This morning, there was a young journalist giving a live report on TV from a U.S. Military encampment somewhere in rural Iraq. She was good at her job. Serious, to the point, delivering valid facts. And I was thinking how proud the girl's mother must be over her child's dignified professional purportment and personal courage. If she were my child, it would make my heart kvell, wouldn't it yours?

But at the same time I was thinking that the 'good' feeling had by this mother was only made possible by 'the war'... that without war, these kinds of 'good' feelings would cease to exist.

And then I thought maybe that wouldn't be too great a sacrifice to make at the altar of the day when all the world celebrates A Perfect Thanksgiving...

Surely, there are other things we could feel good about....???

---

The malevolence of disjointed thinking is fearsome.

Have you ever heard of 'A Course In Miracles'...??? If not, let me say that it is a course of spiritual study which I am familiar with but have never 'done' though did find a couple nuggets of 'true truth' when I first encountered it, one of these being:

"Every action is either an expression of love or a cry for love." And the longer the love goes unrequited, the more potent the 'cry for love' becomes. Thus we have wars in the microcosm of daily life which amalgamate and synergize to become wars in the macrocosm.

I was thinking about this (love...  what is it?) last night and came to an awareness that we (society) have a very narrow definition of 'love' equating the behavior almost exclusively with the 'homebaked cookies and warm-fuzzy hugs' quality of life... which of course is true... but is also a very superficial and vastly incomplete definition which, when accepted as the 'prime directive' by an individual, seems to lead to just as much (if not more) 'trouble' as not giving a damn.

At the same time I totally agree that it is entirely possible to 'not think' and that successful forays into this territory open the vista to new dimensions of 'non-material' experience. A technique was explained to me once about how to enter the realm of 'non-thinking'. It went like this:

Think about answering the phone. The phone rings, you pick up the handset, hold the receiver to your ear, say 'hello' and then the next thing you do is 'expectantly listen' for the voice on the other end to say something. The way to enter the realm of 'non-thinking' is to create in one's self this space of 'anticipatory receptivity' -- as with the 'blank' moment of 'listening' for a callers reply  and then to expand this cultivated mind-space to an extended interlude of pure 'non-thought'.

Still, knowing 'how to' do it and 'doing it' are two different things. Two guiding principles that work for me in application of the premise to the context of day-to-day life:

(1) Only deal with 'the known' of the here and now; refuse to ponder the multitudinous 'what if' concerns that may or may not arise tomorrow. Take things a step at a time and address stuff as it come up.

(2) Set aside some time everyday to NOT think about the difficult or troubling circumstances that sometimes seem to overwhelm the goodness of life. Put aside all concern for the things that must be addressed in order to resolve same. Remember that the only way to 'not think' about a particular thing is to choose to think about something else.

---

So...I went into town today. On the way up the mountain I encountered a dying yellow lab mix. He had a half-dozen bullet holes in him, and was too weak to help me get him into the bed of my truck. I figured he wouldn't live long enough to get to the vet's office in Clinton, and I was beside myself as to how to proceed. So I just stayed with him a while, held his head in my hands, administered last rites, and left. When I returned, I saw that he had moved a few more feet before giving it up. He wore a collar, but there was no I.D. on it, and he was foreign to this area. I hope someone had mistaken him for a deer, because he was not peppered with birdshot, he was hit with a very heavy duty shotgun load--holes the diameter of a miniball. May whoever did this fall on his own weapon. You know, Chris, there have been several occasions since about my thirteenth year of life, that I've had a suspicion that I am an angel of death, of both animals and humans.

No, I've not heard of "A Course in Miracles." Interesting observation re: expression of, or cry for, love. I can see it to a point, but I do believe there are some autonomic events which take place without regard to love on either of those levels. Be that as it may, it seems to me that most humans operate in the "cry for" mode most of the time. It's the raison d'etre of the "me" generation--a generation that has existed as long as there has been animal life, originating as survival instinct, manifest today as selfishness. I begin to think that the "cry for love" description is too kind--too loving, too forgiving, too tolerant of behavior that is reminiscent of a hungry dog beating out his fellow canines at the food bowl. As you said, forgive them, but keep them away from me.

---

I agree with you, that the 'act of love / cry for love' scenario seems 'too kind' a way to explain such bullshit. Also it 'feels' much better to be indignant about it. I mean really, what is 'wrong' with these folks??? What keeps them from 'seeing the light'...??? A thought which itself asserts that I have 'seen the light' and thus seems highly egotistical to me...

Still, as with your inklings about being an Angel of Death, I have this eerie kind of intuitive sense that there is a (Strange One) 'distinction' tween me and them... not that they couldn't 'have it' but that they somehow deprive themselves of it because they have chosen to believe that it does not exist. Also I think that we are, each of us, 'called' to be Guardian Angels of some sort... and that our own denial of said 'calling' is the root-cause of everything that is 'wrong'.

---

I was tickled to read a few minutes ago that Pfizer is withdrawing further testing and marketing plans for a companion drug to Lipitor. Seems the testers were dying off at too high a rate. I forget the name of the drug, but it was supposed to increase HDL, while Lipitor (the largest selling drug in the world--patent to expire in 2010, so I'm sure Pfizer felt like they had to do something gargantuan to make up for future lost revenue) reduces LDL. From a philosophical (if not scientific) point of view, there seems to be something wrong with trying to alter the body's production of naturally occurring substances, rather than solving the problems of why things get so out of whack. Another fine example of seeking solutions without a thorough understanding of the problem. I suspect the natural come-back from a drug company would be, "Yeah, the problem is human behavior, and that ain't gonna change so we're gonna make it possible to make you whole without you having to do anything to contribute--except dig way deep into your pocketbook." Kinda reminds you of the "saved by grace" dogma espoused by so many Christian religions, doesn't it?

---

re: "From a philosophical (if not scientific) point of view, there seems to be something wrong with trying to alter the body's production of naturally occurring substances, rather than solving the problems of why things get so out of whack. Another fine example of seeking solutions without a thorough understanding of the problem. Kinda reminds you of the ($$$-driven 'pay as you go') "saved by grace" dogma espoused by so many Christian religions, doesn't it?" ~Amen

I was pondering bit of Bible last night, specifically Baruch 2:17-18, which reads (in The New American Bible):

"...and behold: it is not the dead in the nether world, whose spirits have been taken from within them, who will give glory and vindication to the Lord. He whose soul is deeply grieved, who walks bowed and feeble, with failing eyes and famished soul, will declare your glory and justice, Lord!"

I was pondering this in context of the overall object lesson of Baruch, which as I understand it is that this group of folks were petitioning (through an intermediary) for the forgiveness of their sins by confessing their wrongdoing and making the case that they were worthy of redemption, and it occurred to me that the exclamation point after the closing word (Lord) should actually be a question mark. That is, that it [should] read: "[Will] he whose soul is deeply grieved, [he] who walks bowed and feeble, with failing eyes and famished soul, will [he] declare your glory and justice, Lord?"

It just seems that this 'questioning' stance is so much more resonantly reflective of a genuine comprehension of 'walking in faith'... which of course is the ONLY way to 'please' God and thus *must be* the inherent teaching of ALL scriptural instruction... otherwise 'the message' (about the Kingdom of Heaven being 'within' and readily available to all) would be in contradiction with itself. Thus it seems that in the referenced Baruch passages, what the petitioners are saying is... "Hey, Lord... we think we get it now... We're supposed to be role models of 'living in glory' as shown by our glad countenance and expressed as our happy actions which all, in some way, bring honor, dignity and love to the world. And now that we know this we can see where we've missed the mark. So how about forgiving us, huh? Because, after all, if you don't forgive us we will end up in hell, weeping and moaning... and NOT singing praises... which, now that we've gotten a clue about 'how faith works', is what we are choosing to make our lives all about."

So, I went looking online to see if I could find any additional info about the Book of Baruch, which as you may know is one of those books that is not included in most Bibles, and low and behold I came upon the following, which -- though I think it adds credibility to my point -- still seems to affirm that 'right conduct' is somehow incumbent upon being sorrowful, bowing down, being feeble, failing to see and starving as a means of glorifying God... which (I again assert) is counterintuitive to 'the message' of 'walking in faith.'

2:17. Open thy eyes, and behold: for the dead that are in hell, whose spirit is taken away from their bowels, shall not give glory and justice to the Lord:
Justice, etc... They that are in hell shall not give justice to God; that is, they shall not acknowledge and glorify his justice as penitent sinners do upon earth.
2:18. But the soul that is sorrowful for the greatness of evil she hath done, and goeth bowed down, and feeble, and the eyes that fail, and the hungry soul giveth glory and justice to thee the Lord. -- NewAdvent

And I think that this one stumbling block is the cornerstone of all the 'unhealthy' crap that is made manifest in the world, ie: that 'faith' needs to be understood NOT as an abstract ineffable/mystical (uncontrollable) phenomenon but as a 'logical science'; that there IS 'something wrong with trying to alter the body's production of naturally occurring substances rather than solving the problems of why things get so out of whack'; and that this (free will) worship at the altar of 'the material' $acred cow idol$ is the evil of innocence/ignorance made incarnate....

---

Ah! There are pitfalls in translations, because translators can't seem to translate without editorializing. The Book of Baruch is, originally, a translation from Hebrew. Do you know whether the Hebrew language of old included such things as exclamation marks? You read Baruch in the New American Bible, and the New Advent web site (with which I am extremely familiar) is a site of the Catholic church. The Bible they reproduce on-line, which you saw, is the Douay-Rheims translation, the traditional translation used in the world of Catholicism. The translation of the Apocrypha which I have before me is Edgar Goodspeed's translation, which was translated from Greek, as the apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint, and this was the source from which he translated. As you probably know, ancient Greek did not use punctuation marks at all--thus the variety of possible interpretations of scripture written in that language. Note that the New American Bible alluded in verse 17 to the "dead in the nether world." Then notice that the Douay-Rheims translators wrote "the dead that are in hell." Goodspeed writes: "dead, who are in Hades." I see a slight shade of difference between the NAB and D-R, and several miles of difference between those two and Goodspeed. So, I say, if it makes more sense to you to insert a question mark...do so!

I once did a bit of research on prayer, and found that in scripture, up until the time of Yeshua, most of the reported prayer was done by those with a direct pipeline to YHWH, kings and prophets for the most part. The masses were merely cattle grazing on the stage of life, totally clueless. You may remember that the disciples of Yeshua asked to be taught to pray, and it was at that time that the words we know as "The Lord's Prayer" were given to the group. Yeshua gave subsequent instruction that prayer was to be a private activity, an act of sincere humility in the presence of the creator of all things. I think this meaning is reflected in Baruch 2:18. "He who walks bowed and feeble, with failing eyes and famished soul" is truly a soul experiencing a realization of humiliation, recognition of error, a realization that it has been "blinded to the light," and is hungry for spiritual food. And, by-the-by, Goodspeed does not use the word "justice," but translates: "...the soul that hungers will ascribe glory and uprightness to you, Lord." Again, miles of difference between translations.

(This is why I've spent a large amount of time reading multiple translations of scripture, and looking into the history of the translations, etc. I could see early-on that there were some things that just didn't make sense, and I began to find that the usual explanation was that translators had monkeyed-around with things. And then I learned that various things had been removed, and various things had been inserted into scripture--and this was not all done in innocence.) To continue: I'm not persuaded by the context of the passage in Baruch that the refugees from Jerusalem were sincerely "walking in faith." They were certainly giving lip-service to the concept, but I think they had been reduced to proving themselves by their actions. (Have not read further in the book .)

Yes, reflection ("questioning") is, indeed, necessary in seeking the kingdom within, but I do not agree that the kingdom within is "readily available to all." In my world, the idea that the kingdom is readily available to all is something that is osmotically obtained from conventional Christianity and New Agers. Yehsua told us that the path is narrow, that there are boulders in that path, that many are called but few are chosen, and that unless the seed falls on fertile ground and is watered it will die, not to mention the wedding guest who was improperly attired and was escorted away from the banquet in chains. In fact, we are told that on the third day "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." (Genesis 1:11, KJV) "...whose seed is in itself" seems rather significant to me, as Elohim was constructing Eden, where all things were perfect--thus a perfect fruit would yield perfect seed, capable of achieving oneness with/in the kingdom. And then we discover that we are lacking perfection, but as was illustrated by Yeshua, perfection is a possibility, and is necessary for a return ticket to the kingdom from which we sprang. And in my opinion, based on observations and experiences in UoL, there aren't very many people in this world who are actively seeking the kingdom within. (Especially since there are several millions currently alive who honestly believe "the kingdom" will only come after the world is literally destroyed in an event called Armageddon.) Gee, see what happens when you put a nickel in my slot? I'll quit for now.

---

Yes... the pitfalls of translated editorializing. What occurs to me is that folks who don't 'get it' are not equipped to translate. That is, they may know the literal translations, but if they don't comprehend the message that's being communicated they cannot communicate the idioms of the spiritual dialect. And that's where I think all this stuff about 'downcast eyes' and 'suffering' being associated with the 'worship' of God gets its traction... miscomprehension not of what is 'said' but of what is 'meant'... Because (and remembering that I look at the relationship between God and us much the same as I look at my relationship with my children), I do not believe that God wants anyone to 'feel' dejected. I believe that God wants everyone to feel great... but I'll come back to that thought in a minute...

And as I understand it, re: the grammatical expression of original Hebrew writings, there were none (see image at wikipedia). At least not the way we conjure it. All that was written was row upon row of Hebrew characters, each one of which has multiple meanings (including numeric), all strung together to form an endless 'paragraph' -- with no periods, commas, question marks, or exclamation points. Thus my 'daring' to consider that the translators might have gotten the inflection wrong...

On this site  I came upon this translated quote: "To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." Of course the 'what' of what is to be 'conquered' is not identified... and therein, I believe, lies the pitfall of having a person who does not actually comprehend the requisites of 'walking in faith' take on the translation of instructions about 'how to walk in faith', aka: how to please God. Because there is a huge difference between 'loving' and 'pleasing'... ie: I love my children wholeheartedly... even though their actions do not always please me.

And I think this is where the 'many are called, few are chosen' comes in... It is not that God does not choose us... God (I believe) chooses (loves) everyone. But to please God a certain 'chosen' (ie: self-selected by an act of free will) behavior is mandatory, ie: 'seek first the Kingdom (within)'. Choosing this behavior (which pleases God) earns the chooser the privilege of 'eating of the tree of life'. Still, it is the individual who is doing the 'choosing'... But anyway...