The Dunyain and Buddhism

  • 27 Replies
  • 13589 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:50:12 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
So, I've always been struck by how similar Dunyain philosophy is to the concepts expressed in Buddhism. As an avid Buddhist myself, the parallels between what the Dunyain propose to do and what laymen/women and monks of the various Buddhist schools aim to accomplish practically leap off the page. I think it's worth taking a look into where Dunyain and Buddhist thought agree and where they don't, as it reveals a lot about Bakker's own philosophy and his view of human nature, at least expressed through his universe.

So, essentially, Buddhism is founded on the concept of mindfulness: shearing away extraneous mental activity, such as thinking about what you're going to have for dinner tomorrow or going over a text message from your ex and similar type meaningless bullshit, and being fully present for the present moment. An old Zen adage says, "When you eat, just eat. When you sit, just sit". It's about abiding in as simple a mode of being as possible, which is the mode of reality itself. Reality does not answer to labels, concepts, categories. It simply is, and by conforming one's behavior to that "suchness" (sunyata), one can transcend the mental fetters that tie us down and hinder our capacity to be fully alive in every moment of our lives.

Childhood's status in the cultural consciousness as a lost paradise - and Hollywood, video games, all kinds of media desperately trying to recapture that wonder for its consumers with remakes and repackages is indicative of this - stems from the fact that before the increasingly conceptualized world of our adolescence and adulthood, we interfaced with reality on reality's level (although we obviously did not think of it in this way at the time). Everything was new and immediate and true, not bogged down by our cognitive faculties which, god bless its heart, tries its damnedest but forgets the forest for the trees. Obviously, I am speaking in general terms, but we can all agree there was some essential ingredient of our early years many of us lose as we grow older, and that quality is how we interface with the nature of reality.

The slow dissolving of labels that comes with years of meditation is accompanied by a simultaneous eradication of the ego. "I" no longer exist, or at the least the "I" I thought existed. Bbaztek, squash-eating champion, PoN fan, and handsome sonuvabitch, does not exist. I am who I am now, which is different than what I was yesterday, and what I will be tomorrow. I am, and always will be, in constant flux.

The narratives of our live are the cornerstones of our identity, and when shit happens, we process it in terms of our life stories: "I was dumped again, I will never find love" "I got an F, I really do suck at this shit, huh?" etc. What I'm saying is that meditation affords us a look into reality that exists beyond the mental categories we forced upon it, and with that we come to see we are infinitesimal part of an enormous, mind-boggingly huge interdependent chain of life, but no less important for it. We develop a compassion for our fellow creatures that does not feel forced or simply inspired from scriptures. It simply comes. It is an innate love for our innate brother/sisterhood. With enough practice, we can attain Nirvana, where we exist beyond all concepts and are unhindered by what life throws at us. We become the masters of our minds and bodies. Sound familiar?

Where do the Dunyain fit into all of this? The Absolute, the self-moving soul is a being detached from all influential forces in life: circumstances, history, personal history, what have you. Yet there is no compassion, no abiding love for its fellow beings. There is no love in the words of Kellhus' pragma, and certainly not in Kellhus himself. Everything becomes a means to an end. Both schools of thought claim to have the "Truth", but whereas Buddhism is about making peace with reality, the Dunyain only want to master it. Kellhus' meditation only helped him achieve mastery of himself so that he may manipulate others. A Buddhist's meditation is the opposite.

It's an anti-buddhism, a thought system that takes revelatory and ancient techniques utilized to better understand oneself and reality and perverts it as a tool for control, for achieving a singular end. This is what makes my skin crawl about the Dunyain: they are masters of the mind and sages of the human condition who do not appear to be satisfied with the universally touted concepts of empathy and compassion. They have cast off what even the Consult has claimed is weakness: the instinct to love and protect. They dissolve the passions but not the Self. They are born of the universe but seek to be outside it. There is no brotherhood in them, no innate connection between the Dunyain and the world they were born of. They are what makes the ego, the poisonous concept of "I", so vile and threatening, yet there is no jealousy, hatred, or anger in them. They are the pure selfish instinct, scrubbed of the impurities that dooms it in vain kings and conquerors, and refined to a knife's edge. Where all religions say "You must love one another", the Dunyain believe the human condition is a forked road. There is the path of love and empathy, of working together to survive a harsh world, and there is their path, an evolutionary step towards godhood, the affirmation that all you really do have is the Self/Soul and that is what is supreme and true, the rest is pointless abstraction and mollycoddling.

And frankly, folks, that scares the shit out of me.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2013, 04:50:21 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
It depends - does reality want to make peace with you? When you sit, sit. When you eat, eat. When you grow cancer, grow cancer.

And ignoring the message from your ex? Isn't this what a Dunyain does, unless it's of the shortest path? Perhaps it's just that the Dunyain seek to actually do something - are Buddists different from Dunyain, or simply indifferent? The Dunyain with the thousand fold shrug?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2013, 04:50:28 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
A buddhist's detachment does not necessarily imply non-participation with reality. Even Zen masters feel anger, they just aren't swept up by it. Reality is engaged but not judged. Yet there is an abiding, a peace that comes with this equanimity, that the Dunyain apparently only consider a stepping stone. As we see with Kellhus, with a deep understanding of the Logos comes a mental equilibrium that is powerful yet not satisfied with simply being. Kellhus himself is ambitious yet utterly at peace. He usurps a Holy War and yet feels nothing. This is a contradiction that can only be explained by the Dunyain's understanding of the mechanics of reality and their capacity to manipulate it. Buddhism stops at understanding, the Dunyain want the mastery that is derived from that understanding. If the Dunyain were only interested in benign enlightenment, not a single one would have ever ventured far from Ishual.

That is also what both separates and links the Dunyain with the Inchoroi. Both are centered on the Self/Soul: the Dunyain want mastery of the universe, the Inchoroi want gratification for the Self.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2013, 04:50:35 pm »
Quote from: Church
Bbaztek, I've been meditating and interested in Buddhism for about six years, and that definitely added a lot to my interest in TDTCB (especially at the bit where Kellhus appreciates the logos by concentrating on the sentence).

I think what you say about the lack of compassion in what the Dunyain do is interesting, because it makes me think about one problem I've always had with Buddhism. The basic assumption seems to be that when we see reality in depth we understand our interconnections with others and compassion naturally arises (hence your answer to Callum - Buddhism doesn't imply inaction and not attempting to change things, but rather making changes which are appropriate and not based on the delusions we habitually live by). I've found that to work for me - I'm much happier and I think I'm kinder to myself and others when I'm meditating.

BUT, I've found it hard to think of how Buddhism would answer someone who has closely examined their own experience... and then made the informed decision that actually they still want to screw everyone else over. It seems to me that Buddhism assumes that all that needs to be done is to sensitively show a person the way, then sooner or later that person will come to realise that they should b behaving more empathetically. What if they decide, like Kellhus, that they're just not going to? Are we still meant to treat them with compassion even though they are absolutely not doing so in return? Don't you think, to put it in TSA terms, that we need a bit more (moral) judgment?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2013, 04:50:43 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
Yup, that's the core of it. I've been meditating on and off for a year now, and while my practice is very much in its early stages, the benefits are tremendous. Not being ruled by your emotions, habitual behaviors and thoughts, is massively freeing, and with that comes an almost scarily accurate understanding about not only your own self but the people around you.

Buddhism depends on its followers to use the mind's innate power for good, almost like it is a key that opens a storehouse of love and compassion that was always inside us. And when you are part of a monastic sect, or even just a Zen center down the street, you can't exactly deviate from that path without serious repercussions. But what if use that insight into your own being and other people's dispositions you for control? Sure, there might be no inherent, core "I" and all things are one yadda yadda yadda, but for some people the compassion is optional. That scares me. It takes a human being's innate understanding of reality and corrupts it into a tool of control. The Dunyain ask, if you know your shit, and you're smart enough to get away with it, why not?

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2013, 04:50:50 pm »
Quote from: Church
Yeah, I guess the question revolves around whether we are getting a more accurate understanding of ourself and others. I don't know much about philosophy, but if Buddhism is correct then the implication is basically that compassion is written into nature, and there is therefore a natural basis to morality (the is is an ought). But then the question is of why people so consistently act in direct contradiction to how we are naturally meant to act, and Buddhism seems to so consistently refuse to talk about ultimate metaphysics. More and more I feel that whilst meditation and so on is great on an everyday level, it doesn't even begin to advance an explanation or approach to deeper questions than that...

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2013, 04:50:59 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
Well, the Buddhist answer to why people act the opposite of their supposed basic natures is because ignorance of reality (labels, opinion, ideas, the ego itself etc.) produces this discrepancy between inherent nature and everyday action. That I don't disagree with. The more an identity is built up and buttressed by ignorance, the more the ego will defend that identity. Our brains are built to cognitize our environment into meanings and patterns that help us survive; it stands to reason that same instinct to understand will carry over to our conception of ourselves. So far, I'm totally with Buddhism.

And then someone asks: if this ultimate nature of reality is so immanent, so powerful, why are we so predisposed to being ignorant about it? The more I think about it the more I've just accepted the fact that the whole practice of Buddhism/similar spiritual systems is just elaborately conditioning yourself to support states of mind most conducive to compassion, empathy, and a meaningful and fulfilling spiritual life. I wouldn't go far as to say absolutely everyone on this earth has a Buddha inside of them, but the potential to be a better person is there for everyon and that's good enough for me.

The Dunyain seem to understand this, and have taken the opposite, ego-centric road, while employing the same techniques an understanding.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2013, 04:51:06 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: bbaztek
and with that comes an almost scarily accurate understanding about not only your own self but the people around you.
Alternatively it allows the pursuit of one particular biased view exclusively, instead of a number/a legion of biases arguing and thus never being all that certain.

- Devils Advocate.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2013, 04:51:14 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
Quote from: Callan S.
Quote from: bbaztek
and with that comes an almost scarily accurate understanding about not only your own self but the people around you.
Alternatively it allows the pursuit of one particular biased view exclusively, instead of a number/a legion of biases arguing and thus never being all that certain.

- Devils Advocate.

I know that came across like "with meditation, you too can become kellhus!!!", but that's not the case. You come to understand yourself in the sense that you are able to take a step back from the interplay of your emotions and not be snagged by them. Anger becomes an energy, certainly an unpleasant one, that you do not feed by by heaping a narrative on it. Even joy is experienced fully and in the moment, and not tainted by clinging.

As for understanding other people, you gradually learn to interact with people in the moment. If some guy pissed you off at your job a week ago and now he's back, you learn to not predispose yourself to confronting him, or being sarcastic, or whatever. It's remarkable what being present can do to the tenor of your behavior around other people, even difficult ones. You are open to them, and sometimes, they open right back.

Needless to say, this is balls fucking hard to do but gets easier over time.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2013, 04:51:22 pm »
Quote from: KRST IS
Interesting dichotomy.

Personally, however, I would not be so quick to condemn Kellhus. Although, I do like bbaztek's explanation of compassion, albeit, I am of the opinion that he, respectfully, is judging Kellhus. I am going to stand up for Kellhus and the Dunyain here, but I am also going to stand up for bbaztek's extraordinary discipline to the Buddhist path.

Do not judge lest you be judged, yes, but judgment must be passed before that summit is reached of no judgment. Judgment on both sides of any conflict or PERCEIVED contradictions. We're working here with polar opposites that paradoxically REINFORCE each other. The concept of unity via compassion is an illusion in itself, because before it becomes true unity, it must pass through damnation, the fires of the mind's hell for eventual, genuine transmutation. Well, another way to look at it is to say that as long as we perceive "our" world from a first person perspective, it will always be modified by any of the five senses. When we speak, we cannot help but pass judgment. There is no way to avoid it as long as we express outwardly, many times in verbal form, a much refined modification of what APPEARS to be Consciousness, an expression of "compassion" therein. (I'm attempting to exemplify here, in small part, Bakker's own explanation of the Blind Brain Theory: http://www.academia.edu/1502945/The_Last_Magic_Show_A_Blind_Brain_Theory_of_the_Appearance_of_Consciousness

Furthermore, if we operate in the awareness, the surrender, that we actually have no real "free will" to even speak of - that we have really no ability for volition - that we really are not even qualified to conceptualize Consciousness - so as to legitimize our passing judgments on people such as Kellhus. And, even so, it seems futile to even say "This man/woman is the opposite of a benevolent spiritual path (Buddhism) because his karma, his causative relations are destructive." Is not Nature, natural law destructive? Is not Kellhus an agent, a product, a person of natural law (Earwa) herself? Well, he exists in bodily form like all others, so one must assume naturally (via their own limited first person perception), including the reader, that Kellhus is genuinely, bizarrely, working through Nature. No matter how one might like to reason he is not, there is no way to judge such a person as "outside natural law" even if said person is deluded indeed. The irony is that when such a judgment is made on a person, the one who has cast the judgment is deceived by filtered desire just as much as the person on whom the judgment was cast for apparent manifest deception!

One can only operate within the confines of his/her positioning in the ouroboros. ;)

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2013, 04:55:40 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
Interesting points KRST, thank you for the input.

Quote
The concept of unity via compassion is an illusion in itself, because before it becomes true unity, it must pass through damnation, the fires of the mind's hell for eventual, genuine transmutation. Well, another way to look at it is to say that as long as we perceive "our" world from a first person perspective, it will always be modified by any of the five senses. When we speak, we cannot help but pass judgment. There is no way to avoid it as long as we express outwardly, many times in verbal form, a much refined modification of what APPEARS to be Consciousness, an expression of "compassion" therein.

This is true, but I can't help but admire the monolithic efforts of Zen masters to strip away everything individualizes us from the universe (the bias of the senses, our perceptions, thoughts and feelings) in order to get in touch with that basic unity we all came from and will eventually return into. Even the deepest experiences of kensho - one's apprehension of their fundamental oneness with the universe - is only a shadow of the One, but it is still something and worth practicing for.

Quote
Is not Nature, natural law destructive? Is not Kellhus an agent, a product, a person of natural law (Earwa) herself? Well, he exists in bodily form like all others, so one must assume naturally (via their own limited first person perception), including the reader, that Kellhus is genuinely, bizarrely, working through Nature.

I would argue that Nature is actually constant flux, death and rebirth. In that sense, yes, Kellhus is an 'agent' of Nature, since he is upending Earwa's metaphysical/moral order to introduce meaninglessness. He is not so much an agent of destruction as he is a balancer, a force that will (apparently) swing Earwa from being a land of objective morality and inherent meaning to a world empty of meaning (curiously, this is also a Buddhist concept: everything exists because of something else, so nothing has inherent meaning or existence).

I suppose since we are talking about Buddhism, a spiritual discipline that urges its followers to adopt a cosmic view of life, then Kellhus should also be judged from that view. But since I am an imperfect human being, and to be redundant an imperfect Buddhist, I can only judge Kellhus from my biased view. The idea of him scares me on a very deep level and I can't wait until he gets his shit creamed.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2013, 04:55:47 pm »
Quote from: KRST IS
Quote
This is true, but I can't help but admire the monolithic efforts of Zen masters to strip away everything individualizes us from the universe (the bias of the senses, our perceptions, thoughts and feelings) in order to get in touch with that basic unity we all came from and will eventually return into.

Indeed. I agree with you. Well said.

Quote
I would argue that Nature is actually constant flux, death and rebirth. In that sense, yes, Kellhus is an 'agent' of Nature, since he is upending Earwa's metaphysical/moral order to introduce meaninglessness. He is not so much an agent of destruction as he is a balancer, a force that will (apparently) swing Earwa from being a land of objective morality and inherent meaning to a world empty of meaning (curiously, this is also a Buddhist concept: everything exists because of something else, so nothing has inherent meaning or existence).

Yes. Nature is indeed in a constant state of impermanence. I would contend, from a biological standpoint, that we are currently in an even more rapid state of change, perhaps global cataclysm. But, metaphysically, I need not fear it.

It's curious that you mention that Kellhus is here to introduce meaninglessness. Spot on. VERY interesting comment. I can't recall where, but I do remember Bakker hinting on his blog to someone that this is one of, if not the utmost, key behind who and what Kellhus is about. Well said again. I love how this kind of conversation shifts in a constructive way.

Quote
But since I am an imperfect human being, and to be redundant an imperfect Buddhist, I can only judge Kellhus from my biased view. The idea of him scares me on a very deep level and I can't wait until he gets his shit creamed.

Haha! Yes. Kellhus has been on a journey. For myself, I would love to see him end up "repenting" from the Dunyain error and "redeeming" himself whilst still being a harbinger of paradigm shift (the resurrection of a cognitive realization toward the Tao/Ground of "meaninglessness" or uncertainty).

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2013, 04:55:54 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
Good stuff, KRST, really liking where this discussion is going.

I think what made the Bakkerverse click for me was the realization that it is, fundamentally, the total opposite of ours. Think of all the literature, film, and television made in the past century alone about the industrialized world's ennui, the death of meaning brought about by materialism (both meanings implied: consumerism, and the philosophical theory), the reduction of the natural world to chemicals and physical processes, our discovery in our physical place int he universe as being utterly, utterly insignificant, etc. Now I'm not disparaging the sciences, far from it, but what we have gradually come to learn the past century is that the universe is indifferent. There is no inherent meaning in anything. For some, that's freeing, for others, it's terrifying. Everything just is.

The Bakkerverse is different. A pile of pig shit is innately lesser in the eyes of the God than a priest, or a battle-hardened general who won glory for his house. In fact, there's even a chapter heading that pretty much says the same. Or you can just look at Mimara's Judging Eye. The world is objective. If you're a hunchback in Earwa, you are objectively inferior to a charismatic statesmen, or even just the guy down the street. That is your value and you live with it, tough shit. Oh, and if you fuck up, you're damned. And we haven't even gotten to the rape aliens yet. I guess part of the reason Bakker makes his world feel so authentic so he can more confidently pose the million dollar question: what's worse, a universe that isn't watching or one that is? Because everyone can't be a winner in Earwa's universe; someone's gotta eat shit and die.

That's why, in a twisted way, I'm rooting for Kellhus. He is meaninglessness/the Ground/Tao* in a meaningful world. Everyone's reading all this divine horseshit in everything he does and says when he doesn't stand for anything. He just is.

*Spot on with the Tao comparison by the way. I never really linked the Dunyain's being attuned to the flow of reality as just another fancy way of describing the Tao.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2013, 04:56:00 pm »
Quote from: KRST IS
Quote
I think what made the Bakkerverse click for me was the realization that it is, fundamentally, the total opposite of ours.

Personally, I'm not so certain about that. I think Bakkerverse mirrors our universe.

Quote
Now I'm not disparaging the sciences, far from it, but what we have gradually come to learn the past century is that the universe is indifferent.

For myself, I think we are collectively unlearning (meaning its a rediscovery) that humanity is indifferent, inconsequential as a part, a product of nature. Being in bodily form is consciousness - whatever that is - perceiving itself - playing with itself a little game. A blip on the eternity of the Ground.

Quote
The Bakkerverse is different. A pile of pig shit is innately lesser in the eyes of the God than a priest, or a battle-hardened general who won glory for his house. In fact, there's even a chapter heading that pretty much says the same. Or you can just look at Mimara's Judging Eye. The world is objective. If you're a hunchback in Earwa, you are objectively inferior to a charismatic statesmen, or even just the guy down the street. That is your value and you live with it, tough shit. Oh, and if you fuck up, you're damned.

I think, like our world, Earwa at this time is experiencing the ruling elite, imperialism, for a few thousand years. The mainline religions - Inrithism, Fanism, et al is akin to our own - Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These faiths are a collection of political ideologies that are ultimately under the umbrella of a few core ecological strategies devised by the ruling elite.

I don't think "damnation" is properly taught by the Establishment. I think this is intentional conditioning. In esoteric doctrine echoing back to pagan times, "damnation" really referred to a state of one's mind.

Perhaps this is one of the core messages to take from Bakker. He is using a story, a myth, like the sages of old, to inform us about our personal journey as a race - the evolution of humanity's mind and heart - how we become aware of it and make discipline of it.

In Kellhus it's both/and. Make your cake and eat it too. The Dunyain philosophy, rejects, for example, an emotional magick called Psuke, in favor for pure intellect. Kellhus, however, accepts all of the above - Psuke, Gnosis (which seems a mix of both intellect and emotion) and the pure intellect of the Dunyain. Curious evolution of this character. Our universe seems to agree, and also, at times to disagree. Perhaps it's the same with Bakkerverse. It's both/and. Consequently, it's amazing - a character like Kellhus, able to juggle everyone and everything in the palms of his haloed hands. It's because, curiously, he is too aware to be bounded by beliefs of either/or.

I'm excited to see what happens in the TUC!

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2013, 04:56:08 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
Quote
Personally, I'm not so certain about that. I think Bakkerverse mirrors our universe.


In the sense you described, yes. It is a very authentic and living world that mirrors our own in richness of culture, history, and even the inner lives of its characters. Metaphysically, it is not an indifferent universe, since belief shapes reality... or the Gods made it so... or I don't know what exactly Bakker is getting at so far in the series, but there is objective morality and that is the opposite of our universe.

Quote
I think, like our world, Earwa at this time is experiencing the ruling elite, imperialism, for a few thousand years. The mainline religions - Inrithism, Fanism, et al is akin to our own - Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These faiths are a collection of political ideologies that are ultimately under the umbrella of a few core ecological strategies devised by the ruling elite.

I don't think "damnation" is properly taught by the Establishment. I think this is intentional conditioning. In esoteric doctrine echoing back to pagan times, "damnation" really referred to a state of one's mind.

Thanks for putting that last part in words. I had always struggled with trying to convey it. Having been in some very dark places myself, I've come to  understand the notion that doing shitty things will make you feel shitty very intimately. It's as simple as that. The hell of your own mind is always worse than what some fire and brimstone preacher can conjure up on Sunday mornings.

Quote
In Kellhus it's both/and. Make your cake and eat it too. The Dunyain philosophy, rejects, for example, an emotional magick called Psuke, in favor for pure intellect. Kellhus, however, accepts all of the above - Psuke, Gnosis (which seems a mix of both intellect and emotion) and the pure intellect of the Dunyain. Curious evolution of this character. Our universe seems to agree, and also, at times to disagree. Perhaps it's the same with Bakkerverse. It's both/and. Consequently, it's amazing - a character like Kellhus, able to juggle everyone and everything in the palms of his haloed hands. It's because, curiously, he is too aware to be bounded by beliefs of either/or.


Funny, the Buddha himself preached the Middle Way. That extremes are not sustainable, even if they are extremes of good things like love and generosity. Life is found in balance. Very, very interesting.

I don't contend that Bakker sat down and thought all of this up before writing book 1, but the fact that both our interpretations are equally valid and draw different themes from the same subject matter, is a testament to the richness of the world he's crafted. I can't wait for TUC, too.