#Anti-Rational Mysticism

[whereishermes]

Scholasticism in Medieval Paris

Scholasticism: The Gothic school of philosophy in which scholars applied Aristotle’s system of rational inquiry to interpret religious belief.  The University of Paris was the center of scholarship and teaching in the Gothic age. The professors developed Scholasticism, a philosophy that sought to prove the Christian faith using Aristotle’s reasoning. Thomas Aquinas was the greatest advocate and…

[bethanythebogwitch]

My favorite magic system from a game I haven't actually played is from Mage: the Ascension. It kind of fits as both a hard magic system and a soft magic system at the same time because there are some hard rules, but its mostly very open. To become a mage you have to realize that reality is not what it seems. In MtA, reality is whatever the majority of people believe it is, known as the consensus. The consensus in modern days is pretty uniform everywhere, with small variations based on where you are, but it used to be wildly different based on the cultural beliefs of the local people. A mage is a person who realizes that the consensus isn't true reality and gains to power to act outside of its rules. Any given mage's abilities come from their own personal view of reality, known as their paradigm. A mage's magic can do basically anything, as long as it is accounted for in their paradigm. So a mage who's paradigm includes the classic Aristotelian elements can perform magic based on that, but if their paradigm doesn't include animistic spirits then they can't commune with those spirits even though other mages could based on their own paradigm. The problem with this is that the consensus doesn't like it when you go around breaking its rules and will punish mages by slapping them with an effect called paradox. Paradox can be anything from a spell failing to getting shunted into your own personal pocket universe. Nothing generates paradox like being seen doing magic by sleepers (people who are not mages and still live fully within the consensus). Most mages either only use magic around other mages or, if they need to cast around sleepers, will disguise their magic as a mundane effect. Someone throwing a fireball from their hands will generate major paradox because the consensus is that people can't do that. However if a mage holds a lighter up to a spraycan before casting their fireball, the sleepers can rationalize it as something that exists within the consensus and not as much paradox will be generated.

In the dark ages, magic was part of the consensus and mages could openly rule over the sleepers because everyone believed in magic and therefore magic was part of the consensus. In response to the tyranny of the mages, a group was formed called the League of Reason, who wanted to introduce a new form of magic to the consensus that everyone could use. This form of magic was based on logic and reason and was called science. This led to the ascension war, where the League of reason sought to remove magic and superstition from the consensus and a very loose coalition of mages called the Council of Nine Mystic Traditions want to keep magic in the consensus. And the League of Reason won. A mostly rationalistic, scientific worldview has become the consensus worldwide, forcing the Council into operating underground. The League of Reason has become the Technocracy, a worldwide secret organization ruling the world from the shadows and trying to stamp out magic and any other form of "reality deviants" to keep humanity safe, even if they have to suppress basic human imagination to do so. Notably, the earliest books for the game very much said "Traditions good, Technocracy bad", but later books went for a much more grey approach to the conflict between them, making it clear that both sides really are doing what they think is in humanity's best interest even if their ideas for how to do so are fundamentally incompatible.

What's really interesting is that science and technology really are a form of magic and technocrats are mages, even if the Technocracy would vehemently deny this. Technology is a form of magic that everyone can use because its part of the consensus and science doesn't discover new facts about the world, It creates those facts and applies them to the world. The Technocracy's super-advanced technology creates paradox just as much as magic does because personal anti-gravity suits and mass-produced clones violate the consensus just like throwing around fireballs and conjuring demons does.

Mage: the Ascension is a super fun setting because just about any fantasy or sci-fi trope can exist here. Classic pointy hat and wand wizards can battle cyborgs armed with self-replicating nanotechnology. Anti-authoritarian punks can hack your wallpaper to spy on you because they believe all reality is part of a unified mathematical whole that the internet gives us access to. A group of spacefarers can ride the luminiferous aether to mars only to encounter Aztec shamans who asked the spirits to carry them there thousands of years ago. A powerful mage can create a time loop by convincing their younger self to obtain enlightenment through the power of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Two people can have an argument over whether the guy they just met was an alien from Alpha Centauri or an elf from the Norse nine realms and both of them can be right. Animistic spirit-callers can upload themselves to the internet to combat spirits of malware. And an angry mage might just teleport you into the sun because they believe distance is just an illusion and therefore have the power to make anything go anywhere with a thought. It's a wild ride.

[kutputli]

It's been two days since I finished watching Interview with the Vampire, and the show has been consuming all my brain space. I didn't have the energy to live blog each episode of season 2, but I want to get my reactions down, before I go in search of reading other people's. This will be a haphazard collection of thoughts, so I think what I will do is start talking character by character and see if that helps me organise things any.

Louis

This one is the beating heart of the show, and I don't see how it would have worked if they had not made him a Black man. Everything stems from what he learned during his life of how to survive and thrive and yet remain kind and compassionate, and watching him be fragile and loving and grieving is soul stirring. Perhaps other people might still have found the show engaging with the role played by a white character (given fandom's embrace of the slave owning pirates in Our Flag Means Death, I am sure a slave owning Louis would not have been an insurmountable problem).

But this story belongs to the Black Louis, and to what Jacob Anderson made of him. Just impeccable acting choices, all down the line. I am mesmerised by him.

Praise for the character aside, he is the moral heart of the show. (I know there is a case to be made for Claudia, but I will get to her after this.) I don't actually much enjoy villains presented as anti-heroes, and Louis engenders so much empathy in a show filled with rather awful people.

Of course, he loves Claudia. And I do see him putting her first to the best of his ability. Claudia may be entitled to her resentment, but that doesn't make it rational fact. Louis encouraging her to leave the first time, knowing that Lestat would follow him if he left, that's a valid choice. And then choosing not to burn Lestat... I am reminded of how few victims of domestic abuse actually murder their abusers. The main desire is always to get away. I don't condemn Louis for choosing to not kill his lover.

Claudia had no roots laid down in New Orleans, but Louis did, and he gave all of that up to support her really rather nonsensical search for mystical vampires who were not as awful as Lestat. He helped her join the coven even if he could see it was a cult. And when she introduced him to Madeline, he listened to her. He turned her for Claudia. I don't ever see a moment where he stopped actively caring for her and doing the labour to prove it. I took the line about her being a burden as fully just transparent bait for Armand.

And when Lestat shows up at the trial, its Claudia that Louis is focussed on. He Always. Puts. Her. First.

The way that Louis finds his way into a relationship with Armand is so heartbreakingly soft. We never see them in their intimate moments as dom and sub, but I get the sense that he would be a tender lover -what he wants is to be respected, to have control.

And then we come to the post-trial choices.

I can somewhat buy him sparing Armand's life during his vengeance murder spree, because it wasn't just that Armand said he had saved him during the trial - if you remember, Armand was only encouraging him to leave Paris. Louis was the one who asked. But also, Armand was the one who let him out of the coffin. He did save Louis, and Louis would have tasted the blood of the person who saved him and known it was him.

I think maybe Louis was able to get over Armand facilitating Claudia's murder, because he saw him as a victim paralysed in the same way that he himself had been. Louis knows about having to keep his head down and be complicit with an oppressive system, and I think he offered the benefit of the doubt to Armand because of that. Perhaps also - Louis forgave Claudia for attempting to murder Lestat because he could see her desparation and why she needed to do it. Maybe Louis created a story for himself where Armand was similarly trapped. I don't know. To me, his choice of staying with Armand is the one I am the most questioning of.

(All of this is presupposing that what we saw was what actually happened. There are indications that there is yet another layer to the trial that we don't know about, and because Louis wasn't there as primary witness for the end, maybe some new facts will emerge to make Armand either more sympathetic, or more manipulative.)

Louis's relationship with Daniel is endearing and charming and all things adorable. I hope they whatsapp each other often and have some uncomplicated relaxing stress-relieving sex.

As for Louis and Lestat... see, I was ok with what I saw on the screen. I saw an abuse survivor leave his second marriage the instant he found out he had been lied to, and I saw him visit the parent of his child for closure. Taking on the burden of Claudia's death is nonsense, of course, but it was believeable nonsense. In that I accept that Louis, after having learned that Lestat did lift a finger to partially save his life, spilled out from all his generosity and love, what he thought might help the wretched ex he saw eating on rats and playing on a plank.

But what I am not ok with, what repulses me to the core, is the apparent conviction of the show producers that Louis and Lestat are destined to return to each other, as the great love of each other's lives. It is true that some domestic abuse survivors never manage to completely free themselves from their abuser, and some spouses continue to stay with the abuser of their child (Alice Munro, looking at you). But that storyline is a horror story. Nothing in the framing of the show indicates that horror. And I do not wish for a season 3 that walks down that road.

[picnokinesis]

if you would be interested in sharing your thoughts about the star beast, i would love to hear them!!

Ooh okay, so - well, first, just to start off: I think The Star Beast is a really important episode, and was very much a needed episode. The current climate in the UK regarding the trans community and their rights is getting extremely rancid, to put it lightly. Having an episode of Doctor Who with an explicitly trans character, having the other characters around her be affirming and supportive - that was awesome. Extremely awesome. And I'm really glad that RTD is loudly putting himself on this side of the whole 'debate' (which isn't really a debate, because it's just straight up bigotry from the anti-trans side, and we need people like RTD outwardly speaking out against that bigotry).

When I talk to cis people offline about this episode, that is pretty much what I say and also where I stop.

I'll put the rest under the cut hahah - there's a bit of negativity here, just as a warning for all the hardcore RTD stans, but I think it's well-founded and not vitriolic at all, just like, miffed hahaha. Also, I know there were a few trans folks who found this episode really affirming, so just to be clear: this is just my opinion, personal thoughts, and also influenced by the conversations I had with other trans people that I know and care about about the episode.

When I talk to trans people - offline or online - about this episode, I go in a lot deeper, because whilst it was a very important episode, it was somewhat flawed. It also came off the back of several things RTD had said and done that really ticked me off, and so I wasn't really in the interest of being entirely uncritical about what, to me and a lot of trans dw fans that I spoke to, thought was a very "cis" trans story. And when I watched it, I thought 'oh geez, is this how poc feel when white people try and write poc stories with good intentions but don't really get it right??" because like. Ho boy.

The thing about this episode was that RTD wanted to write an affirming trans story, and mostly did that, but also, imo...doesn't actually understand what gender and transness actually is. I think my main gripes were definitely with the climax scene - the whole 'we can let go bc we're women' thing literally made me go 'what' out loud at the screen because...well, it's just gender essentialism. Trans inclusive, sure! But trans inclusive gender essentialism is still gender essentialism. Women aren't better than men. There's actually an exceptionally good essay written by a trans woman who was still in the closet about her experiences in queer spaces that had a very prevalent anti-men attitude, and I've seen it myself irl too. It's not helpful - it's harmful, in fact - and it leans on this strange mysticism about women that is fundamentally anti-feminist, in my opinion. Women aren't "innately better at emotional and intangible, instinctive things" (and it's unspoken counterpart - "thus men are better at logical, rational things" - is also untrue). Women aren't magically better at 'letting things go' than men are - I reckon you could make an argument about men being socialised to not be emotional, and that would be an interesting conversation to have, but that was not what was being said - especially with the Doctor being raised in a society that didn't even perceive gender in the same was as humanity.

Also, the thing that REALLY got me was 'if you were a woman, you'd get it' - first of all, no. Thirteen never let anything go in her life and repressed to the max, if anything she was WORSE than tenteen at that lmao. Second - and this is the more salient point - I think it's a strange thing to suggest that tenteen is fully a man, at this point? Like, regardless of what he looks like, regardless of how he identifies or how thirteen identified, he just lived a lifetime in a body that looked like a woman, and thus was treated as such by the rest of the universe. He wasn't going to forget all of that. I actually really liked how the Chibnall era approached thirteen's gender - or, rather, her complete ambivalence to it, where it seemed like gender was more of an annoying thing that kept happening to the doctor that she kept having to remember, rather than something she felt - however I really REALLY wish they'd actually dug explicitly into the transness of it all, and so when they didn't, I'd hoped that RTD would do that instead. Especially since we KNEW Yasmin Finney was in it and we knew we were going to get a trans character!! I was like, this is the PERFECT opportunity to get the Doctor to actually talk about their gender and how it, fundamentally, doesn't really change between bodies, just how people REACT to it changes. But instead, the episode seems to present the doctor as having flicked a binary switch - once woman, now man - and thus made sure to remind us that every time thirteen was mentioned, it was framed around the fact that she was The Woman Regeneration, but also that tenteen was Now a Man Again. And even if that WAS THE CASE, it still wouldn't mean that tenteen came out of that experience completely mindwiped of everything about 'womanhood', right?? Like he lived as a woman! He was a woman 45 minutes ago, but now you're telling him that he couldn't possibly understand anything about this because he's a man now? Like first of all, his physical body's characteristics have nowt to do with his ability to let things go, second, it's just....okay, it reminds me of the dichotomy between all these detransition horror stories the anti-trans folks like to spew out, versus when you talk to actual detransitioners, who are quite often gnc and extremely positive about the trans community, and whose experience within that community and transitioning impacted how they view the world.

And I think it fundamentally comes down to RTD not really understanding either womanhood or transness. He actively speaks out on both of these things, which is great, but I don't think he understands them fully. I think the fact that he didn't think that David Tennant could wear a t-shirt, braces, trousers and coat because they were "women's clothes", and that when he cast David Tennant that was one of the first things he immediately decided is kind of telling.

There's also the whole 'male-presenting timelord' thing, which, again, I just don't think RTD really understood what that meant, like I'm not sure what his point was there, genuinely. Like, on a technical level it's acknowledging that the Doctor isn't necessarily male, just looks like a man (correct) buuuuuuuuuut the full line was saying 'you'd never understand this because you're a man' SO LIKE...okay? So he's not actually a man, but actually because of his male-adjacency, he's incapable of coming to the same conclusion that a woman did? So he's still...defined by his maleness? Hm. Strange sentence to write coming out of a trans woman's mouth.

What would have been better? I wish they'd just had Donna and Rose say 'because we're human', or maybe 'because we're the Nobles'. I also know a lot of people really didn't like the misgendering scene with the kids on the bikes - I think my personal feelings on that are a little more complicated, as a trans person who is not out irl and functionally uses my birthname almost everywhere, but also isn't triggered by it. It's not a deadname, more like a paperwork name rather than my preferred name, right? But I know for a lot of trans people, deadnaming is like psychological warfare and it's really awful, especially when done with malicious intent (like shown in the scene with the boys on the bikes). However...I do understand why RTD included this scene, and actually kind of agree with him. Because the boys on the bikes are the sort of people who are also watching the show. And so then seeing that kind of thing being condemned by the narrative by a key, beloved character, is probably something that's actually helpful. On the other hand though...in the Doctor Who Unleashed (or whatever the behind the scenes thing is called now), you've got this interview with Yasmin Finney saying that it was actually a pretty triggering scene to film for her and genuinely affected her, and I'm like....okaaaaaay then I REALLY hope they had someone she could talk to on set. Like, fundamentally, I think telling these stories are important, but, yknow, not at the expense of the actual actress' mental wellbeing, right? So that concerned me a bit.

I also think that the scene between Sylvia and Donna in the kitchen talking about Rose was brilliant. And this is because it was about cis people trying to understand and support trans people whilst not completely getting it and making mistakes, but also trying their best!! Which RTD does understand, very well!! And it felt so real. It was fantastic. There's also the part with the whole 'did you assume the meep's pronouns' whiiiiiiiich I have mixed feelings about? I think here, RTD was trying to poke fun at the people who do say that sort of thing to make fun of trans people, and having the Doctor be like 'actually this is a good point we should be checking this sort of thing'......however. I don't think I've ever heard 'did you assume my pronouns' come out of a trans person's mouth. It's always been a cis person mocking our community. So it felt a bit...incongruent. And all that needed to be changed was having Rose say 'how do you know the meep is a he?' - like that was all it needed!!! Also, it was a shame that after the delightful moment of the doctor being like 'SAME HAT' regarding the meep's pronouns, that.....we then had NO OTHER DISCUSSION about the doctor's gender!! Like, Russel, dude, you're really gonna have Rose hear the 'male-presenting' guy say 'oh yeah I do that with pronouns too!! :D' - have her NOT REACT TO THAT AT ALL - and then you're gonna have her say by the end 'oh you don't understand bc you're a man :)' after her non-binary power move moment? Sighs. Yeah.

I think another important thing to remember here is that there were no trans folks in the writer's room on this. Now, this is a tricky one because I think people who aren't part of a certain community should be writing stories outside their own knowledge and experience, and should be encouraged to do so!! I don't think that you need to have everything rubberstamped, and even something written by someone in a certain community isn't going to resonate with everyone in that community. Actually, I think it's unhelpful to start getting into the politics of 'who is allowed to write what' - I think anything written with care and good intention is valuable, especially if the writer is willing to listen to constructive criticism and learn from any mistakes that are made. But I think, as a writer myself, if you are going to write a story about that community, it might be worth 1) talking to them a bit more than I think RTD did - but, to be fair, I don't actually know how much research he did, but, well, see above on the fact I don't think he really got what he was writing about - but also 2) not dismissing writers from that community (and others!), which RTD did in an interview not thaaaaaaat long before the episode aired. Again, to be fair to him, he has since then been like 'oh, we need to mentor and encourage the new generation of trans writers and writers of colour', which, great! But also, sir, then why were you saying that all the scripts you got from minority writers were all awful, angry, and lacked any love for tv like skksks SIR. SIR. The thing that gets me about that comment in particular is that, as someone currently starting out in script writing, I know exactly how hard it is to get at all noticed. It takes a lot of effort, a lot of passion, a lot of hard work and a lot of skill - and a lot of luck too, granted, but not luck along. So, RTD, if these writers got their scripts to your literal desk, as showrunner of Doctor Who...I think they have some love and passion. They HAVE to, to get to the point where he is reading those scripts. Also maybe RTD should unpack the fact that he thought the scripts were bad because they were too angry - I mean, I haven't read them, so I don't know, but maybe, sir, feeling uncomfortable about the anger in a script isn't a bad thing. Not every story is meant to be an easy pill to swallow. There are aromantic stories I want to write about romance as horror, romance as a virus, romance as a destructive force, that I think a lot of alloromantic people will find uncomfortable. Does that mean they're bad? Maybe, lol. Mostly they're bad because they're not written yet lmao, but I don't think the anger and discomfort in them makes them inherently weak. In fact, I think often anger can make a story stronger.

So then, I think The Star Beast left a sour taste in the back of my mouth, despite all the positive aspects of it, because of that. I think that comment also kinda left me frustrated about Dot and Bubble, even though I think that was a fantastic episode and genuinely really well done, and very effective - and I'm genuinely loathe to criticise it at all because I think it was so important - but. Having RTD talking in an interview about wondering how long the audience will take to notice that the cast is all white (and, thus, the depicted society is racist) whilst sitting in a writers room that's all white iiiiiiiiiiis uh. I don't think he thought about that SKKS. I think a lot about Sacha Dhawan talking about how you can be as inclusive on screen as you like, but if it's all 'white behind the lights' then how much does that inclusivity actually mean?

RTD definitely had good intentions and wrote a mostly good story. But he definitely fell down in some regards, aaaaaand well. I don't know. My personal opinion is that he's kind of arrogant and thinks he's infallible as a writer (and I may feel this way bc of the way parts of the fandom seem to put him on a pedestal, if I'm honest) - but I think that he's just human. He doesn't get things perfectly right all the time, and that's absolutely fine, but I think it's interesting and important to discuss those pitfalls, and I just wish he'd stop making it feel like he thinks he can write trans stories better than, yknow, actual trans people, and then write the most cis trans story I've ever seen SKSKSKSK

(AND ACTUALLY - sorry, this is getting long, but it's kind of indicative of the whole industry at the moment? The industry is calling for more diverse voices, more diverse stories - but they also want stories that can appeal to the widest possible audience, the common denominator, and thus "trans stories by trans people for trans people" doesn't actually tick that box. This didn't hit me until I wrote a trans horror script that got shortlisted for a script call, but when I spoke to the (cis) producer and director (who were LOVELY, the producer had a gorgeous dog called Biscuit HAHA) I very quickly realised that they did not get it. They didn't understand. "Why do we have to kill the mirror demon that's the girl part of this trans man?" they asked. "She should get to live too!" But: "She was never a part of him," I had to say. "She was the idea of him that everyone around him thought he was, and thought it so strongly that she became real. It was her or him." They didn't really understand, but on the plus side it did highlight to me what was unclear in my script that none of my (trans) proof readers had picked up on (although my transfemme friend made the HILARIOUS comment that maybe the mirror demon could go and find a nice trans girl to possess? WHICH SKSKSKSKKSKSK I MEAN -))

Anyway. -gestures nebulously- I feel like my thoughts were a lot more concise and well constructed in the week after this episode actually aired hahaha, but I didn't want to throw my hat into the ring back then. I did find it amused how the majority of my cis trans-affirming friends were like 'GREAT EPISODE, RIGHT?!!' and the majority of my trans friends were sending me the grimace emoji in the week after the episode aired LMAO

[cellarspider]

Thanks to my rambling this weekend, I am overflowing with love for an MMO that hasn’t been in development since 2012, because goddamn the worldbuilding for the setting of City of Heroes and City of Villains was just superb.

Do you want an MMO that begins as a pastiche of superhero comics that lovingly, cheekily engages with its source material, building up a cohesive world where the fantastical stuff feels unexpectedly real and grounded in the society, more so than most of the comics it's inspired by? Do you want that, and then to watch it slowly, gently tip its backstory into existential, cosmic horror via genre critique?

I'm in no way kidding! More below the cut.

Well, part one of more, because there's a lot to unpack here.

A lot of new superhero continuities these days treats its central premise as an anomaly. For the most popular example, the MCU treats public knowledge of superheroes as something that started with Captain America in WWII. Before his exploits, the fantastical aspects of the setting were forgotten about and hidden from the world. The DCEU begins similarly with Wonder Woman in WWI, a member of a mythic society forgotten by time.

At first, Earth in City of Heroes seemed to go with a very similar premise, though it predates any of those movies: Superpowers were unknown to the general public until the early 1930s, when some people suddenly began gaining incredible new abilities, and mythical critters not seen since ancient times made themselves known.

But that’s just the basic sales pitch. As you dug into the setting and City of Villains expanded the lore, perspective shifted into something entertainingly stranger.

Everyone knew about Nemesis, the clockwork robot-making mastermind who'd terrorized Paragon City from the early 1930s, just when superheroes were first appearing on the scene. Turns out he was an immortal Prussian nobleman born who first went on an automaton-backed crime spree in 1820s, seemingly died when the British Navy bombarded his headquarters in Malta, then reappeared in the 1860s to supply the Confederate Army with mechanical cavalry until General Sherman shelled his mountaintop base on his march to North Carolina. Nobody was ever able to replicate what the did, and with his (apparent) death, he was no longer relevant after 1865. As of the 1930s, anyone who wasn’t a history buff had forgotten about him.

And sure, everyone knew there was an underground city of evil wizards, dead for long eons until they rose again to take human sacrifices from the surface world of Rhode Island (I’m still not over that). But actually, they were active in London during the Victorian mysticism craze, then moved their operations back to their homeland of subeterranean Rhode Island with the outbreak of World War I. They made the news across the continent. They got outlawed in multiple countries. They were a big deal, until the war took the attention off of them.

Hell, one of the people who fought all these weirdos was a random teenager who'd just... always been able to teleport and turn invisible, even prior to the '30s. He wasn't even a main character or anything! His parents knew, and tried to convince him to go get training. Teleportation training. Like y'do, with your socially awkward, teleporting kid.

This setting never actually had a mundane world that was unaware of the fantastical. The fantastical was normal. The arrival of superpowers in 1930 wasn’t a hard fork between history as we know it and theirs, or a reveal of some secret world that rational minds had long denied. It was just a dramatic escalation of what had already been happening, that everyone knew about. Armies of the 1800s had to develop anti-robot tactics. Alastair Crowley publicly dissed an actual wizard cult because they were dangerous competition. Parents worried over the mental health of their superpowered teens. That was normal.

The sheer numbers of fantastical events that started happening after 1930 were not normal. Or at least, not at first. People slowly adjusted over decades, as more and more young people grew up in a world that had always been that way.  

What nobody realized at that point was how the new normal bordered on a state of cosmic horror.

And that’s where the setting really starts interrogating its inspirations.

[libbee]

Dangers of the Abyss

Intro = Does this image stir something in you? Some emotion, thought, memory? Perhaps fear. What we cannot express in words, we express in symbols and images. Images are not mere pixels but they are emotionally charged and they exist in our minds too. After all, our eyes are like cameras, mind is like camera film, memory is like storage space. The unconscious world can be accessed via your mental images, fantasies, visions, dreams, thoughts, emotions, memory. Some of the tools we use to explore the unconscious are writing, art, active imagination, tarot cards and alchemy. Some of the ways we know unconscious exists is synchronicities, projection and spiritual awakenings.

World of the unconscious = Few things are as tempting as exploring the 4th, 8th and 12th houses in astrology. Especially when you find yourself at the outskirts of healing, you are sucked into these areas of life and may lose touch with the material world. When the native is so engrossed in spiritual work or shadow work that they are obsessed with it and do it compulsively everyday, that is when you know that they have crossed the limits of what is healthy for them. Astrology, spirituality, occult, esoteric and mysticism (for eastern audience), new age tools (for western audience) can be very tempting in times of turbulence. This is why when life is out of control (eg, divorce or break up, disease or accident, money or career problems) we run to astrologers/psychics/healers, even if we were atheist or anti-theist otherwise. What is unseen, intangible and unknown resides in the unconscious and these 3 houses in astrology are the mining holes for the unconscious. They represent the collective unconscious, personal unconscious (or the subconcious mind) and bringing them to the light of the day is called awareness/enlightenment.

3. Curious case of Friedrich Nietzsche = Though history does not report why Nietzsche went insane, many report (including Carl Jung) that Nietzsche went so far into self exploration that he could not come back to the material life. That he went so deep into the unconscious that he could not pull himself out of it and completely submerged with the unconscious. Do you see how dangerous it is to do shadow work? Though whether Nietzsche could be reborn or not is not something we can decide, for it was his life path and his destiny. Though he lost himself in the darkness, at least he wrote some great books, at least he excavated some pearls from the ocean for the rest of us. It is to be noted that Nietzsche had ketu/south node in the 7th house which can signify his unsuccessful love life, solitude/loneliness and also had sun in the 12th house.

"...Nietzsche would be just about as grateful to his rescuers as somebody who has jumped into the water to drown himself and has been pulled out by some fool of a coastguard. I have seen Nietzsche in states in which he seemed – horrible to say – as though he were only pretending to be mad, as though he were glad to have ended this way!” Peter Gast, The Madness of Nietzsche by Erich Podach

4. We the regulars = But we the regular, the common, the laymen people who cannot afford to be lost in the unconscious world, who have school/college/job, family/relations/marriage, money/food/shelter to take care - we need a foundation to navigate the material life alongside the spiritual life. Unless you are an ascetic sitting in a cave, browsing tumblr in your lunch break before the 10 hour meditation session, we know that you have a full life with many dimensions to take care of. And it is for those of us to learn to balance the material and spiritual life

5. Doing it alone = Whether a therapist or a family member or a friend or a loved one, anyone who can keep you grounded in the real world, bring you back to the daily life, keep you rational when you are losing touch with reality and guide you when you are losing track can be helpful. Though shadow work is a solitary process, we still need somebody else to give us objective judgment, tell whether we are biased in our judgment and guide us with their own wisdom and experience. This is why 4th/8th houses also deal with generations, ancestors, inheritance, history because it is only by standing upon the shoulder of the giants that you can make progress in your life. We may think we know it all intuitively/alone, but the more we learn the more we discover how little we know. "Learn from the mistakes of others, you can't live long enough to make them all yourself." - Chanakya, Indian polymath

6. Psychic content is reality = I am very fond of this interview of Carl Jung. What Jung meant to say here is that the events of psyche are as real as the material life. For instance, if you celebrate your birthday on a certain date with your friends, you call it reality. But if you think about celebrating your birthday with your friends, you call it daydream and not reality. This is where Jung says that even the world in your mind is as real and valid as the world outside. So whether you celebrate your birthday in physical world or mental world, both are equally valid and real. So, when the mental world is as encompassing, satisfying and real as the physical world, it is very easy and tempting to spend your whole life in the mind. In the modern world, the addiction to social media, internet, video games and T.V. is similar to living in your mind (unless you are using technology to do your job and make money).

7. Being clueless and inexperienced = The baby witches often ask minute questions on spells, tools and energy. Do you work in coven or are you a solitary witch? Are you a family astrologer or the first in your family? Do you visit a psychologist or do your own therapy in your journal? If the answer to all these questions is the latter of the two, then you may have begun from a place where you were clueless, inexperienced and confused. Perhaps you learned from trial and error, perhaps you did hours of research, perhaps you felt like you were not meant for it, but what we do know is that being clueless and inexperienced in the world of the unconscious can have serious drawbacks and dangers. The most dangerous is the mental and emotional impact of practices that do not make your life better rather pull you in a rut.

8. Solutions = Solutions are very simple, so simple that we may dismiss it, but learning to keep a balance between material life (school/college/self care/job/ family/responsibilities) and the spiritual life (shadow work/alchemy/exploring the unconscious/self actualization) is crucial. Next solution is to be able to identify the psychic contents with mindfulness and living in the present moment - this comes with practice, perhaps months or years of practice before one can calm down the restlessness to stay mindful. Next solution is to really understand your mental process. Mind is a beautiful thing, do not deal with it lightly. Just like you would arrange, clean, organize, beautify your physical space, you also have to arrange, organize and keep your mental space neat and clean. Next solution is to what I mentioned earlier in a post to keep marking mistakes and correct decisions for yourself, to use reasoning, logic, common sense, decision making, routine (rather than be emotional thinker, magical thinker, impulsive and reckless). In short, think BEFORE you act and not the vice versa. The exploration of the unconscious is systematic and organized, it is not careless and impulsive.

9. Conclusion = So, if you are a first generation astrologer or witch or healer or trauma cycle breaker, be very vigilant of your limits and structure. I have written about psychosis before which can induce when the native is not mentally prepared for the psychological adventure of healing and actualization. Psychoanalysis, spiritual practices and occult practices are parallels to each other and if you feel like you are called into any of these interests, please make sure you have your physical life in order, lest you want to reach rock bottom again and again. I am speaking from experience that being first time clueless healer, psychoanalysis made my life even more complicated instead of magically improving it. I thought I had hit rock bottom in physical life but I did not know yet that even rock bottom has a basement that I hit with clueless psychoanalysis and spiritual practices. It was like this diagram for me:

It felt like I was making great progress with shadow work and psychoanalysis, it felt like I hit the jackpot and all my problems would be explained/solved but it took me a lot of time to realize that it takes immense responsibility to tackle the world of the unconscious and it is not mere for fun and games, rather it can really disturb your life and make you dysfunctional in the material world.

[reddest-flower]

In 1950, Aimé Césaire, the communist from Martinique, one of the clearest voices of the 20th century, looked back at the long history of colonialism that was coming to an end. He wanted to judge colonialism from the ashes of Nazism, an ideology that surprised the innocent in Europe but which had been fostered slowly in Europe’s colonial experience. After all, the instruments of Nazism – racial superiority as well as brutal, genocidal violence – had been cultivated in the colonial worlds of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Césaire, the effervescent poet and communist, had no problem with the encounter between cultures. The entanglements of Europe’s culture with that of Africa and Asia had forged the best of human history across the Mediterranean Sea. But colonialism was not cultural contact. It was brutality.

«Between colonization and civilization there is an infinite distance; that out of all the colonial expeditions that have been undertaken, out of all the colonial statutes that have been drawn up, out of all the memoranda that have been dispatched by all the ministries, there could not come a single human value.»

Césaire was adamant: colonialism had produced nothing that would earn it respect in the scales of history. This was in 1950, when a few nations had just emerged out of the scar of colonialism and when many societies fought pitched battles to extricate themselves from colonial power. What had come to define fascism inside Europe through the experience of the Nazis – the jackboots and the gas chambers – were familiar already in the colonies. This colonial fascism, Césaire argued in Discourse on Colonialism, needed to be emphasized. Colonialism was asserting itself in this period, pushing to revive its empires from Vietnam to Algeria, from Kenya to Malaya. It pretended to distinguish itself from fascism, then considered essentially evil, and to resurrect itself in a paternalist and benign form. Césaire would have nothing to do with that. Colonialism and fascism shared too much at the level of effects – in terms of how they appeared to their victims. It was clear to Césaire, as a Marxist, that fascism was a political form of bourgeois rule in times when democracy threatened capitalism; colonialism, on the other hand, was naked power justified by racism to seize resources from people who were not willing to hand them over. Their form was different but their manners were identical.

From the anti-colonial struggles of the Communist International and the League Against Imperialism to the anti-fascist struggle in Spain and then against the Nazi war machine, the Soviet Union acquitted itself well. The Soviets, like Césaire, saw the links between colonialism and fascism – both tied to each other inextricably by racism. It was not possible to fight fascism and collaborate with colonialism. The two emerged from the same origin, which the communist leader R.P. Dutt called capitalist decay. In his Fascism and Social Decay (1934), Dutt pointed out that the ‘revolt against science’ prepares the ground for ‘all the quackeries and charlatanries, of chauvinism, racial theories, antisemitism, Aryan grandmothers, mystic swastikas, divine missions, strong-man saviours, and all the rest of the nonsense through which alone capitalism today can try to maintain its hold a little longer’. Racism, the root of both colonialism and fascism, was not ‘insane’, Dutt wrote, but ‘completely rational and calculated’. Capitalism cannot offer a ‘rational defence’ of itself, of the manner in which it creates and sustains social inequality. It, therefore, takes refuge on ‘a wave of obscurantism, holding out fantastic symbols and painted substitutes for ideals’.

[...]

Fascism, to those in the colonized world, shared too much in its behaviour with colonialism: the racism surely but also the brutality and depravity, the oscillation between genocide and incarceration. Aimé Césaire did not see ‘fascism’ and ‘colonialism’ as separate endeavours. They were kin. But in Europe after 1945, there was a great push to see fascism as merely its European expression, an aberration of the Germans and the Italians. To suggest that fascism was merely Nazism with no linkage to colonialism allowed the Europeans and the North Americans to revive – without embarrassment – their colonial histories. The British used the full might of their armies to subdue national aspirations from Kenya to Malaya, while the French attempted to retake their old colonies from Indo-China to Algeria. The Dutch sent in their armies into Indonesia, while the Americans conducted coups and marine landings from Guatemala to the Dominican Republic and outwards to Iran.

In 1954, the US National Security Council’s staff prepared an important memorandum on US policy towards Africa. The two main interests of the United States were its ‘actual and potential US military bases in the area’ and its ‘access to, and utilization of, the strategic raw materials of the area’. To secure bases and raw materials the United States would need to ‘support’ the colonial powers’ ‘presence in the area’ – namely to support the continuation of colonialism. US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles worried that decolonization would mean the delivery of the new states to the communists and so the loss to the US of bases and raw materials. ‘Zeal’ toward decolonization, he said, ‘needs to be balanced by patience’. Here ‘patience’ simply meant the delay of decolonization. This was a return to the language and logic of imperialism from before World War II. There was no sense here that the anti-fascist struggle had any unity with the anti-colonial struggle, both part of the broader human struggle for freedom against tyranny. Fascism had been defeated, but colonialism was going to be welcomed into the post-war age.

In 1960, the US voted in the UN Political Committee against a resolution that called for Algerian independence. Later that year, the US voted – effectively – to allow no oversight into the Portuguese colonies in Africa. Finally, that year, the US abstained on a vote in the UN General Assembly for a ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’. This declaration was a significant feint by the USSR on behalf of the colonized world. During the 15th Session of the General Assembly on September 23, 1960, Nikita Khrushchev of the USSR said it was now time for ‘the complete and final liberation of peoples languishing in colonial bondage’. In keeping with the UN Charter, the 100 million people still living under colonialism must be freed. Five days later, during the discussion over the Declaration, which was sponsored by the USSR, its representative to the UN Valerian Zorin called for independence for all colonial territories within a year. ‘The process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible’, noted the Declaration, which passed by 89 votes to 0, with nine abstentions (including colonial powers such as Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the apartheid state of South Africa). It was clear that the old colonial powers and the United States had little sympathy for the anti-colonial struggle, itself intertwined with the legacy of the October Revolution.

[emptyanddark]

weekly reading list

(some of these are not very recent, but i have a lot of other things to read. this is a short list of interesting or things i found relevant to understand current events)

America Doesn’t Wage War. Government Institutions Do - very USA-centric but provides insights re: the prolific paramilitary organizations aided by US government, and the de-democratization that's been happening in the US.

Trapped by Empire - Guam is one of the colonies still under US-empire rule. the island is put in difficult position with no easy solution on all fronts - security, environmentally, economically etc.

“A Closed, Burnt Huwara”: How Israeli Settlers Launched A Pogrom - the harrowing happenings in last month's pogrom by Israelis against a Palestinian village.

The PA’s Revenue Structure and Israel’s Containment Strategy - how Israel restricts the PA's economic independence, worsening conditions to Palestinians who are entirely at the (non)mercy of their occupiers.

You Are Not a Parrot - the prolific linguist Emily M. Bender dispels the mystical brainrot around "AI" and Large Language Models (ChatGPT etc). Interesting and insightful. she is also one of the writers of the important article, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots"

World Development under Monopoly Capitalism - reviews the question 'did globalization actually make things better'?, today's global capitalism and monopoly capitalism

The Rot Economy & Mass tech worker layoffs and the soft landing - both discuss the similar topics, about the bizarre realities of the tech sector, as put in the latter by Doctorow: "The equation is simple: the more companies invest in maintenance, research, development, moderation, anti-fraud, customer service and all the other essential functions of the business, the less money there is to remit to people who do nothing and own everything."

Silicon Valley elites are afraid. History says they should be - people around the world were exposed by the media to the recent stupidity of US tech executives & investors, resulting in collapsing their bank. here's a rational take about it, with history about the more militant opposition against Silicon Valley.

The New Irrationalism - explores contemporary irrationalist trends, the history of irrationalism and its philosophy. i found it thought-provoking.

[a-ramblinrose]

“What is fantasy? On one level, of course, it is a game: a pure pretense with no ulterior motive whatever. It is one child saying to another child, “Let’s be dragons,” and then they’re dragons for an hour or two. It is escapism of the most admirable kind—the game played for the game’s sake.

On another level, it is still a game, but a game played for very high stakes. Seen thus, as art, not spontaneous play, its affinity is not with daydream, but with dream. It is a different approach to reality, an alternative technique for apprehending and coping with existence. It is not anti-rational, but para-rational; not realistic, but surrealistic, superrealistic, a heightening of reality. In Freud’s terminology, it employs primary, not secondary process thinking. It employs archetypes, which, as Jung warned us, are dangerous things. Dragons are more dangerous, and a good deal commoner, than bears. Fantasy is nearer to poetry, to mysticism, and to insanity than naturalistic fiction is. It is a real wilderness, and those who go there should not feel too safe. And their guides, the writers of fantasy, should take their responsibilities seriously.”

― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction

[aevarswall]

"Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the scepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed."

-G.K. Chesterton, Heretics

[gravityofforteana]

The primary data of this book concern side effects of using psychic abilities and engaging supernatural phenomena. Those effects can be discovered by analyzing the social milieu around the phenomena. Of particular interest are the repercussions to groups and institutions, including families, academe, governments, science, religion, and industry. There is a pattern, and generally the phenomena either provoke or accompany some kind of destructuring—a concept discussed at length in this book. For instance, the phenomena do not flourish within stable institutions, and endless examples illustrate this. Fortunately, two theoretical perspectives are already developed that connect the supernatural to ideas about social order and structure. The first is Victor Turner’s work on liminality and anti-structure. The second is Max Weber’s theory of rationalization. Both have profound implications for understanding psychic phenomena.

The central theme developed in this book is that psi, the paranormal, and the supernatural are fundamentally linked to destructuring, change, transition, disorder,marginality, the ephemeral, fluidity, ambiguity, and blurring of boundaries. In contrast, the phenomena are repressed or excluded with order, structure, routine, stasis, regularity, precision, rigidity, and clear demarcation. I hesitate to offer this very general statement because, by itself, it will almost certainly be misinterpreted; much of the book is devoted to explaining it. I will present some brief examples here.

When entire cultures undergo profound change, there is often an upsurge of interest in the paranormal. During the breakup of the former U.S.S.R. there was an explosion of paranormal activity throughout eastern Europe. Healers and psychics featured prominently in the media. This should not have been a surprise because anthropologists have shown that the supernatural has figured in thousands of cultural revitalization movements.

Numerous mystics have displayed extraordinary paranormal powers, but many of them were outsiders, marginal characters whose lives were exceedingly odd. St. Francis of Assisi performed many miracles, but he was mistrusted by church authorities and caused them many headaches.

Groups that attempt to use paranormal abilities, such as those in modern-day witchcraft and spiritualism, typically have a transitory, ephemeral existence. The few that manage some measure of institutionalizing (with buildings and paid staff) become marginalized, and often are accused of fraud and deception. Likewise psychical researchorganizations have always had a tenuous existence, and parapsychology has never been truly integrated into the academic establishment.

Magicians (performers of magic tricks) have played central roles in paranormal controversies, not only recently, but for hundreds of years. Magicians on both sides of the dispute have faked psychic phenomena, thereby contributing to the ambiguity surrounding them.

Skeptics understand that frauds and hoaxes plague the paranormal, but parapsychologists naively consider them only a minor problem. Parapsychologists have amassed overwhelming evidence for the reality of psi; skeptics ignore it and even deny that such evidence exists.

Many aspects of the paranormal (e.g., ghosts, UFO abductions, Bigfoot) have temporarily captured intense popular interest, but that has never been translated into financially viable, stable institutions that directly elicit or engage the phenomena. Instead the researchers use their own funds and are given no support from institutions. In contrast, science has uninhibitedly ventured into virtually all other areas once considered taboo. The study of sexuality, in all its forms, is established in universities and medical schools. Sizeable industries and well-funded research labs are organized around cloning, artificial insemination, and genetic manipulation, despite ethical qualms. Thelowly ghost researcher receives only sneers.

Many religions display an ambivalent, wary attitude toward supernatural phenomena. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church shows this clearly. It acknowledges that “God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints,” but in the very next paragraph it states that “interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums … contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.” The following paragraph says “All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers … even if this were for the sake of restoring health—are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.” Catholicism is not alone in these views, and many other diverse religious and spiritual traditions also acknowledge the existence of such phenomena but warn against seeking that power.

In short, the paranormal and supernatural are ambiguous and marginal in virtually all ways: socially, intellectually, academically, religiously, scientifically, and conceptually. They don’t fit in the rational world.

Some may see no pattern to the above examples; they do appear chaotic. But there is a pattern, and it has enormous implications. The theories of anti-structure and rationalization, which will be described later, provide remarkable insight.

One of the implications of the pattern is that there are subtle but pervasive pressures that conspire to keep the paranormal marginalized and scientific investigation at a minimum. This does not require a consciously organized human conspiracy. It is a direct property of the phenomena. Psi interacts with our physical world, with our thoughts, and with our social institutions. Even contemplating certain ideas has consequences. The phenomena are not to be tamed by mere logic and rationality, and attempts to do so are doomed to failure. These notions are undoubtedly anathema to my scientific colleagues in parapsychology. To their chagrin, I will demonstrate that deception and the irrational are keys to understanding psi.

-George P Hansen - The Trickster and the Paranormal

[hydralisk98]

GruvboxHypathy

Lets build a future to be proud of and grateful to live into. And I think that one way I can do so is to produce insightful explainers and creative tutorials...

Nth BRAINDUMP

Medium Light + Soft Dark Gruvbox, very dark night with dim yet soft & warm lights, Shoshona the black Angora housecat, solarpunk, 16^12, witchy coven commune, walking her way to her own home library, forested library location, night, hoof shoes, black gloves (giving the blackhand surname), relaxing 45rpm 7" vinyls’ music, bell thousers, jackets / blouse, black lipstick, white hoof shoes, daybreak / dusk, black sun, stargazing, retro warm grunge look with black white and amber tones, large backpack, amber polka dot patterned identity card, libre cyberware & libre bio-modding wares, GLOSS (gratis, libre, open source software / culture), olive & black net socks texture, soft woolen rug texture, notepad at her hand, soundscape of a forested park library with some river nearby, cozy vibe of curiosity and knowledge-seeking…

Some majestic Lisp poetry & code booklets on the shelves, puffy layered turtleneck shirt and bell cap trousers, Olive Synod Mixnet library card, autistic fem symbol talisman, keychain charms, analog medium, retro computers, axis victory?, anti-Wilsonism, Strasserism, Shoshoni language, conlangs, alternate technologies, mysticism, communion, community building, honest humble living, witch coven, STEM ladies, Chronokinesis, True Polymorphs, Toymaker, open culture, public domain, copyleft, desktop environmental storytelling, REPL feedback loops, Lisp symbolic computation machines, addventure, neo-brutalism, systemic change, historical retrospective, from grim dark to bright solarpunk, Konrad Zuse, factions, far far away future foresight, van hexcrawl, encyclopedic knowledge, life-long learning, Zettelkasten, Markdown, Argdown, DolDoc, Parade FS, DocBook, HTML, XML, SVG toons, Common Lisp, Worker Cooperatives, KDE_Plasma’s ecosystem;

Neue-Geo-Syndicalist constructivist empowerment worldview, Lisp program forms as Lisp-y poetry, shortwave radio, geofiction realms & speculative paracosms, constructed languages’ jargon / dialects and technological ecosystems…

Harmony, Progress, Liberty, Knowledge, Mysticism & Rationality syncretized, Data Transparency, Copyleft / Open Culture Movement as in GLOSS, Geosyndicalism (Georgism* mixed with Belle Epoque Syndicalism), Respect & Courtesy, Linguistic Diversity... ;

[troybeecham]

Today, the Church remembers St. Bonaventure.

Ora pro nobis.

He was born at Bagnorea in Umbria, not far from Viterbo, then part of the Papal States. Almost nothing is known of his childhood, other than the names of his parents, Giovanni di Fidanza and Maria di Ritella.

He entered the Franciscan Order in 1243 and studied at the University of Paris. In 1253 he held the Franciscan chair at Paris. A dispute between seculars and mendicants delayed his reception as Master until 1257, where his degree was taken in company with Thomas Aquinas. Three years earlier his fame had earned him the position of lecturer on The Four Books of Sentences—a book of theology written by Peter Lombard in the twelfth century—and in 1255 he received the degree of master, the medieval equivalent of doctor. After having successfully defended his order against the reproaches of the anti-mendicant party, he was elected Minister General of the Franciscan Order. On 24 November 1265, he was selected for the post of Archbishop of York; however, he was never consecrated and resigned the appointment in October 1266.

Bonaventure was instrumental in procuring the election of Pope Gregory X, who rewarded him with the title of Cardinal Bishop of Albano, and insisted on his presence at the great Second Council of Lyon in 1274. There, after his significant contributions led to a union of the Greek and Latin churches, Bonaventure died suddenly and in suspicious circumstances.

He steered the Franciscans on a moderate and intellectual course that made them the most prominent order in the Catholic Church until the coming of the Jesuits. His theology was marked by an attempt completely to integrate faith and reason. He thought of Christ as the "one true master" who offers humans knowledge that begins in faith, is developed through rational understanding, and is perfected by mystical union with God.

Bonaventure was formally canonised in 1484 by the Franciscan Pope Sixtus IV, and ranked along with Thomas Aquinas as the greatest of the Doctors of the Church by another Franciscan, Pope Sixtus V, in 1587. Bonaventure was regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages.

Bonaventure wrote on almost every subject treated by the Schoolmen, and his writings are very numerous. The greater number of them deal with philosophy and theology. No work of Bonaventure's is exclusively philosophical, a striking illustration of the mutual interpenetration of philosophy and theology that is a distinguishing mark of the Scholastic period.

Much of St. Bonaventure’s philosophical thought shows a considerable influence by St. Augustine. So much so that De Wulf considers him the best medieval representative of Augustinianism. St. Bonaventure adds Aristotelian principles to the Augustinian doctrine, especially in connection with the illumination of the intellect and the composition of human beings and other living creatures in terms of matter and form. Augustine, who had introduced into the west many of the doctrines that would define scholastic philosophy, was an incredibly important source of Bonaventure's Platonism. The mystic Dionysius the Areopagite was another notable influence.

In philosophy Bonaventure presents a marked contrast to his contemporaries, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas. While these may be taken as representing, respectively, physical science yet in its infancy, and Aristotelian scholasticism in its most perfect form, he presents the mystical and Platonizing mode of speculation that had already, to some extent, found expression in Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and in Bernard of Clairvaux. To him, the purely intellectual element, though never absent, is of inferior interest when compared with the living power of the affections or the heart.

Like Thomas Aquinas, with whom he shared numerous profound agreements in matters theological and philosophical, he combated the Aristotelian notion of the eternity of the world vigorously (though he disagreed with Aquinas about the abstract possibility of an eternal universe). Bonaventure accepts the neo-Platonic doctrine that "forms" do not exist as subsistent entities, but as ideals or archetypes in the mind of God, according to which actual things were formed; and this conception has no slight influence upon his philosophy.

Like all the great scholastic doctors, Bonaventura starts with the discussion of the relations between reason and faith. All the sciences are but the handmaids of theology; reason can discover some of the moral truths that form the groundwork of the Christian system, but others it can only receive and apprehend through divine illumination. To obtain this illumination, the soul must employ the proper means, which are prayer, the exercise of the virtues, whereby it is rendered fit to accept the divine light, and meditation that may rise even to ecstatic union with God. The supreme end of life is such union, union in contemplation or intellect and in intense absorbing love; but it cannot be entirely reached in this life, and remains as a hope for the future.

Like Aquinas and other notable thirteenth-century philosophers and theologians, Bonaventure believed that it is possible to prove the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. He offers several arguments for the existence of God, including versions of St. Anselm's ontological argument and Augustine's argument from eternal truths. His main argument for the immortality of the soul appeals to humans' natural desire for perfect happiness, and is reminiscent of C. S. Lewis's argument from desire. Contrary to Aquinas, Bonaventure did not believe that philosophy was an autonomous disciple that could be pursued successfully independently of theology. Any philosopher is bound to fall into serious error, he believed, who lacks the light of faith.

A master of the memorable phrase, Bonaventure held that philosophy opens the mind to at least three different routes humans can take on their journey to God. Non-intellectual material creatures he conceived as shadows and vestiges (literally, footprints) of God, understood as the ultimate cause of a world philosophical reason can prove was created at a first moment in time. Intellectual creatures he conceived of as images and likenesses of God, the workings of the human mind and will leading us to God understood as illuminator of knowledge and donor of grace and virtue. The final route to God is the route of being, in which Bonaventure brought Anselm's argument together with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic metaphysics to view God as the absolutely perfect being whose essence entails its existence, an absolutely simple being that causes all other, composite beings to exist.

Bonaventure, however, is not only a meditative thinker, whose works may form good manuals of devotion; he is a dogmatic theologian of high rank, and on all the disputed questions of scholastic thought, such as universals, matter, seminal reasons, the principle of individuation, or the intellectus agens, he gives weighty and well-reasoned decisions. He agrees with Saint Albert the Great in regarding theology as a practical science; its truths, according to his view, are peculiarly adapted to influence the affections. He discusses very carefully the nature and meaning of the divine attributes; considers universals to be the ideal forms pre-existing in the divine mind according to which things were shaped; holds matter to be pure potentiality that receives individual being and determinateness from the formative power of God, acting according to the ideas; and finally maintains that the agent intellect has no separate existence. On these and on many other points of scholastic philosophy the "Seraphic Doctor" exhibits a combination of subtlety and moderation, which makes his works particularly valuable.

In form and intent the work of St. Bonaventure is always the work of a theologian; he writes as one for whom the only angle of vision and the proximate criterion of truth is the Christian faith. This fact influences his importance for the history of philosophy; when coupled with his style, it makes Bonaventure perhaps the least accessible of the major figures of the thirteenth century. This is true, not because he is a theologian, but because philosophy interests him largely as a praeparatio evangelica, a preparation for evangelism, as something to be interpreted as a foreshadow of or deviation from what God has revealed.

In a way that is not true of Aquinas or Albert or Scotus, Bonaventure does not survive well the transition from his time to ours. It is difficult to imagine a contemporary philosopher, Christian or not, citing a passage from Bonaventure to make a specifically philosophical point. One must know philosophers to read Bonaventure, but the study of Bonaventure is seldom helpful for understanding philosophers and their characteristic problems. Bonaventure as a theologian is something different again, as is Bonaventure the edifying author. It is in those areas, rather than in philosophy proper, that his continuing importance must be sought.

Almighty God, you gave to your servant Bonaventure special gifts of grace to understand and teach the truth as it is in Christ Jesus: Grant that by this teaching we may know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

[amorphousea]

everything is holy, everything is real. nothing is real. everything is spiritual, everything is clinical. all brains have the potential to unravel, all brains have the potential to reignite. all bodies have the capacity to crumble, all bodies have the potential to be built from the ashes. i was delusional, i was correct. all of time is happening, I think sometimes the wires between dream state consciousness and waking consciousness get muddled. there is prophecy and there is subconscious nonsense, you hear what you look at. dreams likely have prophetic / psychic merit because all of time is happening at once, and when you are asleep your brain sorts through memory without your frontal cortex / other rational parts of your brain attempting to contextualize it, so you lose sense of linear time (have access to timelines / time that is occurring “elsewhere”). sometimes wires get crossed and “perceptual abnormalities” in waking life occur. there is no reality and nothing about life makes enough sense to classify anything as pure nonsense or brush anything off. what i experienced in high school was a self induced existential sort of madness, most of what i experience now is me moving through the much different timeline i now exist in, with a lot more ~mystical~ qualities. i do not care how my brain would be pathologized. i do not give a fuck how some psychiatrist would categorize me, because when i thought i needed to understand that to survive & when i was barely able to keep myself alive, i quickly found that those definitions / psychiatric institutions, did nothing for me once more. just like every medical institution i have come into contact with. i pulled myself out of the “symptoms” that almost got me killed, even recently when a couple months ago i almost went 48hrs without water, i eventually forced myself to get myself together. i’m too stubborn to succumb to myself. i chose a framework of reality that lends itself to me reaching my fullest potential, i am choosing a framework of reality that lends itself to survival. that framework involves the dissolution of pathology. even in a physical sense, when i had chronic sore throats, or when i could not stay awake for extended periods of time, etc. symptoms that technically extend beyond my rheumatoid arthritis, these symptoms were never “explained” but i solved it, i did what i needed to do and i am finally coming to life, coming to consciousness, coming home to my body. i am not anti science i am just not going to bother with looking for explanations beyond (arthritis the very obvious major problems.) (did i just cure my hypochondriac tendencies in one go???). anyways i am taking thought away from myself, i am only “crazy” when i think, there is no need to think myself out of myself and out of the world and wherever i go when i think. if people cannot comprehend me when i speak it does not matter because i am alive, and to be alive and be something allegedly “different” is to be freer than most

someone with adhd was like look into adhd u might have it someone with schizophrenia was like do you experience this (the answer was yes) said oh that only happens in schizophrenia someone dmed me on tumblr in hs like you have bipolar disorder (the psychiatrists also thought I was very manic… which not real #wrong) in the psych ward some girl with ocd was like I think you have ocd (which real #true, diagnosed and valid approved by me… working on it) autistic dude was like “you seem autistic” (+ many other people are like yeah you seem autistic) so ultimately, i am unpathologizable. i have transcended the dsmv. my Brain is the worlds greatest mystery (i am actually the only person with a neurotypical brain, everyone else has funky brains, you may wonder how is it typical if I am the only one? well it is the one true brain form. hope u understand 🙏)

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[kfirerising]

Christ and the Kundalini

I post this here because of its importance and its ability to transmit certain frequencies of divine information into the reader. I suggest that people read this over and over and over. -Chrism

Contrary to popular Christian dogma, Christ did teach about Karma, reincarnation, self-realisation and the Divine Feminine as Holy Ghost -- God the Mother. Christ's teachings are more Eastern than the Churches would have us believe or would like to admit.

The two centuries after Christ, saw the Christian Gnostic teachings of spiritual awareness disseminated alongside the blind faith doctrines of Paul's formulation. In the third Century, the Roman Church's council of Nicaea acted to stamp out the Gnostics and their anti-dogmatic approch to spirituality.

The Gnostic's were declared heretical, their texts destroyed and the Gnostics themselves persecuted into extinction. However, a small amount of Gnostic teachings survived, hidden in caves or in watered-down form in other "heretical" texts (broadly labelled as "Apocrypha").

The Christian Gnostics practiced a spirituality more similar to Eastern traditions than to the Western Christianity we know today. "Gnostic" is Greek for "knower" and it is "Gnosis" or "Knowledge" that they were seeking. Unlike the blind faith demanded by some of today's Churches, 'Gnosis' meant direct, mystical experience of the divine, which was to be found by individual spiritual evolution to Self-Realisation, and not within the confines of intellectual dogma. The experience of Gnosis was trans-rational and non-intellectual.

From the Nag Hammadi Library, the Book of Thomas, Christ tells us "For whoever does not know self, does not know anything, but whoever knows self, already has acquired knowledge about the depth of the universe". Compare this with a tract from the Upanishads, the Indian metaphysical treatise on Self Realisation: "It is not by argument that the self is known... Distinguish the self from the body and mind. The self, the atman, the highest refuge of all, pervades the Universe and dwells in the hearts of all. Those who are instructed in the self and who practice constant meditation attain that changeless and self effulgent atman ( spirit/ self). Do Thou Likewise, for bliss eternal lies before you..."

In another gnostic text, the Secret Gospel of Thomas, Christ promises us spiritual fulfilment "I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched and what has never arisen in the human mind." This description is not unlike the Upanishadic experience "the Self is devoid of birth and death, it neither grows old nor decays and the accidents of life do not affect it. The Self transcends space and time; what is great is not too great for it to comprehend and what is small is not too small to escape its attention. It is the Self of All".

Just as Christ warned us against sin and encourages moral perfection in the pursuit of spiritual fulfilment, so too do the Eastern texts "No intellectual acumen can help one realise it, it can be realised only by those who surrender to it and who make themselves worthy by grace, by desisting from all that is sinful, who engage in the practice of perfection by constant meditation"( Upanishads).

The most ancient Eastern spiritual texts, the Vedas,of India, tell us that the process of spiritual awakening by which one attains truth -awareness is called 'Self-Realisation'. The Self Realised person lives in direct experience of reality -- this is called "Jnana" ( a traditional sanskrit word meaning 'knowledge' or 'Gnosis'). Such a person is called a "Jnani" ('knower ' or 'gnostic' ) or "dwijaha" ('twice born'; first from a human mother to the earthly plane then secondly as a child of the Goddess, or Divine Mother, who gives the seeker their second, spiritual birth, Self Realisation, into the plane of mystic awareness- gnosis! ). The traditional Indian texts extol the 'Divine Mother' as the Cosmic Matriarch, bestower of the highest treasure of Self Realisation upon Her deserving children. Many Indian mystic traditions say this same goddess is represented within the human being as the divine feminine power called Kundalini.

What of Western tradition? In the Secret Book of John Christ explains that human redemption before the Heavenly Father occurs by the mediation of a Divine Feminine principle, which he calls the Earthly Mother. It is the Earthly Mother who removes the sins of the children that they can become worthy of their divine heritage; "when all sins and all uncleanesses are gone from your body, your blood shall become as pure as our Earthly Mother's blood and as pure as the river's foam sporting in the sunlight. And your breath shall become as pure as the breath of odorous flowers; your flesh as pure as the flesh of fresh fruits reddening upon the leaves of trees; the light of your eye as clear and bright as the brightness of the sun shining upon the blue sky. And now shall all the angels of the Earthly Mother serve you and your breath, your blood, your flesh shall be one with the breath, the blood and the flesh of the Earthly Mother, that your spirit also become one with the Spirit of your Heavenly Father. For truly no-one can reach the Heavenly Father unless through the Heavenly Mother. Even as the newborn babe cannot understand the teaching of his father until his mother has suckled him, bathed him, nursed him, put him to sleep and nurtured him". The Earthly Mother is a divine mediator through which the seekers, the Sons of Man, are raised to the Heavenly Father. Another part of the same text says "Honour your Earthly Mother and keep her laws that your days may be long on this earth and honour your Heavenly Father, that eternal life may be yours in the Heavens. For the Heavenly Father is a hundred times greater than all the fathers by seed and by blood, and greater is the Earthly Mother than all mothers by the body". The Holy Trinity, then is God the Father, God the Son (ie. Christ) and, it seems, God the Mother. The Divine Mother particularly is the means and power of spiritual evolution.

The Secret Book of John relates Christ's description of the Divine Feminine as the power of God Almighty. "She is the first power. She preceded everything, and came forth from the Father's mind as forethought of all. Her light resembles the Father's light; as the perfect power She is the image of the perfect and invisible Virgin Spirit. She is the first power, the glory, Barbello, the perfect glory among the worlds, the emerging glory, She glorified and praised the Virgin Spirit for she had come forth through the Spirit. She is the first thought, image of the Spirit. She became the universal womb, for She precedes everything, the common parent, the first humanity, the Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit is here described as the Divine Power of God Himself. This power is maternal in its character (universal womb, She, the common parent) and all powerful as the 'first emanation of God'. More so, She is pure (Virgin) and She glorifies purity. So ancient christian tradition seems to tell us that the holy spirit is actually the Divine Mother!

One cannot overlook the Eastern parallels. God Almighty in Indian mythology is represented as Sada-Shiva. His state is eternal perfection (Sat Chit Ananda). His power is the Adi Shakti (primordial power) who is His feminine counterpart or spouse. It is She who does all things. She created the universe and the gods who attend over it (for example, the triune Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu). The Adi Shakti is the Mother of all things. She gave birth to the universe and is the feminine power of every deity and celestial being (usually represented as their spouse). The Secret Book of John parallels this "She became the universal womb, for She precedes everything, the common parent, the first humanity, the Holy Spirit, the triple male (Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu?) the triple power (Parvati, Saraswati, Lakshmi, who are spouses of the triple males-or the triple Goddess of Western mythological tradition?)". Thus the Christian mystics understood that the Holy Spirit is the Divine Feminine, the Goddess, the Universal Mother herself. The Syriac Christians worshiped the Holy Ghost as the Great Mother. Phillip suggests that Mary Herself is the Holy Spirit (for who else but God the Mother can give birth to God the Son?). Other Apocryphal Scriptures describe Mary as the focus of Temple activities. Her early life was punctuated by auspicious portents all implying her own Divinity.

Just as Mary and the Holy Ghost appear to parallel aspects of the Divine Mother described in the East, so too does Christ, the son of God reflect the Eastern principle of the Divine Child. The Divine Child in the Eastern mythological tradition is commonly worshiped as the dual child-gods Ganesha and Kartikeya. Ganesha represents the fabric of the cosmos, the primordial Aum or Logos from which the creation was constructed. Christ affirmed the same primordial nature of himself when he said "I am the first" and "I am the alpha". Ganesha is the primordial child who is the embodiment of purity and innocence. Similarly Christ venerated children and the innocence that they manifested. He even urged the apostles (and us) to cultivate our own childlike innocence " let the children come to me for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" and "assuredly whoever does not receive the kingdom of god as a little child will by no means enter it"(Mark 10). Kartikeya is the same principle of innocence in dynamic action- the slayer of evil; as Christ did when he ejected the money lenders from the temple.

So, Christ seems to be telling us that the kingdom of Heaven, which is a state of God-like perfection and child-like innocence is attained by some inner phenomenon. In the Gnostic Scriptures Christ spoke directly of this as an inner transformation, self realisation. He also told us that the Holy Ghost or Divine Mother is the power by which this is accomplished, but by what mechanism?

Let's take lateral look at the Indian tradition of Kundalini of which many local saints have spoken. Shankaracharya (700AD) and Gyaneshwara (1200AD) are two well known mystic exponents of Kundalini. They both describe the actualisation of self-realisation in their classic poetry, such as the Saundarya-Lahari, Sivananda-Lahari and the Gyaneshwari (itself a commentary on the Kundalini Yoga described by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita ). They describe a force of pure (virgin) spirituality, which lies dormant within the human being.

By constant purification and self perfection the seven vital energy centres (chakras) which govern all aspects of mind, body and soul, are prepared for the awakening of Kundalini. Once awakened by divine grace, the Kundalini passes through these centres, not unlike a string through beads, enlightening each as it passes through. Arriving at the seventh centre (Sahasrara) the seeker's awareness is united with the eternal-self-within. The experience is transrational, non causal, a tangible and real bliss of truth-awareness. Indian mystics called the Sahasrara "Paradise", "Heaven" or, as Christ has called it "The Kingdom of God Within". As the Kundalini passes through each of the vital centres, they are stimulated to produce a pure, nourishing energy. The Vedas (Ancient Scriptures of India) describe this energy as a sacred river emitted by each of the seven chakras. Shankaracharya called this energy "spun". He too described its nature as being like divine water showering down upon him as he meditated in the ecstacy of devotion. Other Indian scriptures call this energy "Paramchaitanya" (energy of supreme consciousness).The miracle of Whitsunday wherein the Apostles became empowered with their spirituality sounds similar to the experience of these chakras manifesting this same divine energy.

Shankaracharya said "All Glory unto the current of Divine Bliss which, brimming from the river of Thy Holy stories, flows into the lake of my mind, through the canals of intellect, subduing the dust of sin and cooling the heat of memory". Much of the gnostic texts repeat this ancient Eastern understanding.

Consider this tract from the Book of Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls: "I have reached the inner vision and through Thy Spirit in me I have heard Thy wondrous secret, through Thy mystic insight Thou hast caused a spring of knowledge to well up within me, a fountain of power, pouring forth living waters, a flood of love and of all embracing wisdom, like the splendour of eternal light". The "fountain of power", "spring of knowledge", "Living water", "flood of love", "eternal light" all directly describe the experience of Kundalini awakening! Consider this from the Nag Hammadi Library, the Apocryphal Gospel of Phillip "The Tree of Life is in the centre of Paradise, as is the oil tree from which the anointment Chrisma comes. The Chrism is the source of resurrection". Krishna, the divine being, c4000BC, also described the Kundalini as an inverted Tree of spirituality, whose roots lay in the brain. The 'Tree of Life' is a well recognised symbolic parallel of the Kundalini. So too is the Holy Grail, the cup from which Christ drank at the last supper its symbolic significance being that Christ's sustenance arose from a cup, that is, an object whose receptive qualities reflect the nature of the divine feminine -- yet another parallel of the Kundalini.

It is likely that St Phillip's 'Chrisma' is the same 'spun' described by Shankaracharya, the 'Paramchaitanya' or in Christian terminology 'God's grace'. In the Gospel of Peace, Christ explains that the experience of spirituality is foremost. He says the Scriptures are merely conveying an intellectual knowledge, but we are to have the 'living knowledge', that is the experience of our own spirituality. He says "Seek not the law in your Scriptures for the law is life, whereas the Scripture is dead. I tell you truly Moses received not his laws from God as writing but through the living word. The law is living word for living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life to the law is the law written, for I tell you truly all living things are nearer to God than the Scripture which is without life. I tell you truly that the Scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in his works? And wherefore do you study the dead Scriptures which are from the hands of men?". That is, seek the divine experience which is beyond definition, do not settle for mundane human interpretations of the mystic's suprahuman experience. Thus Christ's law is a living, cosmic and experiential one, and is actuated by the awakening of the spiritual experience within the seeker, not by intellectual study or by following those who themselves have not truly had the experience. This directly parallels the eastern teachings; that self- realisation, the pure spiritual awakening, is attained by the righteous and itself gives greater righteousness. More so, self realisation is a process of genuine, inner spiritual transformation which must be experienced to be understood, since it lies beyond the domain of scriptural description or theological definition. Since it is gained by the grace of the Divine Mother( Holy Spirit) alone, it is most certainly not possible to organise or institutionalise this experience in human terms.

This contrasts with the way in which the Churches have pigeonholed and categorised Christianity in terms of 'blind faith', 'obedience to the church' and empty ritual. In the Gnostic Scriptures, untouched by the organised churches, Christ urges us to perceive and experience the cosmic order for ourselves and not to rely on so-called scriptural authorities -- such as the churches -- to prescribe it to us.

C.G. Jung recognised the link between the Divine Feminine and the Eastern principle of Kundalini. He understood that the Kundalini was the representation of the Goddess within each of us. Is the Holy Ghost the Kundalini? Was the Kundalini a central principle in early mystic Christianity? Such an assumption would help us reinterpret many parts of the mainstream bible, for example; In the Gospel of John, Christ explains to the Pharisee Nicodemus, " Verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the spirit; he cannot enter the kingdom of God", this second birth far from being a licence for so many born again Christian fundamentalists is something much more mystical and subtle in nature. To be "born of the water and the spirit" describes the awakening of Kundalini. She is often described as a divine mother whose ascent within the spine of the seeker gives them rebirth into mystic/gnostic awareness, the 'divine water' is its nourishing energy. The Kundalini enters the Sahasrara and there unites the seeker's awareness with the self or spirit. This is described as a blissful, infinite experience of the kingdom of God within. Thus, Christ's 'born again' Christianity might actually refer to those Christians who have entered the realm of direct experience of divinity, in the state of self realisation.

Other Canon (mainstream) Scriptures can be more deeply understood in this light. In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ says "Be Ye Perfect, even as Your Father which is in Heaven is perfect". (Ch.5, v. 48). This is a clear exhortation by Christ to strive and achieve spiritual perfection, just as the Buddha and other Eastern sages taught their disciples. Christ tells us about our innately divine nature "Ye are Gods" (Psalm 82, v.6; John 10, v.34). Furthermore "Behold the Kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17, v.21), that is the experience of Heaven is an internal phenomenon. This implies that the inner state of the seeker is the source of their spiritual fulfilment. We could well say that Christ's idea of Heavenly Salvation was an internal state of Godlike perfection.

When the seeker's awareness is completely united with the Eternal Spirit/Self/Atman the true self (not ego, mind, intellect, personality, body or memory) is experienced or realised. Since the spirit is no less than a reflection of God itself then in the state of complete Self Realisation the seeker experiences perfection" as our Father in Heaven is perfect". The Eastern term for this state of Self Realisation is God Realisation and it represents the final stage of our spiritual evolution.

There are deeper references to the chakras and kundalini in the Scriptures. For example, Revelations may also symbolically describe the chakras in St. John's spiritual vision;" I saw seven standing lamps of gold" (the chakras emitting the divine light?), John sees Christ as one of the seven lamps (you will see the significance of this later), Christ is holding the "seven stars" (demonstrating his command of the chakra system?) and speaks of the "seven churches" (the divine institution within each chakra?).In Genesis Jacob envisions a divine ladder directly connecting his earthly being with God in Heaven- this precisely describes the experience and purpose of the kundalini!

Consider this idea: The term 'Jesus of Nazareth', does not (say German theologians) relate to Christ's times in Nazareth. Proper understanding of the original language shows that such a term is not linguistically possible (despite the fact that Paul uses it). The original term is more likely, "Jesus the Nazareen." Nazareen is an Aramaic word meaning "one who has bound himself to the service of God" or "one who is anointed." Compare this to the meaning of Yoga, "Union with God" and 'Yogi' – one who has union with god or to descriptions of the awakening of the Kundalini, "the mystical anointment". The Nazaria were a group of Gnostics contemporary to Christ. They taught a mystic spirituality similar to the Eastern ideas already described. It has been suggested by some authorities that this Gnostic word is ultimately derived from the Hindustani 'Nazar.' This is a yogic term for the point between the eyebrows and above the nose (the 'third eye') where sages of old performed meditation. 'Nazaren' means to envision or behold. Then a more accurate meaning of "Jesus the Nazareen" would be "Jesus who has Yoga or Self Realisation" or "Jesus who meditates". Considering Christ's status as the" Son of God" perhaps a more appropriate meaning would be "Jesus who is the object of meditation". Was Christ himself the object of meditation as are many deities in Eastern cultures? Christ himself might well be the Nazaren.

The Nazar physically corresponds to the location of the Agnya chakra, the sixth vital chakra through which the Kundalini must pass before She enters the Sahasrara. The Agnya manifests physically as the 'optic chiasm' whose shape itself is cruciform! Is the cosmic Christ represented within each of us in the Nazar, Agnya chakra, just as the cosmic Mother or Holy Ghost is represented within us as the Kundalini?

The position of the Agnya chakra is such that it is the final centre to be crossed before the Kundalini finishes its journey to the Sahasrara ( the 'Kingdom of God Within'). Entry of the Kundalini into the Sahasara gives the blissful experience of divine awareness. This literally explains Christ's words, "None can enter Heaven except through me".

Ponder also on Christ's instruction 'to be as little children' or "look at the birds of the air for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feeds them....which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?"(Matthew 6). The innocence of mind which he describes is that same Zen awareness obtained in the state of meditation, when the Agnya chakra is pierced by the Kundalini giving rise to a heightened awareness of the present moment, all thoughts of past and future neutralised. Consider also that Christ himself told us, "When your two eyes become one, your body will be filled with light." This implies that when we go beyond the physical sight ( the two eyes) to the subtle experience or perception which occurs by opening of the third eye and thus entry of the awareness into the Sahasrara our body is filled with light, purity, grace etc.

There is further symbolism eg. the twelve apostles represent six pairs which are symbolic of the lower six chakras from Mooladhara to Agnya. These six chakras are limited to dual awareness, ie. past and present, cause and effect. However, the final chakra, Sahasrara, represented here by Christ, who was the leader of the twelve apostles is non-dual, being derived from an awareness higher than the causal plane.

Here are some possible conclusions which are equally reasonable, though entirely contrary to modern dogma about Christ and Christianity. Christ's spirituality differed radically from our modern understanding. His teaching was dynamic and zen-like focusing on the experience of inner purification and transformation, the elevation of the seeker's awareness into the state (not concept or dogma) of self-realisation. He sought to overthrow the immoral culture of the Romans and to deliver to the dogmatic, letter-bound Jews the mystic fulfilment promised to them in the Mosaic covenant.

Central to his teaching was the understanding that the feminine aspect of God, God the Mother, was the means by which self-realisation and spiritual evolution to god-awareness occurred. Christ venerated the Divine Mother as the Holy Spirit. It is this power, described in the East as residing in the human being as the Kundalini, that is the last vestige of the Goddess-tradition in the Christian West.

Mary was in her own right a divine being. She was venerated as such by Christ and some of the suppressed scriptures describe her as the Holy Spirit incarnate.

Why did the Churches suppress these true christian traditions? Partly because they are patriarchal institutions based on the questionable dogma of Paul who perceived women (and therefore the feminine principle) as inferior entities. Partly also because spirituality which focused on the Divine Feminine would also focus on the redemptive power of God the Mother and on Her role as the grantor and matriarch of mystical experience. This kind of understanding, like all mystics and mysticism, defies organisation, dogmatic hierarchies and institutions preferring the role of individual experience, revelation and progressive growth toward divine awareness.

The Holy Ghost, then, threatened to neutralise the fear-oriented dogma which the Churches have used, in the name of Christ and Spiritual Truth, to maintain their secular power and wealth.

Christ's promise of a comforter, the "second coming", implies another divine incarnation to bring about the redemption of humanity. As we have seen it is the Divine Mother who has the power to redeem her children, the Sons of Man (as the gnostics put it), in the eyes of God the Father. Who better to comfort the children who suffer, as does the West and much of the world from a culture whose ethic of materialism and immediate gratification is characterised by terms such as "the lost generation", "eco-disaster", "terrorism", "future shock" and "psycho-social alienation", than the Divine Mother?

C.G. jung, in his critique of the Western psyche keynoted the absence of the Feminine Principle as a major cause of much of the West's psycho-cultural imbalance. The return of the Divine Feminine would indeed facilitate the spiritual redemption of Western Culture.

With this perspective we may be able to understand a key image from Revelations;

"A great Portent in Heaven, a Woman robed with the Sun, beneath her Feet the Moon, and on her Head a Crown of twelve Stars. She was pregnant, and in the anguish of Her Labour She cried out to be Delivered. Then a second Portent appeared in Heaven: a great red Dragon with seven Heads and ten Horns; on his Heads were seven Diadems, and with his Tail he swung down a third of the Stars in the Sky and flung them to Earth. The Dragon stood in front of the Woman who was about to give birth, so that when Her Child was born He might devour It. She gave birth to a male child, who is destined to rule all the Nations with an Iron Rod....."

The Divine Woman, a central figure of Revelations, is the Comforter Herself. The crown of stars indicates that Her authority and heritage is of the Divine Father, the moon, upon which She resides is another symbol of the feminine.

As the Divine Mother She is giving birth, ie. self-realisation, and succeeds in producing a man-child. A man indicating spiritual maturity and dynamic action and yet a child symbolising purity of heart and that quality of innocence which Christ taught was essential to enter into the state of Heavenly Experience. The child, having the mystic awareness of self-realisation, rules over the nations indicating command of the earthly plane as well as over the inner country, the chakra system. The child of the Divine mother is a Gnostic adept!

He rules with an iron rod, the kundalini, which mercilessly slays the forces of evil, the obstacles which obstruct her flow through the chakra system.

The dragon who stands over the Woman as She labours waiting to devour the child could well be the Churches. Their 2000 year vigil against the Divine Feminine lest she produce a race of Gnostics is evident in their manipulation and suppression of the scriptures. Revelations tells us that the Divine Children are destined to overcome the beast and establish a New Age of divine awareness.

Consider Christs warning "he who has blasphemed against the holy ghost shall be damned forever". What then of the Churches who have virtually edited the divine feminine out of the Western Cultural tradition in order to maintain their grip on the masses?

©Copyright Knowledge of Reality Magazine 1996-2005.

—CHRISM

LINKTREE