|
Post by . on Jan 12, 2021 22:30:21 GMT
Immanuel's input:
I moved the posts below from Off-Topic and Faith Discussion because we moved more towards the main topics of this forum.
Original post:
Hello.
If I would need to say to what/whom I identify myself to be part of, I would need to first provide with what do I actually know.
What I "know", or rather at this point of time what I am "convinced" of (after analysis of different data available to me) is that it makes more sense that there is "someone" behind "reality", contrary to the conviction that reality is just "chance".
I have to agree with the problem wiuthin society that people usually accept things/theories/ideas as true, without themselves coming into these conclusions though their own evaluation/reasoning. One could always ask questions: when such and such make claims and present their model of understanding of reality, where do their information and conviction come from?
Where does their knowledge come from? Of course saying that one holds a specific understanding of reality as the true-one just because one has his/her trust on someone else`s information (be it a person, a group or something bigger), IS unwise and risky to do.
What if the one(s) to whom one puts his/hers trust are deceiving him/her? What if they don`t have any ill intention to deceive but they are still deceiving unintentionally because they themselves are away from truth?
Therefore, these issues boil down to a specific thing : Epistemology.
The philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge.
So! as we can see one has to actually question first what ones deems to "know", ones own convictions. What is an actual knowledge? Not what I heard this and that from a person that is an authority figure for me and thus I automatically accept whatever information I am given by it as truth because I esteem this/these person(s) in such high regard.
If we can understand nature of information-knowledge, than logically we should better become at evaluating what is more probably true and what is less probably true.
This is what I am trying to do, focus on what is important and try not to lose time on details that dont matter that much. So in the end, one has themselves to be the judge to make choices of what makes sense and does not. Therefore if one is ones own compass in this regard, it makes only sense to focus on making oneself better.
For example the atheistic point of view says that nature is the one who created humans with their individual beings, but when asked what is the point the answer is "it-is-just-so". But if one is actually to study nature one can see that everything has a purpose and does its job in nature. For example isn`t it the case with the human body? Every molecule and chemical has a purpose and task inside the body, and isnt it the case with the evolution theory that parts of the body that are of "no-longer-of-any-use" "die" off and disseaper? And the parts that actually do serve well the body keep on evolving? Then how can it make sense that with humans nature made some kind of mistake and has no purpose for them? Why give humanity being, just-because? Studying nature shows that nature actually does things efficiently isnt it so?
Therefore I see atheistic point of view as incomplete and lacking.
For example from some religious points of view, human individuals with each their own specific being is also some kind of mistake. For example some religions deem ego the self as something that one should get rid of, no thoughts no anything. But then the religious person should ask themselves, why would God give you an individual Being just so for you to lose it? Wouldn't that be in vain?
In a way something that needs to be said is that the most popular religious leaders, who popular religions of today deem to be their source of information about God, most of these leaders lived a very long time ago. So one has to ask the question how well did the original information shared by these religious leaders preserve to our day?
In a short summary I would say that what I identify with is a person who has the conviction that there a Creator and that there is an underlying purpose for my existence, otherwise it would be that my Creator created me in vain. The Creator knows better than humans on earth what is inside my "heart" so to speak and what kind of Being I am.
Therefore if The creator is better than I, wouldn't it makes that that the only way to be closer to the Creator is to actually become better myself?
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 13, 2021 21:21:05 GMT
Hello again, I might be just wrong with my idea with "understand all the roots and thus understand the book fully", because I will be honest that I am not very knowledgeable in this topic, so pardon me if I am making me miscalculations due to this. I am sorry if my logic caused me to be too presumptive, I drew the conclusion that you stand by the reasoning of that post and did not understand it was an article but reasoning aimed to provoke a discussion of sorts. I am very stern about categorizing traditional religious belief for what it is as any potential guest to the forum must get the proper impression of what they can expect to find here. If you read other posts of mine I strive hard to tone down the connection to religious faith and work hard on connecting what I say to sound logic as the truth is not about belief at all, thorough contemplation and meditation will land at the logic that this universe cannot possibly exist by itself without an "external intelligence" or "that the universe is innately intelligent in itself". That means it is a "no-brainer" (as humans tend to say colloquially in English) that "GOD" exists, or whatever word one wants to attribute to the phenomenon. Many people have already understood this fact, but then what they make of this "GOD" is backwards and they say about it things that are completely illogical. The major difference between many typical religious beliefs is that they focus on reducing the self while I seek to elevate the self, the individual is the focus and no one else really. I have written about the illogical nature of believing that the deity requires religious worship before in other posts, it is just a human idea based on what they would expect any other human to desire if they were in a deity's position, i.e. the deity becomes an image of themselves, of instinctive wishes, it is a bodily influence. The truth is that 'Elahem' (GOD) have no use of that so-called worship as there is no instinctive call to enjoy the awe of human worship, that would require a bodily stimulus and Elahem got no physical body, it is they that project the universe by sheer will of mind and the universe's physical barriers is actually just an illusion in a way although it takes the shape they want. I was interested in the understanding of that the language in the Quran works like the human DNA. Even if that is not so, it would not actually change anything big, I don`t think so. But if that is the case, that would be an interesting find, the way I see it, maybe help people understand the book better. Problem is that linking to any traditional interpretation of the book or the language itself is misleading as the whole linguistic knowledge is based upon utter lies. The Arabic which emerged in the advent of this book is one of the top scandals of the millennia. Not without intention by Elahem though, it was already planned over a millennium ago that this was to happen, we could see it as another of Elahem's intelligence tests. I did hide my own interpretation project from the public eye although a simple registration would reveal it for the interested one. There is no reason to put focus on the book because it is a Teacher's Book rather than a student book for every student to hold in their hands, it contains assistance for a teacher to hold good pedagogical classes, but what it teaches overall could be taught by any wise person who figured out the truth, although I would say the handbook is an excellent help when you want things to say, it has some one-liners that could be mind-provoking and which may even penetrate the defenses of any potential listener and it does also show how to hold a good class. It does also tell the Teacher why people think the way they do. It is obviously intended as a tool in order to convince people the right way to live and how to prosper. A good teacher can hold dozens of classes and no class has to look the same and the teacher does not have to say exactly the same words and the Teacher's Book is the same, it does not force the Teacher to a precompiled script and for this reason I also move away the focus from it and instead towards the lesson at hand. One cannot even read straight out of the book for a listener in the right interpretation, it would sound ridiculous because it switches between speaking to the Teacher and to the Students. It is one of those books you read the lesson material in advance and then peek into the book for hints during class about what to say next but if you prepared you barely do not have to take a look during your class. Also if each root has a specific meaning, and there is a limited amount of roots used in the Quran (the author of the article says there are 1646), then it would mean that if one would successfully understand meaning of only 1646 roots, than one would be able to be able to fully understand Koran in its entirety, because the book itself is mad of 1646 roots. Basically yes, there is something called grammar knowledge to take into account as well. It is important to be able to parse the sentences and understand how they are constructed and that is something I have been working hard on apart from finding the meaning of all those roots. I have used a mix of ILM research and studying old lexicons in order to find the meaning of words. Figuring out when sentences start and stop have been a big challenge because one cannot trust how the lines are used in the traditional script, but making progress does also open up for a better grammatical understanding. I did a while ago begin to arrange every Arabic sentence on strict lines in order to get a better overview of the discourse. Logic tells that because you had no dots to mark full stop this must have been marked by some other means, no intelligent writer who wished their work to survive the decay of time, especially since the book is of higher intellectual origin, would make it unclear where a sentence stops. This means the author did most likely use the lines to mark start and end of sentences, one line is one sentence and the language is made in such a way that sentences stop at a convenient time and cannot be longer than a certain length. This is how I would work if I had no dots and commas in old times. When doing this I also noticed that there is an average length of every sentence the whole discourse conforms to most of the time which could indicate the author did attempt to end the sentence before what they wrote on reached the other end. This discovery also helps me find more proper sentences. And when I find out where the sentences start and stop I also find out how to parse them. I am not joking when I say this is deciphering an obsolete language long forgotten. What I "know", or rather at this point of time what I am "convinced" of (after analysis of different data available to me) is that it makes more sense that there is "someone" behind "reality", contrary to the conviction that reality is just "chance". Good. Good. You have reached far only by that conclusion alone. I have to agree with the problem wiuthin society that people usually accept things/theories/ideas as true, without themselves coming into these conclusions though their own evaluation/reasoning. One could always ask questions: when such and such make claims and present their model of understanding of reality, where do their information and conviction come from? Religions come about due to instinctive interference, the worship phenomenon is due to that people would expect that themselves and then this is how they portray their creator with no further analysis of why would it be like that. What if the one(s) to whom one puts his/hers trust are deceiving him/her? What if they don`t have any ill intention to deceive but they are still deceiving unintentionally because they themselves are away from truth? Sound way of describing their situation, this is something that the real interpretation of the book in question deals with on multiple occasions. They are deceived by themselves through their habits and when their hormones flow in their bodies they believe they do the right thing and are rewarded by the deity. There is a risk in "feeling good" over something because it can reinforce the sensation that you are right. Chasing after "feeling good" in order to be happy is not a successful path. The philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge. The ancient Greeks had a sound way of reasoning and despite inferior technology and lack of scientific advances, the things we know today, their superior logic could draw fantastic conclusions about the world around them. I would say they had more sound logic than the average person does today despite all the knowledge. I like the word logic very much because it is a very good thing to possess mastery of. Without logic you have no sound way of applying the knowledge that you know. Scientific knowledge should help educated people draw the conclusion the world must exist through a supernatural intelligence but most people dealing with science are atheists which is quite illogical actually, it is fairly ironic in fact because if they had the logic in place they could easily make the right conclusion and be as wise as the ancient Greeks. Knowledge is to no avail if you do not have the logical ability to apply it properly. It is easy to store knowledge too. Wisdom on the other hand does not necessarily come from extending your knowledge. The answer to that lies in the nature of the human being and the conflict between body and soul as the body is just a evolutionarily evolved animal, like it is engineered through the phenomenon we call "natural evolution" but which in fact is "guided evolution". An animal can learn lots of things and learns by imitation, the human animal (Homo sapiens) which is biologically engineered through evolution is more sophisticated than "ordinary animals" and so it does naturally process more information to store within the brain, but it is still an animal and acts within the parameters of the instinct. The animal Homo sapiens cannot achieve higher levels of abstract thinking, those required for logic as they cannot hold an own thought which is not the result of imitation and the pure fact input. As you grow mentally you will notice that people just "sound like jukeboxes" which play the same albums over and over again, they process the information and then it is fossilized in their brain, they do not do anything further with it except imitation. The reason they do this is because their soul is lacking in depth because deeper logic requires evolution of the mind. Humans are easily impressed, become in awe of other people in the social hierarchy and respect for someone's "definite knowledge" will cause them to have no deeper reflection of what it is that they believe, it becomes fossilized knowledge in their brain and the understanding is absolute. What is beyond the universe that a human can observe cannot be empirically studied because it is physically unattainable and this is why science can never prove the existence of the supernatural. Despite this it is still possible to prove the existence of the supernatural via logic because the unforgiving and exact power of logic will rule out any other possibility than that there is a supernatural origin of the universe. This means even if you have no access whatsoever of what is beyond the universe you can know the truth without a first-hand observation. There is so much you can do with logic, it is a powerful tool. But it appears that simple humans cannot process the unquestionable logic no matter what you say, it renders out like "syntax error" in the heads and they just reply a default answer from their book even if it makes no sense to the universal logic. Logic is never about opinion but there is always only one logic which is the answer to every question. Therefore difference of opinion is actually a vain construct, there is no different opinion and delusion makes people believe there are opinions. A person with elevated mind would always have no opinion, they would follow logic. If you do not understand this I can further explain. To a person who does not understand this it might seem dogmatic. "Taste" and the characteristics of a person is another factor which is not opinion. For example from some religious points of view, human individuals with each their own specific being is also some kind of mistake. For example some religions deem ego the self as something that one should get rid of, no thoughts no anything. But then the religious person should ask themselves, why would God give you an individual Being just so for you to lose it? Wouldn't that be in vain? Very good reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 14, 2021 16:59:52 GMT
(Sorry for the relatively long preface, I just see it that the chain of logic is necessary in order to more clearly be able to communicate between Me and You on my comments to your quote)
This is something that I reasoned about before myself, and I think there is a lot of interesting insights if one would be able to understand deeper this "issue/dynamic".
For example, I tried to reason logically, If our world has a beginning - the universe has a beginning, or this is what is said by science?
But what if universe has no beginning and it is as simple as that it always existed and will exist? And even IF our universe actually had a beginning and therefore there was a moment when it did not exist. But then it still means that there is a bigger Uncaused Reality in which our universe could have come into existence, isn't it so?
So in the end, it looks like it doesn't matter, because in the end along the chain of causality there has to be this Bigger Reality which holds everything, and this Reality is the uncaused cause for the existence of all "things" which were and to be created in time.
However, I reason that there is a dual nature to what we call reality, for example, in our universe, there are stars, planets, houses, humans, animals etc. However, a perceptive person should ask: does the universe itself recognize that these things are distinct and organized or is it another reality (a mental reality) which when it sees-perceives the universe has the ability to make judgment and recognize that this is a "chair" and this is a "star".
This another reality we could also call as "Being".
Therefore, we could say that there are two realities: "Universe" and "Being". However, if there is two sides to reality, then the very interesting further question that can be asked is : What is is first, the very first "Uncaused-Being" or the very first "Uncaused Reality, that holds all other created realities-universes" ?
I would argue that due to the fact that it is the Being, that holds the mental faculty, that the very utmost uncaused origin of universe and other beings, is a Being who is uncaused by anything because He always existed. We can call him God.
Therefore, the conclusion is that Reality is Being itself. What might make us feel otherwise, might be the fact that right now our individual beings are inclosed-limited by our individual human bodies, thus we sense only our Being in first hand exp.
Back to my comment to Your Quote (Sorry for the relatively long preface, I just see it that the chain of logic was necessary in order to more clearly be able to communicate my comments to your quote)
As You, yourself say that there is only one logic, in other words Truth, and that opinions are in this way a vain construct. Then, I ask myself if there is on truth, does that imply that there is one and only "true" way of thinking, acting, communicating etc.?
I ask myself then, if the very first uncaused Being (God) is that perfection to which all other beings try to upgrade/imitate to, then what is the use for God of other created beings if at the end of the day they are dropping their their vain difference and be like God, because Logic/Truth/Perfection is only One?
However, I propose a possibility to consider, the Act of creating that is done By God is not because God has a necessity for it, but it is out of total goodnes-love, because it is an act of total unselfishness.
So when people say life is a "gift" there is truth to it. Because one came into being by God without any previous payment to God or anything of this sorts. However, there are different ways for one to experience "life"-existence. However, then there is the question of happiness. Not everybody is happy of their current form of existence, or at-least can become unhappy after they know better. Some people don`t want to be human any longer and strive for something better.
Something that should be considered is that one could experience a "life" as any object-thing in a created universe, there are people who do smoke certain plant and have experiences of feeling what it is like to be an inanimate object like a chair, or a lamp for what felt like years, while being Conscious of ones Self. At the end of the day if the mind can even perceive of such possibilities, how could one claim that it is impossible for these things to happen? At the end of the day isn't everything thats created looks the way it is because of Gods will?
So the question is if one is content of who they are right now, or if they know-better and thus realize that it makes sense now that they know-better to strive for evolution. Therefore, I say individuals should of course be logical. However, aren't we always missing some data? Knowing that what we know so far is limited, should at least humble us and makes us always be wary of if we become too confident of our convictions.
The question is did logic come from God, or is logic something that precedes God? Or is Logic and God always was?
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 16, 2021 23:21:15 GMT
Hello, I already wrote part of this but I was clumsy and misclicked page back on mouse and apparently the text is not saved in this input window. For example, I tried to reason logically, If our world has a beginning - the universe has a beginning, or this is what is said by science? The projected universe and the projecting force are two different factors. Science is actually right here and the universe does have a beginning cycle, as well as an end which has vividly been described according to ancient sources as 'the Apocalypse' when "the mountains crumble" and all similar things, this is when the universe contracts that it will produce this effect on Earth as it will disintegrate. But what if universe has no beginning and it is as simple as that it always existed and will exist? And even IF our universe actually had a beginning and therefore there was a moment when it did not exist. But then it still means that there is a bigger Uncaused Reality in which our universe could have come into existence, isn't it so? While the universe has both a beginning and an end, the Originator (why Jesus called the phenomenon Father), called Elahem/Elohim in the mysterious Semitic languages, was always there or it would evade the rules of logic. Logic tells that if we were to ascribe a finiteness to the Originator then the Originator would require a creator and that means logic enters a loop where you require a creator over and over again for the creator. The only logical explanation is that the Originator was always there. My own theory which is based on logical probability is that there are universe cycles where subjects are created, like we are, in different "generations". An example of available data which makes the logic plausible is an individual called Gabriel who appears not to have been part of this universe cycle but was a master for the whole duration, the scripture even does refer to "him" as the one who arranged things, the universe we live in that is. If Gabriel, plus Michael who are referred to in the same scripture, existed and planned the current incarnation of the universe then they ought to have lived and evolved into what they are previously. Logic does hence help us infer that there are multiple cycles and that without being explicitly told so. However, I reason that there is a dual nature to what we call reality, for example, in our universe, there are stars, planets, houses, humans, animals etc. However, a perceptive person should ask: does the universe itself recognize that these things are distinct and organized or is it another reality (a mental reality) which when it sees-perceives the universe has the ability to make judgment and recognize that this is a "chair" and this is a "star". In ways the Originator is the Universe and the Universe is the Originator, just as that I can say I am the Originator and the Originator is me, have you not heard that expression before through someone else? But like I wrote previously, the universe is just a mental projection, much like a dream which is carried out very consciously. Because the universe is physically just an illusion there is no difference between the universe and the origin, it is controlled as if the universe was the Originator's extended arm. None of it exists in a physical form, not the Originator and not the Universe with its Earth in it, there is no truly physical nature of the Earth but that is what we are made to believe. The barriers which cause bodies of mass in the universe is just shaped from something which is visible as light or energy in this world, if something disintegrates it will just begin to emit light and the heat is caused by friction between the atoms, it is a complex thing. Light is not an element however, it is just a visible phenomenon of the energy or force which projects the universe showing its true nature. This also has caused a misconception historically where religious people believe it is the light itself which is the divine, but the "divine" is not visible except that the manipulations in this world will appear to be of light, because if the Originator would stop projecting a specific part of the universe as mass it would appear just like a very bright light, i.e. it is no longer disguised as mass in the world but has its true unshaped form. There is a word for it in Semitic languages where the root means both fire and light in the same word (Nur نور), fire is nothing but a visible phenomenon that we observe in the world based on the material disintegrating, the scripture does also say that the body is made of it. Whereas English draws a difference between fire and light, Semitic languages do not, when something burns you observe the nature of the burning matter very closely. Because of this the word can be difficult to translate into English because you have to think in a different way. This another reality we could also call as "Being". Therefore, we could say that there are two realities: "Universe" and "Being". However, if there is two sides to reality, then the very interesting further question that can be asked is : What is is first, the very first "Uncaused-Being" or the very first "Uncaused Reality, that holds all other created realities-universes" ? I would argue that due to the fact that it is the Being, that holds the mental faculty, that the very utmost uncaused origin of universe and other beings, is a Being who is uncaused by anything because He always existed. We can call him God. The word Elahem, from the Originator, does mean "The Being Ones" or literally "Those Who Are Being". Being used as "Allah/Elah" it means "(One) Who is Being" as the word's ending Heh ه is a third-person singular suffix, it does speak of anyone's being, but it does not refer to anyone except if you deliberately speak of someone through the language. Becoming Being (Elah/Allah) is every person's ultimate goal and that ends in becoming one of the Elahem which is the uncorrupted first commandment of Moses, i.e. "Be devoted to the oneness of Elahem", the maniacs did intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret the saying as the commandment speaks about joining the oneness of Elahem ("GOD") through devotion. The second commandments reads that you should not take the image/model of anyone (any being) and be devoted to it, which is directly a reference to the imitative behavior of Homo sapiens, the body and its instinct (Satan). What it does mean is that you should become an individual, and ironically in traditional belief that is exactly what you are meant to avoid, i.e. people are taught to relinquish the being. The source they read from tells exactly the opposite thing and that is the irony. This Jesus told about as well when he said according to traditional translations "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" and as well as you can read above where I introduced the post. They did also make it misleading in the statement "the way to the Father is through me", but the me should be "the I", i.e. yourself, it is a mistranslation. However they did get it fairly right at another passage where it reads the "if you know yourself you know the Father". Our minds are not in the Universe but in the "Grand Consciousness" of Elahem. It is a collective consciousness we can say, but yet we do have our individuality inside it, this phenomenon is hard to grasp. This is exactly the use we are to existence, because do you honestly think we exist to be like pets? No, we exist to "color" the Elahem community, to bring diversity through unique personalities, but that we can only do if we break away from following a stereotype, the kind of behavior the instinct draws us towards. The line in the book of Genesis is correct when it said that "man was created in God's image", that phrase is actually one of the very few correctly translated lines there (perhaps not a coincidence) as it is very literal, yes we are a copy of "the God image". After that it just gets funny when it begins to speak about the woman who gets tricked by Satan, the translation it blatantly false. I will not delve into that now. Apart from the things I just wanted to say as a clarification, I think you were saying something which is somewhat the same as to what I wrote, just different words. As You, yourself say that there is only one logic, in other words Truth, and that opinions are in this way a vain construct. Then, I ask myself if there is on truth, does that imply that there is one and only "true" way of thinking, acting, communicating etc.? There is individuality. Elahem does not seek stereotypes as you could read above in my answer. You can think independently from others and so you should do. Perhaps this is a misinterpretation of what I wrote and I feared as much already when I wrote it, I anticipated the response. What I was saying was that factually there is just one logic and there is no opinion about it. Real life example, people have a variety of political ideologies and have opinions about which is best, but there is actually just one logic which rules the best way to control a land and it is not a matter of opinion, but the human innate weakness through the body makes it impossible to make a decent country. If everyone of people just followed logic there would not be so many disagreements, it would just be a single party and no fights, much like communism, but humans are unstable and it does obviously not work in practice. The problem humans have are the instincts of dominance and social standing, this makes it hard to keep a good political system. I understand many people would just like a "GOD" to rule over them because many people at least admit they cannot. Being a Master without becoming corrupted is difficult but not impossible while in the flesh, it requires discipline, Solomon is an example of a person who managed. Now I was speaking about the facts which logic works around, that does not decide thinking patterns, acting and communication styles. About what is best via logic is not open to opinion but logic speaks for itself. But to abuse power and to not rule by logic is a different matter. I ask myself then, if the very first uncaused Being (God) is that perfection to which all other beings try to upgrade/imitate to, then what is the use for God of other created beings if at the end of the day they are dropping their their vain difference and be like God, because Logic/Truth/Perfection is only One? You have misinterpreted things. We are not to imitate "GOD" but create our own unique being. I tried to add "taste and personality" after my sentence in the previous post in order to clarify that individuality is a different matter. But facts are facts, and logic is universal meaning there is no opinion about it in the end, just one factor is the most logical. However, I propose a possibility to consider, the Act of creating that is done By God is not because God has a necessity for it, but it is out of total goodnes-love, because it is an act of total unselfishness. I do not think it has to do with "love" but more about some covert part about the evolution of the Elahem consciousness that not even I know about. So when people say life is a "gift" there is truth to it. Because one came into being by God without any previous payment to God or anything of this sorts. However, there are different ways for one to experience "life"-existence. We can appreciate Being and we should, it feels like a gift and the more you understand the more thankful you get about Being. Your individuality you shape yourself through your experiences and what you want to make of yourself, you were originally just a blank soul. But we still have the same ultimate goal of evolving ourselves and we still struggle against the same issues namely the body and its instinct. Different individuals have different problems resisting the body through their previous experiences, but ultimately the body has exactly the same influence on us all and we have the same universal issues. Being is a true phenomenon in itself and the imprints we give ourselves to our soul is a mystery, because the soul has no substance matter and exists nowhere as matter. However, then there is the question of happiness. Not everybody is happy of their current form of existence, or at-least can become unhappy after they know better. Some people don`t want to be human any longer and strive for something better. Here I must say that no one who made a realization would ever want to stay in this world. It is not meant to be a paradise. Something that should be considered is that one could experience a "life" as any object-thing in a created universe, there are people who do smoke certain plant and have experiences of feeling what it is like to be an inanimate object like a chair, or a lamp for what felt like years, while being Conscious of ones Self. At the end of the day if the mind can even perceive of such possibilities, how could one claim that it is impossible for these things to happen? At the end of the day isn't everything thats created looks the way it is because of Gods will? Now I really do not understand your point with the reasoning. You want to propose it is logical to "smoke certain plants" and have hallucinations? It does look the way it does because the Originator wanted it to look that way, yes. So the question is if one is content of who they are right now, or if they know-better and thus realize that it makes sense now that they know-better to strive for evolution. Therefore, I say individuals should of course be logical. However, aren't we always missing some data? Knowing that what we know so far is limited, should at least humble us and makes us always be wary of if we become too confident of our convictions. It is logical to be wary of "if we become too confident of our convictions". True logic requires higher levels of abstract thinking and the better the ability the deeper the reflection is possible. It is logical to take into account that you are "missing some data", to make a decision of logic, i.e. that you in some cases have no answer rather than accepting pure conjecture that is utterly wrong. The question is did logic come from God, or is logic something that precedes God? Or is Logic and God always was? Nothing precedes the Originator but is created by or innate with the Originator. Logic is just a system and source of how everything works. It is like if someone does something and you ask 'why', then you look at the logic behind. Then you ask 'why' again at the next link in the chain and so on until there is no more root source. Not surprisingly the Originator will always come as the answer of the last 'why'. It is like that you get the fact and then the answer for the 'why' is the logic behind it. Knowledge is Fact while the Reason is the Logic. The reason for this and that, is logic. Knowledge is relatively easy to accumulate but without the proper logic it is easy to misapply the knowledge, because if you do not know the reason then it is also not all too easy to apply it properly. Notice that this is on a really deep level of philosophy and logic, take your time reflecting upon what I wrote. I think most humans cannot understand what logic really is. When there is insufficient facts logic is a great, great tool because logic complements a lack of data, you can even infer the data via logic when you make a logical analysis of some phenomenon, such as that the Supernatural must exist, it is a fine example of good use of logic. We know for a FACT that the Originator exists even if we cannot prove it via science, we did extrapolate it using logic and it cannot be conjecture.
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 17, 2021 23:08:18 GMT
Hello again Immanuel,
Isn't it interesting that even after all of the logic, one realizes that one exists in current life to be tested on ones Integrity, Intelligence and Strength of Being. And thus one realizes that the actual "recipe" to what to do is actually pretty straightforward, and that is to not obey the instinct of the human body.
The point is simple, the execution part is what is important One could realize all one wants but if one does not change oneself, maybe the realization is in vain if to say it so.
This is something I am working on myself too. I also can see that from the point of the view of humanity this might make life more "boring" because, at the end of the day one is connected to a human body.
But, obeying the body to keep it happy, is also doing a disfavor for yourself. So either way the road is hard. Existing as a human on earth has its disadvantageous, that I wont name because I am quite sure people already know about the fact that they age, get ill, etc. etc.
Maybe people rather talk about philosophy for millenia but not accept a straightforward way to actually have a chance of saving oneself, because it is easier to want want a "magic-pill" to find a save-exit?
When in fact the "exit" is not found, but is granted until one meets the required criteria for one to be given access to a more upgraded form of existence.
One of the biggest "short-comings" that I see in being as a human on earth is that people never get to understand who you are, people make superficial judgments based on your, nationality, appearance, economy, gender etc. And you are treated by society the way you "Are". When in fact nobody gets to know who you are "inside", dont think people are interested much in that.
One just plays ones role in society, a student of a student, a parent of a parent, a child of a child, and it seems like a role-playing masquerade. But I do feel that one could make interactions between people in a more authentic way, from ones core of Being to another's core of Being.
Authenticity might be the key, to find the real version of oneself, one would theoretically have to go way back into ones life, before one got any influence from ones society, family, culture etc. But is that even possible?
When the fact is one is influenced from the moment one appears on earth, by everyone around. One is told who one is and thus others already have an exception for the one to act his/her role.
Gospel of Thomas says a saying of Jesus, where he says find the beginning and you will find the end. I feel this is what is talked about, to find oneself one has to first get rid of all the conditioning that ones got through his/her life-time.
I think this is just the question of if one wants to find themselves and become authentic or one would like to continue playing with their masks like in a masquerade.
I would extremely interested to experience what is it like actually to exist without a human body + instincts.
It must be interesting. I wonder if there is a way to experience this other than the event of the body dying.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 18, 2021 22:41:35 GMT
Hi,
Yes, to know what needs to be done is easy, it is just learning, but the execution is hard and requires patience/endurance. Simply knowing but not doing anything about it is vain knowledge.
Abstention can be "boring" yes, but you can occupy the mind with various activities as long as it stimulates the mind and you do not make it an invasive habit which disrupts your own development. What makes this prescription different from your average religion is that there is no real law but more guidelines towards an ultimate condition, I would not call this to be a religion at all but merely common sense. I have worked hard to get rid of the mark of religion from my teachings and an important difference is that religions tend to exaggerate many aspects of life and therefore I urge people not to overdo things.
You remember Jesus saying that the sinner in the synagogue who beat his breast and was honest about being sinful was held in higher regard than the other one who was looking down on him for being a sinner. It has to do with losing the focus of what everything is about when you try too hard. I hope you can understand the issue. Humans have extreme problems that they easily become obsessive-compulsive about things.
I will bring focus on what matters:
1. Be devotes to being one of Elahem 2. Be not devoted to the stereotype of someone 3. Do not use the command of Being for vanity 4. Keep contemplating (roughly the meaning of Sabbateh)
5. Care about your neighbor like as for yourself, 6. Do not dominate (him/her), 7. Do not disgrace (him/her), 8. Do not steal (from him/her), 9. Do not lie (to/about him/her, 10. (and) Do not covet your neighbor's status items
That is what the real "commandments" of Moses said. In that it appears to be 4+6 commands, 4 general personal advice and 6 about social interaction. There are 7 "do not's" and 3 "do's" in the list.
Do: 1. Devote yourself to being someone 2. Contemplate 3. Care about your neighbor (also your enemy as per Jesus)
Do not: 1. Be not devoted to stereotypes 2. Do not use your command of being for vanity, 3. Do not dominate, 4. Do not disgrace, 5. Do not steal, 6. Do not lie, 7. Do not covet your neighbor's status items
You see how they make better sense when analyzed to pieces?
My point? Focus on the important points. Food and drink is not the most dire of things, Jesus jokingly said that they call him a glutton and a drunkard, although this was clearly an exaggeration of him and Jesus meant that he was not the perfect of religious people as he knew it is not harsh abstention which is the most important matter, and people considered him slack on these matters, he did not even command his disciples to fast.
This is something I will not do either, but if someone wants to fast they better keep it to themselves rather than announcing their piety, and as always one should not overdo things. It is important to keep the body healthy in order to have a peaceful mind which can focus on important things.
Did you know that the eagerness to win in life is one of the major points of calling of the instinct? It is important to not be playing games to win against others. The desire to win is a desire of the instinct. Very important point actually, more important than that you sinned by dropping honey in your tea.
Minimize the sinning but do not overdo, like Jesus said "the one who has not done a sin will throw the first stone", he implied that every person does their mistakes, and you remember I wrote that Jesus was more impressed by the sinner who beat his chest admitting his sins than the devout religious person who looked down on the sinner, something which is a sin in itself and which he was oblivious of.
Be aware of all your sins and avoid the grave ones, those which originate from the body's behavioral patterns. Anger, disgraceful input, abuse, lies and coveting; those are the worst of sins. The sinner was honest, the "pious worshiper" gave disgrace to the him, sinning by doing so, making the sinner better, but the question is who had the best development?
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 18, 2021 23:24:07 GMT
One has to come to an understanding about what life is and the truth about the deception. Before people do that they have too little data to do everything required, there are loads of people in meditation, yoga and healthful living groups, but they still succumb to the major instincts of the body which I listed and explained in the previous post.
It feels pretty innocent actually to play any common game to win, it can perhaps feel odd that this is a very grave sin, one of the worst and it does not matter what is the game, that you have the instinctive craving to win is the bad thing. It is a call to stand above others.
Disgrace someone you can do in many ways, the original interpretation of the commandment is stuck on adultery, but it is incorrectly translated and is about any disgrace, adultery is just one disgrace. The sinner vs. pious worshiper I mentioned earlier is a prime example of disgrace violation.
It is the same with the commandment to not dominate, the traditional translations say not to murder but that is pretty toothless, not murdering is pretty common sense that it is wrong and additionally the "eye for an eye" gives the right to kill another in revenge except it is better to pardon. If it says not to dominate it makes for a better day to day usefulness, and Jesus expanded it to be not angry because anger goes quickly to wanting to dominate. You see that his suggestion is pretty far off from the command to not kill, who will kill because they are angry? The weirdness is because the Mosaic command does not say do not kill but do not dominate. Also when you did murder someone this person is ultimately dominated... subdued literally.
Theft is also covering more than just breaking into someone's home or digging through their pockets, if you abuse someone to drain resources from them in any way this is theft by the Mosaic guidelines.
Lying is one of the most obvious ones of commandments but most people lie in order to gain benefits more often than they might want to admit. Carry false testimony is anything which represents the truth in a different manner than it happened.
The most misunderstood commandment I would say is the tenth one about not coveting your neighbor's status possessions (which were in the old commandments given by what was status back then), many people buy things just because other people buy them for no other reason than that fact, they seek status and being accepted socially by others. I am not sure how people interpret it and I rarely see any spiritual person discussing the tenth commandment, I think some may think it is about wanting to steal your neighbor's things. It is very instinctive to seek to own what people in the community owns, a prime example is to change smartphone every time a new Samsung or iPhone model comes out just to have a flashy new device, I see that it happens very often to people around, but the phone itself offers few mandated features, they may be slightly faster than the predecessor but hardly necessary. People want to own popular cars. The list can be made long.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 18, 2021 23:44:14 GMT
Intensive meditation and trance can assist in feeling bodiless, I have had the very special sensation of having the mind's presence of being, being slightly above the head which was very weird but I had my own faith reinforced as I got proven to myself that mind and body are truly two different entities, and the experience lasted for a while afterwards so much that it continued to last when I went out for a walk. It was however disorienting to feel that way so I am glad that the effect was only temporary, imagine yourself that you feel your own focal point being above your body while you maneuver it.
As for the freedom of the instincts, the more you learn to withstand them the less power they have on you. If you strengthen the Being and think about what you do, it is easy to be without instincts. Just think about all points I mentioned previously that are from the instinct. Other people pose a problem to your detachment from the instinct as they will often make you find excuses for instinctive behavior for the sake of social acceptance. They might invite you to a game to compete, speak disgracefully about someone, make you cheat against someone or push you to buy something the same as they own as they speak well of it in their own delusions and cause you to feel obliged to buy it.
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 20, 2021 21:19:52 GMT
Hello again,
Yes, if the commandments want to say exactly this, it actually makes sense why the commandments require these things exactly:
1. Be devotes to being one of Elahem (By becoming someone, one is actually interesting to have on "board")
2. Be not devoted to the stereotype of someone (One cannot become someone/oneself if one is a copy of someone else, thus whats the point of having such person on board?)
3. Do not use the command of Being for vanity
4. Keep contemplating (roughly the meaning of Sabbateh) (Contemplation/Thinking grows the mind, and makes one a deeper person, this makes one grow)
5. Care about your neighbor like as for yourself, (If one cannot care about ones neighbor as oneself, one becomes not an effective team member.)
6. Do not dominate (him/her),
(Domination leads to conflicts, conflicts are damaging)
7. Do not disgrace (him/her), (These, commandments are there to have a standard of relationship between individuals, otherwise one becomes not reliable)
8. Do not steal (from him/her), (These, commandments are there to have a standard of relationship between individuals, otherwise one becomes not reliable)
9. Do not lie (to/about him/her, (These, commandments are there to have a standard of relationship between individuals, otherwise one becomes not reliable)
10. (and) Do not covet your neighbor's status items (Imagine, ones jealousy cannot let one think straight just because ones friends have a better phone, now imagine how much harder it would be for such person if they would be in the presence of God who is much better than the person himself/herself)
I can see the reason for why wanting to win over someone is not welcomed, because such thinking leads to conflict.
I also had phenomenon out of the "norm" (Norm I write because what we call the norm is just what we are used and thus expect everyday life to be like) Sudden realizations how even the fact that I exist now is magic in itself, existence is magical however it seems like we take it for granted.
I also notice how other might dont really help one to fix themselves, because they share their own delusions with you and then one has to also be wary of whatever others say and etc.
The question is what is delusion and what is not.
Interesting how you explain how the point of view of your body was above your head and it was disorienting, maybe there is a reason for why these point of view is in the middle of head.
A fallacy that we commit in our thinking as individuals is the following I think: Most of the things we assume and the way we expect things to work and be etc. , is based on our experiences on earth, when in fact it might be so that these dynamics might be only applied/limited to earth.
It would be interesting to be able to look at earth and its dynamics/life with 100% objective eyes of a total stranger to earths eviroment. I suppose it must be weird at the least.
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 20, 2021 21:29:25 GMT
I actually think these days that one has to be 100% serious about these matters if one wants to actually have a chance of outgrowing earth.
Even small moments of letting ones discipline go, makes the body to crave more, it is actually a beast that cannot feel that it had enough.
I think one could call oneself as someone who fully outgrown the earths environment if one can look at the things that human-body desires such as sex, food, etc, directly and with a smile on ones face, as if to say to the body that it has no power over ones self. That it cannot make you do the thing it wants.
In other words, at the end of the "road", I think when one gets to such point of self-power, I dont think such an individual would be considered "human".
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 20, 2021 22:10:47 GMT
Of course one cannot also be too harsh on the body, because then one starts to dominate the body, if we think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 21, 2021 20:17:29 GMT
Of course one cannot also be too harsh on the body, because then one starts to dominate the body, if we think about it. It does have to do with that the body is obeying the laws of a system and mistreating the body will just cause it to malfunction which is to no advantage for us. Remember what we talked about regarding logic, it is not logical to mistreat the body which has to follow the rules of a system, but one can do what is best for it. What is best for it is not what it usually craves for, such as sugar and things which affect the flow of hormones in the body i.e. drugs. Many, even most, faith systems tend to teach to neglect the body, but this is unwise and those people generally misunderstand the point of the overall abstention. Abstention in a sensible approach deals with indulgence beyond what the body REALLY needs, it does not teach health detrimental abstention. In fact abstention from such indulgence of food etc is not the most important factors and as you can see that is not part of the 'Mosaic Ten'. Abstention, or more like restraint, from food is a health-centered complement offered by the prescription from "the record". On the other hand, occasional fasting science has shown indications of that it is a health benefit, but I would say that it must remain on that occasional level and kept private, not public for sake of display of so-called piety. The worst of people are those who wish to be seen by others, their development is lackluster and they have not grasped the fundamentals. The religious folks do also not understand that the "eye for an eye" rule is meant to prevent people from excessive revenge, not really requiring that you take "life for a life" for example, it is even best to pardon transgressions, or well it is important to look at the circumstances. But you are right in that some people may get instinctively dominant against their own bodies, the thrill to win will dictate their behavior. Another factor is that they wish to be seen among people that they have an aptitude (social status) for whatever they attempt to accomplish, which is an instinctive call as well.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 21, 2021 20:52:29 GMT
Being the victor does not only add a tendency for conflict but it also invites for the human inclination towards hierarchy which is part of its instinct too. Plus, for example, women tend to get instinctively attracted to winners in society among men, even though their victory is meaningless for the spiritual development of theirs, something we have seen is what matters. Withdrawn, meek men will have less opportunities to attract a mate, except that naturally there is usually always an opportunity, but my point is the more outstanding performances the higher sex appeal. A skilled musician celebrity is a good example of a person with ease to attract a mate and it is because it is interesting to be the partner of a living idol. There are numerous examples we can make, but you get the point.
So being dominant, the winner or high up in the hierarchy all go under the same paragraph. If you read about Jesus you have seen that he spoke negatively about leadership, he did not refer to Solomon in any remarkably positive manner and if you can understand the context properly you will understand his point. That was his personal opinion though, but he was right in his caution of leadership however, it is something to be careful about. Due to the instinct of domination it is easy to fall prey to it and begin to lose your mind. Solomon did actually handle it exceptionally well, but the contemporary king of Babylon did not but looted and caused mayhem around the Middle East.
Know that all the prophets have been their own individuals with their own personal views, although the facts are one the the same, they have different perceptions. It all goes hand in hand with what I wrote about creating your own Being. What would existence be if everyone was just the same, Elahem could just be one mind with no diversity. That is also the answer to our existence and why to bother create something "with no practical use" (besides a weird sense of entertainment?) You see the point?
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 21, 2021 21:37:04 GMT
Delusion is when one is imagining things which are not real, per definition in psychiatry. In the context of my teaching it is not necessarily a mental illness but more like blindness and being deceived, often self-deception but also deception indoctrination by the society, as well as deception by those who put the illusion into motion (Elahem).
I do not harshly blame those who do not understand for not understanding, it is a severe deception and not finding the path is understandable. I would not be who I am if I was a condemning person. This also makes me different from false prophets who more often than not condemn people harshly around them. I do not support atrocities but I have a certain understanding for bad people, those are really people who lost the grip of their minds.
Examples of delusion is believing that the body and person is the same entity, that the Earth is their natural habitat, that it is good to listen to the body's instincts to obey them. Delusion is everything which is belief in something which is wrong.
Delusion in my teaching is a choice of translation of the word "kafer (kufr)" which implies that a person is covered that they cannot see properly. The word is sometimes used together with the word for "darkness", everything in the words of the record speaks from the mind's point of view, the language is ALWAYS abstract in its meaning which must be taken into account when trying to understand it. The word kafer does in very old lexicons have a definition of when a "farmer covers the soil with seeds", this is a meaning I chose for attempted translations and it fits well, "cover" that is.
Fathom putting a bandana before your eyes and try to see, you will not see a thing, but in the case of the "kafer" word it implies that you cannot see what you are supposed to see but instead see something else because you cannot see the supposed thing, probably because part of what you are supposed to see is covered that you miss it but get distracted by something else instead. The Earth and its features were made to distract the inhabitants that people cannot see what is covered.
I find deluded to be a fair translation because it implies that the truth is right there but factors cause their minds to believe something else which is false. Translation is always hard because the Arabic language is so abstract.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 21, 2021 22:14:51 GMT
I was probably shown something at the time the "out of body experience" occurred to me, like that how control is not depending on being in the body or not. It also explains how Elahem runs the whole universe with all animals (the human body is an animal). While my consciousness seemed to be misplaced above my head, I had normal motor control, but I obviously saw first-hand that my will was not run by the brain of the body below but I commandeered the body with my ethereal mind.
I cannot prove anything to anyone human as no one could obviously experience my experience, but I got an interesting demonstration for myself. I already believed in the body being separate from the mind though, it was no news at the time, but the experience was "cool" and teaching. I imagine that a person not understanding these things would get frightened if it happened to them. I have heard of other people who get their mind separated from the body during meditation, but many are afraid that they will get their mind stuck outside the body but Elahem will not let anyone be that lucky(!) The permanent release will only come if you are worthy and it is Elahem who control it and not you, otherwise you are stuck to the body you managed to levitate briefly on top of with your mind's consciousness.
Near-death-experience is another non-meditation induced "outside of body experience", it works the same way that there is a soft release of the fixed location of how you see the world. If you died there you would suffer a memory wipe, or rather suppression, and rebirth on Earth in another body (unless you qualified for a permanent release). The suppressed memories can resurface with extreme methods or by certain events, but it can often be best that they are hidden.
I have seen flashes of suppressed memories, and it is something which can be as disturbing as to experience the experiences of another body. But it can give explanations to part of your personality and why you have a certain "taste" that you cannot understand yourself. The mind of ours is shaped by our many incarnations, your person today is the result of heavy conditioning.
Parts of my negative traits are due to who I was before and thanks to the digging in my past I know better what I must improve with my mind, so for a disciplined person it can be beneficial for part of the past to resurface, but I recommend strong caution when dealing with it. For example, if you were a bad person in your previous lives this person's bad experiences could increase their effect on you, if you understand what I mean, as you open up to their memory imprints on your mind. You need to dig carefully and have a strong mental will. Perhaps you held strong grief in your past life and it causes you to suffer an unexplainable depression, for no apparent reason. It is also why many people without explanation suffer chronic depression, when the strong imprint of a past life affect the current life and its brain. A weak mind is more susceptible to not be able to handle this.
Depression can emerge for other factors too such as that the body is mistreated by malnutrition, and there are diseases that can induce depression, and circumstances can trigger it too such as the grief of a close one's death, so all causes for depression are not the same. This is important to keep in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 21, 2021 22:20:16 GMT
I can look at the Earth with relatively objective eyes and it does look weird to me. I see myriad deluded people chasing after vanity, things which have no meaning. In ways it can be thought of as satire, it is almost entertaining, but when I think deeper about it, it is no longer fun to think about.
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 23, 2021 5:39:54 GMT
Yes, the "winner" is something that is very romanticized and looked up to in human society. The story of from "rags to riches" is the one of the favorite types of stories that humanity likes. That no matter how bad things are, in the end, no matter the odds the person overcomes everything and gains a higher status. However, if we would be frank, humans have something I call "positivity bias", we usually like to believe in things which makes us feel good, even if those beliefs are illusionary. In addition, humans have the tendency of seeking connection between things and seek meaning, even if the things dont have a inherit meaning, but the "bias" in humans which makes them see "meaning" when there might be none is misleading. For example, have you ever killed an insect that You saw in your house, to prevent the insect from multiplying? Did You feel bad afterwards? Most people I suppose would kill the insect and continue with their day, giving no thought to the killing. I ask why? Maybe the answer is that because a human sees an insect so much below itself and useless, like a parasite, that there is no compassion towards the creature. Please now consider the same event from the point of view of the insect. The insect, because it also wants to survive on earth, finds a way into the house to get some food/shelter etc, it walks on the wall not even really bothering the human directly, and suddenly it see this "giant"/human without an apparent reason take his/her big foot and crushing the insect into a mush. In the last moments of its life, the insect might have had billions of thoughts, asking "why?", "this is not fair", "I did not deserve this!" From the point of view of the insect this is a tragedy and a sad event, from the point of the human, he/she could care less. Now my question is was this event meaningful, was there a deep underlying purpose for this situation? No, there wasn't, how cold and harsh it might not sound. Reality is what it is. Now consider this please, do we really have a basis to make an assumption that there aren't creatures so much more evolved than humans, that their existence in comparison to humans, would be like, a human compared to an insect? Consider this than please, if we make the same logical gymnastics in our heads, that it is okey to kill insects, animals and etc for our survival and benefit, why dont we expect the same from the creatures who are much more advanced than us? They might not hate us or something like that, they are just so much more advanced that they could "care-less" and just go with their own existence/life. Do you know why? It seems the way reality have its rules, are so that in order to survive one needs to do things even if one does not agree with them, maybe good vs evil is invention? People might say all kinds of things about God and how bad life is on earth, but do you know what the other creatures on earth might be thinking about humans? Do you know how many animals were killed by humans in USA alone since the beginning of this year only? , and see for yourself all the insightful info, about how of a talented serial killer, humanity is. What I am trying to say is that our "human" morality is pretty hypocritical. We talk about good and evil, but look what we do to other creatures on earth. In "reality" we are in, one creature needs to kill and consume another creature to survive a bit longer. Do you agree that this is beautiful? Have you asked yourself, why was reality designed in this specific way? What if reality was always like that? It is a scary thought isnt it? But dont you think if we would like to gain deeper understanding of reality we need to drop our feelings and start thinking without any bias from our side? I ask the question, what is there for us-humanity, for me. I bet that insect in my room asked the same question, doing its best to survive, having no questions as to why it exist. But there is still something inside of us(humans), that dont let us feel content with "not-knowing/understanding" isnt it? So many philosophers before, tried to understand too, but seems like they couldnt fully understand, what were they missing?
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 23, 2021 5:52:52 GMT
Yes, delusion is an interesting and necessary to ponder about. How could one ask someone to understand things properly when their entire point of view of reality is far away from what is real. In their case, it would more fit to call it, delusion-ality.
What is certain is that there is the "I" and then there is "reality". What we call reality "now", is informational inputs from body`s organs which then organized into an experience by our brains and then experienced by ourselves/The I. Would you call this experiencing "reality"? Or more like :limited by sensory organs and interpreted by the brain picture of reality?
Therefore, I would say that as long as one experiencing reality through the eyes of a primate, it is still not THE Reality.
Getting to experience the unfiltered Reality would be interesting, at very least. Would it be a "sight" that is beautiful or ugly to behold is open to question. Would you want to get to see behind the limits of human-perception, without expecting it to be the way you would like/wish it was like?
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 23, 2021 6:00:51 GMT
Yes if there is indeed reincarnation, it would be interesting if it was so that a racist for example would be born as a person of african descent.
Did you notice, how Consciousness "role-plays"? How people hold onto their "sand-castle" identities which are directly connected to their current bodily shape?
How for a Mind which is connected to a male body it is of outmost importance to be "male" like, and same for women? Or different nationalities and etc.?
I ask people the question, if right now you lost your body, who would you be? how would you act, speak, think?
There is a alleged saying of Jesus from Gospel of Thomas, which in my understanding, ask the question: "When you see your image in the mirror/photo you rejoice, but when you will see all your past forms/images of existence(reincarnation), how hard would it be to bear!.
(84) Jesus says: (1) “When you see your likeness you are full of joy. (2) But when you see your likenesses that came into existence before you — they neither die nor become manifest — how much will you bear?”
This is my understanding, however I might be bias.
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 23, 2021 6:19:49 GMT
The question of vanity is interesting one indeed. I think it is related to the question of meaning vs value.
What is meaning? Would you agree that meaning is when things are done for a purpose? Alright.
But what if one does something that might be not be meaningful and thus is not for a future purpose. But it is done to have fun right at this moment, would it not be valuable for the person?
Are things valuable only if they are meaningful or if they are meant to last forever? These are good questions
Also would an immortal existence be more of a gift or a curse if one would not be happy with their existence?
I think "at the end of the day", the person itself, needs to ask itself, feel inside itself, its purpose.
However, I think there can be a universal "law" for the lack of a better term and that is things should be that they benefit others as well, for the benefit and wellbeing of all. If everyone thought like this, the world be different isnt it so?
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 23, 2021 18:21:54 GMT
However, if we would be frank, humans have something I call "positivity bias", we usually like to believe in things which makes us feel good, even if those beliefs are illusionary. In addition, humans have the tendency of seeking connection between things and seek meaning, even if the things dont have a inherit meaning, but the "bias" in humans which makes them see "meaning" when there might be none is misleading. In ways this behavior is logical, because life has no meaning to a person who does not understand the truth that means these humans create their own meaning, however it is a life which is tainted by instinct and through that propelled by it too. Most humans believe they are to live out the life of the creature they are within, as if it is a kind of blessing if it is a religious person. If one does not seek the deeper meaning of life through deep contemplation, logic will be flawed because there are too few variables taken into account except the immediate illusion, and for that deception it was created. For example, have you ever killed an insect that You saw in your house, to prevent the insect from multiplying? Did You feel bad afterwards? Most people I suppose would kill the insect and continue with their day, giving no thought to the killing. I ask why? Maybe the answer is that because a human sees an insect so much below itself and useless, like a parasite, that there is no compassion towards the creature. Please now consider the same event from the point of view of the insect. The insect, because it also wants to survive on earth, finds a way into the house to get some food/shelter etc, it walks on the wall not even really bothering the human directly, and suddenly it see this "giant"/human without an apparent reason take his/her big foot and crushing the insect into a mush. In the last moments of its life, the insect might have had billions of thoughts, asking "why?", "this is not fair", "I did not deserve this!" From the point of view of the insect this is a tragedy and a sad event, from the point of the human, he/she could care less. Now my question is was this event meaningful, was there a deep underlying purpose for this situation? No, there wasn't, how cold and harsh it might not sound. Reality is what it is. Now consider this please, do we really have a basis to make an assumption that there aren't creatures so much more evolved than humans, that their existence in comparison to humans, would be like, a human compared to an insect? Consider this than please, if we make the same logical gymnastics in our heads, that it is okey to kill insects, animals and etc for our survival and benefit, why dont we expect the same from the creatures who are much more advanced than us? They might not hate us or something like that, they are just so much more advanced that they could "care-less" and just go with their own existence/life. There is a vast difference between the human versus insect and evolved being versus human, but the metaphor can be used to some extent to create a parable, the way you did. However, the human is in ways an "off-spring" of the Originator, it is a good way of seeing it like that, so the relationship is tighter than that of the human versus insect. All that translation about son and father and such in the Gospel testimonies are not so badly formulated, Jesus might have spoken this way, but his utterances were put in the wrong aspect by later interpreters as he did not imply he was the only "son of God" but in other phrases he said that "if you do like me you will become children of the father", it conflicts with Christian belief who take him for an only son, it appears Christian scholars ignore his statements, like cherry-picking. But is "GOD", or Elahem, any kind "father"? I can look at it as the harshest father I could ever conceive in my mind, letting the children run through fire and hell before becoming mature (if they become mature at all). But does the Originator care? They appear to be elitist and do only seem to care about subjects that show potential, but once they care they actually do seem to care to an unusually large extent to be from them, but they will not "spoil the test" and let the progressing subject get through on their own. The input I have received from them has proven that they do actually respond to subjects that show clear progression, but it appears they do not guide but they reaffirm the subject's progression to him/her. After what I have experienced I am appreciative of the little I have received in ways of signs. They did actually speak to me directly at one point of my life, although this was not before I had made substantial progress on my own. In that they do not really help people through guidance but they respond to when subjects guide themselves. What the above does show is that Elahem do actually care about the human spirit, but they appear to treat undeveloped beings like the insects in the parable. An insect on the other hand does not hold any attached spirit, or mind, to it and this is a vast difference between human and insect. It does give the human an edge in what it can do. And, as I started, the human mind is in the image of Elahem and from a pure spirit-view, the soul is not much different from Elahem except that it is undeveloped. What causes the difference between evolved beings and human Earth-biased minds is that the body gives the human a huge handicap, plus its undeveloped state, and it must evolve while it is in this condition. But your comparison is fine, it does seem they "care-less" about the majority. Do you know why? It seems the way reality have its rules, are so that in order to survive one needs to do things even if one does not agree with them, maybe good vs evil is invention? This topic I have dealt with on this forum before and the conclusion is that the term "good vs evil" indeed is an invention. However I have confirmed that logic is the guideline to live by and what humans usually call evil is often illogical in the context. The Arabic language is "smarter" in that sense because when you speak about someone doing something evil you say that "you do darkness" i.e. you do not know what you are doing, usually by some external factor, e.g. the body's influence. So by that language it is when you have no smart reason for what you do and you have no control and do some senseless thing, then you do what people who use the word evil want to convey. "Evil" by the point of view of Elahem means when there is no constructive or logical reason behind your action i.e. your action is mindless (and dumb). Labelling something evil may be based on an opinion and it can be an opinion based on ignorance. Because I do not want to be political I will refrain from an example from real-life that I could use, but we have a different one. An example of a moral dilemma is this; imagine that you have a boat and you see another boat sinking and you come to the rescue, but your boat does not have the capacity to hold everyone onboard. Who do you save? No matter what you do you will be "evil" towards some people in the sea. Will you leave everyone in the water because it is fairest to everyone or will you begin to select which people to save? The answer may seem like a no-question but it is worth reflecting upon. I am sure that some people may pick up too many people and sink the own boat, rescuing no one and killing the own crew. This parable can be applied to the politics that I did not want to relate to here, the parable was instead of referring to real life. The point above is that the obsessed search for humans to be good may cause them to be evil by their own definition, and the goodness can even be their downfall. This obsession is due to an illogical belief in the sense of goodness versus evilness. Another delusion that humans have is that humans are of equal worth, but humans are by no means of equal worth, from the point of view of Elahem people of higher development are worth more than those of inferior development. Now I am a horrible human for saying this according to many humans and activists on Earth would condemn me for saying it. My point is that humans have created a perception of goodness which is false and is just a human invention. Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you" and in that sense he was right, he did implicitly hint to that no matter efforts there will always be poor people and being activists for humanity is just going to be a huge time sink, there is no way you can overcome the dark powers of Earth. My point is not that you cannot care about your neighbor but your quest cannot be to save the Earth because there is nothing in it that you can save. The best you can do is to aim your efforts towards the perceptive people who can understand what you can teach. Everyone who cannot understand what you know are inferior people and the inferior people are the grand majority of people on Earth. You see that my condescending words are quite comparable to how humans may look at the insects that are just annoying bugs spinning around the head making their buzzing sound. This is the way Elahem look at humans without development too. Am I evil because I am saying this out loud? Per human opinion I may mention detestable things, but is it really logical to care about people who show no potential and most importantly do not want to learn? If I was instinctive and had my quest I might have wanted to get people to learn by force or threats, but that is absolutely not what I do. I will not threaten people by eternal hell or annihilation if they do not obey me, I have no hurt pride if I awaken only a handful of people through my entire lifetime. When people calling themselves prophets want to dominate people in order to make them follow "the right path" they are clearly false prophets. Do you know what I do? I utterly ignore people lacking development but focus on those who show potential by fishing for them writing things on the forum like this. You understand why Jesus said that he would make the disciples "fishers of men" now? You do spread the word all around you just like a bait and if someone is interested you respond by pulling the line in, and no futile attempts to convert people by endless efforts towards the crowds through persuasion, it will not work on them. If people want to argue you by illogical and ignorant statements you assess the success rate and choose wisely whether to withdraw or attempt to continue conversation with well-aimed arguments that may undermine their belief system and give them some "heads-up". Remember that sometimes you have penetrated their shields even if they attack offensively at the time but your words may have planted themselves inside the person like an antidote which starts to change them and purge them from their disease, the effect is better if you were controlled at the time of the encounter. People might say all kinds of things about God and how bad life is on earth, but do you know what the other creatures on earth might be thinking about humans? The other creature are no beings and cannot think about humans the way humans do. Each animal on Earth is entirely automated except the human which is semi-automated depending on the development of the attached soul. Any other animal will always respond via the instinct whereas a human may have a choice. It was just the Homo sapiens species that received the "seed of life". Do you know how many animals were killed by humans in USA alone since the beginning of this year only? , and see for yourself all the insightful info, about how of a talented serial killer, humanity is. What I am trying to say is that our "human" morality is pretty hypocritical. We talk about good and evil, but look what we do to other creatures on earth. Animals kill each other to survive as well, the human body Homo sapiens is another animal as well. What makes the human animal dangerous is the deluded attached soul. What I am trying to say is that our "human" morality is pretty hypocritical. We talk about good and evil, but look what we do to other creatures on earth. Doing exactly like the instinct says is not about good or evil, it is natural according to the body of the species. In "reality" we are in, one creature needs to kill and consume another creature to survive a bit longer. Do you agree that this is beautiful? Have you asked yourself, why was reality designed in this specific way? What if reality was always like that? It is a scary thought isnt it? But dont you think if we would like to gain deeper understanding of reality we need to drop our feelings and start thinking without any bias from our side? I ask the question, what is there for us-humanity, for me. I bet that insect in my room asked the same question, doing its best to survive, having no questions as to why it exist. But there is still something inside of us(humans), that dont let us feel content with "not-knowing/understanding" isnt it? So many philosophers before, tried to understand too, but seems like they couldnt fully understand, what were they missing? The Earth is innately "evil" or consumptive in origin, logic is pretty clear on that. Did you know that one *dominates* the animal in order to satisfy one's needs? Many people are hunters in the wild as a kind of entertainment which gives satisfaction, and this is clearly instinctive. On the other hand, from a purely logical point of view the body is designed to eat meat, it is difficult to obtain all the required vitamins and minerals allover the Earth unless you eat meat, because the human body is an omnivore. Thanks to technology we can become 100% healthy herbivores but it is not natural. My wife is vegan while I am still consuming a limited amount of meat. Am I a bad person for eating meat? No I am not, because I am not indulgent, and eating meat is as natural as eating at all, we still need to consume something, and meat is nutritious requiring small amounts, but I do acknowledge the crazy bad treatment of cattle and fowls and this is a reason I eat it only sometimes. Your question of why reality was created this way does have an an answer, even if philosophers have been at it for millennia. What the philosophers were missing was the background to our existence and the expected results of the creators. Obviously the Earth was created intentionally to be very cruel in order to create difficulty to believe in any supernatural beings beyond the world, it is a mental test, a test of intelligence and logic. Have you never heard from atheists the argument that "why is the Earth like this if there is a benevolent god?"? You obviously see that their thinking stops them there by drawing conclusions that there is no god because the world looks the way it does. Indirectly they cannot fathom there to be a creator because that a god cannot be evil and so their conclusion is that there is no god. Their logic is flawed because of reasons I mentioned in earlier posts in this thread, as they refrain from reasoning anymore on the subject and reach the wrong conclusion. Most of them will echo this stance like parrots until death releases the spirit from the body, because they are so stubbornly certain their opinion is right without any intention to ever question what they believe. Many people may not believe in the supernatural because they (Elahem) do not manifest themselves on Earth clearly, but they do actually have all the evidence all around them in whatever they can behold. Their logic is flawed because they settle at the easiest possible explanations and do not try to dig deeper through logic. But the answer to your question is that Elahem did make the Earth the way it looks, like a miserable place, just in order for it to appear like somewhere you do not want to be and make people reflect. Imagine if the Earth was like a paradise, no diseases and dangerous animals, and the human had very strong instincts not to kill anything, be overly benevolent, kind, it would be counterproductive as it would seem like the human is meant to enjoy the stay there. But you can clearly see that Elahem made sure that few can enjoy themselves on Earth unless they deceive themselves, it is a sign in itself to understand the Earth is by no way a paradise to enjoy. One must be a deluded masochist in order to enjoy Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 23, 2021 19:01:45 GMT
Yes if there is indeed reincarnation, it would be interesting if it was so that a racist for example would be born as a person of african descent. Who one is reborn as is completely out of one's control. There has to be some sort of system of how everyone will reincarnate. The concept of "karma" is probably true. It might also explain why some people are born in such a predicament. In the cultures where there is a firm belief in the karma system people often look down on people with low karma and this is a big trap for them, you remember the sinner versus pious person example I mentioned before right? Did you notice, how Consciousness "role-plays"? How people hold onto their "sand-castle" identities which are directly connected to their current bodily shape? How for a Mind which is connected to a male body it is of outmost importance to be "male" like, and same for women? It is correct. However the behavior is also connected to the gender of the body via the instinct as there can be no denial of biological reactions. It does not say you have to be "male-like", but it is also unnatural to play "woman-like" if you are in a male body, then it becomes just ridiculous as it is vain, although the goal should be to disconnect the instinctive influence on your thinking. But this can all become a political debate I am not interested in. Women have something to learn from men and men have something to learn from women, the ideology to let either sex dominate the other and think they are better is deluded thinking and only leads to more animosity in the world, but like I wrote this may only invite for a more contemporary political discussion that we should just evade. I dislike Political Correctness (PC) very much though, this thing really eats up mankind from inside out, especially when the opinions forming the PC are based on insanity. That there are genders with different attributes is just another test. There is a alleged saying of Jesus from Gospel of Thomas, which in my understanding, ask the question: "When you see your image in the mirror/photo you rejoice, but when you will see all your past forms/images of existence(reincarnation), how hard would it be to bear!. (84) Jesus says: (1) “When you see your likeness you are full of joy. (2) But when you see your likenesses that came into existence before you — they neither die nor become manifest — how much will you bear?” This is my understanding, however I might be bias. The available translations of what Jesus said often suffer from very poor interpretations. I have worked on trying to make sense of Gospels (Injeel/Evangelicum) before and applied common misconceptions of the Semitic languages to improve renditions based on logical deduction and found passages that may indicate speaking about reincarnation with quite a high probability. The book you started talking about in your first post does absolutely refer to reincarnation.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 23, 2021 19:06:39 GMT
But what if one does something that might be not be meaningful and thus is not for a future purpose. But it is done to have fun right at this moment, would it not be valuable for the person? Are things valuable only if they are meaningful or if they are meant to last forever? These are good questions Also would an immortal existence be more of a gift or a curse if one would not be happy with their existence? The experiences in our lives do have an impact on our true selves, the minds, and if you have true contentment in a way which does stimulate the mind then it is developmental, hence valuable. For a person understanding the truth, an immortal corporeal existence on Earth would be a nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 23, 2021 19:08:44 GMT
However, I think there can be a universal "law" for the lack of a better term and that is things should be that they benefit others as well, for the benefit and wellbeing of all. If everyone thought like this, the world be different isnt it so? Absolutely. The Earth would not need to look the way it does if people were elevated beings all of them. This is why barely anyone will ever become an elevated being as well.
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 25, 2021 3:51:35 GMT
Yes talking about politics might not be wise, the wisest would be to think about what is most important. People go crazy about politics and different ideologies. When the most sane thing would be to think about the well being of everyone. When one leaves out some other people, then it is the "devil´s" playground. We know how much evil was done in the name of "greater" good isn't it? When in the name of ones own people/nation`s benefit, one thought one can do painful things to other?
If we look at history, do we know what happened to those who were against pain, aggression, injustice? What did this world do them, welcome with open arms, or try to destroy them?
It seems like in this world, power takes what it wants through sheer force. People want a savior, a genius plan to transform the world, but if I-people ONLY followed the 10 Commandments, the world would be much different.
Of course, God is all powerful, and we could have been created in such way that we couldn't commit any aggression/injustice to others, for example one would feel unimaginable physical pain if one does pain to others, etc. Just like how humans cannot teleport. That I acknowledge.
I too eat meat(just ate today), however I do see that I am being a hypocrite. Would a human want another creature kill its friends and then eat them? Of course no. But we still do this to other creatures.
And the main issue is our selfishness, when situations arise where we need to choose to do "wrong" things in order to benefit ourselves, we choose to do this. And our defence is that "we had no other choice". THIS IS A LIE!
We have a choice! The choice is to NOT do things which are unjust towards others, even if this world "forces" us to this, for our own preservation.
Even if we are communicating to each other, in a friendly and respectful manner, and I have no ill towards you, I acknowledge the positive side`s of yours, I need to ask you this:
Imagine, the higher power, says that only one of us can make it to the "next" level, however, we are two left, and now they say to us that the one who submits the other with its mental/being`s power, get to the next level, while the other one goes to reincarnate again in earth. Would you choose to do this? I will tell you Immanuel, I am not certain if I would agree to submit another to save my own self, and I am not saying this to give some "noble" impression to you but I am just tired, tired of betraying my own Being`s standards/ideals for the rules of the world, tired of a world where the world has me by my hair and tells me to obey its rules and if I dont agree with the terms it blackmails me with punishment, fear and death.
And who knows if this world is a contradiction or a reflection of a world "above" ours?
I finally deeply understand what Jesus meant that one cannot serve two kings, because if one would like the one, one would dislike the other. I think when one learns about/understands a higher-ideal one cannot fool oneself no longer, this higher-ideal which seems like "foolishness/naivity" to this world, but this is the fault of this world, because people are blinded by fear, hatred and greed.
I think EVEN IF the world "above" us works by the same rules as our world, where power dictates everything and the strong dominate the weak. I still think the most right thing to do would be to still aim at the highest ideals, even if there is no higher power to please and gain fondness of.
|
|
|
Post by . on Jan 25, 2021 3:57:19 GMT
Its not everyday that one can hear that someone spoke with Elohim ,if you would like to, could you tell what was it like?
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 25, 2021 20:59:30 GMT
I too eat meat(just ate today), however I do see that I am being a hypocrite. Would a human want another creature kill its friends and then eat them? Of course no. But we still do this to other creatures. Various animals kill prey though as part of their life cycles on Earth, it is not a particularly strange thing except that it is consumptive in origin but it would be consumptive to eat vegetables too. The question of eat or not eat meat is not as essential as one might think, a human is designed to eat meat by nature because without artificial dietary supplements the human body does not get along well without meat. It is a disgusting sensation to be part of a primitive being that requires to consume things but there is not much to do about it right now, and you will not be punished for eating meat I can assure you. However, we need a very small portion of meat to get along, it is wise to let the diet consist of mostly greens, beans is a good replacement of the protein from meat. Most people in the Western world eat too much meat. Without being politically favorizing I tell that the middle-way is somewhere close to vegan but with a small consumption of meat in order to not lack some of the required nutrients, unless you replace them with artificial dietary supplements. It is however completely natural to eat meat. And the main issue is our selfishness, when situations arise where we need to choose to do "wrong" things in order to benefit ourselves, we choose to do this. And our defence is that "we had no other choice". THIS IS A LIE! When you could not make dietary supplements it was very hard to acquire some nutrients required for a healthy human diet, killing an animal is not about selfishness but mere survival, but if conscience is a problem it might help to go fishing as some people feel it is less wrong when they kill and eat fish as they seem very primitive "consciously". Jesus did help Peter catch a lot of fish and this did not appear to be a moral issue or would Jesus invite immorality? Many contemporary people make such a big deal, even political movements, about this thing of "animal rights", but they miss the point that humans require small doses of meat for a healthy diet by nature. Believe if people 2000 years ago began to argue with Jesus that he let Peter catch a lot of fish in his net. Animals are not persons per se, as I mentioned already, they are part of the natural cycle of the Earth. We can have respect for those creatures but we should not make such a big issue over something part of the human required activity by nature. Like I wrote above, if conscience is a trouble fish might be the solution. Anyways, there is no more to discuss on that topic. If you feel disgusted eating meat I understand you because it is primitive. I feel disgusted by the whole thing about being human in a body.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 25, 2021 21:28:38 GMT
Imagine, the higher power, says that only one of us can make it to the "next" level, however, we are two left, and now they say to us that the one who submits the other with its mental/being`s power, get to the next level, while the other one goes to reincarnate again in earth. Would you choose to do this? I will tell you Immanuel, I am not certain if I would agree to submit another to save my own self, and I am not saying this to give some "noble" impression to you but I am just tired, tired of betraying my own Being`s standards/ideals for the rules of the world, tired of a world where the world has me by my hair and tells me to obey its rules and if I dont agree with the terms it blackmails me with punishment, fear and death. It is a difficult direct hypothetical question, which in practice does not work this way when it comes to qualification to joining the circle of Elahem, but I acknowledge the moral dilemma presented. I am terribly tired of living on Earth, each day is a pain to me and maybe I would stand my ground to prove the power of my mind if required, but I may also get mad at Elahem and stage a rebellion for the ultimatum which I am afraid I would lose, and I am glad it fortunately does not work this way in reality. There is no maximum number of slots available for ascension but the degree of evolution is the criteria and they take as many as who qualify, but the qualification threshold is unknown and I even suspect they choose who joins depending on who they like as in what impression the subjects make on them like on a jury. They can obviously sense your conscious mind at all times and gauge its unique power. Like I wrote before, what they appreciate is individuality and independence but also tenacity. Answer is I do not know what I would do in the hypothetical situation. There are indications that my mind's power is held in high esteem within the community based on my earlier communique which took place about 7 years ago, the choice of words indicated that. They are however unpleased by some aspects or were at that time. The main test they imposed on me I passed back then, they tried to trick me into traditional deity worship which I did not fall for and they did eventually tell congratulations to me saying that I "passed the test". Many people would probably fall when commanded by a supernatural "voice" to worship which I refused to believe that they did command me to. I told that "I will not worship". I have always had issues with believing just about anything people told me, even people who are held in high esteem by the society, and always used my logic first of all.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 25, 2021 22:07:59 GMT
The World (Earth) is created as an illusion with contradictory features, but it contains metaphorical features too such that you drop a seed in the soil and it grows, whereas the human spirit seed is also planted in a body of something to grow, and the weeds must be kept away, weeds that symbolize something like the instincts for us. Jesus pulled off a parable like this once.
The parable of the mustard tree seed was also good of him, that very tiny little vulnerable seed becomes a very wide branched tree with lot of protection of its stem and root system if it survives being a sapling which is when they are most vulnerable. Obviously few understand exactly why he used the parable.
Another similitude, not directly related but still contextual, is that just like muscles grow from strain on them the mind grows from overcoming strain on it as well. It is the reason why we were put in this environment like this to begin with. If we knew too much the strain on the mind would be less.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Jan 25, 2021 22:42:18 GMT
Interesting point you brought up about power dictates in the world beyond ours. Yes there is a hierarchy depending on mental power output capacity, but these beings lack an instinctive motivation. Mental power is not static and can grow over time.
The above is a reason why it is deluded to believe every person is equal because the whole world, even the part beyond ours, does not work that way. You can get rid of that idea right away if you can accept the fact.
But the reason why they have standards is to not bring impurity and weakness into the ranks of Elahem, they do not seek people who do not get along with others. Our test part of the 'care about your neighbor like yourself' is obviously about how well we can work in a community regardless of how powerful we are, for as you have seen we easily have a tendency to use our power if we have it, our body does reinforce the behavior on a primitive level, but I suppose our mind can seek to take advantage of power itself too.
It was Jesus personal second favorite the 'care about your neighbor as yourself' too, it truly shows its importance. It may be that it is important for an elevated being as well even if no body does exert power on them. Remember that the body's instinct is power exerted by Elahem in order to test you, but you can have a conscious will of your own.
The trouble of gaining power is starting to look down on others because you can observe how inferior they are. But once you start to look down on others you show your own flaws, so one must have patience with with those inferior without being arrogant.
My point is that once free from the body and instinct you still posses the ability of complex thoughts and you can make flawed thoughts. You need much patience with others just like those above you have patience with you, it is a long chain of beings of varying mental power levels. That is why getting along with others, your neighbors, is a so important factor, even if it is so hard because they are so "lowly and dumb" in your assessment of them.
The above is a reason why Jesus made another complement to the rule which read "care also for the antagonist", because it is a better societal defusing when others start to heat up, if you seek to understand everyone even hostile people at all times.
|
|