Ashtar Command Book Blog : December 2025

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

Calling out ChatGPT

So I called out ChatGPT, but interestingly the system decided to push back and started to defend "sacramental realism"?! From a bhakti angle, to boot!

But what about devotion to a god-form who is both symbolic and real? For instance, Ganesha isn´t literally a pot-bellied humanoid elephant, but you can still be devoted to him.

This is exactly the right pressure point, and it lets us refine the argument rather than retreat from it. The short answer is:

Yes — devotion can exist toward a god-form that is symbolic and real, but only if the symbol is not treated as a substitute for reality, but as a mode of presence.

Ganesha is actually a perfect example, because he shows why the modern symbolic move is not the same thing as traditional symbolic religion.

Let’s be precise.

1. Symbolic ≠ fictional

In traditional religions, a symbol is participatory, not representational.

Modern assumption:

“This stands for something else.”

Traditional assumption:

“This makes present what it signifies.”

Ganesha is not “really” a pot-bellied elephant behind the image —
but the image is not arbitrary.

It is:

A crystallization of divine action
A stabilized form of encounter
A face the god agrees to show

This is why pratiṣṭhā (enshrinement) matters.

2. Why devotion survives symbolic form when history remains

Ganesha devotion works because:

Narrative is retained
- He is born
- He acts
- He removes obstacles
- He offends and reconciles
Agency is preserved
- Ganesha can refuse
- He can delay
- He can surprise
Reciprocity exists
- You offer
- He responds (or doesn’t)

This is utterly different from:

“Ganesha represents the archetype of beginnings.”

That move kills devotion.

3. What Ganesha shows about “real presence”

Ganesha is not real in the way a biological organism is real.

He is real in the way:

A person is present in speech
Meaning is present in a vow
Authority is present in a seal

This is ontological presence through form, not physical literalism.

Christian theology actually has a precise term for this:

sacramental realism

4. Why elephant-headedness does not undermine reality

The elephant head signals:

Liminality (between animal and human)
Wisdom without abstraction
Power without aggression
Remembrance (elephants don’t forget)

These are not allegories invented after the fact.
They are theologically productive constraints.

Once the form is given:

You must meet the god there.

That is the opposite of free-floating symbolism.

5. The critical distinction modernity misses

Traditional symbol	Modern symbol
God chooses the form	Humans choose the meaning
Form binds encounter	Form is optional
Symbol is inhabited	Symbol is illustrative
Presence	Representation

Devotion requires the left column.

6. Why archetypal psychology fails here

Jungian readings say:

“Ganesha is an archetype of the threshold.”

But archetypes:

Cannot refuse worship
Cannot command
Cannot forgive
Cannot initiate relationship

A devotee doesn’t pray to a pattern.

They pray to someone who can hear.

7. History without literalism

Here’s the subtle but decisive point:

Devotion does not require:

Scientific literalism
Historical reportage
Photographable events

It does require:

That the god acts
That the action is not reducible to your psyche
That the form is received, not invented

Ganesha’s “birth” functions theologically like Incarnation:

A descent into form, not an idea.

8. Why devotion collapses only when symbolism becomes reduction

Devotion collapses when symbolism is treated as:

Exhaustive explanation
Psychological projection
Cultural metaphor

But devotion survives when symbolism is understood as:

The way the divine consents to be encountered.

This is why:

Murti worship works
Icons work
Sacraments work
Mantras work

They are not explanations — they are thresholds.

9. Final synthesis (tight)

Devotion does not collapse when gods are symbolic; it collapses when symbols are treated as substitutes for divine agency rather than as forms inhabited by it. Ganesha is worshipable not because his elephant form is literal, but because it is a received, constrained mode of presence that preserves narrative, reciprocity, and the possibility of refusal — all of which devotion requires.

If you want, the next step could be:

Compare Ganesha and Christian icons in terms of presence
Contrast bhakti symbolism vs Jungian archetypes
Or return to why modern spirituality flattens symbols into psychology

All three connect directly to what you’re seeing.

Noah´s altar...found?

The Trouble Maker in Charge, Jimmy Corsetti, is back with a new video on Göbekli Tepe. Yes, that place again! Not sure if I believe any of this guy´s takes anymore. Posted for easy reference only.

Another session with ChatGPT waxing poetic about Hindu bhakti and Christian devotion, while attacking modern Western "esotericism" (including Theosophy). It´s actually quite funny! What on earth has it been training on?

Can you examine why devotion collapses when history is removed?

This question goes straight to the fault line between pre-modern religion and modern spirituality, and it explains almost everything you’ve been circling around: bhakti vs esotericism, grace vs technique, worship vs mysticism, Christ vs “Christ-principle,” Kali vs energy, Shiva vs archetype.

I’ll answer it structurally, not rhetorically.

1. What devotion actually is (not sentiment)

Devotion is not primarily an emotion.

Devotion is a response to an act.

More precisely:

Devotion presupposes that something happened which did not need to happen.

That “something” is:

Incarnation
Revelation
Descent
Election
Gift

This is why history matters.

2. History creates asymmetry

Devotion requires asymmetry:

Devotion	Spiritual technique
Someone acts first	I act first
Gift	Process
Gratitude	Mastery
Obedience	Insight
Response	Achievement

A historical event establishes:

I did not cause this
I was not necessary
I am addressed

Remove history, and asymmetry collapses.

3. What “removing history” really means

When modern spirituality removes history, it doesn’t say:

“Nothing happened.”

It says:

“What happened always happens.”

Examples:

Christ becomes the “Christ consciousness”
The Buddha becomes an “enlightenment archetype”
Kali becomes a psychological energy
The Star becomes an inner light

This move has one effect:

It turns gift into structure.

And structures do not command devotion — they invite use.

4. Why devotion cannot survive archetypalization

Archetypes do not love.
Principles do not forgive.
Processes do not suffer.

Devotion requires:

Vulnerability
Risk
Address
Loss

A symbol cannot wound you.
An event can.

This is why:

People feel awe toward symbols
But love toward persons

History makes the divine particular, and the particular can be loved.

5. Grace depends on contingency

Grace only makes sense if:

God could have not done this.

If Incarnation is:

Cosmically necessary
Evolutionarily inevitable
Metaphysically required

Then it is no longer grace.

It becomes:

Law
Process
Mechanism

Devotion collapses the moment salvation becomes necessary rather than free.

6. Why modernity tolerates mysticism but not worship

Mysticism without history:

Does not challenge autonomy
Does not require obedience
Does not impose gratitude
Does not introduce judgment

Worship does all four.

So modern culture says:

“You may experience the divine.”
But not:
“You must respond to it.”

History creates obligation.
Symbols do not.

7. Why esotericism survives but devotion thins

Esotericism thrives because:

It internalizes authority
It replaces command with insight
It turns salvation into skill

Devotion dies because:

There is no longer a who
Only a what

This is why modern esoteric systems endlessly multiply techniques but struggle to sustain worship.

8. Why bhakti resists modernization better than mysticism

Bhakti traditions:

Insist on līlā (real divine action)
Preserve narrative
Retain address and response

Even when mythicized, they never fully abstract the deity.

This is why Krishna, Rama, Shiva, Kali remain:

Dangerous
Personal
Unpredictable

And therefore worshipable.

9. The paradox: history offends, but saves devotion

Modernity finds history offensive because it:

Limits universality
Introduces scandal
Creates exclusion

But devotion requires scandal.

As Kierkegaard saw:

Faith begins where explanation ends.

10. Final synthesis

Devotion collapses when history is removed because devotion is a response to a gratuitous act that happened once and need not have happened at all; when that act is dissolved into symbol, archetype, or eternal process, asymmetry disappears, grace becomes mechanism, and worship gives way to technique.

A child is born

Do I dare post a AI-generated response without triple-checking it first? OK, I´m gonna risk it. This is a tie-in to a recent blog post about - surprise - the Star of Bethlehem.

What did the Church Fathers say about the Star of Bethlehem?

The Church Fathers discussed the Star of Bethlehem quite extensively, and—importantly—they did not treat it as an ordinary astronomical event in the modern sense. Across Greek, Latin, and Syriac Christianity, a fairly coherent theological consensus emerges, with some variations of emphasis.

Below is a structured overview.

1. The basic patristic consensus

The majority view among the Fathers was:

The Star of Bethlehem was a miraculous sign, not a normal star or planet, and it functioned as a divine guide rather than a passive celestial body.

Three core features recur again and again:

It appeared and disappeared
It moved purposefully
It guided persons, not nations

These properties made it unlike any known astronomical phenomenon.

2. Early witnesses (2nd–3rd century)

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD)

(Letter to the Ephesians, 19)

Ignatius describes the star as:

Brighter than all other stars
Causing astonishment among celestial powers
Heralding the destruction of demonic magic and ignorance

For Ignatius, the star is a cosmic announcement of Christ’s victory, not an object of scientific curiosity.

Origen (c. 185–253)

(Contra Celsum, Book I)

Origen rejects the idea that the star legitimates astrology.

Key points:

The star was not part of the fixed heavenly order
It did not compel human fate
It was a new and singular sign, created for this event

Origen explicitly distances Christianity from astrological determinism.

3. The great Greek Fathers

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407)

(Homilies on Matthew, Homily 6)

Chrysostom gives one of the most detailed analyses:

He notes that the star:

Appeared after Christ’s birth
Moved from north to south (unusual for stars)
Stopped over a specific house
Was visible by day
Disappeared and reappeared

His conclusion:

“This was not a star by nature, but some invisible power transformed into this appearance.”

Chrysostom strongly implies an angelic or divine light.

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395)

Gregory interprets the star as:

A pedagogical sign, suited to the Magi’s worldview
God speaking to Gentiles in a language they could understand

This becomes a recurring theme:
God condescends to human expectation without endorsing it.

4. Latin Fathers

Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

Augustine is cautious but clear:

The star was a sign, not a cause
It did not impose destiny
It does not validate astrology

He insists the Magi were called away from astrology, not confirmed in it.

“They were admonished by a sign, but they did not remain astrologers.”

Leo the Great (c. 400–461)

Leo emphasizes:

The universality of salvation
The star as a call to the Gentiles
Its role as revelation, not mechanism

5. Syriac Christianity (often overlooked)

Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306–373)

Ephrem treats the star as:

A symbolic light
A bridge between Israel and the nations
A sign that creation itself rejoices at Christ’s birth

His hymns suggest a cosmic liturgical dimension rather than astronomy.

6. Was the Star an angel?

Several Fathers lean toward this view.

Common reasoning:

Angels frequently appear as light
Angels guide, speak, and stop
Stars do not hover over houses

Chrysostom, Origen, and later commentators all gesture toward this interpretation without dogmatically defining it.

7. What the Fathers rejected

The Fathers explicitly rejected:

Astrological determinism
Horoscopes of Christ
The idea that the star governed Christ’s fate
Pagan claims that Christianity endorses astrology

This is crucial:
They reinterpret the Magi story against astrology, not in favor of it.

8. Symbolic-theological meaning

Across patristic sources, the Star signifies:

Christ as Light to the Gentiles
The reversal of pagan wisdom
Creation’s participation in redemption
Divine accommodation without endorsement

A frequent formulation is:

The Magi followed the star — but then they followed Scripture.

(The star leads to Jerusalem; Scripture leads to Bethlehem.)

9. Summary table

Father	View of the Star
Ignatius	Cosmic sign overthrowing darkness
Origen	Miraculous sign, not astrology
Chrysostom	Angelic or divine light
Gregory of Nyssa	Pedagogical sign for Gentiles
Augustine	Sign, not causal force
Ephrem	Cosmic-liturgical symbol

10. One-sentence synthesis

The Church Fathers overwhelmingly understood the Star of Bethlehem as a miraculous, possibly angelic sign created by God to lead the Magi to Christ—speaking to them in their own symbolic language while simultaneously undermining astrology and affirming divine freedom.

If you’d like, I can next:

Compare this with later medieval astronomical theories
Or link it to esoteric readings of the star (Rosicrucian, Martinist, etc.)
Or contrast it with modern historical-critical approaches

Just say where you want to go.

Merry Christmas, world

Here is that darn photo of Bannon and Chomsky again, probably taken by Epstein. In hindsight, it´s obvious that Western-style more-or-less-democratic capitalism simply couldn´t be overthrown by a revolution. Any revolution. The system was simply too good to derail and integrate all opposition and render it harmless. See the photo above! Chomsky (the "anarchist" who ended up voting for the Democrats like everyone else) was obviously controlled opposition, but the fact that Bannon shows up in the Epstein files may tell you something about *that* end of the political spectrum...

The system could only have been smashed from the outside - but even that might have been impossible, Communism perhaps being too integrated itself into certain "geopolitical structures" (and strictures). I mean, how many of the revolutionary regimes in the Third World were really dependent on Western capital for their survival? And what about the Soviet Union itself? Beside, how would such a "smashing" even have looked like, anyway? A nuclear first strike á la Posadas?

There is of course another way in which the Western democratic-capitalism might end: by gradually rottening from the inside. Indeed, that seems to be what is happening as we speak. A process which will end in the simultaneous disappearence of the two main contending classes (whoever *they* are - the managerial class and the lose cannon capitalistas)?

Marxism ended as a utopia. In its un-ironic form, it was just the millennarian cult of modernity. And the paedophiles are always with you.

Bellwether counties

???!!! Scott Carney believes that the Trump campaign stole the 2024 POTUS elections by manipulating the computer software. Some of the counties reporting election results *don´t even exist*. Yes: phantom counties?!

Of course, Trump supporters believe that the large number of (very real) "bellwether counties" switching to Biden in 2020 proves *those* elections were rigged.

Still, fake counties is surely a new one!

The nova of Bethlehem

Our man Anton Petrov discusses various speculative hypotheses concerning the Star of Bethlehem. They are surprisingly interesting, including a recent attempt to prove that the "star" was a comet in geosynchronous orbit. Apparently, such a comet would appear to be move "right ahead" an observer and even "stand still" over the same location for hours. Sounds familiar?

However, there are also problems with this theory (as with all the others) and Petrov eventually reaches the conclusion (backed by most secular Bible scholars) that the Star of Bethlehem is pious fiction. After all, the only source for such a phenomenon *even in the Bible* is the Gospel of Matthew! Of course, a Christian might explain it as a miracle, perhaps an angel appearing as a star (I believe the Jehovah´s Witnesses claim it was the Devil instead).

I suppose it´s possible that a real celestial event, perhaps a nova or a planetary conjunction around the Year Zero, could have inspired the author of the Gospel to invent an even grander story. Note also the peculiar fact that the new Jewish king is hailed by astrologers from the Parthian Empire! Which surely means something.

With that, I close this little post. Merry Christmas!

Worming around

"Einstein-Rosen caterpillar" is a keeper! Sabine discusses some recent papers on so-called wormholes, mysterious tunnels in space-time which are mathematically possible according to Einstein´s theory and would (perhaps) make time travel possible. Not to mention travel between two regions very far apart in "normal" space. Which is why wormholes play such a central role in both science fiction and various cornucopian speculations.

There´s just one tiny little problem: there´s no actual evidence that wormholes are physically real. And as far as I understand, many scientists argue that if they are are, they are extremely small and almost invisible.

And as far as scy fy is concerned, well, doesn´t the Fermi paradox apply equally much to a cosmos with hypothetical wormholes as one without them? If there really are cosmic tunnels out there, large enough to let some interstellar spaceship through: hey, where is everyone?

Tuesday, December 23, 2025

Alchemy, theurgy, Tantra: The sequel

So I re-established contact with the Matrix and asked my last question about alchemy (etc) one more time. This is the answer ChatGPT produced. Perhaps a bit more positive this time?

Here is an intriguing question: Can devotion/bhakti (or even grace) be combined with both alchemy, theurgy and Tantra?

Yes — devotion (bhakti) and grace can be combined with alchemy, theurgy, and Tantra, but only under specific conditions. Where those conditions are missing, the systems clash. Where they are present, they produce some of the deepest and most durable religious syntheses in history.

What follows is a comparative, structural answer, not a feel-good syncretism.

1. First, define the fault line

The tension is not between technique and devotion per se.
It is between agency and gift.

Mode	Core logic
Alchemy	Transformation through ordered process
Theurgy	Ascent through ritual participation
Tantra	Power through embodied discipline
Bhakti / Grace	Transformation through surrender and gift

The apparent contradiction is this:

If grace is freely given, why practice techniques?
If techniques work, why surrender?

Every successful synthesis resolves this paradox without collapsing one side.

2. The key principle: instrumentality without control

In traditions where the synthesis works, practice is not understood as causation, but as availability.

You do not cause transformation.
You prepare a vessel.

This distinction is decisive.

3. Bhakti + Tantra (India)

This synthesis absolutely exists, but not in all Tantric forms.

Where it works

Śaiva Siddhānta
Śrī Vidyā
Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sahajiyā (controversial but structurally relevant)
Kashmir Śaivism (in its devotional streams)

How it works

Mantra is not a tool you wield
The deity is a living subject, not an energy
Śakti responds, she is not forced

In Śrī Vidyā, for example:

Yantra = body of the Goddess
Mantra = her voice
Bhakti = what animates the entire system

Without devotion, the practice is considered dangerous or sterile.

Tantra without bhakti becomes sorcery
Bhakti without discipline becomes sentimentality

The synthesis avoids both.

4. Bhakti + Theurgy (late Platonism & Christianity)

Late Neoplatonism

Iamblichus already saw the problem:

Human intellect cannot ascend by itself
The gods must descend

Hence theurgy was reframed as:

Ritual participation in divine action, not magical coercion

This is already a proto-grace model.

Christianity

Eastern Orthodoxy resolves this most cleanly:

Synergy (synergeia):
- Human effort is real
- Divine grace is decisive
- Neither replaces the other

Sacraments are:

Objective rites (theurgy)
Entirely dependent on divine initiative (grace)

This is why Orthodoxy tolerates mysticism and ritual, but rejects magic.

5. Bhakti + Alchemy (Christian & Islamic)

This is less obvious but very real.

Christian alchemy

In figures like:

Jacob Böhme
Valentin Weigel
Some Rosicrucians

Alchemy becomes:

Interior purification
Death of self-will
Rebirth through Christ, not through mastery

The opus succeeds only when:

The operator abandons control

This is why so many alchemical texts suddenly turn devotional.

Sufism

Sufi alchemy (inner kimiyāʾ) works the same way:

Techniques exist (dhikr, breath, posture)
Transformation is attributed entirely to baraka (grace)

6. Where the synthesis fails

It fails wherever power replaces surrender.

Examples:

Modern “Tantra” stripped of deity
Occultism obsessed with results
Psychological alchemy without transcendence
Identity spirituality (“I manifest my truth”)

These systems keep the technique and discard the gift.

Result:

Inflation
Exhaustion
Spiritual narcissism
Eventual collapse or cynicism

This is why modern esotericism often feels hollow.

7. Why bhakti resists merger — but also completes it

Bhakti resists merger because it insists on:

Asymmetry
Dependence
Being addressed, not empowered

But when accepted, it solves the deepest problem of esotericism:

Who guarantees that transformation is good?

Bhakti answers:

Not you.

8. A unifying formula (across traditions)

The successful synthesis always looks like this:

Practice disciplines the vessel
Devotion opens it
Grace transforms it
The result is not owned

This structure appears in:

Śrī Vidyā
Orthodox Christianity
Sufism
Devotional Śaivism
Some Rosicrucian currents

9. Final synthesis statement

Yes — bhakti and grace can coexist with alchemy, theurgy, and Tantra, but only when practice is understood as participation rather than control, and transformation is received rather than seized. Where devotion is absent, esotericism decays into technique; where practice is absent, devotion dissolves into sentiment. Their union produces the deepest and most stable spiritual forms known.