I would not say that ethical behavior is not possible for the atheist or agnostic. It is. A couple of pretty good… — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
“The Transcendent was my morning meal, we had the Eternal at lunch, and I ate a slice of the Infinite at dinner.” — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
The first koan do not have rational answers. They are techniques devised over the millennia for triggering an actual experience. — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
We all carry it within us: supreme strength, the fullness of wisdom, unquenchable joy. It is never thwarted, and cannot be destroyed. — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
A nation can assume that the addition of the words "under God" to its pledge of allegiance gives evidence that its citizens actually believe… — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
“Some friends accused me of whoring after the Infinite. Well, what better whoredom is there?” — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
Imagine a man besottedly in love: he won't waste time speculating whether other women equally merit his affection. — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
“If my opinion that substance requires a true unity were founded only on a definition I had formulated in opposition to common usage, *then… — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
The New Age movement looks like a mixed bag. I see much in it that seems good: It's optimistic; it's enthusiastic; it has the… — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
Science can prove nothing about God, because God lies outside its province. — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
I had assumed that Bush's seemingly inflexible policy to support Sharon was for political reasons of his getting elected. But as to whether he… — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
“How many planes there are, we do not know. The levels of nature that science discriminates give us no clue, for these all pertain… — Huston Smith Copy Share Image
![“If my opinion that substance requires a true unity were founded only on a definition I had formulated in opposition to common usage, *then the dispute would be only one of words*. But besides the fact that most philosophers have taken the term in almost the same fashion, distinguishing between a unity in itself and an accidental unity, between substantial and accidental form, and between perfect and imperfect, natural and artificial mixtures, I take things to a much higher level, and setting aside the question of terminology, *I believe that where there are only beings by aggregation, there aren't any real beings*. For every being by aggregation presupposes beings endowed with real unity, because every being derives its reality only from the reality of those beings of which it is composed, so that it will not have any reality at all if each being of which it is composed is itself a being by aggregation, a being for which we must still seek further grounds for its reality, grounds which can never be found in this way, if we must always continue to seek for them. I agree, Sir, that there are only machines (that are often animated) in all of corporeal nature, but I do not agree that *there are only aggregates of substances, there must also be true substances from which all the aggregates result. We must, then, necessarily come down to the atoms of Epicurus and Cordemoy (which are things you reject along with me), or else we must admit that we do not find any reality in bodies; or finally, we must recognize some substances that have a true unity. I have already said in another letter that the composite made up of the diamonds of the Grand Duke and of the Great Mogul can be called a pair of diamonds, but this is only a being of reason. And when they are brought closer to one another, it would be a being of the imagination or perception, that is to say, a phenomenon. For contact, common motion, and participation in a common plan have no effect on substantial unity. It is true that there are sometimes more, sometimes fewer, grounds for supposing that several things constitute a single thing, in proportion to the extent to which these things are connected. But this serves only to abbreviate our thoughts and to represent the phenomena. It also seems that what constitutes the essence of a being by aggregation is only a mode (*maniére d'être*) of the things of which it is composed. For example, what constitutes the essence of an army is only a mode of the men who compose it. This mode therefore presupposes a substance whose essence is not a mode of substance. Every machine also presupposes some substance in the pieces of which it is made, and there is no plurality without true unities. To put it briefly, I hold this identical proposition, differentiated only by the emphasis, to be an axiom, namely, *that what is not truly* one *being is not truly one* being *either*. It has always been thought that one and being are reciprocal things. Being is one thing and beings are another; but the plural presupposes the singular, and where there is no being still less will there be several beings. What could be clearer? [[I therefore believed that I would be allowed to distinguish beings by aggregation from substances, since these beings have their unity in our mind only, a unity founded on the relations or modes [*modes*] of true substances. If a machine is one substance, a circle of men holding hands will also be one substance, and so will an army, and finally, so will every multitude of substances.]]." —from_Letters to Arnauld_” quote by Huston Smith](https://sms4smile.com/quotes/img-quotes/8f7/huston-smith-2415_gottfried-wilhelm-le_if-my-opinion-that-substance-requires-a_127479.jpg)
