GENIUS FORUMS

I am bringing Dennis' post over from the thread “arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy” for the purpose of relating to thought patterns that, although not everyone's experience in the gestalt-I Am-moment of having lived them, provide a launching-off point of relativity that allows for a connection to be made for the potential 'catch' of their vision of how they can go through their human mind to go beyond their human mind.

I can't resist taking this context to another context that appeals to me, that being 'in order to do philosophy'.

Within myself there was always a deep desire to 'step into' WORD so as to become the living demonstration of WORD. It wasn't until it became a conscious acknowledgment of my will, that I stepped into the fire of this desire.

To set up the salient points I have to provide some back story.
I was pushed into Sunday School by a parent and that culture presented Jesus in a certain way that, in my childish mind, unprotected by wisdom, had me having to decide whether I was good enough for Jesus.

The wisdom that did not protect you, nor did it protect me, was the wisdom that any world based on the having to retrieve thought by way of polarizing thought into an oppositional stance, was not based on the reality of there being one, undivided awareness of Life. As children, we intuit this truth of ONE, but we do not have the thought pattern to express it. Ergo, this intuition or unexpressed knowing is suppressed, until we are touched of the words that suggest its unfolding.

I fell into the not good enough for Jesus way of being and in relation to Jesus I was emotionally crippled as well as suffering from illogical reasoning.

The wisdom that was also missing from what you were told of Jesus, is that only the Son of man, Jesus, knew who and what Jesus was, and only moment by moment, for no revelation of I Am is permanent. What society presents to its children, out of ignorance, is that what they say of Jesus is the absolute truth of Jesus, when no such absolute truth of Jesus ever existed, not even in the awareness of Jesus himself.

People reading this are perhaps thinking I'm an idiot and that's OK but I can only be real about where I've been unreal.

In your words above is a residue of the suffering of the lie of “I have an opposite to me” that you endured as a child, a residue that every man still possesses in varying degrees.

So now you've opened up Jesus authentically, in such a way that Jesus as emotional dynamite has no relevance. Baggage handled. So, thanks for that.

As another touched me in the same way.

Now for the salient points in relation to 'in order to do philosophy'.

How can philosophy be done when one comes at it loaded up with emotional dynamite based on illogical reasoning. Dynamite, easily triggered, that has one fighting from an agenda?

The topic can be any topic.
Jesus, Woman, Man, Money, Politics, anything.

You can bring all the seeming logic you like into the agenda and make it seem plausable but if the whole house of cards is unreal, well its not true philosophy.

The flaw in a collective philosophy of truth that can be 'known' is that no matter what formula is presented to reduce the flow of thought to an equation that represents the very essence of philosophy, is that the moment one applies that equation that is purposed to be a pure intellectual representation of Life or God or the Tao, the I of subjectivity-objectivity is activated. What I have discovered, is that formulas, such as A = A are tools of necessity to still the mind, but where they fall short is in allowing the thinker to pierce the dualism that is inherently present in the equation itself so as to walk the path of thought that is purposed to eliminate the presence of dualism within their own conscious awareness of I Am.

Philosophy needs ground or 'a clearing'....that's clear of emotion based agendas for it to shine in its true possibility: of having it be knowable, and really that strikes me as the greatest possibility of all.

The individual walk of the impersonal I of I Am THAT.

I don't think people need to access years of psychotherapy to handle the load of emotional dynamite they carry into each new topic, but I think there is a possibility for people to be coached about how to come at it, how to have it in such a way, about the necessity of being firstly structured up in a correct kind of way for the fruits of philosophy to be realised.

I have never undergone psychotherapy, but since it is a science of humanism, it is also a science based on the false notion that there such a thing as a self that is divided into two selves – a self that is good, and a self that is not good [evil], and being that it is a science based on this false ground of a being that is perpetually at war with itself, it can provide a band-aid for the soul, that of positive thinking 'over' negative thinking, but what it cannot do is provide a pattern of thinking that breaks through the very core of this erroneous thought of 'two selves' residing in the One Self of I Am.

People aren't inherently dumb, can get it quick, can soon enough own up and be real in the owning up of where they're being unreal...it can be picked up as easily as picking up a knife and fork once it's grokked.

People aren't inherently dumb, because people aren't inherently dual. Dumb exists only in relation to smart. Neither dumb nor smart stands alone as the singular I Am substance-essence of one's nature. As for 'grokking' a pattern of thought that can liberate one from their prison of dualism: the human mind of belief in dualism is a tricky fellow, for it is programmed with an expiration date which, for a time and space, it denies exists, and even when it acknowledges that such a 'date' exists, it fights this acknowledgement until its last breath. I am programmed to die, but...the human mind is all about BUT, a BUT of dualism that does not exist in the invisible infinity of the thought continuum of I Am.

The acknowledgement that the human mind is all about BUT is a good launching-off point into the world of the living metaphor and myth of which I believe Jesus became aware, this word of belief of BUT that sets one up to believe they are separate from the omniety or infinity of themselves. Check out the first six verses of Genesis 2. A link to a good bible resource: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV

Well, maybe some lack capacity.

What I have discovered, is that it is not about capacity, but about one's determination to be liberated, once and for all, from the BUT that haunts their soul. A determination that extends into a willingness to die for this wisdom, even though, as they cry out these words in the intensity of their determination, they know not of what this walk of death IS. Welcome to the living metaphors of faith and of hope!

Hi Pam,
thanks for blending the wisdom you want to represent inside the context I offered in such a deft manner, that is you had the deft manner.
In our exchange I've enquired of you and enquiring 'calls forth' whatever it is you wish to present.
I've set you a context in which there's a sense of 'bringing forth' what you wish to present to the context.
This time I want to tell you the Story of a typical day for me and provide for what you wish to present.. an opportunity to 'show forth'.

Now, these ways are beautiful treasures.

typically, I retire at night grateful for rest.
I arouse from sleep in a semi wakefulness, tangled in a dream and watch the dream playing itself out. Typically, the me in the dream is trying to explain itself to others in the dream. its not that the others are looking for explanation. The me in the dream isn't anxious at all, just desirous of being understood. The me in the dream invariably fails to get 'understoodness' and the others simply walk on. The me in the dream suffers from a sense of lost opportunity.
Now I'm awake and a little gloomy in mood.
A couple of hours later my possiblity of being authentic and useful in the world is awake and firing.
After 4 or 5 hours I tire and withdraw.
What tires my possibility is the way the world is which is inauthentic. I may be generating 'being useful' but that mean old world just uses me.
I'm just the experience of a rank and serial number after the way I wish to be in the world tires.
When I get home the possibility reignites and experiencing is pleaurable.

This shifting from state to state or pattern to pattern is my experience.

Like Sisyphus rolling the stone up the hill to have it roll down at night to roll it back up again tomorrow.

I'm not being a cry baby about it, not complaining. Actually find warmth and humour in it, actually really funny, not feeling its tragic, dont need greener grass.

I'm not too sure if having you 'show forth' from a Story is the better way to go. I feel a bit embarrased.

Do you prefer inquiry or context?

Just on that 'experiencing as a rank and serial number in the World'.

Its just the sheer arrogance of the Culture to take a little kid into its mediocrity and rehearse him/her and train him/her up to be a role.

the Culture as producer, director, scriptwriter.

Mass hypnosis.

This sense of 'show forth' from a story disclosed as a mind with a shifting pattern experience.
Is Jesus a pattern of mind?
You'll say its beyond the mind.
In the patterning disclosed that has me walk through a day in a certain way like shifting sands.
In what way could I walk through a day that gets me access to the way Jesus would walk through a day?
It's that kind of 'show forth' that is called for here.
Can we say the gestalt of Jesus?

If this appears dense and inaccessible, refer back to the dream and just walk by as the others in the dream do.

Something you said:

Welcome to the living metaphors of faith and of hope!

has thrown open a door to walk through and clarification could benefit.

Its just that this pattern that has the mistaken identity 'me' as a point of reference that plays into a pattern World 'it', even tho' familiar and feeling just a little bit safe but isn't really...has a knowing 'there's so much more'.

Hi Pam,

Hi Dennis,

thanks for blending the wisdom you want to represent inside the context I offered in such a deft manner, that is you had the deft manner.
In our exchange I've enquired of you and enquiring 'calls forth' whatever it is you wish to present.
I've set you a context in which there's a sense of 'bringing forth' what you wish to present to the context.

You've identified, for me, the benefit of blending wisdoms most perfectly!

This time I want to tell you the Story of a typical day for me and provide for what you wish to present.. an opportunity to 'show forth'.

Now, these ways are beautiful treasures.

Acknowledgment of self-love.

typically, I retire at night grateful for rest.

A question I came to ask myself, born of my weariness of 'having to be grateful' and of 'having to seek rest': where or when is the 'me' that is ever at rest, and has no need to be grateful, for it IS Itself, and being Itself, is whole, complete, perfect and pure. Where is this 'me' that no longer watches 'me' and interprets 'me' but IS 'me'?

I arouse from sleep in a semi wakefulness, tangled in a dream and watch the dream playing itself out. Typically, the me in the dream is trying to explain itself to others in the dream. its not that the others are looking for explanation. The me in the dream isn't anxious at all, just desirous of being understood. The me in the dream invariably fails to get 'understoodness' and the others simply walk on. The me in the dream suffers from a sense of lost opportunity.

The dream of everyman. Every man desires to be understood; every man suffers from the sense of lost opportunity.

Now I'm awake and a little gloomy in mood.
A couple of hours later my possiblity of being authentic and useful in the world is awake and firing.
After 4 or 5 hours I tire and withdraw.
What tires my possibility is the way the world is which is inauthentic. I may be generating 'being useful' but that mean old world just uses me.
I'm just the experience of a rank and serial number after the way I wish to be in the world tires.
When I get home the possibility reignites and experiencing is pleaurable.

This shifting from state to state or pattern to pattern is my experience.

Like Sisyphus rolling the stone up the hill to have it roll down at night to roll it back up again tomorrow.

I'm not being a cry baby about it, not complaining. Actually find warmth and humour in it, actually really funny, not feeling its tragic, dont need greener grass.

I'm not too sure if having you 'show forth' from a Story is the better way to go. I feel a bit embarrased.

Do you prefer inquiry or context?

Just on that 'experiencing as a rank and serial number in the World'.

Its just the sheer arrogance of the Culture to take a little kid into its mediocrity and rehearse him/her and train him/her up to be a role.

the Culture as producer, director, scriptwriter.

Mass hypnosis.

This sense of 'show forth' from a story disclosed as a mind with a shifting pattern experience.
Is Jesus a pattern of mind?

The pattern of mind that you demonstrate above, is, as I say, every man's pattern of mind of his human mind of belief in dualism. Every man who has not yet questioned why he experiences this roller coaster ride of 'up' and 'down' mood within himself remains a slave to this 'up' and 'down' mentality. Jesus appeared of the invisibility of himself [as every man appears of invisibility of himself] to suffer the same experience of 'not being understood' of his thought world of appearance-interpretation and to demonstrate the way to be liberated from this suffering. As did the Buddha-mind of Gautama. Both men went into the wilderness of themselves [away from the subjective-objective relativity of their appearance-interpretation] and remained obedient to their determination to discover the source of their suffering, and having discovered the source of their suffering, to end it within themselves.

You'll say its beyond the mind.

The pattern of Jesus is the pattern of the human mind of suffering that Jesus called the Son of man. The pattern of the Christ within Jesus is the pattern of the mind of Wisdom that understands why the Son of man suffers, and what the Christ within the Son of man must do so that the suffering of Jesus or of Pam or of Dennis will be no more.

In the patterning disclosed that has me walk through a day in a certain way like shifting sands.
In what way could I walk through a day that gets me access to the way Jesus would walk through a day?
It's that kind of 'show forth' that is called for here.
Can we say the gestalt of Jesus?

No, this way of thinking is not the gestalt of Jesus, for a gestalt of understanding is a moment of revelation of wholeness, which can never be seen or analyzed by the sense intellect of the Son of man. This moment of wholeness revelation is sometimes identified as a 'mystical' comprehension, but where most seekers err, is that they begin to interpret this 'gestalt comprehension' using the personal I of their senses, believing that the wholeness of God can be 'pieced together' to form a jig-saw puzzle of Wholeness called The Cosmology of God. The belief that God comes alive in the personality of man [that He is and was not already alive before the human mind of appearance came 'on the scene' is the [very popular] expression of this error in thinking.

The pattern of thinking of which I speak that allows one to end their suffering of 'not being understood' and to go through this experience to go beyond this experience, can for me, best be expressed by a walk through the Metaphor of the Infinite Self that is the Father of Genesis 1, and of the Myth of the finite self of Genesis 2, and of the reconciliation of the Myth of the Son [who suffers] unto the Metaphor of the Father [who suffers not] of the Christ Mind as demonstrated by the Master Jesus.

If this appears dense and inaccessible, refer back to the dream and just walk by as the others in the dream do.

When an honest inquiry comes to God, in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, there is no walking by. There is no question that the Christ in Dennis cannot answer, for the purpose of the Christ in Dennis is to gather his questions up unto his answers, precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little. The 'ultimate healing' of Dennis.

Something you said:

Welcome to the living metaphors of faith and of hope!


has thrown open a door to walk through and clarification could benefit.

Its just that this pattern that has the mistaken identity 'me' as a point of reference that plays into a pattern World 'it', even tho' familiar and feeling just a little bit safe but isn't really...has a knowing 'there's so much more'.

Right on!

I will post a post of the walk of the Living Metaphor of God, in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, in this thread, within the next day or so.

Hi Pam, thankyou.

It's really funny, beautiful and delightful.
How we experience.
In my context it's me/you/it....subject/object/object...duality
In your context it's you/me/it looking at it from my context but for you it's also me/you/it...subject/object/object...duality.

When me/you engage in conversation its 'we' talking about it...subject/object...duality.

When me enquires of you, me calls forth what you have.
When me sets a context, me has you bring forth what you have.
When me provides a story, me has you show forth or straighten me out.

I Am you and You are me and We and It are all together.

I AM that...non-duality!
Just that. A is A.
The suffering arises in the belief of a separate 'me'.

movingalways wrote:I am bringing Dennis' post over from the thread “arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy” for the purpose of relating to thought patterns that, although not everyone's experience in the gestalt-I Am-moment of having lived them, provide a launching-off point of relativity that allows for a connection to be made for the potential 'catch' of their vision of how they can go through their human mind to go beyond their human mind.

I think you're offering an internally contradictory solution. You say that dualities are inherently limiting, but you are constantly relying on dualities. For instance,

The wisdom that did not protect you, nor did it protect me, was the wisdom that any world based on the having to retrieve thought by way of polarizing thought into an oppositional stance, was not based on the reality of there being one, undivided awareness of Life.

This notion of "one, undivided awareness of Life" is dualistically formed. It is itself an "oppositional stance", that contrasts dualistically.


And here, another instance,

The flaw in a collective philosophy of truth that can be 'known' is that no matter what formula is presented to reduce the flow of thought to an equation that represents the very essence of philosophy, is that the moment one applies that equation that is purposed to be a pure intellectual representation of Life or God or the Tao, the I of subjectivity-objectivity is activated.

Here you say that any philosophy of truth that can be known is dualistic in nature. But you are obviously offering what you know, without saying that it is wrong. In other words, you are relying on dualisms all the way, to tell us what you regard as true.


And here, another instance,

What I have discovered, is that formulas, such as A = A are tools of necessity to still the mind, but where they fall short is in allowing the thinker to pierce the dualism that is inherently present in the equation itself so as to walk the path of thought that is purposed to eliminate the presence of dualism within their own conscious awareness of I Am.

Your notion there, of "their own conscious awareness of I Am", is also dualistically formed. It's oppositional to something else. You can't escape or eliminate dualism.


---

What I see, basically, is that you have this very limiting belief that thinking, dualism, reasoning, logic, ideas, and all kinds of conceptualisations, are unable to express perfectly the truth of Ultimate Reality - the absolute and all-pervading nature of the All. So you fall back on the idea that ridding the mind of all thought, all reason, all logic, is the safest bet for achieving enlightenment. It's a common mistake. People of this attitude tend to use words like "intuition" and "awareness", and even say that the child's mind is the purest, as you do:

As children, we intuit this truth of ONE, but we do not have the thought pattern to express it. Ergo, this intuition or unexpressed knowing is suppressed, until we are touched of the words that suggest its unfolding.

What you're missing is that all things are the ONE. All things are manifestations of non-duality. Where else could you find the truth, but in things, in oppositions, in dualities, and in contrasts? All these things are themselves God. All things are you. Tat tvam asi means all things are the one. Including, necessarily, thinking, reasoning, conceptualisations, words, and contrasting oppositional ideas.


---

I have never undergone psychotherapy, but since it is a science of humanism, it is also a science based on the false notion that there such a thing as a self that is divided into two selves – a self that is good, and a self that is not good [evil], and being that it is a science based on this false ground of a being that is perpetually at war with itself,

Psychotherapy is about exploring memories of damaged emotions, and trying to rethink the shoddy values that caused them. Typically, that rethinking is based in egotism, which is the belief that a self really exists. For that reason, psychotherapy is of limited usefulness. But that all changes if the rethinking is based in wisdom, that there is no self. Then the puzzles and suffering falls to pieces.


.

Kelly Jones wrote: I think you're offering an internally contradictory solution. You say that dualities are inherently limiting, but you are constantly relying on dualities. For instance,

This is flatline logic for the simple reason it is contradictory to I know. When you apply the I think testimony you have applied an assumption which is not even relative to relativity because you have not offered the relative of association of anything to anything but what you think. Why you think movingalways offer as an internally contradictory solution moves beyond I think when you tell an internally contradictory solution is not correct.

Kelly Jones wrote: This notion of "one, undivided awareness of Life" is dualistically formed. It is itself an "oppositional stance", that contrasts dualistically.

Here again you have made a statement but has offered nothing as evidence as to why you have made it, or why it is what you call

"oppositional stance", that contrasts dualistically.

These words have no probative value which makes them formless.

Kelly Jones wrote: Here you say that any philosophy of truth that can be known is dualistic in nature. But you are obviously offering what you know, without saying that it is wrong. In other words, you are relying on dualisms all the way, to tell us what you regard as true.

Here you are telling movingalways the same thing I am telling you above. Why should this standard apply to movingalways and not you?

Kelly Jones wrote: Your notion there, of "their own conscious awareness of I Am", is also dualistically formed. It's oppositional to something else. You can't escape or eliminate dualism.

Why can't movingalways not escape or eliminate dualism? What is your logic for saying this?

Kelly Jones wrote: What I see, basically, is that you have this very limiting belief that thinking, dualism, reasoning, logic, ideas, and all kinds of conceptualisations, are unable to express perfectly the truth of Ultimate Reality - the absolute and all-pervading nature of the All. So you fall back on the idea that ridding the mind of all thought, all reason, all logic, is the safest bet for achieving enlightenment. It's a common mistake. People of this attitude tend to use words like "intuition" and "awareness", and even say that the child's mind is the purest, as you do:

Isn't this what we all do being the truth of ultimate reality is not known and cannot be defined by what any one sees, thinks, or believe? And are you not also making it appear that you know the path to enlightment across the board, and movingalways path is incorrect because it is not the road to enlightment which is before you? And in making such a statement you categorize movingalways with the assumption that people like her use words to manipulate minds, and instill thoughs such as children minds are without deceit? You offer no explanation as to why you think this way concerning what movingalways have stated.

Kelly Jones wrote: What you're missing is that all things are the ONE. All things are manifestations of non-duality. Where else could you find the truth, but in things, in oppositions, in dualities, and in contrasts? All these things are themselves God. All things are you. Tat tvam asi means all things are the one. Including, necessarily, thinking, reasoning, conceptualisations, words, and contrasting oppositional ideas.

I have not seen where movingalways have not said

all things are the ONE.

Is it you who has missed something?

Kelly Jones wrote: Psychotherapy is about exploring memories of damaged emotions, and trying to rethink the shoddy values that caused them. Typically, that rethinking is based in egotism, which is the belief that a self really exists. For that reason, psychotherapy is of limited usefulness. But that all changes if the rethinking is based in wisdom, that there is no self. Then the puzzles and suffering falls to pieces.

Psychotherapy is about resurrecting the dead and attempting, as well as bringing to life dead memories that should have long ago been covered with the dead bones of non-existence in the moment now lived as and activity of actual movement. You bear witness to what I have stated about resurrecting the dead. "Let the dead bury the dead," unless one can come nigh and touch the bier and the bearer will stand still.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

movingalways wrote:I am bringing Dennis' post over from the thread “arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy” for the purpose of relating to thought patterns that, although not everyone's experience in the gestalt-I Am-moment of having lived them, provide a launching-off point of relativity that allows for a connection to be made for the potential 'catch' of their vision of how they can go through their human mind to go beyond their human mind.

Kelly Jones: I think you're offering an internally contradictory solution.

I have not yet explained my solution except to introduce a vision of unconditioned, pre-material consciousness and of conditioned, material consciousness, of which man is both. The 'how to' is the reconciliation of the latter unto the former. I have already introduced this pattern of thinking as being God, in Christ [unconditioned consciousness] reconciling the world [conditioned consciousness] unto Himself, conditioned thought by conditioned thought.

Kelly Jones: You say that dualities are inherently limiting,

I did not say that dualities are inherently limiting, what I said was: “people aren't inherently dual”. Dualities appear and disappear, 'people', the observer of the dualities , do not.

Kelly Jones: but you are constantly relying on dualities. For instance,

The wisdom that did not protect you, nor did it protect me, was the wisdom that any world based on the having to retrieve thought by way of polarizing thought into an oppositional stance, was not based on the reality of there being one, undivided awareness of Life.

This notion of "one, undivided awareness of Life" is dualistically formed. It is itself an "oppositional stance", that contrasts dualistically.

The above statement is an acknowledgment of dualities, for they do exist in the human mind, but it is not an oppositional stance. As all men of flesh, I stand in the shadow of my belief in dualism, for I am not yet wholly purged of this belief, but if you read my words carefully, you will see that they point not to the shadow, but to the light that brings belief in the shadow into my awareness.

Kelly Jones: And here, another instance,

The flaw in a collective philosophy of truth that can be 'known' is that no matter what formula is presented to reduce the flow of thought to an equation that represents the very essence of philosophy, is that the moment one applies that equation that is purposed to be a pure intellectual representation of Life or God or the Tao, the I of subjectivity-objectivity is activated.

Here you say that any philosophy of truth that can be known is dualistic in nature. But you are obviously offering what you know, without saying that it is wrong. In other words, you are relying on dualisms all the way, to tell us what you regard as true.

Again, I am acknowledging the existence of dualities, but I am not acknowledging their permanence in man's consciousness.

Kelly Jones: And here, another instance,

What I have discovered, is that formulas, such as A = A are tools of necessity to still the mind, but where they fall short is in allowing the thinker to pierce the dualism that is inherently present in the equation itself so as to walk the path of thought that is purposed to eliminate the presence of dualism within their own conscious awareness of I Am.

Your notion there, of "their own conscious awareness of I Am", is also dualistically formed. It's oppositional to something else. You can't escape or eliminate dualism.

Based on your statement of belief that you can't escape or eliminate dualism, I am left to surmise that you and I have very different visions of “you.”

Kelly Jones: What I see, basically, is that you have this very limiting belief that thinking, dualism, reasoning, logic, ideas, and all kinds of conceptualisations, are unable to express perfectly the truth of Ultimate Reality - the absolute and all-pervading nature of the All.

What I am stating, and shall give evidence of as my posts expand in this thread, is that no man can think of I Am, and in the same moment, BE I Am. Ultimate Reality is not a term I use, for “ultimate” is not a metaphor for SELF or I Am. I am not separate from the reality of me. What does 'ultimate' have to do with the inseparable, whole, complete, perfect and pure reality of me?

Kelly Jones: So you fall back on the idea that ridding the mind of all thought, all reason, all logic, is the safest bet for achieving enlightenment. It's a common mistake. People of this attitude tend to use words like "intuition" and "awareness", and even say that the child's mind is the purest, as you do:

As children, we intuit this truth of ONE, but we do not have the thought pattern to express it. Ergo, this intuition or unexpressed knowing is suppressed, until we are touched of the words that suggest its unfolding

.

I did not say the child's mind is the purest, I said that as children, we intuit this truth of ONE. A child's mind is not pure. A fetus' mind is not pure. No mind of material formation based on BUT, is pure.

As for your belief that I am suggesting that man rid his mind of all thought, all reason, all logic, well, that is evidence that you either have not read my posts prior to this, or did not hear/understand what I have been saying. From a previous post to Dennis: “By laws, principles and patterns of thought you are created, and by laws principles patterns you are moved.” Where in that statement do you find any suggestion that there is such a state as 'no thought?'

Kelly Jones: What you're missing is that all things are the ONE. All things are manifestations of non-duality.

All things are not the ONE, all things are of the ONE. “Non-duality” is a concept of the intellect. You are not the I Am of the non-dual state of ONE, or the thought “dual” would not even enter your mind.

Kelly Jones: Where else could you find the truth, but in things, in oppositions, in dualities, and in contrasts?

Your reference to “the truth” suggests absolutes to me. Tell me how an absolute can be found between two opposing thoughts? Give me an example of THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH that you have discovered in your rising and falling dualities? The only absolute truth I know is that I Am. Period.

Kelly Jones: All these things are themselves God. All things are you.

What you present above is the God of the myth of the Son of man or the human mind. The good things of me and the evil things of me. Stay tuned for an expanded explanation of what I mean by this.

Kelly Jones: Tat tvam asi means all things are the one. Including, necessarily, thinking, reasoning, conceptualisations, words, and contrasting oppositional ideas.

Tat tvam asi means I am one with my thoughts, be they good or be they evil [deemed attractive or deemed unattractive] or be they of being my living metaphor of reconciling my conditioned consciousness unto my unconditioned consciousness, or be they the moment I am wholly expanded unto my unconditioned consciousness of omniety or IS. Again, stay tuned for an expanded explanation of my understanding of Tat tvam asi.

I have never undergone psychotherapy, but since it is a science of humanism, it is also a science based on the false notion that there such a thing as a self that is divided into two selves – a self that is good, and a self that is not good [evil], and being that it is a science based on this false ground of a being that is perpetually at war with itself,

Kelly Jones: Psychotherapy is about exploring memories of damaged emotions, and trying to rethink the shoddy values that caused them. Typically, that rethinking is based in egotism, which is the belief that a self really exists. For that reason, psychotherapy is of limited usefulness. But that all changes if the rethinking is based in wisdom, that there is no self. Then the puzzles and suffering falls to pieces.

Emotions arise because of the belief in good and evil. Check it out for yourself, within your own consciousness. Is there not an immediate rising up within you, either of attraction or repulsion, when you think of an objectified image? Rethinking the shoddy values of emotions that arise from belief in good and evil leaves one right where they began - in the rethinking of good and evil.

Thinking that there is no-self is not the experience of being without a thought of self or of no-self. No man who continues to interpret via his senses [and that is everyone here] is wholly liberated of the idea of 'self.'

movingalways, let's try to get to basics here.

What do you make of this concept:

The term, "thing", can be used to refer to absolutely any experience, form, idea, object, event, etc. - like a basic identifier.



If you have no problem with that concept, what do you make of this concept:

The totality of all things is the same as the "ONE".


.

Kelly, I had this post prepared before I came to the board and read your questions to me. Hopefully the content answers your questions; if not, let me know and I'll try via another avenue of thought. This post is an expansion of 'stage setting' before I begin discussing the 'how' of man's way to exit his mind of belief in dualism.

----------------------

The I am of life and conscious awareness are one and the same thing.

Man's arrogance and ignorance exposed is that of the belief that until he arrived on the scene of conscious awareness of THAT, conscious awareness of THAT did not exist. It's on all him, is his egocentric view. Life depends on my thoughts to be life. If I were not here interpreting THAT, THAT would be a void of nothingness. I bring THAT to life he believes. If it weren't for me and my thoughts, he declares, all puffed up of his egocentric view of the universe, God would cease to be God.

The humbling truth that the awakened man must acknowledge is that before Abraham was, I am. Before names and language and personalities and human thinking – the human mind - was, Life's awareness of Life existed. Scientists long ago concluded that man most likely evolved from his ancestor the chimpanzee 5 – 7 millions years ago. 5 – 7 million years ago before thinking man even appeared, with several millions of years passing before thinking man became 'the man of reason.'

What I present above nullifies every argument that conscious awareness of THAT is dependent on man's interpretation of THAT to be THAT. “Cell” is not dependent on man's observation of it, and his interpretation of IT to be “cell.” Before man discovered “cell” and named “cell” “cell”, “cell” was “cell.” A conscious living thought or thing.

So, the first step of enlightenment of the wisdom of the totality of I am THAT is the acknowledgment of sense man that he is not the original life-giver of I am THAT. Life or God thinks “cell” and it is so, “cell” in this context being a pointer word beyond man's analysis of “cell.” Humbleness of admission of one's arrogance and vanity of belief that without man's thoughts, God is dead, is a pre-requisite to becoming aware of the YOU that is of the God that always has been, and always will be. A pre-requisite to going through the mind to go beyond the mind. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are my Ways your ways, saith the Lord.”

It doesn't really. It'd be preferable if you could give a directly-related response.


.

movingalways, let's try to get to basics here.

Okay, Kelly, basics it is. : )

What do you make of this concept:

The term, "thing", can be used to refer to absolutely any experience, form, idea, object, event, etc. - like a basic identifier.

I say this is sound wisdom of the sense [earth] interpretive mind.

If you have no problem with that concept, what do you make of this concept:

I had no problem with that concept, but I will answer your question, for I love to express the thought spot on which I am standing:

The totality of all things is the same as the "ONE".

I would restate your concept thusly: The totality of all things is the metaphor "ONE."

In expanding upon this statement, and in relating it to the wisdom of the bible , the totality of all things that is "ONE" Thing is the Spirit of God or of the Father of Genesis 1. This ONE Thing of the Father as represented in Genesis 1 and the first five verses of Genesis 2, is best suggested by the metaphors of the Infinite I or the I Am of Omniety or the law of the Spirit of life. This is the invisible realm of thought from which all realms of thought emanate, including the realm of the appearance of form or of 'things' that cause man to interpret them according to the law of the Spirit of life of his sense or earth awareness.

It is this realm of the ONE INFINITE THING of Father Consciousness that I believe you are calling the 'non-dual' realm, but of course, the realm itself knows not of any names it is given by its Sons [a biblical metaphor for individual units of conscious awareness, such as you and I]. The Father Realm is the invisible Cause of every visible effect the Son interprets, the Father's Thoughts being whole, complete, perfect and pure unto HIS ONE INVISIBLE THING, with the Son's individual interpretations being whole, complete, perfect and pure unto the attachment emotion he experiences in the moment of his interpretation of the Thing by way of his senses of the earth. The Father neither loves or hates or fears, for He IS HIS ONE THING of HIMSELF, but the Son, who is of the belief that the Father does love and hate and fear, is divided within himself because of this belief of the Father.

The appearance of the Son as if outside the Father so that he must think of the "ONE" thing in terms of sense attachment of love and of hate and of fear, rather than BE the loveless, hateless, fearless ONE THING of HIMSELF, is represented of the wisdom of the bible by the appearance of the LORD God of BUT, of Genesis 2. From this BUT comes the projected form "earth" [the natural] and then the projected form Adam, and then, his projected form, Eve. Objective awareness [the thing seen] in union with subjective awareness [the thing seen + Adam/Eve's feeling about the thing seen].

The appearance of this BUT of the earth mentality that is because of the Father's laws, principles and patterns of his ONE INFINITE THOUGHT/THING, but is not the ONE [absolute] nature of the Father, is the belief in dualism that you say I cannot escape or exit.

I say that not only are you mistaken about that assumption, but that I am already expanded into that very journey of being purged/purified of my BUT.

Hi Pam,
The expansion of the conversation from initially 'setting the stage' and now the flowering to a context of 'show forth credentials' is of great benefit. The blending of these apparent separate themes in a conversation is remarkable and wonderful, thankyou all.

On setting the stage.
the arrogant man,
in a context of what happened.

Like this?
As if something 'flew' out from the true nature, the true subject, the father, the invisible, no-thing.
'flew' out , but only in imagination, by mind, by thinking it so.
an object of the true subject.
a sense of separation.
the arising of a belief in the object as true identity but actually a violation of A is A, a case of mistaken identity.
a clinging to this seeming object of fascination, the product of false belief.
now, so deeply rooted in imagination, this entity is 'thing' itself and feels lost and miserable of separation from no-thing, the father.
seeks its true nature (love, peace, happiness) in the world of other things which fails badly for love, peace and happiness cannot happen by attachment to things.
Now this entity (ego) appropriates things into itself.
things like a false claim of authorship.

And this 'thing in itself' cannot withstand examination. Under examination it evaporates like a frost does in the morning when the Sun rises.

Hi Dennis,

Every vision of going through the mind to go beyond the mind is of benefit to writer and reader, both. Thank you for yours. I particularly enjoyed your statement of A is A to suggest the nature of the Unconditioned Mind of Pure Consciousness, as well as the last four lines of your poem where you address the metaphor of the ego of the conditioned mind:

Now this entity (ego) appropriates things into itself.
things like a false claim of authorship.

And this 'thing in itself' cannot withstand examination. Under examination it evaporates like a frost does in the morning when the Sun rises.

A question on the four statements above: Once one becomes aware of this false claim of authorship of things/thoughts within themselves, do you believe it then to be his responsibility to stop this activity of false claim of authorship, and if so, by what way or activity is it stopped?

A question on the four statements above: Once one becomes aware of this false claim of authorship of things/thoughts within themselves, do you believe it then to be his responsibility to stop this activity of false claim of authorship, and if so, by what way or activity is it stopped?

Hi Pam,
I've been reading David for some years and got access to a possibility that he repeatedly points to. And I think is where you intend going when you indicated in an earlier post that A is A in itself, stills the mind, that is a thing of the mind and in and of itself is not beyond the mind.

Looking at the sense of separation {ego} that seeks through 'owning' things and appropriates things to itself in a desperate attempt to give itself substance and validity...

Ego can access the highest possibility of Logic and actually get to A is A.
Then it does a curious thing to aggrandize itself.

It appropriates A is A to itself as a shiny object and gets around in the World trumpeting its superior knowledge.
It talks the talk as it were.

Now, what David points to and where I figure you are going is:
Take A is A deeply into yourself and have it as 'like the irritation in the experience of the oyster that produces the Pearl'...
The point is to experience it deeply so the possibility of walking the walk arises.
Be the walk.
The Walk of the Sage.

Pam, I'd been up most of the night, little sleep and failed to build things properly.
where I said:
And I think is where you intend going
and
where I figure you are going

I meant where you are going 'in effect' as similar to David to get beyond the mind but with another method.

Hi Dennis,

Now, what David points to and where I figure you are going is:
Take A is A deeply into yourself and have it as 'like the irritation in the experience of the oyster that produces the Pearl'...
The point is to experience it deeply so the possibility of walking the walk arises.
Be the walk.
The Walk of the Sage.

I cannot speak for David's walk, I can only relate to the words of his that you have quoted.

I pulled 'sage' up from dictionary.com: "a profoundly wise person; a person famed for wisdom." By this definition, my walk is not the walk of the Sage, but of God [the Impersonal I Am], in Christ [the activity of 'gathering'], the world [the personal I am], unto Himself. This journey is a journey of righteousness of nature [the righteousness of thought as being impersonal by design] that swallows self-righteousness [the false journey of belief that thought is to be used to construct a self]. The wisdom in the bible that points to this walk is "mortality being swallowed up of Life."

What I understand to be the essential difference between the two walks, an understanding I have gleaned from observing the language used by those who believes themselves to be of sagely wisdom, is that the Christ or 'dualism-gatherer' does not blend the impersonal I with the personal I. The Christ stands obedient on the impersonal I, not moving right, left, up or down so as to attach himself to his intellect of 'they say' of sense interpretation.

There is no 'person' in the living metaphor of the Christ. Thought is without gender, sex, race, creed, color, shape - the Christ is not of the earth, the Christ is of Spirit or I Am only. The Christ would not use words such as "idiot" or "stupid" or "intelligent" or "wise." These are of the ego of false authorship, for in God's Unconditioned Mind, every thought is whole, complete, perfect and pure of Infinity. The spirit of God cannot call himself "wise" or "an idiot", for to do so is to resurrect thought of 'they say' of human collective history/memory, and should God pause to 'think of' or resurrect a thought, a permanent shadow would fall upon his Infinite Countenance or Omnipresent Awareness, and to put it bluntly, all of creation of thought would be fu**ed. The shadow of thinking about or of a thing is of man's sense intellect; it has nothing to do with the I Am the Thing of God's Infinity of Light.

I have come to realize that most men believe they can retain their personal I once they discover the impersonal nature of Life Itself. An error in thinking which leaves them [still] caught in their belief in dualism. Man suffers the tension of this trying to blend his two worlds of thought; it is to the ending of this tension that I believe that Jesus came into the world to show the way to end this tension, once and for all.

Check out the words of Jesus or of Gautama. No where will you find, in their words, the use of the personal I when speaking of the Infinite. Always it is of the impersonal I. It is to this perfection that I attain. The walk of enduring the end of belief in two worlds of thought.

It doesn't stop you using words like "false".

Still the same old hypocrisy - that of propping up your "non-dualism" with dualistic thought-patterns and the condemnation of others (in effect, calling others "idiots"), while pretending that you're not doing this.

Alas, your frozen religious mask doesn't hide the egotism lurking underneath.

-

movingalways wrote:Thought is without gender, sex, race, creed, color, shape - the Christ is not of the earth, the Christ is of Spirit or I Am only. The Christ would not use words such as "idiot" or "stupid" or "intelligent" or "wise." These are of the ego of false authorship, for in God's Unconditioned Mind, every thought is whole, complete, perfect and pure of Infinity.

There lies a subtle but fundamental ignorance in stripping thought from all gender, color and shapes, like stripping Christ from his pole, the earth and ground - while putting him on a cloud.

The nature of thought is full of gender, creed, colors and shapes - its content by its very definition not whole or perfect of pure. Truth lies actually there, the moment this is understood without rejecting thought for all its bias, its crookedness, its essential dukkha and general pain which lies at the very base of it, the basement where all the groundwork is laid.

If our body is diseased it tends to react with signals of conflict: for example pain, tiredness, fever, diarrhea or vomit. Sometimes these signs are part of a healing or cleansing process. With our thoughts it's the same situation. If at the core of our relating a bug has inserted itself, our ideation and our stance toward it will be fevered, twisted and sometimes subtly, but often blatantly wrong. It's all still nature but each thought can and should be judged and tested on relevance and sanity, although not always there's a definite conclusion possible.

Here's the problem with your writing Pam, it has generally left planet Earth, the rock of sobriety: its overly detached and disembodied. It lacks structure in sentence and sequencing. It doesn't allow analysis, self-critique, it completely moves beyond any prodding finger. This is where you, you are residing. It seems like a safe place but it's not truthful. Chris is not real if you remove him from his T, if you severe him from the dialog after the initial embrace. The journey just wasn't over but it's understandable one desires to hide inside the lull.

I'd suggest breeding with Alex Jabob (Talking Ass), as you both seem at the very opposite end of the spectrum of things. The child might actually become the middle narrow winding way genius! :-)

David Quinn: It doesn't stop you using words like "false".

“False” is a word related to metaphysics, meant to point to what is not permanent/real. It is not of the personal I that judges another's mental state based on their own mental state.

David Quinn: Still the same old hypocrisy - that of propping up your "non-dualism" with dualistic thought-patterns and the condemnation of others (in effect, calling others "idiots"), while pretending that you're not doing this.

“In effect” does not make it so. I did not call anyone an idiot, or use any word of its kind. You say I am propping up my “non-dualism” with dualistic thought-patterns, but give no evidence of this. Again, saying it does not make it so.

David Quinn: Alas, your frozen religious mask doesn't hide the egotism lurking underneath.

Rather than throwing stones at my words, why not step into the contents of my post and challenge them based on your platform of what is true for you?

movingalways wrote:
Thought is without gender, sex, race, creed, color, shape - the Christ is not of the earth, the Christ is of Spirit or I Am only. The Christ would not use words such as "idiot" or "stupid" or "intelligent" or "wise." These are of the ego of false authorship, for in God's Unconditioned Mind, every thought is whole, complete, perfect and pure of Infinity.

Diebert: There lies a subtle but fundamental ignorance in stripping thought from all gender, color and shapes, like stripping Christ from his pole, the earth and ground - while putting him on a cloud.

Diebert, it was not the Christ mentality of Spirit that hung on the pole, it was the Jesus mentality of the earth. They are not the same ways of thinking, of being. As for putting Christ on a cloud: “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.” The cloud being a metaphor for the purity of the Christ mind of Jesus, who hung on the cross made of the earth and ascended of this hanging.

Diebert: The nature of thought is full of gender, creed, colors and shapes - its content by its very definition not whole or perfect of pure. Truth lies actually there, the moment this is understood without rejecting thought for all its bias, its crookedness, its essential dukkha and general pain which lies at the very base of it, the basement where all the groundwork is laid.

The nature of thought that is of born of the temporal-spatial earth and dies of the temporal-spatial earth is indeed full of gender, creed, colors and shapes. Your metaphor of basement is right on! : ) Man, however, is not purposed to stay in his basement forever; where shall be his expansion of himself if he remains on the treadmill of translating gender, creed, colors and shapes?

Diebert: If our body is diseased it tends to react with signals of conflict: for example pain, tiredness, fever, diarrhea or vomit. Sometimes these signs are part of a healing or cleansing process. With our thoughts it's the same situation. If at the core of our relating a bug has inserted itself, our ideation and our stance toward it will be fevered, twisted and sometimes subtly, but often blatantly wrong. It's all still nature but each thought can and should be judged and tested on relevance and sanity, although not always there's a definite conclusion possible.

I am not denying the experience of the earth, and of its wisdom. When I get a headache, I place a cold cloth on my head and take an Advil. When I am nauseous, I vomit. What I am denying, is that we are meant to remain stuck in this mentality.

Diebert: Here's the problem with your writing Pam, it has generally left planet Earth, the rock of sobriety: its overly detached and disembodied. It lacks structure in sentence and sequencing. It doesn't allow analysis, self-critique, it completely moves beyond any prodding finger. This is where you, you are residing. It seems like a safe place but it's not truthful.

You are right on when you say that my writing has “generally left planet Earth,” this is its intent. Not literally, but of being uncovered of my earth mentality. Whereas most are content to talk about the infinite as if it is an object, I am on a path of being expanded into the infinity of me. If my writing is received as you say, as being without structure in sentence and sequencing, then I would say that I am providing evidence that indeed, I am transcending the time and space of me. As for your interpretation that it is a safe place: nothing could be further from the truth. What is safe about leaving the very thought ground upon which you have stood since you took your first breath? As for your interpretation that its not truthful, you can only make this statement from your position of what is true and what is not true - for you. For me, what I say, all that I say is the truth of me; this is the only truth I know. I do not know the mind of Diebert, and will not claim such possessiveness.

Diebert: Chris is not real if you remove him from his T, if you severe him from the dialog after the initial embrace. The journey just wasn't over but it's understandable one desires to hide inside the lull.

You are speaking here as if you are inside my consciousness and know that I am hiding and where I am hiding. You are judging my position wholly from your own, which as I stated above, has nothing to do with the truth of me. And who is trying to remove the T from Christ? Certainly not me.

Diebert: I'd suggest breeding with Alex Jabob (Talking Ass), as you both seem at the very opposite end of the spectrum of things. The child might actually become the middle narrow winding way genius! :-)

“Seem” is the very mentality I am on the path to dissolve within me. I do not hide this of me, I am being wholly honest and open of what and where and who I am. If you wish to remain in the world of “seem” and “perhaps” and “maybe”, that is your choice. : )

One thing I want to add is that before one goes beyond their mind of the earth, they already know deeply of its ecstasy, its anguish, its beauty, its ugliness, its heaven, its hell, its love and its hate. All these things, every man knows, in varying degrees. Not all men, however, realize that there are other worlds of thought than this, the world of the opposites of the flesh. Infinity, after all, is just what it suggests: Infinity.

Hi Pam,
You can't pull a word from a dictionary and be in the realisation of the experience.

my walk is not the walk of the Sage, but of God

= whose mum's got the whirlpool?

It is to this perfection that I attain

It just looks like the Ego domain of sqeezing into a formula, being inside a bunch of tight rules, a possibility of being: perfect object, a projection, an objectification.

Life is = Life is. Just that.
Nothing to attain.
Already perfect.

In a conversation there are elements noticed.
Calling forth
Bringing forth
Showing forth
and another Holding forth
examining holding forth shows an experience of aloofness, being separate from, not being with.
I commit holding forth all the time in my impatience to bust out what I have.
You've obviously got authentic wisdom happening for you Pam from some of the things you speak, as a result of inquiry,and then it gets into the inauthenticity of holding forth. Holding forth speaks that inquiry has stopped because an image has formed. Holding forth is from that image.
Yes, I just held forth on you then, like a lecture or something, supplied an image to hold myself away from you, like treating you as a naughty child, like parenting you.
All of that could be felt by you. Gestalt.

Can the stage be set as inquiry?

Hi Pam,

Hi Dennis,

Quote:movingalways
It is to this perfection that I attain


It just looks like the Ego domain of sqeezing into a formula, being inside a bunch of tight rules, a possibility of being: perfect object, a projection, an objectification.

You are using your human reference points [the horizontal walk] to try and describe that which is of spirit [the vertical walk]. No can do. : )

Life is = Life is. Just that.
Nothing to attain.
Already perfect.

Before I can begin to relate to what you state above, you would need to define, for me, your understanding of 'Life' and of 'perfection.' Making statements without an explanation of why, to me, is of no use to my expansion. And if I am not expanding, I am wasting my time and yours.

In a conversation there are elements noticed.
Calling forth
Bringing forth
Showing forth
and another Holding forth
examining holding forth shows an experience of aloofness, being separate from, not being with.
I commit holding forth all the time in my impatience to bust out what I have.
You've obviously got authentic wisdom happening for you Pam from some of the things you speak, as a result of inquiry,and then it gets into the inauthenticity of holding forth. Holding forth speaks that inquiry has stopped because an image has formed. Holding forth is from that image.
Yes, I just held forth on you then, like a lecture or something, supplied an image to hold myself away from you, like treating you as a naughty child, like parenting you.
All of that could be felt by you. Gestalt.

Dennis, these are your principles and patterns of living, not mine. I respect that you live of these principles and patterns, but they in no way relate or touch my path of reconciling my conditioned humanism of my unconditioned I Am. Can you see why, since I am being purged of my 'being only human', that I cannot enter your playground according to your rules of 'being only human?'

Can the stage be set as inquiry?

Yes, yes, yes, for this is the only way of expansion!

Diebert, you mentioned dukkha in your response to me as follows:

The nature of thought is full of gender, creed, colors and shapes - its content by its very definition not whole or perfect of pure. Truth lies actually there, the moment this is understood without rejecting thought for all its bias, its crookedness, its essential dukkha and general pain which lies at the very base of it, the basement where all the groundwork is laid.

The attainment of nirvana, which means "extinguishing", is the cessation of dukkha or suffering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana

Pam:

Making statements without an explanation of why, to me, is of no use to my expansion. And if I am not expanding, I am wasting my time and yours.

Inquire.
Is there my except as concept
Is there expansion except as concept

movingalways wrote:David Quinn: Alas, your frozen religious mask doesn't hide the egotism lurking underneath.

Rather than throwing stones at my words, why not step into the contents of my post and challenge them based on your platform of what is true for you?

That's what I've been doing ....

Pam, it's clear that you have discovered something special and that you are very passionate about it, which is great. And it's possible that the Unconditioned reality that you point to is the very same one that I point to. But it's hard to say because the language you use is very tightly bound to a specialized Christian metaphysical script.

It would really help me, and quite possibly yourself, if you could start finding other ways to talk about it, using a more natural form of expression. That would make it easier for me, and for others here, to see into the heart of your writing. And who knows, it might even help you become even more free in Unconditioned reality.

At the moment, you give the impression, perhaps unintentionally, of clinging to the specialized metaphysical script as though it were a life-raft in a stormy sea.....

-

What is the language of understanding when one has not reached into another's mind and became a history, a walk, a comprehension of the other's outer objective vision, nor inner subjective feelings? It is relativity. Relativity does not defy objectification of exactness when the subjectification is based on the experience of singular not plural. Therefore any claim attrubuted to any person or group, or organization is a lie, not from the utterance of the word, but from the thought itself because no words used by any man is definitive in exactness of collectiveness.

Words such a sage or idiot, or false are relative only to the one uttering them for the simple reason to be aware of them means they are a part of ones life, and automatically apply to ones living and attest to the reality of their life of existence within the individual, for such words are a part of the individual life of expression, and can, and will return to the head of the user when one of a higher degree of comprehension view that individual in a lesser forms of understanding.

Wisdom is not something gained from books in the since of application to human-hood, in a lifetime. A trade or occupation of mentalism of material toucning does. Wisdom is the structure which applies to Causation of all things, even that which has not been discovered by the human mind. This is why discrimination of words cannot be applied to gender, race, sex, creed, color, or shape. All are concepts based upon yesterdays determination of our ancestor as to what this is, and this is not. What this means, and what it does not mean. True meaning is individualized to the individual who experience events of activities concerning their lives, not the lives of writers, philosophers, sages, gurus. Only the activity which has affected ones individual consciousness, and what, if any, conditions they applied toward believing, then building, and existing within those 'things' which has cause and effect towards their decisions made.

These decisons are never balanced because of influential minds of intrusion adopted by individual without the experience of exactness of the mind thoughts adopted which belongs to another. The man of such intellectual flavor, therefore, is always under the influence of other minds, which means their will of responsibility to know the exactness of any circumstance, condition, or situation alters the reality of that which is whole, perfect, complete, and pure. Any concept, theory, idea, offered by another, accepted, then given out as reality is dead, When ones life is lived as if these 'things' were alive are dead men walking.

For one to apply and affiliated anyone with a religion, or God, or standard of living outside of the actuality of what they know is a disease which becomes a death warrant to all who believes, and then attach, or allow that disease to become a part of breathing, and the blood flow of their utterance.

"Awake thou that sleepest, arise from the dead and Christ will give thee life." What Christ?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa