I Am That I Am

[Ben Masada]

You can quote all you want from scripture, I'll rely on historically evidenced books written by historical scholars.

Moses was wanted for murder, he fled. Comprehend?

Have you ever heard that History is usually written based on pre-conceived notions? Therefore, we can never speak of history genuinely evidenced by historical legitimate facts.
Ben

 

[Lunitik]

I do agree with you here that religion as a way to divide peoples must die. In the same breath, I would like to let you know that Judaism is more of a way of life than a religion per se. At least, that's as far as I am concerned.
Ben

For me, religiousness is a way of life, but religion is only a division.

Same goes for any form of Nationalism or Racism, Sexism or basically any -ism. I do not see any value in any of them, although I think the uniqueness of every culture should be celebrated - just not as a divisive mechanism, but rather as a sharing with the past and indeed with the present, for each are beautiful and all should experience as many as possible. I think, in countries like America, this would help bring the society together, where now each subculture seems to keep to itself... for me this is quite depressing. Given exposure to more ways of life, I think all life will become enriched and a new respect will be possible.

There are so many false walls humans have built up, we knocked down one in Berlin after the war but that was easy, it was just a bunch of bricks that we smashed down. It is a shame that the walls between people remain as strong as ever, though.

 

[Ben Masada]

It is what is intended, yet most seem to believe they are born again simply by believing in Jesus, there is a lack of any particular effort towards this end because they think just an acceptance is enough it seems. In this I can certainly commend the Kabalists, and yet still I feel they are misled.

The point is not constraint, it is to not become identified with them, but trying to fight with them you will encounter all sorts of problems. There are many practices which are required of the Jewish mystic, but fundamentally they miss the inquiry "who is the practitioner?". Of course, there are many examples of these practices being effective, but it seems to me in both cases that it is almost by accident that they work...

If a farmer plants one hundred trees, and only two deliver fruit, can we say anything positive about the gardener? It seems the trees have come to provide proof almost despite the gardener, not because of.

I do not wish to offend, but it is my desire to bring the traditions closer together that they can learn from each other. For me, the success rates show plenty of room for improvement, and given a world which is much smaller, there is no reason why we cannot collaborate collectively on bettering the situation. I do not see how maintaining ideas of separation and clinging to the old ways can help in bringing people to Self Realization. For me, it seems this is merely a stubbornness to maintain a particular barrier which really has no worth.

What you fail to understand, IMHO, is that there is no learning in the chitchatting of common views. Learning, as all that life is about, is abundant only in controversy. Therefore, the getting together of ideas in a common denominator is not much for one's advantage.
Ben

 

[Lunitik]

Have you ever heard that History is usually written based on pre-conceived notions? Therefore, we can never speak of history genuinely evidenced by historical legitimate facts.
Ben

This is a foolish argument, only because scriptures are based on the same types of notions. All documents have a certain bias, disputing which bias is most valid is foolish, truth is always somewhere between the two points. The trouble arises because none of us were there at the time, we cannot say which is correct with any certainty.

 

[Etu Malku]

Have you ever heard that History is usually written based on pre-conceived notions? Therefore, we can never speak of history genuinely evidenced by historical legitimate facts.
Ben

Haven't heard that, but I do know that history is written by the victors

 

[Ben Masada]

For me, religiousness is a way of life, but religion is only a division.

Same goes for any form of Nationalism or Racism, Sexism or basically any -ism. I do not see any value in any of them, although I think the uniqueness of every culture should be celebrated - just not as a divisive mechanism, but rather as a sharing with the past and indeed with the present, for each are beautiful and all should experience as many as possible. I think, in countries like America, this would help bring the society together, where now each subculture seems to keep to itself... for me this is quite depressing. Given exposure to more ways of life, I think all life will become enriched and a new respect will be possible.

There are so many false walls humans have built up, we knocked down one in Berlin after the war but that was easy, it was just a bunch of bricks that we smashed down. It is a shame that the walls between people remain as strong as ever, though.

That could be called a new world order. Too dangerous for those who think differently. A new world order under what mind? You yourself would not be ready to adopt the hegemony of those who think differently from you.
Ben

 

[Lunitik]

What you fail to understand, IMHO, is that there is no learning in the chitchatting of common views. Learning, as all that life is about, is abundant only in controversy. Therefore, the getting together of ideas in a common denominator is not much for one's advantage.
Ben

I do not fail to understand it at all, yet it remains a dream.

I do not think that controversy brings abundance of life, for me it makes the society stagnant, and it is precisely because all cling to their particular view unrelentingly.

I feel like the last 100 years, religion has been seeking gradually a sort of consensus in a rather disjointed way. I feel like this will bear fruit though, and indeed I can see that it has already. Still, many cling to the traditions, but more and more people are doing their own research and sharing their own conclusions.

I have seen that Jews are trying to seek ways to become relevant again, so you will not like this, but I do not see religions surviving another 100 years in any more distinct a capacity as people like the Mandeans today. People are only going to become more and more open, more and more disenchanted by the old ways.

 

[Lunitik]

That could be called a new world order. Too dangerous for those who think differently. A new world order under what mind? You yourself would not be ready to adopt the hegemony of those who think differently from you.
Ben

I do not uphold notions of the New World Order, and I have tried to convey this by stating that cultures should continue to be respected. For me, the society must die as it is currently conceived. It is difficult because society doesn't exist as is, but the emphasis needs to be returned to the individual.

The New World Order seems to go the other direction, it wants to make the particular individuals even less meaningful than they are today. For me, agencies should be there which are utilitarian, but governments should not control citizens. Their role should be to orchestrate and facilitate the maintenance of common infrastructure, but should have no more power than the trash collector.

I do not think there should be one religion, I think all religions should simply be regarded as a particular resource, yet there should be as many religions as there are individuals living on the planet. We are all absolutely unique, all that is needed is to bring this to a flowering, our schools should emphasize love far more, enlightenment far more so that crime is not possible. Now each can be free to express his intrinsic nature, and respect the other as well for who they are.

Collective identities are already like mini NWO's, man desires to be part of something bigger than himself and this is often used against him - we are basically pack animals by nature. Individuality should be absolutely fostered, love should be the only value which is meaningful - all other values stem from it already.

 

[Ben Masada]

I do not fail to understand it at all, yet it remains a dream.

I do not think that controversy brings abundance of life, for me it makes the society stagnant, and it is precisely because all cling to their particular view unrelentingly.

I feel like the last 100 years, religion has been seeking gradually a sort of consensus in a rather disjointed way. I feel like this will bear fruit though, and indeed I can see that it has already. Still, many cling to the traditions, but more and more people are doing their own research and sharing their own conclusions.

I have seen that Jews are trying to seek ways to become relevant again, so you will not like this, but I do not see religions surviving another 100 years in any more distinct a capacity as people like the Mandeans today. People are only going to become more and more open, more and more disenchanted by the old ways.

What is life without learning? What learning can come out of one collective mind? Competition is good for the have-not's. Diversity of knowledge foments learning, as it develops one's intellect.
Ben

 

[Lunitik]

What is life without learning? What learning can come out of one collective mind? Competition is good for the have-not's. Diversity of knowledge foments learning, as it develops one's intellect.
Ben

Competition creates have nots.

Religion is not something which can be called learning, it is simply the flowering of the human. Man is one of the rare creatures on this planet which are only born as a potential. Another which I might list is the caterpillar and the butterfly - yet still there is no intrinsic freedom in it. For me, religion is like the cocoon out of which comes the beautiful butterfly, this is commonly referred to as enlightenment.

Forced enlightenment cannot be permitted, but it is not something which is different from person to person. Certainly, it is expressed differently because all are absolutely unique, but it is not for me something learned, it is merely an actualization, a realization of our potential.

Part of the ramification of this is increased efficiency and intelligence, I think society would benefit from both a great deal, learning would become much easier for all.

For me, life is about growth, learning and the resulting knowledge are utilitarian, but they do not help bring life to a crescendo.

 

[Ben Masada]

I do not uphold notions of the New World Order, and I have tried to convey this by stating that cultures should continue to be respected. For me, the society must die as it is currently conceived. It is difficult because society doesn't exist as is, but the emphasis needs to be returned to the individual.

The New World Order seems to go the other direction, it wants to make the particular individuals even less meaningful than they are today. For me, agencies should be there which are utilitarian, but governments should not control citizens. Their role should be to orchestrate and facilitate the maintenance of common infrastructure, but should have no more power than the trash collector.

I do not think there should be one religion, I think all religions should simply be regarded as a particular resource, yet there should be as many religions as there are individuals living on the planet. We are all absolutely unique, all that is needed is to bring this to a flowering, our schools should emphasize love far more, enlightenment far more so that crime is not possible. Now each can be free to express his intrinsic nature, and respect the other as well for who they are.

Collective identities are already like mini NWO's, man desires to be part of something bigger than himself and this is often used against him - we are basically pack animals by nature. Individuality should be absolutely fostered, love should be the only value which is meaningful - all other values stem from it already.

Love as the only value is unfeasible. Love is an emotion and emotions cannot be dictated upon, as love per se cannot be commanded. Love happens and ceases to be.
Ben

 

[Lunitik]

Love as the only value is unfeasible. Love is an emotion and emotions cannot be dictated upon, as love per se cannot be commanded. Love happens and ceases to be.
Ben

What I am speaking of is not the emotion of love, but how else to explain it? I would only say it is the very peak of devotion, the goal of worship and prayer which I speak of. It is the experiencing of that which observes emotions, which observes the mind, and the body. It is to encounter pure awareness... but this will not sound much like love to you.

Bliss is its nature, and from it stems compassion - this together I call love.

 

[Ben Masada]

What I am speaking of is not the emotion of love, but how else to explain it? I would only say it is the very peak of devotion, the goal of worship and prayer which I speak of. It is the experiencing of that which observes emotions, which observes the mind, and the body. It is to encounter pure awareness... but this will not sound much like love to you.

Bliss is its nature, and from it stems compassion - this together I call love.

I understand now, what you mean. And about prayer that you mention above as the peak of devotion, what is your definition of it?
Ben

 

[Lunitik]

I understand now, what you mean. And about prayer that you mention above as the peak of devotion, what is your definition of it?
Ben

For me, prayer is deep gratitude and love shared from the being, it can be uttered but I absolutely do not uphold the request line approach of Christians. I also do not uphold any form of repetition in prayer, it should come directly from the heart, spontaneous.

The higher you bring this love, eventually there is a point where you lose yourself to it, there is only love there. This is the peak I mention, and I have talked to Jews who have experienced this.

 

[Etu Malku]

I see prayer as a "lost" magical art. It has become rote recitations or simple wish-making.

Prayer originally was a process of concentrated visualization, combined with emotional and mental energy, properly grounded to the physical through proper vocalization.

The spoken Word became in essence praying, this was first understood by the ancient Egyptians in the way of Affirmations and made manifest in (Heka) Vibrational Magick. Efforts were made to align sound with the principles of a cosmic order (natural ordering of the universe) which perhaps could be seen as a LOGOS, the dialog with that part of your Self that has the ability to create any condition you need or desire.

The invocation within a prayer unites our meditative state of consciousness with the power of the Word and our innate force of Will.

 

[Ben Masada]

For me, prayer is deep gratitude and love shared from the being, it can be uttered but I absolutely do not uphold the request line approach of Christians. I also do not uphold any form of repetition in prayer, it should come directly from the heart, spontaneous.

The higher you bring this love, eventually there is a point where you lose yourself to it, there is only love there. This is the peak I mention, and I have talked to Jews who have experienced this.

Okay, as I can see from your understanding of prayer, there is no attempt to change God's mind. Now, how about love that you so enhance above, what do you say about the Christian stress on love of another as one loves himself?
Ben

 

[Lunitik]

Okay, as I can see from your understanding of prayer, there is no attempt to change God's mind. Now, how about love that you so enhance above, what do you say about the Christian stress on love of another as one loves himself?
Ben

Love is the life energy centered in the heart, at the very peaks of love, of life, there is no other. Now one does not make the distinction, he simply shares his love as the flower shares its scent. There is no purpose in it except to beautify, to share, and there is no reward other than this.

I can understand because it must be said in language which is fundamentally dualistic, but it doesn't say "as one loves himself", it says "as himself"... it is a vital distinction which many miss. Language has come about through the mind, and the minds basic function is to distinguish between everything around us that we can make sense of our world. It is absolutely utilitarian, useful, and yet it has come to pass that we are associated utterly with the mind, we do not know the one that uses it anymore. Religion itself is about finding that one again...

Love is the fragrance of the heart, but ordinarily we are miserly with it, we only direct at a few, there is a basic lack of understanding of spiritual economics. Sharing, and you receive a multitude times more, trying to cling and you will simply kill even that which you have. If this was emphasized more, this world would be much more beautiful, far more would live through the heart instead of the mind.

The spiritual heart is where the soul resides, re-establishing a link between it and the Spirit of God results in enlightenment - there is no more separation.

 

[Ben Masada]

Love is the life energy centered in the heart, at the very peaks of love, of life, there is no other. Now one does not make the distinction, he simply shares his love as the flower shares its scent. There is no purpose in it except to beautify, to share, and there is no reward other than this.

I can understand because it must be said in language which is fundamentally dualistic, but it doesn't say "as one loves himself", it says "as himself"... it is a vital distinction which many miss.

Love is the fragrance of the heart, but ordinarily we are miserly with it, we only direct at a few, there is a basic lack of understanding of spiritual economics. Sharing, and you receive a multitude times more, trying to cling and you will simply kill even that which you have.

If this was emphasized more, this world would be much more beautiful.

Sorry, but this time, you have not answered my question. Again, what is your thought about the Christian stress of love of another as one loves himself?
Ben

 

[Lunitik]

Sorry, but this time, you have not answered my question. Again, what is your thought about the Christian stress of love of another as one loves himself?
Ben

I think the Christian first needs to learn to love themselves, few do in my experience. They are trying to share that which they do not have, how can it work?

 

[Lunitik]

They begin seeking others to love them, but they do not realize the other lacks love as well. Eventually both realize the other is empty handed, this is the cause of all divorce...

Herein is the whole sickness of man, he has accepted too much the call to be humble, he does not realize he is pushing out the very sources of life with this training. Even that which is given, because of humility, they do not accept, they have no dignity anymore.

Thinking yourself unworthy, you make yourself unworthy.