Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)

Restoration of Stable Controllership, Rebooting


Godman belief releases religious panic-seizure. 1

To regain stable self-control, accept covenant/deal 2

Rebooting happens via strange-loop, transcendent regress, "magic" 3

Trusting intermediate divine person vs. source they trust 5

Goddess/mother symbol of divine preserver of ctrl agency. 6

The mystery-savior part of the Jesus composite. 8


Godman belief releases religious panic-seizure

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.

To regain stable self-control, accept covenant/deal

>>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


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, "magic"

Rebooting happens via strange-loop, transcendent regress, allegorized as "magic"

The story of Guru Hargobind (Sikh religion):


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.


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".

Trusting intermediate divine person vs. source they trust

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.

Goddess/mother symbol of divine preserver of ctrl agency

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.

The mystery-savior part of the Jesus composite

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)