Impossible to know with accuracy

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

The explanation of illumination is clarity of awareness. Some of the signs of it are to be void of envy, appreciation for all of life, agape/compassion (tho you might disagree with my methods), self honesty, self respect, humility, a master of forgiveness and balance in all things.

I understand what you are saying as the result of spirtual life in and for a person. I sense that what you are speaking about is the personal path. I also assume that this forum was founded for persons who want to learn about and be inspired toward such a personal path (that results in enlightenment, so-called). I might say 'I have no argument with that', and yet I have done and do a good deal of arguing. In my case the Fourm (what QR and S put in motion) has value because it sends out a challenge. It makes a definite statement, it sets down a stone, it declares, it takes a stand. When one confronts that, one has to 'answer'. It is as if someone says: 'This is what I understand and this is why. What do you think of that?'

You have to answer. If the question has meaning, you can answer superficially or more profoundly. My interpretation of myself is to understand that I choose to answer but to answer has involved me in a Total Review. Unlike Russell - and this can clearly be seen in his exposition - he dismisses everything in favor of Enlightenment. How could one, and why would one, argue against a man and his personal choice? One cannot. But when totalising statemenes are made, and grand condemnations, or one develops a position of condemnation of man, achievement, scientia, our history, and the work of uncounted generations of men who have struggled to arrive at definitions, and platforms from which 'a world' has been built, and when all of this is dismissed imperiously, and further: when one notices destructive, nihilistic trends operating in the world generally, and the result of decadent processes, and the prospect of loss of what has been attained: at that point the totalising, dismissive statements, when they are couched as expressions of Absolute Truth, become in a way 'sinful'. To be wrong is one thing, but to sin against truth is another. (To refer to 'sin' is to refer to a willful choice, a deliberate action, but one cannot dismiss igorance either, but who assumes reposibility for ignorance?)

So, I would say that I recognise those qualities and those attainments (or results) that you have named as certainly important, but the larger conversation here is more to my interest. The conversation I would define would propose Illumination, yes, (but not 'enlightenment' since no one can define it), and then Civilization: another way of referring to the Polis.

[Russell Parr]

It is as if someone says: 'This is what I understand and this is why. What do you think of that?'

You have to answer.

This is rich. I find you to be the master of avoiding directness. You do not see this in yourself, so badly in fact, that you project it onto others.

I think you don't even know what you believe. Just in the past few days you first claimed to be of Hindu influence. Then it's Hindu/Greek. Now it's just Greek. But then when I put up a video that mocks Christianity, you come to its rescue and post a video that mocks Hinduism, simply because I have been discussing the teachings of Ramakrishna in another thread.

I don't think you believe in anything, and that your modus operandi is to annihilate anyone that claims to have figured it all out. You pick a target, and attack relentlessly. You ask questions, and even when answered repeatedly, you say you've never been answered. If you do address the answers, you exaggerate and spin them into something sinister, as sinister as you can make it out to be. You pretend to choose sides, which changes almost daily, in order to undermine your target in different ways. In one moment you agree with the direction of the forum and then insult it the very next. Once your attempts at "reasoning," if it can be called as much, with your enemy inevitable fails, in comes the insults.

You're not here for answers, you're here because you have an axe to grind.

For you to oppose someone's position you must first have one of your own firmly established. Does anyone else reading have any idea what Gustav's is?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

There are reasons why I am unintelligible to you, and those reasons can be discovered and explained. As it is, you don't have enough background in ideas generally to know what I mean when I refer to 'Hindu' or 'Greek'. You see, you don't care about any of that. These and all other areas that require some study - except whatever is part of 'enlightenment' - is off your radar of concern. If someone refers to it, you simply dismiss it as 'irrelevant', and trot out the Law of Identity A=A, etc.

It is very wrong to say that I don't believe anything, and you do not understand that I have no interest in 'annihilating' your belief or anyone's belief. I clearly enunciate my concerns and yet you cannot hear them. There is no one home to hear.

'Axe to grind' means getting even or 'ressentiment', yes? But even this, or especially this, is inaccurate. Again: you have no way to 1) understand and 2) appreciate my concerns. They are simply inintelligible to you. They are unintelligible to you because the only concern you can hold in your mind is that of 'enlightenment' which in your case is predicated on negation.

Your 'enlightenment' is predicated on negation.

You have no answers to offer, in fact. Only tautologies. There is no discussion with you, simply assertions and reassertions of religious tenets. That is fine within its own sphere. But I assert that philosophical concerns, and religious concerns, have far wider parameters and implications and consequences.

(The point of the video was to illustrate that each religious mode or grasp or symbol-set has a crude and vulgar lower-end. But as you know from Ramakrishna, whose matrix is crude ritualism and sacrifice, there is a higher dimension. Same with crude Christian mysticism or healing work)(or whatever all that Benny Hinn nonsense is about; it looks like entertainment and spectacle with a pseudo-religious or post-religious overlay: utterly bizarre).

[Russell Parr]

There are reasons why I am unintelligible to you, and those reasons can be discovered and explained. As it is, you don't have enough background in ideas generally to know what I mean when I refer to 'Hindu' or 'Greek'. You see, you don't care about any of that. These and all other areas that require some study - except whatever is part of 'enlightenment' - is off your radar of concern. If someone refers to it, you simply dismiss it as 'irrelevant', and trot out the Law of Identity A=A, etc.

True enough.

It is very wrong to say that I don't believe anything, and you do not understand that I have no interest in 'annihilating' your belief or anyone's belief. I clearly enunciate my concerns and yet you cannot hear them. There is no one home to hear.

Your concerns are based on your fear of letting go of some certain something(s) you hold dear, be it culture, a theistic belief, or something. As such, and due to your belief that there are no Absolute truths, you assume that I and others must be clinging to a hidden something.

'Axe to grind' means getting even or 'ressentiment', yes? But even this, or especially this, is inaccurate. Again: you have no way to 1) understand and 2) appreciate my concerns. They are simply inintelligible to you. They are unintelligible to you because the only concern you can hold in your mind is that of 'enlightenment' which in your case is predicated on negation.

I disagree. I understand enough about you to know that you are clearly clinging to something, which either you don't know, or are keeping close to your vest. Probably the latter?

Your 'enlightenment' is predicated on negation.

Indeed, Enlightenment is predicated on the negation of delusions and false values.

You have no answers to offer, in fact. Only tautologies. There is no discussion with you, simply assertions and reassertions of religious tenets. That is fine within its own sphere. But I assert that philosophical concerns, and religious concerns, have far wider parameters and implications and consequences.

Absolute truth is tautological.

Anyway, forgive me for losing patience earlier. I just find you incredibly stubborn!

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Your concerns are based on your fear of letting go of some certain something(s) you hold dear, be it culture, a theistic belief, or something. As such, and due to your belief that there are no Absolute truths, you assume that I and others must be clinging to a hidden something.

Having been through all this before with you and others who 'operate this system' - which is really a unique and consistent one and which functions in accord with rigid, repeating, ideas and strategies - I might have suspected that this would be your next thrust: "You are clinging to something". (I am also taking breaths). Of course I am clinging to something in this conversation! I am clinging to what allows humans to become and be humans - that is one aspect - but I also understand myself as clinging and desiring to cling, and looking for more ways to be clear about my desire to cling, to certain things fundamental to Western European culture and Northern European culture: pan-Germanic culture I guess one could say. This is where my reaction-processes to GF ideology have led me.

I 'cling' to this, struggle to define what it is and how it came to be, and I desire as well to treasure it, protect it, and much else: and that is why I fight so hard against your destructive, nullifying ideology. Now it is true that *you* Russell represent no threat to me personally, and it is Fate perhaps that led me here and Destiny which induces me to follow through, and to milk every ounce of value out of the extraordinary opportunity to define my vision, my values, in relation to what I understand of your *values*: the values of oblivion literally. And I know as well that you can barely understand what I am on about.

I have noted this sort of 'ploy' in the circles of the hyperspiritual: they note that something is held to or defended; any such clinging is anathema and contrary to the path of dissolution, and yet it is a point that presents itself as attackable, and in some people perhaps a weak point. And there you have the Zen mind-reform technique in a nutshell: focus in one an element that can be attacked and exploited, and pry at it, ridicule it, work at it in the hope that it collapses, and then of course you will have made an inroad toward the deconstruction of what you call 'the ego' but which is really the Self. And this is your object: to weaken a man's relationship to his Self.

What you fail to grasp - of this I have no doubt - is just how your detructive, undermining strategy is connected to a number of trends that are weakening the Western/Northern identity generally, and breaking apart the Identity that would allow for strong defense to be mounted. 'Cultural Marxism' is one major current. But there are whole patterns in intellectual culture, 'post-structuralism', identity and gender politics, which attack forms achieved with great sacrifice. But none of this do you know about, and none of it concerns you. It is a non-concern and it would seem that, in your way, you relish the dissolution, welcome it even. In yourself and perhaps around you. Yet what you are involved in (to speak of 'causation') has points of origin that you are ignorant of.

Once one gains a sense of what stands to be lost, and this occurs through a process of sobriety and taking stock, one only gets more and more committed to preservation and one devalues more and more wanton destruction. It has many forms.

The formula: 'Enlightenment is predicated on the negation of delusions and false values' needs to be rearranged and restated.

Illumination requires awareness of Self, awareness of what has been worked at by uncounted generations of men, awareness of what to value and why, and is the intelligence-illumination that has allowed for an emergence into this plane of existence. To come into it. To open up avenues of knowledge, understanding and power. You fundamentally turn against this but you name it 'progress'. I would suggest that you are more connected to obscurantism than to illumination or enlightenment. This is not all you represent and you don't fully understand, not really, what you are saying and selling, but I note the obscurantism. And I speak to something in essence larger than you or your will.

I do not think it true that I don't 'believe in' absolutes of 'the Absolute' but my 'belief' seems to function quite differently, or demand something different of me, that much is obvious!

[Beingof1]

The explanation of illumination is clarity of awareness. Some of the signs of it are to be void of envy, appreciation for all of life, agape/compassion (tho you might disagree with my methods), self honesty, self respect, humility, a master of forgiveness and balance in all things.

I understand what you are saying as the result of spirtual life in and for a person. I sense that what you are speaking about is the personal path. I also assume that this forum was founded for persons who want to learn about and be inspired toward such a personal path (that results in enlightenment, so-called). I might say 'I have no argument with that', and yet I have done and do a good deal of arguing. In my case the Fourm (what QR and S put in motion) has value because it sends out a challenge. It makes a definite statement, it sets down a stone, it declares, it takes a stand. When one confronts that, one has to 'answer'. It is as if someone says: 'This is what I understand and this is why. What do you think of that?'

Enlightenment has two parts that are actually the same as:
"Love G_d with all your mind, soul, heart and strength."
"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

The end result of this state of being is you eventually "love your enemy and pray for them."

You have to answer. If the question has meaning, you can answer superficially or more profoundly. My interpretation of myself is to understand that I choose to answer but to answer has involved me in a Total Review. Unlike Russell - and this can clearly be seen in his exposition - he dismisses everything in favor of Enlightenment. How could one, and why would one, argue against a man and his personal choice? One cannot. But when totalising statemenes are made, and grand condemnations, or one develops a position of condemnation of man, achievement, scientia, our history, and the work of uncounted generations of men who have struggled to arrive at definitions, and platforms from which 'a world' has been built, and when all of this is dismissed imperiously, and further: when one notices destructive, nihilistic trends operating in the world generally, and the result of decadent processes, and the prospect of loss of what has been attained: at that point the totalising, dismissive statements, when they are couched as expressions of Absolute Truth, become in a way 'sinful'. To be wrong is one thing, but to sin against truth is another. (To refer to 'sin' is to refer to a willful choice, a deliberate action, but one cannot dismiss igorance either, but who assumes reposibility for ignorance?)

I agree wholeheartedly.

This may help us connect our very differing ways of communication.
The perfect mind - was the teachings of the Buddha. This guy had a way of ridding delusions like none other I have studied.
The perfect soul - was the teachings of Lao Tzu. He nailed it when living ones life.
The perfect heart/will - was Jesus. What he achieved is beyond words.

So, I would say that I recognise those qualities and those attainments (or results) that you have named as certainly important, but the larger conversation here is more to my interest. The conversation I would define would propose Illumination, yes, (but not 'enlightenment' since no one can define it), and then Civilization: another way of referring to the Polis.

The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Beingof1: I find that I have to take a stand against some aspect of what you have written, insofar as it reflects a 'universalist assumption'. You imply, and this is of course directly a Christian tenet, that there is one human heart, or the heart of humanity. Certainly the Church in Europe worked hard to establish the notion of one humanity, and for various reasons, not all of them acceptable (domination of and rulership over this one humanity the negative aspect).

I have come to see that the idea of a singular humanity is a false-idea with various down-sides. So, I would not define a singular enlightenment or illumination either.

It seems to me necessary to understand different people - different tribes and nations - as unique in and of themselves. But also to be able to discriminate between high and low, better and worse, superior and inferior. I certainly recognize all the problematic issues that arise from that. Yet I think it is inevitable.

Thus, to say 'The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart' is I think true in certain ways, yet one would have to work to define what is meant by 'heart'. It is not that easy. On one hand it means 'capable of hearing and responding to higher notes' and on another 'susceptibility to sentimentalism' . Well, it means many different thing in fact and is not a simple question).

I am not sure of the acute definitions that I see as necessary could be subsumed under the definition of the problem as you have written it. What then is 'the human problem'? That is of course what requires definition.

[Beingof1]

Gustav:

It seems to me necessary to understand different people - different tribes and nations - as unique in and of themselves. But also to be able to discriminate between high and low, better and worse, superior and inferior. I certainly recognize all the problematic issues that arise from that. Yet I think it is inevitable.

Could you tell me the fundamental difference in cultures?

There are differing myths of the man who ascends the mountain (many differing forms of the story), finds the trenscendent and delivers the message to the peeps.

Look into Joseph Campbell (follow your bliss) - he did an entire series on your thoughts here.

I am not sure of the acute definitions that I see as necessary could be subsumed under the definition of the problem as you have written it. What then is 'the human problem'? That is of course what requires definition.

You are right - the heart is a full blown study itself.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

That is a good question overall but I'd phrase it differently. I think you have to start with a given culture and make comparisons to other cultures in order to be able to decide which one is 'better'. Or in any case to be able to posit the differences. Then, one can begin to make statements. If it is not completely obvious, my cultural prejudice and preferance is Western/Northern Europe. Because of the uniqueness of discovery, accomplishment, and transforming understandings. So the question is rather What makes this culture different and unique?

It is also not likely obvious but I move in the direction of redefinition of Christianity by defining myself as a 'Johannine Christian-of-sorts'. The Johannine 'logos'-angle allows for more fluid definitions of 'mission'. As well as a rather abrupt severing away from Jewish traditionalism (the Greek philosophical Christianity was essentially this).

Ultimatley, it has do do with definitions of metaphysical platforms (that's perhaps a contradiction of terms) but very much to do with social organization, power and identity. I was interested in Rod's discourse because he proposed a national/political link.

But it's a rather hard question to answer. To come to the answer requires getting steeped in the productions of that culture.

[Beingof1]

Gustav:

That is a good question overall but I'd phrase it differently. I think you have to start with a given culture and make comparisons to other cultures in order to be able to decide which one is 'better'. Or in any case to be able to posit the differences. Then, one can begin to make statements. If it is not completely obvious, my cultural prejudice and preferance is Western/Northern Europe. Because of the uniqueness of discovery, accomplishment, and transforming understandings. So the question is rather What makes this culture different and unique?

The birth of the West (this is subjective to each historian) took place with the Jewish culture established under the Davidic monarchy and reached the 'awakening' or self awareness with the polis city states of the Greeks. There really is no clear starting point but to me these are the genesis of Western civilization. Both cultures showed genuine genius. The Jewish culture has a propensity for religion, morality (you will get in some heated debates on that one) and a formalized integrated system of spirituality that became codified into a state constitution. The Greeks, especially at Athens were responsible for science, art, logic, philosophy and to many founding frameworks to mention.

Both were a very hardy and warlike people and yet retained something of the ineffable. These two culteres exhibited more pure genius per capita than any I have ever seen. The difference is that the Jewish framework has largely outlived and survived all other ancient cultures. I attribute this to quite simply divine intervention.

The Greek city states has survived in our forms of government, scientific fields of study and our use of logic as the basis for all rational thought.

I do see the West imploding however and that is a major discussion all of itself.

It is also not likely obvious but I move in the direction of redefinition of Christianity by defining myself as a 'Johannine Christian-of-sorts'. The Johannine 'logos'-angle allows for more fluid definitions of 'mission'. As well as a rather abrupt severing away from Jewish traditionalism (the Greek philosophical Christianity was essentially this).

I am redefining Christiandom as well and it has cost me more than I can relay here on this forum. Old power dies hard and is very resistant to change. I have found a mixtures of mysticism, gnostic and orthodox to be very effective in dealing with not only life issues but also crisis. Again, long discussion and not really suited for this platform.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Since this thread really has no topic at all, there is nowhere it can't go and no going off-topic. I find the irony marvellous.

Waldo Frank locates what it is we talk about when we refer to The Occident by naming 'Judea, Greece, Rome and Alexandria' - all in the Meditteranean cradle. He asserts that it is *this* (insofar as it cane be named as a thing) that has produced our very selves. I think it is especially useful to understand 'Alexandria' as the place where all these currents have flowed together. But there is a caveat: Houston Chamberlain (an impressive and hyperarticulate historican, but a dangerous one) speaks of 'the chaos of cultures', and unfavorably. Christianity has been formed through a chaos of cultural infusion according to him and, also according to him (or I take this idea away from reading him) requires purification.

As you may or may not know he performs the unusual feat of removing Jesus from a hard Jewish matrix and places him in a Gentile one (Galilee as a noted Greek-mixed zone, less adamantly supervised Judaic according to him). And thus he explains the opposition to the rigid and hyper-materialistic Judaic state-structure in a unique way: resisting an essentially 'eastern' and rather tyrannical mindframe.

One would be hard-pressed to define Jewish genius in its desire to create a theocratic state and yet in a sense this is what Judea bequeathed to Rome, and we have 1000 years of European history which attests to this 'marriage'. Chamberlain, despite what is said of him, and despite perhaps how his views were used, is not quite the antisemite he is described as being. But he makes a very clear and well-articulated case about - and also 'against' - a peculiar Jewish trait: Jewish will. An historical will that not only functions in a moment but that moves through time and has been moving for 2.5 millennia. It is simply hard to conceive of a Will of this sort and to capture, mentally, how powerful it is and has been. And I am not necessarily defending it either. It is something to ask many many questions about. To interrogate with intensity. To study, to understand.

Now, and just to be totally frank, the underlying an unavoidable issue which defines possibly the most of our present 'viewstructure' about the present, ourselves, what is right and what is wrong, is the antipathy and the struggle between the pan-Germanic North European 'world' with it very unique mind and spirit, as-against what we can reduce to as 'the Jewish Will'. We have to face, and quite squarely, the fact of the desire of the pan-Germanic Will and spirit to oppose, resist and defeat the Judaic Will. The essence of many problems (I was going to say 'all problems' but can't be sure of that) stems out of this conflict.

You might say: 'But wait, you're Jewish aren't you so you know what side you're on, right?' But in fact I am half Jewish (whatever this means) and have as much of a N European side as I do a Southern (Sephardic) Jewish side. If I had to toss in my chips, today, unto one side or the other I would, almost without hesitation, opt in to the Greek-pagan and the pan-Germanic (the very core of Europe in spirit and idea). What I would do with the Jewish aspect, well, that is an interesting question. This also has bearing insofar as there is effectively no way to remove 'Judea' from 'Alexandria' or 'Rome' or 'Greece'. These are skeins that interweave.

In my own view Jews become relevant only when they have interconnected with Occidental idea-currents that are Greek and pan-Germanic (that arise from the very core of N Europe). Much else could be well classified as 'irrelevant' and noise from 'the chaos of cultures'. A Jew that remains a Jew (shtetl Jew or hard-core traditionalist orthodoxian), renders himself both totally irrelevant and, in many ways, an outright hinderance (if not a problem). Thus with this statement I take a sharp stand against all Fundamentalisms. At the core of Jewish Will (untransformed) is an ugly and I will also say destructive fundamentalism. I also wish to propose a troubling and a strange idea: If the Jew combines as it were or joins Occidental processes, it is because he has in a very real and traditional sense ceased being a historical Jew. The historical Jew is essentially the shtetl Jew: a culture that is bound to recalcitrant structures which have no relationship with European (spirited) processes. That shtetl Jew is an idea backwater, and an emblem of a dead-end. No one should wish to have anything at all to do with it. Thus: once a Jew has entered Occidental and pan-Europeanism he must, as I see things, convert. There, Judaism ends. Or 'should end'.

But what happens when a Jew, who holds to this traditional will (which is essentially a religious construct and based in a religious mission), has effectively abandoned that matrix and joined up as it were with the spirit of pan-Germanism? And what happens if instead of relinquishing this peculiar Will, he holds to that Will? And channels that will to - and this has to be mentioned - directing Occidental processes? There you have the problem. It is the problem out of which antisemitism arises, and one that does not and has not gone away.

These are not things easy to look at squarely.

The core of Jesusonian opposition to Judea can be identified with resitance to and articulation of alternatives to this brand of stultifying fundamentalism. This couches anew the Gentile-Jewish opposition, but too presents just as many problems, some of them quite difficult.

In my present view, no part of this is irrelevant, even to the present conversations. That is, the work that it takes to identify and explain 'the present'; to illumination and 'enlightenment'; to social activism, to traditionalism of a more fluid or free-thinking sort; and certainly to 'metaphysics' and to definitions of overstructures (structures which overstructure the very possibility of articulating ideas in any sense at all).

Now, if the West is imploding, How has this come about? What does it mean to say 'implode'? How can one articulate what is happening? And then, How can one (or can one?) articulate a counter-movement?

The 'hero' of course, in my mind, is one who chooses the counter-current!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Since this thread really has no topic at all, there is nowhere it can't go and no going off-topic. I find the irony marvellous.

Perhaps it should be moved to Worldly Matters? It was suggested recently to me to have another forum in the board to discuss things that typically go no where and remain aimless in terms of the aims of the board admins. Would you object to such thing? It's actually how it was in past times but Wordly Matters disappeared during a time of reform (a local beeldenstorm). Needless to say, I'm opposed to topics with no or extremely wide purposes. Unless it's called "General discussion", "Daily thought" or something to that extent. It's not like I don't understand the needs of the mind to wander or cast a wider net.

Now, if the West is imploding, How has this come about? What does it mean to say 'implode'? How can one articulate what is happening? And then, How can one (or can one?) articulate a counter-movement?

Imploding? That depends on ones perspective. Over the hill perhaps? The big dilemma of this age seems to be the question of identity, of human nature, caused by all the interactions in terms of neurology, robotics, communication, mass data and so on. It's possible the big "shift" will be a radical new definition of humanit, even its complete "disappearence" as we knew it. But again, while I'm interested in the subject, it's to me only marginally philosophical or existential in terms of the modern individual.

The 'hero' of course, in my mind, is one who chooses the counter-current!

To me that's always the path of the genius. In modern times though, every gesture would become drowned in all the current currents: "anxious, forceful, overhasty: like a river, that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect" (Nietzsche). The proper counter-current is to appreciate the ending, like there were so many endings before and witness perhaps even encourage any potency of the new. Silence is the new loud...

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

The funny thing is then that, if this is a 'worldly topic', and if this is not the topic as defined by our Founders, then my entire focus is to be relagated to another, an irrelevant, section. How different our views of things! I see this recent turn as very relevant if one is to build a platform for a conversation about 'illumination'. I agree that it serves no purpose if 'enlightenment', as defined by Russell, is the ascendent interpretation.

Aimless? I would say that no part of my focus is aimless and I'd rather see it as having a very defined aim. It is just one that others don't understand or share.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The funny thing is then that, if this is a 'worldly topic', and if this is not the topic as defined by our Founders, then my entire focus is to be relagated to another, an irrelevant, section.

It doesn't have to become an irrelevant section of course. I've seen at times here and other boards in the past that such section quickly can eclipse the more dedicated "original" sections in terms of traffic and attention. But at least it might make it easier to moderate that way as it stops the endless discussion about if something belongs on this forum or not. See it as an experiment or a going back to the "old school". Anyhow, I think Russell is already creating such place as we write. We'll see where the experiment will lead. Feel free to ignore it or add to it.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

OK, let me make a stronger case: There can be no division, and there should be no division, on a philosophically-oriented forum where notions of 'enlightenment' and illumination are discussed in rational terms and where ideas must be supported by reasoned argument and not, as is the normal, with faith-based arguments and other appeals to the converted. That is one aspect.

The second aspect is that the purpose, as I understand it, is not to divide things into separated 'worlds'. In fact there is only 'the world' and that is the world we are in. It is true that there are inane topics, and inane conversations, but these are distinct and recognizable. I have the sense that with your just-now intervention (this is what I have termed 'interposing' in the literal sense of the word) you are likely revving up for another control-episode. Call it paranoia if you wish.

What happens, you see, is that some - recently Russell, at least in my opinion - get called to task and they are forced to answer when interrogated: to rationally defend their ideas. To see it debated in a public sphere. However, they really do not want to do that since, in point of fact, they do not care for reason, rationality, philosophy, the mind, the history of ideas, or the history of European processes. That is 'delusion', 'ego', 'clinging'. They rather relish an abstract, remote, conversation - clinging of a superior sort! - of sharing rhetorical equations and nomenclature. If there were 10 threads like 'Talking to the Wall' and 10 more parse-participants, I think that might produce a veritable group 'samadhi'-experience.

'The experiment', that is if I understand you aright, is likely to be an attempt to control. Neither more nor less. Control of this sort should be relinquished. If that happens, more interesting things tend to occur. When the control-freaks (with specific agendas) are given power, they always fuck it up.

One aspect of being able to speak about either illumination or 'enlightenment' (I simply cannot but put it in quotes) is that one has to define the field where it is occurring and in relation to what. For this reason definitions that focus on 'what Europe is' or 'what is the European notion of self' are very relevant.

"I've no doubt you have a righteous cause and good intent, but delusion itself is evil, and so inasmuch that you are delusional, you have demons that should be expelled ..."

WWTTAD?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, yes, obviously everything is to some level related. That's causality for you. But that doesn't mean addressing everything under the sun all of the time would be leading to promising discussions or illumination. My experience, hard won and mostly gathered on other boards tells me it doesn't work that way.

In fact there is only 'the world' and that is the world we are in

Speak for your self. There's no such thing, which is kind of the point of the discussion: the nature of Ultimate Reality. And also the reason why bringing up the "world" (I simply cannot but put it in quotes), unless as parable, as metaphor, will not help much here.

Now it's all about "control" then Gustav? That sounds to me very pink-commie-liberal suddenly. A strong metaphysics, a firm rule set and guiding loving laws, what happened to those? I guess those only make sense when they work in your advantage? Anyway, as I wrote before, feel free to focus on whatever topic you like. But like always was the case since the inception of this board, occasionally some topics might move to "Wordy" Matters if the topic really suggests that they would fit there better. It won't be as abusive as you might think. And for the freedom of discussion it shouldn't matter one iota. And certainly it shouldn't matter to those who believe there's only one topic, one world to discuss. For those people there are just two sections containing the same. No big deal apart for those wanting to play poor little victim me.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Be that as it may:

"I've no doubt you have a righteous cause and good intent, but delusion itself is evil, and so inasmuch that you are delusional, you have demons that should be expelled ..."

I am here to help you.

[Beingof1]

Gustav,
I do not have time to give your post the time it deserves but I will leave you with this. It is one of the many reasons I am in hot water with church leadership (shivers - lol).


Right after the resurrection had happened, the NT was written in about thirty to seventy years. In that same time, while the Apostles were still teaching and making disciples, there were about thirty to fifty gospels in existence. Many were writing about this truly remarkable event. The resurrection was transcendent.

This act expanded on many levels of effect. It showed us something brand new and in so many ways they cannot all be listed. The concept of a life in and of itself, consciousness or existence beyond the physical was hotly debated by the Jewish leaders. The resurrection silenced a host of debates. There were hundreds of texts with different acts, deeds and testimony. Paul said there were 500 witnesses to the event.

The overwhelming amount of eyewitness testimony, the mountain of written testimony and the apostles as teachers resulted in a brand new belief that could not die. It had given the gift of salvation on so many levels it was truly a universal paradigm shift in the human dynamic. This is why, even after 250 years of unrelenting persecution by the state, they could not get rid of it.


Constantine the Roman emperor was holding onto his power by a thread in 312 AD. Rome was threatened by another general seeking the seat of power. The empire itself was under attack by the tribes in the outer rim of the empire. He had to win this battle for Rome or lose his head. He has a vision of the cross and wins the battle. Nice introduction to Christianity by killing your fellow Romans. I don`t know, maybe I have the wrong idea about what the resurrection meant. I thought he said the peacemakers were the blessed ones.

So Constantine gathers together the big church leaders in 324 AD. He wants the leaders to come up with the law of the new state religion. He wants a single law book to legislate from to bring a cohesive and brand new religion to the empire and pays for fifty copies. Christianity grew quickly. In less than fifty years it was established in the entire Roman empire. It was the dominate religion by the time this meeting took place.

A friend on mine pointed out that the men attending were righteous men. They had lost eyes and limbs for the gospel. They established the Apostles Creed and began the work of The book selecting for legislation of the new state religion. Constantine had his list of what he termed "acceptable" books. The Apostles Creed was signed into law by Constantine. The state had its new religion.

Constantine walks away with a unified and powerful brand new religion to save the shrinking empire, the church avoids persecution and is granted police powers by the Roman army. I cannot blame the Christians for the decision but it had effects that could not be imagined by the young religious leaders.

Fast forward sixty to seventy years. New emperor, new church leaders and they were narrowing the books down dramatically to be included in the NT. They had a vested interest by this time of what was at stake. The church leaders were rich and powerful in a political kinda way. The book of Revelation of John got into the NT by just a hair above fifty percent but it squeaked by in a vote - thank the Lord or we would not know if we were in the end times or not, right? The book written; the Revelation of Peter got voted down. If the Apocalypse of Peter would have been voted in by two or three votes, would we have a different end times?

When the canon of the NT was final, all other competing books were put to the torch by the church leadership. Hold up here and think about that and let it percolate - I had to. The Roman army was there to make sure all other books of the same identical time period as the NT were put to the torch.


Do not misunderstand me - I do not doubt the New Testament. It as solid as solid can be to history and inspiration. Why did they burn the other books - some of which had been written by the apostles themselves? I can give you the evidence for this and I will. If you remain logical and objective, you will see that books written by the original 12 disciples of Jesus were burnt and they knew it at the time they ordered it done.



Here comes another sidewinder pitch. They changed the church service to Latin language. Latin was a very small language in comparison to Greek which was worldwide. Latin was the state language of Rome. Now the vast majority of the followers could not understand what was being said.

After the Roman empire fell, reading the Bible became a crime by the medieval governments for about a thousand years, give or take. Can`t have the masses reading the Bible can we? What were they so afraid of that had to be hidden, confused and books burnt to hide? It must be hidden in plane site in the Bible or they would not need 1500 long years of brainwashing and groupthink as a state religion for most of Europe.




We find in 1945 AD - 40 never before seen books from antiquity. They all concur, every single one, with the record of Jesus, the Apostles, the resurrection, and the whole enchilada. Its called the Nag Hammadi library. We find Gospels, early church leader writings and about a dozen texts that are popular Christian books, like at Amazon or B Dalton in todays world. About 60 books in all. Some apostles and others that signed their name to their texts. They hid these texts to keep them from being burnt by the new Roman religion and law. It was a crime against the church to posses the evil texts you see. They focused on the law in putting together the NT and ignored the mystical texts of an inward journey of knowing Christ Jesus.


The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document, not aggregated to the critic himself.
-- Aristotle

Here is the evidence of a Gospel written by an apostle: I challenge anyone who knows scripture to read the Gospel of Thomas. It was carbon dated for about 1800 years.


Here is the rest of the list that looks like they have been authored by some of the gang. You know, Peter, James, Paul and so on. The title of each book may look 'funny', they are modern day titles so don`t blame the author.

1) The Apochryphon of John - "I John did hear these things."

2)The Gospel of Thomas - "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down."

3)The Prayer of the Apostle Paul - ""prayer of Paul the Apostle."

4)The Apochryphon of James - "James writes to those."

5)The Gospel of Philip - "The Gospel according to Philip."

6)The Book of Thomas the Contender - "The secret words that the saviour spoke to Judas Thomas which I, even I Mathais(Acts 2) wrote down, while I was walking , listening to them speak with one another."

7)The (First) Apocalypse of James - (snipped) "It is the Lord who spoke with me... I have given you a sign of these things, James."

8)The (Second) Apocalypse of James - "This is the discourse that James the Just spoke in Jerusalem which Mareim one of the priests wrote."

9)The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles - "And I Peter, inquired about the name."

10)Apocalypse of Peter - "he said to me, Peter."

11) The Teachings of Silvanus - "The teachings of Silvanus." (companion of Paul?)

12)The Letter of Peter to Philip - "Peter, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, to Philip our beloved brother."

13) The Gospel of Mary - "The Gospel according to Mary."


These were considered to be canon like scriptures that were found from the time of the apostles. They were just given an evil name, gnostic. It would be akin to saying anarchist or communist in todays world. Gnostic is just a Greek word but when you need to put the boot on the back of the neck of your political opponent - you call em a bad name and for the sheeple - good enough.


The parable of the sower comes to mind. The seed (word) goes into the ground and in three and a half year time period, the Old and New Testaments are both validated with the most unbelievable finds from two thousand years ago. The Nag Hammadi quotes, verbatim, the New Testament writings and the New Testament quotes, verbatim, the Nag Hammadi - hmmm.

Three years later the Dead Sea scrolls are found and Israel becomes a state after two thousand years. We find the entire Old Testament word for word verbatim matching the Masoretic texts. We have two - thats right - two ancient libraries that surfaced from about the time of the early church. Everyone has heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Who knows of the Nag Hammadi? Anyone I know read them yet?

I did a search on my computer Bible software for the Nag Hammadi and strangely enough, in all my searches it was not even mentioned. Like they were never found. Not worth a footnote to find 40 Christian texts from the times of the apostles, how strange.


I do not know about you but I would rather read the texts and decide for myself what is inspired and what is not rather than what is given to me, like breadcrumbs on the floor, from a Roman emperor and his state run ocean of political correctness run amok.

What is so "scary" about finding new books from the time of the apostles? What is not being told to us? Why has over 90 percent of Christians not been told by their pastor that 40 brand new books can be read from the early followers of Jesus?

It is like a hypnotist that tells someone they are eating an apple when they bite into an onion. If you do not realize there has been a 1500 year conspiracy to cover up something here, you should do your own homework. Everything I said is verifiable. You can read the Bible and it( the information that has been kept from us) may be in plain site in small soundbites and perhaps spelled out, like for grade school, in the Nag Hammadi texts.

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."
-- John 17:22

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."
-- Galatians 2:20

"You have an unction from the Holy One and you know all things."

[Beingof1]

'The experiment', that is if I understand you aright, is likely to be an attempt to control. Neither more nor less. Control of this sort should be relinquished. If that happens, more interesting things tend to occur. When the control-freaks (with specific agendas) are given power, they always fuck it up.

What Gustav said

[Diebert van Rhijn]

'The experiment', that is if I understand you aright, is likely to be an attempt to control. Neither more nor less. Control of this sort should be relinquished. If that happens, more interesting things tend to occur. When the control-freaks (with specific agendas) are given power, they always fuck it up.

What Gustav said

Of course, you both have this splendid ability to paint others with your own sins and call it liberation. So you're saying indeed "the same thing'.

And you still have little knowledge of the bible, despite your pretence. Still a child playing with baby milk and motherly breasts. Ah well.

[Russell Parr]

'The experiment', that is if I understand you aright, is likely to be an attempt to control. Neither more nor less. Control of this sort should be relinquished. If that happens, more interesting things tend to occur. When the control-freaks (with specific agendas) are given power, they always fuck it up.

What Gustav said

Don't let Gustav's flair for exaggerating the hell out of everything Diebert and I do or say perturb you. The main reason for the bringing back of "Worldly Matters" is in its description: to give us all a bit more room to discuss other interesting topics that aren't strictly philosophical.

[Beingof1]

Don't let Gustav's flair for exaggerating the hell out of everything Diebert and I do or say perturb you. The main reason for the bringing back of "Worldly Matters" is in its description: to give us all a bit more room to discuss other interesting topics that aren't strictly philosophical.

Here is an idea then - rather than making decisions from a butt hurt perspective or a decision based on "if you agree with me you are wise" - why not let the OP in this case Seeker decide if he wants it in his thread.

If a thread does not retain interest it will succumb by natural selection of the fittest.

For those who hold to Darwin`s view - I find it interesting they feel compelled to constantly intervene - kinda like Intelligent Design for the forum - just sayin

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

"I've no doubt you have a righteous cause and good intent, but delusion itself is evil, and so inasmuch that you are delusional, you have demons that should be expelled ..."

However, I could bring you both to full Enlightenment and you'd come crawling back, aplogizing. But I won't. I just won't.

WWTTAD?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Nobody can bring anyone else to anything called enlightenment. The crawling is completely yours and you're already doing so, it's in your words, your attitude, your spite and belittling, in how your words contradict and are at war with your own words and no one else, despite what you're imagining.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Uh-huh.