Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
Restoration of Stable Controllership, Rebooting
Contents
Godman belief releases religious
panic-seizure
To regain stable self-control,
accept covenant/deal
Rebooting happens via strange-loop,
transcendent regress, "magic"
Trusting intermediate divine person
vs. source they trust
Goddess/mother symbol of divine
preserver of ctrl agency
The mystery-savior part of the Jesus composite
A godman
walks on water.
A godman
calms the storm that is on the verge of shipwrecking and drowning his panicking
apostles. He calms the waters and they
have faith in him.
Moses
parts the sea and the captives walk through the parted waters to freedom, but
the waters crash in on the enemies of God.
After ingesting the godman's flesh, the walls wave, self-control
ego-death psychosis panic sets in, some kind of "belief in the
godman" calms the raging mind that is crashing in on itself. Belief in the godman is a saving act that
can be seen as injected into one's no-free-will mind by the Ground/Father.
This act
of "belief and faith in the godman as savior" that is experienced as
being injected into us may perhaps amount to a formal rejection of freewill and
an acknowledgement that the godman concept is fully correct and sufficient
acknowledgement of what practically must be accepted as truth, the alternative
being insanity or running amok -- some reversion, failure, and collapse of the
higher structures of consciousness.
Successful
transformation to the level that transcends the egoic mental model is the good
kind of "failure of the ego", where egoic ways of thinking are seen
as irrational and insufficient, like Newton's spacetime model is a failure and
insufficient -- successfully leading to Einstein's spacetime model based on his
theory of invariance rather than failing in a way that's a sheer collapse and
regression to some pre-Newtonian spacetime model.
When the egoic
mental model fails during the mystic altered state, there are two directions to
go; a choice appears: either formally acknowledge no-free-will and
no-separate-self and the correctness of the godman conceptual-system (moving
past ego) or fall down in regression to a low-egoic or sub-egoic mental model.
Marcion,
actual creator of the true version of the Apostle Paul figure, wrote
Antitheseis, which began:
Oh wonder
over wonder, at once rapture, potency and astonishment,
good news
that leaves one speechless, not rightly able to fully comprehend,
nor
capable of drawing comparisons with anything known.
One sense
in which the godman's salvation is good news is that control panic seizure is
released and the need to acknowledge higher truth is completely fulfilled free
of any injury to oneself, by "accepting the godman".
To attain
righteousness and express full understanding of and alignment with truth, the
cybernetic entheogenic psychonaut may find himself on the edge of being forced
to manifest puppethood in some sort of destructive, vulgarized "Great
Mother" religion of self-destruction.
This is a
state of extreme panic and deepest possible despair, as the monster of your
puppet self in the very near future is rapidly closing in on you -- the
dreadful Minotaur is weaving his way through the spacetime maze to devour you
as a child!
And when
you mentally run away from him in your mind, trying to run away from your
chaotic self in the near future, you find that each twist and turn of your mind
can only by definition in principle -- by the ineluctible and irresistibly
forceful principle of timelessness -- be tricked into stepping ever closer
toward The Thought That Kills and Forces Your Hand Against You.
The most
welcome realization in the world, the idea that saves your life and gets you
out of jail free, is the godman archetypal idea. One effectively becomes a mythic godman and becomes *the* mythic
godman upon discovering both the problem and the solution as an integral pair.
Instead of
literalist destruction or insanity, the law of higher thinking (or God) is
satisfied, justified, finished, and correctly fulfilled by simply and merely
*agreeing* -- or rather, by simply *understanding* -- that indeed the mythic
godman figure sacrificed by the hidden alien puppetmaster fully expresses all
these principles -- the psychonaut is then "in" the godman and
"participates in" the mythic godman's resurrection or second
birth.
The
psychonaut is then in essence a devotee of the mythic Great Goddess religion
rather than the devouring, literalist Great Mother religion (per Wilber's Up
From Eden). You are then in heaven, the
Minotaur is appeased, you have thrown your lower childish thinking into its
jaws together with your childish view of the godman. You now understand the purpose of the godman myth and how that
mythic godman is your savior and you were saved by him. The wedding bells ring and you are now in
heaven with the gods.
Oh wonder
over wonder, at once rapture, potency and astonishment,
good news
that leaves one speechless, not rightly able to fully comprehend,
nor
capable of drawing comparisons with anything known.
Non-godman
religions are structurally equivalent to the godman religions.
The mythic
figure of Abraham binding and sacrificing his only childself properly by only
doing so virtually, and literally killing the God-provided lamb instead. (Isaac is considered Abraham's *firstborn*
because the slave-woman's son doesn't count, being a child of unfaith and
incomprehension -- the fruitless son representing literalist thinking, which is
one's first, literalist attempt at becoming right with
God/Ground/Truth/Self.) Structurally,
Abraham with knife raised above the altar-bound Isaac is a godman
configuration.
Abraham is
divine, or becomes so, as holy as the true Israel which is his true spiritual
offspring -- those who are obedient to God by realizing/understanding/mentally
acknowledging no-free-will. To
understand no-free-will is to realize and acknowledge it and sacrifice the lamb
of God.
It's not
that you first understand no-free-will and then do something to become
acceptable; it's more like the understanding *is* the action that makes the
mind become in alignment with the Ground (or even makes the mind in alignment
with its own logic and dynamics of self-control).
In
practice this may be experienced in the sequence of first understanding
no-free-will and then searching desperately for a way of retaining that insight
without causing harm as a way of exorcising the demon of egoic irrationality,
and then discovering that mythic religious figures correctly have already
expressed this insight, such as the godman or Abraham or Shiva idea, or perhaps
at the most subtle extreme the Buddha with one hand lowered, or beyond that,
Lao Tzu with head slightly down and eyes slightly up.
Shiva
dances on "the little self".
See the lower self below and higher self on top: structurally that is a
godman configuration.
>>When
your usual accustomed freewill-oriented ways of thinking utterly fail you and
self-control goes profoundly unstable, because you see the truth -- the
gorgon-like, soul-demolishing "face of God" -- what is the viable way
to conceive of one's relationship as illusory, secondard-only control-agent
with respect to the primary, transcendent, uncontrollable controller? ...The long, subtle, advanced answer is
"Acknowledge the uncontrollable transcendent controller and relate to it
in a way that is largely isomorphic with an infant's relation to its nurturing
mother, but realize that the Godhead transcends such personal archetypes."
Another
standard metaphor or archetype -- missed by Metzner -- is covenant or
bargain.
The
Unfolding Self: Varieties of Transformative Experience
Ralph
Metzner
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=1579830005
God brings
the mystic to truth, and makes a covenant, deal, or bargain with the mystic:
the mystic sacrifices to God, and in return, God gives enduring stable
self-controllership to the mystic. The
mystic gets to retain stable, viable, practical self-control even though the
mystic knows that their controllership is merely a *virtual* power of
self-direction from a merely conventional but logically flawed perspective --
secondary controllership only.
The mystic
is made by God to sacrifice to God, where the sacrifice is a kind of human
sacrifice, a self-sacrifice of one's lower self, or egoic mental worldmodel
about self, will, time, world, and control.
In this sacrifice, the mystic is the priest who offers the human
sacrifice, and is the sacrificial victim.
That's the real, original, direct and underlying sacrifice --
sacrificing a sheep, goat, child, or human is merely a *symbol* of the real
sacrifice, which is the sacrifice of one's own freewill thinking. The sacrifice of animals represents the
sacrifice of the delusion of prime-mover, self-directing, freewill agency.
The
mythic-only figure of Jesus willingly and obediently giving himself as a
sacrifice on the cross is a fully adequate symbol for any intelligent being to
use, if they desire a symbol. No
symbolic *action* is needed to "use" this symbol, other than the
action of understanding and recognizing the meaning of the symbol of the king
on the cross. To "use" the
symbol and "participate in it", you don't need to kneel, pray, or say
anything, just recognize and comprehend the meaning.
Other
mythic figures also express this meaning, such as Abraham's sacrifice of the
bush-tangled ram in place of his son through whom Abraham's "branch"
or blessed line of viable continued future existence continues. Abraham essentially was brought by God into
a covenental, bargain, or deal arrangement with God: Abraham is made to
sacrifice animals to God and in return God preserves Abraham's future, where
the person "Abraham" includes all of Abraham's future (spiritual)
offspring.
From a
practical point of view, what should you do when you realize the terrible truth
that you are totally vulnerable to the mysterious hidden alien uncontrollable
transcendent controller? Mentally
accept the covenant or deal offered to you by the transcendent controller: you
will sacrifice your freewill delusion to the transcendent controller, and in
return, the transcendent controller will return stable self-control to you.
The
cybernetic theory of ego death is an important contribution because all the
mythicists and entheogenists and determinists and no-historical-Jesus scholars
and mysticism scholars are failing to see what is closest to them:
myth-mysticism-religion is centrally a matter of discovering, coping with, and
responding to no-free-will.
What are
the terms of the covenant of the gods or of God? Repudiate the freewill delusion, and get stable and robustly
enduring self-control. All other
covenantal terms are merely indirect, metaphorical symbols of this
relationship.
Rebooting
happens via strange-loop, transcendent regress, allegorized as
"magic"
The story
of Guru Hargobind (Sikh religion):
Puzzle:
A guru's
son brought a dead friend to life, and the guru scolded him for using
magic. The son gave up his life to make
amends.
Solution:
Son is
lower self, guru is higher/enlightened self.
Bringing dead friend to life means reanimating the ego delusion for
practical use. Magic is the
transcendent assumption that you make, or that the presumed god makes you make,
that practical control is possible and acceptable. The son willingly giving up his life is ego-death. The amends is the acceptance, by the
perfected, rational, enlightened mind, that the primary source of self-control
enters the mind from a transcendently hidden, alien source.
Magic has
two meanings in esoteric religious myth: entheogens, and the transcendent
assumption that "must just happen" and must be credited to the Tao
(Ground of Being, God, or savior). The
idea is pretty much identical with Christ (godman) as savior.
1. The
godman is consubstantial with the entheogen.
2. The
godman is the conceptual system about self-control that regards the Tao or
"mysterious hidden creator/giver of your thoughts" as the true
cybernetic heart in your mind. That
core heart does not change, but the understanding and mental model wrapped
around it is now the godman way of thinking rather than the egoic way of
thinking. I keep picturing the slyly
bemused Christ child on the lap of the bemused Virgin Mary, Queen of
Heaven.
In the
Mexican folk art I saw the other day, both figures have a subtle Mona Lisa
smile. That Christ is a little devil,
but a cleared, redeemed, and made-ok little devil. What is the secret hidden behind the smile? That I act like an originator of my thoughts
and actions but that I'm in on the secret that must not be revealed for fear of
cyberdeath seizure: I am a puppet-actor whose strings are pulled from within by
a mysterious hidden source, The One who moves all creatures from outside of
time.
When the
mind Realizes that its fancied primary-controllership is an illusion, that
controllership doesn't originate action, the first question to pop up is
"so what action must I, as primary controller, originate?" But the mind knows, now, that it has no
primary control and never has had it.
The mind must finally admit to itself that *all* of its control action
originates from outside itself.
Our real
nature, our origin of control, is no different before enlightenment and after
it. Only the mind's understanding about
its control-core changes; absolute heart of the control-core doesn't change. The mental, conceptual subsystem *around* the
control-core changes from egoic/demonic/child/animal configuration to a
transcendent/angelic/adult/human (or godman) configuration.
The
presumed god makes your mind presume that he exists and is compassionate and
gives you power. The engine gets restarted. How?
Magic -- that is, "a transcendent level-jump happens". Now, *how* does it happen? Does it happen because *you* as controller
made it happen? No: you now realize
that that kind of controllership is impossible, illusory.
Then how
the life-returning, saving reboot happen?
The answer is that it happened the same way anything happens in your
mind: the Ground of Being did it. Is
the Ground controlled by some kind god outside time who cares about you? That is pure speculation. How was I saved? Ozzy's song title: I Don't Know.
"You gotta believe in foolish miracles." But who is this "me" agent that
*does* the "believing", that *makes* or *creates* the believing?
The belief
in the cybernetic reboot miracle (transcendent thing from a profoundly hidden,
mysterious, alien source) was put into the mind by whatever it is that puts
anything into the mind. Is the
cybernetic crash and reboot safe? Can
you count on that alien source to lift up your cybercontrol when it knocks
itself down? It seems safe -- you just
have to have faith... but what determines your faith?
The only
place such faith-action can originate is from the Ground, not from
"you" as empty virtual agent.
Suppose for the moment that a transcendent (enlightened) mind can count
on the Ground with full assurance that when self-control knocks itself out with
a short-circuit lightning bolt, the Ground will bring it back to life: that
would be called "faith" or "transcendent self-control".
I have the
ability to lay down my life and take it up again, because I have faith in God,
and I got that faith from God who forced it into my mind. I surmise that a cybernetic analysis of such
"faith" ends up whirling around in an infinite loop per Hofstadter. "You must be given faith that you will
be given faith that you will be given faith..." The mind that has been emptied of controller-delusion by
definition can't be a *source* of the required kind of faith.
This
strange-loop explanation sheds light on some aspects of Reformed theology.
The transcendent
mind ends up with a transcendent control system, but does not particularly end
up with more powerful self-control.
Understanding self-control doesn't amount to securing self-control, but
merely ironing out some gross distortions within self-control.
My
controllership is dead power. What must
I do to be rebooted? My life is at risk
and I have to do something. The
solution is to understand and to receive some kind of transcendent solution
from outside the system, accepting that such is fitting and is the Good way
that has no delusion or confusion.
Where there was once naive, confused delusion and logical chaos, now
there is no confusion, but wise awareness that one's control core is given from
a mysterious source: Tao, Ground, God, The One.
Egoic
delusion gives way to transcendent mystery, which is mythically allegorized as
"magic that brings the dead back to life".
Why does
prayer bring control-stability to the intermediate mystic mind? What's up with trusting in Buddha/Christ to
recover from self-control instability (what are the logical and cybernetic
dynamics of this scenario)?
When the
mind awakens to its profound dependency on the mysteriously hidden
creator/controller of its spring of thoughts, discovering the need for total
trust in the hidden puppetmaster or controller-king that sits over one's
pseudo-sovereignty, it's easier and more natural for the mind to trust a
personal compassionate-by-definition divine intermediary (relying on Buddha or
Jesus) than trusting the mysterious ground of being itself.
It's
easier to put your helplessly dependent trust in compassionate Buddha/Christ
than in suspicious Ground or God which is so profoundly, so coldly transcendent
and mysteriously beyond visibility. But
such intermediaries on whom the mind projects its trust are just training
wheels.
Eventually
one must stop trusting through the intermediate Buddha/Christ and do like the
Buddha/Christ himself presumably does anyway: trust directly in Ground/Tao/God,
which has always been such a giver of all your thoughts anyway.
Instead of
being a trusting disciple of Buddha/Christ, the mystic must eventually become a
Buddha and become In Christ, or an adopted son of God and brother of Christ --
a matter of relating trustingly in the Ground/God directly rather than
distrusting Ground/God and leaning on the intermediate Buddha/Christ
personification of transcendent trust.
Finally
Christ's kingship (control over your thoughts) maps into God's kingship, so
that to trust the Jesus personification is to trust the God personification,
and to trust the Buddha personification of the Ground is to trust the Ground
itself and accept directly the mind's profound dependence on the Ground. Buddha is none other than the Ground, but is
particularly the conscious acceptance and integration of the fact of the mind's
profound dependence on the Ground.
The Ground
owns and produces all of one's thoughts and movements of will. The mind has always been a totally dependent
child and slave of the Ground, a secondary controller controlled by the Ground
as primary controller -- whether the mind was conscious of that dependency or
not.
How can
the mind know that Buddha/Christ really existed and exists divinely, and also
that he is good, and not insane, and that his trust in Ground/God is a
reliable, valid, legit stance? The mind
can't know any of that with any certainty, but must -- in the fashion of the
idea of Buddha/Christ -- be its own independent island of trust, faith, or loving
regal sonship on good terms with the Ground or Creator.
Thus is
Buddha/Christ given birth again in the individual mind that is brought to
overcome delusion/ignorance/forgetfulness and to establish a viable conscious
relationship with the Ground/Creator.
If you trust Buddha/Christ but distrust Ground/God, you are merely a
confused disciple of Buddha/Christ and not yet yourself a Buddha/adopted son of
God. The intermediary personified
savior becomes eventually the same as you; and you attribute eventually
Ground/God as that which ultimately reconciled you.
Depending
on Virgin Mary for salvation at first glance appears to be a regress: I
distrust and fear God and I even distrust and fear the supposedly personable
intermediary good-guy Jesus, but I do lovingly trust the intermediary (Mary) to
the intermediary (Jesus).
However,
that's merely the official story. More
likely, Mary dependence was a complete equivalent parallel, in which a single
goddess (Mary, Queen of Heaven) is *both* feared (like distrusting God) and
trusted in (like trusting Jesus). The
mind in the near-overwhelming mystic state relates distinctly to the goddess's
two aspects, so that the goddess's personable aspect serves as a trustable intermediary
to her fearsome aspect.
Jesus is
equivalently seen as the personable, trustable *aspect* of God. The two gods of Gnosticism fit into a
largely comparable pattern. Tibetan
Buddhism has multitudinous compassionate and wrathful deities.
Officially,
God is both merciful and just, and Jesus is the judge sending people to both
eternal reward and punishment, so the average Protestant is supposed to love
God and Jesus, but more likely, they fear or loathe God and love Jesus.
This
fear/distrust vs. love/trust distinction maps to rational cybernetic
non-mythical religion: when the mind's control system discovers its helpless
dependence on the Ground, it fears and distrusts the Ground, but is able in an
emergency as an only resort to depend on, love, and trust a personification of
{enlightened reconciliation and rationally acceptable trustingness in the
ground}.
When egoic
thinking is further purified into transcendent thinking, the mind learns to
directly depend on the ground, rather than depending on an intermediary
truster-on-the-ground.
The mystic
in the throes of no-free-will realization, desperately wanting to regain a
viable semblance of self-control, afraid of what the timeless frozen block
universe has in store in the near future for their own control-thoughts, wants
to be able to picture the hidden puppetmaster as caring, responsive,
compassionate, loving -- not a deaf and blind machine or an resentful unloving
father that is as likely to kill the helpless newborn as nurture it.
A
mother/goddess is a better picture of divine responsive compassion than a
father, a patriarchal god. In Catholic
Virgin Mary veneration, Jesus is seen as the harsh judge, God is seen as aloof,
and Mary is seen as the protector and kindly mediator.
Jesus
calls God "daddy" not "father", showing how the ego-dead
person is supposed to relate to the mysteriously hidden transcendent controller
-- neither as deaf and blind uncaring machine puppetmaster, nor as aloof
Father, but as a loving "daddy" that wants to preserve, protect, and
sustain the son he has created and brought to truth.
Norma
wrote:
>there
is a great deal underneath the surface of the 'mother' and 'father' archetype,
which isn't so easily understood until there is an awareness of this. ... within the ground of being, where
opposites unite, there are no roles, there is no mother, father, god and
goddess ... [so why ] suggest this for individuals rather than allowing the
ground of being, in its resplendence,
be the fuel for living without imposing more archetypes onto it?
For
training purposes and to solve an emergency problem of regaining stable
self-control. Ultimately the archetype
of "nurturing mother on whom you as helpless babe are utterly
dependent" must be discarded, but archetypes are a highly effective device
for training the intermediate mystic mind.
My
essentially non-metaphorical model of transcendent knowledge
"includes" the "mother" archetype not by literally
encouraging people to think that the Ground is a mother, but by *describing*
the kind of attitude that produces a restabilization of self-control in the
freewill-delusion destroying face of the truth.
When your
usual accustomed freewill-oriented ways of thinking utterly fail you and
self-control goes profoundly unstable, because you see the truth -- the
gorgon-like, soul-demolishing "face of God" -- what is the viable way
to conceive of one's relationship as illusory, secondard-only control-agent
with respect to the primary, transcendent, uncontrollable controller? This takes some time to figure out, some
number of mystic-state sessions to work out.
The short,
emergency answer is "Relate to it like an infant's trusting helpless and
vulnerable dependence and reliance on a responsive, nurturing mother."
The long,
subtle, advanced answer is "Acknowledge the uncontrollable transcendent
controller and relate to it in a way that is largely isomorphic with an
infant's relation to its nurturing mother, but realize that the Godhead
transcends such personal archetypes."
Mystics
use an intermediary figure because when no-free-will is comprehended and the
mysterious hidden alien puppetcontroller outside one's control is intuited, it
is terrifying in trying to think of how to relate to that mysterious alien
puppetcontroller. What are my
preexisting control-thoughts in the near future? Am I in the near future doing some horrible thing?
I'm
utterly at the mercy of the mysterious Creator, the transcendent Controller
that forces my control-thoughts upon my in time, and that establishes those
control thoughts embedded into the frozen spacetime block timelessly. I tremble in helpless terror at the mercy of
the completely hidden uncontrollable controller of my control-thoughts -- and
there is no logical basis to trust this utterly hidden transcendent control at
whose complete mercy I realize myself to be.
All my
near-future fate hinges entirely on the question, "can I *trust* this
hidden alien uncontrollable higher controller that controls my
control-thoughts"? How can I
secure stability of self-control; how can I plead with that black hole not to
force destructive control-thoughts upon me?
I discover I have puppet strings, I discover that my own
control-thoughts arise from a spring emanating from the hidden Godhead.
I tug on
my puppet strings, and I feel a tug on the other end -- oh no, the alien remote
controller of me, of my very thoughts!
How can I trust this thing, this transcendent ultimately powerful force
at the other end?
The
advanced mystic directly loves and trusts the uncontrollable transcendent
controller directly. But the
intermediate mystic can't conceive of trusting a hidden controller that can't
be thought of as personally compassionate and responsive.
To train
oneself to relate to the uncontrollable mysterious controller in a stable and
confident way, and thereby regain and retain stable viable practical
self-control, the mystic effectively practices by artificially conceiving of
the hidden uncontrollable mysterious controller, the Godhead, as a loving,
compassionate person that is responsive and who sustains one's well-being and
control stability.
Mother and
father archetypes, particularly the ideal nurturing mother archetype, provides
a perfect, appropriate model of how the intermediate mystic can viably relate
to the uncontrollable Transcendent Controller upon which our self-control
thoughts are ultimately utterly dependent.
By the strategy of relating to the hidden Controller as one would relate
to a nurturing ideal mother, the intermediate mystic regains and retains viable
practical self-control; personal control stability.
The
perfected, mature, advanced mystic understands why that strategy works, and
learns to retain a kind of attitude of trust *like* the attitude toward a
nurturing ideal mother, without actually thinking of the Godhead as a nurturing
ideal mother, but as something more transcendent.
>Norma
wrote:
>>there
is a great deal underneath the surface of the 'mother' and 'father' archetype,
which isn't so easily understood until there is an awareness of this. ... within the ground of being, where
opposites unite, there are no roles, there is no mother, father, god and
goddess ... [so why] suggest this for individuals rather than allowing the
ground of being, in its resplendence, be the fuel for living without imposing
more archetypes onto it?
Account
for both immanence and transcendence, both the unity of higher and lower *and*
the separateness of higher and lower. I
am one with God, but my practical self and point of view remains also in ways
separate from God. I am God, *and* I
relate to God as one who is not God.
Consider the relation of the virtual-world author and the virtual agents
in that virtual world. The virtual
agents are entirely authored by the transcendent author, and are in that sense
one with him, or are him, or part of him.
In another sense, they are not him, are not one with him, and are not
part of him -- they have a relationship with him that's not just the
relationship of himself with himself.
"the
Holy Guardian Angel ... The Romans called it the <i>genius</i>; ...
is of course, similar to Jung's notion of the Self, and like Jung's version,
this higher Self is not experienced immediately as part of one's own being, but
as another. It is both united with and
detached from the personal ego." - Smoley & Kinney, Hidden Wisdom, p.
119.
In the
Trinity, Jesus and God are the same and not the same, identical and not
identical.
When Rush
dedicated the presumably Objectivist atheist rationalist album 2112 to
"the genius of Ayn Rand", naturally that word "genius" must
be read within the Hellenistic context, in which case the album is dedicated to
"the Ayn Rand's Holy Guardian Angel" -- a pointer to the transcendent
realm above Ayn Rand, and specifically *not* to Ayn Rand herself.
The
double-entendre dedication affirms the validity of Objectivism atheism on the
mundane realm, and repudiates it on the transcendent realm. Rand's philosophy disapproves of affirming
and honoring a transcendent realm above her, Objectivism disapproves of the
implication that Ayn Rand could have any need of a transcendent protector.
In entheogenic mystic experiencing, I have identified one of the major mystic element that was used to assemble the composite Jesus figure. That figure depends on no necessary primary basis, but I have found, in detail, one of the main mystic sources that happened to be used by the State Church to assemble the composite figure of Jesus.
In entheogenic mystery-religion experiencing, the mind vividly encounters the experience of having no metaphysical freedom or self-control. Lacking all self-restraint ability, and transcending all feelings and ideas about self-control, the mind becomes unstable and impotent at orderly self-control.
Self-control is sacrificed; the ego dies in the midst of this experience in which one is forced to be willing to drop the scepter of self-government or egoic kingship. One's own will is perceived as being forced by whatever god wields control over time.
The ego is perceived as a helpless puppet conquered by time, by the closed future. The puppet doesn't appear to own its own will -- the will is forced into one's mind by time. A savior figure reflects this experiential insight and this bowing down to the ruler of time.
A way to be victorious is to identify with the ruler of time, but one cannot be victorious *as an egoic entity* -- only as a puppet-related higher self. Instead of the person needing to violate their own will and give their spiritual and bodily life in an act of obeisance to the god of time, a mythic dying/rising savior figure can be considered to provide this self-sacrifice of obeisance one time for all people.
The epoptei has been saved from his own death by the death of the savior, and the savior rises to life again just as the initiate resumes ordinary life and practical self-control.
This is the basic entheogenic mental dynamic of being saved and given new life by the sacrificial substitutive death of the dying/rising mystery-religion savior. The theory needs more detail, but any further detail will be along the lines of this basic outline of what is experienced in the depths of mystic control-loss, and the sense of being rescued by an idea of a substitutive sacrifice that is provided on the initiative of the god or the fates that control time.
This component of the Christ, Jesus, or mystic savior figure may be the most relevant part for entheogenic explorers. And it was a main source the State Church used to construct the composite Jesus figure -- perhaps even a primary or the primary source.
Yet still it must be remembered that the design spec for the systematic Jesus construct, given by Constantine to Eusebius, indicated that there must be no source upon which the Jesus figure was essentially dependent. The figure must be independent of all particular sources, so the State Church could freely define and control the Jesus figure.
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)