Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Olive

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Announcements / Re: Wish List
« on: April 13, 2018, 04:14:55 am »
I like the look of the place too, no doubt!

I have one major request for the site and one minor.

#1 - Could we please add a spoiler function like most other forums have? There have been times when I have wanted to quote excerpts in posts but didn't want to stretch them out. Especially with big opening posts that need to hold a lot of information, being able to spoiler off certain sections makes everything much more readable and approachable. That way other users won't have to scroll through walls of text to try and pick out what they have time to read, or to spend extra time scrolling to the replies.

#2 (minor, unnecessary) - I think the look of the "Post Reply" screen would feel significantly better if the entry textbox was about 50% longer on the screen. It is fine on mobile but on PC it feels like I am looking through a little slat in the door towards the huge page of text I'm writing. I can't usually see more than about 1.2 paragraphs at a time. This isn't a resolution issue - that doesn't change enough to make meaningfully more text visible.

General LHP Discussion / Re: How do cope with grief?
« on: April 13, 2018, 02:05:29 am »
I think the best thing to do in these situations is to try and recognize the impermanence of our entire situation, and see how death is a part of that. Even the best experiences, end. Even the worst experiences, end. There is no one who can give you relief from the pain of loss, the only thing that can redress it is your ability to understand and accept it. I think one of the strengths of the Critique of Existence theme present in Gnosticism, Buddhism, Existential Philosophy etc comes in the recognition that you would neither condemn your loved ones nor your enemies to an eternity in this existence, and death does not have to be feared. I have known many who, while mourning the ones that they have lost, would not wish them back in the condition they were in. Life can become very difficult indeed the longer it goes on, and a time does come when each of us would wish to set down our burden in the ceaseless struggle of our plane of existence.

Whatever you believe, you can take solace in the fact that the one you cared for has nothing to fear any longer, and is now That which is beyond Peace/Love/Freedom/Bliss.

Indeed, you can find a throughline of Olive-thought from that thread to this. It's sort of difficult to call it Idealism though, when we assert the primacy of matter over mind, and deny dualism, while asserting that the Forms are potentialities inherent in the logic of this manifestation. And yet there is a hint of idealism when we discuss the characteristics of Demiurgos. This type of thing is what led me to say "Idealism and Materialism don't seem to be mutually exclusive - the more I contemplate both" some time ago.

If you don't mind me asking, do you have any challenges for this line of thought for me to chew on? What turned you away from it? I've read some of your posts about property dualism but I haven't seen anything that would be a critical blow to the position I've sketched out here.

Right, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Platonic Form of something is just an idea in the mind of a man - I'd like to give my man Plato a little more credit than that :D   Although the human mind is very good at finding and recognizing the forms, which I think contributes to the confusion implicit in the "Mental Abstraction" critiques of Plato's Forms.

The easiest way I can describe it, is that the Platonic Forms are complex inevitable results of the inherent properties of the Logos. Some might call them possibility fields - even that I think is a little too confusing to take at face value. I can describe it by analogy to the DNA of a creature, say, a squirrel. Now, the DNA of a squirrel is not outside climbing trees and burying nuts; an instance of a squirrel is doing those things. In fact, we don't see the DNA of a squirrel anywhere in that form - we only see squirrels. So the DNA is not literally a squirrel, but the squirrel is somehow implied by the data in the DNA. And not only is it implied, the DNA is completely necessary for the squirrel to exist. Likewise, Platonic Forms themselves are not present anywhere in the manifestation - but the possibilities they represent are. And the manifested beings could not have existed except for the Platonic forms. [Fully understood, this understanding actually defeats Aristotle's Form of Perishability critique]

Now let me try to make it a little clearer. This manifestation is not Chaos or Chaotic, no matter how it may seem at times. It is not something totally new in every moment, it is an extremely ordered progression with certain unchanging elements. What I am claiming, is that these unchanging elements, in a way imply each of the Platonic Forms, and all of the myriad forms of existence we see today, and many more. It is much like Mathematics - where only a few axioms are set in stone, and then for the rest of history all sorts of wondrous discoveries have been and will be found in the possibilities represented in those few axioms. It is like writing the first page of a book, only to turn the page and find the rest of it completed. (If only, right?  ;))

So then. The unchanging elements of Logos, which we can describe with ever more granularity (the properties of physical elements -> the properties of atoms -> the properties of subatomic particles -> the properties of the four fundamental fields -> the properties of the ever-present Material Substratum), actually concretely imply Stars, Planets, Elements, Shapes, Life, Warfare, Love, and even Rap music. And many more things which we have not yet the intelligence to piece out. And to the Logos, it was not necessary to step through time in order to find all this out. The Form of the Triangle has always existed with the Logos, as long as it has had the inherent property of describing at least two dimensions. The Form of a Galaxy has always existed with the Logos, as long as it has had the inherent properties or possibility of space-time deformities, and expansion. The Form of Perishability has always existed with the Logos, as long as it has had the inherent property or possibility of Time - since time by definition brings all limited things to their end.

HOWEVER, the Form of the Galaxy does not exist anywhere in the manifestation itself - except in the hundreds of billions of Galaxies that have manifested here. The Form of the triangle does not exist anywhere, but countless triangles have manifested themselves here. The Form of Consciousness, Set, does not exist himself except as the billions of beings who have come into being by consciousness being manifested. Although he is inherent in the makeup of the Logos and does not rely on our existence for there to be a reality to him. Humanity could go extinct, and for millions of years there could be no conscious beings in the Galaxy - but still the possibility of individual consciousness would remain in the inherent properties of Logos, and thus Set, the Form of Consciousness, would exist in that sense.

But I can't say that the Forms are actually hanging out at some Astral Bar in another world somewhere, having a drink or two. I wouldn't even really say they have an existence apart from the Logos. Now, I wouldn't dispute those who call the Forms Gods, because they are ever-lasting. But I wouldn't put them at the level of the Unmanifest, which is actually eternal in timelessness, and therefore could not even conceivably end.

I began this description of my understanding of Platonic Forms by saying that they are not merely ideas in the mind of man. I think I have sufficiently shown that they do not rely upon a mind to suss them out and give them a name. But it would be closer to the truth, to say that the Platonic Forms are Ideas in the Mind of God, which will always manifest themselves in his creation.

Theologically, we could speculate on Set being such a unique/powerful form, that he really did tear himself from the unchanging womb of God's mind, and enter into time and the physical universe. But we have no reason to believe this, other than it being cool as heck. But this is already getting fantastical. Plus, I don't think it would actually change much for a Human whether Set was still in the timeless mind of God, or if he had freed himself and exists as some super powerful being/entity somewhere. (Unless you were to meet him, in which case - give him my regards.) The result would be the same - the individual consciousness we all know confronted with a hostile and demonic world.

Quick Checklist

Independent of Man?                         
Outside of the Material World?           

Have their own agency and world?      X
Independent of Logos/Demiurgos?     X

Hey everyone. I was making a reply to a post over in the thread "Discussing Beliefs" - but I think there is enough here to actually open this up to a separate discussion. I'll quote the post I was responding to (From our lovely Co-Founder/Administrator Xepera maSet), and leave my reply unedited. I would greatly enjoy hearing thoughts/arguments about the different approaches I've briefly sketched out here, and I'll be back to answer questions/continue the discussion. Without further ado,

So I think I've FINALLY narrowed it down to one single, connected, provable argument to confirm the Prince of Darkness for anyone willing to accept the evidence.

1. Consciousness is not the same as Nature and can go against it.

2. So, there must be something outside of Nature that chose to give life consciousness.

3. An intelligence outside of Nature is a God. (Done, but wait)

4. Consciousness is inherently opposed to Nature.

5. So there must be a God inherently opposed to Nature.

6. This God is what has been described in every tradition as "The Prince(ess) of Darkness.

7. Therefore the Prince(ess) of Darkness Exists. Could be Set, Odin, Ishtar, Satan or Lucifer, Prometheus, Quetzalcoatl, or and of the thousands of others, but It exists.

It's me again.  ;)  I'm sorry to keep doing this Xepera - I'm not trying to pick on you or your arguments. But I do like when you lay them out point by point, because it makes it really easy to see where our intuitions differ, and I think this is great kindling for conversation.

I agree with all of your big points. I think you have firm footing in saying that Consciousness is apparently different from Nature, and even that it is actually inherently opposed to it. In fact that is the very touchstone of Gnostic thought, which I'm sure you know by now that I am rather fond of. Heck, just replace the words "Nature" with "Demiurgos" and "Consciousness" with "Spirit," and the similarities become obvious. Most Gnostics would probably follow you all the way through this argument.

But Metaphysically/Epistemologically speaking, I can't grant you 5 - and I definitely can't grant you 2. Making a statement like 2 is what I would call taking an "outside-in" approach, because you are saying that something must have come into Nature in order to oppose it, or to sow the seeds of its opposition, or more explicitly to create us. But there really isn't anything we can point to, or test, or conceive of that would even suggest the possibility of something like this happening in the physical universe - other than our own apparent improbable excellence. (Which of course, is necessary for any observation to have been made in the first place, or any discussion to be had about it.) That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, but there is no reason to think that it did and it is simply not evident to us now.

Personally, I think the "inside-out" approach is a little more sophisticated. That is to say, that something happened within nature that would lead to the opposition we see today. It is even harder to disprove this and say it must have come from outside when we consider that there is no way to prove that the opposition of Consciousness is actually a strict opposition to the goals of Nature, and not also a Natural process. Especially when we see that the very workings of nature at almost every level are opposition, consuming itself, and overcoming itself. The aggressive and self-destructive nature of man could very well be the flowering of these tendencies. From this perspective, the opposition is only visible from the point of view of the individual, who is faced with pain, death, and annihilation on every side. But from the perspective of Nature/Demiurgos, all is going well. This method doesn't lead us to speculating about another world and our mystical origin from it, or the beings/forms that might reside there. This way of thinking would consider the "outside-in" school to be taking a mythological explanation literally instead of symbolically. We could still say that there is a God of Consciousness/Prince of Darkness - but not in the sense that he actually exists somewhere, even if that place is outside of space/time, but in the sense that the Platonic Forms are abstractions or pure Idea Forms of the manifestations of Nature. That is, the Prince of Darkness is manifested through us, and does not need a greater level of existence than that.

Before I wrap this up, I just want to stipulate that what I've said above does NOT indicate that Nature/Logos is something to be praised and fused with. I think the critique of existence is still possible, and maybe even stronger from the perspective that our individual beings/body-souls are a product of that Nature. It also does not mean that it is impossible to truly oppose Nature. But to do that, it might be worthwhile to take a look at our true mystical origin, our true Father and Mother, the place that we really did come from that is apart from Nature - and that is non-existence. Our conscious experience really did arise from nothingness, which is nowhere in Nature and has nothing to do with it. It is likely we will return there some day soon. Therefore an Anti-cosmic approach would be concerned with what the unmanifest is, and how to know it, rather than to try and take action in this world against Nature; which in truth would only empower its own self-contained machinations.

The perspective I have outlined for you here, is in its most basic form, Monistic Gnosticism. Those who oppose the course of Nature without admitting another Supernatural world as the source of this conflict, other than the non-world of nonexistence, from which we as individuals were born, but that Nature is forever removed from. I'm not saying this is the gospel truth, but an equivalent argument for the POD from this side might run something like this:

1. Consciousness/The Conscious Experience is inherently opposed by Nature.

2. Our Bodies and Minds are Products of that same Nature

3. But our Consciousness is not. It arose from Nonexistence, which Nature does not know.

4. The Prince of Darkness is a God inherently opposed to Nature, and is manifested as beings that are separate and opposed to that Nature.

5. We are manifested beings who are opposed to Nature, and are separate from it since our point of origin is beyond this world, and our consciousness of the world does not exist in the world.

6. Therefore the Prince(ess) of Darkness Exists. Could be Set, Odin, Ishtar, The Serpent, Lucifer, Prometheus, Quetzalcoatl, or and of the thousands of others, but It exists.

But of course, this formulation shows the POD hypothesis to be ancillary and sort of unnecessary, since the biggest ideas are in points 1-3. Once it is understood that POD is the Platonic Ideal that connects these manifested adversarial beings, then of course it exists- since we exist. We don't need it to 'exist' more than that. Someone more passionate about this point of view might feel it more useful to extend it otherwise, like so: (Remember, Demiurge/Demiurgos is Nature. It's not a being, though we may talk of it that way sometimes.)

1. Consciousness/The Conscious Experience is inherently opposed by Demiurgos.

2. Our Bodies and Minds are Products of that same Demiurgos

3. But our Consciousness is not. It arose from Nonexistence, which the Demiurge does not know.

4. Our Minds and Bodies prevent us from realizing this, as they are products of Demiurgos and are not concerned with/cannot comprehend that which is beyond its possibilities and those that it suggests.

5. Salvation from the hellish world of the Demiurge requires lessening attachment to it.

6. One who has broken his enchantment with Demiurgos can at last turn inwards to the infinite and timeless Origin, which was before and remains unblemished by, this fallen creation.

etc etc

Setianism / Re: Towards Setian Idealism
« on: April 07, 2018, 08:11:04 pm »
[Warning, this is a bit off the cuff, as I'm writing this in one sitting while waiting around at the airport. It does contain an expansion of some of the ideas mentioned briefly in my last post.]

I was slightly involved in this conversation months ago, but looking back over it now, I'm not sure if I can agree Xepera. This formulation of Setianism is one of the most agreeable to me, though of course I am biased because of my monistic tendencies.

As for if these gods or ontological minds really exist - I don't know how much that matters. Plato said "Time is the moving image of Eternity." I think our endeavor here is to model that relationship. And I think a model should be judged by functionality rather than reality - I'm not very optimistic of the grand scheme of reality ever being truly captured in a model.

The inherent properties of eternal define the fields that permeate every point in space. In time, these fields can become entangled with each other to form simple limited parts, endlessly repeated.These simple parts become entangled with each other in a myriad of different ways, producing a plethora of combinations. Many of these combinations are entirely unstable and fall apart immediately. Some reach stability and stay together for long periods of time. Each time a stable combination is produced, it allows for a new level of complexity in the universe - as these longer existing combinations can then entangle with themselves and each other in ever more ways. Many of these are unstable, and fall apart immediately. Some reach stability and stay together, producing a new level of complexity, and the cycle continues.

[Very simply, Material Substratum -> Fundamental Particles (quarks, leptons, bosons) -> Atomic Particles -> Many things, but by far the most stable and versatile are carbon compunds and chains -> long protein chains that can successfully reproduce -> simple proto-life -> all the progressive orders of life known in biological history]

By all observable measures, this is how all of things in our universe came to be, including simple animate life forms and more complex life forms with nervous systems capable of subjective experience. Since we do see these types of creatures and experiences in reality, then the Forms of these creatures and experiences must exist in our Horus principle, since their possibility and eventual creation were allowed for by the inherent properties of the Eternal from the beginning. There is no need to speculate about another world from which all types of mind come, and nothing to base this speculation on apart from the tendency of subjectified beings to feel they are separate from the universe.

This sort of leads into my next point. I don't think the forms of the Horus mind are necessarily dependent on their manifestation in the Set experience. It is very cool conceptually, but I find it somewhat contradictory to add an element of time to the eternal mind. The Forms of Mind and Mentalities are not a separate class from those unchanging laws of Physics, Matter, and Logic. They are equally implied by the vast possibilities of the inherent properties of the Horus Mind. This would mean that there are probably many more forms and ideas than those that have ever yet seen the light in the Set-Reality. Some of these may be found by Internal Alchemy, others by Biological and Technological developments. Some may never be manifested, but could have been, if the events of time had played out differently.

I hope this gives some insight into my earlier comments about human mentalities being "Portfolios" of Ideas/Forms. None of us are pure form, but we can explore the complex ones by adjusting our aspects and constituents. We are combinations of forms, just like the Gods. 


Most of this falls in line with and can be substantiated with my own model of Monism. Keep an eye out for my post sketching this out sometime in the next few weeks or so. I've been constructing it for a while, but there is so much to say - and I want to say it carefully.

I don't have anything more to say about gun control, and I also have no interest in escalating this conflict. But I have to reaffirm that as far as I'm concerned, this:

Quote from: Mind master least  I know what gender I am...

Is not okay. I've never had a reason to say this before, but I am a trans woman myself. We do know what our gender is. I think this will become abundantly clear if you take the time to listen to the experiences of trans people who are open about their journeys. I think we get enough aggression pointed at us elsewhere, please don't make us argue about our identities here of all places - a forum about personal spiritual journeys.

Honestly, nothing in this thread seemed hateful or vitriolic until your post. Let's just cool it down guys - nothing is at stake here. We're just here for open and thoughtful discussion

Satanism / Re: Anticosmic Satanism & Qlipoth.
« on: April 05, 2018, 08:50:30 pm »
I've posted here before about how the Demiurge and his Adversary have been twisted up together, making discussions about Gnostic Satanism difficult to parse. Is Satan the Demiurge or the Serpent? Is a Gnostic Satanist one who serves the fallen God or one who opposes him? This is something that has to be clarified on a personal basis, and interpretations abound.

I've seen Gnostics refer to the Demiurge as Jehovah-Satan or simply YHVH. I incorporate a lot of Gnosticism into my practice, but for this reason I don't call myself a Satanist or call the force I ally myself with Satan. I am relatively anticosmic on a lot of days, so I don't want to make the mistake of glorifying my enemys name in my practice.

Unfortunately this leaves me relatively bereft of names for the true adversary. I am more in favor of a name like Lucifer, the light bringer - or even Kristos Lucifer. But as far as I know, these names, while on-theme, are late constructions.

YHVH, Samael the blind, The One, The All-Seeing Eye, Ha-Satan, Jehovah-Satan, Brahma, even Brahman in certain cases - all these I consider Demiurgic names.

Lucifer, Lilith, the Serpent, Kristos, Sophia, Ganesha, the Holy Spirit, The Highest and Hidden All-Father, The Graal, The Unmanifest, The Source, Void - all these I consider holy or adversarial names.

[In my Gnostic paradigm]

I recognize El as a powerful name, but at this point I'm not entirely sure which list it belongs to. On the one hand, it can refer to the Jewish God. On the other, I've seen it used to refer to the spirit and it's Angelic emanations. (They all bear it's name as father - Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, even Samael the blind.)

I considered it Demiurgic for a long time, but more recently I've come across signs that it may refer to an old Saturnian God, which may be more complex. I've even seen people break down Israel as Isis-Ra-El, that is, the Moon Goddess, The Sun God, and El, the Saturnian God. Could very well be apocryphal but still sort of interesting. Personally I'm still trying to figure out where this sits for me.

This is probably getting a bit tangential, but I do think understanding names can be important for conversations like this, especially when we are trying to tease apart centuries old concepts that have been twisted together for so long.

As for your comment about Jesus, definitely the New Testament is very Gnostic at times. Even after all this time of being diluted and watered down, it is still there. I don't fall into the camp of Gnostic christians who, while recognizing the creator as Demiurge, still claim that Yeshua is the most important human in history and the only way to the truth etc etc. I think he was highly realized and taught about the true heavenly Father and Mother and the spirit, but I'm not ready to call him the All-Father made flesh. I'm not even ready to call him the perfected one who was prophesied to reveal to mankind how to nurture and cultivate the spiritual seed/spark within us. I think someone like Shakyamuni Buddha has a stronger claim to that - but realistically there was never going to be just one man. Only the spirit, and those humans who by one means or another are able to return to the source and reclaim the hyperborean wisdom after the worshippers of the One manage to crush and destroy the proclaimers of the last manifestation of our Gnostic transmission.

Yes, you can think of the past or the future, but when you do that you do it Now. Memories and Fantasies can be very vivid and realistic - they can even be motionless, as a memory of a single moment. But throughout the experience time is still moving along.

I think a good example of consciousness in time is exclusivity of thought. You are not, for example, aware of your entire life in one instant. The internal experience focuses on one thing after another, although it can move from thing to thing very quickly. If you are watching a video with spoken language, sporadic visuals, and subtitles that are of something totally different, you cannot take in all of that information at once. And I don't think it is simply a problem of visual acuity. Consciousness has trouble splitting itself many ways without much practice. It is not at all common for example to compose poetry in your head, while recollecting a song, while thinking about what you're going to say to that cute girl at the coffee shop, while navigating a busy street on the way there. Any of these things are possible if consciousness is focused on them, but it is very difficult to do more than one or two in concert.

Even if that argument doesn't move you, I think it is almost inarguable that the contents and state of consciousness is always changing. Given that time is our measurement of change, what are we to call this other than consciousness experiencing time or being subject to it? After all, we cannot will our experience to play in reverse, or make a permanent jump to some time 15 years ago and start from there, so clearly there is some limitation or element of time in the makeup of our experience.

Satanism / Re: Hate Isn't the way of the Satanist
« on: April 05, 2018, 03:09:00 am »
This was a beautiful post Kapalika. Just a short comment: Hate is not actually a thoughtless emotion, though it may be a low-consciousness one.

It has been said many times that the primary movers of human behavior are Desire and Aversion. Desire is what drives a human onward to a goal, and Aversion is what repels him from what he fears or dislikes. It can be debated which is more powerful, but it is clear which is more impactful subjectively - Desire. Because desire is always active, in whatever circumstances. Aversion is a dependent reaction.

One might be tempted to say that Hate is an aversion, but it actually isn't. It is desire turned towards darkness - it is to will harm or destruction to another person or group or thing. It is a constant pull, not a situational push. This is why I said Hate is not thoughtless - it is nurtured on brooding and troubled thoughts.

Thought and Desire feed on each other until Desire is insatiable. Greed is born. It is the same with every desire - hate and love are hardly different in this. But in the case of hate, what is that greed for? Nothing but anguish and ruin. This is why hate is such a poisonous thing, and I can't agree with "learning to release it." That is like saying you will learn not to burn in fire - it's foolish. There is nothing it can do for you that a pure Will could not accomplish much better. Whenever it arises, we should examine what produced it in ourselves, and understand the insidiousness of what we are entertaining. It is almost guaranteed to backfire, and even if it does not you have still harmed and deranged yourself.

It is for this and other reasons that I do not cast curses. The two are not the same, but without the former there is much less occasion to justify the latter.

Boy, that third point sure is doing a lot for you, isn't it? Could you explain how it follows that observing three dimensions moving through a fourth indicates a fifth? It seems that you would have to prove that an observer could not be a part of the other dimensions or a result of something happening there. For instance, how is the argument any more sound than this one:

1. There are three dimensions which make up space (i.e. length, width, and depth).

2. There is a fourth dimension – Time – which is the measurement of change within dimensions one through three.

3. The experience of an observer is not limited to or contained within dimensions one through three, but it is subject to the fourth.

4. Therefore consciousness is the subjectification of a process happening in the first three dimensions.

This isn't an attack, I'm just trying to better understand the argument - as I can't get it to work for me.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Dreaming and magic
« on: April 03, 2018, 08:16:47 pm »
Absolutely. Over the past several months I have been practicing dream yoga with on-and-off success. The quality of my dreams has become quite different. I used to find myself swept up and taken in by strange and alien worlds, times, and cultures that were unlike anything in my waking experience. I would even become a totally new person, with my own goals and feelings and fears. It often felt so real that I would be entirely convinced that my entire being had existed in that place.

Barring dreams like those, I would experience dramatized renditions of things in my waking life -my interests and fears and failures writ large.

These are what can be called Samsaric Dreams. They are produced by karmic traces in the dreamer. Unfulfilled hopes and anxieties, obsessions, etc. The mind that has been freely chattering all day continues to do so, except now it has much less sensory input to distract from it's ravings. I don't mean to say that these dreams are totally bad or useless; they are actually very useful. If you can remember them, with practice you can clearly see what the mind is hanging on to.

It is possible to go beyond this type of dreaming. If your consciousness is highly developed and unattached, if the mind has submitted to the Will, a different type of dreaming can occur. Dreams of Clarity. This is how many of my dreams are at this point in my practice. Often the dream itself has less of an object or point, because awareness is more stable and has less to obsess over. Sometimes not much is manifested, and consciousness just reappears and exists as self-satisfying being. Sometimes there is a manifestation, but it has so much less power to deceive. I exist light and carefree in whatever existence I find myself in. When desire is lessened or reduced to none, the mind can offer no trap that will successfully lead you into obsession and striving - so there is peace. In this state you can just watch as concepts arise from the mind, and you can identify the reality of each one as it does so. You can manifest things and thoughts intentionally to work on a problem, gain insight, or just to experience something new. You can choose to go and explore within the self, or you can choose to just exist blissfully unmoved.

There is a third type of dream, called a Clear Light Dream. This is the highest type, and it occurs for me only occasionally as of now. Here there is no embodiment - it is just pure consciousness everywhere/nowhere. You are all that exists, and you exist as one. It is similar to very deep meditation and enlightenment experiences, except even more so because in this state there is no possibility of the intuition of the outside world, the physical body, or even the astral body. It is pure awareness, unchained from limitation. An absolute beauty. That which no mystic can ever describe. By chance I stumbled into one of these experiences in a lucid dream when I was 16 - before I had ever begun meditating or diving into my studies of mysticism and the occult. It profoundly impacted me. Even today I still count it as one of the most wondrous experiences of my life. It took me years to encounter anything like it again, and to make sense of what had happened to me.

It is said of the enlightened ones who master dream yoga, that they perpetually experience this. Day and Night, there is one consciousness of pure light, uninterrupted by anything. Always abiding in the majesty of everythingness/nothingness. I think it would take a rare individual to approach the legend, but I have begun to see how it might be possible through my dream explorations and practice.

Most people waste their dreams, but once you understand their mechanics, they become a profound opportunity for consioussness work apart from the restrictions of daily life. I think this ability is highly personal to each person, so I'm not sure how well you can learn it from another person. But with enough willpower and practice, you will make progress.

Other Religions / Re: The essence of spirituality
« on: April 03, 2018, 03:06:59 am »
I think each one of the paradigms mentioned in this thread so far has some amount of wisdom available to it. Each perspective deepens and unfolds in its own way as understanding becomes realization.

I would hesitate to say that there is much truth in every tradition. Not that I think that is a total falsehood, just that it might be a little strongly worded to say with confidence. How much of the Truth can be put into words in any case? The words only hint at ideas, which the reader constructs for himself in his mind based on his current knowledge, state of mind, wisdom, and a hundred other things. The Dao that can be written is not the Eternal Dao

@Frater Sisyphus Magic may not be a direct path to enlightenment, however it is an excellent tool for focusing and harnessing the Will. After all, what is the first rule of magic? The Will must be one. I think this is also essential for the type of direct spiritual connection you are hitting at. Although, as the Buddha said, your personal Will is only trustworthy once you have attained arhatship. And it's a big question, how to crystallize the one Will without falling into delusion - without merely constructing a strong ego and an inner throne for it to sit upon. I think having a master can help, but barring that devotion can keep you pointed in the right direction.


The reason Goebbels probably gave you a strang vibe is because he was the Nazi Minister of Propaganda.

Haha thank you - I did know that much. What I didn't know was why he was poking his head in my workings!

Thanks for the tips. I have never yet heard that connotation for Dagaz, but I would be glad to use it if I can confirm that. The last thing I would want to do would be unknowingly invoking the sun and Dawn in my Lunar workings. What blasphemy!  Laguz does seem to work well. You didn't comment on Perthro - I'd be interested to here your thoughts on it as a Lunar stand-in, in archetypal energy if nothing else.

Of course I have been getting a lot just from seeing the runes in action and in conjunction. Don't worry - a couple of old books and much practice is not enough to deter me... It's not my first mystery rodeo.

I'm about to board a plane, so I've gotta go for now. I'll post back here with any interesting insights I might have!

I suppose I'm a little less optimistic than you on how much bullying and social pressures on children can or will be curtailed. Even if we made unbelievable progress on that front, as Kapalika said not all gun violence stems from that one issue alone. Some people are cold and vicious and cruel by nature. This is not an accident. There will always be some number of us who will try to take life regardless of circumstance or consequence.

If that is the case, you might say, then they will try to commit violent acts no matter what. Even if very powerful guns are removed from the equation, they will find a way.

To that I say sure, but what alternative methods can they really find that are on the same level of effectiveness as a high-power gun? These weapons are force multipliers on a scale entirely above all others. If a terrorist confronted me with say, acid, or a knife - there is still the chance for me to act to preserve myself. Even if that doesn't work out, we can at least know that a single person can not lock down a building, or even a classroom, with only a knife or container of acid. There is not enough overwhelming force there to put the power dynamics in favor of the single person.

I think the general level of consciousness in America is a terrible shame, but it is a separate issue from the gun control debate. A sharp rise in consciousness/mindfulness would perhaps alleviate most of the need for gun control, but the fact is there is no way for us to enact that change through our political apparatus, which has different goals in mind. We can't even get people to see how much they are being exploited on a daily basis. We can't even get healthcare for everyone. We are still fighting to get marijuana decriminalized, much less psychedelics. How are we to spiritually wake up all the poor and bewildered people of this nation?

I think it's reasonable for people to want something to be done about these continuing tragedies - and I don't see many strong arguments for preventing that action. These weapons are only harmlessly useful to hobbyists. There is always an argument for being able to resist the government in a nightmare scenario, but I think an honest person understands that is pretty far-fetched. And even if it wasn't, these weapons would clearly not do anything to deter a tyrannical military force.

Just to be clear, I am not a strong advocate on either side of this issue, I'm just acknowledging the imbalance in this discussion as I see it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4