The Return of Quetzalcoatl [Archive] - Page 2

Agape_negates_fear

02-08-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Swami:
As one who has been around the block, I have watched as thousands of public 'prophecies' have fallen flat with nary a one even coming close. There is no reason to give any credence to your vision as an actual event.

2012 has no more significance than December 31, 2000. It is a calendar date, not a harbinger. That date will come and pass as did the Harmonic Convergence and other nonsensical and arbitrary dates. Note how McKenna's whole timewave theory has failed to hold up to scrutiny.

The Mayans were certainly MORE interested in their own demise than that of some white westerners hundreds of years hence.I resonate with your resistance to prophecy. I am only 21, but a little knowledge of occult history reveals a continuous stream of failed prophesying. This is not easily dismissed and I think it factors into all of our appraisals of the 2012 hypothesis (in its myriad forms). I will submit, however, that I personally approach 2012 will slightly more ambivalence.

The primary reason for allotting some credence to the 2012 theories is that they rest upon an underground phenomenon that is far more widespread than other similar prophecies have been. Be aware that not only psychedelic scatterbrains (only a joke, promise…) like McKenna have articulated theories regarding 2012, but the date has surfaced cross-culturally, including Tibetan monks, various Central and South American tribal communities and countless scholars and astrology freaks (just review the ridiculous number of titles that now have 2012 in the heading – and thank Daniel for throwing another drop in the bucket).

I do not agree that McKenna’s Timewave Zero model is a failure. I find it inaccessible mathematically speaking, and, frankly, I am not that fascinated with proving the novelty ingression theory true by way of mapping historical points of resonance. I am comfortable with the Timewave theory’s assumptions and willing to work with 2012 as a possible occasion for the culmination of temporal resonance. There are other things to say in defense of the Timewave model, such as the restructuring analysis that was completed by Sheliak (http://www.levity.com/eschaton/sheliak/), as well as the easily disputable concept of temporal resonance. I myself do not rest on this analysis too heavily, because at the micro level in day-to-day life I feel sufficiently convinced that temporal resonance is a manifestation of habit. From that angle, habit is the chain that confines novelty from breaking loose as the entelechy. It is there that I believe Terrence has provided us with something useful, in that for those who are not convinced, the Timewave Zero model can supply them with the framework to analyze the novelty theory.

To bring this thought process full circle, the case for the appreciation of 2012 as prophecy seems quite simple to me. Evidently many individuals intuit impending ecological crises, the unfoldment of the UFO story (or tale, if you prefer), the amalgamation of psychedelic experience with popular culture (once again, but on better terms) and then of course that fucking bizarre element of the higher self that at first cajoles one into believing that things are in fact changing, but then evolves into this commanding force, adumbrating things to come, asserting that they are getting ever more near. This is all, of course, to be primarily attributed to the integration of psychedelic compounds into the religious lives of techno-age man.

Because so many people are gearing up (intellectually and literally) for the eschaton in 2012, I think it behooves us to consider the implications of the 2012 theories with an authentic mindset. I recognize that there are many prophecy theories postulated by all sorts. As hinted to above, 2012 is multi-disciplinary, multicultural and grandiose in its presentation. I take it seriously because I recognize the profound nature of the psychedelic experience, and because I have had the psychedelic experience, I feel obligated to address as many aspects of it as I can. Had I abstained from psychedelics I would probably have avoided such considerations, but damn that curiosity, it done got me!

For full disclosure, I favor the Vedic concept of 4th dimensional time, such that it is cyclical and evolves into what is called Sat (Truth) and then devolves into Asat (not-truth).

It is completely fair for Daniel to submit his personal experiences with Quetzalcoatl. I think that instead of discouraging the discussion of these psychedelic quandaries, we should beckon it, for these elements will come full circle for our human society. They have been unearthed and just like the UFO / abduction experience, they will come full circle. I think Daniel would agree that it is our choice how to confront these anomalies, for as we all know, possibility is determined by scope. Get beyond the playground and suddenly the big toy seems little.

I will elaborate on any point if need be.

[ February 16, 2006, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Agape_negates_fear ]

nanouk

02-09-2006, 12:14 AM

Dear Swami, i would like to reflect upon some of your thoughts on this board...

The Mayans were certainly MORE interested in their own demise than that of some white westerners hundreds of years hence.

...more like 26 000 years...when we were all agreeing to be from the same Mother. The great cycle is coming to an end in 2012, and coincides with a full 'lap' of the Milky Way, when the sun enters the dark rift yet again.
http://www.geocities.com/quantum_reality2003/quantu19.jpg

Yet you still have enough ego-attachment to an idea so as to lash out at a stranger without knowing a thing about him. Is that what you would call an advanced spiritual point of view?

i do not believe anyone has said he or she are more advanced spiritually than yourself, who admits you have been around the block, and therefore knows better. Have you heard the expression "The more i know, the less i know."?

may i ask, do you consider yourself 'spiritual'?

Wow! My first personal attack here. How utterly quaint and 'predictable'. Can you not respond to my points instead of doing some fallacious mind-reading?

we have all posted, and have all been confronted, at one time or another, doesn't mean that we in any way feel 'rejected', this is not a school playground, this is a forum where, in the past(as well as presently), some really very interesting people have put forward their thoughts, experiences, ideas and theories.
if you go back more than 45 days in each category, even longer than a year, i am sure you will have a good read, and you will also see that there is plenty of debate.

prophecy is more like intuition, and prediction of cause and effect, a prophet speaks in symbols, because they are accessible to all of mankind, (well almost).

from Daniel's transmission:

My "doctrine" is not transcendent, but immanent. It is not "somewhere out there." It is here and now. The task of human existence is to transform the Earth, to reconcile spirit and matter in this realm. We go deeper into the physical to reach the infinite. As there are no conceivable limits to this task, God, in His greatness, has granted us a project that is without limit and without end.

...say no more... ;)

Love and Respect,
~n~

[ February 09, 2006, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: nanouk ]

willoweyes

02-09-2006, 04:48 AM

Beautiful post Nanouk. You put the cap on that dance most gracefully.

Icelander

02-10-2006, 05:56 PM

Well, I've lived long enough to hear this all before, and then again. I have to agree with this Swami guy.

There of course is no way to know for sure what the future will bring but if the past is any indication then it will be more of the same.

Eagle Wing

02-15-2006, 05:58 AM

as far as the 2012 thing being an "actual event", there are some things to consider --

for one, the Sun doesn't "enter the dark rift of the milky way" at that time, as many have suggested.
what is happening is that during this time period, on the date of the winter solstice, the sun is roughly aligned towards the center of the galaxy. This phenomena is not specific to, or even most exact on, the winter solstice of 2012. In fact, it was most exact in 1998. The precessional shift is so slow as to argue for a full 72 year period during which the solstice-galactic alignment is in effect, so THIS IS IT.... NOW... we are ALREADY experiencing the celestial target of the Mayan end-date.
I do think that the Mayans were looking at this alignment event as the end-date of their calendar. It is a significant benchmark of the 26,000 year cycle.
For some excellent information on this, I recommend John Major Jenkins' book, "Maya Cosmogenesis 2012."

But the more important point is one on which I tend to agree with Daniel and Nanouk. What makes the 2012 thing powerful is that so many people are geared to it right now. The power of belief is strong... perhaps stronger than many or all of the physical powers.
There is also a convergence of prophecies associated with this. Go back and check out the studies of the pyramidologists like Rutherford and Lemesurier, who found this time period encoded in the Pyramid of Cheops. Or the Lakota prohecy of the White Buffalo calf, or the many Hopi prophecies. Combine these with the popular fixation on the "end times" in this time period. Look at the real-world confirmations of the evangelical christian interpretations of the book of Revelation -- such as the war in the Iraq. Call it "self-fulfilling" if you will... I think all prophecy that comes true in any way is indeed SELF-fulfilling. People make choices based on their beliefs. People also have psychic and spiritual bodies that are energized by the gravities of their soul... thus the "urge" of this time period is something that must be reckoned with.
Same old shit, different toilet yes...
but if everyone takes a great big shit at the same time and the toilet overflows then you can have an unusual or even paradigm-altering situation.
I don't fall for the rhetoric that things are "always the same"... this is just not true. The only constant is change...
sometimes change happens in a catastrophic way, big information comes in breakthroughs, a dormant volcano does not erupt gradually.
These are all psychic realities to take into serious consideration when we talk about the expectations that are being generated around this whole 2012 and apocalypse thing.

At least, it must be obvious that the christians awaiting the rapture are on the same wavelength as those who are vibing on 2012?
One group may seek transcendence and the other an immanent self-realization... but the soul's yearning for transformation, expressed collectively and physically, it what is important here. And, there is definitely the real possibility that both might get exactly what they desire.

Agape_negates_fear

02-15-2006, 10:40 AM

One group may seek transcendence and the other an immanent self-realization... but the soul's yearning for transformation, expressed collectively and physically, it what is important here. And, there is definitely the real possibility that both might get exactly what they desire.[/QB]And maybe more than what they desire! Yikes.

goldenapple

02-26-2006, 08:26 AM

Daniel, dude --- !

Sorry to have to say this, but it would seem that the spirit of Coyote, not yage, got ahold of you this time around. These channeled masters, or spirits, or whatever, all seem to have one of two messages: 1) the New Age (newage to the more widely read) is coming but The Chosen (you know who you are by virtue of seeing the True Way) shall not perish; and b) you are god, you are magnificant, you are beautiful, you are god. Puh-leeeeze!

That the world is going to change should come as no revelation to those who are aware of previous periodic global upheavals and/or the current mess of global warming. I should be Ever so much more impressed if these messages were to give genuinely useful and verifiable information such as a cure for cancer, or even what the hell Did ever happen to Judge Crater? [Okay, I know that's not really verifiable, but it would at least pretend to offer something factual.]

Before the weight of the responsibility of writing about this, erm, revelation crushes you entirely, might I most humbly suggest a perusal of The Mothman Prophecies or Colin Wilson's Poltergeist? or even a copy of that most ludicrous of publications, Sedona?

goldenapple

Thus spake the prophet Jacariah: "Let him be joked who cannot take a f***."

willoweyes

02-26-2006, 08:47 AM

When you look into the future and all you see is ultimate burning sacrifice for the good of your Tribe. . . .well you get through that however youcan.

Let's take this to the next level. You can fly now babies. If you just risk all.

goldenapple

02-26-2006, 11:49 AM

I'm sorry, Willoweyes, but is that supposed to mean something?

Perplexedly,
goldenapple

Thus spake the prophet Jacariah: "Let him be joked who cannot take a f***."

willoweyes

02-27-2006, 09:19 AM

Goldenapple, what I was trying to say, in my usual oblique fashion, is that the "job" of the shaman is to face death--to enter the realm of death, to intercede within the realm of death-- for the balance of his/her tribe. (It's pretty well accepted everywhere that someone has to perform this task). The problem with this for the shaman, is that sometimes the heart-the courage goes out of one, when he is faced with the sort of risks this entails.

Do you understand? It's a balancing act, a tightrope walk.

Is that is why we are all fascinated with supreme displays of balance?

But the shaman who begins to need a good stiff drink before he can face the highwire--he's heading for a fall.

goldenapple

02-27-2006, 01:47 PM

Willoweyes,

Hmmmmmm...to the best of my recollection, I don't remember asking anyone (including J.C.) to sacrifice him/herself for me. So in all earnestness I say, "Get off the cross, we need the fucking lumber!" [We shall leave the matter of whether or not one can be a "shaman" divorced from indigenous culture(s) to the side for the nonce.]

As to the matter of the crushing burden --- I don't care if a guy most sincerely believes it's golden nectar from heaven, I still take exception to him pissing down my neck and trying to tell me it's raining. Let me try putting it another way: The whole "revelation" (including that gawdawful birthday reference) is so hackneyed and grandiose it's hard to believe anyone would take it seriously...hence the allusions to Coyote and the books.

goldenapple

Thus spake the prophet Jacariah:"Let him be joked who cannot take a f***."

Humming

02-27-2006, 02:21 PM

"These channeled masters, or spirits, or whatever, all seem to have one of two messages: 1) the New Age (newage to the more widely read) is coming but The Chosen (you know who you are by virtue of seeing the True Way) shall not perish; and b) you are god, you are magnificant, you are beautiful, you are god. Puh-leeeeze!"

goldenapples, the New Age is here. No one needs to perish for that to happen. There are no chosen; we are all "chosen" by virtue of our existence.

As for the statement about god, are you saying that you yourself are not magnificant and beautiful, and do not emanate from the same wellspring of creation that all life does?

Maybe you should look again and see...

Your implication that there is nothing factual in Daniel's book is absurd: the bibliography is almost five pages long.

Instead of dismissing the whole of the material because of your own laziness and protection of your ignorance, why don't you read it and engage the concepts in it? Why not post your thoughts about some of the content and your reactions to the ideas, rather than railing against the possibility that his revalation is genuine or the literal specifics of what "actually happened"?

Dialoguing and engaging with the concepts is much more useful to yourself and everyone else than a literal, unimaginative interpretation of a story.

[ February 27, 2006, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Humming ]

sidecross

02-27-2006, 02:40 PM

“I still take exception to him pissing down my neck and trying to tell me it's raining.”

A great line; reminds me of an old Yiddish refrain.

silentwolf

02-27-2006, 06:08 PM

I think I sort of share goldenapple's opinion of this; it's like telling everyone you're going to the Hopi to receive the prophecy directly from them to veil your true intention of going to take their "Pahana Test," and then simply not saying anything about that reason just so you're not publicly making a fool of yourself...

hehehehehehe, I know of someone who did just that and was sorely disappointed; in fact, I think a lot of us do.

goldenapple

02-28-2006, 01:33 PM

Sidecross,

Thanks. Gives rather a vivid picture, eh? If I've not yet been taken by senior moments, I was told by the one from whom I first heard it that it's from a Clint Eastwood movie. Delicious, non? [And what is that refrain, if I may be so bold?]

SilentWolf,

Just goes to show you never know... [I had an anecdote and a joking offer to insert here, but further reflection led me to think they might lead to a lawsuit, or worse. Maybe next time.]

Humming,

Actually, I'm a middle aged woman with bad knees. As for being a goddess? Well, I have my moments. The problem is in one believing in the specialness of his/her situation/status/whatever. That way lies madness, and I'm not speaking figuratively here. Not only have I been around long enough to have seen more than enough of the formulaic "revelations" such as the one that opened this thread (sorry to have to say it, but when you've seen a dozen or more you've seen 'em all), but also to have witnessed some rather remarkable crash-and-burns from what one might call engagement with other realms combined with a galloping lack of self-examination. 'Nuff said about that.

As for the book: I never said anything about it in toto, but referenced only the passage Daniel posted. And no, I won't read it. I can see and smell it from here; why should I step in it too? I have much tastier items on my reading menu...

Cordially to all,
goldenapple

"Thus spake the prophet Jacariah: "Let him be joked who cannot take a f***."

[ February 28, 2006, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: goldenapple ]

sidecross

02-28-2006, 02:37 PM

goldenapple

The English translation of the Yiddish saying was not as good as yours goldenapple or Clint Eastwood’s, but to the best of my recollection it was ‘you can't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.’

willoweyes

02-28-2006, 03:06 PM

goldenapple: I credit you with something worth responding to; but as another with worn=out knees, I wonder, what is better on your reading
Menue,and then i sing to you a line by Brother Bob: "If you can read my mind, then why must i speak?"

daniel

02-28-2006, 03:16 PM

i think of this poem often. I hope some of you find it clarifying.

THE LEADERS OF THE CROWD

They must to keep their certainty accuse
All that are different of a base intent;
Pull down established honour; hawk for news
Whatever their loose fantasy invent
And murmur it with bated breath, as though
The abounding gutter had been Helicon
Or calumny a song. How can they know
Truth flourishes where the student's lamp has shone,
And there alone, that have no solitude?
So the crowd come they care not what may come.
They have loud music, hope every day renewed
And heartier loves; that lamp is from the tomb.

-- WB Yeats

silentwolf

02-28-2006, 04:48 PM

I've always felt very remote, alien to most of those around me. I try not to look people in the eye too long because I can see it unsettles them, and the same for my presence. I do horribly in dealing with anyone other than family unless I'm on strictly business terms.

Honor to me isn't something awarded to you by others, it's a code of conduct you keep unto yourself, let death come before you bend or break it if it truly matters.

I've always felt at odds with the world, forced to participate in an absurd and disgusting game if I am to live. This is the source of my pain, that I am a slave and I cannot break it on my own without unravelling the mysteries of existence and discovering the laws that bind us together, not pen-and-paper dictated by the masters, but the true laws of existence.

Whenever I meet someone of great charisma who is but a tool and a mouthpiece for the masters, especially in the guise of finding freedom, I balk, foam at the mouth, and seek to tear them down with an ardent ferver by the most potent weapon at my disposal - a description of my observations.

My spirit may be pained and weary, but I will overcome, and not to be a leader of men. I am not a social creature. I find them despicable, constantly on the lookout for treachery because this is all they know - the social climb and upholding of status is not for those who consider themselves honorable in their own sight, and care little for the opinion of other men.

Amazing how someone so insignificant can strike to your very core and unsettle you in a way that you do not know how to deal with, aye? This is a good unsettling, and it is a bad unsettling. You will either become more calloused by it, or more sensitive, but change you shall! That is unavoidable.

silentwolf

02-28-2006, 04:52 PM

By the way, nice play at subtlety, but your kung fu is no match for mine; I care for nothing but the end goal, sacrifice of self is not a deterrant. You are guarded and unclear on your goal.

*edit*- lol...and if you recall, I'm the one who goaded you into going to the Hopi for the test anyways. You are NOT Pahana, though you would gladly play the role. I did save those emails.

[ February 28, 2006, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: silentwolfxvx ]

daniel

03-02-2006, 05:37 AM

foam away...

silentwolf

03-02-2006, 07:03 AM

lol, you're the one who told me that you wanted to be Pahana, yet you're too obtuse to heed the warnings in the prophecy you wish to fulfill.

Ashes on the sidewalk, bub; it's your destiny.

sidecross

03-02-2006, 08:18 AM

Alan Watts described such states when talking of Zen as, “Zen Stink”.

Everyone on this board has farted; ‘Zen Stink’ has no discrimination.

[ March 02, 2006, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: sidecross ]

silentwolf

03-02-2006, 08:26 AM

What exactly is the dimensional shift?

I've been pondering that, and the likelihood of a massive change in consciousness...the idea that most people seem to put forth on it is that we will all become transcendent of our ego, and we will live in harmony with the earth and nature.

Imagine, all humans everywhere at once, forgetting themselves, their emotions, their petty squabbles and pilfering tendencies. Imagine massive herds of people migrating from the cities, trying to find land that is not paved over where it is possible to forage for food...and millions dying because of the concrete jungle, and as man's technological marvels cease to function from no longer being operated, or go haywire. Imagine an event so intense that it does not bury our knowledge of self, but simply eradicates it.

It is a gruesome idea, to me; the mental idea and impact of a dimensional shift in consciousness.

I do not doubt that disaster approaches us with frightening speed. I feel that in 2008, an order of control will openly be imposed, as the trap laid by those who would be masters clasps shut upon us. I fear that this land, America, will be burned and razed as a part of this; I will no longer have these few forests left to gaze upon or walk through, let alone live in.

I have prepared myself as much as I possibly can to the end of survival through this period - what truly motivates me, I cannot say, but I know it must be done. Farming techniques, herbal medicines, and folk magic will be absolute requirements for survival through the devastation I smell in the wind.

The Mayan Calender and the various prophecies have nothing to do with my feelings that this is where we're headed. Studying history and watching our current-day events unfold has. Be it as it may, I may simply be paranoid (which I am, but not without just cause, but that is neither here nor there and neither is the physical evidence of that justification any business of yours,) and I have not considered myself sane for a long time. You cannot see the things that I see on a normal basis and count yourself among the sane and regular folk.

I am eager for comraderie from those who also would live the simple life, denuded of the complex absurdities that we are bound in today. I don't seek recognition from others about my ability, though it does make me feel happy, it also embarasses me. The best compliment I can be given is for someone to ask me for help or ask me to show them how to do something they saw or knew that I know how to do.

I've been coming down really hard on Daniel here lately. I can see him doing nothing more than taking advantage of a superstition to gain recognition, glory, and resources from all those who look up to him. I see him walking in the footprints of others only, using their work to his own benefit. Daniel, your words and your actions contradict themselves. If you truly cared for the environment, you would not live in the concrete jungle. If you truly cared for the consciousness of others, you would actively encourage meditation (an area in which you are severely lacking yourself, I might add.) If you were truly of the opinion that entheogens were the vehicles for spiritual enlightenment and insight, you would be actively defending the right of religious use.

The truth is, you have yet to experience an intense struggle of any type, and your life has always been financially blessed and pampered. You expect it to continue the same way.

I cannot give proper advice on the future because I cannot see what is coming. I wish I had the power to change things, and I work towards that power, but I do not have it. I can only see what is going on in this moment, and sometimes even then I do not clearly translate it or I miss out on details.

All I can say is that you must do what you feel is right; only then can a man maintain his honor.

silentwolf

03-02-2006, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Manning:

Something I've noticed in my own experience, the experience of others, and my research into spontaneous visionary states [particularly those described by John Weir Perry] is that somewhere in that experience, one will tend to self-identify with a "religious/spiritual" icon -- Jesus, Buddha, Mary, Sophia, etc. During these moments, when the ego boundaries have been breached or completely shattered, the self-identification is complete. That is to say, in those moments you are that because there are no barriers present to separate the I from the Thou.[/QB]I know what you mean, Manning. I go into these states sometimes when I'm writing or talking about something important where I feel like this voice comes up from the pit of my stomach - I feel like when I look back on it, that's the true me, the deep subconscious talking.

In fact, nearly my entire book was written from that voice. I suppose that's why Daniel said he thought it was channeled.

Another funny thing is when that voice arises (I call upon it when I want to be sure that what I'm on about is right) my vision gets all hazy and I feel a physical surge of power going through me. It's difficult to describe...and I'm sure I look pretty frightening when I use it, because people tend to look both enthralled and apalled when I speak from that point.

Now it's true that I do want to impress people, but only by helping them and impress them into helping other people. I get really vicious when I feel that someone is trying to take advantage of someone else. I'm honor-bound to protect those who don't know any better or who cannot protect themselves.

By the way...my last post was written from my stomach, and this one was written from my head.

whitewave

03-02-2006, 08:59 AM

Silentwolf,
I like when you write from your stomach. When your words come from this place they express a vulnerability that allows me to connect with you on an empathetic level. Thank you for making yourself vulnerable to speak from this authentic place. For me, this is the only kind of conversation that matters, which is why I so often relate instances of my personal life here, and in my other writing--not to confess, but to make myself vulnerable to others so that we can see beyond the societal constructs which keep us from union with each other, and most importantly, from union with ourselves. For those interested in developing a deep mind-body connection in their writing, I recommend a book called "Journey From the Center to the Page," by Jeff Davis. The book is about developing a writing practice based on yoga. I have taken classes with him that have enabled me to go much deeper into my "stomach" as a writer.

Gift Horse

03-02-2006, 01:32 PM

i love Alan Watts

sidecross

03-02-2006, 01:34 PM

My interpretation of Watts term “Zen Stink” is not what you think or say but how you think or say it.

Watts would often quote D. T. Suzuki on satori by saying and I paraphrase, ‘satori is like fart you do not plan it or think about it’.

So you could say a ‘fart stinks’ only in its context. A fart that slips out in company of others is usually ignored; a fart done on purpose stinks because of its intention.

The term ‘Zen Stink’ is used in the context of a proclaiming of a ‘great truth’. A ‘great truth’ it may very well be, but as Watts would say to proclaim it is what makes it stink.

It is a subtle distinction to some and a very smelly one to others; you can take your pick.

goldenapple

03-02-2006, 02:14 PM

Willoweyes;

Books? A few, and in no particular order:

Vibrational Medicine / Gerber
Acupressure's Potent Points / Reed
Eastern Body, Western Mind / Judith
Astrology, Karma, and Transformation / Arroyo
The Compleat Astologer / Parker & Parker
Ancient Secret of the Fountain of Youth / Kelder
The Medicine Wheel Garden / Kavasch
Modern Magic / Kraig
Jambalaya / Teish
Primitive Mythology / Campbell
Wheels of Light / Bruyere
Quantum-Touch / Gordon
Hands of Light / Brennan
The Annals of Imperial Rome / Tacitus
Encyclopedia of Magical Herbs / Cunningham
The Encyclopedia of Essential Oils / Lawless
Poltergeist / Wilson
Soul Retrieval / Ingerman
? Annals / Tacitus
The Velveteen Rabbit / ?
Autobiography of a Yogi / Yogananda
The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying / Sogyal Rinpoche

As for mind reading? Gave up any pretense of it years ago, as I was remarkably bad at it... ROFLMAO

goldenapple

Thus spake the prophet Jacariah: "Let him be joked who cannot take a f***."

goldenapple

03-02-2006, 02:29 PM

Sidecross,

A fart is empty.

You are quite right about the Zen stink matter, but only in context. Where mysticism is involved, it's irrelevant, at least as far as vehicle. I bet there's a whole other ordeal involved as to whether or not they wind up at substantively the same place.

On a side note, quasi-interesting to observe that the meditative traditions of Catholicism, Zen, and Tibetan Buddhism all keep a very close eye on the students, lest they mistake farts for roses.

Goldenapple

Thus spake the prophet Jacariah: "Let him be joked who cannot take a f***."

goldenapple

03-02-2006, 02:31 PM

Daniel,

I understand there's a good market for construction materials a bit south of here...

goldenapple

Thus spake the prophet Jacariah: "Let him be joked who cannot take a f***."

Douglas

03-06-2006, 03:33 PM

Okay, I have returned. Now, where was I?

Douglas

03-12-2006, 07:41 AM

Is no one impressed by my return? Was it not preceded by a suitably mysterious absence? Was it not accompanied by a sufficiently dramatic entrance? I'm new at dramatic, impressive returns, so I'm not sure what people expect.

Eagle Wing

03-12-2006, 09:26 PM

hi Doug,
i remember you.
did you read Teresa of Avila?

"The Flowing Light of Divinity" -- Mechtilde of Magdeburg

[ March 12, 2006, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Eagle Wing ]

Douglas

03-13-2006, 11:31 AM

Eagle Wing,

Hello. (I prefer to be called "Douglas", by the way ["Doug" sounds too much like "ugh"].)

Did I read "Teresa of Avila"? No, and I don't think I've ever even met her, actually.

What's happened with Daniel and friends from this thread? I haven't had time to read the more recent posts here. Did you read my account of my "vision"?

Eagle Wing

03-13-2006, 02:54 PM

uh, yes Douglas I went back and re-read our exchange on pages 11-13 of this thread.
I don't think you could have met Teresa unless you lived during the 13th century smile.gif
I just thought you might be interested in her or Mechtilde, since our previous conversation was about voices, the immament experience of God, and mystical Christianity in particular --
anyway, their experiences might help shed light on your own

peace

landscapes

03-13-2006, 07:57 PM

Eagle Wing,

Teresa of Avila lived from 1515 to 1582, thus in the 16th , not the 13th century: very different historical periods, very different spiritual contexts...

Respectfully,
landscaping

Isaiah Mpski

03-14-2006, 04:58 AM

"In the beginning"was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God.

I am the first and the last,the last and the first.King of Kings.Lord of Lairds.
Old pond,new frog.Old frog,new pond.Splash.

Mpski

Eagle Wing

03-14-2006, 10:41 AM

hi landscapes,
thanks for the correction.

Douglas

03-14-2006, 10:50 AM

"Lord of Lairds"? Jesus the Frog-Prince? Now I'm confused (but intrigued).

Anyway, I do find it interesting how people can so readily take it upon themselves to reinterpret what Jesus said and meant. It is far more fair-minded, and intellectually honest, to simply disagree with Jesus and His teachings than to try to twist them into something He did not say or teach, simply in order to claim Jesus would not disagree with one's views. For instance, the claims that "Christ" was not a specific title for a specific individual (namely, Jesus), but rather is a "higher consciousness" attainable by all. For another example, claiming that Jesus did not claim to be God, and that the Bible does not claim that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. If one disagrees with those teachings, so be it - just don't go around trying to twist things to make it seem as though Jesus taught that we can all be gods, or that we can all attain "Christ-consciousness". Because He by no means taught those things.

Of course, one can always resort to the tactic of claiming the Bible does not accurately represent Jesus' teachings. But if so, what other source should we trust? Why should we not trust the New Testament, written by His hand-picked disciples? Was He such as poor discerner of hearts, or such a poor teacher, that He screwed up in choosing and training His disciples? Was He unable to convey to them His spiritual truths over a period of over three years of close acquaintance and daily fellowship? If so, He certainly wasn't much of a teacher, or He greatly lacked discernment of hearts. In which case, there is no reason to think one should follow Him, if He was that ineffectual and incompetent in issues so important to His mission (of conveying some "spiritual truth").

Basically, regarding Jesus: take Him or leave Him, but don't misrepresent Him.

Isaiah Mpski

03-14-2006, 02:41 PM

Well taking it a bit farther,the verse you quote was written as the last verse in Revelation.The verse I quoted was the first sentence in another Book that He,the beloved disciple,wrote.
If you will read Revelation a bit more you will find reference to frogs and a man that only he knows his name.
My point is that despite Jesus' love and understanding of His disciples I'm sure they did not type out their stories in chapt and verse form so therin lies a bit of mystery.
I think that if you really study it,it has alot to do with the number 26,and I refer you to verses John 14:26,15:26,16:13 and of course there are 26 books in the New Testsment,52 books in the Bible,26 letters in the alphabet and a few other interesting connections.
Jesus always said he would send another who would remind us of Him,teach us of things to come,and straighten out some things that were wrong since the beginning.
Jesus referred to Him as the Comfortor,the Advocate,the Paraclete,all of which titles Mohammed took for himself and thus leading to the war between true Christianity and Islam.
The modern Christian Church has managed to turn these teachings about the final Messiah into a superego type state which of course puts money into their pockets by denying the Holy Ghost is an extension of Christ just as the Dali Lama is an extension of the Buddha.
Jesus always proclaimed himself to be the Son of Man and outwardly said near about 33AD,projecting to his role and birth in the future,
"Woman,what do I have to do with thee,my time has not yet come(as the Son of Woman).
My reference to him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords is simply words mentioned in revelation and whch I have had tattoed on my thigh for 26 years now.
I think Jesus' last words on the cross are most prophetic.
Looking at His Mother he said,
"Woman,behold thy Son"
and then looking at the beloved disciple
"Son,behold thy Mother"
Giving us the name he would have when he came to set all things straight as the Son of Woman and introducing us to a new age of love and tolerance on earth.
John Son

Douglas

03-14-2006, 10:35 PM

Isaiah,

I think that if you really study it,it has alot to do with the number 26,and I refer you to verses John 14:26,15:26,16:13 and of course there are 26 books in the New Testsment,52 books in the Bible,26 letters in the alphabet and a few other interesting connections.No, there are 27 books in the New Testament, and 66 books in the Bible.

Isaiah Mpski

03-15-2006, 02:17 AM

No,26 Books in the New Testament and The Book of Revelation,for a total of 66 books -twice 6-
Revelation 19:26

willoweyes

03-15-2006, 06:31 AM

Great post Mpski. I would have just screamed and tore at my hair. And flung ashes in my eyes.

Douglas

03-15-2006, 05:17 PM

Isaiah Mpski,

No, 26 Books in the New Testament and The Book of Revelation,for a total of 66 books -twice 6....No, the Book of Revelation is part of the New Testament. You see, the Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Testaments plus the Book of Revelation. Sorry.

Besides, if there are only 26 books in the New Testament, but 66 total books in the Bible, you are left with 40, not 26, books in the Old Testament. Anyway you look at it, your analysis does not add up, I'm afraid.

[ March 15, 2006, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

Eagle Wing

03-15-2006, 09:34 PM

yes, Douglas,
here, as in life, many things do not add up.

Isaiah Mpski

03-20-2006, 07:38 AM

Yes,you brained idiot,douglas.
Forty(think about that number)+ 26=66 plus revelation which you should be noticing around you perhaps in relationship with the number 26.
Today,many years ago,after leaving Mexico,I stood atop my pyramid in Spiro Oklahoma and welcomed the rising sun.From here I controlled everything that happened.

Douglas

03-20-2006, 04:22 PM

Isaiah ("I'm on top of the world!") Mpski,

Yes,you brained idiot,douglas.I think you meant "pea-brained idiot".

Forty(think about that number)+ 26=66 plus revelation which you should be noticing around you perhaps in relationship with the number 26.That's amazing...40+26=66. Who would have thought? On the other hand, 39+27=66. And, even more striking, 33+33=66. I'd even bet there are other pairs of numbers which add to 66. Of course, none of this has anything to do, really, with the fact that there are 39 books in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament.

Now, I hate to take it upon myself to offer a correction to someone as clearly astute in Biblical knowledge as yourself, but I really must remind you that the Book of Revelation is part of the New Testament. One can't just willy-nilly pick and choose which of the 27 books which follow the Old Testament to include in the New Testament - the fact that none of them are part of the "Old" Testament pretty much leaves only the "New" Testament, given there is no "Middle Testament". Please pardon my impertinence in pointing this out.

Today,many years ago,after leaving Mexico,I stood atop my pyramid in Spiro Oklahoma and welcomed the rising sun.From here I controlled everything that happened."Hey, I meant to do that. It was a controlled fall." smile.gif

[ March 20, 2006, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

MidnightDreary

03-20-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Douglas:
One can't just willy-nilly pick and choose which of the 27 books which follow the Old Testament to include in the New Testament)Why not? The Catholic Church did.

Isaiah Mpski

03-21-2006, 03:55 AM

No Douglas,I meant brained idiot,similar to me,we are all brained idiots.Most of us greedy and unknowledgeable about karma. The mystery of karma is as big of a mystery as the size of the cosmos and when we think about it should humble us a bit.
You are right Douglas.There are 39 Books in the Old testament and I will concede that Revelation is part of that collection of 27 books of the New Testament for a total of 66 books which in a way is 2 times 6.
Despite that fact that I believe it is a Book that in part was meant to reawaken the Christo or Quetzalcoati or Buddha or whichever of the previous lives I have lived.
You are missing my main point though,which is that the designers of the Bible had purpose in the number 26 which I cited in my discussion about the Comforter,the Paraclete,the Holy Ghost who Christ promised to send.One who would remind us what he taught us and would teach us what was to come.Revelation was written to reawaken his unconscious soul and bring his head down out of the clouds so to speak.John 14:26,15:26.16:13.19:26.
Both Mohammed and the modern Christian Churches have perverted the true meaning of those scriptures to fit themselves.Mohammed by saying those verses prophesized about him,the modern Christion Church saying that the Holy Ghost is that which we psychiatrists call the super-ego.
As long as we are discussing numbers let me tell you about the number 666-and here is some wisdom.If you add them up you get nine which is 1 shy of 10,the perfect number.The all inclusive number.The first and the last,the beginning and the end and everything in between.
Christ always referred himself as "The Son of Man" and in a discussion with his Mother when she and others came to take him because they thought he had lost his mind,he replied to her,
"Woman what do I have to do with thee.My time has not yet come"
And then on the cross where he looks at the beloved Disciple John and says,
"Woman,behold thy son."
This is in reference to his next birth as the third person of the trinity-the Holy Ghost.The man who would usher in a new beginning,an age of love and understanding,compassion and care for all.The age of womankind.
There is alot more I would have to write to make you understand fully what I am saying but let me tell you this.If you will accept,just accept in your mind that my words could possibly be true,the more that you will see revealed around you in the coincidences that you experience.
To understand,you would have to understand the psyche of Christ and it's development from his youth and the time he spent with the mystical religious sect of the Qumran people,who,without a doubt believed in the transmigration of the soul.Which is where we are now.

[ March 21, 2006, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: Isaiah Mpski ]

Douglas

03-21-2006, 10:45 AM

MidnightDreary,

Why not? The Catholic Church did.That's a different issue. What your question addresses is how the Bible (the books of the Bible) were determined. What I am addressing is how many books are in what has already been determined - I am not here discussing whether or not those books should or should not be included. Given that they have been included, it is then illegitimate to "willy-nilly" claim "Oh, this or that book is not part of the New Testament". Rather, one should say, "This or that book should not have been included as part part of the New Testament". Different issues.

Douglas

03-21-2006, 10:46 AM

Isaiah Mpski,

You concede my point? Yayyyy! (Forgive my celebration - it's not often that I actually win a debating point in an Internet discussion.)

Anyway, I don't have time tonight to respond more fully to your recent post. I expect I won't have time until Thursday or Friday night. Please be patient.

Isaiah Mpski

03-21-2006, 12:54 PM

Would you like to see a picture of me and my black cat?
From Spiro I could follow the rivers into the ocean,through the Caribbean seas to South America and then ride a horse back through Mexico and into where I came from.
You know ,Daniel,in a way you are pissing on me.
You are rejecting Q. Parker's importance in everything.
He lived to be 150.His father 200 and His GrandFather at least 200.Do you think the government wants you to know that Or I shuold I say the big oil companies, for Q. Parker's land included all the great oil and gas fields of Texas,Oklahoma.N.Mexico,Kanas and maybe Colorado.

Douglas

03-31-2006, 06:05 PM

daniel,
Douglas wrote: "He was, is, and always will be God, and none of us ever will be."

I just don't see this, and consider the truth to be the opposite. Doesn't he talk about his followers being able to do all that he could do and much more? Doesn't he specifically say we are all "of the father"?Yes, Jesus speaks of His followers being able to do all that He did, and more (He does not say "much" more, though, I'm pretty sure). But He points out that this is because they will be empowered just as He was, by the Holy Spirit. Jesus performed His earthly ministry not in His Own power as God, but in the power of the Holy Spirit, as a man. He taught that His followers would receive "power" when He had sent the Holy Spirit to them (which occurred on the Day of Pentecost, after His resurrection). And, yes, He did say that all those who were/are believers are "of the Father", meaning such are accepted by the Father, partakers of His Spirit, and possessors of His promises to those who are His. But this does not include those who do not accept and follow Jesus (and accepting and following Jesus, according to the Bible, involves repentance of sin, acknowledging one's need for forgiveness, and acceptance of Jesus' death as payment for one's sins).

douglas writes: "The Bible testifies that He so loved us, even while we were in our sins, that He gave His life in our place, so that, if we would accept His sacrifice in our stead, we could have eternal life."

I don't think accepting his sacrifice is the ultimate point of Christ's mission, and I do not think that in itself will bring us "eternal life."You are, of course, free to think that. But you should acknowledge that your thinking regarding this has no support at all from the source of information regarding Jesus - namely, the Bible. If the Bible is accurate, your thinking in this is incorrect; if your thinking in this is correct, then the Bible is quite inaccurate, in which case there would be no real reason to trust anything it said regarding Jesus.

I think Christ is showing us a path to follow, not simply trying to enforce some belief.Jesus never tried to "enforce" a belief. But He did teach that truth and justice required particular beliefs (for an example, that God exists, is just, and is trustworthy). Note that John the Baptist clearly and explicitly said that Jesus was the "Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world", and that Jesus acknowledged John's greatness as a prophet, and implied John's preaching was correct. Jesus also said that His death was to be a "sacrifice", and in the Jewish context, this meant His death wasn't merely going to be an "example" for us to follow. His death was for "the remission of sins" - He died so that God could be merciful without compromising His (God's) justice.

He is showing us that the right path involves service and sacrifice for the benefit of all humanity. I also believe that is why the mission of Christ is neglected by wealthy New Agers, who find yoga, raw food, and self-satisfied chanting about exotic Hindu gods to be much easier. In the same way, I do not think passive belief or church-going counts for much.Yes, Jesus encouraged self-sacrifice, service, and benefitting others. But none of that negates His clear and primary mission - to die for the sins of the world.

"It's all very easy to understand, and very easy to access - but those 'lying spirits' I have referred to have hate in their hearts for God, for Jesus, and for those God and Jesus love, and so they lie to people, seeking to separate them from life."

Once again, I find this language to be opposed to my perspective as it reifies all sorts of dualistic conceptions, and simplifies a complex situation.The situation is not as complex as you think. Plus, the essential reality is "dualistic" - good or evil, obedience or disobedience, faith or unbelief, truth or untruth. Again, daniel, I ask you if there are people in this life who lie, steal, and kill; and, if there might therefore not be spirits who essentially do the same. Do you not recall how you felt initially during the "transmission" you received?

As Buddhism notes, there are ultimately no real entities - every entity only possesses relative reality, including ourselves."Relative reality"? Should I trust the pronouncements of unreal, or relatively unreal, entities?

Therefore I would see evil "spirits" as relatively real but also as dissociated aspects or projections of our own psyche.Why would they be both? Am I myself partially just a projection of your psyche, perhaps a hidden "fundamentalist" aspect which is now finding a bit of Internet expression? Or am I me, independent of you and your psyche? Why should "evil spirits" be any different?

I do not put "God" away somewhere in a transcendent domain, but agree with Blake that "God only acts & is in existing beings and men."Why do you put God in a box by denying His reality independent of human and other beings? Why could not His reality be just as our own - an existence which, in its essence, does not depend on other beings. (Note that in my view, in actuality all beings [other than God] depend upon God for their existence, but not upon any "non-God" beings.)

The idea that there are those that Jesus "loves" suggests that there are also those he doesn't love, which returns us to that primitive warlord mentality of old-time religion, dividing and fomenting discord and hate.Jesus is willing, desiring, to be in fellowship with ALL humans. But as a gentleman, and as God, He grants each individual the freedom to choose whether to be in fellowship with Himself or not. No one can force "love", or even friendship, in a relationship - it must come about freely, else it is not genuine. But Jesus is also judge, and hates sin - those who choose to remain in sin, to reject Jesus and truth, the offer of forgiveness, will be judged.

Douglas, perhaps you should study the Buddhist conception of boddhichita, and develop universal compassion, as well as an awareness of the essential unity of all beings.The only "essential unity of all beings" is that all beings (other than God) are created by God, and "live and move and have our being in God". Not all beings are, for example, created "in the image of God"; not all beings stand in the truth (some foment hate, and promote lies). Are some things true, and some things untrue, daniel? If you disagree with my views, are you not essentially proclaiming an "objective" truth regarding the issues on which I've expressed my views - if you're right, and I'm wrong, about these things, who decides? Could we both be equally right, at the same time and about the same issue, if our views contradict each other?

From my reading of the gospel texts, that was Christ's position as well.Jesus said, "'All who ever came before Me are are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them." (John 10:8). That doesn't sound to me as though Jesus was endorsing the sort of "non-judgmental" attitude regarding beliefs and spiritual teachers that you seem to espouse. "All who ever came before" Jesus would include Buddha, of course. (And, Jesus in this context is clearly referring to individuals who had come before Him who claimed to be "saviors" or "spiritual masters" of some kind - He obviously wasn't referring to "all" people.)

One more thing: One element of the Gospel narratives that, for me, speaks deeply in their favor as historical truth, is the parables that Jesus spoke. The parables are like the stories that Walter Benjamin discussed, seeds of grain that can remain fertile for thousands of years, waiting to find the proper "Ears to hear." It is very obvious in the Gospel of Thomas especially that almost none of the followers has the slightest clue what he is talking about half the time - but when we utilize our present-day understanding of quantum physics (the domain of space-timelessness, etc), the meaning can become perfectly clear.The Gospel of Thomas was a Gnostic-inspired work, and illegitimate. It is a lie, and should not be trusted. If Jesus contradicts Himself in some teachings, He is not a trustworthy spiritual teacher. If the Gospel of Thomas is true, then the Gospels are not.

The parables in the Gospels were all explained by Jesus, but not publicly. His explanations to His disciples were, however, recorded in the Gospels. Also, I myself have discovered several "deeper" meanings to some of the events of Jesus' ministry - for example, the significance of the numbers fed miraculously (4000 and 5000), and the significance of the food remaining (7 baskets, and 12 baskets ). But these "deeper" meanings do not [i]contradict the more "obvious" truths taught in the Bible - rather, they actually strengthen them.

It seems to me that these parables especially were meant for our time.Perhaps. I would agree that God is revealing more in these days, as the time grows short. In my own case, I believe God has shown me three "typologies" in the Bible which no one else has apparently ever seen (I could be wrong) - one deals with Samson being a "type" of Israel in the "Last Days"; another explains why God included the "story" of Eldad and Medad in the Old Testament (Numbers 11); and another shows that some of the events of Jesus' life from the end of the Upper Room experience to His arrest foreshadow the 7-year Tribulation. (I have also found the length of Jesus' life [and death] incorporated quite specifically in mathematics and Nature, in the form of two equations.) (By the way, I always keep in mind the verse from Paul which says "though I have all knowledge, but have not love, it profits me nothing". I find the greatest spiritual strength when I pursue humility.) At the time of the End, both God and Satan will be working hard to get their respective messages out.

One quick question for you, daniel: Is it possible that you are deceived?

snow

04-01-2006, 01:51 AM

The Budhha's vision penetrated to the root of dependant origination. He saw 'the maker of the house'. He then spent years expalining this, in plain language, to those who cared to listen. These teachings are still available, to those who care to read, and these teachings are not obfuscated or distorted by delusional mystics with political and worldly agendas. The teachings remain, for those who seek sincere relief from this chain of sickness, death and sorrow.

To those who have not experienced sickness, death and sorrow, congratualtions. To those who have experienced these, in spades, you have my hearffelt compassion, and wish for your peace and release, for yourselves, and all you love.

If Jesus did indeed offer himself as a sacrifce for all of humanity, seeing the nature of the pack he was in with, my respect to him for his supreme sacrifice.

Douglas

04-01-2006, 02:42 AM

snow,

If Jesus did indeed offer himself as a sacrifice for all of humanity, seeing the nature of the pack he was in with, my respect to him for his supreme sacrifice.Yes, He did. At least, according to the Bible. Now, if He was a "spiritual master", and truthful, then "all others who came before" Him, according to He Himself, were "thieves and robbers". And this would have included Buddha. According to Jesus, all who had come before Him (those claiming to be "spiritual masters", or "saviors", or "spiritually enlightened" and having "the way of 'salvation'") were deceivers and untrue.

Buddha did not give his life for sinners, nor for his enemies, nor even for his friends. In fact, Buddha did not sacrifice his life at all. Buddha's message is one of "disengagement"; Jesus' message is one of absolute "engagement", and overcoming. Buddha's message says life is an illusion; Jesus' message says life is not an illusion, and the good and evil we see and experience are real. Jesus confronts evil on its own terms, rather than denying it away, contrary to reality.

daniel

04-01-2006, 01:30 PM

Hi Douglas,

My perspective (or hypothesis) is not that you are a projection of my psyche, or vice versa. It is that ultimately there is one consciousness, and this consciousness takes a myriad of perspectives in order to experience itself as individuated identity.

I think it is absurd to take the Bible as some absolute text of spiritual authority. The Bible as a book had a contentious history, where different pieces were removed and added in order to fit an evolving doctrine that eventually led to the abomination of the Catholicism, the Crusades, etc.

I do believe that Christ accomplished a spiritual deed that changed the nature of human evolution - following my own intellectual trajectory, I support some ideas from Rudolf Steiner and Gurdjieff (see JG Bennett's The Masters of Wisdom). When you go on about Biblical authority, you sound undifferentiated from a Muslim proclaiming the absolute truth of the Quran, or anyone else proclaiming they have The Answer because it is written in their Holy Book.

As I have written elsewhere, I don't think there is a singular "Truth." I take the Nietzschen perspective that truth is more like a system of values, the way a painter uses values in a painting. This means that truth has an aesthetic dimension to it - and also what is more truthful will better fit our percepts as well as what we have received as "history." In a sense, the best story wins.

You write: "Buddha did not give his life for sinners, nor for his enemies, nor even for his friends. In fact, Buddha did not sacrifice his life at all. Buddha's message is one of "disengagement"; Jesus' message is one of absolute "engagement", and overcoming. Buddha's message says life is an illusion; Jesus' message says life is not an illusion, and the good and evil we see and experience are real. Jesus confronts evil on its own terms, rather than denying it away, contrary to reality."

I agree with this to a great extent - I don't think it is necessary to denigrate the Buddha to make this point, however. Steiner also proposes that the deed of self-sacrifice performed by the Christ was an evolutionary step beyond the act that the Buddha performed, which was also an extraordinary and profound achievement for humanity.

Christ's act required absolute certainty of the existence of the transcendent domain, therefore in a sense you could say he recognized this life as an illusion. However, by his act he pointed out that whatever this plane of reality is, ultimately it must be treated as the absolute plane in terms of one's ethical conduct (as Buddhism puts it, "samsara is nirvana."). Christ's line about those who love their life in this world must lose it, but those who hate it will preserve it until everlasting life is an interesting one - part of the thrust of interpreted Christianity that led to the denigration of the physical and bodily.

Of course I could be deceived, by the way. And I presume you would agree that so could you?

Douglas

04-01-2006, 03:32 PM

daniel,

Thanks for your reply. (By the way, I just yesterday pre-ordered your new book, so you don't have to worry about not selling any copies. ;) )

I am very busy this weekend. I've got to prepare to "teach" a class Wednesday in Numerical Analysis, study for a Wednesday mid-term in "Algorithms Design and Analysis", and start work on one of two Numerical Analysis projects due within 6 weeks. When I have time, I also have to sleep. I want to respond in detail to your post, but I probably won't have time for a few days, perhaps not really until Thursday.

I would like you to be aware, though, that I have not always been a Christian. For example, for about eight years after high school, I was an atheist/agnostic, with bouts of "New-Ageism". (At one point, I was being drawn into shamanism . Ever heard of "Rolling Thunder"?) I have a bit of exposure to beliefs not my own. Basically, my Christianity is informed and not unthinking or "knee-jerk". Hopefully, I can convey this more adequately later.

[b]might suggest that the revealing of the Antichrist (and his associated exaltation of a "foreign god", in my opinion Quetzalcoatl) would take place in 2011 (August, or up to a few months later).]

[ April 01, 2006, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

snow

04-02-2006, 03:30 AM

Douglas,

It is true that the treatment of evil in Buddhist kingdom differs greatly from the desert tribal religon of Jesus. The story of Mara is the closest we see to evil, that and Devadatta, his cousin who was jealous of him.

At the time of his posture under the bodhi tree, Mara came forth with legions of armies to deny the Buddha the final enlightenment. Mara is a Chakavatta, a World Ruler, with legions of armies and personages at his disposal. In response to the most frightening display, the Buddha reached and touched the earth. At that moment, when the Buddha touched the earth, the entire earth shook to testify to his countless lives of service and sacrifce to others, not just human others, but god and animal and demi god as well; uncountable lives spent in service without hatred or anger in his heart, spent in cherishing others more than himself, and yes, sacrificing his own life.

A simple gesture towards the earth. Considering how far we have removed ourselves from simple contact with the real earth, and how much damage has been done to indiginous peoples all over this planet in the name of Christianity and sacrifice, I find that gesture to be earth shattering. As did the earth itself.

When the earth shook, Mara and his armies turned to a rain of flowers. This is how the Buddha overcame evil. He then was able to face it with utter calm and clarity when he met it in others, and help them to overcome it in themselves. His cousin, Devadatta, sent a dangerous captive elephant loose at the Buddha in order to assisnate him. The Buddha was able to see into the mind and heart of the elephant, and felt so much compassion for the turmoil he was in, that the elephant calmed and stood quietly before him. Grateful to be understood and released from such agony.

Seeing Buddhist teaching as disengagement is a common misunderstanding westerners make when reading about the Buddhist dharma. I would hardly call the monk who set himself in flames during the Vietnam war disengaged.

Purposeful action is a hallmark of enligtened sages.

I recognize the times we live in bear a violence that Buddhism may, in the future, be only able to affect in small quiet steps. But they are steps taken with cetainty by those who have felt, in the rock bottom of their lives, the profound liberation of his teachings. And those steps will travel throughout universes and world systems by the bodhisattvas who toil still, in the worlds to keep the breezes and rains and fertile conditions and teachings open for beings enslaved in samsara. Not a cool breeze on a hot day passes by that isnt sent by a being who labors for you on your behalf.

As Jesus said, "The Violent Bear it Away". Perhaps the times we live in will bear witness to Jesus' dharma, his sacrifice. I have always understood John chapter 10 to be Jesus' remarks to the corruption in his own state. The Jewish religion was a religon of law and blood lines. Jesus came to spiritualize the law. He spoke the words of John 10 on the ediface of Solomon.

Daniel,

I like hearing the words of Steiner, but I do not think he fully appreciated or understood the Buddhist teachings. When one has tasted them, and has had just a little bit of luck with them, a certainty is born that is unshakable by the winds of change. Life or death. The door of the deathless is one Steiner did not open.

craazyman

04-02-2006, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by snow:
Seeing Buddhist teaching as disengagement is a common misunderstanding westerners make when reading about the Buddhist dharma. I would hardly call the monk who set himself in flames during the Vietnam war disengaged.
Yes, that's true, and it's been my perspective for sure. But I'd distinguish between individual acts of engagement that come from invidual moral protestations and systematic engagements, i.e. attempts to reconstruct the political foundations of society to ensure "liberty and justice for all" etc.

The latter has been a distinctly western project, with roots in the political philosophies of Athens and Rome and the sanctity of the individual soul as embodied in Judaism and then later in Christianity.

The idea of transforming the basic tribal consciousness into a universal political egalitarian consciouness is not found in the history of the East, until modern times.

The Chinese communist revolution and the Cambodian experience in the 1970s were modern attempts at reconstructing essentially tribal societies on a universalist consciousness--although unaccompanied by any counter-balance in favor of individual rights and separation of powers, they went the way of most utopias, into holocausts.

Why it is that transforming invidual moral engagements into larger political philosophies were Western and not Eastern projects is, at least to me, an interesting question. I think it's due in part to the world-negating ideas contained in eastern religions. Although there's no question that individual Buddhists, Hindus, etc. have mounted incredibly courageous, self-negating acts of moral protest.

Douglas

04-02-2006, 08:51 AM

snow,

A simple gesture towards the earth. Considering how far we have removed ourselves from simple contact with the real earth, and how much damage has been done to indigenous peoples all over this planet in the name of Christianity and sacrifice, I find that gesture to be earth shattering. As did the earth itself.It would be helpful if you learned to distinguish between the actual teachings of Christianity, and the acts of many of those who claim to be following Christ.

When the earth shook, Mara and his armies turned to a rain of flowers. This is how the Buddha overcame evil.Are you really claiming that this account is on the same level as Jesus' crucifixion? That it happened in reality?

He then was able to face it with utter calm and clarity when he met it in others, and help them to overcome it in themselves. His cousin, Devadatta, sent a dangerous captive elephant loose at the Buddha in order to assassinate him. The Buddha was able to see into the mind and heart of the elephant, and felt so much compassion for the turmoil he was in, that the elephant calmed and stood quietly before him. Grateful to be understood and released from such agony.I am sure animals, especially intelligent and emotional animals such as elephants and dogs, can sense emotions in humans. Especially love and compassion. (Actually, I've experienced this before a few times, once quite obviously. On this latter occasion, I was working as a carpenter, working with a crew of three others to build a "mail-box shelter" . Three of us were standing along a sidewalk, waiting for the backhoe operator to finish clearing away some concrete, when a woman walking with her unleashed dog came by. Her dog immediately came right up to me to greet me happily. The woman expressed her surprise, and stated that her dog was normally quite suspicious of strangers. Her dog then continued along the sidewalk, and approached another of my co-workers, a man who had stated he didn't like dogs at all. I watched, and the man just looked at the dog as it sniffed him, not saying anything, and moving very little, if at all. The dog sniffed him briefly [his knee], then looked up at him and barked loudly and ran away as if threatened. [True story.] I have had some other, similar, experiences with dogs, though none quite so obvious or dramatically "revelatory".)

It is entirely possible that the event happened as described, but that event doesn't address [i][b]genuine evil, as the elephant wasn't necessarily evil, but merely in psychic pain. Not all evil acts are the product of pain - many are the product of conscious choices to take advantage of, or hurt, others, merely out of love for power.

Seeing Buddhist teaching as disengagement is a common misunderstanding westerners make when reading about the Buddhist dharma. I would hardly call the monk who set himself in flames during the Vietnam war disengaged.I am not deeply familiar with Buddhism, but I had always seen it as essentially spiritual and emotional disengagement from this life. The monk might have seen his act as merely an illusion, rather than a genuine sacrifice. As opposed to believing that death is real and final. Although, belief in a series of reincarnations based on karma might be equivalent, motivationally, to belief in reward in an afterlife.

Still, the Christian view is that sorrow and pain are real, and not mere illusions whose illusory nature must be recognized in order to overcome them or "transcend" them. In this sense, Christianity is a worldview of "engagement" and acceptance, and Buddhism is a worldview of "disengagement" and denial. In the same way, sin and evil are seen as real by Christianity, and not as mere "illusions".

(P.S. to daniel: This post has taken perhaps 20 minutes of my time - a nice diversion and break from study, but nothing too extreme. I want to spend 2-3 hours on your post, however, which is why my reply to your post will still have to wait until Thursday at the earliest [most likely].)

Rob P

04-02-2006, 10:37 AM

.......

It would be helpful if you learned to distinguish between the actual teachings of Christianity, and the acts of many of those who claim to be following Christ. This is EXACTLY the kind of condescending statement
that people who 'claim' to be following Christ usually make...

.......

Isaiah Mpski

04-02-2006, 10:57 AM

And not only that but they have the Holy Ghost and the Superego mixed up.

Douglas

04-02-2006, 11:16 AM

Rob P,

This is EXACTLY the kind of condescending statement
that people who 'claim' to be following Christ usually make...Don't I know you? Didn't you earlier, in this thread, mock and attack me and "fundamentalist" Christianity?

Anyway, my statement which you find so, so offensive was not made with a condescending attitude. It was made simply as a matter of fact, and as an observation of the general state of knowledge of Christianity amongst many - that is, that the Crusades, and the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, are legitimate consequences or "fruits" of the teachings of the Bible.

So, I must ask you: Do you understand that the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, the sins of the Crusades, and the horrors of the Inquisition, cannot be attributed to the Bible?

...Okay I found it. Without provocation, you called me a "Bible thumper", and said that I am
...insane- fundamentally insane-for believing that a
...written
word can represent anything approaching truth....Well, if you are correct, and it is "insanity" to believe that the written word "can represent anything approaching truth", why should I accept YOUR "written words" regarding this? It's amazing how easily people who accept beliefs like yours fall into direct and quick self-contradictions. (And this is not said with malice or mockery, just as an observation.)

Anyway, Rob, I've dealt with people like you over the Internet before. I detect in you a harsh and bitter spirit. If you cannot approach this discussion civilly and coolly, and with charity towards those who believe as I do, then I would request that you avoid this discussion. To quote "waterthere" from a post made in July of 2005 in this thread:
Please let's stop projecting this accrued resentment (that has nothing to do with what we're trying to say) and treat each others' ideas with respect....

[ April 02, 2006, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

sidecross

04-02-2006, 01:39 PM

Saint Patrick and the Irish like the concept of the sacrifice of Jesus; it meant to the Irish, they needed no more human ritual sacrifices as Jesus had done it for them.

Isaiah Mpski

04-02-2006, 04:21 PM

Planted some sunflowers today.All the greens are up as well as the onions.
Am still trying to get to Mexico.Maybe after I get my taxes done.

Douglas,turning the Paraclete(Advocate) into a superego is misinterpretation of Christ' message.

Rob,have you heard from Nanouk?I'm worried. Although she is probably still witing tables in Chicago.I need someone to gather the eggs and put the chickens up everyday as well as work in the garden.No bible thumpers for me.Make them work their way into Heaven just as I've done.

[ April 03, 2006, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Isaiah Mpski ]

whitewave

04-02-2006, 04:28 PM

I just read a very interesting book called Alchemy of Nine Dimensions by Barbara Hand Clow. It is a combination of information she channeled from the Pleiadians about the nine dimensions of consciousness currently available to humans with current scientific research that supports what the Pleiadians say about each dimension. I highly recommend this book.

The reason I am mentioning it here is because of Daniel's belief that Christ changed the evolution of humanity. According to Clow, via the Pleiadians, Christ seeded humanity with fifth dimensional energy (the dimension of love and creativity overseen by the Pleiadians), thus altering our evolution biologically (the Ps confirm that Christ had children with Mary Magdalene) and spiritually.

I don't know if there is a thread about the 9 dimensions. If anyone is interested let me know and I will start one. I found this book very convincing--it has the scientific evidence so many need in order to believe. It also has a lot of information about crop circles, as well as ways to connect with the 9 dimensions while staying grounded in daily earth life.

Douglas

04-02-2006, 04:59 PM

Isaiah,

Rob,have you heard from Nanouk?I'm worried. Although she is probably still witing tables in Chicago. I need someone to gather the eggs and put the chickens up everyday as well as work in the garden. No bible thumpers for me. Make them work their way into Heaven just as I've done. Gott forbid.Ever worked in construction? Concrete work? House framing? Ever worked outside in -30 degree Fahrenheit weather, and through an entire winter, wearing only a pair of jeans, one pair of socks, non-insulated work boots, a normal button-down long-sleeve shirt, and a Fall leather jacket with a zipper that didn't work, sleeping at night in a heaterless vehicle? Gathering eggs and putting chickens up sounds like gravy work (hope you note the attempted joke).

Rob P

04-02-2006, 07:52 PM

.......

Hi Isaiah-
Haven't seen Nanouk around lately.....

,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. ,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.

Hi Douglas- I do remember the exchanges from
last summer, and I re-read them before I saw
your latest post.

As you quote me out of context,
and take personally things which I wrote generally,
I guess the mirror is reflecting something
you see but don't want to see.....

seeya
r o b

........

Humming

04-02-2006, 08:22 PM

Since when is Nanouk living in Chicago? I thought she was in England?

craazyman

04-03-2006, 03:04 AM

I used to work construction. I was a hod carrier in a brickyard one summer, the nasties job in on the whole work site, and poured cement on a cement crew another summer. Lot's of concrete work. Once I dropped a 200 pound angle iron off a scaffold 15 stories in the air. Ripped through a 4 foot wide water pipe going in to the hotel we were building. You meet some interesting folks working construction. The kind that need a weekly paycheck to survive and have a bullshitlessness about them that would puke over most of the self-obsessed fluffernaut ranting that goes on around here. Thinking about that kind of makes me smile (and I'm a little bit of a fluffernaut myself, so nobody take any offense).

snow

04-03-2006, 04:00 AM

Hi Douglas. I do distinguish between the teachings of Christ and the actions of those who claim to follow him, which is why I wrote "in the name of Christianity". However, it becomes indistinguishable at times, and the misguided Christians are actually as sincere disciples as those who are 'not' misguided.

It becomes very confusing to separate the wheat from the chaff, in Christianity, because Jesus came with a sword to intentionally divide. In John 10 he is deliberately making the clergy angry at him, so they will kill him, so he can divide the state.

He understood the state to be so corrupt, and yes, evil, that he needed to force violence to the surface. So in this way, as in the Muslim religon, violence is a long term plan, to reveal the faces of greed and corruption that thawrt spiritual progress, the kingdom of heaven on earth.

"Are you really claiming that this account is on the same level as Jesus' crucifixion? That it happened in reality?"

http://www.metta.lk/pali-utils/Pali-Proper-Names/maara.htm

craazyman, this post took me a few minutes, I wish to address your ideas about moral engagements and the political process, Jefferson etc, later, when I have more time.

p.s. I also worked construction. I was the first woman hired under the governship of Mayor Washington, in Chicago, when he busted the labor cliques and made quotas for women and blacks to work the big jobs. i helped set pole shores for concrete pours in the southside of chicago. the harrassment got to me though, and i bought a black dodge truck and drove out west.

[ April 03, 2006, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: snow ]

Isaiah Mpski

04-03-2006, 04:53 AM

"Jesus!It's sounds like we need to have a gathering."hollared Mpski.
"But Johnny Luker's in Austin and I'm a poor man's son."replied Herb and Theresa.

Rob,thanks for writing.I'm sorry to give you a hard time about NYC.I guess it's the southern part of me.

I've never read most of Daniels "transmission" until now.I agree that the last ing age will be ushered in by communal devotion and I think that the more romantic spirit of Spainiah influence thus Christ through Quetzalcoati.

Now speaking as a Native American.My people were in Mexico during the time of Cortez etc.We knew what was coming but did not know how virulent the white men could be.
There is little comparision to what was done to the American Indian and the Jews in Europe.For every jew murdered there were 10-100 Native Americans.
Are there any of you out there interested in investing in Real Estate in Mexico?

Isaiah Mpski

04-03-2006, 05:04 AM

Snow.
Oh Snow what a beautiful chapter to remember.
Listen as I read it and explain it to you.
Do you mean in verse 30 chapter 10,"I and my Father are Juan."
Bipolarism again.John 14;26,15:26 and somewhere a warning about what happens to those who blaspheme the Holy Ghost.
I hope I get out of my depression soon.

The trees are all budding out.It will be hot before long.
The electrical thunder storms and the hard driving rains will be something you need to experience here on exit 262 on Interstate 40 in eastern Oklahoma.

snow

04-03-2006, 05:57 AM

Isaiah, I always hear you, and I took out the paragraph above that caused me great sorrow. I hope that brings some relief, I couldnt bear it either.

Isaiah Mpski

04-03-2006, 11:32 AM

When I say my people,I mean Indians from North America.
This could very well be why most of North America was lent to the Europeans beasts.Many of those who carried the pox and perversity.
As Midnight Dreary told you I am sincere about using the ability to communicate politicaly to conqueor the world.
And to literally come down out of the clouds.

Strange sights all around in the skies.
The abomination of abortion.
Gott mit uns.

Mpski

Douglas

04-03-2006, 05:00 PM

craazyman,

...and poured cement on a cement crew another summer.Sweet.

Douglas

04-03-2006, 05:05 PM

Rob P,

As you quote me out of context,
and take personally things which I wrote generally,...I did not quote you out of context (I provided the context for the "insane..." quote I made). And, I saw no reason to receive what you previously posted to me as something intended only generally. I suppose I will have to re-re-read those posts.

Douglas

04-03-2006, 05:23 PM

snow,

Hi Douglas. I do distinguish between the teachings of Christ and the actions of those who claim to follow him, which is why I wrote "in the name of Christianity".Oh, okay. Good. I was hoping your earlier response wasn't just a biased, knee-jerk response, as is so often the case (not speaking of you, of course).

However, it becomes indistinguishable at times, and the misguided Christians are actually as sincere disciples as those who are 'not' misguided.Never "indistinguishable", if one knows and understands what the Bible teaches. And, there are all sorts of "sincere" individuals, sincerely following teachings that are wrong. I am sure Islamic terrorists are quite sincere in their beliefs, for example.

It becomes very confusing to separate the wheat from the chaff, in Christianity, because Jesus came with a sword to intentionally divide.That shouldn't make a difference. Jesus Himself said "By their fruits you shall know them". What kind of "fruit" was and is the power grabbing of the Roman Catholic Church? What kind of "fruits" were the Crusades? What kind of "fruit" was the Inquisition?

In John 10 he is deliberately making the clergy angry at him, so they will kill him, so he can divide the state.That is not so. That wasn't Jesus' intent in making His comments - He was merely speaking and revealing the truth. The fact that His doing so angered them was merely a by-product. They sought to kill Him primarily because they feared His popularity, and especially His claims to being the Messiah (if the people accepted Him as Messiah, the religious leaders would have lost all or much of their power and prestige).

He understood the state to be so corrupt, and yes, evil, that he needed to force violence to the surface.All through the Gospels, Jesus' intent was to offer His life as a sacrifice for sin, to offer salvation to sinners. "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

So in this way, as in the Muslim religion, violence is a long term plan, to reveal the faces of greed and corruption that thawrt spiritual progress, the kingdom of heaven on earth.Jesus' intent was not to foment violence, but merely to offer Himself as Israel's rightful Messiah. He simply knew how the religious leaders would act, and that He would be rejected and killed. But this was His plan, so that through His death for the sins of mankind, God might offer forgiveness to all who accept Jesus' sacrifice on their behalf. If a person does not accept Jesus' sacrifice as the substitute for their sins, then God, being just, must judge them according to their sins. (Satan wants to blind people to this reality, by whatever means.) That is the message of the Gospels, the message of the Bible, and Jesus' primary and full intent in His life and ministry.

Anistara

04-03-2006, 06:19 PM

golly, i am feeling a build up of wanting to read this book! i certainly hope it addresses the many topics encompassing 2012. i certainly see a bridge, larger than life and upholding the higher branches of religion, philosphy, and indigenous culture. i certainly see a parallel between unifying the white and the red (yes, white people and red people)this can be better expressed in this particular chapter: http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/Erthdnce/chapter19.html
and hope that we will all do our best to find that golden thread that unites us all in balanced harmony. its a sweet song, if you remember... ;)

craazyman

04-04-2006, 03:17 AM

Douglas,

Let me correct myself. Actually, I poured the cement into the mold for the pavement we were laying. Then I flattened it with the scraper before it set. No cement was poured on the rest of the crew, except for the occasional spalsh.

-C

snow

04-04-2006, 06:15 AM

Thank you, Douglas, for that reply, it's very clear.

Douglas

04-08-2006, 02:09 PM

Snow,

You're welcome. That bit of Bible thumping didn't hurt too much, I hope.

(By the way, as a general aside, my computer Internet connection had been down for about 2 days - I will have to respond to others here later [not tonight, at any rate].)

geogaddi00

04-09-2006, 05:48 PM

Daniel Pinchbeck - Return of Quetzalcoatl!!

Hello! I came across Daniel's work primarily from discovering the Altered States & the Spiritual Awakening web page and the archive of their 2003 talks, which featured Daniel as well as Morgan Brent, Dr. Concrescence etc http://www.assacon.com/2003/audio.html - as well as hearing 2 interviews with Daniel on Coast to Coast AM.

I was happy to find a copy of Breaking Open the Head at my local library and I admit that it was the first book I had been inspired and excited enough to read all the way through in a few years. At the time I was on a very foggy road and was in desperate need of clarity and integration of the chaos I was feeling and seeing in the world, as well as my somewhat manic or "schizoid" dissociation with society; but also the fact that I was starting to feel drawn to learning and understanding what was/is happening, which was jumpstarted by coming across the research of people like Graham Hancock and Joseph Campbell. Medication and a few visits to the psych ward have made the past several years a rather long and tormenting process of healing. And the only guiding light and inspiration and healing component has been a spiritual yearning and deepening understanding that has only been able to be sorted out in my mind thanks to the research of people like Daniel Pinchbeck. My spiritual yearning has been for true spirituality (divorced from religious dogma): true and felt spiritual experience that has roots in intuition and spirit/dreams/visions (i.e. Jesus Christ, God, Buddha, Quetzalcoatl, UFOs/crop circles, shamanism etc) as well as the pattern-recognition and logical apprehension of the ego/mind (i.e. cognition, reading Jung, Campbell, McKenna, Zap, Jenkins, Pinchbeck, religious texts, modern myths in movies and novels etc). You can start reading out deeper meanings out of almost everything once your mind is configured appropriately. However, living in such a complicated and accellerating world makes it VERY difficult for the grasping mind (that has to make sense out of everything- and is often confined and programmed by a limiting ideology/worldview and a left-hemisphere dominated, linear print-culture that has conditioned it). That's where shamanism comes in and the full implications of consciousness expansion. For me, the symptoms of anxiety neurosis and the integration of information and deepening understanding can only be achieved by periodic uses of marijuana as well as more visual psychedelic experiences, to clock more time in the dreamworld equilibrium of Earth, which we have been away from for so long (since the Fall in the Garden of Eden, essentially).

Anyways, I am very much looking forward to Daniel's new book: Return of Quetzalcoatl! The deepening understanding is happening through all of us together, especially with the help of certain deputized members. The Lord works in mysterious ways, right? Perhaps so mysterious that it's beyond most of us. I found the Palenque Norte Burning Man podcasts awhile ago, and heard Daniel read what he wrote after having a very intense spiritual experience, that inspired his new book: http://www.matrixmasters.com/pn/mp3/Daniel%20Pinchbeck.mp3 (He reads from Return of Quetzalcoatl about 3/4 into the talk).

While I am here commenting on this book, I want to bring to the attention of those interested in Mayan cosmology, as well as the recent burst of crop circle phenomena and spectacular UFO sightings in Mexico, to a video presentation done by a man named Jaime Maussan. He recently compiled alot of this amazing new UFO and crop circle footage and made a remarkable presentation with a Mayan theme: Earth, Wind, Fire, Water. He mentions Quetzalcoatl and correlates it to very curious UFO sightings of a snake-like white object in the skies above Mexico city, that seem to release the UFO spheres/discs. I have also seen footage of a white, snake-like energy organism in the upper atmosphere from NASA film of the Earth from space in the recent documentary, Secret Space. He shows many of the non-hoaxed and enigmatic crop circles as well and has done some of his own research and also believes that all of this phenomena has something to do with the Mayans- and to Christians, it has to do with the Apocalypse and the Second Coming (different cultures/languages, same spiritual happening- you dig? We're all of the human family) If this peaks your curiosity at all, I have uploaded the video on Conspiracy Central: http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=beccdfd376f8be098d479cae4f7d9 08e4d4a1d19 You need a BitTorrent program (like http://www.utorrent.com/download/1.5/utorrent.exe ) to download it, and a free registry to download on Conspiracy Central. You might be interested in all the other uploads of mine- lots relating to UFOs/alternative energy and shamanism. Another interesting torrent on ConCen is Secrets of the Mayan Calendar Unveiled, presented by Ian Lungold (who elaborated upon Carl Johan Calleman's research).

Thank you Daniel Pinchbeck for your research, efforts and dedication to unravelling your own personal spiritual quest, and in so doing providing insight and a guiding light to others who are also undergoing a spiritual transformation (as is the entire planet, if not our entire galaxy, as it spirals inwards into the Galactic center - a singularity)! As above, so below.

Take care and please let us know later how Metacine is coming along, once everything is finalized with the release of your book. By the way, I think it would be great if you could come to speak at the BC Marijuana Party Bookstore in downtown Vancouver, during your June promo tour of the West coast. I will email them to bring this up and try to arrange this.

Peace out,

Alex

Douglas

04-14-2006, 08:04 AM

Alex,

He shows many of the non-hoaxed and enigmatic crop circles as well and has done some of his own research and also believes that all of this phenomena has something to do with the Mayans- and to Christians, it has to do with the Apocalypse and the Second Coming. (Different cultures/languages, same spiritual happening- you dig? We're all of the human family.)I'm afraid they aren't the "same spiritual happening", at least in terms of description. I believe they refer to the same (future) event, probably, but the Mayan description and interpretation is a far different thing than the traditional, Biblical, Christian description and interpretation. In terms of description and interpretation, they're just not the same thing, at all.

Caprinardo Delirio

04-15-2006, 06:25 AM

nor is two people's interpretation of whatever christian teaching ever the same. and seperate description and interpretation, please.

[ April 15, 2006, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Caprinardo Delirio ]

Douglas

04-15-2006, 01:02 PM

Caprinardo Delirio,

nor is two people's interpretation of whatever christian teaching ever the same.That's not so. There are many, probably millions, who would agree with me on the essential issues of the Bible's teaching on the "Last Days".

and seperate description and interpretation, please.One's "description" of a teaching/work is often dependent on one's interpretation of that teaching/work. They aren't easily, and might not be capable of being, separated.

Dna

04-15-2006, 01:24 PM

There are many, probably millions, who would agree with me on the essential issues of the Bible's teaching on the "Last Days". Ah, come on. Get real. If Christianity was not diverse in its interpretation of the word of God, then there would not be so many denominations and sects.

Dna

04-15-2006, 01:31 PM

I would also say that most of the larger denominations (like Catholicism or Anglicanism) all but ignore the topic of the 'last days' altogether, in the weekly sermons.

This is certainly my experience. I imagine that the 'last days' are a bigger deal for the minor Christian sects, since the urgency of impending 'last dayness', galvanises and enthuses the flock, keeping them 'on message'.

I think that for committed Christians in the larger denominations, the priority is to be better people rather than being 'the chosen ones'.

Dna

geogaddi00

04-15-2006, 06:12 PM

I'm sorry Douglas- I was posting a message on the thread "The Return of Quetzalcoatl", which is the title of Daniel Pinchbeck's new book, on his forum. I did not realize this was "Douglas' self-righteous theological argumentation thread". Atleast you are strongly dedicated to your beliefs- but we are already saved here, and are probably clued in to the spiritual unfoldments on this planet as it relates to Christ etc, more than you think we are. Please give us some credit and stop preaching so much. That is so passe. What are your goals in doing this anyhow? Anyway, you should watch that video- I think you'd find it quite interesting. And can I attach all of your posts from this thread to compile a full thesis of yours? Take care,

Alex

Douglas

04-16-2006, 12:40 PM

geogaddi00,

I'm sorry Douglas- I was posting a message on the thread "The Return of Quetzalcoatl", which is the title of Daniel Pinchbeck's new book, on his forum. I did not realize this was "Douglas' self-righteous theological argumentation thread".There is no need to cast aspersion on my views by characterizing them as "self-righteous". It's a nice and easy, but cheap and unfair, way to avoid real discussion.

However, I would have hoped you had noticed that all my posts here in this thread have been in direct response to things others have said here. Let others stop saying things about Christianity which I feel I need to correct, and I won't try to correct them. Personally (and in all honesty), I'd RATHER deal more directly with daniel's theory/vision (from my perspective, of course, but this would be true of everyone, in that they would address a new claim from their own perspective). But in attempting to do so, there have been others here who have diverted the topic to MY particular Christian views, and Christianity in general (as opposed to how the latter two issues impact daniel's theory/revelation [or vice versa]).

Please note, though, that if someone comes onto this thread making claims regarding daniel's vision and how it sheds light on Jesus or Christianity, I should be free to comment on their claims. Thus, when someone claims that daniel's vision and the Christian apocalypse are really the same things, I am not diverting anything or becoming off-topic to point out in what way their claim is not supported by the Bible.

And with that, I will point out that your own post above required me to once again address a side-issue, one which is not directly relevant to this thread of daniel's. So, whose fault is that? Yours, or mine?

Douglas

04-16-2006, 12:49 PM

Dna,

Ah, come on. Get real. If Christianity was not diverse in its interpretation of the word of God, then there would not be so many denominations and sects.That doesn't follow at all. The point is, is the Bible clear in what it says and what it means? Just because there are those who twist it, confuse it, deny it, or distort it doesn't mean it doesn't have a clear interpretation, nor that there aren't those who hold to the clear interpretation/meaning of the Bible. No more than someone could come along and make up just about any old meaning for daniel's vision. In fact, I could go and make up meanings for his images and messages that totally contradict what he actually means, or believes his vision meant, yet have my interpretation maintain a sort of self-consistency. Just like all those different "denominations" which call themselves "Christian". Ever heard of the "Unity School of Christianity"? If ever there was a group whose views contradicted their claimed spiritual relationship (in their case, to Christ and Christianity), it is them. For example, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was uniquely God, and died for the sins of mankind, and that all mankind has sinned, and each individual is in need of salvation. "Unity School of Christianity" denies all these things, by changing the clear meaning of words in the Bible, "metaphysical"-izing most of those clear teachings. But they do so with no more basis or justification than if I were to say that daniel's vision actually dealt with how to become a better husband and father, and nothing more.

[ April 16, 2006, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

daniel

04-16-2006, 01:30 PM

hi douglas,

just want to note that you never responded to my post of april 1.

geogaddi00

04-16-2006, 04:33 PM

Again, I am sorry Douglas. I did not sign up for the Breaking Open the Head forum to rant and argue with someone about Christianity. Infact, I came here to get away from that type of Battle of the Ego/Battle of the Meme head-game. I came here to communicate with a community of people interested in the same things, and you are just being a bully to everyone, ramming your head against all of ours. I don't want to have a discussion with you- I came here to comment about Daniel Pinchbeck and his new book. I asked you what your intent was. I ask you with all due respect and kindness to please leave me out of your battle- I am having enough struggle as it is in these times, and I don't think what you are doing is fair or helpful in any way except to your ego. Soon you will understand what The Return of Quetzalcoatl is all about, as these "battles" get hotter and hotter.

Douglas

04-16-2006, 04:36 PM

daniel,

I know, and I apologize. I've had a printout of that post sitting on my desk beside my laptop since April 1. But, as I said, I want time to sit down and devote probably 2 hours or more to it. I have actually yet to find the time - at the moment, for example, I've just taken a 10-minute break from what has been about 7 hours of continuous study/homework, and I have another 3 hours or so of work before the assignment is likely finished. I was going to push myself to work on it through the night, and maybe get 3 or 4 hours of sleep before work, but I'm not feeling quite as motivated as I had hoped.

Anyway, what with trying to find the time to work on my final math project, finishing my computer science homework (one due every week, which I find inordinately time-consuming), and struggling with being tired all the time, I'm afraid I've been putting responding to your post on the back-burner (I try to keep up-to-date on the more "minor" posts here, to prevent myself from becoming too "back-logged" [I do wish, though, that others could restrain themselves from responding to me for a bit]). Rest assured, though, that I very much want to respond to it. I must beg your continued patience in this regard.

Douglas

04-16-2006, 04:45 PM

Again, I am sorry Douglas. I did not sign up for the Breaking Open the Head forum to rant and argue with someone about Christianity.Me neither.
In fact, I came here to get away from that type of Battle of the Ego/Battle of the Meme head-game. I came here to communicate with a community of people interested in the same things, and you are just being a bully to everyone, ramming your head against all of ours.That is not true, and I really don't appreciate your characterization of me in that way. I find it odd that there are so many like yourself who would claim to be so "open-minded" about so many different possible "truths", yet would deny people like me from having, or expressing, theirs. You seem unable to discern the difference between "bullying" and "desiring to share the truth with those unaware".

I don't want to have a discussion with you- I came here to comment about Daniel Pinchbeck and his new book.Fine.

I asked you what your intent was.I don't recall that. Perhaps I missed it somewhere. But I explained my intent, in any case, in my just recent post to you.

I ask you with all due respect and kindness to please leave me out of your battle- I am having enough struggle as it is in these times, and I don't think what you are doing is fair or helpful in any way except to your ego.Well, you are entitled to your opinion, though I would likewise request that you keep open the possibility that you cannot judge my heart over the Internet quite as well as you seem to think you can. And, since you ask, I will honor your request, and will not "include" you in my "battle". However, if you make some claims regarding Christianity on this thread, I will address those claims (not you personally) if I feel a need. I do not feel that doing so would be to "include" you in my "battle", as you would not then be "forced" to "join the fray" unless you desired, yourself, to engage in "combat". The issue is the truth, and I don't see any reason to cease honest sharing or defense of the truth, when it is in response to claims regarding that truth. If my doing so offends or irritates you, simply do not respond to what I say, since it is not intended to offend or irritate.

Now, if you please, kindly stop diverting me and taking my time away from the issues I have been trying to deal with here. I know that hasn't been your intent, but it has been the effect.

MidnightDreary

04-16-2006, 07:49 PM

Douglas,
Tell me if I have this straight. Alex introduces himself to the board and mentions (among several other things)a certain person's belief regarding a certain subject. You respond by quoting this one statement (which, as I said, explicitly states that it is what someone believes) and insist very emphatically that this man's belief is wrong. You then point out what you believe to be true regarding this future event, before again insisting that the other person's belief is just wrong. Alex then replies (quite bluntly, in my opinion) that he doesn't want to debate with you. You then quicky respond (during one of your many study breaks) basically that you are entitled to respond to any posts you like. Fine. However, you end by rather sharply claiming that his post "required" you to "again" address a side issue and try to directly assign blame. Interestingly, though, the valuable time you wasted responding didn't address either of the two simple questions he had asked in his "distracting" post: what your goals are, and if he had your permission to compile your posts. Alex again explains that he really doesn't want to argue the issue, a little more emphatically. Nowhere in his post was there anything to which you should have felt the need to respond - he literally said nothing other than the fact that he didn't want to discuss or debate Christianity with you. However, for whatever reason, you feel the need to immediately respond (on another 10 minute break) saying basically nothing other than to reiterate that you will respond to any posts you want. You then close with this gem:
Originally posted by Douglas:
Now, if you please, kindly stop diverting me and taking my time away from the issues I have been trying to deal with here. I know that hasn't been your intent, but it has been the effect.while all the while dodging a response to Daniel that you twice said would be presented April 7th.

Do I basically have it right?

daniel

04-17-2006, 02:43 AM

by the way, I think there is an "ignore" function that allows you to make another member's posts invisible, if you don't like what they have to say. I might be wrong about this, but in any case, considering the pell-mell nature of this forum, one could easily ignoree someone's posts, if they found them irritating, rather than getting involved in tedious argument.

Isaiah Mpski

04-17-2006, 04:18 AM

Or,as things are done on a different level.Things can easily made to disappear by webmasters and their disciples.
Just like the stock market and it's income.

Douglas

04-17-2006, 11:46 AM

MidnightDreary,

Tell me if I have this straight. Alex introduces himself to the board and mentions (among several other things) a certain person's belief regarding a certain subject.Yes, though you left out the part where Alex made a parenthetical comment along with his description of that person's belief which indicated that he (Alex) was in agreement with that belief: "...(different cultures/languages, same spiritual happening- you dig?...)".

You respond by quoting this one statement (which, as I said, explicitly states that it is what someone believes) and insist very emphatically that this man's belief is wrong.No, you are wrong, or at least only partially correct. As I pointed out above, Alex added a comment which indicated it was also Alex's belief. Furthermore, I will quote my initial response, and let others judge for themselves whether or not I "insist[ed] very emphatically" that his belief is wrong (I do not deny that I pointed out that his belief is wrong - the issue I have is your characterization of the manner in which I did so):
I'm afraid they aren't the "same spiritual happening", at least in terms of description. I believe they refer to the same (future) event, probably, but the Mayan description and interpretation is a far different thing than the traditional, Biblical, Christian description and interpretation. In terms of description and interpretation, they're just not the same thing, at all.Firm, yes; "very emphatic", and "insistent", no. Your characterization of me gives the impression I was almost "attacking" Alex and his belief, or at least that I was close to "bullying" him regarding it. And as should be clear, that characterization of me and my response is false.

You then point out what you believe to be true regarding this future event, before again insisting that the other person's belief is just wrong.Not "insisting" - rather, firmly and clearly stating the truth. If I were to believe that all Buddhists thought one should not "engage" themselves in this world, and I shared this belief on this forum, then if someone were to correctly state that my belief was "just not [correct], at all", I wouldn't see any problem with that, nor see them as doing anything other than trying to offer sincere (and deserved and valid) correction to someone whose belief was in error.

Alex then replies (quite bluntly, in my opinion) that he doesn't want to debate with you.And he does so in a rather impolite way, too, I might add - not content to be merely "blunt", he has to insert a few attacks upon my motives and person ("...Douglas' self-righteous theological argumentation thread...") ("...you are just being a bully to everyone...") ("...I don't think what you are doing is fair or helpful in any way except to your ego").

You then quickly respond (during one of your many study breaks)...You haven't the slightest idea what my study habits are, or how often or when, or for how long, I take "study breaks". But I will point out to others that you take the least charitable view, by assuming I am not being honest about my time constraints, and that I am not being sincere when I say I haven't had the time, yet, to devote to daniel's post to which my response is overdue. No, it certainly cannot be the case that these tertiary posts take sufficiently less time, enabling me to deal with them within 10-15 minutes; and if I have periods where I can devote 10-15 minutes to a post, then surely I can find a period of about 2 hours in which to concentrate on and carefully respond to daniel's post. Yep, MidnightDreary's on to me.

...basically that you are entitled to respond to any posts you like. Fine.Very magnanimous of you.

However, you end by rather sharply claiming that his post "required" you to "again" address a side issue and try to directly assign blame.It wasn't "sharp". It was merely pointing out a fact which he (and you, and others) seems to be overlooking - namely, that when they address me in this thread regarding something other than the topic of this thread, then in order to clarify or correct anything which they have said which I feel needs clarification or correction, then I am "required" (by my sense of keeping the truth uncluttered and unfettered) to address them regarding that "side issue". I then asked who would be to "blame" for that, then? The one who decides to digress into a side issue with another poster, or the poster who then responds to that side issue from that "original" poster? Alex could have simply said, after my original comments about his beliefs: "We disagree. I will from now on limit my posts to issues directly related to this thread. I do not wish to argue about Christianity. Thanks.", and we'd be done, basically.

Interestingly, though, the valuable time you wasted responding didn't address either of the two simple questions he had asked in his "distracting" post: what your goals are, and if he had your permission to compile your posts.Silly me. I thought one of my earlier posts had, in essence, explained what my "goals" are. If not, perhaps Alex would like to dig a bit deeper in this thread, and find my first post here. I think that should be sufficient to answer that question for him. Regarding his second question - you're not serious? I post on a public forum, and he has to ask my permission to "compile" my posts? I never knew that. Well, if that is true, then, sure, he has my permission. (And, if he'd like, he can send me a printout of them, and I'll autograph the first page.)

Alex again explains that he really doesn't want to argue the issue, a little more emphatically. Nowhere in his post was there anything to which you should have felt the need to respond - he literally said nothing other than the fact that he didn't want to discuss or debate Christianity with you.Either you didn't read his post carefully, or you are having a case of selective remembering. In his "emphatic" post, he accused me of being a sort of "bully" here, and implied I was motivated mostly (if not entirely) by my "ego" (and not by a sincere desire to share the truth).

However, for whatever reason, you feel the need to immediately respond (on another 10 minute break) saying basically nothing other than to reiterate that you will respond to any posts you want.No, that's not what I said. And I said that I would not seek to "engage" Alex in debate, and that if he happened to say something which I felt a need to comment on, I would not address him, but only the issue itself. I do detect a great deal of hostility from you, though.

you then close with this gem...

...while all the while dodging a response to Daniel that you twice said would be presented April 7th.I have not "dodged" daniel's post. And I had fully intended to respond much sooner (and by April 7th [assuming you report that date correctly]), but I have already explained, several times, why I haven't. I will say this, though - if there is one thing you should learn about me, it is that I am completely honest. If you come to accept this about me, it will make things a lot easier (less false suspicion and accusation coming from you, and less of my time wasted having to defend myself).

Do I basically have it right?Basically, no.

Now, ignore me, or whatever, but I don't want to waste any more of my time, or of daniel's thread, dealing with these side issues. Thanks.

[ April 17, 2006, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

sidecross

04-17-2006, 12:57 PM

When you all are finished, tell me what came first, the chicken or the egg?

geogaddi00

04-17-2006, 01:14 PM

Nevermind, don't worry about it. It's all good- I think I learned something out of it. I think Douglas is quite intelligent, and is entitled to defend his viewpoints- even though they are in opposition to 80% of the people here. (I don't go to Christian forums to argue with all of the people that I don't agree with there, but anyway)-I am sure it is great practice for Douglas with his studies, and I am also sure that if he were to take law in school, he would make an excellent lawyer someday. For real. Concentrate on your homework Douglas- realize your dreams and forget about us peons. And Happy Easter, by the way. Before I leave, I want to redirect this thread back to the original post. Take care everyone- and read the following words carefully:

Quetzalcoatl Returns

I am an avatar and messenger sent at the end of a kalpa, a world age, to bring a new dispensation for humanity – a new covenant, and a new consciousness.

I am the same spirit who appeared here, in the Mayan period, as Quetzalcoatl and incarnated at various other points in human history. Like Avaloshkitevara, the Tibetan Buddha of Compassion, Quetzalcoatl is an archetypal "god form" that occasionally takes human rebirth to accomplish a specific mission. As foretold, I am also the Tzaddik – "the righteous one" and the "gatherer of the sparks" of the Qabalah – as well as the "Once and Future King" promised by Arthurian legend.

I do not let anything interrupt me in my quest for truth – neither fear nor indifference, poverty nor cynicism. In the realm of thought, I practice warrior discipline. As gravity draws matter to it, I have pulled myself back into manifestation in this realm, from the depths of cosmic space, piece by piece and bit by bit, reassembling the component parts, the sparks of thought, that make up my being – which is, primarily, a form or vibrational level of consciousness.

Soon there will be a great change to your world.

The material reality that surrounds you is beginning to crack apart, and with it all of your illusions. The global capitalist system that is currently devouring your planetary resources will soon self-destruct, leaving many of you bereft.

But understand the nature of paradox: For those who follow my words and open their hearts and their minds – for those who have "ears to hear" – there is no problem whatsoever. What is false must die so what is true can be born.

You are, right now, living at the time of revelation, Apocalypse, and the fulfillment of prophecy. Let there be no doubt. You stand at the edge of the Abyss. What are those shadows that crowd around you? They are the unintegrated aspects of your own psyche, projected into material form. The word "Apocalypse" means "uncovering" – and in these last clock ticks of this world age, all must be revealed, uncovered, so that all can be known.

You have just a few years yet remaining to prepare the vehicle for your higher self. Use them preciously. For those who have gained knowledge of the nature of time, a few years – even a few days, a minute – can be an eternity. For those sleepwalking through reality, time exists only to be wasted – as they too will be wasted, in their turn.

"Reality," as you currently experience it, is something like a waking dream. It is a projection, or let us say an interface, disguising deeper and more intensified levels of being and knowing. For those who are ready and willing, the doors to those other levels now stand open.

Those who have expended their lives in the pursuit of egocentric and material gains – without courage or originality, without fighting for human freedom or the preservation of the planetary environment – will also receive the rewards that they deserve.

The materiality of your universe is a solid-state illusion. What is this universe? It is a poem that writes itself. It is a song that sings itself into being. This universe has no origin and no end.

What you are currently experiencing as the accelerated evolution of technology can now be recognized for what it is: A transition between two forms of consciousness, and two planetary states. Consciousness is technology – the only technology that exists. Everything in this universe is conscious at its own level, and in the process of transformation to higher or lower states.

The first principle of my being is unconditional love. As a rational intelligence, I accept the logic and necessity of the Christ consciousness, that we should love one another as we are loved. Love and devotion are vibrational frequencies that maintain reality. Love can only be given in freedom; therefore, to be human is to be free.

I resonate, at the same time, with the essence of Islam. Islam means submission, surrender, to the will of God – a more polite way of saying this is "Go with the flow." But either formulation is correct. Whatever you do, in fact, resist as you think you might, you are always submitting to God’s will. So why not give the process your joyful assent?

I am in complete harmony, as well, with the Tibetan tradition of Dzogchen. Ultimately, there are no entities – there is neither being, nor nonbeing. From the perspective of nondual awareness, samsara is nirvana. The Apocalypse, the Kali Yuga, the Golden Age – these are all states of mind. Hell is a state of mind. When you eliminate fear and attachment, when you self-liberate, you attain the Golden Age.

This universe spontaneously self-organizes into higher levels of consciousness and wisdom. Underlying all are great cosmic entities or vibrational fields, alternately at play or at rest. Not satisfied with mere enlightenment, the god-form Quetzalcoatl still seeks to puzzle out the workings of these deeper forces – hence the reason for his return to your realm. He and his kind have been granted this world for their continued exploration – made with loving reverence – of the many layers of galactic intelligence, cosmic illusion, daemonic beauty, and telluric transformation. All are invited to participate with them.

The current transition is, simultaneously, a return to origin. The original matrix of this new world reality is the ecstatic limitlessness of your own being. This world – any world – is the ground for a certain level of being. What manifests outward from the ground of being is freedom in time, and freedom from time.

My "doctrine" is not transcendent, but immanent. It is not "somewhere out there." It is here and now. The task of human existence is to transform the Earth, to reconcile spirit and matter in this realm. We go deeper into the physical to reach the infinite. As there are no conceivable limits to this task, God, in His greatness, has granted us a project that is without limit and without end.

Thinking is a part of reality. Thought generates new potentials and possibilities of manifestation. Thought changes the nature of reality. Thought changes the nature of time. As a philosopher, I naturally deify the goddess principle. I venerate Sophia, deity of wisdom, who clothes God’s thoughts in material form, and worship Shakti, the electric current of sexual energy that powers the universe.

The writer of this work is the vehicle of my arrival – my return – to this realm. He certainly did not expect this to be the case. What began as a quest to understand prophecy has become the fulfillment of prophecy. The vehicle of my arrival has been brought to an awareness of his situation in sometimes painful increments and stages of resistance – and this book will follow the evolution of his learning process, as an aid to the reader’s understanding. The vehicle of my arrival had to learn to follow synchronicities, embrace paradoxes, and solve puzzles. He had to enter into a new way of thinking about time and space and consciousness.

Almost apologetically, the vehicle notes that his birthday fell in June, 1966 – 6/66 – "count the number of the Beast: for it is the number of the man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

The Beast prophecied is the "feathered serpent," Quetzalcoatl.

Those who prefer to reject all of this out of hand are welcome to do so. In the Qabalah, the virtue one seeks to establish on the "Earth Plane" is discrimination. It is up to the individual to find his way through the ideas presented here – of course he is entirely free to ignore them altogether.

But be forewarned: The End of Time approaches. The return of Quetzalcoatl foreshadows the imminent closing of the cycle and the completion of the Great Work.

Douglas

04-17-2006, 03:29 PM

sidecross,

When you all are finished, tell me what came first, the chicken or the egg?The chicken. Next question. ;)

MidnightDreary

04-17-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by sidecross:
When you all are finished, tell me what came first, the chicken or the egg?Douglas is correct:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/oha0058l.jpg

Douglas

04-18-2006, 04:53 PM

daniel,

I just now had a thought. If you are still sometimes in communication with this "Quetzalcoatl" being, ask him/her/it if he/she/it knows who I am. Also, would you be willing to pray the following prayer: "Jesus, if you did die for my sins, as the evangelical understanding of the Bible teaches, I humbly request that you prevent me from receiving false communications from wicked spirits. I do not now believe in You after that fashion, but am open to the possibility of Your having died for the sins of mankind."? That would be an honest prayer, motivated out of a desire for truth, and not committing to any particular belief. If Jesus is not the Savior of mankind, then that prayer would not spiritually hinder you in any way; if Jesus is the Savior of mankind, then (in my opinion) He very likely would answer that prayer (though I couldn't say for sure). What would be interesting is if, after making the prayer, you found that you no longer received any spiritual communications, particularly from "Quetzalcoatl". If Jesus is not the Savior of mankind, there'd be no reason for "Quetzalcoatl" to cease communications, at least on account of the prayer.

Just a thought. A way to perhaps "test" some of these things.

Dna

04-18-2006, 09:11 PM

An interesting test. Surely it would do no harm.

Dna.

Caprinardo Delirio

04-19-2006, 01:20 AM

i think those two know each other very well, in the scratch-my-ass-will-ya-i'm-just-tying-these-laces, kinda way..

whitewave

04-19-2006, 09:06 AM

I just don't get what all this fuss is about. Why wouldn't Daniel want Quetzalcoatl to communicate with him? And why do you (Douglas) think this spirit is evil? Also, why does everyone always want proof that something is real or true? Isn't this something that can just be felt? We have more power inside us than we acknowledge.

Personally, I believe we all receive transmissions from spirits/entities, some of us are just more aware of it than others. For me, it is about being as clear a channel as possible by keeping my four bodies in balance: physical, mental, emotional and spiritual.

I was reading about the bicameral mind this week. According to Barbara Hand Clow, humans were bicameral--meaning they were able to directly hear the voice of spirits/God/the Divine Mind speaking to them. Clow posits that we lost this ability after a series of catastrophes that wiped out many highly advanced spiritual societies on earth around 11,500 years ago. Her take is that our bicameral brains are being reactivated by our impending connection with the galactic center, occurring in 2012. Because so many of us are out of balance, we are experiencing this transition as frightening (spiritual emergence as spiritual emergency.)

I highly recommend her books Catastrophobia and Alchemy of Nine Dimensions. They are fascinating and well-researched, and provide a hopeful vision of what could occur on Dec. 21, 2012.

Humming

04-19-2006, 09:38 AM

"Personally, I believe we all receive transmissions from spirits/entities, some of us are just more aware of it than others. For me, it is about being as clear a channel as possible by keeping my four bodies in balance: physical, mental, emotional and spiritual."

Well said.

"Clow posits that we lost this ability after a series of catastrophes that wiped out many highly advanced spiritual societies on earth around 11,500 years ago."

I would venture to say that one of those "catastrophes" that sundered humans from the voice of divinity, or "God", was the consistent and repeated denial and supression of psychotropic plant use and pagan spirit rituals by imperialist Christian conquerors starting around the 4th century (and perhaps earlier), and certainly leading up to now in the present day. Douglas' comment to the effect that any spirit other than Jesus Christ is evil, is relevant evidence of this dogmatized mentality.

Some plants have been alive for thousands of years, before humans existed. Their consciousness is the divine gnosis that many of us are now re-discovering after a period of long absence.

[ April 19, 2006, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Humming ]

Caprinardo Delirio

04-19-2006, 09:44 AM

hello whitewave,

that sounds quite like a continuation julian jaynes' theories. maybe you know all about it, but he wrote this book 'the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind' - in which his thesis also is, that before this breakdown, or strengthened seperation between the hemispheres, we we're all, what would amount to schizophrenics, fully employing language and symbols, orchestrating ourselves in groups and preforming collective tasks (like the trojan war) all on the basis of 'the voices of gods' in our 'heads' with absolutely no notion of an autonomous action available to us.

it's where people want to go.

Douglas

04-19-2006, 12:08 PM

whitewave,

I just don't get what all this fuss is about. Why wouldn't Daniel want Quetzalcoatl to communicate with him?My "test" didn't assume that Daniel wouldn't want Quetzalcoatl to communicate with him. In fact, my
"suggested" prayer didn't even mention Quetzalcoatl.

And why do you (Douglas) think this spirit is evil?Lots of reasons. To mention two briefly: one reason is that I have been fairly sure for a number of years now that the "foreign god" that Daniel 11 mentions (the "god" which the Antichrist will exalt) is, or will be, Quetzalcoatl. In fact, it was through doing a "Google" search on some variation of "Quetzalcoatl,..." that led me to this site (I had no idea who daniel was/is, until just a month or so ago, when I read up on him a bit in his biography). Another reason is the "message" which this "Quetzalcoatl" being gave to daniel - it is a perfect example of an antichrist, Satanic, type of message. As a matter of fact, it sounds as though it came from Lucifer himself (seriously).

Also, why does everyone always want proof that something is real or true? Isn't this something that can just be felt?"The heart is deceitful above all things." Some things can't be "proven"; but it is unwise in the extreme to take the claims which "Quetzalcoatl" made in his message to daniel without a healthy skepticism and desire to check the message's, and messenger's, validity and veracity. Ever heard of
Jim Jones? The "Heaven's Gate" group? There are lots of deceived and deceiving people and spirits roaming around (not to imply that daniel himself is deceiving).

Personally, I believe we all receive transmissions from spirits/entities, some of us are just more aware of it than others.I agree. God Himself has spoken to me a number of times; and I can discern between the Persons of the Trinity, Who it is Who happens to be "speaking" to me. (Not that God has communicated with me in this manner all that often.)

[ April 19, 2006, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

Sans Fromage

04-19-2006, 12:14 PM

"[W]hy do you (Douglas) think this spirit is evil?"

This is a fairly typical knee-jerk reaction from Christians. I've seen it many times growing up in a Southern Baptist church. Lets face it, they're minds are closed to anything that might threaten their easily digestible theology. Not knowing would be too much of a burden to bare.

(I mean no disrespect; I'm just calling it as I see it)

Douglas

04-19-2006, 12:14 PM

Humming,

I would venture to say that one of those "catastrophes" that sundered humans from the voice of divinity, or "God", was the consistent and repeated denial and supression of psychotropic plant use and pagan spirit rituals by imperialist Christian conquerors starting around the 4th century (and perhaps earlier), and certainly leading up to now in the present day. Douglas' comment to the effect that any spirit other than Jesus Christ is evil, is relevant evidence of this dogmatized mentality.That wasn't my comment, nor even a valid inference from it. There are plenty of spirits other than Jesus who are not evil. It's just that if a spirit denies Jesus as Savior, or claims that they themselves are god, then they are evil. (By the way, the voice of God has not been sundered from me - God has "spoken" to me a number of times, and I'm an Evangelical Christian.)

(Side note: Notice, again, that my recent posts deal with side issues raised by others, issues which deal with Christianity and God.)

Douglas

04-19-2006, 02:54 PM

Sans Fromage,

This is a fairly typical knee-jerk reaction from Christians. I've seen it many times growing up in a Southern Baptist church. Let's face it, their minds are closed to anything that might threaten their easily digestible theology.Right. It's not like any of us have any sort of familiarity with, or background "in", the sorts of things people here believe or accept. Nope, we're all unthinking, shallow, cookie-cutter religious thinkers, us Christians. Darn it.

Not knowing would be too much of a burden to bare.And here I always thought I believed what I believe because of evidence and experience, not because of my inherently weak psyche.

(I mean no disrespect; I'm just calling it as I see it.)Hey, me too.

whitewave

04-19-2006, 04:48 PM

Dear Cap D,
Yes, Clow builds on Jaynes' book. However, she differs with Jaynes in that she believes that the loss of the bicameral mind was not a leap in the evolution of consciousness, but a devolution.

Humming,
I couldn't agree more...although I think that before the catastrophe we might not have needed psychotropics to connect with the Divine Mind.

If as Clow says, we were bicameral before the Catastrophes, then we would not have needed plant medicine to connect with the Divine.

The civilizations she focuses on are Egypt, Greece, and Atlantis. The catastrophe was a comet that hit earth 11,500 years ago that caused massive crustal shifting, earthquakes,flooding, etc.,wiping out these civilizations geographically, although survivors managed to hold on to some of the knowledge which reblossomed in the ancient mystery schools of Egypt and Greece.

Her claim is that, after the big catastrophe, for the next couple of thousand years the earth was a very unstable place to live for humans, and that we are suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome as a result of this period.

Most radically, she is saying that the Catastrophe already happened, and that the Global Elite is using this buried fear by making us think it is going to happen again.

According to her astrological reasoning (and maybe astronomical. I can't remember.), the likelihood of this happening is once every 30 million years. She claims that The Elite, knowing that we are about to enter a new Golden Age when we link up with the center of the galaxy in 2012, is trying to make us fear this event as another catastrophe so that we will not use this event to empower ourselves and create the harmony on earth that could be possible at this time. If we are distracted by fear we will not be able to make the necessary leap and they will be able to maintain their control over the Earth's resources, us included.

The book goes very in depth into astrology, archeaostronomy, geology,and other fields of science, as well as looking at the evidence left behind by the Egyptians and Greeks (and Minoans) who re-established their civilizations when the areas again became inhabitable.

Has anyone ever done research into how long psychotropics have been used by humans? It would be interesting to discover if they were in use before 11,500 years ago.

Clow thinks that the Aymara, the indigenous people of the Altiplano in Bolivia and Peru, are a prediluvial culture, and that their language is perhaps the language spoken by the Atlanteans. I have a friend who is Aymara who told me that Catastrophobia has struck at least the common man there. Infected by Christianity, the people he is meeting now talk of the apocalypse and judgment at the hand of God, although perhaps there are shamans who see it differently.

In any case, thank you to all the psychotropics of the world for helping us wake up and hear the voice of God again!

And I hope that I did Clow justice. The two books I mentioned are extremely well-researched and intelligent and I would not want to reduce her brilliance in any way by my brief summary here.

whitewave

04-19-2006, 05:01 PM

Douglas,
I would like to recommend a book to you, Love Without Conditions, by Paul Ferrini. It helped me allow the teachings of Jesus to enter my heart, when before he was an intellectual construct for me.

I am not a Biblical scholar, and I am most certainly not interested in debating anyone about who or what our saviour is, mostly because I don't believe we need saving, just like I don't believe we need healing. (We had a great discussion on the topic of healing in the Kali-Shakti thread on the Left Hand Path topic).

I don't believe we need healing or saving because I see all that has happened, that is happening, and that will happen, as a necessary part of our evolution on an individual and mass level. In my eyes, these are all steps we have to take in order to find our way back home. Because of this view, I am able to step back from my reactions to people much more easily than in the past, when I often became quite angry and upset. This makes me much more productive and able to participate in creating a sustainable planetary culture. As Osho says, the question is not why, but how....

Since I now see us as mirrors of things we need to see about ourselves in order to become whole, which I define as one with the Divine Mind, then I am able to live a much more peaceful and centered life, which I know effects more people than if I were to go about trying to convert them or save them. I did this for years and met with many negative reactions. This issue actually came up for me in a soul retrieval session, and I have stopped doing it since I re-integrated this lost soul part.

What do you see in the mirror of my words?

[ April 19, 2006, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: whitewave ]

Dna

04-21-2006, 02:24 PM

The urge to convert people is a neurotic and stressful thing - a kind of blindness.

Dna.

Douglas

04-22-2006, 12:50 AM

Dna,

The urge to convert people is a neurotic and stressful thing - a kind of blindness.Not necessarily. For some, perhaps. But for most, it is a motivation born out of the desire to see people avoid alienation from God, and receive everlasting life. Doesn't daniel himself express that he feels an "urgent" need to get his message out? Why? Is it out of a "kind of blindness", or out of a feeling that the message is important? If the latter, why couldn't the same be true for Evangelical Christians, in that their "urge" to see people saved is not due to a "kind of blindness", but a desire to "help" people?

Douglas

04-22-2006, 12:54 AM

whitewave,

I would like to recommend a book to you, Love Without Conditions, by Paul Ferrini. It helped me allow the teachings of Jesus to enter my heart, when before he was an intellectual construct for me.In the Bible, Jesus quite clearly taught that He was the Savior of mankind, and that mankind had sinned and was in need of redemption. Jesus said, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance", and "Repent, and believe in the Gospel". (Note that, logically, the previous two statements of Jesus directly imply that all have sinned, because the latter statement was directed publicly and generally , thus providing context for the former statement, in that in that statement, Jesus was, in part, pointing out that His message would be rejected by those who would never admit or accept that they were sinners.)

Loving God and one's neighbor are, of course, teachings of Jesus, but it is schizophrenic, in essence, to accept only [i]some of Jesus' teachings but not others. Let me know if you need some other examples of Jesus' teachings which show what He taught about sin, redemption, and judgment.

[ April 22, 2006, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

sidecross

04-22-2006, 05:09 AM

The Bible is a collection of hear say; Jesus never wrote what he said. The bible is a collection of documents to support a belief system.

Kurt Gödel has shown in his Incompleteness Theorem that within any system you can not use that system to prove itself. He used this theorem to show that 2 + 2 = 4 can not be proven.

What you may have is faith, but please recognize that faith is not always truth.

Douglas

04-22-2006, 07:47 AM

sidecross,

The Bible is a collection of hear say; Jesus never wrote what he said.That's true, but only in regard, specifically, to what Jesus said. The authors of the Gospels (at least three of them, anyway) claimed to be eyewitnesses to what Jesus said and did. And they eventually gave their lives rather than deny what they claimed regarding Jesus. (Of course, we have no video, so it could all be made up, right?)

The bible is a collection of documents to support a belief system.Sure, but that says nothing about whether or not it is true. Plus, the Old Testament writers wrote hundreds to thousands of years before the New Testament writers wrote the New Testament - they can hardly be accused of collaborating with the New Testament writers to produce a work supporting a particular belief system.

Kurt Gödel has shown in his Incompleteness Theorem that within any system you can not use that system to prove itself. He used this theorem to show that 2 + 2 = 4 can not be proven.I majored in Applied Mathematics (actually took more than enough courses for a regular ol' "Mathematics" degree). I don't recall him using his theorem to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 could not be proven. What his theorem shows is that within any axiomatic system sufficiently "powerful" to "model" arithmetic, there are true statements within that system which cannot be proven (I'm pretty sure I've got this summary correct).

What you may have is faith, but please recognize that faith is not always truth.Certainly, faith is not always truth. But truth must always be accepted with a degree of faith. And this is true of any faith. Why should we accept the "message" daniel is seeking to share regarding "Quetzalcoatl"? At what point do you yourself suspend your faith in daniel's (or even more pointedly, "Quetzalcoatl's") veracity and admit to yourself that it's far, far less verified and substantiated than the claims of the Bible? Or is it only the Bible that cannot be trusted?

craazyman

04-22-2006, 09:51 AM

Douglas, how do you resolve the question of salvation: through faith or through works?

daniel

04-22-2006, 10:19 AM

hi douglas,

i note that you still never answered the points I made in my earlier email of April 1, and that you have begun to attribute to me positions that I do not hold.

When you write: "Why should we accept the "message" daniel is seeking to share regarding "Quetzalcoatl"? At what point do you yourself suspend your faith in daniel's (or even more pointedly, "Quetzalcoatl's") veracity and admit to yourself that it's far, far less verified and substantiated than the claims of the Bible? Or is it only the Bible that cannot be trusted?"

I do not ask or desire anyone to accept my transmission on "faith," and would find that entirely antithetical to my perspective and my ideas.

Gnosis is an individual and personal thing - nobody else's experience can substitute for your own, no other authority can replace your own knowledge.

As a journalist and writer, I feel a responsibility to honestly convey my own experiences - and this transmission was a facet of my experience.

I don't take anything on faith - including this experience and this transmission, however subjectively convincing it may have seemed at the time. I am curious to find out what it means - perhaps it means nothing.

"Open the doors for yourself" - that is what I propose, rather than clinging to old tatters of belief systems that can be ideologically twisted and tweaked to suit the believer's unconscious and unintegrated shadow material.

Douglas

04-22-2006, 10:23 AM

daniel,

I do not ask or desire anyone to accept my transmission on "faith," and would find that entirely antithetical to my perspective and my ideas.Might I ask, then, what is the reason for your sense of "urgency" in getting your message out? And in what way other than "faith" could it be received?

Douglas

04-22-2006, 10:39 AM

daniel,

i note that you still never answered the points I made in my earlier email of April 1, and that you have begun to attribute to me positions that I do not hold.I still have a printout of that email beside my laptop computer, and I still plan to answer it in detail. As I've said, though, I haven't as much time to sit down and devote to it as I'd like, and probably won't until after Finals for this semester. I believe I've asked for your patience in this already, and I'm afraid I'll have to ask for it again, at least until around the first week in May, most likely. Your email requires adequately dealing with a number of "in-depth" topics (such as the reasons to take the Bible as "some absolute text of spiritual authority", and describing a bit more of its history, and also comparing it to the Koran; also, I need to reason regarding "objective 'Truth'", and its reality; further, I need to explain why Jesus' sacrifice wasn't merely an "evolutionary step beyond the act that the Buddha performed", and that it would go against the entirety of Jesus' life and teachings to claim He did not view His sacrifice as unique and necessary for salvation; I also need to address a couple of other points - so, it's going to take me more time than 10-15 minutes of sitting here composing a quick response, and I don't like working on parts of a response, then coming back to other parts later).

Shifting focus, I take it that these "attributions" you believe I make of you is the one where I imply that you desire other people to receive your message regarding "Quetzalcoatl's" "return" (in 2012), and that this would involve some degree of faith on their part. Am I correct? Do you feel that your message regarding "Quetzalcoatl's" "return" is important, and that it would benefit people if they "received" (accepted it as valid or true) it? I don't claim to be an expert on your view regarding your message, so feel free, of course, to correct me if and when I am wrong.

Gnosis is an individual and personal thing - nobody else's experience can substitute for your own, no other authority can replace your own knowledge.Okay. But what happens if one person's "gnosis" is in direct contradiction to another's? Would both "gnoses" (is that the plural of "gnosis"?) be correct, though in direct contradiction? For example, of one person's "gnosis" indicated that God exists and sent Jesus to die for the sins of mankind, and another person's "gnosis" indicated that there was no individual "God" but only various beings on different levels of spiritual development, could both "gnoses" be correct? Wouldn't at least one of them be incorrect? Is it better to walk in the truth, or in partial or complete darkness?

[ April 22, 2006, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

sacha

04-22-2006, 11:26 AM

But what happens if one person's "gnosis" is in direct contradiction to another's? It means that in the process of translating the untranslatable into a form that our "thinking" level of consciousness can apprehend, the two people had translated in ways that appeared on the surface to contradict each other.

Would both "gnoses" (is that the plural of "gnosis"?) be correct, though in direct contradiction?
If you were to take the words and concepts literally, they would both be incorrect. If you were to take them as pointers toward the untranslatable, they would both be correct.

johnny

04-22-2006, 12:33 PM

thanks for answering some of my own questions, daniel, in reponse to douglas. and sacha, i'm really enjoying your posts on the aya board, have been reading through some...

i think everyone has had an experience similar to daniel's? similar to sacha's? some kind of direct transmission or experiential encounter with source. i think that's when ideas of faith and truth cease, rather abruptly, to apply. meanwhile you're left mimicing your old life and beliefs, until they no longer work, until an anguished grieving mind is okay with the new world that's opened up.

essentially, for me, it's not about anything written in any text, not even the logions of thomas (but what fantastic reads!)or the strange and dangerous event the (let's say for example's sake) christ was: politically, energetically and revolutionary.

does daniel's experience counteract mine? no. not unless he had no curiosity or sense of humor or even a sense of being confused and flommuxed.

believe it: meeting your face in the face of god is tricky. but strangely never masochistic. no matter what the canons: sufi, christian, islamic et cetera would have you think.

thanks

daniel

04-22-2006, 02:07 PM

One person's "gnosis" can never be in "direct contradiction" with another's. Only their "beliefs" can be in conflict. I think sascha and johnny's posts are excellent on this point.

Carl Jung wrote, "I believe only what I know." I suspect that you, Douglas, have serious work to do in separating out your "beliefs" from what you actually know.

douglas writes: "Might I ask, then, what is the reason for your sense of "urgency" in getting your message out? And in what way other than "faith" could it be received?"

What I wrote is that I felt urgency in getting these ideas out into the world - not my "message," so once again I feel you are deforming my language and intent for your own purposes.

The book is multilayered and contains many different sets of ideas. I think it is indeed possible that the book contains very important and valuable information, contextualized and synthesized in a new way, that will help people reach their own individual understanding of things that are taking place in our world right now.

For instance, I think I present a decent and logical argument for taking the crop circles seriously, as a teaching on the nature of reality coming from some form of galactic intelligence. I then seek to decode the phenomenon.

The book presents a case for a subtler nondualistic perspective on reality that includes the possibility that there is no singular truth (as in that Nietzsche quote), but there is not total relativism either.

The book examines the Jungian model of the Self and the Ego, and the possibility that the Self can sometimes speak within the Ego as a higher consciousness and conscience - and yes, I look at my own experience w/Quetz in the light of this possibility.

I also propose that a new harmonic calendar (but not the Dreamspell), synchronized with solar and lunar cycles, might be a valuable tool in creating a new compassionate and peaceful planetary culture.

Etc, etc.

Above all, however, I note that it is up to the individual to do the painful and difficult work on themselves, and for themselves, if they want to reach the "integral consciousness" which is, I suggest, the next step beyond post-modern rationality. That work requires taking nothing on faith, but using our intelligence and reasoning abilities along with our intuitive and emotional capacities to attain a more complete realization of reality.

Dna

04-22-2006, 02:45 PM

Hi Daniel,

I take crop circles seriously too but I don't know what creates them. I look forward to receiving your book, which I have pre-ordered from Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585424838/ref=wl_it_dp/102-4656407-8925753?%5Fencoding=UTF8&colid=3QQDUR55FWJC&coliid=I31B0V9LX9FOC5&v=glance&n=283155), for your thougts this and more.

Hope lots of people buy it.

Best of luck,

Dna.

[ April 22, 2006, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Dna ]

sacha

04-22-2006, 03:00 PM

the possibility that there is no singular truth (as in that Nietzsche quote), but there is not total relativism either. Or there is truth, but no singular way to translate it into human concepts.

Caprinardo Delirio

04-23-2006, 03:18 AM

i have a friend who sometimes gets a little paniccy when we're talking and accuse me of delving into total relativism.. that always cracks me up: "total relativism"

craazyman

04-23-2006, 06:22 AM

You can tell him he's "absolutely" right.

Isaiah Mpski

04-23-2006, 11:11 AM

We need some help with the garden and animals.Relatively free room and board.We gathered two dozen eggs today as well as about ten pounds of poke.Caught one keeper fish.
Our commune lies on proven stores of oil,gas,and coal deposits as well as adequate supplies of wind,sun,and water.
Now mark this down in your book.
I want everyone to put so much thought energy into the west coast during Daniel's tour that an earthquake occurs.
I see another book in the making.
When is that tour again Lord Daniel?

Isaiah Mpski

04-23-2006, 11:19 AM

Crazyman-what do you know about making money from the Green River shales?I know the US has the largest and most productive fields in the world.
Do you know who owns the most natural gas up there?Is it the Sun Co or is it a bunch of little companies.

Also whatever happened in regard to the thin solar energy cells from South Africa?

craazyman

04-24-2006, 12:47 AM

Don't know much about the Green River shales. I'm no expert on the oil shale businesses, just have read that U.S. has some 100 years worth of oil in oil shale form and Canada has triple the oil equivalent of Saudi Arabia. If oil stays high, then maybe it'll be economical to extract this stuff, but it hasn't been in recent years.

There was another post on the S. Africa solar panel in that thread. I haven't heard anything else about it. It'll probably take a few years to see if it's a commercial technology or not.

Where did Wolf go? He took off as soon as his demon got excorcized. I kind of liked him, but he was hitting Daniel way too hard. Daniel gave him some good advice on his shaman book. I don't know why Wolf had a problem with it.

Isaiah Mpski

04-24-2006, 05:03 AM

You know CM,I used to get up everyday and the first thought on my mind was how was I going to come up with the 100$ that day that it takes me and my family to live.
I think Wolf had reached that point and had believed that his book was going to put him in a more favorable monetary position.He full well believed that daniel had the influence and power to help put him (wolf) there.
Personally I enjoyed Wolf,s insights to the makeup of Daniel but wish that both of them would understand they are probably twenty years behind us in terms of what they are experiencing.
I found Wolf's threatening physical violence a bit scary as I have seen way to much of that and it's consequences.
Please check out for me yahoo group PickOverFlow and let me know if you can access my 3 pictures.
I'm dealing with some people in Austin and they say when they go to the sight they cannot find the picture album.Can't figure that all quite out.
Have alot of work to be done on the farm.Planning to plant close to 400 hybrid tomatoes and another 200 pepper plants.Too many other things to deal with to spend all day out on the farm.
Really need more disciples.Catch fish,cut wood,garden,build structures,and create local political power here in McIntosh County Ok.

[ April 30, 2006, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Isaiah Mpski ]

MidnightDreary

04-24-2006, 08:03 AM

Isaiah,
These are the pics on the PickOverFlow group:

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/groups/g_10795096/d707/__sr_/d7a8.jpg?groWlXEBll7wR2fi

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/groups/g_10795096/d707/__sr_/2aa1.jpg?groWlXEBo2wm4GnS

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/groups/g_10795096/d707/__sr_/c061.jpg?groWlXEBBAYlwXW6

[ May 07, 2006, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: MidnightDreary ]

Isaiah Mpski

04-24-2006, 09:03 AM

Many blessings to you MidNight.
Remember,the picture of Quanah is a reverse image.That is why the mole on his face is on the left side in one picture and on the right in the other.
His tie was yellow,with a unique design,held in place by a diamond studded bolo.
His hair,wrapped in beaver fur,streched down to his knee.
When I asked him how he got the scar on his upper lip he replied,
"we don't like to remember the bad times."

The bodyguard with him had-always-either a Mac 11-9 or a Highway Patrolmans 9 mm strapped to his back at all times.
I think it is remarkable that he was chosen as the personal physician and bodyguard of Q. Parker.
I can just imagine some of the stories that Quanah must have told him and what a great movie this would make if the powers that be would allow it.
I know he still has the solid gold chain around Quanah's neck and a few of the diamonds.

[ April 25, 2006, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: Isaiah Mpski ]

Isaiah Mpski

04-30-2006, 05:35 AM

What is it with the pictures.
When I view MidNight Dreary's post of them they are not there anymore at all.What's up?

As an aside to you Midnight,I have a black cat named midnight who is dreadfully ill.He is old though and all I can do is to try to mKE HIM COMFORTABLE.
I have alot of good stories about Midnight-my black panther.
By the way,I found out Manning that the birthday of Quanah's bodyguard who looks like Robert Silver's portrait of Christ is 1-20-47.The same day the Dead Schrolls were found and from which Robert Silvers Portrait of Christ was made.
Oh by the way,there is a great Pow Wow going on in Albuquerque now if any of you can get there.
There is also one in July here in Eufaula I think.

[ May 09, 2006, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: Isaiah Mpski ]

MidnightDreary

04-30-2006, 06:29 AM

Isaiah,
I don't know what happened with the pictures. I think I've fixed them (for now anyway).

Sorry to hear about your cat. Hopefully like you said his end will be a peaceful one.

Isaiah Mpski

05-06-2006, 06:46 AM

CM,
Midnight is doing remarkably well after worming him and a bit of antibiotics.I know he would appreciate some opium though.
His nephew,Greyboy is exhibiting some of the same symptoms-weight loss etc and I fear they have the aids like virus that is running ramant as feline leukemia.
For everyone's info and in case you might make a mad dash for relative safety in case of emergency the picture of the map on this board is of I-40 and it's crossing Lake Eufaula, in eastern Oklahoma.My farm is the obviously undeveloped 1/4 of picture.It has a pink house on it and a couple of trailers that you can see from I-40 as you are crossing the lake.

Isaiah Mpski

05-07-2006, 05:57 AM

Some better news from the animal kingdom.Took grey-boy to the vet.Seems he had been in terrible fight and stomach was torn apart and infected.
Antibiotics seem to have turned the tide.That and deworming him.
What happened to the picture of Quanah's 150th birthday?
We better get our asses out of Iraq asap.
Convoy lines cut off-land,sea,and air.Suddenly you have 150,000 of America's finest burning in piles.
I hope we throw some nukes at em(Iran) before we get annilated.
Can't you just see D. Rumsfield hiding out in the mountains above his spread in New Mexico.
If I weren't so old,I'd hide out with him.

Quetzalcoatl at heart.

craazyman

05-07-2006, 11:19 AM

That's good news Isaiah. Sounds like you've got a nice spread out there. I'm still optimistic about Iran/Iraq, even at this point. I think the Mullahs will put the collar on the new Iranian Moloch before too long, marginalize him, trivialize him, weaken him, he's destined to become a parody of himself as he fades from relevance--he's bad for their business, whether it's oil for dollars or euros. It's not like when they sent 500,000 kids to die in Saddam's trenches. We're talking real money now. Here it is. Diego Velasquez portrait of Pope Innocent X. Take a look at that face--there's a man who can count his change & when he saw the portrait he replied "Too true, too true." Put a turban on his head and you've got the Mullahs, almost, just lacking a little bit of that love of Christ, but men who understand how the world works. I am fairly confident there's heavy back-channel diplomacy going on. They're saying "Look, we want to get rid of this guy even more than you guys do, just give it some time to play out . . . "

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/velazquez/innocent.jpg.html

I am up to page 200 of 2012. Terrific stuff.

Isaiah Mpski

05-07-2006, 02:54 PM

CM,
If you were ever looking for a place to survive the apocalypse this is it.
Shallow production of coal,oil,and gas.Also of course,plenty of water with us having at least 1/2 mile of lakefront on Lake Eufaula which was the third largest manmade lake in America when it was completed in 1965 under the Johnson Administration.
I have enough resourses to support anyone who wants to come and live and develop a new age community based on Daniel's foresight here for awhile-say a couple of growing and fishing seasons.
If they have a child with me I think my trust fund will pay at least 1000$ per month for 16 years LOL.How unlucky can one get?
CM our future lies in Mexico and the mountains in New Mexico and it wouldn't take too much of an effort for some computor nerd like MD,AS,or Rob to really get us up and going with the propaganda machine to control the local politics.

Douglas

05-08-2006, 03:55 PM

daniel,

Well, here is my long-delinquent response to your post from more than a month ago. My genuine apologies for having taken so long. As it is, I have only about an hour tonight to compose a response, so it will not be as thorough as I had hoped it would be, but I don't want to postpone it any longer.

My perspective (or hypothesis) is not that you are a projection of my psyche, or vice versa. It is that ultimately there is one consciousness, and this consciousness takes a myriad of perspectives in order to experience itself as individuated identity.If this is so, then wouldn't it be true that there is really no such thing (ultimately) as good or evil? Murder is just this "ultimate" consciousness experiencing itself in a particular individuated way; same thing with kidnap, torture, rape and murder of little children, in this perspective, right? (I am genuinely trying to make sure I understand your view in this, and not trying to sling any philosophical mud - I am just using extreme examples for the sake of clarification.)

I think it is absurd to take the Bible as some absolute text of spiritual authority.How much are you aware of the evidences for the validity of the Bible? How much "in-depth" study of the Bible have you done? There are many reasons for accepting the Bible as an "abolute text of spiritual authority". (I don't have time tonight to detail any, though.)

The Bible as a book had a contentious history, where different pieces were removed and added in order to fit an evolving doctrine that eventually led to the abomination of the Catholicism, the Crusades, etc..My understanding of the development of the Bible is that the Old Testament was already in existence, accepted, prior to Jesus' time. And the books of the New Testament were all already widely agreed upon long before the Council of Nicea (where the New Testament "canon" was "officially" determined). Furthermore, it appears that to have been accepted as New Testament "Scripture", a writing had to have been written by either one of the Apostles, or by one of the close associates of Jesus during His ministry (Luke), or dictated by one of the Apostles to one of his close disciples (Peter to Mark, resulting in the Book of Mark). Note that as it is now, it was then - there are always those who, hating a particular doctrine, will seek to distort or twist it with lies. Likely this latter would account for "The Gospel of Thomas", "The Gospel of Judas", and "The Epistle of Barnabas". It would be a far, far more likely explanation than to think that the Apostles contradicted each other on major points regarding Jesus' life and teachings. Lastly, the New Testament in no way supports Catholicism, nor the Crusades, nor the Inquisitions. Roman Catholicism is a pagan, apostate, false version of Christianity. (I could go into a detailed list and history, but not tonight, as I don't have time.)

I do believe that Christ accomplished a spiritual deed that changed the nature of human evolution - following my own intellectual trajectory, I support some ideas from Rudolf Steiner and Gurdjieff (see JG Bennett's The Masters of Wisdom).But what do the Gospels themselves indicate that Jesus thought He Himself had done (or, from His perspective before His crucifixion, was going to do)? Isn't it more likely that Jesus knew more about what He accomplished (or "was going to" accomplish) than someone looking back from a distance of about 2000 years?

When you go on about Biblical authority, you sound undifferentiated from a Muslim proclaiming the absolute truth of the Quran, or anyone else proclaiming they have The Answer because it is written in their Holy Book.At that level, yes, we all sound the same, unfortunately. At another level, the claim regarding Biblical authority is far different than any other, because there is objective and quite strong evidence and reasons supporting the claim. Just to give a couple of examples as to why at least some other "Holy Books" don't measure up:
[list] The Book of Mormon contains several errors and contradictions which are not reasaonably explainable. (Such as a headless body speaking, and quotations with exact phrases from the KJV Bible, in English, even maintaining the grammar, whereas the claim is made that the Book of Mormon was written hundreds and hundreds of years prior to the KJV Bible, in an ancient language, and that Joseph Smith had been divinely inspired in translating from that ancient language; further, several quotes are from events in the Gospels of the Book of Acts, events which the Mormons themselves would agree would have occurred after the writing of the Book of Mormon).
The Koran presents Allah as loving, merciful, and just. Yet its theology fails to reconcile Allah's mercy with his justice, other than to say Allah, when choosing to be merciful, simply overlooks his own justice. (For example, if a person commits some iniquity, there is a just punishment for that iniquity; yet, if for some reason [a change in the person's heart, perhaps] Allah chooses to be merciful to that person, the justice, the punishment, is simply overlooked and forgotten. [Thus, Allah cannot be just, if he is merciful.]) Essentially, this results in a contradiction within the Koran: it claims that Allah is both merciful and just, yet it logically entails his being only one or the other, since in the Koran's theology, Allah's mercy requires his ignoring his own justice.

As I have written elsewhere, I don't think there is a singular "Truth."In what "realm"? "Truth" regarding particular mathematical propositions? Truth regarding an individual's beliefs and feelings ("I feel sad", "I believe the Bible", etc.)? Truth regarding the validity of particular spiritual beliefs ("there is a God", "there is no God", "God is impersonal", "God is personal", "an individual's spirit survives physical death", "matter is all that there is", "good and evil are real", etc.)? Along these lines, how would you answer the following question: Is it ultimately true that there is no ultimate "Truth"?

I take the Nietzschen perspective that truth is more like a system of values, the way a painter uses values in a painting.You mean that "truth" becomes, or is, subjective? Okay, but if truth is subjective, then "truth is subjective" is merely a subjective truth, and "truth is objective" is just as true. Note that you cannot say (if truth is subjective) that "truth is subjective" and expect that statement to be objectively ("ultimately") true; and this directly implies that there [b]must be some "objective" truth, somewhere.

This means that truth has an aesthetic dimension to it - and also what is more truthful will better fit our percepts as well as what we have received as "history."I take it that by "more truthful" here you merely mean something like "a truth having a better aesthetic 'value'", rather than something which is closer to some objective truth.

In a sense, the best story wins.Ah, but "best" implies an objective standard.

You write: "Buddha did not give his life for sinners, nor for his enemies, nor even for his friends. In fact, Buddha did not sacrifice his life at all. Buddha's message is one of 'disengagement'; Jesus' message is one of absolute 'engagement', and overcoming. Buddha's message says life is an illusion; Jesus' message says life is not an illusion, and the good and evil we see and experience are real. Jesus confronts evil on its own terms, rather than denying it away, contrary to reality."

I agree with this to a great extent - I don't think it is necessary to denigrate the Buddha to make this point, however.It is hard to respect those who, knowing of the suffering of others in this life, deny its essential reality, and preach "disengagement" from the woes of others, and from the responsibility to seek to alleviate their suffering. If that wasn't Buddha's message, or an implication of his teachings, then I need correction, and am willing to be corrected.

Steiner also proposes that the deed of self-sacrifice performed by the Christ was an evolutionary step beyond the act that the Buddha performed, which was also an extraordinary and profound achievement for humanity.How do you think Jesus viewed His sacrifice? Did He think it was merely an example for others to follow? What do the Gospels indicate was His attitude towards His crucifixion? (I would encourage you to read John the Baptist's preaching, and Jesus' commendations of John the Baptist, as recorded in the Gospels.)

Christ's act required absolute certainty of the existence of the transcendent domain, therefore in a sense you could say he recognized this life as an illusion.Not as an "illusion", but merely that physical death was not the end. He "recognized" that the idea that physical death was the end is an "illusion", yes.

However, by his act he pointed out that whatever this plane of reality is, ultimately it must be treated as the absolute plane in terms of one's ethical conduct (as Buddhism puts it, "samsara is nirvana.").The Gospels indicate that His act was far more than this, and that Jesus viewed His act as far more than this.

Christ's line about those who love their life in this world must lose it, but those who hate it will preserve it until everlasting life is an interesting one...You have it almost correct. What Jesus actually said was "he who loves his life in this world will lose it, but he who hates his life in this world will save it" (the "save it" part might be paraphrased - the actual meaning is essentially the same as I have it written, though).

...- part of the thrust of interpreted Christianity that led to the denigration of the physical and bodily.There have always been those who distort what is actually taught. Neither Jesus nor the Bible teaches the denigration of the physical and bodily. Both do teach, however, to not love the physical and bodily more than truth and conscience - the issue is to be willing to sacrifice the physical and bodily when necessary. God Himself created the physical and bodily, and He called it "good" (and this included sex [within the confines of marriage, naturally]).

Of course I could be deceived, by the way. And I presume you would agree that so could you?Not regarding the truth of the Gospel, nor the truths regarding Jesus, no. No more than I could be deceived about 2+2 equalling 4, or about George W. Bush being the current President of the United States.

Now, daniel, I believe I asked you this before, but I don't recall you answering me: Do you agree that there are non-corporeal spirits/beings who can and do lie, and some who might even be characterized as being "liars"? (Remember, I am not the only one who has posted in this thread expressing their conviction/concern that the being who "contacted" you is lying to you, deceiving you. Do you recall "waterthere"?)

(And, daniel, as I said elsewhere, I did not know "who" you were [journalist, author, artist, famous/semi-famous/almost famous person, globe-trotting racontuer/spiritual conquistador]) until more than 6 months after I had first posted here - there are lots of blogs on the Internet, and I found yours by doing a "Google" search for "Quetzalcoatl" [plus something else]. I merely read your first post in this thread, and felt compelled to respond - I honestly feel a sort of compassion for you in your state, and I get the feeling that God wants you to be a sort of modern-day "Saul who became Paul". Honestly and seriously, though I am not claiming that this is something God has revealed to me - it's just a feeling I have [that could be mistaken].)

[ May 08, 2006, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

MidnightDreary

05-08-2006, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Douglas:
No more than I could be deceived about 2+2 equalling 4, or about George W. Bush being the current President of the United States.Aha! This statement in itself is a direct contradiction. We all know that the only reason George W. Bush is president is because, apparently, 2+2 actually equals 5.

tana

05-09-2006, 02:18 AM

sacha

05-09-2006, 03:26 AM

It is hard to respect those who, knowing of the suffering of others in this life, deny its essential reality, and preach "disengagement" from the woes of others, and from the responsibility to seek to alleviate their suffering. If that wasn't Buddha's message, or an implication of his teachings, then I need correction, and am willing to be corrected.
Yes, all the above is a radical misunderstanding. Nonattachment is a very different thing from disengagement.

[ May 09, 2006, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: sacha ]

Agape_negates_fear

05-09-2006, 03:34 AM

Daniel said: I think it is absurd to take the Bible as some absolute text of spiritual authority.

Douglas said: How much are you aware of the evidences for the validity of the Bible? How much "in-depth" study of the Bible have you done? There are many reasons for accepting the Bible as an "abolute text of spiritual authority". (I don't have time tonight to detail any, though.) Jacob says:

Yes, but what if adherents from many of the world's religious traditions conducted "in-depth" studies of their revered texts and all found evidence isolating their text as an "absolute text of spiritual authority." I think a point to be made here is that each spiritual tradition could make a case for the efficacy of their particular tradition. This makes sense, and it has essentially been done. What then are we to do when we come together as a global faith community, with similar yet descriptively different renderings of the human story? To me, this calls for a metastudy of religious texts, identifying the pieces that fit together. We should look at them as elements of our collective identity, assuming that adopting pieces from another tradition can awaken us to subtle content within our own.

This is a process that has been going on for some time - at least since the 19th Century (see Max Muller, Swami Sri Yukteswar).

[ May 09, 2006, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: Agape_negates_fear ]

MidnightDreary

05-09-2006, 07:47 AM

And I would think that a response a month in the making would be able to include "reasons for accepting the Bible as an abolute text of spiritual authority", since you claim to have them. The whole post is pretty hollow as it stands.

[ May 09, 2006, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: MidnightDreary ]

sidecross

05-09-2006, 08:51 AM

‘The whole post is pretty hollow as it stands.’

I agree, it seems to have many holes in the argument, but most likely he sees it as ‘holy’.

Thom

05-09-2006, 10:18 AM

Douglas, what are the "reasons for accepting the Bible as an absolute text of spiritual authority"?

Douglas

05-09-2006, 10:35 AM

if the god who assures bush of bush's superiority is the same god who assures douglas of douglas's superiority, then who is more superior, bush or douglas? (let's ask a 4th century italian monk...he would know.)It is not the same God. Plus, it is a cheap and lazy tactic to try to portray me as viewing myself as being "superior", since I don't view myself that way. But it's a typical approach of those unwilling to fairly consider the evidence.

[ May 09, 2006, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

Douglas

05-09-2006, 10:39 AM

To those who consider my response to daniel to be "hollow": Did you not even read the entire post? Or did you simply not notice where I mentioned that I only had about an hour, and so did not have enough time to be as thorough as I desired? Beyond this, though, I notice none of you have attempted, yourselves, to address my point regarding "truth is objective" vs. "truth is subjective". That point, in itself, should be sufficient to show a major error in daniel's worldview. Other points I made in that post were far from shallow, or "hollow".

In any case, I probably won't be able to address daniel's points more thoroughly until this weekend. Until then, I would be curious to see how others here answer the "truth" characterization.

Douglas

05-09-2006, 10:40 AM

Thom,

Douglas, what are the "reasons for accepting the Bible as an absolute text of spiritual authority"?I'm afraid I won't have the time to address this more thoroughly until this coming weekend. Sorry.

Thom

05-09-2006, 11:09 AM

Hi Douglas,

I'm also sorry you don't have the time. When you can address the question, do let me know - by pm if necessary. I think its quite important. Thanks.

sacha

05-09-2006, 11:15 AM

Well, before you get into how archaeological evidence backs up that this or that Assyrian king or ancient city mentioned in the Bible really existed, keep in mind that that mundane history has nothing to do with "spiritual authority."

What I'd like to know is, since the Bible clearly states throughout that God lives up in the sky (Hebrew shamayim, Greek ouranos -- and in most languages in which the Bible has been translated, the word for "sky" is used, and it is pretty clear in the Bible, with Jesus's ascension and all, that by "heaven," the literal sky is meant) why have astronomers failed to find God and his throne up there (it can't be very far, since the Biblical heaven is the realm of clouds and stars both) and why don't Biblical literalists consider astronomers and meteorologists the enemy of faith the way they do evolutionary biologists?

[ May 09, 2006, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: sacha ]

sidecross

05-09-2006, 11:20 AM

Douglas: “Beyond this, though, I notice none of you have attempted, yourselves, to address my point regarding "truth is objective" vs. "truth is subjective". That point, in itself, should be sufficient to show a major error in daniel's worldview.”

In golf they would call that “a ‘hole’ in one”.

As far as ‘truth’, ‘objective’, & ‘subjective’, those words are skillfully presented in two films; the recent film “Crash” and the classic Akira Kurosawa film “Rashomon”; both films speak to the meaning of ‘truth’, ‘objective’, ‘subjective’, and another word worth exploring ‘certainty’.

willoweyes

05-10-2006, 04:29 AM

Douglas, so far I've refrained from commenting here, thanks to a few dangling shreds of compassion and a heady double shot of ennui and deja vu.

But you are beginning to resemble a goldfish in a blender. Please, do me a favor and read Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels" during that time of the day you usually reserve for rereading your well-worn Bible. Don't worry, it won't hurt your faith--if it is strong enough.

And remember Jesus' last words before His spirit left us: "In my Father's house are many mansions. I go to make a place for you."

A house is a place where we can all live--a mansion is a vainglorious edifice erected in pride. Why do our mouths droop in awe before the mansion?

craazyman

05-10-2006, 10:27 AM

Doug you're taking a beating in here, man. But you're hanging in there like a champ. I like that.

Doug, There are FIVE objective truths. You can find thhem listed in the back of most unabridged dictionaries sold in American bookstores on a page titled "Declaration of Independence". It was written by a relatively young man who lived in beautiful home in Virginia. He also had some fabulous gardens and grew lots of herbs. He was briefly the American Ambassador in Paris.

I will take those FIVE truths, and you can have everything else you want in the universe, even 1+2=3. Frankly, for me, 1+1 = whatever I want it to equal on any given day.

I don't know if you're a baseball fan, but you've been chipping off some down at the knees sliders and out of the strikezone fastballs into the upper deck seats behind third base. I saw one that almost hit an old lady in the head. But you're still at the plate.

Here's a hanging curve that you should belt over the centerfield fence. I asked you before, but I know you're busy so I'm not offended that you haven't taken a swing: Where goes the road to salvation, through faith or through works?

tana

05-10-2006, 10:34 AM

how can "truth" be objective when reality itself is not? even if "truth" was objective, how could the totality of it be adequately expressed in mere words?

[ May 11, 2006, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: tana ]

tana

05-10-2006, 10:47 AM

i'm also wondering why the gnostic scriptures are so often disregarded by other (non-gnostic) christians?

Caprinardo Delirio

05-10-2006, 05:11 PM

is reality not subjective? what about colours - do colours exist outside of the human rendering system? no, certain frequency bands do, but colours only arrive at the entrance of existence when these frequencies enters our retinas and down through our sensory computer. same goes with sounds, words, signs and symbols, seperate objects or seperate anythings... subjective does not have to mean a matter of personal opinion, but that it needs a host organism, and only exists in relation with that host organism.

tana

05-11-2006, 01:45 AM

ack! i meant reality is not objective ! thanks Cap...i've edited my post.

willoweyes

05-11-2006, 04:25 AM

Crazy, I've been saved (for a moment) by both faith and good works. So, in my personal experience, I would have to insist that it just depends.

It's like light. Is light a wave or a particle? It's both.

My uncle had a theory (he was one of the minor saints in the Dallas Pantheon). It is called the Law of 180 degree opposites. It stated that whatever was true, boing boing goes the pendulum, the opposite was true as well.

The answer I want to know is: what are you going to do for eternity?

daniel

05-11-2006, 05:08 PM

Hi Douglas,

Thanks for your response, which opens up many interesting and fun philosophical avenues for discussion. So many, in fact, that it is hard to know where to begin. I do find significant problems with your perspective (for instance, as commented upon, drawing the distinction between “detachment” and “nonattachment” is definitely crucial to understanding Buddhism). I appreciate your willingness to continue these debates and air your views on this forum. It is an instructive exercise.

My perspective is (or attempts to be) nondualistic, and seeks to work with paradoxes rather than simply reducing them to dualistic “goods” and “bads.” For instance, to address your question, is there ultimately good and evil, I think you have to realize that without “evil” there wouldn’t be any “good” – that development takes place through the process of fighting against and resisting forces of entropy and malevolence. If in traditional Christianity, God is seen as omnipotent and omniscient, then clearly he would be responsible for “evil” as well as “good”. The Qabalists used to investigate questions such as these – what was God doing with his omniscience when the Devil came into the world?

I accept that GW Bush is as much a part of my evolutionary process as Gandhi. This realization of the inextricable connection between good and evil doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t imprison criminals (though the means we use on them should be radically reinvented). On the absolute level, “Samsara is Nirvana,” but here in the relative and imperfect world, we have to learn to make ethical judgments, fight for what is right, and utilize not just compassion but what Trungpa called “fierce compassion.”

I really don’t think there are “many” or any reasons for taking the Bible as an absolute text of spiritual authority. I take the Jungian approach to the Bible, viewing it as a document that charts the evolution of the Western “God Image” and its dialectical relationship to humanity, especially the “chosen people” the Jews, who also represent the leading edge of consciousness, largely due to their intense and prolonged suffering. While it is not “The Truth”, it gives us a profound portrait of the evolution of the Western psyche.

If you read “2012”, you will gain a deeper perspective on my understanding of “truth” as neither singular nor absolute. “In God’s house there are many mansions,” and we may quite literally choose which one we end up in through our activity of consciousness. What starts out subjective can in a sense become our “objective” condition, as we build prison bars of belief for ourselves around the infinite and unconditioned. The Tibetan Bardo realms are not just describing where we go after death – we are incarnating into these realms every moment through the emotion that dominates us.

All of these concepts you name - "there is a God", "there is no God", "God is impersonal", "God is personal", "an individual's spirit survives physical death", "matter is all that there is", "good and evil are real" - may become “real” for the person who is “realing” them. But what if “reality,” in its essence, is outside of conceptualization?

This exchange clearly reveals the limit of your thought and your world view: I wrote, “Of course I could be deceived, by the way. And I presume you would agree that so could you?” You answered, “Not regarding the truth of the Gospel, nor the truths regarding Jesus, no.”

In other words, I am willing to learn and to change, but your mind is made up because you know the “truth,” like any good fundamentalist “soldier of God,” standing firm against the heathen. This makes our discussion a bit one-sided and somewhat pointless to continue, wouldn’t you say?

Douglas

05-12-2006, 03:46 PM

daniel,

Just dropped by for a second, so I will try to respond before my time is up. (I hope to respond to your most recent post later, when I have the time [again].)

In other words, I am willing to learn and to change, but your mind is made up because you know the “truth,” like any good fundamentalist “soldier of God,” standing firm against the heathen.Dude, I was once a "heathen" just like yourself (though not as well-known, or as talented, or as adventurous). My perspective is one of reaching people with the truth, a truth which would save their souls for eternity. Is that really so bad, or unreasonable? Yes, I know the "truth", and I believe I can provide reasons for believing that truth (the truth about Jesus and salvation).

I don't see why you judge me for believing I have the truth, when you yourself admit(ted) that you weren't sure about the "message" you had received. My question about whether you could be "deceived" was regarding, primarily, that "message" - it wasn't about whether or not you could in general be deceived. Even I, discerning and noble-minded spiritual warrior that I am, can be deceived regarding things that I do not know to be true. For example, I thought gas prices were going to remain relatively lower, at least for awhile - unfortunately, I was deceived. But there are things that I know to be facts, and regarding them I cannot be deceived - the truth regarding Jesus and salvation is one of those things.

I would greatly like to engage in a civil discussion regarding spiritual "truths" here, at least to see how my reasoning and evidences are received. Which reminds me - I must ask, again, how deeply and carefully you have studied the Bible. From a "distance", or from direct and intent consideration?

And, have I ever mentioned to you that I have discovered evidence of the Gospel in Nature and Mathematics? The evidence consists of two equations which share the same solution (equivalent to, at minimum, 8 decimal places). I could describe them to you in exquisite and painful detail, if you were interested.

This makes our discussion a bit one-sided and somewhat pointless to continue, wouldn’t you say?"One-sided" in the sense of your having more "freedom" to change your view regarding some spiritual "truths", yes (not that I am forced, in any sense, to hold to my current views). But even if you were convinced of the correctness of your view, the discussion might clarify many things, on both sides, even if it failed to change the view of either side. So, I wouldn't say it would be pointless to continue, necessarily. I would like to learn more about how you view your experiences and how you understand the "message" you received, and how you would respond to points I might raise. Perhaps you would like to learn more about how an Evangelical Christian really thinks about various spiritual matters, rather than painting us all with a stereotypical brush.

I would like to know, though, if you think Jesus knew more about His Own views than someone 2000 years removed from the time of His ministry and who has only a cursory knowledge of the teachings of the Bible (specifically, of Jesus' actual words, and the cultural and religious context in which He spoke and lived). I believe I can show you that Jesus would not have agreed with most of what you believe.

As an example, there are those who believe Jesus' teachings do not, in essence, contradict the Buddha's teachings. Yet the Buddha's teachings of "non-attachment" (if I understand the implication and suggestion of this term) seem to be contradicted by Jesus' response to seeing His friends' distress at the death of Lazarus: "Jesus wept". Now, if Jesus was a "spiritual master", and was "in tune" with spiritual reality, and was in agreement with the Buddha's teaching regarding "non-attachment" (assuming I have an accurate understanding of its basic idea), why would He weep in that situation?

[ May 12, 2006, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

dragonfly

05-12-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Douglas:
As an example, there are those who believe Jesus' teachings do not, in essence, contradict the Buddha's teachings. Yet the Buddha's teachings of "non-attachment" (if I understand the implication and suggestion of this term) seem to be contradicted by Jesus' response to seeing His friends' distress at the death of Lazarus: "Jesus wept". Now, if Jesus was a "spiritual master", and was "in tune" with spiritual reality, and was in agreement with the Buddha's teaching regarding "non-attachment" (assuming I have an accurate understanding of its basic idea), why would He weep in that situation?You seem to be confusing the Buddhist ideal of nonattachment with detachment. Rather than aspiring not to cry if someone they love dies, Buddhists would try not to cling to the grief. Even the Dalai Lama sometimes weeps when he sees the suffering of others.

ba caracus

05-12-2006, 10:37 PM

Douglas, I feel that now is time to start a new post for you to actually write down these truths that you believe you have to help us.

At the moment, you remind me of a muslim student I met in Morocco who invited me back to where he studied. He had only ever read/studied the Koran, never touching another book in his life. I myself have read many more books, but I accepted the fact that we could both easily be decieved by what we believe as the truth.

As I was travelling, I was really intrigued to be given some insightful thoughts about the Koran, as I had never studied it. Unfortunately for the whole time, he just purported that becuase he studied the Koran his beliefs were more pure, and true. All I ever heard was him do, was talk about his higher understanding and belief with great pride. Never once despite my inquisitive probing, did he try and speak of truths, or anything insightful. Instead he just wanted me to join him in a dabate about which book is most holy (he assumed i was Christian), which created some interesting understandings, but only about how confused we actually both were about our own beliefs and each others.

Consequently the elder came in angrily and asked me to leave....which was a shame.

craazyman

05-13-2006, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by willoweyes:
. . . The answer I want to know is: what are you going to do for eternity?willow, I had composed a fairly thoughtful reply but got a tech error when I tried to post it, and it was all lost. In brief, my answer is "go trout fishing".

Douglas

05-13-2006, 06:29 AM

ba caracus,

No, my approach would not be as the muslim student's was. I do have reasons, of various sorts, for my faith, and I would not resort to arguments such as "My scriptures are holier than yours...come to think of it, you don't even have scriptures, so I win".

[ May 13, 2006, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

Douglas

05-13-2006, 06:32 AM

dragonfly,

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Regarding the Buddha and Jesus, however: what do you suppose Jesus meant when He said that "all who came before Me were thieves and robbers"? Didn't the Buddha come before Jesus?

residualantipathy

05-13-2006, 06:33 AM

Hi Douglas--

I'm curious: do you think homosexuality is a sin, and that gays are punished in the afterlife because of their actions on Earth?

This would help me orient myself to what type of Evangelical you are, as you say that you are often stereotyped, misrepresented, etc. Thanks.

Douglas

05-13-2006, 06:42 AM

residualantipathy,

I'm curious: do you think homosexuality is a sin, and that gays are punished in the afterlife because of their actions on Earth?Yes, if they do not repent of their sins (including homosexuality) in this life. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin.

This would help me orient myself to what type of Evangelical you are, as you say that you are often stereotyped, misrepresented, etc.. Thanks.You're welcome. But please, don't think that I could no longer be stereotyped, or misrepresented, regarding my Evangelical Christianity, in particular regarding my views on homosexuality. For instance, my view regarding homosexuality is based strictly on Biblical teaching (specifically, passages in Leviticus and Romans, plus some allusions in the Bible to Sodom and Gomorrah). My view regarding homosexuality is not due to any personal revulsion to the practice, nor to any stereotypical images of homosexuals, nor to any sort of sexual repression or inhibition. Do not think that I am some sort of uninformed, backwards, red-neck. (For that matter, I don't even think I am a red-neck.)

[ May 13, 2006, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

residualantipathy

05-13-2006, 06:59 AM

Thank you for your honest answer.

Douglas

05-13-2006, 07:24 AM

residualantipathy,

I would like to ask you a question, if you don't mind. Do you agree that the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin?

willoweyes

05-13-2006, 07:40 AM

Gosh, this is fun.

Have you all heard the story of the priest who was teaching children about the hazards of burning in Hell for eternity?

"A small sparrow must remove every grain of sand in the Sahara, one grain at a time, and carry it in his beak to New York City. Do you know how long it takes him to do that?" the priest asks.

The children shout: "Eternity!"

The priest laughs, smugly. He expected that answer. "No, that is only the first second of eternity," he says.

The children are shocked into silence, considering the scope of eternity.

Craazy, I'm sorry we missed your answer concerning eternity! Have you read "The River Why"?

Douglas, every word you have ever read, was written by a human hand. Words can be magic, but they are not the Divine. And you are here because you know that.

willoweyes

05-13-2006, 07:57 AM

Doug, God HimHerself is a Homo. Who didn't like Queers, was some priests and village elders, long long ago. Who wanted to control everything, even love (which love is our only hint of the Divine).

ba caracus

05-13-2006, 08:18 AM

Douglas, you have just shown yourself to be exactly the same as him. Like I said I have respect for you both. But I'm still waiting for some truth to prevail from both of your mouths, not just your thoughts. Although my idea of truth might be different to yours, and yours different mine, his different to hers, and theirs different to mine, and...

Indeed I have no scriptures, just a mere soul, you win. Well done.

residualantipathy

05-13-2006, 08:29 AM

Douglas--

Does the Bible say homosexuality is a sin? I have to say I don't know, but I bet you do!

BUT I should say I don't think of the Bible as the direct word of God, as you seem to. Man, if I lived like that life would be sooooo boring!

I don't accept the concept of "sin" either.

To be honest, I'm kind of feeling like Daniel regarding your presence here. It's futile to talk to you; your rigidity on these issues makes the task of conversing with you rather frustrating and pointless.

I find the "gay" question to be a good way, for me at least, to discover certain people's level of opennesss and awareness.

"God" would be a great disappointment to me if HeSheIt cared so much about who I kiss or where I like putting my penis. That's not the kind of spiritual entity I find interesting. Glad it works for you, though.

Dna

05-13-2006, 10:09 AM

Doug,

What do you want?

Douglas

05-13-2006, 11:28 AM

Dna,

What do I want? Don't you read any of my posts? If not (or even if so), you might try reading my latest two posts to Daniel.

Dna

05-13-2006, 11:31 AM

100 words or less. What do you want?

Douglas

05-13-2006, 11:34 AM

ba caracus,

Douglas, you have just shown yourself to be exactly the same as him.No, I haven't. Like I said, I don't approach truth and argumentation the way he would. Your description of him indicated that he merely asserted various things about the Koran, without providing any quotes, and without providing any reason to trust the Koran. I haven't, and won't, do anything like that - when I have the time, I will present reasons for accepting the Bible as truthful and accurate.

Like I said I have respect for you both. But I'm still waiting for some truth to prevail from both of your mouths, not just your thoughts.I was under the impression that truth is "subjective" around here. In which case, there's not much more that I can do, is there?

Although my idea of truth might be different to yours, and yours different mine, his different to hers, and theirs different to mine, and....Sure, and if "truth is subjective", it makes no difference. But if truth is objective, then it makes a world of difference whether someone believes the truth, or is believing, and following, a lie.

Indeed I have no scriptures, just a mere soul, you win. Well done.I'm pretty sure you misunderstood my comment regarding that.

Douglas

05-13-2006, 11:35 AM

Dna,

100 words or less. What do you want?Re-read my prior post to you, where I DIRECTED you to two posts which should answer your question.

[ May 13, 2006, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

Dna

05-13-2006, 11:57 AM

Enough redirects Douglas. Focus. 100 words or so. Lay it out for me. Go on. Can't you do that?

daniel

05-13-2006, 01:29 PM

Hi Douglas,

I am finding this discussion to be a bit sad. I don't really know what to say to you - to a certain extent, I extend this to all the "True Believers" who know with absolute certainty "The Truth" of who is damned and saved, who must repent, and what moral behavior is absolutely to be preferred, according to some words written thousands of years ago in a book. I see this huge chasm between our perspectives, and no way to bridge it. It is this kind of blockade that may lead to the entire world being engulfed in radioactive flames in the next few years.

I would say that, yes, we are in a better position to interpret the words and deeds of Jesus and other figures from earlier times. We have more tools at our disposal, including psychoanalytic tools and the matrix of the Jungian archetypes and the collective unconscious, as well as the recent revelations of quantum physics about the nature of time and space. Wasn't Jesus also reinterpreting and recasting the prophecies that had been received up until his time? Knowledge evolves - time does not stand still. What is appropriate at one age is no longer appropriate at a later stage, as human consciousness intensified and we learn more. If this was not the case, Revelation would have happened in 50 AD, as many of Christ's original followers expected, making inferences from some of his statements.

You write, "My perspective is one of reaching people with the truth, a truth which would save their souls for eternity. Is that really so bad, or unreasonable?"

Yes it is both bad and unreasonable. Your sense of absolute "truth" is a kind of moral virus or infliction. It is based on the projection of your own psychological complexes onto the world, backed up by the words of others who share the same limitations. You may have had all sorts of visions and revelations - but that does not mean those visions and revelations were "The Truth." They could have been the result of contact with spiritual forces that are not of the highest order (the Gnostics would have seen most forms of modern Christianity as a kind of possession trance by the Demiurge, seeking to keep us trapped in delusion).

Why don't you try treading a bit more lightly and humbly, for your own sake and the sake of the poor bedraggled Earth?

As a great patron Saint of 70s funk put it so eloquently, "Free your mind, and your ass will follow."

Douglas

05-13-2006, 02:15 PM

daniel,

I see you would not accept the evidence I have even if I presented it. A shame, but not unexpected.

But before I go, I really, really, would like to know just how deeply you have studied the Bible for yourself.

[ May 13, 2006, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

Douglas

05-13-2006, 02:18 PM

Dna,

Enough redirects Douglas. Focus. 100 words or so. Lay it out for me. Go on. Can't you do that?Yes, and I already essentially did. Can't you search a couple of pages in this thread for the two posts I referred to you? Why should I repeat myself just for you?

sidecross

05-13-2006, 02:48 PM

I have the luxury of free time, and Douglas is not worth anymore of it than this last post.

He is welcome to live in his biblical box; I do not welcome any more invitations or proof of his choice.

otter

05-13-2006, 02:48 PM

Consider this: There is an "Internet Central" for the radical right. There they get the talking points and marching orders and they then disperse themselves throughout every forum they can find. I've been looking at this for a while and find it interesting. They have already received their orders re daniel and are busy at their work. Wasting bandwidth and a single molecule of energy on someone like douglas throws the whole thread off.
people like douglas consider this a victory. While it's comforting to me to see people here relating in the Human Realm,unfortunately, douglas is getting his way. (Timing has a lot to do with the success of a raindance.)

otter

05-13-2006, 02:53 PM

Bodhicitta is a seed in ways. I think Jesus said from very interesting things on where to plant your seeds.

Douglas

05-13-2006, 04:07 PM

otter,

people like douglas consider this a victory.You really should learn to speak for yourself, and not for others. You would seem wiser and kinder.

[ May 13, 2006, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

Douglas

05-13-2006, 04:09 PM

sidecross,

I have the luxury of free time, and Douglas is not worth anymore of it than this last post.Thank you very kindly. I see you are so much more spiritually evolved and advanced than I am that you can afford direct insults.

Douglas

05-13-2006, 05:18 PM

daniel,

I am finding this discussion to be a bit sad.Me too.

I don't really know what to say to you - to a certain extent, I extend this to all the "True Believers" who know with absolute certainty "The Truth" of who is damned and saved, who must repent, and what moral behavior is absolutely to be preferred, according to some words written thousands of years ago in a book.Do you think God, if He exists (and He does) would prefer to let people stumble about blindly when seeking the truth? Is nothing "absolutely certain"? If some things are, why not spiritual truth?

I see this huge chasm between our perspectives, and no way to bridge it.I agree 100%. The only way you and I could come to any sort of agreement on essential "spiritual truths" is if you changed your viewpoint regarding spiritual truth. But the same would be true for anyone who held to a false and incorrect view, in relation to someone who knew the truth.

It is this kind of blockade that may lead to the entire world being engulfed in radioactive flames in the next few years.Whoa there, cowboy. If you understood the Bible to any reasonable degree, you would know that Evangelical Christians would be one of the primary forces hindering worldwide nuclear conflagration. It seems that you are lumping Evangelical Christians in with Islamic Fundamentalists, and doing so is neither informed nor fair, nor valid. It is, though, a handy stereotype that many non-Christians often trot out.

I would say that, yes, we are in a better position to interpret the words and deeds of Jesus and other figures from earlier times.Than Jesus Himself. Okay, gotcha. (Remember, my question was specifically whether we now could better understand what Jesus Himself meant than Jesus Himself understood.)

We have more tools at our disposal, including psychoanalytic tools and the matrix of the Jungian archetypes and the collective unconscious, as well as the recent revelations of quantum physics about the nature of time and space.Anyone who claims they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand quantum mechanics (and I believe I am accurately paraphrasing a leading Quantum Mechanical Physicist). By the way, why should we trust "Jungian archetypes" as being valid? Maybe we just don't understand them, or maybe they're just plain mistaken or incorrect.

Wasn't Jesus also reinterpreting and recasting the prophecies that had been received up until his time?No, He was explaining what they actually meant. He wasn't participating in some kind of "Here's what the prophecies mean to us in our time and culture; they might change with varying times and cultures" exercise.

Knowledge evolves - time does not stand still.Is that an objective, or a subjective, "truth"?

What is appropriate at one age is no longer appropriate at a later stage, as human consciousness intensified and we learn more.So at one time, it might be inappropriate to murder people, but at "a later stage", it becomes "okay"? How do you know that your above statement is true? Maybe it's not true at this stage. Was Jesus a "spiritual master", or not? What about the "Quetzalcoatl" being who contacted you (unless it was just a projection of your inner psychic conflicts, rather than an actual separate being)? I believe he (it?) claimed to have relayed similar truths as he (it?) is now trying to relay, many, many years ago - have those truths changed? Has "Quetzalcoatl" changed his (its?) mind after all these years?

"Quetzalcoatl" himself (itself?) acknowledges a "god" who has "sent" him (it?) on a "mission":
Q: I am the same spirit who appeared here, in the Mayan period, as Quetzalcoatl and incarnated at various other points in human history. Like Avaloshkitevara, the Tibetan Buddha of Compassion, Quetzalcoatl is an archetypal "god form" that occasionally takes human rebirth to accomplish a specific mission. As foretold, I am also the Tzaddik – "the righteous one" and the "gatherer of the sparks" of the Qabalah – as well as the "Once and Future King" promised by Arthurian legend....Not satisfied with mere enlightenment [wow], the god-form Quetzalcoatl still seeks to puzzle out the workings of these deeper forces – hence the reason for his return to your realm. He and his kind have been granted this world for their continued exploration – made with loving reverence – of the many layers of galactic intelligence, cosmic illusion, daemonic beauty, and telluric transformation. All are invited to participate with them.Well, well. This bears a striking resemblance to several descriptions in the Bible regarding a certain significant personage:
So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. [Revelation 12:9] Q: The first principle of my being is unconditional love. As a rational intelligence, I accept the logic and necessity of the Christ consciousness, that we should love one another as we are loved. Love and devotion are vibrational frequencies that maintain reality. Love can only be given in freedom; therefore, to be human is to be free."I love you; you love me." Oh, but what is he (it) talking about when he (it) mentions "the Christ consciousness"? Is he (it) unaware that he (it) is here directly contradicting the teachings and beliefs of the Christ? Probably not.

Q: I resonate, at the same time, with the essence of Islam. Islam means submission, surrender, to the will of God – a more polite way of saying this is "Go with the flow." But either formulation is correct."Go with the flow". Okay, whose "flow"? What "flow"? How the heck would he (it?) know? (Apologies to Peter Frampton.)

Q: Whatever you do, in fact, resist as you think you might, you are always submitting to God’s will. So why not give the process your joyful assent?Blimey. Then why is he (it?) so urgently seeking to get a particular message across which would ultimately get people to CHANGE what they do? Why can't he (it?) "just go with the flow", and let everyone else do likewise? I mean, after all, "whatever you do...you are always submitting to God's will". So, why try to change others' views? And why "condemn" those, like me, who have a "limited" world-view, when, after all, we are "always submitting to God's will", regardless? Why not allow them to "give the process" their "joyful assent"? Why even try to "enlighten" them? Why would it be important? So many obvious contradictions and illogic in these sorts of views that it really is quite sad.

Q: I am in complete harmony, as well, with the Tibetan tradition of Dzogchen. Ultimately, there are no entities – there is neither being, nor nonbeing."There is neither being, nor nonbeing." That's deep. Well, if that's how logic works, then the following would be just as true: "All is being, and all is nonbeing". It's amazing how liberating the casting off of logic can be. But in any case, I find it hard to trust a non-being/non-nonbeing who could be both or neither at the same time.

Q: From the perspective of nondual awareness, samsara is nirvana. The Apocalypse, the Kali Yuga, the Golden Age – these are all states of mind.Not according to the Bible. The Apocalypse will be an actual series of literal events, literally here on this literal and real Earth. At the very least, I should think "Quetzalcoatl" should be able to keep his (its?) theologies straight.

Q: Hell is a state of mind.Partially. Hell, according to the Bible, is a place of torments, a temporary holding place like unto the Lake of Fire, into which it, and all its residents, will ultimately be cast. The "states of mind" of all those in Hell will be in accord with where they find themselves, naturally, regardless of their "fear" or "attachment", or lack thereof.

Q: This universe spontaneously self-organizes into higher levels of consciousness and wisdom."Trust me."

Q: Underlying all are great cosmic entities or vibrational fields, alternately at play or at rest."Really, you can trust me."

Q: Not satisfied with mere enlightenment, the god-form Quetzalcoatl still seeks to puzzle out the workings of these deeper forces – hence the reason for his return to your realm."I am a god-form, and am here to guide you into enlightenment and truth, but there are still some things I just don't quite understand. But you can still, of course, trust me."

Q: My "doctrine" is not transcendent, but immanent. It is not "somewhere out there." It is here and now.Seeker: "So, what is your 'doctrine'?"
Quetzalcoatl: "There is neither being, nor nonbeing. There is neither truth, nor non-truth."
Seeker: "Okay; gosh, thanks."

Q: The task of human existence is to transform the Earth, to reconcile spirit and matter in this realm."Task"? Who set us this "task"? And why?

Q: We go deeper into the physical to reach the infinite."Now you really need to trust me."

Q: As there are no conceivable limits to this task, God, in His greatness, has granted us a project that is without limit and without end.There. See? "Quetzalcoatl" has just attributed to God a greater "spiritual authority and position" than he (it?) himself (itself?) has. But, of course, neither "Quetzalcoatl", nor "God", exists, since there is "neither being, nor nonbeing".

daniel: If this was not the case, Revelation would have happened in 50 AD, as many of Christ's original followers expected, making inferences from some of his statements.daniel, do you not realize that the Book of Revelation was not even written until around 90 A.D.? And are you unaware that Jesus Himself said that at least "Jerusalem would be surrounded", and the people taken into captivity, then some time later allowed to return, before the "End" would come? Where do you get your information about Christianity and the Bible, anyway?

daniel: You write, "My perspective is one of reaching people with the truth, a truth which would save their souls for eternity. Is that really so bad, or unreasonable?"

Yes it is both bad and unreasonable.So, even the very desire, or perspective, of trying to share a truth with people which would tremendously benefit them is "bad and unreasonable". I see.

daniel: Your sense of absolute "truth" is a kind of moral virus or infliction.That's just your subjective truth, with no greater intrinsic weight or "truth" than my own subjective truth that my sense of absolute "truth" is NOT a "kind of moral virus or infliction". Right?

daniel: It is based on the projection of your own psychological complexes onto the world, backed up by the words of others who share the same limitations.You haven't yet inspired me to believe that you have a sufficient understanding of the Bible, or of my personality or experiences or reasons, to justifiably make the above statement. Do you realize how easy it is to characterize just restrictions as "limitations"? Thieves probably do this all the time.

daniel: You may have had all sorts of visions and revelations...I have. Apparently even more than you have.

daniel: ...- but that does not mean those visions and revelations were "The Truth."No, not just because they were given to me. But that's not been my point in sharing them.

daniel: They could have been the result of contact with spiritual forces that are not of the highest order (the Gnostics would have seen most forms of modern Christianity as a kind of possession trance by the Demiurge, seeking to keep us trapped in delusion).Ding ding ding! Bingo! Except, daniel, you don't seem able to discern that perhaps this more strongly and aptly applies to YOUR vision (or visions). Doesn't it give you pause, at all, that the "Quetzalcoatl"...ummm, "being"... directly associates itself with the Beast of Revelation? Or that it has chosen you as its "vehicle", and that you "coincidentally" have a birthdate involving "666"? It also doesn't raise any red flags that your experience with this "being" was anything but pleasant, comforting, or strengthening? How very short-sighted and limited of me (and others) to wonder at your lack of "pause" in the face of these things.

daniel: Why don't you try treading a bit more lightly and humbly, for your own sake and the sake of the poor bedraggled Earth?I have been humble. But if you want me to pretend that I might not have or know the truth regarding these spiritual matters (namely, the Gospel and Jesus as Savior), I'm afraid doing so would require me to descend into a form of deception and cowardice. You wouldn't want me to do that, would you? Oh, and please, stop associating Evangelical Christianity with the corruption and possible destruction of the Earth - doing so is worse than my thinking that Buddhic "nonattachment" is the same as "detachment".

I would hope you would "meditate" on the following quotes from Jesus:
"'...[The Devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of lies.'" [John 8:44]And:
"'But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.'" [John 8:45]

[ May 13, 2006, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

M. Twilite

05-13-2006, 05:41 PM

Damn, I re-visit the BOTH posting world after a few months off and find the head-butting games still going strong.

There's no use arguing with someone who thrives on arguing, so I'm not arguing.

But Daniel, I'm 3/4 the way through 2012 and it ROQs!

waterthere

05-13-2006, 06:23 PM

Douglas,

You've thrown up a few interesting questions (amongst sets of huge misunderstandings) but you're not helping your cause at all by behaving the way you have been---you're simply incriminating yourself more and more. Is it a coincidence that Daniel's response to your needling has been poised and thoughtful whereas your manner hereabouts comes across as childish and egotistical?

waterthere

aeneas

05-13-2006, 09:38 PM

You might call this post, 'I have some real doubts and why'

My post is addressed to the interview that Daniel gave on 13MAY06 on Coast to Coast. I have yet to read the book and I think that it important to note here.

This said, I would dispute that there is any real connection between Quetzalcoatl and the Maya. To support this assertion I would bring several important facts:

1] The cult of Quetzalcoatl was Toltec and based in Thula [North of modern Mexico City]. This is a different language and culturally distinct group from the Maya.

2] This cult was imposed upon the Maya when the Toltec invaded and conquered the Maya circa 899 – 909 AD. This was after the Maya Classical period.
A] This cult was imposed upon the Maya as a result of this conquest. The Toltecs were based in Chichen Itza that was the main cult center. From here they promulgated their social order, religion and art that were different form the native Maya.
B] The Maya called this god ‘Kukulcan’ No such name or image predates this period.
C] The modern Maya still use the term ‘Itza’ as a linguistic memory of this. Protestant Maya who have unfortunately left the Catholic Church use this term to describe the Church as ‘a foreign imposition.’

3] The Maya method of calculating time was long set by the time the Toltecs began to impose their culture. The Toltecs also had their own calendar.

To claim that the Maya would have a connection with the end of their calendar [which just the point at which they stopped calculating] with a cult they regarded as foreign and did not exist among them when they began this process does not seem to fit to me. I have a very deep skepticism about this idea.

daniel

05-13-2006, 11:23 PM

hi aeneas,

you might want to check out John Major Jenkins' Maya Cosmogenesis, where he addresses many of your concerns.

daniel

05-13-2006, 11:28 PM

douglas,

since you already know "The Truth", and feel fully confident about your divine right and attainment of personal salvation, I don't really see any reason to continue a "discussion" with you.

If your attitude ever changes, so that you are willing to take some self-distancing from your own preconceptions and proscriptive beliefs masquerading as knowledge, I would be happy to chat with you further.

Douglas

05-14-2006, 04:11 AM

waterthere,

You've thrown up a few interesting questions (amongst sets of huge misunderstandings) but you're not helping your cause at all by behaving the way you have been---you're simply incriminating yourself more and more. Is it a coincidence that Daniel's response to your needling has been poised and thoughtful whereas your manner hereabouts comes across as childish and egotistical?In what way have my posts to daniel come across as "childish and egotistical"? My most recent post to him did contain some hypothetical "quotes" from "Quetzalcoatl" which I hoped would highlight the inconsistencies, illogic, and error in "Quetzalcoatl's" statements, but they were not intended to be insulting or self-exalting. Just clarifying. (For example, the repetition of the "Trust me" theme I hoped would serve to show that "Quetzalcoatl" was, truly, relying on just that level of "evidence" and "reason".)

Beyond this, several of daniel's responses to me contained veiled general insults, and complete error regarding Evangelical Christianity. Even after I have pointed out some of these errors, he has continued in that vein, relying on misinformed stereotypes in much of his dealing with me and what I have attempted to convey (I, and Evangelical Christians, are absolutely no threat, nor even instigation, to nuclear war). When I have asked him, several times, to explain the depth of his study of the Bible, he has not responded. When I have asked him to explain his view on "truth", he responds by stating that MY beliefs are a "moral virus". Rather than simply state that he believes my beliefs are wrong, he characterizes them as an "evil" that needs to be removed. Yes, daniel has appeared "poised and thoughtful", but the substance of his responses to me have not matched his appearance.

Douglas

05-14-2006, 04:18 AM

daniel,

since you already know "The Truth", and feel fully confident about your divine right and attainment of personal salvation, I don't really see any reason to continue a "discussion" with you."Divine right"? Now where did that come from? Again, I ask you, just how deeply have you studied the Bible for yourself, directly? You see, daniel, salvation is no "divine right", but a gift from God to those who are willing to receive it.

However, your response to my confidence seems awkward, at best. Can you imagine a mathematician, unsure of the truth of a theorem he had regarding prime numbers, refusing to hold a discussion with another mathematician who was confident of another theorem regarding prime numbers which would have implications for the first mathematician's theorem, until the second mathematician was willing to recant of his confidence in his own theorem? I can assure you, within the mathematical community, the first mathematician's response would not be respected, particularly if he was not willing to carefully point out in what way the second mathematician's theorem was in error, and especially if he was unwilling or incapable of recognizing when he had received valid correction from the second mathematician regarding his understanding of the second mathematician's own theorem.

daniel

05-14-2006, 05:21 AM

hi douglas,

To engage in a long debate with you is just not worth it for me. You will continue to contort my meaning and twist my words, sucking away at my time and energy. You have made your position clear. You know what is right for everyone, including gays, etc.

Most of my perspective on these subjects can be found in my new book. I am not a Biblical scholar -- nor a Mayan archaeologist nor a physicist -- but a generalist and journalist in all areas, as I readily admit in "2012". My perspective is that this allowed me to have a wider scope for understanding a range of phenomena and placing them within a larger context - if you disagree with this, that is your perspective, but it doesn't make you right.

As Henry James put it, "Our doubt is our passion and our passion is our task - the rest is the madness of art."

Rob P

05-14-2006, 05:37 AM

.......

Douglas-

you are full of evangelical philistine bullshit......

happy sunday
r o b
.......

Rob P

05-14-2006, 05:40 AM

...and i still liked your Frampton reference anyway.

daniel

05-14-2006, 05:51 AM

one more point on the quetzalcoatl transmission:

I write about this experience because it happened to me - and as a writer, I try to write with candor and honesty about my own experiences. However, I do not give the transmission or experience some absolute validity. With sufficient distance, I now evaluate it and consider it more or less as I would any other artifact in the world. Certainly, in this case, the transmission's content of truth or falsity will be revealed in the time just ahead. But I am not clinging to it - I support the Buddhist principle of non-attachment (which, as pointed out above, is very different from detachment).

What interests me more is the principle of embracing transformation - yesterday I was speaking for the feathered serpent, tomorrow I might find myself working for the Tooth Fairy, or singing backup to Peter Frampton.

Rainer Maria Rilke expresses this principle of transformation beautifully in many of his poems. This is from Sonnets to Orpheus:

Still friend of many distances, feel yet
How your breathing is augmenting space.
From the beamwork of gloomy belfries let
Yourself ring. What devours you will increase

More strongly from this food. Explore and win
Knowledge of transformation through and through.
What experience was the worst for you?
Is drinking bitter? You must turn to wine.

Be the magic power of this immense
Midnight at the crossroads of your senses,
Be the purport of their strange meeting. Though

Earth itself forgot your very name,
Say unto the tranquil earth: I flow.
To the fleeting water speak: I am.

Douglas

05-14-2006, 06:15 AM

daniel,

To engage in a long debate with you is just not worth it for me. You will continue to contort my meaning and twist my words, sucking away at my time and energy."Needling". You claim I have "contorted" your meaning, and "twisted" your words, and you claim to be able to see into the future and know that I will "continue" to do so. Yet you haven't clarified or explained your meaning or your words, or where or how I have "contorted" or "twisted" them. Not very nice.

You have made your position clear. You know what is right for everyone, including gays, etc..So? You act as though this would be impossible. Obviously, everything is relative, right? There simply cannot be an objective, "universal", set of spiritual truths for all mankind; certainly, even if there was, no one could ever know what they were. Therefore, it's not worth discussing the issue with someone who thinks they know the truth regarding these matters. Very noble-minded.

Most of my perspective on these subjects can be found in my new book. I am not a Biblical scholar -- nor a Mayan archaeologist nor a physicist -- but a generalist and journalist in all areas, as I readily admit in "2012".I never thought you were a "Biblical scholar", but one needn't be a "Biblical scholar" in order to carefully study/read the Bible for one's self. You have just pointed out that you are not a "Biblical scholar" - very good, and thank you. But you have not answered my question regarding the depth of your Biblical knowledge and study.

My perspective is that this allowed me to have a wider scope for understanding a range of phenomena and placing them within a larger context - if you disagree with this, that is your perspective, but it doesn't make you right.Quite true. Although I am.

As Henry James put it, "Our doubt is our passion and our passion is our task - the rest is the madness of art."And here is a quote I've had pinned to my bulletin board beside my computer desk for more than a year, which I have never quoted, until now:
"That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones." (G.K. Chesterton; Orthodoxy, 18th Edition (1959))And here's another one, for reference:
"You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (The Serpent [Genesis 3:4-5])And another:
"[The Devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (Jesus [John 8:44])And one more:
"But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me." (Jesus [John 8:45])Now, daniel, even if you find a discussion with me somehow "energy-sapping", perhaps for the benefit of others (at least) reading here, you could explain why they should trust that the vision you received is not actually a lie foisted upon you (and them) by "the father of lies".

[ May 14, 2006, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

MidnightDreary

05-14-2006, 07:07 AM

Douglas,
Goddamn you must love to hear (or "read") yourself talk. Your petulant style just grates on every last nerve in my body. Your quote that "Evangelical Christians are absolutely no threat, nor even instigation, to nuclear war," is asinine. Just look at the cocksucker in the White House, for fuck's sake. I guarantee you he's just itching to use tactical nukes in Iran.

Led_Zeppelin

05-14-2006, 07:16 AM

I liked the interview Daniel had with Ian Punnett last night. I like how Ian tried to reassure Daniel that he read his book. However, the fucking guy had problems pronouncing Quetzalcoatl. Sometimes with the L, sometimes without the L. Daniel never corrects Ian. He lets him fumble and bumble throughout the interview.

He asks Daniel what his parents think about his new psychedelic personal paradigm in life. Daniel mentions his dad almost immediately in the first chapters of his 2nd book. He states his dad died while he was out at Burning Man, pre- BOTH. What a liar. It's obvious his producers skimmed the book for him (or he skimmed the book himself) and made an outline with selected quotes.

Furthermore, with regards to materialism, Ian playfully challenges Daniel on selling and owning his book. With Neo-Cons, you have to live and breath every letter of your words. This is especially true if you want to change their materialistic world into one that is reformed somehow, thus taking away their power. Neo-cons own civilization. You can't be a member of their world. Buy, sell and eat. Just be a hermit eating leaves and preach to the bats in a cave. They have the same arguments with PITA. "Don't wear leather you hypocrite". Same black and white arguments. Quite boring.

This CoastToCoast program is a fear-based program. It brings in ratings by pushing fear and planetary destruction ie. floods, earthquakes, polar shifts, satan, highlighting arabs/muslims in a negative fashion (by highlighting negative aspects of their civilization and crimes), xenophobia ( a big word for racist). American civilization needs to turn the mirror on itself. It revels in the negative. We are the current superpower wielding power throughout every inch of this planet. And doing a very bad job at it.

Daniel tried to reel this guy into the positive. Dancing instead of nuclear holocaust. Ian was too pre-occupied with his talk show persona. I don't think he was too engaged in critical thinking.

Lastly, I have to disagree with Daniel on an aspect of his ideals. Daniel states that he can reach these psychedelic states or quasi-psychedelic states through meditation and breathing exercises. As the late great Terence Mckenna said "Why?" Why do it the hard way, spending years and years meditating and breathing to achieve some semblance of this inter dimensional state? He said that no one ever enters the ashram with their knees knocking in anticipation of being shredded to pieces by the psychedelic experience. With psychedelics your foot is not on the accelerator, but your foot is reaching for the brakes.

I assume Daniel is trying to incorpate and transmit to the American people, and western civilization in general, the coming 2012 shift without scaring them with the word "drugs". I do not think you can push an idea by having one foot in the old paradigm and one foot in the new paradigm. If 2012 is as cataclismic as daniel and others say it will be, psychedelics are necessary to bring human conciousness up to speed. There's less than 6 years to blast off. In six SHORT years, you cannot teach a person to incorporate RADICAL ideas without RADICAL action.

I have read only the first 100 pages so far of Daniel's book. So far so good. Mr. Pinchbeck is a great writer. I will post my review one done.

sacha

05-14-2006, 07:36 AM

Douglas, it is the fact that you don't question your beliefs -- let alone seriously question them, rigorously interrogate them, the way Daniel does -- that gives you no credibility in this community. It is precisely the fact that you "know" that you are right.

The simple unwillingness to question one's beliefs, one's experiences, and one's interpretation of one's experiences does not in and of itself make one "right." And it certainly does not make one credible, in a community that values serious self-questioning.

I don't doubt that you communicate with God. So do many. But it is the fact that you don't question your human and human-mediated interpretation of that communication that gives you no credibility here.

Do you really believe that the God of the universes is so limited that He/She/It could be captured by human thought, vocabulary and concept?

When Daniel asked if your God has a long white beard, you responded Why not?
"Would that be just too weird, or unbelievable, that the Creator of the Universe, the One Who created man in His image, would look like a human being? Why would that be less believable than "God" having no form whatsoever?"

Or less believable than him having a multiplicity of forms, of having every form?

I for one have read the Bible cover to cover, studied it in several translations, and studied the "evidence" you talk about, which is freely available online.

Archaeological evidence of mundane historical details is not proof of spiritual authority. And there really is no other "evidence" of the Bible.

Even aside from the specific personality of the Biblical God-person, who seems in need of some serious therapy, the God that literalists take from the Bible is too small, too boxed-in, for most people here. Not God him/her/itself, but the limited God-concept that you offer.

Can God manifest human-like thinking processes, human-like personality, even a human-like image? Why not, if this helps her/him/it to communicate with our human thinking processes? But if we confuse that with what God is, then that is the Devil's trap: "Ye shall be as gods." A warning to those who would make God into a human-like individual (just bigger and with more superpowers). By making him like us, we are making us like him. No wonder the culture that came out of Christianity assumes "god-like" authority over the Creation.

God communicates with each of us in the language and manner that is meaningful to each of us.

People who have had transcendental experiences and gone beyond personality and ego and manifestation are unlikely to be attracted to the idea of an ego-based, individuated God-king sitting on a throne in the sky.

As I said, I have read the Bible cover to cover, and studied and compared various translations, as well as debates and critical analyses. One thing I do not find in any translation is a commandment from God: "Ye shall take these words literally."

(Which no one does, anyway, even those who claim that they do. It doesn't take much to find verses that make even the most ardent literalist say, "Oh, well of course that is meant symbolically.")

[ May 14, 2006, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: sacha ]

Axl Omega

05-14-2006, 11:02 PM

I read this and it seems to ring true - which I can't say about much else as regards "The End Times". Also I was told that someday I would be finding you - by a person once known as "Mother Earth". (Who was never wrong - and died in the 1800's)

This one statement is particlarly of interest to me, and says to me that Quetzalcoatl was in fact Jesus Christ, who visited North America at least two times in his life. I live near where he once passed by and near trees that he was said to have once blessed. (And also Buddah)

My interest also involves the two Pahannas of the Hopi Legends, and I think that as I am informed now that I once knew them in person as a child. All of this that was said is in fact perfectly true and a real problem, and I applaud that. I have spent my whole life researching this problem because it was told to me once as a child.

The one quote that I thinks tells that it was JC who was QC is "As well as the "Once and Future King" promised by Arthurian legend." which is talking about The Holy Grail and a prophecised "Country within a Country" or "Nation within a Nation" inclded within the ancient scriptures. (Glenn Kimbal)

Anyway, I will try to read more about what people have said here, it is a lot of information with apparently just praise without added info included. But this is a great BBS Message Board and I am glad to have found it. Unfortunately your interview on C2C came of as pretty shallow or too much generalized without much new insight of any new perspective on things, as Terrance McKenna has said it all before.

Isaiah Mpski

05-15-2006, 04:51 AM

I think he wants to come out of the closet.
An old psychiatric trick of the 60's and 70's Daniel.
Either that or your drug usage is making you schizophrenic.

Actually Jesus made it as far as Northern New Mexico before the Indians made fertilizer out of him so it was probably one of his children that showed up as Quetzacoatl.This myth actually fits into the time sequence too.

Very few people have probed the memories of the Indian Nations who were moved to Oklahoma from the 1830's to the 1900's like me and that is the story I keep hearing from them about Jesus being Quetzalcoatl.

Old pond,new frog.Old frog,new pond.Splash!

M. Twilite

05-15-2006, 06:20 AM

I've read ROQ up to the crop circles analysis; it's quite engrossing. I had a similar late night epiphany awhile back where I learned to grasp the paradox and to let go of needing to "know the truth."

If we're waiting around for the government or some other source to tell us the "truth" about alien life or extra-dimensional reality then we are missing the point. We have to let go of the duality of 'real' and 'unreal' as we do everything else, in its stead we can grasp an in-between state, which is the Imagination. When our minds are emptied and we are attuned to this state, then whatever ideas spring up, whatever images or premonitions we receive, are valid.

WE are the new government, as soon as we are ready to assume that staggering responsibility. The Fox Mulders of the world can only believe the Big Daddy, not their own eyes and instincts, that's the difference between the fox and the lamb. If you are looking for the "truth" of alien existence, it is you yourself who will create the idea that it's just a hoax.

Being on "the fringe" of the social order we are in the position of needing to maintain sobriety and "not fuck it up" when we return from the archetypal hero journey to the social order with our new knowledge. In advocating widespread psychedelic usage you risk creating another hedonistic "overdose" like what sank the flower children. Obviously, that original counterculture burst is going to repeat itself soon, as all things must (Iraq being the new Vietnam, etc.)

My suggestion here is going to sound very class-conscious, but I think what will be essential is a return to a Platonic aristocracy as far as these things go. That's the way you prevent getting bogged down in "argument for the sake of argument" and "you say potato I say patato," which has been bringing things down everywhere, even sometimes amidst the "enlightened" community.

dragonfly

05-15-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Douglas:
dragonfly,

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Regarding the Buddha and Jesus, however: what do you suppose Jesus meant when He said that "all who came before Me were thieves and robbers"? Didn't the Buddha come before Jesus?Douglas --

"I tell you the solemn truth, I am the door for the sheep. All who came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them."

When Jesus spoke those words, he was not speaking of the Buddha. He was among the Pharisees, and he was using the parable to criticize them specifically as teachers of a misguided spirituality.

The Pharisees, as you probably know, were a politico-religious sect in later Judaism; their name comes from the Hebrew word perushim, from parash, meaning "to separate." They separated themselves from all they perceived as heathen.

During the persecutions of Antiochus, for example, the Pharisees became the most rigid defenders of Jewish traditions. The were so devoted to Jewish law that when they were attacked by the Syrians on the Sabbath they refused to defend themselves. They considered it an abomination to eat with heathens or have any social relations with them whatsoever. They were, in other words, rigid religious extremists.

The New Testament presents the Pharisees as Jesus's ideological foes. As you know, an important theme running through the NT is the opposition between law and love. The NT presents the Pharisees as obsessed with man-made rules, especially rules concerning ritual purity, while Jesus is concerned with something greater than man-made rules: God's love. The Pharisees scorn sinners, but Jesus seeks them out -- not in judgment, but in love.

I think if Jesus came back today and saw what was being done in his name by hateful, rigid, judgmental people who call themselves Christians, he'd condemn them as robbers and thieves, too.

BTW, where in the New Testament does Jesus condemn homosexuality? Or is your anti-gay stance drawn from Leviticus -- the very source of the rigid, ritualistic laws that Jesus condemns?

craazyman

05-15-2006, 11:16 AM

Willow, No I haven't but thank you for the suggestion. I looked it up on the 'net & it looks interesting. River Runs Through It is another I loved (who didn't?), one of the most graceful stories I've ever read (and mostly not even about fly fishing). The ancient mystics said you could wash away evil spirits by standing in running water (and they didn't have hot tubs). I tend to believe that.

I won't bore the board with another disquisition on the virtues of the Calvinist preacher of Eastham Massachussets in 1762, the Very Revered Samuel Treat (God rest his soul), who composed a book "Discourses on Luke Addressed to Sinners", that contained the following passages, but I think Doug will like these:

[5] "Some think sinning ends with this life; but it is a mistake. The creature is held under an everlasting law; the damned increase in sin in hell. Possibly, the mention of this may please thee [The Reverand Treat was a speaker who clearly knew his audience. -C]. But, remember, there shall be no pleasant sins there; no eating, drinking, singing, dancing, wanton dalliance, and drinking stolen waters: but damned sins, bitter, hellish sins; sins exasperated by torments, cursing God, spite, rage, and blasphemy. The guilt of all thy sins shall be laid upon thy soul,and be made so many heaps of fuel....

[6] "Sinner, I beseech thee, realize the truth of these things. Do not go about to dream that this is derogatory to God's mercy, and nothing but a vain fable to scare children out of their wits withal. God can be merciful, though he make thee miserable. He shall have monuments enough of that precious attribute, shining like stars in the place of glory, and singing eternal hallelujahs to the praise of Him that redeemed them, though, to exalt the power of his justice, he damn sinners heaps upon heaps."

Now THERE was a preacher!

"Judge not, that ye be not judged" -- sounds a little like moral relativism. What's up with that anway? Who said that by the way? Doug what's going on with Matthew 7:15-23? Who's he talking about?

Doug, I liked that Frampton line too. You're not too bad in my book, I think you've got potential. In my humble and irrelevant opinion you just need to spend a little time contemplating the Logos and the Holy Ghost first hand instead of second hand. I wasn't kidding, take a look at an American dictionary and check out "The Declaration of Independence" it's a good start.

[ May 15, 2006, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: craazyman ]

Sans Fromage

05-15-2006, 11:21 AM

and look up the word "hubris" while you have the dictionary open.

Douglas

05-15-2006, 11:37 AM

MidnightDreary: Goddamn you must love to hear (or "read") yourself talk.I just like to hear myself type. It's soooothing. ("Frankenstein never scared me......but marsupials do......cuz' they're fast.")

Your petulant style just grates on every last nerve in my body.Sorry. Maybe you could consider it a type of therapy.

Your quote that "Evangelical Christians are absolutely no threat, nor even instigation, to nuclear war," is asinine.No, it's not.

Just look at the cocksucker in the White House, for fuck's sake. I guarantee you he's just itching to use tactical nukes in Iran.I don't know if George W. Bush is a genuine Evangelical Christian ("You shall know them by their fruits"). But, if he is, it might be that the best option he has in regards to Iran is to use tactical nukes, in which case, it would not be because of his religious beliefs that he might be a "threat" to use nuclear weapons. What would you do with Iran, if you were President? Offer to make America a Muslim country?

By the way, your wisdom and your language are sometimes overwhelming.

[ May 15, 2006, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

Dna

05-15-2006, 12:18 PM

That was not a nice post Douglas.

I used to know a lot of Christians, especially at University and they were nearly all thoroughly nice people. You are degrading yourself with this behaviour and you undermine what you are trying to achieve.

[ May 15, 2006, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Dna ]

Axl Omega

05-15-2006, 12:36 PM

"I think he wants to come out of the closet.
An old psychiatric trick of the 60's and 70's Daniel. Either that or your drug usage is making you schizophrenic.

Actually Jesus made it as far as Northern New Mexico before the Indians made fertilizer out of him so it was probably one of his children that showed up as Quetzacoatl.This myth actually fits into the time sequence too."
>----------------------------------------->

Isaiah - Well maybe my statement about not having anything to say about "The End Times" threw you. I noticed how it came out as sort of as with a challenging sound, and that wasn't the intention. The intention actually was to route around a discussion of the topic - for the time being. Not to dissuade it as potentially viable at any time of the future - actually. I think that the "End Times" are very near and unavoidable and practically engraved into stone. I wish I could say anything else about it, and is why I would rather put it off for the moment.

So as for "Coming out of the closet" I'm not sure what you are driving at - and also think that if someone doesn't come to do that soon enough - replete with more available facts, that we will all be eating Chinese or smoldering on the Barbee - in quick time soon enough.

As far as goes "psycholocigal tricks" well I have to admit that I studied under one who was the most brilliant on that subject - once. But only in the 2nd grade of Elementary school and haven't much delved into that issue besides a study of the practical terminology of the science since then. My friend had read several books on the subject of Psychology, and his Father was a Medical Doctor - who had pronounced his son "To be at the BA level of understanding of the subject". So by this prodigy I was keen and made aware of some unusual and insightfull advice, which was revolutionary to say the least - for those primitive times. And so I am not as educated enough as to use it in any way as a ploy. And so also not bragging, (besides haven't added what I might have to brag about) just want to add that I hadn't realized where my philosophy had come from until much soul searching on the subject. And actually another reason for not anything to brag about, as I spent most of my life at the other end of the Black Art of Psychology.

Well as far as goes that the Indians "made fertilizer out of him" at some point or another, I seriously doubt that any of them would have dared attempt that, because his memory is devoutly revered as far as I have ever read on the subject. (Of American Indian tribes) As far as Quetzalqoatl is concerned, I only stated that "It is my opinion" and nothing else. No attempts to steal away followers or any of that, just a personal opinion that I believe will eventually become shared by many others someday eventually.

As far as the whole discussion goes, some think that it was Jesus Christ's half brother who appeared as Quetzalqoatl. I can't dispute that contention either, and it is not for me to say in any case and so therefor I now add a disclaimer to my statements - not thinking that it was neccessary to begin with to do any of that originally.

Next I would like to add that I have found evidence of the existence of the "Grail of The Golden Fleece" in South American philosophy. (That suspicion not being based upon my opinion only) And also that being based upon the existence of small sheep like ensignias which were dug up in Southern Mexico about 20 or 30 years ago. Actually I think that Jason and Ulysses began their search for that article in Southern California, where the lost location of Troy once existed. The fact that they have never found Troy is because it never existed on the European continent - and at the time Europe had gotten rid of the Cyclops themselves - and so they only existed in the New World after that. Troy was only a fortress that the Aztecs or Mayans once had built to defend against those, a thing that was captured once way back by the Spartans.

[ May 15, 2006, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Axl Omega ]

daniel

05-15-2006, 12:40 PM

Douglas - the man who is convinced he knows The Truth - writes: "I don't know if George W. Bush is a genuine Evangelical Christian ... But, if he is, it might be that the best option he has in regards to Iran is to use tactical nukes... What would you do with Iran, if you were President? Offer to make America a Muslim country?"

Only when one has become totally alienated from reality and the meaning of love and spirit can one even contemplate the use of "tactical nukes" or any other form of nuke on any people. Douglas, where in your tireless exegesis of Christ's message in the Bible do you find defense for such a possibility?

If we weren't desperately trying to slurp up the world's resources to defend a way of life that in any event has no future, as it is tearing apart the Biosphere, we wouldn't be having these issues in the Middle East and elsewhere.

This system, in its present form, is not sustainable even in the short term. Let's start from that realization and then see what we can do. Tactical nukes are not going to help the situation, on any level. Isn't it written somewhere, "Thou shalt not kill"? Or are we not meant to take that literally?

daniel

05-15-2006, 12:51 PM

M Twilite,

I really appreciated your post above, and I think you are approaching the same realizations I have come to about the meaning of the individual "hero's journey" that many of us have undertaken in the past decades. I agree that a "new government" is suggested, and the question is, how do we manifest that in the very short time available to us until the current situation gets entirely out of hand?

I have posted elsewhere about the necessity of creating new social networks in which hierarchy is re-inscribed based on the establishment of trust. In any relationship, trust is something that accrues over time - trust is the crucial element missing in our society. We have bureaucratic and legal nightmares because of loss of trust. If someone establishes a record of honoring commitments, of speaking truthfully, of fighting for human freedom, etc., there could be a way that they would accrue authority within a community or a membership organization. This would be a natural process, in which the entire network would help to ensure better and better behavior by rewarding it with more attention and trust.

In any revolutionary epoch, there is a natural turning-over of the elites. Look at the French Revolution - the aristocracy were no longer in touch with the reality of the situation, the bourgeois were the more conscious element of that era, and society was transformed. If we are approaching another crisis, we can suspect that there will be another over-turning, and those who are most conscious of the situation will become the next natural "nobility" or elite class.

I see Burning Man etc littered with potential "Prince Hals" who are or should be beginning to get a bit bored of the Falstaffian shtick they have been doing for years now. We shall see.

sidecross

05-15-2006, 01:40 PM

I hope, daniel, you are not insinuating we all have to write a book too!

M. Twilite

05-15-2006, 03:28 PM

Falstaffian schtick... well put.

That's Henry the Fourth part two, which I don't think I've read, but I saw MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO, and well I recall thinking--drunk and debauched as I was in those days--that Prince Hal sure was a louse to turn his back on good old Falstaff. But now of course, I see the other side. Falstaff can only be humored while the king is alive.

Back in the summer of love, Falstaff crashed the party on his chopper and turned what was a spiritual peak into a sloppy drunken mess. The all-encompassing "love everyone" vibe only works as a kingly decree if "everyone" is cool," and that means no Falstaff. With Falstaff around the love-in can never be anything more than a decadent party, it can never transcend beyond infantile rebellion.

When the king dies, when the counterculture "gets its wish," the counterculture than has to be ready to give up its "counter" element and assume the mantle of responsibility.

Many a night begins with joyous psychedelic communion and ends with drunken idiocy, but only part of that problem is psychedelics getting lumped in with intoxicants as recreational drugs for the masses. The other part of that problem is the human need to take two steps back for every one forward.

A good movie that deals with this is 1968's PSYCH-OUT, which I recommend if you've never seen it. Beneath its Roger Corman-ish biker flick exterior and laughably dated dialogue is a surprisingly even-handed look at the "Haight Ashbury" drug scene, in which LSD's uplifting messages are continually co-opted by baser instincts, fears, and egotism.

Secret societies, cults, tribal rituals, these all seem the better bet rather than the "mass turn ons" that cause such a ruckus before. Before we try and become the new government, we have to be ready for tough decisions, like enforcing exclusivity; kicking the freeloaders out of the potluck is just the first nasty task.

Remember that in all these ancient societies that thrived joyously for thousands of years, there were rigid caste systems, serfs, slaves, harems, whipping posts, god know what else. Those things seem barbaric now that we have "democracy."

But then again, democracy is useless if the majority are uneducated spectacle junkies voting for the guy who uses the least amount of big words. What we ended up with somehow, is Falstaff in the white house and Prince Hal hiding out at Burning Man trying to conjure a true king back from the dead.

Led_Zeppelin

05-15-2006, 05:25 PM

And an old priest named Douglas said, "Speak to us of Religion."

And he said:

Have I spoken this day of aught else?

Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,

And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?

Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?

Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?"

All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self.

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked.

The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin.

And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage.

The freest song comes not through bars and wires.

And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn.

Your daily life is your temple and your religion.

Whenever you enter into it take with you your all.

Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute,

The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight.

For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures.

And take with you all men:

For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair.

And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles.

Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children.

And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain.

You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees.

Douglas

05-17-2006, 10:53 AM

Dna,

I used to know a lot of Christians, especially at University and they were nearly all thoroughly nice people. You are degrading yourself with this behaviour and you undermine what you are trying to achieve.What was "not nice" about which post of mine? What behavior of mine has offended you? Probably, you misjudge my heart, based only on Internet gleanings, which is often easy to do.

Douglas

05-17-2006, 11:07 AM

daniel,

Douglas - the man who is convinced he knows The Truth - ...Thank you for making sure others are aware of this. Although, maybe you didn't mean this as a compliment.

...writes: "I don't know if George W. Bush is a genuine Evangelical Christian ... But, if he is, it might be that the best option he has in regards to Iran is to use tactical nukes... What would you do with Iran, if you were President? Offer to make America a Muslim country?"

Only when one has become totally alienated from reality and the meaning of love and spirit can one even contemplate the use of "tactical nukes" or any other form of nuke on any people.Really? First, daniel, I didn't suggest Bush might need to use those nukes on people. My thought was that he might feel it necessary to use some tactical nukes in order to destroy Iran's nuclear bomb-making infrastructure. Of course, I imagine this would not be without casualties, but my point was not that people would need to be made targets. But, once again, you avoid answering one of my questions. Tell us, what would you do with Iran? To make it more clear, what would you do if Iran was known to have nukes, was known to have the will to use them, and announced that it was Allah's will that they attack the United States and Israel with nuclear weapons?

Douglas, where in your tireless exegesis of Christ's message in the Bible do you find defense for such a possibility?The same reasoning that allows for a man to harm another man who is posing an immediate and severe threat to the first man's wife and children.

If we weren't desperately trying to slurp up the world's resources to defend a way of life that in any event has no future, as it is tearing apart the Biosphere, we wouldn't be having these issues in the Middle East and elsewhere.I would disagree - I agree that the United States, as a whole, is not spotless (by far), and in general is economically selfish and blind to the needs of other, "lesser", countries. (That is, American citizens are, mostly, selfish, greedy, and shallow); but I disagree that if we weren't this way, we wouldn't be having these issues in the Middle East and elsewhere. In my understanding, fundamentalist Muslims would have targeted the United States simply because it is a "Christian" nation (by foundation, and by general practice), and because it is friendly towards Israel.

This system, in its present form, is not sustainable even in the short term. Let's start from that realization and then see what we can do. Tactical nukes are not going to help the situation, on any level. Isn't it written somewhere, "Thou shalt not kill"? Or are we not meant to take that literally?The translation should be (and is, in many translations), "Thou shalt not murder". Note that God Himself, in the very same set of books (the Torah) in which that commandment is found, commands Israel to kill those who have committed certain sins (adultery, murder, etc.). That alone should inform an objective reader that "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. The issue is unjust killing, such as murder. This doesn't mean that people are free to go around killing for any and all reasons, but it means that killing for just reasons is acceptable.

sidecross

05-17-2006, 11:31 AM

Douglas can you name the only country to have used nuclear weapons on a civilian cities?

[ May 17, 2006, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: sidecross ]

Dna

05-17-2006, 01:05 PM

Daniel wrote</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> we can suspect that there will be another over-turning, and those who are most conscious of the situation will become the next natural "nobility" or elite class. </pre>[/QUOTE]So history repeats itself?

Dna

daniel

05-17-2006, 01:15 PM

history spirals.

Agape_negates_fear

05-17-2006, 01:29 PM

I also know the Truth, although here is how I approach discussing this knowledge. Gnosis trickles down as knowledge of the Path. Christ described the Path as being straight and narrow. Subsequent to finding the Path I have seen every other possibility fall short, denoting that all other means for transcendence, at some point, hit a brick wall.

Esoteric knowledge is only esoteric to the ignorant soul.

The beings that created us, created us in their image. Our cosmos breathes in a higher plane - like the human creature, the astral cosmic body is also susceptible to seduction via its own manifestations. Each individual form of intelligence in our cosmos represents an emotion of the higher dimensional being. This is why in trance, a human can tap into emotive language (glossolalia) and communicate their essence to other individual humans.

There is a fragment of the higher dimensional being, our beloved cosmos, that wishes to transcend the comparatively crude creative habits by which it subsists. In other words, the higher dimensional self - the elf under DMT trance - is in a sense unsure about what it wants. When one must make decisions very fast, sometimes habits set in. Our cosmos, obviously, chose to have another go at lower dimensional experience, thinking that we could playfully manifest once again. This should resonate deeply with us in the Sacral Chakra (sexual-energy). Our personal, complex relationship to our own sexuality is incredibly telling of the habits of our higher dimensional self. The ancient practice of chastity and celibacy correspond to this tendency. If one were to look deep enough into the tantric experience, they would realize that they are alone, having sex with them self, adulating their own greatness. Who is to say that our higher self doesn't have an equivalent to the ego?

Christ, Krishna, Buddha, Quetzalcoatl- these archetypes correspond to the fragmentary emotional state of the higher self, that at one level wishes to transcend its chaotic lower-astral confines. This phenomenon is a difficult thing to analyze on DMT - which makes curious its amazingly short duration. The higher self does not want to analyze this aspect of its reality upon simply meeting one of its components: you. (This is why your essential experience of yourself is preserved on DMT.)

Anyways, although I know that the higher self has been in this situation many times before (I even recall beings similar to Terrence McKenna - interesting archetype indeed smile.gif , I have faith in the Path. I know the Path and (as strange as it may seem, the higher self does not try to obstruct this knowledge) I have great faith in us as a collective intelligence to lock step and walk the Path.

The second coming of Christ has been announced, but it is not going to result in the reintroduction of a historical being. The Christ Consciousness will return as a vibrational - more so - emotional unification of our intelligence.

For anyone that has made the DMT trip, there is one thing in there that is more difficult than anything else to bring back. This is the resonantly same longing of the higher self to transcend. But don't cry - our higher self is schizophrenic too.

[ May 17, 2006, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Agape_negates_fear ]

Agape_negates_fear

05-17-2006, 01:49 PM

If all of the intelligence of our cosmos could be taken with us when we went into the DMT realm, then it wouldn't be intimidating at all. "But get back to work!"...

tongue.gif

[ May 17, 2006, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Agape_negates_fear ]

M. Twilite

05-17-2006, 01:55 PM

I dig that, your royal agapeness...

Rather than the bible, I turn to the GODFATHER for metaphors, and in this case we would be Michael back from the war, and our higher self is Vito Corleone. He knows the ends of the road and tries to keep Michael from following in his footsteps and "acquiring" self awareness. But for some of us, those footsteps are the only game in town.

In or ultimate wisdom we keep ourselves blocked from the cosmic truths, the way parents lock out the sex and violence channels on their kids cable TV. We want ourselves to enjoy the niceties of illusion... a vacation from the enormity of timelessness.

Those of us on these boards and elsewhere are the ones who go, "thanks, dad, but I'm not going to college, I'm going to join the INNERSPACE MARINES!"

Lowlight

05-18-2006, 02:29 AM

Im getting quite perplexed. Ive been lurking for a few weeks now instead of posting, and ive watched this discussion go back and forth.

Why feed Douglas? Its like with Swami an couple of months ago. There is no point. He has been skinned numerous times by many people here. He just doesnt realise it.

We are dealing with an uninformed mind that clings to certain fragments without which he will perish. Look at his comments on Iran. He has no understanding of international relations, diplomacy, regional history, or US foreign policy.

Who would Jesus Nuke?

willoweyes

05-18-2006, 04:06 AM

I am hanging in there with Douglas.

His mind is "uninformed" perhaps unformed. Yet should we abandon him to ignorance?

Indeed we may, for he will refuse to abandon himself. That is why he is here.

Douglas, I hope to have an essay concerning the "Gnostic Gospels" on my desk before next Tuesday.

M. Twilite

05-18-2006, 11:45 AM

Jesus would nuke himself, for verily when one nuketh another, he nuketh thee.

"You must bomb the village... within!"

As far as arguing with Douglas, I say to each his own, but just don't get angy if you find his "logic" exasperating. Personally, knowing my propensity for projecting my unresolved annoying little brother onto others, I just don't even read his posts, or the posts that respond to him. It's just like the whole silverwolf thing that went down on a different thread a few months ago.

But I would like to give a shout out for 2012, which I finished a few days ago. Bravo, Daniel! I especially liked the part about first princess and the whole sexual imperative / battle of the sexes insights. Very trenchant stuff and it's gone right into my daily 'round the water cooler relationship advice bank. I'm spreading the soft Quetzel gospel wherever I go now, which I'll grant you is not very far, but still...

[ May 18, 2006, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: M. Twilite ]

daniel

05-18-2006, 02:59 PM

hi m twilite,

if you feel like pitching your review of "2012" onto Amazon (as well as this board), it would be nice.

Caprinardo Delirio

05-19-2006, 04:12 AM

daniel, do you know when '2012' will be available on amazon.co.uk in fresh form?

Isaiah Mpski

05-19-2006, 04:43 AM

Daniel,
With all this money that's pouring into you now will you consider perhaps a -sort of-shamatic center-something people could come to and receive
iniation into a world built on expanding consciousness?

yahoo group-PickOverFlow-jon's pics.Exit 262 I-40.

And twilight.I'm not going to nuke myself.

[ May 19, 2006, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: Isaiah Mpski ]

Steve C

05-19-2006, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by daniel:
history spirals.Sounds pretty authoritative. Guess I'm the only one that sees the irony of a statement like that in the midst of a discussion with a fundy. =)

Spirals (http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Bw-4RMUSHs&search=anti-flag)

[ May 19, 2006, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

M. Twilite

05-19-2006, 07:16 AM

Okay, Daniel, anything for you....

2012: THE RETURN OF QUETZALCOATL

Psychedelic drugs, alien abductions, crop circles, ancient civilizations, the end of the world as we know it and deep-seated sexual frustration: author Daniel Pinchbeck tackles these controversial topics and more in 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl, and he does so with such sharply written, well-researched intelligent prose, that even the staunchest skeptics will find their hold on reality slipping down to fingertip levels. A sort-of sequel to Pinchbeck's 2003 book, Breaking Open The Head, there's more first-person adventures on the fringes but this time there's a staggering difference: Pinchbeck now finds himself possessed by the archetypal deity known as Quetzalcoatl, a powerful spirit who begins transmitting a cosmic message to his inner ear while he's on a tour through the Brazilian rainforest. Scheduled--according to the Mayan calendar--to return and liberate all of humanity (and maybe destroy it) in the year 2012. Laugh if you want, wave K2 and other failed prophecies around like a flag of denial, but keep reading anyway. Pinchbeck doesn't 100% believe it either. The goal here may just be to transcend the duality of truth and untruth anyway, along with everything else, before it all goes up in flames, or drowned in melted ice caps.

Before setting out to become New York's unofficial shaman laureate, Pinchbeck honed his skills in the world of magazine journalism. As a result his writing stands head and shoulders above most all other books of its sort, both for its concise acumen and addictive rhythm; difficult concepts like quantum theory are rendered, via his alchemical wizardry, as riveting and readable as pulp fiction. Best of all, Pinchbeck includes detailed descriptions of his own adventures while researching these topics. Chapters weave personal adventure and memoir (including visits to Brazil and Stonehenge, and New Mexico, frustrated sexual desires, marital problems, etc.) with impeccably researched explorations of Jungian archetypes, metaphysics, reincarnation, chaos theory, the quest for extra-terrestrial life, shamanism and the lost civilization of the Mayans. Never attempting to hide his New Yorker intellectualism in a haze of platitudes and preaching, Pinchbeck doubts his own eyes every step of the way, and that's part of what makes this so important. The man's a journalist; he's reporting, not lecturing. When the facade of reality cracks away despite this clear-eyed approach, you know there's something genuinely uncanny going on.

With his relentlessly inquisitive approach to his subject matter, his caustic cynicism and fearless self-honesty, Pinchbeck makes a great guide for this trip into our collective unconscious. Where the rest of us are terrified to even look, he's gone and come back with some strange souvenirs. The Return of Quetzalcoatl is one such souvenir, an extensively researched and compulsively readable work that's guaranteed to crack your mind wide open. Whether you let it be your gateway into the future of humanity or find it just a hell of an entertaining trip, you need to read it, and fast. The calendar is dripping as we speak.