sirguessalot

wow

if there is any such "greatest secret in the world today"

ive rarely seen it put so plain and simple and direct as this:

I see a misunderstanding of death, dead and dieing.

That which is most prominent in the bible,

seems to be the most feared.

Ye shall surely die.

I think that's the idea for the eyes to open.

Cause in that day they shall see.

i cant help but say that this points to what seems to me

to be one of the most common habitual widespread universal underlying historically confusing misunderstandings of the words of the religions

and not only with the sayings of the teachers and teachings and stories of the bible ...but also with many other old old old books

with vast fields of practical meaningful discovery and peacemaking and healing and reconciliation happening on the other side of the interpretive gliche

as absurd or offensive or terrifying or otherwise wrong as this may sound

"die before you die

so that when you die

you will not die"

is the perennial prescription

for the wound of being mortal

that some jews also found

and also keep finding

a "baptism of fire"

to prepare for the "coming of the lord"

not merely supernatural

but even more so ...extra-ordinary

a most natural time to start is in one's early thirties

and its almost never too late or too early to start practicing

perhaps ananias and saphira simply did not die well

in a way that somehow shook up the new community

and caused them to realize something...reform something

perhaps first century jerusalem was not some ancient version of the 60s or 50s twi

more mixed generational...with the majority being in the autumns and winters of life

as if most were not drawn to form around followers of christ because they wanted to suffer

but because they were suffering

and most did not have to become poor

they were already poor

and plenty of "wounded healers"

not in a booming time of luxuries

being so relatively fresh in their mutual awakenings to this new "baptism of fire"

not as some new groovy thing to do...but as medicine for becoming old and dying

maybe they were most likely also rapidly forming new monastic orders and communes

with collective vows of various degrees of non-materialism and service and sanctuary

and its not uncommon or supernatural for lifelong mates and twins to die at or near the same time

or for people who are actively dying while actively resisting for some reason to suddenly die once certain things are resolved

a tad rant as i pass by...

i cant help but agree with the notion that the differences are slight

kinda like taking 2 steps from a corner place

on a 100-step journey

or like rearranging the furniture and decor

without adding any more floors to the structure (or removing them to reset the foundation)

in my post-way studies and experiences with religions, psychologies, histories, lineages, practices, etc...

i find that this new wave of industrial strength christianity has a thousand faces

but share at least a few distinct qualities that keep them from embodying anything even close to what they claim

1) a hellbent dependence on having the right belief-system and theological conceptual models and maps and language-sets

...and an almost complete avoidance of any effective, demonstrable, testable, life-transforming actual practices

2) a rejection of 99.99% of the values of other histories, experiences, traditions, or lineages

...preferring to reinvent spiritual wheels in the garage ... all the while becoming awestruck by these profoundly ordinary age-old revelations

3) a rejection of 99.99% of the insight and oversight that comes from those outside of one's sub-sub-sub-sub cultural mythology

....and an inability to "love your (so-called) enemy"

4) an almost utter distrust of our own experiences, as well as our capacities to interpret and process our experiences

...we have given our ability to heal our selves over to healers who have forgotten how wounded they are

5) more...but my time and space is up

part of all this reminds me of lord of the flies

and what happens when childlike adults become stranded on an island

fortunately....being childlike adults is the game of the day

as is being stranded on an island

so perhaps our problem/solution is not as much how to condemn this condition

but how to understand it so we can plant the seeds of healing it

i have a few ideas...but must return to my day job

space and grace

Todd

thanks Geisha...i am truly delighted that some patch of common ground has been found

and yeah...life seems full of surprises

... so full of unexpected occasions that perhaps one can even always expect more surprises

i was even dreaming of composing something to add and expand when you posted

but i am soaking in your recent contributions a bit first, letting them re-orient me a bit before i continue

thanks again

Thanks Mark

Would that not indicate the masculine role of the Holy Spirit, while the human Mary is the mother?

Not necessarily

from reading the text in greek and various english versions,

and including all the other things ive mentioned in this thread

as well as the perspectives of a number of rabbis ive been blessed to encounter

it seems quite possible to me...

that the Child came to Mary from the womb of the Holy Spirit

because Mary herself was "enveloped in the womb of" Holy Spirit

as if the Holy Spirit was already pregnant with the highest potential

and Mary was the vehicle for the feminine principle of God

out of the womb of creation ...and into/through the womb of Mary

...who was not only physically feminine...but spiritually feminine

now...if the text read "...she was found with child of God the Father"

or "...that which is conceived in her is of God the Father..."

...well, we would probably be wondering different things anyway

More regarding “the Trinity” (and the tri-unity i mentioned in the first post) in light of The Spirit…

Like ive posted on around here b4, there seems an entire spectrum of faith development possible, and therefore a spectrum of different ways we interpret the very same texts, as well as how we interpret other theologies...and life in general.

But not all "trinitarians" are at a textual literalist stage of faith. Rather than 3 literal beings, many see (and experience) a Trinity as a profound metaphor for all 3 facets of Divine process...some then further divide the 3 by 3...resulting in 9 manifestations, and 9 fruitions, etc...

…

and too...i see much confusion and illogic (and the resulting suffering) in much of Christianity from trying to understand divine conception and birth in strictly masculine terms….and not just from the odd absence of any reference to the feminine role of Holy Spirit...but an active denial of the possibility of any vital feminine face of the divine…sometimes even agressive to the point of oppressing and killing people…as both history and current events show (from the ole' burning “witches” to the current extreme right's cutting funding and support for childcare, healthcare, education, and social and community motherly arenas)

I would venture to say that masculine-only approaches to God are like "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"...”unforgivable” perhaps, because rejecting Spirit’s motherness = a “barren womb” = spiritual infertility = no new birth

all competition and striving and perfection…seeking seeking seeking

...no embrace…no reception... no conception...no incubation = no spiritual child

God as “the Father” is an active principle ... the seed planter ... the initiator…a bright and fiery purifier ..who very badly wants to "get inside" and "put something inside”...seeking feminine (consciously or unconsciously)

but God as “the Holy Spirit” is a passive principle...receptive and nurturing...the ground in which the seed is planted...the comfort of a shady place…very badly “wants to bring something outside”...aka spiritual midwifery

though ultimately…they are One…just as the Child is One with them

father + mother + offspring = continuity

but father alone = no offspring = no continuity

…

honestly…

how can we even talk of being "born again" without speaking of a womb?

how can we even talk of being a child of God without speaking of a mother's role?

how can we claim to understand the nature of "the son of man" without spending some time contemplating the role of divine feminine?

who does all the work of seed-transformation?

who gives birth to children? a Father?!?

Who can doubt that a descending dove is a feminine, motherly symbol?

…which also makes me wonder if the "this is my beloved son" could have been heard in a woman's voice

… pleased, for one, that her very long labor is over

…

We see the results of this masculine-only approach to spiritual practice in vpw/pfal/twi type theologies

…where a strictly masculine/anti-feminine spiritual interpretation and practice =

- all intellectualization…no real wisdom or “felt-intelligence”

- all the theoretical headiness of Love…no real living embodiment of that Love

- anti feminine-natured men… anti-gay men ... anti-crying ...anti-emotion

- grooming women to act masculine..and serve masculine...to support masculine-only spirituality

- an imbalanced and twisted view of sexuality resulting in abuse and perversion

- highly competitive in relationships with other beliefs (and other scriptural territorial pi$$ing)

- mistaking the magical bliss of mere spiritual conception (a man’s view…”the inside job”) for the painful developmental process of spiritual birth (a woman’s view…”the outside job”)

- the list goes on

glad you like it, shaz...and glad you can use it.

i'm definitely linking to it on my art website...if i ever finish building it.

that retro-entabulator video is something else

back to "I-I"...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I am" can refer to a common Biblical translation of an Aramaic idiom. In the original language, it translates in an interlinear, direct fashion as: "I I" (Aramaic uses a double reference to self when being emphatic about an action verb; e.g., "I-baptize-I you with water..." from Matthew 3:11 of the Aramaic Pe....ta; however "I I" -- with everything and nothing between the "I"s -- is what is translated into English as "I am", with accompanying spiritual meaning; the first occurrence of "I I" in the New Testament is in Matthew 14:27 of the Pe....ta). The first person singular present tense form of the main copular verb in English (to be). Some scholars believe it is the most meaningful English translation of Yahweh in Hebrew ('YHVH', יהוה), but this interpretation is disputed

in Genesis too, 28:16 - Jacob wakes after dreaming of seeing his self at the base of an angel-filled ladder

..."Surely, God was in this place and I, I did not know"

ive heard and read many rabbis expound on this. How one's spiritual view of one's self is referred to with two "I"s...two selves...the "i" of the person, and the "I" of the universe, and finding God and worshipping God is another way of saying that we have found our self to be fully inside of God, and our self has been found to be fully inside of God. And God is ALL IN ALL. We have been located from God's point of view, and this temporary ego that God has found is but a bit of paint on the tip of the tip of God's fingernail.

Like when Jesus said "I am the way" ...it was more like saying "I, i is the way." Which is not a statement of his personal exclusive supernatural power to grant access to the divine...but a statement that points to what "he" (both He and God as "I and I" in one) knew to be true about coming to the source and root cause of all existence. Where it can be said that there is no other way for anyone to realize God directly except by waking up to this "I, i." Not that Jesus's life and purpose was not unique and unforgettably worldshaking...he was pointing to that which is already always true in any tongue, any time, any place. And he pointed to it with his very life and death...and mysterious resurrection.

here, too...

Romans 8:16

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Just as our body and soul move from being subject (an "I") to object (an "it"),

our wide open self as formless Spirit moves from subject to object.

So that which is clear also becomes an "it."

Then there is found a "paradox in a mirror" that simply shatters our perspective into something new and bigger,

where not only do we find our selves to be that spiritual clearing in which body and soul arise

...but that which is clear observes that which is clear

God can see God in us, and we see can our self in God.

so with practice, discipline...perhaps even via grace in the face of adversity...

our perspective shifts to that of Spirit observing Spirit in everything

...the simplest flicker of our attention

though it will only be a glimpse, a downpayment, a taste of a death to come that is not death at all

it will quickly fade...and our rattled ego will snap back to interpret the experience

...though we may never see our selves the same way again

indeed, cman

feeling parabolic tonight...

So the spirit of God is not a separate person from God, any more than my spirit is a separate person from me.

I would agree with this. But I would take it a step further, because I do believe that spirit of God does also dwell in each of us. Therefore, though we may appear to be physically separated, we are also connected (despite our numerous and differing beliefs). This is one of the reasons I love comparative religion studies. It reminds me of just how connected we truly are. It also saddens me at times, to realize that we often try to separate ourselves over differences that are really unimportant to the bigger picture. IMO, of course.

even a step further...

if Spirit is like the ocean

and we are like a wave of that ocean

...if one looks at the ocean...do we not include every wave in the definition of that ocean?

if Spirit is like a tree

and we are like a leaf of that tree

...if one looks at a tree...do we not include all the leaves in the definition of that tree?

when we speak of our "self"

are we not speaking of a part of God?

as if we are only separate from God by some occasion of language and context

...or perhaps even a natural self-deception

Also, please keep in mind, when studying Judaism (especially the more mystical, non-legalistic aspects) we are often cautioned to remember that at best all we can come up with is bits and pieces/aspects of God. So, for instance, when referring to Shekhina as the female aspect there needs to be emphasis on aspect. It is but one part of a much much much larger whole. The same would be said of referring to God as a father. It is an aspect, a part, it is not the whole. They are descriptive words we use because we need descriptive words to communicate ideas.

reminds me ...ive heard rabbis metaphorically describe Ruach HaKodesh as a cosmic-sized woman, veiled and hidden under layers upon layers of garments

...where, at first, we may only see the naked tip of the tip of the tip of her fingertips

in time...we may see an entire finger...perhaps even up to her wrist

...and even this is no small occasion..worth celebrating

the radical prophets of old were the kind who gave up all hope of a conventional life and entered the desert for years...decades

...so that may see an entire arm

of course, this "woman" is not a supernatural woman at all, but the receptive womblike and "hollow" nature of Spirit we must enter into to be born again

To just breath and be quiet, a very difficult thing in our culture!

so true, Abi.

regarding silence...

Ever notice how uncomfortable most anyone gets when there is a 10-second or so lull in conversation? There is a sense that something is wrong, and so we rush to fill the silence with more words. Ive seen the results of research that show the average maximum time that people can sit quietly together. I recall that it was less than a half of a half minute. They even broke it down per culture...and this is funny, but jews were the worst at 6 seconds. Of course, most of the rabbis in the room where this was presented laughed and nodded.

Some precious things i learned from practicing with Quakers, and using Quaker principles/assumptions for soulful communication...Not only do they begin all meetings with a 5 minute or more period of silence, they treat such "silence" as a member of the group, and allow more room for silence between responses. I found, as they said, that as we re-condition ourselves to allow for such moments, we find that our "soul" has a lot more to say about a matter. Things that would not otherwise be said, or heard. Not even by the speaker.

Also...in some contemplative practices and traditions...20 minutes is often considered a minimum period of time for the mind to begin to become quiet, and various brain waves to settle down...over an hour for to reach other states of mind...and then hours and days and weeks and such to "witness" all the many thoughts and feelings going on in the dark of the self. Which eventually leads to an awareness of why it takes months and years of routine practice to fully sit and let all those voices have their say and become unfolded and untangled.

Of course, the challenge is to stay awake while practicing quieting the mind, being still, and closing the eyes. We typically fall asleep pretty quick, and have to come up with some sort of mental or physical routine. Like the PFAL version of "speaking in tongues." Or watching TV. Or ingesting a stimulant. We are mostly naturally incapable of staying wide awake while "trying to do" absolutely nothing.

This is where paying attention to the breath comes in (not controlling it, but noticing it). Particularly the exhale, like Jesus pointed out. Something natural and sacred and life giving that we are already doing anyway.

John 20:22 ...from the Complete Jewish Bible

Having said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Ruach HaKodesh!

Mark...i'm trying to stay away from your other thread...as you obviously have something you really want to teach and share...and a specific method you want to explore...though you seem to have stopped at the first few lines of this one for some reason...and arguing points of the other thread here...so here we go, i guess...

to claim that the hebrew text somehow defines it's self...and then refer to dictionaries and other writers for those definitions...seems a clear contradiction. The bible simply does not interpret it's self. Even if we read hebrew fluently, we cant help but play a big role in our own interpretation of it. We cant help but inquire into all the many overlapping contexts that are outside of the texts.

because so much of what the text is referring to is simply NOT in the text...and so one must leave the bounds of scriptures (and mere definitions of words) in order to find out what is being referred to. And by "leaving the bounds" ...not only do i mean reading material outside of the text, but even more so, actually practicing breathing, for example, using ancient jewish methods. Those who do so are more likely to understand the hebrew text as it pertains to the breath of life. No amount of mere textual research will disclose this information. One must actually go there themselves. Faith without works is dead...yada yada.

and there are many other areas of practice referred to in the OT and NT whose methods and injunctions are NOT explained in much detail in the text, or in the definitions of hebrew words...such as dreaming, fasting, prayerful song, community ritual and rites, oral tradition/transmission, soulful dialogue, etc...and jewish and christian lineages (that are also outside of the text) have developed these arts (by practice) over the millenia (B.C. and A.D.) ...but are largely ignored by recent developments in christianity

like ive said before, somewhat playfully...if you can, go sit in quiet contemplative prayer for over a week ..or a month...then come tell everyone what "really happened" on pentecost, or in the wilderness

one of my constant complaints is that so much of our christianity has disintegrated into being strictly mental...strictly translative...and strictly masculine on masculine seeking seeking seeking...and so our spirituality almost never leaves the head...almost never leaves the realm of thinking and concept and imagination and theology and belief ...never leaves what we think of the pages of words of books and mythologies of beings and realities that are seperate from our selves...so there is little to no experience of practicing and embodying what the text is merely pointing at...and so we suffer from an exotic variety of inflated faith claims

and myth versus myth versus myth versus myth versus myth...and all the silly circular competitive conflicts caused by that

...not only religion versus religion versus religion...but denomination versus denomination versus denomination

and cult versus cult versus cult

but like i attempted to point at in the opening post of this thread...

one can directly experience what is known as "Spirit" for themselves

...with a little practice...perhaps some discipline and luck

but most of all..practice

...

...back later with some comments on the "I-I" of the legendary "I Am"

btw...this article on the Essenes may provide some insight into some little known Gospel-era jewish lineages

...perhaps even related to John the Baptist and the mysterious "men in white"

this has my attention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am can refer to:

A common Biblical translation of an Aramaic idiom. In the original language, it translates in an interlinear, direct fashion as: "I I" (Aramaic uses a double reference to self when being emphatic about an action verb; e.g., "I-baptize-I you with water..." from Matthew 3:11 of the Aramaic Pe....ta; however "I I" -- with everything and nothing between the "I"s -- is what is translated into English as "I am", with accompanying spiritual meaning; the first occurrence of "I I" in the New Testament is in Matthew 14:27 of the Pe....ta). The first person singular present tense form of the main copular verb in English (to be)

Some scholars believe it is the most meaningful English translation of Yahweh in Hebrew ('YHVH', יהוה), but this interpretation is disputed

comments to follow

Mark...while i cant bring my self to agree with most anything you wrote in your last two posts,

i can at least agree that debate would be mostly fruitless...though not for the same reason you stated.

so i promise not to disturb your word study

peace

ive heard that vpw read some of G.I. Gurdjieff's work

and thought it was a great counterfeit...or some such thing

the more i reflect on vpw's work...the more i suspect he was reading widely (and appropriating)

he would read it, and even though considering them "counterfeits,"

he would somehow integrate elements into his own metaphysics

what is now called "the Enneagram," for example, is something Gurdjieff studied and developed.

...even "9 manifestations of Spirit" is language that has been used in even older Christian thought regarding the Enneagram

Sounds wonderful, Abi. i do hope you are able to "play" a bit this weekend.

Please feel free to copy and paste whatever you wish to this thread, so as not to disrupt the other one.

And yeah...there are some gems in those long buried threads.

and Mark, for what it's worth, i really dont think one can demonstrate an understanding of Hebrew scripture with word studies and such.

now, I wouldnt dismiss them, either...not at all...i love using my septuagint and whatnot...and yeah, there is A LOT in the OT,

but there is also far too much outside of scripture that plays a role in interpretation. Experience and practice, for starters.

and too...like Christianity (and other religions)...Jewish thought is way too rich and diverse to be reduced in a way that applies to all.

i have met and read too many many wise and brilliant rabbis to say otherwise.

thought this would provide some insight into an interesting paradoxical rule of faith and practice...

from wikipedia article on tibetan buddhism...my bolds...

Of all aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, none more than skepticism and guru devotion have led it into conflict with Chinese socialism and so invited the genocide of the Tibetan intelligentsia under Mao. An attitude of critical skepticism is encouraged to promote abilities in analytic meditation. However, as in other Buddhist traditions, an attitude of reverence for the teacher is also highly prized.

In favour of skepticism towards Buddhist doctrines in general, Tibetans are fond of quoting sutra to the effect that one should test the Buddha's words as one would the quality of gold. On the other hand, at the beginning of a public teaching, a lama will do prostrations to the throne on which he will teach due to its symbolism, or to an image of the Buddha behind that throne, then students will do prostrations to the lama after he is seated. Merit accrues when one's interactions with the teacher are imbued with such reverence in the form of guru devotion, a code of practices governing them that derives from Indian sources. By such things as avoiding disturbance to the peace of mind of one's teacher and wholeheartedly following his prescriptions, much merit accrues and promotes one's practice.

There is a general sense in which any Tibetan Buddhist teacher is called a lama. A student may have taken teachings from many authorities and revere them all as lamas in this general sense. However, he will typically have one held in special esteem as his own root guru and is encouraged to view the other teachers who are less dear to him, however more exhalted their status, as embodied in and subsumed by the root guru. Often the teacher the student sees as root guru is simply the one who first introduced him to Buddhism, but a student may also change his personal view of which particular teacher is his root guru any number of times.

The opposing principles of skepticism and guru devotion are reconciled with the Tibetan injunction to scrutinise a prospective guru thoroughly before finally adopting him as such without reservation. A Buddhist may study with a lama for decades before finally accepting him as his own guru.

if only this kind of rule of faith and practice were applied in twi

or in other bodies of Christian CULTure

hmm..yeah..ive often asked ...

who is it that comforts a child immediately after birth?

who is it that provides milk to babes?

i recall jesus teaching a scholarly man what he was missing

by pointing to wisdom found in midwifery

i recall paul referring to himself as a nursemaid

for what its worth...Shekinah is another historical expression of feminine divine

also, i just bumped an old thread of mine on Body, Soul and Spirit that seems to relate to this one

and as ive mentioned before...vpw/pfal/twi and ilk certainly suffers from over-masculization of jewish and christian wisdom, history, doctrine and practice

removing the feminine nature of spirit leads to all the things warned against in Romans...

...all competition and striving and violence...no cooperation and surrender and peace

where even woman are forced to behave and think and interpret in these kinds of masculine-only modes

and it seems this has been going on so long...we are like fish who do not know how wet we are

bumping a 2 year old thread for possibilities of further reflection...

...I I find the topic seems to relate to cman's thread on Sacrifice

a few things come to mind when reading this thread

i was in the last wave of WOWs (93-94)

we did not run a single full successful class during my WOW year (in Las Vegas)

although we saw so many "fog year cop-outs" come back to the Vegas branch (we called them "be-backs")

that they moved the limb leader from Reno to Vegas

then, at the ROA "home-coming", i even accepted one of the "cancelled" WOWs as a roomate

...now that he was homeless in Ohio, all packed and nowhere to go

i also went to Indiana for LCM's live advanced class about that time

and recall LCM saying something about homosexuals like "they deserve to have a glass rod inserted in their you-know-what and shattered"

no kidding

just felt i'd post this to add to the story

came across this while sorting through files today...

...reminded me of this thread for some reason

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives: Be kind anyway.

People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered: Forgive them anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies: Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you: Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight: Build anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous: Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow: Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough: Give the world the best you've got anyway.

You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God: It was never between you and them anyway.

...Mother Teresa

so i post this in honor of a dear friend who died yesterday

...a catholic woman who is a mother Teresa to me and many others

in grace and grit,

Todd

I wonder why that comment only reminds me of this passage of scripture:

"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed tem out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water". Jeremiah 2:13

hmm

i am also kinda wondering why my post only reminds you of that passage of scripture, WTH

...that is, if you are telling the truth, and not just being sarcastic and trying to imply something else entirely

if not, and you are being genuine...

...that fact that you have even noticed your self wondering why my post only reminds you of that passage of scripture

is probably good for you ... and i hope it helps somehow

yeah, Bramble

it seems birth and death often bring us closer to "the real" than anything else

more than beliefs, more than theology, more than doctrine

although the symbolism and mythology of Gods and demons can serve as language

for communicating things we may otherwise have no words for

baptisms, the vision quest, the sweat lodge, walking a labyrinth, etc...

all acts that embody that descent and vulnerability ...nakedness of soul

a descent into the womb again ... to heat and pressure and darkness

so that one may be "born again" by re-emerging

much of modern mainstream religious activity has removed this aspect from their menu

focusing mostly on safety and security and protection...in our past century of unprecedented terror and distraction

to consciously seek our sources of suffering, pain, darkness, shadow as a transformational practice

is almost unheard of in church...certainly mostly unheard of in twi

we wanted the way of abundance and power without paying for it

preferring to send Jesus as a scapegoat instead...rather than actually following him into the wilderness

a way of mere belief ...while thumbing our nose at actual practices

...

wishing your grand-niece and family well

Todd

ok, sorry Mike, because ive edited these last two posts of mine...

your last response doesnt make sense

but ive also heard it put

that the spiritual practice we choose in life

is like choosing which boat we are going to cross the lake in

and one cant keep switching boats

and expect to make it to the other side

i know...a simplistic analogy

but i think it speaks in some way to what you are trying to say about the choice you have made

and regardless of the theology or practices involved

our culture has mostly come to remove rites of passage for the various stages of life

...so such a radical choice may seem foolish and stubborn to many of us

but there is a point where such a personal choice for "one rule for faith and practice" does serve a purpose

whether it is temporarily

...or for a race to the finish line

may i suggest that you start a blog or website to distill your thoughts?

im also guessing it may help you be more clear and coherent

by giving you something to reference when you post here

Mike, ive heard it put this way...

in spiritual practice...

its better to try and dig a 100 foot well

than it is to try and dig ten 10 foot wells

and so as long as you arent stopping people from digging their own well or wells

and are at peace where you are digging...

...Godspeed