Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[Janus]

So with Astrology is there any claim of divine intervention/ revelation in regards to the knowledge of how it works ? Or is it purely a human construct in how the planets etc effect us ?

Astrology comes from Hermes Trismegistus. If you look up Thoth’s Time Temple you can see that the Egyptian pyramids were situated on the basis of the orbit of the planets.

“Thoth and Hermes were credited with the revelations of writing, mathematics, magic, astrology, astronomy, medicine, and the almost completely forgotten role of Psychopomp, conductor of souls to the next world.”

I don’t look at things in isolation, but how everything is interrelated. At the moment I’m reading a book called Embodying Osiris - written by Jungian psychologist Thom Cavalli, Ph.D.

People try to relate things to that which they know, because they have no concept of anything else being possible. That’s why religions attempt to scrape away at the darkness by referring to god as something that people can understand.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Quality reply, again, nothing to say about the matter itself. Getting smashed even in science is what you are used to. Not my fault that you don't know how the scientific method works.

Yet I manage to keep a self proclaimed genius like you banging away on a keyboard for hours.

 

[Total Power]

Yet I manage to keep a self proclaimed genius like you banging away on a keyboard for hours.

Thanks for your insult. I was simply discussing what theoretical physics was. Unable to reply you unleashed a barrage of abuse on me. This is exactly what you do, thread after thread. Argue on my points, not me.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Thanks for your insult. I was simply discussing what theoretical physics was. Unable to reply you unleashed a barrage of abuse on me. This is exactly what you do, thread after thread.

I know what theoretical physics is thanks.

 

[Total Power]

I know what theoretical physics is thanks.

Why would you say , hitting the mark is 1%? what's the relevance?

this is the branch of physics primarily concerned with making models, manipulating models, coming up with hypotheses and models to go with them. Other physicists then test them. It’s simply a division of labour allowing people to specialise in areas that require different skills, or at least different emphasis of skills.

The idea that science exists to explain the world is something of a misconception. It exists to make reliable predictions; explaining the world is something of a side effect.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Why would you say , hitting the mark is 1%? what's the relevance?

this is the branch of physics primarily concerned with making models, manipulating models, coming up with hypotheses and models to go with them. Other physicists then test them. It’s simply a division of labour allowing people to specialise in areas that require different skills, or at least different emphasis of skills.

The idea that science exists to explain the world is something of a misconception. It exists to make reliable predictions; explaining the world is something of a side effect.

Are you under the impression that you're schooling me about something?

 

[Total Power]

Are you under the impression that you're schooling me about something?

I dont play my dick is bigger than yours, like you.I am here to have a discussion, you clearly aren't

 

[Roylion]

Instead of picking on the devolved shells of religion, examine the source of it (mythologies for example). Back then there was no wikipedia, so mythologies were used to propagate spirituality and symbolism.

Of course. Certainly not denying that.

My suggestion is stop hanging your hat on the word "god".

That's a bit difficult when "god" is the premise of the thread and the word "god" appears in the title. Pantheism, deism and theism all define "god" in different ways. The traditional theist view of God as an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe is the context in which the term 'god' is most commonly used and so that comes under discussion in a thread such as this.

I am willing to concede that "god" as defined by organised religion doesn't exist.

That is your belief.

There is zero evidence of simulation, yet noted scientists like Tyson, Musk, Hawking have stated we "might" live inside a simulation. If we are inside a simulation, there is no way to prove we are in it, unless you are an independent observer.

Saying something "might" exist is not necessarily believing in it. Middle Earth or Westeros might exist too, but the available evidence we have that those places actually do exist is obviously limited.

An immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe might exist too, but that doesn't mean I necessarily believe that it actually does. I hold no belief either way.

 

[Total Power]

That's a bit difficult when "god" is the premise of the thread and the word "god" appears in the title. Pantheism, deism and theism all define "god" in different ways. The traditional theist view of God as an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe is the context in which the term 'god' is most commonly used and so that comes under discussion in a thread such as this.

No, i disagree. That's what organised religion is! Christ in Gnosticsm for example is not a person it's a principle. Bible if read properly have profound wisdom in it. The "Sons of God". Horus, Thor, Perseus, Jesus, Mithra, Krishna, all born of a "miracle birth".

whether these people are based upon fact, or completely mythological is irrelevant. What is important is that they were the Sun of God. This has a meaning in the kabbalah, which is simply a 'map' of how the Universe eminates and unfolds.

the "Christ" principle is on the second level down, and actually refers to a state of being / consciousness, rather than that of an individual person.

it is the literalisation of the "Son of God" symbology, and supposed ownership of the "Christ" title by the man Jesus that causes much confusion.

What i am trying to tell you is that many people have tried to define the undefinable. Religions have tried to define god, then spinoza did. I am telling you human language is not sufficient to define that. That's why there are myths or symbols. There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, this is true. I can talk about more about other dimension and my experience but people here (the usual suspects) will cry "omfgggg dogmaaa lmaooooo".

This is why i keep saying "attempts" to describe "nothing" will result in nothing lol.. but i will still make an attempt: If you picture The Absolute as an ocean expanding and existing everywhere. It is One. But imagine the ocean is made of an infinite amount of droplets, but they are not cognisant of their own existence as separate entities within the ABSOLUTE

in order for us to exist as separate entities, we need the capacity to become different to our source, otherwise our individuallity is nullified within source. As such, we have "eaten from the tree of knowledge of good an evil". The physical Universe is the canvas upon which we express our individuality.

Buddhism, and atheism, share a slightly pessimistic vibe, in that the arguments are that life is s**t and then you die. But it ain't all bad! Life is neither a glass half full, and neither a glass half empty, but both at the same time. Our objective is to realise this and make the galss completely full!

Understand that perception and mind is all that is. Matter is what you make of it.

 

[twotooto]

Of course. Certainly not denying that.



That's a bit difficult when "god" is the premise of the thread and the word "god" appears in the title. Pantheism, deism and theism all define "god" in different ways. The traditional theist view of God as an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe is the context in which the term 'god' is most commonly used and so that comes under discussion in a thread such as this.



That is your belief.



Saying something "might" exist is not necessarily believing in it. Middle Earth or Westeros might exist too, but the available evidence we have that those places actually do exist is obviously limited.

An immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe might exist too, but that doesn't mean I necessarily believe that it actually does. I hold no belief either way.

This is the thing. We can posit that there is a god, or that there isn't, and everything in between but when you boil it down, there is no incontrovertible truth to support any position, either way. It's all vague suppositions, guess work and grandiose flights of fancy.

I suppose the most likely scenario is we, the human race, were spawned from a combination of a bit of primordial goo and a few freakish coincidences occurring at the same time in a perfect storm of serendipity. And it's been all down hill for the planet from there.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I dont play my dick is bigger than yours........

Ironically, that's all you do.

 

[Total Power]

Ironically, that's all you do.

Read on my debate with Roylion, on how we can disagree. You do not need to agree with me, its fine. The first sign of disagreement with you will result in "you are an idiot" or some random insulting memes from the net. This is why you been banned from so many threads so many times. Ask the mods, not me. You can't handle a disagreement like an adult.

 

[Janus]

No, i disagree. That's what organised religion is! Christ in Gnosticsm for example is not a person it's a principle. Bible if read properly have profound wisdom in it. The "Sons of God". Horus, Thor, Perseus, Jesus, Mithra, Krishna, all born of a "miracle birth".

whether these people are based upon fact, or completely mythological is irrelevant. What is important is that they were the Sun of God. This has a meaning in the kabbalah, which is simply a 'map' of how the Universe eminates and unfolds.

the "Christ" principle is on the second level down, and actually refers to a state of being / consciousness, rather than that of an individual person.

it is the literalisation of the "Son of God" symbology, and supposed ownership of the "Christ" title by the man Jesus that causes much confusion.

What i am trying to tell you is that many people have tried to define the undefinable. Religions have tried to define god, then spinoza did. I am telling you human language is not sufficient to define that. That's why there are myths or symbols. There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, this is true. I can talk about more about other dimension and my experience but people here (the usual suspects) will cry "omfgggg dogmaaa lmaooooo".

This is why i keep saying "attempts" to describe "nothing" will result in nothing lol.. but i will still make an attempt: If you picture The Absolute as an ocean expanding and existing everywhere. It is One. But imagine the ocean is made of an infinite amount of droplets, but they are not cognisant of their own existence as separate entities within the ABSOLUTE

in order for us to exist as separate entities, we need the capacity to become different to our source, otherwise our individuallity is nullified within source. As such, we have "eaten from the tree of knowledge of good an evil". The physical Universe is the canvas upon which we express our individuality.

Buddhism, and atheism, share a slightly pessimistic vibe, in that the arguments are that life is s**t and then you die. But it ain't all bad! Life is neither a glass half full, and neither a glass half empty, but both at the same time. Our objective is to realise this and make the galss completely full!

Understand that perception and mind is all that is. Matter is what you make of it.

You do realise that “Christ” means “anointed one” and is just the Greek transliteration of the Jewish word “Messiah”...so therefore it only applies to Judeo-Christian belief systems? No other religion had a prophecy of one who was to be descended from the genealogy of a previous earthly king (David), which is why he was anointed.

So while I can agree that there are similarities between the Logos principle of various belief systems - that is, the animating force which turns divine thought into divine action, which is why Christ was called the Word of God...saying the title of Christ can apply to any other set of beliefs is wrong simply because it’s indigenous to the Jewish faith (and by extension the Christian one).

Rosicrucians teach about the “Christ being” (and they always write it that way) as a way of differentiating between various aspects that are attributed to similar individual types.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn has a series of great illustrations of how the tree of life equates to Christ on the cross:




A Hermetist believes that the principle of the Logos is to eventually gain inmortality - that is, independence from the All for our life force - and that the resurrection myths are sign posts which point the way on how to achieve this: denial of self and self-sacrifice married with glorification and ascension. The death of Ego (individuation) to achieve Self-Esteem (glorification) - the “chemical wedding”.

That’s what the eating of the Tree of Knowledge was all about. Not a rejection of the right of God to rule, not a desire for individuation, but an application for those that wish to be “equal to god” to be able to be so. But in order to reach this goal, “You must be holy, because I am holy.” The allegorical ripping of the curtain between the holy and most holy on the death of Christ was symbolism for someone finally having achieved the lofty goal of immortality as a human, meaning that it was possible for us to achieve it if given enough time and education. Sin wasn’t a fall per se, but an acute awareness of how far below the spiritual standard of the divine we were as material manifestations. That’s what the “knowledge of good and bad” is. The All basically said, “If you want to be like me, you have to hold yourself to the same standards as me from birth until death. Do that, and you can become immortal.”

Those that want to stay on Earth and be reborn can do so. “They are having their reward in full.”

Any other belief as to what the Tree of Knowledge is about is attributing something bad to the divine, IMO.

 

[M Malice]

You do realise that “Christ” means “anointed one” and is just the Greek transliteration of the Jewish word “Messiah”...so therefore it only applies to Judeo-Christian belief systems? No other religion had a prophecy of one who was to be descended from the genealogy of a previous earthly king (David), which is why he was anointed.

So while I can agree that there are similarities between the Logos principle of various belief systems - that is, the animating force which turns divine thought into divine action, which is why Christ was called the Word of God...saying the title of Christ can apply to any other set of beliefs is wrong simply because it’s indigenous to the Jewish faith (and by extension the Christian one).

Rosicrucians teach about the “Christ being” (and they always write it that way) as a way of differentiating between various aspects that are attributed to similar individual types.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn has a series of great illustrations of how the tree of life equates to Christ on the cross:

View attachment 591445
View attachment 591446

A Hermetist believes that the principle of the Logos is to eventually gain inmortality - that is, independence from the All for our life force - and that the resurrection myths are sign posts which point the way on how to achieve this: denial of self and self-sacrifice married with glorification and ascension. The death of Ego (individuation) to achieve Self-Esteem (glorification) - the “chemical wedding”.

That’s what the eating of the Tree of Knowledge was all about. Not a rejection of the right of God to rule, not a desire for individuation, but an application for those that wish to be “equal to god” to be able to be so. But in order to reach this goal, “You must be holy, because I am holy.” The allegorical ripping of the curtain between the holy and most holy on the death of Christ was symbolism for someone finally having achieved the lofty goal of immortality as a human, meaning that it was possible for us to achieve it if given enough time and education. Sin wasn’t a fall per se, but an acute awareness of how far below the spiritual standard of the divine we were as material manifestations. That’s what the “knowledge of good and bad” is. The All basically said, “If you want to be like me, you have to hold yourself to the same standards as me from birth until death. Do that, and you can become immortal.”

Those that want to stay on Earth and be reborn can do so. “They are having their reward in full.”

Any other belief as to what the Tree of Knowledge is about is attributing something bad to the divine, IMO.

I find you postings interesting/thought provoking Janus, are you self educated on all this stuff or have you studied under a guru or alike?

 

[Janus]

I find you postings interesting/thought provoking Janus, are you self educated on all this stuff or have you studied under a guru or alike?

Upbringing was Christian. The rest is just my search for the Sacred Secret.

 

[Total Power]

You do realise that “Christ” means “anointed one” and is just the Greek transliteration of the Jewish word “Messiah”...so therefore it only applies to Judeo-Christian belief systems? No other religion had a prophecy of one who was to be descended from the genealogy of a previous earthly king (David), which is why he was anointed.

So while I can agree that there are similarities between the Logos principle of various belief systems - that is, the animating force which turns divine thought into divine action, which is why Christ was called the Word of God...saying the title of Christ can apply to any other set of beliefs is wrong simply because it’s indigenous to the Jewish faith (and by extension the Christian one).

Rosicrucians teach about the “Christ being” (and they always write it that way) as a way of differentiating between various aspects that are attributed to similar individual types.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn has a series of great illustrations of how the tree of life equates to Christ on the cross:

View attachment 591445
View attachment 591446

A Hermetist believes that the principle of the Logos is to eventually gain inmortality - that is, independence from the All for our life force - and that the resurrection myths are sign posts which point the way on how to achieve this: denial of self and self-sacrifice married with glorification and ascension. The death of Ego (individuation) to achieve Self-Esteem (glorification) - the “chemical wedding”.

That’s what the eating of the Tree of Knowledge was all about. Not a rejection of the right of God to rule, not a desire for individuation, but an application for those that wish to be “equal to god” to be able to be so. But in order to reach this goal, “You must be holy, because I am holy.” The allegorical ripping of the curtain between the holy and most holy on the death of Christ was symbolism for someone finally having achieved the lofty goal of immortality as a human, meaning that it was possible for us to achieve it if given enough time and education. Sin wasn’t a fall per se, but an acute awareness of how far below the spiritual standard of the divine we were as material manifestations. That’s what the “knowledge of good and bad” is. The All basically said, “If you want to be like me, you have to hold yourself to the same standards as me from birth until death. Do that, and you can become immortal.”

Those that want to stay on Earth and be reborn can do so. “They are having their reward in full.”

Any other belief as to what the Tree of Knowledge is about is attributing something bad to the divine, IMO.

Jesus was most likely what the Jews referred to as an Essene, which was effectively a Gnostic offshoot of Judaism. That's not to say he wasn't also Jewish. Judaism is a type of Gnosticism, but the Essenes were more open about their esoteric practices, whereas the Jews held it more tightly (indeed the Kabbalah was tightly held knowledge for almost 4000 years!).

The "Son of God" reference has to be interpreted Kabbalistically. You have to have the knowledge of the Tree of Life, in order to understand what it means.

The second logos (word) is Chokma. Jesus (or Yeshua) had in his past lives evolved to incarnate the Chokma (or Son or Christ). In Hinduism, this is known as Vishnu. Those who incarnate the Christ or Vishnu in Buddhism, and choose return to Earth to assist humanity, is known as a Bodhisattva. Jesus was a Bodhisattva by choosing to incarnate the "Son"/Vishnu/Chokma.

I digress, but it is beneficial to know why the "Son of God" term is used to describe Jesus.

The historical importance of Jesus or Gautama is actually irrelevant to me, despite me debating about it (to provide counter).

The great teachings remain. And in all probability they came from the one great teacher in both instances.

Regarding the Christic principle, i can't say it better than the great master himself.

https://gnosticteachings.org/books-by-samael-aun-weor/the-perfect-matrimony/959-the-christ.html

 

[Total Power]

I find you postings interesting/thought provoking Janus, are you self educated on all this stuff or have you studied under a guru or alike?

Atleast getting a proper discussion going without your typical "you are an idiot" ad homs by militant atheists.

 

[M Malice]

Upbringing was Christian. The rest is just my search for the Sacred Secret.

Thanks for the reply, so have you found it and could you reveal it or what you have found so far succinctly? I assume by sacred secret you are talking about the meaning of life or your life's purpose?

I admire yours and Total Power 's boundless knowledge on this seemingly ineffable subject, I'm a don't know/haven't experienced it on the "spiritual" side of life although I have zero time for organized religion.

 

[Total Power]

Thanks for the reply, so have you found it and could you reveal it or what you have found so far succinctly? I assume by sacred secret you are talking about the meaning of life or your life's purpose?

I admire yours and Total Power 's boundless knowledge on this seemingly ineffable subject, I'm a don't know/haven't experienced it on the "spiritual" side of life although I have zero time for organized religion.

My opinion is 'knowledge' can only come from practices through experiences. Till then it remains a 'belief'. Gnostic texts clearly represented meditation being a core of early Christianity. So why were they removed? and on what basis? and why references to spiritual practices removed? You can read the Bible all you want but unless you combine it with mediational practices it will remain just a 'belief' for you. This is why i said, i hate to be drawn into an argument about prophecies, historicity of Jesus etc, to me its irrelevant.

There are many reasons why Gautama didn't want to name an absolute creative deity, but the primary one is that naming the creative God is based on fear. You can see what happens to a religion which loses grip on what higher consciousness is and lives in fear of "God" by looking at what has happened to Christianity (ie. you have one shot, and if ya ain't Christian, you wont be saved). Buddah avoided this by focussing on self-realisation only. It is what Jesus taugh, but unfortunately has been hijacked by man to be utilised fearfully.

But its the same ******* thing, you can focus on the differences by ignorning the similarities.

But what does "the Sun God" represent???

Ra = Christ = Vishnu = Ahura-Mazda = Chokma

Osiris incarnated Ra. Jesus incarnated the Christ or Sun. Krishna incarnated Vishnu. Abraham incarnated the Chokma. Quetzalcoatl incarnated the Mayan "Sun God".

It all means the same ********en thing! It's all common references to the spiritual level of individuals. It is the same symbology worldwide.

Doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. This is why practices are important, the symbols that appears in deep meditation are strikingly similar, i was once a militant atheist (proof in this forum), but how wrong was i. To interpret the symbol like "Sun", you need to understand the meaning of it. As i said above, no human language can describe this, its like a painting which cannot be interpreted. As i said, try it yourself, don't believe in anything anyone tells you.

 

[Janus]

Jesus was most likely what the Jews referred to as an Essene, which was effectively a Gnostic offshoot of Judaism. That's not to say he wasn't also Jewish. Judaism is a type of Gnosticism, but the Essenes were more open about their esoteric practices, whereas the Jews held it more tightly (indeed the Kabbalah was tightly held knowledge for almost 4000 years!).

The "Son of God" reference has to be interpreted Kabbalistically. You have to have the knowledge of the Tree of Life, in order to understand what it means.

The second logos (word) is Chokma. Jesus (or Yeshua) had in his past lives evolved to incarnate the Chokma (or Son or Christ). In Hinduism, this is known as Vishnu. Those who incarnate the Christ or Vishnu in Buddhism, and choose return to Earth to assist humanity, is known as a Bodhisattva. Jesus was a Bodhisattva by choosing to incarnate the "Son"/Vishnu/Chokma.

I digress, but it is beneficial to know why the "Son of God" term is used to describe Jesus.

The historical importance of Jesus or Gautama is actually irrelevant to me, despite me debating about it (to provide counter).

The great teachings remain. And in all probability they came from the one great teacher in both instances.

Regarding the Christic principle, i can't say it better than the great master himself.

https://gnosticteachings.org/books-by-samael-aun-weor/the-perfect-matrimony/959-the-christ.html

I’m fully aware of the symbolism of the birth of the sun (after December 21, which is Winter Solstice in the Northern hemisphere) being attributed to the birth of Christ on December 25. I’m also aware that December 25 is not the birthdate of Christ and was attributed to be such as a way of appealing to the elder religions. In fact, there’s a whole argument to be made that the traditional Christ myth as taught by mainstream religion is nothing more than a co-opting of the Zodiac. That’s what the Holy Science teaches.

I’m also acutely aware that Kabbalists reworked their application of prophecy after the Jewish nation rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Most Kabbalist teachings stem from Egypt and Hermes Trismegistus, for it was in Egyptian schools that Moses was taught to write.

The Essenes believed in immortality of the soul. Now, you could argue that so did Jesus when he said not to fear those that kill the body but can’t destroy the soul, but the context is that we shouldn’t fear man who cannot take away our prospect for rebirth or resurrection, but instead fear the one that can do that.

The Essenes were like the Saducees in that they denied the ressurection of the body...so it makes no sense that Jesus would be said to have ressurected Lazarus if that’s what his belief was.

As for Aun Weor - does he not understand that INRI is an abbreviation for iesus nazarenus rex iudaeorum? That is, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews? I know the occultist version is Igne Natura Renovatur Integra - “Through Fire, Nature is Reborn Whole” - but applying this to Jesus himself is attributing something after the fact.

One could argue that this is what Peter was referring to when he said that “the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.”

I’m not sure I can correlate sex magic with this cleansing fire of renewal. I can see the aspects of balance and spiritual harmony if practiced with love and an entwining of souls, and how powerful such a rite is (the Great Rite is a ritualised form of sex magic), but when Jesus said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword, I’m pretty sure he wasn’t advocating spiritual awakening by means of sex rites - unless you believe the sword is a phallic symbol (which I guess it could be).

Also, Jesus never referred to himself as the “Son of God”. He called himself the “Son of Man”. Even when the High Priest put him under oath to tell them if he was “the Messiah, the Son of God”, he replied that they would see “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one”. This was to make it clear that he identified himself with and was a man who was to ascend to godhood, not a god who had descended to earth and was simply going back to where he had come from. If Christ didn’t fulfil his mission, he wouldn’t be able to return to heaven.

This is the difference between a myth like Vishnu/Krishna (Krishna being the eighth avatar of Vishnu) and Jesus - one was assured of ascension back to heaven , the other was given no such assurances - hence why he shouted “Eli Eli, lama sabacthani” (“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”) when the All withdrew his protection and forcefully sent Jesus into the abyss. He was literally asking “What have I done wrong? Have I not proven myself worthy of the Tree of Life?” At that moment, he wasn’t the Son of God - he was just a man who had been condemned to death for the crime of blasphemy. This is where the aspect of self-esteem comes into play. The All withdrew itself and allowed Christ to experience true ego death - loss of identity - before true self-esteem kicked in and Jesus could triumphantly say “It has been accomplished!” without having to ask if it actually had or not. He didn’t need the All to tell him - he knew it. He had already been reborn in spirit and was reconnected to the All before he died. Hence why his last words were “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” - he knew the final transformation wasn’t up to him.

And that is why in mythology, it’s always the “Christ being” rather than the anyone else. Jesus stands alone in mythology for his self-denial and self-sacrifice - the first to achieve the Philosopher’s Stone. “As above, so below. As below, so above.”

If you really want to bake your noodle, do research on Nimrod and the fact that he killed his father, married his own mother and then was later deified as god by his wife/mother, who wanted to continue to control the people by means of a theological priest class. Sounds suspiciously like the mythology of Osiris/Isis/Horus: “Horus gradually took on the nature as both the son of Osiris and Osiris himself.”

You are correct that all religions have the same universal truth - most of them gain inspiration from the story of Nimrod. That’s where the concept of the trinity, as understood by most, gets its root. Freemasonry - which is steeped in Egyptian tradition - takes an Oath of Nimrod.

Of course...you start going into Freemasonry, you wind up looking at s**t about the Order of the Eastern Star. And you’ll never look at anything the same again when you go down that particular rabbit hole.

Thanks for the reply, so have you found it and could you reveal it or what you have found so far succinctly? I assume by sacred secret you are talking about the meaning of life or your life's purpose?

I admire yours and Total Power 's boundless knowledge on this seemingly ineffable subject, I'm a don't know/haven't experienced it on the "spiritual" side of life although I have zero time for organized religion.

Succinctly? Not a chance, as seen by this post. Mostly because there’s lots of references to alchemy, various religious beliefs etc.

 

[Total Power]

J

This is the difference between a myth like Vishnu/Krishna (Krishna being the eighth avatar of Vishnu) and Jesus - one was assured of ascension back to heaven , the other was given no such assurances - hence why he shouted “Eli Eli, lama sabacthani” (“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”) when the All withdrew his protection and forcefully sent Jesus into the abyss. He was literally asking “What have I done wrong? Have I not proven myself worthy of the Tree of Life?” At that moment, he wasn’t the Son of God - he was just a man who had been condemned to death for the crime of blasphemy. This is where the aspect of self-esteem comes into play. The All withdrew itself and allowed Christ to experience true ego death - loss of identity - before true self-esteem kicked in and Jesus could triumphantly say “It has been accomplished!” without having to ask if it actually had or not. He didn’t need the All to tell him - he knew it. He had already been reborn in spirit and was reconnected to the All before he died. Hence why his last words were “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” - he knew the final transformation wasn’t up to him.

Ok well, i don't have the time to reply to all of it, but i will try to reply to parts of it. First of all its refreshing to see a proper topic of conversation free of abuse from the usual nuffies here.

Secondly congrats, great reply, but i will reply from my perspective gained from practice. (which will differ from yours obviously, but that's ok)

Regarding sex to begin with: you tried Kundalini Yoga? (referred to as sex magic?) .If you haven't you will not understand what Aun Weor meant there.

This is about sexuallity. A lot of the Bible is about this for a very specific reason, and it has to do with Kundalini Yoga.

We all must kill (read: unite) our male and female egos. From the Gospel of Thomas (re. Mary Magdelene):

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

The Caduceus is the medical symbol, because it is a symbol of good health due to the health benefits derived from Kundalini Yoga. It is the meaning behind the Moses and his brass serpent mataphor. The serpent(s) represent channels which wrap around the spine.

Male and female union through Maithuna, if practiced correctly is not a product of animalistic desires. Someone else saying it,does not make it so. It is a meditational practice and is an act of giving and reunion (relegare).

It activates the Kundalini, resulting in spiritual benefits and even actual physical health benefits. The snakes intertwined around the spine, is represented artistically as our medical symbol even today which i mentioned above! And that symbol has its base in Kundalini yoga.



this is art from Assyria dated to around 2350 - 2150 B.C.

now it might seem nuts to you and probably hold no meaning whatsoever, but the meaning is clear. The intertwining snakes, are there for the same reason as we still have intertwining snakes on our medical symbols!

(At least philosophically) there are two subtle nerve chanels (Kundalini), which can channel subtle energy (prana) to the various chakras and ultimately to the pineal and pituitary glands in the brain. The way to rechannel this, is through male and female reunion and the practice of a certain yogic practice called Maithuna (Sanskrit), which is what the couple is there for. Pranayama is another technique other than Maithuna.

(At least philosophically) this awakens the Kundalini, revealing a host of spiritual awakenings, and also physical health benefits; hence the reason it is utilised as a medical symbol.

The Father figure represents the Divine Father, the female with the snake on the head represents an awakened female (Divine Mother) and the Grail has connotations of spiritual alchemy. The bucket next to the couple, is on fire, as fire is representitive as the fire of Kundalini awakening (another common archetype, as "fire" up the spine is reportedly the sensation of the practice).


Now to the myths: The immaculate conception story is found in every single religion, bar none. You are focusing on the differences instead of simlarities. Of course culturally it will be different, the Birth of Krishna wasn't exactly the same as Birth of Buddha but spiritually it was the same thing. Even Perseus was born of a virgin birth. The reason why Plato was also touted as being born of a virigin. It got nothing to with with the literal side of things at all!

The esoteric meaning behind that is to do with the concept of "second birth" in the higher planes of consciousness. It is a reference to "pure" spiritual birth, not that of matter. The 12 disciples (plus "The Christ" = 13) has a very important Kabbalistic meaning.

Unfortunately these people did not have access to the interweb and graphical representations we have today, so myth and story was the only way they could transfer spiritual knowledge hence the use of symbols, which is difference across various cultures yet carry the same meaning! look up on swastika for example.

Mythologies are not the same in various cultures but the symbology in them exactly the same. If you read Jung, you will understand what i mean. As i said above, your knowledge comes from reading and i respect that, you probably know far more about it than i do, my knowledge comes from practice, hence the difference. However i see it different than you do. The solution to meditate on a specific symbol, you will find the answer yourself. I haven't been in it for half a decade now and i am as enligtened right now as Jack Watts on a weekend, but i am well aware of my experiences gained through meditation when i was at it. I plan to get back to it asap, but ego. It's always the same story.

Anyway back to the Bible:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 14:6-13

What Jesus is talking about is that aspect of the Kabbalah which refers to "the Christ" (I know you don't agree and it's fine with me). It is also known as the Son/Sun (i never said he called himself the Son the god) . Throughout the Bible, "fire" is another symbol for the Christ. In Hinduism, it is represented as Vishnu.

He is saying that in order to reunite with "the Father" (or Brahma) one must first incarnate "the Christ". The myths of Krishna are about the exact same thing, in that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu. (I am aware you don't agree with this and i am fine with it)

It's a brilliant passage. Jesus is explaining the concept of the Inner God to the doubting Phillip. It is about making the Inner God shine, so that God is eminates through you as a vehicle.

Note also, that Jesus talks about "works". Mainstream Christianity will have you believe that this passage merely refers to Jesus stating that simply dropping his name at the Pearly Gates is all you have to do! This is clearly idiotic and a by product of the religion stripping itself of esoteric knowledge (gnosis). The "works" he refers to is of course meditation, among other techniques.

Jesus never claims to be "God". He does however claim to be "the way".

To repeat what i said above: again,

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

Modern day Christianity interprets through the ego, this to mean that one must worship him as a God, or that simply acknowledging him is what he is referring to.

What it is in fact a reference to is the way, or path, one must follow in order to attain absolute enlightenment and reunion with God and that is through the path of the Bodhisattva.

What the first emination of God is, is the first giving. Indeed, in Judaism, the translation of the relevant Christ meaning, loosely translates to "The Sharing". As this is the highest order of spirit anyone can have, it is the way back to Allah.

Examples over time of great Bodhisattvas include Moses, Gautama, Jesus, Mohammad, the Dalai Lama, Gandhi and Mother Theresa (I dont want to start a political debate here now but you get my point). They are examples of the qualities we require in order to return to our Maker.

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. [14] For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

In Gnosticism in end, Christ is not a man. But to me it's irrelevant to focus on the differences (which you pointed out). The symbology is much more important for spiritual growth.

The Book of Revelation for example. Those Christian literallists who follow the dogma they have been taught will view it as a doomsday prophesy. The atheist will rationalise it, ironically quite similar, as a doomsday prophesy that has not come to fruition and is therefore great ammo to deride others.

What the Book of Revelation is predominantly about however, can only be understood in Vipassana meditation. What it refers to in great symbological detail, is the awakening of the seven chakras (seven churches). Revelation = Enlightenment.

I will readily admit that some of the documents have been tampered with over history, but they are for their most part in tact. A lot is lost in translation. A lot is lost in not understanding it in Hebrew, and picking up the deliberate misspellings and the like.

But in its totallity, it is a great work of spirituality. As a result of the clairvoyant interpretation, most, if not all contradtictions are objectively rationalised.

All what i said above can be verified through practice, obviously i haven't meditated on all symbols, just a few of them, but what i summed up above is from my experience, literal or not, this can be verified through practice.

Finally regarding the Christic principle, interesting thoughts from Blavastky.

https://blavatskytheosophy.com/christos-the-christ-principle/

This is not for the sake or debate or argument, it's for practice! I would strongly recommend you to meditate on the "Sun" of god symbol. It was my first attempt a meditating at a symbol and after many months, i succeeded.

You are of course correct from the literal side of things, i am not arguing against that. I said above that whether Bible is literally true or not makes no difference to me, it's practice that is more important to me. The symbols appear over and over again as you attain higher levels on consciousness. "Sun" of god, is one such symbol.

Sorry for the long reply, i edited this about 10 times! its 4.30 am here LOL. Later again sometime, was great to talk about it though.

 

[Lebbo73]

No I didn't state that.

My aim was to point out some of your delusional behaviors to you in order to facilitate introspection, but it was again pointless.



Prove it.



Just go out and pick up any scientific undergrad text book from a second hand book store (not the Chopra section either).

Here’s a present for you on behalf of Proccy

 

[Janus]

J


Ok well, i don't have the time to reply to all of it, but i will try to reply to parts of it. First of all its refreshing to see a proper topic of conversation free of abuse from the usual nuffies here.

Secondly congrats, great reply, but i will reply from my perspective gained from practice. (which will differ from yours obviously, but that's ok)

Regarding sex to begin with: you tried Kundalini Yoga? (referred to as sex magic?) .If you haven't you will not understand what Aun Weor meant there.

This is about sexuallity. A lot of the Bible is about this for a very specific reason, and it has to do with Kundalini Yoga.

We all must kill (read: unite) our male and female egos. From the Gospel of Thomas (re. Mary Magdelene):

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

The Caduceus is the medical symbol, because it is a symbol of good health due to the health benefits derived from Kundalini Yoga. It is the meaning behind the Moses and his brass serpent mataphor. The serpent(s) represent channels which wrap around the spine.

Male and female union through Maithuna, if practiced correctly is not a product of animalistic desires. Someone else saying it,does not make it so. It is a meditational practice and is an act of giving and reunion (relegare).

It activates the Kundalini, resulting in spiritual benefits and even actual physical health benefits. The snakes intertwined around the spine, is represented artistically as our medical symbol even today which i mentioned above! And that symbol has its base in Kundalini yoga.

View attachment 591585

this is art from Assyria dated to around 2350 - 2150 B.C.

now it might seem nuts to you and probably hold no meaning whatsoever, but the meaning is clear. The intertwining snakes, are there for the same reason as we still have intertwining snakes on our medical symbols!

(At least philosophically) there are two subtle nerve chanels (Kundalini), which can channel subtle energy (prana) to the various chakras and ultimately to the pineal and pituitary glands in the brain. The way to rechannel this, is through male and female reunion and the practice of a certain yogic practice called Maithuna (Sanskrit), which is what the couple is there for. Pranayama is another technique other than Maithuna.

(At least philosophically) this awakens the Kundalini, revealing a host of spiritual awakenings, and also physical health benefits; hence the reason it is utilised as a medical symbol.

The Father figure represents the Divine Father, the female with the snake on the head represents an awakened female (Divine Mother) and the Grail has connotations of spiritual alchemy. The bucket next to the couple, is on fire, as fire is representitive as the fire of Kundalini awakening (another common archetype, as "fire" up the spine is reportedly the sensation of the practice).

I was of the impression that the caduceus was a reference to the 12 meridians of the body (left and right), which is why from head to tail the two snakes have six points. It is to the physical what the chakra are to the spiritual/emotional. In a Rosicrucian handbook I read, it speaks about using acupressure to activate a certain meridian that is blocked from birth that stimulates psychic abilities. Don't ask me what it was though. It also speaks of kundalini breathing exercises - I think this is pranayama?

I'm not buying anything written in the Gospel of Thomas - primarily because it was so far removed from anything that was said in the other four Gospels and has a lot of hermetic sayings in it (the All, the above like below etc). It's basically an amalgamation of Hermetic and Christian teachings. I'm not saying there isn't some truth to be gleaned from it, but I wouldn't attribute one iota of it to the sayings of Jesus. There's a reason only one copy of the Gospel of Thomas survived and 12-16 of Matthew and John survived.

Now to the myths: The immaculate conception story is found in every single religion, bar none. You are focusing on the differences instead of simlarities. Of course culturally it will be different, the Birth of Krishna wasn't exactly the same as Birth of Buddha but spiritually it was the same thing. Even Perseus was born of a virgin birth. The reason why Plato was also touted as being born of a virigin. It got nothing to with with the literal side of things at all!

The virgin birth is focused on by the Catholic church as the thing that proves Jesus is Christ, when the reality is it was of no consequence in this regard. It was necessary to bypass inherited sin to redeem man, but it wasn't proof of divinity or had any other meaning past that. It wasn't something that was celebrated or held up as proof by Jesus' disciples - it was just something that was.

The esoteric meaning behind that is to do with the concept of "second birth" in the higher planes of consciousness. It is a reference to "pure" spiritual birth, not that of matter. The 12 disciples (plus "The Christ" = 13) has a very important Kabbalistic meaning.

Perhaps you are referring to being born again, which Christ said to Nicodemus was necessary to enter into the Kingdom of God? Being born of water and spirit? 12 is a divine number because it represents completion. It was also representative of the 12 tribes of Israel - also 12 gates of heaven, 12 thrones. There is more meaning attached to 11 (12 - Judas Iscariot), because the number 11 in numerology means inspiration, awakening, illumination and spiritual enlightenment. 11 + Christ = 12 co-rulers - the ones that Christ made a covenant for a kingdom with.

The +1 is The All, to make 13 - because The All unifies everyone and everything, even when one is immortal: "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." Even those who don't rely on the All for their life force must still acknowledge where that individuation came from.

Mythologies are not the same in various cultures but the symbology in them exactly the same. If you read Jung, you will understand what i mean. As i said above, your knowledge comes from reading and i respect that, you probably know far more about it than i do, my knowledge comes from practice, hence the difference. However i see it different than you do. The solution to meditate on a specific symbol, you will find the answer yourself. I haven't been in it for half a decade now and i am as enligtened right now as Jack Watts on a weekend, but i am well aware of my experiences gained through meditation when i was at it. I plan to get back to it asap, but ego. It's always the same story.

I'm going to go full woo woo here - I've done past life recollection and apparently at one point I was a High Priest of Anubis. I remembered standing on the steps of the Great Pyramid in front of hundreds of thousands of people as the funeral of the Pharaoh took place - which is probably why I'm so into Hermetic teachings. I've had dreams of finding a sarcophagus with a golden statue of Anubis in it - and every time I've done oracle card readings with my Anubis deck I've regularly come up with cards of Osiris and Sothis.

I say this so you can understand that any knowledge I have is both learned and intuitive/meditation. I've done work with the Akashic Records - it is for this reason why I am now learning astrology. I don't pick what I learn just to learn it, but because I'm guided to that place. Then I study it and analyse it to see what I was meant to learn.

What Jesus is talking about is that aspect of the Kabbalah which refers to "the Christ" (I know you don't agree and it's fine with me). It is also known as the Son/Sun (i never said he called himself the Son the god) . Throughout the Bible, "fire" is another symbol for the Christ. In Hinduism, it is represented as Vishnu.

He is saying that in order to reunite with "the Father" (or Brahma) one must first incarnate "the Christ". The myths of Krishna are about the exact same thing, in that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu. (I am aware you don't agree with this and i am fine with it)

It's a brilliant passage. Jesus is explaining the concept of the Inner God to the doubting Phillip. It is about making the Inner God shine, so that God is eminates through you as a vehicle.

Note also, that Jesus talks about "works". Mainstream Christianity will have you believe that this passage merely refers to Jesus stating that simply dropping his name at the Pearly Gates is all you have to do! This is clearly idiotic and a by product of the religion stripping itself of esoteric knowledge (gnosis). The "works" he refers to is of course meditation, among other techniques.

See, my take on this passage is quite different. I'm of the opinion that as the Word of God (Logos), Jesus was the physical manifestation into reality of that which cannot be confined to reality. When Jesus says to Thomas: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father", what he is referring to is that he is the Father in as much as he is the avatar of the All. The All is the Thought of God, Christ is the Word of God and the Holy Spirit is the Action of God. Three separate aspects/individuals, but unified in one purpose. "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." - John 5:30

And I would say that Jesus' primary work was the preach the Kingdom of God to others - that's why he said others would perform works greater than he, because he only had 3 years and not a lifetime to talk to people about it.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

Modern day Christianity interprets through the ego, this to mean that one must worship him as a God, or that simply acknowledging him is what he is referring to.

What it is in fact a reference to is the way, or path, one must follow in order to attain absolute enlightenment and reunion with God and that is through the path of the Bodhisattva.

What the first emination of God is, is the first giving. Indeed, in Judaism, the translation of the relevant Christ meaning, loosely translates to "The Sharing". As this is the highest order of spirit anyone can have, it is the way back to Allah.

Examples over time of great Bodhisattvas include Moses, Gautama, Jesus, Mohammad, the Dalai Lama, Gandhi and Mother Theresa (I dont want to start a political debate here now but you get my point). They are examples of the qualities we require in order to return to our Maker.

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. [14] For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

I can agree that there are many paths that lead us to the narrow gate. But there is only one narrow path - one of self-denial and self-sacrifice - and that path is not one for the faint of heart. In the Hall of Maat, our heart is weighed against the Feather of Truth. Those who are burdened with sin and regret have hearts that are heavy, and for these the second death awaits, with no hope of reaching the Field of Reeds - the new heavens and new earth.

By the by, you should do some research into the relationship of Muhammad and Christianity - there's a documentary kicking around on the net that shows how he was a construct of the Catholic Church to unify the Arab nation that backfired massively.

In Gnosticism in end, Christ is not a man. But to me it's irrelevant to focus on the differences (which you pointed out). The symbology is much more important for spiritual growth.

It makes the belief more powerful if he is, for it means that we too can with time gain immortality and individuation rather than being absorbed back into the 'breath of Brahma'.

The Book of Revelation for example. Those Christian literallists who follow the dogma they have been taught will view it as a doomsday prophesy. The atheist will rationalise it, ironically quite similar, as a doomsday prophesy that has not come to fruition and is therefore great ammo to deride others.

What the Book of Revelation is predominantly about however, can only be understood in Vipassana meditation. What it refers to in great symbological detail, is the awakening of the seven chakras (seven churches). Revelation = Enlightenment.

Revelation is most assuredly an alchemical text. "Buy from me gold refined by fire", "wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the lamb", the high emphasis on colour...even the four horsemen symbolise the alchemical process (white horse - albedo, black horse - nigredo, red horse - rubedo and ashen horse - citinitas) but in the wrong order (it should be black (ego death), white (washing away of impurities), yellow/ashen (solar awakening/rebirth) and finally red (the merging of ego and Self = self-esteem and the rise to immortality). It is no coincidence that the one described as being seated on the throne was seen as being as a 'sardine stone' - which is blood red in colour.

I will readily admit that some of the documents have been tampered with over history, but they are for their most part in tact. A lot is lost in translation. A lot is lost in not understanding it in Hebrew, and picking up the deliberate misspellings and the like.

But in its totallity, it is a great work of spirituality. As a result of the clairvoyant interpretation, most, if not all contradtictions are objectively rationalised.

All what i said above can be verified through practice, obviously i haven't meditated on all symbols, just a few of them, but what i summed up above is from my experience, literal or not, this can be verified through practice.

Finally regarding the Christic principle, interesting thoughts from Blavastky.

https://blavatskytheosophy.com/christos-the-christ-principle/

This is not for the sake or debate or argument, it's for practice! I would strongly recommend you to meditate on the "Sun" of god symbol. It was my first attempt a meditating at a symbol and after many months, i succeeded.

You are of course correct from the literal side of things, i am not arguing against that. I said above that whether Bible is literally true or not makes no difference to me, it's practice that is more important to me. The symbols appear over and over again as you attain higher levels on consciousness. "Sun" of god, is one such symbol.

Sorry for the long reply, i edited this about 10 times! its 4.30 am here LOL. Later again sometime, was great to talk about it though.

Again, I don't go much on Blavastky. Primarily because no one actually believes she went anywhere and was accused of being a fraud and basically stole everything she ever wrote from Hermetic teachings. I believe that truth should be seen for what it is - 'by their fruits you will recognise them'. Anyone who claims to have saved an opera singer from being murdered as well as working as a concert musician for the Royal Philharmonic Society, not to mention travelling to a sequestered Tibet, is not someone who I would be listening to. I think she is a charlatan - but I do like the fact that her society helps me get the books I'm interested in reading

I pen my thoughts in a diary. One day I'd be quite interested in taking it to a publisher and seeing if they'd be interested in doing something with it, cause it's like an amalgamation of Kabbalist/Hermetic/Christian/Rosicrucian teachings.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The instruments are going in to meltdown

 

[Total Power]

Good to know we are mostly in agreement Janus ..enjoyed your post.

Regarding past life recollection, i will PM you something later on, trolls are lurking here.