Webcast Transcript 6 January 2005

> Earlier this week, I think it was Tuesday you were asked a question about the nature of your relationships after the understanding happened. And my recollection is that I don’t recall that you said that there was anything that significantly for you had shifted in terms of your relationships with people. And it’s been kind of nagging at me – it did that afternoon but I didn’t say anything and I’ve been sitting here thinking about it. It seems that you now at least among the people that come here have a certain reputation of having something of having something, something had happened, etc., so you have a reputation as a sage. And it seems that we relate to you differently than we relate to each other in the room. It seems that. And my guess would be that that does have some sort of interactive effect. That if you were at a party or something years ago before you were involved in any of this stuff back in your drinking days and whatnot if you would sit and be gazing at somebody probably there wouldn’t be the same kind of exchange; it seems this doesn’t happen much in other circles. And so, I was just wondering with that in mind - the same question then comes to me. Which was asked of you before which is about the nature of these relationships. For me there’s resonance here uh and I know you’ve talked about the capital ‘G’ guru, that’s not in you, but I see myself still attending to you. Thinking even though there’s a part of me that knows, I don’t say I know, but I think I have an intellectual understanding of what you’ve described enough times about what happened, and yet I sit here thinking that you’ve got some special supernatural energy that’s going to, I don’t know what it’s going to do, but I’m sitting here it seems thinking I’m getting something, something is going to happen differently than if I sit here looking around at random. So with that said, again the question comes up about the nature of these relationships. They’re different almost by definition of who you are and who we are.

Wayne> That, what you’re describing are social relationships, number one, and number two you’re talking about a resonant relationship. Now the relationships I’ve had socially with people prior to this event happening and subsequent, for the most part didn’t change. Most people I retained my social relationships with them and they were not impacted in any way by that event. Now there’s others of course - seekers started coming. At first they were highly discouraged and then subsequently through various events the teaching started to happen through me and these kinds of gatherings started happening. Now within this context the people who come do as you say often come with expectations. Sometimes they’re fulfilled and sometimes they’re disappointed. And in those cases where there is resonance then a whole different structure of interaction arises. But you’ve been here enough to see people come and go. People with no resonance whatsoever. And so. The same people are in the room you see. I mean I’m the same person with the same capacities, the same energies. You see. So in the absence of the resonance there is no guru-disciple relationship. You talked about expectations and those arise inevitably in people. And they have to do with your own experiences and your own nature. And sometimes those expectations are fulfilled and sometimes they’re not. If you’re like most people when your expectations are fulfilled you’re gratified and when they’re not you’re disappointed.

> Does the seeker through their own desire tend to create the resonance that might arise between them and a potential Guru?

Wayne> I would say that what I call resonance is not created by desire. Desire may accompany it or it may precede it but it is not causal in nature. The understanding is that that resonance is a happening between two organisms. And it happens or it doesn’t. And there are people who approach a guru with tremendous desire for a guru disciple relationship, you see. They want it badly - looking for a guru. And it is something you can fake for a little while but ultimately it’s there or it’s not. And when I say fake it I mean that you can act the part of the disciple and you can make the other person the Guru and you act in accordance with certain ways that are quote unquote guru and disciple rolls. But when I talk about resonance I’m talking about that ineffable connection that occurs, when it occurs, out of which the sense of presence manifests. That connection. And it manifests in a variety of ways. It doesn’t have a single way that disciples experience it. But it is an arising of connection and it arises out of the resonance.

> If one doesn’t find a guru that one has resonance with. Can their understanding still continue to deepen with their studying?

Wayne> Of course! Understanding can deepen through a variety of means. And when I talk about resonance, one can have resonance with a book, one can have resonance with a teaching. The object that one has resonance with need not be human.

> Is that word resonance applicable in the case of very strong human relations of other kinds such as falling madly in love with somebody and worshipping that person?

Wayne> I make a distinction in order to keep this term useful. And I use it to describe a very specific kind of interaction and it is not the passionate falling in love kind of thing. Although that may accompany the resonance. You see. I mean when resonance arises we may well respond with that kind of emotional response of falling in love. And that was certainly the case for me with Ramesh. You see. But the resonance we could say preceded it and was independent of that. Because that changed character a number of times over these 17 years that I’ve been associated with Ramesh. What the reaction has been and the initial passionate love with its jealousies and it’s agonies and you know the staying up nights thinking about him and trying to get into his presence. And all of things one does in the throes of that kind of passionate loving feeling. You see. That’s long gone and it’s been replaced over time with a much deeper and different kind of relationship. You’ve heard me describe a number of times how the nature of the relationship shifted dramatically from a grasping kind relationship in which I wanted from him, to one of service and giving, in which I wanted to give. And so it was a dramatic shift in the structure and nature of the relationship.

> Resonance may not be only with a guru. I feel that my husband and I found the key to resonate together. It was a big part of our life for the last 20 years We cut out a section of the day to do it to just be together and to look in each other’s eyes and hold each other and there was a definite feeling of presence that was more than the two of us.

Wayne> Absolutely; the resonance can take numerous forms and it may be in the form of relationship and as you describe it that may well have been within the context of what I normally talk about as resonance.

> Certainly it became the most important time of our day. We’d give up anything for that time. It healed us both. Stopped being a seeker after that when we found that. And indeed the giving-ness is the reward for and the feeling of coming from rather than coming to. Although I feel I’m coming to here. So the giving and receiving become the same.

> There are non-seekers and there are seekers and there are those who are sages or enlightened? Was there a choice involved in the transition of those various stages?

Wayne> Well what is your experience with that? Have you always been a seeker?

> As far back as I can remember yes, but then I don’t think of myself as a seeker anymore.

Wayne> I see. And was that a choice that you made?

> No. It was a happening, it was unexpected. Afterwards I thought I was still a seeker when I tried to identify myself again but I’ve come to realize I’m not a seeker anymore.

Wayne> When you say you’re not a seeker anymore, to be more specific what do you mean by that?

> In the experience there was an awareness of something that I could not describe or could never have predicted. Trying to explain it afterwards to my friends – was impossible. So it wasn’t something I could grasp with my logical mind. As a seeker, I was always trying to use my logic to explain god. Or my relationship to what god is. In the experience, the gap disappeared and I didn’t know that until later, I only experienced it. So now it’s just a sense of wanting to deepen. Deepening not defining. So it really seems like an attempt to define it and so reading the works of Maharshi and these books. Advaita seems very comfortable with that experience. I don’t know why. I’m not positively trying to acquire something but it comes to me. It’s not like a traditional learning process. That’s why I don’t think of myself as a seeker, a seeker would be students sitting in the class gathering information. I don’t feel that anyway.

Wayne> Right. I understand.

> So I’m wondering if all seekers are perhaps in some non-choice situation.

Wayne> For me it’s a matter of definitions. The way you’re using the term seeker and the way I would use the term seeker are slightly different. The seeking that you’ve described, as having fallen away, is a single pointed seeking. And I experienced something very similar in my process as well. And what it was, was a movement, you see. This movement of seeking began with seeking something. Seeking god seeking knowledge seeking truth as a one-pointed effort and it was very directed at “it”. Then there was this moment where that changed. What I called the seeking then changed from a seeking for something to a seeking that was then expanding to include everything. What you’re describing as a deepening of that shift where going from to get it, to the understanding expanding to include all of it. So there is this sense of opening, this sense of bringing more and more in without, you see since it’s not focused on anything there isn’t any object that one is trying to get. You see. Now this is a very profound shift in the nature of the seeking. And it’s easy to make a distinction saying well this is seeking and this is something else. And we can call it something else. But in my lexicon, the way I talk about things I say they’re both seeking. One is a seeking for something, and the other is an expansion of the seeking to include everything. But when you say there is a sense of wanting a deepening, of looking to, however subtly, to expand that into something greater, that desire is a seeking energy. It is seeking expansion, it is seeking more presence or openness. So, It is a profound shift in the structure in the nature of the seeking you’re describing. And it is one that is very consistent with the nature of this teaching. You see. And the single pointed seeking has no meaning really here. It is only when that shift has occurred and the seeking is now expanding in this way that we have some means for being here. Some rationale, if you will, for this kind of teaching. Because as soon as it points to something, you see, the whole essence of the teaching is to spring it back out again. To question that as soon as the as mind focuses and says ah, this is it, what it is, is going in like that. And the nature of this teaching is to reopen to re-expand whenever that energy to close down comes. So when you say that this feels right, it is because the nature of the seeking has shifted to what is appropriate. These are the tools for this kind of seeking energy. Now the organism that we call the sage is one in which there is neither. There is neither the seeking for something nor the expanded kind of seeking. The whole paradigm is gone. Completely. It has no meaning anymore.

> Does it do the world good to be in this expansive, dispersing kind of energetic and not have a center?

Wayne> What was your question – does it do the world good did you say?

> Does it help the world as a whole to instead of talking about being in the front lines fighting the systems or is it better to be in meditation and being in bliss?

Wayne> Depends on who you ask!

> It’s better for me but I don’t know about the world. Is it the vibration that is going to make the difference in how the world is?

Wayne>I have absolutely no capacity to foretell the future, unfortunately. [Laughter] What I’m sort of present with, is what’s happening, What Is. And what is is that we’ve got people fighting on all fronts, violently, passionately, in a variety of ways, and energetically And then we have others who are passive, who are very expansive, who are very open, in a state of bliss. And both exist, you see, as part of the functioning of the universe, part of what is. The creation, of god’s creation if you will.

> So could you say that god expresses through all of us, even those of that are fighting as well as those of us who are in meditative bliss.

Wayne> Absolutely. That’s the model here. That consciousness or god or whatever - there is only one. There is only one. And thus all of the permutations of the Oneness are still the Oneness. So the fighting, ugly, monster is as much the Oneness as the beatific saint whose very presence inspires love and generosity in the hearts of all who perceives him or her.

> So what do you make of that?

Wayne> I don’t know what do you make of it? [Laughter]

> It just includes everything I guess, but how come those of us who are peaceful get to be that way and those of us who are in hell you know and anger and what have you, in resentment, hate…

Wayne> Do you want me to answer that question? Do you want the Christian answer, the Buddhist answer, do you want the Jewish answer, do you want the Hindu answer? I mean we’ve got the karmic answer, we’ve got the original sin answer - we’ve got lots of answers for that particular question of why things are as they are. Why there’s apparent imbalance in the spread of wealth, goods, generosity, kindness. I mean you look around - it’s not evenly distributed. [Laughter]

> So I don’t even know what the question is.

Wayne> Well the essential question is why are things as they are? Why is it this way? And you pick out why is this this way, why is that this way. And over the millennia, those questions are not unique to you. They’ve been asked before. [Laughter]

And so over the millennium there have come answers. I mean people go and they say you’re the wise guy, we’ve put you up here in this house and you know put stained glass in the windows and we feed you and take care of you, now give us some answers, or we’ll find somebody else who will basically, and so to keep his job the guy says, OK this is why… [Laughter]

And over time, these answers, the good ones, get turned into religions. So all that said, there’s no shortage of those answers for you. You see. But really what we’re dealing with here is simply pointing to What Is, saying What Is is the manifestation of the Source Full stop.

> But the Source has to go through filters in each individual who whatever they’re conditioning was, is…

Wayne> Yes.

> The energy that comes through them either comes out as anger or peace…

Wayne> Yes

> Right?

Wayne> Yes

> Depending on?

Wayne> On their programming. If you think of each of these organisms as programmed instruments. They’re programmed by their genetics, they’re programmed by their environmental condition. And their programming is continuous, you see, your biochemistry you know, how much of this hormone is excreted in this instant will determine your programming in the moment. Right? And so you respond, you filter, if you will, through that programming. The energy of life is filtered through that programming. So that in one moment anger will come out, in another moment peace will come out from the same input! Right? Depending upon how the organism is programmed in that instant.

> So, what’s the why of all this?

Wayne> Do you want the Hindu why? Do you want the Jewish why? You want the, which why do you want? There’s answers for all your why questions.

> Would you say this goes on in every planet in the universe?

Wayne> I have no knowledge of other planets. A real limited kind of guy. I talk about what I see from the chair. [Laughter] And other people may have access, you know, to other planet information. So all I can tell you about is what I observe about What Is, the nature of this What Is-ness. This here. You see. And then we look deeply into what is the nature of This that is. You see. And the whys, are for priests and scholars and others with far more intellect than mine.

> This comes from a question that I’ve had for a couple days. If one who, as an example, chooses to follow the Advaita path. And given that all phenomena is merely the excitement of energy from the Source...

Wayne> That’s a big merely.

> The programming as you put it, you indicate it as being built into the mind body organism. Would one who follows, as an example, Advaita, find themselves able to change the programming? Such as if a person came to Advaita who found themselves as a person predisposed to antisocial behavior. Might they study Advaita or the exposure to the Advaita teachings then use those teachings and what they found there to reprogram so that they would no longer have the predisposition towards anti-social behavior?

Wayne> The effect of exposure to this teaching is limitless. What the impact of the teaching can be is variable and limitless. Both for the positive or for the negative. And you can say that someone comes, they’re exposed to the teaching and as a result of this exposure their life changes. And in a particular case certain anti-social behaviors may fall away. In another case they may kick in. [Laughter] Literally.

> Would that be fair to say that is a manner in which Advaita differ from Buddhist teachings? Whereas Buddhist teachings have a formalized objective to end suffering.

Wayne> Whatever the objective of the teaching is, what it’s effect is of course, is not predictable. The Buddhist teaching, Ramesh tells a wonderful story about a guy who came to him on his first trip abroad he walked up to Ramesh and said, “Do you know how many hours a day I meditate?” Ramesh said, “Why no, I don’t.” He said, “I meditate 14 hours a day.” Bursting with pride. You know, must have lived in some kind of meditation center. He was like the top guy, the top meditator in the ashram, with a look over his shoulder to see whether anyone is gaining on him. The guy in the room two doors down is now up to thirteen and a half hours. Kick it up another half an hour to maintain my place as the top meditator in the ashram. [Laughter]

So you can have something as deeply profound as meditation that in this case was feeding the ego. Feeding this man. He was as inflated with his 14 hours of meditation as he would be driving his Lamborghini down the road. Same exact thing. You see. Now that was obviously not the intention of the teaching. Clearly not the proposed outcome of meditation. In whatever school he was doing this. So we can never predict what the outcome is going to be. Of anything.

> In other words it’s what the mind body organism brings to the teaching that mixed with the teaching becomes the whole of what the outcome can be.

Wayne> I would say it’s what the teaching brings to the mind-body organism. In one case the teaching brings peace and joy, contentment in another it brings agony, suffering, misery. Same teaching. I’ve seen this teaching - people who are active, very passionately involved in this teaching - I’ve seen such people have the final understanding. I’ve also seen them commit suicide. Over these 17 years I’ve seen both.

> Because of the teaching or is it because of what’s occurred …

Wayne> OK. So now we have a very interesting question. How do we attribute a single cause to any effect? Yes it both had the teaching, but there were these other factors. So where do you stop in ascribing those factors to the event?

> Seems like this teaching does have certain, I don’t know if they’d qualify as postulates but something like the law of interconnected opposites. It seems so useful as a tool to help understand some of these sort of seemingly odd happenings, like these imbalances that you talk about.

Wayne> I would say it is in fact a very useful tool… But to call it a law is going a little further than I would be comfortable with. I would say it is a way of ordering the universe to talk about it in terms of interconnected opposites. And for some, in some cases, this is a very useful way of understanding it. But it is not a truth, it is not a law. It is a tool.

> So is there a hazard in viewing it as a truth? I mean, I don’t see, I haven’t been able to see it. I mean I don’t know how to put it; it seems for me just recently it seems like this, it’s almost omnipresent… It’s like its something that’s been just circulating in me as I, these questions come up for me. And it seems like and I’ve been treating it almost as an explanation. It’s seems there’s no, it seems like it’s irrefutable. It seems like it’s just apparent So I guess I have been, I would consider it even though presumably nothing that we talk about here is a truth. It seems so compelling. It seems like it’s just true.

Wayne> OK. So we can say, What we can certainly say is that it feels like a truth to me. Fine, I have no problem with that at all. It feels like a truth to me. That is your experience. That is how it feels now. Which is different from this is how it IS. And there’s a curious kind of humility in the realization that this is how it seems to me and it feels very true. But it isn’t a universal truth – this is my truth. It’s the only one that I have at the moment and, but in the recognition that it’s mine, not universal, there is a fundamental humility. And you’re much less likely to take up your saber and defend it when you realize that yes others may well have as equally a profound truth.

> So this doesn’t then qualify, cause you said the other day that this teaching has no doctrine…

Wayne> Right.

> So literally the kinds of things that came to me, well isn’t the law of – it’s not described as a law, I understand that, but it seems so close to a doctrine the doctrine of interconnect opposites I’d not even considered that prior to this teaching. Not in the way I do now. And it came through this teaching. So, its just another pointer, another concept that can be argued by some?

Wayne> Clearly .

> Mmm Hmm. And the nature of my mind wants to have these anchor points or something to order the universe so currently, I’m ordering it using these concepts?

Wayne> Yes.

> Does Advaita believe in affirmative prayer?

Wayne> Advaita doesn’t believe or disbelieve in anything. Because there is no doctrine, you see.

> No principle?

Wayne> No principle at all. Advaita, as I talk about it, and there’s lots of different flavors, brands, sex denominations of calling themselves Advaita. As I talk about it, has no doctrine, has no principle. It is a series of pointers, which always point you back to answer the question for yourself. You see. All of these statements are all pointers for you to question, for you to test.

> Self-inquiry then.

Wayne> If we can call it - I even hesitate to call it self inquiry because self inquiry now we’ve labeled it, we know what it is and say OK I did that and, I’ve been there done that got the t-shirt went to Ramanaashram and sat there, now I’ve self inquired and now I’m on to whatever the next thing is. So it’s not self-inquiry in that way. It is a constant pointer back to the nature of what is.

> And accepting what is.

Wayne> Acceptance of What Is may come, it may come. It is not about practicing acceptance of What Is.

> No?

Wayne> No. Not at all. It is the understanding that acceptance comes and there’s peace and it may well go.

> The fact that the transcendental meditators are getting together, forty thousand of them or some number, and they’re going to turn the world into a peaceful place if we get enough peaceful meditators…

Wayne> They never seem to get enough! [Laughter] They haven’t had enough they haven’t had enough in like 25 years if we just get like one more then it will happen and maybe, maybe it will maybe they just need one more I don’t know, I have no way of knowing but so far… [Laughter]

> If 51% became conscious… of what? … conscious, would that tip the other… say the hundredth monkey syndrome…

Wayne> Depends on who you ask. But I don’t have any answers. I don’t have any answers just more questions for you.

> And that means I don’t have any answers either.

Wayne> If you’re lucky.

> So therefore why ask the questions, so where is self-inquiry if you don’t ask the questions?

Wayne> The questions either come or they don’t. I’m not suggesting that you go out and find some. Generally the people who come here, generally have questions. And whether they’re articulatable or not, they have a fundamental question of the nature of What Is.

>One of the things that Maharshi and Nisargadatta both I remember in reading them they both pointed out that it was of central importance that, well particularly with Maharshi to put it in the characteristic of saying that it was self inquiry, inquiry of self, who am I, that the question be pursued with, I may be using the wrong word here but a deep integrity, a continuous deep integrity in the asking of the question.

Wayne> Mmm hmmm.

> And I think that may speak somewhat to some of the previous questions. That it is a means by which to conduct ones pathway or to keep one on a particular path. In other words it’s a guidance principle.

Wayne> It may in certain cases be a very potent guiding principle. Certainly. In others, people may lose sight of that principle quickly. You’ll notice they didn’t say where you got the earnestness from. They say you must have it, you must integrity. They don’t say where you can get it. Did you notice that part? They say you must have it but it can only come, you see, because what they both went on to say is that Consciousness does everything. Consciousness is doing everything. They were both quite adamant about the fact. Consciousness is all, consciousness does everything. So, yes you must have it but whether or not you get it or not is clearly not in your hands.

> Isn’t that a principle or a doctrine?

Wayne> I call it a pointer. You see, and it is the nature of people to take the pointers and turn them into truths and principles and doctrines and that’s inevitable. Because as we’ve been talking there’s a desire for security, there’s a desire to have something to hold on to, to know is true. And to say, OK from here I can proceed because I know at least I have a point of solidity from which I can depart from. Knowing that OK this is truth and then I can move from here, presumably, towards more truth.

> Well isn’t the one truth that we are all one in essence, I mean can’t we take that as a doctrine?

Wayne> We can certainly turn it into one. And it is a pointer that is used in this teaching certainly – that everything is one. But it is a concept, it’s a tool it’s not the truth.

> It’s not the truth?

Wayne> It’s not the truth.

> Well, in that the truth is always in movement, is that why it’s not the truth?

Wayne> Well I would say that it’s not the truth because the truth is too big to be known; the Truth is Everything. What you’re talking about is a concept, is an idea. An idea that everything is one is an idea.

> But it can anchor one into a feeling of comfort.

Wayne> It may in some cases anchor one into a feeling of comfort. In others it may be used as an excuse to unspeakable acts. Oh it’s all one, God is doing it, I’ve got no responsibility, I’m going to go kill whoever I want because it’s all the Oneness doing it. I mean why not? For one person it brings peace for another it brings mass murder. Because it’s an idea. It’s not the truth. The truth as we’re pointing to it is bigger than an idea.

> Well you know to me God is good and the filters are the ones that are, the people and the conditioning and the Consciousness make the evil doings the killings and the… So truth, love, light, oneness, God, source I don’t see how that could be bad I don’t see how that can be bad, I don’t see how bad things can come from that. If everyone were kindness or pure… I guess that’s just wistful thinking but it can become a paradise sooner or later, if?

Wayne> Anything can happen in the next instant. The only thing I have to work with is What Is. You see what may be in the next instant is limited by our imagination. And we can spin stories of what could be and might be and the possibilities are infinite. Truly infinite. For the good, for the bad. So here, again, all I can deal with is What Is. And that’s what I’m concerned with, what I’m saying. What we have is beauty and ugliness, happiness and sadness, we have incredible generosity and love and kindness and we have unspeakable misery and horrors. Now the question is are these things independent of one another or is everything part of the whole.

> I think that. That everything is part of the whole, I mean, how else could it be?

Wayne> OK then if that’s the case, the same God that makes the saint makes the sinner. With that understanding, there’s a lot more compassion for this child molester who is by his nature, by his programming, by his genetics and his conditioning compelled by those forces in his being to do things that are unspeakable. That no one approves of. Nobody. At least if you’re a murderer, a torturer someplace, you’ve got people who are going good we need you to do fourteen tortures today and they pay you and like you for you know doing a good job at what you do. But nobody likes a child molester. No one. If you get caught and you get sent to prison, you’re the scum of the scum of the scum. Everybody hates you. Everybody there tortures you. Who chooses to be such a being? I mean you’re horrified by this monster that does this to these innocent children but did this person choose to be such a monster. That’s the question. And when you understand it, everything is part of the same totality you may be horrified, you may well be disgusted, you may well decide to have this person murdered but you won’t do it with hatred, there will be an essential compassion that this poor slob got that. Had to be that. Somebody had to be that. And this was the person. So there’s an inherent compassion even for such a monster.

> I find it easier to be compassionate for a monster than I find it compassionate for someone like Bush you know goes to war and kills a lot of people… and yet we have to find compassion for him too.

Wayne> No, I’m not saying you have to do anything. With the understanding that everyone and everything is a part of this whole, there is a natural compassion that arises. You don’t have to feel compassion, it either comes or it doesn’t.

Wayne> [reading question from the webcast] Brian wants to know if I have a personal religious philosophy that resonates with me?

No. In terms of an established tradition that is nominally what I would call a spiritual tradition, I would say that Taoism is the closest and the purest of in my mind of all the main spiritual traditions because there is never a viable religion that formed around it. If you look at the history of Taoism it turned into, briefly, a couple of hundred years, it turned into a sex cult where the whole thing about getting chi, getting this energy and it was thought that it was transmitted sexually and that you could acquire chi in that way and so for a couple of hundred years there was kind of this metaphysical sexual society and then it of course had to go underground because it was not socially acceptable and it finally died out. It essentially died out. And so it never developed a viable religion around it. And so, it’s essence remained and remained essentially to this day. But of all the rest of them as far as I’m concerned have turned into major corporations and they’re simply about perpetuating themselves, as is any corporate structure. So none of them do much for me. Which is not to say they aren’t useful for lots of people and lots of people find great solace, great comfort, great value in them. I’m just not one of them.

[reading webcast question] And Manny asks, can you comment on, there seems to be no one, no self, that is apparently self inquiring regardless of how earnest it describes itself. Unconditional love is not good or bad.

Wayne> Sure Manny, I’m with you.

> I can’t see unconditional love being bad, I can see it being good but then there’s a definition again.

Wayne> No

> Unconditional love, there’s an [unintelligible to transcriber] and in that sense unconditional love in it’s goodness, if we were to label it good, it would rain down both on the child molester and on George Bush without discrimination.

Wayne> Yeah. By it’s very definition, unconditional love is without condition. What it is, is unconditioned.