Daniel

they chose it for this thread and said it looked "sick". That was their choice not yours. go ahead and post the link to this other thread, and we'll sort it out otherwise see below. Those are NOT your words. The OP chose that card that image for this thread. You did NOT chose that card for this thread, unless you post a link that proves it, I think you're just trying to be the master-guru trying to control. The point is, you called him a Nazi, tried to get me to join in your hate fest, then two days later claimed to be doing a exorcism on him, without asking him first. Pretending for a moment you actually can exorcise demons and pretending for a moment he actually has them, he didn't want you to remove them. But you decided to do something TO him. Without his permission. I knew he wouldn't want that, because I listened to him. You did NOT listen to him. Then when I asked you about it, you did a whole song and dance about it, lied, reversed position, did back flips. Pretended it was all just a gag to see if people would believe you. The whole thing was pretty sick considering all you needed to do was apologize and resolve not to do stuff TO people without their permission again. But no. You decided to argue with me about it in circles. After you recycled twice, I put you on ignore. The problem is, you flipped. You hated on the guy, ,didn't listen to him, trying to recuit people against him. Wanted him to quit posting in YOUR forum. But if you would have listenned to him, and listened to me, and not been so concerned with being the top dog, there wouldn't have been a problem. And here you are again, trying to be top-dog. It's not your card, your not the keeper of THE interpretation of it. It had significance for the OP. AND. If you opened your mind and read what I wrote. Your reaction is precisely what the card is against. Your interpretation of it, as bad and wrong? The card itself disagrees with you. That's the point. Hating on him, trying to recruit oothers to hate on him, then claiming to do stuff TO him spiritually without his consent is down-right evil. All for what? that's effed, nungali. the esoteric forum? wow, your priorities are iin my opinion the lowest of the low. someone needs help and you care about the "esoteric forum". No... you're doing it again. You're in denial mode. They saw the whole card and said: Wrong, see above. I listened to the what the OP saw in the card which they said was "pretty sick" which is a compliment. So putting a positive spin on it is listening to the person who chose it. You're doing it again. You're only seeing things in one way and claiming to the authority, when ... you're not. You do not get to choose what is and is not Kabbalah. You don't seem to know Kabbalah. You work with Qabbalah. That is the Crowley version. The Hermetic version. But people like to claim that word wiith the "K" because it has credibility attached to it. How do I know? Becaue of the pictures you've posted. They're wrong and scrambled. Gnosis = knowledge. And now you have confirmed you don't know Kabbalah because you cannot disstiguish between knowledge and understanding. And from our previous discussions you are locked into gnosis and haven't a clue about understanding at all. Sure you did. You said: "Maybe the first .... its the top of a tarot card .... but I would NOT be having that particular card tattooed on me !" Immediately after they said they liked it. And then you posted all of these lady-saints. Claiming they're Binah the gate of Birth and Death? Binah? Birth and Death? OoooooKay. ~eye-rolls~ Well, there it is... I mention understanding, and you're pointing to gnosis, instead of Binah, because somehow you think its a gate of birth and death, instead of... understanding. Here's some reading for those that are interested: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binah_(Kabbalah) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Priestess

You would need to go one step further back, which is the concept of "direct" contact. The point of bringing the disposal was not that it is iterally like that, but only to connect the this idea of "no direct contact" to a verse in scripture. And this verse was brought as part of a conversation that was bringing scripture from various sources. ... Interjecting into the conversation to argue that direct contact was possible similar to a transformer. I said that doesn't work, there is no contact and in fact there are two completely distinct and seperate circuits. And it's true. Bob was literally arguing about connecting two parallel lines. No, I'm not going to defer to that. What should have happened is Bob should have acknowledged that the transformer wasn't a good analogy for direct contact, or adjusted his own postion to match the transformer as an indirect connection. Or, there's a third option. Bob could have answered the question I asked: "why iis this idea of directly connecting to God is so important?" and then we could have a discussion of that outside of the analogy, or if it's important for him that I agree, we could work together on developing an analogy that fits. This question indicates you did not go back and read the the converstation I was having with the OP from the beginning. We were having a spinoff discussion, per their choice. It's their thread. And this is yet another good reason not to judge other's conversations without listening to what they've said from start to finish.

... and be careful not to feed it ...

Regarding 1-4, I am a highly analytical person. So, I would be looking att each of these as possibilities, then comparing them. From there I would be trying to to assign credibility to each of those individual narratives. If there is a splinter or a sliver of a specific concept, I would not elevate it beyond the other longer more substantial narratives. Regarding 5, I would look at each contradiction individually and rate them 1-5. I have actually started doing this a little bit. Many of the claimed contradictions, especially in the OT are simply a matter of critics and atheists playing silly games with the text in an effort to discredit it. I have only found 3 or 4 strong contradictions in the OT, and all of them can be explained without too much heart-burn. The gospels and the epistles are a different story. There are real contraditions there. We would need to make a list of them and decide what to do with them. I'm would need data to make any conclusions about them. Just speaking about them in general doesn't work for me. For me. If you have a conclusion you'd like to make in general, we can talk about it. All of that said, I'm not sure how any of this leads to a monist theology in the gospels. I already granted that maybe-maybe there is something special and different about Jesus' flesh. But that is not what's written in John 1. The only possiblity that I know of would be John 6, but that is certainly not literal.

I asked a simple question which no one is able to answer. Why should I defer to someone who is wrong, I've proven them wrong, but THEY won't let it go either. I wasn't talking to Bob. Bob interjected into my conversation and made a failed analogy. Then argued with me about it. Then became frustrated with how I was able to, so fully and effectively, demonstrate how absolutely correct I was. | | <----- these two lines are not touching. They are not making contact. If someone interrupts my conversation to say, "but they are in contact". And then they choose to die on that hill, hold their breath until they're turning blue, because they cannot admit their faults, that two parallel lines never ever cross and make contact. Then, no, I am not going to defer to them.

My and I.... ( it's not about you and yours... it's not your tattoo, and you did not choose the card ) In order to understand what I wrote, I recommend letting go of the fixation on correcting me. The difference between us seems to me I actually listen to the other person. I am not focusing on me and my. I do not use "gnosis". I listen and understand others from their point of view. Understanding is always above and beyond "gnosis". This is how I knew that our other friend did not want any exorcisms. But you decided to put on a little song and dance for him anyway. Never asking, not listening, showing off. Even though you had just a few days previously called him a Nazi and and insulted him. And you were encouraging me to join in on your hate fest. In this case I listened to what the OP found interesting and appealing about the art on the card. You decided to ignore what they said and corrected them. That's the wrong answer. You need to listen more. And this is a perfect match for what I said. What you're missing, and this is common for many who are locked into Qabbalah ( which is NOT Kabbalah ) they absolutely cannot see things from multiple perspectives. Their way is the only way. That card can have at least two meanings.

Love it. I met Matis a few times. Super nice guy.

@NaturaNaturans, Here's another great one, more light hearted. A Sunday Morning pick-me-up for lifting-the-spirit. Trey knows what to do. .. It's true

Believe it or not, there's a little telephone in the heart. The Father is always listening and supporting you. Figuring these things out is really hard. But having friends who have been through it makes it a little easier. Not easy, easier. You're still holding on? That's a very powerful idea. This is one of my favorite songs. Touches my soul.

I believe there is a Father, in case that is any comfort to you.

@NaturaNaturans, Please note: And then compare that to what I wrote: They agree, don't they? The blasted tower is falling? And this "false" self is falling? In an intense process? But the twin serpents declare, "that's not falling! It's that's called "being alive", and my eyes are wide open, that's not false!" You are the master of your domain, you get to choose whether "plummeting" faster and faster with "eyes-wide-open" speaks to your inner identity, whether it is inspiring and exciting for you. Or you can choose to avoid it, perhaps it's too intense, that's fine too. There is no wrong answer. But, the truth is, every beat of every human heart ( aminals too ), the electrical impulses which compel it to force the blood through the veins, is actually, in spirit, what is represented by, the twin-serpent, or as I called her, the "Queen of Opposition". But she is doing precisely what she was designed to do, she is conquering death with each and every pulse. When she is diverted, or corrupted, or isolated from the other moderating influences ( like I wrote about yesterday ) then, harm is likely to come from it. The problem with these oppositional archetypes, is that they have a natural inclination to isolate themselves, to breach borders and boundries, to free themselves. And if they accomplish that, then, there's problems. That's why people become strict about avoiding them, and demonizing them, but this too has problems. And there's a bizzare condition, a paradox where discouraging IS encouraging them. For you, someone who is awake, I think it's OK to be honest about these oppositional forces. They exist, they're everywhere. They have a function and a purpose and a design. And they can be a lot of fun, as long as they are understood and are not completely unbound.

You're there. Well done. God capital 'G' cannot be known ( gnosis ), but, it can be understood as unknowable, ineffable, and mysterious. It can be understood as simultaneously immanent and transcendant. It can be understood as the "source". Once this is readily, fully understood, and accepted as true, a connection can be made with it, but it is indirect. It's an "open-secret", one of my favorite sympathetic-paradoxes known commonly as "hiding in plain sight". The secret is in the "heart". ( in quotes because it is not literally the heart. ) It's theoretically possible to connect intellectually, again, indirectly, but the emotive path is easier ( not easy, easier ) and there's virtually infinite options. Edit to add after reading one of your other posts: One of those options that works for many is God-the-Father. The reason it's popular, is because it works, if it is approached from the heart, not the mind.

First, when you use the words "True Will", that is coming from a specific philosophy. That philosophy positions it, "True-Will" as cerebral, but that is incomplete. If one researches the details of the philosophy, its origin, history, and evolution through time, it's clear to those who know, it is lacking. Although the adherents to that philosophy never appreciate hearing it, and few admit it. In a lot of ways, it matches the identifier "broken lineage". But, it's not intentional. Those who engage in it have no clue, TBH, even though the information is there if they choose to explore it. That said: Please see my quote below: The qualifier that produces the psychopath behavior is at the begining. And it is a universal qualification. Those almost never occur in real life. They are the far extreme, but it's important to be aware of it. And if everything else is ignored, then, a person can (falsely) justify acting on their desires to do anything they want, to whomever they want, at any time. Many people love this idea. It makes them feel like a god. "will" is, naturally, one of the most powerful motivating forces in the human psyche. But it is not "who we truly are" in total. Well, excluding the rare extreme psychopath / sociopath. "will" is an archetype. Understanding it, like so much of human behavior can be accomplished by examining it in the extreme cases, then moderating it. The mechanism which produces the varying outcomes of these archetypes is most clearly evident in the extreme cases. For example, in my country, not naming names, if I want to analyze the archetype of the "corrrupt politician", my first stop is the most corrupt politican I can find. Then once I have deconstructed their behavior, the motivating factors for them, the causes and effects, then I can take that extreme example and look for those elements as they exist in the spectrum of what is considered "common". The reason this works is because a very effective model of understanding and predicting human behavior is by using "vessels". In the extreme cases, like the absolutley corrupt poitician, using this model, there will be a vessel or vessels which are completely full consistently. And at the same time, simultaneously, all the other vessels are completely empty. Consistently. People like this are extremely rare. However, in the right circumstances each and every human is capable of producing behavior which approaches, or mimics the extreme case. If we are all, kinda-sorta, composed of the same vessels, then we are all, kinda-sorta, capable of being completely full in certain key areas and completely empty in the all the others, briefly. In a moment, or two. Maybe for an hour. Maybe we get triggered. But there's a problem. As humans, we almost always get better at things, the more often we do them. The more often we approach these extremes, the easier and more likely they are to occur. Once these vessels are linked up with "profile" consisting of a few specific vessels which are full, while all the otthers are empty, guess what? I can look for phenomena, circumstances which encourage and "select-for" personality types strongly inclined in towards that profile. Now I have something really useful. I can predict the cricumstances that produce the "corrupt politician". I can prevent them proactively. And. I can also look at the currrent situation in America and understand why almost ALL our politicians are corrupt. Not all the time, and not to the same degree. But it's still highly useful "intel" as they say. And all of that comes from this method of being aware of the extreme, analyzing it fully. Then balancing that against a spectrum of possible combinations. It's predictive, proactive, and can be preventive if applied towards morals ethics and all manner of decision making. I'll give a personal example: For me. Personally. In a leadership postion I fail. Everytime. I do OK in small groups if needed. One-to-one, I'm an excellent tutor or advisor. I'm also an excellent worker-bee, or a lone wolf. But put me in a leadership role over a group? Lets put it this way, I've never been successful. Sadly my own blindspot, my own affection for myself prohibits an objective assessment of what precisely is going on there. Even if I was extremely humble, I would not be able to self-assess in neutrality. But I'm confident there's something inside me that's full and all the others which normmally moderate it are completely empty in those leadership rolees, in that time-space-circumstances. Here's a picture of "will" gone wrong. But this is not actually just "will", it's both the inner and outer dimensions of "will" which have become corrupted and encouraged to ignore anything else. Specifically, "wisdom" and "understanding" ( two other archetypes of cognitive function ) are being completely flushed into oblivion. They are empty. There's others, but those two if, "wisdom" and "understanding" were not empty and were blending with "will", moderating it, then a lot of harm could have beeen prevented. In this case, by my judgement, "Will" and "Glory", those two are full. Everything else was empty. In the philosophy which uses the term True-Will, I think they use a different word "victory" instead of glory. "Glory" is a much better word in english once it is understood.

Sure, that sounds good to me too.

"will" is the outer dimension of a specific cognitive function. It's name is "rahtzohn". It is the outer dimension of "Keser/Keter" which means "crown". I propose it is part of the whole in spite of its popularity and the misconception that it is supreme and nothing else matters. The reason it is idealized and idolized is because it is simple. Just like a light switch, it is on or off. Just like a crown, it is on or off. And if everything else is ignored, then, a person can (falsely) justify acting on their desires to do anything they want, to whomever they want, at any time. Many people love this idea. It makes them feel like a god. "will" is, naturally, one of the most powerful motivating forces in the human psyche. But it is not "who we truly are" in total. Well, excluding the rare extreme psychopath / sociopath.

.

This is not directed to me, but, your I think you should follow your intuition to determine its meaning ( and be skeptical of those who attempt to convince you a specific glyph is wrong for you. ). And. Since you really liked it, and, you have shared what it means to you, now I can use this to suggest a tattoo for you. Let's see how I do. A combo of the three designs below. The first is primary and empahisized. The twin serpents would be in the foreground, but with the geometric elements included / nuanced / suggested in the background, because, there are geometric elements in the art on the card. And the last detail is in the third picture; I'm envisioning the serpents striking up at the geometric designs which represent order being established by the status-quo. I think the serpents and the flowers, bring the feminine natural elements. But are also mythic and will fit well into the whole collection you described, but, there's also elements of geometry and the oppostional spirit which I'm picking up as accents from the card which you were naturally drawn to and the impression it made. Twins are very "beezelbub", because the traditional conventional abrahamic creator god claims to be "the-one-and-only". Also if the serpents are reaching up and striking into the "light", that is very "beezIebub". At the top of the ( technically the bottom ) of the klipoth ( inverted sephirotic tree ) are the twin serpents. However, it could be that you already have the serpent motif included in one or more of your current collection? Hopefully this is not a repeat of an idea you already had. Here is a link to what I consider an excellent write-up on the symbolism and opportunty that is included in this archetype. - LINK However, it is not 100% correct. It is lacking some details. That's almost always the case for these subjects. But enough of it is correct that I think it has a lot of value. The most important detail to get correct are their names. The article gets this wrong. Their name is נוֹפֵל וּ גְלוּי-עֵינָיִם ( "Nohfail and G'loohyeh-AiNahyim" ). I tried to indicate the accents properly. Oh, Ooh, and Ah are accented. The "yeh" at the end of the G'loohyeh is diminshed and brief. There is a "y" consonant ending on the word. "yeh". The pronounciation is given simply to be complete. But the Abermelin clearly states, and it's well known in my community, that it's far more important to know and understand the meaning and spirit behind these words, or any words and symbols for that matter. It's much better to go ahead and use the native language rather than employ some other if it is being misunderstood. Nohfail and G'loohyeh-Ainahyim means "falling-down and eyes-open" Technically, their names are joined in a disjunctive "but". Which is beautiful in itself. They are locked in their own paradox, doing what is almost impossible to do. Falling-down, but eyes are open. The twin serpents declare: "The rest of the world says, ascend? Nope. I'm falling down, and I'm going to watch every last second of it as I plummet faster and faster and faster towards what all of you consider certain death. But to me, that is called "being alive". And I think that has profound meaning when considering the archetype in total. It is the Queen of the opposition. Falling-down-but-eyes-wide-open. The flowers bring the feminine element, naturally, but your artist can customize it. Based on the other nature scene you posted, the female figure is strong, knowing, but not over confident. ( It's in the eyes ). Perhaps ivy? Or some lovely wiggly branches. But the serpents are the foreground, rising up to strike at the glowing ( will you be coloring the design? ) geometric symbols in the background, which represent opposition to the the order and status quo hovering aloof and uninvolved. Those are my suggestions. I hope it helps, and if not, I hope this was a fun read none the less.

I very much appreciate what you wrote here. It is absolutely true. And. It is vitally important. Some things are worth fighting for. Most consider fighting for those who cannot defend themselves against the tryannt who rapes, muders and steals to be justified. But. It is also justified to fight for those who will not fight to defend themselves. Why? Why is it justified to fight for those who will not fight? Aren't they choosing to to take a stand against violence of any sort? Don't they have a right to choose to die for this noble pursuit? The reason is: These extreme pacifists are precious souls; vessels of a unique wisdom which can only be attained via their extreme pacifism. Recognizing their value, and the mechanism that produces it, comes from a complete understanding which includes the "ego", so-called lower self, and does not abandon it. While, simultaneously, recognizing that there is tremendous value in the denial of the "ego" by those extreme pacifists, the precious souls that need to be protected. This is not an easy concept for some. For some it comes easily. I hope that I'm being clear. Both ideals, the unitary perspective, and the dual ( mutiplicity ) perspective need to be held in the mind simultaneously. This is a complete understanding. And yes, it is inherently dual. For some, it is discord, a source of cognitive dissonance, for me, it feels perfectly natural. It's like music. Harmony. Chocolate and Peanut Butter. It's a partnership. The two are opposing ideals, but they need each other to survive. This sympathetic relationship is reflected everywhere in the natural world and in science. So. The extreme pacifist absolutely needs it's partner, a guardian, which is quite literally watching its back, and perhaps, will trade its life for their's. At the very least, the minimum required is to have a "spotter" on duty so that while the pacifist is in their "trance", they can be aroused from their oblivion ( the unitary perception ) in order to flee to safety, assuming safety exists. These "spotters" are the ones who can see and appreciate the dual perspecitive both in general and in particular. Zooming out, and zooming in. Above, below, left, right, inner, and outer. They can see the extreme pacifist as an individual, even though the enlightened, precious soul will deny it. These "spotters" value them as individuals. This is natural for them. Just as it is natural for the enlightened masters to deny it to the point of discouraging the "spotters" from doing what needs to be done, which, in this case, is dual-perception. The enlightened discourage this dual perception, and train people in methods to escape it forevver, even though this dual perception is actively protecting them. But their denial is for the good, because it is a vehicle for vast amounts of valuble wisdom... As long as it (the denial) is protected by those who do not, and will not, ever deny it, to the point of sacrificing their lives. This sacrifice is what happens when a soul knowingly maintains the dual perspective, agreed? It just depends on what it means to be "alive". And that determines whether it is a sacrifice or reward. Both are valuable, both are necessary. Neither should be neglected. This is complete understanding.

You rang? I see this is from many months ago, do you still have questions? I'll give the briefest of brief over-view: Judaism: You. yes you. human. you are not a god, you are not perfect. None of those other gods are god either. God is a mystery, and life is complicated, get used to it. We're all in this together, let's make the best of it. Questions will be accepted after a snack. Pass the rugelach, please. ~yummy~ Christianity: Love conquers all, don't make things too complicated. God and salvation are much-much closer than you think. Isalm : How could you say that God is close? God is far far beyond any of us. But I agree religion shouldn't be so complicated. Follow the law, stand by your commitments! That's basically it. Breaking a commitment to god and others is one of the worst of the worst sins. Yes, there's a time to fight some people. They're just plain wrong, especially when they break their contracts. Arrrgh. No good. And if they are aggressors, fight, fight, fight.. But when they cease, cease. No exceptions. And at the end of the day, some people are never going to figure things out. As long as they are not aggressors, don't fight them. If they are unbelievers and sinners, leave that to god. god is the very best of everything....

I agree with what you're saying 100%. It's difficult on so many levels understanding and if needed diagnosing these phenomena. And those tasked with doing the work of triage and diagnosis are people too. I have, what I consider a beautiful academic write-up from a credentialed PHD which describes the absolute necessity of the provider to, how can I say this, empty themself of any and all preconcieved biases and assumptions prior to attempting anything theraputic. That includes diagnosis. The one seeking help has a context, the one who is sought out for that help also has a context. The burden is on the provider to do the hard work of dropping their's and meeting their client on the client's level, in client's world, where the client is, without any interference or judgement. But, that's an ideal, and from what I have been told it is almost never happens that way. And if that context ( which includes cultral background, but is certainly not limited to it ) is highly divergent from the providers, the likeliyhood of misdiagnosis is greatly increased. And then there's the limitations placed on providers by american insurance companies... oh-dear... The one seeking help ends up being responsible for "being in the driver's seat on the road to recovery" when they are in the worst possible position to do so.

Pardon me. I did not make up my own defintion. The dictionary does not fully describe concepts. I appreciate your reliance on them, and I also acknowledge their limitations. This seems to be a disagreement we have had in the past regarding the over-reliance on a specific dicctionary as opposed to considereing an encyclopedia entry. I think, with the highest respect, that we can have a differing opinion about how to choose the meaning of certain words. But if the meaning I am choosing is coming from an encylopedia, that is not making up my own defintion. And, conversely, if you are choosing to define a word with a specific dictionary defintion, that does not mean you are ignoring the encyclopedia... until ... the dictionary is lifted up as the one and only truth and the encyclopedia, which is by definition more complete, is actually being ignored.

It wasn't a personal attack. It was poor judgement. I decided that my reply would be better made in private, and that's what I did. You didn't see what I wrote. I editted it immediately after posting it 14 hours ago, you responded 3 hours ago. These time stamps, pictures below, confirm you didn't see what I what I wrote. I promise it was not a personal attack. Even if it was, the fact that I recongized my fault, took action, and publicly admitted it, shows my character. Speaking of character, were you intentionally being deceptive? Making it seem as if you had read the contents?

{ . deleted . poor judgement on my part }

Oh boy, that's a big subject.... Generally speaking for me, doing bad has a real negative effect on me, and I see that it has a real negative effect on others. Doing bad makes a person insensitive, for lack of better terms. And then they need to keep doing bad things, worse and worse actually, in order to experience pleasure. On the other hand doing good makes a person more sensitive, and they recieve joy from simple things, simple pleasures and the pleasure is longer lasting. Eventually they are naturally happy with very little needs at all. Also, there is also a sort of cosmic justice system, but, it is not a one-to-one relationship between doing good and receiving reward or doing bad and being punished. But it supplements the sensitivity/insensitivity which is produced by doing good and/or evil. Ultimately I think the best results come from being harmony with one's surroundings and being compassionate. This harmony is often demonstrated by nature, so, as people grow older, they naturally develop intuition and insight into this. But, there are rare exceptions to following the example of "nature" as an ideal. Humans are animals, but also more than animals. That's what I think about doing good vs. doing evil.

This thread was started by someone who is troubled by their "visions" what ever they may be. I'm not sure where you are, but here in America any psychiatric diagnosis requires a negative impact on the the individual's life or the lives of those around them. In western medicine, perscription medication has come a long way as a tool for helping people distinguish between the false perceptions that their brain is creating and objective real world phenomena, but, it is a tool, part of a battery of interventions to help troubled people. I like to consider them as making space where the root causes can be untangled, if they are not purely chemical imbalances. And sometimes the medication can be tampered and eliminated once adaqute therapy has been recieved by a patient is open to it. Being open to it is key. Just getting someone who is hallucinating to trust the Dr. and take their meds regularly can be a very serious roadblock. However, there are people who have treatment resistent hallucinations and delusions. And that takes professional care, exorcisms from western magicians, do not have good track records for accomplishing any kind of long term recovery, but they do make the exorcist in "western occult magic" feel good, being needed and getting return customers. And they can tell stories about their successes, which are never verifiable. And if it doesn't work, they can always blame the victim. It's all a charade in the western "magical" world. Psycho-drama.