What acceptance is not

By writing in here I might sometimes give the impression that I am a sort of a revolutionary or something of that sort. By I assure you, if you have thought so it is your own addition over what I’ve said. Yes, I have referred to injustice and lies, but I have never implied the solution is to turn against them. In fact, if you want to make sure you’ll have something then turn against it thoroughly.

I hear a lot about acceptance and being accepted and I want to write my opinion. The more I accept something the less I need to be accepted by it or to have others accept it. And if you want something about you or something group you might be part of to be accepted, then make sure you accept yourself first.

This is of course too free and too high a philosophy for democratic standards wherein one group tries to dominate another, being oblivious over it’s own disagreements with itself. Rarely one is allowed to examine the group itself by the group itself. One is supposed to always find fault in the other group. That’s how they keep groups cohesed –through war. They’re so busy finding faults in opposing groups they often don’t even know what their own group stands for. I don’t even know what right and left mean anymore. I want free will for all. That’s my political belief. And I don’t even need to try to impose it, for it cannot be imposed. Imposed free will would be an oxymoron.

Acceptance is not becoming what you perceive. If somebody puts on black clothes (like I often like to) you don’t have to put one on black clothes too to accept him or her. Acceptance is to receive, perceive him as he is, while letting him have his free will, letting him be, not resisting him, not trying to change or destroy him. Acceptance as ‘to become something’ (identification) is the ‘devil’ in some spiritual practices. It is what they try to resolve. Identification is not achieved through love. One becomes what he hates after he has been thoroughly overwhelmed by it.

Acceptance and love go together. And one of the highest (clearer) ‘levels’ of acceptance and of love I’m aware of is to consider what you perceive as part of you. And that can never be forced nor hindered.

‘The power of words’

Words have no power but the power one grants him by himself. And that power is valid for oneself. They appear to have ‘objective’ power only for as long and as much as we agree they have power.

If somebody spoke to you in a language you didn’t understand, he then couldn’t control you either, for words are control. You read or hear a word and you imagine something, and that imagination is how you interpret that word. It is your own imagination, your own interpretation. It is not the word itself. And if that word insults you, it is your own imagination again. So you see words can become a method to use ones imagination against oneself too.

Somebody says another that he is ‘stupid’ and the other feels bad about it for the next 15 years. But why? He would answer it is because of what he was told, because of the sounds somebody uttered at him (a spoken word) but it isn’t that. It is the significance(s) he adds to that sound he hears, himself.

We can become lazy enough to automatically interpret (googly or badly) all the words we read and we hear; and then through that automatic interpretation of our own we can also have automatic trouble. ‘Don’t read that, it’s bad.’ Why is it bad? It is bad if you think of something bad.

The instances that the average person’s survival is threatened by physical force (violence), starvation, illness are a tiny minority compared to the instances one can think his survival is threatened –all because of words. And he can have his thinking (and subsequently his body too) be driven by words to such a degree he can be thoroughly controlled by them.

It is not random that black magic is connected to words and other symbols. Symbols, like letters and words have no significance of their own either; but the significance one adds to them himself. If you draw a pentagram or a cross nothing happens to the universe, but if you interpret it something can happen; and it will be because of you and not because of the lines you’ve drawn.

Similarly, if you see a picture or even a movie and it has an effect on you, it will be the effect you create for yourself to have, the significance you yourself ass to that picture or movie. They themselves deliver no effect at all. It is all your own. And phobias and other adverse reactions can be triggered like that. And one can see a woman too and think of specific things; but those things, those thoughts wont be attached on the woman, but only exist in his own thinking. That we think certain things look good or bad is not a matter of what we look at, it is a matter of the significance we add to them ourselves.

Why am I bringing all that up? Because if you could quit putting significance onto things that bear none of their own you could discover ‘things’ are quite difference than you had been thinking all along. It wouldn’t be a world limited by the significance of words, but a world full of possibilities, and those possibilities are you.

A balance between acceptance and causality

I am very enthusiastic about this discovery, as I’ve been struggling with it the past few days. And although I don’t think it’s of much use to describe something rough, I think it can be useful to know when something rough has been dealt with and a lesson has been learned.

There is a misconception that acceptance means inability to make something happen. And in politics that is called apathy. You get overwhelmed by something and you accept it and that thing then controls you and you don’t control it, and you feel you ‘cannot do anything about it’ or so it seems.

It is not true. If you could accept all portions of your life as they are right now, not only would you not be unable to make something happen, but you would be in alignment (not resisting) with what you make happen, you would be in alignment with what you are.

This doesn’t have to be a process. It can be as simple as to decide to be that. It doesn’t take any analysis how things are. All one has to do is to accept what is no matter what that is.

Who has the problem reacts (attacks etc), and if you have a problem with that you react too in turn.

I don’t want to be ‘accepted’

Jesus Christ, Dalai Lama and Cthulhu combined; if what I was became a new norm I would have to become something else.

Norms have always been things that allowed nothing else to exist beside them. They have always been authority and they have always invented ‘good reasons’ to be that.

In each and every time and place those norms were thought to be the ‘right truth’, and everything else was wrong. And the more absurd those norms were, the more convincing they became that they were right. Seriously, show a norm (anything) and I will show how contradictory it is within itself. I still haven’t encountered any exceptions.

I don’t have any truth, but I am my own. If somebody likes it, if somebody agrees with me it could be great. If somebody doesn’t, it’s still not a problem. It could actually be fortunate to learn something new from another.

But if somebody thought I was ‘objectively wrong’ it would be because he abided to some norm, and I couldn’t care less than to become his new norm myself. I couldn’t care less to become ‘right’, to convince anyone about anything, as I don’t try to rule this place, nor to become any ruler’s lackey. I only want to be free.

Personality

Now this can be so misunderstood that it’s better left unread, but I’ll throw it in anyway, being a daredevil.

For long I have been occupied with that topic of basic personality –what is it? Apparently it is the main topic and goal of some spiritual practices. And obviously not all agree that it is the same thing.

There is a lot of talk about getting rid of the ‘ego’. But I find the definition of ‘ego’ quite vague.

Are ‘ego’ and ‘personality’ the same thing?

Children demostrate those things quite neatly, because they are much more flexible than adults in creating and uncreating their personal traits. While playing one day one is ninja, the other he is some adventurer, and the other he is his opponent or the princess or something. They don’t seem to have much of a limit what they can become.

Some actors are also somewhat flexible in becoming ‘somebody else’, while others insist to play themselves, no matter which movie they play in.

There are differences between ‘being’ and ‘becoming’, and between those egos and the basic personality.

The wondering ‘who am I’, ‘where do I come from’ and so on seem to be very old and very basic within a person. And one learns that throughout his whole existence.

You should be aware by now when I speak of the basic self I don’t mean the human body. One can disagree with that and it’s alright. I just write about things as I know about them.

It is also my personal realization that the basic self doesn’t have any personality traits, but can create and stop creating any personality traits at will. I could say that I like chocolate ice cream and mean it; and after a moment or two I could make it so I wouldn’t like that anymore.

Let’s put it in other words: The basic self is not a fixed nor an evolving self, but it is the maker of things about oneself. I can say that green cars scare me, and then a moment after I can say that now they don’t scare me. I can also think of reason why they will always scare me; but I could also change that too.

I don’t have any fixed characteristics, thoughts, feelings nor lack of. But I can make and experience plenty of those. The basic self is me as the maker, not me as what can be made, although that is part of what I can become too.

Can you imagine a maker that is not a thing itself? Well that’s what I am. And the difference between ‘you’ and ‘me’ can be in personality traits, as we don’t all have to create the same for ourselves. But the most basic one is that generally we don’t have to create and experience the same things. I can make my own things and you can make your own things too. And I can have my own distinct experiences and life and you can have your own too. And if out creations and experiences can coincide it doesn’t mean always have to.

So that is the ‘spiritual being’ that I refer to. It is not a ghost or anything that, nor is it ‘the soul’ like some others describe it (quite differently).

😉

The irrelevant hostility

The more one is on a -more or less- permanent offensive stance (whether obviously offensive or not) the more he will need reasons to be that. He will have to feel offended by things that are not meant to offend. He will need to imagine offensive things that don’t exist in present space and time. A mere ‘no’ can feel devastating to him and put him to imagine being attacked and crashed.  Thus, he demands to be loved and agreed with, regardless of how he acts himself. He also doesn’t allow love and agreement between others and he tries to turn one against the other, because he thinks they will unite against him.

As long as you care to not give others more than they can handle, those guys appear to be your chains. But it isn’t you who is in chains, it is their own intolerance against anything that is not in perfect agreement with them. All they can handle is a person that pretends to agree with them and like them. The fact that they exert strength unreasonably and attack and try to reduce whomever doesn’t agree with them, makes things appear the opposite than what they are. It makes the tolerant ones appear weak, and the intolerant ones strong. It also makes the guilty ones become prosecutors, and those who wonder what they might have done wrong feel guilty, ashamed and so on.

The more tolerant one needs to feel guilty, ashamed and otherwise bad for himself, in order for the intolerant one to remain oblivious to what he actually does and to feel ‘right’. And one can be very oblivious and ‘right’, within his imaginary war.

But it is all the opposite.

Free will, the right thing and justice

The so called ‘right thing’ and ‘justice’ are not inherent ideas one is born with. Those are ideas one is taught throughout his life.

One ‘has’ his own impulse(s) what to be, what to create; and those may even vary from person to person. In fact he doesn’t ‘have’ them anywhere but he creates them.

The ‘how’s and ‘why’s one does not stick to his own intentions are not even related to what one’s environment does to him. It is solely related to what he does to himself or even to what he doesn’t do.

You must have heard of Crowley’s ‘do what you will’ motto. And I bet it must have crossed most people’s mind that ‘if one does what he wills, he will then harm others’. So then free will takes an evil significance. That notion can also be found on political talk as well, wherein the so called ‘free market’ is a source of evil in society, and that it must be checked, for it causes damage. A quick question and a bracket: In countries that are being regulated by thousands of laws, so many laws one needs to dedicate his whole life and career to learn (like when one becomes a lawyer) what is the significance of the words ‘free market’? I don’t see any point in arguing whether that market is good or bad since the term ‘free market’ is false in the first place. There just isn’t such a thing.

Similarly, an individual’s ‘free will’ is an absurd thing to say if that person is not indeed driven by his own will, but ‘freely’ drives himself based on what he has been taught in his life by his environment. And I’m not going to fight for anyone’s rights to his own freedom, if that freedom is not his own.

One can create his own free will, and that is the only true will he will ever have. Any other will that stems from anything other than himself is not his own, and it is not anything to be fought for. It is masochistic to fight for people’s rights to be driven by others, and it is hypocritical to call that ‘freedom’.

How does one lose his ‘free will’? One never really loses that as -like I said before- he doesn’t ‘have’ it anywhere. One creates it. And it can be his own creation too to be driven by the will of others. But why would one do that? The answer (or rather answers) can be very complex, and I don’t know them all. But I could point out some.

Some have been very inventive in inventing tricks to have themselves as well as others abandon their own free will. A popular method is to force or to hinder people from being and from doing certain things, and then put them to chant that it is their ‘freedom’ to do that. They say stuff like it is not freedom to have a single sexual partner. But what if that’s what one wants? Would he be more free if he did what he was told instead? Obviously, neither myself nor anybody else could tell you what your own will is or should be, for then it would be my own will and not your own. But if you did inherit my own will and called it your own, you would introduce a lie within your thinking, and I would then control you without you even knowing it. It is very different when two freely agree to have the same will, and when one tricks or forces another into thinking what he is told is ‘freedom’.

Regardless what one does to another, it is more important to pay attention to what one does to himself, for without one’s will to abandon his own will, that cannot occur. One needs to agree with another to have that happen. And before he even agrees with that, one’s loyalty to his own self, to his own will must be fragile.

One can have much more control over himself and over his life, his existence, his experiences than what one usually thinks. And for as long as he is shy in controlling himself, his life, he has to assert to himself that something else controls him, that something else forces him to do things, that something else deceives him, that something else doesn’t allow him to be himself. He can say that society controls him, or that his genes control him, or that his mom controls him through his subconscious. But if he indeed manages to create such a thing for himself, it will be by his own free will –it will be his very own creation to be controlled by something other than himself.

If you’re afraid to be what you will, to do what you will, to have what you will because bad things will occur, that’s what you do. And the irony is that bad things occur the more you abandon your own will, for you then make those things happen yourself. The further away you stray from yourself, the more you try to stop yourself from straying.

It is not true that one -having free will- works against others. It is true that the more one works against himself, the more he denies himself and his will, the more he assigns the bad things that happen to him to others and the more he consequently turns against others, as well. Even if one doesn’t agree with another, he will never feel he has to attack him unless he thinks his own survival is depended upon attacking him, which is -in most cases, if not all- entirely untrue.

Free beings that don’t have to connect with each other, can connect with each other. Free beings that don’t hinder themselves from connecting with each other, can connect with other. Free beings can co-operate or not. But with enforced connection, disconnection, co-operation, and chaos occurs. It is within the boundaries of un-free will that relative free will can cause trouble, otherwise one’s independence is guaranteed by his own free will, as one’s life experiences don’t have to be another’s too.

How to get rid of chaos in your life? Exert your own free will over it, with no remorse.

Taking off

Some, many, most have a desire to ‘take off’, to not be part of a machine, to experience other things. They’ve gotten tired of playing basic, monotonous games all their lives and they wish to experience something else. It’s like you’ve been playing pacman for a long time and you’ve had enough –you don’t want to anymore. It’s happened to me. And I don’t think I’m the only one.

Not all wish to quit playing pacman though, and some even go ahead and make a religion out of it and say it is the right thing to play, and all other games are bad, or that there are no other games at all to play. And some others use people’s desire to play a better game by selling them better games that send them right back to playing pacman again, and being even worse players than before.

‘Try everything once’ is such a common motto. So a person who wishes to experience something new goes ahead to do so. And so they hand him a glass of poison, and the person gets poisoned and from that point on he can’t even play pacman like he once used to, leave alone to find a better game. And some others are promised other, better games that never arrive for they are not meant to ever arrive at all.

The truth of the matter is there are other games to play than pacman, and there can be even more. But one should be able to tell honesty from dishonesty, as in pacman’s world few make it to actually experience something beyond it, and those few might not be understood by the rest, who only think of pacman.

Reducing one’s abilities to play this game doesn’t take anyone out of this game. It makes him more obsessed to play and win, instead. They know that. They know that -for example- if a body’s basic needs like food and shelter were easily taken care of, one wouldn’t be fixated in trying to do so. He would engage in different things. He would had mastered that game, and he would advance to a better one. And so one might spend a whole lifetime trying to acquire money, while it shouldn’t really take that long. There isn’t any actual reason why it should take that long. There are only fabricated reasons. There is no actual reason why one shouldn’t have his relationship be nice and smooth either. And there is no actual reason why a group of people could no co-operate either.

One doesn’t have to pay attention and ‘get into’ all the problems he is presented with, for those problems are most likely fabricated to keep him fixated. One should focus on what he wishes to achieve and do achieve it, for in truth the reasons why he thinks he can’t are thinner than air. They are ‘dark’ ideas ‘inserted’ in one’s thinking for that reason alone –to keep him down.

In taking off, one must be true to his own visions, and not distracted by the visions of others, nor the vision he has made the mistake to inherit from others. That way he will be able to assist others take off as well, if he so wishes.

Faith

Faith is one of those things that have been talked about as enemies of knowledge and enemies of truth.

That doesn’t clarify -however- ‘faith in what’?

Perhaps the answer I’d get by asking that would be ‘faith in God’, but then I would also have to ask again ‘which one?’

I am almost kidding, as -like I’ve said before- I don’t think of ‘God’ to basically be a unit. But I think that a ‘source of all’ (my definition of the word ‘God’) is all that which God creates. God isn’t a unit but God can become units. God can also become worlds, universes, if those actually exist.

I know I am being mysterious so I should speak a more human language. One loses faith by being betrayed by that faith, wherever that faith is placed on –God, girlfriend, the government, wherever. But what remains hidden from him -as long as he remains betrayed- is that one’s betrayal starts from oneself, and it can only be resolved by addressing oneself.

It is said that one is born and through his parents, Church and so on he should become aware that a thing called God exists. Why? If God was an almighty being (a unit) that had made him, shouldn’t God also be able to have him be aware of that? Why would God need other human beings to have him become aware of it?

I am neither religious nor an atheist, but I can have faith in myself as long as I am being faithful to myself, and the same stands for you too. All that is wrong with a person is denial of oneself, denial of God; for what one truly is -very basically- is that. Each being is being God, and God is being every being. The having faith in one’s most basic nature is to have faith in God.

If you truly have faith ‘things are like this and that’ then things are ‘like this and that’ –that is what you experience. And that includes ‘experience’ through your body too, your human experience.

If you look outside to find out some truth, if you remember what you think had happened 20 years ago, or what somebody else has said, if you think things like ‘it’s happened to others so it’s going to happen to me too’ then that faith is being compromised, and the resulting reality becomes compromised too. It is your choice to do it or not.

Each reality is it’s own reality and it doesn’t have to be like another. That means if another’s experience is ‘so and so’ it doesn’t mean yours has to be the same, nor visa versa –although it could become the same, and that is potential. Similarly if your experience yesterday was so and so, it doesn’t mean it has to be like that again. It depends on you.

Don’t ask outside, don’t ask others, don’t ask some non extant past. Ask yourself in the now, and you will never lie to yourself and you will not need to believe to have faith.