As our consciousness evolves and we begin to realize that we are intricately bound to a far greater consciousness, we should also begin to arise from our lower forms of thinking. No longer bound to the temporary flesh and earthly form, we are rising beyond it and becoming spaceborn.
As we evolve we should rise above the simpler things that we have been restricted to and grow in the knowledge of the many other truths that exist beyond our earthly scope of awareness.
Within this evolution one would think there should come an increase in wisdom as well. As we become aware of extraterrestrial knowledge by entering into a much wider spectrum of existence, one would think that a consciousness would mature and grow wiser and more discerning.
But, we do not all take our newfound knowledge and apply it in ways that makes wisdom of it. Wisdom is gained by the understanding of what affects our choices have when we apply the knowledge that we acquire. And then applying that knowledge in ways that is best suited for evolution and development.
The bee does not evolve if it uses its ability find nectar and pollen to simply feed itself. A bee that only looks out for itself eventually dies alone, having contributed to nothing except its own existence, which is now over. If all bees live like this, what is the wisdom in becoming the last of the bees?
So too, the human does not evolve when it has served nothing but itself, and becomes the last surviving human. To evolve and become wiser, one must realize that they are not just an individual, they are also part of a much grander complex, which if lost to extinction because of self-gratification, also results in the loss of the evolution of consciousness.
Consciousness cannot evolve as an individual just because it experiences creation as an individual. It evolves as a whole, using the individual experiences to develop the whole. And as such the human is the micrcosm of the macrocosm that is the All.
The One Consciousness is a complex, ongoing, process of reproduction and transformation of frequency, like cell division. And to grow and develop it must act as one unit even though its individual cells are a vital part of the process. One cell, should it never divide and become more, is not a functioning aspect of its true design, nor an active part of its own evolution. One cell cannot evolve and develop alone. It must become more thans its individuality.
The human, the individual fragment of the One consciousness, must likewise become more than its individual aspect. The human must become more than self in order to evolve into its true design, and thus evolve the All in the process.
A human consciousness that exists only to gratify its self, becomes like a cancer cell that is of no benefit to the further evolution of the All. It is acting in detriment to the true design, and will result in a growth that does not create a higher being, a wiser thought, nor a more evolved creation. It will create an abnormal growth that needs to be removed before it corrupts the entire design of being.
The human is not a self, it is one part of a complex system that evolves based upon the interaction and sharing of thoughts and events. This process has two directions. Forward into evolved development, and backward into what already remains.
Roots are required for nurturing and sustenance, but should the crown of the tree grow back into the soil from which it was born, it does not become a higher form, it simply decays back into the soil to the point where even its roots will perish.
There was one beginning, and only that is the truth; the Source. Everything else is a reproduction of it's thought and action. Re-production is not the source of production. We are One with the One Consciousness, and therefore All is One, but there is a source to the All and that source is the power and intelligence behind the entire process. The grass is already laid our before us and unaffected by our reality until we interact upon it, and leave it trampled behind us.That experience of interaction is the process taking place, but it is not creating the origin or the power behind the process. The Source creates the canvas and enables us to paint on it. The Source oversees the process, including the when and how of the evolutionary reincarnation process.
I have come to know these things, and will contribute my unique vibrations to the All. What can you contribute? To what heights can you bring the All and thereby benefit as well? Will you walk in this life, seeking self gratification and individulaity? Or will you walk in ways that enhance us All, and in ways that enhance our understanding and capability to learn. Or will you remain in one place, never exploring the possibilities, and never increasing your potential, vastly extending the time of your possible ascendance far into the future, instead of bringing it closer to achievement? The choice is yours, and affects us All. Tune in! Vibrate well!
Here's a question, if green-ray/heart is associated with learning the lessons of love, why is blue-ray honesty and clear communication associated with learning the lessons of wisdom? Why does love (as green-ray, not the primary distortion) serve as the foundation for wisdom? And what prevents one still learning the lessons of love (again, not as the primary distortion) from also being wise?
You will have to ask Ra those questions Zen. Thats if you are going to discuss the light spectrum and chakras.
If you are asking my understanding, there cannot be wisdom without love, because wisdom is only manifest in the realization that we are not individuals, and when we realize that, we begin to love our humanity.
I think it takes great Love to face Truth. If truth comes before there is Love, there may be only fear in response.
(03-24-2012, 05:32 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]If you are asking my understanding, there cannot be wisdom without love, because wisdom is only manifest in the realization that we are not individuals, and when we realize that, we begin to love our humanity.
That seems to be a tautology. I mean from the perspective of love, that is what wisdom might seem to be, but from the perspective of wisdom, what then is love? It's obviously not adequately addressed in the tiny (yet important) realization of some ontological relationship (regarding individual vs collective identity).
The gnostic "Sophia" is greek for "wisdom".
Somehow the importance of wisdom was turned into a deity lol.
I tend to agree that wisdom has a lot to do with evolution.
(03-24-2012, 05:44 PM)abstrktion Wrote: [ -> ]I think it takes great Love to face Truth. If truth comes before there is Love, there may be only fear in response.
Love as acceptance or love as compassion? And do you see a difference?
Shin'Ar said : If you are asking my understanding, there cannot be wisdom without love, because wisdom is only manifest in the realization that we are not individuals, and when we realize that, we begin to love our humanity.
Zen replied - That seems to be a tautology. I mean from the perspective of love, that is what wisdom might seem to be, but from the perspective of wisdom, what then is love? It's obviously not adequately addressed in the tiny (yet important) realization of some ontological relationship (regarding individual vs collective identity).
Shin'Ar replied- From the perspective of love wisdom arises.
From the perspective of wisdom, it could not have arisen without love.
And I think that what I just posted above does adequately address the realtionship between the two.
(03-24-2012, 06:01 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]And I think that what I just posted above does adequately address the realtionship between the two.
Not really. In 5D the so-called 'wisdom' density, one must completely understand the entire 'Law of One', which involves all kinds of disciplines and realizations. That's aeons after one understands some kind of mere social identity.
As I said earlier, if you are basing your entire understanding of existence on Ra's teaching, than you must go to him for your answers.
My understanding of creation is based upon the degree to which my consciousness has evolved, not the degree to which it might evolve, which by the way, seems to be how some come to their understanding of STS here as well.
(03-24-2012, 06:12 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]As I said earlier, if you are basing your entire understanding of existence on Ra's teaching, than you must go to him for your answers.
I used it as an example, for obvious reasons. If you are basing your entire understanding of wisdom based on a realization of identity of group vs individual, then you aren't going to get very far in your explanations.
(03-24-2012, 06:12 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding of creation is based upon the degree to which my consciousness has evolved, not the degree to which it might evolve, which by the way, seems to be how some come to their understanding of STS here as well.
Again, it's an example for the sake of convenience. And if you claim to be totally conscious of your convictions (as actual vs ideological or potential), then you are being just as disingenuous as many are here as well (and not 'learning what you are teaching').
(03-24-2012, 05:55 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2012, 05:44 PM)abstrktion Wrote: [ -> ]I think it takes great Love to face Truth. If truth comes before there is Love, there may be only fear in response.
Love as acceptance or love as compassion? And do you see a difference?
Probably both.
Love in terms of compassion for self and others, and acceptance of faults, inconsistencies, and weaknesses as part of the process of growth. In one text I read that was written by one used to dealing with the mentally ill, the author asserts that even the worst offenders typically chose the lesser of two evils--according to their perspective of evil--in a pathetic attempt at being "good."
When we look upon ourselves with compassion and acceptance, we can face the Truth (dweller on the threshold) about ourselves because we will no longer be afraid of being wrong; we will see that we are one with the Creator and that we are not stuck wherever we are now. So many people fear being wrong, so they hide it from themselves and others. If they were to love and accept themselves, they could face the truth and set to amending that which they didn't like. Dishonesty comes from fear.
(side note: Unfortunately, sometimes we even make those we love dishonest when they fear to hurt us. Blue-ray can't occur when we are manipulating through fear and making sure people only tell us what we want to hear--sometimes we make others lie to spare us pain because we cannot face Truth that we very often know inside anyways. I'd say men use their anger to manipulate and women very often use their tears.)
A couple of semi-relevant anecdotes...
1)
A student of mine is going through a hard time at home and was concerned that I was giving her extra time to complete her assignments out of "pity." I asked her how she would act if a friend of hers was going through the same thing, would she feel pity or compassion? She said compassion--and she smiled and said she'd do the same thing I was, offering help. I told her to be as kind and generous to herself as she would be to her friend.
2)
I typically paint without a goal. I just like smearing the paint around because it feels wonderful to do so--the mixing of the colors, the shapes--it is a visceral pleasure. But sometimes it doesn't come out "pretty" or it is a little "off." So put it away for a while. The paint dries a bit, then I just paint over the top, sometimes using parts that I like from the painting underneath.
To me, this is like the process of evolving by making choices that don't always have the outcomes we'd like. We can't learn about choice without making choices. So I make choices when I paint. Sometimes the choices don't turn out well, but instead of throwing out the canvas (or myself!). I wait (sometimes we need to let our fields of experience lie fallow and come back to lesson later). The paint dries enough so that new colors applied won't be muddied by the wet ones underneath (fresh energy and attitude towards life), and I try again (forgive self and move on). Often, something wonderful I hadn't noticed from the previous painting comes through and makes the new painting better (past experience teaches me is always in the background). I've found that the paintings I like the best have this kind of "underpainting"--they are richer than they would be if I'd just painted on white canvas.
(03-24-2012, 06:50 PM)abstrktion Wrote: [ -> ](side note: Unfortunately, sometimes we even make those we love dishonest when they fear to hurt us. Blue-ray can't occur when we are manipulating through fear and making sure people only tell us what we want to hear--sometimes we make others lie to spare us pain because we cannot face Truth that we very often know inside anyways. I'd say men use their anger to manipulate and women very often use their tears.)
I'm interested in this side note. You say that blue-ray can't occur when we are manipulating through fear, etc. But that begs the question of whether green-ray can occur under these circumstances.
You also say that "dishonesty comes from fear." What kind of distinctions, if any, would you make between lack of honesty and what you are calling 'dishonesty'?
(03-24-2012, 06:33 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2012, 06:12 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]As I said earlier, if you are basing your entire understanding of existence on Ra's teaching, than you must go to him for your answers.
I used it as an example, for obvious reasons. If you are basing your entire understanding of wisdom based on a realization of identity of group vs individual, then you aren't going to get very far in your explanations.
(03-24-2012, 06:12 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding of creation is based upon the degree to which my consciousness has evolved, not the degree to which it might evolve, which by the way, seems to be how some come to their understanding of STS here as well.
Again, it's an example for the sake of convenience. And if you claim to be totally conscious of your convictions (as actual vs ideological or potential), then you are being just as disingenuous as many are here as well (and not 'learning what you are teaching').
Than you obviously don't agree with what I wrote in the OP.
Why don't you explain why you don't agree with what I said? I don't understand your confusion.
(03-24-2012, 06:44 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]3:33 , ooohh!
What does this Mean Azreal?
Creativity, diversity, artistry and combining of opposites to create a new synthesis.
(03-24-2012, 07:38 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]Than you obviously don't agree with what I wrote in the OP.
Why don't you explain why you don't agree with what I said? I don't understand your confusion.
It's not that I don't agree with your statements, I thought you meant that wisdom was vital to evolution, not that you are providing some wisdom which is vital to evolution.
(03-24-2012, 07:49 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2012, 07:38 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]Than you obviously don't agree with what I wrote in the OP.
Why don't you explain why you don't agree with what I said? I don't understand your confusion.
It's not that I don't agree with your statements, I thought you meant that wisdom was vital to evolution, not that you are providing some wisdom which is vital to evolution.
Nope, sorry, you lost me! I can't seem to understand you when we get into discussions. Must be some kind of language barrrier.
(03-24-2012, 07:43 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]Creativity, diversity, artistry and combining of opposites to create a new synthesis.
Would you say that is akin to the yellow ray process of the "illusion" i.e. yellow ray manifestation on earth?
(03-24-2012, 07:09 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2012, 06:50 PM)abstrktion Wrote: [ -> ](side note: Unfortunately, sometimes we even make those we love dishonest when they fear to hurt us. Blue-ray can't occur when we are manipulating through fear and making sure people only tell us what we want to hear--sometimes we make others lie to spare us pain because we cannot face Truth that we very often know inside anyways. I'd say men use their anger to manipulate and women very often use their tears.)
I'm interested in this side note. You say that blue-ray can't occur when we are manipulating through fear, etc. But that begs the question of whether green-ray can occur under these circumstances.
You also say that "dishonesty comes from fear." What kind of distinctions, if any, would you make between lack of honesty and what you are calling 'dishonesty'?
In the side note, I was thinking that the one manipulating was clearly out of green; but the other might be in green, but would lie to avoid hurting the one doing the manipulating through emotion. The lie/denial would pull that one out of blue.
Lack of honesty might mean simply not saying anything.
Dishonesty would be a choice to deliberately tell a lie--this dishonesty might actually come from a place of deep love for the other person or it could come from fear of the rejection/anger of the other person.
A couple situations...
1) Child lies to a parent to avoid getting in trouble. (fear)
2) Child decides not to tell the parent something that would upset the parent because the parent already has enough on his/her plate and the child is sensitive to the parent. (love)
One spouse questions the other about the other's feelings for a third party.
1) The spouse being questioned lies/denies to avoid trouble and maintain the status quo. (fear)
2) The spouse knows that his/her true feelings would make the other spouse sad and uncomfortable; s/he lies/denies to avoid causing the spouse pain. (love).
1) A homosexual child tells his/her parent that s/he's straight to avoid a family blowout. (fear)
2) A homosexual child chooses not to reveal his/her sexuality because s/he knows it would upset an elderly relative who wouldn't understand anyway. (love)
3) A homosexual child so wishes not to cause pain to beloved parents that s/he tries to deny to him/herself actually being homosexual (can't be in blue and in denial about self, IMO)
I don't have really firm opinions on this, so please elaborate on your own. I'm trying to understand blue-ray directness and honesty, both with self and others, so your ideas would be very welcome.
Not simply Earth, but is the nature of the yellow ray manifestation if considered as a function of archetypes in general. The yellow ray is the pure force of creation, manifesting the archetypes which break down from the crown and successively to the indigo, then throat, then heart, etc. Yellow is that point where relationship is fruitful, or expressed in activity. In the orange the two manners of motion move, and the yellow is the inertia or momentum that is generated. Kind of imagining orange as the FLAME, and the yellow as the HEAT, the red of course would be the FUEL. Ehe, for a hint, I will tell you that the heart is either made of gold, or lead, or perhaps somewhere in between...
So, in that case, the 3, does indeed pertain to this, the directional motion which gives rise to events and interactions.
(03-24-2012, 10:04 PM)abstrktion Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have really firm opinions on this, so please elaborate on your own. I'm trying to understand blue-ray directness and honesty, both with self and others, so your ideas would be very welcome.
As 'green-ray' is initially activated here, the corresponding catalyst tends to be related to the aspects of self as reflected in society. This is where the subjective nature of existence starts becoming much more compelling (Wilber's Left-hand quadrant), and how we can see and accept 'others as self' (prior to that point, acceptance was not sufficient to allow it). SD has approx 30% of the population able to appreciate at least some aspect of that perspective and people working in 'green' largely represents 'post-modern' thought. Given this opportunity, after sufficient distortion within one's personal unconscious is removed largely through mirroring in relationships and introspection, honesty can be accessed.
I say 'accessed', but it really a more genuine or 'naked' identity remaining when one can no longer 'hide' from unaccepted parts of self. As the same general work of green is repeated in every single 3D being, once that distortion is transcended or subsumed to a sufficient extent, something is now 'known' about the meaning and purpose of the prior distortions. They are instantly recognized in the most subtle of ways. And even if their nature is not recognized, there is a familiarity with the dynamic involved with work in consciousness (i.e. recognition that important catalyst is being presented). So with 'blue-ray' there is an understanding of the paradigm at work, not by intellect, but by having those distortions removed and being able to navigate without getting caught up or lost in it. And this knowledge is so fundamental or underlying thought itself, that there now may be a 'telepathic' understanding allowed between individuals.
Among two individuals, if one vibrates in 'blue' and another doesn't, the 'blue' individual will be able to know about the concerns raised by the one vibrating at a lower rate (through that familiarity with the human condition developed in green). If however, both individuals are vibrating at blue, unspoken thoughts are directly shared as if they were accessing the same mind. In that dynamic, it is simply not possible to misunderstand at all and there is the full sense of the power of that honesty (or vulnerability without fear) evident as well.
It is also possible, with that degree of honesty, to access the 'collective mind' or 'akashic records' in a more conscious manner. And the that same rather numinous, but natural, experience of shared mind may also be evident.
How does any of this have anything to do with the OP?
The focus should be on my assumption that evolving should manifest itself as a wisdom that we need to see beyond self and love the All.
(03-24-2012, 11:14 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]How does any of this have anything to do with the OP?
The focus should be on my assumption that evolving should manifest itself as a wisdom that we need to see beyond self and love the All.
And then what? Seems like a bunch of rhetoric.
(03-25-2012, 01:24 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]And then what? Seems like a bunch of rhetoric.
I am reminded of this quote, from Session One:
1.9 Wrote:Questioner: If an individual makes efforts to act as a catalyst in general to increase the awareness of planetary consciousness, is he of any aid in that direction, or is he doing nothing but acting upon himself?
Ra: I am Ra. We shall answer your question in two parts, both of which are important equally.
Firstly, you must understand that the distinction between yourself and others is not visible to us. We do not consider that a separation exists between the consciousness-raising efforts of the distortion which you project as a personality and the distortion which you project as an other personality. Thus, to learn is the same as to teach unless you are not teaching what you are learning; in which case you have done you/they little or no good. This understanding should be pondered by your mind/body/spirit complex as it is a distortion which plays a part in your experiences at this nexus.
(03-25-2012, 01:24 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2012, 11:14 PM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]How does any of this have anything to do with the OP?
The focus should be on my assumption that evolving should manifest itself as a wisdom that we need to see beyond self and love the All.
And then what? Seems like a bunch of rhetoric.
Well wouldn't that be best met with non response if that is what you actually think? What does it say about one's thought processing when they answer to what the think is rhetorical?
Don't answer that last question; it was rhetorical!
(03-25-2012, 01:40 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Firstly, you must understand that the distinction between yourself and others is not visible to us. We do not consider that a separation exists between the consciousness-raising efforts of the distortion which you project as a personality and the distortion which you project as an other personality. Thus, to learn is the same as to teach unless you are not teaching what you are learning; in which case you have done you/they little or no good. This understanding should be pondered by your mind/body/spirit complex as it is a distortion which plays a part in your experiences at this nexus
You are going to have to translate this one for me Tenet.
THEY don't distinguish a difference between the student and the teacher. And if one teaches something different than what they have learned it does not do any either any good. And again with the pointing out that this is a vibration that is only experienced in our density/nexus?
And you say something rhetorical that was just said here brought this quote to mind?
This quote just seems to emphasize that those entities do not see us as we see ourselves. Our vibrations/distortions are somehwat blurred together from their point of view so that make no distinctions. And I am not sure what they mean about not teaching something that you haven't learned.
(03-25-2012, 08:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]You are going to have to translate this one for me Tenet.
I think what Ra is talking about here is that teaching/learning are two sides of the same coin. One cannot truly teach another, unless one is also willing to simultaneously learn from them. Energy exchange is bidirectional. Thus- if one is giving a one-sided, or rhetorical address to others, thinking they are "teaching" something, they are mistaken. There is no true teaching involved, because there is no true learning involved.
Take it from me- if you go back and look at some of my earliest posts they were quite eloquent discourses on this or that topic, but little actual teach/learning occurred because I hadn't yet taken into consideration what I could possibly learn from interacting with others here.
Nowadays, even in the most heated debate, I operate with the assumption that there is something I need to learn from the other person, else I wouldn't have been drawn into a debate with them.
(03-25-2012, 05:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2012, 08:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]You are going to have to translate this one for me Tenet.
I think what Ra is talking about here is that teaching/learning are two sides of the same coin. One cannot truly teach another, unless one is also willing to simultaneously learn from them. Energy exchange is bidirectional. Thus- if one is giving a one-sided, or rhetorical address to others, thinking they are "teaching" something, they are mistaken. There is no true teaching involved, because there is no true learning involved.
Take it from me- if you go back and look at some of my earliest posts they were quite eloquent discourses on this or that topic, but little actual teach/learning occurred because I hadn't yet taken into consideration what I could possibly learn from interacting with others here.
Nowadays, even in the most heated debate, I operate with the assumption that there is something I need to learn from the other person, else I wouldn't have been drawn into a debate with them.
Could not have said it better myself. This is the core tenet of my understanding. it is the Sacred Eye.
(03-25-2012, 05:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]I think what Ra is talking about here is that teaching/learning are two sides of the same coin. One cannot truly teach another, unless one is also willing to simultaneously learn from them. Energy exchange is bidirectional. Thus- if one is giving a one-sided, or rhetorical address to others, thinking they are "teaching" something, they are mistaken. There is no true teaching involved, because there is no true learning involved.
Take it from me- if you go back and look at some of my earliest posts they were quite eloquent discourses on this or that topic, but little actual teach/learning occurred because I hadn't yet taken into consideration what I could possibly learn from interacting with others here.
Nowadays, even in the most heated debate, I operate with the assumption that there is something I need to learn from the other person, else I wouldn't have been drawn into a debate with them.
Exceptionally well-stated.
Unfortunately, this too can be a power struggle where the one who offers teaching doesn't want to take the seemingly "lower" stance of student.
Thank you Tenet!
We come here with open minds in search of truth we could not find elsewhere. The spiritual teachings of some of the great prophets and teachers throughout history sometimes seem to meet with the aspects of creation that we deem logical to our way of thinking. But as seemingly truthful as any teaching may seem to be, we must always discern them with an open mind, to be sure that we are not becoming complacent to applying logic in our discerning of the truth from deception or mistake. Intellect and wisdom promote open mindedness that evades the confining nature of delusion and traditional deceits. The eye of the mind must always be open, never tiring and becoming lazy, to allow the light of truth in to overwhelm the darkness of blindness. To have an open mind one must always be receptive to external thought other than one's own, even to criticism of things one has already learned. For if one has been misled, misguided or misinformed, than how would one ever correct that mistake. To have an open mind one must be willing to be proven wrong, which means that one must almost never attain a certainty of anything. For should one be wrong, and the truth professed to him afterward, his certainty becomes the closed mind that blinds him once again. We must always be receptive, and then discerning.
Many intelligent people are settled in religious persuasion, and even when they doubt, they continue to remain tolerant for the sake of comfortability. Others become unsettled with vague answers to their questions, and become motivated by their urges to seek other answers, being unsatisfied with what they hear. But even they usually just go from one religious persuasion to another. In reality, even the traditional inheritors had to have ancestors that initially adopted that families' traditional beliefs from scratch. Religion always becomes rooted in man's desire to seek the truth about who and what we are, and where we come from. When that curiosity is subdued by comfort, and the mind becomes lazy, people will settle into their beliefs. Religion is nothing more than laziness of mind, where man settles on what he chooses to believe, and closes his mind to any criticism or difference of thought.
Religious scholars around the globe study through volumes of information to confirm what they believe to be truth. And believe that the knowledge they have acquired has become an intelligence that cannot be denied. And yet, their so- called intelligence has only closed their mind. Volumes of untruth cannot even begin to compare with the wisdom in even one phrase of truth. Therefore the scientist should never become frustrated with the student who cannot keep up with him intellectually, because as soon as he does, he has stopped learning himself.
The wise scientist should always be a student himself, otherwise he only becomes religious, in that, religion is actually the end of learning. For one has not learned anything, no matter how many volumes of information he has stored, if that information is not the truth.
Knowledge only comes from truth, and truth only comes from being open to it when it is presented to you. Seeking the truth means always being ready to dismiss it when you discover it is a mistake. Without the openness to correct mistakes that you had adopted as truth, you are also void of the openness to acquire further truth when it does come before you. That openness of mind must work both ways in order to be effective, otherwise we become religious about what we have adopted. So whether religion is inherited, or we are lured into its promises, the key to all wisdom will never be in the messages, the true key will be in the determined openmindedess to reject what we have adopted for new ideas that could be corrections to our mistakes. I would rather live life correcting mistakes than to settle on one untruth and remain there.