Human sacrifice. I do believe that we are living in a time worshiping g a death culture: euthanasia, massive abortion, infertile sexual practice. Do you consider those practices as unconscious human sacrifice?
Euthanasia - I mean we do it for our pets, so why not humans? I think there are circumstances where a great deal of suffering can be avoided, especially when someone is terminally ill. We wouldn't let our pets suffer in pain for months on end, so why not our family members? Obviously, I'm not talking about suicide here, I would not condone that.
Abortion - yes, I do believe it is human sacrifice and probably also the explanation for much fewer deaths from war since world war 2 - the people who are responsible for supplying human sacrifice to the entities they worship are fulfilling their "quota" in a different way.
Infertile sexual practice - absolutely not. I see nothing wrong with that, or with contraception.
Possibly. I'm not steeped in the tantric tradition enough to say definitively, I saw arguments on both sides. However, in general, anal sex is prohibited in tantra, including for left-hand path practitioners, for very obvious energetic reasons, which I will explain in my next post. In that sense, anal sex in general is not really compatible with any sort of religious practice, as it is clearly harmful physiologically (ask a proctologist) and spiritually (will explain later).
Re: This really is a big secret and it steps on so many toes, particularly in the LGBTQ+ community
Popped over to visit. Concerning the above why should the topic of ritualized magic sex bother gay people especially? It's a grimy topic, sure, but temple prostitution and the like was usual heterosexual, though I suppose you can find gay variants, and maybe even some magical trans stuff, and hints of necrophilia and bestiality.
Because anal sex is the key, for energetic reasons. It is strictly forbidden in all religions for a very good reason. I'll explain it in my post in more detail.
Chris, I suspect that most such people will just roll their eyes at this, much as they do when some Catholic cites Thomist teleology for opposing homosexuality.
And Chris, here is the comment/question I wanted to bring over here.
Quick comment on CA - loved the Seoul portion, haunted by it, the music (bought the soundtrack) plays in my head again and again. Loved the far future mostly for the language they used. Music and language are vibration, I am sensitive to them. I am sensitive to vibrations that cannot be heard, as well.
OK, Left hand. You likely know that that Lana Wachowski is very Left hand. Transgender and married to a dominatrix. I feel sad she needed to change her gender, but have pity. I think S and M is always very dark, pain, given or received, should not be enjoyed in conjunction with sex. Nothing wrong with suffering for someone you love but that is not sex. Yet this profound film...thoughts?
I think directors like the Wachowski brothers / sisters, Polanski and Kubrick are in the know. Most likely they were initiated into left-hand path traditions and they are exploring what they have learnt and seen in occult societies through their art. Artists are generally more prone to engaging in the occult anyway and I think there is a genetic predisposition. I know you don't like my Neanderthal theory, but it must be something that goes back that far, to prehistory. Even in different species of chimpanzee, one species can differ very significantly from another in things like sexual habits and this is genetic, not just cultural. On a personal note, I have noticed, that gay people tend to have a different facial bone structure, an open secret in the community, which helps them spot each other.
That is why I do not automatically condemn people who follow the left hand path in anything, whether it is in the spiritual sense or societally. I think some people have a genetic predisposition to it and it's likely something they can't help. Obviously, I'm not condoning them doing anything illegal, but as long as they stay within society's norms I let them be, even if we think very differently about the world and have very different morals and sexual habits.
Where the knife opens in my pocket, to use a Hungarian expression (this is a good one, you should remember it), is when this very small minority in society starts to promote their ideology and values, especially when they indoctrinate children with it, through TV shows and movies. I am really against that and this is also why I am working on exposing them and their modus operandi.
I've noticed that at my Orthodox church parish, there are a lot of autistic men and even more left-handed people. Among the converts, I think lefties may be a slight majority. Not sure, but way more than 10 percent.
I agree with you. I've even noticed the bones. My close gay friends tell me of the Left hand practices (e.g., one likes to dominate in sex, including pain, I did not know that for a long time, but one day I figured it out and he confirmed - he is still my friend. Btw, he was the one who told me I must see CA the day after it came out). I agree about sexual orientation being genetic or at least epigenetic (in the genes but must be turned "on" and once "on" there is not an off.) I realize liking S and M cannot be helped. I think it should always be resisted, due to its harms, even between consenting adults (unlike monogamous gay sex.) I do not condemn anyone who is turned on by it, no one can control what has this effect. Some mostly-gay men can suppress a lot if they have a bi tendency, but otherwise....
I am called to stay off the Left hand path, I know that. I am told I would "get there" faster if I took that path but I am not doing it. It destroys, I think. Mostly (I know faithful gay couples not destroyed, but otherwise....)
I can't think it is from Neanderthals or there would not be gay black people. I know black culture is more opposed to it, but there are plenty of black gay men and women. But I don't want to hammer not agreeing about Neanderthals too much. (Oh dear, red Shirley Temple dreadlocks just popped into my mind, I think you know who I mean...ah well....)
I love the knife expression. That is where mine would open too (can't be literal because it would not help, but we know what we mean here.) I am so glad Hungary protects children!
The most haunting thing in Cloud Atlas to me was the Evil Avatar figure in the post-apocalyptic future segments. He looked like the Triumph of Entropy.
Hi Veronika, of course, I'm happy to answer your questions, though my knowledge of the topics you brought up may be limited.
1. Personally, I never liked the Theosophists. Way too pretentious, they straight up made up a lot of ridiculous stuff (like the idea of ascended masters) and twisted a lot of the original eastern teachings to suit their own agenda. I would consider their entire body of work essentially bunk, though I never looked into it in any detail, the little I have seen convinced me, there is no real value there. A little knowledge can be worse than no knowledge at all and I believe they caused a lot of damage with their pseudo-spirituality. I would avoid theosophy altogether, in my eyes, it is largely fraudulent.
New age is something else, it incredibly eclectic and runs the full gamut from authentic information to full on scam. However, as with Theosophy, most of it is also pretty low quality and misleading. When you find any value in modern authors, who may be considered new age, you almost always find that they have been initiated into proper Eastern spiritual traditions and are part of a lineage. Those people I trust to give me authentic information, but they are a small minority. Probably 99 percent of new age is junk.
2, I didn't spend much time looking into Gnosticism, quite honestly, it gives me a bad vibe. Why would you say the the God of Christianity, is an evil, tyrannical demiurge? To me, that just doesn't make sense. Sophia is more appealing, as it parallels the idea of Shekinah / Sekina in Judaism and Islam and Shakti in Hinduism. But, I know too little about it, to judge its validity.
My own view of the Biblical God is very different. Not being an expert, I simply base this on direct experience and observation, combined with some scholarly interpretation.
It is my understanding, that there are two readings or traditions in the Bible, which may in fact point to different deities. The primary one is the Elohist tradition, which considers God to be the Elohim. Most Christians don't know, that Elohim is the most common name for God in the Bible and is considered to be the oldest, original one. For instance, the very first line of the Bible is commonly mistranslated as follows:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
But that's not what the original text says. It should actually be:
"In the beginning, the Elohim created the heavens and the earth."
Elohim here is plural, indicating a group of beings, basically the divine council, which also makes an appearance in the book of Job. The Elohim are in fact a pantheon of gods, who were worshipped by the Canaanites and then later adopted by the Hebrews. Their original leader, or the Heavenly Father was El, along with Asherah, their mother, also known as the Queen of Heaven or the Mother of God(s).
Yahweh only came into the picture much later, from a different geographical area and his priesthood basically syncretised El and his 70 children, the Elohim together with Yahweh, into one single God. Perhaps, the gnostic idea of the demiurge preserves a memory of that, who knows. When they talk about there being a pantheon of real gods, a lesser or false god, the demiurge and a fallen goddess figure, Sophia, who is then redeemed, but is the mother of the universe, in a sense, they may be referring to the Elohim, Yahweh-Yadalbaoth and Asherah/Shekinah/the Holy Mother respectively. If anyone can figure this one out, I'll tip my hat to them.
However, what I can say from personal experience is that the Elohim are real, benevolent and the highest form of God, from what I have seen. They are a collective, even though they are made up of individual gods, they share the same consciousness, so they are one and many at the same time. An Elohim can individuate and thus speak and act individually, but in general they are one mind and speak with one voice, the music of the spheres, or perhaps comparable to a chorus of angels. There is nothing more beautiful than the collective chorus of the Elohim.
I realise this is in no way compatible with traditional Christian teaching, I am simply relaying my own experience.
3, Fingerprint of the Gods is the original bestseller, Magician of the Gods is the follow-up, probably a better read overall and it goes into the topics of psychedelics and entities, including how this shaped Mesoamerican civilization.
Chris, you know I do not condemn people for their religious beliefs. I was wondering if you consider yourself Hindu or if your faith is a form of Hinduism? The belief about many gods, yet one God is one of the main reasons I am asking now.
(I knew of the Elohim plural. Christians see it as the Trinity but I am about 100 percent sure you knew that. You should see it as the Spirit leads you, I do not condemn. I'm a curious person though. )
Btw, I am getting enrolled in a Jewish class here in Budapest. It is Chabad. I am so thrilled to be invited. It is taught by a Rabbi mentioned in one of the articles you mentioned, and his wife.
I'm not a religious person in the strictest sense of the word, in that I do not profess any set beliefs. I look at the world as it is and try to describe it to the best of my abilities. I do try to find religious, spiritual and philosophical traditions that help me do that, but I'm not wedded to any of them. If I had to choose, the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta within the Hindu tradition is what appeals to me the most, but that isn't really a religion, more of a way of looking at the world and understanding it.
Within that framework, I acknowledge the existence of multiple deities, but that doesn't mean I worship them. The way I see it, there is one God, with many faces and names, ultimately they are all part of the same Godhead. This is not the same as the trinity within Christian thought, but there are some parallels. To me, God appears in many different way in many different things. You can look at a tree and see God in it, or look at another human being and see the divinity shining through. God is omnipresent and we are all basking in his glory.
In my own view, deities are also individuals, with their own unique personalities, but ultimately, their divinity is expressed through union in the Godhead, where there is only the One and all distinction ceases.
I actually just had an epiphany about Sophia, which I thought you might be interested in. In the book, the Cosmic Shekinah (highly recommended), comparisons are made between various middle eastern goddesses and the divine feminine in Judaism and Christianity. If I recall, the gnostic goddess Sophia, was compared to Inanna-Ishtar from Mesopotamia, particularly in the story, Inanna's descent into the underworld. I think there is a fair chance that Sophia was partly based on Inanna-Ishtar, though I haven't looked at this in any detail, just an idea I had.
Sophia, shorn of Gnostic mythos, was accepted as orthodox in late antiquity. Hence the various churches named Hagia Sophia, notably the famous one at Constantinople. There was some sentiment in favor of identifying Sophia with the Holy Spirit. In Eastern Christendom "sophiology" was never condemned and at least one modern era Orthodox theologian, Sergei Bulgakov (d. 1944), explored the concept.
Human sacrifice. I do believe that we are living in a time worshiping g a death culture: euthanasia, massive abortion, infertile sexual practice. Do you consider those practices as unconscious human sacrifice?
I woulldn't put them in the same category.
Euthanasia - I mean we do it for our pets, so why not humans? I think there are circumstances where a great deal of suffering can be avoided, especially when someone is terminally ill. We wouldn't let our pets suffer in pain for months on end, so why not our family members? Obviously, I'm not talking about suicide here, I would not condone that.
Abortion - yes, I do believe it is human sacrifice and probably also the explanation for much fewer deaths from war since world war 2 - the people who are responsible for supplying human sacrifice to the entities they worship are fulfilling their "quota" in a different way.
Infertile sexual practice - absolutely not. I see nothing wrong with that, or with contraception.
Just my opinion, obviously.
Another question: I think you are saying heterosexual sex can be Right hand or Left hand, depending. Could the same be true of gay sex?
Possibly. I'm not steeped in the tantric tradition enough to say definitively, I saw arguments on both sides. However, in general, anal sex is prohibited in tantra, including for left-hand path practitioners, for very obvious energetic reasons, which I will explain in my next post. In that sense, anal sex in general is not really compatible with any sort of religious practice, as it is clearly harmful physiologically (ask a proctologist) and spiritually (will explain later).
Re: This really is a big secret and it steps on so many toes, particularly in the LGBTQ+ community
Popped over to visit. Concerning the above why should the topic of ritualized magic sex bother gay people especially? It's a grimy topic, sure, but temple prostitution and the like was usual heterosexual, though I suppose you can find gay variants, and maybe even some magical trans stuff, and hints of necrophilia and bestiality.
Because anal sex is the key, for energetic reasons. It is strictly forbidden in all religions for a very good reason. I'll explain it in my post in more detail.
Chris, I suspect that most such people will just roll their eyes at this, much as they do when some Catholic cites Thomist teleology for opposing homosexuality.
And Chris, here is the comment/question I wanted to bring over here.
Quick comment on CA - loved the Seoul portion, haunted by it, the music (bought the soundtrack) plays in my head again and again. Loved the far future mostly for the language they used. Music and language are vibration, I am sensitive to them. I am sensitive to vibrations that cannot be heard, as well.
OK, Left hand. You likely know that that Lana Wachowski is very Left hand. Transgender and married to a dominatrix. I feel sad she needed to change her gender, but have pity. I think S and M is always very dark, pain, given or received, should not be enjoyed in conjunction with sex. Nothing wrong with suffering for someone you love but that is not sex. Yet this profound film...thoughts?
I think directors like the Wachowski brothers / sisters, Polanski and Kubrick are in the know. Most likely they were initiated into left-hand path traditions and they are exploring what they have learnt and seen in occult societies through their art. Artists are generally more prone to engaging in the occult anyway and I think there is a genetic predisposition. I know you don't like my Neanderthal theory, but it must be something that goes back that far, to prehistory. Even in different species of chimpanzee, one species can differ very significantly from another in things like sexual habits and this is genetic, not just cultural. On a personal note, I have noticed, that gay people tend to have a different facial bone structure, an open secret in the community, which helps them spot each other.
That is why I do not automatically condemn people who follow the left hand path in anything, whether it is in the spiritual sense or societally. I think some people have a genetic predisposition to it and it's likely something they can't help. Obviously, I'm not condoning them doing anything illegal, but as long as they stay within society's norms I let them be, even if we think very differently about the world and have very different morals and sexual habits.
Where the knife opens in my pocket, to use a Hungarian expression (this is a good one, you should remember it), is when this very small minority in society starts to promote their ideology and values, especially when they indoctrinate children with it, through TV shows and movies. I am really against that and this is also why I am working on exposing them and their modus operandi.
I've noticed that at my Orthodox church parish, there are a lot of autistic men and even more left-handed people. Among the converts, I think lefties may be a slight majority. Not sure, but way more than 10 percent.
I agree with you. I've even noticed the bones. My close gay friends tell me of the Left hand practices (e.g., one likes to dominate in sex, including pain, I did not know that for a long time, but one day I figured it out and he confirmed - he is still my friend. Btw, he was the one who told me I must see CA the day after it came out). I agree about sexual orientation being genetic or at least epigenetic (in the genes but must be turned "on" and once "on" there is not an off.) I realize liking S and M cannot be helped. I think it should always be resisted, due to its harms, even between consenting adults (unlike monogamous gay sex.) I do not condemn anyone who is turned on by it, no one can control what has this effect. Some mostly-gay men can suppress a lot if they have a bi tendency, but otherwise....
I am called to stay off the Left hand path, I know that. I am told I would "get there" faster if I took that path but I am not doing it. It destroys, I think. Mostly (I know faithful gay couples not destroyed, but otherwise....)
I can't think it is from Neanderthals or there would not be gay black people. I know black culture is more opposed to it, but there are plenty of black gay men and women. But I don't want to hammer not agreeing about Neanderthals too much. (Oh dear, red Shirley Temple dreadlocks just popped into my mind, I think you know who I mean...ah well....)
I love the knife expression. That is where mine would open too (can't be literal because it would not help, but we know what we mean here.) I am so glad Hungary protects children!
The most haunting thing in Cloud Atlas to me was the Evil Avatar figure in the post-apocalyptic future segments. He looked like the Triumph of Entropy.
Hi Veronika, of course, I'm happy to answer your questions, though my knowledge of the topics you brought up may be limited.
1. Personally, I never liked the Theosophists. Way too pretentious, they straight up made up a lot of ridiculous stuff (like the idea of ascended masters) and twisted a lot of the original eastern teachings to suit their own agenda. I would consider their entire body of work essentially bunk, though I never looked into it in any detail, the little I have seen convinced me, there is no real value there. A little knowledge can be worse than no knowledge at all and I believe they caused a lot of damage with their pseudo-spirituality. I would avoid theosophy altogether, in my eyes, it is largely fraudulent.
New age is something else, it incredibly eclectic and runs the full gamut from authentic information to full on scam. However, as with Theosophy, most of it is also pretty low quality and misleading. When you find any value in modern authors, who may be considered new age, you almost always find that they have been initiated into proper Eastern spiritual traditions and are part of a lineage. Those people I trust to give me authentic information, but they are a small minority. Probably 99 percent of new age is junk.
2, I didn't spend much time looking into Gnosticism, quite honestly, it gives me a bad vibe. Why would you say the the God of Christianity, is an evil, tyrannical demiurge? To me, that just doesn't make sense. Sophia is more appealing, as it parallels the idea of Shekinah / Sekina in Judaism and Islam and Shakti in Hinduism. But, I know too little about it, to judge its validity.
My own view of the Biblical God is very different. Not being an expert, I simply base this on direct experience and observation, combined with some scholarly interpretation.
It is my understanding, that there are two readings or traditions in the Bible, which may in fact point to different deities. The primary one is the Elohist tradition, which considers God to be the Elohim. Most Christians don't know, that Elohim is the most common name for God in the Bible and is considered to be the oldest, original one. For instance, the very first line of the Bible is commonly mistranslated as follows:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
But that's not what the original text says. It should actually be:
"In the beginning, the Elohim created the heavens and the earth."
Elohim here is plural, indicating a group of beings, basically the divine council, which also makes an appearance in the book of Job. The Elohim are in fact a pantheon of gods, who were worshipped by the Canaanites and then later adopted by the Hebrews. Their original leader, or the Heavenly Father was El, along with Asherah, their mother, also known as the Queen of Heaven or the Mother of God(s).
Yahweh only came into the picture much later, from a different geographical area and his priesthood basically syncretised El and his 70 children, the Elohim together with Yahweh, into one single God. Perhaps, the gnostic idea of the demiurge preserves a memory of that, who knows. When they talk about there being a pantheon of real gods, a lesser or false god, the demiurge and a fallen goddess figure, Sophia, who is then redeemed, but is the mother of the universe, in a sense, they may be referring to the Elohim, Yahweh-Yadalbaoth and Asherah/Shekinah/the Holy Mother respectively. If anyone can figure this one out, I'll tip my hat to them.
However, what I can say from personal experience is that the Elohim are real, benevolent and the highest form of God, from what I have seen. They are a collective, even though they are made up of individual gods, they share the same consciousness, so they are one and many at the same time. An Elohim can individuate and thus speak and act individually, but in general they are one mind and speak with one voice, the music of the spheres, or perhaps comparable to a chorus of angels. There is nothing more beautiful than the collective chorus of the Elohim.
I realise this is in no way compatible with traditional Christian teaching, I am simply relaying my own experience.
3, Fingerprint of the Gods is the original bestseller, Magician of the Gods is the follow-up, probably a better read overall and it goes into the topics of psychedelics and entities, including how this shaped Mesoamerican civilization.
Chris, you know I do not condemn people for their religious beliefs. I was wondering if you consider yourself Hindu or if your faith is a form of Hinduism? The belief about many gods, yet one God is one of the main reasons I am asking now.
(I knew of the Elohim plural. Christians see it as the Trinity but I am about 100 percent sure you knew that. You should see it as the Spirit leads you, I do not condemn. I'm a curious person though. )
Btw, I am getting enrolled in a Jewish class here in Budapest. It is Chabad. I am so thrilled to be invited. It is taught by a Rabbi mentioned in one of the articles you mentioned, and his wife.
Hi Linda,
I'm not a religious person in the strictest sense of the word, in that I do not profess any set beliefs. I look at the world as it is and try to describe it to the best of my abilities. I do try to find religious, spiritual and philosophical traditions that help me do that, but I'm not wedded to any of them. If I had to choose, the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta within the Hindu tradition is what appeals to me the most, but that isn't really a religion, more of a way of looking at the world and understanding it.
Within that framework, I acknowledge the existence of multiple deities, but that doesn't mean I worship them. The way I see it, there is one God, with many faces and names, ultimately they are all part of the same Godhead. This is not the same as the trinity within Christian thought, but there are some parallels. To me, God appears in many different way in many different things. You can look at a tree and see God in it, or look at another human being and see the divinity shining through. God is omnipresent and we are all basking in his glory.
In my own view, deities are also individuals, with their own unique personalities, but ultimately, their divinity is expressed through union in the Godhead, where there is only the One and all distinction ceases.
The calls sounds great, I'm happy for you
:)
I actually just had an epiphany about Sophia, which I thought you might be interested in. In the book, the Cosmic Shekinah (highly recommended), comparisons are made between various middle eastern goddesses and the divine feminine in Judaism and Christianity. If I recall, the gnostic goddess Sophia, was compared to Inanna-Ishtar from Mesopotamia, particularly in the story, Inanna's descent into the underworld. I think there is a fair chance that Sophia was partly based on Inanna-Ishtar, though I haven't looked at this in any detail, just an idea I had.
Sophia, shorn of Gnostic mythos, was accepted as orthodox in late antiquity. Hence the various churches named Hagia Sophia, notably the famous one at Constantinople. There was some sentiment in favor of identifying Sophia with the Holy Spirit. In Eastern Christendom "sophiology" was never condemned and at least one modern era Orthodox theologian, Sergei Bulgakov (d. 1944), explored the concept.