From the obvious to the less obvious:

All religions share at their core the same metaphysical and supernatural truth (sophia perennis, or sanatana dharma) - often in their most mystical side. All describe this Ineffable Absolute more or less finely, and with the lenses of their systems of thought, but all point to the same reality. All the radii of the circle, by different paths, lead to its center.

The Absolute is infinite, but to fully “apprehend” what this infinity comprises requires apophatic theology, for the summit is beyond all words and qualifications. From this observation, two unequal paths are possible:

- a median, noble path of devotion to the Absolute as it is still positively understood: God or gods, personal, acting, determined - bhaktiyana, devayana
- a higher, mystical path, which understands that even the personal God of positive theology, understood in its highest sense, is always determined, characterized (he is X and not Y) and therefore, in fine, not really infinite; that being, even taken as a first principle, is already a first determination within the Absolute.

The infinite is that which possesses no limits, however subtle; it is therefore beyond all determination, characterization or attribute, and all words are more or less inadequate to speak of it; it can only be signified (according to the maxim “what is relatively true is absolutely false”).

This Absolute, improperly referred to as the Non-Dual Principle, the Hypertheos, or Gottheit, is “superior” to the personal God who is its visible face as seen by the human/discursive mind (the distinction between the personal God and the Impersonal Absolute can be found in most systems: Ain Sof/Kether, Nirguna Brahman/Saguna Brahman or Ishvara, Deus absconditus or Ipsum Esse Subsistens/Deus Revelatus, etc.).

At the Absolute level, this principle is all that exists. But at the conditional level, the world is manifested - and although it is ultimately illusory (maya), it is relatively real.

To reach it (gnosis, awakening, nirvana, etc.), the practitioner must rid himself of all determination, all conditioning: denying all that exists in a universal nada that will ultimately "unite" him to the Absolute (fana', theosis) - in reality, he dies, and everything dies with him to accomplish the Great Work, leaving only what “remains” when everything has disappeared.

Thanks for vomiting out your research, anon. I feel enlightened.

For the rest, the differences are theoretical. I think I've understood how the atman/anatman debates of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are obsolete, I think I've understood how the idea of the Demiurge fits into this cosmology - and why, as Plato said, the Demiurge isn't a great cosmic villain but has done the best he could, and in truth couldn't do otherwise. I can elaborate if you're interested. Or explain how I understand Lucifer. I'll stop here for the moment.

To sum up the path I took: Sufism -> Catholic mysticism -> Advaita Vedanta -> Buddhism. I now believe that Buddhism is the least “unsuitable” system once properly understood. But this is of course of little value in the end, as all rafts are abandoned once the bank is crossed.

P.-S.: I've had long discussions with a Master Freemason (27* AASR) on the place of morality. We share the same metaphysical observations, but he concludes that morality is totally unreal, whereas I recognize its reality once in the world. It's an interesting subject, because I think the evil done by many esoteric orders stems from this misunderstanding.

>>40593802 (OP)
>The infinite is that which possesses no limits,
And yet you define "no limits" as limited from form, limited from trait, limited from name, limited literally everything.
You say the MOST limited conception is the correct one.
You do this because you are still on lower levels of "if X, then not Y".

This Absolute is fully X, and never Y.
And this Absolute is fully Y, and never X.
And this Absolute is fully X and fully Y simultaneously.
And this Absolute is neither X nor Y.

All of these are correct at all times. To say one takes prominence is to limit the Absolute.

>>40593802 (OP)
I'm gonna need to see the Lagrangian

>>40593813
Please elaborate.
I am currently starting out on the path to "unify" all the religions/myths/tales/esoteric teachings... to find out about an underlying base that connects them all.
Your general insights would be pretty helpful and also regarding Lucifer.