Ramana Maharshi's Near-Death Experiences

After reading a few books about near-death experiences (NDEs),  I recalled the conversion experience that changed the Tamil boy Venkataraman Iyer into the sage Ramana Maharshi, widely known as the most prominent Indian sage of the twentieth century.  I now saw it in a new light.  I also realized that his second near-death experience which occurred sixteen years after the first, when Ramana was 32, was a classic NDE; it changed the way Ramana interacted with the world, without altering the irrevocable transformation that took place when he was sixteen. Although his second NDE has a lot in common with NDEs experienced by others, Ramana was no ordinary human being.  The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that while NDEs share much in common, Ramana's were also categorically different.  In fact, I know of no human being who was transformed by his experience the way he was.  The article will, I hope, adequately explain why this is so.

My ambitious attempt is to bring the following readers together: 1. Those who are familiar with Ramana Maharshi and the non-duality worldview; 2. those who have studied the phenomenon of NDE and 3. skeptics who are thirsty for wisdom.  The intelligence of the latter group will not be contravened here; the article might indeed  sometimes suggest something beyond the current reductionist worldview, but reason is never flouted.

William James's view of mysticism, as discussed in his seminal work, The Varieties of Religious Experience, (1902),  is very applicable here.  The validity of a religious experience does not depend whether it can be scientifically corroborated or not--this is, I believe, impossible; the validity lies in the effect it has on the person who experienced it.  Having undergone a conversion  that results in little more than pathological withdrawal and fixation on such things as pus-filled bandages (St. Louis of Gonzaga) is one thing; having a mystic vision that results in a life dedicated to wisdom and love (St. Francis) is another.  Wisdom and love are always what's most important; if an experience results in their increase, it is a worthy subject of discussion. The emphasis here will be thus on the results of Ramana Mahrshi's NDEs, not their origin. (I admit, however, that I strongly suspect that there is something more to such experiences than meets the eye, but I do not impose this view on the reader.  The essay is valid without it.)

This essay is in several parts.  First comes a brief description of NDEs, with an emphasis on the psychological transformation that NDEs almost always induce in those who have experienced them. We will then briefly discuss Ramana Mahrshi's life, followed by a discussion of his two NDEs.  We will conclude with a brief discussion of the extraordinary significance of these two events.


NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES AND THE 'HINDUIZATION' OF THOSE WHO EXPERIENCE THEM

A classic near-death event consists of vivid  experiences which occur during an apparent clinical death, which are recalled after a successful resuscitation.  During such an event, brain stem function, which controls breathing and the beating of the heart, has ceased completely; there is no evidence of higher cortical function.  Many of those who have had a NDE insist that the experience was even more lucid than the waking state.  Why this is so remains a mystery. There have been a handful of cases of NDE throughout history.  The NDE is a continuum, but those who have had a full-blown NDE have many characteristics in common.  These include an outer-body experience, passing through a tunnel of white light, meeting beings which often include deceased relatives, a panoramic life-review, becoming informed that it is not the time for the experiencer to die and the subsequent, often painful, return to the body.  (To my knowledge, there has never been a case, as one would expect in a dream, in which a living relative or friend appears, perhaps advising the person in question to return to the living.  This is quite odd and unexpected.)  The experience is always interpreted to be real and not a dream, and almost always has a profound effect on subsequent life.

After Dr. Raymond Moody's book Life After Life, which appeared in 1975, and documented many NDEs, interest in this phenomenon greatly increased.  An Association for the Scientific Study of Near-Death Phenomena has been established and remains active.  It is estimated that about 5% of the population has had a near-death experience.  One of the most prominent experts in the field is the Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel, who, upon questioning  patients he had treated for cardiac arrest, found, to his amazement, that a significant minority had experienced a NDE.  In his prospective study (that is, a study that enrolls those in a group over time as opposed to a chart review) published in the Lancet in 2001, 18% of the 344 patients who needed to be resuscitated had a NDE; 2% of the 344 had a full-blown experience.

Dr. van Lommel gives a possible explanation of NDEs, namely that consciousness is not limited to the brain.  The brain is more of a receiver of consciousness, much as a radio is a receiver of radio waves.  Transcendent consciousness is non-local consciousness.  If this is true, the revelation is physics, not belief. This view is supported by many scientists, albeit a decided minority of them.  There are several theories supporting this view, some involving quantum entanglement and/or resonance, which will not be discussed here.  Dr. van Lommel's book, Consciousness Beyond Life, HarperOne 2010), is an excellent resource, with many suggestions for further reading. I must remind the reader that we are concerned here with the transformation an NDE induces, not whether the experience has a reductionist or non-reductionist origin.

What I find especially interesting is the follow-up Dr. van Lommel conducted eight years after the events occurred.  As compared to those without an NDE, there was a marked decrease in the fear of death; an increase in concern for and acceptance of others and oneself; a heightened awareness of the inner meaning of life;  and a three-fold increase in the belief of life after death.  The most statistically significant result was a markedly increased spirituality--that is, a non-reductionist worldview-- among NDEs survivors and a markedly decreased spirituality among those whose who did not have a NDE..  This increase in spirituality was often accompanied by a decline in religious affiliation. Dr. van Lommel refers to this as "a decline in religious affiliation coupled with greater religious sentiment."

A typical transformation follows, as quoted in van Lommel's book:
 
It is possible to be physically dead while your mind lives on.  Only one thing matters; your attitude
toward other people,.  I think about everything now.  Why?  Everything continues and nothing continues.  I feel very peaceful now; I'm no longer afraid of death.  I now accept life as it is.

A recent book entitled Proof of Heaven by a neurosurgeon documents the transformation which occurred in him, after  experiencing  a NDE while he lay in a coma.  The message from his NDE "translated into earthly language," as he recounts, consists of three parts: l. "You are loved and cherished, dearly, forever." 2. "You have nothing to fear." and 3. ""Thee is nothing you can do wrong."  Although the result of his experience lead to a return to Christianity, the message does not appear to be traditionally Christian at all.  No guilt!  The first part seems in tune with the bliss of being, characterized by the non-dual school of Hinduism referred to in the next paragraph.  The second is inconsistent with divine judgement and the possibility of hell, as taught by Christianity.  (A prominent icon of Hinduism, Nataraja, the cosmic dance of Shiva, is clear about fear: Shiva reveals that once wisdom is achieved, fear vanishes. He indicates this with an outstretched palm, the so-called abayam mudra, that is, the no-fear hand position.)  I can't imagine anything more inconsistent with traditional Western religion than the statement "There is nothing you can do wrong."  This non-Western worldview is consistent with the new convictions of many who have experienced  a NDE.

I refer to this transformation as the Hinduization of the individual.  Life is accepted as it is.  There is no dogma.  One has experienced that consciousness pervades everything. One has greater knowledge of one's true nature.  A sense of love and compassion increases. Obsession with good and evil cease with a resultant inability to cause harm to others or to oneself.  This is the Hindu ideal.  In Sanskrit, the spiritual summit is referred to as sat chit ananda; sat, wisdom; chit, universal consciousness, and the resultant ananda, bliss.  When the ultimate truth is realized, as Ramana Maharshi pointed out on many occasions, we automatically experience the bliss of being.  This school of Hinduism is called advaita, or non-duality.  Ramana Maharshi was the embodiment of the advaita worldview. (There is nothing exotic about this; nearly all who have had a NDE claim that "the other side" induced a feeling of deep peace or bliss. The difference is that they believe to have experienced a realm "over there" while in advaita, "over there" is what always underlies "over here."  This distinction between NDEs and advaita is merely apparent; they both are witness to the same underlying truth.)

RAMANA MAHARSHI, THE SAGE OF ARUNACHALA

Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950) is arguably the greatest Indian sage of the past century.  As stated previously, he was the embodiment of advaita (non-dual) philosophy, which holds that all separation is illusory.  His unique contribution to this ancient branch of Hinduism is called Self-Inquiry.  By means of contemplation and self-analysis, one is able to trace individuality to its source.  (NDE researchers might refer to this as tracing bodily consciousness to its non-local source.)   Once this non-dual "I," which subsumes the individual "I," is found and completely identified with, all problems are solved. Ramana Maharshi was a charismatic teacher, very erudite, and very dedicated to  helping all those who came to him for guidance.  Seekers came from all over the world.  One of my favorite Bhagavan (Ramana was lovingly known to his followers as Bhagavan) has to do with an encounter in 1938 with Somerset Maugham. (The sage in the novel The Razor's Edge is based on Ramana Maharshi..)  Sometime after he arrived at the ashram, Maugham fainted, possibly due to the heat.  He was taken to his guest cottage.  Having been informed of this, Ramana, always concerned about the welfare of ashram visitors, came to him.  Maugham was apparently very nervous; for about a half hour they sat across from each other.  Neither said a word.  Finally Maugham asked whether he was supposed to say anything?  Bhagavan replied,--I am sure, with a radiant smile: "No--Silence is best.  Silence is also communication."  (I am convinced Maugham was greatly put at ease by this.) Ramana's silence was indeed communication, and often had a profound effect on those who came before him.

Ramana Maharshi was born Venkataraman Iyer in Tiruchuli, near Madurai, India, in 1879.  His father was an educated man.  Venkataraman was normal in just about every way--one of the exceptions being that his sleep was so extremely deep that it was very difficult to wake him.  He excelled in sports; he was popular; he was very intelligent albeit indifferent to his studies.  He was not particularly religious--although then, as even now, religion permeated all levels of Indian culture.  He read an account of Tamil Shaivite saints entitled, Periyapuranam and was quite impressed by it. Later when a relative told him of a recent visit to the sacred mountain Tiruvannamalai--where Venkataraman would soon spend the rest of his life--he was amazed that someone could actually visit such a sacred place.  Other than these two episodes, there is little to indicate that Venkataraman was anything other than a  normal Tamil youth.

Of significance, however, was the sudden death of his father at age 42 while Venkataraman was 12.  He was profoundly affected by this and wondered where the "I" of his father had gone, after  leaving behind a corpse.

Then, at age 16, he was transformed forever.  He was now in full puberty and capable of abstract and philosophical thinking.  The subject of death could no longer be as easily brushed off as it often is during childhood.  One day he was seized by the terror of annihilation.    The experience he had would now be classified as a "Fear-Death Experience, " similar to a Near-Death Experience, but without the cessation of cardiac and respiratory function. (This is a well-documented phenomenon.)  Much later, Ramana Maharshi recounted this event as follows:

"It was in 1896, about 6 weeks before I left Madurai for good (to go to Tiruvannamalai-Arunachala) that this great change in my life took place. I was sitting alone in a room on the first floor of my uncle's house. I seldom had any sickness and on that day there was nothing wrong with my health, but a sudden violent fear of death overtook me. There was nothing in my state of health to account for it nor was there any urge in me to find out whether there was any account for the fear. I just felt I was going to die and began thinking what to do about it. It did not occur to me to consult a doctor or any elders or friends. I felt I had to solve the problem myself then and there. The shock of the fear of death drove my mind inwards and I said to myself mentally, without actually framing the words: 'Now death has come; what does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies.' And at once I dramatised the occurrence of death. I lay with my limbs stretched out still as though rigor mortis has set in, and imitated a corpse so as to give greater reality to the enquiry. I held my breath and kept my lips tightly closed so that no sound could escape, and that neither the word 'I' nor any word could be uttered. 'Well then,' I said to myself, 'this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burnt and reduced to ashes. But with the death of the body, am I dead? Is the body I? It is silent and inert, but I feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of I within me, apart from it. So I am the Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the spirit transcending it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit.' All this was not dull thought; it flashed through me vividly as living truths which I perceived directly almost without thought process. I was something real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with the body was centered on that I. From that moment onwards, the "I" or Self focused attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death vanished once and for all. The ego was lost in the flood of Self-awareness. Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from that time. Other thought might come and go like the various notes of music, but the I continued like the fundamental sruti note ["that which is heard" i.e. the Vedas and Upanishads] a note which underlies and blends with all other notes."^{[web 2]}

I must admit that I never fully appreciated Ramana's enlightenment experience until I learned about NDEs, specifically fear-death experiences.   I knew that Ramana had become permanently transformed--the rest of his life shows absolutely no backtracking--; I also knew that his transformation was much  more important than how it had occurred.  I was puzzled.  What if some demon sneaked in and cut off Ramana's head while he was lost in such thoughts?  Would he still be able to claim that he was the deathless Spirit?  Do his words prove that he experienced a consciousness beyond the brain?  I doubted that it did.  No matter, I thought; there can be no doubt that Ramana became a sage.  Now I think differently.  I now believe that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that Bhagavan actually experienced universal consciousness. Many researchers--as one would expect, by no means all--would concur.  As Dr. Pim van Lommel, the eminent cardiologist referred to earlier, asserts: "The content of a near-death experience suggests a continuity of consciousness that can be experienced independently of the body."  He continues: "...identical experiences are reported during examples of mortal fear..."  (Consciousness Beyond Life, page 300.) The latter phenomenon, the so-called fear-death experience,  applies to the episode, quoted above, that changed a young man forever.

To my knowledge, Ramana's transformation has never been described as a categorical fear-death experience, which it undoubtedly was. The result, however, was far from typical.  As mentioned previously, most people who experience a deep NDE--I am including fear-death experiences under this rubric--are deeply transformed by it.  They become more spiritual and less religious in the conventional sense.  They tend to lose their fear of death, become wiser, etc.  But they still remain the same person.  Ramana was completely transformed, as he relates in the quote above.  Most NDE-experiencers visit the other side, as it were; Ramana returned as the other side.

There was, of course, a marked change in his behavior.  His upper middle-class family expected  Bhagavan to become, well, you guessed it, a professional; his aloof behavior caused much friction.  One day,  Bhagavan simply could no longer do things like copy sections from an English grammar, which was his assignment at the time; his elder brother angrily mocked him with the following words, "What good is all this to such a one?"  Bhagavan realized that his brother was right; he realized that he must live on the outside what he was now on the inside.  So he left, unannounced, for the sacred mountain, Tiruvannamalai.  When he arrived, he discarded his clothes except for a loincloth.  He discarded his brahmin ponool, the sacred thread worn across the chest by all brahmin males. (This signifies that he was now beyond caste.)  He threw away the little money he had left, and never touched money again.  He remained in deep meditation--samadhi--for very long periods.  His mien and bearing attracted the attention of villagers.  One took special care of him.  This man was a bit unbalanced and was often teased by boys.  To protect Ramana from occasional stone-throwing, he was brought to an underground room of a temple.  It was dark and infested with vermin.  Ramana did not care at all and continued in deep meditation.  (He didn't move, even when insects stung him. The scars caused by those insects remained on him for life.)
Ramana then was moved to a little room of a shrine on Arunachala, the sacred mountain. He remained there for years.

Needless to say his family, especially his mother, Alagammal, was very upset. She finally learned where he was.  She traveled to Tiruvannamalai and found him.  She begged him to return home; he remained silent.  She returned several times with the same request.  He never uttered a word.  Then, upon a subsequent visit, he took pen and paper and wrote the following words:

The Ordainer ordains the fate of souls in accordance with their prarabdhakarma (destiny to be worked out in this life).  Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, try as you may to prevent it.  This is certain.  The best course, therefore, is to remain silent.

Hamlet used simialr language after experiencing what critics refer to as his enlightenment.  Horatio is warning him not to fight Laertes.  Hamlet responds in Act V, Sc.ii, with the following words:

Not a whit, we defy augury. There is special providence in
the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to
come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come—the
readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows what is't
to leave betimes, let be.

Even more than Hamlet, Ramana sounds like a Delphic oracle.  Ramana's response to his mother is a good example of how utterly beyond earthly life he had become.  Even his mother received an impersonal response.  He sounds almost inhuman.

Ramana gradually began to be more responsive, but remained essentially extremely aloof.  He had become, as it were, the mountain itself.  Then, sixteen years after his enlightenment another extraordinary event occurred.  Here we have an account of it in Ramana's own words:

"The landscape in front of me disappeared as a bright white curtain was drawn across my vision and shut it out. I could distinctly see the gradual process. There was a stage when I could still see a part of the landscape clearly while the rest was covered by the advancing curtain. It was just like drawing a slide across one's view in a stereoscope. On experiencing this I stopped walking lest I should fall. When it cleared I walked on. When darkness and faintness came over me a second time I leaned against a rock until it cleared. The third time it happened I felt it safer to sit, so I sat down near the rock. Then the bright white curtain completely shut off my vision, my head was swimming and my circulation and breathing stopped. The skin turned a livid blue. It was the regular death hue and it got darker and darker. Vasudeva Sastri, in fact, took me to be dead and held me in his arms and began to weep aloud and lament my death."I could distinctly feel his clasp and his shivering and hear his words of lamentation and understand their meaning. I also saw the discoloration of my skin and felt the stoppage of my circulation and breathing and the increased chilliness of the extremities of my body. My usual current of awareness still continued in that state also. I was not in the least afraid and felt no sadness at the condition of the body. I had sat down near the rock in my usual posture and closed my eyes and was not leaning against the rock. The body, left without circulation or respiration, still maintained that position. This state continued for some ten or fifteen minutes. Then a shock passed suddenly through the body and circulation revived with enormous force, and breathing also, and the body perspired from every pore. The colour of life reappeared on the skin. I then opened my eyes and got up and said, 'Let's go.' We reached Virupaksha Cave without further trouble. This was the only fit I had in which both circulation and respiration stopped."

Those familiar with NDEs will immediately realize that Ramana had experienced a full-blown NDE.  His respiration and circulation, as corroborated by witnesses, ceased for about fifteen minutes.   Though unconscious, he heard and saw what was being said and happening around him.  He saw a white curtain in an intense light.  His "usual state of awareness" that is, intense awareness, continued to function unabated.

The importance of this event is that it caused a further transformation in Ramana.  Now the human element returned.  Though he never left the wisdom-awareness that began with the fear-death experience, he now became much more lovingly involved with those around him. (The Somerset Maugham-episode, referred to in this article, evinces this change; it occurred 26 years after the second transformation.)  If anyone asked him a question, he would answer it.  He engaged in long discussions about wisdom; he gave advice especially tailored to the questioners.  He read newspapers and books.  He became involved with the day-to-day operations of the ashram which had been built at the base of Arunachala.  He evinced a keen intellect and a keen sense of humor.  He became devoted to his devotees, and made sure he was available to help them until the end of his life. (He faced death from cancer, of which he died at the age of 70, without a shred of fear.)

Another remarkable transformation!  Ramana who had been the embodiment of transcendental wisdom now was the embodiment of that wisdom combined with deep humanity and love.

SUMMARY

Ramana Maharshi is one of the greatest Indian sages.  He didn't claim, however, to be a sage.  He never claimed to have any supernatural powers. He simply remained completely identified with the Self that underlies all reality.  His kindness and wisdom are preserved in many books which are readily available.
Although the enlightenment experience at age sixteen is a central part in his biography, I have never heard it referred to as a fear-death experience, which it obviously was   His subsequent life is illustrates how this event changed him.
He had become the embodiment of Wisdom, as it were, aloof, beyond ordinary life.  Then an equally remarkable even occurred.  His classic near-death experience  at age  32 gave him, the embodiment of wisdom, a human face.  He was now a perfect and readily accessible  incarnation of the Self, radiating both love and wisdom.  I know of no other person who was transformed in this way by two near-death experiences.  I think that the information presented in this article , namely that Ramana had a fear-death and a near-death experience, and was irrevocably changed, in different ways, by both, is extremely important.  It unites the wisdom of the East with the wisdom that Westerners, and others, have obtained not only through a NDE, but also through study, life experiences, and meditation.  Deep down, there is one unifying reality; that people from different cultures come to the same basic conclusion unites all cultures and all humanity.  Science is certainly not averse to the belief that there is no separation in the absolute sense. Thus skeptics, who doubt the existence of non-local consciousness, can at least agree on this point.  Experiencing  and living this unity, which Ramana absolutely did and NDE experiencers  in varying degrees did and continue to do, runs much deeper, of course, than mere knowledge of it.
Ramana's story indicates that there is indeed consciousness beyond the brain.  This need not be viewed as something supernatural; it might indeed be very natural, perhaps partially explicable through physics.  Non-local consciousness, consciousness independent of the body--is indeed a possibility.  (I doubt that this will ever be proven, but it might; I think information indicating it will continue to mount.)  The physics genius John von Neumann stated that everything is consciousness.  Ramana Maharshi, along with many who have experienced a NDE, is a good indication that von Neumann was right.
As the lives of those that have had a NDE indicate, and, especially, as the life of the sage of Arunachala fully demonstrates, experiencing universal consciousness cannot fail to make one more connected to oneself and to the world. Another word for it is Wisdom.  Yet another word for it is Wisdom-In Action, Love.  Ramana Maharshi was right: this realization transforms not only oneself, but helps transform the entire world.

MY POST-DEATH EXPERIENCE, February 28, 2013

The back of the room was intensely lit--There were no shadows at all; the light came from everywhere.  The magnificent hardwood floor was bare; the wood was bright and luminous.  The intense brown of the floor contrasted with the white bed, covered in a bright-white sheet.  Under the sheet was the body of an old man lying on its back; the head was propped up by a white pillow.  The man had white hair; his face was immobile.  The contours of his body were visible underneath the sheet; there was no sign of breathing.  He was quite old, perhaps more than 90. Whether he was already dead or in a deep coma, at the point of death, I'm not sure.  What is certain, though, is that death, if it hadn't already occurred, was both imminent and irreversible.

Except for the bed, there was no furniture of any kind.  The room was large; except for the blank wall behind the bed, no walls were visible.

The front  of the room was in shadows.  In the shadows were two standing figures.  One was the dead man's wife, who was thin and old.  She was dressed in a blue skirt with matching jacket--the color could be discerned by the observer despite the darkness.  Although she remained still, the onlooker knew that it was difficult for her to ambulate.  The other figure was the dead man's son.  He was in his 50s, with a full head of graying hair.

The two figures were mourning the old man's death, my death.  The observer, now full of compassion and love for both of them, focused his attention on the wife, since she was fragile and more visibly upset.  The lens of his vision, as it were,  zoomed in; for an instant, the observer saw only her.  He tried to console the old woman, but she and her son remained completely unaware of his  presence. Then the original scene returned. One might best describe it as consciousness observing a tableau.  It seemed to last for only a few seconds; it also seemed to last for a long time.

The observer knew, however, that after a period of mourning, both wife and son would be all right.

The division between the light and darkness in the room  was a barrier that the two figures couldn't cross--the observer knew this, even though they didn't try.

This being, behind everything in the room, was in a deeper darkness that, paradoxically, was also an all-pervading light.

Although no words were spoken,  the onlooker, beyond language, understood the thoughts of the two mourners.

Although he had also underlain the waking consciousness of the old man throughout the latter's life, the observer  was now completely detached from that which remained on the bed.  He did indeed feel compassion for the two survivors; once quite intensely, but only for a moment.  For most of the time, he remained unmoved by what he was witnessing..

This consciousness was everything; thus, in a real sense, there was only one being present. No God, no gods, no angels, no deceased relatives, no nurses, no aides.  Just immaterial awareness observing a commonplace event: the death of an old man, mourned by his son and his wife.

Then everything disappeared.

NOBODADDY AND ME

Today I wrote a two-line poem which made me recall a forgotten two-line poem that I learned in history class over fifty years ago. Mine addresses the "problem" of religion and refers to a time when there was no such problem.  The other one addresses the problem of human hierarchy and refers to a time when there were no elites.   These two related issues are the subject of this article.

                                   THE HIERARCHY POEM

Jersey City, 1960.  I was fourteen years old and a student at Dickenson High School, a large school in which there were some African-Americans, but the vast majority of  students never came in contact with them.  None, as I recall, were in the college preparatory program; they were all consigned by the color of their skin to vocational training.  I am pleased those days are over!

Mr. Weiss, my ninth grade history teacher, was a rather stuffy old man who always wore a suit and tie; not terribly strict, but terribly humorless. (Whom I just referred to as an "old man"  was at the time about twenty years younger than I am now!)   For our homework assignment--we were reviewing world history-- we were to write a little essay on a sentence or two Mr. Weiss provided.  Our teacher went around the room with a goldfish bowl filled with little folded pieces of paper.  As we selected our topics--all were different--some of us looked miserable, some of us looked indifferent, some of us look pleased.

I was miserable.  I became immediately jealous of one of my classmates, George, whose assignment was to answer the question,"What happened in 1945?"  (Hard to imagine but the end of World War ll occurred less than fifteen years prior to my history class of January 1960--closer to us in time then than the second-term election of Bill Clinton is to us now!  For my classmates and me, however, that time span contained our entire lives.)  George wasn't the brightest bulb in the class; even George, I thought, wouldn't have to sweat over the right answer to that question.

I was already sweating about my topic.  I was to write "a one to two page essay on lined paper" about this:

                              When Eve sowed and Adam spanned,
                              Who was then the gentleman?

What on earth did it mean?  I hadn't a clue.  I was too shy to ask the teacher.  Members of my working-class family, none of whom had graduated from high school, were of no help.  I don't know how I figured it out, but I did.  An ordinary guy who said please and thank you was one definition of "gentleman," I realized;  someone to whom everyone had to say please and thank you was another..

I remember writing "cavemen had no kings."  The rich, I wrote, think they're better than everyone else here, just as the kings thought they were better than everyone else there. The poem possibly originated at a time in history, I speculated, when a rising merchant class in England began to seriously question traditional authority. In true American fashion, I concluded that nobility comes from within.  (I don't remember the exact grade I got, but I passed.)


                                      THE GOD POEM

                             When only bacteria spanned sea and sod,
                             Where was then the living God?

Gets you to think, no?


HOW ARE THESE TWO POEMS RELATED?

Before the agricultural transformation of human culture, which occurred during the neolithic period approximately ten thousand years ago, there were no strict hierarchical divisions.  Members of hunter-gatherer groups had different functions, but these were not inherited  and were fluid and limited; everybody had to cooperate as best they could in order to survive  Along with farming came surpluses and a new ordering of society. Agriculture brought major technological advances, but there is always a  price to be paid for everything.  For instance, since people lived close together, communicable diseases soared--Life expectancy declined.  Civilization flourished.  For the first time, some people became very rich, while others became very poor. .A proto-gentry arose that claimed exclusive ownership of land; a proto-priestly class arose to mythologize the division of labor and wealth as something divinely decreed.  In short, organized religion and royalty did not arise from God, but from wheat.

Belief in God--I should say, gods--, antedates the development of agriculture, of course.  I think the modern philosopher Dennett was on the right track when he wrote that  the concept of a god first arose when consciousness developed enough for people to imagine that Somebody Unseen was yelling at them--today we call this phenomenon thunder.

Many thousands of years later, despite science, most people still ascribe to a very anthropomorphic, religious worldview.  According to it, the world was created by a cosmic King. Human beings did not evolve from primitive life forms but were created once upon a time by Royal Fiat.  Although many generations of humans have (supposedly) passed since the time of Adam and Eve,  this entire span of time is nothing compared to the nearly fourteen billion years that have passed since the Big Bang--Many fundamentalists, for instance, insist that the Earth is only 6,000 years or so old.  No wonder so many religious people oppose evolution--the traditional religious worldview is very human in scale, very cozy, very comforting.  And, of course, completely false!

There was no "God" problem before there was an "I" problem--both self and deity are constructs of consciousness.  Just as the first poem refers to a time when there were no kings, mine refers to a time when there was no King.  --And what a difference in scale!  The first poem refers to thousands of years of humanity that antedate strict hierarchical division; mine refers to a time of over three billion years when all life on Earth was composed exclusively of unicellular,  I-less organisms.

The first poem advocates democracy by deconstructing unquestioned divisions of power; the second poem advocates democracy by humbling an arrogant race that imagines a God who has put it at the center of everything. This God supposedly intervenes in natural and in human history. Before humans evolved, however, there is not the slightest evidence of divine intervention, and the interventions after humans evolved have turned out to be myths.  Gods and human beings should be more humble! Billions of years of no life came before us.  Billions of years of exclusively unicellular life came before us.  Millions of years of fish, dinosaurs, insects and birds came before us.  Human beings now share the planet with other forms of life.  It's about time we stop waging war on nature like arrogant pharaohs! Pigs, worms and elephants deserve respect, too!

Don't get me wrong, I am not an absolute reductionist.  Consciousness is at present inexplicable, perhaps irreducible, and will most likely remain so.  I do, however, think that both the usual concept of God and the usual concept of self--two heads on the same mythical neck--can and should be transcended.  The humbling result is Silence--a Silence that is; a Silence that does; a wise Silence that loves.  Just what--who are you? You need.

A REVIEW OF "CONSCIOUSNESS BEYOND LIFE" BY PIM VAN LOMMEL

This is an excellent book; it is well written and very informative. The subtitle is "The Science of Near-Death Experience."  This is to be understood in the broadest context, since much of the book is how a new understanding of consciousness can give  insights into what might be going on when one has a near-death experience.

The book makes you feel very Socratic.  The evidence, I think, is still out regarding the nature of near-death experiences, but Dr. van Lommel makes a good case for questioning existing paradigms, namely the materialist reductionist view so prevalent among scientists today.  The author has read volumes about quantum theory and the scientific study of consciousness, including the view that consciousness is not limited to the brain; the book contains ample footnotes and suggestions for further reading.

One of the sections of the book has a quote by the 17th century German mystic, Angelus Silesius: "I do not know what I am and I am no longer what I know."  That's how you feel after reading this book, and it's a feeling of wonder.  (The book is filled with profound quotations from scientists, philosophers and physicists, etc. which are a delight in themselves.)

Dr. van Lommel is an eminent Dutch cardiologist (the original title of the book is Eindeloos Bewustzijn, Endless Consciousness.)  After successfully resuscitating a victim of cardiac arrest, the author, at that time at the very beginning of his career,  was surprised to discover that the patient, upon regaining consciousness, was disappointed.  He had been to a beautiful place and had not wished to leave it.  (This response is quite typical for those who have "returned" from a near-death experience, or NDE.)  Dr. van Lommel later read about this subject and became fascinated by its basic paradox: how can one have such profound and lucid experiences while the brain is shut down?  He began asking his patients who had recovered from cardiac arrest and was astonished that about 20% of them had a NDE.

A chapter of the book deals with a prospective study (that is, one not based on chart reviews, but conducted on cases as they happen.)  His study was published in the Lancet, in 2001.  Yes, Dr. van Lommel is a respected scientist.  Unlike others who claim that they have proof  that consciousness can be independent of the brain, the author states there is merely evidence suggesting such a view.  He leaves us with no doubt, though, on which side of this debate his intuition leads him.  This is quite interesting, since Dr. van Lommel states that he was an ardent materialist before he did his research.

I'm not fully convinced, but I think Dr. van Lommel might be right.  My reasoning is as follows.  The two most astonishing things about existence are how the universe originated and the fact that we are conscious beings.  We know a lot about how the universe came about, but it still remains shrouded in mystery.  This mystery is intimately involved with quantum physics.  The universe started as a very small particle, perhaps a so-called virtual particle, which means that quantum gravity, which is a complete mystery at the present time,  was involved.  As Niels Bohr stated: "If you're not shocked by quantum physics, you don't understand it."  All interpretations of quantum physics involve conscious observers who can apparently cause, during the course of an experiment, a photon probability wave to manifest itself either as a wave or a particle.  Some scientists go as far as to assert, as did the ancient Hindus, that consciousness creates reality.  Another mysterious fact about quantum physics is quantum entanglement, where communication between entangled particles occurs instantaneously, that is,  faster than the speed of light.

Yes, quantum physics is weird.  But there's something even stranger than quantum phsysics and the origin of the universe: consciousness.  Since we have some understanding of the universe, its vastness, as it were, fits into our minds which are thus even vaster.  It is thus reasonable to assume that consciousness will prove to be even stranger than quantum physics.

Since the basis of quantum physics lies in immaterial  probablity waves that are neither waves nor particles, why should the basis of consciousness be merely material?  A good question!

Dr. van Lommel quotes Bohr who believed that quantum physics and consciousness are complimentary phenomena.  Quantum physics has to do with inert matter; if you do enough experiments you always get the same statistical spread.  Consciousness has to do with living beings and is thus non-linear and much more complex.  Bohr believed that consciousness will never be completely understood, and, despite sanguine materialists, I think he was right.

The author presents intriguing views from a variety of researchers and philosophers--some of them Nobel Prize winners--according to them, consciousness is not limited to the brain.  Roger Penrose, for instance, argues that quantum entanglement also applies to the brain.  The resultant super-consciousness exists as wave functions and can be everywhere at once.  This non-local consciousness is what has been called cosmic consciousness; Jung's collective unconscious also applies here. A NDE might involve this type of consciousness, which becomes manifest when the waking or body consciousness is suppressed by cessation of brain function.

One theory states that memory and consciousness form a sort of electromagnetic hologram beyond the brain.  This theory has remarkable resonance with Stephen Hawking's research about black holes.  It seems that the law of the conservation of information is not violated with black holes, which Hawking has demonstrated.  The information is contained in the event horizon, the border between the rest of the universe and the area of no return, beyond which the black hole's tremendous gravity allows nothing, not even light,  to escape.  A hologram!  This has led to the theory that the entire universe might be a holographic projection of some very distant event horizon.  This provides an astonishing parallel between the possible hologram of consciousness and the possible hologram of the universe.  Once again, consciousness and quantum physics meet.

Dr. van Lommel provides leading scientific views about how non-local consciousness originates.  The most intriguing theories have to do with emergence due to coherent spin and resonance.  I invite readers to consult the book for details.

I do have some caveats, however.  I don't think phenomena such as outer-body experiences have been proven to result independently of the brain.  As the author states, more research needs to be done.

But NDEs are indeed fascinating.  It remains a scientific enigma that lucid experiences can occur while the brain is completely shut down.  The book gives proof that the NDEs occur not during descent or during recovery, but after clinical death occurs.  It is also fascinating that those who experience a NDE never encounter anyone living--There is never a child begging mommy to return to her body.  Another remarkable aspect is that virtually every NDE experiencer becomes, as it were, a Hindu: everything is connected in a realm of universal love and wisdom.

The NDE is almost always transformative; fear of death, for instance, usually vanishes, or at least diminishes, after the experience. Those that had a NDE, as an eight-year follow-up indicates, tend to become less affiliated with a  specific religion, yet almost always become more spiritual.  This suggests the possibility of belief in an afterlife that does not include God.  Penrose, for instance, who believes that consciousness does not end with death, is an atheist.  The author writes about a nurse who had a NDE; she says that she has seen too much suffering to believe in a benevolent deity.  After her experience, however, she is convinced that there is an afterlife.

The author believes that contact with the consciousness of the deceased, deathbed visions, etc, are real possibilities.  As much as I'd like to believe it, I have reservations.  Seances and ouija boards?  I think it is better to keep our feet on the ground, which I intend to do with mine, unless I am confronted with incontrovertible evidence that Auntie Lou continues to badger me from the beyond.

If non-local consciousness proves to be a reality, it would be a major paradigm shift for science.  I am willing to admit that such a view is possible, perhaps even likely; something very mysterious is going on, no doubt about it.  Hamlet, the supreme embodiment of the mystery of consciousness in Western literature, famously informed his scholarly friend Horatio that things are much stranger than his friend's philosophy permits.  If Horatios among us remain unconvinced, I suggest that they read this excellent book.

THE QUANTUM BELIEVER

I am a quantum believer.  Do I believe in God?  Am I an atheist?  Neither.  I repeat: I am a quantum believer. Yes, I will explain--or give you at least give some indication of what this enigmatic "faith" is.

Let's deal with the quantum part first.  As you may know, a photon will either manifest itself as a particle or a wave, depending on the experiment you devise and your observation of the results.  If you look for a photon with a detector, you will find a particle.  If you let photons, one at a time, pass through  one or the other of two slits onto a photoelectric plate, you will discover that each  photon passed through both slits. On the plate you will find an interference pattern, caused by photons which have manifested themselves as waves.  The two aspects are complementary; the photons will behave either as waves or particles but never both.    The type of experiment and your conscious observation of the results determine the results.  (Prior to this, a photon is a probability wave, a superposition of both states.)  Reality is thus connected to consciousness.  This is called the quantum enigma.  Nobody really understands the enigma--the probability wave can never be directly examined, but whatever is going on, well, goes on.

Now for the analogy. In  a quantum believer, belief and unbelief exist in silence in a superpostion state.  This state is too profound to be classified as either belief or disbelief; it is Belief with a capital B.  For the quantum believer, you can cause either the particle--atheism--or the wave--belief, to become manifest in our workaday world according to the question you ask.  Let us designate the quantum state as Consciousness--cosmic consciousness perhaps--and the atheist precipitate as Thomas l, and the believer as Thomas ll.  (Any name, of course, will do.)

Much as a scientist sets up either a particle or interference experiment, you ask Thomas some questions about faith to see what beliefs or unbeliefs appear.

For instance, if Thomas were Christian, you might ask:

Do you believe Jesus Christ is literally the only begotten Son of God?

If Thomas were Jewish, you might ask:

Did G-d  literally give Moses the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai?

Or if Thomas were Muslim:

Do you believe the Koran is literally the word of Allah?

Of course not! If you ask such questions, Thomas l is precipitated, an adamant atheist.  He might rather rudely refer to such beliefs as SCFA, Santa Claus for Adults.

And if you ask the question,

How can God be both omnipotent and omniscient and allow the unfairness, suffering and sadness which are so widely distributed in this world?

Sometimes Thomas l will precipitate and answer:  God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient; He doesn't even exist.

But sometimes you'll get Thomas ll: God's omnipotence and omniscience are merely symbols and are admittedly ridiculous if taken literally.  Ancient peoples felt a grandeur inside while the grandeur that they witnessed outside was that of their so-called omnipotent and omniscient kings. Thus they attribute these adjectives to God.  ("God" is nothing more--or less-- than a symbol for this grandeur, consciousness, specifically cosmic consciousness.  One of the truths this grandeur reveals is that all is connected; all is one.  It also reveals that the only path to It is wisdom/love's. It can provide us with the greatest experience we can ever have; in this context, omnipotent and omniscient refer to the mysterium tremendum et fascinans, the overwhelming mystery, for which those two adjectives are literally woefully inadequate.)

Now suppose you ask a differnt question:

If literal belief in Jesus as the Son of God, is ridiculous; if believe in an all-powerful God in the face of suffering is riciulous; therefore, isn't faith ridiuclous?

Ask this question, and the wave, Thomas ll, becomes manifest.  Thomas ll, the closest of the two Thomases to the internal wavefunction, replies that faith, experienced and understood correctly, is the most important thing-nonthing of all.

And just what is it?

Thomas ll is silent.  It can't be put into words; it is too profound.

If it can't be put into words, how can we be sure it exists?

It can be experienced.  It can be hinted at with words and with music.  It is poetry, not prose.  As Emily Dickinson wrote: if I read a book and it makes my body so cold no fire ever can warm me, I know that is poetry. She understood.

Whitman understood.  "Do I contradict myself?  Very well then, I contradict myself.  I am large, I contain multitudes."  The source of this largeness lies within, where all contradictions meet in unity; the inner reality is the coincidentia oppositorum.

Simon Weil also understood; she believed we could remain content with the prose world but for two factors: beauty and suffering.  Suffering destroys our prosy complacencies and keeps us searching.  Beauty gives us a few hints of utter transcendence.  For those who know these two aspects of life--and Thomas l and Thomas ll is well acquainted with both--Silence really is golden.

Physics teaches us that we can never directly experience the quantum enigma.  We can  try to explore the possibility wave with elementary particles, namely photons and other such particles.  Whenever  we attempt this. however., the system is disturbed and we get either a particle or a wave, never the hidden quantum mystery.  

Similarly, prose questions, as it were,  will disturb cosmic consciousness into worldly consciousness; you will wind up with either a Thomas l or a Thomas ll; you will never get One, the original, internal, enigmatic state that is independent of the body. (You can, however, get hints of this One, enough to quiet both Thomases. Many people, alas! remain either in the the atheist or fundamentalist state for their entire lives, and keep on talking and talking.)  It is said that those who think they understand the quantum enigma are  greatly mistaken.  Similarly, those who think they can explain consciousness, cosmic consciousness, are perhaps even more mistaken.  Those who think they have It most certainly don't.  

Jesus, a very wise man, understood this as is evident in the following parable.  (This most important parable is contained in a non-canonical Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas.  What irony!  One of Jesus's most important parables is completely ignored by mainstream Christianity!)

Jesus said: The kingdom of the [Father] is like a woman carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking [on a] distant road, the handle of the jar broke (and) the meal poured out behind her on the road. She was unaware, she had not noticed the misfortune. When she came to her house, she put the jar down (and) found it empty

She thought she had everything.  That's why she lost It.

One last point: The prosaic Thomas l and the poet Thomas ll are two aspects of the same. individual.  The inner reality, however--as the woman in the parable eventually found out-- is not possessed by any individual alone.  It is yours as well as mine and is the same for both of us.  My Self is your Self.  This is the greatest mystery of all, the source of all religion. 

Oh what nonsense!

It isn't.  It is. Prose will never get It.

I repeat: depending on the question you ask me,  Thomas l or Thomas ll, neither of whom possess the answer,  will become manifest.  

The question I ask you, therefore,  is this: why waste time by questioning them?  Read great poetry.  Listen to great music.  Meditate. Expose yourself to the suffering of the world and try your best to comfort the afflicted.  Then you will know what I'm talking/not talking about.  Then you will know who you are.

  

THERE GOES MY COLA

President Obama has averted the budget crisis--that is, it has been postponed for two months.  A welcome increase in tax revenues from the wealthy has been agreed upon, but it isn't nearly enough.  True, the President  probably couldn't have gotten a better deal, but that doesn't change the fact that the deal is definitely not ideal.

The showdown has been merely postponed; the far-right hand has been strengthened.  There will have to be 110 billion in cuts, half from domestic spending and half from defense spending.  And the President has already said that he is very willing to compromise.

There goes my Cola.

The Cola, as you probably know, is the cost of living adjustment for Social Security recipients.  It is based on the CPI, the consumer price index.  I feel it in by bones--my older, Social Security-receiving bones--that the present Cola will be negotiated away, "saving" billions.  The new Cola will most likely be based upon the so-called chained CPI, which is always lower than the CPI. (In 2012 the CPI was 1.8%, while the chained CPI was 1.6%--Social Security recipients, however, will only get a 1.7% in 2013.)  

Here's how the chained CPI works.  Say you're a business executive and want to buy a Lambergini; you notice that it costs a lot more than it did during the previous year to buy one.  So you settle for a Lexus.  If enough executives do that, the effect of the inflated price of a Lambergini on the CPI is lowered, since not as many people are buying them anymore.

As you might have guessed, the world of chained CPI is not the world of retirees. Even the (unchained) CPI underestimates the effect of inflation on retirees, since health care costs have been rising at a higher rate than that of the CPI.  What are retirees supposed to do?  Instead of owning--with monthly payments--an automobile that is not fancy but at least runs; are we to trade in our trusted vehicle for a jalopy with a Ryan voucher?  Not a present option, thank God.  So, thanks to the greed of the health care industry, we keep the same trusted vehicle, but must pay monthly payments that rise every year at a rate more than the rate of inflation

Republicans have won the debate.  We are in the midst of a job crisis, not a debt crisis.  Even the President agrees that cuts--in addition to all the previous ones agreed upon--have to be made during this period of high unemployment.  Cuts that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

There goes my Cola. What will tycoons say?  Don't worry.  Be happy.  Watch TV--especially Fox News.  And, of course, have a Coke!

For one third of social security recipients, 90% of income comes from their monthly check.  For one half of recipients, over 50% of their income comes from Social Security.  These facts have not prevented a right-leaning New York Times columnist for blaming much of our budget problems on "boomer greed."  Boomer greed, indeed.

Republicans have convinced the public that Social Security is a major budgetary problem.  It isn't.  Any shortfall can be easily fixed.  (The Social Security payroll tax is figured on 83% of income; it used to be 90%.  Income above $113,000 isn't taxed at all.  A few minor adjustments and the system is solvent.)

Social Security payments are only 5% of GDP.  They are expected to rise only to 6% by 2030, then will fall after that.  (I have heard a Republican claim that we can't afford to pay for seniors who will take benefits for thirty years; the average number of years people receive benefits is, however, only 16.)

Boomer greed!  True, some recipients are more solidly in the middle class thanks to their monthly check.  But most of the money received is spent, stimulating the economy.  Many recipients, after all, have to partially or even fully support underemployed or unemployed children and grandchildren whom the system has so egregiously failed.

Social Security is not the problem.  The problem is that one percent of the country has 40% of the wealth.  The problem is that the wealth of the richest Americans is 288 times the median wealth;  in Germany it is only a factor of 10.  The problem is that a CEO in America earns 475 times more than an average worker, while in Germany the factor is 12.

We live in a winner-take-all society, and the winners, you guessed it, are making the laws.  That's the problem.

Our democracy is seriously threatened by the second gilded age, the era  in which we are living. Anything that counters this problem is, in my opinion, very much welcome.  Social Security is progressive; it strengthens the middle class and helps the poor.  It is precisely for this reason why the Republicans hate it so much.
.
I will console myself with the fact that President Obama just might not cut Social Security benefits--Some consolation!  If he doesn't agree to cut Social Security, he will probably agree to make unfair cuts in Medicaid and/or in Medicare.

The one percent will most likely continue to have their way

Don't worry.  Be happy.  And, of course, have a Coke!

THE (NOT SO BIG) DEAL--The Senate's Quick Fix, Jan. 1, 2013

I'm writing this on the morning of Jan. 1, 2013.  The fiscal cliff has (possibly) been averted--The Senate has finally negotiated a deal, far from a grand bargain.  (It has yet to pass the Congress, but, pundits say, most likely will.)  Should we be ecstatic?  No.  We fell over the so-called cliff last night.  This morning we find ourselves on a precipice fifty feet or so below the one we fell from.  The abyss still looms beneath us.

Before I say a few words about the agreement, I want to make my position clear.  I consider myself a pragmatist; I am no ideologue.  I try my best to view the political mess in the United States with impartial eyes, not jaundiced ones.  That said, I readily admit that at present my view is more or less in accord with the view of Democrats, since the Republicans have moved so far to the right

One of the most serious problems in the United States, as I see it, is the inequality of wealth.  One percent of the population has about 40% of the wealth; half the population has only one percent of the wealth.  Income inequality has risen in most countries, but not like it has here.  (In the United States, the top one percent has a net worth 288 times that of the median; in Germany, for instance, where income inequality has also risen, the top one percent is less than ten times richer than the median.)  If this inequality continues, not to mention if it continues to increase, our democracy will be seriously threatened.  Do we want the rich to live in gated communities, islands in a sea of poverty, with each side terrorizing the other, as they do in some Latin American countries?  Already, America is no longer the proverbial "land of opportunity" where hard work is sure to guarantee one's passage from poverty to wealth.  Upward mobility is much more likely to occur in other industrialized countries than in the United States.  Our once shining identity is getting very rusty.

I don't expect life to be fair.  Those more endowed with talent and opportunity should--if we want growth to continue--and will be very much richer than those less talented and less lucky.  When the income inequality becomes so great, however, as to threaten our democracy, we're in trouble.  And I do believe that is what is happening now.

The bipartisan agreement raises taxes  to 39.5% from 35% for individuals earning more than 400,000 and couples earning more than 450,000.  (Remember both groups will be paying the lower rate on the first 400 thousand or 450 thousand, respectively.  Yes, the one percent will be paying more, but I don't think this will change the statistics much. (Since the Great Recession ended in 2008, 81% of the recovery went to the wealthy; this will probably continue.)

Unemployment insurance will continue for another year; this is good but will not improve inequality much either.

The Alternative Minimum Tax will be fixed permanently--This tax was passed to prevent the wealthy from lowering their taxes too much via numerous deductions.  However, it was never corrected for inflation, which has resulted in its current application to many middle-class tax payers, which the law never intended to do.  This will help, but  inequality will probably continue to rise.

The estate tax will rise to 35% (from 30%) on estates more than $5 million--The Democrats wanted it to rise to 45%.  Higher estate taxes help prevent the propagation of wealth from generation to generation, thus helping to level the playing field somewhat and thus encouraging upward mobility.  In my opinion, the 35% rate is too low--even the 45% rate is too low.

The worst part of the deal is that it is not a deal.  The 110 billion in cuts, half from defense and half from domestic programs, is merely postponed.  That means in two months a deal must be reached or the cuts begin in earnest.  It is almost a sure thing that President Obama will make  cuts in Medicare and Social Security, thus assuring that inequality will continue.

Republicans have won the debate.  When Democrats try to address inequality, the Republicans accuse them of class warfare, when, in fact, that is precisely the war Republicans have been waging.  Most Americans believe that the current crisis is one of national debt, when it is in fact a job crisis and, thus, an inequality crisis. Republicans claim to be budget hawks, but the cuts they recommend are only those that would make inequality worse.  Regarding taxes and defense they are budget chickens,  always intent on making the current pecking order worse.

What does the conservative within me--that person does exist--have to say?  There is a debt problem, but this problem should not be addressed while the economy is so weak; things, as experience has shown, will only be made worse.  However, the sad fact remains that in times of prosperity one ignores the changes that should be made.

How does the view look, now that this stop-gap arrangement has given us a slightly better perspective?  Yes, our ditzy lawmakers have made us feel slightly less dizzy--but the firm ground on which we should be walking on is still hundreds and hundreds of feet below.