God is not love

[心神 ~]

1 minute ago, Cobie said:

I really don’t think I am superior to animals.

 

I wasn't suggesting you do. I think we are animals, really. We're not superior to other animals, especially physically. But many believe that we are. We simply have a quality that other animals lack, and they have qualities that maybe we share, but we are deficient in.

 

[old3bob]

14 hours ago, Cobie said:

 After which, fed up with being lectured, surely she divorced him. 

 

On a serious note divorce in Hinduism is something that is not supposed to happen.  I'd say that any of us who are "Westerners" can hardly adapt to an ancient tradition of no divorces and many of its other religious/cultural norms, but now adays and for awhile there has been Hindu civil laws which in certain cases allow for divorce.

 

"Vedas and other Dharmic texts do not allow divorce. They strongly oppose it. Hindu marriage is a sacred, unbreakable and never-ending relationship. The relationship does not break even after death.

In order to make marriage an unbreakable and stable relationship, fire is lit at the time of विवाह संस्कार. The bride and groom take a vow of devotion towards each other and society by witnessing the fire while orbiting it.

It is an old practice in the Hindu society that two persons or two parties who make a vow in front of Agni cannot be dissolved. Witnessing Agni (Fire) is often misinterpreted and is called अग्नि worship.

The real purpose of the presence of Agni is to show that the vows are taken with the help of Agni. Agni makes the impact of various substances. New material is contained in the new impact and cannot be easily converted back to their original elements,

because Agni has held them in firm bonds. The विवाद संस्कार performed before the अग्नि is a sign of अकाट्यता (Invulnerability) and prohibition of divorce.

This will be clear from some mantras of the Atharvaveda..."

[Cobie]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

... I'd say that any of us who are "Westerners" can hardly adapt to an ancient tradition of no divorces ..

 

Not all "Westerners".  I'm RC, I still don't believe in divorce.

 

 

Edited Friday at 02:26 PM by Cobie

[dwai]

18 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 mansplaining  

 

 

anachronism  

[dwai]

17 hours ago, 心神 ~ said:

 

The Buddha's teachings are similarly so. I believe it was a helpful technique for oral transmission. Honestly, when I read the Suttas, I do mentally skip forward through repetitive bits. I understand why teachings developed in that way, though I don't know that it's exactly the same for the Upanishads.

 

The upanishads were transmitted in verse not prose. All the ancient teachings were transmitted that way - having a specific meter, intonation, etc. Why? Song-format is easier to memorize than prose. 

[Cobie]

 

6 minutes ago, dwai said:

anachronism 

 

Time will tell.

 

 

Edited Friday at 04:36 PM by Cobie

[Cobie]

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

... having a specific meter, intonation, etc. ...

 

The DDJ too was wiritten that way.  This is very clear in the oldest available version. In the later versions less so,  as they made changes to the text. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 04:41 PM by Cobie

[dwai]

3 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

 

Time will tell.

Actually, it won't

It is a logical fallacy to apply modern/current social norms on historical events. 

 

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

Not all "Westerners".  I'm RC, I still don't believe in divorce.

 

 

 

righto, I'll change that any to a many.

[Cobie]

I don’t understand what this means:

 

“It is not for the sake of   the husband [etc.] my dear,   that   he is        loved,   but for one’s own sake   that he is        loved. “

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:58 PM by Cobie

[Nungali]

On 1/17/2025 at 11:26 AM, 心神 ~ said:

 

Keep in mind, I'm only relaying information I've read. I recently read the Gospel of Judas which led me to looking into additional Gnostic teachings.

 

I've been reading through this lecture archive: https://glorian.org/learn/courses-and-lectures/lecture-archive

 

I especially enjoyed this one about the ego and the animal nature, and this one about meditation.

 

The three brains refers to the mind, the emotion, and the genitalia. Other animals only operate with the emotional brain and the sexual brain, whereas we have both of those in addition to the intellectual brain. 

 

Within Buddhism, though there is suffering in the human realm, it is a preferable birth to the hell, animal, and even deva realms. Animals cannot contemplate their nature, and while Devas likely can, they are in a much more comfortable realm that makes it easy to be unconcerned with escaping samsara.

 

So our intellectual brain makes us "superior" to animals, but it is also a place from which our ego expresses itself. Lust of the mind, if you will. So it is a tool that helps us, but also hinders us.

 

 

As an anthropologist , I must protest ! 

 

How can you be sure   animals can not contemplate their nature ? I put it in the basket with other supposed differences  like ;

they do not have a soul , they do not 'self - aware ' , etc . WE cannot be sure . I am more interested in those observable differences we can be sure off, therein lies the differences   - and that has been a many years long journey , even things I was taught at Uni are now defunct and as time goes on, we think we have defined that difference  (like only man makes tools  ) only to find out later that is not so .

I do believe I have found that difference though .  And it is a difference  , not a 'superiority ' .

 

I like your point about many 'brains' though .   Exo-psychology has a good model IMO  ; we have 8 'mini-brains' .   And each is a stage of the development in the individual and is also mirrored in the stages of overall human development , also each is  activated by certain drugs , experiences and states of mind (meditations ) .  There is also a therapy based on this model as well ; you have a developmental problem in one area , it may manifest also as a specific drug type problem in that area .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-circuit_model_of_consciousness

[Nungali]

On 1/17/2025 at 11:31 AM, 心神 ~ said:

 

Yes, I think that is what I'm understanding from Gnostic thought, although the lectures I've been reading incorporate similar teachings of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. So I'm not promoting anything as superior, just sharing. 

 

 

But what sort of Gnosticism  ? Black or white ?  

 

( Black 'denies' existence ; life and the body is bad and sinful , best spend your time getting back to the pure state we came from . That leads to all sorts of things , like sex is bad as it continues procreation, incarnation and more suffering .

 

The white school affirms life and sees joy as the natural state , or should be ; we chose incarnation for the experience , we should experience it to the full , all its ups and downs , thats why we chose to come here in the first place .  There are also other varieties ; yellow school , red school  , etc . a bit like types of 'Yoga' , or different 'spiritual philosophies ' . I ascribe to the white school , with a yellow application and a red method     -   you can interpret the yellow and red as types of  Daoism and Tantra .

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

Not all "Westerners".  I'm RC, I still don't believe in divorce.

 

 

 

Well .... dont get married then !  

 

( You might have to start another  type of Christianity     )

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Cobie said:

I don’t understand what this means:

 

“It is not for the sake of   the husband [etc.] my dear,   that   he is        loved,   but for one’s own sake   that he is        loved. “

 

 

 

Well, if you dont love him  ..... you will have to 'put up with him'      

 

You know how it goes  ..... in love ? Nothing he can do is wrong .

 

Weeks later?  He is squeezing the toothpaste from the wrong end  of the tube , leaving the toilet seat up    and  has 'developed ' some sort of weird smell .  

[心神 ~]

42 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

As an anthropologist , I must protest ! 

 

How can you be sure   animals can not contemplate their nature ? I put it in the basket with other supposed differences  like ;

they do not have a soul , they do not 'self - aware ' , etc . WE cannot be sure . I am more interested in those observable differences we can be sure off, therein lies the differences   - and that has been a many years long journey , even things I was taught at Uni are now defunct and as time goes on, we think we have defined that difference  (like only man makes tools  ) only to find out later that is not so .

I do believe I have found that difference though .  And it is a difference  , not a 'superiority ' .

 

I like your point about many 'brains' though .   Exo-psychology has a good model IMO  ; we have 8 'mini-brains' .   And each is a stage of the development in the individual and is also mirrored in the stages of overall human development , also each is  activated by certain drugs , experiences and states of mind (meditations ) .  There is also a therapy based on this model as well ; you have a developmental problem in one area , it may manifest also as a specific drug type problem in that area .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-circuit_model_of_consciousness

 

Protest away! Personally, I am not sure of anything. Just sharing a strand of thought I have recently been introduced to.

 

I also don't believe we are "superior," which is why I included quotations originally, though I think advantage is a better word. The point is that, according to the Buddha (no text at hand, will try to figure out where I read it) we are uniquely advantaged in comparison to animals AND devas (and the devas are not typically considered devoid of intellect). Both exist in conditions that obstruct the ability to reflect on the nature of self, which many teachings indicate is the only means of escaping the cycle of Samara. And whatever advantage we have, we are still less than human until we undergo deep transformation (according to Gnostic thought, as well as in other traditions).

 

I don't know the difference between Black and White Gnosticism, but the cosmology suggests that we are creations of the Demiurge, an imperfect creation of Sophia, herself a lower emanation of the Monad, the Mother-Father Godhead. That were are divine sparks imprisoned in matter and our true home is in the Plemora, far beyond the physical realm.

 

I'm not sure how someone who believes in the cosmology reconciles the origins of the teachings with a positive view of physical life and incarnation, but I'd be interested to learn more in that regard.

 

[Peaceful Hulk]

On 1/14/2025 at 5:34 AM, Cadcam said:

Though it is a nice idea, and I'm sure God appreciates our love, I don't believe that God must love each of us individually as is often suggested by Christianity. 

 

God gave us free will to choose to love, and loving everyone unconditionally leads to problems.

 

No, people have to earn love.  

 

God too, has the free will to choose who to love, and can you imagine, with the billions of people born throughout history, and all their virtues, deeds, and talents; how hard it would be to attract God's attention and earn God's love?

 

 

 

Wrong on several fronts. You have to realize that Christians see God the same way Daoists see the Dao. God is way too powerful and infinite to not be able to freely give lots of love to all of humanity throughout all history.

 

You are thinking of God here as if he is a powerful human demi-god leader relying on human-made technology to rule over people. No my friend. No.

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, 心神 ~ said:

 

Protest away! Personally, I am not sure of anything. Just sharing a strand of thought I have recently been introduced to.

 

I also don't believe we are "superior," which is why I included quotations originally, though I think advantage is a better word. The point is that, according to the Buddha (no text at hand, will try to figure out where I read it) we are uniquely advantaged in comparison to animals AND devas (and the devas are not typically considered devoid of intellect). Both exist in conditions that obstruct the ability to reflect on the nature of self, which many teachings indicate is the only means of escaping the cycle of Samara. And whatever advantage we have, we are still less than human until we undergo deep transformation (according to Gnostic thought, as well as in other traditions).

 

I don't know the difference between Black and White Gnosticism, but the cosmology suggests that we are creations of the Demiurge, an imperfect creation of Sophia, herself a lower emanation of the Monad, the Mother-Father Godhead. That were are divine sparks imprisoned in matter and our true home is in the Plemora, far beyond the physical realm.

 

That is the 'black school ' .

 

I'm not sure how someone who believes in the cosmology reconciles the origins of the teachings with a positive view of physical life and incarnation, but I'd be interested to learn more in that regard.

 

That depends on  what 'the cosmology' means .   if it is biased towards the black school or not .  For example, your use of the word 'imprisoned' ... if that is part of the cosmology , no , white school will not fit into at all .

 

Change 'imprisoned ' into   incarnation  ... the usual word  without the negative implication .   get my drift ? 

 

One can say , we 'fell' from heaven , got 'imprisoned' in various spheres  ( the planetary energies, basically ) and picked up a whole load of sinful shit as we 'descended ' here .   Our job is to fight against unclean and foul nature  and rise up through those imprisoning spheres  to get back to the glorious Plemora .   Its Christian  Gnosticism ... and if you insist on being a and staying a Christian , well, you are kind of stuck with that version of gnosticism .

 

OR ,   we can say  (  or at least   I can say    )   I decided to incarnate again to experience it  ( which is what its all about anyway  which is WHY the 0 became 1, 2 .3 - many )  as I traveled through the planetary spheres I picked up their qualities  but also their challenges , this partly outlined the work of my incarnation .  I  went through all that and made my spirit more learned , more balanced , more experienced more ... etc .  Then I die and return and download  the experience I invoked in the first place .

 

Its not about not accepting the  'design' its about  a view point and opinion .

 

Dont forget that although Christians  claimed gnosticism , that was from a period when Christianity was very Neo-Platonic .  The origins of the system well date Christianity .

 

Also we have the issue of definition ; Gnosticism as a Christian movement  and  Gnostic  or 'gnosis '  as a process  ; 

 

gnosis /nō′sĭs/

 

noun

1. Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics.
2. The deeper wisdom; knowledge of spiritual truth, such as was claimed by the Gnostics.
3. An immanent form of knowledge or transcendent insight, such as sought by the Gnostics.

That is , they didnt have a monopoly on the verb , just the noun . 

 

" The origin of Gnostic thought and its evolution is a controversial topic. By critically examining Gnostic sects and analyzing the opinions of experts, this article will answer the following questions: What are the components of Gnostic thought? What are the sources of Gnostic thought? Were there any sects known as Gnostics before Christ? This research shows that most of our knowledge of Gnosticism is based on controversial Christian works and the Qumran manuscripts. According to these works, no group or sect was called Gnostic before Christ. Although some of the components of Gnostic thought, such as the originality of knowledge and the exile of the soul, date back to the pre-Christ era, and especially to Plato, some other components, such as the distinction between the Christian and Jewish gods, belief in the multiplicity of the eternal Christ, the primacy of knowledge over faith, are products of the period of the formation of Gnostic sects and their conflict with the Church Fathers in the first centuries of the common era."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351283327_Gnosticism_from_Thought_to_Religion

Basically , the gnostic position is one of 'doing it yourself without the need of a Priest as mediator  between you and divine '.

 

of course, depending on your outlook  ( your conditioning, basically ; where you bought up Christian and instilled with that , or in some other group or tribe that has noting to do with those precepts ?)   the above relationship will be different , but basically its that relationship, without the dictator between yourself and the divine , that is gnosis .

" To us, every phenomenon is an Act of Love, every experience is necessary, is a Sacrament, is a means of Growth. Hence, ”…existence is pure joy;…“

 

[心神 ~]

 

Thank you for the detailed write up! 

 

 

Quote

 

Basically , the gnostic position is one of 'doing it yourself without the need of a Priest as mediator between you and divine '.

 

 

 

Clear and concise.

 

 

Quote

 

Dont forget that although Christians claimed gnosticism , that was from a period when Christianity was very Neo-Platonic . The origins of the system well date Christianity .

 

Also we have the issue of definition ; Gnosticism as a Christian movement and Gnostic or 'gnosis ' as a process ; 

 

 

We're in an Abrahamic discussion thread, and I did mention my starting point as The Gospel of Judas, so I understand why you think I consider it a Christian philosophy. But I recognize that Christian Gnosticism is simply a vehicle through which the knowledge was transmitted. Parallel to what you've shared, in the archive lecture on meditation, they write:

 

 

Spoiler

 

Meditation is a science of consciousness.

 

When we talk about “gnostic meditation,” we are pointing to the application of certain practices, disciplines, and factors, which are universal, regardless of what tradition we’re pulling from.

 

There are many different religions, and many of them still have a mystical component. Today, in some traditions it is nearly gone, and, in others, it is completely gone. However, every real tradition had a contemplative, mystical aspect in its origin.

 

When we say gnostic meditation we’re not pointing towards a sectarian or limited thing that only “we” have. When we say gnostic meditation, what we are pointing towards is meditation in which we receive information, and we are receiving that information from our consciousness.

 

Furthermore, we are using that along a path. We are not just meditating because we like it, because it sounds nice, or because it may bring us some peace (which it obviously will). We are meditating because there is a path, and we are meditating to progress on that path to acquire the wisdom, the information, the gnosis, that we need desperately, in order to advance.

 

 

 

Quote

To us, every phenomenon is an Act of Love, every experience is necessary, is a Sacrament, is a means of Growth. Hence, ”…existence is pure joy;…

 

 

(I formatted this quote incorrectly, apologies). Looking up this quote led me here. Any time I've come across them, Alister Crowley's works have never set right with me, and this passage does nothing to change that:

 

 

Spoiler

 

The Black School has always worked insidiously, by treachery. We need then not be surprised by finding that its most notable representative was the renegade follower of Blavatsky, Annie Besant, and that she was charged by her Black masters with the mission of persuading the world to accept for its Teacher a negroid Messiah. To make the humiliation more complete, a wretched creature was chosen who, to the most loathsome moral qualities, added the most fatuous imbecility. And then blew up!

 

 

 

Another search led to his commentary to the book of the law, in which he writes this about rape and murder:

 

 

Spoiler

 

Physical constraint, up to a certain point, is not so seriously wrong; for it has its roots in the original sex-conflict which we see in animals, and has often the effect of exciting Love in his highest and noblest shape. Some of the most passionate and permanent attachments have begun with rape. Rome was actually founded thereon. Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence.

 

 

 

The more I read, I find everything he writes to be utterly abhorrent.

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by 心神 ~

[Cobie]

1 hour ago, 心神 ~ said:

… Alister Crowley's works have never set right with me, … utterly abhorrent. …

 

That’s what I think too.    

 

[Nungali]

Well of course ; it is in part its full of Victorian  sexism , racism, cruelty , etc  , you dont have to start quoting those comments from him to me , I am well aware of it  .    -  but the point is .....

 

what did you think of the quote on its own merit ? 

 

Its a curious phenomena ; I have heard people praise some Amerindian philosophy but no one  seems to protest about their  habits (in things like war  violence, cruelty, rape , etc ) .

 

Is  the quote   "  utterly abhorrent "    as it stands by itself , or only after your new found association ?  If you are unable to do that and are hung up on the author , I can give other  examples .

 

For example ,  if one can stand  hearing about Zoroastrianism , or indigenous Australians ?

 

 

 

[Nungali]

... the thing is , on the face of that statement , its a philosophy of absolute love  .... stuck into a thread about "God is not love ' .  

 

Also my 'preferred God ' is one of love ... and a Goddess  ...  so I dont suppose that  will go down well in an Abrahamic forum , where God is male and one of fear and punishments ......     and an OT full of stories about pillage , plunder, war against the indigenous, righteous take over,  yes, rape ..... 'holy men' giving their  concubines or wives over to mobs to rape them .... need I quote that ?

 

I can, if challenged .  

 

So please excuse me for citing the terrible Mr Crowley      .