I developed this idea in today’s voice recording, August 24, 2022, the Egodeath Mystery Show, which is — of necessity in this field — a comedy show.

Make way in the Scholarly Fail-Quotes Hall of Shame, yet more incoming! https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/04/scholarly-fail-quotes-hall-of-shame/

More Comic/Cosmic Fodder for the Egodeath Mystery Show

🎭

Joke’s on him – Hanegraaafff thinks the initiator Hermes is exorcising the heimarmene delusion from the initiate Tat – but actually, he is exorcising the freewill delusion that is bedeviling his control stability in the “alternate state of consciousness”, I’m sure on Hanegraaff’s finest high-potency batch of non-drug entheogens.

Hanegraaff calls for avoiding making mythology the foundation of your academic scholarly approach to history of esotericism, as the Religionism approach does; we must instead make scientific history our foundation – yet then he proceeds to construct a cosmos model that places the fixed stars at cosmic planetary level 7, and claims that cosmic level 8 is above heimarmene, blithely oblivious to his contradicting every astronomer and mystic cosmos author ever.

Yaldagate

John Lash obsequiously worships the most radioactive fake actor in the world, Wasson our god and savior who is the inventor and source of entheogens and who owns any and all ideas ever about religious use of fungi and plants and chemicals.

Any theories at all concerning religious use of plants are derivative variants of Wasson’s theory, including considerable, complete departures that are, still, based in the Wasson theory.

John Lash tells us we must not be mythmakers, but must take up and faithfully carry forward existing myths to sustain their integrity – and then concocts a clueless false assertion that Yaldaboth is a reptile-headed lion.

The Yaldaboth malformed monster is, in fact, a lion-headed serpent.

🦁

🐍

Citation fkking needed!!

I looked up what I had assumed to be a citation in Hermetic texts CH I 25 to back up Hanegraaff’s wildly nonstandard cosmos model – and this Hermetic text just speaks vaguely of rising through 7 zones to reach the 8th zone whereupon he received gnosis through power, and the cited text came as far as possible from corroborating him — Hanegraaff made up this whole unstable cosmos out of his own historians’ imagination!

Typical; contravening his own directives to “base the field of academic history of Esotericism on a scientific foundation, not on religious mythology”.

Read a Science book, Hanegraaff: may I suggest Ulansey: https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Mithraic-Mysteries-Cosmology-Salvation/dp/0195067886/

When Hanegraaff lowered rung 8 of Mithras’ ladder, the sphere of the fixed stars, to fasten it to the top of rung 7, the Saturn planetary moving sphere, the fixed stars shattered and disintegrated in just two days, destroying the stairway to heaven.

How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later

1978 speech from the anthology The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick: Selected Literary and Philosophical Writings (1995).

Vialgate

The appropriate “take” and response and stance in reaction to Hanegraaff’s cosmos that’s a sizable portion of his book is the same as my eventual take on Brown’s throwing the St. Walburga Amanita vial tapestry in the river to show what a discerning model of discernment he is, claiming that its serrated base indicates it doesn’t match biology specimens: vialgate; faceplant; instant total loss of credibility as a judge.

This inexcusable elementary botanical identification error by both Brown and Brown tanked their whole theory; the Browns bet their theory against Jan Irvin on this vial — and lost, with me referring to “the failed Brown & Brown Psychedelic Gospels Theory v1.0”.

You have forfeited the Psychedelic Gospels theory; now it is in our hands — the Ardent Advocates — to correctly formulate the Psychedelic Gospels theory v2.0.

Brown and Brown double-biffed it royally, total faceplanted, forfeited, fumbled the ball; I picked it up and ran it to the goal.

Hanegraaff is Brown redux; this is not confident impressive bravado, but rather, devastating folly.

Learned, learned

The vial in the tapestry has serrations, unlike botanical specimens, therefore the tapestry that we proudly highlight in our book’s and article’s galleries of evidence proving mushrooms in Christian art is not a mushroom and this tapestry is not entheogenic, as over-ardent advocates Irvin & Rush rashly and uncritically claim — look at us, models of sharp discernment, Hatsis the anti-mushroom psychedelic witch; please give us affirmation now.

Amanita is the answer and solution to explain all mysteries, by Carl “Never Tried It” Amanita Promoter Ruck – gee, whiz, look at that giant mushroom! 😲

Lettergate

Egodeath Mystery Show began with a comedy piece about Eleusis and about the Panofsky Process to develop mushroom trees into pine trees to solve the art historians’ big problem.

Getting into the Panofsky headspace/ academics’ clown suit.

In my 2006 Plaincourault article, in 2019 by Browns’ article of the same title as mine, I was proven completely correct in claiming that Wasson must have withheld scholarly citations that Panofsky had to have provided to Wasson along with Panofsky’s massive claim to Wasson that art historians were thoroughly familiar with mushroom trees in Christian art.

WHERES THE GODDAM CITATION, WASSON; CITATION FKKING NEEDED!

The Artists Would Have Omitted the Branches Altogether

For the trees that we art historians say look just like mushrooms to at all look like mushrooms, the medieval nonrealistic-art artist would have had to casually burn/ ignore/ discard/ trashcan the templates without a second thought, that I just two seconds ago said that they are a fully beholden slave to, and go out into nature and draw a botanically accurate mushroom scientific illustration; the artist would have had to omit the branching ramifications.

the most influential art historian, Erwin Panofsky, regarding the countless branching-message mushroom trees in Christian art, in his PAIR(!!) of letters to Wasson, May 1952

Wasson, impeder of scholarly inquiry; censor and suppressor of citations, exactly as I accuse him of in my 2006 Plaincouralt article.

WHERES THE 🤬 CITATION, WASSON?!?! Cough it up, jerk, phony, fraud! https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/

Brinckmann, Mushroom Trees, & Asymmetrical Branching

Comments on Postings Near Aug 24 2022

YOU DON’T CONTROL YOUR SOURCE OF CONTROL-THOUGHTS.

The point of mythic analogies, religious mythology:

I need to compensate for scholars losing their way in mythology analogies and irrelevant spins on entheogens by putting extra-strong, very pointed emphasis on non-control, and why it is of the essence, and the real meaning the experience meaning of fatedness in the heimarmene-revealing altered state – and fixed stars is referring specifically to that.

By Hanegraaff’s book Hermetic Spirituality messing with the placement of the fixed stars relative to the rebirth experience, he is unknowingly messing around with the actual referent of mythic analogies, which is:

the model of what the mind’s transformative experiential trajectory is in the altered state.

That’s what we’re actually talking about and referring to when we interpret religious myth, so that needs to be our primary point of reference and orientation, not myth and its confusing play based in analogies.

In the intense mystic altered state, what is revealed most of all, above all, is timeless fate, block-universe no free will; non-branching possibilities.

YOU DON’T CONTROL THE SOURCE OF YOUR CONTROL-THOUGHTS.

That point what all this central focusing on “heimarmene” is actually all about, and that point is what we need to be explicitly and frequently centering the interpretation and discussion in terms of.

To really focus on the central point: it is revealed that you are not in control of the source of your control thoughts.

Experiencing this point is the experience of ego death, {exorcizing the demon} of possibilism-thinking.

All of this analogy is really about that and nothing else, and we need to get that straight and then tell our analogy stories built coherently around that.

This is the meaning of the fixed stars and where they fit in our trajectory of mental transformation process development process of moving from the first world model to the second world model, which is analogically mapped to the fixed stars.

And then later, we talk about “transcending” that – but only in a certain limited, orderly, controlled and narrowly specified sense, transcending fate – which means transcending the revelation that you do not control the source of your control-thoughts.

The freewill egoic premise is fully shut out in this defined “liberation from Fate” or however you market and spin it.

That is the central point, the central altered-state revelation that is mapped to the central level: the most important, main, central level is the fixed stars.

That (representing control power stability) is the central point of reference.

So you need to be sensible in where are you place that: and that is the eighth level, as everybody held – especially in Egypt, especially at that time.

Hanegraaff has gotten lost in late antiquity’s complex poetic ironic talk about “transcending”, and he has gotten lost about visionary plants and he needs to do a reality check back in, that we are talking about what are the effects of the plants on the mental model regarding control power, and then how do we map that to analogy centered around the stars – which means of course the real stars, not his fake, confused planet “stars”.

I had a vision from God or one of Hanegraaff’s daimons: like often with academics, Hanegraaff is more likely not writing out of masterful contrarianism, but out of mere ignorance building preposterous sky castles without realizing that the result flies in the face of David Ulansey’s established standard cosmology model.

Hanegraaff simply doesn’t realize that his proposal is contradicted by the standard cosmology per Eudoxus, Hipparchus, & Ptolemy (regarding that the fixed stars define the 8th cosmic level) and Christians, Mithraists, Hermetists/Theurgists, and Gnostics (and Ulansey, myself, and Erik Davis) (regarding that the 8th cosmic level is heimarmene).

He has shed much light, but there remains much darkness within the backwards underworld of academia where they are filled with superstition and taboos.

This morning I proved that he is making his radical assertions out of mere complete ignorance, rather than out of some kind of a masterful transcendent bravado.

He simply does not realize that what he’s proposing contradicts literally everybody.

And so the situation is not that I am debating against a master of the subject, but rather, I am teaching a rank newbie the basics.

Hanegraaff needs to read David Ulansey’s book and hypercosmic articles.

I proved that Hanegraaff is writing out of pure mere ignorance.

The proof that he asserts his malformed and unscientific cosmos model out of mere ignorance is the fact that he never shows any evidence of realizing that what he’s proposing is completely non-standard, regarding effectively placing fixed stars at planet level seven, and then declaring level eight to be above cosmic heimarmene.

I will be making superficial corrections of this set of errors that he makes, but the deeper error is his too negative attitude towards heimarmene, which will produce control seizure/ instability.

We must surrender to heimarmene (God’s divine creation) in order to have control stability in the altered state.

And then after getting right with cosmic heimarmene/ block-universe determinism/ non-control of our source of control-thoughts, then we can slightly transcend heimarmene after that.

He needs to say level nine is above heimarmene, not level 8.

The fixed stars go in level 8 per the standard model. Wouter Hanegraaff needs to reference David Ulansey.