Different systems, different rights and wrongs, different wins a loses

A system is composed of elements that can interact with each other by any means set.

Each one can have his/her very own system(s). An example of such a thing would be a system of thinking.

More than one individuals can also agree to create systems and set rules for them. Examples of systems could be a couple’\s home decoration, a political system, a religion.

What exists for one system doesn’t necessarily exist for another. Similarly, truths, lies, rights, wrongs, importances, wins and loses can be set to be valid for a system without that having any impact on another system.

However, it is possible to agree to be part of different systems simultaneously, which can create problems, confusions, particularly when those systems contradict each other. One can do that so much and so often that he can ‘lose himself’ in other’s systems.

The creator(s) of a systems is the inherent master of that system. And by entering another’s system you can automatically become subjected to it, while you could otherwise have complete freedom to create (or not), change and destroy your own.

A very basic lie, delusion in life is that there is one system that is one and the same and the right one for all. That automatically puts every believer’s systems to adhere to that system, for as long as they believe it. That puts them under control.

It is easy to be believed as that notion is somewhat similar to another notion, that each person is the whole. But ‘being the whole’ and ‘all being part of one systems’ are not the thing(s).

For that reason it is adviced for each one to hold on to his own system(s) and to connect to other’s (or not) at will, and the same stands for couples and for groups too. And that is called integrity.

There can be individual intergrity, but -given free consent- that intergrity can expand to couples and to groups too. And why would such a thing ever go bad unless it violates it’s own intergrity and/or respects the intergrity of others? And why would ever be any reason for a fight?


‘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.


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).


Real hater

It is within the nature of fighting and of war to consider that the opponent who fights you is a bad guy. But what short-sighted people don’t notice is what their opponent thinks of them.

A real hater will not hate what is bad about you, but what is good. And that is -most often- not the case in war, in divorces and so on.

Everybody knows this, but few admit it to each other and themselves. If you wish to see how a person subjected to that knows this, notice how he might be afraid to be and do actual good by any means. One might not appear afraid to brag how he/she has fooled and gotten laid with a large number of people who were unaware of being fooled, but another who might merely wish to do it -not for any bad reason- might be afraid to do it. That is how the majority becomes a hostage to the minority that undermines it; from that perspective, to do good is to do bad.

The less free -internally- a person is, the more he imitates -badly- those who are freer. And you might find people who appear super-compassionate, brave, beautiful and so on, to be quite the opposite and try hard to conceal it. That is how such concepts get a bad name. And that is a way how the rest become unwilling to be those things, and they also become less tolerant, more irritated by those things –they become confused.

It is very common in today’s society to confuse those who -through their luck, skill, interest, work…- manage to become rich, and others who become rich through other’s misfortune. Thus people become divided into those who think nobody should ever be allowed to become rich, and that all those who become rich are good folks. What does that add up to? It adds up to honest people needing money and licenses to work, to pay taxes, and to some dishonest people to get unfair legal or illegal advantages over the rest, leading to monopolies and so on.

Work is -in fact- offering and it is not taking. An offering cannot be but voluntary, for otherwise it is slavery and theft. The same is true for anything else good that a person projects to others –beauty, intelligence and so on. An intelligent person is not one who makes the rest feel dumb, but rather (freely) shares his intelligence with others, thus making others more intelligent too. You will always find those who make others feel dumb being very unintelligent themselves, even if they can solve some equations. Intelligence you see is not about numbers nor about parroting book pages. Intelligence in life is that which leads to more and better life, and less intelligence brings one and those who agree with him closer to death.

Never hesitate to be and to do that which is good from your own perspective for another might disapprove. You might -or not- incite some real hate that way, but it is totally worth it, for those who will hate it are not up to any good.

Of course, deep down the basic enemy one can have is himself, or rather the denial of himself. That is why, how people make a good (for them) thought and a split of a second later make the opposite. One essentially opposes himself that way, and if he doesn’t do that nobody else can do it to him, and if he buys the fake ‘good intentions’ of others that are meant to keep him down he will also do it to himself.

You don’t have choices but you can be free

To do something so another bad thing wont occur is as much of a choice as to do something so you wont get beaten or otherwise punished.

This is all the ‘freedom’ society currently preaches. This is how evil gains support. You try to avoid evil, and you support evil. And what do you know, either way you get betrayed.

There is vast difference between ‘choices’ and ‘freedom’. If you want to be free you need to create what to be, you need to be it, you need to get rid of choices. If you want choices you have to pick from what you’re given. And you might as well find the those two opposites you are offered with are from the same person, who is cowardice and dishonest enough to not directly threaten you with punishment in case you don’t do as he says, but attributes the punishment to an opposition of his own making.

Dealing with other’s power

If you managed to always love or to -at least- not hate in the slightest, anyone, for any reasons at all, you couldn’t be the affected by another’s hate.

By that I don’t mean to be ‘nice’ and to not appear mean. I don’t mean good manners. I mean love and hate as genuinely expressed by yourself to yourself. It doesn’t matter how nice you might appear to another, you can know whether you love or hate.

To have something against you, you need to turn against it somehow, and to make it worse, you need to deny doing so to yourself.

True power and survival don’t exist in hate, they exists in love. It is not for ‘wimps’ –a person who submits out of fear, doesn’t do so out of love. Fear is a kind of hate too. To sum it up, love would be anything that harmonically unites you with what you love to the ultimate end of being what you love, and hate what forcefully unites or separates you from it. And it takes a king (of oneself) to not be scared, to not attack, to love no matter what, and to be free.

You may se this to win, and then nobody else will lose.

Why the truth doesn’t hurt

A common response of a person that goes through something stressful, painful or otherwise something he would call negative is be to try to reduce it’s intensity.

That can be done in various ways, which I wont get into now. But it’s common to see one try to be happy, to feel good while in a situation that makes him feel bad. This way he creates a wall between himself and what makes him feel bad. And if he removes some part of that wall, or the whole wall, all that feeling bad can then be perceived again in it’s entirety. That’s why the truth in many cases appears to hurt.

However, that is not true. For what makes him feel bad in the first place is inadequate truth. One could find -if he examined a condition properly- that what he used to think the condition was -even before the building that wall- wasn’t really that, or there wasn’t a condition all –at least not for him.

Perhaps you have an awareness that it is like that or you don’t. For me the truth of the matter is, we will never stop seeking truth, and will never settle with anything that. That is how we push ourselves to compulsively think and other things –it is that quest for truth. Whether we to know it or not, is another subject. But that’s why we do it.

In the very end of that quest, the most basic truth you will find will be you.

Higher Awareness

Despite what one might be going through in life, there can be a thing that can keep him going, other than his obvious impulse to be alive –a hope for a higher awareness, to understand life better, to understand his problems better and eventually resolve them.

The goal of religion, spirituality, philosophy, psychology has been that. And one might argue that some of those guys didn’t do it well, or that nobody did it well, either because he didn’t know or because he wanted to use others. But regardless, that’s supposed to be the objective.

I can have opinions -many of them- about various matters. And I don’t consider that one has a higher awareness if he agrees with me. I think he has a higher awareness the more he agrees with himself. Because high up he knows what he agrees with or not, and bottom down he doesn’t. Higher awareness means self awareness, the knowing oneself. And the more one knows himself the more he can understand others, life. And the less he knows himself the less he can understand others. And that is why trying to forcefully make people fit in a group will never work. And that is why internally free people can afford to be genuinely nice to each other, they can really understand each other, if they choose to.

Higher awareness in life means more life, and lower means more death. And it’s been a mistake to teach that mankind can learn through pain. All that meant was that mankind could learn through lower awareness. It was the opposite. The lessons taught were not nice lessons, and they lead to two world wars about a century ago, as well as many others here and there. And I believe it was a pivotal point when Eisenhower decided to treat his enemy with some respect, after he had won the war from his side. It seems he understood the problem better than others. He knew if he treated Germany like it had been treated after WW1, not only the problem would not be solved, but it would get exaggerated, like it had gotten exaggerated after WW1.

If you’re a little sane you know you cannot resolve pain with more pain and death with more death. You need to add life, instead. You need to pull people up to a higher awareness. You need to help and not to punish them. And I mean really help, not give them poison that causes pleasant hallucinations and other tricks like that.

That is how you can help one on an individual level and that is how you can help a group as well. And that’s all that’s wrong with them.

about being a good person

I remember as a kid whenever I did what my elders wanted I was being called a ‘good kid’, and whenever I didn’t… you understand.

And as I was going older that wasn’t really changing. In fact it was becoming more intense, as I was supposed to spend hours in school wherein I was being labelled good or bad depending on what each teacher wanted me to be like. And later on that I started to work, that didn’t change either.

Moreover, what one person wanted me to be like, wasn’t necessarily what another wanted me to be like, and let’s not forget that some just don’t express any clear like/dislike, which could put one (and did put me) into a state of not knowing how to be like.

And I used to be that kind of person who wanted to please others, which I often found quite impossible. In fact, as time passed I figured the only way I could be good and right for all would be to disappear completely.

Well, I didn’t disappear completely after all. But I started to reverse that procedure of losing myself to what others wanted me to be like, and I did become much pickier who I befriended, for that reason. And I’d say that was something to celebrate.

It really makes me feel bad to imagine how I would be like if I tried to be liked by everyone or maybe most so as to please them, like I used to. Or maybe to be liked by somebody who knew better than myself how I should be like –like some counselor or parents. And specially when some of those person weren’t even sure what they wanted.

My parents have been thoroughly displeased at me, for after some age I did go crazy, and followed my own dreams. I started to hold on onto my own perspective how things were like, and I started to apply my own will onto the universe, onto my life. And it seems to me, that a person who would disregard other’s approval, and act completely independent, would appear very wrong and very crazy to them.

Well, it is like that…and also it isn’t. There can be a level above that. And that level is called being cause –not as a human person, but as spirit.

I have found there can be significant difference between communication and communication.

If somebody called me at work and I went like “Goodmorning sir, how may I help you?” while I was thinking “I don’t want to talk” I’d be putting my body to communicate something that you wouldn’t want to. The communication wouldn’t come from the spirit and it probably wouldn’t be addressed to any spirit either.

But I have found when I do communicate as a spirit, magic happens. That way I can still be myself and still not be at odds with others. I connect very very differently than I do through this body. It’s like nothing I had ever encountered before –probably ever since I was born. So, I don’t know if I can relay the experience through humans words with enough precision. It works great, and it is so simple. Perhaps you could try it too.

It could seem that to disagree would bring about adverse reactions, as in the case of “I don’t want to talk”. Perhaps that’s what I (or we) have been told and threatened a few billions of times within a lifetime for ‘good reaons’. But it’s the opposite than the truth. I couldn’t go about agreeing with a lie, and feel good. Actually, lies make me feel like sick. And how I feel is not at all irrelevant to what the others feel –other spirits, that is.

In the material universe, opposites attract each other. But that’s not how it works with spirits. Spirits disagree with lies. And if the body lies, the spirit disagrees with the body too, and then you lose…the spirit…the body…it depends where you’re looking from.