The psychology of understanding has not been developed to any appreciable extent in Western psychology, neither as regards inter-personal understanding nor understanding as a basic human need. Yet, as leading modern Continental philosophers have demonstrated¹, the same kind of understanding is the basis of all human activity and interaction, and of all mental and intellectual activity, however reflective and abstract. Individuals vary as to the extent of their development of understanding, but every adult possesses the faculty as part of the human make-up.

Human understanding starts from direct perception of apparent relations between things, moves on to comparison of remembered perceptions and gradually develops towards more general and abstract ideas. Understanding also involves raising questions and testing answers, not just absorbing information passively from others or learning from books or other secondary sources.

Understanding includes much more than knowing and analysing factual relations in the natural world and society. In actual, life understanding begins at a more basic level. It can be seen as an expanding continuum of insight, which starts in relating to other humans through identification. Human understanding progressively realises the challenges of one's life or destiny, eventually reaching out toward the cosmos and to the highest reality. The quality and depth of a person's understanding, rather than the extent of factual knowledge, is one of the chief distinguishing characteristics of the particular human being.

The very fact of being itself both precedes and exceeds everything that can be known about it. For this reason, among others which are philosophically abstruse, no one can fully and wholly understand everything once and for all. All explanations end somewhere and there are dimensions of awareness and being which exceed the expressions of all language.

UNDERSTANDING AS BASED ON PRACTICAL RELATIONS

It can safely be deduced from the evidence that human beings have learned to observe the relations that pertain between natural things from the earliest of times, since livelihood often depended upon an extensive grasp of the natures of earth, plants, insects, animals and their interrelations.

Understanding is based on grasping at the practical level the network of relations between things and their uses for our various purposes. In virtually all our doings we relate one thing to another with an eye to some end: we understand a hammer and nail by their use, say, in erecting a wall. Subsequently, the wall becomes part of a building, which may be a school. This again signifies further ends like the education of children, the basis of a good society and higher aims still. Our experience of things and their inter-connectedness within the sphere of our purposes and concerns is their meaning. It is obvious to all who have not become confused by too much academic or other abstruse theory that understanding works at this basic level. This simple example is a model of the elements of all understanding. One cannot understand things as they exist quite independently (i.e. 'in themselves') of all human needs and aims, for they then have no meaning to us².

As long as anything cannot be related to human lives and their purposes, it yields no actual understanding, it is inscrutable and sets the outer limit of our understanding of the created world. To intuit the beauty of a forms, colours, textures and sounds or to feel the goodness of some self-sacrificing human act need not involve understanding any mundane meanings. Our encounters with such ultimately objective aspects of everything can awaken a sense of curiosity and wonder before the unknown, or also one of insecurity, anxiety and 'meaninglessness'.

Far from everyone clearly understand the process of understanding, not least due to many mistaken ideas that are current from school onwards, up to and including most influential schools of psychology and philosophy. Understanding involves both the broadening of outlook and the deepening of awareness, not excluding the sympathetic connection that necessarily enters in to the understanding of others. As distinct from knowing facts or theories, authentic understanding involves personal identification with its 'objects' (or its 'subjects'). This identification is an underlying sense of unity, an intuition that all beings share in being, that despite all outward diversity, everyone and everything has its meaning and justification within the whole of things.

The process of understanding anything - the world, people, ourselves - begins like studying a given piece of terrain, walking across it, now viewing it broadly now looking closely at it. We learn how it is made up of many and varied details. From the air, we see its essential features and structures more clearly, while details are lost to view, all according to our level and angle. The further our understanding rises from the ground level view towards generality - that is, towards universal values and truth, the less the details of factual knowledge count and the greater role our power of comprehension must play.

Comprehension means drawing together elements are brought into a unitary whole. To comprehend is to include an entire relevant field as one, to view it wholly. In other words, it is a synthesis of the whole contrasted with the analysis of the many parts. Any reliable conception of a whole has to be refined by critical, reflective perception and by analysis and integration within a greater whole. Any such greater whole itself is primarily a creative projection of the questioning mind, one which needs continual testing against experience and other conceptions.

To learn generalities and common truths from courses or books, without sufficient first-hand personal experience of the subject and how and from what theories about it are derived, is like 'knowing' a landscape from nothing but a map of it. Authentic understanding of others is gained through extensive life experience, though it does not accrue automatically whatever one does. It is no more derivable from books, than a map can give the fullness of actually having seen and been in a terrain. The map is an aid to preparing for a journey, or to reviewing the ground covered afterwards. Similarly, scholarship and theory, however extended or convoluted, cannot ever be a trustworthy substitute for personal experience. They are chiefly an aid in developing the expression, usually in written forms, of quite specific kinds of understanding with particular applications or contexts (such as for scientific, educational or political purposes). It ought not to be necessary to state this, but common illusions about the achievements of scientists and intellectuals unfortunately makes it necessary.

Many theories consist mainly in more or less likely abstract speculations (hypotheses) and bear little or no relation to life. Such occur both in philosophy, mathematics, physics, cosmology, neurology and many another 'science'. Systematic knowledge and any theoretical kind of exposition requires abstraction, which involves isolating the essentials and the principles that underlie any process. The product is not necessarily understanding. In short, true understanding is not essentially a matter of theory, especially in psychology. It is surely mostly perilous to forget that theory is only a potential aid to understanding and to storing and recalling it, like a kind of inner shorthand. When social and psychological theories are not most closely connected with and modified by personal experience in understanding others, they not only verge on the meaningless, but become a danger.

Philosophy and science make 'theory' a standard of the level of knowledge, and often speak of theory as if it were the key to understanding of all things. Theories order sets of generalisations coherently and in accordance with what is observed to be factual by independent observers. However, this ideal makes for an artificially narrow view of the nature of understanding as if it were something primarily abstract, 'detached' and observational as opposed to a participational and practical activity. Understanding is definitely not just a matter of mastering some theory, getting the right solution to some mental riddle, or of becoming an expert in whatever field of endeavour, for it unavoidable embraces quite other psychic abilities such as conscience, evaluation and identification.

Human understanding is wider in scope and more embracing of the whole of things than any form of systematic explanation. Scientific explanation confines understanding to certain phenomena and methods designed to exclude more than they include. Within such limits, causal explanation concentrates much on analysis - or the breaking down of a problem into smaller and smaller parts to construe a whole conception (theory) upon their basis. Science insists on modification of theories (wholes) in accordance with new facts (parts), while aiming to generalise at successively more inclusive levels. Yet the result is always an abstraction by generalisation, derived from masses of facts which, moreover, have been selected and interpreted within the well-defined limits of certain physicalistic and methodical assumptions.

This does not amount, however, to general human understanding for which no advance limitations are imposed on what can be considered as initial data. Its method of holistic synthesis concentrates on whole conceptions in the attempt to integrate any phenomena and many conceptions as a synthetic whole.

The diverse forms of psychic process - thought, memory, reason, intuition and other faculties of the mind that may be unnamed - enable us to discover connections and relationships between all the limitless number of elements that go to make up the possible objects of the mind's interest. The psychic processes that produce understanding thus operate at the 'supra-factual' level. They put the facts together for us, like an intricate picture, sometimes in flashes which gradually help develop the broader canvas aspect by aspect, until we get to the whole or essence of a subject... the most succinct form of insight we can reach.

COLLECTIVE AND PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING

The gradual expansion of the known world map in the age of discovery is a useful image of the supposed 'continuous advance of science' or also of the accumulation of all those forms of knowledge which are the basis of human civilisation. There is not just one frontier, such as that of science, but many... the practical, the technological, the artistic, the literary, the interpersonal, the social, the religious and so on. However, when the earth was explored, space became the goal... and the distances and dimensions involved became inconceivably greater. As science opens new areas of the unknown, so too do the gaps in our knowledge expand. This collective human knowledge is impersonal and, unlike the individual's understanding, itself involves no overall form of self-knowledge.

The expanding map image is also a very fair representation of any person's acquisition of knowledge from childhood onwards. The more one discovers, the wider are the horizons of the unknown become visible. The information available in today's world far exceeds what even the most expansive mind can even access, let alone know and remember.

When one understands something, one may be guided by borrowed knowledge, such as a theory - which is to say by generalisations made from the experience of others. It must, however be relevant to the particular instances we try to understand, or else great confusion can set in. Our experiences are also formed by the fund of knowledge handed down through time which reach each of us variously through many channels. If we could not benefit thus from the accumulated fund of human knowledge, we should have to carry out the wasteful or impossible undertaking of regenerating single-handedly knowledge that may have taken humanity ages to obtain. The main problem here is most often rather which theory to practice, which knowledge is true, inclusive and which applies in the particular case. There is an over-abundance of theories and doctrines, doubtless of all manner of combination between the entirely true and the entirely false.

Our faculty for understanding is a future-seeking, dynamic process that each person has to extend to each new circumstance. A society may be said to reach a certain general level of understanding of certain matters, yet even this is not maintained without successive regeneration, re-evaluation and periodic reinterpretation by individual persons everywhere in each generation or era. This is one chief reason why good education is so important in personal development.

We do not live in an unchanging vacuum where facts remain the same for ever, but in a shifting world environment where personal, social and other conditions change through time in unpredictable ways. Even the meaning of words change and the full contexts and living environment in which they made sense and conveyed general or abstract insights is lost to view soon enough. Along with it goes the correct understanding of their meaning. Sciences, philosophies and scriptures that can be said to have a perennially-true import can soon be misinterpreted and their original meaning lost along with unknown and inconceivable past circumstances and conditions. Much the same occurs in all kinds of inter-personal relations.

The personal act of understanding is the crux that interrelates all other forms of information, knowledge, insight and intuition as one whole, allowing us to apply knowledge relevantly in various life applications. Understanding is an on-going process of integration of many elements. Though the information and knowledge of the sciences and humanities etc. exist independently of the individual, one cannot say that there is any knowledge without there being a small portion of someone's 'subjective' understanding involved. Knowledge is something potentially useful, and because it must therefore be applied by someone, the subjective element always enters. Understanding is to comprehend and evaluate such elements in respect of the whole. Through understanding, insight arises as living truth in personal thought and action, not just as some abstract proposition.

When our idea of what understanding is becomes limited to ratiocination, it actually loses its essential human meaning. A totally 'neutral', non-emotive form of thought is probably impossible because it cannot be separated entirely from all other normal human sensibilities, feelings and desires. To think it the highest cannot be other than erroneous, an error that European philosophy has bequeathed to present-day 'intellectuals' at least since the time of Descartes. Such sheer mental abstraction may occasionally be employed in a good cause, but nothing in it guarantees this... as the impure use of 'pure' science, applied in weaponry and other destructive technologies, has shown all too clearly in the 20th Century.

The behaviour of a person who is very rationally-minded and is concerned mainly and excessively with 'intellectual' matters is often irrational in that it fails to take account of new experiences or the ever-present 'x-factors', the unknowns in any situation. The rational mind is easily misled into theoretical considerations at the expense of practical ones, especially practical questions concerning one's own actual behaviour and the effects it has on oneself and others. The intellectual tends to 'rationalise' everything in principle and take as well-informed and as 'scientifically universal' a viewpoint as possible. Without a sufficient counterweight of self-examination and conscience, this intellectualism becomes a burden for everyone.

Genuine openness of mind is hard to maintain once a person's life has stabilised and taken form through time within a particular social environment, such as the professional or collegial systems which set their own limits that tend to crystallise as established opinion and acceptable reasoning. Intellectualism often becomes a conventional rationality that cloaks irrational or non-rational attitudes that are upheld by norms that have been determined and which are often supported by specious arguments chosen only to fortify accepted opinion.

LANGUAGE AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF UNDERSTANDING

Language expresses our perceptions of things, their connections and so on. It doubtless developed parallel to the growth of early mankind's understanding of the natural world. Language is able to detach thought, via memory, from its immediate objects. This process of symbolism or abstraction opens for creative thought, be it in the form of stories, legends, myths, idea-systems of various kinds from the more practical to the highly theoretical, as in science, philosophy or theology.

This process of language also gives rise to misapplications, misunderstandings, confusions, misinterpretations and all those fixations of the mind that Wittgenstein summed up so succinctly in his phrase "the bewitchment of intelligence by language". Words, phrases and sentences are themselves often the culprit in creating problems of communication and understanding of all kinds, theoretical or personal, collective or practical. An important part of development of the understanding, therefore, lies in the clarification of language: akin to the clearing of mist and fog that covers parts of a landscape. Confusions caused by words and language of all kinds fog both the intellect and hinder human understanding.

One great pitfall to all kinds of verbal communication which is extremely widespread is the fallacy of false generalisation. Much of any language consists in general words and phrases, and these are used a great deal in ways that are much more sweeping than intended. Much of what is said, taken literally, is not a precise representation of what one means. In a sense, language itself tends to speak for us, to 'put words into our mouths' and thus to rule thought, rather than the other way round. What the speaker says may often be misunderstood unknowingly because the hearer does not interpret the general word or statement as referring to exactly the same as the speaker envisioned. Two people can also interpret the very same words as meaning different things due to the words' lack of precision. This error occurs frequently at all levels of language, from ordinary conversation and in personal relations to highly refined political or scientific statements and in international relations.

One widespread special case of such over-generalisation is known as 'misplaced concreteness' and its related tendency to the 'ontologisation' or fixation of ideas. Because we have a noun for some abstraction, it is assumed that the substantive word must have a corresponding entity. To 'ontologise' is to suppose the existence of something that is abstract and without material substance. The idea of society, for example, is often used in this fallacious way, and many ideas like it are used misleadingly (and often on purpose) such as 'the ego', 'the will of the people' 'public opinion', 'the mind', 'the Establishment', 'UFOs, 'Oedipus complex' and so on. This kind of 'insinuation of existence' through use of substantive nouns can be worked to various persuasive ends with very many general terms.

As noted earlier, a most difficult vocabulary to use is that which includes words referring to human qualities or abilities, especially those dealing with the mental, emotional and spiritual capacities. The faculties or phenomena to which words refer like 'intelligence', 'intellect', 'understanding', 'motivation', 'passion', 'devotion', 'hatefulness' 'ego', 'greediness', 'soul', 'spirit', and so forth are extremely difficult to define satisfactorily. This is so because the words refer to subjective qualities which, though not objects, are nevertheless actually present somehow in the human make-up. This difficulty, which is itself primary or ontological, is compounded greatly by the tremendous differences of usage of the same general words, the thousands of different senses and definitions that the same words have been given through the ages by thinkers of every conceivable standpoint.

Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out with great accuracy how often and strongly we tend to think that things referred to by the same common noun necessarily have in common many more than one likeness. Thus, the common noun 'tool' suggest 'something useful', but we tend to think that all tools will also necessarily share other characteristics (eg. having handles, or being used to modify something', when neither of these are the case). This can lead to confusion upon confusion, even in practical work but especially in complex systems of information, sciences and in philosophy. Again, 'games' would seem to include all activities done for fun rather than as remunerative work. But other activities are done for fun than games and many games are paid and actually amount to work. Wittgenstein explains the actual relationship between different games and tools by saying they are like family resemblences. In a family, there are some things in common between family members, while most others are not shared. Wittgenstein therefore regards most generalisations as confusion because we lose sight of the 'family differences'.

The perennial problems of understanding of life evidently do not disperse as a result of any amount of linguistic clarification or analysis. The basic questions like, 'Why was I born?, 'What is the purpose of my life?', 'Who or what am I?', 'How and why did the world, universe or cosmos come into being?' are very valid concerns for psychologists and their clients.³ The answers to these questions are not to be sought in any science or art, but when solved in the personal actuality of inner experience, they can be given some philosophical, poetic, theological or mystical form of expression.

VALUES THAT UNDERPIN PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING

Understanding is a process of making clear something on the basis of what one is already implicitly aware about the subject. Even a simple fact of observation is not graspable without the presence of a selective and 'pre-conditioned' awareness to seek it or even simply to recognise it ('re-cognise' presumes previous cognition).

The motivation to understand, which is subjective, always implies purpose and hence values. The motive is virtually always for something (perceived to be) true and good, whether for the individual or others. Values are thus fundamental and inevitable.

Since to understand is to move from a partial to a more whole conception, it must of course start with the many facts we observe through sense perception. But the understanding soon organises masses of perceptions according to values, conceptions and judgements⁴. We extend and articulate our understanding, organising our personal 'internal awareness' according to need or interest so that each person's understanding of others has unique features. Even our common observations of the common world do not alter this, because all such 'raw data' is perceived from the differing backgrounds of personal interests and angles of approach.

The 'data' with which any person is concerned can be so vast in embrace of perspectives and intricacy of relationship that it cannot be broken down and handled systematically other than by the human mind. The living human mind moves ahead of and beyond information and knowledge because its understanding is a process depending on values. Values define and also express all human motives, or at least all truly human or good values. So values are inescapably involved at some level in every form of human understanding. Any idea about 'good quality' as applied to life, experience, behaviour or society etc. will always imply or express human values, at whatever the level in the hierarchy of values may be appropriate.

In generalising about the process of understanding, I sketched a fairly map of its crucial geography. A broad grasp of something can, however, remain at a superficial level. When we speak of the depth of someone's understanding, we usually mean more than that it is wide-ranging. Depth of vision arises through insight, not so much through broad-minded interest in all things or a chasing down of every kind of fact in science and art. It is closely connected to the inward perception of values, which spring from the perception of human unity and the ultimate good. Insight hardly occurs where there has not been sustained effort to understand and it is a product of mental or psychic contemplation and self-knowledge.

Values enable the human mind to relate its apparently infinite mentations and complexities of speculation and theory to experience and life. As soon as the mind moves beyond strictly systematic thought disciplines, its considerations are so varied and many that one can only reply on personal judgement. This applies even to deciding on the quality and truth of all forms of testimony, whether personal, legal, scientific or other.

We originally learn everything from our environment and cannot usually learn anything very significant independently of others until, at best, after a long process. Decades of maturing, such learning Learning prior to experience and 'from outside' gives empty concepts, until it has been applied and tested in experience. The meaning of what is learned from books is fulfilled only when we have sufficient relevant experience. Its validity can only be known with inner conviction when we have a sound enough frame of personal reference to how valid it may be. This is the process of making knowledge one's own and forms a part of the process of self-inquiry.

Only those conceptions which have somehow been tested by, or are directly derived from, individual personal experience can amount to true immediate understanding. This 'principle of personal verification' is surely one which almost everyone will accept at times and often tries to apply. It is a fact that personal experience is everywhere taken as a crucial key to authentic understanding, not least in matter having anything to do with people and living life. Still, many facts that we rely on may have to be taken on faith through testimony, whether at first-hand or at several removes, and tested by common sense, reasoning and other checks. Fortunately, hardly any such facts are ever central to self-investigation.

Unless we personally possess or integrate knowledge through direct intuition backed up by personal discovery and the insight of experience, it is little better than conjecture and is rather like the much-vaunted tale told by a madman "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Such direct intuition arises only to the degree that we achieve control of our own mental processes. This involves the insight and creative vision of each person, involving the ability to reflect comprehensively and to contemplate free of personal interests. Even when not really understood, knowledge can be passed on to others by a clever sort of parroting, yet only when it resonates fully with one's own experience when it is penetrated by the reviewing mind's eye, can it bear the conviction of immediate truth.

The urge towards the truth within us insists that some explanations must be false, while there must always be a true explanation. Thus, unity in understanding is a goal that no seeker of truth can give up. The mutual goals of unity and truth are part of our psychological make-up, they are ideals inherent to the common human capacity to understand.

We are able (more or less) to discern what is true and false with the aid of our various faculties. Truth has many facets or levels at which it can be approached. There are various limitations in theory and practice that come of isolating the value 'truth' from others like goodness, without which it fails to embrace human reality fully for what it is. When anyone believes that knowing and expressing the truth on any matter takes all precedence over all other values like compassion, peace of mind or non-violence in word and deed, understanding and the greater truth suffer.

The insight into human nature that comes of self-knowledge also reflects one's knowledge of others and vice-versa. When a person's environment denies people the development of this natural propensity freely to know and to understand, the consequences can be very serious for the development of personality and, inter alia, for the society. History demonstrates that the repression anywhere, through whatever means, of this universal human propensity to want to understand leads to stunted personalities and backward societies.

UNDERSTANDING AS A HUMAN QUALITY

Genuine understanding can never be separated from such human qualities as sympathy and empathy, which led the mental functions their justification and point out the perennial goal of the enterprise of trying to understand, (the hope of) realising the eventual liberation from suffering. Any form of thought that denies the basic rightness of such a common goal for the future of humanity removes itself from the deepest and most heartfelt meaning of 'understanding'. For example, a psychological theory should be judged in terms of likely gains in - and then by demonstrable results in - personal self-understanding and self-improvement. A social theory, to amount to understanding, must have some feasible application in the actual improvement of social relations or human activity.

Human understanding is in principle limited neither by theories nor facts, though it must adjust to these. Yet it obviously has certain limitations, which are drawn by the limits of thought and the coherent mind. Freedom from any sort of Procrustean bed has always been an essential realising the nature of humanity and the cosmos. However, the nature of human language itself also sets certain conceptual and practical limits to what can meaningfully be expressed or conveyed about higher things.

Psychology and psychological therapy are, first and last, about understanding other people. Understanding of others cannot ever be primarily or mainly an intellectual exercise for it cannot develop without some form of mutual genuine commitment on a person-to-person basis. The task of psychology is to enhance mutual understanding, and this is not possible on a purely 'objective' basis. Persons are subjects and to understand them is to enter into communication with them on a subject-to-subject basis, even in a sense to 'commune subjectively'.

Whatever we may observe about other persons, the facts never simply 'speak their own story', for they record only outward behaviour and not the inward motives and aims. Facts make no sense without our interpretation of them, either through subconscious apperception or conscious thought. It is we who assign importance, irrelevance or any special significance to what is observed, and we do so ultimately on the basis of our entire self-understanding. If the actions of others can seem to be determined or conditioned, this may often (though not always) simply be because we do not understand or interpret them properly (not lease because we lack direct access to any other person's consciousness).

The simplest expedient in understanding others would appear to be to look and listen as much as possible, thereby reducing oneīs own influence on the personal picture that emerges. This is seldom itself an adequate method, however, for we cannot by remaining passive eliminate the influence on the picture of our own subjective attitudes, opinions and judgements. We may therefore just as well question the other so as to bring up matters that otherwise may have not been thought of or mentioned. To illustrate by an analogy of the 'human aura': to try to see another personīs aura unavoidably implies that one must see it through one's own aura. Oneīs own aura can never be eliminated, nor can the mutual influences that two (or more) auras exert upon one another in any situation whatever. In short, there are no short cuts to understanding others or knowing their true nature.

All this illustrates how crucial, when trying to understand others, is our self-knowledge. In some sense, we cannot help but 'judge others by ourselves', in that what we are able to appreciate depends upon our own development, the scope of our experience, and the quality of our understanding.

The question of understanding in life depends first and last on both the head and 'heart' of the individual. By the word 'heart' I refer to each persons' storehouse of noble human qualities from awareness of values, friendliness, kindness, empathy, feeling for others, truthfulness, altruism, good humour, chivalry, emotional honesty, shared wit, non-aggression and all in us that moves deeply the best in us... or in short, the love of our fellow human beings.

In understanding human beings, one remains subjective and narcissistic until the otherness of different people and peoples is appreciated through listening and learning, including their viewpoints and identifying with them in their situations or conditions. Understanding benefits through association, travel or vicariously through literature, teaching about the human condition... all leading to improved self-knowledge.

The personal communication of life experience and wisdom to others played a crucial role in early human society. Thus was achieved through much more complete, consistent and concrete learning processes than are common in today's educational and informational society. Long-term learning contact through participation with and under the close supervision of elders allowed gradual and cumulative transfer of a tribe's store of practical knowledge and spiritual wisdom.

Understanding can evidently only be transferred from one person to another in small portions and slowly over time. A ceaseless host of perceptions, experiences, reflections and insights go into maturing an understanding of life and the cosmos of the sort that is self-sufficient and self-transforming. Some of these elements may be communicated under the right conditions to the open-minded learner, but this can only ever represent a small fraction of the whole. What cannot be conveyed is the experiential wisdom which accrues only from the process of life, trial-and-error and constant self-inquiry. Understanding at such a level is the purification and ever-broader expansion of one's person into sympathy for and identity with all beings, recognising oneself as an expression of nothing less than awareness of ever-inherent Divinity in all that is. This being correct, it is in self-knowledge that understanding finds its real fulfilment. The overall task of anyone is to understand and transform oneself.

Where understanding lacks, the thoughts, words and actions of the human being are in conflict. The consequences of this is disharmony and further conflict. Understanding is above all what aims at comprehension of the underlying unity in all things, seeking to penetrate to the universal and unitary kernel of truth in divergent cultures and their products. This gives increasing peace of mind, more balanced judgement, more harmonious action and good quality of life.

Return to CONTENTS or Continue to next chapter