If we have the same values we can often, with some difficulty overcome opinion and beliefs regarding means to arrive at the ends implied by those values. With conflicting values something like a complex of unexamined beliefs is often in the way and the rift may seem unbridgeable.

Let me summarize in a series of stream of consciousness (sorry) paragraphs, albeit crudely and possibly inaccurately (again sorry- stuff is hard to express,) a context for values set forth by two professors at Columbia during the 70s. It’s a context that some hard-edged business and finance types have come to express a deep love for. It has a way of making one feel they’ve been wrong about absolutely everything and doing so in a way that produces immense joy. Naturally, after such a realization one’s approach to everything would be subject to change. I can’t even scratch the surface here, but would offer that once the world view changes the actual practice may be simple but far from easy.

Personally, it’s the most critical and optimistic thing I’ve ever read or encountered. Let me first throw out a hint of its hard edge. This is not the new age as it says that you are responsible for your own experience and this experience is determined by what you think about yourself consciously and unconsciously and that in turn is determined by how you see other people both consciously and unconsciously. Right up front people may cite Auschwitz etc., or sense a non-dual vacuous, solipsistic nightmare being proffered. I’d ask, if they’ve read this far, that they hold their breath for a second and remember I am humble vehicle for presenting this material.
The following three paragraphs might be thought of as prescriptive and descriptive and they are almost meaningless without what comes after which is a statement about what actually is and the way things are ultimately.

"“Words are symbols of symbols twice removed”"
The world is a mirror that reflects our beliefs, both conscious and unconscious, about our self- a dream We dissolve the mirror by consistently choosing to see through love’s eyes- to know rather than see. The mirror is a like a movie screen and it distracts us from considering the projector or solution. The mirror seems to be partly made of words or vibration- rippling separation or change across the illusion of time. The world as a projection is like a fractal made of the separation idea- think binary/polarity. We still have a notion of thought, a word, but it isn’t even the faintest glimmering or shadow of the reality of what thought is. In the mirror, the light we see in others is our own light reflected back but all light has one source which it never left. In each instance, the choice is always between fear and love. Distraction is separation, to look away or fall into an unreal sleep- never happened. The choice for fear/guilt takes us deeper into sleep (death,) choice of love awakens, reminds us there is no death/birth- we ascend. Choice for “peace” for total commitment to unconditional happiness no matter what, choice to stay open and not close or dream of impossible separation is the key choice. Peace is the final competence, aggression toward others is like “the war against the self.”

Not real:
Reversed causality (confusing screen for projector, mind is cause) non contradiction- necessity*,
quantity, thinking that cause/effect are separate- none of it real. Perception- it’s just projection, its noise as is the seeming understanding/consensus derived from it matter-energy-space-time- physical universe and its patterns or ‘laws’- just film in the projector- same repetitive distraction. Forgiveness “the one illusion that undoes other illusions” in forgiving other’s we forgive ourselves for the separation that never happened. Identity- personal self, its body, its stories, its world- not real. Ego: merely the thought of separation, what we take for the mind, separated mind- ego is a conceptually house-like hallucination, sometimes cloud like- ego is nothing to fear. Emotion is prior and the ego or emotional lock formats the film. Ego’s generates time to drive sense of emotional separation: guilty past, fearful present, punishing future- also generates space to complement time with an emotional physical sense of separation. Ego generates unconscious guilt to drive denial, what is denied is projected- gives film seeming momentum. The ego is the voice in the head, don’t listen to it or take it seriously, don’t identify with it. Let go of the situations it generates and the sensations it generates as soon as they arise, don’t bite down on them. Separation, we fear separation in space/time creates jealousy etc., but we will never be separate from what we love. Anger- never angry for the reason we think- it’s a remnant from the original false sense of separation from source or wholeness. Free will vs. determinism, it’s a false dichotomy. Different life times are like different dreams i.e., remembering the contents of one dream in another dream is just glimpsing the repetitive theme/nature of dreaming. There is a limit to the seeming time/pain spent in dreaming overall, and practice of forgiveness shortens the seeming time spent dreaming and therefore the sense/experience of the magnitude of pain in dreaming overall. There is a limit to our power to distract ourselves. Subconscious guilt keeps us in the dream, forgiveness dissolves this weight that keeps us submerged. Ego is a mechanism to preserve the guilt preserve the dream, preserve projection, denial and distraction- keeps reeling us in, maintains a sense of interest in the dream- addiction to it.

Nothing to forgive
What is real cannot* be threatened or diminished in any way i.e., truism “only the truth is true.” Why all this? Words don’t suffice- rough answer: wanted to experience something beyond totality i.e., limitation. The experience was over before it started, as was space-time/causality- they had/have no reality. A single thought, a joke, expressed with our undistracted mind (unfragmented unclouded mind) generated the seeming experience- seeming universe- all of it, seeming forgetting etc. Natural state is awakened- we never actually went to sleep we just think we did- still awake- sleep or separation doesn’t have reality.* More accuracy in paradox (words) then the necessity* claims they lend themselves to. Necessity is fear based or political- assertion/reinforcement of limit. Love dissolves paradox, by analogy it’s the space expansive enough to hold all the asserted seeming opposites without contradiction and dissolve them i.e., all the clinging statements like: there is no universe, there is a universe, there is source, there is no source; superposing and neutralizing polarity/separation. “Source is,” no point in judgment. Waking is, it can’t be extinguished. By analogy it’s already happened, it never left us- already free. Reality is the will of the origin and there is no separation or difference between that will and its extensions/thoughts (us) or our will i.e., only love is real. We are already perfect and complete, nothing can be added or taken away. We were the dreamer, never a figure in the dream. The dream is over. Although we have never been apart and will never be apart and are as one, in a sense we leave together, what never happened and has no reality. Its our own will we resist- from inside a dream we resist our intent outside the dream, from inside the dream of an individual life we resist our intent from the place in between lives, and from the place in between lives we resist our will from the place we never left where our will and the divine will are one and never ceased to be one. We have to surrender and end the war against the self- self isn’t real.

What is:
"only love is real"
what is real cannot be threatened
what is not real does not exist
all there is, is love
that is what we are
love is all we can know
we already know it
we can’t not know it

we looked away for a seeming second but are already looking back

I’d say the method is to forgive (let go, even ahead of time) of everything in all times and places to the point that it’s reflexive and instant. Possibly in a follow up post in the thread I will post an excerpt from their main book. I refrain at this point because they initially expressed work in form that borrowed reformulated versions of terms from Western religion and a lot of us have an extreme aversion to religion and among those who do the aversion is generally even stronger with Western religion and associated terminology.


Warren I really have no idea what you are saying. Can you give the name of this book you are referring to, so we can cut to the chase. Thanks


I was going to post something from the preface to the book. A segment titled “What it Says” which in the authors own words summarizes the perspective. But on second thought I’d just point to D. Patrick Miller and possibly Jon Mundy as introductory authors. One of the people whom the world will consider a principal author was female, Freudian, atheist, from a Jewish family. The other was responsible for psychologically screening scientists for the Manhattan Project and for elements of the projects security and also co authored the system the CIA still uses to personality profile people and world leaders. As above both were professors of medical psychology at Columbia. Both have passed away.

I’ve noticed that it doesn’t seem possible to introduce the book to people before they are ready and that probably went double for me. And per the book at some point people must toss the book- its just a tool and its just a beginning not an ending. Above (with my inaccuracies) its only meant to express a different value set.