conscious schock

Practically, one has to keep in mind that Love is a very high idea as well as very real Force. Remembering that it is present even when one does not 'feel love' is what makes the 'schock' conscious. There is virtually nothing that Love cannot do, there is no situation that can't be resolved, no 'sickness' that can't be healed. It is amazing what the human machine can do when it knows that it is really loved. These things have to be remembered, for they are not obvious.

if it's green it's (probably) biology

• Philosophy (ideas). It is when you think.
• Science (reality, world). It is when you observe and think why you do see what you see. Also techniques for observing and body of knowledge gathered in this way. Put a little plutonium in a frog, measure the time it takes to kill it, make a hypothesis, repeat it and now you can make a prediction, find out where that accursed double agent Worobyanin is hiding right now, the rest you know - that sort of thing as well.
• Art (definitions speak about humans expressing themselves, trying to stimulate (?) and convey messages)
• Religion (set of beliefs and modes of life)

• Art is difficult to define, and religion even more. Particularly definitions of art don't seem necessary to me and searching for religion at wikipedia, for instance, probably make clear to everybody that people don't agree as to what religion is quite so well as in case of science and philosophy.

• Thus philosophy, according to me, W.H., is essential if one wants to avoid errors when thinking and science is the expression of the basic urge to 'get' the reality right and not distorted. Art seems to be an urge to perfect and master something and seems to have alot to do with the beautiful. It is not limited to painting alone, obviously, but means the peak performance of a human being in any discipline. Also creations of nature are known to produce impressions of 'beauty' in some and could therefore be called 'art' of some kind. And man, a thinking being, is obviously not separated from the world but rather an integral part of it, thus knowledge of man presuposes knowledge of the world, hence need for science.

• Those three seem to be universally accepted (although the meaning of these words needs be 'redefined' in our heads thoroughly before talking about these categories can make same Work sense) but in case of religion there we meet passionate deniers and passionate advocates.

• One way out of difficulty may be to listen carefully to so called adversaries, because it is found that every time an atheist wretch spits out one of their set, rigid attitudes that are among the most wearied from frequent use, it is followed by self-justifying in the form, "understand me well, I'm not against ethics and humanity and goodnes, but I hate these lies and rigid, ridculous traditions and abuse and greed, and I certainly don't think I know everything etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.". Fine, that is why these so-called adversaries can tell us alot about what religion is, in any case more than so-called adherents.

• But there is another difficulty. There is basically only one music and only one chemistry and only one logic (I know, I know - listen, perhaps you leave this blog NOW and go back to your narrow specialized usless school of formal godelknowswhat), I said, only one logic, BUT: there are hinduists, budhists, christians and so on, and they are ready to cut each other's throats. Well, I don't NOT know what to DO with THIS difficulty, so what is left to me is to try to write some more lines before they cut mine. And first thing I'll write is that IMO, there is probably only one religion even if it does not appear so at the moment.

• Let's see if the gang of four isn't in reality a gang of only one. There should be some common ground as this system tells us that all four are stemming from one central something which could be called, perhaps surprisingly, psychology. (It is stressed that man is not complete and that it is about man as it could be or once will be, and thus that something may not be understood as some sort of science which studies the reality of sick or, perhaps, of exemplary 'top' 'samples' as if man was a stone that a geologist takes in hand.)

• We won't even need definitions. (That was the lucky part. And now for the difficult part.) For a start, we'll just need a thorough destruction of our unfortunate partitions of our broken concept pool - which we are probably used to call 'knowledge' - and getting under real influence of the Work, or the system, or psychology, or Christianity - indeed, we won't even need a fixed name. And to get under the influence one obviously has to begin to regard the notorious foursome as parts of a unity and try to get a better grap of this unity by means of them instead of staying with empty 'definitions' of the each of the four.

• THAT, the foregoing, is what I, W.H., mean when I say that, say, the Holy Bible is not a religious (or christian or catholic, God forbid) book. (This is enough to offend so-called believers.) Suppose you too were to suspect it is a part of a system that, in general, has been lost and forgotten, for some reason - wouldn't you begin to value it?! (Statements like this offend so-called atheists - each of them very, very sober and objective and trained and capable, as they are.) That is how it is, try to stick with this non-violent and gentle and gradual Work and, for some curious reason, offended people on all sides get terribly upset.

"But it was not real, genuine Science, it was the State, the State, who did it!!!" I would say so, yes.

• I hope you can make it to this point without difficulty? You just wait. You aint seen nothing yet. There are seven thoroughly revised and expanded editions of man and, in general, seven main editions of 'our world'. Things might get tremendously complex very soon. You'll get something more meaningful to get passionate about.

Q. You want to get somewhere, just want to get somewhere. . . Well everybody wants to get somewhere. Why do you need to call it System and what not? A. Your trouble is not that I don't want to answer you. Your trouble is you cannot be answered. You don't even know what you are asking. In fact, you know absolutely nothing. I'd say you need to get somewhere before you come and ask, and I also know where. Just in case you will become interested.

A little exercise in (creative?) imagination

THIS IS THE COMMANDER SPEAKING Commander Want to keep people from seeing truth, eh? C'mon, since immemorable times, such things have never succeeded. Despite your best efforts, people are going to really know. (Shut up, little creep.) W.H. (shoo. . . Alright, alright.)

Wow! (I'm sorry for this slip. I admit it is NOT serious. But I just liked it. What The Commander said can be read in the previous post, anyway.)

"This is the Commander speaking..."

"This is the Commander speaking. It's not addressed to everyone. It's an address to those who have taken up this Work consciously and seriously tried to do something with it. (Time doesn't matter much: it may had happened a few seconds or tens of years ago.) Do you have, hm, how shall I call it, courage to fully trust this Work? Listen. Nothing, nobody can harm you, in whatever way, howsowever. It can not get close to you even. There's absolutely no reason for fear, you see. "

That was the minimum, I'd say. (Certainly I got to non-identify, i.e. no matter who am I and how enlightened and all that, I remember to identify with Him. There's certain mystery to it, anyway, I think; and if there would be need for precision, one couldn't describe it more accurately than Him speaking through me, although He is not 'me' and 'me' is not Him - and not only speaking that is. And I got to do all the rest that I've learned. Not-do, better, for doing begins by not-doing etc.) There's certainly more. Commander must have meant sinking into deep silence and utter collectedness, and I don't remember that he ever forbade anybody to rejoice and adore and wonder in joy at the great wonderful Works that Commander performs. . . since - when?

You see, at the moments like this when envy and blood-thirst and miserable, primitive, ugly provocation begins to seethe around you and cows begin to moo, so to speak, you can be at rest. You have a right, speaking legally, to remain untouched by it. You have the right to not be negative, so goes the phrase. And there's more. It's become plain to me, why by the gradual action of this Work I have had to take ever greater leave from primitive violent methods that people use, to acquire new habits, so to speak, new attitudes. It's not exactly "control" of violence, as people often think, that is involved. It's inner control -and I'm afraid that means there is no violence in you because there is, well, something else. It's not warfare such as is engaged in by those who do not see, materially, psychologically, and, if my ears and eyes do not deceive me, even 'spiritually'. It's spiritual warfare. Big difference! How can you engage in spiritual warfare? Well, by not being violent. By trumpetting Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra all the time. "This is surely not possible?" Good question, and necessary one. It would be a dissapointment if it were not asked, for it proves that the 'questioner' sees where the problem is. Now, it is possible. How? By a special kind of effort (which, properly, finally includes all the Work, et cetera. . . but that would mean somewhat a lot of things if the time of few seconds that Commander mentions is all you've got. . .). By 'remembering' what the Commander says - 'remembering': depth, frequency etc. . . Depth refers to, I think, to the part of the microcosm (that you are) that 'remembers', centers included and so on. Little part, small depth. Large part, big depth!

Practically, from what Commander said it follows that all that is needed is a conscious decision. And, of course, as in the foregoing examples, take note please, not just 'decision', what is mentioned is actually, conscious decision.

Next, there are prayers mentioned in the Bible. Thy Kingdom come. . . They might be well intended as a means of remembering as said above. . . Enough! Let those who have ears hear, stop. (Reader, we are done for the time being. I enjoyed it and I would have it last, but I cannot, should not go on writing indefinitely.)

specialization, humility

I don't think specialists can achieve anything in this Work. It's necessary to have special knowledge to perform well within a profession in life, to do well your job in life, that's right. Next, particular lines of Work have their 'special details', needless to say. A Buddhist in Asia necessarily views this Work from another 'angle' than we do. Apart from that, specialization is another word for lopsidedness, and hence, an obstruction. What you need is a general knowledge of what life is, how people live, what they think, what they need, what they want, what they strive to achieve. There is a whole spectrum, for there are cultural, geographical, economical, racial, biological (gender) differences. (And it's not a question whether your place in the spectrum is a special place from where you are enabled to freely evaluate and judge what you see. But it's possible to determine your place to some extent and win some freedom from being determined by it in your outlook.) The spectrum also concerns differences between human beings, internal differences.

These differences concern valuation, effort, faith, possesion of magnetic centre, eventual contact with 'schools' and much more, in short: being. Also knowledge, of course. After some thinking, they are not less important than life differences. Now, to see the whole spectrum of the entities in this universe is more difficult, isn't it? For, there might be entities that belong 'lower' than you - inferiors. Then those close to you - equals. These both categories you can see. The trouble lies mainly in those who are 'higher' than you - superiors. How could you 'see' those?

Let's jump to a seemingly unrelated subject. Didn't you observe how underestimated simple logical thinking is in this world? Didn't you observe how extremely useful logical thinking is? How come? Does it not tell us (does it not enable us to calculate precisely, so to speak) that the main problem at entering this Work can be self-overestimation? In other words, thinking that we already posses that what we still have to attain? "But I'm full of self-love. Therefore I certainly know what is to love my Self." What do we have to attain? We've got to either find in ourselves or build in ourselves that which pertains to higher levels of the spectrum, don't we? "Of course, I'm conscious of that." How will we see something that we don't see in ourselves? "I don't know. How strange. Otherwise I know everything." Why do we see lower levels? Because they have something we know in ourselves as well.

Now, isn't this humility? Is it not so, that humility is not so much a quality of character, something that one has, than it is absence, being-free-of of some serious obstacles? Do not judge may well mean Do not underestimate. Logical thinking, for example. Then psychological or even esoteric thinking, about which we do not know that much yet. Then higher beings that are our only chance to pull us from the level we currently reside on. Here, does it all strike certain cords in us that could be called: heeroosmulka-groovnian (approx. meaning: similar-to-what-religion-teaches)? Is logical thinking not great help in seeing that it's extremely improbable that we are at the extreme upper edge of the universal scale?

We often want to cooperate with and communicate with lower beings. We often love and like them. Owner/dog. Parent/child. Wouldn't it be logical to suppose that we are not the highest crown of the Universe? Wouldn't it be logical to suppose that higher beings love us and want to literally serve us in the process? Would it be wise to underestimate simple parent/child that nature and life put before our eyes as an image and analogy of inner realities? Would that bring new light to the opening line of theLord's Prayer? (No, if one remembers that long ago there were gentlemen who seriously confessed that they don't know much about DO and SI notes of second cosmic octave. How seriously they were taken is another question. By people who understood it oh all so well. Knowledge is joy! The gentlemen must have alluded to certain Dominic they all knew and his pepperoni affairs with certain Mrs. S., but in a way that only those knowleadgable among us understood.)

What are rules and regulations and exercises and esoteric knowledge&instruction other than practices that help us find (or build up, as an alternative) in ourselves that which in more bountiful measure exists in entities higher up the spectrum? (Oh and I forget to mention book reading. Not exactly am I confident that beings higer up the inner scale have read more books as a rule, but some of them might.)

Do not these simple considerations so far, if taken seriously

1) show us that knowledge and means to develop oneself really abound around us? (B influences) 2) provide a basis from which one can 'take off' on one's own, without danger of being misguided?

What I understand by humility is basically what a child feels towards its higher counterparts. They take it for granted that those are simply higher and that's it. I don't see a trace of humiliation in it. . . what whispers: "beware, humiliation, humiliation" is inner pride anyway, the inner devil. (I'm going to leave out 'less perfect' masters/parents now, although they open interesting domain.) And what self-will suggests is to get angry because some strange 'freedom' that to child would be fatal is denied us. Run over the street without looking around. Play with bombs. Something like that. I want my mom NOW! when mom is doing her shift ten miles away. But where another big problem lies is that analogy here is not perfect. An atheist, a materialist, rationalist, a believer in blind fate or impersonal deity, simply denies that there is something higher. Of which we are much like children. All those types that one can see outwardly represent some serious blindness in us. Then idolatry would be a monkey child hugging his plastic, stone-dead mother desperately, an orphan holding its teddy bear tightly.

It all gets complicated. I can't think on well from here. (It's typical, by the way. A sign that we move on... out of accustomed landscape.) I'll just try to try to determine where 3) C influences come in in today's scheme. They come in when you can 'see' them. (Not that they have to come as if they were not there all the time.) And you won't see them if you don't see C-influence-in-yourself. And to see/find/build it in yourself is what this Work, the ABC of Christianity, is about.

We'll leave whether you have to build a soul or do you already have it, for some other time. Suffice it to say that probably those who 'built' it are probably convinced that they didn't build anything, that the soul was always there... I wouldn't wonder if it appeared to logical thinking as something paradoxical. I don't discern psychological method well, yet it's a kind of higher paradox, logical paradox, so to speak, that points rather to psychological than to irrational thinking. (Speaking of that, I am firmly convinced that those who actually attain salvation, liberation from sin, actually think there was never any such strange thing that people call sin.)

Now do me a favor and don't ask that stupid question WITWA again. Otherwise I'll begin to call you Witwa. What is this Work about? Witwa, would you like to have a glass of milk?

There are probably a thousand good sides to prayer, ways to use it, to profit from it, aims that it is used for. Higher intent with Jesus' Prayer probably lies in the meaning, not in the words. That is, it is probably a portrayal of establishing conscious contact, an image in words. So, what is this cup for? It is for me. Let it not pass by, but that I may drink it. I cannot drink it in self-will as I am used to do other things. Therefore Thy will happen.

Well, quite a mystery (mystery=too big for logical thinking). I feel inclined to repeat the advice. Don't underestimate logical thinking, what active reasoning can do within you. Practically it's the gate to psychological thinking. Don't underestimate psychological thinking either - but that's already an understatement. For it must be the royal gate to the divine and all those things people say but rarely understand.

a new idea

A new idea does not come from what is called 'brain', or 'thinking'. I don't want to give rise to imagination, but just to have one good practical example, think of what Bowman says in Odissey 2010, like I don't know what it is going to be, but I know something wonderful is going to happen.

(And it is not an 'idea' at all, not in the sense we usually use this word. It's probably some other centre or other division or positive emotion or higher emotional centre. And the above is an example of it - whatever it is - in operation. Like if you said, now God help me, and you really knew God is going to help.)

The problem you have before yourself in this Work is too big for logical method. Try using it and it will become defective method. Psychological, sometimes even esoteric method is required. And that is something 'you' cannot 'switch on' yourself. Like, but it will be switched on anyway.