Posts Tagged ‘spirit’

acknowledging anger’s function (since a whole spirit is inclusive)

April 20, 2012


This is all about de-emphasizing any singular importance to anger, though to do that, we also may recognize a functionality for anger. Many of us may have “collapsed” (interlocked) anger and fear to such an extent that we are afraid to ever display anger, thus we may not recognize the value of anger (or fear). Of course, there is also tremendous value in knowing how to inhibit anger (or at least in inhibiting DISPLAYS of anger… or fear).

From being punished and so forth, we learn to fear displaying anger, so we inhibit it- sometimes to the extent that we are numb or blind or insensitive to our own anger until it surprises us or someone else. That capacity to inhibit is adaptive (contextually). Of course, so is anger itself, or else why would evolution (or God) produce and keep it?

In pretending to be angry, pick something you used to be angry about, then pretend to still be angry about it. Even talking about something you used to be angry about and demonstrating how you used to be about it IS pretending to still be angry.


Anger (Photo credit: ZORIN DENU)

Pretending to be angry is expressing any anger that is not currently “sincere.” It is imagining what being angry is like. You can use an old sincere anger of yours or anything else. You can tell a joke or story in which you demonstrate the anger of a particular character.

Consider that those who are “overwhelmed” may be experiencing motivation to express something which they have learned to inhibit. For instance, if it seems that anger is overwhelming, that could be due to inhibiting it. So, the typical response to “overwhelm” is further inhibiting the immediate perceived source of overwhelm. Another alternative is to safely explore the possibility of raising or lowering inhibition. Inhibition can be functional, and so can anger, as well as fear, and even overwhelm.


Raiva-Ager-Icon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Overwhelm is a signal. Understanding the signal of overwhelm, one recognizes the alternative to reduce any inhibitions on self-expression. Self-expression is also functional, though there are many ways to express anything and which form of expression manifests may correspond precisely to the context of one’s commitments.

When anger is inhibited severely, physical symptoms may manifest. When anger is completely uninhibited, that can be even less functional. Between no inhibition at all- like an infant- and total inhibition, there is a broad range of possible functionalities, as well as even the functionality of expressing anger one does not identify as one’s own. If others seem angry but are not expressing it, it may even be a service to display anger directly or even just tell a story or joke involving anger.

Expressing anger is a way to interrupt someone else’s process, redirecting their attention to you and possibly further to our own focus. For instance, if I tell you that I am angry about some political proposal, first your attention is invited to me personally and second to the target of my anger.

Functionally, these two are the same communications with a potentially insignificant variation in form: “Give me another damn cookie right now!” “Dear, if you would be so kind, can you give me another cookie, please?”

Also, noticing that blaming and justifying are just a few possible ways to focus, I invite you to question any blaming or justifying, such as: “I am right about this issue and anyone who does not agree with me that I am right, well, hmph, they do not even deserve my attention, which is why I am telling you and anyone else who will listen to me go on about them and about how wrong they are and how justified I am in my rejection or even condemnation of them.” In other words, “pay attention to me and the target or focus of my attention, pretty please… damn it!

Published on: Mar 29, 2010

Emotions associated with anger

Emotions associated with anger (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Angry cat

Angry cat (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles



correct interpretation of “to the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15)

March 31, 2012

To those with correct perception, all perceptions are correct. To those with proper perception, all perceptions are proper.

However, to those who are grieving, nothing is correct; nothing is proper. In fact, their thinking and their perceiving is full of condemnation and blame.

Nederlands: bijbeluitgave 1611

Nederlands: bijbeluitgave 1611 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Those who are grieving will identify grievances wherever they look. They will say “life should not be how it is.”

For the one with a raging spirit, they will identify outrages everywhere. They will say “life should be how it is not.”

For the one with a spirit of vilification, they will identify villains everywhere. They will say “those people should not be how they are.”

For the one who is ashamed, they will identify shames wherever they look. They will say “those people should be how they are not. It is just such a shame!”

For those with a hateful spirit, they will identify things to hate everywhere. They may not actually say “my life is ruining my life,” but they will create ways to call for your attention and your blessing.

For some, grieving is an outrage or shame to be attacked. Is grief really so terrifying, though?

For the one who is afraid of their own grief- which may be very fitting for them in that moment- anyone else’s grieving may be interpreted as a threat, as a shame, as an outrage. Other people’s grieving can be contagious- very literally- and so one who is afraid of grieving- ashamed of it- may reflexively suppress the grieving of others.

For those afraid of grieving, grieving will be personified as the great Evil, the great Eve, the great Devil, the great Satan. That is the beginning of agonizing- for then there must be a constant war against grieving, a constant vigilance against vulnerability, a constant exhaustion of one’s own energy so as to avoid even a single moment of grief- at least any form of grief that is not rationalized or justified as acceptable by the one who is terrified or traumatized or in shock. It is the beginning of the spirit of perfectionism or “anti-negativity,” as in the condemnation of all things condemned as “negativity,” which is the apex of hypocrisy, though of course that may have been very fitting for someone in a particular moment… or else “God would not have produced that development.”

For those with a spirit of innocence, they will identify innocence everywhere. They may not actually say “they know not what they do,” but they will create ways for other people to recognize what they have been doing with their own words, how they have been relating to their own perceptions, how they have been identifying themselves when they label their own conclusions.

For those with a spirit of purity, they will identify purity everywhere. They may not actually say “life is simply however life is,” but their spirit of purity and grace and simplicity will be evident. When others are grieving and mourning, those with a spirit of holiness will bless their grieving and their mourning.

It may only be a few that will say this: “I challenge you to bring me even your spirit of divisiveness and contempt, if you can bear to approach me with it.” Are you willing to be one with so much faith? Are you willing to be emptied out and filled anew with the Holy Spirit?

The title page to the 1611 first edition of th...

The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Titus 1:15 Hebrew Bible
הן הכל טהור לטהורים אבל לנטמאים ולאינם מאמינים אין דבר טהור כי נטמאה גם דעתם גם רוחם׃

Titus 1:15 Aramaic NT: Peshitta
ܟܠܡܕܡ ܓܝܪ ܕܟܐ ܗܘ ܠܕܟܝܐ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܡܤܝܒܝܢ ܘܠܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܡܕܡ ܕܕܟܐ ܠܝܬ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܠܐ ܡܤܝܒ ܗܘ ܪܥܝܢܗܘܢ ܘܬܐܪܬܗܘܢ ܀

Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
omnia munda mundis coinquinatis autem et infidelibus nihil mundum sed inquinatae sunt eorum et mens et conscientia

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΤΟΝ 1:15 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)
πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς· τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις

<< Titus 1:15 >>

New International Version (©1984)
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Everything is pure to those whose hearts are pure. But nothing is pure to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, because their minds and consciences are corrupted.

English Standard Version (©2001)
To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Everything is clean to those who are clean, but nothing is clean to those who are corrupt and unbelieving. Indeed, their very way of thinking and their consciences have been corrupted.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For to the pure everything is pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but their mind and conscience is defiled.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Everything is clean to those who are clean. But nothing is clean to corrupt unbelievers. Indeed, their minds and their consciences are corrupted.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.

American King James Version
To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

American Standard Version
To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Douay-Rheims Bible
All things are clean to the clean: but to them that are defiled, and to unbelievers, nothing is clean: but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Darby Bible Translation
All things are pure to the pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

English Revised Version
To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Webster’s Bible Translation
To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Weymouth New Testament
To the pure everything is pure; but to the polluted and unbelieving nothing is pure, but on the contrary their very minds and consciences are polluted.

World English Bible
To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Young’s Literal Translation
all things, indeed, are pure to the pure, and to the defiled and unstedfast is nothing pure, but of them defiled are even the mind and the conscience;

Detail of stained glass of the west window in ...

Detail of stained glass of the west window in the north transept, illustrating Mark 16:19: After he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven. This is a quote out of the Douay-Rheims Bible: And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. This verse describes the ascension of Jesus. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Rows of coffins and grieving kin of the deceased.

Rows of coffins and grieving kin of the deceased. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Shame (Photo credit: Joe Gatling)

A grief stricken American infantryman whose fr...

A grief stricken American infantryman whose friend has been killed in action is comforted by another soldier. In the background a corpsman methodically fills out casualty tags, Haktong-ni area, Korea. August 28, 1950. Sfc. Al Chang. (Army) U.S. Army Korea Media Center official Korean War online video archive (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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 spirit of grace: welcoming the richness available

March 23, 2012

Welcoming the richness available

“Only if you are  innocent, humble, and curious- like a child-  can you receive the fullness of the kingdom.” (But please, wear a bib! The food is for your mouth, not your clothing.)

If you have been  resisting the available richness of life, just stop resisting it! Stop any worrying, condemning, resenting, and the shaming that underlies them. After all, has agonizing ever brought anyone relief? (Does it stop struggling to struggle to stop struggling- or does that just perpetuate struggling?)

Remember, especially if you notice any judging or condemning or accusing going on, God forgives those who forgive. Further, God blesses those who bless any that curse them. Have you received this message yet: “I did not come to judge the world?”

Either you are grateful, receiving in fullness the abundance available, or you are something other than grateful. But isn’t it natural to be grateful only after a fortunate development?

Actually, to God, developments are neither fortunate nor unfortunate inherently. What is fortunate for one person may be unfortunate for another person. In fact, even for the same person, what is fortunate from one perspective may be unfortunate from another perspective. (Have you received this message yet:  “hindsight is 20/20?”)

Of course, with some developments, people may initially resist those developments. They may deny the developments, then ignore them, and then judge, complain, worry, condemn, resent, blame, and even shame. Some may even curse God for allowing such a development.

Note that “Oh, God damn it, not THAT!” is another way of saying “God damn me.” That is another way of saying “Damn you, God! You have betrayed my preferences… AGAIN. I hate this and I hate you and I hate my life. WAAA!”

News flash: life is your life and your life is you. Be grateful for your life, not as an effect of some temporary recent development, but as a consistent way of relating to life. Do not judge against your world, your life, your self, or your God. Commit to faithfully finding the blessing available, then receive it by giving it.

Fountain of Wealth

Fountain of Wealth (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We are in the midst of an immense transfer of material wealth. Of course, ownership and valuations of material wealth are always shifting. However, if you did not already know that an unprecedented transfer is underway, the developments of the last few years may have alerted you. If you have been resisting those developments- whether neglecting them or condemning them (then campaigning for someone else to fix them and so on) – consider that an unprecedented transfer of wealth is underway and, in any moment now, you are either resisting it or receiving it, but perhaps only one of the two. Choose to receive the blessings of the developments emerging.

You are already participating in the shifting of values. But how open could you be to partnering with the developments emerging?

Like a child, be humble rather than judgmental. Be innocent. Be curious. This way, you receive the fullness of the blessings available. And please, wear a bib. 😉

February 17, 2010

Related articles

on “The Supreme Being” (and dreams of isolation)

March 23, 2012


CB wrote:

@JR – in your mind, “Who is the Supreme Being”? In speaking of the “one”, is the one you? I’m having difficulty following you train of thought as your words are foreign to me.

JR replies:


I could make many references to the term Supreme Being, and some would be familiar to you. “Supreme Being” is metaphorical or symbolic, not literal. It is a term used in parables like the following:

If all of life was a tree, the branches [of that tree] would still be life, right? The Supreme Being is like a vine and we (as individual identities) are like the branches of the vine of Supreme Being, but there is nothing but vine in every branch of that vine. You know that metaphor already, right?

Here is another. In an ocean, the surface may form in to waves. Which wave is apart from the ocean? Which wave is not the ocean?


Waves (Photo credit: waɪ.tiː)

The Supreme Being is like the ocean while the details of life are like the waves. There is no wave that happens beyond the motion of the ocean itself. The waves are the motion of the ocean.

What creation is not created by the Supreme Being? What creation is a threat to the Supreme Being? What wave is a threat to the ocean?

Words may come, saying “I am an isolated wave apart from the ocean and I am competing against those waves over there.” Could it be that the ocean has formed those words too? Could it be that the vine has formed each branch?

The Supreme Being is not apart from you or me. You and I are not apart from the Supreme Being.

We are the branches of the Tree of Life. We are the motion of the Supreme Being.

These words on this screen are the motion of the Supreme Being. Everything is the motion of the Supreme Being.

The breathing that may be noticed- whose is it? The hairs on every head- who put them there? Whose are they?

Crashing Wave

Crashing Wave (Photo credit: Clearly Ambiguous)

Words may say: “No, this is my doing. I personally did it. The glory and the shame are mine alone.” Who invents words? Who puts them together?

Even glory and shame are concepts invented by the Supreme Being. Is the Supreme Being ashamed or proud? Shame and pride are just waves, just branches, just words.

Does the word shame change the ocean? Does the word pride change the ocean? The ocean changes and words are like the sunlight glistening off of the top of the ocean’s changing.

The ocean does not need to speak to be the ocean. The Supreme Being does not need to speak to be the Supreme Being. However, just as the ocean makes waves and the waves make sounds, so also does the Supreme Being make words.

CB replies:

To JR – I understand your post, and I agree with your post where the ocean, and vines are concerned.  As for who you are referring to as the “Supreme Being”, your answer remains ambiguous – like answering a question with a question – open ended as it were.  I would have to repeat the question, “…in your mind, who is the “Supreme Being”?  In speaking of the “one”, is the one you?”

While it would appear that you come from the stance that you and the “Supreme Being” are “one” like the wave and the ocean, I would have to disagree.  To be “one” with the “Supreme Being” we must take upon ourselves His attributes and non-physical characteristics.  To be of one heart, one mind, one purpose, one faith – that we may all be “one”.  This is the challenge and quest of life.  It is an absolute.♥

JR replies back:

The ocean has no challenge in having waves (or not). The waves have no challenge in being the ocean (or not).

The Supreme Being is not a personal or exclusive identity [but, in contrast, is all-inclusive or whole or “holy”]. The characteristics of vine are already within every branch of vine. [The branches do not need any rituals to become more the like the vine, for they are already entirely the vine.]

One may think that one needs to strive to attain holiness. Such striving may be the devil’s trick: “I do not have holiness, so I will try to become holy eventually and here let me invent a new and more complex method for pretending that I am not already of the vine of the Supreme Being.” However, even that “devil’s trick” is God‘s creation.

While dreaming this morning, one aspect of the neurological process of dreaming perceived itself as the dreamer who witnessed the various events of the dream and the other participants in the dream. However, the dream includes all the events and all the “participants,” including the perceiving of a dreamer.

So, yes, the dreamer is the Supreme Being and so are all the events of the Supreme Being’s “dream,” and all of the identifyings in language of self and other.

The dreaming does not need to do anything to make the dreamer more dreamy (or less dreamy). The dreamer is part of the dream. The experience of an isolated identity of “me, the dreamer” is incidental.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (Photo credit: P Hansen)

So, does one stop perceiving dreams as real? Perhaps! But dreaming may go on and there is no real challenge in dreaming, though the perception of a dream challenge may arise in the dream [like this: “but how can I ever reconnect with life? I am over here and life is over there? How will I ever reconnect!?!?!”]

The dreaming begins, perceptions arise, including perception of a someone [who is] dreaming the dream, and then the dreaming ends. When the dreaming continues during the “wakefulness” of the physical organism [after a body wakes up from sleep], we can call that sin or maya or error. When the awake dreaming is “lucid,” then that [mode] can be called enlightenment or salvation, and the operating of language is recognized as merely the operating of language.

This is the shift from the experience of a [so-called] isolated identity talking about the spirit of God to the spirit of God actually experiencing itself talking. The spirit of God already has the characteristics of the spirit of God. The experience of [“broken”] individuality must “die” [or cease] before the spirit of God [again] experiences itself without the “dream” of an isolated self “doing” the dream.

The Supreme Being is the source of the dreaming. The experience of isolated individuality (and of needing to strive to become like the Supreme Being) is a language-related figment of the dream of the Supreme Being.

“You” may not understand this at least not within any pre-existing belief system. “You” may be terrified of it. Furthermore, it may

Supreme Court

Holy Temple of the Supreme Court (Photo credit: pepsobert)

“kill” that “you.”

However, when a dream is “killed,” it is recognized as being only a dream. Nothing “real” is changed by the ending of a dream. In the dream, the dreamer may be terrified of dying in the dream. However, the Supreme Being is eternal and when a direct awareness of the Supreme Being is present within a particular human organism, a fearing of the death of the organism does not arise. Fear is part of the dreaming, as is shaming, and striving, and so on.

The effects of the dream perceptions are real effects for organisms. However, the Supreme Being does not identify itself as limited to a particular organism, except if dreaming “momentarily.”

You may find all of this quite consistent with certain parts of familiar scripture. Generally, institutional religious [traditions] do not preserve the simplicity and coherence of this message. Perhaps all churches are apostasy, but perhaps that is entirely functional [and incidental].

The [“Almighty”] Supreme Being is not threatened by apostasy or heresy or blasphemy. The Supreme Being is the creator of all of that as well.

CB replies again:

I will once again have to disagree with your statement that the Supreme Being is the “creator” of “apostasy…heresy…or blasphemy”.  All that exists has always existed in one form or another, that would include good and evil.  We, through our choices, identify with one or the other, God or the adversary.  It has little to do with outward thoughts and appearances and more to do with the spirit and heart of mankind.  Appearances can be deceiving as mankind battles with overcoming the flesh and subjecting himself to the Spirit.  The adversary is the creation of God, while the “devil’s trick[s]” are his own creation and not those of God.  Our choices are our own creation and determine our “holiness” or lack thereof.  Holiness is not to be sought after, it is achieved as one chooses to draw close to the Supreme Being, through witnesses from the Spirit.  This can never be achieved until one accepts His existence, His love, and His plan, and feels after Him.

United States Supreme Court building in Washin...

The Supreme Being is God the Father of us all, who have or will exist, on the earth as we know it.  He is both personal and exclusive in identity.  How well one identifies with Him, depends on how well they know Him.  How well they know Him depends on how diligently they seek to know Him as they listen to the Spirit, the witness of all truth, who speaks to our spirit.♥

JR replies again:

I see- you think that the adversary is the creation of God, but has power distinct from God. Consider that “I have power distinct from God” is the voice of the adversary, which is just a form of God.

Also, to clarify, I was not referencing the spirit and heart of mankind (the “lower” man), but of the Supreme Being (the “higher” self). When the spirit of the “lower” is absent, the eternal presence of the Supreme Being is not covered or obscured. Further, once the “higher” (or core) is recognized, any momentary arising of the “lower” or superficial is recognized as… merely superficial.

Without beliefs, do you still exist? Without idealism and idolatry, do you still exist?

What would happen if argumentativeness was seen as innocent, if “the adversary” was seen as innocent, if there was no fearing of an adversary? Do you dare to find out? 😉

There is a stage of the process in which terms like “diligence” may be relevant. Also, there is a stage when the witnessing from “the Spirit” may include these words here, and even all others!

The inscription Equal Justice Under Law as see...

The inscription Equal Justice Under Law as seen on the frieze of the United States Supreme Court building- with the archetypical/mythological Gods of the Roman Pantheon carved under the crest of the Holy Temple of the great imperial Church of the United States of America  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Published on: Sep 13, 2011
Related articles


the words of a heretic (on language, myth, shame, & propaganda)

March 2, 2012
The Words of a Heretic
A bible from 1859.
Image via Wikipedia

warning- these are the words of a heretic  so, some people may not like it    some may even fear or hate it   it can take courage to face it
some foolish fools worship words as holy    but their spirits are proud, divisive and lonely    they respect human tradition over all  but neglect divine wisdom because    their hearts are far from the power of the teaching    they’re dependent on scriptures and churches and preaching        their lips spill over with the echoes of religion    but their lives are like coffins; their god is not living    but dead    they wait impatiently for heaven    for a prophet to come again soon and lead them    but what’d the prophets say: follow me, do greater things than these        heaven is within; it’s not like winter or a breeze        you got to go there, don’t just wait for it to come to you    you got to give your heart to heaven and then it is within you    and, yes, by the way        “that’s Bible”    if you dare read it    if you still need it

the same fools claim some illness is incurable     and economics is unpredictable        then they conjure God in their ritual    cause their God’s only mythical    and that’s okay; it’s just a stage;        until they graduate… to authentic spiritual rebirth as a sage    so let them fall back on scripture as infallible    let them argue over myths and battle over babble    much of this generation is without wisdom    they’re not to be trusted, especially politicians        but how about the doctors    who claim some illness is incurable    they say “I’m sorry I just can’t help you sir”    they suppress the body        the immune system is their enemy    they fight symptoms    to profit drug companies    and that’s okay; it’s just a stage;        until they graduate… to authentic spiritual rebirth as a sage                                                      cause if you want a healthy body then you need healthy organs        and if you want healthy organs then you need healthy cells    and if you want healthy cells then you may wish to nourish them    and if you don’t, then they’re going to rebel        so if the pancreas is weak, doctors may call that diabetes    if one vitamin is low, they claim you’re suffering from scurvy        if waste builds into a tumor, they say you’ve got a cancer    but there is an answer and they have been slow to admit it    for it would put them to shame        and might even ruin their game

(ad lib…)

but speaking of shame, I have one more thing to say:    watch for the mainstream prophets of economics    to come on TV and say that no one could foresee this    or that or this or that or this surprise    and then they dare to give their next predictions    so is it wise to trust in such obvious incompetence     woe unto the fools who depend on governments to always rescue them            woe unto the fools who worship ideals they believe need defending     woe unto the fools who worship a God they believe needs defending….

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

the shaming animosity of “my god can beat up your god”

March 1, 2012

<note that this video has some spontaneous extra comments beyond the text below. This video is FUN!>

Ah yes, the holy scriptures of some ancient religious tradition– translated, second-hand or third-hand words to discuss. How about these most ancient of prayers: “God, most Christians are so freaking blind- don’t you agree with me, God?” or “God, my sister just does not understand me and how holy I am, and she really should and it’s just so frustrating- don’t you agree with me, God?”

I call that the experience of isolation and condemnation, that is, accusation, which is the “spirit of the divisive one, the devil.” One might notice the repenting from such “sin” and the peace of such repenting.  One may have been trying to get God (or even particular other people) to take their side in some more or less imaginary antagonistic drama. “God, most people do not even recognize the importance of religion, and how proud I am of all the humility I have developed by serving others through forwarding political satires on facebook- don’t you agree with me, God?” “God, did you notice how unenlightened that person’s language is- it’s so negative- how can they even live with themselves- don’t you agree with me, God?”

The isolating and condemning is the worship of a distant God, one that is not within all forms, forming all expressions of God. That is idolatry. That is implying “oh, those Fundamentalists do not have as much God as I do” or “that person is not created in God’s image as much as I am.” That is vanity.

It’s cool, though. Everyone makes “mistakes.” We didn’t even know what we were doing.

We were isolating and condemning God with our language, and it can be a relief to get that- it was just some mistranslation in the language, like a slight confusion between two similar-sounding words when learning to understand a British dialect or idiom, or maybe some little typing error in the software code. It’s kind of funny- not heavy like “this is very important!” – just peaceful.

“Oh, now I see the issue! God, don’t I agree with you? Didn’t I repent of making an enemy out of you? Well, if I was going to blame someone and make myself out to be the big victim of the devil, you were the obvious one to make into a devil, God, because the Lord our God is ONE.”

It’s not that after I forgive someone else of their horrible sin because I am such a holy person, then God forgives me because I earned it. It’s that when I repent of my condemnation, condemnation is revealed as a figment of language, a sign of mental illwillness, madness, temporary insanity, an innocent, instinctual tantrum.

God does not love me more suddenly because I just forgave someone even though they are evil and ugly and stupid and mean and antagonistic and egotistical (like I’ve been?). What shifts is that I receive God’s love as I let it flow through me to the other forms of the single God.

By the way, materialism is totally a non-issue. Materialism is not holy and anti-materialism is not any more holy than materialism, even if anti-materialism is even more vain.

“I know the right way. Your way is wrong. I’m better than you!”

That is the divided antagonistic vanity typical of a developmental advancement of about two years old- which is way more intelligent than eighteen months old, right? Apparently, that developmental stage can take a while to “master,” though, and however long it takes is just however long it takes….

“You’re mean and rude and hypocritical and- gasp- a materialist. You deserve to be punished. I have utterly no compassion for people like you. Plus, your mama is a whore for the mafia. By the way, do you like me?”

It all comes down to attracting attention. Or, hey, maybe I have no idea what I’m talking about…. The bottom line is that my God can beat up your God. 😉

<note: the link on this lower image shows up as “broken,” but then works when I click it. It depicts a nude women being tortured during the Spanish Inquisition, with a seated man taking notes and another man pouring some colored liquid into a funnel that he appears to have forced into her mouth.>

published:  April 12, 2010

relocated as a page: February 29, 2012

Related articles

spirit of clarity or divisiveness

January 17, 2012

Image by sirwiseowl via Flickr

What color shirt do you have on? Are you absolutely sure?

In other words, would you argue about it? Would you ask someone else’s opinion of it, or can you directly determine it for yourself?
Beware of those who would argue in animosity. Their animosity may reveal that they are not speaking from their heart, from direct experience, from the spirit of clarity. Perhaps they are repeating something from another source without an understanding of the thing they are repeating. Perhaps they are clinging to a particular interpretation without recognizing it as an interpretation. They may be like someone who argues about the color of a shirt rather than looking at the shirt and seeing what color it is.
They may speak of what color the shirt should be or must be or cannot ever be. They are full of talk and may be avoiding looking at the shirt with all of their talking.
Many people may use the word truth, but do they even know what truth means? Truth is not just the word true (as in accurate), but the word truth… as in the actuality distinct from a label in language for the actuality.
Some may repeat the word truth like a little child mimicking a sound, but it is like copying a foreign language to them, like singing a song of sounds that might as well be nonsense. They may use the word, but listen to how they use it and it is obvious whether they know what it means or not.
Now, why would someone argue? Is that a sign of clarity and confidence or of ignorance and defensiveness? From ignorance, one may seek to communicate with others with an attraction to identifying an expert who knows from direct experience, an expert who neither argues nor validates a particular interpretation or label as having some monopoly on the absolute truth.
A label is not the thing that the label is used to label. An interpretation cannot be the absolute truth. Words are all interpretations. Those who are anxious about words have been hypnotized by words and prefer words about truth over truth itself. They may defend ignorance with argumentativeness and accusations, but does the one who knows what color a shirt is have any distress about the issue, any contempt, any anxiety?
Why would someone prefer words about truth over truth itself? Could they fear that they would be ashamed if they were to confront truth? So, they may argue about words as a way of hiding from their shame, their condemnation,
their judgment that they should not be however they are.
If they fear many labels, then they may cling to a particular label. If they fear the absence of labels, they may cling to some label and then worship it. That is idolatry. It is very common. It is a normal developmental stage in relation to an awareness of the functioning of language, of symbolic labels, and of interpretations.
We may have trained in some ways how we should be as well as in several ways that we should not be. That training is not an inherent truth. It is normal and useful to have such training, but the training is specific to a context in which that pattern of training formed and persisted.
We may have been trained in language about how we should be and how we should not be. Some may argue about the language of what should be or should not be. That is in accord with their training.
Others may actively seek the opinions of others about what should be or should not be. That is the stage of experimenting with new ways of thinking and speaking. Soon, one may actively seek the opinion of others about how one should be or should not be. That is the stage of exploring alternatives to any original training about how one should be or should not be, at which time questioning the authority of those speaking was not part of a child’s or subordinate’s process.
Consider a new employee in an old business. It is normal and functional to ask about what should be and what should not be. It is even normal and functional to ask about how should I be and how should I not be.
However, there is also a stage at which one is very clear that labels in language about “should” are all interpretations, not truth. Truth is not the realm of what should be or what should not be, which is just a matter of training. Truth is the realm of what is.
Recall that there is a very simple answer as to the color of a shirt. Recall that there is a very simple process as to determining it’s color.
Further, notice that there could be a very simply answer as to what I am. There could even be a very simple process as to determining what that answer is.
One who knows the answer may not be so interested in words about it. Arguing about it would not interest them. Other people’s interpretations might be, to that one, just the business of those other people.
What would be the fruits or signs of such a clarity? Playfulness might be one, but it may be enough to say that in the presence of that clarity, there is no shaming.
If one who is arguing is actually seeking to identify one who is beyond shaming and arguing, offering to argue would be one way to test for a response of counter-arguing. If who seeks to identify one beyond shame, offering shame would be one way to test for a response of counter-shaming.
Beware of those who would argue in animosity. Beware of those who worship shame.
Do not try to change the color of someone else’s shirt before you know how to determine the color of your own shirt. Do not try to persuade others about truth until direct experience is present of what you are, not as a label in language, but as truth.

%d bloggers like this: