Trud-Ma writes . . .

To me it is very it’s a pity, that I can in no way you help. I hope, they will here help you. Мне очень жаль, что ничем не могу Вам помочь. Надеюсь, Вам здесь помогут.

Pity . . . what would your pity do for a ‘me’? ‘I’ suppose ‘I’ should clue you in: Pity does nothing–absolutely nothing–for the person being pitied. However . . . it appears to do wonders for the person holding the thought: “I pity you.”

When you say, “I pity you’, already you have assumed a superior role over the person you are holding in contempt with your pity. You believe yourself one step above the pitied Other (or perhaps, a whole flight of stairs above the Other). Hence, the reason why ‘I’ attached a comment to your comment to read: Pity is a condition of the mind (obviously your mind at the write of your comment).

I pity no one . . . ‘I’ would not dare into such a thought to describe the Other. And it is not the case that daring not to engage in such a thought has anything to do with the Other at all.

When you hold a thought of pity, you are engaging in a condition of mind . . . but there is more to it than simply that.

You see . . . The same can be said if you were to hold a thought of anger, jealousy, irritation, hatred . . . towards the Other. Any negative thought within which ‘you’ become ‘in’volved has a tendency to lend itself to an identification with and to negative emotions. Simply put: Your pity does nothing for anyone, but it does plenty to ‘you’.

At most . . . it strokes an ego. Thus allowing the ‘who-you-think-you-are’ to walk away feeling superior to the one you stooped to pity.

And . . . My dear, dear, Trud-Ma . . . acclaiming that “you can in no way help me” . . . what beliefs are you entertaining such that you would consider ‘I’ need help? Were you having thoughts of saving a ‘me’? If such is the case: Perhaps you should clue us all in: What is it that ‘I’ need be saved from?

‘I’ should only ask you, Trud-Ma, to observe the pity that you are holding and to look closely at what it does for you when you are holding it. Just look. Do not judge.

‘Peep-holes’ get attached and create identities to all sorts of senseless negative thoughts and negative emotions that absolutely do nothing but harm (especially for the ‘peep-hole’ holding onto the thought). Most importantly, they do not serve your better interests, and Trud-Ma ‘I’ want your better interests to be served.

One must help oneSelf.

Dear Green Golfer,

The point . . . the only point of my communications is to illuminate the thoughts crossing over the mind. If they (the thoughts, that is) effect anyone, it is due to the fact that the ‘who-they-think-they-are’ has in some way identified with the contents of the communications in some way or another. ‘I’ have no hand or voice in how words are taken into the processor and processed.

That is my point . . . dear Green Golfer . . . simply to bring attention to thoughts crossing over. They (the thoughts ‘I’ have shared) have nothing to do with this or that. They are simply ‘clouds’ passing over.
The fact that some think them this way and others think them that way is of little accord.

The import is of all such communications is that you begin to look at thought itself. If you happen to be irritated by a thought ‘I’ have shared, do not waste on ounce of energy faulting a ‘me’. Irritations at what the Other has said or done has more to say (much more to share) about your own conditoning, then it does of the Others’.

First, one must remove the splinter from one’s own eye, before it ’see’ the splinters in the Other.

Some time ago, a Master showed a ‘me’ all the thought identifications that catered to all the me’s manifesting into a multiciplicity of I’s. The Master was crazy-making . . . because a ‘me’ wanted answers, and another ‘me’ wanted to guidance, another ‘me’ wanted to be left alone, and another ‘me’ wanted independence, and another ‘me’ validation and wanted this, and another ‘me’ wanted that . . . and then . . . And then, (almost in a flash) ‘I’ finally saw all the thoughts that poured into the multitude of these ‘me’ constructions, and ‘I’ became very much aware of these culturally conditioned ‘me’ constructions and the thoughts holding these ‘me’ constructions in their place.

‘I’ became ‘answered’ because ‘I’ finally understood what material (thought) went into the design and eventual construction of all the me’s. And . . . then I saw how ‘peep-holes’ use formulas of thought (though very unconsciously) to get at something they want from the Other.

‘I’ want nothing from you. ‘I’ share what ‘I’ share so that one day you might understand how to use thought rather than to be used by thought.

‘I’ have no intentions of harm because ‘I’ do not ’see’ mySelf as apart from anything and everything. The harm comes from what has been created insofar as ‘identification-to-formulas-of-thought’ are concerned. ‘I’ create something in mind not for you to believe in it, but to simply ’see’ it!!!

If you can ’see’ those thoughts to which ‘you’ have become identified, then you can begin to ’see’ the constructions that lend themselves to a multiciplicity of ‘me’s’: the religious ‘me’, the political ‘me’, the caring ‘me’, the not-so-caring ‘me’, the educated ‘me’ . . . me me me me . . they are all fictitious . . . and furthermore ‘in’volved with the drama of so much nonsense that when ‘you’ finally ’see’ IT, ‘you’ will roar with laughter.

Observe and Self-Remember

Dear Каталог статей,

According to you, ‘I’ have committed an error. Interesting . . . how does one commit an error simply sharing that which crosses over? ‘I’ have described something. It needs not pertain to you. And yet . . . you seemingly feel the need to talk about this error ‘I’ have committed.

Now . . . if an error is anything like a sin, ‘I’ can assure you: No such thing has occurred. However . . . if an error is simply a mistake (like a typing error), then ‘I’ assure you of its possibility.

Moreover . . . if it is within your processes of thought that ‘I’ grouped together all the travelers in the manifest realm of experiencing and shared this communication concerning this particular collective . . . do be clear: that is in your processes of thought and not to the otherwise.

Please . . . there is no need to be offended and no need to take defense. If this piece does not speak to you, so be it. ‘I’ do not need the Other to acclaim what ‘I’ share as that which is right, nor do ‘I’ need the Other to complain about that which is wrong. Right and Wrong have nothing to do with anything ‘I’ have thus far communicated.

And if it did . . . who holds the authority to determine the rightness and the wrongness of anything? From experiencing, ‘I’ have learned (have become very aware) that many things ‘I’ was once informed to be ‘right’ were actually very ‘wrong’, and vice versa. And ‘I’ say: until you see through your own beliefs with regards to your identifications to a ‘this’ or a ‘that’ , you will not ’see’ what ‘I’ have seen.

Trust yourSelf! If you ‘think’ ‘I’ am wrong, then so be it!!! ‘I’ have no need to convince you. You seem convinced of a something, but who am ‘I’ to make you see differently than what you have decided? You need only look at ‘that’ which has made you decide this way as opposed to that way. And . . . Let that be not only your thought, but your experience.

Insofar as the Others who question whether ‘I’ believe in that which ‘I’ have said . . . what is there to believe? ‘I’ do not have to believe in that which has been said. ‘I’ said it. The end . . . no belief is necessary, no belief is required.

And for those who would like that ‘I’ should consider how what ‘I’ share might effect the Other . . . listen very clearly: The only power that ‘I’ or anyone else holds over you, is the power that you yourself give to the Other. Thus will ‘I’ say in further address: Look at that which you empower as well that which disempowers you . . . The fact is: ‘You’ have no clue, and all ‘I’ am suggesting is that ‘you’ start looking for the clues as to why you feel the need to believe in anything.

‘I’ see a tree. ‘I’ have no need to believe in the tree. There it is, directly
in view. What do ‘I’ need believe? Someone says they are going to be at a certain place at a certain time. Why do ‘I’ need believe them? If they show up, they are true to their word. If they do not show up, ‘I’ find something else to do. Perhaps there were problems. But ‘I’ do not make their problems my own. A time was set. A place was set. ‘I’ can wait or ‘I’ can go on. A decision is made. What do ‘I’ need believe?

Watch . . . . Self discover. If ‘you’ cannot look at what makes you ‘do’ what ‘you’ ‘do’, then ‘you’ have never looked at the thoughts pushing ‘you’ into the doings. And . . . if the thoughts are pushing ‘you’ to do this as opposed to that. . . are ‘you’ not being done?

‘I’ have not asked you to do anything but to LOOK at that which is crossing over. So ‘I’ ask: How dangerous is looking? How is looking at that which crosses over you processor dangerous? Aren’t you a bit interested in how those thoughts got in there? Aren’t you a tad concerned as to why you adhere to beliefs that have absolutely no grounding whatosever?

‘I’ have no power over a single thing outside of mySelf nor do ‘I’ want the responsibility of assuming power over the Other. ‘Peep-holes’ that desire to assume power over the Other are . . . well . . . ‘peep-holes.’
They are stuck in a huge egoic need of some sort or another. ‘I’ watch them, because they are very dangerous, but ‘I’ have as little to do with them as possible (especially in terms of what they have to say).

‘You’ are responsible for whatsoever ‘you’ do with that which is given, whatsoever ‘you’ continue to believe is no ones responsibility but your own.

And my dear Каталог статей . . . thank you for your comment.

Tell me . . . what do you think will result from the actions of a ‘peep-hole’ taking advantage of other ‘peep-holes’?

If ‘you’ are here (in the manifest realm of experiencing called ‘Life-on-Earth’) to simply advantage yourself (in an all out attempt to meet the extent of your desirous fill of acquitions) but ‘at-the-cost-of-using-the-Other’. then consider yourself a culturally, endoctrinated ‘peep-hole’.

Briefly: You have entered into the culturally contrived ‘room-of-want’, but your ‘wants’ come at the cost of learning how to use the Other.

Now . . . ‘I’ will premise this entire communication on the following suggestion: If you decide to stay, ‘I’ may very well show you something you have not seen before.

Continuing . . .

First and foremost, it is important for you understand . . . there are no doors leading into or out of this ‘room’ (that is to say, ‘the-room-of-want’). One day . . . you simply discover yourSelf in this ‘room’ without having a clue as to how you accessed its entrance.

There are no doors . . . how did you get inside? At present, suffice it to say: unconsciousness delivers you into the room. No biggy. That is how all enter.

Interestingly enough, the walls of this room (though seemingly solid) are actually quite porous. This permeability allows ‘things’ to move in a bilateral direction (affecting both sides). Therefore, ‘that’ which stands outside of the ‘room’ can be moved to the inside the ‘room’. And ‘that’ which is inside of the ‘room’ can be moved back outside again. And yet . . . there are seemingly no doors to facilitate this movement.

Now . . . ‘I’ mentioned that the walls were ’seemingly-solid’ before alluding to their porosity. And . . . this shall stand. However, it is quite necessary that ‘I’ also qualify another characteristic of these walls: they are transparent . . . from the outside one can see inside and vice versa.

There is yet one more characteristic of this ‘room’ that needs be descriptively included: the walls expand and contract in necessity to what ‘wants’ move into the ‘room’ and what ‘wants’ move out of the room. The fascinating part of this expansion and contraction phenomenon is that the ‘room’ shrinks when more ‘wants’ are added, and expands when more ‘wants’ are subtracted and/or removed. Moreover . . . you can put as much into this room as you ‘want’. There is no limit to what can be moved inside. However, when all of the ‘wants’ are moved from the inside to the outside, the ‘room’ collapses
into an Understanding.

Reinterating: Even though the ‘room’ continues to shrink everytime another ‘want’ enters, the possibilities are seemingly limitless as to how much ‘want’ can occupy the ’space-of-the-room’.

Whatever is ‘wanted’ has the potential of entering the ‘room’. But not everything that is ‘wanted’ actually gains access to the ‘room’, because in order for the ‘want’ to actually enter the ‘room’, keys are required. And . . . Until the keys are discovered, whatever is ‘wanted’ remains only in a potential state.

And . . . this is where culture enters into the picture . . .

Culture will not only assist you in a ‘decision-of-wants’, it goes one step further . . .It ‘makes-a-promise’ to provide you with all the requisite keys to a vast multiciplity of ‘wants’ if you simply follow its guide and directives.

In essence, culture takes you high upon the mountaintop where you discover yourSelf standing before a vast display of ‘that-which-is-wanted’ and convinces you: “All of this is yours, if you simply bow before me and do everything I say.”

And yourSelf . . . buried under a ‘heap-of-conditioning’ . . . can no longer ’see’ the illusion of that which is being presented before the senses, which have come to dominate the perceived reality. And . . . ‘who-you-think-you-are’ thinks, “Cool… I’m going for it!!!” “All that stuff and more . . . count me in!”

And . . . you jump into it all . . . Right?

Of course you do!!! How else are you going to learn from it all”

Sitting on the inside looking outside at ‘all-that-wanted-stuff’ is pure and simple torture, if you do not Understand ‘all-that-wanted-stuff.’

So . . . before ‘I’ go into ‘all-that-wanted-stuff’ as it pertains to the ‘room’ (descriptively speaking), ‘I’ offer the following”: Denying ‘all-that-wanted-stuff’ (out there) does not necessarily mean that one will be answered (in here). The same holds true in terms of possessing ‘all-that-wanted-stuff’. To be “answered”, Understanding is KEY.

Religions would just love you to believe in their ‘twisted-tall-tale’ starring the ‘wonderful-of-poverty’: Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. OOOOooooo . . . You would have to be retarded to think wonderment into the ‘peep-holes’ who suffer under this guise.

‘Peep-holes’ who live in poverty can barely arrange for their “daily bread”, and yet . . . they are being promised a pretty significant inheritance . . . the entire kingdom of heaven!!! Holy Ka-moly!!! That’s better than the 77 virgins the muslims are being promised if they strap on an exploding device and blow themselves as others to smithereens (KA-POW!)

And . . . if ‘poverty’ is so amazing . . . why doesn’t the Vatican relinquish all of its wealth so it can truly participate in ‘all-the-wonderment” poverty has to offer to them in the NOW and the afterlife. Obviously the ‘court-of-the-Vatican’ does not understand what it is missing not to buy into their own ’spiel’. . . or . . . perhaps, it is fully aware of how effective its ‘pitch-of-poverty’ works on the simple ignorance of the impoverished.

Listen to this one: Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

First they pitch poverty and then they pitch meekness. Look up the definition of meek. Forget that . . . ‘I’ will assist you . . .

meek: 2a) tamely submissive; easily imposed upon (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1964, p. 915).

Hmmm . . . first a pitch of poverty and then a pitch of meekness . . . what else are they pitching to get at what they want from you?

The whole enterprise of religion is to ’sell-you-on-its-ideas’ . . . and the ideas are extremely powerful because they are selling you stuff that you are ‘convinced’ you really want (eternal salvation, 77 virgins, the rights to see God, inheritances of kingdoms, etc.).

It is as if they arrange God on an auction block . . .

“Step right up!” “Step right up!” “You sir, with the ragged clothes . . .” “And, you mame, with the 14 children at your breast . . .” “Have we got something for you today. Yes-siree, today we are auctioning off God to the highest bidder (actually we will be accepting all bids as a means to fuel the continuity of our enterprise).” “And . . . don’t you worry your little heads, if you cannot afford the monetary purchasing price of our God today, because there are other things you can do to demonstrate your faithfulness . . . ( blowing yourself up for our God-cause may just be the option you are looking for)” . . . “We are also offering a variety of installment plans as an option . . .” “Let me tell you about our most popular one . . .” “All you have to do is give us 10% of your earnings for the rest of your life and . . . let me tell you . . . we can almost see you strolling past those pearly gates even as we speak . . .” “Look up there . . . see . . . we’re waving at you and cheering you on for all your faithful dedication to our idea . . .” “You deserve an eternal vacation in the luxurious kingdom of God . . . and, by god (no pun intended), that is exactly what we are here for . . . to sign you up into our God package so you can ‘have-it-all’!!!”

Now . . . quite possibly you are thinking (What happened to the ‘room’?) And . . . if you have been privy to all the past communications on this site . . . you will understand when ‘I’ tell you, “It is over by the ‘tree’ that is still standing.” However . . . for those who are still wondering . . . let us return to the ‘room’.

‘I’ reinterate . . .
“Whatever is ‘wanted’ has the potential of entering the ‘room’. But not everything that is ‘wanted’ actually gains access to the ‘room’, because in order for the ‘want’ to actually enter the ‘room’, keys are required. And . . . until the keys are discovered, whatever is ‘wanted’ remains in its potential state . . .
And further reinterate . . .
“In essence, culture takes you high upon the mountaintop where you discover yourSelf standing before a vast display of ‘that-which-is-wanted’ and convinces you: “All of this is yours, if you simply bow before me.”

Religion is a very powerful component of that which is so named culture because it serves to provide explanations of THAT which is beyond explanation. And . . . for you to know what is beyond this life . . . Well, suffice it to say . . . that knowledge is ‘THAT-WHICH-IS-WANTED’.

You cannot ‘know’ THAT, but . . . you can ‘believe’ in all the contrived knowledges that purport to ‘hold-the-keys’ to THAT.

So . . . you discover yourself in the ‘room-of-that-which-is-wanted’ . . . and who would not want an eternal vacationing spot infused with the opulence of heavenly delights?

So . . . you contemplate: “There are no doors to this room I am in . . .” “Yet . . . things can move through the its walls.” “But . . . I was also informed that if I find the key, I can bring ‘that-which-is-wanted’ from ‘out-there’ to ‘in-here’.” I want that eternal salvation and life-everlasting ‘God-packaged-deal’ with the payment option plan that I see right out these transparent walls. “So . . . where do I find the key to get at what I want?”

And ‘I’ say . . . you have not far to look. However . . . every time you use this key you will have to pay its price. So use it wisely with ‘eye-wide-open’.

The key to every potetial want is simply DESIRE.

More importantly . . . ‘desire’ is all that it takes to bring ‘that-which-is-wanted-out-there’ to that which is acquired ‘in-here’ . . .

Because the ’seeds’ of ‘that-which-is-wanted’ already exist in a potential state of being ‘in-here’, all that is required to ’set-things-into-motion’ is the ‘desire’ to activate the ’seed’: to to inoculate the seed with a certain vibrational potency . . .

And . . . you stimulate this ’seed’ (bring it into its certain vibrational potency) with a ‘focus-of-attention’. . . just like the sun directing its ‘ray-of-light’ (ray-of-focus) on a new seedingly, so to does ‘a-focus-of-attention’ (ray-of-light) bring a ’seed-of-desire’ into its fruitation.

However . . . you must take the following into consideration: initially, THAT which you bring from ‘out-there’ to ‘in-here’ through the processes of desire is simply the IDEA of THAT which is ‘out-there’ (which is in a potential seed form ‘in-here’). Consequently, what begins to take root ‘in-here’ is simply the IDEA of possessing THAT which you seemingly encountered ‘out-there’.

Something further you should Understand: There are a vast number of renditions of an IDEA. ‘I’ call these renditions of an IDEA: ‘ideas’. These ‘ideas’ represent the IDEA, but they are not the IDEA itself. And ‘I’ tell you to keep this in mind for the following reason . . .

‘I’ reinterate: Every time you bring ‘that-which-is-wanted’ from ‘out-there’ to ‘in-here’, the ‘room-of-want’ gets smaller.

Consequetly, if you cannot clearly ’see’ the IDEA ‘you’ want to bring forth into manifestation, you (so anxious to get started) engage into a wastefulness all of the ‘room’s’ precious space . . .exhausting (if not dissipating) all the vibrant energies of the ‘ray-of-focus’ . . . by entertaining a huge variety of ‘ideas’ and not the IDEA ItSelf.

For example: You desire to be wealthy . . . BUT, instead of using the space to clarify an Understanding of the IDEA of WEALTH, you are led on a ‘wild-goose-chase’ by promotional ‘ideas-of-wealth’.

These ‘ideas-of-wealth’ stand to make you ‘think’ you have achieved a semblance of WEALTH, and they operate on others such that they also ‘think’ you have achieved the terms of WEALTH. But WEALTH has not been achieved. What has been ‘achieved’ is simply the ‘ideas-of-wealth’ which circulate in the ‘culturally-contrived-processing-units’ of ‘peep-holes’.

Simply put; “Peep-holes’ are culturally fed and nutured into various ‘ideas-of-a-something’ (wealth being one of these ideas). These ‘ideas’ are broadcast (the spreading of the ’seed-need’) for the sole purpose of informing the processor (computer brain) what makes for a wealthy ‘peep-hole’.

So you hear . . . and you (seemingly) see all the stuff that needs be acquired such that you (and others) can say: “Wealth has been achieved by this ‘peep-hole’.” And you say this because you achieved the purchasing price of a cool and comfortable car, a magnificent and majestic mansion, jubilant and juicy jewelery, prized and powerful position, approved and audited admiration, favorable and fitting fashions, etc. . . .

Yes, indeed . . . you have acquired all the ’stuff’ with which all these ‘ideas-of-wealth’ are designed to make you ‘want’ such that you can take account of yourself as ‘one-who-is-wealthy’. And . . . of course, it is not only integral to your ‘desired-need’ that you continue to take into account ‘that’ which you’ think’ you have acquired, you also desperately need others to continue to take into account ‘that’ which you ‘think’ you have achieved through such acquisitions.

The question remains: What have you truly achieved through the processes of acquiring so much ’stuff’?

Want a hint? Let the word ’stuff’ come to mind.

If satisfying the criterion of the IDEA of WEALTH meant filling all the ’space’ up with ’stuff, then you could say you have achieved WEALTH.
But the IDEA of WEALTH points into the direction of UNDERSTANDING THAT which is considered WEALTH.

And . . .If all you have taken into consideration are all the ‘ideas-of-wealth’ into which you have processed, bought and sold, then something else will be required from you . . . because it is true. . . a ‘wealth-of-stuff’ you have, but WEALTH you have not.

. . . continuing . . .

For . . . such is the case that when One is finally answered, the ‘room’, its ‘walls’, that which stands outside, and that which occupies inside all simply dissolve in an Understanding.

Now ‘I’ will allow for space before continuing . . .

Dear ФОТАВИ,

For ‘all-the-world-to-review’ . . . your position revealed:

“Я бы сказала о монументальности, грандиозности некоторых сюжетов. А назвала бы – “нефильтрованный реал”. На мой взгляд, красота – это все-таки другое: лучшее, чистое, избранное, заставляющее трепетать и поражаться. Можно найти красоту во всем, но всё скопом – не есть красота. Имхо.”

As ‘I’ have gathered . . . unless THAT (which you have defined in terms of ‘beauty’) appears before your perceptual grid or cognitive processes as THAT which serves out the criteria of the conditions you have placed on THAT (it needs be “better, clean, selected . . .make it necessary to quiver and be surprised”) it becomes for you a “heap” which you have further defined as “not beauty”.

‘I’ got it!!! YOU ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN ‘PRODUCTS’ . . . NOT PROCESSES . . . and in that case, ‘I’ am certain to disappoint you.

Perhaps . . . ‘I’ may have been instrumental with regards to strumming you into a quiver after all . . . albiet it with disgust rather than surprise.

Besides, my dear ФОТАВИ . . . ‘peep-holes’ are all a heap: a ‘heap’ of conditioning which extends itself back for ‘oh-so-many-ages’.

And yet . . . ‘I’ find radiant beauty tucked away within each and every ‘pile-of-conditioning’.

All is in process. Hence, alive!!! AND THAT WHICH IS ‘PRODUCT’ IS FINISHED (emphasis granted . . . yelling ‘I’ am not). That which is ‘product’ has simply satisfied the criteria of an objective. It is no longer THAT which you say “quivers”. Hence, it is dead, inspite of who pick it up and shakes it.

‘I’ am an eternal process, and as such ‘I’ will never achieve the status of a ‘product’.

‘Me’ was a product (a product of parental conditioning, educational conditioning, religious and political conditioning . . . ). And all conditioning has an objective: a goal to which must be arrived upon to satisfy the means to an end.

‘I’ have no goal to reach because to reach a goal would mean ‘I’ am finished. ‘I’ am over! What more is there to accomplish if ‘I’ were to say: “I’ have reached the goal. Now there is no point to go any further. ‘I’ may as well lay down and make ready to become the soil of Earth.

Death is not what ‘I’ desire for Self. Self is an eternal process.

Therefore . . . ‘I’ say unto you my dear ФОТАВИ . . . if you see the ‘heap’ yet cannot see the beauty, ‘I’ can assure you: You have yet to truly ’see’.

Beauty is everywhere to be seen . . . especially in the ‘heap’. Keep looking….

And . . . Thank you for sharing what you (more than likely) considered a poetic resolve!!! ‘I’ fully Understand your positioning, and ‘I’ am most grateful for your comment.

(English Translation of comment courteousy of Yahoo Babel: I would speak about monumentality, grandeur of some subjects. But would name – ” unfiltered [real]“. In my view, beauty – this nevertheless other: are better, clean, selected, that makes it necessary to quiver and to be surprised. It is possible to find beauty in everything, but all in a heap – is not beauty. [Imkho]. Я бы сказала о монументальности, грандиозности некоторых сюжетов. А назвала бы – “нефильтрованный реал”. На мой взгляд, красота – это все-таки другое: лучшее, чистое, избранное, заставляющее трепетать и поражаться. Можно найти красоту во всем, но всё скопом – не есть красота. Имхо.

My dear Russian readers have this most intriguing term which translates into the English term ‘layings’. Although ‘I’ am not totally fortified in the area of the Russian language (not even slightly) . . . after a bit of quick referencing of various received comments, ‘I’ came to single out the Russian term ‘закладки’.

When first coming into cognitive contact with this term ‘закладки’ and its Yahoo Babeled translation (’layings’), ‘I’ was tickled and pleased by its usage (”It carried off into the layings” . . . “Утащил в закладки”). And then . . . yesterday, an Understanding occured . . .

One of my students complained that he could no longer focus anymore. He informed: “There is so much to take in, so much to remember, so much to process . . . I can’t keep up. Lately . . . everything is just a big blurr.”

‘I’ stood before this young gentleman, gently smiled into his eyes, and said, “I’ know you can’t see because you do not know how to focus on that which is important.”

You could almost see the smoke trickling out of his ears as he heated in anger. “How can you say that? he shouted. “This professor says, ‘this is important’, that professor says, ‘that is important’, my mother says, my father says, my brother says, my friend says, the doctor, the priest, the dentist, the president, the politicians, the grocery store clerk, my barber . . . . it is endless what everyone says is important!!!”

And . . . quickly remembering this Russian term, ‘I’ replied, “Ah yes, the layings.”

“What do you mean . . . layings?” he shot back.

‘I’ moved over to the overhead projector and flipped it on . . . as such, a light illuminated and was projected onto the wall. ‘I’ positioned a transparency of a lesson (’I’ had previously taught) onto the glass of the projector. Now . . . although one could still see the light projecting onto the wall, one could also see (quite clearly and legibly) the printed version of a pretaught lesson.

‘I’ turned to the young man and asked him if he could easily decifer what ‘I’ had brought into his focus. ‘I’ received an affirmative response.

Then ‘I’ proceeded to take a small stack of transparencies (imaging previously taught lessons), and one-by-one ‘I’ began ‘laying’ them onto the projector until not a single person in the room (including this young gentleman) could make a single bit of sense from that contained in the projection.

“Do you see?” ‘I’ asked.

“See what? . . . that mangled mess of undeciferable whatever you want to call it?”

“No,” ‘I’ replied. “You asked me to about ‘layings’, and ‘I’ just showed them to you.

“That still doesn’t tell me what is important,” he said, less agressively.

“Oh . . . . . And who are you waiting for to make a decision that only you can make for yourSelf?

Translation YB: But that all do keep silent? Personally in me this note caused the storm of emotions… Give let us have a talk. А что все молчат ? Лично у меня эта заметка вызвала бурю эмоций… Давайте поговорим.

My dear Травиан,

What is the difference of ‘keeping silent’ and ‘knowing Silence’?

Naturally, you would have a storm of emotions if you misunderstood to think ‘I’ was suggesting that you keep silent. . . You ‘think’ you have something to say . . . you want to say it . . . and keeping silent is the last advice you want from anyone . . . you want to shout out all the inconsistencies you are experiencing . . . you hear all the lies . . . you feel them pulsating through the emotions . . . keeping silent is not an option for you . . . ‘I’ hear you . . . you are shouting loud and clear.

But . . . please, Understand . . . ‘I’ have not asked that you remain silent. ‘I’ have only suggested that you Know Silence. The essence of these two things ‘remaining silent’ and ‘Knowing Silence’ are diametrically opposed. There is a grand difference. But . . . you did not (have not as yet) experienced this difference. Hence the bubbling froth of emotions you experienced spilling into your ire when the thought entered into your processor (brain) at the mere suggestion that you remain silent.

Have a scream. Allow the steam. But do not sicken yourself with any extended relationship with ‘thinks’ about the misunderstanding.

Patience . . . please. ‘I’ have only so much time to spend at present. But ‘I’ have heard you: a button has been pushed. ‘I’ will attempt at answer but will not guarantee the experiencing of ‘answered’.

There was a ‘time’ that ‘I’ would have undergone the same experiencing of emotions with which you so succinctly described if ‘I’ would have thought anyone else was suggesting that ‘I’ remain silent.
‘I’ would have certainly thought them crazy in their suggestions to have me silenced. These people . . . they don’t know ‘me’!!!

They would tell me: “Think what you want, but just don’t say anything. You’ll get in trouble. Just keep silent, and all will be well.”

But . . . things were not well when ‘me’ kept silent, because then the noise in ‘my head’ would start screaming. ‘Me’ could not comprehend what people were accepting as truths. ‘Me’ could not understand why they were not as infuriated as ‘me’ had become when confronted with all the nonsense . . .

And . . . things would not go well when ‘me’ opened up my mouth and spewed all the thought (turned venom) about the ‘ills-of-that’ or the ‘ills -of-this’. . .

And . . . often times, because ‘me’ was the only one who could be heard . . . ‘me’ was the only one who would be targeted by those who did not feel obligated to hear what ‘me’ had to say (even though they felt it requisite that ‘me’ hear what they had to say).

‘Me’ encountered a scourge of opposition and suffered through horrendous experiences that ‘I’ would not wish upon a single soul.

Then one day (after many years of searching and undergoing seemingly endless lifetimes), ‘I’ met ‘the-me’ . . . and things started changing.

Once ‘I’ fully understood the difference between ‘a-me-thinking-it-was- seeing’ and ‘Seeing’ one could say ‘the fog lifted’, the veils parted, and Life started appearing like ‘I’ had never experienced before . . . or had ‘I’ simply forgotten).

Before this precious moment ‘I’ wasn’t there as much as ‘me’ was ever present.

‘Me’ the savior, ‘Me’ the righteous, ‘Me’ the know-it-all, ‘Me’ the outspoken, ‘Me’ the crucified, ‘Me’ the justified, ‘Me’ …. ‘Me’ … ‘Me’ the ego …thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking . . .

‘I’ lived in a madhouse with a ‘me’ that was caught up in a whirlwind of incessant thinking how to improve upon this, how to correct that . . . thinking, thinking, how things could be better, how things were not right . . . thinking, thinking, thinking, what someone meant be this, what someone meant by that . . . thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking, about the end resolve of meeting her set of expectations or his set of demands . . . thinking, thinking, thinking . . .

Every thought that passing over, ‘me’ had to possess. ‘Me’ was greedy. ‘Me’ wanted to own it all. ‘Me’ was self-possessed. ‘Me’ was a subtle obession of ultimate want, desire, and power. ‘Me’ wanted to own the truth.

And then . . . (as aforementioned) ‘me’ started to dissolve like a fizz tablet in water, and all the conditions that ‘me’ placed onto the manifest realm of experiencing gradually began melting away.

And . . . ‘I’ (the ocean) came into focus. And . . . the whole occured . . .

So . . . my readers will write “author is incomprehensible” or “author’s timing is off” or the “author needs to refine” or the “author’s style is good” or the “author makes my blood boil” . . .

And to reply . . . thank-you . . . but understand . . .

‘I’ simply share that which passes over (none of which belongs to ‘a-me’ . . . and then make room for Silence.

Science simply studies wo/man as a mechanism: a fleshed and blooded machine wired to the sophisticated degree of having the capacity to process thought. Scientifically speaking, a wo/man is ‘a-moving- breathing-walking-talking-thinking-computer. And as such . . . it is treated like a thing.

Scientists base their findings on the misaligned and distorted positivistic assumption that they can actually arrive at ‘truth’ by
1. collecting bits of data (which serve as a kind of calibrated phenomenological measuring device),
2. subjecting these data bits to the scrutiny of the scientific method (or the further examination and analysis of these data bits),
3. assuming the cognitive priviledge of having arrived upon a determination of the depth and breadth of Life and Consciousness.

Unfortunately, the physical is not directly observed due to the fact that what becomes ’seen’ is merely a projection of the assumed causes being held in the minds of those ‘thinking-the-seeing’.

For example: If ‘I’ were to take a picture of a tree. (Click!) We can now say ‘I’ have a captured image of the tree on film. Now . . . I arrange this captured image of the tree onto a projecting machine. Next . . . ‘I’ set up a screen to capture the projection of the captured image of the tree being held n the film. When ‘I’ turn the projecting machine on, a light illuminates and . . . (lo and behold) . . . the captured image of the tree on the film is exactly what ‘I’ discover captured in a projection of the tree upon the screen.

Unfortunately, ‘the-captured-image-of-a-tree-on-the-film’ and ‘the- captured-projection-of-the-tree-on-the-screen’ are not the tree. They are merely projections of captured moment of a tree (actually a treeing) and static ones at that.

You cannot determine the phenomena of Life and Consciiousness by simply studying the appearances of projections.

Appearances (though seemingly alive because they flow before our perceptual grids like a continous cinematographical film)) are merely the captured images of that which is, in turn, projected out into the manifest realm of experiencing . . . Consequently and in effect, they (the projected images and all the explanations that are hung on these things) become the perceptual terms deciding into the how this manifested realm ‘needs be’ experienced.

If you truly want to understand the ‘why’ of ‘out-there’, you need to first observe what exactly is ‘out-there’ (the projection screen). Simply observe as if you were watching a movie on nature . . .

Next, observe the films (thoughts) ‘in-here’ as you continue to look ‘out-there’ (screen). The focus of your observation will need to shift from ‘out-there’ (the screen) to ‘in-here’ (the film itself) . . .

Once you have thoroughly examined the films (thoughts) and grasp their essence, another shift is required: You need to turn towards the Light which is making all the appearances possible.

Religions claim to hold the rights on this Light, but let me assure you: It shines as brightly onto yourSelf as it shone for Jesus, Buddah, Mahivira, Lao Tzu, Osho and countless others. The only difference between you and them is they saw the Light.

I caution you: Prepare yourSelf before looking into this Light before you dare to do so. Otherwise, you might get very confused (like Jesus and others like him) thinking that you are the only Light. This confusion led Jesus (and others like him) into a fanatism that almost cost him (it has cost the lives of numerous others) his own continuity of experiencing.

I say “almost cost him his life’ because Jesus did not die on the cross. I know this will challenge all your hard-earned beliefs, but nevertheless. . . Jesus was removed from the cross (alive), carried to the crypt (alive), removed from the crypt (alive), and taken to India (alive) where he lived out the remainder of his life.

He was hung on the cross (in the early afternoon), removed from the cross (later that afternoon, before sunset . . . Jewish law comes into determine this point), he was carried to a crypt by eye-witnessing servants (who were not exempt from ‘carrying’ a supposedly dead corspe, which Jewish law also prohibits and especially on the Sabbath), and once the eye-witnesses were on their way, the very alive (but thoroughly tortured Jesus) was removed from crypt and wisked off to India (more than likely a tad bit of healing had to occur before he was capable of regaining enough strength for the journey).

A carefully-crafted plan: a staging of his death and his resurrection so he would be perceived as someone who had special powers. A fanatical cunningness to make something appear in the thoughts of ‘peep-holes’, who, in turn, were led to ‘believe’ in his messaging. Kind of like the plan President Bush crafted to make ‘peep-holes’ believe they were going to be blown up by weapons of mass destruction if they did not agree with his ’shock-and-awe’ agenda. And in some sense of the word, Jesus and Bush were similar in their nature of thought: They both were sadly convinced that they were the ‘chosen one’. Yikes!!!!

‘I’ do ask you, once again: Please, proceed with caution. There is enough fanaticism currently circulating within the manifest realm of experiencing.

Consciousness has yet to acquire Its objective in the manifest realm of experiencing due to the ‘peep-holes’ unconscious entanglement in age-old knowledge forms which continue to interfere with and thoroughly distort the Projection.

And let there be the time, when you move into the space between these words, and understand the Silence by which they appear.

Communication 9 has been ‘refined’.

To my dear Russian readers (who have been most instrumental in the continuation of this site) . . . and to others, as well . . .

First and foremost, time (in the human conventional sense) is limited as to how frequently ‘I’ can actually engage in the activity of blogging.

Currently . . . ‘I’ (like many of you) am engaged in another employment opportunity that actually pays for the bills which accumulate on a monthly basis (food, rent, and the operational costs of a vehicle). Consequently, until ‘I’ stumble across another opportunity such that ‘I’ would come to discover a way to ‘earn-a-living’ sharing the thoughts crossing over . . . expect the sporadicism related to the communications appearing on this site.

In addition . . . ‘I’ will often times add to the current communication unfolding. For example, ‘I’ have continued to expand on Communication 25, and will continue to do so until a move is made toward another new possibilty of sharing.

This being communicated . . .

If you enjoyed (were intrigued or even confused) by the communication on religion, please suffer through my processes as ‘I’ attempt to articulate a passage through the fog toward a clarity of simply Being.

Pray tell . . . What is it about emptiness (the ‘experienced feeling’ of an emptiness) which seemingly catapults ‘peep-holes’ into a displayed erosion of Being?

Perhaps, it would serve as a benefit if ‘I’ were to define the term ‘empty.’

And . . . for this . . . I shall simply resort to the resourcefulness of good ol’ American College Dictionary (Random House 1962, p. 394).
empty: 1. containing nothing; void of the usual or appropriate contents 2. vacant; unoccupied 3. without burden or load 8. to make empty; deprive of contents; discharge the contents of

‘I’ am most certain you noticed the jump from 3 to 8 in this definitional process, and there is a reason for that: 4-7 are not necessarily operative in terms of this particular communication. However, if you are so inclined and want to know the operational basis of the definitions 4-7, please feel free to pursue their meaning in the cited resource aforementioned.

All formalities aside . . . let us now look at the first definition of the term ‘empty’. But before doing so . . . ‘I’ am going to nudge the adjective ‘empty’ into the noun ‘emptiness’: the quality of that which is empty.

With regards to the 1st definition, ‘emptiness’ would be defined in terms of that which contains nothing or that which is void of the usual or appropriate contents. (Actually, I would like this last phrase to read: that which is void of the usual or appropriating contents). ‘Appropriating contents” in terms of the taking in of a something for one’s exclusive or specific use.

The reason ‘I’ have selected to alter the term ‘appropriate’ to the term “appropriating” is due to the fact that the difference in their grammatical character is critical to the Understanding of That which ‘I’ attempting to communicate.

If ‘I’ were to say ‘appropriate contents’, ‘I’ would simply be suggesting that the contents which fill this particular ’something’ are appropriate. For example: the appropriate contents of a wine goblet is wine. The adjective ‘appropriate’ describes the contents of a wine goblet. There is no choice in this matter: Wine goblets must be filled with wine because that is its specific use.

If (however) ‘I’ were to say the ‘appropriating contents’, ‘I’ am suggesting there is an action involved (perhaps an active decision-making) as to what is being decided into the contents of a particular ’something.

For example: It is 8:00 A.M.. The only drinking vessel ‘I’ have at hand is a wine goblet. From prior discussion, ‘I’ know the ‘appropriate contents’ of a wine goblet is wine. But it is 8:00A.M. ‘I’ require unfermented juice at such an early hour. Wine is out of the question. Therefore, ‘I’ decide into the ‘appropriating contents’ of the wine goblet by actively deciding to pour orange juice into the wine goblet. The wine goblet is serving a new purpose due to an active decision.

The wine goblet no longer is filled with the ‘appropriate contents’ (which would be wine). It is now filled with ‘appropriating contents’ (the decision to fill it with orange juice).

Recalling: In the move from the adjective ‘empty’ (which serves to describe a certain something) to the noun ‘emptiness’ (THAT which is being described), it is important that ‘I’ narrow down the THAT of which ‘I’ intend discuss in terms of its emptiness. Otherwise you might still be considering the ‘emptiness’ of a wine goblet or (now that the holidays are over) the emptiness of your bank account.

The THAT of which ‘I’ am in reference to in this communication is the emptiness of Self.

If we look at the term ‘Self’ in relation to our first definition of ‘empty’ we could say (in juxtaposing terms) that a Self is full when it is not void of the usual or ‘appropriating contents’. (Similar in nature: a wine goblet is full when it is not void of the usual or ‘appropriating contents’.)

You could actually put many things into the emptiness of a wine goblet (as ‘I’ demonstrated with a decision to fill one with orange juice). But you could (just as easily) fill the wine goblet with milk, soda, syrup, soap, sand, clorox, coins, mashed potatoes, etc.. However, in strict cultural terms the designed purpose of a wine goblet is to fill it with wine. Hence the name WINE golblet . . . a goblet that holds wine.

If we were to exagerrate the ‘purpose-fullfilling-designed-use’ of a wine goblet and suggest that a wine goblet fell (unconsciously) under the rule of a religion’s strictures (hold on . . . . we’re in for a ride), we would have to say that a wine goblet is in good standing with God as long as the wine goblet is filled with wine. If (however) the wine goblet is filled with orange juice, it is an actual sin. If the said wine goblet is filled with mashed potatoes, it is a veniel sin. If (in all seriousness) it is filled with sand, it is definitely a mortal sin.This last infraction condemns the wine goblet to the eternal fires of hell like forever. Why? Because it did not serve its purpose . . . so damn the wine goblet.

But remember . . . ‘I’ am not really not concerned about wine goblets at all. Wine goblets and all ‘I’ have dared to communicate thus far is simply allegorically speaking. ‘I’ am still primarily focused on the Self.

In this process of discovery, ‘I’ now pose the question: For what purpose was the Self designed? More importantly, if we were to fill it . . . exactly what would be Its ‘appropriating contents’ such that it would be considered ‘full-of-its-purpose’? (Please keep in mind that we are using the term ‘appropriating’ to delineate a choice in this matter).

To define a something in terms of it’s purpose, is to look at the purpose for which it is designed. This may sound somewhat circular, indeed it is. But . . . it is the only approach one can consider in question as to why a something exists, or why a something was created or became manifest in the first place.

So . . . why was the Self created? If we are to consider its ultimate purpose of fullfillment , we will have to be very critical in terms of our decisions related to its purpose-fullfilling-contents.

We have this thing called a Self. It is a most amazing thingyness; a phenomenal occurance in time and space. An incredible envisioning of this Self is that It is connected to all the other selves within the manifest realm of experiencing. Even more exhausting . . . It is connected to all other ‘things’ within this same realm of experiencing.

If this ‘thing’ we are calling a Self is an ‘experiencing thing’ that is connected to all other things . . . what, in fact, (if their are any facts in this world) is Its ultimate purpose?

Perhaps . . . if we were to simply shed ourselves of the idea of Self being a kind of thingyness, we would clearly step free of all nouns, which merely serve to freeze frame the manifest realm of experiencing. But then we would have to create an entirely different language based entirely on verbs . . . which would be far more REAL since everything is in flow and flux.

However . . . If ‘I’ were to attempt at the purest description of the Self and Its ultimate purpose, ‘I’ would define the Self in terms of ‘an experiencing’. And Its ultimate purpose is simply ‘an experiencing’. In this case, the Self and Its ultimate purpose are synonomous.

Moreover . . . THAT which fullfills an experiencing is simply THAT which is being appropriated (or that which is suitable or fitting for a particular purpose . . . or a particular purposing).

Now . . . because I am stuck with this language (as feeble as it is . . . it is my only means until you learn how to step into Silence), ‘I’ must revert back to allegories to assist this communication. You do remember the wine goblet?

Let us take the wine out of the goblet (aw shucks!) but just for a moment. We now have that which is gobletting. No matter what ‘I’ fill into it, we can say it is gobletting those contents. In such a case, we could say it is gobletting wine, gobletting orange juice, gobletting milk, gobletting whatever is appropriating as contents.

Now . . . let us shift over to the Self (an Experiencing). No matter what ‘I’ decide to fill into It, we can say It is Experiencing Catholicism, Experiencing Taoism, Experiencing Theocracy, Experiencing Democracy, Experiencing whatever.

‘I’ have often been humored by ‘peep-holes’ who claim to have been born a Catholic. How absurd! No one is born a Catholic, a Protestant, a Democrat, a Theocrat . . . these are all identifications ‘peep-holes’ claim because their ‘processors’ are filled with Catholic contents, Protestant contents, Democratic contents, Theocratic contents . . .

An ‘Experiencing-of-Catholicism’ (Consciousness) has nothing to do with identifying one’s Self with Catholicism (unconsciousness). If the ultimate purpose of the Self is experiencing, why would any Self limit the possibilities of Its experiencing by becoming unconsciously entanged in an identification with a particular experiencing (e.g. Catholicism). Sounds more like an addiction than an enlightenment.

Appropriating the contents of anything simply allows the Self an experiencing, but the Self is free of all such appropriations. ‘I’ can appropriate the contents of a rose in tune with an experiencing without having to identify with its contents. The Self has no need to identify with this or that (neti neti). It is simply free to continue experiencing.

Unfortunately, ‘peep-holes’ think. But . . . not only do they think . . . they think that what they think is real. True . . . they are thinking real thoughts just like real clouds passing over a clear blue sky. And. . . just like clouds take on different shapes and forms, so similarily do thoughts take on different shapes and forms.

So . . . the question is: Can you watch thoughts pass over the mind like you watch clouds pass over the sky without getting entangled in them?

Thoughts are like clouds: they come-they go. Bu . . . You would not say: Those are my clouds (as they pass over the sky). And yet . . . you do not hestitate to claim thoughts as ‘yours’ because they cross over the mind.

And . . . it is precisely this ‘claiming-thoughts-to-be-yours’ that sets up the processes of identification within the ‘processor’. Simply put, the brain (processer) is computing (thinking) an identification (a thought formula) with the thoughts it is computing.

Thinking you see is not Seeing . . . it is thinking.
Thinking you know is not Knowing . . . it is thinking.
Thinking you understand is not Understanding . . . it is thinking.

When Seeing, Knowing, and Understanding happen, thinking is not necessary. In fact, thinking will interfer.

Now . . . why should ‘I’ have brought into this discussion the properties of thought? Quite simply: thoughts are what the ‘processor’ is appropriating. Fill the ‘processor’ with the content thoughts of Catholicism, and the da-gone ‘machine’ thinks it is a Catholic. Fill the ‘processor’ with the content thoughts of being a savior, and lo and behold, the blasted ‘machine’ thinks it is a savior. Fill the ‘processor’ with the content thoughts of being an authority, and ho diddely, the pathetic ‘machine’ starts thinking it is an authority. What is even more bizarre (insofar as this last case is concerned) is that a great many of the ‘peep-holed-processors’ actually start thinking ‘machines’ who call themselves the authority actually have some kind of authority over them. Yikes!!!!

All ‘I’ can say to this: Choose to respond to such authoritarian types with disgression.

All else aside . . . if you can ’see’ what contents the ‘processor’ (brain) is processing (thinking), you will better understand the ‘peep-holed-machine’ you are encountering. Hence, the importance of truly listening to the Other to discover the contents of their processor. And . . . if you can engage in this discovery without judgement, you will meet a ‘peep-hole’ for what a ‘peep-hole’ is: (an unconscious machine caught up in an identification with what it is thinking–what the processor is processing).

Are you getting the feeling of the importance of Silence? . . . When the processor stops whirling . . . thinking ceases . . . allowing One to finally experience all that Is without qualification, judgement, distinction, or analysis. Sounds almost like sleep, yeh? But . . . what if you were totally awake . . . in an awakenedness where you were totally emptied of all the contents (thoughts) within which an identity (to this or that) or an aversion (to this or that) has been created?

Would the ‘who-you-think-you-are’ disappear? And what do you suppose would happen if the who-you-think-you-are’ would, in fact, dissolve?

Death . . . the only death ‘you’ will ever experience is death-of-ego: a death of ‘who-you-think-you-are.’ And this is why ‘peep-holes’ freek out when they encounter emptiness . . . because the ‘processor’ has been programmed to fear the death of all thoughts to which it has established the precedence (priviledge) of an identity.