VI. Глава 2. Логос Шаданакара
Причём здесь теоретическая физика? Что говорит эта физика о воскресении из мёртвых? О многослойном Шаданакаре? О бессмертной душе? Об ангелах и демонах? О Творце вселенной, в конце концов?
о реанимации мёртвых или частично мёртвых тел нас учит медицина, которая часть конечно же науки.
Обычно мёртвые тела и умерший мозг живыми не становятся.
о таких вещах наука молчит. Они принципиально отделены от науки. И потому мы можем тут надеяться и доверять обетованиям, данным нам через пророков.
в воскресение Иисуса Христа мы верим, но не как в оживление трупа.
и во временно отложенное наступление Царства Бога и в воскресение мёртвых мы верим, но не как в зомби-апокалипсис.
———
маленькая добавочка: то что называется «душа», наше «я» — штука смертная, уничтожимая (потому что созданная).
но нам обещано, что Бог по благости Своей не допустит её уничтожения.
автор, писавший году эдак в 90-м компилятивное евангелие, под солидным именем апостола Матфея (потому что какие-то секретари/помощники апостолов — Марк и Лука — написали до этого разное (один под влиянием Петра, другой — Павла)) любил приукрасить, добавить чудес, и убрать шероховатости.
Так вышло и с хождение по воде.
Марк, и скопировавший у него текст Лука — пишут что Иисус был и молился на горе, а ученики поплыли в лодке, и тут Иисус к ним по воде пришёл пешком. А они испугались, приняв его за призрака. А Иисус зашёл к ним в лодку. И на этом — конец истории.
И вот в эту историю Матфей добавляет «чудесности» — Петр тоже захотел пройтись по воде, Иисус ему сказал «давай, иди», Пётр пошёл, испугался, и стал тонуть, а Иисус его из воды достал и в лодку втащил.
Была у Марка/Луки история более-менее нормальная — ученики на воде увидели призрака, который законы физики не нарушал.
А у Матфея этот призрак уже тяжести ввиде Петра из воды извлекает.
И такого в Евангелиях очень много. Позже редакция — больше чудес.
———
Но это нисколько не противоречит тому, что Иисус мог являться своим ученикам в воображении на воде.
может быть нам это трудно понять изза нашей далёкости от тогдашних реалий, но вот как Библия пишет про Саула — который стал первым царём Израиля:
вот так вот, запросто, в процессе поиска ослиц, сын вероятнее всего зажиточного крестьянина — Саул — помазывается пророком Самуилом на царство, возглавляет армию, и в дальнейшем побеждает филистимлян.
Такое вот сочетание ослиц, помазывания (Помазанник = Мошиах = Христос) и высшей должности в исполнительной власти.
Я вижу вектор твоей интеллектуальной эволюции, Кирилл, и догадываюсь, к чему ты придёшь ещё лет через 10.
У меня остался только один вопрос: кто такие «мы»?
Христиане верят и воскресение трупа волею Божией, и в превращение воды в вино, в получение пищи из воздуха, верят в хождение Иисуса по воде в физическом теле.
Верит во всё это и «Роза Мира», добавляя, что трансформа физического тела, или левитация, или извлечение вещества из «пустоты» не противоречат науке, а лишь являются проявлением законов, нам пока не ясных.
Твоё «мы» — это какое-то ответвление или «ересь» в квадрате.
По сути это разновидность научного материализма, только тебе осталось сделать последний шаг: объявить монаду, дух, в который ты пока веришь, лишь голосом нашей совести (ты так и пишешь), то есть голосом подсознания, связанного с нашим физическим телом и умирающим вместе с ним, ибо иные тела и миры науке не известны.
И сам Бог, разумеется, в такой картине мира есть уже не Первопричина, а следствие нашего сознания.
Редактирование:
Кирилл, Мой пост переведен на русский язык с помощью машинного перевода в приложенном файле. Я пишу на английском, чтобы не потерять смысл и избавить себя от необходимости вручную корректировать слова/фразы.
Daniil Andreev's passage about Jesus' stay in India can be explained as follows:
1) Whenever historians were unable to explain the source of a great teacher's knowledge, they came up with the expedient that he must have visited an obscure country like Egypt, India, and Tibet, known for its wealth of knowledge. They were unable to account for why great teachers like Pythagoras, Jesus, Apollonios, etc. went on sojourns across the world. They assume it was to merely exchange knowledge, because they must have somehow been learned men like themselves. Even today, the English insist that Shakespeare, who was illiterate, must have learned from their schools. Also the Germans boast that Goethe was inspired by German philosophers.
2) It's probable that Daniil Andreev did not write about everything he was shown. Like John of Patmos, he may have been told to withhold certain things. At any rate, Andreev did not include everything in his book, seeing as how some things in his drafts were left out. Most likely he also scattered insights throughout his poems. It's possible Daniil Andreev was obliged to introduce a hypothesis that would satisfy people's curiosity and which they could content themselves with, without betraying the secrets he was entrusted with.
Philippe Nizier also claimed: «Le Christ est bien allé aux Indes mais Il n’a fait qu’y passer. Il a fait le tour de la terre. Jésus est allé aux Indes à 14, ans mais Il n’a rien appris comme on le prétend car Il savait tout.»
Translated: Христос действительно побывал в Индии, но он только проездом. Он обошел всю землю. Иисус побывал в Индии в 14 лет, но он не узнал ничего нового, как об этом говорят, потому что он знал все.
Why did Philippe not elaborate further? In reality, Jesus had no need to learn from anyone (John 2:24-25). If he wanted to know about a fact within (cosmic) Enrof, he could have simply asked in his mind (Matt. 7:7-8) and he would know everything pertaining to the subject.
3) Jesus' real past is inaccessible to ordinary clairvoyance, clairvoyants are not permitted to read his entire history (there must be fail-safes in place to preserve the knowledge, which is continually lost/abused). The true history is not permitted to be divulged to the public until a certain amount of time has passed.
To conclude, I suspect that Andreev and Nizier's claim about Jesus going abroad from a young age serves as an auxiliary substitution of facts, meant to veil his true history, while counteracting idle speculations from presumptuous thinkers, conceptual analysts, modern philosophers, giving them something to reflect on while placating their restlessness.
_____
Throughout history, the inventors inspired by higher powers always described receiving their inspiration in the same manner: they labor at a problem, being unable to arrive at the solution, then in a relaxed state sudden clarity dawns upon them, as if it were a flash of lightning. Now
let's suppose there are individuals out there among us who are able to spontaneously tap into, not just momentarily, a source of higher knowledge, a higher plane of existence.
Dannion Brinkley claimed to have visited such a world during his near-death experience, he recounted, «I could ask any question and know the answer. It was like being a drop of water bathed in the knowledge of the ocean, or a beam of light knowing what all light knows. I had only to think a question to explore the essence of the answer.»
Here's a contemporary who was awakening to this sort of experience after undergoing near-death: https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?5,1288434,1288434#msg-1288434
«I am now having a river of thought and information attaching itself to me and anytime I ask myself a question without fail it does its weird river of thought take over of my focus and answers it internally.»
T. Subba Row was said to have never read Hindu literature, but he was somehow able to recite from Hindu texts he had never read. In other words, he resusitated all knowledge from memory somehow.
Viktor Schauberger provides an explanation: «It's possible for the person who has the advantage of this gift of inheritance, to summon up from his blood all this reservoir of knowledge.»
___
Возвращаясь к пункту № 3:
Следующие пророчества Нострадамуса (3:91-94) относятся к Иисусу:
L'arbre qu'estoit par si long temps seche,
Dans vne nuict viendra a reuerdir: (3:91)
De cinq cens ans plus compte l'on tiendra,
Celuy qu'estoit l'ornement de son temps:
Puis a vn coup grande clarte donrra,
Que par ce siecle les rendra trescontens. (3:94)
Corroboration can be found in two prophecies:
Syballine Oracles:
daß da wo das Grab des Messias sein wird, ein Eichbaum steht und von der Erschaffung der Welt alt ist; und als der Messias von den Juden zu Tode gepeinigt wird, da wird dieser Baum verdorren und bleibt so lange tot, bis jener König die Heiden besiegen und das Grab des Messias erobern und erhalten wird.
There shall be On the fig-tree a many-colored flower, And afterward the royal power and sway Shall Cronos have. (3:92)
According to St. Nilus the Myrrgusher:
Тридцатилистное дерево (т. е. розовое, ибо в розе насчитывают по тридцати листочков), если не имеет цвета, непотребным делается, — не так ли?
Какая же потреба быть сему прекрасному цветку на таком дереве? Процвети он на ином дереве, сказали бы так: «Само дерево прекрасно, оттого и процвел на нем такой прекраснейший цветок». Говорим: почему воплотился Христос от рода еврейского, а не иного рода? Потому, что не нашлось другого рода, подобного ему, неблагодарного; посему и воплотился Христос от евреев, чтобы благоукрасить сей род еврейский.
Daniil Andreev's passage about Jesus' stay in India can be explained as follows:
1) Whenever historians were unable to explain the source of a great teacher's knowledge, they came up with the expedient that he must have visited an obscure country like Egypt, India, and Tibet, known for its wealth of knowledge. They were unable to account for why great teachers like Pythagoras, Jesus, Apollonios, etc. went on sojourns across the world. They assume it was to merely exchange knowledge, because they must have somehow been learned men like themselves. Even today, the English insist that Shakespeare, who was illiterate, must have learned from their schools. Also the Germans boast that Goethe was inspired by German philosophers.
2) It's probable that Daniil Andreev did not write about everything he was shown. Like John of Patmos, he may have been told to withhold certain things. At any rate, Andreev did not include everything in his book, seeing as how some things in his drafts were left out. Most likely he also scattered insights throughout his poems. It's possible Daniil Andreev was obliged to introduce a hypothesis that would satisfy people's curiosity and which they could content themselves with, without betraying the secrets he was entrusted with.
Philippe Nizier also claimed: «Le Christ est bien allé aux Indes mais Il n’a fait qu’y passer. Il a fait le tour de la terre. Jésus est allé aux Indes à 14, ans mais Il n’a rien appris comme on le prétend car Il savait tout.»
Translated: Христос действительно побывал в Индии, но он только проездом. Он обошел всю землю. Иисус побывал в Индии в 14 лет, но он не узнал ничего нового, как об этом говорят, потому что он знал все.
Why did Philippe not elaborate further? In reality, Jesus had no need to learn from anyone (John 2:24-25). If he wanted to know about a fact within (cosmic) Enrof, he could have simply asked in his mind (Matt. 7:7-8) and he would know everything pertaining to the subject.
3) Jesus' real past is inaccessible to ordinary clairvoyance, clairvoyants are not permitted to read his entire history (there must be fail-safes in place to preserve the knowledge, which is continually lost/abused). The true history is not permitted to be divulged to the public until a certain amount of time has passed.
To conclude, I suspect that Andreev and Nizier's claim about Jesus going abroad from a young age serves as an auxiliary substitution of facts, meant to veil his true history, while counteracting idle speculations from presumptuous thinkers, conceptual analysts, modern philosophers, giving them something to reflect on while placating their restlessness.
_____
It's actually possible for Jesus to have acquired profound insight on these systems without having the opportunity to examine them; provided he had attained the stage of development, that corresponds to Daniil Andreev's «first awakening» experience, the so-called «cosmic consciousness». Dr. Roberto Assagioli also mentions this state, he observed that «their personality is inadequate to deal with these high experiences, and so they experience a sudden or gradual fall».
Throughout history, the inventors inspired by higher powers always described receiving their inspiration in the same manner: they labor at a problem, being unable to arrive at the solution, then in a relaxed state sudden clarity dawns upon them, as if it were a flash of lightning. Now
let's suppose there are individuals out there among us who are able to spontaneously tap into, not just momentarily, a source of higher knowledge, a higher plane of existence.
Dannion Brinkley claimed to have visited such a world during his near-death experience, he recounted, «I could ask any question and know the answer. It was like being a drop of water bathed in the knowledge of the ocean, or a beam of light knowing what all light knows. I had only to think a question to explore the essence of the answer.»
Here's a contemporary who was awakening to this sort of experience after undergoing near-death: https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?5,1288434,1288434#msg-1288434
«I am now having a river of thought and information attaching itself to me and anytime I ask myself a question without fail it does its weird river of thought take over of my focus and answers it internally.»
T. Subba Row was said to have never read Hindu literature, but he was somehow able to recite from Hindu texts he had never read. In other words, he resusitated all knowledge from memory somehow.
Viktor Schauberger provides an explanation: «It's possible for the person who has the advantage of this gift of inheritance, to summon up from his blood all this reservoir of knowledge.»
___
Возвращаясь к пункту № 3:
Следующие пророчества Нострадамуса (3:91-94) относятся к Иисусу:
L'arbre qu'estoit par si long temps seche,
Dans vne nuict viendra a reuerdir: (3:91)
De cinq cens ans plus compte l'on tiendra,
Celuy qu'estoit l'ornement de son temps:
Puis a vn coup grande clarte donrra,
Que par ce siecle les rendra trescontens. (3:94)
Corroboration can be found in two prophecies:
Syballine Oracles:
daß da wo das Grab des Messias sein wird, ein Eichbaum steht und von der Erschaffung der Welt alt ist; und als der Messias von den Juden zu Tode gepeinigt wird, da wird dieser Baum verdorren und bleibt so lange tot, bis jener König die Heiden besiegen und das Grab des Messias erobern und erhalten wird.
There shall be On the fig-tree a many-colored flower, And afterward the royal power and sway Shall Cronos have. (3:92)
According to St. Nilus the Myrrgusher:
Тридцатилистное дерево (т. е. розовое, ибо в розе насчитывают по тридцати листочков), если не имеет цвета, непотребным делается, — не так ли?
Какая же потреба быть сему прекрасному цветку на таком дереве? Процвети он на ином дереве, сказали бы так: «Само дерево прекрасно, оттого и процвел на нем такой прекраснейший цветок». Говорим: почему воплотился Христос от рода еврейского, а не иного рода? Потому, что не нашлось другого рода, подобного ему, неблагодарного; посему и воплотился Христос от евреев, чтобы благоукрасить сей род еврейский.
Редактирование:
Кирилл, Мой пост переведен на русский язык с помощью машинного перевода в приложенном файле. Я пишу на английском, чтобы не потерять смысл и избавить себя от необходимости вручную корректировать слова/фразы.
Reply #2:
As for your other posts, your narrative-weaving (1 Tim. 1:4) prevent people from coming to the truth of the matter and muddles the issue. When discussing higher reality concepts, one must leave educated guesswork at the doorstep and enter with an open/humble mind. The scholars, historians, archaeologists always said things like, «но ведь могло быть и так», this must be how it was. That's why they never arrive at the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). The life of Shakespeare still remains enigmatic because scholars are unwilling to set aside unwarranted assumptions about him and admit that they lack the facts.
I read in the Talmud (Eruvin 53b) how it's claimed that the Galilean dialect lacked precision, in contrast to the Judean dialect. Would Jesus really have communicated his sublime teachings via such a limited means?
The poet Agathias, who tried his hand at history, has said this about the Persian king Chosroes:
«Personally, I could never bring myself to believe that he was so remarkably well-educated and intellectually brilliant. How could the purity and nobility of those time-honoured [Greek] writings with all their exactitude and felicity of expression be preserved in an uncouth and uncivilized tongue?»
The following was attested of Comte de Saint-Germain, by Countess von Georgy:
«A matter worthy of remark is that the Count speaks French, English, German, Italian,
Spanish and Portuguese equally perfectly; so much so that when he converses with any
of the inhabitants of the above countries in their mother tongue, they're unable to discover the slightest foreign accent.»
Also, examine the case of Joseph Condrad of mixed ancestry, who wrote primarily in English: «French remained the language he spoke with greatest fluency (and no foreign accent) until the end of his life.»
https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/3263/is-it-possible-to-learn-a-foreign-language-well-enough-to-be-indistinguishable-f
Now as for Samaria and the Essenes, that requires a separate document in itself!
Reply #2:
As for your other posts, your narrative-weaving (1 Tim. 1:4) prevent people from coming to the truth of the matter and muddles the issue. When discussing higher reality concepts, one must leave educated guesswork at the doorstep and enter with an open/humble mind. The scholars, historians, archaeologists always said things like, «но ведь могло быть и так», this must be how it was. That's why they never arrive at the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). The life of Shakespeare still remains enigmatic because scholars are unwilling to set aside unwarranted assumptions about him and admit that they lack the facts.
For some reason, you are trying to convince us Jesus was an ordinary learned man brought up in Jewish schools, yet the gospels say he perplexed the scribes in their own synagogues, and made them wonder where he acquired wisdom (Matt. 13:54, Luke 2:46-47). It must also be asked: why are you are so intent on trying to deprive/diminish (1 John 4:3) Jesus of his originality/creative thought?
What's your agenda on here? This reflects ignorance of the gospels. Everywhere in the gospels, one reads about how he was willing to break with tradition (such as the Sabbath), if it served his purpose.
Gospel writers inserted OT passages into Jesus' mouth with an eye toward gaining proselytes among the Jews. They understood, as did Origenes, that the wisest of the Jews have always seen messianic prophecy in a sense of the whole people, they did not interpret it to mean an individual.
I don't have time to search through the Vedic passages for analogous quotes. The Golden Rule predates Christianity and has been found in every genuine religions. That suffices to show that the essentials of genuine religions are one and the same.
We do not know if he took up his father's profession. The fact is, the great men always pursued their own passionate interests, doing what they wanted to do, instead of yielding to their parents' demands/expectations of following in their footsteps. Jesus' parents would've known in advance that they were to bear host to him, they would have given him freedom to choose his profession.
Actually, the gospels say nothing about Jesus' dialect, that's just inferred from Matt. 26:73. Yet in Luke 22:59, the way they communicate is unmentioned: “Certainly this man also was with Him, for he, too, is a Galilean.” Here, we are not informed how they could identify him as Galilean. In John 4:9, we are not informed how the Samaritan woman discerned that Jesus was Jewish. We don't know if Jesus was a Galilean. Why did Pilate ask Jesus if he was a Galilean (Luke 23:6)? We are not informed if he answered that question.
I read in the Talmud (Eruvin 53b) how it's claimed that the Galilean dialect lacked precision, in contrast to the Judean dialect. Would Jesus really have communicated his sublime teachings via such a limited means?
The poet Agathias, who tried his hand at history, has said this about the Persian king Chosroes:
«Personally, I could never bring myself to believe that he was so remarkably well-educated and intellectually brilliant. How could the purity and nobility of those time-honoured [Greek] writings with all their exactitude and felicity of expression be preserved in an uncouth and uncivilized tongue?»
You overlook the possibility that a person can master their accents in such a way, that people believe they're native speakers. It's also possible for a person to get rid of their accent entirely.
The following was attested of Comte de Saint-Germain, by Countess von Georgy:
«A matter worthy of remark is that the Count speaks French, English, German, Italian,
Spanish and Portuguese equally perfectly; so much so that when he converses with any
of the inhabitants of the above countries in their mother tongue, they're unable to discover the slightest foreign accent.»
Also, examine the case of Joseph Condrad of mixed ancestry, who wrote primarily in English: «French remained the language he spoke with greatest fluency (and no foreign accent) until the end of his life.»
https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/3263/is-it-possible-to-learn-a-foreign-language-well-enough-to-be-indistinguishable-f
Now as for Samaria and the Essenes, that requires a separate document in itself!
Редактирование:
конечно же извлечение вещества из пустоты не противоречит науке. Однако, сотворяя жизнь на планете, Логос не создал лягушек и рыб из пустоты. Миллиарды лет ушли на то, что внешне выглядит как перебор случайных вариантов с хим.составом.
Тысячи проб и ошибок. И внешне все выглядит как подчинение естественно-научным законам.