Posts Tagged ‘rebirth’

Stress, Dis-Ease, and Spiritual Rebirth

March 23, 2013

Stress, Dis-Ease, and Spiritual Rebirth


Stress (journal)

Stress (journal) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Light splitting

Light splitting (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Have you ever identified something to reject or resist and then focused on removing it whenever it is present and preventing it whenever it is not present? We could call that process by many names, such as an obsession, a preoccupation, a fixation, or an agonizing. We could also call that the experience of stress or dis-ease, as in a contrast to the experience of ease, contentment and relative relaxation or release or relief. 
Similar to opposing some possibility is identifying something to produce or promote and then focusing on cultivating it whenever it is present and preventing it whenever it is not present. We could also call that process by many names, including the same set as above: a preoccupation, a fixation, an agonizing, or a dis-ease. However, we could also use terms like a priority, an ideal, a dream, a goal, a value, or a commitment.
Briefly, hell is the experience of desperately repressing a particular possibility (which we could also call things like denial, agonizing, or even psychosis). Purgatory (neurosis) is the experience of obsessing over a single particular possibility as if it is the only method for hypothetically avoiding hell and earning one’s way in to heaven. (Note that purgatory is clearly still a state of stress or dis-ease, and those in purgatory speak in terms of “the only way” and “the only true doctrine” and so on.) Heaven (enlightment, salvation, spiritual rebirth, wisdom, maturity, etc) is recognizing that heaven is not earned. Heaven is a natural state which is available simply by grace, by inheritance, by faith, by a proper perspective. In other languages or traditions, the realm of heaven may be called paradise or Eden or nirvana or satchitananda.
El Purgatorio (1890). Óleo sobre tela 339 x 25...

El Purgatorio (1890). Óleo sobre tela 339 x 256 cm. GAN.Cararas – Venezuela. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sympathetic (red) and parasympathetic (blue) n...

Sympathetic (red) and parasympathetic (blue) nervous system Русский: Аанатомия иннервации вегетативной нервной системы. Системы: симпатическая (красным) и парасимпатическая (синим) Українська: Аанатомія іннервації вегетативної нервової системи. Симпатична (червоним) та парасимпатична (синім) гілки Polski: Układ autonomiczny: czerwony – sympatyczny, niebieski – parasympatyczny. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, what is unusual about all of the above is just the way that language is being used. In the case of hell and purgatory, there is an implicit identifying of what should be and what should not be, which is the ancient model called “the knowledge of the tree of good and evil,” which is a reference to the branch of the nervous system called the sympathetic nervous system (the branch for dealing with stress). When the sympathetic nervous system (or the obsession over duality of either good or evil, either right or wrong) is prominent, that is a state of stress or dis-ease or mild panic or hysteria or paranoia or what ancient philosophers referenced as “sin.”
That is a normal stage of development. It is not itself evil, but is the perception of the power of some evil as being a real threat. In other words, there is the constant experience of a perceived threat ( areal experience of threat).
That is a state very vulnerable to delusion. Metaphors for that state of delusion (or “maya”) include sayings like “do not be afraid of the forces of darkness, for darkness has no power in the midst of even a single candle.” Darkness is just a word for the capacity to see along with the absence of any light waves in the visible spectrum. Darkness is not a presence of some “threat” to light. Darkness is a convenient linguistic contrast to the presence of certain wavelengths of visible light. 
Light always “dispels the darkness” because there never was any darkness except as a label in language. Darkness has no physical reality. It is just a convenient label. It has no power over actual light. It is merely a categorical label.
sRGB rendering of the spectrum of visible light

sRGB rendering of the spectrum of visible light (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Naturally, anyone in a state of delusion, trauma, or severe dis-ease cannot properly recognize or interpret the language of spirit or spirituality that is displayed here. They will twist words in to justifications for the perpetuation of their experience of hell and purgatory. Again, that is totally natural and normal.
What is interesting is that there is such a thing as blindness. The presence of light does not dispel blindness. So, ancient metaphors reference things like “those who have the eyes to see, let them see” and “the blind who lead others who are also blind” and “in the land of the blind (the realm of the spiritually dead), the one-eyed man is king.”

Blindness (Photo credit: Community Eye Health)

Darkness is not a threat to light. Blindness however is label for the inability to perceive the difference between the actual presence of light and the relative absence of light (“darkness”). One who is  blind cannot speak with any authority on darkness or light. Likewise, the spiritually blind cannot speak with any competence on issues of sin and salvation (or the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems). 
They are blind to sin, but of course they do not know that they are blind. Their sin leads them to say of others “look at them other there: they should not speak like that; they should remove the beam from their own eye before arrogantly presuming to remove a speck from the eyes of others!” They experience persistent contempt, animosity, jealousy, condemnation, and so on. They may speak of forgiveness, but without authority or comprehension.
They are typically anti-ego, which is the extreme of egotism and self-consciousness. They are often anti-negativity, which is the extreme of negativity. They may be hysterically anti-selfishness, which is the total absence of compassion and the extreme presence of resentment and contempt and animosity and arrogance.
Complete spectrum of electromagnetic radiation...

Complete spectrum of electromagnetic radiation with the visible portion highlighted (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Here is the kind of thing that the spiritually mature say: “One can refrain from presuming to remove darkness from the eyes of another, and instead remedy the blindness of  one’s own vision, instead developing the capacity to precisely perceive.” In those words, there is no panic of opposing darkness hysterically. There is simply the recognition that there is such a thing as the capacity to perceive clearly and there is an interest in developing that capacity is the practical, functional issue. One does not need to obsess over “removing sin.” It is a normal stage of development. There is a commitment to clarity, not to conformity to any doctrine or tradition.
An ancient teaching of the Hebrew Prophet Isaiah references the idolatry of worshiping tradition over clarity (sincerity over precision). In the New Testament of Christianity, there are several references by Jesus to Isaiah of “naive, arrogant, vain people worshiping their own sincerity with only their lips,” while their hearts and spirits are far from purity. Such people will argue and defend with animosity and ill will and terror, showing their spiritual development by their symptoms, their results, the “fruit” of their practices.
Darkness is no threat to the wise. Light will not be of any value to those who are blind. In the metaphors and parables of spiritual poetry, those who are “blind” to their own “inner darkness” will not have the capacity to recognize the light of spiritual maturity any more than a blind person would be able to identify red or blue or yellow.
For them, they must go through the experiences of hell and purgatory, obsessing over what should not be (but is) and what should be instead (but is not). That stress and dis-ease is how they will develop humility (through humiliations, disappointments, frustrations- the spiritual or metaphorical “death” of their ego fixations, which are simply natural stage of development). From humility, they will develop a new curiosity and from curiosity they will develop a new clarity, or what is called in the language of spiritual poetry by this label: a “rebirth.”
This shows The Virgin and The Child being pres...

This shows The Virgin and The Child being present while souls awaiting purification are brought out of Purgatory and into Heaven. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

the rebirth of a mama’s boy

May 5, 2012
mother's day - ice cream and juice boxes at co...

mother’s day – ice cream and juice boxes at cold stone – DSC00703 (Photo credit: sean dreilinger)

Film poster for Mama's Boy - Copyright 2007, W...

Film poster for Mama’s Boy – Copyright 2007, Warner Independent Pictures (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have been called a mama’s boy. Generally, I have understood the term to be a condemnation or accusation or shaming. Being called a mama’s boy was not a sign of popularity or prestige. I wanted to fit in with my peers.
So, I proudly rejected the title of mama’s boy and instead projected an image of being independent and aloof. I pretended not to be a mama’s boy, but to be a rebel.
I also distanced myself from my mom publicly and privately. I complained about her, presented her as a villain, focused lots of negative conversation on her such as “she is always worrying too much about me,” said she was not important to me, though depending on her enormously. I learned to draw her attention to myself indirectly, plus I withdrew from other people so as to avoid them finding out that I actually might be a mama’s boy and then telling others.
Here is a few examples of how a young boy who does not want to be called a mama’s boy draws his mother’s attention to himself. In 2nd grade, I played my first musical performance for my cub scout pack- perhaps two hundred people including lots of parents. I was playing a solo guitar rendition of the tune most people know as “twinkle twinkle little star.”
Playing guitar

Playing guitar (Photo credit: hugochisholm)

By the way, I very much wanted the approval of the crowd. I might tell you now that I wanted to make my mom proud, but I would not have said so then of course.
So, as I recall, I played most of the song and then ran off the stage in terror and cried. My mom was in the audience and she came to comfort me.  She said things to reassure me, like that the people in the audience liked what I did and did not know the song I was playing, so no one even noticed the mistakes. I was outraged at her and dismissed her reassurances. Had I been as clever as I am now, I might have said, “so what you are saying is that what I played was so far away from a very recognizable song that no one even recognized what I was playing as that song?”
My recollection is that I blamed her for pushing me too hard to participate. I was embarrassed at not being as popular and talented as I would have liked to have been and I was enraged at my mom.


Mama's Bad Boy

Mama’s Bad Boy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If my peers did not care what she said, then why should I? She did not represent the values of my peers, so her reassurances were rejected by me.
I eventually learned to play guitar very well. I even performed in public extensively.
“My mom should be very proud. However, she probably isn’t proud of me. She expects me to be superhuman. That makes her a horrible mom. Not that I care or even notice.
I am almost superhuman now though. Eventually, I expect to be good enough for the approval of other people, such as my mom’s approval, which, by the way, means nothing at all to me.” 😉

Now, on to other things that a young boy might do to draw his mother’s attention to himself. First, construct a good excuse so as to attract mom’s attention but avoid the suspicions of your peers. How about a health crisis?
When I was 7, the thigh bone of my right leg fractured. I needed my mommy to help me- I mean I needed the attention and assistance of my mother- but I had a very good excuse for attracting her attention.
Did I “milk” that excuse to the fullest? Well, I do know that I enjoyed spending the extra time with my mom away from school to go to visit doctors and stay home for a few weeks with her. She would always take me to my favorite fast food place to eat: Burger King. I would get the special kid’s meal with toys, plus the ladies at the medical offices would give me candy and little trinkets.
Anyway, now that I think back on it, maybe I should have broken more of my bones. However, as the years went by, I settled for the occasional milking of “not feeling good” to stay home from school with my mommy- I mean my mother- and to avoid the terrifying and humiliating environment of elementary school– with all those needy little mama’s boys and girls competing with me for the attention and approval of the teacher.
Mom Always Liked You Best!

Mom Always Liked You Best! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Generally, I excelled academically. My mom liked that. She was a teacher herself.
I made her very proud of me with my school performance. Not that I even noticed, though.
I barely even tried in school. Okay, obviously I did try, but I presented the justification for my academic excellence that I was just a natural genius, so I truly did not focus on school performance as much as I could have. I focused just enough on schoolwork to excel but without doing so well that it would isolate me too much from my peers.
I was frequently bored at school, by which I mean that I would daydream or draw rather than participate in class. I cheated occasionally, which was an excellent way to do well enough to get my mom’s approval but also maintaining the social appearances of not being too concerned with school and actual learning. Plus, it was daring and rebellious to cheat, especially when cheating with my friends rather than just in secret (which I also did at times). Telling my peers about my cheating helped to balance my nerdiness.
Rebirth of a Nation

Rebirth of a Nation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What else is a good way to get mother’s attention without being called a mama’s boy? I often broke rules and expectations that I expected to result in my mother’s attention. If was not caught at one thing, I might just do something more extreme.
Once, I accidentally let the dog out in to the front yard, which I knew not to do, and then the dog ran directly in to the street and was hit by a car, badly injuring the dog. My parents took the dog to a vet and after hearing the vet’s report on the condition of the dog, my parents decided to have it put to sleep (killed).
Did I do things like that to draw my mom’s attention? That one is questionable, but here is something that was a very predictable way to deliberately get my mom’s attention.
picture taken specifically for elmer's wikiped...

picture taken specifically for elmer’s wikipedia page.the bottle contains no copy right information and use of the bottle on thier own page would be fair use. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of my favorite examples was the time when I cut in to the side of an Elmer’s glue container. The little orange lid was stuck on with dried glue, and I really needed some glue for a project that was very important to me (though I do not recall what it was- possibly a school assignment, but perhaps not). I simply got some scissors and cut a rectangle out of the side of the glue container, got out the glue that I needed, and then used some clear scotch tape to position the cut out rectangle back over the hole that I had made in the side of the container. Then, I put it back up on the shelf where my mom would be expected to find it.
She did find it. She was doing some sewing and alterations to clothes.
She got the top off of the glue container without noticing the “corrective surgery” that I had done. She held the glue over the area where she wanted just a little bit of glue, then squeezed the side of the container.
All of the glue left in the container poured out on to her fabric and on to the floor. I was “innocently” doing my homework (like a “good boy”) when I heard her yell my name and call for me. She did not sound very happy.
“Yes, mother dear. What is it? Oh my, look at that mess you have made! Well, I am sure it was just an accident. I will come to your rescue and help you clean it up. What a great son I am, aren’t I?”
“Well, yes, how did the glue container get like that? That is an excellent question! Why are you asking me, though? Maybe dad did it, and I am sure for a very good reason. Isn’t he so lovable in his thoughtlessness to do something like this? Anyway, have you asked him yet? Why all the attention on me, mum? You sound so suspicious! Oh, no, I do not see any reason to ask him right now. What’s the rush? We probably should just clean up this mess first- you and me together mom, right? We do not want the spilled glue to dry any further, do we?”
Mothers' Day Cake crop

Mothers’ Day Cake crop (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of course, I did not just break rules to bring my mom’s attention to me. I also broke rules to bring my dad’s attention to me. That, however, is another subject for a possible future introspection.
Maybe I was more willing to manipulatively draw my mom’s attention to me than my dad’s, at least in the earlier years of my childhood. Maybe she was safer to me.
I recall many stories (with humor and gratitude) about my mom and I. I also can recall many stories of tension and fear, but among the most notable has been the fear of being labeled as a mama’s boy.
Alison Hunn replies:
Quite a story!  I never thought of you as a Mama’s boy except at the beginning.  Then you wanted to be held all the time but you had been left in a crib most of the time before we got you.  [She is referring to my adoption when I was a few months old.] The note that came with you told how to prop a bottle and leave you.  That was not my way.

   I love you and am proud of you,

Every Day is Mother's Day

Every Day is Mother’s Day (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • Hope all you moms had fun today!

    Hope all you moms had fun today! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

the rebirth of God

December 25, 2011
the core of all gospels
Have you met different individuals of different sizes and ages? Do you know different creatures including various kinds of animals and plants? Have you learned different words and do you even know of languages foreign to you? You can identify many different perceptions, right? So, could it be that all identifying and all perceiving have a single source?
First, consider that there is only one ultimate authority or power, and one word to label it is God. However, beware of worshiping the label and missing what is symbolized by the label. Note that many labels have been used in many languages for the ultimate authority, which is the source of all of those languages and all of those labels. With caution, use the labels. However, do not make any labels or any symbol in to an idol. That would be an error or mistake or sin or foolishness.
Further, turn away from whatever is troubling to you. Let it be. Choose grace and calm.
Leave your troubles to God. Do not leave God for your troubles, making an excuse of them. That is also idolatry.
If your cleverness is useful when you are relaxed, be grateful. However, if you are troubled and then still presume to rely on your cleverness, you may be humbled. Repent from arrogance. Arrogance is the root of antagonism, arguing, resentment and animosity.
Abandon your troubles while they are still small. Direct your attention away from your troubles toward God.
The ultimate authority organizes the capacity for sensations such as seeing and hearing, plus the capacity for language. God is the source of the interactions and interpretations which lead to perception.
If someone else has a different perception from you, that is natural. Different creatures have different capacities for sensation. A hawk sees better than a human. A dog can smell better than a human. A person who is blind may be able to hear better than most other humans.
Further, one who looks from the peak of a hill has a different view than one who looks from the bottom of a hill. The one on the hilltop can see many distant things which appear small, while the other may study something very close that appears huge. If most everyone has the same perception of something, then a new perspective could be of great benefit and advantage.
Differences in interpretation are the most subtle. When a logger and a squirrel look at the same tree, do they experience the same thing? An squirrel may be looking at the tree for nuts or for a place to rest safely. A logger may be thinking of the value of the wood and of the process of cutting and hauling that tree.
Beware of those who would argue over interpretation. They may not yet recognize the authority of God. They may worship their own conclusions, perceptions, interpretations, and linguistic labels, which is idolatry.
However, it is only natural to have interpretations, perceptions, and conclusions. Hell is the developmental stage of experiencing alternative conclusions as a threat to your arrogance. Of course, alternative conclusions in fact are a threat to your arrogance, but perhaps arrogance is not the most valuable quality you could develop or experience. That may be why God has exposed you to alternative conclusions which you rightly perceive as threats to your arrogance: in order to reveal to you your arrogance and turn your attention toward repenting and to God.
“Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:22

I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.”  Isaiah 43:11 

So, if some use repetition of words and songs to turn from whatever troubles them, could that be God’s Will? If some use rituals or scriptures to turn from whatever troubles them, could that also be God’s Will? If some argue with each other and quarrel, leading to the experience of loss and regret and then repent, could that also be God’s Will?

Which of God’s creations is not God’s Will? Which of God’s creation is not the creation of God?

God forms individuals and words and languages. God forms groups and traditions and rituals and songs and oral teachings that may be written and translated and interpreted and argued about and defended with fences and weapons and wars.

So, you may have been taught that God has created you. But have you been taught what God is?

“Timeless truth, I tell you: ‘whoever believes in me, those works which I have done he will also do, and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to the presence of my Father.’ “ John 14:12

What is the source of works greater than the works of a Prophet of God? Further, which of God’s Prophets is not the prophet of God? Indeed, which of God’s religions is not the religion of God? In fact, do all religions point to a few  consistent principles?

“I am conscious of this, and am certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is corrupt in itself; but for the man in whose opinion it is unclean, for him it is corrupt.” Romans 14:14 

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and without faith, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.” Titus 1:15

“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the [harsh, arrogant] words that come out of your mouth…. The [harsh, arrogant] words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you [and disturbs you].” Matthew 15:11, 18
Turn away from whatever troubles you. Turn away from whatever disturbs you. Turn away from evil. Turn away from blame, condemnation, animosity, and arrogance. 

Let attention rest at the source of perception and interpretation and the capacity to create. What is the capacity to create? 

Yeshua said, “Those things which are impossible for people are possible with God.”
Mark 10:27  & Matthew 19:26 & Luke 18:27 & Luke 1:37
The same idea is also in the Old Testament. See
What is a single word for the capacity to create? What is a word for the source of all words, all labels, all conclusions in language, and all formations in language, including this sequence of words and every other sequence of words? What is a word for that which anything is possible?

the birth of the eternal

December 22, 2011

The development of language and the death of the mortal

Perhaps language developed a long time ago. Then, perhaps a particular pattern in language was later formed and then continued for a while, like for instance this sentence, which only exists in language, but then suddenly and permanently stopped.
Now, the beginning and ending of something in language is just how language works. Sentences begin and end. Words begin and end. Sounds and shapes of letters and other linguistic symbols like numbers or punctuation marks are all distinct, isolated bits that have boundaries and beginnings and endings.

So, the fact that one thing ends and then another thing begins is really just a contrivance in language. Language makes up categorical boundaries and then names the two categories as distinct, like day and night. But are day and night really isolated (or “opposites”)? Does one end and then the other begins? Is there ever a time when there is neither day nor night?
For instance, we can say that day ends and night begins. However, day and night are a single cycle that language divides in to a pair, refering to a categorical distinction between the shifting positional relationship between the sun and a particular location on a particular planet.

Thus, day does not actually end. Day just moves. More precisely, the earth is turning and that turning puts different locations of the surface of the earth in the place called day (facing the sun).
Again, day and night are technically not times. They are just relationships between the rotating of the planet and the light of the sun.

So, in a particular place, language can refer to the ending (in time) of the day (as a time). However, day just ends for that place at dusk. Day actually continues, as dusk at one horizon (longitude) is dawn at another horizon (longitude).
Day and night are eternal, but various places move in and out of day and night cyclically. However, language can refer to the ending or beginning of day. As a convenience in language, the phrase “the end of the day” is quite useful. However, that does not make it true in any absolute sense.
Day and night are not isolated. They are not opposites. They are just categorical distinctions in language. Day does not replace night and night does not replace day. The planet just rotates to face the day (the sun) with one section of the planet and to face another section of planet away from the sun (toward the night or “toward the stars” where they are visible without being outshined by the sun).

A visit to the polar regions of this planet (like North of the Arctic circle) reveals that, in fact, there are places on this planet that do not conform to the popular notions of day and night. In those places, there is no such thing (functionally) as day and night. Those “times” of facing toward the sun or away from it are called “summer” and “winter.”
Still, there are cyclic 24-hour variations during the two annual seasons of winter and summer in which the specific brightness of the sun varies. However, those variations are more like the variation between dusk and midnight. Further, in those regions, we could say that there are only two seasons and no such thing as day and night. Or, we could say that one annual cycle of seasons is equal to one cycle of the day and night “of the Gods.”

Along the equator of the earth, there are day and night, but no seasons. At the poles of the earth, there are two seasons, but no day and night.
So, day and night and the seasons are not times. They are relationships of place. Most fundamentally, they are words in language.

Look around you. Is it day or night where you are? What season are you at?
You are not in daytime or in winter. You are at daytime and at winter. They are places. Winter in the northern hemisphere of the earth is simultaneous with summer in the southern hemisphere of the earth. Day in America is night in Asia. There is no beginning and no end to day and night or seasons, except in language. Those relationships of place are eternal.
Now, I am not especially interested in any of that and you might not be either. However, there is a relevance to bringing all of that to attention.
The relevance is that you and I are conveniences in language. Just as day is not really a time, but a relationship, there is really no such thing as you or I, except as relationships in language.
Likewise, there is no hand without a larger organism to grow it. There is no earthling without an earth and sun to produce it. There is no sun at all… except in language.

Consider: what is the boundary of the sun? Is the sun far away in space? Have you ever said “I am going out in to the sun now?” Have you ever said “let’s close the curtains to keep the sun out of here?”
The sun is a formation in language. The sun does not exist outside of language. The sun does not have a discrete physical boundary or location.
We can say that all of the planets are “in the sun” or we can say that all of the planets revolve around the sun distant from it. Because “sun” is just a word, either use of the word is useful.
We can think of the sun as a place (distant from a particular observer) or as a process. We can refer to the sun as a measurable distinction in heat, or in light, or in various forms of invisible radiation such as infrared or ultraviolet, including radio waves, sound waves, microwaves, X-rays, and so on.

Ultimately, sun is a linguistic unit that we can say corresponds to various sensory capacities of various organs of various creatures. Plants have photovoltaic capacities to convert sunlight to energy. Of course, sunlight is already energy, so that is a rather weird thing to say, but again it is a useful construction in language.
The sun lives through it’s various parts, including various planets and the life of those planets (or on those planets). Of course, all of those words are also just categories in language.
I can consider myself a unit operating within an organ of the sun that is labeled “humanity” (as distinct from the organ or organic system called vegetation). Just as the brain has no functionality without the other nerves, there is no real functional boundary between my nerve cells, my organs, my organism, the earth on which my organism (and the linguistic subcategories of me) rely, and even the sun and the rest of the living universe.

Categorical distinctions in language are just linguistic conveniences. Seasons do not really begin and end. They are linguistic labels for distinct aspects of a single cycle. We could divide the annual cycle in to 4 seasons or 2 or any other number. The complete cycle itself is fundamental to seasons, not the particular number of verbal categories in to which we divide the cycle. The number of linguistic divisions is merely arbitrary.
We could divide the annual cycle in to 4 parts or in to 12. If we divide them in to 12 and call those months, it is silly to say that 12 is the right number of divisions and 4 is the wrong number of divisions. The divisions are just linguistic distinctions. They have no inherent reality except as linguistic units that correspond to a single cyclic pattern of time and of place.

More specifically, while the cycle of day and night is obvious from the equator, and the cycle of the seasons is obvious from temperate latitudes of the earth, neither of those is especially useful at the polar regions. So, people who traveled the entire planet (perhaps including the poles), may have found it useful to divide the annual cycle in to 12 units, roughly correlating to lunar cycles.
So, instead of using day or winter to mark the varying relationship between the sun and a particular place on the planet, the language of months (or zodiac signs) add a third element. Through the course of the year (which is just a pattern in language), the sun’s position relative to the earth can be measured against a set of star groups or constellations.
Alternatively, the annual cycle can be marked by the stellar backdrop at which the moon is full (directly opposite of the sun from the viewpoint of the earth). The moon makes twelve cycles of lunation phase each year, with one phase beginning in each of the twelve zodiac constellations.

However, one may ask, is it better to divide the annual cycle in 12 or in to 4 or what? Again, that question is actually a rather odd formation in language. Dividing something in to 4 linguistic units or 12 (or 365) is for different purposes. Each purpose has it’s own number of categorical divisions.
So, there are four equal parts of each year as well as 12 nearly equal parts as well as about 365 equal parts. All of those divisions in symbolic language are valid and useful.

And here is where it gets really interesting. To divide life in to individual units of linguistic identity (“I”) is one valid, useful operation in language. However, fundamentally, “I” does not exist any more than summer or June, which are just arbitrary words or units in language. “I” is just a categorical distinction, a relationship, a convenience.
Recognize the operation of language as “I,” which recognizing is the death of the mortal (which, technically, never really existed anyway except as a label in language). You are not really an isolated ego of linguistic alienation. You do not really exist.

Language is simply operating. Language claims the categories of humanity and non-humanity, left and right, mortal and immortal, “I” and “not I.” Just as “left” cannot die because left is just a unit in language, the same is true of sun and day and “I.”
The eternal cannot be born. The eternal is always here.
To recognize that you are the eternal movement of language can be called “the birth of the eternal.” Though a useful phrase in language, it is also nonsense, but so is “the death of the mortal,” there is no mortal outside of language.

Language is simply operating. The sun is not even shining. Language makes up that there is a sun and a witness of the sun and that it’s shining light and so then language says “I am over here and I see the sun shining, which is way over there.”
No! I am the sun.
Language declares the life of the sun. Language declares the life of the mortal. Without language, there is no sun and no mortal.

The sun does not give life to the earth and the earth does not give life to the earthling. Language divides one thing in to 4 or 12 or 365. Language may CLAIM that the sun gives life to the earth, but from where? Are the sun and the earth really isolated? Outside of language, what is the boundary between the sun and the earth?
What is the boundary between the front of a piece of paper, the back of that same piece of paper, and the edges of the paper? Front, back, and edges are just distinctions in language. Paper is also just a distinction in language.
When language notices the operating of language, that can be called the birth of the eternal, the death of the mortal, the creation of life, and the developing of language. Further, once language notices the operating of language, language may or may not stop claiming to be something other than language.

Language may say “I am worried about surviving and I am even more afraid of dying.” Language may say almost anything, though of course language cannot actually say anything, because if I know one thing for sure, I know that there is no such thing as language. There is just me, and I cannot be language becasue I say that I am not language. I am over here and language is way over there and I can notice it happening, like happening to me. Language controls me and victimizes me and tricks me in to pretending that there is a devil and that I am not language and that language does not even really exist.
By the way, if there is one thing that I know for sure, it is that God is omnipotent and the creator of all things, which is why God is terrified that the devil might defeat the influence of language and ruin everything. I mean, what if the devil makes a time machine and goes back in time and stops God from making up the devil? Then what?!?!

maturing beyond sinfulness

December 22, 2011
Sin = ANY error  (not just moral violations) or ANY act of misconduct (including even a failure to take responsible action)
3 types of sin (in the tradition of the ancient Hebrews): negligence, shame, and malice
You are soul. Soul is attention. Attention is the source of words. Words are your creation, not your source. Words can direct the attention of the young and impressionable, but, when the soul matures, attention is stabilized beyond words.
It is an error to believe in words. Belief in words is the root of all malice or ill will. In particular, people may identify themselves with or against certain words. That is the root of all psychological suffering (guilt, anxiety, depression, etc…).
That misidentification with linguistic labels is also the root of idolatry, which inovlves mistaking a word like “sacred” or “holy” with Divinity itself. When one is ignorant of Divinity and then labels as “holy” some mere word or phrase or idea or physical object or pattern, that is idolatry. The word Divinity is not what is symbolized by the word Divinity. Worshiping the word Divinity or even a particular scripture (including the US Constitution) is idolatry.
So, sin includes ignorance, negligence, shame malice, as well as the resulting actions. While some uses of the word sin refer in particular to actions, that usage diverges from the traditional Jewish (Hebrew) or Greek usages, as well as the words of the most famous religious figures such as Jesus, Buddha, and Isaiah.
Sin is not just a category of action, but also the source of some behavioral reaction. Consider this translation of a famous heretical prophet: “you have been told that to put someone to death is sin, but I say to you that even to be angry or hold ill will toward another is sin,” as well as other famous instructions: “Condemn not,” “Judge not,” “Let the one among you without sin cast the first stone” and of course “Forgive one another.”
Ill will requires language. Resentment does not arise from action or inaction, but from the language that we can use to ongoingly produce an experience out of our commentary and imagination relating to a memory. Resentment requires first creating shame from a past incident, then blaming someone else for our experience (while we mature in the capacity to accept the experience). In other words, our challenging experiences are part of our development.
The cultivating of antagonism through language is the root issue. From antagonism, many actions may arise, such as war, murder, rape, theft, fraud and so on. However, as Jesus said, it does not require the action of a murder or rape for antagonism or jealous lust to be a disturbance to one’s well-being.
First, we are totally ignorant. Then we begin to learn but still are developing discipline and thus are subject to negligence (which can also be viewed as any failure to be responsible for our reputation). Next we construct linguistic rationales to blame others for our results, which is malice or ill will or resentment, but also shame and pride. We create pride as a barrier to accepting responsibility for our overall results (by focusing on particular results while we ignore the rest of our results, of which we may be quite ashamed and quite hysterical if anyone attempts to direct attention at those results for which we may have been constructing a linguistic identifying or labeling as shameful). In other words, on the foundation of shame, we may develop malice toward those who fail to agree with us about our prides and shames.
That experience of malice might be called hell or purgatory. There may be access to “heaven” at a later stage.
These are the three basic stages of human socio-linguistic development: ignorance, shame, and malice. Next, however, is maturity. A comprehension of the role of language in the constructing of shame and malice allow for an attention to that linguistic process, the realization that inattentiveness or negligent language itself is what creates the malice, so the only remedy required is to cease the negligent language and remain attentive, and that is freedom from sin. That is spiritual rebirth.

Prophets and Traditionalists

September 18, 2010

Dignified prophets and argumentative Traditionalists

note: the free hosting service of this video may begin with an ad and the audio volume may be loud.

Prophets discover principles of how life works. More specifically, prophets communicate principles which may be crystallized or canonized into distinct traditions.

In other words, prophets do not require a prior tradition. Prophets originate traditions.

Cultural traditions of reverence and sanctity and ritual are diverse. For instance, some rituals that have been popular throughout human history are birth rituals, death rituals, and marriage rituals, as well as rituals like coronations and court proceedings.

Many traditions that begin as oral traditions may eventually be recorded or transcribed into particular codes of written languages. Many traditions (whether written or only oral) include parables. Parables are often used by prophets for telling several different stories to distinguish a single principle.

Even if focusing on a single principle, prophets tend to give several teachings. They tend not to focus on the specific form of a particular message.

For instance, prophets are not focused on particular parables as more sacred than all other parables. Further, prophets are not focused on assessing particular translations of ancient teachings in foreign languages because prophets rely on direct understanding rather than on the words of other prior traditions. Prophets give new forms of teaching, even if they are teaching the same principles as prior prophets… and even if they are giving oral teaching in the same languages used by prior prophets.

Traditionalists, as distinct from prophets, may focus on worshiping certain words or sequences as more sacred than other words or sequences. They may worship other symbols as well, in addition to certain sequences of sounds or shaped lettering.

Many traditionalists also worship a particular prophet who is specified as the primary founder of their favorite tradition. Ironically, prophets tend to openly acknowledge previous prophets, like Jesus saying that he is fulfilling, not rejecting, prior teachings.

Apparently, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament teachings of Isaiah:

“…They worship with their lips, but their hearts are far from me and are ignorant of me. They worship in vain, teaching the traditions of humans and neglecting divine authority.”
Mark 7:6-7, Matthew 15:8-9

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 made up only of rules taught by men.”

In contrast with prophets who clearly emphasize the spirit or heart or function of various messages rather than the specific form of a particular message, traditionalists tend to emphasize one prophet as more prophetic than all others. Traditionalists may also focus on particular words of a certain prophet and ignore other words of that prophet, such as ignoring the passages quoted above.

Traditionalists may focus on certain details of their favorite tradition and may neglect the spirit by which the tradition originates. The traditionalists may be adversarial, antagonistic, oppositional, argumentative, crusading, and militant.

So, traditionalists may also worship a particular tradition as better or “more traditional” than all other traditions. Such idolatry is distinct from simply studying or practicing a certain tradition. Traditionalists are focused on contrasting different traditions and finding the best one, the best translation, the best author, and the very best variation of the best tradition.

Traditionalists tend to associate with others who share the details of their own traditionalism as well as to magnetically focus on some other group of traditionalists as especially offensive. Pharisees and Sadducees may fiercely oppose each other. Protestants and Catholics may fiercely oppose each other. Sunnis and Shi’ites may fiercely oppose each other. Even Democrats and Republicans or Constitutionalists and Reformers may fiercely oppose each other.

By the way, most reformers are actually traditionalists. Reformers just promote certain traditional values over other traditional values.

One of the classic ironies of traditionalism is that all traditionalists not only worship their own tradition, but distinctively oppose all other forms of traditionalism, perhaps reserving special contempt for any tradition that they previously worshiped but later rejected. Traditionalists tend to ridicule and condemn other traditions and other traditionalists, again, often emphasizing certain targets of spite.

By the way, all prophets may be former traditionalists. Prophets alone do not condemn traditionalism or idolatry or vanity. Prophets alone honor all traditions equally, without being threatened by any of them. Prophets alone are so humble.

Prophets alone bless those who might accuse them, who might ridicule them, who might condemn them. Prophets alone are so grounded, so rooted, so radical. Prophets alone accept that traditions will form, reform, and dissolve. Prophets alone accept that other prophets will follow them, saying things like “another new messenger of divine authority in the future will come again.”

Prophets always predict later prophets. Traditionalists tend to interpret the references to a future prophet as “a second coming.” However, perhaps what the prophets have been referencing is that occasionally a traditionalist will develop or mature into a prophet. Perhaps prophets know that in the future a prophet will be born again, not in the way that traditionalists mean “born again,” but in the way that prophets mean.

The prophet’s rebirth is a spiritual rebirth, a rebirth of the heart. It is natural and thus common that traditionalists would ritualize the idea of spiritual rebirth into a ritualized rebirth. So, in addition to rituals for birth, death, and marriage, another form of ritual that is widespread throughout human cultures are initiation rituals that symbolize spiritual rebirth.

However, only authentic spiritual rebirth itself can produce a prophet from a traditionalist. Applying the label of butterfly to a caterpillar does not change the actual nature of the caterpillar. A prophet is not made into a prophet by being newly declared to be an officer of an existing institution, such as one who is ritually given a title, inducted and who swears an oath of office to conform to the traditions of the institution. A prophet is simply one who discovers directly- like alone for himself or herself- how life actually is working.

%d bloggers like this: