1 Gluttony (, gastrimargia)

2 Fornication (, porneia)
3 Avarice (, philarguria)
4 Anger (, thumos)
5 Sadness ( , lupe akairos)
6 Akedia (, akedia)
7 Vainglory (, kenodoxia)
8 Pride (, hyperephania)
https://patristicsandphilosophy.wordpress.com/tag/eight-evil-thoughts/
Qaq

Eight great fears (Wyl. jigs pa chen po brgyad) the eight great fears are
considered to have an outer aspect and an inner aspectthe mental defilements
they represent. While the outer fears, or dangers, threaten our life or property, the
inner ones endanger us spiritually by obstructing or turning us away from the path
to enlightenment. They are the fears of:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

drowning or water (Wyl. chu)

thieves (Wyl. mi rgod)
lions (Wyl. seng ge)
snakes (Wyl. klu)
fire (Wyl. me)
spirits or flesh-eating demons (Wyl. sha za)
captivity or imprisonment (Wyl. chad pa)
elephants (Wyl. glang po)
Their respective inner counterparts are:

1
2
3
4
5

craving or attachment
wrong or false views
pride
envy or jealousy
hatred or anger

6
7
8
9

doubt
avarice
delusion or ignorance
Another way to think of them is to consider the flood of attachment, the thieves of
wrong views, the lion of pride, the snakes of jealousy, the fire of anger, the
carnivorous demon of doubt, the chains of miserliness or greed, and the elephant
of ignorance.
There was a monastery in the east inhabited solely by Saindhava Sravakas
{monks of the Sammatiya school). At one time there, each evening every bhiksu
who went for a walk in the grounds outside the monastery died. Thus the
monastery's congregation dwindled. One evening a certain novice went to the
walking [26] area, and a black, ugly pisiica demon ap-peared, baring its fangs,
and grabbed him by the head. Thinking 'They say that according to the
Mahayanists, there is someone who protects from the eight fears, called Tara. I
take Refuge in Her,' he called on the name of Tara. A black goddess brandishing
a sword appeared there, and threatened the demon. The demon begged the
novice's pardon and gave him an iron pot he extracted from under the ground, full
of pearls. From then on, the harm to the monastery stopped.

"Shariputra, suppose that in a certain town in a certain country there was a very
rich man. He was far along in years and his wealth was beyond measure. He had
many fields, houses and menservants. His own house was big and rambling, but
it had only one gate. A great many peoplea hundred, two hundred, perhaps as
many as five hundredlived in the house. The halls and rooms were old and
decaying, the walls crumbling, the pillars rotten at their base, and the beams and
rafters crooked and aslant. At that time a fire suddenly broke out on all sides,
spreading through the rooms of the house. The sons of the rich man, ten, twenty
perhaps thirty, were inside the house. When the rich man saw the huge flames
leaping up on every side, he was greatly alarmed and fearful and thought to
himself, I can escape to safety through the flaming gate, but my sons are inside
the burning house enjoying themselves and playing games, unaware, unknowing,
without alarm or fear. The fire is closing in on them, suffering and pain threaten
them, yet their minds have no sense of loathing or peril and they do not think of
trying to escape!

"Shariputra, this rich man thought to himself, I have strength in my body and
arms. I can wrap them in a robe or place them on a bench and carry them out of
the house. And then again he thought, this house has only one gate, and
moreover it is narrow and small. My sons are very young, they have no
understanding, and they love their games, being so engrossed in them that they
are likely to be burned in the fire. I must explain to them why I am fearful and
alarmed. The house is already in flames and I must get them out quickly and not
let them be burned up in the fire! Having thought in this way, he followed his plan
and called to all his sons, saying, 'You must come out at once!" But though the
father was moved by pity and gave good words of instruction, the sons were
absorbed in their games and unwilling to heed them. They had no alarm, no
fright, and in the end no mind to leave the house. Moreover, they did not
understand what the fire was, what the house was, what the danger was. They
merely raced about this way and that in play and looked at their father without
heeding him.
"At that time the rich man had this thought: the house is already in flames from
this huge fire. If I and my sons do not get out at once, we are certain to be
burned. I must now invent some expedient means that will make it possible for
the children to escape harm. The father understood his sons and knew what
various toys and curious objects each child customarily liked and what would
delight them. And so he said to them, 'The kind of playthings you like are rare and
hard to find. If you do not take them when you can, you will surely regret it later.
For example, things like these goat-carts, deer-carts and ox-carts. They are
outside the gate now where you can play with them. So you must come out of this
burning house at once. Then whatever ones you want, I will give them all to you!'
"At that time, when the sons heard their father telling them about these rare
playthings, because such things were just what they had wanted, each felt
emboldened in heart and, pushing and shoving one another, they all came wildly
dashing out of the burning house.[4]
The father subsequently presents each of his sons with a large bejeweled
carriage drawn by a pure white ox. When the Buddha asks Shariputra whether
the father was guilty of falsehood, he answers.
"No, World-Honored One. This rich man simply made it possible for his sons to
escape the peril of fire and preserve their lives. He did not commit a falsehood.
Why do I say this? Because if they were able to preserve their lives, then they

had already obtained a plaything of sorts. And how much more so when, through
an expedient means, they are rescued from that burning house!" [5]

The theme if fallen angels seems to mesh with astoic phenomenology, probably
by Alexandrian Jews mixing up Plato and Torah.
The Stoics found the flaw in human beings ce terd around the production of
images, thoughts and emotions from the phantasia, from the imagination. They
insistd that the real identity in a person was found in the act of consent or
discretion towaord this phenomenea, this seat of jugment in the mind was called
the hegemonikon, that is where ones true identiy lies, as Epicurus says "you are
your hegemonikon".
This is a general contradiction to freud in the way that frued suggested that the
anxieties that emerge in dreams were aftually suppresed desires, implying that
that suppressed desire was an ulterior self, one that cannot be suffecienfly
suppresed and will produce only more anxiety if not given consent.
These images produce varieties of fear and desire and conflate with other images
to construe narratives that might be compelling by virtue of novelty or firther
conflate with unresolved memories, exacting spite, eclipsing the ego, etc, but
these images are all representations, they are not identical with self or events.
They are versions, stoics call them Jugments.
When we encounter myths of god producing emanation of god that then look
back into god and percieve yet another image/emanation of god which itself looks
back and envisions ad infinitum--- we see how god deteriorates from copy to
copy to copy.
This is what is implied in Origens angelic rebellion. The rebellion in heaven is
essentially the rise of divine phenomenology.
What occurs as a salvific act is Logos, the actual prsence of essential god among
the emanations. Christ is the impossible phenomenon of an act of refection
without producing an object of reflection. Similarly, humans reflect upon god by
way of the indwelling spirit. No false idols etc.

This impossibility of god reflecting christ in us to himself with no spacial, no

geometric quality is the mystery of the trinity.
There is always the anagogic in the mme t of prayer, the fall, the incarnation, the
apocatastasis, all are immediate. For that is the meaning of the trinity, immediacy.

What is love? Is it that intensity of enjoyment being with another, just to look at
them, to have the. Look at you, to not want to see anyone else, to know your love
wants only to see you, to know that pleasure and also to know that you are giving
hat pleasure, to sense that prensence of time and want it to never end, to laugh
to gether to experince the complete accord with ones own body rspond in that
desire, and to want to excite that same accord of body and mind in the loved one,
to know that you can elicit love and to love doing it and never be doing anything
but recieving that from that one, and to give it to that one and want to do nothing
else.
It is not only to be in love, it is to be loved by the one you love, that rare chance
when nether lover loves any other, the circle is danced.
Is it possible to know that, yes.
Dies it last? No.
Why?
The answer doesnt matter but it is the saddest thought in the world.
Because to sense why is to understand that the corruption of that love is
produced from within that very love.
Perhaps because to love another is to be another, no amount of time or
lovemaking will truly make you two become one. And that mixture of
dissatisfaction along with the shame of remaining an other breeds the space for
betrayal.

Lastly, leaving only the antithesis: being alone.

Things of Origen
1 Teleological universalism
2 Homousia of the trinity
The word homooudia is more telling yhsn "csndubstantisliyy" of latin usage. The
term "osious" was coined by Aristotle, it implies a generative feature, something
essential to change. There are phenomenae that are symptomstic of change but
are not causal. This involves whst is subject and ehst is genitive.
We have to think about poein and paschein.
3 Origen exhorts his pupils to bring the intellectual treasures of the Greeks to the
service of Christian philosophy, and thus imitate the Jews who employed the
golden vessels of the Egyptians to adorn the Holy of Holies.
Pre-ecustsnce of sngels snd their presence in crestion

Akedia is a compound word. The first part is the prefix a- (-), which means not
and is used exactly like the prefix un- in English. The second part is the abstract
noun kedia (), which itself is derived from the more concrete noun kedos
(). Kedos means care for others, especially the kind of care that you show
when someone dies. To have kedos for the dead means that you care so much
for the dead person that you wash the body, attend the funeral, and see the
remains of the person respectfully buried, even though the person you loved is
now dead and gone and will do nothing more for you in this life. Kedia, therefore,
is the action of showing kedos. The noun kedia is used twice in the Septuagint,
the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. In both passages the word is
used in reference to funerals (II Maccabees 4:49 and 5:10 ). The word is not
used at all in the New Testament. A verb meaning to bury the dead is used in
an alternate text of one passage, referring to the body of Saint John the Baptist

(Mark 6:29 ), but not in the text of the New Testament that most of us read. But
even though the word itself is not used in this context, it was displayed in the
actions of some people when the Lord died. Saint Joseph of Arimathea displayed
kedia when he provided the tomb for the Lord. The myrrh-bearing women
displayed kedia when they went to that tomb, the action that led them to be the
first to know that the Lord had risen from the dead.

Generically, any appetite that one follows, whether an appetite for food, for sex,
for drug, for music, for conversation, has eternity lying behind it and nothing will
satisfy that. The substitute will only cover it with its characteristic expressive
sensation of time. The original appetite has from time immemorial been found
best directed beyond death, past sensations, diverting away from self
satisfactions of body and mind toward what we call "God". In fact this is the
defining of God, for it doesn't matter if there is a god. There is only this eternal
direction of our drives that best suits them, the satisfaction without satisfaction,
formerly known as via negativa.

"I am lying on your grave and I will lie there forever."

What is dispair's avoidance? Being alone, with no friend, no lover, no god and
sensing time pass like a bleeding wound.
For thise things are infinite in value. God, love friendship and timelessness. To be
mortal, finite and to know it.
The question that arises is about the nature of knowing those things. Can that
knowledge become subjective enough to become objective. Through deliberate
effort can these ideas acquire more value to one subjectively, enough to become
objective reality?

These things combine into one point: what ever i may be, or not be, there is
existence. The experience i have of existence at this moment is not unique to me.
Yet it is miraculously available to me at this moment. That availability is the same
availability of all.
Stay, moment stay. Moment of nothing other.

What if opinions were alive?

Had objectives, desires, antipathies?
What if they could reproduce, by fusion, by infection?
What if everything you saw, table, actress, tamale... Was infected with opinion,
many opinions, of many degrees and associated with many other opinions?
Of course, by opinions i dont mean comments, stories told, but immediate
stimulation. That is to say, stimulations that seem to be immediate but in fact are
the mediated reaction itself.
What if you were imbedded in a world all but imperceptible to you apart from the
opinions they brought to your mind?
What if culture has evolved in such a way that the interrelation of opinions was
systematic, mutually supportive. All reliant on the drives on which they are driven.
Likes, dislikes, all with progressive intensities of affections.
What if one began to feel that culture, and all those who participate in it, feed on
you like a virus needing a host?
What if every opinion was alive and wanted to be inside you?

Like the sexual predator that has an appitite for bodies then when sated is
indifferent (or even re0ulsed) we might think of the dark angels and who cannot
maintain a sense of other apart from appitites, (this of course being god that has
one limit: it cannot create itself, only a copy) the dark angel configes of religion as
a respite, a remove from bodies.
Many misunderstand ascetisism as merely that, look at peter brown for
clarification. It seems that evagrius is statigic in positioning the adcetic practice
as a way of exposi g and demonstrating the dark k angels relationship to bodies,
ie appitites--- bodies that have effect on on another as the stoic idea says, are
distinguished from bodies that desire or crave that effect on another: to embrace
bodily function, to identify with body qua body.

We might think that the fall was immediate, it was the first thought of the created
being, as separated from God, it was anxiety of initial being from nowhere, and
this is a look into a mirror of being toward nowhere, which is to say death.
And if there is no process without cause, no "paregklisis" no self will without the
empowerment of god then there no other possibility than to see the fall as a fall
within Gods own being.
As such, a Messiah is not the salvation of humanity any more than the salvation
of God. For God to openly perform separation and submission to death.
"Why has thou forsaken me" is the evidence of the heart of subjection, the
conscious sense that one will be truly cut off. Yet it is a cry to God. We might
think of this as the cry of Angels who come into being, as separate from God:
"why has thou forsaken me?" The self hate of being.
But returning to the language of Origenism, the fall is not a thought of separation,
it is an action, a movement.
What was this kinesis, clineman?

Is there a distinction in saying that there is a disturbance of being (why?) that is

qualitatively different from a disturbance of will? This loss of care corresponds
well to akedia. The idea of forgetfulness comes to mind here as well, forgetting
one's purpose, hence the adage: "Remember why you were born".
In this respect we can understand when Plotinus says empty "paregklisis kenias"
he reminds us that the movement is inconsequential, it is actually only percieved
as dynamic.
If "why has thou forsaken me" a proposition only of difference, the. The outer
thou is mistaken as a power (will/determinant) different from the inner.
The deep irony is that the perception of an outer source equals the presumption
of being moved by an outer source, when there is perhaps in actuality only one
dynamic--this misconception of external expectation would be the naming of the
outer source as a movement, the inner source as will.
This anxiety is a familiar one: waiting for inspiration or merely the impetus of a
"feeling" for being. We resort to the enthusiasm sourced in stimulants, euphoric
sensations, that is to say sensation itself -- ultimately, paschein.
The order of creatures "according to the distance of their fall" is then a
subjectivity to need. Again the irony: the illusion that one needs the feeling of
inspiration, the support and attention of others, etc. might lead to the antithetical
response that one needs only oneself, not needing. Yet again there remains an
inner spatiality to familiarize, there is an inner sustained need to be had, to suffer
in specific, a disciplined suffering. Not to suffer from all directions, only to suffer
in one place, the paschein of logos.
The place to begin putting ones suffering in order is to deliberatly learn a practice
of the body depriving it of saitiety-- which is clearly not the same thing as
masochism or dualistic hatred of the body. One can understand hiw to maintain
physical health, by way of logos, whike deliberatly isolation the quality of
paschein as the guide to physical needs. Isolation of paschein is the objective
here, not the discipline of the body, or health of the bidy for that matter. One can
certainly learn a disciplined line of paschein through physical cruelty, but it is not
at all neccessary. It is not cruel to stay with want, year ing or desire. It is a mood

of heightened sensitivity. Ultimatly the goal is to be sensitive to inner life while

indifferent to outer satisfactions.

Hunger of the body is anger in the soul

To speak of the immaterial, etherial qualities is for Origenists and Platonists is to

speak of the non rational, literally inconceivable. There are bodies of what we
would call immaterial nature: rational bodies, bodies of influence and causality.
These still fall into our category of mass, they are made of finer stuff, elemental
material such as fire and air but they are still bodies and relatively immortal, their
generation, endurance and corruptions are of much longer duration, some last
until the end if time itself.
So for Evagrius the perception of the truly abstract, spiritual natures that are
devoid of any body, materiality, mass or what is called "uncreated" is to speak of
God per se. So during times of contemplation or prayer one experiences non
objective intentionality, the union of perception and presence, the light that is
without source, emanation or shadow, the light of mind, only then are we talking
about actual non-material, non-physical, "emptiness" or "void". One cannot
assume that such experiences are indeed presences of god, but in their degree
of non-objective experience we have the nature of that acquaintance, an
experience on the order of the knowledge of god, a gnosis. By dispensing with
any objective knowing, we know how to know the absence of God, which is the
proper place of God, regardless if God is there or not. In fact if God is there, He
certainly is not, nor She, nor It.

Pride takes over where vainglory leaves off, leading the monk to think that he has
acquired the virtues and progressed to the highest contemplation, not with the
assistance and grace of God, but by his own efforts: he is suddenly taken with
the blasphemous notion that he has no need of God.108

108 Other blasphemous thoughts might include a denial of Christ or the

relegation of the Trinity to the created order (Monks 134); or one might question
the judgement and providence of God or the possibility of attaining virtue (Si9oProv. 19: 5); considering the ody to be an evil creation (KG A,. 60); denying free
will and thus also the justice of God (Antirrhetikos 8. 16, Fj38); or considering the
demons to be gods (Antirrhetikost,. 47^542).

Origenist metaphysics
Elements
Define body
Predisposed being and nous

"The feelings that hurt most, the emotions that sting most, are those that are
absurd; the longing for impossible things, precisely because they are impossible;
nostalgia for what never was; the desire for what could have been; regret over not
being someone else; dissatisfaction with the worlds existence. All these halftones of the souls consciousness create in us a painful landscape, an eternal
sunset of what we are."
Fernando Pessoa, Book of Disquiet