Seven Words That Can Change the World

[zengrifter]

February 2 2008
Seven Words That Can Change the World:
An Elegant Theory of Universal Transformation



by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Today we have a real gem for NaturalNews readers: A transformational book by Joseph Simonetta, published on this web site and viewable at no charge. The book reveals a simple -- yet profound -- philosophy of global transformation based on seven simple words. What are the seven words? You'll have to read the 22-page book to find out. Get started now at: http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_Seven_Words_0.html

Seven Words That Can Change the World is not for people who are afraid to challenge their current beliefs and philosophical alliances. At the risk of offending a few people on certain sensitive topics, Simonetta lays out a powerful philosophy that marries personal freedom with global abundance while protecting the environment and enhancing personal health. Whether or not you agree with the specific philosophies espoused by Simonetta, his eye-opening book will no doubt cause you to think more deeply about the things you do believe (and why you believe them).

A common thread in Simonetta's book is the importance of both personal freedom and personal responsibility. Rather than taking a centralized, top-down view of shaping people's behaviors and ethics through institutions like the State or the Church, Simonetta prefers a bottom-up approach that seeks to empower individuals with a "big picture" understanding that provides a truly universal context in which personal decisions are innately more productive for the person, the community and the entire universe. While Simonetta is no fan of organized religious institutions, he espouses spirituality nonetheless, and believes that higher spiritual understanding is essential for the forward movement of human civilization. Simonetta, incidentally, holds a Master of Divinity degree from Harvard.

Seven Words That Can Change the World takes you on a journey through the history of the universe (cosmology), the history of humankind, modern economics, modern Democracy, modern religious institutions, and even delves into topic as controversial as why innate behavioral instincts that once enhanced the survival of our individual ancestors now threaten the survival of our very civilization.

MORE- http://www.naturalnews.com/022580.html

[aslan]

As a Christian I see it as, "Love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself." And, "You can't love God if you don't respect His creation."

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by aslan

As a Christian I see it as, "Love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself."

Yes, the highest form of love your (the) Self. All there is. zg

[aslan]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Yes, the highest form of love your (the) Self. All there is. zg

No. But yes to the way I said it. I think it is time to simply agree to disagree.

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Yes, the highest form of love your (the) Self. All there is. zg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s88L0...eature=related

[aslan]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s88L0...eature=related

Beautiful song. She was always one of my favorites.

Selfless love is a higher love than love of self. That's what early Christians demonstrated when they chose being boiled in oil or fed to lions over renouncing their God. Is our difference a matter of semantic confusion?

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by aslan

Selfless love is a higher love than love of self.

Selfless love is love of the Self (eg, 'REAL God'). zg

---------------
Maharshi: Self-enquiry and self-surrender

Main article: Ramana Maharshi
Ramana Maharshi's primary teachings are documented in the book Nan Yar (Who am I), originally written in Tamil (see note at the end of this section about Nan Yar). Given below are selections from the book:

• Since all trace of the 'I' does not exist, alone is Self.
• Self itself is the world; Self itself is 'I'; Self itself is God; all is the Supreme Self (siva swarupam)

Although his primary teaching was Self-Enquiry, he was also known to have advised the use of Self Surrender (to one's Deity or Guru) as an alternative means, which would ultimately converge in to the path of Self-Enquiry.

---------------------
Ken Wilber describes the Witnessing (or Observing) Self in the following terms:

"This observing Self is usually called the Self with a capital S, or the Witness, or pure Presence, or pure Awareness, or Consciousness as such, and this Self as transparent Witness is a direct ray of the living Divine. The ultimate "I AM" is Christ, is Buddha, is Emptiness itself: such is the startling testimony of the world's great mystics and sages." [2] He adds that the Self is not an Emergent, but an aspect present from the start as the basic form of awareness, but which becomes increasingly obvious and self aware "as growth and transcendence matures." As Depth increases, consciousness shines forth more noticeably, until:

"shed[ding] its lesser identification with both the body and the mind ... in each case from matter to body to mind to Spirit... conciousness or the observing Self sheds an exclusive identity with a lesser and shallower dimension, and opens up to deeper and higher and wider occasions, until it opens up to its own ultimate ground in Spirit itself. And the stages of transpersonal growth and development are basically the stages of following this Observing Self to its ultimate abode, which is pure Spirit or pure Emptiness, the ground, path and fruition of the entire display."

[2] In a similar vein, Evelyn Underhill[3] states:

"It is clear that under ordinary conditions, and save for sudden gusts of “Transcendental Feeling” induced by some saving madness such as Religion, Art, or Love, the superficial self knows nothing of the attitude of this silent watcher—this “Dweller in the Innermost”—towards the incoming messages of the external world: nor of the activities which they awake in it. Concentrated on the sense-world, and the messages she receives from it, she knows nothing of the relations which exist between this subject and the unattainable Object of all thought. But by a deliberate inattention to the messages of the senses, such as that which is induced by contemplation, the mystic can bring the ground of the soul, the seat of “Transcendental Feeling,” within the area of consciousness: making it amenable to the activity of the will. Thus becoming unaware of his usual and largely fictitious “external world,” another and more substantial set of perceptions, which never have their chance under normal conditions, rise to the surface. Sometimes these unite with the normal reasoning faculties. More often, they supersede them. Some such exchange, such “losing to find,” appears to be necessary, if man’s transcendental powers are to have their full chance."

xxx

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by aslan

Beautiful song. She was always one of my favorites.

Selfless love is a higher love than love of self. That's what early Christians demonstrated when they chose being boiled in oil or fed to lions over renouncing their God. Is our difference a matter of semantic confusion?

Jesus gave himself, and so did God when he gave his son which was really his self. that's also what the Christians gave. they gave that for which they held the greatest love of all for us which is indeed a selfless act of love a priceless gift indeed. but you don't need to sacrifice your life inorder to experience the greatest love of all that is the beauty of the gift of life.
the differance isn't semantic confusion, the differance is self appreciation or how one values one's self. what it boils down to is who sets your values, who decides what is important to you. who do you respect, follow, allow to make your decisions, value, find meaning in life from, more than your self? who experiences your greatest joy and disappointments. who did Jesus give his life for if not you? if you love something what does anything else matter and why is that? if you know why that is then you know what the greatest love of all is.

[aslan]

I understand and do not understand what he/you are saying at the same time. I understand the spirit self as altogether different than the ego self, the mind and body attached self. I understand the spirit self as the only part of man that transcends his earthly self and the only part of man that can touch the Transcendent One, God, and know Him by that communion of like substances (spirit touching Spirit). Spirit is knowing without learning, seeing without eyes. Spirit is the essence of man's beingness or existential self. It is man devoid of body, mind, and soul, his uniqueness, but not his identity. It is quite nearly, if not, man without his manness. But for a man to be fulfilled, he must have all--mind, body, soul and spirit. That is why Christians believe in the resurrection of the body and not just a graduation to a higher life form. At least this is how I understand it, or fail to do so.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

Jesus gave himself, and so did God when he gave his son which was really his self. that's also what the Christians gave. they gave that for which they held the greatest love of all for us which is indeed a selfless act of love a priceless gift indeed. but you don't need to sacrifice your life inorder to experience the greatest love of all that is the beauty of the gift of life.
the differance isn't semantic confusion, the differance is self appreciation or how one values one's self. what it boils down to is who sets your values, who decides what is important to you. who do you respect, follow, allow to make your decisions, value, find meaning in life from, more than your self? who experiences your greatest joy and disappointments. who did Jesus give his life for if not you? if you love something what does anything else matter and why is that? if you know why that is then you know what the greatest love of all is.

I think I understand what you are saying, and your thoughts are profound. By semantic confusion I was referring to what appeared to be differences between my thoughts and zg's thoughts, which may be more semantics than real differences, although I suspect some real, but perhaps not fatal, differences.