Revelation

Rational discussions on metaphysical and abstract topics.
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Revelation

Post by Nefastos »

Angolmois wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:27 pmBut isn't basically all revelation "handed down"? For example, Sermon on the Mount could be called as the essence of the Christic revelation and it is a very authoritarian one at that if one wishes to follow Jesus.

I was referring to this:

Mars wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:13 pmIn the language of Christian mysticism we find terms like surrendering to God or emptying ourselves. This implies that the revelation is "handed down"

I definitely would not dream of thinking a man as a self-sustaining entity; that is pretty much the opposite of my own view. Even though I believe in mystic solipsism, the emphasis is on "mystic". A personal man living in the world & thinking oneself separate is never, ever even close to being autonomous. On the contrary, he is absolutely dependent, or to say it differently, in eternal companionship and union with all the other beings.

In the golden chain of occultism, everyone is (or should be) someone's Jesus, and everyone is someone's disciple, and everyone is even someone's shadow and someone's shakti. This is the puzzle of being. One shouldn't think it in the terms of power struggle; Foucaultian logics cannot be applied to occultism.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Angolmois

Re: Revelation

Post by Angolmois »

Ahh, ok. I misunderstood your words, and was quite bewildered that you'd downplay all revelation to such a degree.
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

Re: Revelation

Post by Smaragd »

Mars wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:13 pm
Nefastos wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:48 am Can't both be true at the same time? That the superindividual revelation is possible only via, and at the peak of, the struggle of individuals?
In the language of Christian mysticism we find terms like surrendering to God or emptying ourselves. This implies that the revelation is "handed down", whereas in Plotinian and Blavatskyan thought the ascent is the key. Revelation happens in both examples but the methodology is in my view quite different. This is what I was trying to get at, the juxtaposition of the two.
The juxtaposition reveals the problems with the two kinds of emphases quite nicely, but I feel the need to stitch them back together. First of all, I agree that a divine revelation is given from above and to be handed that sort of thing is the result of work the student of occultism has done. So the Christian mystic is emphasising the side of being given the revelation, and being exalted by the granted and sought after connection to the divine. The possible snares here are many, for example, the joy and ecstacy of the experience can be so overwhelming that it leaves one with wonder and the revelation might only brush the initiate. To call it a snare might be problematic also because perhaps such first meetings need to be well saturated with mysticism, a sort of preparatory connection. Further on when the student has prepared oneself to actually work with the revelatory powers to do something good with it, instead of just ”vibing” until it turns to mere stale cup of the astral variation of empty iteration, the wonder, the joyous and mystic aspects work more as gentle guides and have a meaningful purpose also in that respect.

The more Luciferian emphasis that actually deals with the knowledge of the revelation in some way (to help the man ascend from the fallen state) seems to bite in to the actual substance at hand and use the knowledge in some way. The mirroring error with this emphasis would be carelessly destroying or dismissing the layers of mysticism, the beauty and ecstacy that in the end are part of the revelation and guides leading further in to it.

When we aim to join the two ways, I’d point that an incorruptible key must be used to interpret the poetic expressions of the mystics, and to take note of the details. ”Surrendering to God” does not mean surrendering to just about any astral impressions or entity we might encounter. Isn’t God something entirely more whole? So the surrendering asks for knowledge of philosophy of the spirits and different aspects of the human constitution to be able to surrender in to the balance point between them all (accustoming oneself for example to a sevenfold division of greater spirits can be of great help here). This would place everything in to right perspective and here Christian mysticism could come really close to the side of knowledge/philosophy, Satanism and the Neoplatonism to my understanding bases on. ”Emptying ourselves” can be read in a similar fashion, but also has these tones of questioning the self, again getting to know ones principles – the actual pillars the self lies on and the Self makes itself known through. Interpreted as mortification, this phrase of emptying oneself seeks to guide the student again to know God and the heavens and make oneself a worker between all the different spheres. Again, this is quite far from the careless interpretation where emptying oneself would mean forgetting all knowledge and the self and just let something overcome oneself leading in to mediumistic regression. That "something" can be a beautiful piece of the puzzle when managing to do things in a balanced way, but imbalanced the beauty turns in to more or less obvious results of horror.
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
Locked