Amazing timing man. I turned 16 this month and decided to buy some of goethes scientific writing/steiners work on him and the life divine of all things! Greatly looking forward to reading along
First!!!! When you put out a new video I have something to look forward to for 30 minutes 😂👌 thanks!!! Love your work John!!! Thanks for all these great videos! 😁
Thank you for continuing to inform an ill-informed world, John! I don’t know if you’re a Bob Dylan fan but I love these lyrics and thought you might too. It’s a song called too much of nothing. Too much of nothin' can make a man feel ill at ease One man's temper might rise, while the other man's temper might freeze. In the days of long confessions, we can not mock a soul When there's too much of nothin', no one has control. Say hello to Valerie, say hello to Marion, Send them all my salary, on the waters of oblivion. Too much of nothin' can make a man abuse a king He can walk the streets and boast like most but he don't know a thing. It's all been done before, it's all been written in the book. But when it's too much of nothin', nobody should look. Say hello to Valerie, say hello to Marion, Send them all my salary, on the waters of oblivion. Too much of nothin' can turn a man into a liar It can cause some man to sleep on nails, another man to eat fire. Everybody's doin' somethin', I heard it in a dream But when it's too much of nothin', it just makes a fella mean. Say hello to Valerie, say hello to Marion, Send them all my salary, on the waters of oblivion.
Sri Aurobindo never aimed at being a professor. he was the principal of a school for awhile, but his aim, prior to "retirement" in 2010, was the independence of India. He had this aim from his Cambridge days in the early 1890s up to 1910. Somewhere else you spoke of his "putting down" Gandhi. He always maintained the profound value of Gandhi's work. He simply rejected Gandhi's transformation of Sri Aurobindo's idea of non cooperation into a kind of non violent absoluteness. The best example is Gandhi's recommendation to the Allies that they stop fighting Hitler and use "Soul force" instead (Atma Shakti). As far as preference for the East, remember he devotes over 100 pages (more than 10%) of Life Divine to a thorough deconstruction of Shankara's many errors. He saw the Upanishadic and wisdom and that of the Gita as foundational, but goes back to the Vedas to recover a lost wisdom (lost by the time of the start of the Axial age) and states clearly "the age of religions is over" - referring to the East as well as the West. His main aim, after 1910, was to support the descent of the supramental consciousness. There's nothing in Steiner remotely like this; even Gebser acknowledges that his integral consciousness is only a very small hint of the supramental, and in fact, Gebser attributes his entire vision to "being in the force field of Sri Aurobindo" - this occurring in the early 1930s, while his book was published in 1949. John, you might take some time to read Satprem, and perhaps look at some other commentators like Matthijs Cornelissen (over at Indian psychology site). It's amazing how much you've gotten from Sri Aurobindo's writings having only examined it over a year or so, but there is a dramatically different understanding waiting for you if you're willing to go further. There are a number of conversations, by the way, in which he says he read little of philosophy, nothing of Hegel or Kant apart from a few passages, and little of Bergson as well. It would be interesting to see where you find him criticizing the West to any great length. his book, "The Future Poetry," is almost entirely focused on Western poets, to give one example. Also, if you look for permutations of Paul's "God is He in whom we live and move and have our being," there are hundreds of examples throughout his books (and of course, Paul was quoting a 3rd century BC Greek poet) as well as many Biblical references in his ultimate work, the epic poem Savitri. The psychic being is radically, radically different from any Jungian, Freudian notion of "ego."
John. This is probably very important for you to know regarding the claims around Aurobindo’s past life. It will throw into question the validity of your mediums unfortunately and therefore a lot of your research. But because I know you’re approaching all of your work as scientifically as possible I know you’ll be able to use it to refine and clarify your methods. As you’re aware Sri Aurobindo’s partner Mira Alfasa is referred to as The Mother. In her writings she directly states her relationship to Akhenaten. This quote is directly from the Auroville website. “in Volume 6 of Mother’s Agenda on the date of June 1963. Mother speaks about being the ancient Egyptian Queen Tii, the mother of the Pharoah Amenhotep IV. Mother remembered this story because the person who was Amenhotep IV took birth again while Mother was in the Ashram. He was brought to Mother in June, 1963 when he was a young child. She recognized him and then she remembered that he had been her son Amenhotep IV., when she was Queen Tii in Ancient Egypt. In Ancient Egypt they worshipped many gods. The sun-god was called Aton. When Amenhotep IV became the Pharoah he changed his name to Akhenaton, which means “one who serves Aton”, the sun god. “
Regarding the Etheric body doesn’t Aurobindo’s Vital map over? I have only been exposed to his work through other people and haven’t directly read any of his writings. But my understanding is that Aurobindo’s Mental would map to the Astral. I also prefer the Rosicrucian and shamanic mapping of mineral, plant, animal and human related to the various subtle bodies.
The etheric is related to Sri Aurobindo's subtle physical (related to first chakra), astral is similar to his "lower vital" and "central vital" - (2nd and 3rd chakra), the mental is the 5th, 6th and to some extent, 7th. I don't know anything in Steiner's work related to what Sri Aurobindo referred to as the "psychic being.' The "I" of Steiner sounds to me like a somewhat subtle egoic witness at the mental level.
Thanks, John. Question: you said devas were the highest tier of beings, corresponding to Steiner's angels, but aren't angels the lowest of his hierarchy?
in a different interpratation, i would love to call your attention to the word 'being' used in this. Being in a metaphysical sense is a way of subsisting, of being eternal, timeless, unchangeable. so in Indian Mythology, the Devas are said to be lower entities of BEING in the way I tried to explain. the Highest is the Brahman and then comes isvara, then comes Bhagwan and then the devas. so It can be in Sri Aurobindo's mind that Being was used in this 'Russellian Sense'. I would love to suggest you to read the Problems of Philosophy chapter 9, although out of context, you will get a sense of the word 'Being'. Hope it Helphs
I think you can interpret early buddhism as being nihilistic, definitely. but the mahayana interpretation is almost the opposite, where nirvana is the world, not the escape from it.
Correct. When I say "Buddhism is nihilistic" I'm referring to Hinayana Buddhism, not Mahayana. Although...Mahayana has this idea that everything is based on the Void, Sunyata, so it does still retain the residue of its nihlistic origins.
wouldn't you say the descent of the Supramental or the fall of the One at all must be regarded as the gnostic Demiurge; matter itself is inherently evil and no monist system can account for a One that falls into ignorance without apologizing with such a principle or progenitor of said principle; or saying that all distinctions are illusory, whereas the distinction of an illusory distinction is itself a testament to the distinction. one should not seek to synthesize matter with spirit; that is already what has happened, that is the Demiurge itself; the introduction of suffering and must be dissolved and the whole 'evolution' paradigm is naive in its desire to see the One as optimistically trying to know itself (narcissistically) instead of its true state which is being coerced and forcibly manifested into the matrix of matter (as Gebser proves its etymological primal unity), the 'evolution' is actually a declension from the true Light; a false mechanic of the Demiurgic logic
Maybe you need Christ bro. Orthodox theology can explain suffering without necessitating the material world to be evil. We simply fell due to our hubris, because we desired and still nowadays desire to supercede being and it's source which is our Lord. Distinction is real, distinction is good, but dialectics is the issue. So it is up to us to again achieve harmony with God, and become entities of love(Theosis = remaining distinct from God but no longer opposed to God), so that through the grace of God's only begotten son, we can overcome sin and death. To deny the inherent glory of God's creation is too further strengthen your opposition to him, it is to actively toss away infinite mercy. So I recommend you to change your ways. But I'm no authority, I only recently got into scripture and all that jazz. But I always had a disdain for gnostic cosmologies, and now I finally found a coherent system, that cements that.
@@rubeng9092 orthodoxy is foolish and gnosticism triumphs over it, i place no blame on man; that is a faulty blame, guilt manipulation and fear mongering. one must Become God as Plotinus says but one cannot achieve harmony whilst clinging onto that which births dissonance. fuck “mercy” and fuck the “glory” of this creation, there is beauty but it may not be reconciled with evil, there is no hope for marshmellow monism, the myth of the christ-event is unnecessary to any development. your claim of beginner status is why orthodoxy makes sense to you, you haven’t thought the whole thing through, merely the novelty of the system allows you to adhere to its tenants and that adherence you mistake for coherence. only the internal logic makes sense because the internal logic was made to make sense only from the logic of itself internally. go into the true depths of your Self and Know, not through faith or through scripture but through gnosis. any Entity begetting suffering is not to be worshipped, admired or spoken of in reverence despite whatever online community memes you into.
@@avoidbeing St.Irenaeus would beg to differ. Your system is incoherent; the world could not be created by anything other than the most supreme Being and it's Word. It is illogical to posit that a subordinate demiurge could contradict the will of the most high. '1. Those, moreover, who say that the world was formed by angels, or by any other maker of it, contrary to the will of Him who is the Supreme Father, err first of all in this very point, that they maintain that angels formed such and so mighty a creation, contrary to the will of the Most High God. This would imply that angels were more powerful than God; or if not so, that He was either careless, or inferior, or paid no regard to those things which took place among His own possessions, whether they turned out ill or well, so that He might drive away and prevent the one, while He praised and rejoiced over the other. But if one would not ascribe such conduct even to a man of any ability, how much less to God 2. Next let them tell us whether these things have been formed within the limits which are contained by Him, and in His proper territory, or in regions belonging to others, and lying beyond Him? But if they say [that these things were done] beyond Him, then all the absurdities already mentioned will face them, and the Supreme God will be enclosed by that which is beyond Him, in which also it will be necessary that He should find His end. If, on the other hand, [these things were done] within His own proper territory, it will be very idle to say that the world was thus formed within His proper territory against His will by angels who are themselves under His power, or by any other being, as if either He Himself did not behold all things which take place among His own possessions, or was not aware of the things to be done by angels. 3. If, however, [the things referred to were done] not against His will, but with His concurrence and knowledge, as some [of these men] think, the angels, or the Former of the world [whoever that may have been], will no longer be the causes of that formation, but the will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He too made the angels, or at least was the cause of their creation; and He will be regarded as having made the world who prepared the causes of its formation. Although they maintain that the angels were made by a long succession downwards, or that the Former of the world [sprang] from the Supreme Father, as Basilides asserts; nevertheless that which is the cause of those things which have been made will still be traced to Him who was the Author of such a succession. [The case stands] just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king who prepared those things which are the cause of victory; and, in like manner, the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about. Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it who formed the axe and the saw for this purpose, and [who also formed] at a much earlier date all the tools by which the axe and the saw themselves were formed. With justice, therefore, according to an analogous process of reasoning, the Father of all will be declared the Former of this world, and not the angels, nor any other [so-called] former of the world, other than He who was its Author, and had formerly been the cause of the preparation for a creation of this kind. 4. This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man. But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all things, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land - on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them - while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies. 5. For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the disciple of the Lord, declares regarding Him: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." John 1:3 Now, among the "all things" our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis that He made all things connected with our world by His Word. David also expresses the same truth [when he says] "For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created." Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world - these heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a faithful servant of God and a prophet? He at first narrated the formation of the world in these words: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," Genesis 1:1 and all other things in succession; but neither gods nor angels [had any share in the work]. Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying,] "There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all." I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense?' - Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 2)
@@rubeng9092 im aware of the orthodox disagreement and im aware of Iraneus lifelong obsession with refuting, only an energized opposition of anger and fear of them (which led to their persecution). all of this is self-circular argumentation of the orthodox transcendental signified reaffirmed by biblical passages that only reaffirm what is already affirmed. God has no Will to know himself or from krisis create distinction and birth suffering via ignorance. theres no reason for any movement in the beyond of the beyond. the Light has no will to manifest into any of this darkness. there is a fundamental war between the Light and the Darkness, it sounds cliche and star wars-y but thats only retroactive popular media sensationalization of the Manichaean system. none of this explains the birth of suffering and only apologizes for the progenitor or direct creator of it. all of this metaphysical nonsense dissolves once you get through this long road and just say it clearly: the Light is not the Darkness. no marshmellow monism, no christ-myth biblical referral. mythopoeics can help but it is not necessary and it is not final, the ultimate ur-myth is the one of the Self and the One, the interdimensional axis of void and infinity, the nihil and the All, there are Advaita falls into amnesiac matter and multitude which birth all suffering and this may never be unified with a state beyond it. like digging contents out of the unconscious, as soon as it is undug it is no longer unconscious: the unconscious is never actually reached, only deferred. all orthodox nonsense you were fed by meme-circles and your Being is being coerced by memetics you are only being tossed around by. stop letting these memes get to your head and rupture your own self, it is a false sense of belonging and a false cause to identify with. the problem itself is identity.
@@avoidbeing Dualism runs into some hefty problems. If reality is constituted by a fundamental opposition, then how can there even be an interaction between the two poles, seeing as they share nothing with each other. Descartes runs into this when he posits the mind/body distinction as does Plato when he separates the unchanging One from the temporal Many. For how can that which is subject to change, participate in the changeless? To resolve the respective issue inside any dualism, Descartes might insert a God of the gaps, whereas Plato chooses the doctrine of Anamnesis. Both are things which are just given ad hoc, justified by the myths of their time. This goes to show that in any dualism, there has to be an element of mediation or reconcilliation, for the opposites to even be capable to act upon another. Dualisms oftentimes end up arriving at dialectical monism ironically. And so it is with your manichaenism, my friend. You have to posit an underlying unity, to account for the war between light and dark, just as WW1 makes no sense without the presence of european territory to be fought over. In turn light and dark(or rather one and many, seeing as you loathe multiplicity) have to both participate in the absolute, the totality, or Being(univocal Being, not the being which is opposed to non-being or becoming, but rather that out of which these emerge). So if you are a soldier in the trenches, while it is true that you are fighting for your country, it is likewise true that you are serving the war-itself and it's perpetuation, as you are serving Being, regardless if you choose the Good or the Bad, Germany or France. Now to be a gnostic in this scenario, would be to ignore the ontological primacy of the war over it's combattants. It would be to wage a war against war, which is absurd. Now to be a Christian, is to be a good soldier and patriot for the nation of the Good, which itself is the nation that will be selected for victory by the war, for as the nation affirms the war, so in turn does the war affirm the nation, leading the greater to triumph over the lesser. The nation of evil can only loose, for it places itself over the war, and in turn opposes the war at any turn they can if the war contradicts their own wellbeing; yes, they, for they stand divided, an army of deserters, looking to recruit the weak-willed. Such is their nature, such is their defeat.
WoW I just discovered your Chanel Im so excited to see your other videos:) !! Good job for synthesis big concept.
Ty
Amazing timing man. I turned 16 this month and decided to buy some of goethes scientific writing/steiners work on him and the life divine of all things! Greatly looking forward to reading along
What are other books you’re into now?
great new series, I am definitely looking forward to it and even more the one on Goethe's philosophy
We'll circle back to Goethe's Faust, no worries.
Great video John. Always a pleasure to watch these.
give thanx
First!!!! When you put out a new video I have something to look forward to for 30 minutes 😂👌 thanks!!! Love your work John!!! Thanks for all these great videos! 😁
You're welcome!
Wonderful. Another great series to look forward to.
Thank you so much for getting into Aurobindo, John.
You're welcome!
Thanks very much for starting and doing this series on UA-cam Mr. Ebert. I am in for the whole set of Life Divine videos.
Thank you for continuing to inform an ill-informed world, John! I don’t know if you’re a Bob Dylan fan but I love these lyrics and thought you might too. It’s a song called too much of nothing.
Too much of nothin' can make a man feel ill at ease
One man's temper might rise, while the other man's temper might freeze.
In the days of long confessions, we can not mock a soul
When there's too much of nothin', no one has control.
Say hello to Valerie, say hello to Marion,
Send them all my salary, on the waters of oblivion.
Too much of nothin' can make a man abuse a king
He can walk the streets and boast like most but he don't know a thing.
It's all been done before, it's all been written in the book.
But when it's too much of nothin', nobody should look.
Say hello to Valerie, say hello to Marion,
Send them all my salary, on the waters of oblivion.
Too much of nothin' can turn a man into a liar
It can cause some man to sleep on nails, another man to eat fire.
Everybody's doin' somethin', I heard it in a dream
But when it's too much of nothin', it just makes a fella mean.
Say hello to Valerie, say hello to Marion,
Send them all my salary, on the waters of oblivion.
Sri Aurobindo never aimed at being a professor. he was the principal of a school for awhile, but his aim, prior to "retirement" in 2010, was the independence of India. He had this aim from his Cambridge days in the early 1890s up to 1910.
Somewhere else you spoke of his "putting down" Gandhi. He always maintained the profound value of Gandhi's work. He simply rejected Gandhi's transformation of Sri Aurobindo's idea of non cooperation into a kind of non violent absoluteness. The best example is Gandhi's recommendation to the Allies that they stop fighting Hitler and use "Soul force" instead (Atma Shakti).
As far as preference for the East, remember he devotes over 100 pages (more than 10%) of Life Divine to a thorough deconstruction of Shankara's many errors. He saw the Upanishadic and wisdom and that of the Gita as foundational, but goes back to the Vedas to recover a lost wisdom (lost by the time of the start of the Axial age) and states clearly "the age of religions is over" - referring to the East as well as the West.
His main aim, after 1910, was to support the descent of the supramental consciousness. There's nothing in Steiner remotely like this; even Gebser acknowledges that his integral consciousness is only a very small hint of the supramental, and in fact, Gebser attributes his entire vision to "being in the force field of Sri Aurobindo" - this occurring in the early 1930s, while his book was published in 1949.
John, you might take some time to read Satprem, and perhaps look at some other commentators like Matthijs Cornelissen (over at Indian psychology site). It's amazing how much you've gotten from Sri Aurobindo's writings having only examined it over a year or so, but there is a dramatically different understanding waiting for you if you're willing to go further.
There are a number of conversations, by the way, in which he says he read little of philosophy, nothing of Hegel or Kant apart from a few passages, and little of Bergson as well. It would be interesting to see where you find him criticizing the West to any great length. his book, "The Future Poetry," is almost entirely focused on Western poets, to give one example.
Also, if you look for permutations of Paul's "God is He in whom we live and move and have our being," there are hundreds of examples throughout his books (and of course, Paul was quoting a 3rd century BC Greek poet) as well as many Biblical references in his ultimate work, the epic poem Savitri.
The psychic being is radically, radically different from any Jungian, Freudian notion of "ego."
How can one contact you?
Awesome analysis!
Very good choice!
Could you give explanation on Buddhism how is it nihilistic ? Thank You
Aurobindo represents what the ancient philosophers of India taught.
John. This is probably very important for you to know regarding the claims around Aurobindo’s past life. It will throw into question the validity of your mediums unfortunately and therefore a lot of your research. But because I know you’re approaching all of your work as scientifically as possible I know you’ll be able to use it to refine and clarify your methods. As you’re aware Sri Aurobindo’s partner Mira Alfasa is referred to as The Mother.
In her writings she directly states her relationship to Akhenaten. This quote is directly from the Auroville website. “in Volume 6 of Mother’s Agenda on the date of June 1963. Mother speaks about being the ancient Egyptian Queen Tii, the mother of the Pharoah Amenhotep IV. Mother remembered this story because the person who was Amenhotep IV took birth again while Mother was in the Ashram. He was brought to Mother in June, 1963 when he was a young child. She recognized him and then she remembered that he had been her son Amenhotep IV., when she was Queen Tii in Ancient Egypt.
In Ancient Egypt they worshipped many gods. The sun-god was called Aton. When Amenhotep IV became the Pharoah he changed his name to Akhenaton, which means “one who serves Aton”, the sun god. “
Regarding the Etheric body doesn’t Aurobindo’s Vital map over? I have only been exposed to his work through other people and haven’t directly read any of his writings. But my understanding is that Aurobindo’s Mental would map to the Astral. I also prefer the Rosicrucian and shamanic mapping of mineral, plant, animal and human related to the various subtle bodies.
The etheric is related to Sri Aurobindo's subtle physical (related to first chakra), astral is similar to his "lower vital" and "central vital" - (2nd and 3rd chakra), the mental is the 5th, 6th and to some extent, 7th.
I don't know anything in Steiner's work related to what Sri Aurobindo referred to as the "psychic being.' The "I" of Steiner sounds to me like a somewhat subtle egoic witness at the mental level.
Thanks, John. Question: you said devas were the highest tier of beings, corresponding to Steiner's angels, but aren't angels the lowest of his hierarchy?
in a different interpratation, i would love to call your attention to the word 'being' used in this. Being in a metaphysical sense is a way of subsisting, of being eternal, timeless, unchangeable. so in Indian Mythology, the Devas are said to be lower entities of BEING in the way I tried to explain. the Highest is the Brahman and then comes isvara, then comes Bhagwan and then the devas. so It can be in Sri Aurobindo's mind that Being was used in this 'Russellian Sense'. I would love to suggest you to read the Problems of Philosophy chapter 9, although out of context, you will get a sense of the word 'Being'.
Hope it Helphs
In Sri Aurobindo there are subtle beings on all planes.
I think you can interpret early buddhism as being nihilistic, definitely. but the mahayana interpretation is almost the opposite, where nirvana is the world, not the escape from it.
Correct. When I say "Buddhism is nihilistic" I'm referring to Hinayana Buddhism, not Mahayana. Although...Mahayana has this idea that everything is based on the Void, Sunyata, so it does still retain the residue of its nihlistic origins.
wouldn't you say the descent of the Supramental or the fall of the One at all must be regarded as the gnostic Demiurge; matter itself is inherently evil and no monist system can account for a One that falls into ignorance without apologizing with such a principle or progenitor of said principle; or saying that all distinctions are illusory, whereas the distinction of an illusory distinction is itself a testament to the distinction. one should not seek to synthesize matter with spirit; that is already what has happened, that is the Demiurge itself; the introduction of suffering and must be dissolved and the whole 'evolution' paradigm is naive in its desire to see the One as optimistically trying to know itself (narcissistically) instead of its true state which is being coerced and forcibly manifested into the matrix of matter (as Gebser proves its etymological primal unity), the 'evolution' is actually a declension from the true Light; a false mechanic of the Demiurgic logic
Maybe you need Christ bro. Orthodox theology can explain suffering without necessitating the material world to be evil. We simply fell due to our hubris, because we desired and still nowadays desire to supercede being and it's source which is our Lord. Distinction is real, distinction is good, but dialectics is the issue. So it is up to us to again achieve harmony with God, and become entities of love(Theosis = remaining distinct from God but no longer opposed to God), so that through the grace of God's only begotten son, we can overcome sin and death. To deny the inherent glory of God's creation is too further strengthen your opposition to him, it is to actively toss away infinite mercy. So I recommend you to change your ways. But I'm no authority, I only recently got into scripture and all that jazz. But I always had a disdain for gnostic cosmologies, and now I finally found a coherent system, that cements that.
@@rubeng9092 orthodoxy is foolish and gnosticism triumphs over it, i place no blame on man; that is a faulty blame, guilt manipulation and fear mongering. one must Become God as Plotinus says but one cannot achieve harmony whilst clinging onto that which births dissonance. fuck “mercy” and fuck the “glory” of this creation, there is beauty but it may not be reconciled with evil, there is no hope for marshmellow monism, the myth of the christ-event is unnecessary to any development. your claim of beginner status is why orthodoxy makes sense to you, you haven’t thought the whole thing through, merely the novelty of the system allows you to adhere to its tenants and that adherence you mistake for coherence. only the internal logic makes sense because the internal logic was made to make sense only from the logic of itself internally. go into the true depths of your Self and Know, not through faith or through scripture but through gnosis. any Entity begetting suffering is not to be worshipped, admired or spoken of in reverence despite whatever online community memes you into.
@@avoidbeing St.Irenaeus would beg to differ. Your system is incoherent; the world could not be created by anything other than the most supreme Being and it's Word. It is illogical to posit that a subordinate demiurge could contradict the will of the most high.
'1. Those, moreover, who say that the world was formed by angels, or by any other maker of it, contrary to the will of Him who is the Supreme Father, err first of all in this very point, that they maintain that angels formed such and so mighty a creation, contrary to the will of the Most High God. This would imply that angels were more powerful than God; or if not so, that He was either careless, or inferior, or paid no regard to those things which took place among His own possessions, whether they turned out ill or well, so that He might drive away and prevent the one, while He praised and rejoiced over the other. But if one would not ascribe such conduct even to a man of any ability, how much less to God
2. Next let them tell us whether these things have been formed within the limits which are contained by Him, and in His proper territory, or in regions belonging to others, and lying beyond Him? But if they say [that these things were done] beyond Him, then all the absurdities already mentioned will face them, and the Supreme God will be enclosed by that which is beyond Him, in which also it will be necessary that He should find His end. If, on the other hand, [these things were done] within His own proper territory, it will be very idle to say that the world was thus formed within His proper territory against His will by angels who are themselves under His power, or by any other being, as if either He Himself did not behold all things which take place among His own possessions, or was not aware of the things to be done by angels.
3. If, however, [the things referred to were done] not against His will, but with His concurrence and knowledge, as some [of these men] think, the angels, or the Former of the world [whoever that may have been], will no longer be the causes of that formation, but the will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He too made the angels, or at least was the cause of their creation; and He will be regarded as having made the world who prepared the causes of its formation. Although they maintain that the angels were made by a long succession downwards, or that the Former of the world [sprang] from the Supreme Father, as Basilides asserts; nevertheless that which is the cause of those things which have been made will still be traced to Him who was the Author of such a succession. [The case stands] just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king who prepared those things which are the cause of victory; and, in like manner, the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about. Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it who formed the axe and the saw for this purpose, and [who also formed] at a much earlier date all the tools by which the axe and the saw themselves were formed. With justice, therefore, according to an analogous process of reasoning, the Father of all will be declared the Former of this world, and not the angels, nor any other [so-called] former of the world, other than He who was its Author, and had formerly been the cause of the preparation for a creation of this kind.
4. This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man. But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all things, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land - on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them - while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies.
5. For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the disciple of the Lord, declares regarding Him: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." John 1:3 Now, among the "all things" our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis that He made all things connected with our world by His Word. David also expresses the same truth [when he says] "For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created." Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world - these heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a faithful servant of God and a prophet? He at first narrated the formation of the world in these words: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," Genesis 1:1 and all other things in succession; but neither gods nor angels [had any share in the work].
Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying,] "There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all." I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense?' - Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 2)
@@rubeng9092 im aware of the orthodox disagreement and im aware of Iraneus lifelong obsession with refuting, only an energized opposition of anger and fear of them (which led to their persecution). all of this is self-circular argumentation of the orthodox transcendental signified reaffirmed by biblical passages that only reaffirm what is already affirmed. God has no Will to know himself or from krisis create distinction and birth suffering via ignorance. theres no reason for any movement in the beyond of the beyond. the Light has no will to manifest into any of this darkness. there is a fundamental war between the Light and the Darkness, it sounds cliche and star wars-y but thats only retroactive popular media sensationalization of the Manichaean system. none of this explains the birth of suffering and only apologizes for the progenitor or direct creator of it. all of this metaphysical nonsense dissolves once you get through this long road and just say it clearly: the Light is not the Darkness. no marshmellow monism, no christ-myth biblical referral. mythopoeics can help but it is not necessary and it is not final, the ultimate ur-myth is the one of the Self and the One, the interdimensional axis of void and infinity, the nihil and the All, there are Advaita falls into amnesiac matter and multitude which birth all suffering and this may never be unified with a state beyond it. like digging contents out of the unconscious, as soon as it is undug it is no longer unconscious: the unconscious is never actually reached, only deferred. all orthodox nonsense you were fed by meme-circles and your Being is being coerced by memetics you are only being tossed around by. stop letting these memes get to your head and rupture your own self, it is a false sense of belonging and a false cause to identify with. the problem itself is identity.
@@avoidbeing Dualism runs into some hefty problems. If reality is constituted by a fundamental opposition, then how can there even be an interaction between the two poles, seeing as they share nothing with each other. Descartes runs into this when he posits the mind/body distinction as does Plato when he separates the unchanging One from the temporal Many. For how can that which is subject to change, participate in the changeless? To resolve the respective issue inside any dualism, Descartes might insert a God of the gaps, whereas Plato chooses the doctrine of Anamnesis. Both are things which are just given ad hoc, justified by the myths of their time. This goes to show that in any dualism, there has to be an element of mediation or reconcilliation, for the opposites to even be capable to act upon another. Dualisms oftentimes end up arriving at dialectical monism ironically. And so it is with your manichaenism, my friend. You have to posit an underlying unity, to account for the war between light and dark, just as WW1 makes no sense without the presence of european territory to be fought over. In turn light and dark(or rather one and many, seeing as you loathe multiplicity) have to both participate in the absolute, the totality, or Being(univocal Being, not the being which is opposed to non-being or becoming, but rather that out of which these emerge). So if you are a soldier in the trenches, while it is true that you are fighting for your country, it is likewise true that you are serving the war-itself and it's perpetuation, as you are serving Being, regardless if you choose the Good or the Bad, Germany or France. Now to be a gnostic in this scenario, would be to ignore the ontological primacy of the war over it's combattants. It would be to wage a war against war, which is absurd. Now to be a Christian, is to be a good soldier and patriot for the nation of the Good, which itself is the nation that will be selected for victory by the war, for as the nation affirms the war, so in turn does the war affirm the nation, leading the greater to triumph over the lesser. The nation of evil can only loose, for it places itself over the war, and in turn opposes the war at any turn they can if the war contradicts their own wellbeing; yes, they, for they stand divided, an army of deserters, looking to recruit the weak-willed. Such is their nature, such is their defeat.