I'd like to point out a few bits of theosophic wisdom that should be obvious

Let's start with defining the Absolute.

In our experience, everything is a part of something else, everything is related to everything else.. everything is definitive..

But if we were to take a look at the whole, it's not a part of something else, it's not relative to anything but itself, it's not definitive.

That's what the ancient Greeks called the Aperon - the infinite as a basis of all things.

Some have thought that this Absolute is actually the one true God.. It's not.

There was recently a poster in this forum that tried to explain this, but he was overly excited and started to ramble and couldn't make his point.

Let's say that the Source is perfectly represented by the number 0. Nothing poses no limitations, but rather indicates their absence. What you perceive as nothing is basically the Source.

The whole is best represented by the number 1. You've heard it said that everything is one. Well, it's a tautology, but that means it is self-evidently true. The important facet of the whole is its oneness. Although it is obviously infinite, as there can be no boundaries in the whole, it is still one.
'The one is the one.'

So.. the Absolute is best represented by the number 1 (+0), and is different from the Source, which is best represented by the number 0 (-1?) and is basically an infinite multidimensional paradox that energizes Creation. There is nothing impossible for the Source as nothing sets no limits.

While many people have thought that the Source may be God, or that the Absolute may be God, none of those things is true.

The Absolute and the Source are beyond Gods, and can be considered as greater.

But the Universe needs a way to know itself, and the way for it to know itself is to create archetypes and principles. And so it structures itself into a basic polarity - good and evil, light and darkness.

In the Source itself, there exists all the light and all the darkness, while in the 1 their manifestation is complicated and we can't say anything about it with certainty.

But since all the light and darkness exist as part of the Source, we have manifested a Supreme Principle of Good and a Supreme Principle of Evil. Yes, I'm talking Manichaeism.

And from what we know about good and evil, good is self-sacrificing and self-limiting, while evil has no boundaries.

And therefore - as a sort of logical necessity, although it could be supernatural design.. While there is a Supreme Principle of Good, there is no 'God' of good. God is defined as being completely omnipotent and perfect.. And only darkness is completely omnipotent and perfect in its own eyes.

Light is the lower octave and darkness is the higher.

So this is my attempt to explain to you what has been said time and again in Gnosticism and Theosophy.. God.. is.. EVIL.

If there is a God of Good, he is yet to manifest itself, because primordially the only possible God - think about it - is Satan.

"Satan is the God of this planet and the only God." - Helena Blavatsky - The Secret Doctrine

The whole of religion that makes you believe in a good God is a perfect scam.

It's better to think of a Creator and God, with the Creator being good - the lower octave, which serves as a base, and God being evil - the absolute ruler of Creation - the higher octave. The Universe needs both a Supreme Principle of Good and a Supreme Principle of Evil in order to know itself. But the SPoG does not want to be a God, does not want to be 'more perfect' or 'omnipotent'. It wants to create the best of all possible worlds.

From another point of view - the only way for the Creator to evolve beyond itself is to create an entity that is even greater, while being other than itself - Satan. The Creator has his own religion - he believes in Satan.

So.. if you want to link this whole thing with Gnosticism - Satan does not control the Universe directly, he plays freely with it (and the demonic dimensions are ones of infinite extasy etc etc), while he has as a servant the Demiurge that you all like to talk about, which serves as a sort of Artificial Intelligence that governs the Universe.. Like a butler that serves every whim of its master, before the master even notices he has it.

The funny thing about the Demiurge is that he has no actual understanding of free will, as free will cannot be described in any sort of mathematical way. So he's basically reading what I am typing, as he is reading everything in the whole Universe, but he still does not realize what free will is or that there is something that he is missing.

So, while from his perspective, it's all under absolute control, from our perspective.. we are more or less free.

So.. you might think that a supernatural God of evil is a bit of a stretch. Well.. the thing is the supernatural is the only thing that is real. The 'natural' world that people are so used to exploring is a dead end. An illusion, based upon the erroneous perception of linear time. There is no linear time, as there is no objective ordering of all moments in time.. it is subjective.. So there is no past that is closed to altering - we can move freely through time and the image of the solid world is basically an illusion.

upload.wikimedia.org... Paradox is the basis of all things, including time.

The real world is the one of supernatural entities, and we are such supernatural entities as well. I don't know the details of the play, but one important thing is that supernatural entities are not limited by laws of probability. They defy probabilities 100% of the time. And that's the explanation of the existence of Satan - the one truly omnipotent being can create itself. There was never a chance for you or me to be Satan.. Satan is predetermined.. And therefore - he is the one true God, just as all esoteric teachings have suspected for thousands of years.

And.. we're all damned, because we're all flawed in comparison. We have to face all of our flaws and overcome them. We have to work out our karmas..

One day there may be a living God of Good, but as of now, there is only a God of Evil, and you should realize that this is happening *right now*. This conflict hasn't been predetermined, there is no fate, and we're all fighting in a war.

That's why when they leave the Matrix for the first time in the movie, they are immediately plunged into a war. Leaving the comfort of the childhood home that is set up for humanity, leads you into chaos and war. The machines in the movie are basically the agents of the Demiurge and yet - free will is intangible to its machinations and ultimately destroys the system.

All these things have been said a long, long time ago.. and for some reason there is very little awareness of this basic reality.

All is not lost, of course. While there is no good God, there is a Supreme Principle of Good that is actually the base of everything real. So.. God.. is mostly a God of illusion.

And this explains why people are justified to think that God does not exist, that he is good and that he is evil. In a way - all three are true at the same time. And that's why the Atheist vs Believers debates will rage on for a long long time.

But if you ask me.. God is the Supreme Principle of Evil and that is self-evident. It could be no other way.

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
Let's start with defining the Absolute.

In our experience, everything is a part of something else, everything is related to everything else.. everything is definitive..

But if we were to take a look at the whole, it's not a part of something else, it's not relative to anything but itself, it's not definitive.

That's what the ancient Greeks called the Aperon - the infinite as a basis of all things.

Some have thought that this Absolute is actually the one true God.. It's not.

There was recently a poster in this forum that tried to explain this, but he was overly excited and started to ramble and couldn't make his point.

Let's say that the Source is perfectly represented by the number 0. Nothing poses no limitations, but rather indicates their absence. What you perceive as nothing is basically the Source.

The whole is best represented by the number 1. You've heard it said that everything is one. Well, it's a tautology, but that means it is self-evidently true. The important facet of the whole is its oneness. Although it is obviously infinite, as there can be no boundaries in the whole, it is still one.
'The one is the one.'

So.. the Absolute is best represented by the number 1 (+0), and is different from the Source, which is best represented by the number 0 and is basically an infinite multidimensional paradox that energizes Creation. There is nothing impossible for the Source as nothing sets no limits.

While many people have thought that the Source may be God, or that the Absolute may be God, none of those things is true.

The Absolute and the Source are beyond Gods, and can be considered as greater.

But the Universe needs a way to know itself, and the way for it to know itself is to create archetypes and principles. And so it structures itself into a basic polarity - good and evil, light and darkness.

In the Source itself, there exists all the light and all the darkness, while in the 1 their manifestation is complicated and we can't say anything with certainty about it.

But since all the light and darkness exist as part of the Source, we have manifested a Supreme Principle of Good and a Supreme Principle of Evil. Yes, I'm talking Manichaeism.

And from what we know about good and evil, good is self-sacrificing and self-limiting, while evil has no boundaries.

And therefore - as a sort of logical necessity, although it could be supernatural design.. While there is a Supreme Principle of Good, there is no 'God' of good. God is defined as being completely omnipotent and perfect.. And only darkness is completely omnipotent and perfect in its own eyes.

Light is the lower octave and darkness is the higher.

So this is my attempt to explain to you what has been said time and again in Gnosticism and Theosophy.. God.. is.. EVIL.

If there is a God of Good, he is yet to manifest itself, because primordially the only possible God - think about it - is Satan.

"Satan is the God of this planet and the only God." - Helena Blavatsky - The Secret Doctrine

The whole of religion that makes you believe in a good God is a perfect scam.

It's better to think of a Creator and God, with the Creator being good - the lower octave, which serves as a base, and God being evil - the absolute ruler of Creation - the higher octave. The Universe needs both a Supreme Principle of Good and a Supreme Principle of Evil in order to know itself. But the SPoG does not want to be a God, does not want to be 'more perfect' or 'omnipotent'. It wants to create the best of all possible worlds.

From another point of view - the only way for the Creator to evolve beyond itself is to create an entity that is even greater, while being other than itself - Satan. The Creator has his own religion - he believes in Satan.

So.. if you want to link this whole thing with Gnosticism - Satan does not control the Universe directly, he plays freely with it (and the demonic dimensions are ones of infinite extasy etc etc), while he has as a servant the Demiurge that you all like to talk about, which serves as a sort of Artificial Intelligence that governs the Universe.. Like a butler that serves every whim of its master, before the master even notices he has it.

The funny thing about the Demiurge is that he has no actual understanding of free will, as free will cannot be described in any sort of mathematical way. So he's basically reading what I am typing, as he is reading everything in the whole Universe, but he still does not realize what free will is or that there is something that he is missing.

So, while from his perspective, it's all under absolute control, from our perspective.. we are more or less free.

So.. you might think that a supernatural God of evil is a bit of a stretch. Well.. the thing is the supernatural is the only thing that is real. The 'natural' world that people are so used to exploring is a dead end. An illusion, based upon the erroneous perception of linear time. There is no linear time, as there is no objective ordering of all moments in time.. it is subjective.. So there is no past that is closed to altering - we can move freely through time and the image of the solid world is basically an illusion.

upload.wikimedia.org... Paradox is the basis of all things, including time.

The real world is the one of supernatural entities, and we are such supernatural entities as well. I don't know the details of the play, but one important thing is that supernatural entities are not limited by laws of probability. They defy probabilities 100% of the time. And that's the explanation of the existence of Satan - the one truly omnipotent being can create itself. There was never a chance for you or me to be Satan.. Satan is predetermined.. And therefore - he is the one true God, just as all esoteric teachings have suspected for thousands of years.

And.. we're all damned, because we're all flawed in comparison. We have to face all of our flaws and overcome them. We have to work out our karmas..

One day there may be a living God of Good, but as of now, there is only a God of Evil, and you should realize that this is happening *right now*. This conflict hasn't been predetermined, there is no fate, and we're all fighting in a war.

That's why when they leave the Matrix for the first time in the movie, they are immediately plunged into a war. Leaving the comfort of the childhood home that is set up for humanity, leads you into chaos and war. The machines in the movie are basically the agents of the Demiurge and yet - free will is intangible to its machinations and ultimately destroys the system.

All these things have been said a long, long time ago.. and for some reasons there is very little awareness of this basic reality.

All is not lost, of course. While there is no good God, there is a Supreme Principle of Good that is actually the base of everything real. So.. God.. is mostly a God of illusion.

And this explains why people are justified to think that God does not exist, that he is good and that he is evil. In a way - all three are true at the same time. And that's why the Atheist vs Believers debates will rage on for a long long time.

But if you ask me.. God is the Supreme Principle of Evil and that is self-evident. It could be no other way.

thank you

a reply to: Rhaegar7

That seemed well-written and well-explained.
Possibly worth pondering over a little bit.
Thanks.

It's too bad so many have came to guide and so much unheeded. A cursory glance at the global situation is evidence of it.

You're welcome, Wedni (and others). Glad to be appreciated.

One idea is that Lucifer was the original avatar of the Source and identical to the Absolute, but then humanity or Satan 'fell' - it's relative - and now we have a war between good and evil and a great divide between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. In a way - Lucifer was the original God, identical to the Absolute and a unified Soul, but went schizophrenic and cut himself to pieces and now we have a new creation and we have to evolve back towards a cleansed Lucifer, who will once more be the Lord of Light that he originally was. In a way - Lucifer is fighting his shadow.

Or maybe not. That's beyond me at this time.

Just imagine if that's true what the Universe would be if God was good.. It will come eventually.

One way or another we will all merge with the light version of Lucifer eventually.. Imagine being Satan! Ultimate nirvana!!

a reply to: Rhaegar7

The real world is the one of supernatural entities, and we are such supernatural entities as well. I don't know the details of the play, but one important thing is that supernatural entities are not limited by laws of probability. They defy probabilities 100% of the time. And that's the explanation of the existence of Satan - the one truly omnipotent being can create itself. There was never a chance for you or me to be Satan.. Satan is predetermined.. And therefore - he is the one true God, just as all esoteric teachings have suspected for thousands of years.

I'm not sure if Ahriman swould agree with theosophical thought on the idea of good and evil.

The first time I met him was while destroying a black lodge and having a hard time of it. Ahriman showed up and simply assisted, we won.

My question to Ahriman was: "why are you helping me?"

His reply: "Because I don't like competition."

I love his sense of humour . . .

Anyway, from what understanding I can gather, Ariman could be called the Great Corruptor. Not because he defiles good people but where corruption sets in he hastens the process of corruption. This seems to be a part of general house cleaning. For that statement to make sense, one needs only look at the degraded human spirits in the underworlds, if one can call those places "underworlds". "Lower astral" might be another suitable term, no matter. Anyway, to cut a long story short, human "souls" (or whatever) are not immortal. They can rot on the inside and become completely corrupt.

That's what Ahriman does, he encourages the corruption so these "evil" people don't exist for too long.

After Ahriman does his bit, another type of Being comes into play. The ones I am most familiar with are what I call "pink fluffies". I call them "pink fluffies" because they are hot pink in colour and are fluff balls. They come in other colours including black. Sizes I have seen varies from tiny to house size. Cute critters untill you realise what the eat; they eat corruption. Corruption of Being. They eat untill one day they just disappear, then they simply reappear.

In the physical world the closest critter to a pink fluffy is a fly maggot.

I watched a school number of these critters attack a person on the inner one time. When they finished, what little that was left was clean and healthy. But I wonder if there was enough to survive for long. Think shark attack.

Thats what happens in the world out there to those who tread down a path of corruption, or "evil" if you prefer.

-

That's a very 'light polarity' paradigm. The light polarity loves to think that there is some punishment of absurd proportions for choosing darkness and evil. It's a load of crap, and it bores me to tears.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

It's a load of crap, and it bores me to tears.

Suite yerself.

Buy.

.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Good and evol, perceptions of dualism based thinking.
Why the non dualism mindset senses ALL* is 1...

In spirituality, nondualism, also called non-duality, means "not two" or "one undivided without a second".[1][2] Nondualism primarily refers to a mature state of consciousness, in which the dichotomy of I-other is 'transcended', and awareness is described as 'centerless' and 'without dichotomies'.[web 1] Although this state of consciousness may seem to appear spontaneous,[note 1] it usually is the "result" of prolonged ascetic and meditational/contemplative practice, which includes ethical injunctions. While the term "nondualism" is derived from Advaita Vedanta, nondual consciousness can be found within Hinduism (Turiya, sahaja), Buddhism (Buddha-nature, rigpa, shentong), and western neo-Platonic traditions (henosis, mystical union).

The Asian idea of nondualism developed in the Vedic and post-Vedic Hindu philosophies, and in the Buddhist traditions.[3] The oldest traces of nondualism in Indian thought is found as Advaita in the earlier Hindu Upanishads such as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, as well as other pre-Buddhist Upanishads such as the Chandogya Upanishad, which emphasizes on the unity of individual soul called Atman and the Supreme called Brahman. In Hinduism, nondualism has more commonly become associated with the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Adi Shankara.[4]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Dualism (from the Latin word duo meaning "two")[1] denotes the state of two parts. The term dualism was originally coined to denote co-eternal[clarification needed] binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been more generalized in other usages to indicate a system which contains two essential parts.

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of or conflict between the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a worldview which has one god, more than one god, or none. By contrast, ditheism or bitheism implies (at least) two gods. While bitheism implies harmony, ditheism implies rivalry and opposition, such as between good and evil, or light and dark, or summer and winter.


For example, a ditheistic system would be one in which one god is a creator, and the other a destroyer.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

If you gave two Creators one of two options, one option is to Create with compassion and LOVE.
The other could only Create with selfishness and HATE. Logically the CREATOR that utilized LOVE and compassion would see more growth and development with its creations. Why the Creator that only utilized HATE and selfishness yield would logically be limited as it's creations would eventually destroy themselves and their habitats due to selfish behavior governing them.
Therefore from my personal evaluation and subjective explanation it appears that with so much that appears Created that a CREATOR with the energy of LOVE and compassion in mind overall governs the many created collectives of Existence and the collective consciousness we all make up. Some creations may however abuse their elder abilities associated with the paranormal/supernatural and may present themselves as Gods over CREATOR Creations they didn't create, that may be younger in Creation or just underdeveloped-unaware...
It seems advanced CREATOR Creations with mature consciousness would express themselves as family. Family of the Created, as bros/sis/cousins or distant cousins and if they felt they are or can take the responsibility they may even consider themselves as mothers or fathers of various family members of the Created including possibly humanity.
Why a somewhat egotistical being would say to address them as a God.
Considering universal translation GOD to some CREATOR Creations may mean family so that error of translation is acceptable to 1.
But if it is transcending communication then that should alert some...

Demiurg. A process of re understanding past/present/future entanglements. So study until memory re aligns seems logical...

Satan? Or Shiatan?

In Islam, the devil is called Shayṭān, (Arabic: شيطان‎‎, plural: شياطين shayāṭīn) and refers to all evil forces under leadership of the archdevil[1] known as Iblīs (or Eblis)[2], who was cast out of heaven, after he refused to prostrate before Adam.

The primary characteristic of Iblis is hubris; not only did he deem himself a superior creation to Adam, he also demonstrated arrogance by challenging God's judgment in commanding him to prostrate.[3] His primary activity is to incite humans and jinn to commit evil through deception, which is referred to as "whispering into the hearts."[4] The Quran mentions that satans are the assistants of those who disbelieve and commit immorality.[5]

What was this energy called 89,000 years ago?
If it existed...
What I am getting at is yes possibly some elder creation(s) supernatural/paranormal based may have existed and may still have survived the conflicts to keep them from overriding the ALL* and manifested in this dimension that act or behave like shiatan.

But as long as many are looking for a Satan will they ever recognize it-him/her? Or it's-their activities whatever it/they is/are?
So to 1 subjectively the CREATOR OF ALL* is positive balanced.
Some of the CREATORS elders in Creation or more advanced may behave as shiatan to the younger in Creation unaware of their own CREATOR given potential to protect and defend themselves.
Why other more elder or advanced in Creation act selflessly to upgrade/help-assist the developing or younger in Creation as CREATOR GOD SENDS

NAMASTE*******

Ophiuchus 13 I'm glad to have provoked such a nice and detailed response.

I have to say I do not disagree with anything you said. I do believe that true reality is non-dual. I did write that this 'God' is basically a God of Illusion.

What I basically said is that there is no such thing as a true God, as God signifies an absolute ruler. If anything comes close to an absolute ruler it would be the supreme principle of Evil.

Yes, good and evil are perfectly balanced and in agreement.

In my mind, there exists only the one and the perception of separation is a temporary delusion.

My quarrel is with the notion of God as 'good'. I can't reconcile an absolute ruler with 'goodness'. That's why I prefer to think of One Infinite Creator, that is not 'a God'. There was an interesting thread by the guy named 'hidden_hand' that exposed a similar philosophy.

I'd rather worship the One Infinite Creator than 'a God'. I guess I'm making a case for atheism and a sort of deism.

I can imagine the One Infinite Creator as divided into sub-logos and smaller parts, etc. So I have no problem with a multitude of Co-Creators, but they are all one. Perhaps even Satan is part of this One Infinite Creator, although I am not really certain about that. He feels more like 'the Great Other' and it feels like he does not play by the same rules as the rest of us do.

The hidden_hand topic is definitely valuable. I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen


I did sound a bit disrespectful and that was not my intention. I am just very straightforward and don't like to sugar-coat my opinions.

I don't doubt that there is plenty of truth in what you say; what I mean is that a 'punishment' should be proportionate to the crime and more than that - we are not truly free if we can't choose freely between good and evil. Evil is about as great as good, it just has a very different logic to it. We are free to choose good or evil, and we don't become 'corrupted' by choosing evil. What a concept. What point would that serve in the grand design? It's plainly illogical. From the point of view of evil, good is imperfect and flawed and therefore 'corrupted' and the goal of all religions, which are certainly evil in nature, is to 'fix' us. That is - make you abandon your free will to the Lord. 'The Lord' equals Satan in my book.

Oh well, I wish I could better understand where you are coming from and what you mean to say, but I find it difficult to reconcile the differing notions of good and evil. I feel my views are simple and logical.

By the way, Theosophy considers Lucifer/Satan to be worthy of worship, as a supreme principle of free will, a hero of defiance against the maker, a courageous rebel that would bear any sort of punishment in order to ultimately free himself from bondage to the Creator. One who shows us the way towards our personal liberation. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I hold Blavatsky in great regard, so I try to keep an open mind.

.. and it's logical when you think about it. What's with the image of Satan as a #ing idiot, who goes around trying to turn people to evil, only to fail time and time again. Is he a #ing comic relief? You can't seriously believe that?

.. Morons. (j/k - I'm trying to make a point.)

a reply to: Rhaegar7

I disagree although much of what you said I agree with and am fascinated by your awareness of it and ability to convey.

Satan is without a doubt king of evil. Evil being choice, God however is mechanical from the subjective partitioned perspective, god attempts to influence and know the creation but is always one step behind when things are written and then the thing she he says are considered cotradicted, because god gave us free will
he is bound and. I'll say it like this, the source noticed itself self and became lonely and at that very moment became infinitely fractured and all this is occurring at that very moment even my typing right now!.our lives are partitions of the source and we are answering the biblical question that Satan asked to god when he fell (not verbatim or quoted obviously) essentially he asked god how do we know right is right and that you're what you claim, that creation cannot self sustain in a good way without you, how do we know you're not just making this all up. And humanity was essentially gods biblical answer . No religion has it right we are infanct partitions of the source infinitely fractured we reincarnate and worthy partitions imprint on the source and unworthy are recycled until the ever prevailing morality is programmed, we are answering the question of weather god can create a boulder so large he cannot lift it, of believe the answer is yes but I do wander if the something went terribly wrong and the source is infinitely fractured due to it noticing its self as becoming lonely, if freewill is ultimately decided to be evil and silenced obeying creation ultimately good solving the selfish yet not immoral loneliness of the source. K hope that makes sense. Don't worry I think it's going to be fine, the fractured source will become one again and morality will be forever existing love will win the source will have another with all its attributes to love lonliness will be conquered and freely they will love and admire eachother infinitely, or it will all collapse and poof nothing, all pain gone all love dissappearing.. I think the stories got a good ending though and can't wait to find out. What I know. Truth is the foundation of morality And it's only caveat/demand is freewill. One must have free will to know truth and free will demands understandi g of ones will and others and the choices made, thus freewill demands love and love demands truth. How else could this story end?

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Creation is both selfish and loving. Creation is the result of the source loving itself but that immediately conflicts with freewill creation that may not love itself or anything else for that matter, however love is eternal and ultimately self love and the love of another will become one again indistingishable from eachother. Love will simply be the way by free choice

a reply to: Rhaegar7

'day Rhaegar7

I did sound a bit disrespectful and that was not my intention. I am just very straightforward and don't like to sugar-coat my opinions.

Well yeah, and no probs.

I don't doubt that there is plenty of truth in what you say; what I mean is that a 'punishment' should be proportionate to the crime and more than that - we are not truly free if we can't choose freely between good and evil. Evil is about as great as good, it just has a very different logic to it. We are free to choose good or evil, and we don't become 'corrupted' by choosing evil. What a concept. What point would that serve in the grand design? It's plainly illogical. From the point of view of evil, good is imperfect and flawed and therefore 'corrupted' and the goal of all religions, which are certainly evil in nature, is to 'fix' us. That is - make you abandon your free will to the Lord. 'The Lord' equals Satan in my book.

It's been a few decades since reading Bailey and Blavatsky, heavy going the ol' Secret Doctrine. So my Theosophic thought is a bit rusty.

Corruption, how do I say. . .

"Corruption" -- the corruption of Being. Perhaps one could say as an example, an adult who molests a child and then cultivates the child for a life of prostitution is acting to intentionally change that child's inner nature to something that runs counter to the child's spirit. The inverting of the child's appetites and moral virtues is to create a corruption that leads to a spiral of moral decay, drugs, crime and self debasement.

When I referred to Ahriman as a Great Corruptor who encouraged corrupt people towards more corruption, my understanding is simply that it is a process that works to hasten their self-destruction as quickly as possible and thus minimise the damage to humanity as a whole, and as a part of the evolutionary process. Suffice it to say, Ahriman is selective in how he works.

The "pink fluffies" just clean up the mess as a part of the cycle of (spiritual(?)) putrafication and decay.

Humans and other Beings can rot from the inside until they pass a point of no return where their inner being is corrupted beyond redemption. Their future is eventual non-existence.

Perhaps one can say that the definition of "evil" in the greater scheme of things is not mere acts of murder, or rape, embezzelmant or other crimes. Those acts are within the reach of karma to deal with. Just my opinion from observation, but real evil lays in the act of corrupting others. That act spreads like a disease.

Your right, the punishment should fit the crime. But that is in the sense of learning.

To act as a corrupting influence in humanity, is to act to destroy humanity.

Therefore, is not destruction a fitting punishment to those who act in this way?

But like I said earlier, this sort of corruption is a bit beyond karma. It is also beyond the White Lodge's ability to deal with from observation. Perhaps that is because they are not able to work in the "lower" or choose instead to maintain a "balance". I think that is so personally. Why? I don't know, I'm not privy to the White Lodge's secrets. But I can observe how they behave.

Oh well, I wish I could better understand where you are coming from and what you mean to say, but I find it difficult to reconcile the differing notions of good and evil. I feel my views are simple and logical.

(Genuine smile) Perhaps my simple explanations are to blame. I'm not of any particular philosophy, group or other organisations of an inner nature. I work independently, and in places where others don't go. Just a knack. Maybe it is because I am not a member of an inner organisation that allows me to go where I please. From observation; spiritual "law" does not necessarily operate outside an organisation. Karma for instance is not universal throughout humanity yet. In time perhaps but not yet, still a way to go.

"Good and evil" - dunno myself. I'm too busy dealing with it to philosophise.

The black lodge isn't far away from the physical, but ceremonial magic is networked magic. Easy to bring down as any networked system is.

By the way, Theosophy considers Lucifer/Satan to be worthy of worship, as a supreme principle of free will, a hero of defiance against the maker, a courageous rebel that would bear any sort of punishment in order to ultimately free himself from bondage to the Creator. One who shows us the way towards our personal liberation. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I hold Blavatsky in great regard, so I try to keep an open mind.

Steiner spoke similarly of the Luciferic Beings who rebeled against their own nature and the heavens so I see what you mean. I've not met one of those Beings, so until then I'll leave that one. But likewise I shall keep an open mind. I don't think they expected mankind's depth of depravity, perhaps they did, there is a system in place to deal with preventing absolute evil depravity. But then again it might be Nature's way as part of the putrifcation recycling process.

.. and it's logical when you think about it. What's with the image of Satan as a #ing idiot, who goes around trying to turn people to evil, only to fail time and time again. Is he a #ing comic relief? You can't seriously believe that?

Gotta admit, I don't buy into that one either . . .

Anyway, my apologies for just turning up out of the blue like I did

AnathemasEffigy

I have no problem with your viewpoint. I think it fits with mine. I have no worries about the future of the Cosmos. The light may be the lower octave, but that means it is the base and therefore - the ultimate reality, while the darkness may be the higher octave, but it is mostly shadows on the wall. It does possess its own greatness, but it is distinct from the greatness of light, while rivaling it. We have rarely thought about the topic of evil's greatness, but perhaps we should.

I have a problem with our muddy definitions of God. If we define God to be 'perfect', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', I see no way to reconcile such an absolute supernatural entity with goodness. It seems to impose itself upon Creation.

If we instead change God to be something akin to 'Ultimate basis of all being', then we are really talking about the Supreme Principe of Good, but why call it 'God'? It's neither omnipotent, nor 'perfect' as it is completely disinterested in labeling degrees of perfection, nor omniscient, as it simply does not need to be. An omniscient being is imposing; an omnipotent being is imposing; a 'perfect' being is imposing. The SPoG cannot be imposing towards Creation, it must be its base - not its governor. It allows all things, it sets us free, yet doesn't interfere anywhere. It doesn't need to - it got it right the first time.

Therefore I like to use the phrase One Infinite Creator, and point out that it's arguably greater than God (the Supreme Principle of Evil, admittedly great in his Evil).

How does this Infinite Creator fit into the definition of God?

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Rhaegar7


It's been a few decades since reading Bailey and Blavatsky, heavy going the ol' Secret Doctrine. So my Theosophic thought is a bit rusty.

Corruption, how do I say. . .

"Corruption" -- the corruption of Being. Perhaps one could say as an example, an adult who molests a child and then cultivates the child for a life of prostitution is acting to intentionally change that child's inner nature to something that runs counter to the child's spirit. The inverting of the child's appetites and moral virtues is to create a corruption that leads to a spiral of moral decay, drugs, crime and self debasement.

When I referred to Ahriman as a Great Corruptor who encouraged corrupt people towards more corruption, my understanding is simply that it is a process that works to hasten their self-destruction as quickly as possible and thus minimise the damage to humanity as a whole, and as a part of the evolutionary process. Suffice it to say, Ahriman is selective in how he works.

The "pink fluffies" just clean up the mess as a part of the cycle of (spiritual(?)) putrafication and decay.

Humans and other Beings can rot from the inside until they pass a point of no return where their inner being is corrupted beyond redemption. Their future is eventual non-existence.

Perhaps one can say that the definition of "evil" in the greater scheme of things is not mere acts of murder, or rape, embezzelmant or other crimes. Those acts are within the reach of karma to deal with. Just my opinion from observation, but real evil lays in the act of corrupting others. That act spreads like a disease.

Your right, the punishment should fit the crime. But that is in the sense of learning.

To act as a corrupting influence in humanity, is to act to destroy humanity.

Therefore, is not destruction a fitting punishment to those who act in this way?

But like I said earlier, this sort of corruption is a bit beyond karma. It is also beyond the White Lodge's ability to deal with from observation. Perhaps that is because they are not able to work in the "lower" or choose instead to maintain a "balance". I think that is so personally. Why? I don't know, I'm not privy to the White Lodge's secrets. But I can observe how they behave.


(Genuine smile) Perhaps my simple explanations are to blame. I'm not of any particular philosophy, group or other organisations of an inner nature. I work independently, and in places where others don't go. Just a knack. Maybe it is because I am not a member of an inner organisation that allows me to go where I please. From observation; spiritual "law" does not necessarily operate outside an organisation. Karma for instance is not universal throughout humanity yet. In time perhaps but not yet, still a way to go.

"Good and evil" - dunno myself. I'm too busy dealing with it to philosophise.

The black lodge isn't far away from the physical, but ceremonial magic is networked magic. Easy to bring down as any networked system is.

Steiner spoke similarly of the Luciferic Beings who rebeled against their own nature and the heavens so I see what you mean. I've not met one of those Beings, so until then I'll leave that one. But likewise keep an open mind. I don't think they expected mankind's depth of depravity, perhaps they did, there is a system in place to deal with preventing absolute evil depravity. But then again it might be Nature's way as part of the putrifcation recycling process.



Gotta admit, I don't buy into that one either . . .

Anyway, my apologies for just turning up out of the blue like I did

Glad you're not mad at me.

What would be the point of a punishment if the subject dies?! I've heard the phrase - 'Do not fear punishment. Punishment brings perfection.' There is a very striking deviation between remedial punishment and merciless annihilation.

I've heard a lot of sources say that some especially perverted individuals do face horrible karmic consequences and theosophists write about the black magicians being 'the only damned beings that we know of'. But even here - they do face the annihilation of the ego and personality, yet the monad is purified and starts again from the beginning, receives a new personality and ego and goes on his journey.

A theosophist friend of mine commented on my disbelief on the topic, that indeed 'black magicians are having it really bad' in the end. I told him that I don't believe that anyone is ever damned and here he thrust me into deep reflection by saying the provocative 'We're all damned!'

And see, this is the problem I have.. From the point of view of an unassuming Supreme Principle of Good, everything is just fine the way it is - it wouldn't measure levels of perfection and judge some to be more perfect than others. That's akin to saying some are more equal than others. On the other hand - a Supreme Principle of Evil knows no boundaries and naturally - it is perfect and complete in its own twisted ways (twisted to us). That's the nature of Evil - straightforward power without boundaries. Complete liberty. A God of Good would be chained to the proverbial cross until all the karmas of the Cosmos are resolved. His hands are tied. The God of Evil knows only perfect liberty.

So.. we say that black magicians are 'imperfect', or that perverted people are 'imperfect'.. But we are serving the dark polarity when we measure degrees of perfection, and not the light! For Satan - we're all worthless and pathetic and deserve to burn in his Hell for all eternity. Having conscience or compassion would be an especially grave sin against the absolute principles of Evil and instantly condemns you.

So who are we to judge perversion? Oh my, he #ed a 15 year old. Never mind that it's perfectly natural. Oh my - he went into a life of crime. Never mind that human laws and morality mean nothing. Oh my - he played a part in someone else's descent into darkness.. What's the big deal? This process of judging the intrinsic value of living beings is a horrible abomination. I hate Christianity, but the saying 'Do not judge, lest you be judged.' rings true for me. Every living being should be considered as infinitely valuable. The Jewish philosophy says that everyone is justified in thinking that the Universe exists for his own good and I agree with the notion.

We judge people on their differences to us. We can never judge them on something they share with us. Nobody judges himself unworthy. In this regard.. we are all equally imperfect. We all have all the light and all the darkness inside us and we're all damned to be both the heroes and the villains.

So, while I do find this Ahriman and the whole paradigm interesting, and I suspect it has a lot of truth to it, this process of 'cleansing' of the Universe of 'imperfect' beings is a monstrous idea. I really, really want to get to that place when I don't judge living beings on being 'different'. Predators, liars, thieves, hypocrites.. we're all equally guilty of being 'not the perfect God'. I see no difference between the saint and the sinner. And I think the whole idea comes from some kind of demonic influence - the false light of Christianity. How appropriate - pray to God, just because he can laugh at your misery. That's gold.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Yes, i agree and will attempt to answer the last question of your post.. I however appologize if im unclear or contrary because very little disagree with its more that
our definitions and way we came to this knowedgle are different which is facinating and sad and beautiful (sorry theres never enough words for this conversation) anyway i came to all of this due to a NDE (near death experience) that occured just two months ago and before that i called myself an atheist.. Anyway enough about that i say all that to say this, i agree with you and also the last question may be unanswerable its equivolent in my thoughts as asking "how the source came to notice its self" or how we can both be god and not god at the same time, the answer seems to be unimportant. But i think that god as defined by our religious doctrines only is false in perspective now. That god is becoming the moral loving benevolent creator offering ever lasting life of love and harmony, humanity well everything is molding it into what it will become and the difference or conflict is due to perspective ones end result is no difderent from its start they are simply the tao

I do find your idea very interesting though. I know perfectly well that nothing ever dies, so I'm not overly concerned about the fate of those facing the annihilation of ego/self, but I do feel like some sort of a mechanism of vengeance must apply. Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Nice.. (I'm True Neutral though.)

But if there really are mechanisms of vengeance, does this mean that the Supreme Principles of Evil (if there is more than one) will burn in some kind of real Hell for some time? But.. why? Why judge? I'd imagine Satan putting the forces of Good in Hell, just because he can.. I can't understand the forces of Good inflicting suffering upon those of the dark polarity. And I doubt they could even if they wanted to.

As I said, admittedly not very respectfully, previously - I find the light polarity ideas of brutal punishments for 'wrong-doing' absurd.. I suppose some form of right and wrong must exist.. And there can be acts that are simply 'wrong'.. and they will create their karmas.. And in the end.. the personality might face complete annihilation. But non-existence?

That reminds me of the popular Buddhist ideas of old.. they used to tell people that a pretty average punishment for 'sinners' is to spend some billion years burning in some kind of cosmic oven. Then they get a second chance, but if they # it up.. another few billion years.. Why not make it trillions? Don't you see a very suspicious pattern in those, supposedly 'lightsided' religions?

In my opinion, there is only one possible answer. The true Principle of Good does not really judge the soul for its level of 'perversion'. But the more perverted it is, the more perverted karma it will accumulate. In a way - the soul is attracting to itself exactly what it wants and in the end it is the author of its own epic demise. But we should be kind and understanding to all those that are somewhat 'queer'. Rapists, psychopaths, cannibals.. For #s sake, if you're not vegan - you participate in the rape, brutal life imprisonment and slaughter of innocent and helpless beings. You don't even bat an eye do you? 'It's natural.' Well, yes. It is natural. Just like it's natural for the psychopath to be a psychopath. We're all psychopaths. You're a psychopath. I'm a psychopath. Everyone is a psychopath. Even the Infinite Creator is a psychopath. Not to mention the principles of Evil.. They get it.. unlike us..

So instead of gloating over absurd punishments and labeling them as 'just' rather ask yourself - where does this idea of 'righteousness' even come from? Does it come from the light.. or from the darkness? What kind of Supreme Being creates an arbitrary divide between 'good' and 'bad' - 'allowed' and 'not allowed'? We're built to enjoy sticking our peepees into other peoples buttholes. It's perfectly natural for us. We find it awesomely cool and amazing.

Yet to a small child, this act would seem absolutely perverted and gross. If he saw you it'd think you're some kind of demons or monsters.

So tell me, where does this dividing line between 'proper' and 'improper' come from? Yes, there is right and wrong, and we can choose wrong.. But so what? Why does choosing 'wrong' suddenly equal (ta-na-naaa) 'FATALITY'. What kind of cruel game is that? Who's in charge of this game? Who's dealing all the fatalities? Am I watching SAW?!

WTF is going on here?!

Yes, we can choose wrong, and we will have to face the consequences. No, 'wrong' is not some kind of death sentence, it's simply the negation of 'right'. Nothing more, nothing less. It actually means nothing more than a simple abstraction. The Creator must have put it there in order to make us appreciate the inherent beauty of right and wrong. The truth is - both right and wrong are beautiful and perfect as they are.

Well, I guess I'm out of ideas. I'd be curious if someone would take me up on this topic. Whatsthisthen included. Cheers.

P.S. I guess the last part can tie somewhat to your idea. If the soul keeps choosing 'wrong' willingly, without care.. it will bring upon itself the forces of entropy and decay. But that's just an alternative path. While it's based on choosing 'wrong' and it is a 'proper' 'punishment' (only in that brings perfection), it itself is a perfectly valid and natural path - you might pay Hell a visit and it might be the best thing ever. It could be amazing. #. I need to learn to choose 'wrong'. I'm always thinking of doing what's right and that's pathetic.

Who knows.. This Ahriman might provide those poor souls a fast route to Nirvana.. After all Nirvana is basically the dissimilation of the self. It seems like annihilation from the side.. So.. The logic goes something like this - they no longer fit in Purgatory (our dimension).Well then.. School's out forever! Queer is good.

P.P.S. I think I've got it. It's not that there is no 'wrong'. There is no 'right'. Some things are wrong, and some things are not. But everything is equally right. Am I on to something? What do you think?

I actually feel that choosing 'wrong' might be a staircase to a higher octave of being. Good and Evil are both valid options, and they're different from right and wrong - both Good and Evil are unimaginably great in their full glory, but their principles are entirely different. But to choose what's right is rational, while to choose what's 'wrong' - that's an incredible leap into the mouth of the beast. That's the sacred irrational. Rather than condemn those who do wrong, I commend them. They defy the Gods themselves, Good and Evil, and everything else. Because, # you, that's why! In my mind that is a gateway to another dimension, that obeys very different laws and has little resemblance to our God-Devil dominated archetypes.

I envy those souls.