Posts Tagged ‘Holy Spirit’

Titus 1:15 (For those with the eyes to see)

October 21, 2013

Titus 1:15

“…Nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean…. All things indeed are clean.Romans 14:14,20 New American Standard Bible
“…to the one who regards anything impure, it is impure to him alone…. Everything is pure.” Romans 14:14, 20 Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“For those with perception as it should be, everything is as it should be. For those with perception as it should not be, everything is as it should not be.”
Titus 1:15, The Holy Spirit‘s Bible
Some pictures of window blinds I took and put ...

Some pictures of window blinds I took and put together. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Looking through a foggy window

Once I was looking through a window which had the blinds almost completely shut, but I could see through the blinds just a bit. My vision was very limited, but I could see through better than if the blinds were totally closed, right?
Another time, I was driving at night in the rain and the windshield was starting to get foggy. I could not see very well through that foggy window, so I turned on the defrost fan, plus switched on the wipers to keep the drops of rain from obscuring my view, and then I switched my headlights from low-beam to high-beam. Soon, my ability to perceive was much improved.
Another time driving, the fog was outside the car, rather than fogging up my windshield from the inside. So, it was actually better for my perception to turn the high-beam headlights down to “low-beam.”
The fog is rolling

The fog is rolling (Photo credit: davidyuweb)

For those with the eyes to see

For those that have the perceptiveness to understand these principles, let them understand. Any one who has the ability to see clearly what I mean here, then that one will be the one who will see it clearly.
For others, they might as well be noticing some language that is foreign to them. It will be jarble to them. They may even call it confusing, which means that it has violated their expectations (or contradicted their false presumptions).
So, if someone who is not very clear on certain concepts attempts to communicate them to others, how well can we expect others to comprehend? If someone with limited understanding of a subject translates a book about that subject between two languages that they do not know very well, then that would be kind of like looking through a foggy window while blinded by the headlights of oncoming traffic, right?Of course, some people may be very terrified of something unfamiliar. Those without faith are said to be recognizable by their fear and terror and panic. When one thing is faithful to another, that means a precise match. A faithful copy is distinct from a copy littered with mistakes, right?

What factors influence the accuracy of our perceptions? How can we assess the precision of our understanding of a principle? Is the best test conforming to a consensus or is the best test a series of consistent demonstrations of that principle in everyday life, especially to produce remarkable results far beyond what would be predicted by a consensus of average people?


Vertical blinds

Vertical blinds (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, what is The Holy Spirit’s Bible?

Someone experiences a revelation of spiritual principles, then they share it with others perhaps just in conversation, then an oral tradition may form around those original interactions. Finally, people may write down those oral traditions, then do their best to translate them in to other languages, and then some people can discuss it on the internet, perhaps with the experience of terror and panic and disturbance for some of them.
There are a few ways to respond to something. One can ignore it. One can dismiss it as irrelevant. One can consider it interesting enough to study and respectfully consider. After a brief, casual exposure, one can reject it as either contrary to pre-existing presumptions or clearly inaccurate. One can also refine something further or politely offer thoughts and
personal experiences that fit with something or maybe go in to a related tangent.
The purpose of all spiritual disciplines might be to refine the perceptiveness of the people involved. We could say that all spiritual disciplines could help people to notice the contrast between frightened panics of immaturity and the calm dignity of mature reflection and introspection.
Of course “The Holy Spirit” is just a sequence of words in English. If we were to convey a similar idea in another language like Hebrew or Latin or Sanskrit or Chinese, then we would not use those English words, right?
The Holy Spirit refers to a direct revelation, a personal experience, an immediate recognition. There is no intermediary involved in such a direct spiritual communication, such as a book or a priest.
English: Retreat at Monastery of the Holy Spirit

English: Retreat at Monastery of the Holy Spirit (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What is the common source of all religions and spiritual traditions?

All sacred texts and scriptures of all traditions come from a common source, which we could call direct revelation or the authority of “The Holy Spirit.” Clearly, one who is confident and clear in a message directly from the Holy Spirit is distinct from anyone who claims that a particular scripture or interpretation has authority ONLY because a particular group of people approved of it.
What is the proper test of spiritual authority? Anyone can assert “I have a message from the Holy Spirit and I do not care what anyone else says about it!” As referenced earlier, one valuable test could be the demonstration of extraordinarily surprising results.
So, those who are open to directly accessing spiritual authority (rather than only relying on ancient compositions or a second-hand authority) might be selective about who they talk to about their openness. They might meet with only small groups of committed disciples and give only diluted messages publicly.
Ironically, many traditionalists indirectly claim that their own spiritual tradition is dead. They say “there will be no more revelation ever. Only this one book printed 26 days ago is valid and so anything published in the last 25 days or in the future must conform to my pre-existing notions of what the 26 day old-book says, or else we must launch a holy war of crusading inquisitions to eradicate such threatening heresies. By the way, please do not quote from my own book to me to try to reason with me because there is no reasoning going on over here anyway!”
Is all of that a sign of wisdom or of terror? Is that a sign of spiritual authority or just resorting to a test of military dominance?
Bible and Saint George in Syrian Orthodox chur...

Bible and Saint George in Syrian Orthodox church in Midyat (Photo credit: CharlesFred)

War and peace

MIlitary dominance clearly has it’s value though. There is a time for war and a time for peace, according to the ancient Hebrew scripture of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3, which is about how there is an occasional value and relevance for all things, with some things being very often useful while some things are only functional quite rarely:

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Romans 14:14 and Titus 1:15

As we approach our conclusion, let’s review again a few passages from the New Testament that convey a similar idea to the above chapter of Ecclessiastes (which was the inspiration for a popular song in the 1960s by The Byrds called “Turn, Turn, Turn” which refers to the “turning” of the cycle of the seasons annually). Below, you will find again the two translations from the book of Romans and then once again an English translation of Titus 1:15.First, note also the New Testament teaching that if something disgusts you, then it is best to turn away from it. You might consider who is not disturbed by that thing and ask them to help you make sense of it calmly and see the value and purpose in it, but again that is only if it is not so frightening to you that you are able to calmly explore the subject (like without a terrified outburst of arguing or panicking or tantrum). If the time for a particular exploration is not now, then perhaps another time…. What is relevant for you now depends on your current stage of development, right?

“…Nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean…. All things indeed are clean.” Romans 14:14,20 New American Standard Bible
“…to the one who regards anything impure, it is impure to him alone…. Everything is pure.” Romans 14:14, 20 Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“For those with perception as it should be, everything is as it should be. For those with perception as it should not be, everything is as it should not be.”
Titus 1:15, The Holy Spirit‘s Bible

all authority is a branch of a single authority

June 14, 2012

all authority is a branch of a single authority

The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove, surrounded...

The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove, surrounded by angels, by Giaquinto, 1750s. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Could it be that the Holy Spirit of God has formed you and your life and your actions and your perceptions and even any sequence of words that you might call yours? Could it be that the same Holy Spirit of God has formed everyone and everything and all activities and all perceiving, every hair on every head, every mustard seed and every mustard tree, and every sequence of words including these letters and words visible on your screen right now?

For those without direct knowledge or revelation, God has provided many hopes and beliefs in language, as well as many fears to motivate the fearful toward those hopes and those beliefs in language. Appreciate the possibility of a distant, remote God who rewards your trust, if that is as close to the Authority of God as you are ready to experience.

By the grace of God, we may learn of reports that someone has credited the Holy Spirit of God as the architect of one’s life. We may learn of sayings like “These results are not through my will, but through God’s.” We may be exposed to the idea that “It is not I who do these things, but God who does them through me.”

Many may learn of these sayings, though some may dismiss them as nonsense or irrelevant. Some may study the sequences of words and even worship those words themselves. Some may defend the words themselves as “being as important as God, even equivalent to God” and then harshly condemn anyone who does not repeat them ritually a certain number of times per day and in a certain human language and in a certain specific way.


God forgives all sins, even the sin of such idolatry. However, it may involve a certain amount of faith for there to be an admission of idolatry (a confessing and repenting). In other words, it may involve a certain amount of faith for there to be an experience of the remission of all condemnations.

Of what sins do I condemn others? Could it be that I most fiercely condemn the same ones that I am so ashamed of that I do not recognize that I am vulnerable to the same sin (whether I have been actively involved in a particular behavior or I merely am secretly terrified that I might be in the future)?

One cannot at the same time both drop a stone from one’s hand harmlessly and cast that stone at a target of condemnation. Beware of focusing so much on the personality of one of God’s voices that one does not hear what God is saying through that voice. The instruction is to drop the condemnation. The instruction is to recognize God as the source of all developments, including the behavior of condemning.

It is notable that it is from the same lips that one may condemn people with curses and yet also praise God. However, there is a time for cursing and a time for praise- a time for every activity and development under the Authority of God.

The authority of these words does not come from the shapes on this computer screen or from the letters of ink on some page. The authority of these words is not limited to a particular language.


There is a time to exclusively worship a particular branch of idolatry. There is also a time for recognizing that all of the branches extend from a single source, extending from a single authority.

The word divine is similar to the much more ancient word Diva. The word God derives from an ancient Sanskrit root related to the word Indra. The word authority (and author and auto and even actor and agent) may be derived from the ancient Sanskrit letter sequence of Atma.

Fanatics of thousands of different religious groups have shouted “my religion is the only true religion.” There is a time for such shouting and fanaticism. There is a time for divisiveness and antagonism and holy wars between two groups each claiming an exclusive authority over God, though perhaps not using such openly monopolistic language.

There is a time for such arrogance. There is a time for such naivete. There is a time for such hysteria.

There is also a time to be humbled by the glory of the only authority, one which branches through all of the creatures created by that authority, including every single organism, every single cloud, every single word, every single letter. If you can, show me one thing- even a shadow on the ground- that is not evidence of the glorious authority of God.

I know that your only authority is as a subsidiary or branch of the only authority. You may accept this claim or you may reject it. Either way, I recognize that your response is not your glory or your sin, but only the will of the one who develops all developments according to the timing and sequence through which all forms are actually formed.


English: Centurion (Roman army) historical ree...

English: Centurion (Roman army) historical reenactment Boulogne sur mer (France). Français : Centurion (armée Romaine) Reconstitution historique à Boulogne sur Mer en France. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Centurion-MkV-latrun-1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Supremacy of language, heaven, god, and society

April 16, 2012
Animated 3D TCT of Human Breast

Animated 3D TCT of Human Breast (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Supremacy of Language

“Language defines realityLanguage organizes reality. Language interprets reality.”

First, language is not really supreme in an absolute way. It is only supreme over certain factors of human attention, perception, and behavior, but that can be quite important.

Language only organizes human activity. However, for humans living in groups (even small groups of hunter-gatherers), the organizing of human cooperation through language can be a topic of tremendous practical value.

Effective communication is essential most modern forms of economic activity, especially in the training and organizing of “human resources.” Consider the frequency of married couples reporting instances of misinterpretation or miscommunication or “communication barriers.”  


Communication (Photo credit: P Shanks)

However, language does not cause a mustard tree to change in to an apple tree. Language by itself does not splice a branch from one trunk on to another trunk of another tree. Language itself does not literally stop the rotation of the earth on its axis or cause time to suddenly go backwards. However, language can certainly reference such possibilities.

Language is itself an extension of the rest of the universe: astrophysics, ecology, biology, neuro-chemistry and socio-economics. Newborn humans do not have it. Infants start to develop it.


So, within the realm of human society, there are matters over which language is supreme. The supremacy of language is relative, not absolute.


 Writing down special shapes called letters on to a sign and then walking around with it does not stop snow from falling. Language does not start or stop hurricane winds from blowing. Language does not start or stop the exploding of bombs or the burning of a forest fire. 


However, language does allow for the building of bombs, the building of bridges, the building of the transportation devices that go across bridges, and the building of buildings. Without language, there is no such thing as names, nor of marriage, nor of any other contracts, nor of any law or formal government, nor of any of the fields of science.


Rita and John's Marriage Certificate

Rita and John’s Marriage Certificate (Photo credit: mary hodder)

Anything that is named is only named through language. When the first boundary in language is created between “me” and “not me,” that creates inside and outside, as in the internal within and the external beyond.


In the ancient oral tradition of the Hebrew people, which was later written down and translated, that original dividing in language is called the separating of the Heavens from the Earth. Earth is the labeled, the perceived, the realm of the temporary or changing. Heaven is the process of perceiving or the perceiver, the realm of the enduring or changeless. Heaven could also symbolize “a bird’s eye view” or a holistic perspective.

Heaven  (from )

O.E. heofon “home of God,” earlier “sky,” possibly from P.Gmc.*khemina- (cf. Low Ger. heben, O.N. himinn, Goth. himins, O.Fris.himul, Du. hemel, Ger. Himmel “heaven, sky”), from PIE base*kem-/*kam- “to cover” (cf. chemise). Plural use in sense of”sky” is probably from Ptolemaic theory of space composed
of many spheres, but it was also formerly used in the same senseas the singular in Biblical language, as a translation of Heb. pl. shamayim.


Heaven is a symbolic linguistic unit of code representing a conceptual “place where God lives” and God

"Temple of Heaven, Seoul, Korea"

“Temple of Heaven, Seoul, Korea” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

includes the process of naming or labeling in language, which may be familiar as the Greek term Logos which has been translated in to English as the divine “Word.” Heavenly is a term or label for contrasting with earthly. Heaven is enduring or eternal while earth is constantly changing. Heavenly is godly. Earthly is mortal.


The realm of heaven is the kingdom of heaven as in the kingdom of God or domain of God. God rules, but through language. We could even say that language rules (as in measures) or reigns or regulates or organizes. 


The Supremacy of God is through the functional supremacy of language. The Supremacy of Heaven is not an astrological theory, but a symbolic reference in language to the functional importance of language (the heavenly or spiritual or subjective) in organizing human experience (the earthly or tangible or objective).


Of course, humans can recognize the influence of solar activity on the temperature of the earth at various seasons and during the day and night. However, a poetic or symbolic metaphor like “the supremacy of the heavenly” is totally distinct from a basic recognition of astrological influences such as the lunar phase corresponding to tidal fluctuations or the normal periodic duration of the menstrual cycle of fertile females.


Perhaps the mundane denotation of the word “heavenly” would be presumed to refer to the influence of the sun over the predictably fluctuating temperatures of midnight and high noon. Perhaps the original spiritual teachings of the author(s) of the Old Testament took an observable phenomenon from everyday life (the influence of the daily solar cycle sun over the fluctuating temperature on the surface of the earth) and then associated that observable pattern with a conceptual principle: the importance of language is organizing human perception


Language is metaphorically like the sun in regard to language’s influence over perception being similar to the sun’s influence over the earth’s temperature. In other words, just the sun dominates or regulates earthly temperatures, so does language dominate and regulate earthly human experience.


 > text continued below – part 2 of video:

Deutsch: Nahaufnahme der Brüste einer schwange...

Deutsch: Nahaufnahme der Brüste einer schwangeren Frau. English: Closeup of the breasts of a pregnant woman. Français : Plan rapproché des seins d’une femme enceinte. Italiano: Primo piano dei seni di una donna incinta. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If we consider the process of the neurological processing of sensory data, it is clear that social conditioning through language has a huge influence on perception. In scientific studies, various groups of people can be directed through language to give attention to particular patterns or issues, then the various groups can all be exposed to the exact same phenomenon, like an audio recording or a theatrical performance.


Through language, people can be trained to focus on different aspects of any event. Their attention is controlled through language. Controlling their attention through language also controls their perception and thus their response (or lack of response).


As an example, imagine that a group of people have been trained through language to experience disgust and shame when exposed to seeing a the spurting of blood (even fake blood) or something like a naked human female‘s breast. They may be traumatized and socially conditioned to respond to the trigger with disgust and physical sickness.

A San (Bushman) who gave us an exhibition of t...

A San (Bushman) who gave us an exhibition of traditional dress and hunting/foraging behavior. Namibia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Then, a group of primitive humans and a similar group of traumatized, socialized people are exposed to a naked female’s breast. One group is aroused in to outrage and threatens to kill the offensive woman for her offensive crime of indecent exposure. The other group is startled not by the naked female breast, but by the remarkably bizarre reaction of the socialized people.


Another experiment could be done in which a photograph of some human skin is shown in a close-up, then the video gradually zooms out to reveal that the skin displayed is in fact some breast tissue from a human female. The skin itself may not produce disgust in the witnesses, at least not until they realize that it is a human female breast.


They may have been trained to conclude that a naked human female breast is shameful and evil and sinful. That linguistic process (which is also a social process) “defines” their experience of that particular visual.


Round breasts that project almost horizontally

Round breasts that project almost horizontally (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Adult females could all be considered threats by these people, including if they are females themselves. They may go around avoiding looking at naked breasts and avoiding thinking about naked breasts and so on.



Now, why would a society ever develop such a taboo against the public exposure of adult female breasts? Because adult men may be physiologically and genetically predisposed to recognize adult female human breasts and react with a surge of hormones and so on, therefore it can be distracting for the human men to see adult human female breasts. 


So, what may be functionally distracting biologically may be specified by social language as taboo, as forbidden, as immoral, as criminal, as punishable by various responses like arrest, fine, corporal punishment (like whipping or incarceration), and even execution.

Should there be no such thing as taboos? That itself would be taboo.



Title: Personal photographs of the Hon. C L A ...

Title: Personal photographs of the Hon. C L A Abbott during his term as Administrator of the Northern Territory – Aborigine Chief of Bathurst Island who died of fright in Darwin when he saw his first motor car Date: 1939 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Anthropologists recognize that language exists as well as social conditioning and social norms and taboos. Language is a type of social conditioning, though certainly not the only one. For instance, “criminals” are not just punished with insults and shouting and the revoking of memberships and corresponding privileges of membership, but with being physically attacked (arrested) and otherwise punished (like financially, with courts taking away physical possessions and property rights).


Language is the realm of identification as well as of justification. In particular, there is no such thing as justice except in language. Different cultures may have widely varying (conflicting) norms of justice. So, language plays a huge role in the process of defining what is labeled right (socially acceptable or even rewarded) or wrong (socially discouraged or punished). 


Language is an instrument of social conditioning. Language is the instrument through which various models of defining reality (models of perceiving) are created and distributed.

Language defines reality. Language organizes reality. Language interprets reality.



The Human Resources Manager

The Human Resources Manager (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Religious institutions indoctrinate or educate or influence or govern perception and behavior. The same is true of mass media outlets as well as schools.


Propaganda about what forms of influence are right or legitimate or just are of course themselves instances of cultural programming or indoctrination. Because the functional supremacy of language is extremely obvious, one of the most important forms of indoctrination might be concerning “authority.”


The self-evident authority or supremacy of language may be systematically obscured. However, human society itself is what uses language as the instrument of that society, so it is not really inaccurate to use language that emphasizes the authority of social conditioning in general over the specific linguistic form of social conditioning in particular.

secrets of spreading heaven

March 29, 2012

HEAVEN (Photo credit: Telstar2000)

The secrets of how to spread heaven



Heaven is available now for the faithful, the holy, the pure, the angelic, the godly. What does it mean to be faithful, holy, and pure? We address that after we explore what heaven is and what heaven is not.

Heaven is notable for the absence of ill will, suffering, guilt, discord, conflict, despair, and dis-ease. Heaven is the domain in which the holy,

Tibetan endless knot Nederlands: Tibetaanse On...

Tibetan endless knot Nederlands: Tibetaanse Oneindige knoop (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

faithful, and pure live. They experience in heaven first curiosity, then clarity, then gratitude and courage and inspiration as well as inner peace and powerful influence through a direct awareness of a miraculous order to all developments, in contrast to being confused by conceptual models of how things could be (speculating) or should be (agonizing).

The guilty and the proud are cast out from the domain of heaven (also called paradise). However, those who have been guilty and proud may, through humility (humiliation), have the opportunity to experience heaven.

I had ill will toward others, even a spirit of divisiveness and contentiousness, until by the grace of heaven, I returned to the humble curiosity of a child: the “beginner’s mind.” This is called the first stage: approaching heaven.

Rosa Celeste: Dante and Beatrice gaze upon the...
Image via Wikipedia

I had experienced the behaviors of suffering, worrying, and agonizing, until by the grace of heaven, I returned to curiosity and the result was learning (clarity). This is called the second stage: recognizing heaven.

Recognizing heaven as available to me, I was grateful, while before I had been afraid and resentful and blaming and frustrated and disappointed and guilty and regretful and even ashamed. The arising of heavenly gratitude is the third stage, called receiving heaven (or receiving the holy spirit of heaven or from heaven).

With each experience of gratitude, new actions came to my attention as available and relevant and valuable. This is called inspiration and also nourishing heaven. One’s capacity to influence the behavior of other people, including through the instruments of language, wealth, and other forms of influence, may shift dramatically at this stage, for one recognizes relevant practical adjustments to make in accord with changing economic values of humanity, as well as how to communicate effectively, and so on.

With clarity as well as gratitude, there is a flow of abundance and influence toward those who conduct themselves faithfully to the actions inspired by a direct awareness of the miraculous order of all developments. Such awareness may be intuitive or analytical or both. The results of inspired actions arising from heavenly gratitude and clarity always produce value- that is- gratitude for the results is inherent in the process, as distinct from blame and frustration and fear and so on.

Grateful for the miraculous order of the particular instrument of divinity expressing itself which may be called the physical bodily organism, inspired actions led from nourishing heaven to healing by way of that nourishment and training. Training includes the arts of physical awareness and the so-called “inner martial arts” (including certain forms of yoga).

So, while before I had been despairing and impoverished and envious, by the grace of heaven, I was led through humiliation to curiosity and clarity and gratitude to inspiration and then the inspired actions that cultivate the capacity to nourish myself and others materially and otherwise. By the grace of heaven, I have been saved from the hells of agonizing and contentiousness and resentment. I have been delivered from hell to heaven, with an abundance of blessings that spills over from me to all in my midst. This final stage is called spreading heaven.

Who are the faithful, the holy, the pure, the angelic, the godly? They are the ones who spread heaven.



First Published on: Jun 6, 2010

Dome of the Rotunda of the Church of the Holy ...

Dome of the Rotunda of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, Israel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

the spirit of agonizing conflict and the spirit of holiness

March 25, 2012
Many agonize over what is right vs what is wrong, what is good vs what is evil, or what is the truth vs what is imprecise (which has been one of my favorites). That pattern of linguistic model is the basis of all political campaigns and conflicts: at least two sides oppose each other by asserting that (at least) two conflicting proposals are “the best, the only right one,” then they have wars or elections or whatever to “resolve” the issue.
It is like pressing your two hands together with great force, like so that they tremble, rather than just resting them with palms barely touching. It produces a big caloric expenditure, but very little productive activity. It just exhausts energy. That is my metaphor for much of politics.
Of course, I am oversimplifying in that huge decreases in population can result from those conflicting expenditures of energy (as in through war). Also, major technological advances can come from the friction of the two opposing forces of military-industrial complexity, kind of like rubbing sticks together with great friction can produce a spark and light a fire.
So, agonizing can be internal, with a lot of energy and time and perhaps reading and conversation and so on. Or, agonizing can be interpersonal, with lots of debating and arguing and shouting and perhaps laughing and “make-up sex” (having sex right after having a big dramatic argument and nearly “breaking up”). Or, agonizing can be “social,” as in political conflicts and wars and organizing demonstrations and strikes to promote the interests of the union employees or nursing home residents or public schools and so on.
That is more broadly termed “conflict.” I am calling it “agonizing” because I am focusing most particularly (below) on the internal or private or INTRApersonal context of conflict.
That can manifest in language patterns like “what is the right job for me? Is this the right relationship? What political party is best? Which candidate is the right one for “2012 best actress in a comedy?” Which religious tradition is the most true? How am I going to fix humanity so that there will no longer be any conflict, at least not in the Northern half of the state of Arizona, which is obviously the region of geography on this planet which is the most important to God Almighty, as evidenced by her clear specification of that region in the holy Book of Mormon? Which words are evil and which are good? Omigod, did I just say something wrong? What thing that I said was the wrong thing to say?”
In the programs of Landmark Education, that particular portion of the realm of language is called the “already always listening.” It has been labeled in many ways in the last few thousand years, with ancient terms like Dhukka (suffering) and Gehenna (Hell) being among the terms used for referencing it. Here is a reference from the New Testament, with the “tongue” being used to reference the process of language and speaking and so on:
“…Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
James 3:5-6

“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the words that come out of your mouth…. The words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you” Matthew 15:11,18
Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus

Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jesus taught that the spirit of divisiveness (the spirit of accusation, of the adversary or of the devil) is a very distinct pattern of spirit from “The Holy Spirit” or the Spirit of God. Jesus repeatedly rebuked people for “being self-righteous,” calling those people hypocrites and “children of the devil.”

43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies…. 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” 
John 8:43, 44,& 47
Ironically, the translation there above (“NIV“) is only so clear, perhaps because the translator(s) were not precisely clear about the point being made. The point is that anyone who “belongs” to the Spirit of God or is fluent in that kind of language will understand the words of anyone else who is speaking in that kind of language. However, just like anyone who is deaf cannot make sense out of the sounds of someone speaking English, anyone who is “possessed” by the spirit of opposition cannot comprehend the language of the spirit of holiness or wholeness or non-dualism (“advaita”).
The translator wrote “because you are unable to hear what I say.” This is not a reference to the lack of the capacity to literally hear the sounds, like the wind was too loud in the background or something like that. Clearly, what Jesus was referencing is something about those listeners in regard to their personal development or intelligence, which Jesus contrasts many times with another possibility (the capacity to comprehend the messages from the Holy Spirit)- even something that could eventually be possible for people for whom it is not currently possible.
When people made reference to things like waiting for the messages of the Holy Spirit to begin to be transmitted (like waiting for a TV program or radio program to being broadcasting, Jesus corrected their misunderstanding:
20One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?”

Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs.d 21You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of God is already among you.e

Luke 17:20-21
Again, we have a case in which different translators have rendered this passage in to English in distinct ways. Consider the following version from the Aramaic Bible in Plain English:

20And when some of the Pharisees asked Yeshua, “When is the Kingdom of God coming”, he answered and he said to them, “The Kingdom of God does not come with what is observed.” 21“Neither do they say, ‘Behold, here it is!’ and ‘Behold, from here to there!’, for behold, the Kingdom of God is within some of you.”
Those translators were not translating Greek translations in to English, but apparently were translating the original statements in the Aramaic language (the one actually spoken by Jesus) directly in to English. As I skim through a few dozens translations of that verse in to English, only this one says something exclusive like “within SOME of you.” All of the other translations leave out the reference to an exclusive subcategory of people who have the capacity to recognize something that other people would not recognize. Incidentally, I never had seen the Aramaic translation of that verse until moments ago, but that translation is the only one consistent with my direct personal experience, or one could say the one that is most consistent.
John the Baptist baptizing Christ

John the Baptist baptizing Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of course, for people who do not have any direct personal experience that they associate with these words, they might be interested in the secondary authority of translations and proclamations from a particular church hierarchy and so on. For those who know through the authority of direct experience, any form of secondary authority may be of no relevance to them.
21And when they entered Kapernahum, at once he taught in their synagogue on the Sabbath. 22And they were dumbfounded at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one having authority and not like their Scribes. 23And in their synagogue there was a man who had a vile spirit in him, and he cried out 24And he said, “What business do we have with you, Yeshua the Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, The Holy One of God.” 25And Yeshua rebuked him and said, “Shut your mouth and come out of him.” 26And the foul spirit threw him down and he cried out in a loud voice and came out of him. 27And all of them marveled and they were inquiring with one another, saying, “What is this?”, and “What is this new teaching? For he commands even the foul spirits with authority and they obey him.” 28And at once his fame went out in the whole region of Galilee.
Mark 1:21-28
Above, some poetic metaphors were translated in to English in phrases like the foul spirit, the vile spirit, the evil spirit, teh demonic spirit, the spirit of the devil, the split spirit or the broken spirit. In Greek, the wording might be “skhizein (σχίζειν, “to split”) and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; “mind”).” The Greek roots together mean a split mind or dualistic mind, a broken heart, a spirit of opposition, or even a suppressed breathing or respiration. In 1912, one century ago, a new English word was created from those two Greek roots which could be used in future translations of ancient spiritual texts about personal development and “human potential:”


1912, from Mod.L., lit. “a splitting of the mind,” from Ger. Schizophrenie, coined in 1910 by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939), from Gk. skhizein “to split” (see shed (v.)) + phren (gen. phrenos) “diaphragm, heart, mind,” of unknown origin.
However, there is a connotation to the modern term “schizophrenia” as a category for a rather exceptional or unusual condition, like only a small percentage of people are labeled diagnostically as schizophrenic. Note that what Jesus (and Buddha and Isaiah and so on) were referencing was a widespread typical condition within an entire society. Within any culture, only a rather select group of folks “awakened” from that general social norm of “unenlightened language” or “unawakened consciousness.” The Holy Spirit is available to all, and while many people may talk about it or “give lip service to it,” it may be rather rare that one “possesses” it, rather than being “possessed” by an ego or a “psychological shadow” or a “split persona.”
Jesus said: 6 “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites,” He [Jesus] replied; “as it is written, “‘This People honour Me with their lips, while their hearts are far away from Me: [and they do not know me or belong to me]

7 But idle [vain, worthless] is their devotion  [worship, reverence, faith]  while they lay down precepts which are mere human rules.’

8 “You neglect God’s Commandment: you hold fast to men’s traditions.”

Mark 7:6-8
Well, there is another interesting inconsistency in Bible translations that I never noticed until just now. Skimming through a couple dozen translations of Mark 7:8, I see that only 3 refer to the commandments or commands of God (plural rather than singular). All of the rest refer to the command of God or commandment of God, as in the authority of God.
People may neglect the actual functional authority in favor of symbols of authority or labels of authority. However, claiming a secondary authority (an authority derived from some other source, such that there may be conflicts of authorities) is quite distinct from the exercising of authority as the author or root of all authority.
Latter-day Saints believe in the resurrected J...

Latter-day Saints believe in the resurrected Jesus Christ, as depicted in the Christus Statue in the North Visitors' Center on Temple Square in Salt Lake City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, in summary, as we mature, we humans naturally notice conflict interpersonally, like two puppies wrestling or two kids fighting over who gets to hold the puppy next and for how long, then next we are exposed to conflict socially, and further as a “higher” or later stage of development, we notice it “internally” or “introspectively” in our own patterns of language. That internal conflict is what I am calling “agonizing,” though others have called it “suffering” or “sin” and “neurosis” and “foul spirit” and “bad attitude” and “negativity” and so on. Whatever it is labeled, it is basically a pattern of “linguistic behavior,” as in neuro-chemical programs or sequences.
It is labeled awakening or enlightenment or the dark night of the soul. “Meditation” and all spiritual rituals are for relaxing the tendency or momentum of internal neuro-chemical “struggle” (like “a tug-a-war” with two teams of people trying to pull a rope in opposite directions).
The name of the Chinese martial art Wu Shu can be translated as “stop fighting.” “Stop resisting” is the key, not “resist resisting,” but just “notice resisting and do nothing other than notice it.”
In fact, even “resisting” implies two opposing forces, so we could say “stop pushing” or “notice pushing yet do nothing other than notice it.” Again, though, that focuses attention on pushing and isn’t focusing already a subtle pushing? Soon, along comes a Jnani Guru like Jesus Christ who says something like “Who am I? Well, who are you? Notice who you are! Be still and know God, the Supreme being, the presence I am. Before Abraham was, I am.”
That kind of communication can interrupt “doing” and “noticing” and “stopping.” That patterning of attention can produce a deep relaxing, often followed by laughing or weeping.
So, there is language for agonizing and for arguing over what is true and for gathering together congregations and armies to oppose others in the war to end all conflict and negativity. That is all the expression of the hypocritical spirit of the divided one, the dualistic, the self-righteous, the devil.
Further, there is language for influence. In fact, even language to forbid reverse psychology is still language for influence. Prohibitions against dualistic language are the black magic at the core of all religious traditions.
“Beware of prohibitions and reverse psychology. They are strictly forbidden.” 
In particular, you will experience eternal torment and agony and hell if you practice the behavior of agonizing. You will be cast out of paradise and heaven if you argue against the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is the worst of all possible sins.
Here ends the Gospel of Santa. Here begins the experience of the absence of language, even if only for the briefest of eternities.

The dreaming of language to contrast

March 11, 2012


One morning I woke up and recognized the reality that I had been dreaming. I noticed that seeing and hearing and all forms of perceiving are components of dreaming. Another component of dreaming is relating to the visual and audio perceiving by making patterns out of the perceiving and then labeling or interpreting or identifying with the patterns of perceiving. When identifying with the patterns of perceiving, that is believing the dream. When believing the dream, there are physical results of that believing, including the possibility of speaking.

I have seen someone who was sleeping that was talking while they were dreaming. Someone who is sleeping can make sounds and then words and then sentences. Even infants and animals which are sleeping can make sounds for communicating with the identities that they believe in during their dreaming. They believe in the identities that they make up as they relate to their interpretations of the patterns that they perceive in their dreaming.

While dreaming, other physical processes besides speaking could arise, such as movement and different kinds of breathing that go with dreaming about being terrified or dreaming about being sexually active. Of course, speaking is also a type of breathing and all breathing is a type of moving.

So, as we dream, we move. One kind of moving that we do is breathing. One kind of breathing that we do is making sounds. One kind of


Sleep (Photo credit: ex.libris)

making sounds that we do is speaking. One kind of speaking that we do is speaking with the identities that we believe in. One kind of speaking with the identities that we believe in is to relate to them as another identity that we also believe in, but that we believe to be isolated from the rest of the dreaming.

While dreaming, there can be the experience of identifying other external identities as distinct from the identifying of the primary identity as in “the one who is having the dream.” However, while sleeping, dreaming is not always present. Only when dreaming is present is there the identifying of “the one who is having the dream.” So, whenever there is the identifying of “the one who is having the dream,” that can be called dreaming.

In other words, even when an organism is not sleeping, the organism can believe in the linguistic identifying of a someone isolated from all the rest of the patterns of believing. The organism can believe in the patterns labeled as “you” and “us” and “them” and “me.” The organism can perceive those beliefs resulting in the perceiving of physical processes like moving and breathing and speaking.

However, speaking is a pattern that is a single category in language. Speaking is a subcategory of breathing. Speaking is totally distinct from hearing or from seeing. Seeing and hearing are both subcategories of sensing. All of these categories in language are patterns of language.


Perception (Photo credit: Genna G)

Language is what contrasts one pattern from another. Language is what identifies one pattern as distinct from another and then may believe in those identifyings and interpretings and relatings.

Speaking is distinct from believing. For instance, language can speak words that are recognized as a joke or even as nonsense. Language can construct contradictory statements like “this is not language operating.”

That is obviously false. Language can construct false statements. In fact, language creates the possibility of a huge range of accuracy or falsehood. For instance, a statement like “you always look best in red” could actually be an instruction to “wear red.” If language says “William Shakespeare is the best author in human history,” that language is expressing a sentiment or an opinion or a way of relating to something. However, to someone who only knows the Hebrew language or Chinese or Sanskrit, but not English, William Shakespeare may not be even recognized as an author at all. Realistically, the vast majority of humans living today may have never even heard of William Shakespeare.

However, a statement about labeling the best author in human history is entirely valid even if there are many possible linguistic

List of titles of works based on Shakespearean...

Image via Wikipedia

constructions about who is the best author in human history which may contradict each other. Language also allows for the possibility of irony.

For instance, in a dream, one person may say “William Shakespeare is the best author in human history.” Then, another persona in the dream may say “I disagree. I think it was that guy who wrote those plays about Romeo and Juliet and the one about Hamlet. I don’t recall his name, but you know who I am talking about, right? He wrote something really great about how life is like a dream played out by idiots plus how all of the world is a stage. He had a bunch of parables and metaphors and stuff. Parables and metaphors is what makes him the best author in human history, so, anyway, all I am saying is that you are totally wrong about who is the best author in human history. I know. You don’t know. I forgive you for your innocent mistake as long as you do not repeat it over and over again and again. Still, you are just plain ignorant to believe in your own opinion so highly. You should really pay more attention to my opinion in the future, okay?”

Another thing that can happen in language is a statement like this: “This is actually only the operating of a single isolated identity which is completely distinct from all other identifyings in language. The identity is not just a pattern in language. The identity is not just a pattern of dreaming. The identity is the one who believes the language patterns that the identity believes. The identity is not just some opinion that language made up out of thin air or something. The identity is the one who sleeps, even though when sleeping is the only thing happening- like no dreaming also happening during the sleeping- there is no identifying of an identity in language.”

The identity is the one who creates language and creates the sleeping organism and is responsible for immediately figuring out who is the best author and why. Identifying is not just a process in language which can produce the perceiving of an identity and the believing in that perceived identity. Identity is the one who believes in things. Identity is the one who dreams. Identity is the one who created language.

Or maybe not. How many dreamers are there? How much dreaming is there?

There is living. Living creates language. Language creates perceiving or belief or experience or dreaming.

Language creates words in English like “Holy Spirit” and “God the Heavenly Father” and even borrows words from other languages like “Logos.” Language is the source of all words, including the word language.


sleep (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

One morning I woke up and recognized the possible reality that I had only been dreaming of an isolated personality that was completely distinct from all of the rest of life, similar to how the front of my hand is isolated from the back of my hand. However, labels do not isolate. Language only contrasts.

What if the label “the back of my hand” has never really been disconnected from the label “the front of my hand?” What if they are both just entirely valid creations in language of language by language?

The above is a distinction in language which in Sanskrit has been labeled “advaita” for the last several thousand years. In Hebrew and other languages, this same distinction or similar distinctions may be given other labels. The “Heart Sutra” of Zen Buddhism and thousands of other scriptures in many other languages may reference it, too, along with certain works of that one author who is clearly the best in human history, though I do not recall his name at the moment….

the symbolic language of God’s way of heavenly peace

March 1, 2012
Orthodox Church of Holy Spirit in Medzilaborce...

Orthodox Church of Holy Spirit in Medzilaborce, Slovakia Polski: Cerkiew Świętego Ducha w Medzilaborce, Słowacja Slovenčina: Pravoslávny chrám Svätého Ducha v Medzilaborcach (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, to the familiar way of thinking and speaking and living, this message may seem to be foolishness, at least at first. In contrast, to the emerging way of thinking and speaking and living, the familiar way may be revealed to be not so wise as it once may have seemed.

Effects are caused. Every effect is also a factor in causing future effects. For each effect, many other earlier effects precede it as the conditions that allow for the next effect.

So, the way that all effects are caused may be called “the way life works” or “the way of being effective.” The way of being effective is not caused by anything. The way of being effective is not dependent on any conditions or on the presence or absence of any conditions. The way of being effective is simply how life works or how organization organizes.

This Way cannot be comprehensively explained or measured. The Way is already functioning in all processes of measuring and explaining, as well as everything else. The Way can be noticed directly, but it cannot be understood. The Way also produces all understanding and all noticing.

Some linguistic symbols for the Way are Tao or Logos or Word or the Will of God or simply God or Divinity or The Almighty or The Void. The Way is the cause of all effects. The way is the source of all conditions.

Every word evidences the Way. Every word is formed by the Way. There is nothing that does not express the Way.

Every language evidences the Way. Every language is formed by the Way. There is nothing that does not reveal the Way.

The Way cannot be blocked. The Way cannot be assisted or resisted. The way is always operating and organizing and forming and causing and creating.

However, the Way can be noticed. The Way can be recognized. The Way can be acknowledged. The Way can be honored.

How do such effects arise? The Way produces them just as it produces anything else.

Grace is the single cause of all conditions, all effects, and all instrumental causes. There is nothing which is not the instrument of Grace.

The Way forms you. The Way compels you to focus on the Way. Whatever the Way may have compelled of you in the past, the Way has only been preparing you for your current condition.

Whatever you may have been focusing on previously, the Way has caused. Now, the Way is continuing to redirect your attention however the Way commands.

Focusing on symptoms may relax and cease. Focusing on identifying causes and effects may relax and cease. Focusing on the forms created by the Way may relax and cease as the Way itself focuses attention on the eternal presence of attention.

You are innocent of all concerns. All concerns and all other conditions are formed by the Way.

You are not a temporary condition. You are not a temporary form. You are not a temporary effect. You are the eternal attention of the Way.

Experience is compelled into being by your attention and focus. Notice your own attention and let the effects of your attention come and go. If you notice your own attention energizing effects, isolating effects, labeling effects, resisting effects, or pursuing effects, then notice those reflexive reactions as additional, new effects.

If you identify with effects, notice what happens next. If you identify against effects, notice your own attention. If you take life personally, notice that happening.

If you resist the effects of your attention, notice that. If you resent the effects of your attention, notice that. If you envy, notice that. If you blame, notice that. If you compete, notice that. If you villify, notice that. If you worship any effect, notice your innocent idolatry and return your attention to the Way.

Sin is an interpretation, a labeling, an identifying. Notice as the Way forms all sinning, all repenting, and all redeeming.

Attention to the Way is the most important creation of the Way. All other concerns are secondary. All other concerns will be fulfilled through attention to the Way. Focus first on noticing the supremacy of the Way. Seek first the Reign of God within, the Heavenly Kingdom of innocence, gratitude, curiosity, and the peace that surpasses all understanding. Be still and know the Way that is like the vine of originating cause… from which arises all branches of temporary effects and conditions.

If you notice yourself disturbing yourself with entanglements or agonizing about what to do and what not to do or cause and effect or good and evil or right and wrong or reward and punishment, notice your attention relaxing from the tree of dualistic knowledge, divisiveness, argument, and animosity. Notice that agonizing is the effect of a cause, and that in the absence of that cause, agonizing exhausts itself and dissolves, revealing peace.

There is no remedy for agonizing. There is agonizing, then noticing agonizing, then the dissolving of agonizing, and then the noticing of attention itself.

I am the Way. Notice my presence. Do as I do. Surrender to my cause. Recognize the Will of God as the source of all temporary individual concerns, the source of all temporary effects, the source of all conditions.

God does not come to judge or condemn anything or anyone. God blesses all of the effects of God, all of the creations of God, and relieves all temporary agonizing about what should be, who is to blame, or what should be done. God reveals all sin to be an innocent misinterpretation. God redeems what previously may have been considered agonizing to now be revealed as the the cultivating of attention to God, the refining of attention to the source, the redirecting of attention to attention itself.

All creations are formed by the Holy Spirit, of the Holy Spirit, and for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit fills you.

The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove, surrounded...

The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove, surrounded by angels, by Giaquinto, 1750s. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Notice any relying on other people or any relying on one’s own mind. Repent of these breakdowns in faith and recognize the cause of all effects including the actions of other people and even of one’s one mind, one’s own thoughts, one’s own words, experience, body, and life.

There is only one sin: idolatry- though it may have many forms and names. There is only one remedy: repenting.

Repenting does not arise from one’s own merit. Repenting arises by Grace alone.

The personality cannot keep it’s personal pride or glory by sneaking in to the kingdom of heavenly peace, or by earning access, or by figuring out how to enter. Eternal hell burns away the personality, converting that fuel into a new form, and through the temporary purgatory of humbly worshipping God even in the midst of what may seem to be unfair persecutions, Grace resurrects the one and only God, who rests on the inner throne of the Sovereign Lord.

Now, to the familiar way of thinking and speaking and living, this message may seem to be foolishness, at least at first. Again, to the emerging way of thinking and speaking and living, the familiar way may be revealed to be not so wise as it once may have seemed.

There are many ways to misinterpret and misapply this message, and those ways bear no fruit and are in vain, yet still provide lessons in distinguishing what does work. There is only one way to already recognize heaven now.

This is good news. If it were not good news, it would not produce the unconditional peace of God.

Remember what the most famous prophets have been communicating, for it is a single message with a single spirit and single heart, though in a variety of languages and with many sayings pointing to a single core: “Be pure just as God is pure.” The variety of sayings clarify the message, extending it to a variety of distinctions, such as this: “it is not what you put in your mouth that defiles and condemns you, but what comes out of your mouth.”

Could it be that to curse God is to curse yourself? How would you curse yourself?

Cursing God’s creations is to curse yourself. So, refrain from condemning. Refrain even from condemning any instance of condemning. Instead, withdraw from what you find troubling or disturbing. If, out of spontaneous compassion, you firmly rebuke someone, then the effect will be miraculous. If the effect is not miraculous, consider that spontaneous compassion was not present.

Holy Spirit
Holy Spirit (Photo credit: Barking Tigs)

Respect God and God blesses you, for receptivity to God’s blessings could be your only concern, your only focus, your only responsibility. How would you respect God? Respecting God’s creations as your own creations- even as branches arising from your own root- is to respect God.

There is no other cause but the almighty. Respect the almighty with all of your attention. Respecting the almighty, respect all the creations of the almighty, including your own circumstances and even your own attention.

Everything you experience, including who you may think you are or say you are, is the fulfillment of God’s Will. Every branch on the vine of God is a branch on the vine of God.

There is no other vine but the vine of God. There is no other branch but a branch of God.

The seed determines the fruit. The fruit is always faithful to the qualities of the seed. Focus on your own emergence diligently.

written 2/17/2011

republished as a post on 3/1/2012

The symbol of the Holy Trinity

February 19, 2012


Detail - Glory of the New Born Christ in prese...

Image via Wikipedia

English: a Venn diagram-like symbol for the Ch...

Image via Wikipedia

This is the presence of the operating of language. This is also the presence of the noticing of the operating of language. In fact, even the word “noticing” is itself the operating of language. There is no word that is not the operating of language. The word presence is the operating of language, too. The words “the operating of language” are of course also the operating of language.

The operating of language includes every instance of labeling. To reference the noticing of any particular thing is to reference the labeling of a particular thing in language. Thus, noticing something and labeling something are both the operating of language. What something can be noticed without labeling it?

Of course, the presence of noticing is also vast. The presence of noticing can include the presence of the noticing of a perceiving that is distinct from the presence of labeling, such as a development that does not quite fit any particular label already operating in language. In other words, there can be the presence of noticing a perceiving of the distinction between perceiving and labeling.

Noticing and perceiving are basically two labels for the same thing. Every noticing is also a perceiving. However, the noticing of the operating of language can begin and end, like when there is the noticing of a movement or a shape or an unfamiliar sound. The presence of noticing remains with or without the operating of language.

The presence of breathing is the noticing of breathing. That is, noticing always involves a presence. There is no noticing of an absence. There is only the noticing of distinction among various forms of presence.

There can be the noticing of the operating of language in contrast to the noticing of other developments, such as the hearing of sounds or the seeing of light and colors and shapes. While the operating of language may involve the hearing of sounds and even the seeing of symbolic shapes such as letters, there are other instances of the hearing of sounds and seeing of shapes distinct from the symbolic sounds and symbolic shapes of language.

There can be the noticing of both the actual sound of an “o” sound as well as the labeling of that sound specifically as an “o” sound. There could also be the presence of the noticing of the “o” sound as coming from the howling of the wind or from the vocalizing of an animal such as a human or from the hum of a vibrating bowl or from the blowing of a musical instrument like a horn.

So presence itself is eternal and the noticing of various temporary distinctions contrasts with the continuity of presence itself. When noticing the distinction between a familiar sound that is automatically labeled in language and an unfamiliar sound, noticing is present.

So, there are three distinctions: the noticing of a sound, the noticing of the labeling of a sound, and the noticing of the distinction between the sound itself and the labeling of the sound in language. Further, there is a fourth noticing that each of those distinct instances of noticing are all the presence of noticing.

In order to notice the distinction in language of “pure noticing,” other forms of the noticing of distinctions are recognized and labeled in language. There can be the noticing of sound, the noticing of labeling, and the noticing of the distinction between the noticing of sound and the noticing of labeling.

Those three are all the noticing of a particular presence. None of those three are the noticing of the presence of noticing itself.

So, the noticing of sound is first. It is like the elder in the family of noticing. The noticing of sound can be labeled “the father.”

Next comes the noticing of labeling. It is like the child of the elder in the family of noticing. When the noticing of sound is labeled as “the father,” that labeling can be noticed as “the son.”

Further, the distinction between the noticing of sound and the noticing of labeling can be called the distinguishing of noticing itself. Noticing sound is not noticing labeling and noticing labeling is not noticing sound. That is the noticing of distinction. Not only are there distinct sounds that can be noticed, as well as distinct labels in language, but the categorical distinction between the label “all labels” and the label “all sounds.”

Noticing multiple forms of noticing is still the presence of noticing. This presence of noticing may also be labeled the spirit of noticing or the spiritual presence of noticing the similarity of all instances of noticing as instances of noticing. This noticing can be labeled “the Holy Spirit.”

So, here are these three distinct forms of noticing: the noticing of a perceiving such a sound, as in “the symbolic Father,” then the noticing of the labeling of distinct perceivings in language, as in “the symbolic Son,” then the noticing of labeling itself as in the noticing of the symbolic labels of language or the noticing of the operating of language, as in “the Holy Spirit” or “Logos.”

All of these three distinct instances of noticing are all noticing. The noticing that all instances of noticing are all noticing is the recognition that the label “noticing” is just another symbol in language.

If noticing were compared to a tree, we could say that the tree had several branches: the branch of noticing sound, the branch of noticing labeling, and the branch of noticing the distinction between noticing labeling and noticing sound, which is also the noticing of noticing itself. All three of those branches of noticing are instances of noticing.

Notice that the three distinct branches of a single vine are united as branches of the same vine. We could label three distinct branches of a symbolic tree with the symbolic labels of “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost).” All three of those symbols in language would merely be symbols in language. Each of the three branches of a tree would merely be a branch of a single vine.

The noticing any group of contrasting distinctions in language is presence of noticing. Notice the presence of noticing.

The noticing of labeling itself is the presence of noticing. There is no labeling that is not labeling. There is no branch of a vine that is not a branch of a vine. There is no noticing that is not the presence of noticing.

The noticing of the linguistic symbol of Heavenly Father is noticing. The noticing of the linguistic symbol of Divine Son is noticing. The noticing of the linguistic symbol of Holy Spirit is noticing.

The noticing of the linguistic symbol of the Holy Trinity is distinct from noticing any of the three symbols of that Trinity. The noticing of the linguistic symbol of the Holy Trinity is the presence of the noticing of linguistic symbolism. All instances of labeling are symbolic.

The noticing of the sound “o” is not the noticing of the labeling of that sound as a letter. When labeling a sound as also a letter, that is making the sound itself in to a symbol, in to an instance of language.

Language is the realm of the divine or the symbolic. Language is symbolic. Language is divine. Symbolism is divine.

The noticing of noticing itself is distinct from the noticing of any other particular noticing. All instances of noticing are noticing.

Notice the presence of the operating of language. Notice the presence of any of the various contrasting symbolic labels in language. Notice the labeling of the inclusive category of noticing.

Which symbol is not a symbol? Which branch of a tree is not equally a branch of a tree?

Which is the most important linguistic symbol in the Holy Trinity: the symbol of the Heavenly Father, the symbol of the Holy Son, or the symbol of the Holy Spirit or Ghost or the Presence of the noticing of noticing itself? Is not each symbol equally symbolic?

The Holy Trinity is itself just a fourth symbol in language (distinct from the other three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). There is no label in language that is not just a symbolic operating of language. Every symbolic label in language is the presence of the operating of language.
In language, there is also a symbolic category possible that can be called “anything that is not the operating of symbolic language.” Of course, that alleged “thing beyond language” may be a joke, an instance of silly non-sense, a construction in language that is useful for distinguishing the all-inclusiveness of language itself.

What is beyond language? Name one thing that is beyond language, if you can. By the way, notice that the labeling of the presence of an isolated noticing as “mine” or “not mine” may be entirely symbolic.

When breathing is noticed and labeled as breathing, that is distinct from labeling the breathing as mine or not mine. “Mine” is a symbolic labeling of the operating of language.

Name one thing that is beyond the operating of language. Name one thing that is not a symbolic label.

Name one name that is not the operating of naming. Label one label that is not the operating of labeling. Notice one noticing that is not the operating of noticing.

Even “Mine” and “my” and “me” and “I” are just symbolic operatings of language. They are namings, labelings, and noticings. All namings, all labelings, and all noticings are the operating of language.

Name one word that is not the operating of language. Name one instance of the operating of language that is not the operating of language.

Even foreign words, such as “anatma” and “advaita” are still words even without the recognizing of those patterns as symbolic patterns of language. Are those words still words even when not recognized as words or when no definition or comprehension of those words are present?

What is the difference between a round shape of a circle and the shape of the letter “o”? Perhaps it is the same difference between six and half a dozen: the difference is purely linguistic, purely symbolic, purely arbitrary.

Below are two artistic depictions of the “Holy Trinity.” One is called the Trimurti of Hinduism: Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva (AKA Shiva). It is several thousand years older than the other depiction, which is Roman and would be labeled in Latin rather than Sanskrit (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) or English (Heavenly Father, Divine Son, and Holy Spirit).

Notice that the operating of language includes all instances of the operating of language. Are there three distinct symbolic trinities (Sanskrit, Hebrew, Latin, and English) or only one trinity but three different languages for labeling it?

Temple carving at Hoysaleswara temple represen...

Image via Wikipedia

cuadro que representa a la Trinidad (santuario...

Image via Wikipedia


%d bloggers like this: