Oeaohoo

@Danioover9000 What do you think? @IAmReallyImportant gave an answer above, emphasising the genetic aspect of womanliness. The only problem I have with this is that the study of genetics only emerged quite recently and ironically coincided with the rise of feminist ideology! However, the physical and hormonal differences that create the feminine character that everybody recognises as a “woman” are determined by genetics so I think this still holds true. I would say that a woman is a manifestation of the feminine polarity of existence. This includes: abundance, receptivity, passivity, power (Shakti) and potency (in the literal sense of “potential to be”), conformity (in the literal sense of “complying to form”, as form is a key attribute of the masculine polarity), materiality (from mater, the mother), seduction and illusion (Maya), and so on. The physical differences are all simply the material expressions of these metaphysical traits. This is why I insist that postmodernism is a radical negation, inversion and even perversion of Truth. It denies that there are archetypes and forms which are eternally true and which everything material is only a manifestation of. It is a unilateral denial of transcendence in the name of immanence. It denies what the Corpus Hermeticum called the “Things That Are”, and so is also a denial of Being in the name of mere becoming.

I agree but it doesn’t matter too much here. The important question would be what makes certain times better for spiritual progress than others. Even if spiral dynamics is a relatively dumb model, it still might help answer this question.

@Michael Jackson 93 is the number of Thelema and “Love Under Will” in the original Aleister Crowley’s teaching. 93 is an abbreviation of Crowley’s core teaching (‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law’) so members of the O.T.O would often greet and dismiss each other with a simple “93”. Forgive me if you already knew this!

Yes I agree with you but to me this is the basic problem of postmodern society. It is not limited to Leo’s teaching or Actualised. The purpose of initiation and ascetic practice in older society - the Kenosis or “emptying out” of Christian esotericism, the pursuit of the ultimate state of Fana or “annihilation in God”, together with the heavy emphasis on Submission and becoming a Slave of God (Abd) in Islam, and even the catharsis that Plato taught was attainable through the study of Mathematics and Philosophy, to name a few - was to prepare the initiate for the reception of the deepest truths. Any remaining karma and limited identity will be inflated drastically by the proximity to God, so it is generally necessary that this is purified early on in the spiritual journey. The saints, sages and whatever else you want to call them of the past were aware that any given religion or social order is a very limited expression of ultimate truth, but they didn’t go around trying to subvert them; they understood that for most people customs and traditions are necessary. Even in the rare cases in which they deliberately blasphemed the social order (like Al-Hallaj in Islam, the “crazy wisdom” teachers of late-Vajrayana, and even Christ to a certain extent), they accepted their punishment as fully deserved. After all, to confuse the esoteric and the exoteric is a form of blasphemy. Today, however, there is no initiation, and “we live in a society” has been an ironic meme for quite some time! Everything is a mess, the masses hate secrecy and don’t know what is best for them, and the usual spiritual laws which would attract the disciple to their master are broken, so the only way to distribute spiritual truths is to make them readily available to everybody and hope the idiots who will misunderstand them just pass you by!

I have found that to a certain extent this just happens naturally. Once something transcendent has awakened within you, it has a way of burning through (or, you could say, forcing you to burn through) the remaining threads and shreds of your limited identity. Like Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita:

Something tells me this thread won’t last long! Theories like this always strike me as a confusion of metaphorical and literal reality. The elites are space alien reptiles is absurd taken literally, but it makes a bit of sense metaphorically: they are above us and have different interests to us (space), they serve their own in-group interest over the interest of the people under them (aliens) and they are cold-blooded and ruthless in the pursuit of their own self-interest (reptiles). I can believe that the people you mention are massively negatively-oriented because how else could they lord over such a negatively-oriented world? Doesn’t mean they are aliens, though! Can’t you be an evil human?

Scriabin’s Fifth Sonata! Watch out for the volcanic opening.

Hahaha, ([a-z]|[α-ω]|[0-9])*\+ coming soon!

Love this. “Women, eh? They’re all the same: tits, pussy, and always playing little miss sissy!”

Brutal! I don’t think an abortion this late is legal in many places so all of this seems a bit abstract. Personally I don’t think there’s any good answer to this question. Every sperm is a potential life so technically every man is a mass murderer. Even a women will inevitably not use many of her eggs. You could say that it is only a potential life when the sperm and egg are fused but then it’s not like it could immediately leap out and become a self-sufficient person. It largely just depends on the preferences of society. I will say that I find it very silly when people today rhetorically claim that removing abortion is taking away a “woman’s reproductive rights”. After all, the only reason there are easy ways to get abortion today is because society has developed to such an extent. Therefore, if abortion is bad for society, society should have the right to take away a thing which it alone is providing (not that it necessarily should). Like most progressive ideology, it is totally parasitic on prior developments and cultural decadence.

Is that a clever Regex reference to LGBTQ+? Like it! Interesting, you have inspired me to watch it. Well, I was actually talking about the subject of this thread more generally. Never mind.

Sorry to obfuscate the matter with such peripernetical abstrudicating pomposities! Only the first little bit of what I said was an argument against the movie, and only about its questionable origins. I was just pointing out how silly it is that progressives claim to be all about “love” and “unity” when they can’t even get each other to agree on something as basic as what it means to be a woman! I imagine I will agree with most of it but I don’t know yet. I just wanted to know why you thought it was eye opening!

It didn’t occur to me earlier but Milarepa is actually a great example of negative early-life experiences ultimately causing great spiritual progress: In his early life he was involved in a family feud and ended up falling in with a black magician, who helped him to curse the enemy side of the family. The curse killed all of them and so incurred a tremendous amount of negative karma on him. He had to spend the next 10 years diligently resolving the negative karma he had accumulated, which culminated in his awakening. A story of redemption, as is only fit for a barbarian age such as his and ours! The trouble is that we now live under the “Church of No Salvation”…

Personally, I'd break a leg to get something up and running! You never know, becoming quadriplegic might be a real call to arms...

I heard about this. It was released by The Daily Wire though, pretty lame normie-Con organisation. I'll probably check it out anyway. What did you find eye opening about it? To me, the simple combination of the endless proclamations of all mankind finally together in a unified field of "one love" and "one world", whilst simultaneously there is such little consensus on the most basic facts of human existence, tells you everything you need to know about the present situation. It is all just the narcissistic nihilistic anarchism implicit in all modern secular ideologies fully unveiling and unleashing itself.

Yes, of course the knowing of God's fundamental nature must always be beyond all limited constructs and contexts. As far as the corruption through expression, I do agree that this is inevitable whatever mode is chosen, but I think it is worth pointing out that there are many other modes of expression which are much less corruptible than language: visions (like you said, and which are often not only strictly visual), Mantras, Mandalas, Yantras, Music and other non-verbal arts, and many ancient languages have a quality which is symbolic in a way which transcends the limitations of pure conceptuality. To me this is why postmodernism could only ever have arisen on Christian ground: Christianity is one of the only religions not to have a sacred language associated with it. Christ spoke in Aramaic (a corrupted and colloquial form of Hebrew mixed in with other Semitic dialects) but, at least to my knowledge, even today after the recovery of many long lost Gnostic texts, none of his original Aramaic survives. Even the Hebrew Gospel is actually a translation from the Greek! This among other things gave Christianity a one-sidedly "logocentric", analytic, speculative, detached and theological character, devoid of some of the potency of pure metaphysical symbolism which is often conveyed through a sacred language (Sanskrit, Zend, Arabic, Hebrew), which has inevitably rebounded in the modern methods of deconstruction. How else can you communicate? If everything is One, surely there can only be associations? It's interesting to me that you agree that language has shifted from being an implicative and associative medium to one which is explicit, and that these older forms of communication are therefore more amendable to expressing the deeper truths. Like you say, this is the Fall into duality and reflective self-awareness. I guess this is why you also refer to these deeper truths as being rooted in the "archetypes" and the "collective unconscious", implying that what all of this represents is a sort of collective emerging out of the swamp of pre-consciousness and awakening to consciousness itself (or "meta-cognition"). To me this also implies that time must be in a certain way if not cyclic (as I was saying in my other thread) then at least circular or Ouroboric: in the beginning is total unconsciousness; then there is a progressive development into consciousness (this being the "fall") and then a gradual reascension into superconsciousness; in the end is total superconsciousness. What do you think of this? Does this fit with whichever models you find to be most truthful? Haha, that's OK, all made sense to me. Also, my Stage Blue side can't help pointing out, congratulations on 6,606 posts! Here's a song to celebrate such dark omens:

Haha. "I am God", obviously! "You could be Milarepa", don't be so foolish!

...or you would be Milarepa, or you would be Abhinavagupta, or you would be a monk, priest or nun living in a Christian monastery or hermitage, or you would be a humble peasant regularly attending mass and abiding by the law laid down for you, or you would be part of a Jewish or Islamic contemplative order, or you would... Even if you were a "barbarian" you would likely be extremely devoted to the religious customs of your society and make regular offerings to the gods. We are the spiritual barbarians! As far as why some people progress faster than others, it seems a bit absurd to ask this question whilst simultaneously excluding any explanation based on the prior existence ("soul") of the person because most of it comes down to precisely this. It's like asking "why do cars break down?" whilst claiming that any explanation based on road wear and service quality is just "low-hanging fruit".

Some highlights:

I understand this. I don't know the exact video but Leo will often say that Absolute Reality must contain everything within itself (otherwise it wouldn't be absolute). Given this, everything that exists (whether it is unconscious, conscious or superconscious) must be included within Absolute Reality. Therefore, all the phenomena that are witnessed - even if they are presently only witnessed "unconsciously" from the point of view of the ego - are part of Absolute Reality. There are similar concepts in Eastern thought: the pātāla are the subterranean realms of the universe in Hindu cosmology, and the Diyu and Naraka of Chinese and Buddhist cosmology respectively could easily be aligned with Western models. Psychoanalysis is essentially a lop-sided secular cosmology, however, and so many Easterners were very critical of it: I very much agree with this analysis. OSHO has an excellent lecture in which he outlines the levels of consciousness from the Eastern perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFBV3RopGRI.

Yes. However, the subconscious and the superconscious are both unconscious to the ego. The "unconscious" in modern parlance tends to refer to that which psychoanalysts like Freud, Adler and Jung were obsessed with but this is generally only the subconscious and not the superconscious. Some examples: one day you might realise that you hate swimming because when you were young you almost drowned: this would be a revealing of the subconscious. One day you might realise that you dreamed up your whole existence: this would be the superconscious revealing itself.

The unconscious is only a function of the ego. Even the "unconscious" is absolute reality, because it is not really unconscious; it is only unconscious relative to the ego which does not want to know about it. The most basic function of the ego is to deny the consciousness of absolute reality.

This is petty nonsense and has nothing to do with the original subject of this thread.

Here’s a funny little protest song to conclude.

With this invocation, the Russian composer Scriabin commenced his Preparation for the Final Mystery. This was not to be any ordinary musical performance but a spiritual preparation for the eschaton, the End of the World. It was to combine music, poetry (as above), dance, and even olfactory art and the distinction between performers and audience was to be utterly dissolved in the totalising unity of Art. Given that we are all still here, it is evident that this annihilation never took place. This would not have mattered to Scriabin because he understood that the real purpose of art is to experience what it means to be a creator, as a final preparation for the realisation that one is and has always been the Creator. Scriabin is often considered by mediocre minds to have been a heretic if not a lunatic, mostly for having made the following statement: (I have abbreviated this poem towards the end because it would take up too much space). In his earlier life Scriabin was influenced by the romanticism of the 19th century. Only in later years, under the influence and occasional guidance of the profounder aspects of modern philosophy (the religious idealism of Bishop Berkeley, Schopenhauer's conception of the World as Will and Representation and Nietzsche's anti-dualistic gospel for the future), the Wagnerian desire to create a Gesamtkunstwerk (a total or ideal work of art which would synthesise all of the arts), the Theosophy of the Russian H.P. Blavatsky and direct study of various ancient texts, in likely combination with his own experiences, did his music start to become a paradigm of spiritual awakening. The shift is very apparent by the time we reach his Fifth Sonata and his third symphony, the Poem of Ecstasy, both of which can easily be found if you wish. Though Scriabin died before he could ever complete even the Preparation for the Final Mystery, one of his final works - Vers la flamme, or "Towards the flame" - encapsulates the apocalyptic ecstasy which he so desired to express: By far his most profound work, however, is his final symphony Prometheus: the Poem of Fire. Prometheus was of course the Greek Lucifer, the light-bringer who stole the fire of the gods from the Olympian realm of Being, ruled by Zeus, so that he could distribute it among humanity. The associations with the Renaissance cult of "Humanism" and everything that has followed it (the "enlightenment", democratic empowerment, and so on) are thus obvious. Scriabin, however, plays on the ambiguity that is present in the Greek myth, evoking the eternal tension between the principle of Cosmos and Chaos, Creation and Destruction, the Masculine and the Feminine. Of course, music of this calibre cannot be understood from a single superficial experience. If you truly wish to understand it, you will have to engage with it repeatedly until your entire body, soul and spirit resonate with it in a unity of blissful dissolution. Maybe then you will be able to say with the composer himself: