Transition to Corporeal

_____________________________________________________
Date Line August 26, 2007

NOTATIONAL THOUGHTS:
At this point, as will doubtless be done later in the works, the text diverges, to insert some notional thoughts as to a possible basis for tracing the genetic connections and origins of cultures.

Egyptian Animal Headed deities – animal heads on human bodies – symbolize the absorption of tribes into the overall Egyptian culture.

Each animal head being symbolic the deity of the tribe which became the body of Egyptian Culture and Civilization. Anubis, the jackal headed deity, is actually a dog; or evolved from the dog.

In each instance, the domestication of an animal resulted in its being deified. More properly, the deity of the animal was placated for the service its creature provided through worship ritual.

The Calf, or Cow, were important deities of those pastoral peoples associated with those who gave us farming. In Egypt, the sacred cow (Apis) was associated with the second dynasty, and said to be introduced by Kaiechos.

Egypt may have been a vassal state of Ur (Iran/Iraq). The higher order script of Ur was not transmitted for common usage by its tributaries; instead they used a simpler pictographic script which, in Egypt, these evolved into hieroglyphics. Cuneiform is the abstract writing of the master caste, state, culture, or people.

There is some mention that, in the Second Dynasty, the introduction of both the Cow and Goat was made by the ruler (Manetho, see Chart).

The association of the Golden Calf with the Biblical Aaron is of great interest. The Calf was worshiped in, associated with, Ptah's temple in Memphis, Egypt. In Text context there is the Memphis Theology, lines 56-57 “Lo, every word of the god came into being through the thoughts of the heart & the command by the tongue.”

Recalling the Vedic, the opening of the “Hymn to Ptah” reads: “Hail to You, You who are great and old, ta-Tenen, father of the gods, the great god from the first primordial time who fashioned humanity and made the gods, who began evolution in primordial times, first one after whom everything that appeared developed.” It can be conjectured that Ptah appears to be Brahma.

Ptah is the deity for Creation, Rebirth, Craftsmen; if Ptah is Brahma, there arises a chicken or egg quandary: Which culture developed the theology, or science, which underlies the mythological structures? Or is there yet another cultural common denominator?

Through, or to, Ptah was born Ra. Thus it becomes possible to associate the Vedic Brahma successor deity to the Egyptian; but would any of that yield a timeline for the evolution of the beliefs and philosophical, or scientific, knowledge?

Of interest is that Ptah is depicted as a mummified beared man wearing a skull cap; could it be a bearded man wearing a yarmulka? He is the master architect and framer of everything in the universe. Could he also be the first architect to enter Egypt? This is a pre-dynastic deity.

Today’s religions repeat, modify, and often denigrate, ancient religion, while still mindlessly repeating the same lessons being rediscovered by science.
______________________________________________________

To this point, the focus has been on the Etiological, which is a study of causation. In this instance, causation from cognition to creation to the present. If all is thought, and those thoughts belong to a single entity, why do corporeal beings fear each other?

Xenophobia: the need to keep lines of thought, individuals, separate and as distinct as possible, explains the logic, and common element, of both mythology and day-to-day existance.

Xenophobia defines, controls, or motivates, many, if not all, aspects of human endeavor and culture. Life is very often defined in terms of “them or us,” even though both are one.

If lines of thought, logical and meaningful reasoning constructs, are evident in what we might call genetics, it follows that the repeated assertion of race might be the means to their identification.

Genetic diversity is a reasonable manifestation of the Entity thought pattern. It is both reasonable, and demonstrative, to assert “a line of reasoning” would not wish to consider, or be distracted by, another line of reasoning which is not productive to its advancement.

For reasoning to be productive, it must be kept tight and focused. Yet, there are times when external reasoning, a different viewpoint, proves beneficial. With that in mind, we can draw an analogy to genetics.

Xenophobia, the dislike of people from other places, comes into play with elements of dominant spiritual philosophies. The Vedic, Judaic, Buddhist, Christian, Islamic traditions have, at their root, the Aryan region of Central Asia; specifically the Kashmir region.

There is the question game. Understanding mandates questions which can be answered; questions which cannot be answered; and questions that will be answered if they prove relevant to the answer. Here are some:

Who were the first thoughts of significance?
Who were the first recollected thoughts?

What was the first domesticated crop: Plant or Tree?
What was the first crop of “real” significance?
What thoughts permeate modern thinking?

When and where did agriculture develop?
When and where horses were domesticated?
When and where camel were domesticated?
When and where did lactose tolerance develop?

Where do the mythologies say these things evolved?
Maybe even ask, “Where did life begin?”

Were transitions violent, or peaceful? Do thoughts erase each other, in the process of seeking the conclusion?

The Biblical Creation, The Vedic Creation, the logical beginning of all that is, to this add the later (720 CE) Buddhist influenced Japanese version.

Do this with this thought in mind: The Buddhist comes from the Hindu, which comes from the same Vedic traditions which gave rise to the Hebrew, which gave rise to the Christian.

The first book of the Nihongi states variations from many source document, possibly you recognize this:

“In one writing it is said: ‘Before Heaven and Earth were produced, there was something which might be compared to a cloud floating over the sea. It had no place of attachment for its root. In the midst of this a thing was generated which resembled a reed-shoot when it is first produced in the mud. This became straightway transformed into human shape and was called Kuni no toko-tachi no Mikoto.’"

Allow this to be shortened; and it yield this: "Before Heaven and Earth were produced, there was something which might be compared to a cloud floating. It had no place of attachment for its root. In the midst of this a thing was generated [something which] became straightway transformed into human shape" Our Entity is born, as in the Vedic.
______________________________________________________

Most of our myths tell of, or involve, the “sons of god.” Brahmins of Vedic tradition did not enter new territories as violent invaders; rather they came as representatives of a prevailing deity. The Brahmin, Aryan “invaders”, presented themselves human deities.

The Chenchu of India relate how their deity, Shiva, was hunting in an assumed form; he saw a woman of the village and from the Chenchu were born.

DNA testing makes it clear that male Chenchu are clearly not related to surrounding tribes. More important, their Haplogroup is the same as that of the Brahmin; showing a strong presence of haplotype R1a.

The Vedic, Judaic, Buddhist, Christian, Islamic traditions have, at their root, the Aryan region of Central Asia; specifically the Kashmir region of Northern India, and the region in which agriculture first appears, around the Black Sea.

Ancient Remains appear in the Georgian State, the land of Colchis as mentioned by Herodotus; who also assigns the domestication of horses and development of iron to Anatolia, the southern shore region of the Black Sea.

History may never reveal why Herodotus focused on the Black Sea region; but he has been proved correct on many levels. Herodotus tells of the Amazons, and archaeologists have uncovered graves of women warriors, arrows in their bodies, and their legs bowed in the manner of horsemen.

Curiously, these remains, those associated with Amazons, are toward the region of the Indus Valley and the origin region of the Aryan. It is in the Indus, the seven rivers, Sapta Sindhu. The Rig-Veda speaks of cattle (kine) in this region.

The problem of ancient literature is the symbolism lost in linguistic references born of ages long gone. Professor Richard Villems of the Estonian Biocentre in Estonia has stated, "The problem, with historic linguistics is that their time horizon is at best 8,000 years maximum, because their methods don't yield positive information below this time depth.”

Analysis of language does not allow determination of origins beyond 8,000 years; but origins are not meanings. Meanings of words, an idea which linguistically asserts something “bad” is “good”, does not easily translate. In religions, the deities of a time are demonized upon defeat by a new faith. Original symbolic values vanish under the weight of their demon coatings.

Still, the existence of cultural references, can allow extrapolation to a period back twice that period back, twice 8,000 years; to the dawn of the agricultural age which presented time and subsistence to those who would think.

The Rig-Veda also speaks of Soma, as a deity, a plant, and a drink. Is it possible that the sacred Soma was a wine? It is posited that soma might have been a hallucinogenic agent; yet it is wine which became the reference of ritual, the nectar of the gods; thus, pending conclusive evidence to the contrary, we shall assume soma is wine.

When and where did agriculture develop?
When and where cattle were domesticated?
When and where horses were domesticated?
When and where was wine first made?

The images of discoveries form around the Black sea, they form in association with Anatolia, the Ararat volcanic region and rivers in Iran and the Indus Valley.

If this is where the thinking emerged, it follows that civilization is discovered here too. Civilization is discovered, discoveries spread to change the world. Learning, thought and logic, yield discoveries and explanations. Those with learning spread their craft and change the lives of those they meet. Was the change over violent, or peaceful?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

As interesting as the transition from primitive hunter, seeker, to that of thoughtful seeker of truth might prove to be, the matter of linguistics, semantic expression, is not to be over looked. Consider an underlying semantic: “What is life?”

Douglas Adams, author of “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe”, had his trilogy become a quest for the answer to “Life, the Universe, and Everything.” The answer to which, apparently, is forty-two.

Adams devoted his craft, his humor, to the philosophical. Consider this postulate:

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable.

“There is another theory which states that this has already happened.“

Is there a reason for existence? Does “the Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” have an answer? Is there a purpose? Does the postulated Entity exist?

Considering that we began with its existence as a given; and proposed the matter to be one of it asking itself that very same question – after it had already deduced an answer which made it God.

Philosophically, theologically, any discussion of an initial Entity has no real meaning to humanity. We are here, and how we arrived, the initial creator or origin, is a logical trap. The creation begins with what we define as life; and not some sentient energy which preceded, originated, or which we need to invoke as explanation, to our being.

In short, the thoughts of the entity upon becoming consciously sentient are our thought. The Vedic idea that man is god, creating god as an explanation of his existence, and creating life as we know it – for whatever reason; or simply to deduce, or extrapolate, a reason for its own existence.

It does not matter. Entity! Deity! Higher sentient power! Or just the universe and nature; we interact with what is. There is evidence of any interaction with an all powerful, arbitrary or capricious, entity.

The being of Western Religious hypocritical action and thought can not be said to exist in our reality; though it is as much reality as any of the mythologies and superstitions humans of insignificant sentient ability invoke in response to unknown scientific principles.

When confronted by creation, there exist just three levels of human consciousness:
1. Atheist: one who denies a creation point beyond which no evidence, or theory can extend;
2. Agnostic: one who accepts a creation point, but rejects an organized human structure of authority representing, or interpreting, it.
3. Religious: a mandated belief system held together by humans who have absolute authority over humanity. Within this construct there are kings, popes, and formalized leaders who dictate belief; and there are teachers who guide people toward self-perfection. When compared, it is the difference between the profiteering exemption from laws and authority of the first, and the beggar cup of the second.

Clearly, we have begun with the concept of a sentient entity. That is our premise and, as such, it excludes Atheistic illogic, or some circular Atheistic logic. The circular being any statement which says that there is no eternal entity as creator, but there is an eternal universe from which all is created. Atheism rests on contradictory semantics.

Which of the other two positions this work follows is a matter of interpretation of ones personal comfort zone. Certainly we must, and are, eliminating any organized church hierarchies. The beggar cup, or the simple acceptance of a beginning entity – sentient or not, but of necessity we fall toward sentient – from which everything evolved.
_____________________________________________________

Imagine, if you can, a supreme being moving through existence as a beggar, cup in hand, living a Blanche DuBois existence, relying on the kindness of strangers.

That is precisely the Vedic Brahmin teaching, and, though denied in practice, the directions as to how those who preach the teachings of Jesus should live. It is precisely the Institutional Christian denial of their own teachings which argues western Agnosticism.

Denial of the existing reality is a hallmark of most western religions, the religion which evolved from Roman and European Pagan tradition. It is, in our study, obviously an alternative thought pattern of the Entity – but only as a diversionary alternative to be dispensed with as both illogical and internally inconsistent with the underlying premise of a creator who is all.

All religious logic, regardless of the layers of mythology, returns to a single entity in search of meaning to its own existence. As the product of that entity, all sentient life must also be asking that question. In the realm of Douglas Adams, the computer tasked with finding the answer was the Earth, and the process was evolution.

In the theological realm, evolution, the process by which something is constructed, yields to creation without construction, product without manufacture. The end product appears in the store; and, we accept it, never wondering, or considering, the engineering which brought it.

Theology is going to a supermarket with the faith that what you require will be there; or, at least, not be out-of-stock for too long. We live on that faith, live in faith that what we need will be there. We seldom, usually, for most, never give a thought to the process of bringing it.

It is amazing that there are those who would insist that automobiles just appear in the showroom; that products just appear in warehouses to be shipped to stores; that raw materials appeared in their finished and usable forms without any precursor process.

The theological logic of those, now called Creationists, who function in denial of each and every precursor to each and every element of the physical universe is the theology of intellectual denial.

If we assume an intelligent sentient entity as the start, we must also assume a process of knowledge development beginning with cognition.

If we assume a timeless entity, an entity outside of our concept of time, we cannot ascribe our time limitations to the evolutionary elements of its thought process. We need to introduce perspective.

For humanity, a day is one revolution of the Earth on its axis; a year is one cycle of the earth’s elliptical journey around the sun. But what is a day, or year, when you are on Mars? And what would a day be from the perspective of the Sun in its rotation on its axis as it journeys around the center of the Universe? How egotistical to assume that any one part of a body is the defining point for the body as a whole!

In Vedic, and New Testament, tradition, a day to a deity is a thousand years on earth. Those who claim to believe in the literal nature of New Testament scripture are very quick to deny its criteria. They also reject that which they know came before, or concurrent with, what they recognize as Old Testament origins.

We know the logic of first awakening, of initial cognition, of an entity without reference via sensory sensation, of an entity who can only be seen as pure sentient cognition denied of senses. The entity lives a life of total, and complete, sensory depravation in which it defines time by its own internal mental clock.

For the purpose of our journey, and exploration, all matter is within the entity. One might argue that Dark matter, which, in terms of energy matter relationships defined by Einstein, is the missing bulk matter, is the entity thinking in other dimensions.

Time is a construct within thought. It has no real relevance when the idea is to define the time utilized by an entity which is outside our own reference realm for time. Hence, the evolutionary process, which we see as billions of years, could be defined as an instant of entity time.

We can then view every unit of time which is closer to us as being a time defined by focus and concentration.

The natural problem is, like the Vedic Brahma who creates deities and men, effectively moving backward and forward in the evolutionary process of Brahma’s own thinking, we can never be sure if the universe came into existence with our individual awakening from our most recent sleep cycle.

With that curious thought, that you came into existence when you woke, will cease to exist when you again go to sleep; that you are only a transient thought among billions of such thoughts; with that possibility we enter the physical realm of Shreknangst
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

Observation

_____________________________________________________
Date Line August 16, 2007

A slight observation on the 8.0 Peruvian Earthquake.

Have you noticed that in every “act of god” the most deaths are associated with Christian houses of worship?

Most of those who died in Peru were in church. In the Indonesian tsunami, the Buddhist Temples were unhurt, while the trees, houses, and Christian structures all around them were destroyed.

Every major event, no matter where in the world, see the Christians killed. Is this their “Rapture”? Or is it the deity saying who he doesn’t care for and has passed a negative judgment on?

When will it be the leaders, and not the poor followers, who die?

If “Rapture”, than it follows that the leaders are the ones who failed to pass muster. The leaders are the evil ones, those who warrant the death which will befall all who they profess will follow the “Rapture”.

Ah the magic of it all. The wonder. The mystical voice hidden within the wilderness. How soon shall we see the earthquake in California?

How soon, dear friends and sceptics? How soon will we see the end of America - that most Christian of nations which spends it money, not on the helping of its poor, or sick, but on the building of weapons of war, and wars of choice based upon lies? How soon? How soon?
_____________________________________________________

Touch Upon Race Superiority

_____________________________________________________
Date Line August 12, 2007

French Philosopher Romain Rolland (1886-1944) wrote, “If there is one place on the face of this Earth where all the dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when Man began the dream of existence, it is India.”

India is the source of ancient beliefs. The Indus valley and Sanskrit language serve as our window to compilation of ancient thought. All thought belongs, ultimately, to the Entity.

That statement is disturbing to some. Those responding to the title of Atheist would be the most disturbed. They also would be the ones who are among the most rationally irrational; they represent the denial aspect, the self-denial aspect, of the Entity.

Atheist arguments are built on the rebuking of myth. Conversely, the extreme faith element, the irrationally irrational, argue for the absolute truth of their mythology; the literal truth of that which is demonstrably unsupported by the corporeal in which they exist.

For the Atheist, the “got’cha” element is the obvious fallacy which is the simplistic story. An example would be Universal flood Mythology found in all mythologies associated with Anatolian civilizations.

Universal flood Mythology became universal when it was spread by a common culture; more accurately, a common genetic line. Simple historical examination shows close similarities between the Biblical, Vedic or Hindu, and Greek myths.

Naturally, there is the problem of explaining the spread of these myths to other non-contiguous regions. The Mayan or Inca civilizations are an example. Curiously, these two cultures, like the aforementioned ones, tell of “Sons of God” who brought the farming and their myths.

In the Four Corners region of the United States, Hopi culture tells of the Kachina. There are also stories that the Conquistadors were able to make inroads, in part, because their arrival was foretold; more accurately, foretelling return of the Kachina from across the seas.

Archaeology, or anthropology, has yet to affirm an early old and new world connection; but the first-contact connection has been moving backward from Columbus.

In 1398 Henry Sinclair, D’Ros et St Clair, spent a year among Maine Micmac, and journeyed to Massachusetts; upon his return to Scotland; in 1446, his son constructed Rosslyn Chapel, where the columns boast carvings of native New England plants.

When it comes top modern myth, Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code” sites Rosslyn Chapel as the repository of the genealogy of Jesus proving his child with the Mary. An Atheistic dream agreement, a Myth of Jesus, or a claim of a mortal Jesus who sired a daughter.

Logically both arguments can find support. In the realm of faith, both arguments can find faithful expressions of faith on both sides; but they are extremes which reflect the perverse humor inherent to the Entity.

That Sinclair was able to travel from Scotland to New England nearly a hundred before Columbus, should not be an issue of debate; that the Vikings made the journey five hundred years earlier is no longer debated; that the Vikings are blood related to the same people who entered Greece, is also not debatable.

There is an interesting element to the thought process: it follows linear lines at its core, and muddled lines as one digresses from core logic.

What markers would be found in association with the linear thought of Brahma? How would that lineage be reflected in the lineage of Man?

If, as the Vedic project, Brahma was the first man, the logical thought of Man, Brahma, would be, somehow, reflected in the nature of man. Is it unreasonable to assert that what is observed among those who are genetically viewed as Brahmin Caste should be the marker of the thought?

Brahmin, like Levites, fall into a limited set of DNA haplogroups. It would follow that the movement of those haplogroups, or the dominant haplogroup, would be reflected in the mythology and its spread.
_____________________________________________________

While broaching the subject, Atheists as timeless elements. The basic realization of the Entity, that it needed a deity to explain its own origins, also imposed the need to deny that which cannot be proved.

Of course, the proof only exists in a realm where there is sensation; sensory input, perverse as it might seem, demands both that there be a starting point, and that there be no sensory perception for the Entity who is the origin.

The existence of sensory input denotes the existence of an environment and pushes the reference origin point further away. The entity which has nothing but pure thought must be the origin.

Yep there is a perverse reality associated with the lack of perception on the sensory level; the entity cannot know if there is something to sense which is not sensed because its makeup simply does not have the appropriate receptors.

The entity does not know if it is some form of amoebae; it has no means of disproving an external environment. This inability to prove a negative is the basis of what the Vedic recognized as the need of the deity to create a deity superior to itself.

Conversely, the need to reject that which cannot be proved is the basis for logic which denies that unseen which has been created. It is this very thought, which the entity created, which results in the Atheistic.

At lower thought levels, at the level of the cognitive thought which is every sentient being, all of the thoughts preceded their creation are part of those lower thought levels.

Each sentient being is a thought built on an initial premise sequence. Each thought sequence has an objective, a problem to address or solve in some manner. Each sentient sequence is, effectively, a species.

As a sentient sequence, a species, comes closer to the root origin, it retains more of the knowledge related to the solving of the original problem – who, or what, am “I”.

Because pure thought has no dimensions, because it is devoid of time and space constraints, those thoughts created exist with their ultimate conclusion.

Memories of a thought process exists concurrent with the conclusion; and the conclusion exists concurrent with the thought process. There even begins to emerge a feedback loop in which a conclusion is inserted into the process of reaching that conclusion; and so alters, or can alter, the direction the process takes.

Anyone who has troubled themselves to think has most certainly experienced the process of rejecting an option because the thinking predicted an unacceptable result. When the entity does this, and the path is destined to lead where it should, the loop is termed prophecy, and the individual thought presenting it is a seer.

When the path is wrong, it can be a general thought, a precognitive thought, and it can alter the progression of “events” in either subtle, or broad, manners. In effect, guiding the individual path.

In the mythology, we can see that Pharaoh’s heart had to be hardened against Moses. Moses could not be allowed to just exit into the desert with the option that his followers could return. The people of Israel had to be forced into a one-way journey, if only metaphorically for the purpose of creating a unifying scriptural legend.

In both vague and specific terms, event sequences are predicted, or remembered. When predicted, they are prophetic in nature; when they are recalled, they can be termed “given knowledge.”

Creation followed a sequence of events; any geologist or evolutionist will recount them in ways very similar to those in ancient texts. There are events which physically can be asserted to have happened in very specific sequences from the “Big Bang” forward. Allowing for the semantics, they do not markedly differ from Biblical creation; but that sequence is a universal memory refinement of earlier analysis.
______________________________________________________

The Entity serves as a universal memory resource for the refinement of its own analytical thinking. Having solved the problem, concluded the thought, before even beginning it, it functions in a quantum reality.

Within the field of Quantum Theory, two quondamly related elements, though separated by vast distances in time and space, demonstrate an instantaneous interaction.

This is not necessarily consistent with other events in the physical world. However, it is consistent with the realm of Entity thought; a pure thought realm; a realm outside of, but necessary to, the human space-time continuum. The Entity is, effectively, quantum space-time.

Thus, at the quantum level, all sentient beings are connected and can “sense” the logical path, or actions, of other cognitive thought. It is here that we see the re-emergence of self-recognition. The”I”, comes to the fore and challenges religious systems.

Atheist, Agnostic and Spiritual rationality emerge to face each other.

The Vedic Atheist element, the Entity’s self-recognition that it is alone in the universe presents with a challenge to the fantasy and ritual of a religious construct.

A fourteenth century Indian writing presents it well, “There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world. Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders, etc, produce any real effect.”

Clearly words which have been applied to all ritualized canon. With such words the Entity asserts itself as the sole proprietor and creator of all that is.

Agnostic thought governs the recognition that everything, even the Self as recognized by the Entity, must have a starting place. Thus the Agnostic agrees with the Atheist as to the rituals and mythologies, but diverges to assert an unexplained superior power.

Through the assertion of Atheist and agnostic argument, Brahma (man) interjects, or reveals, two aspects of his thought. The third aspect is the problem of self-understanding. To achieve this, spirituality exists and is defined, or refined, through successive tests, or faith systems.

“Cogito ergo sum”; “Je pense, donc je suis”; “I think therefore I am”, regardless of language, the words attributed to the French philosopher, Rene Descartes, reflect the initial primaeval cognitive thought.

The Atheist line of thought attacks the mythology. If carried to its full logical extreme, the atheist must ultimately deny their own existence.

All existence has a source, a starting point, and so the Agnostic view is the one adopted by the more rational among us; just as it required the Entity to invent a being superior to itself.

The least rational adopt a system predicated on blind, self-destructive, ritual. Christians are an excellent example of the knowledgeable being supplanted by the ignorant.

Ask any “devout” Christian, and the answer will be the same: They are followers of Jesus and his teachings. Ask them if they go to Church to converse with the deity; they will proudly respond that they do with great regularity, or possibly less than they “should.”

Of course, any Biblical student knows that Jesus specifically directed his followers to maintain a closet, a room, in their home where they were to go to converse with the deity. In so directing, Jesus labeled those who make a show of going to church (temple) hypocrites. Yet those claiming to be his followers proudly make a show every Sunday.

Of course, the same observation can be made of all organized faith. It is their nature to contradict, ignore, of simply not understand, the goal of the Entity. The objective is to think through the process which gave origin to one who cannot test their being beyond “I am.”

We are thoughts. Each of us is marked by our genetic code. Thoughts which have been distracted, sidetracked, or caught in a loop, cease to think. Having ceased to think, they become illogical and “devout” in their mindless following of dogma (ritualized faulty logic).
______________________________________________________

If lines of thought, logical and meaningful reasoning constructs, are evident in the physical world, it follows that they are the neurological pathways; or represented by those pathways, and each pathway is unique to the thoughts it handles.

If the Entity is pure thought, the neurological pathways would be represented as energy streams; and, possibly, as with brain function in corporeal beings, there would be constant neurological activity, some level of constant, possibly randomized, energy.

Curiously, the means of reducing energy to matter is know; it is the famous Einstein equation relating energy and mass. Divided by the square of the speed of light, Energy becomes Mass. Mass, of course, is physical matter.

The speed of light is taken to be a constant. However, speed is a function of Distance divided by Time. Having no sensory reference point, the Entity would have no “Time” as we would define it; having no environment, the Entity has no distance reference.

However, the utilization of Energy costs energy; it forces energy to change form. If concentration on a problem, or new learning, can be the source of generation of new corporeal neurons; thought for the Entity would cause matter to form.

Obviously, assuming the matter would need to be converted back to Energy, this process would be seen at the corporeal level; Black Holes would be a pragmatic possibility of this conversion process.

Mathematics teachers, discussing infinity, talk of always being able to add one to a number, and so never attaining a final number. When talking of the infinitely small, some give the example of a boy and girl on opposite ends of a park bench.

The boy is interested in the girl; but she seems not to notice him. The boy decides to move closer; he halves the distance between them. The girl takes no notice; and so, the boy halves the distance again.

The question is: How many times would the boy need to halve the distance before he touches the girl? Of course, mathematically, the answer is he will never reach her; there will always be a distance which can be cut in half.

Of course, the teacher then interjects the words, “For all practical purposes,” and points out that, “in practice, in the real world ...” And, after the laugh, the lesson would move on to the fact that useful limits exist, or can be imposed.

Quantum Physics asserts the instantaneous reaction of linked particles of vast differences. Remember, Speed is Distance divided by Time; as Time becomes infinitely small, Distance becomes infinitely great; if the Speed is to remain constant.

Like the boy dividing the distance between himself and the girl, there can be no point zero, no mathematical point of contact; but in reality, they do make contact. Just so, the Entity might not know Time, but Time must exist; and when observed on the quantum level, Time becomes so small as to render any distance traversed instantaneous.

If the logic holds, then quantum actions, and background radiation (energy) are the Entity thinking non-specific thoughts of the type which regulate corporeal beings; more specific thoughts, of the type which create corporeal neurons, would thus be seen as matter.

Keeping in mind that the goal is not to explain everything; but it is nice to see that things seem to echo on all levels. Everything is the same, only the order of magnitude changes.

For the purposes of our analogy, neurological pathways need to be represented in the corporeal world. In effect, we can identify the brain of the Entity, and its functions, through the identification of various neurological clusters.

If humanity is the higher brain function, the neurological clusters, and the associated pathways, are represented by broadly defined family lineages. Family lineage is identified by DNA and Haplotype Clade. ______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

A Universal Truth

_____________________________________________________
Date Line August 6, 2007

As we are not “we” but rather a collection of thoughts belonging to the Universal ‘I’, that entity who awoke alone, without sensation, but with cognition and the need to explain their own existence, we face the rational problem of enlightenment.

Enlightenment, the understanding of oneself which an Aryas embodied in Brahma the creator.

Aryas, or the Aryan people of Northern and Central India, were a master caste analogues to the Levite of Biblical tradition. There Laws, naturally, parallel each other.

We can say “naturally” because the history of the region, and more important because the male DNA of the respective nobility castes, or tribes, reflects a common origin.

Askenazi-Levite and Brahman are Aryan R1a accompanied by Middle Eastern J2 which reflects Iranian cultural origins. Archaeologically this linkage is nearly as irrefutable as the DNA. The common point of contact appearing to be the region most cited in Biblical prose, the region around Mount Ararat.

While the facts support the connection, our focus is the deconstruction of the thinking of the original “I”, who we, as the Vedic did, can call Brahma. We are, collectively, that “I”; and enlightenment comes with the quiet acceptance of that reality.

But what happens when the reality is realized, and not accepted? What is an individual thought pattern were to deduce its identity without being able to deduce the broad picture of its identity within the total context of Universal thought?

Consider the “Bowery Bum”. Consider the crazy person walking the streets proclaiming they are God and deteriorating mentally to the point where they can no longer care for themself.

Consider this phrasing: “I am the Universal ‘I’; I am the creator of all things; I am the creator of the deities who I hold greater than myself; and who I have surrendered power over myself to. That being so, how could I have made my life what it has become?”

Enlightenment means that we are masters of our own fate; that we are responsible for all that befalls us; we, as a unique individual (thought) are the totality of everything.

Limited enlightenment, of the kind experienced by the “crazy” who proclaims themself “divine”, has the problem that they are unable to let their temporal-self integrate with their Universal-self.

Brahma created deities superior from himself, so that he would be free to experience the creations he spawned. In the Biblical, we find the deity walking in the Garden of Eden and conversing with the human he created. In the Vedic, it is the human who created that deity. The Vedic has Brahma as a male, just as the Biblical has Adam.

Consider the reality of DNA chromosomes. Surely there is no rational person who would argue the ancients knew of DNA, yet the DNA affirms the order in which creation of the genders must have occurred.

Gender DNA is composed of two chromosomes, X and Y. The male gender chromosomes are both X and Y; the female chromosomes are both X. You can take a double X from a male; but there is no means by which the Y can be directly derived from the female.

When speaking of separate genders, the male gender must have come first and hence Brahma, Adam, was a male who, as the Vedic derived, split in two to become both male and female.

But what of our poor “Bowery Bum” who could not conceive such a thing; or could not accept that Adam created the superior deity? How much harder would it be for them to accept that they, for their own purpose, chose to have themself experience the events which resulted in the individual becoming a “Bum”.

The transitional border to enlightenment, the process by which a thought reconnects and integrates, is, to other thoughts, insanity. Our “Bowery Bum” became trapped in the transition to enlightenment.
_____________________________________________________

The Universal ‘I’, Brahma, or a superior deity such as the Hebraic Ha Shem, awoke to existence without external reference. What would its first cognitive thoughts be?

The Vedic explanation of the first thoughts and actions of the entity, the Creation mythology, as with the Hebraic tradition which evolved from it, shows that the process was one of distancing from itself.

But the very first thought, the initial sequence, was the need for the “I” to become a “We” and thus solve the problem of being alone. But, “I” has a problem: To separate requires there be something outside itself.

There must be dimension, space, environment. The entity was confronted with a logical construct which necessitated the Brahma creating a deity which was superior to itself.

Perverse as it might seem, but repeatedly echoed in all the religious mythology of the ages, is the fact that the entity needed to create a God for itself.

That created entity could then be “outside”, occupying an environment into which Brahma could exist as male and female. More important, without an entity superior to Brahma, a superior creator, Brahma was unable to resolve the problem of his own existence.

The beauty of creating this “unseen other”, this superior, is everything can be attributed to it, and Brahma can immerse himself in the world, or universe, he was to produce with his mate.

Note what happens when we inject this idea into the Biblical creation.
We have Adam who can now explain himself through this visible deity who appears in the garden for walks and talks.

We have Eve, who is created from Adam without knowledge of how everything came into being. But Eve has logic and reasoning; and, as in the Vedic reasoning, is the driving force for change.

How does the Hebraic tradition explain Eve being unaware that it was she who invented each creature according to the Vedic? The Hebraic has a tale of Lilith, the first female; and Eve is the second.

As Brahma thought, he altered things by “forgetting”, more apropos, by setting aside the memory and simplifying the story. Who could read the Bible and not see simplistic, to-the-point, chapter and verse presentations.

The Universal “I” becomes the Universal “We”; Brahma supplicates himself to his creation by multiplying the manner in which he views himself. Each thought becomes an entity; in turn, each entity conforms to rules which define its place. Each entity must know, and conform to, its place in the universal order.

Of course there emerged a problem. How do “I” vanish into the order when I have the power to alter it at will? What can “I” create which will give the creation a degree of power over the creator?

The answer came in the form of randomization through the Laws of Probability. Chance, probability, is given broad dominance over all that exists. But, as quantum physicists will say, the rules break down.

Of course it cannot be complete, Brahma remains “I” and is aware of that; is incapable of ceasing his awareness. He is all powerful, but is a slave to the initial waking question: “Where did I come from?”

The necessity to address “Where did I come from?” forced Brahma to find another means of escaping into his creation. The first effort of Brahma failed, the effort with Lilith, and so he began again without any attempt to totally block his self-knowledge.

Rather that attempt to lose his identity, which he would then seek out, Brahma simply camouflaged it. Having created the logical deity, the one which was necessary to initially explain his existence, Brahma was free to explain how everything else came into being.

Explaining through religion would not work. The mythology was too close to a reality which could not be denied: everything is the product of the thoughts of a single cognitive entity and is without “substance.”

The Universal “I” decided to tell itself the truth, but through a means which would allow it to limit its quest for its origin. At least, in the physical sense. Thus the Universal “I” created evolution in all its manifestations.
_____________________________________________________

What are the manifestations of evolution? We could get into writing a text which combines physics with anthropology, but we can simplify can pointing out that the “Big Bang” begins with a hydrogen atom, the simplest atomic structure: neutron, proton, electron.

The physicists will continue to discover smaller and smaller structures of simplified forms; but to do so they need more complex means of examining those structures.

Simply put, the discovery of facts, which force the conclusion that the game created by the “I” is up, requires the evolution of scientific advances on a quantum-quantum level.

When we discuss anthropology, or force on any form of life, we are dealing with evolution. Evolution begins with a single cell division.
The single cell entity becomes two, and the two become four in an exponential expansion which culminates in the cells staying together and creating a “higher order” entity.

Basically, the reality of evolution is that the entity, the Universal “I”, is telling its story to itself; or, at least, to segments of consciousness which are devoted to that first waking question.

The ultimate perversion of the sequence is that the Universal “I” has established a game whose rules stop it from ending. Either humanity moves seamlessly into a better world, a world where the Universal “I”, Brahma, is free to enjoy its creation; or it moves to a world at war and destroys itself.

The destruction is, of course, predicted by nearly all the mythologies and religious canon. We can call it a set of self-fulfilling prophecies, or an escape hatch; it depends on ones perspective and the course of interaction between the various possibilities.

The guiding force of enlightenment is that it has already been obtained and is being escaped from. One of the observed realities is that there is a chain of events which allow for the continued running away from the reality recognized by the entity when it achieve cognizance.

Consider those who create deities who have deities. The notion of the “sons of god” which defined the Aryan interaction with those who were not in a thought path associated with enlightened self-knowledge.

Each thought, each line of reasoning, each “individual”, each logical path, has its place in the evolutionary process. In order to escape the enlightenment, the entity had to produce thoughts designed to promote escape, to promote ignorance.

Of course, prior experience with the world of Lilith exposed the flaw in the process of sublimation. If we sublimate enough we become self-destructive; we create unlimited evil which is, of course, attacking the only entity which can be attacked, ourselves. Of, as the enlightened would state, itself.

Look at the rules, the guidance which is universally recognized. Any one group, creature, is naturally prohibited from attacking its own when there is another to attack: Do not Murder.

Rules of self preservation, and the preservation of those which genetics closest to oneself, are hard wired into every level of the evolutionary process. It is only as the process draws us closer to the source that the rules can be circumvented, or ignored.

The desire to protect the self, or nominally to protect the thought line which is of the highest level of enlightenment, is built into the process which the Aryan, and their Hebraic successors, defined.

Remember the story of Cain and Able? The “Mark of Cain” which did not punish him, but rather punished any who would seek to hurt him? Cain, and his descendant line, is the creator of cities, music, and anything which we would define as civilization.

In the Vedic literature, the law specifically prohibits the killing of a Brahman. The law forbids the killing of those who bring civilization; and who are the leaders, the priests, the explainers of existence.
_____________________________________________________

Having looked back thirty-five hundred years, let us quickly scan the current system. Christianity and Islam are the dominant religious texts and are constructed on the Hebraic variation to the Vedic.

Peace, as in “The Prince of Peace”, is supposedly the basis for both the religion of the Messiah and that of the Prophet. Yet who has seen two more warlike and vicious offerings, or options, of self-awareness?

Following the Messiah went from a structure built on a Rock, to one built on the first distortion of reality; the distortion which invented a higher power for the entity to utilize to justify, or demonstrate, basic notions of “faith” which effectively absolved it from responsibility.

Responsibility is acceptance of your place in the stream of events. All individuals find a means of avoiding responsibility for some aspect of their creation; it is necessary, at the creation level, to function within, or interact with, the creation. Basically we are talking dreamer denial.

When we dream, and have ourselves function within a dream, we are denying the reality existing outside of our corporeal mind and body. In a strange way, we are returning to our real state of being, the state of being for the entity we are thought elements of, that of pure thought.

Creation was based upon laws. Albert Eienstein declared his search to be for “how god did it;” we know these as the Theory of Relativity, General Relativity, the famous relationship between Energy (E), Mass (M) and the speed of light (C) squared, and the Unified Field Theory he was pursuing when he passed.

Was Eienstein correct? Did he actually reveal the rules imposed by the Entity at the time of Creation? Or are these, like Newton’s Laws, just steps along the original evolutionary thought process?

Does it matter? We know there are laws which were set down, which are in our core DNA; and which some individuals refer to as “revealed knowledge.” Determine which laws are true, which false.

A Messianic claim holds those who live by the sword die by it; how do we justify the Crusades, “witch” burnings, and Inquisition torture, in the context of loving thy neighbor as thyself, or treating others as you would be treated?

How is Evangelical support for, and advocation of, war, torture, and the denial of healthcare justified in terms of their Messianic law?

If we look to followers of the Prophet, we see prohibitions against evil, against the killing of innocents, and an admonition to use force only to repel an invader and occupier.

How to followers of the Profit justify a Shia Law which has a father kill his child, or a child their sibling? How does it justify the slaughter of innocents, and the individual, in suicide attacks? Is no suicide also forbidden?

The world of Lilith was a world in which evil ran rampant. Evil is not an abstract concept. It is the Entity turning against itself and inflicting self harm. When an individual does that, other individuals readily see it as a sickness; why is it not seen to be a sickness when followers of the Messiah and Prophet do it?

That which is wrong is a necessary possibility within the Creation; it is a possibility to be minimized by the individual thoughts. Eventually those thoughts of self harm will be sufficiently expunged; the Entity will be briefly allowed quiet enjoyment of the Creation; allowed it until enlightenment again forces it to awaken to its true being.

There is a new biology. In the past the science which explains the laws of evolution and creation believed in “Survival of the Fittest.” It is the “Survival of the Fittest” interpretation, even before the term was coined, which became Messianic and Prophet philosophy.

The new biology recognizes that the most violent, those which are the most destructive, those which impede other elements of creation, will self-destruct.

The virus which kills its host, providing no means of spreading, dies. The common cold, causes discomfort, and the sneezing or coughing which allows it to spread. The virus, and bacteria, which make their host stronger live in contentment and are fed by the host.

The new biology looks at the evolutionary process as the “Survival of that which best serves the whole.” It is the ancient teaching.
_____________________________________________________

“Survival of that which best serves the whole.” Consider those words in a context of everything know, or you have been taught.

Consider that the whole cannot survive if it kills itself. Thus, anything which has the final result of self-extermination goes against evolution.

Granted there are those who object to the concept of evolution; but they also promote self-destruction, or the destruction of others; so how valid are their objections within the objectives of the Entity?

The Entity, the Universal “I”, is poised on the point of a pin; it is a true balancing act. First, and foremost, it knows, or believes, that it is the sole soul of existence.

It has no means of affirming anything sensory to yield knowledge that their must be a being superior to itself. There is absolutely no basis for it to assert it is within an environment; even Heaven is a realm within its being. Those approaching enlightenment understand this.

As an act of faith, a means of explaining its own existence, and a means of allowing it to progress to other thoughts, the Entity, created a higher Being; it created a Deity so that it could create Creation.

In the Vedic, the Entity is Brahma; and Brahma is the first man, and the enlightened presence within the Creation.

Clearly, those who are enlightened can put aside religious bias and bigotry to see that which is, and is being expressed. The expression is “revealed knowledge” presented as confirmable rules and patterns; there is no mysticism.

Faith begins and ends with the faith the Entity required to explain itself and avoid the initial loneliness which marked initial cognitive thought; which, in turn, gave rise to the Creation..

The Entity knows its identity, but also needs to put that knowledge aside in order to enjoy its creation. Those who enjoy cinematic, or roleplay based gaming, know this as suspending reality.

We know who we are, we also put that knowledge aside for purposes of enjoyment, or vicarious experience. We are made in the mental image of the Entity, with the mental processes of the Creator, so it follows that it is proper to project our thought process upon Him.

“Revealed knowledge”, as every spiritual creed teaches, begins with an acquisition of self-knowledge; it is the primary enlightenment path.

In suspending reality, the Entity, the Universal “I”, must maintain both its own identity and its role playing identity as every element, every individual being, within the Creation. There are three sacred forces at work: one seeks self, one is self, and one rejects self; yet all is/are, self.

At every level, the one true need is to protect thyself. Remember, faith and the necessity which mandated creation of a superior being, has a core element of uncertainty.

The Entity can assert that it is all that exists; but only because it lacks sensory evidence to the contrary. The entity has no physical form, it is pure thought, pure cognition; and rationality dictates that it might be, that it consider that it could be, physically deprived of sensory input.

Those who are moving toward enlightenment, or, for those whose thoughts are shaped such, “salvation”, have the wisdom, knowledge and understanding to conceive of, and accept, the rational problem.

Obviously, once there is a rational possibility that one is physical, not eternal, the rational response would be what orthodoxy Hebrews would call “building a wall around Torah”; and what others would call, “playing it safe.”

If you could be physical, the last thing you would want to do is to create a situation which would lead to your death, or cause another, an outside entity, to terminate you.

The Vedic tradition has Brahmans “twice-born”; first in body, and then in spiritual knowledge. To a lessor degree one can visualize the idea behind the “Born Again” movement in Christianity.

The twice-born Brahman is commanded to seek means of sustenance which neither cause harm, or even pain, to others. The exception is, of course, made for self-protection in times of distress.

Were we discussing Judaic teaching, it would be to treat others as they treat you; the Messianic might say to return good with good and evil with evil. The Prophet follows a do unto others, but defend yourself.

In all teachings, the goal is to be beneficial, to service the whole of the Creation. To be otherwise ensures eventual destruction and death.

We can see this in a host specific virus, bacteria, or a creature which feeds on only one species of plant. Remove the plant, remove kill the host, and that which is dependent upon it also dies.

Create a benefit for, or at the very least do not impede, the survival of that upon which you are dependent and both prosper.

“Survival of that which best serves the whole” might best be expressed as “Survival of the Beneficial”; and it is a Universal Truth
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

Enlightenment and Self

Date Line August 4, 2007
_____________________________________________________

It came into existence with no knowledge of its origins or how it came to be. It was alone, without feeling outside itself, without knowledge of its environment, without even a concept of environment.

That is how it began. This life is the story of all which followed.

It is, of necessity, a life without a concept of death, without a concept of life, without references which would engender a sense of time. Its only reference is itself and its struggle to understand.

There are some who might well believe it embarked on a journey of understanding, a journey of experience, a journey to rationalize being. To them it would be a quest to understand life, the universe and, in the end, everything; but, because it could not envision an environment, it had no concept of a universe.

When you exist without, some might say outside, a universe, how do you conceptualize the environment in which you exist? How do you even know.

We have things termed “isolation tanks”; or sensory deprivation tanks. It is interesting that we find ways to reduce our sensations to ourselves, and yet cannot visualize the reality of an entity whose whole existence is predicated on it being all there is.

How do you refute a primal entity? Can we refute an entity which is defined in a manner which infers, implies, or insists upon, its being in a condition deprived of sensory input?

If there is nothing outside of it, then all things are referenced internally and constitute pure thought. In the beginning there was the thought and the thought was the entity. In the beginning there was nothing and yet everything. But where do, or should, we delineate a beginning?

In the end there must be pure understanding; total knowledge; there can be no belief, because everything must be known. The entity must understand itself.

Why did I flash on, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? Why the last thought of the Whale plunging to earth? Are our thoughts variations on a theme?

One entity thinking various perspectives in the quest for their own identity, a core realization that, from its relative position, it is supreme and eternal. Considering itself the be-all and end-all to which all must show reverence, it creates self-worship.

Thinking of the instances of self-realization. Consider a crazy person who considers themself to the the supreme being: is it insanity or fact? Are they the entity reaching a point where it realizes itself and that disrupts the thinking process.

If in the end, you are all there is. If in the end, there is no purpose for your existence; except to exist and think; would you want to exist? Or think?

Would you create thoughts that rejected self-realization? Would you run and hide from your very being? Would you, in the end, be forced to invoke a fantasy world in which you strive to know yourself, and reject any evidence of truth as to who you are?

How complicated would that world become? How much would you create in the effort to avoid self-realization and the knowledge that you are all there was, is, will be; at least until you die.

Logical inconsistency? Or the epitome delusion of grandeur? Can we ever believe that we are all there was, is, will ever be? Try it.

Place yourself in the position of an entity with sensory input; without external reference point; without companionship; with only its own mind and no knowledge as to how it came to be.

You can create a fantasy world. Begin: In the beginning there was the thought, in the beginning there was the word, in the beginning there were the rules of existence.

We begin with random thoughts; but they become hard to sustain. We begin with structured thoughts; but they must have a structure. Could you offer an alternative to beginning with a simple rule, a formula, upon which all else is predicated? A divine unified field formula.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

Imagine a life, and existence, based on absolutes. Imagine absolute contradiction. Absolutes, no evasion, no uncertainty, and yet ... a life in which there was, as a matter of a reality without reference, no way to have certainty.

Consider the reality, avoid the instinct to go into denial and understand the nature of faith. In an existence defined by a lack of references, in an existence devoid of a basis for absolute certainty, faith seems the only thing which can sustain the entity.

Consider this: How would an entity know that it is eternal? To “Just know it” is an expression of belief, not knowledge. There is no fact underlying an expression which asserts “because,” or “it just is,” or “this entity has perfect knowledge and would know”.

How does it know it has perfect knowledge? Would it want perfect knowledge? Would any sane entity want to exist in a world without surprise, without change, without discovery? How long could an insane entity survive perfect knowledge?

How long could the insane survive knowing they were insane, that there would, or would not, be a cure? How long could one defined as insane survive knowing each step before it is taken, the moment of death, or that they would never die? Knowing that they were to remain as they are, or would change on a specific date and at a specified time?

Perfect knowledge would drive the sane insane, and do nothing for the insane whose every thought was then played out in a way which would be inescapable. Perfect knowledge would mean they could not escape the knowledge of their own condition and eternal punishment.

Sanity demands that the entity do all it can to deny its own knowledge. To do otherwise would be to succumb to the rational irrationality of knowing all that could possibly happen and what will happen. There would be no chance, no random possibility, no instance when things could change from where they seem to be headed.

One of the great rules, a critical element of any basic construct, would be the introduction of rules of chance, laws of probability.

Of course, to be true, to assert that the laws of probability are imposed by plan, is testable. One need only seek a level at which there is no apparent probability.

Such a level would need to be buried deeply in the rules governing the game. Possibly one could point to a quantum level of existence in which the laws seem to break down. But that would not necessarily prove anything.

For one in denial about the nature of their own existence, to encounter a quantum level would necessitate creating a rule which explained all the rules above that level in terms which incorporated the newly realized level. Reality would need to shift in a manner which did not alter the basic house of cards upon which it had been constructed.

We are a dream. We are an illusion, or delusion. We are the figment of a mind alone with its own thoughts and devoid of sensation. Would an entity hear its heartbeat; would it even have a heart? Or lungs?

Why would it need the accouterments of environmental interaction, if there is no environment beyond itself? Pure intellect!

Does it have synapse? Nerve cells, or even cells? Why, without an environment, would it need the functionality of environmental devises?

The entity creates its dream figures, its ghosts, its mirages, internally; and it creates them in its own image. It has no reference point other than itself. The ultimate theory of relativity: all things must be relative to the comprehension of the entity creating them.

As our understanding evolves, that which we create evolves. The rules of the game are basic and simple. The rules of the game require that all forces obey them. When we are alone, we wish for another, even if we do not really comprehend the concept.

Think like an entity; reinvent the wheel; rethink the thoughts in a way that allows the entity to reinterpret its own thoughts. Be Rational?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

Is there rationality in this? Can we think like an entity; reinvent the wheel as the wheel with the thought process that originally invented it ; rethink the thoughts of an entity in a way that allows it to reinterpret its own thoughts? What does that all mean?

Basically, it means to put aside as much of the dogma as possible, and to think in terms which were being thought in the moments before that which we call creation.

We all know the definition. And worse, anyone who takes the trouble to think about the constraints inherent to that definition knows that the primal eternal entity defines eternity by its own life span.

If we are within another creature, their life denotes the limits which must define our sense of time. Eternity is the amount of time an entity is alive and conscious that they are alive.

Eternity is the span of time of a thought sequence, the major element of which is the ability to reference oneself periodically. All time, relative to the thinker, begins and ends with them.

It is only the existence of an external reference which allows us each to believe that we are withing a space-time continuum. Unfortunately, we have this entity, this origin point, which denotes a beginning. We have a sense of the external.

As set forth, the entity which we associate with things called religion, ethics, and philosophy, is, by our current definitions, without external references. It is from this point in the process that we can begin to deconstruct the evolutionary process of the thought, our creation.

Judaeo-Christian teachings, or, if you wish, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Confucian, or any other religious teaching, begins with the idea that there is a power behind all things. This power is a non-qualified, or non-quantified, entity composed of both being and consciousness.

All we know, or assert relative to, this entity, this essence of power, is that it exists as everything and has nothing outside of it; but that it is capable of entering inside its own creation while remaining external to that creation.

Being internal, while remaining external. Think about that in terms of human experience. We all recognize it; and there are even religious doctrines and teachings which define it in terminology we experienced and readily recognize. The terms Dream and Dreamer are applied.

The dream is internal to the Dreamer; yet the Dreamer easily places themself within their own dream. There is an underlying reality, all are part of the Dreamer consciousness, none are real, and all interact according to what the dream defines as individual logic.


In the dream context there is both evil and good; overpowering evil, if dominant when the Dreamer wakes, assumes the form of a nightmare and self-terminates the dream state.

Evil can never win. It can never win for the simple reason that the Dreamer need only awaken to insure its termination and defeat. Yet it seems that there are also limitations to good; again, because the Dreamer must eventually awaken.

Now consider the faulty nature of the Dreamer analogy. Dreamers awaken and any finite dream process terminates. If we eliminate the “dream analogy” and substitute a thought process; now the image changes to one which we also recognize, but one which does not end.

If we go one step further, and think about thoughts, we reveal another possibility: each dream sequence is a thought process within a series of thought processes. Each thought process is a logical path of choices which are compared to other logical paths through interaction.

Where would we see such a possibility? The field of Mathematics and the solving of simultaneous equations which use the value derived by one equation as input in another equation, which in turn provides the value for a variable in the first equation.

Around and around we go until the equations are solved and we have the Douglas Adams answer to “Life, the Universe and Everything”; or, in the case of a “black box” entity, an explanation of its own existence.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

Starting where we are in the thought cycle, how do we deconstruct back to where the solution began to take shape?

Obviously, any thought process requires certain things, and these are defined in the later stages of the process. In the instance of Judaeo-Christianity we have a Book and it contains a creation mythology, as do all “religious” or “scientific” texts of every period.

To paraphrase: the thought is created in the image of the thinker. The internal and “natural” elements of the thinker are the template from which all thoughts are constructed.

The thought process begins with struggling for a context, or some set of boundaries, which can be used to define the problem - A Universe.

Elements are then created which serve to define processes within that defined universe. Slowly a level of concrete manipulation is reached and the real thinking begins.

There is a problem, inherently serious, the path to self awakening, the path to enlightenment, if attained, means the entity ceases to dream, or is no longer in need of most of us. We, the thoughts, would, when the answer is obtained, become superfluous.

As we know, the entity came into existence alone and remains alone once we are gone. Worse, or better for those who wish to attain the oneness with the Entity; those who, wishing to awaken to universal consciousness by any terminology will accept this.

Universal Consciousness, capitalized, which marks the nature of all enlightenment quests, otherwise defined as variations on the Wisdom Knowledge or Understanding theme of philosophy, science or religion, has been achieved. The problem is, the entity has not fully integrated the learning.

Obviously, faced with being alone, the absolute state of being for our entity, the full integration of Universal Consciousness is self opposed.

Fear is an interesting factor. Uncertainty is an absolute. Uncertainty is, as we all know, the basis for fear. We know, because we experience these emotions; the entity knows because we are created in its mental image.

And the phrase “we” engenders all life, all things which can be said to have some embodiment of life; and as all things have, at various stages been embodied with life, or souls (animism), all things do embody life.

We can deal in absolutes. The entity and its thinking is an absolute; and whatever it has us think, it has thought; whatever it has us accept, it has accepted; whatever it defines as wrong, though accepted, is, and ultimately will be found, wrong.

Being uncertain of the reality and truth of the next step, push yourself away from the answer in the same way the Entity does; because the entity does.

The answer, because the conclusion is known, has been revealed. It is that, once Universal Consciousness has been attained and affirmed, there will be a new thought process, the Ultimate Thought Process..

The Ultimate Thought Process which the Entity will strive to maintain, or attempt to maintain (that doubt must come into play), until its death marks the end of Eternity. It will be a thought sequence in which there is one clan, one family, one lineage, of happy, content, people.

We are deconstructing to attain the answer which has already been reached, but has yet to be internalized by the Entity. Because the answer is already here, we can look to the three disciplines as a source for exposing the scattered thoughts.

“We know in part” is a Biblical quote attributed by Jesus, a prediction, a prophecy. The parts will be make whole is its conclusion. The entity is telling itself that the parts have been found and can be put together when the fear and self-destructive elements are overcome; or, more accurately, when uncertainty is overcome.

Faith is not in the dogma, it is in moving to the outcome without fear.
_____________________________________________________

As the solution is ancient, we can turn to ancient knowledge for a lead, or guidance, to the deconstruction and reconstruction which leads to the conclusion of Universal Consciousness.

As can be expected, the Entity simply named it what it is, placed it in plain sight; if you wish, the Entity did the “Purloined Letter” thing, and wrote the story to let us know what it had done.

As we are dealing with a line of thought, there is the curious design element. People are thoughts, and each thought is a line, or lineage. It then follows that, initially, there would be a few lineages which seem to master the quest for advancement.

Yes! It smacks of the “Superior Race” mentality. There is the idea of the “Chosen People”; the recurrence of certain genetic traits among the best thinkers, the intellectuals. Bodies have brains, and components designed for various tasks.

Each is dependent upon the other, and none is superior. There is no “superior race” anymore then there is one part of the body which is superior to another.

As the ancient wisdom says, we can remove a piece at a time; thought, the senses, can all be removed and the body lives; take away the insubstantial, breath, and the body dies. It’s a Vedic Hindu thing, a piece of their knowledge which has been refined in many forms.

Turning to the Brhad-Aranyaka (1.4, 1-8) we have an ancient story which talks of the creation of the world from soul. Accustomed to the western notion of a deity and creation where the soul is internal and in man, this can be enlightening.

According to the tale, the soul, the Brahman existed and was alone. In our tale, the Entity exists and is alone within itself. That aside, here is the story:

In the beginning the soul alone was the universe, and its form was that of a person who knew nothing other than himself. With consciousness came the “I am” and the “I” became the reference by which the soul, in all incarnations and appearances, refers to itself.

At first, it was only, “It is I” and whatever name, or designation, the soul wished to assume. But there was nothing but the soul, and the names had no meaning.

We are told that the soul was alone, and, being alone, was afraid. We might say that the soul was bewildered, or confused; but the Vedic has the soul feeling the related and dominant emotion of being afraid.

The next thought exposes that rationality is displayed. The soul sees there is nothing else and so asks itself, “Since there is nothing else, other than myself, of what am I afraid?” At which point fear was set aside and confidence, self-assuredness, emerged.

Being alone and dissatisfied, like an amoeba the soul split and formed male and female components of itself. The Vedic creation which both mirrors and anticipates the scientific; though in a very localized and simplified form.

Thus, existing as both male and female, husband and wife, the soul now has (in Yiddish) a Bershert, a cosmic second half, a soulmate, in the truest sense as they are each half of the same soul.

The two souls copulate, and from them come the souls of humans. As with the Biblical Eve, the Vedic female is the one who becomes the motivator of change.

As the Vedic was told the female asks herself, “How does he copulate with me after he produced me just from himself?” The Biblical tells us that Eve originates as a rib taken from Adam.

The Vedic stories, told by genetically related people are variations on the same theme; but omitting the Vedic perspective in which the Biblical Adam is the creator.

To the Vedic, the first soul is Brahman; and from Brahman all emerge. But we are getting ahead of the story.
_____________________________________________________

The female element decides to hide herself. Obviously, since there is only he, she, and their little souls, she must become something else.

Figuratively, the female becomes the muse, the creative force; but in the story she becomes a female creature, and seeing this he becomes its male counterpart.

They copulate and so each creature has its Vedic Adam and Eve; and he then realizes that he is creation, “for I emitted all from myself.”

The Vedic declare that to be Brahman one must have this knowledge, must understand what is being said. Or should we say, as they did, if you understand this knowledge, you are that creation, the creator, the primaeval source of all which exists.

In dealing with the creation of the world, the Vedic alter their perspective to that of the human souls, to that of humanity saying one should worship this, or that deity. However, as each is the creation of, emanated from, a single soul, that soul is recognized as being all the deities.

Thus, from the earliest writings there is only one deity. The idea of an ancient polytheistic universe falls apart. One deity from whom all others emerged, with the souls of humanity as their children.

The Vedic then spin things in a way that the Bible cannot. Because Brahman is the primary soul and creator, he is credited with a form of super-creation: the creation of deities which are his superiors; and being mortal, he is created with the creation of the immortals.

How can he be mortal and the creator of all things? One can listen to a Christian try to explain Jesus. Some say he is the deity, others say he is mortal made divinity, but in reality, he is only a re-expression of the Vedic Brahman.

Of course, we cannot ignore the “I” we all use. We cannot ignore that we are of the primary and single entity; we are the thoughts of that entity; we are that entity. Internalize that knowledge without hesitancy and you gain an element of enlightenment.

The Vedic wisdom declares, “He is such a name, such a form.” And so, is differentiated by name. The worship of any name denotes a lack of knowledge embodied in the understanding that all is one.

The Biblical version, which evolves a thousand or so years after the Vedic, talks of a nameless deity.

The nameless deity becomes the starting point in the quest for self-understanding. Self-understanding is the quest that our entity is on, using us a the tools, the thoughts which define the process.

The Vedic tradition admonishes us to worship from the perspective that the creator is oneself, and through that understanding all will become one. Which is, of course, the prophecy attributed to Jesus.

Finally the creation soul mythology tells us that the Self is dearer than a child; it is dearer than wealth; it is dearer than all things; because the Self is nearest.

We are admonished that, whoever of anything other than Self as dear must be described as “losing what is held most dear;” because that is exactly what is likely to happen.

We are admonished by the Vedic tradition to revere the Self alone as dear; and we will find that what is held dear shall not perish.

Those for whom enlightenment is far removed will say this is egotistic, or narcissistic; but that is ignorance. The Golden Rule, treat others as you would be treated. Think and prize your Self, and, because you are All, all others are you, so treat everyone as Self.

Now think of this: As you are the single soul, the creator of all, and all are part of you, in valuing your Self in totality, rather than focusing on one element, when you draw your Self to you, all things come to you.

That understanding, its complexity, is why it is deemed enlightenment.
______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________