Kracked Kabbalah Kellipot?

KABALAH KRACKED POT

Is Rick Ross a Kabbalah Krackpot?

By

David Arthur Walters

I noticed the Miami Kabbalah center’s full-page ad running in Knight Ridder’s prestigious The Miami Herald recently. Shortly thereafter I was approached on the sidewalk in Coral Gables by Kabbalah sales persons.

Apparently there have been numerous complaints about the conduct of the pop-Kabbalah movement. For instance, a Mr. Rick Ross informed me today that the head of the movement in Israel has been arrested for fraud. He said he is looking for relevant “newspaper” articles about the movement for his database. He is not interested in opinions: he seems to believe in “facts”, and apparently has the opinion that newspapers are the only relatively credible source of “facts.”

I have seen nothing but positive information about the Kabbalah movement in the South Florida press. I understand that prominent members of our community as well as highly placed celebrities ardently support the movement as if it were a bona fide religion. If there is a record that the movement somehow places vulnerable people in danger, I believe the public has a right to know what that record is. Have members of the South Florida press printed anything on the movement besides advertisements and upbeat “news”?

The Miami Mirror will not go into print until next year, when our funding is in place. Until we become a newspaper, we must rely on existing newspapers for reliable information on the dangers that might confront us in our search for perfection. Rick Ross has a great deal of information to share on this particular subject.

As for his opinion, his understanding of what a fact is, and his interpretation of facts, we cannot render our opinion as of yet. Nor do we have the funds to conduct a thorough investigation as to whether or not his work is a fragment or kellipot from the Cracked Pot. If that is in fact the case, some light may be recovered from therein. And that is why we have asked various newspaper editors to conduct an investigation into the facts and report back to us on this crucial issue.

Nothing is Free at the Kabbalah Fest

http://authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=23453&id=20165

Advertisements

What Is Really Going On With Time?

MYSTERY CLOCK

 

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON WITH TIME?

From Groundhog Days – Intercourse on Time

By Melina Costello & David Arthur Walters

September 18, 2003

Madame,

Greetings!

Dear Madame Melina,

I trust this letter finds you well and profitably engaged in your metaphysical endeavors.

I was going through our Groundhog notes again yesterday. I came across this statement by the great Ouspensky:

“… it is possible to say that our usual conception of ‘dimensions of time’ are wrong. For instance, for us time can have different duration – five years, ten years, a hundred years – but it always has the same speed. But where are proofs of this? Why not suppose that time in certain limits (for instance in relation to human life) always has the same duration but DIFFERENT SPEED? One is not more arbitrary than the other, but with the admission of this possibility the question disappears…..”

You have already supposed, after perusing John McTaggart’s Unreality of Time, that McTaggart, despite his logic or even because of it, is muddle-headed. Now we may also suppose that Ouspensky is a muddle-headed man, and that the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence itself is absurd.

But Ouspensky may have known better. He may have been a wily trickster or charlatan intentionally attempting to deceive us by making an impression that he knows more than he does, that he has insight into truths that remain a mystery to us, wherefore we should regard him as an authority, buy his book, sign up for the Work, or whatever.

On the other hand, it is we who are muddle-headed and in want of a better elucidation by the great master of enlightenment. Yet another possibility is that he is trying to get us to think for ourselves by positing impossibilities or by posing ridiculous insoluble riddles for us to solve.

Alright, then, he suggests that we suppose that time flows or endures at different speeds, as if time were a thing such as a stream of water flowing along something stationary, say, over the land. We ask, if time is flowing at different speeds, different speeds in relation to what? The land is may be the ruler but is not the timer. A thing moving in space moves in respect to time. A car speeds along at so many miles per hour. A man ages or changes over the years and we do not expect him to endure much longer than 100 years. We have an objective standard for duration upon which we all agree; for instance, we measure change by a certain quantity of units for which we have an atomic or astronomical reference. That is to say that a moving object does not move at different objective speeds for each observer of the motion, nor are the observers living at different speeds. Or are we monads without windows and without relations to one another, monads whose only internal movement is changing delusions? I think not.

Now, then, since a motion or change in space occurs in relation to time, is it safe to say that time also moves in respect to time, or hypertime? So does hypertime move in respect to hyper-hypertime? And so on ad infinitum? Does change change relative to change? I think not. I do not think that time is a thing that is moving in space, something that is rushing by each and every one of us like the wind. I post that the “flow of time” or the “stream of time” into which we cannot step into the same place twice, is a metaphorical conception, a myth about something that does not substantially exist; the connotation is adjectival rather than nominative.

What, then, is time? Whatever it is, it seems that the notion of time moving at different speeds, and the attempt to make a difference between duration and speed, is sheer nonsense; or that yours truly, for instance, is in need of further enlightenment.

However that may be, and given human ingenuity, surely there is some way to solve the riddle Ouspensky poses, if there is a solution. I was thinking that each person at death might not be reborn instantly, but another universe would start up with a big bang, and the soul of the deceased would be suspended from animation or in a timeless state until the history of the new universe caught up and he was born again into the usual world, say, on Groundhog Day.

I am no mathematician like Ouspensky was; however, if my scenario were true, I think there might be a number of universes approaching infinity in some sort of hyperspace. I don’t know if that would pose a spatial problem. As for the waiting souls, since they are non-dimensional, I imagine they could all fit onto the head of a pin.

And that is question within your domain, my dear metaphysician. Pray tell how many souls can fit on a head of a pin.

Your Faithful Groundhog

2

Christians Want Progress

Me Fourfold Root

CHRISTIANS WANT PROGRESS

From Groundhog Days – Intercourse on Time

By Melina Costello & David Arthur Walters

July 19, 2004

Madame,

Greetings!

Madame Melina,

Aloha!

I am moved to progress with our time-consuming discourse on time although it might appear that we are saying the same thing over and over endlessly because that happens to be our fate. In that event, not enough has been said about the history of the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence. I’m sure thou wilt not blame me for repeating myself.

The doctrine appertaining to the endless and exact repetition of life-cycles was attributed to the Pythagoreans by Eudemas, a pupil of Aristotle. Eudemas, who usually paraphrased Aristotle, wrote a book on physics.

The learned community is uncertain whether or not the scientific faction of the Pythagorean brotherhood actually espoused the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence; perhaps the Doctrine was Aristotle’s notion. We do know that the brotherhood religiously adhered to and developed the Orphic doctrine of metempsychosis, i.e. the transmigration or the crossing over of souls into other bodies, although there is some doubt that Pythagoras himself taught metempsychosis.

The relationship of the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence — which is a rather amoral (some say immoral) doctrine because cycles of relatively good and evil are endlessly repeated — to Metempsychosis — which allows the moral individual who does his duty to escape from vicious cycles — is a matter of some intellectual interest. With that in mind, we quote Eudemas:

“If we are to believe the Pythagoreans,” said Eudemas, “I shall once more gossip among you with this little staff in my hands, and again as now will ye be standing before me, and likewise will it be with all the rest.”

Thus we have an expression of a universal law of identical cyclic successions or circular courses, a theory about what precedes all beginnings and follows all ends; that is, the same thing.

The Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence is similar to other hypotheses derived from the will to live and the wish to survive the obvious death of the body with its simultaneous disappearance of its spirit or breath. Death is similar to sleep, hence one might conjure up a permanent soul, and imagine that, although the dead body apparently does not arise, its soul, the principle of permanence behind apparent change, might awake somewhere else, unseen, in another sort of body, or perhaps in a replication of the body left behind.

Of course some ancient peoples believed that the same body would be resurrected, and even buried the body standing up, for its convenience upon resurrection. Of course modern adherents to the belief in resurrection of the body would not cremate the body. For the same reason, the Chinese ancients abhorred the mutilation or dismemberment of the body, wanting it resurrected whole – the eunuch carried his severed member in a box so he might be rejoined with it upon death.

Notwithstanding those who want the same body resurrected, a person who views the decay and dissolution of a corpse and observes the ebb and flow and transformation of other things on Earth, might be led to imagine that a soul survives the death of its housing, or, if you will, throws off its cloak and migrates from body to body, perhaps in a circular or spiral course, from form to form, until, if he so wishes, it is released from the wheel of birth. And many were those who entertained such a wish, and conceived of the body as the soul’s grave, from which it might escape: the pilgrim could by virtue of the right purification conduct including right faith atone for the original sin of his race and ascend from the hellish muck, to heaven, and join the gods for dinner.

Westerners know very well one old story about the tainting of human nature: Zeus and Persephone begat Zagreus-Dionysus. The Titans wanted to kill the child, so he turned into a bull and fled. The Titans caught up with him, killed and ate him. Athena however rescued his heart for Zeus, who swallowed it, then struck the Titans with a thunderbolt. Mankind arose from their ashes, part Dionysian (good) and part Titanic (evil). The objective of the moral or pure life is to purge the evil part and save the good. The poet Pindar informs us that, after humans die, some of the most distinguished among them are reincarnated after eight years, and become heroes – this assuages Persephone’s grief over the murder of her child. Pindar gives an alternative – a more democratic theory: worlds are places of reward and punishment; those persons who lead three good lives after this world are released from further births.

As for right conduct, the Pythagorean brothers, for example, eschewed beans and meat among other things, and asked themselves three questions before they went to sleep: In what have I failed today? What good have I done today? What did I do today that I should not have done?

But the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence does not allow the soul to inhabit a variety of forms during different life cycles; there is no progress or regress: the same cycle of life is lived over and over again. Welcome to Groundhog Day! Such an endless repetition is not very attractive to human beings who love progress and variety. If people have to live “the same damn life” over and over again, say some, then, may we thank the god of ignorance that we do not know we are stuck in a rut! On the other hand, say others, if that is all there is, an endlessly repeated life, the same is sufficient for anyone who truly loves life, no matter how happy or miserable it might be.

Christians especially demand an alternative to circularity; they want some sort of trajectory. Yes, said the spiritually inclined predecessors to Christianity, there might be a vicious wheel of existence, but the aspiring soul can break the law of cycles; fly off on a progressive tangent; progress to a favored X, or to infinity, or to death. Some of the great escapees might periodically return to save the rest of mankind from time to time, just as heavenly bodies return over immense tracts of time, say, at the end of a great year, a year that might be a century or a thousand centuries according to our world clock. Periodic correspondences between heaven and earth were posited by the astrologers: Conflagrations when the planets are in Cancer; floods when in Capricorn – fire at the summer solstice; water at the winter solstice. Perhaps all the cycles are subject to single, cosmic cycle. Perhaps, as the Stoics supposed, the universe, a sphere surrounded by an infinite void, is burned up by a central fire, then the whole cycle recurs again, exactly as it did before, again and again, ad infinitum.

The Stoics, who did not believe in the transmigration of souls, faced the world as conscientious stalwarts and stoically accepted the fatalistic Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence. A moral man conducts himself morally despite the external circumstances of the world; morality is a human thing originating not in distant stars but in the family, tribe and clan.

As for the amoral (or immoral) Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, it was not necessarily inferred from astronomical observations of the boring revolution of spheres – life on earth also has it regularities. We should note, if we are to believe Eudemus, that the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence was held by the Pythagoreans, that Chaldean astrology had little known influence on Pythagorism. Theophrastus, fellow-pupil of Eudemus, expressed astonishment as the “sham-science” of Babylon.

We can be certain that Christian theology rejects the transmigration hypotheses. The idea that a man’s soul might take an animal form, say that of a pig or chicken, perhaps because the deceased ate ham sandwiches or chicken salads, is particularly repugnant to meat-eating Christians. They have also rejected the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, for it postulates not moral progress but rather a simultaneous resurrection of innumerable souls in identical bodies at the death/birth of each one of them. Whatever exists is not good enough for the ascetic spiritualist; he must have something better, something good; and, in time, good requires a pre-existence evil. That is, Christians want personal salvation now if not moral progress on this Earth, that the soul may survive and not perish with the body.

Of course secular or evolutionary progress can be had by virtue of the extinction of individual lives for the progress of the species. Alcamaeon of Croton, the “father of physiology,” opined that man is godlike because he is always moving by virtue of a vital force or spring of life which at once puts both body and mind in constant, progressive motion towards the ultimate goal of individual life: death. Life is not cyclical, observed the ancient physiologist: “Men perish because they are unable to join their beginning to their end.”

Although Christianity rejects metempsychosis, Pythagoras himself was much admired. Ambrose, for instance, believed Pythagoras was a Jew and placed him as a great authority between Moses and Plato.

St. Augustine of Hippo held that cyclic repetition is incompatible with the Christian spirit. He rejected the recurring cycles mentioned by Aristotle, and insisted that creation and salvation are unique, unrepeatable events. Time started with the creation of the universe and is independent of the motion of its bodies hence is not derived from their movement. We might delve into absolute time or time without events elsewhere, since we cannot make much sense of it at the moment.

So it seems that Christians believe in progress, that although they have bemoaned existence on this bitter earth, they are optimistic about the better place funereal ministers speak of, a place where they hope they will wind up as long as they have faith.

Madame, the more I progress in my research on this timely subject, the more I believe history is a mistake, and the more I am gladdened that time moves in one direction, forward.

Your Faithful Groundhog

Crazy Mystics from Groundhog Days

MYSTIC OUSPENSKY

 

CRAZY MYSTICS

From Groundhog Days – Intercourse on Time

By Melina Costello & David Arthur Walters

October 8, 2003

Dear Madame Melina

In response to your letter of 1 October, I must say that McTaggart’s ideas in The Unreality of Timeseem to have greater respect among respectable people than Ouspensky’s ideas on similar subjects, probably because of their respective credentials and lifestyles. We shall probably find more books by and about Ouspensky than by and about McTaggart in a large library – the ratio is 18 to12 at my five-million volume university library. But we do not find Ouspensky mentioned in leading philosophical dictionaries and encyclopedias. We do find some thinkers listed whose inclusion gives us cause to wonder what editorial method is being used to draw the dividing lines between philosophy, religion, and cracked pottery. At least one prestigious philosophical encyclopedia includes Luther as a great philosopher – as you know, Luther explained confusing metaphysical issues not with a fine intellectual system or sophisticated discourse, but with direct references to “God’s mysteries.” Of course we shall find Hegel in all the references, despite the fact that many philosophers denounced his work as the raving of a madman. McTaggart, who was a idiosyncratic Hegelian, wrote a few books about Hegel.

I do not think the exclusion of Ouspensky is due to “Western prejudice,” for several histories of Russian philosophy written by bona-fide Russians exclude him while dwelling on Russians with extraordinary views and attitudes; for instance my favorite, Nicholas Berdyaev. Ouspensky is apparently a Russian outcast both in life and after life. The form of his spiritual quest is apparently outmoded although it enjoyed a revival during the Sixties, particularly among pot smokers and acid droppers – Ouspensky might have liked Timothy Leary and would have experimented with LSD-25.

Of course both Ouspensky and McTaggart were mystics – Ouspensky’s mysticism was more dramatic and romantic than McTaggart’s academic version, and he is far better known among the aging New Age crowd. McTaggart was born in 1866, Ouspensky in 1878. Both saw the scientific-industrial revolution moving full steam ahead, as well as the revolutionary reactions to that movement including the Russian revolutions and the Great War. Intellectuals all over Europe in those days were getting sick and tired of the mechanical rationalism of scientism and industrial materialism. Growing skepticism turned to romance, mysticism, symbolism, spiritualism – spiritualism fully bloomed during and after the Great War as survivors tried to contact the millions killed in the orgy of mutual mass murder. Scientific thought was also breaking out of its static mold into dynamic and organic forms – the principles of relativity and uncertainly would revolutionize science. Flights of imagination were launched by schemers such as H.G. Wells, who was a biologist and teacher by training, a disciple of “Darwin’s bulldog” – T.H. Huxley. Wells like Ouspensky was impressed by the Englishman C.H. Hinton’s Scientific Romances, which led Wells to write his science-fiction novel about a time machine. And Hinton’s writing on the fourth dimension and eternal recurrence was the point of departure for Ouspensky’s experiments and effusions on same. Another writer by the name of F.A. Abbott (Flatland) helped popularize dimensional thinking. Indeed, the Fourth Dimension was quite the rage in imaginative circles for quite some time.

Ouspensky, as you know, was raised in Moody Russia. He lost his father – a surveyor and mathematician fascinated by the fourth dimension – at a very young age. He was a precocious child, reading popular novels at age six. He was greatly influenced by his mother; she painted and she loved French and Russian literature, hence young Ouspensky developed an artistic inclination. He also had an anarchistic bent. He hated school, quitting it at fourteen, then self-educated himself, auditing a few university lectures at Moscow University and at other European universities – he never obtained a degree – Gurdjieff would later convince him of the importance of school discipline. He was an outsider by temperament, rebellious, romantic, restless, and fascinated by unorthodox ideas, unable or unwilling to hold down a steady job. He experienced the 1905 Russian first-hand while deeply depressed and living in grinding poverty. His dear little sister was arrested for belonging to a leftist organization – she died in prison in 1908. Ouspensky hated communist revolution; however, as an occasional journalist, he had to be a leftist since that was the only game in town. It was in 1905 that he drafted his romantic novel about eternal recurrence or repeated lives, an occult concept which, if applied to him at the time, would have meant eternal damnation. He traveled to the Caucasus, Europe, and the Middle East in search of the miraculous escape from the tedious routines of normal life – that life was really an abnormal state of stupefied dreaming in comparison to the normal supernatural state of lucidity.

McTaggart grew up in Merry England. He lost his father at the age of four. He was deeply attached to his mother; she was largely permissive, hence he developed an anarchic streak. He was an odd child, already a philosophically inclined intellectual around the age of six or seven. As a young boy he was expelled from school for refuting the Apostle’s Creed and for denouncing the existence of God – in his maturity, his mysticism did not require a personal god. The boy liked to walk crab-like with his back against a wall or a fence – his village peers called him “loony.” McTaggart however pursued his studies and went on to Cambridge. His beloved mother emigrated to New Zealand in 1890. He visited her there, stopping off in India and Australia. He settled down to his own family life at Cambridge, where he taught philosophy to the likes of Russell, Broad, Moore and Whitehead. He turned on his protégé Russell when Russell became an activist during the war – he probably cost Russell his job.

When we turn to the texts written by Ouspensky and McTaggart, Ouspensky’s are more appealing to the average reader; again, McTaggart’s work is aridly academic. Ouspensky was a teacher too, but to a lay audience. His non-fiction is novel-like and hails back to the days when poetry was philosophy and psychology was the quest for self-discovery. McTaggart, doctor of philosophy, law and literature, had an arid style. His fundamental concepts are on no sturdier ground than Ouspensky’s, but his reasoning seems more precise, cogent and organized. McTaggart’s technical discussion of the unreality of time is difficult reading; the reader must concentrate and go over the material several times, and once the subject is understood the reader will think McTaggart could have said as much and done so more clearly in a few paragraphs. On the other hand, his articles in plain English on human immortality and pre-existence can be easily digested by the average adult reader, especially if she believes she has been here before and will continue hereafter; even if not, she will still learn some interesting philosophical points. In any case, one might receive the impression from his professional style that McTaggart is the real McCoy while Ouspensky is a fakir. Yet at bottom they are both talking nonsense although there is some truth to be gleaned from nonsense. At least that is my opinion.

After setting aside metaphysics, what passes for nonfiction in the ‘soft’ human sciences is really fiction that can easily be exposed as mythical malarkey by anyone who takes the time to think clearly for herself. But the student of society will usually not get very far in society by repudiating its overwhelming conventions: it is convenient to purchase the appearance of propriety if one wants to have a profitable practice. Yet Ouspensky dropped out, did his own thing, and got into the occult – he had a sour-grapes attitude about conventional education and its degrees. McTaggart abided by the conventions and firmly secured his official position in life and in legitimate philosophy textbooks. Ouspensky, however, is not a failure but an unusual example of unconventional success – many people take a liking to romantic rebels in all fields.

I notice that I have a few things in common with Ouspensky and McTaggart. I lost my mother at a very young age and not my father, yet I always felt spiritually close to my mother in her absence. My father was theosophically and artistically inclined – a poet – and I picked up my love of literature from him. I was brought up during my earliest years in a rather permissive foster home – I had the run of the town and developed an anarchistic streak. I was always an outcast, an oddball, although I had a few friends. I was not interested in philosophy but loved literature and was reading Dickens and Dumas at age six. I hated school and any other group activity but I loved to study. I took up metaphysical subjects, the reading of Russian literature, and experimenting with mind-altering substances as a week-end hippie and part-time psychic in the Sixties. Then I ‘copped out’, went to work for the Man, gradually saying no to everything except coffee and radical thinking. Nowadays I gravitate more to the respectable idealist type like McTaggart. I prefer French literature and German philosophy. Anti-intellectualism is running rampant lately, and my sympathies are usually with the underdog. Ouspensky is largely ignored although well known, while McTaggart has a few fans who know him as an academic mystic. I am not a McTaggart fan, yet. That being said, I will soon consider his professional crazy ideas, on mysticism and time.

Your Faithful Groundhog

Tracey Flagler’s New Age

TRAVEY Header PIC

 

TRACEY Flagler’s NEW AGE

 

Excerpt from Tracey Flagler by David Arthur Walters

 

Tracey Flagler was a New Age woman through and through. She had become acquainted with The Source while working as waitress in South Beach,. Her main ambition was to become a medium and high priestess of the postmodern cult. That was made clear in the diaries I recovered from her apartment after her tragic suicide. Therein I found nine tenets from one of the several entities she channeled:

 

ALL HAIL SHALOMA

 

-1-

 

Rejoice!

The Ultimate Reality and Purpose

of YOUR Eternal Life is Bliss,

YOUR feeling of Absolute
Joy. Have Fun, O Dear One!

YOU are a Feeling Being.

YOU are what YOU feel.

YOUR feelings changes things.

YOUR feelings transform objects

as YOU perceive them.

Therefore Elate YOURSELF,

save the World that is YOU!

Cheer Up, O Dear One!

YOUR Joy recreates the objects

YOU were formerly depressed about,

into the Very Substance of Joy.

YOUR Mission is to have fun,

to experience Joy.

So Have Fun at all times.

Rejoice!


-2-

 

Rejoice!

The Inner Higher SELF is the Source

of the Joy that YOU connect with,

evolve toward,

and become at-one with

through SELF-realization.

YOUR SELF itSELF is God

by Virtue of Identification.

But YOUR SELF does not

lose its In-Dividuality and perish
when it becomes One with the All,

for the All is YOUR Multidimensional SELF

comprising Infinite Possibilities,

each being realized somewhere in Consciousness,

no matter how minutely.

In effect, the Potency for which YOUR human-potential
strives is Omnipotence,
and in this Absolute Freedom

YOUR SELF enjoys Unimpeded
Being.

Rejoice!


-3-

 

Rejoice!

God s Infinite and is and is not everything at once.

Take Heart! YOU, the SELF-God,
are Like-Wise Unlimited.

Be Gladdened, O Dear One.

The SELF-God would persevere
forever without impediment if it could,

and in fact it can and it does so in YOU,

an Ideally Instantiated Fact

that the evolving YOU

becomes fully Self-Aware
of in Eternity.

Rejoice!

-4-

 

Rejoice!
It follows that the SELF is Immortal,

that YOU cannot die,

and that the apparent death
and dissolution of the human body

is not the death of YOUR True Form or Soul or
SELF, which may choose to create,

take on and cast off another form at will.

Rejoice!


-5-

 

Rejoice!

Since
God is the Omnipotent,

SELF-Created,

SELF-Moved,

First Mover who creates Reality
by merely thinking it in terms of the Word

created for that Purpose, the SELF-God
creates its own Reality

including its SELF

by chanting the Word.

Everything thus thoughtfully created

is a Mode of Consciousness although,

apparently, largely unconscious.

The so-called Unconscious

is not really Unconscious-In-ItSELF:
it is Profoundly and Unutterably Conscious,

and holds sway over Conscious-Consciousness;
this Fun-Loving Merry Mind

is the Source of God’s Marvelous Mysteries, and
should be exalted accordingly. Rejoice!

-6-


Rejoice!

Since
the SELF’s Word becomes

the SELF-Chosen Material World,

all wishes come true,
and the truly SELF-realized SELF

has no desire to reject the World

and become
Homeless or Other-Worldly.

The SELF-Created World

belongs to the SELF; however,

the SELF does not exactly own the World:

the World is precisely the Derivative
World of YOUR Choices.

Enjoy Your Profit O Dear One!

God is of course Opulent;
the World is Her bauble;

hence the SELF-Realized SELF or YOU

does not eschew riches
but embraces them,

adorns Her-SELF with them,

and chants the Exhilarating Gospel
of Wealth.

Rejoice!


-7-

 

Rejoice!

Until its Atonement, the In-Dividual,

divided against its SELF by ignorance of its SELF,
must endeavor to have Fun for its Own Salvation

or SELF-Unity,

and since its Own
SELF is the SELF-God within every One,

within each and every Member of the
Category of One,

Global Salvation may be accelerated

if the SELF so chooses,

by
giving Profitable Service to Humanity,

but that Service is Insufficient,

for ultimately
only SELF-Service Saves.

Be Gay, O Dear One!

Rejoice!


-8-

 

 Rejoice!

The SELF-God is ultimately responsible to YOU:
Every One gets what S/HE deserves,
for S/HE has in one way or another c
hosen those just deserts.
The SELF shall evolve accordingly,
from form to form,
until full awareness of its
Divinity-in-Unity is achieved.
All who embrace the Future
and take responsibility for their own SELF
shall in the End eternally dwell
in Joy-Full Harmony in the Peaceful Sphere.
Therefore Exalt YOUR SELF, O Gleeful One!
The Instantiated State of Ideal Peace
is beyond good and evil;
all goods and evils along the way are relative;
since Divine Selves seek the same End, namely Good,
there is no such thing as sin.
Rejoice!

-9-

 

Everything God does,
including what ignorance foolishly perceives to be evil,
is really Good
– there is no such thing as evil:
God does not need a devil to be God.
What is true of God is true of the virtually identical
SELF that is YOU.
In any event,
no matter what is done,
Good Intentions shall suffice
to sanction the deed!
Rejoice!

 

ALL HAIL SHALOMA

Photo Credit: ‘Deception’ by Darwin Leon