Questions for New Agers Part I

2001-6-6 11:17:00


I am happy to take responsibility for all I write, speak and do.

I am sorry you see some sinister motive, rampant ego and emotional deprivation in my writings. Others see differently. Is your vision from a higher angle than theirs? Are you sure your judgment is correct and others are wrong?

I will only judge myself in this situation and I judge myself to be plodding along here the best I can. You are welcome to give me further "non lectures" but please allow me the freedom to reject your advice.

Meanwhile, here is the first installment of Questions for New Agers

QUESTION: So what is your belief concerning good and evil?

ANSWER: There is no such thing as good and evil.

QUESTION: Could you explain what you mean by this statement?

ANSWER: The whole idea of good and evil is based on the illusion of duality. In reality good and evil are the same things. They are the two sides of the same coin.

QUESTION: So do you disbelieve in both good and evil or just evil?

ANSWER: If I had to answer it would be both. Anything that happens is neither good nor evil. It just is.

QUESTION: What is that which you are wearing on your wrist?

ANSWER: You mean my watch.

QUESTION: Yes. What brand is it?

ANSWER: A Timex.

QUESTION: And what time does it say?

ANSWER: Eight thirty. What does this have to do with anything?

QUESTION: Now I take it then that your watch is neither good nor evil, but just IS. Is that correct?

ANSWER: I guess you could say that.

QUESTION: So we have this thing that tells time, which is based in duality, and is really illusion, yet you have given the name "watch" to it. Is this correct?

ANSWER: I admit that I call it a watch.

QUESTION: If good and evil "just IS" and you do not want to label them, then why call this timekeeper which also just IS a watch?

ANSWER: You're being silly here.

QUESTION: Humor me.

ANSWER: I call it a watch so I can communicate to others what it is and it's called a Timex because that is the manufacturer.

QUESTION: So even though the watch just IS, or even if it is an IS NOT, you have to call it something to be able to communicate thoughts and communicate concerning it in this reality. Is that correct?

ANSWER: I suppose.

QUESTION: Do not we have the same necessity with the quality of events that come into our lives? For instance if someone gave you a taste of a homemade pie and asked you how it tasted and it was delicious - what would you say?

ANSWER: I would tell her how it tasted.

QUESTION: And in describing a delicious taste are you likely to use the word "good."

ANSWER: It's possible.

QUESTION: Let us suppose the pie tasted like rotten eggs. How would you answer the host if she asked you how it tasted?

ANSWER: I'm not sure what I would say.

QUESTION: Is it possible you would use words like "bad," "rotten," "terrible" or something like that?

ANSWER: It is possible.

QUESTION: So even though the pie "just IS," you still call it by the name of "pie" and when you taste it you judge it to be good or bad, is this not correct?

ANSWER: I suppose.

QUESTION: If then you are willing to use good and evil judgments in relation to a pie which just IS, why is it that you believe that others are wrong in referring to numerous things and events as good and evil?

ANSWER: Because in the end or in the NOW good and evil does not exist.

QUESTION: And in the end of all things and perhaps in the NOW this pie does not exist, yet even you with your beliefs on this still call it a pie and still judge the taste to be good or bad. Do you only apply good and evil terms to pies but not to other things?

ANSWER: You're distorting things.

QUESTION: I'm clarifying things. The point is that even if you are correct and that in the highest reality there is no good or evil that does not negate the need here in this world to deal with duality and differentiation. We have to use words to communicate. We need to call a watch a watch, a pie a pie and good and evil good and evil. Why would this not be true?

ANSWER: He cannot think of a good reason.