The Breath of God

The text under consideration in this contextual analysis:

4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 ¶ And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

The Pre-creation and The Suspended Creation.

Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

God made the plants and the herb prior to placing them in the earth, and causing them to grow, presumably because He had not caused it to rain, nor formed a man to till the ground. He chose to delay the creation of plants and herbs until man had been formed (not created, not made, but formed), and until it had rained. This postponed creation, suspended it, and in a way held it up, until certain assurances were in place--that the plants and herbs would receive proper attention--a tiller of the ground, and rain.

Why, then, would Lord God pre-create the plants and herbs? Why not create man first, and then the plants and herbs? Or the plants first and then man? Wouldn't that have made more sense? Why the pre-creation of plants and herbs? My explanation may prove to be a little confusing. I will try to explain it as clearly as I can.

The Tiller

The pre-creation gave man a reason for being. Now that the plants and herbs had been made (or pre-created, or pre-made), existing pre-creatively before the Tiller, man's role would be pre-defined and his purpose preordained. He would be Tiller of the Ground. The pre-creation of plant and herbs substantiated that role, and seemingly made it possible. If man had been created before the plants and herbs, man would not have had a clear-cut purpose, or role to fulfill. I'll discuss this further when I discuss Order of Creation, and Creation Reversal.

Because the Second Creation is a Reversed Creation, the Order of Creation is important. In the First Creation man came last in the Creation Order, and was given dominion over all that was created. In the Second Creation, plants and herbs must come last in the order of things, if man is to be subject to them--that is, Tiller of the ground. The plants and herbs could have been placed in the earth before man but that wouldn't have reversed the Order of Creation. That Order of Creation would be as in the First, and in the Second Creation it's important to reverse the First. It's almost as though the Second is a kind of mirror image of the First, and the Creation Order that reverses the First had to be maintained.

If man had been created first and the plants and herbs last, that would have reversed the order of the First, but that would have put the cart before the horse. We would have had a Tiller without a Garden to till. And that would not have made man subject to the Earth, and the plants, if no plants existed in the first place. Remember this is a lot like cause and effect. We would have a Tiller but no garden. We would have a garden but no Tiller.

No simultaneous creations. One creation must follow the other, spatially or temporally.

So the answer (rather cleverly devised, I must say), pre-create the plants and the herbs, and create man first. Hold up the rain, and water the earth with a mist. It was important that the First Creation be reversed by the Second, and so it was. For if the plants and herbs had preceded man (planted in the ground, rather than pre-created), he wouldn't have been subject to the plants and herbs by virtue of the Order of Creation. By bringing the plants in last, but pre-creating them first, man becomes subject to them, and they would hold dominion. The last becomes first, and the first last, so to speak.

Order of Creation and The Reversed Creation

In the First Creation man is created last, but is given dominion over all, including beasts, birds, and plants. As Tiller of the Ground (a cultivator of soil) man would bring forth from the Earth by working and conditioning the earth--by serving that which grows, and allowing them to prosper.

In the First Creation the Earth was made for man, in the Second Creation man was made for the Earth (to be Tiller of the Ground). The Creation Reversal continuing, even when it comes to man's duties, purpose, and reason for being.

Just as the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, in the Second Creation, man was made for the Garden and not the Garden for man. In the First, all things were made for man. If in the First Creation all things served man, in the Second, man must serve all things. If in the First man comes first, in the Second he comes last.

Rather than the Earth being fruitful and multiplying of it's own accord (as it was commanded to in the First Creation), it was now man's duty to cause the Earth to be fruitful and multiply, a duty that was given to the Earth and plants in the First Creation.

The One Day Creation

4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens....

Lord God required only One Day to create the earth and the heavens. God of the first creation took six days, and sealed, and Capstoned it with a seventh day. Why One Day? There are no Evening and Morning in this One Day Creation. Just this One Day. The Creation Reversal answers this question, as well. If the First Creation took six days to create the heaven and the earth and all the host of them, and one day to seal and capstone the previous six, the Second Creation reversed the First by creating the earth and the heavens in One Day.

This will be discussed further under the heading, Toward the East, below.

The Upside-Down Rain

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, yet the "whole face of the ground" is watered, not from the heavens but from the earth. I call this the Upside-Down Rain. And this phenomenon continues the Creation Reversal that I discussed earlier. Creation is reversed, and the earth sends up water in the form of a "mist." Although I recognize that a mist is not a rain, I call it that because it substituted for one.

Please note that the "whole face of the ground" is watered, which means that the "whole" surface of it was wet, without a dry part.

The Classic Elements

The Classic elements consist primarily of four elements: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. We find all (or, almost all) present at the formation of man.

Man is formed from the dust of the earth (Earth), a dust that was wet (Water), and was given the breath of life by God breathing into his nostrils (Air), and he became a "living soul (Fire)." The soul is considered the seat of the Emotions or Feelings.

Although Fire is not truly substantiated by the text, nor the context, as representing the soul, I intuit it anyway to complete the four elements. If you wish, you may think of only three of the elements being present, Earth, Water, And Air. It's almost equation of a sort, where a,b,c = x, 'X' being the "living soul." and a,b,c being Earth, Water and Air respectively.

The Breath of Life

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Why would God breathe the breath of life into man's nostrils? Why not his mouth? Man uses it, too, for breathing, doesn't he?

Mouth to mouth would have suggested Creator to Creator. Mouth to nostril suggests Creator to creature (that which is created). One places man on a par with the Creator (and I mean this from the perspective of being Self-created, not God-created), and the other places man more in the role of creature, that which is created.

It is called the Breath of Life. Life's Breath. God's Breath.

We're told that God "breathed into his [man's] nostrils the breath of life...." This is of extraordinary importance, as we gather that something from God is extended to man, and that which is extended is the result of God breathing. God breathe into man by way of the nasal passages the "Breath of Life." The Breath of Life, by way of God's breathing, entered into man, and man became something that he wasn't before God breathe, a "living soul." I will discuss this later under the heading, The Two Souls.

Life's Not Optional

Because God breathed the breath of life into man's nostrils, rather than his mouth, it suggests man's lack of an option here. Man has two orifices on the face with which he may breathe--the mouth and the nose.

Were God to breathe into his mouth rather than the nostrils, man could have exercised the option to keep the mouth shut and not accept the breath of life. Because God breathe the breath of life into man's nostrils, it suggests that the option did not exist, nor was it given.

Hence, my conclusion, that Life is not optional. Man cannot not be. In that he has no choice, say, nor will. Man might destroy the physical body (his form), but he cannot destroy his immortal Life. I will contextually support this later in a further discussion and analysis.


The Two Souls

To say that man became a living soul is to suggest that there are souls that are not living, but can be once certain conditions are met, God breathing into man's nostrils the breath of life.

Before God breathe into man's nostrils, he was just a soul. He became a "living soul" after God breathed into his nostrils. In the Creation of Adam fresco by Michelangelo, we see Adam's out-stretched left arm resting on his left knee to receive, not the breath of life, but the spark of life. What's interesting to note here is that Adam is alive (alive in the sense of being aware), although the spark of life hadn't yet been imparted, suggesting that he was a soul before the impartation and a "living soul" after the impartation.

The passage doesn't say that God created man, but that He "formed man [shaped, molded him] of the dust of the ground." When God breathe into man's nostrils the breath of life it was then that man became a "living soul." Its not a stretch here to assume that the "breath of life" is the same as a "living soul," for without it man would have been a soul but not a "living soul."

Individuality, The Form of Dust, and The Breather.

The breath of life existed before man was formed (individualized), before he became a "living soul," suggesting that the breath of life is ongoing, but did not always exist as the form of man, our individuality. Since God has always existed, the "breath of life" has always existed, and is as eternal as God. God imparted to man that which animated him (a "living soul"). That which God imparted with His breathing was a part of the divine. And because the breath of life was a part, a divine part, of God, that which He made with his breath, man, was (as a "living soul"), also part of the divinity, and eternality of God.

The form may cease to be, but not the breath of life which transformed the form of dust into a "living soul," an eternal being.

In short, God, The Breather, continues to breathe for us, and as long as He does, we live, and we are the "breath of life." As form, and as a "breath of life," man is differentiated. The "breath of life" differentiates him, although man seems to be something apart from That Which Breathes, while at the same time maintaining his oneness with God, All That Is. Man is differentiated, then, without losing his connection with the Whole. I'm inclined to believe that the "Breath of God" is different for each, although the Source is the same.

The Indissoluble Connection

I shared the story, in an accompanying post, that God asked me to "read the Bible with Him." I'm beginning to understand now what He had in mind. I knew that there was something in the passage that I was missing, but I couldn't fathom what it was. If only I could open my eyes wider, set aside all my preconceived ideas of what was there, and just allow the text to reveal itself. Stymied, I took the passage under consideration into my meditations and mulled it over, especially the part about "God breathe into man's nostrils the breath of life," and something remarkable happened, something truly amazing was revealed, and this is what I was told:

God exhaled....

There it was. All I needed to know. I was truly excited about this revelation because of what it had to say about the whole process.

Without us, the breath of life is incomplete. A breath can be thought of as both an inhalation and an exhalation. We are that which inhales for God. We are God's Inhalers. We inhale for God, He exhales for us. He breathes out, we breathe in. He exhales, we inhale. The connection is complete. God needs us as we need Him. The breath of life maintains and sustains Us both.

God hasn't stopped breathing. No where in the passage does it say that God breathe once, and that was that. God didn't stop breathing and we didn't stop inhaling. Many spiritual processes are replicated in the physical, and this is one of them.

The collaboration between God and man is what keeps the indissoluble connection intact, keeps it unbroken, and in place.

Toward the East

¶ And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

The garden was planted in Eden. Eden in Hebrew means "delight," and delight means "great pleasure," or a "source of great pleasure." By planting the Garden eastward in Eden this would appear to be the ideal location for it. There it would get the morning and evening sun, and it would be the first location in that land, Eden, to be so graced. Now the Creation Reversal is complete, whereas in the First Creation the Evening and the Morning represented a Day, here, a Day is represented as a Morning and a Evening.

So it was not by accident that the Garden was placed in a location where it faced the rising sun--"eastward in Eden."

What we have, then, is a garden planted in a place called Delight (great pleasure), where it would be first to catch the early rays of the sun. In this garden, in a place called Delight, God "put the man whom he had formed," to "till the ground" to maintain the plant and herbs which God pre-created. Man in this narration is clearly secondary to both the garden and the plants and herbs. Delight (great pleasure) became man's purpose, his mission, and his reason for being.

Practicum

Here's how to practicalize what has been revealed. We can take in more of the "breath of life" than we currently do. The Bible states that "in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

Let me include the whole passage from whence the one above was taken. Please note the statement that "he [God] giveth to all life, and breath...."

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men [We're All One] for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Because God is a Spirit, we dwell in Spirit and in Life. You can use your meditations to bring more of that Spirit into your own being, as it were. As you sit or lie quietly, visualize God's Spirit and Life all about you. And as you do, inhale through your nostrils that breath of life, that Spirit, being keenly aware that that is what you're doing. Stay conscious of the fact that you are inhaling Spirit and Life, knowing that God has not stopped breathing out, exhaling, or we would cease to be altogether.

What we want to do is take in and ever-increasing amount of that breath of life that is always being exhaled (breathe out) by the divine. And we do this as I have outlined above, by remembering to inhale and exhale through the nose.

I wasn't sure what would happen when first I did this breathing exercise. But each time that I did it, since beginning the regimen, some rather usual things have happened. I won't detail them here, but I would like to know, if you decide to try it, what your experiences with this exercise is. It seems a rather simple exercise, inhale through the nose, and exhale through the nose, visualizing that you dwell in God, His divine Spirit, and knowing that you're drawing in that Spirit and Life each time that you inhale.

We can, then, transform air, a gas in the physical realm, into the Spirit and Life of the spiritual realm. That's how powerful we are as creators. We can change a rock to water, and water to wine, and air to spirit with just our thoughts alone--as long as Spirit stands before us:

I [God] will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink.

Therefore, I say, "Fill your lungs, and drink your fill!"

The Creation Reversal & The Capstone Ending

The passage under consideration in this installment:

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

This is the third installment in the Genesis series of Contextual Exegesis. In the previous installment I explained the unusual method that I used to understand the passage(s) at hand. It's not exactly an attempt to interpret the passages per se, but to allow the passages to interpret themselves, with as little interference from me as possible, or an appeal to an outside source--that is, any previous learning, knowledge or observations.

Here's how I explained it in the previous installment:

Rather than attempt to interpret the various passages by bringing in previous knowledge, or understandings, I allow the text under consideration to contextually reveal itself.

And to my amazement, invariably, the text alone was sufficient to answer whatever questions might arise during a reading.

And this:

I call this approach Contextual Exegesis, as the context is deemed sufficient for a full understanding of the text at hand, without resorting to other passages, scholarly research, and topical analysis.

The passage now under consideration more appropriately belongs to the first chapter, rather than the second. When I have finished my analysis, you'll understand more clearly why I make that claim.

The Creation Reversal

We learn right away that, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." Has anyone noted that at the beginning of the Creation Story, one heaven and one earth are created, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and later, once the creation is finished, that "heavens" are referred to.

Why heavens (more than one)? Could this be a mistake in translation? Were there more than one heaven created? Will the context shed some light on this dilemma, our effort to find an answer?

Of course, you can say that it's because it's referencing the "two great lights" and the stars, but that would be conjecture.

For a time this notion of two heavens puzzled me. I looked and looked for a "contextual explanation," without success, until then, when I noticed something. I called it the Creation Reversal. There it was right in front of me, but I had missed it. I'm certain that many others have missed it, thinking that the author merely restated the obvious.

But I've learned that the context in these passages are critical to a complete understanding of the whole, and that nothing should be taken lightly, or taken for granted, or dismissed out of hand because I may think that one thing is being said, when in fact it's not.

This is one of those cases.

I'm going to reproduce the entire statement below, to show you just how the Creation Reversal is stated within the text, but I won't be able to discuss its significance now, because I'm not prepared to discuss it just yet. That will have to wait for another time, as I work my way through the text.

4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens....

So we have one earth, but more than one heaven. It's my guess that there are now two, and I will carry that assumption forth, prepared to switch gears if the context dictate that I do so. But for the time being, let's discuss this reversal, and see where it takes us.

Throughout the first chapter only one heaven is discussed, and it is discussed even after the lights (the host [multitude]) are created and set in the heaven. Further, the creation of "The heaven," preceded the creation of "The earth." And this is an important distinction, one that many researchers have apparently overlooked. But there it is, for all to see, provided we have eyes to see it--the reversal.

The reversal is signalled right at the beginning of Chapter two of the Creation Story, clearly indicating a departure from the previous creation. When the Lord God created, as opposed to God, creation is reversed--we have the earth preceding the heavens. This line of the passage is more important than it seems, for it sets in motion a whole different creation than the first, here represented by the word "heavens" rather than "heaven," Lord God, rather God, and the Creation Reversal placing the creation of earth before that of the heavens.

This is not an insignificant finding, nor observation. Don't trivialize, or reject it. It is key to understanding everything that follows next throughout chapter two, a point that I will try to establish, as I work my way through chapter two's various passages.

As in the beginning we have one heaven and earth, now in chapter two, more than one heaven and earth, the creation of which is now reversed. Keep in mind, by reversing creation, placing the earth first, instead of second, we shift the significance of the order, giving the earth a sort of predominance and importance over the creation of the heaven.

Here are your two heavens: God created one, and Lord God created the other--hence two.

The Capstone Ending

Although I feel that the first passage of chapter two belongs with chapter one, in many ways it lays the groundwork for what is to follow, and I won't quibble with its placement, as it serves as a kind of bridge between the two creations--the first by God, and the second by Lord God.

We were told, at the beginning of chapter two, that the "heavens and the earth were finished," in a creation sense (six days to create the heaven and the earth), but something is still missing, and what is missing, we're told, is the seventh day (a day for blessing and sanctification).

Here's where things get interesting, and hopefully not too confusing. And I'm going to try to express what I found as clearly as I can, and present yet another way of looking at the passage above, one that makes more sense than the way it has always been understood.

Let's take it one step at a time:

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

We're told that God ended his work on the seventh day, and that He set aside a whole day within which to do that.

The sentence structure here appears a little odd ("God ended his work which he had made...."), until you understand that for God to end His work, something else had to be done--something that wasn't completely done during the previous six days--something that only the seventh day alone could provide, for which it was set aside to provide.

In short, the work was "finished," completed, but not the creation process, notwithstanding that the "heavens and the earth were finished." Think of it this way: Something else was required in order for the creation process to be completed, and that was the purpose of the "seventh day."

The work had to be ended, in the way that a period ends a declarative sentence, and is not complete without it. In the way that a graduation ends the requirements toward a degree, and is not complete without it. In the way that a capstone ends the construction of a pyramid, and is not complete without it.

...and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

This was not a lying-down resting (God was not tired, nor exhausted.), but a cessation of activity, a refraining from creating, as in God "rested from all his work [he stopped creating]," on the seventh day, that day marking that momentous occasion, and a finalizing of what was started.

Think of the "seventh day" as a finalizing day, a putting on of the finishing touches, so to speak, on what was created, and not a continuation of the work.

So we're told that God ended his work [fulfilled a necessary act or function] which he had made [the heavens and the earth, the totality of the creation].

So what was that necessary act that would place the capstone on all that went before (the six days of creation), for which the seventh day was set aside to achieve?

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

This, the Sabbath, is the final act in the creation process--to bless and sanctify that which was created. In some respects this day, the seventh day, is perhaps more important that all the days that went before it.

When I turn to my dictionary, I'm told that to bless is to "invoke divine care for." That's a reasonable answer, but it still seems a little incomplete, a little lacking. And I learn from the same dictionary that "sanctify" means "to make holy," and that "holy" means "sacred and spiritually pure."

That too seems adequate, but I always like to look at the origin of a word, how it got its meaning to fully grasp a word in the round. And for holy, I learn this:

The distinction of the word holy appeared around the 13th Century with the Old English word hālig derived from hāl meaning health, happiness and wholeness. As “wholeness”, holiness may be taken to indicate a state of religious completeness or perfection....

I like the definition, a state of "completeness or perfection," but without the "religious" part. I also like the part, "wholeness," as I think that that applies as well to the true meaning of this passage.

We're told, then, that God blessed [invoked His care for] the seventh day, and sanctified, it [made it holy or whole]: because that in it he had rested from all his work [left off from creating (His work), so as to complete the creation process] which God created and made [the heaven and the earth].

Yet, I still didn't know what it meant to bless, to invoke God's care. That part still eluded me. I still didn't know how to do that, and what exactly did it mean to do so.

That's when this passage came to mind from the first creation, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

God blessed "everything that he had made" by "beholding" it as "very good." And we're told this time and again throughout the creation narrative, at the end of each creation day, regarding that which God had made and created--"...and God saw that it was good."

By seeing His creation as good, God had, in essence, blessed it, and perfected it, and, by so doing, brought it under His divine Care. Despite blessing each separate creation, he still required a Seventh Day to bless the entire creation, "everything that he had made" one final time, as part of the Capstone Ending.

That blessing is foreshadowed in the final passage from the first creation, when we're told, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Later, I will discuss how we may do the same: create in the way God creates.

The six days of creation are not complete, you see, without the Seventh Day, the Capstone Day, making the Seventh Day (the Sabbath) more important than all the others.

Without it, this Capstone Ending (And I did see a pyramid and the placing of a capstone as the final act of creating it, when I came to understand this passage.), all that went before (the Work) would not have been made whole, would not have been complete. And although the creation of the heaven and the earth would have been finished, it still would have been incomplete.

Creating As God Creates, By Remembering The Sabbath Day

The foregoing passage offers us a hint as to how we might create as well. We can speak into existence things--"calleth those things which be not as though they were," (the Work Requirement part of the creative process, as in "Let there be Light." Yet, without remembering the sabbath (the seventh day), and keeping it holy and blessing it, we still haven't completed the creation process--that is, our creation is still wanting.

I've developed a practicum of a sort around the creation process. We are, after all, dealing with a creation and not just a day of worship, when the Sabbath is invoked. And since we're the Image and Likeness of God, it follows that we create essentially as He creates, or that we should.

Because we rarely see ourselves as creators, we're going to have to bring more effort to bear to the process than God would, but that shouldn't stop us from participating in the creation process, it just mean that we need to be more persistent, and patient, as we set out to create our heart's desires.

So how do we "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy," as part of the creation process.

To answer that question, let me take you through an illustration of the creation process:

The Work Requirement

The First Step, create something, and that is the easy part: we "calleth those things which be not as though they were." For our example, I'll use the model established in the First Creation.

Two examples, "Let there be health throughout my body." And the next: "Let there be harmony within my house." I will illustrate only one here for the purpose of illuminating the process.

You only need one day to complete the Work Requirement. The Work doesn't have to extend over six days. A day for each creation is sufficient. And this day is not necessarily a diurnal day, but a creation day, and the creation day may extend over several of our workaday days.

The Seventh Day

The Second Step, bless that which as been created. Behold it as good. Take the first creation, health--spend time each day seeing (realizing) its presence throughout your body, and knowing that both the body, and the health coursing through it are Good, this will invoke God's Care for the body. But the creation process is still not done. There's a final stage or step that must yet be fulfilled. The Capstone must be set in place. And so we come to the Third Step.

The Third Step, sanctify that which has been created, make it holy, or whole. How do we do this? We do this by keeping out of mind that which will corrupt the creative process--fear, worry, anxiety, doubt, or what have you. We keep it whole by keeping it perfect, and pure--the totality of that which we desire to create. When doubt, fear, worry, and so forth, enter into our creation, the purity and perfection of that which we hope to create is spoiled.

This is where the Capstone comes in, the finishing touch, that which will keep that which has been created holy (whole), it's the Amen, the finalizing step that invokes the full power of the Sabbath.

The Fourth Step, Capstone that which has been created. Although this step comes first in the narrative, it seems appropriate for our purposes, at least, to place it last. When a thing is ended, we say that "It is done." God "ended" the work which he had made, by blessing the seventh day, and making it "whole."

We make our creation "whole," in the same way, by blessing it and ending it, knowing that it "It is done."

This is the "amen" of the work, which is defined in part as "1. so be it: said or sung at the end of a prayer or hymn to affirm its content...."

I'm aware that "amen" probably has many definitions within Jewish religious tradition, and I'm not trying to preempt that here with my statement, although I like to think that, in some small measure, my definition is viable as well.

So be it, using a little black Ebonics, can be stated, "it be so," if it is reversed. And if "it be so," we get an affirmation, then, that that which is desired, is no longer lacking, but enters a state of "it is done," or "it be so".

Let's continue summing up of the creation process by using our illustration of providing health throughout the body. And using the words/thought, "Let there be health...," the condition which we desire to manifest as our reality, we take pains to see it, realize it, and visualize it throughout the body and, at the same time, bless it by seeing the "good" blended with the health, while acknowledging that the "work" is done, "It is done," it is complete, it is so, or using our Ebonics, "it be so."

Here's the important part: we don't have to go back to the "work" part, "Let it be," unless we wish to reassert the creation, but what we do need to do is keep the Capstone in place (keep the creation whole), and we do this by reinforcing a firmness of thought, and mind, a resolve, resting in the assurance that the "work is done." We need to keep "remembering the Sabbbath, and keeping it holy," that the work is done, until that which we have created in the Work Stage is finally manifested.

This is the point where many will falter, and quit, but I'm urging you to remember, and remember again, until either "it is done" in your experiences, or done within your knowing.

This, in sum, is what we can do to create health: Simultaneously, we see the health throughout our body, that it is good, with a firmness of thought, mind, and resolve that says the work is done.

In this illustration, that's all that is needed to create as God creates. The method outlined here may be adapted to anything else that you wish to create. To make my point, I will take you back through the process using Jesus' creation methodology that he passed on to his followers.

23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; [Creation] shall not doubt in his heart, [The Seventh Day] and [Keep it Holy, Whole, within the Seventh Day] but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. [Capstone, within the Seventh Day]
24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

What things soever ye desire [Nothing is off limits, excluded], when ye pray [The Creation, calleth a thing as though it were (not ask, beg, or supplicate] believe that ye receive them [The Seventh Day, with Cap Stone: It is so, It is done], and ye shall have them. [Nothing is held back or denied.]

What is missing in this creation process is the blessing portion--seeing the creation as good--which should add even more power to the process.

Recreation

I debated for a time whether I would include Recreation in this blog entry, since the entry is already longer than I would wish. But then I realized that the subject would be incomplete without it, especially since the process is a rather simple one.

From time to time you will come upon an experience that you'll feel that you didn't create--facing an unexpected bill for a car repair, finding yourself stranded along the side of the road because your car stalled, and stopped, requiring mechanical attention, encountering a rather truculent person who singles you out as the source of his or her trouble--the list could go on and on.

How do you recreate the situation to bring harmony, a solution, a resolution, supply to meet whatever the moment requires to restore the moment to "wholeness," to "holiness?"

You do what you do to create, "You remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy." You look the situation straight in the eye, and bless it, insist that harmony is the fact, "that All is perfect and All is good." Repeat this as best you can, despite appearances to the contrary, and harmony will prevail, the Sabbath will come to your rescue, depending on how much spiritual growth you have attained during the interim.

That's it.

If you'd like for me to help you construct a creation process for a particular situation, you merely have to ask. Just follow the suggestions that I have outlined here and you should be okay. Yet, know: I'm always available to critique, and support your creation efforts.

Good creating to you!

Contextual Exegesis

Lately, I've been trying something new. I've been taking a second look at certain Bible passages. It started with the previous blog entry which revealed some rather startling information about the Genesis Creation Story.

I learned that the serpent of the story didn't actually lie to Adam and Eve, a common notion held throughout the New Testament, and that Lord God's expulsion of Adam and Eve was prompted mostly to prevent them from becoming like him and the other gods--by forbidding them, early on, from eating the fruit of the tree of good and evil, and having access to the "tree of life," if the fruit was eaten.

Rather than attempt to interpret the various passages by bringing in previous knowledge, or understandings, I allow the text under consideration to contextually reveal itself.

And to my amazement, invariably, the text alone was sufficient to answer whatever questions might arise during a reading.

William Blake wrote a poem, entitled, Auguries of Innocence. It's a rather long poem, and I'm including here only the first four lines, because I believe that those lines relate to my entry:

"To see a world in a grain of sand /And a heaven in a wild flower, /Hold infinity in the palm of your hand/ And eternity in an hour."

Just as a "grain of sand" and "a wild flower" carry within them the fullness of the whole, so do the various texts of the Bible carry within them the full meaning of the whole, without resorting to any other passages for exegesis.

It's not that we mustn't ever approach the Bible in this way, it just that this is yet another valid approach to Biblical illumination.

I call this approach Contextual Exegesis, as the context is deemed sufficient for a full understanding of the text at hand, without resorting to other passages, scholarly research, and topical analysis.

I'm aware of the occasional unreliability of this approach, but this approach has one advantage: it may reveal certain insights that other methods may miss.

Over time, beginning with the following passage, I will go through the entire Creation Story this way, but not necessarily in any particular order:

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

There's much here in this passage. I will discuss each in their turn but, for right now, I wish to focus on the creation of man, for that's the part upon which I wish to dwell first. So let's cull out all but that:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Right away, questions arise. What is the image of God? And who is the "Let us " in this passage? Who or What else is assisting God in this creative process? Did God create more than one man? More than one woman?

Then, we have this continuation of the above passage, that raises even more questions:

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

Who is "them" in this passage? Who or what is being referred to?

Well, let's see if a contextual exegesis can shed some light on this. Mind you, my word is not the last word in this. I merely wish to keep an open mind here, without prejudicing the results.

And that is the hard part. It takes a great deal of mental discipline to approach these passages afresh, without bringing into play previous knowledge. To the extent that I'm able to do this, to that extent will what's before me open up and give forth it's meaning.

Let's try now to answer some of the questions previously posed:

What is the image of God? And who is the "Let us " in this passage?

In the passage we go from "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," where more than one creator is signaled by the words, "Let us" and the word, "our" used twice, to the following, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him...," that is, from a plurality approach to the creation of man, back to a singular approach.

This in itself, should cause us to pause and take special notice of the several passages. Some have interpreted the "Let us" to mean the Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), but that conclusion requires going beyond the several passages, and that would be cheating--stepping outside of the limitations placed on the interpretation, an interpretation which uses only the context, and the text at hand to achieve that end, and little else.

The answer to the two questions are in plain sight, but are elusive, if we seek to make the passages fit some preconceived notion of what is there.

The key to this passage is that Man is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that what is true of Man is also true of God, otherwise Man can't be said to have been created in the image and likeness of God, if Man is somehow something other than God.

So, if we work our way back from what Man is, his nature and attributes, then we can reasonably say that whatever is Man's likeness is also God's likeness.

We're told that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Our first response to this passage is to say that God created more than one man and more than one woman. But that may be a premature judgment.

I will take that up later. Let's stay with the passage for now.

When we move backward from that which is created in God's image and likeness (the creature) to the Creator, we learn of God's Dual Nature, for it is also the nature of Man, who, we're told, possesses a dual nature, being both male and female. If it's true for Man, it's reasonable to assume that it's also true for God, since Man was created in God's image and likeness.

Let me make the case: In the passage we're confronted with Him and Them, just as earlier we were confronted with He and "Let us." When we learn that Man was created as Male and Female, the inescapable conclusion must be that God is both Male and Female. Now let's take another look at that passage:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Then we can safely assume that the "Let us" represents God's dual Male-Female Nature that become the creators, not just one or the other, signalling the need for both in the creative process. Now we have God as Male-Female ( the "Let us") creating Him or Them, the Man as Male-Female.

I don't think that this is a stretch, and is clearly supported in the several passages before us.

If God is both Male and Female, just as is man, then the passage can be read this way:

And [Male-Female] God said, Let us make [Male-Female] Man in our image, after our likeness [Male-Female]:...So God [now singularly again, suggesting the blending of the two forces, powers, natures] created [Male-Female] man in his own image [Male-Female], in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them [Man as a dual being].

We know that in the second chapter of Genesis when the Lord God becomes the creator, that Woman, Man's helpmate is taken from Adam.

Up until that time we assume with a great deal of authority that Adam was one (both Male and Female) and that it was after the separation, the removal of a rib bone from which Eve was fashioned, that the two natures (Male and Female) emerged--separate and distinct one from the other.

But this is largely outside of the context, and is presented here because of the parallelism of the two creation stories.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

This second passage establishes God's creative attributes. As I pointed out earlier, what is true of God, is also true of His image and likeness. So if man is told to be fruitful, to multiply, to replenish and to subdue, then we learn something about the attributes of God as well.

The first three Creation Attributes are the following: to be fruitful, to multiply, and to replenish--the three together suggesting a power to enlarge, expand, and restore--powers and abilities attributable both to God and Man.

These three represents the Female attributes.

The fourth Creation Attribute is to subdue. My dictionary defines subdue in two ways: "To conquer and subjugate; vanquish," with defeat as a synonym.

The second definition is this: "To quiet or bring under control by physical force or persuasion; make tractable."

The first definition suggests using violence to force submission, where as the second suggests a softer approach--using power as a way to gain cooperation and a willing submission.

I think that the second definition comes closest to the kind of "subduing" that is meant in the passage.

The fourth represents the Male attribute.

We can extrapolate from this that all four attributes are essential in the creation process whether it's God doing the creating or Man.

And although there are three attributes within the Female category (suggesting that God, as Creator, possesses within His Divine Nature the capacity to be more Female than Male), the Male attribute of "subduing" is still required in order to create.

So those who know God as both Father and Mother come closer to understanding, and relating to His Divine Nature.

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Now here's a part of the various passages with which some of you will undoubtedly disagree. As part of his God-given attributes, Man is given the office of "dominion" over all--fish, fowl, cattle, the water, the air, the land, and indeed, "over all the earth," including creeping things. Nothing is left out.

One of the most common definitions of "dominion" is: "Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty...."

As the image and likeness of God, we share this dominion with Him. If these passages are clear about any one thing it is this: What is true for God is true for Man, and vice versa.

This is where many will quibble with me, will protest loudly, will seek to bring in doctrinal positions, life experiences, beliefs, and anecdotal examples to counter what I've just said.

Yet, Jesus understood his dominion "over all the earth," and didn't hesitate to exercise it.

Water: He turned water to wine.
Fish: He multiplied the fish.
Bread: He multiplied the bread.
Storm and waves: He calmed the tempest.
Water: He walked on it.
Fish: He filled the nets, when the fishermen couldn't.

Some will protest that this "dominion" was unique to Jesus, and not to anyone else. Yet, Jesus said no such thing. He went so far as to say this: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father...."

Moses, too, showed his "dominion" over the elements, visiting several plagues upon the Egyptians. Frogs, lice, flies, cattle dying, boils--a few of the plagues sent by Moses using the power of His God.

And in the wilderness, Moses caused water to flow from a rock, and God gave the people manna and quail to eat.

Whether we know it or not, we still exercise dominion over our world, but we do it unwittingly, without being aware, and we're not always pleased with the results. Hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes are all our doing in a collective sense.

As the image and likeness of God, we exercise dominion without wisdom or awareness. One day soon we will exercise it more responsibly with greater awareness and greater wisdom.

Gods and the Serpent: The Creation Story

The creation story has always intrigued me. It offers some startling revelations. Some of these revelations certain religions have steered clear of. Why? The story doesn't fit their notion of original sin, and the role of the serpent in seducing Eve to eat the fruit from the forbidden Tree of Good and Evil.

Further, the portion of the story that raises the possibility of many gods existing is a bit hard for many to swallow as well. But taken on it's face, it almost impossible to interpret it any other way. The serpent raises the possibility first, and the Lord God seems to substantiate that claim.

What is to follow is another of my responses to a blog entry, and what I hope will be a fresh look at those passages from the Bible where Eve is confronted by the serpent.

“we have failed God over and over and over and over since we hit the ground running in the Garden of Eden and yet he doesn’t give up on us.” [blogger's remark]

Since you mentioned the Garden of Eden, may I make an observation regarding a part of the story?

Here’s the part I wish to discuss:

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

22 ¶ And the Lord God [King of gods] said, Behold, the man is become as one of us [gods], to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

The serpent for the most part told the truth. He told Adam and Eve that they would be like gods. In that he told the truth.

Further, it was the man that will become one of the gods (note: become as one of us [gods]), Eve is not mentioned at all.

The serpent’s lie: “Ye shall not surely die.” It was the serpent’s only lie (Maybe). Had Adam taken “also of the tree of life, and eat[en]” he would have lived forever, just as the gods.

Now, isn’t it interesting that the gods would deprive Adam and Eve of possessing an attribute of theirs (to know good and evil), and then seek to expel them from the Garden once they gained that attribute, and to deprive them of yet another attribute--eternal life--which the gods enjoyed?

The serpent’s truth:

1. Their (Adam and Eve) eyes shall be opened.
2. They shall be as gods.
3. And they shall know good and evil.
4. There are gods.

It’s hard to deny that this story of creation is about gods, not just the Lord God. So the serpent’s crime: He told one lie, but in a sense he didn’t. Except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were not forbidden to eat from other trees in the garden. Had they eaten from the tree of life they would have been like the gods--able to live forever and to know what the gods knew: good and evil.

For their disobedience, the Lord God took that (eternal life) from them upon their eating from the tree of good and evil.

[Not only did the tree of good and evil in the midst of the garden possess the potential for Adam and Eve (the first two humans created) to become gods, it also represented the potential for them to commit the first sin--to disobey the Lord God. The tree was seemingly planted there as a clear and present temptation for Adam and Eve. It's also reasonable to assume that since the gods already possessed the knowledge of good and evil, that they had already eaten from the tree, and didn't wish the same for Adam and Eve.]

So Adam and Eve’s crime: They wanted to be like the gods. Who gave them the knowledge to do so? The serpent.

Who kept this knowledge from them, and expelled them once they learned about it–the Lord God.

The potential for Adam and Eve to be gods was in their midst. The serpent revealed that potential, and know-how, but the gods were opposed, and exercised their power to expel Adam and Eve from the Garden, and to punish the serpent:

And the Lord God [King of gods] said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon
thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life….

Interesting story, no?

Namaste

"His Face Did Shine as the Sun"

"The sun shone down on your face something terrible taking away your sunset."

It's no secret here in The Secret Place that I receive messages from unknown sources. Sometimes I believe that they come from God, given the context of the message, and at other times from what some have referred to as a Higher Self.

I'm still a little skittish about revealing this almost lifelong phenomenon, but it is a part of who I am, and partly the reason why I started this blog--to share information about this phenomenon.

For most of my life I have been an out-of-body explorer, but I didn't begin to have psychic experiences until much later in life. I discovered this only recently; it came about as I took a look back over my life.

As a psychic, I have nothing in common with many of the television variety psychics, since I rarely can turn it on at will. But the ability has served me well.

I have found over the years that I have great success with my prayers: God hears me more often than not.

Having accepted the role of Sentinel (that is, one who prays for others, when so directed), I have over the years been called on (by the still, small voice within) to pray for the benefit of many. Lately, it has been President-elect Barack Obama, but it has been many, many others--some notable, and some not so notable.

From time to time, I ask God what He would like for me to do for Him (You may wish to try it yourself sometimes.), the indication: to pray for Barack Obama. This I do, sometimes many, many times a day. On one such occasion, during meditation, Obama's name came up so often that I had to abandon my meditations and focus exclusively on him.

In addition, I find that I can do great harm to those around me with just my thoughts alone, especially if those thoughts are filled with anger or rage. No need to worry, I rarely reach that boiling point. The sorrow and the regret that ensue are too great to bear.

Occasionally I find that I can affect objects in my surroundings during moments of great emotional outbursts, so I try to keep that down to a minimum as well.

As a psychic, I learned the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein before he was found, and tried to tell the Defense Department, the White House, and other government officials, but without success. This did cause me to have an attack of conscience, as I'm reluctant to use my abilities in such a way when it may lead to the harming of another.

Here's a copy of an e-mail that I sent to J.P. Warren, a psychic investigator about that time:

Subj: Location of Saddam Hussein August 05, 2003 Circa 7:35 A.M. Pacific Time
Date: 8/5/03 9:10:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
To: jpw@LEMURteam.com
CC:

I received the following impressions regarding the location of Saddam Hussein. I thought that I would share them with you. It's practically impossible to reach anyone in the government who may be able to operate on psychic tips.

As of Tuesday, August 05, 2003, 7:35 A.M. Pacific Time, Saddam Hussein may be found in the City of Tikrit. It's my belief that he is near water, possibly the Tigris River, or a water treatment plant.

Because he moves around periodically, this information is only accurate for the above given time.

After Hussein was later located in that area, he wrote me back and asked me questions regarding my psychic ability. Here's my response:

I believe that my answer is going to disappoint you.

When it comes to something as unpredictable as the mind, it's difficult to shine the light of scientific inquiry upon such a mercurial process as psychic enterprises. I can't say that my results will always be 100 per cent accurate. This is because we as humans are constantly changing our minds about what it is we want. For example, we may program ourselves to fail if the results or outcome is something that frightens us, or in some way prove undesirable.

Let's say, if I know that by giving what I know about the location of Saddam Hussein may result in his injury or death, I may unwittingly sabotage the accuracy of my efforts to locate him. This is because of my natural aversion to hurting another. It's as though the soul gives you the answer you're seeking, a correctness that is totally subjective. Before it gives the answer it asks: "Do you want the answer that is ostensibly correct, or the one that you can live with?"

However, if I put aside these concerns and ask many times and the answer is always the same, then I can say with some measure of reliability that the answer is correct.

Can I tap this ability consistently? The answer is yes. But I can't rush it. Like a water pump that must be primed before the water flows freely, I find that I must prime my mind sufficiently to bring forth an answer. It's almost as though I must convince the power within that I'm earnestly seeking an answer before it will respond.

The scientific community thrives on experiments that can be replicated. And I believe that you're seeking a level of certitude or performance that will satisfy their strict requirements when it comes to proof. I'm not sure if I'm that guy.

I can tell you that bin Laden is not holed up in a cave: for a time he was living in a rather modest home, not too much unlike those we live in here in the United States.

Further, I knew where Steve Fossett remains could be found, before someone [1] stumbled upon the wreckage of his plane in a rather remote area. I was listening to my favorite radio program, Coast to Coast AM, with host George Noory, whose guest was a remote viewer, the guest and his remote viewing team were using their abilities to find Fossett with mixed success.

Meditating at bed time, I asked the source within where Fossett could be found. Immediately three lakes appeared within my mind's eye. At another time, I Fast Blasted the C2C AM show to reveal to the host where Fossett could be found. Of course, nothing came of that.

I learned later that the lakes were the Mammoth Lakes. My psychic information may not have been specific enough to find Fossett, but it would have narrowed the search area somewhat.

Now, back to why I'm writing this blog entry. I started this entry with a quote. The author of the quote is unknown. The statement, in isolation, wouldn't have made much sense without a little background--some details from my life. Hence, the long prelude. On the morning of 11-20-2008, a woman's voice said:

"The sun shone down on your face something terrible taking away your sunset."

Her words didn't frighten me, as they were tailored just for me, and it's almost as though she knew I would understand her words. I knew the word "terrible"was defined as "intense," not "dreadful," as in this passage from the Bible:

A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name....

I can't imagine this angel of God possessing a "dreadful" countenance. It probably had a light surrounding it that was intensely bright.

The sun, I believe, represents God's Light (the light of His Spirit), which lights our countenance. Jesus was said to have had such an experience, here described in this passage from the New Testament:

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them:
and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

The sunset represents our death. We're are born (our sun rises) and, each successive day of our life, the sun approaches its zenith, and begins it downward descent, until it culminates in our sunset (our death).

The meaning of the message: I would have died long ago, but for this Light of God shining down in all it's brilliance upon my countenance, keeping me as though I am still in the Noonday of my life, removing, for now, my sunset.

Recently, I had a medical checkup, which I found a little embarrassing. The doctor and his attendant, knowing my age, kept repeating, "You're looking good! Really good! And your heart is beating so strong...it's like a mule kicking!"

Now, I guess I know why: "The sun shone down on [my] face something terrible...."


[1] FOXNews.com - Steve Fossett's Belongings Possibly Found in California Forest - Local News News Articles National News U...

Queen for a Day, or For a Lot Longer?

As you may know, if you have visited my blog before, is that occasionally the still small voice within shares with me the state of our world, and a preview of things to come.

Here's another such preview:

On 10-28-2008, I was told--"The Queen of the Land is back. She'll take care of our needs now."

Enigmatic to say the least. And wouldn't you know, I have never heard of such a Queen, and a Google search turned up some rather interesting references to boot. There's a Queen of the Land festival, and there's a Sumerian Goddess, Inanna, who bears the title.

Sumerian Queen of the Land. Source of the Earth's life blood. She filled the wells, rivers and springs with Her blood. 2,000 B.C.E. Juniper is Her tree. Queen of Heaven, Sumerian (Iraq) Queen Moon, Great Goddess of the Bronze Age. Often depicted standing with two winged lions. Ruler of all stars and planets, and rain clouds.

Now, I'm sure of one thing: The festival queens are not the Queen of the Land. Whether Inanna is that queen only God knows.

But this is what I suspect. The Queen of the Land has returned after a brief absence to continue to prosper the land. Why she left is the stuff of speculation.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I do believe that a greening of the land is now upon us. That very day after I heard the voice the U.S. stock market gained almost 900 points, and markets around the world gained as well.

Is this the beginning of the end of our financial woes? That, too, only God knows. But if the voice is right, the Queen of the Land may prove to be more than just a Queen for a Day.

"Love knows no limits"

After watching this touching You Tube video, I got to thinking about my own experience with a Cocker Spaniel, and his friend, a larger dog that towered over him.

One morning I was awaken by barking. It was so persistent that I thought I had better investigate. I owned no dog, and neither did my neighbor.

I went to my back door, switched on the porch light, and there he stood looking up at me--a brown Cocker Spaniel.

He stopped barking for a moment, content to have someone take his barking seriously. I had a pool in the backyard, fenced in, of course, with a gate that allowed access.

The Spaniel walked through the gate, returned, and barked at me. I thought: "Why is my gate open. I never leave it open."

Again, the Spaniel walked through the gate, returned, and barked at me. That's when I caught on: He wanted me to follow him.

The next time he went through the gate into the pool area, I followed. There in the pool, at the shallow in, but far away from the steps that would have allowed egress, was this huge dog, a breed that I didn't recognize.

I could see that he was trapped--he was fighting against the pool wall, and his feet couldn't touch bottom. Obviously, he wasn't smart enough to turn around and exit the way he came in. I thought: "Maybe he fell into the pool chasing a cat, or something."

The morning was cold (It was winter.), and the water must have been freezing. The poor dog wouldn't have lasted much longer under those conditions, his chest heaving to get more air, his legs, now heavy with exhaustion, treading water, and it was clear that, unless I rescued him, he was a goner.

It took me a few minutes to find a solution that I thought might work. I had to get something under those massive feet and legs, and turn him around, where he would find shallower water and leave the pool under his own power.

I didn't think that the SPCA would make a house call that early in the morning, and calling the fire department never occurred to me.

I remember an old gate that had fallen, and was now being stored behind my garage. If I could somehow get that gate under him, I could maneuver him so that he would be turned in the right direction.

After several attempts, I finally got the gate (which floated, thank goodness) under his legs and feet, and gently turned him around.

Perhaps he was a little dumb, but he was smart enough to know that I was there to help him, and when his feet touched the floor of the pool again, he slowly walked out, so exhausted that he didn't shake the water from his fur in the characteristic manner of dogs, their whole body shaking from head to tail, water flying in every direction.

When the big dog left my yard, I ascended the steps of the porch, hoping to return to my sleep sans dogs, and barking. When I reached for the porch light switch, the Cocker barked again. He had stayed behind, and hadn't followed his friend.

Now sitting on his haunches, he lifted his right paw, and put it back down. He did this several times before I realized that he wanted to thank me.

I descended the steps, and when I stood before him, he offered me his right paw again in thanks, and I took it, and shook it.

The Cocker seemed satisfied and followed after the huge dog. Curious, I followed too. The big dog, clearly okay now, was reclining on the icy-cold lawn of my neighbor's front yard. He would rest for a time, get his wind back, and return home, his friend protectively following.

What amazed me was the Cocker's eagerness to thank me for my heroic efforts: I had saved his friend who would have surely drowned had I not rescued him, and, unlike the ten lepers whom Jesus had healed, with only one returning to give thanks [1], this animal did what many humans might have taken for granted.

Dannion Brinkley, the man who died several times, and returned to tell about it, describes an animal encounter in one of his Life Reviews (He's had several.). One day he happened upon a farmer beating a poor mule. He intervened, telling the farmer that he would give him a beaten if he didn't desist immediately.

Dannion had a mean reputation, and the farmer must have seen that meanness in his eyes and knew that he meant business, and so he ceased his beating of the animal.

In his Life Review, Brinkley says that when he got to that scene from his life, he could read the mule's thoughts, and he could feel the mule's gratitude after he put an end to its merciless beating.

Based on my other readings, it appears that animated things have a consciousness, and can be communicated with, and there are professional Horse Whisperers, and Dog Whisperers to boot, insisting that, if you know how, animal communication is possible, if limited.

With some animals, (if not all) I wonder just how limited our communicating with them really is. Love seems to transcend all boundaries, all limits, including that of the animal mind.

[1] Book Luke, Chapter 17, Verse 12-18 (KJV)