"Greater love..."
It's Eastertime. Holiday weekend in the West, fervent and dedicated worship
in Africa, the Phillipines and a few other places where hardship and real need
is still the 'daily bread'
Existing in our 'benign indulgence'condition here in the West it is rarely
afforded to us to face the trauma of daily survival- and the consequent 'belief
system need' that offers some hope for better days -that is the daily eucharist
of so many in this world.
Just occasionally we get glimpses,revert to 'faith orientated hopes',and usually
in the face of great calamity. Some of these calamities the polarities of nature,
some the indifference or negative metaphors of other human beings.
In so many of these circumstances we witness the fulfillment of the words
"Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends."
If you think this is an especially 'christian concept', think again!
In so many cultures in history there have been so many individuals
who have manifested this truth of' unconditional, unlimited lovingness'.
It often happens quietly and without great acclaim. But it happens all the
time. The symbolism of Easter, the ultimate sacrifice of the self for others,
is a constant theme throughout humanity.
In all areas this can be found.
So, this 'christian' Easter I remember Islam - an adolescent youth,a muslim
with the name Islam.
"According to the eyewitnesses, after the first explosion the boy rushed to
a call of an injured girl. "Help!" she moaned desperately. Islam only had time
to approach to her, when they shot him in the back. Maybe that was the same
terrorist who promised the boy to kill him: In the overfilled hall people were
forced to sit for hours in a closed proximity. When Islam Khadikov rose in
order to relax numb muscles, a nearby terrorist ordered him to sit down under
the death threat. "You will not kill me,I am a Muslim", answered Islam. "I will
kill you personally", maliciously replied the terrorist." (quoted from the Beslan
website:http://Beslan.ru )
Despite having been harshly warned by the terrorist, Islam Khadikov still went
to the assistance of that young girl in that school gymnasium at Beslan.
Islam's story is one of many, many that occurred during the horrors of those
days in Beslan. Stories of amazing courage and almost unbelievable lovingness.
It would be unbelievable if it had not actually happened.
Easter is not history. Easter, it's full symbolic meaning, echoes throughout
history and it matters not which religious 'label' we wear.
Islam Khadikov was killed by members of his own religion. Islam Khadikov
died in the act of trying to save another. Islam Khadikov was 14 years old.
Unconditional love.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Wet Wet Wet, opening words to
'Love is all around'
"I feel it in my fingers
I feel it in my toes
Love is all around me
And so the feeling grows
It’s written on the wind
It’s everywhere I go, oh yes it is
So if you really love me
Come on and let it show "
How much do we need to see before we accept
the real 'me' ?!?
'Love is all around'
"I feel it in my fingers
I feel it in my toes
Love is all around me
And so the feeling grows
It’s written on the wind
It’s everywhere I go, oh yes it is
So if you really love me
Come on and let it show "
How much do we need to see before we accept
the real 'me' ?!?
Word Power II
James Campbell was once talking with a Priest and was asked
'Mr. Campbell, do you believe in a personal God?' To which he
replied he did not. Then the priest observed,'I suppose there
is no way I can prove the existence of a personal God to you?'
To which James Campbell replied,'if you could, then what would be
the value of faith?'
The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1925 edition) defines faith as:
'belief in divine truth without proof'. Now both James Campbell
and the priest obviously held this definition of the word 'faith'.
Of course, faith in it's modern useage has come to mean something
a little different, or has it?
And what of the other key word in this scenario? Belief, as defined
by POD (above) means: 'Trust, confidence, acceptance of a thing as
true'.
So, both the term faith and the term belief are, in actuality, abstract
terminologies. They are words which construct a scenario that
occupies the energies of the logical cortexes of the brain. Except
that belief also contains a kinetic energy concerning an issue of
acceptance.
Now, the simple question I wish to pose is this: why would you need to
have a belief in something that you already know? Paraphrased: why
would you need to have faith in something that has already been proven?
With or without the 'God gene VMAT2' it seems clear to me that if we
dispense with humanented (humanenting: attributing human
characteristics to the character of a Supreme Being/Great Spirit/God)
God definitions and simply allow the supreme definition of 'God' as being
Unconditional Love, then the proof of this lovingness not only surrounds
and infuses our every 'metaphor of relativity' but does in fact lie within
our 'spiritual DNA coding'.
Since we know all the spiritual truths _ and may choose to manifest
them in consciousness or choose not to manifest them _ what is there
to have 'faith' in? What is there to believe?
Do we seek to 'prove' our very existence in this so_called reality of life?
Is it required that we have 'faith' that we actually read these words and
therefore are? It was once written 'I think therefore I am', maybe it is
better written 'I fee therefore I am'. WYSIWYG - what you sense is what
you get,hehehehe
Interesting how we will rather play intellectual ping_pong with concepts,
imbibe the 'authority of someone else's experiences', debate with our
word-games the validity of this or that theory......rather than accept our
own inner feelings about an issue of spiritual truth.
You know what I know, spiritually speaking. We all have equality of
knowledge in this area. It is neither a question of faith nor a question
of belief...it is an issue of acceptance of our own inner voice when it
speaks to us of manifesting, or beholding the manifestations of, spiritual
truths.
If there is a 'God' and the definition of 'God' is unconditional love
(and anything less than that is a much lesser humanented 'God') why
do we consider it so strange _ we snowflakes of sensing _ that we are
a part of God and therefore are living proof, in this life's walk, of a truth?
Acceptance of who you truly are is neither a question of belief nor a
question of faith..it is simply the application of 'in-sight'. Looking within.
Have a listen to Wet Wet Wet singing ‘Love is all around’.....it’ll
give you a clue :)
James Campbell was once talking with a Priest and was asked
'Mr. Campbell, do you believe in a personal God?' To which he
replied he did not. Then the priest observed,'I suppose there
is no way I can prove the existence of a personal God to you?'
To which James Campbell replied,'if you could, then what would be
the value of faith?'
The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1925 edition) defines faith as:
'belief in divine truth without proof'. Now both James Campbell
and the priest obviously held this definition of the word 'faith'.
Of course, faith in it's modern useage has come to mean something
a little different, or has it?
And what of the other key word in this scenario? Belief, as defined
by POD (above) means: 'Trust, confidence, acceptance of a thing as
true'.
So, both the term faith and the term belief are, in actuality, abstract
terminologies. They are words which construct a scenario that
occupies the energies of the logical cortexes of the brain. Except
that belief also contains a kinetic energy concerning an issue of
acceptance.
Now, the simple question I wish to pose is this: why would you need to
have a belief in something that you already know? Paraphrased: why
would you need to have faith in something that has already been proven?
With or without the 'God gene VMAT2' it seems clear to me that if we
dispense with humanented (humanenting: attributing human
characteristics to the character of a Supreme Being/Great Spirit/God)
God definitions and simply allow the supreme definition of 'God' as being
Unconditional Love, then the proof of this lovingness not only surrounds
and infuses our every 'metaphor of relativity' but does in fact lie within
our 'spiritual DNA coding'.
Since we know all the spiritual truths _ and may choose to manifest
them in consciousness or choose not to manifest them _ what is there
to have 'faith' in? What is there to believe?
Do we seek to 'prove' our very existence in this so_called reality of life?
Is it required that we have 'faith' that we actually read these words and
therefore are? It was once written 'I think therefore I am', maybe it is
better written 'I fee therefore I am'. WYSIWYG - what you sense is what
you get,hehehehe
Interesting how we will rather play intellectual ping_pong with concepts,
imbibe the 'authority of someone else's experiences', debate with our
word-games the validity of this or that theory......rather than accept our
own inner feelings about an issue of spiritual truth.
You know what I know, spiritually speaking. We all have equality of
knowledge in this area. It is neither a question of faith nor a question
of belief...it is an issue of acceptance of our own inner voice when it
speaks to us of manifesting, or beholding the manifestations of, spiritual
truths.
If there is a 'God' and the definition of 'God' is unconditional love
(and anything less than that is a much lesser humanented 'God') why
do we consider it so strange _ we snowflakes of sensing _ that we are
a part of God and therefore are living proof, in this life's walk, of a truth?
Acceptance of who you truly are is neither a question of belief nor a
question of faith..it is simply the application of 'in-sight'. Looking within.
Have a listen to Wet Wet Wet singing ‘Love is all around’.....it’ll
give you a clue :)
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
crow
Crow, the keeper of sacred law in the N.American Indian traditions,
sees that the physical and spiritual worlds are an illusion at least as most of mankind interprets them. Crow is an omen of change
The reflected crow.
As a matter of habit it seems that most of us tend to regard a problem as a
challenge,something to be overcome, resolved,explained.This aproach
has been a great spur to the progress of humanity - well at least the
inquisitiveness of scientists in their desire to comprehend has been
a boon to the improvement of the human condition.
When it comes to spiritual issues,however, it seems clear that the use
of formulae and theoretical objectivity are not as successful in resolving
the issues.Possibly this is the result of the inability to actually be objective,
huh? For, as has been adequately demonstrated by modern neuro-science,
our 'logical cortexes' only start to work after - note after - the amygdala
'intuitive reaction' centre of our brain has already effected action.
In other words, we seem to act/react first and then seek explanations of
our behaviour through the proceses of the logical cortexes of the brain.
Hmmmm....this would seem to suggest,then,that our ability to even
comprehend the existence of a 'problem' (spiritually speaking) is a logical
cortex function. We have already intuitively reacted to, or formed opinions
about,or acted upon,any and every circumstance with which we meet before
we have proffered a 'logical acceptance stance'.
In terms of spirituality, therefore, it would seem that it is the function of our
'thinking brain' to isolate a situation as being problematic - even though we
have already experienced the situation and reacted to it.. Now there's a bold
assertion, huh?
But, think about it. How can we perceive there is a problem at all, if something
inside us is not aware of an experiential comprehension?
It is my assertion, my belief, my feeling that spiritual 'problems' are no more
and no less than our logical cortexes attempting to provide our conscious mind
with an acceptable explanation to something we know has occurred but which
we have difficulty in framing within a 'conditioned reflex' parameter.
In other words, in relation to spiritual matters,we already know the answer.
We must do in order to perceive there is a problem.
The problem is that of accepting, logically,emotionally, the answer that we
already know.In this sense we can deduce that in order to pose the problem
we are aware of the variables and in posing the problem seek a resolution
of those variables.
In other words, a problem is a solution awaiting it's time of birth in our
consciousness. We simply require to cloth it in an acceptable and
recognisable form.That is the problem our cortexes struggle with.....finding
a way to accept what we already know.
But then, you already knew this, didn't you,hehehehehe.
Becoming your future self is not a problem of a problem...but an issue
of acceptance of who you really are and choose to be.
As a matter of habit it seems that most of us tend to regard a problem as a
challenge,something to be overcome, resolved,explained.This aproach
has been a great spur to the progress of humanity - well at least the
inquisitiveness of scientists in their desire to comprehend has been
a boon to the improvement of the human condition.
When it comes to spiritual issues,however, it seems clear that the use
of formulae and theoretical objectivity are not as successful in resolving
the issues.Possibly this is the result of the inability to actually be objective,
huh? For, as has been adequately demonstrated by modern neuro-science,
our 'logical cortexes' only start to work after - note after - the amygdala
'intuitive reaction' centre of our brain has already effected action.
In other words, we seem to act/react first and then seek explanations of
our behaviour through the proceses of the logical cortexes of the brain.
Hmmmm....this would seem to suggest,then,that our ability to even
comprehend the existence of a 'problem' (spiritually speaking) is a logical
cortex function. We have already intuitively reacted to, or formed opinions
about,or acted upon,any and every circumstance with which we meet before
we have proffered a 'logical acceptance stance'.
In terms of spirituality, therefore, it would seem that it is the function of our
'thinking brain' to isolate a situation as being problematic - even though we
have already experienced the situation and reacted to it.. Now there's a bold
assertion, huh?
But, think about it. How can we perceive there is a problem at all, if something
inside us is not aware of an experiential comprehension?
It is my assertion, my belief, my feeling that spiritual 'problems' are no more
and no less than our logical cortexes attempting to provide our conscious mind
with an acceptable explanation to something we know has occurred but which
we have difficulty in framing within a 'conditioned reflex' parameter.
In other words, in relation to spiritual matters,we already know the answer.
We must do in order to perceive there is a problem.
The problem is that of accepting, logically,emotionally, the answer that we
already know.In this sense we can deduce that in order to pose the problem
we are aware of the variables and in posing the problem seek a resolution
of those variables.
In other words, a problem is a solution awaiting it's time of birth in our
consciousness. We simply require to cloth it in an acceptable and
recognisable form.That is the problem our cortexes struggle with.....finding
a way to accept what we already know.
But then, you already knew this, didn't you,hehehehehe.
Becoming your future self is not a problem of a problem...but an issue
of acceptance of who you really are and choose to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)