Where Gods come from; or, The advantages of ejecting religion from one's praxis

[aviaf]

You talk about paucity like immortality is something you can measure. It isn’t. The immortal don’t parade for the living—they just are. Triumph isn’t a show; it’s lived. Every current leaves its mark. Influence is power. Fear it, and you admit weakness. Fire will burn the careless, but the one who tends the forge bends it to impossible ends. The current isn’t a cage—it’s raw material. If you can’t handle it, step aside. Rites survive. Forms fall apart. Heirs screw up—but the force stays. A crack in the vessel doesn’t mean the wine is gone. Orders hide their secrets for a reason: most quit before they even begin to understand anything. The ones who misunderstand what they do get full of themselves and think that makes them experts. Spoiler: it doesn’t. Mastery isn’t rank. It’s endurance, it’s shaping what actually works to your hand. Your path. Your rules. Immortality isn’t the point. Endurance. Presence. Mastery. That’s it. Do an LBRP right and even a total newbie feels it—hairs on their arms, shivers down the spine. Crowley said: don’t take my word. Try it. Generation after generation, it works. Those who listen, learn. The rest? They sit in their little echo chambers counting shadows while you walk through fire you built yourself—unbound, and laughing.

 

[Morell]

However, in my view, we do not actually need to transcend anything. We are not humans having a spiritual experience, we are already spiritual beings having a human experience. No need to seek the Exit sign from the World prematurely by rising above it all.

There is no required "higher development", there is only more self-coherency, more consciousness, and more joy. And you can do that by seeking the "higher" until you burn away everything that is not your singular vision of Self - or - you can throw yourself into the sublunar world, experience all it's complexity, until you recognize the Self in the noise.

Somehow I cannot agree with that. Nothing against the religion you follow, it just doesn't fit with my experience. If we were spirits having human experience, it would be harder for us to get into human "settings" than back into spiritual one. But it seems to be other way around. Our basic settings is with the body, not without it. When in danger or allarmed, you get into the body rather than out of it. Not every time, but most of the time.

Stability of physical realm seems to be important. My pesonal current theory is that physical bosy serves as life support, incubator or a womb for a soul to develop into a state where it won't need body anymore. But that has to happen actively by deeds of the soul, work on itself. Physical evolution cannot help beyond physical limitations.

Just my two cents...

 

[Beyond Everything]

Do an LBRP right and even a total newbie feels it—hairs on their arms, shivers down the spine. Crowley said: don’t take my word. Try it. Generation after generation, it works. Those who listen, learn. The rest? They sit in their little echo chambers counting shadows while you walk through fire you built yourself—unbound, and laughing.

Maybe it's just me, but I demand more than chills from what I do. You can get chills going to a pentacostal meeting.

Are you aware that Regardie at the end of his life stated if he could do it all over again, he wouldn't have practiced magick?

When you look at the actual history of the Golden Dawn, what is in there that is so worth emulating? You're surely aware the Golden Dawn started in fraud?

Crowley couldn't even get his money magick to work, at time was so poor he couldn't even afford paper. What makes him an authority?

Post automatically merged: Sep 27, 2025

Stability of physical realm seems to be important. My pesonal current theory is that physical bosy serves as life support, incubator or a womb for a soul to develop into a state where it won't need body anymore. But that has to happen actively by deeds of the soul, work on itself. Physical evolution cannot help beyond physical limitations.

Pretty much, but the physical body transforms too, so I dont think womb quite captures it.

The thing is- people would rather go on and on about phantasms and thoughtforms like 'True Will', HGA, Cosmic Union or whatever, rather than grasp the reins of the real thing.

Of course, the practical keys to this are very elusive. Some people attempt this using the Golden Dawn's Body of Light exercise over and over, but that doesn't really cut the mustard.

 

[aviaf]

You’re missing the forest for all the damned trees. Chills are the entry ticket, not the reward—anyone can get goosebumps at a concert, a revival, or a carnival. Magic isn’t about anecdotes, gossip, or the failings of others; it’s about moving currents, enduring fire, and letting presence speak without words.

The Golden Dawn’s human flaws don’t erase methods that still move currents a century and a half later. Crowley’s failures? Mostly gossip. Measure worth by practice, presence, and mastery, not chatter. Use whatever tools or rituals actually work for you. Do your thing, bud.

“Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.”

 

[Beyond Everything]

You’re missing the forest for all the damned trees. Chills are the entry ticket, not the reward—anyone can get goosebumps at a concert, a revival, or a carnival. Magic isn’t about anecdotes, gossip, or the failings of others; it’s about moving currents, enduring fire, and letting presence speak without words.

The Golden Dawn’s human flaws don’t erase methods that still move currents a century and a half later. Crowley’s failures? Mostly gossip. Measure worth by practice, presence, and mastery, not chatter. Use whatever tools or rituals actually work for you. Do your thing, bud.

“Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.”

I don't know what 'moving currents' means, but what I typed about Crowley was not 'gossip', but documented biographic material.

I think if one is going to magically emulate people, then looking at how those people actually live is kind of a smart thing to do. For example, Mathers was never able to even get himself out of poverty. That sort of tells you something.

'Just shut up and work' is actually really bad advice. One can spend decades on a dead end.

 

[aviaf]

ummm

Post automatically merged: Sep 27, 2025

I don't know what 'moving currents' means, but what I typed about Crowley was not 'gossip', but documented biographic material.

I think if one is going to magically emulate people, then looking at how those people actually live is kind of a smart thing to do. For example, Mathers was never able to even get himself out of poverty. That sort of tells you something.

'Just shut up and work' is actually really bad advice. One can spend decades on a dead end.

You’re mistaking biography for authority. Poverty doesn’t invalidate a current—if it did, half the saints, mystics, and prophets of history would be written off as failures. Mathers died poor, Crowley died poor—yet their methods still ripple through modern practice. That’s the point: the current outlives the vessel.

“Moving currents” isn’t vague—it’s the lived force of ritual that changes states of being, shifts perception, and bends probability. You don’t have to like Crowley, or the Golden Dawn, but you can’t deny their rites still work. That’s the only test that matters.

Dead ends exist, sure. But dismissing entire systems because their founders were flawed is like refusing to use fire because someone once burned their house down. The Work isn’t about emulating personalities—it’s about wielding technologies. Crowley’s authority isn’t in his bank account; it’s in the fact that a century later, people are still arguing about him while practicing techniques he preserved. That’s endurance. That’s legacy.

I’m not a Crowley devotee—I don’t even work in his paradigm anymore. But after a decade in the O.T.O. and years with his books, I can say this: the man could write. The Book of Lies, Magick Without Tears—they’re still worth revisiting, not because I worship the author, but because the ideas and the style are alive. You don’t have to like him to admit he left echoes that still shape the landscape. That’s not fanaticism—that’s just recognizing influence.

And circling back to the OP—no, you don’t have to use religious frameworks in your practice. That’s the difference between theurgy and thaumaturgy. Theurgy leans on gods, spirits, and egregores as vehicles; thaumaturgy is about direct manipulation of forces without invoking a divine mask. Both are valid toolkits. The point is choice. If you want to strip religion out entirely, you can. If you want to ride a godform current, you can. Neither path is “wrong”—what matters is whether it works for you.

And since we're already on the subject: if being broke disqualified you from magical authority, half the occult section of history would vanish overnight—and most of us would have to hand in our wands. Sure, the Golden Dawn started in fraud. So did half of Wall Street, and they’re still doing just fine. Crowley couldn’t keep his wallet full, but he managed to keep the astral plane noisy for a century. Priorities, right?
Crowley died broke, but his current is still paying dividends—if that’s failure, most magicians should be so lucky.

 

[MorganBlack]

Morell, I appreciate you doing your Will, and there is a place for high motivated, usually duelist cosmologies vs low-key, non-dualist cosmologies. And I say that, "down" here, in Duality with the rest of us.

I am actually not particularly religious, but if I have a personal "religion" it's my own sort of Sublunar Daimonic Neoplatonism, as revealed by various theophanies. I certainly will not try to convert anyone because this is a road we all must travel alone, even if I speak from those experiences.

I was raised Unitarian Universalist, which is very Sufic in nature and respectful of all religions, but I mostly switch between, broadly, a Gondwanian (non-dual) -vs. -Laurasian (dualist) mythological framework depending on if I need to chill and seek connection - vs. - highlight differences I want changed , and get motivated for some sorcery (Goetia).

Not to be too pedantic, but this is cool, and a useful framework to look a various mythsteams: the Gondwanian vs. Laurasian mythologies.

See Prof. Michael Witzel's book 'The Origins of the World's Mythologies'

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Prof. Michael Witzel's research suggests there are really only two 'religions' and he writes about a fundamental bifurcation in world mythologies between what he calls Gondwana mythologies and Laurasian mythologies.

Gondwana mythologies (found in sub-Saharan Africa, Melanesia, Australia, and parts of South America):
They are by far the older myths. They tend to be more episodic and less systematically structured, focusing on creation through emergent properties, or transformation, but also often lack grand narrative arcs about the cosmic. Gondwanian myths are often expressed hidden in fairy tales, and emphasize the eternal present and cyclical patterns in nature.

Laurasian mythologies (found across Eurasia, the Americas via Beringia, and North Africa)
They propose a structured narrative sequence: creation → development → destruction → recreation, and usually concepts of cosmic ages, world trees, and systematic pantheons. They emphasize linear progression through time toward some ultimate resolution, and often involve heroic journeys and the overcoming of primordial chaos.

A good ur-example of these is the Mesopotamian myths (née Sumerian) which envisions the creation of the universe based on an act of murder, when Marduk killed the primal chaos dragon Tiamat.

Quick note, in my view when we are starting out we must strive for excellence, so we usually employ the Laurasian myths. Later, after our visions and personal growth (also called learning not to be a bastard too much) we grow into the Gondwanian, as we see more of the interconnectedness of consciousness. (Not that we have to become all sweetness and light.)

Most of our esoteric and religion stories are fundamentally Laurasian. Catholicism and Judeo-Christian myths are Laurasian, as are Egyptian, Aztec myths, as well as many others. These are the myths to use when you need a kick in the pants and do some Nietzschean Self-Overcoming, or personal theosis work. Defeat some personal demons.

Gondwanian is the myth of the Eternal Now, where everything is already perfect. And always has been, and always will be. The only modern day articulations I have seen of this myth is in Neville Goddardian New Thought, and modern Block Universe model.

We could use more. Too much Laurasian makes everyone cramped and aggro.

 

[aviaf]

'Just shut up and work' is actually really bad advice. One can spend decades on a dead end.

I never said ‘shut up and work.’ What I said was: measure worth by practice and results, not gossip. That’s not anti‑thinking—it’s pro‑doing. Reflection and practice aren’t opposites; they’re the two legs you walk on.

Post automatically merged: Sep 27, 2025

Morell, I appreciate you doing your Will, and there is a place for high motivated, usually duelist cosmologies vs low-key, non-dualist cosmologies. And I say that, "down" here, in Duality with the rest of us.

I am actually not particularly religious, but if I have a personal "religion" it's my own sort of Sublunar Daimonic Neoplatonism, as revealed by various theophanies. I certainly will not try to convert anyone because this is a road we all must travel alone, even if I speak from those experiences.

I was raised Unitarian Universalist, which is very Sufic in nature and respectful of all religions, but I mostly switch between, broadly, a Gondwanian (non-dual) -vs. -Laurasian (dualist) mythological framework depending on if I need to chill and seek connection - vs. - highlight differences I want changed , and get motivated for some sorcery (Goetia).

Not to be too pedantic, but this is cool, and a useful framework to look a various mythsteams: the Gondwanian vs. Laurasian mythologies.

See Prof. Michael Witzel's book 'The Origins of the World's Mythologies'

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Prof. Michael Witzel's research suggests there are really only two 'religions' and he writes about a fundamental bifurcation in world mythologies between what he calls Gondwana mythologies and Laurasian mythologies.

Gondwana mythologies (found in sub-Saharan Africa, Melanesia, Australia, and parts of South America):
They are by far the older myths. They tend to be more episodic and less systematically structured, focusing on creation through emergent properties, or transformation, but also often lack grand narrative arcs about the cosmic. Gondwanian myths are often expressed hidden in fairy tales, and emphasize the eternal present and cyclical patterns in nature.

Laurasian mythologies (found across Eurasia, the Americas via Beringia, and North Africa)
They propose a structured narrative sequence: creation → development → destruction → recreation, and usually concepts of cosmic ages, world trees, and systematic pantheons. They emphasize linear progression through time toward some ultimate resolution, and often involve heroic journeys and the overcoming of primordial chaos.

A good ur-example of these is the Mesopotamian myths (née Sumerian) which envisions the creation of the universe based on an act of murder, when Marduk killed the primal chaos dragon Tiamat.

Quick note, in my view when we are starting out we must strive for excellence, so we usually employ the Laurasian myths. Later, after our visions and personal growth (also called learning not to be a bastard too much) we grow into the Gondwanian, as we see more of the interconnectedness of consciousness. (Not that we have to become all sweetness and light.)

Most of our esoteric and religion stories are fundamentally Laurasian. Catholicism and Judeo-Christian myths are Laurasian, as are Egyptian, Aztec myths, as well as many others. These are the myths to use when you need a kick in the pants and do some Nietzschean Self-Overcoming, or personal theosis work. Defeat some personal demons.

Gondwanian is the myth of the Eternal Now, where everything is already perfect. And always has been, and always will be. The only modern day articulations I have seen of this myth is in Neville Goddardian New Thought, and modern Block Universe model.

We could use more. Too much Laurasian makes everyone cramped and aggro.

I like the way you framed that—dualist vs. non‑dualist cosmologies as different gears you can shift into depending on the Work at hand. That’s very much how I see it too: sometimes you need the Laurasian arc of struggle, overcoming, and transformation; other times the Gondwanian sense of the Eternal Now is the medicine.
Witzel’s bifurcation is a useful lens. Laurasian myths give us the heroic arc, the cosmic drama, the fire to push through resistance. Gondwanian myths remind us that all of that striving is already contained in a larger wholeness. One is the sword, the other the still water. Both are tools.
And I agree—too much Laurasian and you end up clenched, always fighting dragons. Too much Gondwanian and you risk drifting into passivity. The art is in knowing when to pick up which mythic current. That’s why I don’t see “phantasms” like True Will or HGA as empty—they’re Laurasian scaffolds that can eventually open into Gondwanian presence.
So yes—sometimes I need the kick in the pants of a Laurasian myth to burn through inertia. Other times, I need the Gondwanian reminder that the current is already flowing, and the work is to align with it. Both currents are alive, and both have their place in the magician’s toolkit.

 

[Beyond Everything]

Crowley’s authority isn’t in his bank account; it’s in the fact that a century later, people are still arguing about him while practicing techniques he preserved. That’s endurance. That’s legacy.

There are more scientologists than OTO and AA members, L Ron Hubbard has a legacy too. That doesn't mean it's worth the time and effort to utilize his work.

If we want to say an occultist being unable to manifest using their'technologies' is irrelevant to one's consideration, I don't know what to tell you. Occultists tend to really engage in quite a bit of excuse making. This helps them avoid looking at hard issues.

While someone else is unknowingly encouraging a thoughtform to communicate with them (the hga) and chasing their own tail trying to uncover a 'true will', a person on the real path is in the process of transmuting into immortality.

 

[aviaf]

There are more scientologists than OTO and AA members, L Ron Hubbard has a legacy too. That doesn't mean it's worth the time and effort to utilize his work.

If we want to say an occultist being unable to manifest using their'technologies' is irrelevant to one's consideration, I don't know what to tell you. Occultists tend to really engage in quite a bit of excuse making. This helps them avoid looking at hard issues.

While someone else is unknowingly encouraging a thoughtform to communicate with them (the hga) and chasing their own tail trying to uncover a 'true will', a person on the real path is in the process of transmuting into immortality.

That’s my last word on it—any more would just be shadowboxing with echoes

 

[BBBB]

There are more scientologists than OTO and AA members, L Ron Hubbard has a legacy too. That doesn't mean it's worth the time and effort to utilize his work.

If we want to say an occultist being unable to manifest using their'technologies' is irrelevant to one's consideration, I don't know what to tell you. Occultists tend to really engage in quite a bit of excuse making. This helps them avoid looking at hard issues.

While someone else is unknowingly encouraging a thoughtform to communicate with them (the hga) and chasing their own tail trying to uncover a 'true will', a person on the real path is in the process of transmuting into immortality.

What exactly do you know about L.R. Hubbard's work to discard it so? And then I would be very much interested to learn what other sources made you think LRH is not worth it by comparison. Because those might be stellar and it would be a shame to miss them.

And HGA is not a thoughtform.

 

[Beyond Everything]

What exactly do you know about L.R. Hubbard's work to discard it so? And then I would be very much interested to learn what other sources made you think LRH is not worth it by comparison. Because those might be stellar and it would be a shame to miss them.

And HGA is not a thoughtform.

Are you kidding about Hubbard? I laughed because where do you start? You find merit in Xenu the overlord?

From a conventional perspective, we know from memory research that memories aren't static things but actually change each time we access them.

From an esoteric perspective....people don't develop the abilities that Hubbard claimed they would in the higher grades. They give up their personal info and their cash though.

It's such an obvious con job I have to wonder what you are thinking here.

 

[PinealisGlandia]

I find it interesting you jumped to L Ron Hubbard so quickly after dismissing other occultists for dying penniless. By that standard, it would seem L Ron Hubbard is worthy of study, considering his net worth at death in 1986 was $26 million.

Xenu the Overlord gave us a solid South Park episode. But more seriously, the scientology concept of Suppressive Persons has great utility. Once you recognize someone as belonging to a certain category of behavior, you can aikido your way around their personality and transmute reality into one more pleasant for yourself.

 

[BBBB]

Are you kidding about Hubbard? I laughed because where do you start? You find merit in Xenu the overlord?

From a conventional perspective, we know from memory research that memories aren't static things but actually change each time we access them.

From an esoteric perspective....people don't develop the abilities that Hubbard claimed they would in the higher grades. They give up their personal info and their cash though.

It's such an obvious con job I have to wonder what you are thinking here.

Well, that answers my question, if indirectly. The irony is LRH had done exactly what you ask for in this thread - he ejected religion out of praxis. Crowley did too, in a sense, didn't he? And I also wanted to make the point PinealisGlandia made above - there is your financial success as proof of worth.

I'm not a scientolgist, but I know a few, I listened to about two dosen of life-stories from long-time and often high-ranking 'logists told in private circles about how they came by, what they got from it, why they left, and I understand that almost as a rule, scientologists don't really know LHR works in depth, but if they do the work, the processes, they always have impressive results to show for it. I also know a guy who processes LHR works extensively using AI, and some people who take LHR studies further, out of the organisation. And last but not the least, I myself study LRH works in a practical way and it complements my occult practice wonderfully. People just don't do that much R&D on such scale like LRH novadays. And there are many attempts to salvage worth from his works, for example Frank A. Gerbode's Applied Metapsychology, or Živorad Mihajlović Slavinski with Spiritual Technology.

The organisation as it is after LRH is not looking to promote his ideas, instead they have developed an extremely efficient money-making enterprise and social engineering skills to create an army of loyal soldiers rivaling hashashiin. Does that mean LHR material is worthless? I think that should make it even more interesting! But if you are basing on hearsay and what is told to the masses, then yeah, Hubbard was a fraud who had taken writing fiction novels a little too far and somehow managed to create an international globe-spanning enterprise. Stranger things happened, right?

 

[Beyond Everything]

The organisation as it is after LRH is not looking to promote his ideas, instead they have developed an extremely efficient money-making enterprise and social engineering skills to create an army of loyal soldiers rivaling hashashiin.

Then the now immortalized entity LR Hubbard should take action and influence the direction of scientology. Surely should be a snap. Any day now.

 

[Kepler]

Fibonacci goalposts.

 

[Morell]

I like the debate over the value of the systems and the experience of specific occultists. This is worth thinking about.

Among other things, group of occultists and their orders can be legitimately called organized religions. They have their systems, traditions, hierarchy, rituals, just like any other religious organization. Can they be trusted? When to trust an occult system? Can we trust a system that doesn't work for someone?

Questions worth asking.

Can religious organization be trusted? It can as far as it serves your own development. In the moment it starts limiting you, it starts being a problem. It can teach you magic, but if you have to follow them instead of your own path, it can limit you and I assume that it can even destroy what it created in you, meaning the magic abilities through controlling you and disconnecting you from your magic. So the organizations, even occult orders, have limited ability to be of value to a person.

Now, when o trust occult system? Good sign of working system are people who make it work. If it works for others, it can work for you. This requires some discrement, to filter those who make up stories for fame from those who actually are able to do it. Unfortunately the best tools are the common sense and personal experience... with help of intuition and gut feeling.

And then the magic system and Crowley... Well, if it didn't work for him, does it destroy value of the system or Crowley only? I cannot put definitive answer here, but if it didn't work, either the system was wrong or Crowley was practicing wrong for whatever reason. If the system works for others well, then it seems that it was issue of Crowley himself rather than the system. But I don't think that anyone practices exactly as Crowley. We have what was written down, but that never fully describes what person truly practices or pretends to practice...

 

[Beyond Everything]

I find it interesting you jumped to L Ron Hubbard so quickly after dismissing other occultists for dying penniless. By that standard, it would seem L Ron Hubbard is worthy of study, considering his net worth at death in 1986 was $26 million.

I'm not making money the criteria of everything. What I noted was Crowley did money magic, and a good deal of it was unsuccessful.

Hubbard made a lot of money because he was good liar and marketer. He said those in the upper level processing would develop abilities such as moving physical objects with their mind. He made stuff up, I mean are people not getting that?

Post automatically merged: Sep 28, 2025

I

And then the magic system and Crowley... Well, if it didn't work for him, does it destroy value of the system or Crowley only? I cannot put definitive answer here, but if it didn't work, either the system was wrong or Crowley was practicing wrong for whatever reason. If the system works for others well, then it seems that it was issue of Crowley himself rather than the system. But I don't think that anyone practices exactly as Crowley. We have what was written down, but that never fully describes what person truly practices or pretends to practice...

The thing is anything can work, for certain people, at certain times. It's the metaphysical placebo effect. What Im criticizing is taking as an occult authority someone who couldn't even do basic manifesting. But that's not really encompassing my criticism which must be linked back to pointing out these mystical experiences the systems obsess upon are distinct from transmutation into immortality, not to mention the problem of the egregores inherent in dealing with deities and dealing with collective magical work.

 

[PinealisGlandia]

He said those in the upper level processing would develop abilities such as moving physical objects with their mind. He made stuff up, I mean are people not getting that?

I stopped working on developing telekinesis after I showed a video of myself to some people in an occult server and I was told it was "good CGI". I don't know the first thing about CGI, so I took the compliment. Everyone I've tried to show the technique to in person thinks it's a sleight of hand trick (maybe it is, and I'm just fooling myself because I've mastered it on a subconscious level ). But I believe telekinesis is possible because as far as I can tell, I've done it.

To be clear, I'm not a scientologist. But my practice borrows from everything, I don't prejudge much shy of self-harm.

 

[Beyond Everything]

I stopped working on developing telekinesis after I showed a video of myself to some people in an occult server and I was told it was "good CGI". I don't know the first thing about CGI, so I took the compliment. Everyone I've tried to show the technique to in person thinks it's a sleight of hand trick (maybe it is, and I'm just fooling myself because I've mastered it on a subconscious level ). But I believe telekinesis is possible because as far as I can tell, I've done it.

To be clear, I'm not a scientologist. But my practice borrows from everything, I don't prejudge much shy of self-harm.

I've never had an interest in telekinesis but I dont mean to dismiss it out of hand.

It's just with Scientology and Dianetics, people just don't achieve what Hubbard told them they would. HE didn't achieve what he claimed he could, there's ample documentary evidence how he lived and his many personal problems. WIth Dianetics, people were told they'd dispense with the need for glasses if they hit Clear. That didn't happen. I've communicated with ex-members, and they told me these abilities were not achieved. If they had been, Scientology would have been trumpeting them to the high heavens.

But do some people get -some- kind of results with scientology. Sure, but that is down to what people can do rather than scientology itself. If you believe a lot in something, you can experience shifts.