Rosario's analysis of the manu archetypes is completely contrary to Serrano's perspectives. It begs the question as to whether these 'manus' are 'plasmations of the demiurge' in a negative sense of binding the spirit, enchaining it in matter (cultural superstructure) or if they are instead positive in influence? I put forth my speculation (speculation alone) in the article comparing the two.
Rosario's analysis of the manu archetypes is completely contrary to Serrano's perspectives. It begs the question as to whether these 'manus' are 'plasmations of the demiurge' in a negative sense of binding the spirit, enchaining it in matter (cultural superstructure) or if they are instead positive in influence? I put forth my speculation (speculation alone) in the article comparing the two.
That has been my experience. I trust Nimrod de Rosario's analysis in his chapter "Kundalini Logos" in "Fundamentals of the Hyperborean Wisdom"