I’ve never met a person who said, “Today I will conduct
myself in a negative and self-centered way.” On the contrary, the odds are
extremely high that each of us conducts our lives according to certain
ideological criteria, whether implicit or explicit. Everyone thinks they are
right and others who don’t share their perspectives are thus wrong. The
polarity of ideologies has never been more extreme than now and is ensuring our
mutual undoing.
To plumb the depths of this, we need to consider the words of Krishnamurti. Do you align yourself with a particular political party? Nowadays it is hard not to. Or in a different vein, do you think of yourself as a man or a woman? Or how about belonging to one religion or another? Lots of variations on the theme of differences but Krishnamurti has a point worth our consideration:
When we identify ourselves in contrast to others we unknowingly adopt an attitude of unintended opposition and violence. And nobody takes favorably to opposition and will then meet opposition with opposition.
Some time ago I had a friend who had grown up in the Soviet
Union and was thus subjected to unspeakable oppression. He detested every idea
that might align with socialism and defended his positions with conviction and
passion. Many times we engaged in friendly discussions and we both came to the
same conclusion: If each of us had grown up with the experiences and influences
of the other, we both would have very different points of view.
In that case he
would understand my perspective and I would understand his. Neither of us came
into this world with any point of view and when we die our points of view will
die with us, but in between birth and death we remain adamant in our
convictions. Our views were entirely the result of what we had experienced, not who we were.
Is there any way of circumventing this dilemma, of bypassing
such fleeting bias? In our ordinary way of thinking it doesn’t seem possible,
but one of the greatest thinkers in human history had a solution, which is not
routinely understood, due to translation problems. According to Jesus, two
things are required to solve this problem: dying to ourselves and then practicing unconditional love
(the kind without discrimination).
The first supporting scriptural reference comes from the book of
Matthew: “He who finds his life shall lose it: and he who loses his life for my
sake shall find it.” That passage
(as many other translations) doesn’t express well in English. The English word
here for life, in the original Greek,
was psuchē, which has various
meanings, the most prominent of which is soul,
later to be translated as a psychic image of self, in other words, the ego—our idea of who we are separate and
apart from others.
The second reference comes from the book of John: “Greater
love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Again, there is that word life/psuchē. This
is perhaps the most butchered and misconstrued expression in the entire New
Testament. The literal meaning, contrary to popular belief, is surrendering your psyche (ideas) for your
friends constitutes the greatest love.
The question is simply this: what is the prerequisite to
surrendering our ideas in order to express the greatest love? The answer is
obvious: Letting go of our ideas about who we think we are. It’s a two-step process:
once we become clear that we are not an idea (ego) that is hostile to others we can then release ourselves
from the death-knoll of polarized thinking. Only then is it possible to have an open mind and be released from the prison of inflexible dogmas.
In such a case we can conduct
ourselves as the Buddha said at the conclusion of the Kalama Sutra: “… after
thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and
experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the
world at large, accept only that as true and shape your life in accordance
with it. Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is
tried by fire.”
In the end, spiritual insight has a most positive, practical and
profound impact on personal and world affairs.
Matthew
10:39
John
15:13
“You say either and I say ither. You say neither and I say nither. Either, ither, Neither, nither. Let’s call the whole thing off.
You like potato and I like potahto. You like tomato and I like tomato. Potato, potahto. Tomato, tomahto. Let's call the whole thing off
But oh, if we call the whole thing off, then we must part. And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart.”
Louis “Satchmo” Armstrong started that song roughly 60 years ago with lyrics of “Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off.” There was no way anyone could have known 60 years ago that this song ought to be our current theme song. It would appear the way things are going that we are about to part and it will break our heart and why?
Over petty differences no more meaningful than “Potato, potahto. Tomato, tomahto.” What began with a chuckle has now turned into really serious turf wars, and the words have changed. Now it isn’t potahto vs. potato. Instead it’s greed vs. need, but fundamentally it’s still about differences.
That’s the challenge of being human: Having differences but always joined in common turf where there is no war. We can be, and are, both but that doesn’t mean we have to chow down on each other.
Ordinarily wolves like to eat lambs and leopards find goats rather tasty but a long time ago a prophet foresaw a day when, “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.” That guy was the prophet Isaiah and I sure hope his crystal ball was clear because right now it looks like dinner time is just around the corner.
 |
| Everywhere and Nowhere |
The Internet is an amazing technology linking the minds of anyone on earth who has the means to tap into this virtual world. It is always on, located nowhere, but is everywhere at once.
Most unexpectedly, our true nature is like the Internet—always-on, nowhere to be found but everywhere at once, connecting us to a virtual world. That analogy is easy to write, but chances are not readily understood. Who we are truly is an unconditional, indiscriminate, connected-to-everything, spiritual being (e.g., pure, non-applied consciousness). In truth, we have unified with one another already, but this unity can’t be detected or understood. Through this undetectable reality, we touch a world, which is, in fact, only accessible virtually. The bodies we inhabit are so constructed that we connect with this world consciously, mediated through our senses. What we sense as real are actually sensory projections occurring in our brains, and this projection is so excellent and convincing we are fooled into taking this projection as reality.
Here is how the Shurangama Sutra speaks about this conundrum: “...All things in all worlds are the wondrous, fundamental, enlightened, luminous mind that understands, and that this mind, pure, all-pervading, and perfect, contains the entire universe...it is everlasting and does not perish.”
Yet while this luminous mind understands it can’t be understood without falling into the trap of ignorance. As soon as we attempt to understand conceptually, it is unavoidable that this understanding is joined with the illusion of an independent self—the one we imagine is doing the understanding. Such “understood enlightenment” is not true enlightenment.
Fundamental ignorance is that state of unknowing which arises when we attempt to categorically encapsulate and divide what is essential, whole, and complete already. It is a primary motive, in our deluded state of mind of conditions to understand. and our means of attempting this understanding is to compare one thing against another.
We see another and ourselves, notice a physical difference, and conclude a separate individual. But what we conclude is a virtual projection; not reality. Reality can’t be divided, except conceptually, and this leads to the deluded notion of duality, which then expands with the notion that we are set apart from others and our world. If everything is the all-pervading and perfect luminous mind there can’t be a comparison. It would be like comparing one white to another white.
We move, we function, we live and die, but we will never fully understand how any of that happens conceptually. Enlightenment is an accepted, always-on experience that is realized when we stop trying and just rest in our true beingness.
“The Master arrives without leaving, sees the light without looking, achieves without doing a thing.”—Lao Tzu: TaoTe Ching
The quote above has special significance to anyone who has unveiled their true nature. And I use the term “unveil” instead of achieving with intent. Indeed our true nature, for all practical purposes, is buried deep within and must be uncovered. It never comes and never leaves.
Until that moment our sense of self is anything but permanent. It comes and it goes, riding the waves of good times and bad, dangling on a string of judgments. The importance of the principle is of such significance that it represents a pillar among various Buddhist sects in metaphorical terms of guests and hosts. If you Google “Zen, guest and host” you’ll end up with more than 780,000 hits all of which examine the matter from every conceivable direction.
The essence, however, is very simple even though the means of “achieving without doing” can boggle the mind with infinite permutations. In essence “The Master” is your very own mind; the one that sees without looking. The impediment to unveiling this master is a mind that is seen, not the mind that sees. The Buddha taught that our true mind can’t be seen, it can only be experienced through samādhi the awakening of our never-leaving body of truth. While difficult to explain, when awakening occurs there is no turning back. Only then we know what before was only a figment of our imaginations.
When we think of truth we imagine matters in rational terms; the product of our mind that is seen. While this distinction may appear esoteric it is central to genuine awakening—Hard to ascertain but incredibly powerful when experienced. The difference between the two was laid out by Nāgārjuna in his doctrine of two truths:
“The Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha’s profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth, the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.”
Nāgārjuna taught that “true things” exist fundamentally and can be perceived as such by the senses, while “false things” do not exist as they are perceived. The difference? Truth conceived conventionally keeps ultimate truth concealed. Things appear to our logical mind to contain an independent, self-nature, that is flawed by bias and preconceived ideas, but in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), Nāgārjuna provided a logical defense that all things are empty of such a nature but are instead interdependently related. Even emptiness itself has no inherent, independent self-nature.
Consequently, what we imagine is a fabrication. While the rational mind of relative truth is necessary to lead us to ultimate truth, so long as we do not let go and see clearly, we will forever be in bondage. It is the experience of awakening to our true nature (not the appearance) that sets us free to enjoy the fruits of the master that never leaves.
Perhaps today you will meet someone for the first time and introductions will occur. You’ll inquire about them and they about you. “Tell me something about yourself,” you’ll ask, and that is how we begin.
Who are you? Who are they? It is the natural way of understanding another as well as ourselves. And that matter is perhaps the most important question anyone will ever ask or answer. The reason? Because the manner in which we understand ourselves serves is the bridge to understanding another.
Whatever we believe about ourselves, is how we assume others understand themselves. If we think of ourselves as an isolated, mutually discreet individual, then others must be that way also. And on the other hand, if we understand ourselves as united with all, that must be how others understand themselves. Two of the most profound examples of such understanding comes from the Bible and the story of The Buddha’s life.
The first comes from Exodus during the encounter between Moses and God: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ He said further, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites,’ ‘I Am has sent me to you.’”
And the second is this: Following The Buddha’s enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, he passed a stranger on the road who was so struck by The Buddha’s countenance that he asked him, “Are you a god?” The Buddha replied, “No. I am not. What are you then?” the man asked. And the Buddha said, “I am awake.”
These answers may seem dissimilar but maybe that is because we are trying to hard to keep these spiritual disciples apart and distinct. However, putting that desire aside, perhaps the answers are the same. How so?
Our normal way of grasping these answers is by assuming the answers (e.g., “I am” and “I am awake” to be adjectives. Instead, consider the answers as pronouns: Not descriptions but rather statements of inexplicable nature. And just maybe, that is true for us all. We are awake (e.g., consciousness itself). We are who we are—inexplicably: the fundamental nature of awareness.
All of us eventually become creatures of habit and after the passage of time are lulled asleep into a state of blindness based on an assumption that what we think we know is true.
Mark Twain said it best: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Someone who never knows the truth believes they do nevertheless.
Faith, by design, is a precarious state of being that asks us to accept particular aspects of the inaccessible, the imperceptible, the ineffable, and the immeasurable without challenge. And being given over to easy persuasion by those we trust, as being more astute and capable than ourselves, we come to a state of confidence in their esteemed judgments, and at long last embrace and take to be our very own, the ideas expressed by “the experts.”
What breaks this chain of presumption? Ought it not be success or failure? The measure of life as what works or doesn’t for one and all? Unfortunately this is rarely the case. What we believe, is held in higher regard than such concrete measures and we shape our lives, not so much by the good of all than we do by what supports our fanciful wishes: The hope for things being different than they truly are.
Try, try again is the mantra. If at first we don’t succeed then try harder to shape what is not so into illusions of what we prefer. Be more perseverant, more tenacious, and resilient. And after such relentless assaults, even with the experience of not reaching the goal of the common good, we are remiss to let go and try a different path. Instead we hold fast to dogmas and reject the obvious, clinging forever to standards set by those in whom we have placed our trust. In psychological terms, this strange behavior is known as “confirmation bias,” a state of ignorance wherein we reject the truth and favor what confirms our preconceived beliefs. To do otherwise, we reason, will cause a loss of face and force us to admit error, neither of which our egos desire.
It is an exceedingly sad aspect of being human that leads us all into those habitual states of continuing ignorance, and it is not an aspect adopted only by the common man. Surrendering from our cherished ideas, valued though they are, seems risky work. Yet to reach the depths of our souls where the light of truth prevails, requires letting go of little to get all. Meister Eckhart, one of the greatest mystics of all time put the highest release like this:
“I will put into plain words what St. Paul means by wishing to depart from God. Man’s last and highest leave-taking is leaving god for God. St. Paul left god for God: he left everything he could give or take of God, every concept of God. In leaving these, he left god for God since God remained to him in his essential self, not as a concept of himself, or as an acquired thing, but God in his essential actuality.”
Even those who adopt open minds and are moving toward enlightenment fall prey to the trap, sometimes to the edge of death. The Buddha came to the final point of surrender before letting go of the greatest natural fear of all: The fear of death. When he reached the edge of the abyss, his choice was clear: Let go or die. Only then did he awaken to the essence of his True Self. Only then did he become genuinely Self Aware.
Only when any of us faces the grim reaper and accepts what seems like our ultimate demise will we be ready to cast off the chains of illusion and meet, at long last, our true nature and know that, as Eckhart said: “God expects but one thing of you, and that is that you should come out of yourself in so far as you are a created being made and let God be God in you.”
And on the way to this exalted place of pure awareness, where do we place our faith? In the orthodoxy? Holy Scriptures? The experts? What shall we consider the anchor that binds us firmly to eternal life?- “Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
- Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
- Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a great deal about it.
- Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
- Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other wonderful being.
- Do not believe anything merely because the presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
- Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
- But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.
The same text, said the Buddha, must be applied to his own teachings.- Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first, try it as gold is tried by fire.”⎯The Buddha: The Kalama Sutra
It is the fires by trial in life that burn away ignorance, but only when we are open to letting go of the unreal and ready for the real. And when once we meet our Self for the first time we are still left with a residue of the old, that lingers like unwanted dust and was previously considered to be gold, when all the while it was fools gold. Then we must learn a new way, no longer clinging to chains of the past but rather accepting wings of The Spirit, just as any baby learns to crawl before walking. And until our spiritual legs grow strong, we will wobble and fall again and again, until at last, we rest in the assurance that the core of our being is firm and immovable. Along the way to maturity we will be unaccustomed to the new way and think for a time as Lao Tzu:
“I alone seem listless and still, my desires having as yet given no indication of their presence. I am like an infant which has not yet smiled.”
Our ordinary system of justice involves a vast legal system ranging from people wishing to regulate civil life, congress passing laws to reflect those wishes, policing governed by such laws, trials to determine guilt or innocence, lawyers employed to prosecute and defend, jurors reaching a verdict, judges judging, incarceration, and remediation.
From beginning to end, that system can be (and often is) seriously flawed and enormously costly. Unjust laws can be passed, lawyers can be either silver-tongued orators who earn big bucks or incompetents who are overburdened and underpaid, judges can be bought, jails and prisons are vastly inadequate to the task of remediation, and in the final analysis, few of those convicted, sentenced and locked away are ever returned to society as reformed and productive citizens. In an ordinary way, justice is often unjust.
Karma, on the other hand, is cheap, flawless, always just, and operates independently of other created systems. But many people consider karma as some form of fatalism or judgment of the “gods.” Such people have been misinformed. Karma has nothing to do with such myths. It is instead simply cause and effect. The choices we make have both benefits and consequences. If I consistently make poor choices I consistently get poor results. Good choices=good results and this has nothing to do with “spirits” (either good or bad).
A simple example illustrates the point. However, before the example, I need to say something about this idea of justice, which is more times than not a legal issue. Karma is deeper than what is legal. Perhaps a better way of articulating karma is “appropriateness.” If I poke you in the nose, more than likely you’ll poke me back. That’s appropriate justice. If I come to your aid in times of need, more than likely you’ll think kindly of me in my time of need. That’s also appropriate justice.
If I am experiencing adversity today, more than likely I can look at my past and find the beginning seed that grew into adversity. That’s insight. If I want to experience better times tomorrow I can plant good seeds today. That’s wisdom. On the other hand, if I think I can enjoy a good tomorrow by planting bad seeds today, that’s ignorance. If I imagine that I can reach an enlightened state of mind while at the same time conducting my life in an unsavory manner that too is ignorant.
Adversity is appropriate justice in action. So too is the lack of adversity. In either case, we get what we have initiated, whether as individuals or as societies. If we are experiencing adversity—individually or socially—it is best to accept the natural outcome of karma and stop resisting it. Resistance is a futile activity that is motivated by a desire to escape justice and simply exacerbates suffering. We need to learn from our mistakes to create a better tomorrow.
Simple justice. It always works. That’s karma and it is the system that never stops. To listen to an excellent talk on karma click here.
 |
| Storms could be coming. |
Once a traveling salesman came upon an old man standing next to his house with a hole in the roof. The salesman asked the man, “why don’t you fix that hole?” The man replied, “Well it’s like this: when it’s raining, it’s too late and when it ain’t raining, there’s no need.”
There’s a parallel between this story and a misunderstanding of karma. The misunderstanding emanates from the notion of “being here now:” the idea that there is no real past (it’s gone) and there is no future (it hasn’t yet come). There is only an eternal now. This perspective, while true, at times produces an attitude of inaction and waiting for storms to come.
The rule of karma says that we create our own tomorrow by thoughts and actions taken today, and today is nothing more than the collective actions of us all we chose yesterday. This rule is too often ignored and we become like that old man: doing nothing to prepare for the rain to fall and then realizing that it’s too late.
There is no contradiction between being thoughtful and proactive and the rule of karma. In fact, that rule clearly observes that if we want a better tomorrow we must act in ways beneficial to all today. What is contradicted is the idea of being reactive. Unfortunately far too many have gotten this backward and we have become a people doing nothing, and then being forced to contend with the effect of storms coming through our roofs. The storms can only be prevented with some wisdom and timely action today for the betterment of all.
Some time ago, I wrote a post titled The destination. Far away?. And considered the thought that the ultimate place of peace may be far beyond where we presently stand. For sure, it appears that way. All we have to do is look around to see a growing wasteland of moral degeneration and hostile, polarized alienation.
The Dalai Lama wrote recently, “The paradox of our age is we have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences but less time; more degrees but less sense; more knowledge but less judgment; more experts but more problems; more medicines but less healthfulness; we’ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble walking across the street to meet new neighbors; we’ve built more computers to hold more information to produce more copies, but communicate less; we have become long on quantity and short of quality. These are times of fast food but slow digestion; tall men but short character; steep profits but shallow relationships. It’s a time with much in the window but nothing in the room.”
Step by step, we seem to be drifting further apart and losing our way. We live in a magnificent world with great abundance yet remain insatiable, with perpetual violence. The question is, why? Perhaps the answer is that we lust for a faraway Heaven or fear a Hell too close for comfort. It has been said that religion is for those who fear going to Hell, but spirituality is for those who have already been there.
For most of human history, people of the Western world have understood our ultimate destination as either a Heaven in the sky or a Hell in the bowels at the pit of the earth. Nobody in that long history has ever gone and returned with any convincing evidence to either, so the matter remains a concern of religious belief. However, at least two of the greatest and wisest men to ever exist—Jesus and The Buddha, maintained that Heaven and Hell were the eternal room within which we continuously exist. All of the necessary ingredients for making one or the other are forever in our midst. If this unorthodox yet profound, view is accurate, then it is beyond dispute that our greatest challenge is to make our collective lives into one or the other by what we think and do.
Just for the sake of consideration, imagine that Heaven or Hell is the result of what we think and do, and both are what we create within the eternal presence of our Mind. The Sūraṅgama Sūtra is a fantastic portrait of the already present, omnipresent Mind. And here is what the Buddha wrote about the conundrum of an imagination gone wrong: “...All things in all worlds are the wondrous, fundamental, enlightened, luminous mind that understands, and that this mind, pure, all-pervading, and perfect, contains the entire universe...it is everlasting and does not perish.”
In the commentary on the Diamond Sūtra, Huang-Po said, “Buddhas and beings share the same identical mind. It’s like space: it doesn’t contain anything and isn’t affected by anything. When the great wheel of the sun rises and light fills the whole world, space doesn’t become brighter. When the sun sets, and darkness fills the whole world, space doesn’t become darker. The states of light and darkness alternate and succeed one another, while the nature of space is vast and changeless. The mind of buddhas and beings is like this. Here, The Buddha says to save all beings in order to get rid of the delusion of liberation so that we can see our true nature.”
If you look at the top of my blog, you’ll read the essence of this thought: Birds and thoughts fly through the sky of mind. When they are gone, we’re left with the sky of wisdom and compassion. The cause of suffering is, quite simply, that we don’t realize that we are already at our destination and will never be anywhere else. We lust for what a never-arriving tomorrow might bring and dwell on a past that lives on only in our imagination. The path forward or backward takes us to exactly where we are, each and every moment. We will never be anywhere else. Everywhere we go, there we are within the universal mind, and it can never be otherwise. The “how-to” answer is not so hard. The hard part is accepting what is and realizing that if we want a Heaven, we need to make one, right where we stand by what we think and do. And the same holds true for Hell.
There are many prescriptions for a methodology of “how-to” (and I could redundantly add my own), but you could follow any and all and still come to the same place. When you awaken, you understand this simple truth: You are already home. All we need to do is open our eyes and accept the greatest gift of all—life, with everything needed to make either Heaven or Hell. If we don’t feel grateful for what we already have, what makes us think we’d be happier with more of the same?
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13-14
Everyone learns about the easy and the hard way. It is easy to follow in the footsteps of friends, associates, and even family members who take shortcuts and chart a course into lives of luxury that seem to assure minimal risk and maximum comfort. It is likewise hard to choose a path less traveled that is awash with adversity, rejection, and leads through that narrow gate to the fullness of life. While blinded by clouds of uncertainty it is common to rush back through the broad gate to familiar but thin relationships. Charting a path through the unknown is what trailblazers have always accepted; it goes with the territory.
That overview easy to say and difficult to sustain. Max Cleland wrote his now-famous Strong at the Broken Places: The story of extraordinary overcoming that emerged from his tragedy. Cleland served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War and attained the rank of Captain. He was awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for valorous action in combat, including during the Battle of Khe Sanh.
On April 8, 1968, with a month left in his tour, Cleland was ordered to set up a radio relay station on a nearby hill. A helicopter flew him and two soldiers to the treeless top of Hill 471, east of Khe Sanh. When the helicopter landed, Cleland jumped out, followed by the two soldiers. They ducked beneath the rotors and turned to watch the liftoff. Cleland reached down to pick up a grenade he believed had popped off his flak jacket. It exploded and the blast slammed him backward, shredding both legs and one arm. Due to the severity of his injuries, doctors amputated both of Cleland’s legs above the knee and his right forearm. He was 25 years old. That was 48 years ago and I, along with thousands of others who served, have lived with emotional scars that run deep resulting from terrors of war.
What we seem to not understand is that we don’t always choose the narrow path. Often times it is thrust upon us and we have little choice but to struggle to overcome or succumb to the crush of adversity. Dying quickly can be much more attractive than dying inch by inch until there is no more energy or desire left to live.
The latter may not seem desirable but in truth, the struggle to reach through and beyond the crush is what builds character, empathy, and compassion. No one can pretend to wear another’s clothing of horror and struggle to endure. Each of us must travel this lonely path, whether thrust upon us or not.
It is paradoxical that every parent wants to spare their children hardship and many succeed, yet this often turns out to be a shallow and fruitless accomplishment that leaves young people with a thin illusion of superiority and little compassion or understanding for the plights of the less fortunate.
How often it seems that people become empathetic only when adversity strikes one of their family members. Then the tables turn suddenly and the plight of others struck in similar fashion registers as a matter that affects them personally. What we have yet to learn is that every human being is someone’s child and they are our child as well. This may not seem evident but no one is an island. We are on earth to learn this vital lesson and more times than not, the path to knowledge runs along the razor’s edge.
