There’s no distinguishing in my book between the spirit and life.  That’s why in my book “Biology of Transcendence” I used the little quote from the poem, “the force that serves a green fuse, dries the flower, dries my green age.”  They’re the same.  To speak of God this way is pantheistic and so on and so forth.  Drop God, we don’t need God here, we need to talk about the actual fluid movement of life and recognizing that.  And that’s why in the statements that we find in Jesus for instance in which really you don’t find God as such, he’s been translated as Father, the Father this and the other, and they have found that in the original language which is both the, the original Jewish language that he spoke in the word that he used was ‘creator’ which in all of his metaphors and the whole metaphoric fabric in which he tried to explain this you have the idea of a feminine movement of giving birth. So this feminine movement gives birth to the universe and all things instant by instant, that’s the spirit of life.  His term for it was just creator.

The realm of our inside intelligence is the heart or the heart is its mode of translation into our life, no doubt from a larger field. Here Joe is describing how we are both generators of energy-meaning and translators of energy-meaning from much larger sources. To my way of thinking that realm of inside intelligence is the heart or the heart is its mode of translation into our life, no doubt from a larger field and Bohm’s himself when he would speak of inside intelligence he made this gesture in that it can move up and correct the errors of the brain just like that if we will allow it. My teacher, Guru Mi, in India saying the heart never solves problems it gives you a new situation if we will allow it.  And allowing, we’ve got to be willing to open and allow.  It is a new situation, there’s no way from here to eternity it can be predicted.  The only way we can predict it in our attempt would be through some task pattern that we’re then trying to project on to a possible future.  But it blocks the future from flowing into the present moment.  So that’s a real double bind there.  We get into this quite often at the School for Spiritual Psychology, Robert Sardello.  The replication of the past in the present moment is where we live and it’s full all sorts of sorrows and trends that we feel we can solve and overcome, etc., etc., whereas the truth of the matter is, if we’re willing to drop that and open the future in the present moment, it will give us a new situation.  But there’s no way in the world you can tell where it’s going to be. 

When most of us go to the heart, as we say, we have an agenda in the back of our mind, a need, an itch of worry or concern, an issue to address, but the heart never solves problems.  It gives a new situation in which the problem doesn’t exist as a problem.  It might exist as an integral part of the new situation but not as a problem.  So, to my way of thinking, that is recognizing the heart as translating from the field which is over and above all the sub-fields within it.

To my way of thinking David Bohm certainly recognized that.  He realized that the implicate/explicate and super implicate were all fields of activity, critically necessary within the larger field of the heart.  We do well to distinguish between the field effect that Bohm was talking about and Steiner and an unconscious kind of collective thought which the heart is not translating that. The heart will present us, and it sounds silly to say the heart will but if you look at the research it certainly is coming from the heart. The recent research that showed the changes in the ionosphere, the electromagnet fields around the Earth at times of great emotional upheaval of people and in my last little book talking about how it would be impossible that the species of six billion people would not affect the wave fields of the Earth itself and then we’d get to thinking about the Kogee and their feeling that if they devote their life to maintaining the spirit of the world and that that’s what it’s all about. Now that’s reciprocal interactions between a guiding force from above, impulse below. Which is the true religion. We do have a true religious impulse and that’s it. For this to be turned into a cultural affair, that is religion as we know it and the rebirth of spirit… Where I to have it to do over again I would use a different terminology in the guiding force from above. What in the world are we talking about except a deeper spiritual underpinning of the whole universal process? This of course, runs against the grain of the academic world, the scientific world and the general social notions that there is this here guiding force in our life which we screen out.

There’s that which we call the spirit which is a pure fluid non-local effect. The problem with it is even as we speak of spirituality we’re tending toward making it a localized process that we might get our hands on and influence in some way. Spirituality itself tends toward a category that I shy away from.  I’ve often said we are suffering spiritual starvation which means we’re shutting off that nurturing factor that’s behind the whole universe.  So spirit itself is the movement of the whole universal process.  What else are we going to call it? It’s not a ghost.  The field effect is really too limited. There are field effects within this movement of spirit but again to me that statement from the rig Veda is so perfect in that, impulse from below, the ground being, indicting from above, guidance from above.  That’s really the true religious impulse and the spirit of life itself. 

There’s no distinguishing in my book between the spirit and life.  That’s why in my book “Biology of Transcendence” I used the little quote from the poem, “the force that serves a green fuse, dries the flower, dries my green age.”  They’re the same.  To speak of God this way is pantheistic and so on and so forth.  Drop God, we don’t need God here, we need to talk about the actual fluid movement of life and recognizing that.  And that’s why in the statements that we find in Jesus for instance in which really you don’t find God as such, he’s been translated as Father, the Father this and the other, and they have found that in the original language which is both the, the original Jewish language that he spoke in the word that he used was ‘creator’ which in all of his metaphors and the whole metaphoric fabric in which he tried to explain this you have the idea of a feminine movement of giving birth. So this feminine movement gives birth to the universe and all things instant by instant, that’s the spirit of life.  His term for it was just creator. The term he used for it was either used as a gender free term or in the feminine gender in all cases.  And then in the translating of this into Hebrew first and then into Greek, all of this gets shifted entirely from its fluid process into the terms such as God and Father in Heaven looking down on his people and saving them. All this is concretizing, making an object of the pure fluid creation. 

So the word spirit, interestingly enough, the statement whenever two or three are gathered together in my name, in “my” name which means all this incredible thing, I’m there.  And we find David Bohm with his theory of this fourth force which moves in if the participants have gathered in the name of that, which means in the name of silence or spirit, whatever you want to call it.  And the only way you can do that is to drop your agenda, leave that outside.  Eckhart is saying “to enter that cloud of unknowing you’ve got to leave your name, your identification, your whole being outside, then you can enter into that relationship.”  And that’s what David Bohm was saying in his theory of dialogue and that certainly is what we find expressed in the few statements that seem to be valid, attributed to Jesus.