difficult theme

Why did Jesus Christ have to suffer? Everybody is afraid of suffering. I think he saw that the building of this world was sick. So he set to establish a foundation on which good, sound building can be built. It would had been easy to build upon what others had already done. That would explain suffering. It is solely upon Him to judge the value of my writing. Is it empty or is something there in it all.

some very important things

I had a complete post done, composed in my head. By the time I get to the computer today it is gone. Doesn't matter, if it is important, and I remember it was important, it will come back, perhaps in even better form.

But it is also important to do what I can, even if most of it is seemingly forgotten.

Something about the system, and some very peculiar things relating to the system, and it was connected to the previous post. About forgiving which means that our perception was faulty and the our debtor's debt didn't even exist the way we thought. (I only remember my vanity very clearly. I was reaffirming for about three times "Yes, W.H. speaks about elementary things again".)

Oh yes, now I remember more.

It was about the gang of four and how they are different expressions of, different takes of one unity, the Lord. Different angles of seeing, different approaches to, the same thing. And when there is mentioned total Unity one cannot but begin to think of God. Which by definition belongs to the domain of religion. And faith means, - it was important what faith means but now I just forget it, together with other things. Something about philosophy and truth too was there.

It was important and very alive. This is all hopelessly fragmented and withered, certainly not ripe for publishing. Doesn't matter, if it was really important it will come back.

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.)