Bring4th

Quote:Prior to the veiling process the measurement would be that of an entity walking up a set of your stairs, each of which was imbued with a certain quality of light. The stair upon which an entity stopped would be either third-density light or fourth-density light. Between the two stairs lies the threshold. To cross that threshold is difficult. There is resistance at the edge, shall we say, of each density. The faculty of faith or will needs to be understood, nourished, and developed in order to have an entity which seeks past the boundary of third density. Those entities which do not do their homework, be they ever so amiable, shall not cross. It was this situation which faced the Logoi prior to the veiling process being introduced into the experiential continuum of third density.

I have actually never considered "faith" and "will" to be synonymous before, what do any of you have to consider on this?

Interesting subject!

http://www.commentarypress.net/cpn-essay...2564F.html

Quote:...I do not believe that faith and will are mutually exclusive. I don’t believe any of us can walk the walk of faith without demonstrating a strong will and determination...

So then, if you truly have faith you also have will?

To me faith is movement based on belief. Will is just movement by itself without restrictions or boundaries set by belief.

[quote='TheEternal' pid='78664' dateline='1332702274']

Quote:I have actually never considered "faith" and "will" to be synonymous before, what do any of you have to consider on this?

I might only say that the term "faith" has lost most of its original meaning due to its religious connotations. Indeed, will, freewill, willpower and power are all the same: the quintessential principle of the Creator/Creation, the force, the kinetic, the pull, the potential.

The term "power," however, is greatly misunderstood across the societies of this planet. Same goes for "freewill" (or "freedom" or "liberty").

Well what would you say is the original meaning of "faith"?

(03-25-2012, 05:08 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]Well what would you say is the original meaning of "faith"?

I think it all depends on whether we are talking about blind faith or not.

Well, what's the difference?

(03-25-2012, 05:52 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]Well, what's the difference?

Many humans worship a god of mercy, and are then confused and disappointed when their prayers go unanswered. But they alone are themselves to blame, for expecting their imaginations to become reality. The human should not expect anything from its Creator. The human must understand their place in creation as remaining a mystery, despite the thousands of years of philosophical attempts to de-mystify the unknown. Cultures and traditions have erected huge cities and populations around nothing more than wishful thinking. And however beneficial that hope might be to strength of will, it does nothing to enhance the true spirit of man. This is why all the great civilizations in the past have fallen into dust. Hope is fleeting and fragile, and its truth is realized the second it is smashed against the rocks of reality. It is only knowledge, love, wisdom, courage and honor that enhance the spirit of man. Becoming lost in the delusion of tradition does nothing to attain knowledge based on fact and truth, and can therefore never be considered beneficial to the evolution of man, spiritually or intellectually. And without spiritual advancement and enhancement, civilizations will continue to meet a demise at their own hands. The only way the spirit of man can evolve is through an increase in understanding, which can only come when truth is discovered and knowledge attained through these truths. Knowledge cannot be attained from falsehood, deception or delusion. To attain truth one must always be searching for it and prepared to adapt to the changes that truth will ultimately bring our way. Without an open mind to locating truth we will become stuck in something that may not be truth and simply wallow in the muck. It is this continuing quest to be certain that what we follow is truth that creates the environment for attaining knowledge, which then enhances the spirit. Without an open mind to collect the facts, deny the falacies, and discern the logic, we cannot continue to evolve.

(03-25-2012, 05:08 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]Well what would you say is the original meaning of "faith"?

Will. Willpower/desire to seek the One Infinite Creator.

That is why will/faith is paramount in any magic(k)al working. Faith/will is power. Through this means the gate to intelligent infinity is opened, for faith/will reaches ever upwards/inwards, thus allowing the influxes of energy to flow freely/unimpeded and manifest in the magician's/seeker's reality in a variety of ways.

You may see faith as willful seeking. From 3D onward entities begin to seek to know themselves and that which is around themselves (this seeking, expressed in any way—whether in art or astrology or science—, is a seeking to know the One Infinite Creator). Vegetal/animal entities have not developed this faculty; they do strive towards growth, towards light, but do not do so in a conscious fashion to know, they do it to survive.

Perhaps less understandably but still quite accurate would be to say: faith is knowing before knowing that which you already know, that all is ultimately well.

I guess whether you use the term "faith" or "will" depends on context.

PS: Notice also how the "faith" also resembles the term "fate."

(03-25-2012, 06:14 PM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]...
faith is knowing before knowing that which you already know.
...

Exactly! I like this view on it.

Faith is closer to intuition when formulated like this.

Intuition is inner knowledge. I believe that to be different from blind faith.

Intuition is an ability that is heightened by a person's increasing of access to the consciousness, whereby connections to other fields of consciousness, as well as information and memory stored in the consciousness, can be used to understand particulars.

Faith is simply choosing to believe that something is true and accepting it as truth.

(03-25-2012, 03:04 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]I have actually never considered "faith" and "will" to be synonymous before, what do any of you have to consider on this?

What is the value of faith?

I think that it was on the page two where I asked (the member with the greek username) that question.

Cool, some good replies there, thanks!

I think blind faith is a better alternative to no faith in anything in some cases. As long as that "blind faith" has come about through one's personal experience and not borrowed from someone else. In a sense, all faith is blind because our understanding of truths and those truths themselves can change. All that is just is. Faith is just connecting with that isness.

---

The essence of the "will" in my opinion is choosing to honor the OIC (One Infinite Creator) when given the choice to do otherwise and to align oneself with the current movement of the creator within your multiverse.

(03-26-2012, 12:25 AM)neutral333 Wrote: [ -> ]I think blind faith is a better alternative to no faith in anything in some cases. As long as that "blind faith" has come about through one's personal experience and not borrowed from someone else. In a sense, all faith is blind because our understanding of truths and those truths themselves can change. All that is just is. Faith is just connecting with that isness.

---

The essence of the "will" in my opinion is choosing to honor the OIC (One Infinite Creator) when given the choice to do otherwise and to align oneself with the current movement of the creator within your multiverse.

yes this is absolutely true.

In this sense what we believe is always faith.

That is why I wanted to designate a difference between this and blind faith. Blind faith is as you said following a teaching blindly without ever having discerned it in any way.

(03-25-2012, 03:04 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Prior to the veiling process the measurement would be that of an entity walking up a set of your stairs, each of which was imbued with a certain quality of light. The stair upon which an entity stopped would be either third-density light or fourth-density light. Between the two stairs lies the threshold. To cross that threshold is difficult. There is resistance at the edge, shall we say, of each density. The faculty of faith or will needs to be understood, nourished, and developed in order to have an entity which seeks past the boundary of third density. Those entities which do not do their homework, be they ever so amiable, shall not cross. It was this situation which faced the Logoi prior to the veiling process being introduced into the experiential continuum of third density.

I have actually never considered "faith" and "will" to be synonymous before, what do any of you have to consider on this?

Faith and will may have a balanced receiving/giving relationship like love/light, and teach/learning, and may have a reciprocal relationship, one feeding and strengthening the other, and vice versa, but I wouldn't say they were exactly synonymous either.

That's a perplexing statement when Ra uses "or" when "and" seems so much more accurate.

You know, the way Ra stated "faith or will" in this quote, really looks to me like "compassion or understanding" when talking about 4d positive and negative.

So it could just be that Ra meant "faith" mainly for the positive path and "will" mainly for the negative path. On the STS path you may not make use of faith that much and will would be much more useful.

As in Faith -> surrendering to the will of the Creator / Will -> being the Creator your will is used directly without need for faith.

(03-27-2012, 09:53 PM)Valtor Wrote: [ -> ]So it could just be that Ra meant "faith" mainly for the positive path and "will" mainly for the negative path.

Semantics, really. So much is beffudled by semantics. I say, look past the wording, and grasp the essence underlying the verbiage.

Ra Wrote:To define intelligent apart from infinity is difficult, for these two vibration complexes equal one concept. It is much like attempting to divide your sound vibration concept, faith, into two parts.

Quote:The faculty of faith or will needs to be understood, nourished, and developed in order to have an entity which seeks past the boundary of third density.

Quote:However, the faculties of will and faith and the calling to the light have been used by this group to the exclusion of any significant depolarization from the service-to-others path.

Quote:...the idea that these images are anything but a resource for working in the area of the development of the faith and the will.

Quote:The removal from the mind complex of those thoughts not of harmony is most helpful and those practices which increase faith and will that the spirit may do its work are most helpful.

Quote:Positive orientation then provides the will and faith to continue this mentally intense experience of...

Quote:The negatively oriented mind/body/spirit complex will use this anger in a similarly conscious fashion, refusing to accept the undirected or random energy of anger and instead, through will and faith, funneling this energy into a practical means of...

Quote:...consciousness which has been disciplined by will and faith is that consciousness which may contact intelligent infinity directly.

Quote:The green ray type of radiation in this case is the healing, the blue ray the communication and inspiration, the indigo that energy of the adept which has its place in faith.

Quote:Each entity has its ways of viewing and learning from the illusion, and each processes catalyst using unique circuitry. Thus all need not be the same to be equal in will and faith.

You may prefer to see it differently, and that's totally OK. But I merely seek to synthesize and simplify the diversification of that which is, in essence, the same. Words are just that, words. I am an avid researcher of linguistics, semantics and etymology. You can find hundreds of words to say the exact same thing, and yet people will think what you're saying is different when it's all actually just the same thing with different wording.

Thank you Siren. I agree with you.

Excellent quotes!

(03-29-2012, 09:18 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]You may prefer to see it differently, and that's totally OK. But I merely seek to synthesize and simplify the diversification of that which is, in essence, the same. Words are just that, words. I am an avid researcher of linguistics, semantics and etymology. You can find hundreds of words to say the exact same thing, and yet people will think what you're saying is different when it's all actually just the same thing with different wording.

Great quotes, Siren, thanks for sharing.

In each one, though, Ra uses "and" between will and faith. The quote which began this thread is the single instance that I'm aware of that Ra used "or" between the two, which generally indicates a synonymous, or interchangeable nature between two words.

You respond saying that you look beyond words because they, if I understand you correctly, diversify that which is undiversified and one, i.e., the "same".

So what's your take on this particular use of these particular words? According to your reading, are the concepts of "faith" and "will" so similar as to be indistinct and substitutable one for the other? Or do they refer to distinct ideas dissimilar enough that they merit their own labels/categories?

Also I agree that two different people using different labels and arranging them differently can in actuality be saying the same thing. Synonyms in particular however, while all in essence referring to the same constellation of concepts, can convey different shades & subtleties of meaning & emphasis that can convey quite different messages one from the other. I think.

: ) GLB

A particular passage which tenuously seperates the concept of will and faith is the below. Though it still uses "will and faith" in its opening paragraph it seperates out the will and faith portions in the latter.

Quote:42.11 Questioner: In the last session you said, “that when the self is conscious to a great enough extent of the workings of the catalyst of fasting, and the techniques of programming, it then may through concentration of the will and the faculty of faith alone cause reprogramming without the analogy of fasting, diet, or other analogous bodily complex disciplines.” What are the techniques of programming which the Higher Self uses to insure that the desired lessons are learned or attempted by the third-density self?

Ra: I am Ra. There is but one technique for this growing or nurturing of will and faith, and that is the focusing of the attention. The attention span of those you call children is considered short. The spiritual attention span of most of your peoples is that of the child. Thus it is a matter of wishing to become able to collect one’s attention and hold it upon the desired programming.

This, when continued, strengthens the will. The entire activity can only occur when there exists faith that an outcome of this discipline is possible.

You could hypothesize that since the same and sole technique nurtures both will and faith this is the reason they are often stated as a pair by Ra, but as the latter portion suggests, they are still distinct concepts. Perhaps it would have been best had Ra married together these words much in the same way that honor/responsibility was.

(03-29-2012, 10:32 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: [ -> ]So what's your take on this particular use of these particular words? According to your reading, are the concepts of "faith" and "will" so similar as to be indistinct and substitutable one for the other?

That is correct.

Quote:Or do they refer to distinct ideas dissimilar enough that they merit their own labels/categories?

From my one standpoint, I find no need to separate these concepts.

The human vernacular is one that is particularly loquacious. This distinct bombastic grandiloquence, though arguably "rich," "articulate" and "poetic," is something I could very well live without (then again, this may be something that has to do with where I come from, my own experience, and my preference for other more efficient/clearer/simpler mediums of communication).

Human beings have this particular tendency/need to label and categorize and sub-categorize and sub-sub-categorize practically everything they come across with. This gives them the (false) sense or notion that they got things "under control," dissected and comparmentalized for seemingly "better" understanding. However, I think the greater the verbosity, the greater (probability of) misunderstanding/confusion.

Truth is, this verbal means of communication, is of a transient nature. The Universe, the One Infinite Creator/Creation, Infinity Itself, is not describable by words (I'm sure you are aware that past mid-4D verbal language becomes increasingly useless).

Oftentimes, when I hear/read "men of intellect" speak/write/argue about scholarly/scientific matters, I stand aghast, because at a certain point it all has turned into a battle of words that is fought with the knowledge of dictionaries and lexicons and encyclopedias—and the true essence of the message is lost beneath the superfluous amount of verbal logorrhea that is being uttered. So I naturally find this babbling gibberish and jabbering gobbledygock to be extremely unnecessary (but again, that's just me).

Such a high dependance on a verbal language beffudles the mind from reaching deeper, clearer, simpler understandings (particuarly when it comes to "higher" philosophies or universal/spiritual principles).

Thus, most times I refrain from engaging in verbal communications (this is ironical, however, since communication itself is one of my primary needs, gifts and "virtues"—I am not of Libra and the Air sign by random chance of luck, after all.)

I do apologize for the lenghtiness of my response—and for somewhat diverging from your original question (I am still working on synthesizing my writings in a more concise manner). But I did feel I could use this opportunity to express my viewpoint on the subject of "language" itself.

I must say Siren. I am very glad you are here. I like your posts very much.

Love to you!

I agree Valtor, and Siren, might I point at the irony between the essence of your message and then your apology for its length, e.g., extended use of words.

Siren, I appreciate your posts and I think you are accurately describing a phenomenon which is all too common in our intellectual circles: arguing meanings rather than discussing substance. However, I have found that it is precisely the poetic, once infused with the rational, which is capable of bearing the weight of a thought-system in a way that normal language wouldn't. If I hope to deliver a concept to you, but cannot transmit that concept in any other way but with words, would it not be best for me to build a rich imaginary picture by the use of words and then, within this now painted picture, to connect structural elements in this new pictorial reality in order to show you the shape of the concept I mean to convey? What I am describing, of course, is the tool we call metaphor. Short of telepathy, I have found that this is the most powerful tool for conveying a concept to another.

On topic: First: blind faith is not properly faith. Blind faith is little more than a tiny, desperate hope surrounded by countless fears whose spiritual power is far greater than that tiny hope, yet, for whatever reason, the person of blind faith pretends that the fears do not exist and fools himself into thinking that all he has is hope.

Faith and will are parallel. The represent the same force, but they exist in different arcs, different planes. Faith is to the spirit what will is to the mind. Thus faith can be thought of as a macrocosm to the microcosm of will. A potent will cannot be had without, as Ra says, attention, or focus as I call it. Will represents a focused desire to experience, but the mere presence of will does not indicate what kind of experience is desired, as Pickle pointed out.

Will is given direction by faith: since I cannot know anything for certain, any direction which I commit my will to necessarily requires faith. If will is the propulsion mechanism of a ship, then faith is the navigation system. But the navigator doesn't let you see very much of the map!

How are the two parallel? Focusing of the mind yields a potent will; focusing of the spirit yields a potent faith.

(03-30-2012, 09:56 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]The human vernacular is one that is particularly loquacious. This distinct bombastic grandiloquence, though arguably "rich," "articulate" and "poetic," is something I could very well live without (then again, this may be something that has to do with where I come from, my own experience, and my preference for other more efficient/clearer/simpler mediums of communication).

Was the first part of this paragraph sarcastic? If it wasn't, then the parenthetical second half makes no sense.

(03-30-2012, 09:56 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]Human beings have this particular tendency/need to label and categorize and sub-categorize and sub-sub-categorize practically everything they come across with. This gives them the (false) sense or notion that they got things "under control," dissected and comparmentalized for seemingly "better" understanding. However, I think the greater the verbosity, the greater (probability of) misunderstanding/confusion.

Truth is, this verbal means of communication, is of a transient nature. The Universe, the One Infinite Creator/Creation, Infinity Itself, is not describable by words (I'm sure you are aware that past mid-4D verbal language becomes increasingly useless).

Oftentimes, when I hear/read "men of intellect" speak/write/argue about scholarly/scientific matters, I stand aghast, because at a certain point it all has turned into a battle of words that is fought with the knowledge of dictionaries and lexicons and encyclopedias—and the true essence of the message is lost beneath the superfluous amount of verbal logorrhea that is being uttered. So I naturally find this babbling gibberish and jabbering gobbledygock to be extremely unnecessary (but again, that's just me).

Such a high dependance on a verbal language beffudles the mind from reaching deeper, clearer, simpler understandings (particuarly when it comes to "higher" philosophies or universal/spiritual principles).

How then, do you propose we communicate in 3D if not with language? As an experienced writer, even I find it extremely challenging to get my message clearly across to the members here (not because they don't understand, rather, I don't word my thoughts clearly enough). And those who do not take the time to word things carefully, or understandably, or post one-liners, can be confusing. Although, I enjoy the richness of diversity here, in communication styles, and the personalities which come through.

(03-30-2012, 09:56 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]Thus, most times I refrain from engaging in verbal communications (this is ironical, however, since communication itself is one of my primary needs, gifts and "virtues"—I am not of Libra and the Air sign by random chance of luck, after all.)

I do apologize for the lenghtiness of my response—and for somewhat diverging from your original question (I am still working on synthesizing my writings in a more concise manner). But I did feel I could use this opportunity to express my viewpoint on the subject of "language" itself.

So, are you saying that since you have a gift, it's okay for you to be verbose and grandiose, but not for anyone else?

I think that paraphrasing another well known writer will fit well here:

"Blah Blah Blah."



I'm so sorry. I just couldn't help myself.

I was just reading and came across a quote that made me to think about this thread, but I see that spero below has already mentioned it.

(03-25-2012, 03:04 PM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Prior to the veiling process the measurement would be that of an entity walking up a set of your stairs, each of which was imbued with a certain quality of light. The stair upon which an entity stopped would be either third-density light or fourth-density light. Between the two stairs lies the threshold. To cross that threshold is difficult. There is resistance at the edge, shall we say, of each density. The faculty of faith or will needs to be understood, nourished, and developed in order to have an entity which seeks past the boundary of third density. Those entities which do not do their homework, be they ever so amiable, shall not cross. It was this situation which faced the Logoi prior to the veiling process being introduced into the experiential continuum of third density.

I have actually never considered "faith" and "will" to be synonymous before, what do any of you have to consider on this?

I, for the moment, consider Ra's choice of using "or" in this particular quote, as in: you need to understand, nourish and develop *either* faith *or* will, in order to cross the threshold between third and fourth density. In short, if you want to graduate you have to either develop faith or will, not necessarily both of them (but they are speaking of the experiences prior to the veiling process though).

But there is a difference between faith and will, which I, as spero, see in the below quote:

(03-30-2012, 01:35 AM)spero Wrote: [ -> ]A particular passage which tenuously seperates the concept of will and faith is the below. Though it still uses "will and faith" in its opening paragraph it seperates out the will and faith portions in the latter.

Quote:42.11 Questioner: In the last session you said, “that when the self is conscious to a great enough extent of the workings of the catalyst of fasting, and the techniques of programming, it then may through concentration of the will and the faculty of faith alone cause reprogramming without the analogy of fasting, diet, or other analogous bodily complex disciplines.” What are the techniques of programming which the Higher Self uses to insure that the desired lessons are learned or attempted by the third-density self?

Ra: I am Ra. There is but one technique for this growing or nurturing of will and faith, and that is the focusing of the attention. The attention span of those you call children is considered short. The spiritual attention span of most of your peoples is that of the child. Thus it is a matter of wishing to become able to collect one’s attention and hold it upon the desired programming.

This, when continued, strengthens the will. The entire activity can only occur when there exists faith that an outcome of this discipline is possible.

My understanding of this, especially reading the last paragraph, is that if you focus on something specific, it strengthens the will, and it will occur if you have a faith that it is possible.

(03-31-2012, 01:51 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-30-2012, 09:56 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]The human vernacular is one that is particularly loquacious. This distinct bombastic grandiloquence, though arguably "rich," "articulate" and "poetic," is something I could very well live without (then again, this may be something that has to do with where I come from, my own experience, and my preference for other more efficient/clearer/simpler mediums of communication).

Was the first part of this paragraph sarcastic? If it wasn't, then the parenthetical second half makes no sense.

(03-30-2012, 09:56 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]Human beings have this particular tendency/need to label and categorize and sub-categorize and sub-sub-categorize practically everything they come across with. This gives them the (false) sense or notion that they got things "under control," dissected and comparmentalized for seemingly "better" understanding. However, I think the greater the verbosity, the greater (probability of) misunderstanding/confusion.

Truth is, this verbal means of communication, is of a transient nature. The Universe, the One Infinite Creator/Creation, Infinity Itself, is not describable by words (I'm sure you are aware that past mid-4D verbal language becomes increasingly useless).

Oftentimes, when I hear/read "men of intellect" speak/write/argue about scholarly/scientific matters, I stand aghast, because at a certain point it all has turned into a battle of words that is fought with the knowledge of dictionaries and lexicons and encyclopedias—and the true essence of the message is lost beneath the superfluous amount of verbal logorrhea that is being uttered. So I naturally find this babbling gibberish and jabbering gobbledygock to be extremely unnecessary (but again, that's just me).

Such a high dependance on a verbal language beffudles the mind from reaching deeper, clearer, simpler understandings (particuarly when it comes to "higher" philosophies or universal/spiritual principles).

How then, do you propose we communicate in 3D if not with language? As an experienced writer, even I find it extremely challenging to get my message clearly across to the members here (not because they don't understand, rather, I don't word my thoughts clearly enough). And those who do not take the time to word things carefully, or understandably, or post one-liners, can be confusing. Although, I enjoy the richness of diversity here, in communication styles, and the personalities which come through.

(03-30-2012, 09:56 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ]Thus, most times I refrain from engaging in verbal communications (this is ironical, however, since communication itself is one of my primary needs, gifts and "virtues"—I am not of Libra and the Air sign by random chance of luck, after all.)

I do apologize for the lenghtiness of my response—and for somewhat diverging from your original question (I am still working on synthesizing my writings in a more concise manner). But I did feel I could use this opportunity to express my viewpoint on the subject of "language" itself.

So, are you saying that since you have a gift, it's okay for you to be verbose and grandiose, but not for anyone else?

Yeah Siren. I love you, but it seems a bit here that you are lashing out against what you yourself portray as frustrating. There is beauty in simplicity. You have nothing to prove. Again, I love you and I have my own problems.

JustLikeYou Wrote:If I hope to deliver a concept to you, but cannot transmit that concept in any other way but with words, would it not be best for me to build a rich imaginary picture by the use of words and then, within this now painted picture, to connect structural elements in this new pictorial reality in order to show you the shape of the concept I mean to convey?

Agreed. I am fond of metaphors for that particular reason.

Diana Wrote:Was the first part of this paragraph sarcastic? If it wasn't, then the parenthetical second half makes no sense.

Mildly sarcastic. Humour is the spice of life. Self-irony even more so!

Quote:How then, do you propose we communicate in 3D if not with language?

With less words. And more silence. Try this for a week, a month even, with your mate/consort/family, or simply with yourself. Try this even longer and you shall find the desire to utter words for expression will slowly fall away as the deeper mind/thought connectivity and transparency comes afloat. Then, the sound vibrations you will express will be more akin to musical tunes sung by your vocal chords, rather than words—yes, meaningless hums and intelligible melodies by linguistic standards perhaps, but oh so meaningful in truth!

But I propose nothing. Things are as they are. And I accept it as it is. I have no intention or desire to change the course of current events. I'm a watcher. I watch things flow. Change is the only constant. And time is of no consequence. I learn/teach, teach/learn regardless.

Quote:As an experienced writer, even I find it extremely challenging to get my message clearly across to the members here (not because they don't understand, rather, I don't word my thoughts clearly enough).

Exactly. Words.

Sometimes the more you put thoughts into words, the less you are able to convey your message.

Quote:So, are you saying that since you have a gift, it's okay for you to be verbose and grandiose, but not for anyone else?

Not at all. I couldn't care less about it. It appears you completely misapprehended me. Allow me to clarify. By gift/virtue I meant to say one of my greatest passions and desires (as well as one of my main purposes) is communication itself. Commune-unification. Comm-unity.

However, this language, as you read/listen, is not the only—nor the most efficient—medium of communication. That was all I was trying to express. I know (by direct empirical experience) of the possibility of psychic, mind-to-mind communication; visual, conceptual, emotional thought-concept exchange/transfer (within this 3D experience as human entities right now). And because of this I often find this language tiresome, somewhat deficient (despite its rich variety of words—kind of ironic), and yes, slightly frustrating at times, for I am incredibly aware of its limitations and how much is lost/distorted/misunderstood due to its inherent ambiguous, vague and discrepant nature.

Nevertheless, I also understand that most people rely and depend (and relish) heavily on this verbal language because they either: (1) have not made themselves aware/conceived of any other more efficacious means and/or (2) are incapable/unwilling of utilizing other modes of communication due to their heavy reliance/dependence on the word-system.

Yet I do acknowledge the rich complexity of human language(s) for I have also been an avid writer (I have studied other languages since childhood, and I would devour dictionaries on my spare time solely for the exquisite pleasure that came with increasing my vocabulary and growing in eloquence, just to give you an idea). But this is just like a masquerade, where everything is dressed in beautiful, intricate, extravagant, flamboyant, sophisticated costumes and masks. Beautiful, ravishing, delightful, yes. This is all one Grand Cosmic Drama, after all! But beneath all this elegant sophistry lies the most naked, transparent simplicity. And though I do very much enjoy masquerades every once in a while, I ultimately seek the transparency, clarity and simplicity of Infinity.

What I've learned in this short span of life (this one incarnation), is that language to me, has long outlasted its usefulness. OK, maybe that's a bit too harsh. Let's just say instead that I'm simply growing slightly tired of it (in a good way) and my need to rely on it has been rapidly and steadily diminishing.

I continue to use this vernacular to facilitate my interaction with the great majority of this planet's 3D denizens. But I do so much more sparingly and thoughtfully than before.

But let's not deviate further from the topic at hand. The topic here is faith/will.

So let me just conclude by simplifying everything I've said into one simple vibratory sound complex: Love.