Most important/pivotal is the 8th sphere = fixed stars = heimarmene/ fate/ no-free-will / eternalism/ block-universe determinism/ non-branching/ Ogdoad.
Important is having a level above the 8th: the 9th = transcending eternalism.
God/ Creator/ Source outside that system of spheres would be level 10 (not a sphere).
interesting unclear question is what does it mean to reconcile Wouter Hanegraaff’s “thoroughly positive description” of “the Ogdoad” with the astral stars which he describes as “negative psychological powers that have to be exorcised from you”.
My duty is to clearly describe transcending no free will in the pre-created block universe.
it’s Hanegraaff’s job to straighten out his mess that he’s created by not attaching inventory numbering to his overly multiplied and dissociatively schizoid levels.
Hanegraaff’s 8th sphere Ogdoad is a schizophrenically split and incoherent Ialdabaoth level.
🦁🐍
if I want I can analyze again: how does Hanegraaff describe & relate:
the 7 planetary powers
the astral star powers incl zodiac elliptic belt 12 constellations out of 55
rebirth is placed at what level
logos placement
noesis placement Nous
the Ogdoad level
Transcendence
gnosis level
the even higher Transcendence after rebirth in the Ennead level where you can look one level higher to perceive:
the Source, the pege.
Hanegraaff said after reading the entire book you would have to re-read the book – I don’t think he meant it like this.
I am going to have to sew back together again what he has dualistically torn asunder in a mentally disorganized way – and possibly even dangerous way; you could say spiritually danger that he has set up, that I have to warn people against.
Hanegraaff has dissociated the negative without integrating it in an intelligent, comprehending way.
Hanegraaff is definitely contradicting himself and not leaving any place to put the fixed stars
The correct way to read his book is every time he writes the word ‘star’ or ‘astral’ or ‘Ogdoad’, write the number 8 next to it, and then the problem becomes clear; he tries to demonize or describe the negative attributes of the stars and then he tries to glorify and talk up and be “thoroughly positive “reading of the Ogdoad.
But the problem is the simple numbering forces and reveals that the stars and the Ogdoad are the same level; they’re the same thing.
And so he has dissociated, he has psychologically dissociated the negative attributes versus the positive attributes of the exact same level while in his mind.
this is really remarkable –
By Hanegraaff’s zeal to tell a “thoroughly positive” description, and then by only inadequately treating the negative (negative = disproving egoic control power as vulnerable perishable delusion), as what he calls a “psychological” (that is, mundane ordinary state-based) approach, he had ended up with a gigantic disjuncture.
Hanegraaff has not figured out how do you get from the exorcising of the negative powers that possess us, planetary neutral governors – they’re not demons; they are deluded non-rational control agents (aka demons, that bedevil viable control stability) – to transcending no-free-will?
Hanegraaff has created a dualistic rupturing in his own thinking, while the surface story of his book is all about not doing that.
He has ripped the 8th cosmic sphere into two (the negative stars below “versus” the positive Ogdoad above) as if they are two separate things, two separate levels.
By refraining from attaching numbers and then only referring to their obscure names “Ogdoad” & “Ennead” like a meaningless talismanic magical name chant, he has covertly and maybe even subconsciously multiplied the number of levels in the cosmos and then made one of them floating nowhere.
In music footnote 114 he says “I don’t know whether to put the fixed stars into Saturn or into the Ogdoad, that is an open question for me.”
That is literally the one and only time in the book that he says the phrase “fixed stars” but per the Egodeath theory, the fixed stars is the centerpoint of the transformation guarded gateway passage.
In Astral Ascent Mysticism, always look for the fixed stars as the central point of reference; which refers to the transformative altered-state experience of eternalism.
For all of his elevated book and scholarship, I can’t believe that he can’t figure out the answer to this super easy question, but I think he knows that it would destroy his system.
He can’t put the fixed stars in planet Saturn, and he can’t allow it into his “thoroughly positive” Ogdoad, so the sphere of the fixed stars is left dangling in null space. 🤯
It’s really challenging to articulate the ramifications of this mess, and what corrections and changes would be needed.
Every time Hanegraaff discusses the word ‘Ogdoad’, he needs to entirely rewrite that to reconcile the negative traits or powers of the fixed stars level with his attempt to tell a “thoroughly positive” story about the Ogdoad as a transcendent level.
I accomplish that by saying enlightenment is awakening to the iron block prison of the block universe, and then when returning to ordinary consciousness, familiar freedom experiencing returns, and that is kind of like transcending the block universe.
David Ulansey describes this by having the (non-branching) snake around your body (soul) and then having your head (spirit) be in the realm of light that’s beyond the stars.
As if Hanegraaff has completely eliminated negativity dangling off to the side of his system with nowhere for him to place the stars, which he talks about he affirms that there are negative/ stars, but then when he jumps from numbering the planets to then leaping to discussing his glorified realms that are outside of the stars, he can’t figure out where to put the stars.
Hanegraaff has covertly torn the 8th sphere into two, and he avoids attaching a number to levels above the 7 planetary spheres (stars[8] or Ogdoad[8] or Ennead[9]), “split into two, better get your glue ready” like the song Collideascope by The Dukes of Stratosphear –
Collideascope Careful, don’t look down the wrong end You will see ships that fall out of the sky Everything looks smashed and broken
Everything looks topsy turvy You will see one young girl split into two One half who’s false one half true You better get your glue ready
Songwriters: Andy Partridge, Sir John Johns.
Earlier
Whether the fixed stars should be included [with Saturn] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad remains an open question for me.
Hanegraaff p 294 note 114 Hermetic Spirituality
they lost their freedom and agency … the heimarmene , the cosmic astral machinery of necessity or “fate”. … Fowden says “the grand theme of late Greek philosophy: the ensnarement of the soul in the bonds of fate, “
p 84
Announcement, breaking news – Hanegraaff says he doesn’t know where to put astral fate heimarmene fixed stars.
Hanegraaff tries to put the sphere of the fixed stars into Saturn, the 7th planetary sphere, and skip counting it as the 8th sphere, so that he can protect his pet Ogdoad, which he says is the 8th sphere, from the taint of Heimarmene fatedness.
BIZARRE!
Trainwreck ensues. He cites Bull. I really don’t see any way he can get out of this jam.
HE HAS TO ADMIT HIS PRECIOUS OGDOAD IS THE SPHERE OF THE FIXED STARS – Heimarmene Central.
He’s got to be completely wrong – it is avoidance!
There’s no way he can be right, as if there is any doubt or escape: it is simply an elementary GIVEN that the sphere of the fixed stars is the 8th sphere, the Ogdoad.
He wants to just get rid of it! Rather than allowing heimarmene into his Ogdoad.
Bizarre wording ensues throughout the book.
Dance Hanegraaff dance!
He says Saturn is sphere number seven, and he says that the Ogdoad is sphere number eight.
Then where in the effing hell is he going to put the fixed stars? Planet Saturn!?!
Nowhere, floating, swept under the cosmic rug. Pls make this problem go away 😓🙏
Maybe ingest some of your non-drug entheogens and a clever avoidance scheme “may” come to you.
Hanegraaff says he can’t decide whether to put the fixed stars in Saturn, which he says is the seventh sphere, or in the Ogdoad which he says is the eighth sphere.
He says astral fate and zodiac is heimarmene – astral means stars.
He doesn’t want to admit that his pet Ogdoad = fixed stars = Heimarmene prison = Fate = imprisonment of bodysoul (not spirit tho) = Logos = divine.
Hanegraaff can’t bear to put stars in his pet 8th sphere, he knows he can’t get rid of them, but he tries, he wants to put them in Saturn but obviously he can’t, so, the fixed stars are bizarrely awkwardly dangling nowhere, neither inside nor outside the cosmos.
Index: hiemarmene – 257 258 etc
Whether the fixed stars should be included [with Saturn] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad remains an open question for me.
Hanegraaff p 294 note 114 Hermetic Spirituality
Why is there any question? It’s evident his cosmology has a giant unresolved gap right at the most crucial pivotal level: fixed stars astral fate cosmic heimarmene. He clearly is not merely unsure re musical vowel pitches; his whole cosmology throughout the book chokes on this.
I wish to list quotes, lotsa great phrases about mayhem madness astral powers controlling pray dependence divine powers rescue from astral fate daimons exorcise etc – he obviously cannot put fixed stars in a planet sphere (Saturn, 7th).
He is apparently terrified with a severe psychological block against putting the fixed stars and their heimarmene powers in his pet Ogdoad which he says is the 8th sphere.
He is UNWILLING to put fixed stars heimarmene zodiac in his pet Ogdoad sphere, and he’s not allowed to put fixed stars in a wandering planet sphere, so what does he do?
His solution is to only mention “fixed stars” ONE TIME in this book: where he says:
“Whether the fixed stars should be included [with Saturn] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad remains an open question for me.”
WHY??!! He doesn’t say why! Heimarmephobia BOK BOK 🐔🐥🐓🍗 , doesn’t fit the unicorns & rainbows agenda! 🦄💨🌈
“remains a big scary problem for me”, more like.
Since it’s an open question for me, I just won’t talk about that the OGDOAD which you recognize as the 8th sphere IS NONE OTHER THAN THE FATE-RULED eternalism HEIMARMENE BLOCK UNIVERSE FIXED STARS AS EVERY DIAGRAM AND 2-BIT ESOTERICISM WEBSITE SHOWS
“open question” = euphemism for “I can’t figure out how to keep the fate-ruled fixed stars from being THE SAME DAMN THING as my precious Ogdoad of divine enlightenment”
The Esoteric Level of Cog Sci = Loose Cog Sci = Mental Construct Processing = Cog Phen’y
My version of Cog Sci is like esotericism; the good stuff; the real deal. Actual Cog Sci. Mental Constructs (anything that’s presented to awareness). Mental construct processing.
The Exoteric Level of Cog Sci = Neuroreductionism = Neuroscience Pretending to Be Cog Sci & Cog Phenomenology
Fake, reductionist, cargo-cult, neuroreductionism, as in:
The assumptions of the cognitive sciences—that there is no distinction between mind and brain,
Luther H. Martin, Studies in Hellenistic Religions (2018)
They say the magic word “Cognitive” and then instantly switch & downshift exclusively to the Neuroscience level, never having even really touched base with the actual cognitive level.
They wouldn’t know Cognitive if it bit them in the azz.
These mental children, lacking any abstraction ability, only can mentally handle rocks and neurons.
Put in cognition as input to them, and you get output: rocks and neurons, all the Cognitive got instantly dropped right at the input.
Insert mushroom esotericism art imagery, the output = distorted Italian pine tree, in a “naturalistic” reading (Thomas Hatsis, reacting against John Rush’s assertion that mushroom religious art requires non-naturalistic reading).
2) Saturn & Fixed Stars (the Heimarmene Gate). basic eternalism-thinking.
1) Earth; sublunar. naive possibilism-thinking.
Not shown: God above Empirium. God isn’t necessarily a level, but is the source-of-thoughts to be experienced at the fixed stars level.
Not shown: The 6 lower planets. Saturn is listed because pictured sacrificing the child to pass through the Heimarmene Gate.
There’s no real, functional distinction between Fate & Heimarmene; Saturn vs. fixed stars.
Don’t be fooled or over-impressed by ornate esotericism.
The scientific model is the most plain and streamlined.
Gratuitous ornamentation, vs. stripped-down function and clearest basic analogies.
Hofstadter’s book on heaping-on extra layers of stylization.
An invented distinction can assign Fate to Saturn/planets, and assign Heimarmene to fixed stars.
But Fate and Heimarmene & t’ding them are utilized identically; no functional difference. Like suppose:
Fixed Stars = Heimarmene. Saturn = Fate.
No meaningful/functional difference; a pseudo breakout/distinction. faux precision. To be fated is to be subject to Heimarmene. Two ways of saying the same thing. False precision like “the 12 negative energies: envy; intemperance, …” they are just arbitrary filler like “There are non-drug ways that “can” “induce or facilitate” the 2-bowls-of-cubensis experience, such as drumming, chanting, making up BS token lists of lies, doing laundry, beating your head against a tree as part of a spiritual cultic ritual, …”
First, people discovered switching to the eternalism experiential state and then returning to the possibilism experiential state upon returning to baseline SoC.
That is, they discovered the sequence progression: naive possibilism-thinking -> basic eternalism-thinking -> qualified possibilism-thinking.
Then, they artificially translated that innate threefold sequence to astral ascent mysticism (a leaky/forced analogy).
“We’ll assign: fixed stars = basic eternalism-thinking, earth = naive possibilism-thinking; then above/outside the fixed stars can be mapped to God and qualified possibilism-thinking. Then make up some arbitrary fake mappings to occupy the planets. For the highest planet, Saturn, take the {sacrifice child} aspect of the fixed-stars Heimarmene Gate function and reassign that function to Saturn’s sphere. (It really remains a single function though; experiencing eternalism-consciousness mode, learning the mental model that’s stable there, and then returning to possibilism-consciousness mode (but retaining the changed mental model of the metaphysical level & the stability requirements model).
Heimarmene Gate seems like it straddles Core Concepts & Key Mythemes. Useful for modeling the dynamics. Eternalism gate; no-free-will gate.
“Block Universe Worldline enlightenment satori gate”, I’d probably say in Jan 1988; hard to say.
My thought-style is so shaped by mythemes and analogies now, what would Douglas Hofstadter say to me now in 2022 vs in 1988?
It is not only a goal to have mytheme-free Core Concepts/ explanatory model; it is also a goal to structure / express my Core Theory so as to optimally map to mythemes.
Loose Cog Sci should be designed / expressed to leverage – as a distinct realm/domain – mythemeland.
Loose Cog Sci land (Core theory concepts) mapped to, and arranged so as to map to, Mythemeland.
The 3 Mental Models
uncontrollable source of control thoughts; God; the Source.
3) qualified possibilism-thinking; the 9th; the Ennead; Primo Mobile; above no-free-will; above eternalism; trans-rational.
2) basic eternalism-thinking = {fixed stars}, and {Saturn sacrificing the child}; ignore {6 other planets} but they go lumped in here; no-free-will; non-branching possibilities. insanely rational.
8:00 in the video & again later – it’s odd how Hanegraaff says “Ogdoad – realm of souls” and “Ennead – realm of Powers” (and then “the Source – the pege“).
He never seems to mention the terms per standard Astral Ascent Mysticism, “fixed stars” for the 8th (Ogdoad), & “the Empyrean” for the 9th (Ennead).
0 – Earth
1st sphere/gate – of the Moon
2nd sphere/gate – of Mercury
3rd sphere/gate – of Venus
4th sphere/gate – of the Sun
5th sphere/gate – of Mars
6th sphere/gate – of Jupiter
7th sphere/gate – of Saturn
the 8th sphere/gate – of the fixed stars/ Heimarmene/ zodiac elliptic belt constellations (but Hanegraaff instead says “realm of the souls“) – compare Body/Soul/Spirit 3fold scheme says “merely souls”; merely the soul. Need to transcend the mere soul. “Integrate & dis-identify with & transcend” the soul (per Ken Wilber)
the 9th realm/level – the Empyrean (where God & the Elect are); I’d assign “the spirit” here, given that the spirit transcends no-free-will/Heimarmene/ block universe. per a mythic interpretation of the fact that the mind after experiencing block universe, 3 hours later, is back to baseline consciousness experiential state of freewill-shaped branching-world experiential mental worldmodel even if the memory of the worldmodel-transformative experience of eternalism/ block universe/ Heimarmene/ no-free-will experience is eventually retained upon return to baseline SoC. Hanegraaff assigns “the Powers” here.
beyond the 9th – Hanegraaff says “the Source of all that exists; the pege“; the Creator; God.
His book has:
2 hits on “fixed”+”stars”: 41, 294 –
41 – “I am a star, wandering about with you”, “five-pronged stars will proceed from the sun”, keeping her gaze fixed on the sun’s inner space”. tons of mystic-state words – restore to peace, alien intruder, immortal, doors, gate, restore a sense of balance & control, asking for the doors to open, seven planetary gods, reborn, she has no business being there, asking for protection, asps, …
294 – FINALLY he mentions “the fixed stars”, he needs to add numbering like I do to straighten this out, he says he’s unsure. whether to assign musical note “the omegas” (vowel = note = some sphere level). Mahe says omega vowel/note = the Ogdoad, = the 8th, = the sphere of the fixed stars. But Hane says they mean Saturn = 7th cosmic sphere. Hane writes, take note: “Whether the fixed stars [= the 8th cosmic sphere] should be included [with what? write complete thoughts!] or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad [= the 8th sphere of the cosmos] remains an open question for me.”
9th level – qualified possibilism-thinking (transcending eternalism) = the Empyrean; the 9th, outside the stars, dwelling place of God and the Elect.
10th level – The creator/ source of control thoughts is the 10th level; God; Decad; the pege.
p 294 ftnt 114 : Hanegraaff asks whether the fixed stars should be included with Saturn (7th) in “the cosmos”, or instead to the Ogdoad which he wants to call, and usually does call (wrongly), “hypercosmic”.
Footnote 114, page 294: “… Saturn … Whether the fixed stars should be included or should rather be associated with the Ogdoad remains an open question for me.” – engage ESP to understand “should be included” [with what? he must mean the cosmos] Why wouldn’t you associate/identify stars = Ogdoad (8th sphere)?? Of COURSE the stars are the Ogdoad, that’s a trivial given!
How is there any doubt here?? wtf Hanegraaff.
It’s a SIMPLE GIVEN that the fixed stars are the Ogdoad, which is the 8th, the 8th sphere. Do you not understand basic science & math, wtf?
Obviously, as a given, the fixed stars = the 8th/Ogdoad – though functionally I observe that the gate of Saturn (7th) is functionally used in myth as the same thing as the Heimarmene gate of the fixed stars (8th aka Ogdoad).
Beyond the Heimarmene gate (which I propose = Saturn+stars; 7th+8th, both inside the cosmos) is the Empyrean including the 9th aka Ennead aka the Empyrean; God is in and beyond the Empyrean.
When you reach the level that’s past the stars, and are in the 9th, only then are you hypercosmic, outside the cosmos.
Consult any Ptolemaic diagram; it’s perfectly clear-cut, elementary school science.
WHY WOULD HE ASSIGN FIXED STARS TO SATURN’S SPHERE INSTEAD OF TO THE 8TH? Know-nothing Hanegraaff.
The only excuse for Hanegraaff’s ignorance would be that in Astral Ascent Mysticism, the 7th gate (Saturn) is treated as if identical with the 8th gate (the sphere of the fixed stars, which is obviously, tangibly, in all diagrams, placed outside of the planet Saturn, of course.
Saturn is a wandering planet, why on earth would Hanegraaff consider placing the FIXED stars at the PLANET Saturn?!)
He vaguely sometimes uses the term “hypercosmic” and I think this term is where ambiguity stems: ‘cosmos’ might include Fixed Stars (outside the planets/cosmos, or might be Beyond the Stars if you say “the sphere of stars in inside of the cosmos”.
Does “cosmos” include sphere of fixed stars, or not?? Define “hypercosmic”.
That’s probably what Hanegraaff is wondering; next page 297 heading is “Beyond the Stars” and on these pages he says “hypercosmic”; therefore he’s puzzling “does ‘cosmos’ include fixed stars, or not??”
That’s why he avoids “fixed stars”, because he’s not sure how to relate the 8th sphere vs the hazy word “the cosmos”.
The fact that the stars are the 8th sphere (thus, the Ogdoad) is 0% hazy.
The meaning of “cosmos” is hazy, but seems clear that stars are inside cosmos.
Thus the Ennead/9th is hypercosmic and the Ogdoad/8th (stars) is merely cosmic.
He tries to overglorify the Ogdoad and mis-place it in the hypercosmic heavens – confused theorizing results.
He over-elevates meditation and the Ogdoad.
I know the 8th definitely means the sphere of fixed stars thus it must by the Ogdoad which is syn of the 8th, but the unclarity is does he misspeak if he says the Ogdoad is hypercosmic? I think Hanegraaff misspeaks in sometimes saying/implying the Ogdoad (stars) is “hypercosmic”:
p. 295 bottom “they have reached the hebdomad, the seventh sphere of Saturn. Therefore their consciousness is still within* the cosmic domain, but they are ready to move beyond* it.” *I think that wording/model is an error.
Saturn isn’t the highest sphere that’s in “the cosmos”; sphere of fixed stars is.
‘the cosmos’, I believe, is consistently defined in myth as planets + stars.
{cosmos} in Ptolemaic-like myth never means just the planets; ‘the cosmos’ in astral myth always includes the fixed stars, afaik.
p. 296 “the seven cosmic spheres” I think that phrase is a mistake, malformed. The phrase implicitly dubiously implies that stars/ the 8th sphere/ the Ogdoad is to be dubbed “hypercosmic”.
p. 297 “Beyond the Stars” + “hypercosmic” (inconsistently now implying (in agreement w/ my opinion) that stars = cosmic; inside the cosmos)
He’s waffling, as he admits in footnote 114.
Define “cosmic”.
Is “beyond the stars” syn w/ “outside the stars”?
IMO the stars are INSIDE the cosmos; if you reach 8th/stars, you’re still INSDE cosmos.
Only when you reach 9th/ the Empyrean are you “beyond the stars” & thus actually “hypercosmic”.
On p 295, Hane definitely speculates asserting that the 7th sphere Saturn is still in the cosmos, but the 8th sphere is outside the cosmos.
He’s speculating that the sphere of fixed stars is to be counted as “outside of the cosmos”; he thinks the cosmos is the planets but the stars are outside of the cosmos.
He’s ambiguous on these few pages.
What’s actually unclear is: Is the 8th sphere “hypercosmic”, or not?! I’d say no.
p 295 bottom, Hanegraaff is wrong & mistaken to call the Ogdoad (which must be the stars) “hypercosmic” (if we agree that stars are inside the cosmos).
p 297 equates “hypercosmic” w/ “beyond the stars”, earlier page says “cosmic = the 7 planet spheres”. Contradictory. I say the 8th MUST mean stars. Whether we include 8th/stars is “cosmos” or “hypercosmic” is the only question. His use of “hypercosmic” is vague.
So he says “the Ogdoad” and avoids ever saying “fixed stars” except this one footnote saying “whether to include the fixed stars WITH SATURN [ie, he must mean, whether to include stars as part of “the cosmos”] remains an open question to me.”
Vague writing in this footnote at “whether to include”. Write complete thoughts, please! No unstated objects; no E.S.P.-based writing please! But it’s a dumb question, “whether to include the fixed stars with the Ogdoad”. Obviously the 8th sphere (“ogdoad”) is the fixed stars.
If Saturn = 7th sphere, and Ogdoad means 8th sphere, where the hell else would you place sphere of fixed stars: he proposes to count the sphere of fixed stars as 7th, with the planet Saturn(?!), lower than the sphere he calls the 8th(?!), wtf.
WHAT NUMBERING COULD THE SPHERE OF FIXED STARS POSSIBLY HAVE OTHER THAN OGDOAD IE 8TH?! 🤦♂️
How could Hane possibly be unclear on this? It’s clear as can be! A musical notes question, I can understand him wondering. His footnote wording is way too hazy and not articulated explicitly.
The only unclear thing possibly is what does “cosmos” mean.
Reality check standard of reference: Psilocybin is the gold standard reference for the intense altered state in the history of religion.
Hanegraaff’s imagination-exercise construction for academic scholar historians, “Entheogens in the wide sense” – that is, non-drug entheogens – is a contradiction in terms.
Hanegraaafff doesn’t even believe his own baloney, he’s just trying not to get Allegro’d while heroically doing as much as he is permitted, to clear some space for hidebound academics to try to catch up a little with popular scholarship.
Many fallacies are employed by Hanegraaff’s book, due to the irrationality-producing, corrupting force of Prohibition.
In self-contradictory fashion, Hanegraaff proposes that ancient Theurgists accessed “spectacular alternative states of consciousness” through non-drug entheogens.
Hanegraaff’s bogus confabulation “entheogenic religion in the broad sense” is a pretextual strategem as a proxy to enable scholars to discuss entheogens while pretending to merely discuss Yulia Ustinova’s cave meditation, leveraging her ABD (“Anything But Drugs”, no matter how implausible, impractical, and ineffectual) explanation of ancient altered states.
Academic scholarship and entheogens and imagination procedures are supposed to be used in conjunction.
Hanegraaff keeps habitually discussing academic scholarship vs. entheogens vs. imagination procedures as if they are zero-sum game, mutually exclusive, pitted against each other – as if you have to pick between them – a false dichotomy that’s rife throughout this book.
Hanegraaff imagines and constructs an impenetrable wall between academic scholars vs. experiencers – subjects to be studied as alien specimens – of the intense mystic altered state.
So his discussions in the book are as confusing as helpful, because they are fundamentally malformed and off-base, founded on false dichotomies: you have to:
Commit to using the approach of scholarship, or else commit to experiencing in the altered state.
Use reason, or else use the altered state.
Use imagination exercises, or else use the altered state.
Hanegraaff writes with zero concept of scholarship integrated with entheogens and imagination exercises, and fails to discuss or at all consider how that combination would work, but only thinks in terms of either/or capabilities and limitations of exclusively using one of them, pitting them against each other.
Hanegraaff emphasizes that scholars must explain intense alternate states – but contradicts himself by using a mere Psychology reading (hopelessly grounded, limited to ordinary-state conceptions of “negative energies”) of ‘exorcising the negative powers by summoning being filled by the power of the Source and Creator of all that exists’.
Hanegraaff rejects negative-themed, quasi-Hermetic texts without recognizing their interesting intense mystic-state referents per the Entheogen Mytheme theory decoding.
Hanegraaff falsely elevates mere controlled imagination exercises as entheogens, but which he says only rare people have that ability.
Hanegraaff asserts that normal theurgy initiates used imagination exercises in order to produce the intense “spectacular alternative states of consciousness”, but then he writes that only rare people have this special ability.
Actually such “other methods” are activities to do in the entheogen-induced intense altered state, not ways to produce the altered state.
Hanegraaff’s book and keynote article have internal contradictions galore, made irrational under the conditions of Prohibition and academic censorship.
Hanegraaff writes that scholars have no control over their mind or imagination or focus of attention, and that affects what they perceive as plausibly true – he writes those pregnant words without comprehending their intense altered state ramification for control-source revelation and transformation.
Wouter Hanegraaff’s 2012 keynote speech article and chapter, “Entheogenic Esotericism” covers contemporary, not ancient, esotericism.
Through a backwards approach to prescriptive word-defining, Hanegraaff tries to redefine the plant-defined word ‘entheogens’ on the fallacious premise that etymology sets the meaning of a word.
Hanegraaff twists the word ‘entheogen” to mean its antonym, contradicting Ruck and Ott and the meaning of the word for everyone in the field of entheogen scholarship, rendering the word ‘entheogen” unusable and ruined.
Hanegraaff inserts the falsehood of “meditation is to be used to produce the psilocybin state” into the word ‘entheogen’, rendering the word anathema, indeterminate, and unusable.
To use the word ‘entheogen’ as Hanegraaff has falsely redefined it would be to tell a lie that meditation is the equal of psilocybin and is to be thought of as a way of accessing the intense altered state, when actually, meditation is an activity to be done in the entheogen-accessed altered state.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/psychedelic – “from Greek psykhē “mind” (see psyche) + dēloun “make visible, reveal” (from dēlos “visible, clear,” from PIE root *dyeu- “to shine”).”
Hanegraaff’s bunk derivation logic goes thusly: the word ‘psychedelic’ was constructed from “psyche+delos” which means “making perceptible the mind” – thus yields the construction & category “non-drug psychedelics”, because for example, Grof’s hyperventilation makes the mind perceptible.
“Therefore”, as Hanegraaff argues, any non-drug “Other Method” that “can” make the mind clear/ visible/ revealed is “literally” a psychedelic, “although this broadens current understandings” (like robbing a bank “broadens” the understanding of “making a withdrawal”). Thus we academics have constructed, through the power of our imagination, “non-drug psychedelics”, aka “psychedelic religion in the wide sense”.
Except, none of these alleged, bunk & bogus “other techniques” produces the requisite intensity, as defined by two bowls of cubensis spaced an hour apart, as depicted in folio page cartoon panel f134 of the Paris-Eadwine Great Canterbury Psalter.
That illuminated manuscript shows a branching-message mushroom tree with initiates balancing and touching God’s sword of control-instability mystic death and rebirth, with left hand representing unstable perishable illusory branching model of world and control.
The balancing/sword/mushroom tree image is surrounded by 74 other mushroom trees with added branching and cut branches, along with vine-leaf trees and lifted garment motifs indicating the intense mystic altered state.
That – two bowlfuls of cubensis timed spaced apart – sets the definition of what intensity level these bunk alleged “other methods” would have to produce.
In fact the alleged “other methods” such as cave meditation and imagination procedures are activities to be done within the entheogen-produced altered state, not means of producing the intense altered state.
In his keynote article Entheogenic Esotericism, Hanegraaff writes: Don’t be suckered like I was by Newage claiming to be psychedelics-free; factor in coercive Prohibition-based censorship.
“My 1996 Newage book was rather naive”, Hanegraaff says – then in his article he tells a cover-up story that the traditional methods of the mystics are psychedelics-free [footnote 3].
Footnote 3: Shaw & Luck say Theurgy was likely psychedelics-based.
Keynote paper; article/ Chapter 19 of the book Contemporary Esotericism, “Entheogenic Esotericism”, cited three times in his new book Hermetic Spirituality; 3 out of the book’s 5 instances of the word ‘entheogen’ are citations of this paper:
See also his book’s index entry on Psychoactive plants.
Hanegraaff’s book dances around entheogens, in fearful avoidance roundabout taboo fashion, relying instead on citing his Contemporary-only usage, not-antiquity focused, article.
Hanegraaff means ‘entheogenic esotericism’ in an incorrect sense, as merely a subset of esotericism, that’s presupposed as being opposed to normal esotericism.
In contrast, my 2004 web posting’s coining of the term ‘entheogenic esotericism’ was well-formed, 8 years before Hanegraaff “coined the phrase” ‘entheogenic esotericism’ but malformed in conception, in his falsely narrow, supposedly subset sense.
My 2004 web posting instead asserts, directly against Hanegraaff’s premise, per my subject line, “Authentic esotericism is entheogenic esotericism”.
Bona fide actual real esotericism is inherently based in entheogens, not an innovative deviant subset as he assumes and falsely frames when Hanegraaff says and narrowingly misconceives when he says “ENTHEOGENIC esotericism”.
I am the original coiner of the term ‘entheogenic esotericism’, 8 years before Hanegraaff, but my entire point was to emphasize, against his predictable, unthinking, prejudiced taken-for-granted assumption, esotericism is inherently entheogenic, not some innovative, deviant, special-case subset.
Entheogens – the real, non-nondrug kinds, not Hanegraaff’s mis-imagined construction “entheogenic religion in the broad sense” – are literally everywhere in esotericism.
Hanegraaff’s imagined construction “entheogens in the wide sense” – i.e. non-drug entheogens – is the worst idea of any academic ever, for a whole list of reasons.
There is no esotericism without entheogens – that is, actual, effectual, real, exclusively plant-based entheogens.
M. Hoffman led me to believe that the term ‘entheogen’ was published by Ruck in 1976: I have definitely seen a citation (a specific claim), but not sure if I saw the actual publication – found it: Hoffman’s article gives “1976”.
I’m sure I’ve seen a 1976 citation. Was it mistaken? Did someone (Ruck himself?) mean the 1979 article but accidentally wrote “1976”?
Findings to try to corroborate that:
Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck. On the sacred names of Iamos and Ion: ethnobotanical referents in the hero’s parentage. Classical Journal 1976; 71(3): 235-25.2
Gordon Wasson, Carl Ruck, et al, The Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, Vol. 11(1-2) Jan-Jun, 1979, pp. 145 [Ruck’s citation says 145-146] https://www.academia.edu/60867378/Entheogens – Ruck’s papers: that article entry placeholder’s citation is: 1. J Psychedelic Drugs. 1979 Jan-Jun;11(1-2):145-6. Entheogens. Ruck CA, Bigwood J, Staples D, Ott J, Wasson RG. PMID: 522165. MeSH Terms. Hallucinogens*; Medicine, Traditional*; Terminology as Topic. Substances. Hallucinogens.
“Ruck, C.A.P., Bigwood, J., Staples, D., Ott, J., Wasson, G., 1976. Entheogens. J. Psychedelic Drugs 11 (1-2), 145-146.”
I tentatively assume that this is a typo by (the evil) M. Hoffman, because multiple other sources claim 1979, and this might be the only place I’ve seen “1976” as the date for this “Journal of Psychedelic Drugs p. 145-146” citation.
So I must tentatively retract my previous statements that Hanegraaff was mistaken in dating the term ‘entheogen’ to 1979; it’s evil M. Hoffman’s fault as far as I can tell.
In the keynote lecture at ContERN 2012, Wouter Hanegraaff said “I have coined the term, the new term ‘entheogenic esotericism’ for it, I’ve Googled it and nobody had used it before.” – Wouter Hanegraaff, 2012, lecture, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIMjjPg7uU&t=80s at 1:20, Video title: “Entheogenic Esotericism” (Wouter J. Hanegraaff, keynote, ContERN 2012)
“Authentic esotericism is entheogenic esotericism. Entheogens are the key to esotericism. This is the simplest possible theory of esotericism, and the most natural, the least contrived and strained. Theories of esotericism that are not based on entheogens suffer from the problem of grandiose verbiage, unmet promises and claims, chronic vagueness, excuses for lack of potent and prompt efficacy, and no ability to deliver the experiences which are talked about. Drug-free esotericism doesn’t work; it is not effectively ergonomic.”
These weren’t minor random posts or off-hand points; the opposite. Rather, I’ve been loudly hammering away fervently asserting that authentic esotericism is none other than entheogenic plant-based esotericism, steadily since at least 2001, 11 years before Hanegraaff; not merely mentioning the idea, but vigorously maximally asserting the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Esotericism – even by that literal name “Entheogenic Esotericism” since 8 years before Hanegraaff’s 2012 research and idea development.
The Psilocybin Reality Check against the Greedy/Defocused Broad Vague “Entheogen” Theory, Erik Davis egging-on Hanegraaff’s NON-DRUG ENTHEOGENS confabulation is the final straw here.
You force me to shove aside all your bullsht!
The Egodeath theory is a no-bullsht theory, and that’s why it has become a potent practical necessity to forcibly shut out your bullsht avoidance strategies.
THE GOLD STANDARD REFERENCE OF MEASURE for historical entheogen scholarship IS PSILOCYBIN. All else is avoidance and de-focus.
I often say “Psilocybin”, because:
Because ‘mushroom’ is mis-heard as the unknown Amanita/muscimol.
Because I’m sick of outsiders like Ruck who don’t even have experience with Amanita Muscimol effects, constantly proposing Secret Amanita as the one and only engine for all Hellenistic and Christian religion.
Secret Amanita Alchemy has become the impediment and problem, not a solution to explain religious history.
Because they haven’t even bothered synthesizing Muscimol.
I might be wrong, but the fact that you’re unsure of my claim, proves my point well enough.
No one gives a f about Muscimol, because it is low desirability and low relevance despite the artificial worshipping of Secret Amanita on a pedestal as the easy instant answer for all mysteries despite Amanita being a terrible choice for mass initiation.
Because I spoke about these questions with relative experts and they totally echoed, they exclaimed “Amanita? No, of course Psilocybin would be much more effective and practical for routine mass inducing altered state.”
They were surprised the extent to which Amanita has been lifted to the skies as the supposed engine for all mystery religious and Christian historical use, when people who actually work with Amanita and know about it consider it to be low desirability and hard to work with compared to ideal usability of Psilocybin mushrooms.
If they were session guides or hierophants, they said they’d definitely pick Psil over Amanita any day.
Ruck tries to turn this weakness into a strength, for his “Secret Amanita Alchemy” “secret processing required” obsession.
Ruck dislikes the Psilocybin hypothesis because psil msh are too easy/reliable/ non-secret/ available, doesn’t fit his “Secret Amanita Alchemy” agenda.
Because Psilocybin has been synthesized and heavily studied and is relatively most well known and understood.
Because Psil is specific, not vague. So much vagueness plagues and prevents theorizing, too broad of models of “mystic methods and effects”.
Forget vague and dubious “mystic methods and effects” or even vague greedy unfocused “psychedelics and their effects”.
I need opposite of vague, to construct an explanatory model of mental model transformation and mytheme decoding (identifying the experiential referent).
I need determinate and specific, to construct a guaranteed sound theory of how the religious mind works, how religious experiencing works throughout history.
Because if I can only have one chem or method to build a theory on, a desert island top pick, it’s certainly, by far, Psilocybin eg Cubensis in particular.
Because scopalamine effects are unknown,
because Hanegraaff and Erik Davis have ruined the word “entheogen” to twist it to mean “the unknown non-drug methods of the mystics” (= a lie), and
“psychedelics” broadly means cannabis and Lotus and ibogaine and unknown DMT syrian rue effects and Hanegraaff’s kufei insense (unknown) and MDMA and all kinds of bullsht, which is all an avoidance strategem.
Salvia is weird and not Europe history and not standard psychedelic fx.
Cactus/mescaline is too Americas and not Europe history and too long lasting poor for redosing to switch from curve to window shape.
entheogen scholarship only requires one entheogen, for adequate theory building: the entheogen that is dead center classic reference is Psilocybin.
Granted, ointments is strong, scopalamine. The good stuff is Psilocybin (the classic psychedelic), the cheap stuff is Scopalamine (deliriant) and possibly Amanita deliriant but who the f knows, I can’t build a theory on unknown deliriant effects.
I’m going for quality and clarity about the effects, to build and construct a clear theory.
Psilocybin is guaranteed to produce the intense religious mythology reported effects that are described by myth.
Psilocybin is sufficient for theory about entheogen history scholarship and specific.
Psilocybin mushrooms are ubiquitous, always present as a given available to every culture/religion. Only their use is unknown; their availability is a given.
Psilocybin are possibly cultivated, unlike Amanita.
PSILOCYBIN REALITY CHECK: stop the greediness that prevents effective focus.
The Good Friday experiment twice didn’t f*ck around with this bullsht: they intelligently for very good reason used no-bullsht Psilocybin.
5 strands in bk, entheogens is only one of five, and is half strong relatively pushing boundary as much as he permitted eg he is forbidden from including ‘entheogens’ in his index.
he is restricted to citing his exoteric esotericism , entheogenic esotericism article 3x – and that article isnt even about antiquity, but in it he remorsefully regrets being suckered that “newage inspiration wasnt from psychedelics”, and he fell for grof hypervent baloney that doesnt work, bc he failed to account for censorship estabmt prohibition false story enforcement.
this bk is a newage visualization imagination exercise for acad scholars
he fails tries to hide his worst idea of any academic ever, by obfuscation and failing to translate latin to english bc ridiculous as Merkur arguing that Gnostics didnt use msh , bc they avoid the physical – “sensu lato and sensu stricto” – aka nondrug entheogens aka nondrug psychedelics, to translate from Hane’s magical fear-driven language into plain English.
he shows academics how to dissimulate by proposing & imagining vague “other methods” that cannot produce max ctrl seizure divine madness as psil scop & syrianrue provably reliably do. useful for academics, sign on board to nondrug enths that work as well as psilocyb to produce experience of Heimarmene gate terror control loss and forced transformation to have Fear of the Source of your control thoughts & will.
The book makes great progress in some areas, but holds back in others. The author includes phenomenology in her analysis of religious texts and rituals. She provides a theoretical basis and bibliographical background for applying the cognitive phenomenological theory of religious experiencing to the study of historical evidence. But she is not well read on the entheogen theory and evidence for entheogens. She focuses on caves and underground chambers. This focus tends to distort her presentation of various cults and figures. She discusses entheogens only a little, though she does not diminish them. This is a book that describes historical evidence for altered states of consciousness with a relative degree of sophistication, but does not mention the entheogen theory of religion and culture. She does not discuss determinism, self-control loss, and cybernetics in any detail.
There have been at least two reviews of the book published in scholarly trade journals:
Bummer that Hanegraaff’s book abandons his “worst idea of any academic ever”, “entheogens in the wide sense” aka “non-drug entheogens” aka “non-drug psychedelics“.
I won’t get to make fun of him.
Correction: he hides it in Latin, didn’t abandon his bunk harmful idea. Saved! he does use this bad idea in the book; he hid it behind Latin, as done in his video keynote: find “sensu lato” – he continues his laughingstock move.
The traditional non-drug methods of the hermetist theurgists – that traditional academic phony presupposition is debunked by his new book, following his self-contradictory moves around footnote 3 in his article/chapter in book Contemporary Esotericism, Entheogenic Esotericism (a term I posted to the w w web 8 years before his article, telling him “Do not assert the dumb idea of non-drug psychedelics like you’re going to do 8 years from now”, but he didn’t listen to me.
bullshiite in the wide sense
Proposition:
Non-drug meditation can induce the intense mystic altered state as ergonomically as psychedelics.
True or false? False, therefore for all practical purposes, this is a FALSE (IE MISLEADING) CLAIM:
Non-drug meditation can induce the same intense mystic altered state as psychedelics.
Hanegraaff was trying to sell the idea of “non-drug psychedelics”
The use of non-drug psychedelics, such as cave meditation and imagination exercises, produces as intense of an altered state as two bowlfuls of Psilocybe Cubensis as shown in Eadwine’s Great Mushroom Psalter.
Wording in the 2012 Chapter/Article
“entheogenic religion (in the wide sense)”
“entheogenic religion (in the narrow sense)”.
Wording in the 2012 Keynote Lecture
“entheogenic religion (sensu lato)”
In Hanegraaff’s 2012 Keynote Lecture/Video at ContERN, he reads aloud his Entheogenic Esotericism article but says in one place, Latin instead of English.
“Wouter J. Hanegraaff (University of Amsterdam) introduces the notion of entheogenic esotericism in this keynote lecture to the First International Conference on Contemporary Esotericism (Stockholm University, 2012). Hanegraaff argues that the use of psychedelic substances in not only Western esoteric currents, but in contemporary religion more broadly, has not been sufficiently recognized in academic studies.”
NOTICE when he says “such as the traditional methods of the theurgists”, he censors out his Footnote 3, where he cites Luck’s article that shows that theurgy is entheogen (substance) based.
Also notice the video text description reveals his hand: there’s no BS about “wide sense”; it straight-up honestly, non-deceptively says “substances need more attention”, not “non-drug entheogens (entheogens in the wide sense) need more scholarly attention”.
Wording in the 2022 Book
“entheogenic esotericism (sensu lato and sensu stricto)”
The Sun Light is in the chamber room of the Psalter Viewer, row 2 middle (the center of the entire image) where – most amazingly – the Psalter Viewer is threatened or not threatened, based on whether his left or right index finger is closer to the ground, meaning which mental model he relies on: branching causes threat; non-branching relieves the threat.
In search of the lost chord, or, short of that, the perfect crop: include The Light, intimate, show the “threat” (ie definitely WILL lose control if), don’t dilute with the solution / breaking bow by lowering right finger meaning right foot meaning using / relying on eternalism-thinking.
HEY IDIOT CYBERMONK *LOOK* AT THE BINS, DUMAZZ 🤨 — note to Dumb Past-Me from Evil Future-Me, March 18, 2023
So ironic that I had *JUST* been talking about the strategy of radicalness: make the most extreme claims possible, do not allow evil-future-me to get a little toe in to out-extreme me.
YET, even as I said that, I was still mentally asserting that the bins contain grain, and also I was fixated on distracting other elements.
I was “locked” / “stuck” always, every time, mentally approaching this panel in a rutted way. 🤷♂️ bizarre how blindness works.
So even while I said “Be 100% radical/ aggressive/ greedy in interp’n; don’t leave any room for future me interpret this image more aggressively”, I was leaving this GIANT ENORMOUS big-as-possible gap
— even though I had already asserted Feb 1 – Feb 14, 2023, that the blue krater in Row 3 is to collect Cubensis — which instantly means that for consistency, the bins & bucket must too, be Cubensis (obvious in hindsight).
It just NEVER OCCURRED to me to try to look closer at the bins. Baffling; I would have liked nothing more than to see what is explicitly there.
I was totally stuck on assuming I “knew” how to read “the dumb guy collecting grain”[sic].
Foolish entheogen scholars: “No cubensis on bovine dung in Europe.”
Notes About How These Were Captured
Page created from scratch all on mobile device, including fresh captures – Cybermonk July 18, 2022.
The reason they are more colorful than Nov. 2020 is NOT b/c mobile device different, but rather, the library seems to have seen the dark, brown/green my Nov. 2020 pages, and they improved their colors sometime between Nov. 2020 & March 2022.
The bad good news is I “get to” redo all of my Nov 2020 screenshots, oh joy!
The Egodeath theory 
