It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Our Aryan Heritage: Learn about your real spiritual heritage
page: 11share:
reply to post by badmedia
All I am doing is using your example to explain how time exists. Glad to see you now recognize this.
I won't pretend that I understand time, but there is considerable evidence that time exists. Current popular theory is that time exists in all dimensions, and there is the possibility that time is capable of creating an infinite number of universes. It is all speculation, but doesn't speculation allow us to use our minds to explore the universe?
It just doesn't make good sense to me dismiss concepts such as time as not existing, because all you are doing is throwing away your options in developing a vision of the World.
All I am doing is using your example to explain how time exists. Glad to see you now recognize this.
I won't pretend that I understand time, but there is considerable evidence that time exists. Current popular theory is that time exists in all dimensions, and there is the possibility that time is capable of creating an infinite number of universes. It is all speculation, but doesn't speculation allow us to use our minds to explore the universe?
It just doesn't make good sense to me dismiss concepts such as time as not existing, because all you are doing is throwing away your options in developing a vision of the World.
So, I've got to ask, if your religion is such a magical, wonderful religion:
You should read the OP again. Aryan religion is about pure spirituality, it is not religion as you understand the term.
Why are there out-castes and untouchables? Anti-Muslim and radical elements in Hinduism (might as well give it a name; after all, everybody else is *Abrahmic*, apparently) running amok killing each other and their enemies over *POLITICAL SEATS*? What about the pollution of the Ganges under the banner of "religious tradition"? Arranged child marriages? Women being burnt on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands (uncommon now, but once the norm)? Patriarchal society and domestic violence against women? Now who's ignoring the bad stuff?
Again read the OP: Hinduism is not the same as Aryan religion. Hinduism is a term that was invented by the British in the 18th century for all the religions of India of a certain lineage and grouped ignoranly under one umbrella term and they distorted and mistranslated the Vedas and since Hindus have been out of touch with true Aryan religion for a very long time. The distortions crept in Hindu society around 5000 years ago with the collapse of Vedic civilisation. During Vedic times, there was no caste system.
The untouchables by the way are largely a creation of British misrule of India. The untouchables were skilled craftsman prior to British rule, and wealthy and prosperous. The British abolished traditional Indian crafts and education, resulting in this caste becoming impoverished. As they they lacked agricultural and husbandary skills that the the labour caste had, they had to resort to unsavoury jobs like cleaning sewers and toilets to survive and as a result the other castes did not want to touch them in fear they will be contaminated.
There was also a Christian and Muslim caste system running concurrently in those times. The caste system is by no means specific to just Hinduism.
Much of the blaming of caste-evils on Hinduism was motivated by religious propoganda by Christian missionaries.
If you want to reach the masses, why not set up shop next to the Krishnas in the airport? I'm a little confused as to what this thread is beyond a proselytization attempt for somebody's own personal POV. Different strokes for different folks, unless you disagree, I guess.
Every thread is going to be from somebody elses POV, so what's your point? I am not proselytizing, but informing about the Aryan heritage that is common to most of us.
Beyond that, "Aryan" is such a catch-all term, and "Abrahmic" is a thinly-veiled attack on somebody else's belief-system... seems that was brought up with somebody else's post in mind, but not your own reaction to it. I'm not a Christian, but their beliefs- provided they don't attack me with them- are their own, and are their business. I wonder when I see people trumpeting their own world-view while trying to drag others' down- is it because you feel it's a destructive viewpoint, or because you need to poke holes in somebody else's worldview to bolster your own?
Apathy is not a choice. The world has been in an ongoing war between the Abrahmic ideology and Aryan philosophy for 5000 years, and the war continues on today. Your pagan ancestors did not have a choice, they were brutally crushed by the Abrahmic religion, and even a basic look at your history will show that. I am calling a spade a spade, not attacking Abrahmic religion, but revealing the real history of our civilisation and explaining why everything is so messed up. How Aryan culture was systematically and deliberately eradicated of the face of this planet. How yours and my ancestors were butchered. How our real spiritual heritage was deliberately kept hidden from us to keep us ignorant and dumb.
We really do have a glorious heritage and it is time that we get rid of Abrahmic rule of our planet and resurrect Aryan culture all over the world. This can be done, but it needs proactive action . Apathy is not a choice.
Incidentally, "Abraham" doesn't mean "not Brahma." The negative prefix "a-" is from *Latin and Greek* and "Brahma" is from *Sanskrit*, two languages that didn't exactly coexist in history, or have any real lasting interaction. I understand the need to illustrate a point, just maybe do a little very easily available research before affirming something false.
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Warbaby]
You clearly did not read the OP. Latin, Greek and Sanskrit are Indo-European languages. The prefix "a" is also in Sanskrit: Adharma(not dharma), Anitya(not eternal), Anaryan(not Aryan) Ajnana(not knowledge).
Abrahamic's etymology does indeed come from A+Brahama, and it is an etymology that many scholars have pointed out as well.
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
reply to post by Indigo_Child
I would have to say that Badmedia, and others who have made this case, have a point that no religion has all the answers, and no religion is all wrong.
I also disagree that the Hindu monks are the same as the Druids. While they shared ideas, and possibly were related, each had their different concepts, just as the Zoroastrians had their own concepts.
The problem I have with Hinduism and Buddhism is this obsession with the concept of perfection, and I do not think the ancient Druids held this concept in such high esteem either. While God may be perfect, he is also beyond my comprehension. Nothing I have ever observed here on Earth is anywhere close to being perfect, and I see no reason to seek perfection. If you are perfect, then you would also be static, because to change, would mean that you are no longer perfect, or never were perfect.
The only possible reason I see for God to create imperfect creatures such as us, is because our lack of perfection means that everything we do will continuously be flawed, and therefore continuously different, which means that we can continue to evolve, continue to innovate.
Maybe it is time to enter into a new age of enlightenment, and re-think everything. Time to combine science and spiritualism for a new philosophy for the world so that this time round, civilization is not destroyed.
I would have to say that Badmedia, and others who have made this case, have a point that no religion has all the answers, and no religion is all wrong.
I also disagree that the Hindu monks are the same as the Druids. While they shared ideas, and possibly were related, each had their different concepts, just as the Zoroastrians had their own concepts.
The problem I have with Hinduism and Buddhism is this obsession with the concept of perfection, and I do not think the ancient Druids held this concept in such high esteem either. While God may be perfect, he is also beyond my comprehension. Nothing I have ever observed here on Earth is anywhere close to being perfect, and I see no reason to seek perfection. If you are perfect, then you would also be static, because to change, would mean that you are no longer perfect, or never were perfect.
The only possible reason I see for God to create imperfect creatures such as us, is because our lack of perfection means that everything we do will continuously be flawed, and therefore continuously different, which means that we can continue to evolve, continue to innovate.
Maybe it is time to enter into a new age of enlightenment, and re-think everything. Time to combine science and spiritualism for a new philosophy for the world so that this time round, civilization is not destroyed.
reply to post by badmedia
You are fighting a losing battle. You state two things
"I got my knowledge from the father"
"Where there is understanding and wisdom, I'll stick up for it. Jesus had that, and I stick up for it."
They contradict each other. Either it is true that you got your knowledge from the father, or it is true you got your knowledge from a religion, in this case Christianity.
It is patently obvious you are just regurgitating Christian teachings from new-age and Gnostic sects. Therefore you, like everybody else, got your spiritual teachings from a religion. You're just in denail that this is in fact where you got them from.
I am honest and humble enough to admit that the vast majority of my spiritual teachings are directly from Aryan teaching. Why would I hestitate from telling a fact? Likewise, you should be upfront that you did not get your teaching from the man in the sky, but from religions like everybody else and thereby forcing you to detract your anti-religious hypocrisy.
In truth you are only anti-religion when it comes to other religions other than your type of Christianity. The greatest irony is the Aryan teachings and the type of Christianity you believe in teach similar things more or less, and yet you still oppose the Aryan teachings and call them "evil" So basically if Jesus says it, it is "understanding and wisdom", and if the same thing is said by another religion, it is "evil and whatnot" - talk about hypocrisy.
I think once you look past your pride you will realise we both are saying the same thing. You said Paul distorted Christianity and at least half of the NT is distorted. I have said the same thing earlier on. The difference is, I am able to put Jesus in historical context and trace the tradition he belonged to was the Aryans and that hurts your pride. Well it's the truth. Jesus was an ordinary human like all of us and he learned his knowledge from Hindu and Buddhists in his childhood years. After his crucification he survived it and travelled to India, to Srinagar in Kashmir, where his tomb still resides.
Many of the esoteric elite know the real truth of who Jesus was and what he taught. He was an ordinary human being, like many other spiritual teachers that went before him. The Abrahmic elite covered up his India connection, just as they covered up the India connection with the Greeks, because they wanted to suppress the real Aryan history of Christianity.
Why deny facts? There is overwhelming evidence that shows that the Aryans are the origins of civilisation and many of the greatest intellectuals agree - from Volataire to Schropenhauer.
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
You are fighting a losing battle. You state two things
"I got my knowledge from the father"
"Where there is understanding and wisdom, I'll stick up for it. Jesus had that, and I stick up for it."
They contradict each other. Either it is true that you got your knowledge from the father, or it is true you got your knowledge from a religion, in this case Christianity.
It is patently obvious you are just regurgitating Christian teachings from new-age and Gnostic sects. Therefore you, like everybody else, got your spiritual teachings from a religion. You're just in denail that this is in fact where you got them from.
I am honest and humble enough to admit that the vast majority of my spiritual teachings are directly from Aryan teaching. Why would I hestitate from telling a fact? Likewise, you should be upfront that you did not get your teaching from the man in the sky, but from religions like everybody else and thereby forcing you to detract your anti-religious hypocrisy.
In truth you are only anti-religion when it comes to other religions other than your type of Christianity. The greatest irony is the Aryan teachings and the type of Christianity you believe in teach similar things more or less, and yet you still oppose the Aryan teachings and call them "evil" So basically if Jesus says it, it is "understanding and wisdom", and if the same thing is said by another religion, it is "evil and whatnot" - talk about hypocrisy.
I think once you look past your pride you will realise we both are saying the same thing. You said Paul distorted Christianity and at least half of the NT is distorted. I have said the same thing earlier on. The difference is, I am able to put Jesus in historical context and trace the tradition he belonged to was the Aryans and that hurts your pride. Well it's the truth. Jesus was an ordinary human like all of us and he learned his knowledge from Hindu and Buddhists in his childhood years. After his crucification he survived it and travelled to India, to Srinagar in Kashmir, where his tomb still resides.
Many of the esoteric elite know the real truth of who Jesus was and what he taught. He was an ordinary human being, like many other spiritual teachers that went before him. The Abrahmic elite covered up his India connection, just as they covered up the India connection with the Greeks, because they wanted to suppress the real Aryan history of Christianity.
Why deny facts? There is overwhelming evidence that shows that the Aryans are the origins of civilisation and many of the greatest intellectuals agree - from Volataire to Schropenhauer.
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
reply to post by poet1b
I think the problem is you have a misconception of time to be a linear thing. So you assume that the ancient must be reconciled with the modern science for us to go forward and evolve. I really recommend you read Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine Volume 2 which is on Aryan science. She says something very startling, something to the effect of "Modern science is just a perversion of ancient science" i.e., devolution, not evolution. This should be clear to you if you read the Aryan Quantum Physics text I cited earlier.
It is not true that we have evolved, but devolved. Time is a cyclic phenomenon, it is not linear. If you observe around you everything is cyclic not linear - it is unmanifest in the beginning, then manifest in the mid-term, and then it reverts back to unmanifest. The same happens with the seasons of the year, the revolutions of the planet around the sun, the revolutions of the solar system around the galactic plane. It is cyclic from the macrocosmic to the microcosmic. Likewise, the same happens with civilisations on Earth. There are cycles of civilisations on Earth and we are one of many cycles. The last cycle ended around 5000 years ago.
To borrow something from the bible, "There is nothing new under the sun" we have had science far more advanced than today in the past. We had far longer life spans and much greater ability. However, with ending of the last cycle, that all ended. All we have remaining from that is the Aryan oral tradition. The cycle ended with the rise of Abrahmic religion with the demise of the Aryan religion with global cataclysms. After the cataclysm period was over, the Aryans began to migrate from the foothills of Himalayas and the various groups that left became known as the Indo-Europeans. One of these groups we know as the Celtics or Druids.
There are very clear records of this Aryan migration from India and strong archeological and linguistic evidence. One of the most renowned researchers into Celtic culture has studied the relationship between Vedic culture and Celtic culture and demonstrated the Celts clearly descended from the Vedics. I strongly recommend you read these articles which analyses this point:
www.geocities.com...
www.hinduismtoday.com...
Excerpt:
From the Druid poem we find the same Vedic teachings of all pervaiding divinity within everybody and the identification of the self with the perfect divine.
On imperfection: The Hindus and Buddhists are obsessed with perfect because it is a real potential that exists with us. If it did not exist we would have no concept of perfection. The Aryans teach that we begin from perfection and descend into imperfection, but this is only an apparent imperfection, in reality we are always perfect. Remember, our perception of imperfection is owing to us being entangled in the physical world. The higher self is not entangled.
Look at the logical fallacy in the Abrahmic belief that a perfect god creates imperfect beings. How can something perfect create something imperfect? Can an perfect painter create an imperfect painting? No, because otherwise the painter would not be perfect. The grande illusion that appears to us is that all beings are imperfect. In fact they are the perfect divine itself.
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
I think the problem is you have a misconception of time to be a linear thing. So you assume that the ancient must be reconciled with the modern science for us to go forward and evolve. I really recommend you read Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine Volume 2 which is on Aryan science. She says something very startling, something to the effect of "Modern science is just a perversion of ancient science" i.e., devolution, not evolution. This should be clear to you if you read the Aryan Quantum Physics text I cited earlier.
It is not true that we have evolved, but devolved. Time is a cyclic phenomenon, it is not linear. If you observe around you everything is cyclic not linear - it is unmanifest in the beginning, then manifest in the mid-term, and then it reverts back to unmanifest. The same happens with the seasons of the year, the revolutions of the planet around the sun, the revolutions of the solar system around the galactic plane. It is cyclic from the macrocosmic to the microcosmic. Likewise, the same happens with civilisations on Earth. There are cycles of civilisations on Earth and we are one of many cycles. The last cycle ended around 5000 years ago.
To borrow something from the bible, "There is nothing new under the sun" we have had science far more advanced than today in the past. We had far longer life spans and much greater ability. However, with ending of the last cycle, that all ended. All we have remaining from that is the Aryan oral tradition. The cycle ended with the rise of Abrahmic religion with the demise of the Aryan religion with global cataclysms. After the cataclysm period was over, the Aryans began to migrate from the foothills of Himalayas and the various groups that left became known as the Indo-Europeans. One of these groups we know as the Celtics or Druids.
There are very clear records of this Aryan migration from India and strong archeological and linguistic evidence. One of the most renowned researchers into Celtic culture has studied the relationship between Vedic culture and Celtic culture and demonstrated the Celts clearly descended from the Vedics. I strongly recommend you read these articles which analyses this point:
www.geocities.com...
www.hinduismtoday.com...
Excerpt:
The Song of Amairgen the Druid
I am the wind that blows across the sea; I am the wave of the ocean;
I am the murmur of the billows; I am the bull of the seven combats;
I am the vulture on the rock; I am a ray of the sun; I am the fairest of flowers;
I am a wild boar in valor; I am a salmon in the pool; I am a lake on the plain;
I am the skill of the craftsman; I am a word of science;
I am the spearpoint that gives battle;
I am the God who creates in the head of man the fire of thought.
Who is it that enlightens the assembly upon the mountain, if not I?
Who tells the ages of the moon, if not I?
Who shows the place where the sun goes to rest, if not I?
Who is the God that fashions enchantments--
The enchantment of battle and the wind of change?
Amairgen was the first Druid to arrive in Ireland. Ellis states, "In this song Amairgen subsumes everything into his own being with a philosophic outlook that parallels the declaration of Krishna in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita." It also is quite similar in style and content to the more ancient Sri Rudra chant of the Yajur Veda.
From the Druid poem we find the same Vedic teachings of all pervaiding divinity within everybody and the identification of the self with the perfect divine.
On imperfection: The Hindus and Buddhists are obsessed with perfect because it is a real potential that exists with us. If it did not exist we would have no concept of perfection. The Aryans teach that we begin from perfection and descend into imperfection, but this is only an apparent imperfection, in reality we are always perfect. Remember, our perception of imperfection is owing to us being entangled in the physical world. The higher self is not entangled.
Look at the logical fallacy in the Abrahmic belief that a perfect god creates imperfect beings. How can something perfect create something imperfect? Can an perfect painter create an imperfect painting? No, because otherwise the painter would not be perfect. The grande illusion that appears to us is that all beings are imperfect. In fact they are the perfect divine itself.
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You are fighting a losing battle. You state two things
"I got my knowledge from the father"
"Where there is understanding and wisdom, I'll stick up for it. Jesus had that, and I stick up for it."
They contradict each other. Either it is true that you got your knowledge from the father, or it is true you got your knowledge from a religion, in this case Christianity.
Because it is impossible that I got my knowledge from the father, then read Jesus after and said "wow, he is exactly right about that"?
Guess what, I think the same things about Buddha and a few other people as well who also seen the truth.
It is patently obvious you are just regurgitating Christian teachings from new-age and Gnostic sects. Therefore you, like everybody else, got your spiritual teachings from a religion. You're just in denail that this is in fact where you got them from.
What was the original source of all texts and such? You keep claiming that if their are commonalities, then it must have come from that. But in doing so you ignore, and you refuse to answer 1 simple question - who did the original sources get their information from?
Oddly enough, you talk about Buddhists and stuff, but where does their knowledge come from? Meditation.
Buddha said -- Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
I am honest and humble enough to admit that the vast majority of my spiritual teachings are directly from Aryan teaching. Why would I hestitate from telling a fact? Likewise, you should be upfront that you did not get your teaching from the man in the sky, but from religions like everybody else and thereby forcing you to detract your anti-religious hypocrisy.
Nope, no man in the sky. The father is within, and I am him as are you and all others. This is a truth I know from experience, and to think or suggest that others haven't known this at other times in the past, or that only in the past something as such was able to be known and so forth is ignorance.
The funny thing is when I came to this understanding and experience, I was extremely far away from all religion.
In truth you are only anti-religion when it comes to other religions other than your type of Christianity. The greatest irony is the Aryan teachings and the type of Christianity you believe in teach similar things more or less, and yet you still oppose the Aryan teachings and call them "evil" So basically if Jesus says it, it is "understanding and wisdom", and if the same thing is said by another religion, it is "evil and whatnot" - talk about hypocrisy.
No, it is the focus, marketing and promotion of idols that I think is evil, not the understandings. Understandings are universal and that is why they are similar. As I told you before, if you had started this thread based on the understanding, rather than the idols and religion then it probably would have went differently.
I think once you look past your pride you will realise we both are saying the same thing. You said Paul distorted Christianity and at least half of the NT is distorted. I have said the same thing earlier on. The difference is, I am able to put Jesus in historical context and trace the tradition he belonged to was the Aryans and that hurts your pride. Well it's the truth. Jesus was an ordinary human like all of us and he learned his knowledge from Hindu and Buddhists in his childhood years. After his crucification he survived it and travelled to India, to Srinagar in Kashmir, where his tomb still resides.
I do NOT CARE ABOUT THE IDOLS. I don't know how many damn times I have to tell you this. Over and over I tell you, and over and over you keep on pushing on. I agree with WHAT JESUS SAID. I agree with his UNDERSTANDING and I know what he said is true, and I can see the father speaking through him.
Please, just freaking stop with the fighting over idols already, I'm sick of it. I don't give a crap if Jesus was a Jew, if he was an Aryan, if he was a Buddhist or whatever. IT DOES NOT MATTER. All that stuff is worth absolutely nothing in terms of actual understanding and wisdom. To focus on that stuff is ignorance.
Seriously, you are extremely annoying. You accuse me of pride, but then you do not even address what I say. You keep demanding that I must be this, I must be that, and then you argue against the things you label me as, rather than addressing me.
Many of the esoteric elite know the real truth of who Jesus was and what he taught. He was an ordinary human being, like many other spiritual teachers that went before him. The Abrahmic elite covered up his India connection, just as they covered up the India connection with the Greeks, because they wanted to suppress the real Aryan history of Christianity.
So what? I do not care. That is besides the entire point. The point is the understanding he spoke of, I do not care what culture wants to claim him or none of that stuff. I don't even give a crap if Jesus was real or not, it means about as much to me as if the matrix is real or not. Such is BESIDES THE POINT. I do not care what color, shape or size the bowl that brings me the milk is, I only care about the quality of the milk the bowl contains.
Why deny facts? There is overwhelming evidence that shows that the Aryans are the origins of civilisation and many of the greatest intellectuals agree - from Volataire to Schropenhauer.
Yeah, maybe someday you will actually do something for yourself and won't need to attach the accomplishments of others to yourself. Good for the Aryans back then, what the hell have you done?
[edit on 2-5-2009 by badmedia]
Because it is impossible that I got my knowledge from the father, then read Jesus after and said "wow, he is exactly right about that"?
Guess what, I think the same things about Buddha and a few other people as well who also seen the truth.
Your arguments are becoming bizarre. You did not read what Jesus and Buddha said AFTER you formed your realizations from the "father" you read what Jesus and Buddha said BEFORE you formed your realizations. Which is why "your" realizations are full of Christian terms, such as father and son from the trinity.
Come on, don't delude yourself. The next thing you will be telling me is that you learned how to speak English BEFORE you were taught how to speak English.
Everybody learns from society, even the Buddha's of yore. You are no exception. If there was no society, you would not be far removed from an animal and cetainly would not have any concept of "father"
What was the original source of all texts and such? You keep claiming that if their are commonalities, then it must have come from that. But in doing so you ignore, and you refuse to answer 1 simple question - who did the original sources get their information from?
Oddly enough, you talk about Buddhists and stuff, but where does their knowledge come from? Meditation.
Sophistry.
Right, and where did you learn how to meditate? Did father tell you? Meditation is a technology which was developed by the Aryans(and before them other civilisations) as a scientific method to restrain the mind, created only after analysis of the mind. It did not just pop out from nowhere. Now be honest, did you start meditating BEFORE or AFTER you read or heard about meditation?
Knowledge does not operate in a vacuum. While it is true that the higher self knows everything, the empirical self gains its knowledge through the world and then understands what it has learned. All knowledge is posteriori and all understanding is a priori. You first must have something empirical before you can understand it. If there was nobody to teach you mathematics, how could you gain any knowledge of it? Simply put, you couldn't.
Yeah, maybe someday you will actually do something for yourself and won't need to attach the accomplishments of others to yourself. Good for the Aryans back then, what the hell have you done?
You clearly are an egotistical person, and have not realised it. You think you have worked it out for your self, but you haven't. You are claming the works of others(Jesus, Buddha, Gnostic teachings, New-age teachings) for yourself. That is plagiarism.
I, on the other hand, am not claiming any of the spiritual things I know to be from myself. I am humble enough to admit that I don't know anything, and all knowledge I have is just borrowed from others. Pehaps one day you too will realise that nothing you know is actually yours. After all who are you? You a result of your biology, psychology and sociology. Your entire identity is a function of that only. There is no "You" Once you humble yourself to creation then you really will be with the father. Until then you're just playing games with your head.
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
reply to post by Indigo_Child
I think you need to read my earlier statements about time, and then maybe you would understand that I do not see time as linear. Time is far too fluid to be linear.
The idea that God is perfect and man is not is not just an Abrahamic concept, it is also a Hindu and Buddha concept. The Druids did not see perfection as a goal, they believed in struggle and conflict as necessary parts of life. The Druids also believed in evolution. It is my own personal belief that God created us as imperfect beings so that we could evolve, maybe even develop ideas and concepts that God had never thought of. Maybe God created us as an extension of himself in the hope that God could continue to grow and evolve.
Science does not come from the ancient teachings. Science has been developed by those those who have contemplated the world and figured out ways to make amazing things happen. Let's not undermine the accomplishments of the greats who have developed the technology that we enjoy.
There is no reason to believe that there are not new concepts and understanding of this world that can emerge from a new spirituality.
I think you need to read my earlier statements about time, and then maybe you would understand that I do not see time as linear. Time is far too fluid to be linear.
The idea that God is perfect and man is not is not just an Abrahamic concept, it is also a Hindu and Buddha concept. The Druids did not see perfection as a goal, they believed in struggle and conflict as necessary parts of life. The Druids also believed in evolution. It is my own personal belief that God created us as imperfect beings so that we could evolve, maybe even develop ideas and concepts that God had never thought of. Maybe God created us as an extension of himself in the hope that God could continue to grow and evolve.
Science does not come from the ancient teachings. Science has been developed by those those who have contemplated the world and figured out ways to make amazing things happen. Let's not undermine the accomplishments of the greats who have developed the technology that we enjoy.
There is no reason to believe that there are not new concepts and understanding of this world that can emerge from a new spirituality.
reply to post by poet1b
Hehe, dude relax. Relax those concepts that you believe. They could be wrong. You will find out if you research the links I cite for you.
Hindus on the perfecton of man: The Hindus do not believe that man is imperfect. The belief that man is imperfect is an Abrahmic teaching, and this teaching justifies the control by the god-men or priestly class in the Abrahmic religion. Hindus believe man is divine himself.
Druids: Did you like completely gloss over the Druid links I cited for you and the poem? They too believed the same thing. The Pagan cultures in the past were all pantheist, they believed in a divine force that pervaded all that was identical with everybody.
Ancients and Science: It does not undermine the accomplishments of modern scientists to say that they learned their science from the ancients. When did modern science happen? Around the 17th century during the age of enlightenment? Do you know what spurred the modern age of enlightenment? The Arabic exchange of science and technology which brought a gradual end to the Dark ages in Europe. The Arabs transmitted Mathematics, Astronomy, Philosophy Medicine and Physics to the Europe. Now do you know where the Arabs learned much of their medicine, physics and mathematics. You guessed it - from India. There would have been no Modern Science without India, which is why Voltaire said all knowledge has come to Europe from the Ganges. It is a myth that the age of enlightenment started in Europe. There were enlightened cultures already in the world thousands of years earlier.
The ancients had already gone through several cycles of scientific and techological civilisation. They had already contemplated on the world. The greatest proof of the superiority of their science is that we ourselves are behind them. quantum Physics is derived from Samkhya metaphysics, modern computer science theory is derived from Panini's grammar.
Ancient spirituality is a science, it is not a religion. The Aryans called it vidya(science) and the science of consciousness was the highest. It is not just a belief that time is not real, it is something has been discovered through ancient science. It is not a belief that we reincarnate, it is something that has been discovered through ancient science.
The Abrahmic religion have succesfully covered-up the entire history of previous civilisation. According to them civilisation only began around 5000-6000 years ago which is why biblical creation begins then. It's BS. We have had a history of millions upon millions of years on this planet. Archeaology is even finding evidence of this now. The truth is both our technological and spiritual development was far ahead of today and the history of that previous civilisation has survived in the Aryan literature.
We have really been completely screwed by the Abrahmic elite, and it has to end!
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
Hehe, dude relax. Relax those concepts that you believe. They could be wrong. You will find out if you research the links I cite for you.
Hindus on the perfecton of man: The Hindus do not believe that man is imperfect. The belief that man is imperfect is an Abrahmic teaching, and this teaching justifies the control by the god-men or priestly class in the Abrahmic religion. Hindus believe man is divine himself.
Druids: Did you like completely gloss over the Druid links I cited for you and the poem? They too believed the same thing. The Pagan cultures in the past were all pantheist, they believed in a divine force that pervaded all that was identical with everybody.
Ancients and Science: It does not undermine the accomplishments of modern scientists to say that they learned their science from the ancients. When did modern science happen? Around the 17th century during the age of enlightenment? Do you know what spurred the modern age of enlightenment? The Arabic exchange of science and technology which brought a gradual end to the Dark ages in Europe. The Arabs transmitted Mathematics, Astronomy, Philosophy Medicine and Physics to the Europe. Now do you know where the Arabs learned much of their medicine, physics and mathematics. You guessed it - from India. There would have been no Modern Science without India, which is why Voltaire said all knowledge has come to Europe from the Ganges. It is a myth that the age of enlightenment started in Europe. There were enlightened cultures already in the world thousands of years earlier.
The ancients had already gone through several cycles of scientific and techological civilisation. They had already contemplated on the world. The greatest proof of the superiority of their science is that we ourselves are behind them. quantum Physics is derived from Samkhya metaphysics, modern computer science theory is derived from Panini's grammar.
Ancient spirituality is a science, it is not a religion. The Aryans called it vidya(science) and the science of consciousness was the highest. It is not just a belief that time is not real, it is something has been discovered through ancient science. It is not a belief that we reincarnate, it is something that has been discovered through ancient science.
The Abrahmic religion have succesfully covered-up the entire history of previous civilisation. According to them civilisation only began around 5000-6000 years ago which is why biblical creation begins then. It's BS. We have had a history of millions upon millions of years on this planet. Archeaology is even finding evidence of this now. The truth is both our technological and spiritual development was far ahead of today and the history of that previous civilisation has survived in the Aryan literature.
We have really been completely screwed by the Abrahmic elite, and it has to end!
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Your arguments are becoming bizarre. You did not read what Jesus and Buddha said AFTER you formed your realizations from the "father" you read what Jesus and Buddha said BEFORE you formed your realizations. Which is why "your" realizations are full of Christian terms, such as father and son from the trinity.
I'm not really sure what you want me to say here. I'm getting kind of tired of repeating myself, and then you just coming back and telling me such things are not possible and calling me a liar.
It's pretty simple. I had a vision. In this vision the father(god) asked me a single question - Do you want it to end. I answered no, there is still good out there, only the answer came from a deeper part of me, so it was like I was watching myself answer. I was then shown myself the next day still on earth. This was not in a near death experience or anything of the sort. All of this happened in the blink of an eye, my consciousness was in another place. The first words out of my mouth were "I am god, and I am arguing with myself". This was followed by about a month of time where my knowledge about many things I speak of increased alot. It is when I came to know about time, about the universe and all those other things I talk of.
I started speaking up about these things in my own understandings for a few months. The majority of people I came in contact with were Christians. Many of them were blind and rejected everything I said(most of them). But 1 or 2 with actual understanding started to point out where the bible and Jesus were saying the same things I was saying. And these were not just small things, they were saying exactly what I experienced, and Jesus was saying exactly what I learned in terms of the path and so forth.
In these 2 posts, I lay out WHY and HOW that path works and why it is true. Please tell me what book that comes from, because I would actually like to read it, and I would also like to meet however wrote it first. This is the kind of understanding I was given, and that is the basic understanding I seen Jesus giving.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That is not the understanding the church or the religion about Jesus teaches. And thus I denounce them both. But I am able to separate the understanding given, and what people do in the name of the religion, or what people claim about it.
When I tell someone of my vision and what I learn in my dreams, and they point this out to me:
Numbers 12: 6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
I'm not going to ignore it.
When I say - I am god and I am arguing with myself, and someone points this out to me:
Pslam 82
5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
I can't ignore that. Those are very true understandings. And if you can share those same understandings within your religion, then I will stick up for them. Because it is only these kinds of understandings that I care about.
Proverbs 8
8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.
11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
That is truth, that is understanding. These are the kinds of things I was taught, and they are repeated back to me. So yes, I do like them. But I don't need a bible to know these things.
Everybody learns from society, even the Buddha's of yore. You are no exception. If there was no society, you would not be far removed from an animal and cetainly would not have any concept of "father"
Well, as the father is pure consciousness, and as that bit of the father is what also gives you those things, then to be completely honest without the father there is no understanding that could be gained at all.
But sure, I've learned alot of things in life and from society. Still learning, and I'm far from perfect(by my own standards even). Entire reason I'm in this reality to begin with.
Sophistry.
Right, and where did you learn how to meditate? Did father tell you?
I don't. It was just an example of how people learn from sources other than this world, and some magic culture.
Meditation is a technology which was developed by the Aryans(and before them other civilisations) as a scientific method to restrain the mind, created only after analysis of the mind. It did not just pop out from nowhere. Now be honest, did you start meditating BEFORE or AFTER you read or heard about meditation?
And now it's once again all about giving credit to some religion/culture to create an authority.
Knowledge does not operate in a vacuum. While it is true that the higher self knows everything, the empirical self gains its knowledge through the world and then understands what it has learned. All knowledge is posteriori and all understanding is a priori. You first must have something empirical before you can understand it. If there was nobody to teach you mathematics, how could you gain any knowledge of it? Simply put, you couldn't.
Even a child can see that 2 items are more than 1 item. That is because they understand the basic principle already, what is taught is how to use that understanding in accordance with the symbols(numbers).
While physics can be used to explain and predict things in throwing a baseball, I don't need to know the physics in order to throw a baseball.
You clearly are an egotistical person, and have not realised it. You think you have worked it out for your self, but you haven't. You are claming the works of others(Jesus, Buddha, Gnostic teachings, New-age teachings) for yourself. That is plagiarism.
Sorry, I do not shrink or lower myself for the comfort of others. If you want to call that egotistical, then so be it. I don't see how you can say I am claiming the works of others for myself, considering I directly quote those sources and what they say.
And honestly, I don't even care if you want to believe I am just taking from those sources. Either way they are still true, so whatever. The only reason this topic even came up in the first place is because you tried to use those things as a way of attacking my character. That I was just trying to protect some religion and so forth.
I, on the other hand, am not claiming any of the spiritual things I know to be from myself. I am humble enough to admit that I don't know anything, and all knowledge I have is just borrowed from others. Pehaps one day you too will realise that nothing you know is actually yours. After all who are you? You a result of your biology, psychology and sociology. Your entire identity is a function of that only. There is no "You" Once you humble yourself to creation then you really will be with the father. Until then you're just playing games with your head.
Your hypocrisy is sickening. You sit here and call yourself humble and without knowledge, and then pretend to know for a fact that I have done this or that, or that I have or have not experienced this or that, or that such a source for knowledge and understanding is impossible and so on.
I also never claimed such things were "mine", I told you straight out I learned from the father who is within. It would only appear to be "mine", as it comes from within.
creation is nothing more than a thought, laws of physics/creation are simply rules of logic like a program being applied. Creation/logic does not create consciousness, it is the other way around. Consciousness creates logic. If you think I am going to humble myself to the thought over the thinker/source, then you are the fool. I am not of this world or of this creation, I am of that which creates, and you can hate me for knowing that all you want.
[edit on 2-5-2009 by badmedia]
reply to post by badmedia
We are going to go around in circles badmedia. I believe you did not get your knowledge from the father, you got it from books and other people like all of us. Perhaps you just do not remember where you got your knowledge from. It happens. The subconscious picks up information without us consciously realising it, and then when it presents that information to us, we believe it is coming from within us.
The entirety of your knowledge is empirical. The way you speak, think, behave is all from memory. If we removed all institutions that impart knowledge to us, schools, colleges, spiritual places, we would never learn anything. So these institutions are important, or do you think we should have no institutions at all and leave everyone on their own to reinvent the wheel? Be realistic.
All enlightened societies have educational institutes, without them, we would not learn anything. They are important in the formatives stages of our personality. Thus they are mandatory in society. As they are mandatory we have keep them preserved as our heritage. Today, we keep Abrahmic education preserved, and which is why we are in such a mess. In the past we kept Aryan education preserved, which is why we were so enlightened and prosperous.
[edit on 3-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
We are going to go around in circles badmedia. I believe you did not get your knowledge from the father, you got it from books and other people like all of us. Perhaps you just do not remember where you got your knowledge from. It happens. The subconscious picks up information without us consciously realising it, and then when it presents that information to us, we believe it is coming from within us.
The entirety of your knowledge is empirical. The way you speak, think, behave is all from memory. If we removed all institutions that impart knowledge to us, schools, colleges, spiritual places, we would never learn anything. So these institutions are important, or do you think we should have no institutions at all and leave everyone on their own to reinvent the wheel? Be realistic.
All enlightened societies have educational institutes, without them, we would not learn anything. They are important in the formatives stages of our personality. Thus they are mandatory in society. As they are mandatory we have keep them preserved as our heritage. Today, we keep Abrahmic education preserved, and which is why we are in such a mess. In the past we kept Aryan education preserved, which is why we were so enlightened and prosperous.
[edit on 3-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
We are going to go around in circles badmedia. I believe you did not get your knowledge from the father, you got it from books and other people like all of us. Perhaps you just do not remember where you got your knowledge from. It happens. The subconscious picks up information without us consciously realising it, and then when it presents that information to us, we believe it is coming from within us.
You honestly have no clue what I know or what I am. I know things that go well beyond any book I've read. You deny in me what you lack.
I just gave you 2 examples of what I know and understand dealing with the nature of the universe. I have tons more stuff like that. I have never read any books or things that explain things in that way. In fact, quantum physics is even pretty far behind my explanations.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here, tell me what is the source for this, I'd again like to know who else has said this.
The entirety of your knowledge is empirical. The way you speak, think, behave is all from memory. If we removed all institutions that impart knowledge to us, schools, colleges, spiritual places, we would never learn anything. So these institutions are important, or do you think we should have no institutions at all and leave everyone on their own to reinvent the wheel? Be realistic.
no, you be realistic. If you could not learn or get by with those institutions, then how the hell did such institutions come about in the first place? Do you even think about what you are saying?
Yes, if there was no wheel passed down to people, then eventually someone will reinvent it. Just as someone did it the first time.
In programming, I reinvent things all the time. I am self taught and when I started out I didn't know they had database engines and things you could use. So I invented my own database.
As I was self taught, alot of terms other programmers used didn't make sense to me. And so in order to communicate with them better, I had to learn some of their terms. I already knew the functions and such, I just didn't call things by the same thing.
I once had a guy ask me - what is your favorite algorithm. I had no idea what he was talking about(and now that I do, I still don't know how someone could have a favorite). Doesn't mean I didn't "know" what it was exactly, just that I didn't call it that.
And that is also true of spirituality and other things. No, I did not call the information I gained as coming from the "holy spirit" at first. Yes, only after talking to christians did I use that word. However, the holy spirit they describe is exactly the same function and such of what they are talking about. I knew it and such, I just didn't have a name for it. It just "was" and that was that. But now I do use the term holy spirit, because it helps me communicate with other people easier. No different than with my programming.
Did the father call himself the father to me? No. I was taught names and such are unimportant in themselves. But in function that is exactly what he is. Am I born from him? Yes, my soul and consciousness is from god. Thus, he is my father.
So yes, I use what I've "learned" from others, but I did not get my understanding from them. They are simply terms which allow me to better communicate with others, in order to try and relate the understandings as best as possible.
All enlightened societies have educational institutes, without them, we would not learn anything. They are important in the formatives stages of our personality. Thus they are mandatory in society. As they are mandatory we have keep them preserved as our heritage. Today, we keep Abrahmic education preserved, and which is why we are in such a mess. In the past we kept Aryan education preserved, which is why we were so enlightened and prosperous.
And here we go back to promoting your "magic culture". You sound no different than christians who want to claim that once all the people of the world are christians, all will be good. Pure hypocrisy.
But hey, have fun in your so called "enlightened, pure and noble" religion while at the same time denying enlightenment is possible in others.
reply to post by badmedia
Badmedia,
No offense, but you're not enlightened. Not even close. I have come across know-it-alls like you all the time in the new age community, who pretend to have have become "enlightened" and done it by themselves by the powers latent within.
You have acquired all your knowledge from reading books and from other people. You're just too egotistical to admit that and this is why you are not enlightened, not even by a long shot.
If there was no society or education system you would be illiterate. Period. To appreciate this harsh fact of life you should take a trip down to Africa where many people have no access to education.
I do not appreciate sophists like you at all and your pseudo-philosophy that if adopted would destroy society. The truth is education is a crucial and fundamental right of every human being and should be extended to all, and if one does not get an education it denies them their human character.
[edit on 3-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
Badmedia,
No offense, but you're not enlightened. Not even close. I have come across know-it-alls like you all the time in the new age community, who pretend to have have become "enlightened" and done it by themselves by the powers latent within.
You have acquired all your knowledge from reading books and from other people. You're just too egotistical to admit that and this is why you are not enlightened, not even by a long shot.
If there was no society or education system you would be illiterate. Period. To appreciate this harsh fact of life you should take a trip down to Africa where many people have no access to education.
I do not appreciate sophists like you at all and your pseudo-philosophy that if adopted would destroy society. The truth is education is a crucial and fundamental right of every human being and should be extended to all, and if one does not get an education it denies them their human character.
[edit on 3-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by badmedia
All I am doing is using your example to explain how time exists. Glad to see you now recognize this.
I won't pretend that I understand time, but there is considerable evidence that time exists. Current popular theory is that time exists in all dimensions, and there is the possibility that time is capable of creating an infinite number of universes. It is all speculation, but doesn't speculation allow us to use our minds to explore the universe?
It just doesn't make good sense to me dismiss concepts such as time as not existing, because all you are doing is throwing away your options in developing a vision of the World.
Missed this before somehow, could have swore I replied to it, but now I don't see it.
I can tell you the basic structure and foundation of the universe and reality, but the specifics and details I do not know. I'm never given specific information, but rather just understanding of something.
Now, when I speak in terms of "all possibilities" and "time does not exist", I am more speaking in terms of the perspective of the father, and when all is known at once.
But while I know all that, I have no clue where we are specifically within all that. And within all those possibilities, it means that many people can be right at the same time.
So there are "levels" to things. Time in our reality is certainly real to us. We set watches and all sorts of things by it. It is only when you step outside our reality that time no longer exists.
The reason such things are so difficult is because of different perspectives. I'll use science for an example. You have conventional physics, and then you have quantum physics. And 1 works under 1 perspective(the very small, quantum), and another works at another perspective(the bigger etc).
So within "all possibilities", it means that many other possibilities exist. We could even still be in a somewhat linear reality, even while the universe itself is not. Because such is just 1 possibility among others. I'm pretty sure this is not the current case, but it is a possibility and as such it does exist somewhere.
And like with quantum physics and such. They see waves and particles. Particles being a smaller part of the wave. But the wave itself is really just like a "particle" of a bigger "wave", if that makes sense. It is a small glimpse of the nearest dimensions, just as the particle is a small glimpse of the wave.
So it's really a matter of perspective. And certain things work in certain ways depending on the level of perspective. And so when I speak of time and such not being real, I am not speaking from the perspective of this experience, but of a perspective that is beyond just a limited experience like we have.
I could probably write pages upon pages on this topic. I can go on in more detail if you'd like about how different realities and such work. But rather than thinking of objects as "being there" and such, I look at reality in terms of a computer program or a video game. And when you are the programmer of said game, then you can choose the variables and logic that apply to bring about the "experience/reality". And so within that experience/reality, time and such is very much real. But outside it, no.
So we have many uses for "time" in this reality, don't get me wrong. Only when you dig deeper into it's meaning and such do you get to the point where it is no longer real. Still very useful for physics, our daily lives and a part of our reality.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Badmedia,
No offense, but you're not enlightened. Not even close. I have come across know-it-alls like you all the time in the new age community, who pretend to have have become "enlightened" and done it by themselves by the powers latent within.
You have acquired all your knowledge from reading books and from other people. You're just too egotistical to admit that and this is why you are not enlightened, not even by a long shot.
If there was no society or education system you would be illiterate. Period. To appreciate this harsh fact of life you should take a trip down to Africa where many people have no access to education.
Look, understanding has no language. It is not a man made spoken language at all. It is just something you know. No different than if someone showed you 1 hand with 2 apples in it, and 1 hand with 1 apple in it, even the person who knows nothing about math is able to point out that the 2 apples are more than the 1 apple. And he can do this with 4 apples or any combination of apples. He can actually "add" and understands the basic principles behind it. Even a child can do this.
What we learn in math is how to express that understanding. And so we create symbols and such in order to communicate them. We will say 1+1=2 and so forth, but it is the same basic principle of a man holding 1 apple or 2. And if you look at how a teacher will show someone this, they will usually physically show someone 1 apple and 1 apple and combine them to get 2. Or some object etc. Because the person can already see and understand the basic principles and uses them already in life, but math in itself is used to communicate the understanding.
Thus why people of different languages and cultures are all still able to do and understand math, even if they do not use the same symbols and language, because the understanding is the same, and that understanding is universal.
And when you look at religions and such, the places, time and messengers change depending on the culture, but the basic understandings stay the same. And those understandings can be gained by anyone at any time and place.
The only direct words the father has ever spoken to me was in that vision I mentioned. Outside of that there is no verbal language. If I am trying to understand something, then I am simply given that understanding. How I express that understanding does come from my culture, society and so forth. Because I need those things in order to be able to express that understanding to another person. Otherwise, it would be like me trying to talk to someone who speaks french, and I speak English. Before I would be able to speak to that person to where they understood, I would first need to learn their language, culture and so forth.
So sure, I learn lots of things from society and so forth, and I use those things to communicate and express understandings to others. But just because some person came up with a "word", and I use that word, doesn't mean I got the understanding I am expressing with those words from those same sources. And to suggest things like this is absurd, because someone at one point or another had to do exactly that, come up with these things on their own to write them down the first time.
If such understanding was impossible to get other then from an already existing book or source, then plain and simple - it could not exist in the first place. At one point someone had to do exactly what you say is impossible.
Personally, I think it is a said state of affairs when the bulk of the human race is so incapable of original thoughts and understanding that they deny such things are even possible, outside those who are deemed "credible" who they then "accept" and repeat. The only people who actually invent new things and come to new understandings are those who aren't fool enough to believe such hogwash.
With you, I am judged based only on the particular choice of words I say, rather than the understanding I am trying to show. And that is pathetic. I could likely post the same things I do now, but if the names and such were reversed then you would be all in agreement with me. But since I choose to express things in names you don't like, like "father" you blindly and ignorantly dismiss me, and then attack my character for using the words, and accuse me of many things to the point where you claims are completely illogical.
As for enlightenment, the true measure of it, understanding and wisdom is NOT based upon what one knows. It is instead based upon the questions that person asks, and what they seek. Because the questions you ask are based not only on the knowledge, understanding and wisdom gained, but also the foresight to see beyond that which is known.
Consciousness is like a circle. A very small circle with little known inside it has very few points of unknown on the outside. The more the knowledge and consciousness grows, and the bigger the circle gets, then the more the unknown around it grows. Thus, the more knowledge and wisdom I gain, the less I realize I know.
To accept the literal and such from other people is to fill in your circle, or box as some like to call it, and then never look beyond it.
You can knock what people have done in the name of god all around the world. But wisdom and knowledge has always been there for those who seek. The supply of truth has always been in excess of it's demand.
But look carefully at these words.
Psalm 82
2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
What you talk about and expect from people is for them to accept what they have read in books and so forth. And to accept any such things, bible included is bad. You have just accepted things, you do not actually understand them. It is like accepting that 1+1=2 because someone said 1+1=2 rather than understanding why 1+1=2. How long will the people of this world judge unjustly and ACCEPT the crap authority gives them?
All you wish to do is change the authority people are supposed to accept, and thus that is no different.
Continuing on from that same verse.
5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Again it is saying very clearly - those who accept "will know not, and neither will they understand". All the foundations(institutions) of the earth are out of course. These foundations and institutions are that which people accept, that which you promote.
But, for those who do not just accept as you push, they will have understanding and knowledge:
Proverbs 8
8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.
11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
And that is what leads to enlightenment. Not institutions, not accepting what people tell you. It's an understanding that has been universal for quite some time.
Buddha said -- Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
Good day, I'm done with you.
Badmedia,
Perhaps you should read what I write? I wrote this earlier addressed to you:
“All knowledge is posteriori and all understanding is a priori”
This means that the understanding aspect is something which is prior to experience. Is this not what you are preaching to me? Then you are preaching to the converted.
The problem in your thinking is that you jump to conclusions without due consideration of the logical steps. You say that because understanding is a priori that it is possible for you to know everything without gaining knowledge from outside. Let us test that out:
Somebody is born without an education in mathematics. Can they gain understanding of mathematics before gaining knowledge of mathematics? The short answer is no. If they look at a circle they will see only a shape of circle. A mathematician however, because they are trained to look for measurements, ratios, distances, radius, diameter will discover Pi. It is not obvious unless you are trained as a mathematician.
You keep telling me that it obvious to somebody that 2 is more than 1. It’s not obviously actually. The ten-based decimal system was not obvious to most cultures. Some cultures did not have any mathematics, period. One philosopher once said, “there is nothing special about numbers, I could use numbers as wallpaper” what he is saying is numbers are no more fundamental than any other concept.
You should realise that nothing is obvious. If it was so obvious everybody would have discovered the Archimedes principle while in their bath, and everybody would have discovered the laws of gravity when seeing things fall. And everybody would have discovered the theory of relativity by watching cars pass by while on a train.
In fact by saying it is obvious you are just revealing how ignorant you are of how knowledge happens. It does not happen in a vacuum. It requires prerequisites:
Archimedes prerequisite was he was a trained scientist and he was working on the problem of volumes, density and weight and it is only because he could think in those terms that he noticed the relationship between the displacement of the bathwater and his weight. Einstein was also trained as physicist and a mathematician, he could think in the terms of velocity, time, distance.
So no knowledge happens in a vacuum. It requires empirical prerequisites. You need to know things before you can understand things.
Your empirical knowledge is processed by your subconscious and this results in understanding. There is no understanding in absence of empirical knowledge. Your subconscious does not add content to your knowledge, but merely arranges it according to certain schemas you acquired in the past and then presents it to the conscious mind.
You are clearly ignorant of how just complex the psychological process is before any knowledge occurs, and would rather believe in the superstition that you can get all your knowledge from god within. I hate to burst your bubble, but knowledge can be explained rationally and does not require the addition of some fictitious entity.
In your case all your knowledge is from books and other people. The way you speak, the language you use, how you think is all derived from society. You entire personality, which is itself just a cluster of thought patterns is a socio-linguistic construct. Shall we test that?
What was your personality before you were born? Stumped? You had no personality. Your personality formed gradually through socialisation.
If you were born in Africa under abject poverty your personality would be completely different to what it is now. You would think differently, speak differently, behave differently.
By the way you never answered my question - did you start meditating BEFORE or AFTER you read about meditation? Be honest.
Perhaps you should read what I write? I wrote this earlier addressed to you:
“All knowledge is posteriori and all understanding is a priori”
This means that the understanding aspect is something which is prior to experience. Is this not what you are preaching to me? Then you are preaching to the converted.
The problem in your thinking is that you jump to conclusions without due consideration of the logical steps. You say that because understanding is a priori that it is possible for you to know everything without gaining knowledge from outside. Let us test that out:
Somebody is born without an education in mathematics. Can they gain understanding of mathematics before gaining knowledge of mathematics? The short answer is no. If they look at a circle they will see only a shape of circle. A mathematician however, because they are trained to look for measurements, ratios, distances, radius, diameter will discover Pi. It is not obvious unless you are trained as a mathematician.
You keep telling me that it obvious to somebody that 2 is more than 1. It’s not obviously actually. The ten-based decimal system was not obvious to most cultures. Some cultures did not have any mathematics, period. One philosopher once said, “there is nothing special about numbers, I could use numbers as wallpaper” what he is saying is numbers are no more fundamental than any other concept.
You should realise that nothing is obvious. If it was so obvious everybody would have discovered the Archimedes principle while in their bath, and everybody would have discovered the laws of gravity when seeing things fall. And everybody would have discovered the theory of relativity by watching cars pass by while on a train.
In fact by saying it is obvious you are just revealing how ignorant you are of how knowledge happens. It does not happen in a vacuum. It requires prerequisites:
Archimedes prerequisite was he was a trained scientist and he was working on the problem of volumes, density and weight and it is only because he could think in those terms that he noticed the relationship between the displacement of the bathwater and his weight. Einstein was also trained as physicist and a mathematician, he could think in the terms of velocity, time, distance.
So no knowledge happens in a vacuum. It requires empirical prerequisites. You need to know things before you can understand things.
Your empirical knowledge is processed by your subconscious and this results in understanding. There is no understanding in absence of empirical knowledge. Your subconscious does not add content to your knowledge, but merely arranges it according to certain schemas you acquired in the past and then presents it to the conscious mind.
You are clearly ignorant of how just complex the psychological process is before any knowledge occurs, and would rather believe in the superstition that you can get all your knowledge from god within. I hate to burst your bubble, but knowledge can be explained rationally and does not require the addition of some fictitious entity.
In your case all your knowledge is from books and other people. The way you speak, the language you use, how you think is all derived from society. You entire personality, which is itself just a cluster of thought patterns is a socio-linguistic construct. Shall we test that?
What was your personality before you were born? Stumped? You had no personality. Your personality formed gradually through socialisation.
If you were born in Africa under abject poverty your personality would be completely different to what it is now. You would think differently, speak differently, behave differently.
By the way you never answered my question - did you start meditating BEFORE or AFTER you read about meditation? Be honest.
reply to post by Indigo_Child
While linear logic has its limits, at least it allows the practitioner the ability to follow a line of logic. Have you ever hear of a book titled "The White Godess" by Robert Graves? This book published over fifty years ago puts forth the thesis that Middle Eastern Abrahamic, god worshipping religion intentionally destroyed the Goddess worshiping religions of Eurasia. This is an exceptionally well research scholarly work probably written before you were born, and those you refer to. I have had the book for over twenty years now. If you are really looking into some insights into who the Druids were, I recommend you buy the book. One chapter discusses "The Song of Amergin". Let me see if I can give you a little bit of a perspective of what this poem is about.
The thirteen questions refer to the 13 calendar months, and the six questions that follow refer to the length of days, planets, tides, the seasons. The thirteen questions also symbolize other things, like trees, and an alphabet of thirteen consonants and six vowels. A more accurate interpretation of what the poem means, in short, is that God is the world, and knowledge of the World.
While Hinduism considers the higher man to be perfect, the physical man on Earth is not perfect, unless he succeeds in connecting to his higher self. How else do you explain the establishment of a caste system?
www.spiritualworld.org...
If men are born perfect, why do they need to seek perfection?
My concept that we are not meant to be perfect is in fact as much in opposition to Abrahamic concepts as it is to Hinduism and Buddhism.
Druid beliefs, while related to Hinduism were quite different in that Druids celebrated life.
www.writerstoyou.com...
In the Druidic concept, you live life and learn from life in order to advance to the next higher world. You don't spend life meditating under a tree somewhere, or praying to God, hoping that God saves you.
While linear logic has its limits, at least it allows the practitioner the ability to follow a line of logic. Have you ever hear of a book titled "The White Godess" by Robert Graves? This book published over fifty years ago puts forth the thesis that Middle Eastern Abrahamic, god worshipping religion intentionally destroyed the Goddess worshiping religions of Eurasia. This is an exceptionally well research scholarly work probably written before you were born, and those you refer to. I have had the book for over twenty years now. If you are really looking into some insights into who the Druids were, I recommend you buy the book. One chapter discusses "The Song of Amergin". Let me see if I can give you a little bit of a perspective of what this poem is about.
I suggest in the first part of this argument that the 'I am' and 'I have been' sequences frequent in ancient Welsh and Irish poetry are all variants of the same calendar theme....
The song of Amergin begins with thirteen statements, provided with mediaeval glosses. The thirteen statements are followed by six questions, also provided with glosses.
The thirteen questions refer to the 13 calendar months, and the six questions that follow refer to the length of days, planets, tides, the seasons. The thirteen questions also symbolize other things, like trees, and an alphabet of thirteen consonants and six vowels. A more accurate interpretation of what the poem means, in short, is that God is the world, and knowledge of the World.
While Hinduism considers the higher man to be perfect, the physical man on Earth is not perfect, unless he succeeds in connecting to his higher self. How else do you explain the establishment of a caste system?
www.spiritualworld.org...
"Hinduism. There is one root word in the term ‘Hindu.’ It is called hidi. Hidi means a man who moves on the path of spirituality, and who neglects all the worldly pleasures and other passions for that spiritual upliftment. He is a Hindu.
"What is the goal of Hinduism?" I asked, moving to my next question.
"Perfection," he answered.
"What do you mean by perfection?"
"To become the perennial child of God, to become arya," Professor Sharma answered.
"What is perfection?" he countered. "Perfection means to make the soul the real master. It means to be perfect spiritually — to be above the senses, to be above the passions, to be above other concerns. It means to be oneself — one’s true self. The pure and true self that is perfection.
If men are born perfect, why do they need to seek perfection?
My concept that we are not meant to be perfect is in fact as much in opposition to Abrahamic concepts as it is to Hinduism and Buddhism.
Druid beliefs, while related to Hinduism were quite different in that Druids celebrated life.
www.writerstoyou.com...
Druidry is the only belief-system I know that teaches people to live life to the full, to enjoy wine, sex and song today for tomorrow we die – that was most certainly a theme of Irish Druidry. It still is. As a spiritual discipline Druidry does have its finer teachings. It has also accrued to itself a fine ‘occult’ component in recent centuries.
In the Druidic concept, you live life and learn from life in order to advance to the next higher world. You don't spend life meditating under a tree somewhere, or praying to God, hoping that God saves you.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Indigo_Child
While linear logic has its limits, at least it allows the practitioner the ability to follow a line of logic. Have you ever hear of a book titled "The White Godess" by Robert Graves? This book published over fifty years ago puts forth the thesis that Middle Eastern Abrahamic, god worshipping religion intentionally destroyed the Goddess worshiping religions of Eurasia. This is an exceptionally well research scholarly work probably written before you were born, and those you refer to. I have had the book for over twenty years now.
Yes, no different to what I am saying that the Abrahamic religion deliberately and systemtically wiped out Aryan culture. Aryan culture had very high reverence for mother nature and goddess worship was a major part of it, and evidence of this can be found in the Indus Valley civilisation.
Interesting that the Abrahmic religion has no goddess worship, and the Pagan religions are full of goddess worship?
A more accurate interpretation of what the poem means, in short, is that God is the world, and knowledge of the World.
Yep, as I said the Pagan cultures all considered the world to be underlied by divinity and hence why they worshipped nature. This was because of their Aryan heritage.
If men are born perfect, why do they need to seek perfection?
My concept that we are not meant to be perfect is in fact as much in opposition to Abrahamic concepts as it is to Hinduism and Buddhism.
Druid beliefs, while related to Hinduism were quite different in that Druids celebrated life.
The etymology of the word Hindu you cited is wrong. The word Hindu does not come from the word Hidi, but from the word Sindhu. Sindu was a major river of the Indus valley civilisation. The Persians pronounced the word Sindhu as Hindu to refer to the people of India. The word "India" comes from the Greek pronounication of Sindhu as Indus. So Hindu literally means the people of India.
You have a slight misconception of Hindu teachings on perfection. They do not teach that man is imperfect or that he ever has become imperfect. Instead they teach that man is a pure spiritual being(living entity, spark of the divine) that has become entangled in the material world and is under the illusion that he is imperfect, when in fact he is perfect. Hence why the Vedas proclaim, "Pefect am I" The purpose of life is to disentangle oneself from the material world to realise one is indeed perfect, one with all of creation, the pure and cosmic one.
Druidry is the only belief-system I know that teaches people to live life to the full, to enjoy wine, sex and song today for tomorrow we die – that was most certainly a theme of Irish Druidry. It still is. As a spiritual discipline Druidry does have its finer teachings. It has also accrued to itself a fine ‘occult’ component in recent centuries.
In the Druidic concept, you live life and learn from life in order to advance to the next higher world. You don't spend life meditating under a tree somewhere, or praying to God, hoping that God saves you.
It is the same in Hinduism, which is not surprising because Druids closest ancestory is Hindu. The word Druid comes from the Sanskrit roots Dru + Vid and means literally the one with the knowledge of the oak(the tree of knowledge) In Hinduism one is taught that one enters life to experience certain things, to learn certain lessons, before they pass-on. Hence why they say that life is because consciousness wants to expeience itself.
I told you earlier Hinduism does not deny worldly living and our human desires. You are mistaking Hinduism with Buddhism. In Hinduism four major goals are recognised for human existence, they are
1) Kama - Pleasure(carnal, sensory etc)
2) Arth - Wealth and fame
3) Dharma - Work and duties
4) Moksha - Spirituality
However, Hindusim is definitely not hedonist, capitalist and relativist. So while it permits one to have sex, amass wealth and fame, work in society, one has to do in a noble and virtuous way that is in harmony with the universe. So for example, amass wealth, but only so that you can help others; have sex, but only when it an expression of love and not lust etc
Hinduism is not at all a world-denying religion as you are mistaking it as. Personally, I don't like using the word "Hindu" because it is a very misleading and ambigious term. Moreover, it is secetarian. The real word is "Aryan" and Aryan embraces all Aryan cultures around the world which branched off from it - Celtic, Lituanian, Hindu, Greek etc etc
[edit on 3-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
Yeah, the lack of Goddess worship in the Abrahamic religions certainly says volumes.
When it comes to sex, Western cultures have tended to be far more open, lust is not bad, it is good. The soul is not perfect, and the purpose of life is for the soul to learn and grow in order to advance to the next world, where we face even greater challenges. This is pretty much how I feel things to be.
When it comes to sex, Western cultures have tended to be far more open, lust is not bad, it is good. The soul is not perfect, and the purpose of life is for the soul to learn and grow in order to advance to the next world, where we face even greater challenges. This is pretty much how I feel things to be.
reply to post by poet1b
The reason goddess worship is not present in Abrahamic religion is because Abraahmic religion is patriarchal. It is about control, greed and power. It is aggressive and war-mongering. These are its Illojim roots. It is its ideology that we are living under today. Its rule must end.
I think you have made up your mind on the soul being imperfect and lust being good, so I will respect your right to believe that, but not without a parting shot
If the soul is imperfect, how can it know it is not perfect without having knowledge of perfection within?
Is lust not a perversion of love? One is selfless and the other is selfish. If we lust after our fellow human beings, are we not in effect reducing them to just objects for our enjoyment and thereby denying their divinity? Is that not Abrahamic values?
Aryan values are the absolute antithesis of Abrahamic values:
Love, not lust
Compassion and charity, not greed and domination
Self-empowerment, not power
Humility, not vanity
Empathy, not envy
[edit on 3-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
The reason goddess worship is not present in Abrahamic religion is because Abraahmic religion is patriarchal. It is about control, greed and power. It is aggressive and war-mongering. These are its Illojim roots. It is its ideology that we are living under today. Its rule must end.
I think you have made up your mind on the soul being imperfect and lust being good, so I will respect your right to believe that, but not without a parting shot
If the soul is imperfect, how can it know it is not perfect without having knowledge of perfection within?
Is lust not a perversion of love? One is selfless and the other is selfish. If we lust after our fellow human beings, are we not in effect reducing them to just objects for our enjoyment and thereby denying their divinity? Is that not Abrahamic values?
Aryan values are the absolute antithesis of Abrahamic values:
Love, not lust
Compassion and charity, not greed and domination
Self-empowerment, not power
Humility, not vanity
Empathy, not envy
[edit on 3-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]
new topics
-
It's toast
General Chit Chat: 3 hours ago -
Man Stabbed or Cardiac arrest on Westminster Bridge, London, UK
Mainstream News: 5 hours ago -
A fix for the Trans players in sports
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 6 hours ago -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Political Issues: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Political Issues: 9 hours ago, 14 flags -
A fix for the Trans players in sports
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 6 hours ago, 12 flags -
Rep. Alexandria O. Cortez Says Forcing People to Use The Correct Bathroom is Dangerous.
US Political Madness: 16 hours ago, 7 flags -
Man Stabbed or Cardiac arrest on Westminster Bridge, London, UK
Mainstream News: 5 hours ago, 7 flags -
It's toast
General Chit Chat: 3 hours ago, 6 flags -
Cooperation zones
World War Three: 17 hours ago, 4 flags
active topics
-
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Political Issues • 54 • : gortex -
France gives Ukraine license to fire long-range missiles at Russia
World War Three • 36 • : Imhere -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 203 • : Flyingclaydisk -
It's toast
General Chit Chat • 7 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 343 • : BedevereTheWise -
International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant For Netanyahu
Mainstream News • 47 • : AgarthaSeed -
Man Stabbed or Cardiac arrest on Westminster Bridge, London, UK
Mainstream News • 7 • : NorthOS -
Ok this is some BS now WTH
Rant • 16 • : VariedcodeSole -
A fix for the Trans players in sports
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 14 • : lilzazz -
Jaguar Rebrand Video Causes "WTF?" Moment - Seriously Weird
Automotive Discussion • 34 • : lilzazz