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