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

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Rhaegar7

One of the practical problems of a living being (myself included) who is trying to understand the world around him as a duality is that he is looking at things from the perspective of being both light and darkness.

If we stand between light and darkness, one could say we are shades of grey. If we try and polarise, or move towards either, we are moving to one of the two extremes of the duality.

It doesn't help when occult teachings add to this the concept of "higher" and "lower" - higher being "good" and lower being "bad". We see this everywhere. Underworlds are supposed to be bad. Heavens are supposed to be good.

Yes. You get it. One way to think of it, is to realize that light/dark has nothing to do with good/evil per se.

image.freepik.com...

The light is in the dark, the dark is in the light.. People think that light is white and darkness is black.. How about black light and white darkness? This curious inversion actually holds quite a lot of essential esoteric wisdom. To think of a black light and white darkness sets the mind to perceive archetypes that it had previously closed off.

This is 'the light' trap - the worship of something that ignores and even breaks the Yin Yang Balance, thus closing the mind off to the fundamental archetypes of the real light and the real darkness, which are actually one and the same.

Ironically, those who are especially enthusiastic about 'following the light' will be inevitably lead to places they don't really want to go. Most people go through their entire lives, never having seen the real light or the truth.

I saw the light in a recent OBE.. It was very different from what we are taught to associate it with. What we usually think of as 'light' is basically 'white darkness'. The real light is fantastic, mystical and magical, it has the energy of Venus and the power of Neptune. It gives life and is 'pure' - it has never been tainted by evil and never will be. It's like looking in the eyes of the Goddess.

And perhaps darkness is really white and not black. The archetypal holder of the Universe is properly visualized as perfectly black, thus making it so that the boundaries of what's possible lie in the darkness - so the white 'light' (darkness) is the complete inversion of the primordial order, structure and harmony. In a way - the black light holds unbridled possibility and no boundaries, while the white darkness is the realm of the impossible, absurd, meaningless, chaotic.. etc. It's strange to talk of boundaries, when there are none. It's more of a symbolic thing - the complete white darkness being the maximum inversion of principles that is possible, even though everything is possible.. In my understanding the black nothingness is the primordial infinite paradox that allows all things. A field of infinite possibility that can be considered the Sleeping God, while the Source it encompasses can be considered as the Goddess. The nothing which we visualize as black might just be the very essence of the light - the black light of Creation.

Lucifer as the living, active Principle of the manifest Universe, reverses all potentials until he covers everything in complete Darkness. This is his way of 'activating' the Universe. So we are incarnated in this darkness, and slowly go back towards the 'light', which some describe as 'finding again the Tao, which was just hiding'.

About higher and lower worlds.. 'God is in His Heaven, all is right with the world.' The Heavens are generally reserved for the pious supporters of the living God. The Hells for both those who wield the Luciferian energy, like black magicians for example, and for poor #s who try to fight evil. Trying to fight the living God puts you in Satan's hell immediately. While good people generally suffer in Hell, black magicians and the sort may face karmic consequences as well, but generally find Hell to be their home. Those who try to fight evil are basically 'wrongdoers' in the living God's eyes, they are just as 'flawed' as the black magicians and will face heavy karmas to work out. 'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.' It makes sense though - how can the hero be a hero, if he doesn't face a great struggle? The Luciferian logic is hard to argue with.

And there is a huge myriad of different types of worlds as well. Here is an example of a cool cosmology, based upon the alignment system of good/evil and lawful/chaotic.

cdn.obsidianportal.com...

In our world, we can go to Limbo if we persist to be 'wrongdoers' towards God to the end. Choosing the 'wrong' option to the end will result in annihilation from the Luciferian creation and the subsequent waking up in Limbo, which is basically the Source as a place where souls can live in.

Perhaps we don't need to go to Limbo, and can be free of the Luciferian effect in other ways. I think the popular religions may be an attempt to find a 'true God' to save them from the false one. It's not that illogical to put the blame on Lucifer and demand that he is a false God and the source of all evil and suffering. In a way - that is true.

But I have no idea how we can overcome the living God. We are all fighting in this war.. but the enemy always wins. (GOT reference)

Any ideas?

P.S. Limbo is amazing and it feels like home.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

You made my day Rhaegar7 with this picture, you really did.



Apart from a few label changes to the ring of structures and making the land between the structures vastly bigger, that would be about right for my Cosmology.

The structures: that which is not included is excluded.

But I have no idea how we can overcome the living God. We are all fighting in this war.. but the enemy always wins.
(GOT reference)

Any ideas?

Hmmm, well, not a perfect idea.

We perceive with the whole body, not just the third eye or whatever. The body has eyelids like a cat's eye does. A inner transparent eyelid and a outer non-transparent eyelid. Description below is self centric.

If both eyelids are open we see our inner and our outer worlds and interact with them.

If the outer non-transparent eyelid is open, we are impacted by, and can impact (interact with) the world around us.

If the inner transparent eyelid is open we see our internal world.

So close one or both eyelids shut is one suggestion.

This is very simple, yet difficult until you succeed the first time. Try wriggling your ears like animals do. We have the muscles . . .

Perservearence equals success.

When successful, things disappear and we feel a calmness that wasn't there before.

Then simply stay focused on a normal life not letting yourself get caught up again.

For me, conflicts are like snow flakes. Mine got to a blizzard once and snow piled up around me and wore me right down trying to fight them all. I think the powers that be like to overwhelm us to the point of exhaustion. Then we toe the line and do as we are told.

Closing up gave me time to regain my equilibrium and build up my strength.

I went back to the fight because I have things I want to protect. Nature Beings for example. Protecting them defines my presence and gives the powers that be a choice. To avoid conflict themselves they just have to stop hurting Nature Beings and not get in my way when rescuing someone from a temple underworld. Black, white or brindle, if they have inner world infrastructure they need in order to have an earthly presence, say a temple, one can make things very expensive for the powers that be.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

If you find that cool, you should read up on Planescape. It's a very popular DND module, while not exactly mainstream.

drive.google.com... Here's the manual from which the picture was taken.

The main ideas in Planescape are that the multiverse is infinite in every dimension and that belief is very important for its workings, because it shapes and recreates it. The city of Sigil is a big part of the game, because it's supposedly situated at the center of the multiverse, and it can lead into any other dimension or world. But it doesn't lead there in any sort of straightforward way - it leads there through hidden portals. Basically - you have to meet the requirements for travel and the portal opens. So that's why Sigil is called both 'the city of doors' and 'the Cage'. It's both liberating and constricting. Sigil is a place of paradoxes, nothing in it is one sided.

So, the powers fight for control over Sigil, because whoever controls Sigil controls the multiverse. But Sigil, with its paradoxical nature, diminishes the power of the deities (if they try to get close or enter) and makes them mortal, so they have to be very careful in how they go about controlling Sigil.

So the main struggle comes to revolve around the accumulation of followers, because the main principle of Sigil is that 'whatever you believe in, becomes true'. And we have around 15 factions (clasically) who fight for the soul of Sigil, by converting its residents to their beliefs. The more power a certain faction gains, the more the whole multiverse is changed by the ideals of that faction. The residents of Sigil come from all parts of the multiverse - they can be good devils and evil angels, etc.

So it's quite funny how the idea of Sigil resembles Earth so well. In Dune Arrakhis is supposedly the center of the Universe, because 'whoever controls the spice controls the universe'. Perhaps the Earth is not simply just another planet, but is relevant to the workings of the multiverse, being situated between good/evil, light/darkness, heaven/hell, law/chaos, etc. Think of a 4-dimensional Earth (with time travel between its various epochs), not just a 3-dimensional object in space. Maybe we are in Sigil after all.

Here's a cool excrept from Planescape that is a solid metaphysical piece in its own right. I don't often find good bits of 'supernatural philosophy'.

mimir.net...

I can't close my eyes off for the conflict. I've done it before, and I eventually hit a brick wall. It doesn't magically disappear just because I've expelled it from my mind. I have to work it out in one way or another. Yes, we are controlled with our fear. Not fearing conflict is perhaps a good start towards liberation.

I can't close my eyes off for the conflict. I've done it before, and I eventually hit a brick wall. It doesn't magically disappear just because I've expelled it from my mind. I have to work it out in one way or another. Yes, we are controlled with our fear. Not fearing conflict is perhaps a good start towards liberation.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Not the physical eyes, nor third eye, etc.. -- The whole human body is an organ of perception.

In a way you could suggest that a human is an two meter tall (6 foot tall) EYE with two eyelids like a cat has.

Close the eyelids.

Close the first eyelid that is transparent and we can still perceive. Close the second eyelid that is non-transparent and we can no longer perceive.

One can close everything down and become normal that way.

We are not expelling anything from the mind - we are closing down our perception so we don't experience it anymore.

When you get it, you will know because you will perceive the inside of the eyelid yourself.

Very simple, yet tricky. -- a knack.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Oh, I get it now. This is a technique. I like such methods. It might work, I will definitely try it. Thank you.

Btw, on the topic at hand, I am reminded of an old saying 'God is mighty, but the Devil is mightier.'

I found it strange at the moment, but now I find it hilarious. Reality is absolutely hilarious.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Yep, a technique.

Of "God", I have never met a "God" in the Christian sense, therefore such a thing does not exist for me. I have come accross inner world people who think they are God Almighty and have quite a following. But you have those here too.

I have met some of the many Anubis of Egypt fame. They are overworked and can't keep up with ferrying the dead. Understandably dour folk, they are there in the Underworld. If one cares about the deceased in terms of their welfare and work hard to solve their problems and show them the way home, well eventually one will be given an Anubis "head" to wear. If one works hard with a genuine care for this world and the earthbound deceased you too can be an Anubis. Just do the work tirelessly for more then just a few years. Same with other Egyptian gods.

I have met some of the Nagi, Cobra Snake gods of India fame who are said to inhabit Patala (Underworld). They, and other Indian gods are often found below temples trapped in dungeons while the saints above bask in their own purity. The Nagi (never seen a male which is called a Naga BTW - I don't believe they exist.). Kali gods are not so bad as one would think from the stories. Though one probably wouldn't take a Kali god home to meet mom. These "gods" don't belong in Underworlds, you can feel it. Someone did some dirty work in the past and fractured(?) reality into
"layers". The Fires of Uranium separates the inner life into "layers". . . . .

The ancient Chinese gods, well some of those people trapped high altitude Golden Dragons in their temples. Guess where those guys get their power from.

And so on . . . .

It is all there to see in the so-called "Underworlds", all the dirty laundry of how the world became the way it is and how the higher worlds became what they are.

I am not surprised ATS is full of people who get a hard time from Upstairs. Start asking questions about the "truth" and you get squished. Sound familiar?


God and Devil may just be human created philosophical systems,

Humans always look for beginnings and endings.

How old is the universe? 14 billion years? Well, humans aside, most other folk regard the universe as having always been there.

For myself, the ideologies and religion including God are to be found in the works of humans. In that circle of structures on your DND map. Just swap the name "Mount Celestia" (or any other) for a religeon and you will get an idea of how I see things. And the battle scenario you describe above, well, yes, not far off how things seem to work.

This world is wonderful indeed, is it any wonder the ideologies and religeons fight over it? With humanity as the meat in the sandwich . . .

a reply to: Rhaegar7

There's errors in your dissertation. I will only make comment on a few

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.

Here’s where your logic falls into semantics…
One can perfectly define the source as God since it all depends on ones understanding of God.

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

Reality can be defined when the basic existential realities are perceived

True archetypes and principles are uncreated

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

You have no understanding of what Blavatsky is saying at all

By Satan she means its in a state of corrupted balance and that only applies to this earth

originally posted by: Rhaegar7

Calling him 'The One Infinite Creator' might be more apt, but 'The Transcendent God' or 'The Sleeping God' will do as well. This is more or less the Supreme Principle of Good. It is not omnipotent, it does not measure degrees of 'perfection' so it does not consider itself any more perfect than anything else, it is non-interfering and impersonal, it does not pass judgement, it does not take sides, it has created the Universe perfect, and now it sleeps and is encountered only at the right moments.

(I couldn't fit all yours in the quotes, I tried to absorb and consider it all though into my questions, don't want you to think im ignoring good points you made)

Interesting your thought on sleeping god. If such a being existed why do you not think it would be interested in what is going on across the universe? You presume it has seen it all, it knows all possibilities? I could only attempt to say, some things may never get old, and it may be hard for one to know if there are absolutely no more possible possibilities.

Partly what I think I meant to ask you, is (and I do thank you for giving your gracious, informative, and thought provoking response), do you if there was a God (beyond your earthly lucifer example, living, worldly god, deism god), it would have any reasons to care about morals? Do you think people would/could possibly deserve punishment for their actions on Earth (or God was not clear enough about the terms and conditions)? Always the easiest example to come to to consider is parents and children, but even this has varying cases, though there is a majority rule likely, of parents caring for their children, and wanting them to get along nicely (likely directly plays into the concept of God as a Father).

Some animals eat their children in certain circumstances. People eat animals. There have been cases of people eating people. Some people have treated their children badly. (When I am asking these questions about God I am asking about hypothetically, if it was possible for a creator to create a universe, what are feasible ways it can possibly be). Scientists can make robots designed to fight one another and destroy one another. Boxing and wrestling are popular things. But there is something about the nature of pain, of suffering, that ties this all together. The battle bots do not feel and fear the pains of their destruction. We are some times and some more than others all too aware of the horrors of potential feelings. Good and Evil perhaps fundamentally, maybe close to only, has to do with the concept of suffering/pain/disdesire.

Earth is not heaven, it is not absolutely perfect, but it surprisingly, places, times, sometimes often, approaches, touches, is. The idea of the garden of eden story, is that if you look at animals, sometimes they look like their quite enjoying themselves, and hardly know any better, a cow chilling in a field bathing in sun, has a field of food, water, what else can it want, paradise. What else can it want, humans, your lucifer, has a heck of a lot of answers.

Back to my initial questioning, do you think it would be unfair of God to punish (and then we must talk about what types of punishments....maybe) a man for being evil on earth (and we have to get some examples of what you consider evil, I think I may have asked that already or do below again)? You seem to hold the Nietzschean ubermensch view, of 'great men (or do you suggest anyone) should be allowed to get away with breaking laws', or something to the extent?

Let say you created your own universe, would you care if the beings that developed in it cared about laws/morals or not?

So.. the evil God will judge you and will punish you for his own amusement, among other things.

Would you prefer an evil God to not exist?

But here you see why many consider Lucifer to be the true God, being the highest active, personal God. Lucifer WILL Punish you. He is 'necessary evil', and this makes him sort of 'righteous'.. 'righteous evil' that is. It's a little strange, but logical. You can escape from Lucifer's sight, and you can also fall under his dominion one way or another. Keep in mind that he will judge you as 'unworthy' almost by default. That's why the popular religions idolize the complete submission and idolatry of 'God'. It encourages us to fear him. The Bible says 'it is a scary thing to fall into the hands of the *living* God.' Lucifer is the living God and he will judge you. But he won't judge you fairly.

Should the living God judge fairly? And how do we determine what is judging fairly? (I guess this ties into my above question about, ubermensch)

P.S. Lucifer is an integral part of Creation, because he is the universal activator. That's the purpose of his existence and he accomplishes it. So in this sense, he is the originally perfect angel, who 'fell'. Our job should be to reverse this, so that he can abandon the role of Satan, and reclaim his original angelic form. Right now he is 'necessary evil', and he provides 'the enemy' to fight against, which provides unique opportunities for growth and experience. Once we have graduated from this game of polarities and conflict, Lucifer will become a pure guardian angel for the next chapters of the play. We basically have to beat him first.

What kinds of evil does lucifer commit? Do you believe that laws and their enforcement should exist? Do you think genocide is acceptable? Could God (if a sort of sleeping sort of not one existed, creator of the universe) rightfully righteously punish lets say, all those people of history that conquered lands and slaughtered and raped the peoples? I mean we look at nature and see monkeys hunting other monkeys viciously. But at the same time we want to (do we, how much?) distance ourselves from monkeys (but we cant stop all the behaviors we share with them). Do you think this God would care if priceless art was forever lost (or do we just assume if its a God worth a damn it has made copes?) a priceless peoples forever lost? (it is said species go extinct all the time). Things pop into existence, and then disappear forever, this has always bothered me, and it is something of a sign of humanity the will for preservation, obviously starting first with the idea of life at all, self preservation, familal preservation, but then historical, item, informational, preservation. There is obviously a yearning for eternity, existence can be good, and as you mention, it is something about 'change' that is evil, or bad (but also apparently absolutely necessary crucial component of the universe).


How can a true intelligence be/want to be evil? Must it always be something like, a feeling of pain/discomfort that can only be distracted from by causing pain/discomfort outside of oneself? How can an entity which does not and would not want to experience pain and suffering inflict pain and suffering on an entity which does not want to experience pain and suffering (the obvious golden rule), one of the factors certainly must be a lack of fear of punishment, a belief that they can get away with giving without receiving.

a reply to: Willtell

Interestingly, I asked a professional theosophist who is a friend of mine of what Blavatsky meant by that, and he told me that while officially Theosophists declare Blavatsky was just making a metaphor, in reality - she was being absolutely literal.

No, the Source and God are two distinct entities. Not my problem if you can't differentiate them in your mind. Christianity has been telling us for ages that God is the Source, but I object.

All archetypes and principles are created, only the Source is uncreated.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig


Interesting your thought on sleeping god. If such a being existed why do you not think it would be interested in what is going on across the universe? You presume it has seen it all, it knows all possibilities? I could only attempt to say, some things may never get old, and it may be hard for one to know if there are absolutely no more possible possibilities.

The thing is this deistic God is non-interfering, because its goal has always been to simply free the Universe and all its locked potential. The deistic God has nothing in common with the Theistic one - it does not demand worship, it is quite neutral about good and evil, although not indifferent. It's limited by being a perfect moral saint, while the theistic God is unlimited, thus omnipotent and therefore evil. The deistic God does not need to interfere, because metaphorically speaking 'he got it right the first time'. There is no reason for him to interfere directly. He has no direct effect on how things play out, as he's transcendent to the system. It's as if he is the Universe itself.


Partly what I think I meant to ask you, is (and I do thank you for giving your gracious, informative, and thought provoking response), do you if there was a God (beyond your earthly lucifer example, living, worldly god, deism god), it would have any reasons to care about morals? Do you think people would/could possibly deserve punishment for their actions on Earth (or God was not clear enough about the terms and conditions)? Always the easiest example to come to to consider is parents and children, but even this has varying cases, though there is a majority rule likely, of parents caring for their children, and wanting them to get along nicely (likely directly plays into the concept of God as a Father).

I don't believe in remedial punishment. I believe this kind of theistic adoration of punishment is basically dark polarity. We interpret the natural working out of karmas, as 'facing punishment', while I wouldn't necessarily connect the two. True punishment would have only one interest in mind and that's yours. Punishment brings out perfection and that is the main goal of karma. Very lowly actions do create negative karmas, but they can be avoided if the entity is wicked enough. So it turns out that good natured people are more likely to experience 'punishment' than wicked ones. It's logical when you think about it, after all the one dealing out the punishments is the theistic, active 'God' and he's anything but good.

I can't quote all of your post, because it freezes up mine. On the next paragraph, I would simply say that suffering is part of Creation and it has its own logic. It's not a defect, it has its reason for existing.

Back to my initial questioning, do you think it would be unfair of God to punish (and then we must talk about what types of punishments....maybe) a man for being evil on earth (and we have to get some examples of what you consider evil, I think I may have asked that already or do below again)? You seem to hold the Nietzschean ubermensch view, of 'great men (or do you suggest anyone) should be allowed to get away with breaking laws', or something to the extent?

I don't see what gives God the right to punish people. People are basically imprisoned in matter and have all their freedoms take away. How is it even remotely reasonable for a divine, omnipotent being to punish miserables like us? Light-sider religions like Christianity paint a picture of a 'decent' human being - doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, goes to Church, cares for his children, etc.. I'd rather take the side of the 'wrongdoers'. I like Nietzche but I'm not a fan of his superhuman. Like someone wrote once 'The knight of faith of Kierkegaard makes the leap across the chasm that the superhuman of Nietzsche is forever unable to do.' About 'great men', I do consider those willing to test the limits of reality, by always choosing the 'wrong' option to be far more advanced than those who fear the wrath of the living God..

I'll respond in two parts, because it doesn't let me type after a point.

Let say you created your own universe, would you care if the beings that developed in it cared about laws/morals or not?

I would aim to create the Universe in such a way so that everyone is inherently and truly free, which requires some sort of basic justice, but it shouldn't be imposing. To be free means to also face the consequences of your actions. God should not interfere, because that would take people's freedoms away.

So.. the evil God will judge you and will punish you for his own amusement, among other things.

Would you prefer an evil God to not exist?

I guess so, but I realize his existence is logical and inevitable. I hope the Universe finds a way to defeat it, because he's evidently covered all the world in darkness..

But here you see why many consider Lucifer to be the true God, being the highest active, personal God. Lucifer WILL Punish you. He is 'necessary evil', and this makes him sort of 'righteous'.. 'righteous evil' that is. It's a little strange, but logical. You can escape from Lucifer's sight, and you can also fall under his dominion one way or another. Keep in mind that he will judge you as 'unworthy' almost by default. That's why the popular religions idolize the complete submission and idolatry of 'God'. It encourages us to fear him. The Bible says 'it is a scary thing to fall into the hands of the *living* God.' Lucifer is the living God and he will judge you. But he won't judge you fairly.

Should the living God judge fairly? And how do we determine what is judging fairly? (I guess this ties into my above question about, ubermensch)

He judges fairly from his perspective. We might object, but we can't argue with the Luciferian logic. It's the higher octave and has the final say. In a way, it is wise, but really merciless. I myself despise it, and feel it is there only for us to defeat it.

P.S. Lucifer is an integral part of Creation, because he is the universal activator. That's the purpose of his existence and he accomplishes it. So in this sense, he is the originally perfect angel, who 'fell'. Our job should be to reverse this, so that he can abandon the role of Satan, and reclaim his original angelic form. Right now he is 'necessary evil', and he provides 'the enemy' to fight against, which provides unique opportunities for growth and experience. Once we have graduated from this game of polarities and conflict, Lucifer will become a pure guardian angel for the next chapters of the play. We basically have to beat him first.

What kinds of evil does lucifer commit? Do you believe that laws and their enforcement should exist? Do you think genocide is acceptable? Could God (if a sort of sleeping sort of not one existed, creator of the universe) rightfully righteously punish lets say, all those people of history that conquered lands and slaughtered and raped the peoples? I mean we look at nature and see monkeys hunting other monkeys viciously. But at the same time we want to (do we, how much?) distance ourselves from monkeys (but we cant stop all the behaviors we share with them). Do you think this God would care if priceless art was forever lost (or do we just assume if its a God worth a damn it has made copes?) a priceless peoples forever lost? (it is said species go extinct all the time). Things pop into existence, and then disappear forever, this has always bothered me, and it is something of a sign of humanity the will for preservation, obviously starting first with the idea of life at all, self preservation, familal preservation, but then historical, item, informational, preservation. There is obviously a yearning for eternity, existence can be good, and as you mention, it is something about 'change' that is evil, or bad (but also apparently absolutely necessary crucial component of the universe).

Linear time has no hold over God, both Lucifer and the deist God are way beyond linear time. One of the biggest lies is that someone has to 'give you' your eternal life. The truth is nobody can take it away from you. Even if you didn't want it, the most you can do to throw it away is to go to Limbo and enjoy what 'non-existence' is like. 'Change' is linked to linear time.. We experience change for the first time as we enter into linear time, and then go through the cycles of change until we emerge back out of linear time and into supernatural time. So.. change is only real while we're here. Once we're out - there is no such thing as change. The Source cannot change. But you always have a choice.

In this world, Lucifer thinks he is God, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. He activates the Universe thoroughly, but only for his own amusement. He imagines himself an angel of light, perfect and divine. We're all under his spell and whoever tries to escape this influence is brander a 'wrongdoer' and is seen as having 'lost his way'. Christians pray for him, and generally point out how depraved we have become. It's quite funny to me.

Everything that is possible can happen, even though some things are 'wrong'. This world is 'wrong', but that doesn't stop it from manifesting. Lucifer gains his godhood exactly because he rules over all the 'wrong' things - over genocide, torture, humiliation, destruction, chaos, injustice.. While the deist God will limit himself to being a perfect moral agent, Lucifer activates the potentials of the Universe to their fullest. Keep in mind that you can't argue with his logic - he does it in a way that is appreciable. He makes evil great again..

It's as if his goal is to make evil greater than good.. He builds up the darkness and tries to realize its potential.. And he succeeds. His evil becomes the higher octave of good - he makes it more powerful than good. At least in this dimension. Good and evil grow in power out of their conflict.



How can a true intelligence be/want to be evil? Must it always be something like, a feeling of pain/discomfort that can only be distracted from by causing pain/discomfort outside of oneself? How can an entity which does not and would not want to experience pain and suffering inflict pain and suffering on an entity which does not want to experience pain and suffering (the obvious golden rule), one of the factors certainly must be a lack of fear of punishment, a belief that they can get away with giving without receiving.

We find suffering to be so important, but higher agents will probably shrug their shoulders if you asked them 'why so much suffering?'. Suffering is part of Creation and it serves its purpose. There is no punishment for choosing evil per se. The initial choice between good and evil must be free. Good and evil must be equally great and equally valid options. What brings negative karmic consequences is not so much about good and evil per se, but about love of conflict and choosing 'wrong'. I like to choose the 'wrong' option, although I consider myself good natured. And therefore I easily attract negative karmic consequences. It's not that big of a deal.

Dreaded double post.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

I'm not fond of theosophy and the occult works of humans, it is so human centric that it becomes rediculous at times when it trys to arrange What Is into words that place an importance in humanity above other Beings.

That aside, I would have to agree on the probability of a literal Blavatsky.

There is a certain challenge in translating the unspeakable into language. You end up using words according to either the dictionary of the time or go for the original etymological meaning.

You simply have to.

The other consideration here is because when your dealing with old disembodied people and similar, as Blavatsky probably did, you have to be very carefully in your understanding of what they are implying. They have a way of telling the truth that is deceptive in a way. Non humans are very refreashingly honest in comparison to masters, saints, etc..

One just ends up walking about with a dictionary in your hand, to translate English into English.

There is hardly a substitute for an out-of-body experience. I learned that when I was taken by surprise by one.

Once one has had one such experience, he is aware just how fragile our consensus reality is and that just a millimeter away lie untold worlds that are as real, if not more so, than our own.

I suppose Blavatsky was no stranger to OB experiences. It'd be quite a feat to produce thousands of high quality esoteric thought, without having seen these things for herself.

Btw, in my big OBE I saw a supernatural angel that kind of loomed above the Universe. He seemed scary and satanic at first, but when you got closer you realized that he was pure and good. So, no idea.. maybe Lucifer is God, maybe not. But we have to realize that with our usual definition of God as omnipotent and interfering, such a God is not one on whom we can depend..

Btw, I did not comment on what gnostics think. A gnostic friend of mine told me a long time ago, that according to gnosticism Lucifer thinks he is God, but the true God is so beyond him that Lucifer does not even realize what it is and that it's there.I did not know what to make of this back then, but now I find it very reasonable.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Just my "two bobs worth" here.

Not just "Out of Body Experience" (OBE)

The human body can perceive occultly a lot better in it's own way then via the charum. It can also network a lot better then via chakrum. If indeed the charkrum are there as organs of perception.

Under the chakrum is another "layer", another energy system(?). A more natural one. Maybe the chakrum is an overlay that was introduced in the past. Maybe the chakrum comes with the indwelling spirit that possesses the body at birth (possession - the science of . . . Not sure myself, still investigating that one).

Anyway, whatever the case, Blavatsky probably saw a lot first hand, she may have had masters there too. Who knows their agendas. Masters are good at lieing through ommission. I felt that Bailey lied through ommission on occasion to feed an agenda.

Best to toss book-learning and hearsay out the window and see for one's self.

originally posted by: Rhaegar7

The thing is this deistic God is non-interfering, because its goal has always been to simply free the Universe and all its locked potential. The deistic God has nothing in common with the Theistic one - it does not demand worship, it is quite neutral about good and evil, although not indifferent. It's limited by being a perfect moral saint, while the theistic God is unlimited, thus omnipotent and therefore evil. The deistic God does not need to interfere, because metaphorically speaking 'he got it right the first time'. There is no reason for him to interfere directly. He has no direct effect on how things play out, as he's transcendent to the system. It's as if he is the Universe itself.

But people have free will, many choices. Many people with many different choices over much time. Why would deistic God (which I thought was your concept of lucifer, deism, humans being earthly gods, it seems like your use of deistic God is the concept of pantheistic God)(why would any God, ultimate creator/implementor of the universe) not have preferences? You are saying this God would be a nihilist, (and are you theorizing at all if the concept of soul plays into this?) entities arise in Gods universe, God says, make yourselves at home, do whatever you want, nothing matters, have fun, be crazy, rape, kill for all I care, whatever you choose is perfect because of these nifty semantic definitions made by man: I am perfect (absolutely true fact? meaning?) I made the universe, therefore the universe is perfect, therefore every possible event in the universe is perfect, at least this is what some of the entities I have allowed to come into existence have told me.

I don't believe in remedial punishment. I believe this kind of theistic adoration of punishment is basically dark polarity.

It all has to do with the idea of not wanting evil to exist on earth, unless you mean self punishment like so called religious guilt and extreme discipline and flagellation and stuff. There are distinctions. So what exactly do you mean by adoration of punishment, do you mean both: The desire for truly evil people to not be able to enact their evil, to the point of if they do, desiring them to be punished for the harm they caused innocents; And, the more 'strict, religious, god fearing, serious 'self punishment' and religious community discipline?

Punishment brings out perfection and that is the main goal of karma. Very lowly actions do create negative karmas, but they can be avoided if the entity is wicked enough. So it turns out that good natured people are more likely to experience 'punishment' than wicked ones. It's logical when you think about it, after all the one dealing out the punishments is the theistic, active 'God' and he's anything but good.

You need to help me more clearly parse what you mean here. Can you give some examples, what types of punishment good natured people are more likely to experience; trusting a telemarketer that rips them off? Getting put into the friendzone after buying their crush 100 flowers, chocolates, and shoes.

Generally being taken advantage of by wicked people?

Would the world be better if everyone was wicked, or will you say, largely to some degree that is already the case? but lets say, most wicked, If everyone was wicked as possible?

When you say 'wicked ones', generally and specifically what are some things that these wicked ones do?

How is the theistic active God dealing out punishments? By theistic, active God do you mean 'the collective total actions of all humans (and nature)? (I thought that was what you were trying to express by lucifer).

In what way is the theistic, active God not good, anything but good?

What would it take for the active God to be good?

What are some examples of what you are thinking of when you refer to good and bad?

On the next paragraph, I would simply say that suffering is part of Creation and it has its own logic. It's not a defect, it has its reason for existing.

The concept of morals, rules, laws, is that there is a difference between natural suffering, and man caused suffering of another.

I don't see what gives God the right to punish people. People are basically imprisoned in matter and have all their freedoms take away. How is it even remotely reasonable for a divine, omnipotent being to punish miserables like us?

Then can it be asked, how can a person harm another person, harming a person is like unwarranted punishment. The idea is that a doer of unwarranted punishment warrants punishment. If a person can harm another person, if a person can unwarrantably (harm) punish a person, why would God not harm/punish that person?

Light-sider religions like Christianity paint a picture of a 'decent' human being - doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, goes to Church, cares for his children, etc.. I'd rather take the side of the 'wrongdoers'.

Ok lets pretend God does not care if you drink, smoke, or go to church, are those the only things putting you on the wrongdoers side? What are other things you relate to with the wrongdoers? Do you think the world would be a good place if no one cared for their children?

I like Nietzche but I'm not a fan of his superhuman. Like someone wrote once 'The knight of faith of Kierkegaard makes the leap across the chasm that the superhuman of Nietzsche is forever unable to do.' About 'great men', I do consider those willing to test the limits of reality, by always choosing the 'wrong' option to be far more advanced than those who fear the wrath of the living God..

Give some examples of 'the 'wrong' option', please. And what is 'the chasm' that is being leaped over in your reference?

originally posted by: Rhaegar7

Everything that is possible can happen, even though some things are 'wrong'. This world is 'wrong', but that doesn't stop it from manifesting. Lucifer gains his godhood exactly because he rules over all the 'wrong' things - over genocide, torture, humiliation, destruction, chaos, injustice.. While the deist God will limit himself to being a perfect moral agent, Lucifer activates the potentials of the Universe to their fullest. Keep in mind that you can't argue with his logic - he does it in a way that is appreciable. He makes evil great again.. It's as if his goal is to make evil greater than good.. He builds up the darkness and tries to realize its potential.. And he succeeds. His evil becomes the higher octave of good - he makes it more powerful than good. At least in this dimension. Good and evil grow in power out of their conflict.

If you were in such a position would you do those things? In your created universe, how would you feel about those things?

We find suffering to be so important, but higher agents will probably shrug their shoulders if you asked them 'why so much suffering?'. Suffering is part of Creation and it serves its purpose. There is no punishment for choosing evil per se. The initial choice between good and evil must be free. Good and evil must be equally great and equally valid options. What brings negative karmic consequences is not so much about good and evil per se, but about love of conflict and choosing 'wrong'. I like to choose the 'wrong' option, although I consider myself good natured. And therefore I easily attract negative karmic consequences. It's not that big of a deal.

What are some examples of wrong options you choose? Some people are punished for choosing evil, via law and law enforcement would'nt you say? Do you think on Earth law and law enforcement, justice system, should exist? (If so, why do you not think one should exist beyond Earth?)

originally posted by: DanielKoenig

But people have free will, many choices. Many people with many different choices over much time. Why would deistic God (which I thought was your concept of lucifer, deism, humans being earthly gods, it seems like your use of deistic God is the concept of pantheistic God)(why would any God, ultimate creator/implementor of the universe) not have preferences? You are saying this God would be a nihilist, (and are you theorizing at all if the concept of soul plays into this?) entities arise in Gods universe, God says, make yourselves at home, do whatever you want, nothing matters, have fun, be crazy, rape, kill for all I care, whatever you choose is perfect because of these nifty semantic definitions made by man: I am perfect (absolutely true fact? meaning?) I made the universe, therefore the universe is perfect, therefore every possible event in the universe is perfect, at least this is what some of the entities I have allowed to come into existence have told me.

No, nothing like that. The deist God is non-interfering, because he perceives the natural order to be right, and interference to be unnatural. The whole Universe is seen as a chain of natural cause and effect, and from this perspective God should not interfere as this would chain the Universe to its being. From this perspective a good case can be made that the deist God does not even exist, as he can't interfere with the natural order without becoming evil. It's natural to face the logical consequences of one's actions. Assuming that a supernatural entity will interfere in the natural order of things on your behalf is very strange to me. That seems to me as Satan worship. Since the deist God respects the natural order of things, I prefer to call it simply 'The supreme principle of Good' and suppose that it is impersonal and non-interfering. The buddhists like to say that 'there is no creator and no creation'. I guess what they're trying to say is that everything follows the natural order of things. I myself find little room for a benevolent God, who interferes in Creation. I am more open to the idea of a multitude of Deities, who are simply very powerful beings. I see nothing nihilistic in accepting the natural order of things as perfect in itself. And here's a wild conjecture. Perhaps 'God is dead' as Nietzsche said. Perhaps we need to balance the Universal equation with our own actions so that there is again room for God. That's because the Deist God will respect your wishes and will write himself off if you don't really need him - if it's for your own good. Right now - it's as if he's dead, but perhaps he'll come alive some day. We simply need to finish the natural chain of events that we have set in motion and we can return to the primordial oneness of the Infinite Creator that we call God.

I don't believe in remedial punishment. I believe this kind of theistic adoration of punishment is basically dark polarity.

It all has to do with the idea of not wanting evil to exist on earth, unless you mean self punishment like so called religious guilt and extreme discipline and flagellation and stuff. There are distinctions. So what exactly do you mean by adoration of punishment, do you mean both: The desire for truly evil people to not be able to enact their evil, to the point of if they do, desiring them to be punished for the harm they caused innocents; And, the more 'strict, religious, god fearing, serious 'self punishment' and religious community discipline?

I simply don't understand what gives us the right to label some people as evil and require divine punishment upon them. I believe in true free will, which requires that we are able to choose freely between good/evil, light/dark, right/wrong. That's a higher principle - it's beyond good and evil. The true God should be beyond good and evil. The satanic religions of our world have tried to convince us that God sees all of us as 'sinners' and we're all deserving of punishment. I find this idea laughable. How do you draw the line between righteous and evil? It's very, very arbitrary. It gives a false sense of 'righteousness' to the believers, it drives them insane.

Punishment brings out perfection and that is the main goal of karma. Very lowly actions do create negative karmas, but they can be avoided if the entity is wicked enough. So it turns out that good natured people are more likely to experience 'punishment' than wicked ones. It's logical when you think about it, after all the one dealing out the punishments is the theistic, active 'God' and he's anything but good.

You need to help me more clearly parse what you mean here. Can you give some examples, what types of punishment good natured people are more likely to experience; trusting a telemarketer that rips them off? Getting put into the friendzone after buying their crush 100 flowers, chocolates, and shoes.

Generally being taken advantage of by wicked people?

Would the world be better if everyone was wicked, or will you say, largely to some degree that is already the case? but lets say, most wicked, If everyone was wicked as possible?
The world cannot be 'better' or 'worse' than it is. It simply follows the natural order of things.
When you say 'wicked ones', generally and specifically what are some things that these wicked ones do?
What I'm saying is that karma is good for you - working out karmas is your way to evolve towards higher and higher perfection. It's as if the good natured people climb the ladder upwards towards the light, while the path of evil is free fall into darkness. So, logically, karmas are experienced when the individual works according to his conscience and compassion. Karmas are thrown away when the individual prefers to ascend 'downwards' towards evil and darkness.
How is the theistic active God dealing out punishments? By theistic, active God do you mean 'the collective total actions of all humans (and nature)? (I thought that was what you were trying to express by lucifer).
The theistic God is 'the living God' - he is the truly omnipotent, omniscient, divinely perfect being that not only has the ability to interfere in creation, but does it to the fullest extent. I call it 'the Supreme Principle of Evil.'
In what way is the theistic, active God not good, anything but good?
He is good only in the way that evil is also good. His evil provides the necessary conditions for the Universe to evolve towards higher perfection. He is also 'necessary evil' in that people apparently need it for the time being.
What would it take for the active God to be good?

What are some examples of what you are thinking of when you refer to good and bad?

Good is self-sacrificing and idealistic. Evil is good's negation - an unbridled fall into darkness - absolute power and dominion. etc We can't actually detach good from evil, because we need to incorporate both of them in some way into our being. The light polarity would make you think that we have to destroy evil, which is stupid and wrong.

On the next paragraph, I would simply say that suffering is part of Creation and it has its own logic. It's not a defect, it has its reason for existing.

The concept of morals, rules, laws, is that there is a difference between natural suffering, and man caused suffering of another.

Morals are a lightsider idea, which serves to energize the dark polarity. That's the basic theme of the light-dark polarity game in our dimension. All these morals, rules and laws are perfectly useless. It's as if we're trying to change the Universe, which is absurd. It all comes from a defective perception of the Source. This leads us into adapting insane light/dark polarity ideas, which only lead to experiential loops and no real progress in the direction of our goals.

I don't see what gives God the right to punish people. People are basically imprisoned in matter and have all their freedoms take away. How is it even remotely reasonable for a divine, omnipotent being to punish miserables like us?

Then can it be asked, how can a person harm another person, harming a person is like unwarranted punishment. The idea is that a doer of unwarranted punishment warrants punishment. If a person can harm another person, if a person can unwarrantably (harm) punish a person, why would God not harm/punish that person?
You're now jumping through hoops, in your attempt to play God's advocate. The main idea is that nobody can be faulted for exercising their free will, without turning free will into a mockery of itself - a kind of unwanted flaw that we would do best to abandon in order not to go to Hell. You're operating from light-polarity modes of thinking, which tell us that we have to 'fight against the wrongdoers', 'fix the world', 'fight for the light', 'fight evil!'. It's a load of crap and can only exist because people lose their perception of the Source once they incarnate.

Light-sider religions like Christianity paint a picture of a 'decent' human being - doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, goes to Church, cares for his children, etc.. I'd rather take the side of the 'wrongdoers'.

Ok lets pretend God does not care if you drink, smoke, or go to church, are those the only things putting you on the wrongdoers side? What are other things you relate to with the wrongdoers? Do you think the world would be a good place if no one cared for their children?

Oh, what a true lightsider you are.. 'Think about the children!!' Yeah, right. Unlike you, I am not waging a crusade against 'the bad guys', and I don't care about 'a better world'. If you ask me, I'd rather have the whole planet bombed to pieces and this whole human experiment to come to its natural conclusion.


Give some examples of 'the 'wrong' option', please. And what is 'the chasm' that is being leaped over in your reference?

If you want to learn about this metaphor - go read some Nietzsche or Kierkegaard. The 'wrong' option is only possible when we are incarnated and thus having lost awareness of the Source. I'll give you one example. When you're little, you're severely brainwashed into thinking that 'smoking is bad'. There is no way for a 12-year old to resist its programming. 'Smoking is bad' becomes a truth in his world. Yet, he can still choose to light a cigarette. We have the ability to choose 'the wrong option'. And I actually admire this in God's Creation. It seems to me that he wants to teach us how to be wrongdoers.

If you were in such a position would you do those things? In your created universe, how would you feel about those things?

Who knows.. If I was God, I'd have his infinitely higher wisdom and understanding.. From his perspective, evil must be an integral part of creation. The great energizer of the Universe. The man who I am right now would generally avoid suffering and evil, but if I were to become God it's quite likely that I'd have to create evil.

We find suffering to be so important, but higher agents will probably shrug their shoulders if you asked them 'why so much suffering?'. Suffering is part of Creation and it serves its purpose. There is no punishment for choosing evil per se. The initial choice between good and evil must be free. Good and evil must be equally great and equally valid options. What brings negative karmic consequences is not so much about good and evil per se, but about love of conflict and choosing 'wrong'. I like to choose the 'wrong' option, although I consider myself good natured. And therefore I easily attract negative karmic consequences. It's not that big of a deal.

What are some examples of wrong options you choose? Some people are punished for choosing evil, via law and law enforcement would'nt you say? Do you think on Earth law and law enforcement, justice system, should exist? (If so, why do you not think one should exist beyond Earth?)

People are never punished for choosing evil. They are punished for going against 'the law', which is a light polarity invention, that naturally feeds the dark. I don't usually think of 'should' and 'should not', but for the purpose of this discussion I will answer the question. No, I don't think a judicial system should exists. Like everything that is light-polarity in nature - it is hypocritical, judgemental and simply wrong. God forbid that we have to endure more light-polarity inventions in the realities to come.

That ties to the idea that in this dimension we have to learn to appreciate the 'wrong' option.

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
If you were in such a position would you do those things? In your created universe, how would you feel about those things?

Who knows.. If I was God, I'd have his infinitely higher wisdom and understanding.. From his perspective, evil must be an integral part of creation. The great energizer of the Universe. The man who I am right now would generally avoid suffering and evil, but if I were to become God it's quite likely that I'd have to create evil.

No, everything in creation is born without evil or hate. Those origins stem from a time before Light.It ain't that simple as being an "Integral park of creation" One mans Angel is another mans Devil and vice Versa.But at the end of the day it's a simple love story. I hope this makes sence but In the meantime here is a track by the Irish troubadour Damien Dempsey entitled, Born without hate..
I hope you enjoy, it says alot
www.youtube.com...