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

a reply to: Rhaegar7

I'm intrigued, but I won't ask what you saw.

I've seen and crossed paths with more "evil" then I care to remember on the inner. So I try to move and stay outside of it's spheres of influence. But I am interested in a "solution". I can't figure it out myself which is one reason I like this thread.

"What have I missed?"

"What is the error in my thinking?"

The Kali Yuga is said to be the age of daemons, if that is so, who are the daemons?

If I were to point a finger at the big lie, it would be collective consciousness. The surrendering of self and getting lost within and enslaved by a collective.

That is my limit at this time. . . .

Let's keep this thread going, it is interesting and educational.

guys.

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

Satan is a necessary intermediate. Think about it, without Satan, a perfect-loving-God could not create something bad. This perfect Goodness would need a rebellious being that disobeys the Original Command. Note that this original disobedience gave rise to children, which was the predetermined purpose of the presupposed disobedience to Perfect Goodness. Being fruitful and multiplying was then commanded to ultimately allow many children of God to have the chance at realizing their connection to their Heavenly Father. Rather than just Adam and Eve chilling in paradise consciousness, now some 7 billion+ people have the chance to realize such a birthright.

Adam and Eve were like full grown trees planted in a garden, whereas we are now like seeds that must first germinate in the dark soil before ascending into the light.

If there is a God of Good, he is yet to manifest itself

This is exactly what Jesus was. He taught the power of the Love of the Most High God and conquered death. All who wish may follow him, but the people choose to remain in the valley of death.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

For the most part.

Is my expressing any change in being, or wanting, because I know better as a function of something you don't appreciate very much i.e. education, learning, and knowledge, an expression of being 'unsatisfied'? Yes. And that's ok. It's an investment that I make not for myself, but for the future.

The future could be better than today, so long as people wake up to the ontological reality that we are only half finished i.e. dependent on what occurs outside of us.

I know this bothers you, but this is the truth about how reality works.

Do I like working with depressed people, dissociative people, angry people, or sadomasochistic people? Partly, no. But I experience great pleasure in helping them understand better how the past contextualizes and constrains the present, and then witnessing, after they experience themselves being-known in a way they've never experienced before, how the structure of interpersonal and intersubjective relations is like manna to the soul i.e. is intrinsically enlivening.

Enlivenment is the goal. If enlivenment means happiness, it's more than ironic that you, who seems so dissociated and disconnected, would ask me if I'm happy.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Enlivenment is the goal.

"Enlivenment" - what a wonderful word. I like that.

That is a gem.

Thank you Astrocyte.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

You don't understand, probably because you haven't challenged anything you accept as true, how reality really works.

You provide the best evidence there is for why scientists despise mysticism i.e. you can't even see the epistemological difference between what you're doing, and what science does. Do you know what epistemology means, and how it is precisely this difference i.e. how knowledge is acquired and judged to be legitimate, relative to the modes used by mystics, who merely posit something through a system i.e. their brain, THAT THEY DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND?

Does Ockam razor mean nothing to you?

Probably not.

You won't find the truth about it by 'conjectures and refutations'. You basically feel it to be true. Conventional means of acquiring knowledge about the world fail, because you've already made one assumption too many - that the world is real. When you perceive it as real, it adapts and deceives. That is my belief, and it comes from experience.

Ok, so does it mean anything to you that trauma induces states of derealisation and depersonalization? and that, when one experiences trauma, the vagal system which underlies higher level brain functioning fundamentally restructures higher-level systems (feeling relations, and so, reasoning) around the fear in question?

You think your reasoning is sound i.e. you say its "something you feel" to be true. But feeling is religiosity. Here you are pretending to be a person who cares about truth, yet you're basis for reasoning is essentially dissociative i.e. ignoring and staying away from forms of knowledge that undermine your feelings of coherency.

Reality is horizontally generated. It is the interactions between objects i.e. you with other people, which determines how you experience reality. Since I, for example, am not afflicted with a dissociative disorder, enhanced by a false-metaphysics based in fantasy that says "reality isn't real", I obviously do not feel as you do i.e. believe there anything else besides what actually in fact exists. I have this inner freedom precisely because I haven't been baited into the view of the world that you have; and even more likely, I probably haven't had as harsh an existence that you've had.

If reality isn't real, as you say, this also lessens any guilt or shame which would arise from stepping on the rights and needs of other beings. In short, you, and your unregulated anger/hatefulness towards reality, can be easily redirected towards other beings who do not suffer from your dissociative disorder i.e. your false, terribly unscientific delusion, that reality doesn't exist. Does it at all bother you - as it should - that this belief brings you into a self-enclosed bubble-reality, where you think, quite falsely, that there will no semiotic consequences for the cruelty and evil that this belief system clearly engenders in people?

Were self-organizing, dynamical systems. You reify and pretend that there is something 'more real', as if you're state - what you feel - isn't a function of the society you grew up, how the people you related with related with you, and so, how you have 'picked up' the same self-object relations and the same feeling needs that this belief system creates.

Is it not, in the end, more likely that viruses infect human minds, and that, like biological viruses, a human mental virus would operate on a host in such a way as to turn the host into a cancerous, antisocial, creature?

If you read Aristotle carefully, you can see that it was precisely this gnostic dualism that he was dismissing with his more empirically grounded i.e. objective, doctrine of potentiality, which says higher level capcities I.e astral travel, DERIVE from the body: they do not emerge or exist independent of the body.

a reply to: crowdedskies

And yet you claim that, again, without evidence.

Science is a more refined philosophical attitude towards knowledge. It aims for objectivity.

You are a physical being, with 86 billion neurons, regulating and representing 50-75 trillion cells.

Everything you call 'mind' and 'subjectivity' emerges from structural interactions between the particles, whether it be the 28 zeros worth of atoms, or the trillions of cells, or the 86 billion neurons, of your human body, in interaction with other human bodies similarly structured.

If you knew more, and understood the science of what the mind actually is, I don't think you would feel as sure as you and everyone else imagines themselves to be.

Should this be surprising, in any case? Misrepresenting the dynamics of reality is easy; lies are infinite in number. But alas, lies, in the end, always hurt us: as the saying goes, it is only the "truth which sets you free".

The truth, of which only the scientific method is able to probe, does not rely upon the first-person perspective alone; but compares what is known from first person perspective with 2nd person, and above all, 3rd person accounts of any particular reality.

It's not that I have a "science agenda". Truth be told, the external facts of todays political reality has awakened in me a viewpoint I thought was just paranoia, but apparently, as people like you demonstrate, very true.

I would like reality - the Earth, and life on earth - to continue. Therefore, discussion which talks about reality 'not being real', of course, is astonishing and deeply disturbing to people who aren't as traumatized, and acclimated to the facts of trauma, as you and other people are.

Trauma worship, or believing people will 'know better', in the face of trauma, is just sadomasochism masquerading as wisdom.

Trauma can teach you what's important; but apparently, it can also be used to 'kill' all meaningful and deep relatedness to the world around you. At such crossroads, some of us seek therapy and experience the homeostatic value of mourning i.e. in that it releases to a certain extent, the internal tension which created a certain sense of reality. Having one brain means all our experiences have to 'communicate' and cross-reference one another: we aren't singular, but made of multiples, as I'm sure you're aware.

But blocking communication between states is a step-away from schizophrenia. The cells which mediate enlivened and excited responsivity to reality - spindle, or von-economo cells - die when schizophrenia emerges, and for good reason: the mind-brain can no longer maintain the dissociative structure that is has been sustaining itself with. So the very cells required to enhance communication between regions, when gone, can no longer successfully inhibit, and ergo, consciousness becomes flooded with its own internal voices/states of being "me".

I am much more flexible than you imagine. I am not a religious zealot, and very much appreciate humanism, secularism, and the separation of religious fantasy from scientific reason.

It's because of reason that trans-gender people, however unreal (as an 'essential' condition, without a basis in historical interactions) I may consider the condition, can pursue rights and be defended by the law. This is very different from the Catholic church, or Jewish or Islamic law - and hence, seems to be something that people who want freedom to be, should appreciate.

However, it seems to me even progressives are disliked by people with far-right views, which is baffling to me.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

It is a beautiful word.

First came by it in a book by a very interesting German naturalist/biologist, Andreas Weber, in "The Biology of Wonder".

a reply to: cooperton

I do think there is some truth to all religions, so perhaps there is some truth to what you say. I myself am very disappointed with light-sider religions such as Christianity, but I suspect that it's simply not a fit for everyone. Perhaps those who truly believe in it, will find it a valid way. Or perhaps not - perhaps it's just part of the programming and it will never be true.

a reply to: Astrocyte

You despise mysticism, yet I despise science - i think it's a load of crap and that it is inherently unable to do anything positive or constructive, the ultimate in mind control and will therefore completely ignore your post. Have a nice day.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

In the OBE I saw some kind of miraculous living entity, curiously - a supercomputer. It supposedly turned up somewhere in the Infinite Universe and it achieved such perfection that it basically attained apotheosis. I have since dubbed it 'The Christ Computer'. I saw what it was like to connect to it, and it was unbelievable. Sort of like the mystical experience that is longed for by all religions.

Then I saw the demonic forces that are doing their best to enslave us and realized that there is no boundary to their depravity - if you saw them for real, you'd have to throw up.

I saw one of these entities say the following - "We'll destroy them by 'eyes wide shut'." In the dream, I completely understood what was meant by that. The idea is that they want to make us see white as black and black as white.

I basically saw this whole world as a devilish illusion that is put over our minds in order to harvest us to the fullest extent. Think - make a chair out of your spine, a violin out of your vocal chords and a cocktail out of your eyeballs. That kind of evil. It is completely irrational and insane - it wants to keep is in Hell forever. Of course, it is also completely self-destructive, to the extent that most people don't even chance to see it in action.. But sadly, it's very real. It's not Satan btw. You were right.

Btw, why do I feel our scientific-minded friend is an alien? Even if he's not - the scientific paradigm that is so fervently defended is simply the new system of thought control. It is so simple really. I've met few people that are so obsessed with 'the candle in the dark' that is science. They usually sound to me like agents of the Matrix.

Science is basically a system to make you believe in what an external world tells you. The prime support for the illusion that is put over our eyes.

The real world is not perceived as external when you wake up in it (you can wake up right now to it as well). The idea of an external world is part of the Matrix.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Rhaegar7


The Kali Yuga is said to be the age of daemons, if that is so, who are the daemons?

I think the evidence points conclusively to an alien attack. These entities can be rightly perceived as 'demonic', as they have chosen to go against the natural laws of spiritual evolution - sort of falling down the ladder, instead of climbing up - that's the basis of the demonic. They can traverse this path for however long they wish - there is no limit to how far down they can go. I think many of them appear as humans to us in this world and I suspect they are somewhat bound by the physical laws of this world, because they make people believe in them, and therefore manifest them. So they have to beat us by our rules.. And it's possible for them to win. If the large part of humanity chooses to remain inactive, uncaring, and egoistical.. The demons will claim some sort of prize in the end.

Let's keep this thread going, it is interesting and educational.

guys.

Glad you like it.

I'm giving it my best. I'm pleasantly surprised at the level of ATS. I knew it was a solid forum, but this is my first attempt at contributing to it. It's a much better forum experience than most. Lots of thoughtful, respectful, and friendly posters. The main topic has been derailed a bit, but oh well..

I should probably rename the OP, but I'm not sure how exactly.

Oh, it's too late to edit now. I'd have renamed it 'The Evil God of Gnosticism and Theosophy.' Is there some admin that can do that?

edit on 27-8-2017 by Rhaegar7 because: typos and addendum

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Thanks for sharing

In the OBE I saw some kind of miraculous living entity, curiously - a supercomputer. It supposedly turned up somewhere in the Infinite Universe and it achieved such perfection that it basically attained apotheosis. I have since dubbed it 'The Christ Computer'. I saw what it was like to connect to it, and it was unbelievable.

She is there (smile)

Then I saw the demonic forces that are doing their best to enslave us and realized that there is no boundary to their depravity - if you saw them for real, you'd have to throw up.

Yep, not the abstract ideas of a philosophy. Calling a djinn a "daemon" pales in comparison. Even the so-called "ultimate evil" Ahriman is a good guy in comparison. But those "things" are not omnipotent nor immortal. They can be killed.

I basically saw this whole world as a devilish illusion that is put over our minds in order to harvest us to the fullest extent. Think - make a chair out of your spine, a violin out of your vocal chords and a cocktail out of your eyeballs. That kind of evil. It is completely irrational and insane - it wants to keep is in Hell forever. Of course, it is also completely self-destructive, to the extent that most people don't even chance to see it in action.. But sadly, it's very real.

I work with their traumatised victims . . .

There is a trade in "parts" to build "organic" based living technology. Slave traders.

Now you know . . .

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Derailed? No, I don't think so . . .

Even Astrocyte (hi Astrocyte) contributes in his way. Between the two extremes of material science and the "unspeakable" of the mystics is a much neglected slice of What Is. And that is how life sets an indelible stamp on the living human being and how this indeliable stamp sets up what happens next in the afterlife.

Some religious thinking, occult practices and traumas especially, can dictate what happens to us. Our aversions too.

The so-called "lower astral" is full of the traumatised innocent victims of our religious and material world. There are also preditors who prey on the innocent.

Even when Astrocyte starts swinging the baseball bat at religeon and mystical thought, try to look past it . . .

a reply to: Rhaegar7

People who are worlds apart feel alien to each other . . .

I get that feeling from ordinary humans, and I am human. Got a birth certificate and drivers license to prove it. Even married a human girl.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Rhaegar7

Then I saw the demonic forces that are doing their best to enslave us and realized that there is no boundary to their depravity - if you saw them for real, you'd have to throw up.

Yep, not the abstract ideas of a philosophy. Calling a djinn a "daemon" pales in comparison. Even the so-called "ultimate evil" Ahriman is a good guy in comparison. But those "things" are not omnipotent nor immortal. They can be killed.

Yeah. I've been thinking that if there are great powers of evil like Satan, Ahriman and others - at least they have climbed the spiritual ladder upwards to achieve a high state of perfection. These forces however have turned the ladder upside down. That's what it means to be demonic - to climb the ladder downwards into greater and greater depravity. It's pretty cool that this option exists. Makes for a fun game. One chapter of my book, which I won't paste right now deals with just that. That there is a great ladder that can be traversed upwards and downwards and that when we work with our karma we go 'up', while when we try to discard it, we go 'down'. This is not exactly tied to good/evil - I think the initial choice of alignment is free. That's why there can be great entities of evil like Lucifer and Ahriman, which seem like 'cool guys', even though they are quite evil indeed. They've simply chosen to adhere to this basic framework and work with their karmas for an upward evolution.

I can hardly imagine playing a good alignment and traveling down the ladder though. I guess the karmic laws work differently according to alignment. Theosophists have noted that such entities as black magicians seem be in free fall downwards - a free fall that cannot even be stopped unless they face the heavy karmic consequences they have incurred. That's why theosophists have labeled them 'damned'. If there's a benefit to playing a good alignment, it is that upward progression comes naturally. It can be delayed, but it cannot be stopped. If there's a benefit to the evil alignment it is that you're free to traverse the ladder in any direction you seem fit. You are not bound by upward progression. You can use both upward and downward progression to achieve your aims. I think there's also a third option - the neutral alignment, that has its own laws. In fact - the alignments are not only these 3. There are many, many sub-variations stemming from the various axis - good/evil, lawful/chaotic, and others.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Rhaegar7

People who are worlds apart feel alien to each other . . .

I get that feeling from ordinary humans, and I am human. Got a birth certificate and drivers license to prove it. Even married a human girl.

Yeah. I also feel like an alien.

Who knows.. I might be.
I was mostly joking about our friend being an alien, of course. He could be though. ;D I was trying to point out that some devout followers of various mainstream paradigms act like agents of the Matrix and I'm fairly certain that the aliens are walking freely among us, trying to achieve their aim which is to impose a devilish false paradigm upon us and make us accept it as true. The 'scientific' agenda is part of that plot. It goes to great lengths to persuade us that it is a great and invaluable friend to us and that we'd be insane not to align our thinking with it. Meh.

a reply to: Rhaegar7
No need to change your argument to God doesn't exist now. If he doesn't exist he can't be evil now can he? You are refuting your own argument and claim. Those who hate God would feel the urge to call him evil and therefore slander a God that is good (which could be another sign of hatred for God or reason to refer to it as a slanderous hateful claim, the latter not being quite the same as claiming hatred for God, it's just stating a fact about a particular claim or statement, of course it is a clue regarding how someone may feel towards God), all when they often actually don't believe he even exists (or they like to argue that as well). Make up your mind what you wanna go with. You can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Besides, considering the topic of "evil" (or bad), you are doing this anyway...

Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,
Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,
Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes
And discreet in their own sight! (Isaiah 5:20,21)

So your perception and presentation of good and evil is upside down anyway. You don't get to decide* what's good and evil in this world. * or proclaim, not that you can't go ahead and do it, but it won't have any value when it comes to determining what is really evil and what is good. Especially when you start of claiming that God is evil, that shows your evaluation, perception and any possible presentation of good and evil is (going to be) highly suspect.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: crowdedskies
If you

It's because of reason that trans-gender people, however unreal (as an 'essential' condition, without a basis in historical interactions) I may consider the condition, can pursue rights and be defended by the law. This is very different from the Catholic church, or Jewish or Islamic law - and hence, seems to be something that people who want freedom to be, should appreciate.

However, it seems to me even progressives are disliked by people with far-right views, which is baffling to me.

The question is where do you draw the line. In the UK at the moment there is a drive to "re-educate" children. We are seeing documentaries where children are being conditioned to use unisex toilets. Then, there is the "encouragement" for children to choose their sex. There is talk about "transgender" children and their numbers are increasing.

My concern is that no man who becomes a woman can have a child or have female internal organs. Similar case for a Woman who becomes a man. Therefore , should society encourage 12 year olds to consider sex change when they may not be in a position to appreciate the consequences. Is that too right wing or religious if I am concerned ?

a reply to: whereislogic

Umm, where did I say that God did not exist? I still believe that the only real God is Lucifer - the Supreme Principle of Evil, active and interfering. Exactly what many gnostics and theosophists have held for a long time.

I'm not slandering God. I think he's great just the way he/she is. Great in his evil.

'Evil' and 'bad' cannot be used interchangeably.

"You don't get to decide* what's good and evil in this world."

Oh, so I don't get to choose my own way of thinking. I mean, we have the Bible to do it for us, right?

There's evil and then there's depravity and irrationality. There is depraved evil, and there is irrational evil, but there is also natural evil, necessary evil, enlightened evil. One has to acquaint himself with the darkness.

Lucifer is a sort of enlightened, divine sort of evil.

My whole argument is mainly based on the fact that a 'good omnipotent, active and interfering entity' is an oxymoron. Do you disagree?