It has been assumed that humans utilize only twelve percent or so of their brain. Perhaps the remaining portion is used but its purpose has not been perceived. If the function is not apparent in space-time, it might be functioning on another frame of reference. The eighty-eight percent or so might even be working at a disadvantage. If that portion needed to be ninety percent available in order to complete its purpose, its “full-functioning mode” would not have been achieved. Maybe there is too much clutter in the smaller portion. It is possible the small portion requires only eight percent or so to fully function without forfeiting any functioning power. The information associated with the clutter is not necessary if elimination would cause no harm. If the information is more than an isolated event with nil cause, the effect would also be nil. In turn, it might open enough space for connecting to the unseen knowledge via an event of illumination.

More likely, the percentages used are not as important as the brain is probably more of a processor than a memory bank. Still, if the mind uses the brain to process thoughts, there is clutter that can be cleared. A different way of thinking might clear residual clutter. Trust could replace doubt. That does not mean blindly trusting anything you hear or doubting the truth. You may trust your innate feelings instead of doubting yourself, for instance. You may replace hatred with acceptance. Freeing you mind of excess baggage might open channels of productivity and utilize the apparently unused portion of the brain for processing information concerning the unseen functions of our being. Any polarized thought needs scrutiny. Mystics have neutralized their thinking, thereby reducing the clutter in their minds.

* * *

Being in love teaches one to tolerate certain traits of someone’s character that might not be accepted in another individual.

* * *

Caring, compassion, consideration, unconditional love, and kindness are all instinctive.

* * *

Mystics see everything and everyone as part of themselves. They are not people to fear. Those who are afraid are so because of ignorance. Those who hate them believing they are evil should examine themselves. They feel hatred; Mystics feel love. Which of these two emotions would be classified as evil and which one as good to a polarized-thinking individual?

Before passing judgment, people should rid themselves of hatred and any other attitudes they would classify as evil. After they honestly believe they express no evil feelings, they might again look for evil in mystics. This time they would have a difficult time finding any. If they should find something, they should once again look honestly into themselves. They might find it there too.

* * *

Being one with everything—it’s not something mystics consciously think of becoming, it’s what they intuitively are.

* * *

While certain things such as gravity and other natural forces remain steadfast, the choices people make with their lives are theirs alone to make. The results of those choices follow natural laws.

So the learning should somehow be related to the choices we make. But how do we know what we are learning if we haven’t yet learned it? Maybe we can look ahead to see if we can spot what reaction would result in the action we take. Is there a possibility that someone might be deprived as the result of your actions? If so, perhaps we should stop right there.

Natural laws are always in effect. When we deprive someone, we create a natural field that attracts an “equal and opposite force.” If we chose not to believe that will happen, it makes no difference. As always, the natural laws are immutable.

Perhaps this is something for us to learn. Don’t deprive anyone of anything. Oh, some may argue that if you know what to expect in return, it is OK because that means they have learned the lesson. That is an assumption about what is to be learned. The lesson to learn is in the choice itself. If someone is harmed or deprived in some way because of your actions, don’t make that choice. It’s that simple.

If some people choose to hurt or deprive themselves, they have the free will to make that choice, but it is not necessary to involve anyone else.

Making choices is a way to manipulate the future. For those who want to live within a tranquil environment, feel that way and show it by expressing those feelings. Some will criticize the validity of such practice, but those criticisms flow from the minds of individuals who have never tried it or those who wanted immediate results. They did not comprehend the accumulation and insensitivity of their previous actions and would accept nothing short of a miracle to fully understand their actions.

* * *

Relationships should not be devouring. Differences of opinion are just that—different opinions. An opinion is not necessarily the truth. Unless those having opposite opinions understand the reasoning of the other, the truth is not shared between them. The only apparent truth is they each have different assumptions of what the truth is.

* * *

A drop of water is part of the ocean but it can be visualized as an individual drop that can be separated from the ocean while retaining its characteristics. The same cannot be said of a wave. An ocean wave is not a separate entity; its existence requires the presence of the ocean.

The relationship between a wave and the ocean parallels the relationship between a person and the divine. We are waves in the ocean of divinity.

* * *

There are no separate truths. The truth does not differ depending upon what a person says. So when can what someone says be believed? Some can be believed anytime, some only some of the time, and some seldom or even never.

The same is true for anything that can be seen from more that one side. In order to have a true perspective, you must see—and hopefully comprehend—all sides of an issue. Anything less is biased and does not present the whole truth. It is also important that personal opinions be discarded while scrutinizing an issue, for it could mask the true identity of a fact.

* * *

The part of you that continues after your physical body dies is your spirit. You, in essence, return to your creator—to your beginning, to what you have always been. Your body, as your spirit, is composed of that which everything is composed—the creator itself. As the body decays, it only changes form into other physical matter and energy, but the basic building block of all physical matter is the same vibrating energy of the universe. Everything—mind, body, and spirit—is derived from and is God (or whatever you want to call the force behind the creation of the universe.)

* * *

Some people wonder why God allows evil to exist—why God, if al powerful, does not prevent evil from happening. People, in order to be truly free, must have the freedom to choose, even if they choose to behave in a manner they perceive to be evil. Without free choice (including the choice to label things good or evil), people could not make a free choice to do what they consider to be good.

God, nature, the primal force (or whatever one chooses to call that which created the existence of everything) is permeated in everything that exists—everything that exists is composed of that divine entity. God sees the world through the eyes of each and every person and acts through the conduct of each of us as well.

People may choose to label something as evil or even choose to do something that they perceive to be evil. The ability to choose is God given. The choice itself is that of the free-willed person. By preventing evil, God would be preventing free choice.

With volition, people may choose to be kind, considerate, and helpful to others—to love and respect others. To be human is to have free will.

There are those who blame evil on a demonic entity. For them it is easier to blame an external force for everything they perceive to be evil. Especially when attempting to transferring blame for their own chosen actions. “The devil made me do it.”

Everything is composed of the same substance—God. We each are doing the work, play, or deeds of God and are at the same time responsible for our own actions.

* * *

Skin is an organ with many functions. Clothing inhibits the full ability to perform those functions. Most clothing covers a considerable amount of skin. Sensors intended to receive ambient information are deprived from performing their tasks. Shoes completely isolate skin, making it difficult or impossible for the foot to breathe or perspire freely, or to experience touch.

People also alter their hair, cutting it or removing it completely from some or most of their bodies. People assume hair has no function other than style. Some people naturally lose their hair. That does not mean it had no function. It might mean it is no longer necessary on that individual but that does not negate the hair had a purpose before it fell out.

People who had lost hair on their heads may still have an abundance of body hair. When your body hairs touch an object, you are alerted to the object's presence, enabling you to assess the situation and take measures to prevent the skin from coming in contact with a harmful object or allowing contact if it is informative or pleasurable.

* * *

Virtually identical paths might appear to be different. Those who have reached the end of the path might give different directions for people to follow if they desire to reach the same destination. If, for example, two people living in the same house gave directions to their house, the instructions might differ.

One resident might say, “Take the main highway and turn on the first street past the railroad tracks—the one that goes between the brick buildings. Follow that road until you see a yellow house with a big oak in the front yard and go down that street. Right after you pass the stop sign there’s a curve. When the road straightens out you'll see a gray and white house with my car in the driveway.”

The other resident might say, “Take Route 42 to Jackson Road. Turn right. Turn left on Millbrook. We're about half a mile down. The house number is 756.”

Both sets of directions describe the same route yet are completely different in the way they are presented. They both are valid and were given by people who have traveled the route. Once guests have visited, they may also give directions to the house and their directions might be different yet because of things they may have perceived along the way.

Someone who has never been there would have to rely on information from others who have already visited. That person, if asked for directions, might give incorrect information since he or she has no personal verification of the route. If the information was obtained from a map, the map might have contained mistakes unknown to the map-reader who had never traveled in the area.

People who have attained spiritual fulfillment—those who have experienced illumination—may reveal the path they took to enlightenment. Their descriptions might vary as well, but they will each be valid because they were based on experience. Those persons still on the path, having not yet reached their destination, may mislead others traveling the path. Instead of helping, they might take their followers on a different path where they could get lost.

* * *

People often confuse infatuation with love, but there are big differences—primarily duration. Pure love continues irrelevant of circumstances. Infatuation plays havoc with emotions, releasing them, apparently uncontrollably, with increased magnitude. Such intensity is two-sided. It might bring two people extremely close to each other or drastically repel them from each other. Unless both people involved are in tune with each other, conflict may arise.

With infatuation comes an attraction toward one primary element in another's personality, filtering or blinding perception of other elements of the character of the perceived.

Pure love is like that of mystics. Their love is not limited to one individual, nor is it threatened by the objective’s personality, physicality, gender, age, or any other trait.

That does not preclude the mystic from having an attraction to another person, but unseen or later unfolding unexpected events concerning a change in the perception of that person will not effect a diminishing of the mystic's love. Absent from the persona of pure love are concepts such as “How can I love him after he said that?” or “How can I love her after she did that?”

Infatuation prevents people from recognizing those traits in a person that would usually not be accepted in others. In that way it is similar to love. Pure love accepts people as they are.

* * *

An infatuated person may be compared to an uninformed religious leader. Both are blinded to or have a restricted perception of the Truth. They declare misperceived “facts” to substantiate their biased views.

* * *

Humankind came into existence when it evolved a consciousness capable of perceiving things as being either right or wrong. Before then, a simpler cause and effect mentality would not provide for polarized perception (other than fight-flight or other primitive responses). This provision precipitated creative thinking but also brought forth an obstacle to clear thinking.

An innately neutral thing could be conceptualized as being good or bad. This abstract labeling is taught to humans by other humans. We are taught values that have no true substance and vary between cultures. These values, even though they lack validity, are believed as truths and invoke such feelings as guilt, fear, and worry. It also brings about the capability for hate, revenge, and other harmful attitudes such as contempt.

These ill feelings are developed over an issue whose polarity is artificial. All are based solely on opinions of those who do not comprehend the issue. Opinions passed on to others are presented as truths. Thus, lies are taught as truths.

The next evolutionary progression in humanity will provide a freethinking, innately truth-knowing, and purely moral being.

* * *

“Why don’t you get a haircut?”

“Why should I?”

“You’d look better.”

“Better than what?”

“Well . . . you’d be more attractive.”

“More attractive to what?”

“You understand exactly what I mean.”

“Perhaps. Maybe you could try to understand why my hair is how it is.”

“It’s like that because you haven’t cut it.”

“It may look different if it had been cut but that doesn’t explain why it is how it is.”

“Because it grows that way.”

“That’s true.”

“So why don’t you cut it?”

“Why should I?”

“You’d look b . . . OK. What do you have against cutting your hair? Is there a reason why you want to look like that?”

“Why should I want to look like something other than myself?”

“Why do you have to be so different?”

“Different from what?”

“Different from everyone.”

“Perhaps they are different from me.”

“Same thing.”

“Not necessarily. People should assume responsibility for their actions. I’m not the one who acted. The action is in the cutting of hair. The responsibility for being different lies with them. I am not different. I’m as was created to be, not as opinionated people think I should be."

“What’s wrong with having your hair cut?”

“What’s wrong with allowing it to grow naturally?”

“You could have it styled.”

“Styled? And what style did you have in mind?”

“Any style you like.”

“I like the style it is now—natural.”

“Most people prefer a different style.”

“People throughout history have preferred different styles, and not only with hair. Hair and clothing styles change from time to time and from place to place. The only styles common to all times and places are those of not cutting hair and not wearing clothing.”

“Nakedness is not a style”

“Maybe not, but every bit of clothing is. For that matter, natural hair is not technically a style. A style would be the result of doing something to change it. I think nature—or God, if you prefer—did an excellent job of designing the human body and I have no reason to alter it because of the constantly changing opinions of some people. And especially since those people’s opinions aren’t formed through their own ideas—they are mimicking the styles of others. If you look at photos or paintings of people, you can tell when and sometimes where they lived—unless they are in a totally natural state. Natural hair and nakedness transcend time and locality. No style is always in style. Styles and opinions are constantly changing, so where is their validity?”

* * *

“Why don’t you do as you’re supposed to.”

“I do.”

“But your clothes, when you wear them, are not like everyone else’s, you hardly ever wear shoes, you don’t eat meat, you don’t go to church . . . everything you do is different.”

“Not necessarily.”

“But you don’t follow the rules.”

“What rules?”

“Any rules. You just do as you please.”

“What’s your point?”

“If everyone did as they please, there would be chaos everywhere.”

“That’s why society needs rules.”

“Then why don’t you follow them?”

“I follow my own rules.”

“If everyone made up their own rules there would be chaos.”

“That’s why society has rules.”

“If other’s shouldn’t make up their own rules, why should you?”

“My rules don’t create chaos.”

“Then your rules must be the same as society’s rules.”

“Some of them are—the ones that make sense. The rules designed to prevent harm to others are morally valid. Those designed to promote the absurdity of artificial values and restrict my freedom are rules that don’t coincide with mine”

* * *

There is one thing in common with all people who dismiss the authenticity of a ubiquitous epiphany—none of them has experienced the event. It is a simple case of ignorance proclaiming knowledge. Many claim to be experts on subjects about which they have no personal knowledge. They believe that if they read about something, or another person tells them about something, they know all about it. Nothing replaces personal experience. When a person denies the validity of cosmic consciousness, it only means that person has not experienced the event, not that it cannot be experienced.

* * *

Having choice is an inherent part of life. Plants choose the direction and depth of their roots in order to get nutrients and anchor themselves for protection from wind. Animals choose their food and whether to approach or avoid other species. Choice gives the opportunity of reproduction to members of a species who have not been eliminated by making a detrimental choice.

Problems arise when a human society creates unnecessary rules that cripple the free choice of its people. Although each person still may choose, he of she may be punished for choosing to do something that is harmless to anyone but violates society’s opinion of what may be done.

* * *

The one who has realized wisdom itself still has more to learn—The experience of living with that wisdom. There is always more to learn.

* * *

Now is a gateway between the past and the future. It is the only moment in time that the physical world exists. It is the gateway between what has happened and what will be. It is only now when we can use what we have learned from the past to make the future we desire. If we think we are going in a direction we don’t like, we can change direction; if we like, where we are headed, we can continue with what we have been doing.

There are a many possible futures. What will pass through the gateway depends on what now allows it to. Time cannot go from the past into the future without passing through now. Now is when we exist. When we reach any particular time in the future, it will still be now when we experience that moment. But any moment of time in the future does not exist in the physical world. We may touch something only when we and it coexist at the same place and time.

When we are at any distance from any observable object, we are seeing it as it existed in the past. Something three meters from us is 1/100 millionth of a second in the past by the time our eyes receive the image of the object. The farther away an object is, the farther in the past is the image we are seeing. Everything we can see is not sharing the same moment in time as we are as we see it. What we see now may have changed. It may be different now but we do not know. We see it as it was.

What appears to us as physical is not. The only time something is tangible is when we touch it. Anything we see beyond reach, no matter how small the distance, cannot be touched, not just because it is physically too far but because it is no longer physical as we see it. Everything we see is an illusion of physicality.

It may be easier to understand with sound. If you shout at a distant surface you may hear your echo. The reply you hear is a sound you made in the past. You aren’t making the sound you are hearing at that now instant you hear it. You are hearing a sound from the past.

The only physical world you may experience is that of hear and now. You are not anywhere or anytime other than now. Nothing else is physically real; it is an illusion.

* * *

The brain is the hardware of a bio-computer. Instinctive, innate behavior is its ROM. That which is learned is RAM.

* * *

I can see a departure from the strict regimental dualistic thinking about gender specificity. You have some attributes that are stereotypically assumed to be how or what a man would think, do, or say. The more androgynous a person thinks, the more people he or she can understand.

* * *

The body is both a conduit and a vehicle.

* * *

Creation or evolution—which is correct? No matter which you choose, some would agree with you and some disagree. Some would be happy with your choice and some would not. If there is only one correct answer, what is it?

Perhaps we should look at the question that brought on this dispute. But what would that question be? How did we get here? Why do we exist? Where did we come from? Do we have a purpose? What is the truth?

Perhaps all of these questions should apply. Unless you know from personal knowledge gained through experience, you must take someone’s opinion of a matter as valid or disregard it. So maybe we can look at what our experiences have taught us. We can see when light is present. We can hear sound. We can taste and tough and smell. Our senses allow us to connect us to our environment—help us to perceive unity with our world.