The Latest Shenanigans of Benjamin Creme, the so-called “prophet of Maitreya”
Creme, according to Share International, being overshadowed (possessed) by Maitreya. Spooky stuff.
I spend way too much time on the web, endlessly reading and searching. It was no different today: for the better part of the afternoon I was preoccupied with chasing down Creme and his latest Maitreya “revelation.” Usually, these extended sessions end with me closing up the tabs in my browser and forcing myself to concentrate on something more productive. Before I do that this time, however, I decided to at least post an FYI.
It started with this post at Red Ice Creations, having the enticing headline: “Maitreya steps forward! The Norway Spiral (Star Sign) Heralds ‘New Age Messiah’”. Typically, Creme took advantage of the Norway spiral as a sign heralding the “imminent” appearance of his long-touted World Teacher/Messiah.
Creme has been claiming, since at least 1982, that this Maitreya would soon appear on American television and announce that he was the long awaited Messiah, in a spectacular performance dubbed the “Day of Declaration.”
On Jan. 10th of this year Creme claimed that Maitreya had finally been interviewed on television for the first time; however, it was not exactly a “declaration” per se.
The press release, announcing this, includes the following:
Share International Foundation announces that Maitreya, the World Teacher, has given His first interview on American television. Millions have heard Him speak both on TV and the internet. His open mission has begun.
He was introduced not as Maitreya, the World Teacher and Head of our Spiritual Hierarchy, but simply as a man, one of us. In this way He “ensures that men follow and support Him for the truth and sanity of His ideas rather than for His status.”
He spoke earnestly of the need for peace, achievable only through the creation of justice and the sharing of the world’s resources.
This is the first of many such interviews which will be given in the USA, Japan, Europe and elsewhere, bringing His message of hope to the world.
A sucker for punishment, naturally I started speculating as to what American show Creme could have been alluding to. At first I immediately thought that Oprah Winfrey would be a good bet, but nothing I found on her recent guests in Jan. or Dec. 2009 seemed to fit the bill. Then I came across others on the net who were indulging in the same time-wasting excursion.
Some guy named Raj Patel, it seems, was making the rounds as a likely candidate. So much so, that Patel recently responded on his blog about it.
Creme is a marginalized figure even amongst his fellow New Age devotees; most likely because of his insistence upon an imminent appearance of a self-proclaimed Messiah. In many ways, Theosophy as whole has suffered the same fate. It’s not the late 1800s - or even the 1960s or ’70s or ’80s - anymore. Nowadays, with a claim that spectacular, if anything, the internet would have him for breakfast! “Prove it, Punk!” would likely be the standard refrain.
Now, I fully realize that Maitreya fits certain biblical descriptions of the Antichrist, everyone familiar with both subjects recognizes this - Creme et al. included. Further, it is a legitimate area of investigation, in whatever manner you wish to approach it. But Creme has long proven himself a joke. He’s getting old too and there’s very limited time left to fleece his meager, credulous flock.
Creme was always at the outskirts of the Theosophical crowd, and hardly achieved anything of importance. For example, in his monumental work on the New Age, False Dawn, Lee Penn spends a total of a paragraph and a half (and two footnotes) discussing Benjamin Creme and his Share International (pp. 314, 418, 462) - as basic an outline as possible. Likewise, esoteric scholar Wouter J. Hanegraaff, in his New Age Religion and Western Culture, devotes but one sentence on Creme (p. 101).
So, with that, I’d rather just close with an excerpt from a cleverly written article I came across by Ron Rosenbaum of The New York Observer:
Long John is long gone, but Coast to Coast AM is there to keep you in touch with the night side of the culture that Long John first gave national voice to. You can still find that special undying brand of weirdness there. Updated, yes, and sometimes with the same kind of conspiracy theory you can find all over the Web, but still with room for iconic occult curiosities like Benjamin Creme, who appeared at 2 a.m. on a recent show.
You know of Benjamin Creme, right, and his relation to Jesus, and you know about Benjamin Creme’s prophetic function in regard to the coming of the Super Fifth Degree Master and Teacher, the great and mighty all-powerful Maitreya, who outranks Jesus himself, right?
Well, don’t feel bad if you don’t. To recognize the name Benjamin Creme, you probably have to be, as I am, an assiduous student of New Age rhetoric and literature (I believe in what Stephen Greenblatt first called a “poetics of culture” before it was renamed and mass-marketed to grad students as “the New Historicism”). Anyway, while following New Age trends and obsessions, I noticed that Benjamin Creme was always a little on the fringes of the New Age guru circuit, but the guy seemed to have staying power.
He always seemed to turn up in the New Age lecture calendars, a distinguished-looking gentleman who had something to say about the Second Coming of the Christ. I recall something about Jesus having already come back, that he was living quietly in London, awaiting recognition. I somehow had the impression—mistaken, I now realize—that he was implicitly suggesting that he was Jesus (he lived in London). But I guess it was more a matter of him having inside info on the London Christ’s plans for revealing himself.
It gets confusing, and I could be wrong, but after listening to his appearance on Coast to Coast AM recently, I got the impression that Benjamin Creme’s emphasis has shifted from Jesus to an entity called Maitreya, who outranks Jesus in the Ascended Master hierarchy. Benjamin Creme is apparently in “telepathic contact” with one of the Fourth Degree Masters and in sporadic contact with the Master of All Masters, this dude Maitreya, who’s planning to reveal himself and set us all straight so that all humanity will start caring and sharing like the great big family we all are. About time.
I have to admit that listening to Benjamin Creme being interviewed by George Noory on Coast to Coast AM was a little frustrating. (Mr. Noory said that after Mr. Creme’s last appearance, a number of listeners called in to say they’d become physically ill afterward because they felt something coming through the radio. And there was some discussion of whether or not Maitreya might be the Antichrist).
Mr. Creme was somewhat evasive about who the hell this Maitreya might be, what his deal is, why he doesn’t manifest himself already aside from sporadic appearances in other people’s bodies, like that time in Nairobi. (Mr. Creme’s Web site, in case you want to try to figure it out, is www.shareintl.org.)
There was some dialogue on whether Maitreya had “suspended” his visits. Or whether he was coming “very soon,” and also what exactly he was coming for and why he was waiting. I mean, if we need help from a Teacher to get us caring and sharing, couldn’t he have shown up in, say, 1914?
So there was a bit of vagueness, and I could see maybe this was the way Benjamin Creme had become such a perennial icon on the guru circuit for so long: He wasn’t giving a lot away. And as long as he just brings news of Maitreya’s imminent arrival but the Big Guy never shows up, Benjamin Creme is still The Man.
But it just makes you wonder: What would it be like to be Benjamin Creme? It’s the old deception versus self-deception thing. You gotta admire the guy’s persistence, but out on the road, in the quiet of his Comfort Inn, does he feel like the Willy Loman of the guru circuit?
Tags: Benjamin Creme, Maitreya, Terry Melanson, Videos
PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:16 am
Who what where when is this alleged Maitreya going to be?
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Terry,
Very good post. I have been having the same thoughts.
I am pretty sure this is all some kind of mind game.
When everyone that ever hears of this guy has the knee jerk reaction of him being the antichrist you can be reasonably sure its not the real antichrist…fake one maby…I can think of a lot of reasons why a fake antichrist before the real one would serve this agenda, but yeah the real AC wont come out of the gates saying “Im here and Im Jesus” he will actually be ruling for some time before he goes there (although I think the text says he will claim to be “above God and everything that is called God”, and so therefore that would mean he wont claim to be Jesus either, but I digress)
I agree Share international has put itself in a “Prove it, Punk!” position it should be interesting what they do next.
Chris
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:02 pm
what’s a maitrey, who the hell is benjamin creme,why should i care?in fact how the hell did i get on this website and where’s my diner?
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Chris,
Basically Creme’s whole shtick since the late 1970s has been a series of questions and answers between him and the supposed entity he chose to call Maitreya. It’s the vehicle for a hodge-podge doctrine comprised of elements from classic Space Brother channelings, Theosophy, Lucis Trust and Bailey. In the end, who is doing the communicating is irrelevant to the actual content of the message.
Revisiting his 1980 book, The Reappearance of the Christ, which I’ve been skimming over again after I posted this yesterday, I’m struck by how well-read he was in his prime. He soaked up the entire gamut of the occult/paranormal underground and regurgitated it on command for his audience. Politics and the occult and metaphysics and ufos, secret societies and some ancient mysteries and socialism thrown in for good measure. In one question and answer dated 14/12/1978, for example, Karl Marx is called a spiritual being and a member of the so-called Hierarchy! Which would mean, in theosophic lingo, that Marx was an ascended master, implying that he was then equal to both Jesus and Maitreya.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:10 am
The savior will not come from outside of us, but he is found within………..
No need to follow any gurus or prophets, you need only follow your heart………
February 4th, 2010 at 10:57 am
I think you’re right Terry. Crème is no longer the unholy terror Constance Cumbery warned us of all those years ago. Thanks for the update. He had been off radar for sometime.
It’s amazing really, just scratch the surface of a powerful political figure and you’ll frequently find their New Age Guru. I decided to read up on left leaning, media mogul Arianna Huffington and quickly found she’s strongly influenced by this guy… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Delano_Hinkins
It’s funny, follow the links in the wikipedia articles and you’ll quickly see the wide reaching web of influence that exits between one New Age cult and the next. They seem to being swiping each others teachings all the time and then suing over it.
The political left present their rightist opponents as having cornered the market on religious extremism, and yet they are just as guilty. They simply pull the wool over the public’s eyes by denying that their New Age movements actually count as religions.
I wonder how many of these channeling weirdos are actually possessed and how many are just running an elaborate scam.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
I don’t want to support another man as a “savior”- I don’t want to look to lanybody else to save me. Where are the women saviors, anyway? Why don’t the ptb bring them out anyway?
Anyway, these “saviors” have had their chance for lthousands of years, and they’vfe all screwed up the world, even more.
It all started in “official “history” with the Cultural separatists Brahma, and just look at the screw up of the castes in India - Hindus still still observe the caste system. Then Akhenaten (or was it Moses?)- then Paulist / saul christianity, and then Mo / Gabriel/Allah ( or whatever It was.
Just as we thought it was safe to go back in the water, along comes another slime “savior.”
And, People, after all we know, and experienced, if we still fall for this idiot, then, we’ll deserve to be called sheeple.
And tptb will rotfl!
February 4th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Bonnie - There have been many female pseudo-messianic figures: The Saint Simonians searched for a female savior, the Theosophists had Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey and Annie Besant, the New Agers produced Elizabeth Prophet and of course the most popular female, false messianic figure of all invades our homes 5 times a week; Oprah!
February 4th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
It can’t be Creme or his cronies, since the Second Coming has occured and it’s posted on youtube. This dude is the Messiah (lol):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsWIFUEtAik
February 5th, 2010 at 7:01 am
Hi This is rubbish the only person who channel Maitreya is Margaret McElroy. Maitreya says he will never come back in body to the earth plain as his vibrations are too high to return. He also says he channels through Margaret. So I don’t know who this other person is supposed to be but it certainly is’nt Maitreya.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“This is rubbish the only person who channel Maitreya is Margaret McElroy.”
I wonder just who she is a “channel” for?
The Maitreya posts allegedly channelled reflected to confirm other so called channelled works. …read them!
As for criticism that’s all ready been covered in a channel …….. as is betrayal and using people …. if you can read between the lines. (
However I have to agree much of what is channelled I do agree with ………much I do not.
However if your going to deceive only 99 % needs to be the truth to hide the deception so subtle can that deceit be.
“. He also says he channels through Margaret. So I don’t know who this other person is supposed to be but it certainly is’nt Maitreya.”
He channels through Margaret? Who says so ? Oh that’s right it’s Margaret…….isn’t it?
Bentov if only peeps understood the reality of what you tried to say…..and you probably got it wrong too but you had many keys………..SIR!
Who is channeling who?
February 5th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Wow, who would have thought a post on a guy who claims to channel spirit beings would turn out to be such a lighting rod of contention for weirdos. Says me, the guy entertains the idea that vampires might be really real.
PS: Jay, the youtube messiah looks exactly like friend of mine from high school, except on steroids. I’m probably throwing bricks in a glass house, but still I gotta say it; the problem with the internet is it provides a voice to just about any nut job with a modem! Funny find though.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Ross, the nuts need somewhere to hang out. Besides, I’m out of my glass house as I smashed all the windows.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Those we are serious in selfrealization and want a real guru and not a cheat should read Bhagavad Gita As it is from Srila Prabhupada. Otherwise not understanding first the real purpose of life, you will only get an entertainment guru. Srila Prabhupada His life and teachings were the same, unfortunately after his leaving his body plenty of cheating gurus were ready to take his place. Yust by reading his books you are initiated and your spiritual life has started and then by chanting the Hare Krishna mantra everything will be realized. Please read any book of Srila Prabhupada and everything will become clear.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
All false Profits will perish…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeKgBhDLnsQ
Read the Holy Science
Govindam Adi Purushama Tam Aham Bhajami…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HCYFS6UiWs
February 10th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Why can’t you say that you don’t know if Creme’s information is correct? Obviously you don’t believe his information and that’s fine. It looks very foolish to see people spouting their assumptions, all of which are based on vain imaginings and hearsay, rather than truth.
The excerpt from Ron Rosenbaum’s piece makes it very clear that he, along with Scott James of The New York Times also made lots of assumptions. For example, Creme has never said that Jesus resided in London. He has always said that Jesus is in Rome. Scott James wrote that Creme’s followers call him “the Master” -which is simply not true.
Writers do a disservice to their readers when they are too lazy to dig for the truth, and make it up as they go along. It would be far better for them and their readers if they said that they don’t believe Creme, but ultimately they don’t know.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
This planet is on the verge of disaster, most of humanity is starving, and the only hope is for drastic change. I’m guessing that most of the replies on this blog are from humans who are quite comfortable in their selfish existence and who wouldn’t know anything about hunger or poverty. You are people who turn the channel to something more immediately gratifying whenever you see the devastation and despair of your fellow men whose bodies are racked by diseases which are easily treated with proper nutrients and basic medicines. You are God-fearing Christians who wouldn’t recognize Jesus if you bumped into Him on the street on your way to satisfy part of your tiny little plans in your tiny little lives. God has a bigger plan and it is a plan for all of humanity, not just a tiny fraction of self-serving, self-righteous, holier-than-thou hypocrites who cling to their material wealth. I’m guessing that very few of you have read any of Blavatsky, or Bailey, or any of the other Theosophical authors who had the courage to stand up to the moral majority of the Christian world and suggest that there may be other, more reasonable interpretations of truth and God’s relationship with man. I’ll bet if you weren’t so comfortable you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the possibility that maybe, like 2,000 years ago, God has sent a representative to stimulate our social evolution. Maybe, just maybe, this individual known as Maitreya will actually emerge and follow through with the grandiose claims made by Benjamin Creme. The argument that it has taken too long is ridiculous when considering the cosmic significance of such an emergence. 1,000 years is like nothing on a cosmic calendar, so 30 years is like the blink of an eye. And it’s been 30 years that Mr. Creme has devoted to this cause. Jesus was crucified by the likes of you people the last time He was here. Don’t make the same mistake with Maitreya.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Hear Hear Tom McCarter VERY WELL SAID-
though I too am alas probably very similar in many ways to those who you say “wouldn’t recognize Jesus if you bumped into Him on the street on your way to satisfy part of your tiny little plans in your tiny little lives”… But at least I am not completely closed minded to the words of Mr Creme.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
At the end of the day
what’s important is that you yourself
are the only master of your own life
and should constantly strive to be
psychologically free, from your own poverty,
and from the authority and dictates of all gurus,
and from every religion, especially masters etc.
We are all representatives of this one life.
It requires a great passion to live by and feel it,
with honesty, compassion, humour and sincerity.
Watch, listen and learn.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
It’s funny how this article was essentially about the waning popularity of Creme as a mover and shaker within the New Age movement but it would seem that even if his followers are few they are more die hard than Far Scape fans and Grateful Dead-Heads combined! For those who know their heavy metal music, Creme is kinda like Manowar! A small following but a rabid one nonetheless.
Tom, why are you slamming Christians? I don’t see any posts here that leap out as specifically Christians (except perhaps Chris White’s, though his isn’t particularly vitriolic or ‘in your face’ about anything, he simply says he doesn’t believe Creme is the Anti-Christ) Many of the posters here seem to be New Agers, not Christians. True numerous people on this post have said they doubt the veracity of Creme’s channeling, but no one specified that it was, necessarily, for Christian reasons. Of course I’m being slightly duplicitous, because I am in fact a Christian, but, nonetheless, my point still stands as I made no mention of that in any of my above posts.
Additionally, nice painting with a broad brush by accusing all Christians who disagree with Blavatsky and co of being self-serving hypocrites. Many of us who disagree with teachings of Blavatsky, etc do so for the very reason that we are quite familiar with their content. For example, speaking from a philosophical position, I do not believe pantheism, naturalism or any purely immanent form of theology, as postulated by Blavatsky, can serve as a reasonable basis for objective moral standards. Secondly, I believe the concordance of opposites philosophy devalues the difference between good and evil and thirdly I believe the impersonal Monadic deity of the New Age undermines the value of the human person as an individual. This doesn’t mean that I think all New Agers are evil people or idiots. It simply means I don’t agree with them as they don’t agree with me. If we are to try and win one another over it must be through reason arguments not through insulting, sweeping generalizations… (God, I’m a condescending prat.)
February 12th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
“…more die hard than Far Scape fans and Grateful Dead-Heads combined!”
Alice Bailey fans are the most zealous. If I would have wrote anything not totally supportive of her and her message, or the veracity thereof, hell and fury would’ve descended upon the comment section.
February 12th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
SO TELL ME:
WHAT IS YOUR ANTI CHRIST ?
WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN ?
DOES READING ALICE BAILEY FEED THE HUNGRY ?
DOES YOUR GOD EVEN EXIST ?
I THINK I’VE INVITED HELL AND FURY UPON THE COMMENT SECTION
February 12th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
The whole point of religion was to help free yourselves from the never ending rebirths, the confines of human conditional thoughts. The individual ( the anti christ ), the thing that stands between you and immortality. The transformation that’s been taught throughout the ages……. life. Which doesn’t leave much room for individual thinking. Logically, good has an opposite which is evil. But love has no opposite, it is unconditional, it is compassion. The only goal worth having. Life is compassion, as you can’t break it apart into little isms. Buddha supposedly showed us the means to do it. Jesus, apparently showed us that we don’t need religions to do it for us, but that we can do it for ourselves, if we are serious about it. Maybe God is DEATH, as much as we are LIFE, which gives us a whole new meaning, to being hu-man. A child can work this out.
February 13th, 2010 at 3:57 am
Dear THE HAT,
Thanks for your questions. I will attempt to answer them in turn.
1.)My Anti-Christ is really anybody who doesn’t wash their hands and then goes ahead and prepares my food and also people who say irregardless instead of regardless. That’s not a word people! I don’t care if it’s in Websters now!
2.)Christian is a male first name. One example would be actor Christian Slater, who disappeared from the Hollywood scene after he was arrested for being to “sassy.”
3.)It feeds my hunger… for a heck of a good time!
4.)Yup.
5.)Were Hell & Fury a vigilantly team in Image Comics? If not someone should call Todd McFarlane. It’s an idea so bad there’s no way he’d pass it up.
Now onto the next part:
The notion that the whole point of religion is to free us from the cycle of death and rebirth is a concept of pre-Christian Platonism, (including certain forms of gnosticism) the Karmic Religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) and some of their more modern offshoots. It is not the core point of ALL religions. The traditional Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam hold that people only live once as do numerous other religions.
I assume when you say “The individual ( the anti christ ), the thing that stands between you and immortality. The transformation that’s been taught throughout the ages……. life. Which doesn’t leave much room for individual thinking” that you, like Jacob Boehme, are equating self-hood as an obstacle preventing the ego from reintegrating into the One. As I said, I disagree with this concept, which forms the bedrock of the Neo-Platonism of Plontinus, Hinduism and various other faiths, because I do not believe the fundamental principle of reality is an impersonal monism but rather a deity possessed of personhood. As such the person-hood of the individual, which itself is a reflection of this fundamental principle, is sacrosanct and eternal.
While I agree that the opposite of good is evil, I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say that I disagree with the concordance of opposites theory. This dualistic theory holds that Good and Evil are both co-eternal aspects of the eternal, impersonal godhead. In this theory, evil isn’t really an aberration it is just a fundamental part of existence. Alternately, in the traditional Christian dogma, God does not contain both Good and Evil but is himself Goodness, lacking anything that might be called evil. In this picture, goodness and evil are products of the human will. To will in accordance with the will of God is good and to reject the will of God is evil. Thus, chopping up a baby with an ax isn’t part of the cosmic balance of forces it is an act that goes against the very purpose of existence.
Love is a tricky word in English since it is used to mean so many different types of love. Here I assume you mean Love in the occult sense of Eros, the binding force that envelopes and maintains the concordance of opposites and the draws the individual ego upward, dissolving it into the great impersonality of the One. I instead believe in Agape, the love of God, manifested in his Grace that elevates and transfigures the human person without completely devouring the self into the godhead. Additionally, I would argue that Love does have an opposite; we call it Hate. In your assessment of Love as the object above good and evil, I detect a striking similarity between the New Age spiritual tradition and the conclusions of the Atheist materialist philosopher Nietzsche, who asserted that any action done out of Love was already beyond Good and Evil. Of course the flaw here, as I see it, is one of definition. If Love is reclassified as the highest attainment, then it effectively takes the place of what would commonly be defined as The Good, thus Love cannot be beyond the parameters of good and evil since it has itself become the “new Good.” Typical self refuting sophistry. Interestingly both Nietzsche and Blavatsky were major influences on the Nazi party.
I would also disagree with your assessment that Jesus showed us we don’t need religions and that we can “do it ourselves.” In fact in John 15:5 he is quite clear that this is not the case, saying “I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.” Though we ultimately choose, through our own free will, whether we’ll be good or bad, Jesus came into this world specifically for the very reason that mankind could not achieve it’s own salvation from sin and death. For this reason he offered himself up on the cross to be the perfect sacrifice for all who are willing to accept him and lay their sins on him so that one day they might know eternal life. This is very different from the teachings of the Buddha, who said we must seek to ultimately extinguish the self into the non-being of Nirvana.
As I implied above, I define God as the fundamental principle of reality, so I’m gonna choose to believe the fundament of reality is not Death but Life, if that’s alright by you. I don’t understand why you hyphenated “hu-man.” Is this a pun? I know you said “a child can work this out” but I usually lose big whenever I play along with “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader” and you should see me with the London Times cryptic crosswords. I can’t figure that thing out for the life of me. It’s embarrassing really. You’ll have to help me out here.
Anyway, good talking to you.
February 13th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Dear Ross,
Thank you for replying,
If you are prepared to let go, then what takes place? Which means, you let go the talent, the fulfilment, the perpetuation of the ”me”.
You see, where energy is being dissipated through talent and through other channels, energy is not completely held. When this energy has no movement at all, then I think something happens, then it must explode.
I think then the quality of the brain-cell itself changes. That is why I asked why we are always thinking in terms of life as a continual religious movement?
When there is no movement inwardly or outwardly, when there is no demand for experience, no awakening, no seeking, no movement of any kind, then energy is at its height. Which means, one must negate all movement. Believe in no thing. When that takes place, energy is completely quiet, which is silence.
As we said the other day, when there is silence, then the mind is transforming itself. When it is completely fallow, when nobody is cultivating it, then it is quiet like the womb.
The mind which is the vessel of movement, when that movement has no form, no ”me”, no vision, no image, it is completely quiet.
In it there is no memory. Then the brain cells undergo a change.
The brain cells are used to movement in time. They are the residue of time and time is movement; a movement within the space which it creates as it moves. When the mind sees this, when it sees the futility of all movement in the sense of time, then all movement ends.
So when the mind denies totally all movement, therefore all time, all thought, all memory, there is absolute quietness, not relative quietness.
Therefore, the question is not how to bring about mutation ( transformation ), but to enquire into the structure of the brain cells. The realization that any movement from the brain cells gives continuity to time itself, puts an end to all movement.
Movement is always in the past or in the future - movement from the past through the present to the future. That is all we know and we want change in this movement. We want the movement, and yet we want change in this movement, and therefore the brain cells continue.
It is amazingly simple. I do not know if you see this. We all want to complicate it. Any effort to stop movement is contradiction and therefore, time, and therefore no change at all. The seekers have all talked of a higher movement, the hierarchical movement. The question is, can the mind deny to itself all movement?
You see, as you watch your brain, there is the centre which is completely quiet and yet listening to everything that is going on - the bus, the birds. We want to stop the noise outside but keep on with the inner noise. We want to stop outer movement but carry on with the inner movement.
When there is no movement, there is tremendous focus of energy.
So mutation ( transformation ) is the understanding of movement and the ending of movement ( death ) in the brain cells themselves ( life ).
In this there is no mention of God, we are life, and God will invite himself.
February 13th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Ross, I’m slamming anyone who refuses to use logic and reason to form their belief system. Modern day Christians are, in my opinion, guilty of breaking both of the most important commandments, which are:
Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul and all thy mind.
and
Love thy neighbor as thy self.
Anyone who espouses any belief which they cannot explain fully and completely understand within the framework of their belief system is guilty of not loving God with all of their mind. Our mind is used to understand our environment, and God is emphasizing that we should use our reasoning processes in our relationship with Him. Anything short of using our mind to understand God is superstition. How many people do you know, who believe what they believe and will defend that belief with their very lives, but their belief is only based on the fact that other people believe the same thing? Most people, especially Christians, do not saturate their lives with God. Even though they believe that we all live, and move, and have our being within God, He takes a backseat to other priorities, like immediate gratification in the material world. I’m not slamming the individuals for this behavior, I’m slamming the Church for creating this atmosphere of complacency through centuries of delivering the wrong message to the masses. The Church intimidated the ignorant masses with fear of eternal damnation. If people did not believe what the Church dictated, they were labeled heretics and were subjected to brutal tortures and death. This went on until Martin Luther had the courage to stand up and demand change. The message of Jesus was not about fear of Hell, it was about how to find Heaven. He showed us the way, and the way leads through the crucifixion of self. He said, “Pick up your cross and follow me”, and for those who needed further motivation He said “If you don’t pick up your cross you are not worthy of Me.” If the Church had promoted self crucifixion instead of fear of eternal damnation, it would never have gained the power it has today. People are not interested in service and sacrifice. People are interested in immediate gratification. And the Church gave them a free ride in life. The Church proclaimed that we don’t have to do anything to reach eternal salvation except believe that Jesus died for our sins. That effectively obliterates the real meaning of Jesus’ life.
Had the Church emphasized service and sacrifice as the key to eternal reward, the second greatest commandment would have taken on much greater significance. Love thy neighbor as thy self. Jesus did not say to just love our neighbor. He said to love our neighbor as if he/she were our very self. We have this measure of love with our closest relatives and friends to some extent, but He was giving us a clue as to the meaning of human existence. There is nothing but God in the universe. Everything is made of God. That includes you and me and everyone and everything else. Human perception falls short of this divine truth, but that does not negate the divinity of all things. We have a common, divine essence. Unity is a fact. Even our rudimentary scientific understanding of the universe embraces the unity of all things, because everything is composed of atoms. If everything is one, then we are all one. Loving our neighbor as our self is more in alignment with truth then seeing ourselves as separate and distinct. Through love our awareness expands. We are enriched by relationships. John Lennon understood when he wrote that “all you need is love.” If we love everyone, they love us back, and the rewards are unimaginable. Had the Church emphasized the loving our neighbor theme, we might have manifested long ago the Heaven on Earth that seems to be what God has in mind for us.
I read some of these posts and I have to admit that I don’t understand what you are saying. There are a lot of big words and evidence of more scholastic minds than my own, and I get lost easily. I have to admit that Theosophy is, in my opinion, just as guilty as other doctrines when it comes to what I like to call gobbledegook. But the basis of Theosophy is quite simple and elegant and logical. Quite simply, Theosophy teaches that through karma and reincarnation man becomes perfected. Karma ensures that we continually learn and grow, because karma is reward and punishment. This presupposes a moral path which is in alignment with God’s plan. Straying from the path leads to punishment, and just like the rat in the maze who wants to eventually get the cheese, we are conditioned to avoid the pain, and we gradually align our plans with God’s plans. Reincarnation ensures that we have enough time to get to the cheese. It’s really that simple. What I have always liked about Theosophy is that it was and is still authored by “People” who directly experienced the truth in its pages. I have no reason to doubt Theosophy, because it provides answers where other religions/philosophies just lead to more questions. I think Theosophy never caught on with the masses for the reasons I’ve already discussed. Self sacrifice and service don’t sell tickets. I don’t pretend to understand the details of Theosophy, but I do understand the drama taking place with Benjamin Creme and Maitreya. Maitreya is the leader of the Perfected Men Who have graciously provided us with information which is destined to take Humanity to greater heights. We are all in the process of becoming perfect ourselves, and Maitreya and His Brothers want nothing more than for us to succeed. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as I am perfect.” That is what Jesus preached, and that is what These Great Brothers teach as well.
I hope that people use common sense when Maitreya does in fact emerge into our lives. People who claim Maitreya is the Anti-Christ either have not read Theosophical teachings, or do not understand Theosophical teachings. Theosophy and Maitreya are all about sharing, and love, and harmony, and peace, and justice for all. To find evil in such motivation requires a very tiny mind.
February 13th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Okay, but that still doesn’t answer my previous question, which was, why did you hyphenate the word human to “hu-man?” Did that mean something? Is there something called a “hu?” Should I be trying to be more like Hugh Laurie or Hugh Grant or Hugo Chavez perhaps?
I think I basically understood the Ego dissolution theory you touched on earlier but thank you for describing the exercise in greater detail nonetheless. However, as I stated before, I disagree with this picture of reality. My unwillingness to accept it stems from some of the major conclusions that form the bedrock of the mainstream, Western philosophical tradition. I’ll try to explain in greater detail, so bear with me.
The earliest philosophers, be they Chinese, Indian or Greek, all being human, found themselves confronted with some of the same basic problems. In trying to understand, many things, they thought it most expedient to try and understand all things, in other words existence itself. What was its first principle; what preceded, united and out lived all the many different things that made up reality?
Some, like the so called Pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece, tried to assign a single material cause to reality, explaining that all things at their smallest level were made of water or fire or air or some combination thereof. Though this left much unexplained, for example, what was this primal matter moving IN and what was the ultimate source of its motion? In many ways these earlier philosophers were like today’s radical empiricist and many of their ideas even seem to prefigure Darwin’s evolutionary theory by a span of over two millennia.
Seeking that which remains constant amidst the ever changing cosmos, some thinkers such as Lao Tzu and his Taoist school in China and Heraclitus and the later Stoic school in the Greco-Roman world, would make “Change Itself” the fundamental principle of reality. In this world view all things can be said to be in a constant state of “Becoming.” Of course this raises the question, if “Becoming” involves something that “IS” becoming a “WAS” then “Change Itself” can’t be the absolute deepest level of reality since there is, at one point in time, no matter how minute it may be, a moment when something is not in a state of change but simply “IS.” In addition to this, underneath all this change there seemed to be certain laws at work. When things change they appear to follow a consistent order; for example for something to move from Point A to Point F, it must first travel through Points B,C,D and E successively. It does not move from Point A, to Point Q, to Point D, to Point X, back to Point D and then finally Point F. Regressing back in time, each previous position predetermines the one immediately following it. Though an event has passed from time, it’s affect still lingers on, thus something is retaining itself outside the force of all devouring change. Heraclitus seemed to recognize this and called this all pervading force “The Logos,” though it might be said he never sufficiently explained how this force, if it was an immanent part of ever changing reality, was itself unaffected by change.
Others, like Parmenides, would deny the existence of change altogether, claiming it was but an illusion and really, all events were effectively taking place at once. Perhaps think of a film strip; from one frame to the next there is the appearance of motion but really each of the frames together simultaneously make up the whole reel, which exists all at once as a single thing. In this way of seeing things there is no “was” or “will be” there is simply “is” or as it’s commonly termed in philosophical English “Being.” But even this presents certain problems, in stating that all things are happening at once, would seem to suggest a very fatalistic reality in which all events are predetermined. Plus, it’s just plain stupid.
The theories of educated men often contradict their own simple common sense but having invested such mental efforts in constructing their explanations of everything, they attempt to brow beat both their own instinctual reservations and those of the common person, into intellectual submission. However, despite all this, Parmenides central argument against “Pure Change” still holds true, “Something cannot come from Nothing.” Therefore past events cannot be “Nothing” simply because they no longer exist. A complete Non-Being cannot logically give rise to any kind of reality for the simple reason that Non-Being by its very definition, does not exist.
Onto this problem came Socrates and later his disciple Plato. Attempting to find a happy medium between the “all is just ever-changing Becoming” theory of Heraclitus and the “all is just unchanging Being” theory of Parmenides, these Philosophers postulated a happy medium. Just as the earlier philosophers had said, things have a material cause, some substance out of which all individual objects are made, things are also, however, as Heraclitus observed; in a state of change; a tree dies, biodegrades into soil, which provides the biomass for a patch of toad stools, etc. However, despite the fact the same substance might change shape from a sphere to a cube to a triangle, the basic mathematical principles that define a sphere, cube, triangle, etc still persist and impose themselves on existence. These laws are indestructible and therefore not an immanent part of “Becoming” as Heraclitus thought, rather they must be unchanging and part of what Parmenides styled as “Being.” Socrates recognized that sanity wasn’t choosing one over the other, rather both Being and Becoming existed separately. Being is separate from the inconstancy of Becoming, which thereby allows Being to remain a constant source of fundamental laws projected onto the structure of Becoming. As Plato would present it “Time (Becoming) is the Moving Image of Eternity. (Being)”
Plato himself would struggle with the problem of how a completely transcendent Being acts on Becoming but perhaps the problem here stems from thinking of Being as a spacial or physical thing, which it is not. This Platonic notion of reality would not only unite two divided schools of thought, it would, in fact, make the human mind itself, a sort of bridge between the two realms. The mind can see many different circles that exist in reality and through imagination, understand the universal principle or idea of “circleness” that transcends but informs this or that particular circle. Likewise it can see all the individual instances of one or two or one million and know the universal “oneness”, “twoness” or “one millioness” that inhabits the realm of Being. Through this means, reality can be understood to have an order and a meaning. It is not just a chaos and incoherent madness to be rejected. To be able to make this mental leap, Plato reasoned, the human self, must also, on some level, inhabit the realm of Being, and thus, in some sense, be imperishable. Of course, even Plato’s assessment of reality wasn’t without flaws, but perhaps we should return to that a little later.
Now, this same problem of change, perturbed not only the Greeks and the Chinese, but the deepest thinkers of the Indian subcontinent too. As might already be apparent, the question of “what is reality?” is in instigated by the personal question “who am I?” For the Hindu Sage Aruni, the problem of ever-changing existence and its relation to the self, was summed up in his famous pronouncement “Tat Tvam Asi.” or “That Thou Art.” In this picture, all the myriad changing things, including the individual self or Atman are but manifestations of the all pervading Universal Soul or Brahman. In this model the highest goal of the individual is to seek the end of the self through its reabsorption into the ultimate One. Distinction is merely a delusion or dream.
Alternately, Prince Siddhartha Gautama, aka the Buddha, would propose what was, arguably, an even more extreme goal for this form of asceticism. Underlining everything is not merely the Universal Self, said the Buddha, but absolute nothingness or “Non-Being.” Reality, whether you call it Being or Becoming or some combination thereof, is a cosmic accident that somehow emerged from Non-Being. According to the Buddha, the self must abandon all desires so it might finally be extinguished in Nirvana or absolute Non-being. This form of Ego annihilation is even more intense than that of Aruni, which, at least, still held to there being some Universal Ego, even if it did, in a sense, undermine the individual ego. However, I reject this notion not just because I find it offends the value of the individual but because it is refuted by what I said earlier was the one fully accurate proclamations of Parmenides: That Non-Being cannot give rise to Being.
As I’ve already stated, both these positions reduce the individual to something of little consequence in the cosmic picture. To some, this may first seem positive. When something bad happens, say the fall of a kingdom or death of a loved one, believers in these philosophies are told not to let it get them down, since it doesn’t really matter as its all just an illusion or part of the great pantheistic One or utter Nothingness. However, not only does this remove any ultimate value from tragedy but it also removes all meaning from the positive events of life too. The good times, along with the bad are all just illusions.
It is often presented in anti-ego traditions that love is a breaking of the barriers between one ego and another allowing the two to flow into a singular self. Those who disagree with this system are often seen by its practitioners as being selfish individuals who put their own Egos before love. I would tend to disagree. The notion that another self must fuse with my own, before I can love them is, as I see it, the ultimate form of narcissism. It is as if to say, “I can’t love you unless you are one in the same entity with me.” I don’t really believe that is what believers in the anti-ego system are thinking on a subconscious level but I would argue it is the logical implication of their philosophical system. Thus, though their theories are perhaps well meaning, I think they are an imperfect model of reality.
I would tend to return to the traditional Platonic model. When I love another person, while I am recognizing a certain transcendent commonality that unites us, in that we are both people, I am also, at the same time, aware of the fact that we are ultimately two distinct and different persons. Thus I may love them and they may love me but our egos remain intact and that love doesn’t descend into ego annihilation. Martha may love Johnathan without the two of them being chopped up and stitched together into some metaphysical Frankenstein.
Now, as I said earlier, even Plato’s system was not without its problems. Realizing the realm of Being as the source of order in the world of Becoming, Platonism had a tendency to undervalue the physical world of Becoming, often considering it nothing more than an inherently imperfect copy of, and an impediment to, the purity of Being. In this line of thinking the soul was seen as everything and the body, with it limitations and infirmities was seen as nothing more than an anchor, keeping the soul from it’s ultimate fulfillment in the perfection of Being.
Carried to its most extreme, this radical Platonism would give rise to the so called Negative-Gnosticism of later antiquity. This belief system rejected the body and the whole material cosmos as inherently evil, insisting that the human soul must escape from its prison.
Of course, to call matter the source of evil, is fundamentally illogical. Your arms cannot do evil of themselves, a chair or a rock can’t be evil. They are all merely objects, which in and of themselves have no moral capacity but they can be used for good or evil by an active will. True evil or good require intentionality. There must be a mind that is aware of what it’s doing. If an avalanche kills a man, the falling rocks aren’t evil, if one man kills another by complete accident, he may be negligent but he isn’t evil, but if a man kills another man intentionally, for no good reason, then we may rightly say that that man has done a great evil. Matter is incidental to morality, whereas will is the cause of it. However, no sensible person would say a shark is evil for willing itself to eat a man in the same way that we might say Hitler is evil for willing himself to cause the deaths of millions of people. Acknowledging this, we must admit that animals lack the comprehension level to be guilty of evil actions. If this is the case, we must modify our previous statement; evil is the product of human will, or the will of some being of an equal or greater level of comprehension.
Despite it’s errors concerning matter, Platonic philosophy understood that good and evil weren’t mere matters of subjective opinion but objective realities. That is to say, slaughtering a baby would not be good, even if the majority of people said it was. Just as the a human mind can extract the universal notion of squareness by perceiving many different individual squares, so to may it extract the reality of goodness from the many individual examples that exist in reality. In this sense, evil is merely a failure of the human will to live up to the transcendent standard of Good. Evil is no more a transcendent aspect of the world of Being than a person’s incorrect answer to a math equation can be called a fundamental truth of the universe. Thus, this outlook does not support the idea that good and evil are co-eternal principles of equal value.
Now remarkably, the idea that Being is the first principle, preceding Becoming, the idea that the misuse of human will is the source of evil and the idea that the human person, with its ability to perceive and move towards Being, is the highest entity within the order of Becoming, were all assertion of the Hebrew scriptural tradition, established independently of and prior to the Greek philosophical tradition that seemed to compliment them. This is almost equivalent to finding a primitive jungle tribe that managed to solve Fermat’s last theorem without showing their work.
Yahweh, the name of the God who created the universe in the Hebrew scriptures, may itself even signify the verb to be or if you will, “Being.” According to these scriptures, human beings were not mere products of the accidental and inexplicable emergence of desire and then ego out of Non-Being, nor were they some indistinguishable part of an amorphous universal soul, nor were they a purely material automaton or a spirit punished with imprisonment in the body but rather, body and soul together, they were made in the Divine of Image of the God who was Being himself. Going one beyond Plato, these scriptures asserted that this God, the very nature of Being, was not merely an impersonal force, but was indeed a Personal entity, thus individual humans, the reflection of this ultimate reality, were also justified in their person-hood.
Evil was not the product of matter but began when the first Man and Woman, willfully disobeyed God. Thus began their suffering and consequently our own. Though the idea that we and our descendants might suffer for the sins of some ancestor, might seem unfair to some, it is certainly a realistic assessment of life. Just ask anyone who has come from an abusive home. Odds are good an abused person will themselves become dysfunctional, and odds are equally good most abusers were themselves abused. The cycle has to have started somewhere, thus it only makes sense to trace it back to the very first parents of mankind. However, this isn’t entirely depressing since, the very fact things can be said to be dysfunctional (or “fallen” if we’re using Christian terms) is itself proof that there is such a thing as “right function” or “purpose” to human life; something that, although lost, may be found again. On some level the mind can infer this lost functionality. Though certain desires are false, Desire itself, as some in the eastern ascetic tradition believe, is not wrong. We would never thirst if we weren’t first meant to drink. Deep down we desire Life not Death and Good not Evil. Even those who seek death through suicide do so only because they can no longer see the good in life. Thus, or so I would argue, our common sense is telling us that Death is not our intended function but some dysfunction or evil. If we assume the Creator is perfect and we were made perfectly, then we must assume a misapplication of our own free will, or at least that of our ancestors, accounts for our fall into the dysfunction of mortality. Just as we argued that Evil can be no more a part of the eternity of Being than mathematical error can, the same is true of Death.
Though it is a point of contention for many, it is, in some sense, pointless to debate just how literal this Hebrew story of Adam and Eve really is. Perhaps it isn’t a matter of it being either completely literal or false but rather of being “super-literal”; a truth that is both more than simply literal and more than simply figurative. Considering this, let’s examine the specific sin that brings about their fall. Seeking to “be as Gods,” in other words “to do it on their own” Adam and Eve decided to rest on the power of knowledge. Many critics try and spin this as an example of God attempting to be intellectual restrictive, as if he some how feared Man’s attainment of knowledge. This is hardly the case. What is clear from this story is that knowledge alone is not enough to bring man to eternal fulfillment, his dreams of deification lack substance if he rejects the supreme reality of God. With Life and Death set before them, despite God’s warnings, Adam and Eve chose Death. Thus, it was man who, metaphysically speaking, pried apart Heaven and Earth. Deep down, from the very beginning, like Adam and Eve, driven from Eden, we know something isn’t fully right, but it is beyond our power to repair it. As Plato had seen, Man was indeed a bridge between Being and Becoming, but he is, in some sense, a partly broken bridge.
It was against the backdrop of this problem that Jesus Christ appeared to the world. Though the old Adam was a broken bridge, Christ, the new Adam was the mended bridge. The God who’s image man bears, himself took on the image of Man, finally justifying the incomprehensible link between Being and Becoming so sought by Plato. Just as the first Adam, in disobedience to God, sought to deify himself through fruit taken from a tree, the second Adam in obedience to God, in spite of his inherent deity, offered himself up to death on a tree. One seeking Eternal Life and Power, earned for himself and Mankind only Death, the other laying down his Life and Power won Eternal Life for all who believe in him and follow his teachings. It is this fact; that the Invisible and Eternal God, made himself visible in the world, in the image of a Man, and that all men partake of this divine image, that has been the driving force of all that is positive in what has come to be called Western civilization.
True, as critics will point out, many evils have been done in the name of Christianity, but I would argue that when they have, it has always been, hypocritical to the message of Christ, thus it is not Christianity that is disgraced but the individuals who claim to uphold its standard while failing to live up to it themselves. That Man is the “Imago Dei,” is the only logical basis of the democratic notion that all people are created equal. They clearly aren’t all equal in size, shape or in any other material way. Their supposed equality can only be a metaphysical one. The importance of the individual cannot be backed up by a philosophy that would say the Ego is nothing. Sane people can find little reason to go on in a system to suggests the ultimate end is nothingness or the end of their very selves. We can reject the sanctity of the human person and let the whole world go crashing down into despotic ruination or we can choose to believe these principles but let them rest on nothing like we were utter maniacs, in which case it’s only a matter of time before some sophist with dictatorial aspirations, knocks them down for us. Or we can admit that every individual ego is not some passing bubble on the surface of a stream, but rather is the great and terrible image of Almighty God in this world, destined not for Death but to live forever but before that makes us too uppity we must remember that this same Almighty God, whose image we bear, for our sakes, lived on earth as a poor and humble carpenter from a country of little consequence to anybody, suffering even an ignominious death that we may all be raised to New Life. It is this balance that is the only sanity amongst all the other madness the world has to offer.
It is for this reason that I must humbly reject the notion that the ego is a thing to be overcome. Sorry I went on so long. I have an unfortunate tendency to do that. Anyway, have a good day.
February 14th, 2010 at 10:46 am
HU is woven into the language of life. It is the Sound of all sounds. It is the wind in the leaves, falling rain, thunder of jets, singing of birds, the awful rumble of a tornado. . . . Its sound is heard in laughter, weeping, the din of city traffic, ocean waves, and the quiet rippling of a mountain stream. And yet, the word HU is not God. It is a word people anywhere can use to address the Originator of Life.
February 14th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Oh, are you Eckankar?
February 14th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
EGO
The ego separates what is real. It helps us to organise our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us.
1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
3.
a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.
The word ego is taken directly from Latin, where it is the nominative of the first person singular personal pronoun and is translated as “I myself” to express emphasis.
A set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality-testing, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory.
When the ego is personified, it is like a slave to three harsh masters: the id, the super-ego, and the external world.
THE ID
The Id comprises the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains the basic drives. The id acts as according to the ‘pleasure principle’, seeking to avoid pain or unpleasure aroused by increases in instinctual tension
THE SUPER EGO
The Super-ego aims for perfection. It comprises that organised part of the personality structure, mainly but not entirely unconscious, that includes the individual’s ego ideals, spiritual goals, and the psychic agency (commonly called ‘conscience’) that criticises and prohibits his or her drives, fantasies, feelings, and actions.
The Super-ego can be thought of as a type of conscience that punishes misbehavior with feelings of guilt. For example: having extra-marital affairs
The Super-ego works in contradiction to the id. The Super-ego strives to act in a socially appropriate manner, whereas the id just wants instant self-gratification. The Super-ego controls our sense of right and wrong and guilt. It helps us fit into society by getting us to act in socially acceptable ways.
THE EGO
It has to do its best to suit all three, thus is constantly feeling hemmed by the danger of causing discontent on two other sides. It is said, however, that the ego seems to be more loyal to the id, preferring to gloss over the finer details of reality to minimize conflicts while pretending to have a regard for reality. But the super-ego is constantly watching every one of the ego’s moves and punishes it with feelings of guilt, anxiety, and inferiority. To overcome this the ego employs defense mechanisms.The defense mechanisms are not done so directly or consciously. They lessen the tension by covering up our impulses that are threatening.
Most humans can be found within these traits :”Transference neuroses corresponding to a conflict between the ego and the id; narcissistic neuroses, to a conflict between the ego and the superego; and psychoses, to one between the ego and the external world”………quite normal behaviour, in our present society.
It is a mistake in making Christianity the standard by which all religion is judged.
Death and resurrection are more central to Christianity than many other faiths.
Death, in which we move through every day, is there, so we may live and give life to the fuller, a re-birth, not literal, but psychological.
Live life as though it were your last.
Most people look at death as some kind of satirical Grim Reaper.
Points I agree with TOM MCCARTER’S article
( although there are many more I agree with )
Service and sacrifice is the key to eternal reward.
Love our neighbour as if he/she were our very self.
There is nothing but God in the universe. Everything is made of God.
Unity is a fact.
We are enriched by relationships.
All you need is love
Had the Church emphasized the loving our neighbour theme,
we might have manifested long ago the Heaven on Earth
that seems to be what God has in mind for us.
There are a lot of big words and evidence of more
scholastic minds than my own, and I get lost easily.
But the basis of Theosophy is quite simple and elegant and logical.
We are all in the process of becoming perfect ourselves
The message of Jesus was not about fear of Hell, it was about how
to find Heaven. He showed us the way, and the way leads through
the crucifixion of self.
February 14th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
I am not Eckankar
I am not affiliated to any group
I am not a CHRISTIAN
Life has been my guide
I bow down to no man
All authority is an abomination
I learn and work with the spirit of enquiry,
Sharing and friendship.
I have no hidden agenda.
February 14th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
-HAT
The reason I asked if you were Eckancar is “Hu” seems to be an Eckancar concept, comparable, as far as I can tell, to the Hindu concept of Aum.
I will respond to your other points and those of Tom a little later but right now I gotta go prepare for an upcomming job interview.
-Terry, sorry for taking this post somewhat off topic. Just let us know if you want us to shut are yaps anytime soon. Thanks.
February 14th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
ROSS
It is an Eckancar cult concept, but the word is older, they just nicked the word.
I think it is like AUM, which is again older but similar to Amen.
I didn’t invent the name but someone must have thought about it,
long and hard, to come up with such an apt name.
Good luck with your interview.
Yes I think the topic was about Benjamin Creme,
sorry, I helped to get you off track somewhat.
In one article of Mr Creme, he gives us a list of a lot of famous
people and what initiations they have taken.
I don’t know who keeps these records. Apparently Adolf Hitler had taken his 2nd initiation before he was unceremoniously debunked off his perch. There were a lot of people who supported the Nazis, amongst them the Pope at the time. And the British Royal family, who married into The German royal upper bloodhood. Another of Benjamin Cremes claims, is that Sai Baba is a Cosmic Avatar, just visiting this planet, like a right royal guest, bigger than Maitreya, who is still only a planetary being. Sai Baba has come here especially to produce vabuti and necklaces from thin air, for rich Indian politicians. Although many have helped him to do good works, l don’t understand the bling. He’s also been convincingly accused of child molesting, just like the prominent occultist and high-ranking Theosophist C.W. Leadbeater.
Makes you wonder what these occultists do behind closed doors.
It seems to me that the people in power still want to hold their high ranking positions, as they’ve earned it, throughout the centuries, whilst the rest of us can crucify and serve, to maintain the status quo.
Nothing changes. Just bow down to the next religious takeover, which will be fought over by the economic elite side of life. Here we go again.
February 14th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
David Rockefeller is part of Lucis Trust’s management. Lucis Trust puts out the book Externalization of the Hierarchy by Alice Bailey which spells out The Plan for the New Agers on how the spiritual Hierarchy is to externalize their rule of the planet. The book gives quite a few of the details of the plan, and is used as a textbook for New Agers at the Arcane Schools in NY, London, and Europe on how the New Age/One World Religion/One-World-Government will be brought in. If anyone doubts the Rockefeller’s commitment to the Hierarchy, read page 107 of Externalization of the Hierarchy. On page 107 Alice Bailey, President of the Theosophical Society and part of Lucis (formerly Lucifer) Trust, tells us who will rule when the New Age (New World Order) takes over. On the Earthly level–Humanity so to speak, the Ruler is given on page 107 as Lucifer. On the Spiritual level–called “Shamballa - the Holy City” the coming ruler is given as “the Lord of the World” which Christians know as Satan. Lucis Trust knows it is Satan too, but for public consumption they say that the “ruler of the world” is Sanat (a scrambling of Satan) Kumara. They also predict there will be a Christ Consciousness and the Christ .The book Externalization of the Hierarchy teaches repeatedly (see pages 511-512, 514) that the 3 vehicles to bring in the New Age will be the Masonic Lodges, (obviously not everyone attends Lodges), next the Churches (this is clearly revealing to us that men like the Rockefellers are using the churches for the Luciferian plan of Lucis Trust), and finally Education (Well, of course education. Not everyone attends churches. They need a safety net to catch everyone in their brainwashing to make us all want to be happy slaves under the Light-bearer.) The home life of the Rockefellers is decidedly different than for most people. They have over 100 homes to stay at. The Rockefellers own vast tracts of good land in various countries in South America, and have nice homes in Brazil, Ecuador, and their Monte Sacro Ranch, Venezuela. They have two mansions in Washington, D.C. (at least), numerous ranches around the United States, resorts in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean, a 32- room 5th Ave duplex in N.Y., not to mention their place at Seal Harbor, Maine, and the large estate at Pocantico Hills, NY. It is estimated that they have 2,500 house servants. Over the years, they have built up the reputation of being miserly with their help, and to each other. (I couldn’t begin to know all about the Rockefellers, but I can give a sampling of some of the many items that surround the real lives of America’s top Illuminati family.) Winthrop, who is homosexual,, enjoyed living in Arkansas with his black male friend. He reportedly had the world’s largest porn collection. Winifred Rockefeller Emeny, Nelson’s cousin, murdered her two children and committed suicide.
Michael Rockefeller died when he tried to bribe New Guinea tribesmen with large sums of money to go head hunt and make shrunken heads for him. The natives had given up head hunting and Michael couldn’t sucessfully bribe them. Finally getting tired of Michael, the natives decided to head hunt Michael himself!
Many of the Rockefeller family have had troubled lives, filled with all kinds of fears and occult activities. It is known that the Rockefellers have frequently built many hidden tunnels and hidden rooms onto their buildings. They have developed their occult and worldly powers to the point they consider themselves gods.
February 14th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Many occultists know that everything is energy.
White occultists use energy for good and healing
Black occultists use it for their own ends
The rest of us fight for the scraps, being fed a watered down
version of truth, mostly to turn the other cheek, or to blame it on
karma, therefore leaving those ancient ones, who know, to carry on undetected.
The dalai lama apparently remembers his past lives, so
it is possible for whole families to rule the world, knowing
they will come back through their bloodline to carry on where they left off.
Bloodline is sacremount to the iilluminati, they’ve been
practicing it for centuries. We live in desperate times.
Just like the Nazi party, they can influence a whole country
to justify genocide, to the supposed race of David of old jewish bloodlines.
Yes, I believe in the bloodline of Vampyres, but for different reasons, maybe.
What the outcome will be, who knows, but there’s more to life than meets the eye.
That’s why it’s best not to be taken in by anything but to go with your heart
It’s a good day to die
February 15th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
- Tom, perhaps my last (way too long) post has addressed some of the things you said. I’d have tailored it to do so more thoroughly, but because of posting delays your comments didn’t appear on the page till after I posted my own. Given how annoying long I was previously, I’ll try and keep my responses short.
You accuse Christians of being unable to logically defend all the ins and outs of their beliefs. First of all, this isn’t true of all Christians and second of all, even if there are Christians who can’t present a complex intellectual argument for the veracity of their beliefs, that in no way means their beliefs are untrue. Let’s say you didn’t know the formula for calculating the circumference of a circle and, at some point, someone told you that a specific circle had a circumference of 100 cm. For the sake of this illustration, we will assume the person was truthful and the circumference really is 100 cm. If you choose to believe this person, you will be unable to defend your opinion about the circle to others, since you are ignorant of the mathematical proof, but that does not change the truth about the circle. By the same token, just because not every Christian knows Thomas Aquinas’ Five Proofs for the Existence of God, doesn’t mean that Christianity itself is a lie. For some arguments for the existence of the traditional Christian image of God please read my previous post or better yet go read some actual traditional Christian Theologians or writers. Personally, I’d recommend G.K Chesterton’s “Ever Lasting Man.”
Next you say you blame the Church (presumably you mean the Catholic Church) for fostering materialism, misrepresenting Christ’s message and scarring people with hellfire and damnation. Though corrupt men have always infiltrated the church, there have also been many people in the church who have lived the message of Christ. People like Saint Francis, Mother Teresa and countless others have followed the gospel, rejecting material wealth and spent their whole lives helping the poor and sick. It was the church who kept the message of Christ alive through the centuries, endlessly copying down the bible and preaching it to both converts and non-believers alike. Many missionaries died trying to carry Christs message and many still do in parts of the world where it is illegal to be Christian.
As for “fear of eternal damnation,” like or not, that IS part of Christ’s message. Just listen to his own words in the gospels:
“The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mathew 13:41-43)
“Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.” (Mathew 25:41-46)
Even if many of its members didn’t live up to it, this is the message about Hell that the church has preached for centuries. Far from the manipulative tool of oppression you make it out to be, this message clearly warns not only that Hell is quite real, but that it is prepared specifically for those who practice materialism and do not love God by loving their neighbor as they would themselves. True some churchmen did use the fear of Hell to their own ends, selling indulgences like they were selling real-estate, but that doesn’t change the essential message of the reality of Hell.
And as for your point about Martin Luther, I’m afraid that’s entirely wrong. Luther might have demanded change, but he believed completely in the reality of Hell and never said otherwise as did the overwhelming majority of the Reformation churches and their leaders. And over all, it was the, pre-Lutheran, Catholic Church that stressed more this notion of self-crucifixion you speak of, then Luther ever did. Luther stressed faith alone as a means of redemption, whereas Catholic sacraments demand confession and penance for sins. In other words, faith alone isn’t good enough, you must have faith and live it through deeds.
I was because the church promoted service and self sacrifice that it gained power. The earliest evangelists were willing to suffer horrible deaths, by crucifixion or other means to bring Christs message. Obviously this message must have been more then hellfire for it to inspire people so much they’d die for it. But the message wasn’t simply vague, new age feel-goodery, I doubt to many people would die for that, the message was and still is salvation from hell, through Christ’s death on the cross and his resurrection to Eternal Life. Though people should live a life of sacrifice like Christ and perhaps even die martyrs deaths if it comes to that, the historical crucifixion of Christ is the only crucifixion that washes away all sins.
Your claim that the Church didn’t teach “love thy neighbor” is utterly and totally untrue. What you mean, is individuals in the church didn’t live up to that teaching. How could we know these individuals weren’t living up to that teaching of Christ’s, if the Church itself had not been the engine of transmission for that very message? The answer is simple; we could not know. Therefore, the Church did indeed preach that message, despite your claims to the contrary. It is important you understand the difference between individual Churchmen and the Ideals of The Church.
Next, you are misrepresenting the biblical call to “love thy neighbor as thyself” by contorting it to suit a pantheistic message, in which all things are God. This is not the intended message. Christ did not say “Love thy neighbor BECAUSE HE IS thy self” or “Love thy neighbor BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING as self.” True all things share a common unity, in so much as we all inhabit the same physical universe but, I would argue, the fact that we’re made up of atoms actually undermines the oneness of all things. The philosophy of Atomism, asserts that all things that exist, when broken down to their smallest components, are made up of tiny, indivisible, COMPLETELY SEPARATE UNITS called atoms. I’m not saying I agree with all the tenets of atomism, I’m merely showing its logical incompatibility with the pantheistic monism you espouse. For my refutation of anti-ego pantheism I refer to my previous post.
If theosophy blinds you with incomprehensible “gobbledegook”, then perhaps you are just as guilty of believing superstition as those Christians who you accused of holding beliefs “which they cannot explain fully and completely … within the framework of their belief system ”
Now I have some questions:
Within the framework of your beliefs:
1.)What is the origin of negative karma?
2.)How did the universe (which you earlier identified as God) come into being?
A).If your answer is that it has existed, literally forever, then why haven’t all beings yet cleared their karmic debt? Surely infinite time is long enough that they should have done so by now.
B.) If your answer is that the universe, at some point, came into being, then how was this caused? What was the exo-universal source of the universe iself?
3.)What are the answers provided by Theosophy that you feel other religions left unanswered?
For arguments as to why many Christians considered Creme’s Maitreya a potential Anti-Christ, please watch this video presentation.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=1785
THE HAT.
I’ll address some of what you said later. Thanks for wishing me good luck on the job interview. (It isn’t actually till Thursday, I just had to prep for it.) I agree the Rockefellers are largely a bunch of creeps.
February 15th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
THEOSOPHY : ORIGIN OF SIN
Your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. — 1 Peter, v, 8
Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. — Matthew, iv, 1
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. — Job, i, 6
In those passages which treat of the temptation of Jesus, the devil ( SANAT KUMARA ) appears as an agent commissioned by God to test a candidate for high initiation; he offers Jesus all the riches and powers of earth on condition of being worshipped, but Jesus declares himself to be already in command of these things by virtue of his own divinity, and the devil retires defeated. In the story of Job, Satan is actually one of the sons of God, sent by God for the purpose of testing Job.
Both the Hebrew Satan and the Greek Diabolos (the origin of our word devil) mean ‘adversary’; and this meaning gives the key to the real meaning of the words. The devil was said in theology to have been a rebellious angel, who was cast out of heaven and thereupon became God’s adversary, striving to undo God’s work and destroy man; in which work he was assisted by a host of subordinates — “the Devil and all his angels.” As Theosophy teaches — in this collecting the sense of many ancient teachings — there was an epoch in the drama of evolution when certain divine powers left their high sphere in order to bring light to the lower kingdoms of Nature. It was then that Man, hitherto innocent, knowing not good and evil, passively obedient to heavenly law — the ‘mindless,’ as the teachings say — became endowed with the Fire ( KUNDALINI ) that aroused within him his own hitherto latent divinity. Man became ‘as the Gods,’ knowing good and evil, able to choose. This is what is meant by the War in Heaven and the Fall of the Angels: in one sense it is a rebellion and a fall; in another and better sense, it is a sacrifice, a performance of the duty of love, whereby Man was enlightened and saved. The story of Venus-Lucifer enshrines this allegory, and so does that of Prometheus the Fire-Bringer. Satan, then, was originally a divine being destined to carry light and life to the nether worlds. He stands for the gift of free will and self-conscious mind to Man; a power which at once seduces and uplifts Man. For with free will comes the power to go astray. Satan ( SANAT KUMARA – who holds the rod of Initiation ) is therefore Man’s teacher, even as he is in the Book of Job. (It may here be noted that the Bible gives no authority for supposing that it was the Devil who tempted Man in the Garden of Eden; it was the Serpent. But the idea is the same.)
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY : ORIGIN OF SIN
The origin of sin took place even before Adam and Eve were created (Genesis. 1:26-27). The beginning of sin took place prior to the creation of the heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1). Remember that before Adam sinned, there was already a sinful creature who was in the Garden of Eden and who was in a fallen and wicked condition.
Adam was the first human sinner, but he was not the first sinner.
Every creature that God made was holy and good and sinless. Not one sinful, wicked creature was ever made by God the Creator, and yet it is possible for a holy and good creature to turn away from God and fall into sin.
Lucifer was an angelic creature who lived in the heavenly paradise (the heavenly “Eden,” see Ezekiel 28:13), and he served in the very presence of God (this is the meaning of Ezekiel 28:14). If any creature knew God and if any creature was close to God, Lucifer was!
How beautiful I am! How wise I am! How powerful I am! God is not the only one who is great. I am great also. Why should all the angels worship God? Should they not worship me just as they do God? I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH! (Compare Isaiah14:13-14).
THEOSOPHY : ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE
According to many religions, the universe was created by a single Diety. Theosophy takes a different view. Once the universe began to emanate, everything was put into the hands of seven Builders. They are called Archangels in Christianity, and Bodhisattvas in Buddhism.
There are seven of them — which explains why the number seven appears so often in the Bible.
“From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God….” (Revelations 4:5)
They built the beginnings of our universe.
After the appearance of the first Builders, there was a great deal of delegating of authority which occured throughout the universe. Lower Builders built galaxies. Even lower Builders built our solar system. Still lower builders built our Earth and humanity. It is this group of Builders that is referred to in the Bible.
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Genesis 1.26)
(As a sidenote, the idea that humans were built in their image is explained as such: Our Earthly Builders had astral bodies. Parts of their astral bodies were “broken off,” and used to create our humanly astral bodies — thus we literally were created in their image.)
Every aspect of the building of the universe has been painstakenly supervised by one level of Builders or another. No galaxy nor animal species has appeared that was not first conceived of by a Builder.
The Monads did not have a level of consciousness anywhere near that of the human level of consciousness we now all enjoy. The Monads did not have any self-awareness. It was as if they were all part of clouds of consciousness that floated throughout space, at a level of existence much less dense than anything in today’s physical world.
Eon after eon, these clouds of consciousness took on denser and denser layers of materiality. Finally, these clouds took on the veil of materiality we call physical matter. Physical matter appeared, and is said to be ensouled by these clouds of consciousness.
Physical awareness now began to awaken. For the first time, consciousness turned outward, recognizing contact with other entities in an external world. This was the first realization of “I” and “Not I”, although this consciousness is described as “sleeping” in the mineral world.
The mineral experiences of freezing, melting, being crushed, turning to molten metal, all impacted upon the mineral consciousness. As a result, vague answers of sympathetic vibrations arose, within the deep-slumbering consciousness. Chemical valency and the bonding of chemnical compunds were strong desire on the mineral level. There was a response within the astral part of the souls, although it was quite unorganized. There was no mental activity within the mineral souls.
When the consciousness was ready, it was guided by Devas to the plant kingdom for plant manifestation.
The Monads were driven into the physical world by a desire for experiences. This desire had propelled them down into denser and denser forms. Although these desires can be seen as being very selfish, they were quite appropriate for this level of consciousness.
Groups-souls are objects that ensoul minerals, plants, and animals. Animals, etc., do not have individual souls. Several animals belong to one “soul,” so they are said to have a group-soul. Perhaps it will help if the reader considers flocks of birds and schools of fish. They seem to belong to one consciousness — which is exactly what they are. All fish within one school of fish belong to a single group-soul. Consciousness is slowly becoming more complex, although it is still not self-conscious.
At the end of the mineral kingdom phase, the activity of the mineral group-soul was transferred to the mental plane (“Heaven”). Then it nourished the already-present mental bodies, and made them gradually less vague. There was a great deal more astral activity for plants than minerals. A tree that lived a long life, for example, became able to experience pleasure and discomfort. For the first time, small amounts of mental matter accumulated around long-living trees, which manifested as faint memory, followed by faint anticipation.
Groups-souls are not individual souls. When an animal dies, its “soul” goes back into the common group-soul of its individual flock, school, etc. Is like pouring water into a bucket; when the “soul-matter” is selected for the next individual animal, part of the “water” is ladeled out, and a new “soul” is created. In the interim, all the “soul-matter” gets mixed together. Each animal, then, has a generic “chunk” of “soul-matter” from all of the previous animals of that group-soul. (This also explains animal instinct; the “soul-matter” is continutally being mixed between births, causing a general sharing of “animal instinct.”)
When ready, a vegetable goup-soul was guided by Devas to life in the lowest of animal, for example, bacteria, amoebae, etc. Each animal group-soul slowly gathered experiences, preparing to eventually become human.
Each animal “soul” eventually became possessd of its own individual group-soul envelope, ready for human Individualization. As time went on, a group-soul gradually contained fewer and fewer individuals. When a single group-soul contained only one individual animal, and was ready, it became a part of a causal body. The upward-drawn group-soul met the downpouring from above. This, then, was the beginning of a reincarnating human, born into its first independent human incarnation.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
HAT
Thanks for posting the Christian and Theosophical origins of sin and interpretations of the devil. I’m glad you did, as it highlights the essential fundamental differences between the two belief systems. Theosophy, following it’s gnostic pedigree makes Satan or Lucifer, the beneficial agent of Man’s transformation from an unthinking automaton, to a more highly evolved being and eventually into a God.
The traditional Christian scriptural exegesis, admits that this is how the serpent (Satan), presents himself to Adam and Eve in Eden, but also states that it is merely one of his many lies. Adam and Eve are not mindless robots before the Fall. Satan deceives them into believing that eating the fruit of knowledge will make them “be as gods.” But in reality, this act causes Man’s fall from divine grace, not his evolutionary leap forward.
The theosophical interpretation makes an association between Lucifer and Prometheus and rightly so. Percy Shelley, a great admirer of Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati, also saw this similarity. His play “Prometheus Unbound”, prefigures Blavatsky by over half a century, in suggesting that Prometheus/Lucifer represents Man’s “salvation” from the fetters of traditional religion, a liberation that would supposedly precede the erection of a man made heaven on earth. This line of thinking, and use of Promethean symbolism, would also flow from Shelley into Marx (who was also an Illuminati fan) and his dreams of a Communist Utopia, which was, effectively, Eden without God. And, it hardly seems a coincidence to me, that the Rockefeller’s, who sponsored their own “Man becoming God” projects, such as global government and eugenics, adorn the outside of their Rockefeller Center with a statue of Prometheus himself. What is explained macro-cosmically in the traditional biblical account, is acted out micro-cosmically by people throughout history. Promethean hubris, the lie of Lucifer, has not delivered man from suffering but, rather, it has caused it again and again. Marxist governments killed over 100 million of their own citizens in the 20th century alone and tortured and oppressed millions more. Eugenics lead to the monstrous Nazi project that was the Holocaust. Hitler’s and many high ranking Nazis came from the Thule society, which itself was derived from Blavatsky’s Theosophy, with its Aryan worship and promise of an impending evolutionary leap. The idea that Lucifer will transform Man into a god is clearly a lie. A lie that has only every brought suffering and death. Even as mere allegory, it should be clear that the Christian version of the story is a greater reflection of the truth.
The evolutionary myth presented by Theosophy is just a cover story used to justify Lucifer’s claim that Man will evolve into a god if he follows the Luciferian plan. Dressed with pseudo-scientific, quasi-spiritual sophistry it impresses people who are susceptible to gnostic delusions of intellectual elitism. It seems complex and confusing thus some people assume it explains the universe. But that fact is, like the biblical story of the Fall, reality, right and wrong and the like are actually quite simple. Evil isn’t an evolutionary drive carrying us from impersonal spirit, to matter, to egoless biology, to individual ego and eventually back to impersonal spirit again, it is just evil plain and a simple.
Also, regarding your earlier assertion that the Pope supported Hitler, this has been proven to be disinformation cooked up by the Soviets back in the 60’s. For more on this read this breif article here:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Hochhuth/Times_200207.html
Or read the book “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by historian and Rabbi, David G. Dalin
February 15th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Excuse me for being Dialectic, I seem to be playing the Devil’s Advocate here.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
THANK YOU FOR THAT LINK
IT PUTS ME ON TRACK AGAIN
MORE INFERNAL ILLUMINATI MIND GAMES
YES, KEEPING THINGS SIMPLE, EVIL IS EVIL
February 16th, 2010 at 8:05 am
AS AN ARTIST I WATCH THE TREES by the lake. As the sun rises slowly over the horizon, over the trees, these trees become all of a sudden golden. All the leaves are bright with life and as you watch them as the hours pass by, - an extraordinary quality seems to spread all over the land, over the lake. And as the sun rises a little higher the leaves begin to flutter, to dance. And each hour seems to give to the trees a different quality. Before the sun rises they have a sombre feeling, quiet, far away, full of dignity. And as the day begins, the leaves with the light on them dance and give them that peculiar feeling that one has of great beauty. By midday their shadow has deepened and you can sit there protected from the sun, never feeling lonely, with the trees as your companion. As you sit there, there is a relationship of deep abiding security and a freedom that only trees can know.
Towards the evening when the skies are lit up by the setting sun, the trees gradually become sombre, dark, closing in on themselves. The sky has become red, yellow, green, but the trees remains quiet, hidden, and are resting for the night.
We never look deeply into the quality of a tree; we never really touch it, feel its solidity, its rough bark, and hear the sound that is part of the tree. Not the sound of wind through the leaves, not the breeze of a morning that flutters the leaves, but its own sound, the sound of the trunk and the silent sound of the roots. You must be extraordinarily sensitive to hear the sound. This sound is not the noise of the world, not the noise of the chattering of the mind, not the vulgarity of human quarrels and human warfare but sound as part of the universe.
Just watch. Watch those clouds shaping and reshaping, watch the trees, the little birds. It is all part of life. When you watch attentively, with diligence, there is nothing to learn; there is only that vast space, in the silence.
But watching, in which there is attention, awareness, and a great sense of compassion, awareness has its own intelligence. This watching and intelligence acts. But this requires great alertness, to see things without the word, without the name, without any reaction; in that watching there is a great vitality………the passion of life.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:36 am
It’s damp and cold in England
I was just wondering if the Pope was infallible
And who controls the controller
And why Prince Charles would want to kill foxes
And why do we bow down to the top of the pile
And who wrote the books, after the wars
Who levelled the land……………
So that they can stand tall on top of their kingdoms of
rape, pillage and murder…………..
Who don’t give a damn for Davy Jones’s empty locker
February 16th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Ross, first I want to thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge. Do not abbreviate anything on my account. I could never compete with your arsenal of historical facts, but I’m not sure I would want to. In the last analysis, if Mr. Creme’s Masters emerge and turn out to be all that was advertised, most of your incredible storehouse of knowledge will be nothing but the misunderstandings of men. I prefer my simple mind, which does not comprehend the details of Theosophy, but is thoroughly convinced that its framework, which I do understand, is the real Truth.
I use Theosophy as the backbone of my belief system, but a lot of the details I have derived from my own logical observations. For example, you asked me what is the origin of negative karma? To answer this, I would first quote something I’ve read, probably a part of a Buddhist prayer, forgive me for not knowing who wrote it: “Having pervaded the universe with a fragment of myself, I remain.” In other words, nothing exists but God. The entire universe came from God. I define the universe in terms of its substance plus time. Anything that ever was, is now, or ever shall be is the definition of the universe, and God is the owner. Now it just so happens that humans alter the universe with every thought, word and deed. It’s not a huge change, but it is change nonetheless, and we are accountable for how we change God’s universe. If our change is in alignment with God’s plan, He rewards us. If, however, our thought, word, or deed interferes with God’s plan, even a tiny, tiny bit, He punishes us. He is the owner, and we have affected His property. Negative karma, therefore, originates whenever any individual performs an action which interferes with God’s plan.
What is God’s plan? Again, I cannot discuss historical models, I only have my own logical observations. In the beginning, just after the “Big Bang”, nothing existed in the universe outside of the mineral kingdom. The vegetable kingdom came much later. There was no “life”. Keep in mind that the entire universe is just a bunch of God-stuff churning around. Somehow, who knows how, (our scientists certainly don’t), the vegetable kingdom emerged from the mineral kingdom. Life came from things that weren’t alive. The God-stuff opened its eyes into its first awareness. From the vegetable kingdom emerged the animal kingdom, which evolved into the human kingdom. What is happening to the God-stuff? The universe is evolving in such a way that it is gradually producing forms which have greater awareness and capabilities. In the human, there is the capacity for understanding. The universe, or God-stuff is becoming aware of itself. This is God’s ultimate plan: for the universe to become first aware of itself, and then to mature into absolute goodness. I don’t think anyone can argue that evil deeds produce good karma, so God wants the greatest good for the greatest number. Hence, our good deeds are rewarded, and our evil deeds generate punishment.
I’d like to hear your response to this before going on.
February 16th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Raj Patel’s latest book, The Value of Nothing, with Oscar Wilde’s observation that “nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing,” sounds good, well worth a read.
He’s just a normal bloke with insight and some great ideas.
Benjamin Creme, He’s just a normal bloke with insight and some great ideas.
Maitreya, he’s not normal, he can speak to you directly, 1,000 miles away.
He makes his own bodies, not out of clay either
He can appear in front of you, at will, whilst you’re on the throne
He can smudge his hands all over your windows, and they’ll glow.
He can produce razor sharp tear drops out of little babies eyes
He has a cosmic friend called Sai Baba, who also hides a trick or two.
Vote for them now
February 16th, 2010 at 9:56 am
ONE DAY WE’LL ALL HAVE TO FACE OUR FEARS
AND SANAT KUMARA WILL BE THERE, RIGHT IN FRONT OF US
WHETHER WE BELIEVE IN HIM OR NOT
THE BIBLE CERTAINLY DOES
JESUS PASSSED THE TEST
IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TO FOLLOW TOO
I HOPE I DON’T END UP SPEAKING IN TONGUES
OR BEING OVERSHADOWED BY SOME NON-ENTITY
JUST BECAUSE I DIDN’T PASS THE TEST
I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE
February 16th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Dear Mr. Hat:
Please continue. You’ve made me smile many times.
Yours in Christ,
Some of the God-stuff
February 16th, 2010 at 10:55 am
SERIOUSLY
THE BIBLE SAYS THAT SATAN IS EVIL…..FINE
THEOSOPHY STATES THAT SATAN IS AN ACCUSER BUT NOT EVIL….OKAY
BUT I SEE LOADS OF EVIL….EVERY DAY SORT OF EVIL
THE SORT THAT DOES YOUR HEAD IN SORT
BUT THE ONLY TIME I DON’T IS WHEN I DON’T THINK ABOUT IT
AM I EVIL….IT DRIVES ME MAD
MIND YOU, I NEVER HEARD MOTHER TERESA SAY MUCH
SHE JUST GOT ON WITH IT
THE WORDS OF DWAL KHUL ARE POETRY IN MOTION
THE BIBLE IS WONDERFUL BUT I KEEP ON GETTING BASHED BY IT
IF MR CREME’S MAITREYA IS REAL….THEN I’M GOING TO ASK
HIM IF I CAN GO AND MEET SANAT KUMARA, AT HIS HOME TOWN IN SHAMBALLA,
SOMEWHERE OUT IN MONGOLIA, STRICTLY ON A ONE TO ONE BASIS,
JUST SO WE CAN GET A FEW THINGS STRAIGHT.
DID YOU KNOW, APPARENTLY WE ALL COME FROM SUN LIGHT
LIKE THE RAINBOW’S RAYS.
I LIKE BLUE
February 16th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Quit it with the caps. You might as well just spray paint and deface the site if you’re going to do that.
One warning.
February 16th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Sorry, I didn’t realise
One could do that
I’ll put the cans away
How many lives have I got left
February 16th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I have been accused before for being over-zealous with the ol’ spray-guns
February 16th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I think that the very high elite of the illuminati families etc, actually worship daemons, one called Beelzebub, the Lord of materiality, who gives them their power aka : “dominus muscarum” of the Order of Flies etc. Beelzebub claims to cause destruction through tyrants, to cause daemons to be worshipped amongst men, excite priests to paediphilia, to cause jealousies in cities and murders, and to bring on war etc. Black arts for black hearts. Enuff said. Fact is stranger than fiction, not yet spawned, even in Todd McFarlane’s brilliant imagination.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Apparently you have to stand naked in front of Sanat Kumara
Don’t bother me, I’ve nothing to hide
But Beelzebub, he don’t give a Castlemaine XXXX what you are
Both require a fearless approach
February 16th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Grimoires of the left hand Path contains the infernal rites, an extensive ideological and magical system, presenting a grounded and understandable form of working with the Tree of Da’ath and tunnels. The second part of the grimoires are based on the ritualistic inversions of the texts and the forbidden path of Predatory Spiritualism.
To walk upon the Left Hand Path is to sip from the venom’d cup, to move against the Sun by the way of Lilith and Hecate, to listen to the ancient lore of the Watchers, to empower their fall and rise through the body of the initiate. The Left Hand Path will become whatever way the Adept walks once they move into the darkness to seek the Light illuminated, the very essence of perversness, holding “Evil Knowledge” and seeks to manifest the “Evil Religion” by way of malignant riddles. It must be known that one of the core aspects of the left hand path is the transformation of the individual into a God or Goddess of their own design. The more mediocre, the weaker, the more submissive and cowardly a man is, the more he will posit the evil that resides in him, it is with him that the realm of evil is most comprehensive. The basest (most dishonourable) man will see the realm of evil that is, of that which is forbidden and hostile to him – everywhere……The most powerful man, the creator, would have to be the most evil, in as much as he carries his ideal against the ideals of other men and remakes them in his own image”. Powerful stuff. What goes on behind closed doors.
Benjamin Crème seems like a pussy cat, right hand path, compared to some of the illuminati, left hand path.
Whatever, there’s a war on.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
It is well documented that you can open doors through the use of drugs.
Our hospitals are full of people who hear unwelcomed voices.
Humans are delicate creatures. Adverse stress and tension also brings
on unwholesome images and thoughts.
Kundalini should only be raised naturally, through service and devotion to our fellow beings.
We are born to be happy.
People know not what they do when they play around with their inner forces.
Ecstacy practiced by various gurus is not true freedom from self
Jesus tried to show us the way, which is Buddha’s middle path,
The eye of the needle.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Prove it punk !
The mind can’t do that
Your mind can only go so far as to prove that the bat never hit the ball
Space can divide itself again and again
But you can ‘’feel’’ the bat when it hits your face
And ‘’understand’’ that it hurts, that’s a fact, it be.
Benjamin Crème seems devoted to his cause and effect
His faith austere and straight……
As faithful as my dog’s a fact.
It be, whether I believe….. counts not wot
But wot inspires us to laugh and smile
To some, a little treasure grows
To us and them and those that be……that haven’t got a lot.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
It’s Time To Reclaim Our Government.
We vote them in to spend ‘our’ money and so we are not only responsible for who takes charge of this country, but we also give them the funds to keep it going.
It is time to reclaim ‘our’ government and demand that ‘it’ work for ‘us’.
However we, the voters, have to undergo our own mental revolution. We have to remember that pressure can be easily put on MPs by writing letters, sending emails, going to meetings and speaking out: telling the elected exactly how the electorate feel.
We need the party system to disappear and a solution to this awful mess found.
A possible option could be a Government of National Unity.
This would mean that MPs work together for a common cause.
Seeing as Members of Parliament are so discredited, it could be the stop-gap that gives us an opportunity to reclaim “our government”.
Around the country faith has been lost in their ability to act for the people.
The world needs politicians to work together without trying to gain points off each other; it needs the parties to stop spinning their way out of trouble by telling the truth, and the country needs to be shown that this elected group of men and women, can solve problems through collaboration and the sharing of ideas.
April 17th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
It seems to me that a relationship with GOD is simple we all have a built in “moral” compass and we certainly do know right from wrong but no one ever talks about the Devil with any knowledge it is he who blurs this moral compass and tricks into indulging in the sins we so love to relish in the power and majesty of our father GOD can be realized when at our darkest moment when all hope has truly turned to dust and you are about to sell your soul to the Devil for one more shot of Jack…..reach your hand out to GOD in a sincere way and he will lift you up that is all you need to know a sincere relationship with GOD
April 18th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
I just did a video and blog about Maitreya I think its a total sham. I think the Nairobi thing was a staged event, I talk a little about it in the video / post http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/?p=312
July 4th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
The only thing Margaret McElroy channels is her ego.
August 4th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Benjamin Creme is a fraud, an administer of sooth saying nonsense, a mystical sounding liar, nothing but a con artist feeding on public frustration. Benjamin Creme’s pronouncements of an upcoming new era of bountiful content apparently doesn’t come with promise of 72 virgins, believing a character called Maitreya exists is equally ridiculous. Benjamin Creme in truth preaches insanity, if the entire population of the world were to buy into each and every level of religious dogma it would be a rerun of the Dark Ages or worse. Playing adult games of religious make believe is CRAZY, due to the marvels of human ingenuity masterpieces of architecture, literature and scientific achievements are produced which can be constructed, written or made to seemingly represent or otherwise convey the superstition called [religion] which means - “the willingness to believe or have faith in something that’s not necessarily true”. The Mohammad’s and Benjamin Cream’s of the world aren’t messengers of anything anymore than Adolf Hitler was a messenger of the Aryan race, each delivering a specific brand of high and mighty sounding fictional nonsense according to the type of society each belongs or once belonged to, scheming, redistributing age old aspirations predicated upon fear and unbalanced logic and absurd wrongfulness. Mankind will either fix its own woes him and herself or they won’t be fixed at all, believing a so called god will set everything right only serves to undermine our ability to set things right for ourselves. Benjamin Creme is a freaking user and full time stupid idiot! - - - Screw you and your BS Benjamin Creme - nobody in their right mind has and use for your line of sorry ass crap anymore - go back to the Dark Ages where you belong and take your silly ass Maitreya puppet with you!
September 20th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
why is his message so crazy? what are we afraid of? isn’t is something that we all secretly wishing for?
one god, one religion??? it would surely stop all the craziness and the killing that has been going on for 2000years???”or should we continue until we destroy this world?? do you really believe that we are all alone in this vast universe??? is it too much to ask to rewire our brains that have been condition over the last 2000years?? well with or without our help, welcome to a brave new world! dont worry, you won’t go to hell if you don’t believe. your just not ready for this new intelligence but your children are!!
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Before anyone dismisses Benjamen Creme as a marginal figure of no significance consider this: he publishes a magazine both online and off called Share International. It is the offline magazine which is the curiosity here - articles are often contributed by members of the global elite, including Kofi Anan, UN Secretary, The Dalai Lama, an ex Irish Premier and even His Royal Highness Prince Charles!!!!!!!!!!!
Now why are these prominant individuals associating themselves with such a ‘marginal whacko’ like Creme? Answer: BECAUSE HE ISN’T A WHACKO! Because, these influential figures have all had direct personal experience of The Maitreya . Even Mandella was approached in prison and was given political advice by Maitreya. Get hold of the offline version of this magazine and two things will strike you (1) The quality of the journalism is extremely high and, (2) the contributors themselves include some very famous and influential people. Even in an interview recently the Dalai Lama, said in English that we should ‘promote the Maitreya’. So is the Dalai Lama a fibber? It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for this revered holy man to ever lie. Case closed.
December 31st, 2010 at 4:32 am
I think this information is useful for so many people at my office. I will save it for them.
December 31st, 2010 at 7:54 am
Surely now it is easy to verify whether Benjamin Creme’s information about Maitreya is valid or not.
He has made a claim that Maitreya has now given 28 interviews (in cognito) on a popular programme on a Major US Network since January 2010. That’s just over 2 interviews a month.
An audience in excess of 10-12 million was claimed to have seen him on his first Interview. To get an audience that big must mean he was on either CBS, NBC or ABC. So where is the buzz? Where are the comments, blog diaries, tweets, news and media stories about an extraordinary man, yet humble, wise and compassionate, speaking with simplicity about the solutions to the problems of today? With 28 interviews many, many millions must have heard him speak and thousands must have resonated with what he said.
I can’t find one mention on the internet, and i’ve been looking off and on for the whole year. The only mentions are speculation about the claims.
It could still be happening nonetheless, but from my experience it seems unlikely. The only way to know for sure is to watch the 3 Major Networks for a month i guess.
January 4th, 2012 at 4:54 am
Ha - just checked back here after a year.
Still can’t find any mention on the net of any humble yet extraordinary individual speaking about peace through sharing and justice etc.
I would be surprised if anyone was still open to Benjamin Creme’s information now.
January 12th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Pertinent to the comment by “peter”: The articles appearing in Share International magazine by Kofi Anan, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Prince Charles and other such well-known public figures are not exclusive to the magazine but are pieces that have been generally made available by their respective organizations, or by news services, for reprinting. External sources, when used, appear at the end of the article. Interviews appearing in the magazine are often obtained the same way, though some interviews are new and are conducted by magazine contributors. Articles and interviews are chosen because those individuals hold social, economic and/or humanitarian views that are similar to those of Share International at the current time. The eschatological, spiritual or religious views of the authors and interviewees may be different from those of Benjamin Creme. I hope this helps with these discussions.
Best wishes.