The Gnostics were wrong. The Demiurge is just the tools of the

*so we can learn of all things in the great middle.

>>19257158
>How would you know the good if you had no idea of what is bad?
Let's say I give you a dollar, then give you another dollar, then give you two dollars, then give you three dollars, then give you five dollars, and go on like this for eternity. At every exchange you will understand that your wealth is increasing without EVER needing to know what it is like to have your wealth decrease. You do NOT need to be broke to understand what wealth is. You do NOT need to be sad or evil or suffering in order to understand what happiness or goodness or enjoyment are. All it takes is a change to compare to, and that change doesn't HAVE to be cyclical.

>>19257158
I'm sort of Gnostic but you make a convincing argument. I also believe that the Demiurge and matter is not evil.

File: Vishnu Laxshmi and Brahma.jpg (20KB, 220x299px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 220x299px

You describe Brahma.

>Created by the Uncaused Cause
>Secondary Creator
>could see nothing when first aware
>performed austerity, had vision of Uncaused Cause
>begins secondary creation on the order and authority of the Uncaused Cause
>is a position of great devotion to the Uncaused Cause - a servant, not a combatant
>tasked with creating form out of the unmanifest material energy so the living entities have a place to become mired (by their own choosing) into the material

I honestly don't get how this parallel isn't seen more often.

>>19258278
Nonsense Brahma is one one the highest demigods is the second in the disciplic succession of the Bhagavad Gita, considered a transcendal book of the absolute truth.

The demiurge equivalent in Vedic texts is Maya. If God "Is," then Maya is "That which is not" which means Maya is simply illusion. Illusion has no independent existence and is not real, much like a dream. When you awake from the clutches of Maya or the demiurge if you prefer, you realize there was no illusion or demiurge in the first place, since only God exists

>>19257158
what is the point of knowing endless suffering? That's basically what everyone is destined for.

>>19257158
Teach me to learn goo f a m

>>19258341
>The demiurge equivalent in Vedic texts is Maya.
I disagree. I think the position and actions of Brahma are a much closer parallel to the Demiurge than Maya - as I detailed above. The demiurge in Gnosticism is not seen as an illusion, as you are considering Maya. That would be closer to the Kenoma
>Separated from this celestial region by Horus . . . or Boundary . . . lies the ‘kenoma’ or ‘void’—the kingdom of this world, the region of matter and material things, the land of shadow and darkness. Here is the empire of the Demiurge or Creator, who is not a celestial Æon at all, but was born in this very void over which he reigns.

That is a description of Brahma being the Creator within Maya.

But even if yours is the case, Maya is yet again considered a servant of the Uncaused Cause, or God if you prefer. Maya is not an enemy.

>>19258383
Brahma is benevolent being that spreads knowledge of God, the demiurge is a malevolent one that keeps souls from God. Since the gnostics consider the Monad to be the true reality and is simultaneously all good, the demiurge must be concluded to be the equivalent to Maya.

>the land of shadow and darkness.
Shadow and darkness are akin to illusion. Darkness does not inherently exist, it's simply a lack of light and thus all that exists is light is that sense. Simultaneously if the monad is all good and is reality, the only way evil can come about is through means of the monad, or truth, being absen. When the truth is absent in a situation there is said to illusion arising from ignorance. Thus Socrates says that all evil comes from ignorance. I suggest reading Platos conception of the demiurge, the original coining of the term.

>>19258563
>the demiurge is a malevolent one that keeps souls from God.
The entire point of this thread is that this is a misconception.
>>19257158
>The Gnostics were wrong.
>The Demiurge is just the tools of the Creator.

>the demiurge must be concluded to be the equivalent to Maya
This doesn't make sense because Maya is not trying to keep souls from God NOR is Maya malevolent.

>Working under my direction, this material energy brings into being all animate and inanimate forms, O son of Kunti. For this reason, the material world undergoes the changes (of creation, maintenance, and dissolution). - Gita 9.10

>Shadow and darkness are akin to illusion.
Yes, that's why I think the kenoma is a better parallel for Maya. I feel like you aren't even paying attention.

>>19257158
But what's the purpose of learning? Why are we even doing this?

>>19258198
yay someone else said it first thx anon!

>>19260034
I think it's happening because I made a mistake, and the universe has since been preoccupied with trying to figure out how that was even possible to occur.

>>19258198
You need to not have the dollar first to enjoy being given the dollar. You need to not have the two dollars first to enjoy being given the two dollars, etc.

Evil is not loss, it is lack.

>>19260253

Were your words correct, none would be more evil than an infant, and no act more holy than the murder of infants. By this absurdity we see that lack cannot be evil.

There is nothing evil about not having a dollar. Evil is not lack, it is loss. Evil is theft, murder, and fraud. We are born lacking all.

>>19260269
>none would be more evil than an infant
Yes, this is why the infant is less wise. Evil is a contrived word with many dumb contextual attatchments. Better to call it "Good" and "The absence of Good."

>>19260253
>You need to not have the dollar first to enjoy being given the dollar.

Evil is not a loss or a lack. Evil is a completely seperate force than good. It is the negative to good's positive. 5 is not a negetive number compared to 8. Negetive 3 is the evil that brought 8 there.

>>19260253
>You need to not have the dollar first to enjoy being given the dollar.
Zero is different than null. Having no dollars is not the same as having zero dollars. When you first have no dollars, the concept of dollars is unknown to you. There is no loss AND no lack because how do you lack what you aren't aware of? Do you suffer because of your lack of grrfnuks? Do you even know what grrfnuk is? I don't. But I don't suffer because of this.

>>19260300
>Evil is a contrived word with many dumb contextual attatchments. Better to call it "Good" and "The absence of Good."
This doesn't change anything. Evil and good are value judgements people place on events or objects. Adjusting the "zero" position such that "complete evil" just means "complete lack of good" is no different than setting the Celsius temperature to the Kelvin scale - all you're doing is adjusting where zero is.

>>19260561
>Evil is a completely seperate force than good.
It's not a force, it's an opinion. Evil is just a grander way of saying "I don't like this."

If the One Above All wanted us to learn, it'd've given us infallible senses.

Knowledge is unknowable. There are truths and we can know them but we cannot know they are truths; thus the pursuit of truth is impotent. Pursue instead the good.

>>19261807
>Knowledge is unknowable.
Oh. My. Fucking. God.

You might be the ONLY true agnostic I've ever seen on this board. Have some muppets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55vR_jAtH48

>>19261807
If the One Above All didn't want us to learn, it would've given us shoddier senses. Open your eyes and grow some fucking ears. The pursuit of truth is the heart of power, for god, power, and truth are the same thing.

Do you know why the other guy called you an agnostic? I don't. You're pathetic.

Being "good" is culturally and time relative

>>19262179
Only if you've got a sloppy mind

>>19257158
As above so below

>>19262184
What does this have to do woth the cultural relativity and most importantly the time relativity of concepts such as good and evil?

>>19262189
Hey look, guys! It learned some words it doesn't know how to use! So cute!

Don't believe I. This at all. Evil is a sick twisted distorted view on life not really apart of life at all. We 're only forced to experience through the actions of others

>>19257158
That's basically the law of one's view of free will. Although they say separation is an illusion so eventually all has to be seen as the creator, before merging back into it.
http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=77#17
[...]
>Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad. It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment but also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn.

>Those Logoi whose creations have been set up without free will have not, in the feeling of those Logoi, given the Creator the quality and variety of experience of Itself as have those Logoi which have incorporated free will as paramount. Thusly you find those Logoi moving through the timeless states at what you would see as a later space/time to choose the free will character when elucidating the foundations of each Logos.
Another similar material
http://illuminati-news.com/00363.html

>>19257158
also wrong.

you should just read the bible.

>>19262430
The quote is cut but the entire answer is interesting. They also have a very interesting view on good and evil (or its illusion) and they refer to it as polarity, of service to others or of self. A certain amount of polarization being necessary to graduate into 4th density positive or negative (we are in third density of choice and self awareness, but our minds are veiled to make our choice truly free, in my understanding.). The mention of Lucifer in the quote is also a bit unusual. The material's main message is extremely positive in my opinion. The main message is that all is one. You might like it OP. There is so much in it that it's hard to explain. For example why both positive and negative are potential paths until right before the reuinification density, where all has to be seen as one (if all is one, serving the self is also serving all, technically speaking, although it's a "path of lies").

>>19258353
What about the lesson of compassion for others and for the self? I read this as an answer to this question the other day and I liked it. Also if you believe in reincarination suffering becomes something more transitory. I think the Buddha/Siddharta story has a lot on suffering. And how is goal was to meditate until he found a solution to suffering, iirc.

The Unknowable God is unchanging good.

>>He-Who-Is is ineffable. No principle knew him, no authority, no subjection, nor any creature from the foundation of the world, except he alone. For he is immortal and eternal, having no birth; for everyone who has birth will perish. He is unbegotten, having no beginning; for everyone who has a beginning has an end. No one rules over him. He has no name; for whoever has a name is the creation of another. He is unnameable. He has no human form; for whoever has human form is the creation of another. He has his own semblance - not like the semblance we have received and seen, but a strange semblance that surpasses all things and is better than the totalities. It looks to every side and sees itself from itself. He is infinite; he is incomprehensible. He is ever imperishable (and) has no likeness (to anything). He is unchanging good. He is faultless. He is everlasting. He is blessed. He is unknowable, while he (nonetheless) knows himself. He is immeasurable. He is untraceable. He is perfect, having no defect. He is imperishably blessed. He is called 'Father of the Universe'.

>>19262488
That's interesting. What is this from?
Thanks!

Explain demonic posession

>it's a tool to learn

What do you learn when you are disposessed of your own will and mind?

>duh...

>>19262492

Nag Hammadi Library

The Sophia of Jesus Christ

>>19262155
>Do you know why the other guy called you an agnostic? I don't.

Because you're stupid.
t. the other guy

A true or "hard" agnostic is someone who asserts that the nature of ultimate reality (God or otherwise) is not only unknown, but UNKNOWABLE. A soft, wishy-washy edgy teen agnostic is one who says "Maybe it's like this, maybe it's like that. Gosh, I don't know." A hard agnostic says "I don't know because I CAN'T know. And you don't know either. And no one will ever know."

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-08 at 11.23.46.png (617KB, 644x467px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 644x467px

>>19262659
>>19262492

Which are currently housed at the Coptic museum in Cairo

>>19262659
>>19262668
Thank you lots! :D
Will look into this!

>>19258198
But if you never knew why you needed the money or what it was like to be poor, the significance of getting money would completely lost on you. Does a trust fund kid care about a single dollar, or would they need to experience poverty to understand its significance?

>>19262924
>But if you never knew why you needed the money or what it was like to be poor, the significance of getting money would completely lost on you.
No it wouldn't. You are trying to place an unmoving characteristic on what is inherently a relative value.

>Does a trust fund kid care about a single dollar, or would they need to experience poverty to understand its significance?
Doesn't matter to the point I am making. The trust fund kid doesn't need to understand the value of a single dollar. My point is that it is possible to understand increasing value without ever needing to experience a decrease in value. Whether you start at zero or at some other arbitrary point is irrelevant.

No.

>>19262276
Look guys I don't know how to use a dictionary

Gotta get them out here now
Infected act so weird howd you get it?
Youre pathetic

File: allah.gif (19KB, 260x277px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 260x277px

(You) will regret this.

>>19263288
Look like a weird birthday cake with candles.

>>19258198
That's like you going deep into the Amazon, and giving billions of $ to the uncontacted tribes there. You're just wrong.

>>19263308
you mean like a Devil's Food Cake?

>>19262155
>>19262662
For what it's worth I'm not an agnostic, I'm an epistemological solipsist; I maintain that one can't know anything about anything in any capacity because certainty is unattainable within any context, like how early alchemists were certain that fire was an element, or molecular physicists were certain that things worked one way until strong evidence of the Higgs-Boson was provided, or the whole Tommy Lee Jones speech in MIB about knowing the Earth was flat. It's what Socrates was asserting when he said "I only know that I know nothing," with the caveat rebutted by Descartes' "I think therefor I am," contending that the self must exist in some capacity in order to be making these observations, and thus the self is the only thing that can be said with certainty to exist.

But within that framework, I operate on probability, because within that framework "knowledge" is still useful as a means to facilitate accurate prediction. Within that framework, I'm not an agnostic, I'm an existential nihilist, because I don't see sufficient grounds to conclude that the mind carries on after the death of the brain, nor that we exist in any capacity beyond that, versus the alternatives.

Either way, one concludes that the search for truth is null and usually redirects efforts toward generating positive utility, but the conclusion isn't exclusive to agnosticism, I guess is what I'm saying.

Same page, different book.

because the Good can in no way make up or compare to the bad.

eating cake, fucking, and creating slaves doesnt compare to the torture, pain, and suffering that all sentient life experiences.

Nail in eye>eating cupcake

Imagine getting everything you ever wanted, all the time. The soul's greatest yearning is to earn victory. This mode of living would profit you, but only if there were those who had lost in proportion to what you've gained. Moreover, the feeling of victory might seem hollow if it comes at no cost. You wouldn't deserve the spoils of victory. The point is that the world is more complex than "feed me forever because infinite abundance = God" or something. You have a choice between equality, and light pleasures, or an abundance of filthy pleasure at the cost of everyone else's, i.e. a chosen few. Something like that, I imagine. The fact that you need to witness your own beauty to take pleasure in existence is the key to knowing anything about God. The most seductive pleasure is gene expression. In being perfect. And you can only be that in the sphere of inequality.

Whats with all these Demiurge threads since 2017? What happened here?

I just googled "Gnosticism". It seems that Jesus is trying to wrest control from a more subtle, in other words "evil", deity, i.e. the Demiurge? But the totality of death is our only option. To wrest control from an eternity, in other words, is automatic, so the Demiurge is the only option. Jesus is flawed in his blind faith that produced for him so much power, or miraculous occurrences. His blind faith saw through copious augments in the form of deity. A deity that wants, that spews, that controls, that cares. None of it matters. None of it's real. He knew that, and he bent his knees to prove it. Save us, he cried out. But no one listened. A tragic story.

A miracle is an act of love, of dominion, of power. To love oneself so much that it becomes worship. A fanatical type of worship where results appear without fail. This Jesus had, moreso than anyone before him, and therefore, so do I. The Demiurge. The Demiurge. The Demiurge. I am Satan.

>>19263440
What a pathetic analogy. Did you actually mean something by it?

>You're just wrong.
You can always tell how little support a person has for their beliefs by how basic their assertions are that you're wrong.

>>19263649
>I maintain that one can't know anything about anything in any capacity because certainty is unattainable within any context
How is this not hard agnosticism? You haven't said single thing that disagrees with the assertion that you are agnostic.

Remember, hard agnosticism is NOT "I don't know."

>This mode of living would profit you, but only if there were those who had lost in proportion to what you've gained.
Based on what? Economics is not a zero-sum game, for example. Everyone can increase their holdings without anyone decreasing their holdings.

>Moreover, the feeling of victory might seem hollow if it comes at no cost.
But that's not what you want, and thus not part of the hypothesis.
>Imagine getting everything you ever wanted, all the time.
What you want is to EARN the victory, all the time. At least that's according to your statements. You're creating strawmen with the "hollow victory" bit.

>The fact that you need to witness your own beauty to take pleasure in existence
What makes you say this is a necessity for pleasure?

>>19265799
>You're creating strawmen with the "hollow victory" bit.

Whatever. I don't care for this nitpicky argument. The point is that it might serve you to get what you want always, but it would probably serve you even MORE if you suffered for what you gain.

>Economics is not a zero-sum game, for example. Everyone can increase their holdings without anyone decreasing their holdings.

Yeah, but who gains the most in this scenario: I pay for everything with stolen money. I contribute nothing. Meanwhile everyone else busts their ass for my benefit. It IS zero-sum. That economic theory in my mind was born out of resentment and folly.

>What makes you say this is a necessity for pleasure?

For a constant, no holds barred stream of pleasure that is incomparable with any other? Experience, and books. Read some Nietzsche is all I can say there. Also Neale Donald Walsch. You have the two opposing viewpoints there: equality and equanimity versus power, plain and simple.

>>19266128
>The point is that it might serve you to get what you want always, but it would probably serve you even MORE if you suffered for what you gain.
I disagree. You are brainwashed into thinking you NEED to suffer. That is nonsense. Earning something doesn't mean you have to suffer.

>this scenario
More strawmen. Your scenario has nothing to do with anything.

>For a constant, no holds barred stream of pleasure that is incomparable with any other? Experience, and books.
So you don't actually have any reason other than "Cuz I say so."

>Read some Nietzsche is all I can say there. Also Neale Donald Walsch.
Oh, sorry, you also have name-dropping.

Present an argument.

Man's gave sin is approaching That without prejudice. Man is a fickle fleeting thing leagues below where it hopes. Compassion and love trumps, this sentiment growing harder to truly have faith in as time marches on. No one wants to be wounded psychically, all the while, learning of power politics duration of this carnation which worldly power clings to. Did you eat of that fruit, too, anons? Have you faith in that pain or have you tried wrestle control? Have you harmed? Or turn the other cheek accepting all as divinely ordained?

>ignore me

>>19266168
>More strawmen. Your scenario has nothing to do with anything.

It only seems that way to you because the world is deeper than your economic theories make it seem. Zero-sum basically means: I win, you lose. The criminal is saying "fuck you", to the world, and he's playing your ass every minute of his life that he spends out of prison. Life is a zero-sum game, it doesn't get easier than that. The point being that just because an economy is thriving doesn't mean that some don't benefit obscenely more from it than others do, because their life is better than yours plain and simple.

>So you don't actually have any reason other than "Cuz I say so."

Experience is of a dimension that can't be easily put into words, and even when it can, very poorly. "Who could refute a tone?" Because the value of the tone is clear as day to anyone who isn't blind. The explanation is that you need something outside of yourself to create a contextual reference frame to know yourself as something, and you can thereby take pleasure in yourself. That taking pleasure in yourself is the highest intoxicant should be quite obvious if you do the tiniest bit of soul searching. Drugs, parties, TV shows are of a temporal nature; they don't last. Moreover I have a deep suspicion that everything else you feel is compounded by your pleasure in yourself, being that it feeds into itself making all pleasures feel even better. So yes, by all means drug yourself into oblivion, and feel good about that, but you are not creating anything lasting, at minimum.

>>19266271
>It only seems that way to you because the world is deeper than your economic theories make it seem.
It seems that way because it has no connection to what we've been saying. Show me what the connections were.

>The criminal
What criminal? The fuck are you on about? We are talking about whether you REQUIRE suffering to understand enjoyment. Why are you bringing up crime? The only reason economics came about is because I gave an analogy with dollars.

Show me how the criminal connects with the original premise.

>>19266271
>The explanation is that you need something outside of yourself to create a contextual reference frame to know yourself as something, and you can thereby take pleasure in yourself. That taking pleasure in yourself is the highest intoxicant should be quite obvious if you do the tiniest bit of soul searching.
NONE of this disagrees with what I am saying.

>>19266302
If you read back the connections are there. Life being a zero-sum game is necessary for pleasure because people like to either feel superior, or equal. You can't have both in the same person, and the question is whose pleasure is greater? I'm saying it is the one who feels superior. Hence, at least for THAT person's pleasure, suffering is required.

>>19266316
Okay, true enough, but here's where things get difficult. Because taking pleasure in yourself means drowning out other people's sense of that pleasure, because, as I've been trying to say, life is a zero-sum game. No one would feel ugly if everyone were ugly. And if everyone were beautiful, it would not be a valued commodity. It would have far less value. I don't know how it evens out, because I've never lived anywhere where everyone was beautiful or whatever. But, hey. Fuck it. I don't want to argue anymore. The point is at least a bit clear to me anyways.

>>19266340
>If you read back the connections are there.
Please quote them. Obviously I had trouble finding these connections.

>Life being a zero-sum game is necessary for pleasure because people like to either feel superior, or equal.
You haven't shown that people feeling superior is necessary for enjoyment. There are people that don't feel superior or equal and can enjoy.

You haven't shown that life is a zero-sum game. If life were zero-sum, then the clear increase in population over time would be impossible.

>You can't have both in the same person
You can have one, or neither, and still enjoy.

>and the question is whose pleasure is greater?
No it isn't.

>I'm saying it is the one who feels superior.
Unproven assertion.

>Hence, at least for THAT person's pleasure, suffering is required.
There is no suffering required for a person to feel superior.

>Because taking pleasure in yourself means drowning out other people's sense of that pleasure
How? I can enjoy internally regardless of any exterior situation. My internal enjoyment has no effect on the external situation. Your statement has no support.

> life is a zero-sum game
If life were zero-sum, population increase would be impossible.

>No one would feel ugly if everyone were ugly. And if everyone were beautiful, it would not be a valued commodity.
If absolutely everyone saw themselves are more beautiful by the moment at every moment, then everyone would feel beautiful at all times with no one feeling ugly.

> it would not be a valued commodity. It would have far less value.
So? It doesn't matter where the value would be in comparison to your "ugly" model, what matters if everyone is feeling more beautiful at every moment.

>>19266386
>If absolutely everyone saw themselves are more beautiful by the moment at every moment, then everyone would feel beautiful at all times with no one feeling ugly.

That is a fine sentiment, but the reality is far more dire. People compare themselves with each other, that's just how it is. Their feelings of self-worth underpin their every waking moment. They are tortured by these comparisons, and, what's more, their wellbeing is threatened when something superior shows up. That's just how it is, again, reason being that people take what isn't theirs. They will mistreat you at every opportunity especially when it benefits their agenda. I am responding to this point by the way because I find it interesting. Beyond this I don't think we have much to discuss, and I am not great at explaining this point either unfortunately. There's no way I can "prove" it to you I mean. This is just how I think. :/

>>19266433
>That is a fine sentiment, but the reality is far more dire
You can say that, but at the end of the day, when the chips are down the reality is such that the bottom line is exactly how I said it is.
>People compare themselves with each other, that's just how it is.
>is-ought
I am am talking about possibility. You have not shown it is NECESSARY to suffer in order to enjoy. All you've shown is that most are stupid enough to do it that way.

>There's no way I can "prove" it to you I mean.
Then relegate it to opinion, and stop trying to convince people it is "right."

>>19265799
>How is this not hard agnosticism? You haven't said single thing that disagrees with the assertion that you are agnostic.
>
>Remember, hard agnosticism is NOT "I don't know."

Because while I cannot KNOW whether there is a divine creator/afterlife/human spirit, I also don't BELIEVE there is. Ergo, I'm an existential nihilist, while also happening to be an epistemological solipsist. The statements you're using in the context of divinity to define agnosticism are called agnosticism when applied to divinity, but they can be applied to everything else as well, and when they are, they're a matter of epistemology rather than ideology. Squares and rectangles.

File: knowledge and belief chart.png (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>19267261
>Because while I cannot KNOW whether there is a divine creator/afterlife/human spirit, I also don't BELIEVE there is.
Your belief has nothing to do with the ability to know.

I am not applying this purely to divinity. One could just as easily be an empirical materialist and STILL be either gnostic or agnostic about the nature of reality. Epistemological solipsism IS agnostic in its reasoning.

>>19265799
>What a pathetic analogy
Yours is much much worse, friend. You can not know one without the other.

>>19268473
>You can not know one without the other.
You have given no reason to assert this. I gave a clear example of how one can know a value as ever-increasing through comparison with no need to understand the opposite of that value. I gave an example with dollars that fits exactly what I'm talking about. You can do it with happiness or beauty or any umber of traits. You have no stance, and repetition of the assertion is idiotic.