God & The Occult question

I was just thinking a little more and it occurs to me that you are being initiated already by making this inquiry.

You should answer at least these two questions honestly:

1) Why do you want to know?

2) What is it about yourself that that certain knowledge might reveal?

If you do not like what you find, either fix it or turn around a pay no further mind to the matter.

reply to post by hezekiah


You sound like Joan The Blind. With the mystery school subject.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Good synopsis. 1) I want to know; because I dont trust controlled regimes of religious doctrines. Designated religion only serves to "dribble" bits of information about occult matters to the masses- forcing one on their own personal tour of spiritual discovery (symbolic, ritual, or otherwise); this may be part of the quotient that creates Atheism
2) Changing oneself through higher awareness is the fun of the journey; how much you take in on the way, only serves to drive you deeper into the occult enigms understanding! I always liked the quote of Bruce Lee: " Do not become enchanted by the glory of the moon; one misses all the beauty that surrounds it".
Cheers.

Originally posted by hezekiah
God and the Occult Question....

In Buddhism, there is a structure whereby numerous different "paths" are recognized as seperate but co-existing with one another. In Mahayana (East Asian) Buddhism, for example, one can practice Zen (very non-verbal), Hua-yen (intellectually dense and scholarly; text-based), Pure land (very devotinal, and "heart-based"), Esoteric (similar in many ways to the westen "magical" approach), and several others. Typically a serious practitionier devotes himself to ONE of these paths (with some elements of mixture, perhaps). However, he does not claim that the other paths are "invalid" or "wrong" or "heresy." It is seen that different people will be drawn to different styles based on innate differences, tendencies, personality, preference, and so on. "many paths, one mountain." The idea is that there are many ways to achieve The Ultimate.

I often feel the Abrahamic religions could benefit from a bit more of this attitude. There seems to be an obsession with "either/or" rather than "and." Isn't God the highest? Wouldn't God encomapss all roads to Him? Wouldn't He create different roads for different types of people? There is an acceptence that people will have different tastes in music, art, whatever. Some people are almost "born atheletes" while others gravitate towards music or science or the written word or whatever. You don't see many artists arguing that Art is the "correct" way and that all musicians who don't take up the paintbrush will burn for eternity in hell. To me, a similar approach to religion MAKES INNATE SENSE.

There were other forms of Christianity, down through the ages, that have largely been repressed. As a result, rather than allowing an "esoteric Christianity" to flourish alongside the more standard, orthodox way, the hidden paths have been pushed undergroud. They have been perverted or distorted into dark, nightside doctrines. In this sense, it really can be said that the way of Western Esotericism is the path of Fallen Angles. However, it has become this way because Man made it so.

The refusal to accept a formal esoteric tradition in the West is a sickness, and unless it is resolved, Christianity will remain unbalanced and won't fully live up to its spiritual potential and deep heritage.

reply to post by silent thunder


Your post was interesting for me; until you started touting religions of intolerance. As you so eloquently put it- " Abrahamic" religions.
How can you express intelligent philosophies such as the ones mentioned previously to this, and the later in the same category? One is clearly a philosophy of personal choice; which may be seen as deprivation/self masochistic to attaining ones goals (Buddhism).
The other is not selfmasochistic, but, self destructive!
Abrahamic practice requires the individual to totally surrender spiritual control to an agent (priest, Imam, rabbi); as a means of consultation with God-head.
Buddhist monks don't ask for total surrender to themselves as human agent of God- for they are on the same path as the Lay-Buddhist; the monk may act as a teacher (prophet): Not as actual God-Head.
And lastly, the Buddha NEVER SAID HE WAS A GOD

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by silent thunder

 

Your post was interesting for me; until you started touting religions of intolerance. As you so eloquently put it- " Abrahamic" religions.
How can you express intelligent philosophies such as the ones mentioned previously to this, and the later in the same category? One is clearly a philosophy of personal choice; which may be seen as deprivation/self masochistic to attaining ones goals (Buddhism).
The other is not selfmasochistic, but, self destructive!
Abrahamic practice requires the individual to totally surrender spiritual control to an agent (priest, Imam, rabbi); as a means of consultation with God-head.
Buddhist monks don't ask for total surrender to themselves as human agent of God- for they are on the same path as the Lay-Buddhist; the monk may act as a teacher (prophet): Not as actual God-Head.
And lastly, the Buddha NEVER SAID HE WAS A GOD

Christianity, for example, seems to be in a state of sickness as it is commonly practiced today. But today's fundamentalists Christians are not the whole story. They are not even a very big part of the story, looking at the grand sweep of Christianity.

Down throughout Christian history there have been other forms of this tradition that take a wider, more enlightened approach. Look into the Gnostics-- early Christians who believed that the goal was not to worship Christ but to become a Christ, much as a Buddhist becomes a Buddha. Look at the Bogomil heresy or the Cathars. Or even some more accepted Christian mystical works, like the anonymously authored the Cloud of Unknowing, "in which the soul becomes one with God." Look into the germanic Meister Eckhardt, or check out the Aeropagite's richly luminous Theologica Mystica and John of the Cross's "Dark Night of the Soul." Read "On Cleaving to God" by Albertus Magnus, or look into the so-called Quietists, who practiced a form of Zen-like emptiness meditation in a 17th century Christian context. Look into the paintings and music of the inspired mystic Hildegard of Bingen, a medieval nun whose mandala-like works besepeak a profound understanding of the cosmos. These names are all passionate Christian mystics -- some barely accepted by the mainline church, some outright rejected -- who practiced mystical forms of Christianity totally compatible with the openness and goals of, say, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and so forth.

I am not a Christian -- I'm a committed Buddhist, initiated into the Shingon tradition on Mt. Koya and living and practicing in Japan for 23 years now. But I would never say there was nothing mystical about Christianity...the religion has a rich, powerful mystical tradition. It has been marginalized in recent centuries...religated to dusty library shelves, or repressed in terrible incidents like the witch burnings or the various papal crackdowns of the middle ages. The spirit of intolerance has hovered long over Christianity, but there has always been a florishing green vine wrapping its way around the cruel iron sword. The green vine is one of profound mysticism and esotericism, as ancient as the religion itself...and doubtless much closer to what Christ actually taught than the repressive strictness of linear fundamentalism that is rampant today.



[edit on 5/6/09 by silent thunder]

reply to post by silent thunder


I am sorry, but you can't pick out the parts you like and dismiss the ones you don't!
One can study history in attempt to arrive at logical deduction; however history is never objective, so even this is false economy.
the whole problem with this particular faith is:
1) You have a proto-jewish (essene) mystical teacher, radical only in the respect as he presented himself as "The Messiah"- Messiah traditionally presented as "The One Whom Would Be King". In proto-jewish society, there were 2 individuals whom held this rank i) The Kingly Messiah (from the line of David), and, ii) The Priestly Messiah (from the line of Aaron).
Jesus was considered a rebel; as he was the first to represent himself as a dual ruling entity.
2) Long after Yehosuah Ben Josephs death (he was just a man after all); Emperor Constantine, economizing on the popularity of Jesus created Christian Catholicism, with Rabbis'- as written in the Creed of Nicea.
3) The Creed of Nicea was then revised 2 years later as; The Nicean Creed.
4) This manifest outlined the fundamentals of the story of "Christ", as well as what books would and would not be included within the bible for the most resounding political effect.
5) The Catholic Church was a last -ditch attempt at reviving the already ailing roman Empire. The church was really its grave-stone

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by silent thunder

 

I am sorry, but you can't pick out the parts you like and dismiss the ones you don't!

OF course you can. And you can nudge any tradition as it stands today into a more enlightened direction.

If you truly believe what you write you would not venerate Buddhism either. After all, (and I speak this as a Buddhist), the tradition is full of its own darkness and barbarism. Tibetan monestaries held vast wealth and landholdings for centuries, fields tilled with serfs chained together and lashed with whips. From India to Vietnam to Korea to Japan and elsewhere, the doctrine of Karma has been used to justify all sorts of injustice on the part of the rich and powerful. "It's just your karma that you are poor, slave! Now obey quietly, get back to work hauling blocks of stone for the Maharaja's summer retreat and perhaps someday you will be born a prince too."

"Zen and the Art of Archery" looks elegant on a paperback book cover, but what do you think all Zen-trained samurai were shooting at? Human flesh, that's what. And the Zen teachers who taught them concentraiton skills are thus implict in the butchery that characterizes much of Medieval Japanaese history. Even in our own time, within living memory, Zen teachers schooled kamikaze pilots on become blank-minded agents of focus, and thus razor-sharp killing-machines. Today, many Japanese temples serve as money-laudering clearinghouses for the Yakuza and organized crime. That doesn't make it into the pages on the shelves of new age bookstores much, but its a living truth.

I love Buddhism and in a very real sense have given my life to it. But it has its shadow-side too. There is always a tendency to exotify and glorify that which seems distant, and to deride and simplify that which is close. Nothing is perfect, we live in an imperfect world. And conversely, no major religious tradition is wholly corrupt: they all contain records of profound victory in humanity's eternal struggle to overcome the inherent pain of existence and to reach spiritual transcendence.


[edit on 5/6/09 by silent thunder]

reply to post by silent thunder


Ahhh yes! you are right my friend
Chaoism is great; I just get so used to having Christian intolerant ramblings shoved down my throat- I've jumped the Gun!
I dont like anything with predetermined perimeters telling me what I may or my not believe. Freedom of belief is one of the last uncontrolled frontiers- I urge all to choose wisely.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by silent thunder

 

Ahhh yes! you are right my friend

Chaoism is great; I just get so used to having Christian intolerant ramblings shoved down my throat- I've jumped the Gun!
I dont like anything with predetermined perimeters telling me what I may or my not believe. Freedom of belief is one of the last uncontrolled frontiers- I urge all to choose wisely.

Now you are talking...

In a way I wish that instead of fleeing Christanity I had stayed in that path and chosen to change it from within. Using the vast corpus of mystical precidents, a new, more enlightened Christianity could blossom from the dungheap of funamentalist intolerance. There are some hopeful signs its already happening. Now more than two decades I'm committed to my practice as a Buddhist, so I won't be fighting that particular fight. But I think the time has come for Christanity to experience a mystical renassainse. Wouldn't it be beautiful to see the religion transform itself from within? It must do this, eventually, or else perish.

reply to post by silent thunder


I must say that i like that philosophy. Yet, I think that Gods divinity can be found in all religions- religious representation is only another mans'(like us) word interpretation of their idea of God Head!
No matter what we personally call God it is all the same concept.
Goodnight silent T

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I have one single book to recommend to you, and it's under 20 bucks. It's called "Modern Magick: Eleven Lessons In The High Magickal Arts" by Donald Michael Kraig.

I don't know what hezekiah did about the tip, but upon your recommendation I ordered up a copy myself; it just came today. I just started to crack it open. Thanks.

to the original poster:

I tell you what, before you sart promoting stuff tyou admit yoiu know nothing about, why dont we listen to somenbody who was involved in all tis stuff, and see what he says about it ok ?

video.google.com...#

check out the one called "interview with an ex vampire" (hes nort really a vampire, he just drank animal blood or something as part of some ritual). This one talks mor about occult and less about illuminatti and masons and stuff

and if that is not enough:

Former High Priest Satanist Stephen Dollins:
video.google.com...

Now dear reader (not original poster) after you viewed theese videos (especially the seconf one), tell me the original poster is not tring to covertly promote occult #.

the blunt truth is that magic, voodoo, witchcraft, ghosts/demons etc do NOT exist. i am certain of this.
so whether or not there is a god, he DIDNT allow this nonsense to come into existence

Well, first of all, sorcery did not have the same connotation in ancient times that it does now. In ancient times, what we now consider pharmacists would be considered sorcerers. Secondly, the occult, in and of itself, isn't nor was it ever evil. Man makes it so.

You see, since about the fourth century, there has been a conspiracy to suppress any and all ancient spiritual knowledge. Most of that knowledge was tagged with the label of the occult.

Here is what I am referring to:

Pharmacist (Greek - Pharmakia) To practice witchcraft or use medicine; also poison or medicine.

Pharmacists were the ancient "Sorcerers"

[edit on 9-6-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, first of all, sorcery did not have the same connotation in ancient times that it does now. In ancient times, what we now consider pharmacists would be considered sorcerers. Secondly, the occult, in and of itself, isn't nor was it ever evil. Man makes it so.

You see, since about the fourth century, there has been a conspiracy to suppress any and all ancient spiritual knowledge. Most of that knowledge was tagged with the label of the occult.

There are some who refuse to think for themselves and truely investigate. There is also the problem of certain knowledge being inaccessible if one is not ready to know. It is not that they will not necessarily find the material, it is that they will not know what to make of it. A lack of understanding coupled with personal prejudices and fear and it is imbued by the reader with an evil nature.

Closed-minded, fanatical people are a large part of the reason secret societies exist; they give them a reason and a purpose.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, first of all, sorcery did not have the same connotation in ancient times that it does now. In ancient times, what we now consider pharmacists would be considered sorcerers. Secondly, the occult, in and of itself, isn't nor was it ever evil. Man makes it so.

You see, since about the fourth century, there has been a conspiracy to suppress any and all ancient spiritual knowledge. Most of that knowledge was tagged with the label of the occult.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the story Moses and the Pharao and the plages...

The MAGICIANS of Pharaoh were able to duplicate all the miracles that God did (locust plagues, etc)

Those were not "pharmacists"

Exodus 7:

20Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded. In the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants he lifted up the staff and struck the water in the Nile, and all the water in the Nile turned into blood. 21And the fish in the Nile died, and the Nile stank, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile. There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. 22But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts. So Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened,

[edit on 28-6-2009 by randomguy]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by randomguy]