The Forbidden Gospel

What about Jesus? He rose from the dead then ascended to heaven and that includes his body. His body became one with soul and spirit, needed for immortality. However, I believe that you can obtain eternal life but also that eternities are measured in time. I believe you must merge with your opposite to have infinite life. I believe this because of correct interpretation of the original hebrew to the english of Genesis 1. This is one reason I believe that as well as personal experience. I do not believe theology is what is wrong with organized religion but rather the straying away from the original beliefs.

Eternity means timeless.

Striving for immortality is the oldest desire of man, the moment he has realized he will die he has wanted to find a way to avoid it.

Accept that death will come, for otherwise every motivation will be about survival, you will not really be living. Do not accept these ideas that you can avoid death, the body will perish. Whatever comes after that will be a continuation of living if there is an afterlife, but it is not in our hands either.

For me, I know that what is here is already not alive, it is what witnesses life. From this vantage, the very idea of immortality is absurd. Whatsoever has been born is subject to death, but what we actually are has not been born, is not alive, and thus will not die.

In accepting this, no fear arises, I simply enjoy the play.
 
You make the common error of judging others by your own standard.

Theology (when done properly, and not merely as an academic exercise) is the operation of the intellect in discerning, ultimately, between Atma and maya.

You fail to distinguish between the operation of the intellect, as understood within the traditions, and intellectualism, which is nothing more than the posturing of the ego.

I distinguish by saying one is intelligence and the other intellect.

Certainly, it is intelligence that discerns, but can we call neti neti a theology?

I will not touch on the error of making the discernment about atma and maya unless you wish to, it is not really within the realm of this discussion. All I will say is ultimately atma is maya.

I think the crucial distinction is that all the aphorisms you trot out were the product of 'faith seeking understanding' — whether that process be called theology or philosophy or metaphysics — and which has been a working definition of theology for the last millennia or so.

Think about it — without such a practice by saints and sages down through the ages, you'd have none of the pithy 'spiritual soundbites' to deploy.

I did not start from faith, I started from doubt.

I doubted the very nature of existence, why things are the way they are, what the point of life is. I was never interested in finding God, I was never interested in anything but finding out why all this nonsense is so.

With this in mind, I have not looked at many scriptures, and the sages I have looked at haven't been much concerned with them either.

It has been more about directly expressing truth, rather than trying to gratify my intellect.
 
Of course, this comes across in much of what I say.

It is plain I am not educated in theology, metaphysics, because here it is clear these can't help.

What I speak on is direct experience of truth.

For this, I am called ignorant.

Most here would rather talk about truth, what they have heard or read.

It is more a gossip about truth, and this doesn't interest me.

I have always tried to bring discussions back to the real thing.

Many here do not like this.

It is more fun, I guess, to speculate with the mind than to know in the heart.
 
donnann,

Really? Your reply has little if anything to do with Theology ("what is the nature of the D!vine").
Asherah, the Shekinah, consort and beloved of Yahweh. God-the-Mother. Her sacred pillars or poles once stood right beside Yahweh's altar, embracing it. Moses and Aaron both carried one of these Asherah "poles" as a sacred staff of power. The Children of Israel were once dramatically healed simply by gazing at the staff with serpents suspended from it. This symbol, the snakes and the staff, has become the modern universal symbol for doctors and healers.* Asherah was also widely known in the Middle Eastern ancient world as a Goddess of Healing. Then She was removed forcibly from the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures around 400 or 500 B.C. Her priestesses & priests, known by the headbands they wore, worshiped o
Inanna.gif
n hill-tops, such as Zion, Mount of Olives, Har Megiddo and countless others. Daughter of Zion, a term found numerous times in the Old Testament, was perhaps a term for a priestess of Asherah. It later came to mean the "City of God," or Jerusalem herself. As the "official" state worship became increasingly male oriented, and the establishment became hostile toward all forms of Asherah worship, a time of conflict and bloodshed lasting over a hundred years began. Those that still clung to Her worship paid the price with their lives at the hands of King Josiah and other rabid Yahwists. (Story in the 2nd Kings ). But She could not be torn from the hearts and souls of Her people.

Here is an excerpt from one of our Mystery School lessons:
Exercise 5: (Extra Credit) If you're really brave, not worried about being called a "heretic Jezebel," try making some Asherah cakes. Add raisins if you can! "Even as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and are fond of raisin cakes." Hosea 3:1 The commentary for that verse says: "Raisin cakes: offerings to the fertility goddess Ashera, the female counterpart of Baal; cf Jer 7:18; 44:19." The name Baal means simply Lord or husband. In modern hebrew, the word for husband is baal, used by millions of Israel wives to refer to their hubbies.
*A word about snakes: The Serpent, though a frightening symbol because of its ability to bring death, stood also for ancient wisdom and immortality. (Note that it hung out in the Tree of Knowledge and preached a doctrine of immortality, "ye shall NOT surely die.") Many early societies revered the snake and used it to symbolize different
AstarteSyriaca.jpg
ideas. In much the same way, today we revere the Lion or other ferocious big-cats even though they're dangerous. An early American symbol used the snake as a statement of power, a warning, saying, "Don't tread on me!"
Asherah from the Religion of the Canaanites
She was the wife of El in Ugaritic mythology, and is the goddess who is also called Athirau-Yammi: "She Who Walks on (or in) the Sea." She was the chief goddess of Tyre in the 15th century BC, and bore the appellation qudshu, "holiness." In the OT Asherah appears as a goddess by the side of Baal, whose consort she evidently became, at least among the Canaanites of the south. However, most biblical references to the name point obviously to some cult object of wood, which might be cut down and burned, possibly the goddesses' image (1 Kings 15:13, 2 King 21:7). Her prophets are mentioned (1 Kings 18:19), and the vessels used in her service referred to (2 Kings 23:4). The existence of numerous symbols, in each of which the goddess was believed to be immanent, led to the creation of numerous forms of her person, which were described as Asherim. The cult object itself, whatever it was, was utterly detestible to faithful worshippers of Yahweh (1 Kings 15:13), and was set up on the high places beside the "altars of incense" (hammanim) and the "stone pillars" (masseboth). The translation of asherah by "grove" in some translations follows a singular tradition preserved in the LXX and the Vulgate which apparently connects the goddess' image with the usual place of its adoration.
A Hebrew inscription on a broken storage jar, found in Kuntillet 'Ajrud in north-eastern Sinai and dated from the beginning of the eighth century BCE has three primitive figures: a standing male figure in the foreground; a female figure just behind him; and a seated musician in the background. The Hebrew inscription above the drawing reads: 'I bless you by Yhwh of Samaria and his Asherah' (Dever, 1984; King, 1989). Furthermore, a tomb inscription from el-Qom in Judea, dated to the eighth century BCE too, concludes with the words: 'to Yhwh and his Asherah' (Margalit, 1989, 1990 and further references there).
Asherah, like Anat, is a well-documented goddess of the northwest Semitic pantheon. We remember that, according to the Bible itself, in the ninth century BCE Asherah was officially worshipped in Israel; her cult was matronized by Jezebel who, supposedly, imported it from her native Phoenician homeland. Other traces in the Bible either angrily acknowledge her worship as goddess (2 Kings 14.13, for instance, where another royal lady is involved), or else demote her from goddess to a sacred tree or pole set up near an altar (2 Kings 13.6, 17.16; Deuteronomy 16.21 and more). The apparent need for the hostile and widely distributed polemics against her worship constitutes evidence for its continued popularity. Linguistically, Margalit claims (1989), 'Asherah' signifies '[she] who walks behind', displaying a prototypic if divine attitude that befits a wife (and is reflected in the Kuntillet Ajrud drawing). Thus both the partially suppressed and distorted biblical evidence and the archaeological evidence combine to suggest one conclusion. The cult of a goddess, considered the spouse of Yhwh, was celebrated throughout the First Temple era in the land, and beyond this period at the Jewish settlement in Elephantine (in Egypt).
Above two paragraphs are an excerpt from longer Article by a Hebrew professor. NOTE: "She who walks behind" is not considered the usual way to translate Asherah. Encyclopedia Mythica's Asherah entry states: Etymology: She who walks in the Sea.
If you are researching Her, searching for Her in the Bible, in the Torah, in Kabbala, there is one book you gotta read...
The Hebrew Goddess, by Raphael Patai
Was the Hebrew God also a Woman?
The Bible gives the impression that all ancient Jews shared a common belief system ... with only an occasional group straying from the fold. But the evidence paints a different picture. As Dr. Patai states, "... it would be strange if the Hebrew-Jewish religion, which flourished for centuries in a region of intensive goddess cults, had remained immune to them." Archaeologists have uncovered Hebrew settlements where the goddesses Asherah and Astarte-Anath were routinely worshipped. And in fact, we find that for about 3,000 years, the Hebrews worshipped female deities which were later eradicated only by extreme pressure of the male-dominated priesthood.
And then there's the matter of the Cherubim that sat atop the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. Fashioned by Phoenician craftsmen for Solomon and Ahab, an ivory tablet shows two winged females facing each other. And one tablet shows male and female members of the Cherubim embracing in an explicitly sexual position that embarrassed later Jewish historians ... and even the pagans were shocked when they saw it for the first time. [The Star of David, two triangles "embracing" became the coded symbol for God & Goddess locked in a "creating" posture....!]
This cult of the feminine goddess, though often repressed, remained a part of the faith of the Jewish people. Goddesses answered the need for mother, lover, queen, intercessor ... and even today, lingers cryptically in the traditional Hebrew Sabbath invocation. [Written for Amazon.com by "Utnapishtim": Mhttp://www.northernway.org/hgoddess.html

This is theology as well as history. Notice that is says even today is lingers CRYPTICALLY in the traditional Sabbath invocation. After reading the history I hope you understand why the female counterpart has been hidden in scripture when it originally was not. As a female and being the total anatomical opposite of a male where do you think we came from? Whose image are we in? The answer is clear. The goddess.
 
That you are not being Theological (exploring what is the nature of the D!vine), but, rather trying to overpower with references and quotes relying on one approach and one idea.

Doing Theology is like doing Philosophy (it is, in the hard sense, a sub-category of Metaphysics, which is a sud-division of Philosophy). One communicates one's own opinion (not necessarily of the big truth or the one truth) and discusses the reasons for one side or another.

Sorry, just my very very conservative and classic self coming out.
 
That you are not being Theological (exploring what is the nature of the D!vine), but, rather trying to overpower with references and quotes relying on one approach and one idea.

Doing Theology is like doing Philosophy (it is, in the hard sense, a sub-category of Metaphysics, which is a sud-division of Philosophy). One communicates one's own opinion (not necessarily of the big truth or the one truth) and discusses the reasons for one side or another.

Sorry, just my very very conservative and classic self coming out.

That site has history and original theology. It goes back to the beginning but also sheds light on the true meaning of scripture. For example the ashera poles. It shows they were for healing which tells you that the movie about Moses is maybe symbolically partially true but also not what really happened back in Egypt. Philosophy is based on past truths and knowledge and information of those truths. I do not understand why it is sooooooo hard for some people to grasp such a basic truth backed up by history and original theology. Its so simple. I wonder sometimes if some men try to see themselves as the creative force when they cant have babies by themselves naturally. I am a daddys girl so I have the utmost caring and respect for men but it seems there is a denial of equality within religious circles. The female is anatomically and psychologically in the image of the goddess. God is a masculine term used for a male. Goddess for female. I do not mean equal in say physical strength ect but rather the female is the feminine part of a very complex entity. The opposite of the male. Without historical research such as that site provides you come out with either half truths or totally wrong impressions.
 
Look up what a reference is or see my huge post #217 of "Ask a Spiritual Physicist". Highlighting words that takes one to a page and posting cut-and-pasted pages is not referencing IMHO.
 
Look up what a reference is or see my huge post #217 of "Ask a Spiritual Physicist". Highlighting words that takes one to a page and posting cut-and-pasted pages is not referencing IMHO.
lol it is a reference. You simply click on the link and it takes you to the page. The page itself is the reference. From what I was told by somebody on the forum if you copy and paste you must provide the reference which is the link. The web sites I am copy and pasting is just some proof from other sources of what I am saying. I spent 7 years going through all kinds of theology, history ect. If you do a report, say in college , you must provide the web site you obtained the information from so that it is not plagiarism if you are quoting them word for word. I am doing that. When I talk about religion it is my own words and the references are only used to provide proof from another source so people know it is something that I am not just making up in my own head. I am not as stupid as you apparently think I am. I simply speak the way I talk. I do not want to go onto a forum and use big words and complicated phrases so that people have no idea what I am talking about.
 
Look up what a reference is or see my huge post #217 of "Ask a Spiritual Physicist". Highlighting words that takes one to a page and posting cut-and-pasted pages is not referencing IMHO.
Have you ever done any research on the Liber Lintus? I find it very interesting. You may too.
The mummy and its wrappings were examined the same year by the German Egyptologist Heinrich Brugsch, who noticed the text, but believed them to be Egyptian hieroglyphs. He did not undertake any further research on the text, until 1877, when a chance conversation with Richard Burton about runes made him realise that the writing was not Egyptian. They realised the text was potentially important, but wrongly concluded that it was a transliteration of the Egyptian Book of the Dead in the Arabic script.
In 1891, the wrappings were transported to Vienna, where they were thoroughly examined by Jacob Krall, an expert on the Coptic language, who expected the writing to be either Coptic, Libyan or Carian. Krall was the first to identify the language as Etruscan and reassemble the strips. It was his work that established that the linen wrappings constituted a manuscript written in Etruscan.
Here is the wikipedia web site for this but there are a good number of sites on this. Liber Linteus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It is the mummy of a woman with a scroll written wrapped in bandages around it. Some think it is a calendar but I know it is seal openings and bindings, prophetic. I thought you might find it interesting. The fact that it is a woman mummy bandaged with prophecy is interesting. Look at why ancient egyptians would mummify pharoehs and others which shows you it is prophetic. Very interesting.
 
Without genuinely enjoying life, you are basically denying it.

Monks and nuns engage in free sex, and many cases of AIDS and other STD's become rampant. Avoiding sex only creates repression, which will be handled in a very unsafe way usually. Rather than denying the sex impulse, Osho simply created a safe environment for when it is there. Of course, the many forms of contraception made this possible, and not a single child was born in his ashram. It is better to allow responsibly, denying causes all sorts of problems.
So, Advaita Zen, genuine enjoyment is in free sex making sure that no child is born and taking care that the monks and nuns do not contract AIDS and other STD's. Do you think we should have the institution of marriage or it is only a bondage? Should there be any restrictions on sexual relationships for married people or not? Does group sex included in your genuine enjoyment of life. Now I feel repentant that I have inhibited myself all through my life.
 
So, Advaita Zen, genuine enjoyment is in free sex making sure that no child is born and taking care that the monks and nuns do not contract AIDS and other STD's. Do you think we should have the institution of marriage or it is only a bondage? Should there be any restrictions on sexual relationships for married people or not? Does group sex included in your genuine enjoyment of life. Now I feel repentant that I have inhibited myself all through my life.

Genuine enjoyment is only possible when we take life as an organic whole, when we accept the totality and understand it cannot be divided. When we highlight a particular aspect of life to either be for or against, we have entered ego. Instead, we have to simply be capable of flowing with life, whatsoever arises we should be capable of going into completely.

Aversion is as harmful as any attachment, and indifference is as death. What is strange, however, is how many meditations are only about bringing ecstasy, but with another this ecstasy should not be experienced apparently. All are simply states of consciousness, and you seem to state that enjoying is part of your goal. No, the point is seeing that whatever arises in life does not touch your nature. No state, no mode of perception, nothing ever affects this.

How can this be seen when there are aspects of life you avoid?
 
I distinguish by saying one is intelligence and the other intellect.
Not really helpful, as you haven't defined either. As a generality, I would ay intelligence is the sign of a functioning intellect.
Certainly, it is intelligence that discerns, but can we call neti neti a theology?
Well, that depends on who's making the claim. But I would say yes, it's a reasoned statement, isn't it? In Christian terms it's apophatism, or the via negativa.

All I will say is ultimately atma is maya.
All I will say is you don't understand either term.

It has been more about directly expressing truth, rather than trying to gratify my intellect.
Ah, the statement of blind faith! I would not have expected that from you, but it explains a lot.

Without the intellect, you can't discern truth from illusion.
 
Well, that depends on who's making the claim. But I would say yes, it's a reasoned statement, isn't it? In Christian terms it's apophatism, or the via negativa.

I have laughed at this statement.

Enquiring via "not this, not this" is not what I would call theology, especially because if God should arise as a person in the way Christians talk about in prayer, that too is "neti". Indeed, even the mystical experiences where many feel they have encountered God are "neti", for all of this is arising for you, and its purpose is finding out the true nature of you.

All I will say is you don't understand either term.

Will you say the same of Buddha? Maya has entered Hindu thought through Buddha's assertions of emptiness and the line that gave us Shankara. Self is illusion because it is empty, lacking a separate nature as the world does, and in both Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism the conclusion is that atma is not real, that only Brahman or Shunyata is real (depending on the traditions terminology we are discussing, but both words mean emptiness or void, no-thing-ness).

I would suggest you do not pursue this line of discussion.

Ah, the statement of blind faith! I would not have expected that from you, but it explains a lot.

Without the intellect, you can't discern truth from illusion.

Really? Everything I have been saying on this site is against faith and belief, for neither are genuinely helpful in actually finding truth, they just give you the idea you know truth - yet it remains entirely mental.

I would say that trust is more necessary than intellect in finding truth. The intellect can devour much, but how to know what knowledge to devour? In my own search, certainly I was guided to many traditions for particular points that I was to understand. For me, particular people have explained certain aspects better than others, and staying with a particular master - even your beloved Jesus - leaves you lacking understanding of much.
 
It is plain I am not educated in theology, metaphysics, because here it is clear these can't help.
Really? You mean because you don't understand, no-one can?

I'm getting the measure of you now. As I say, I didn't have you down as a 'blind faith' type.

I have always tried to bring discussions back to the real thing. Many here do not like this.It is more fun, I guess, to speculate with the mind than to know in the heart.
You see, this is the kind of supercilious comment that gives you away. Sarcasm has no place in the compassionate heart.
 
Really? You mean because you don't understand, no-one can?

No, I am saying metaphysics and theology simply don't bring us truth, they give the mind a great feeling that it knows something but all it knows through these is nonsense.

I'm getting the measure of you now. As I say, I didn't have you down as a 'blind faith' type.

If by blind faith, you mean believing without knowing, I assure you I am not.

I would say it is blind faith to believe that theology or metaphysics actually point at something real. Unless you encounter it yourself, you cannot know whether what they say is true - and once you have encountered, you know it is all nonsense.

You see, this is the kind of supercilious comment that gives you away. Sarcasm has no place in the compassionate heart.

The heart means center, where all meets.

The heart is not compassionate, no quality can be given to it for then we leave the center.

Jesus has utterly destroyed a temple, can we say this is compassion? No, it is outright hateful, yet still has stemmed from the heart. This is the way of the mind though, it wants to define everything, limit all.
 
I have laughed at this statement.
Am I supposed to be impressed, or daunted?

Enquiring via "not this, not this" is not what I would call theology...
The arts of discernment is not theology? What d'you think theology is?

especially because if God should arise as a person in the way Christians talk about in prayer, that too is "neti".
No, you're jumping the gun. You have to understand what the Incarnation is, before you can say what it is not.

Indeed, even the mystical experiences where many feel they have encountered God are "neti", for all of this is arising for you, and its purpose is finding out the true nature of you.
We know that. It's there in Scripture.

All the time you seem to assume you're telling us something we don't know.

I'm saying we do, it's just our language is perhaps too subtle for you.

You seem to assume things about Christianity that appear to have come from either your own misunderstanding, or frankly unreliable sources.

Will you say the same of Buddha ...
OK.Atma as I understand it is according to the Perennial Tradition:
Atma is beyond the opposition of subject-object; one can, however, call it pure Subject when one starts from the consideration of “objects,” which are so many superimpositions in relation to Atma.
Atma / Maya: Atma is pure Light and Beatitude, pure Consciousness, pure Subject. There is nothing unrelated to this Reality; even the “object” which is least in conformity with It is still It, but “objectified” by Maya, the power of illusion consequent upon the infinity of the Self.
Maya exists only through its contents, which prolong Atma; this is to say that Atma is conceivable without Maya, whereas Maya is intelligible only through the notion of Atma. (Frithjof Schuon, various works)

I would suggest you do not pursue this line of discussion.
OK.

I would say that trust is more necessary than intellect in finding truth.
Trust in what? This is a silly statement.

The intellect can devour much, but how to know what knowledge to devour?
Indeed.

The intellect is like a light, indeed the metaphor of light is most fitting.

Will and intellect work together, the will directs the light, and powers the light, the light penetrates the darkness according to where and how it is directed.

Intellect without will is like a lot of knowledge that one does nothing with. (The danger of smoking, for example. Smokers know it's dangerous, but they lack the desire to give it up)

Will without intellect is blind faith. It believes what it believes and does not question what it believes.

For me, particular people have explained certain aspects better than others, and staying with a particular master - even your beloved Jesus - leaves you lacking understanding of much.
Oh, no, no no ... quantity will never better quality.

That's a trap I fell into in the 70s. When the New Age Movement popped up with 'the inside track' on traditional religion ...

... you become a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none — you know a lot, but at a superficial level — it's evident from your superficial understanding of Christianity, so I don't see how you can argue the point.

Every tradition says the exact opposite: Find your way, and give it all you've got ... but cherry-picking gets you nowhere. Somewhere, sometime, you will have to accept the halter.

The modern western ego hates this idea with a vengeance ... but it's true.
 
Back
Top