Lessons 1 to 5 should have planted the necessary foundation. It is very important that the reader reads those lessons before proceeding. It is also recommended to read the supplements added to some of them as comments. New lessons will no longer be formal in their writing, and therefore easier to follow, easier and quicker for me to write, but also, unnecessarily longer.
The Attributes of the Creator
Given that the Creator brings the thing from nothing, we can draw all sort of conclusions about the Creator. For example, the Creator is rich. He can bring about all he wants. The Creator is all hearing. All sound is a thing and the Creator creates it, and so knows about it all. The Creator is all powerful. Forget the obvious. The very concept of power is his Creation. Eccetra.
The signatures of the Creator
Given the creation, we can draw certain character traits about the Creator. In other words, these come from his habits. Be careful, this does not mean when it comes to the Creator that the Creator has character. You did read the previous lessons, did you not? This is the last reminder.
To understand the signatures, think of a letter sent to you marked to be from your friend John. You know John. You know how he speaks. You know how he argues. You know his temperament. You know his composure. You recognize him. You read the letter and you think. That is not how John would have phrased this. That is not how John would have treated that. And you conclude that it is not from John. John has a signature, not the identifying scribble people do, but those deeper traits, and this letter does not have his signature. You know the signatures of John because you dealt with him, you dealt with his being.
Ponder. When some one comes to you claiming to be carrying a message from the Creator, you expect the signatures of the Creator in the message. Do you not? And in the past people were aware of this.
For completeness, note that the signatures and the attributes were simply referred to as names in the old language. Names in the old language are not like names today where a name is like an identifier, and they, and words in general, are not fixed with no interconnection, or if they have interconnection, are not with no well defined interconnection that are with no formal principles. The old language is abstract, and given its bases and given its rules, one constructs the words to mean a particular thing. Names were not distinguishable from other words in the language. This is why, for example, names from the old language get lost in translation. To further understand how people used to think, think of a new born. The parent would name his child by what he hopes to see in his child. I shall call him Bravery, or perhaps Brave, or perhaps Braving. Later as the child grows, people name him by what they see from him. This is why in the distant past people were likely to have multiple names. And again, these names can get lost in translation very easily. If you did not understand this paragraph, do not worry about it.
One of the signatures of the Creator is justice. We see it in his Creation. Ask the mathematician. He tells you all squares. The physicist can prove a being, such as a particle, without detecting it by simply noticing that without it his equations do not square. If my equation is correct, he says, and given everything must square, then that thing there must be.
If one harms a man, one does not break justice. Keep this in mind. Go back to the physicist and ask him, and he will agree. Momentum was conserved, and so was angular momentum, and by extension energy. Yet, intuitively we know something has not squared. What has not squared is that between spirit to spirit.
A thing in life
Now listen carefully, you the reader. I am talking to you personally. Did you ever harm me? Do you even know me? I come for you from the distance and I violently break your arm.
There is no ambiguity. He was in the wrong. It was not an accident. It was not a retaliation. It was not a defense.
I enjoyed it, and I hate your ugly face.
Now, ask your self, what should happen to him?
Some say, he should go to prison. Did I put you in prison? Some say, he should yield a fine or a compensation. Did I take your money? Some say, he should be forgiven. Did I harm you or them? Remember that one equals one. One does not equal two. What should happen is that my arm should be broken. Anything else, and it is made up.
There were people around when it happened, and they saw it. They grab me, and they break my arm. Is what they did right? Some say, no, they took the law into their own hands. Some say, yes, he broke his arm. What do you say?
If you say no, what will this law do to him, he who took the law into his own hands? Put him in prison? Did he put someone in prison? Take his money? Did he take someone's money?
If you say yes, whose right is it? Yours or theirs? Did they ask you first, whether you forgive. Do you forgive? Then if not, they can proceed to square. What if you said yes, I forgive? I do not owe them or any one else anything. I owed you and no one else. Any deviation from this, and it is made up.
Let us take another example. He is not wearing his seat belt, and he is where the officer stops him for not doing so. What will the officer do to him? Give him chocolate cake? Whatever the officer does, it will be a harm. He might take his money. He might put him in prison. When my arm was broken, you were on the other side of the equation. But when the officer took his money, who is on the other side of the equation? Do you recognize him? Likely not. But everything must square. That equation must equate. Why do you not recognize him, he who is on the other side? Because, in informal terms, the whole thing is not objective, not measured by the Creator. There is some one else deciding right and wrong, and that some one said that it is my right that you wear your seat belt, and if you do not, my right is squared with such and such sum of money, or such period in prison. What you stumbled upon is a lord most high. Formally, right and wrong is correct and incorrect under the context of fact, but note that I am speaking in the contemporary common speech, which is ignorant. As for lord most high, it shall be a discussion for future lessons.
Clashes of the spirits as those above are a thing in life. Whether you are wronging some one, or doing an amiable exchange. To everything there is a squaring. Or in simpler terms, in the contemporary common speech, is what I am about to do right or wrong? The mathematician, roughly speaking, deals with the numbers and squares on those. When it comes to the spirit, however, roughly speaking, we deal with rights and square on those. And like with mathematics, things are not always simple, but the fundamental principles remain the same no matter how complicated the current problem is. So ponder, if you can not solve it for the simple clear case, like the one with the broken arm, or like one plus one, do you think that you are going to solve it for the more complicated cases.
For completeness I mention that in the old language, the words for justice, squaring, equation, and similar others, all come from the same root, A' D L, and it means to set one side equal to the other. In other words, justice is not something you make up, like the equation that the mathematician is solving. It is all, in less formal terms, objective. Meaning, measured by the Creator. There is no my justice, or your justice. It is either justice, or it is not. And if the mathematician writes one plus one equals three, whether in error or from arrogance, would you expect any good from what conclusions he draws next.