The denial that Jehovah is imagined has a distinct manifestation -

one that, at first glance, appears to bear advantages:

mental resilience, determination, consistency, ecstatic joy,

and a sense of power, unity, and shared destiny.

 

Yet these advantages are expressions of an inner ruling dynamic -

arising from the prevention of inner intimacy.

 

Jehovah can be perceived as the truth

only through the believer’s private imagination.

​

To maintain the belief that Jehovah is not privately imagined,

the believer must preserve an inner split.

 

He cannot allow himself to recognise

that he is the one imagining Jehovah -

for in that recognition, Jehovah would lose his power

as an external authority.

 

Thus, the believer’s experiential world becomes confined

to an imagined realm serving singular function:

to sustain the denial of being the imaginer.

 

The role of this realm

is to act as a substitute for life beyond denial.

​

Every experience within it is interpreted through the themed lens of the denial,

which prevents any moment from being truly free or alive from it.

 

What seems like an advantage

is, in essence, a sphere of disconnection from the inner.

​

A cyclical repetition born of avoidance -

of the unprocessed fear that first gave rise

to the denial that Jehovah is imagined.

 

And the very fact that this denial bears a name - "Jehovah" -

creates a fascinating phenomenon.

 

At its root, the experience of unprocessed fear

is universal to all human beings.

​

Each of us, as a whole yet partial being

within an all-encompassing reality,

is limited in perception

and therefore experiences reality through our inwardness.

 

Whenever we fear,

we are, in fact, inviting ourselves

to expand into a reality not yet included within us.

 

When we resist that invitation,

we create a chain of reactions built on avoidance -

which generates a separation between us and reality

through a space of denial that tries to protect us from pain.

 

So why does one who denies fear by believing in Jehovah

create separation within separation?

 

Because when denial is represented

as a heritage symbol bearing the name Jehovah,

the ritual becomes the aesthetics by which denial is shaped.

 

This creates a dual validation to the believer's private denial:

the multiplicity of believers -

each denying for their own reason -

produces the impression

that there is no private denial to attend to at all.

 

Meanwhile, ritual dictates what is to be done

within the space of denial,

establishing its permanence across generations.

 

Thus, believers form a union that resists reality itself -

a group convinced that it must remain separate:

"Jews" versus "Gentiles".

 

Instead of recognising the separations

we each create within ourselves as individuals,

the tribal identity immunes itself from its own denial

 under the sanctified concept of "religion".

​

To remember the imaginer

is to return from being a vessel of representation -

to intimacy.

 

When we recognise ourselves as the source of the image,

the distance between creator and creation dissolves -

and what seemed divine in separation

reveals itself as living unity.

 

This is not blasphemy, but belonging.

​

For only through awareness of our imagining

can we meet reality as a whole -

where devotion and freedom are one movement,

and witnessing becomes the pulse of life itself.