Namaste! I am new here, so I suppose this will officially be my 'awkward breaking the ice first journal entry'.
I am a bit of a bookworm these days. Right now I am reading 'The Yoga Of Power' by Julius Evola. He is a bit of an acquired taste, but a good read.
I am working on my first novel, an idea that I have been turning in my head for about 10 years now. I suppose it would be best classified as 'occult fiction' with it's heavy Qabalistic and Tantric overtones. All I am willing to divulge at this point is that it takes place in the here and now; during the Twilight of the Kali Yuga. I will be sure to post an essay on the four Yugas, also known as the Aeons or ages. Writing helps me to further digest the information I am researching, so essays are invaluable to the learning process.
I am a huge fan of Aldous Huxley. The Perennial Philosophy has to be one of the best damn books ever written. I like the concept of looking for the common thread that connects all belief systems rather than picking them apart for their inconsistencies. After all, ultimate truth cannot be conveyed in linear processes such as speech and writing, and with that being one of the only profound truths that I have ever read, it does make perfect sense that the most profound truths are not taught from a fundamentalist perspective, but through allegorical tales that are entirely open for a wide variety of interpretations and perspectives.
I believe in gods, goddesses, demons, wraiths, and whatever else people may want to call them, but I see them primarily as archetypal aspects of ourselves. A lot of mystics will go so far as to say that everything is ultimately an illusion, and that that ephemeral nature of cyclic existence is indicative to that, but I don't completely buy into that notion. I do see it's merits, but I also see the concept of there being an ultimate reality that is nothing more than the void of the unmanifest which indeed is 'no thing', and it's antithesis being manifestation, as if they are two completely exclusive aspects of existence, the former being 'real' and the latter being reduced to 'unreal' well, this idea, in my opinion, represents a bit of a silly duality. Since ultimate reality is supposed to be a form of 'non duality' to try to confine it to dualistic terms is, well, just plain silly.
So, the solution to the problem is simple; rather than viewing the manifest as being some unreal illusion, it can be viewed as a 'cloak' or a 'veil'. This is the Tantric perspective. This is the Qabalistic perspective. The idea of all manifestation being somehow 'fake' seems to be derived from the Sutras rather than the Tantras. Now, unlike most students of the Tantras, I am by no means trying to refute the Sutras, I am simply saying that since they were written primarily as a set of exoteric teachings that the fundamentalist mentality that seems to not only predominate many sects of Christianity, but Occultism and Mysticism alike infiltrates many beLIEf systems.
A lot of people may argue that that is why they are exoteric rather than esoteric. So that they can be taken literally. The fact that they are the exoteric teachings generally means that you don't have to be an initiate. It does not necessarily indicate that it is a concrete belief system that is set in stone. people with concrete belief systems are generally that most insecure. (Another thing I adore about Huxley's writing, is that he says not to cherish beliefs. Cherishing ones beliefs can ultimately only serve as a hindrance to the learning process.) Now there is the confusion of the Tantras, which I had for the longest time; if the Sutras are for the general masses and the Tantras are best suited for initiates, then why were the Tantras primarily written for the common man living in the Kali Yuga?
The answer is simple. The Tantras (by the way, the word Tantra means 'treatise' and sacred sexuality is but a mere aspect of these multifaceted teachings, I should probably get that out of the way) were written by many men. Being an initiate is as simple as attaining a certain level of understanding, which can be learned from a guru, or can come from personal gnosis, or can be channeled in from the collective supraconsciousness. True initiation does not require some theatrical process, and theartical exhibitions do not connote a genuite status of being an initiate. Basically, the Tantras are records of ancient mystics and the techniques that they employed to attain whatever goal they had, whether it was to attain Samadhi or to attain Avichi, which I will touch on in another essay, otherwise i will be sitting here typing all damn night. ;-)
I am a bit of a bookworm these days. Right now I am reading 'The Yoga Of Power' by Julius Evola. He is a bit of an acquired taste, but a good read.
I am working on my first novel, an idea that I have been turning in my head for about 10 years now. I suppose it would be best classified as 'occult fiction' with it's heavy Qabalistic and Tantric overtones. All I am willing to divulge at this point is that it takes place in the here and now; during the Twilight of the Kali Yuga. I will be sure to post an essay on the four Yugas, also known as the Aeons or ages. Writing helps me to further digest the information I am researching, so essays are invaluable to the learning process.
I am a huge fan of Aldous Huxley. The Perennial Philosophy has to be one of the best damn books ever written. I like the concept of looking for the common thread that connects all belief systems rather than picking them apart for their inconsistencies. After all, ultimate truth cannot be conveyed in linear processes such as speech and writing, and with that being one of the only profound truths that I have ever read, it does make perfect sense that the most profound truths are not taught from a fundamentalist perspective, but through allegorical tales that are entirely open for a wide variety of interpretations and perspectives.
I believe in gods, goddesses, demons, wraiths, and whatever else people may want to call them, but I see them primarily as archetypal aspects of ourselves. A lot of mystics will go so far as to say that everything is ultimately an illusion, and that that ephemeral nature of cyclic existence is indicative to that, but I don't completely buy into that notion. I do see it's merits, but I also see the concept of there being an ultimate reality that is nothing more than the void of the unmanifest which indeed is 'no thing', and it's antithesis being manifestation, as if they are two completely exclusive aspects of existence, the former being 'real' and the latter being reduced to 'unreal' well, this idea, in my opinion, represents a bit of a silly duality. Since ultimate reality is supposed to be a form of 'non duality' to try to confine it to dualistic terms is, well, just plain silly.
So, the solution to the problem is simple; rather than viewing the manifest as being some unreal illusion, it can be viewed as a 'cloak' or a 'veil'. This is the Tantric perspective. This is the Qabalistic perspective. The idea of all manifestation being somehow 'fake' seems to be derived from the Sutras rather than the Tantras. Now, unlike most students of the Tantras, I am by no means trying to refute the Sutras, I am simply saying that since they were written primarily as a set of exoteric teachings that the fundamentalist mentality that seems to not only predominate many sects of Christianity, but Occultism and Mysticism alike infiltrates many beLIEf systems.
A lot of people may argue that that is why they are exoteric rather than esoteric. So that they can be taken literally. The fact that they are the exoteric teachings generally means that you don't have to be an initiate. It does not necessarily indicate that it is a concrete belief system that is set in stone. people with concrete belief systems are generally that most insecure. (Another thing I adore about Huxley's writing, is that he says not to cherish beliefs. Cherishing ones beliefs can ultimately only serve as a hindrance to the learning process.) Now there is the confusion of the Tantras, which I had for the longest time; if the Sutras are for the general masses and the Tantras are best suited for initiates, then why were the Tantras primarily written for the common man living in the Kali Yuga?
The answer is simple. The Tantras (by the way, the word Tantra means 'treatise' and sacred sexuality is but a mere aspect of these multifaceted teachings, I should probably get that out of the way) were written by many men. Being an initiate is as simple as attaining a certain level of understanding, which can be learned from a guru, or can come from personal gnosis, or can be channeled in from the collective supraconsciousness. True initiation does not require some theatrical process, and theartical exhibitions do not connote a genuite status of being an initiate. Basically, the Tantras are records of ancient mystics and the techniques that they employed to attain whatever goal they had, whether it was to attain Samadhi or to attain Avichi, which I will touch on in another essay, otherwise i will be sitting here typing all damn night. ;-)