|
 One
fine day, Lucette P., a lady lawyer, a great supporter of our mission
for many
years, now gone to where our last breath will hustle all of us, planned
to
publish The Book (2d part of The
Revelation of Arès) without any bracketed words.
She thought
that only what
had entered my ears was true. She had doubts about whatever has entered
my
heart, printed in brackets. In other words, the sound but not the Core
(Rev of Arès xxxiv/6-12).
I replied
to her, "You're acting rationalistic like in the courtroom where the
witness's voice, but not his thought, is heard. During the Theophanies,
1977, I
perceived both, because the Father put me in a state of complete
perception. The
prophet is the one that
perceives
all. She dithered for some time just to save face, and then gave up her
plan.
Lately, I received a few messages to warn me than a Sister Maryse
wanted to publish
The Revelation of Arès without
my
footnotes and commentaries, which she would consider as doctrinaire and
unbearable.
I answered, "My word is
the Word of the Father (Rev of Arès
i/12, xxxi/10), I've got the Wind, I
speak to the brothers as the
Father does not speak to them (xx/12-19)
and the part of the just prophet (35/5, xxxi/10, xxxvii/2)
is
to explain. I have never forced anybody to listen to me and, anyway,
just as
Gamaliel said to the Sanhedrin, "If
my words are just mine, they will destroy themselves, but if they are
God's,
nothing will ever destroy them. Never fight against God (The Acts of
the
Apostles 5/38-39)."
Knowledge... About The Revelation of Arès
do I have the knowledge of It or only a knowledge among others? I have
the
knowledge. I've got it along with the Word.
If I had not, could I be the Justice of
the just one (Rev of Arès xxxi/10)? Nevertheless, some say
that I have got a
knowledge, but that it is debatable, and others say that I have
misunderstood
the knowledge and they correct it. Who can know and what is to know?
Can I in one way or another compel anybody to believe in my knowledge
without
his agreement? Anybody can say he believes, even if he does not believe
inwardly.
In one way or another again, all of our missionaries know that the
witness to
the only real Master does not
carry very
much weight with the swarming master (Rev
of Arès 18/1-3) of the world, who knows everything, has
understood
everything, shrugs his shoulders or feels outraged while reading The
Revelation of Arès. Not two weeks go
by when I do not receive a letter from a condescending explainer or a
disexplainer. Is this because people do not agree that I say what I say
and do
not come under the control of what all others say? Is this because
people want
the truth to be democratic and be discussed by everybody, even though
endlessly, but never to be given by one head? Is this because every man
wants
to find his way only deep down by himself?
In short, people do not want a single Thought,
but The Revelation of Arès is not a
Thought. It is the Truth,
if that! It is the Truth
that is not, but that could be: the world
changed (Rev of Arès 28/7) for the better.
In other words, it is the knowledge of what has
to be, but not of what is and may never be if the sin
of sins (38/2) comes up before the change
is made.
The Truth of The
Revelation of Arès is not a correspondence between the speech
and the fact, but it is between the speech and the Design,
the achievement
of which is man's prerogative. It is the exact opposite of religious
dogmas
which can't see God but as the purpose of everything on earth.
Now, The Revelation of Arès sees
man
as the purpose of everything on earth. It is not a knowledge which solves "the
darkness of the mystery of humans doomed to the freedom of Good
as well as Evil
(Jorge
Semprùn)." It is is just the knowledge of the alternative. The ones who
see it as an absolute knowledge waste their time. The ones who see it
as the logos (reason) have a better
understanding: The Father's reason is that Good
should be preferred to Evil, but he
leaves man free to think of the opposite. His Truth
is not the undisputable privilege of a Master
who punishes his opponents, but it is a free
choice. It is why a Socrates, for instance, might be a prophet
when he insisted he did not know
anything in order to help others think better, just as The
Revelation of Arès does not know where man will go, to Good
or to Evil;
it does nothing but warn that Evil
can lead to greater and greater sufferings, but does not keep
man from preferring them.
All we The Revelation of Arès
missionaries have to do is call on people to prefer Good
by reminding the indifferent or the unconscious
of the
spiritual strength, which any man can awake within himself, if he wants
to bring
out the "powers that do or undo truths (Paul Valéry)", and that the
truth of The Revelation of Arè is
the
best, even if it is neither the only one nor the most convincing today.
Can we thereby
better see that we are not a religion, but a knowledge, the knowledge
of an
alternative still possible, though we don't know how long it will be?
Do the Bible and the Quran give anything but alternatives? Whatever in
their
contents is not an alternative, but an absolute reward or an absolute
sentence,
has been added by man. To do so the transcriber often had nothing to do
but
change a word or a few words. But God is Mercy,
because He admits that there is such a thing as Evil
and through His Compassion
shows the way to Good as an
alternative. Everybody is struck by how opposite are the sentence "In
the Name of Allah the Merciful, the
Compassionate", which tops every sura, and contents that
proclaim merciless
convictions.
Man is endowed with an autonomous power of choosing, so that the Word
would get
nothing more even if It would be a kind of masterful absolutist
announce; man
would keep on choosing. In his foreword to "The
Encyclopedia" unbeliever d'Alembert said "Each
man thinks all by himself", unaware that he thereby expressed the real faith. If
we trod the streets like Evangelists warning that the alternative is
Christ or
Hell, we would be judges, but not
apostles. But, if we were not aware that a small
remnant of penitents will
be
enough to save the world, we would not be better than Evangelists when
we tread
the streets showing two ways: The way to Good,
which will lead mankind to God, even those who do not believe in Him
today, and
the way that Adam has chosen (Rev of Arès
2/1-5), wherever it leads to, and if it leads to the frozen
darkness (16/15, 33/33) or to the sin of sins
(38/2), you can believe me,
people don't give a damn about
it just as a smoker doesn't give a damn the smoke.
Our knowledge gives strength to our faith, through which we will make
the small remnant of penitents
who will save the world, but if it consisted merely in an
argument of propaganda or a highbrow reasoning , let's admit that the future would not be
guaranteed.
 |