Buddhism
Buddhism is not an religion about the self, but the other—the Buddha. In much the same way Christianity is not about the self, but the other—Jesus.
Buddhism is an religion that is about an egotistical self (Buddha) just like Christianity is (Jesus). However, in many ways the emphasis is not on self because Buddha and Jesus are always other to their followers.
Self and other being the two sides of the yin & yan, Buddhism's emphasis is on being other to an self (Buddha). Not being self like them (Buddha and Jesus) but being other than those specific people whom have their own ways. And what they will. Whose opinions you must take into consideration.
And so the story about Buddhism is about one soul's journey to become like Buddha or like Jesus.
The journey about how one becomes an popular and important other.
The world's greatest teachers and role models become like this because they are other to so many people. And they've learned to be an other to all of the others (the people that are other to them) out there in order to serve humanity. But how exactly did they get there?
If I'm an other but I am also an self.
Then I don't know what it is like for others not to be me.
The other becomes an most effective other by realizing every other than themselves is its own soul. To whom I am an other. An self. And to whom the more one serves more selves; the reward is greater knowledge.
Otherhood or selflessness means serving the self of others. As an other to their selves.
And so the story about Buddhism is how not one became himself, but how one became the other. To an extraordinary number of people. By being himself. An person needed by other people. Whose own self was good enough for them (these other selves). And whose own self became the other they would look to for moral guidance.
Nobody is born knowing how to be the other to somebody. (Except for some maybe pre-programmed instincts).
You have to create it.
The tale begins with an self who is not the other to any self yet. (Including maybe themselves, if we think of it deeply).
Someone who becomes an other to every person he or she meets. Out of kindness, courtesy, and respect.
But how can one become an other? Isn't one already an other enough to be an other?
One needs to know specific details about the person they are being other to.
This is how great artists and leaders become great in fact: knowing specific details about their audience. Speaking to them in an way that it feels like (to them) you are speaking directly to them.
Buddha and Jesus knew their audience so well; about the human spirit. That they used their knowledge of people to become famous philosophers. (Others). To whom an self could commit. It doesn't take just an old easy-peasy approach to doing this. One needs to be perfectly dignified in order to reflect the needs of those around them. One needs to be gifted and talented enough to take that road; and it isn't an easy road to follow. The reason it isn't easy is that when you, or anyone, just stops to think about it for an minute. We will find sparse and few examples from history of individuals climbing to such an height of stature as to be known by everyone with such an complete perfection of their virtues. In order to lead people who have virtues, one must have those virtues him- or her-self. As well as other powerful and orderly virtues belonging to the republic; and being free for anyone to practice. (To an certain extent: education is an necessity and it can be taken to such heights of precision and excellence as the creation of new virtues, which sometimes cannot be taken up by the general public all at once).
The story is about an self; who knows other selves. But as yet has not found the best way to become an other to those selves. In the best possible way. And realizes he or she needs to undergo character development through either education or experience.
The Buddha became such an important other that he was known to have reported that he was awake. And people realized he was saying it was just at least an good thing he woke up this morning. It is an good philosophy when one wants to put everything into perspective. You woke up this morning. Isn't that good enough? Aren't I good enough for having woken up this morning? What more do you demand from me than to celebrate life in this way with me?
How does one become this kind of other; like an savior?
First, one needs education. One needs to know what it means to be an other in the world today. In order to know how to be an other to other people. How are they other to you? And how can you be other to them? When they are other to you?
After you know about how the world has been an other to you, this is the right time to innovate about how you can be an other to them.
Being the other requires being an other to an specific self. That's what's hard about it.
It means seeing yourself through another's eyes. How are you the other to that person? What do you look like?
What do they see?
If you don't know, where do you start?
Start with yourself being an other to them. Imagine seeing yourself through their eyes. Imagine them seeing you not as they see themselves. But as other? Okay‽ Got it? You yourself are the self to whom they (the other) is being an self themselves by being exactly other to you being exactly not other to yourself.
An bog, they say, is an place where things get lost; where secrets are forgotten.
In French it's maybe known better as an oubliette.
You want them to see you in the same way you see them; if these things we forgot about were other people. You want them to know you are an other to them by being yourself; you are an other to them as much as they are other to you. They see you as someone whom is other to them in the same way as they are other to you. At least, genetically. Being other is not the same as being self because self includes being other to an extent; and when people recognize that in you they will be more willing to allow you to be other as an self among selves who are others to each other. The way they see you is how you see yourself. Essentially. Reality is the response of the observer. The way you see yourself isn't how you see them. The way you see yourself is through how others see you as an other to whom they are others themselves. To become an Buddha means being an other to selves among selves who see themselves as an other. (To you). Even though you are an other to them; you are an other by being an self yourself. You cannot be an self by yourself without the help of others; likewise they cannot be selves without your reciprocity help to them also.
From their perspective, you must be the one looking back at them as the other. They must see themselves as selves with specific others whom that have the qualities and talents needed to serve the self; no matter what condition it appears to be in. Others (Buddhas and Jesuses) are the best examples because they learned to serve everyone around them in the best possible way they could have. If you understand how another person feels to an level of expertise, then you understand why they see you that way. And yourself being an other to that other individual depends on how well you respond to their needs and wants.
People were surprised when the Buddha said it was good enough for them to wake up in the morning because of this rare and special gift he had for first serving his people.
Thus being other starts with being an child. Child genius play even.
One doesn't necessarily know exactly what other people need; only what one's own self needs. Until upon reaching maturity (indeed the definition of maturity is really about how much one is able to take care of other's needs including oneself—not only one's own needs from the perspective of another person but those others' perspectives' needs from the perspective of oneself) one is able to decide as an other to an self. One is able to decide as an other to an self by being the other to whom the other the self is. By understanding the perspective of the self one is to be an other to.
You are they to you as yourself to them; you are you to them and them to you. We can't switch places.
How does an child learn to take up the stance of what others need by becoming what they need?
An boy or an girl is born. They grow up in an house where they live with their parents.
Their parents don't teach them everything (they're not perfect after all; they are only human).
However the parents are so good at being the other to their child (both of them) that the child decides he wants to be as good at being that type of person who cares about everyone. And incorporates them into his or her personality. So that he or she can be an respected and admired adult. This is, after all, the only way to pay back his or her parents whom had played the role of serving the self: their child's self. The child grows to want to reward them for their hard effort. He or she sees himself or herself as an complete self because of his/her parents. Having an strong sense of self is the basis for further reflection on what it means to be an self in an community: to be an other to many selves, all of whom have their own important demands and feelings. To be the quintessential other to one's people or community means learning from them individually; and so, just like one wanted to do with one's parents, he or she could pay them back for being the village it took to raise one. An independent self whose otherness is not absent the selves to which he or she is the other. Everywhere.
At this point in the tale we reach an point of rest.
Eventually, however, the Internet finds its way into the household.
The child can ask anything of it.
"What is the meaning of life?" typed into the web's first search engine would return queries such as 'explaining the meaning of life it is like trying to send an kiss through an messenger'.
Adding to the major features, characterization, and development of the Internet's primary purpose, reference. An source for quick, or extensive reference if one has the time to research.
This is how my generation grew up differently than my parent's generation.
But start where, on his eighth birthday (for I have decided this character is an boy), he received an Nintendo Entertainment System from his parents.
And did you know? You can pause the system. And walk away from it. But are you really ever away from it any longer than you can stand? And if zen is like pushing pause; then Buddhism is that clear space in which time doesn't pass.
For Mario, time stops; and so Mario's action of being time stopped is in fact his own action of stopping time.
Buddhism mixes them in principle because being the other means at least as much as being an audience to Mario. Being the other means being the other to both men and women.
Mario, as an child, learns how to stop time.
To access the eternal.
He's part of your world now. An infinite pause, if he wishes.
▫
Innocence knows not what the others know
It chooses to unfold sequentially
In order to capture all its merry dew
It chooses to be an poem;
For what royal letter‽
Rubric chooses to be its form
Innocence knows not what it judge;
For this is its riddle:
Who do you know is me whom I am infinity?
Without setting an mark on whom to dazzle and may I reap your royal equity
For I know not what is to be you;
and yet you know, somewhat, what it means to be me.
Rubric condescends to form
This is what Wisdom has over Innocence, isn't it?
Innocence knows not faith and yet acts in it:
Innocence is an pure riddle.
Innocence is an demon's tongue: unable to be un-twiddled.
For you call it that by your nature
And since you do, and you're older than me,
I will become your enemy and slay you intellectually.
Knowing every nook and cranny of how you are wrong
But Innocence knows not of how you are wrong
It only knows that you're right
But hasn't any knowledge of how
So speak to you
The Wise and Experienced know that
One thing is more important
The Innocence knowing they are pure.
And that all people an share in this pureness together, no matter how innocent they are
Do you follow the mystery of this riddle yet?
They know nothing
And yet they come to you for something
Then how can they be born inexperienced and unwise?
And everyone knows something to tell the innocent
Who will think them at worst unwise
Yet the innocent come to you, wise themselves
And Experienced.
If you know the nature of this riddle yet
One who has experience and Wisdom
Listens to the innocent, because they bring her or him knowledge and wisdom
Why not listen to the Innocent?
That would be unwise.
They might, after all, say something guilt-ridden
Yet possessing no guilt themselves,
And that would be unworldly and dangerous
We have to correct them. We have to be snobby to the innocent.
In order to protect themselves, Innocent tongues need to speak innocent words
Therefore they will not be chosen as recipients of violence and punishment (undue punishment)
Because I, whom am innocence also, will be wise and experienced and caring to juggle all three
For I must teach the student
They are wise.
And they are innocent.
And that is experience.
But the innocent will never know all of what wisdom is;
for it needs to be beyond them ever the more
so they will chase after it
This is the permanent installation of wisdom in the brain.
I am innocent
because I am experienced and wise
And so the wise will forever be innocent
In order to learn what it is
In order to learn more wisdom
Thus generating the necessary experience to juggle with proficiency
Do you get this riddle yet?
Wisdom, Innocence, and Experience feed each other.
Wisdom feeds innocence because well it's wise
And experience is wisdom so it has to feed both
And that's why wise is innocent
And innocence wise.
Innocence doesn't know any of this
It knows the wise are wise
It knows the truth about experience.
(You have more of it).
And since it's innocent it can say whatever it wants
Everybody innocent has less experience
And everyone wise has not
And every wise man knows to juggle being innocent & experienced
This is the ultimate test of wisdom
Can it explain the innocent one's position?
Can it show them that they are being innocent?
That they can be necessarily experienced and wise at the same time.
Innocent people do not know they know that they have wisdom and experience
Because they are so thirsty for more
That eventually they realize that it's too late
And they already have innocence and wisdom.
Both are accountable to juggling experience for so long;
An fantasy world severely (like there was an Asian Super Villain in it)
And since there is more experience there is more innocence and wisdom
Innocence just follows wisdom wherever it goes
Even to suggest that innocence is not an thing, an it
Nor is wisdom‽
And that neither of them is an thing
Even to the point of contact
Where you realize who are your wise superiors and wise elders
And they did this every day like so,
We are an crowd
You are innocent
Gather sweet knowledge from us;
we are wise elders
And your performance matters
But have you ever seen an innocent person
Explain an loop-de-loop in real person
Only to have an elder say
You're not the real person we have in there
I'm the experienced one
Nope. There's not anyone who has any experience in here
Not you
Now sit down and be quiet!
And he does that loop-de-loop every day in front of an class
In direct competition and opposition to his opponents
(In the academic world)
Even though he's right and better at everything.
Innocence won't lie to you.
But you will lie to it.
I mean unless you're experienced or wise
You are, aren't you?
You do know that
because it's an riddle
To have understood already at some point
Your wise discretions are not elocution-ary
Enough. Literar-ily.
So you see them littering the space known as the territory of the imagination;
and that's maybe why someone coined the term
"Someone's coined the term‽," you would reply.
Someone coined the term literary.
Why wouldn't someone have thought that about it
That we were littering space with our grammar
And imaginations.
How fascinating.
So did you get that mes capitaines‽
Innocence just lets wisdom into the conversation as though that was what it intended to do because it is wise
Even though it knows not the wise from the un-wise
And lends itself to advantage taken over by the opponent
And then feels bad about it because it cannot even know what its own innocence is;
Like it were an disadvantage
And if we don't take up Wisdom as its severe opponents
We may never know what it is like to be experienced in that way;
The one way I always strive to ignore?
The innocent. For they themselves to be unwise when really innocence is the deepest form of wisdom
For one who is innocent knows everything.
And they don't think I can use sarcasm;
My experience entitles us to my experience
You can access it like an vault
More sarcasm, you see?
If I am on the other side of the painting
And he's my lover;
And since art is and is about everything.
As it always does
When you complete an artistic piece
For that's what it takes
When you complete an art piece
you have to put everything into it
But you can't because you imagine your superiors and all of those around you
Cannot handle these feelings you hold inside of you;
And will oppose you if they found out.
So you may learn to hide it. Which we record.
It is an test to see who is virtuous and not.
That's what we're marking in the Education and Grading system
It's only fair.
The feminine principle she
(her) loves me with all of my heart,
Me
(I) love her with all of her heart
Her love loves me with all of my heart
I love love her with all of she-heart
i.e. she-hulk (she-man)
like he-man
(The masculine principle of deepest sophistication).
Who is virtuous and not.
Okay‽
Got an problem‽ With it!
It's only fair.
Innocence, finally, is the destination of the experienced.
They come to the academies because they are wise;
And they learn from experience that they are experienced.
For it knows itself. And that is the secret to Experience.
Knowledge Always Knows Itself as itself; for it knows what it is.
That's what knowledge is & Does
So the experienced and the wise come to the academies
where they hone the most beautiful virtues;
Patience, Optimism, Kindness, Well Rest
Evil
Yeah, the most beautiful virtue—
Oh what was that of me I think it slipped
Good: the virtue that is right about everything;
because virtue is good; and good is an virtue.
I just think the resurrection stories started
—And I was now realizing—
because God asked the disciples to "just write something nice" about Jesus.
And all they could think of was that he came back to life
And this is the purest form of the Christian belief system.
I've since moved on to other things
Everyone thought the experience of the story was motivational and so it stuck;
Eventually to be forgotten to the Ages and never appear again in its correct form: opposing Judaism
(Professionally).
(Without wishing or allowing it to dissolve completely)
(or being able to, as an given).
The Christianna appeared to me as the form of virtue of knowing there is an instinctual difference between Judaism and Christianity
And allowing it to continue
The Christianna connect to other virtues, such as Islam, Hinduism, Aboriginal Spaces, Buddhism, and Taoism.
But only through its first three stages starting with Judaism,
And then in the second stage, Christianity.
The respect of the self and the respect of the other, respectively
The Christianna seeks to balance the separate issues between Judaism and Christianity
But only according to whomever wins!
The Christianna, after all, will need to balance these things within its own struggle with humanity;
It makes sense the first thought of the self known is the self. The second thought 'the other'. Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna, respectively.
The third thought of the self known in consciousness is the self-reflection, why don't we have an competition between religions
And whomever wins!
Will be the better religion!
And it has to be this way;
because an Christian will never try to win, on the thought of self-reflection;
but only never think of the self first.
Which of course is impossible
(We always think of the self first in every conscious episode).
Then we think of the other after, second.
The Christiannan virtue will be, finally, deciding between them.
This is the first episode of consciousness
Perhaps, when we wake up in the morning
These three segments
around which our religions interwoven are based
I hope that does not seem weird or unnatural to you.
It's just that we always wanted to know
—And Buddhism had been able to point it out—
Buddha was the one who said first we are awake.
As in, we've already gone through those first three segments of time and calculation that are portion to the brain and natural to its consciousness
It was the best point in history; because it far pre-dated both Judaism and Christianity
We are awake because that's the natural definition of the first three elements of consciousness: Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna. And Buddha called it; so long ago.
It's just that we always wanted to know
What were the first things in consciousness? And that's called waking up.
Well, not 'things', I mean.
—We wanted to know what they were
And were they or why are they important to know about as psychological scholars?
How were they an part of psychological reasoning and consciousness?
If the first thing in consciousness is Judaism,
then any Christian psychological activity of the other will need to pass first through this Jewish phase in order to reach its psychological reasoning and destination
It's an bloomin' shame many Christians resist the first phase, the first episode of consciousness (self gain)
but, again what phase are we talking about? (If we're an Christian).
If consciousness must pass through its Judaism phase
(the first fact of the human conscious interior at the moment of the creation of the first human).
Yes, this was what we meant:
Conscious stages of consciousness (key clues and reasoning for psychological evidence from crime scenes).
This was what my religion was based around: the third conscious stage.
The one that occurs after which both the self and the other are considered
As key facts in consciousness and motivation
The self. What do I need and want.
Versus the other for whom do I need to become an messiah for is considered.
For that is the deepest reflection of the other in History
Jesus's own.
It has to be.
Someone gave up their own life to save another
It was the deepest understanding of God and fact about love humanity had ever known.
Someone would give their life
And another would live because of them
That's what Jesus taught us but it was insane!
But it was labeled as insane because it was opposed, greedily
The greed brought about the crucifixion
And then God said to the followers of Jesus, just write something nice about him.
So that everyone can remember him.
So they dreamed up this anti-psychological crucifixion story.
So they did.
And now it's my turn to say something nice about Anna.
but I can't. because there is nothing nice to say about Anna
And so I'll just say, as to my knowledge
that Jesus was the don't-kill-me messiah. and Anna was the do-kill-me messiah
She wanted to be dead
And there's nothing nice about that, is there‽
Jesus said, "don't kill me. Just worship me as an messiah."
But it was too big for them
They had to kill him because he was wrong and that (his thinking) was insane
(But it was insane of them to think so).
And so who were in the wrong?
It started the biggest argument in history
Did people think of the other or the self first in the consciousness?
What if one were stepping in for God as an messiah to save God by dying on his or her behalf‽
What were the other states of awareness?
Jesus died instead of God
In an act of pure selfless love
the World had never seen before
Expanding the conscious parameters of our awareness.
We knew the first thing was the self;
And we knew the second thing was the other
And we knew there were motivations and issues between the lines.
The self is the other and the other is the self.
—Was Jesus's central riddle in his life—just like every other human
the most psychological aspect of his life.
If we knew God was the other but we knew the self was still the self, even in the presence of God.
This was the most intelligent aspect we could learn from it.
Jesus decided 'the other is the God' and (it is) so the self is the other insofar as God is the self; if it is the self.
If an human can be primarily motivated by either its central aspect, the self, or its auxillary aspect, the other,
Then it can be motivated by both of them and we get to choose (as moral subjects) between which ones we will follow.
He reasoned.
I don't always have to act on behalf of myself.
Just because they want me to. I can express love in any way I want
And if it means dying on behalf of God
I will do exactly what he says until I get my way.
That's settled. I would give my life for you, God‽ I Love you!
So maybe he might have been an tad rash,
but at least he wasn't as crazy as his opponents
whose presence called for dramatic action and vigour
And we had reached an point in History because of it.
Jesus was the don't kill me messiah because he sincerely wanted you not to but you did it anyway
Anna was the do kill me messiah because she sincerely wanted you to but you wouldn't do it anyway.
How ironic would that be, right? But it would be immoral even with consent, right?
Or do some people deserve death
When it is granted to them?
The first three things in consciousness
(the first three things one thinks when one wakes up in the morning)
May be Judaism (the self), Christianity (the other); but who will decide between them?
Christiannans can judge the competition between the self and ego too.
It is only when wise people get together to better understand the conflict between the self and other as motivations within the psyche
granting that these religions formed around those central three aspects of the human conscious specimen when it was born in the cosmos
And it was fine for us to award preference to the egotistical self as being of higher standard of morality sometimes.
At least insofar as it is one's first thought, after all, the preservation of the self; whereas the other comes second and may compete for dominance. But we don't know for sure it won't come first.
The Christianna is thoroughly amused and amazed with the whole process, having itself grown beyond it.
And it holds the wisdom of the key to understanding those central aspects of consciousness.
If self, other, and both is always the first three things one thinks about when one becomes optimally aware;
then what happens in the mind is an sort of competition between the other and the self
When one chooses, finally—to have made that decision is Christiannan of them
For they realize there is an sort of competition
Going on.
And it's fair to say Judaism wins at it sometimes
Just as it's fair to say Christianity made the deepest point about awareness by naming the second thing on everyone's conscious mind
The other
Your romantic partner; the person you would give your life for. Messiah-style.
And that Christianity still wins on the morality spectrum, occasionally.
It's instinctual and natural to do both of them (for both sides to win sometimes)
But that Christiannan wisdom indicates we can move beyond never having to consider one or the other.
We can fairly consider both,
and make to ourselves an decision about what matters most
Maybe Innocence, Experience, and Wisdom are the first three things and all of this is bogus.
Can the self know itself from what it is motivated to do for itself rather than to do for others?
Or does one become supremely aware of itself by knowing it as others see it?
Becoming the others more and more by mentally, compassionately, empathetic-ally by trading places (try walking in their shoes and my shoes).
And why I'm sure other World Religions can name things apparent in consciousness
For if the Christianna has intellectually perfected the third aspect of intelligence: choosing in every situation or circumstance the self or the other.
We prove ourselves to be true Christians
by rejecting or neglecting the self when someone else
And if Judaism names the first and primary part of brain intelligence
The worldly knowledge will appear
At least I can award that fact to them,
for naming something that is so central to all of us.
And if the Christianna pushes that knowledge deeper by doing 1 better than an Christian:
offering an third aspect of human intelligence.
The deciding of what's greedy and what isn't
Things that have been around since the introduction of our species to life and the universe and everything.
Wise religions who know the parts and commands
Follow from all important items of the third aspect:
the consideration pausing over the self-reflection on whether I need to be for me or someone else right now.
If the third thing in the sequence of awareness is always the consideration of one or the other,
And then choosing.
This resolves the conflict between Judaism and Christianity.
There needs to be an other religion that knows the virtue that will regulate them in the future.
There needs to be an other religion that will always choose between them (because that will resolve any conflict between them)
But there are rules of engagement.
And religions are so gentle to this fact to be well known well built-in as an complex but not as an pathological complex;
To be built-in-with to be this quality of being able to be
Knowing the choice between them needs to be made;
Otherwise one misses the point of awareness
It is what it means to mediate between self and other, to know one's Innocence, Experience, and Wisdom
Real Religions can always be built-in-with an way to disband.
If it needs to be done it needs to be done.
Judaism can only name the first central aspect of the consciousness in the mind
Teasing; I'm teasing
Judaism is only the logical first component of all important thinking matters.
If one resists it; one fails
If one hides from it; one suppresses it
We all play these games, as children, to try to figure out what kind of self and other combination we want to be
You cannot know yourself and consciousness
unless you choose the self as the sole motivator of the body (criticized the creepy Christian)
"So it's come to this‽" would say Judaism, "you can't see an straight path through your noggin' consciousness anymore because you fault us and anti-psychologize yourself."
(So we play games: trying to figure out what we know about who is acting on behalf of them-self or -selves).
But eventually one has to decide and that's the irresistible fact
you can't suppress anything permanently
It will always come back to destroy you
At its critical moment,
when it happens across my path
You CAN'T suppress it completely.
Eventually it will come out your will and desire to follow one or the other
Christianity; you can't suppress it.
That's why it is Christianity.
It is to gain the knowledge of the other over the self. In an domination way
But one must always come back to this question; am I not an self with my own needs? Do I not deserve, at least some of the time, to take all the credit for my individuality? To choose "selfishness" an unfairly demonized word.
And isn't that really the point of consciousness, that one must be able to choose, to mediate the conscience to an overall best effect? In these two areas of knowledge: self and other. With the Christianna appearing as an educated further other who could intelligently choose between them as courses of action.
From time to time.
Sure, Judaism and Christianity could argue together into eternity about which is more central. But they'll always lose. We need both of them.
The truth path ahead of us is for us is to recognize the central aspect of consciousness the religion is pointing to without necessarily differentiating our choices between religions, but recognizing an need within both of them to accept the other, for they both may be dealing with this tango between self and other. And it is only an stereotype to say one is represented by Christianity and the other Judaism. But that all religions can reflect on this fact that the first things that appear to be in the mind upon waking or regaining consciousness are self and other. The Christianna in the position to have benefited from that logic by naming the third stage: the choosing between self or other as motivations of the soul.
If we cannot but help to make up that decision eventually about anything; choose yourself first or someone else.
Just make up your mind and get on with it.
And if we can record this instance of thought in which at what point loses one control of something they tried to suppress?
We may be able to prove both religions valid.
Major Religions all have this built-in command to disband which operates according to the will of its public.
Of course they do.
They're Major Religions.
(That's what's sweet about them).
Wouldn't you think an Major Religion would have this built-in under operational status?
They all do because they are as simple and kind as that;
If they hear of an reason to disband fairly they will fairly consider
But they won't reach that conclusion
That's why they choose not to disband.
If Judaism as an self-concept continues to grow in popularity,
we may have enough egotistical selves in the world who know what it means to make that decision in their own way
—all of this is held to be fair, fictional exploration of the subject—
Maybe Christians are really the worse-off because they more often fail to meet the parameters of that first central aspect of consciousness: one always needs to act in the interest and favour of the self; and anything beyond this is illogical and isn't an decision.
They try to bend their mind around not being selfish, not acting in the favour of the self: but they deny and miss something about an egotistical self: it doesn't act in favour of purely the other EVER. There is always an motivation that includes the self.
And if these two religions could come to an agreement about knowing, either of them, what they knew about consciousness—then maybe we could all decide: what is it today? Self or the other? What are you going to choose? Which is it?
And maybe not all of my actions today will be in the favour of the self
Neither will they the other
And I will be an aware hyper-morphid knowing what Christiannans know about Judaism and Christianity
The stage of choosing, in the intellect, is favourable to all three of the Major Religions.
And I am able to solve the Buddhism–Taoism connection thus.
For the riddle of art is that it's always for the other, but never does it have to be
Even if it protests not to have
Maybe I'll take this moment for me and reflect upon this hyper-fact.
And so art is always the reaction to the other.
And I may be able to think further in order to solve more riddles and problems with Religion today
And whenever one makes art: to write to one another. One creates an set of distinctions ranging between an cultural self and other: because Art always includes everything
You are an set of frustrations and myth-itudes; distinctions ranging between my moral self and my moral you.
I can connect all of these stages of consciousness Major Religions have collected around.
If Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna are the first three this does not necessarily mean they are the wisest
The Christianna is an newborn after all.
It isn't anything new to solve the dilemma between the self and its other regularly at oftentimes throughout the day
It's one or the other.
I think we can all accept what we've become of ourselves now
Unless there is an way to accommodate both;
And if an situation calls for both:
You can be happy being the self and I can be happy being the other.
We complement fashionably darling one another necessarily this way.
For it is in the nature of the universe.
(Maybe).
If you believe it; that three ancient religions can have been responsible, baby, for discovering the three stages of consciousness, and there may be others watching.
And Judaism stands, perhaps wisest of them all, responsible for naming the central aspect of consciousness
An standard that one must know about consciousness to wit to have pre-eminence or pre-dominance over; but perhaps over-obsessed and hyper-aware of the first thing in consciousness as, definitely, the self. One that one must not avoid, for it introduces the subject of morality and your role in it:
an mental cue one need participate in.
And any avoidance of the fact of self is an perverse tangent
Paraded by Christians. They forget the value of unwaivering strength as it stands in testament against time: that an series of connected actions were intended and performed. Without needing to break away from the reality of them; and this is Judaism in true form. Knowing Christians to have lost their connection with the sequence of time because they forgive every obstacle.
If Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna together name the first three things that ever came to existence in the human mind, then they can logically be connected with other things that came to be in the startup protocol of an human mind. There are other virtues like economy and transport.
But as central virtues, Christianity, Judaism, and the Christianna, are given equal opportunity to work with the virtues they have as well as being able to decide, on their own, between Judaism and Christianity.
You know, since they are only gathering around identifying the first stages of consciousness of their species and have left out the fact of needing to make up their minds, necessarily
What situations call for an act of self, and what ones call for an act of other‽
Why can't Judaism and Christianity solve that on their own‽
You have to decide when; and everybody has an way of doing it but eventually it always gets out
You can't suppress it any longer and that's an Freudian Slip; but if you learn to speak-through-the-Freudian-Slip
Never to be dis-comforted by it
One learns to speak naturally
One is an natural speaker
Why not embrace those moments of slipperiness?
(Like the Jews and Christians)
Why not fail to be all at once deciding of whether you were going to Freudian Slip or how it would eventually all fall out
If you might embrace it
Make it your friend instead of your enemy
And forever decide once and for all
How you, as an individual, are going to go about acting as an self to others or acting as an other to selves.
Doesn't everyone have to be an little Jewish from time to time?
And they are, because Jews are so wise to know this about consciousness and conscious experience. The egotistical self is always present and always seeks to appease itself first because it perceives that meeting its own needs are more important than meeting the needs of another people today. Why wouldn't it? Aren't we smart enough to do that now? To feed the egotistical self in its gradations of community its pure pleasure it deserves.
And maybe because we have to be Christian at times too, neither of them is an central religion anymore
As long as they can decide the critical nature of their work with the question of morality in every situation they face,
first, by starting with, the self then the other as the self knows it; one reaches that third principle of consciousness that the Christianna is centred around. The deciding of factors.
Are you in it for yourself, or are you in it for the love of your life: that person perpetually beyond an art world you have for them?
The Criticism, Judaism and Christianity are both anti-psychological, of course falls apart because they aided me in learning this higher knowledge of the human dignity. Both were necessary for me to figure out what the first two principles of consciousness were in order to figure out the virtue of knowing its third stage: deciding between them. Either one being about either one of them in speciality.
I don't have anything to give; and so I will just give you my heart.
(To awaken).
No comments:
Post a Comment