Life must contain certain truths, and we all want to know what those truths are, right? I mean, we cannot just have whatever we want, can we? The world may be a bit magical, but it is not totally magical in the childish sense. We know this, right? We know that we may be able to fly in dreams, but it is a bit more of a challenge in the waking world. We also know that there are certain truths that science has employed so as to further empower us, so as to further expand our influence all over the face of the Earth. We know this. So, there are certain truths, then. There are certain causes that will precede certain effects inextricably related to their cause; just as there are certain effects that if we want to come about must be initiated by certain causes. In this way, Truth takes on the shape or form of those "exemplary injunctions" we discussed earlier. "If you want this to happen then you must do this first." Or, "If you want to know what this is like, or how to know this, then do that first." Truth: causes and effects.

We could even turn the above and final statement, that "Truth: causes and effects" into a general notion about what the Truth actually is. The Truth is what causes and what effects. The Truth is cause preceding effect; is effect following cause. In this way, the Truth would be any causative influence, factor or force; as well as being the resultant effect of the causative agent, factor, or force. This constitutes a very broad and generalized notion of what the Truth is. For instance, we often want to know the "Truth" of our situation, and can quite likely get caught up into all sorts of astounding metaphysical suppositions and presumptions about "what exactly the Truth of our situation is." In following the more general notion, that "Truth causes and effects", we counter that prevalent narrowness of what Truth is; how Truth is not an absolute detached from Being-Becoming-Embodied, but is the FORCE of Being-Becoming-Embodied. The Truth causes and effects. If something caused this it was the Truth. If something is an effect of a prior cause then it is the Truth. The Truth causes and effects. We are surrounded and embedded in the Truth; the Truth that causes and effects ItSelf.

With this realization there is no longer any need to posit a Transcendent Other of a disembodied and non-actual Truth. There is no need for mystic jargon that supposes a Transcendent Truth apart from the primacy of causes and effects that we are engaged with monemt to moment. If we want our fairy tales fine; it is just that we will never be able to constitute any stable foundation for relational exchange. You will have your solipsistic fairy world and I will have mine... and never the twain shall meet.

On the other hand, by realizing that the "Truth causes and effects", we then have ready access to the Truth. The Truth is not just Transcendent Other, but is for us primarily Immanent Suchness. We can only posit and imagine the Truth of the Transcendent Other, of a God or Gods. But we can know first hand and directly the Truth of our Immanent Suchness; a Truth that causes and effects ItSelf. From this view we are all fundamentally and equally Real, all fundamentally and equally True. We are causative agents: True. We are the effects of prior causes: True. We are causes and effects: Truth. Because the Truth causes and effects ItSelf.

The Sun is Truth. The River is Truth. The Stars are Truth. The daughter is Truth. The son is Truth. The mother is True. The father is True. The Truth: causes and effects.

If the Truth causes and effects then the Truth is a lot more influential and far, far vaster than we have previously imagined it to be. And it also would mean that the Truth is not liable to being narrowed down into a specific framework or doctrinal teaching. In other words, the Truth is Reality, and Reality can not be simulated in whole in any language that we currently know of. The Truth is that vast, that large, that all-encompassing.

Our conceptions of the Truth have been such that we have been led to believe that the Truth is certain things and no others; or, that the Truth is expressed and embodied by certain people and not by other people. It has even gone so far as to get to the point where the Truth is not here on Earth at all, but is in some Archetypal forever-ever land of Pure Forms and Laws that are forever the Truth, alone and inviolate.

If the only means to Truth is instrumental logic, technical rationality, then we certainly know who are the new priestly castes of our csociety, don't we? Certainly it would be those who use the languages and the means of instrumental logic and technical rationality. It is and was much the same when the clerics are considered the only means to the Truth of our times. We then have for ourselves a theocratic rule of law, with the clerics handing it down as they interpret it to the masses. In many ways this is exactly the same thing that is occurring now in relation to science and technology. For they have a certain "way" of perceiving, and only a certain "view" is realized from that "way" of perceiving. This view is then relayed to the people as the New Truth, as the Latest Revelation. It is sold and fostered like it is the only Truth. A lot of hype follows the partiality of a certain view.

At this point it seems that it pays to bear in mind that the so-called "Truth" is merely part of the equation, a part that is too often taken as signifying the whole. For once we have this new Truth then we can do whatever we want with it, right? It is the Truth so there must be no ill-consequences from using it, from implementing it, from putting it to use, from expanding upon it as a base? Certainly when we have the Truth it means we have earned it, and that, also, this means that we have discovered something that is Transcendent of being ill-applied. IN other words, it means that being the Truth it cannot harm anyone, or anything; "For the Truth shall set us free."

The Truth is causes and effects. Just because we understand a limited realm of causes and effects does not mean that we understand the more expansive relations that certain causes have in the long-term. This has been proven by much of what we have seen given birth to through "New Truths" in the realm of technology and science, medicine and pharmaceuticals. The "New Truths" have consequinces outside the boundaries of the isolated environment where these "New Truths", these new "Causes and Effects", have been realized. In other words, the laboratory is an isolated environment, and when the "New Truths" have been applied in the past, outside the confines of sterile isolation the consequences have often been horrednous. Most of us have witnessed first-hand such ill-consequences, as well as having been directly effected by these unleashed "New Truths". Pesticide residues. Dioxin. Agent Orange. Lead in our paint and water. Mercury in our streams; the runoff from various mining operations. The Truth is not always benign. The atomic bomb is/was the Truth. The H-Bomb likewise. Nerve gas and biowarfare is the Truth. The gene pool revolution is the Truth. The Truth is causes and effects, "exemplary injunctions". "If you want to do this then you must first do this, then that, than this again and finally.... Stand back! For the effects are astronomical!

The Truth is that which causes and that which effects. The Truth is that relationship: the caused effect and the effected cause, the Truth.

 

79

A work of Art, by nature, is open to interpretation. In turn, becoming many things to many people. Now, what if Life is revisioned as Art? For instance, Hinduism voices an expression that is translated into English as "Thou Art That". Thou Art That Artistry of Life. Thou Are Art, That --- the Artistry of Life manifest, alive, awakened to reflect and re-present. Thou Art That. In other words, there is only Thou, Art, and That in any one instant. You and the Artistry of That which You are perceiving artistically. That and the Artistry of You. You and the Artistic Revelations of That. Thou Art That.

Certainly, just like throngs gathered around a piece of Art, we do not all see Life exactly the same way. For the very same reason that we do not all see a piece of Art in the same way. Differences in perceiving abound. We each interpret Life as if Life were a work of Art, which Life Is in many ways. Yet we tend to-at least we have in the past --- taken specific interpretations of Life as the Absolute Truth, the sole Master-Interpretation that renders all others obsolete. Yet, these so-called "Absolute Truths" may only be absolutes in relation to our fellow believers, and us. Or: In relation to an interpretation that we appear to share with others, based upon the formative and very influential filters of interpretive perceptivity that we all are, we establish ideological "absolutes". Other people and other groups have entirely different interpretations of Life, which may or may not resolve into a specific set or grouping of their "absolutes".

When we understand more about "how" we interpret Life as Art, which we all do, then we may relax our literalizations and begin a global dialogue --- not based on power and partial truths but on true communal exchange and relational exchange of interpretations in an open manner, which honor the cultural and communal regional distinctions of perceptivity and the interpretive coding resultant therein. For we now know that there are perceptual differences that "must" be taken into account when we are attempting to authenticate discourse. We cannot just omit perceptual variances and still seek to arrive at some all-encompassing, and all-inclusive Totality. As it is now, that Totality must take into account the perceptual and interpretive variances that simply and unequivocally "just are". The realization of "mutual penetration, as offered through Hwa Yen Buddhism, is just such an accounting. Where the non-negating, mutually penetrating partialities of limited views are realized as "differing" views of the Artistry of Life. There is no Absolute view in this sense. For there is no view as known by the Being-human that can account for every localized postioning in the "Buddha-matrix". Only the localized can speak forth on their own behalf; for no Global Absolute can replace the local determinancy of Being-actual. The cellular awareness and sentience is only known locally, from within that "view from a cell". The same for any and all of the Being-actuals (actual beings), the interpretive hazing of perception is only realized from within that local positioning --- and nowhere else. Reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering happens on the ground, in the system, from within what we are in the process of understanding. Awareness, its fullest, bonded, non-dual sense, is "in" it, not "of" it. We are most intimately aware while being aware "in" it; "in" that which we are aware. Awareness "of" it is awareness apart from. We are aware "of" it: the emotion, the system, the body. Awareness "of" is being apart from, the effect of that which we are aware "of". For instance, when I say that "I am aware of my feelings", then I am perceiving myself as apart from the feelings that I am aware "of". "I", "awareness", and "feelings": distinct and separate. On the other hand, when I say that "I am aware in these feelings", then "I", "awareness", and "feelings" are seamless and joined. There is no "of"; meaning, there is no causal relationship between feelings and the awareness that springs from those feelings. I am not aware "of", "I am aware "in". There is a big difference between being aware "of" and being aware "in". The first is the Transcendent Way; to be aware "of" it all beyond it all, transcending it all. This way can also be a pathological way too. It can result in dissociation. We become aware "of" it all, and never join with ourSelf, which is "in" it all. Awareness is "in". And we can choose to be aware "of". Ultimately, choice and predilection may decide and determine how much we are aware "in" it, and how much and how often we are aware "of" it.

Let's say, for instance, that I am having a feeling, or experienceing a feeling of discontentedness. Now, am I aware "of" this feeling, or am I aware "in" it? If I am aware "in" this feeling of discontent, then I am liable to get a first-hand account of the feeling itself, and what or what may not be the Truth of this feeling, i.e., its causes and effects. On the other hand, if I am just aware "of" it, then I am not really engaging the feeling in a first-hand manner. I am aloof. I am aware "of" it, but I am not awareness "in" it. In being aware "of" it, I am just like the objectivists in their gaze outside the system, not tied to the system, aloof from the system, able to manipulate and control the system from the outside, like puppets on strings. Now, if we take and put awareness "in" the feeling of discontent, then our intelligence gathering is "in" the system. We have an informant that can tell us about what is actually going on inside. We are not just aware "of" it, as if looking at a buildings surface, aware that a building actually exists. No, rather we are inside the actual building, awareness "in" it; thus, we are better able to see the Truth of the feeling, the building of discontentedness. Again there is a big difference here:

Awareness "of " it = Awareness that is the implied effect of "it".

Awareness "in" it = Awareness that is in an implied unity with "it".
  
One of the crucial questions of our times, now and in the future, will be if we are aware "of" it or are aware "in" it. Will we continue to be the awareness that is the transcendent "of", or will we become more of the awareness that is the immanent "in"? The distinction rests with results in relation to issues of manipulation and control, power and dissociation, internal and external, controlling from the top down or living from the inside out. The distinction may be the most crucial that humanity will face. And I say this simply because we have never really accepted awareness "in" conditions, but have always sought more awareness "of" conditions so that we can and could control things from our more aloof, detached, and imagined transcendent positioning. Again, we have never really accepted awareness "in". If we can just get beyond it, then we can better understand it has been our long-held view. From the majority of philosophy to metaphysics --- to science, psychology, and religion --- we have believed that Truth is known by having more awareness "of" what we are putting under our gaze. We get apart from it, and then we can be aware "of" it; with the result being that we can better control it and manage it. Or, the imagined and hoped for result being that we can better control and manage it.

My sincerest realization is that we need to get "in" now more than ever. No more "of". No more dissociative flights of transcendent aloofness. Besides, first and foremost, we are not the awareness "of". We are awareness "in". We are aware "in" the Body. We are aware "in" our environment. We are aware "in" our world. We are Awareness "in" the Kosmos.

I only say that we need to get "in" now more than ever because it is only by being "in" that we can really and actually feel and sense what is going on "in" the environment, "in" our families, "in" our workplace, "in" the economy, "in" this, our life. For the colonial attitude is that if I can get you "out" of your body, as spirit, then I can regulate and manage you from outside in. But when we are actually and acutely "in" the Body to begin with then no man can rule us, no woman can manipulate us from an external "of-ness". We become in-violate. When we are actually aware "in" the conditions and the circumstances of our times, of our current epoch, then we are all the more sovereign for it; for we are in-habiting the temple, and we will not allow it to be denigrated.

We can actually become aware in the fullest possible sense by being aware "in" the actual present moment. Instead, if we are aware "of" the actual present moment, then we are just another detached observer; just more awareness that has never fully arrived; never really known what it is like to be really "in" it. For we cannot really relate fully while being aware "of". Only by being aware "in" can we really relate to what it is like on the inside; where the flavours of Life actually are tasted.

 

80

The languages, or languages, that we use and rely on the most, are also the greatest filters, organizers, and interpreters of "the world as raw data". What Norretranders points out in The User Illusion is that language serves as an unconscious interpreter of all the "raw data" that we receive from the world. For instance, it stands to reason that a geometrician will "see" more abstract geometrical forms in relation to space, than will a non-geometrically inclined person. The geometrist has trained their interpretive, perceptual, cognitive filter to note and convey the "perceived" presence of actual geometrical similarities in those forms that are occupying space. This leads us to the conclusion that:

The language that we rely on the most, is also the greatest unconscious interpreter of the world as 'raw data'.

Language serves more than one function. Language is not just the means which allows us to communicate across the boundaries of the Body, a point that we discussed earlier. Language is also that function which operates below the surface of our conscious awareness, filtering all of the "raw data" that we are imparted with from the world. This languaged filtration is perceptual and cognitive; a subconscious formulation of an interpretive simulation based on the closest approximation that we have access to cognitively speaking. The result is an interpretation that we can then take as being wholly real --- and objectively so! Yet this may not necessarily be the case at all (as it may have never been). In other words, our interpretation may just be "an" interpretation, and not The Interpretation That Alone Is True.

In Hwa Yen Buddhism, as we have already presented, the notion of mutual penetration allows for these many possible interpretations without negation. In other words, the actuality of "mutual penetration" is such that many interpretations of one singular condition, circumstance, or event can simultaneously exist and arise. For instance, a really imaginative interpretation of Life by a schizophrenic or a young child does not negate other interpretations; just as other interpretations do not negate the more imaginative ones. They can equally co-exist and mutually penetrate each other without necessarily having to negate each other. The point at which negation of interpretation comes about is when one or more of us wants everybody else to "see things our way", to take their interpretation as our own. When there are cultural and social groupings with big visions or ideological plans, then there is suddenly a vested interest in getting the masses, the populous, to believe in one interpretation over others. It builds communal consensus; and also threatens with a totalitarian fascism.

If we were all adrift on the Sea, on an island of isolation, then we could, perhaps, have our own interpretations and not be so swayed by others, not risk the threat of being propagandicized into a "room with a view". We could all just have our own interpretations and not be threatened with the views of others. However, the fact of the matter, along with the reality of our circumstances, is such that we are socio-cultural beings in and of community. Actually and acutely born of relationship. We are affected and inflicted with the views of others. Someone else's interpretation does become like a "viral meme" to us, infecting our awareness, altering our consciousness, adjusting our view, filtering-distorting our perception and judgment. We are not adrift and cannot have isolated interpretations. The many views do "mutually penetrate". With the self-aware Bodies being the ones who do not so much as want to get rid of interpretations, as those who hold the interpretations. We try and kill the message by killing the messengers. We try and kill the interpretations by killing the interpreters. From the gulags of Stalinist led Russia to the electric chairs of the Texas prison system. The interpretations of Reality that we as a peoples do not like, do not believe in, do not deem worthy as being a part of a just and fair society, are exterminated by negating the Life of those who speak and act on such interpretations. We drug out and dumb down the interpretations that threaten our primary views of Reality. We lock away those who threaten us with our own interpretive dirty laundry. We do not want to hear those threats to our interpretations. We do not want to see the actions that stem from such 'crazy' interpretations. Our primary interpretations, as socio-cultural forces, must be very fragile indeed. Or, more simply: the interpretations that we hold to must be very flimsy indeed if we have felt so threatened by the interpretations of others for so long. For there is a long history of killing the translator due to the translation. Don't like the translation offered? Negate the translator. Problem. Solution.

We can see how this oppression of interpretation was displayed on a vast, continent wide scale via the decimation and dispersal of the North American Indigenous Peoples. For their interpretations of the world were not the same as the second-hand Europeans who came armed with a more materially powerful interpretation of Reality. There was a mighty clash: A war for the definition of Reality. The current tally has it that the second-hand European descendants are on top in that war. The more materially powerful interpretation of Reality is winning out, and has been for some time. By being an interpretation that is oriented towards material power and influence, the second-hand European descendants are a formidable foe. An interpretation that is not so oriented towards material power cannot withstand the brute force of the crushing blows delivered by those interpreters and their interpretations. We know the song sung here; the plaintive and anguished melody sung over distant hill and across wind-swept prairie. As a way of life is crushed by the brute force of a more materially powerful interpretation of the way life should be lived.

In a socio-cultural sense, and on the scale as vast as the North American Continent, we cannot have persistently competing interpretations and have a stable and strong Union of States (civil wars being a prime example). There needs to be common vision, an American Dream, if you will --- even if it is delivered from on high, regulated, mandated (as it is now). When interpretations are as vastly distinct as those held by the majority of Tribal Peoples that pre-existed the second-hand European influx of descendants, there is very little room for compromise. Communal hunting grounds and private property clash. Ownership and stewardship collide. For the interpretations are like ideological heavyweights that do battle in the ring. A way of life and living rests in the balance, in the outcome. A way of orienting one's self in relation to the world as community is to be determined by the ideological victor. The outcome will determine "how" the majority of people in that nation or state, in that country or on that continent, will lead their lives.

Ideological struggles can determine the fate of nations and states, peoples and cultures for many, many generations.

It can certainly be the case that various interpretations of Reality are founded upon certain "exemplary injunctions". "If you want to know how to do this, then do this", becomes a way to formulate interpretations of Reality, as well as to educate others into that interpretive gaze. Specifically speaking, now, when ideologies clash, when interpretive gazes are confronting one another there has usually and most often been resistance to compromise as such. Why? Because in a cultural sense, the culture is the interpretation that they teach the world. In other words, the culture ceases to exist when the interpretation is no more. The culture, the peoples, is a specific set of orienting principles, which both reveal and disclose a "Way of Life" that is in accordance with those orienting principles. When those principles are no more, then the peoples cannot be considered to be the same peoples. For that "Way of Life" has changed, so too the peoples.

In this sense, it is quite possible for us to have, or be, the biological descendants of a peoples, but to no longer really have the "Way of Life" that was actually the truest demonstration and discolure of what those peoples was or were about. In other words, the specific culture cannot be said to exist anymore if its "Way of Life" is not being being lived in an actual sense. For it is the "Way of Life" that reveals a peoples. And it is the predominant "Way of Life" at present that reveals the current ideological victor.

"It's the Economy stupid." "Show me the money!" Hence, Market principles and access rule. And this is where William Greider points out that both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund "have gravitated to a... purpose: advancing the revolution, fostering conditions necessary for the 'one world' market envisioned by finance capital... The two agencies behave like righteous gatekeepers, instructing and scolding aspirants on the principles of neoclassical economics. If a nation learns well, it may become eligible for loans and projects. If it refuses to conform, it will continue to dwell in the outer circles of backward poverty."

The ideological heavyweight of our times, with the material force to back up its dogma. Like the Medieval Catholic Church, handing down its "exemplary injunctions" as if they were the palliative meant to alleviate all worldly ills. "Do what we say is in your best interest as a nation and you will be eligible for high-interest loans, thereby exacerbating your indebtedness to the finance capitalists of the world." A form socio-economic blackmail. Nations held hostage to the better interests of the leading finance capitalists. As if everyone wants to live in a world oriented according to the interpretations of Eurocentric capitalist pigs.

Market rules are your rules if you want to play the game. If you want a chance at the big prize, then you will take our advice. Then you will be eligible for loans. Which is Debt. Debt. Debt. Debt. Debt. The postmodern form of indentured servitude.

"If you are good boys and girls we will let you borrow money from us."

Gee, isn't that special. What a gift!

 

81

There is a certain kind of allurement in relation to objectivity. And it may be just that --- an allurement --- never an actuality --- not in whole anyway. We can surely notice now how certain interpretations are bought and sold with the labels of "strict objectivity" attached. It is as if the Marketing genies have hitched their wagons to the ideological fortresses and told them a thing or two about how to sell ideology as a commodity in the Market. Certain key pharses are used in relation to specific interpretations that others would like us to believe in, to buy into, to invest in, to contribute to. There is an allurement created around certain Myths and Ideologies. It is as if we are "of" the chosen few if we choose to believe. We become special. We become something. Someone who is contributing to the Great Cause. But it is most likely someone else's Great Cause. And it is most likely that we don't really know all of the details behind the great marketing push to sell the "new ideology" of the Global Market. In fact, it almost certain that we do not know all of the details behind the push to sell an interpretation of "how" we should live and "how" the world should be constructed as a Global Marketplace; where finance capital roams free of national and communal interests, holding only to the interests of capital itself; where high returns on investments equate to pilfering debtor nations and peoples over centuries and centuries.

But how do such interpretations gain such a foothold in our lives? Meaning, if it is just another interpretation then how come certain interpretations come to gain such a stronghold... as if they were destined to be in such a position? Well, as it stands now, and as it has been in the past, the ability to disseminate information usually rests in the hands of those who have the ability to control the flows of information and what information is and is not released to the general public. For instance, there were more literate persons affiliated wit the Catholic Church during its reign as European ideological heavyweight. The ideology was able to grow because of the literacy of the monks and the clerics who disseminated the Church's ideology to the non-literate masses. Only other literate persons, who came to be the Giordano Brunos and the Galileos, could really confront the Church's ideological practices on its terms. These persons, among many, came armed with new interpretations and the apparent proof to back them up. They had an interpretation that countered the Churchs, and had evidence as well.

"If you want to know for yourself, then look. See. Here."

Thus the once impregnable fortress of ideology had to reconvene. The ideological doctrines were newly put into question. Doubts were raised. The Church, over time had to answer and account for these discrepancies. And what I am saying here is that the same sort of scenario is potentially going to play itself out in relation to the new ideological heavyweight of our postmodern era: The Market and Globalized Capital Flows.

That is what occurs on the macro-scale of societies and nations, peoples and communities. The information is controlled, regulated --- the proper ideological interpretation is nurtured and sown far and wide; while the conflicting points and practices are negated and/or repressed. On the micro-scale of the individual subject there is a self-similar process that occurs; meaning, there is a similar filtering of the flows of information. We allow ourselves as subjects to receive and be aware of what we are often habituated to. In other words, as the old saying goes, "We hear what we want to hear; see what we want to see". The regulatory agencies and bureaucratic office spaces live within us as well, i.e., the socio-cultural superego.

It appears to us that the subject remains, only to witness, conclusively, the objectified realm. A prevalent supposition has been that strict objectivity could be achieved by subjects in relation to themselves and to their world. We could see and perceive in a wholly objective manner. It has been a supposition of science, predominantly; of psychoanalysis and various psychological schools of thought; and of religion and contemplative practices as well. Each sphere above has shared in the supposition that "strict objectivity" could be achieved in relation to the "subject" (self) and their world.

However, this has all changed of late. Various postmodern philosophies have recently put into question this long held supposition. Along with neuroscience and cognitive studies, these postmodern practices are raising some very disconcerting themes for our long-held "master narratives" to deal with. Just like the Catholic Church was forced to deal with the Brunos and Galileos of its time, so, too, are the prevalent "master narratives" of church, state, and science being forced to reckon with new "postmodern" interpretations backed up with evidentiary data. In other words, through neuroscience and cognitive studies, the idea of there being any possibility of "strict objectivity" in the classical sense, is thoroughly put into question. Great doubts in relation to the "objectivist gaze" of science, psychoanalysis and metaphysics are now rampant; must be dealt with; demand an accounting from the "master narrators" of church, state, and science.