New Age "One" Belief = Spiritual Borg?

Correct. My bad. So in it's broadest sense, conspiracy is a secretive agenda pushed by two or more people. What is this agenda? To make money off peoples spiritual yearnings by pushing false beliefs. Or something else?

reply to post by unityemissions

Well not exactly......

Conspiracy: To conspire.

Main Entry: con·spire
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈspī(-ə)r\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
: plot, contrive
intransitive verb
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : scheme
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I am very Kierkegaarian in my philosophy. The mountain exists as does its summit. Religions are paths that some explorer has forged before. They will get you to the top of the mountain, and you will see the summit and the view from it. You may also forge your own path to the top. If you choose to forget your own path, you may encounter dangers along the way, you may stumble and fall, you may even give up, but when you get there you will see the very same summit.

Those that took the worn path are those that see the value in sharing the knowledge of others. They are not "evil" for pointing out the dangers of forging your own path, nor are they "better" for choosing a path already worn.

Those that ventured into the wilderness are those that must do things for themselves, in fact they might even be reckless considering the dangers. However, if they reach the top they will have learned valuable lessons that those who took the path had not the opportunity to learn.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


I haven't read My Big TOE but Thomas Campbell at first glace seems to be somewhat of a Theosophist, updating the doctrine to reflect our technology's ever greater approximation of reality itself (reality coming soon to a technology near YOU).

*Unicode Character Warning*

The Pythagorean Monad, The One, The Source, Absolute Unbounded Oneness, AUO (U+2609: Sun):

☉

Absolute Unbounded Manifold, AUM (U+0950: Devanagari Om):

ॐ

It has a charming Luciferian angle to it, that of becoming. Of course T.C. has a good sense of humor to boot.

[edit on 10/19/2009 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by A Fortiori


I agree to a degree. *hey, a poet and didn't know it.

* I view it more as a map and less climbing a mountain. And I think we also start at different locations and have different destinations.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I think the destination is back to ONENESS, but that we have varying incarnations (paths).

reply to post by A Fortiori


I think returning to "oneness" is neither necessary or desirable. But if that is the path and destination you wish for yourself my opinion means naught.

Which brings me to this song I rather like: "What It's Like" by Everclear

You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

 

I am very Kierkegaarian in my philosophy. The mountain exists as does its summit. Religions are paths that some explorer has forged before. They will get you to the top of the mountain, and you will see the summit and the view from it. You may also forge your own path to the top. If you choose to forget your own path, you may encounter dangers along the way, you may stumble and fall, you may even give up, but when you get there you will see the very same summit.

What about those who take helicopters up to the top of the mountain? Surely they can experience a better view?

What about those who stick health and safety signs on the mountain and stop anyone climbing said mountain?

What about those on another mountain staring across the valley at you?

What about those who would rather use the stone from the mountain to build something.

If we're using mountains as examples of enlightenment, then let's not forget all the other angles.

reply to post by mr-lizard


Uhhh, there weren't helicopters when Kierkegaard was around so that's the best analogy he could give.

Anyhoo, Watcher...I am going to send you something...an experience I had that I don't want to post here. Check in a few minutes.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

Uhhh, there weren't helicopters when Kierkegaard was around so that's the best analogy he could give.

Precisely my point. Things changed. The values in which we measure something and appreciate something change.

Can you not see?

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

Uhhh, there weren't helicopters when Kierkegaard was around so that's the best analogy he could give.

Precisely my point. Things changed. The values in which we measure something and appreciate something change.

Can you not see?

I believe that I said what "my philosophy" was using an analogy. I did not say that it was the only analogy. I am not trying to create a religion.

I believe that we do absorb into the ONENESS and if we choose not to we can choose something else, like this place.

reply to post by A Fortiori


One option amongst many I would argue.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

This is a video from Robert A. Monroe when he reveals his realizations of being a cluster of many many lifetimes and beings, now all occupying himself as he is now.

Very fascinating worth watching all of his videos

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


Have a transcript? No can see videos.
This is not a third line as three does not come linearly after one.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Not sure if there is one, I'm about to go to bed so no transcribing tonight. Are you on a mobile?

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


Heavily filtered network.
Second line is this.

What a pile of garbage based on the fear and misunderstanding.

This is so beyond me and so shortsighted that I cannot but laugh:

Our personal energy signature – the soul or ego, individual self– that which makes us creative, original, reasoned, deliberate beings of action – that is taken from us. Or more precisely, we give it away.

The "ego" is the false self standing in the way of actual realization of the truth, the emotional. It is the competitive, lying, emotionally responding little persona.
And nobody is forcing you to "let go or give yourself away".

I don't believe in following a guru, but his guy has absolutely no insight on the esoteric whatsoever.

I don't either believe in some mythical "entities" taking over while you push your earthly consciousness aside in order to learn things that are possibly outside the limits of normal understanding.

[edit on 22/10/2009 by Tryptych]

reply to post by Tryptych


Beyond simply calling that care to explain why you say that?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Because it is garbage. Its misrepresentation of what "we" (practitioners of meditative paths) practice. Let me ask you:

Would you prefer to be a puzzle-piece or the entire puzzle? Does being the entire puzzle mean a "loss" of the puzzle-piece?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Certainly.

From my point of view, it's not about "killing the ego", it's more like stepping out of it. It is, in a way, ignoring your emotions. Also, letting go of the "ego" doesn't make you "assimilated in a group mind", you rather tap into a reality that is a place of harmony and peace. It's a state of mind, a mediative one.

But as they say, the occult is not for everyone. That's why it's esoteric. This guy just jumps into conclusions like

The gods are masquerading as Cosmic Self. We either open our minds and recognize our programming, and reason our way out of this snare, or we grin like foolish children and follow the Pied Piper right into the maw of the mountain.

also, one of the comments:

There are quite a few who propound this poisonous doctrine, who believe that enlightenment means giving up your individual spark and being assimilated what I believe is the Luciferic hive mind.

Pushing the ego aside is actually realizing the existence of that "spark" and it and is actually a self realization of the individual, true self (i don't like to use the term "higher"), the exact opposite of some "luciferian hive mind".

[edit on 22/10/2009 by Tryptych]