A voicehearer’s path ~

Posts tagged ‘sacredness’

Cute ~

Puppies and Kittens

As that one woman in your office can tell you (or if you are her, no need), cute pictures of snuggly, doe-eyed little critters touch a soft spot in us humans. Baby schema — the set of features that make young animals appealing, like big eyes and a head too big for the body — have been shown in experiments to capture people’s attention, make them smile and even induce caregiving to others. Oh sure, the boss may seem tough, but one look at a basket full of puppies and he’ll want to rub you right on your little belly.

A study published online this week by the journal PloS ONE suggests that viewing cute images not only makes people feel better, but improves performance in completing certain tasks.

Oh my! A study to explain why might show something that the wise ones have been saying for millenia. Genuine compassion is what is needed for this world to function better. Lol, I know that seems a bit simplistic, but it’s true. When we care, we are careful. Anything evoking that caring part of our personalities will function to bring us into a state of mind that will cross our “t”s and dot our “i”s with more precision. We can be as efficient in many ways as a surgical machine, but without compassion, we are just going about our tasks on automatic drive. That’s why we cannot find a way to make a computer surpass a good Doctor’s worth when it comes to patient care.

I love the very thought of this. It so completely shows that we are in need of compassion, even in the mundane tasks of the day. The more we care, the more careful we are, even when it comes to tying our shoes. I suspect that this was marketing research for anime that simply surprised those conducting the study regarding the deeper implications of it. But how magnificent is that? A simple market study about cuteness finds that we as humans are hardwired to function better when the caring part of our personalities is tapped! I dare say that you will find with deeper study that this is why those who can harm animals easily and without purpose are inclined to become serial criminals of a violent and harmful nature.

Compassion is teachable! It is important to begin the teaching in early childhood. If we do this, we will enhance our existence beyond our wildest imaginings, and find true happiness is something that can be unleashed here on Earth.

Advertisements

The Fourth Principle ~

4) Everything in the Universe has resonance. Nothing is truly dead. Everything has a vibration. Everything.

I have difficulty thinking of even the prettiest plastic object, i.e. our little puff in the picture, as having resonance, and therefore life. However, there are a couple of things that need considered.

A. The puff has a color; that will give it a resonance on the color scale, and

B. it has molecules as it is a “solid” object. molecules, as anyone who has studied basic high school science knows, move, and at a quite infinitesimally small level, there would then be a resonance, so I give, everything has resonance, and is therefore not “dead”.

However, does that say it has a consciousness. I don’t know, though the quantum physicists would probably say it does have energy, as there seem to have been some experiments that say that things observed change just because of the act of being observed. Now that goes a little more heavily into the quantum stuff than I can explain, but it does apparently mean that energy, which exists in all of the universe, {remember E=MC²?} has a sort of sentience of it’s own. Dang, that means when I fuss at a piece of plastic it may fuss back? I doubt it, but it may record it. Wouldn’t that be embarrassing if someone were able to tap into private conversations that had been held around a piece of plastic? Yikes! Watch where you leave your cell phones!

Perhaps, if we thought of every thing as having a sort of life of it’s own, we would treat things better than we do? Probably not, if we respect ourselves, we respect the things around us, if we do not, nothing is sacred. Yet, if we could think of even all humans as sacred beings we would live better lives than we do currently. I am not speaking of those who fuss about the rights of the unborn, I have yet to figure out why the rights of an unborn means more to some than the rights of the born. There are too many living in slavery, starvation and just plain poor conditions; when we get to the point where their lives are lived in a world free from such horrors, then, perhaps it will be time to look at the rights of the unborn. We have a long way to go.

DNA, God’s signature?

Yes, I do believe that the sacred spiral within each of our cells is God’s signature. I am in awe that the one who created us so completely cared about each and every cell in our bodies and that it is his signature that keeps us reproducing in the manner he chose. In fact, it is when that signature has been messed with, either by our own carelessness, or environment or disease, that things go wrong within the human body.

I must admit to being whacked enough to feel that if they ever did a DNA test on me, I would want the schematic framed and on the wall as art. Yeah, I know, woman’s crazy. And I am also crazy enough to feel that any other creature that carries the DNA signature, or plant for that matter, is somehow “related” to me. It’s a Native America perspective that so fit with what I already felt that it became my own perspective as well. In fact, it was in learning the NA perspective that I learned that the Spiral that occurs in nature has been sacred to them for generations. There is so much about the NA perspective that I find utterly sensible, if we went back in time and were forced to live without things like computers (heaven forfend!) or even rudimentary things like radios, I would probably choose to live in that lifestyle, simply because there is among the more peaceful tribes a sense of balance and beauty that I have found nowhere else.

One of the things I find heartbreaking and painful is the insistence that these folks were the savages and Europeans were the civilized. MM-HM, the NA’s minded their own business, it was the Europeans who were taking property and space that wasn’t theirs to take. It’s done now, and I am grateful that the NA’s have forgiven us as fully as most of them have. They would not share their spiritual knowledge with us, if they had not made at least a general peace with our presence here. I have been given the honor of smoking a prayer pipe with a pipe-carrier of the Lakota people, more than once. The “tobacco” was a type of willow bark. The experience was like no other. One is extremely aware of the presence of Spirit.

I apologize for the digression, back to DNA; I brought up the subject to make the point that, though I respect the desire to find answers to some of the hardest questions in medicine, I most heartily wish that the researchers had more of a sense of the sacredness of the work they are doing. If I knew that they had that awareness, I would probably not worry so much about the outcome of cloning animals when we are only beginning to understand the map of the genome.

Pantheism/Monotheism an old debate ~

God is Everywhere, Everywhere is God! Which is it, really? This is the age old argument between Pantheism and Monotheism. But, truly, how much difference is there between the perspectives? In one you see the world as inhabited by Spirit, in the other you see the world inhabited by spirits. Yet, in monotheism, there is room for angels and demons and all sorts of “in betweens”, so a minor “garden god” in pantheism becomes an angel of the garden in monotheism.

The difference between the two perspectives is the idea that you can see one intelligence as being “in charge” of the whole. I believe there is, but even that “in charge” being is not as we presume. We think being in charge means that everything that happens on your shift is your responsibility. In which case, everything from the greatest good to the darkest evil can be “pinned” onto God’s robes and we can get all sorts of “mad” at God for allowing bad things to happen.

Perhaps. But what about the idea that God may “create” simply because that is the nature of God’s “being”, and then, when it is created, God releases it into the universe having already endowed it with the ability to make choices on it’s own, and hopes for the best. With the ability to make choices comes an insidious little thing creeping into the works called an ego. This ego then, has the choice to “obey” the “Prime Directive” to Love, or to go it’s own way, wanting what it wants and not giving a d*mn about any other entity’s rights or feelings.

Since that latter seems, indeed, to be the way things are, in backtracking the clues, it would seem to me that this GOD is inclined to create and release. But, why? Well, this theory has been around for a long while, as have most of the things I have put together on this blog, but, perhaps the Creator desires to be loved freely, not by command. In that case, the Creator would have to give the created the choice to love or not to love.

Now, lets go back to the question of pantheism v. monotheism. If we understand that there is but one actual God, then we begin to at least look for the primary reasons for our having been created. If we leave it that the spirits are as we are, and unguided, or perhaps guided by one as faulty as Zeus, each a being unto himself, then there really is no reason to look for motive beyond the existence of life itself. That’s almost good enough, after all, there is simply a sacredness about life that is so profound that Moshe wrote into the laws the idea that if a man wasted his seed he had sinned, (this would, indeed be the idea behind the gay lifestyle being sinful, one was created to procreate, never mind that there are already too many of us on the planet {or that that is the precursor to a proliferation of same gender relations throughout all of nature.})

¿Do you ever wonder if God can change his/her mind? After all, the command to go forth and multiply has been obeyed to the point of overflowing, can God command us to close the tap down to a trickle? And are we so foolish that we need God to even make such a command?

Yet, all over the planet there are indications that compassion is the paradigm toward which we are to grow. Is this built into us? That implication is there, both scientifically and philosophically. Or is it the response of mankind to One who has been guiding us toward compassion? And even here, I have wondered for some time if compassion is so profound a need (I’d agree) that it matters not whether the students follow monotheism or pantheism?

Witness Taoism and Judaism; the teachings are similar, the core almost identical, yet the approach is mirrored, and so (almost) justifies wars. Just remember, war in any disguise makes compassion more difficult! *The painting is by Dina Dargo, and links to where it may be purchased, but so beautifully makes the point of the dichotomy which I am addressing! The vine in Buddhism seems to signify living in the moment looking neither to past nor future, and for me it signifies Spirit as the vine taking me from gentle human form into something greater, (oops, maybe they are the same perspective?)

I have seen in dreams Hashem as a many faceted jewel, when we look in any one of the faces, things look right and complete from that point of view, yet, a complete understanding of Hashem can only be had when all the faces are put together and one can see the complete and glowing gem.

Sacredness ~

I answered someone’s question earlier today about what constituted blasphemy with the usual definitions, and then went on to comment that sacredness was where your heart is with God, and blasphemy was where you could not sense God, yet addressed God anyway.

I believe that is true, but I also believe that God is very real, and so, there is a point at which, no matter what you believe, you may commit blasphemy by going against God. Now, the question then comes, what, truly, is “Going against God?” And that, indeed, is the question of our time, isn’t it?

We have reached, as a society, a crisis of faith so severe that either everything is all right, and we are just good folks having a fun party, or we have to decide what is right and what is not. Now, if you have read my last post, you already know where I stand. If it is of compassion, it is not far from the will of God, and if it is close to the will of God, you are doing all you can to obey the holy presence.

But, therein lies the rub, so to speak. What is of compassion? Can’t we just go about making sure everyone is fed and clothed, and housed, and all is pretty much all right? Well, actually, I do think that comes awfully close if it’s not on the mark. But, then, what do we do about the people that will not treat their “brothers” as equals in all things? I do believe that even if we all have all of our basic needs met that there will still be those who will be less than kind to their neighbor.

BUT, we have a long way to go before we get to the point where we can actually say to anyone, but you had all you needed, what went wrong? Now, the basis of my belief that we will still have problems is not the basic depravity of man. I am not a Calvinist. I actually believe that humans all have a bright side and a dark side. And that, whatever side you feed, that side will prosper.

But wait, that implies much more than just the meeting of basic needs to see that the “bright” side of each human wins out in the long run. If you follow that line of thinking to it’s logical conclusion, then there are many factors that can cause a human to rise or fall. What of the child who is given all of those basic needs, but is never allowed to feel wanted or needed or loved in any way? What about the child born without the ability to feel loved? In both instances, basic needs met or not, you are probably looking at the beginnings of a criminal lifetime.

So, there we are, back to compassion, aren’t we? But, what do we do with those children when they grow up into a life of crime? Do we electrocute them? After all, can we not look at their beginnings and see the signs that they would not prosper? And seeing those signs, could we not intervene on behalf of the child? Perhaps that would help for the child not allowed to feel love, but what of the child unable to feel love? What can Santa bring that child to “fix” things?

Or does Santa exist for that child in any way? If the child is unable to feel love, then the Calvinist will say that that child will perish and go to everlasting hell. But . . . . . . what if the Calvinist is wrong? What if there is no hell? What if there is only death and rebirth? What if the meaning of Y’shua’s words were misconstrued in the translation and he was speaking of coming back around in a new body and trying again? Ooops!

And by the way. who are we to presume that an all seeing, all knowing God, who knows that that child is unable to accept the gift, for that is what love is, a gift, will condemn the child outright?. No matter how it is presented, by the crucifixion of one man for all, or by the knowledge that a compassionate God has always forgiven, it is a gift. In your world, the child unable to accept love by virtue of a personality glitch must surely die, for that child cannot accept the love of the Christ. (Christ, a Greek word, not Hebrew. Christianity is, after all Hellenized Judaism)

You insist that it must be with the sacrifice of this man, this God man, who hung on the cross. This is possible. I have no difficulty with the idea that God would accept the sacrifice one made for all, I have difficulty in believing that God would disobey his own words to Moshe that he would never come in the form of a human. And there is another thing here. Hashem told his followers that he would never accept human sacrifice. So, OK, he went back on his word and did what he said he wouldn’t do. Um, God lied?

Maybe your God, but not my God, sorry, it’s not flying with me today. My God requires absolute painful truthfulness out of me, from the start of the day, to the finish. If I must obey a God that requires that kind of truth, I can, but not if He lies to the entire human race. So, it is quite OK for you, if you wish to believe that Y’shua was more God’s son than you are, just accept the fact that I think he was an enlightened human who knew God in a closer than usual fashion and leave it at that, please?

Oh, and by the way, when you can produce the Aramaic words of Y’shua where he actually said he was God’s only begotten, and I don’t have to buy that the original manuscripts were ditched in Constantinople because they proved he did not, yeah, then we’ll discuss the idea that he called himself God.

In the meantime, I happen to believe in the compassion of Hashem as an ongoing and all encompassing thing. I like the concept, it means God forgives. It also means I have to behave myself and not murder, cheat. lie or steal, or at least make the grand effort to live the life of one who does not do these things, knowing that forgiveness is there, but that I am expected to grow in Spirit and mature in a manner that says I do indeed believe in the Holy One, or the Holy Presence, if you prefer. Oh, and another thing or three, there are things one does for others if one truly believes in the compassion of Hashem.

Oh, and the child? I believe in reincarnation, obviously, so, perhaps, the glitch will no longer be there, and the child can accept the love of God, no matter what form you put it in.

Tag Cloud