Mysticism and Priestcraft
It has been said that mysticism and religions are strange bed fellows.
In truth they are not strange bed fellows at all, for they never get into bed
with each other. Religious establishments (with very few exceptions) do not tolerate
mystics and personal individual revelation for obvious reasons. Likewise would
no genuine mystic crawl between the sheets (pages) of any state religious
doctrine of priestcraft.
The experiential revelation of a sacred transcendent reality is a cosmological
fact of human existence, whereas state religions are man made symbols and
doctrinal mythology structured by ancient scribes of priestcraft and still
perpetuated today by the psychological gullibility of their subscribers. State
Religions (priestcraft) were originally founded upon ancient mystic assertions
by word of mouth; and thence latter written documents by people who came to
hear of such events; this is self-evident from hindsight. They sometimes wrote
of what they had heard in such a way that gave the impression that they
actually know it themselves, when in fact they did not. There were also those
who completely misunderstand the things said even when that which is said
happens to be true of direct revelation of these events by the people that did
know them. There must also have been such honest scribes who could only grasp
the symbolic likeness of such statements and took them for the event itself.
Confusion does not take long to set in.
Without revelation of these things then nothing could ever be known of a
transcendent dimension at all, nothing. It is impossible for reason
(rationalism) to arrive at it by deduction or inference of the outside world or
universe, and it is impossible to invent it. It therefore comes from original
genuine accounts of this phenomenon.
A percentage of religionists (today’s subscribers to a doctrinal state
mythology) may well seek to justify their beliefs by observing order found in
the universe, and thence inferring that such meaningful order must come from
their transcendent deity; but the mystics do not need any objective sensual
justification. Moreover, there is no direct evidence or even implication of a
transcendent reality in the physical universe whatsoever. There are no clues to
this reality in the universe. There are no clues either in the daily experience
of human beings or in the techniques of scientific tools to even imply a
transcendent connection. So, either religions are founded upon a pure human
invention or there is a direct link to genuine mystical experience. If it were
a case of the former then, as I said elsewhere, the coincidences would go well
beyond the bounds of credibility as a mere accident of chance and or guesswork.
Religions then are not wholly contrived.
The world has known so many religions from the time of cave men that it
is not even possible to know of them all today. As societies come into contact
and merge then so too do many of the customs and heritage’s, the legends and
the myths also become entwined within the new evolving paradigmatic framework
and or religious views of the changing and evolving society. One would
naturally expect that such a situation would eventually result in only a
handful of large religions world-wide in due course; and as is the case today.
They consist mostly of myth and speculation of their sociological times and
needs, and some of which is pure invention for political and social ends.
Scribes copy previous scribes simply for credibility, and with a few new seeds
of their own thrown in to suit their purpose and the changing times of this or
that society and its circumstances. The detective story is not a difficult one
at all—especially for today’s mystics. Even the academics of today make quite a
good job of unravelling the dichotomy of religious social foundations.
*
Once upon a time the word religion was two words, Re-Legio, meaning;
Re-union, as mentioned elsewhere; and re-union literally meant reunion with
that transcendent order. Note that it does not simply mean a union but a
reuniting; and which is exactly what the experience is—a re-union of one part
of self with a transcendent aspect of self. Today however, especially in the
western world at least, the word religion means something very different: it
means a faith that ones beliefs in this or that doctrine of priestcraft are
true, albeit unknowable until you are dead.
But what are such peoples individual beliefs, and what are they based
upon in actual fact? The reason why one cannot talk about a specific religion
as such is because there is no such things as a pure, specific religion. Each
religion contains more sects within it than there are basic world
religions. They contain aspects from diverse cultures; strands of truth, myth,
symbolism, metaphor, and outright lies and fabrications. There is no such
things as a true religion yet alone a correct one as it relates to the nature
of being and the cosmos. No two people within any religion believe the same
identical package of so called truths—even if they like to believe that they
do. Simply listen to them in depth, as I have, for the proof of that fact.
Question them in depth, as I have. Most religionists do not like being
questioned to such depth, for they know full well that not only do they have no
answers but that there is no justification for their particular package of
spiritual glue. However, be all this as it obviously is many still insist on
comparing religion with mysticism. So, OK, let us do just that.
Genuine mystical dialogue and literature does not set out to tell
people what they should do or how they should behave and what they should think
or how they should live their lives. It simply tells them of the nature of
their inner and transcendent spirit, and in the hope that such dialogue may
have effects upon the listener in a positive way. Priestcraft however, do the
complete opposite. They tell them nothing about their spiritual nature at all
and simply dictate to them how they should live their lives on earth, and
thence promise them doom and everlasting hell if they do not comply with the
rules of that creed. They do not even know the spiritual reality; they do not
even know of it. Hypocrisy and self-painted vessels of wisdom indeed. So what
is really new? Not a lot.
At the heart of all the religions which I have ever read anything about
they all have a precious jewel at their root: but they do not seem to know it.
And as to what they actually come to believe about these things and why, is
anybody's guess. Most ancient myths are founded upon direct but ineffable
experience originally. But today's state doctrines use them predominantly to
give credence to their existing moral code of conduct which suits their
political, and so called moral way of life and structured society; hence they
choose the bits they want, even of their own books, and disregard the rest;
just as they did in Rome near on two thousand years ago. They mould it to what
they want it to be. You cannot do that with truth however; for it is what it
is, and it isn’t what it isn’t. Truth is not democratic or arrived at by a
consensus of opinion.
Morality moreover, (if that is their intention) cannot be inflicted on
to a person by the state legislation or another person. One can legislate laws,
but not morality and decent human behaviour into a person. Morality is a
condition of the soul itself in knowledge (to whatever degree) of its
spirituality. Life itself will mould ones morality. There is no better teacher
than life itself—and life never gets it wrong. Beliefs can be whatever you want
them to be, but ones inner moral code of conduct is whatever it is and wherever
it is at; and it is not a matter of self-choice; for you are what you are at
any one point of your journey; and you do not need a religion to justify or
substantiate your axiomatic inner code of moral and spiritual conduct. You can
of course consciously attempt to alter yourself for the better as you see it;
and indeed work on it. But morality and love as becomes the phenomenon in
genuine mystics does not equate with the morality and so called love found in
any of the worlds religions. Mystics do not play at it, and there is no
pretence therein. Priestcraft attempts to talk the walk; mystics walk the talk.
Book religions are also much like a lawyers charter or document in that
they contain so much, and so many conflicting statements, that anyone can read
into it exactly that which they need for their argument. They do not teach as
much as they confuse. Only a small percentage of people today however really
belong to a state religion in the strict sense of belonging to it; it is
largely mere lip service and convention these days. Indeed, many run a mile
when the word mysticism is even mentioned. Spirituality and state doctrinal
religions are not the same thing: and sometimes not even connected with each
other. Priestcraft seems to forget that Homo Sapiens of this day and age have
evolved into rational beings that question everything and search into
everything (mysticism notwithstanding)—they want answers not beliefs or creeds
or mere opinions. And beliefs do not equate with reality which is found and
known—and thence has a direct effect on the finder of it. The major event of
mysticism is the effect, and that effect is not there if one has not integrated
with it. And that is a fact. One cannot digest food which one has not eaten and
thence gone into the system. Ipso facto.
In addition to this some of the most horrific actions perpetrated by
human beings have been done by those claiming affiliation to this or that
doctrinal religion: and in the name of that religion to boot. Hitler and his
closest henchmen were Roman Catholics. A large percentage of the SS were Roman
Catholics. Twenty-two million Germans at that time were Roman Catholics. The
Pope at that time employed a German secretary and a German housekeeper. Never
once did the Pope denounce the slaughter of the Jews: he never even mentioned
the word Jews.
At the liberation of Rome by the allied forces the Pope refused to let
coloured Americans guard the Vatican. And such a character was in charge of the
western worlds spiritual development and held the keys to paradise itself—good
god almighty it is incredible the depths to which human beings can sink in this
life. And they claim to be a reflection and mirror of the divine spirit. Hitler
alone did not murder millions of Jews—the German people did; farmers, teachers,
office workers, parents, aunts and uncles—human beings like us. Not one in
thirty of those people either belonged to the SS or even the Nazi party. What
is so called religion today then? Whatever it is we can certainly do without
it. But all that is needed is for people to vote with their hearts, their minds
and their feet. Priestcraft is a virus diabolical; yet only permitted to exist
by the gullibility of their flock.
The only state religion which I have had any academic interest in
whatsoever (as I have to tell them when asked) is that of Christianity itself,
and the reasons for that are threefold. One: is that it is the state
priestcraft as taught by law in the country in which I and my children come
into direct unsolicited contact with state priestcraft; and thus have it thrust
into one as a child at school—which MUST stop. Two: because it does in fact
talk of resurrection itself (as much older religions have done from the beginning
of known time); albeit in a very ridiculous way which does not correlate with
the event of the transcendent mystical death and resurrection event
itself. It also mentions a trinity of
being, and which one also learns of during transcendence itself. Thus there are
interesting correlations to be sure. Why should something as diabolical as the
ancient Roman power structure know of a few basic facts (albeit distorted) of
transcendence then? Three: Because any State religion is second-hand
indoctrination for a vested reason, and thus a virus to plague the human mind.
They are my only three reasons for having an academic interest in the local
state doctrine and churchianity. The academic question of course is as to where
and why it had its foundation. But there is also the even more interesting
question as to what that foundation was truly built upon in the first place. It
was built upon direct knowledge of transcendence somewhere along the line, that
is obvious—and long prior to Roman politicians getting hold of it and moulding
it to their mercenary and political needs.
We only know anything of its root by way of its own literature and a
little archaeology; for we cannot pop back in time to see what was going on too
readily. Christianity, more or less as we know it today, came from (was put
together by) Rome at about the time of two to three hundred AD. Primarily
adopted from esoteric circles wherein the philosophy and religion of Gnosticism
was evolving fast. But much modified by adaptations from ancient Greek
rationalist philosophy and the Hellenistic mystery religions at and before that
time; and later modified by much speculative thought and imagination of the
middle ages and many of its so called ‘mystics’. (Bandwagon surf riders.
Anything for a quick buck or a touch of power, or recognition maybe, with some
of these lads it seems.)
But the political owners of the newly invented religion had the last
say on ‘truth’ obviously (that seems to be the modern craze in some later cults
and religions also). Well, why not; it was their club and cult after all. The
inner mystic cores of all other religions are of course most interesting also;
but life on earth is far too short, and with far too much to do than spending
much of ones time reading ancient esoteric scripts simply to ascertain how much
experiential fact exists within them.
Christianity however, in so far as I know, is also the only religion
which has ever existed in which the key to the Divine Order is held by the
hierarchy of the establishment itself... as opposed to the Divine Order itself.
The Emperor would you believe. And they think Disneyland is way out. It is also
the only religion of which I am aware that preaches of eternal damnation for
those who do not come to believe in the assertions of that cult. It is also the only religion of which I am
aware of which has done away with the concept of reincarnation... for you could
not have eternal damnation if reincarnation is true (or even if it isn't for
that matter). Reincarnation is an implication of the transcendent event itself:
we learn that we are never terminated; and also that we cannot stay there; the
implication is obvious.
Western priestcraft teaches that we are born in sin! What a liberty to
be sure: they should speak for themselves. One of course has to be baptised
into that cult in order for salvation to work anyway; and to come to know the
Divine. It is salvation from priestcraft which is needed in this world, not
salvation from reality; or even fear and pain. Even one of the Western religions
so-called sources of deeper information is said to have exclaimed to a man
dying at the same time... ‘Today you will be with me in paradise’. (We will not
bother to mention that they claim that he seemed to then hang around for three
days before going there, so he must have been lying to the guy eh?) Have they
ever tried thinking I wonder?
Somebody, somewhere, knew what they were talking about sure enough, and
that IS for sure (and even if it was constructed within the frame-work of a
symbolic fairy story by Rome). So it is not all a complete invention of Rome
obviously; but rather a mere political adaptation of the truth for vested
reasons: power. Baptism into that cult is the certificate of belonging to that
political and pseudo spiritual mob or Mafia, and no more; and an agreement to
abandon one’s own reason, thinking, questioning, and common sense to boot...
and to say nothing of truth itself. It is also a religion of fear, torture,
punishment, retribution, blood, evil, slaying by the sword, suffering,
murdering; an eye for an eye. Where does love and wisdom show its face in it
then? It is high time that such diatribe of lies and distortions, was dead and
gone. Something out here truly is in need... it was dead right you see!
It is of course interesting in that Western religion as we know it
today came into existence at the time when the Roman Empire was collapsing; or
at least evident that it soon would. It has long been known that an idea is
more powerful than the sword however; for the sword can only dig into the body
but an idea digs into the mind—and there is no profit in a dead body or dead
slave. It is also well known that an idea can only be toppled by another idea.
So, create an idea (with a bit of the genuine mystics transcendent affirmations
thrown in to give it a little substance), make yourself the key holder to that
idea; and Bob's your uncle: a new religion, and power. It is that simple; and
many cults do it unto this day. Cult leaders are not only diabolical morons but
they are also stupid, ignorant and dangerous people. Rome however, was cunning:
but not too smart. If you are going to create a lie then for heaven sake create
a good one; and that can never be disproved or the truth of it known. They
could not even do that. Never create a lie about something which actually
exists for the truth to be known about it! (A good tip for future cult leaders
and false guru’s.) However, once set up then burn all the evidence you can find
to the contrary also; like the library of Alexandria for example; murder all
the existing genuine mystics, academics and scientists, and who is going to
argue with you?
That Western priestcraft contains truths which are found in and during
transcendence itself (and which have been known by people from the year dot all
over the world, and by all other religions also) is a fact. That they (the
Roman priestcraft) have distorted it out of all recognition for the political
advantage of Rome is also a fact of the matter. It is that simple—and that
effective. Near on two thousand years of bloody war, hostility, murder,
torture, divisiveness; and to say nothing of the suppression of truth. Are we
all really out of the caves yet? Is there any need in this world for individual
revelation of the spiritual reality? Ask your self.
The main interest and hoped for effect of most honest religions (at
root that is), was that of not only making symbolic likeness and metaphor of a
known reality but also that of inspiration for the mind of the listeners to it.
The hoped for effect in the ancient mystic tradition is that the mind of the
listener will itself be inspired into the action of deep inner spiritual
movement itself to bring about such revelation itself for the hearer of it
themselves. And there were few better at putting inspirational words together
than the amazing Sufi mystics of Islam—until modern Islam got rid of them also.
I know well enough that inspiration is one way of putting oneself in
the path of this event and setting it going: for it was inspiration that caused
my own inner movement and then the ensuing effects. We watch and we learn.
However, how can priestcraft such as Western religion is, ever inspire a young
mind when it talks of us being born in sin and then also of eternal damnation
in hell if you do not believe it? Also, the creation of a middle man which
exists in between oneself and the divine order of existence is not only a rank
lie and fabrication it is also extremely dangerous as a social concept. Human
beings have to take direct personal responsibility for their own actions: there
is no buck-passing and no middle man. Also, that only one human being on earth
was the only child of the divine order. What sort of inspiration and goddamned
favouritism is that for heavens sake? It is more likely to inspire (incite)
someone into suicide or everlasting mental depression. They talk of love and
passion as though they knew what it was: that’ll be the day.
It is true enough that many people do not adhere to a state doctrinal
religion in this day and age; thank the power that be. But it is also true that
when it comes to even thinking of such things as spiritual reality, death, the
‘meaning of life’ and all that, then many people who do not accept all this
baggage of ridiculous nonsense and diatribe are still going to think in those
conceptual terms which were brain-washed into them from childhood by their
state religion and the culture which derives from it—even infants schools: and
albeit subliminally in most people maybe. For what else have such people got to
contemplate upon anyway? You cannot contemplate upon something which you have
never even heard of. Mention the spirit to most young people today and they
think of either spiritualism (a Victorian con trick) or Christianity—and they
rightly run a mile, or to the nearest pub for salvation from priestcraft and
idiocy.
And this is another reason why I maintain that priestcraft is the worst
virus ever to plague the human mind; for it buggers the mind up: apart from the
simple fact that it distorts divine facts as they are directly known and become
revealed and experienced to be. Our mind is indeed a tool which really is the
tool shed of the divine whilst on earth, and these pseudo teachers, false
gurus, are messing it up. I challenge any one of them or all of them at the
same time to debate. But such people do not listen, and have nothing to say
anyway. Priestcraft is a virus; and one to be put down—by voting with ones
feet, mind and spirit.
One then of course has to address the question as to why state
religions exist at all (even genuine ones); and irrespective of where they come
from. What is the practical function of an organised state religion as they see
it? What are they supposed to achieve in the eyes of those who run them and
those who belong to them? We all know what a garage is for; or a vet, or a
hospital, or a golf club. But what is the function of a state doctrinal Church
then? Do they have a function even? If they do not have a function then they
are the only thing in the universe that does not have a function and purpose.
Even a blade of grass has a cosmological function. Even fiction has a function.
Strangely enough even a lie has a function... to hide the truth.
Now, if we were to ask a representative of the hierarchy of each
existing state religion as to what the function of that organisation was then
there would be a good chance that each would say that their function was to
disseminate the truth of the spiritual reality. Yet they are all saying
different and often conflicting things. It is evident that where they conflict
then they cannot all be true; (and even if they did not conflict then that is
not evidence of them being true either). It should also be evident to them by
virtue of it that their own may possibly be wrong then; or in part at least. Or
is truth relative? Anything you want it to be maybe? Or is it more likely that
they have not got it all correct as yet?
So, at the origin and dead centre of all religions there is an
eternally known truth that becomes so symbolised by any mob culture throughout
hundreds if not thousands of years of manipulation until such time that this
truth has a scaffolding of symbolic structure around it which is so thick and
dense that the real story (and reality) is lost among the fog of the
scaffolding itself? Is it not a similar practice in science even, albeit on a
far smaller and less important scale? It is all a human problem at root, and
one which is caused, at root, through fear and thence exacerbated for reasons
of egocentric self aggrandisement.
Growing understanding gave event to thinking of atoms as tiny little
particles of matter, hard stuff. For a while that model worked, and quite well
in fact. Then along comes a new and deeper understanding which says, ‘Hang
on... this is not right’. Where greater understanding conflicts with lesser
understanding then there is something wrong with the lesser
understanding—always.
Is it not claimed that even the so called Jewish mystic (an active
Jewish heretic by all accounts) said something like... ‘In three days I will
tear down this structure (edifice or temple) and rebuild it again... in three
DAYS’ (in response to the existing
state religion of his time)? It is a strange thing, for if I were interested in
any specific religion then from hindsight of transcendence I would say this...
‘I will tear down this edifice of distortion and corruption and rebuild it
again in three dimensions’. I wonder if they used to use the word days for
what we now call dimensions? Creation was not created in seven (or six) days
for there were no worlds orbiting suns to have days and nights. However,
creation may or may not be created in seven dimensions. In the old days they
used to talk about ‘dialogue on the eighth’; so what was this eighth dimension
which they were on about... the dimension of eternal repose maybe: the day
(dimension) of rest; paradise itself?
There is also so much literature existing unto this day to be read even
now which Rome managed to miss: (but then again they missed so much anyway;
they did not even know how to fix a horse to cart properly). But I guess that
it can only be read, and seen to be true and sensible, from hindsight of
transcendence itself. All religions are based upon revealed transcendent
experience somewhere along the line; and thence evolve in time and tradition
into symbolic structures by those not knowing the reality themselves (the
orbital debris or mob), and those who are intent solely on exploitation and
political and or personal gain.
Mystics will always be an anathema to an artificially structured state
religion just as a scientist with a new insight is an anathema to the existing
establishment understanding of reality. Look at Newton and Einstein for
example. Western religion (as it is now) did not slowly evolve from mystic
writings and word of mouth like all other world religions have done and
continue so to do. Hence it is an unnatural religion; and for the large part
syncretistic and much invented by the politic of ancient Rome; and, as I say,
substantiated by later quasi mystics, false gurus for their own vested reasons
and for acceptance into the hierarchy of that power engine; or sometimes
through fear maybe.
Prior to the Roman religion there were thirteen symbolic individuals
(that even I have read of) who were half man and half god: all born of a virgin
and all sent to save the world; and died in so doing. It is perhaps the oldest myth on earth (much like the Earth
Divers myth in fact). Rome never did have much imagination did it? But then again
religionists don’t often read anything other do they; for they know it all
already it seems; they have second hand revealed ‘truth’ in their books so they
firmly believe and have faith in the book, for it saves them thinking for their
self. And the head man of the churchianity is infallible of course—Why? because
he said so no less! They read only what they want to read, see only what they
want to see, listen only to that which they want to hear. It is the entropy and
death of human reason and advanced culture. Man should not die for such religions:
such religions should die in order than man can live.
Today priestcraft is a drug to prevent thinking, action and change in
this world. Religion is what this or that organisation wants you to believe for
their own reasons. Re-Union however, is the event of the mystic death and
resurrection itself. Make a quest and goal out of it by all means, but not a
symbol... or if not then forget about it all together for a while. But when
known, then live the reality of it. Assuming that you could do any other anyway.
Transcendence is a mysterious experience to be sure: but not all mystic
experiences are transcendent (I have explained that well enough I hope).
Religions would not exist without revelation and personal transcendent
experiences known by many human beings. And yet state Western religion would
lose all its power if this fact were seen to be taken out of their own grubby
little hands and control. They do not even control their own fate however, yet
alone anyone else’s spiritual destiny. The day when people vote with their
minds, hearts and their feet will be a good day for sanity on this world. If
one is a member of a religion of that ilk and that person happens to undergo a
deep transcendent experience then they are going to have (do in fact have) great
problems in synthesising that experience in comprehension; for they have so
much baggage to dump along the way. So even more psychological problems.
Others, such as myself, simply have the event itself and its ensuing effects to
cope with: and THAT is problem enough without unloading two thousand years of
dangerous garbage along the way.
Genuine religions could not exist without transcendent experience and
the mystics who talk of it: and yet priestcraft does away with the very root
fact and truth of its own mystic source of being; for only they must have
access to the divine and the truth. I know of no other religion which negates
human mystic experience and personal divine revelation to such a degree than
that in the West. Strange bedfellows indeed. But they are not strange
bedfellows as far as I am concerned. It is one of the few things in life which
is crystal clear and understood absolutely.
It would seem to me also that practising psychoanalysts spend much of
their time trying to untangle peoples minds who have had them mangled up in the
first place by such priestcraft; and most of such people are in the Western
world. Another coincidence to be sure. Is the real function of the Western
state religion then that of attempting the mangling of the brains of its own
population and its adherents; like Lemmings running to their own death? So much
for Western civilisations spiritual growth then. Not a very good and worthwhile
function I would have thought—about as smart as the genes that produce people
who refuse to spread their genes around by wearing condoms or refraining from
sex!
It seems to me that the actual members of establishment religions fall
into two broad types of human beings. One being the kind who seem to accept
that there is a deep underlying truth in there somewhere but who admit to not
being able to fathom it out; and do not accept all the symbolic structure and
garbage as the truth itself but only as a pointer to something else (and for
which genuine religions exist in the first place). Direct intuition at work
here it seems!
The other kind are the incredulous who would jump on to the first
bandwagon of anything that happens along. They do not want spiritual truth
(either direct or second hand) they want something to hold them together, and something
to belong to; they cannot walk alone in creation, and any belief system would
do for them. Such individuals as these do not swim in the deep mystic pool of
life; or even a religion for that matter; they simply drown in it. They are now
known as fundamentalists; or the orbital debris that has taken control of the
cart itself in many religions. (If not all of them nowadays.) In a way this a
good thing, for it is fundamentalism which will destroy such religions; and
hence a seed of its own destruction is built in.
It is of course inevitable that religions come into existence and
thence become structured and moulded to some degree by the existing times,
culture and consensus understanding of a society. And of course to evolve with
continued growing understanding and their own developing spirituality. It is no
more strange than the existence of science itself. For in both cases we are
learning of something which is there to be known and learned, digested and
used. But there is more to be known than is knowable by ways of the outer
senses and reasoning alone, and certainly from books as yet. And even if books
speak of the truth then it is still second hand data; not personal knowledge
and certainly not personal understanding... AND the resulting effects thereof.
If society is going to change for the better then the people in it must change
for the better first; for the sum of the people IS the society. Thinking is the
first step in changing yourself; for you get smarter. Later, spiritual
experience does that job just fine, no problems. (Can governments do that I
wonder?) But second hand data of it (and even if that information is true) does
about as much as wetting the lips of a person dying of thirst. But at best it
can inspire and get people asking questions and looking within themselves.
The establishment also banks on their belief that these things cannot
be known whilst alive on earth anyway of course (the principle of negative
uncertainty as I call it), so therefore they can never be proved wrong; so they
assume. But they are very wrong, (yet again) they can indeed be known and they
ARE indeed known. So once again belief (and ignorance and cosmic amnesia), is
shot down by experience. Indeed that is what is even actually meant by their
own terms ‘grace’ and ‘redemption’. You cannot redeem something unless it has
been lost or taken from you; and this knowledge is taken from us when we come
into this world, and for good reasons (unconditional love while in freedom of
choice being one of them) by the phenomenon and act of Cosmic Amnesia. But this
gnosis is restored; redeemed (beyond the white light). And not only at death
but even during life on earth itself—where it is needed most. Can they not see
it? Who needs this knowledge when you are dead anyway? For you sure cannot act
on it then.
True enough, you and I cannot prove it to another, but we do learn it
on the inside. And where else do you learn and know anything anyway? If the
spiritual leaders of today’s churches and cults were genuine then they would sell
all their buildings, all their robes and riches, and walk among the people and
talk of what they do know. But they know nothing, and they know it—and they
show it. Hypocrisy is hardly the word.
An effective symbol of both our life on earth, and the difference
between religions and direct revelation is this: Imagine that our daily life on
earth to be like that of living in a walled garden (a beautiful garden at
that). Neither the physical body nor the physical senses can go beyond that
wall—for they are made of the stuff of the wall itself. The only thing which
can go beyond that wall is the part of the mind which is made of the stuff
which exists beyond that wall. The reality beyond the wall is nothing like the
garden which the wall surrounds. But those who have not been beyond the wall
can only imagine in terms of things known within the walled garden itself, and
thus their symbols of the reality beyond the wall are structured by the things
in the garden itself. And they are wrong. It is as simple as that. But those
who have either a dread fear of relinquishing their idols, and those who have a
vested interest for clinging to them anyway—are the establishment of
priestcraft and their prey. The mystics see this and they are sickened by it
all. The mystic does not want to deprive them of their hopes and faith in a
deeper and real meaning in their lives but simply wishes to make it even better
than they assume it to be and to dig out the rotten parts. And how long does it
take to achieve such a thing? Perhaps never. Only life itself can achieve that
it seems; for second hand revelation is not KNOWING it. Neither do we need
houses and temples of reverence; for all we need is here naturally. Sit under a
tree and contemplate upon the divine order. Trees are nearer to the Divine than
are church establishments. And they function better as well. It is compulsory
in British schools to have both religious education and also group worship of a
divine being. That MUST stop, for it is sheer hypocrisy if you do not know it
to be true. Where is their human dignity for gods sake? (And you cannot worship
something which you do even know can you—is that integrity?)
This world will not come right until people have got themselves right
first: and people will not get themselves right until they start thinking,
asking questions and doing their own learning from life itself. And they will
not do that while state religions of priestcraft cast their spells over them.
So something has to go; and soon. Something out here truly is in need... of
growing up. Moreover, if they really did accept that a divine reality existed
then are they under the impression that they could fool it by such hypocrisy? I
have probably spent more time cursing the divine than blessing it, and that is
after knowing it. At least that is honest.
It is well to remember that if you do not carry beliefs then you can
never be wrong anyway. The more beliefs you carry then the more chance there is
of being wrong. If people stopped believing (or supporting) a religion then
that religion will fade away into nothing: but if one does not either know or
believe the truth then truth does not go away, for it always remains what it
is—and it is always ready to welcome you. Moreover, if Western religionists
were to suddenly learn that dead bodies do not crawl out of the grave and go
walk about then that realisation is not going to stop them being what they are
now in their own spiritual growth. If they were to suddenly stop reciting the
creed they are no lesser spiritual beings—and the mind, spirit and soul of
mankind does not need a prop to lean on. As somebody once said. ‘Pick up your
bed and walk’. But they did not understand that one either.
Religions can be likened to the highway code (except that religions do
not work and the highway code does). It is either effective for driving the
soul or it is not. As they are in this world now they are not; not a one of
them. And that is not good enough. Better to rip off a dead limb than to carry
its dead weight and poison around with you. Better to believe nothing at all
than to accept a lie or a distortion of the truth. Better by far to listen to,
and feel for, that inner movement of the divine implicate order acting within
you now and always. We do not need a middle man or crutches. And as I said, the
invention of a middle man only passes the buck of responsibility anyway; and in
reality that does not work.
Technologically wise we are certainly becoming an advanced world in
leaps and bounds. Before too long, and with the aid of technology, we will be
living longer than we are now, and without too much illness whilst here one
hopes. I only hope to god that the living here will be worth the living here
for the beings here at that time; for spiritually and psychologically we are
still very retarded in comparison to our technology. And pretty well all of
that is due to religions and priestcraft of old. That is the direct effect of
lies. It would seem to me that deep down within many people (not all people),
that there seems to be a fear, a fear arising from uncertainty, and feeling
alone in that uncertainty. (The vacuum of darkness.) It is axiomatic that we
are uncertain of so much. We do not even know as to what is going to happen in
the next ten seconds. I would imagine that much that goes under the heading
‘belonging to a religion’ stems from this inner fear of the unknown, or rather
in the unknowing, the uncertainty; and combined also with the old school tie
sociological expedient—the managing director goes to this or that church, so lets
sign up. There are many possible crutches for this fear—drugs, booze, gambling,
rampant sex, suicide, or living in the Walter Mitty cop out to reality; so many
things could plug this vacuum for a while I imagine. But by far the majority of
people on earth plod on anyway, and make the best of things as they see fit
whilst not selling their intelligence and integrity down the drain.
This kind of fear (and which some have actually admitted to me as
having) is something I cannot talk about, for I have never known it; (except
for odd moments during initial transcendence to an extent I suppose). Would
that there was something which one could say however to ease that fear, but I
have nothing. The answer is to find somebody that has had it and overcome it.
All I can say, and I doubt that it will help anyone, is that there is more than
they are yet aware of, and it is divine... and so are they. I would also add
that all those who have told me that they have this kind of fear to some extent
were all highly intelligent people—(well, perhaps that is why I have not had it
then). But could it perhaps be something to do with the fact that such people
have this need for the feeling of being in charge of events perhaps, and yet
fully realising that they are not? It is true enough that the telephone could
go at any moment and that someone informs you that your family have been killed
in a car accident; and indeed it happens. But you cannot live your life to the
full whilst thinking about those kind of things all the time. Of course they
could happen, but the chances are that they will not.
Many of such fears seem to become an obsession in society itself, a
paranoia. (A bit like religions are with some people.) Perhaps that is why the
gift of laughter in this world is the most useful gift of them all. You are not
in charge of everything, so laugh and forget about it. There is however one
thing which you are in charge of, and that is your own actions in this
world—unless you are severely mentally sick of course. There is something to
keep in mind here however, and it is nothing to do with revelation or manmade
religions. It should be simple enough to see that while life on earth still
exists then evolution is not finished. Keep this in mind always. Now, in so far
as our responses to situations go (and hence our reaction to them) then some
will argue that you have no choice, for it is either all in the genes or it is
the way god made you!!!
How did what is in the genes now get there? It was put there by past
activity—doing something a little different from the existing ‘norm’ or
consensus activity. So they say never mind it is the natural knee-jerk reaction
to such an event (jealousy or hate for example). But you and I have volitional
control of our so-called knee-jerk activity or responses. We can say, no, sod
it, I am not going to act that way for it is undignified or unpleasant. If we
do that enough times it will be written into the genes and become a norm much
latter. Some knee-jerk reactions are fine, but ask yourself if any such
momentary emotional or instinctual reaction is judged to be constructive or
destructive—and if the latter then it is easy enough to refrain from doing it.
It only takes a moments thought. Uncontrolled wild passion is fodder to the
rationalists argument also. There are times to let off steam and there are
times to let it out when alone and out of harms way—kick the wall or something
(not the dog). Our own actions, reactions, and desires even now, are writing
the book of the genome every day, and it has always been that way, it does not
stop at a certain period of time. If we all desire to see a better world, then
we will eventually see a better world, for we will have made it that way by our
actions and reactions from volition. Human beings have quite a lot of scope on
this world—pity not to use it for the good. And where then does spiritual
revelation fit in to all this activity on earth? What it does do is to make us
want to change ourselves. Interesting eh!? Now, if you know of any manmade
religion that can actually make you want to change yourself for the better then
please let me know which religion it is! and I will subscribe to it. I have met
ordinary simple people on the street, observed them, and observing them has
made me want to change myself. I see people going about their jobs every day,
smiling, helpful, cheerful, and they make me feel glad to be a human being on
earth. Look for anything which is better than what you can do and what you are
at the moment... and aim for it.
It does not matter if you know that you will not get there in this
life... but the will and the aiming and the trying is good; and it achieves
results eventually. That is also exactly what revelation does for you—it makes
the effort in life worthwhile, and not because of what might come later but
simply for the love of trying, being and becoming—and for what is already done
in the beginning of time. You do not have to believe this... simply go for it,
for the love of the good and the better. While on my way to the unknown I asked
to see something which makes the struggle of life worthwhile—was I given it or
was I not? What do you think?
A typical Neanderthal cult argument is this (the Roman religion in this
case). A woman finds that she is carrying eight embryo due to artificial
insemination. She, society, and the national health service (what is left of it
thanks to greed and corruption) cannot tend to these potential beings in this
way. She is advised (wisely) to abort most of them. If she did not abort them
then many would die anyway and there are great dangers of some of them being
born physically and or mentally deformed. Society cannot make its mind up in
consensus agreement as to what to do. Should it be left to the mother in this
case? She has no possibility of feeding and raising eight children in one go,
and hence her decision is not only going to effect the lives of eight new
children (assuming that they all lived) but also society itself. Some decision.
One highly ‘religious’ Christian gentleman argued the following: If the
human womb cannot normally deal with eight embryo then we must all pray to God,
its son, and the Virgin Mary that in this case they might make an exception:
(this is a fact in the year 1996). He went on to argue that God put those
potential children there and it was not for us to interfere. The fact however,
is that science and human choice put those potential children there not God.
Prior to that the woman was not even capable of conceiving any. I am not a
mathematician but I do not insist upon society making me one by moral right.
He then argued that the population in this part of the world is ageing
and that we needed as many young children to look after (him) in old age. When
told that the chances are that some would be mentally and or physically
handicapped he replied that it did not matter for someone had to do the dirty
jobs in this world. His accent gave the impression that he had never done any
dirty jobs. (Most of us have to clean shit houses at some point in our lives; and
I wonder how many nappies he has changed.) I would guess that he has never even
had any children anyway... but that is a guess on my part: but if he had then
God help them, and he had certainly learned nothing about love and caring or
other peoples feelings and problems. Christianity in action!
The problem is that this man, and many like him are actually serious,
they mean it. Can one wonder then as to why any half decent caring human being
would never ever want to come back here again to share a world with morons of
that ilk, greed, selfishness, self-centred neurotic paranoia and mental and
spiritual disorder? I dread the thought of reincarnation—or back to this world
anyway.
Now, think on this also. The problem in this case (and many like it) is
due initially to decent human concern. It may well be a very strong desire for
a woman to have children, indeed they are built that way physically and
psychologically. But some cannot. This however is not a life threatening
reality in their case. But, decent society being what it is, if we find a way
to let such a person have a child, then so be it, and that is wonderful. But
where, and under what circumstances, do we draw the line? Are we going to allow
children to come here, and of our own intervention and making, knowing that
they may well suffer, and just to satisfy the greed and or psychological whims
of paranoid human beings? And why should another living soul come into this
world just to look after you or satisfy your whims? Nobody even mentioned
during that discussion that many other people did not even accept that there is
a conscious volitional God up in the sky who had determined all this in that
womb. Or that there was a virgin floating around who had the miraculous powers
to make that womb capable of producing eight healthy children. Religion of
course (what one chooses to believe) is sacrosanct. Fair enough, what a person
chooses to believe can stay sacrosanct, but what they choose to do in society
by virtue of it cannot and must not be allowed according to each and every whim
of every human being on earth. That is a recipe for chaos and social decline.
Let us look at it even deeper however. Suppose those eight embryos came
the natural way, (and which is still a matter of our choice and doing in the first
place by the way). Does even that then imply that we HAVE to let it be so? Some
people go blind or deaf, and we try to put it right if we can. And that is our
choice and decision—we HAVE that freedom, and ability, in some cases as yet. Do
we not put rivers where rivers did not flow and flowers were flowers did not
grow? Do we not put children into soft warm cots and give them milk if a mother
cannot produce it? Do we not fly in space even though we were not born with
wings or lungs that could breath in outer space? Are we not given the power and
potential to do these things of our own volition by the very nature of being
itself? “Here is the stuff my love, do with it what you will, but try to bring
forth by the wisdom and judgement of your soul, and I will not intervene; for
thou art divine”.
Most of what we learn we do so by way of getting it wrong the first
time, or many times. Learning the hard way is the only real way, and the only
way to know it for sure; for if you cannot feel, learn and know what is wrong
then you cannot know for sure that right is right. I know for sure that
children are not here simply for our pleasure or our whims. I know for sure
that until such time that we can feed, clothe, and tend to all the children on
earth as we should do then we should take measures to let them stay where they
are until we can cope with it here.
Life on earth is never going to be perfect in the sense that you and I
imagine perfect could be. But life and existence is not like that. Yet you and
I can say no: nobody is going to suffer either mental or physical pain and
anguish if we can have any say in the matter. If the Christian's God likes
people to suffer then you and I are better than it, and more worthy spirits and
souls. But that which lies beyond all things brought forth, and the essences of
being which emanate forth from it, is nothing like the Christian's God, or its
son or its virgin whatever it is supposed to be. God save us from the unholy
holy cretins of this world. Is it any wonder then that the ancients of even
proto-Christianity (Gnosticism and heretical Judaism), assumed that there must
be some demigod, or lesser god, who got things wrong. THAT is US however.
As I said in the beginning, these things can be known, and are known,
through direct conscious experience, and they have great effect upon the
personality and rational mind when known. But as to what both consciousness
itself is, and how it is made and how it works, and as to what absolute
objectivity really is while independent of being observed by consciousness,
then I do not know. Suffice to try to cope with what we do know, for that is
problematic enough for the day at hand.
What is that paradise while independent of our own being: known and
experienced and loved by us? I do not know. What exactly brought forth paradise
and ourselves? I do not know exactly. For me to say that it cannot be known
simply means that both the rational incarnate mind cannot know it and neither
can our spirit in paradise even know it. But the emotional aspect of our spirit
and soul does know it, and it FEELS it. In cold rational terms then maybe
something knows it, but not I. Do you really know what your own child is? And
does that absolute ignorance stop you from loving them and caring for them? Is
that not the divine mystery in operation?
As an incarnate species on earth we are going somewhere, and knowledge
of the transcendent and our self within it is the greatest catalyst in our
journey of being. And it is the earth and our own souls of which I am interested
in personally, for the spirit can look after itself, but the world and our own
souls need us here. Thus, there would still be no dichotomy for a rank
materialist to search for these things within themselves anyway: and surely
even they would like a better life on earth for themselves and others. Even if
it meant atoms bumping into each other in a new order of collision. Paradise
can have its day and its time, let us worry about the things which you and I
have effect over here and now, on a divine planet of wondrous multiplicity of
form and activity. Love the world and you will come to love yourself—love
yourself and you will come to love the world—it works either way; and the dice
are loaded.
But all the time children are brain washed by psychological
manipulation by idiots and retards, then we reap what we sow. Freedom of choice
in our actions, and our reasons for doing them, are the hardest lessons in
existence to learn; and it is not easy and there is no quick fix. Paradise has
no such problem; but we on earth do. Are we too frightened to accept this
responsibility—is that why they love having ridiculous religions as a crutch
and substitute for thinking and feeling, choices and actions? Are not ancient
religions the greatest cop out ever to life, responsibility and living it?
There was a time, probably for many thousands of years, when Homo Sapiens were
living alongside Homo Erectus, and perhaps thinking that they were very strange
critters. So what then is new? The absolute nature of reality is not only
beyond anything which mankind has ever imagined but also beyond anything which
mankind could ever imagine. One has to learn it for oneself, directly.
With some things however, direct experience eliminates the need to
imagine. And the mind boggles. Life teaches us what we have to learn, it does
not rely on books or one or two people to tell it. It is written in the sands
of time and space, and in paradise: and in the trees, the stars, the matter,
the soul and the spirit. Consciousness is mysterious, but consciousness which
also comes to understand is the ultimate mystery and wonder. Do religions
tackle the real mysteries that exist as do scientists and mystics? An irony I
guess is that one of the most beautiful individuals and humanitarians that I have
ever met, and who himself was a mystic, was also one of the greatest scientists
that ever lived on earth.
No, mystics do not come back into this world in order to uphold the
local state religions and social conventions. They come to destroy it, and
re-build anew. One day there will be many millions of them on earth. Roll on
that day. No, there is no dichotomy between religions and mystics, and the two
never get into bed with each other, and they never will. Naturally I feel
strongly about this, for religions are not merely wrong they are dangerous, and
they prevent the natural human spiritual development within people. Priestcraft
must go the way of the dinosaurs, for they have had their day, and their say; and
their corruption seeps to the deepest levels of the incarnate mind and society
at large. Only you and I can change that.
If all this seems to be some kind of blasphemy in your eyes, then
simply realise that religions and spirituality are not the same thing. And
that, alas as yet, is a fact. The world needs spirituality and love; not
religion. To argue that your religion is just another way of talking about the
truth—then the argument is false. For it is not. Religion is something which
you have, whilst spirituality is something which you are; and which you give
away.
But many in the past, many here now today, and many more to come here
in the future, give you that which no bishop and no religion can give you. Alas
they can only give it words. But life itself can give you the thing itself—and
free. Know your true inner depth self—and you will then simultaneously acquire
knowledge of the deepest depths of all things. In the meantime do not even
believe it—but feel for it within you. Do not take the word of mystics, but
search life itself; and for your self. For your self already knows. Ahead of
you is darkness; but do not fear that darkness even though you pass through it
alone—for you are not really alone. And beyond that darkness there is light. If
you have to believe something, then simply believe that, and leave it at that.
* * *