I am glad that you have studied the Vedas for 30 years and not been disappointed. Your insistence that I cannot have my sui generis because I don’t quote those that I “have learned from” demonstrates that you actually didn’t get the ghist of what I wrote in my last response. You are not interested in exploring the sui generis, which is what I’m interested in exploring because I’m interested in a remedy to theheteronomy, which you again have engaged in during your response to me. You continue to prefer the male gender pronoun ” who is HE? Who is your main source?” despite my indication that I am not interested in the heteronomy of gender pronouns. I have responded intelligently and thoughtfully to your assertions, an action that you have not extended to me. Your insistence on disrespecting my perspective is again indicative of the heteronomy embedded in your own perspective, as well as your insistence on being disrespectful of my subjective experience- “Not some Cosmic glob. Some big bang.”
Nowhere in the dictionary definition of ‘dogma’ was there a suggestion or reference to fanaticism or blind following; this is your own subjective addition to the definition. I have already discussed this word and the way that I use it.
Sui generis is indeed a latin term, although I have previously written regarding how I privately call what I speak about Eneris, because I have expanded the concept out into its full expression and I don’t have any interest in maintaining the connection to the law with the term: for now though, the term works because ‘the law’ recognises it and this is helpful. I’ve written about this previously, you are welcome to do your own research into my previous writings.
Your insistence that I ‘deny [my] source of knowledge coming from a certain individual’ demonstrates your inability to actually comprehend what I’m saying: I Am the ‘source’ *as well as the creation* and I experience the multiverse this way. The sui generis platform that I speak of is something that I have synthesised from *my own observations and explorations* of the world around me, the so-called ‘wisdom’ of this world and various individuals in it, all of which lead me to the sui generis by default- they taught me what *doesn’t* work and what always leads to Empire- are these the ones you wish to learn from?
“Where does the word “heteronomy” come from? Should I run to a dictionary and see its denotation?”
That would probably be helpful, as it’s encouraged by everyone who knows their stuff to investigate matters for themselves- the principles of this are quoted on the front page of this website encouraging individuals thus: “Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held in honour for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything because many people speak of it; do not believe on the strength of sages of old times; do not believe that which you have yourselves imagined, thinking that a god has inspired you. Believe nothing which depends only on the authority of your masters or of priests. After investigation, believe that which you have yourselves tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of others.” ____Buddha” (emphasis mine).
I have investigated matters for my Self, which means I look up the various meanings of words, how they are used, if deeper meanings have been hidden (often discovered in law dictionaries), I look at all the pieces and how they fit- or not- into the bigger picture and I *make my own mind up*, I decide *for my Self* what does and does not resonate with me. I have tested the heteronomy in its many forms and found it wanting; I have found it lacking in ‘good’ for my Self, for others and for the planet; I have investigated the possibility of remedies *for my Self* and have come to my conclusions based on these investigations and using the foundational concepts of ‘a platform incapable of being tortiously converted to the purposes and intentions of Empire, and one that is embedded with do no harm‘. I have not taken the words of others, no matter how venerated, quoted or praised by the heteronomy these might be. I have absorbed the lessons of millennia of heteronomy and formed my own response.
As a result of this careful study and consideration of *many* areas of the heteronomy, I Am my own authority in this matter.
“Did you not learn to speak by your parents teaching you? Isn’t your father your “original teacher”?
Are you genuinely unaware of the embedded patriarchy- with all its pre-packed heteronomy- in your language? Are you aware of the absolute plethora of unfounded assumptions within your statements? You have absolutely no idea at all about my history or childhood, yet you are more than happy to leap to conclusions based on your own world view. I have previously stated that what I learned from the world- and those that purported to be my ‘teachers’- was all the ways heteronomy does not work. I do not account this as ‘teaching’, I account it as ‘indoctrination’- there are important and vital differences between these two words both in definition and application.
What is a ‘father’? A ‘mother’? In a biological sense they are simply words that indicate genetic code providers- the many examples in the world have amply demonstrated that biological affiliation does not automaticallyindicate an inclination and imperative to care for and nurture one’s offspring; conversely, a lack of biological link does not preclude an ability to offer care and nurture to children in need. What I ‘learned’ from my ‘parents’ was nothing that I wished to pass onto my own children and so I left the ‘wisdom’ of my parents in the dust where it belonged. I do not ascribe to the veneration of parents- regardless of how repulsive or reprehensible the actions of those parents might be- at the expense of the integrity of the child. I know that many cultures do- to this I simply point to the principles of sui generis, ‘without peer’, and to the desire of all life in the universe to evolve, not be bound by tradition because others say ‘this is how things are’. I do not advocate the sacrificing of children to the traditions and self interest of the parents, no matter how justified, reasonable or ‘spiritual’ that self interest might appear to be.
There is not one individual in this particular online community who, knowing how things are, would recommend any other individual take *any* action without due diligence and self examination: there is a conversation going on simultaneously with this one in this thread wherein Danielle is clearly advocating to the individual concerned that they *do their due diligence*, that they do *not* go into any situation without having first learned thoroughly what it is they are doing, why they are doing it and whether or not it rings true to them. This community espouses *personal responsibility* in all things- and for me the sui generis is the ultimate expression and platform of personal responsibility as well as free will for all Beings.
I have engaged in the conversation so far with you because it has been useful for me to explore the sui generis in the contexts that you have been raising and I appreciate the exploration: what I am no longer enjoying is your determination to ignore the subject matter of my communications (I intentionally use a legal term there, because it is relevant). There can be no clear communication if the subject matter is ignored. I have repeatedly and respectfully addressed your comments and linked them continuously back into the subject matter at hand, something which you have demonstrated you are either disinclined or unable to do: while the subject matter remains unaddressed then there’s little more that can be said.
I reiterate what I said earlier: if you wish to address the subject matter of my discussion, I am open to further communication; emulating legal fiction by continually throwing irrelevant and disconnected information into the mix does nothing but obscure the matter at hand, specifically the sui generis and do no harm platform. I’m going to resume discussing this in more depth- and I appreciate Jaro’s equity in providing the freedom in which to engage this discussion- but without specific reference to the subject matter I’m discussing the conversation moves from a genuine exploration and communication and devolves into nothing but ‘legal argument’, which I have subzero interest in- as I’ve said, I’m not interested in fictions of any kind.
Heteronomy is a fiction. Fictions exist outside the living system of the multiverse and they will never, ever work because of this: the fiction that the planet’s resources can be continuously plundered without consequence, the fiction of continuous ‘economic growth’, the fiction that domination and control works, the fiction that religion is useful, the fiction of old paradigms being able to usher in new ones. I’m not interested in fictions, I’m interested in what works- heteronomy has demonstrated it does not work, unless ‘inevitable and cyclical collapse’ is one’s definition of ‘work’.
There is absolutely no point in attempting to justify the use of spiritual heteronomy towards me or to engage it towards me- I absolutely know sui generis is the underlying frequency of the multiverse *I* observe and experience, I know sui generis releases all individuals who embrace it from any and all external jurisdictions, I know the fiction operating as ‘law’ knows this, I’m interested in connecting with others who have similar observations and wish to explore the same realm.