Introduction to blog, about 4 pages. Articles will be commentaries or creative presentations. First creative piece follows this post.

PREMISE: There is a difference between right and wrong; good and evil.

Simply stated and too rarely present, self-regulated actions demonstrating knowledge of the premise develop before they are explained. It is made clear in an infant’s cry:

A baby on the floor, happy to have just the bit of blue blanket its chomped onto in its mouth. A grown-up walks in and steals the blanket from the infant with a gentle tug, forcing the baby’s fingers open enough to take the blanket away. The baby cries, registering that it was acted against, proving evil exists.

-Being is universal, and it is bound to matter formulating along laws of physics few even think are there. Something makes us see, taste, feel, read, think, and it is of sovereign principle, plus to each person the world is only known subjectively by them alone. In terms of raw field presence, looking at the above scenario as one system of existence, in all its dynamics:

“Being of a baby” and “being of the adult”, with some odd line forever preserved between the being of either body and the physical matter of both, along with governing dynamics of all the matter of the surrounding -all accounted for. For the continuum of being in the system:

An infant lost to explain itself or the world in any intelligible way, because so much lies beyond its own mechanical grasp; its own body learned its parameters are finite – it learned it wasn’t its blanket – 8 weeks ago, then the adult, as drowned in the weight of the world as anyone (and apparently anti-baby) takes the blanket.

Being on the infant side of the spectrum reacted to show discomfort and unease. Being on the adult side acted for whatever reason; the reason cannot matter when the dynamic assessed is the field of the system itself. The baby’s crying demonstrates the physical fact of being recognizing a wrong.

There are two distinct paths for the baby as it develops into a full grown person. One imparts a spiritually sound ideal and the other is taught in general academic pursuits. Both paths are available to many, but no one is guaranteed exposure to both ways of framing the world in their developing years.


Readily apparent and sources of constant difficulty, spiritually sound ideals have been taught in ways according them conceptualizations fit for a devoted awareness, and because to know in faith is individual responsibility, when it comes to religion the inward, operational goal is to ensure faith will be found. The outward goal is to secure the process, and to ensure the “operational voice” religions present the world reflects the process they exist to secure, religion-specific sects were started. (Please see essay “Preface – Unifying Physics”, the first download after this article, if the idea of an Eastern Gnostic voice is foreign.)

Using the example of the Brahmin (Priestly) Caste of Ancient India, who were in charge of fire sacrifice to Brahman, Universal Consciousness of Existence, when the practice was aligned to the religion of the region:

Internally the Brahmin housed another sect, kept apart from the rest of the caste, the Upanishad, who were charged with practicing lived knowing. Ensuring the presence, voice and volition of their endeavors were aligned to Brahman, as it reflected a worthwhile path for Atman; Atman is the universal of all man, to which man aspires, and Brahman is the same thing for all of existence. The Upanishads were started to in a sense certify the actions of the Brahman caste as valid and therefore aligned to appropriate demonstrations of faith.

Eventually a process started that became fundamental to the founding of Buddhism- groups of Upanishads agreed: It is possible for anyone to accomplish the goal of their caste – of man first realizing Atman, then realizing Atman is Brahman (this equals “enlightenment”) – and it is not just accessed through what a priestly caste makes available. So they left. To clarify, in the lexicon of Hinduism, union is lived once a practitioner has realized Atman, the universal of man fully, then completely reconciled their being to Brahman, the universal consciousness of existence. Taking this process for its conceptual equivalences then making it personal practice, is the foundation of Buddhism.

How can a religion ensure its internal reason to exist is preserved? It can be stated that all acts of religious devotion provide physical record of how well faith is expressed, because it is the acts of followers that attest to faith; to God’s presence. Still, if not enough demonstration meets the outside world – where members are prone to be associated to the name of their religion – people become susceptible to expressing their ideas of faith with the actions of belief.

Remedying this and providing the checks and balances needed to matters so remotely captured, there are religion-specific bodies of Gnostics. Forever concerned with maintaining a useful union, the Gnostic internally sees the religion they represent as its tradition – not even their tradition, and it is understood that the word “religion” does not class a body of the faithful; it is only a marker for the external view of the total endeavor: To be in the right and acknowledge the wrong, until evil ends.

People with a needlessly intellectual or emotional approach to positions only formulated within the context of the spiritually sound ideal are completely at fault for the impression that any religion in its operational practice is indifferent to evil – or that any religion would ever place value in meditating oneself past the idea of dualities like good and evil. These sound like failures only Eastern tradition-leaning types of people would be prone to make, but in the Western traditions people have failed just as boldly; they live justifying their own personal moral stances over a universal ethic regularly.

In the tense of the Eastern traditions already discussed, people of the west are lost to what may be called the nether regions of Atman, and they will never find the universal of man in way that they can demonstrate in the world. The message would be the same were you to speak in Christian ideals; the issue is the personal failings people commit, not the lexicon that is used to frame the production of life in universal and grandiose terms.


Strange lines develop when a purely academic person is asked to explain the difference between right and wrong. Their views are built upon views, and they often specialize in exceedingly tedious classifications of reason for one side or the other, if the concept of sides even exists, they may say.

With the Gnostic Model, a process to ensure the perpetual, though never individually guaranteed success of the good is provided for within a framework of universal right and wrong communicated through spiritually sound ideals.

It is reasonable to expect a framework for universal checks and balances as they pertain to how knowledge is demonstrated, because institutions of education are responsible for preparing people to demonstrate knowledge. -To expect to uncover an academic equivalent to the role the Gnostic serves. If it is anything – reducing the entire mode of modern academic inquiry to centralizing a means to classify what is intelligent – the equivalent academia has to a Gnostic sect are its philosophers.

Philosophers and the thinkers of the world, for the most part are people who live to assert the ideals of intellect without stipulating a need for monetary consideration. However, the intelligence of the world as it is presented by academia as a whole, results from a global consortium of corporate, public, and private funding sources, so in effect even the most honest of intellectuals academia can produce have their worldviews shaped by what decides their school’s bottom line. It is institutional.

Example: US Colleges and Universities require attendance be weighed in the grading system to make students show up – if the schools want Government funding – though many young adults can ace most if not all of their courses with long study sessions, good notes, and sparse attendance. Their doing so demonstrates neurological development appropriate to their age; following the lecture is not needed for some courses after the mid-term, provided the responsible use of course materials – after the student’s position in the class is established – knowing this and using the strategy to possibly get through college faster is an adult choice college-aged brains benefit from when they make it correctly, and it should be rewarded. If you enroll but don’t attend then you fail, and honestly, the world is better for it. In the current state of affairs, with the policy of funding-dependent college attendance requirements over a decade old, the United States hosts a culture that believes that in order for no one to feel left out, everyone will have to be spoon-fed the same rewards.

Responsibly addressed and directly applied, these developments have been allowed to occur because of a lack of academic ethic. The problem was the guaranteed result because all progress academia has made thus far, has occurred without the establishment of a universally delineated line that sets right apart from wrong. The moral compass of the individual academic authority meets the personal moral compasses of other individual academic authorities, continually, and because the process of education adapts to climates that are outwardly forming – to the views of the individual students – general academia over time imparts shifting, even circumstance-specific moral codes to the population at large, but it does not demonstrate a universal ethic, because it can’t.

Secondary premise: This is existence. It is the claimed province of academia to know. In the tradition of academia the school of physics is held to account for the facts of the universe at its most base, and apparently, the operational voice used to represent the school of physics will openly admit:

“We do not know what sentience is. We do not account for the intent of sentient beings in our inquiry and, growing numbers among us are becoming convinced that nothing is physically real.”


Here’s a place to start with more commentaries:

For creative presentations scroll down.

For free download of the Essay that covers the message of this Gnostic Advance starting from a Western Gnostic voice:

3 thoughts on “FAILURES ON BOTH SIDES -A Global Critique

  1. I’m not being critical, you are a great writer, but as a student of the Vedas for 20 years, can I state the Upanisads are not Hindu scriptures. Hinduism is a collective term for many schools of thought. The Vedas are about Sanatan Dharma. Our real eternal position and function. Brahman Realization is the first of three steps of God Realization. Lord Buddha is an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he came to stop animal killing by preaching non-violence. The Supreme Person, God, is Lord Krishna. Krishna in Greek is Christos. Jesus became Christ when he united with the will of God – Krishna

    1. Thanks for your interest, sorry for the delay. Gnosis is individual gain and in modern parlance, Gnostics are free to utilize general understandings about the facts of Buddhism at its beginning, in this case. This basic explanation matches Introduction to World Religions at the college level; but only the class introducing preliminary overviews of each of the five main traditions. Another point of this site is to make gnosis clear without dependence upon the jargon of tradition (religious writing and their roots). It is time for academic gnosis.

    2. Also, this is referencing the days when Hinduism was more about a strict caste structure, that actually had a priestly caste committing fire sacrifice regularly. Naturally, no one associates those times to Hinduism and its cultural contributions. But, caste-based social engineering has sure proven effective, right?

Leave a Reply