Your personal jesus

BLOG

 

04.05.2020

Master Gnosis

That is why they write in mythic or poetic form, since if you have those deep root experiences, and develop that meta-cognitive capacity then you access that parallel information which others reading the same will simply not get.
What is connecting you is the fact that you share that root experience. This is not a matter of belief. Don’t believe in those experiences, it does not matter since the processing that goes on will happen either way, and why such a poetic and mythic form is effective, or esoteric forms of writing. Think of belief as a form of understand that such meta-cognition or experience is possible. You believe in the God of the Old Testament because of the experiences of someone like Noah, or Abraham or Moses or the other prophets, you have mere belief, They have something beyond that. They don’t need to believe, it ceases to be necessary. Faith really is faith in the possibility of those experiences.

What if there is Monotheism and yet the Bible and the “God” of the OT and NT are not reflective of that singular divinity. To say ‘we inherited from Judaism’ really just means elevating the tribal God of Yahweh or El or the Godhead to the status of singular Monotheism (though the origins of that faith lie in Monoaltry). The concept of a “God” can be found in other contexts and traditions.

It is a strong assumption to say Monotheism over Poly theism and if so then it must validate or justify the ‘God’ of Abram or Moses.

Instead, if God has a positive reality, a true benevolence would not limit itself to loving or favoring a single group or tribe, and yet you find experiences like Zoroaster, who had deep experiences of a single underlying ‘divine’ and people like Pythagoras who characterize a Kosmos, or Thales and the philosphers of the Ionian school who speak of the Logos as a type of internal intrinsic logic of which we conceive as the divine itself, as it fulfills all the functions of that and is self-creative.

What if God were real, but it neither justified the Old Testament, nor was the God of Moses and Abraham anything more than that particular tribal concept of that deeper and more universal divine order, that they personified, like so many other gods were personified. God then was creator, and also their tribal divinity set in a world of much mightier peoples, civilizations and empires and by characterizing the divine as such, and them as a Chosen people, they were making a political statement more than anything.

God, if real would be real regardless of whether you believe or not, thus belief is meaningless.
I do not mean that in an atheistic way. You can have full positive existence of God and your non-belief of God would not result in God ceasing to exist, nor would your belief. Either one has the same result. What would matter is how your belief effects how you treat yourself and others.

When someone then asks ‘Do you believe in God’ they are really asking Do you believe in the Bible and how the divine is characterized’ and if you reply “I do believe in God but NOT how the Bible characterizes IT” then you can still be (in fact) a monotheist if that is what truly matters to you, but what is more fundamental is simply how your characterizing the Divine and that does not require anything related to the Qu’ran, Torah, or Bible.

The ‘concept’ of the Godhead comes from a deeply rooted experience that was experienced by various people, like Abraham, or Zoraster, though in part these involve a type of insight that whatever is at the root of existence is a singular  ‘power’ or dynamic, and concepts of ‘gods’ in multitude are like masks of that dynamic, and yet when these religions were forming they moved from the tribal concept to the individual concept and really are layered neolithic and bronze age sets of concepts. The older paleolithic and neolithic ‘ancestor’ acknowledgment (hate to call it ‘worship’) you find in Abram. There is a movement from a tribal consciousness to one of individual and took place at a time when human settlement moves from neolithic civilization to a newer ‘urbanization civilization’.

At the root though is that deep experience itself, and the insight or Gnosis that someone like Moses or Zoroaster or Pythagoras or a number of others experience and then try and communicate that complex multivalent omnijective insight in a form to people who lack that deep insight. Perhaps the best way to describe this is how ‘normal’ people think and view people with intellectual disabilities. They feel an inherent capability rooted in a real capacity that they feel the person with the disability simple cannot access. The same goes with someone who has a deep insight viewing a ‘normal person’. They simply cannot access something intrinsic and lack a certain capacity. Sort of like a child and adult, yet you can meet children who are in fact more capable and insightful than many adults, thus why I use the other metaphor.

A similar one might be how would a Bodhisattva express to someone who has not attained Nirvana or some state we describe as enlightenment to those who lack that resulting capacity. One, has an intrinsic metacognitive ability, awareness about awareness or information about information that they can access, like a sense of recognition, that others who lack this capacity simply can’t do.

In other words, this insight and potential experience and developed capacity is not limited by tribe, race, belief system, or anything like that, thus a concept like ‘chosen people’ is silly if you attach it to say, Jews, but if you mean individuals, like Moses, Abraham, Pythagoras, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, and many others from different times and cultures who have such deep experiences, THEN YES, that would be the real Elect and the ‘chosen people’ who are nothing other than those individuals who have such deep experiences. What selects them is their experiences, their insights. That is the true meaning of ‘anointed’. It is not a matter of earning a degree, being ordained or approved or earning credentials. In this way you can say Jesus was anointed and encountered the Pharisees who felt only those who are approved and ordained by their tradition were empowered to authority. That attitude can be found among top scholars and academics today. They have developed certain capacities and learned skills, but they create an aura of authority based on it, and dismiss anyone outside that inner circle. They try and ‘own’ the concept of authority itself. So someone like Jesus, was outside that circle, but still anointed by that deep experience, what could be called Gnosis, and unlike so many others, is identified with that deep experience itself, as that divine order manifest. The Godhead incarnated, sort of like a living avatar of the Kosmos.

Now, if someone does not feel that way about Jesus, say your in the camp he was just a prophet, that doesn’t mean the deeper reality accessed by that dynamic ‘deep’ experience ceases to be ‘real’ or potentially experienced by some human, but it is clear that most humans do not experience, what I’d call the Process Level itself. That level is the level at which this dynamic operates.

For me, God is not a Him or a Her, but rather an IT, an iteration of that dynamic order, self-creative and living, and since it is not material, but something like that which informs the structure itself, it is ‘transcendent’ and thus would be the transcendent “God” like you find in Gnosticism. Yet, does that mean I am Gnostic? Think of it this way. Before you have something like Christianity or Gnosticism you have that deep insight, and that gets fed into a new religious movement. What becomes Gnosticism can be found in elements in other streams of thought, and at the root of experience itself, is where that Gnosis comes from. When Empedocles, who we might not call ‘Gnostic’, but has insight into the Four Elements, which later find their expression in Hermetic thought and Alchemy. All of these then are systems and at their foundation lay a root set of experiences, and a process level. Gnosticism then, accesses elements fed by that deeper process level. Empedocles was not ‘Gnostic’ but experienced Gnosis, and his insights fed into later systems of thought.

Ah yes, so delightful to see everyone here argue over what they “know” to be “fact” and call everyone who disagrees with them a moron for getting all their info from man made scripture meanwhile everything they preach comes from the same place… you’re ALL doing exactly what this teacher you all argue over told you not to do. 

There’s an old saying: “if you see a Buddha on the road, kill it”    I suggest everyone let this sink in before getting back up on your high horses and carrying on these arguments.

Seek within and when you find truth…keep seeking.

Raptus - 23:32:07 @ Ideas, Sacred Visions | Add a comment