I see that you posted a long response before I had the chance to reply to your previous question. Instead of chasing every new point, I’m going to stay focused on the original issues I raised.
You asked and I quote:
[And What is Your point of this point of what this sounds like? . . . . .]
You asked what my point was when I said your post sounded like someone telling people to turn their life over to Jesus. The point is simple: the structure of what you said is identical to religious rhetoric, even if the names are different.
You said people must save their soul by tying into the Master Teacher before it’s too late. Now in your reply you go even further and say people need to turn their life over to Paa Paiut and that no one reaches The All except through Wu-Sabat delivered by the Master Teacher.
So let’s stop pretending this is something fundamentally different from religion. The formula is exactly the same:
Human beings are under a spiritual problem → pain wakes them up → salvation comes through a specific figure → knowledge comes through the teacher.
Changing the names from “Jesus” to “Wu-Sabat” and from “God” to “Paa Paiut” does not magically change the structure of the message. It is still the same salvation narrative, just with different terminology.
Now if you want to argue that there is a meaningful difference, then explain the difference clearly. What specifically makes this something other than the religious structure it mirrors?
Because simply asserting that people must turn their life over to The All through Wu-Sabat delivered by the Master Teacher is not reasoning. That is a declaration of belief.
And if we are going to claim that we deal with sound right reasoning and actual facts, then those claims should be able to withstand questioning instead of being treated as untouchable statements.
So again, the point of my comment was not random opinion. It was pointing out that the language you used follows the same salvation framework that religions use. If you believe there is a meaningful distinction, then the reasoning behind that distinction should be explained rather than assumed.
HOW WE IDENTIFY WITH OURSELVES
It appears to me that we have aimed to restore historical dignity for ourselves because we feel disconnected from our ancestry. Do we refer to ourselves as Christians, Muslims or practitioners of Animism? As a reformer, the master teacher came to set the record straight, dealing with religious movements and how innovation disconnected everyone, so that he could deliver what he has to offer - information that was initially rejected because the mentality of his people spent their attention on religious ways and references.
ADDRESSING YOUR PAIN CONCEPT FOR AWAKENING INTO THE "NOW" VIA WU-SABAT AND BREAKING THE SPELL
It appears to me that you are implying pain as the primary trigger that leads them toward breaking the spell, even though you stated, "Pain is one thing . . . . ." Was Pain your pathway Amun Em Hatap?
The next step in your explanation is a BELIEF step and not a Sound, Right, Reasoning step. You assume that the pain will cause the seeker to arrive at Wu-Sabat. That is not logically necessary. You jump from pain to Wu-Sabat without demonstrating why.
I asked you what you meant by changing routines and you said, QUOTE: “I didn't have anything in mind until you asked.” This shows how you just made a broad statement first and then constructed reasoning afterward. This means the original statement was not grounded in a specific concept when written.
Changing a driving route and doing one or two things similar to this, does not necessarily change consciousness or awareness. I have expressed before in this group that breaking the spell is about abandoning the use of dominant narratives that do not serve us well. It is clear to me that it would be better to focus on intentional awareness, not random routine changes.
The way I would say what you are trying to say is,
"Habitual behavior can cause people to operate on mental autopilot.
Introducing small deliberate changes in daily behavior such as practicing awareness during routine actions, reflecting on decisions, or interrupting unconscious habits, is what will help increase conscious presence.
But the route-to-work example is weak and superficial.
You presented work schedules, sleep schedules, awakening by alarm, going straight to the bathroom to shower (or showering prior to sleep) and brush their teeth, eating, getting dressed and off to take the child or children to school and then go to work - as if it is not something that is NECESSARY as a repeated structure in the lives of billions of people. Routines are necessary repeated structures of life. A "Habit" is unconscious behaviors inside those routines. This is how we end up reacting emotionally, thinking automatically and avoiding reflection (sense some of us want to talk about being self aware). Meaningful change usually comes from altering habits, not routines.
Not only is the tone intentional as a test, I wrote lengthy as a test as well, to see who can stay focused. I notice when replies get too long, people often ignore the logic and respond emotionally. I have also heard Amun En Hatap say on an audio call that one of my replies was so long that he didn't even care to read it.
Meanwhile, here are the issues I have with your delivery:
1. Referring to the writings of the Master Teacher does not answer my questions. If the reasoning is sound, it should be possible to explain the idea directly rather than redirecting the explanation to authority.
2. Your approach about the TOTAL CONSCIOUS PERSON is dreamy and childish. LOL, Humans just don't operate that way. A large portion of our behavior is handled by automatic processes, habit loops, subconscious pattern recognition and background cognition.
These systems are not flaws. They are necessary for survival. If humans had to consciously reason through every action; walking, speaking, driving, brushing teeth, then we would be mentally exhausted within minutes. If the standard for awakening is total awareness at all times, then no one qualifies and everyone becomes “asleep” by definition. It creates an impossible benchmark.
It keeps followers perpetually striving for an undefined ideal.
3. Let's not forget about the subconscious. The subconscious allows rapid decision-making, learned skills, pattern recognition, emotional processing, such as driving a familiar route, typing, recognizing a face instantly and walking without thinking about every muscle movement. These processes are not hypnosis. They are neurological efficiency. Calling them “mindless slavery” misunderstands how cognition works.
4. You're still talking as if habits can't support awareness. Habits free the mind to focus on higher-level awareness. I'm sure you will agree that the goal is not to just eliminate habits, but to cultivate good habits. A good musician practices until their talent becomes automatic. A martial artist trains movements until they are reflexive. In time an experienced driver learns defensive driving habits that become instinctive. These habits make room for the person to be able to do more. And I would point out that habits and consciousness interact.
5. You claimed that a conscious person’s actions are not habitual. Sounds like a contradiction to me. If someone practices sound reasoning repeatedly, that reasoning becomes habitual. So the very state you are describing would eventually produce habits. In other words, habit and awareness are not necessarily opposites.
Again, humans constantly perform actions without active conscious reasoning. Reading, driving, walking, typing, and speaking all can run partially on automatic processes. So the idea of permanent total awareness becomes unrealistic
6. The way you frame folks as being capable of being hypnotized slaves as if being totally aware removes this situation, is interesting to me.
Being aware of social systems or power structures does not automatically free someone from them. You can have all the Internal Awareness you're capable of having which includes a person understanding their circumstances, but the external power structures that manage the conditions imposed by society does not dissolve external constraints.
7. You stated that reading keeps consciousness in "Now Mind" because it requires concentration. But immediately afterward you explained that people can read while their awareness drifts away and they no longer understand what they are reading. If reading itself produces awareness, how can the same activity simultaneously produce the opposite condition?
Let me say it in a different way, if reading keeps the mind in "Now Mind" because it requires concentration, but people can continue reading while their awareness drifts away and they no longer understand what they are reading and reading can continue after concentration and awareness have already drifted, then reading itself cannot be the mechanism that produces awareness.
Awareness depends on attention, not reading itself. It seems that what you are describing is not a mystical spell but simply loss of attention while reading.
8. And why do I say, "Mystical Spell?" Because the framework of your explanations depend on symbolic language rather than precise definitions. Words like “sleep,” “spell,” “Now Mind,” and “dead mind” are used poetically, but they are not defined clearly enough to support logical analysis. I'm not getting precise reasoning from you.
Plus, based on what you wrote, if I asked you "Can reading produce awareness?" You would say, "Reading produces awareness unless the person is asleep; which means they were not aware; which means they were not practicing Now Mind. Are you trying to say "awareness proves awareness" and "lack of awareness proves sleep?" I can tell you right now that this type of explanation never identifies what actually produces awareness.
If reading itself is a Now Mind practice because it requires concentration, how can someone continue reading when concentration and awareness have already drifted away?
Is it not clear that when you claim the doctrine has special properties, it turns your presentation into religious belief rather than reasoning.
And you have already said things like, "If you are not at 99.9% consciousness, you are “asleep.” Where is the explanation for this? This makes it easy for people to ask questions like, "How consciousness is measured?," "What unit is being measured?," "Who established that threshold?," "How would anyone detect it?"
Without a method of measurement, the number is just invented precision.
I think this is called, "false precision." This when people use a specific number to make a statement appear authoritative. There is no accepted model where consciousness operates as a percentage scale like a battery meter.
9. Here is what you are saying:
1. If you agree with the doctrine, you are awake.
2. If you disagree, you are asleep.
3. If you strongly disagree, you are a dead mind.
You asked several times for me to restate my questions more clearly. I will honor that request and present them again in a direct and structured way so there is no confusion about what is being asked.
However, before restating them, I want to point out that the core issue in this discussion is not that my questions were unclear. The issue is that many of the responses given did not actually address the questions themselves and instead moved into analogies, authority references, or entirely different topics.
For example, when I asked how the ideas you presented about “Now Mind,” breaking the spell, and changing routines connect to saving a soul, the response did not explain that connection. Instead, the answer shifted to an analogy about someone drowning in a swimming pool if they do not know how to swim. That analogy simply illustrates that knowledge can prevent harm. It does not explain how the practices you described relate to saving a soul.
So to remove any possible misunderstanding, I will restate the questions one by one.
First question: What specifically connects the concept of “Now Mind” to the act of saving a soul? In other words, what is the mechanism that links those two ideas? If being present or aware is supposed to preserve or save the soul, then the reasoning behind that connection should be explained clearly.
Second question: When you define the soul as “the decision maker, the breath of the living being, and the creative expression of emotional being,” how is that definition established as fact rather than simply a definition given by the Master Teacher? If we say we operate on Sound Right Reasoning and facts, then the reasoning that establishes that definition should be shown.
Third question: Does a person first have to believe that they possess a soul before the concept of saving it becomes meaningful? Hearing and seeing are sensory experiences that can be directly verified. A soul, however, is not something that can be observed through the senses. So what is the method by which someone knows a soul exists without relying on belief or authority?
Fourth question: You stated that the soul existed before the physical body and continues after the body dies. What reasoning or evidence establishes that statement as knowledge rather than doctrine?
Fifth question: You mentioned that the original Negroid body once had the ability to regrow limbs before DNA mixing altered the body’s functions. That is an extraordinary biological claim. If it is presented as fact, then what reasoning or evidence supports it?
Sixth question: You also stated that physical sperm possesses consciousness and thinks. Since sperm cells do not have brains or nervous systems, what reasoning or evidence supports the idea that they think?
These are not rhetorical questions. They are attempts to understand how the ideas being presented move from statements into demonstrated knowledge.
If the framework we are discussing is based on Sound Right Reasoning and facts rather than belief, then it should be possible to explain these points without relying solely on the authority of the Master Teacher or references to his books.
So I have restated the questions as requested. If there are specific parts that still appear unclear, identify them and I will clarify them further. But simply saying the questions are vague while not addressing the substance of the questions does not move the discussion forward.
My interest here is not argument for the sake of argument. My interest is clarity. If the ideas being presented are grounded in sound reasoning, then they should be able to withstand examination.
Comments
Post a Comment