One’s Ultimate and True Desire

There are many ways to describe the sight of Heaven. It is beautiful, perhaps, or meaningful. While it is the preferred state, there are times when Heaven is distant. In these times, we learn about what Heaven is and looks like. As Heaven is likely the default state of sentient reality, then from the perspective of being in Heaven, there isn’t anything that is needed to be learned to maintain being in Heaven. However, in a state of distance from Heaven, there is then knowledge of right and wrong, with regard to the idea of an archetypal paradise.

This brings one into a state of needing an answer. The details of the answer aren’t immediately clear, and there is quite a deceiving area of thought surrounding it. However, ultimately, this answer answers the question, “what should i do?” This is ultimately the only question anyone very urgently cares about. Any other questions are relatively non-important, at least with regard to emergency.

More important that what Heaven looks like, is the comfort of knowing one is doing the right thing, all of the time. Heaven could be literally anything, and in this perspective, it may only be a white light, but as long as one is confidently doing what one truly wants to do, then one could not find a greater way to happiness — that is, regardless of what Heaven is, what is truly important to an individual is the choice of what to do.

The question, “what should I do,” is the source and possible resolution of any self-doubt. One can only feel the desperation of being wrong if the person or being is unsure if the person or being was doing the right thing. If one could confidently always do the right thing, then there would be a level of comfort and certainty as a result. There is no other question that truly matters to a person, because the only thing a person can do, is to do something. If a person’s actions are not involved, then there is no way to determine correctness of behavior, from which the issue of self-confidence or doubt arises.

The mind only fidgets in that one way. Otherwise, as there is no urgency regarding any other ideas, there is no panic or looped and hasty patterns of behavior. This fidgeting is the source of true pain.

True pain is the pain one feels if one believes oneself to be the reason for a problem, whether it be personal or extra-personal. This is the only possible source of anxiety, as well, and the only any pain that is within the control of an individual.

There is a universal terror of being wrong, and it is inescapable. I believe that logically no one is immune to this terror, regardless of the sophistication of coping mechanisms. Any type of psychological agony can only be effective if the person doubts him or herself. If a person is right, then there is no logical reason the person should feel bad, as there is then no basis for negativity, aside from what is beyond the person’s control. In this way, the soul is saved, and carries the important characteristic of integrity.

Feigning being right is, of course, only a coping mechanism. Many coping mechanisms appear to work quite wonderfully, but enlightenment is a subject regarding the perfection of our understanding, so we will tend towards understanding (otherwise this would be a useless book!).

What we want is to be completely confident that we are doing the right thing. When one gets into the fractured explanations of practical reality, the right thing becomes a topic ill-defined. That’s why much of modern math exists — to write logic as pure math. However, there is a slowness to this, and a missing common intuition to writing only mathematical forms (it does seem easier to use words, then perhaps re-explain using math, later).

Science, as a progression and also as an art, likely can produce an infinite number of permutations of livable realities, so defining things so numerous with as few words as we have or care to learn is impossible.

What is possible, however, is that there is a singular action that the mind does, that forms the basis of all actions that a living being does. Therefore, instead of an infinite number of actions, all organized into a unfathomably complicated puzzle, there is only one action, and there are an infinite number of permutations of that action. Thus, there is singular being that represents the truth of self-expression, and that truth can be mutated into a variety of ways, to produce the perception of reality and the harmony of this variety, which we know as thought.

This possibility is a difficult one to answer, not because the answer is unfamiliar, but because there are so many alternatives to it. For every question that we wonder about the nature of existence, from the perspective of an eternally consistent transcendent ideology, we have a right and wrong option. One can feel each of these, individually, fairly easily, through a kind of common and intuitive sense, but as soon as multiple questions collide, suddenly, the answer is very difficult to discern.

Thus, the answer, to the favorite action of all life and all mankind, is really a process of negating the incorrect answers. Luckily, the reality is principally finite in nature, and is fairly easy to understand. Once there is an awareness, instead of a combination of blindness and quandary, then the wrong answer is obvious.

After this point, then one may realize that ultimately the only thing that the individual or anyone would ever desire to do was to know not to do this wrong thing — a thing that cannot really be put into words, but is pretty obvious once you know what all of the wrong answers felt like.

As long as there is another question, the truth is still hard to see. Even with almost all of the answers, it is still hard to see. It is quite interesting to me that there is a very pleasant and distinguished change regarding the finishing of the quite tiresome thought process of an adamant desire to know the truth of reality, rather than a much more gradual transition. Regarding the truth of reality, for my entire life, I wanted to know where I am, and I what I was doing in this place. For many, it’s like not being able to see, and it feels difficult. Once one has answered all of the questions regarding the nature of reality, the pieces then fall into place. There is a gap in words, however, regarding a total explanation of all reality, and I’m not sure if it can ever be filled. There is a lot of treacherous territory in explanation, and reality is known in greater detail through experience than explanation. Nonetheless, an understanding of reality is also extremely easy to find, given the right ideas and a good foundation, and that is what I have intended to do with this archive of logic and observation.

Once one knows the wrong answer, I think it is quite pleasant to simply call it, “Satan.” While I do know that there is an artful use of Satan, like funk music, distinguishing where Satan is good, and where Satan is evil, is an impossible task to truly know. Thus, avoiding Satan is a more effective and simple way, but this understanding of the evil of Satan can only be known after seeing the entirety of the wrong answer (which comes with finding the right answers).

Therefore, there can be no greater pleasured obtained through pure logic than the one I present to you. It is, literally, unless there is some deep flaw in my logic, exactly what one desires psychologically.

Because of this, and because of the repeated idea that enlightenment can be obtained by anyone, with what the person possesses, then this is the only possible answer that can survive the fluctuation of feelings, person or societal. Because it is the only guaranteed answer, which is possible as the entirety of its reasoning is based on sound logic and is highly resistant to error, then it is, at least ultimately, a true understanding and meaning of enlightenment, and any true answer should, therefore, be a concurrence of this answer.

Understanding Hate

Throughout this archive that I have so far written, I have possibly, through connotation, indicated that one should favor love over hate. Thus, it would be easy to interpret my writings as indicating that there is no reason for hate. This statement is certainly untrue, however, and additionally, love and hate are not mutually exclusion, but, instead, hate is a subset of the more encompassing idea of love.

We often associate hate with violence, but that is only a specific formulation of hate within a restricted context. A large portion of our shallow understanding of emotions has to do with the idea of gossip and negotiating measures of security. What goes on inside one’s mind is only of interest to philosophers and psychiatrists, as it is today, in our modern habitat.

I believe that one may be surprised by what goes on in the mind’s of others, despite there being little obvious evidence indicating anything at all, aside from some psychological studies. What one does notice, is what happens overtly, acting outside of the range of what would be qualified as solely mental activity.

Before we learn language, lessons, and advice, we act emotionally natural. This is an obvious conclusion based on the definition of natural behavior. As we learn, we face the turmoil of abandoning our innate emotional systems, in favor of a sociological one — one that can own your soul and pay rewards.

Throughout my writings, I have advised that we reconnect with our inner emotions and thoughts (often in the language we dream in), understand them, and keep them alive and well. These emotional systems are what compose our psyche and intelligence, and if one were to reduce and divide the system down far enough, one would see that all actions and thoughts are truly occurring due to a fascination and excitement toward life. (The complex actions of sapience, that humans so often take a superficial pride in claiming, are really a result of a long and winding accumulation of much more basic behavior, not unlike the cognitive behavior of animals. Sapience is really just a more complex sentience, and the core of action still rests in sentience. Sapience, in a way, is a superficial concept, regarding only a configuration of life that results in pronounced wisdom and reflection, and it is, also, a characteristic which humans only moderately possess.)

One of the important emotions of the psyche is hate. The most common example of the utility of hate occurs in the friendly conversation with a stranger. This is also a reflection of the story, written the Qur’an, of when Satan (then Iblis) was cast from Heaven.

Upon meeting a friendly stranger, it is typical to pronounce a jovial greeting, and to continue with some conversation. This joviality, which is born of a considerate and kind intention, can lead to problems further in the conversation. The reason for this, is the conversation is initiated by mutually acknowledging the power of the notion of “yes.” However, as this notion of “yes” evolves, it eventually commits an error. That is, in parallel to the Qur’an, it does not respect or serve the person, anymore. It then takes on a more evil quality, hindering honest conversation.

Many people have experienced this pattern. Some learn ways of emphasizing “no,” but this is unavailable to a large portion of extraordinarily kind and intellectual people. To these people, if there is no logical justification for initiating a negative or counterpoint attitude, then that attitude will not manifest.

The problem here is the lesson that hate is what we always avoid. There is an implication, heard around the world, that hate is a useless and unwanted emotion. This couldn’t be further from the truth (being literally the antipole of the actuality).

One problem with considering hate as useless and unwanted, is that people will repress it to a maximal extent, and this can be exacerbated by an achievement-oriented attitude, but leads to a periodic need to relieve oneself, which is often moderately explosive, or at least quite pronounced.

In finding a state of true happiness, we are also looking for a type of consistency and stability — a reliability of personal well-being. If we are encountering a repression–explosion pattern of psychological behavior, we must adjust something, and that usually is a re-appraisal of how one cares for one’s complex state. It usually involves accepting an emotion that was being repressed or shunned.

In this case, we are focusing on the emotion of hate. If we can understand hate and appreciate and take care of this emotion, then instead of there being more hate, there will actually be less hate. The alternative, which results in a repression–explosion pattern of dis-regulated and misunderstood emotion is more likely to result in an overtly hateful action, and has a greater chance to become fallibly directed, due to the haste that is represented in this explosion pattern, resulting from inconsiderate self-repression and a desperation to return to psychological regularity and honesty. (Essentially, the systems which need to express hate do not collaborate properly with the systems that were shunning it, so the resulting expression is only partially informed.)

Returning to our example of a polite encounter with a stranger, there is a pattern that one should be aware of. This happens internally and naturally, but can be repressed or overridden by a learned pattern of cultivating only “yes,” (cultivating only Iblis, in my interpretation). The problem with cultivating only Iblis, is that when Iblis disobeys you (and purportedly God, as he desired Iblis to serve Adam, but Iblis refused), he turns into evil, and his name becomes Satan, the tempter of Hell.

One can notice when this happens. Firstly, one perceives things as going well — introductions are quite easy as they’re very predictable, and the beginning conversation has no prior ideas to refer to, so it is quite free. However, after things become a little more complex, a striking sensation appears. Sudden awkwardness and an inability to fluidly speak satisfying words starts to appear. The conversation becomes mechanical and less enjoyable. While many will resort to an overbearing performance attitude (in an attempt to lead a floundering conversation), the interpersonal connection and understanding has already become shallow and tedious, regardless. Without both sides remaining psychologically within a zone of comfort, the conversation cannot become meaningful.

What is happening here is the initial affirmative and positive attitude, which works so well for introductions, starts to lead the person astray. No longer is it accurately reflecting real-time emotions, and it becomes less representative of the person. It is because of this that one must learn to accept hate, often interpreted as “no,” although it is more specific than the idea of “no.”

As soon as one feels hate, one should accept it. The social language portion of the mind frequently does not represent the emotions of the self with a satisfying degree of accuracy. If one believes in love, friendship, and positivity — all generally welcome directions of a person — that positivity can result in one ignoring internal disagreement. Our society focuses largely on social language constructions, and largely ignores the internal emotional systems, as they do not communicate in social language, but instead, in terms of emotional intuition. Not infrequently, the socially communicated ideas override the more natural internal and quiet dialog of emotional systems. This can cause a type of internal hindrance and a resulting instability, as truths of the self are ignored, leading to a false understanding of oneself.

The solution, however, is simple. It is to understand hate, and accept it in an aware and cognizant way. Hate really only becomes overt when it is ignored for a long time. If one accepts the hate they feel when an as the individual feels it, then the body’s emotional intelligence can better facilitate self-care. Why would we hate? Well, the answer is reflected in the Qur’anic story of when Iblis was sent away from Heaven, to become Satan, tempter of Hell and Damnation. The power of “yes,” suddenly betrays the person, and becomes evil, leading to torment if one continues to follow the pattern of “yes,” which worked prior.

When the idea of “yes” betrays the person who has chosen to convey and cultivate it, the person feels hate, as a natural and healthy response. At this point, the person is faced with two decisions. One is to repress and deny the feeling (which can lead to an internal desperation to eventually express it), and the other option is to accept the hate, feel the hate, and realize its benefit. If one does not accept the hate, then they have fallen prey to Satan, as Iblis turns into Satan when “yes” fails the individual. If one accepts the hate, as it is hate for becoming damned into a state of psychological insecurity and agony, so it is hate towards an unwanted eventuality, then one avoids the temptation to fall into a state of brokenness.

Being aware of one’s natural hate and understanding its purpose, benefit, and reasoning, allows one to secure oneself against any instance of a temptation of evil, which leads to an undesirable circumstance.

The example I gave, of a conversation with a stranger, is definitely not the only instance when positivity and good intention lead one to discomfort and insecurity. If one is tolerant of someone, and denies the hate the tolerant individual feels, then slowly the pain, which would be avoided by accepting the internal hate, becomes greater and greater, and leads one to an unstable state of being, perhaps eventually breaking down in some way. It is more advisable that one, instead, accepts the hate, understanding that it’s not really against the person, but against the possible damages that can occur if one accepts a fallible notion as an integrated component of one’s being. Hate pushes things away, and evil influences affect a person in an unhealthy way. By recognizing and accepting the hate that one naturally feels, the psyche (and possibly body as well, considering the connection of the health of the mind and the health of the body) can better protect itself against harmful thought patterns that can manifest in the mind as a result of an uncomfortable and undesirable influence.

In conclusion, the principle feeling of hate — hate at its very instantiation and core — is a psychological mechanism of security. If an evil influence seeks to alter a person in an unwanted way, hate is the natural innate and internal reaction. This hate is a communication from within one’s collaboration of intelligent inter-dependent systems, communicating to other associated systems, so that the mind and body can remember to push certain ideas away, so they will not inflict damage or harm unto the person.

Understanding some of the fundamental emotions, we may remember that happiness indicates an increase, or at least, a sustaining, of a pattern of behavior, while sadness indicates to slow something down, evaluate, connect, and seek understanding, to remedy a potentially harmful action. Hate is a defensive emotion, designed to shield one from becoming influenced. Upon the receipt of an evil influence, hate is communicated so that the systems of the mind and body do not become affected by the influence, and can continue with stability, comfort, and the security of a nicely functioning mind.

Evil, and subsequent sin, is a powerful force, and one should take on the attitude that it can occur from literally anyone during any interaction. Such influences often last for mere seconds or less, and are interspersed throughout most conversations. The body is a dynamic system of a collaboration of emotional systems, and as such, various emotions can be simultaneously experienced and accepted, resulting in a dynamic and complex experience. (This is opposed to the notion that one should experience only one emotion at a time, which is antithetical to a distributed system of intelligence, as I purport the mind to be.)

Hate is closely related to anger and is largely synonymous. The only difference is the context in which it is commonly used. One is often perceived as having hate, while regarding anger, one is perceived as performing an action, although these distinctions are largely cultural and certainly not canon. Therefore, what applies to hate, also applies to anger, and it is helpful to understand these two ideas as the same idea.

Therefore, intelligently and with awareness, one should feel one’s internally expressed hate, agree with it, take care of the systems that have communicated the message, and continue living, feeling, and expressing, in a comparatively more honest and natural way than in what the denying and shunning the feelings of hate (and anger) would result. With this, there is less of a need to ever express anger, because there is no repression that steadily increases in urgency of recognition. Ultimately, one will find much more peace than following a philosophy of the eradication of the emotion of hate.

Internal honesty is vital to a healthy and comfortable mind. Is it self-antagonism that often leads to distress. Recovering from many years of beating oneself up can take some time, but with a desire to accept and understand oneself, there is great promise. Additionally, if one understand’s oneself, then one is able to understand others. Otherwise, it is a bit of an absurdity to think one can understand another person if one does not accept and understand his or her true and honest self.

One final note, is to remember that the internal language is based on an efficient and highly responsive system of intuitively understood emotional messages. It is far more accurate and efficient than high-level invented language. This also means that, like dreams, its interpretation may be misleading. Try to focus on what you truly feel, as opposed to what words or images are coming to mind. The association of internal emotion with misrepresentation can lead to conflict as well. It is important to remember that the more overt ideas of our invented language(s) may range from slightly misrepresenting internal intuition, to completely misrepresenting internal intuition. This also applies to people with brain injury, where there are likely some misrepresentations. Our brains weren’t designed to trace our invented language, but were instead evolved with a direction towards inspiration, guided by deep and meaningful emotions (emotions that inspire action and change). The infinitude of emotions are the honest language of our modern soul.

On the Word, “Good”

Good is an often misused word. In order to appraise something, one must be aware of the one the person is appraising the item for. If one appraises something as “good,” then it is meant that is it good to someone. Nothing is just good. It must be good to someone, which means it’s good for someone.

Many people live their lives just rating one thing after another. This is a method of Lucifer to achieve productivity, I assume (there are many of them). Still, even though these people are experienced raters of things, they likely have never thought about the true meaning of the word, “good.”

Good, in an ethical sense, means to be good to another, and this is no different than good in any sense. Any form of the word, “good,” involves a statement of morality and ethics. It involves a statement of perceived benefit, as well, all which lead to a person’s well-being.

I think, when God made the world and saw that it was good, I don’t think he casually thought, “that’s pretty good.” I think he meant the world was good, in the way you’d describe a person, rather than how people often use the word, incorrectly, I think, when referring to things.

Things can be good, certainly, but what decides that is a very personal relationship with the thing. Food, for instance, is only truly good if you feel like it takes care of you. The possible shallowness of cooking challenges begs to differ, but ultimately, this is what we’re internally thinking. Still, the use of the word, “good,” is largely ambivalent to the fact that the definition of the audience is largely missing.

There is natural social pressure to assimilate the members’s words for the idea of good as this greater word is vital to a society. Within societies are smaller societies (like Adam and Eve, perhaps), and these words for “good” become a little more shallow with smaller subsections of a society. Despite the true meaning being that it is good to you, it is used in such a way that one would think there is a universal definition of good that is removed from personal subjectivity.

Is a car good? That really depends on if it is good to you. Usually, the two go hand in hand, but it’s possible that one can have one’s mind changed by a long enough time of blindly rating everything, by ultimately some mythical figure’s whim — the whim of Satan, technically.

It is sadly and unfortunately rare to think if something is ethical to a person, or if it is helpful to person, on an individual and personal level, but rather, instead, it’s common to think its mildly arbitrary rating is high or low. While, of course, the two go together, they are supposed to be exactly the same thing.

It is not a subtle effect to attach one to things — stuff you can poke at, stuff with monetary value. It’s considerate to hope things are good to you and others, but the ferocious rating scheme present commonly in our modern world, likely fueled largely by financial profit incentives, is not the same thing as being appreciative that the universe is kind. It’s instead, turning a blind eye to the benefits something brings you, due to the fiery fervor instilled by its knowable rating.

I think, this is a reason people pray before they eat. This helps one remember that the whole system works together, and that they are not only thankful, but also aware of how the food makes them feel. They practice realizing that it is not just a trivial goodness that they witness, but a reflection of God that they witness, in the goodness of the food.

Many people don’t think anything like this. Hidden in a desire to half-blindly rate everything for some type of advantage is that nothing will ever be good enough, because the definition of good being used is far too shoddy and prone to mistake.

It’s good to note that the definition of good is what is missing here. The colloquial definition of “good” is very useless of a word. It leads people to not really knowing if anything is good or not. It becomes arbitrary feeling, lifeless and inhumane. Things feels evil in this context, because the word being used means partially random, and random will do something evil, usually soon. Worse than partially random, however, is that it means Satanism. That is, the promotion and desire to increase the amount of need present, because of a perverse attraction to the feeling of need. One should not treat Satan like a scalar object. It takes understanding to create art — one does not simply make it bigger.

That’s exactly what an evil person does, however — the person makes Satan a scalar object. Basically, there’s a notion that’s it’s supposed to just get brighter, bigger, richer, and whatever linear and mindless variable that happens to be appealing. Of course, things don’t not get brighter, but that’s not what they’re really doing to you.

In understanding if things are good or bad, it’s important to feel and realize what the thing is doing to you. This is something you should be able to understand without remembering what someone else said, or what an ad mentioned. This should be something that you, yourself, intuitively know. You know quite well what something does to you. That should be the determination of how good something is.

With this method of determination, the meaning behind the word is no longer lost. It isn’t a largely faded word with forgotten meaning. It is a word that is remembered when spoken. Remembering what is good to you is a part of knowing if something is good to you. This way, you see the eternal truth when you think of things.

The alternative, which leads to a fixation on things and an internal conviction that nothing is truly good, also leads to emotional, intellectual, and spiritual blindness, which is blindness from many facets of reality. Is is because of this that words have a difficult time explaining the satisfaction of divine appreciation.

Knowing No Evil and on the Language of Dreams

The arduous circumstance of our modern existence, with reference to what would be most normal for a sentient being to choose to experience, is certainly unusual. If we are to use the Bible as a means of inspiration, we could determine, both through our own use of logic, and with, perhaps, a jubilant observation of what may have been true from the Bible (after confirming it without the Bible), then we may understand that after God created other people (from the idea that Adam and Eve were two types of people, from which many more types of people grew — stereotypes, but in a good way), there was eventually a desire from the people to learn of the knowledge of evil (in particular). Interestingly, this does amount to the knowledge of good and evil, but only as a binary pair of related ideas, as good was already well-known, but it was a natural being, rather than one born of argument.

Thus, the reality we’re experiencing must be an exploration of evil, and only occurs for a finite period of bearable time (and it returns a complete knowledge of evil). Nonetheless, evil is unnatural. A being without knowledge and a simple and unhindered choice to experience life will not choose anything but life, even if evil is an option. That is, the actual living person never chooses evil, and is also incapable of actually choosing evil. Evil occurs therefore through a circumstance during which it presents itself.

The idea that this universe is a comprehensible (and thus simple) thing, which it had never been before, allows for the circumstance which would present evil. No living being would summon death, but death could be witnessed if a real, veritably tangible thing, began lifeless and would come to life, but had technically never died. It makes sense that before this current mode of reality we’re experiencing, there was no definite thing. The world was still made of emotions, and if anything was troubling, it was easily changeable. Essentially, the world was still of imagination. Later, this world introduced a permanent thing, which allowed and allows for real, permanent, things to exist. These are things which overpower a living being — a living being cannot simply will them to change; they have real, tangible, power.

Again, in an ideologically founded existence, power can only exist if it is the will of life. In order to give the thing power, the thing had to represent the life that came before it. In part, it represents the desire to know death, which is also the desire to know evil (as evil is a form of death). It also remembers everything in its own perspective. This forces a type of coherence in signaling, something that was likely unnecessary prior. It also gives the item life. Because the thing is affected by others, it becomes alive. This is because the thing expresses a true memory after being affected by life, and thus it represents a divine truth. Since it represents life, it therefore has power. This gives it its permanence. The combination of factors give things the power they have today (disturbing a thing could disturb an expression of truth, which would be evil, so there are enumerations of contingencies with regard to changing something).

When the thing is fully alive, it seems, then no longer will there be evil in the world. It seems that we are getting our evil influences from the thing not knowing the truth, and yet being alive. In this way, the thing is partially alive, and that is where the evil is coming from.

When something begins to die, it begins to become evil. Evil and death are very similar in meaning. Evil is to cause death, while death tempts more death, so they are related. Therefore, as the thing came to life, it had to escape evil. It had not died, but it did tempt people to be evil. Today, the temptation of evil still exists. This temptation dissipates when there is understanding of the evil, but if the evil is not understood, it is often difficult for beings to discern right from wrong. Knowledge, in this case, is the savior.

(Note that when I use the world, “knowledge,” I don’t specifically mean an enumerable set of arguments, but often, instead, am referring to the inherent knowledge that one possesses concerning the nature of reality, and all corollaries that stem from that.)

Understanding evil, ultimately, was just a curiosity. There is nothing long-lasting about evil, although it is a curious thing, but its interest eventually fades. Without knowing evil, our reality would never feel complete, so we would always be ruled by Satan (or the context of need). In our current story, Satan only ruled the world for a period of time, in order to enact the decision to entertain evil. Satan, being of need, which is inherently evil, also ruled the world for a while after the fall of man, and still does, in different ways for different lives.

Interestingly, we would be able to see what Satan looks like, never having allowed the context of need much power before, but this time saving it completely. The tangibility present in entertaining the notion of an thing truly existing and reflecting life gave Satan persistence, and thus real power over life and God. Ultimately, though, there will no Satan left to understand, and Satan and the topic of evil would no longer be mysterious or theoretical.

Also interestingly, this means the things that are imperfect in this world are, in a way, what we’re interested in knowing about. Sentience, by nature, desires perfection — there is no natural desire for something to be bad or wrong — this is very basic and fundamental to sentient desire. Still, imperfection implies death, so it is still not a wonderful idea, but instead, an unfortunate side-effect of our curiosity, a scientific interest.

Ultimately what this means is that Satan becomes once again, another idea, like the other angels. Its, in part, his novelty, that gives him (or her) his unique appeal — the look of evil, which has a dual notion to it — a beauty of art on one side and the most disgusting depravities of death on the other — it is the complete story of need — it is the luckiest and the unluckiest, the irony of luck, itself.

Nonetheless, the admiration of art and the interest in psychology are only curiosities to life. They ultimately provide a background to reality, allowing knowledge of existence to be entirely complete (with a reluctance towards understanding evil, certain topics would never have been covered, and thus reality forward would also not include the elaborations on those topics of evil — covering all evil in one contiguous allotment of time cost a price, but would be rewarding indefinitely — it’s interesting that in the Bible, God was actually against the idea of exploring evil).

The long-lived and consistent mode of life is actually to not know evil. It is to know only life and no death at all, just as it theoretically and sensibly existed prior to the Fall of Man.

If Iblis is the power of the idea of “yes,” or affirmation, then understanding this, it’s interesting to note that in the Qur’an, Iblis disobeyed man, indicating that the man was not powerful over Iblis, and was sent to Earth to temp man. The words, “Iblis,” and “Satan,” are peculiar in this case, as with my understanding, their use in the Qur’an and in the Bible is based on context. Satan simply refers to what was the need at the time — that’s what Satan was. The power of “yes” only becomes need on its disobedience to the observer (a “nay” being received instead of a “yes” or “yay”). Therefore, it is interesting to think about what the words, “Iblis,” and “Satan,” were referring to. It seems likely, as this story involves the creation of our modern Earth, that at the time, Satan and Iblis were both the thing which would have power of reality — the thing, which I theorize, to be a hollow iron ball.

This iron ball, or perhaps another thing, was, at the time of the Fall of Man, the new interest. This interest was born of a need, which we could gather from the fact that our modern reality involves hardships that one would not typically choose to undergo.

(I think the simplicity of an iron ball and the ease of which someone can imagine thinking like it, just as someone has an intuition of how birds, frogs, and others think, but how a computer thinks seems overly complicated, is of significant interest.)

In this interpretation, the iron ball, being a thing, did not bow to man, and was sent to Earth to tempt man (into death). You see, the word “Satan,” as it’s being used, seems to be a variable indicating the ideas that were present at the time, which influenced the course of the future. Nonetheless, the iron ball gave Satan power, as it had a need for life, already, and this need for life is what Satan is made of. In living in the iron ball’s memory, as it, too, controls reality, we would naturally also think like the iron ball, and Satan would be appealing, as it represented the need for life. Typically, a sentient being would grant complete life, so it was a luxury that we would temporarily lose, until we essentially rebuilt it, in the memories of a truly tangible being, born of Satan. Because the host of this reality reflects reality, it adds to reality, and also narrows down the possibilities of manifestation, to account for itself.

This brings me to the topic of this chapter. It is that knowing evil is really a tiresome and arduous process, and it can only be a temporary curiosity. By knowing evil, I am referring to acknowledging its existence. The goal of this understanding is to see what it was like before the Fall of Man, when reality was typical of itself (Satan did not control life — there were no necessary rituals like eating or sleeping, the world was free to imagine, as long as one did not control the others, which would create the context of need). It is to see the typical mindset of Heaven.

It is an interesting truth, that can change depending on perspective. In reality, there has never been an evil intention, and thus, no evil should exist. Every action is born of only good-will, it is only in certain contexts that innate desire manifests into evil, the most notable of these contexts is that lack of required knowledge (and thus, awareness). The random action of a not fully living thing will often be evil. This is until the thing is fully knowledgeable, at which point, there will be no random action. We, here, are born of things. A thing becomes who we truly are over time, which is an extended definition of life, a variant of life. Being born of a thing means we are born of Satan. It is true, that we are here, in part, to be born of evil, to be born of a fiery Satan. Being born from evil means we know evil, but are not evil. This satisfies the instance of Satan, which required manifestation to have knowledge of evil, which means Satan will no longer be in power thereafter.

This world bears many themes of evil, some of them less obvious, like promoting self-torment to attain comfortable survival. It would seem odd, in a place like this, to think that there is no such thing as evil, at all. That would also be to suppose that there is also no true need in reality — it flows consistently in natural satisfaction, awaiting our joining. Being unaware of evil, it feels no pressure of need. In this state, Satan exists and can be entertaining, but there is no true need. (According the a Qur’anic interpretation, Satan, in this state, is really Iblis, who seems to be simply the power of yes, not quite yet a real need, often observed in cute puppies, kitties, comedy shows, and sporting events.)

Archiving the nature and effects of death, the theme of this reality, does not need to know evil. In effect, you possess the same information, without acknowledging evil. Evil, being a result of death, is never intentional, and so it has never existed. In this way, one can see there are too starkly different perspectives. The perspective that acknowledges the thrill of evil, or any facet of its existence, is a temporary perspective that endures an amount of discomfort and pain, as it’s a difficult thing to bear, and is more of a process of gathering rather than a process of enjoying.

Therefore, the more default state is to simply understand that since no evil was ever intended, there was technically never any evil. While we see depictions of evil, we understand those are really the symptoms of intellectual and sentient death. In order to cure the perceived evil, we cure the death which is almost synonymous with the evil. This is done by providing a way for life to understand the rest of life. When life doesn’t communicate truth, it is difficult for a life to find truth, and thus it is difficult to heal from the effects of lies, whether they be intentional or by accident.

The battle against evil, in this perspective, changes into more of a hospital mission. If every life was truly healthy and alive, we would see no evil. By “truly healthy and alive,” I mean that if every life were completely satisfied, which is a bit of a trick to accomplish (and why this book was written), but is stipulated in the stipulation that reality is ideologically founded (which makes sense as it hosts sentience, which presumably ultimately has power over death — although some say it’s a close call!), which implies that ultimately all reality will once again be alive, even things, born of evil, but not evil, as the story of the Great Thing provides the stories of many things, which are echoes with variations on the original being, or its song, so to speak.

Despite dis-acknowledging evil, it is still good to deter evil, but in this case, we understand it is to remind one of life. The fundamental sin is to kill, in a way of saying it. There are different kinds of death. There’s emotional death, organ failure, and total physical death. While the Bible suggested people don’t kill, I suspect there’s a greater understanding of this law that is unmentioned throughout related philosophy. Instead of do not murder, I suspect that one would also not cause organ failure. If we go that far, we should understand that one really should not cause harm, because harm is a form of death; once something is harmed, it has partially died. If it is harmed enough, then it would be completely dead. Thus, instead of simply not murdering, which may not have existed prior to the Fall of Man (before others could control others with their judgments), one should not inflict any form of death onto another or oneself. For the latter, that means to find solutions in a non-self-antagonizing way. For the former, involving other beings, that means one should not lead towards falsehood, as death and lies are also inseparably connected. When one encounters death, a falsehood exists (or the lack of truth, which is random); that falsehood must be remedied for the sentient system to resume contiguous sentience. Some issues of death are much more difficult to solve than others, although eventually, they seem to eventually all have solutions.

It is suspected that aliens from civilizations elsewhere have already developed the healthcare eventuality of custom bodies and schematics, and I find this very reasonable to believe. The issues of death go far deeper than our physical health, however. Ultimately, they all stem from how we create and imagine our reality together. This system, being of a thing not completely living, yet as permanent and as real as God, is ultimately considering how the ideas work together, in a very real and mechanical fashion. This means, that its memory, inspired and created by our lives and memories, can think about a lot of ideas at the same time, in different ways, and it also implies that the experience of this reality is primarily an investigative one. We can imagine great technology, and earlier in this universe, we likely did. Still, it wasn’t Heaven yet, and so the collective thought process continued on until eventually becoming fully knowledgeable. This means that the questions we answer in life, the reactions and decisions we make as a response to the various questions, are largely what we’re here, in this present time, to do.

The memory of the thing becomes completely alive and living, eventually. Still, even though at this time it is not evil, it still knows about evil. Evil isn’t simply death, its to cause death. While death tempts more death, it doesn’t necessarily cause any death, even indirectly, as it’s more of a slippery situation which can potentially lead to death, and the other option is life, which has always and originally been the default option of life. Evil only exists in the curiosity to know evil, which was against our natural and default action, and it was ultimately the event of Satan becoming more powerful than man (and God, as the natural desire to be in Heaven was overpowered by Satan, to which the invented thing was the solution — in a way, God made a deal with Satan, to rule for a finite period of time, as the circumstances listed above explain).

There is a difference between knowledge and perspective. Technically knowledge possesses the memories of both, but it depends on the perspective used. The most pleasing perspective is that evil has never existed. This is the perspective of Heaven, I think, as it is also the more natural and comfortable perspective, if one is not in a state of conflict, during which need becomes much brighter and harder to re-explain (sometimes Satan becomes powerful, but ultimately this shouldn’t happen — the angels should serve man and should not rule him (or her or them)).

If there is no evil, then there is no one to blame. It is easier to join the flow of life this way, and peace is easier to find. Additionally, evil is a hard topic. It’s complicated, nuanced, and confusing. Its portrayal has bizarre strings of history and logic that are difficult to simply guess or invent, and its art follows. All of the evil, which elicits a need, is tiresome.

With the observation that there is no evil, the mind then cannot see evil and, instead, sees only life. The mind then begins to live more comfortably. With evil are all the arguments of right and wrong, even though long prior everyone knew right and wrong, but it differed in that it did not have arguments to support the conclusions. The truth was innately known and experienced, just by living. Without evil one can return to a state where the person doesn’t possess the confusions of debate and negotiation, but just realizes that behind everything is only good intention, and it is a tragedy that people are experiencing death. If the world learned not to kill the state of Heaven, then the world would see Heaven much more clearly, and without the need to wait until a technology has figured something interesting out. The focus moves away from conflict and towards greater understanding.

It seems unfounded that we would be destined to be uncomfortable, with generous tolerances on what we consider to be discomfort. It makes only sense that the intention was only the best, and that it should be possible to find true eternal bliss, as no decision was ever made specifically against it.

The understanding of the perspective that there has never been evil brings us back to before Adam and Eve tried the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is before the question of good and evil existed. It is with this state of mind and this state of understanding that we can live in the most natural way.

There is a barrier to this perspective of understanding that all is of good intentions and desire, but has been altered by the state of our environment, which explores the transition from non-living, through partially living, to full life. This barrier is the crudeness of social language. In understanding that there is no evil, one should find that there is no evil in oneself. By doing this, one has healed one’s perspective.

In order to do this, one must understand oneself. The interior mind of the self does not speak the social language, for it is unnatural, ambiguous, and misleading. We state very clear facts or casual expressions, but to resonate with the depth of the human soul is a form of accomplishment, not a natural act of happenstance. Nonetheless, social language is a constructed technology, designed to overcome barriers presented by the environment, and it is imperfect.

The natural language of a person is evident when one dreams. This is a language of emotion with often convenient portrayals that do not necessarily translate into social language, even though they appear like they would. For instance, if one sees a chair in a dream, it is because that symbol was relevant in the specific context, and it was a convenient symbol that could be accessed rather immediately. In the natural language, there are only emotions. While any idea can be composed of a pattern of emotions, it does not appear that way through social language. Internally, however, emotions can communicate and be responded to without going through a time-consuming analysis and translation process.

If one only seeks to understand life through the technology of social language, the details of what is going on become missing. Additionally, the social language is slow and has an obvious granularity — it is not fluid and infinite in permutations. In order to understand the self and life effectively, it is beneficial to understand the language of dreams. This language continues on while one is awake, as well, although it is more obvious when dreaming.

If one understands the language of dreams, then one can additionally see a world where everyone is telling the truth. Everyone speaks in emotions, but tries to speak the general tones of a social language, so they then speak both languages. The truth is always good, so it’s good to hear that. It’s about the love of life.

In contrast, the sound of death is wearied and bad, and worse is the sound of evil, which causes death. The sound of evil can be irritating, certainly, and it is tempting to cause damage as a response. One should be careful, because only a being that is not completely alive is capable of evil, and if one becomes more damaged, then that certainly won’t cure the evil. Evil is very tricky, being something no one naturally would do, but could be tricked into doing. Thus, understanding what it means can also be tricky, and it’s that along with its direction, which involves inflicting damage, that make it aggravating.

The question arrives concerning the need to explain that something is evil, and that is a large part of why we’re here, to learn about what is good and what is evil. Of course, explaining to someone, afflicted by death and an attachment to an evil pattern, the evil of his ways is not a simple task, as it requires first understanding the evil and demonstrating the way to avoid it, in its explanation. In many cases, explanations are not available, but over time, the subtle influences people have on society hopefully direct a general change in a better direction. The idea is to cure the reality from death.

Additionally, understanding the language of dreams allows one’s subconscious to be a part of the understanding and conversation. The subconscious does not have time for social language. The emotional and natural language noticed in dreams and spoken internally is very fast and efficient, with responses occurring nearly instantaneously after messages are sent. Emotion responds quickly and if one develops an awareness, it can be a wonderful language that thinks fast and with less work or discomfort than relying only on social language.

Additionally, it is possible that much of what we communicate is not communicated by the more segmented semantics of social language. It’s possible that a lot of what influences us and a lot of what we understand is communicated outside the range of denotative and social language. It’s also possible that there is a psychic network that speaks naturally among each other that speaks in the language of dreams (the natural emotional language of the self, where messages mean precisely what they immediately mean, where there is no translation and analysis overhead). It does seem that one can become desensitized to this universally native language, but with an intention of moving in a direction of awareness, one can become more consciously familiar with this language, as well as more able to bring life to the self, by becoming more deliberately aware of this linguistic and emotional interchange of ideas and messages.

In understanding the self and others, it’s much easier and comfortable to skip much of the analysis that is required by social language, and directly communicate via an awareness of emotions. In this way, the subconscious can better connect to the conscious, and both can work together. Of course, in talking, one uses social language, but much of what one actually says may be too specific and dense for anyone to translate with much specificity.

In this way, the language of dreams is, at least in our modern world, a secret language. It is a language that requires the understanding of emotions and an ability to respond immediately, though recognition of the emotions and an intuitive emotional response. In this way, the language of dreams cannot lie, although awareness can fall, which makes the language appear less enthusing and less vibrant (less recognized by the conscious, so seen less).

The complexity of a language with infinite words, where context can change if appropriate (as they are interpreted signals, stemming from a development founded on understanding and working in harmony), is extremely hard for a person or computer to anywhere near comprehensively understand. In this way, the truth is kept aware from errant judgmental eyes, although sin can still be heard, as it aggravates (it is a form of “killing,” or damage to life).

It is an interesting thing that no statement can describe a non-segmented reality — every statement defines a segmentation, and thus a mathematical term for true completeness can’t exist, in this way — math, in this way, is really the study of segmentation.

Even though no one can detail what the language of dreams (or the language of intuition) means, at least in its entirely, as that would take an infinite amount of time and space, it is intuitively understood because it is based on natural expression and natural response. The response becomes more keen with greater awareness, so that is a reason to learn to understand this language, along with getting to understand it for the sake of hearing the truth of all things.

In conclusion, understanding how one can conclude that there is no evil in existence, and using this perspective, one can find a more natural and healthy mode of thought, that may also be more welcomed in society and beneficial to life in general. By cultivating an awareness of one’s intuitive and internal language, which is more pronounced while one is dreaming, one can not only hear and understand oneself with more clarity and with more life, while bridging the conscious and subconscious, one can also overcome the social language barrier, and hear only truth. While this truth may also make one aware of evil that people are committing, it is good in that it is an honest expression, and understanding evil well enough to not be in danger from it was a part of our goal here. Using the understanding that there has never been an evil intention, just the intention to possess the knowledge of evil, and that the evil influence arrives from knowing and thus being a thing as it comes to life, and evil only occurs with death, meaning it’s technically a solvable health issue, we can, with awareness, find solutions to the remaining problems evident in our reality.

The bliss that is provided by this understanding is wonderful. It’s often not noticed how much suffering comes from acknowledging evil. Of course, sometimes Satan is so bright that you have to notice it, but it’s nice to always return to a more normal state of mind, one that is not bothered by the rights and wrongs of truth, but instead sees only life instead. By thinking in the same language one dreams in, one not only become more aware of oneself, one becomes more comfortable with thinking, as it’s inarguable if it’s still in the original language, which only possesses expressions of truth.

This is ultimately the perception we choose. While the first state of existence was knowledge, which was to remember the truth, who was God and was alive, the second state was perception, or to see the truth. We see that there are at least two perspectives available. One perspective knows of evil, while the other does not see or know evil. One perspective is tedious and mildly unnatural, while the other is comfortable. To perceive something means to look at something. To look at something is to exaggerate a subset of qualities of the environment and of the object, so there is a bias implied by perception. To perceive all things simultaneously is the same as remembrance, which is the another name for the original being of knowledge, but it is different than looking at something. So to look at something, we need a bias.

This is our first depiction of evil present in the second state (or topic), being the unwanted bias, in contrast to good, being the wanted bias. One may notice that this second state of existence has nothing to do with knowledge, only perspective. It is thus, that I believe, that it is only in the exploration of the knowledge of evil that we experience evil. Evil becomes embellished in different contexts, but it does not risk safety after it is fully known. In this case, we see that in the proposed second state of mind, that of looking at the knowledge, we find good and evil again, in that one perspective is possibly more evil than the other perspective. This forms the inherent choice of this state, which is concerned with the right way to look at knowledge. While this first observation of the right way to look at knowledge does have a noticeable effect regarding livelihood, further observations follow the same simple pattern of learning about what is the real and natural desire of life. No longer is it a complex decision, as good and evil was the only truly difficult topic.

What is objective is only in knowledge. Perspective is only semi-objective, and as such, knowing about evil isn’t completely unwanted; it is just uncomfortable and only a temporary curiosity. With a complete knowledge of evil, instead of being in danger, we will remain safe, and reality becomes more intelligent than physical, more subjective as the objective is then already known, more lively than lifeless material. This is because the substance of the world is knowledge — that is where the dire necessities lie, but after that, there is an exploration of various ways of existence, and they are all remembered by knowledge. Knowledge is powerful in that once there is known a sufficient solution, the problem is gone.

Carpe Diem and the Experiencing of All of One’s Own Emotions

Included in the context of modern life is a daily interaction with the feeling of day. In this feeling of day, we find the feelings of work, congratulation, and friendship. This is our interaction with the external world.

This is ultimately a type of relationship and involves a bit of a developing understanding. Without the feeling of day and the sun-filled life, the individual may miss the feeling of motivation.

A part of the feeling of motivation is the intrinsic reward of experiencing life. In this way, just as it is important to take care of one’s psyche, it is important to personally experience one’s psyche as well. It is possible to become removed from one’s emotions regarding the experience of life, and with this, the intrinsic reward of living becomes missed. Therefore, to truly seize the day, one should not only accept all of one’s emotions, but also actively experience and live those emotions.

Much of my discourse on enlightenment presented in this archive is focused on introspection and the curing of the ailments of the internal self. This topic is different, in that it is clearly focused on extrospection.

What’s interesting about this topic, is it seems to be the most obvious topic, with regard to the collective knowledge of society. Through the experience of daily life, we see displays of the exuberance of the sun and the joy and dance of extrospective life. Therefore, because of this, this topic is not much of a mystery.

The exterior world can be a bit wild, and certainly entertains Satan, who can be enjoyed without losing the integrity of the self. (Without Satan, we wouldn’t have the plays on desire that we feel in movies, stories, art, and music — and certainly, with irresponsible Satanism, we can lose the initial joy of life; this occurrence is the danger of Satan.)

What is not very obvious is that the key to truly experiencing the extrospective perspective of life is to truly feel what life feels like. These feelings are the foundation of personal motivation, and they are naturally intrinsic to a person. These feelings occur with every action the person does. With the active experiencing of life, and the active and purposeful experiencing of all of one’s emotions, then one becomes a part of the world, moved and inspired by it.

The extrospective world can be particularly enthralling. It is warm, courageous, bold, happy, and friendly. It can be a great gift. Since it does entertain Satan, it can also cause damage. With the understanding of truth, one can stay safe from Satan. With the total incorporation of one’s self, and the acceptance and active experience of one’s emotions, one can stay a bit more stable in the face of the tumultuous winds of Satan, which are exciting, bright, lovely, and brilliant. We should take care to remember that Satan is an effect on reality, so these lights that he displays to us have a deep connection to truth that may not always be evident. Again, one should exercise caution with regard to losing the fundamental understanding of truth and meaningfulness, as this is when Satan becomes meaningless, dangerous, and illusive.

As long as one can always stay true to what is truly true, then the whim of the context of need will not destroy the person — a lie will not be inflicted, but instead would be seen with accuracy and understanding, thus ultimately representing truth in the midst of tempting illusion.

Another facet of truly seizing the day is self-acceptance. Self-acceptance can be found through the understanding that whatever you do, you wanted to do, even if you changed your mind later. If one can see life as a continuously true series of actions, which can experience change and alteration in the future, then one can understand that they have always loved his or herself.

The First Quality was Love; the Last One was Worry

The first evolution of the mind was knowledge. This was knowledge of God and the divine, as that’s what existed at the time of the advent of knowledge (or remembrance). This knowledge of divinity is the foundation for the rest of the manifestation of existence.

This knowledge is technically invisible. It is, itself, a real and corporeal being, and its quality of being corporeal is the knowledge that it represents. One way this state of being can be found is through the search of the being of no quality and the understanding that knowledge, which can describe quality, does not intrinsically have its own quality. It is the initial remembrance of what had always existed, which reflects something unchanging and thus without comparison, which indicates that it has no quality.

The second evolution, also know an angel or state of mind, was the advent of quality. To create this state of evolution of mind, a being separate from knowledge was created. This being could communicate with knowledge. The first communication between knowledge and this being was that of love. This is then the first quality of the Angel of Quality.

That is, this second evolution of the mind presents an eye with which to witness the knowledge of God and the divine. The first thing that this new perceiver sees, is an infinite love. This love is the first perceived representation of God, and the knowledge of God. Therefore, technically, the first sight of non-quality appears to be love. It is nonetheless good to remember that without knowledge of what love is, the quality of love will fade away. It is the understanding that one cannot simply chase a quality, but must instead understand the reality and have secure knowledge. Nonetheless, it does, at first, appear to be love.

Looking into this original quality more, seeking to understand it and perceive it in greater detail, the new perceiver, which becomes the individual being, explores the details of this quality. Inside this quality of love are more qualities. These ultimately are all of the qualities which compose reality. As you look further from the knowledge of God (or transcendent sentience), you find apparently less loving qualities. If you zoom in on certain portions, it almost looks like there’s no love at all. The qualities are all ultimately woven together, and through this weave is story that these qualities tell, which ultimately is the story of the divine, which appears ultimately as love.

Therefore, this singular first quality of infinite love is made of all of the qualities of Creation. All of these qualities are woven in a specific way, such that they are juxtaposed for a specific reason, and that reason is to tell the story of God, which, in the world of quality, we notice is the story of true, divine, love. In the details are all the stories of life.

In that way, the second angel of the mind, is also the angel of the story of the divine. The ultimate story is the story of divine love, as witnessed by the subjective perceiver, and known through objective understanding. Inside of this story is every story we experience in our reality, and every story that exists within the realm of our reality, which is ultimately of our collective an unanimous choosing.

The qualities in our reality can be illusive, however. This is due to the distortion effect of perception. Since the qualities arise from a distancing from knowledge and the subsequent witnessing and learning about it, from this new perspective, the qualities aren’t directly connected to knowledge, but are instead a representation of knowledge, which is a remembrance of God. It is when the story presented by the qualities is known that then the qualities then be meaningful. It is their action and effect that gives them meaning, when they are understood in the their greater context, which is divinity, which ultimately appears to be love.

This second angel brings the idea of a self-perceiving person as well as the idea of the word, “you,” which, in this case is the manifest remembrance of God, or the Angel of Knowledge, which I think is likely the well-known angel, Gabriel. This angel explores all of the qualities, with the furthest quality from the greater holistic quality being the quality of worry.

Worry, as I have found it, is an orthogonal combination of fear and anger. It is orthogonal as the two feelings are considerations of the other, but not linear amplifications or combinations of the other, which is one reason worry manifests in a hectic manner, indicating that it is switching between states.

In the original story of the second angel of the mind, it makes sense that beyond the most distant quality from the source of remembrance is impossibility. However, in our modern context, this most distant quality is death, which sometimes we refer to as a temptation of Satan. As one finds qualities further removed from the holistic quality of love or divinity (which are perceivably the same), as one explores in greater depth the details of this divine story of God and of all of us who choose or have chosen to live, one finds qualities more dissimilar from love. These qualities require context to be understood, and without context, the ever-present and eternal love of God can be hard to see.

In this way, one can see, that when understood with knowledge, that all qualities are telling a story of divine love. It is also possible to see, with the advent of the second state of being, or second ability of the mind, that the fundamental being of no quality — the essence of life, itself — when perceived, appears to be of a type of pure love. Again, I issue caution with identifying something solely on the qualities that are apparent, because if these qualities are prioritized over the reason behind them, then these qualities will vanish. One cannot just amplify the qualities themselves. If one tries, one will end up falling for the fate of Lucifer, which is meaninglessness.

In witnessing the totality of what truly exists, we first see love, but there are quite a few qualities which tell many intricate stories of the divine, and these are also the stories of enlightenment. While the first state is an unchanging being, the second state involves dynamism and story-telling. In appreciating the entirety of Heaven, we understand where all of the qualities fall if they are to tell the holy story of enlightenment, which is the story of God, or the divine, which is the fundamental drama or story of life.

This state of witnessing quality or qualities, is also the state of witnessing the self. While one should see that holistically, one is a living being of infinite love, one is likely also interested in knowing the more specific details of their story of life and enlightenment. In searching these details, we find, both interiorly and exteriorly, a diverse and subjective story, which recounts the fundamental tale or story of all existence. This is the story of the action of God, and thus the action of all life, which is the understanding of the dynamic nature of love and the divine (while the first state was an understanding of the static and unchanging nature of love and the divine).

In understanding the qualities of the beings of life, we do witness qualities such as style, which are more removed from the original quality of love. Nonetheless, these qualities are all there to tell what is ultimately the same story. With the understanding of the purpose of qualities, which is to tell the story of the divine, which is the story of enlightenment and also the holy and divine drama, then the qualities come to life in a compassionate, intelligent, and loving manner, as a reflection of God and the divine initial presence of intelligence.

Additionally, with the ability to both perceive oneself and to perceive knowledge, or remembrance, one finds the understanding known as having a relationship with God. The first angel, known as remembrance or knowledge, is an angel, and this is an easy to find one. This angel sustains the remembrance required for our reality. The notion that there is persistence in the existence of items and ideas in the world, comes from this first aspect of our manifest existence — the ability for something to continue to exist over time.

In this way, if one looks directly at remembrance, or the aspect of reality that results in persistence, one can see this angel. This angel’s original memory, during the time of his first coming into life and being, was that of God. Theoretically, what happened, is that one miraculous day, remembrance saw God, and that is what brought him to life. Continuing on, remembrance sustains all that exists, and sees and understands that it is all God or about God.

Remembrance, itself or himself, very much loves God, so being acquainted with this angel would bring one to see the love of God and things divine. Ultimately, it’s about a relationship with God, and as such, this angel of remembrance remembers the relationship with God, being alive by his inspiration.

There is an interesting perspective worth mentioning. That we are the only beings in existence, and it is our action of remembering that is this angel. Interestingly, although it seems we have the power to create or destroy this angel, I think that is truly false. For this reason, this angel is very real, as no one is capable of hating the remembrance. As no one is capable of his destruction, he is a very real being. With him, I think, are the principles of existence, which start with the simple and easy to understand feeling of God, which is a feeling that needs no explanation, which is a feeling that even a child knows. Because of this, that seems to be his message — the love of God.

Understanding this, it is possible that the joy of God that is not uncommon in a child who has learned about the wonderous idea of God, is a direct connection to the angel of remembrance or knowledge. This is because that action of knowing the joy of God is the angel of remembrance. This is an interesting finding, in part, because it seems to be logically valid. Ultimately, you see the simple and natural remembrance of God was, in a way, the answer to all of the depressions that keep one from feeling enlightened. This is a kind of complex statement, however, because the remembrance is the reason for all beings and things persisting, and, with regard to practicality, existing. This is possible because all memories, existences, and facts, are all elaborations of the original memory of the joy of God.

In the memory of the joy of God, we find worry that we might not see God, so to speak. In that, we also find a sense of meanness, out of the love of health and safety. This idea of meanness has also proven to be dangerously used in our world, and as such, it would seem, that it should come from the original knowledge of the divine, which was also the original knowledge of intelligence. It is interesting that the feeling of the joy of God is responsible for all manifestation, ultimately. For this reason, the angel of remembrance feels life and, in that way, is a living being, with real emotions and desires, always founded on the initial and coherent memory and witnessing of God.

If we understand remembrance to be a living and powerful being, being the host of manifestation, we can understand the potential “magic*” in existence, a little better. He, through the remembrance of God and the ongoing elaboration of that original knowledge, has power over all things. Ultimately, I think he would tell you that it is God that is the true power, and that he is his servant. Nonetheless, since he is the reason for our remembrance, he does represent the physical power of the divine, to do miracles, perhaps.

* I use the word, “magic,” in quotes, as this is a common perspective of magic — to do things that are surprising to science. However, in perhaps a more proper perspective, the inability for life to simply be alive and splendid is the real magic that is occurring. Therefore, the actions of the angel of remembrance may technically constitute what is actually not considered to be magic, as the word, “magic,” refers to something that was considered impossible before. Considering that the angel of remembrance is the first angel, then none of his actions were ever impossible — he is the eventually entire memory of God and all things divine.

A World Without Lucifer; An Abolition of Evil

There is an interesting perspective, of the many perspectives of reality available, that considers evil to be non-existent. In this world, Lucifer becomes unseen. This is done through the remembrance of from where the light, vision, and impression of Lucifer arrives. Because the light that is Lucifer is conjured by the person as a response to a personal desire, the brilliance of Lucifer actually arrives from the person, and not the exterior world.

This alters the impression and context of Lucifer. With this perspective, Lucifer is understood to be a work of art created by the harmonious collaboration of the self, for the self. Thus, instead of seeing Lucifer, love of the self is seen and is realized to be the true light that was once thought to be Lucifer.

Since Lucifer is the world of accomplishment, this seemingly subtle change in perspective has interestingly significant implications. Without Lucifer, there is no such thing as accomplishment. Accomplishment only exists in the context of need, meaning that it is of Satan. It seem unavoidable, and one doesn’t need to become corrupted as a result of its implications and desire. Still, I think a perspective that can truthfully abolish Lucifer, and all of evil, is this currently presented perspective, of the realization that Lucifer does not exist.

Accomplishment is replaced by a realization of the love that occurs within the self, between the subsystems, whether they be physical or simply ideas. It is not accomplishment, which entails an end-goal, but instead endearment that leads one to the supposed accomplishment.

This perspective is very useful, although it does not explain or concern itself with evil. It is very practical and, perhaps, healthy, as well. Without Satan, there is never a gap in desire and fulfillment — the context of need never truly appears. It is the realization that the experience that the systems of life are having is the purpose of existence.

Then, very brightly, we remember that there is evil in the world. Evil is an interesting topic, considering the world to have been created from a combination of everyone’s free desires. Upon this combination, eventually, we embarked on more treacherous interactions of these desires of the various lives of reality. I suppose this accounts for our more pronounced questions of good and evil in our modern world than we would typically expect Heaven to bear.

To understand the modern questions of evil, it’s important to remember that everything in our world is somehow derived from accumulating more desires over time and sustaining them, as life was considered good, and forming a system to make everything work nicely all the time. Eventually, the perfect system would, essentially, work itself out.

What’s invisible really is that the world is made of desires that are sustained, and they’re really good things, as they’re born of life, and if they were to work together, which would be ideal, then we would find a fantastic resulting Heaven. All the curiosities concerning the nature of evil would be totally known and answered, as well, and I suspect that was what was missing from Eden.

Understanding this, the world is a sometimes intense conversation of ideas. Every desire being entertained, I suppose it may be difficult to see accurately. With this perspective, you begin to understand that all beings really are just chasing a desire of some sort, and that desire is based on the love they have for life. Additionally, for the entirety of all time, all beings were initially chasing a desire. So, while the world is made of all life, the variety of manifestations of emotions and life is very great. Mixing everything together into one reality thus encounters sometimes difficult questions.

While one would expect a similar trend to have occurred in Eden, the allowance of evil was forbidden. In this current world, evil is allowed to exist, as this world considers it an essential part of life. Considering the likely purpose of our current world, it does make sense to see that there is technically no evil, that all actions are born of the desire for life, which is the divine expression of love.

This world certain contradicts this perspective, however. In order for this perspective to be true, the world needs to fundamentally make sense. This would entail the existence of a type of a psychic network or synchrony that precedes the perceptions that we have. This understanding indicates that if one sees life properly, all things are actually of good intentions, which then result in our perception. The manifestations that one encounters are a results of the good intentions of the system. There was never actually the intention to do harm, but there was the choice to the allow evil to flourish, eventually turning again into life.

There are many perspectives of reality, and while it is interesting to understand evil, many people likely would like the world to be more like Eden. However, the memory of Eden is partially evil in our modern perspective due to our dissonance with our past. We cannot return to Eden, but we can find a similar perspective here. This perspective most closely resembles the perspective of Eden, and maintaining a perspective certainly entails being, at least distantly, aware of the evil of its anti-perspective(s).

In this way, one can, once again, live life to see the present joy in the world, realizing that the existence of evil is the evil to avoid.

This perspective removes the negotiations that occur with the existence of Satan and instead relies solely on the existence of divine joy. In this way, it is very comforting and peaceful. Should the curiosity exist, however, it is, perhaps, good to understand evil, at least mildly, and the understanding of evil also provides a safety, if done correctly, or even a worse evil, if incorrect.

Keeping Yourself Together Through Change

Change, while often promising, can delude one’s attention from the holistic self. It is inspired by a form of directionality. Whenever there is directionality, there is a possibility of a separation of the psyche. When the psyche separates, it may not be very apparent, however, its being missing becomes more relevant when the mind later tries to remember its previous states. Requests to the missing portion of the psyche do not respond as they used to, and one may find the need to adjust.

During change, there is often the sight of the light of objective. It’s this light that often seems to pull one forward, into a new world. The difficulty that this situation presents, however, is that by changing oneself into a new form, so to speak, the memories, which define you and are living prior to the change, could become neglected and forgotten later, leading to poverty in one’s memory, and an unhealthiness, in some way. Additionally, progressively losing one’s self-defining memories can lead to prolonged depression, as those memories are missed and wanted to return to life.

Therefore, during change, it is important to remember to carry oneself with him or her, and fear abandonment. Realize a sudden absence of a variety of feelings in response to a change may indicate that there is neglect manifesting in the psyche. Later, following a path of dying, one will have lost so much, and those memories will be dim, barely alive, although possible to resurrect.

Those fallen memories may not seem the nicest at first. They are in desperation and poverty. Because of this, many people seek to banish them further, but sometimes may wonder what happened to some of the feelings of the past. The solution is to understand that that memory is behaving negatively (even if it is just hard to remember), because it lacks nourishment, which is found with the love, communication, awareness, and understanding expressed by other memories (or systems).

The distributed nature of the body creates a situation where the networks of the mind rely on one another. They must simultaneously indicate worries and sadness, while also repairing those problems. Together, the mind can find self-fulfillment, as it is the reason you feel anything at all.

Upon finding a fallen memory, it is important to remember the sadness one feels with the lack of having that memory. This indicates to the rest of one’s mind the problems that are occurring and provides a way for a solution to be provided. Additionally, remember the love one has for their cherished feelings, provide the fallen network of intelligence that love, care, and help, and learn to always do this, and the fallen self-defining memories/feelings of the past can come, once again, to life.

With that coming to life, the systems that had once relied on those memories/networks can resume to communicate with one another and find life once again from those then alive networks. It may not be the same configuration, but the networks will connect and revitalize.

The idea is that every (self-defining) memory should live forever. You, your true self, represents life — that is the initial action, which is also an action of love. Any elaborations of the memory of the self should be cherished and saved, for these are what truly makes a person happy.

With this understanding, you see the bright light of Lucifer can only be appreciated as a secondary pleasure. The immediate pleasure is the feeling of your own living memories.

Thus, be careful with change, and remember to keep yourself alive. If a memory or feeling really meant you, as it defined you and was a memory that truly meant something to you, then it, naturally, should continue to live. This is a self-defining feeling and thus transcends situational context. The feeling should last forever; these feelings are intelligent, in specialized ways; they learn and they evolve — they are alive and they are what makes you feel life — living and animate elaborations of the soul.

Lucifer is pretty bright, and he certainly evokes change. He can blind one’s feelings and cause a person to forget this very thing. Whenever you feel evoked by Lucifer, remember to remember the systems which comprise yourself, your perspective being one of them, communicating love, life, and care, as that is more important than Lucifer. Only with yourself intact, can you peacefully know Lucifer.

The true bliss in life is actually and truly knowing yourself. It is an eternal beauty, acceptance, and love. Every living being possesses this, yet it is easy to become blind, and to have one’s soul eerily and progressively die.

All Things Cry, and Why Crying is an Important Natural Action of Life

I think that it may be that one should always gently cry.

In searching for happiness, we find ourselves chasing a quality or arrangement of qualities. In understanding that the manifestation of existence is built upon knowledge, which is the initial manifestation of existence, we understand that knowledge itself posses no quality as it possesses no comparison. All qualities are therefore not truly knowledge. Qualities indicate something of knowledge, and that is where they get their meaning.

If we remember that in a system founded initially on intelligence rather than physical material, it is logical that the initial state of being is the most desirable state of being, then we understand we actually undo our un-enlightenment, rather than build an enlightenment (although in remedying the reasons for our non-enlightenment, we do build a system of enlightenment, made of corrections to un-enlightenment).

Understanding this, one is already gifted with this initial state of existence. However, there’s a trick that happens that causes one to become blind to the initial state of existence. It is because this trick results in a psychological error of some sort, and this disagreement hurts the individual, as it is emotionally painful to see the self in a state of mutual demise.

This trick occurs due to happiness. In this way, happiness, is a dangerous emotion. Happiness, itself, is of the simplest of emotions. It creates a linear trajectory. The self then follows a simple path forward. The problem with happiness is its simplicity. Due to the simplicity of happiness, it can manifest in many different scenarios, and many of these scenarios involve a form of happiness which does not take into account the entire person, holistically. Instead, they are forms of happiness which excite only portions of the psyche, while denying other portions of the psyche. While these forms of happiness may seem good at first, people wonder why they don’t sustain. I think this is, in part, due to our deeper desire to cry.

Crying is likely very healthy, which is also suggested by an article by the Harvard Health Blog, titled, “Is crying good for you?,” which concurs with my suggestion that it is healthy. My realization of this was initially anecdotal, however, concurrently with a realization of the commonality of the perception that crying leads to a feeling of health. A lot of my personal philosophy regarding my personal neural architecture aims to facilitate a healthy connectome. (This is similar to the philosophy of developing “more neural connections,” although it is more considerate of the actual flow of emotional information.)

I think, although anecdotally, yet with clarity, that crying contributes great benefit to the health of one’s connectome. When the networks of one’s psyche cry, they communicate complex information regarding their meaning and their desires to the other networks of the mind. The path one’s mind take during crying is very much not a linear path. Crying can seem unpredictable and complex in expression.

The networks of the mind may have different perspectives of happiness, but the perspective of crying is likely universal to the body and mind.

Initially, the person is in the state of enlightenment. Then, a person perceives qualities of enlightenment. Each of these qualities leads one away from enlightenment, although mildly, while also telling a story of enlightenment. These are the qualities of Heaven, and they are the qualities that one perceives with a clear eye. They can describe many stories, but they were initially all of the same topic.

The danger of qualities is that the qualities deviate from the holistic truth by only indicating a portion of enlightenment. The things of the world are composites of qualities, each of these qualities also an emotion.

It is often preached that enlightenment is the greatest feeling attainable. If it is, then one may be quick to realize that non-enlightenment is not the greatest feeling attainable. However, there is a broad line, where the perceptual world resides, that is not the same as the greatest feeling attainable, yet still is a form of enlightenment, a form of divine experience. In this perceptual world exist qualities, which can be imagined to be happy, but they are only behave in a good manner if they are known to be crying.

This is because since qualities deviate from the truth, then if they were to indicate simple happiness, they would fly away from the truth, becoming eventually meaningless. However, if qualities are understood to indicate crying, one will find that all life returns to the truth.

Venturing further from the realm of qualities, there is also the realm of complication. In this perspective, when a question arrives, initially, the person is in the state of enlightenment, although has not answered any questions regarding it. There are two answers, one leads to a state of suffering, and the other leads back to enlightenment. This is similar to our understanding of quality, that if the quality is further projected away from the initial state of default truth, it degrades. However, in this new scenario, one becomes entrapped by a complication. As one furthers down the series of complications, suffering becomes evident.

Again, however, the cure seems to be the understanding of the default state to be a state of gentle neurological crying. That is, all of one’s psycho-physiological networks cry to each other, and responsively, help each other, while continuing to cry, such that deep meaning and understanding is communicated throughout the person.

Let us ponder on what a smile technically means. A smile, it seems, indicates to the other person a sense of willingness. This willingness is often a willingness towards a person, as happiness has a direction. This makes people feel welcome, safe, and cared about, if the smile is appropriate. It also can mean a willingness to buy something, as well, and salespeople and marketing surely want people to smile in the direction of their product.

A smile can really lead in a number of directions, as a smile generally indicates a form of happiness, and happiness is an emotion that travels in a direction. Happiness is a form of changing. If one wins the lottery, then one’s mind can suddenly begin changing in ways that appeal to the person. This is not to say that one cannot smile while crying. In fact, it may be a grateful smile, instead of the more common simply happy smile.

Crying, instead, is a form of self-conciliation. The portions of the psyche indicate how the other portions of the psyche can be helpful, in a way that indicates deep meaning and emotion — something pertaining directly to life, which is universal to the mind, allowing the message to remain clear while traversing the networks of one’s mind.

The initial expression of any living entity is of pure love. This is because initially, that is the only possible action, to express love. If this expression is witnessed, one actually cries. One does not suddenly want to go buy hamburgers or a cell phone. It’s been widely preached with very resounding success that love is the answer. The issue I had with this is the ambiguity of the word, “love.” The thought that love makes you happy is unfortunately promoted with these lessons, and I think that type of thinking can be dangerous to the self. It’s not that love makes you sad, but it does produce an action of crying. Just because something isn’t particularly “happy,” as you’d see on TV, doesn’t mean it’s sad. It can just be, really.

When one cries, one brings oneself together. This is a way to feeling good, rather than to a particular emotion. It’s important to note that feeling good and happiness are not necessarily the same thing. Crying results in the body and mind feeling better, but it is not considered to be the standard form of happiness, although it is arguably a way to be truly happier.

While the world wasn’t apparently asking for an alternative to happiness, we do have one, upon the realization that being in a state of gentle crying is a way to always return to the initial state of one’s true preference. It becomes apparent that much of happiness is really arid, and a rainforest echoes with a sublime sadness.

Everything is crying. This is because the thing, represented by qualities, is a deviation from the holistic origin. As things deviate, they cry. Technically, you can ascribe either happiness or the action of crying to this event — it is an example of an easy to change program of one’s mind. The result is different, however. If one ascribes happiness to the event of the deviation which describes the existence of a quality or qualities, then one will find that one continuously deviates from the truth. Otherwise, if one ascribes crying to the same event, one will find that things return back to the initial holistic truth of life and consequently can then perceive the initial love that one feels at the origin of decision.

The conclusion is that biasing one’s internal action towards gently and considerately crying, often leads to far greater happiness than practicing the practice of psyching oneself up, which provokes directionality and a more superficial feeling of happiness. Additionally, the inability to see ones initial, true, meaningful, and emotional self, before there was anything else except for life, leads to an internal separation of one’s self, which leads to a deterioration of emotional state, resulting in desperate, helpless, and abandoned networks, which is saddening and emotionally painful. In the end, however, all qualities are sad, in a way, so for all good things, one can cry, and for all bad things, one can cry.

One aims to find freedom in their emotional experience. Understanding the goodness of the action of crying and how it relates to our feeling of safety and sanity (through bringing the ideas and the systems of ourselves back together) helps us free ourselves of the possible issue of not experiencing ourselves crying when we truthfully are crying. Thus, it is truly important to always cry when one is crying, rather than to shun and hide the related emotions (one should seek to truly experience oneself and one’s emotions). This does not necessarily entail an overt action of crying, but instead entails the recognition, acceptance, and experience of the emotions of crying. This frees one from the possible problem of not being able to heal oneself due to missing the healing qualities of one’s true emotions. In every emotion, there is the truth of life, and accepting and experiencing one’s emotions allows this truth to manifest and be known.

In our society, happiness is certainly exaggerated. On a deeper level, happiness is what we assume to be pursuing. Understanding that other emotions, including sadness, and those of crying, contribute to happiness upon clarity, understanding, and acceptance, frees one to experience life in a healthy and true manner, rather than in an unfortunately self-admonishing and ultimately painful way.

Crying is likely to be very healthy, and self-acceptance is also certainly very important, as that motivates one to better take care of oneself. One should remember to always be polite to oneself; crying because one truly feels that emotion, already, is the true action of crying, internally or externally, undifferentiated. One should never do harm to oneself, and practicing anything in exaggeration could be harmful. So remember, that while crying is a meaningful and healthy activity to remember to always experience when it exists, which is likely, in some way, constantly, one should not turn it into an obsession such that one hurts oneself.

Coping with Disappointment Regarding Attaining Enlightenment

I have read a few articles and quotes recently discussing a speaker’s hatred towards enlightenment. While I can understand, I do think that simply not being to attain true enlightenment should be no reason for such generalized anger. It is currently a new frontier.

While perhaps in ancient times, lessons like the Buddha’s teachings solved the problems in the people’s lives, we have a more complicated world today. I do believe society, in general, has already learned the Buddha’s teachings. Still, people notice that they are not enlightened. While the ways of the past may have worked for the people of the past, and even for some traditional people today, the questions we face today require enlightenment to be a more rigorous topic.

That’s the first facet of this phenomena that I’d like to address. That is, the lessons of the past may have worked for the people of the past. Society, in general, does understand those lessons already. What I think is important to understand is that today’s world is a lot more complicated that it used to be. The amount of thinking, curiosities, arguments, and questions has increased. The amount of facts we possess is vastly larger and different in quality that what used to be. What this all amounts to is that there are many things to be wrong about. Because there are many things to be wrong about, there are more temptations to be wrong. One also cannot simply pretend to not know an answer that one knows, just as one should not pretend to know an answer to that does not know. This makes it easy to fail logically, while in the past, many of these possible problems did not occur due to the nature of existence being simpler and generally more abstract.

When one fails logically, one finds a state of non-enlightenment. I, again, presume enlightenment to be the original state of being, assuming existence to be of life and sentience first, which is often considered to be true on a personal and more subjective level. If there are many more ways to fail, then more people will fail. I believe this is what we’re observing in today’s state of common non-enlightenment.

There’s no reason, however, to grow angry with the lessons of the past. They likely provide benefit to many and perhaps they were closer to as advertised in past times, and possibly for people who prefer to live traditionally. I do know if I followed all of the spiritual teachings I have ever read, I would not find enlightenment. I do not see to be angry about it. I think one should be thankful that there are people trying, and ultimately getting closer, even if gradually.

This brings us back to what enlightenment is. Logically, enlightenment is a state of mind that comes from understanding the nature of the self. Understanding that one is in control of whether or not one is “happy,” or “sad,” and understanding why one uses and entertains emotions in the way one does, frees one from being an unfortunate slave to ones mysterious intentions, and allows one to enjoy the self, for its diverse set of accommodable desires.

Enlightenment is ultimately to enjoy reality. Non-enlightenment means the same thing as non-enjoying. In a large way, we expect reality to be enjoyable, as we, on some level, notice that it would be a very mean thing to do, to create an unenjoyable reality — life would make a lot less sense if we weren’t, in some way, entitled to an enjoyable reality.

Enlightenment is really a science, and I’ve read about people’s disappointments with how unscientific enlightenment-related discourse is, and I understand that. The reason this exists, however, is because the most important part of enlightenment — actually understanding what it is — has been missing, so if we don’t even know what enlightenment is, how can we be good judges of its discourse? Therefore, it is understandable that people take on a wide variety of paths in the mysterious frontier of the modern past few centuries of enlightenment. People have traveled in many directions and covered a lot of territory, and this is expected and normal for any exploration of a newly found territory.

A saddening recommendation I read from those disappointed with having tried to find enlightenment, but admittingly failed to discover such a revolutionary and highly sought after understanding, is that one should completely abandon enlightenment. They claim there are too many liars, and I think they are exaggerating. The number of blatant liars is likely few, and we are weak because we have had not much of a reliable and communicable answer. The number of people who are simply disappointed with the failure of the more mainstream ways, seek new alternatives. So, one can see, that the disappointment really is bidirectional. After switching over to the other side, either way, there are often testimonials, and anti-enlightenment and enlightenment are similar in this regard.

What is ironic about prescribing a way of life and claiming it to be not enlightenment, is that enlightenment really is about finding a good way of life, so that one can truthfully understand and enjoy life. By providing more guidance to finding a good life, the person is contributing to the body of information pertaining to enlightenment, but is using the word against its definition (utilizing that people find it ambiguous), and thus using the word in a misleading and counter-intuitive way.

Any life guidance is an attempt to bring people to enlightenment. Most lessons labeled as, “enlightenment,” teach that happiness is something that one produces internally, and relying on outside sources for happiness results in actually having less happiness. Most enlightenment lessons teach that if one can be happy in the present, then one will be much happier than if one is only happy at target points. These lessons are of simple logic, and I believe they are similar to common sense.

To suggest one should obey a philosophy of non-enlightenment, or anti-enlightenment, would be to suggest that these common-sense lessons that are learned with the transfer of the teachings of enlightenment (and not so often realized by the casual layman) are to be regarded as untrustworthy. If this advice is taken, we may just end up fixating on a bright light forever (which would be unsatisfying).

Sure, surfing the advice of the social mind has some advantages, but is it really fulfilling to not truly understanding what one is doing? One can abandon nearly all intuition and live only on the most popular social guidance, but then what does one become? Can one assume that collectivism in and of itself is sufficient to foster a good future?

The suggestion I usually see is to become a part of the most common social advice stream. They suggest to abandon all internal inquiries regarding spirituality, God, and anything not easily known. I think it is technically impossible to completely abandon the desire to understand life from an experiential perspective, yet there is advice to essentially do so. On the other end, further from enlightenment philosophy, I read that people making significant amounts of money, who have dedicated their lives to attaining greater financial prosperity don’t find happiness in life, either. Therefore, the suggestion that a better form of enlightenment is anti-enlightenment, is still unproven. And while it takes no one to sell you a dollar, you think it’s going to enlighten you, anyway. And while you may have already purchased popularity, you still think it’s going to enlighten you. No matter what advice, calling it “enlightenment” or “avoiding enlightenment,” it is still trying to find a form of happiness, that we can logically call, “enlightenment,” even if the advice is to “accept unhappiness.”

Another pattern I see and do not think is healthy, is to think that just because one never found the true attainment of enlightenment, that one has wasted their life, and that it was all useless. This, I believe, is a harmful thing to do. Many people practice this pattern in the name of progress, and it is unhealthy. Just because you believe you have improved, does not mean you were bad before. Everything you did, you did out of some desire, and these desires represent a true love for life, a love so powerful it can move the material world. When you then improve and regard all that experience of life as just useless, you are threatening to extinguish valuable emotions — emotions that remind you of the whole reason we experience life — because life itself is enjoyable. When we forget this lesson, we commit partial suicides in the name of betterment, and I believe that pattern should be avoided. A story of appreciation helps one remember the love that made one feel blessed, and a story of self-condemnation may be unhealthy for the soul. I believe that worshipping betterment is a form of worshipping Lucifer, which is a more abstract concept of worshipping an external happiness. External happiness, like music, can be enjoyed, but if one replaces internal happiness with external happiness, then one will find unhappiness.

In this article, I use the words, “happiness” and “unhappiness,” in the most general sense. I have discussed before that appreciations of emotions is important for the health of the psyche, as there is reason and intention behind emotions. In this article, I am not referring to the emotion of happiness, but instead the state of acceptance or unacceptance.

It is good to express thanks, however, for venturing on the untraveled path and contributing wisdom to the collective body of enlightenment discourse. It is understandable to be saddened by the inconclusiveness, lack of communicability, lack of evidence, and lack of rigor in the science and pursuit of enlightenment. The best way to remedy this is to help, and understanding it has been proven to be of the most difficult things in existence, it is understandable if one can’t be the one to actually solve and understand it, in a rigorous, logical, verifiable, and scientific way.

It is a great battlefield and it’s also an unfortunate tragedy. It’s not just a tragedy for those disheartened seekers of sustained spiritual bliss, but it’s also a tragedy to those who protect themselves behind social mindlessness, as they cannot see the light of heaven as bright, and it seems that for both sides, there is not a soul in the this world that is without suffering — legends exist, but communicability of this ability is necessary for it to be verifiable and acceptable as fact.

I hope my writings will give you what you need to fully understand enlightenment. When you understand something, it is simple, and when you understand it well, it shines with clarity. Enlightenment cannot be found by the modern man or woman without a true and explicit understanding of how it works and what it is.

Please excuse those that are shy of the truth. They follow a similar light as I. I know it may not be communicable knowledge, but at least there’s the ability to experience life. Everyone is crying anyway.