[Don Salmon]

Just one thought. I think it’s around 38′ where Iain suggests that God (or Tao) creates because it/He/She is only “fulfilled” by engaging in this creation.

It’s long been understood that if God is Absolute, there can’t possibly be a motive or reason in the human sense.

Jung and Whitehead and other moderns don’t have a problem with this because they don’t truly take seriously the idea of a transcendental absolute.

But the Indian tradition, less left brained that most moderns, has insisted always the only possible “reason” for creation is not a reason at all but sheer spontaneous non-motivated Delight.

Since there is no creation apart from the Absolute (how could anything be apart from the Absolute) even this is a poor human way of saying it. And the usual objections to the idea of the Absolute are perfectly fine, since no idea of anything Absolute could possibly be correct!

Better to say that the morning stars and evening sun just delight in singing together and leave it at that.

Too bad there’s not more emphasis on practice in Iain’s writings and discussions. The world is not going to change one bit even if every school and every workplace and every person knew every word of his writings.