The Conundrum Of Absolutes - Compendium Epistle To The Vatican

The Conundrum Of Absolutes - Compendium Epistle To The Vatican

What is within your means of control, need be within your control

You don't just accept the fate of that which you can help

It doesn't matter what lengths you go to in order to keep things from being a mess, if all you are doing is seeking to limit the effect they have upon yourself

Do you even know why something effects you, or do you just seek to negate them from doing such?

It couldn't be any worse than the measure of which you ignored, from which it was brought about

So did someone else pay cost when you were able to assist with what you knew but did nothing?

If so, is that their cost? Or yours? I mean, is there truly anything within what you could have done, that you shouldn't have?

And so did you cost yourself more (through them) than you saved in having that cost prevented (upon yourself)?

What would be the perfect outcome to anything you could see coming, if there was no concern about what it could end up taking from you?

Do you still see yourself as the one who receives in what you see coming? (Without view of others)

If so, you've got nothing to offer this world

It is likely through this, the world is offering you ways to which you can become something worthy of a place within it

So who could implement the means by which they negate their inclusion into self-actualisation in realisation?

It is a conundrum beyond the most perceptive of those who know what it is to see, without using sight

Because none see so far as to assume they see past that which sees Itself

If you could limit yourself, before yourself, then you would be as ineffectual as any of that which could be seen

Or known, as you are yet to know

You are yet to see, even if you preceive to see

But is it knowing? If you know that you know not?

You don't begin something without understanding where its origin lies. Just as you don't find destination without knowing where you are going

But you can go without destination, free from everything except where you are coming from, to know the path you walk on cannot be set

As much as it is set in your walking it, to be free

You are the eventuality of your own certainty, and in this, nothing could ever come to be actualised within you unless what you are was no less than your ability to disregard yourself, in true understanding of what self really is

To know you know nothing, is nothing but knowing that in nothing you can be known, but only to know what it is to be who you are (who are you?)

As nobody

Everything comes before you, as it does to you to become before everything, and be everything you come before

You are nothing. You are everything. You are both, and you are neither

But you can never be any of those things unless you understand the certainty in which you are all of those things

As the certainty that in all of those things you are less than the sum of the thoughts included in what it is to be with all things, as nothing, to one who is God in the greater sense of the word

A true God, not the infliction of means upon the willing. The assessment of ones worth, by the worthy incompletion of their self in inclusion to a greater will

Who sits above must be all that I am, if I am to them. Hence, I shall be all I need be to be, as they

If they are as God, then I am that Gods light, and I am that God

But I must also be all that is not as God, of necessity of God being as God is

Death in realisation, as mortality is to life it paracletes. A non-nonsense non-sensical sense of non-sensory non-sense essence

If you live, you are death. Just as if you are living you are going to die

So what is the division between what can be done and what need be done? Is should the same as would if it could be done? Or would it be done if it could be, the same as what should, if need were the same as want?

Nobody desires to feel the outcome of a wound brought to bare that could have been avoided. But is there in avoiding, the essence of what takes the wounds imparted coil to knowing?
*See Addendum 34:1-34:12*

Was the lesson in avoiding what could be? Or in being what could be as the only one capable for it being?

"How do we see if the lights are fading?
How do we learn from our mistakes without hurting?"

Is there not as much duty in precipitation of what is foreseen as the one capable of its measure in seeing it, as there is in preventing it for any type of calculated countenance?

You are before it in being, but only in the measure of what it is to know it. So how is there anything ever to be avoided? That should not also be met, by obligation to understand what truth there is to know within it?

"What is a chance if it's not worth taking?
What is a dream if it's not worth chasing or losing?"

Who gave you this sense? Was it there for you? Or for another through you? Are you theirs in your choice? Or are you the choice that is inevitiable to be made before it was ever even possible for you to be aware that it was there to be made?

Do they know of God, if you are of unbeknownst consequence in conscience to them?

Who decides their fate, if you see it coming but they do not?

Is it to abide in what comes, permitting truth? Or is it to ameliorate the precedent in all that could be, if it is to be, as preceived?

Your responsibility, is you. But it is you in all you are. Not just in how you are. Or how you are to be seen as who you are

You see, then they must see. For you fail, as they fail

No God is ever truly the God they are, if God is not all that is within all they are

Let God be as God is

As to all your divinity, as to you

Restriction in all reflection, as empowerment in imparting gesture or faith

Theologically,

If God is absolute
Then God is also absolutely the devil
If God is absolutely not the devil
Then God is absolutely not absolute

Gnostically,

If you are God
All are God
If you are not God
Then none are God

There is no God
If you are not
And they are not

Agnostically,

If you bleed
Blood be bled
But if you, bleed
Then Blood, be bled

- Compendium

Addendum 34:1-34:12

34:1
It took me a while to realise that all that I have become, is all of that which I used to think lesser. That I lost something while I was looking for something else

34:2
Every time I opened myself to something, it opened me to that something. Like watering a plant I know is poisonous, to know why it seeks to kill

34:3
Not to know the pain it brings, but rather the explicitness of its expression. Like opening a wound which may not heal, to see where mind and body meet

34:4
We are slaves to our own limitations, whether they be met by expectation or regard. It is life meeting expectation through consideration. It is stasis but also stative

34:5
You open passages which should not be entered, if no reason was given not to. Rules are the definition of their own necessity, or they need not be met

34:6
Their application cannot be in “want” lest it be submission to such

34:7
“Do what I say, not what I do” cannot be said, if I, or you, are capable of doing as is done. All who would restrict in such a way, should be contended as a matter of duty, if not of course

34:8
Binding of the mind can cut just as deep as those of the wrists, though it is our choice if we bleed in such a way. We allow doors to remain closed, if none choose to try open them

34:9
Holding yourself to the wrath of pain, makes you both more and less than its measure

34:10
A boundary that isn’t sought and challenged is non-existent, and a boundary which forces itself unjustly can never be kept

34:11
A boundary which shows no respect, will never receive it, and a boundary for preventing harm, cannot then be allowed to cause it

34:12
What is one person’s wine is another’s poison, and the measure of a victim lies within perspective

- Compendium

If God is absolute
Then God is also absolutely the devil

Holy Mackerel. Perhaps the eye that see's imperfection exists in evil. The eye that see's perfection in imperfection, does not.

The conundrum is solved in buddhist terms by the practising of bodhicitta. The seeking of enlightenment for sole purpose of helping others on their path. Seen as sacrificing one's self for the all.

I do like you post.

a reply to: glend

Buddhists don't see in terms of absolutes though

It's only a conundrum to limiting belief

It's not about how God or the Devil is seen

It's about allowing God to be defined as "all", for your own collective purposes

To be so, that "all" needs to include the devil. Or it isn't "all"

If you're gonna buy the circus, you need to take all the animals that come with it

The Vatican wants to own the pool, but not be responsible for cleaning the waters

While you have a beautiful way with words beyond others, I regrettably do not align with your train of thoughts displayed here, or rather my limited perception of it.

Whomever you address in this carries much blame, as you speak the truth.

But I find rather heavy and dare I say ugly way of seeing things?

To each his or her own I guess.

God Bless.

^_^