Reliions What about the bridge between all the religions?

Have you read Guénon, Pallis, Lings ... any of the other 'trads'?

Although the question wasn’t addressed to me, I answer yes to the always provocative and insightful Guénon (in translation) and Lings. I might also add that sometimes, beneath my covers and in the tiny but intense glow of a night light, I also read that bad boy, Julius Evola, but it can be difficult to turn the pages of his controversial books with my fencing gear on, which I usually don in order to protect myself, if need be, from some of his concepts.

Back to Guénon and others of his school, I do think that there may already be a “one world (meta)religion,” of sorts, with no apparent hierarchy, and that many of the various religions function, in relation to it, as do the Protestant sects to Roman Catholicism, for instance. Maybe, just maybe, religions are what happens when Vedanta is viewed through a prism.
 
mojobadshah said:
Open Source sounds like communism, and I'm sorry bro, but this is America.
don't be silly. in the first place, open source is from software engineering and, in the second place, this is actually the internet. *i* am not in america. nor is the site hosted there, i believe.

If the ideas I'm talking about were truly universal concepts in that they developed independently that would be one thing, but they did not
.
judaism has some universalism, but just as much particularism.

A gave rise to B which gave rise to C in this case. Zoroastrianism is the bridge between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
oh, for feck's sake, give over. no it isn't. neither is baha'ism, nor is theosophy, just get over yourself.

open source means no royalties, so no "cultural IP" for you, chummy.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
What part of what I said are you referring to here?

All of your posts on this topic. ROTFLOL! It is just incomprehensible to me that you are seri0ous.


Hey thanks for understanding, but the last part of what you said sounds very vague too me. Who's not a money-grubbing materialist? .

There are quite a few of us. The USA is about freedom and liberty (read Tom P and Tom J). Sorry if I seem out-of-step. But neither materialism nor money do much for me. It is really about the Republic and the Constitution, not economics and corporate welfare (what most call "capitalism"). Again, I can hardly believe you are serious.

Well if the majority has a different interpretation of God than that of the Zoroastrian/Abrahamic religion and commercial institutions including the religious institutions are not expressing concepts that are confusable with God according to the interpretation of the Zoroastrian/Abrahamic religion then I don't see why the Aryan people would have an issue. But I talk to people too, people who describe God according to the interpretation of the Zoroastrian/Abrahamic religions.[/QUOTE]

Huuuummmmm, if you are claiming most of the Protestants, take them (pleeeeeease). Hoiwever, Quakers, Unitarianists, Unity, Jews, Sufis, Sikhs and others (many, many) really are not on the same wavelength. Like I said, your claim is just as prepostersous as the US Govt was in its ex post facto ruling on Teller's article (which by the way is still available, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/v...d teller bomb design encyclopedia britannica" )
:D
 
All I'm hearing from you guys is a lot of no-no-no-no's it can't be done. It's the same kind of shite they were telling Galileo, but look at what they're saying now. I am in America. America is not Rome, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and no Queen as head of Church. It's an immigrant nation. Yes, America is about freedom and liberty so why would America deny the Aryan American community theirs. Don't pretend like money isn't part of the point. If it's not live without it. Church and State are also meant to be separate in the US yet there are more churches in the US than ever. The founding forefathers themselves were not Christian, yet most of the Presidents and lawmakers up until now have been affiliated with one religous instition or another. The founding fathers themselves were not even Christian. I think more are on the same wavelength than you care to accept. Take the Jews for example: even though their scriptures the Torah describe henotheism ask most Jews today and they'll tell you that the god of the Torah was the only god. Most Bibles have been mistranslated and interpretated in a way that sound very Zoroastrian. Without Sui Generis policies we would be leaving religio-political groups open to the co-opting or communism of IP that did not originate with those groups, and a dilution of the facts, which can not lead to anything good.
 
Without Sui Generis policies we would be leaving religio-political groups open to the co-opting or communism of IP
The phrase is actually "freedom of expression", not "communism". In general, anyone is free to express any ideas that they like. "IP" does not exist except insofar as the government creates restrictions on the general freedom to co-opt any ideas you like. The government has constitutional authority only to create "intellectual property" for limited times; the motive is to give incentives for people to contribute new ideas, which then become public domain. The government has no constitutional authority to give people an exclusive right to ideas for all time; and there is no conceivable motivation why it would be a good thing to give the government such power.
 
Yes, but Sui Generis policy approaches all of this from an entirely different viewpoint, one that is way more inclusive of THE WORLD's needs... and not just the needs of the pissed off Tea Party types, for example. It's far more forward looking. And when you bring Sui Generis Rights into the fold freedom of expression equates to communism. Why should the Sheiks or the Pope for example have the right to use "angel" for political gain when the concept originated with the Aryan people? Who would let someone do that?
 
Yes, but Sui Generis policy approaches all of this from an entirely different viewpoint, one that is way more inclusive of THE WORLD's needs...
The world does not need to be re-fragmented into Stone Age tribes who share no ideas with each other. There is zero chance of any such thing happening.
Why should the Sheiks or the Pope for example have the right to use "angel" for political gain when the concept originated with the Aryan people?
Because the idea has been out in public for thousands of years.
Who would let someone do that?
Just about everybody.
 
The world does not need to be re-fragmented into Stone Age tribes who share no ideas with each other. There is zero chance of any such thing happening.

You call it re-fragmenting. I call it the world watching out for people.

Because the idea has been out in public for thousands of years.

That's not why. The idea originated with the Persians, Jews under the Persians borrowed it while they were under the Persians, then the Christians come into the picture, at first the Persians are cool with it, and then the Christians ally themselves with the Romans because they have a common interest, the Roman's want to conquer Persia, and the Christians want to undermine Zoroastrianism, so they try to overrun Persia, but they can't, so they go were the conquerable people are, and use these Persian ideas to do it, and the story goes on... The reason why they don't do it is because now they're bs establishments are under the threat of the underlying truth, the truth that they've been trying so desperately to keep out of the textbooks, films, everything. Fahrenheit 451 anyone?

Just about everybody.

No, that's not the premise of property law.
 
The reason why they don't do it is because now they're bs establishments are under the threat of the underlying truth, the truth that they've been trying so desperately to keep out of the textbooks, films, everything. Fahrenheit 451 anyone?

I don't think that that's the reason at all since we can't hardly believe you're actually serious, who do you think would see you as a threat? Are you involved in any movements about this? Are you in contact with practitioners who feel as strongly as you about this?
 
Actually property rights did not exist at the time... nor any other rights as we know them. So it is moot (actually, ent-moot, given how preposterous this thread is).

There is actually as good a case to be made for the Egyptian origin or the what-led-to-Mythric stream or even the Dionysian stream of Crete. There is a second disproof.

Third, as I keep saying, not everyone who is "Abrahamic" believe in the kind of cardboard Father-in-Heaven type G!d. And since the world has eveolved, I believe (and this is certainly tue in Europe) our concept of G!d has evolved.

Fourth, the groups most growing (findamentalists) owe far much more to the myths created in the 19th centry (the Stewart brothers, Rushdoony, Maggie MacDonald, Irving and Darby) rather than Zoroaster. And that goes for the other Abrahamic religions as well (Al-Wahhab, Bahá'u'lláh , Guru Nanak, or Kahane).
 
I don't think that that's the reason at all since we can't hardly believe you're actually serious, who do you think would see you as a threat? Are you involved in any movements about this? Are you in contact with practitioners who feel as strongly as you about this?

That is most definitely the reason. And that you can't hardly believe the seriousness of my point only goes to show how the delusion has infringed upon the historical truth. I mean really, what's it to you or anyone else, if the Aryans regain their fortune through feeing Abrahamic institutions for the third party usage of concepts of Aryan origin like "God," "Angels," etc... ? Are you a Jew, Christian, or Muslim?

Actually property rights did not exist at the time... nor any other rights as we know them. So it is moot (actually, ent-moot, given how preposterous this thread is).

There is actually as good a case to be made for the Egyptian origin or the what-led-to-Mythric stream or even the Dionysian stream of Crete. There is a second disproof.

Third, as I keep saying, not everyone who is "Abrahamic" believe in the kind of cardboard Father-in-Heaven type G!d. And since the world has eveolved, I believe (and this is certainly tue in Europe) our concept of G!d has evolved.

Fourth, the groups most growing (findamentalists) owe far much more to the myths created in the 19th centry (the Stewart brothers, Rushdoony, Maggie MacDonald, Irving and Darby) rather than Zoroaster. And that goes for the other Abrahamic religions as well (Al-Wahhab, Bahá'u'lláh , Guru Nanak, or Kahane).

People have been marking their property for thousands of years. Property rights is an ancient concept. People have kept records of their history, praised words and concepts in the belief that they were magical formulas that protected them from evil, and they were right to believe it. Plagiarism is an ancient concept.

There is no Egyptian or Dionysian origin. Not everyone who is Abrahamic does believe in the Zoroastrian conception of God, not everyone who is Abrahamic doesn't, but the Abrahamic institutions use this concept nevertheless.

Zoroastrian mytho-historiography wasn't created in the 17th century.
 
I believe that everyone religion is where they feel most comfortable. I dont believe in a one world religion.

While everyone has a "comfort zone" a couple of things should be noted..

The world has been shrinking since the telegraph was invented..as communications improved over the past century everyone is much closer..

that enables everyone to access more information and also enables us to share more..

Over time I think we will learn to work much better together through agencies like

The World Parlaiment of Religions

The United Nations Nongovernmental agencies

local interfaith councils and so on.
 
That's the ticket! The US and the West in general has been way too isolationist. To the point that even their histories have become borderline delusional. For one thing they've gotten away with deluding people about who the real Aryans are in the world and why that is totally relevant to the world today. Especially the monotheist world. And it's about time they come correct because the whole world is not monotheist, and that part of the world is watching too.
 
I mean really, what's it to you or anyone else, if the Aryans regain their fortune through feeing Abrahamic institutions for the third party usage of concepts of Aryan origin like "God," "Angels," etc... ?
You are writing in alphabetic script, taken directly from the Romans, who took it from the Greeks, who took it from Semites of the Canaanite group-- so why aren't paying royalties to Italy, Greece, or Israel? You probably drive a car, without paying royalties to Iraq for the "wheel" idea, and heck, it even depends on the "fire" idea although I don't know where that first originated (Kenya, maybe?)
Barriers to the free interchange and re-use of ideas of the kind you are proposing are the worst idea I have heard in a very long time.
Property rights is an ancient concept.
But "intellectual property" is not.
Plagiarism is an ancient concept.
Nonsense. Ancients had not the slightest qualms about re-using and re-working texts from anywhere.
 
You are writing in alphabetic script, taken directly from the Romans, who took it from the Greeks, who took it from Semites of the Canaanite group-- so why aren't paying royalties to Italy, Greece, or Israel? You probably drive a car, without paying royalties to Iraq for the "wheel" idea, and heck, it even depends on the "fire" idea although I don't know where that first originated (Kenya, maybe?)
Barriers to the free interchange and re-use of ideas of the kind you are proposing are the worst idea I have heard in a very long time.

And if that is truly the case, I would gladly give each and every one of them a cut of my profits if I was selling writing scripts, or wheels, or fire. Do the Aryan people get their cut now?

But "intellectual property" is not.

But cultural property is. And really intellectual property is too. It depends on what IP regime you are referring to. It was noted that the UK has a permanent copyright on the KJV which was translated before it even established a copyright office.

Nonsense. Ancients had not the slightest qualms about re-using and re-working texts from anywhere.

No its not. They understood the power of words and ideas. The believed their formulas had the power to slay "dragons."
 
I tend to understand two schools of religious philosophy.
There is the RHP (Right Hand Paths): those that seek to atone with the objective universe (god, nature, etc.)
And the LHP (Left Hand Paths): those that seek deification (Apotheosis).

I am curious. Which of the two paths would you say Jesus took?
 
I might add that I have tended to view the right and left hand paths more generally as submission and rebellion respectively. Thus, to me, the statement attributed to Jesus “nevertheless, not my will but Thy (God’s) will be done” is right rather than left hand path, insofar as it is a statement of submission on his part, and yet, returning to your distinction, Jesus can be said to represent an ultimate apotheosis of sorts.
 
While Jesus manifested both paths at times (pretty rebellious in the eyes of the Temple and most who witnessed this or in some other terms), these last words do tend to trumnp any lhp tendencies, I believe. Good post IMHO Sevetus.
 
While Jesus manifested both paths at times (pretty rebellious in the eyes of the Temple and most who witnessed this or in some other terms), these last words do tend to trumnp any lhp tendencies, I believe. Good post IMHO Sevetus.

Thank you, Radarmark. To my mind, there is no doubt that Jesus rebelled against what he considered corrupt temporal, ecclesiastical powers, but that his is a story, or example par excellence, of willing, absolute and unequivocal submission to God, to the point of martyrdom. If he had considered it "better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven," it seems to me that he would have capitulated, or yielded, during his hour of temptation.
 
Yep. That is where Katzantzakis went with "Last Temptation" (who doesn't want a bride and family, especially a supposed pretty normal 30 or so Jew living in Israel in to first century?
 
Back
Top