Pervasive Religious Equality

I propose that the fundamental principle of agnosticism is a healthy way to approach religion.

No religion is correct; it's just not something religions can be. If a religion could be proven, it would be called knowledge, since faith has no room to work in the absence of doubt. Religions are just tools to help us understand the true nature of reality. People were not made to serve religion; religion was made to serve people. Exclusive devotion to religions can be a very dangerous thing because they're built on faith, not solid facts. No religion ought to be praised and exalted above the rest, as though it is more of a religion than any others--as if its preservation is more important than the founding doctrines thereof. Religions, themselves, cannot be proven, and their interpretations are not always in accord with the religion itself.

Different religions are like shards of a broken mirror, and by looking into each of them, they all point to the same thing. No two shards will look quite the same; there are as many versions of religion as there are people.

Differences in religion are not very important to me, but God, on the other hand, is very important to me.

I used to worry about others' versions of God, whether or not they were ''the true God.'' By the former reasoning, any deviation, no matter how slight, is still a deviation and therefore tragically blasphemous. I would wonder, ''how do I know they're worshiping the same God I worship?'' Well, what that question really asks is ''How do I know they're worshiping the same perception of God that I have?''

But encountering God is a matter of faith--that is, God cannot be known. If God could be known, then it would not be a matter of faith, but of evidence and proof. As soon as I try to perceive/understand/qualify God, who cannot be known, I have put God into a box that no one else can quite mimic. No one's perception of God is quite the same, so no one's version of God is quite the same, so there are as many versions of God as there are souls. I can't perceive God quite the same way as anyone else does.

God cannot be known. It's a matter of faith, and faith has no room to operate in the absence of doubt. God can only be loved. It's not the religion or the practise, or even the name of God that makes any bit of difference. It's the love for God.

Worrying about others' versions of God, then, is not my business. When I ask God to bless someone, is it my responsibility to ensure that God does His part of the job? Doesn't God deal with a person's heart? The most, best, and only truly effective means of helping someone encounter God is to love them.

Love God, love each other.

Bits and Pieces

How I feel is never as important as how I choose to feel.

Belief can't be ''tested,'' only trusted, because belief is not the same as knowledge.

Maybe depression is just "the universe's" way of saying ''you are very much loved, appreciated, and important in my eyes, but you don't yet fully understand how pervasively or profoundly this is true." And maybe depression is like a gift from a coconut tree that must first be cracked open; rather than just toting it around, resigning one's self to it as an extra weight. Not with anger or frustration, but with a nonetheless vigorous attitude of action, '''cause we're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy.''

The specific type of religion doesn't have as much of an effect on you as the way you approach the religion.

The chains of my own mental slavery are nothing more than my own white-knuckle grip on the situation. Love is the only thing that can bring about the cessation of such conflicts because it is, itself the cessation of conflicts—love simply ''is,'' and this ''is-ness,'' is the means by which it accomplishes everything that it does.

Letting my experiences dictate my perception is like trying to make the water calm by punching and kicking at ripples in the water. I am the reason why I suffer, I am the reason I am at peace.


...''imagination triumphs over desire'' - The Power of Your Subconscious Mind

Optimism is a choice, not a result of the environment. Then again, it CAN be a result of the environment. That choice is yours, though.

Discipline is not something forced on you, that you have to obey, ''like it or not.'' Real discipline is an expression/manifestation of what is truly in the heart. Success is nothing beyond the earnest application of your best effort towards that discipline.


''Is 'it' all about diminishing the self, or simply trying to realise the truth? Once you do this, you see that what you tried to diminish before was an illusion. There is no need for the former conflict; it isn't real.''


The quest for knowledge, denying the relevance of faith, is all the while fueled by a faith that faith is invalid.

Things that you never find in real love: feelings of greed, selfishness, fear, jealousy, ruthlessness, desperation, etc., are the voids, like holes in the ground. Acting in accord with emotions that are not in agreement with love will not bring a fulfilling resolution. It's always possible to make the holes bigger, but filling them up can only last so long until they aren't holes anymore.

Revenge only seems right, but hate is like a hole in the ground. If I add another hole, I've increased the problem and subordinated myself to the preservation of what actually wronged me--hate. ''Whosoever diggeth a pit, the same shall fall in.''



***1.) Disregarding ''absolutes'' such as mathematical facts, belief is the cause and creator of perception and reality.

2.) Each person believes a different thing.

3.) Then there is no such thing as a misconception.
a.) ''According to your belief, it is done unto you.''
b.) ''As a man thinks in his heart, so will he be.''
c.) ''the thing I have dreaded has come upon me!''

4.) What we choose to believe is never ''true or false.'' There is a diversified field of goals that one has. Goals traditionally reckoned as ''good'' are closer to accord with the lifeward principle, and the loving nature thereof.

-Seeing has never been believing;
-Faith has never been dependent upon proof
-Faith produces its own proof.
-Belief has nothing to do with an intellectual deduction.
-Beliefs are measured by the merit of the things they elicit.
-Belief/faith is a moral issue, not an intellectual one.

''When you are observing your path, you are far from it. Your path is freedom. Name it, and it vanishes.'' - Mike Bann

''don't pray for an easy life, but pray for the strength to endure a difficult one.'' - Bruce Lee

''you know, I've always wanted to invent something someday. ...but i wouldn't want to like, revolutionise the toilet. Thomas Crapper invented that. i wouldn't want people saying ''maaan, hurry up in there! i gotta take a HUGE helfer like, rite now!''

''be not afraid of growing slowly, only be afraid of standing idle.''

''only in still water can a man see his reflection, but only in turbulence can he become more than he is.'' - me

''you can't walk on water if you don't step out of the boat''

''never test depth of water with both feet''

''as a man thinks in his heart, so he is.'' - Bible

''what you feed thrives, what you starve dies.''

''one person with belief is equal to a force of 99 who only have interest.'' - John Stewart Mill

''Contentment and love can't be chased, they must be ''started.'' Just like 'you don't sing nutrition. You take it in.' ''

''Everyone meditates. People who say they meditate just do it on purpose, for certain goals.''

Karma is not a ''bitch.'' One atom of sodium and one atom of chlorine combine to form salt; not because they're ''vengeful little shits.'' It's just what happens. If you eat some really rotten food, you will get sick. Karma which seems to ''pull no punches'' is essential for a reality in which our free will is 100% free. If there were ''divine bumpers'' all over the ''bowling alley of life,'' how could our choices ever be our own? In order for free will to exist, the choices, as well as the consequences must be completely our own.

People were not made to serve religion; religion was made to serve people. Devotion to religions can be a very dangerous thing because they're built on faith, not solid facts. No religion is correct; it's just not something religions can be. If a religion could be proven, it would be called knowledge, since faith has no room to work in the absence of doubt. Religions are just tools to help us understand the true nature of reality.

I say ''lifeward principle'' a lot, and that's mostly because I don't think any religion can be correct, at all; but they each hit on some important ideas....''principles,'' which are pervasively true. The principles are the important things, but the diverse religions are important, too. I may have nailed down some principles, but to hear the interpretation of those principles from a new angle brings the same understanding in a new light that I needed, and that I already had all the pieces to, but never thought to put them together like that.

There is truth in them, just as there is the divine lifeward principle acting in ALL of us. If I make a mistake, or hurt somebody's feelings, does that mean I'm less of a human than anyone else?

So, if a religion presents ideas that seem totally backward from what I'm used to, does that mean that it is completely useless and devoid of ''the lifeward principle?'' I think the caveats of religions serve an important purpose (probably among many others) that no one religion ought to be praised and exalted above the rest, as though its preservation is more important than the founding doctrines thereof.

A “fool” is still my brother or sister, who simply has been fooled. There is no need, no cause, and no room for condemnation or contempt.

If I'm attached to something, I don't really like the thing, I like the feelings that I choose to associate with that thing. If I don't like someone, it's only my perception of that person that I don't like. Hate is a lie. I cannot condemn/judge/hate someone and understand them at the same time. I always make a choice, either way.

Forgiveness

There is an understanding that needs to take place: that all ''evil'' and ''conflicts'' that we perceive are manifested as a result of misconceptions about the true nature of reality and the true nature of ourselves. And there is also a need to understand and acknowledge the (hypothetical) ''other guy,'' and what he was trying to do; though it may at first appear very much twisted around from what I thought was most conducive to my own goals and ideas, this person thought it worthwhile to do whatever it is that he did.

Simply coming to peace with, and accepting this “terrible” thing that he did while still holding to the idea that ''gosh, that was a rotten thing for him to do, I sure had a right to be angry at him'' is not so much “forgiveness” as it is a lying to oneself, in order to cover up for a mislead picture of reality. Forgiveness isn't about telling myself that what the other person did was wrong, and I’m right, but I’ll do my best to act like it never happened, in order to cultivate peace. It's about seeing the other person for who they truly are, appreciating them, feeling ''unbearable compassion'' and acknowledging them, as well as what they were trying to do.

We are living things, and as living things, our basic basic BASIC (read: ''true'') nature is that which is in accord with the loving nature of the “principle which has no opposite.'' It has no opposite/no conflict, because it is, itself, the cessation of conflicts;'' all things that appear to be in opposition to it are simply misconceptions--they don't exist, except as labels in our own minds. This “principle” can't really be described accurately as ''the greater good'' since ''good'' needs ''bad'' to define it. It simply ''is.''

Suppose a man decides to embrace the idea that ''the expression of hate, through words, actions, thoughts, and motives towards others and my interactions with them, is essential to my own peace and contentment.''

1.) Does that mean HE is evil, or simply mistaken? A fool is still my brother or sister, who simply has been fooled. There is no need, no cause, and no room for condemnation nor contempt.

2.) Alright, so he is my brother, I ought to love him, BUT is his IDEA ''bad/evil?'' Not necessarily…In fact, not at all. If I were in his exact position, I would be in his exact position. His idea may not seem very conducive to bringing real peace and contentment, and it is likely to hurt many people, so it is certainly not conducive to their own goals either; but ''less conducive to the principle which has no opposite'' is as far as it can be labeled. Besides, he wouldn't have thought his actions to be ''more backwards than forward'' or he wouldn't be embracing them in the first place. Yes, he is mistaken. His idea is not ''evil;'' rather, simply one of the many possible courses of action that any of us would have chosen, were we in his exact situation. His basic nature is the same as everyone else's. He just has some misconceptions regarding how to see its realisation.

STOP…

Stop it right there, I'm butting up against the (potentially) controversial idea that there are absolute truths. Example: A wealthy man buys everything he wants, whenever he wants, but after some time, notices that this does not make him happy. At first, he is able to get himself to believe that buying everything he thinks he wants is making him content. After some time with it; however, he sees that he is not happy. At this point, regardless of what he TRIES to believe, he is unhappy. Belief, with emotion, it is a creator of reality and perception. His idea that “my happiness is contingent upon buying things I desire” is broadcasting the “creative blueprint” that “I do not possess contentment, it must be BOUGHT.” This builds a perception and reality for this man that he lacks something, and must continually buy and buy and buy. Belief and emotion create reality and perception; if you choose to not believe this is so, then that will be “true,” but only for you, and only because you believed it. This is the way “it” works, and this is one absolute. For now; hopefully, I have allowed for the feasible conjecture of the existence of absolutes.

ONWARD…

3.) Okay, so, he's mistaken in his thoughts, but not ''evil.'' Okay, okay, okay, so this man's heart is in the right place, but as far as bringing about what would be classically reckoned as the ''greater good,'' he truly doesn't ''get it.'' What about the misconception which allowed such a thought process in his mind, then? Is that ''evil?'' Is a misconception evil? Is it not one of the most natural occurrences in a reality in which we don't know everything, and may not even be ready to accept the things we may or may not yet have the capacity to learn? This man’s actions, thoughts, words, and motives are confined to the scope of what he is able to understand, accept, and perceive, regarding his true nature. Our growth comes from discovering, realising, and accepting more and more of the true nature of ourselves.

Some of the implications of this theoretical man who embraced ''hate'' are

1.) Each person can only conduct himself according to the scope of what he is able to understand, AND ready to accept, regarding his own personally defined PERCEPTION his true nature--you can only act according to what you can and do understand about what your true nature entails.

A. Sort of like saying ''you can't out-think yourself,'' because as soon as you think of something, you're already thinking of it. But you can define the things you think about, and you can think about things you’ve never thought of before.

2.) Our only true ''avenue of progress'' is the ability to discover this true nature; not how rich, strong, popular I can get. Since I'm only ever going to conduct myself according to my understanding, acceptance, and perception of my true nature, my only TRUE [ability/means of significance] is the ability to discover myself; reshaping my understanding, acceptance, and perception of my true nature, according to what I discover.

A. It's an unfolding process, sort of like the game ''warmer or colder.'' There is no ''wrong,'' or ''evil;'' just ''warmer'' or ''colder,'' in relation to how close to accurately understanding and perceiving the true nature I can get. But, given all the strengths and weaknesses I have, I’m doing the best I can do, at all times, and anyone else in my EXACT situation, would be making precisely the same amount of progress. There is no "slacker," because we would be in their exact position, if we were in their exact position. There is only room for understanding and the actions, words, thoughts, and motives of love. This calls for new motivations for everything I do in life.

3.) This chance for significance is made possible because of the fact that we don't already know everything about this true nature, but we get to discover it.

A. Otherwise, we're just doing what's in our nature to do. What's new/special about that?

i. A dog barks. So what? Dogs bark. Does that make one dog MORE of a dog, compared to another dog which does not bark as much? There is no significance in a dog barking, that’s just what they do.

ii. If I only do what’s in my nature to do, what is that? That’s what robots do. If I’m only made into a human, I can only do what a human would do, BUT I CAN uncover a clearer picture of what my true nature is that is YET unknown to me.

a. At some point, the “rat race” was formed, which is simply people allowing themselves to be lead around exclusively by their perceptions of their nature (rather than the other way around, though, that cannot be a means of grading anyone, either, since everyone does the best that anyone could ever do, in that exact spot.), using this as a means of grading, judging and blaming people as good and bad. All the while, we’ve been “rat-racing,” just being what we think we are, judging others as “wrong,” or “bad,” or “not as good as I am,” or “not as correct as I am,” when the more accurate description of the "rat race" is that we are all just dogs, barking, and with each bark, thinking “I am the truest of all dogs because I am barking precisely the way that I do. I do this better than all the others around me.” All ''good'' and ''evil'' labels only exist because we choose to see them as such. We all have fears, we all desire appreciation (which is a form of fear itself; in fact, all attachments to outcomes are fears.), and all this fear can make us exceedingly selfish. If I desire appreciation, that manifests the idea I’m holding to that I don’t have it now, and I need to have it. This creates the reality in which I truly HAVE such a deficit, and the only way to be appreciated more than anyone else is to make myself out to be more “appreciatable” than others around me. This "works" because we’re all thinking the same way: that we’re all separated in the first place. It's not hard to imagine how such a misconception could come about.

It can’t accurately be said that “oh, well, you had EVERY RIGHT to be upset by what he did to you.”

It is UNDERSTANDABLE if someone gets offended, because, obviously, they were operating on some kind of logic to arrive at the conclusion that “this should be upsetting.” But the logical deduction that leads to upset feelings is based on the idea that “I’m RIGHT, and YOU are WRONG because YOU did something WRONG to me,” while turning a blind eye/deaf ear to the equal validity of the other person, who, mislead as they may have been, was simply doing what they thought to be best, as well as simply denying the other person. More separation.

This is how being upset only perpetuates that which really offended me in the first place. That person’s action didn’t offend me, my train of logic, built on a foundation of unclear understanding is what caused me to reason “oh, well, by that logic, I should be hurt and upset by this.” What’s even worse is that it causes me to dwell on that reasoning, rather than looking for solutions, and truly understanding this other person, which would have helped me avoid being “hurt” in the first place. That which truly offends me is my own choosing to be offended, which, in turn, perpetuates the feelings of being offended. (Dr. Wayne Dyer: "That which offends you only weakens you. Being offended creates the same destructive energy that offended you in the first place....")

Free will is a form of ignorance. It exists in those without a comprehensive understanding of their true true true nature. Ignorance is ''bliss." Ignorance is not being a ''robot.''

Then again, all our frustrations come from unfulfilled desires. To act against this true true true nature, even if we only understand a small portion of it, breeds frustrations.

Thank God for frustration; otherwise, we might never be aware that something doesn't "fit." Frustrations aren't the enemy. To those looking for this true true true nature, they are like a glass wall, leaving ''smudges'' everywhere they tried to go previously.

I can't be sure that there is anyone who is not "looking," to some degree, but not everyone sees frustrations/trials of life the same way.