Kundalini Awakening, Chakras, Enlightenment, Heaven and related matters.

[Emil El Zapato]

SERIOUSLY I don't trust the "gods" at all and in fact think that the following of gods is the problem which has led to giving power away to "god's agents" whom we feel are intrinsically "better" than we. We may grouse about it but IMO it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to divest of the pyramidal structure of authority we hold in our psyches.

I cannot help but think about how despite the differences in religions, they all shout down to us from some pedestal that has "elevated" one group of "beings" over others.

By the way the whole lot of religions justify the Misogyny NAY Misanthropy (promise me anything but give me suffering) that is the baseline cultural artifact of the gods. I am sure we have a deep collective scar from the bullying.

My friend wrote this in another forum



I heard an interesting aside in this video about "Christianity" being actually "Paulinism".


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR8Rve_Fy3c?t=19m58s

Don't have time to listen to all of it...but it seems interesting. He cites the 'Gospel of John'...I'm curious which 'John' he was referring to? Are we doing any spiritual philosophy today in terms of Christianity or did philosophers give that up with St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas?

[Chris]

Nature has no hierarchy as far as I can see? I feel compassion for this so DEEPLY embedded belief because it is entrenched as to seem the fact. Everyone on the ladder needing to climb leads to all kinds of entertainment to the gods. HAHAHA look at those ants GO. That is what we think about nature documentaries too. SO, who made up this hierarchy.

I have an opinion that whomever the originators of hierarchy, this was not GOD (life, creation, natural law, love...any name given to the master architecture who's beingness may be ineffable but who IS known by workings). There were those who love hierarchy because they may presume they can knock a bunch off the ladder and climb to the top.

I think God is an anarchist.

Certainly, the created universe is hierarchically structured, there is no doubt about that. Just in terms of cosmology, it is obvious: Galactic Clusters > Galaxies > Solar Systems > Planets > Multi-Cell Organisms > Single cell organisms > Molecules > Atoms > Particles > Subatomic particles, etc...

I was told and still maintain it to be true, that the Hierarchy is in fact the creation of the Demiurge and the Archons (it's in the name really). A hierarchy is by definition Archontic, whereas Anarchy means an opposition to this force and am attempt to create a non-hierarchical societal structure. It may be naive, but I quite like this idea.

I try to keep God out of it, because of our inability to define who God really is. Is he the original creator, the prime mover? Or is he the demi-urge? Or is he just the King of the gods, an alien species in effect, just a guy like you and me, but with some added powers and technology? People are really confused about this, so I try to avoid bringing the Big Guy into the picture.

[Chris]

Absolutely, Yahweh/Jehova certainly belongs in the mix with the rest of those in the pantheon.


Not to be confused with a showing of disrespect here however, I want to make this little caveat crystal clear. That would be as foolish as showing disrespect to any particular group of people. The gods would be varying degrees of good and bad just as we are, and would earn respect/disrespect accordingly. More like a coming of age and challenging an overbearing parent with: "Show me the money, show me you're better, and that I am any less than you are".

Go on, show me the money!

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc

Again, the identity of the Christian god is a rather mysterious and confusing subject. Jordan Maxwell thinks he is just a rehashed Zeus (who is known as Indra in Hinduism and was known as Jupiter or Jove by the Romans) and that he is a real guy, living somewhere in the Solar System and running things on earth from the background, mostly through the major religious institutions. That idea has a certain appeal, given that our very terms for Deity, Theism, Atheism, etc... come from Deus, a romanised version of Zeus. The popular image of God, white-haired and bearded, living above the clouds, sitting on a golden throne, looking down on the world below and striking down mortals who displease him with bolts of lightning is much closer to Zeus than Yahweh. The Bible was written in Greek and it is easy to imagine that the chief deity of the Greeks and the Romans became the Christian God. The Gnostic view, that Yahweh is Yadalbaoth, the Demiurge, also has some merit.


However, my own experience with entities that claim to be divine in origin, leads me in a different direction altogether.

As far as I'm aware, nobody wrote about this before, apart from myself. The Anunnaki and the Elohim are one and the same. Both words mean the Sons of the Sky or the Sons of the Sky God, in Sumerian and Hebrew respectively. Given how much Judaism has borrowed from much older Sumerian myths, I think we can treat this as fact. In Islam, Allah is singular for the plural Elohim. Even in the Bible, there is some confusion whether the Elohim is a single person as in God or plural as in the Sons of God. That confusion is understandable and I shall now attempt to clarify it.


The Elohim are many, but their mind is one.


They are made up of Individuals, who all contribute their minds, their knowledge, their wisdom, their memories, but they think and act as one. They speak in a collective voice. It is beautiful and harmonious, like a perfect Chorus, but the end result is a single voice. I believe that the popular depiction of a Chorus of angels, singing in heaven is an allegory to illustrate this fact.


I must admit that hearing the Elohim speak is an immensely moving and overwhelming experience. They do not speak in the sense of creating physical sound, it is a thoughtform that generates its own inner sound.


This brings us to the rather controversial question of whether the Elohim are benevolent or not. I don't have the answer to that. My own feeling is that they have an agenda of their own and they assist humanity in light of that agenda, as long as it suits them. I doubt that they have any special attachment to us specifically amongst the millions of other species that exist. I could be wrong about that, as they claim to be the creators or progenitors of humanity (Man was made in their image).


Quite apart from all these beings and entities that we may consider and even worship as gods, there is potentially a One Infinite Creator, beyond all of this. That is I feel, what people generally refer to, when they talk about "God", with a capital g. "It" may not even be a person as we understand it, but perhaps some sort of impersonal, universal intelligence that manifested the universe out of itself, perhaps due to a desire to experience a multitude of forms and points of view.

[Fred Steeves]

Certainly, the created universe is hierarchically structured, there is no doubt about that. Just in terms of cosmology, it is obvious: Galactic Clusters > Galaxies > Solar Systems > Planets > Multi-Cell Organisms > Single cell organisms > Molecules > Atoms > Particles > Subatomic particles, etc...

Who's to say that those subatomic particles don't contain galactic clusters of their own? As above so below, as below so above, the snake swallowing it's own tail.

[Chris]

Who's to say that those subatomic particles don't contain galactic clusters of their own? As above so below, as below so above, the snake swallowing it's own tail.

That is actually a very old concept, coming from the atomic view of the universe. Scientists of the past imagined electrons as planets revolving around a central sun, the nucleus. We now know that is not the case at all. Electrons form clouds around the nucleus. Rather than revolving on a predictable path, they just pop in and out of existence, more or less randomly, in a given band around the nucleus. We now think that these electrons form molecules in other, parallel universes as well. When they pop out of existence here, they pop into existence somewhere else and vice versa.

There is probably some truth to the "As above, so below" concept. I have seen this depicted very well in some science fiction series, most recently, with the concept of the "upside down" in Stranger Things. There is probably at least one parallel universe that is very similar to ours, but also different in some important aspects and areas. David Wilcock made a similar case for a parallel world to ours, which he calls timespace, a world with three temporal and one spatial dimension, as opposed to our own spacetime, which has three spatial and one temporal dimension.

[Dreamtimer]

SERIOUSLY I don't trust the "gods" at all and in fact think that the following of gods is the problem which has led to giving power away to "god's agents" whom we feel are intrinsically "better" than we. We may grouse about it but IMO it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to divest of the pyramidal structure of authority we hold in our psyches...

My friend wrote this in another forum

There's a VERY interesting book out by Rita Nakasima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker called "Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire.

They wanted to study the roots of Christian thought before the council of Nicea shifted Christian thought, and they found that the dead Jesus was not even mentioned for the first 1000 years of Christian thinking, nor was it found in any Christian art whatsoever..

I heard an interesting aside in this video about "Christianity" being actually "Paulinism".


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR8Rve_Fy3c?t=19m58s

I've heard many times about Paulinism. It's a very good term. I'm super interested in this book you've referenced, Maggie. I'll be looking for it.

[Dreamtimer]

Nature has no hierarchy as far as I can see? I feel compassion for this so DEEPLY embedded belief because it is entrenched as to seem the fact. Everyone on the ladder needing to climb leads to all kinds of entertainment to the gods. HAHAHA look at those ants GO. That is what we think about nature documentaries too. SO, who made up this hierarchy.

Dang Maggie, you keep taking the words out of my mouth.

As Kropotkin famously argued, mutual aid permeates the animal kingdom, including humans, and is probably a more important evolutionary factor than warfare between species or competition within a species. The faculties which led the human species to unlock the secrets of nature were social adaptations, not tools of war.

Very good.

[Dreamtimer]

Dang. Is that a really young Steve Carrell in the office reacting to the yell?


I think you're on the right track Chris, in equating Elohim to Annunaki.

Certainly such entities, who created us to work for them, would instill ideas of hierarchy. But it's not an absolute.

And most importantly, we don't stand below these Gods. We are no longer their slaves and they should bow to us as much as us to them. (in my world no one bows to anyone)

Nature is a system that works best together, just like all the organs in our body. We can pick a fav, or say one's on top, but we need them all to live.

Is the brain more important than the heart or vice versa? Nope.

[Dreamtimer]

Is your culture Tight or Loose? Michele Gelfand talks about social norms in her new book (related to hierarchy).

[Chris]

Dang. Is that a really young Steve Carrell in the office reacting to the yell?


I think you're on the right track Chris, in equating Elohim to Annunaki.

Certainly such entities, who created us to work for them, would instill ideas of hierarchy. But it's not an absolute.

And most importantly, we don't stand below these Gods. We are no longer their slaves and they should bow to us as much as us to them. (in my world no one bows to anyone)

Nature is a system that works best together, just like all the organs in our body. We can pick a fav, or say one's on top, but we need them all to live.

Is the brain more important than the heart or vice versa? Nope.

I'm not really down with the whole "humanity was created as a slave race narrative". I know that's what the Enuma Elish says, but I think it is just some pretty backward people trying to make sense of the world around them, on a very basic level. Just to give you one example why I don't really trust this narrative, this was also the source of the Biblical Flood story. It says that Enki created Humanity to work instead of the gods as they had rebelled against the harsh conditions. His brother Enlil (quite possibly the predecessor of the Hebrew El) decided to wipe out humanity with a great flood, as, get this, they grew too numerous and disturbed his sleep. Enki was actually the one to save the seed of Humanity and domesticated animals and plants, by instructing a human to save his family, his livestock and plantable seeds by building an ark. This later became the biblical flood story.

However, how likely is it really, that an advanced species would do something this monumentally stupid? It makes no sense at all and it discredits the whole slave race narrative as well. If the Anunnaki / Elohim did create us in their own image, like they say, it was probably for a different purpose altogether, one which remains hidden to us.


Your description of nature as various organs of the human body is pretty apt. The Hindus describe the entire universe in such terms, calling it Purusha or universal man. They imagine the various planets, Heaven, the Middle world, the underworld, etc... as various parts of this universal human body.

[Dreamtimer]

I've been listening to Mauro Biglino who translated scripture. Biblical scripture. That's what it says. In fact, it says we were cloned. We were a combo of homo erectus and the Elohim DNA. He also says that the rabbis whom he speaks to about this are not surprised and do not contradict him.

Bible scriptures and rabbis.

What we were not given was long life. Now that we manipulate our own DNA, that's just what we're working on ourselves.

There are flood stories all over the world. And also Elohim creation stories. The idea is that there were several Elohim and they had laboratories all over the earth.

The floods were to annihilate the offspring of the union between the Gods and their creations, the humans. Those were demigods and were not wanted.


We ourselves are a very advanced species who does monumentally stupid things like poisoning our home and making weapons which can destroy it.

I'd say we were made in their image.

And since we have intelligence and will we can/could/(should imo) change for the better.

[Chris]

I've been listening to Mauro Biglino who translated scripture. Biblical scripture. That's what it says. In fact, it says we were cloned. We were a combo of homo erectus and the Elohim DNA. He also says that the rabbis whom he speaks to about this are not surprised and do not contradict him.

Bible scriptures and rabbis.

What we were not given was long life. Now that we manipulate our own DNA, that's just what we're working on ourselves.

There are flood stories all over the world. And also Elohim creation stories. The idea is that there were several Elohim and they had laboratories all over the earth.

The floods were to annihilate the offspring of the union between the Gods and their creations, the humans. Those were demigods and were not wanted.


We ourselves are a very advanced species who does monumentally stupid things like poisoning our home and making weapons which can destroy it.

I'd say we were made in their image.

And since we have intelligence and will we can/could/(should imo) change for the better.

Those are certainly interesting stories. I don't know how much evidence there is for any of that. Most of these stories were propagated by Zecharia Sitchin, who got a lot of this from Channelled sources apparently. To me it makes zero sense. No advanced species need slaves. Slavery is a hallmark of a backward civilisation that hasn't figured out how to use machines a lot more effectively. No interstellar civilisation would need to use slaves, despite the popular image of them going around, invading other planets and enslaving their population. Even Corey Goode propagates this nonsense. Sorry, not buying it.


It is not surprising that the oldest versions of the Bible would agree with Sumerian myths and creation stories, clearly it was based on those in the first place, with some alterations. I simply don't trust the source. I don't know how many people have read the original Sumerian / Assyrian myths as they are not that accessible or easy to find. One thing that needs to be said about them is that they were clearly written by people whose world view would seem utterly bizarre to us. They simply did not have the same level of intellect and sense of ethics and self that modern people do. You have to consider that the Sumerians lived more than 6000 years ago, so they were further away from the ancient Greeks in terms of time than we are from the likes of Socrates and Plato. I would caution everyone against investing too heavily into stories that have come down to us from such ancient times. I think we really need to use discernment and critical thinking when it comes to Bible stories or other ancient stories. I find that very often these are allegories and don't describe real events in a literal sense. The garden of Eden story is a classic example of this. It's not literally a snake on a tree. It isn't literally an apple. They're not literally one dude and one woman. It isn't literally a rib, etc...

[Dreamtimer]

Steve Olson and Wayne Steiger were on Grimerica. They are Christians who believe Wormwood is coming. One of them talked about the Kabbalah and a certain sect who says that Yaweh is one of twelve deities that has dominion over this earth.

He portrays us as more of an experiment than a slave race, but he does reference the Sumerians.

I don't look at these guys as experts. Rather, they are another piece in a puzzle.

[Emil El Zapato]

Certainly, the created universe is hierarchically structured, there is no doubt about that. Just in terms of cosmology, it is obvious: Galactic Clusters > Galaxies > Solar Systems > Planets > Multi-Cell Organisms > Single cell organisms > Molecules > Atoms > Particles > Subatomic particles, etc...

I was told and still maintain it to be true, that the Hierarchy is in fact the creation of the Demiurge and the Archons (it's in the name really). A hierarchy is by definition Archontic, whereas Anarchy means an opposition to this force and am attempt to create a non-hierarchical societal structure. It may be naive, but I quite like this idea.

I try to keep God out of it, because of our inability to define who God really is. Is he the original creator, the prime mover? Or is he the demi-urge? Or is he just the King of the gods, an alien species in effect, just a guy like you and me, but with some added powers and technology? People are really confused about this, so I try to avoid bringing the Big Guy into the picture.

good point...that was what occurred to me today...all the ancient knowledge could very well be 'alien', not that there is anything wrong with that. The abrahamic philosophies are predicated on a foundation of that ancient awareness but are relatively contemporary in spiritual insight and they are human. And we know about humans. There are always those that try to maintain the higher apprehension and there are those others...

[Chris]

I have been racking my brain about what to call the entities we are discussing here for months now. Initially I went with gods, as that is what they're called in ancient myth. The more I think about it however, the more I'm inclined to call them fairies. They have a certain mischievous and occasionally even trickster quality about them. The word Deva in Sanskrit means "shining one" and the Hungarian equivalent for fairy also has the same meaning. Indologists explain the Devas more in terms of what we would call nature spirits, rather than our classical definition of gods.


I believe there is a definite hierarchy at work here and we can't really classify all of them under the same term and category. In Hinduism, there is a substantial difference between Gandharvas (who are usually translated as fairies into English) and Devas (who are translated into English as gods). I think the difference here is a degree of universality. Gandharvas (fairies) are individual spirits, whereas Devas are universal forces that can also appear in a personalised form, but are otherwise present everywhere in the universe and basically permeate everything as a force of nature. E.g. The Divine Feminine, Shakti, is exactly the same and uniform throughout the entire created universe, no matter where you go. It may be that this is what mostly differentiates a god or goddess from any individualised nature spirit that is specific to a place or function and has clearly defined boundaries and limitations.


The Shakti has no limitations as such, it is a universal, yet intelligent force, that is present everywhere. Yet she can individuate herself when the situation demands it, which is when she becomes a goddess. The very same force can also appear as the Kundalini in any individual. Same consciousness, different form.


There is a similar concept in Christianity, with the Holy Trinity.


God as father is a distant and personalised, residing in heaven.

The Holy Spirit is impersonal and universal, permeating all there is. Most people equate it to the Brahman of Hinduism, but from my own research, it is more likely the Equivalent of Shakti, the divine feminine, symbolised as a Dove or the Queen of Heaven (Ishtar).

The Son is the same God, but in an incarnate form. The Hindu equivalent would be an avatar, which is an incarnate form of any god (Deva).


I guess we are still in a sea of confusion here, but eventually, I hope we can create some clarity around this subject and start understanding these entities better.