It's not actually a matter of belief, it's a matter of knowledge or demonstration. In the same way there is a resource of usefulness in agriculture or the discovery of electricity, there is a usefulness of Philosophy. The most useful. You said who says there is such a "thing" , meaning Awakening? Reincarnation, Oneness, Enlightenment? Only the greatest minds of the Western world (Thomas Huxley, Immanuel Kant, Spinoza, Fredrick Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Johansson Kepler, Francis Bacon, Arthur Shopenhuer, Carl Sagan, Etc.). I mean I literally can reference libraries of the greatest minds that I stand on to demonstrate these concepts. Now the ancient world did not have adequate science but science has during the Age of Enlightenment and afterwards proven most of the ancient philosophers ideas. Absolutely but also removed all of the misinterpretations of their myths, legends, and folklore. The ancient societies who taught such a "thing" were the classical Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptian, Cushites, Sumerians, Akkadians, Syrians, Persians, Gnostics, Hermetics, Kabbalists, Etc, Etc. Greatest thinkers and demonstrators of the ancient world. They are the birth of science and education. No way to get around this, at all. To learn from the modern scientists who make their discoveries based on these ancient societies would be humility. But you'd have relearn from a different angle or perception everything you have formally been taught in western education. For example the English language, all of the letters derive from Phoenician Pictographs or glyphs which convey far deeper spiritual or psychological substance than anything English class (Grammer, Spelling) has ordinary taught us in grade school. But we are writing in a language that has been in a box outside of it's original contexts. So just as we have done through modern writing so we have done with ancient concepts, misconceptions through preconceived assumptions or ignorance of the original ideas. All of these philosophical concepts are ideas mistranslated from mythology as biology and physiology. If anyone comes with a lack of receptivity or preconceived ideas about the concepts words or ideas, then that's where they will remain, disagreeable to what is already evident. Same as gravity, oxygen, or compounds, etc (Which you might interpret as an ancient spiritual practitioners unnecessary belief In "spirits"). Nothing I can do about that. I can only teach what was discovered in science and philosophy, Not going to defend things (misconceptions) I do not "believe" in literally myself. I have to leave that obstacle to the individual who has that misconception but no receptivity (inquiry) to learn. I have to let them assume they already know. I'm not going to force language and vocabulary definitions down anyone's throat, if one is seeking to understand with questions, I'll demonstrate. If I don't know the answer, I'll say I don't know. Other than that there's nothing else to be done. Peace.
@@TheGodWithin You have done nothing but name-drop a variety of thinkers and cultures which you have arbitrarily selected as superior, especially vis a vis thinkers. Surely you cannot expect me to believe that all "Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptian, Cushites, Sumerians, Akkadians, Syrians, Persians" all held to (esp.) your views of enlightenment or monistic enlightenment at all. Rather, there were threads of thought spawned from these areas- none of which you have mentioned- which contradict the great thinkers of other nations who reject these ideas. This does not exempt them from being deceived. I continue to say you 'believe' because I see the same trash presented by Hindus- who claim they are 'correcting misinterpretations of myths' to somehow retroject findings of modern science onto a pre-modern past. I suppose your 'correct' interpretations take great liberties and the 'proven truths' of these antique philosophers does not arise from any supernatural intuition or scientific experimentation of theirs, but rather coincidence (and much cherry-picking on your part- imagine how much they still got wrong and was not 'vindicated' by modern science, yet which you do not mention). And it does not matter to me what quantities of reincarnation-mongering Pythagorases and Gnostic cult-leaders you mention to me- these are only a few in time. They may have been 'great thinkers' but this 'greatness' is not an argument. I want to know on what basis they accepted ideas of reincarnation. They could easily have accepted these teachings on weak grounds or via spiritual deception. This is not because I am a Christian, but because it is evident spirits do deceive and any practitioner takes caution. Show me, for instance, where "Thomas Huxley, Immanuel Kant, Spinoza, Fredrick Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Johansson Kepler, Francis Bacon, Arthur Shopenhuer, Carl Sagan" expressed your views in particular- whatever Vedantic perennialism you are trying to push. I am not aware of many of these believing in 'reincarnation' and spiritual 'oneness,' as my post initially criticized. Even so, this is only a small quantity of popular philosophers, not evidence of great knowledge of the field. "Gnostics, Hermetics, Kabbalists" will obviously believe in concepts relating to oneness/reincarnation, they all arise from a similar milieu and draw upon much the same resources. This totally ignores the parts of Judaism that rightfully reject the Kabbalah, a long history of Christian saints, church fathers, and mystics that reject Gnosticism as parasitical forgery, and Hermeticism is even more niche, too small to garner the ire of traditional religions. It does not matter that you state Phoenician pictographs display 'far greater spiritual meanings' than the English language. I have seen texts and languages interpreted ad infinitum to artificially implant as much 'spiritual meaning' as possible when there was none there. Do you have a source for this claim? Has someone in antiquity said that the Pheonicians constructed their alphabet so as to include 'spiritual meanings' and so-called 'psychological substance?' How do you account for the changes this alphabet has gone through both at its formation and via the alphabets it spawned? This is beginning to sound like gish-gallop- a bevy of unrelated factoids that don't serve your cause at all. Your response is in no sense humble, I do not see what inspired the commenter to state this; your claim that you do not 'believe' but rather 'know' and merely 'demonstrate' makes you seem like a little God. For instance, in your incoherent response, I think you are calling these ancient beliefs 'science'- but it is hardly a science compared to that of the Scientific Revolution. I see no documentation of experiments, no hypothesis and testing thereof, merely spiritual orthodoxy on a smaller scale with 'levels of salvation' and secret 'gnosis' that differs from cult to cult, similar only in the idea that 'there is something that needs saving from' and 'we have the only answer.' Not to mention that 'oneness,' if it even is truly a perception thereof, or 'awareness of awareness,' is merely another subjective state of experience, not the absolute truth. There is no reason to prioritize it or festoon it with such words as 'enlightenment,' as if it is hierarchically any better than any other state. This is why your system relies on archons or karma or other such bugbears that need to be feared. In any case, I asked 'why believe there is such a thing?' You listed several vague entities, either people or nations, providing no further detail. I require further detail and to argue over specificities- for instance, my impression is that Plato's idea of Metempsychosis was presented as a solution to a problem his philosophy faced- probably also a popular idea in the contemporary milieu. But this is poor reason to believe in anything; aye, he has greatly influenced the Orthodox and Catholic Christian traditions, as well as many others, but this influence does not make him right. Thus far you have simply made an appeal to authority, not to anything these authorities might have to say.
Hey brother. ❤ your videos.
Hey great mother, thank you ❤️ All honor and abundant love to you indeed, truly.
@allisgod4170 Same to u as well as Freedom and peace.
Who says there is such a thing? Why believe in reincarnation, oneness, or enlightenment?
It's not actually a matter of belief, it's a matter of knowledge or demonstration. In the same way there is a resource of usefulness in agriculture or the discovery of electricity, there is a usefulness of Philosophy. The most useful. You said who says there is such a "thing" , meaning Awakening? Reincarnation, Oneness, Enlightenment? Only the greatest minds of the Western world (Thomas Huxley, Immanuel Kant, Spinoza, Fredrick Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Johansson Kepler, Francis Bacon, Arthur Shopenhuer, Carl Sagan, Etc.). I mean I literally can reference libraries of the greatest minds that I stand on to demonstrate these concepts. Now the ancient world did not have adequate science but science has during the Age of Enlightenment and afterwards proven most of the ancient philosophers ideas. Absolutely but also removed all of the misinterpretations of their myths, legends, and folklore. The ancient societies who taught such a "thing" were the classical Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptian, Cushites, Sumerians, Akkadians, Syrians, Persians, Gnostics, Hermetics, Kabbalists, Etc, Etc. Greatest thinkers and demonstrators of the ancient world. They are the birth of science and education. No way to get around this, at all. To learn from the modern scientists who make their discoveries based on these ancient societies would be humility. But you'd have relearn from a different angle or perception everything you have formally been taught in western education.
For example the English language, all of the letters derive from Phoenician Pictographs or glyphs which convey far deeper spiritual or psychological substance than anything English class (Grammer, Spelling) has ordinary taught us in grade school. But we are writing in a language that has been in a box outside of it's original contexts. So just as we have done through modern writing so we have done with ancient concepts, misconceptions through preconceived assumptions or ignorance of the original ideas. All of these philosophical concepts are ideas mistranslated from mythology as biology and physiology. If anyone comes with a lack of receptivity or preconceived ideas about the concepts words or ideas, then that's where they will remain, disagreeable to what is already evident. Same as gravity, oxygen, or compounds, etc (Which you might interpret as an ancient spiritual practitioners unnecessary belief In "spirits"). Nothing I can do about that. I can only teach what was discovered in science and philosophy, Not going to defend things (misconceptions) I do not "believe" in literally myself. I have to leave that obstacle to the individual who has that misconception but no receptivity (inquiry) to learn. I have to let them assume they already know. I'm not going to force language and vocabulary definitions down anyone's throat, if one is seeking to understand with questions, I'll demonstrate. If I don't know the answer, I'll say I don't know. Other than that there's nothing else to be done. Peace.
Brilliant response …..served with humility
@carolxmas3331 I appreciate you absolutely. Trying to deliver the water for those who need it as pure and full as possible
@@TheGodWithin You have done nothing but name-drop a variety of thinkers and cultures which you have arbitrarily selected as superior, especially vis a vis thinkers. Surely you cannot expect me to believe that all "Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptian, Cushites, Sumerians, Akkadians, Syrians, Persians" all held to (esp.) your views of enlightenment or monistic enlightenment at all. Rather, there were threads of thought spawned from these areas- none of which you have mentioned- which contradict the great thinkers of other nations who reject these ideas. This does not exempt them from being deceived. I continue to say you 'believe' because I see the same trash presented by Hindus- who claim they are 'correcting misinterpretations of myths' to somehow retroject findings of modern science onto a pre-modern past. I suppose your 'correct' interpretations take great liberties and the 'proven truths' of these antique philosophers does not arise from any supernatural intuition or scientific experimentation of theirs, but rather coincidence (and much cherry-picking on your part- imagine how much they still got wrong and was not 'vindicated' by modern science, yet which you do not mention).
And it does not matter to me what quantities of reincarnation-mongering Pythagorases and Gnostic cult-leaders you mention to me- these are only a few in time. They may have been 'great thinkers' but this 'greatness' is not an argument. I want to know on what basis they accepted ideas of reincarnation. They could easily have accepted these teachings on weak grounds or via spiritual deception. This is not because I am a Christian, but because it is evident spirits do deceive and any practitioner takes caution.
Show me, for instance, where "Thomas Huxley, Immanuel Kant, Spinoza, Fredrick Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Johansson Kepler, Francis Bacon, Arthur Shopenhuer, Carl Sagan" expressed your views in particular- whatever Vedantic perennialism you are trying to push. I am not aware of many of these believing in 'reincarnation' and spiritual 'oneness,' as my post initially criticized. Even so, this is only a small quantity of popular philosophers, not evidence of great knowledge of the field.
"Gnostics, Hermetics, Kabbalists" will obviously believe in concepts relating to oneness/reincarnation, they all arise from a similar milieu and draw upon much the same resources. This totally ignores the parts of Judaism that rightfully reject the Kabbalah, a long history of Christian saints, church fathers, and mystics that reject Gnosticism as parasitical forgery, and Hermeticism is even more niche, too small to garner the ire of traditional religions.
It does not matter that you state Phoenician pictographs display 'far greater spiritual meanings' than the English language. I have seen texts and languages interpreted ad infinitum to artificially implant as much 'spiritual meaning' as possible when there was none there. Do you have a source for this claim? Has someone in antiquity said that the Pheonicians constructed their alphabet so as to include 'spiritual meanings' and so-called 'psychological substance?' How do you account for the changes this alphabet has gone through both at its formation and via the alphabets it spawned? This is beginning to sound like gish-gallop- a bevy of unrelated factoids that don't serve your cause at all.
Your response is in no sense humble, I do not see what inspired the commenter to state this; your claim that you do not 'believe' but rather 'know' and merely 'demonstrate' makes you seem like a little God. For instance, in your incoherent response, I think you are calling these ancient beliefs 'science'- but it is hardly a science compared to that of the Scientific Revolution. I see no documentation of experiments, no hypothesis and testing thereof, merely spiritual orthodoxy on a smaller scale with 'levels of salvation' and secret 'gnosis' that differs from cult to cult, similar only in the idea that 'there is something that needs saving from' and 'we have the only answer.' Not to mention that 'oneness,' if it even is truly a perception thereof, or 'awareness of awareness,' is merely another subjective state of experience, not the absolute truth. There is no reason to prioritize it or festoon it with such words as 'enlightenment,' as if it is hierarchically any better than any other state. This is why your system relies on archons or karma or other such bugbears that need to be feared.
In any case, I asked 'why believe there is such a thing?' You listed several vague entities, either people or nations, providing no further detail. I require further detail and to argue over specificities- for instance, my impression is that Plato's idea of Metempsychosis was presented as a solution to a problem his philosophy faced- probably also a popular idea in the contemporary milieu. But this is poor reason to believe in anything; aye, he has greatly influenced the Orthodox and Catholic Christian traditions, as well as many others, but this influence does not make him right. Thus far you have simply made an appeal to authority, not to anything these authorities might have to say.
Bv npcs are real
Can recomment for me, not sure what the first part means?