Spiritual Identity and Linguistics of Being, reveals Sovereign Equality exists for All

Individualism as a Practice of Self Respect, extends to All; in a Spiritual Sense, the immutable Power Within cannot be defined or limited by outside Control Agendas.

This is a long post, for the best experience, please view in a standard browser.

This is a continuation in a Series about Individual Sovereignty and a follow up on the previous article; originally, some materials here were a part of it. In this post, the focus is on Linguistic acknowledgement of our Spiritual sense of Identity; exploring a different approach to Sovereignty.

The last two articles, covered this and other questions:

“Is there a reasonable expectation there could ever be any form of Government, capable of showing true respect for Individual Autonomy?” — It’s not likely to happen, but there’s a saying:

“If Wishes were Horses, Beggars would Ride.” — (Scottish proverb; approx 1628)

Legal vs Lawful can be aspects of Intent

What affects what is written, is Meaning and Intent; this can be applied to restrict freedom, just as much as it can be used to remove those same imposed constraints in the context of our Social Mind. How we See ourselves, becomes part of the clarity of how we Stand against legal deceit, written to define us and bind us to agendas that are not our own.

As Archimedes said:

“Give me a Lever long enough…… and single - handed, I can Move the World.”

There could be no greater lever to move the world with than Language, which is foundational and influential to Civilization and how we view our Autonomy within it. These are not mutually exclusive to each other, though they may appear to be. The issue at hand is, whoever currently holds the levers of Control, must give it up, in order for Civilization to continue to evolve and for Culture to thrive in a natural way.

The Legal System as well as other facets of imposed Social Order are only symptomatic and not the primary cause of Parasitic Hierarchy. More likely, the Parasitic Hierarchy is the cause of the Legal System. From the surface, the initial cause would appear to be the Language alone; yet it is not, it is only in how it is used and how we agree to grasp meaning and intent. Linguistic projection of meaning is quite powerful and foundational, but Language is only a vector, not an origin.

In order to begin to realize Freedom, it is best to see that it’s a property of our Infinite Being; existing at the core of everything, as an expression of our Spiritual sense of Self.

Essentially:

There are many facets to Sovereignty, where the condition for Social Cohesion is concerned.

When Language becomes corrupt by Hierarchical Agenda, Laws can be constructed from Verbal Malfeasance.

Written law employs Linguistic usurpation to target Individual Identity and Autonomy; when revealed through Etymology, this can be unraveled.

Through some study and awareness of Linguistic Architecture, it is possible to Nullify present day usurpation that has become baked into our Language.

On Identity: It’s not what Authority thinks it knows of Us as Individuals; it’s what We know of who and what we Are — and where we are really from.

Language has a direct impact on how we agree to view each other, both Individually and at larger scales of community.

---

Summary of what is in this article:

• Language is Foundational to Civilization

  • Our Language and our Awareness of Self; what we know about our Identity.

  • Linguistics show where Sovereignty is; yet Hierarchical Parasites distort it for their own advantage.

    • Legality is an Economy of Control, it relies primarily on deceit from Etymological Manipulation.

    • Illiteracy factor in Ancient Culture enabled the evolution of crimes the Legal System and Power Hierarchies engage in today.

• Spirituality is Foundational to Identity and Language

  • Spiritual perception of Identity through Symbolism within Language.

    • Announcement of Being, spoken in Language: To respect “I am.”

    • English, like Sanskrit and Ancient Egyptian, show “I am” as Infinite Being; Observer and Observed — A Projection of the Self.

• Cultural Traditions show awareness of Individual Autonomous Self, hidden in Symbolism.

  • Isha Upanishad, Vedic concept of Brahman.

  • Hanuman and Vedic Symbolism tied to Yogic practice to Connect to the Inner Life Force; Pranava. We are made of energy and consciousness.

• Hierarchy is a distortion of Individual Sovereignty, which reflects within Society

  • Identity and Language affect Culture.

    • Social Distortions affect both the Top and the Bottom.

  • Caste System; some basics, Hierarchy was fastened to the Vedic concept of Brahman.

    • Ancient Indian Caste system; originally Adaptive, later became Fixed.

    • Caste System is a contradiction to the Unity of Brahman.

• Etymologies; a mini glossary of word roots that preserve original Meaning, with focus on Hierarchy, an expandable quick reference for convenience.

  • Most words in this list are Authoritarian in nature, to reform, we must See.

• References and Links for Inspirations in support of Individualism. Self Reliance is primary to honest Self Respect.

  • Frédéric Bastiat

  • Ralph Waldo Emerson

  • Henry David Thoreau

---

Language is Foundational to Civilization

Our Language and our Awareness of Self, what we know about our Identity:

• Self Awareness is a primary part of Communication and Exchange. It is Primary because: All of Life physically lived, is experienced Subjectively as the Individual.

• The Architecture of Linguistics holds symbolic keys to our psychological awareness of our Identity, wherever Being is expressed or addressed.

• Spiritual Identity is immutable; in language, “I am” gets verbally broken down, first in symbolic form, then by intent and finally, by Social Roles people play.

• Language can form a bridge of expression for Spiritual inner knowing. Symbolism can lead to Meaning through Sight, the Mind knows nothing by itself.

• Symbolism helps anyone See what they cannot Think, anything written can be corrupted by the Mind. Intelligence comes from Consciousness, not the Mind.

• Being observes and Sees itself, reflected in every action, Mind places labels and divides the experience observed. Labels and Titles become barriers to Sight.

Sri Aurobindo writes:

“Mental knowledge is not true knowledge; true knowledge is that which is based on the true sight, the sight of the Seer, of Surya, of the Kavi. Mental thought is not knowledge, it is a golden lid placed over the face of the Truth, the Sight, the divine Ideation, the Truth-Consciousness.”

About the Mental process and Knowledge:

We naturally See what Is, our Mind tries to tell us a Story about what Is; with Language, we try to tell others that story. Language fails to describe Wholeness, because the Mind fails to recognize anything more than Parts. Words can describe Parts, symbolism can describe whole Ideas; Absolute Oneness can only be seen, or experienced, the Mind cannot Know it. In silence, One can See, in stillness, One can Know what cannot be Known. In Silence and Stillness, the Mind cannot Own what is Observed. The true knower within, the Observer is really one with what is Observed. Language can only ever hint at this essence Oneness.

Some Cautions apply when seeking Spiritual Wholeness reflected in Language:

What we ‘See’ of Existence, cannot be completely placed into the context of Logic. While Existence can be Observed, it’s difficult for the Seer to describe the Wholeness of it in words. This is because words are only tools of the mind, functioning with logic.

One of the most important points to make about Language; it’s an application of Logical perspective, dependent on a “binary comparison.” Relating differentiation of elements the mind can focus on. I will point this out further down, in the discussion about “I am.”

Sadhguru said something quite interesting in one of his interviews with Joe Rogan:

“We see our Logic as related to our Existence, as the way we are made. But, the way Existence is made, doesn't fit into our logic. This is the biggest mistake that modern societies are making, trying to fit Existence into Logic. Your Logic has a place within Existence, yet Existence cannot be fit into your Logic.”

“Because your logic functions between “Binaries of Two.” You and Me have to be there, for Logic. The whole spiritual experience itself, is not “logically correct” because the experience of life is Beyond Two.”

“There are NO binaries in The Spiritual process, when I use the word “Spiritual,” I'm not using the word Spiritual the way “Religions” are using it. They're talking about ‘a’ spirit which comes and goes and whatever not.”

“So, in that sense if you experience your life beyond your physiological and psychological construct then you're Spiritual……. there is only thus far that your language goes…….”

“When you speak of something in human languages; you have to be logically correct, otherwise you cannot speak.”

Linguistic study is a good ‘starting point’ in a Social Sense

Words are like “Spells,” as exemplified by adding ‘S’ to ‘words’ becomes “Swords,” I’m not sure who originally pointed this out; everyone has probably already seen this example. What’s important is how language has been hijacked and put into service for supporting Hierarchical Caste Systems, which can be reflected in Written Law.

Legal Structure depends on Language

This is worth repeating:

The Legal System is an Economy of Control; You are it’s Collateral, Your Compliance is it’s Currency, Your willing, blind Loyalty is It’s Coin, why would It ever allow acknowledgement of your Independence from it?

Although it’s backed by use of Paper Terrorism; then ultimately followed up by Lethal Force, to insure it’s demand for Control, it relies much more on Deceit or Fraud, this is reinforced by our own belief in the System. Language is the main vector for this type of control and it was only ever subverted by Usurpers who sought that Control. In spite of this, etymology seems to have preserved root meanings that lead back to deeper truth, hidden within most Languages.

Etymologies

There are many illustrations to show how linguistic manipulation is facilitated; from my previous post: Etymology of the word, “Registration” shows both intent and codification for this. Interestingly, if one digs much further back into ancient wisdom; what is found is, a full conscious knowledge of the true Sovereign Nature within Individual Life for both Man or Woman, which was regarded as sacred. Etymology helps reveal these hidden meanings, even in languages like English. More on Etymologies further down.

Ancient Cultures mostly failed to Universalize Sacred Wisdom

In most ancient cultures, those who were truly aware of deeper meanings, were initiates such as Priests or Scribes and they accounted for as little as 3% of the population, sometimes less. The overall literacy in ancient times, was possibly much higher; in some cases, around 15%, depending on the culture. Symbolism found in spoken stories, could still carry significant messages of wisdom, most ancient literature was written in a symbolic manner. The Ancient Mind of man, most likely functioned from a more intuitive and symbolic perspective, as opposed to the more modern analytical, intellectual and logical functioning we see today.

The Illiteracy factor became an advantage for Hierarchical Parasites

For most of the uninitiated, even if they were literate; they were still unaware of how their own inner nature is truly Sovereign, and therefore Free, this might be due to having far less access to written knowledge, possibly less access to oral teaching. This left the cultural door open for ingratiation, infiltration and usurpation, at many levels, enabling opportunistic “Controllers” to walk right in.

Small Community systems based on respect, honor and conscientiousness, became hijacked and corrupted to serve the usurpers and usurers. These were opportunistic Parasites; however, they may have always existed in nearly every culture.

---

Spirituality is Foundational to Identity and Language

Announcement of Being; spoken in Language — To respect “I am.”

Language can express Spiritual perception through Symbolism starting with Identity — This is very deeply rooted in Esoteric Knowledge

Many people, especially in the west think their Identity begins with a given name on a Birth Certificate, recognized and recorded by Government and therefore defined. For many, additional definitions are often added; like Race, that describes an Individual in physical appearance. Religion or Culture can be used to show affiliation. All these and other aspects are measurable to some extent, but they all have one thing in common; they are just experiences, so who is really having the experience?

If more people were to question appearance based identities, there could be no doubt that at the center of everything is something much greater. There is a quiet and Nameless Self, that is not Mind, not Emotions and not the Body; rather it is a Quiet Observer. The Body, which is the basis for appearance based Identity, is itself just merely being experienced. We are NOT the Body.

Our True Self, when realized, cannot be Manipulated

If we consider our True Identity to be the Consciousness; the inner Self, then it cannot be seen, measured, or defined and cannot be specifically attached to associations or particular physical preferences of experience. More importantly; as a result, it cannot be Controlled by Authority or Parasitic Hierarchies. It is Formless and Nameless, yet it can be referred to in a word as “Consciousness.” It is that quiet Observer, we often confuse with the Mind. Consciousness is primary; Mind comes from It, not the other way around.

Self Identity in Language

At the center of Language, in nearly all our daily exchanges, there is one expression often spoken: “I am.” It’s found in every language world wide and across eons of time, into the most ancient languages. This addresses The Self within, as the personalized Identity in spoken form. This is Infinite Being and should be respected; however, in modern language it is often not, this calls to light a bad habit we have become accustomed to.

There’s phrase in daily usage: “I am a US citizen.” On most forms, applications and government documents, there is usually a question: “Are you a US citizen?” This is disrespectful to the inner Self, it is also incorrect grammar. So, the answer to that question is actually, “No.”

“I am that I am” (Respect of the Inner Self is proper grammar)

The misuse of “I am,” the announcement of Being in a sentence. In application, when saying “I am,” it is necessary to only use a proper noun; such as a Name, never use a common noun. This has a direct implication with the civic and political language we use every day. Legalese appears to be the most egregious offender.

Specifically:

When we use a phrase that addresses "I am" to ‘a’ (subject) or ‘an’ (object) in this case, "citizenship," we are addressing ourselves within a linguistic constraint; tethering the infinite condition of Sovereign Being directly to a conditional, legally defined fictional entity. Being should not be Subjugated or Objectified, because It is Primary to All experience.

To summarize:

• IT IS NOT CORRECT: To say, “I am ‘a’ citizen” because it’s the same as saying, “I am ‘a’ triangle,” or; “I am ‘a’ piece of paper,” or; “I am ‘a’ chair.”

• IT IS CORRECT: To say, “I am ‘holding’ a citizenship,” or “I am ‘holding’ a piece of paper that has the word; “citizen” written on it.”

Being is an Action of Consciousness; it is always engaged in action, adding a Verb after “I am,” is the only other alternative than using a proper noun. Even a proper noun, like a Name diminishes Being just a little bit, yet it shows respect to Individual Character and Personality, without reducing Being to a Subject or an Object.

Just knowing this, makes calling yourself ‘a’ citizen, into a belligerent lie, when asked.

‘A’ citizen is NOT proper of Being, and it is NOT your Identity; it is a Social, Political and Legal Status; a construct which must be Linguistically separated by a Verb, (action word) because it’s not who or what you are — it’s just what you are doing.

So, what is the Wholeness of “I am” beyond a Name?

The Absolute Self, the Observer, is Nameless and in an Ancient Gaulish poem, there is an expression:

“He who, — Nameless, Named — He who Is”

My Own Symbolism for the Phrase: “I am”

This may be an aspect of how “I am” really expresses itself, though not certain if most would agree. This is based off my own study: Observer + Observed = Dynamic Being. English uses ‘I’ + ‘am’ as a Binary to reflect what is actually One, which is Being, this is the logic of language structure.

Being is Observing, Itself —

• “I” = The Observer; Nameless Sight; True Knower. Eternal Eye, (one way to interpret) One Who Is that Knows, that Allows what is seen.

Observed Sees Itself in Being and Becoming —

• “am” = The Observed, Named, (Being) movement of, or state of becoming; being and becoming, passive and active; The Doer of the “I.” Could be thought of as an adverb.

The True nature of “I am” stands fiercely alone, Nameless, Dynamically Still — Perfectly in Peace and in Balance. An Observing force of will, Equally Infinite Being. The very definition of Sovereignty.

There are examples of “I am,” in ancient Languages:

Traditions that support Individual Sovereignty, hidden in Symbolism can be found everywhere. In studying some of the oldest Languages, this all leads back to Identifying with The Self as Infinite Being.

In Sanskrit:

The expressions known as: अहम् —> ahám “I am” and अस्मि।—> ásmi, “will be” dates back to the Veda. Also in Sanskrit; the chant सो ऽहम् —> 'Soham' literally translates into I am He, or I am That; which, is one and the same thing. This acts as an extension of “I am” to introduce the concept of Being, Consciousness and Bliss. This identifies “I am” as the Inner Self.

Fitting the Symbolic description above: “I” = ahám and “am” = ásmi

Note: ahám, is sometimes used by itself and can be equal to “I am,” depending on the verb tense, which can also be intuitively implied.

• “I” = ahám — Observer; Nameless Sight; True Knower.

• “am” = ásmi — Observed; state of becoming.

Additional clarification from a commenter on Reddit:

अहं (or अहम्) —> ahám can be fine by itself as forms of the English verb “be”, which is often assumed in Sanskrit. Of course there are instances where you would need to explicitly state it, where that word would be अस्मि —> ásmi. It is a first person form of the verb. (Tense)

So, “I am” would be अहं अस्मि, or अहमस्मि, since you can combine the म् (M) and the अ (Ah) to get a proper म. (Ma) sound.

One additional point:

The standard sentence structure in English is subject-verb-object, whereas in Sanskrit, it is usually subject-object-verb. So if you want to translate something like; “I am great”, it should rather be translated into “अहं महान अस्मि” or “अहं महानास्मि” —> “aham mahanasmi,” if using the “Savarna deergha sandhi” grammar rules.

From my own experience, in the study of Sanskrit, the above description is accurate.

In Ancient Egyptian:

‘The One Who Is — Who He Is’, as an expression, can likely be found in the book, Going Forth by Day — Mislabeled as, Book of the Dead.

In transliterated form, from Egyptological consonant form: pꜣ nty wn.w.f, shows as the following, in the online English to Hieroglyph translator:

𓊪ꜣ 𓈖𓏏𓇌 𓅃𓈖.𓅃.𓆑

The relevant phrase that shows in Going Forth by Day, for the invocation of Horus:

“I am” — “One [becoming] from Oneness” — Yanak anu — öū(w) em öū(w). In actual pronunciation, it would be run together as: Yanak-an-öū Em-öū dropping the extra ‘u’ in ‘anu’ as it runs into ‘öū(w)’ — (One) — Egyptological transliterated format:

jnk, n, w’. M w’. — or in Hieroglyphs — 𓇌𓈖𓈎 — 𓈖𓅲

Yanak anu = “I am” (most likely) this also seems to make sense with the description of “I am.” There may be more aspects of this in need of clarification, just as in Sanskrit, tenses may influence how this is used. There may be other forms of “I am.”

• “I” = Yanak — Observer; Nameless Sight; True Knower. Observing: “He who opens the way of Sight.” (In Egyptian, this is connected to Eye of Horus)

• “am” = anu — Anum or Anut; sound vibration; Observed; state of becoming. Observer of Light; Atum, light of Re. Maybe similar to an adverb, in usage.

There’s a lot of deep symbolic meaning to be found in Ancient Egyptian writing, I will dive deeper into that symbolism in other articles.

---

Cultural Traditions that show awareness of Individual Autonomous Self, hidden in Symbolism

Isha Upanishad and the Vedic era, short reference:

The very first line of the Isha Upanishad points to the primacy of One Energy; the Entire Whole is within each of the parts of the Whole, nothing is outside of it.

The inner Self is of Divine Origin.

ईशा वास्यमिदं सर्वं — Isha vasyamidam sarvum:

“The power that rules, clothes itself as all.” Both IS and is clothed in, absolutely ALL that is. This is not a direct translation. “Isha” is the Power that Rules and is the “Eternal Self.” Everything comes from it and is a part of it, but it cannot be fully seen. An interpretation of “Vasyam” as “to clothe or be clothed by,” is a contemporary use of it, from the times in which the Isha Upanishad was written. This was actually from many centuries after the golden age of the Veda.

What Stands within each, Immortal and Unique, is the Lord of all Nature. It is Immutably Sovereign, without which nothing can exist. In this sense, Isha is the force of Manifestation, as an emanation of the Self, in Brahman.

Sri Aurobindo writes:

“It has already been said that all Souls are one possessing Self, the Lord; and although the Lord inhabits each object as if separately, all objects exist in that Self and not outside It.”

On Brahman, Sri Aurobindo states:

“Brahman is one, not numerically, but in essence. Numerical oneness would either exclude multiplicity or would be a pluralistic and divisible oneness with the Many as its parts. That is not the unity of Brahman, which can neither be diminished nor increased, nor divided.” [….]

“In the becoming, [that is Manifested Reality] each individual is Brahman variously represented and entering into various relations with Itself in the play of the divine consciousness; in being, each individual is all Brahman.” [….]

[Excerpted from Isha Upanishad]

The Self and Brahman — One coming from Oneness

Isha Upanishad expresses, the profound concept of Brahman.

Absolute Oneness; each of the Parts of One, which are Many; the Entire Wholeness of One as expressed by It’s Infinity of Uniqueness, exists in Totality within each of the Many. Nothing is outside of Brahman. It is the whole movement and non-movement within it’s own manifestation.

When we Identify our selves as the Seated One within, we observe that everything is woven together by Being; there not having a separation of existence, into separate existences. The Objects of time, space, energy and of sight, are All from One origin; with one purpose.

Objects don’t have separate ‘existences,’ Existence has many Objects in It, born of the Self Perception, as Consciousness, everything is made of it, and for it. It sits Individually within and enjoys viewing it’s myriad forms of the Five Modalities:

Expressed as Five Elements: Earth, Water, Wind, Fire and Ether.

Or put differently; Form, Sustenance, Vitality, Time and Space.

Inner Self is also symbolized by Five Breaths of Hanuman, in veneration of Shiva:

Hanumana Pancha Mukha: Na Ma Śi Va Ya ॐ नमः शिवाय — Nama Shivaya

In general ॐ नमः शिवाय means “Salutation to Shiva”. In a way, it means bowing down to your own self as Shiva resides in all, as it’s own consciousness.

The mantra is said to be the five-syllable mantra, na ma śi va ya; — na represents earth, ma water, śi fire, va air, and ya ether.

Five Facing Panchamukha: - Hanuman, Narasimha, Garuda, Varaha, and Hayagriva

Hanumana Panchamukha comes from the Ramayana

Five Facing Hanuman: Pancha means Five and Mukha means Facing. The Five ‘Facing’ Breaths of Hanuman, extinguished the five vital lamps of a demon called Mahiravana, in the Ramayana.

A very well written explanation of the symbolism for Hanumana Panchamukha was posted in a thread on Hindu Dharma Forum in 2007: http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?1794-Origin-of-Lord-Panchamukha-Hanuman

[Excerpted from the thread]

Arvind Sivaraman writes:

Om Shirdi Sai Ram, Namaste

:: Lord Hanuman ::

Lord Hanuman is worshipped all over India with various names like Anjaneya, Hanumanji, Maruti, Bajrang Bali, Mahavir, Pavan Kumar. He was born to the Wind Goddess and Anjana Devi. He is one of the seven chiran-jeevis (immortal ones). The Sun God Surya is considered as his Guru.

The Valmiki Ramayana has a separate section called Sundara Kandam or Sundar Kand, which describes in detail the lelas of Lord Hanuman is his search for Sita , across the sea.

The Sundara Kandam comprises 2885 verses and the word Sundara means beautiful. The esoteric significance of the sundara kandam is important. The ocean represents the ocean of Samsara. Lord Rama represents the Paramatma and Sita devi represents the Jivatma. Hanuman represents the Guru or Divine teacher.

:: Origin of Sri Panchamukha Hanuman ::

The origin of Sri Panchamukha Hanuman can be traced to a story in the Ramayana. During the war between Lord Rama and Ravana, Ravana took the help of Mahiravana who was the king of Pathala.

Lord Hanuman in order to protect Lord Rama and Lakshmana formed a fortress with his tail. But Mahiravana took the form of Vibeeshana and took Lord Rama and Lakshmana to Pathala loka.

Loka = “World of” or “Abode”

• From Google: What is patala loka?

  • “Vishnu Purana named seven lokas: In many Indian religions, Patala, literally that which is below the feet, denotes the subterranean realms of the universe, which are located under the earth. Patala is often translated as underworld or netherworld.”

Aravind continues:

Hanuman entered pathala loka in search of Rama and Lakshmana. He found out that to kill Mahiravana, he had to extinguish 5 lamps at the same time. So he took the Panchamukha form with Hanuman, Hayagriva, Narasimha, Garuda and Varaha faces and extinguished the lamps. Mahiravana was killed immediately.

Four cardinal directions of Breath with the Vital breath of Brahman:

:: Panchamukha Hanuman ::

Hanuman (East),
Hayagriva (Top), [facing upward the breath is that of active Brahman]
Narasimha (North),
Garuda (West),
Varaha (South)

sarabhanga Avadhuta writes:

Namaste Arvind,

Thanks for posting this description of panchamukha hanuman, and for your suggestion of the cardinal directions, which is an important consideration in this far reaching story. The appointed directions, however, require some clarification.

It is clear that Hanuman is the vital breath, the Prana, the Atman, The Self ~ and this unified wind is all-pervading and all-conquering; it is the pra-Nava ~ AUM ॐ

Prana is considered the Physical Force of Life. Also referred to as Kundalini, energy of breath, life force.

Pra-Nava is the power of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva combined. In yoga, Pra-Nava: ‘AUM’ is the supreme mantra and is the most sacred sound.

AUM — ॐ is also considered the primordial sound and is the only one that can be generated without the use of internal mouth parts such as the tongue when being chanted.

AUM sound progression: Sound rises from the lowest Nadi (at the Navel) through higher Nadis along the spine, then slowly ending in the point of the Nose. This chant is setting a continuous vibration with sound, in Kriya Yoga, this is repeated in practice usually 20 times or more. Kriya Meditation is a daily practice.

Nadi are channels for energy flow both inside and outside the body; Nadi roughly translates to “tube,” “channel” or “pathway.”

Corresponding meanings and movement of frequency in direction of progression:

• Aah —————> Uô —————> Mm—

• Manifestation —> Sustaining ——> Dissolution —

• Brahma ————> Vishnu ————> Shiva —

Existence is Energy, a result of the universal Frequency and Vibration

Avadhuta continues:

The pancham-urti prana or panchamukha pra-Nava is expressed as follows:

hanuman (prana or devadatta) ~ the eastern wind,
nrsimha (udana or naga) ~ the southern wind,
garuda (samana or krkara) ~ the western wind,
varaha (apana or kurma) ~ the northern wind,
hayagriva (vyana or dhanamjaya) ~ the upper (or north-eastern) wind.

The eastern wind (hanuman) is the same shining devadatta shankha of arjuna,
the southern wind (nrsimha) is sahadeva's manipušpaka shankha,
the western wind (garuda) is yudhisthira's anantavijaya shankha,
the northern wind (varaha) is bhima's paundra shankha , and
the north-eastern wind (hayagriva) is nakula's sughoša shankha.

And, looking to the east (which is the perspective of Arjuna), we observe the western face of the Shiva linga (aghora) ~ and the face of hanuman,
to the south (the perspective of Sahadeva) we see the northern face (tatpurusa) ~ and the face of Nrsimha,
to the south-west (the perspective of Nakula) we see the north-eastern or upper face (Ishana) ~ and the face of Hayagriva,
to the west (the perspective of Yudhisthira) we see the eastern face (sadyojata) ~ and the face of garuda,
to the north (the perspective of Bhima) we see the southern face (vamadeva) ~ and the face of varaha.

Note:

The bija ‘Nam’ ~ नँ is directed inwards, in the traditional image of panchamukha, the one facing up; hayagriva, represents the active vital breath of Brahman. This is breathing the vital force into the Individuation of Self.

Vital breath of hayagriva (vyana, directed upwards) resounds as the bija Nam ~ नँ The breath of nrsimha (udana, directed southwards) is the bija Mah ~ मः
The breath of hanuman (prana, directed eastwards) is the bija Shim ~ शिँ
The breath of varaha (apana, directed northwards) is the bija Vam ~ वाँ
The breath of garuda (samana, directed westwards) is the bija Yam ~ यँ

And simultaneously expressed, this controlled vital breath (now undivided Atman and personified as the pancamukha hanuman) is the same panchajanya shankha of Krishna ~ which is both pancak-shara mantra and pra-nava:

ॐ नमः शिवाय —> AUM, Na — Ma — Shi — Va — Ya

Panchajanya = "Born-of-Five" referring to the conch of Hindu god Vishnu.

Shankha = Conch Shell / Sacred Symbol / War Conch and Sacred wind instrument to awaken the subconscious in a manner similar to the AUM Chant.

Bija = Seed Sound / Original Vibration.

• From Google:

  • “Bija is a Sanskrit term that literally translates to “seed.” In yoga, this word can be used in a number of ways. Firstly, bija is a metaphor for the starting point or origin of all creation. It's the seed from which everything originated. Another common use of the term is to refer to bija mantras.”

Bija refers to both aspects of the seed origin; breath and vibration, which yields energy, this is the origin of physical existence. Bija is breath force; in Kriya Yoga, there are practices that enhance “how” breath forms both sound and it’s accompanied vibration.

The chant AUM, Na Ma Shi Va Ya is more than likely an ancient exercise of Breath and Sound; that through proper discipline, acts like a tuning fork, pulling all the energy forms of the body together and focusing them. The Individual becomes completely aware of the Equality of all inner Energies.

Breath or Prana is at the core of Physical life; in essence, at the core of existence. This is the Divine Spark, seated within as the dynamis of the relationship between the Observer and Observed. This aspect of ancient perception, fully supports the concept of Individual Sovereign existence, this Autonomy of the Individual is universal and completely equal.

Again, symbolically; One coming from Oneness.

---

Hierarchy is a distortion of Individual Sovereignty, which reflects within Society

Control Hierarchy is a natural enemy to the concept of Autonomous Individuality. There cannot be one Individual life that is “higher” than another, there cannot be one set of peoples who are more connected to the Divine than another. There are no Chosen People. Actually, there cannot be anyone that holds more “importance” than anyone else.

Identity and Language affect Culture

History shows that Identity and Language were important, but were not the only areas that were tools for Hierarchical distortion. Within the Cultural context, Language did play a large role. Abstract Hierarchy formed from a distortion of Self Sovereignty of leaders, who sought ever more Power. Cultural and Mythological support for inheritance based ruler ship, reinforced exclusivity for those roles of authority thereafter. For the rulers, it was best if people could feel obliged to identify personally, with the socially subordinate roles they had, or were born into as well. Psychologically, this placed most people into a fixed control grid, based on these Social and Cultural roles. Language had combined with Mythology to create a form of servile Social Morality.

This gave the majority a false obligation to serve in benefit to the ruling Few, so that they need not lift a finger. With this false sense of morality to back the Hierarchy, these fixed social ranks created a distortion of the Sovereignty of regular Individual people who occupied those subordinate roles.

Social Distortions affect both the Top and the Bottom:

• Hierarchy is a distortion of the Self Sovereignty for Leaders, created by their means and impetus to gain ever more control, justified by birthright morality.

• Hierarchy is also a distortion of the Self Sovereignty of Regular People, created by their willingness to accept assigned roles by inherited pseudo moral obligations.

Ancient Indian Caste system was originally Adaptive

Basically, the origin story of the Caste System of India is an interesting one. It illustrates how a Spiritual concept of Oneness and Non-Duality; known by the Initiated, could become completely inverted to the benefit of a tiny minority, who held political control. Castes were associated to parts of Brahman, see image below:

The Spiritually symbolic ‘form’ of Lord Brahman became socially emblematic of the Caste Hierarchy, perhaps mostly due to cognitive dissonance combined with the myths and stories for the uninitiated; there became a socially enforced sense of morality added to each role. In Vedic times, the Caste System was very meritocratic, an Individual could move up in both social importance and personal capacity. The original symbolism of Brahman, includes the concept of Self Sovereignty, rooted in the Nature of Infinite Being, when one views it from the perspective of the Veda.

What may have been flexible, later became fixed

In more recent centuries, the Caste System in India had been a very rigid one, where people could not advance into higher castes. This Hierarchical System became hereditary very early on, even influencing who you were allowed to marry.

Much of the true and deep symbolism of Brahman is not represented by the present day Caste System, which mostly defines a calcified Social strata for Hindu culture. This construct of Social Roles, was a perversion of Brahman as a concept; described by Sri Aurobindo, which in esoteric sense, is supposed to symbolize the universal wholeness of ALL manifestation.

The British Empire made use of the rigid Caste structure, to enhance administration and fortify their control over the country; making it much worse for the social mobility of Indians. The caste system reinforced the Social distortion of Individual Sovereignty.

In spite of it’s constraints, there are some Indians who are used to the Caste System, for them, it’s a way of life. Unfortunately, as with most Hierarchies there are always people on the bottom role, being crushed or even abused, with those at the top trying to reduce or prevent upward mobility. The West is no different, though it manifests in different ways.

---

Etymologies, word roots that preserve original Meaning; interrelated with focus on Hierarchy

Since the primary focus of this post is to sort out Sovereign Nature, in a Linguistic sense, having a whole section dedicated to Etymology of related words, seems proper to include. By no means is this listing of words complete, think of it as a mini glossary, for handy reference.

Also, please see: https://www.etymonline.com

In English, there are many words that we take for granted, having definitions that contemporary use does not account for original root meanings; so, true meanings are offten not applied in how we use these words. In the world of Legal matters, this has consequences.

Like mentioned near the top of this article, words can be like spells, in the example of: ‘S’ + Word = Sword.

Within the architecture of Linguistics, most words can be considered Names for Meanings; just as explained in the section on “I am,” how a proper noun, ‘Name’ offers respect to Being in it’s Individual Character.

To reveal ‘Meaning’ from behind it’s ‘Word Name,’ is to release it’s Spirit, allowing for a re-grounding of our Cultural awareness. This also vitiates the Fraud of the State.

---

Etymology of Common Words:

Religion — Bond or Obligation

• My Etymology for “Religion” : “Re — Legion” to reconnect to, or form a Legion obligated to follow without question. Roman Military force was referred to as a Legion. Example: Like Science is now a Religion so are Governments and Banks; they are Legion, for they are many. Similar to Religate or Legalite.

• Note the connections between: Religion; Legion; Religation; Legalite; Ligation

Religion Etymology: Middle English (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n- ) ‘obligation, bond, reverence’, perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind’.

Legion — To gather or collect

Legion Etymology: Attested (in Middle English, as legioun) around 1200, from Old French legion, from Latin legiō, legionem, from legō (“to gather, collect”)

Where does the word Legion originate from? Roman Military force was referred to as a Legion. Akin to legend, lecture. Also; Middle English: via Old French from Latin legio(n- ), from legere ‘choose, levy’. The adjective dates from the late 17th century, in early use often in the phrase my, their, etc. name is legion, i.e. ‘we, they, etc. are many’ (Mark 5:9).

Religate — To bind together

What does Religate mean? to bind together : constrain. religation.

What is the meaning of Legalite? 1. attachment to or observance of law. 2. : the quality or state of being legal : “lawfulness.” 3. legalities plural : obligations imposed by law. [Law = Land — Air — Water]

• (Note: the Lawfulness part I vehemently disagree with. Lawfulness follows sacred Law; while Legal or imposition of Law is NOT Lawful, the two are going in different directions.) Religate = To constrain; Legalite = To impose obligation

Ligation and Legation — Tying or Binding

Legation is the process of sending a representative to a foreign country and Ligation is the process of tying or binding something together. For example, “Legation is like a delegate in a nation.”

[Possibly both words hold related meanings, why not bind countries together? Annexation by Contract, Treaty or Conquest, maybe by slow Ingratiation?]

Sovereign — One who has no Ruler and no Subjects

Roots: Sover — Regnum

Google — What it means to be recognized as sovereign:

Having the highest power, or being completely independent: Sovereign power is said to lie with the people in some countries, and with a ruler in others. Sovereign State / Nation; We must respect the rights of Sovereign States / Nations to conduct their own affairs.

[We must also respect the rights of Sovereign Individuals and expect any Sovereign State to show that same respect.]

Synonym: Autonomous

Antonym: Citizen — Subject of State

Google actually seems to agree with my stance more than Etymology Online.

• Etymology Online seems to support the false concept that Sovereign means to essentially be “Superior” to others, implying the opposite of what I consistently state: “One who has NO Ruler, who also has No Subjects.”

• To wit: — adjective meaning, “highest, supreme, chief”” — This means there is Nobody of higher rank, than yourself. It does not specifically state that in order to hold Sovereign Status that you MUST have people below you, on a Hierarchical scale. The term does NOT require that you hold Kingship over a whole country.

• For the record: I have always held and stated that Sovereignty means that you are your OWN Ruler! If everyone is considered of Equal Sovereignty, then there is no Ruler because there is nobody to be Ruled; also, in this case “Superiority” doesn’t exist, if all are Equally Sovereign, there are no “levels” there is no Hierarchy either. [See: Sui Juris — definition below]

Sovereign:

late 13c., soverain, "superior, ruler, master, one who is superior to or has power over another," from Old French soverain "sovereign, lord, ruler," noun use of adjective meaning "highest, supreme, chief" [Nothing is higher than] (see sovereign (adj.)).

Historic Use: Specifically by c. 1300 as "a king or queen, one who exercises dominion over people, a recognized supreme ruler of a realm." Also of Church authorities and heads of orders or houses as well as local civic officials.

[There were instances even in 12th to 13th centuries, where a Ruler or Prince was respected but never had actual Political Power.]

Uper or the root: Sover:

Proto-Indo-European root meaning "over."

It forms all or part of: hyper-; insuperable; over; over-; sirloin; somersault; soprano; soubrette; sovereign; sum; summit; super-; superable; superb; superior; supernal; supra-; supreme; sur-.

It is the hypothetical source of / evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit upari, Avestan upairi "over, above, beyond;" Greek hyper, Latin super "above, over;" Old English ofer "over," German über, Gothic ufaro "over, across;" Gaulish ver-, Old Irish for.

Uper — also shares a root to — Insuperable (adj):

mid-14c., "unconquerable, incapable of being surmounted," from Old French insuperable (14c.) or directly from Latin insuperabilis "that cannot be passed over, is unconquerable," from in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + superabilis "that may be overcome," from superare "to overcome," from superus "one that is above," from super "over" (from PIE root *uper "over"). Figurative use from 1650s. Related: Insuperably; insuperability, also from mid-14c.

reign :

early 13c., regne, "kingdom, state governed by a monarch," senses now obsolete, from Old French reigne "kingdom, land, country" (Modern French règne), from Latin regnum "kingship, dominion, rule, realm," which is related to regere "to rule, to direct, keep straight, guide" (from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line," with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule").

Note: Sover + Regnum

If Sover means to be ‘above’ the Regnum, which means Rule or the ‘Rulership,’ this proves the concept of an Individual who is Autonomous, CANNOT be Ruled by any higher authority, because there is none. This condition can be found in Equality.

Autonomous — Completely Independent, not Controllable by others

• Having one's own laws

1777, "subject to its own laws" (in translations of Montesquieu); 1780, "pertaining to autonomy;" from Greek autonomos "having one's own laws," of animals, "feeding or ranging at will," from autos "self" (see auto-) + nomos "law" (from PIE root *nem- "assign, allot; take"). Compare privilege. Used mostly in metaphysics and politics; see autonomic. Related: Autonomously. Also see Sui Juris.

Antonym of Sovereign is Citizen:

Citizen — A Subject of the State — Inhabitant of the City (Citadel)

c. 1300, citisein (fem. citeseine) "inhabitant of a city or town," from Anglo-French citesein, citezein "city-dweller, town-dweller, citizen" (Old French citeien, 12c., Modern French citoyen), from cite (see city) + -ain (see -ian). According to Middle English Compendium, the -s-/-z- in Anglo-French presumably replaced an earlier *-th-. Old English words were burhsittend and ceasterware.

Citizenship (n.) — Owing to Privileges and Responsibilities

State of; "status, rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a citizen," 1610s, from citizen + -ship.

Case Law:

• Whereas, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a Citizen of the United States….. A citizen of any one of the states of the union, is “held” to “be” and “called” a “citizen of the United States”, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.

  – Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep 300

• Whereas, a “citizen” “in the United States” is analogous to the term “subject” in common-law.

  - State v. Manual 20 NC122, 14 CJS 4, pg 430

Sovereign Citizen — Oxymoron — a phrase of opposite word meanings

• Whereas, in common usage, the term “person” does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing “the word” are normally construed to exclude it.

— Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 US 653 667, 61 L Ed. 2d 153, 99 S. Ct. 2529

Sui Juris — Of One’s own Right, also relates to Autonomous

• Status: Of One’s own Right; being able to enjoy private Law Rights; also, being able to Own Property without the encumbrance of eminent domain of State, in other words able to hold Allodium on Land and on Title.

• Sui = Self + Juris = Law Right ; actually, the same meaning as Autonomous.

1610s, "of full legal age and capacity," hence capable of managing one's own affairs; in ancient Rome, "of the status of one not subject to the patria potestas," the father's legal control and dominion over his descendants. From sui, genitive of suus "his, her, its, one's," from Old Latin sovos, from PIE root *swe-, pronoun of the third person (see idiom); for second element, see jurist.

Jurisdiction — Dominus or Domain

• Juris = Law Right + Diction = Spoaken ‘of’ or ‘for;’ to show. (see below) Right of Dominus or Domain. Roman; Domus = House or Home.

Early 14c., jurisdiccioun, jurediction, etc., "administration of justice," from Old French juridicion (13c., Modern French juridiction) and directly from Latin iurisdictionem (nominative iurisdictio) "administration of justice, jurisdiction," from phrase iuris dictio, genitive of ius "law, right" (see jurist) + dictio "a saying" (from PIE root *deik- "to show," also "pronounce solemnly").

Meaning "extent or range of administrative power, domain over which a legal or judicial authority extends" is from late 14c. Meaning "judicial authority, right of making and enforcing laws" is from early 15c. The form in English assimilated to Latin 16c. Related: Jurisdictional.

Hierarchy — Moral, or Inherited ‘right’ to Rule (Sacred Rulers)

Hierós—Arkhóis

• What is referred to in the word Hierarchy? “Hier” = Upper or Higher and “Archy” = “Ruler.” Also, Hier is etymologically connected to it’s inverse sound —> Heir = to inherit; implies Moral Right. Also, since Arkhóis means “sacred ruler,” this reflects back to the prefix. Moral Right to Rule; Holder of … inheritance. This justifies Bloodlines…….

Hierarchy — From Etymology online:

Late 14c., jerarchie, ierarchie, "rank in the sacred order; one of the three divisions of the nine orders of angels;" loosely, "rule, dominion," from Old French ierarchie (14c., Modern French hiérarchie), from Medieval Latin hierarchia "ranked division of angels" (in the system of Dionysius the Areopagite), from Greek hierarkhia "rule of a high priest," from hierarkhes "high priest, leader of sacred rites," from ta hiera "the sacred rites" (neuter plural of hieros "sacred;" see ire) + arkhein "to lead, rule" (see archon). Sense of "ranked organization of persons or things" first recorded 1610s, initially of clergy, sense probably influenced by higher.

• “Ire” also seems to go with Ancient Egyptian, “Iry Pat” Prince or Higher one (Pat is pronounced Pet or Pêht:) glutteral; most words ending with a transliterated “T” are actually “êht:”

• Another example: “Ma’at” Egyptologist get this one wrong, there’s no proof the language had an “a’a” in any of the words. Instead, per Loprieno; it’s “Muâht:”

• Etymology online only stays within the European Language families where Ire = “anger,” which is also true.

Anarchy - To live with rules, but without Rulers

• Anarchy Etymology — Mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an = ‘without’ + arkhos = ‘chief, ruler’. “Without Ruler.”

For the record: “Anarchy” is NOT “Chaos;” it is only chaos for those who want to hold you as a slave, it repudiates any “claim” the State attempts to make against your Sovereignty. Also, even the word Chaos only describes something that does not follow the mental order of logic.

Anarchy is an Antonym for Hierarchy:

Capricious and Abstract Hierarchy; is a tool to keep people under the boot of the State. So that you “Understand” or Stand Under your Ruler.

Chaos — The nature of Existence

• The abyss beyond what can be known, lacking the mental order.

late 14c., "gaping void; empty, immeasurable space," from Old French chaos (14c.) or directly from Latin chaos, from Greek khaos "abyss, that which gapes wide open, that which is vast and empty" (from *khnwos, from PIE root *ghieh- "to yawn, gape, be wide open").

The meaning "utter confusion" (c. 1600) is an extended sense from theological use of chaos in the Vulgate version of "Genesis" (1530s in English) for "the void at the beginning of creation, the confused, formless, elementary state of the universe." The Greek for "disorder" was tarakhē, but the use of chaos here was rooted in Hesiod ("Theogony"), who describes khaos as the primeval emptiness of the Universe, and in Ovid ("Metamorphoses"), who opposes Khaos to Kosmos, "the ordered Universe." Sometimes it was personified as a god, begetter of Erebus and Nyx ("Night").

Understand - To stand under

• Where does the term “Understand” come from? Today, we think of it as a term referring to “Cognition,” or “Comprehension,” but it’s not. This word is authoritarian in nature, it is a way of saying that you “Stand Under” what authority is telling you. To stand under the authority of the King. Our Language defines it as synonymous to “Comprehension or Mental Grasp.”

Understand = from Old English and languages; 1. To Stand Under. 2. To grasp, to comprehend. It's an authoritarian word, on #1. — , etymology is very hard to find, but it's obviously there in the word. [Common Sense]

Superstitious - To stand over (opposite to understand)

Superstition is equal to Superiority

Superstition = superstō (Latin): super- over, above; stō - to stand, to stay, to cost. 1. to stand over or upon.

Comprehend — To perceive, Take together, To unite — Take into Mind

This is a much better word to describe “Mental Grasp.” — Sans Authority.

Mid-14c., "to understand, take into the mind, grasp by understanding," late 14c., "to take in, include;" from Latin comprehendere: "To take together, to unite; include; seize" (of catching fire or the arrest of criminals); also "to comprehend, perceive" (to seize or take in the mind), from com "with, together," here probably "completely" (see com-) + prehendere "to catch hold of, seize."

Related: Prehendere and Aprehend — To Seize

The (partial) range of senses in Latin prehendere was "to lay hold of, to grasp, snatch, seize, catch; occupy violently; take by surprise, catch in the act; to reach, arrive at;" of trees, "to take root;" of the mind, "to seize, apprehend, comprehend," though this last sense is marked "very rare" in Lewis & Short.

It is a compound of prae- "before" (see pre-) + -hendere, found only in compounds, from PIE root *ghend- "to seize, take." De Vaan regards the compound as Proto-Italic. Related: Comprehended; comprehending.

Conspire or Conspiracy - To breath together

• Webster’s New World Dictionary (1957) definition for Conspire, also accurately describes what makes Government function.

To breathe together, agree in thought, unite. Etymological root: Com = together + spirare = to breathe. 1. To plan and act together secretly. 2. To combine or work together for any purpose or effect.

[Criminal intent is referenced in this definition, but is not the primary definition.]

Corporation — Anagram for Corruption

• Corporation; also Crop-o-ration (courtesy of Wildrhody) Corporations do indeed ration the crops.

From mid-15c., corporacioun, "persons united in a body for some purpose," from such use in Anglo-Latin, from Late Latin corporationem (nominative corporatio) "assumption of a body" (used of the incarnation of Christ), noun of action from past-participle stem of Latin corporare "embody, make or fashion into a body," from corpus (genitive corporis) "body, dead body, animal body," also "a whole composed of united parts, a structure, system, community, corporation, political body, a guild" (from PIE root *kwrep- "body, form, appearance").

Meaning "legally authorized entity, artificial person created by law from a group or succession of persons" (such as municipal governments and modern business companies) is from 1610s.

Register - or Registration — To transfer Ownership Title to Authority

Pertains to ALL roots in this word:

Note: Research on this word’s etymology is extensive, the original source is:

https://steemit.com/etymology/@knownassam/register-what-does-it-mean and referenced by this post on substack: Constructive Fraud by Courageous Lion. There are many aspects to the roots in “Register;” search regarding registry thus far - register means an action of going back to it's origin.

• Origin: it is clear that anything that has to do with REG in particular directly refers to royalty.

• REGISTER-ing ‘anything,’ gets put in a book of record and is given back to the king (royalty). To transfer Ownership Title to Authority.

• If it's on the registry, the conveyance of title goes to the king, a King holds all Titles so; also means Reconveyance of Title.

  • This goes for everything - your car, your house, your licenses, even your kids or yourself.

• Likely this is inspired by the “Divine Right of Kings.”

1. Regis = to rule over + Ster = divine feminine (middle english, from old english - estre female agent)
   So by this - the CROWN/GOVERNMENT owns everything Registered. When you Register something, the divine feminine energy is ruled over or usurped.

2. Reg = move in a straight line, thus to rule + gist/gistry = a temporary conveyance of title to the crown.
   The king came along and demanded the re gister all of their land and possessions to him for protection. This is founded in the Magna Carta and feudalism.

Also on Registration:

Regis (genitive) comes from Rex meaning ruler; the afix ‘tration’ is indictive to transfer or trade for; also, etymology of — tration: -iKuttn. Embarrass.

At first derived by every one from the notion of barring or stopping the way; Provm barras, a bar ; Sc. barras, barrace. https://brittlebooks.library.illinois.edu/brittlebooks_open/Books2010-05/wedghe0001dicofe/wedghe0001dicofev00002/wedghe0001dicofev00002.pdf

Certificate — Another way to say Promissory Note

certificatum:

Cer·tif·i·cate, noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin certificatum, from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century.

Early 15c., "action of certifying," from French certificat, from Medieval Latin certificatum "thing certified,"

1. noun use of neuter past participle of certificare "to make certain" (see certify). Of documents of certification, testifying to the truth of the facts stated.

2. from mid-15c.; especially a signed document attesting to someone's authorization to practice or do stated things (1540s), also from early 15c.

3. A document evidencing ownership or debt. (Merriam Webster Dictionary 1998).

Certify (v.) related to Certify

Mid-14c., "to declare the truth of," also "to vouch for or confirm" (an official record, etc.), from Old French certefiier "make certain, witness the truth of" (12c.), from Late Latin certificare "to certify, to make certain," from Latin certus "fixed, sure" (see certain) + root of facere "to make, do" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put"). Also used in Middle English in broader senses of "inform, give notice to; instruct, to direct; to designate." Related: Certified; certifying.

Government - Mind Control

• My Etymology for “Government” : “Govern” = Control or steer, to direct; “Ment” is an affix comes from mentis, genitive of mens = "Mind." So, Government is Mind Control.

Govern — syn: Control:

late 13c., "to rule with authority," from Old French governer "to steer, be at the helm of; rule, command, direct" (11c., Modern French gouverner), from Latin gubernare "to direct, rule, guide, govern" (source also of Spanish gobernar, Italian governare).

This is originally "to steer, to pilot," a nautical borrowing from Greek kybernan "to steer or pilot a ship, direct as a pilot," figuratively "to guide, govern" (the root of cybernetics). The -k- to -g- sound shift is perhaps via the medium of Etruscan. The intransitive sense is attested from 1590s. Related: Governed; governing.

Mental — affix: Ment: Mind:

mental (adj.) early 15c., "in, of, or pertaining to the mind; characteristic of the intellect," from Late Latin mentalis "of the mind," from Latin mens (genitive mentis) "mind," from PIE root *men- (1) "to think."

De Jure — vs — De Facto

De jure:

Means "according to the law" or "officially". It refers to what is legally [Lawfully] recognized, regardless of whether it exists in reality. For example, a De Jure leader has the legal right responsibility of authority. [Lawfull authority or Authority in Lawful Standing]

• This definition is not indicating the difference between Common Law and Statutory Law: Common Law would be recognized as De Jure or Lawful, while Statutory would be recognized as De Facto or Legal.

De facto:

Means "in fact" or "in effect". It refers to what happens in reality or in practice, even if it is not formally recognized. For example, a De Facto leader is someone who exerts [Legal] authority without holding the Lawful right to do so.

• This definition fits the profile of how Admiralty Law / British Commercial Law has been set in to replace the position of Common Law / Law of the Land— Also, the De Facto Government is the Federal Corporation, not The Republic.

Perjury — False testimony under oath

• Nobody is under ANY obligation to place their Name on any form that expects to declare under penality of Perjury. This is a tool to get you to surrender your Natural Rights — Use Rights Reserved — UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice.

late 14c., perjurie, in law, "the act of swearing to a statement known to be false, willful utterance of false testimony under oath," via Anglo-French perjurie (late 13c.) and Old French parjure "perjury, false witness," both from Latin periurium "a false oath," from periurare "swear falsely," from per "away, entirely" (see per) + iurare "to swear" (see jury (n.)). Related: Perjurious.

---

Meanings vs Definitions

This topic can be found in one of my previous post: Solutions that can End the Globalist Hellhole

What has “Definition” is static, linguistically dead; unchanging, existing only in a Dictionary. Definitions; at some point, had to come from original meanings.

What has “Meaning” is dynamic, living and breathing with an Individual’s Life and can include connections, or descriptions of non-physical Reality.

Meaning can be steeped into a Symbol, but neither Meaning nor Symbol can shackle the Divine Spirit to Definition.

---

How we Identify Ourselves, is how we Live in the World we Create

Identity from the basis of Consciousness is Nameless, Formless and Deathless. It cannot be seen, touched, burned, nor punished. It is here, and yet in all things. It is the Observer and the Observed.

All of Being is Equally Sovereign, All is made of the Self, there is no “Outside.” In the sense of Sri Aurobindo’s description, All is Brahman.

Socially Seated Law

Laws are really just Social Agreements, in whatever form they take, even in their best and most proper form. Note, this is in reference to today’s written Laws of the Legal System, if they were to be based on Common Law. This could be similar to Dharma, on the social scale, The very act of writing something in any language creates a definition and therefore a limit as well.

All words can create stories, just like the stories themselves help create cultural bonds and agreements. Even though stories can be inverted by perverse agendas, they can also be corrected, truth can be rediscovered; fraud and deceit can be vitiated.

The Golden age of Truth is not in “sometime,” or located “somewhere,” nor is it “something” that can be “created” — it must be Lived.

Any Law that is true and just, must follow the inner Self Law, Sva-Dharma in order for it to have Standing in our Civilization. God’s Law if you prefer that description; nothing is above it, and it is within each of us equally, this is my interpretation.

True Seated Law:

A Throne is only a Chair where a Human Sits. It is not a seat of Power,

The Seat of Power is where Being views inward to See what Is.

---

Great Inspirations for Individualism

When I first began on substack, I had posted some articles that reflected the underlying concepts supporting Individual Sovereignty, Freedom of Individuality and Self Reliance.

I am inspired to pass along and discuss ideals that when applied, create the best basis for realizing Natural Freedom that can be lived, that respects and upholds Life.

True Unity cannot exist without True Freedom.

The Law — by Frédéric Bastiat

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Some quotes from Bastiat:

• Theory of Plunder

  "When a portion of wealth passes from the person who has acquired it, without his consent and without compensation, to someone who has not created it, I say that there has been a violation of property rights and that there has been an act of plunder". 

• Economics and Politics

  "A science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated". 

• The State

  "The state is that great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else". 

• Law and Rights

  "Law becomes perverted when it is used to violate the rights of the individual".

Self Reliance — by Ralph Waldo Emerson

https://www.livinglifefully.com/ebooks/self-reliance.pdf

Some quotes from Emerson:

• “You will always find those who think they know what is your duty better than you know it.”

• “Society is a wave. The wave moves onward, but the water of which it is composed does not.”

• “Prayer that craves a particular commodity—anything less than all good, is vicious. Prayer is the contemplation of the facts of life from the highest point of view. It is the soliloquy of a beholding and jubilant soul. It is the spirit of God pronouncing his works good. But prayer as a means to effect a private end is theft and meanness. It supposes dualism and not unity in nature and consciousness. As soon as the man is at one with God, he will not beg.”

• No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition as if everything were titular and ephemeral but he. I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right. I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.”

Civil Disobedience — by Henry David Thoreau

https://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Online/texts/201/Thoreau,%20CivilDisobedience.pdf

Summary for Civil Disobedience — by Henry David Thoreau

https://www.hollandpublicschools.org/downloads/virtual_tech/summary-_civil_disobedience.pdf

Some quotes from Thoreau:

• "That government is best which governs least"

• “If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so [does] a man.”

• “Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men.”

• “I wish my countrymen to consider, that whatever the human law may be, neither an individual nor a nation can ever commit the least act of injustice against the obscurest individual, without having to pay the penalty for it. A government which deliberately enacts injustice, and persists in it, will at length ever become the laughing-stock of the world.”

• “There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing....”

Book references on questioning authority:

Most Dangerous Superstition

• by Larken Rose (Author)

The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey

• by Michael Huemer (Author)