Garden of Eden

[bob x]

An old chestnut is "Where did Cain get his wife?"

Answer: she was the daughter of Lilith and Steve!

 

[Lunitik]

Why is anything feminine immediately relegated to brood-mare? I can understand the whole going off into exile bit, if that is always what it comes down to.

This is one of many aspects of faith that simply show how outdated things have become... it is simply how things used to be, but if we cling to traditions of the ancients it becomes impossible to change them.

 

[bananabrain]

In Jewish mysticism the character of Lilith is identified as the first woman – the ‘first Eve’, created equal with Adam, the first man. Lilith was not willing to submit to the will of Adam, and was therefore cast out of, or fled from, the Garden of Eden. She then copulated with Satan/Samael and bore him a mass of different demonic children.

these are of course secondary, rather than primary sources and one is not obliged to hold any particular opinion about them; i know lilith has been held up as a sort of proto-feminist, but it's really not the case; you might see her as a champion of "junk sex", the "you'll have had your hole" sort which, when over-indulged in, has inevitably harmful physical, emotional and psychological (not to say spiritual) consequences. it's certainly not loving, consensual, emotionally involved sex. also, if you look closer at the zohar, you'll see that the snake actually had it off with eve as well and that adam also had rather a lot of demonic children himself; the zohar can be somewhat strait-laced, of course, but in this case there's nothing much going on that a modern sensibility that sees sex as an important element of self-realisation would really object to that much.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bananabrain]

Does the Bible not say to do God's will?

yes, but it also tells us that it is our choice whether we do or not. check deuteronomy 30:11 and the wording of pharaoh's behaviour during the exodus. it is certainly not telling us to abandon our free will.

Muslims are constantly disputing whether there is free will or not because the Quran seems to suggest it is not the case. Hinduism says much the same, and the Advaita practitioners will be quite adamant of this.

well, judaism is in no real doubt about the opposite; the only sense in which we might consider there not to be free will is on the level on which G!D Functions - as time is meaningless in G!DSpace, all possibilities have happened and not happened at the same time; so in that case fre will is also meaningless because there is no real difference ultimately between outcome A and outcome not-A; this is the closest we get, but we must also conclude therefore that free will is dependent upon the actuality of time; there has to be a before and after one's free will is exercised to see the consequence of it. however, as we cannot ourselves really escape time as humans, for all intents and purposes free will must remain an absolute.

Your example is very poor though, no one chooses when they wake up unless they set an alarm.

your reading comprehension isn't too hot, is it? i didn't say "wake up", which is to a certain extent involuntary (insofar as one can affect it by when one goes to bed and what one does before one goes to bed), but "get up", which is entirely voluntary.

I attempt to follow intuition as much as possible, this rarely takes me with the crowd

except the crowd of people that think like they're following intuition and not the crowd, strangely enough a lot of them end up barefoot in ashrams eating lentils and wearing tie-dye, (that of course is a classic example of self-organising systems arising from apparent chaos). you do know, of course, that intuition can be trained?

It is not being passive at all, passive is a duality, the opposite of aggressive.

i think you mean active, which is what most of us would say, although i accept that it might in your case be a bit of a freudian slip, hehe.

It is simply a being, there is no qualifier necessary.

well, that doesn't really mean anything, does it?

One goes with the flow by listening to intuition with trust.

you mean trusting your intuition? but, again, intuition is not something that is out of your control; in most people it is developed and trained to a greater or lesser degree; this is what picasso meant, i think, when he talked about transcending his training and painting like he used to when he was a child. of course this is not possible without brain damage of some sort, but i see what he's getting at.

How does this apply to music? Hazrat Inayat Khan has an entire volume on this exact topic

oh, well, that's just like actually being a musician, ain't it?

one simply observes the flow of the sound and keeps the wave going. When you are in tune with the instrument, you simply know how the notes can best fit together, though this intuition you can create a masterpiece

oh, one "simply" does, does one? it's clear from this that you aren't a musician. you cannot be "in tune with the instrument" without first learning how to play it, which requires months and years of discipline and learning the rules of playing it, which you can then go beyond. however, you have to understand how the notes *can* fit together in order to "know how" they might; this is how your intuition is trained, by hearing possibilities which you are, in a certain sense, remembering from having done them previously, perhaps not in quite the same form, but modified to suit the moment. however, it is abundantly clear that this is not simply creating a "masterpiece" through "intuition". try talking to an indian musician some time; ask a tabla player what he has to learn and for how long - we can't all become zakir hussain in a couple of minutes, otherwise master musicians would be rather more common.

most of the time, people are just going off sheet music, no intuition is needed here.

what a load of nonsense. sheet music is a way of learning the basics of what you have to play (if you're a classical player) but during a performance, even using sheet music, vast amounts of interpretation are possible, using the TRAINED intuition you have acquired through the DISCIPLINE of years of practice.

When you simply are the music, when you are totally in tune and are creating a cosmos rather than cacophony

then that is a sign that you have enough mastery of the discipline of your instrument to begin to transcend it and create something individual.

it is not that you move the fingers to create the notes, the fingers begin to move of their own accord because that is where the wave is going next.

actually, that's exactly what happens, you move your fingers or whatever to create the notes. however, because of the mastery of the discipline of your instrument, you can do so FAST ENOUGH FOR IT TO SEEM SPONTANEOUS - but it isn't, really, it's just a well-developed sense of what is likely to happen. the outcomes are not that random, you will start to recognise the patterns you're playing within - these constitute the "rules" that you are following with your "intuition". i mean, seriously, to come out with something like this you can't possibly be a musician.

I have not experienced this

oh, what a surprise.

my experience is with music as a dancer. When dancing, as soon as I start considering moves the whole thing is utterly ruined.

well, you probably aren't skilled enough to do it fast, then; have you had formal training, or was that just too much for your intuition?

If I am attuned to the music though, I needn't do anything, I simply move with the music and what is created is often praised by those around.

and are any of these people trained in dance? i mean, of course i don't wish to rain on your parade if you simply happen to be a spontaneous virtuoso, it's not unknown, particularly for people on the autistic spectrum, but i have a feeling you're not exactly giving public performances here.

Intuition, listening to the whispers of God, is like hindsight as the situation is arising.

actually, i think that is rather nicely put - hindsight as the situation is arising; a sort of short-loop precognitive ability; but i think in a improvisatory situation that's actually more likely to be determined by your experience of the likely outcomes in "situations like this" - our brains are extremely well evolved to "do what worked last time in a situation like this" and that becomes unconscious to some extent.

You begin to see what is happening before it is the case, because mind is not gone as a constant condition however often doubts arise and something negative usually happens as a consequence.

or, alternatively, you pattern match, but the match isn't right and you have to adjust; again, all animals do this, there's nothing "higher" about it.

As a particular example, as I was leaving my neighborhood to go to the store on a peddle bike, I stopped because a girl was trying to catch her dog.....

so, basically, you put your "truth" first and the dog died. would it not have been better if you'd actually caught the dog when you'd had the opportunity, rather than let the girl risk her life by chasing the dog? i think this makes my point about essential humanity rather well.

It is not that the choices are less passive or conscious, it is that when I go against intuition there are negative encounters, when I go with the flow of life all is good. It is actually that I am MORE conscious, I am conscious that I am not to choose, that there is no need to choose, that all is taken care of without my decisions.

that may be how it seems to you. to me, that seems like you're just withdrawing from life in an astoundingly lazy and self-absorbed way. no ego? my arse - you're putting your ego above the lives of others because you're too scared to get involved.

It is when I go into unconsciousness that struggles arise, when I go with the current all is blissful and utterly enjoyable. Life becomes a heaven, but otherwise it is a hell.

it sounds to me like you have totally given up on life.

I have no conceptions, I have a truth which guides me in all things.

in this case, your "truth" leads you to a falsehood about the text, which ought to be a warning.

If I am reading a religious text that doesn't even hint at this truth, why waste time accumulating whatever it is conveying?

it doesn't hint at it *to you*, because you don't understand it, because you haven't even bothered to try, because that might involve you getting off your arse and making an effort to empathise.

I am not interested in spiritual knowledge, it has already served its purpose for me. I am interested in causing others to experience what I have encountered, and for myself to go deeper into that.

well, i'm not very impressed with how you're coming across and i would rather not become like that; if that is what happens when the "experience what you encountered", then i think i'll pass.

I am not trying to be an observing hasidic or kabbalist, I am interested in venturing in their direction only because our discussions will have more common ground.

you will not find any common ground with either until you learn that compassion is not an excuse for withdrawing from the world and hiding in a sort of smug self-absorbed nirvana.

I am not a slave to any practices

except this "truth" of yours that prevents you interacting normally.

they are a distraction from gratitude and love for the whole.

i expect that girl would have had a lot more gratitude and love if you'd saved her dog.

They are frilly pantomimes to entertain the unconscious, activities to give the mundane something to do.

yes, that's the statement of someone with no ego.

We will certainly conflict in this area though, my main influence is Osho who died in 1990, yours is no less than 3,000 years into the past.

well, i wouldn't bet on osho's followers still being here in 3,000 years time, if they can't even lift a finger to save someone from pain. nice.

Osho has catered much of his talks on modern people, the ancients are not like the people today at all so for me what they teach for the most part is irrelevant today.

that's true - the ancients certainly didn't mention fleets of rolls royces, vast amounts of drugs, harems of women, compounds in oregon patrolled by people with AK47s, salmonella poisoning outbreaks, or conning followers out of huge amounts of cash.

a child playing and laughing is a simplistic beauty

so is a child bullying another child for being not part of the group.

Wanting to kill Jews is a jealousy caused by Jews proclaiming themselves the chosen people of God because a book says it

oh, reeeeeeally? it's our fault, is it? nothing to do with people not understanding what the concept of "chosenness" actually is? we were chosen to observe the commandments, not to be "better". what you are talking about is "give a dog a bad name and hang him" - caused by people who are "not interested" in finding out what the text actually says.

it an inferiority complex and like yourself wanting to think your current situation is superior others want to say they are superior

don't you think wanting to kill someone is a little bit more than mere chauvinism?

It is easy to not get caught up in the market while you are in the mountains, but you have not grown you have simply become a coward. They say renounce the world, but the just move address, it is stupid. Then they go on begging because they have renounced money, what is this serving? You are not becoming more religious when you renounce, you are becoming more lazy.

finally we agree on something.

Why do you have such a disdain when you post about it, it is your go-to for describing a religious statement you disagree with. You should probably go into why you have created this attitude, did you come across something which hit a nerve and offended you in some way? Usually when ego lashes out, it is because it is threatened, this is usually a good sign to investigate in that direction...

it's actually quite simple. when i come across someone talking total bollocks and using one of my sacred texts, which they have patently neither read properly nor understood, to point out how superior they are, i have this funny urge to, y'know, point it out.

For one thing, you are creating in them a dependence on you which is unhealthy - depending on their age.

presumably you would prefer it if small children took a chance in "going with the flow" in the traffic.

Secondly, using another as an excuse is not much of an excuse at all. If there is this responsibility, you will do it more reliably and yet not so habitually when you are acting through response.

sheesh... you're obviously not a parent, are you?

Of course, you don't agree with statements like this, you still crave control over yourself. It is perfectly good for now if you can grow ever increasingly in love for your God, then a day can come when you will be ready to hand over this control.

oh, the clouds of smug!!

That their community was becoming too dispersed, too easily victimized.

your insensitivity is astounding.

You cannot uphold statements saying you are the best race on the planet and then live in the world just as a common citizen. It is why the Jews need their own country, to band together and protect against those that are offended.

you really, really do not understand what you are on about and you are building an entire edifice on this fundamental misconception.

Lilith is a woman from later in the Bible that Jews have attached to the creation because there are two seemingly contrary stories of creation in Genesis. It has the added benefit of justifying why men are head of the household, so you have pleased people two-fold.

ok, i can accept you don't know anything about judaism even though you seem to think you do, that's not that unusual, but do you actually know any jews? head of the household my arse. there's a reason everyone makes jewish mother jokes rather than jewish father jokes.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[IowaGuy]

the ancients certainly didn't mention fleets of rolls royces

Are you suggesting one can't be enlightened and own 90 Rolls Royces? Oh, I almost forgot, Osho didn't own them, the commune did, he just drove them. So maybe that doesn't disqualify him from enlightenment

 

[Lunitik]

all possibilities have happened and not happened at the same time

If all has happened, God has caused all to already be - you have no free will because every choice you're presented with has already been completed. It has not happened because in this plane it is still happening, it as as a script or day two of a play.

well, i wouldn't bet on osho's followers still being here in 3,000 years time, if they can't even lift a finger to save someone from pain. nice.

I should hope not, Osho has said no one should follow him, simply use him to assist in your own seeking. If you ever come across an Osho follower he has erred, simply as that. As for not lifting a finger to save someone from pain, Buddha's disciples will help no one in trouble because if this person then goes and kills tomorrow it is on them. They allow fate to play its course utterly, and yet he has lasted 2,500 years!

that's true - the ancients certainly didn't mention fleets of rolls royces, vast amounts of drugs, harems of women, compounds in oregon patrolled by people with AK47s, salmonella poisoning outbreaks, or conning followers out of huge amounts of cash.

* Osho owned none of the cars, he has tried to make a point about renunciation not being at all beneficial for spirituality though. It actually started as a joke because he started with a raggedy car.

* Osho wasn't against drugs but said much about them not being helpful, he taught that the individual should be completely free to choose such things, and that if you don't try to stop them they will get it out of their system more quickly.

* Osho has not taught repression of sexuality, and again actually recommends children engage their sexual curiosity at a younger age so that earlier in life they are engaging in more mature relationships.

* Osho had attempts made on his life and needed protection because the people of Oregon were very hostile.

* Osho himself was poisoned and his secretary did time for it while Osho was not even entering the commune at the time, when he found out, the secretary fled for Holland, stealing $40 million from him.

* Osho never conned anyone out of cash, people gave because they wanted to contribute to the commune, to what they were doing there, the ordinary person did not ever have to pay for anything but material and seeds and land was still needed.

 

[Lunitik]

Are you suggesting one can't be enlightened and own 90 Rolls Royces? Oh, I almost forgot, Osho didn't own them, the commune did, he just drove them. So maybe that doesn't disqualify him from enlightenment

I'm confused, what role do you think objects play in enlightenment?

If you do not cling to anything, why can you not have them? Renunciation does not mean running to the mountains so that you are away from people, this is cowardly and the people will come with you because you have become so against them - it is just an obsession now in a negative direction.

No one has ever talked so beautifully and so inclusively about spirituality. For me, anyone that doesn't go deeply into his writings has done a great injustice to their individual seeking. What the man did is utterly irrelevant since he's dead now, his words are invaluable though.

 

[bob x]

It is simply a being, there is no qualifier necessary.

well, that doesn't really mean anything, does it?

What does ehyeh asher ehyeh mean, then?

 

[Lunitik]

What does ehyeh asher ehyeh mean, then?

Exactly, that "I am" without any qualifier - you are not anything you think you are, you simply are. No generalized qualifier like your race or nation should be clung to, you are not your job or your hobbies, nothing said after "I am" is valid as a description of anyone because there is at least bound to be exceptions which disqualify it. It is the only truth, that yes, you exist - everything else society and family has attached, everything else is purely accidental.

What's more, you are not the body, the mind, none of that... you are that which is aware of these things - the witness. Transcendence is exactly this realization, the realization of that "I am". It is the dropping of all identifications, only then can you know what you truly are but there is no actual answer - simply the question is dropped. There is nothing gained by trying to answer the questions that have sent you into the search, this is the the ultimate answer and the ultimate freedom. Yet, along the journey, something truly awesome has happened, it is that happening which fulfills everything for you.

There is no meaning necessary, providing meaning puts you in a box... saying your lifes mission is something in particular you now have the ability to succeed or fail and yet whatsoever you do will not last forever. God has no mission in his creation, whether you believe in evolution or not, there is no particular target we're heading towards. All is a divine play, enjoy it - that itself is a means and its own end, the two are not separate when you live in love. That is why the lover seems mad, irrational, because only logic needs a goal.

That is "I am", that is existing as an isness, you are now so rejoice and be grateful for it.

 

[IowaGuy]

I'm confused, what role do you think objects play in enlightenment?.........If you do not cling to anything, why can you not have them?

Now this is getting good, Lunitik. So, even if you're an enlightened being, you can have whatever you want as long as you don't cling to it? Carnal pleasures? (which Osho had no problem with as he advocated for open sexual relations) Pleasures of luxury such as 90 Rolls Royces? I don't think this is the Bodhi that Buddha was teaching...

Do you agree one's life can either be for greed or for serving others? And which side of the spectrum do you think Osho was on? How much good could he have done for humanity with the $ that was spent on the Rolls Royces? Obviously he was not an altruist. What is your definition of enlightenment?

I agree he has some good writings, but his actions call his character into question. Makes me wonder if he was just putting on a show to get what he wanted...

 

[Lunitik]

Now this is getting good, Lunitik. So, even if you're an enlightened being, you can have whatever you want as long as you don't cling to it? Carnal pleasures? (which Osho had no problem with as he advocated for open sexual relations) Pleasures of luxury such as 90 Rolls Royces? I don't think this is the Bodhi that Buddha was teaching...

It will change its dimension, you will not seek these things but why turn them down if you are presented with them? That is a sort of violence, that no. You accept whatsoever comes in life if you are in bodhi, but of course it is not what Buddha has taught - they are two different men almost three thousand years apart. Osho would say he has owned nothing though, because how can you own an object? When you start possessing things and people, now it is something gross, but accepting what existence hands you is beautiful - in fact, in many religions it is a crime to reject a gift, it is just that for Osho every second is a gift and every opportunity presented is as well. This is the nature of the celebrating he teaches: to rejoice every present, never miss the here-now.

Do you agree one's life can either be for greed or for serving others? And which side of the spectrum do you think Osho was on? How much good could he have done for humanity with the $ that was spent on the Rolls Royces? Obviously he was not an altruist. What is your definition of enlightenment?

I believe life is about sharing, it should not be about giving or receiving because these are a duality. Do you understand the subtle difference?

What is enlightenment? It is a state of being, it is the removal of duality. Your consciousness is expanded beyond the boundary that is ordinarily the case. I have experienced this only briefly, but for Osho it has become permanent after samadhi. Otherwise, there is no set definition at all, no behavior can be called enlightened or unenlightened by itself. This is the beauty of the Tantra tradition, that it is not about actions at all, it is about transforming your being and responding from there.

This is the most beautiful aspect of Osho, that he is the culmination of every former tradition and yet utterly original. He is a man standing on the shoulders of giants and looking down at it all, this is his greatness, the perfect synthesis for modern man.

I agree he has some good writings, but his actions call his character into question. Makes me wonder if he was just putting on a show to get what he wanted...

For me, he is the greatest enlightened man the world has ever known because he is utterly authentic. He has actually spoken against character, against persona's though. Since in bodhi there is no past or future, he explains that each moment he has died and reborn - only the mundane are concerned with consistency. For the enlightened man, it is equal difference from the center to any point on the periphery, but it will seem contradictory to those looking on. It is not even that he goes to the periphery at all though, he simply responds from his core - this is enlightenment, going into life without training, without simply habitually acting. The way ordinary religions are, the saints are the most asleep because they never act intelligently, it is always an application of something from the past.

 

[Etu Malku]

It will change its dimension, you will not seek these things but why turn them down if you are presented with them? That is a sort of violence, that no. You accept whatsoever comes in life if you are in bodhi, but of course it is not what Buddha has taught - they are two different men almost three thousand years apart. Osho would say he has owned nothing though, because how can you own an object? When you start possessing things and people, now it is something gross, but accepting what existence hands you is beautiful - in fact, in many religions it is a crime to reject a gift, it is just that for Osho every second is a gift and every opportunity presented is as well. This is the nature of the celebrating he teaches: to rejoice every present, never miss the here-now.

Giving makes you giant, receiving makes you smaller. It's like eating, you have all this food stuff in you and all you become is fat and tired, sickly. Enlightened individuals would give away such extravagant possessions to less fortunate.

I believe life is about sharing, it should not be about giving or receiving because these are a duality. Do you understand the subtle difference?

Obviously, I disagree here.

What is enlightenment? It is a state of being, it is the removal of duality. Your consciousness is expanded beyond the boundary that is ordinarily the case. I have experienced this only briefly, but for Osho it has become permanent after samadhi. Otherwise, there is no set definition at all, no behavior can be called enlightened or unenlightened by itself. This is the beauty of the Tantra tradition, that it is not about actions at all, it is about transforming your being and responding from there.

Enlightenment is not the removal of duality, it is the expansion of Self, the interconnecting of Self with other Selves creating the process of unity and divine love. Not the surrendering of ego either, but of Individuation, balance, and the giving of this to others.

For me, he is the greatest enlightened man the world has ever known because he is utterly authentic. He has actually spoken against character, against persona's though. Since in bodhi there is no past or future, he explains that each moment he has died and reborn - only the mundane are concerned with consistency. For the enlightened man, it is equal difference from the center to any point on the periphery, but it will seem contradictory to those looking on. It is not even that he goes to the periphery at all though, he simply responds from his core - this is enlightenment, going into life without training, without simply habitually acting. The way ordinary religions are, the saints are the most asleep because they never act intelligently, it is always an application of something from the past.

I am unfamiliar with OSHO, can you point me towards something worthwhile online?

 

[Lunitik]

IowaGuy, I was just reading Osho and saw this, I think it might be useful for you to understand Osho more:

"Indulgence is suicidal - as suicidal as repression. These are the two extremes that Buddha says to avoid. One extreme is repression, the other extreme is indulgence. Just be in the middle; neither be repressive, nor be indulgent. Just be in the middle, watchful, alert, aware. It is your life! Neither does it have to be repressed, nor does it have to be wasted - it has to be understood."

Now, there is a huge difference between Buddha and Osho, even though Buddha goes on preaching the Middle Way, he has still set up an environment where there are no temptations - it is a sort of weakness, lack of trust in the disciples. Buddha has, for many years, rejected women, he goes on saying that if he accepts women then there will be negative consequences for his teaching. He has been worried that, at the very least, his Jnana teaching will start becoming more and more Bhakti - his path of understanding will become a path of love, and he is perfectly right because today people go on praying to Buddha and worshiping him, it goes against everything he taught but it persists. With Osho, there is a complete allowance of the extremes, a totality that denies nothing and yet remains detached from it all. In this way, I think Osho is a higher Buddha than Sidhartha, there is a more complete balance to him - he is totally for the market, he does not say you have to escape and deny life, it is totally life-affirming. If you look at a Buddhist monk, often they will seem very solemn, all types of monks seem to be basically already dead. Certainly, you cannot say these people are celebrating life, not at all.

 

[Lunitik]

Giving makes you giant, receiving makes you smaller. It's like eating, you have all this food stuff in you and all you become is fat and tired, sickly. Enlightened individuals would give away such extravagant possessions to less fortunate.

You have not understood the difference...

When you give, first you have to gain, you have to be utterly greedy otherwise what will you give? Now you can give 10% and be proud that you are helping people, but you have taken 10x that from the society. Receiving, you will feel guilty because you haven't earned it, you will feel you have to give back in the future. You understand that no one gets anything for nothing in this world, and this creates a discomfort.

In sharing, there is none of this, you simply have too much so it is distributed. There is a good feeling in this, and when others do the same you are utterly grateful, there is nothing either actually own though - they are just fortunate to have come across whatsoever life has provided.

Enlightenment is not the removal of duality, it is the expansion of Self, the interconnecting of Self with other Selves creating the process of unity and divine love. Not the surrendering of ego either, but of Individuation, balance, and the giving of this to others.

Enlightenment is a unity, yes... but if the two is unified, how can duality persist? If we permit that it is an interconnecting of many selves, how many selves are there now? Love is existences glue, it binds everything together. You will not attain enlightenment unless you understand surrender, it is simply impossible. You may disagree, but you are not enlightened so how do you know what is necessary?

You are perfectly right, though, through enlightenment the individual is created. You will think you are already an individual, but you are not, you are the culmination of all your past experiences only. It is when you drop the past that the individual arises.

I am unfamiliar with OSHO, can you point me towards something worthwhile online?

This is on topic.

 

[Etu Malku]

With Osho, there is a complete allowance of the extremes . . . I think Osho is a higher Buddha than Sidhartha, there is a more complete balance to him . . . If you look at a Buddhist monk, often they will seem very solemn, all types of monks seem to be basically already dead. Certainly, you cannot say these people are celebrating life, not at all.

I can get with these concepts. Hermetics understands polar extremes as being of the same thing, only extremes of course.

Balance in everything is key to spiritual ascension, too many Belief systems only embrace the Light and admonish the Dark, to know both equally is a pursuit of Luciferianism.

Celebration of Life (physical and mental) is the beauty behind the Apollonian and Dionysian philosophies. A balance of order/Maat and chaos/Apophis will lead to transformation/Kheperu (Egyptian philosophy).

 

[Lunitik]

This also is quite interesting.

 

[Lunitik]

I can get with these concepts. Hermetics understands polar extremes as being of the same thing, only extremes of course.

Balance in everything is key to spiritual ascension, too many Belief systems only embrace the Light and admonish the Dark, to know both equally is a pursuit of Luciferianism.

Celebration of Life (physical and mental) is the beauty behind the Apollonian and Dionysian philosophies. A balance of order/Maat and chaos/Apophis will lead to transformation/Kheperu (Egyptian philosophy).

Yes, it seems much of our understandings are very similar, and it is always so in mystical circles - only the terminology may be different, perhaps there is different fluff and decorations around it. Basically, they must be the same though, because the destination is the same.

If you go into the negative utterly, the positive will have more depth. If you go on cutting the negative, the positive cannot be as meaningful. That is why I say everything is utterly perfect as it is, remove anything and you take something away from that perfection - you make existence a little more shallow, a little less exciting. You are basically just waiting to die now, life loses its enjoyment totally, it becomes utterly monotonous. You can see this most clearly in the monk, it is sad that this is the culmination of most religions though.

 

[Etu Malku]

Thanks for the links . . . knowledge is good!
An interesting concept in Buddhism is there are an infinite amount of Buddhas, in Luciferianism there have been many Lucifers in the past, including the belief that Yeshua was one as well.

I have a similar belief in that instead of Becoming Enlightened, like one turns on a light bulb, we are all in various stages of Enlightenment, some more or less than others, that it is a gradual process.

The Qabalah cites the Tree of Life as being imperfect, due it being created by the Demiurge, of which the Gnostics believed as well, this Tree then collapsed and where the physical/material Malkuth was not originally present, there now existed it due to the collapse.

Some Luciferians and LHP Orders believe it necessary to assist the completion of the collapsing Tree in order to rebuild a better and balanced Tree of Life.

Thoughts?

 

[Lunitik]

Thanks for the links . . . knowledge is good!
An interesting concept in Buddhism is there are an infinite amount of Buddhas, in Luciferianism there have been many Lucifers in the past, including the belief that Yeshua was one as well.

I have a similar belief in that instead of Becoming Enlightened, like one turns on a light bulb, we are all in various stages of Enlightenment, some more or less than others, that it is a gradual process.

The Qabalah cites the Tree of Life as being imperfect, due it being created by the Demiurge, of which the Gnostics believed as well, this Tree then collapsed and where the physical/material Malkuth was not originally present, there now existed it due to the collapse.

Some Luciferians and LHP Orders believe it necessary to assist the completion of the collapsing Tree in order to rebuild a better and balanced Tree of Life.

Thoughts?

It is not so much infinite as just that every human being is a potential Buddha, I too agree with this obviously - there is nothing particularly different about a Buddha compared to a normal man, other than in awareness of his nature, realization of that inner light. Lucifer and Enlightened seems interchangeable in our understandings...

Enlightenment is not a process, though, it only happens in an instance. There are many processes supposed to trigger it, and mind is gratified by thinking they are getting nearer because mind is goal oriented. In reality though, it is a flash, it can spring on you unawares - this is how it happened to me, I was contemplating something and my mind just kinda went off the rails. It started continuing the meditation without words, without any direct cognition... then this just stopped and there was left object and subject - the final extreme, the last duality. What is the result of their merging? Well, enlightenment. I was not striving for something, it simply happened as a result of what I was contemplating, for hours it engulfed me. I was not there for maybe 6 hours that day, now what to make of it? This is what led me to Osho, he explained for me what had happened, otherwise I would still be lost trying to figure it out.

I do not believe in any nonsense like a Demierge, sorry... for me, there simply is no creator - only creativity, for creator and created is another duality. I have experienced oneness, so no such duality or separate God is meaningful for me - they are all metaphors pointing to something, it is for you to discover where they point.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Etu Malku, you believe in gradual enlightenment. Do you believe in a perfect stage of enlightenment that all are working towards? What happens when you get there?