Select Page

I finished reading all the translated Nag Hammurabi stuff I could find online. The manuscripts in the eastern cave, some of which mention Jesus, many of which go way, way, way back long prior to that in allegedly describing how… everything… came about.

I also read a bunch more QBL stuff.  And, some Vedic stuff.  Trying to find the common thread. Thank the gods for the internet.  I’m not implying that it’s any decent review, just that it’s exposing myself very fast to a high quantity of stuff and letting other parts of me sort it out. I have read on these topics a tiny bit, off and on for a dozen years, just not ‘tons’ is all and the gnostic stuff is new, I just found that when previously googling on ‘aeons and the four’ or something along those lines.

I’ve been leaning on the Aeons and The Four inside me really hard to help me get it, to understand whatever I might need to.

I do not want to get lost in this stuff. People spend their entire lifetime buried in just one of 10,000 possible niches of these topics! That is not my path. I just want my brain to synthesize it, and my subconscious to organize it, and my psi and spiritual connection to find the points that matter, attach the appropriate understanding and spit it out into me like some old dot-matrix printout dropping into the back of my brain.

Actually if the universe is binary, it’s probably something a LOT like that. 😉

There are a few things that intellectually, I got after this. I mean just my own observations.

One. It’s clear much of the info we do have, has the same root source.

It should seem no more validating that “a lot of information says the same thing” if it’s all influenced from the same origin. If the Vedics give it to the Sumerians who give it to the Hebrews who give it to the early Christians, that is just one source, not many. And, frankly, if I am then going to decide which of the ‘versions’ is most accurate, I am probably going to stick to whatever seems to have come first, if the kind of writing we’re talking about is not intuitive but simply ‘historical’.

Now when it comes to intuitive writing, time means nothing. I am as willing to read for the feeling of truth in something channeled by someone in Kansas last week, as I am some ancient manuscript found in an Eastern cave. And there is probably a good chunk of information that there is no other way that is going to come into our reality other than someone’s intuitive understanding.  So I’m applying the above about the age of the writing, only to stories passed down or academic study.

Two. A lot of historical writing is just bad channeling.

Yes, just like the stuff you see today and just as biased.  From last century to ancient stuff. And, some is really good channeling. There is some decent channeling today, as well, sure; I personally think Jane Roberts single-handedly redeemed that entire field.  (Which is saying a lot since that is one of those fields where 98% of the participants are giving the other 2% a bad name.)  They don’t call it channeling when it’s old; it is divine-inspired, writing in the spirit, or just flat out ‘writing’ but it’s clear on reading it what you’re dealing with.

The irony is that the antiquity of this stuff seems to get it a by-proxy pass to some kind of importance. Like, in the case of the Gnostic stuff in particular, it was found in a cave with other writings from nearly 2000 years ago and that makes it ooh-aah level fascinating. Well, it is, I agree! Way cool, old documents turn me on, I’m that kind of luddite. But that doesn’t mean that someone waxing on about Jesus and sin is any more accurate or divinely inspired than someone doing so today. They had just as many paradigms then as we do now — probably more, given the people likely to have been the ones writing things down back then, when you couldn’t just buy a notebook and pen for a buck.

One of the few things I don’t question a lot in myself is the ‘sense of truth’ I pick up in writing. I used to call it “the red thread of truth” since during high-psi periods, I could feel a sense of truth-with-capital-T “woven through” what I read to a pretty high degree, and had the chance to get confirmation in detail on some things (from the business environ) to be sure of it.

I could feel when a sentence had been rearranged, when a word was removed or had been added, when someone who wasn’t the author had amended it. Can’t explain how. In the gut, literally in the solar plexus is where it seems centered, although you would think this is a heart-chakra thing, it always felt more like “gut instinct” to me. I am not that high-psi anymore but I still ‘feel’ a ‘lite’ bit of that.

I have not tested this against hard feedback with detail in eons, and wouldn’t bother since it’s not strong right now. But some of the things that I read in these old writings, I had a clear feeling that this was serious stuff, and then some of the things I read, I felt there was so much garbage of the individual mixed in that it was more harm than help.

For example, this one, I support as valid, albeit mystifying on the surface:

I know it reads all woowoo and whatever-the-heck-it-means is not clear on the surface, but I could feel the Four in me on that one and feel that it was tied to a Truth. I don’t know that it is ALL true or that anybody can interpret it properly–that is probably the biggest issue, as it’s symbolic under the surface–but there is Truth ‘strongly within it’. This is clearly channeled material, I might add.

If you want to skim it, wait till you finish this post so you can do so with some other thoughts in mind.

Three. All religion has a cult factor, so when anything spiritual starts going that way, you can suspect ‘bias’.

Most stuff written after the time of Jesus (not all of it, as the link above examples) makes you feel like you are reading some 200 A.D. version of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, or Dedicated Believers of the kind you find following Our Beloved Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science). Now there is plenty of good in both of those systems, but there’s also plenty of cult, and any writing by such people that alleges to be ‘divine writing’ or even historical, but is raving about the guru (Jesus in this case), personally I gotta take that with a big grain of salt. Some is likely true; a decent chunk is likely, at best, starry-eyed exaggeration. Not saying he wasn’t or couldn’t be divine, I’m just saying that human nature being what it is, even encounters with seriously non-divine gurus distort perception in followers.

As I have mentioned previously when talking about spirituality and religion, I don’t diss that spiritual entity or Deity (Jesus) at all, quite the opposite. Whether that entity as-encountered is “only” the ‘soul of the dead guy’ (or not-dead guy, I guess that point would be), or whether it is the astounding thought-form caused by billions of humans with lifetimes of intense prayer and emotion to that, or whether it is the SUN in another format as the SON and a human who ‘carried that energy’ into human form, or some variant of things we just cannot understand — honestly, I don’t claim to know, and I don’t even think it matters to me. What matters is that when you are working with other identities, spiritual or shamanic, you feel what you need to feel about their nature.

Whatever “the Christ” I’ve run into in dreams and one brief vision might be, some or none or all of the above, means nothing next to my understanding of the energy involved there: nothing but pure light/love, it’s all good, it’s good beyond what I can even wrap my brain and words around. So he’s ok with me for sure. (I feel a Doobie Brothers song coming on… Jesus is just alright with me…)  Whether some of the other ‘christ’-related stuff (not Jesus, but that-energy) I’ve run into is real, who knows.

It’s too bad there’s such a bunch of human doctrine and stupidity wrapped around that identity, boy that term “the Christ” carries more baggage than almost any in our language!, but I’ve decided that is just not my problem. My spirituality is based on prayer/inquiry and resulting experience and understanding — not doctrine.

Anyway the point is, when someone starts droning on about the same kind of crap you’d have to sit through in any church, in my opinion you are probably reading a lot more of the channel’s subconscious than anything greatly mystic and beyond that channel’s personal identity.


When I went to sleep night before last, I had been leaning on everything and everyone internal to give me some ‘intuitive insight’ since it’s damn certain that no amount of sheer intellectualism could sort all this crap out! I could feel a lot going on inside, so I figured that within a few days or a week I would probably get that dot matrix binary-drop into the back of my brain, and I felt okay with that.


But I woke up at 4:30am — when they woke me up so I’d remember, I understood as my eyes flew open in the dark. It had unfolded inside me, a geometry that fit in my body yet was also the size of a universe and maybe more.

Somewhere on the motionless, timeless trip through space and time, it consolidated into approximate left-brain language for me, sorted itself into a sequence my brain expected, posted the file, and there it was inside.

“Three levels” you might say. Some contain a lot in them. Not a tiny fraction of what they could (and should to build a whole picture book out of it), but enough for the framework I wanted for grokking “what was relevant to me”.


The old stories, like the link I have above, are not about some mysterious “unmanifest complex family of god-ish-ness” like pretty much everything sounds like if it isn’t pointedly talking about humans. Some ‘stories of old’, like the one I linked, are ‘generally’ (…) legitimate but guess what, it turns out, they are COSMOLOGY.

Planets! STARS. Meteors, comets, moons, asteroids! Orbits. Nebulas and Galaxies. You get the idea.

This information dropped into our world has no “scale model”. When it’s told, even somewhat literally, we think they’re talking about people or ‘invisible gods’. We don’t understand that this is why the universes are ever-expanding: because ‘God’ is the sum-total of every-‘thing’. This is stuff on a galactic scale. It is about the forming of our universe!

Not until way down the road of stuff does it finally get to actual earth, let alone to humans. Frankly we are a little detail at the end of most of that — we are one pixel in a period at the end of an epic tome! — but which, I might add, will continue to be written, eternally.

Attempting to apply any of that information (such as in that link) to concepts of spirituality in the normal “human-based format” is just ‘inapplicable’, as it’s two different models.

In the writing of that stuff what they mean is all about cosmology, not human behavior. When X ‘defiles’ Y, a meteor’s X fragments survive on Y planet and cause change to the development path there. When X spawns a child from/with itself, a moon or asteroid is created from X itself. When X ‘creates’ three helpers of Y type and three of Z type, it has captured a few moons, and a few asteroids. When X and Y together create other things, dual orbits or gravity pulls or ejections create new objects. And so on. And the gender applications relate to projective/receptive balances of energy in the being; a balance makes them both genders; dominantly projective makes them masculine, more dominantly receptive is feminine. (The sun is pure masculine, in that model.) Virginity relates to the sharing of materials with other planetary-bodies (or lack of having done so), and something else too that I lost (sorry).

The entire story, looked at with this model, is not even all that exceptional, except that the universe inherently is. There is no assignment of morality to what someone created or didn’t create in these old stories — but the baggage we have on our words, makes even the simplest retelling seem like it. Trying to put these stories into a model along with why you have to obey the 10 commandments is worse than retarded. That’s not to say there is no relationship to human behavior — getting to that later — but it’s rather… abstracted.

Maybe you’re thinking, “but how do floating rocks relate to stuff about spiritual origins?”  The answer is: planets, stars, moons, etc. are utterly gigantic collections of mass; mass is a cohesive collection of vibrating energy, and they are SENTIENT.

So it wasn’t a coincidence that I ran into Ganymede during viewing or Gaia during a meditation. Planets are alive. Stars are alive. Everything is alive. It’s simply that the earth as a sum total has a heck of a lot more energy than your armchair, is all. So you might not grok that your armchair has an identity, albeit may not have enough concentrated energy for self-awareness (let alone autonomy).

And yes, I knew this already — but I didn’t “grok” it until then: Every man and every woman is a star. This is LITERAL. Holy shit! I mean more literal than I could possibly understand until that moment, staring wide-eyed at the hotel ceiling in the dark. Yes I’ve got it before and said it before but never did I “grok it inside” like this. This is one of those “getting it in rising cycles” experiences where the info keeps coming back and I ‘grok’ it at deeper levels.

I understood that really,  I could not wrap my brain around it fully. My brain just can’t do it, like I just don’t have the neural connections. I can get the outside topography of the idea, but I just cannot absorb the totality of it the way I felt the others of the Four did. So I felt like I was missing most major stuff — more like I had a skeletal, geometric framework and a very fuzzy lite-visual of the surface, but not the detail, not what they grokked, just what my apparently pitiful little brain could deal with at one time.

Every one of these cosmic ‘bodies’ has variations on giving/receiving energy. This is plasma physics. The red-shift theory just died a total death for me as a valid idea — I already suspected the plasma physics model of astronomy was worth taking seriously but now I just ‘understand’ that they are on the right track.  And this energy is, inherently, light: we use the word to mean what we visually see but there is a larger meaning that has to do with chi and a much larger definition of ‘light’ than I could even grasp.

I once read this article where this guy, talking about how ‘power/money’ in our world was all related to the sun, was saying that everything of power in our world is (my words from here on ) “a symbol of the sun”; nothing exists without it; every source of energy. Here I would expand his model to include everything more-literally: the obvious ‘types’ of energy like electricity; more nebulous ‘types’ of energy like ‘novel events’;  the more abstracted ‘types’ of energy like ‘faith’ or ‘enthusiasm’; and the energy to grow, to live, in everything from minerals to corn to dogs to stars — it is all based on the sun. You could even think of your money as little pieces of sun, it wouldn’t be inaccurate.

Well, this is true in a profound, all the way through manner, not just as he was using the idea. It is light, it is energy; it is the fundamental nature of life of any kind and it feeds us constantly. And to varying degrees, we, and everything else, absorb, transfer, and in turn feed other and smaller ‘cohesive groupings of energy’.


In this divine cosmology (because as it turns out that is the very definition of divine in many respects, we just don’t normally realize it), the identities are galactic, but each one of them manifests as “infinite life forms, infinite probabilities” that are used to “explore the experience of BEing.”

While we are a STAR we are also simultaneously everything else; I think that is… smaller??… — this is one of the internal details I didn’t remember clearly, as if my brain could only hold so much. I feel an overlay to how the Four of us are like nested russian dolls of energy — like this dynamic actually operates at the full spectrum, from the infinite incomprehensible grandness of ‘God’ to the smallest quark in an atom in a molecule in a cell in a liver in a human (and many layers out from that). Or as the Buddha might have said, to every blade of grass.

So while we are stars, we are also humans and light-beings and aliens and trees and dogs and rivers and caves and minerals and even things we don’t think of as identities now, like hurricanes and ant colonies and ‘events’, and a whole slew of “identities” ranging from long-extinct things we’ve not heard of to future things we’d consider mutations to things with no bodies at all, or bodies in other frequencies, and more.

We only “pay attention to” being this-kind of identity in this-reality, individually. Sometimes we become aware of other similar creature and probability sector lives and we call it reincarnation, despite that time is really just perceptual in certain frameworks. Sometimes we become aware of other energy-identities, whether people or events and we call that psychic. Sometimes we become aware of identities that rest within ours or that ours rests within, and we call it our Aeons or our Four. Sometimes we just become aware of other identities and they become our saints and gods and dream instructors and guides and “the voices within”.

Oh, and:  And a tidbit in there was that the “injustice of forgetfulness” as I’d call it, one of the things that pisses me off most about metaphysics (I hear you Kate!), is a probability factor we are subject to solely because we chose to be born into it here — not a law. We don’t remember because of lifetime culture, not because of biology: we can. People do. Cultures have. Other probabilities of humans do, it turns out! Humans and the one-identity-at-a-time is just one probability we are currently within. We are in all the others too.

There are other realities and other identity-types where entities are aware of being multiple identities at once. And evolution expands that, so: a body is the sum total of all its cells; and every creature is the sum total of all the creature-consciousness within; until the universe is the sum total of all its components; and it’s much bigger than that, but that scale is so far above us that that’s the top of what we’ve got written anywhere or could (even so barely in outline) comprehend.

When we perceive an identity that ‘contains us’, we perceive it as Holy, and if sufficiently above, literally as God.

The definition of God is on a sliding scale depending on the perceptual level of the entity perceiving.

God is the identity-energy that is sufficiently near us to bring on the sense of awe and holiness ‘comparative’ to our energy. This would, by its nature, be something we were literally part of, and mutual love/light/energy is part of that.

And, it is the energy which is not far enough away from us in scope to either be outside our perception entirely, or to annihilate our “sense of separation” — that means US as we know it — upon encounter.

(I suspect this is why Archangels terrify people. One instinctively knows that too close and your ‘illusion of individual separation’ would cease to exist. I had thought that already but hadn’t really got that it was more a ‘removal of the illusion of separation’ — the definition of identity — I’d merely thought of it in the energetic [eg ‘he-vaporized-her, whoops’] model.)


The last of the three ‘understandings’, that fit together like nested geometric shapes in my torso or something, was this:

Every entity/identity has what you could call a ‘center’. This term is spacial and so not really the right word, but we don’t have a word that isn’t biased by our biology, so that’s what I have to use.

Humans as a biological species are centered at the heart chakra.

This is not necessarily related to spiritual evolution within our species, which may have other considerations or relationships related to chakraic focus, it’s just related to our species as compared to other very different species’, both biological and otherwise.

So the primary ‘connection to the sun/larger-soul’ we have as entities of our biological and energy architecture is at the heart.  Personally, I would have thought it might be the solar plexus chakra, since nearly all shamanic traditions work through that and it seems like a seat of power. Or the crown chakra, since that seems most tied to the ‘holy’ and so on.  Now I feel like, “Love and light, that’s sooooo predictable!” But that’s what it was.

Sun = Light = Love, that is just how we biologically and psychologically are connected into the universe we inhabit. This is hard for me because I feel like me talking about ‘light and love’ is some retarded new-age stuff just by the terms used.

For ease of talking about it, let’s model this as like, our fiber-optic connection to the universe. In our particular russian-doll-onion-layer-of-identity, which most of us just pay attention to one of at a time (and that was sure blessedly less confusing, as I recall!…), the energy navel is the heart, the two-way (or more) cable connects right there.

So, for US, “love” really IS the answer. All true spirituality begins, ends, and flows with love. The health of every other part of us matters too of course — the will in particular, but also wisdom, creativity, etc. — but love is the center of the energy connection and anything that interferes with that is, quite literally, bringing “darkness”.

To the degree that any human doctrine or practice shifts the focus away from heart-centered energy, and toward anger and fear for example, that is within the model of the word we call “evil” — something that specifically works against “the light” which is “life”.

Then there was sub-level info here, about people instilling fear in others. They have blockages at the heart, and are attempting to suck in way more energy via the lower chakras in compensation. They need to create it and have it fed to them by others–as the universe does not provide energy at that level, our connection is at the heart, so energy for the other chakras has to be generated locally (and can be, that is not really a big deal, that is part of how we ‘create experience’).

This compensatory redirection to the energy of other chakras (by which I mean, someone like a guru taking a path of love and shifting the focus into something else for the followers because that’s what the guru needs) is a form of evil, spiritually, but it is a form of sickness energetically and psychologically, and it essentially creates a Vampire: someone who cannot live off the direct line they have for energetic nourishment, so they have to go suck the energy out of other people, instead.

Sub-sub-level info: there is a degree of this with “intellectualism instead of experience” too — kind of, going the other direction with the chakras — it’s just not usually as powerful, or as damaging except in really high quantity, as the lower-chakra stuff.

Our ability to absorb energy, as well as give it out, is directly tied to our relationship with the heart chakra, and overlapping with this (they are interrelated), our relationship with the Intent — the WILL — of the larger identity(s) within which we operate.

More “sub-level” info: this is just us. There are entities whose “center” is not energy we call love, but energy we call strength[1], or energy we call wisdom, or other things — what we might assign to other chakras, for example.

Sub-sub info: there are so many more than just the big/main chakras we have.

Sub-sub-sub info: The reason the crown showed me that it went down to just above the heart, and the reason I’ve mentioned I often feel the four connected right there in the upper chest, is because there IS a chakra there — but it is [2] not so apparent, or something, for reasons I did not explore.

There are a LOT of chakras all over the body, they are just not so huge. I had a sense that outside of the small ones known, like palms and soles, that every ‘joint/connection’ is essentially a chakra or houses one anyway.

[1] I had a shock while writing this. What if Ithikah and Nedlund aren’t nearly as unique in nature as I think? I mean what if the other Aeons are ALL totally manifestations of a certain primal energy — because “Ray”, I always had a hard time perceiving and mostly perceived as a kind of short, super-solid, super-“strong” person, masculine feeling — I chose an old shirtless strongman for his logo in my Aeon Round pic. What if I am not getting it?? What if my attempt to make all of these things into people — well, and them showing up sometimes like that (not always) is in part so I could “deal with them” at all — we see how I reacted to Calme with wings and Jared wanting his horse for example — what if Ray is essentially something related to strength/will/power? This might be wrong. I actually feel so much inside me right now I can’t pick out a clean thread of intuition, but it’s an interesting idea to me! I think it’s possible that I have completely misunderstood the nature and the power of the Aeons all along.

[2] Wow again! So that less-obvious chakra is the corollary to the freaking INVISIBLE SEPHIROT! The Chakra between the heart and the throat! DUH! How did I NOT get this even intellectually?! Well I guess because I didn’t totalize realize this chakra that “some” hypothesize and others don’t have in the system, was truly legit until this experience. Still. Shit! That’s nearly obvious! I feel like a complete moron for not seeing this until writing the above. [Later, re-reading this, I don’t know that this is really related. I can’t tell either way. Doesn’t seem as important as when I wrote it but I feel nothing either way about it now.]

Where was I? Oh yeah. So there are other entities that are centered differently! Interesting thing I had not thought of until it was in me. One example (there were several, most fell from my brain, sorry, I really suck as a conveyor of anything useful, I know!) is WISDOM.

In our heirarchy of occult and gnostic writings, some of these other entities *are* reflected [3] and since many of these in question are not manifest in fleshy bodies like what we’re working with (–or we do not realize it), to us they become part of the angelic realm in one fashion or another. In some respects that makes sense ‘comparatively’ to us. But in others, they are not necessarily angelic just because they aren’t human and are way more brilliant. That is simply the kind of entity that they are, that is where their center is.

“Brilliant” — do you notice how most of our language, even one as far devolved from source encodings as English must be, gears the positive to light?

[3] I also got that some entities are utterly dedicated to a single kind of energy (for example Wisdom), whereas we (humans) are really “spectrum” entities. So something may be utterly ‘holy’ in our perception and relationship, and that is valid, but that doesn’t mean they are “like us, but so much more holy in every way.” They might consist of nothing but that category of energy. Elementals are a tiny version of this, but at the component-level. Here I’m talking more about some really powerful identities, which we sometimes encounter, and wrap into our cosmology (maybe as things like Jinn, when the category-of-energy is in the ‘power’ category) or various branches of divine entities or Angels.

I’ve gotten sidetracked by footnotes again. I swear, information comes through like fractals sometimes and there are multiple layers “nested”. Plus I’m like ADD or something on these things.

So finally to continue and finish the whole point of this part three:

The thing is, that our “relationship” with what amounts to the combination of the heart chakra and the larger entity we rest within or, to summarize in recognizeable terms, “Our Divine Will,” is greatly based upon our… well you might say the light we let in and the light we let out and how much blockage (eg darkness) we have in the way.

Or in a more crude model, if our fiber optic connection is bad, both physically muddy and not well connected and so on, we just can’t “relate” well to them. We can’t communicate or share as well. You could model it as objective and impersonal like that, or personalize it as a relationship and that is equally true.

Now, certain “states of mind” — let alone full actions and the energetic side effects of them (or consequences) — have different degrees of this unbearable-lightness-of-being you might say. If you focus on negative lust (eg coveting your neighbor’s wife), that’s not particularly light. If you focus on killing people, ok that’s probably damn dark. If you hold grudges those are maybe small half-opaque blocks. But if you ‘love your neighbor’, to use the common biblical reference — obviously, that’s brighter.

I’m not being woo-woo abstract here, I am being literal, these things are energy-body and possibly even physical-body realities.

So this is where the whole religion schtick comes into it. MOST of the primary recommendations of religions — what Huxley called “The Perennial Philosophy” — have these things in common: they recommend behaviors, and even mental focuses, that are conducive to a healthy heart-navel, the connection we have to the primary “source” of us, to what we fundamentally relate to as  God.

Literally in manifest terms, our relationship with the Sun. The source of all power in our local universe.

So yeah, sure, it is rooted in spirituality that some behaviors/thoughtforms are inherently not-good and this does, literally and yet as a secondary, abstracted model, related to Cosmology. Our true self is connected with our higher self and divine will.

Our relationship with our heart chakra and the ‘Will of the containing identity [higher self]’ IS ‘our relationship with the Sun’.

So that is the (only) way that religion “relates” to most of these old writings that are actually about Cosmology.

Pondering this, I was feeling and thinking that maybe only an identity with a majority of energy the collective can keep (light I mean) can truly survive. You can combine light sources but you cannot combine dark and light without the dark simply ceasing to exist.

Much like the word “sin” analogied ‘problematic/irregular orbit’ in the cosmology, maybe it amounts to that in humans too. “The wages of sin are death” the Jehovah Witnesses say, they don’t believe in Hell. (‘Sheol’, the actual word, was a word for a local area/thing in that era.)

“Only the light survives” is true all the way through. Maybe sense/memory of ‘identity’ depends on the % of us that is light.  Everything’s holographic, so if you remembered being Jane, because Jane was a decently high % of ‘light’ so the identity survived ‘to that degree’, you’d remember everything potentially (even rather dark experience). But if only 26.1% of Jane were able to continue existence in the finer, more intense energy/light of the higher self/larger being, then chances are you could say that Jane kind of ceased to exist for the most part. Jane being ‘the cohesiveness of an identity’.

So ‘eternal life’ is tied to our ability to connect with the Sun, to clear up and connect via the heart, for that energy.

If you render the cosmology framework into human social doctrine, it ends up saying, if you do stuff like X you’re sinning. If you are sinful you can’t go to heaven! Yeah, heaven… you know… the stars, ha!

But understanding of chakraic connection to light/power, and ‘sin’ being defined as an improper orbit/motion (this defined as one that interferes with others or will gradually deteriorate until this), and heaven/eternal life related to the continuation of sense-of-identity from within a light-based conglomerate structure: from those definitions, that works.

So I find this funny because I’m really not into religion at all to understate it, but it turns out that it wasn’t the basic line of info that was wrong, it is how the words are defined, it is the attempt to graft a cosmology model onto human culture as a social model. There is a sort of ‘analogy-overlap’ but they aren’t the same. When you bring a correct definition, a larger perspective of how things work energetically and the nature of the ‘divine’ into the equation, it becomes a different model using the same words, and frankly what that means to how we would apply it in our world is very different.

You might say it takes the christ principle and puts it in some format a lot closer to Zen than Catholicism.

So we are connected at the heart, the light/energy we call ‘love’ is the center for our species. Wait for it, and don’t laugh, but: The only way to ‘eternal life’ [maintenance of identity post-manifestation] is through the Sun [the ‘Christ’ heart energy].

I didn’t say Son! — as I don’t know whether that dude truly ‘carried that energy’ so profoundly he was a legit representative of it. Possibly. (Even if so, that wouldn’t change my feelings about religion, only about one guy in history.) But that’s what it amounts to, as if the Sun and Son are some kind of PUN.

I think you could strip out the entirety of nearly every religion and reduce it to “love is the key”.

Doesn’t that sound predictable. Sorry. I guess maybe that’s the popular-since-dawn-of-time central theme for a good reason.


So I guess, in summary:

The writings I struggled to understand were about cosmology. Stars are alive as is everything else. Stars are huge identities. We are part of that identity. Every man and every woman is a star.

The tendency of religion historically to try and make this model into a model of human social control instead, is incorrect. Thus ye have star & star, system & system; let not one know well the other! That particular confusion has been quite effective and, I see as a sort of darkness on its own. Note: “that quote does not relate to this issue,” someone inside me is conveying. I like it for its surface-meaning, but its truth relates to something else I am not ‘exposed to’ yet, they say.

Stars are exploring ‘experience’ through infinite probability of everything within their sphere including people, us. We are all part of one incomprehensibly huge identity. For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union.

We are centered at the heart, the energy we call love. Other creatures may center in other rays of light but for us it’s at love, that is our connection to our star, our highest self in this model, although we have many layers of ‘higher self’ between where we are and there. We rest within larger identities; our energy from them, you might say, depends on our ‘righteousness’ with the ‘intent’ of our higher self, and our working within the qualities and frequencies of the heart to fulfill that ‘higher will’ is the spiritual path. Love is the law, love under will.

I might add that I feel I could have commented — essentially ‘put in context’ — upon many, many other lines of Liber al vel Legis. And that part that really irks me about this is that despite my energetic-response to that book over the years, I HATE IT.  Especially chapter III, I really feel yucky about. The first two I feel fine about energetically, but intellectually, aside from an obscure pretty phrase here in there like those above, most of it is obnoxious and offensive. I feel that I understand some of the point of it. But, it is a lot like Crowley himself in a way: often accurate, but so almost intentionally offensive in the process that it puts people off rather than enlightening them.

I should also add that I feel I could have commented, put in context, upon many lines in both the Torah (not sure about the Talmud) and the New Testament, too, just as much, yet I do not consider any “religious writing” to be entirely-divine (if at all in many cases).

It’s like something about “absorbing this geometry” in the middle of the night just caused… some things to be… illuminated I guess you could say… as if I could look at a book with the pages all laid out across the floor and certain phrases would just have gold light shining through as I could ‘feel’ the ‘source energy’ of them and what they mean.


So I was sleeping next to my best friend, my former boyfriend, in a hotel bed, because me and the teen did not fit too well in the double bed we were stuck with for one night, compared to his skinny butt. After staring wide-eyed at the ceiling for a few minutes while this absorbed, I sat up abruptly. It was 4:30am. It woke him up and he looked up at me in the nearly-dark, mostly still asleep.

“We are STARS!” I whispered enthusiastically to him, and continued all in one whispered sentence as he struggled to wake up and figure out what the hell I was talking about, “And those writings! They’re about the COSMOS! And we’re experiencing infinity but in this model everything part of us, like any life that ever lived on/in/above us, but we just perceive it one at a time so we just think we’re this human but really we are stars and the whole galaxy and more and that’s why astrology in archetype work WORKS because it’s actually part of us and we’re all connected at the heart and the Sun feeds all of us right there which is why love really IS the answer so all those old writings are–”

I felt sorry for him then, it was funny, I was just raving-in-whispers-in-the-dark. So I got up and started typing instead. That was Thursday night. It’s taken me until now, Sunday evening, off and on, to actually get this into a decently linear and cohesive translation that wouldn’t just sound like the ravings of a madman. (Well, unless it still sounds like the ravings of a madman, in which case I apologize.)