Hi. I just joined the forum today.

[JohnPaolucci]

Hi. I just joined the forum today.

In reading through the posts, I considered what might be most valuable for me to contribute.
I see three things that could add to the forum:

1. More consideration of “who” is speaking as the posters. As there is one all-person who is and does the universe, and who never stops being that person even when he pretends to be localized beings, the (seeming) localized beings as posters would do well to consider why they are saying what they say. In other words, how it’s aligned with the fullest stance of the universe.

2. As there are layers of truths from lesser to greater, from more localized the the most complete, these truths could be kept in their proper order and perspective. That would assist in the most practical utility and useful application of information.
3. Application of the highest law, the first law of the universe: ONE thing, Brahman, Being, Transcendent, The Absolute, or many other names it goes by. It should always be put first as the means/basis to accomplish or to know anything.

I’m a portrait painter, philosopher, and meta-physician. Over 40 years I’ve been integrating art with complete self-knowledge (enlightenment, if that word is appropriate) to produce practical results. I’ve found that relating it to something as tangible as painting has helped to keep my feet on solid ground and helped me from getting lost in philosophical abstractions.

The three points above have been important to me. I have a YouTube video which I think covers these (and more) well. It’s richly illustrated, since as an artist, that’s my language. I also have it in PDF form on my website. All my stuff is free. I have nothing to sell.

My first video is a two hour complete examination of how to instantly materialize a portrait painting without human hands. The second 1/2 hour video goes deeply into the actual procedure which I call the ten-minute command session.

If you go to YouTube, enter the search, Advanced Portrait Painting Through Universal Line.

Hope you enjoy how my illustrations put form to abstract concepts, and I look forward to any comments.

[Pam Seeback]

Hi John, welcome! I enjoyed the simplicity of the complexity :-) of your video presentation very much. I'm not sure how far back you have gone in reading the submissions of the members here, but since its genesis in the year 2001, there has been no shortage of inclusion of addressing "who" is speaking as the posters and of how knowing "who" this "who" really is causes consideration of why they are saying what they say. One of the original tenets of this forum which hasn't been mentioned in a while is the law of identity of A = A, one that I believe fits in perfectly with your idea of Portrait Painting through Universal Line.

Are you suggesting that the Admin change the forum description which currently is "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment" to reflect a less abstract intent?

[JohnPaolucci]

Hi movingalways.
I'll bet I could dig deeper into past posts. The search word "who" may help. I'm sure there are "perfect fits." As you know, its just a matter of emphasis. Who is so easily lost in identity's cause-effect: especially the intellect. Everything becomes so elegantly simplistic when it returns. So maybe I'll poke my nose in now and then as a catalyst for that :-)
I completely understand the alpha-male intellectual competition/division. It's such a kick because it's who I am and what I do.

I find entertaining, the absence everywhere, (not just singling out forums) of why ONE thing (A=A as you put it) also means that there is ONE all-person who is and does the universe along with his hierarchy kingdom. The sweetness of that complete authorship integrity, permeating everyone's personage, as that personage, levels the playing field, and resolves all issues of localized choice. Most often I see the discussion of A=A as if it is something distant to observe, rather that who is right there trimming his toenails. In my video, I had fun keeping my conversation in first person (all-person) in order to keep that point salient. I wonder how I'd be received if I came in and posted in first person as the final who? Hey, maybe I'd start a new fad ;-)
Forums could be a celebration of complete authorship integrity, or what I like to call fond-flow-effulgence. My "thing" is to make the world a more beautiful place to live.

"Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment" sounds like a perfect fit to me.

[Dan Rowden]

Hello John,

If you enjoy philosophy based Youtube material, you might like to browse:

https://www.youtube.com/user/MenoftheInfinite/videos

The channel hasn't been active in quite a while, but the content is timeless so that ought not matter. Best to start from the, well, beginning, really :)

[Pam Seeback]

Yes John, the ultimate goal of being human is to find oneself at the beginning and ending of things, the alpha and the omega, I and the Father are One. Where one speaks of the infinity of their world in the first person, I am the light of the world. And in doing so, reconcile all things of ignorance unto the emptiness of Oneself, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.

And wherein this wisdom and compassion for the whole universe is done while one is trimming their toenails or eating pasta or having a dump in the loo. :-)

[JohnPaolucci]

I'm comfortable with your quotes from Scripture. It has it's place.
The stance I've chosen to take is not make those references. The moment I validate ideas from Scriptural quotes, I put myself in a box which I feel is not fair to reasonable rational folks who are new to personal transformation. If they did a web-search to further research my quotes, they'd come across a mix of opinions that is ugly at best. So many have misplaced spiritual priorities and have associated Scripture with localized boundaries which only serve small identities.
"Ugly mix" also has it's place as an expansion opportunity for those who need it, so mine is not a criticism, just a localized observation. So many souls would not have to opportunity to incarnate on this planet without a stage setting of "ugly mix" to match their particular expansion and refinement through cyclical continuity.
Speaking who in first person, "All alone, I only do what I love."

At this time, and in my circumstances, pointing people to an ugly mix is unnecessary.

In my illustrations, I keep to simple mechanical facts and make sure those facts are linked to a practical application.

------

However if I get a question, such as, "Who is Lord Krishna?" I do my best:

Mac: You mentioned that both Brahman and One all-person are embodied as Lord Krishna. That raises questions about his relationship with ONE all-person – about the relationship with the line of evolution of realm-beings take.


John: Yes, I said that Both Brahman (the Vedic word for universal line) and One all-person are embodied as Lord Krishna. That suggests the appearance of a being who is not on a line of expansion while in the field of wave. It suggests that if you are on the throne as the Supreme Almighty Being at the highest level of vibration, that you could get a tap on the shoulder from a “Father Line” who comes out of nowhere and outside of your influence. Instead of using the Vedic word Krishna, I’ll coin the term Father Line to make the distinction between him and a wave-based being.
The mind-stretcher comes up: how can a being moving in wave, not be wave-based or change-based? How can pure intelligence which is formless, be represented in an intelligent form? It’s in the same category as, “How could something which has no attributes and no vibration, contain all attributes and all vibrations?”
The best answer I have is that because universal line is a field of all possibilities, such a thing has to be possible, so we indeed see it happen. It’s actually stated in the first law of universal line: I never stop being ONE thing even when I become variations. Father Line is in-between the first and second laws of universal line. It’s a delicate point. I didn’t bring it up in the main text because it was not essential to successfully creating a magical portrait painting. I was hitting people with enough abstractions that I didn’t want to get into more. I told you that you could email me with any questions you had about the hierarchy of the universe and indeed you did.

Mac: Why male, like Krishna is always portrayed? Why not Person Line? Are you being paternalistic?

John: There’s a deeper meaning to maleness than the biological an social conditions seen on this planet. In the causal realms or God kingdoms, maleness is known as first cause, father > pater > pitri. The pitri is first cause since it interacts with matter > mater > mother to form a universe of individuals.

Mac: Okay, then we need a new diagram for how he fits in.

John: Let’s go with this. It’s pretty common-sense. See how faint he is within the circle of universal line.

Father-Line.jpg

Mac: So why is there a need for permanent Father Line who moves around any realm of the universe checkin things out and changing things?

John: The universe very personal. It’s nice to know that there is someone around who is never becoming anything or coming and going. It’s a personal embodiment of the truth and permanence of universal line. He’s not higher or lower than you because he doesn't’ have a spot on a relative line, yet he has the final say. He doesn’t have his nose to the grindstone about the workings of evolution like the beings in charge. He plays about in a more boyish way. Thats why he’s portrayed as a sweet boy playing his flute. So it’s not really about a need. He’s there to make you feel comfy.

Mac: Yes, knowing that does make me feel comfy. I’d say that’s a good enough reason. (smile)
Just one more thing. I’m to know that I’m all alone and there is no one besides me. How do I see Him then?

John: When you see Him, you see yourself as looking at yourself. He smiles and you find yourself smiling back because you both know.

Mac: Even before I’m sitting on the throne as the Supreme-Almighty?

John: Yes. He’s so intimate and boyishly playful that he can pop up anywhere for no reason at all and with no regard to the laws of evolution.

Mac: I’m a very interesting rule-maker.

John: The final rule is that there are no rules. That’s why I’d have to say that if you see him, you’re seeing a variation that is true: the exception to the rule, “Only that which does not change is true.”

Mac: What if I wanted to be Him and not ONE all-person?

John: That would be Him wanting to be Him and “you” would.

Mac: Hmmm. I think that’s my final question. Obviously the rest is going to be up to “me.” (smile)

[Pam Seeback]

I totally understand the "ugly mix" reference. My reason for using the words attributed to the man called Jesus was not coming from a reference to localized boundaries but to provide an example of someone who had transcended his local view of God and in doing so, fearlessly used the first person, an activity that of course, ended badly for him.

What is interesting about the words of Jesus is that although he was clearly speaking of the One Person when he spoke of "I and the Father are One," he was obviously a product of the language of his times, which is why he was so grossly misunderstood by those who had not yet transcended their localized boundaries. As I'm sure you are aware, at no time did Jesus identity himself as a Christian (or as a Jew for that matter), just as the Buddha or Lao Tzu did not identify themselves as Buddhists or Daoists.

From my personal experience, both for myself and for others (of the One Person) who have transcended the idea of localized boundaries, the reasoning of scriptures or wisdom writings is a necessary alchemy on the road of ego dissolution (attachment to the local self). If you check the background of most of the members here, you won't find too many who are 'stuck' in the localized realm of religion-identification. Given your dialogue with "Mac", I am left to reason that you are comfortable reasoning your universal line with those who have either transcended their localized boundaries or are ripe to do so.

All the best on your Youtube channel. I'll pop in every once and a while and see how things are evolving. :-)

[JohnPaolucci]

Thanks for not being a part of the ugly mix. ;-) And I approve of your reasons. It’s fun to talk scripture for a change.

I have to inject more info about your Jesus comment – about things ending badly for him.
The “badly” is a fabrication of Christians (as you say Jesus was not — good comment) who could only identify with bondage and therefore interpreted his message in that light.
Jesus never suffered. The root meaning of suffer as if as applied in translations, didn’t always have the modern connotation of something bad or unpleasant. It meant “to simply remain however you find yourself.” ”Suffer unto me little children” was him addressing his own under-developed impulses of thought/intellect within himself to allow them to be aligned with his totality-stance. Being nailed to the cross is covered in my videos and need not be bad at all. In fact, I call it my wonderful expansion opportunity.
You’ll find what he taught in my ten-minute command session. However, Reverend Biblibelt would arduously disagree.
If most of your members were stuck in the localized realm of religion-identification, my posts would become a punching bag and I’d probably be asked to leave. But hey, at least you'd be there to stick up for me.
Funny how you use the word transcended often and I never do. In the 70’s I became a teacher of Transcendental Meditation. I am not an active teacher now, but I’m here in Iowa where I meditate in the Golden Dome with a large Sidha group at Maharishi University of Management.
Two other words I stay clear of are ego and energy. There’s just too much fun being a maverick who makes up his own vocabulary.

[uncledote]

John

Did you slow your own voice down on the video to sound more masculine and then speed your own voice up to sound like a fictional 'Mac' character?

[JohnPaolucci]

My (John's) voice on the video is my own unaltered. I used a software application called MorphVOX that modifies my voice. I raised the pitch with a teenager setting for Mac, and modified it in various ways for the other three characters. Doing so made editing much easier, rather than having real characters come back for edits. Mac's voice does seem a bit unusual :-)

[uncledote]

My (John's) voice on the video is my own unaltered. I used a software application called MorphVOX that modifies my voice. I raised the pitch with a teenager setting for Mac, and modified it in various ways for the other three characters. Doing so made editing much easier, rather than having real characters come back for edits. Mac's voice does seem a bit unusual :-)

It's a bit cheesy, dude.

[Pam Seeback]

John: I have to inject more info about your Jesus comment – about things ending badly for him.

The “badly” is a fabrication of Christians (as you say Jesus was not — good comment) who could only identify with bondage and therefore interpreted his message in that light.

My using of the term "badly" certainly wasn't used in the Christian context as you explain it above. An ineffective choice of concept, therefore a chance to transcend (end) my error. :-)

Jesus never suffered. The root meaning of suffer as if as applied in translations, didn’t always have the modern connotation of something bad or unpleasant. It meant “to simply remain however you find yourself.” ”Suffer unto me little children” was him addressing his own under-developed impulses of thought/intellect within himself to allow them to be aligned with his totality-stance. Being nailed to the cross is covered in my videos and need not be bad at all. In fact, I call it my wonderful expansion opportunity.

Of your personal experience of "addressing the remaining under-developed impulses of thought/intellect that needed or needs to be aligned with the totality-stance", did you or do you not suffer this remaining? In other words, how did you experience 'wonderful' without first experiencing 'not wonderful?'

You’ll find what he taught in my ten-minute command session.

Are you willing to discuss the ways in which Jesus' teachings changed you so you and I can have what could be a most lively and spirited discussion? It might mean referring to scriptures, but hey, as you already pointed out, here is a chance for some fun. :-)

Two other words I stay clear of are ego and energy. There’s just too much fun being a maverick who makes up his own vocabulary.

Fun yes, but potentially fraught with challenges of clarity.

As I said to Diebert in my post in the nature of consciousness thread, as I see it, the biggest challenge for the coming of wisdom is to speak its language. So that I might have a better understanding of your understanding of enlightenment, would you be willing to expand upon the nature of your concept of 'One Person' and of its 'universal line?' I am most interested in your use of the concept 'One Person' as it has the potential to suggest the totality is a subject (in time and space) that makes objects (in time and space) of Itself.

[steve]

From your original post John:

3. Application of the highest law, the first law of the universe: ONE thing, Brahman, Being, Transcendent, The Absolute, or many other names it goes by. It should always be put first as the means/basis to accomplish or to know anything.

Are you saying that because we are all essentially one, all of our behaviors should be to better the whole?

Lets say that you are the universe. What would your belief system be that drives your behavior? I believe after questioning why you would want anything, it always leads back to your own quality of life. Whatever brings you pleasure.

Two examples:

The pursuit of truth. Why? It's interesting (short term quality of life behavior). It will lead to personal growth/ wisdom (long term quality of life behavior).

Helping others. Why? I like how it make's me feel (short term quality of life behavior). It will better the all (long term quality of life behavior).

This should conclude that all your behaviors lead to you acting in a selfish manner.

Given your selfish behaviors, how do you come to terms with potentially being a mortal being. Lets say that you enjoy movies, music, books more than helping the whole. A more stimulating present moment indulging in new thoughts, compared to helping at a soup kitchen or creating art for people. How could your meaning to life be anything more that the sum of all your present moments in regards to quality of life.

If you new for sure you were immortal, all of your behaviors could be aligned with helping the whole in order to maximize the totality of your quality of life.

So I'm asking why your care about helping the whole? What makes you think this will improve your own quality of life?