a try...

Ray Of Creation

Do	World(s)   Of   Light
Si
La
Sol
Fa	World(s)   Of   Darkness
Mi
Re
Do

a feeble rendering of chi-ro

http://www.merseyworld.com/stjohns/windows/symbols.html

It is not feeble at all, being one of the most powerful and most appealing that can be found via Google images. A symbol is, however, less than a shadow of its meaning, meaning of a symbol being (sort of) ever progressing and ever deepening series of meanings, and this is especially true for this one. It signifies no less than fully, harmoniously developed Man, and everything connected with that, everything that can bring it about plus every possible result of such course of development, it implies every reversal on different scales and on different levels that are going to be pushed to achieve it, it points out obstacles that are going to be overcome (not excluding institutional, organized, state- and church-level crime, not forgetting personal dreadful 'stupidity' that rules people who could resume development if it could decrease). It affects and effects all that and more.

Drawing conclusions from the appearance of the linked site itself, chi-ro symbol was preserved within Religion, reminding them members of nothing less than of living God. It is obvious though that its origin and reach far exceeds 'christianity', 'mithraism', or 'esotericism', for example.

For the first time in their lives, made mostly of integral and ordinary 'deliberate' lies, pretty huge number of people will realize that entire line of phenomena, such as blogs like the one you are just reading, are not a joke or something. Some of them will receive special treatment, in one sense or another. Generally (maybe too generally) speaking, it will be (a cause of) Death (reversal), Awakening, or Rebirth, one of them. W.H. gladly links to the symbol as well, after having taken great pains and a lot of waiting only to be really completely sure that it was high time indeed for this to take place.

New thought has no 'label' on the 'envelope'...

mapping the invisible onto the color wheel

No yellow, no orange. Very strange greens and blues. Leftmost column is do, rightmost is si. Would it be any better if one saw all twelve?

The world is missing between la and si, and on second thought, between do and re.

If I like it or not, this is how it looks like. There is a slowing of vibration between si and do, between mi and fa, and a third slowing between sol and la. A lot changes between do and re, between re and mi (though a little less than before), between la and si; everything as it should be. Little change between sol and la, which might be the weakness of this model (though I'm not sure it is), but it's just the zone where wavelength changes while the color doesn't.

definition

Wrong. Miracle means that it is considered normal that people know nothing about nature, themselves, not to mention God. It is not normal. It is just statistically prevalent in these times, and it is one of the reason why these times are so hard, generally speaking. Otherwise, miracle is a real event. The very word for it wouldn't had come to exist if it wasn't, in the first place. Above all, it is not violation or alteration of laws. It is just that (normally) it is considered normal that we don't know about much about the laws themselves. It is just that people don't use logic they COULD use, some degree of sane thinking. Law, by definition, is valid everywhere, always, otherwise it wouldn't be law.

More advantageous would be to discuss sane vs. insane meeting of the miracle. Sane approaching is based on verifying by oneself. We are advised to verify by ourself, to distrust, so to speak, the 'miracle' from the start. Insane approach is based on 'believing' or, in the other extreme, on 'rejecting'. A believing person will say, "is ...", "was ...", while the doubter (the denier, essentially) will say, "is claimed to be ...". (Usually, though not always, the very verb "claim" hides the second pathological type behind.) Using this a s a contrast, it's easy to see that the sane approach, while distrusting the perception, also strives to repel suspicious attitude itself, to avoid the trap of denying. Following the definition that miracle is real, observable event, the sane route is exemplified by John (what our eyes have seen, what our hands have touched: we are compelled to state that these are not empty tales).

The Course in Miracles adds another useless definition, "shift in perception" or something. This sounds interesting, must sound interesting, as it points to problem of the observing agent who (I strongly agree here) is by no means some static objective camera, no, not when it comes to miracles! It might not be useless after all. Speaking of cameras and the like: Steiner[17] brings up the view that the whole human being is some sort of "camera" that is registering perceptions of the higher world. It seems plausible to me that such camera can do alot more than piece of electronics. Therefore, to be truly scientific, science must not throw away ordinary reasoning (that, in principle, every grown up man is capable of) at the very outset, but, sorry, that is what happens when it considers proven only what metal pieces of perfected-but-far-from-perfect technology can furnish.

Far, very far away from the cultured world, in some other, exotic land, the naive mind lives, as you know. Well, naive mind can very well sense and very well grasp the meaning of the word miracle, spontaneously, without rational reflection. But it does not know enough, it falls into various traps which are to many to be mentioned here. Nevertheless they are in the two above categories of superstition and materialism.

What is sane talking/writing about the miraculous? We've seen an example of solid encyclopedic entry. That would be correct writing, well, why not. But, from the higher point... The sources seem to hint that one must be able to produce what one writes about. Then the head of the group could rest assured that the writer won't disclose anything inapropriately, prematurely, immaturely or in a way to put people off the track instead of catching interest of those with magnetic centre.

Mr. Littleworm's deep thought

I know what Mr. Littleworm thinks. "Father, forgive them NOT, for they KNOW what they doing. They just need understanding." That means, Mr. Littleworn, "Dear Father, I'd suggest that Olympus shake a little. It is Your will finally and ultimately, but I should like to ask that Zeus fall flat on the face and not rise again.", right? And, yeah, of course, when the mountains tremble the see gets somewhat boily, no? And that means woe to them crews on 'em ships. Why not to ships themselves! Good idea! Perhaps whole islands and continents will disappear, devoured by the rage of elements, Mr. Littlewobble!!!!! YESSS!!!

I'm not Mr. Litterworm, so... I just consciously put THE fully-fledged curse on whoever it was. I don't like high-chairs, and high chairs get periodically emptied anyway. Then I go about my business, and its ALOT of business. Beyond that, I can separate what's being said from the sayer, which is why with relatively small effort I can, despite strong dislike towards Mr. Leethalworgkle, admit that some people haven't gotten understanding YET.

Moving in that direction, I see that Littlehorn's Lemma (as it is going to be recorded in history from now on, no question about it), is, dammit, quite right regarding Supreme-Will-domain, in short, in that difficult-to-define domain. Then, finally, I take my judgement away. THE BIG STEP it was.

Buddha, popularly The Awakened One. (Blind Alley Wall, then leaving behind ascetic 'schools'.) Enlightenment mostly connected with Aim vs. popular representations like nirvana or golden middle path. Approximate popular 'truths' of little use. Personal Aim. Hiob. Work interpretation of the end of story. "You can get quite different kind (extent) out of the machine." Admonition "know yourself", esoteric conception of machine more complex than popular conception of entire man. Next, pictorial representations: huge powerful realities beyond personality and beyond body, probably source of later aura-drawings and the like. Largely unsuspected power and capacity of the emotional centre. The chain of effects of Buddha's 'prayer' for each and every would-be individual. Need for 'system' on second line analogous to need for Aim on first line. Hiob's prayer for his 'friends' (at that time bunch of nauseatix blockheads). Sacred, holy, originally equals objective, magical. In Christianity emphasis on strength and duration, in Buddhism on harmony and purity of feeling. Fundamental unity of different 'schools'. Seemingly different categories really on the same level. Reality of higher levels.

Questions, like, what is analogous on the third line; or maybe, how far can one expect to go mechanically asking stupid questions? Or, what do you think we are doing here, having good time together? Did you think think self-remembering was a course in higher algebra? May I ask why these ``impossibly responsible' serious faces? What is the difference between schock and conscious schock? Tales totally disrupted like this, give reader no rest, evade ordinary memory.

New ideas. Centers not circles on the blackboard but rather living (yeah rather alive, baby!) beings. Idea of conscious bond between centres and the body. Suffering of the emotional centre in slow-motion environment. Wills its position. Need for sleep as necessary consequence. Mutual agreement between centers. Higher centers myth or reality. "God" meant highest possible real idea man could get to. Need to break from "Lord, Lord" alias "development, development". Find out how to enable the emotional centre to do. Jesus' practical instruction, two commandments of love to ensure results. "As yourself" easy to understand, "above all" not too difficult either, but for us people, religious or not, "God" a problem. No problem if one thinks about it as much as it takes. One of the clues sameness of the two commandments. Forgive, forgive. What do you really want? Keep your demands and attitudes, habitual responses etc. or make some real progress on the Way? If must ask yourself - well I don't say you must, do I - then ask yourself this question.

Idea of refinement of mind.

Possible additional practices. Be on the lookout for beings that are higher (greater, more capable) than yourself. Even if only somebody who has at least learned to do something well. This is literally to beg for some real schock! Not bees who can make honey or trees&hills which are much higher physically. Like they went fishing but on the other side of the ropy some whaley... But something that really strikes you with terror of annihilation and with holy zeal of emulation and brings you closer to God.