Dr. Menlo over at abuddhas poses the following (at the tail end of a longer, thought provoking piece):

�We in the north have a decent chance of staving off those who would use us so; and continue to maintain communities that, regardless of ideology, help each other out. For the vast bulk of my readers I must ask - where do you stand, and what are you willing to do to preserve what you stand for?�

While my first reaction is to bristle at the thought of taking sides - �where do you stand� seems to suggest that we pick a team or, at least, a spot on one side or another of some ideological fence � I think this is an important question. It is a question that seems to be framed within a context of �Us� vs. �Them�. Ultimately, I know that there is no us or them because we are them and vice versa. While this is true with a capital T at the most fundamental, basic level of reality, the day to day world we exist in is one of dualities. This, if nothing else, is very clear after 9/11. There is good in the world and there is bad. This, I think, is the crux of Dr. Menlo's question. Good or Evil � which one do you want to support? The problem for many people, I fear, is that they are unable to distinguish between the two. How else to explain the wealth of American support for Bush�s Afghan strikes and his Jihad against Bin Laden and, now, the �Axis of Evil�? All other implications of this nonsense aside (just why do you want to scare the American people so badly Mr. Bush?), let us consider the simple fact that through acts of war and aggression, even in self defense, Mr. Bush is compounding the tragedy and horror of 9/11 and not resolving anything but perpetuating a cycle of fear and death.

For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.
- The Dhammapada , Verse 5, Chapter 1 (The Twin Verses), Translated by F. Max M�ller -

In answer to the good Dr.'s first question I must say that I stand on the side of good (as I perceive it). What am I willing to do to preserve that good? This is a question that is not so easily answered. Back in 1992 I wrote an �essay� titled �Notes on a Theory of Subtle Revolution� (published in a �zine called �Comedy Tragedy Apathy�) which advocated non-action, at least on a political/social level. The action I suggested was one of a more intimate nature � a harmonizing of the self � that would, ultimately, become a larger scale action. To quote myself (writing as P. Jack, but that�s another story!) from a decade past:

�What I am preaching here is a gospel of non-involvement, a theory of subtle revolution wherein the individual pays the political and media machinery all of the attention it deserves � none. By ignoring the grinding gears of those aforementioned political and media machines it is possible to turn one�s focus inward to the often neglected and ever vital workings of personal harmony. Through the improvement of one�s very own heart, mind and soul, one may subsequently improve the nature of civilization itself. I am speaking of a sort of cultural osmosis in which a person reshapes him or herself into a centered and harmonious individual, thereby influencing the environment in which they exist.�
- P. Jack, Notes on a Theory of Subtle Revolution in �Comedy Tragedy Apathy� (Volume 3, No. 4. January 1992) �

I maintain that this is a valid theory. It is one that I came to through my own observations and via the influence of various aspects of Eastern thought. For instance:

Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.

The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.

There is a time for being ahead,
a time for being behind;
a time for being in motion,
a time for being at rest;
a time for being vigorous,
a time for being exhausted;
a time for being safe,
a time for being in danger.

The Master sees things as they are,
without trying to control them.
She lets them go their own way,
and resides at the center of the circle.
- Tao te Ching , Chapter 29, translated by Stephen Mitchell �

My concern at the moment is that the way things are going is straight to hell. If I remain at the center of my circle while a world which I consider to be a bad dream gets worse � one in which the dominant paradigm is driven by personal and corporate greed, nationalism and violence of one sort or another � will there be anything left outside of that circle if and when I choose to emerge? I think the best option is simply to expand that circle to include others of like mind. In the words of John Lennon:

�You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one�
- Imagine , 1971 -