 1/2+ 1/4+ 1/8 + 1/16…

Not much help, at least not yet, as we no more know the sum of the this one-half equation than the original equation. But substitute the one-half equation back into the original equation. In the original equation, the string of fractions starting at ½ and going right, equals the string of fractions in the ½ * Time equation.

Substituting, we thus obtain:

Time = 1 + ½ * Time

Now subtract ½ * Time from both sides to get

½*Time = 1

Then multiplying both sides by 2 results in

Time (i.e. sum of infinite series) = 2

The time to catch up thus equals two seconds. While mathematically catching up involves an infinite sequence of increasingly smaller fractions, the infinite sequence of those fractions sums to a finite time, i.e. two seconds.

Is this just a special case? No, the sequence of reciprocal positive integer sums represents another infinite series summing to a finite number.

First, what is the sequence of reciprocal positive integer sums? Start with the sequence of positive integer sums. As this name implies, the sequence involves sums of integers, and as a sequence it involves summing increasing numbers of integers. So the sequence starts the first positive integer, one, and sums that to 1. The sequence then takes the first two positive integers, one and two, and sums those giving 3. The sequence then takes the first three positive integers, one, two and three, and sums those giving 6. Doing the additions, the next elements, after 1,2, and 6, equal 10, 15, 21 and so on.

A reciprocal equals dividing a number into one. So we take the reciprocal of our integer sums and then our sequence looks like this:

Sequence = 1 + 1/3 + 1/6 + 1/10 + 1/15 + 1/21 +…

Unlike the previous sequence for the time to catch up, we see no way to simply multiply the sequence by a number to arrive at a match to the part of the sequence. In the time-to-catch up sequence, multiplying by 1/2 gave a part of the origin sequence. That approach is not available here.

Another approach can be used, though. Take the second element of 1/3. That equals two times (1/2 minus 1/3). We can see that by multiplying out the terms and then finding a common denominator to allow subtraction. Two times (1/2 minus 1/3) equals 1 – 2/3, or 3/3 – 2/3, which gives one third.

Now take the 1/6. That equals two times (1/3 minus 1/4) which is 2/3 – 1/2, or 4/6 – 3/6, which gives 1/6. Take the 1/10. That equals two times (1/4 minus 1/5). And so on, thus the sequence now becomes:

Sequence = 1 + 2*(1/2 – 1/3) + 2*(1/3 – 1/4) + 2*(1/4 – 1/5) +…

Which with a bit of rearrangement becomes

Sequence = 1 + 2*1/2 + 2*(- 1/3 + 1/3) + 2*(- 1/4 +1/4)

We now see that the fractions starting at 1/3 form a pair, one positive and one negative, summing to zero. All those terms starting at 1/3 and going to the right thus sum to zero, leaving the first two terms, i.e. 1 + 2*(1/2) or 2.

Again, we have taken an infinite and produced a finite.

Consider one final infinite sequence, the Basel series. This series comprises the reciprocal not of integer sums but of integer squares.

Unlike the two examples above, the Basel series does not yield to a simple solution. After conceived in the sixteenth century, the series stood unsolved for ninety years. Leonhard Euler finally found the sum, in part by using the infinite sequence for the trigonometric function sin(x). Euler might well stand as the greatest mathematician ever, and certainly of his time, and arguably as the most prolific in terms of publishing.

The curious can lookup the Basel Series for more details. The real curious can look up the rather mind-numbing proof.

God, and Infinity

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a repository of its central teachings, exclaims the infinite nature of God, and does so multiple times. Paragraph 41 cites God’s infinite perfection, paragraph 43 God’s infinite simplicity, paragraph 270 God’s infinite mercy, paragraph 339 God’s infinite wisdom, and paragraph 1064 God’s infinite love.

The Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, accepted in many common Christian faiths, begin with a decree of God’s almighty, aka infinite, power.

A review of scholarly works in theology will find numerous discourses (attempting) to resolve the tension between God’s infinities (omnipotence, or infinite power; omniscience or infinite knowledge; and omnibenevolence, or infinite mercy) and the ubiquitous presence of evil in our world (how can an all merciful God allow wickedness?) and our clear sense of free will (how can I act freely if God knows my future?)

Clearly, God’s infinity stands as a key concept, and quandary, within religious faith.

Now let’s consider everyday images of an infinite God, images we may have developed ourselves, or heard preached. In terms of God’s infinite mercy, you and I, or say any pious, thinking individual, might conceive the mercy of an infinite God as large as the mercy of an infinite number of people. For God’s infinite creative power, we might picture that power sufficient to create an infinite number of universes, or equivalent to an infinite number of stars. In terms of knowledge, we might view an infinite God’s knowledge as large as an infinite number of computers, or an infinite number of libraries.

But… Those images actually describe a small infinity, an infinity equivalent roughly to the infinity of integers. God’s mercy as equivalent to an infinite number of individual relates his mercy to an infinite number of discrete items, people. We could match the (admittedly infinite) collection of merciful people one-to-one with integers. And God’s creative power as equivalent to the creation of an infinite numbers of universes or power of infinite stars, relates, again, God’s mercy to a set (admittedly infinite) of discrete items. We could do a one-to-one matching with integers. And so on with an infinite number of computers or libraries.

Here is the implication. God as infinite in an integer sense, as a endless, infinite sequence of nonetheless non-infinite, discrete items remains, in a subtle way, touchable, conceivable. God remains like us, or entities around us (universes, computers, stars, books), but just infinitely many more versions of discrete items of which we can see and touch and conceive. God can remain as a Father, Savior, Creator, Preacher, Benefactor, certainly infinitely perfect and infinitely numerous, but nonetheless infinitely perfect versions of tangible items we can touch, conceive, experience, ponder in our everyday lives.

In other words, God resembles items in our world, including us, just in a perfect, endless, infinitely numerous way.

But infinity as a sequence of discrete items, integers, equals the lowest size of infinity. We saw that an infinite number of larger infinities than that of integers looms over us. The infinity of integers descends to such a small infinity that no analogy describes the smallness of the infinity of integers by comparison the infinite hierarchy of infinities.

Consider just the infinity of real numbers. Real numbers of course extend upward just as do integers. But they extend downward, infinitely, to a smallness smaller than we can conceive or experience. We could take the smallest atomic particle, divide that particle a million times a second for every second of the universe, and be no closer to the smallness of the smallest member of real numbers than when we started.

Now take the power set of real numbers. We become lost, we can not readily envision infinite smallness of real numbers, and the power set of real numbers becomes a blur, more than a blur, just a miasma. But God’s infinity looms infinitely larger than the infinity of the power set of real numbers.

A catastrophe strikes, a catastrophe of comprehension and conceivability. We could contemplate a God as an infinite collection of otherwise conceivable discrete items. God looms infinite, but an infinite version of a graspable image, a Father.

Now contemplate a God greater than the infinity of the power set of real numbers. Our mind withers, recoils. We can find no images, fathom no analogies.

Under this expanded infinity, God becomes untouchable, alien, unknown, inconceivable. And our leap of faith leaves the realm of faith in a God infinite in extent and perfection, but an extension and perfection of a finite entity we can conceive, to something cold, mathematical, beyond just mysterious to eerily menacing, abstract, heartless. Our faith lies not in a warm, though infinite Father, but in an entity described best, and possibly only, in the stark, esoteric, forbidding world of the set theory of infinite quantities.

You don’t agree. You think this is not the case. God created man in his image; how can God then recede beyond our conception into a mathematical fog of infinite infinities.

But the logic becomes inescapable, despite our protests. The nature of infinity, as expanded by great mathematicians, combined with the infinity of God, as proclaimed by great theologians, creates an abstract God, distant and harsh. The infinite God becomes a mathematical God, a God described in power sets and number theory, a description which does not offer comfort.

That then identifies, starkly, the leap of faith. We leap into the unknown not to a God imagined as Fatherly and Majestic, but a God inscrutable as math more threatening than any most of us have ever taken.

But is that then where we end up?

No.

Let’s step back. Our conception of an infinite God, within the modern understanding of infinity, becomes alien, abstract. But our discussion of infinity, and the analysis of it by modern mathematicians, included another aspect, that of the infinite converging, occasionally, but critically, to the finite.

We thus have within the expanse of the infinite, piece parts, infrequent, but still present, which converge to the finite. We thus possess a concept, an image, a view, with which to envision maybe not God in totality, but a piece of God to be our personal God. That vision parallels, mimics, the convergence of our infinite series to the finite. Within our God, we can envision, within the ineffable infinities, a personal part for each us that emerges from the convergences to the finite.

We should not overreach here. The convergence of a subset of infinite series does not allow a conclusion that infinity as a whole converges. Or that this convergence of some infinite series invalidates the infinite hierarchy of increasing infinities. No.

But rather than overreach we should admit. We should admit, recognize, that within this discussion, within this consideration of God as a touchable verses unfathomably untouchable infinity, we speak not of God. Rather we speak of images, analogies, comparison of fallible human concepts, to God.

And therein lies the likely most important message. We must acknowledge we possess, we talk in turns of, images of God. We do not know the actual God. God spans time timelessly. Mankind lives captured within time. God dwells outside space. Mankind exists bounded by space. God creates. Humans just discover what God creates. Those considerations force us to a realization the humans lack experiences that would give them knowledge of the actual God.

So while modern concepts of infinity call into question some familiar images of God, the modern concepts of infinity at a deep level aid a faith. The modern concepts of infinity, while jarring and obtuse, keep us, in that jarring, from falling into a contentment that we have reached God. The jarring shakes us from any lethargy that our human, fallible images of God mean we have finished our journey towards God.

Infinity never ends. Our travel, or maybe more aptly our wandering, towards a God never ends. The modern exposition of infinity, rather than threatening a faith, reminds us that faith involves not just belief, but a journey.

The Non-Believer

For the non-believer, the complexities of the infinite may buttress their already strong convictions on the irrationality of a belief in a Diety. For such a non-believer, science, philosophy, math, reason, those provide a sounder basis for truth.

However, the non-believer could not rest contented. They face their own quandaries with the infinite.

History provides a touch point, the ultraviolet catastrophe in the late 19th century. In classical physics, the principle of equipartition dictated that the theoretical object called a black box radiator should possess infinite energy. This pushed classic physics into a crisis. For another equally bed rock principle of physics, conservation of energy, stipulated the impossibility of an infinite energy source. Physics faced a catastrophic contradiction of an infinity.

Max Plank solved the riddle, by postulating energy did not distribute continuously, but rather in discrete steps. His quantum mechanics solved the riddle.

But quantum mechanics generated, and continues to generate, its own quandaries of the infinite. A feature of quantum mechanics, entanglement, predicts (and experiments verify) a type of infinitely fast linkage between paired particles. Two entangled particles, traveling in opposite directions, remain linked such that a measurement of one particle instantaneously dictates the state of the other particle. Infinitely fast linkage. We can write the math for the phenomena, but can not conceptualize the underlying reality. This infinity strains our common sense and equates to no available image.

Another example. Physicists struggle with the riddle of the collapse of the quantum wave function. To solve the riddle, some physicists theorize each quantum event generates a new universe, many, infinite, added universes.

Other infinities abound. Inflation theory predicts, in some versions, infinitely progressing series of Big Bangs. General relativity predicts an object of infinite density at the core of a black hole. Not to be left out, philosophy wrestles with infinite regress, and math with the implications of Geodel’s incompleteness theorem.

The non-believer can profess to not be troubled by these riddles; reason will solve them. But in stating such assurance, does not the non-believer profess a faith? To date, science, math, philosophy – the cornerstones of rationality – have produced new riddles essentially as fast as they have addressed old riddles. If God fails as a truth concept, could not rationality ultimately fail as a truth process. Can rationality escape a fate of continually creating new riddles, and encountering new infinities, never getting beyond nothing better than a pragmatic, interim description, never reaching truth?

Only on a faith can one say yes.

Infinity bedevils us, theist, atheist or agnostic.

Both enthusiasm and pessimism are contagious. How much of each do you spread?

Words Have Power:

Your words reflect what you believe about your future. Just to see how it feels, for the next twenty-four hours refrain from saying anything bad about anyone or anything. “The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug,” said Mark Twain.

The person who finds the negative seldom finds anything else. Live your life as an exclamation, not an explanation. Children are born optimists; then the world slowly tries to educate them out of their “delusion.” The fact is, the more you complain the less you’ll obtain.

Some people always find the bad in a situation. Do you know people like that? Think about it; how many successful complainers do you know? Many a great idea has been quenched by wrong words. Don’t spend your life standing at the complaint counter.

A wise old owl sat on an oak,

The more he saw the less he spoke;

The less he spoke the more he heard;

Why aren’t we like that wise old bird?

(Edward H. Richards)

– John Mason, from his latest book, Dare To Be. GREAT FOR GRADUATES! (to check out this book further, please go to http://www.freshword.com/Dare_to_Be)

Each day we turn the wheel of life and it’s samsaric mechanisms. Like cogs in an illusionary clock we blindly circle it’s karmic center as we move from one realm of life to the next. This is the fundamental teaching described within the Buddhist paradigm known as the ‘Wheel of Life’. Within it’s spokes is chronicled the twelve links of dependent origination. Each link a phenomenal state that defers only by it’s degree of unhappiness or dissatisfaction.

The ‘Wheel’ symbolizes the Buddhist perspective on a life lived in ignorance of ultimate truth. It is held fast by the clutches of ‘Yama’, a wrathful deity known as the ‘Lord of Death’. He is the manifestation of Samsara; the seemingly endless cycle of reincarnation. Outside of the Wheel stands the Buddha as guide pointing the way to liberation.

To understand the teaching it is best to begin the examination at it’s hub where the three roots of delusion reside. The first is hatred, symbolized by a snake, second ignorance personified by a rooster and the third greed represented as a pig. Around the central hub is a ring representing the karmic states of existence. The figures on the left are ascending to higher realms of existence, because of virtuous actions, as the figures on the right descend to lower realms, because of evil or ignorant deeds.

Moving outward the next ring is the largest and divided by six spokes. Within each segment the six realms of phenomenal experience are illustrated. The top half, from left to right, portrays the three higher realms of existence; humans, demigods and gods. The lower half depicts the three lower realms; animals, hungry ghosts and hell-beings. It maybe helpful to think of these realms as metaphorical examples of mental conditions.

Within each segment is pictured a different realm into which sentient beings take rebirth; divas, gods or demigods (a demigod is described as an anti-god or jealous god), humans, animals (sentient beings from whales to insects), hungry ghosts (depicted as having a tiny mouth with large stomach – never able to fulfill it’s hunger), hell beings (there are eight different hells possible and each a product of the mind). These segmented realms relate to six distinct mind conditions: Pride and jealousy fall within the realm of gods and demigods. Humans are afflicted with five disturbing emotions; naivety, arrogance, craving, jealousy and anger. The lower realms of animals, hungry ghost and hell beings are associated with ignorance, desire and anger.

Beyond this is the uppermost ring that describes pictorially the twelve stages of ‘dependent origination’. The first stage expresses fundamental ignorance of the true nature of sentient beings. It is depicted as a blind man with a cane. Moving clockwise around the wheel the workings of karma are next. It is embodied by the image of a potter molding a pot, (the shaping of destiny). Next the aimless wanderings of the mind is expressed by a monkey climbing a tree, swinging from branch to branch without thought.

Progressing further the concept of self-consciousness evokes self awareness, (name and form). This is portrayed by the image of people traveling in a boat on a river. The next stage is reflected in an image of an empty house with it’s doors and windows open. This symbolizes the developing sense organs; sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch and thought. These senses, in turn, allow us to establish contact with the world around us as portrayed by the image of lovers embracing. From contact arises categorize feelings; pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. This is illustrates as an arrow piercing an eye. Feelings give rise to desire or attachment which is depicted by a couple falling in love (sometimes illustrated as a man drinking alcohol). Attachment leads to grasping shown by a monkey (the mind) picking fruit. Phenomenal existence arises from grasping. This is pictured by a man and a woman making love. Existence spontaneously culminates in birth, the entrance into the samsaric realm, it is expressed by a woman in childbirth. Finally birth naturally leads to aging and death symbolized as an old man carrying a burden.

This is the only teaching Buddha wrote in his own hand. Drawing the diagram in sand he reinforced the essential precept that all phenomenon is merely temporary. At first glance the teaching paints a rather bleak picture. However within it’s structure are lessons which inspire awareness. It is this awaking that leads to the complete liberation from what appears to be the nearly eternal entrapment of mindless wandering. We are the dreamers lost within our own dreams and unaware that we are dreaming. To understand and recognize our individual roles and participation within this system empowers each of us to discover the innate freedom which lies dormant within us; our Bodhi self.

The man stopped and asked the Buddha,

“My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?”

– “No,” replied the Buddha.

“Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?”

Again the Buddha answered, – “No.”

“Are you a man?” – “No.”

“Well, my friend, then what are you?”

The Buddha replied, – ”I am awake.”