posted July 23, 2006 04:33 PM         

Me too.

>So, can you speak of your spiritual/philosophical path, I'm curious for its own sake.

Sure. Thank you for taking an interest....

I dont know if this is new to you, but here it is:

According to the theories I am working with, what you and I ponder at is the realm of the unconscious mind. That fringe, or brink, is where conscious meets unconscious. The "heavenly spheres" are no more outside of us than they are within; they are neither, and both. Christ, and others, dwell in our innermost depths (in what are often termed parallel dimensions; the astral and etheric realms), where some have delved, and returned to tell the tales, no doubt distorted by their corporeal, limited understanding. Religious teminology is archetypal; religious figures (like the "persons" of the Trinity) are symbolic, and yet vital; as alive as anything we call real.

Meeting, aquainting, befriending, and identifying with the archetypal denizens of the unconscious mind is our task. Some call it psychological, some call it philosophical, some call it spiritual. Perhaps I am dense, and lack the necessary faculty for discrimination, but, to me, there is no clear distinction in the definition of these words. It appears to me that there is not even a difference in perspective, so much as language; semantics. We appear to be speaking of the same essential truths and processes, in different tongues. I believe this is what Paul was referring to in 2nd Corinthians, although, I suppose, there could be multiple interpretations for this (i.e. "speaking in tongues"), just as there are for most, if not all, scriptural passages (I am thinking primarily of the New Testament, and various Eastern scriptures, although there is still much to be found in the Old Testament, mixed in with plenty of pure ignorance, propaganda, and superstition). Paul suggest that if we speak of the spirit (that is, "to prophecy") in an unknown, or foriegn, tongue, we will be taken for barbarians, madmen, and fools, but, if we "interpret", and speak in the spiritual, philosophical, or psychological language of the person whom we are attempting to reach, then, they will be able to understand our universal meaning. Paul identified himself as a "Christian" because Christianity was the new "language" of the spirit for the time and place in which he taught, but he spoke of timeless and universal truths. I think, if he had travelled into India, he would have studied the "language", or "tongue", of Hinduism, so as to introduce himself as a Hindu, and prophecy in a tongue that others could understand. He would have spoken no less of Christ, but he would have called him by his Hindu name, which is Krishna.

Paul understood the deepest meaning of the injunction, "when in Rome...". It is not to compromise what is essential, but to eschew all that which is worldly, and not essential to the growth of the spirit. Like Christ, when he says, "[Love thy God, and Love thy neighbor as thyself; in these two sayings reside all the laws and the prophets,". Meaning that, one could throw out all the holy books, all the laws, and all the sayings of the prophets, and they would not be lost, for they would still be retained in the love of God and man. By simply loving God and man, all lesser things are revealed and accomplished. Indeed, even the "love of man" could be done away with, for Love of God (which means, essentially, love of All That Is) includes love of "His" creations. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all things shall be added unto you." Christ knew this, but he also knew that most people were not ready to understand this, so, he made it explicit, that we ought to love one another.

Let me be clear... When I refer to "Christ", it is of no consequence whether I speak of a historical personage, or an archetypal character who sprang full grown from the mind of an inspired artist/messenger. The gospels differ so greatly, that it seems likely to me that the evangelists (at least, the four we know of), were perhaps sharing a common theme and a common hero, when they wrote about these things, and not recording the life, death, and resurrection of an actual historical God-Man. But, as I said, this is inconsequential, and to debate the point is to digress into trivialities, worldy distinctions. I only do so as a concession to the minds of our present period, which often demand some explaination of such things.

True religion is simple. It is unsophisticated, and can be understood by a child. Only the warped minds of so-called cultured folk seek ever new and complicated systems by which to classify and contain the mysteries of God. The humblest of us will respect the purity of these mysteries, and not seek to violate their virgin ground. The unseen is known by what is blatantly, manifestly seen. And until we can fully, deeply understand the obvious presence of "love", we cannot expect to understand its workings in ourselves and in the cosmos. Therefore, the most devout person dwells in silence, knowing that the truth is ever spoken by God (by "All That Is"), and he/she communicates this truth as a rose imparts its scent; effortlessly, and without deliberation. The spirit truly speaks in he who is silent.

A person only slightly less devout will meditate on a single word, or "mantra", which may be "Love", or "God", or "One", or something equally simple. The devout life is characterized by an appreciation of the value of repetition. A person still only slightly less devout, will hold to a precious few words or thoughts, and keep them ever in his mind, and before his gaze. More restless spirits deride such thoughts as "cliches", and can only appreciate novelty; an endless succession of "new" ideas and impressions. They do not hold to the core of things. They do not value simplicity, but scoff at it, and label it "reductionist". They love to cogitate, and find new ways to say old things, and even new things to say (as if there were such to be found). But, after many years, perhaps many lifetimes, they will grow weary of covering ground, and will collapse at a random point, only to find what has been with them all along, and to know it at last for what it is; and to know it for God. I do not wish to speak of things like a materialist, as a mathematician might speak of lines, and angles, and figures, and what he deems "sacred geometry", until I have understood this point, from which all things originate, and to which all things return. But, knowing this point, I do not suppose that I would desire to draw from it a single line, but, rather, only to disappear inside this ubiquitous "one", and return to the nothing from which even this has sprung.

And, with that, I will leave off philosophizing, and return to the world of the living, to give a hug and a kiss and a myspace "kudos" to the first person I see.

love to you, Jeremy,
Stephen

posted July 23, 2006 05:41 PM         

quote:

---

We appear to be speaking of the same essential truths and processes, in different tongues

..... he spoke of timeless and universal truths.

I do not wish to speak of things like a materialist, as a mathematician might speak of lines, and angles, and figures, and what he deems "sacred geometry", until I have understood this point, from which all things originate, and to which all things return. But, knowing this point, I do not suppose that I would desire to draw from it a single line, but, rather, only to disappear inside this ubiquitous "one", and return to the nothing from which even this has sprung.

---

yet, it is sacred geometry which is the universal language.....it was spoken by the ancients, it was spoken by jesus, kepler and einstein......it can be spoken and understood even by an alien from another galaxy.......

it is this language that can lead anyone toward the source you speak of.....

***********

The seen from the unseen, a geometric proof

an array that can contain all rational numbers, within a triangle

drawing lines thru each equivalent fraction...(1/2 thru 2/4ths etc., 2/3ds thru 4/6ths..etc, 2/2, 3/3)

these rays do not converge on the whole number 1, but rather point up and converge upon their source....which resides within the center of zero....

Keter or "Crown".... is the first manifestation of the En Sof. It is described as the Void or nothingness from which all the other Sefirot emerge......

posted July 23, 2006 06:23 PM         

By all means, follow your own path. Everything is needful. One man's medicine is another's poison. I am sure this is helpful to many, in making sense of a universe which often seems to them chaotic, but I know that it deters many others, as well.

I realize it is necessary to find both the many in the one, and the one in the many. But, it seems to me that we are always being thrown back upon the many, and I feel it is my path in this life to speak of the one, of simplicity. I see a world full of division (multiplication, etc.), and many people overwhelmed with the complexity of systems, missing the importance of the simplest truths, which are not intellectual, but intuitive. I feel that my purpose concerns initiation, the establishment of the corner stone, the foundation, and not the construction of the temple. I am wary of building towers of babel, and I think much of this wisdom (sacred geometry, etc.) was hidden for a reason, and I am not entirely sure it ought to be revealed to the uninitiated. Most people are not Jesus, Kepler, or Einstein. I think it is worthwhile for the majority of people to focus on that first step. I am not preaching to the converted, to Jesuses and Keplers, but to those who have been confused by an abundance of teachings, and require a return to the utmost simplicity. I do not wish to present simple people with new tongues, even so-called universal tongues (known only to prophets, intellectuals, and aliens), but to speak to them in their own tongues, and lead them to the universal in this way.

Forgive me, I know my message is unpopular in occult circles (as unpopular as mathematics is among the masses), and I do not think like an occultist; I think more like a child, a mystic, and a purist. Perhaps I am "too simple", but, it seems to me, that, in the end (or, is it the begining?), after all your computations, Love requires no proof.

In any case, I confess that I am still confused, and still seeking. I do not mean to appear arrogant or self-righteous, but only to speak my truth, directly from my present point of view. I try to be diplomatic, but it sticks in my throat. If I speak bluntly, it is because I know no other way (Mars/Merc in Sag, Aries on the 3rd). But I'm trying.

posted July 23, 2006 06:58 PM         

quote:

---

Love requires no proof

---

posted July 23, 2006 07:06 PM         

"may your luck continue to hold"

A mathematician who believes in luck?
You are a rare find.

Thank you.

posted July 24, 2006 09:57 PM         

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted July 24, 2006 10:02 PM         

for each has it's opposite..here, there, everywhere. ...

posted July 24, 2006 11:48 PM         

like many mathematical truths....there exists no proof for love.......but there are many heartbreakingly simple methods by which it can be disproven......

posted July 25, 2006 02:24 AM         

"Love is the answer,
And you know that for sure."

- John Lennon

posted July 25, 2006 03:44 AM         

Btw, Dean Koontz's "One Door Away from Heaven" includes the "Love is the answer" quote

Same to Petron, I much appreciate your point of view because mathematics does simplify seemingly complicated things beyond what one would think is humanly possible. (Magician card applying here?)

What if we went a step (back) and say that our beliefs are shaped by both are fears and dreams, and that our accepted beliefs then go on to shape reality the way we experience it for ourselves?

Ultimately so long as love represents promoting well-being, it would seem that our world is primarily filled with it since we continue to be allowed to be born, learn, enjoy, suffer, and evolve.

posted July 25, 2006 06:48 AM         

quote:

---

1 + 1 =

---

posted July 25, 2006 04:08 PM         

Prof. Ludwig Wittgenstein:
The aspects of things that are most important to us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity.

Eugene Delacroix, 19th-century French painter:
A taste for simplicity cannot last for long.

Thomas More:
The ordinary arts we practice every day at home are of more importance to the soul than their simplicity might suggest.

John V. Cheney:
The happiest heart that ever beat Was in some quiet breast That found the common daylight sweet, And left to Heaven the rest.

Hans Hofmann:
The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak.

John Morley, 19th-century British statesman:
Simplicity of character is no hindrance to the subtlety of intellect.

E. F. Schumacker:
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction.

Albert Einstein:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

I believe that a simple and unassuming manner of life is best for everyone, best both for the body and the mind.

Ann Morrow Lindbergh (Gift from the Sea):
I have learned by some experience, by many examples, and by the writings of countless others before me, also occupied in the search, that certain environments, certain modes of life, certain rules of conduct are more conducive to inner and outer harmony than others. There are, in fact, certain roads that one may follow. Simplification of life is one of them.

Laura Ingalls Wilder:
It is the sweet, simple things of life which are the real ones after all.

Eleanor Roosevelt:
A little simplification would be the first step toward rational living, I think.

Charles Mingus:
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.

Henri Frederic Amiel:
A man must be able to cut a knot, for everything cannot be untied; he must know how to disengage what is essential from the detail in which it is enwrapped, for everything cannot be equally considered; in a word, he must be able to simplify his duties, his business and his life.

Henry David Thoreau:
Our life is frittered away by detail... Simplify, simplify, simplify! ... Simplicity of life and elevation of purpose.

William of Ockham:
Plurality should not be assumed without necessity.

Thomas a Kempis:
Purity and simplicity are the two wings with which man soars above the earth and all temporary nature.

Edwin Way Teale:
Reduce the complexity of life by eliminating the needless wants of life, and the labors of life reduce themselves.

Richard Halloway:
Simplicity, clarity, singleness: these are the attributes that give our lives power and vividness and joy.

Mahlon Hoagland (Toward the Habit of Truth):
Simplicity is indeed often the sign of truth and a criterion of beauty.

Charles Dudley Warner:
Simplicity is making the journey of this life with just baggage enough.

Papa Ramadas:
Simplicity is the nature of great souls.

Henry David Thoreau:
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!... We are happy in proportion to the things we can do without.

John Burroughs:
To find the universal elements enough; to find the air and the water exhilarating; to be refreshed by a morning walk or an evening saunter ... to be thrilled by the stars at night; to be elated over a bird's nest or a wildflower in spring—these are some of the rewards of the simple life.

Donald Curtis, 7/97 Science of Mind Magazine:
Never again will I make the simple into the complex. Something of true value does not become more valuable because it becomes complicated. Experience and conditions come and go; complications arise and fall away, but the simple action of God is eternal in the universe.

posted July 25, 2006 05:21 PM         

One must dig beneath the surface of things,
in order to find the skeleton key.

One must discern the voice of silence,
in order to interpret all tongues.

posted July 25, 2006 05:25 PM         

"Starved without your skeleton key."
- Kurt Cobain

posted July 25, 2006 06:25 PM         

Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.

Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live.

For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one."

Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.

For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed.