An observation regarding his spelling errors. Asks an astute observer (page 16/17 in the script):
Q:
"And why do you misspell simple words such as 'malicious' ? I find that very intersting"
A:
"English is not my native language"Given the many irrelevant questions he did not answer, he seems to feel the need to maintain the myth of his being an extremely educated person (as a bloodline-member would expeted to be).
Note, however, that the
kind of misspelling he keeps repeating is
untypical of non-natives of the English language
and
highly typical of English native speakers.
For instance writing
"to" when it should be "too"
"their" when it should be "there"
and so on. This is indicative of a person who has primarily internalized English acustically and not visually and accompanied by reading - as non-natives would naturally study it.
For non-natives, these words stick out as very different from each other because they learn them accompanied with meaning and their scriptural appearance in conjunction with their phonetic value, and not years and years later to it.
I myself - as non-native to English - felt I could immediately pick out that the author must indeed be a native speaker of English - in contradiction to what he says.
Moreover, regardless of whether he is native to English or not, his spelling errors would hardly be so habitually committed by one as highly trained as a bloodline-member would be.
______________
Moreover, it seems his critique of religion, as much as it also says some truths, is a demonstration of a very superficial and uneducated approach to religion. He is unaware, for instance, that being christian does not imply the veneration of a human (even if you worship Jesus), nor does it even require viewing the historical person of Jesus as the object of veneration.
Glorious counter-example:
I highly recommend these three books by the contemporary catholic mystic Bernadette Roberts:
[
link to www.amazon.com]
[
link to www.amazon.com]
[
link to www.amazon.com]
This stuff is even better than Meister Eckhart (and that means a lot).
Roberts openly admits that she was always intimately devoted to the Christ while having not too much to do with Jesus, and this is nothing revolutionary even within catholicism.
So why does "Insider" not know such basics and suggests a type of christianity exclusively prevalent in fundamentalist protestant USA ?
Then he goes on to suggest that the real Christ was another person in history, not Jesus, thus demonstrating his ignorance that "Christ" is not even considered a historical person in orthodox christianity, but a time transcending principle. No mystical christian with any profundity would assume that "Christ" would still mean "Jesus" other that the latter being a endearing reminder for the otherwise unimaginable "Christ".
Regarding a more esoteric, gnostic interpretation of what the "Christos" means regarding each of us, namely the connection to the light of our higher being beyond the psyche and the web of interconnection in light's regions,
and regarding a more detailed version of whatever truth "Insider" was speaking esoterically, I would like to recommend a pretty unknown master of the modern gnosis Ralph DeBit "Vitvan" who died in 1964, I believe:
[
link to www.sno.org]
Sources such as this one and a few others would, BTW, be completely sufficient to create an air of superior knowledge if one were to play an impostor in a thread like this one and would expect no readers with much of an education or knowledge.
Note also that "Insider" simply assumes that to gain recognition must be any celebrity's motivation to be one, such as the Dalai Lama or Mahatma Gandhi. I find that to be a highly idiotic assumption, and one that often inverts and confuses cause and effect,
regardless of all the critical remarks that must be made regarding these two persons (and I particularly know a thing or two about the Tibetan scence after having interacted with high lamas for years), but I certainly do not believe that gaining recognition for himself is the Dalai Lama's motivation at all.
____________
Generally I do not understand why "Insider" suggests that the core truth of religions is so deeply buried in them among all the garbage that we can hardly find it.
I think a decade or two of comparative study, yoga and meditation will bring anyone with any intelligence left quickly to the core of all that without fail.
It is true, however, that the childlike intuition of the simplicity of it will be regularly obscured by dogmatic religions rather than revealed. And that only through profound contemplative, practical and logical (rather than literalistic, concept-attached) study will one usually find one's way back out of dogma to that childlike clarity of what it's all about -
but then in a more humorous and mature way. Religions can then be humorously and lovingly appreciated and criticized rather than seen as deliberate deception the way "Insider" puts it.
As the example of Bernadette Robert shows, this, however, can even be achieved by never being exposed to anything else than one religion (catholicism in her case), by simply practicing its profound aspect rather than attaching to its superficial dogma.
Had "Insider" pointed out this simple truth, he would have been more convincing to me, but he probably wouldn't have caught anyone's attention since it is almost a truism.
___________
So folks: relax and forget about any riddles regarding the truth or supposed historical frauds or supposed secrets of bloodlines or supposed wrongness of religion. It is out in the open, with or without religion.
Read Bernadette Roberts or Meister Eckhart or Eckhart Tolle or Ramana Maharshi or Ajahn Chah and the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel of Thomas or Douglas Harding ... it almost doesn't matter.
But (and here I concur with Insider) practice it yourself.
And regard Insiders and Outsiders humorously and with kindness.
