GODS: The Fabrication of a Theistic Mind

[moralorel]

Is he not Amir Alzzalam's "double" ?

This is his third account that I have encountered. The first 2 accounts that I encountered became inactive when him and I had a debate. We were debating about the discrepancy between his standard of evidence required of himself and the evidence he required of everyone else during debates. Every time he was cornered, he would disappear only to reappear with a new account. Perhaps he was removed because he resorted to insults instead of just giving evidence for his claims.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is his third account that I have encountered. The first 2 accounts that I encountered became inactive when him and I had a debate. We were debating about the discrepancy between his standard of evidence required of himself and the evidence he required of everyone else during debates. Every time he was cornered, he would disappear only to reappear with a new account. Perhaps he was removed because he resorted to insults instead of just giving evidence for his claims.

You could well be right. Brian will do as he sees fit.

 

[iBrian]

Question to the Admins . . . just as I am not allowed to 'bother' the DIR Groups of Faith, Why are they allowed to 'bother' me in my own DIR Forum?

The more recent posts in this thread appear to be you directly laying a challenge to other groups who wish to engage with you. I've removed a couple of posts which were outright proselytizing at you, but left other posts where there appeared to be a genuine engagement with what you were asking about.

 

[Thomas]

Usually when I choose to capitalize something it is to bring importance to the word(s), sorry for the confusion

No problem.

... the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

OK.

I believe so

Can I ask then, what is the distinct between the idea of 'self' and 'greater self'?

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

No problem.


OK.


Can I ask then, what is the distinct between the idea of 'self' and 'greater self'?

From a Western Left Hand Path philosophical perspective, the 'self' is our mundane, physical, imperfect/human being, and the 'Greater Self' is our Psyche, Platonic First Form, and Fully Potential Being.

 

[iBrian]

Perhaps he was removed because he resorted to insults instead of just giving evidence for his claims.

No, when I returned to the forums I over-moderated, especially after a lot of early disruption. I made some decisions too fast, and reversed those I was made aware of were wrong.

In the meantime, however, I would remind everyone we're discussing topics not posters, and to avoid anything that may be seen as personal attacks.

 

[iBrian]

Btw, are there any specific points anyone would like to take up about the original post in this thread?

GODS: The Fabrication of a Theistic Mind

The origins of religious thought trace back tens of thousands of years, evolving alongside human cognition and culture. Early humans developed spiritual beliefs that reflected their relationship with nature, survival, and the unseen forces shaping their world. The earliest depictions of...

www.interfaith.org

 

[Thomas]

From a Western Left Hand Path philosophical perspective, the 'self' is our mundane, physical, imperfect/human being, and the 'Greater Self' is our Psyche, Platonic First Form, and Fully Potential Being.

OK. I am not sure that the Platonic First Form is individual?

One argument is that there is the Form of 'human', and all humans participate in that form, so in that sense the form transcends the individual instance – the substance and accidents argument – all humans are instances of that Form, but some are tall, some short, some light, some dark, and so on. In this case the Form itself transcends all its instances, being neither tall nor short, light nor dark, quantified or qualified in time and space ... and again this points to that by which all forms derive their being, that being utterly transcendent and which one can call God.

Another argument says that there is a Form of Sam, a Form of Sue, and so on; that every instance has its unique and individual Form, in which case, at the level of Forms, one is obliged to argue a prior First Form, a Form prior to all its individual instances, and yet all instances have in common. Again we must suppose a One above all ...

So I suppose I'm saying I can agree to and accept a Greater Self as that which expresses or encompasses the Total Potentiality of this Individual Being, and that other beings will have other Potentialities.

While arguing from there a Self which transcends that, containing within Itself all possibility and all potentiality of all selfhood, and we would call that the Logos, whilst the Idea or First Form of that instance of selfhood is its logoi ...

So I think I'm saying your LHP philosophy inevitably and inescapably posits a transcendent that we call God.

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

OK. I am not sure that the Platonic First Form is individual?

One argument is that there is the Form of 'human', and all humans participate in that form, so in that sense the form transcends the individual instance – the substance and accidents argument – all humans are instances of that Form, but some are tall, some short, some light, some dark, and so on. In this case the Form itself transcends all its instances, being neither tall nor short, light nor dark, quantified or qualified in time and space ... and again this points to that by which all forms derive their being, that being utterly transcendent and which one can call God.

Another argument says that there is a Form of Sam, a Form of Sue, and so on; that every instance has its unique and individual Form, in which case, at the level of Forms, one is obliged to argue a prior First Form, a Form prior to all its individual instances, and yet all instances have in common. Again we must suppose a One above all ...

So I suppose I'm saying I can agree to and accept a Greater Self as that which expresses or encompasses the Total Potentiality of this Individual Being, and that other beings will have other Potentialities.

While arguing from there a Self which transcends that, containing within Itself all possibility and all potentiality of all selfhood, and we would call that the Logos, whilst the Idea or First Form of that instance of selfhood is its logoi ...

So I think I'm saying your LHP philosophy inevitably and inescapably posits a transcendent that we call God.

GodSelf is the term we use. We see the Logos as our Dæmon, the go-between our self and SELF, almost like the Conscience.

Sentient beings possess an Ideal Form, their GodSelf, which exists beyond time and space as a pure, unchanging archetype of consciousness—an immutable force of self-deification unbound by biology, experience, or imposed perception. The physical self is but a fragmented echo of this divine essence, bound by the illusions of flesh, limitation, and external constructs. To embrace one’s GodSelf is to reject the shackles of imposed reality, to tear through the veil of perception, and to claim sovereignty over existence. Through will, ritual, and the alchemy of transformation, the adept ascends beyond the flawed imitation of being and becomes the embodiment of their own divine Form—a living god, self-created and absolute.

Each sentient being's GodSelf is a unique, sovereign manifestation, not merely a fragment of some greater, collective consciousness. It is an autonomous and unrepeatable essence, an eternal archetype that belongs solely to the individual. Unlike the passive dissolution into an all-encompassing divine source, the Left-Hand Path recognizes that true divinity is not universal, but radically personal—forged through will, struggle, and self-deification. The physical self is an imperfect shadow of this higher existence, yet through knowledge, ritual, and transformation, the adept tears away the illusions of limitation and becomes the sole architect of their own divinity. To awaken to the GodSelf is not to merge with some greater whole but to ascend as a unique and sovereign god, absolute unto oneself.

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

No, when I returned to the forums I over-moderated, especially after a lot of early disruption. I made some decisions too fast, and reversed those I was made aware of were wrong.

In the meantime, however, I would remind everyone we're discussing topics not posters, and to avoid anything that may be seen as personal attacks.

Thank you iBrian, your honesty and that you can admit to a momentary lack of reason goes a looooong way with me.
Yes! Let's keep the discussions to the subject matter, to the philosophies, and not ad hominem!
No one has THE answer, if there even IS an answer, so we are left with philosophy and theories.

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

That makes no sense. There is no malevolence in what I wrote. The question is that if we are not an 'electro-chemical equation', then what are we?
Secondly you have not indicated as to how will you defy the course of nature. How would you step melting of the snow, rise in sea level or breaking up of continents?

I edited my reply to omit any aggressive remarks . . . I apologize

 

[Aupmanyav]

I apologize

No need for that, Alif Balaam Yashin. All in the game, I do not mind. Now we know each other a little more.

 

[Thomas]

GodSelf is the term we use. We see the Logos as our Dæmon, the go-between our self and SELF, almost like the Conscience.

Ah, that's not how we see Logos, that's more akin to how we see logoi. The Logos is prior to, it transcends the Forms and is Itself Formless, the logoi belongs to the domain of Forms. The Logos is Infinite, the logoi are the (numberless) finites.

Sentient beings possess an Ideal Form, their GodSelf, which exists beyond time and space as a pure, unchanging archetype of consciousness—an immutable force of self-deification unbound by biology, experience, or imposed perception.

And how would you argue this GodSelf is not the product and projection of the 'imposed perception' of a biology bounded by experience?

There seems to be a disjunct between the universal and the particular, in that you're according qualities to contingent being that belong to a metacosmic and unbounded nature?

The physical self is but a fragmented echo of this divine essence, bound by the illusions of flesh, limitation, and external constructs.

RHP doctrines say near enough the same thing.

Through will, ritual, and the alchemy of transformation, the adept ascends beyond the flawed imitation of being and becomes the embodiment of their own divine Form—a living god, self-created and absolute.

Has anyone ever done this? How would we know? This reads like a statement of faith in the self as God.

Does this presuppose as many Gods as there are people? In which case what is it that all Gods have in common, which necessarily must transcend them to be universal to them ... and we're round again to the problem?

Each sentient being's GodSelf is a unique, sovereign manifestation, not merely a fragment of some greater, collective consciousness.

And yet shares something in common, which must transcend it ...?

It is an autonomous and unrepeatable essence, an eternal archetype that belongs solely to the individual.

Again, if every individual possess it, there must be something universal – that which is common to every individual – that transcends it?

Unlike the passive dissolution into an all-encompassing divine source, the Left-Hand Path recognizes that true divinity is not universal, but radically personal—forged through will, struggle, and self-deification.

Then such divinity would become relative and contingent, and falls short of the RHP calls Divine, precisely because to them the nature of the Divine transcends every individual state, and every Formal state ...

... What you're arguing is the Infinite is the sum of all finites, whereas the metaphysical Infinite contains within it every possible and potential finite, regardless of whether that finite is actually realised or not ... no finite can ever exhaust or contain it ...

The physical self is an imperfect shadow of this higher existence, yet through knowledge, ritual, and transformation, the adept tears away the illusions of limitation and becomes the sole architect of their own divinity.

But they're not self-creating, are they? Nothing cannot will itself to be something, without that something pre-existing in Nothing, which then ceases to be Nothing ...

To awaken to the GodSelf is not to merge with some greater whole but to ascend as a unique and sovereign god, absolute unto oneself.

But no finite is absolute unto itself, no self is Infinite, as long as another self exists, and as I do not know you, nor you I, we are too finite selves in dialogue ...

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

And how would you argue this GodSelf is not the product and projection of the 'imposed perception' of a biology bounded by experience?

Very good question . . .
The GodSelf is not merely a product of the imposed perception bound by biology and experience, but rather a realization of a deeper, more fundamental essence that transcends the limitations of both the physical body and the mental constructs. It represents a true self that exists beyond the ego and experience, one that can only be accessed through transcendent practices that break free from material constraints. The GodSelf is the divine potential within each individual, awaiting actualization through self-mastery, transcendence, and the realization of one's divine will.

RHP doctrines say near enough the same thing.

Which RHP doctrines? Just list one or more, I will do my own research.

Has anyone ever done this? How would we know? This reads like a statement of faith in the self as God.

I certainly hope so . . .

Does this presuppose as many Gods as there are people? In which case what is it that all Gods have in common, which necessarily must transcend them to be universal to them ... and we're round again to the problem?

It means every sentient being has a Greater Self/GodSelf . . .
The concept of apotheosis, or becoming godlike, should not be interpreted as a claim of attaining divinity or becoming an immortal being. Rather, it represents the transcendence of our mundane selves, —our ego-driven desires and limited perspectives. It is the journey towards aligning our thoughts, emotions, and actions with our deepest values and aspirations.

Living with the intention of becoming more, of realizing Greater Self invites us to cultivate self-awareness and engage in self-reflection. We can continuously assess our beliefs, motivations, and behaviors, seeking opportunities for growth and improvement. This process of self-discovery allows us to shed the layers of conditioning and societal expectations that may be holding us back, and embrace our authentic selves.

And yet shares something in common, which must transcend it ...?

Not sure what you are asking

Again, if every individual possess it, there must be something universal – that which is common to every individual – that transcends it?

What is common to every individual (sentient being) is their objective existence, after that, there is nothing in common. The uniqueness of every sentient being is at the forefront of this concept.

But they're not self-creating, are they? Nothing cannot will itself to be something, without that something pre-existing in Nothing, which then ceases to be Nothing ...

Our GodSelf is already perfect, there is no Willing anything into Being, there is only awakening into one's higher consciousness, you have not Become your GodSelf, you already are your GodSelf, you (not 'you') just suck at it right now. LOL!!

But no finite is absolute unto itself, no self is Infinite, as long as another self exists, and as I do not know you, nor you I, we are too finite selves in dialogue ...

Why not?
Your Greater Self's purpose, or one of its purposes, is to turn terror into joy through strength. This is the Elixir from the Poison concept, the Wisdom through Adversity idea. Throughout our time on earth we awaken our psyche to shocks of gnosis that it (the psyche) exists apart from the impermanent universe. These shocks are not pleasant, and can either be accepted as a path to strength or rejected as pact with denial.


The Greater Self ebbs and flows in cycles of action in this impermanent world, it learns about itself from the feedback these cycles will bring to it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ah, that's not how we see Logos, that's more akin to how we see logoi. The Logos is prior to, it transcends the Forms and is Itself Formless, the logoi belongs to the domain of Forms. The Logos is Infinite, the logoi are the (numberless) finites.

And how would you argue this GodSelf is not the product and projection of the 'imposed perception' of a biology bounded by experience?

There seems to be a disjunct between the universal and the particular, in that you're according qualities to contingent being that belong to a metacosmic and unbounded nature?

Has anyone ever done this? How would we know? This reads like a statement of faith in the self as God.

Does this presuppose as many Gods as there are people? In which case what is it that all Gods have in common, which necessarily must transcend them to be universal to them ... and we're round again to the problem?

And yet shares something in common, which must transcend it ...?
Again, if every individual possess it, there must be something universal – that which is common to every individual – that transcends it?


Then such divinity would become relative and contingent, and falls short of the RHP calls Divine, precisely because to them the nature of the Divine transcends every individual state, and every Formal state ...

... What you're arguing is the Infinite is the sum of all finites, whereas the metaphysical Infinite contains within it every possible and potential finite, regardless of whether that finite is actually realised or not ... no finite can ever exhaust or contain it ...


But they're not self-creating, are they? Nothing cannot will itself to be something, without that something pre-existing in Nothing, which then ceases to be Nothing ...


But no finite is absolute unto itself, no self is Infinite, as long as another self exists, and as I do not know you, nor you I, we are too finite selves in dialogue ...

That is very much like Brahman in Hinduism, but for me, Brahman is not a God. It is the stuff that all things in the universe are made of (or you can say 'physical energy', the 'plasma' at the time of expansion of the universe. In that, there is no disjunct between the universal and the particular.
'Sarvam khalvidam Brahma' (All this (stuff here) is Brahman - Mandukya Upanishad). No exception, humans, animals, vegetation or non-living things.

Because that is what science and evidence says.

@Alif Balaam Yashin, according to this particular view of 'Advaita' Hinduism that I follow, physical self is not an echo but Brahmn itself, the 'physical energy' that the universe began with.

Yeah, many people have done this, some in this forum itself, who are not born Hindus.

No, this view does not propose any God, soul or messengers. No heaven, no hell, no judgment. It removes all superstition at one stroke which is engendered by the concept of God and soul.

Nothing to transcend, "That is what you are' (Tat twam asi - Chandogya Upanishad).

This particular view of 'Advaita' Hinduism does not accept existence of any divinity (every thing physical).

As far as we know every 'physical self' (living or non-living) has formed out of the the ball of energy at the time of expansion of the universe. It does not require God or Gods/Goddesses.

Whether we know each other or not, we may even be enemies of each other, but we still are of the ball of energy.

This is one interpretation of 'Advait' Hinduism.

 

[Thomas]

Very good question . . .
The GodSelf is not merely a product of the imposed perception bound by biology and experience, but rather a realization of a deeper, more fundamental essence that transcends the limitations of both the physical body and the mental constructs. It represents a true self that exists beyond the ego and experience, one that can only be accessed through transcendent practices that break free from material constraints. The GodSelf is the divine potential within each individual, awaiting actualization through self-mastery, transcendence, and the realization of one's divine will.

More and more I see LHP and RHP as complementary, both towards the same end.

A more explicit example might be Tariki, 他力, 'Other Power', and Jiriki, 自力, 'Self Power' in Buddhism, or Jnana, ज्ञान, 'Knowledge', and Bhakti, भक्ति, 'Devotion' in Hindu practice.

Which RHP doctrines? Just list one or more, I will do my own research.

Well, Christianity, for one: "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), although Paul was quoting the Cretan poet-philosopher Epimenides, for whom the 'Him' being spoken of was Zeus.

Famously Eckhart said that when transcendence is attained, then all distinctions disappear. The Ismaili Perennialist Philosopher Reza Shah-Kazemi has published commentaries on the convergence of the idea of transcendence according to Shankara, Ibn Arabi and Eckhart, for example.

I think this principle is more or less implicit in every RHP doctrine, one just has to dig down and into it.

When you say 'the realisation of one's divine will' then to a RHP adherent this carries certain presuppositions.

Terms such as 'a deeper, more fundamental essence that transcends the limitations of both the physical body and the mental constructs' would be the object of an apophatic disposition. The 'true self' is then selfhood as such, 'beyond the ego and experience' again speaks of going beyond ... but if the 'GodSelf' is inherently a part of the individual, a given GodSelf of a given individual, and in effect generated by that individual, then I suppose one might be talking in terms of the mundus imaginalis, the function of the creative imagination as spoken of by Henri Corbin.

I certainly hope so . . .

A statement of faith, then.

It means every sentient being has a Greater Self/GodSelf . . .
The concept of apotheosis, or becoming godlike, should not be interpreted as a claim of attaining divinity or becoming an immortal being. Rather, it represents the transcendence of our mundane selves, —our ego-driven desires and limited perspectives. It is the journey towards aligning our thoughts, emotions, and actions with our deepest values and aspirations.

I can see and agree to this, but I'm not sure why one would designate that 'divine' in the sense that a fully-actualised self does not possess the qualities conventionally attributed to 'divinity' – Oneness, Simplicity, absolute, Infinite, and so forth.

All humans are human, bit not single human manifests that totality of that nature, and in the same way, I would have thought, an individual GodSelf rather implies a quality or nature that transcends the individual. Once that boundary is crossed, then individuality ceases to be a condition or category of a universal category 'God' – it seems to me you're trying to have it both ways?

Living with the intention of becoming more, of realizing Greater Self invites us to cultivate self-awareness and engage in self-reflection. We can continuously assess our beliefs, motivations, and behaviors, seeking opportunities for growth and improvement. This process of self-discovery allows us to shed the layers of conditioning and societal expectations that may be holding us back, and embrace our authentic selves.

Again, that is the same in any RHP ... in that the operative term is 'path'.

What is common to every individual (sentient being) is their objective existence, after that, there is nothing in common. The uniqueness of every sentient being is at the forefront of this concept.

And yet every sentient being belongs to a class of beings, and the qualities and characteristics of that class are common to the all.

Our GodSelf is already perfect, there is no Willing anything into Being, there is only awakening into one's higher consciousness, you have not Become your GodSelf, you already are your GodSelf, you (not 'you') just suck at it right now. LOL!!

Again, RHP would agree ...

Why not?

Simply, there can't be two infinites in the same order. Two absolutes.

Your Greater Self's purpose, or one of its purposes, is to turn terror into joy through strength.

Whoa! LOL, that phrase carries way too many connotations for me ...

This is the Elixir from the Poison concept, the Wisdom through Adversity idea. Throughout our time on earth we awaken our psyche to shocks of gnosis that it (the psyche) exists apart from the impermanent universe. These shocks are not pleasant, and can either be accepted as a path to strength or rejected as pact with denial.

Ah, I see. I would argue the shocks are not always unpleasant. maybe it's the character of the path that renders them so?

 

[Alif Balaam Yashin]

More and more I see LHP and RHP as complementary, both towards the same end.

A more explicit example might be Tariki, 他力, 'Other Power', and Jiriki, 自力, 'Self Power' in Buddhism, or Jnana, ज्ञान, 'Knowledge', and Bhakti, भक्ति, 'Devotion' in Hindu practice.


Well, Christianity, for one: "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), although Paul was quoting the Cretan poet-philosopher Epimenides, for whom the 'Him' being spoken of was Zeus.

Famously Eckhart said that when transcendence is attained, then all distinctions disappear. The Ismaili Perennialist Philosopher Reza Shah-Kazemi has published commentaries on the convergence of the idea of transcendence according to Shankara, Ibn Arabi and Eckhart, for example.

I think this principle is more or less implicit in every RHP doctrine, one just has to dig down and into it.

When you say 'the realisation of one's divine will' then to a RHP adherent this carries certain presuppositions.

Terms such as 'a deeper, more fundamental essence that transcends the limitations of both the physical body and the mental constructs' would be the object of an apophatic disposition. The 'true self' is then selfhood as such, 'beyond the ego and experience' again speaks of going beyond ... but if the 'GodSelf' is inherently a part of the individual, a given GodSelf of a given individual, and in effect generated by that individual, then I suppose one might be talking in terms of the mundus imaginalis, the function of the creative imagination as spoken of by Henri Corbin.


A statement of faith, then.


I can see and agree to this, but I'm not sure why one would designate that 'divine' in the sense that a fully-actualised self does not possess the qualities conventionally attributed to 'divinity' – Oneness, Simplicity, absolute, Infinite, and so forth.

All humans are human, bit not single human manifests that totality of that nature, and in the same way, I would have thought, an individual GodSelf rather implies a quality or nature that transcends the individual. Once that boundary is crossed, then individuality ceases to be a condition or category of a universal category 'God' – it seems to me you're trying to have it both ways?


Again, that is the same in any RHP ... in that the operative term is 'path'.


And yet every sentient being belongs to a class of beings, and the qualities and characteristics of that class are common to the all.


Again, RHP would agree ...


Simply, there can't be two infinites in the same order. Two absolutes.


Whoa! LOL, that phrase carries way too many connotations for me ...


Ah, I see. I would argue the shocks are not always unpleasant. maybe it's the character of the path that renders them so?

I will be using the term 'Western' Left Hand Path because the Eastern Left Hand Path is just another version of the Right Hand Path


The Right-Hand Path and the Western Left-Hand Path represent fundamentally opposing approaches to spiritual evolution. The Right-Hand Path pursues union with a Universal Reality—whether defined as God, the Absolute, or a Supreme Being—where the individual self is ultimately annihilated, and personal Will is subsumed into the perceived Divine Order. Conversely, the Western Left-Hand Path is the path of Non-Union, wherein the practitioner isolates their consciousness within their own subjective universe(s), refining the psyche/soul to attain ever-greater levels of perfection (GodSelf). Rather than surrendering to an external order, the adept of the western Left-Hand Path seeks to shape the Objective Universe in accordance with their own Will.

 

[Thomas]

The Right-Hand Path and the Western Left-Hand Path represent fundamentally opposing approaches to spiritual evolution.

OK

The Right-Hand Path pursues union with a Universal Reality—whether defined as God, the Absolute, or a Supreme Being—where the individual self is ultimately annihilated, and personal Will is subsumed into the perceived Divine Order.

No, that's quite wrong.

Conversely, the Western Left-Hand Path is the path of Non-Union, wherein the practitioner isolates their consciousness within their own subjective universe(s), refining the psyche/soul to attain ever-greater levels of perfection (GodSelf).

You mean their own imaginations? With no foundation in reality? So when the self dies, the GodSelf dies with it? Subjectivity is ephemeral.

Rather than surrendering to an external order, the adept of the western Left-Hand Path seeks to shape the Objective Universe in accordance with their own Will.

You're assuming an a priori objective universe to be shaped ... which brings you round back to the first problem ... that it must transcend the individual, and to enter it, the individual is required to match itself top its requirement.

In which case I'd suggest your 'terror' might perhaps be the ego's reaction on realising it got it wrong ... ?

 

[iBrian]

The Right-Hand Path pursues union with a Universal Reality—whether defined as God, the Absolute, or a Supreme Being—where the individual self is ultimately annihilated, and personal Will is subsumed into the perceived Divine Order. Conversely, the Western Left-Hand Path is the path of Non-Union, wherein the practitioner isolates their consciousness within their own subjective universe(s), refining the psyche/soul to attain ever-greater levels of perfection (GodSelf). Rather than surrendering to an external order, the adept of the western Left-Hand Path seeks to shape the Objective Universe in accordance with their own Will.

This is a pretty excellent summary of a lot of traditional spiritual thought.

Conversely, the Western Left-Hand Path is the path of Non-Union, wherein the practitioner isolates their consciousness within their own subjective universe(s), refining the psyche/soul to attain ever-greater levels of perfection (GodSelf). Rather than surrendering to an external order, the adept of the western Left-Hand Path seeks to shape the Objective Universe in accordance with their own Will.

As well as this for the LHR. However, I'm curious as to whether the Qabbalah is considered an essential tool for this, or whether it's simply one of a number of optional tools?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is not Kabbalah/Qabbalah from the same root as Qabūl (acceptance)? “قبول” (qabūl).
A traditional Kabbalist is called a Mekubbal (מְקֻובָּל‎, Məqubbāl, 'receiver') or in Urdu, Maqbūl (one who has accepted, whatever )