Posts Tagged ‘Heaven’

“Get right with God” – a challenge to worshipers of blind conformity

September 7, 2014
“Get right with God.”What does this phrase mean? Of course, the word “God” has been used by many people in many ways. What does it mean to “get right with god?”

It could mean a contrast with “being right according to some set of localcustoms- in blind conformity with them.” Even if the customs are followed, they can be followed out of respect and convenience, not out of terror and vanity.We recognize that customs are different from place to place and they come and go. They certainly have their purposes and their importance, but they are not to be worshiped as eternal foundations for human conduct.

So, to get right with God could be to reduce our attention to customs. We do not need to worship them by obsessively defending them. We also do not need to worship them by obsessively condemning them, attacking them, or reforming them (so that certain current customs which we worship as evil can be replaced by certain other customs which we worship as the key to heaven on earth).

Discard utopian fantasies. Those who tell you that heaven is a future outcome that you should help them produce through political reform and political salvation are misleading you. Even if they are sincere, they are still false prophets. To be more specific, they are using the word heaven in a way that may not be good at all for YOU. So, beware of them.

Heaven is eternal. That means it is always available without any required rituals (or reform campaigns). Rituals can certainly promote the awareness of heaven. Rituals do not bring heaven to someone. They bring someone to notice the eternal presence of heaven.

What exactly is heaven? It is one possible human condition. Heaven has often been described, for instance, as peaceful or serene.

Can someone already be peaceful or serene? Is a ritual required to be peaceful or serene? Is there any intermediate step required as a pre-requisite for being peaceful and serene (or is serenity always directly available… even to one who has been anxious or panicking)?

“Get yourself together” is a phrase that I have heard many times. Apparently, the idea is that someone is already “not together” (as in “scattered mentally”) and then is going to “get themselves together.” It is a rather strange saying if taken literally, but as long as two people both know what is meant by it, it can be perfectly useful, right?
“Get yourself together” may be extremely close to what I mean by “Get right with God.” It means a certain kind of shift of focus. If focus has been on a bunch of customs and obsessively conforming to those customs, then “get right with God” could mean to withdraw attention from such distracting “trivia” and focus instead on being serene.
But is a direction to “get right with God” no more than “calm down?” It is not just a momentary intervention. It is much bigger than that. It is approaching a much more  comprehensive instruction like “live your whole life in heaven.”
It may mean to calm down, but it also may mean to take new, decisive action. There are certain patterns of activity that correspond to relaxing our prior attention to social customs.We can withdraw from those who worship social customs- even if we maintain those customs. The issue is that people who worship a custom are operating from a background of anxiety (like concern for what others think), not from a background of respect for the actual function of the custom. They actually neglect the spirit of the custom by ignoring why it exists.

Of course, it is fine for people to be loyal to a custom without understanding it. People learn the custom itself before they learn the reasons for it, just like a small child is first taught to only cross a road while holding the hand of an adult. The child is trained to conform as a priority and understanding the custom is simply not the first priority.

So, one problem can be when people who do not understand a custom begin to worship it (often presuming that they do understand it). How do they relate to the custom? First, they glorify it (often relating to it as a practice that should be universal, rather than something that is merely customary or routine). Soon, they may bully others even for as small an issue as failing to glorify the custom.

Why are they so insecure about whether others glorify a custom? The reality is that they do not understand the custom. They have a social anxiety about any lack of conformity to the custom because they are terrified of the possibility that someone might question- even respectfully- the value or function of the custom.

“It is sacred! It is what makes us different from those who follow 98% of the same customs that we do, but not that other 2%.”In other words, they use their public display of loyalty to the custom as a cover to distract people from the fact that they have no idea what the actual value of the custom is. They simply conform blindly- like a small child who has been trained not to cross the road without an adult- and yet they are immensely ashamed of the simple fact that they are simply conforming blindly, so they make a big drama of tantrums and bullying and so on.

They are far from heaven. They are in the temporary distress of hell. Their blind conformity to customs does them no good in regard to accessing heaven because customs are not the way to access heaven.

The child who is waiting for the adult so that they can cross the road together is not conforming to access heaven. In fact, they may be rather impatient, yet still conform. Conformity can be very valuable, but worshiping conformity can be an immense risk.

Alertness is a different state than blind conformity. When someone is obsessing about customs, they are not being attentive to what is actually happening. They are in a state of latent panic (a state of anxious, hysterical distress).

When groups of people get together to encourage each other to neglect actual alertness and logic in order to obsess over whatever customs they agree to worship as the best customs, that can lead to very risky behavior for the entire group. They are like a group of mountain climbers who are operating on a protocol that is relevant for boating.

By obsessively doing the things that are very appropriate while boating, they can create immense dangers. They discard alertness and wisdom in order to have the social validation of the group.

“We are the safest boaters on this mountain. Look at those other fools who are using climbing equipment. We do not need climbing equipment because we have a sail which will catch the energy of the wind and lift us up toward the mountain top so that we can go faster and with less exertion.”
They are not simply proud (like calmly aware of their own competence). They are presumptive and naive and arrogant.For one person to climb a steep mountain without equipment would be risky, but they would go slowly. However, it is very dangerous for a group of people to climb a mountain while rejecting the idea that mountain climbing is best done in a certain way distinct from what works while boating.

Those who insist on boating their way up the mountain might be overly enthusiastic. Of course, they also might ridicule anyone who questions the prudence of their boating protocol while climbing a mountain.

“Oh, and look at those fools who are using a legal protocol to climb the mountain. They are consulting their lawyers about the best way to climb. What fools?!?! Don’t they see that climbing a mountain requires other customs and routines than winning a court case?”

Note that fundamentalists have no issue with questioning other forms of fundamentalism. In fact, in order to distract themselves from their own hysteria, they may ridicule the hysteria of others “religiously.”

The legalistic mountain climbers may gather together and criticize the stupidity of theboater mountain climbers. They may even yell taunts at the boaters: “How can you people think that you can climb this mountain without first getting a piece of paper and then using ink to make some shapes on the paper that are symbolic codes to specify the nature of your relationship to the mountain?”The boaters dismiss the content of the taunts of the legalistic fundamentalists, but they still are terrified of anyone questioning the protocols that they worship, so they are likely to return their own taunt back at their critics. “How can you people climb a mountain without a proper sail? Where is your mast? Where is your anchor? You people know NOTHING about climbing mountains the right way!”

The boaters fell much better after reassuring themselves that their critics can be dismissed as fanatics and fundamentalists. Instead of acknowledging any intelligent questions, they seek out the most bizarre criticisms to ridicule those critics and ignore the presence of actual skepticism, which is the real threat to them and their blind arrogance. To avoid admitting to the existence of skeptics (to the idea of boating protocols as the best way to climb a mountain), the boating loyalists focus on the idiocy of the legalistic mountain climbers.

They may agree that the legalistic mountain climbers are similar to them in that everyone is climbing mountains. That will be considered a small justification for a pretense of respect for the legalists. “At least they are smart enough to be climbing a mountain, but they are a bunch of arrogant, blind conformists!”

People who are not climbing the mountain at all generally are ignored by the boating mountain climbers and the legalistic mountain climbers. Further, people who are actually at the top of the mountain are generally ignored as well. No, let’s complain instead about that other group nearby to us who are going up the mountain about as slowly as we are.

If we do talk about the folks at the top, the legalists and boaters might briefly agree though. “How did those people at the top of the mountain get there? They must have broken the rules to get there! They are there unjustly. They cheated by using mountain climbing equipment. That is unethical and it is disrespectful of the mountain to wear spikes on your shoes while climbing. It damages the mountain! It causes erosion! It makes a smooth footpath up the mountain that is easy to follow… and that could lead to even more people trying to access the peak without the proper sailing equipment!”

The critics (among the boaters and the legalists) do not call their criticism envy. They just agree that the people at the top of the mountain clearly should not be there now because they used the wrong methods to get there. The boaters focus on the lack of the use of a sail by the people at the mountain top. The legalists focus on the lack of a pre-approved climbing itinerary signed, dated, notarized, and filed with the county regulatory agency.

“Come down here right this instant and get proper documentation from us or else… or else… or else we are going to sit right here and wait for you because those are some steeps slopes between you and us. You are under arrest!”

In addition to the various patterns of language used by the various critics, there is also the issue of risk. Because they form in to big groups, they may antagonize other groups and get in to conflicts. Further, even without the presence of other groups, their attention to issues like conformity to the customs of sailing can distract them from alertness to the mountain they are climbing.Not only are they neglecting to be attentive to the mountain. In addition to that, they may be doing things that are extremely risky while mountain climbing. They are not just inattentive to being safe on the mountain. They are oblivious. They may be doing things – with tremendous obsessiveness and passionate sincerity- that will predictably be catastrophic somewhere between where they are now and the top of the mountain.

So, people who are smart enough to keep a safe distance from any group of fanatics are better off than those who rashly climb mountains enthusiastically as they worship the customs relevant for sailing. The recluses have a better chance of figuring out for themselves what works well for mountain climbing. They are not avoiding learning (like those who are worshiping the customs of sailing and are totally inattentive to the actual process of climbing the mountain).

When a few people who are smart enough to avoid fundamentalism first notice other “loners,” how do they act? They may be hesitant. They may even be presumptively critical of others to test for fundamentalism and hysteria. Or, they may be quite eager… even too eager.
However, no matter what, they are not distracted from learning by fixating of defending certain customs. They will experiment. They will experience successes and failures. They will learn.
Further, there is an ancient legend that the group at the top of the mountain used to be below the top and climbing up. Some people may have been born in to that culture and so they are excellent climbers (even if they are not very skilled at other tasks like boating or the practice of law). However, long ago, before that culture was established, is it possible that there were a few loners who found each other, got themselves together, got right with God, and then created some customs that are effective for climbing mountains?

The idea that customs were created by people is considered a simple fact by some groups. Other groups call such “accusations” by the label of “heresy.” “How could our customs which are eternal and proclaimed by God be anything like the customs of other groups who also claim that their customs are eternal and were proclaimed by God. They are illogical and insane and hysterical and heretical. Now, let’s go kill them so that they do not confuse future generations with displays of curiosity and skepticism.”

Rumors that the group now at the top of the mountain would ever encourage bickering and warfare amongst the boaters and the legalists are quite unpopular among the boaters and legalists. According to the tradition of both of those two groups, the theory of a conspiracy to keep the boaters and the legalists fixated on fundamentalism and animosity between the two groups is called by the very evil label of a “conspiracy theory.”

For both groups, how do they relate to the theory that their own religious customs were influenced by or even created by another group in order to dominate and exploit the naive and foolish and arrogant? They ignore it and focus on the stupidity of those who attempt to climb mountains without the use of sails (when the critics are the boaters) or with the use of sails (when the critics are the legalists).

They both worship slogans like “get right with God.” They have no idea why the custom of saying “get right with God” was started or by whom. They just worship the customary propaganda that they have been trained to worship.

What would be really utopian, according to you, is if the world was one day in the future permanently rescued from all customs. Customs themselves are the big problem, right?

Those who assert that there is such a thing as irony or sarcasm or parody are probably just a bunch of reverse psychologists and their conspiracy theories can be instantly discarded as no more relevant to mountain climbing than the customs of that other group of fanatics over there who are so unlike us. They are blind. They are conformists. They are worshiping trivia and neglecting what is best.

They worship the ideal of “what is best” with their lips, but they know not what they are doing. They know not what they are saying. Their worship has is irrelevant in regard to noticing heaven (or even totally contrary to that possibility, a crippling distraction).

“Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.”
 

“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ 8“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

Mark 7:6-8

 

The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.”

Isaiah 29:13

 

A momentary lapse of hell (at Watson Falls, Oregon)

June 26, 2014

In reply to someone comment on facebook, I have memory of a “neurological event” in which the ordinary filters of cognition were not functioning. The full set of physical sensations were registering all at once with no filters.

This happened over the course of probably much less than a single minute in the mid 1990s. The familiar points of reference for the passage of time seem fuzzy in retrospect, but once “the mind that I had momentarily suddenly lost resumed its function and I cam back to my senses,” then my filtered senses and concern for phsyical survival eventually brought my attention to “regular clock time” and I would say that the “lapse” was very brief.

My body and my body’s mind slipped apart for a few moments. However, that was not an “insight” so much as a “contrast.” There was no lasting re-organization of the persona that I previously had.

Like being asleep and then waking up, when the ordinary mind and it’s persona returned, the only difference was that “my soul” remembered that the lapse of the persona, occasionally recognizing that the persona was just a persona. Most of the time, the soul continued to identify itself AS the persona as usual.

The continuing operation of the persona eventually went from “seeming like a nuisance” to simply being a detail. So, that “insight” concentrated the immense disappointment of the persona with its experience. It created an intense thirst for a “return to heaven.”

In other words, it began a very manic oscillation. To go to heaven and then “kick myself out” was quite a disturbance. I very clearly recall then “ending of heaven” when my body “reached out” to reconnect to my mind in order to bring about the preservation of my physical body. The ordinary mental filter resumed instantly.

Such “out of body” experience is not functionally very important, at least not according to the experience of the persona presenting sequences of words here. I rarely mention it.

However, to be able to have a much less manic spectrum available is “cool.” That has developed over time. There was no instant of insight.

Before, I thought that I had kicked myself out of heaven. I literally “lost myself ” again in hell, or at least that is the kind of description I would have made at the time.

Since then, through the exploration of language and the mind, I no longer have the dilemma of being in either hell or heaven. That is nonsense.

The soul is always in heaven. It cannot be any other way.

The soul can witness a persona suddenly arise and then experience the agony of agonizing, but still the soul is in heaven. The “satori” did not bring that, but yes set up that potential.

It has taken time for the persona to be accepted not as a horrible demon possessing the soul, but simply as a branch of the soul. That did not happen outside of the mind, but THROUGH it. The mind’s persona(s) were forgiven by the mind.

The soul is in heaven. The soul notices the mind forming personas. So what?


The power of language: from hell to heaven (pt 1 of 2)

November 28, 2013
Isaiah

Isaiah (Photo credit: Missional Volunteer)

The power of language: from hell to heaven

How could language be important? In particular, how could the specific ways that we use language be important? If we shift our relationship to language itself, how could that be valuable?

First, consider that language can be the source both of human society and of personal agony. Can you imagine society without a complex set of words to organize huge networks of cooperation? No?

Was language important in the construction of the building in which you live? Was it important in the distribution of the food you eat (or the cultivation of that food)? Was it important in the development of the modern technology that you use or for the mining of the minerals used in high-tech devices like radios, telegraphs, satellites, airplanes, and the electrical wiring in your home?

Isaiah Mormon

Isaiah Mormon (Photo credit: More Good Foundation)

How about this: can you imagine a newborn human practicing the behavior of agonizing? If not, then why not? How about some other newborn organism of some other species? Can a dolphin agonize? A spider? A horse? An eagle?

Agonizing requires language. So does condemnation, paranoia, shame, and also the experience that is the result of the behavior of agonizing, called agony. None of these are innate to humanity. None of these experiences are possible for creatures that do not actively use language. Further, for someone who is clear about the nature of language, the practices of agonizing and shaming may lose momentum or even simply cease.

LBRP hebrew

LBRP hebrew (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the US, today is the celebration of Thanksgiving. Today, I am am thankful for language itself as well for a new clarity emerging in regard to language. The new clarity about language brings liberation from confusion about the nature of language.

How is that important? The new clarity about language also brings liberation from confusion about the linguistic origin of agony (as well as shame, paranoia, and condemnation).

Many words have been used to reference this liberation from confusion about language. Enlightenment, revelation, salvation, heaven, and grace are a few of them.

Do you have a sense that some words are more important than others? Do you consider some words to be more sacred or more powerful than others?

Created for an added image to the Hebrew langu...

Created for an added image to the Hebrew language page (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Considering that there are hundreds of distinct languages being used by humanity across the globe today, do you think that there is anyone who knows even a single word in every language? So, some words are going to be more powerful for you than others. In fact, some words will seem to you to have no power whatsoever because you do not even recognize them as words at all.

Further, there are dozens of distinct alphabets (as well as non-alphabetic systems of writing like hieroglyphics). Do you think that anyone could learn every single shape of every single form of writing that humans have ever used?

Which is the most sacred letter in any human alphabet? Which letter is most powerful?

Hebrew Alphabet in Rashi Script

Hebrew Alphabet in Rashi Script (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

People who speak English might answer “I.” Because that letter is used for self-reference (like “I am feeling great”), the letter “I” certainly has distinct importance to speakers of English.

However, consider that most of humanity does not know any English. Billions of people might not even know the letter “I” (which is also written as “i”).

Some Italians might even say that the letter “I” is very important because it symbolizes the numerical unit 1. Thousands of clocks have the Roman Numeral “I” near the top, right?

When counting as a child, I learned to make markings of a vertical line (like the shape of I or 1). I would mark up to four vertical lines and then make a new line through all four of the prior parallel lines. The new line would be diagonal like in the letter V.

What was the origin of the four parallel vertical lines and a fifth diagonal line? It was a visual “shadow” of the the simplest form of counting on fingers, plus a thumb.

How would I write a symbol for “thumb?” A relaxed open hand with the palm facing my face would make a shape like a V (between the thumb and the side of the palm).

If I was counting to ten on my fingers, I could cross my two thumbs and make an X. Other shapes that are easy to make with my hands are C and L. However, one of the very simplest shapes that I could make would be to extend a single “Index” finger, which I could record in writing as an “I.”

English: Sample page of Sefer Raziel HaMalakh,...

English: Sample page of Sefer Raziel HaMalakh, a medieval work of Jewish mysticism. No copyright. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why do I mention all of this about the letter “I?” To establish that the letter “I” has no fundamental importance whatsoever. It is just a code or a symbol. It represents something else. It is merely an indicator or reminder.

The only importance of I is relative to an individual human observer. The actual observer is obviously more important than the linguistic symbol for the observer (“I, Ich, Je, Yo” etc). The observer may or may not interpret some meaning for a particular linguistic representation (such as “I,” which refers directly back to the observer). Clearly, the letter I (or the sound of the spoken word “I”) does not mean anything to horses or spiders or earthquakes or electromagnetic storms.

In fact, language itself has importance only relative to a particular observer or witness. Words like heaven or sacred do not mean anything to a newborn, especially if the newborn is a duck or a cat or a goldfish or an amoeba, right?

So, I mentioned that we are talking about language as the source of agony. I mentioned that the linguistic behavior of agonizing is the source of agony. I did not mention yet that all that it takes to interrupt agony is to discontinue the activity of linguistic agonizing.

If I was going to talk about what in the Buddhist tradition is called “the Four Noble Truths,” then I might say more about the reality of agony, the cause of agony (which is the linguistic behavior of agonizing), about the removal of the cause of agony (which is to discontinue the linguistic behavior), and then also a few other items such as the correct way of mindful speaking and even the correct way of precise perceiving. However, I am not focusing on the Buddhist tradition as special or more sacred than any other.

דוגמא לגופן "פרנק-ריהל" הגופן ששימש ...

דוגמא לגופן “פרנק-ריהל” הגופן ששימש לדוגמא: Frank-Ruehl, של קולמוס. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am more familiar personally with the Hebrew tradition (and the two more recent branches of Hebrew tradition: Christianity and Islam). The ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah warned about the mistaking of symbols as the things symbolized. In other words, it is not the physical book of written scriptures that is most sacred, but the lessons of what the scriptures record (which had already been an oral tradition of the Hebrews prior to the development of the Hebrew alphabet).

The written word for Divinity is not spoken aloud by orthodox Hebrews, not because the word itself is sacred in itself, but because what is represented by the word is so sacred. The word can be translated in to other languages and people could even argue and agonize about which word (or which language) is most “fundamentally” sacred.

That practice is called idolatry: focusing on the symbol rather than on what it symbolizes. Ancient Hebrews spoke about idolatry because it was a basic confusion among them; some people gave so much respect to the particular words or even to the sacred shapes like “the star of David” that the Prophet Isaiah labeled their practices as “vanity, foolishness, delusion.” Isaiah famously said that some people were worshiping only with their lips rather than with their hearts.

Other Hebrew prophets said similar things. In fact, the most famous Hebrew prophet, Jesus, specifically quoted the above warning of Isaiah (as recorded in Mark 7:6-13), while also referencing the prior Hebrew prophet Moses:

English: Hebrew Bible text as written in a Jew...

English: Hebrew Bible text as written in a Jewish Sefer Torah. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

6But he said to them, “Isaiah the Prophet prophesied beautifully of you impostors, just as it is written: ‘This people honors me with its lips, but their heart is very far from Me.’

7‘And in vain they pay reverence to me as they teach doctrines of commandments of the sons of men.’

8“You forsake the commandments of God and you keep the traditions of the sons of men: washings of cups and pots and many such things like these.”

9He said to them, “Well you reject the commandment of God that you may establish your traditions.” 10For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother”, and “Whoever reviles father and mother shall die the death.” 11But you say, “If a man shall say to his father or to his mother, ‘My offering is anything that you shall gain from me.’ 12Then you do not allow him to do anything for his father or his mother. 13And you reject the word of God for the traditions that you deliver, and many things like these you do.”

http://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/mark/7.htm

Hebrew cursive

Hebrew cursive (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, we began by asking how could language be important. One thing that is only possible with language is the idolatry of thinking of language as more sacred than life itself. In other words, we can reject the creations of God (or neglect them) in order to worship human symbols (like a specific sequence in a particular language).

The fundamental value of humanity does not cancel the value of language (or of religious traditions). Humanity is simply the source of the importance of language (and reverence for particular religious traditions).

 

Before we conclude, we will repeat something we read earlier. Let’s elaborate a bit on it.

“Agonizing requires language. So does condemnation, paranoia, shame, and also the experience that is the result of the behavior of agonizing, called agony.”

(Go to part 2 to continue reading: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/the-power-of-language-from-hell-to-heaven-pt-2-of-2/.)

some call this heaven (song recording)

June 5, 2013

she calls, I melt, inside, of heaven

I’m calm, she smiles, I laugh, as my heart breaks open,

This is the one, that we have been dreaming of, Some call it love, some call it heaven

my life, goes by, I watch, nodding at the waves- my past, fades out, I stop, worshiping the stories- worshiping the idols, worshiping the labels, worshiping the words, worshiping the worries- my life, comes back, I watch, from heaven

This is the one, that we have been dreaming of

Some call it love, some call it heaven

original recording:

The day the clever Devil cried

April 30, 2013

The devil said: “You’ll get to heaven eventually.”

The angel said: “Heaven and Hell are the same to me.”

The devil said: “I deserve heaven immediately!”

The angel said: “Heaven and Hell are just words to me. You know naught of what you speak.”
English: Detail of work Heaven and Hell includ...

English: Detail of work Heaven and Hell including Devil/Dragon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The devil said: “Life should be how it is not., but that is not my fault!
I claim to be  a victim now… for God has done me wrong.”
I would be happy except for this; I could have been grateful and in bliss…
if only God met my demands, if only God obeyed my commands.
What was God thinking when making life… the way it should not be? 
My life is screwing me!”
The Devil said: “I’ll get to heaven eventually!”
The angel said: “I used to say the exact same thing.”
The devil said: “I’m no angel, but I should be…. My life is screwing me!”
 
Weeping angel

Weeping angel (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

The angel said: “Fear should be if it is now…. and no one is at fault.
I claim to be in heaven here… for God can do no wrong.”
 

The devil said: “You’ll get to heaven eventually.”

The angel said: “Heaven and Hell are just words to me.”
The devil said: “I’m no angel, but I should be.”
The angel said: “I used to say the exact same thing. You know naught of what you speak.”
 
 

Saint Michel combattant le dragon

Note that the devil is depicted as a multi-headed hydra: if the saint cuts off one head, another head grows right back to replace the old head with a new one just like it, to renew the old brain pattern with a new one just like it, to rehearse the old way of thinking with a new one just like it. “Saint Michel combattant le dragon” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The devil said: “hell should be how it is not.”
the angel said: “hell could be how it is now.”
The devil said: “life should be how it is not.”
the angel said: “life could be how it is now.”
The devil frowned: “well, if it changes, what then, my friend?”
the angel smiled: “well, when it changes, that’s what, my friend!”
The devil yelled: “some things should change and some should not!”
The angel sang: “that sounds like hell. It’s what you claim to have as life.”

 

Hell

Hell (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The devil said: “I’ll leave this hell eventually.”

The angel said: “Heaven and Hell are the same to me.”
The devil said: “Are you saying my words are screwing me?”
The angel said: “I used to ask the exact same thing. You knew naught of what you speak.”
The devil laughed: “Life should be how it is not., but that is not my fault!
I claim to be  a victim now… for God has done me wrong.”
I would be happy except for this; I could have been grateful and in bliss…
if only God met my demands, if only God obeyed my commands.
What was God thinking when making life… the way it should not be? 
My life is screwing me! …I’m no angel, but I should be! …I’ll get to heaven eventually!”
Heaven

Heaven (Photo credit: Boston Public Library)

 

The angel said: “Hell should be how it is not. Heaven could be how it is now.
I”m the devil when I should be… if I claim my life is hell.
Heaven and Hell are just words to me. Heaven and Hell are the same to me.
We all notice heaven eventually. Some may say that’s what should not be. They know naught of what they speak.”
The devil asked: “and if I claim hell occasionally?”
The angel said: “We all claim hell occasionally.”
The devil asked: “am I an angel with bad memories?”
The angel said: “That is the story that you’ve been selling.”
The devil cried: “Holy crap! Holy… CRAP! You deserve heaven immediately! Thank you, you clever devil!”
The angel sighed.
An angel comforting Jesus before his arrest in...

An angel comforting Jesus before his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Part 4: Creating a path from hell to heaven

March 4, 2013

1 noticing the activity of language

2 noticing that language is not perception

3 the linguistic ritual of creating a victim (and a savior)

4 creating a path from hell to heaven

Noticing the linguistic creation of a path from hell to heaven

Gustave Doré, Depiction of Satan, the antagoni...

Gustave Doré, Depiction of Satan, the antagonist of John Milton’s Paradise Lost c. 1866 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, hell is a linguistic symbol to contrast with heaven. Hell is the experience of distress or disturbance or mental illness or agonizing (the activity of agonizing over what allegedly “should not be,” like a particular way of relating to language and relating to life). Heaven is the experience of simply noticing all of the various patterns of reality without obsessive craving or repulsion- with clarity, grace, and inner peace. (Of course, in heaven, one can also notice the patterns of relating called craving, rejecting, and obsessing!)

English: A stereotypical caricature of a villa...

English: A stereotypical caricature of a villain (i.e. generic melodrama villain stock character, with handlebar moustache and black top-hat – typical of upper class men in some cultures). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Further, Satan is a linguistic symbol to contrast with the Almighty, which logically cannot be opposed or defeated or intimidated or scared. The Almighty is the source of all patterns of activity, all characters and identities, and all symbolic codes.

God is no more scared of Satan than God would be scared of the letters A or Z. God notices all patterns from the first to the last, from the beginning to the end. God notices the activity of language- beginning, ending, stopping, and perhaps beginning again.

Santa is just a character created through language by God. Satan is just a character created through language by God. Any victim (any labeling of victimization as in vilifying of a particular activity in the past) is also “incidental,” not fundamental. Is that clear?

The Satan Pit

The Satan Pit (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pick a time in the past. Pick a memory of an event. Perhaps someone said to you that “you should not have drank so much water” or “you should have drank more water.” We could label that the activity of condemnation or vilification.

Maybe there is someone blamed- like the labeling of you as being at fault because you drank the wrong amount of water instead of doing whatever you allegedly should have done. That is a valid construction in language, right?

Maybe you should have drank more water or less water. “Should” automatically creates the possibility of vilification or condemnation (“should not”). Notice what vilifying and condemning are. They are activities in language. They are methods of directing attention and perception, right?

Outside Satan

Outside Satan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

God forgives all things. Why? God forgives all things because God created language and it was only through language that God created the condemning or vilifying of particular patterns, particular qualities, and particular characteristics or characters or identities.

How does God forgive? By ceasing the activity in language of condemning and vilifying, God can easily forgive anything.

Consider the ancient teaching that in order to be forgiven, one must forgive (as in cease condemning). Notice condemning. Notice the reality of what condemning is as a way of relating in language.

Many victims condemn what terrifies them. A villain condemns in order to terrify (to forbid, to intimidate, to make a threat).

God is the source of the all heroes, villains, and victims. Every victim is a form of God, and so is every villain and savior. What other source could there be besides the Almighty?

Satan Is Real

Satan Is Real (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, an ancient teaching directs attention toward the activity of the condemning of a particular behavior as villainous (vile, evil) and further we can notice the activity of vilifying a specific person as inherently a villain. Notice also that either the behavior or the person can be emphasized, but not both at once.

We can forgive the person (so as to stop vilifying them) without condoning any particular past sequence of events. We can stop relating to that particular past as “what should not have happened” (a shameful incident), and stop shaming someone for victimizing us.

Shaming them maintains the identity of victim. If you seek heaven, you must cease from shaming others. Forgive them. Stop perpetuating your shame. Stop victimizing yourself through vilifying them.

Or, continue to vilify them and continue to experience the identity of ashamed victim. You could continue your linguistic ritual of chanting this mantra: “I am not a villain or a savior, but a victim.” Or, you could notice that all of that is just a pattern of activity of language.

Two people can even argue over who is the most vile, as they partner together in a ritual of mutual condemnation and vilification. They can have a competition for who is the bigger victim (by most sincerely accusing the other of being the bigger villain).

Vilification of another is victimizing them, but also relating to one’s self as a victim. “They unjustly accused me!” Yes, they made you their victim by vilifying you (“unjustly!”), just like you vilified them (“unjustly!”), resulting in their complaints that you were victimizing them (“unjustly!”). That ritual requires at least two sincere (naive) participants.

So, how can one continue that ritual alone? Easy! Just keep vilifying someone else and relating to your past as if it is victimizing you now.

Shame

Shame (Photo credit: Joe Gatling)

Note that the ritual of practicing the identity of a victim is an entirely valid ritual to practice. It has it’s function and value. God created it for a reason.

Once the reason is clear and makes sense to you, then the ritual is no longer an obsession to practice constantly, but just an option. Use it when it is relevant. When it is not relevant, do not use it. When something else is relevant, do something else.

However, if it is relevant to practice being a victim, then certainly keep practicing it as long as that is the top priority. Get very skilled at being a victim. Become an expert victim.

Condemn. Vilify. Withdraw. Notice. Forgive.

Next, go to hell (obsess over what should not be, how I do not deserve this stuff that should not be happened, how someone else is to blame for my experience of having something else besides what should be happening instead). Then, once you have practiced hell so much that you are an expert at being a victim in hell, then go to heaven.

Once you know how to create hell and then you suddenly stop creating hell and instead create heaven, then hell is no longer a problem. It is just an option.

Hell is just a ritual in language. When it is relevant, practice that ritual. When it is not relevant, do not practice that ritual. When something else is relevant, do something else.

Hell or Heaven?

Hell or Heaven? (Photo credit: andywon)

the perception of earth, heaven, and hell

December 15, 2012

First, reality can be divided in to what is perceived (which are called “perceptionS“) and the capacity to perceive (which is called “perception”). That dividing is only a matter of labels, of categories, of words, of language.

What is perceived is called “the earthly world” and what does the perceiving is called “heaven.” So, in the beginning, reality was sorted in to two categories (using language): heaven and the earthly world.

Spirituality is the study of heaven, which is just a word for the process of perceiving. Spirituality is another word for introspection, which is another word for the study of language.

There is no tangible physical division or boundary between heaven (the process of perceiving) and the earth (what is perceived). The division is merely linguistic.

Spirituality in a Ring of Love

Spirituality in a Ring of Love (Photo credit: andreasnilsson1976)

Those who lack spiritual understanding (that is, a clarity about language and labels), can use the words of spirituality, but their words will have no power, for there is no spiritual authority without spiritual clarity. They may speak of heaven as something that is eternal and yet has not started yet. They may speak of heaven as something that is almighty and yet is threatened by demonic powers. They may speak of heaven as something that is everywhere (omnipresent), yet obviously not here.

They are experiencing hell and yet talking about heaven, which is a bit like talking about being on the moon without having ever been there or perhaps like a two year-old teaching the mathematics of multiplication to a one-year old who does not even understand spoken language yet. They have been called “the blind leading the blind.” They may have sincerity, but their “good intentions” may lead deeper and deeper in to hell.

What is hell? Hell is a lack of clarity about what language is, about what spirituality is, about what heaven is.

Note that there has been some language about having to die in order to get to heaven. Is this a reference to the physical death of an organism? Or, could the use of the word “die” be poetic as in symbolic as in metaphorical? Could it be that an old way of perceiving is what dies in order for an eternal heaven to be recognized?

Perceptions

Perceptions (Photo credit: Ezu)

Hell is that old way of perceiving. How can one make the earthly world in to hell?

Reject some of life. Condemn it.

Condemning reality is hell. Rejecting God (not the word God, but what is symbolized by the word) is hell. The only sin that cannot be redeemed is the rejection of the Holy Spirit. That sin can only be continued or discontinued. It cannot be redeemed.

No one can do some charity work to compensate for rejecting God. Charity work is fine, but if one does charity work and yet persists in condemning God and rejecting the divinity which they are, then the charitable activity will have no effect in regard to perpetuating the process of rejecting heaven, rejecting spirituality, rejecting introspection, and rejecting language.

So how does one create hell? First, create an idea of how life should be. Then, reject anything else as how life should not be, especially anything that is frightening or disturbing to you. Then, reject the fear itself.

Pretend that you have never experienced fear and that other people should not experience fear either. Finally, condemn others for displaying any possible sign of fear. If someone fails to condemn fear in general, then condemn them for not condemning fear- for not hysterically fearing fear itself.

If even a newborn child shows fear, punish them with a spanking or by restricting their access to nourishment. That is how to create hell.

Teach them shame. They must learn to be ashamed of fear. They must pretend not to experience fear. They must learn to convincingly hide it. They must be terrified of displaying fear. Their spirits must be broken. Their pretense must be sincere. They must believe that they are not experiencing fear even when they are experiencing fear. they must be numb to it. They must not be sensitive to danger. They must be ashamed of caution. They must be afraid of appearing too conservative in public.

Will God punish them if they admit to experiencing fear? Will they be tortured in the Holy Roman Empire‘s latest phase of the Inquisition? Will they be executed in a ritual human sacrifice? Will they be placed in a mental hospital and drugged in to stupor without their consent? Will they be betrayed and whipped and crucified like a messianic martyr?

Military flag of the Holy Roman Empire between...

Military flag of the Holy Roman Empire between 1200 and 1350. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What social institution teaches us to reject fear? What social institution teaches us shame? It is called religion.

Should we condemn the actual function of religion? Should we insist that religion should be some specific thing in particular, with our attachment to that presumption then blinding us to the reality of what religion is? Should we say “religion should not be so frightening?” Should we say “anything that frightens me should not be, including religion?”

Yes, that is exactly what we should say. We should condemn religion and reject reality and criticize God’s injustice in victimizing us by convincing us that life should not be hell, but is.

We should ignore the obvious reality of what words are. Language should not be used to influence the attention and perception of other people.

In fact, language should not exist. There is no such thing as reverse psychology. The love of irony is not  the root of all evil, but it should be. Reserve psychology should exist, but it should not be so effective. On the other hand, reverse psychology should not exist, and so it cannot.

Shame is the only real problem. We must save the world from it.

Also, blame is the only real problem. We must save heaven from blame or else hell will be victorious over heaven and it will be all your fault personally.

In that case, you will be guilty as hell, but not yet. It would be wrong to manipulate you right now by threatening future social rejection, so instead bribery is better. If you are a good child, then Santa Claus will let you in to heaven when you die. Obviously, you could not be in heaven already or else the whole scheme of bribing you with a future promise of salvation and heaven would be slightly less effective.

Now, you are definitely in hell, but you should not be. You should struggle to get out of hell and get in to heaven. Fortunately, I know the only way out of hell and in to heaven.

That is why you should obviously do whatever I tell you. First, you must learn what is evil so you can condemn it, especially reverse psychology, which does not even exist in the first place and should not only be rejected but ridiculed as preposterous and disturbing and insane and much too ironic.

lyrics: “if heaven is here?”

November 11, 2012
It's My Life/Your Heaven

It’s My Life/Your Heaven (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If I took a picture       of how I should be         and put it in a frame    and said it was me
I might try to pretend   that I’m like the ideal    and, with years of practice,   my lies could become real
I’m so good at faking     my personality            that I faked forgetting    that it was never me
I didn’t even plan it         when planning happened to me         I’m the one watching     all the activity
So listen close when I talk about my identity.     Do I talk about my life like it’s always victimized me?
Is life an evil villain that foiled my best intentions     Did it disappoint me and ruin everything?
I’d blame the devil    if I thought it’d get me to heaven.
but I’d thank God            if I was already here.
If I took a picture       of how life should be            and put it in a frame    and called it reality
I might try to pretend   that something’s not right      that someone’s to blame   and my job is to fight
to make life be perfect      instead of how it is now      and to prevent my enemies       from thinking I’m a clown
They all say that their way is best      but their way isn’t mine     so clearly theirs are the wrong ideals       cause mine must be right
I’d hate a devil         if I thought it’d get me to heaven.
but I’d thank God            if I was already here.
I’d blame the devil    if I thought it’d get me to heaven.
but I’d thank God            if I was already here.
If I took a picture       of how I should be         and put it in a frame    and said it was me
I might try to pretend   that I’m like the ideal    and, with years of practice,   my lies could become real
I’m so good at faking     my personality            that I faked forgetting    that it was never me
I didn’t even plan it          when planning happened to me         I’m the one watching     all the activity
So listen close when I talk about my identity.     Do I talk about my life like it’s always victimized me?
Is life an evil villain that spoiled my best intentions     Did it disappoint me and ruin everything?
Huge Buddha

Huge Buddha (Photo credit: therichardlife)

song recording: “real ideals”

October 27, 2012
Cover of "Heaven"

Cover of Heaven

 

Once Upon A Time - Paleyfest - March 4, 2012

Once Upon A Time – Paleyfest – March 4, 2012 (Photo credit: starbright31)

 

Once Upon A Time - Paleyfest - March 4, 2012

Once Upon A Time – Paleyfest – March 4, 2012 (Photo credit: starbright31)

 

 

June 10th, 2012

 

Once upon a time we believed that love was the greatest of all ideals
Then came a time when we all learned that real ideals are flawed
So now I wonder of them all is love just the last one to dissolve

Once upon a time I perceived that life was not how it should be
Then came a time when I could see that life was all of me
So now I wonder all the time is life fundamentally just fine

Once upon a time I conceived that I was who I really should not be
Then came a time when I deceived many others but not me
So now I wonder about our most sacred truths. Are lies what we’re real anxious to prove?

 

English: "King Arthur", one of the N...

English: “King Arthur”, one of the Nine Worthies believed to personify the ideals of chivalry

2012, June 10-15, Sedona 020
2012, June 10-15, Sedona 020 (Photo credit: caltexian)

, fresco in the Corridor, Trinci Palace, Foligno, Italy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Woman with bound feet reclining on chaise loun...

Woman with bound feet reclining on chaise lounge, China. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
I see the world as just one world I see each word as just one word
I know each chord is just one chord I know all words are just real ideals
I lost all hope of reaching heaven then I realized where I’d already been

 

 

 

 

 

A very short course in heaven and hell

October 19, 2012
This Can't Happen Here

This Can’t Happen Here (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A very short course in spiritual psychology/neuro-linguistic reprogramming:

faith/peace/heaven: “whatever happens is what should happen”

grace: “whatever happens is what should happen… and I am grateful for whatever happens”

Hell and Back

Hell and Back (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

hell/shame/trauma/distress/confusion: “the past should not have been how it was”    (anxiety, the fear of admitting the reality of the past, resisting the past, clinging to a particular idealism contrary to a traumatic reality)

blame/contempt/resentment/vilification: (stage 2 of hell) “the past should not have been how it was  …and it was their fault”
guilt/depression: (stage 3 of hell) “the past should not have been how it was  …and it was my fault”
 
redemption/repentance: “It was temporarily useful/adaptive at some point to say that the past should not have been how it was. That is what I should have said because that is what I did say.”
Heaven and Hell (Black Sabbath album)

Heaven and Hell (Black Sabbath album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


%d bloggers like this: