New Webpage -- 1 November 2005
Leo Swart has yet another take on this subject. But don't be fooled by the title. This is not a history lesson, but more of an absolutely essential lesson to be learned thereby. There is the aspect of Co-creating Reality -- something on the order of "I am one among the many of a continuum" in Affirmation. But more importantly is the suggestion of the willingness to depart from the script and accept responsibility for rewriting the play into something far more interesting.
For Updates, see also the Halexandria Forum
This webpage is slightly longer than the average, but Leo has done a good job. Read it all -- unless you're willing to suffer from all manner of dastardly deeds done to you by... well... yourself.
It's not what you believe that is important.
It's what you do with your beliefs.
How do you use them?
How well do they serve you?
HOW IT ALL BEGAN
This is a simple essay about a very simple subject. It's about where everything came from and how Time began what life is all about - things like that. Simple matters really. It is only our present confusion on life that makes them seem complex.
These are matters on which almost every religion, philosophy and science on earth has some comment to make. In fact, this is how most of these started - some wise man gave his opinions on these matters and his followers propagated the ideas ever since. But you can relax - I am not about to start any new religion.
If we look back over the many thousands of ideas that have been expressed on this subject then we can very easily reduce them to just three. All of the many answers to this matter simplify into just three basic answers. Here they are:
I have hunted for a fourth possible answer but to date I have never found one. Only these three and the various combinations of them. So you can take your pick and put your faith in the one that suits you best - you have one chance in three of being correct and those are not bad odds for a subject like this. Certainly better than Lotto.
I myself have no idea which the correct one is. But what I am going to do in this essay is examine the second one, analyse it, unravel it, take it to pieces, and see where it leads. However, let me make it very clear right at the outset that I am in no way going to try to prove this one to be true. I'm not going to do that. I am merely going to use it as a starting point. It is an assumption, a supposition, and by the time we get to the end of this discussion it will still only be a mere assumption, and nothing more.
What I will also do is weave into the story some very simple observations which we can all make in present time in our own lives. In this way I will attempt to add some flesh to the bare bones of the deductions I make. Hopefully this will make it all the more relevant to our own lives, and perhaps a little more interesting too.
Let me add that I am not too concerned whether the ideas I express are true in an absolute sense. I believe some of them are, but to me that is of lesser importance to whether the ideas are useful. Nearly all truths depend upon their context for their validity. What is true in one scenario is false in another. And since this is so, I regard Truth (with a capital T) as being of less importance than usefulness. If I can apply it in daily life and get the results I want and thereby improve things around me, why then that is good enough, or true enough, for me.
All right then. Here, in big letters, is the starting point, the assumption:
WE CREATED THE UNIVERSE
Right at the outset we must recognise that there are several other ideas contained within this one idea. These are implicit in that basic statement.
For example, if we created the universe then we must somehow be different from the universe. We created it; therefore we are the creators and it is the creation. These two can not be the same.
Also, the assumption implies that we are completely separate to the universe and we existed before it did. We created it, so we must have been here before it was here.
And if we consider what we know of the universe with all of its galaxies and suns and supernovae and so on, then we can see that this is just one hell of a big claim that we are making here - alleging that we created all of that. It's a heck of a claim. It declares that we must have been beings of enormous god-like ability. When we look at ourselves today and see the rather dysfunctional humans that we are - well, we don't seem to be very god-like, do we? So something must have happened that caused us to lose our inherent god-ness and caused us to deteriorate to the state we are in now. What could that have been? How could such a thing ever happen to a god capable of creating a universe?
Similarly with the idea that we are basically separate to the universe; it doesn't seem to be that way when we look about us. We seem to be very much in the universe and not separate at all. So what happened here? Did we get all tangled up in it or what? And how? Our basic assumption declares that we are absolutely not of the universe, even though we are now in it.
Certainly if we created it then we must be responsible for it and for everything that has happened in it since, and this must include the dysfunctional condition we find ourselves in. And we also created all of the evil and misfortune in the universe. Just as our assumption declares that it is all done by us and excludes the possibility of any super-god, so also does it exclude any devil as the source of all evil and harm.
Ideas, ideas, ideas. All contained within that one idea: "We created the universe". Amazing. We could also ask, just as a question, if we created the universe are we also able to un-create it? Is creation just a one-way channel, like King Midas who turned everything he touched into gold but who couldn't reverse the process by turning gold into food? Can a creation, or any part of creation, be un-created? Can we do that?
Well, we now already have a sort of outline of an idea-structure here. Perhaps we were once powerful 'gods', we created the universe, we somehow got tangled up in it and have since then lost our god-like abilities. It's just a skeleton, or an outline, of some sort of structure. We'll have to see whether we can develop it into something more than that.
As we proceed we will take up these little threads of ideas and follow them. We'll just tease them out and see where they lead. Remember, I'm not trying to prove the truth of anything - I'm only following the consequences of the assumption we made.
So now let's look at this statement that we are different to the universe.
What does "we" consist of? In broad terms it means all of us, every living being. You, me, the girl next door, the dog, the cat, all of us. That is the "we" I'm referring to.
But what am I really? A body? What can we know for certain about our basic nature? Oddly enough, this is one area of human endeavour where almost everything is assumed and nothing is known. It seems that the most enduring and enigmatic mystery on earth is that of our own nature. No one seems able to say for sure what we are.
Through the ages many, many words have been offered as being descriptive of our innermost nature - spirit, soul, psyche, the god within, the inner self, the higher self, the Ka, the Ba, the consciousness, the super-consciousness, the awareness unit, the higher mind, the ego, the id, the super-ego, the super-id, - the list is endless. All of these words purport to describe some aspect of the "real" self, and yet all the dictionaries in the world fail without exception to give a clear definition of any of them.
The simple fact is that we do not know our own basic nature. We don't know. That's all there is to it. So what I am going to do here is boot all of those words out of the door right now. Scrap them all and just admit that we do not know exactly what we are. Instead of pretending to have some knowledge regarding it, we will just represent it with a symbol. I will take the Greek letter 'theta' and just use that to represent the real inner nature of ourselves. We could just as easily use the symbol Alpha or Beta or x or q or zip-zap or anything else – there is no significance at all to the choice of symbol, so we'll just arbitrarily use Theta.
Understand that the word 'theta' has no inherent meaning here, it merely represents the real self, whatever that real self may be. So I can say I am a unit of theta, you are a unit of theta, we are all thetans. It is just a symbol. It looks like an 0 with a horizontal line through the middle; my computer does not have Greek letters on it but I'm sure you get the idea.
Back to 'We are different to the universe'. We tried to look at what we consist of, now let's look at what the universe consists of? Here we are on slightly safer ground. We can say with some certainty that in this universe there is stuff we call Matter, there is Energy, there is Space and there is Time. These are all aspects of existence which we can see and experience for ourselves. Matter, Energy, Space and Time. Yes, I know that the boys in the Quantum Physics department might argue with this position and say that some things are neither matter nor energy or whatever, or that Space and Time are really two aspects of the same thing, and that's all fine by me. Whatever they say the universe consists of, that's just fine. For our purposes we will lump it all under just those four words. Matter, Energy, Space and Time. We can even abbreviate this and call it M E S T. Mest.
But hey! Now we can say something about theta, about ourselves, about the nature of life. Remember, we said above that that if we created the universe then it follows that we are different to the universe. So whatever the universe is, we are not that. And so if the universe is composed of matter, energy, space and time then clearly, we are not that. Well then, we can now say that theta is not matter, it has no mass, it is not energy, it is not a vibration and has no wavelength, it is not in space and it is not in time. Amazing, isn't it? Yet it follows exactly from what we have stated above and so, for the purposes of this essay, we accept it and work with it, whether it makes immediate sense or not.
When I talk about 'theta', remember, I am talking about us, our own inner nature. So you and me inherently, we are not made of matter - we created matter. We are not made of energy - we created energy. And so on. This is all per our original assumption that we created the universe. We are not in space and we are not in time. I don't have any proofs for this - they merely follow logically from our assumption. If the assumption is true, then this is true. If not, then not.
Understand that I am not saying we are nothing or that we don't exist. Theta is , but it is not a thing . You are , but you are not any thing . Your body is a thing, but we are talking here of yourself, the inner nature of the one who is in command of the body. And that is you; you are not a 'thing'. One could say that you are a 'no-thing'. But not a nothing. You are a dimensionless unit, separate to the universe, containing all potential and no substance. This is all stated simply as a consequence of our initial assumption.
It is an amazing concept.
Do you know there is actually a word in the English language which describes what I have just written above. In the fields of Physics and Engineering they talk about Statics and Kinetics. Kinetics has to do with the behaviour of objects in motion and Statics deals with objects at rest. But whenever they talk of objects 'at rest' they always point out that they mean an object which is relatively at rest; that is to say it is at rest in relation to another object. So for example, my desk is at rest relative to the floor, or a mountain is at rest relative to the earth's crust, but all of these are orbiting the sun and so are moving in that context. And the sun too is in motion in relation to the galaxy and the galaxy is in motion in relation to the universe. In fact, wherever we look, everything we find in the universe is in motion. All statics are only relatively static. Nowhere in this universe is there an absolute static.
But if we were to theorize and ask ourselves what the properties of an absolute static would be (imagining that such a thing were possible), then we would have to assert that an absolute static would have no mass - because all masses are subject to the forces of gravity and this would cause it to move; it would have no energy - because energy itself is motion; it could not be in space - because space itself is expanding and moving; and it would have no time - because time implies change and therefor motion. So the description I gave above for a basic unit of life is also the description of a true and absolute static. Life is a static. Theta is a static.
We can call this a basic principle, or an axiom, or something like that. We will come across numerous of these as we go along. So:
# Life is basically a Static.
That is our first axiom. And we can define a static as we have done above - it is that which has no mass, no energy, and so on.
But there is more to our basic life unit than just that, isn't there? We started out with the declaration that we created the universe, so with that we assert that life is able to create. When we (and we are statics, remember) look about us we can see things, and we can hear them and smell them and so on. We are able to perceive .
Furthermore we have emotions and opinions and knowledge and beliefs and a whole host of attributes which deal with our inner mental capabilities. We can summarise these words with just one word - considerations . We have considerations that we are, that we feel, that we know things, and so on. These are all considerations that we have about ourselves and about our relationship to the people and the world around us.
So as a second axiom we could say:
# A Life-static is capable of creation, perception, and consideration.
An axiom is a basic principle, or a basic agreed-upon assumption, which forms the basis of a field of knowledge. The dictionary defines it as a "self-evident truth". What they mean is that it is a statement which is accepted as true but for which no thorough proof can be given. We accept it as true because we can find no examples of it being false, yet we cannot prove it to be true.
Here we will be using the word axiom to describe a statement of principle deduced from our basic assumption.
We now move on to one of the other statements which I said was implicit in the initial assumption that we created the universe. At some stage we must have been very powerful beings, gods even, to have been able to create a universe such as the one we live in. And that original god-ness that we had must have deteriorated since then, for we are certainly not very god-like in our lives today.
How does a god create? According to the Bible God simply said "Let there be....." and there was. "Let there be light", "Let there be mountains", "Let there be beasts in the field and fish in the sea" and instantly they were there. Whether this really is how creation came about is hard to say, but there is some small justification for accepting that this is exactly what did happen. I'll explain in a moment.
We first need to ask ourselves this question: If we once really were such powerful gods who could create a universe by simply declaring that it be there, and we have come down from the heavens to our present state since then, is it perhaps remotely, vaguely, possible that some tiny, tiny fragment of that original ability to create still remains with us today. Has our original god-ability totally disappeared? Or is there perhaps a tiny, miniscule smidgen of it left within us?
Just to digress for a moment - the laws of physics which describe the motion of a galactic super-cluster in its movement through the cosmos are EXACTLY the same as the laws which determine the movement of a speck of dust being blown in the wind. The laws are the same, the mathematics is the same. The only difference is the scale of it all. The same should apply to God's ability to create and our own reduced ability to create, given that we are ourselves the original gods.
So if there is within us still a vestige of that original god-like ability, then (a) it would support the idea that god created everything by declaring "Let there be...", and (b) by examining this tiny smidgen of an ability we would be able to learn something about how the universe began.
Understand clearly, I am not talking here of an artist's ability to take paint and form it into a picture. I'm talking about primary creation. There is nothing, and the god says 'Let there be..." and then there is . Primary creation. Something out of nothing. Can we do it?
Well, the answer is yes, we can. There is indeed a very tiny smidgen of this ability left within us. We can create something in this way. But it is the tiniest of tiny abilities and so we need to follow the thread very carefully here.
The one thing which we can create out of nothing is a mental picture. I can close my eyes and daydream. And in my daydream I can conjure up a beach in Fiji or myself flying through the sky or a hundred elephants swimming in the river. I can conjure up whatever I please and I can have and see a picture of it in my mind.
I don't know what that picture is made of - I have no idea at all. But there is a picture that I see. It does exist. I see it and so it is there. It is there in picture form, even if not in "reality". Psychologists tell us that there is no picture but only some sparks in the brain which we imagine to be a picture. That's fine. I'm sure there are some sparks in the brain. But there is also a picture - I see it, so it exists, even if only I can see it, even if only in my mind, yet it is there because I see it. And I created it out of nothing merely by deciding to have it.
It's an astonishing ability. We make nothing of it and pooh-pooh it and say it is all childish imagination and so on. That's fine. It is still one hell of an ability - to just decide to have a picture and there it is. In every way it is a god-like ability and we should stand in awe of it.
Let's examine this ability more closely.
You make a picture. Let's say it is of an amazing love affair. You sort of "lose yourself" in it and for as long as you do this you can enjoy the imaginary love affair. But at some stage you pop out of it, you spot that it is just a fantasy you are mocking up and instantly the picture is gone. This is instantaneous. The very exact instant that you move out of being "lost in thought" to being yourself again, the picture vanishes.
There was a timeless moment when the picture was created and a timeless moment when it vanished. Between the two was the period of the fantasy. The time period within this fantasy could have been a year while in the real world it lasted maybe only half a minute. Or it could have been five minutes in the fantasy world while twenty minutes passed by in the real world. There is no correlation between the two time streams.
So there was an instant of creation, and an instant of un-creation. In both of them you were the "god" of the creation. Between the two was a time during which you sort of stepped down from being the creator-god and enjoyed the fantasy as a participant of some sort. For this time period, and while in the daydream, you played a role a tad lower than that of the creator-god. You in fact denied your own god-ness of the creation, and pretended that it was real. One could say that you introduced a lie into the creation. And it is by introducing this lie that you had the picture persist. The very moment you spotted the truth of it and took back your role as creator - the picture was gone. Isn't that interesting?
Go over this paragraph again. The ideas expressed may seem so common-place as to defy the understanding of what is really happening in a daydream. It is a creation. It is created out of nothing. It may not be made of "real" atoms and molecules but it nevertheless exists in one's own reality. One creates it instantaneously and one uncreates it instantaneously. It persists for as long as one pretends that the fantasy is real. It vanishes when one recognises one's role in creating it.
And I am suggesting that all of this is an exact mimicry of how a god creates. If we did indeed create the universe ourselves, then this is how we did it. We thought the thought that it was there, and then we stepped down from that position of creator and we started "living" in the creation, just as we "live" in a fantasy daydream. And it seems to me that we are still very much inside that fantasy-daydream of the universe we created so long ago.
Of course, the next question is why don't we pop out of it when we have recognised that we created it. Read on. I will deal with that in due course.
But all of this gives us two more basic principles, or axioms, as we are calling them:
I said in the opening paragraph of this dissertation that it would be a simple one about a very simple subject. And it is that. If the above two sections seem a bit hard to grasp then go over them again and throw out any complexities that you may be introducing yourself. The basic ideas expressed here are very, very simple. You experience them daily. It is their very simplicity, their apparent triviality, that has caused people to ignore them in the past. But they are powerful ideas. And, as we will see later, they lead to some amazingly useful principles.
We can now apply these ideas to how the universe possibly began. You and me and everyone else, we jointly created something (simply by deciding that it was there) and we then immediately stepped down from our role as creators and took on the lesser role of ...what shall we call it, a "viewers", or "experiencers", of the creation. We co-created something, which was no different to a God's fantasy-daydream, and stepped into it, got lost in thought, and forgot or denied that we were ever the creators of it. And it has persisted in this way ever since.
One moment there was Static as a singularity, and the next moment we had the beginnings of a universe. In one timeless instant there was a creator, and in the next timeless instant the creator had become the occupant of the "universe" he had just created. One could say - poetically - that the universe is god's daydream, and we wouldn't be far wrong.
But there is something else here that I need to mention. With any such creation there are always two conflicting "truths". Two "truths" which contradict each other. Consider: "I am...(the creator)" versus "I am not....(the creator)" Do you see that? It is true that "I am the creator" since I created it. But once I am in the creation (as a participant, that is to say after I have stepped down from my role as creator), then "I am not the creator" is "true". It is true within the context of the creation. "I am" opposed by "I am not".
Another such pair of conflicting truths contained in this creation is "It is" opposed by "It is not". Also two conflicting truths.
Now this might be all beside the point except for one small fact. This phenomena of conflicting truths happens to be the anatomy of a problem. Something is a problem only when there are two opposing intentions, or ideas, or efforts, or forces, which balance each other and oppose each other exactly. The two opposing intentions lock up right there and they become unmovable.
This is the anatomy of every single problem or worry you have ever had. "I must do well at school - I can't do well at school". "I have to stay in and work - I want to go out and play". "I need to earn more money - I can't earn more money" And so on. Always there are two balanced intentions or forces or desires. The problem only resolves when one recognises how one is oneself holding the two opposing forces in place. (In other words, when one spots the truth of the problem.)
When we combine this knowledge of the anatomy of problems with the deductions we made about the creation of the universe then a whole host of Axioms (basic principles of the universe) fall into place. Here are some of them:
Every single problem that you and I have ever had contained two such ideas which we held in opposition to each other. " I can " versus " I cannot ". " I must have " versus " I can't have ". " I must survive " versus " I can't survive ". And so on. Every single problem has this basic anatomy. Two opposing ideas exactly matching each other.
But the most basic problems of all are " I am " opposed by " I am not ", and " It is " opposed by " It is not ". The universe is a problem, and it will persist for as long as it remains a problem.
All right then. Let's move on a bit more. We still have a lot of ground to cover.
Going back to that first moment in time, we could also say that there was a Cause, and the cause created an Effect. In this primary case the Cause and the Action and the Effect all happened in one timeless instant. In a flash. But ever since then, since Time has now been introduced into the creation, Cause and Effect have been separated, with Cause always preceding Effect.
Static > Creation > Universe
Cause > Action > Effect
Be > Do > Have
Past > Present > Future
Start > Change > Stop
At this stage the "universe" was divided into two clearly different parts. One part was the creation, and the other part was the person viewing the creation. Notice that he is no longer the "god" - he has entered the lie into the creation that it is not just a "daydream" anymore but is "real", just as a daydream is “real” to the person who is having it.
Over one of these two parts - that of the created universe - the viewer denies his responsibility, denies that he is cause over it and denies that he knows it. He is just viewing it. Playing a role in it. Lost in thought. Having fun perhaps. He says "I am not....(the creator)".
Over the other part - that of himself as viewer , he accepts full responsibility, full control, and full knowledge.
And there is an interaction between the two sides.
We now need to bring into the discussion a few ideas from a subject called 'Games Theory'. People study games and analyse them in order to determine what makes one activity a fun game and another activity not such a fun game. A non-fun game we could call a no-game.
For example. Supposing you were playing a game where you always won. No matter what you do or what your opponent did it always turns out that you win. Heck, you could even sit on the sidelines and just watch as your opponent makes all the mistakes you need for you to just win again. Win, win, win. All the time. How boring this would be. You would soon stop this "game" and find another. It is a no-game.
Let's say you're now in a game where you always lose. Lose, lose, lose. No matter what you do, you're just for sure going to end up losing. Equally boring.
Both of these are "no-games". For an activity to be a proper game there must always be the possibility of winning as well as the possibility of losing. And you must not know in advance which is going to happen. When this is present you can play and have fun and test your skills to the full. You can even get better at it with this practice. This is a Game .
Another no-game would be one where you are in charge of both sides of play. Have you ever tried to play chess with yourself? You move a white piece with the intention of carrying out some plan to capture a black piece, then you have to move over to black and pretend you don't know what white is planning and so you make a move which you hope will lead to a white piece being captured, then you move back to white and now have to forget what black is doing.....it just isn't going to work, is it? You're not able to forget what you're planning on the opposing side and so you again have a no-game. In order for it to be a game you may only know and be cause over one side of the play at a time. Never over both.
Even with a card game like Solitaire where you are playing cards with yourself - the cards have to be shuffled and then you play with a pack where you do not know the order in which the cards will come up. You have no knowledge, responsibility or control over that, only over your own play. This is what makes it possible for it to be a game. One side you can command, the other side you can not.
Imagine a Christmas where everyone knows exactly what presents they will get and what is inside every parcel. No fun at all, is it? It would be a no-game.
If we compare this to the the state of the creation as we last described it then it is clear that the universe is a game. It fits all of the requirements for it to be a game. There is the part that one is cause over and the part that one is not cause over. We are now looking at the creation not from the viewpoint of the creator/god, but from the viewpoint of the one "lost in thought" who is viewing the creation. He is still cause over himself in this reduced role that he is playing, but over the creation itself he is not cause. And so he has a game.
And as a game, remember, it has the possibility of winning and the possibility of losing. Now just whisper it softly, which of those two do you think we, having come so far from our original god-like state, are doing? Hmmmm?
The answer to that question is, of course, locked up in one of our original statements. Here it is again:
When we look at ourselves today and see the rather dysfuntional humans that we are - well, we don't seem to be very god-like, do we? So something must have happened that caused us to lose our inherent god-ness and caused us to deteriorate to the state we are in now. What could that have been?
The simple fact is, we are losing in this game of life. Not just losing a little, but losing disastrously. So much so that we are on the verge of complete extinction.
But how is this happening? We must be doing something very wrong and we must have been doing it consistently over all the eons of the universe's existence. What is it?
Well it's not really hard to understand really. Though there are several aspects to it.
The very first thing we did as the creator/god, once we had created something to view, was to step down from our creator state and move into a viewer, or participant, state. That simple act became a template for all future acts. It became the Standard Operating Procedure for life in this universe.
This act immediately set up a game with two sides and we identified ourselves with the lesser of the two sides. We abandoned the creator side and joined the created side. By doing that we declared ourselves to be less than we really were, we reduced ourselves. Already, the ‘possibility of losing' has entered the universe. By abandoning the creator side we also declare that we are not cause over it, we can only be the effect of it.
All of this is implicit. It is not known in any way to the player, just as while we are lost in thought we are not aware of the fact that we created the daydream. We only take up that awareness once we move back into our creator role. The player within this game does not know that he is a player in a game. Quite the contrary – he sees himself plus the daydream to be all of reality, all that is. The knowledge of the creator is not contained within the creation.
Let's have another look at that first flash of creation. Let's unravel it. There was a creator/god. He created. There was a creation. All of this happened in one single timeless instant. There was no time at all from beginning to end.
This is exactly how it is when you create an imaginary picture. There is you, you imagine something, and it is there. All in a moment. Once it is there and you become absorbed in it, and then there is time. But there is no time in the instant of creation.
And even though it is a timeless instant there are yet three distinct parts to it. There is the creator, the act of creation, and the result of the creation – as described earlier. It all happened in an instant. After that instant the three parts became separated in time. By the denial of our own authorship of it, i.e the introduction of a lie, time was introduced into the creation and so all subsequent things in the creation manifest time.
Those three parts of the unity - the creator, the act of creation, and the result of the creation, became, in the universe and in life today, Be, Do, and Have. Be = the source or creator, Do = the act of creation, and Have = the result of the creation. Everything that has taken place since then, every moment of Life's existence, throughout the entirety of the billions of years of this universe, can be classified as either Be, Do, or Have.
In modern terms – Be, Do, and Have are a fractal, they each subdivide and repeat themselves over and over ad infinitum. More on this later.
Even the very language we speak is based upon this: We (subject/being) created (predicate/doing) the universe (object/having). Every language on earth is structured this way because we in this universe are stuctured this way, our thinking is structured this way.
And I'll tell you something more - the language used by those little green aliens on a planet in another sun system millions of light-years away is structured in exactly this same way too, because they are themselves, with us, the co-creators of this universe and so their thinking is also structured in this way.
It is part of the basic woof and weft of the universe and so we'd better take a close look at precisely what we mean by Be, Do, and Have . Interestingly enough, these words relate directly to three other words and it is perhaps best if we approach the area from those words. They are Responsibility, Control, and Knowledge. I've used them before in this dissertation.
To Be means to assume a viewpoint which becomes the position, or base, from which one perceives the universe and acts in it. It is saying "This is ME, and from this identity I live life". This is responsibility. Responsibility is the willingness to take on the role and beingness of Cause in an area. It is the willingness to take on that role and to act from it and bring about the changes one wants in the area. Responsibility is a Be ingness. It is the identity one is being and where one is coming from. It is the generator of energy. It's the base of the motor which holds the terminals apart.
To Do is to act, or to perform or execute an action. One is (or should be) in control of one's actions, one's doingnesses. Control is the ability to Start something, Change it in a predetermined way, and then Stop it. Start, Change and Stop. That is Control. It is a Do ingness. It is Energy. It is Communication.
It is important to recognise that one's doingness (and the resulting havingness, which we'll come to) is entirely dependant upon the beingness one has chosen for oneself. The first step is the taking on of a a role, an identity, a base from which to function. And the nature of base will define and place limits upon the doingness that will emanate from it. We see this in daily life where a person with a very weak beingness is also always very low on doingness. He doesn't cause much.
To Have.............Ah, now this is an enormous concept. To Have. One's first assumption is that it means to own something - if I own a car I have it, and vice-versa . But look again, there are things I have which I don't own - for example the friendship of dear ones, or the use of parks and roads in my city. I don't own the library but I can have the use of it nevertheless.
On the other side of the coin - one can own something and yet not be able to 'have' it in any useful sense. Consider the person who is so introverted into his own little world that he never goes outside to enjoy the flowers in his own garden. Or the man who owns a car but is so afraid of driving that he avoids using it. To have something really means to be able to reach into it and use it and pervade it and become involved with it. Only then do you can easily get your intentions executed in an area do you really 'have' it.
Now consider Knowledge. Knowledge is not just an accumulation of facts inside your skull. You only really know something when you are able to make sense out of all those facts and use them towards accomplishing something. Knowledge is certainty . It is understanding. Knowledge is attained through pervading an area, duplicating it, participating in it and contributing towards it. When you have done all of that then you can say that you know that area. Until then you (at best) only know some things about that area, but you don't 'know' it in its full meaning. Knowing is actually the same as Having. You can only know those subjects you can have - those that you can reach into and use and pervade and become involved with.
Diversion: This concept of 'having' has such huge and broad-spread application in life that it is worth dwelling on it a moment longer.
I can give many, many more examples of this - best is if you spend a few moments considering some examples of your own in this regard. Think of some subject you know well. Can you pervade it - that is to say, mentally spread yourself into it? Can you duplicate it - mentally copy and use whatever is presented to you in it? Participate in it? Contribute towards it? Can you get the feeling of 'having' it thoroughly?
This basic formula can even be applied with success to such areas as recovering from an illness or injury and earning money.
So many hundreds and thousands of books have been written on the subjects of 'How to Get Rich', 'How to Become a Superman', 'How to Win Friends and Influence People', 'How to be a WINNER in Business', 'How to be a Leader', ad nauseum . In all of them..... get that: IN ALL OF THEM the single workable principle is this one here of PERVADE, DUPLICATE, PARTICIPATE and CONTRIBUTE. I invite you to take up any such book you can find and go through it with this knowledge and you will see it there, written in all kinds of flowery prose.
This formula is the major key to survival in this universe. Whatever you are having difficulty with in your life - apply this formula to the full and see your fortunes turn around.
"Have" is the goal one strives for and attains. It is the result of applied energy.
OK. End of diversion.
Second Diversion: Something else interesting here: a person's ability to Pervade, Duplicate, Participate, and Contribute reflects his education . A person's willingness to Pervade, Duplicate, Participate, and Contribute is known in our language as "intelligence". Psychologists will tell you that intelligence has to do with the number of neurones in the brain or their connections to each other or something like that. You get 'genetically endowed' with high intelligence or with low intelligence when you are born, they say. All a load of twaddle. Intelligence is no more and no less than a person's willingness to become involved with and to participate in and contribute to an area. That's what it is. That's all it is.
'Stupidity' is the un willingess to become involved with and participate in and contribute to an area.
Look back at what I wrote earlier about problems and persistence. When a lie is introduced into a creation then it locks up and persists. It has become a problem. Anything which persists and does not resolve contains a lie.
Finding the truth of something resolves it. When you dwell on the lie, the door remains shut. When you get to the truth, the door opens.
The psychologists idea of intelligence is a totally shut door. They tell you with great assurance that a person's intelligence can never be increased. Bullshit. They tell you that there are different kinds of intelligence. More bullshit. A person is 'intelligent' in those areas where he is willing to Pervade, Duplicate, Participate, and Contribute. Whether this be mathematics or cooking or sport does not matter - he manifests intelligence in his chosen area by being willing to enter it, imbue himself right through it, see how it works and understand that, join in the actions there and participate in them, and when he gets really gets the hang of it he can start contributing towards it. That is intelligence.
I have known a brilliant musician who is quite unable to drive a car or change a light bulb - he is a genius in one department and hapless in the other.
"Intelligence" is a word invented by psychologists to describe those people who happen to be willing to Pervade, Duplicate, Participate, and Contribute to those little puzzles they give you in IQ tests. If you can do that then you will be told you have a 'high intelligence'. Rubbish. You only have that for those little puzzles they gave you. If you scored low on the IQ test then you supposedly have a 'low intelligence' and, per them, always will have. Bah!
Correct answers open doors. Wrong answers keep them shut.
Allright. No more diversions now.
Be, Do, Have. Responsibility, Control, Knowledge. Different words, same meanings. Got that? Well, if you have got it then we can go onto something I find quite fascinating – earlier I referred to these being fractals.
Notice something here: Responsibility is the willingness to take on a position of Cause and acting from it in the attainment of a known goal. It is a beingness which contains within it (a) taking on a role - which is also a beingness, (b) acting from it - which is a doingness, and (c) reaching into and pervading the area - which is a havingness.
Control in its turn is (a) Start - which is a position of beingness, (b) Change - which is a doingness, and (c) Stop - which is where you have attained the goal - it is a havingness.
Likewise Knowledge/Understanding/Certainty is (a) Pervade an area, which means to occupy the same space as, and so it is a beingness [By the way – one's willingness to occupy the same space as something is the measure of one's Affinity for it.] (b) Duplicate what is there, i.e. establish the Reality of it, and (c) Do things with it, become able to reach into it and direct its disposition, i.e. Communicate with it.
So DO fractals out into Start, Change and Stop; and HAVE or Understanding fractals out into Affinity, Reality and Communication. One can continue on with this as long as one likes. All of it is simply a consequence of what happened in the first timeless moment of creation.
Each one of Be, Do and Have divides into further Be, Do and Have, and each one of them will again divide similarly, ad infinitum. These three are the three Conditions of Existence and they are a fractal. This means they replicate themselves endlessly over and over again. Each one continually sub-divides into another Be, Do and Have, each time on a slightly lower level of existence. Over and over, endlessly, since the beginning of all existence.
But it also goes in a linear direction. It doesn't only subdivide downwards, it replicates itself going forwards too.
Earlier on I used the words 'contribute towards' in regard to Havingness. Pervade, Duplicate, Participate, Contribute . But 'contribute' is a doingness.
What has happened here is this: One takes up a position (Be), acts from it (Do) in order to attain the goal (Have). When this is done the Have becomes a new Be. When you pervade an area (part of Have) you are being in it. Your beingness is spread throughout it. So you have a new position of Be, and from that new position of Be you initiate a new Do attaining a new Have.
So Be, Do and Have link together horizontally as well as vertically. You go: Be-Do-Have, - then the Have becomes the new Be and, if it is the Have you intended, you have a higher level of Be-Do-Have, - and then the Have becomes a new Be and so you have a still higher level of Be-Do-Have................and so on. Higher and higher, winning at the game of life. You're accomplishing your goals. You're winning.
Alternatively - please note - if the position of Be which you assumed at the start was not adequate to the performance of the required Do needed to attain the Have, why then you fail. And in this case the Have position (which becomes the new Be) is lower than the previous Be position. Your abilities have declined a little. Your beingness has diminished a little. So you failed.
What's this? Failed? Yes indeed - any game has within it the possibility of winning and also the possibility of losing. So you can fail. And you fail only (Emphasize that: ONLY ) when "the position of Be which you assumed is inadequate to perform the Do needed to attain the Have".
There are a few things I said earlier which we now need to bring in and combine with the above section. Perhaps you'll guess what I'm getting at here.
I said in one place:
And shortly thereafter:
And in the next paragraph:
Have you spotted it? Clever lad. The creator/god "stepping down" into the creation was in fact nothing other than the god taking on the Have position as a new Be position, just as I have described above. Be-Do-Have-Be-Do-Have-Be-Do-Have, on and on and on. Each new Have becoming the position of the next Be.
This is exactly what we did in that very first act of creation. It is what we have been doing ever since. And it is what caused us to continuously deteriorate from our original state to our present one. It is the reason why we are losing the game.
OK, now take a deep breath and maybe take a break. Did I say this was going to be simple? I think I did. And it is. It is the very simplicity of it all that confounds you; not the complexity.
Back into it now:- Let's go over this once more and look at the first step of creation again. A creator/god (i.e. a beingness which is able to create - that's you and me and the girl next door) creates a universe. Be, Do, Have. All in an instant. The creator/god then steps down from its position as creator to that of participant, or player, in this game of the universe. In fact, he is occupying the position of the Have that he created. This becomes the new beingness and it is a lesser order of beingness, one which can no longer create but can only play.
That action of the creator/god (that's you) becomes the pattern and template for all future actions - I've said this before. The very first action was to step down from a position of greater power to a lower position of lesser power. The god dis-empowered himself and thereby set himself up with the possibility of losing. And when he did lose - he did it again. Yep. The dumb ass. And he has been doing this ever since then and right up to the present day.
What do you do when you play a game? You follow the rules; rules which limit your abilities and your freedoms and which prevent you from determining the outcome of both sides of play.
In fact, not following the rules is called cheating and is a no-no. But the fact that one has the inherent ability to cheat shows that it is through personal choice that we have limited ourselves. We limit our own abilities whenever we play a game. We dis-empower ourselves. And so did the creator/god after he created this game.
The game of this universe is the game of Be, Do, and Have. That is the only game in town and you're playing it whether you want to or not. You're in it and you're playing.
We can now start pulling some of these threads together and weave them into a single pattern. Let's go right back to what I said earlier about Games Conditions.
The universe, being a game, is divided into two areas, two domains. We made this division the moment we stepped down from being creator/gods of the universe to being occupants of it (lost in the daydream).
Over one portion - one domain - we had full Responsibility, Control and Knowledge. This is the portion of ourselves. Over the other portion, that of the creation itself, we denied our role as creator (in order to attain persistence) and we denied our Responsibility, Control and Knowledge.
This gave us a game.
The beingness we took on in relation to the entire game was a position of only partial responsibility. Not full responsibility. And because this partial responsibility positon was inadequate to to accomplish the Do that would lead to the Have which would raise the game to a higher level, we "failed" in our playing of the game.
AND NOW THE BIG MISTAKE GOT MADE.
Instead of maintaining our original beingness as occupant fully responsible for own side of the game, we instead "solved" the "problem" of the "failure" by adopting the failed Have position as a new Be position and we continued to play the game from that reduced position. And we did this again and again and again.
Examples in present time:
And so on. Many, many more examples are all around one. What each of these guys did is make less of themselves. They took on the viewpoint of the failed Have. This gave them a reduced viewpoint, a reduced beingness, so they considered themselves to be less able than they thought they were and started to live life from that lower position. And with the lower beingness came a lower doingness and so, not surprisingly, they failed again.
Now let's take a look at all of this from a completely different angle - and even though it looks quite different it is, in fact, just the same mechanism at work.
A game has to be divided into two parts, remember? Over one part you accept full Responsibility, Control and Knowledge. Over the other part you deny any Responsibility, Control or Knowledge.
You are Cause over your own side of the game and the other side is the Effect of your cause. The other side, in turn, is Cause over its side of the game and you are the Effect of that cause. So we have this interplay of Cause and Effect. You can observe this in any game you choose.
Ideally, there would be some sort of balance between the relative degrees of Cause and Effect on the two sides. If they were evenly matched then each side would be fifty percent Cause and fifty percent Effect. Maybe this is how it was when the universe started. For each side there would be a fifty percent chance of winning and a fifty percent chance of losing.
I don't know if it was exactly fifty/fifty at the start of the universe, maybe it wasn't. But I do know that it didn't stay that way for long. How do I know this? Well look at what we do in daily life today:
Do you see what is happening here? We continually step down from the bigger postion and move into a lesser position for every single trouble and woe that we encounter in life. And in this way, and in a million such ways, we continually make ourselves less than we really are. We are only too glad to take on a smaller, more comfortable role in life. And so we shrink. And we shrink and we shrink and we shrink. This has been going on since the dawn of time in this universe and it is going on all around us right now.
And as we shrink away, our side of the game becomes smaller, and the opposing side becomes bigger. So the balance shifts from fifty/fifty to something which favours the opposing side. And as this happens we move from being Cause to being Effect in the exact areas where we withdraw from being Cause.
And so on. Each time I abandon my own Cause I shift it over to the opposing side, which then becomes greater Cause while I, in turn, accept my position as being the Effect of that Cause.
Have you ever heard of the Law of Kharma? It's an eastern teaching found in many other religions too. It declares that the things you do to others will happen to you. "As you do unto others so will be done unto you". It's an interesting "law". They tell you that it pervades the entire universe, and they're right.
This is how it works: You do something "bad" to another. Then you see what you have done and regret your action. You withdraw from the activity declaring that you will never ever do that again. In other words, you declare that you will never be Cause in that way again. And if you're not Cause in that way then what are you? That's right - you're Effect in that way. And so the opposing side has an edge on you, you have handed it over to them. And so it will affect you. “As you do unto others, so will be done unto you”, says the prophet. But that is only true if you first abandon your willingness to be Cause.
If you shoot a guy and say out loud ‘Yes, I shot him, and if needed I will shoot him again' and you take full resposibility for it and are fully willing to be recognised as the creator of that effect, why then, everything will be just fine. No bad Kharma. You maintain your positon of Cause.
But if you accidentally jostle someone's arm and spill their coffee and then go into a profuse “Oh, I'm so terribly sorry, that was so wrong of me, I promise I will never ever do it again, I'm so ashamed of not having taken more care, etc, etc, sob, sob”, well, prepare yourself for some rough times ahead.
That original action of the creator/god in stepping down into the lesser role of being "in" the game is the template we have used for all of our subsequent life in this universe. Every time we cause something that we don't like our stock-in-trade response is to become a non-cause spectator. We make ourselves smaller. We diminish ourselves.
What this, in fact, means is that in the broad scheme of things there is really only one “sin”. There is only one thing that you can do wrong in this universe and that is to demean yourself. To say to yourself "I shouldn't act so boldly, I should hold back, I should humble myself, I am weaker than I thought I was, I'm only a little fella, I'm sorry for what I did and I promise I won't do it again, I'm no good - others are better”, and so on, and so on, and so on. That is the only sin there is. It is the only thing that you ever did wrong in this entire universe game. All other “sins” are contextual to the mores of the society you happen to find yourself in. Only this single one is absolute to the universe.
And this also means that is within our power to regain our godlike status – the status we once had.
Do you know the old gag where you go out and look at the stars in the night sky and you get an idea of the mind-boggling enormity of space and everything in it, and then some wise-guy chips in and says it makes you realise how completely insignificant we all are? Next time this happens kick his ass. Look at the night sky and say to yourself "Gee! I created all of that! Wow! You know, I'd better start making a move to fix up my creative powers."
It can be done. The ways and means of that are well beyond the scope of this little essay, but what should be obvious is that the journey must lead to a greater willingness to be causative, to greater personal responsibility, greater ability to start projects, to be control of them, and greater knowledge, certainty and understanding of all things. And of course, greater Be, Do and Have, and a greater willingness to share and experience affinity and communication and reality. All of these areas of personal growth must lie on the path to the recovery of our god-ness. If the path you are on is not directly doing this then you are most certainly on a false path and your journey will only take you deeper into the mud.
There are many other things one could deduce from the original statement “We Created the Universe” that I used as a starting point. Many other threads could have been followed to construct many other essays. All I have done here is attempt to show one possible way how we got to be who and what we are today, and give an idea of our possible potential.
I have not said anything that you do not already know. You have known it and you have experienced it in your own life. This is not some new philosophy or religion that I'm teaching here. I'm just taken some known aspects of how life works and combined them with the idea that maybe we were ourselves the original creators of all of this. This is, of course, an Eastern idea – heck, if we have existed since the beginning then obviously we must have lived many lives before this one. Reincarnation is a neccessity. And life could not have “evolved” out of matter. Life must pre-date earth by a considerable margin. Life has been here since the year dot.
And so on. The idea that we created it all is a very rich idea. There is much that follows from it. Including, somewhere in it, the path to godhood.
Be well. Find the path and have a happy journey.
The author may be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
For Updates, see also the Halexandria Forum
2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved [Feedback]