June, 2003

This is not a bible. Nor is this a text intended to be
read often to the exclusion of crossing perspectives.

In fact this is an antibible but I do not speak up
against the spiritual attitude towards life, only against
the confinement in a boring cage of concepts of the
religious spirit.

So without insult, please, and sincerely I mean no
offense, please consider living from now on fully and
entirely without a foundation in a book. You will find it
so much more worth while. It's called compassionate
anarchism, if you have to have a name for it. There are
many names. Dozens. Or infinitely many. One another name
I will propose right now: Life.

The word "compassionate", just like the word "anarchism",
deserves some initial explanation perhaps. "Compassion",
not unlike "empathy", means to feel into how another is
feeling life, and, unlike empathy, also have a passion to
heal, help or alleviate suffering, if any.

My own choice, and all of these utterances are, humbly
felt, of course nothing but my own choices, is to assert:
God is a dyad, a Male God and a Female God or Goddess,
and together they enact compassion for all. They copulate
and set the dance of cosmos. To them we shall pray.

Then why bring in he word "anarchism"? Why not stick to
"compassion"? Because we human beings have an unfortunate
tendency to codify as mechanisms, more or less like
computer programs, things which ought to be a process or
allowed to be free, generally speaking.

So, put shortly, we need remainders like saying, "let it
be", "don't be a control-maniac", or, more concisely,
"anarchism", which in its roots mean "non-control".
Unlike political ideologies like communism or whatever,
anarchism involves full liberty.

Unlike dogmatists of socalled Christian and other
stagnant, stale forms of beliefs, a compassionate
anarchist asserts that dirty thoughts are from God
whereas clean or sterile thoughts are a human, unhappy

In other words, compassionate anarchism endorse sex and
masturbation. Compassionate anarchists are against such
violence against the body as implied in, say, heroin, but
bring in the ecstasy of sex in the recognition that all
living beings deserve ecstasy every day.

This is also encouraged through Yoga, Tantra, Meditation,
Dance, Massage, Music, Vegetarianism, Painting, Writing

Now a healthy, lovely, gorgeous, sexual, beautiful,
joyous style of living requires insight into the
wholeness of life and the dangers of abusing anybody.
Transferred into the bodily realm, the body distinguishes
food from poison, air from bacteria, and so there are
things like police in societies which protect the
nonviolent creative unfoldment of individuals against
such monsterous things as gangs.

A noncompassionate anarchist is, for all I know, probably
against even police. A compassionate anarchist is okaying
some self-restrained, nonviolently oriented police but is
totally against killing for patriotism or for any other
reason. So a compassionate anarchist says no-no to
military, mafia, etc.

* * *

So this is not a system. I do not have or claim adherence
to any tradition or nontradition. I have no romantic idea
about the letters a-n-a-r-c-h-i-s-m. I know of people
who, idiotically enough, support not only Nietzsche's
ideas and "anarchism", but Hitlerism as well. I know of
people who, intoxicated with the hatred of their
government, embrace both "anarchism" and the stagnant
control-maniac thing called "communism". I am sure that
every name can be misused and I am sure that the word
"anarchism", like the word "love", has been used to
justify the most grotesque of actions. So, in my own
choice, the societal use of the word "anarchism" or, for
that matter, any larger phrase containing it, like
"compassionate anarchism", is of practically no interest.
Only the clear-cut essence of its roots, as noncontrol.
Just that.

All the universe is based on effortlessness. Effort, like
slavery, is a special case of the former. Sanity lies in
asking, "is it more effortless to walk these miles or
drive a car?" and similar examples. Truth is most
effortless. Health is most effortless. So driving a car
may be a quasi- or pretentious effortlessness, for
walking may be far more free from resistance as the limbs
are cleansed, rejuvenated, strengthened and all that. The
human brain knows the rhythm of walking and enjoys it,
clears itself up by it. So effortlessness is the
principle of coherence or wholeness. I put these complex
things in a simple language and do not expect agreement
but that we can enquire.

So the anarchist abhors all systems, denies the idea that
leadership can be virtous, rejects the thought that a
guru can be enlightened or that discipleship can be
enlightening. It is about noncontrol, recognizing the
strength of the UNCOMPUTER idea as basis of metaphysics.

Sex, as you may have noticed, is good in its not being a
routine nor a concept practised within the context of a
regime of fetishism. It is good when it is both an
extension of dance and simultaneously the foundation of

So the insight that sex is the essence of the creative
shows that it is a decline of consciousness of humankind
to regard cosmos as based on a male God or on neutral
energy forces. Cosmos, at every level, in each instant,
is the UNCOMPUTER of sexual creationship unfolding a
stream of COMPUTERS or SLAVES (such as thought- systems
of the kind Hegel nonsensically postulated as absolute,
and which lead to the craze of marxism).

The meditation of the infinite lies in recognizing that
the body is not the concept of the body but an infinity
on its own. Recognizing this fact is not simple, but
necessary. If you ask, "What is the essence of the
infinite?", then it is obviously existing as rhythm
without beginning nor end and beyond any finite concept
we make of it. It is not about control, not the
mechanical thing. Love is never about control, nor about
the opposite as chaos or disintegration. Love is this
compassionately anarchistic thing, the denial of all
hatred -- or suspension of it, dissolution of it, through
immediate contact with it. The intent of healing creates
indefinitely many insights. So when tranquility is
strong, there is the basis in humour, -- as an actual
state, not the idea of it. Humour is creative, as love.

The essence of the infinite is not in any concept of
union or extension but in the sense of life expressed
also as sex. The sexual life is inherently woven together
with the creative. Routine is the denial of sex. Only as
a footnote to rigid stagnation of mind can routine, such
as metal fetishism, have a sexual association. The rich,
free sex life of an enlightenedindividual is not bound up
into routine exercises involving metal or the like. I
take this only as an example, there are innumerable forms
of fetishism in sex.

To come to the infinite as a sense of life one should not
dismiss the body as 'mere X' or 'mere Y'. The body is
forever dynamically changing in seen and subtle ways, it
is woven by tantric polarities at each scale, level and
in every feature. I dare say that only by loving one's
own body infinitely can one love any other's body
infinitely, -- for as they all belong not one can be
denied in the togetherness of all life.

Some may ask, "Do you have scientific credible evidence
in support of what you are saying?" To this I would first
like to point out that science, despite the hilarious
utopian writing about science as a fine ideal, is a word
typically signifying what those very many people whose
job is to 'work in science' is doing when they do their
job. And I may agree or disagree to that job definition.
To me, knowledge of reality can rely upon elements
extracted from incidents reported by scientists, if this
is done with utmost care and especially in cases where
something is consistently reported by very different-
thinking individuals working independently and for
decades, at least. I do believe that people working in
science has made a correct point, for instance, when they
speak of microscopic processes having both wavelike
properties and particlelike properties.

As far as the very many wider claims go, I tend to
categorize them rather as I categorize the writingsof
rather secterian or esotheric thinkers like Rudolf
Steiner or Annie Besant, or like the strange attempts in
Bhagavad-Gita to explain the 'necessity of war'.
Individuals may quote the most reliable and well-reported
incidents and seek to build a big so-called 'scientific
worldview' on this but, alas, it may be just as accurate
as the guess of which lottery ticket number will win in a
huge context based on a lot of scientific information
about numbers. But this is something perhaps not too
easily discerned by the many who may not have browsed the
reports of science themselves. These worldviews are
rather like the attempts to write a good novel around a
person actually existing in the past about which
exceedingly little is known.

I can quote professors and doctors of philosophy, some of
which I have discussed this matter over with at great
length, in support of the view but that is still more
quotation and reference to an authority outside this
process of thinking which each can undertake for himself
or herself. But let us not underestimate the strengths of
the beliefs that some may have, or attain, in some
worldviews or Godimages -- and some will want to use
reports from scientific enquiries to support them, and
others will want to disregard all of these reports and
assert their right to believe and propagandize whatever
they want -- especially if an esotheric leader or master
like Rudolf Steiner has also propagandized it. I feel
that both extremes are folly: both claiming that
scientific empirical findings are evidence of a worldview
and claiming that a worldview is beyond any such

I also disagree with Rudolf Carnap (in fact I disagree
with just about everyone called Rudolf;) in asserting
some kind of impossibility in making a worthwhile
metaphysics, or in the socalled 'logicial empiricist'
attitude of thinking that only sensory reports of
findings are trustworthy sources of data about reality. I
believe in intuition as process as well.

Believing in intuition as process is to say: there are
possibly features of reality which convey directly some
data to my mind, without the idea of sensory organ -
based cause and effect or correlation. In effect, both
Kant and Carnap conveys implicitly a specific set of
beliefs about reality as a whole, and about minds as
independent of each other and relating to something else
called sensory organs, while they seem to, in some of
their writing, to suggest that they are themselves free
from all worldviews and purely concerned with reality and
clear thinking per se.

Believing in intuiion is a question of humility to the
first assumptions, even as to what 'believing' and
'intuition' is about. In other words, it is a self-
reflective process.

I have heard writers on the glory of science proclaim
that belief in a nonlocal sort of intuition (ie, not
merely based on unconscious knowledge but on
directcontact with reality beyond the senses) lacks
support in scientific studies and that such a belief
should be classified as 'quasiscientific' or
'pseduscientific'. I, too, have read the scientific
studies that attempt to make people selected, for
instance, from the street, read each others' mind and

But has it occured to these noble criticists of intuition
that if people, select on an equal free basis, are
studied while they attempt to successfully lift and re-
land a present-day spacecraft, they are likely to fail
without anybody then saying that the whole idea of flying
a space shuttle is nonsense, not to say quasiscientific
or pseudoscientific. As some people happen to ride
spacecrafts I happen to ride intuition and I would be
glad to be tested. And I am pretty sure that if I spent
some twenty years together with anyone picked up on a
free basis from the street, or so, I could show this
person how to succeed at similar tests as well. For while
intuition is inborn, natural, immediate and all that,
developing a relationship to it by means of our human
brain is an exceedingly subtle and extraordinary
difficult task unless one is a genius, has fantastic luck
(as I have had), or is extraordinarily talented towards
it. Nevertheless, in the Yoga4d operating approach basic
standard library, I think that there are enough writings
to allow anyone to successfully work it out on his or her

If you are fifteen or twenty when you begin experimenting
on relating to intuition, consider it exceptional luck if
you get it going on a daily moment-by-moment basis in all
senses before you're forty. Please do not think that even
if intuition seems to operate well in one or another area
that you are basing your life on intuition. To do so, to
base one's life on intuition, or to be a light to
oneself, carefully enlightened without raising a flag, is
something best not assumed. If it's a self-image, why is
it there? To justify some stagnant part ofthe mind which
is unintuitive and desire-based?

To live in enlightenment may be said to be the most
worthy personal goal a man or woman can have. However,
the basis need to be humble with regard to what this
means. There is a lot of lying about this word
'enlightenment', for reasons of self-deceit, power-
playand such things. It is far from enlightening, except
in the sense of browsing through much falseness, to read
everything written on 'enlightenment' and about socalled
'enlightened people', present or ancient.

To sketch some of the startingpoint I would consider wise
for anyone seeking out such themes, look to people
talking not about some legend but enquiring openly and
undogmatically into the nature of themind, the psyche,
the brain, and all that. Look to people who do not give a
simple recipe, whether of five or eight points, nor a big
fixed scheme, nor giving a fixed mantra to be used
always. Look to sensitive people of a slender build not
eating meat and not all the time smiling self-righteously
into cameras. Look to people who did not make children
here and there and ran away from it; people who do not
happily seat themselves amidst a bunch of admirers but
who focus on standing alone. Look to people who are not
obsessed with complex writing nor are rediculously simple
about things which are indeed subtle and alive. Look to
those who do not encourage discipleship of any kind, for
enlightenment is being a light to oneself, not lending of
another's light. Finally, honor not those who condemn
women or disregard the enlightening aspect of sex and

Among those who teach others spiritual things, there are
several who say that all paths lead upward the mountain
of enlightenment, as long as you stick to one path and
don't waver. They obviously say this because they realize
shortcomings in their own propagandized path and hope
people will stick around them and feed them and pay them
even though it's a mediocre path.

The excellent path is of course that of being humble yet
creative openminded yet meditatively enquiring, not
dependent on any path at all. So if we look at the many
hundred of pages I've written in the boehmian OAC
(operative approach for computers, free and open for all,
always, at the Internet website and
elsewhere, by the undersigned), can we not say that that
constitutes a 'path', a 'recipe', a 'program', a
'scheme', or a 'dogma'? I think that any set of letters
can be treated as such but some texts have sufficient
complexity, subtlety, humor, liveliness, humility and
also self-contradiction to suggest that they ought not to
be treated as such. Most arrogantly, but honestly,
perhaps, I might have the point of view that those pages
have more clarity than all of Gothama and
J.Krishnamurti's published productions together.

Or it is immodest, not arrogant, perhaps, to say on
behalf of my own writings what I just said. I will not
excuse what I honestly feel, when it is a feeling that
presents itsel again and again without me asking for it,
but I feel also that the feeling deserves a little
explanation or justification. So here are some words to
explain the aforementioned feeling -- take them or leave
them, but this is said not to insult nor to self-
propagandize but to be enquiring.

First of all, I regard it as likely that at most a third
of the statements attributed to Gothama the Buddha in the
most trustworthy of recognized sources are actually his.
If we take this point of view together with the fact that
there aren't many sentences attributed to Gothama (though
way more than what is attributed to the Jesus character
in the traditional Christian bible), then it seems that
we have rather little to go on as concerns Gothama's real
points of view on a great many significant issues. Add to
this that the senses of the words of his (unknown variant
of) Pali language may almost certainly have changed so
that a translation is almost certainly biased by the
perspective of the translator.

I regard it, for instance, completely unlikely that
Gothama taught anything like "indifference" in the modern
sense of this word, though I have heard this word listed
up alongside the far more likely concepts of "compassion"
and "loving-kindness".

Yet another point about Gothama: according to what seems
acknowledged legend, he lived quite long and after
decades of teaching he admitted a female student. Why
would someone of complete insight succumb to the
masculinism of his times? The same maleness in
spirituality characterizes all other world religious
systems and has led to what I feel is a great
misperception of the world and its imbued sexuality.

Turning to Jiddu Krishnamurti, we find tons of writings,
as well as some late video taps, and a sense of his
teaching can be found in a trustworthy manner. I find it,
for myself, the best groundwork done so far on the human
mind. I do not find it exceedingly clear, nor completely
liberated from fear of the sexual. I find also that some
developments in the late "The Ending of Time" on a
godhood is not elaborated on, whereas I feel it it is
accurate and significant enough to justify the thought
that it should have been a foundation all along.

My intuitive perception of cosmos involves sensing that
it pulsates in the very sexual/orgasmic space between a
Goddess and a God whose own origins are unknown, but
somehow ultimately related to a fountain of energies of
possible existencies. The unfoldment of Goddess and God
happens through a rather vague yet deep sectioning into
material activity, psychic activity, and spiritual

Occasionally a meditation in which not just thought is
observed, but a sound is fondled, perhaps once a minute
for four or five minutes or so, can lift into attention a
feature of cosmos. For an ultimate perception, one may
try, say, AmaRama or AmiYana, and feel the femaleness of
the first part of the word and the maleness of the last.

An entirely different way to explore cosmos, yet related,
is that of genital rhythmic massage while swirling energy
bodies are visualized and intuitively asked about,
perhaps with direct reference to very many beloved
friends. By admitting the selflessness of the plurality
of masturbation, the mind may regain wholeness and humour
in the body each day anew.

When you disbelieve the finite, actively, not as a
concept, then the infinite comes to your rescue. That is
the end of cheating, lying, and so on. For all acts of
lying are acts of effort, whereas infinity belongs to the
effortless life, which renews itself, protects life, and
does not kill.

This is, of course, all about harmony. Harmony evokes
love, goodness, benediction.

Goodness lives in the trust of contrasts working
together, also as sexuality. It is blasphemy not to have
free sex.

It is a duty or principle, perhaps, of listening to joy,
acting sexually, and being generous to all life-forms.
Parents must, I feel, be exceedingly generous to their
children and allow children to work out their own moral
codes. Rather than imposing the past, parents should
release their children from the chains of conditioning.
Parents have set new lifeforms into existence, and they
ought to be happy with that and not try to make children
into slaves or into someone who should fulfill suppressed
desires or ambitions on behalf of their parents.

When a hand of a person moves gently around the genital
area, say, after yoga, there is a stimulation of brain
circuits. If the other hand does writing, the sexual
urges flow creatively into what we may call 'copulative
writing'. I believe that some of the best of human poetry
have been created this way.

Sexual liberation may sound like something categorically
different than other kinds of liberation but it is all

For sexuality is a massage or rhythm or dance naturally
occuring in between the legs and also in the breasts,
lips, feet, nosetip, earlobes, neck, and even hair. This
entails a more fully meditative sensuality [which I
elsewhere call 'sensualism' or 'sensual ethics' or
'sensualism ethics' or even, in a deepened compassionate
caring sense of 'hedon' as joy not mere pleasure, a type
of infinite hedonism, and in which open sex is a more apt
term than groupsex -- indicating freedom from
exclusiveness and willingness to incorporate and include
positively and happily and pantheistically, as ground for
intelligence and its love in all areas of life, also as
rejuvenation -- note added later] and its natural erotic

When men and women are getting intimate, not just close,
and not just for a night, but for longer durations, the
questions of happiness naturally present themselves with
newfound intensity. In abstraction, one may argue for
just about any idea of happiness. But in relationship,
happiness in some sense is the necessary basis for its
lucky renewal. And so we must dissolve any hardheaded
ideas as to what we really are and really want and ask
afresh: what are we really and what do we really want?

I am now taking the case where two people of
complementary sexuality really are fond of each other. I
am sure this can be generalized to many different
situations, but in this case I will speak of one as the
'the boy' and the other as 'the girl'.

Furthermore, I wish to emphasize that both the boy and
the girl are open-minded, unprejudiced, willing to
enquire and so on. And on this basis, I ask: what is
their relationship when it is at its best and most
mature, most welcoming to life as a whole and to their
own inward depths?

The boy presumably possesses more malish energies than
the girl, and the girl more femalish energies than the
boy. I speak now from my own experience, not from any
particular dogma or scientific or quasiscientific point
of view. I would say that the boy and the girl have some
kind of nonsymmetrical relationship when it is at its
most harmonious, speaking very generally.

In a discussion with a teacher in art, Widerberg, we
considered seeing the male energy as angular and
directed, whereas the female energy is rounded and
centered. Anatomically, in the image of copulation, the
boy can of course have a directedness which goes into the
centredness of the girl. Let us tantrically imagine, in a
flash, that all of cosmos, metaphysically, can be
construed as a creative interplay between the two. Rather
in the sense of Alfred North Whitehead and David Bohm,
but more sexually imagined. I believe Ken Wilber also
have touched upon this.

Ultimately, every person is an infinitely valuable
individual. At the level of expression, impression and
activity in general, the girl seems happy in nourishing a
coherence around the directedness of the boy, which the
boy is happy in providing. This interplay suggest a
genuine asymmetry, rather as, in the human body, the
heart is on one side and the liver is on the other side,
and so forth, hile this asymmetry, when well tuned, and
affectionately so, is a key feature in balance.

The vision of a world which is 'controlled by men' is not
a happy one, though. The question is not 'who is to have
control' but rather 'what is the natural activity for
each, and how does it enter into a responsible
relationship to that of all the others?'.

The realization of some natural discernment in male and
female energies is not necessarily the same as to speak
of 'an essential difference' between the man and the
woman, though it can be. It depends on the subtle nuances
and shifts in meaning which we may give to the word

Myself I have learned from the writings of Henry Miller
to be willing to take a certain malish role when it is
called for in the act of copulation, to the effect of
allowing the female to expand into horizons of
nothingness, both caressed and dominated by me as a male
enacting the myth of the allpowerful and allcaring man
lifting the woman skyhigh. More femalish approaches to
fucking may seem nice but these may be, in my own
experience at least, only as a preparation for the
appropriate shift of roles that calls on the real
orgasmic totality experience.

* * *

One can say, 'matter is obviously not spirit, and neither
are obviously not psyche', but does the phrase mean
anything except to fundamentalists who think that literal
meanings are possible?

Causation, or cause and effect, occurs at many levels.
When somebody affirms healing for somebody else, with
passion and intensity, there is a cause and an effect.
The aspirin pill is a cause and, added to the body, there
is an effect. Spiritual causation works everywhere and
nowhere, it is the most nonlocal of all. Intense
happineess ensues when all is seen with the understanding
of these three levels as one, spirit, psyche and matter.

Then existence, it is clear, is neither merely the body
nor merely its psyche or ego, nor merely the spirit yet
each level has a semi-independent subsistence.

As I sense or intuit that telepathy is possible I sense
and intuit that these three levels exist. It is not a
dogma I ask you as my reader in this moment to accept
literally or even metaphorically. I suggest that this is
a possible perception. See if you can have it.

In the same dialogic yet somewhat 'revelationary' spirit
I continue. The truth of the matter is not my concern. I
speak from my perception as I am honestly aware of,
whether it is the truth of the matter in the objective,
independent sense of reality or not.

These three levels, then, constitute an affirmation of a
grounding of relationship in what is most stable, matter,
most inter-relative, psyche, and most coherent, spirit.

The coherence or spiritual level can be discussed of how
healthy it indeed has been, considering, in the case of
humanity, millenia of brutality.

The point of view has been raised by a number of
independent thinkers, in and outside various contexts,
that the spiritual level must not merely be realized but
also healed. I agree. In that sense, God or Goddess must
Himself/Herself be healed.

The pantheist, seing spirit in matter and in psyche can
be open and positive about there being a God and a
Goddess from which everything emanates, including the
three levels. Spiritual existence has its own sexuality.
The erotic knows no limits. God and Goddess are erotic in
their relationship. Their emanation is therefore beyond
strict control. The sexual is inherently creative.

Cosmos is not merely God and Goddess but also an influx
of a third element, which is not random but relatively
free. This freedom has in part a source or origin in yet
more subtle levels than God and Goddess, and in part is
truly free. The sexual activity of Ama and Rama, or Ami
and Yama, or Aya and Ayar, or whatever we may intuit as
proper names of Goddess and God, may be in need of
healing. When we heal the sexual activity of Amarama (as
may be the name of their proper copulation), we are as
gods and immortal in that sense.

The truth of this matter is not my concern, as said. So
don't believe it if you don't want to.

The role of philosophy, as I see it, is not to be a hand-
maiden to stale dogmatic theologic is to entertain every
day afresh an activity in which the activity of the brain
is humble to the greatness of life. Or thought is humble
to nonthought, that is. Every such activity, however
exhillerating in its initial moments and occasionally
later, shouldn't get encapsulated into a formula.
Philosophy is a hand-maiden and mistress to infinite
insight beyond all thought, all scriptures, and all
mekka-stones and buildings, as well as beyond all
organisations. Philosophy cleanses the mind by a doubt
which cannot be institutionalized -- anymore than the
notion of being a 'physicist' can be professionalized --
it existed before Aristotle, even. As a musician is not
judged by the letters after his name, so is a philosopher
not judged by the acceptance of inculcations and
indoctrinations, nor the ability to fulfill examinations
of a corrupt system. Do not believe in professionalism.
Otherwise we are not even starters in the game of
enlightenment, renaissance, awakening of love, beyond all
time, beyond secularism.