God?

Re: #778

Roel, I don't want you to take this as an insult, but this statement of yours certainly does exhibit that you are a product of the "I'd like it quick and easy" generation.

Mmmmh, I think I'd prefer it "quick and dirty", but alas. Oh and for the 4,877,325th time... I do not feel insulted /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Your assumption is incorrect nonetheless. Answering my question by providing a link to a document containing incomprehensible information to the untrained eye is what I call quick and easy.

I am sure you would like to think that a 20-50 word answer would suffice.

I do not mind reading large amounts of text, as long as they make sense. The document OvrLrd pointed me to doesn't. At least, not to me (the untrained eye...you know).

And still, you are not convinced of that!

In fact, I'm even less convinced of the existence of god than I already was.

The fact that you saw "nothing" on the surface when you first looked at it is not surprising at all. Remember, I have been studying mystical Qabalistic texts since 1982 Roel. And even today I do not have "the complete picture"...

I have this funny feeling that people are making things way more complicated than they actually are. But I already mentioned that before. Adding god to the equation, to me, seems to complicate things, rather than provide answers.

Why not start out by reading The Kybalion. Yes, it is a long treatise, but I think you will find it worth it.

Again, I don't mind reading large amounts of text, but before I start reading I would like to know if this will provide the answer I am looking for.


If you really want to understand how that document answers the question of not only the Creator, but the Creator of the Creator, you cannot take short cuts.

Once you understand a concept, isn't it possible to at least give a short summary? I can't say the Quabalah appeals to me in such a way that I want to start studying it. I'm aware of the fact that there is no short answer to my question. So if you can't provide an explanation, please allow me to rephrase it:

Was there another creator before our creator. Or do you think our creator has always existed?
 
Re: Functional Vs. Physical

Those who understand the answer to the question you posed have spent years in study and hard work. If you want to know what the answer is, I am not going to just hand it over to you. If you put in the time and effort to understand what the Sepher Sephiroth is all about, you will have gained something that most of humanity just dreams about.
The ball is in your court my friend....
 
Re: #778

Answering my question by providing a link to a document containing incomprehensible information to the untrained eye is what I call quick and easy.

Sure, quick and easy for the person providing the answer. But if you did not understand the answer, and are not willing to put the time in to understand the answer, it is hardly quick and easy for you. Therefore, I would say that your assumption is the one that is incorrect.

I do not mind reading large amounts of text, as long as they make sense. The document OvrLrd pointed me to doesn't. At least, not to me (the untrained eye...you know).

But the question is: Would you like them to make sense?

I have this funny feeling that people are making things way more complicated than they actually are.

Acutally, they are exceedingly simple. It boils down to 0 and 1. But the problem is that you refuse to believe something THAT simple, because you are locked in your sensory, linear world. I can tell you honestly that the existence of God, and how He created our physical existence, is as simple as the difference (and similarity) of 0 and 1. Can't get much more simple than that. But this is where you will say "show me evidence." THAT is where YOU are the one who makes it complex, my friend. And THAT is not our problem, it is yours. The universe is exceedingly simple, but most people will not believe how simple it is because it takes a leap of faith that is outside the normative sensory reality.

Again, I don't mind reading large amounts of text, but before I start reading I would like to know if this will provide the answer I am looking for.

I assure you, and OvrLrd will also assure you, that it will BEGIN to answer MANY more questions than the one you have posed. But unless you are open to the fact that science and spirituality can (and must) be reconciled, it will answer no questions of yours.

Once you understand a concept, isn't it possible to at least give a short summary?

Yes. But are you willing to accept that short summary? All things in the universe have unfolded from the primordial concepts of 0 and 1, of NOthing and SOMEthing. Read the Kybalion. There is another section on dyads that follows the section on vibrations.

Was there another creator before our creator. Or do you think our creator has always existed?

Your question is distinctly couched in linear time. It won't work that way, Roel. "Before" means nothing to our Creator, and it means even less to the force which evolved our Creator. You just don't get it, but this is the "problem" I have been pointing to all along. God does not abide by Roel's idea of "before, during, and after". You are a subsystem of God. You cannot bring Him down to your level of understanding. Rather, you must ascend to His.

I wish I could help more, but you really just do not get it. Now, I am sure you will tell me how open-minded you are, and how you are willing to accept something as long as it "makes sense" to you. Yet your idea of what "makes sense" is what it holding you back. It is decidedly linear, and that just will not get you where you say you want to go.

RMT
 
Re: #778

Your question is distinctly couched in linear time. It won't work that way, Roel. "Before" means nothing to our Creator, and it means even less to the force which evolved our Creator. You just don't get it, but this is the "problem"

You are underestimating me Ray. I guess that you and OvrLrd have been asked the same question before. My question was hardly original in that respect. The problem is that, if it's possible for a god or deity to have always existed, the same applies to the universe itself. Why would it only be possible for a god to evolve from nothing to something. Perhaps the links you and OvrLrd posted provide a theory of how nothing can evolve to something, which might be interesting to read.


I have been pointing to all along. God does not abide by Roel's idea of "before, during, and after". You are a subsystem of God. You cannot bring Him down to your level of understanding. Rather, you must ascend to His.

I have no uncontrollable urge to communicate with god. So either he doesn't exist, or he cares as much for me as I care for him.

The way I see it, god is a subsystem of us. God exists only in peoples' minds.

It's not that I don't want to believe in god... there's just no reason to. In my opinion god is only another obstacle on the road to understanding the most basic and essential things in life.
 
Re: #778

You are underestimating me Ray.

Well, I certainly hope so! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif We all deserve the gift of enlightenment and ascension. And we all serve as both students and teachers along our paths.

The problem is that, if it's possible for a god or deity to have always existed, the same applies to the universe itself.

Well, yes. But what we refer to as the universe, given our current state of scientific knowledge, is certainly incomplete. As I always point out, this is why paradoxes exist... more information is required to resolve any paradox. I think what you are infering is addressing one of my points: If there is a God, then that God is inextricably linked to the universe He created. The aspects of the laws of science we see at work in this universe would, necessarily, be aspects of the God that created it, would they not?

Why would it only be possible for a god to evolve from nothing to something.

Did I limit it to only God? In fact, the bigger, non-linear picture would suggest that all existence is a big, continuous, interconnected dance of evolution from nothing, to something, and back to nothing. When I use the equation (0=1) I do not use it in a linear manner. It is meant to imply an eternal, closed-loop process of Creation/Destruction. All made possible by Energy.

Perhaps the links you and OvrLrd posted provide a theory of how nothing can evolve to something, which might be interesting to read.

Indeed. Have you read any of the Kybalion link? It speaks to many of the same themes that both myself and OvrLrd have presented. Not surprising, I'd suppose, since this body of knowledge is what both of us have used in our progress towards ascension. I could post a great many quotes from this treatise that touch upon many of my recurring themes. But I think you might like this one the best: /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

"The purpose of this work is not the enunciation of any special philosophy or doctrine, but rather is to give to the students a statement of the Truth (emphasis mine) that will serve to reconcile the many bits of occult knowledge that they may have acquired, but which are apparently opposed to each other and which often serve to discourage and disgust the beginner in the study."

This article speaks a lot about truth. One of the great truths that it explains speaks to how I am always talking about our physical Matrix of Massive SpaceTime as a great illusion:

"This Principle embodies the truth that "All is Mind." It explains that THE ALL (which is the Substantial Reality underlying all the outward manifestations and appearances which we know under the terms of "The Material Universe"; the "Phenomena of Life"; "Matter"; "Energy"; and, in short, all that is apparent to our material senses) is SPIRIT which in itself is UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE, but which may be considered and thought of as AN UNIVERSAL, INFINITE, LIVING MIND."

Yes, there are many Hermetic texts that can shed light on answers to questions we have about how our universe works. Eventually, if you study them, they will lead to an understanding of the more complex texts, like Sepher Sephiroth.

I have no uncontrollable urge to communicate with god.

Fair enough. But would it be also fair to say you do have an urge to understand the universe, and how it works, at least enough to achieve time travel, if not things greater?

So either he doesn't exist, or he cares as much for me as I care for him.

I'm sure you know that these are not the only possibilities. There is also the very real possibility that you do not care for Him as much as He does for you simply because you know less about Him than He does about you. In fact, this is quite common in our mundane life... we tend to care less for people we know little about. Before I even knew that Roel Van Houten was a real, living being, I had no reason to care about you. Now that I have come to know you, and interact with you as a friend, my level of caring for you has risen drastically (from nothing to something, you could say). If something were to happen to you where you were injured, I would care a lot more today than I did back in 2001.

It's not that I don't want to believe in god... there's just no reason to. In my opinion god is only another obstacle on the road to understanding the most basic and essential things in life.

No reason to? But if you are incorrect in your assumption that there is no God, and it turns out there is a God who is the Creator, then surely the universal laws are by His design. And thus, if you wish to understand the essential things of life, you would have to understand how they were put together.

This kind of gets to the heart of the differences between our two approaches. In my case, if it turns out I am wrong and there is no God, I have not really lost anything by making that consideration. However, if it turns out you are wrong, and there is a God, then by your denying His existence you will have lost an opportunity to get to know Him, which may have lead to a quicker and fuller comprehension in yourself of how the universe works as One.

It is very similar to denying the existence of some expert on some aspect of life that you wish to achieve mastery of. If I were to simply assume that there is no other master of this life aspect, because I cannot see any evidence that such a master exists, that denial will lead to having to trudge the path of mastery all alone. This could easily mean a protracted length of time spent in mastering your goal, and it could also lead to a premature death by messing around with something you did not understand. However, if I begin with the assumption that there IS a master out there, even though I may not see the evidence, then I do not really lose anything in my quest by seeking out that master. And, indeed, if that master exists, and I come into contact with him/her, my own chances of achieving mastery in that aspect of life have gone up greatly.

Since I have "met" our Creator, and "speak" with him regularly, this interaction has manifested itself in my life as being able to master those things which I have always wished to master.... namely, aerospace vehicles and complex control system design. And now I act as a mentor to those who wish to become masters in this aspect of life's science.

RMT
 
Re: #778

Rainmantime said> Since I have "met" our Creator, and "speak" with him regularly, this interaction has manifested itself in my life as being able to master those things which I have always wished to master.... namely, aerospace vehicles and complex control system design. And now I act as a mentor to those who wish to become masters in this aspect of life's science.

Creedo only notes that he has said this.
 
Re: #778

Well, I certainly hope so!

Actually I was referring to the fact that you thought I'm looking for shortcuts. I'm not, but I was looking for an answer that would allow me to illustrate my point:

God is, in my opinion, a superfluous link in unraveling the mysteries of our universe. It did not necissarily take a selfaware, creative entity for the universe to arise.


If there is a God, then that God is inextricably linked to the universe He created. The aspects of the laws of science we see at work in this universe would, necessarily, be aspects of the God that created it, would they not?

Again, the keyword is "if". I guess that IF there is a god, you've painted the perfect picture of how things work. However, I don't think there is a god. If I ever change my mind, I'll be happy to accept your words as the truth. I only hope that you allow yourself to be exposed to other views and theories that leave god purposefully out of the equation.


Did I limit it to only God?

Well, not exactly. But do you think it's possible for an entire universe to evolve from nothing to something? Without "divine intervention" that is.


But would it be also fair to say you do have an urge to understand the universe, and how it works, at least enough to achieve time travel, if not things greater?

Yes, I have an urge to understand the universe. Not necissarily to achieve time travel or anything, but to satisfy my curiousity. Still, god does not fit in my picture of the universe for the abovementioned reason.


Before I even knew that Roel Van Houten was a real, living being, I had no reason to care about you.

True. But we interact. If I don't know someone, I can not interact with this person. So if god really does know more about me than I know about him, then why doesn't he interact?


But if you are incorrect in your assumption that there is no God

Yes, but what if you're incorrect in your assumptions?

However, if it turns out you are wrong, and there is a God, then by your denying His existence you will have lost an opportunity to get to know Him, which may have lead to a quicker and fuller comprehension in yourself of how the universe works as One.

I don't feel that as a loss. Or actually, it would be a loss, but it would be the same kind of loss you would suffer if you keep believing in god. It's a choice. I'm under the assumption that my life is finite. Once I die, it ends. Therefore I will try to realize all my dreams and goals withing this lifetime. I enjoy every day. If you keep believing in god all your life and it turns out that he doesn't exist, you will probably die peacefully but ignorant of the truth.


Since I have "met" our Creator, and "speak" with him regularly, this interaction has manifested itself in my life as being able to master those things which I have always wished to master....

But how do you think non-believers have mastered the things they have always wished to master? That's my whole point. Obviously, believing in god can be a great help in realizing your goals in life, but it's not a requirement. Therefore I think the significance often attributed to god is greatly exaggerated by those who believe in him. It's simply not THE truth, but merely your truth.
 
Re: #778

Oh, one other thing. I was somewhat hesitant to share this with you, since it's quite contrary to my own views. But I've always learned that honesty pays, so here goes.

There was this documentary on tv about near-death experiences. Now, many of the things that people perceive during a near-death experience are explainable. Scientists pretty much agree that it's a process that takes place in the brain. However, there have been cases where the patient had no brainfunction and still had these experiences, like floating above the body and so on.

One professor laid out this theory that consciousness takes place on a subatomic level. I can't recall the entire story and I will be looking for a website or document which describes this theory in detail, but it had something to do with microtubili. The cytoskeleton of a cell can be described as the nervous system of the cell. The same scientist also stated that the mind and the brain may very well be two seperate entities, which makes it possible for the mind to perceive things outside the brain and even outside the body. The documentary also referred to the work of Pennrose.

Okay... now it's time to get some sleep. I have a lot to think about. On one hand this newly acquired information has caused a bit of doubt, but on the other hand it has shown me that pretty much everything has a logical and/or scientifical explanation.

Roel out... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: #778

i enjoy youre search roel!

i do not however enjoy the attack on each other. you guys are much better then an argument and petty power trips.
no one has a sweet clue, realize the humility in this.

continue!
 
Re: #778

Roel, is this what all your stratagem was about, making "a point"?

As counselor Harmann said in the movie the Matrix: No, no point. Old men like me don't bother in making points. There is no point...

I've been absent for a while so let me back up to previous posts in this thread. Someone asked about how Gd came into existence and how He created the world?

When Moses asked Gd, who should I say has sent me and Gd replied, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh which means, I am becoming what I am becoming... He Who Causes To Become...

According to the Sefer Yetzirah (Hebrew book of formations), Gd used His name as DNA in creating the world...The SY explains that the world was created by Gd out of permutations of the Hebrew letters...

Twenty-two letters, Engrave them, carve them, weigh them, permute them, and transform them, and with them depict the soul of all that was formed and all that will be formed in the future. By the manipulation of letters, the universe was created. The permutational method that was employed to create the world by the Hebrew letters is described, to weigh them and transpose them, Aleph with each one, and each one with Aleph. Bet with each one, and each one with Bet. They repeat in a cycle...

The Hebrew letters are molded and placed opposite each other and otherwise manipulated to create all that exists. He generated substance from which He formed letters out of which He combined words, which became things. From substance out of chaos and make nonexistence into existence. One foresees, transposes, and makes all creation and all words with one name, YHVH. (which are the Hebrew letters Yud, Hey, Vav, Hey).

Just as Gd used His 4 letter name as DNA in creating the world... These 4 chemicals can be likened to our own human DNA which consists of 4 bases: A,T,C and G. Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G) and cytosine (C).

Our DNA goes like this: AT,TA,TA,AT,GC,CG,TA... (They are also transposable and formed
by interchanging).
 
Re: #778

Dear CAT,

Roel, is this what all your stratagem was about, making "a point"?

Everybody's trying to make a point. I could choose not to make a point. But I see no point in doing that. This is a forum, people make points.


Someone asked about how Gd came into existence

Ah, that would be me. But it seems as if nobody has a clear answer. I am required to study one text in order to understand the next text that, in the end, is supposed to shed some light on how god was created (if I'm lucky). Is there nobody who truly understands these texts?


By the manipulation of letters, the universe was created.

So there were letters before the universe came to being? Where did these letters come from? In my opinion letters and numbers are a human invention.

To me it really seems like people are making things way too complex. At some point god had to come to being. If it's possible for a god to appear out of the blue, I don't see why the same couldn't happen with the universe.
 
Re: #778

But it seems as if nobody has a clear answer. I am required to study one text in order to understand the next text that, in the end, is supposed to shed some light on how god was created (if I'm lucky). Is there nobody who truly understands these texts?

Again, Roel, I need to point out that you are terribly trivializing something that could be the single biggest question of mankind (i.e. "Is there a God?" or "Were we created?"). To think that it can be explained in a few sentences is just absurd and naieve.

And to give you an example, which even pales in comparision but will hopefully make the point: Aerospace engineers have to take about an entire year of mathematics more than other engineers. In this math we learn how to apply "scalar" calculus to the concepts of vectors and tensors (this is where the term "eigenvector" comes from). If it took me three extra quarters of college to learn these complex topics, do you think I should be able to sum it all up in a few sentences? And wouldn't it be even more ridiculous if I was expected to do this for someone who did not even understand (nor "believe" in) basic, scalar calculus?

Now take that analogy and multiply it by a complexity factor of about 1e1000 and you're starting to see how difficult explaining God, and how God came into being, to folks who insist on only accepting evidence from their narrow domain. Indeed, if you ever wanted to learn tensors (higher-dimensional vectors) and how to apply calculus to them, you would have to learn to think about things that you cannot see/feel/touch/taste/smell any evidence of. It requires going beyond what seems "real" to your mind.

RMT
 
Re: #778

RMT said>Aerospace engineers have to take about an entire year of mathematics more than other engineers. In this math we learn how to apply "scalar" calculus to the concepts of vectors and tensors (this is where the term "eigenvector" comes from). If it took me three extra quarters of college to learn these complex topics, do you think I should be able to sum it all up in a few sentences? And wouldn't it be even more ridiculous if I was expected to do this for someone who did not even understand (nor "believe" in) basic, scalar calculus?

Creedo scratches his chin and mumbles, and he doesn't understand that realms of time, would separate the massive spacetime concept.

Differing frequencies, differing times.

Universe travels, get it.........?
 
Re: #778

I'm willing to engage in a discussion of this with you, Creedo, but I really need for you to communicate such that I can clearly understand what you are getting at. Can you comply?

and he doesn't understand that realms of time, would separate the massive spacetime concept.

But perhaps you do not fully understand the Massive SpaceTime concept? For by treating both Time and Mass as full vectors, you now have the ability to treat a single tensor field (Massive SpaceTime) with the full power of vector calculus operators such as "del" and "curl". Vector calculus is, essentially, limited by applying it to scalar quantities of Mass and Time. The Massive SpaceTime Matrix theory is exactly what is needed to make full use of this form of calculus that has been around quite awhile. Conformal mapping is one of the most useful aspects of vector calculus, and yet it only deals with mappings of <x,y,z>. Imagine the complexity of conformal mappings that could be solved if we treated Mass and Time as the vectors that they really are!

Differing frequencies, differing times.

Yes, but only when perceived from fixed (constant) Mass and fixed (constant) space. This is the whole "problem" that leads to the perception of linear Time. I agree with what you are inferring here, namely, that since our senses are tuned to specific frequency ranges, if our senses were different we would perceive time in a different way. However, this ignores that a different sensory configuration would be (at a minimum) a different configuration of Mass, and would likely take on different spatial/topological forms. Massive SpaceTime deals with all three of these metrics as variables. Choose any one metric that you wish to control (say, Time), and you have no choice but to used a mixed balance of the other two to achieve that control. That's just the way the universe keeps its energy balance.

Universe travels, get it.........?

No.... but I am sure you can explain yourself better.... right?

RMT
 
Re: #778

You can't call it, massive space time, period.

The universe not only changes from area to area in frequency, but the entire universe moves as well.

The term massive space-time, should not be used here period.

This is like comparing an FA-18 with a Pipercub, calling them the same plane, when they are not.

This is why I strictly refer to certain sections of space, as T-mass realms.

No other way.

To me what the term massive space-time is, is an attempt to unify the entirety of the universe, which one can definitely not do.

Its a no no, period.
 
Re: #778

Perhaps you would find researching The Zohar interesting. It is a good place to start. The following are only a few "revelations" contained within The Zohar...

"""A major text of Kabbalah, the Zohar, revealed that the earth was spherical, like a round ball, at a time when science was certain the world was flat.

In the time of Columbus, scientists thought only two continents existed. 20 centuries earlier the Zohar said:

"There exists seven geographical continents. But it is not yet known to those who mark out geographical boundaries". - THE ZOHAR

Second century Kabbalists said true reality was a realm without time, space, and motion. And time was relative to the observer and to other forces in the universe. Albert Einstein and modern day physics confirmed these ancient insights.

2000 years before medical science discovered the relationship between heart disease, the liver and cholesterol, the Zohar stated:

"From the liver emerges the bile, from which come bitter drops to kill human beings... Bile overcomes the arteries of the heart and all the arteries in the limbs of the body..."

Medical-science now tells us that bile's primary component is cholesterol.

Only recently did science identify two kinds of cholesterol and fat, known as the good fats and the bad fats. The Zohar revealed this 2000 years earlier:

"In the body there are pure and impure fatty parts, clean blood without waste matter and blood contaminated with waste matter..." - THE ZOHAR """
 
Re: #778

Everybody's trying to make a point. I could choose not to make a point. But I see no point in doing that. This is a forum, people make points.

Still no logic in making a point? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

So there were letters before the universe came to being? Where did these letters come from? In my opinion letters and numbers are a human invention.

No, they are certainly not human invention! They are letters that were created from nature. Phi, Fibonacci, and Golden Mean Spiral which are derived from the positions and distances of our planetary solar system, but which are farther overseen by the whole proportions of our universe...

Perhaps one could say the very letters are the actual construct of Gd Himself?

Read up: http://www.meru.org/ and http://goldennumber.net/

At some point god had to come to being. If it's possible for a god to appear out of the blue, I don't see why the same couldn't happen with the universe.

Gd and the universe are one in the same...and I'm predicting you are going to say that the universe was random and is not conscious of itself...

Well, if that it the case than how is it that the universe itself speaks a language derived from nature and written upon stone and parchment that proclaims its creator?

The only thing left for you to say Roel is, "coincidence".

Coincidence is the word used when one can't see the levers and pulleys...
 
Re: #778

is an attempt to unify the entirety of the universe, which one can definitely not do.

Well, someone might want to tell Stephen Hawking that little tidbit. You wanna break the bad news to him, Creedo? Oh....and don't EVEN mention this to God!


You can't call it, massive space time, period.

I can, I will, and I do... because these are the three fundamental units that science agrees describes our mutual illusion.

The universe not only changes from area to area in frequency, but the entire universe moves as well.

1) But you cannot speak of frequency (1/time) without speaking of the medium that the frequency manifests in. You are trying to tear apart and analyze one metric without regard for the other two!
2) If the entire universe moves as well, does this mean you believe it is closed? And if so, then which form of motion does the universe exhibit (translation, rotation, vibration, or all)?
3) I am not saying you are wrong in this, but if the universe moves, then it must mean there is more space (and mass and time) beyond its boundary....right?

RMT
 
She could steal but she could not rob.

I think your nuts and have no concept of what youre into.

Gary Voss told me of the council Of Zohar, which you have mentioned and this is the witches council, which is aether oriented.

Some of the forerunner of witches on this globe, where the old wizards.

I've got to tell you, these were sometimes very mean and lethal folks.

It was how they were put together genetically that made them so.

When I was kidding around with you, on recruiting you to the TU-2000X redo cause, I had a government guy in a red car, out of nowhere pull up beside me and start yapping on his cell.

Why'd they do this Ray?

I think that you know some things, but you sure don't know the whole kitten-caboodle.

It was in the liver, or by that organ, Ray.

There was another organ that had allowed wizards to skip in and out of dimensions.

That is probably what this whole Titor affair was about.....It was about taking genetic materials, lets say stealing them and then telling the person who they robbed them from, "Oh this never happened and everything is normal now".

Right, everything is normal now.

Reference, Council Of Zohar, etheric witches council, as told of by G. Voss in past postings on this board as well as others.

Quote, Yes the council knows of you and they had much to say about you.
 
Re: She could steal but she could not rob.

...the old wizards.

The Wizard (4:18)/Black Sabbath

Misty morning, clouds in the sky,
Without warning a wizard walks by,
Casting his shadow, weaving his spell,
[Funny clothes]/[Funny cloak], twinkling bell

Never talking,
Just keeps walking,
Causing his magic

Evil power disappears
Demons worry when the wizard is near
He turns tears into joy,
Ev'ryone's happy when the wizard walks by

Never talk'n,
Just keeps walk'n,
Spreadin' his magic

Sun is shining; clouds have gone by,
All the people give a happy sigh,
He has passed by, giving his sign,
Left all the people feeling so fine

Never talk'n,
Just keeps walk'n,
Spreadin' his magic
 
Back
Top