Part 5. The BOOK of the books

31. The brain studies of Penfield

I stumbled into Penfield in a book of transaction analysis sometimes in 1980’s. The example I take from him, was very important for my road.

He was operating the patient in local anesthesia, the patient was awake. The skull was opened. He irritated one spot after another with electrode. The patient told every time a new memory. In the memory was always two things: the thing that happened and the feeling he had during it.

Penfield wrote, that the patient woke up like in surprise to the reality. To Penfield the main thing was, that the memory included two things like in a stereo tape, there was two tracks.

For me the main thing was, that the patient woke up from the memory and was surprised, that he was on the operation table. The feeling of the past has filled his mind completely. He was living fully the past memory and feeling the past feelings as they were happening just now. What does it mean in the ordinary every day life?

Some unconscious irritation makes us behave now and we use the past memories. As the patient did, we don’t wake up and see, that we are living the past feelings. We are sure, that we are living it just now. I believe in the findings of Penfield and I say, that when we do the thing I just told, we are looking at the same, old movie. So we don’t have to have many different feeling. We have only few feeling, bad and good and we use them again and again.

So we don’t live, we only waste our time. Imagine, that life is like an old fashion movie negative. There are lots of individual frames. Fill the frames! You felt good or bad. The frames are filled. There goes 20 frames filled with bad feelings and 50 frames filled with good feelings.

Try to fill also those frames, when you totally lost the sense of time and place and was living Now, Now, Now…  I guess, that there are only few frames of the later category. I leave it to you to think what it means. But as you see, the Now is once again in the spot light.

Here is the answer, if you didn’t get it: When a person is feeling something, he is not living Now!”

In short: In our brains there are memories, which we don’t recall. They influence our life. We meet an unconscious irritation and it leads into action. Penfield irritated the brains with electricity. We meet other kind of irritation, but they work the same way. We loose the place and the time in an other meaning than in Absolute High Experience and we think that the action is a new one. But we play again and again the same show. We look like an new movie and don’t understand, that we are seen the repetition, an old story.

 

32. How the transaction analysis gave me the first climbs of the sameness of the people

In the right time frame this chapter would be in the first section. I have left it here, because the reader have possible now more understanding and he or she can Perceive things. He or she may even think, that the behavior of people is far more similar than different.

I taught transaction analysis in late 1980’s, when I was teaching the psychology of marketing in the tourism classes. In a way it was first step into direction of psychology. I had never learned it at school or at the university. Now I was interested in knowing why I was so insufficient for myself. The other reason was to find material to teach. Transaction analysis served the both purposes.

In transaction analysis (TRA) there is no bigger emphasize of the sameness of the behavior of the people. But when you look a little closer, you see that they are not taking about anything else than that. The theories are suit for everybody. They suit very well for the first step into the understanding the human behavior This comes through especially in the roles people play (parent, adult, child) and in the attitudes of life (I’m not OK vs. You are OK, I’m OK vs. You are not OK, I’m not OK vs. You are not OK, I’m OK vs. You are OK).

In TRA it is said, that all the people make a decision in sometimes in their life about themselves and it is governing their life ever since. (I think it is made sometimes after the me is born.) Everybody makes first a decision, that - I’m not OK! - You are OK! This can last for life or it can change automatically to the bad direction or it can change to the good direction with the decision of the person. I think that in the decision is reflected the personality of the decision maker. He is a small child. Who is a lot smaller than the parents and doesn’t understand things as the parents does. So it is natural, that the decision of the life is ”I’m not OK - You are OK!”

This decision can change to the bad direction, if the child is treated badly. The bad decisions are - I’m not OK! - You are not OK! or I’m OK! - You are not OK! I am not interested in them.

The attitude of life - I’m not OK! - You are OK! - is the decision of an healthy person. If we drop away all the sick ones, then in the book was said, that over 90% of the healthy persons have the former decision guiding their life.

Consider for a minute, what means, when you say unconsciously, that I’m not OK! - You are OK! and remember that most of the people have this thought about themselves and others.

To me it means the same, if you would say - I'm not good! - You are good! Imagine, that you meet a person, who has this attitude against you and you have the same attitude against him. You think you are not enough. Your partner in transaction thinks he is not enough. But you both think unconsciously, that the other one is enough for himself or is good or is OK. There is something wrong in this picture.

Whom do you know better yourself or the other person? I think that the decision of the life, the attitude of life comes, from the right decision of who I’m and from the wrong decision about who the other person is. So in a way the bad decision - I’m not OK vs. You are not OK - is right, if you change it a little bit. It could be, that I’m not enough for myself vs. And I know that you are feeling the same way.

Why is it not so? Because we simply have a wrong view from the other people. We kind of believe, that they have reach the destiny, that we are still looking for. They are happy. I’m not. Only I am unhappy.

The attitude of life in TRA is the same, than my version - ”I am already good, but I want to be better!” Inside that decision is a person, who think’s that he is not good enough. Or you could also say, that I am insufficient for myself and the other person is sufficient for himself.

According to the TRA people have a chance. They can change consciously their basic attitude. They can change it into ”I’m OK - You are OK”! They don’t tell in TRA, how it is done. They only say, that it is a conscious decision. Does it go like this: ”I have this attitude and now I change it, because the first attitude is not good!”

How do you change a unconscious attitude? You don’t know what you have and that you have it. So before anything happens, you have to be conscious about your behavior and the attitudes. And it is the most difficult thing to do in one’s life.

I you change your attitudes in the operation system of thoughts, you change bad into worse. What I mean, is that the new attitude is as bad as the former one. The only way to change you attitude to the ”I’m OK - You are OK”! is that you destroy all the attitudes by seeing through them by Know Absolutely Yourself. Then disappears the dichotomy between you and me. We are one. Then I Absolutely Love myself and I Absolutely Love my neighbor. So it is not enough to understand the thing. It has to become into flesh, to your Life.

The second major theory in TRA is the roles - Parent (P), Adult (A) and Child (C). In most simple way it means, that you unconsciously go into different roles in a flash. And the role is total. Everything comes from the role: the action, the body language, the words, the mimics, and so on. You don’t play the role, the role plays with you.

Imagine yourself as a typical Parent. A parent has authority over others. He is bigger and more powerful. He is teaching, guiding, taking care or then he is punishing or complaining. In what occupations the person is likely to live his or hers life mainly in the role of Parent? Police, teacher. priest, officer. They may even like to live their life so. Or it can be so, that in those occupations they meat most often the other persons, in the opposite role, in the role of a Child. You are driving a car. A policeman stops you. You have not done anything bad. But the policeman meets you in the role of a Child. ”What have I done!” ”I am so small and stupid!” ”If I drove to fast, it was an accident, it doesn’t happen again!” Does it sound familiar? The persons in those occupations have a certain kind of authority over other people. So they are doomed to play the role of Parent.

So the role of Parent is caring, teaching and guiding and when the other side of the parent comes to play it is punishing, judging and condemning. When a person is in the role of Child, he is small and stupid. You can almost see the size of the person decreasing. He can also be in the role of Child playful and innocent. He is yielding. The person acts and feels according the role. And you have better to believe, that he is not acting. He is living the role.

You can easily play those roles with someone. Make a screen and build the first line and act. It is easy, try it! But keep in you mind, that when you are living the real situation, you don’t play it consciously.

How does to role begins? You remember the tree levels - irritation, person, action. You remember, that most of the irritations are unconscious. You cannot say, what it was, but you see the reactions.  The reactions tells what has happened. Now with the roles of Parent or Child, it is the same. You got some outside irritation and you react by taking a role.

Some people have their favorite roles. And they play them a lot - ”The Games we Play”. And like the game or the play it continues, if other person keeps on playing his role. So the Parent has to have as opposite the Child. Or it is also possible that two Parents are talking to each other. Then they are complaining and speaking from some third person or mater. ”It is horrible… ! Yes, it is!”

The role of Adult is interesting. Like the attitude - I’m OK - You are OK - the people like to think that they are Adults. That is because, the Adult is the good person. He is realistic. He is asking questions. He is not transferring any feelings. He is cool.

But my few is also in this respect, that the real Adult comes, when a person Knows Absolutely Oneself. In other wise, the Adult is a person, that doesn’t play any roles or games. He is asking questions and answering directly and sincerely. He is kind of strait. I would say, that he is quite a dry and colorless person. There could begin a big fight, if he meats the Parent, who is upset and doesn’t find Child to play with.

A story from the ferry: My wife is working in a ferry. She is the restaurant manager. Once there was a drunken passenger on board. Someone in the restaurant had done some bad things to him. That was a fact. He went to complain at first to the head waiter. She couldn't soften the feelings. Then he wanted to see the restaurant manager. My wife was behaving reasonable. She was in the role of Adult. The client was in the role of punishing Parent or in the role of hurt Child, what ever it doesn’t mater. During their talks it game clear, that the man was and my had been a teacher in a school of tourism. They both had an academic degrees. They had much common.

My wife couldn’t do anything to calm down the customer. The situation cleared only when the friend of the customer had had enough and took him away from the situation.

My wife was very upset, when he came home after few days. She kind of asked me, what could she have done differently.

I asked her, what is the strategy of the firm in that kind of situation. And it came clear, that my wife’s tactic was correct. It followed the strategy of the firm. Be calm and try to explain to yourself, what has happened and correct it. In short the strategy of the firm was:”Be Adult!”

She followed the strategy in her tactics, but it was wrong. She was not wrong. The strategy of the firm was wrong and it was not her responsibility. What she should have done? She should have been in the opposite role to her client. If he was Parent, she should have been Child and yield on every subject. If he was Child, she should have been a tender Parent. So a reasonable Adult made thing worse. The client may have been thinking, that my wife only wants to be right. So she made him wrong.

My wife’s reactions were right, because she followed the line the strategy given to her. Now the strategy of the ferry line is changed. The most important thing is to silence the case as quickly as possible. And that means to yield as far as it takes.

The story goes on... At first the client may have been the hurt Child. Then he become the punishing Parent, who wanted to straighten the things. 

The story ends: The teacher, who had an academic background and was drunk, burned totally his sleeves. He belonged to a group and even them couldn’t do at first anything to calm him down. And he made on official complain.

In short: The transaction analysis made me the first time to think, that the behavior of the people is the same. I think that to the builders of the transaction analysis this theory or thought didn’t seem very important. The same is with the "Neuro Linguistic Programming". All their stories are the story of the sameness of the behavior of the people, but they don’t mention it. They also tell much about the unconsciousness of the behavior The main goal of the programming seems to be to sell the product and that’s why the making of the winner is the main message. So the programming is helping the people to climb even higher.

So you see, that in theory of TRA the people are all the same. They are behaving the same way. To my vocabulary game then a new word, that had a broad influence, the transaction.

 

33. A short story about my life

I believed unconsciously, that the biggest thing in life was to ”know thyself”.The people in my religion think, that the Buddhists are pagans the Buddhism is a pagan religion. It seemed strange, because there is a very strong indicator, that their religion is based on”know thyself”. There is also saying, that there is A Big Death, that is different from the physical death. I think that they are referring with that big one to the death of me, self.

So I Perceived a long time ago on my road, that the Buddhism is Universal Religion and it’s origin was from the God. At the same time I had my doubts about the origin of my religion the Christianity.

The story goes on...  I was shown two Heavenly Dreams in late 80’s. The feeling with the Dreams was enormously good. In the first dream I was told, how I was on the right track with my thoughts and writings, but how I should make some additions. They showed me, how my thoughts went together with the teachings of Jesus.

I was at that time a educated pagan. I didn’t deny the God, but it was not very far. Our religion had not given me a thing. And the believers were a pain in the back. And most of all they were not for my ideal persons. They were the models for the intolerant people. So not very nice people.

The story goes on.... I took the bible into my hands. My working hypotheses was: If the Christianity is a Universal Religion, there has to be the words ”Know Thyself” in the central part, where they are telling how I find the Goal of the religion. Because to me that would be the main teaching of the religion.

Because of my first Dream the main point in reading would be the Teachings of Jesus, I started to read those words. I thought, that, if the ”Know Thyself” command is somewhere, it should be there. I doubted, that I wouldn’t find that kind of saying. I had never heard, that the main point in salvation would be ”Know Thyself!”. Have you?

The story goes on... Before I found the things I was looking for, I experienced ghostly feelings. I felt enjoyment. I felt good. Only bother to me was, that I started to explain the text differently. My interpretation were far from the correct ones I had heard. I knew something about studies of the bible. I knew, that it was done by the very educated persons. And only they seemed to have the right to do that, with the blessing of the church. All the other interpreters are either heretics or false prophets or that kind of evil persons.

If you want to read all my interpretations, you have to wait till I translate them. But the main point was, that I found out from the right place the word, that made for me the Christianity the Universal and Absolute Religion.

The key is last part of the Commands of Love: Love thy neighbor. as you love thyself. There it is. the command to ”Know Thyself!” You cannot love thyself, if you don’t know who you are. First you Know Yourself and then you Love thyself and thy neighbor. and finally the God.

I met a man, who had been studying to became a priest. He told me, that there are four Greek words in the Bible for the word love.

         1. Agabe = Absolute Love
         2. storge = love your family members
         3. fiilea = love between friends
         4. eros = and sexual love.

What word do you think is been used in the Commands of Love? Of course the word Agabe. I wondered once, how much time would I have been saving, if I had known that. Possible not at all. I had to Perceive it myself. 

So the right form of the Commands of Love is:

         1. Love Absolutely the God…
         2. Love Absolutely thy  neighbor. as you Love Absolutely yourself.

Now we are very near the solution. How can you Love Absolutely yourself? I think, that is the main point. Loving Absolutely the God is of course a big thing, but how to Love the Object, that is unknown to the thoughts? Let’s forget that question for awhile.

So my main Perception was, that a person cannot Love oneself, if he doesn’t know himself. And better still you have to Know Absolutely Yourself.

That was a big relief! The believers talk always that the person is saved by the grace of God. The interpretation seems to be, that a human being cannot do anything. The salvation is given to him. Now I had reached a Perception, that a human being can do something to reach the Goal himself. All is so not just given. (I have to say, that I Perceive, that a human being has to do something - to Know Absolutely Himself - and then come the grace of God.)

If I except this kind of thought, then the order of the human deed was clear. And the Command of Love should be like this:

”When you Know Absolutely Yourself, you automatically Love Absolutely Yourself, and at the same time you Love automatically your neighbor. (because the difference between you and me disappears) and then you Love automatically it All, the God.”

The Loving of thy neighbor. and the God is indirect. By Loving Absolutely Yourself you Love Everything in your surrounding, the universe and you Love God.

This is the most important thing in reaching the Final Goal in a Universal religion. If you want more insurance, think about the words Jesus said. His main message was, ”I didn’t come to destroy, what was said in the past, the law or the ten commands. I come to add something. You have to Love Absolutely!

That was all Jesus was saying and teaching. That was the message. ”Love Absolutely Yourself!”

Story about the Feeling I had, when I was reading the New Testament; Matthew, Mark and Luke. I had a feeling of Goodness. I cannot explain the Feeling. I was in Enjoyment.

One thing may interest you. When I was reading about the philosophers, I knew what they were feeling in certain points. How they were exited or how they were frustrated or sad. Spinoza was in one point jumping with joy, when he Perceived the Absolute Good. He was very sharp in his words until that point. Then he started like mumbling. The same feelings I had, when I was reading Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard. I also sensed their desperation, when they had to show the Light and be nonsense persons.

Back to the religion. When a person Knows Absolutely Himself and automatically Loves Absolutely Himself, he is the person whom we met in the Total Creativity. He is a childlike person. He is in the Final Goal of the Universal Religions. In more simple way he is in Heaven while living here and now, in the place called Now, Now, Now…

Luke 17:20 ”you cannot see with your eyes the Kingdom of God”.
Luke 17:21 ”you cannot say that It is here or there, it is inside you”.

In the Gospel of Thomas there are this kind of words of Jesus in part 3.
- Jesus said: ”If your leader says to you: ”Look the Kingdom (of Father) is in heaven, then the birds are already there. If he says, that the Kingdom is in the sea, then the fishes are already there before you. The Kingdom of Father is inside you and it is also outside you.”

So the Final Goal is reached in life wile living and it has many name. I think the only way to say exactly were the Heaven is, is to say, that it is in the place called, Now, Now, Now…

 

34. A friend talked and said, that we should be humble

A friend talked once about being humble. I was not sure did he mean, that he should be humble or that I should be humble. Perhaps he meant the both. I said, that I think that it is more important to be tolerant than humble. In a way the subject was in my mind unanswered. I forget it, until…

I thought, that for me it is very difficult to be humble. If I am that, I lie or pretend. I have a Perception, that I Know it All and I Know Absolutely Myself. If I talk about the subjects, that come into my mind with the Knowledge, I easily hurt other people or they think that I am a very selfish or proud person.

My choice is it to be honest  - ”I Know it All and this is what I Perceive!” I an not humble in the normal meaning - ”Excuse me, I really don’t know anything!”

Because of the difficulty of being humble, I have included into my evening pray two things. I thank God, that He has told me about the Love and about being Humble. I also pray, that I could follow them in my life.

I had a feeling, that the word humble and tolerant are far from each other. To be humble means to me, that a person is degrading himself. He is less than the other person. (I’m not OK vs. You are OK!”) I think that it is more a talk than a deed or the way a person lives his life. The deeds and thoughts are again different. What is true? This thought brought another thought into my mind.

A story, about two groups of student that were intolerant - the religious people and the communists and the greens of our time: The story starts again in the old way. I had a problem to solve. I had a bad feeling, but didn’t have the answer.

The problem was not with the believers nor with the communists, but with the greens. My life style is near the greens. But somehow I didn’t find them good. Something was not right.  

The story goes on... When I was studying at the university of Tampere in 1970’s and we were living in a house were there was much student families. The student did much together. Only two groups were separate from the crowd, the communists and the religious people. I thought, that they have one common nominator. They are intolerant to others.

The story goes on .... We moved to Savonlinna and a new group appeared to the horizon, the greens. I am a kind of evergreen myself. But I couldn’t be allied with them. Then I had a Perception. The only reason the green are existing is, that they are against. So they are intolerant. If the things against what they are wouldn’t exist, there wouldn’t be the greens.

They are very much like the youngsters in every generation. They are against the old generation, their parents. You want to change things for better by being against them. There is again the problem of new wine and the old container.

If you want to change the things in the human society, you have to understand, what the development really is. The greens to me are against the negative impacts of the development. So without development, they wouldn’t have nothing to be against with. And to be against the development, is to be against the basic nature of human beings.

So the greens are like those two groups in Tampere.

Addition 02062002: In the theme of humbleness was something still missing. I felt, that the humbleness was an important subject, but I didn’t get the point. 

Who has to be humble? Do all the people have to be humble? The solution came, when I asked from myself a question: ”To whom it is the most difficult to be humble?” If a ordinary person is not enough for himself, he tries the most to be more and better. If he then is more and better, what he does? Of cause he shows it, that he is now better and has more. Why should he be humble? It is unnatural.

On the other way, his main attitude in life is  - ”I am not OK vs. You are OK!” If the attitude is shown in his life, it would be easy to be humble. ”I am not good, but you are! But the most remarkable thing is, that the ordinary person is not feeling so. He has the opposite feeling. And the guide is, I want to be better, than the next person. So he is unconsciously saying: ”I am already good, but I want to be better!” He is proud even, if he is suffering unconsciously inside.

Imagine a poor man. Is it natural to demand him to be humble? No it is insane to demand him to show to all, that he isn’t anything and he is humble. In another way to say, he is already humble, because he isn’t and he hasn’t anything be be proud of. So we demand only the person, who has a lot of money and who own much or has skills and knowledge, to be humble. It is Ok to be and have much, but it is not Ok to show it. That is to me to be humble.

What about the person who Knows Absolutely Himself and because of that, Knows Everything. I think it is almost impossible for him to be humble or behave accordingly. Well the person, who Knows Absolutely Himself, know what is important, the behavior of the people. And he Knows about it Everything there is to know. What he does with the knowledge? He show it to other people. What the other people think about him? Before they dome him insane, they say, that he likes to be better than other people.

In the later chapter (45. ”Not until Thomas explained the Light correctly”). I tell you about the Light. Now I can tell you, that it seems, that when a person Knows Absolutely Himself, he gets the Light or the Force. And his duty is to show the Light not put it under the basket. The most difficult thing for him is to throw himself to the mercy of the people and show the folly to them.

The command to be humble is like the parable of the Light. They are not made to the ordinary person, but for the person, who Knows Absolutely Himself. For him it is the most difficult to be humble and to show the Light.

When the real humbleness is, there is not a question about
         - the feeling superior to other or undermining oneself,
         - there is not anymore winning or loosing and most of all
         - pride is not anymore opposite to humbleness.

In short: It is not enough to understand this things, you have to make them your life. They are not outside you, you live them in your everyday life.

In short: The opposite to humble is proud. There is again a pair of words. As you remember usually the ideal is the good word. I cannot find any other word from the negative side than humble. It is insane to demand a person to be Humble, when he is in the operation system of the thoughts. He feels that he is ”good but not good enough”. He has to develop himself. He has to be proud.

So the demand to be Humble is for the person who Knows Absolutely Himself. How to be Humble, when you Know it All.

In the Bible there are many words, that are not for the ordinary person to follow. They tell what kind of person is the person who Knows Himself.  Take for instance the 10 commands. An ordinary person cannot follow them because he brakes against them in his thought even if he doesn’t do the bad things. And for the person who Knows Absolutely Himself they are also useless, because he follow them both in deeds and thoughts.

 

35. Why men rise from the trenches and start to run against the machine guns?

This could explain the impossibility of people to meat certain things and to change. It is good to keep in mind, that this is not the major obstacle.

I had wondered a long time about a certain thing. The men are in a war and they rise from the trenches when the order comes and start to run against the enemy fire.  Why they do that? Are they not afraid, that they dying? Are they exceptionally brave. Or are they doing things, because they are cowards.  

Let’s take first the example from the stopping of the smoking. The biggest danger in smoking is that you get the cancer and die. It doesn’t scare people.

The dying has a low possibility in the minds of the people. Many people don’t get the cancer. So this case has a big consequence but low probability. If I stop smoking, I can be 100% sure, that it is uncomfortable. It is the small things with the high - 100% - probability. This last cases are governing the life of human beings. So the small annoyance drives past the big danger. Same is with the driving a car and with the skiing. But I think you understand the point better with the example of the smoking.

Addition: I have been smoking over 40 years. I have stopped many times the and never have I noticed any addictions. When I have started again the smoking, the question has always been the lazy mind. My mind has lured me into smoking.

This opened the question about the solders. They are not brave. If you rise from the trenches and start running against the enemy fire, I can die, but many have survived such situation. There is then a probability to take into account.

If I stay and the others run, what happens. Certainly I have not friends anymore. I am alone. It is certain (100%) and it is a small thing compared to the death. That’s why they did and do in the war, what they have always done.

The same explanation could be in use, when we want to know why the Jews didn’t put a fight, when they were taken into the concentration camps. If they bullied, their were dead (100%). But if they didn’t, they thought that there could be a possibility.

This model is true in many everyday events. It’s better to keep on doing an old thing even it isn’t fun, than to try something new and uncertain.

In short: The big danger doesn’t scare people, when there is probability to take into account. Instead the small danger or discomfort, that surely happens is more scary and governs the actions.

 

36. Now it is time to say few warning words

You cannot back up, if you have Awakened by Jumping willingly through the Border into the System of Perception or of None Thinking. The world will change and it will stay changed forever.

There is a long way still to the Knowing Absolutely Oneself. In there you Perceive the Force or the Power or the Light or what the Holy Ghost really is.
When you have gone over the Border and are far enough to the direction of Knowing Thyself, you see that everything is different as you saw it though your thoughts. Your experience the end of the world for yourself. The world as you thought it to be ends.

In the Bible there is talk about the repentance. For a very famous Finnish author that word was a pain in his behind.  And how he finally discovered the answer is worth to tell.

He told in a book, that he had an unearthly happy feeling, when he found the answer to the question, what really meant the command ”Make a repentance!”. Originally the word in Greek. Here is how Mika Waltari told the story:

"It was very liberating, when I awhile ago was reading what it really means, when a person is doing the repentance. The word is one of the most important words in the New Testament. I have always hated that word, because I know myself and that I am just a weak human being and I’m not capable to repentance. I read, that the Greek word has been wrongly translated. The real word means ”to learn to think in a new way” or ”to turn to new direction” or ”to be renewed”. I felt free. The repentance meant now the change of ones mind or the learning to think in a new way.” Waltari, Mika, Ihmisen ääniä. Porvoo 1978, pp. 196 -197

As you see, Mika Waltari didn’t get it right. There isn’t any new way to think. There is only one way to think. You use your memories and project them into the future. That is the thinking and the only way to think. The ’new way to think’ is to Perceive. So you are either thinking or none thinking.  

There is only one way to Perceive and it is the way the karate people do it, when they are mentally in the Final Goal. They are Attention, Attention, Attention…

A Story: In an old book there was a story about a ordinary man and a Guru. The man went to see the Guru. The man asked, how can I solve the problem of life. The Guru took a stick and draw into the sand a word - Attention. The man wanted to know more. And once again the Guru draw the same word. The man got angry and he wanted to know it more precisely. The Guru draw the third time the word Attention.

It is enough. You can See it, when you are in the Right Operation System.

 

 

The BOOL of the books Part 6.