The Great Fraud of Miscreation
An interpretation of The Flood
What is known as the Biblical Flood has become a center of great intrigue and controversy over the last few years as we approach the coming of December of 2012 and the mysteries left behind by the Mayans and their prophecies of the end of the world. A great deal of anxiety, curiosity and debate has, as a result, surrounded this topic. Some say we are doomed, while others suggest we are upon the threshold of the next phase of human consciousness. While one person will present the argument that we are undergoing evolution, another will present the argument that we are being punished by God for our sinfulness. However, there are many who put forth the assertion that we are about to experience a worldwide deluge similar to the one described in Genesis. Those who make this argument appear to be consistent in their argument in that we have two choices: a) drown, or b) release the ego identity and ascend into the firmament. As a result, many people of different spiritual persuasions (mostly generalized and labelled 'new age') have taken this as an oppurtunity to profit from the fears and anxieties of those who suspect the coming of great trials.
Before I go into my interpretaion of The Flood, I feel I should go into detail about my own spiritual beliefs so that you, the reader, can have an ease of understanding in regard to how I may have arrived at such conclusions. First of all, although I would identify myself as being within the framework of what people generally call 'new age', my beliefs and actions differ greatly from these 'healers' and 'teachers' who appear all over the internet offering the tools of ascension (salvation) and usually at extraordinarily high fees. The same people who would never trust a Christian televangelist who was asking for money may conversely fork over thousands of dollars to acheive the tools of ascension. I would suggest looking long and hard at anyone of any spiritual denomination who was asking for money in exchange for 'miracles' or 'divine witness'.
As far as my own everyday spiritual beliefs are concerned, I study and work with A Course In Miracles as my template for explaining the Universe. This is a book that was dictated in the 1970s to psychologist Helen Schucman (in iambic pentameter, no less) by a being she referred to as an 'inner teacher' or 'higher self'. In this book it is written that God did NOT create the Universe, but that God more or less 'imagined' the Universe, and by imagining it, the Universe appeared to come into being. Basically, A Course In Miracles stipulates that we physical beings are little bits of God who have voluntarily separated from the origin of Oneness (in the OT this is referred to as 'The Fall'). Of course, the idea that we are living in an illusion (or perhaps more appropriately a perception of thus far realized consciousness) is very difficult for many to accept. Myself and many of my friends who also study this text have withstood some rather insulting tyrades from those who "do not want God taken away" from them (as if that's altogether possible). However, the text also stipulates that God (commonly referred to in the text as the Source of Creation) is an all-knowing, all-loving and endlessly forgiving being in the 'only-existing' state, meaning eternal, for that which is eternal is all that exists. A Course In Miracles also stipulates quite unwaveringly that the key to True Peace and True Happiness is True Forgiveness, for the act of judging or condemning does not come from Source or God but from the Ego. Not your ego but the Ego, for there is only one Ego and it survives by feeding off of our negativity (judgement, condemnation, hatred, bigotry, arrogance) and keeps us trapped in the illusion and enslaved by 'miscreation': the making of the non-numinous by way of the Ego, for all that is created is eternal and divine while all that is 'made' is a miscreation. Possibly the most profound, however, of all of the insights given to Helen Schucman by her inner teacher is that of finding your ability to create (or co-create with God) within yourself, for when you submit to that which is outside of you for such guidance and insight, you are allowing the Ego to enslave you so that you can perpetuate the illusion. So much for forking over ten large to undergo bioregenesis.
Another aspect of my spiritual beliefs is in regard to what I call the Living Mother Goddess, our planet Earth, for She is a living, conscious being who we humans have ignorantly abused for far too long. We have dug into Her surface to mine oil and coal as a means to pave roadways and to make other miscreations like cars, buildings and the like. We have defiled the gifts of scientific discovery by building nuclear weapons and, as if that just wasn't despicable enough, now we have HAARP for the greatest miscreation of all: creating artificial weather patterns as man's penultimate Ego service of controlling nature. With this in mind, I do not believe the Biblical deluge came from God but from Earth Herself as a means of Her own self-preservation. If we were to endure another deluge in the near future, I would look to HAARP as its cause. We humans can control Earth's weather patterns? If you ask me that sounds like nothing but stubborn arrogance feeding the Ego. I would imagine the exchange could be summed up quite simply:
MAN: "I can use this machine to control nature!"
EARTH: "Oh really?! WOW! You spoiled, ungrateful brats! I'll show you controlling nature!"
Do you see the basic cause and effect there? I don't believe it takes a whole lot of imagination or insight to suggest that Mother Earth may in fact feel utterly forsaken by those surface dwellers who have miscreated upon Her. This is why I do not see the Flood as a punishment by God but rather a cleansing or healing of the Earth administered by Her own initiative.
Now, let us look at Genesis chapters 5 through 10. God for some reason seems to feel threatened by these 'giants' (for lack of a better word) mating with the 'daughters of men'. Safe to say it is hard to explain why since this detail is merely glossed over in a suspiciously brief manner. God, or rather the being that claims to be God, chooses Noah to build an ark to survive the coming flood for reasons that are also only briefly discussed. Basically, the OT stipulates merely that 'Noah walked with God' (Gen, 6:9). Personally, I feel this is an amusingly ambiguous description. In what way did Noah walk with God? And if God told Noah He was the one causing the flood to punish Man, what really was the reason for said punishment? If God is in fact an all-knowing and endlessly forgiving energy source, why would He punish? Why wouldn't he simply forgive? This begs the question: who was Noah really walking with? Are we really supposed to believe that God instructed Noah on how to survive the flood so that Noah could live in the post-diluvian world as a drunk. Really? God's chosen patriarchal survivor of the great punishment of humankind finds nothing better to do after burning his clean birds on an altar of sacrifice than to plant some wine grapes and get drunk. God really couldn't find a more worthy servant?
Other instances in the OT also present the image of God punishing, mudering, enslaving, etc., simply because of human imperfection or sin. Fire and brimstone are not, in my opinion, acts of an endlessly forgiving God. This sounds much more like . . . Ego. I feel it is clear even in the way in which Genesis is worded that the so-called god that is described is not the Source of Creation as described in A Course in Miracles, but rather a higher consciousness descending into a state of Ego identity. The first clue is that 'God' chooses to 'save' Noah from the coming deluge by instructing him on how to build the ark. But if Noah truly 'walked with God' as previously mentioned, Noah should have been able to instruct himself and would not need help outside of himself. However, if you implement the interpretation that this being is not God, but rather a descending slave of Ego pretending to be God, then the reasons for choosing Noah as the principled survivor of the flood make much more sense. Did this scoundrel choose Noah because he was the most desirable slave of the Ego he could find? That would explain why his two most noteworthy post-diluvian acts were gettting drunk and enslaving his grandson for the sins of the boy's father. Also, if the OT truly is the 'written word of God' as many unquestionably submit to, than how did an all-knowing God somehow fail to know about Manu?
Manu appears in the Hindu Vedas in the context of a story similar to the Biblical Flood. Manu is also referred to in his post-diluvian existence as the 'first king of Earth'. To summarize the story, Vishnu appears before Manu to warn him of the coming deluge. He explains to Manu that he was chosen to survive because he (Manu, that is) is a most honest and loving person. Honest and loving: perfectly perceptible and clear qualifications. The Vedas do not suggest Manu walked with Vishnu, they explain how he did. Another distinction in this version of the deluge parable is that when Manu asked Vishnu to save him, Vishnu refuses, explaining that only Manu can save Manu and that he can only do so by finding the 'ojas' within himself.
Well, what are ojas, exactly? On the internet you will find some very poor explanations of what ojas are. At first, I thought ojas were something like an inner voice or some sort of claraudience phenomenon. Not being sure, I asked a friend of mine on one of my pool teams here in Stamford, CT, who was born in India, is a practicing Hindu and very spiritually minded. He told me that ojas are tiny particles in your body that are like crystals in the sense that they emit electromagnetism and, if you manage to activate them, you will recognize an electromagnetic field around your physical body. This electromagnetic field, if properly utilized, can allow you to heal yourself of illness, acheive peace of mind and remian ageless. He also explained that kundalini, chakras, levitation and even Jesus walking on water are acheived by activating the ojas within oneself. After doing some additional research I found that the terms kundalini and chakras both originate in Sanskrit and were originally defined in the ancient Hindu disciplines. So much for calling it 'new age'.
Now, let's reflect for a moment on the story of Jesus walking on water. It's a popular moment in the NT, and given the context from the Hindu disciplines, I think the details of the story are significant. Did Jesus use the activation of his ojas to walk or levitate on the water? If he did, this would be why people saw him as having Godlike abilities. What is also interesting is that in The Urantia Book (a predecessor of A Course in Miracles first published in the 1950s) the life of Jesus is described much more comprehensively than in the NT. Whether it is true or not, The Urantia Book describes Jesus' mid-life (his twenties, a period omitted entirely from the NT) as a period where he traveled to India to learn from masters of kundalini. Although this explanation may seem farfetched to some, it does fit together very nicely in regard to Jesus's abilities to walk on water and heal the sick. If this is true that Jesus discovered these talents of his through the Grace of God, why would the same 'God' need Noah to build an ark? Why couldn't God advise Noah to acheive this energy talent on his own like He did for Jesus? Was Noah's savoir merely a scoundrel of Ego pretending to be God? I cannot help but see it this way.
Speaking of scoundrels, the Sumerian tablets describe the story of the flood in many ways similar and in many ways different from OT rendition. In the Sumerian legend, a vast, complicated pantheon is described as being the 'creators' of human civilization. The two 'gods' described in the story of the flood, Enlil and Enki, are the sons of an elder god, Anu. In the interpretations of the Sumerian tablets, these 'gods' are described as feared, punishment-driven enslavers, creating humans in their image to be used as goldmining slaves. This sounds, even in the ancient dialogue, more like an extraterrestrial occupation than anything else. Author and researcher Zecharia Stichin even goes so far as to say rather uncompromisingly that they are in fact alien conquerors using the Earth as their penal colony. And let us say, just for the sake of argument, that Mother Earth was aware of these intruders and decided the only way to rid herself of them was to go diluvial and to make herself unable to be exploited by these scoundrels. The Anunnaki claimed they were the ones who summoned the deluge, but what else would Ego claim? If it is true that the Earth summoned the deluge to protect Herself, it would explain why Enlil fled to his father Anu's heavenly abode to escape it. However, it does not fully explain why Enki chose his own patriarch to survive the deluge by instructing him to build an ark much like it is described in Genesis. For goldmining slaves? This does not make much sense once you read the part where Enki suggests he wishes to free humans from this enslavement.
Now that we have touched on the Sumerian pantheon, let us briefly examine the other polytheistic pantheons of ancient cultures. The two that stick out the most to me are the Greek and the Norse. The Greek legends describe a clash between the Titans (giants?) and the pantheon lead by Zeus from Mt. Olympus. Zeus and the Olympian 'gods' were victorious and peace reigned. Or did it? After all, despite their alleged accomplishments in philosophy and science (which many allege were simply copied from earlier Egyptian masters), the ancient Greeks were a fierce, warlike people. They were known for scholastic accomplishments, yes, but much more so for the wars they fought against the Trojans, the Persians and themselves. If you look at other ancient European pantheons, you will see they are all almost uniformally the same. One group of gods fights and defeats another group of gods and the people who revere them go on to fight terrible wars until their culture is destroyed more or less by themselves. The only one that differs is the Norse.
Any of you out there in Hubland know what Ragnarok is? Many comic book followers will tell you it is Thor's evil twin and this is not necessarily far from the truth. Ragnarok is a parable in Norse mythology which is kind of like the Biblical Flood and Armageddon combined into one story. The Earth floods and a vessel sent from the heavens will take to the sea carrying the great heroes like Hymir (referred to literally as 'giants'. Again with the giants!). The other vessel sent from the underworld will carry Loki and all of the scoundrels and the two armies (or navies, I suppose) will fight each other to the death until no survivors remain on either side. In the parable it is said that they will kill each other with their swords. First, let's look at the ships that sail the diluvian sea. I would assume their origin is symbolic since made things probably do not exist in the upper atmosphere. So, is this another example of ojas used to walk on water, or even what is referrred to in Ezekiel as merkaba or chariot energy. Was the boat that took to the sea from the heavens an electromagnetic vessel? Was the boat that came from the underworld built by human slaves? What was the reason for sword combat? Why, if the Norse deities could create their own will from their own EM fields, would they need swords? I believe the answer is found in Revelation. The story of the Second Coming is marked in the first chapter of Revelation by John describing the Lord as having a 'sharp, two-edged sword' (Rev. 1:16) which he takes from within himself. Could this be an oja being used as a weapon of war? If this is the case, it explains why the giant Norse hero Surt is described as having a sword that shines like the sun itself. Could it be that this was merely one single battle fought between two rival groups of advanced beings, one serving God and the other serving Ego? Could it be this was one single event interpreted differently by different cultures? Could it be that Ego wanted to destroy the world of creation and replace it with a world of made or built things? Could it be that Vishnu or Thor were attempting to prevent such a fate?
And could it be we are at the threshold of a new stage of evolution where we may soon discover our ojas or merkaba?
I believe only time can tell us that.