And it is not too far-fetched to think that... going back to ideas, to models of Creation... -both in the creationist and in the evolutionist-, there was a manifestation -one!- that expanded in a multitude of manifestations. It reproduced in infinite forms.
And to the extent that the Creation continued -as it happens when they research the intimate structure of matter-, new and new components appear.
And it happened and it happens that, in those fractals of thousands of faces, we were ignoring little by little or forgetting very quickly...; the fact is that each one of the manifestations of that Unit, of that Big Bang... lost the reference of that integrated moment and... and each being was integrated in its own moment.
And practically each being was conceptualized in its own person.
Was that the idea of Creation? Under any optics.
The Sense of Prayer shows us how, in the majority of the majority of cases, human beings have integrated the criterion of Unity -the unit of origin-, in their unity, in their particularity, in what is usually said "Mine", in what is usually said "I’m just like that ", in what is usually said "is my problem" or ... "it's not my problem", referring to others.
Surely, the Creator’s aims -and it is not difficult to imagine; it is not difficult to imagine- was to preserve, fundamentally, the original unitary sense, while, simultaneously, each expression of being was original.
But no. The unitary idea was eclipsed. It's the same thing -to understand it immediately- it's the same as if... -as it happened, but it continues to happen in people- if I ignore the movement of translation of the planet around the sun; it's as if I ignore the light!; it is as if I ignore that I am a creative necessity, but referenced "with"; it's as if I was only aware of the rotation of my planet on the axis itself, nothing more. Nothing else.
From there to egotism, to selfishness, to... There is no translation, there is hegemony of being. And each one contemplates and shows himself, ignoring -in most of the majority of the majority of the cases- the situation, the reference... not of the others! -no-, but of his Primal Origin.
And almost, almost -or without "almost"- it turns out that each being considers himself a personal heritage of Creation.
It's like the one who defines as coming from Villajoyosa, and when he is told:
.- Well, but that is in Europe, isn’t?
.- No no no. I am from Villajoyosa.
.- Yeah, but… that's Europe, right?
.- No. No, no. I am from Villajoyosa.
.- But let's see. Do you know what Europe is?
- Yes, yes, Europe. So what? I am from Villajoyosa.
.- Let me ask you again. But Villajoyosa is in Europe, so then you are from Europe.
.- No. I am from Villajoyosa.
.- Ok. Ok, Ok.
And so on, we can put endless examples that justify each being by its inheritance, by its surname, by its coexistence, by its environment, by its family, etc., etc., etc.
It turns out that, shortly after going back over -of calculation- each being, we finally end up being all brothers and inbred. Of course! It does not take a great effort of understanding to see it.
This "exclusivism" -because it is excluded from its original source- makes the being lose his cognitive capacity, really; his consciousness of communion, his consciousness of universalization. No! He only sees "his"... Every man for himself.
Yes. And if we come together, it is for everyone to have his or her own.
Yes. "Union is strength", but... above all, what interests me is the strength that I can have.
This attitude of species, at this time of the century, undoubtedly does not... does not create an alliance, nor communion, nor confabulation... Sharing, not really, because what is apparently shared is because of the benefit that each one can obtain.Bad news travel fast, and good news are slow to arrive. Incredible, right?
The good ones each one reserves them for themselves, and shares the bad ones the more the better... so that all are disturbed, and moved. And if a better moment comes,... I better enjoy it alone.
Yes. It is said... in anthropology, in the Human science, that the human being is a "social" being. Today we could say that the human being is a sociopathic being.
Yes; the original version -right?- is: "Yes, it is a social being. But... -it could be said to lighten it up- but life converted that social being, good, generous, kind, beautiful, cheerful, playful... turned him into a sociopath".
It could also be said, cheerfully: "in a blooper". But the sociopath is something more worrying.
He has a certain tendency to disturb the social and create discomfort, in order to have a personal interest, develop a personal capacity and, above all, claim attention. And, of course, given the circumstances, more attention is claimed for when some… barbarity is done. Or a littlebarbarity –not to say barbarity because it sounds like an exaggeration-. A little barbarity, ok?. But one does not trust enough in the good, in the virtuous... no! It does not seem that it attracts attention.
Experiments have been made some time ago -and they have not been repeated, of course- in which there were newspapers that only published good news –there are-. It was a failure. Except for the curiosity at the beginning, then it stopped being interesting. One was more interested in what Tongo did to Borondongo, or what Borondongo did to Bernabé, or that Bernabé hit Buchilanga, or that Buchilanga was hammering his feet. There was more interest in that.
There is a tendency to draw attention, and the most obvious way is creating a disturbance.
Prisons and psychiatrics are full of people who started their sociopathy in that way.
And, undoubtedly, the fact of looking oneself only centripetal, and not seeing the centrifugal aspect, which is what really exists, creates an atmosphere of permanent hostility... ignorance... lack of knowledge... personal importance... loss of respect... and more and more.
The simple neurolinguistic reference –right?- of: "me and the others".
Others? That is, the leftovers.
.- We do this and this...
.- And the others"? The leftovers, what do we do with them? Do we give them sunflowers seeds, candies, chewing gum, chocolates, ice cream? What do we give to the "others"?
It would be convenient to correct that expression, and perhaps it would help us -when we are in the community sense- in, without ignoring the function of each one, that simultaneously each one is pending, "interpedently" -a concept that we want to develop again and again-... 'interpedently' of all other things. And that does not suppose any special effort! The special effort -and each one must realize, if we want to amplify our consciousness, if we want to be a cognitive being-, the special effort is the invagination of ourselves! That does require a special effort!
Opening up to discover oneself as a unit... in communion with everything created does not require any effort!! It is evident that we need light, it is evident that we need the plants, that we need the animals that we need the beings of our species! ... It is evident. I do not need to make any effort!
Instead, I need to make a huge effort to isolate myself from the plant, from the place, the inhabitants, the ideas, the proposals... I need a great effort!
It requires a great effort to learn anything, when the subject will learn for himself. But when you share a good, bread, you share it... and we all eat bread!
And, yes, one thinks, just the opposite! "Ah! If I have to take care of... ". You don’t have to take care! Do not project yourself into your personal egomania, into the domain of the environment! No! Feel the surroundings! Be interdepending of everything, because you need everything!
And we need everything because we are integrated beings, although apparently each one lives in his house, in his cell, in his attic, in his subway or in his bus.
Is it that the air that breathes is...? Do you have a special respirator for you? Do you have a special air for you, or is there an air available for everyone? One!
Do you have special water for you? Of course! You will particularize your water and try to make it independent and make it important unlike others... That requires an effort, huh? It is going against the evident.
On the other hand, if there is water, there is a well, there is a spring of water that we all enjoy...
Well, no. Still -incredibly- it has not been achieved, on a universal level, to assume in human consciousness that water is everyone's good. No.
Water is a good yes, but it is not a good of all; each one has its own.
And so we could put other scary examples.
The Prayerful Sense claims to us... claims out for us to stop being nails, nails against other, and slaves of us! -of ourselves-. Because when a being makes invagination, it 'introspects' itself, and ignores its sociability and becomes sociopathability, enslaves itself!... and considers that all are slaves. It becomes a nail of martyrdom! It becomes a crucifixion nail!...
The good carpenter does not admit nails. The good carpenter fits the pieces. It synchronizes between what stands out and the hollowness. The good cabinetmaker does not need glue. He needs adjustments. He aspires to communion without ironwork... without clasp... with beauty...
But, of course, the comfort of the nail, the wonder of the hammer...
If you then put a sickle to silence those who think differently, we have the most significant inventions.
More significant to describe the attitude of being... in the present: even the verses hit!
The turning towards oneself leads to a separation, to individualization, to solitude...
To the preamble of a sadness and anger at the same time... that... between the sadness, the rage and the solitary argument, the being repels itself. At first he blames himself, and then splashes and blames others.
Knowing that this trajectory, gained with great effort, is not... it is not an expression of Eternal Life; it is not an expression of Immortal Life. It is the expression of a terminal, executioner, and imposing life; that has things so clear, that he does not hear anything else. And that clarity gives him grounds to criticize, condemn, impose...
It is truly incredible the destructive effect that is capable of generating a single human being. It's as if it collected all the primal strength... and made it explode. And what was destined to socialize, to balance, to share, to conjugate... becomes -each particle- in another new Big Bang... and fires and fires indefinitely.
It seems that each one wants to be the Creator, the Creative Force. Deep down, each one feels that one was born by oneself; that has been generated and established by him. And he does not understand how "the rest" and "the others" do not obey him, do not pay attention to him, do not applaud him, do not...
One day we prayed under the saying "I am not from me"... Not being of me, I do not belong to myself and I am not the central nucleus on which everything else revolves.
You could remember it.
And when we realize what that unity of origin has become: in a sequestration of expressions of that Origin, we have to free our own kidnapping and make it a participant in consciousness. And so our consciousness will advance.
To make our consciousness participant, of our permanent manifestation-origin.
Our presence, as representative of that Unit; endowed with resources to bear witness to it.
And discover the mission of each being, but framed - without any doubt- in the Unity of Existence.