Alex Tsakiris - Truth Quest (Pt. 2 of 2: The Mind of God) - PRE-RELEASE
01:48:53 Share

All of our files are free and will remain free. If you like to show, you can show support by donating $1 to help with expenses. Just use the pay link on our webpage. Thanks. And welcome back to the second part of this discussion we have today about... Well, we started in the old days, but we're going to...

Fast forward to today and also to the timeless perspective of consciousness and why we're here. And I think a good way to start is, okay, so bring it up to modern times. Why does this matter? Well, I care about the second point that you made.

And you kept referring to consciousness. You know, what is consciousness? I'm going to substitute at the risk of kind of throwing people on tilt. I'm going to substitute God there. It's the same. They're exactly the same. We can say consciousness, God, same thing. And what you are saying is...

You're saying, "I, Al, am struggling to understand the mind of God. I don't know why God would kill those six million, four million Jews, four million Jews in the death camps and another two million, you know, out in the thing." I would never say God killed them.

Man did. Why would he allow that? Why did God allow that tsunami? Why did God allow... We have a very libertarian-less affair, God. I don't think he has intervened much since the beginning. Well, but hold on, hold on, hold on, because this is a real question to me. It is fundamentally your question. It is the question of consciousness.

How are we to understand where consciousness goes? How are we to understand the mind of God? This is really the question on all of this stuff as we analyze history. And when you go to the second part of, you know, is it historical? I think I totally get where you're going. And we just spent an hour over an hour talking about it. But in a lot of ways, it misses the point.

What we really want to know is what can we understand about consciousness? What can we understand about God? What can we understand about the mind of God that would allow us to try and understand that? And that's why I kept coming back to, and this would be like another conversation, but I kept coming back to the Oppenheimer movie. Because one of the key things about the Oppenheimer movie that I liked, and I was

I managed to not drive my wife crazy. I'll watch it tonight. Okay. After this talk. I managed to not drive my wife crazy, but as I was watching, I was like, I can't do this. I can't watch this. They're kind of butchering it. They're leaving out the most important things. But in a lot of ways, they cover the most important things because...

So Oppenheimer, this commie who thinks that he's Jewish and he's commie. So, you know, you got to be commie if you're Jewish after World War Two. You're like, how could God have killed all my people? Why would I believe in this kind of fascist imperialistic? Give me an alternative to anything. But he is. And that's his family.

But he goes over to... Today, it seems they have to be Nazis, but that's another matter. However, we're going to pigeonhole them. Yeah, I'm sidetracking and I lose people and that's okay because the thing gets out anyway. And that's that

If you watch the movie, what Oppenheimer does is he goes, he's a physicist and he's a damn good physicist. And he goes over Germany because that's where physics is really happening. And he meets these guys who are like his God, like, like, you know, people that he looks up to. And one of them is Max Planck and Max Planck. Max Planck has this,

done the experiments. He's done the math. He's one of the most brilliant scientists in the world. And he says, I pulled it up on the screen, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derived from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Remember, we can substitute God for the word consciousness freely. There is no distinction. Max Planck's

His science, his understanding of the world does not require us to not do that substitution. They are one in the same because listen to what he's saying. I regard all matter as derivative from consciousness.

Jesus, the historical Jesus, is matter. He is derived from consciousness. It's the same in the book of creation. In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God. It's erratically translated. I have a beef. In the beginning was mind.

And the mind was of God and the mind was good. It's the same thing. Even back in Jesus' time. Okay. I got to rein you in on that. I don't know. Okay. I don't know. Because the important thing, which you're kind of blowing past there, is that the reason I brought up Oppenheim is if you go and watch the movie, these guys are trying to make the nuclear bomb and they do.

And they have a chalkboard full of equations, scientific equations, in this new thing called quantum physics. And the only reason that quantum physics is significant, and a lot of people miss this. They think, oh, you know, Max Planck is talking about quantum physics. No, he's talking about consciousness, and he makes it clear that he's talking about consciousness. It just so happens that the cutting edge of physics is

which is science, which is what is happening in the world as I observe it, as I measure it, what is happening? And they had gotten down to this quantum level that no one had gotten down to, right? Because when you look at something and it's a cell, you're like, okay, but can I go lower? Can I go lower? So these guys are going- They've broken the limits of matter and they are now exploring consciousness. Yes, principles of consciousness. Well, they, no, no.

I regard everything at the subatomic level as another universe. No, but that is a slight misinterpretation of what's happening. No, they are not looking for consciousness. No, no, no, looking for consciousness. Once you go beyond atoms, I believe, are the smallest entities of matter.

Anything beyond that and you're really into the metaphysical realm. No. Whether they know it or not. No. That's what they're looking into. Yes. No. Why not? I disagree because by extension of what they discover…

consciousness is everywhere and everything is derived so it's not a level thing and that's the misunderstanding is that consciousness and these things like the observer effect only apply at the quantum level that's not what he's saying no what he's saying is when we yeah he said to me this um uh what's his name the guy with the glasses i had him on for a talk about uh

Cracking Reality. What was his name? Brilliant guy. You've interviewed him too. He writes about time and he writes about... Anyway, this guy said to me that they have had experiments in macro level where they have replicated these phenomenons that are well known from

quantum physics. Who cares? Who cares? Well, it's important if the observer... It's not important. It's not important. It's not important that the observer is influencing not just on the quantum level, but also on the macro level. What's important...

What's important are- It backs up what you're saying about consciousness. What's important- Nope. This is a major misunderstanding, a major misunderstanding here. Okay. What's important is that what the quantum physics, in this case, like the double slit experiment, reveal is the philosophical implications.

and the scientific implications because the implications are we cannot measure anything. And this little game that we've been playing that the world is observable, this goes back to your mystery school. In your mystery school, do you believe that the world is observable? No. You say a portion of the world is observable, but there's parts of the world that are not. It's an illusion. The world is not observable.

observable. The world is not measurable. This is the philosophical leap that Max Planck is making. So all further discussions about the experiments that they do and Dean Radin, which I talk about all the time, and how he proves the double slit

Forget it. What he's done with one fell swoop, whether you like it or not, is he's falsified scientific materialism. And there is no science other than scientific materialism. Let me try to put this in a philosophical way, because I get your point now. But if it's hard to understand the way you put it, let me suggest another way, and we'll get even more people on board with this notion. Kant said the thing in itself...

and the thing in what was it thing in you anything in itself so he argued that we can't know anything we can only know ourselves basically because everything goes through ourselves yeah and it's easily demonstrable for example now you're looking at the screen

And you think you see me. No. What no? No, this is not true. What's not true? This is, so let me share something else. Okay. Yeah, okay. But let me elaborate on this after that. Go on. Again, the goal, the Max Planck thing doesn't stop

at max plank it doesn't stop at physics what it does is it says now do we have a new way of asking the question that we the only question that we really care about which is god

Yes, no. God, yes, no. Science has said no, and now we're saying yes. So now that we're saying yes, what are the implications of that? What is the mind of God? What does God want me to do? What does God want me not to do? So now we can begin the exploration, but it's not to regress back to the kind of stuff you're talking about. It's to go forward in a new expanded way. That's why I brought up

The guy I like to reference all the time, he drives me crazy because he's trapped in academia and he has to say some ridiculous things. Shushan? Shushan. Among the 90% of absolutely brilliant things he says, 10% has to be this watered down, woke nonsense so he doesn't lose his job. But here's what he did. He said, oh, we have this thing now called near-death experience and it's exposing people

for, it's just giving us data and

And then we can start interpreting that data is what does that tell us about the mind of God? What does that tell us about what you said, Al, which I totally agree with, which is, you know, consciousness. I forget the exact term, but you were saying the same thing. How does it apply? How does, how does, how does consciousness work? So I take consciousness. I substitute God, Gregory Shushan substitutes near death experience. And he said, but he goes one step further. He goes, we have all these people are coming back from these near death experiences. He says, you know,

What if I was to take a step back and I'm an anthropological kind of guy. What if I was to look at cultures throughout time and throughout the world and see whether there's any of this near-death experience. And again, the reason we want to look at near-death experiences, we've got an inkling that that's closer to God. That's closer to God's mind. Maybe there's some hints there.

So he looks at these near-death experiences across culture and across time. And what he finds is every culture he looks at, every religion he looks at,

Their belief about these fundamental questions about God, about what happens in the afterlife, about who we really are, are all based on near-death experiences. People have experiences. They have encounters with great beings in these extended realms, and they come back and they tell us the news. Now, he's not filtering it in any way. He's just saying, from an anthropological standpoint, looking across cultures, that's what's happening.

That is different in an important way from experimentation inside the scientific materialism. Oh, we can run experiments and this and that. He's saying we have to leapfrog out of that. We have to reach into somehow into this...

mystery school that you talk about does this, right? They say, hey, we don't have to be confined to your microscopes and all the rest of it. No! We're going to reach beyond that, and that is going to become fuel for our investigation of what is the mind of God. I'm not misrepresenting that, am I? I mean, you are well-schooled in that. Yeah, yeah. And I think that's where the crumbs at the end of the day has to end.

After you explore the entire world, you end up with yourself. You have to go inwards because your only link, it's not through the priests or even the Oracle. The only link to God is through yourself. That's why it actually said over the entrance to the Oracle in Delphi, it said, the well-known man know thyself and you shall know cosmos and the gods. That's pretty good. Yeah, it's self-exploration.

Because I remember the first discussion we had ever, I argued for that. We were discussing science and what value in science, and I insisted that a scientist has to have some personal experience. And the spirit Rudolf Steiner talked about, in English it would be 'Ons Wittenskap', the science of spirit.

which is to explore it yourself. Exactly. Yeah, from the inside. So, yeah, when we then look at these two points I talked about, reality, I mean, history or whatever happened factually, which is what everybody is concerned about.

And what can consciousness get out of it? What if we go deeper down the rabbit hole and say, just for the argument's sake, entertain that we live in some sort of simulation. Let's go back to that metaphor, that image. If we actually lived in a simulation, it wouldn't matter what the heck happened in the past.

In fact, all these manufactured stories, maybe everything is manufactured. Maybe it's impossible to know actually what happened. And if you really take it far enough in quantum terms, you know, parallel universes, all that, anything can have happened. It's like I discussed this. Anthony Peake is the name I couldn't remember. I discussed this with Peake. I said he agreed with me that in the present, you can actually influence not just the future, but also the past. What happened in the past?

Because in an ordinary materialist, rational, sequential, chronological, logical way of thinking, we think that something actually happened. And it's just that we are removed from it. So we can't know what actually happened. But there is a philosophical argument for, and the simulation will make it easy to understand, that there is just a now.

And even in your own past, you cannot 100% know exactly what happened. You do not know what happened, which you don't have memory of.

And then you have memories of something, but those memories are very faulty. They're very fluid. You know from your own shows that people can have memories of a Satanist scare. What do they call it? Satanic panic. Yeah, satanic panic.

You can make people believe that. Oh, don't get me started. Riz Virk, you just interviewed him again, right? About the simulation? He hasn't come back on. I invited him. He said yes, but he hasn't replied yet. Simulation of what?

I just had him on. Simulation of what? So if everything is simulated, it really depends on who's writing the program. No, it doesn't. No, no. Again, to be obnoxious. To be obnoxious. What no? No, no simulation. It's backdoor materialism. It's trying to force it down into a shut up and calculate model, right? So it's like we're not comfortable. We're not comfortable. No, it's hijacking materialism. No. It's luring it back into the fold. It requires...

How can simulation not be materialist? It is. It is measurable. It is observable. It is programmable. All these things are the qualities that are not...

in this consciousness realm that you're talking about, where everything is derived from consciousness. You missed my point. Okay, I see. You missed my point. My point is, imagine a creator who makes this simulation. Imagine a co-creator. Imagine, and this sounds satanic and Luciferian, and we have to make that distinction. Yeah, Demiurge,

It doesn't matter what you call it. Imagine that we are all co-creating this God mind together in the same way that we co-create. But let me get to the point. Imagine you're making a world where you infuse consciousness.

And everybody... We're now on a timeline. You now just reintroduced time. Yes. All the avatars are concerned about what's going on in the simulation. Maybe that's not the game at all. Maybe the game is how can you...

use this simulation that you are found in? How can this consciousness that is trapped in this simulation use this simulation? Maybe that's the game. So that's the two perspectives. When you say consciousness, consciousness and mystery school and know thyself, near-death experience, God, you're concerned about what can the consciousness do with the simulation. All the other people who... Did Josephus do this? Did Jesus exist?

what was Paul about, they are then trapped in this fake game about. And if it's a simulation, do you know? No, that isn't. Okay. I am so obnoxious, but that is a misunderstanding. That is a misunderstanding. I accept your disagreement. If you understood my point, did you understand my point? If you did, and you, then you disagree. Fine. Honest. Where, where I launched off on my new series of nose was it,

you somehow suggesting that our understanding of history is somehow lessened or inferior because of this idea, this expanded understanding. And it cannot be so. It can only be bracketed in the sense of understanding these certain events in this way. Because this is science, right? Science doesn't prove anything.

Science just says it is most likely highly suggestive, statistically significant. And that's what we're saying about history. We're saying that it would appear to anyone with our knowledge.

Our machinery, our biological machinery who have that lived experience collectively would report that those events in roughly the same way. That's what we're saying. And to me, that's undeniable. Yes. If you like you said, if you could go back, you know, if we could go back, like you said, the other two guys, you know, what about the other two guys in the cave with Josephus?

If we could go back and interview them, what we would expect to find is that they basically experienced whatever they experienced. And they said, collectively, we'd say, well, then that probably is what happened. And that's what history is about. If they even existed, if there were two guys in a cave, you know, there may be a myth to begin with. Correct. As a poor example.

But the point is, like, you've lived through a certain part of history that I've lived through too. And I have both personal experiences with it and then experiences that I've got secondhand. And as we share those, we kind of say, oh, wow, there really is a place called France that you just referenced. And I go, yeah, I think there is. I mean, I flew on a plane. I landed there. They had that thing.

tower thing? Yeah. And you go, yeah, I saw that too. Okay. Okay. So there is objective truths. Okay. I don't have an agenda for you to not believe that. I was just entertaining the extreme. But even if there is an objective truth, the point remains that what you interpret- Consensus reality is the distinction. A consensus reality. Okay. But then the challenge is,

What does your consciousness extract from that? Exactly. See, so this is the point. That's the lesson. This is the Gregory Shushan. So that's why they wrote the Gospels like they did, you know? Because... No, no. This is the Gregory. So jump past all that. This is the Gregory Shushan point. This is the point of what's been just I'm obsessed with lately.

is going and really digging into the near-death experience accounts. People who have died because they've died medically by every means we have of understanding that

They are not physically here. They are not biologically here. They are not capable of producing consciousness in any way that we understand. And yet they're having these experiences. But here's the point.

Their experiences are idiosyncratic, are contradictory, are not, are, are suggest what we would both probably agree with once we put down the knives, the clubs is some kind of created co-created reality.

one person prostrates themselves at the feet of Jesus and they know it's Jesus and they see the leather sandals and the glow that comes off of them and the message is blonde hair. Yes. And the, well, but the message has,

happens to be the same message that the other guy gets who says, oh, no, there were just orbs and stuff like that. And I'm really sure. And I got all this information. And the other guy says, I got these columns and it was like this. What about Jesus? No, there was none of that. As a matter of fact, they said all religions are kind of really different.

you know, to be kind of avoided because God is really pretty simple. Love everyone. Tell the truth. It's no judgment, no judgment, no judgment. So this is the hardest thing to wrap your head around. God without judgment.

So once you get in that space, all things are possible. But what we have to resolve in some way that is, I think, to the point of our discussion, the guy who prostrates himself at the feet of, quote unquote, Jesus Christ consciousness with the leather sandals.

doesn't seem to care that that guy kind of got the story wrong in the way that you and I said, Hey, you know that historical Jesus thing. God's like, Hey, that's all right. That's minor stuff. And the other guy who gets this other story about, I saw these great halls of learning and there were all these books. He goes, Oh,

Not exactly, but you kind of got the gist of it. Yeah. Go do be good. Try the best you can. If you can't, no judgment, no problem. Just it's all love when you come over here anyway. It's true. So once we get in that space, all this stuff, we have to test that theory.

But I think that theory stands up and that changes everything. Okay. But the mystery schools kind of explain why it's like that, if you want to hear that. Go ahead. But I want to say first, oh, I've lost my thought now. So you're saying that there's a nonjudgmental God and... Because it's nonjudgmental because it's not really nonjudgmental.

You know why it's not nonjudgmental? No. Because we are co-creators. We are part of it. And we're judgmental.

We're constantly judging ourselves. Why did I say that to her tonight? My God, I know she just got back from a double shift. Why did I say that? I hurt her so deeply. Why did I do that? Why did I do something worse? Why did I hit that kid that was driving across the street with a bicycle? Yeah, not normal people. And then there's the psychopaths who judge everyone else, right? Who projects the judgment outwards all the time.

And what happens to the psychopath when they cross over? All indications are that they're loved completely, non-judgmentally. Now I remember what I was going to say. I asked you earlier for a suggestion for a guest who is good on near-death experience, who does something that... And I wonder, I don't think it was this guy you suggested, it was someone else. But what I'm after is someone who has done what this guy did, namely...

explored near-death experiences over time and space, you know, cultural differences, temporal differences. And then the important thing,

Try to find commonalities, because I'm not amazed at all that they have different. Because I said the mind is fluid. The mind is fluid and there may be all sorts of incidental and random. It's the same with dreams. There is some essence in the dream, which is important. And then there's all these layers of influence that comes, pollution, noise, if you like.

The same will happen in death. So what I want to know is, what are the commonalities across time, across space? And surely there must have been someone who has looked into that. And I'd love to talk with that guy. And I'd love to see what they find, because that's some solid, that's some objective truth. That's some consensus reality for you on a metaphysical level. Here's what I want to do, Al. And I'm inviting you to do it with me, to collaborate with me on this. Uh-huh.

A lot of these people that have had these near-death experiences have written books, and a lot of them don't fully accept, like we all do, we all would,

They are so overwhelmed by their experience that they have problems pulling back and seeing the bigger picture. So the guy who prostrates himself at the feet of Jesus and says the leather sandals, and you know what? I looked it up and those are exactly the kind of leather sandals that they had. And how could I have seen that? Unless it's true. That's the guy we need to talk to in a inclusive, accessible,

expansive understanding kind of way. That's where I want to go. And a lot of these people have not only written books, but a lot of them come back with expanded awareness that allows them to be, do medium readings, to do psychic readings. I think we should do those. I think we should engage in that and kind of test that a little bit, you know, even though I think it's true. I think we need to model that.

how to leapfrog out of the materialist trap and how to apply this expanded awareness that you're talking about to this, because this is the data set that matters. I'm not putting down

the guy who prostrates himself at Jesus. I'm not putting him down at all. I'm elevating him. I'm saying you're who we need to talk to. You're where we need to put our focus, not on running stupid fricking experiments on simulation theory and all the rest. We need to understand because you are getting closer in these extended realms to part of the mystery that we're trying to crack.

In principle, I agree with you, but I would rather talk with an enlightened person who has polished away his ego, because these people are just accidents. These are people who fall into the lake. Let's see. You know what I mean? So they are too colored by that. I don't think that's true. I think we have the skills with what we've done.

to figure that out. That's a great hypothesis. We need to test it.

how part of this is that they have an ego I mean that's what's coloring their individual um what what you're suggesting is that they're they have a cultural bias and they have a personal bias right which we all do but you're suggesting it which is super important if I understand it right and I'm sure I do you're suggesting that their ego their cultural bias there may be uh

experiential bias, all the rest of those things. They're wounded. They're wounded psyche. All these things are coloring their experience beyond the way beyond what it really is.

That's what has to be. Well, no, well, not be. Yeah. But, but it kind of, it's noise. Yeah. So there's truth. So, of course, but to filter out the noise filter, look, no one is doing this. Here's the divide, right? We got some people who are saying, okay, they're doing what you want to see. Fill out this survey on your near death. Did you see a tunnel?

I heard this one guy. What was the tunnel? Did it, how wide was it? Was it six feet wide or 80? Oh, I think I could. Who the, who cares? What we want to know in the, what no one is asking is why,

Does your story conform to some kind of consensus reality that would be useful for the rest of us? No one ever pushes these people to the least bit. No one says, you know, I love your story about prostrating at Jesus, but let me tell you the reservations I have about the historical Jesus. Let me tell you about Paul.

Let me tell you about Jerry Fumuth James. He's the brother. Do you understand that? Do you understand Pontius Potts? So do you understand that the historical Jesus narrative is highly, highly suspect? Now, that may or may not fit into your experience, but do you at least understand? Are we on the same ground there? And they go, oh, no.

Oh, no. Or they say, like I interviewed a guy, David Ditchfield, a guy from the UK, had incredible near-death experience, met Jesus, all the rest of this. I said, David, I've talked to people who had had multiple near-death experiences. And they kind of, at the end of the day, a lot of them say, I got a feeling there's more, more than Jesus. And he pauses and he goes, no.

Yeah, I think that might be true. What does that even mean, more than Jesus? What that means is more, that means your model is in play, which is that's the dream that I had. That's the dream that was effective to move me forward. But I realize it was a part of the dream and part of the story.

The alternative interpretation said, no, no, no, no, no, not a dream. I'm telling you, that was the guy.

The one and only. That's the only place you go. If you go anyplace else, you're nodding your head. You get it. So that needs to be ferreted out. We would learn so much. I don't get it. There's something I don't get. You know, Gordon White, when I talked with him, he said that he would rather talk with, you know, a Graham Hancock about, look, if some archaeological student makes a huge find, great.

Great find. Or someone who is digging there. Do you go to that person to talk about the meaning of it? You rather go to someone like Graham Hancock who didn't himself dig it up. Do you see what I mean? So that's kind of an analogy here. Gordon is stuck in a... Gordon is stuck in... Forget Gordon then. But hold on. No, no, because it's important. See, Gordon is stuck in the magic model.

The magic model is backdoor materialism. It is in a strange way backdoor materialism. It is. And it's not called out as such, right? No. No, no, no. I've never done it.

So what I think the distinction that we're making, or I'm trying to make, and I think you're coming along because I see the nod in your head, is that if we're postulating that this is a co-created extended reality, like you said, a dream. Yeah, that's a mystical argument. Yes. Yes. And I would even go so far as to say it's like a lucid dream, if you've ever had a lucid dream, where you're kind of in control of it, and then it's kind of slipping out of your control, isn't it? So there's this extended realm of consciousness that,

that is out there, that is explorable, that is understandable, at least a peek behind the curtain.

No one is doing that in a methodical, rational, dare I say, healthfully skeptical kind of way. The example I use, you know, yes, okay, I accept that you saw Jesus, but historical Jesus doesn't make sense. So let's work together. I want to know what you know. I want to know how you understand it so that maybe together we can know more about how

how those two are somehow resolvable or not resolvable or whatever. But that's the- You want to resolve it with the experiencer? You might as well go to a UFO abductee and do the same thing. Well, we definitely should. But the experiencer, remember, consciousness is fundamental. Everything is derived from consciousness. Max Planck experimentally proves that.

So why would we want to? They actually realized that. So we can only go. The only place to go is the experiencer. There is nothing. There is no place else to go. Everything else is Maya. I disagree. You use the term. You brought the term Maya up.

Everything else is Maya. No, no, no. Your principle is sound, but I just think you need a little higher standard. Let's say a proverbial Buddha or a proverbial Jesus. What's the difference between a guy like that and this accidental experiencer? The difference is that they have devoted themselves for 30 years, worked on how to

get rid of this noise which we can make called ego so that when they experience like parmenides describes in his so-called poems his mystical writings he describes how it is to travel to the other side and come back

with something that is applicable for all. Wow. Something objective, something that everyone can relate to. That's what, you know, in essence is what you're wanting when you want to talk with them. But the problem is, I don't think these travelers are equipped and skilled to do that. They can only say what they have seen on that travel. But they had very thick glasses on. They couldn't see very clearly. You don't know that.

Of course, if they are not trained, if it's just a random person on the street. You don't know that. You cannot say that. I cannot. Look, if they have trained for 20 years, 30 years, and then they have a... Pause that out. It's just not... So here is...

Here is the crossover point between I keep saying consciousness is fundamental, blah, blah, blah, and I keep putting down science. What I really want to do is drag – I really want to drag science into this. I want to drag the scientific method into this. And one of the distinctions that I think is super important is that –

scientifically, we can verify that these people are not alive. They're dead. They are not forming consciousness through their brain function. That is an important distinction. So the Yogi in the cave for 20 years, he can do all sorts of great stuff, but this is a major divide crossing point. I'm not saying that it couldn't be, you know,

But I get it. As far as science, and that, hold on, there's one more point. One more point. Allow me, allow me. I know. Go on. But so that's, that's number one. Number two.

These people can demonstrate metaphysical powers that we cannot explain. Really? And they will tell you through their history that these metaphysical powers, abilities, whatever you want to say, are a direct manifestation of their encounter on the other side.

So that's something that we can test as well. You're nodding your head. So the one, like if you want to do a medium reading, right? And I just interviewed Dr. Julie Byshel again. I think after death communication science is so important, so overlooked. So I just brushed aside. There's multiple different kinds of after death communication can experimentally be verified. We're going to put science back in. So,

If you, Al, had a reading with someone who claimed to be able to pull in information from someone who is deceased, and you followed Julie Beischel's just basic steps of primarily just not revealing any information, but the way that we'd probably do it, we'd probably do it as a proxy. You wouldn't even sit. I would sit for you, and I would say, I have a friend, and they want to do a reading, and

Go. They can't see you. They can't see your face. They can't see your reaction. I don't even know what deceased person they're talking to. So there's no possible leakage. No cold reading possible. No, it's completely off the table. Cold reading. Now, if that person.

was able to bring back any verifiable information. Now we have another data point. So now we have two interesting scientific data points. One is they were dead. They didn't have any biological function that would explain their consciousness. Number two, they had these

abilities that we cannot explain in terms of consciousness in our time-space reality. Those two data points don't mean that Jesus's sandals were really strapped that way. They don't.

But it is kind of an interesting launching off point for now listening to those accounts. And so you're nodding your head. I love it. I love it. Well, I'm just partly agreeing, though, because, again, I have a problem with why don't you just try to find commonalities in their stories instead of bringing them in these experiences? Because you didn't listen to them before they had experience. Why are you listening to them after they had an experience? Right.

Look, if I send a random person from the street into an art gallery and I ask them to regard this art and then come back and give me a report,

I'm going to get a different account than if I send in someone who is passionate about art and has studied art and knows what to look for and can tell me a lot of stuff. Maybe an artist himself. So I'm not entirely on board, but I see where you're going with this. And yes, these data points we can extract to find commonalities.

commonalities that apply. That's all I care about. I care about commonalities, something that I can actually get something out of and not just some dude's experience, if you see what I mean. And to do that, I guess you have to do the dirty work of talking with all these people, but you also need to know how to remove

that noise and I don't see... If I go to a UFO experiencer and I start to, you know, criticize, let's hash this out together. Maybe it wasn't a little green man you saw. Maybe... It's very disrespectful. That's number one. Because to them, it's like a... It's a huge mind-altering, paradigm-changing thing, right? But if you go to a Buddha, it's Monday for Buddha. It's not a big deal to travel to the other side. So...

No, I still prefer, but of course they are not growing on trees. You can just find an enlightened person to do this with, like as easily as you can find an experiencer. But if I had a choice, I would rather go to someone who has dedicated their life to understand. Why?

The sage on the stage model has been... No, it's the sage behind the stage I'm interested in, not the one on the stage. In fact, as soon as they're on the stage, you know it's bullshit. Okay, make them do the after-death communication cold reading and then I'll listen. If they can't do a cold reading, I don't want to hear from them. Or let them do an incubation, which is what they did in the ancient days. They...

You know, they didn't have this resistive rotation technology that we have today, but they had techniques just like you can replicate LSD trips with breathing. You can also replicate near-death experiences with incubations. So incubations was a major tool.

that you couldn't get away from. Hey, I mean, if you want to bring on anyone, bring forward anyone like that, that's fine. But in my experience... Well, I suggest you do your own incubation. I mean, nothing is better. No, I mean, I'm just suggesting that the idea of the Monday morning yogi who can do all that, it's just...

No, they can't. They can't do it. I mean, to the extent that they can do it and are open to subjecting themselves to a critical examination of it, fine, great, but they're not. Oh, no, no, no, no. It's going to be, I mean, even in the ancient day, I think it was far between the real masters. But remember, back in the day, they had far less distractions. Everything in their culture was

everything in their value system. That's all bullshit. You talk about noise. 90% of what you're saying is noise and bullshit. Do you think Yuri Geller can bend those spoons?

Yeah, but what does the Uri Geller say? Do you think he can bend those spoons? Yeah, does he say that he was born with it or did he learn it? Oh, fuck that, Al. Why do you go off on oddball questions? No, it's kind of important. No, what's first and foremost important is can he bend the spoons? Yeah, he can bend the spoons, but it doesn't mean that he can teach me about it. Okay, so yes, it does. It means that he has now passed a test.

that he is now in Max Planck's camp. Consciousness is fundamental in some way that we don't understand. He is not in all the scientists that you could name who says he can't bend a spoon. They're on one side and he's on another. So we only want to talk to people. Okay, we have here in Norway, sorry to cut you off, but I haven't made my point clear yet. Here in Norway, we have an old man. He's called Snåsar Kall.

He's like, he's an extreme paranormal miracle worker. He heals people remotely. He can, you

You know, he's the guy who can kind of read the numbers. The thing is, he's a very humble guy. He never meant to bring this. It's other people who has brought attention on him and he hates it. And he even had to stop. People came from far and wide with the wildest things. And he got very exhausted. And there's books about him, there's documentaries. He's the real deal. He can actually do stuff.

But when he's asked to explain these things, he doesn't know. All he knows is what he's doing. He's just a humble Christian dude. Of course, the Christians hate him. But I think he works in a church as some kind of role in the church. I forgot what he's called. He's not educated, nothing. He's just a humble guy. And of course, you can learn something from him as a human being, whatever. But he can't explain everything.

his powers just because he has them. But okay. I got you. See, I always have to poke at you to provoke you. Like you said at the beginning that, that, you know, my provocation does get things. Yeah, no, that's not what we want. We don't want him to explain the method. We don't want to dissect the bird to try and get to the song. That's stupid. That's materialist science. We're not doing that. Okay. What we do want from him is we want to verify, just like you said, okay,

Okay, you're the real deal. Wonderful. Now I want to listen. I want to interview you. The woman, the guy who died and spent 20 minutes completely dead and was put in a body bag for 20 minutes, he passed the test just randomly. So we want to hear from them. We don't want to know how they did it.

We just want to know whether they could see what they experienced. No, what we want to know is back to what we're saying. If this guy's a Christian, we want to go. What about the problems with the historical Jesus? How do you reconcile the fact that many of them haven't never thought about these things? Yeah, they have to. We're going to make them. We're going to we're going to. Here's my point.

That's what's interesting. Most people live in a web of life. This is what's not been done before. This is the unplowed field that needs to be explored. And it's not in an obnoxious way. It's just saying, you know, back to...

We want to know more, Al. You and I want to know more. I am seeking to know more by finding out what you know. I'm not putting it down. I'm not rejecting it. I want to know what you know. But I also, at the same time, want to share what I know. And I want us to try and resolve those two things together. So the mystic Christian Norwegian guy...

I want to know more from him. It's not a refutation of his Christianity. You want to be healed from him. That's what you want. No, I want to understand how in this expanded reality, his understanding of Christ consciousness is

can fit inside. I don't think he, you know, they have very simple, he has a very simple philosophy and it's not very, you know, and this is the problem. I go to one of these experiencers and I say, I want to know what you know. How do you know? At least if you said, I want to know what you got from there.

Because they will mix in their own things. They will mix in. How do you know that in aftermath they haven't mixed their memories, etc.? It's very tricky, man. I don't know. I'd rather experience it myself. But even there, I'm at fault for my own ego, right? What's wrong with commonalities?

What's wrong with differences? Yeah, I think like one difference, which I think is important we can learn from is go to, and that's nearly never been done. I discussed it with a guest of mine, Harvey Makovsky.

Go to those 20% who has had horrible after-death experiences. Yeah, that's fine. Talk with them. What the fuck is going on there? It's all been done. All this stuff has been done. You're just not... Have they explored their life? Is there something about them that makes them have that? Why is someone having nothing, someone having bad trips, and someone having peace and love?

I don't necessarily think we can find an answer in their personality, in their life. Because I think they're all… You are again trying to introduce backdoor materialism, science… Or science, yeah. But I think they all are tripping into a hole, and I think it's kind of random where they're falling.

A Buddha who works? Perhaps. I suspect that almost the opposite is true. And you've said the opposite at different times, so it's not like I'm really disagreeing with you. I think all their accounts are true and are filled with noise at the same time. True as in they believe it? No, true as in...

They really did experience Jesus's. That's what they experienced. Yes. Yes. I agree. They experienced Jesus's sandals because as you said, I'm going to just kind of keep bullying you back to what you said. If this is a co-created lucid dream, like experience, of course, God can create Jesus with sandals that, you know, if you need to see Jesus with sandals to get people,

to make it resonate with you and to move you forward on your spiritual path, that's really easy for God to do. God does that like falling out of bed on fucking Monday morning. No big deal.

I'm not even sure we need God to recreate that thing. You said we're co-creators. Consciousness. Yeah, consciousness. Expectations, archetypes. Let's substitute consciousness for God. Whenever you double clutch on God, just substitute consciousness. And whenever you think about consciousness, think about it being co-created. The consciousness that you and I share is God's.

God. The consciousness that you share with your wife and I share with my wife collectively is God. It's only when it all comes together do we have God. And that's why there's no judgment. Because you're the one who's judging. You're judging yourself worse than... So, there you go. No, I agree. The ancients said the same thing. They said that when you die, you will be judged. But ironically, it will be yourself.

but obviously your higher self, not your ego. And I think the reason the source is unconditional and non-judging is because if we are of the source and when we have cleaned and washed away all the noise, all the ego,

there is nothing to judge or be judged we are all pure then even even these psychopaths the serial killers and hitler and whatnot but the process to unravel that noise or that pollution is the judge judging we do between lives according to ancient uh you know a modern reiteration of of their ideas

I completely agree, and I take it one step further. I doubt that you would disagree with this. And this is so obvious, but it slips past everyone. The judging isn't going on just when we die. The judging is going on every moment. We experience it every moment. We are constantly judging ourselves, others. So it's an ongoing process. It's the essence of who we are. It is our soul is in that mode. But what is judging?

So judging is the ultimate connection with the source, with consciousness, with God, with, you know, what is the, you know, the number you said commonalities. And I know I kind of bullied you around about that.

You know what the commonality is? You want to interview someone who's looked at commonalities. There's one guy. His name's Jeff Long. Yeah. Dr. Jeff Long. He's published two New York Times bestselling books on the commonalities. Really? He's generated statistical commonalities. Wow.

Al, do you know what the number one commonality is? Let me guess. It's probably not this, but is it the light and the tunnel? No. That's what I would expect. Good. So there's a twist here. What's the number one? What is it? You know it. You know it in your heart. Love? Exactly. That's it. Okay.

It's in the 90s, the high 90s. What else? What are the other questions? Don't go past it. Don't brush past it. It's the number one thing. So I go interview Julie Byshel, Dr. Julie Byshel. She is the researcher of after-death communication. People will automatically gloss over and go, okay, near-death experience, after-death communication. No. No.

It is completely different. It's a completely different science. It's like we're talking about medium readings. That has nothing to do with near-death experience as a medium reading. There's also induced mediums.

After death communication where they do these things, you know, where you do the thing on the fingers and stuff like that. And boom, now you're, it will increase your ability to do that, but you're doing it yourself. Okay. There's, um, so there's multiple kinds of after death communication. So I'm talking to Julie. Julie kind of has my vibe a little bit, sometimes aggressive when pushed. And she says, damn it. You know what the truth, you know what the finding is?

Love. She goes, love. And I don't do love so great. Like, I get you. I don't do love so great, too. But that's an academic. It's not in their curriculum. But she says, that's the data. So that's what I've concentrated on. I've asked now the mediums. So how do we get into that love space? How do we create more of that? Okay. So, but the point is love.

Love is not a joke, fill in kind of thing. It is the number one commonality. It fits perfectly with the nonjudgmental because you're judging. Take the burden off your shoulder now.

It's okay. You're doing the best you possibly can. Continue to do the best you possibly can. Help other people. Love other people the best you can. And if you fail, that's okay. Just try again because it's all okay. It's complete non-judgment, complete acceptance, complete love.

but it's not historical jesus yeah all you need is love but but i think judging i asked you what it was why are we judging you said i didn't get that maybe there was some me a deeper meaning behind it but you said it's a connection i mean it's what disconnects us if anything exactly

That is the word that I would say. You know, if you go and read the yoga literature, and I'm particularly drawn to the US, the American westernized yoga literature, it totally trumps. It doesn't totally trump. It adds significantly to the misrepresentation that's been passed on. Here's what it says.

You are a vessel that can completely receive love and completely be nonjudgmental, but you kind of mess it up. You have worries, concerns, greed. You have anger. You have all these very human monkey kind of wolf kind of things. And it builds up and it blocks that perfection that you could be.

So what you judge is the difference between what you know is the perfect perfection, because that is the source, is the word that you said. I know what the source is. I know what perfection is. I know it on some deep level, and I know I'm not there. I know I'm not there. But you are connected. That is the essence of judge.

God, how did I do that? Oh, I want to be in connection with that pure source love. I want to be there. Why can't I? Oh, I did that. Oh, I did that. Oh, I did that. Many people are so stuck in their ego that they're not even conscious of thoughts like that. You are now projecting your own truth-seeking or

source longing onto others. Yeah, of course, many people do that, but there are people who are completely lost in the darkness. And I believe maybe there is a correlation then with that they are the most judgmental of us all. I think there is a relationship between the more unconditionally you love and the

the better person you are. Of course, these things go hand in hand. And then the other thing has to happen too, that the less you seek truth, the less you seek to be connected, the more you are a judgmental person. Maybe to yourself, not just to others, but judging, judging, judging. I think that comes from the ego, whereas the unconditional thing comes from love. Now, if you go back to the Gospels,

They didn't take that out of the gospel, the message of Jesus, which was love.

And so I think we can forgive them that not everything is historically correct. If their agenda was to knock into our skulls that the reason we are here is not anything else, then this is what your consciousness has to take out of this story. Love, love, love, love. If I have to conjure some poor Jew on a cross for that to happen, I'll do it. You know what I mean? That's the idea of how they were writing back in the day.

And it was okay. Well, let me throw something else on the table. I'm really interested to hear your thought on this because it's flipping back to the conspiratorial

I would suggest and suspect that the reason that they did that, the reason they left the most important, essential, fundamental truth in there. I know where you're going. And I agree. They didn't say it. They didn't say it. They weren't there. So they were like, no, let's just do the scheming and let's do this conquering and having more and, you know, kicking ass. And they left the most important thing untouched.

Because they didn't understand it. Or because they thought it could serve their purpose of, you know, what's better with the masses walking around in love to control them, right? In some ways, what we're saying is completely compatible, right? Because if I believe as the Satanist

That it's not, there is no real God. It's just kind of a fight, you know, scratch and, you know, fight, claw, tooth and nail kind of thing. Then it's like, there's nothing more. So this, this love thing can't really. Yeah.

Yeah, this stupid love thing can't really throw it to them. It seems to, they seem to feed on it. Yeah, throw them that. That's fine. Not realizing. You've just given them the keys to the kingdom. Yeah, we actually, it was the best nutrition we could get. That's why we're feeding on it. Exactly. But no, yeah, okay. So in conclusion, we have to wrap up

within 10, 12 minutes here. So in conclusion, I think it's fair to conclude that no matter what has gone down in history, there has been agendas from the powers that be that is not out of the place of love, but I would say our place of control.

And then there's the eternal quest of mankind, of being a human being, which is what can I extract? What can my consciousness extract from this experience or from others' experiences? And in that out view, it's not that important that this thing really happened. If you really can extract some useful out of it,

You can be a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, especially if your intellectual level matches that. It won't suit someone who is much more... It will never suit a guy like you, an inquisitive, mentally inquisitive person. But it may suit someone who is emotionally developed,

but not intellectually developed. And I think at the end of the day, you know, everybody thinks, everybody treats intelligent people and knowledgeable people as something special, like gurus almost, right?

But at the end of the day, when we pass the lake of fire, you know, knock on St. Peter's door, whatever you will, whatever archtop you will go with, when the ferryman is bringing us over to the other side, they don't give a damn how much data we have stuffed into our head, right? What did you do with that dog is more important. And so, you know, the last can be the first. I think what you just said,

resonates with me on such a deep and profound level. I am stunned that we came to the same conclusion. And let me make sure I don't bury the lead. Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. This has been for the last few months, you know, I've put another pause on the Skeptico play button because I had to face that.

That I'm battling with people about stuff that doesn't matter. Exactly. What does matter is you and I knowing more, sharing more,

And it expanding us in a way that allows us to do all these things that we said we want to do in terms of being more connected to the source. That's what matters. It matters if it can help you connect to the source. Then it matters. Well, it matters. It matters. Yeah, I agree with you. It matters if you allow it to, because it can. We know it can. You know it.

It can. I know it can. I don't always allow it to, but I don't want to bury the lead. I think on a very, very deep level, I so agree with you in a way that I never saw before. And that's that if you're a good Christian, that's awesome. That is not just okay. It's like awesome.

Because like we said, you got the gist of it right there. And when you go through the whole thing, your soul journey, you're going to get a standing O on the other side, a standing ovation. They're going to go, freaking way to go, man. You helped so many people. You expanded your love. You built a beautiful...

And the next guy walks through the door and he's a Mormon and he, you know, did all this crazy stuff. And they go, hey, standing ovation for you two. Way to go. You were born into that religion. You found a way to do it. You went down there to Peru and taught those kids how to...

Fantastic. Standing ovation for you, too. Not the opposite of what I the path I've been on at Skeptical. How can you be so when the materialist goes through there, you know, or the professor, the professor goes through there. Oh, I'm full of knowledge. Yes. And Neil Neil deGrasse Tyson goes through there. Yeah. Yeah.

And he says, I was afraid of death. He gets a standing ovation. Fantastic, Neil. Neil deGrasse Tyson. He gets a standing ovation. Nothing but love because it's all the same thing. It's the only judgment Neil can do is now have an expanded understanding and he can see the holes in his thing. But as you said to capture your words.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that he was wrong. What matters is he was on a journey with his soul and he took his soul where he took it and he still gets the standing O. Everything.

Everybody gets the standing after the noise is removed. That's when he gets his standing. Exactly. And if it, you know, to kind of quote another Christian thing that kind of drives us crazy is, you know, if you repent at the last minute, you know, you'll be redeemed and led into heaven. All these crazy Christian ideas that then kind of make sense. Right. Because if at the neck, if at the last minute, Neil got the download, right.

that's okay too hey buddy sorry it took you to the lesson you still get a standing oh cause neil for god's sake you got the download now you get it the noise has been has been removed congratulations good job hallelujah and amen can i have an amen alex six minutes to go um what's going on with skeptical

I'm trying to suck you into the next step. There is this level .50 now, I guess. I don't know. But there's this... You lost count. In this space of it doesn't matter, that's where I want to live. It doesn't matter. It's all okay.

So if you saw Jesus in his sandals, I might not see it that way. I might not like the evidence for the historical Jesus, but it doesn't matter. What can I learn from you? How can I know more about what you're about, about what you experienced, and how can it nudge me closer to the source? Well, you're a mystic. This is mysticism.

And it's a fourth. You know, materialism is one thing. Magic paradigm is something else. Religion is a third. And mysticism is a fourth. And that's where you found home. For now, I would say. I know you enough to say for now. Your journey isn't over. But you said you put a pause on the break. So are you planning to take it to another level then?

I'm being just super sincere when I tell you that the dialogue that we've just had is super meaningful to me. And the one part that I'd pick out that resonates with me on a level that I can't totally understand how it happens, when you say it doesn't matter, that has become such a pivot point for me recently. I've done hundreds of shows as if it matters.

And now I'm having to really, really, really settle into an understanding that it doesn't matter. And I still want to know more. It doesn't matter, but I still want to know more. So it means I can't go back and do what I've done in the past. I can't do it that way.

I have to find a new way to do it. And that's what I'm working on. Your last show was with Riz, and it's all the way back in July, actually. Wow. Well, you don't have the... I have other shows that I've recorded that I couldn't even put out because I wasn't sure that the voice was really...

who I am anymore. But one show that I am going to put out, because I think it's incredibly important, is a show on the Rendlesham Forest case and the work that's been done by Gary Heseltine, which is just phenomenal. But I just can't, I so appreciate this dialogue and I so appreciate how we find a way to go forward and at the same time, stay true to the idea that it doesn't matter.

But we're going to have, hopefully, an end of the year show, right? In December? No reason not to. Absolutely. Good. Good. Because then there's no time now, but I'd like your take on the recent, on the ongoing UFO disclosure stuff. Don't start talking about it now. We don't have time. But maybe we can touch that a little in the summing up of the year. Because the UFO thing is big these days. And

I've had six UFO shows. More, actually, if you count part one, part two, part three. Yeah, you just don't put them out. There are. Some of them are already out. But I swear, listeners, next year I'm going to follow the

the survey we did it turns out that the most popular subject my listeners prefer is history based and also stuff like mysticism esotericism knights templars all that stuff so today we gave them a little bit of both a little history in part one and some philosophy in part two

By the way, I've lifted from you. I don't know if you've noticed, but I usually before most of the years, I just started

And that's it. I didn't give I didn't care about, you know, trying to tease the listeners or make them. I expected too much of them. And then I realized, damn, I have to I have to have an intro. Right. So I've started to do the same as you. I'm playing. I'm even so shameless that I stole your whip. You know, that fast forward button. I just took it from your shows.

So now I have like teaser things. I love it. I love it. I think the clips help me, you know, I mean, they help me listen to your show and know what's coming up. Yeah. Is this for me or not? Because now in my mind, my mind is working. Okay. How is that clip going to factor in? When is he going to get there? How is he heading towards that? Or like I often do. Ah, there's the clip. There's the clip. Yes. I've heard this before. Yeah.

I occasionally have taken, also played like a movie thing. Miguel, you and Gordon are big on starting with movies.

uh i've done that just an occasion not all the shows you know some shows have like big endorphin spiking sections right yeah whereas others are more flat they're high but they're more flat and those shows right there i prefer something else like from a movie for example yes yes yes yeah not hype it too much

okay man i guess it's time for me to get some real food in my body and is the open hammer worth watching yeah yeah because i have scheduled a movie i mean yeah yeah it is okay i'll do that all right okay i'll contact you later for end of the air show thanks for coming on and sparing with me again bro you bet bro such a such a joy such a pleasure always

So far today. Now, I'm gonna say a few words about the question of Jesus, but first let me try to calm down anyone who may be provoked on my behalf. I've read some comments before when me and Alex have hashed things out that some people don't appreciate. Occasional, rude way he displays his disagreements.

Look, if I'm not upset, there's no reason for you to get upset. Besides, if you listen closely, Alex is always on the subject. He doesn't attack people personally. That's when there's grounds to be upset. He sticks to the subject matter. And I said it before, and I'm repeating it, disagreements are healthy.

First of all, we don't have to agree about everything in life. What do we want? Robots? Transhumanist robots with no personal opinion? In all actuality, no two people 100% agrees about everything. It's, per definition, impossible. But beyond that...

When people have disagreements, if they are professional, if it's not childish emotions where you want to be right, etc. If you actually are a truth seeker, truth seekers should appreciate disagreements. We hash it out. Maybe we come to a higher understanding on some errors. Others, we have to agree to disagree. But, you know, a philosopher originally means someone who alleviates differences, right?

In other words, if you are a truth seeker, it means that there can only be one truth. And if two people have two different opinions about an issue, either both of them are wrong or both of them are partly wrong or one of them is wrong or one of them is partly wrong. And the only way to find out is to keep on the truth quest. But as a part of that discipline to get to the bottom of things, you can hash it out with other people.

And you or both or the other will be better off for it. You will come closer to a realization. And that kind of dialectic, me and Alex does all the time and I love it. And I think it's more important to agree about the goal. For example, if we both agree that we seek the truth, then differences of opinion on that way, because none of us are divine and illuminated and know everything, right? So any differences on that way should be

discovered and hashed out as much as possible. So if we are really truth seekers, that's the commonality. That's the agreement we have to have that we want to know the truth. And also values are good. If someone appreciates peace and love, which basically is the message of Jesus and all avatars, then differences of opinion...

is inferior to that because you agree about values this is why it's so childish in politics for example left right oh i'm on different team no if there's a truth seeker who appreciates peace and love on the left and a truth seeker who appreciates peace and love on the right those have more in common than uh they're the other people on those wings same if let's say you're a palestinian and a jew

If you appreciate peace and love, you have more in common than other Palestinians or Jews who are full of hate, and so on and so forth. This is the difference between exoteric and esoteric levels of insight.

And the exoteric is always the inferior. It's the outer. It's the illusions. It's the confusion of matter or the Maya of Mara. As they say in India, the Mara is matter and her sister Maya is illusion. So let's appreciate the differences of opinion. But even so, I think we managed to get to more or less the same place. I'm not sure about this judging thing. I'm of the view that

The ego judging we do all the time, that's not identical to the final judgment during death. Because that judgment is divine.

And the judging isn't you or your value. You're a bad person. No, you're going to be punished. It's an evaluation of your task. How well did you do what you came to do? And, you know, because we tried in every moment of our life, but some moments are more crucial than others. And you all know this yourself from your own lives.

You all have moments where you are proud of your choice. Maybe you choice the right thing despite the cost. That's what's really valuable because that's when you prove your principle, your conviction, your ideal, your values, rather than when you're immediately rewarded and gratified for the right choice. Or where you betrayed yourself and your values and your ideals and you made a wrong choice. But of course, the ego tries to cloak over that.

oh he had it coming the other one had it coming so they tried to justify whatever they did wrong

But anyway, that's a minor point. In the big picture, it's about consciousness. And although I think Alex uses too big a brush when he says everything is consciousness and everything is God and everything derives from it. Yeah, at the end of the day, I agree. But in the process of creation, you know, in the emanation from the source to the manifestations of everything, there are distinctions between

if there weren't distinctions we wouldn't be living in this world everything would be light and i've said it before and i repeat it again the philosophical point that complete light is identical to complete darkness we wouldn't be able to see the difference so we have to exist in these worlds of shades this dualist this this curse of polarization that's how we can

That's how there can be differences. And because of those differences, there is choice. And because of that, we can try to find a way home. And as these layers of mud is being removed, we become purer and we become more light and we become more one. And of course, the death pump.

we're immediately back to the source. There is the question, do I keep my personality? If you do, if you have an identity and that's kept after death, it means you're not completely fused with the source. So in the reincarnation scheme, it means that you are, the coarsest parts of you is removed and then you throw back in the loop again.

But ultimately, if we are going home, ultimately everything will be removed. So in some ways, death is real. Because when everything is removed and you're just a drop of water again, joining the big ocean, you melt into the wholeness. And so there is no identity anymore. And the ceasing of the identity is what's called death. Of course, your life force, your very existence, your innermost essence cannot die.

It's a part of everything. But these layers of noise, they are removed and that's what we call death. That's what the ego perceives as death, which is why the ego fears death, because the ego will be removed during death, which is why all avatars, all great enlightened beings fear

admonishes us to identify not with the ego but the higher self because then there will be ipso facto no death. But if you identify with the ego, death will be terrible and something to be feared. Thank God it's a slow process. In some cultures and traditions and religions they burn people, bam, which I think is a violation. It's a rape of the soul because we need a gradual change.

Natural burial is the optimal, in my view, because then we have time to go through that death process, which is at least as complicated as the birth process. And it can be more harmonious rather than being thrown into, you know, being traumatized by the fire and go straight into oblivion and then cast back into life means we are doomed to repeat and repeat and repeat with minimal memory.

But if we can, I'm not recommending as extreme as the Egyptians, for example, they mummified. They weren't even pleased with just the natural dissolvement of the body. They tried to preserve it as much as possible. But you have to go through different deaths. The first is the physical death.

From earth your body came and back to earth it shall go. And then you have the psychological death, which is symbolized not by earth, but by the moon. And the third is the spiritual, and that belongs to the sun. But this is a different, another issue. I'll not go deeper into this. What I want to talk about is Jesus, because I've been inspired from the show today to have shows about Jesus.

Because Alex made a big point of he doesn't seem, he seems to be doubtful about the historical Jesus. I guess he's influenced by talks with Dr. Atwell and others. It's a common belief out there. Now, I'm on a completely different opinion. And I think he's historical. And I think not only is he historical, but he was also a spiritual being like Buddha and many other avatars on Earth.

And the reason I think this, and I'm, you know, I wasn't there. If I get the time machine, that's probably going to be on my top five to find out. But it's the evidence. And of course, evidence then means you have to go beyond the gospels. If you only stick to the gospels, it's belief more than evidence, which is fine, which is fine.

But if you want a more scientific take, then look at the evidence. And the evidence is abundant, even though they have destroyed so much and still destroying. I recommend to everyone the Jesus Papers by Michael Bagant. The subtitle is a critical look at the history of Christianity.

And the first chapter and the introduction about hidden documents is really eye-opening. But go through the entire, it's the best book he ever did. Much better than these Templar books, the Merovingians, etc. Unfortunately, he left us, but he left behind this treasure of a book.

Another book I recommend is the original Jesus, The Buddhist Sources of Christianity by Elmer Gruber and Holger Kirsten. Now, these two scholars did a great job. They seem to think that Christianity derives from Buddhism, which is one plausible explanation. I think the Codex Linda Ora, whatever it's called, says something similar. But they think the Therapeutic, which Jesus was brought up by,

Comes from the Theravada school of Buddhism. Now, at first glance, it may seem outrageous, but the Silk Road and there was close connections between India and the Middle East back in the day. So it's completely possible there were Buddhist preachers in Judea. So, but I disagree. I think the Theraputa was Pythagoreans. All evidence points to that. They were a Jewish version of the Pythagorean. I think they were a part of the Essenes, actually.

which we also know Jesus was initiated into. And the Therapeutas, there's so many similarities. They were vegetarians. They dressed in white linen, just like the Pythagoreans. They were concerned with healing, just like the Pythagoreans, which is probably where Jesus picked up a couple of tricks. So I do take issue with them that they were Theravadas. But nonetheless, it's a very good book to go deeper into.

The Roots of Both Jesus and Christianity. I'll read for you the description. This startling book will fan the flames of the controversy among scholars and theologians about the origins of Christianity. The original Jesus offers convincing proof of extensive Buddhist influence on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Its thought-provoking claim is that Jesus was brought up by the Theroputa, missionaries to the Bible lands from the Theravada school of Buddhism, and that his spiritual development was continued by the Buddhist-influenced Essenes and Mandeans. Mandeans still exist. The Essenes have died out, unfortunately. I think the Dead Sea Scrolls comes from the Essenes.

In a detailed compulsion, it reveals unarguably close parallels between early Buddhist text and the Q material. Jesus' pithy aphorisms recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are now considered to be his unadulterated and authentic words. To enforce the claim yet further, this compelling book traces the extensive penetration of Indian cultures and ideas into the Bible lands up to

Up to the Time of Jesus, analyzing the exchange of trade, myths, fables, philosophical systems and religious ideas. But these good doctors stick to, I think, only Buddhist material. My really favorite book about this, and it's not the only book that I think is the best one so far. I bought it in India. It's unfortunately very hard to get. It's called A Search for the Historical Jesus by Professor Fida Hasnain.

If you can get this book, get it. But it's the only book I know that is drawing from every possible source. No discrimination. Looks at everything. First, you have, of course, secular sources that indicates his existence. Of course, Josephus, but there are others too. Tacitus is another. Mishnah is also another. And Philo is another secular source.

And then you have the abundance of Christian sources. Of course, we have the mainstream stuff, the Pauline epistles and synoptic gospels. But there are actually, remember, 325 years after the fact is when they compiled the Bible.

There was no such thing as the Bible before that. Bible means holy book, and everyone had their own version of the holy documents about the origins of their religion, their version of Christianity. And political concerns, those in power in 325, in Nikea, in Turkey, is who determined this is the accepted writings. They couldn't even agree about that. If you look at all the big religions, they all have some in common. Of course, monotheism,

most important. And then they have their own versions of, no, this is also canonic, but this is not. So they accept different pseudepigraphs and apocryphs, like the, let's take the big ones, the Anglicans accept some that wasn't accepted in, let's say, the Catholics or the Orthodox. The Orthodox accept some that isn't accepted by the Catholic and Anglicans. The

The Catholics accept some that isn't accepted by the Orthodox and the Anglicans. I'm just taking these threes as an example. There's tons of other old denominations that could come into the mix. The most interesting, I think, are the Eastern stuff, you know, in the Aramaic church, the Ethiopian church, the old stuff, closer to the source, more original denominations.

I can't believe that anyone would follow a modern day preacher, evangelic. That's not Christianity. It's not even Paulism, actually. It's some modern thing from that person. So if you really want to go to the bottom of it, you have to go to the roots. Now, my point is then that there's tons of Christian sources, Christian in the meaning these were used by old original Christians, but didn't make it into the Bible.

Contrary to popular beliefs, such documents aren't necessarily condemned by any or either church. The only difference is they think it's not canonical. In other words, it's not approved as the word of God or whatever is the excuse. But still, they can be useful and give us some insight into the matter, is the thinking. So, if you are really concerned about

Christianity, and I want to go to the bottom of it. You have to look at those documents, but there's much more. Then there is the historiographical approach, which is a particular way to determine things from the available sources. But then there are the oral traditions, which were abundant sources.

In fact, originally, oral relation was the primary way a religion functioned, more than written documents. Nobody could read and write, so that was a luxury. I'm saying nobody as an exaggeration. But not only because of that, there's different reasons why oral was superior. I'll not go into that now. This will be too long of an account.

And of course the church fathers had access to sources now lost to us, especially before they compiled the Bible. So there's things to be gleaned by later descriptions and writings by people who actually had access to sources now lost, like the church fathers. Then you have Jewish and Roman sources.

like rabbinic tradition and I mentioned Josephus and Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, I'm probably butchering the pronunciations. And in addition to those kind of sources, there are sources from other religions about Jesus, believe it or not. Muslims have their own accounts. Now you may say, okay, Muslims came later, but

Some of the documents they swear to are not later. And don't forget, it looks as if Islam started out as a Christian sect. That's a huge issue in itself. Maybe we'll explore it in another show. Certainly not a popular belief among Muslims, nor Christians, I think. But we have to go where the fact indicates. Then you have Buddhists.

And Sanskrit sources, which are abundant. And, you know, I call the modern Christianity Paulism. That's what it should be called, because they all agree about Paul's approach. But then there are disagreements, of course. But if you go back to the original Christianity, the disagreements were much bigger. For example, well, even today, the Orthodox Church, which is huge, I think it's the second biggest, maybe third biggest,

But they don't agree with the Catholics about the divinity of Jesus, for example. But if you go back to older versions before Nikea, then you have tons of Christian sects who didn't even believe Jesus was crucified.

And Alex thinks that's the big. I agree. Paulism. You cannot be a Paulite Christian if you reject the crucifixion. But then that's not easy either, because what about those who think he was crucified, but he didn't really die on the cross? He survived it.

And then I mean survive not as in resurrection, but as in clinging on to life. They would still believe in the crucifixion, but not in the way. So it's not as simple as at first glance. And there are Christians who believed Jesus was a human being, not God. And even the son of God, other than that everyone is son of God. But that he was a prophet or that he was...

You know, the most advanced illuminated being, like an Enoch becoming a Metatron. So there are those versions. Now, among the early Christians that either reject the crucifixion or that he died on the cross or that emphasizes that he was a human.

would be the Nazarenes, the Ebionites, the Serentians, to name some, and of course, almost all the different Gnostic churches. And Muslims, of course, believe that he didn't die on the cross. And like I said, they were an early Christian sect. But even in modern times, we have...

We have groups like Christian Science, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witness, who also hold similar views. You also have specific documents addressing this, like the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Barnabas, who rejects the crucifixion.

Now, when it comes to Christianity, I'm not a Paulite. I'm more identifying with James the Just or James, brother of the Lord. Of course, James is an anglification. His real name was Jacobus or Yaakov, depending on which language we go by. Can be anglicized as Jacob, but he was the first leader of the first church, the Jerusalem church. And

and unfortunately was martyred in, I think, 69 after Christ by the Pharisees. So Alex makes a big point, oh, the Jews killed Jesus. Well, apparently they killed his brother too. And that's the big tragedy, because if the original Christians, which all the relatives of Jesus, his sisters and brothers were in, had survived,

then I don't think Paul could have hijacked the entire thing. And even if Paul had good intentions and was sincere, he was still at odds with James the Just and the original Christians because they were not of the same use, not just theologically, but also organisatorically. Now, one would think those who were closest to Jesus were closer to the truth, right? Than someone who interprets it.

And there's so many indications that Jesus maintained the mystery school aspect of his own version, his own practice. You can't call it Christian. They didn't call it Christianity. Jesus wasn't a Christian. I mean, if Jesus was the Christ, then Christians are the followers of the Christ. So everyone after Christ.

But he seems to have maintained the mystery school aspect. You can see it in many different indications of it. First off, the Bible says, the canonical gospels say that he spoke in metaphors to the masses and directly to the disciples. In other words, the disciples were the initiates. They got the real stuff.

Whereas the masses got the watered down stuff that they could digest and handle. That's according to all practice back in the day. Same happened in Egypt, etc. It's nothing radical with that. So that indicates that there are levels here. Levels of initiation, levels of insight. And then you have the... If you go to some of the Apocrypha,

Is it in the Gospel of Philip where he reveals that Mary Magdalene was closer to... she learned like after Jesus was gone? Peter was a jealous guy. I think Peter was only his bodyguard. So it's a tragedy that you have the Church of Peter in Rome following that brute. But anyway, he was jealous, of course. He was not very... he was not exactly a feminist.

And he wanted to browbeat the secrets out of Mary. He was jealous that she knew stuff that the others weren't privy to.

So that's one example that she was more initiated, apparently, at least than Peter. Then you have the fact that the Gospel of Thomas reveals the secret words. In other words, that fragment conveys some of the higher level truths that Jesus taught, which is very apparent, too, because it's not concerned with historicity. It's mostly concerned with the philosophy and history.

ideas that Jesus talked about. And there are other Gospels like that too. So we see here levels of insight, levels of... And this, I think, was preserved by the first church under James, who certainly must have been the most closest to Yehoshua or Jesus because he was appointed to become his successor.

And so back to the book I talked about, A Search for the Historical Jesus, from apocryphal, Buddhist, Islamic and Sanskrit sources. It says, Millions of people have been brought up with the idea that Jesus' life mission ended with crucifixion to redeem our sins. This is becoming an untenable proposition. Professor Hasnain, a leading cross-cultural researcher of the life of Jesus, presents another story.

Jesus came to teach the known world, not just the Roman Empire. Professor Hasnain has uncovered manuscripts and evidence to demonstrate that.

The secretive, Essene order raised and protected Jesus. Jesus' missing youth was spent in Persia and India. Many obscured gospels reveal that Jesus' work was backed by Essene operations involving far more than 12 male apostles. Jesus survived the cross in an undercover operation which fooled many. Jesus ministered to Jews in Persia, Afghanistan, India and Central Asia with Thomas and Simon Peter.

Moses, Jesus and Mother Mary were buried in Kashmir amongst people of Jewish faith and origins. The church in the West over centuries has gone to great lengths to remove evidence of this to strengthen its position as the representative of Christ on earth. Citing many historical sources, Professor Hasnain himself a Sufi respectfully questions what we may have been taught and argues that Jesus was a greater man than we realize.

So I'm inspired. And this book was first published in 94. I don't know if this chap is alive anymore or even how to get hold of him. This home country Kashmir is in shambles. But what I will do, because this book is so hard to get, I'm inspired to read it into an audiobook.

and share it with subscribers of our website as a bonus thing. It will be a long-term project. It's 250 pages. It's not done overnight. But I will do that. And those who are interested in can check it out for themselves. I'll read the contents for you. First is the introduction and one Kashmir and the Hebrews.

Kashmir, Kasaites, the dispersion of the Jews, Beni Israel in Kashmir, Greeks and Kushans, recent history. 2. Ladakh, land of the Buddha, Leh, the Moravian mission church. 3. The legion of Jesus in Ladakh, Notovitch, the scroll's verified suppression.

4. What the lamas knew about Issa, which is what Jesus is calling many languages, including in Islam. 5. The birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary, virgin birth, the Essene version, the date of Jesus' birth, the wise man. 6. Jesus' childhood, the Buddhist version, Jesus in Egypt, youth, initiation. 7. The early travels of Jesus, Jesus' first journey to India, Yaganath and Varanasi. Ha, I've been in Varanasi.

Jesus amongst the Buddhists return westwards. Jesus arrives in Persia. 8, Jesus' initiation. Jesus back in Egypt, Greece, Britain. Ah, Britain. And that's where the Celtic Church come in. And you've heard me talk about the Celtic Church in other shows. Too bad it got crushed. I'd love to see their documents because they were started, according to themselves, when Jesus visited Britain. So before the crucifixion.

And as you also know, and I hope to have a show about that, Scandinavia was Christian when we went from Norse to Christianity. It was to the Celtic Church. And we were the last bastion of the Celtic Church. Even after it was crushed in the British Isles, it lingered on here. Nine, Jesus' ministry in Israel. John the Baptist, Jesus the teacher. Copernam, Martha and Mary Magdalene.

10. The Essenes and the early Christianity.

Canaanites and Hebrews, the sects of Israel, Essenes, sources on the Essenes, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Testament of the Twelve, Patriarchs, the Crucifixion by an Eyewitness, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ. 11. The Crucifixion, Jerusalem, Trial and Crucifixion, when was the Crucifixion, Golgotha, Passion. 12. The Turin Shroud, History of the Shroud, Doctors and Scientists,

The Baba's impression. 13. Resurrection. The Hindu version of the crucifixion. The Essene version. Jesus healed. Life after death. The resurrection story. 14. Parthia. Paul. The apostolate. Necessary exile. Persia. Sources. 15. India. Thomas. The apostle of India. Taxila. Christians of St. Thomas. Simon Peter in India. Mother Mary lies at Muri. Later Indian Christianity. 16.

16. Hasrat Issa the Prophet, Islamic historians, Jesus' names, the Holy Quorum, Masih, Hindustan, Maine. 17. Rosabel, the tomb of Yusuf Asaf, the decree of 1194 AH, footprints of Jesus Christ, Barlam and Yusufat, the London Conference, 1978. 18. Back in Kashmir, the dispersion of the Jewish tribes,

Bhavishya Mahapurana, Rajatarrangini of Kalhana, the end of Christianity in Kashmir, Muslims of Issa. 19. Writings of the Mullahs, Persian records of Yusuf Asaf in Kashmir. Takat Sulaiman, corroborations, the sermons of Yusuf Asaf.

buddhism and christianity in search of buddhist scrolls early christian relics a review of christian sources texts rejected by the church dead sea scrolls twenty one uses passing on and then there's bibliography chronology that chronology is interesting

Because it's building on all these different sources that he includes. And you get a very, actually a very coherent picture, which is kind of confirmation, right? And very fitting chronology, filling in all the blanks of the missing years.

and something called Rosubal Restored, author's biography and index. So this book, dear listeners, I will share with you the contents and you make out of it what you want. Remember, he's using sources. So even if some sources are wrong, others are bound to be right. And yeah, you make up your mind instead of having to listen to middlemen who determine this for you. That's the idea.

And there should really be much more studies like this. We should like have everything. I wish there was a database collecting every word of Jesus from, you know, the first documents available to, I don't know how far up we should go, maybe 500 after Christ. I think after that, it's kind of too, yeah, up to when they collected the Bible, maybe.

But the problem is they suppress these things. Read the first chapter of the Jesus papers of Michael Bagant. They burn it. They destroy it. They fear it. It's not like a fair investigation here where we want to know the truth. There's agendas. I want to be right. And things are destroyed. And that's such a tragedy. Such a tragedy for mankind, for enlightenment, for intellectual honesty and integrity, for anyone seeking the truth.

If you just feed parts of a story, it's akin to a lie. So, no, I want to get to the bottom of this. I'm convinced he existed. I'm convinced he was a very special person who did leave deep traces on the contemporaries and resonating into today. But, of course, the later versions distort and you get more and more removed from what really happened. So,

And I'm not condemning that people can have the faith they want. But if you want to not put your heart into it, if you want to put your head into it too and understand what really happened, then you should investigate all sources. However, when we die, I don't think it's too important, like Alex made a point of.

Full applause, no matter how deep or superficial you went into that matter. Because in eternity, this is but a grain of sand in the Sahara desert. Okay, another episode concluded. Hope you enjoyed. Thanks for listening. I've been your host, Al, because of my team and your support. Leaving you with a Jesus quote according to the Gospel of Thomas.

Who is number one?