Welcome to Xolton's Gnostic Thread. Here, we weave science, spirituality, and religion into something called the metaphysic. Aristotle brought life to metaphysics when he explored the physical sciences and called them nature. Here, we discover that all is one, and one is everything.
Meditation is a topic we often return to, because of its many boons. This time we would like to touch on something John Hagelin said, in his 2006 interview with Byron Belitsos Meditation with intention, adds to the direction of thought. Thus, when meditating, consider saying a prayer of intention. This may direct the energy being gathered and sending it in a specific direction.
Every time a prayer is said, an intention is sent to the universe. When meditating for the purpose of developing clairvoyance, mediumship, or intuition, state this as your purpose for this particular meditation. Prayers don’t have to be offered every time we meditate, but they don’t hurt either, mostly they don’t hurt.
Napoleon Hill, in his book Think and Grow Rich, suggests we write our own prayer or desires because saying another’s prayer does us no good. He’s right. Words never hold the same meaning from one person to the next. Just because a prayer sounds pretty, doesn’t make helpful. Many are able to offer insults as grandiosely as the most profound compliment. We don’t have to use fancy words unless that is who we are. We do have to be sincere, as one should in all they do.
Many meditate for guidance, asking no one in particular. Sometimes, a response is received, though it is often vague. We can ask our guides and hope for the best, that is if we know who they are. We can also arrange for our own guides. Napoleon Hill set up an imaginary cabinet to discuss his dreams, plans, and challenges. The purpose of this type of meditation was to receive assistance from a higher source, namely, those he admired. Members included Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon Bonaparte, Thomas Edison (who was alive at the time), Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry Ford. I developed board whose members consist of Rudolph Steiner, C. W. Leadbeater, Helena Blavatsky, Napoleon Hill, William James, Rupert Sheldrake, Rev. Harry Hilborn, Rev. Louis T. Miller, Rev. Benjamin Purnell, Frank Frazetta, Botticelli, Albert Einstein, and Robert Heinlein. Some are scientists, others are artists or writers, and the ones not recognizable were people I knew. All are those I admire and respect. With this group of notables, I was able to put together a small workshop on shifting from positive thinking to optimism, otherwise known as The Re-Creator: Being. Any of us can put together a similar group as well. Call out to those you would like in your inner circle during meditation. Set a day and time each week to meet with them, and keep notes. By adopting this or a similar strategy, you will be well on your way to becoming exceptional.
Are Evil Works Ever a Good Deed?
While instant messaging with a friend, something impinged itself upon my awareness causing me great concern. The friend indicated going to a healing circle, which is good. Being with like-minded people is good for our wellbeing. What troubled me was the letter she had forwarded. Time and location were at the outset. What followed caused concern.
The letter begins with a call to balancing the planetary grid. Interfering with nature has always proven dangerous. Then, there is the part about The Brotherhood instructing the followers to take a crop circle into the ionosphere and drop it on anyone or place that may be experiencing distress due to President Trump. Later, the author adds, as though it were an afterthought, to ask permission. How does one ask as stranger permission to drop a visualized crop circle on them because they have been judged to be in distress? Especially when they are the judge and the determination is based on another’s ideas. Sure, many expressed their dissatisfaction with President Trump in a variety of ways. This is their right. Everyone expresses dissatisfaction, joy, anger, and everything in between. What is disturbing is they believe it is okay to force their preferred expression upon others. They also encourage others to force them to come around to their way of thinking. What’s wrong with this picture?
A large number of people accuse Orthodox religion of manipulating the masses. They abused their power, they claim. We have a generation’s long complaint about such actions, against similar institutions for interfering with the lives of citizens. Do these people who encourage others to drop crop circles in the cause of peace realize they are committing the very act they protest? Visualizing a crop circle descending upon those who don’t meet their criteria of peace is no different from those religious zealots forcing their doctrine upon those not meeting their criteria of faith.
I do quite a bit of researching because I ask questions. Thus, the information read is vast and informative. The practitioners of old Christianity are not the only institution to exert control over the masses. Governments control others in favor of the majority, at least in a democracy. As a condition to living in any country, a person must acquiesce to the law of the land. The United States is one that allows its citizens to have a voice in how they are governed, at least theoretically, and select candidates whose ideals are close to theirs. Granted, this doesn’t always appear to be fair, but all have agreed to this. Thus, we vote and must abide by the results.
Many institutions are tasked with protecting the public through manipulation, or control. The field of psychology trains people in the art of manipulation as a means of curing those existing outside what the majority has deemed normal behavior. Such skills of exploitation are exercised by all in society. Those not meeting the standard are marginalized, especially if those persons are not adept at concealing their oddity.
While the definition of occultism is secret knowledge, the practitioners are often seeking some form of manipulation. This probably is what gives rise to such ghastly responses. Opposite of occultism is religion, which also seeks to manipulate others. The difference between them are the leaders who claim permission from a supreme deity.
What all have in common is their intent to undermine the individual, often through fear. Fear is an excellent motivator. People generally don’t think when in fearful situations. They act and react. Such responses are often due to the influence of our emotions. Another concept they have in common is they insist these secret manipulations are acceptable because they are done through love. Whose idea of love are they following? After all, no universal definition of love exists. People abuse others and accept abuse because in their mind it is love. People are murdered individually and en masse as expressions of love. History and current events have laid out numerous examples of someone having the right to force their ideals upon others, and if they refuse, then it’s okay to murder them. Is this even remotely love?
We knowingly give permission to governments and similar institutions to control us as a means of protection. Even with religions, many give them permission to alter their perception of life. Those not conforming are generally not physically harmed. The harm inflicted is mental and emotional, which are long lasting compared to broken bones and lesions. Is any of this acceptable? Is it acceptable for leaders to manipulate others because their behavior is disagreeable? It shouldn’t be, but it is the norm. While dropping a visualization of a crop circle seems harmless and beneficial, is the intention behind it harmless? This presents an interesting quandary.
Many develop or seek out alternatives to what they disagree with. Alternative religious organizations as opposed to orthodox religion merely an example. Yet, they often resort to the same methodology as those they sought to escape. People act this way, because they have been conditioned to do so. We can break the conditioning by acting with awareness. Of course, this means we should allow them be disagreeable, even if we are of the opinion our course of action is for their benefit.
Contemplating such actions is good; this is how we develop awareness. Before exerting our influence upon others, we should first exert it upon ourselves. Perhaps then, ideas such as forcing others to act in a way we consider peaceful will become distasteful. If you want peace, then start a meditation group. Studies have demonstrated reductions in crime, violence, and other forms of social stress in communities where such groups practice (Walton, Cavanaugh, & Pugh, 2005).
Walton, K., Cavanaugh, K. L., & Pugh, N. D. (2005). Effect of group practice of the transcendental meditation program on biochemical indicators of stress in non-meditatirs: A prospective time series study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality(17), 339-373.
So, you think you
know God? I demanded of someone. Only the, someone
was no one. The young man I was addressing was a prop in a dream. Our memories
are filled with props waiting for our theatre directors to call them forth in
an effort to express those emotions milling about within us. Sometimes those
supporting roles are actually representations of you (Hartman & Zimberoff, 2012). Thus, I was
demanding myself to reveal what I thought I knew about God.
Everybody knows about God and plenty more claim to know even more. I am referring to ministers, televangelists, and fundamentalists. Wait a moment. I’m one of those ministers. Fortunately, I know about as much as you do, probably less. What I do know, I want to share. In case, I know something that may be of interest to you. The question is what do they know? What are they telling us? When my children were young, I told them to pay attention to what a person does not say. The words they avoid often speak volumes. What is it these people don’t want us to know? What parts of the bible are they not quoting? What frightens them?
A friend, stops by every so often for some friendly banter. He attends one of the many Christian churches in anybody’s neighborhood. Normally, this wouldn’t have any effect on the tale being imparted. We don’t discuss religion, we discus beliefs. The gap between the two is enormous. Religion focuses on doctrine specific to a particular denomination. Beliefs have no such limitation. They tend to reflect the ideas a person is comfortable expressing. Ours happens to include religious views and ideas pertaining to those views. Occasionally, he’ll bring an associate, and then we talk religion, more specifically his associate’s religion. During one of these chance meetings, at least, that is what I choose to think, his associate initiated a conversation about what God wants from us.
God, he began, only wants us to follow his laws. There are more than the Ten Commandments.
God, I say, wants automatons. God does not want people to think for themselves.
You’re wrong, he quickly responded, he does want people to think for themselves. Suppose I rented a house from you, he continues, and I tore it up, leaving it in shambles. Would you be happy with that? No, he quickly answered for me, you wouldn't. You wouldn't because I didn't follow the rules. All God wants people to do is to follow his rules.
So, I repeated, God wants automatons.
No, he insisted, shaking his head.
Okay, I decided to use his example. Suppose I moved into one of your houses. I move in and make some improvements. I knock out a wall here, build an addition there, and make some other upgrades improving the value of the house. Would you be happy with that?
No, he declared I wouldn't.
Exactly, I said, proving my point, because I didn't follow your rules. Thus, God only wants those who follow his rules. He wants automatons.
A scornful look twisted his face. The person who brought him chuckled. I was not trying to make him look foolish. I merely pointed out how narrow his view of God was.
I would like to say a majority of Christian denominations does not teach this philosophy, but I would be wrong. Not because I have attended so many, but because I met many who attend. They teach God's desire is for us to follow his rules explicitly like the robots many of us protest. Automatons do exactly as they are instructed, or more correctly as they are programmed. We are to follow one program, God’s program. Of course, what they don’t tell us is that we are to follow their version of God’s program, not God’s program. There version is separation. They want us to separate ourselves from those who are not like them. Never mind, they all use the same book. Forget God created individuals. Don’t think for one moment God intended for us to be exactly alike.
What Christian leaders do not teach, or even speak about, is what Jesus tried to teach in the Gospel of John. We are all Gods! Yes, We are all Gods. The problem is we don’t act like God. Why would Jesus say something like that, he who was a devout follower of his religion? That's blasphemy, they said, just as many do today. The only blasphemy committed is cursing, maiming, and otherwise maligning those who are different. The summation of the commandments given by Jesus was to love others as you love yourself. I believe the translation is closer to treat others, as you would have others treat you. After all, if we are to leave love in the equation, this leaves the door open for a variety of abuses in the name of Love. By adopting the words, treat others, we would not be allowed to hate Muslims, or Buddhists, or pagans. We would not be allowed to maim homosexuals, or to bully others into submission. We would not be allowed to ridicule those whose skin is a different color, or who see the world differently. When Jesus said, is it not written you are all Gods; he may have been referring to an event in Genesis where they, Gods (yes, plural) said, ‘Lo, they have become like us! To know good from evil.’ Think about this. We know good from evil. Yet, many claim another’s version of good and evil, when in reality they have no clue. Their claim of innocence is found in their pretense of ignorance. What about you, do you know good from evil, or do you prefer another’s definition? Are you good or evil? Perhaps you are somewhere in between, like the rest of us.
To know God is not to go within. To know God is to know you. Do you know yourself? Do you accept and claim the beliefs of others? Are those who call upon their depiction of God any less? Do you call upon another’s idealization of God? Is homosexuality a crime against nature, when God created them to be who they are? Is it truly a magnanimous gesture to belittle yourself, while mocking others? Does any of this disturb you? I hope it does, because more Gods need to be present. It’s not about what is right or wrong. It’s about being responsible and accountable. It's not about recognizing what is good or evil in others. It is about recognizing who others are. We are God. Accept it. Stop hiding behind someone else’s misconception. Get behind your own and be willing to shape it as needed.
Hartman, D., & Zimberoff, D. (2012). REM and
non-REM dreams: "Dreaming without the dreamer.". Journal of
Heart-Centered Therapies, 15(2), 27-52.
In all of our discussions concerning the mind, we’ve assumed it is impervious to disease and other forms of debilitation. Through the history of religion and metaphysics, the mind is believed to be an extension of the brain, as it should be. We’ve taken the position that those we admire are released from their mental affliction when vacating the body. We conveniently ignore the belief when those we despise depart. Doesn't this manner of thinking create a paradox?
We assume much. When following the philosophy of as above, so below, we assume it is addressing a spiritual realm and our physical reality. The assumption is true, if they are mirrored realities. One example of this lies with the Mesopotamian belief if the social order of the netherworld mirrored the physical world. A paradox appears with this assumption. Which reality is being mirrored? For clarity, spiritual, which obviously refers to those realms of consciousness not pertaining to what we loosely refer to as reality, refers to spirit. Spirit, originally indicated breath, which is also connected to the life force. Thus, the spiritual realm is the realm of our life force because spirit is the life force or breath of life.
Many assume this is the common reality, the one in which you are reading this dissertation. This reality is the reflection and the true reality it that of spirit. Some claim we descended from the spiritual plane in order to have an experience. In order to experience, one must exist. Thus, the physical domain exists, but so does the spiritual one if we descended. Others propose we exist in misshapen forms, meaning our bodies are deformed, but our spiritual aspect is perfect. Physics suggest form gives shape to the intangible and that the intangible moves form. We may imply that the shape our bodies reflect is the condition of the spirit occupying it. What does this say about the spirit? Does this imply the spirit is diseased and the mind a reflection of spirit? Can the mind or spirit be diseased before entering a vessel?
We may continue to hold onto the belief that when we expire, we enter into a state of perfection. However, we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we did not consider the possibility of the existence of perfection being an illusion. Given our level of understanding, perfection may actually be the disease. The norm or the acceptable condition of existence at any level is based on a statistical equation of a majority of collective imperfections. We are imperfect because none of us is exactly alike. For something to be the same there must be something with which to compare. Therefore, the mind has the same possibility of becoming as diseased as the body it inhabits. The reason for this is nothing is perfect. All things are in a continual state of flux, or by our standard, diseased. Given this revelation, perfection is imperfection. Perfection, by our standard, is an unnatural condition.
Consequently, the mind can also be healed because the body can be healed. The true difficulty lies in discerning the disease from the natural condition. This is not as elusive as one may think. We know through observations in nature that Dobermans, Collies, Beagles, Tabby’s and the like can live together in peace. Observations also reveal homosexuality lies within the realm of nature. Yet, many chose to blind themselves of the natural order, in favor of their own. By substituting their form of a natural order, they create a paradox within their religious belief.
If this reality shapes the reality to come, then, as some suggest, we may have good cause to be afraid. We struggle to make sense of senselessness. We do not choose the common reality as the model reality. We do not choose to be exclusive in our beliefs and lifestyles. We are conditioned to accept as fact. I hope the common reality is not the definitive one. I believe a truer reality exists in blending what we term as the common reality and the reality of spirit, or life force.
For some, the inner reality is the true reality. Within this reality, no space is allotted to exclusive ideals, if we choose. The inner reality is the one in which each of us creates. Our inner reality is the reality we choose to express or to mask. We define our inner reality, whereas the common reality perceives a small portion of us. If our inner reality is the model, then the reflection is more accurate. What if our individual realities are the reflection?
In the Gnostic writing, The Hypostasis of the Archons, Samael created humankind from the Earth, with mud after a reflection. In this instance, Sophia Pistis was the model, she who emerged from the Absolute. This tradition follows a familiar path. We poor imperfect creations of a false god are trying to reach a state of incorruptibility. Every religion with Semitic roots follows this course. A very unsatisfying course, because incorruptibility is a myth. Perhaps I should say incorruptibility is a state of stagnation. Without change or evolution and devolution, a state of suspension exists.
There is the more naturalistic belief, which is more concerned with the continuity of life without our precepts of religion. Consider the Ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Mesoamerica. In all three societies, the continuation of life after the expiration of the body was natural part of the flow of creation. In the city-states of Mesopotamia, the inhabitants believed the social order of the netherworld mimicked that of world above. Ancient Egyptians believed life continued in the tomb. As they transitioned from the Old Kingdome to the Middle Kingdom and beyond, the City of the Dead became a continuation of this world. The Inca Empire, as it grew adopted the local practices of those conquered. They preserved their loved ones, included them in celebrations, and sought advice from them. This gives the adage of as above, so below a more accurate definition, but does not determine which is being reflected.
You may be wondering what this has to do with a diseased mind prior to transition; I know I am. In the scheme of nature, life is a continuous flow. In the eyes of the Hindu and Buddhist, we move from one bardo to the next or from one experience to the next. Bardos are conditions the soul experiences as it moves from birth to death and death to birth. Health is a reflection of our overall harmony or disharmony with the environment. Thus, once harmony is restored, so is the condition of the mind. Even when the brain falls out of harmony with the body and is beset by disease, upon expiration, harmony may be re-established. Does this mean that when a killer is put to death, they are no longer a killer while they journey towards the next incarnation? I do not believe so. The exceptions, I suspect, would be if the incident were enacted in a fit of anger. During that time, they are in disharmony with themselves. Once they calm down, harmony is restored. I do not believe guilt is extinguished upon death either. I suspect it follows until we have found a way to reconcile the deed.
Thus, a diseased mind is one in disharmony. A psychopath acting in accordance with their nature is not diseased. However, a person acting in a fit of rage is not acting in accordance with their nature. Which mind would be diseased?
 (Barrett, 2007)
 (Bahm, 1964)
 (Lipton & Bhaerman, 2009)
 Gender identity based on brain structure may be more accurate than physical anatomy (Vangerhorst, 2015).
 (The Hypostasis of the Archons, 1984)
 (Barrett, 2007)
 (Assmann, 2002)
 (Rosso, 2014)
 (Mishlove, 1975)
 (Lipton & Bhaerman, 2009)
We have been conditioned to the idea that success is
dependent upon being different from the competition. While some aspects of this
maybe true, the majority of it is false. Many in the service sector tend to
pick a niche because that is what separates them from the rest. Separation is
recommended. The idea they present is separateness. In order to be individuals,
we must be different from the rest. This is only partly true.
Alice Bailey writes, “We must relinquish all that holds [us] away from the central reality (p. 41; par. 1).” Two questions come to mind. The first, what is holding us back from the central reality? The second, and more relevant is, what is the central reality? The central reality is what lies at the center of all realities. Yes, I said all realities because one reality imposes upon another and so on. The first reality that may come to mind is also the least important, which is the common reality. The common reality is something Charles Tart refers to as the consensus of reality. The common reality refers to the reality we all agree upon for communication. Meaning, we all agree that the substance jutting up from the soil is green, is comfortable to walk upon, should only grow to a certain length before being trimmed, and is called grass. Whether it is Kentucky Blue Grass or crab grass is irrelevant. This is what we have been conditioned to accept as the only reality that matters. As Tart said, this reality is only convenient for communicating with others. The more important reality is the inner reality. Here we determine if we have value, are able to accomplish an act, or are in need of assistance. This is not the central reality. The other realities enhance our experience of the central reality.
For much of our lives we have been conditioned to duality. I am not referring to the idea of good, bad, or any of its derivatives. Dualism is couched in an either or concept. A thing or idea being either this or something else is false, no matter how it is presented. This is the common reality and often the inner reality we contend with every day, but it is not the central reality. These realities form what Besant calls the great hearsay of separateness.
The central reality is the flow of life or of nature. Some may prefer to use the word God. Regardless of how you choose to describe it, the label has no bearing upon what it is. The central reality simply is, which is now. Unfortunately, before we can truly experience, we must separate ourselves from the other realities.
We must separate ourselves from the murmurings of society. Given the happenings in the world of today, or any day, some would claim these murmurings are from the media or political rhetoric from a dysfunctional system of government or a fragmented culture. They are wrong. These are not murmurs, but declarations and emotional evocations. Look beyond the obvious. A murmur is the voice of secrecy, implicit yearning, voices no one lays claim to, but all heed to. These murmurs lie within and without and influence our way of thinking. They are our beliefs. They are what hold us back. Our inner reality is composed of what others have told us and what our culture has led us to embrace.
One of the drawbacks of a common reality is that culture ultimately controls it. Culture, family, and friends impart what is considered acceptable and what is not. Worse, the common reality is divided according to caste, career, religion, interpretations of lifestyle, and the list goes on. Reality has been sharply defined as what is acceptable and not acceptable, and at the same time, what is acceptable is often exchanged for what is non-acceptable. Yet, the division remains constant. This system of beliefs has remained in place since the first being declared themselves as being above all others.
Such declarations should not be confused with leadership. Leaders are needed to provide direction to what can easily become chaos. Those setting themselves above others are often not about direction, but about control. The control of others, often mistaken for leadership, but is not leadership. This is about recognizing what holds us back from the central reality.
Before we understand what is holding us back, we must determine if we are being held back. Annie Besant tells us we are preventing ourselves from experiencing the central reality. What is the central reality? Before a separation can occur, there must first be something in which to be separated. Let us once again gaze at the foundation of duality. Dual is a simpler way of expressing two. The best way to express dualism is through a balance. In order for a balance to occur there must be opposition. In the case of the scale, there is the weight and the item being weighed against it. If hamburger is $2.39 a pound, the weight is one pound and the hamburger must be equal to the weight in order to collect the $2.39. Apply this same concept to everything. In order to recognize an event as being bad, we must first have something to compare it with, which would be an event labeled as good. When we apply this to everything, we end up with a system based on either/or. The central reality or the center reality is one not divided.
A reality where there is no division is one in which all things flow. To some, this flow may appear to have purpose, and to others none is perceived. Purpose has no meaning in the center because everything is flowing outward. Everything simply is.
The next task set before us is how to experience the central reality. This is very difficult because we must separate ourselves. Throughout this writing, I have demonstrated how separateness is not very conducive, but in order to experience a single event, all that may deter us must be temporarily devalued. We must isolate ourselves from the illusions of the common reality. The illusion does not lie with agreeing what grass is, but in the concept of the division of everything. The illusion is our beliefs. They are the intangible boundaries exerting tangible limitations. After relinquishing these, we must look at the illusions we have created within our inner reality. Not only must we let go of the idea of worthlessness, but also the idea of being worthy. Only then can we understand we are true beings. Only then do we realize that all are one. The illusions of beliefs and false concepts no longer hold us. By experiencing the singleness of reality do we understand the tools used by others and ourselves while navigating our realities. Once we have experienced this do we gain “life more abundantly (p. 41; par. 1).”
We have been conditioned to believe this single source of all is unattainable in this life. This is wrong. We can achieve this connection with the source, with the Divine, or with God with effort. Disposing of those conceptions holding us back is no easy task and must be done with diligence. However, the rewards from such an endeavor are equal to what many of today’s religions suggest after we have expired.
The first step is to separate ourselves from tomorrow and yesterday. We must also separate ourselves from today. The central reality is that point from which all radiate. Everything radiates from the now.
The establishment of the three aspects of humans was done so in order to establish authority over others. Thus, it is humans that have created the class system in order to enthrall other, not God or any other aspect of nature. We are the only entities upon the Earth that takes great pride in separating ourselves from ourselves, from each other; from nature, and from God or Creation. We are, perhaps the only society within nature that actively separates ourselves from the very thing, condition, or aspect they seek, in order to form a more perfect unity with ourselves under the pretenses of seeking unity with God or Creation. The Mystics desire this, while the Occultists see through this. One has to wonder if the hidden Hierarchy, Council, or Hosts are an invention of our making, or if we mimic them in an attempt to place ourselves above. Reminds one of the story of the King of Tyre who sought to place himself above God.
Inspired by Adolphe Frank (1926). The Kabbalah, or the Religious Philosophy of the Hebrews. Translated by I. Sossnitz.
Nature manages to maintain a reasonable equilibrium of those who have mystical experiences and those who do not. Perhaps the belief that anyone can be a medium/psychic is a myth.
Todd R. Murphy (2010). The role of religious and mystic experiences in human evolution: A corollary hypothesis for neurotheology. NeuroQuantology, 8 (4) 495-508
Interestingly, one who kills and is willing to suffer the consequences is practicing a higher religion than one who prays for more than they deserve.
Ignorant belief is typical of many. It is a belief without understanding.
Inspired by Archie Bahm, The World's Living Religions