My summary of bhagavad gita

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, old3bob said:

and what is the purpose of the Ego and all of creation for that matter?  Could everyone just pass go and collect enlightenment?

 

Well, its a bit boring playing like that .  

 

The Gods dont like to be bored   as they be around for a LOOOOOONG   time .  So they gotta think up crazy unusual shit  .... like 'humans' .

[NaturaNaturans]

6 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Well, its a bit boring playing like that .  

 

The Gods dont like to be bored   as they be around for a LOOOOOONG   time .  So they gotta think up crazy unusual shit  .... like 'humans' .

Id like to be a cat in the next one. They are so… zen.

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by mat

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, mat said:

It was more intented to Daniel 

 

———

edit: not to be a conplainer, but this forum is ill suited for writing on tje phone 

 

They ALL are !

 

YOU PHONE GUYS !     I constantly have issues with people on  other forum , turns out they are writing on their phones and cant do a whole lotta stuff , and it also  encourages  quick easy replies ... not really a good tool for convo .

 

Dont no one use a lappie no more ?    

 

( Now I am a conplainer too

 

[Nungali]

18 minutes ago, mat said:

A little of topic here, but come to think of something: according to christ the only unforgivable sin is denying the holy spirit, the divine inside us.

 

edit, continuing: so, If eternity is now,  heaven and hell is eternal, the holy spirit fell from heaven like a dove and the only unforgivable sin is denying it: shouldnt we conclude that embracing it is what leads to higher conciousness?

 

Lets look at the other side of the coin  ;

 

" The only real sin is to deny  what you know to e true as it does not pander to one's prejudices ."

 

I agree with your conclusion     but 'the dove' is but one aspect  -    " ... there is the Dove and there is the Serpent , choose ye well ."

 

[Nungali]

18 minutes ago, mat said:

Id like to be a cat in the next one. They are so… zen.

 

 

 

Dude ! They are not 'zen' .... just lazy bastards  .... they just got it over you ! 

[Nungali]

Right .... I got it all laid out on the table now  ;

 

the cat , a kitchen disposal unit , an electrical transformer and a copy of the Bhagavad Gita

 

.... I'm gonna get to the bottom of this ! 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Nungali

[old3bob]

.

Edited October 19, 2023 by old3bob

[old3bob]

.

Edited October 19, 2023 by old3bob

[Nungali]

Moses of all people should know that one side does not touch another  .....

 

 

[NaturaNaturans]

9 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

if you are an electronics whiz or a reasonable person on this subject then I'm Moses... 

more qoutes for you:

is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.

Friedrich Nietzsche

 

i often find that twice as much can be said with half the Words. Its more about dropping the bs and getting to the core. 

 

[old3bob]

.

Edited October 19, 2023 by old3bob

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, mat said:

I see it is as the trinity. The father (god), the son (the logos incarnate) and the divine with us (the wholy spirit).

An analogy would be that me and my brother is both from the same dad. We are separeres, bur in one sense we are one. Does that makes sense to you, Daniel?

 

Yes, I am very comfy with the trinity concept. But "flesh" is not included in that trinity.  Matthew 26:41.

 

2 hours ago, mat said:

edit: i dont have a source, but ive read somewhere that the concept or the trinity is older than christianity.

 

It is!

 

2 hours ago, mat said:

Image didnt work:

 

 

Here's my diagram I made for a friend.  Actually two diagrams.  The idea with these is to link-up trintiarian and unitaritarian **perspectives**.  The trinitarian has Jesus on the **face** ( ref to Exo 33 ) not at the corner.  This is important if it is not a "triangle" but instead a "prism".  There's a lot of fun to be had with this prism analogy. 

 

When looking into any of the "faces" of a triangular prism ( no other has this property ) both of the other two faces are seen within it.  Can you imagine it?  One face on the prisim is Jesus, and when looking into it, one sees, Father and Spirit.  And because of this, one is looking through Jesus and seeing the Father in that "face".  Kinda cool, right?  "None get to the Father except through me."

 

Conversely, for the unitarian perspective, when the trinity is arranged with Jesus at the corner, then when the person on earth is gazing at Jesus, the other 2 corners appear to be outside and far beyond Jesus.  Still connected, but transcendant.

 

In order to imagine this, on my diagrams, I include the material realm.  You'll see.  By doing, this the trinitarian and the unitarian both basically share the same theology, but have 2 vastly ( arguably opposing ) perspectives.  The trinitarian brings it close.  It's an intimate relationship with the divine **through** Jesus.  The Father and Spirit are percieved IN Jesus and Jesus is on earth.  That's close, that's intimate.  However, when it's considered as the unitarian, the Father is distant, the Spirit is distant.  

 

Then... after the earthly ministry, the prism ( not a triangle ) spins, or pivots.  Now the Spirit is in the material realm.  And Jesus and the Father are together, side by side.  Notice, when it pivots, Jesus is on the right side of the father as expected.

 

When the prism pivots, from the trinitarian perspective, The Spirit is on the "face" of the prism, and the Father and Jesus are perceived **through** it.  It's still a close and intimate relationship.  The unitarian perspective, is more transcendant.  Some prefer the transcendant, some prefer the immanent perspective.  I vote it's both, simultaneously.  

 

But, hee-hee... I'm not a Christian.  I'm just out here in the fields, fight'n for my meals, in a wasteland... haha.  ~pointing to my avatar~  sing'n a song by the Who next to my little camp-fire. 
 

But, what do I know?    I'll put the images in a spoiler to save people from scrolling.

 

YouTube "Baba O'Riely" - LINK  | Wikipedia "Baba O'Reily" - LINK 

 

( derived from the Lifehouse concept, to input the vital signs and personality of Meher Baba into a synthesiser )

( two major inspirations of Townshend: Meher Baba, an Iranian spiritual master, and Terry Riley, an American composer)

 

Spoiler

I made these myself using the wiki-monster ( my pet-name for wikipedia ) for the general lay-out.

 

Remember, from the earthy perspective one is looking "up" into the prism.  That's what I intended for these diagrams.

 

Below is the trinitarian perspective during the earthly ministry. Looking "up" from the material realm, a person sees Jesus larger than anything else.  The Father and Spirit are in "heaven", but are visible **through Jesus** literally.  After the ministry, the prism pivots clockwise.  The Spirit is on earth, Jesus and the Father are in "heaven".  Jesus is on the right side of the Father.  Jesus and the Father are visible **through** the Spirit.  

 

 

 

Below is the unitarian perspective during the earthly ministry.  Looking up from the material realm, Jesus is close, but is more a focused point.  The Father and Spirit are in "heaven", but are transcendant.  They're still connected to Jesus, but not **through** Jesus.  After the earthly ministry, the same thing happens. The prism pivots clockwise.  Jesus and the Father are in "heaven".  Jesus is positioned on the right side of the Father as expected, but they are both transcendant.  Still connected by not **through** the Spirit.

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Daniel

[NaturaNaturans]

The flesh is christ

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, mat said:

The flesh is christ

 

Chist is salvation, the flesh is weak.  Do you really want to debate me on this?

 

Mark 14:38

 

Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.

 

Matthew 26:41

 

Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

 

Here's a good one:

 

John 3:6

 

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

That, right there should tell you all you need to know.  Christianity is not monist.  There's nothing wrong with monism, there's nothing wrong with Christianity.  But they are different if one is going by scripture.  If scripture is ignored, and only parts are considered, sure!  It's monist.  But if one is starting with John 1, sorry.  It doesn't work. The "flesh" did not come from Spirit.  Case closed.  And I didn't get to the epistles yet.

 

Romans 7:5

 

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

 

On 10/6/2023 at 6:05 AM, mat said:

feedback appricated

 

Well, you got my feedback.  If you're not interested in it, or you think it's bogus, just forget about it.  If you want John to be monist, please, enjoy it.  A lot of people agree with you.  I think they're wrong.  It happens all the time.  But scripture is on my side.  That makes me happy.  

 

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

if you are an electronics whiz or a reasonable person on this subject then I'm Moses... 

 

I already showed you that the two circuits never come into contact.  You have become frustrated, but won't share why.

 

It's fine.  It's typical for internet discussions to go like this.  Show someone, literally put it in the their face, then the name calling begins.

 

I didn't call you names.  I didn't make it person.  It's just the simple truth about these electonic metaphors.

 

I'm sorry that you're so senitive about it.   But, that's also not my problem, if you won't tell me why. 

[old3bob]

.

Edited October 19, 2023 by old3bob

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, mat said:

more qoutes for you:

is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.

Friedrich Nietzsche

 

i often find that twice as much can be said with half the Words. Its more about dropping the bs and getting to the core. 

 

 

I'll simply refer you to my first reply to the thread:

 

On 10/6/2023 at 9:34 AM, Daniel said:

This desirable tree,  is so very-very desirable that all the other trees disappear, and an illusion is produced such that there is no grove.  The one little sentence is so very-very desirable that the rest of the words vanish.

 

It's typical Mat.  In order to change the scripture, people ignore it.  And they only focus on the few things that are desirable to them.  If it's really really desirable, an illusion is produced and all the other words in the book disappear.

 

In this case, the idea of connecting to God is so very-very desireable that the truth about what a trasformer does and how it works is ignored.  Even if pictures are posted.  I didn't go on and on about it, at first.  It should have been clear from the picture I posted.  

 

It's the same with the monist interpretation of Christianity.  There's plenty of evidence against that idea.  Maybe one could consider Jesus' flesh different than all other flesh.  But that, in itself shows that Chrisitanity is not monist.  

 

But, if the idea of monism is very-very desirable, then, naturally all of that goes ~poof~ into nothingness.  It's the same illusion that is happening in the garden of eden story.  Eve was standing directly in front of the tree of life.  But instead she chooses the tree of knowledge.  Why?

 

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit, and ate, and gave also to her husband with her; and he ate.

 

It's a tree to be desired, and the tree of life is ignored.  That's all I have to say unless you have further comments or questions directed to what I wrote.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

12 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

get off the victim type whining, Jesus Christ guy!  Btw,  all you showed is your fanatical non-understanding the subject.

 

No victim whining.  Why are you so frustrated about this?  Here is the picture again.  They do not make contact.  None of the electronics in your home or anyone's home is designed to be connected directly to the main.  I'm not sure why you are fighting this.

 

There are two circuits.  No contact between them.  The magnetic field is not current flowing.  They require seperation.  They can never ever touch.  That produces a surge condition.  It will "smoke" the components.

 

 

https://www.livewireelectricalcharlotte.com/2022/07/how-to-test-your-wiring-after-an-electric-strike/

 

Lightning will often cause damage to multiple appliances. This is due to the surge in voltage that occurs after a lighting strike. Though appliances can handle some fluctuation in voltage, the super high voltage that occurs after a hit of lightning is too much, resulting in circuit board damage.

 

If a visible inspection reveals smoke marks by the electrical service panel, there’s a very good chance there’s damaged wiring. A visual inspection of the circuit breakers by a qualified electrician is essential of lightning damage is suspected at the electrical panel.

 

 

 

That ^^ is what happens when there is a surge.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Daniel

[old3bob]

.

Edited October 19, 2023 by old3bob

[Daniel]

22 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

enough already...

 

What is the problem?  You brought an analogy, I disagreed for very good reason.  You've tried to prove me wrong, couldn't do it, and now you want me to defer to you?  Why?  Why should I defer?

 

You started this exchange with me, not vice versa.

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Daniel

[NaturaNaturans]

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

{ kingdom { flesh { kingdom } flesh } kingdom } ?

 

{ flesh { word } flesh } ?

I would just say kingdom. (Kingdom (kingdom) kingdom)

 

I am not claiming that i have the one and only truth. I havent read a lot of the bible either. I am not to interrested in how x church says scripture should be interpet, from beggining to end, either. But there is a lot of gold in there.

 If we call it monist or pantheism or any or any other term is ultimatley not that important. 

But when you ask me what flesh symbolies… it symbolies flesh. Its not even a symbol, flesh is flesh. And Christ literally said he had become flesh (Thomas 33).

 

You asked about enlightenment as well. I feel like a dick saying this, but i feel i have «awakened.» Useing these terms makes it sound much grander and mystic than what i belive it is. For me it just mean realising that what you are, is fundementaly awarness. But it is not, i belive, something you can reason you way into, but an sudden insight… «gnosis».

 

Spoiler

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

 

2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

 

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

 

(…) 

 

28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty.

But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways."

 

29. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.

Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."

 

33. Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops.

After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light."

 

 

43. His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?"

"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you.

Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."

 

44. Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."

 

113. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

 

 

 

 

 

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

 

I cant tell you what Gods will is, or If he exists for sure. I can only tell you what these sayings mean to me.

Edited October 10, 2023 by mat

[NaturaNaturans]

 Simallarily christians are "born again." Jesus said that eternal life comes from knowing the Father, so in once sense i can agree with you, it is not all the kingdom of God, as all havent received "the spirit." 
 

Luke 17:21: “Once having been asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied,’ The kingdom of God does not come from your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is’ or “There it is’ because the Kingdom of God is within you.”

 

What can i say, the text seems to open for many interpertations

___________

Whats more interresting then what the flesh symbolises, is the wine/blood  In the book "the immortality key," it is argued convincingly that it refers to the wine of Dionysus. Same goes for Soma, beer with urgot, various mushrooms and the mead of poetry: it is an experience that grants death before death/being born again/awakening/ressuraction/immortality, not a book (for the most part, all though i have gotten a lot from various texts and conversations as well). 

 

Pictures in spoiler. The last one depicting Oding transformed as an eagle, shitting some of the mead of poetry down at humanity on his escape after having retrieved the mead from a couple of dwarfs 

Spoiler

Edited October 10, 2023 by mat

[Daniel]

9 hours ago, mat said:

I would just say kingdom. (Kingdom (kingdom) kingdom)

 

That's a fair statement, because it is prefaced with "I would say..."  I'll explain just a little more below.

 

Quote

I am not claiming that i have the one and only truth. I havent read a lot of the bible either. I am not to interrested in how x church says scripture should be interpet, from beggining to end, either. But there is a lot of gold in there.

 If we call it monist or pantheism or any or any other term is ultimatley not that important. 

 

Agreed.  Neither am I.  Hopefully that was crystal clear with my post about harmonizing trinitarian and unitarian perspectives. 

 

However, I place a high premium on duty ( which is a form of "will" ).  My duty is a personal code, and I take it very seriously.  Included in that code is to honor, repsect, and protect ( when I can ) the intentions of ancient sources of written scripture.   If the scripture is changed, you would not have these sayings for inspiration.  For me, it's like protecting the grand canyon or the pyramids at giza.  

 

When someone asks for feedback regarding an interpretation they have, or a conclusion they have reached about scripture, if it is not, in my judgment, in harmony with the intentions of the author, then, I feel it is my duty to speak out against it.  Not to argue endlessly, but, at least to speak out.  Some choose to argue endlessly with me, and since I do not quit, and do not defer, it appears that I desire endless arguing.  But that's not what's happening internally for me.

 

What it sounds like you are describing are "sparks" of monism contained in the gospels.  I agree those sparks are highly significant, but I do not think the author/source intended for it to be interpretted in that way.  And from that I wonder, "why are those sparks there in the first place?"  And "why are they reflected in so many scriptures"?

 

Quote

But when you ask me what flesh symbolies… it symbolies flesh. Its not even a symbol, flesh is flesh. And Christ literally said he had become flesh (Thomas 33).

 

I think that verse would need to be probed deeper since I brought verses which negate it.  On the other hand, if you don't care about those other verses, then, I suppose it's you who have decided what the flesh is, and it isn't really coming from scripture at all.  In context of your conversation, I was not actually asking what you thought.  I was asking about Christianity and what is written in scripture.  Many people idolize flesh.  That is not uncommon and is understandable.  Although, it seems what you posted earlier conflicts with this since the body is just an old garment.

 

"The soul goes through a cycle of bodies, just as a person changes worn-out clothes for new ones."

 

If you think Christ is flesh, I strongly disagree with you, and what is quoted above strongly disagress with you.  You are saying Christ is flesh, and flesh is like old-worn out clothes.  

 

Quote

You asked about enlightenment as well. I feel like a dick saying this, but i feel i have «awakened.»

 

I don't think you need to feel that way.  At least not if I am the audience.

 

Quote

Useing these terms makes it sound much grander and mystic than what i belive it is. For me it just mean realising that what you are, is fundementaly awarness. But it is not, i belive, something you can reason you way into, but an sudden insight…

 

My only caution when reading these words would be:  "Beware of a false summit.  Keep going."

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_peak

 

Quote

sudden insight…«gnosis».

 

Insight is not gnosis.  Insight is understanding.  Gnosis is knowledge.  There's a huge rabbit hole there.  Huge.  The Gnostics idolize knowledge.  And I mean that literally, she is a god for them.  Sophia.  Everything is flipped for the gnostics, if you delve deeply into it.  But what they teach is not false, it's incomplete.  This is evident by our current conversation.  What the gnostics teach ignores large portions of the written word.  That is, by defintion, incomplete.

 

Anyway, what you seem to be describing is not an attainment of "knowledge" (gnosis) because knowledge is essentially closed.  But you seem to be open.  Some of the language you're using is "closed" language.   But you still sound like you are open.  For example:  "realising that what you are, is fundementaly awarness."  is closed language.  It's kind of like saying "What I am is ONLY awareness".  That is closed.  But by using the word "fundementally" that means there's more to it, and you are still open.  From my perspective it is much more than awareness.  And I ask myself, "why stop at awareness"?

 

Basically what I'm saying is, "understanding" is moving beyond knowledge.  It is skipping-over it.  And this is good.  Understanding always and forever supercedes knowledge because, understanding produces knowledge as needed on demand.  That's "insight".  The word "insight" can be both noun and verb.  Insight, the noun, is a piece of knowledge, a small thing.  Insight, the verb, is understanding, a huge accomplishment.  All peace treaties are accomplished via mutual understanding not knowledge.  This is one of many examples.

 

If you keep going, I think you'll find that "awareness" is just one layer, one level, one dimension of "self".  At the top of the tree, as high as one can go is "being".  Being in love, Being in hate, Being merciful, Being strict, Being knowledgable, Being understanding, Being wise, .... Being aware, etc... this is what the self "is doing".  And this active, verb-form, language is a better descriptor than stopping at "awareness". 

 

Quote

  Hide contents

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

 

2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

 

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

 

(…) 

 

28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty.

But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways."

 

29. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.

Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."

 

33. Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops.

After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light."

 

 

43. His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?"

"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you.

Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."

 

44. Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."

 

113. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

 

My approach would be to look at each of these in context and try to understand the intentions of the author/source in each case, then, draw a conclusion from there.  As I said, I am quite confident that, at best, there is something unique about Jesus' flesh.  And this would mean that it is not teaching monism.

 

The famous verse about eating flesh and drinking blood is certainly not literal.  In context Jesus is pushing away those who had come to challenge him.  Then his disciples ask how it could be true "It's a difficult teaching, master", and the explanation is non-literal.  He's not talking about flesh.

 

And if there is a dark force which desires to wiggle-and-giggle its way into corrupting the hearts and minds of humans, a dark force contained in the flesh, then... my friend, each and every written scripture will have bits and pieces of this dark force making brief appearances subliminally.  So, a person should, imo, be cautious.  If it is intended, then a person can read more and more and more of the scripture and all of it will agree with the intention.  If it is unintended, then reading more and more and more of the scripture will defeat it. 

 

From this a choice can be made, "Do I want to follow what is written, or do I want to explore the unknown?"  And, imo, they both can lead to the same place.  One is a lot more effort and takes a lot more time, and is perhaps dangerous, but, maybe more rewarding, who knows?

 

My intention, my duty, is only to show the difference between what is "written" and what is "not".  Then each person can make an informed choice.  I don't think it's proper for a group of any sort to fool people by pointing to this little bit and distract or delude from the rest because it syncs up with their desires.  That is how people are manipulated and exploited.  It's by compromsing their desires and using it against them.  Again, Gen 3, the garden.

 

Quote

I cant tell you what Gods will is, or If he exists for sure. I can only tell you what these sayings mean to me.

 

Beautiful. 

 

Does it matter to you what the author/source intended for these sayings to mean? 

 

Or is it only your own desired meaning that matters?

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, mat said:

 Simallarily christians are "born again." Jesus said that eternal life comes from knowing the Father, so in once sense i can agree with you, it is not all the kingdom of God, as all havent received "the spirit." 
 

Luke 17:21: “Once having been asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied,’ The kingdom of God does not come from your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is’ or “There it is’ because the Kingdom of God is within you.”

 

What can i say, the text seems to open for many interpertations

 

There's a lot going on in the gospels.  And their method for compilation is somewhat unique as well.

 

Quote

___________

Whats more interresting then what the flesh symbolises, is the wine/blood  In the book "the immortality key," it is argued convincingly that it refers to the wine of Dionysus. Same goes for Soma, beer with urgot, various mushrooms and the mead of poetry: it is an experience that grants death before death/being born again/awakening/ressuraction/immortality, not a book (for the most part, all though i have gotten a lot from various texts and conversations as well). 

 

are we still talking about John 6?

 

Quote

 

Pictures in spoiler. The last one depicting Oding transformed as an eagle, shitting some of the mead of poetry down at humanity on his escape after having retrieved the mead from a couple of dwarfs 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Do you think that Jesus the Jewish Rabbi would be referring to himself and his blood in pagan language and imagery?  Do you think the authors of the gospels would be intentionally using pagan language and symbolism?

 

The gnostics will say there is a great secret here, and the "normies" the "muggles" are hiding it from you.  Or perhaps they're not "normies" and "muggles" they're power hungry people who want all of these secrets for themself... blah-blah-blah.  And that's one of the ways that good is flipped into evil.  Once it's known that a person desires to know "secrets" then thay can be exploited using this as currency, bait.

 

Did you know that driking blood is prohiibited 5 times explicitly in Leviticus and 1 time explicitly in Acts?  I'm guessing the gnostics are in favor of drinking blood, right?  Everytime that happens, something is grinning in the darkness.

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Daniel

[Ajay0]

On 10/9/2023 at 11:12 PM, Daniel said:

 

I think calling it "false" is a misnomer that produces misunderstanding.  It is "incomplete" not "false".

 

 

The incompleteness disappears in perception of the true Self in samadhi or unitary perception. You will recognize it easily and clearly due to the lack of mental agitation and tension associated with egoic thinking and emoting.
 

 

Quote

Ignoring the "false" misnomer, this is much better.  Contrast requires the lower self.  Self requries self.  They're partners.  

 

Identities such as nationality or gender or sexual orientation have functional utility in case of pass-ports or washrooms or dating purposes.
 

However if they are used as a source of innate identity due to lack of Self-knowledge, they will be invested with corresponding emotion.

 

 If you don't know who you are, you will desperately cling to all known external labels you have for yourself for a sense of identity and would be willing to fight and even die for them. Any perceived assault on the adopted identity would not be tolerated, because of emotional and egoic identification with it.

 

This is the reason why racial, religious, nationalistic, ideological and linguistic identities have a history of violence and cruelty associated with them which continues in the present day due to lack of Self-knowledge.
 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Ajay0