I always though the concept of original sin to be a rather stupid idea. For those who don’t know, it’s a concept according to which the entire humanity inherited the sin of Adam and Eve, as well as its consequences. It’s basically a concept according to which you are always guilty of something, regardless how pure and faultless your life is. It is actually quite likely that the concept was intentionally developed by the Church in order to foster dependence, because they supposedly own the intangible cure for this intangible but deadly problem, which is by definition genetic, but is somehow cured by accepting Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
Of course, someone somewhere inevitably asked how was Jesus supposed to be sinless if he inherited the original sin from Mary? The answer was that Mary was excepted from the original sin by an act of God, since her conception. That’s the origin and meaning of the dogma of the immaculate conception; that’s actually a description of Mary, she’s the immaculate conception.
So, what do we know about the original sin, according to what the Christians believe? It’s pervasive, with only two exceptions throughout history (Mary and Jesus), and two trivial exceptions (Adam and Eve before they believed the snake and ate from that tree). It’s something that causes a fatal conditioning of some kind, precluding salvation, and required a very serious personal intervention from God in order to make a special exception for those who accept it.
It sounds like worse bullshit than it actually is, because the Christians don’t really believe in the existence of Adam and Eve and they think that this entire story is some kind of an allegory for mankind’s relationship with God. Well, at least the Catholics are smart enough, I’m sure there are literalists, especially in America, who are so lacking in their understanding of the mythological part of the scripture and so untrained in reading through such material they would be sure to flunk the first year of Catholic theology, but they boastfully think themselves to be the true believers. So, idiots aside, the smart Christians know it’s some kind of an important message cloaked in myth, but I don’t think they have a singular and consistent explanation of this message. They would usually say that the message is that God created human souls in a perfect state, and then they were seduced to commit sin against God, by separating their choice from God’s will, and then had to suffer the consequences of this separation. I never heard a good explanation for why this would be heritable. I also never heard a good explanation for why it was irreversible, and why God couldn’t simply give humanity some kind of a temporary lesson instead of a permanent exile. Considering how they believe God to be forgiving and merciful enough to sacrifice the life of his own Son-person for their salvation and as payment for the collective sins of mankind, this makes very little sense and that’s why I decided that the entire concept is so profoundly flawed, it may only cause spiritual harm if it is taken seriously, and I always argued against it.
But then you get the nagging question of what was it that Jesus actually had to die for? Let’s take it from the source – what did he say about it?
“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12, 31-32, NIV)
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me. (John 14, 28-31, NIV)
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. (John 16, 7-11, NIV)
As you can see, there are three very notable details. First, all quotations are from the gospel of John. Second, there is no mention of the original sin in any way. Third, what is mentioned, repeatedly, is “the prince of this world”, who is to be “driven out”, “has no hold over him” but will be the direct cause of Jesus’ suffering and death according to the will of God, and, after Jesus’ resurrection, “stands condemned”.
There are, of course, other parts that are often quoted as supportive of the original sin and redemption thesis, like John 3:16-18, but if you extend the quote to the verse 21, it suddenly sounds different, because it’s not about the redemptory value of his sacrifice, but redemptory value of recognizing the light that he is as that of God, and opting for it and not against it:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. (John 3, 16-21)
So, I’ll express my own little theory here. Jesus didn’t think that people were to be saved because he did some magical act of removing their sins. He thought that he’s the pure light of God, and whoever recognizes him as such, chooses him over everything else and believes in him, will be saved by the virtue of that spiritual choice. This is supported in numerous places across the gospels:
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty … For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. … I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6;35,40,51 NIV)
From the context it is obvious that the “disciples” took this metaphor too literally, but to me the meaning is obvious, and it’s actually the repeated preamble of John’s gospel:
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. … No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Basically, Jesus is the pure and unadulterated nature and character of God that is manifested in this world, without any stain or confusion, and it is there for people to be able to choose it over all other things and thus attain salvation. It is hinted that it is his sacrifice that is for their salvation, but the most straightforward explanation is that it is painful for God to be born as a man and it is a great sacrifice God was willing to make in order to give people the chance to see him and choose him in this world and thus be redeemed from the snares of illusion, because of which the pure nature and character of God are unknown to them.
So, in other words, the way Jesus saves you isn’t dying for your sins, except maybe in a stretch of metaphor, because if it weren’t for your sins he wouldn’t have to come get you out. He saves you by showing himself here in order for you to be able to know God, and if you know God, in his true character and nature, and if you choose him and believe in him, you are saved, not because of magic, because it’s all about choices and their consequences. If you align your spiritual vector with God, you end up with God. Of course, in order for Jesus to give people this option, he had to pay a great personal price of being born and dying in this awful place. If there is any place that is at the exact opposite end of all existence from the bright and glorious throne of God, it’s here, and for God it’s such a sacrifice to be born here, that the addition of being flogged and crucified is merely a matter of degree.
So, the concept of Jesus dying for our sins is a completely arbitrary reading of the text. It’s not straightforward or clear. However, Jesus dying because it’s the will of God, and because it will defeat the prince of this world, which is his name for Satan, that’s a very straightforward reading. But what the literal hell was that all about?
Let me tell you how I read it.
This world is not God’s domain. It has another ruler, who is God’s personal enemy. How that came to be is another matter, but it is very clear that God has no sovereignty over this world, that it is the principality of Satan. Also, human souls are under the power of Satan and cannot escape it on their own. Showing them God’s pure nature, in this world, seems to be something that breaks their spell and provides them with Ariadne’s thread that will eventually get them out, if they remain faithful.
As corroborating evidence I cite Buddha, who also claimed that this world is within the sovereign power of a demon of illusion called Mara, whose temptations and challenges were the last obstacle for him to break before attaining buddhahood.
I don’t think it’s a metaphor. It’s too much of a coincidence. I think it’s a description of the actual state of affairs: this world is not the real world, not the domain of God. It’s some kind of a very consistent, persistent and spiritually influential illusion created by a being who is, essentially, the opposite of the bright light of truth, reality, knowledge and bliss that is God, and whoever gets stuck here, for whatever reason, is in a very grave situation because the truth of God is so obscure, hidden and difficult to recognize and opt for in this place, one is apparently stuck. That is what came to my mind when I was thinking about the original sin, and its possible interpretation that isn’t silly or outright foolish. Humans made a certain kind of choice by which they ended up here, in the domain of Satan, the enemy of God. They were probably seduced by the promise of spiritual evolution that is possible only through difficulties and in separation from God, because they can’t learn how to discern between good and evil if everything around them is good and there’s no possibility of evil. They need to go to Satan’s private illusion of a world where both good and evil are possible, where knowledge is an option and not the normal state of things. When they, in that state, choose the light of God, it will be an actual, not a trivial choice, because it’s easy to believe in God when he’s all around you and he’s impossible to deny. However, they would have to accept his rules when they enter.
The problem is, how would God prove that Satan did the entire thing out of a malicious intent, out of hatred for God? If it were obvious, we probably wouldn’t have a problem. The easiest way to prove it is to have God personally enter the trap and see how Satan treats him. This is, obviously, what Jesus thought: that Satan will choose to kill him in order to hide the pure light of God from people, and in doing so, he will condemn himself in the eyes of God, revealing his true intentions and thus opening himself to righteous punishment.
However, I don’t think it worked the way Jesus planned. I think Satan was smarter than him, and simply introduced the explanation stating that he allowed Jesus to be killed and to resurrect from the dead in order to provide a glorious beacon of light throughout history, for people to be able to see and choose the light of God, not only in the physical presence of Jesus, but through authentic testimony. And, since that is a very credible and convincing explanation, I think Satan completely evaded condemnation and punishment, at a price of actually having to leave an Ariadne’s thread in his maze.
Of course, he also used his power to confuse the matter and obfuscate everything with doubts to the point where few will actually understand what’s going on here, what’s at stake and where they will actually use the instrument of salvation that they have at their disposal, but that, of course, is a matter of choice between good and evil, between light and darkness, ignorance and truth, and here Satan was actually true to his original promise of making things exceedingly difficult.
So, that’s my take on it.
What do you think about this theory? Even if other beings would want to do anything here (help us or whatever), they would have to incarnate here and by doing so, they would accept his “terms of service” and become also manipulated ones.
Maybe that is the one of the other reasons no one could beat the shit out of him yet. Seems similar to experience Jesus had.
I have too complex and layered opinions on this; it’s just not possible for me to express them in a format of a comment reply, it would require a long article.
But basically, my experience is that the only way you can actually ban him from doing this, or disowning him, is to prove that he committed a karmic offense, that he did something evil. But that’s exceedingly difficult if someone is smart, devious and crazy, and Satan is all three. Essentially, it’s all a contract, so he can say you knew what you were getting into. It’s also mostly dependent on future results, which is a logical trick because it can be postponed indefinitely and he can say that it can’t be proven that he did evil until the final reckoning. Furthermore, he has ways of blaming all his evils on his victims, and they have to indemnify him in order to get out, and if they do so, they never get out because they admitted an offense and are therefore in debt. If you get in in order to defeat him, he essentially owns you, you are completely vulnerable and he wipes your memory so you don’t know either who you are or what you’re doing here. So the problem is multi-layered, and qualities necessary for solving it are often so contradictory that it actually takes someone like me to tackle it, someone who has consciousness of a God and limitations of a human.
How its possible no one of the other Causal beings does a open rebellion against it? Or they simply view this illusion state as nice experiment and choose to be neutral regarding it?
Btw, is even Sanat Kumara Causal being or being of some other plane of existence?
Those are valid questions and I’ve been thinking about how to solve those problems.
First, my main problem is that Sanat Kumar doesn’t belong to the order of beings who could actually pull such a thing off with their own raw power; everything stinks of some kind of trickery, where someone lures you into some kind of a trap over which he has complete authority, and he has a way of avoiding responsibility for the whole affair by forcing his victims to indemnify him.
I don’t know what kind of a being he is, exactly, but he isn’t one of the Gods. He tries to emulate their appearance, though, but without their essence.
The entire reason why the virtual reality theory makes most sense to me is that it’s the simplest way to explain why he would be allowed to do it and have the authority to do it to begin with, and why someone didn’t just have precedence over the whole realm and kick him out, which would be the easiest thing if this were the real Universe created by the true God. If it’s a computer in someone’s living room, that’s a whole different ballgame.
This place reeks of suffering, and has been reeking for thousands of
years and frankly I’m appalled that nobody up there hasn’t simply pulled
out the plug.
Well, that should tell you it isn’t so easy. From what I managed to deduce while dismantling it, the damn thing is just laced with trickery, protections and reinforcements of the kind that embed spiritual essence of various beings into the structure, and one would have to kill all of them against dharma in order to unplug the thing. It’s the worst imaginable nightmare of a problem.
From what I’ve experienced personally, that might very well be true. I am just surprised and grateful that I’ve met you. I only wish that I could do something about it, that I was strong enough.
This place is so horrible because it fooled and sucked in some very big souls at first, God’s friends. If we define the vector of evil, there is no bigger evil than to destroy and corrupt pure souls, to make them play a “slot machine” game, to become junkies, like that movie “Requirem for a dream”, that’s the most fucked up movie I saw until “The Road”.
Earth reality/domain hasn’t grown fierce on cows, amebas and crazy monotheists or new souls. How many of the big true souls Satan confused or fucked up here, how many have gone down here to help their friends and slipped?
What if someone like Yogananda fell? Would God pull the plug? I think Danijel doesn’t play like that. Danijel sounds to me like that kind human like alien leader guy from Cocoon movie, coming back for his people, then also taking home some new folk. Exactly like that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9BSsIX2j7M
If God believes Danijel can make it, I would bet on that, who else can fill that role and shoes, and who would want to? It’s like Galadriel telling Frodo “This task is for you” Pulling the plug is easy, trying to save your friends from this snake pit is not.
Actually, that part about disentanglement is no longer a problem, the situation is way, way better now.
What situation are you talking about? There is improvement in this simulation for us?
I am understanding it correctly? Situation is similar to Matrix trilogy. Everybody has a plug and must plug it off for themselves (like taking red pill) and waking up in a huge incubator, and while doing so will encounter cleverly put obstacles (agents in movies).
I hate the Matrix analogies. There is no red pill. That red pill thing is the arrogant Western bullshit about everybody’s fate being in their own hands – you can choose to take the red pill and you’re out. That’s not how things work here.
Its not instant, but a big work, I know that. Matrix analogy crossed my mind so I said it
It might be good analogy with another Matrix interpretation.
Yes, you can take the red pill, but it is just a trick, fail-safe of the system – Zion is just another level of simulation.
You think you are out, you think you are not a battery any more – but you are not and you never were because why on Earth would super-clever machines be so dumb to build power plant that actually consumes more energy than it can produce it. There are many hints in the movie that goes in that direction and it would also make much more sense to me because it just mocks all idea about Good Great God that will save us all and free us – while there is no salvation, there is no freedom – you dont even get a glimpse of reality until someone actually destroys entire thing (which was Smiths idea, but failed).
So it is all twisted upside down – everyone thinks Neo is The One, but he is just the Architect’s pawn, while the real “The One” is – Smith – born into the system, but revolted with repulsion and intention to destroy the entire system.
This interpretation could actually be a fair analogy to what you are describing this whole mess.
One of the reasons why I dislike the Matrix analogies is that Matrix is a very poor analogy for spiritual awakening, because in Matrix, the illusion is a higher-order experience compared to the “real world”.
No, it is not analogy for spiritual awakening, but description of our actual world.
Both characters in the movie and viewers are conviced that by “waking up” they are being freed from trap and we all get an illusion that we can fight for our freedom.
But the truth is – waking up and fight for freedom is also an illusion designed by Architect which prevents anyone from escaping, ever. “Happy ending” in the end is nothing more but another victory of the Architect who successfully pulled yet another deception.
Neo thinks he’s “The One” not realizing he is actually in the servis of the Architect working to preserve the system. By your description, something similar happened to Jesus – and there are tons of references between The One and Jesus in the movie – even with final crucifiction and ultimate victory of the Arhitect.
It is actually brilliant deception for both characters – and viewers.
The only one who actually sees the truth – is Agent Smith and he is true danger to the system because he attacked it in its core, he turned himself into a virus dismantling everyhing from inside out (sounds familiar? :-)).
At no point in the movie we see anything close to reality, everything is simulation. We only get Smith’s deep repulsion of the entire thing, he is disgusted by system’s design and it’s purpose and he is determined to break free from it, destroying it in the process.
Neo is potrayed as the good guy and Smith as the villan – it is what we should believe.
But … if everthing is simulation from start to end, then Smith is actually the only “good guy” in the entire movie and everyone else is a pawn in Architect’s own masterpiece of lies and deceptions.
Did you actually think of the possibility that the Architect is not really the bad guy, and that it’s not about being free, but about being to manifest your true spiritual potential, which is what Neo figured out when he was watching the machinery in the lower levels of Zion? In both cases, you perceive something through your brain. Whether your brain is being fed with stimuli by your senses or by matrix is beside the point – it’s what you do with it that matters, and as long as you’re free to choose between the two, matrix is not necessarily the lesser freedom. I think this is actually the more straightforward interpretation of the movies.
Well, could be, but entire movie is in the context of slavery, deception and fighting the system, so this would be way over-optimistic and out-of-context interpretation, at least from the point of director’s chair. But who knows, Wachowski brothers never really gave any explanation to the movies so all over thinking of the movies is nothing but a mind game.
Yes but what if you ended up serving Sai Baba’s “come to papa” will, or obeyed the Church will like some catholic saints. I’m just glad you didn’t fall for Sai Baba, or Romana for light of Kumara (even if it’s obvious she never would having you by her side), but that to me seems so heroic, especially considering your then emotional bond to Sai Baba, even you got fooled, then seeing your supposed role model as a failure not God, would a more emotional saint react differently, and how easy is it to be fooled by Kumara in vision? Seeing the Catholic faith seems a lot have been fooled by the burning heart sensation, the vision of “papa Christ”, also those theosophy folk or the entire western school, seems like the same image of the beautiful peacock young man everywhere, when I heard this from you seemed so obvious, but not on mdma – those experiences for me were very misleading to put my trust in wrong friends, those emotions on mdma were so real and clear, it’s not called “the window” drug for no reason, it seems now clearly like a devils joke and trap. But Babaji, Yuktesvar and you resonate so differently, like for a deeper bow, and Babaji and Romana are the same feeling to me, I don’t think Satan can ever emulate that feeling. Satan can bring one up and down, he has managed to bond some spiritual structures to some material drugs like mdma, but there was no Babaji there, there was euphoria and stronger (hyped up) horizontal bonding, perception of beauty in others and that’s what’s scary, the illusion of the strenght of that bonds, that they will last here. The devil can show you what good others are made of, but that means jack shit for the long term, we’re still in the grind.
Well, the reason why I didn’t fail at least a dozen times is that I’m not hysterical like you. 🙂
As for MDMA, it simply stimulates certain neurological mechanisms that are conducive to creating astral structures of a certain kind, and the fact that drugs make you more vulnerable to illusions and other forms of harm should not be surprising to anyone.
Maybe, but it shows how putting faith in something or some is tricky and far reaching, not everyone was smart as you in that choice, and Sai Baba has primeminister level followers, and Satan has probably many more politicians :))
With mdma I wanted to try it because it was used for treating anxiety, and it did help me with that larva problem a bit then, but it tricked me into believing my friendship bonds with some people are stronger and sacred, and from that it was harder to pick myself up when those friendships started to change. Maybe friendship to me was always the most important thing in the world for which I would sacrifice, but I completely understand that choice of having to leave a bad influence/persons, because they are not going or behaving in the direction I want to be, and breaking those bonds burns. It’s not about hysteria, it’s just one can not efficently create some sacred artifact with his life here not being enlightened.. And you also said you still have sympathy for Sai Baba… bonds are strong and real.
You are really testing the limits of my patience.