Apotheose

..

Hello there! I am a seeker of the Truth and a student of the Mysteries. All I can say is ‘all I know is that I know nothing’! And I say that with a joyful smile on my face! So I look forward to having interesting discussions in this forum and I hope I can learn from other members. Since I consider Life as the biggest Blessing, I couldn’t be more greatful for being able to share opinions with people who take part in the Great Work. Also, I would like to ask a question about a specific matter. Recently I met an individual who - during a conversation - told me one very profound concept that I had never heard of. It was a very logical analogy between the Fall of man and infancy/adolescence/full age. Keeping track of Macrocosmus/Microcosmus concept (“as above so below”), he presented the idea that: as there is a Fall of man in the “ethereal” realm, the same Fall occurs as life stages pass. The child is born pure and in very close contact with the Divine Essence. Childhood is (idealy) colorful and joyful, and is lived by the heart; there is little to no comparison between children as there is no Ego yet. Then, adolescense comes and the individual starts to aprehend social norms and patterns of what is “good” and “bad”. Finally, in the adulthood the Ego is fixed over the Heart; thus, the Ego hardens and it becomes difficult to take off the veils of sociality and consequently free the Inner Divinity. This would be the biggest Fall of man. And the solution would be to re-establish the connection (Christ etc.) between man and the Divine to be able to take off the veils of ignorance one by one. The analogy empathizes three stages: Enlightenment (infancy); Fall (adolescense / adulthood); and Enlightenment again (virtually). Just as it may happen in the Macrocosmus. Have you ever heard of this particular analogy? What do you think of it, and why? Would you consider succumbing to “sociality” as the best Fall of man’s correspondent in the Microcosmus? Cheers!

,

Very interesting. Off topic, but this reminds me of ancient theurgy, which was performed by neoplatonists. Which today many call high magic. Passive meditation to contemplate; active meditation to create. I remember reading something from Iamblichus that was akin to “the art of active contemplation”.

Genius I like him already

Wow. No words can describe how much that makes sense to me. I’ve also experienced failure in meditation many times when I just wanted to relieve stress. In my experience, aggression —as a biproduct of stress and confusion— should be gradually dissolved not by sitting meditation but by other activities.

Very cool topic, Apech. I see it in two ways. The 1st could be the misinterpretation of what meditation is. There is a narrative which popularized some decades ago that meditating is sitting and managing to just not think at all. Well, that would be almost impossible. Meditating is actually achieving a higher state of consciousness which transcends the duality of thinking and not thinking. So, one who tries to sit and not think will of course be frustrated and maybe angry, since the very desire to not think will lead to thinking about not thinking. The 2nd possible explanation —in my perspective— could be the process of undoing the mind’s knots. The art of knowing oneself via meditation will inevitably lead to this gradual process of “untying the knots” of what was learnt since the development of the ego —in the early childhood. Some knots are dissolved unconsciously and others consciously. The latter phenomena can be challenging, and thus can lead to discomfort and periods of “internal probation” that can include aggression. This aggression can be a mere symptom of this process, or it can be the very knot per se.

Thanks for sharing that, Siker. And, again, I wish you a very successful path. I agree with Nungali. Since you’ve just returned home from such a harsh activity like fighting for your country, it may be a better idea to let Time settle things down for now. And, as SnowyMountains mentioned, therapy would be highly recommended and a great start. In the future, if this desire sustains and you decide to begin the spiritual path, it would be great to have a “reference-person” to freely talk about the occult… a friend or a relative who is experienced in it. Mysticism — per se — is very safe, but you should always have someone around who you trust and that can clarify your doubts. Walking the spiritual path completely alone would not be a good idea.

I think this thread will be fun Which user(s) of ‘The Dao Bums’ Forum is/are/was/were the most sensible, reasonable, clear-sighted and wise, in your opinion? I’ve been around for one month as an user — and before creating an account I had been reading content from the forum for another one month. During these two months I’ve read quite a lot of new and old threads… Personally, the users who made me the most impressed and thrilled by their inspiration with words and wisdom are @Small Fur and @manitou

What is your interpretation of John 3:3? John 3:3 - “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” Is “birth” here metaphorical or literal?

,,

Incredible.

That’s a great insight. I view it differently. Personally, i see two possible meanings of it. One of them being akin to Blue Eyed Snake’s view of it. In much of the Bible, especially in the Gospel of John, I see verses which can be viewed both from a purely-religious and a mystical point of view. In order to be didactic, let’s put (i) the purely-religious view as something which corroborates the idea of a more ‘Separated’ relationship between the Creator and the Creature; and (ii) the mystical as a point of view which corroborates the more ‘United’ view of it (macro/microcosmus) (“as above, so below”). Dissecting John 3:8 would lead, in my perspective, to both views. So: John 3:8 - “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” First I’ll explain the purely-religious possible meaning: a- [The wind blows wherever it pleases] - meaning that wind is free. It can go all directions. b- [You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going] - meaning you can hear the wind, but cannot know its path. c- [So it is with everyone born of the Spirit] - meaning that, the same way we cannot understand the wind - but only hear it -, we cannot either understand the Rebirth. It’s miraculous and fabricated by the Spirit, not something plausible for human understanding. Our senses are limited to perceiving the wind the same way they are limited to perceiving the Spirit. Now the mystical possible meaning: (since ‘wind’ and ‘Spirit’ mean the same in hebrew, I prefer to only use the term ‘Spirit’ for better understanding) So, “The Spirit blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” a- [The Spirit blows wherever it pleases] - meaning that It is ultimately free. The Spirit has Free Will. b- [You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going] - meaning you can “hear” his Works, but not understand how He does it. You can see the results, not the causes. He cannot be understood by man. c- [So it is with everyone born of Spirit] - well, now I see a different meaning… Let’s consider the Son not only as Jesus, but every Redeemed man, for better understanding. So, it can possibly mean that the Redeemed/Reborn is as unintelligible as the Spirit in the perspective of ignorant men. He - the Son/the Redeemed -, as well as the Spirit, has (a) Free Will and (b) cannot be rationally understood by common man, meaning that men can see his works in the world but cannot know how he does it. Since he’s been reborn, he “lives in Christ”. He has ways of perceiving reality and acting in the world that the “blind” cannot comprehend.

Mirror mirror, what should be my next step? I want to be a wise man! “Listen, do not overstep… A wise man you can become, But first you need to be a Bum”

Just to correct myself… I don’t think I made my point of view clear: I don’t think that, in John 3:5, Jesus refers exactly to the baptism ritual. That wouldn’t make sense in the context. But, rather, I meant he was referring to the generic internal process which is symbolized by the mikvah/baptism: water + Spirit (fire).

Thank you very much for that, Daniel!

Perfect!!!

good one! Don’t worry, I have faith in people! I’ve never participated in any forum apart from this. And I decided to join because I was surprised about how people are thoughtful here. It really fascinates me.

Thank you! It was more of a rhetorical question. In my view it is purely metaphorical. In 3:5 Jesus says “born of water and the Spirit”, referring to the baptism. I am familiar to the idea that - in the baptism - one is ‘renovated’ by the Spirit. It indeed symbolizes a resurrection. That’s the esoteric meaning of INRI, which was put above Jesus’ head in the crucifixion. But most rituals - although alchemical - are just symbolic. In my view, one is not ACTUALLY resurrected by the Spirit’s Fire in the baptism. Baptism would be a ritual to symbolize that process of internal purification and ultimate Illumination. In John 3:3, I interpreted it as though Jesus is talking about the actual Redemption, instead of its symbolic meaning in the baptism ritual (John 3:5).

It seems so, my friend… but I definitely don’t want to be rude to others here. We all should cultivate Love, all the time. I’d say the biggest red flags that a supposed ‘mystic’ can carry are pride and lack of tolerance. They are - per se - an indicative of disturbance, which means we must be very cautious and suspect their credentials. There’s no such thing as a need to talk about “deep” instead of “shallow” things. I’d expect to hear that from a person who is faking a ‘sage persona’ in this website, honestly. In the end of the day, it’s not the depth that matters. I recognize that the Saints of the Catholic Church did have success in their path, although I find Catholicism quite shallow. The path does not matter more than the results. So, ultimately, you could be more correct than me to say that everything from mysticism is in the mind, and I’d definitely be happy to discover that experimentally, as I’m not attached to ‘paths’, but only to the Truth. That’s why I think every opinion is valid. And since everyone is at different levels of perception, it is quite obvious that the opinions on this website are going to be dissonant.

“Real iPhone” cannot be talked about. It transcends human mind and language. It’s pointless to discuss. Let the people talk about whatever they want. Tolerance is the minimum.

Well, this is a forum about spirituality, right? There are many levels of spirituality, not only the level you are currently in. If you are not tolerant with others, you’ll certainly lose your patience in this forum. People are free to discuss whatever that is in their ‘perception reach’, and also to be skeptical about mysticism. A “mystic” who even tries to convince others of what he has seen in his path is not a real mystic, but a deluded person. And his credentials must be doubted, in my opinion.

Oh okay, I thought you believed. I assumed it wrongly then. You refer to “magical” as ‘metaphysical’, right? I’m asking this because I’m afraid our conceptions of magic are distinct. Magic is not Mysticism per se, it’s just a chunk of it. I agree with you in some points. There are some things about mysticism that can indeed be mastered by a cultured psychotherapist, mainly those which cover the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious. Because in the end of the day, it’s not the ‘means’ that matter, it’s the result. It doesn’t matter if its comprehended via mystical or psychological studies; the ‘path’ is not always what determines the result. So, if you don’t believe in mysticism, I assume you don’t believe in a God/Creator as well, or do you? Also, if someone happen to tell you something about Siddhis, like telekinesis… you wouldn’t believe that at all, right? Finally, do you think consciousness have been submitted to Evolution (Darwin) throughout the years?

Mysticism means the study of the Mysteries. In Ancient times, “mystery” was a term which referred to something akin to “sacred knowledge which is obtainable directly from the Source”. It does not mean mysterious, puzzling, or obscure. So, mixing Psychology with Mysticism can make sense until a superficial level. After that, it becomes a wild-goose chase, honestly. One who is initiated knows both are not dissonant, since science is the study of nature which has its origins in the Oneness. But mysticism cannot be approached in its entirety by psychology language and concepts, it gets tautological. Scientific Method can’t get that deep, even the unorthodox ones. Yes, Akashic Records can be accessed with methods, and it is definitely not a “new age” thing and does not have any correlation with “new age” pseudo-mysticism like “the law of attraction” and repeating shallow affirmations. I wouldn’t categorize it as collective consciousness either… Trying to apply concepts from psychology on it, again, does not work above superficiality. Only experience will tell you what the Akashic Records truly are - without the limits of Language.

All discord leads to karma, and the worst part of it is guilt. When you are at the peak of egoistic feelings, you get blind to Love. Being blind, you can’t see that other people’s opinions are as legitimate and sincere as yours, and that they wish achieving success in the mystical path just like you do. All people are doing their best; no one wants the worst for themselves. The best thing is to retire and give it a break. Soon you’ll notice there’s no need for all that disagreement.