YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Grzegorz Hoppe jeszcze NIGDY tego nie powiedział! | Globalny chaos, Lęk, Ego, Świadomość Jedni

Grzegorz Hoppe jeszcze NIGDY tego nie powiedział! | Globalny chaos, Lęk, Ego, Świadomość Jedni — Transcript

by Monika Cichocka · 8,444 words · 1,530 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Everyone, absolutely everyone is
0:02lifeless. They are walking dead.
0:04In truth, all people are ontological
0:07corpses.
0:09The only ontological life is
0:10consciousness.
0:12A bio-automaton chooses nothing; it only
0:15follows a set script.
0:19And this bio-automaton has no chance at
0:21all of truly knowing the whole.
0:23It does not decide its own actions. It
0:26simply executes a script.
0:30Does it make any difference to presence
0:32whether someone writes treatises on
0:34oneness, like you, Grzegorz, or gets
0:36drunk and sticks a finger into filth?
0:41This is written worse. I copied this
0:43down.
0:45>> Do these two experiences carry the same
0:47weight for the causeless source?
0:49>> Yes, honestly. Yes.
0:51>> Yes.
0:52There is no mistake for
0:56>> impersonal.
0:57consciousness.
0:59All experiences have the same cognitive
1:01value.
1:04Since you see your thoughts, since you
1:06see your body, since you observe all of
1:08this, you are not it.
1:11And if you are not it, it means you
1:13don't have to fight it.
1:15Only when you understand this does it
1:17start to disappear on its own.
1:21>> Welcome, my dear little streams.
1:26Today, one of your favorite speakers,
1:29who provides a veritable interpretation
1:31of reality and unreality, one might say
1:33.
1:35With me is Grzegorz Hoppe.
1:40Currently a very frequent guest on
1:42podcasts much larger than mine, so I
1:44hope today we can discuss topics you
1:46didn't leave for those podcasts.
1:50Hello Monika.
1:52Hello to everyone who decided to watch
1:54us today.
1:56Will we be able to talk about topics I
1:58haven't covered? Probably so.
2:02And I hope we will touch upon something
2:04that will continue to be a great
2:05inspiration.
2:10I think you are a great inspiration in
2:12general, unexpected, and for some hard
2:14to digest, because suddenly it turns out
2:17they are unable to read
2:22what you are essentially saying. They
2:23suspect your ego performances.
2:26Would you like to address that?
2:30>> I can address that, although I've said
2:33it before, but I'll say it again: I am
2:35not speaking to minds.
2:39I am speaking to consciousness, and I
2:41have
2:45the full conviction that the mind will
2:46not understand me.
2:49It is impossible.
2:51I will add what I have always said.
2:53The mind is only and exclusively an
2:55algorithm, an algorithmic mechanism.
2:58What truly understands is consciousness
3:01.
3:06So perhaps that is why those who flaunt
3:08in various comments—because I’m not
3:10talking about our stream, but I do read
3:12various comments on other channels—
3:14flaunt contempt.
3:22Perhaps they haven't noticed that
3:24Grzegorz has placed himself in the rank
3:26of a transmitter of a certain idea,
3:28which he develops using the tools that
3:30consciousness uses in the case of
3:32Grzegorz Hoppe.
3:36>> Yes, that is true.
3:41From the very beginning, I have tried to
3:43convey to everyone that what I am
3:45talking about is not what Grzegorz Hoppe
3:47, that is, the human body, is saying,
3:49but what pure consciousness is saying
3:51through this human body.
4:04I would like to emphasize at this point
4:06that everything I say and call truth
4:08from the perspective I use is not the
4:09truth of this mind, but the truth that
4:11consciousness conveys at this moment
4:13through this mind.
4:22That's how it suited it.
4:25I refer to the one who conveys it, I
4:27assign it a masculine gender, although
4:29it is a murmur, in my view.
4:32However, you know, here on the stream
4:36I am very proud of this.
4:38Viewers ask you questions, this is
4:40unique on the scale of the internet.
4:43Perhaps because you have been with us
4:44for so long.
4:46Perhaps because people listen to what
4:48you have to say from the first episode.
4:54meaning they keep the sequence and there
4:56are no surprises here, although there
4:58are other cases too, but today I would
5:00like to also refer a bit to the meaning
5:02, because of the questions that don't
5:04sound literal, which just appeared at
5:05this moment.
5:10I believe it's no coincidence that they
5:12appeared at this moment, because these
5:14are fresh questions that appeared under
5:15the last three episodes with you.
5:19We will rely on them a little, because
5:21perhaps they are a reflection of what
5:23should be clarified so that what you
5:25have to say carries further.
5:28And that is what you care about.
5:30>> Yes, great.
5:32You said that consciousness is like a
5:34mom, dad, and I will say this:
5:36consciousness is like impersonality and
5:39that is the most important thing.
5:46And because many times in your other
5:48podcasts the issue of freedom comes up,
5:51I would like to say clearly that the
5:53only freedom, the true freedom, is
5:55freedom from personality.
6:01There is no other freedom.
6:05As long as anyone says that they are a
6:07personality, they are a slave.
6:12>> Exactly.
6:14Listen, I think that many of these
6:16questions that
6:19served as the construct of this series,
6:22let's say, because as I have already
6:23noted, they are not literal,
6:27are a misunderstanding of this
6:32this differentiation of yours here, well
6:35, not yours, but this assumption, right
6:37?
6:40um, what is it that speaks and what is
6:43it that listens and executes.
6:46Yes, that separation, that boundary,
6:48that point of contact. If you would like
6:51to, um, address this, so
6:53>> more simply. Yes,
6:54>> fine. Very simply.
6:56>> I will try as simply as possible,
6:58although it is impossible to speak about
7:00it simply.
7:02Firstly, what speaks, that is what
7:04conveys information, is pure
7:06consciousness.
7:08And I will add this, there is one
7:10consciousness in the universe.
7:15This consciousness has, I call them five
7:18"without" features, it is impersonal,
7:25causeless, timeless, unconditional, and
7:27dimensionless.
7:31Everything that is fits into this
7:33consciousness
7:35>> and it should be accepted indisputably.
7:39This is not something to be discussed.
7:43I call it primary memory.
7:50It means that at some point every human
7:53mind remembers, through coherence with
7:55that consciousness I mentioned, that
7:57this is an obvious truth which requires
7:59no proof.
8:05Because truth requires no proof.
8:07>> So the sensation of a dogma should occur
8:09. there is a feeling
8:13>> it is like a memory combined with
8:15knowing and feeling.
8:18>> Mhm.
8:20>> Or like a flash that appears at some
8:22point, that yes,
8:23>> that I always knew this,
8:25>> a photo,
8:25>> I feel it
8:27>> and I understand it
8:28>> and that's it.
8:29>> Like in a dream.
8:30>> Like in a dream. Exactly.
8:33And now you were asking what all this
8:35other stuff is, supposedly.
8:37So I will say this.
8:39I already said that there is one
8:41infinite consciousness, because that
8:43means dimensionless, infinite.
8:45And I will say this, everything,
8:47absolutely everything that
8:52we do not associate with consciousness
8:54is also consciousness.
8:57Consciousness has woven from itself what
8:59we call physical reality.
9:02Everything, all of this physicality, is
9:05also consciousness.
9:09Except that for simplicity, I say that
9:11this aspect of consciousness is
9:13unconscious of its existence.
9:21So, let's say a cup or a table is an
9:23aspect of consciousness that is not
9:25self-aware that it exists, and there is
9:28an aspect of consciousness that is
9:30self-aware that it exists and is the
9:32creator,
9:37>> the one who creates.
9:41But for the full picture, let's see it
9:43this way.
9:47Self-awareness of existence is infinite
9:49and is pure being.
9:52I simply call it I am.
9:54>> Mhm.
9:55And
10:03inside this consciousness exists that
10:05aspect of consciousness we call the
10:07physical universe, which does not know
10:09it exists, but is created from the same
10:11consciousness and it is a mechanism of
10:13functional intelligence, which is action
10:15.
10:23In this sense, let's notice that the
10:25human body is action, consciousness is
10:27existence.
10:32Consciousness is pure existence and
10:34needs nothing to create.
10:38It creates everything ex nihilo, in
10:40Latin it is exactly called creatio.
10:43Ex nihilo.
10:46>> But listen, does that mean, because you
10:48used the phrasing that it is, that it is
10:51created from consciousness, right?
10:54That it is created from it.
10:56Is consciousness in this approach you
10:58are currently talking about, because
11:00this is a specific aspect, right?
11:02Of this issue, is consciousness
11:04substantial in this view?
11:08you suspect
11:09>> substantial.
11:11I will say this: for me, physicality is
11:14ideas of the imagination of
11:16consciousness.
11:18Is an idea substantial,
11:20>> or is it some kind of condensed
11:22information field.
11:23>> Well, and now.
11:25Substantial in the sense that it is an
11:27information field.
11:30Yes, because even though I have said
11:32this before, I will say it again, there
11:34is no energy or matter.
11:37These are only constructs of the mind,
11:42>> which receives information through five
11:44very limited senses.
11:47And
11:49constructs appear in this mind, which it
11:53named, for example, matter, energy, time
11:56, distance, and so on, and so on.
12:01However, as many physicists also say,
12:04everything we have called
12:09physicality consists of information,
12:12that is, an information field.
12:17I also see it this way, that it is our
12:20imagination, which is created from an
12:22information field that is additionally
12:24quantized, which means that this
12:25information field has quanta of
12:27information.
12:31into quanta of information.
12:34Those who like computer science will
12:36know that the ones we use today are, for
12:39example, bits, meaning zeros and ones,
12:41but there are also qubits, which have
12:43four positions, and there could be even
12:46more.
12:50>> These quanta of information that I am
12:52talking about are even more perfect than
12:54those that we, as humanity, have created
12:57here for our own experience.
13:02They are
13:04such that they contain an even greater
13:06amount of information, that is, an even
13:08greater number of states.
13:11In addition, I will put it this way so
13:13that it is clear.
13:18The information field is an infinite
13:20potential of all possible states, which
13:23physics also talks about, because
13:24physics says that only the process, the
13:27process of observation, brings out a
13:29specific state of information.
13:37So, when the process of observing, for
13:39instance, the movement of an electron or
13:41a battery, as it was called, takes place
13:44, then we see either its wave nature or
13:46its corpuscular nature.
13:50Some have started to argue with that. Do
13:52you know about that?
13:53>> I do. I don't even want to discuss it at
13:55all, because for me, it is simply
13:57fiction anyway.
13:59All these human
14:01>> concepts are an illusion.
14:07These are simply illusions coming from
14:09those tiny minds that understand nothing
14:11, because they are only a part of one
14:13great information field, and being a
14:16part, a fragment of this field, they try
14:18to describe this field, which is, in
14:20fact, impossible.
14:27A great mathematician named Gödel also
14:29spoke about this.
14:32>> Mhm.
14:38He described, and actually proved a
14:40theorem, that using a certain set of
14:42axioms, one cannot prove the entirety of
14:44what we want to describe without taking
14:47into account higher-order axioms.
14:55And this fits too,
14:56>> it generally works like that, you know,
14:58that is why we cannot prove God.
15:02And it also fits with what I am saying,
15:04that this small mind, being an element
15:06of functional intelligence, will not
15:08describe anything more than the
15:10fragmentariness of the entire functional
15:12intelligence, that is, this information
15:15field, but it is never able to describe
15:17that which is superior, and what is
15:19superior is consciousness.
15:25So, only from the level of consciousness
15:27can we describe both consciousness
15:29itself and its imagination, that is,
15:32this information field.
15:36Any other perspective leads nowhere.
15:39So, does it mean that
15:48we should remain at this cognitive level
15:50where we are, or should we aspire to
15:52become more friendly with this
15:54impersonality and all these five things
15:56, because that is probably the hardest
15:58part, you know, in absorbing what you
16:00are talking about.
16:06>> True. That is true. And now Monika, you
16:08asked a question, whether we should—
16:10there is already a suggestion in that
16:13question,
16:15>> sorry,
16:17>> about who should do it?
16:19Yes,
16:20>> sorry, sorry.
16:24>> So I will say this, if you meant
16:26humanity in the subtext,
16:30>> Mhm.
16:31machines,
16:33>> then humanity, I will say, are
16:35bio-automata.
16:37>> I don’t think that was the humanity in
16:39question,
16:40>> which will never cross a certain level
16:42of cognition because it is impossible.
16:46A bio-automaton will never know its
16:48creator,
16:50>> so
16:53>> even if it tries to stage a coup against
16:55it, you know? Do
16:58you see, and here is the problem again,
17:00because for me, a bio-automaton has no
17:03choice—no real choice. Yes, it has the
17:05illusion of free will, which I also
17:07mentioned.
17:08>> We will have questions about that,
17:10>> so I will just note it briefly at this
17:11moment. A bio-automaton chooses nothing
17:14, but
17:16>> proceeds according to an established
17:18script, and this bio-automaton has no
17:20chance at all of attaining real
17:22knowledge of the whole.
17:24to decide on something, yes,
17:26>> but
17:27>> also about its actions.
17:28>> It does not decide on its actions; it
17:30simply carries out the script.
17:35But if the subtext of your question was
17:37whether we as consciousness can—uh—
17:40recall what I called the primal memory,
17:42that is, for instance, those "five
17:44withouts," then I will say this,
17:50>> how to strive for it. That is,
17:52>> and now this.
17:55Human—and now you have the human mind,
17:57there is nothing to strive for, right?
17:59Because it is consciousness that decides
18:01when it enters into coherence with the
18:03human mind and when those "five withouts
18:05" become, for the human mind,
18:07>> a self-evident truth.
18:12So, from the level of the mind, we can
18:14at most accept
18:20this concept of the "five withouts" and
18:22begin to habituate the mind.
18:26What does that mean for it?
18:31>> What does it mean that the mind is a
18:33biomechanism submerged in infinite
18:35consciousness, which is the "five
18:37withouts."
18:40Yes.
18:41>> I mean, that is what hard Buddhism
18:43proposes. Yes. How to exercise, to work
18:45on the mind in such a way that it is
18:47obedient to the concept of consciousness
18:49.
18:49>> Exactly.
18:51But I say that—that it is not to be
18:53obedient, but to be open so that it can
18:55enter into coherence with consciousness
18:57.
18:59Coherence, I remind you, means
19:01consistency.
19:03Yes, because sometimes I use words on
19:05purpose.
19:09These are words from physics, in order
19:11to make it easier for those who love
19:13science, even at this human level, to
19:16see that all human science, even though
19:18it has erred in its cognition, has
19:20already discovered a lot and
19:31knows many different functionalities of
19:34this information field, which we can
19:36currently use so that we, so to speak,
19:38can land in this universe as
19:39consciousness,
19:46because
19:49>> that is a very long-sounding thesis.
19:51Now you are going to prove it,
19:52>> because now—because now I want to add
19:54something.
19:56In my opinion,
19:59we were never here.
20:02Consciousness has never been here,
20:04neither on planet Earth nor in this
20:06local universe.
20:09This local universe was immersed in a
20:11field of consciousness, but
20:13consciousness never participated in the
20:15creation of the operation of this
20:17universe.
20:18What does that mean?
20:25I use a metaphor that we, as
20:27consciousness, as focal points of
20:29consciousness—because I will always keep
20:31expanding on this—there is one
20:33consciousness, but it manifests in an
20:35infinite number of its focal points,
20:37which I call source beings, that are not
20:39particles of this consciousness, but
20:41rather holographic reflections of the
20:44entire consciousness.
20:50>> That is also met with misunderstanding,
20:52you know. So it is good that you remind
20:54us and
20:55>> well, for me it is like this. We have
20:57been traveling in linear time for
20:59several hundred thousand years
21:06from the zero-point field to the
21:08informational field, to reveal ourselves
21:10in this field, that is, to become an
21:12explicit consciousness manifesting
21:14through
21:20an idea in this informational field. One
21:22of these ideas is the human body.
21:27So, in fact, from my perspective, it is
21:29only here and now that the true subject
21:31begins to manifest through human bodies
21:34.
21:38Until now, there was a being who
21:40revealed themselves through this subject
21:42.
21:46I have already spoken about the being
21:48named Jesus, who 2000 years ago said
21:50that I and the Father are one.
21:56At that time, it was a sign of
21:58revelation, because it was a being who
22:00says: "I and the source are one."
22:03Yes.
22:05>> I and everything are one.
22:07In addition, this being said: "You are
22:09the same as I am."
22:11And the moment will come when you will
22:13know this and when you, too, will reveal
22:15yourselves.
22:19And for me, this is that moment, and I
22:21would like to say that I feel it, that
22:23right here and now, a landing of
22:25consciousness is taking place on planet
22:27Earth, as well as in the entire universe
22:29.
22:38And that is metaphorically a landing, of
22:40course, but practically, it is the
22:42revelation of consciousness that enters
22:44into coherence with the human mind,
22:46embracing these bodies with
22:47unconditional love and these minds with
22:50infinite intelligence.
22:57In such a way that these minds and
22:59bodies, and not only human ones, become
23:02an extension, an extension
23:06of these focal points of consciousness.
23:10And let's see right away, my dears,
23:12consciousness was never inside the body
23:14, because that is impossible.
23:17Consciousness is infinite.
23:19Every body has always been inside
23:21consciousness. Mhm.
23:23>> And now a process is taking place when
23:30in every focal point, every focal point
23:32begins to manifest through a specific
23:35form, but
23:41this focal point begins to feel that
23:43there is no one else here, that it is
23:45solitude without loneliness.
23:49What does that mean? It means that if,
23:51for example, a focal point of
23:53consciousness
23:58manifests through Grzegorz's body, it
24:01does not mean that Grzegorz is this
24:03focal point, only that through this body
24:05, this focal point expresses itself.
24:12However, this focal point encompasses
24:14everything, absolutely everything.
24:18>> That is to say, I could put it
24:19metaphorically like this,
24:25This body is a different focal point of
24:27the same subject, because the subject is
24:29one.
24:33So Monica, I could say this,
24:35metaphorically speaking, you are another
24:38focus of Grzegorz.
24:40Yes. Although Grzegorz does not exist.
24:42Yes.
24:45>> I mean, you describe very clearly to me
24:48the mystical experience that people
24:50chase after by taking various substances
24:53, plants, and so on.
24:58Only then do they get that flash, that
25:00feeling of it.
25:02For example, I was recently writing a
25:05script
25:07for a piece about Nikola Tesla, because
25:09I'm going to record such material.
25:16To me, he is a traveler who very often
25:18experienced those visions, that feeling
25:20of drawing from the ocean of
25:22everythingness whatever he needed at the
25:24moment and whatever he was meant to
25:26bring.
25:30That is the same thing that, in a sense
25:32, Jesus did. Don't worry that I'm
25:34comparing Tesla to Jesus.
25:36For all the followers of Jesus here,
25:38don't worry, it's a different aspect,
25:40but I consider it of equal weight.
25:48However, I want to say that this
25:50striving to rely on those flashes, which
25:52is what people are looking for, that
25:54mystical experience of everythingness in
25:56everyone who has attained it, triggers a
25:59sense of activity, you know,
26:08of co-creating this part of reality, or
26:10as John Weto calls it, that common
26:12bubble that we are all creating together
26:14here.
26:20>> When you spoke about co-creating, it is
26:22very important to add that a human
26:24creates nothing and will never co-create
26:26anything, because they are only and
26:28exclusively an algorithmic machine.
26:34>> Does that mean a human is supposed to
26:35just lie down and wait and only come
26:37alive when they have a flash?
26:39>> But, wait.
26:42I say this on purpose, because I want to
26:45provoke,
26:45>> provoke,
26:46>> because I am intentionally separating
26:48consciousness from the human. Sorry.
26:51I do it intentionally
26:56>> also to cut off the identification that
26:58I am a human and I am my thoughts.
27:02You are not a human and you are not your
27:04thoughts.
27:05You are consciousness.
27:08You wear the suit of a human, you
27:10manifest through a human, but you as a
27:12human create nothing, you do not create
27:14anything.
27:15As consciousness, you create everything
27:17. Except for one thing.
27:19When do you create as consciousness?
27:21Only at one point.
27:25When your reference point for creation
27:27is something like what I call "we one."
27:32Mhm.
27:35We as a multitude of beings of the
27:37source, one as one subject, because we
27:39are the one and only subject.
27:46This is probably the hardest thing to
27:48remember, that we are all one subject,
27:50right after when
27:55we remember all these things,
27:57>> so we don't create it, we just remember
28:00it.
28:04We remember it, and when we start to
28:06remember and when in our imagination, as
28:09consciousness, an image arises of what
28:11we want to experience as "we one," then
28:14creation occurs, because we create, as I
28:16already mentioned, from nothing.
28:24We previously created the information
28:26field, the algorithmic mechanism.
28:31which is what reflects the creation ex
28:33nihilo.
28:38When an idea appears in our imagination
28:41, a non-human imagination, the
28:43imagination of source beings, the
28:45imagination of one entity, infinite
28:47consciousness—for example, the idea of
28:50transparency, of consciousness in
28:52everything that exists—then the
28:54information field immediately begins to
28:56tune into that idea.
29:01What does that mean?
29:03It means that everything inconsistent
29:05with this idea will cease to exist.
29:08I mentioned this in several of our
29:10episodes when I spoke about what will
29:12cease to exist in human reality.
29:16>> But you still say that experience has
29:19meaning, that this is why consciousness
29:21, so to speak, expands its cognitive
29:23apparatus.
29:25Constantly,
29:28new people appear, right? in order to
29:30experience. Experience has meaning. Does
29:33experience?
29:35>> Experience is the essence of the joy of
29:37discovery by the source.
29:41The source knows everything, it is
29:43omniscient, but being omniscient does
29:46not mean being omniexperiential.
29:55If you are a great architect and you
29:57create a wonderful bridge, a wonderful
29:59building, or some other wonderful piece
30:01of engineering on paper, it is still not
30:03the same as when you build it and see
30:05how it works.
30:13That is why we, as consciousness, have
30:16no secrets.
30:18There is nothing hidden from us.
30:21There is nothing we do not know.
30:23>> But it is one thing to know, and another
30:26thing to experience.
30:29It is one thing to know that the scent
30:31of flowers exists, and another to
30:33experience that scent.
30:35>> And it is yet another thing to cut those
30:37flowers down to the root. Yes,
30:39>> that too.
30:41And you know, since you said that in
30:43your concept there is no good and evil,
30:45we must include that this is also some
30:47kind of experience.
30:49Yes.
30:50>> In my perspective, good and evil do not
30:53exist, but wisdom and stupidity do.
30:57>> So, I assume it this way: good and evil
31:00are notions, concepts of the mind, that
31:02are absolutely subjective.
31:05I can prove this very simply.
31:09Let us ask 8 billion human minds to
31:11write definitions of good and evil.
31:15You will see that there will be 8
31:16billion definitions of good and 8
31:18billion definitions of evil.
31:23However, when we ask for a logical
31:25definition of wisdom and stupidity to be
31:27drafted, we will find an objective
31:29definition for both.
31:36That is why I say that good and evil are
31:38concepts of the mind that are absolutely
31:40subjective, and therefore, they are
31:42unreal.
31:44That which is subjective is unreal, is
31:47illusory, is imaginary.
31:49Whereas that which we can present
31:51objectively is the truth.
31:55For this reason, although I listen to
31:58many who say that truth is subjective, I
32:00say no, truth is objective, but we
32:02perceive it from a specific perspective
32:04.
32:07That is why it may seem to us that it is
32:09subjective.
32:10Such an example,
32:15which is even in literature, is how a
32:17number of blind people look at an
32:19elephant from different sides, touch it
32:21, and then describe it.
32:25It turns out that this dream elephant,
32:27which is an objective form, an animal,
32:30and so on, is described in many
32:31different ways.
32:33>> I mean, you have repeated this today in
32:36many ways, and I notice that.
32:38Uh, however, looking at, uh, the
32:40comments on Strumyk, on Strumyk itself,
32:44>> uh, I see that, uh, certain things stir
32:46rebellion in people.
32:49Yes, because I am referring to the
32:51comments from Hiacynta and Anna Bella
32:53Morit.
32:54I will mention the nicknames, because
33:00I based what I am directing to Grzegorz
33:02on their perspective here.
33:07These ladies are asking about the
33:09biological construction of reality.
33:14I think they are referring to the
33:16Gnostic observation of who tried to hack
33:18this...You don't identify with that.
33:21I know, you will have to defend yourself
33:23a little bit.
33:27Uh, that since something as cruel as, uh
33:30, eating one another happens, then
33:32perhaps, uh, there is a mistake here, a
33:34lack of knowledge, or the creation of
33:37some flawed matrix,
33:43>> into which this
33:46demiurge was introduced, you know, given
33:48.
33:48>> Great.
33:51So I will say once more something that
33:53is most important.
33:56Everything is only and exclusively one
33:58infinite consciousness, which has no
34:00opposite.
34:03>> There is one being and that is it.
34:07However, I have already mentioned that
34:09this one consciousness wove an
34:11informational field out of itself.
34:15In addition, I said that this
34:17informational field is an algorithmic
34:19mechanism.
34:22In this sense, everything, absolutely
34:24everything we have called physical
34:26reality, consists of algorithms.
34:35So these algorithms and this algorithmic
34:37mechanism at their core are functional
34:39intelligence, meaning something that
34:41works and reflects ideas that arise in
34:43this consciousness and that this
34:44consciousness wants to experience.
34:50>> Well, according to that, it raised its
34:53own demiurge, you know?
34:54>> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
34:57>> And I will say this.
35:00Consciousness wanted to experience its
35:02own hiddenness.
35:05>> That is what I know.
35:06>> Yes, I am also referring to this when
35:09formulating,
35:11>> Since consciousness wanted to experience
35:13its hiddenness, the informational field
35:15, which is perfect functional
35:17intelligence, did not ask any further
35:19how to do it.
35:23It did so in a perfect way, so it
35:25created first and foremost the most
35:27important algorithm: the ego algorithm,
35:30the algorithm of separation, the
35:32algorithm of the veil.
35:38And de facto, this algorithm is not, was
35:40not only an algorithm that separated the
35:43human mind from consciousness, but it is
35:45also an algorithm that
35:51we or the Gnostics called the demiurge.
35:57>> And called archons, and still others
35:59called it demons and various other
36:01creatures that act to the detriment of
36:03people.
36:07However, one thing:
36:13consciousness wanted to experience its
36:15hiddenness, without explaining how this
36:17was to materialize.
36:25Functional intelligence did it in such a
36:27way that the experience would be so
36:29realistic that consciousness would feel
36:31the full gravity and fully experience it
36:34.
36:39It is as if you went to the cinema to
36:41see a beautiful movie.
36:43that's when you say it's perfect, when
36:46you identify so much with this movie,
36:48with the actors, with the whole
36:49narrative, with the music, with
36:51everything there is, that you get scared
36:56>> and that you speak and that you cry.
36:58That is when you truly identify. Then
37:01you say: "That movie was so realistic
37:03that I cried or I was so scared." M
37:06>> yes.
37:08In the same way, functional intelligence
37:10created perfectly
37:18uh, and now I will say this, whether it
37:20is an experiment, or a simulation, or
37:23whatever, I don't want to name it, I
37:25don't want to impose a name here because
37:27it would stem from the mind, it created
37:29the experience of the non-obviousness of
37:32consciousness.
37:36with full consequences.
37:39Suffering, destruction, the demiurge,
37:42archons, demons, these are simply
37:45consequences of the primal idea.
37:50I want to be non-obvious, I want to
37:52experience what a world in the
37:54non-obviousness of consciousness means.
37:58And these are all consequences, such
38:00perfect consequences, that this
38:02consciousness, which put on the mask of
38:05the ego,
38:07says: "It is so realistic that I am so
38:10scared here,
38:13that it seems to me that this is the
38:15only truth."
38:21And in this way, consciousness has been
38:23experiencing this truth for, in my
38:25opinion, several hundred thousand years
38:28, to fully know all aspects,
38:32>> all possibilities,
38:34>> all possibilities of this
38:35non-obviousness.
38:36>> I feel compassion for those who were
38:38placed there as tools experiencing the
38:40devouring of others.
38:42Well, that's what I can say. Well, I
38:44sympathize with them, the cruelty of
38:47this situation for me as an ego is
38:49unfathomable. That is the cruelty of
38:51this situation.
38:53I will ask you about this again.
38:55>> Fine.
38:56>> Now, the issue I marked down for myself
38:59. Personal God versus impersonal oneness
39:02.
39:02Here, Aleks Brzeziński asked a question
39:05,
39:09well, one that I would say stems a
39:11little from this traditional view of the
39:13matter.
39:15Jesus taught about a personal God, about
39:18personal evil, and about the sin of
39:20pride.
39:22And in this context, talking about an
39:24impersonal oneness is, in Aleks's
39:26opinion, a Pharisaical deception.
39:30and he asked: "Who are you?"
39:33I will quote now, "To invalidate the
39:35cross and the I-Thou relationship with
39:37God in favor of cold metaphysics."
39:42This is a fragment of a very elaborate
39:44question from Alex,
39:46>> which I had to explain a little, so that
39:48>> yes,
39:49>> so that it would be understandable.
39:51>> Yes. And I will say this,
39:55I also know the parables of Jesus, I
39:57also know his teachings.
40:03And if someone believes that the being
40:05named Jesus spoke about a personal God,
40:07it means that they either haven't read
40:09it, or haven't understood, or don't know
40:11what a metaphor is versus a direct
40:13message, or they don't understand that
40:15personality is the only
40:22veil that separates the mind from the
40:24truth.
40:28So I will cite one thing.
40:30Did Jesus say: "I and the Father are one
40:33?"
40:36I have heard that he did.
40:38>> I think everyone has heard that
40:40specifically
40:41>> excellent.
40:43If Jesus said, "I and the Father are one
40:45," is that not a simple, logical message
40:48?
40:51God is impersonal,
40:55because he cannot be, because he would
40:57have schizophrenia, being in multiple
40:59persons.
41:01>> I think that for many Catholics,
41:05Jesus is internally contradictory. I am
41:08taking into account their public
41:10statements, right?
41:11>> And they are willing to accept it
41:13because he sacrificed himself for them,
41:15in their understanding.
41:18I will put it this way.
41:21According to what I know,
41:25the figure of God has been absolutely
41:27distorted by human minds.
41:31The figure of God is very often
41:32presented as a great ego.
41:36That is true.
41:37>> A figure
41:39that is human, only great, which is
41:44someone who wants to punish.
41:46>> Well, Elohim. are not put into the
41:49figure of God. Exactly. Well,
41:51>> that is not a transcendent being, not a
41:53loving being.
41:55>> There is no pure unconditional love and
41:57pure unconditional wisdom there.
41:59Yes.
42:00>> There are, there are all the worst
42:01traits of a divine ego.
42:03>> There is, precisely, devouring.
42:08There is devouring, both literal and...
42:11So I will say this: I will not explain
42:13to any mind that the ego is only and
42:15exclusively an illusion, is only and
42:18exclusively illogical, and is only and
42:20exclusively the result of an inability
42:22to understand the truth.
42:29Besides, if someone really wants to, let
42:32them imagine an eternal personality.
42:36That would be the greatest possible hell
42:38.
42:40>> There is not, there would be no greater
42:42suffering than an eternal personality.
42:44If someone does not understand this, it
42:46means their mind is not yet ready to
42:48accept the truth.
42:52>> Second part here, Smile Tome 90 and PA S
42:55, such a nickname, Pav, no, pa SW.
43:01PSW from the other side of the barricade
43:03. Yes.
43:05Why do you insist on the word love? This
43:07is almost a quote, yes, from this
43:09comment. Since Tony Parsons says clearly
43:11, there is no one, there is only this.
43:17Smile Tom notes that the definition of
43:19love in a penal institution turns out to
43:22be a naive manipulation, and we are
43:24simply neither good nor brutal.
43:28What is your love, Grzegorz, ontological
43:31in the face of hard violence?
43:35Love is the most—apart from intelligence
43:38, of course—the most misunderstood
43:40concept in the
43:43human
43:44>> mind,
43:46>> right?
43:48First of all, love is not a relationship
43:50, to be clear.
43:53Love is only and exclusively
43:57>> a feeling of one's own, only and
43:59exclusively.
44:00Jesus actually taught about this too. Is
44:03it not a substance? I would wonder about
44:05that.
44:07>> Maybe, is it not a substance,
44:09>> a substance—some I could call it—it is
44:12what glues all of this into unity, right
44:14?
44:15But I would like to say that, first of
44:17all, it is not a relationship, because
44:22I will remind you again, there is one,
44:24there is one, one subject, so it cannot
44:27be a relationship if there is one.
44:30Right?
44:32>> The one can love only itself and no one
44:34else, because there is no one else.
44:37There is no second at all.
44:39And so,
44:40>> And the ego does not have the attribute
44:42of love.
44:44The ego has neither the quality of love
44:46nor the quality of wisdom or
44:48intelligence, because the ego has
44:50confused transactions with love and
44:52cunning with intelligence.
44:56The ego has cunning and the ego creates
44:58transactions everywhere.
45:00Yes, something for something. Well, it
45:02often calls this love, friendship, or
45:05something similar.
45:10Yes, but this is where a complete
45:11misunderstanding is shown, because the
45:14mind in its limitation as a machine
45:16cannot understand either love or true
45:18intelligence.
45:23I am speaking of intelligence as
45:25infinite wisdom.
45:27So love is solely and exclusively
45:34a feeling of the self, because
45:36furthermore, when we return to what I
45:38have already said, consciousness is
45:40infinite.
45:42Everything is located within
45:44consciousness, so self-love means love
45:46for everything that is.
45:49>> I'm glad you said that, because there
45:51was a lot of anxiety.
45:53We released a short from one of our
45:55broadcasts where you spoke about the
45:57essence of love, de facto.
46:00And this misunderstanding often resulted
46:03in comments: "You've never had a child
46:05to understand what love is."
46:07I would like you to address
46:10this context, when you say that love is
46:12not a relationship, right? Because
46:15>> well, I'll say it this way, to be clear
46:17.
46:18Grzegorz's body in this matter
46:20>> yes, but you don't have to, he has
46:22children,
46:23>> he has two children here. So I'll say it
46:26right away, to be clear.
46:30>> Which he loves, but from the very
46:32beginning, he explained to those
46:33children that the true relationship is
46:35friendship.
46:39And this is also what I try to say in my
46:42messages.
46:43Besides, in the Polish language, the
46:45word "przyjaźń"(friendship) has a
46:48beautiful etymological
46:50>> explanation.
46:53To be in the self, yes, to be in
46:55consciousness, that is, to be in
46:56connection with each other, that we are
46:59one subject.
47:02And that is the true relationship of one
47:04with one.
47:07I mean, Roman is the author of this
47:09whole concept of friendship, of
47:11translating and breaking down these
47:13words, and Roman, with all of this, used
47:15to say: "Every day I hang Roman on a
47:17hanger when I go to sleep."
47:20So I will say this, I didn't hear it
47:22from Roman,
47:24>> but Roman is the author of it,
47:29>> because Roman always said he is not that
47:31Roman, but is aware,
47:33>> he was very humble in general, right
47:36>> by consciousness. So Roman is not the
47:38author of it.
47:39>> It is consciousness,
47:40>> there is only consciousness. And because
47:42, and because there is one consciousness
47:45, consciousness never claims authorship
47:47of anything.
47:49>> I mean, I am careful about that, because
47:51you know.
47:51>> Nothing.
47:53And this only shows that all of
47:55consciousness is in increasing synchrony
47:57with itself.
48:00Meaning the same concepts appear through
48:03different forms, different bodies,
48:05different minds.
48:11>> And this only shows us that we are right
48:13here and now in what I call the total
48:15synchronization of all forms with one
48:17consciousness.
48:22Mhm.
48:24And this concept of hanging up, you know
48:26, the ego for a while is close to all of
48:29us, right?
48:31To all of us.
48:32>> Yes, I will say this: if we say that we
48:35are not this ego, then I will
48:37immediately add, do not fight the ego
48:39either.
48:41When you fight the ego, it is the ego
48:43fighting the ego.
48:44>> That is exactly how people understand it
48:46.
48:47>> Well, that makes no sense.
48:49This battle is lost for you from the
48:51start.
48:53Our only task is to see that the ego is
48:55just an algorithm.
48:58It is a computer program. And when we
49:00see that it is a computer program, and
49:02not us ourselves, and that we are the
49:04consciousness that sees this computer
49:06program.
49:07After all, since you see your thoughts,
49:09since you see your body, since you
49:11observe all of this, then you are not
49:13that.
49:15And if you are not, it means you don't
49:17have to fight it.
49:19Only when you understand this does it
49:21start to disappear on its own, because
49:24only the true subject remains, so
49:26>> consciousness. You don't need to manage
49:28it then,
49:29>> right?
49:30Just stop giving it your attention.
49:32Yes,
49:33>> there are many teachings about this too
49:35.
49:37Stop giving your attention to what you
49:39no longer want.
49:42And when we stop giving attention to
49:44what we no longer want, it ceases to
49:46exist,
49:47>> it dissolves.
49:48>> it dissolves.
49:51>> Now, listen, there is a very good
49:52question in the sequence of your
49:54statement.
49:57Plenisz asked this question here.
50:02He points to the psychological aspect,
50:04which is also part of these ego dynamics
50:06, no matter how you look at it.
50:10Does treating the ego as an illusion
50:12invalidate real pain?
50:16Because if the ego arises, for example,
50:19in a toxic family as a defense mechanism
50:21so a small child can survive a threat,
50:24I'm talking about those survival
50:26strategies, then does
50:32the body and soma from your point of
50:34view not build this impression of
50:35dualism?
50:38>> Eh, I just said, do not fight the ego,
50:41yes,
50:42>> I never said that the ego is something
50:44evil. That is also untrue, because
50:46calling an algorithm something evil is a
50:48priori
50:48>> it was created for a reason, no
50:50>> our own stupidity as the speaker, right
50:52?
50:52>> It was created for a reason,
50:53>> it was created for a reason, right? It
50:55is like saying that a computer is evil.
50:57It makes no sense. The statement is
50:59illogical, that's all.
51:00>> Although I don't necessarily have to
51:01endow it with feeling,
51:02>> right? And you are not to endow the ego
51:04with feeling either, you are just to see
51:06, it is an algorithmic mechanism, yes?
51:09Was it necessary? Of course it was
51:11necessary. Of course it was necessary.
51:15First, it was necessary for the sake of
51:17this experience of non-obviousness, and
51:20second, for the sake of what you are
51:22talking about here, so as not to
51:24experience the same pain or suffering
51:26over and over.
51:29Because
51:31let's distinguish two more things: pain
51:33and suffering. Yes, pain is physical,
51:36>> suffering is mental or psychological.
51:38Yes. Mhm.
51:39>> Pain is like this: you put your hand
51:41into a fire, you burn yourself, you have
51:43pain. Yes. That is correct.
51:45>> But pain also teaches us: don't put it
51:47there, because cause and effect. Yes.
51:50>> So the ego is, in this case, some kind
51:52of module, right? A connector.
51:56The ego is what allows this form
52:02to experience such knowledge, so as not
52:05to suffer
52:08>> and not to cause pain, really.
52:10So it is a form of learning.
52:13That is why I do not want to demonize it
52:15in any way. Yes.
52:17>> Well, it's good you said that, because
52:19since there are such comments, there is
52:21such a temperature, right? suffering.
52:26If if psychological suffering arises, it
52:29very often arises due to the fact that
52:36we are afraid of something.
52:38An example.
52:42My spouse says, she gives me this
52:44example. She intentionally watched
52:46horror movies to stop being afraid.
52:48>> Mhm.
52:49>> So she was desensitizing herself.
52:51>> Yes. Yes. Mhm. Methodology, right?
52:54Strategy
52:54>> of self. Strategies to stop being afraid
52:57, to avoid psychological anxiety. Yes.
53:02>> But she tells me that because of this,
53:04if she were to experience, for example,
53:07a car accident and someone needed help,
53:09she says: "I have no problem, because
53:11I'm not afraid of an open fracture,
53:13spilled blood, or anything else."
53:17I said in horror,
53:18>> because I've already gotten used to it.
53:20And I say, but I would immediately
53:22collapse and I would be unconscious
53:23because I wouldn't be able to handle it
53:25, right?
53:25>> Mhm.
53:26>> Because I haven't desensitized myself to
53:28it and I admit it, my mind hasn't
53:30desensitized to it. When I go for a
53:32blood draw, I look away. Yes.
53:34>> Well, as befits a real man.
53:37>> You also run away from the dentist.
53:39>> I ran away for many years.
53:41That was the truth. In school, I used to
53:44run away. For example, the class was
53:45taken to the dentist, and I was just
53:47looking for where I could escape, and I
53:49would normally run away from school.
53:51>> Well, you see, that's proof that male
53:53egos are similar, you see.
53:55>> So
53:58I have also experienced all of this.
54:01Besides, if I hadn't experienced it, I
54:03couldn't even talk about it at all,
54:05really.
54:08>> For this reason, I do not want to say
54:11that the ego is something cruel.
54:15I only say that the ego is a veil, a
54:18veil that prevents the mind from seeing
54:20the truth.
54:23And it is, it is something that is
54:24between consciousness and the mind.
54:27A mask placed on consciousness and a
54:29mask placed simultaneously on the mind.
54:31Yes.
54:32>> Yes.
54:34>> Through which the mind does not see the
54:36truth, and consciousness experiences its
54:38own concealment.
54:40But the ego is not inherently evil, just
54:42as wearing a warm tracksuit is not
54:44inherently evil, right?
54:46>> It is simply a mechanism. A calculator
54:49is not inherently evil either. Yes.
54:53When we know what a calculator is for
54:55and what it was created for, then it is
54:57no longer evil and that's it.
55:00That is why I always say about the ego
55:02that our nature is impersonality, but
55:04that does not mean that we have to
55:06somehow kill off the ego.
55:11At the moment when we
55:15begin to see ourselves as consciousness
55:17.
55:20When our subject, our subjectivity, is
55:23our consciousness, the ego simply
55:25becomes just a calculator, and ceases to
55:28be a false identity, a false subject.
55:33>> That is very well put.
55:36And there is one more question from
55:38Vibes Chris, that is the nickname, Vibes
55:41Sris, just so you know.
55:43Greetings to you.
55:45He wrote: "I feel mostly anxiety within
55:48myself.
55:49Is anxiety solely the ego's panic before
55:52its own dissolution, or perhaps an alarm
55:55signal from a lost interface?"
55:59>> Good question.
56:00>> A very good question.
56:03Generally, we have probably heard that
56:05in this experience of non-obviousness
56:10anxiety and fear are energy, some call
56:13it loosh.
56:14Yes. Meaning that which suffers, that
56:17which feeds, excuse me, the algorithm,
56:19the demiurges, demons, and everyone
56:21together. Yes. And
56:23>> Monroe, yes, Monroe, yes, and it also
56:26feeds the ego.
56:29If anxiety and fear were to disappear
56:31today, the ego would disappear.
56:34>> Yes,
56:35>> it disappears, the archons, the
56:37demiurges, and all those like them
56:39disappear.
56:39>> And now, yes. And that is what we are
56:42striving for.
56:44>> Is there a lot of anxiety in minds at
56:46the moment?
56:48Yes, my dears, there is a lot of anxiety
56:51in minds, and I am experiencing it too,
56:54just to be clear.
56:57Why?
56:58Because when the ego
57:04begins to dissolve, it emits from itself
57:06that which it is itself—anxiety.
57:10Mhm.
57:10>> and fear.
57:12So some call this the dark night of the
57:14soul.
57:15Yes.
57:15>> Yes.
57:17>> I don't entirely like it, but I use it
57:19to explain. M
57:26>> So we are in such a place, or in such a
57:28space, that we could call it this way,
57:30that anxiety, and consequently many
57:32depressive states, are common right now
57:35.
57:40>> There is a flood of it. Actually,
57:43>> I would like to say that I know many,
57:45many beings who say: "I can't go to work
57:48anymore."
57:50I can't take it.
57:52I don't want to work.
57:53I've had enough of the slavery of work.
57:55Yes.
57:56>> I've had enough of corporations. I've
57:58had enough of offices, I've had enough
58:00of going to work.
58:01It's completely moronic to me.
58:04Work gives me no satisfaction.
58:07I don't like it. I suffer there. I have
58:09depression because of it. Yes. This is
58:12one of the aspects. Yes. And that is
58:14what is happening.
58:16Simply at this moment, the mind is
58:19experiencing a maximization
58:24of all the aspects of non-obviousness,
58:27of consciousness, which it no longer
58:29wants to experience.
58:31And the dissolution of the ego causes
58:33what you mentioned, Monika, and what
58:35someone asked about here.
58:38Anxiety states.
58:40That is normal.
58:43Uh, well, when the ego dies, anxiety
58:45becomes great.
58:49Furthermore, listen, take a look at the
58:52entire socio-economic-political system
58:54on planet Earth.
58:58Well, here and now.
59:01I know that most of you don't watch
59:02television anymore.
59:06I don't watch it either, but you can see
59:08it on the Internet, for example, by
59:10observing social media or or videos and
59:13so on.
59:15Even this video might show you something
59:17.
59:18>> There is great chaos everywhere.
59:21Right now, I know that
59:22>> chaos, shallowness.
59:24>> There is chaos in France, chaos in Italy
59:26, chaos in Portugal. Everywhere
59:28>> people are just clashing.
59:30>> That's right.
59:30>> Attacking like little zombies, right?
59:32That's right.
59:34So I'll say this, there is extreme
59:36madness of the mechanisms.
59:40>> Yes. Bio-automata have fallen into
59:42madness and fear.
59:45And that is how the dark night of the
59:47soul manifests.
59:50>> Well, yes. Listen, let's go even further
59:53.
59:55A brutal one came up here.
59:57I won't quote it in full because it's a
59:59market-type question, but it makes sense
1:00:01.
1:00:01>> Okay,
1:00:03>> so it touches
1:00:06in reality
1:00:08upon ontology.
1:00:12Does it matter at all to presence
1:00:14whether someone constructs treatises on
1:00:16oneness, like you, Grzegorz, or gets
1:00:18drunk and sticks a finger into filth.
1:00:23That is written worse.
1:00:25I downloaded it.
1:00:27>> Do these two experiences hold the same
1:00:29weight for the causeless source?
1:00:31>> Yes.
1:00:33>> Honestly. Yes.
1:00:35>> Yes.
1:00:36There is no mistake. There is no such
1:00:39thing as
1:00:42an error,
1:00:43>> a mistake,
1:00:46a better or worse experience.
1:00:49>> For
1:00:52>> impersonal consciousness, all
1:00:54experiences have the same cognitive
1:00:57value, so
1:00:58>> that's why I asked that question.
1:01:01>> So, so the one who does those other
1:01:04things than I do, right?
1:01:06>> Yes. It's the same, for oneness it's the
1:01:09same. Both this and that must come to be
1:01:11.
1:01:12Besides,
1:01:13>> fortunately, the one who does those
1:01:15other things usually doesn't suffer
1:01:17because of it.
1:01:21Yes, but actually, contrary to
1:01:23appearances, both these experiences lead
1:01:25to the same thing, to the total
1:01:27dissolution of
1:01:33the lack of clarity of consciousness,
1:01:37>> because I have already mentioned that
1:01:39both through the maximization of
1:01:40ignorance, and through the maximization
1:01:42of suffering, and through knowing the
1:01:44logic of oneness
1:01:48It is always the same vector,
1:01:52>> that vector of syntropy of information,
1:01:54which leads to the full primal memory of
1:01:56all aspects of consciousness.
1:01:59>> Super.
1:02:01Listen, the last issue for this episode
1:02:03will be raised by three people.
1:02:07The Revenant, by two people. The
1:02:10Revenant and by Agnieszka Wieczorek. I
1:02:12wrote it down for myself. So two people
1:02:14and by Agnieszka Wieczorek.
1:02:16Uh, a diagnosis was made here about us.
1:02:20They talk so beautifully.
1:02:23Uh, I downloaded those two comments. And
1:02:26basically, they are just talking about
1:02:28physical death, because we will all
1:02:30simply die and then dualism will end.
1:02:33or
1:02:37the divine order you speak of here,
1:02:39about which you've written me beautiful
1:02:41texts that I will refer to in upcoming
1:02:43episodes.
1:02:45Is this an otherworldly state, you know
1:02:47, of what comes later, or does it have a
1:02:50reason to exist in a biological body on
1:02:52this earth?
1:02:54You know, we have to say it like it is.
1:02:58>> Let's say, let's say that here and now,
1:03:00all people are dead.
1:03:03Everyone, absolutely everyone is dead.
1:03:06These are walking corpses. Truly,
1:03:08ontologically, everyone
1:03:11>> is.
1:03:12>> All people are ontological corpses.
1:03:15>> The only ontological life is
1:03:17consciousness.
1:03:19So every mechanism,
1:03:24every algorithmic one, which a human is
1:03:27, is ontologically not-life; it is
1:03:29functional life, but an ontological
1:03:31corpse.
1:03:34>> So, uh,
1:03:37I will say this, Jesus also mentioned it
1:03:39.
1:03:41Let the dead bury the dead.
1:03:43Mhm.
1:03:44>> Those are his words.
1:03:45So he was saying back then that people
1:03:47are dead.
1:03:52So I will say this: the only
1:03:54resurrection that exists is the one I am
1:03:56trying to describe, which means
1:03:58consciousness entering coherence with
1:04:00the mind.
1:04:05That is when resurrection occurs.
1:04:09As long as that is not the case, there
1:04:11is no death, because everyone is already
1:04:13dead.
1:04:15It is the experience of corpses, the
1:04:17experience of being dead, really. So no
1:04:20one can die, since they are already dead
1:04:22.
1:04:25>> But everyone can be born.
1:04:27After all, those are also the words of
1:04:29Jesus.
1:04:31You must be born again.
1:04:33These are also his words. Yes.
1:04:36He was speaking then about the birth of
1:04:38the spirit. Yes. And that is what it’s
1:04:40about. Yes, because true birth is the
1:04:42birth of the spirit.
1:04:45That is when you stop pretending that
1:04:47you are human, stop pretending that you
1:04:49are the mind, and you say: "I am
1:04:51consciousness."
1:04:54"We are one, we are one."
1:04:59I would put it more in my own way, that
1:05:01we live in a republic of robots or
1:05:03androids that have a chance to fight for
1:05:05access to the spirit.
1:05:09>> That's true.
1:05:11That's true.
1:05:13The only confusing thing. Androids were
1:05:15usually made of metal and that confuses
1:05:17us.
1:05:18>> No, no.
1:05:19If you look at Ridley Scott, you know,
1:05:21that’s who I mean.
1:05:23That's who I mean. Okay.
1:05:25>> Grzesiu, thank you for today's episode.
1:05:27>> Thank you very much as well.
1:05:28>> We will see each other soon in the next
1:05:31one, my dears, and with you too. Thank
1:05:33you. See you.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Grzegorz Hoppe jeszcze NIGDY tego nie powiedział! | Globalny chaos, Lęk, Ego, Świadomość Jedni by Monika Cichocka, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,444 words across 1,530 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.