Sunday, December 28, 2014

Breath Of Vision

All things are in process, rising and returning. Plants come to blossom, but only to return to the root. Returning to the root is like seeking tranquility. Seeking tranquility is like moving towards destiny. To move toward destiny is like eternity. To know eternity is enlightenment.

Knowing eternity makes one comprehensive; comprehension makes one broadminded; breadth of vision brings nobility; nobility is like heaven.

Joseph Campbell wrote those thoughts in his book, The Hero With A Thousand Faces. We are, like all forms of consciousness, in the process of expansion. That expansion is fuel by our non-physical roots. We all want to return to our non-physical roots, so we seek outside help from religious teachings and other philosophical teachings. Our religions tell us tranquility is a reward. That reward is bestowed on us when we reach our roots. But our roots keep expanding as we expand so we would have a hard time enjoying our reward if we think tranquility is the end or the summit of our goal.

Tranquility is a state of awareness. It is a form of knowing and appreciating. It has the same characteristics of love, but we rarely associate the two. Tranquility knows eternity and the expanding nobility in it. In the peacefulness of tranquility is the torture of suffering. We live in our heaven and hell by feeling the human anguish of not remembering.

But not remembering is not a sin or an act of disconnection from our roots of tranquility. Not remembering is our gift of focus. It gives us the opportunity to blossom and experience the power of dualistic awareness. We use our forgetful nobility in this reality to expand our roots in the next reality. That is our unique breadth of vision.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Is Love A Feeling

Love is not limited to people; it is not limited even to living things. Love can be expressed in association with objects, with concepts, with philosophies, with ideas, with expressions such as art or music. Love can be expressed in many, many, many different manners in relation to many, many, many different manifestations, for the actual definition of love is knowing and appreciation.

What does that mean? Knowing is not necessarily understanding; understanding is not a requirement for knowing. Knowing is an inward expression that you generate in relation to any other expression of consciousness, whether it be a manifestation or not, and in that, you resonate with it to an extent that you are merged with it.

Now; this is not a physical action. This is an energetic action, and when you are merged with another expression, you know it. Even if you do not understand it, you know it; you can feel it.

Now; this feeling is different from emotional feelings. Emotional feelings are signals. Love is not a feeling, but it does generate an inward feeling of wholeness, that you are not separate from what you know. If you gaze at a painting and you know that art – regardless of the artist, regardless of the medium, regardless of the strokes, you gaze at a painting and you connect with it – in that, you generate a feeling within you that is different from emotional feelings. You feel it, in your gut and it pulls you. You can feel an actual energy pull. You are merged with that expression. The energy of the expression is meeting your energy, and you are merging with it.

When you listen to music or when you play music and you feel in your gut that pull towards the music, you know it. You are merged with it. In that mergence, in that knowing, it creates a genuine appreciation, and you genuinely are consumed with that knowing, that pull and that appreciation.

This is not an emotional feeling. Affection is an emotional feeling that many if not most individuals confuse with love when they assign it that word, but it is not love. It is affection, and you can express affection with many, many, many expressions and manifestations, and not love. You can express love without affection. You do not necessarily express affection for a composition of music or a painting or a sculpture or a car – one moment – but you can express love for those manifestations.

Love can be expressed to manifestations that are not living. You can love an expression of architecture, you can love a fabric, you can love a design of fashion – for it is not an emotional expression, it is a knowing and an appreciation. In that appreciation, there is what you would term to be complete acceptance, and that is also what you feel. You feel within you, within your body consciousness, a freedom of that complete acceptance.

Now; this is the reason that I have expressed repeatedly that there are many individuals within your world that have not experienced love, not genuinely, for they have not allowed themself that genuine expression of mergence in which they genuinely incorporate that knowing and that appreciation and that complete acceptance.

You can do this with other individuals and not do it always. You can express genuine love in relation to another individual and not be expressing that consistently or constantly, for you may not be focused upon that mergence with the other individual. You may not understand the other individual's expression, but you can express that love for them, regardless. Therefore, this is an illustration: understanding is not a requirement to be expressing love.

While doing research for my new novel I came across this explanation of love. It was written by Elias. Elias is a consciousness teacher. As you can tell, Elias hits a nerve of remembering with his definition of love.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Mental Stadium

And what then is belief? It is the demi-cadence that closes a musical phrase in the symphony of our intellectual life. It has three properties:

First, it is something that we are aware of;

Second, it appeases the irritation of doubt;

Third it involves the establishment in our nature of a rule of action or say for short, a habit.

As it appeases the irritation of doubt, which is the motive for thinking, thought relaxes and comes to rest for a moment when belief is reached. But since belief is a rule of action, the application of which involves further doubt and further thought, at the same time that is a stopping- place, it is also a new starting- place for thought.

The final upshot of thinking is the exercise of volition and of this thought no longer forms a part; but belief is only a stadium of mental action, an effect upon our nature due to thought, which will influence future thinking.

Charles Sanders Pierce wrote those thoughts in his 1878 essay, How to Make our Ideas Clear. Pierce is considered the father pragmatism. Pierce’s definition of a belief does help us establish a mental road of choice when it comes to what to believe or what we should believe. We don’t use his three-step approach to establishing a belief consciously, but there’s no doubt we use them automatically. Our beliefs create the reality we experience.

Our beliefs are habits. They are our inner addictions that shape our daily lives. We don’t examine our beliefs, but if we did we would have a pretty good idea which probability in our mental stadium would be the victor in our game of choices. We choose our actions from our pool of vacillating and non-vacillating beliefs. Vacillating beliefs are the thoughts that sit on the fence of an established belief and fall where the winds of uncertainty takes them. Non-vacillating beliefs are those beliefs that are rooted in the genetic quicksand of unrecorded time. Every thought falls into some category of mental action. Once our thoughts are in a specific category they become physical expressions.

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Noxious Exaggerations

Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty he lived in it, and had his being there. Alone in all history, he estimated the greatness of man. One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, ‘I am divine. Through me, God acts; through me, God speaks. Would you see God see me; or, see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now think.’

But what a distortion did his doctrine and memory suffer in the same, in the next, and the following ages! There is no doctrine of the Reason that will bear to be taught by the Understanding. The understanding caught this high chant from the poet’s lips and said in the next age, ‘This was Jehovah comedown out of heaven. I will kill you if you say he was a man.’ The idioms of his language, and the figures of his rhetoric, have usurped the place of his truth; and churches are not built on his principles, but on his tropes.

In thus contemplating Jesus, we become very sensible of the first defect of historical Christianity. Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion. As it appears to us and as it has appeared for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt; it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus. The soul knows no persons. It invites every man to expand to the full circle of the universe and will have no preferences, but those of spontaneous love.

Ralph Waldo Emerson the Boston minister, poet and essayist, wrote those thoughts in his controversial 1838 Divinity School Address. Emerson got down and dirty in that address. He talked about how an innate message is distorted by narrow-minded fanatics that want to control the ignorant. We are ignorant when it comes to understanding the nature of the soul and the consciousness within and around it. We worship falsehoods and allow ritualistic fantasies to control what we believe. For years, in the name of what is right, we have overpowered the weak and punish the awakened in order to prove we can follow instead of lead.

But we don’t call our noxious exaggerations of truth and complete lack of understanding, wrong. We call it blessed. We are blessed by the thoughts of a God who judges, condemns, retaliates and chooses how the God in us should act. No God who see himself as God would think the way we think of the God within us now.