image description image description

LATEST DIALOGUES How Does an Awakened Person Perceive the World?

“The eye is made to wonder, just as the flower is made to bloom.”
~ Claude Nurdisany


How does the world appear to an enlightened person?

Obviously, that’s an important question for nondualists including Advaitins and Buddhists. ‘Waking up’ – attaining moksha or nirvana, experiencing satori, realizing your true nature, etc. – is the ultimate goal for both, and we naturally want to know what difference that makes to one’s perceptions. In what ways is the experience of someone who is Awake (the literal meaning of ‘a Buddha’) transformed?

Curiously, the best description I know is not from a tradition that we normally think of as nondualist. It’s in Centuries of Meditations, by a seventeenth-century English clergyman and poet named Thomas Traherne. His book was not published until 1908 but has since become widely regarded as a mystical masterpiece – and for good reason. The fact that Traherne was a Christian cleric, and apparently unaware of Buddhism, Vedanta, Taoism, Sufism, and so forth, is important because it reminds us yet again that no religious tradition has a monopoly on spiritual insight.

The passage below is one of the classic passages of world mysticism. It employs some old-fashioned language and requires some reflection in order to appreciate its deeper meaning. In particular, two words in the first sentence need some explaining. An outdated meaning of ‘corn’ is ‘grain’, which is why Traherne can say that the corn he saw was wheat. And ‘orient’ is used in its old meaning of ‘iridescent’ or ‘lustrous’, one of several references to the luminosity of the world he describes so wonderfully.

“The corn was orient and immortal wheat, which never should be reaped, nor was ever sown. I thought it had stood from everlasting to everlasting. The dust and stones of the street were as precious as gold; the gates were at first the end of the world. The green trees when I saw them first through one of the gates transported and ravished me, their sweetness and unusual beauty made my heart to leap, and almost mad with ecstasy, they were such strange and wonderful things. The Men! O what venerable and reverend creatures did the aged seem! Immortal Cherubims! And young men glittering and sparkling Angels, and maids strange seraphic pieces of life and beauty! Boys and girls tumbling in the street, and playing, were moving jewels. I knew not that they were born or should die. But all things abided eternally as they were in their proper places. Eternity was manifest in the Light of the Day, and something infinite behind everything appeared; which talked with my expectation and moved my desire. The city seemed to stand in Eden, or to be built in Heaven. The streets were mine, the temple was mine, the people were mine, their clothes and gold and silver were mine, as much as their sparkling eyes, fair skins and ruddy faces. The skies were mine, and so were the sun and moon and stars, and all the World was mine; and I the only spectator and enjoyer of it… So that with much ado I was corrupted, and made to learn the dirty devices of this world. Which now I unlearn, and become, as it were, a little child again that I may enter into the Kingdom of God.”    

I first read this description many years ago, but reflecting on it from a nondualist perspective has unlocked treasures unappreciated earlier. I am eager to share it because it is so similar to basic Advaitic and Buddhist claims about the nature of reality, when we experience the world (including ourselves) as it really is. Here are the main aspects that stand out for me:

Light and ecstasy.  The world that Traherne describes is incredibly beautiful and blissful. The trees ‘transported and ravished’ him, their unusual beauty made his heart leap ‘and almost mad with ecstasy.’ And he is specific about the nature of that loveliness, referring again and again to the luminosity of things: the corn is ‘orient,’ the young men ‘glittering,’ angels ‘sparkling,’ and playing children are ‘moving jewels.’

Mystics in many traditions have emphasized the world’s radiance: things that we usually perceive as solid objects now glow. A distinction that we normally take for granted, between physical objects and the light that they reflect, no longer applies. The difference between them is actually something that has been constructed: it is a product of our ways of thinking about the world, including the names that we assign to things. I overlook the radiance when I see that as simply ‘a cup.’ I don’t really pay attention to it: it’s just something I use to drink my tea. That is how we learn to grasp the world, yet that habitual way of perceiving can also be unlearned. When we see things as they are, without unconsciously distinguishing between objects and the light they reflect, the visible world is no longer a collection of fixed, material, self-existing things but appears as a confluence of interacting, luminous processes. The cup on the table next to my computer is not just a piece of molded baked clay that just happens to be there. Its being-there is an activity. And such processes are not self-sufficient: they manifest something, which Traherne later points to.

TimeReligions tend to be preoccupied with immortality – helping us qualify for an eternity in heaven with God, for example. Traherne describes a different type of ‘everlasting,’ which is not about surviving death and living forever into a never-ending future, but experiencing here-and-now in a different way: dwelling in what is sometimes called an eternal present. His most wondrous line begins: “Eternity was manifest in the Light of the Day…” The ‘immortal’ wheat he sees was never sown and will never be reaped, having stood there ‘from everlasting to everlasting.’ In that regard Traherne doesn’t distinguish between wheat, stones, trees, or humans: not only are they all radiant, each abides eternally insofar as it manifests the Light of the Day. In another Centuries of Meditations passage, he declares: “All time was Eternity, and a perpetual Sabbath.”

Nondualist traditions such as Buddhism emphasize realizing the ‘deathless,’ and often mention ‘the unborn’ as well. What would it mean, to transcend life and death? Do such claims refer to an afterlife? Traherne’s account suggests a different perspective. It’s the nature of all living creatures that they are born at a certain time and sooner or later die at another time. Buddhism does not offer an escape from such impermanence. But if living beings, like all other things, are not self-existing – if they too are interdependent processes that manifest something – then perhaps they cannot die insofar as they were never really born in the first place.
Manifest what? According to the Buddhist tantric tradition, our minds have three inalienable and inseparable aspects: they are luminous, blissful, and ’empty’ (shunya).

Emptiness“Eternity was manifest in the Light of the Day, and something infinite behind everything appeared…” Traherne does not mention God, except at the very end when he refers to becoming a little child again so that he might enter the Kingdom of God. The only other place in this passage where he perhaps alludes to God, or to some other spiritual reality, is this ‘something infinite.’ We are reminded of a better-known aphorism by William Blake: “If the doors of perception were cleans’d, everything would be seen as it really is, infinite.”

What is striking about this infinity for both Traherne and Blake is that it is not described as existing separately from perceived things. If things are really unborn – because they do not self-exist but are always just manifesting something else – then the infinity they manifest is not something experienced apart from the ’empty’ things that manifest it. The Heart Sutra says it better: “Although form is not other than emptiness, it’s also true that emptiness not other than form.”
Mahayana Buddhist teachings sometimes talk about ‘the nonduality of emptiness (shunyata) and appearance.’ The distinction between the conventional or relative ‘lower’ truth, and the ultimate or absolute ‘higher truth,’ is the difference between how things usually appear to us, and what they really are. But the term ‘appearance’ can be misleading insofar as it seems to imply that the world we normally perceive is nothing more than a dream-like illusion.

Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche clarifies the Mahayana understanding of the relationship between manifestations (which we usually misperceive as separate, self-existing things) and that-which-they-manifest: “‘Appearance’ is a funny sort of word. It means some kind of surface thing, but with something else called ‘reality’ that is behind it. ‘Presence’ is a much better word. Something is presenting by itself, whose essence is emptiness. What appears is the phenomenal world, but it is empty because it has no real substance (in “Empty Splendor,” Buddhadharma Fall 2013).

Presence is perhaps the best English word to describe what Traherne is pointing at. What we normally perceive as solid objects, is the luminous presencing of something infinite — something not-finite, un-bounded – which is manifesting in these ways. This ’empty’ infinite has no name and form: it is literally nothing in itself, or, better, a no-thing that therefore can presence as anything.

Transcendence. Religious dogma often postulates a cosmological dualism: the duality between this created world and God in heaven is a common example, and the Buddhist distinction between samsara (this world of suffering) and nirvana (the Buddhist goal) is another. Salvation usually means escaping from this vale of tears by attaining access to the ‘higher’ reality. Such an orientation inevitably involves some devaluation of this ‘lower’ world, and encourages us to turn away from its problems. The spiritual path is not about fixing this world but transcending it.

In contrast, Traherne does not allude to any other reality that transcends the magnificent world he describes. The implication of his account is that this is ultimate reality. It can still be understood as transcending the way we usually experience this world, but it is still this world. As Nagarjuna put it: “The koti [location] of samsara is the koti of nirvana.” The place that we usually experience as a realm of suffering is not other than what we seek, nirvana itself – when we see this place, right here, as it really is. Traherne makes the same point by referring to Eden and Heaven: The city he tells us about, which usually appears to us so commonplace and unremarkable, now ‘seemed to stand in Eden, or to be built in Heaven.’ There’s no need to aspire to anyplace else, for he doesn’t need anything more than what’s already here.

Nonduality. Traherne’s account builds upon itself, becoming more moving and profound, until it reaches a climax: “The streets were mine, the temple was mine, the people were mine, their clothes and gold and silver were mine, as much as their sparkling eyes, fair skins and ruddy faces. The skies were mine, and so were the sun and moon and stars, and all the World was mine; and I the only spectator and enjoyer of it.” What are we to make of this mine-ness? Is his experience solipsistic?
It depends on what we mean by solipsism. It is usually defined as the belief that the only reality is the self, yet that claim can be understood in different ways. To insist that atman (the true self) is brahman (the ground of the cosmos), as Vedanta does, is to assert that the self is the only reality – but we need to realize what the true self really is.
Buddhism emphasizes that there is no self, but if the basic problem is a sense-of-separate-self confronting that which other than itself – inside vs. outside – there may be no difference at all between an experience of all-Self and the experience of no-self. What’s important in both cases in that the delusive duality between self and other has been dispelled. Nisargardatta has made this point better than anyone else: “When I look inside and see that I am nothing, that’s wisdom. When I look outside and see that I am everything, that’s love. Between these two my life turns.”

The difference between these nondualist traditions and Traherne is that nondualists usually prefer to say that ‘the streets were me, the temple was me,’ etc. I am reminded of Zen master Dogen’s description of his own enlightenment experience: “I came to realize clearly that mind is nothing other than rivers and mountains and the great wide earth, the sun and the moon and the stars.” It seems to me, however, that the difference between their accounts is less important than the similarities. Both have transcended the usual dualism between an alienated and anxious sense of self that is trapped within an external, objective world.
Yet Traherne says that he was ‘the only spectator and enjoyer of it.’ Doesn’t that still dualize between the seer and the seen? No: the mind that Dogen refers to still sees itself from a particular perspective, the presencing we call Dogen. It is the same with Traherne’s account: it is with him – or, better, as him – that the ’empty,’ infinite Brahman/nondual mind awakens to its own true nature. For a while, anyway.

The Fall.  Traherne’s exalted depiction concludes with a sudden deflation. The experience he has just described to us has been lost, for he ‘was corrupted, and made to learn the dirty devices of this world.’ But there is hope: those devices he can ‘unlearn, and become, as it were, a little child again that I may enter into the Kingdom of God.’ The allusion is to Matthew 18, where Jesus says: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” This verse is normally understood to refer to where we might go after we die, but we do well to remember something else Jesus reputedly said: “Behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:21; more familiar to most of us is the King James version: “The kingdom of God is within you.”). In the context of everything else that Traherne has just written, his desire to enter the Kingdom of God should surely be understood in the same way. The point is not to attain some otherworldly salvation, but to ‘return’ to the beautiful, luminous, blissful, eternal, nondual heavenly world he has so poetically depicted for us.

‘Return’ is in scare-quotes because he has not really lost it. He cannot lose that world, because his experience was a glimpse into what it really is, whether we are aware of it or not. Having had a taste of it, Traherne knows what he has to do: to unlearn the ‘dirty devices of this world’ – the world, that is, as normally experienced by ‘corrupted’ people. It’s not obvious what he means by corruption and the world’s dirty devices. We may suppose that he is referring to immoral behavior, and that dirty devices are the ways people deceive and abuse each other. Yet corruption here might also include the types of delusion that the nondualist traditions also emphasize. Delusions collude with cravings to reify the sense of a self that feels separate from the world it is ‘in.’ Then I am motivated to pursue my own supposed self-interest indifferent to the well-being of others. Grasping at things in (what we understand to be) the world, we lose our birthright: the world that Traherne so lovingly portrays. But we can always return to it, because it is always there. It becomes here whenever we open up to it.

It is important to notice also what Traherne does not mention. Everything he describes is visual: what about the other senses – such as the sound of the wind blowing through the trees, and the laughter of the children? Were they also ‘mine’? We wonder if he heard them nondually, like T. S. Eliot’s ‘music heard so deeply/ That it is not heard at all, but you are the music/ While the music lasts.’ And we don’t read anything about how Traherne’s bodily awareness may have changed.
The biggest lack in Traherne’s account is perhaps something that he would not consider a shortcoming – and that some nondualist teachers would also not emphasize. In Buddhist terms, the ‘higher truth’ that he describes so well is sundered from the conventional ‘lower truth’ that we are more familiar with. Traherne’s world has no problems: each luminous thing is a way that ’empty infinity’ presences, including the children playing in the street… but do they go to bed hungry at night? Although everything manifests eternity in the Light of the Day, in his day most of those particular manifestations died before their second birthday. Yes, the ‘higher truth’ is that they didn’t really die because they had never been born; from the perspective of the lower truth, however, there is birth, and death… and suffering. Traherne’s society was organized hierarchically, for the benefit of those at the top of the class pyramid. Patriarchy and slavery were the norm.

To dwell blissfully in the world that Traherne describes so well, while ignoring such problems, is ‘clinging to emptiness.’ It is important for us to experience the infinity he refers to, and not to rest there. We all start from an awareness of the ‘lower truth:’ the world as a collection of separate things, including me, anxious and insecure within it. We are eager to become enlightened and realize the true nature of the world, including ourselves: the empty infinity that presences as you and me and everything else. But it is just as important not to devalue those presences – in Buddhist terms, the forms whereby emptiness (shunyata) manifests. As William Blake also wrote, “Eternity is in love with the productions of time.” Empty infinity is in love with its presencing! Because they aren’t really separate from each other.

The spiritual challenge is to realize that these two truths are two sides of the same coin, and to live in the light of that realization.

originally published in Feb 2015

Related Dialogues

Please select the social network you want to share this page with:

We like you too :)

14 Responses to “How Does an Awakened Person Perceive the World?”

  1. June 14, 2014 at 7:56 pm, donsalmon said:

    One of the most beautiful commentaries on Traherne I’ve ever read.

    Thank you.

  2. September 01, 2014 at 11:40 pm, Rabdak said:

    Hello. I want to say thank you for this awesome piece. The words you used here to describe enlightenment are just that. I had a similar experience, myself, not that long ago. It was a moment I will never forget. The moment when I came to know my true self in the presence of God.

  3. September 02, 2014 at 6:54 am, Ted Biringer said:

    Dear David Loy,

    Thank you for this thoughtful, enlightening commentary.

    While my own experience and understanding largely corresponds
    with the views expressed here, it diverges on a number of particular points. Of
    these divergences, I would just like to take up a couple that I think are
    significant, less to refute your viewpoint, and more to suggest an alternative.

    You wrote: “Mahayana Buddhist teachings sometimes talk
    about ‘the nonduality of emptiness (shunyata) and appearance.’ The distinction
    between the conventional or relative ‘lower’ truth, and the ultimate or absolute
    ‘higher truth,’ is the difference between how things usually appear to us, and
    what they really are. But the term ‘appearance’ can be misleading insofar as it
    seems to imply that the world we normally perceive is nothing more than a
    dream-like illusion.”

    The distinction that you describe as “the difference
    between how things usually appear to us, and what they really are,” I
    would express as “the difference between how things appear to us, and the
    way we actually see them.” In my understanding, dharmas (i.e. particular
    things, beings, and events) appear to us AS they really are. To experience
    (i.e. see, hear, smell, taste, feel, cognize) them as they actually appear – as Traherne experienced them for example –
    is to experience them as they really are. To experience them as “other
    than” how they actually appear, is to experience them as they are not.
    This, I think, harmonizes with the famous passage from Dogen’s Genjokoan,
    “Buddhas are enlightened about delusion, ordinary beings are deluded about
    enlightenment.” In other words, Buddhas see dharmas as they are (i.e.
    instances of sunyata, flowers of Buddha-nature), ordinary beings see dharmas as
    they are not (i.e. not manifest forms of Buddha, not instances of
    existence-time [uji]).

    Moving along…

    You wrote: “What we normally perceive as solid objects,
    is the luminous presencing of something infinite — something not-finite,
    un-bounded – which is manifesting in these ways. This ‘empty’ infinite has no
    name and form: it is literally nothing in itself, or, better, a no-thing that
    therefore can presence as anything.”

    First, I would suggest that Traherne’s vision exemplifies
    human “normality” (e.g. the normal mind is the Tao, etc.) – that is, he is seeing in the condition of
    an “accurate”, “enlightened”, or “healthy”
    body-mind, as opposed to a deluded, or abnormal condition. In this sense,
    rather than saying, “What we normally perceive as solid objects…”,
    I think it would be better to say, “What we commonly perceive…” or
    “typically perceive…” For, according to this reasoning, to
    “normally perceive a solid object” would be to “accurately
    perceive” it (i.e. to be enlightened about delusion).

    Next, to say the “’empty’ infinite has no name”
    is, in itself, to utilize its name (i.e. “the empty infinite”), thus
    to use the empty infinite itself. To describe it as “literally nothing in
    itself” is to make it a “literal something” (i.e.
    “literally nothing in itself”) – and while a “no-thing”
    that “can presence anything” may be better, it would be even better
    to say it is “the-no-thing thing” (nondual/duality) that “does
    presence as every-thing” (i.e. “every-thing” denoting each and
    all actual, particular things, beings, and events in/of existence-time).

    For, according to my understanding and experience, apart
    from “things” (form, feeling, perception, etc.) there is not (and
    could not be) “no-thing” (sunyata, emptiness). In this sense,
    “that-thing” (i.e. any entity, self, etc.) has no-self; you can find
    no-thing that IS IT (“that-thing”), therefore there is nothing
    “other than” that-thing. Emptiness is the true nature of each/all
    particular things (each thing is empty of a separate, independent self), thus
    each/all particular things is emptiness (each thing is all things; there is
    nothing “other than” that-thing, nothing “other than”
    this-thing, etc.).

    Thanks again.

    Please treasure yourself.

    Ted Biringer

    • March 16, 2015 at 9:24 pm, dd said:

      Traherne’s vision is stunning, because it is human and imbued with *love* for life and humanity and nature.

  4. January 26, 2015 at 6:20 am, Joel Rosenblum said:

    Thank you David, for this interesting piece.
    I have to say that I think the premise that True Self and No Self are equal is based upon never having true No Self experience. Most people never do have No Self experience, but those who go beyond True Self into No Self, pretty much all agree that True Self was a delusion & not true liberation. Catholic nun Bernadette Roberts may not be the best person to talk about this since she does not have “anatta realization,” but even her limited experience with No Self has shown her that the unity with God she experienced prior to that was just delusion. I think her latest book is “What is Self?” although I also have her unpublished addendum to that.
    With True Self it feels like there is this background identity to everything. Like in One Mind. But with “my” no mind experiences, there is no background identity. No identity at all. Everything is its own appearance, aware of itself with no central reference point. Like imagine every atom in the room seeing the room from its vantage point, understanding things from its vantage point, and that understanding totally interpenetrating every other atom’s understanding. It goes up to every level of organization of appearances. But there is no Room Awareness or Universe Awareness which subsumes it all.
    Compared to No Mind, True Self or One Mind is extremely easy to imagine, i think. But No Mind is almost impossible for people to imagine… having said that, when I explain this to folks as I have just now, I find that many of them are able to have the experience if they try for it (even if they have to get help from a psychedelic agent due to poor concentration in meditation). And yes, I know, the experience is just an experience to remove doubt, not an end in itself.

    Ultimately, the reason that True Self is not liberation is because there is still identity in it, even if it is very subtle and glowingly beautiful. All identities are born and die. It may take billions of years for the God identity to die & be reborn in another realm, but this is what will happen to it, according to Buddha. And it makes sense logically. Imagine identifying AS a dream (rather than a dream character). You may think you’ve escaped the death that all the dream characters will face, yet you forget the dream will also end, which will be the end of the dream identity also.

    • March 16, 2015 at 9:13 pm, dd said:

      If there is “No Self” can it be reborn ? what is there to be reborn…?

      also, the experience of “no self” is still an ‘experience’ surely ?…which places it squarely in the realm of phenomenology rather than ontology ? Or am a wrong here ?

      it seems to me .. there is still a Joel identity who is able to relate his experience of ‘no self”. How is it possible to experience “no Self” and yet still return to dualistic modes of thought and communication in a way that signifies a (time and space bound) identity that had this experience called “no self”…

      Not sure if anyone here can explain that ?

      • March 17, 2015 at 1:10 am, Joel R said:

        dd: There is always no self, because self is a concept which is logically impossible. There is no fixed identity to anything, since everything is in flux. Are you the same self that you were as a baby? So in that sense we can say that the self is reborn each moment, according to conditions from the last moment (mainly habitual ignorance of the dependently originated nature of reality). The standard Buddhist analogy of rebirth without self is lighting a candle with another candle. Did the flame from Candle 1 get reborn into Candle 2? No, of course not, but the condition of burning in Candle 1 gave rise to the condition of burning in Candle 2. We can call that rebirth of burning. If we replace flame with self, we have rebirth of identity (burning) without rebirth of the self.

        Experience of “no self” to me is beyond what can be termed “experience” since the word means to have contact with, or undergo an event. Since there is no sense of self (aka no mind) in the event to have contact or to undergo anything, there is no experience of it. I would call it perhaps meta-experience, or something like that. In Zen, I have heard that when one tells their master they had a satori, the master often asks, “Was it an experience?”

        Having said all that, we can use the word experience to describe the no self state (or No Mind as it’s called in Zen) conventionally just as we use the word “I” even if we don’t believe it points to anything ultimately. This way we can distinguish between No Self experience and No Self realization.

        You ask how it is possible to experience No Self and yet return to dualistic modes of communication. I think there are a couple questions bundled into that one question, so let me split them up for you.

        Q1: How is it possible for the experience of No Self to arise and then for it to subside? Once sense of self is gone what brings it back?
        A1: What brings it back is the habit of identification which still needs to be chipped away at in daily practice of mindfulness. One must continually watch the sense streams and notice that they are independent of any “self” that is imagined into them.

        Q2: Is it possible for someone with no sense of self to communicate in this world?
        A2: Yes, i think it is to an extent. In other words, sense of self is not on/off. There are levels of awakening from it described in the Pali cannon. The first level of awakening is termed stream entry, and the last level is arahant. Basically an arahant is not bothered by sense of self at all anymore. The word “I” is never believed to truly refer to any self by the arahant.
        However, the body of the arahant remains here and continues to be able to communicate normally. So we can say that sense of self appears unnecessary for daily activity (in fact it just gets in the way of virtuous activity). On the other hand, the arahant is never reborn in any realm upon death, but instead reaches the ultimate enlightenment called parinibbana. So in that sense, we can say that sense of self ultimately leads to the inability to communicate with others (since in reality there are no self and no others).
        That is my understanding of parinibbana, but I could be off-base. There are multiple interpretations and some monks have claimed to talk to arahants that have passed on.
        It would be great if someone who is at least a stream enterer (like Soh Wei Yu from Dharma Connection on Facebook) could chime in here to give some possibly more accurate answers born from direct experience.

        • March 17, 2015 at 2:34 am, dd said:

          thanks for the time and effort you put into your reply. i appreciate it…i learned some new insights from you…

          • March 18, 2015 at 4:44 am, Joel R said:

            de nada, friend. If you are on facebook, you should join the Dharma Connection, moderated by Soh Wei Yu. He basically taught me everything and saved me from delusion with incredible patience (and continues to do so on occasion).

  5. September 09, 2015 at 5:27 pm, John Sharman said:

    Thanks, David, for a well-presented and insightful article. Traherne sounds like he might have been an interesting character. I spent some time reflecting on your summing-up at
    the end, especially this bit: “To dwell blissfully in the world that Traherne describes so well, while ignoring such problems, is ‘clinging to emptiness.’”

    I wonder if Traherne did in fact ignore the problems of his world, in his bliss. Perhaps his bliss was only transitory, and when he came back to earth he was too conscious of his own problems to care much about the problems of others. On the other hand, perhaps
    he had a life-transforming awakening, and was eventually moved through compassion into whole-heartedly devoting himself to the poor.

    Regardless, the quote above seems to raise the question of what the enlightened do about the problems of the world – how can one fully enjoy bliss, while knowing there’s so much suffering? But from the non-dual perspective, of course, the answer is found in realising that I am really the One, manifesting as seven billion apparent selves, encompassing both those that are enlightened and those that suffer.

    • February 25, 2016 at 8:46 am, Felipe said:

      “How to treat the problems of the world?”
      The world doesn’t have problems. The men do.But the problems are because they suffer from craving and the actions they engage to avoid the suffering.
      So rephrasing, the problem of the men should be treated with love and compassion Mindfully and without clinging. In every act toward each man you meet in your life. Any other goal is losing the man in conceptuals errors
      Best regards

      • February 25, 2016 at 11:44 am, John Sharman said:

        Yes, and remember also, there are women out there too! Maybe it would be better to use the word “people”.

        • February 25, 2016 at 11:48 am, Felipe said:

          Indeed, I apologize for my poor english _/_

          • February 25, 2016 at 11:54 am, John Sharman said:

            Actually your English is very good. No apologies necessary. I was being over-pedantic. xx

Leave a Reply

image description image description

Thanks To Our Sponsors