Switzerland 4 rivers

Originally posted by Oneolddude
Switzerland was nothing more than a bunch of peaceful farmer types when mysteriously a group of men showed up and settled there.

Interesting, do tell more!

Switzerland had been the centre of Celtic civilisation, and a rich source of gold and minerals. With Roman occupation and homogenisation, skills and knowledge were lost, by the fall of the Roman empire, there was no one left who knew that the land they worked was hiding vast wealth. If you study ancient texts though, such as those from Ancient Greece that had been preserved in the Near East, and began emerging back into Western thought following the Crusades against the Holy Land, you can start to pinpoint on a map, those place where alluviul gold was found. Obviously, where all water born gold is, there is likely to be stone bound gold too, amongst other precious stones and minerals. I looked at this in the Carpathian mountains. Around 1300, all of a sudden, in a place called Kutna Hora, there is a mass migration of German (Frankish) miners and a mine created. Low and behold, Gold and Silver. In around 500BC, the Greeks were trading in that area, with the Dacian culture, for gold and silver. The Germanic Tribes traded with the Romans but succeeded in thwarting invasions to those areas, and following the Fall of the Roman Empire, any gold and silver being produced must have been going North-East into Asia, otherwise the Crusades wouldn't have gone East looking for it. They seemed to be, prior to the Crusades, completely ignorant that there was so much gold right on their doorsteps and with only ignorant peasants in their way of claiming it. That is why the sensible Crusaders told the Pope to stuff the Holy Land, and concentrated their efforts on breaking the trade networks in Northern Europe. I definately think that someone knew something, and that they found it in the East.

I think that if the Templars did find a 'treasure', it was most likely the key to a map that gave all the trade routes and stops of the Radhanites in Eurasia. If that is the case, then the information was divided up territorially, amongst a number of people who then formed a basis of the various orders. The Livonians and Teutons in particular seem to have most benefited with the territories they gained becoming the basis of the Hanseatic League.

Originally posted by dontreally
Fundamentalism?

What the hell does that mean?

You have stated yourself that you are parroting information that you have been taught. You do not seem to be willing to deviate from that, and I respect that, but I have nothing to gain from continuing the discussion and neither do you. I have seen your perspective and I thank you for it.

Originally posted by dontreally
Is your current view, not also fundamentalism?

Possibly.

Originally posted by dontreally
Are you not defending a set of views that are fundamental to your personal philosophy?

What views was I defending? I defended my honour, but I didn't as such present any of my 'views'. What 'views' would those be, that you percieved?

Originally posted by dontreally
If you mean some orthodox fundamentalism, the type youd find in christianity. I resent that.

Why? Because your prophet is the best prophet and the comparison is beneath you? They have been indoctrinated, just as you have, a repeat what they have been told to repeat, and think what they have been told to think. Just like you. And just like the Mohammadians too. All one and the same to me, prophet junkies to aid the profiteers, and you all do such good work for them. I resent that.

Originally posted by dontreally
Kabbalah - mysticism, is the corner stone of all Jewish thought. Bible, Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, and of course the many kabbalistic works.

The philosophy im conveying is also based on an objective appreciation of reality.

Or so you have be told.

Originally posted by dontreally
Do we not discern opposites? Is not the essential relationship between them active and passive. One giving, the other recieiving?

Ever hear of sharing? Giving and taking. In equal measure.

Originally posted by dontreally
This is basic to kabbalistic and all mystical thought. The masculine is the giving, the feminine the receiving. Hence our common understanding of G-d as a man and nature as a woman.

And it is incorrect, fundamentally and completely without objectivity. But you wouldn't know that, the information you need to know that can't be found in that box of yours.

Originally posted by dontreally
So what is fundamental about my views? The fact that i discern a relationship in creation between masculine and feminine forces? The feminine passive to the role of the active, which acts upon it. The feminine recieving and expressing what the masculine potential imparts.

That is great and I wish you very good look in your search for a passive partner to share your life with, but to accept your way of thinking I would have to completely disregard great whole swathes of information. I can't do that. I'm obviously not as passive as I should be. Problem is, I bend, I don't break. I'm probably descended from some feral variety that slipped through when Noah wasn't looking. Never been properly broken in, though many have tried.

Originally posted by dontreally
So because I consider - and Judaism considers, a reality that depends on the human imitiation of this divine dynamic which the creator - speaker of all reality, inserted in the nature he created. This level of the female in Kabbalah is called Elohim (powers). This refers to all the spiritual powers of creation. Its gematria is the same as HaTeva 86, nature. This sorta consistency is throughout the Hebrew language. Wonderous. To say the least.

I don't have much problem with that at all, but if that is the case, my guess is that this is most definately a two way street. When the Greeks created Dionysus, or the notion that became the Holy Spirit or Ghost, they didn't know it was Yeast, so they sought a way to explain whatever it was that was causing the water to transform to wine, or the dough to become 5 times it's size, so they created Dionysus to explain that, just as they did to create an explanation for the changes a boy goes through in puperty in previous generations. These stories are global, they vary, but the consistent themes remain the same. These stories were carried through from nomadism, to settlement to civilisation. They offer a clear path for discovery and with current knowledge at my finger tips, decyphering them is childsplay. It is like timetravel. I didn't need Hebrew to do that, I just followed where I was lead, accessing the resources available to most everyone. I am very pleased that you have found your path and that it explains all that you need explaining. I'm still looking, and have very, very many questions, I may not be on the right path, but I have so much fun when I follow it. And I'm a very good girl ('Washed me face and 'ands before I came 'ere, I did'), so I am unlikely to suffer any 'moral' falls that burden my conscience unduly.

Originally posted by dontreally
I wasnt trying to offend you by calling you a feminist, but i am somewhat taken aback by you finding the label as offensive.

It was cheap and ill thought out. I am a woman and I talk about equal gender roles therefore I am a Feminist. Are you by reverse logic, a manist? It is silly.

I have, as a woman, equal rights, I have no need to promote my rights 'as a woman'. If those rights are infringed I have the right to protect those rights as far as the International Court for Human Rights. I'm good with that, no complaints. As far as the rights of other women less fortunate than myself, I believe that is tied up in a wider issue and is irrelevent, if as I am, you believe in equal rights for everyone, as in, I believe that everyone, male and female, should have the same rights that I do.

Originally posted by dontreally
Should what you believe be considered normal, and forward? So on a purely taboo level, my holding to conservative, traditional beliefs, that woman have a certain role as do men, that im completely out of line call you something that clearly, up till this point in our discussion is a very relevant topic to you.

I believe that some men and some women do fit into your stereotypes of what a 'certain role' maybe, not everyone though is like that, and I believe that trying to be something that you are not can lead to an unhappy family. There is black and there is white, but in between a whole spectrum of colours and shades. You continually make assumptions about me, on a personal level. I would have loved to have been a stay at home mother, supported by my partner financially, while I raised the children and ran the house. But a) I couldn't do that because I was the bread winner, and b) because my relationship failed. Not all of us are dealt the same hand. I am perfectly content with my lot and live with the choices that I made, I'm not complaining, just pointing out that because I talk about women's issues does not make me a feminist, it makes me a woman that realises that 'There but for the grace of god go I.'

Originally posted by dontreally
You made a big deal about the 'whore of babylon' even though that isnt even a Jewish idea. Judaism honors its woman and unlike in Islam you never ever hear of orthodox Jews hurting their wives, G-d forbid. Jewish woman have completely control. And in fact, the Talmud itself describes an incident where a sage was late for a gathering because his wife angry with him. Jewish woman are a very good example of how much honorred they are by their children and husband. But, they also embrace their unique role.

My humour is lost on most people, I wasn't actually offended by the Whore of Babylon thing, but there is something in that...I have an idea fermenting somewhere. I don't care what you say, I still may be rightish. But I apologise, I was only teasing. I don't have any problem with Judaism, or anyother religion for that matter, in principle.

Originally posted by dontreally
To your greek, western, senses, thats offensive.

My surname is actually an Anglicised version of Cohen, but you carry on with your assumptions. My given name has Greek origin though, but there all similarity lies. I know very little about Greece, in the scheme of things Ancient or otherwise. I'm British, and therefore, what 'race' I haven't got in me, ain't worth having. I don't play favourites, they all bring their own character, to my character.

Originally posted by dontreally
People should be allowed to do what they will. Well. I think that shows whos listening to nature. Judaism listens to G-ds speech through nature. The divine presence speaks to man, and we are supposed to listen. Its in our nature to possess the mental faculties to discern principles about reality. Its also in our nature to appreciate right and wrong. Will we be faithful to that knowledge? To this completely natural inclination, all civilized human beings are born with? We can thank Jews for this dimension of Human consciousness. Paganism seeks to undo this. As Hitler was so adament about.

What does it speak to you right now? Or is it still stuck on the same message that you got, however many thousands of years ago? Surely you realise that things aren't looking too good for us all right now.

Originally posted by dontreally
In any case. Im sorry for offending you. I should keep away from labeling. But - you did make a few offensive comments earlier about Jews, using it in a pejorative way.

Did I make offensive comments about Jews? I apologise if I did, I didn't intend to.

Originally posted by dontreally
Did i end the conversation after you did that? I ignored it. Im interested in sharing my views and see what you have to say. I also enjoyed reading your point of view, despite what i think of it. Youre an interesting person.

Thank you, as are you, but it wasn't productive and I don't get a lot of time spare to come here. I quite like to enjoy myself when I do, and no offence, but it was beginning to feel a little like hard work. I have every intention of continuing to read your posts and should opportunity arise I look forward to speaking to you again.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
And it is incorrect, fundamentally and completely without objectivity. But you wouldn't know that, the information you need to know that can't be found in that box of yours.

How do you mean, not objective?

Did the examples i give not evince some objective patterns in reality? This is what Judaism works from. These are objective whether you want to acknowledge them or not. Seriously. Logically tell me how they are not objective? You made a statement, yet failed to explain yourself.

Is this premise of a G-d as the ultimate giver, being the ultimate cause, and us the ultimate reciever, being the ultimate effect, not true? Or do you reject the idea of an ultimate cause? A prime mover, from which something comes from nothing. Surely the gnostic and Eastern idea of us being our own creators is not anymore sensible. That is absolutely a horribly counter-intuitive illogical assumption that bypasses the traditionally Jewish tool of inference, which is the spiritual pointer that G-d gave man.

I don't have much problem with that at all, but if that is the case, my guess is that this is most definately a two way street. When the Greeks created Dionysus, or the notion that became the Holy Spirit or Ghost, they didn't know it was Yeast, so they sought a way to explain whatever it was that was causing the water to transform to wine, or the dough to become 5 times it's size, so they created Dionysus to explain that, just as they did to create an explanation for the changes a boy goes through in puperty in previous generations. These stories are global, they vary, but the consistent themes remain the same. These stories were carried through from nomadism, to settlement to civilisation. They offer a clear path for discovery and with current knowledge at my finger tips, decyphering them is childsplay. It is like timetravel. I didn't need Hebrew to do that, I just followed where I was lead, accessing the resources available to most everyone. I am very pleased that you have found your path and that it explains all that you need explaining. I'm still looking, and have very, very many questions, I may not be on the right path, but I have so much fun when I follow it. And I'm a very good girl ('Washed me face and 'ands before I came 'ere, I did'), so I am unlikely to suffer any 'moral' falls that burden my conscience unduly.

Isnt that amusing. Jews eat Matzah - bread without leaven, a symbol for arrogance, in order to connect with the spiritual and the divine. Greeks do the exact opposite. They deify leaven and attribute its power to Dionysus. An apt association.

It was cheap and ill thought out. I am a woman and I talk about equal gender roles therefore I am a Feminist. Are you by reverse logic, a manist? It is silly. I have, as a woman, equal rights, I have no need to promote my rights 'as a woman'. If those rights are infringed I have the right to protect those rights as far as the International Court for Human Rights. I'm good with that, no complaints. As far as the rights of other women less fortunate than myself, I believe that is tied up in a wider issue and is irrelevent, if as I am, you believe in equal rights for everyone, as in, I believe that everyone, male and female, should have the same rights that I do.

Sorry about the comment.

But this is a very deep issue. A Jewish woman connects with teh archetypal role that the creator has designed. Do not be off put by the idea of having a predesigned role. This is the creator of reality - connecting with you in the most intimate way - of a knowledge, which he had specifically engineered for you. When a woman fulfills her role, as a mother, care giver, nurturer of the house (and i already attempted to provide information of why this dynamic is meant to be reflected in the human realm - so the world can truly become one) - both the spiritual and physical) she connects with the higher parallel of herself, that shekina, G-ds divine presence, and awakens her toward he husband, the creator. Likewise, when a man cherishes his wife and gives her all she desires (In Jewish thought, a man ashould be frugal with everything he has, but his wife, she alone is he to propitiate with affection, gifts, in order to honor her. How different this is from Islam?), when he goes out into the world to provide the raw sustenance needed to generate the final picutre that he seeks, he acts his role, as G-d in microcosm (of course, this isnt literal. He is merely G-ds image, not G-d himself. This is a major difference between Jewish and other mystical views) and so stimulates the masculine principal to connect with the feminine. By doing this blessing, vitality and holiness is brought to the world.

As surprising as it may seem, man possesses G-dlike powers. We are only subject to nature when we quiver before it. We being made in G-ds iamge grants us the same innate power that G-d has. Only, to exercise it, man has to first show that hes worthy of it. He must be ruler and master of his good. To do this he has to reject evil and choose good. This gives him the abiliy to not only live a happy life, but even more incredibly, transcend the lower limitations of natural existence. Nature and its laws are not meant to hamper and conceal the divine light. They are a beautiful process that is meant to be sublimated by the infinite. Man when he reaches this state, when his collective consciousness is at one with this level of awareness, has complete control. Limits do not exist. His mind is above the angelic intelligences. Space and time pose no problem. Man can do all he wishes. This is the beginning of a degree of spiritul evolution that makes our current science, our "natural" understanding of matters look pretty silly. Of course, its relevant. I do think technology is important and it does reveal a knowledge of creation that can only be known through such analysis and examination. But are we subject to these laws intrinsically? No. Were meant to be above them, to 'rule the animals, creeping things, birds and fish". To learn from everything of course, but in no way to consider ourselves on their level of existence. In the realm of creation, man is the highest life form. In the ultimate sense, everything is of equal worth - but not in a immideate and imminent sense. The divine is revealed to different degrees in different forms.

Thank you, as are you, but it wasn't productive and I don't get a lot of time spare to come here. I quite like to enjoy myself when I do, and no offence, but it was beginning to feel a little like hard work. I have every intention of continuing to read your posts and should opportunity arise I look forward to speaking to you again.

Thankyou.

I think its interesting that so two different people can get together and share their views. You're a mature british woman with her own particular views, im a 20 something canadian guy with completely different ones. Yet, we can speak civilly and respect each others opinion. Of course, i wouldnt be so nice if i didnt feel you really are a sincere person. I hate insincerity. At times, when youre with people you know, sarcasm can be fine. But, in a serious conversation, when tactlessness, arrogance, indifference take control - i know the person im speakng to is a shallow moron and so i generaly leave the conversation. But youre a nice person and i can appreciate that. Hope you find what youre looking for.

It just amazes me sometimes when i think how different, funamentally alien things are today compared to 200 years ago. We are on two different continents! Speaking to each other through the medium of carbon cables underneath the atlantic ocean. Or through satelites in space! How can human history progress so slowly, and all of a sudden move at a pace that appears to completely transcend time. Maybe time, this last 100 years is showing us, doesnt exist. Whatever the case, the mayan prediction of 2012 has some serious validity to it. Think about it. The Hebrew prophets and other sages from other traditions predicted a wonderous future for mankind. In kabbalah. The lowest sphere, Malkhut, symbolizes time. Time is G-ds gift to man. He is the master of time. The first 6 sefirot from chesed to Yesod each correspond to 1000 years of human existence (of course, this is speaking about an epoch, not the creation of reality in general. which is far old then 6000 years). We are at the final sphere, Yesod (foundation) which also has the same gematria as Ki Kol (for all or everything). This century we have essentially gathered up all the history, knowledge and wisdom of the past and have gathered it all together. The Next 1000 years, will be a period of timelessness. Of course, time will exist, but only to some. and only if you bother to experience it. It'll be a plane of an eternal now that man collectively will be living on. So, as time passes, it'll be sorta at a dilatory pace. A hyper time similar to the higher worlds; but, in this world, of the physical - which is noted by kabbalists as the Realest world of all. So, terrence mckennas time wave zero, which im somewhat intrigued by, could have validity. Also. The messianic age, the next era for mankind, will begin as any birth process begins - through birth pangs. 2012 marks the beginnings of those birth pangs, as we all can clearly see developing. WW3 is right around the corner. The power barons - the illuminati, have everything set up. Of course, they have a different vision of the future than the Jewish people do. Whatever the case. That period will begin circa 2012. The war of Gog and Magog.

Originally posted by dontreally
How do you mean, not objective?

Did the examples i give not evince some objective patterns in reality? This is what Judaism works from. These are objective whether you want to acknowledge them or not. Seriously. Logically tell me how they are not objective? You made a statement, yet failed to explain yourself.

Well perhaps I was being harsh, but, how is ‘objectivity’ established? Or defined? You state that it is objective and give examples based on that position, that does not make it objective, to be objective it has to be completely external to that which is being observed. You can’t just decided or accept when told, that something is objective. So in context, other than because you were told, tell me, how did you establish the objectivity?

That it feels objective to you, or that you believe that it is objective, is much more likely due to it matching your norms and values, as well as the doctrine and ritual you have been initiated into since childhood. It seems objective to you because it doesn’t challenge your programming, it is cosy, comfortable, fits you like a glove and that is because you and it were moulded for each other.

Recently I explained to my brother a model of physical existence as constructed with rationale and ‘common-sense’, using largely a biological model. He in turn explained to me that it correlated perfectly with an experience he had after having taken far more acid than any, let’s say, three humans should be able to survive mentally intact from(…and then he lay down in the snow, I mean really!). We could conclude that because I had perceived almost precisely the same model, completely independently, via logic and reason, that he had seen experientially, that we had between us, found the ‘objective’ model of the universe. Or, we could conclude that because we share the same genetic material and nurture experience, it was always inevitable that we would arrive at the same conclusion.

There have been many messengers, I’m not shooting any of them, I often think the messenger is ill equipped or the developmental short comings of the brain can lead to a confused reception. Those who are most worthy to receive are not always the most able to understand. They often are the most troubled. Misunderstanding leading to miscommunication. I think that is why the texts often speak of purity, it is not in terms of intention towards lustful or sinful pursuits, but more a question of keeping the mind untainted by negative experience, free from emotional contamination if you will. Which is why Buddhists seek to identify Llamas so early, before the taint of attachment has grown too strong, before experience of the material world has eroded the ability to perceive the love that is human existence in it’s pure, unadultered form, before the fear and guilt has set in.

Originally posted by dontreally
Is this premise of a G-d as the ultimate giver, being the ultimate cause, and us the ultimate reciever, being the ultimate effect, not true? Or do you reject the idea of an ultimate cause? A prime mover, from which something comes from nothing. Surely the gnostic and Eastern idea of us being our own creators is not anymore sensible. That is absolutely a horribly counter-intuitive illogical assumption that bypasses the traditionally Jewish tool of inference, which is the spiritual pointer that G-d gave man.

The Gnostics were blindly trying to connect with that which they had lost, their connection with nature and the gnosis that that connectivity gave them in their rejection of doctrine. This is where you start to get the rise of awareness of a duality to existence, the sense of lacking something, of not being part of a whole, of having been cut off from something. All that had, for countless generations before, been taught to them, as a ‘god-given’ rite of passage in the Eleusian Mysteries, much in the same way you are welcomed into your ‘tribe’. For those who had come from the tribes in what is now Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Turkey and Greece those rites were taken away from them and preserved expressly for and by the Elites, who themselves used it, abused it and lost it altogether.

Dionysus, in his original form represented that element that was ‘extraterrestrial’, the masculine element being representative of the firmament, the spermatozoa, rain. Dionysus is explained as having been carried up to the heavens by the Titans, where he was roasted and torn to shreds in punishment. His divinity fell to Earth as shards that gave all who were subsequently born an inherent knowledge of god. Indiscriminately. Discrimination is not divine. He is the bringer of Light and the darkness/matter what gives him form. And vice versa. Nothing without the other.

The notion of duality, and the way in which the Gnostic faiths were constructed, demonstrates a ‘skewed’ understanding of the Eleusians, and is probably, like Christianity proper if you like, a mish-mash, of the story-telling culture of those regions. That the Jewish version, and traditions, are preserved is due to the compliance and symbiotic relationship that the leadership of those people had with ‘might’. The simple device of being useful to whoever is in charge, and of agreeing to pay a higher rate of tax ensured that the Jewish way of life was consistently preserved to at least some extent. Largely at the elite level, otherwise those leaders wouldn’t have had to engage in the forced conversions and tactics to keep their numbers up. Since, in the early days, the leaders of Judiasm, were likely ‘arms dealers’ (note the mention of obsidian in the Song of Songs!), they would have needed a standing army, as well as those walls which were constantly being knocked down and rebuilt with permission of who the new ‘Man’ was. Notice that the Jews of the Bible only get attacked when there is a change in power?

So…the ‘New Faiths’ were an attempt to reconnect and make sense of that which they had lost in completeness because these people had been severed, forceably from their traditions and their leaders taken away from them. But what they couldn’t take away was that inherent knowing and the recognition that that knowing gave them when they looked at certain things or heard certain words that would open a window, for just a moment, through which they could see ‘from whence they came’.

Originally posted by dontreally
Isnt that amusing. Jews eat Matzah - bread without leaven, a symbol for arrogance, in order to connect with the spiritual and the divine. Greeks do the exact opposite. They deify leaven and attribute its power to Dionysus. An apt association.

Again, it is more than that, it was possession, bread, wine, beer…they all developed into separate but interdependent industries. All of those industries developed around 9 to 6 thousand years ago and yeast was ‘domesticated’ about 3,000 years ago, from that point on, the Brewer’s and Baker’s yeast came from a single source, which has been spread, along with Christianity ever since. The Jewish rejection of Yeast, as with the Muslim’s, is a rejection of Dionysus and therefore, Jesus, as the saviour. Presumably the slogan of that ‘brand’ of yeast was, the ‘saviour of us all’. Wild yeast is a far less reliable leaven and fermenter, you couldn’t guarantee that it would feed the five thousand in the same way you could with Jesus, the leading brand. You can see why everyone went with it, everyone loves a sure thing. These industries created wealth, haves and have nots, disposable income and servitude. So on and so forth. Economics is the basis of all religion, without exception.

Originally posted by dontreally
But this is a very deep issue. A Jewish woman connects with teh archetypal role that the creator has designed. Do not be off put by the idea of having a predesigned role. This is the creator of reality - connecting with you in the most intimate way - of a knowledge, which he had specifically engineered for you. When a woman fulfills her role, as a mother, care giver, nurturer of the house (and i already attempted to provide information of why this dynamic is meant to be reflected in the human realm - so the world can truly become one) - both the spiritual and physical) she connects with the higher parallel of herself, that shekina, G-ds divine presence, and awakens her toward he husband, the creator. Likewise, when a man cherishes his wife and gives her all she desires (In Jewish thought, a man ashould be frugal with everything he has, but his wife, she alone is he to propitiate with affection, gifts, in order to honor her. How different this is from Islam?), when he goes out into the world to provide the raw sustenance needed to generate the final picutre that he seeks, he acts his role, as G-d in microcosm (of course, this isnt literal. He is merely G-ds image, not G-d himself. This is a major difference between Jewish and other mystical views) and so stimulates the masculine principal to connect with the feminine. By doing this blessing, vitality and holiness is brought to the world.

I have never felt all that comfortable in the body I was given, I have quite an aggressive nature, and a tendency to react without thinking in confrontations and take on other people’s battles. I was a constant embarrassment to my brother at primary school, as I would try to kick the crap out of anyone that started on him, which didn’t really do great things for his reputation, and I just got resigned to being thought of as ‘nuts’. I believe that was motivation enough for him to pass his eleven-plus to ensure he went to the all boys grammar school where I was sure not to follow. It is something that I have had to temper, I am not built for fighting so much, certainly not without weaponry. And body armour. And the older I get, the greater the realisation is that the body is in itself a test, the human brain is so incredibly powerful, and fearless, and yet it rests, in my case, within a relatively fragile frame.

I torture myself with a kind of conundrum, it is a quote from a speech given by Queen Elizabeth, ‘I may have the weak and feeble body of a woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a King’. If you reverse that to, ‘I have the heart and stomach of a King, but the weak and feeble body of a woman’, the implied meaning changes completely. I’m therefore not so sure that I am mellower, or that I am far too aware of my own mortality these days. There are particular challenges in being female, a test within a test, within a test. And I don’t test well. But motherhood certainly is the one I am most motivated to pass.

My son’s well being is paramount to me, he keeps me sane, because he needs me to be sane. And I would give my life to him without question, it is his, I ceased to matter the moment he drew breath, other than as provider to him. Biologically at least. But that also means ensuring that I am there, not off gal-a-vanting and not putting myself in any undue risk, and certainly not exposing him to any risk as a result of my actions or choices. I can therefore certainly appreciate your perspective on Motherhood, and it’s wider significance to the community as a whole. If you are lucky enough to have community, there is generally a wider support network too, an extended family, which I myself am fortunate enough to have and benefit hugely from. Others are not so lucky, there is a lot of work to be done in rebuilding basic community structures, and some parents are hopelessly ill prepared for parenting. So, again, while I am very happy for you, I personally look and wonder what good it does for the wider community that we are all now a part of.

Originally posted by dontreally
As surprising as it may seem, man possesses G-dlike powers. We are only subject to nature when we quiver before it. We being made in G-ds iamge grants us the same innate power that G-d has. Only, to exercise it, man has to first show that hes worthy of it. He must be ruler and master of his good. To do this he has to reject evil and choose good. This gives him the abiliy to not only live a happy life, but even more incredibly, transcend the lower limitations of natural existence. Nature and its laws are not meant to hamper and conceal the divine light. They are a beautiful process that is meant to be sublimated by the infinite. Man when he reaches this state, when his collective consciousness is at one with this level of awareness, has complete control. Limits do not exist. His mind is above the angelic intelligences. Space and time pose no problem. Man can do all he wishes. This is the beginning of a degree of spiritul evolution that makes our current science, our "natural" understanding of matters look pretty silly. Of course, its relevant. I do think technology is important and it does reveal a knowledge of creation that can only be known through such analysis and examination. But are we subject to these laws intrinsically? No. Were meant to be above them, to 'rule the animals, creeping things, birds and fish". To learn from everything of course, but in no way to consider ourselves on their level of existence. In the realm of creation, man is the highest life form. In the ultimate sense, everything is of equal worth - but not in a immideate and imminent sense. The divine is revealed to different degrees in different forms.

I agree, almost entirely.

Originally posted by dontreally
I think its interesting that so two different people can get together and share their views. You're a mature british woman with her own particular views, im a 20 something canadian guy with completely different ones. Yet, we can speak civilly and respect each others opinion. Of course, i wouldnt be so nice if i didnt feel you really are a sincere person. I hate insincerity. At times, when youre with people you know, sarcasm can be fine. But, in a serious conversation, when tactlessness, arrogance, indifference take control - i know the person im speakng to is a shallow moron and so i generaly leave the conversation. But youre a nice person and i can appreciate that. Hope you find what youre looking for.

Don’t be deceived, I’m not very nice at all.

Originally posted by dontreally
It just amazes me sometimes when i think how different, funamentally alien things are today compared to 200 years ago. We are on two different continents! Speaking to each other through the medium of carbon cables underneath the atlantic ocean. Or through satelites in space! How can human history progress so slowly, and all of a sudden move at a pace that appears to completely transcend time. Maybe time, this last 100 years is showing us, doesnt exist. Whatever the case, the mayan prediction of 2012 has some serious validity to it. Think about it. The Hebrew prophets and other sages from other traditions predicted a wonderous future for mankind. In kabbalah. The lowest sphere, Malkhut, symbolizes time. Time is G-ds gift to man. He is the master of time. The first 6 sefirot from chesed to Yesod each correspond to 1000 years of human existence (of course, this is speaking about an epoch, not the creation of reality in general. which is far old then 6000 years). We are at the final sphere, Yesod (foundation) which also has the same gematria as Ki Kol (for all or everything). This century we have essentially gathered up all the history, knowledge and wisdom of the past and have gathered it all together. The Next 1000 years, will be a period of timelessness. Of course, time will exist, but only to some. and only if you bother to experience it. It'll be a plane of an eternal now that man collectively will be living on. So, as time passes, it'll be sorta at a dilatory pace. A hyper time similar to the higher worlds; but, in this world, of the physical - which is noted by kabbalists as the Realest world of all. So, terrence mckennas time wave zero, which im somewhat intrigued by, could have validity. Also. The messianic age, the next era for mankind, will begin as any birth process begins - through birth pangs. 2012 marks the beginnings of those birth pangs, as we all can clearly see developing. WW3 is right around the corner. The power barons - the illuminati, have everything set up. Of course, they have a different vision of the future than the Jewish people do. Whatever the case. That period will begin circa 2012. The war of Gog and Magog.

I don’t think it’s anything to lose sleep over. Time is relative. Comme ce comme ca or que cera cera. Either, or. Whichever best applies to the question. I don’t go in for prophecy much. There are better, more ‘objective’ works to be found on ethnogens, which is where Mckenna should have kept his thoughts to. Strassmann’s book on '___' is interesting. '___' taken neutrally, or secularly, seems to present a more consistent experience. It is seldom taken neutrally though. Each people has or had it’s own plant gnosis, that connected them to their god, figuratively or experientially, and conveyed information via the ‘host’, usually someone selected in childhood as having the necessary qualities. This is the basis of Priest/esshood. The person who told the stories to the people that drew them together as a people and when (or if) it came their time to meet with god, they were there to guide and prepare them. That is all the Mysteries ever really were. We only have the Romans word for it that any of these people were barbarians or Pagans or whatever else it is that they were called or heinous crimes of sacrifice they were supposed to have committed. And really, they weren’t in any position to be throwing stones, were they? And could very well have had an agenda, don’t you think?

reply to post by dontreally


Yes, Qabalah takes YEARS to study....as does most true understanding of ANY religious text whether it be the Talmud or the Koran.

I say that your statements are subjective because they are. God speaks many different languages. Your "learned scholar" may have learned certain truths which you attempt to parrot, but that does not make the truths learned by other scholars wrong about the same subjects. It simply means God speaks in whatever language is required for the student to learn the lesson. EVERYTHING about spiritual growth is subjective, that's the point of Qabalah. Your rigidity in assuming YOUR views are the only right ones is your weakness and ego speaking. Intolerance tends to turn people off to your message.

Finally, you keep bringing up my reference to "sephira" instead of "sephiroth" as some sort of identification that I don't know anything about the subject of Qabalah. I suppose you have never misspoken a phrase in your life? Or that perhaps I started one thought and then switched mid-stream? Of course I know the difference between the two, but you make false assumptions because you are arrogant and intolerant to any views but your own.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
reply to post by dontreally

 

Yes, Qabalah takes YEARS to study....as does most true understanding of ANY religious text whether it be the Talmud or the Koran.

I say that your statements are subjective because they are. God speaks many different languages. Your "learned scholar" may have learned certain truths which you attempt to parrot, but that does not make the truths learned by other scholars wrong about the same subjects. It simply means God speaks in whatever language is required for the student to learn the lesson. EVERYTHING about spiritual growth is subjective, that's the point of Qabalah. Your rigidity in assuming YOUR views are the only right ones is your weakness and ego speaking. Intolerance tends to turn people off to your message.

Finally, you keep bringing up my reference to "sephira" instead of "sephiroth" as some sort of identification that I don't know anything about the subject of Qabalah. I suppose you have never misspoken a phrase in your life? Or that perhaps I started one thought and then switched mid-stream? Of course I know the difference between the two, but you make false assumptions because you are arrogant and intolerant to any views but your own.

I never said there wasnt truth in other religions.

I just feel Judaism is different. Not only because its the oldest continuous tradition that has overcome the most difficult obstacles and persecution from pagans, christians and muslims, but because it really is a wonderous subject of study

Kabbalah as its advertized today is much different from traditional, authentic kabbalah as forumulated by the Hebrew sages Shimon Bar yochai (zohar), Cordevero, kabbalah of the ARI, Rmachal. This kabbalah is at one with the Jewish tradition. Judaism is entirely based on this kabbalah. The entire Jewish tradition before its promulgation in the 12 hundreds was always based on this wisdom (kabbalah itself means 'to recieve' as in the knowledge was recieved from a teacher who passed it down to his pupil. This is how the oral Torah as its called was transmitted from biblical times till the times of the mishna, where part of it was put in writing due to the intense roman persecutions)

The kabbalah thats popularized today from the Kabbalah center, or from new age theosophical gnostic authors like warren Kenton (i own many of his books so im not foreign to this 'school' of kabbalah) only borrows the sytematic nature of the kabbalah but applies it to pagan, gnostic/hermetic ideas. For instance, by connecting the 7 sefirot to the 7 churchs or 7 chakras or to the 7 greco-roman gods associated with the planets.

Im not saying there isnt any validity to these comparisons. Im just saying the philosophy kabbalahs being used to validate is illgetimate and has absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish tradition. Often these authors say this is what Judaism is about. People readign this than imagine that orthodox Judaism isnt Judaism, but some fringe group of radicals that departed from the authentic tradition. When the complete opposite is the case. Judaism is in itself 'radical' in that its philosophy is completely different from the perennial philosophy of the nations around them.

So, i guess im just irritated with people who think they know Kabbalah because theyre acquainted with its psychology/spirituality as presented by the authors they learn it from. Indeed, this kabbalah is compatible and akin to the other traditions, whether sufi, gnostic, vedanta etc. Real Kabbalah is much more than that. For instance, the 22 paths which run through the 10 sefirot which correspond to the 22 letters are used by these dishonest "kabbalists" to allude to concepts which are entirely pagan in nature. Judaism does believe in a 'middle path' but not in the sense that its understood in other traditions. Its not straddling the zone between the pure spiritual and the profane physical. That is not judaism despite what Warren Kenton tries to sell to his obviously poorly informed readers (if they arent Jewish, that is). Judaisms middle path is a balance between serving G-d with both love and Fear, not the Jungian idea of balancing ones inner and outer reality by engaging the outside world by the outside worlds terms. No, the inner world is meant to be reflected in the outer world. Not separated.

Im sorry for saying earlier that dont know Kabbalah. You may infact understand it well. However, how studied you are in traditional kabbalistic texts, or if you can even read Biblical Hebrew, im not even sure of. It is presumptuous for me to say you dont know.

basic facts why switzerland is seen as paradise / was not attacked in WWII:

switzerland was founded in 1291 as the people in central switzerland opposed to the habsbugers
(see william tell myth) (for people into numbers: it was 3 cantons first: uri, schwyz, unterwalden)
they made built a union and sweared: "rather die standing, than live on your knees".

later on the swiss have been known and feared as mercenaries, who knew how to use the terrain in battles and they invented the "hellebarde" (sort of a spear with a hook), which allowed them to pull knights from their horses.

being mercenaries some of them fought for a lot of different people. till the battle of marignano, which was a terrible bloodbath leaving mountains of dead swiss mercenaries on both sides.

that must have been so shocking, that
1: the red cross was founded, to help the victims.
2: being a mercenary was forbidden an neutrality declared.

the vatican's guard is swiss, since they are known to be strong mercenaries, and (at the time) strong, loyal catholics.

neutrality in the definition; they will not attack other countries, nor make allies to attack other countries.
the neutrality helped them later in many conflicts, and was a good thing to develop banks.
(hint: NOT attacking other countries builds trust in the world !!)

Being neutral also meant not to take sides in the WWII.
Before and during the war they managed to upkeep the official neutrality, while hiding the money and gold from all sides (vaticans, nazis, jews,.....)

At the same time they announced their tactics in case of an attack, they would have gone to the high and difficult to access mountains and destroy the whole infrastructure. (in fact under every single bridge in switzerland up to the 80ies there v been explosives placed for that case.)
For the nazis surrounding switzerland it was too hard to conquer switzerland with possible low outcome: a destroyed country with "guerillas" up in the mountains (actually a bit what you see happening in afghanistan ;-)


Switzerland was at the time the only safe country in Europe for fugitives from all sides (again, jews, intellectuals, homosexuals,....) already before the war they had 4 official languages: german, french, italian and something like roman) so it was multicultural before and got richer in culture during and after the war.

there have been a lot of people who found a safe haven in switzerland already in WWI, i believe CG Jung was one of them, (Einstein by the way in WWII)

Logically those fugities found it "paradise" (which it was nt during the war) but if you have the options: concentration camp in nazi germany or asylum in a neutral state, the neutral state IS paradise.

Neutrality is also the reason why there are lot of peace-meetings arranged in switzerland (example israel-palestine) since both parties can go there and know they are safe to meet and talk.

This being a two-sided sword, off course the world elite also meets in switzerland (World economic forum),
but they would not attack switzerland - who would bomb his own fort knox??