PDA

View Full Version : A Big Trap of the Alchemist



Moshe
02-11-2012, 09:49 PM
I share this in hopes it can help someone who is taking a dark path.
I have seen a friend driven insane by desire of the Stone.
I know it can do it to others.

In a wise society of divine siblinghood, we would know that it is much more important to Be The Stone rather than to Make the Stone. To Make the stone is a wonderful, joyous thing, and i have a deep love in my heart for it, however, a brother or sister who gets too much into making the stone can begin getting twisted inside, and lose, because of that desire, the very thing which the Stone is offering. Strange paradox.

It is the very same as the Paradox of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 3:1-3


1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman: 'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'
2 And the woman said unto the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.'

He tempts Adam and Eve to desire to be the very thing they already are. We ARE the Stone. We have just forgotten. We are the Love, Children of Creator. We are the Human Beings, Aquarian Children of Go, made by the marriage of the Father and the Mother.

You may have seen some alchemists become very hard inside. It is because they DESIRE the Stone so much, and get soooo much into it, so much knowledge, they cannot even have one love connection with anyone in this world. They have fallen into the trap of the alchemist - the desire the Stone as something external. It is a twisted act, just as desiring to be what you already are.
If we get distorted by our desire, and the One Stone turns into the One Ring of Sauron, then there is evil there. Then this very act to TRY to be what we already are calls upon the Serpent of the Garden.

One thing I have seen on this awesome group is a discussion about good and evil. I started a thread, actually, about the topic of whether or not The Stone can be pursued or created by an evil being. (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2631-Good-vs-Evil-and-the-Quality-of-the-Stone) Well, I truly believe now that The Stone, as in The Most High Stone that we all truly seek, cannot be made by evil. Bc it is good. Bc it is Love and Brings Love. Plain and simple. But what can be made by a twisted being, is a stone of power. This is like the Ring of Sauron, that can control the Nine Kings of Mortal Men. I’ve seen a few of them lurking around the net. It, of course, won’t be a very beautiful stone, but it will give them a lot of fiery energy to do what they want. Such a ring can also bring long life. Look at Golem. But it is, ultimately, a living hell, bc without Love, we suffer the torment of hell.

The importance of Earth is great. Here walks the Human Children of God. Here is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Here has Walked the Christ and Hermes Trimagesterial.

One very simple truth I was "shown" is that the name of the Devil in Hebrew is HaNaChush and that, said backwards, is Shekinah (Holy Spirit / Goddess / Mother) – So the Devil is meant, really, to go against the Shekinah. When he does so, he blocks the flow of the Spiritus Mundi, that clear Mercurial fluid that is so feminine, so ready for her mate the Lion King. That is why the Devil in us must die too... that is why, when we get too much into desire, and we lose sight of the very thing we're after, Love, then we cannot find the Stone. We cannot make the Stone. We are in a state of separation from the Source of the Source.

She is SOOOOOO DIVINE... how can you attract her if you do not FEEL her, Love her?!?!

I write this from the bottom of my heart, having gotten so deeply into the study of the Stone, that I forgot the simple Truth. We are. I am.
The balance here is that, I am, but I am also not yet totally transformed.
As I embrace the Truth that I Am, then, well, I must also be humble enough to recognize where I am not.
And it is in this sort of balanced attitude that we have a better inner environment to practice the Great Work.
The Stone aides us in Being. That is its importance. It transmutes the part of us we struggle with that is the Devil that we cannot seem to shake out of ourselves, and alas, we continue to age and die.

It is a continual balance.
To desire the Stone is the trap of the Serpent.
To desire no continual perfection, no stone, is a trap of self-delusions of grandeur.

I know myself and know I have to continuously check in to ensure I am not desiring the Stone more than I am allowing myself to just be.
We acknowledge that we are the Stone. It lives and breathes in us.

A question is asked –
When you have made the Stone, and you have become your Pure Lion Activated Self, then what?

Then you get to Love, however, whoever, whenever. Then you get to BE in your Life. Then you are a Human Being.

Awani
02-12-2012, 01:45 AM
I disagree on the Eden bit. I go with the Gnostic view that the Serpent is good. That by eating they will see that God is false. This point, IMO, changes the whole scenario.

No evil in the Stone, nor in alchemy... None!

It is only Man that is wicked... and false gods the most efficient trap!

:cool:

Moshe
02-12-2012, 02:31 AM
I disagree on the Eden bit. I go with the Gnostic view that the Serpent is good. That by eating they will see that God is false. This point, IMO, changes the whole scenario.
No evil in the Stone, nor in alchemy... None!
It is only Man that is wicked... and false gods the most efficient trap!
:cool:

I have not studied Gnosticism, only heard a smattering of ideas from it. However, if THAT is Gnosticism, then it is most definitely not for me.

I agree that the Serpent plays a role. And it is a good role, ultimately, but not to be followed. But saying that the Serpent is Good and God is false... ummm, no.

Scenario is the same. There is a trap to desire the Stone and forget about one's Being.

Awani
02-12-2012, 02:36 AM
Hmm well to each his own. I don't know your beliefs but if they are by any chance pro-Christian then you should give Gnosticism texts a chance. It puts Christian thinking in a better light.

After all the Bible also states: "be ye wise as serpents".

:cool:

Moshe
02-12-2012, 02:59 AM
Hmm well to each his own. I don't know your beliefs but if they are by any chance pro-Christian then you should give Gnosticism texts a chance. It puts Christian thinking in a better light.After all the Bible also states: "be ye wise as serpents".
:cool:

My beliefs are pretty Universal, I'd say. I was born Jewish, still am, was not rasied Christian, but I do see Christ, beyond all the religious beliefs and distortions, as the Messiah who fulfills the prophecy of the Tanach (Torah and the Prophets)...

Yes, be wise as serpents... but not deceitful as the Capitol 'S', Serpent.

Awani
02-12-2012, 03:05 AM
Well what the Gnostics mean is that the god in Genesis is a lesser god... Satan if you will... The true good would not be a jealous god, be incorrect; like creating all animals good yet there is a serpent... The real god is far above the god present in Genesis. This is their point. It is an allegory for the false illusion we live in also.

Btw to me Satan and Devil are man-made inventions... Any evil belongs to man. Nature/god is not concerned with petty morals like that anyway. Considering the vast realms of the multi-verse, who are we but another anthill?

:cool:

Moshe
02-12-2012, 04:52 AM
Well what the Gnostics mean is that the god in Genesis is a lesser god... Satan if you will... The true good would not be a jealous god, be incorrect; like creating all animals good yet there is a serpent... The real god is far above the god present in Genesis. This is their point. It is an allegory for the false illusion we live in also.

I understand that, and agree with it, for the most part.
The Torah is a very very profound and interesting book. I know it is of Divine origin, but it is not always understood, in the proper light.
It is the Tree of Life (Unity) but also, very much, the Tree of Knowledge for Good and Bad/Evil - duality.
The Jews believe that God looked into the Torah and made the world - it is the blueprint.
But it is also true that the world (this world) was created in duality. It's a game. A puzzle.
We have to decipher it.
I am with you on God not being jealous.
However, I understand the "jealous" God thing as the path being narrow - and God is not many things that people try to be, or do, thinking it is okay,
or godly. It is not. So God is choosy, for us, for our benefit. Understands if we're chosing wrong, but still is firm with the boundary.
That is not "jealous" in the way we understand, but it is "possessive" of us, let's say.


Btw to me Satan and Devil are man-made inventions... Any evil belongs to man. Nature/god is not concerned with petty morals like that anyway. Considering the vast realms of the multi-verse, who are we but another anthill?


Have to disagree with you here Dev.
Satan and Devil are not man-made. You don't have to believe in it for it to be real.
We didn't create them... and people who have no context, no belief, no understanding of them can
have a very real and very horrible encounter with those forces.

And us... we are very important in the scheme of things.
sure one human, lost on the path, sad as it may be, not THAT important, but us, humans, our project,
this earth, it's VERY important, which is why each human who does get it is very important. Each master, adept, Avatar - very, very vital in the big scheme of things.

Hellin Hermetist
02-12-2012, 12:48 PM
Well what the Gnostics mean is that the god in Genesis is a lesser god... Satan if you will... The true good would not be a jealous god, be incorrect; like creating all animals good yet there is a serpent... The real god is far above the god present in Genesis. This is their point. It is an allegory for the false illusion we live in also.


Hi Dev,
I am not well acquainted with the Gnostics doctrine, but wasn't the god of Genesis Yehovah, which is linked with the moon, with Satan/Lucifer linked with the planet Venus?

Moshe
02-12-2012, 02:11 PM
Hi Dev,
I am not well acquainted with the Gnostics doctrine, but wasn't the god of Genesis Yehovah, which is linked with the moon, with Satan/Lucifer linked with the planet Venus?

Not exactly the point of this thread... which has yet to really be discussed / commented on.

MarkostheGnostic
02-13-2012, 03:18 AM
My beliefs are pretty Universal, I'd say. I was born Jewish, still am, was not rasied Christian, but I do see Christ, beyond all the religious beliefs and distortions, as the Messiah who fulfills the prophecy of the Tanach (Torah and the Prophets)...

Yes, be wise as serpents... but not deceitful as the Capitol 'S', Serpent.

I am a Jewish-Christian of Gnostic persuasion. I would like to recommend one book about the construction of the canonical Bible. I have met and spoken with the author on three occasions. This is one of a dozen books he has written but the one I had him autograph. The New testament was written to consolidate all of the prophesies of the Tenach into the singular personage of Iesous/Issa/Y'shua. Pretty amazing, people say. What is the probability of one man seemingly the terminus of all of these separate prophesies? Easy peezy if you write it that way. The NT is the Tenach recapitulated, with names changed. The book in question is:
Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes by Rev. John Shelby Spong. http://www.amazon.com/Liberating-Gospels-Reading-Jewish-ebook/dp/B000FC27ZE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1329102849&sr=8-2
The NT was written to follow the Jewish liturgical calendar, and the themes of the Tenach are repeated with modifications, scribal insertions, and a universalizing tendency that was intended to eliminate the exclusivism of the Jewish cultus, and open up salvation to all peoples.

Shalom,
MtG

Awani
02-13-2012, 04:12 AM
I am not well acquainted with the Gnostics doctrine, but wasn't the god of Genesis Yehovah, which is linked with the moon, with Satan/Lucifer linked with the planet Venus?

According to the Gnostics it was Demiurge.


Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable God and the demiurgic “creator” of the material. Several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Being: his act of creation occurs in unconscious semblance of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else is formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the problem of evil. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge)


Not exactly the point of this thread... which has yet to really be discussed / commented on.

I think that was what I was doing, as you did not pose a question specifically, you posed ideas... ideas I decided to debate.


...HaNaChush and that, said backwards, is Shekinah...

Did you ever consider that it is so because God and Devil in the Torah is one and the same? Or that the writers, as they were men who wrote, fashioned it thus.

As for the jealous bit I had this in mind when I called the Creator god in Genesis jealous:


Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me...

I do agree that the human enterprise is interesting to the cosmic forces, but lets not make the mistake that we are the center of it all... after all we go around the sun, not the sun around us!

As for the big trap of alchemy, well I don't see it. If there is an aim to gain power, to rule, to increase material wealth etc... then yes there could be dangers, but then again no Stone will be found. I think the biggest trap in alchemy is one of the following:

- false preachers
- ego/bravado
- greed

:cool:

Moshe
02-13-2012, 04:47 AM
I think that was what I was doing, as you did not pose a question specifically, you posed ideas... ideas I decided to debate.

...As for the big trap of alchemy, well I don't see it. If there is an aim to gain power, to rule, to increase material wealth etc... then yes there could be dangers, but then again no Stone will be found. I think the biggest trap in alchemy is one of the following:

- false preachers
- ego/bravado
- greed


There! You responded to my post more directly. Thank you!


Did you ever consider that it is so because God and Devil in the Torah is one and the same? Or that the writers, as they were men who wrote, fashioned it thus.
:cool:

I do not think God and Devil in the Torah are one and the same. No.
But I do see the Devil woven into the Torah - with the limitations, the divisions, the beliefs are woven in there.
I do see lots of people believing it all from God and not discerning which is which.
In Kabbalah, this is believed to be as a result of the "fall" - the original Torah (10 commandments - is equivalent in this case)
that Moses went up the mountain to get, were a pure form. But when Moses came down and saw the Israelites worshipping the Emerald Sun Tablet... errr...
I mean the Golden Calf, ;) , he threw down that Torah - it was pure.
Then the one the Jews got is mixed up... mixed as a challenge.
It's a reflection of the Game of Life itself. It is a blueprint for the world of duality itself.
When studied from within the proper light, all is revealed - one can see the duality as duality,
and recognize where the Oneness lies within...

After all, the greatest of all alchemist have all pointed to Torah to make the Stone by mirroring the Creator...

Moshe
02-13-2012, 02:43 PM
I am a Jewish-Christian of Gnostic persuasion. I would like to recommend one book about the construction of the canonical Bible. I have met and spoken with the author on three occasions. This is one of a dozen books he has written but the one I had him autograph. The New testament was written to consolidate all of the prophesies of the Tenach into the singular personage of Iesous/Issa/Y'shua. Pretty amazing, people say. What is the probability of one man seemingly the terminus of all of these separate prophesies? Easy peezy if you write it that way. The NT is the Tenach recapitulated, with names changed. The book in question is:
Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes by Rev. John Shelby Spong. http://www.amazon.com/Liberating-Gospels-Reading-Jewish-ebook/dp/B000FC27ZE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1329102849&sr=8-2
The NT was written to follow the Jewish liturgical calendar, and the themes of the Tenach are repeated with modifications, scribal insertions, and a universalizing tendency that was intended to eliminate the exclusivism of the Jewish cultus, and open up salvation to all peoples.
Shalom,
MtG

Shalom Mark TG,

I appreciate you sharing.
Before I read it, may I ask you a question about this work called "Liberating the Gospels" -
Do they deny the existence of Yeshua?
Do they state that he did exist but was not quite what they made him out to be?
What sort of state do they say he existed in?

I appreciate this understanding.

solomon levi
02-17-2012, 07:43 PM
I have seen a couple interpretations of the serpent and the tree personally.
In one interpretation, one might say knowledge is a trap compared to life (regarding the two trees).
Depending on one's definition - you might say knowledge is a reflection onto the past and
life/living is something occuring presently without commentary/reflection/twoness/fragmentation.

I don't think it's good or bad. Knowledge was a new direction for Adam and Eve. We can't appreciate
union without knowing separation. So doing anything more than once could define a trap. But is it?
Or is there circulation, a spiral/vortex instead of a circle. Can one ever step into the same stream twice?
I think not. But relatively speaking - okay - trap. Knowledge is a trap if we don't apply it in action.
We've discussed this somewhat with beliefs and opinion.
One could define any goal as a trap, alchemy or otherwise.
One may consider it an offense to "god", that which is, to desire what is to be other than it is.
Thus, is human will/desire always an offense to "the will of god", i.e. that which is?
Or isn't human/personal will also that which is? What isn't that which is?

So "trap" is relative to your perspective and degree of separation.
Are there obstacles to obtaining the stone? Certainly and necessarily.
But it's all relative to how fast you believe you need to get there.
One could relish the obstacles. Nothing wrong with that. One could recycle
or reincarnate a hundred times. Does that mean they missed the mark (the original
meaning of the word "sin")? No. Everyone is always hitting their mark. Who should say
what question another should be asking? Who should say where another should be aiming?

So this is something you decide for yourself. There is no objective answer. We can say we
are trapped if we don't feel like we are learning and growing. But such "plateaus" are part of
growth too - they create strength. We could re-label "trap" as "tempering" or "toning" or what-not.

So this is a time relative question and dependant on how much of a hurry one is in (goal-oriented)
or how present one is. Presence dissolves the appearance of traps. :)
Shekinah conceals satan. Satan conceals Shekinah. Devil est Deus inversus. Yin-Yang, the three gunas, tridosha, tria prima, etc.

Moshe
02-18-2012, 02:17 AM
Solomon,
thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts.


I have seen a couple interpretations of the serpent and the tree personally.
In one interpretation, one might say knowledge is a trap compared to life (regarding the two trees).
Depending on one's definition - you might say knowledge is a reflection onto the past and
life/living is something occuring presently without commentary/reflection/twoness/fragmentation.

I don't think it's good or bad. Knowledge was a new direction for Adam and Eve. We can't appreciate
union without knowing separation.

Whereas I do agree with you about "we cannot appreciate union without knowing separation" - it is important to recognize
the kind of knowledge Adam and Eve were being introduced to by eating the Tree of Knowledge, Etz Ha'Da'at.

They came from God. Oneness. God's mind and theirs was one. There is A LOT of philosophy within this very story, this very metaphor,
which is of massive relevance. But let's keep it simple and say that, as the Kabbalists recognize, Adam Kadmon was the greatest of all Kabbalists
as he had direct knowledge of all there is...
So, what is the Tree of Knowledge then?
It's Knowledge of Good and Bad, something that God, in Oneness, does NOT know... requiring us, Adam, Humans, to experience it, and thus,
give rise to what you have stated, the ability to appreciate union by experiencing separation.
So, one may even say, it is "meant to be." yes. it is... however, here is a paradox that many fail to grasp.
It is meant to be, but it is nevertheless an error - still - which must be corrected.
As soon as Adam is separated from God, now HE is responsible for the separation and must find the way to return.


So doing anything more than once could define a trap. But is it?
Or is there circulation, a spiral/vortex instead of a circle. Can one ever step into the same stream twice?
I think not. But relatively speaking - okay - trap. Knowledge is a trap if we don't apply it in action.
We've discussed this somewhat with beliefs and opinion.
One could define any goal as a trap, alchemy or otherwise.
One may consider it an offense to "god", that which is, to desire what is to be other than it is.
Thus, is human will/desire always an offense to "the will of god", i.e. that which is?
Or isn't human/personal will also that which is? What isn't that which is?

So "trap" is relative to your perspective and degree of separation.
Are there obstacles to obtaining the stone? Certainly and necessarily.
But it's all relative to how fast you believe you need to get there.
One could relish the obstacles. Nothing wrong with that. One could recycle
or reincarnate a hundred times. Does that mean they missed the mark (the original
meaning of the word "sin")? No. Everyone is always hitting their mark.

I cannot agree with you here.
There is a boundary, and a path to follow.
Free will gives us the ability to choose however, wherever we want to go, but not the right,
as in, the right to do whatever we want. Everyone is always hitting their mark -
I am surprised to hear you say this. I think this is a very basic inviting "positive"thought, but lacks balance,
and is, at times, even perhaps - often - completely off the mark.
I think we can continue to err and live in error and illusion and people die, suffer... and we're not meant to suffer.
We're meant to "re"create the world in a place of Oneness, as it is in the Garden. Love, unity, Peace, abundance, equality.
We can continue to cycle again and again, and there IS error in that.


Who should say
what question another should be asking? Who should say where another should be aiming?

God knows and that person knows on some level of their being... and anyone else on that person's path who is wise enough, healed enough, to recognize where they are stuck,
to help them correct their own trap. People CAN get trapped and NOT fulfill their destiny.
That is not a good thing.


So this is something you decide for yourself. There is no objective answer.

There is an objective answer. I read somewhere on this forum... it was one of my first visits, something that made me smile, deeply, with great appreciation.
It was someone getting angry at the idea that there is no objective truth.
Of COURSE there is...
If you are saying, Solomon, there is no objective answer, then are you not also saying, there is no objective truth?


We can say we
are trapped if we don't feel like we are learning and growing. But such "plateaus" are part of
growth too - they create strength.

I can create strength by shooting nails into my foot.
but eventually, if the act is so futile, in and of itself, the strengthening consequences, in time,
will become a plague.


We could re-label "trap" as "tempering" or "toning" or what-not.
So this is a time relative question and dependant on how much of a hurry one is in (goal-oriented)
or how present one is. Presence dissolves the appearance of traps. :)
Shekinah conceals satan. Satan conceals Shekinah. Devil est Deus inversus. Yin-Yang, the three gunas, tridosha, tria prima, etc.

You are placing "Shekinah conceals satan. Satan conceals Shekinah" both as if those two are equal and also in the same sentence as Yin-Yang, as if Satan and Shekinah make some Yin-Yang pair.
They do not. I see this as a deep misunderstanding... This is discussed to a certain degree in another thread I had started, here:
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2631-Good-vs-Evil-and-the-Quality-of-the-Stone

God-the-Father and Shekinah make a Yin-Yang pair - Sol and Luna.
Samael and Lilith make another Yin-Yang pair, the opposite / counterparts to God and Shekinah, not as in God and Shekinah's Yin and Yang opposite polarities, but as in their dual opposites. there is a difference.
An important distinction.

solomon levi
02-21-2012, 06:50 PM
Hi Moshe.
It's nice to talk with you and share views, even if we disagree.
My view has changed from kabbalistic to nondual more or less.
When i say everyone is hitting their mark, I mean that it is impossible not to be responsible for your reality.
If one "thinks" it is not their mark, that they have missed, they are merely unaware of their true intent.
Intent always manifests. Always. But there is a difference between intent and "i want", and "i wish",
and "i will"... I suppose I would say intent is an 'I' which knows itself, whereas the rest of those 'I's do not -
they imagine they do, but their 'I' is a transient creature, always changing. One might say will is the effort to
sustain one consistent 'I', but the fact that it is an effort shows the difference between that and intent. Intent
is the reality we accept unquestionably, effortlessly. Intent is more like remembering something that has
already happened rather than imagining a yet unachieved future. This is why the intent of the separate self
or ego/'I' seems so real, so consistent. Anyway, my point, if it needed clarifying, was that people always
manifest their true aim/intent and only sometimes the separate 'I's willful aim. So if it appears we are not
'hitting the mark', then we need to search and know ourselves better.
But if there were a possibility of missing the mark, then there would be no possibility of achieving one's
aim. If intent doesn't ALWAYS manifest, then how could it EVER manifest? As if there is some other reality
than right now, some future in which things are attained... There is no future. If something is possible, it is
only possible now. And if perfection is possible, it is now, and it is not a matter of achieving, but of simply
realizing what already is. That is what Shekinah/Presence is - now. And everything comes from that now root,
including satan, if you believe in such a thing, or know such a thing.
This may be a misunderstanding according to kabbalah, but nonduality/unity trumps kabbalah. I am completely
certain of the One root in which all fragmentation and separation are but appearances. You equated God with
Oneness, so you must agree - Oneness trumps all. Compared to Oneness, there are no "degrees" of separation
in which it matters whether we recognise God and shekinah, God and satan or God and Lilith. Compared to
Unity, any separation is infinite and total separation. Degrees of separation are as false/meaningless as degrees of unity.
But we can "give" them meaning and then talk about it as if it were so, but one who knows Oneness does not believe
in this talk when s/he uses it.

So for there to be an aim or mark is to pretend Unity/God is not. Realise the illusory nature of the goal, the aim, the separate self,
the will... and nothing changes, yet everything appears changed. Oneness cannot be attained or created. It is the Subject; we, as separate
selves, are objects, or appearances. Oneness has never stopped being Oneness. This is a mark we simply cannot miss, because we can
never truly extract ourselves from Oneness in order to aim at it. The All or the many is still the One. How can it possibly not be?

If there is an objective truth, then there is no reason to strive as if the subjective separateness matters or misses the mark.
Missing the mark is a totally subjective interpretation. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation; we wouldn't be
able to disagree as we have. The fact of our conversation and seeing things differently is sufficient evidence for subjectivity.
What is your evidence for objectivity? It exists psychologically, but not in the world of action. You can say of course objectivity
exists, but your now intent is communicating because subjectivity exists. I don't see any point in arguing the obviousness of this.
The only move in this chess game is to say that objectivity is the One and subjectivity is the many and the many and the One are One.

And if we acknowledge that, then we also would reasonably acknowledge that any system of achievement is bullshit or a game/folly,
and the more one believes in it, the more apparently separate one "becomes" subjectively. The more we strive, the more we affirm
the Intent of apparent separation/lack.

Because of my objectivity, there is no argument to what I have stated. But if you see an argument or disagreement, I'll hear you.
But I just prefer to not complicate things. Fragmentation is fragmentation. We can talk about and/or memorise 10 fragments, or
50 or 1000 or 100000... but all that really matters is 2 - that says it all, simplified; in other words, "not one".

Perhaps the "trap" is to overanalyse. Of course, overanalyse is relative. But i know that for Oneness, anything other than Oneness,
if there were such a thing, would all be known as generic separateness and not as level 3 and level 7, or 5th dimension and 12th dimension, etc.
So labels don't have any objective meaning: "trap", "satan", "tree of knowledge"... only a relative objectivity to a relatively "lower" or more
fragmented subjective point of view. In other words, if we want to imagine levels, then one level will be relatively more objective than another.
These levels may mean something to the subjective collective, but it is obvious to me that the One doesn't love one level more or less than another.
From this view, levels and striving are like motivation for something immobile. Where can the One go?

So if we speak of Oneness, how can we then speak of separateness as if it were real? One cannot serve two masters equally. This again reveals
our true intent. Is Oneness my Intent and the many is just words? Or is Oneness just a word and the many is my Intent? And if the many is my intent,
does it make any difference? Does the sun stop in the sky? Do the birds cease to fly? Is any THING different? No. What is different is not a thing,
but is the Presence, the Quintessence. And that isn't something one does or doesn't do. So from my perspective, traps are a non-issue, or personal investment.

But if they are an issue for you or anyone else, I have no argument against anyone's personal choices. I'm not telling anyone not to believe in traps.
I'm just describing an alternative or what may be seen as a solution by some, if one desires solving.

By definition, a trap is something one can't just walk away from or be free from. I don't know of such a thing, save subjectively and relatively and
apparently. Is it a trap when you can open the door yourself at any time, if you truly intend to? Do you believe or know of objective traps that exist
independantly of individual human observation and interaction?

Seth-Ra
02-21-2012, 07:36 PM
It's Knowledge of Good and Bad, something that God, in Oneness, does NOT know...

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
(NIV)

If He does not know of it - then why would He say that? ;)

We were meant to eat it - but how can we know bad, if we do not do bad? It was right of Him to say NOT to eat it - so we disobey. Our fall, then gives Him a chance to demonstrate His love and pick us back up. It is a thing of growth. We do not return to the Garden - the Garden was not perfect, it was "very good" - engineers design things that are very good all the time - but not perfect. We are heading to perfection in the end, and this is the journey to get to that end. Our hearts/souls determine our progress and "side" - but all action, good or bad, is good for those on His side, because we learn and grow.
We are God's celestial agriculture - His precious Garden. The weeds must grow with the flowers/wheat (whatever), so that the good ones wont be damaged. (including growth stunted, life made stagnant etc, thus we need the fire, and the falls of Life).

I for one do believe in an Absolute Truth, for whats its worth. :)
Im just not able to speak it at this moment. lol



~Seth-Ra

Moshe
02-21-2012, 11:41 PM
Moshe wrote:
"It's Knowledge of Good and Bad, something that God, in Oneness, does NOT know..."

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
Genesis 3:22 (NIV)

If He does not know of it - then why would He say that? ;)

Okay... very good point. :D
I am very familiar with that quote, and I was going to mention it and mention the fact that I believe it is a very important canundrum. In the Stone Chumash translation, it is written:

"And the Lord God said, "Behold, now that the man has become like the unique one amongst us, knowing good and bad.

I found this quote very appropriate even though there is no precendent in the Hebrew "ca-ahud memenu", to say "unique" - I do believe the translation of this statement adding the "unique" is not appropriate, but the interpretation behind the words, the meaning, the whole picture, saying Adam is now "unique" is appropriate.

The Bible does not always say what it means to say, on the surface level, and sometimes it says things it doesn't mean to say as well.

Moshe de Lion said if one interprets the Torah / Bible word for word, literally, they are being foolish. (well, he actually said, an idiot, but I find that a little harsh)
This doesn't mean it's open for anyone's interpretation.
However, with this concept of Good and Evil, I do sincerely believe that God does not know evil...
God can discern WHAT is evil, but does not know the evil inclination, the evil desire...
that is why I said that. God is ALL Good.
That is why, in the first 6 days of Creation, everything that God creates is GOOD -
the ENTERPRISE of knowing good and bad is reserved for us, God's children, created in the image and likeness, which gives us the opportunity to create a LENS for God, Creator, to know good and evil, THROUGH us, something which, before this endeavour, did not exist.



IRENE: Which also goes back to what you were saying before, which is the testing of yourselves,
isn't it?

Tom: That is correct.

IRENE: Because you exist in an arena where collective consciousness and free will don't have
meaning?

Tom: That is correct.

IRENE: And so for you to better understand free will, you needed to watch how your creation
understood it.

Tom: We needed a lens, yes.

IRENE: And you also knew that there was going to be a battle with the Others.

Tom: We would have been naive not to, yes. But you understand, we did not know the outcome,
for it is not our way.

IRENE: The outcome in terms of your battle with them?

Tom: That is correct.
The Only Planet of Choice Chapter 14 - The Covenant
a little background - The Others, is the opposition to the Creator, what we would call, the evil forces.
Tom means innocence and he is the spokesperson for the Council of Nine, also known as the Elohim in the Hebrew tradition - (from this book)



We were meant to eat it - but how can we know bad, if we do not do bad? It was right of Him to say NOT to eat it - so we disobey. Our fall, then gives Him a chance to demonstrate His love and pick us back up.

Absolutely... and a little paradoxically, it gives us the chance to correct our error by undoing the error and then doing the true nature, the true part and by being His/Her Love.


It is a thing of growth. We do not return to the Garden - the Garden was not perfect, it was "very good" - engineers design things that are very good all the time - but not perfect. We are heading to perfection in the end, and this is the journey to get to that end. Our hearts/souls determine our progress and "side" - but all action, good or bad, is good for those on His side, because we learn and grow.
We are God's celestial agriculture - His precious Garden. The weeds must grow with the flowers/wheat (whatever), so that the good ones wont be damaged. (including growth stunted, life made stagnant etc, thus we need the fire, and the falls of Life).

I for one do believe in an Absolute Truth, for whats its worth. :)
Im just not able to speak it at this moment. lol


I am with you. I believe your statement "but all action, good or bad, is good for those on His Side" has truth and merit... BUT, there is a line that must be drawn, because good always can piggyback on bad, for growth, for learning, but there is a time when that growth, itself, is ENOUGH, and we must grow up and stop learning the hard way. that, too, is a sign of Love on our parts, so, at some point, and who knows when that is (probably for some time now) we have to stop the bad, and embrace the Fullness of the Good and only the good.

Moshe
02-22-2012, 03:01 AM
Hi Moshe.
It's nice to talk with you and share views, even if we disagree.

I agree. :-)


My view has changed from kabbalistic to nondual more or less.
.../Anyway, my point, if it needed clarifying, was that people always
manifest their true aim/intent and only sometimes the separate 'I's willful aim. So if it appears we are not
'hitting the mark', then we need to search and know ourselves better.
But if there were a possibility of missing the mark, then there would be no possibility of achieving one's
aim. If intent doesn't ALWAYS manifest, then how could it EVER manifest? As if there is some other reality
than right now, some future in which things are attained... There is no future. If something is possible, it is
only possible now. And if perfection is possible, it is now, and it is not a matter of achieving, but of simply
realizing what already is. That is what Shekinah/Presence is - now. And everything comes from that now root,
including satan, if you believe in such a thing, or know such a thing.

I understand the concept of the perfection of the Presence of Now. A soul can experience a reality of Oneness and perfection within their own bubble experience of their immediate surroundings... including their own consciousness.
but there is also a level of reality that they will not be able to experience of the collective... that is, of this earth's reality.
if we are all One, which we are, and some suffer in their illusion and fear and hate, and others experience Love and the Divine, can you not see the simple schism in that?
the simple non-unity of that.
There is a lack of evolution - it is not PERFECT in the NOW...
Yes, we must accept the Now to move forward, bc fighting against is futile.
but we must also recognize what is not in harmony with the Will and Nature of the Divine and align ourselves with that.

God / Creator is not impartial to our existence. i have heard the notion that God doesn't care, either way, what we do to ourselves and others.
I don't buy it. I think, in fact, that is quite a misleading philosophy!!! not sure that you're saying this, Solomon, but my responding to you has led me to these words
and thoughts, so they may be cousins to each other.


This may be a misunderstanding according to kabbalah, but nonduality/unity trumps kabbalah.

Kabbalah is not trumped by anything. it is the body of Divine knowledge of all that is. How can anything trump it?
Yeah, sure, the body of collected writings of Rabbinical scholars that we have amassed on the subject of Kabbalah is not infinite, nor a perfect representation,
but Kabbalah is the truth itself. it is not limited. It is, in and of itself, the knowledge and wisdom of non-duality / unity, while also discussing the nature of the dualistic world.


I am completely
certain of the One root in which all fragmentation and separation are but appearances. You equated God with
Oneness, so you must agree - Oneness trumps all. Compared to Oneness, there are no "degrees" of separation
in which it matters whether we recognise God and shekinah, God and satan or God and Lilith. Compared to
Unity, any separation is infinite and total separation. Degrees of separation are as false/meaningless as degrees of unity.
But we can "give" them meaning and then talk about it as if it were so, but one who knows Oneness does not believe
in this talk when s/he uses it.

One can believe in Oneness, strive towards it, become it, and still recognize the existence, around them, on this earth, of the duality / separateness.
When a master achieves a state of Oneness, they don't look at a suffering child at the hands of a sick parent as Oneness.
When a master regards a person being forced against their will to have intercourse with a sick, maligned person, they do not see Oneness.
They can have compassion, sure, for ALL of it, but there is still such thing as discernment of what is Oneness, what emanates from Oneness,
and what has yet to achieve that re-integration.


So for there to be an aim or mark is to pretend Unity/God is not. Realise the illusory nature of the goal, the aim, the separate self,
the will... and nothing changes, yet everything appears changed. Oneness cannot be attained or created. It is the Subject; we, as separate
selves, are objects, or appearances. Oneness has never stopped being Oneness. This is a mark we simply cannot miss, because we can
never truly extract ourselves from Oneness in order to aim at it. The All or the many is still the One. How can it possibly not be?

because we chose to come here.
we chose this world of duality, to play by the rules, to forget. it was set up for this purpose - as a pressure cooker, as a grind, to evolve our souls.
We are in an arena where the duality has weight, because it is a means to an end (growth - evolution).
Saying "there is no duality - all is Oneness" does not remove from one's very nature the fact that the evil dwells in the cells (unless one has absolute absolute absolute mastery
of the Mind over Matter---> VERY RARE)
This is the basis for Alchemical thought. why do you think we purify with fire?
We must make that which is corrupt and fallen in nature back to its true form before the fall!

Most eastern masters are masters of the mind, not the mind WITH the body. there is a disconnect, and so they still die because that disconnect is part of the fall and part of the duality itself. when their mind recognizes the truth, but it remains disconnected from their bodies, they are not the full evolved Master of this Earth reality. They have not balanced Heaven with Earth.
. they do not achieve the Oneness of mind and body of the alchemist Adept, of the Hermes Trismegistus,
of the Christ master who has gone through hell and death to get the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.


If there is an objective truth, then there is no reason to strive as if the subjective separateness matters or misses the mark.
Missing the mark is a totally subjective interpretation.

au contraire - it is the VERY reason to strive bc there is an objective truth, and we, in our subjective separateness have forgotten...


If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation; we wouldn't be
able to disagree as we have. The fact of our conversation and seeing things differently is sufficient evidence for subjectivity.
What is your evidence for objectivity? It exists psychologically, but not in the world of action. You can say of course objectivity
exists, but your now intent is communicating because subjectivity exists. I don't see any point in arguing the obviousness of this.
The only move in this chess game is to say that objectivity is the One and subjectivity is the many and the many and the One are One.


the many can return to the One.
But the many, in our case, on earth, are not there yet...
so... the many is not the One... not yet.
yes, in our TRUEST nature, we are... but we have taken on this physical mantle to infuse it with the whole light of God...
that is the purpose of this earth. not to just come into this body, corrupted and vulgar,
to just flee back into the Oneness without it.

Where is my evidence for objectivity?

the essential similarity of the teachings of the masters. (there's a book called "jesus and buddha the parallel sayings")
the holographic nature of the world.
the resonance I feel when others speak the same objective truth I have found to be most high (of course, evolving... in process, but still there, viewable, observable)


And if we acknowledge that, then we also would reasonably acknowledge that any system of achievement is bullshit or a game/folly,
and the more one believes in it, the more apparently separate one "becomes" subjectively. The more we strive, the more we affirm
the Intent of apparent separation/lack.

Very Taoist.
But again, I don't agree.
I think we have to work very hard.


Perhaps the "trap" is to overanalyse.
So if we speak of Oneness, how can we then speak of separateness as if it were real? One cannot serve two masters equally. This again reveals
our true intent. Is Oneness my Intent and the many is just words? Or is Oneness just a word and the many is my Intent? And if the many is my intent,
does it make any difference?

What about - Oneness is my intent and my reality and the separateness is my wish to help resolve back into the Oneness?
in other words, i count myself on the side, the purpose and the intent of ending the separateness, bc it causes suffering.
it is very real to those who still live within it, including myself, when i am in a place of separateness.

By definition, a trap is something one can't just walk away from or be free from. I don't know of such a thing, save subjectively and relatively and
apparently. Is it a trap when you can open the door yourself at any time, if you truly intend to? Do you believe or know of objective traps that exist
independantly of individual human observation and interaction?[/QUOTE]

perhaps trap is not the best word - but a pitfall. However, they are similar in nature.
one can fall in and get oneself out. just like one can get poisoned and fight one's way out of the poison.
but this trap, as i began with, is a bigee, and it can mess the heck out of someone. Best not to fall to begin with, cause it's much harder to step around the pit, than
to pull oneself out once one has fallen.

solomon levi
02-22-2012, 07:17 AM
Hi Moshe.

Trump - well, doesn't Kether trump, say, Chesed, or any other sphere?
Kabbalah is a system. Oneness is not a system. There's no path to it
because there's no separation from Oneness possible. Any rule or "thou shalt"
is an intent to be separate. Any dissapproval or desire for altering what is is
an intent of separation. Notice I am not saying it is wrong or to stop doing it.
I'm just saying what it is.

When/if Buddha or Christ attained union, the world didn't stop suffering,
but they stopped seeing suffering. We don't call it suffering when people choose to suffer.
We don't "save" people from their own choices - they are gods. No one needs to be saved.
The idea that suffering needs to be cured is a view of duality. The idea that people aren't
gods who chose/choose to have the experiences they have is one of duality.
Buddha realised that he, along with everyone else, had been enlightened all along.
The experience of duality is happening withn Oneness - everything is, of course. Where else?
The choice/experience of duality must not and cannot be taken from someone. A snake
doesn't need help to shed its skin when it's ready. To not love and allow people until they
are ready to shed themselves of duality is only adding to the appearance of suffering.

This is what I have found from my own experience. We emphasize what we focus on, think
about, believe in. I am not free of duality. I don't think anyone in a body is. But i can free
myself from my mind, from my thoughts about what is. And even when i have thoughts, I
don't have to believe in them. I don't have to identify with them and emphasize them and
act on them as if they mean something. With detachment, I can choose which ones to act on,
what to emphasize. I could emphasize the suffering in the world, but i just don't see the point.
It wouldn't bring the world or myself closer to Oneness, or farther.

Your description of the reality is not my experience. It isn't something that happens in a personal
bubble separate from the world. How can one define Oneness with separation? My personal
consciousness, or yours or anyone's, is not different from the One consciousness. How could it be?
Oneness doesn't exist "somewhere else". That would be twoness.

In my experience, yes, a master who achieves Oneness actually does see it everywhere, in suffering
and rape too. These are no different than any other event/label. You seem to want to define Oneness
by duality again. You are not describing Onenes alone, which is actually all this.

Anyway, no need to repeat myself. This thread is about traps. I've shared my view on solving
traps. Anything more I say would really be off topic since i don't believe in traps.

Moshe
02-22-2012, 05:18 PM
Hi Moshe.
Trump - well, doesn't Kether trump, say, Chesed, or any other sphere?
Kabbalah is a system. Oneness is not a system.

Hmmm... I don't think Keter trumps anything, really, unless you mean in terms of its "high vibrational nature" then, yes. it does.
it is the highest in that respect. But I do not see each individual sphere as containing the whole. Keter is the high counterpart of Malchut.
They make a yin-yang pair. Keter is not balanced without Malchut.
The Tree is a whole, and Keter is a part of that whole.
If there is one Sphere that trumps them all, it is Tiferet, which is the center of the tree and made up of the essence of all the Yin-Yang balances, male-female balances.
from our earthly enterprise, since we sit on the planet of balance, between Mars and Venus, we are meant to achieve the balance between heaven and earth here,
so... the only trump, really, is Tiferet.
That's how I've come to understand it and how I choose to see it.



There's no path to it
because there's no separation from Oneness possible. Any rule or "thou shalt"
is an intent to be separate. Any dissapproval or desire for altering what is is
an intent of separation. Notice I am not saying it is wrong or to stop doing it.
I'm just saying what it is.

I appreciate your grace and gentleness in the matter.
I too recognize our disparate realities, but do not harbour any ill feeling as a result.
It is a step up from our former incarnations when we felt the need to joust or duel as a result of the difference.

I say this - There is a path bc we need to return. We are not yet One. You, yourself, as you say, are not One,
so then there is a path. Simply believing "I am One" is not enough. (unless, again, you have absolute clarity of consciousness, which is very very very rare)
It is bc, as you say, we have a body. That body can be transmuted and transformed along with the mind to attain an actual oneness.
that is a path. just as alchemy is a path.
Why do you study, practice, share, moderate the alchemy forums if there is no path?
Why do ANYTHING if you're already in Oneness.



When/if Buddha or Christ attained union, the world didn't stop suffering,
but they stopped seeing suffering. We don't call it suffering when people choose to suffer.
We don't "save" people from their own choices - they are gods. No one needs to be saved.
The idea that suffering needs to be cured is a view of duality. The idea that people aren't
gods who chose/choose to have the experiences they have is one of duality.
Buddha realised that he, along with everyone else, had been enlightened all along.
The experience of duality is happening withn Oneness - everything is, of course. Where else?
The choice/experience of duality must not and cannot be taken from someone. A snake
doesn't need help to shed its skin when it's ready. To not love and allow people until they
are ready to shed themselves of duality is only adding to the appearance of suffering.

I just think this philosophy and attitude lacks a lot of compassion.
We cannot go in and pry a soul's mind and force them to stop suffering.
but we can lend a hand, no? Help them?

I think it is so much simpler from the heart, seeing from the heart, rather than the mind.
The heart is the center point between heaven and earth and is thus, like Tiferet, the trump over all of this discussion.
When a person achieves mastery, when they have grace and peace, and they cast their view on the world,
how can you say they do not see suffering?
I think, again, it is the opposite. they wish to help bc people are so misled, so stumped, so stuck and deceived, often innocently.

Again comes the idea of evil, within which, i know we share disparate realities.
i say, there is evil. by saying that, i am not FOCUSING on it, cause that would darken my eyes for the time.
BUT, i am simply recognizing what is. I do not create it so, bc it is an objective fact.
so this evil has a plan - to manipulate, deceive, destroy. it's on the side opposite God.
I stand on the side with God. that is my intent, even if i am not yet perfect with God.
my brothers and sisters who suffer as a result of the evil on this planet are misled, deceived, and stuck.
i know how deep the stuckness and deception can go and how far it can trap people.
they are not allowed/entitled to some help from a soul who can help?

of course they are.

I am a naturopathic doctor and healer. i specialize in counseling and homeopathy.
When people come to see me, i help them. They are choosing to let me help them come out of their duality and illness.
Is that ok?
Of course. I am sure you would agree.
Now, if someone does not want to be helped, if they are negating and fighting help, they cannot be helped. They must want to be, and be open to be.
but what of people who suffer as a result of their own choices, yet, they are asking for help?



In my experience, yes, a master who achieves Oneness actually does see it everywhere, in suffering
and rape too. These are no different than any other event/label. You seem to want to define Oneness
by duality again. You are not describing Onenes alone, which is actually all this.

This just seems so fundamentally, obviously wrong. The inherent disconnect in these words speaks for itself.

Awani
02-22-2012, 07:32 PM
In my experience, yes, a master who achieves Oneness actually does see it everywhere, in suffering
and rape too. These are no different than any other event/label. You seem to want to define Oneness
by duality again. You are not describing Onenes alone, which is actually all this.

What I was trying to get across earlier. Duality is an interesting subject. It is an illusion. If there is a oneness than this one thing is not separated... it is whole. Complete. It does not contain any parts. We are all already healed beings, we are just ignorant of the fact. The duality, society, culture all mist in front of our eyes.

Again what is evil? Murder evil yes, but if we step on a bunch of ants from our perspective an accident but perhaps from theirs genocide. When I imagine from the perspective of some infinite blissful spirit collective I have problems seeing that it would even bother with the petty morals of silly humans. Good, evil... it's aaaaaaall goood. The cosmos have only one law: what have you learned?

If you have learned nothing you have to go back, another ride, another life... but if you have learned you can ascend, transcend, into ?

One version anyway.

:cool:

solomon levi
02-22-2012, 08:02 PM
Hi Moshe. :)

The sephiroth can, or have been, also arranged as concentric circles.
With that arrangement it is clear what everything is contained in - what the
trump is, if we wish to designate one. I can agree with tiphareth being balance,
but not origin/root and therefore "trump".

http://www.bethamesswartz.com/individual_art_subpages/individual_art_images/CS4W_diagram.jpg

But it doesn't really matter. What I meant to convey is that all the power comes from the One.
Everything else is a moon or a vessel reflecting its light. I think that is evident.

Why do I... if there is no path? One can totally do these things without them being paths to the One.
I agree mostly with return, but it is not a retracing of one's path down. The saying, "You can't get
there from here." applies well. We got here by leaping, by "falling". A reciprocal leap is necessary.
Following a path is not a leap. It only works so far. What happens when you come to an abyss?
Where is room for the unknown, for the 99% in following a path? When people die, do you call that
a path? Following? What about grace? What about the billion trillion things you have not yet thought of?
Aren't they part of the All-One? How to follow a path that is beyond thought?
J. Krishnamurti said, "Truth is a pathless land." I have seen that myself and that is what I am trying
to convey to you. There is no system, no path, that can contain the whole. Every system is "do this -
don't do that". Every system is defined. And every definition excludes something or it wouldn't be defined.
So none of that can be the way because it fragments. That is the big trap IMO. Trying to heal suffering
with separation/fragmentation, which is the source of all suffering.

No. I agree. Simply believing "I am one" is not enough for sure. I do not condone belief at all, but i recognize it
as a part of society and don't condemn it. If there is a practice, or some way to magnetise or better our chances
of experiencing the One, for me it is in "this" - "what IS". Any rejection of "this" is a fragmentation and thus
impossible to court the One. That includes rejecting rape or whatever. I know that doesn't sound nice, but
it's the truth. Anything we want to change, alter, avoid, manifest, etc... is a rejection of "what is" and there is
no God other than "what is". All of this IS God. This reality doesn't exist as some separate bubble independant of
its source. It is an extension of the Source, an emanation as Kabbalah would say. So until you accept all of it as
God, there is no possibility for return. Tikkun is a trap. Healing is a trap. Unconditional love means UNCONDITIONAL.
It doesn't mean 'heal the sick' or 'conquer death' or 'human rights', 'mens rights' 'women's rights' 'gays rights' or anything
like that. We cannot 'govern' our way into Oneness. What government would allow/love the chaos/All?
The same when you said something about masters of Oneness still seeing rape or sickness. They don't. In order to
see rape it must be defined by a pole - consensual sex - and now were in duality, not Oneness. Oneness/God doesn't
see rape. It doesn't judge, and it doesn't make rules or say 'this, not that' because it would deny Itself if it were possible,
but it isn't.

So where is the heart in this? The heart is in the truth of it. I can spoonfeed you sugary lies that fragment the world
into good and bad and thus fragment you from God, but how is that loving you? The only way to Oneness is not
a path or a system - it's right where you are, it's awareness, it's acceptance... you can't "get closer" by "gradually
accepting more and more". This may make us feel good, but again - there are no degrees of Oneness. It is unapproachable.
No separate self can approach it. We just have to realise the separate self is not, and find ourselves suddenly in Oneness.
Only you can't even do that - even that is two: Oneness and a person recognizing they are in Oneness. You have to stop
existing. And no one has made a path for that. Who would take it if they did? The self doesn't want to not exist.

Compassion... Mmmmm... yeah. I think it does lack compassion as most humans define that. But God isn't a human.
And seeing people as victims instead of gods is a lie and a denial of their divinity. If someone asks me for help, sure -
usually I do if I can. But crusading against suffering? People have a divine right to suffer. :) There really are no victims.
Lots of people are in love with their suffering. Lots of people love to tell you 'poor me' stories. That's how they learned
to get attention when it didn't come other ways. If people practiced "what is", then whatever is present would have their
full attention, and people wouldn't be fighting for it and being victims for it and all the games we play.

How do they not see suffering? If they are One they don't, because suffering is a definition which excludes everything
else but suffering, so it is not One. If they are god, then all they see is God. Not suffering god and happy god and all
the other trillions of ways gods can appear in fragmentation.

Evil... alot of people may think me evil... cold, without compassion, "How can rape be God?" They might want to
crucify me for my preaching All-acceptance, unconditional God. "Why doesn't he hate the Romans?"
I am making this comparison with no ego/self-aggrandizement on my part.
The world's a crazy place. If you tell someone you just met that you love them, sincerely, they become suspicious.
Love is to be feared for most!

What of people asking for help? Just because they're asking doesn't really mean they want it.
I'm sure you know that. I'm sure you are as "intuitive" or "people-wise" as i am, and you just use
your knowingness on whether someone really wants help or not. But where you and i will probably
disagree is in what help is. People don't like the help I have, because it deconstructs the self. As long
as the separate self is around, people will always need help, and always suffer. And they'll probably
kill you before they let you help them give up the self. No one wants to die, and that's the only solution.
The rest are band-aids.

Fundamentally wrong... But truthful. Which do you prefer? Truth or right?
Oneness is Oneness. I was not mistaken or false when i said you define Oneness with duality.
You were mistaken. Will these mistakes help people? On the surface, but not to the core of Oneness.
It is completely logical that rape is only seen in comparison to consensual sex, or some other fragment,
so you are not talking about Oneness when you mention rape. It cannot be mentioned or seen in Oneness.
This is the truth. That doesn't make me unloving or without compassion, just because I accurately
define Oneness.
Enlighten me as to what the "inherent disconnect" is in those words.
I could have said light is known only relative to dark. You brought up rape, so...

Another thing that is important to me, in line with eliminating beliefs, is that we live presently.
Alot of psychological stuff is not real, not present, only mind. So when you cite Buddha and
Christ as evidence of objectivity, that is not evident. It's mental, not actual. I cited our conversation,
which is actual, and subjective. This is important to me, but if you don't feel that way, I'll work with
what you give me. :) But I would be surprised if you can help people without knowing the difference
between actual and imaginary. Objectivity is not happening now, so there is no evidence. Future
and past are not evidence. That would mean your mind exists externally for everyone else. :D
How crazy would that be!

I hope this is still enjoyable. I do respect you and think we are still somewhat in calrifying definitions
and learning each others languages - how to communicate to each other. It's an interesting dynamic we
have. We're kind of coming from opposite places talking about the One. You are involved in helping people
and I am involved in leaving them be and accepting them. I respect people too much to interfere. It's only
because I am very capable myself, so i project that to others. I'd rather work my own way than have help.
The position I am in cannot be helped by anyone but me. And i feel that is true about everyone when we
realluy get down to what matters.

Andro
02-22-2012, 09:19 PM
Dear Sol,

Your perspective reflects my own with 'alarming' (:)) accuracy.

I just don't have the patience to present it the way you do... And I doubt it can be understood from within the constraints of a strict belief system...

__________________________________________________ _____________________

Now here's a sort of a test:

There is a story about someone from a rather famous electronic music group in London who walked through a park one late evening, on his way home from the recording studio.
While crossing the dark alleys of the park, he heard screams and noticed that a woman was being raped.
His reaction to the event was NOT to interfere, but rather take out his digital recorder and sample the screaming sounds.
The story may not be true (it may be just another urban myth) - but this is less relevant.

Would you judge this person? Harshly? Would you have helped/interfered/denied the woman the rape experience?

Or would you have reacted the same if you were in his position?

(by 'you' - I mean everyone reading this)...

I know it could be difficult to theorize (for one not having been in this situation) - but still...

I think this could be a challenging exercise (for some)...

Moshe
02-22-2012, 10:28 PM
Hi Moshe. :)
Why do I... if there is no path? One can totally do these things without them being paths to the One.
I agree mostly with return, but it is not a retracing of one's path down. The saying, "You can't get
there from here." applies well. We got here by leaping, by "falling". A reciprocal leap is necessary.
Following a path is not a leap. It only works so far. What happens when you come to an abyss?
Where is room for the unknown, for the 99% in following a path? When people die, do you call that
a path? Following? What about grace? What about the billion trillion things you have not yet thought of?
Aren't they part of the All-One? How to follow a path that is beyond thought?
J. Krishnamurti said, "Truth is a pathless land." I have seen that myself and that is what I am trying
to convey to you. There is no system, no path, that can contain the whole. Every system is "do this -
don't do that". Every system is defined. And every definition excludes something or it wouldn't be defined.
So none of that can be the way because it fragments.

Hi Sol.

I actually agree with this entire paragraph.
I don't follow a prescribed defined path. I never have.
I have learned much from many different systems, but synthesize only essence, and go from there.
A instinctive, Soul-driven, guided, ever-evolving path.
I agree with you in this.


No. I agree. Simply believing "I am one" is not enough for sure. I do not condone belief at all, but i recognize it
as a part of society and don't condemn it. If there is a practice, or some way to magnetise or better our chances
of experiencing the One, for me it is in "this" - "what IS". Any rejection of "this" is a fragmentation and thus
impossible to court the One. That includes rejecting rape or whatever. I know that doesn't sound nice, but
it's the truth. Anything we want to change, alter, avoid, manifest, etc... is a rejection of "what is" and there is
no God other than "what is". All of this IS God.

This is, again, where we differ.
I don't think that all that is on Earth is God.
It is an arena that includes aspects and experiences that are not of God.
God is ALL that is. Yes. But... and there is a but, an important subtlety here -
and that is that here, in this world, in this arena, we can have experience of that which God is not.
Here, there is a realm that seems to exist, that has weight in its illusionary nature, that is outside of God's realm.
This creates the choice. The choice is good, but not the energy or the realm that invites a choice outside of God's All that is (Love / Good)...
So, having the choice to choose good (All that is) or evil (illusion that has weight and consequence) is good because it helps the soul to grow,
but choosing evil, or I should say, staying in the realm of evil, or thinking evil is a part of the All that is, is not true, nor is it good.



This reality doesn't exist as some separate bubble independant of
its source. It is an extension of the Source, an emanation as Kabbalah would say. So until you accept all of it as
God, there is no possibility for return. Tikkun is a trap. Healing is a trap. Unconditional love means UNCONDITIONAL.
It doesn't mean 'heal the sick' or 'conquer death' or 'human rights', 'mens rights' 'women's rights' 'gays rights' or anything
like that. We cannot 'govern' our way into Oneness. What government would allow/love the chaos/All?
The same when you said something about masters of Oneness still seeing rape or sickness. They don't. In order to
see rape it must be defined by a pole - consensual sex - and now were in duality, not Oneness. Oneness/God doesn't
see rape. It doesn't judge, and it doesn't make rules or say 'this, not that' because it would deny Itself if it were possible,
but it isn't.

Oh my... Solomon...
yikes.

Do you believe Yeshua (Jesus) was One with God? An Enlightened Avatar / Master / Christ?

Did he not turn over the money lenders tables?
Did he not make it VERY clear what is true in the eyes of God and in the kingdom of Heaven, from what is not?
I imagine you do not subscribe to the way of Yeshua, the teachings or the Being of Yeshua, otherwise, you would not say what you say.
There are boundaries, my friend.



Evil... alot of people may think me evil... cold, without compassion, "How can rape be God?" They might want to
crucify me for my preaching All-acceptance, unconditional God.

I don't think you're evil. I think you're misled by evil. And I wonder how you got (so far) there.



Another thing that is important to me, in line with eliminating beliefs, is that we live presently.
Alot of psychological stuff is not real, not present, only mind. So when you cite Buddha and
Christ as evidence of objectivity, that is not evident. It's mental, not actual. I cited our conversation,
which is actual, and subjective. This is important to me, but if you don't feel that way, I'll work with
what you give me. :) But I would be surprised if you can help people without knowing the difference
between actual and imaginary.

I help people, in one of the major ways I do help /heal, by helping them recognize their limitations / false beliefs.
by empowering them with very actual awareness. not frameworks or imaginary beliefs.
I don't replace one belief with another, but just choose to help a person unravel the false, and let God in to do the rest.



I hope this is still enjoyable. I do respect you and think we are still somewhat in calrifying definitions
and learning each others languages - how to communicate to each other. It's an interesting dynamic we
have. We're kind of coming from opposite places talking about the One. You are involved in helping people
and I am involved in leaving them be and accepting them. I respect people too much to interfere. It's only
because I am very capable myself, so i project that to others. I'd rather work my own way than have help.
The position I am in cannot be helped by anyone but me. And i feel that is true about everyone when we
realluy get down to what matters.

well, I agree with you in certain contexts. in advanced thinkers, people with time to reflect and meditate and work with themselves.
but even for those, life is tough, and this earth has many challenges, and we all fall, we all get tripped up and lose our way.
this is what help is for.
another thing help is for, is to organize people in numbers to overcome the evil that rules this world and attempts to enslave humanity
through control of media, money, medicine, oil, war, etc.

Is this enjoyable?

It is a little shocking to see you so confidently, plainly, and publicly declare things that seem so very very simply wrong to me.

Moshe
02-22-2012, 10:39 PM
Dear Sol,
Your perspective reflects my own with 'alarming' (:)) accuracy.

That is because it is a "package deal."
Once you mistake Balance as in male-female for the same as good and evil, then everything else falls into place.
I have met many who also think the same. You would also say "alarming" accuracy between their views and yours.


All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. (Edmund Burke - i think he said this... there's some debate if that is actually him. but that's what i want to say now)

This discussion has inspired me to add this quote to my signature line...

with the "sort of test" you provided:
If you CAN do something, you gotta.

How did you/some get so far from the heart that you could even write "deny the woman the rape experience."

I wonder if there is even one woman, in her right mind, on earth, or from another civilization, that would agree with you and Solomon?

Andro
02-22-2012, 11:42 PM
I did not say what I would do in that situation. I only presented various possibilities of looking at the issue.

This does NOT mean I am 'far from the heart', as you are projecting. It simply means I am not wearing horse-glasses :)

And of course I have not spoken for Sol.

I just presented a potentially challenging exercise.

And "alarming" was meant to suggest the high compatibility, that's why the smiley (:)).

Pleroma
02-22-2012, 11:45 PM
Now here's a sort of a test:

There is a story about someone from a rather famous electronic music group in London who walked through a park one late evening, on his way home from the recording studio.
While crossing the dark alleys of the park, he heard screams and noticed that a woman was being raped.
His reaction to the event was NOT to interfere, but rather take out his digital recorder and sample the screaming sounds.
The story may not be true (it may be just another urban myth) - but this is less relevant.

Would you judge this person? Harshly? Would you have helped/interfered/denied the woman the rape experience?

Or would you have reacted the same if you were in his position?

(by 'you' - I mean everyone reading this)...

I know it could be difficult to theorize (for one not having been in this situation) - but still...

I think this could be a challenging exercise (for some)...

my sister was raped when she was really young...i would have done something... WHAT WOULD YOU DO?!

Andro
02-23-2012, 12:00 AM
my sister was raped when she was really young...i would have done something... WHAT WOULD YOU DO?!

Personally, I am inclined to think that my instinct would be to interfere.

But what I am implying here is that things are not necessarily black or white. We cannot know the whole story, we only witness a separate event. We cannot possibly presume to know the 'Greater Plan/Design'.

As christians sometimes like to say: "the lord works in mysterious ways..."

Pleroma
02-23-2012, 12:05 AM
As christians sometimes like to say: "the lord works in mysterious ways..."

???

So my sister was supposed to be raped?
should i tell her that?

Andro
02-23-2012, 12:22 AM
So my sister was supposed to be raped?

Are some people supposed to get terminal illnesses? Are some people supposed to be disabled by drunken drivers in car accidents? I simply do not know.


should i tell her that?

You need not ask anyone what to tell her or anyone else. Your own intuition/inner voice should suffice.

All actions have consequences. Not acting also has consequences. I think we cannot know the 'larger scale' aftermath of either.

Personally, I am very grateful for all the loss, adversity and misfortune I have experienced in my life. I see them as agents of personal growth. But this is only my perspective, and everyone is entitled to their own.

Moshe
02-23-2012, 12:50 AM
I did not say what I would do in that situation. I only presented various possibilities of looking at the issue.
This does NOT mean I am 'far from the heart', as you are projecting. It simply means I am not wearing horse-glasses :)

Since you and Solomon's views are so alarmingly close, and since you used the phrase "helped/interfered/denied the woman the rape experience"
I concluded that you, like Solomon, were saying that rape is no different from, say, a saintly act (as all acts are "the same and viewed impartially by God" - according to Solomon)
I concluded that since your view was, again, alarmingly close to his, and because of all that Solomon has just said, that it is also far from the heart,
as only when we get far from the heart, and so into a mental-based reality,
I believe, can we have such philosophies "make sense" to us.

Otherwise, the heart just trumps it and says... no way!

No projection here this time.

Andro
02-23-2012, 01:02 AM
Otherwise, the heart just trumps it and says... no way!

Who's heart?

Moshe
02-23-2012, 01:11 AM
Who's heart?

How about, anyone with a heart.
:rolleyes:

And I should have also said, to Solomon, yes, I am enjoying this.
I was going to just edit that in... but better said here.

Andro
02-23-2012, 01:19 AM
How about, anyone with a heart.

Do you think you are in a position to speak for any heart other than your own?

Are you familiar with the concept of diversity?

Have you ever considered the possibility that not ALL hearts feel alike?

Moshe
02-23-2012, 01:28 AM
Do you think you are in a position to speak for any heart other than your own?
Are you familiar with the concept of diversity?
Have you ever considered the possibility that not ALL hearts feel alike?

I think this response is coming from an intention / idea that is part of the "package deal" I was talking about.

Let me explain.

Solomon doesn't believe in objective reality.
Neither do you (as I have seen you say in other threads and here, also, in this one, by agreeing with Solomon).
So, naturally, you're saying everyone has a different way of seeing things.
And for lots and lots and lots of things, I agree. We all have different tastes, likes, dislikes, loves, etc. Apples, oranges, Jazz, Hip Hop, dancing Native American style, doing the Jig, etc.

BUT, there is a collective HEART that we align with as we become more and more aligned with the Oneness of God, where we ALL
speak the same language, and see things, IN ESSENCE, the same. I believe this is where we must get... eventually. This is part of the return to the Collective Oneness.
Sure, even in that Oneness, we will all have unique expressions of the divine, and unique tastes, but for the fundamental things, we will all see in a unified, essential fashion.

So... if rape was witnessed, or any form of forcing one's will against another who is saying "no, stop!"
those who saw through the heart aligned with the One would all strongly disapprove. Period.

Andro
02-23-2012, 01:43 AM
Moshe,

I am in complete allowance for you to express your personal beliefs.

I am, however, in disagreement with your applying your personal and PARTICULAR beliefs, however strong, to the concept of what you call "the heart aligned with the one" or "collective oneness".

It's end of discussion for me here :)

My best wishes.

solomon levi
02-23-2012, 01:52 AM
Dear Sol,

Your perspective reflects my own with 'alarming' (:)) accuracy.

I just don't have the patience to present it the way you do... And I doubt it can be understood from within the constraints of a strict belief system...

__________________________________________________ _____________________

Now here's a sort of a test:

There is a story about someone from a rather famous electronic music group in London who walked through a park one late evening, on his way home from the recording studio.
While crossing the dark alleys of the park, he heard screams and noticed that a woman was being raped.
His reaction to the event was NOT to interfere, but rather take out his digital recorder and sample the screaming sounds.
The story may not be true (it may be just another urban myth) - but this is less relevant.

Would you judge this person? Harshly? Would you have helped/interfered/denied the woman the rape experience?

Or would you have reacted the same if you were in his position?

(by 'you' - I mean everyone reading this)...

I know it could be difficult to theorize (for one not having been in this situation) - but still...

I think this could be a challenging exercise (for some)...

Thank you Androgynus.
So I'll have someone to play chess with in hell? :D

I imagine I would interfere. But look how many times God has not interfered.
That should tell people something - their beliefs about God do not correspond with what is.
God allows all this stuff that goes on here, but we're not supposed to? So don't be like God?
Such "compassion" is also insane. "Be like God HERE, but don't be like God here." You see?
System. Religion. Rules. Fragmentation = NOT ONE.
And now the mediators and interpreters have usurped God because they confuse It with the
tree of knowledge of good and evil. These are the devil worshippers - those who believe in evil
as a pole of/to God. It is you (whomever you are) who empower evil with your belief as if anything
could challenge God. Me, I'm not preaching evil/satan as a power. I'm telling you of the Oneness
and indivisibility and unconquerable unity of God, and you think I'm sick!? You who decide
which parts of God you like and which you don't. Oh right - the parts you don't like aren't God.
That is so warped. Go ahead, deny God. This is why the world is as it is. So few want God as It is.
So many men and women reject the corner stone which is always right in front of your eyes.
You deny God for your own personal preferences.
So do I most of the time. At least I don't lie to myself about it or rationalise it away. And you think I'm
mental?! I don't use my mind to see what is in front of me. I use my eyes.

"Behold God!"

"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One!"

Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."

His disciples asked him, "When will the Kingdom come?"
Jesus replied, "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying, 'Here it is!' or 'There it is!' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, but men do not see it."

solomon levi
02-23-2012, 02:16 AM
I think this response is coming from an intention / idea that is part of the "package deal" I was talking about.

Let me explain.

Solomon doesn't believe in objective reality.
Neither do you (as I have seen you say in other threads and here, also, in this one, by agreeing with Solomon).
So, naturally, you're saying everyone has a different way of seeing things.
And for lots and lots and lots of things, I agree. We all have different tastes, likes, dislikes, loves, etc. Apples, oranges, Jazz, Hip Hop, dancing Native American style, doing the Jig, etc.

BUT, there is a collective HEART that we align with as we become more and more aligned with the Oneness of God, where we ALL
speak the same language, and see things, IN ESSENCE, the same. I believe this is where we must get... eventually. This is part of the return to the Collective Oneness.
Sure, even in that Oneness, we will all have unique expressions of the divine, and unique tastes, but for the fundamental things, we will all see in a unified, essential fashion.

So... if rape was witnessed, or any form of forcing one's will against another who is saying "no, stop!"
those who saw through the heart aligned with the One would all strongly disapprove. Period.


Moshe, my beloved friend.
Hang on a second!
I don't believe in belief as an effective tool for knowing God/Oneness/what is.
There's no belief required. Belief is the opposite and antagonist to the actual world.
Belief is psychological.

I didn't say I don't believe in objectivity. I said it wasn't present.
When people use their personal minds/knowledge, there's no objectivity.
If you can figure out a way to perceive without your mind/knowledge/past,
then I'll call that objective, relatively. If we re-learn to look withour eyes and not
our minds/filters/interpretations, we will see something relatively objective.

I think we actually agree on objectivity, somewhat. I agree there is a place we can meet
where we are not confused by Babel. But i disagree about your comment on disapproval.
I thought she said "Don't stop!" And that's a joke. :)
But I truly do disagree on the disapproval thing. There's an error, if I may, in your definition again,
or at least a confusion: The heart aligned with the One?? The heart is but one piece. How about the entire being
aligned with the One? Otherwise it isn't the One because the heart is a specific "chord" or gathering of emanations
while excluding others, such as the toe nail. Unless your definition of heart is all-encompassing. But you've
polarised or contrasted it to the mind or something in an earlier post.

Anyways, I have experienced objectivity. I wish more people were aware of it. I'd love to share the experience with someone.
The objectivity I speak of is synonymous with Castaneda's "seeing" which is not done with the eyes but with the totality of one's being.
It is also called the second attention, and, relative to the first attention, it is objective. But there's a third attention so...

solomon levi
02-23-2012, 02:52 AM
This is, again, where we differ.
I don't think that all that is on Earth is God.
It is an arena that includes aspects and experiences that are not of God.
God is ALL that is. Yes. But... and there is a but, an important subtlety here -
and that is that here, in this world, in this arena, we can have experience of that which God is not.
Here, there is a realm that seems to exist, that has weight in its illusionary nature, that is outside of God's realm.
This creates the choice. The choice is good, but not the energy or the realm that invites a choice outside of God's All that is (Love / Good)...
So, having the choice to choose good (All that is) or evil (illusion that has weight and consequence) is good because it helps the soul to grow,
but choosing evil, or I should say, staying in the realm of evil, or thinking evil is a part of the All that is, is not true, nor is it good.
.

That's crazy, my friend. Don't you see that what you are saying to my observant ears and eyes is that YOU invented a second creator (of evil)
so that you can "strive" for Oneness! YOU divided God so that you can put It back together or filter It or whatever it is you intend to do.
This is sillyness, utter folly. Basically, you invented or believe in evil so you can have something to fight about. We call that a "drama queen".

Personally, I don't call it evil. That's your doing. I call it the All. Evil is a part of the All, obviously. Let's not be silly now. You separated it out
and emphasized it; not me. My choice isn't between good or evil. Mine is between All/Many or One. My view allows for the possibility of Oneness
since the many is an extension of the One. But you have no possibility of Oneness if you believe in a separate world of evil from some separate
source/root. I can't believe I'm hearing that from you. Do you believe or see two sources? I don't believe you do. The source of evil, if you must,
is simply one of the denser spheres or lower fountains of the 7-tiered fountain, which still has One source and one water. It is not equal to the
One. It doesn't threaten it any more than you can piss on the wind. I would be very surprised if you don't agree with that. I guess we're shocking
each other today. :)




Oh my... Solomon...
yikes.

Do you believe Yeshua (Jesus) was One with God? An Enlightened Avatar / Master / Christ?

Did he not turn over the money lenders tables?
Did he not make it VERY clear what is true in the eyes of God and in the kingdom of Heaven, from what is not?
I imagine you do not subscribe to the way of Yeshua, the teachings or the Being of Yeshua, otherwise, you would not say what you say.
There are boundaries, my friend. .

No, I don't believe that a person named Jesus the Christ who was nailed to a cross and ... etc.
But that shouldn't matter. They are good teachings anyway, whoever wrote them.
I honestly do not and would not care what personality did what - Oneness is self-evident.
I don't need anyone to show the way for me. Duality is also self-evident.
I prefer the "Jesus" of Thomas' gospel to the evangelists. But the evangels are good still.


I have to eat. Be back to finish responding to the rest. :)

Seth-Ra
02-23-2012, 06:27 AM
As a Christian Alchemist (Yes, i realize there is a bit of "factionalizing" there, as im defining myself's view - but since its all part of the All/One, thats ok. ;) ) i would like to say:

First: Moshe, your previous response to what i said, where you quoted that thing about man becoming unique - no, im afraid i dont find any precedent for that. As the saying goes, "Everyone is unique, just like everyone else." Think of a snowflake - we may all shape a little differently, and have variations of the same building materials - but our overall beings - soul and otherwise, are made of the same essence, and thus we all have the same potential, until we become "polarized" by our own interests/desires which still serves the overall whole as it balances itself out. Every cell in the body has a special and unique function - even if the idea is the same, and even if they are on the same exact body. They are also all the same because of that. So i would not exemplify their "uniqueness" especially not in the context of comparison with God - the All/One.
As for Moshe de Lion - i call bullshit. I like History and Discovery as much as the next person, and ive seen a lot of evidence that backs up many literal claims. I do see its Alchemical pattern and value, sure, but i also see its literal one also. If the Art is Truth, then it must be both literal and symbolic - as sooooo much of our texts, symbols, and work is. If the Pattern is not True, then it doesnt work on any level and is thus a liar. Furthermore, as one that holds to the Book, i am also of the opinion that God has taken care of His Word, though man has done his best efforts to try and fuck it up. lol If i did not think God could handle keeping his own Words intact, then why would i bother thinking Him worth getting to know? Either He is all powerful, or He isnt. Either all is as it should be, because it IS, or it is all utter nothingness/folly/illusion/lie.
:)


As for this whole good/evil thing... SL, you make some good points - Androg, you do also, interesting challenge there by the way - my answer to which is; Id interfere, brutally and with great malice. lol I personally loath injustice. If its a "flaw", well im sure God will forgive it, as it is His nature. ;)
That being said, i had an online friend once, who suspected someone was stalking her. She didnt wanna kill anyone, but asked me what she could do to protect herself. So, removing lethal methods from the table, i gave her a list of affordable and concealable methods. She decided to ignore her gut/spirit, stating to me "God will protect me." - in my head i thought "He gave you the bloody insight to seek protection - dont blame Him now when you ignore it..." - but guess what she did... thats right, within a week she had become a rape victim, and her faith shattered, and she became quite hateful and bitter for quite some time (i believe she finally worked through most of it, which is good. :) ).

My point in all that, is SL is right - people, a LOT of the time, love their misery, and many ignore what is in front of them, causing their own pain, cause they enjoy being victims. I will say, there are some who genuinely cannot help themselves, for lack of knowledge/understanding, if they seek it, it should be given to them, as the Spirit dictates. To the rest, they make and can lie in their own beds.
I believe God helps those who help themselves, and God helps those who cannot help themselves - which does mean putting those of us who can help them, in their path to do so.

Another thing, about the whole forces of evil being a pole against God and all that noise... lol this isnt a damn game of chess. :p In the book of Job, we can easily see how Satan is on a leash, and has to ask God to go after Job, and God defines what Satan can do to him, and what he cannot do to him. Even in revelation, "authority was given to the beast - to the false prophet - to the enemy" over and over - authority from who i wonder... ;)
Why? Because it all serves God in the end - the All/One contains everything, every action, every non-action, all that IS - and it all works out as it should. It is the Great Work on a macrocosmic scale - it takes the fire, and the destruction and the "enemy" to purify, test, and prove the Gold, to make the Stones, that are us - the Living Children of God. What is evil other than a test for us to rejoice at, for the All has seen us, the micro-one, as worthy to pass through that grade of fire? Also, i can see SL's point of non-interference, even though, as i said, I (i know, i know, fractal pieces of me EVERYWHERE. :p ^.^ lol) loath injustice, but it all has a purpose/point, and it WILL balance itself out, as even Jesus/Yeshua/Yahoshua said in Revelation there at the end: "Let those that do good, continue to do good, and let those that do evil, continue to do evil. Behold I am coming soon."

Finally, one last thing... i hope my typing style does not portray a tone, nor do my emotes - im partially smiling and casually typing all this, so hopefully none take any offense, if ive said anything to cause such. Pretty sure i havent, but how can i know another's thoughts other than my own - and my own tell me its possible someone could. lol so apologies if it happens. :)



Be well, all of you,

~Seth-Ra

Ghislain
02-23-2012, 10:16 AM
If I say one thing today there is no shame in rescinding it tomorrow if I so choose. Circumstances create a given moment. There are no
rape victims here to offer their view (are there?). How many closed bedroom doors hide enactments of rape scenes for the pleasure of
those involved?

Reading this thread I see you all walking the razors edge of falling into each other’s views, the fine line between objectivity and
subjectivity.

If God said there should not be rape and we were all God fearing people and thus there was no rape, how would we know rape? It would
be just a word, probably lost from our language, a theoretical example of which none would have experienced. Would that make it good,
evil or irrelevant? How would those behind closed doors envision it?

In the example above, if one wished to interfere that would create one circumstance against another circumstance of non intervention.
What would change on the whole?

My answer would be that I would intervene, but as I just said above:


If I say one thing today there is no shame in rescinding it tomorrow if I so choose.

All is one and within it there is all Q.E.D.

Possibly like

http://www.absolutelyfengshui.com/images/yin-yang-symbol.jpg

But more likely like

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d3OOjxr9Od8/TibxdVfo9oI/AAAAAAAAB_w/UcRX_8-kGlU/s320/Celtic_yin_yang_dragons_by_FullmetalDevil.png

Where the boundaries are not so clear, but ALL is still within the same circle.

IMHO ;)

Ghislain

EDIT: If there is a trap it is that all is trapped within the boundaries of what is.

Moshe
02-23-2012, 04:30 PM
Thank you Androgynus.
So I'll have someone to play chess with in hell? :D

I imagine I would interfere. But look how many times God has not interfered.
That should tell people something - their beliefs about God do not correspond with what is.
God allows all this stuff that goes on here, but we're not supposed to? So don't be like God?
Such "compassion" is also insane. "Be like God HERE, but don't be like God here." You see?
System. Religion. Rules. Fragmentation = NOT ONE.

I see this as you not recognizing the nature of this world... and its purpose.
It is an arena. I keep saying that because it is an important concept.
God has created this world as an arena for free will.
God does not interfere with the process of free will but that doesn't mean we should not be Godly and choose Godliness in this arena.
God created the realm where evil can exist but does not support use choosing evil. It's a paradox.
Solomon you make it sound so clear in these statements - "But look how many times God has not interfered." - ""Be like God HERE, but don't be like God here."
but it belies a misunderstanding, IMO, of the purpose of this realm, this arena.

Moshe
02-23-2012, 04:42 PM
Moshe, my beloved friend.
Hang on a second!
I don't believe in belief as an effective tool for knowing God/Oneness/what is.
There's no belief required. Belief is the opposite and antagonist to the actual world.
Belief is psychological.

I agree.



I didn't say I don't believe in objectivity. I said it wasn't present.
When people use their personal minds/knowledge, there's no objectivity.
If you can figure out a way to perceive without your mind/knowledge/past,
then I'll call that objective, relatively. If we re-learn to look withour eyes and not
our minds/filters/interpretations, we will see something relatively objective.

Fair enough. I do, however, still believe that God in each of us can and does see the objective reality.
It's a process. Each aspect of us, each thought, each feeling is either aligned with God or it's not. We are all divided into a percentage of truth and aligned or illusion and division until we're not.
So if you are, you are seeing the Objective Capitol T Truth, insomuchas you are not opposing / believing in illusion.



I think we actually agree on objectivity, somewhat. I agree there is a place we can meet
where we are not confused by Babel. But i disagree about your comment on disapproval.
I thought she said "Don't stop!" And that's a joke. :)
But I truly do disagree on the disapproval thing. There's an error, if I may, in your definition again,
or at least a confusion: The heart aligned with the One?? The heart is but one piece. How about the entire being
aligned with the One? Otherwise it isn't the One because the heart is a specific "chord" or gathering of emanations
while excluding others, such as the toe nail. Unless your definition of heart is all-encompassing. But you've
polarised or contrasted it to the mind or something in an earlier post.

yes, my definition of heart is like heart and soul, aligned, one.
the toe nail has no say when a person is operating in the depth of their being such that the heart is the central and core intelligence operating within them.
I am obviously not referring to the physical heart, nor even the heart chakra, per se, but the deeper heart, the core star, the bridge to the world of Atzilut, the black-hole bridger inside of us, Tiferet in the Tree of Life...

Moshe
02-23-2012, 04:55 PM
That's crazy, my friend. Don't you see that what you are saying to my observant ears and eyes is that YOU invented a second creator (of evil)
so that you can "strive" for Oneness! YOU divided God so that you can put It back together or filter It or whatever it is you intend to do.
This is sillyness, utter folly. Basically, you invented or believe in evil so you can have something to fight about. We call that a "drama queen".

I didn't invent anything. (well, I have invented things, but I did not invent anything in this dialogue)
Like I said, I am simply observing the nature of this world in as accurate a way as I possibly can.
I concur with the Kabbalists when they say life is a Game.
It is a Game between Good and Evil. It has a purpose.
To evolve the soul. The soul could not grow when all was one, and there was no evil.
There IS no evil in the Garden of Eden. It is something that is created by the Creator, again, in order to challenge us.
It is not a second God.
It is an Angel with a mission, to challenge, to deceive, to corrupt and to destroy. (plus it has legions that support it)
When we remember and return, then evil will no longer be necessary and will cease to be. We will have graduated. Returned. (that's what I hope -
I am not sure what will happen to evil when we have all returned on Earth to God, Kingdom of Heaven Collectively - it may move on to another realm / planet, for their evolution...)



Personally, I don't call it evil. That's your doing. I call it the All. Evil is a part of the All, obviously. Let's not be silly now. You separated it out
and emphasized it; not me. My choice isn't between good or evil. Mine is between All/Many or One. My view allows for the possibility of Oneness
since the many is an extension of the One. But you have no possibility of Oneness if you believe in a separate world of evil from some separate
source/root. I can't believe I'm hearing that from you. Do you believe or see two sources? I don't believe you do. The source of evil, if you must,
is simply one of the denser spheres or lower fountains of the 7-tiered fountain, which still has One source and one water. It is not equal to the
One. It doesn't threaten it any more than you can piss on the wind. I would be very surprised if you don't agree with that. I guess we're shocking
each other today. :)

I think we're beginning to repeat ourselves and go around in circles. You have demonstrated again that you believe the All of God is both good and evil,
or, as you say, ALL that is here on this planet, and probably beyond. I do not.

but let me ask you this question Solomon-
Do you wish to create the Stone? The True Stone?

Does that Stone contain elements of what I call Evil or what one can call corruption, as seen on this earth, or like it says in Hyl and Coahyl, it banishes ALL evil from itself, as does the Christ?!?!


Yes, more than that. For whoever carries the Stone with him, for him no evil spirit will stay where he is. Yes, if one takes it to a possessed man and gives him some of it, it will drive away all evil spirits, because it is a Quinta Essentia, and nothing corruptible is in it.



No, I don't believe that a person named Jesus the Christ who was nailed to a cross and ... etc.
But that shouldn't matter. They are good teachings anyway, whoever wrote them.
I honestly do not and would not care what personality did what - Oneness is self-evident.
I don't need anyone to show the way for me. Duality is also self-evident.
I prefer the "Jesus" of Thomas' gospel to the evangelists. But the evangels are good still.
I have to eat. Be back to finish responding to the rest. :)

Bon appetit.

solomon levi
02-23-2012, 06:53 PM
I see this as you not recognizing the nature of this world... and its purpose.
It is an arena. I keep saying that because it is an important concept.
God has created this world as an arena for free will.
God does not interfere with the process of free will but that doesn't mean we should not be Godly and choose Godliness in this arena.
God created the realm where evil can exist but does not support use choosing evil. It's a paradox.
Solomon you make it sound so clear in these statements - "But look how many times God has not interfered." - ""Be like God HERE, but don't be like God here."
but it belies a misunderstanding, IMO, of the purpose of this realm, this arena.

No. It's just that for me, and actually as it is, "the world" is not just dual and evil. "The world" is "this".
It is subjective. Even quantum physics tells us our observation affects what we observe.
So if the observer is aligned, "this" or "the world" is also - we see the non-dual nature of it.
"This"/"the world" is not objectively stuck in duality and evil as you presented it in this last post.
Sometimes "this" is pain, struggle, resistance, rape, and sometimes "this" is exstatic blissful orgasmic loving union.
I'm sure you've experienced both as i have - pain and bliss, not necessarily rape. So that is proof that the world
doesn't have one purpose or an objective purpose. All purpose and meaning are supplied by the thinker.
Just try to tell yourself the purpose or meaning of anything without thinking. I know you can't do it any more than i can.

And you would not deny that I or you have been here, present, in a thoughtless moment, in "this", "the world"...

Well, the One God is also thoughtless. Thought requires duality - a thought and a thinker. This is why the One God does not judge,
and it happens here, on earth, in this world. I've done it. Have you? Or do you have to speak about Oneness hypothetically?
Of course I don't mean "I have done it" which shows duality, but language is such.

So I don't misunderstand THE purpose of this realm. Purpose is not objective as you claim - that is the misunderstanding.
And we prove this everyday. But you will deny "this" for some psychological objective purpose that isn't here now.

I don't make it sound so clear. It IS so clear. That is why you didn't address it. Because it's irrefutable. God allows rape.
Should we not be like God?

You may call that poison and satan. But children ask such questions. And Jesus says to be like little children, doesn't he?
You just don't want to accept the simple truth. I don't blame you. It's very difficult to live in the actual world.
It requires extraordinary vulnerability.

"It is an important CONCEPT." Exactly. Conceived in your mind, not the actual world. Thus subjective, not objective.

Free will? Don't get me started. :)
So how do you reconcile the fact of rape with free will?

I've given a lot of thought to free will. Notice how we say it as if it is one word? Free will.
But it's two: free - will. A free will relative to a will that is not free.
What is a will that is free? Certainly not one that is conditioned, confined, determined, defined.
But people just assume the "one word" version of free will as "choice". It doesn't mean choice.
It means free unconditioned will. In other words - "Not my will but Thine." In other words, "This", "what is".
NOT "what I would like/prefer/choose." The personal will of the separate self is the anti-christ, if you will;
the demiurge; the blind one who denies the ineffable God. It is the ego that falsely assumes itself, "I", to be
the subject, when it is actually an object like every other created thing.

This again "sounds so clear", because it is apparent and self-evident, if we will only look. It is so obvious.

So the "path" to Oneness: give up the separate self, give up the will, give up subjective purpose and meaning.
Surrender to God. Not to your notions/conceptions of God, but the self-evident God before your very eyes.
Be as God, without judgement, even as Jesus said - Judge not lest ye be judged and cast into the pit until you pay
every last farthing... This is a subjective hell/judgement/punishment. Not God punishing anyone. God doesn't care
if you judge. But the measure you mete out will be measured unto you. Because you believe in it enough to impose it
on others. It is your subjective belief in the measure that creates a dualistic hell for yourself. How do we pay every
last penny/farthing? Suffer until you stop believing the judgement/measure. Then you stop receiving the kickback of
your own venom/false belief (there is no true, "objective" belief).

This is so clear. Only the mind pollutes it. Drop the mind and see the kingdom of heaven here on earth. Don't think.
Just perceive it in it's undetermined state/Spiritus Mundi. If you think, you determine it and fix it into sulphur/brimstone/hellfire.

zoas23
02-23-2012, 07:00 PM
I disagree on the Eden bit. I go with the Gnostic view that the Serpent is good. That by eating they will see that God is false. This point, IMO, changes the whole scenario.
No evil in the Stone, nor in alchemy... None!
It is only Man that is wicked... and false gods the most efficient trap!
:cool:


I have not studied Gnosticism, only heard a smattering of ideas from it. However, if THAT is Gnosticism, then it is most definitely not for me.
I agree that the Serpent plays a role. And it is a good role, ultimately, but not to be followed. But saying that the Serpent is Good and God is false... ummm, no.
Scenario is the same. There is a trap to desire the Stone and forget about one's Being.

There were a lot of branches of what we call Gnosticism. Some of them not even based on Jewish-Christian symbolism.
What Dev said is one of the many different views that Gnostic Christians had on the subject.
i.e, the Demiurge was indeed "evil" for a lot of gnostic branches, but it's also true that the demiurge wasn't "evil" for a lot of other branches (i.e, he was "just", but ignorant of "good").
The relationship between alchemy and gnosticism is as strong as the relationship between Greek myths and astrology.


I am a Jewish-Christian of Gnostic persuasion. I would like to recommend one book about the construction of the canonical Bible. I have met and spoken with the author on three occasions. This is one of a dozen books he has written but the one I had him autograph. The New testament was written to consolidate all of the prophesies of the Tenach into the singular personage of Iesous/Issa/Y'shua. Pretty amazing, people say. What is the probability of one man seemingly the terminus of all of these separate prophesies? Easy peezy if you write it that way. The NT is the Tenach recapitulated, with names changed. The book in question is:
Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes by Rev. John Shelby Spong. http://www.amazon.com/Liberating-Gospels-Reading-Jewish-ebook/dp/B000FC27ZE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1329102849&sr=8-2
The NT was written to follow the Jewish liturgical calendar, and the themes of the Tenach are repeated with modifications, scribal insertions, and a universalizing tendency that was intended to eliminate the exclusivism of the Jewish cultus, and open up salvation to all peoples.

I do agree with this view.
It's hardly a secret though.
However, It wasn't just "consolidating prophecies"... it was also adding something completely new to the Jewish tradition: Neo-Platonism (this is specially obvious in the Gospel of John). This is also something that was already taking place among the Jewish thinkers of the time (i.e, Philo of Alexandria... who mostly developed the idea that our knowledge of God comes from the Logos of God... an idea that John repeats in his gospel... which is actually an idea that comes from Plato's Republic 506... And a bit later the Sepher Yetzirah and the origins of the Kabalah, which is also Jewish Traditions meeting Neo-Platonism -it's not by chance that the 4 Olam of the Kabbalah are identical to the 4 ontological levels that Plotinus developed after Plato).

And, also not a secret: the story of Jesus was written in a way that not only followed the Jewish prophecy, but also incorporated a lot of the myths of the God-Men that already existed among the Pagans (Orpheus, Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra, etc, etc).

That's also why Plotinus and Prorphyry went strong against Christians and specially Gnostics (both of them were awesome thinkers, but both of them hated the idea of seeing Plato being mixed with a "barbaric" symbolism that was completely foreign to them -i.e, the Jewish tradition). Both of them inherited the bad Greek habit of being quite xenophobic (and, yet, both of them became mostly the axis of the whole neo-platonist wing of the Christian Tradition -i.e, Dionysus Areopagite, Nicholas of Kues, etc)

The canonization of the Tanakh and the canonization of the New Testament have a lot to do with drawing the dividing lines.

In the first case, the lines that divided what was Jewish and what was Christian.
In the second case, the lines that divided what was "non-gnostic"-Christian and what was Gnosticism (it's not by chance that Irenaeus was one of the main responsibles of the NT canon).

The triumph of Christianism has a lot to do that it was the first Religion that offered "salvation" in an exoteric and open way. the Jewish religion was exlusive, the Greek and the Roman religion had little to say about "salvation" in their exoteric practices even though "salvation" was the core idea of their mystery cults, but they were also very exclusive, maybe even more than the Jewish religion itself.

Besides from a lot of political reasons, Non-Gnostic Christianism won the race because it made "salvation" by far less exclusive and "democratic" (in comparison to the Pagan Mystery cults, the Christian Gnostic initiation rites and the Jewish Religion).

solomon levi
02-23-2012, 07:45 PM
I didn't invent anything. (well, I have invented things, but I did not invent anything in this dialogue)
Like I said, I am simply observing the nature of this world in as accurate a way as I possibly can.
I concur with the Kabbalists when they say life is a Game.
It is a Game between Good and Evil. It has a purpose.
To evolve the soul. The soul could not grow when all was one, and there was no evil.
There IS no evil in the Garden of Eden. It is something that is created by the Creator, again, in order to challenge us.
It is not a second God.
It is an Angel with a mission, to challenge, to deceive, to corrupt and to destroy. (plus it has legions that support it)
When we remember and return, then evil will no longer be necessary and will cease to be. We will have graduated. Returned. (that's what I hope -
I am not sure what will happen to evil when we have all returned on Earth to God, Kingdom of Heaven Collectively - it may move on to another realm / planet, for their evolution...)



I think we're beginning to repeat ourselves and go around in circles. You have demonstrated again that you believe the All of God is both good and evil,
or, as you say, ALL that is here on this planet, and probably beyond. I do not.

but let me ask you this question Solomon-
Do you wish to create the Stone? The True Stone?

Does that Stone contain elements of what I call Evil or what one can call corruption, as seen on this earth, or like it says in Hyl and Coahyl, it banishes ALL evil from itself, as does the Christ?!?!



I'm sorry, but you are not simply observing "this", "this world".
Your subjective description is full of reflection. You are observing an interpretation of "this world", an image of it.
We should not make an image of God.
You are simply wrong. I don't like to say that, but... you cannot simply observe evil.
Evil is a description, a comparison, the mind is very much involved. Simply observing
does not use the mind. Your observation is not simple, it is complex/multiple. The pure
observation is sullied by thought, by a thinker, by an illusory separate self that has no
actual reality, only psychological; just look at your self. Can you do it without referring
to memories? Without thought? Without knowledge? Simply observing. Who are you?
Where are you located? Can you really find a self or does it always end up thinking, reflecting?
"The Matrix cannot tell you who you are." - Trinity

By "image" I mean idea, knowledge, mind, reflection, the past.
Just about all people replace reality, the actual present, with images they have formed from their past
experiences, associative memory, comparison, etc.


My definition of "simply observing" is more accurate/true than yours.
So is my definition of "this world".
And "trap", and "free will" (without even having heard your definition, I know)...
I am not saying this egotistically or to make something of myself.
I am saying it as evidence that whatever i am doing is more objective than what you are doing.

Here is another: you say I BELIEVE the All of God is both good and evil... not exactly what i said, but...
Yes, evil is part of the All, and the All is God manifest. This is not a belief. Who would dare say evil is not
part of the All? There is nothing that is not part of the All. Belief has nothing to do with that. "All" by definition,
includes evil, and anything else you can name or think of. Very simple.
If you can't agree with that there is no possibility for reasonable conversation and i fear for your clients. :)

Is the All God/the One manifest? Yes, without belief. The philosophers have covered this and are fairly unanimous.
I know Kabbalist have given it some thought too and have argued about it - I've read some of it. It seems the wiser, IMO,
agree that God is both, manifest and unmanifest.
It's really quite simple. If we take the Babel word "God" out of it and contemplate Source, there simply aren't two sources.
So everything emanates from the One. If we want to go Biblical, satan was an angel of God before he fell. That is all that
need be said. Angels didn't come from some foreign second source. They came from the One, as did everything/All.

Create the Stone... I'm exploring it. If I find it, fine; if I don't, no big deal. It fascinates me, but I'm not obsessed about it.
No, the Stone has no corruption or evil.
I'm not sure what your point is though. Can you expound it a little?

I really appreciate this conversation Moshe. Thank you. I'm curious if we will meet in the objective or maintain differences.
I haven't budged at all, but I am assuming we want the most objective description. Do you still see your own as more objective?
What will we do if neither budges? What does that mean about objectivity? :D

Pleroma
02-23-2012, 08:22 PM
I thought roger just cleared it by saying this



Quote Originally Posted by Pleroma View Post
what exactly is the purpose of evil?
Free will has a purpose, suffering has a purpose, human nature and the ego all have a purpose..... none of these are inherently evil, they just are not absolutely divine, thats why they exist partially away from the divine but still in his light......sin is a stain of the flesh, because the mind is prisoner to the senses, but that stain can be removed once the burden of the flesh is absolved through death, provided we have the courage to release our ties to the senses at the time of death, absolute evil on the other hand has no purpose for us. God who is one, is not good and evil combined, he is only love, only good, thus "divine".

Would we call pure evil, divine and equate it with pure good? Absolutely not.

Satans hatred and jealousy for mankind is why he was expelled from heaven. His purpose in this world and absolute evil for that matter exist to prevent man from performing the great work of mankind, the great of work of alchemy which is re-joining to his higher genius and re-claiming his divinity, and leaving the flesh and inherent sin that it carries behind permanently, it makes no difference whether you believe Satan or God exists or not, since it is only their influence that we see and feel, and that is enough, it is inescapable.

Of course good and evil are not two polar opposites of equal power, like we see allegories for in alchemy. Satan is not the enemy of God, he is the enemy of man, and with proper training he and his force can be banished by a mere mortal man, my heel bruises his head........ Gen 3:15

Pleroma
02-23-2012, 08:35 PM
Let me say, then, in this connection, that real understanding in spiritual matters is the result of much bitter fighting, of suffering, spiritual agony and soul passion. Life itself would have no meaning if there was no fighting on all planes, if all was smooth and monotonous. Everything fights in nature. Every plant fights to get more sunlight. Every animal fights for food; the angels themselves fight. Constant struggle on all planes to which it has access is the birthright of the creature. Woe to him who wants to put himself on a level with the Creator and escape fighting!

this is from a book. i think darnkess over tibet.

Ghislain
02-23-2012, 10:00 PM
Pleroma

I was about to pose a hypothetical question as to what would be left if all the postulated evil was eradicated.

What purpose would there be...what would one strive for?

Then your post said it all...


Life itself would have no meaning if there was no fighting on all planes, if all was smooth and monotonous.

Our purpose is to break the monotony. Outside of here, (for want of a better word), all is perfect (except for monotony). Without
the ills that flesh is heir to life doesn't work; we would return to monotony and there would be no reason for
our existence.


"Jewish tradition describes an adversarial relationship between human beings and angels. Angels are
jealous of humans because we humans have free will and they do not"

Source: "Dancing With God: Everyday Steps to Jewish Spiritual Renewal" Wayne D. Dosick HarperSanFrancisco, 1997

One could not appreciate everlasting bliss if one knew nothing else.

That's the game; appreciation of everything that is. Experience all you can, enjoy the good with the bad experiences and be grateful you can have them.

The only trap is the one we set for ourselves.

Ghislain

Pleroma
02-23-2012, 10:21 PM
That's the game; appreciation of everything that is. Experience all you can, enjoy the good with the bad experiences and be grateful you can have them.

so women should enjoy being raped?

Moshe
02-23-2012, 11:42 PM
No. It's just that for me, and actually as it is, "the world" is not just dual and evil. "The world" is "this".
It is subjective. Even quantum physics tells us our observation affects what we observe.
So if the observer is aligned, "this" or "the world" is also - we see the non-dual nature of it.
"This"/"the world" is not objectively stuck in duality and evil as you presented it in this last post.
Sometimes "this" is pain, struggle, resistance, rape, and sometimes "this" is exstatic blissful orgasmic loving union.
I'm sure you've experienced both as i have - pain and bliss, not necessarily rape. So that is proof that the world
doesn't have one purpose or an objective purpose. All purpose and meaning are supplied by the thinker.
Just try to tell yourself the purpose or meaning of anything without thinking. I know you can't do it any more than i can.

As I have in the past agreed with you, I agree with you again here with some subtle distinctions.
I agree that when we see the good in the world, things go much better. Law of Attraction sort of thing.
I have noticed the world change around me in the flash of an eye as I changed how I was viewing it.
One startling example happened to me when I was in India. It was late at night and I was walking in unknown town.
There were people huddling in dark alleyways and in shadowy entrances. Dogs looked at me menacingly.
I noticed I was feeling fear.
I recognized the fear and decided to let go of all fear. IMMEDIATELY everything changed around me.
The people came out, friendly, smiling, offering me chai and a smoke. the dogs were wagging their tails, eager to meet me too.
It was a FLASH over of the world that I will never forget that reflected my consciousness. India is very fluid, very vital to demonstrate this.
(the western world is not as much, but will, to some degree reflect)

Now... they were reflecting my fear, which i was feeling, and remained put, and the dogs sensed it too, making them on guard.
when i changed and opened my heart, they did too. it was unmistakable. I know this phenomenon to be true and have observed it countless times.

now, this is true. i know this is a phenomenon. And, just to let you know, i don't go around looking for, seeking, holding onto the thought of duality.
This discussion we're having is a philosophical debate which is focusing on this topic, so it brings it into focus more than i do in my daily life.

the quantum physics demonstrates that a particle can be regarded as either light (wave) and/or matter...
when an observer expected it to be light, it behaved so, and the same for the observer expecting matter. this is because it is really both... and can be both.
it cannot, however, act like a bird, or a tomato, since it is governed by natural laws, even if the observer expects it to behave that way.
There is a very very very rare gift i have mentioned where a very very very rare person could make the particle behave like a bird or a tomato. mayeb one day, we'll all be able to do this.

now, if i meet people and i choose to see the good in them, it will, for the most part, bring out the good in them.
if i see them as a dualistic monster or bad, they most likely will not shine their greatest light in my presence.
However, the choice remains within that person how they want to be.
If they see me beaming light at them, they will be more likely to be their best.
So this i also agree with you...

where i differ with you is in the following:
by me sitting, observing this world in Oneness, two things occur.
That which is pure and natural and aligned with God is observable as Oneness.
What is not in a state of Oneness, emanating from God, Love, I cannot observe as Oneness no matter how hard i try, or how well i observe Oneness.
Oil spills killing marine life, huge plastic waste flottilas the size of texas in the sea, parents maming their children to be better beggars, countries marching to war where millions die and suffer for greedy agendas of a few elite class banker type illuminati, etc.
It is there.
My observation cannot change that.
I cannot see Oneness there bc it is simply not One. It emanates from the evil of this world.
I see it as it is.
So skipping ahead to where you say


You just don't want to accept the simple truth. I don't blame you. It's very difficult to live in the actual world.
It requires extraordinary vulnerability.

It is actually harder to live in the world as I understand it, because one must see the devastating horrors that are occuring around us as NOT Oneness.
One must have their heart rent with pain at the nature of the world and how we kill the precious planet and each other...
this is to be alive to the heart... as painful as it is... and the result is to want to protect the wildlife, the whales, dolphins and all sea creatures,
the result is to want to stop the horrors from happening. We don't all have much power to act as individuals, but as a whole and in large groups, we can, and we must,
take action to change.
it is much easier to sit back and say "this is ALL that is. this is God's will because it is happening. because it is. It is because God is."
but that I simply do not believe is true.
I repeat now to say that God is Good - Love, and the world has a lot of that, still connected to Source,
and it also has a lot of the evil which is still ruling much of the planet, on multiple levels.
God does not poison the oceans. We do, aligned with greed and corruption and other elements/ aspects of evil.
God does not maim children so that they will make better beggars. People do, because they are separated from Love and are thus "serving the other / the opposition."
etc/ etc/


Well, the One God is also thoughtless. Thought requires duality - a thought and a thinker. This is why the One God does not judge,
and it happens here, on earth, in this world. I've done it. Have you? Or do you have to speak about Oneness hypothetically?
Of course I don't mean "I have done it" which shows duality, but language is such.

I speak not from an armchair, nor hypothetically, nor quoting another's words or teaching, but only because of experience and inner knowing.
yes, language is such. we are limited to it to communicate through this medium, and that is why, I allow myself to speak of concepts, because, when accurate,
they can point to truth, which ITSELF, is not a concept, but which can be hinted at or referred to, using a concept.
(this is in reference to you stating:

"It is an important CONCEPT." Exactly. Conceived in your mind, not the actual world. Thus subjective, not objective.



So I don't misunderstand THE purpose of this realm. Purpose is not objective as you claim - that is the misunderstanding.
And we prove this everyday. But you will deny "this" for some psychological objective purpose that isn't here now.
I don't make it sound so clear. It IS so clear. That is why you didn't address it. Because it's irrefutable. God allows rape.
Should we not be like God?

There is a collective reality that we are all here for. You don't subscribe to that idea / concept / truth / fact... call it what you will.
I do. So I believe there is an objective purpose for us being here.
We're on the path.We're getting there. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT THERE YET. Again, this is not me CREATING duality, but seeing how it is already there, whether i observe it in oneness or not.
There is great beauty on this planet, but there is great horror. it's the reflection of the dualistic nature of our collective.



Free will? Don't get me started. :)
So how do you reconcile the fact of rape with free will?

one person using their will to force another's will.
it's a violation of the law of will.
one soul must never ever force another soul to do something that they do not want to do. (with a few minor acceptions - like momentary insanity, to save someone's life, stuff like that)



I've given a lot of thought to free will.

so have i. i wrote a whole book about it.
http://www.thelastfourbooks.com - The Letting Go of Free Will (http://www.thelastfourbooks.com) ;)



Notice how we say it as if it is one word? Free will.
But it's two: free - will. A free will relative to a will that is not free.
What is a will that is free? Certainly not one that is conditioned, confined, determined, defined.
But people just assume the "one word" version of free will as "choice". It doesn't mean choice.
It means free unconditioned will. In other words - "Not my will but Thine." In other words, "This", "what is".
NOT "what I would like/prefer/choose." The personal will of the separate self is the anti-christ, if you will;
the demiurge; the blind one who denies the ineffable God. It is the ego that falsely assumes itself, "I", to be
the subject, when it is actually an object like every other created thing.

I am in accord with you on this point.

For this very reason, I renamed Free Will in my book to "Frmee Will" (sic) because free will is not really free, it is for me for me, the will of the separate self.
when we are aligned with the Will of the One, we do not have free will.
We have One Will, which is not a choice, it is an alignment, a beingness.



So the "path" to Oneness: give up the separate self, give up the will, give up subjective purpose and meaning.
Surrender to God. Not to your notions/conceptions of God, but the self-evident God before your very eyes.
Be as God, without judgement, even as Jesus said - Judge not lest ye be judged and cast into the pit until you pay every last farthing... This is a subjective hell/judgement/punishment. Not God punishing anyone. God doesn't care if you judge. But the measure you mete out will be measured unto you. Because you believe in it enough to impose it
on others. It is your subjective belief in the measure that creates a dualistic hell for yourself. How do we pay every
last penny/farthing? Suffer until you stop believing the judgement/measure. Then you stop receiving the kickback of
your own venom/false belief (there is no true, "objective" belief).

This is so clear. Only the mind pollutes it. Drop the mind and see the kingdom of heaven here on earth. Don't think. Just perceive it in it's undetermined state/Spiritus Mundi. If you think, you determine it and fix it into sulphur/brimstone/hellfire.

I agree again with you here.
However, i would say "give up the mind that emanates from the separate self... not the WHOLE mind, since the higher mind is an extension of one's true self."

Moshe
02-24-2012, 12:07 AM
I'm sorry, but you are not simply observing "this", "this world".
Your subjective description is full of reflection. You are observing an interpretation of "this world", an image of it.
We should not make an image of God.
You are simply wrong. I don't like to say that, but... you cannot simply observe evil.
Evil is a description, a comparison, the mind is very much involved. Simply observing
does not use the mind. Your observation is not simple, it is complex/multiple. The pure
observation is sullied by thought, by a thinker, by an illusory separate self that has no
actual reality, only psychological; just look at your self. Can you do it without referring
to memories? Without thought? Without knowledge? Simply observing. Who are you?
Where are you located? Can you really find a self or does it always end up thinking, reflecting?
"The Matrix cannot tell you who you are." - Trinity

By "image" I mean idea, knowledge, mind, reflection, the past.
Just about all people replace reality, the actual present, with images they have formed from their past
experiences, associative memory, comparison, etc.


My definition of "simply observing" is more accurate/true than yours.
So is my definition of "this world".
And "trap", and "free will" (without even having heard your definition, I know)...
I am not saying this egotistically or to make something of myself.
I am saying it as evidence that whatever i am doing is more objective than what you are doing.

Up until this point, I have been making an effort to not say "Solomon, you're wrong. I'm right", though I have been tempted on several occasions to state the very thing you just have.
I am right. You are wrong, in such plain language. We're both naturally believing we're right, and so it does come out, for instance, by me saying
"you are not understanding this, or that"...

I don't mind that you stated so. I appreciate the candidness of it. the directness of it.
you believe you're right. fine.
you stated so. fine. I have understood that from the start.
it doesn't change a single iota stating it - it doesn't make you more right by saying you're right.
I can do the same thing right now.

You're wrong about this.
I am right.
there.
I said it.
has it changed a thing?
No.

So then why say it? Is it, in and of itself, a good argument or point of discussion?
Is it a viable method of wrestling me to the ground so that i surrender?
Does it really prove anything, other than you think you're right and i am wrong.
no, no, and no.



Here is another: you say I BELIEVE the All of God is both good and evil... not exactly what i said, but...
Yes, evil is part of the All, and the All is God manifest. This is not a belief. Who would dare say evil is not
part of the All? There is nothing that is not part of the All. Belief has nothing to do with that. "All" by definition,
includes evil, and anything else you can name or think of. Very simple.
If you can't agree with that there is no possibility for reasonable conversation and i fear for your clients. :)

That's getting very close to hitting below the belt, even with the smiley face. Why? Because I do not believe that evil is a part of God. That's it.
So can we not have reasonable conversation now? I am pretty reasonable. Are you?

like what Roger C stated earlier - (thanks to Pleroma for resharing this)



Free will has a purpose, suffering has a purpose, human nature and the ego all have a purpose..... none of these are inherently evil, they just are not absolutely divine, thats why they exist partially away from the divine but still in his light......sin is a stain of the flesh, because the mind is prisoner to the senses, but that stain can be removed once the burden of the flesh is absolved through death, provided we have the courage to release our ties to the senses at the time of death, absolute evil on the other hand has no purpose for us. God who is one, is not good and evil combined, he is only love, only good, thus "divine".

Would we call pure evil, divine and equate it with pure good? Absolutely not.

Satans hatred and jealousy for mankind is why he was expelled from heaven. His purpose in this world and absolute evil for that matter exist to prevent man from performing the great work of mankind, the great of work of alchemy which is re-joining to his higher genius and re-claiming his divinity, and leaving the flesh and inherent sin that it carries behind permanently, it makes no difference whether you believe Satan or God exists or not, since it is only their influence that we see and feel, and that is enough, it is inescapable.

You have no idea how I work with my patients / clients. In fact, I would say, the way I see things makes me a much more effective
and helpful healer than I would be if I believed the things you do. I know this. I have experience of this.



So everything emanates from the One. If we want to go Biblical, satan was an angel of God before he fell. That is all that
need be said. Angels didn't come from some foreign second source. They came from the One, as did everything/All.

if you recall, i stated that evil was created by God, but there are subtleties with this that you seem to have missed.
It doesn't stop there.
you stop at the fact that evil is. and if it is, then it means it is a part of the All, God, the One.
It's not so simple. There is more to it than that, more balance, more sophistication.



Create the Stone... I'm exploring it. If I find it, fine; if I don't, no big deal. It fascinates me, but I'm not obsessed about it.
No, the Stone has no corruption or evil.
I'm not sure what your point is though. Can you expound it a little?

because of the very fact that the stone banishes evil. it cannot exist in one's place.
also, because in order to MAKE the stone, one must, as a laboratory metaphor, purify the elements of Salt-Sulphur and mercury of their evil.
evil is to be removed, banished, calcined.
alchemy acknowledges that evil exists and that it must be removed to make the Stone.
this makes it Godly.
THAT's why I asked... to make this point.



I really appreciate this conversation Moshe. Thank you. I'm curious if we will meet in the objective or maintain differences.
I haven't budged at all, but I am assuming we want the most objective description. Do you still see your own as more objective?
What will we do if neither budges? What does that mean about objectivity? :D

I appreciate it too. it's occupied me for the last couple of days at least... in a good way.
i've thought about everything you've said closely, sincerely.
i have respect for you and so i have considered all your words, as well as the others.
nothing has been quickly negated without thought.
i want you to know that.
if you did notice, there were many points where i did agree with you... in certain contexts, certain expressions of things...
so that's something, eh?

yes, I do still see my own perspective, in the areas where we've disagreed, as being a more accurate and true observation of
the objective nature of God's truth. yes.
I know you do too.

Let me make a prayer here: that i hope you will say "amen" to.

"Beloved God / Creator,
Please bless Solomon, myself, and all who read this, to arrive at the most objective and true observation and experience of the reality that is Yours,
without corruption, without distortion from our separate, individual realities. We thank you for giving us clear and unmistakable signs if we are presently
unaligned or wrong, in any way, so that we can gain a clearer and more accurate observation and ultimately, experience, of Your objective Truth. Amen"

(feel free to tweak the prayer if you wish)

Ghislain
02-24-2012, 12:12 AM
Pleroma

I am not a woman and as far as I am aware have not talked to any women who have been raped
or asked any women if they would like to be, therefore I cannot answer that question.

I have talked to people that have been burgled and have said that they didn't care about what had
been stolen it was the thought of the invasion of their privacy that concerned them more. I saw this
as a rational feeling until I was recently burgled myself.

I felt a bit P'ed off about some of my belongings going missing, but I didn't get that feeling of
invasion of privacy I hear so often. I was foolish enough to have insufficient security on my door
which is now remedied.

I am not comparing the above to that of a woman getting raped, just to the fact that not all people
deal with things in the same way.

I am of the opinion that anyone that resorts to rape has a problem themselves; have you ever heard
anyone refer to a poor unfortunate rapist? How does a would be rapist get help before they actually
commit the act?

Rape victims would be able to cope better if it wasn’t stigmatised so much. If a woman was abused
in the street by someone with Tourettes would the husband start to blame her? She must have
asked for it; no one would swear and spit at you if you didn't provoke it in some way. Would it
destroy her life as rape does to some that are victim to it?

Again my ‘opinion’ is that it is not the only act of rape that is the problem, but the shame it brings on
the victim imposed on them by others and mainly themselves. Please don't interpret that as blaming the
victim for being raped, but anyone who has been raped should not ever blame themselves.

Also there are cases of men that have been raped. Police believe that the reported cases represent only a
fraction of the actual rapes commited, for the same reason as those given above; the stigma and the shame;
that is a reflection of the society in which we live. :confused:

It is a difficult subject to confront if you have not experienced it yourself. Or if you have.

Having said all this there are those that have a fetish about rape and practice the act. So again it is
only evil in the mind of the beholder.

Rape is a problem in society, but I do not believe for a minute there is any evil involved, but then I do
not believe evil actually exists; what appears as evil to one may not to another.

Anyhow I think I have said enough as this is slightly digressing from the threads intension and rape
was only used as an example of the non-existent evil.

Ghislain

True Initiate
02-24-2012, 12:47 AM
http://img155.imagevenue.com/loc125/th_043050872_1_122_125lo.jpg (http://img155.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=043050872_1_122_125lo.jpg)

The Jewish Alchemists: A History and Source Book von Raphael Patai

solomon levi
02-24-2012, 01:55 AM
I don't know if I have time to respond today. I'll see what i can.

But I understand you don't see evil as a part of God. My word was the "All".
By definition it includes evil and everything. If you have a different definition for All,
where it excludes something, that would make it impossible to communcate because you
would be being too creative. I really meant the smiley face. Sorry. I do not want to hit you at all.
I'm really sorry if it sounded insulting. I figured you would just see that All obviously includes evil
and agree that it would be wildly random to exclude evil from All.

I don't know why this point is such a problem. I understand your refusal to equate evil to God.
But you must if you believe in Oneness. You must admit that it is confusing to speak of Oneness
AND something separate from/not God. Perhaps you will find words to make this more clear,
because it does not add up. When i add it up, I must conclude it is just how you insist on seeing things
and nothing to do with objectivity. One is One. Why complicate that? You are really making evil the champion by
giving it the incredibly unique ability to be the one thing that isn't God. In my view, evil is not such an imposing
monument - my landscape is a level plain where anything we focus on becomes a bump - or since you speak
QP - the quantum waves collapses into a particle upon our observation, or our desire to observe it as such and such.
Is evil made of some special subatomic particles entirely different from the rest of creation? Not likely. Everything
is consciousness.

Your experience of being One and still seeing evil or suffering is one i've never had. My Oneness is always beyond words,
and it feels beautiful or wonderous - never sad or pitiable. All I can tell you is that if you hear anything I say, hear this:
in Oneness, as i know it, it is impossible to distinguish evil or suffering. I wouldn't lie or pretend about this. I am not
trying to appear as anything or anyone. I am not trying to win. I know you are not doing these things either. But in
order to see suffering, something is determined in your seeing. The Oneness I am talking about is undetermined
and there is no possible way to have a thought of wanting to change anything about it, it is so full and complete and perfect.
If you haven't experienced this, I pray you will. If you have, how can you call anything else Oneness in relation to It?
Your very words are telling us that you are talking about more than Oneness, i.e. twoness. For some reason, you want to call it Oneness
even though your description of it is totally dualistic: "Oneness, but it could be better." Come on. Please agree not to call that Oneness.
For sanity's sake, please! You are sowing confusion. You think I am short on compassion? You are breaking my heart for the people
who would try to follow your "Oneness". If we never speak again, please do something about this. Oneness is already "tikkuned".
There is nothing lacking in it. Please ammend your views to that definition. Perhaps a better word for what you describe is
connectedness, which allows parts inherently in its definition, whereas Oneness does not. Connectedness is close to Oneness -
I will agree on that. It's the next best thing in my experience. We can SEE Oneness from connectedness, but to truly BE Oneness,
we have to leave connectedness. But even in connectedness i am incapable of judgement about rape or anything like that, because the
rapist is me, just as the saint is. To judge we must emphasize one which de-emphasizes the other (uncertainty principle) until we cannot
see the connection/likeness anymore.

Anyway...
I love you Moshe.
Thanks for the prayer. It is beautiful.
I didn't have time to read everything. Maybe I'll have additional comments when i get a chance.
Solomon Levi

solomon levi
02-24-2012, 02:05 AM
"because of the very fact that the stone banishes evil. it cannot exist in one's place.
also, because in order to MAKE the stone, one must, as a laboratory metaphor, purify the elements of Salt-Sulphur and mercury of their evil.
evil is to be removed, banished, calcined.
alchemy acknowledges that evil exists and that it must be removed to make the Stone.
this makes it Godly.
THAT's why I asked... to make this point."

But it's still confused because God doesn't make the stone, nor nature.
A wo/man must do it. We were talking about evil and God.
Now were talking about evil and man's creation, which is an emanation of God of course.

It is also more accurately called a transmutation, not a banishing.
A poison becomes a panacea. So it is still there but vibrating faster.
The difference, to me, is frequency, faster and slower - not evil and good.
Alchemy is spiritualising matter and materialising spirit. Nothing about
good or evil in there.

Pleroma
02-24-2012, 02:54 AM
http://img155.imagevenue.com/loc125/th_043050872_1_122_125lo.jpg (http://img155.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=043050872_1_122_125lo.jpg)

The Jewish Alchemists: A History and Source Book von Raphael Patai

What page is that in the book?

True Initiate
02-24-2012, 03:08 AM
What page is that in the book?

Page 4.

Ghislain
02-24-2012, 03:38 AM
I will pose a question and proffer my own answer.

Some hypothetical catastrophe is going to bring the world to an end. Mankind is going to be wiped out.

Where will we be then?

Can you see?

All the good and evil is created here for us to experience; they are scenarios for us to play with. There is no
us except here, there is only "what is". You can put whatever word you want on that; lets call it God, but
that encompasses ALL.

Words cannot describe it...and yet we still try.

I can not put into words what I am trying to say for there are no words to describe it; shackled by my very
own existence; and I wouldn't have it any other way :)

Pleroma I would like to say in addition to post 55, the enjoyment I was talking of comes from being able to
experience not from the subject of the experience in itself.

Ghislain

Awani
02-24-2012, 06:59 AM
I can not put into words what I am trying to say for there are no words to describe it...

It has to be witnessed.

:cool:

Moshe
02-24-2012, 11:55 PM
I don't know if I have time to respond today. I'll see what i can.

But I understand you don't see evil as a part of God. My word was the "All".
By definition it includes evil and everything. If you have a different definition for All,
where it excludes something, that would make it impossible to communcate because you
would be being too creative. I really meant the smiley face. Sorry. I do not want to hit you at all.
I'm really sorry if it sounded insulting. I figured you would just see that All obviously includes evil
and agree that it would be wildly random to exclude evil from All.

It's okay. We're having a heated discussion... things get flung around. I am not offended beyond repair. :cool:



I don't know why this point is such a problem. I understand your refusal to equate evil to God.
But you must if you believe in Oneness. You must admit that it is confusing to speak of Oneness
AND something separate from/not God. Perhaps you will find words to make this more clear,
because it does not add up.

It is a paradox. I think that's a good way of seeing things. Truth is often paradoxical. It is because truth is made up of the balance of opposites. Male and Female. Not Good and Evil, mind you.
The balance of opposites makes it, by nature, paradoxical, and often indiscernible simply by the rational mind. Lots of people, yourself included, have been expressing that in this thread. myself included. Okay - so having said that, let me explain this cunnundrum about good and evil and the ALL in the following fashion - (using the model of Adam and Eve)

God is ALL there is. The Creator of All things. God creates us. Human beings.
There is only One Will. God's Will. Nothing else.
So when we are born, like the Angels, we do not know Free Will. We do not have a will of our own,
and there's no sense of "self," no distinction between creator and created.
So in God's infinite knowledge and wisdom, God creates an energy to act as a "veil" between the mind's of the children (us) and God's nature. The veil is evil. The way it is created is by giving the role of evil-bringing to one of the great Angels. But that Angel, Lu, takes his role very very seriously.
(this is part of the discussion I was having with Seth-Ra - that God does not know Good and Evil - just All Good - WE, the children, have adopted this mindset, for the purpose which i am explaining now)

the purpose of evil, sanctioned by God, is to give rise to free will , which creates a sense of self.
Once we "fell" into the world of duality, having 2 wills, God's will and a will of opposition, we fell DEEP, and it takes time and lots of healing and evolving to RETURN to the state where we can release Free Will, that is, Frmee Will, that is to release the separation and veil between God and us.
once we do so, we will have graduated, and render evil's purpose fulfilled, at which point, it ceases to exist.

then we can ENJOY being One with God while also knowing ourselves, something the Angels do not have (yet). The greatest of balances, the greatest of creations. A wonderful amazing privilege.

I have also seen a few people mention that you need evil in order to experience good. and that is true, but it doesn't mean forever. it means for enough time to get a sense of self - then, we can have TOTAL experience of Oneness within Self - that is the graduation of the Universe and what this is all about.
In order to have complete and total experience of the Oneness of Creator, the evil had to exist, but then it has to No longer exist - otherwise, the experience of Oneness cannot be.

What many fail to recognize is that without the evil, without the challenge, in the Kingdom of Heaven, it is NOT boring. How does it feel to swim in the sea without the limitations of evil / duality? the pea under the mattress? how does it feel to walk through a forest with total Oneness? To make love? to ski, run, dance, laugh, eat icecream?? There is sooooooooo much to experience. we no longer need the challenge of evil.
we needed it. but no longer.
this is the paradox.

another paradox is that God wanted Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge (knowing we needed to) but said not to because it is not God's nature, and once we did eat from it, we had to correct the error, which was meant to occur.

There.

Deep stuff.
Truth in Paradox.

Difficult to explain, harder yet to understand, but possible to do both.



When i add it up, I must conclude it is just how you insist on seeing things
and nothing to do with objectivity. One is One. Why complicate that? You are really making evil the champion by giving it the incredibly unique ability to be the one thing that isn't God.


evil is also a paradox in that it doesn't really exist, because God is All there is, but it does, here, by the way we hold it in our mind's, believing it is. And I don't mean that we believe in the general idea of evil, but that which evil is... different thoughts.
to say evil doesn't exist is wrong, because it does and it has weight here on earth. demonic forces can destroy a person when they enter. render it limb from limb. break all the bones, snap them back. horrible stuff. that is real. a real form. it is always harassing us and challenging us here on the planet. the more advanced we get, the greater becomes the challenge.
but... in its essence, it is a house of cards all standing on the aspect of trying to usurp God's throne.
an impossibility. it is not therefore, a real thing, nor based on truth in God's kingdom.
It is not a true part of the All.

Hope this explains it better for you to understand.



Your experience of being One and still seeing evil or suffering is one i've never had. My Oneness is always beyond words, and it feels beautiful or wonderous - never sad or pitiable. All I can tell you is that if you hear anything I say, hear this: in Oneness, as i know it, it is impossible to distinguish evil or suffering. I wouldn't lie or pretend about this. I am not trying to appear as anything or anyone. I am not trying to win. I know you are not doing these things either.

I believe you Solomon.
I think you may be having an experience of what is like the guru in a cave. I've had it too.
Isolated from the suffering of the world, the guru achieves a state of bliss.
but it is not a balanced bliss. and the philosophy that comes from it is also not balanced, and not very deep with the heart.
it is called unbalanced positive.
it is not the full evolution of the Soul.
What Yeshua / Jesus did as the Christ is the full evolution.
what an Adept alchemist does with the True Stone can bring them to the full evolution.
You experience a bliss of unbalance positive - seeing everything as good, by, like the guru in the cave, or up on the mountain, having a philosophy that keeps you buoyantly above the proper confrontation of the darkness... instead of getting to the positive by going through.


The only way to get out, is to go through. Carl Rogers



But in order to see suffering, something is determined in your seeing. The Oneness I am talking about is undetermined and there is no possible way to have a thought of wanting to change anything about it, it is so full and complete and perfect. If you haven't experienced this, I pray you will. If you have, how can you call anything else Oneness in relation to It?

I have experienced what you are speaking of. But i realized the path didn't stop there.
there was still elements of illusion I was holding on to in order to give myself that sort of experience.
Like I said above, it is not the full picture. it is not balanced. leaving that place is hard, bc it feels so good, like being blissed out on drugs. but i commited to a full spectrum of truth. one that is more painful, that includes suffering, that confronts evil.



Your very words are telling us that you are talking about more than Oneness, i.e. twoness. For some reason, you want to call it Oneness
even though your description of it is totally dualistic: "Oneness, but it could be better." Come on. Please agree not to call that Oneness.
For sanity's sake, please! You are sowing confusion. You think I am short on compassion? You are breaking my heart for the people
who would try to follow your "Oneness".

I have explained myself adequately that if a person has read all that i have written, they will not be confused. They may have to ponder, but i am not splitting Oneness into twoness.
I am describing the diffierence between the two. you are making Oneness of out what is actually twoness.
that is much more confusing and misleading to the soul who buys that. it is also more alluring... a quicker and easier path, but it does not lead to the fulfillment of the soul.



If we never speak again, please do something about this. Oneness is already "tikkuned".
There is nothing lacking in it. Please ammend your views to that definition. Perhaps a better word for what you describe is
connectedness, which allows parts inherently in its definition, whereas Oneness does not. Connectedness is close to Oneness -
I will agree on that. It's the next best thing in my experience. We can SEE Oneness from connectedness, but to truly BE Oneness,
we have to leave connectedness. But even in connectedness i am incapable of judgement about rape or anything like that, because the
rapist is me, just as the saint is. To judge we must emphasize one which de-emphasizes the other (uncertainty principle) until we cannot
see the connection/likeness anymore.

no... i don't agree.
Oneness is God.
God is All Good.
God is also All that is true.
It is the true nature, but we are still divided by illusion. Most of us. the vaaaaaast majority of us.
in order to return, we must release all choice and all ideas that are of the nature of evil and illusion.
in order to do so, we must acknowledge and recognize what is evil and illusion.
it ain't gonna happen on its own since we chose it in the first place.



Anyway...
I love you Moshe.
Thanks for the prayer. It is beautiful.
I didn't have time to read everything. Maybe I'll have additional comments when i get a chance.
Solomon Levi

that is a beautiful thing to say Solomon.
Thank you for saying that.
my prayer remains the same.
I have spoken it with earnest desire for it to manifest for any and all of us, in whatever way we require.

zoas23
02-25-2012, 01:37 AM
I don't know if I have time to respond today. I'll see what i can.
But I understand you don't see evil as a part of God. My word was the "All".
By definition it includes evil and everything. If you have a different definition for All,
where it excludes something, that would make it impossible to communcate because you
would be being too creative. (...)

I don't know why this point is such a problem. I understand your refusal to equate evil to God.
But you must if you believe in Oneness. You must admit that it is confusing to speak of Oneness
AND something separate from/not God. Perhaps you will find words to make this more clear,
because it does not add up.


It is a paradox. I think that's a good way of seeing things. Truth is often paradoxical. It is because truth is made up of the balance of opposites. Male and Female. Not Good and Evil, mind you.
The balance of opposites makes it, by nature, paradoxical, and often indiscernible simply by the rational mind.

I do really LOVE the discussion you are both having.
It is also an old discussion.
I do love the Neo-Platonic answer to this question.

If you check the history of philosophy you will find out that it is possible to say two different things about God:

1. That God is the perfection of the Being, that is the highest ontological state of the Being.

Or....

2. That God is beyond the Being, that God is the Non-Being that is above the Being and it is what created the Being.

The first point of view is the one that Aristotle had (it is also the point of view of Parmenides)
The second point of view is the one that Plato had... and the one that Neo-Platonism followed, developing marvelous theories about it.

It is interesting to find out if the point of view that each person has follow the point of view of Aristotle or the point of view of Plato and Neo-Platonism... Since both points of views lead to opposite ideas.

If you have the point of view of Aristotle, and God is the most perfect part of the Being, the Union of the Being, then God has to be logical and Theology has to be possitive.

If you have the point of view of Plato, then God has to be BEYOND logic... even if you have to use logic to arrive to God, you have to give up logic once you have arrived there.


26. Of that nature which is beyond intellect, many things are asserted through intellection, but it is surveyed by a cessation of intellectual energy better than with it 14; just as with respect to one who is asleep, many things are asserted of him while he is in that state by those who are awake; but the proper knowledge and apprehension of his dormant condition, is only to be obtained through sleep. For the similar is known by the similar; because all knowledge is an assimilation to the object of knowledge.

27. With respect to that which is non-being, we either produce it, being ourselves separated from real being, or we have a preconception of it, as adhering to being. Hence, if we are separated from being, we have not an antecedent conception of the non-being which is above being, but our knowledge in this case is only that of a false passion, such as that which |178 happens to a man when he departs from himself. For as a man may himself, and through himself, be truly elevated to the non-being which is above being, so, by departing from being, he is led to the non-being which is a falling off from being.
-Porphyry: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry_sententiae_02_trans.htm

Porphyry was explaining the same thing that Plotinus explained in the Enneads that he compiled when Plotinus talked about "the One" (Plotinus had to say in the end that the name of "the One" is not "One" because it is beyond the Being, that it is beyond union and multiplicity, that it is not the Mathematical number 1, that it is only possible to say the truth about it talking in a negative way... i.e, that it isn't big and it isn't small, that it is neither here and neither not here, etc).

The Christian Neo-Platonists also continued this same idea... specially Dionysus Areopagite and Nicholas of Kues.

This is more or less Republic 506d-e (book VI)


Glaucon - SOCRATES

Still, I must implore you, Socrates, said Glaucon, not to turn away just as you are reaching the goal; if you will only give such an explanation of the good as you have already given of justice and temperance and the other virtues, we shall be satisfied.

Yes, my friend, and I shall be at least equally satisfied, but I cannot help fearing that I shall fall, and that my indiscreet zeal will bring ridicule upon me. No, sweet sirs, let us not at present ask what is the actual nature of the good, for to reach what is now in my thoughts would be an effort too great for me. But of the child of the good who is likest him, I would fain speak, if I could be sure that you wished to hear --otherwise, not.

By all means, he said, tell us about the child, and you shall remain in our debt for the account of the parent.

I do indeed wish, I replied, that I could pay, and you receive, the account of the parent, and not, as now, of the offspring only; take, however, this latter by way of interest, and at the same time have a care that i do not render a false account, although I have no intention of deceiving you.

The lines quotes above are probably the most interesting lines ever written in the whole history of Philosophy.
The Republic is mostly a dialogue about the Form of the Good, and yet when Socrates is asked to talk about it, he mostly excuses himself and refuses to do it.
And says he's going to talk about the "son of the Good".

So... what the heck is going on here?

Plato makes an Allegory in which he speaks about the Son of good and somehow manages to explain that which is Good in itself by using an Allegory... though he states (in Republic 509a, if I'm not wrong... working here with an online version without the canonical numbers):


Certainly.
In like manner the good may be said to be not only the author of knowledge to all things known, but of their being and essence, and yet the good is not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity and power.


Hence the form of the Good is BEYOND THE BEING. It is actually a "Non-Being" above the Being and is the Father of the Being. That's why he had to talk about the "Son of the Good", because we don't have ANY possible way to talk about that which is above the Being.

Matthew 11 (Bible) states:

25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Which is exactly the same thing. The "Son" is nothing but the Union of the Being and only knowing the Union of the Being it is possible to understand the Union of the Non-Being that is above the being.

And Plotinus also states (Plotinus states (Ennead VI, Ninth tractate, 6)

In what sense, then, do we assert this unity, and how is it to be adjusted to our mental processes?

Its oneness must not be entitled to that of monad and point: For these the mind abstracts extension and numerical quantity and rests on the very minutest possible, ending no doubt in the partless but still in something that began as a partible and is always lodged in something other than itself. The unity was never in any other and never belonged to the partible: Nor is its impartibility that of extreme minuteness; on the contrary it is great beyond anything, great not in extension but in power, sizeless by its very greatness as even its immediate sequents are impartible not in mass but in might. We must therefore take the unity as infinite not in measureless extension or numerable quantity but in fathomless depths of power.

Think of the One as mind or as God, you think too meanly; use all the resources of understanding to conceive this unity and, again, it is more authentically one than God, even though you reach for God's unity beyond the unity the most perfect you can conceive. For this is utterly a self-existent, with no concomitant whatever. This self-sufficing is the essence of its unity. Something there must be supremely adequate, autonomous, all- transcending, most utterly without need. (...)
Whatever may be said to be in need of a good is needing a preserver; nothing can be a good to the unity, therefore.

Neither can it have will to anything; it is a beyond-good, not even to itself a good but to such beings only as may be of quality to have part with it. Nor has it intellection; that would comport diversity: Nor movement; it is prior to movement as to intellection.

To what could its intellection be directed? To itself? But that would imply a previous ignorance; it would be dependent on that intellection in order to knowledge of itself; but it is the self- sufficing. Yet this absence of self-knowing does not comport ignorance; ignorance is of something outside—a knower ignorant of a knowable—but in the solitary there is neither knowing nor anything unknown. Unity, self-present, it has no need of self-intellection: Indeed this "self-presence" were better left out, the more surely to preserve the unity; we must eliminate all knowing and all association, all intellection whether internal or external. It is not to be though of as having but as being intellection; intellection does not itself perform the intellective act but is the cause of the act in something else, and cause is not to be identified with caused: Most assuredly the cause of all is not a thing within that all.

This principle is not, therefore, to be identified with the good of which it is the source; it is good in the unique mode of being the good above all that is good.

The Chaldean Oracles also state:

It is not proper to understand that Intelligible with vehemence,
But with the extended flame of an extended mind measuring all things
Except that Intelligible. But it is requisite to understand this:
For if you incline your mind you will understand it
Not earnestly, but it becomes you to bring with you a pure and inquiring eye,
To extend the void mind of your soul to the Intelligible,
That you may learn the Intelligible,
Because it subsists beyond mind.
T. Dam.

167. You will not understand it, as when understanding some particular thing.
T. Dam.

168. You, who understand, know the supermundane paternal depth.
Z. or T. Dam.

169. Things divine are not attainable by mortals who understand body,
But only as many as are lightly armed arrive at the summit.

... And the most classical book of Modern Logic arrived exactly to the same idea... the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus of Wittgenstein:


1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these begin all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case.
3 The logical picture of the facts is the thought.
3.01 The totality of true thoughts is a picture of the world.
3.332 No proposition can say anything about itself, because the propositional sign cannot be contained in itself
(A lot of people has a very hard time understanding this simple fact, I'm making it easier, the sentence "this sentence is true" makes no sense and it is neither true or false)
4 The thought is the significant proposition.
5 Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions.
5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.
5.61 Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits. We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this there is in the world, that there is not. For that would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since otherwise logic must get outside the limits of the world: that is, if it could consider these limits from the other side also. What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think.
5.63 I am the world. (The microcosm.)
5.634 This is connected with the fact that no part of our experience is also a priori. Everything we see could also be otherwise.
Everything we describe at all could also be otherwise. There is no order of things a priori.
6.13 Logic is not a theory but a reflexion of the world. Logic is transcendental.
6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value -- and if there were, it would be of no value. If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental. It must lie outside the world.
6.44 Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.
6.45 The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a limited whole. The feeling that the world is a limited whole is the mystical feeling.
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem.
(Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this sense consisted?)
6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

If you get the point that "the World" is the BEING... then you find out that the most interesting book on Modern Logic had to simply say what Socrates had to say 2,500 years before.

The argument #7 explains why Socrates HAD to remain silent about the Good (non-being) and speak about his son (the Being as an unity)... And then use allegories to talk about the form of Good, just to say later that it was just an Allegory and that he probably shouldn't have used it.

The being CAN'T explain itself (3.332), hence there is a need that something above the being exists, such thing is the Good that created the Being, but it is a non-being. Otherwise we fall into the sophism that allowed Gorgias to show that nothing is real.

The non-being above being can only be expressed through Allegories, but there isn't a way to speak direectly about it... and that which is said will only be understood by those who already managed to find that out by themselves (6.54)
Wittgenstein's allegory of the ladder that HAS to climb beyond the realm of logic is beautiful.

I hope that someone else will find it at least amusing that Socrates and Wittgenstein were talking about the same "stuff" and both of them finally had to say somehow: "I am trying to talk about something that can't be described and yet it is the description and the sense of anything else I can describe... and yet about such thing that is the most important one, I really can't say something that makes sense... so I can either remain silent or talk bullshit about it".

Good is the Infinite Union above the Being.
Evil is the Infinite Multiplicity below the Being.

If you happen to like this way of thinking, you may enjoy very much this book:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:pIiURC1PXxQJ:jasper-hopkins.info/NA12-2000.pdf+nicholas+of+cusa+on+God+as+not-otherr&hl=es&gl=ar&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShVrztvOMMwHXRdGQMi8WGnp0oFJ4D16aeyFg8_ OaQ5dcphEgjfUFNTShT2tKMqYOSvxNmcIwP7LetIlDgRffc-8SQhzr3K66hwC1O9z8AEfVWzNQjPyS70YIoQuXBNvg7VKgts&sig=AHIEtbQvLAblH-DhjFGiAe5UBKXEH6g0BQ&pli=1

In this Book, Nicholas of Cusa (or Kues) explains why God is always a "Not-Other"... something beyond the Being that is always a "neither-neither" (a term that Austin Spare loved the most). It mostly says the same thing that Wittgenstein said...

Though it's not that alll the blah blah I have written is in any way different than what the very first chapter of the Tao Teh King says about the True Tao and the Tao that can be explained.

Nibiru
02-25-2012, 03:11 AM
I do really LOVE the discussion you are both having.
Agreed, I've been following this conversation since the beginning :)




Good is the Infinite Union above the Being.
Evil is the Infinite Multiplicity below the Being.


While I would think that The ALL would have to encompass everything, both the Above/Union and the Below/Multiplicity otherwise it could not be considered "The All".




In Yoga philosophy I believe The ALL is referred to as Para-Brahman and encompasses all forms of deities/gods, including the Devas/"good" and Asuras/"evil".


ParaBrahman (Sanskrit) [from para beyond + Brahman (neuter) universal self or spirit] - That which is beyond Brahman. The self-enduring, eternal, self-sufficient cause of all causes, the essence of everything in the cosmos. In the Vedic style of writing, ParaBrahman is referred to as tat (that) as opposed to the manifest universe called idam (this). ParaBrahman means Supreme Brahman, or Supreme Cosmic Spirit, or Godhead. Although an ineffable entity, it could be said to be that which contains and pervades the universe. ParaBrahman, from beyond, encompasses the transcendent and immanent ultimate reality, Brahman. The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, so there is no qualitative difference. Terms like Parameshvara, Ishvara, Bhagavan, Brahman, Paramatma are held to be synonymous with ParaBrahman. Shaktas consider Adi parashakti considered as power of ParaBrahman. Hence considered to same. So actually Adi parashakti who does anything (creates, preserve or destroy) on behalf of ParaBrahman because ParaBrahman is static and Adi Parashakti is dynamic essence.

Quote taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para_Brahman

III
02-25-2012, 04:48 AM
so women should enjoy being raped?

Hi Pleroma,

Nothing is as it seems. I've been through my share of things and have remembered with some women being, one in particular, gang raped, tortured, held for days in a box in the ground, raped repeatedly and finally mudered. It was a very painful terrible experience.

I'l' try to describe what I would call "evil" in an absolute sense. Consider that things are even less what they seem than most could even guess. Consider that possiblity that the ABSOLUTE and everything of this creation is fully contained within a quantum bubble in the quantum foam and in another such bubble are these 3 pastel fuzzy amoeba type things that goes around "eating" other quantum bubbles. Other bubbles have developed intellegence and consciousness but have not been able to stop this dissolution to basics triggerred by these criters. They have no possibility of consciousness of anything as small as a human. They are stupid, no capacity of cognition of any kind. They don't know they destroy. They don't know there is anything to destroy. It is their nature to destroy anything they touch. If we are so wiped out in a fraction of an instant we would cease to exist or to ever have existed. That is as evil as it gets in my book.

Ghislain
02-26-2012, 01:44 AM
III


They don't know there is anything to destroy.

Isn't this what the Jainist's try to take into account...I can only guess they are not very successful.


If we are so wiped out in a fraction of an instant we would cease to exist or to ever have existed.

That makes existance sound like existence is for existence sake...to ponder the "never to have existed" is impossible as we, as far as we comprehend, exist and thus another paradox.

We could all say more in a minute’s silence IMHO.

If we ceased to exist we would probably say..."well that was fun, lets do it again!"
http://genius.toucansurf.com/blank%20space.gif http://stilazzi.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/wink-smiley-male-happy-smiley-smiley-emoticon-000041-large.gif?w=593
or not.

Ghislain

AethreWicc
02-27-2012, 07:02 AM
I also wanted to express how very much I love this discussion. I see things in a much different way, but I understand the concepts of the Prime Spiritual Entity, and am affirmed in my own path because you all give me so much insight into your minds in this way. I love you, and thank you deeply.

solomon levi
02-29-2012, 11:49 AM
Greetings Moshe. :)

Okay. I agree with your first paragraph on the veil. I also agree with the term
'separation' in the other thread. I guess one of the objections I have is labelling these things 'evil'.
It implies a mal-intent which has no place in this discussion. Don't you agree?
Separation is scientific and objective. Evil is a subjective interpretation.
These words are in the Bible, but people don't know how to read the Bible. People don't
know what the word "RO/ROH" ("evil") means. All though you have done a good
job of describing it. The Ayin/O/70/"eye"/nothing represents the principle of indetermination,
freedom, diversity, all-possibility. Sometimes ROH is interpreted as "wild" which is more
accurate than "evil". It is the 'untamed' multiplicity relative to the constancy of Oneness.
God Itself "said" "Go forth and multiply" - obviously this is not evil as we use the word.
"God" is the one who intended the diversity of life. "God" is the one who constantly challenges
the evolving characters of the Bible. God "helps" Moses by hardening Pharoah's heart! God constantly
throws monkey wrenches into the plan to make his creatures evolve or die. Cain is portrayed as a bad
guy, but when read kabbalistically, he is merely the continuation of this untamed diversity triumphing
over the tamed and predictable Abel. It is no wonder that it is Cain's lineage that become the alchemists -
Enoch, Tubal-Cain, etc. God makes Cain a vagrant/NO and wanderer/ND of the earth. All these roots refer
to something volatile and unpredictable. The Nun/N/fish/50, exponential extension of Heh/H/5/life, represents
the diversity of fishes/life in the sea. The O/70, extension of 7/Zain/Z/sword is our separator, divisive function.
In another use of the root NO, the bible interprets LNVO as "wanderer", "wave" and "to be promoted over"! So
those without eyes to see and ears to hear consider Cain to be cursed whereas he was promoted to the Cabalists -
a quantum "wave" as opposed to a determined particle like Abel.
http://concordances.org/hebrew/lanua_5128.htm
Another interpretation of NO is fugitive, which alchemists can do nothing without our fugitive mercury.
Anyway, cabalistically, Cain is one of the forerunners of Christ who brought a sword/diversity, not peace/constancy.

This is the story repeated over and over in the Bible - that of indetermination and evolution of life against the
temptation of permanency, constancy and stagnation (reliability, predictability, security...) - which is also the story of
ego/self versus non-ego/non-self, infinite versus finite.

Evil, as you said, is an illusion, as is the ego. Right now, in this moment, in the Presence/Present, there is no ego. To
conjure up an ego self is to begin to think, which is the separator - thought is the separator. We imagine the ego by
associating past memories into the appearance of continuity, a continuous self image. But without this knowledge, w/o
this dead past, there is only the undetermined present in which self is not distinguished from non-self, nor evil from good.
That is why it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge is inherently, by definition, the past which is
dead. Hence if we eat of the tree of knowledge we shall truly die (live in a dead past blind to the infinite Presence).

I think we are finding more agreement than difference here. :)

solomon levi
02-29-2012, 12:15 PM
"I believe you Solomon.
I think you may be having an experience of what is like the guru in a cave. I've had it too.
Isolated from the suffering of the world, the guru achieves a state of bliss.
but it is not a balanced bliss. and the philosophy that comes from it is also not balanced, and not very deep with the heart.
it is called unbalanced positive.
it is not the full evolution of the Soul.
What Yeshua / Jesus did as the Christ is the full evolution.
what an Adept alchemist does with the True Stone can bring them to the full evolution.
You experience a bliss of unbalance positive - seeing everything as good, by, like the guru in the cave, or up on the mountain, having a philosophy that keeps you buoyantly above the proper confrontation of the darkness... instead of getting to the positive by going through."

I don't agree with that.
I wasn't isolated from the suffering of the world or in a cave.
Most of the times I was working.
And seeing things as all good is a misinterpretation.
Maybe "perfect" is the best word I can find, "complete".
Many times I was contemplating the perfect cube, sal harmoniac, Tiphareth (6 is the first perfect number.
28 is the second; 496 is the third). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_number

"Good" is relative, like sanguine temperament or sattva guna. We only see good when the perfect
balance is upset and one principle or element dominates the others. Suffering would be melancholy
or tamas guna.
What I have seen isn't good; it is complete perfect balanced IS.
There was no possibility of something outside of it to give it a name.
"Good" is a word coming from reflection on a past event. There is no good in the Presence/Present.
God in the Bible does all these things in 7 days and each time, after the fact/doing, says it was "good".
But this is also a poor interpretation of TVB. I'm being gracious calling it a poor interpretation. It really has
nothing to do with TVB. Teth/T/9 is a number of completion before going to 10/double numbers/repetition/
extension of the 1. V/Vau/6 is the number of union/yoga/marriage/joining. It is used for the hebrew word "and".
B/Bith/2 is the archetype of all dwellings/containers/vessels. So a more accurate interpretation of TVB/"good"
is "manifest" or complete/perfect: done to the extent that it can be done. It's pole would be something incomplete.
And so it is. RO/"evil" is the container/Bith/2 extended on a grander scale as 200/R/Resh allied with the principle
of indetermination/O/Ayin/70.

Of interest, O/Ayin is ascribed to the devil card in the tarot.

solomon levi
02-29-2012, 03:23 PM
"The only way to get out, is to go through."

But there is more than one "through".
We can try to cut off the thousand heads of this monster, or we can go straight to the one heart of it.
The 1000 heads is the path of effort that doesn't really get anywhere but makes one feel like they are
doing something because they are working so hard. They have taken on the impossible task of removing
the million "evil" symptoms instead of remedying the one cause, the mind/separator/thinking/knowledge.

There are plenty of people who have freed themselves of the mind and found truth. In contrast, no one has
ever eliminated the appearances of evil from the earth, and no one ever will, save subjectively, by conquering
the mind, or realising what mind is and what it is for and that it is a tool, not who/what we are.

I don't know what Christ means to you, but it is apparent that he changed nothing on earth and saved no one -
he simply was a good example of how to find freedom ourselves. Christianity, however, is not the way.
Christianity is Peter's church built on his image of Christ. But Christ, who did not claim to be Christ, said
he would build his church on Peter. Peter misunderstood. Peter, Yeshua calls satan because he is "thinking as
man thinks and not as God." or "your thoughts are of the things of man and not the things of God." Satan means
'adversary', as we have discussed - an opposing force: unity - multiplicity, present - time, constancy - indetermination...
Yeshua calls Peter a skandalon/stumbling block/stone, which has alchemical and cabalistic significance.

Similarly, this discussion is also about the Pythagorean 'Y' and choice, the left hand path and the right, virtue and vice.
But the choice comes from one root - no choice/unity. The 'y' is the initial letter of uios/son and tells us that we are not
in unity/Father anymore. The greek Y = 400 which also equals krios (ram) and oinos (wine). The ram, aries, is also
symbolised by a version of this Y. Wine comes from grapes which grow on a branching vine, yet as a substance has the
capacity to take one beyond themselves.

http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/PT/Yandrog-small.gif (http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/PT/Yandrog.gif)

Another alchemist informs us that one branch is sulphur and the other mercury.

http://www.hermetics.org/images/gif/German.gif

The use of the word "determined" is extremely apropos.
Illustration from "the secret fire" by Garstin.

solomon levi
02-29-2012, 09:21 PM
I have experienced what you are speaking of. But i realized the path didn't stop there.
there was still elements of illusion I was holding on to in order to give myself that sort of experience.
Like I said above, it is not the full picture. it is not balanced. leaving that place is hard, bc it feels so good, like being blissed out on drugs. but i commited to a full spectrum of truth. one that is more painful, that includes suffering, that confronts evil.

I have explained myself adequately that if a person has read all that i have written, they will not be confused. They may have to ponder, but i am not splitting Oneness into twoness.
I am describing the diffierence between the two. you are making Oneness of out what is actually twoness.
that is much more confusing and misleading to the soul who buys that. it is also more alluring... a quicker and easier path, but it does not lead to the fulfillment of the soul.

no... i don't agree.
Oneness is God.
God is All Good.
God is also All that is true.
It is the true nature, but we are still divided by illusion. Most of us. the vaaaaaast majority of us.
in order to return, we must release all choice and all ideas that are of the nature of evil and illusion.
in order to do so, we must acknowledge and recognize what is evil and illusion.
it ain't gonna happen on its own since we chose it in the first place.

Well, I can use the same paradox argument for my view.
Indeed, the fact that we can both argue contrasting (or complimentary) views so well is the nature of this paradox.
But if you have had the experience I have, then you know it is complete and only reflection after coming out
of it can say it is good or isn't the full spectrum or whatever.
The fact for me is, I don't know how I go "into it" or how I "come out of it".
It is the same as how we cannot know "in the beginning". This "beginning" is happening all the time, as you
know from quantum mechanics, and from cabala. Just because it is not permanent doesn't make it less or lacking.

"To be a man of knowledge has no permanence. One is never a man of knowledge, not really. Rather, one becomes
a man of knowledge for a very brief instant, after defeating the four natural enemies." Carlos Castaneda

The thing is, if you totally go into suffering, it isn't suffering anymore. If you totally go into anythng, it is All -
that's what total awareness sees: All. Because total awareness is total consciousness is One. To "confront evil"
is ... well, it depends on how you go about confronting. If your confrontation is total, it isn't evil when you're done.
From what I gather of your description, you are not giving a total confrontation; you are not merging. You are
setting yourself in opposition to do continual battle, not resolution. A confrontation can be taken into Unity if
one is willing to go so far.

What you call "on its own" some call the will of God. The one's who have "achieved freedom" or enlightenment
or whatever we want to call it tell us there is nothing we can do to make it happen. We are back again to no path,
no effort. Of course I don't expect anyone to make no effort. But it is an illusion to think it is our effort that
accomplishes Unity or separation. I don't recall you commenting on a point I made before: we got here by a
"fall"; we return by a similar "fall". We didn't know where we would arrive before the fall and our knowledge
will not tell us how to get to Unity. Recognising or acknowledging evil doesn't make a difference as far
as Unity is concerned. In separation, you can do all that and measure your progress and feel good about it. :)

solomon levi
02-29-2012, 10:57 PM
A very nice post Zoas23!

I understand it this way: whatever created or sourced my consciousness
cannot be known by my consciousness, anymore than if I draw a picture of a man,
or mold the image of a man from clay, that picture/image of a man cannot begin to know me.

Castaneda's don Juan acknowledged three areas: the known, the unknown and the unknowable:

"The unknown is something that is veiled from man, shrouded perhaps by a terrifying context, but which, nonetheless, is within man's reach.
The unknown becomes the known at a given time. The unknowable, on the other hand, is the indescribable, the unthinkable, the unrealizable.
It is something that will never be known to us, and yet it is there, dazzling and at the same time horrifying in its vastness.
There is a simple rule of thumb: in the face of the unknown, man is adventurous. It is a quality of the unknown to give us a sense of hope and happiness.
Man feels robust, exhilarated. Even the apprehension that it arouses is very fulfilling. The new seers saw that man is at his best in the face of the unknown.
The unknown and the known are really on the same footing, because both are within the reach of human perception. Seers, can leave the known at a given
moment and enter into the unknown. Whatever is beyond our capacity to perceive is the unknowable. And the distinction between it and the knowable is crucial.
Confusing the two would put seers in a most precarious position whenever they are confronted with the unknowable. Most of what's out there is beyond our
comprehension." - The Fire from Within

solomon levi
03-01-2012, 12:42 AM
"you are making Oneness of out what is actually twoness. that is much more confusing and misleading to the
soul who buys that. it is also more alluring... a quicker and easier path, but it does not lead to the fulfillment of the soul."

To be clear, and thank you for pointing this out Moshe, the twoness is in our minds, and it is not at all
an easy path. Any of you can try and not think right now and tell me how successful you are.
"Be still and know that I am God". Is it so easy to be still? If you find that stillness in your meditation
or whatever you do, would you dismiss it as not leading to the fulfillment of your soul?

Please, nobody "buy" what i am saying. Test it for yourselves. Test all philosophy for yourselves.
I have made it very clear in my posts my opinion of opinion. :) Second-hand knowledge can be more limiting
than ignorance. I've said in this very thread that belief has no place in becoming acquainted with the One.
Certainly do not believe me. I am only arguing for what can be experienced presently. Any view of healing
yourself or the world somewhere down the line in some non-existent future is only going to serve you psychologically.
The Unity I have spoken of can be experienced presently by intensifying our awareness of the present. Since there
is nothing other than the present, what you are seeking is to be found there - that is here, now, this. If your "this"
is an experience of separation, then it is a reflection of the perceiver - that is, the perceiver is identified with their
mind, the separator. It is subjective. Like the movie "Peaceful Warrior" where Dan swings from "there's nothing going on"
to "there are no ordinary moments". What changed in his environment? Nothing. Is the change an illusion? Maybe.
But no different from the illusion/reality of suffering.

" The first truth is that the world is as it looks and yet it isn't. It's not as solid and real as our perception has been led to believe,
but it isn't a mirage either. The world is not an illusion, as it has been said to be; it's real on the one hand, and unreal on the other.
Pay close attention to this, for it must be understood, not just accepted. We perceive. This is a hard fact. But what we perceive is
not a fact of the same kind, because we learn what to perceive.
Something out there is affecting our senses. This is the part that is real. The unreal part is what our senses tell us is there. Take a
mountain, for instance. Our senses tell us that it is an object. It has size, color, form. We even have categories of mountains, and
they are downright accurate. Nothing wrong with that; the flaw is simply that it has never occurred to us that our senses play only
a superficial role. Our senses perceive the way they do because a specific feature of our awareness forces them to do so.
I've used the term "the world" to mean everything that surrounds us. I have a better term, of course, but it would be quite
incomprehensible to you. Seers say that we think there is a world of objects out there only because of our awareness. But what's
really out there are the Eagle's emanations, fluid, forever in motion, and yet unchanged, eternal."

Moshe
03-01-2012, 02:48 AM
Greetings Moshe. :)

Okay. I agree with your first paragraph on the veil. I also agree with the term
'separation' in the other thread. I guess one of the objections I have is labelling these things 'evil'.
It implies a mal-intent which has no place in this discussion. Don't you agree?
Separation is scientific and objective. Evil is a subjective interpretation.
These words are in the Bible, but people don't know how to read the Bible. People don't
know what the word "RO/ROH" ("evil") means. All though you have done a good
job of describing it. The Ayin/O/70/"eye"/nothing represents the principle of indetermination,
freedom, diversity, all-possibility. Sometimes ROH is interpreted as "wild" which is more
accurate than "evil". It is the 'untamed' multiplicity relative to the constancy of Oneness.
God Itself "said" "Go forth and multiply" - obviously this is not evil as we use the word.
"God" is the one who intended the diversity of life. "God" is the one who constantly challenges
the evolving characters of the Bible. God "helps" Moses by hardening Pharoah's heart! God constantly
throws monkey wrenches into the plan to make his creatures evolve or die. Cain is portrayed as a bad
guy, but when read kabbalistically, he is merely the continuation of this untamed diversity triumphing
over the tamed and predictable Abel. It is no wonder that it is Cain's lineage that become the alchemists -
Enoch, Tubal-Cain, etc. God makes Cain a vagrant/NO and wanderer/ND of the earth. All these roots refer
to something volatile and unpredictable. The Nun/N/fish/50, exponential extension of Heh/H/5/life, represents
the diversity of fishes/life in the sea. The O/70, extension of 7/Zain/Z/sword is our separator, divisive function.
In another use of the root NO, the bible interprets LNVO as "wanderer", "wave" and "to be promoted over"! So
those without eyes to see and ears to hear consider Cain to be cursed whereas he was promoted to the Cabalists -
a quantum "wave" as opposed to a determined particle like Abel.
http://concordances.org/hebrew/lanua_5128.htm
Another interpretation of NO is fugitive, which alchemists can do nothing without our fugitive mercury.
Anyway, cabalistically, Cain is one of the forerunners of Christ who brought a sword/diversity, not peace/constancy.

Hi Solomon!!
So... the discussion goes on. I thought it had fizzled out. Guess we needed a few days of rest.

You are missing the whole point of the story of Cain and Able.
You have taken all these fancy thoughts and forgotten the very simple face-value aspect of the story.
Cain murders Abel.
Does he do it to protect his village from Abel's malicious attack? No.
Does he do it because he is starving and Abel has the last slice of bread in the village? No.
He does it out of jealousy.
and then he has the chutzpah to say to God "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Murder out of jealousy.
What do you call THAT?

You have justified one of the vilest acts in the bible (and on earth),
murder, (add a few points for "out of jealousy") with some fancy correlations that are tempting at first glance,
until you say "wait a sec!" and you, again, go back to the simple truth.

And then you say

Anyway, cabalistically, Cain is one of the forerunners of Christ who brought a sword/diversity, not peace/constancy.

Absolutely NOT!!
Christ is the Prince of Peace, and yes, he brought a sword, but not to KILL people, but to cut through bullshit.
to cut through illusion. to break down the walls that were built up around the hearts of the Jewish people (and other people)...
all in order to establish... PEACE.
Peace, like Love, is a goal... not something to try to be destabilized.

Cain's act is a sign of the infiltration of the evil inclination.
Adam, the first fallen man, his seed, was already split between good and evil.

This is basic stuff Solomon.
You've gone too far and forgotten the simple truth of the centre.


Knowledge is inherently, by definition, the past which is
dead. Hence if we eat of the tree of knowledge we shall truly die (live in a dead past blind to the infinite Presence).

Knowledge can be knowing something from the past. And knowing something from the past can be held onto, in a stagnated sort of repressive, limiting way, or it can be a
nurturing, protecting, life-giving way.
Knowledge can also be the nature of the Universe, which comes from Wisdom (Chochma) and Understanding (Bina).
So knowledge, depending on how we address it, and use it, can be a good thing or a bad thing.
The tree of Knowledge for Good and Evil has emphasis on the Good and Evil part. Not the knowledge part.


I think we are finding more agreement than difference here. :)

I think we may have slipped a few steps backward here.
:-)

Ghislain
03-01-2012, 02:56 AM
A very nice post Zoas23!

I have to agree Sol, but if you hadn’t posted it I would have missed it.

Zoas23 your post has come about as close as anything ever has to explaining what I would love to
have said. The “this sentence is true” could have said “this sentence is a sentence” and that would
have been true. Therefore I can say I am me, which would also be true, just have to find out who or
what I am now :)

I had an experience that prompted me to write...


Imagine the One, a single entity that encompasses everything; the creator and destroyer of all
things, a being alone in blissful wonder. This being feels no pain, sorrow, happiness or anxiety; it
doesn’t sense heat or cold, rough or smooth...and all the other experiences we take for granted, so it
creates vessels that can and platforms where all this can take place. One of the platforms is here
and we are some of the vessels. There is no good or evil just experience.

From the One ‘strands’, for want of a better word, exude into each of us and you can feel it when
you close off your monkey mind chatter. I believe this is what we call intuition ... a sort of knowing
that does not originate in the mind. We are like complex nerve endings of a single entity.
Each person’s experience is contained and kept like a memory within the One


Zoas23 your post seems to agree with the feeling I had then, only in a more explanatory way.

Ghislain

Moshe
03-01-2012, 03:21 AM
"The only way to get out, is to go through."

But there is more than one "through".
We can try to cut off the thousand heads of this monster, or we can go straight to the one heart of it.
The 1000 heads is the path of effort that doesn't really get anywhere but makes one feel like they are
doing something because they are working so hard. They have taken on the impossible task of removing
the million "evil" symptoms instead of remedying the one cause, the mind/separator/thinking/knowledge.

Remember a few posts back I said that there is a certain "package deal" that comes with your sort of philosophy?
I imagine there are some variations. No two package deals are exactly alike, but they resemble each other, in essence, "startlingly" well.

The idea that the mind is the cause of separation is a statement which is not stated in a balanced way.
There are 2 minds. One which is an observer of the truth. One which then communicates on that truth.
The mind is a most high and most divine aspect of the Creator and of His / Her children.
The mind resonates with the Air Element and the World of Briyah. In the way in which it determines the course of the water (elements) and the earth (body),
it is supreme... lesser and subject only to the Soul.
Without mind, we'd be drivelling fools.
This mind which i have just described, is one with God's will, an extension of - of the same "fabric"

then, there's the mind which stems from the will of the opposition, or of the illusion.
this mind is the mind of separation, which sees and causes division.

The idea that when we are in a state of enlightenment we have no mind, is a total fallacy, one that seems to accompany the "package" deal that also includes
the idea that God is made up of Good and Evil, or Good and Evil don't really exist, or there really isn't any Evil...



There are plenty of people who have freed themselves of the mind and found truth.

of the lesser mind, or the mind of separation.

there is big difference.
I've seen sooo much folly come from trying to give up the mind, in its entirety, as if that is the path to enlightment.
The mind is a horrible thing to waste.
And so many people DO that, because there is no distinction between which mind they're trying to give up.

the result is aligning with philosophies which are downright unmindful of the simple truth itself.

when you "give up your mind" (the good along with the lesser / lower mind) you don't know what's going to move into the room upstairs.

Moshe
03-01-2012, 03:30 AM
The thing is, if you totally go into suffering, it isn't suffering anymore. If you totally go into anythng, it is All -
that's what total awareness sees: All. Because total awareness is total consciousness is One. To "confront evil"
is ... well, it depends on how you go about confronting. If your confrontation is total, it isn't evil when you're done.
From what I gather of your description, you are not giving a total confrontation; you are not merging. You are
setting yourself in opposition to do continual battle, not resolution. A confrontation can be taken into Unity if
one is willing to go so far.

I am ever more and more willing to go into the full and total confrontation.
It is a preparedness thing.
A person cannot confront the full release / last thread until they're ready.
That readiness involves passing through steps, gathering resources, strength, courage, healing, wisdom,
peace, joy, etc... to be prepared.
There may be some times when the veil opens for the total plunge, and I have had those times, seen them, felt them, taken the plunge,
but it was too great for me... I was not able to fully sustain the letting go into it.
I have, each time, been able to sustain longer and more and deeper and fuller, and to take that with me, but the total, the complete


I don't recall you commenting on a point I made before: we got here by a
"fall"; we return by a similar "fall". We didn't know where we would arrive before the fall and our knowledge
will not tell us how to get to Unity. Recognising or acknowledging evil doesn't make a difference as far
as Unity is concerned. In separation, you can do all that and measure your progress and feel good about it. :)

yes, we got here by a fall, and we return by a leap. It has to do with letting go of control, not, as you are suggesting, doing more and more.
it is about doing less and less of that will, that will which opposes, which is against, which is based in fear and illusion.
I also believe that the last step is God's to make, when we are poised at the threshold.

vega33
03-01-2012, 06:11 AM
They have taken on the impossible task of removing
the million "evil" symptoms instead of remedying the one cause, the mind/separator/thinking/knowledge.


Have you ever read any of the Yoga Vasistha?

It is part of the Vedas/commentary on the Vedas that is particularly appropriate to this discussion. Essentially it tells the story of a discussion between Rama and the great sage Vasistha. The overall view it takes is the idea of many such texts... that consciousness/mind is everything, and that suffering may be avoided by recognition of the irreality of the "spectacle". This of course does not mean that the universe does not exist, although such metaphors may be used, it is merely created by the modifications of consciousness/mind which sets matter in motion. Therefore many, such as Babaji (avatar and incarnation of the blessed Shiva) have taught men to gain control of their minds (and prior to this, the body, which is an extension of the mind), through kriya yoga and manasa yoga.


I don't know what Christ means to you, but it is apparent that he changed nothing on earth and saved no one - he simply was a good example of how to find freedom ourselves. Christianity, however, is not the way. Christianity is Peter's church built on his image of Christ.

It is a truly sad situation. For those who clearly see the exact correspondences between what Christ preached and the perennial philosophy taught by all true religions, Christ tried to teach people that they were truly powerful, that through control of the mind, and through faith, one could work miracles. After all, if you truly have mastered your own body, nothing can really disempower you - threats to the well being of the body are the basis of all true fears. But the Church through its greed, doing the work of man, buried the message of Christ and tried to suppress any gospels that were antithetical to their agenda. And yet the message survived: "I and my father are one" - mind, and its invisible, silent but radiant creator. "All these things I have done, so ye shall also do". Saint Paul: "In him we live, move and have our being" - exactly cognate with the Sanskrit Isha Upanishad: "By the Lord is enveloped all that moves in the moving world.". How did this message ever become lost? How did the Universal Spirit become an occult secret?

"It is radiant, incorporeal, invulnerable,
without tendons, pure, untouched by evil.
Wise, intelligent, encompassing, self-existent,
it organizes objects throughout eternity."

The outward manifestation of radiant light is the inward manifestation of the fixed, silent eternal mind, being orgiastically shared amongst all beings in the multiverse. People see the light, but do not recognize the messenger who brings the light.

"Don't hate me Trinity... I'm just a messenger."

solomon levi
03-01-2012, 09:11 PM
Hi Solomon!!
So... the discussion goes on. I thought it had fizzled out. Guess we needed a few days of rest.

You are missing the whole point of the story of Cain and Able.
You have taken all these fancy thoughts and forgotten the very simple face-value aspect of the story.
Cain murders Abel.
Does he do it to protect his village from Abel's malicious attack? No.
Does he do it because he is starving and Abel has the last slice of bread in the village? No.
He does it out of jealousy.
and then he has the chutzpah to say to God "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Murder out of jealousy.
What do you call THAT?

You have justified one of the vilest acts in the bible (and on earth),
murder, (add a few points for "out of jealousy") with some fancy correlations that are tempting at first glance,
until you say "wait a sec!" and you, again, go back to the simple truth.

And then you say


Absolutely NOT!!
Christ is the Prince of Peace, and yes, he brought a sword, but not to KILL people, but to cut through bullshit.
to cut through illusion. to break down the walls that were built up around the hearts of the Jewish people (and other people)...
all in order to establish... PEACE.
Peace, like Love, is a goal... not something to try to be destabilized.

Cain's act is a sign of the infiltration of the evil inclination.
Adam, the first fallen man, his seed, was already split between good and evil.

This is basic stuff Solomon.
You've gone too far and forgotten the simple truth of the centre.



Knowledge can be knowing something from the past. And knowing something from the past can be held onto, in a stagnated sort of repressive, limiting way, or it can be a
nurturing, protecting, life-giving way.
Knowledge can also be the nature of the Universe, which comes from Wisdom (Chochma) and Understanding (Bina).
So knowledge, depending on how we address it, and use it, can be a good thing or a bad thing.
The tree of Knowledge for Good and Evil has emphasis on the Good and Evil part. Not the knowledge part.



I think we may have slipped a few steps backward here.
:-)

Hi Moshe. There's just certain days I can access a computer.
I still enjoy our talks. :)

Well, by simple you are also meaning general, and my interpretations are specific.
The Bible is generally and exoterically, for the uninitiated, a bunch of stories about people
who the uninitiated take to have actually lived historically and done the acts the Bible claims.
I am writing esoterically, initiated into the cabala of the hebrew autiot - my descriptions are far
more detailed. The Bible can be read autiot by autiot with numerical/gemetria, symbolic, tarot, and
alchemical significance. Jesus himself tells us why he spoke in parables for the uninitiated. You
are accurately interpreting those moral stories for the multitudes, and I am accurately interpreting
the cabalistic meanings for the few. I don't mean "few" in any self-important elite way.
I am surprised you are closed minded to this. How are you a kabbalist? The Bible doesn't openly
mention kabbalistic system. Your understanding of the balance of tiphareth isn't in the exoteric Bible.
I think you're being a bit hypocritical. You denounce my view without scientifically criticising it. What is
false or inaccurate about what i said? I have been very thorough and you have been very general and opinionated.
I didn't invent the numbers for the hebrew letters. I am simply transcribing. I'm sorry if you can't handle
the story they tell. I didn't write the Bible. If you want to take the KJV translation literally as
the truth, you are a fool. So it was an actual snake that spoke to Eve? If you can interpret that, then why
is there only one translation of QIN slew HBL? Cain and Abel aren't people anymore than IHVH is.
Every name is describing an energetic principle in the creation and evolution of existence. In Gen 1:1
ALHIM creates/BRA; in Gen 1:7 ALHIM makes/OShH; and then in Gen 2:7 IHVH ALHIM forms/ITzR.
And to your closed mind these are all the same "God" and all the same making/forming/creating? It shows
an evolution, a change. I know what I am doing. If you don't know what I am doing, just say so. You are
obviously in no position to judge my translations or my knowledge of hebrew kabbalah. Anyway, BRA sure
looks like Briah, OShH like Assiyah and ITzR like Yetzirah. This story is evolving on many different levels.
You can't interpret it all physically - "basic stuff". The basic stuff of the universe is energy my friend. Not human
bodies. Our "genesis" wasn't from matter. Genesis is about energy. If all you can see in Cain slaying Abel is a moral
story about how killing is bad, fine. It doesn't mean that is all there is to see. And there's a lot of people that know
that - I'm not inventing it. This really does bother me (but I'll get over it). You might as well put mercury
and sulfur and salt in a flask and make the philosophers' stone with your "basic stuff" approach. Like the
obvious interpretation is the only one. I can't believe you!!

And you cannot declare for the world where emphasis belongs. Emphasis is not objective or we would already all see the same emphasis.
And the Bible doesn't say good and evil. It says TVB VRO.

Aren't you familiar with PARDES?
"The Ramak’s commentary on the Zohar, titled Or Yakar, is tremendous in its scope, spanning dozens of large volumes. But, his magnum opus was the volume titled The Pomegranate Orchard (Pardes Rimonim), based on what is perhaps one of the most enigmatic verses in the entire Bible: “Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with pleasant fruits, henna and nard.”
This verse is from the Song of Songs, a poetic and metaphoric description of the love between a bride and her groom. Even though all the sages of the Talmudic period knew about and were involved in the study of Kabbalah, the Talmud does not openly delve into its mysteries. However, there is one chapter dedicated to this topic: the second chapter of the tractate of Chagigah. There, the sages who were initiated into the study of Kabbalah are described as having entered the Pardes, the “orchard.” The Hebrew word pardes is also understood in Kabbalah to be an acronym for the four parts of the Torah: literal, allusive, homiletic/hermeneutic, and secret. That the “orchard” contains all four parts of the Torah implies that it is impossible to truly be initiated into its secrets without studying the three other strata."


Yes, we have slipped for sure. I didn't enjoy this. But it's no big deal. I'm not attached to it.

solomon levi
03-01-2012, 11:32 PM
Remember a few posts back I said that there is a certain "package deal" that comes with your sort of philosophy?
I imagine there are some variations. No two package deals are exactly alike, but they resemble each other, in essence, "startlingly" well.

The idea that the mind is the cause of separation is a statement which is not stated in a balanced way.
There are 2 minds. One which is an observer of the truth. One which then communicates on that truth.
The mind is a most high and most divine aspect of the Creator and of His / Her children.
The mind resonates with the Air Element and the World of Briyah. In the way in which it determines the course of the water (elements) and the earth (body),
it is supreme... lesser and subject only to the Soul.
Without mind, we'd be drivelling fools.
This mind which i have just described, is one with God's will, an extension of - of the same "fabric"

then, there's the mind which stems from the will of the opposition, or of the illusion.
this mind is the mind of separation, which sees and causes division.

The idea that when we are in a state of enlightenment we have no mind, is a total fallacy, one that seems to accompany the "package" deal that also includes
the idea that God is made up of Good and Evil, or Good and Evil don't really exist, or there really isn't any Evil...



of the lesser mind, or the mind of separation.

there is big difference.
I've seen sooo much folly come from trying to give up the mind, in its entirety, as if that is the path to enlightment.
The mind is a horrible thing to waste.
And so many people DO that, because there is no distinction between which mind they're trying to give up.

the result is aligning with philosophies which are downright unmindful of the simple truth itself.

when you "give up your mind" (the good along with the lesser / lower mind) you don't know what's going to move into the room upstairs.

Yes. I remember the package deal comment. I still don't get it. I don't see how "my sort of philosophy"
is peculiar to packaging. People are the packagers - not the philosophies. There is nothing package about me.
I have no fixed borders. I am trying to communicate and that requires fixed definitions. If I tell you what
mind is to me, then you either accept that and we talk/communicate or reject it and we disagree. If I say
knowledge is the past, then that's the working definition I am offering. You can say "no it's not" or that
it's more than that, but you haven't offered a working definition. What I call knowledge is accumulated
and requires the accessing of memory/past. Other things that one might call knowledge must be defined by
different words in order to communicate clearly. Wisdom is not knowledge. Understanding is not knowledge.
Intuition is not knowledge. etc... That's why they have their own unique names. If we want to talk towards
any objectivity, you mustn't confuse them or interchange them. My definition of knowledge is what we
presently experience. You can't tell me any of your knowledge without accessing your memory and past.
You can't tell yourself either without the same. What I call mind is the "container" of the contents/knowledge.
But they are the same in this case. The container is its contents. One can see this directly if they look. Because
the container/mind is its contents/knowledge/thought (you can't think without reflecting to the past). One can
see directly if they look that this mind/knowledge/thought is indeed the separator. This is not a philosophy. It
is my direct experience that when the mind/thought is not there is no separation and when the mind/thought is
there is separation. It's not balanced to you because it is an idea to you. It's not an idea to me. There is no other
way. We can label it differently, but what is actually occurring is what it is and philosophy cannot change that.
If you want to call two different things by the same name (mind) then go ahead, but you will always be confusing
in communication and are hampering your own ability to find objectivity with another. When I speak of mind,
I am speaking of that which separates, that which knows by separation, which is what the mind does. If there
were another mind, it doesn't know. To know must be knower and known, two, separation. This is simple.
What you want to call some greater or higher version of mind, I call no mind. We are just using different words.
I wouldn't call the "mind" which is one with God's will "mind" because it does not mentate or separate. It is what
we experience when the mind is negated - it is what is left - no mind. It's your mind that wants to see itself externalised
as some greater mind, but that other "mind" does not have the same characteristics so why call it mind or second mind
or first or original mind or whatever. There is mind and there is what is left when mind is not, and we cannot comment
on that - it has no qualities. God, the One, is Ineffable. It is this God that one should make no image of or have other
"gods" before.

No mind, by my definition, is indeed possible. I've experienced it. I have not experienced two minds. I used to believe in
two minds, but I've never experienced it. It is psychological, not actual.
Your use of "package deal" is, by your own admittance, not fixed, not packaged. You can exchange the items:
"the idea that God is made up of Good and Evil, or Good and Evil don't really exist, or there really isn't any Evil... "

According to your own words, you are not describing my "package" or defining that I have one. Yours is as much a
package as mine or anyone else's according to your elastic definition, or better said, non-definition/not well-defined.
You said earlier that if I say you are wrong it changes nothing. I agree. And your calling my non-philosophy a
package has no meaning/actuality either. If it was a package, I could hand it to you. But you have not received it
because it is not a package. When you see me, I will tell you. For you to tell me when you see me is completely
meaningless/subjective/ measuring by your own self-agreed measure/imagination. When you see me, the agreement
will be mutual. As we are not at all near agreement or understanding or communication yet, you should suspend your
idea that you see me and can comment on my "package".
Communication will be when you or I say "this is such and such" and the other says, okay, from hence forth we'll
agree to call that definition objective for the sake of communicating. We are not even there. So why presume to
describe/define me from outside of me? Anyone can imagine that. That adds to the problems and the subjectivity
and differences of the world. You are supposed to be the one who believes in objectivity and I am more relatively
objective than you so far. I say that/measure that by the objective fact that if we read the posts, you spend more time
than I do thinking you understand me and presuming to know me. I have to spend most my time clarifying or cleaning
up the mess you are making when you misrepresent me.

"There is a big difference". Here you dodge the original argument I made and make a different one to make me appear wrong.
But if you stick to the first argument, you'd have to agree - no one has removed suffering from the world. That is the big difference.
The difference you point out is smaller than the difference I pointed out. And you just side-step it. You know you keep doing that
and you are doing it selectively, subjectively. I wish you had never said "of course there is objectivity" because I expect to see some
and you don't show it. I don't really expect it, but it shows that you do not know yourself and casts a shadow on everything you say.
Perhaps you should ammend you statement. Your "of course" is obviously not as evident as you originally imagined.

You can talk about the folly you have seen with people giving up the mind as a path to enlightenment. That has nothing to do with
me and our conversation. I told you I don't believe in paths to enlightenment. Are you going to ignore me? I don't even believe in
enlightenment. How can there be enlightenment AND Oneness? Enlightenment suggests separation and a path. I deny these things
as psychological and apparent, not actual.
"simple" truth? You're the one with two minds. Objectively speaking, one is more simple than two. I only acknowledge one mind.
Your vocabulary is really messed up or you don't know yourself.
An objective person will say that the "law of One" is more objective than your dualism. You keep wanting to take this conversation
into duality and multiplicity. You insist on its reality.
I can't help what so many people do. Do you still want to talk with me or are you going to argue other people's views instead of mine?
Don't you know that it is an objective sign that you are associating me with those people? I mean I can objectively see that you are
subjective. Don't associate me with others in your past, your knowledge. Be present with me. Hear me for the first time. You keep
not doing that and yet you allow yourself to comment as if you know what it is. You are just regurgitating your past/knowledge to me.
This is not a conversation/communication happening in the present because you are absent. I am not the images/associations/knowledge
in your mind. Try talking to ME instead of yourself. I am an actual living human being. Where is your objectivity now? If you were objective,
I would gladly meet you/agree with your definitions. We are not going to meet objectively in your dualism: two minds, lesser mind...
Objectivity doesn't exist there. Agreement exists there, and two people agreeing appears to make an objective reality, but it isn't. I don't want
to agree simply to agree. I want to agree in the more objective description of our two descriptions, and that is mine. And i don't say that
with ego. I would love it if you offer me a more objective description than the one I have now.

Maybe we should talk about what objectivity means to each of us. I admit I am choosing to be stuck on that since you arrogantly said "of course".
But also, sincerely, objectivity is a big passion of mine. When i talk about its absence, it isn't because I don't believe in it or want it. I am just
accurately reporting the way people interact. After our conversation, it is apparent that I am more of a proponent than you. Communication is
also a big passion of mine. If we are going to experience objectivity together, we will have to intentionally communicate in the present without
images and associations. We will have to drop our knowledge and look directly at the way things are. We must start from square one.
To really be objective, we must start from square one every time we meet. There is no accumulation, no past. Does that sound like metaphysical
bullshit to you? I am not a fool. I don't waste the mind. I just see it for what it is. If I need to separate, I use it. Most of the time, I need to separate.
Sometimes I need to set it aside because it is not the right tool for the job at hand. This is all I am saying. You jumped the gun in assuming I want
to get rid of it for good. I didn't say that. Listen to ME, not your mind/image of me.
"So many people DO that, because there is no distinction..."
Do I seem undistinguishing to you? Seriously?! I'm way more distinguishing than you. That is why I only allow one mind and you allow two.
Objectively, I am more distinguishing. Distinguishing is not dividing, not more divided. Having more divisions is not more distinguished unless
the divisions are actual. According to the definition of mind I gave, my distinction is very accurate because i have distinguished between what is mind
and what is not. Distinguishing is seeing what is and what is not. I have clearly distinguished between separation and unity. You have two minds
but both are separation. You are distinguishing something different than I am distinguishing - the higher from the lesser or whatever. But we know
by definition that those are subjective/relative. One and more than one is not relative/subjective.

For me this is pretty clear. If not for you, I doubt we can go any further.
We can agree to talk about "lesser", but it will not be objective. I have tried to make objectivity the guideline
of our conversations. If we both do this, we increase our chances of meeting/communicating.

Moshe
03-02-2012, 12:15 AM
Hi Moshe. There's just certain days I can access a computer.
I still enjoy our talks. :)

Well, by simple you are also meaning general, and my interpretations are specific.
And you cannot declare for the world where emphasis belongs. Emphasis is not objective or we would already all see the same emphasis.
And the Bible doesn't say good and evil. It says TVB VRO.

Aren't you familiar with PARDES?
"The Ramak’s commentary on the Zohar, titled Or Yakar, is tremendous in its scope, spanning dozens of large volumes. But, his magnum opus was the volume titled The Pomegranate Orchard (Pardes Rimonim), based on what is perhaps one of the most enigmatic verses in the entire Bible: “Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with pleasant fruits, henna and nard.”
This verse is from the Song of Songs, a poetic and metaphoric description of the love between a bride and her groom. Even though all the sages of the Talmudic period knew about and were involved in the study of Kabbalah, the Talmud does not openly delve into its mysteries. However, there is one chapter dedicated to this topic: the second chapter of the tractate of Chagigah. There, the sages who were initiated into the study of Kabbalah are described as having entered the Pardes, the “orchard.” The Hebrew word pardes is also understood in Kabbalah to be an acronym for the four parts of the Torah: literal, allusive, homiletic/hermeneutic, and secret. That the “orchard” contains all four parts of the Torah implies that it is impossible to truly be initiated into its secrets without studying the three other strata."

Hi Solomon,
yes, I know of PARDES, and I do not interpret the bible literally, only...
BUT, and this is important, the literal meaning plays into the deeper meaning, it is not negated by it.
So the simple obvious meaning, although not literally, a man named Cain was in a field, and another man named Abel was slain by his brother Cain...
as if they are the two descendents of the Mother and Father of everyone living.
No, that would be the literal translation. That's not what I am doing...
however, what does remain the same is that Cain does murder Abel.
However deep you go, into the layers, this doesn't change.
Different aspects are revealed. Midrashim bring different flavours.
But on the literal level, if it is says, "Cain slew his brother Abel"
then on the allusive, homiletic/hermeneutic, and secret levels it doesn't say
"oh by the way, forget that, Cain was awesome, he was doing God's will by that act.
God liked Cain more than Abel, in fact, because Cain wasn't boring and stagnant, he was like Christ."

you don't even believe that Christ existed, or he was who he was, so how are we even still having this conversation, really?
Cain doesn't exist. Abel doesn't exist. NONE of that is literal, Christ didn't exist. Good and Evil doesn't exist.
Do I exist? Do you? (you don't have to answer that)

the literal surface meaning is the tip of the iceberg, the surface of the iceberg.
when we go deeper we see a face that is broader, greater than the surface meaning,
but we don't have a 180 turn around of the literal meaning.

What Cain and Abel is revealing in the allusive &homiletic/hermeneutic senses, is that
Adam becomes split with Good and Evil.
He has one son who is good, aligned with God, and another who is inclined towards evil - thus his action is evil.

Tov ve Ra is good and bad or good and evil.

Cain is also the predecessor of Amalek.

This discussion is feeling like it's coming to a close for me.
Maybe you too?
It had an epicness to it, but now it has lost its fizz.
We are now expressing different permutations of the same discordant thoughts.

Thanks for the discussion.
Let's share in other fashions, subjects, and topics elsewhere.

solomon levi
03-02-2012, 03:20 AM
I agree, Cain slew Abel. But read on the level of autiot, it is not bad -
it is indetermination surviving stagnation; adaptation over fixation.
If Abel is going to be as God says and Cain is going to draw outside the lines,
which one is going to tell God more of what It potentially is?
I don't expect you will agree, but this is another story that is going on
behind the scenes throughout the Bible. Thus we see God hardening pharoah's heart
instead of softening it and we see Yeshua building up Peter's ego when he knows
that he is satan (Yeshua said it, not me) and conspiring with Judas to betray himself,
and Jacob wrestling with God or angel of God and often second sons being favored
over first-born... and Joseph thrown in a well and Daniel in a lion's den and Jonah
in a whale and men in furnaces, etc, etc...
No one who has read this book will argue that there isn't a whole lot more threat and strife
than there is peace in it. The same as the world we live in. And in both places God is
allowing it and/or instigating it.
God/life/what is chose Cain. Why argue with me about it?
What is your opinion against actual reality worth?
Good, bad? Did the sun stop shining on Cain? Nope.
Should I listen to you or the sun/life?

So if you'd like to discuss the good, let's talk Plato and not the Bible. Even Yeshua says
"Why callest me good? None is good, save God."
But he also said you shall do even more than he did, so maybe you'll be good. :)
Me? Not interested. I mean I'm a beautiful human being, but not because i try to be or do good.
I see as Jung did: "I'd rather be whole than good."


Tov ve Ra is good and evil in the exoteric.
It is nothing like that when you read the individual autiot and
notice how they are related, like an equation.


"It had an epicness to it, but now it has lost its fizz."

I'm surprised to hear you say that. You do realise that there is no "it"?
"It" is our relationship, two people relating. Let's not blame "it" (third person).
We are responsible for the fizz and/or the lack thereof.

But as you wish. I'm not trying to guilt you or anything - it's just a more
accurate/objective description of what is happening.
I'm still writing in the thread but don't feel you have to respond.
I just don't feel finished yet.

Thank you Moshe.
Yes, I'll see you elsewhere, happily, if not here.
I love you very much Moshe.
I won't hold you fixed in my mind in any way, save that you took
some time to try and talk with me. :)
Thank you.

solomon levi
03-02-2012, 04:24 AM
In all fairness, I should say that I do not blame anyone for not wanting to meet
me where i am. It may sound like i know some things, but I assure you it has brought
me no peace. I am very sane, but very unstable. It's funny that those two do not
have to contradict eachother, but it's so.

Sorry for writing a personal post about myself but I don't want to be misrepresnted or have
my views inaccurately described by another.

To describe myself, I relate alot to Castaneda. Or to use a Jungian term, I feel i have deconstructed
myself quite a bit. In Castaneda terms, one examines how they were "domesticated" or trained
to perceive, made to agree as children, and presently, with greater conscious awareness and intention,
one can choose what to keep and what to release, what doesn't serve one. I reached a degree a fluidity
with that and then encountered nonduality. I didn't replace my old description with a new one so much
as i choose to maintain a relatively constant state of flux/fluidity/volatility. I can talk deeply about
certain views, but it doesn't mean i believe them. I just align with the biggest picture as much as I can
while in duality. That is what I call relative objectivity - that is my guideline when I'm not in Oneness,
which is 99% of the time. So I am where i am, describing what i describe, not because of belief, but
because it is the best I've found so far. I'm not attached to it. But I'm only going to replace it with a
larger picture, not a smaller one.
Another very important guideline for me is the unknown. This mostly relates to the work of Krishnamurti,
and non-duality. I try not to replace the present reality with my mind/images/knowledge when it isn't
necessary/relative. It fits with Castaneda as well - the world is a mystery and a man takes his place in the
mystery by becoming a mystery to himself. I paraphrased but that is the jist of the phrase. Mystery,
wonder, presence... these are more important than knowledge for me at my stage of evolution.

"Know thyself"? Well, we have to know the machine/mechanical(using Gurdjieff/E.J. Gold terms
now) /tonal/mind... to stalk ourselves, to observe ourselves... learn the machines habits, set alarm clocks,
place "traps" of self-awakening... I did that for a long time. It is, or was, important in my life. But after
doing it we can "afford" to be a mystery - to know that we do not know. So for me, and maybe for
everyone, there was a path and now there is not a path. The ego I found is everyone's ego; and the Oneness
I found is everyone's Oneness. So I can't talk about rape and murder as if those are things bad/other people
do; those are things humans do. I don't know anyone I can't accept. I am not aware of any person so evil
that I cannot feel compassion and understanding for them - that they are not me. The ego is a bastard.
It will do all sorts of things to make itself feel "okay", and there are a billion kinds of okay. This doesn't
surprise me. As i said, I have studied the ego well - I don't expect it not to be what it is and do what it does.
There is nothing to do about the ego (for me anymore, maybe for some of you). When I was identified
with it, I tried all kinds of modifications to it. But it is a closed system/loop. You can't really change it.
It's just moving from one corner of a box to another corner, but the whole box is corrupt, if you will.
There is an existence outside of the box. If you can observe the ego, you're not the ego. When you are not
identified with the ego, there is no desire to change it, anymore than you would try to change someone
else - it is external to you. When you've done the work to not be identified with your ego and seen the
uselessness, the never-endingness of work you could do on it, you don't try to change others either. You
have observed that you never changed when someone else tried to change you - only when you were ready,
when it was your wisdom and truth. So you don't waste your energy trying to change others - life changes
people, not other people's knowledge. Knowledge will just take up space until life activates it. Knowledge
can mess people up and make them feel guilty when life hasn't brought them to it first-hand. So my wisdom
teaches me not interfere because it will just set people back. If you'd like to hear other sources on this theme,
consider Gurdjieff on the balance between being and knowledge. Also Crowley:
" Every man and every woman has a course, depending partly on the self, and partly on the environment which is natural and necessary for each. Anyone who is forced from his own course, either through not understanding himself, or through external opposition, comes into conflict with the order of the Universe, and suffers accordingly."

I have read alot and can quote lots of sources on lots of things, but do not mistake - I am no "philosopher"-
theororist. I have no interest in arguing second-hand knowledge or beliefs. I have made so much my own
but it is sometimes preferable to quote another source when communicating. Also, what may appear as a
hodge-podge of various teachings is really very tightly related for me.

One more Gurdjieff quote I came across while looking for something else:

"Objective knowledge, the idea of unity included, belongs to objective consciousness. The forms which express this knowledge when perceived by subjective consciousness are inevitably distorted and, instead of truth, they create more and more delusions. With objective consciousness it is possible to see and feel the unity of everything. But for subjective consciousness the world is split up into millions of separate and unconnected phenomena. Attempts to connect these phenomena into some sort of system in a scientific or philosophical way lead to nothing because man cannot reconstruct the idea of the whole starting from separate facts and they cannot divine the principles of the division of the whole without knowing the laws upon which this division is based."

I must say, when it comes to practical lab alchemy, it's another matter. I have to rely on a lot of theory
and knowledge there. I am finding my way. I have a lot more knowledge than experience.

solomon levi
03-02-2012, 06:34 PM
A fisherman had a net which was 2-inches square its weaving.
He therefore concluded that all fish in the sea were larger than two inches
(because all the smaller fish fell through the net).

This is the way it is with suffering.
A suffering net sees and catches suffering.
I swear to you, one who knows does not perceive suffering.
The world doesn't change because s/he sees nothing wrong, nothing in need of change, no suffering.

Why or how could someone else change the suffering which others perceive?
It is a choice, even if unconscious, to perceive it.
Those who perceive it are still God. What is there to change about Gods
choosing what to perceive? Especially in a dream/unconsciously.

I like this quote from Einstein: "“Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live”

solomon levi
03-02-2012, 09:54 PM
I have to apologise again for continuing but I want to show that my kabbalistic interpretations
are not my own invention. And I keep coming across these things randomly, I wasn't dwelling on it.
Anyway, I was looking for pics of the flower which grows on the mountains and I ended up at a site with all
kinds of books and this was one. I've never read or heard of the author, but he says alot of what I said,
just to show there is some agreement on this kabbalistic interpretation of the Bible:

"As we begin the interview, David describes what makes his commentary on the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis unique. Primarily, he discards several commonly held beliefs about the text, including religious meaning, the idea that it is a literal history of the creation event in linear time, and the morality that is often associated with the story through ideas such as original sin, the fall of man, and messianic redemption. David is not a theist and does not “reify a creator God.” He repeatedly stresses that he is only interested in the symbolic language contained in the text which reveals a masterful exposition on the nature of human consciousness.
David describes the first chapter of Genesis as an exposition on the creative process through the agency of the Ten Sefirot of the Tree of Life, providing a way to examine all phenomena. He defines the second chapter as “… a symbolic account of the primordial gnosis of the human mind in its capacity to open and reveal its potential.” The esoteric equations therein containing the meaning of Adam are profound, according to Smith. He refers to the the third chapter as showing “… the consequences of conventional habituation, which is a turning away from the capacity to the primordial gnosis which is our birthright … the story of the ‘so-called’ fall … is another encoded series of equations that describes the function of consciousness engaged in a certain activity.” From there we spiral off into explorations of the implications of David’s ideas and interpretations, the nature of consciousness, both illuminated and mundane, challenging not only conventional exoteric religious dogma, but accepted esoteric doctrines as well.


This part specifically underlined and highlighted is exactly what i said about Cain and Abel.
Abel = predictability, he does as he's told, he's a known quantity. I shouldn't say "he" because it's
actually describing a manifestation of energy and not just psyche/personality. Smith uses the words
"convention" and "habituation"; same idea.
Cain = indetermination, freedom, ability to adapt, evolve and go outside the lines. Smith uses the
word "capacity".

Consider Harding's non-dual perspective and use of the word:
"Relying on the given facts rather than preconceptions is always sound policy.
I neither am my body nor in it. On the contrary, it - along with the rest of my world - IS in me.
What was wrong with alternatives (1) BEING the body and (2) BEING IN the body was the notion that,
in and for oneself, one is a limited thing stuffed with a lot of even more limited things.
Correct the false notion that you are an example of the taxidermist's art, and you will find
that all three alternatives come to the same thing.
Which isn't a thing at all, but immense and brilliantly conscious capacity for everything under and above the sun."

If anyone wants to know who Harding is, visit the headless way:
http://www.headless.org/

Here is a link to Smith's book:
http://astore.amazon.com/occulofperso-20/detail/0956778003/179-3956138-3113932


So to beat a dead horse, I don't subscribe to the idea of being good if it means excluding
bad, of following a laid out path, of staying within the lines/confines of Jewish law or any other.
And I don't believe God intended that either. God doesn't have intentions. That's what Adam
was created for, why Adam "names" creatures. And if you know Kabbalah at all, you know the importance
of names - this doesn't refer to the exoteric story as if Adam said, "zebra, lion, etc." Adam plays a crucial role
in these creatures becoming manifest into thingness.
Take quantum physics again - things don't have existence until they are observed.
I know that doesn't sound logical, but it is actually what happens.
God doesn't have knowledge. God doesn't have a plan. God isn't steering, directing
or punishing - only knowledge has the capacity to do those things. One is allowed to stress/emphasize
the knowledge aspect of the tree and see another side of the story.

I think I might be finished now. :)
Of course i am refering to God Ineffable, not God manifest as the All.
I spoke as if God is something separate but it's for context.

Oh, notice how Harding calls this relying on the given facts...
but to most people those are not the facts. But that's because most
people see through their preconceptions/knowledge/past/images/mind.
If you read Harding, you'll see that our first person account, our direct
experience of what is, is that I don't have a head. I have infinite capacity
in its place. Again, not logical. But logic isn't first-hand is it. Refer again
to Einstein and quantum physics quotes.

It is easy to see why and where the misunderstandings happened in the preceding
exchanges if you know about the world we directly perceive and the world we know
with our knowledge/second-hand, third-hand/second person, third person...

Andro
03-02-2012, 10:27 PM
God doesn't have intentions.

God doesn't have knowledge.

God doesn't have a plan.

God isn't steering, directing or punishing.

Finally, someone has the BALLS so say these things out loud on this forum.

Yes, we are talking completely UN-intending, UN-knowledgeable, UN-planning, UN-steering, UN-directing, UN-punishing, UNDETERMINED / UNSPECIFIED.

It is our particular SPECIFICATIONS that we project onto what we call 'god', often with this typical 'done-to-death' self-righteous indignation.

We see particular 'trees of this' and particular 'trees of that', but we do not see the universal/unspecified/undetermined forest which is everywhere and nowhere.

This 'forest' is the See of the Philosophers, the same forest of Lamb-spring fame, hosting the Deer and the Unicorn.

Without it, without SEEING it - the Great Work is not a great work at all, but rather a cacophony of superfluities, to which we give fancy names and attach blinding judgments according to our PARTICULAR predispositions.


I think I might be finished now. :)

Yes, I think you are (finished now).

Now, I too am truly finished with this thread/topic - because to me, it's all these particular filters / projections / beLIEfs / superfluities which are in fact the 'Big Trap of the Alchemist'.

Thank you for putting all this into words.

"And the rest is silence..."

:)
__________________________________________________ ____________

PS: I myself sure have my own share of 'trapping' superfluities. I make no exception in this area.

But I think I'll be ready to open up even more and share them soon...
✂-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moshe
03-03-2012, 03:38 AM
Thank you Moshe.
Yes, I'll see you elsewhere, happily, if not here.
I love you very much Moshe.
I won't hold you fixed in my mind in any way, save that you took
some time to try and talk with me. :)
Thank you.

You're welcome!
And I am very appreciative for this discussion. Thank you too!
I have learned alot - about myself and the Universe, from you, and the others.
I will keep you in my mind as a brother, a fellow seeker,
and seeking what we are all after - love.
And... I am excited about what we will share and uncover in days to come...
in the Great Work and in this Great Universe.

III
03-03-2012, 06:10 AM
III



Isn't this what the Jainist's try to take into account...I can only guess they are not very successful.



That makes existance sound like existence is for existence sake...to ponder the "never to have existed" is impossible as we, as far as we comprehend, exist and thus another paradox.

We could all say more in a minute’s silence IMHO.

If we ceased to exist we would probably say..."well that was fun, lets do it again!"
http://genius.toucansurf.com/blank%20space.gifhttp://stilazzi.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/wink-smiley-male-happy-smiley-smiley-emoticon-000041-large.gif?w=593
or not.

Ghislain

Hi Ghislain,

Isn't this what the Jainist's try to take into account...I can only guess they are not very successful.

What do you mean?

That makes existance sound like existence is for existence sake...to ponder the "never to have existed" is impossible as we, as far as we comprehend, exist and thus another paradox.

I think (therefore I think, I am, I think, am I?). It is only through this thinking, feeling, knowing etc that one even knows there is existance. I live with a 12 inch tall green alien, one of the large Amazon Green parrots. They don't think like a mammal. They are a lot more intellegent than most have thought. See the videos of Alex, the African Grey. Talk about a comparative psychology. Biases of 150 years ago had the birds on a direct evolutionary path leading to the pinnicle of evolution, humans. Now it is pretty clear that they are the surviving dinosaurs and have had a separate 200-300 million year evolution. Their brains are not mammal brains. They don't think like a mammal. They apear to do very concrete thinking, nothong abstract. However, they don't have mammalian imperitives.

So now here we humans exist. As far as I can see life is where things can be changed. It's where our consciousness can evolve. In the system as I see it the nature of consciousness evolves with changes traveling up the tree to root node, the Absolute and back down the tree. We can be looked at as being a part of a macroconsciousness. Larger macroconsciousnesses are made up of composites of microconsciousnesses and so on all the way to the top. As one grows one absorbes and integrates other quantum versions of our self that have each had a different history than that being that we think of as ourselves. EJ Gold talks about using the Beta Blocker to allow easier navigation to find and reattach one's cut off variations of consciousness. I've had my share to find and re-integrate into self.

So now we have tribe A and tribe B, each with a different idea of what constitutes God as well as good and evil. Tribe A wants the defualt settings coming down from the most immediate macroconsciousness and above to represent their beliefs, ie be Catholic, or Jewish or Moslem or whatever. Each Tribe basically sees the others as misguided or even evil.and many are willing to fight to the death, especailly the other tribe's death, to establish their own beliefs as the macro consensus.

There appears to be at least an unconscious awareness that certain charactereistics of how the creation is perceived is flexible. So the battle lines are drawn along the lines of "how God MUST be". It appears to many engaged in this that killing off the oppositions, the other tribes and their beliefs, is the way to be "good". This is the attempt to deprive these other beings of consciousness and especailly consciousness where things can be changed.

The whole system is engaged in fighting it out over the nature of God. Perhaps "there can be only one" if that one is the one who most closely matches in structure at least, the Absolute, for an all too long cosmic instant. EJ Gold talks about ascending the cross for an instant in certain forms of prayer taking on the burden for that instant. The prize isn't exactly what those playing would egoically desire, being the cosmic short circuit (breaker?). So perhaps evil is the attempt to corrupt that process?

In any case beings who are coming into a body here may not have a human overlay that takes into account all these human things involving life and bodies. Macrobeings just passing through tend to be not have human understanding. EJ Gold described humans are to macrobeings what a cockroach is to the sole of a humans shoe, nothing of any consideration. Does that make some of the swarms of old and not very bright macrobeings evil? They might certainly look that way. Humans immitating some of them would be considered evil. Many of them are looking for intensity of experience without realizing the consequences to the life.

Whatever consciousness is looking out the eyes at any given time unless a careful observer, considers itself in identity with that body. That's just the way the programming is. So for instance I have unknown gazillions of quantum variations of this being and so do each of us. Some versions are much nicer and some are much nastier. I set rather narrow constraints in what behaviors I use regarding some things. Some are more consciously aware when we change variation, others might see simply a change of mood. I know this is a very different view of this world and the nature of our being than most have expressed.

I do know that many have declared tantric akchemy as evil, that sex is "baaaad", that people who use these energies, who have awarenss of them are "baaaad" or evil or whatever. It's like those who declare shamanic substances as evil. Declaring it so doesn't make it so. But they are willing to lock people away and destroy their lives over the use of shamanic substances and sex. Now THAT is evil. They don't appear willing to compete on a level playing field, they want the right to penelize and destroy those they don't agree with in order to force their beliefs on everybody else. I have some less then pleasant past life memories of being tortured and murdered, and burned at the stake for not agreeing with christians and others. That is evil.

The only thing we really have is consciousness.

That makes existance sound like existence is for existence sake...to ponder the "never to have existed" is impossible as we, as far as we comprehend, exist and thus another paradox.


I haven't the foggiest notion of "first cause" here, why a quantum bubble with prinmordial consciousness would pop into existance in the first place. One might look at Genesis as being the story of the consciousness waking up or booting up to self awareness. Once it exists and becomes self aware what other reason other than continued self awareness might it have? Following from that I can hypothecize based on experiences of that primordial consciousness I've had that this entire creation follows as the attempt to find a way to preserve that consciousness. Our continued consciousness depends upon the continued consciousness of our foundation. It is time based thinking that casues the paradox. It is very similar to eternal time when what is always has been, and if it should change, then it has always been that, except that in the case of non-existance there isn't One to be conscious of consiciousness or it's lack.

III
03-03-2012, 06:53 AM
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by solomon levi http://forum.alchemyforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?p=19782#post19782)
God doesn't have intentions.

God doesn't have knowledge.

God doesn't have a plan.

God isn't steering, directing or punishing.



Finally, someone has the BALLS so say these things out loud on this forum.

Yes, we are talking completely UN-intending, UN-knowledgeable, UN-planning, UN-steering, UN-directing, UN-punishing, UNDETERMINED / UNSPECIFIED.

It is our particular SPECIFICATIONS that we project onto what we call 'god', often with this typical 'done-to-death' self-righteous indignation.

We see particular 'trees of this' and particular 'trees of that', but we do not see the universal/unspecified/undetermined forest which is everywhere and nowhere.



All the trees etc are virtual. I didn't know that the "UN" needed saying. Of course this world is justa as virtual...

Andro
03-03-2012, 10:21 AM
I didn't know that the "UN" needed saying.

If it was said, it needed to be said - therefore is has always been said :)

Possibly because of what you wrote above :):


So now we have tribe A and tribe B, each with a different idea of what constitutes God as well as good and evil.
Tribe A wants the default settings coming down from the most immediate macro-consciousness and above to represent their beliefs, IE be Catholic, or Jewish or Muslim or whatever.
Each Tribe basically sees the others as misguided or even evil and many are willing to fight to the death, especially the other tribe's death, to establish their own beliefs as the macro consensus.

And finally:


I haven't the foggiest notion of "first cause" here, why a quantum bubble with primordial consciousness would pop into existence in the first place.

One might look at Genesis as being the story of the consciousness waking up or booting up to self awareness.
Once it exists and becomes self aware what other reason other than continued self awareness might it have?
Following from that I can hypothesize based on experiences of that primordial consciousness I've had that this entire creation follows as the attempt to find a way to preserve that consciousness.
Our continued consciousness depends upon the continued consciousness of our foundation. It is time based thinking that causes the paradox.
It is very similar to eternal time when what is always has been, and if it should change, then it has always been that, except that in the case of non-existence there isn't One to be conscious of consciousness or it's lack.

I think this calls for a whole different discussion in its own right.

It appears the 'time' is ripe for it Now, HERE (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2733-Genesis).

Rebus7
03-06-2012, 01:15 PM
Well that was a huge archetypal discussion that has taken me all day to read. I guess archetypal because Sol and Moshe were talking fundamentals of the characteristics of God, Oneness and duality.

A gripping read and a pleasure to experience such erudition and very intelligent but opposing views. I even see these opposing views as archetypal in that many would line up on either side. Simplistically you could say that it was the fundamental versus the mystical.

More closely I see the debate somewhat like Moshe representing the patriarchal dualistic religions who fight against an ‘objective’ evil, and Sol who more represents an Eastern Taoist or mystical approach, seeing evil as a part of God and 'All is One', evil being a projection of duality and the subjective, etc.

Intellectually I side with Sol strongly and see Moshe's Jewish grounding congruent with Christian fundamentalism also... fighting against evil, etc.

I apologize for the gross simplification of an attempted summary of two complex, sophisticated and well argued views, and I am not suggesting that Moshe supports Christian fundamentalism.

As for myself, despite being intellectually congruent with Solomon, I find at a more unconscious level, I am a lot less clear in my attitudes than Sol, and detect much duality in my erratic personality.
My personality has quite a bit of subjective attitude about evil and tends to be pretty damn goal orientated despite my striving to be here now, which is itself an oxymoron.

In summary, the preceding discussion was archetypal personally in that it represented the opposing attitudes within myself. Brilliant.

Moshe
03-06-2012, 03:51 PM
Well that was a huge archetypal discussion that has taken me all day to read. I guess archetypal because Sol and Moshe were talking fundamentals of the characteristics of God, Oneness and duality.
A gripping read and a pleasure to experience such erudition and very intelligent but opposing views. I even see these opposing views as archetypal in that many would line up on either side. Simplistically you could say that it was the fundamental versus the mystical.
More closely I see the debate somewhat like Moshe representing the patriarchal dualistic religions who fight against an ‘objective’ evil, and Sol who more represents an Eastern Taoist or mystical approach, seeing evil as a part of God and 'All is One', evil being a projection of duality and the subjective, etc.
I apologize for the gross simplification of an attempted summary of two complex, sophisticated and well argued views, and I am not suggesting that Moshe supports Christian fundamentalism.

Thank you for your comments and feedback Rebus7.
Where I recognize your feedback as being part of your opinion, and so I cannot condemn you for that,
your summary IS extremely overly simplistic and largely inaccurate.

Apology accepted.

Moshe
03-18-2012, 06:06 PM
Solomon,

We made that prayer and something HAS occured.

Let me say, as I have continued to ponder your words closely,
it revealed to me where I was seeing duality where I could see Oneness. In other words, my focus was too much on duality - looking out for it, seeing, it, focusing on it.
Part of that is definitely because of the debate, it puts focus on the subject, but also because I was doing so within myself.
As a result, I have been working at my focus, and how I am seeing things in my mind, and I feel even more positive and integrated.
So thank you for that.
I still disagree with some of the fundamentals that you have stated, and that remains, but I wanted you to know that those points which you made,
and that I may not have fully agreed with, or only mildly nodded towards, I do embrace now, and agree with.
The idea of "seeing... creates". yes. i do agree. And seeing Oneness creates Oneness. This is happening for me more now.
I was being a little lazy, I must confess. Waiting for something. It clouded my vision.
Also, I have known this in the past and embraced it, but several encounters with very negative people, in my naive, trusting, 'everything is good' state, (of the past)
made me hyper-vigilant to "spot the wolves dressed in lamb's clothing," because I had missed them in the past and had been quite "inconvienced" by them (understatement).
Things are coming back into balance.

Life is good.
thanks again.

MarkostheGnostic
03-18-2012, 07:25 PM
Shalom Mark TG,

I appreciate you sharing.
Before I read it, may I ask you a question about this work called "Liberating the Gospels" -
Do they deny the existence of Yeshua?
Do they state that he did exist but was not quite what they made him out to be?
What sort of state do they say he existed in?

I appreciate this understanding.

My utter apologies for the hit-and-miss.

John Shelby Spong, a former bishop in the Episcopal church, does not deny the existence of a historical Iesous, but like his predecessor Karl Barth, he sets out to demythologize the person, whose main identity has been colored by the Johannine writings. Spong is a biblical scholar, most people are not. There is a vast difference between the mind-set of the Synoptic [same-view] gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke, and the Gospel of John.

The Hellenistic Jewish writer John seems to have created his Prologue ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...") from the writings of another hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, whose writings we have today on the Logos. The earliest translations into Latin, capitalizing of the word 'Word,' (since there is no capitalization or punctuation in the original Greek), lead early interpreters to think that the Word [Logos] was a separate aspect of God. In another century, the Holy Spirit was thought to be a third aspect, and Lo! The Trinitarian God was coined by Tertullian. But I digress.

Whereas the Synoptics view Iesous as 'a man anointed by God,' John reframes Iesous as 'God wrapped in flesh,' hence we have incarnational theology. The Hellenistic notion of a demigod - a hybrid being conceived from the union of God and a mortal woman. Greek myth abounds with such beings as Dionysus, or Heracles - both conceived from Zeus [Latin: Deus, i.e., God] and a mortal woman. The virgin birth is based partly from this and partly from a mistranslation of the word used in Isaiah 7:14 which speaks of the birth of the Messiah to a young woman in the Hebrew original. Matthew used the then-common Greek Septuigint instead of the original Hebrew. In the Hebrew, the word referring to the mother of the Messiah is 'almah' [young woman]. The Hebrew word for virgin is 'bertollah.' In Greek there was only one word forth both virgin and young woman - 'parthenos,' (as in the Parthenon - the temple built to 'the virgin goddess, Athena). There is no incarnational, virginal birth stories among the Hebrews. The Johannine Iesous, which colors the whole NT in the minds of most people, is heavily mythologized by Hellenism.

Moreover, if you read Liberating the Gospels, you will lose the naive belief that Iesous was the focus of all those prophesies in the Tenach, but you will gain a great reconciliation between faith and reason! The gospels that were selected (vs. those that were not only excluded, but burned in typical fascist way), were, as Spong illustrates, written to parallel the Jewish liturgical calendar. He brings out truths that had always been right in front of me, but always occulted by the story-line superimposed upon a calendar that I truly was not conscious of. He also shows how the themes of liberation in the Tenach were re-written with new characters in the NT, and that Iesous was intentionally portrayed with all manner of scribal insertions, to be the historical fulfillment of all prophesies concerning the Messiah. The book speaks for itself, it does not have to reach. What may die hard, are many assumptions that have become automatic, and are left-overs from an uncritically childish (not child-like) acceptance of dogmas, hook-line-and-sinker. I guarantee that a cartoon-like light bulb will appear above your head many times in the reading of this book (figuratively speaking of course :) ).

Spong sticks to the writings, and does not make uncritical metaphysical assumptions about Iesous, but if the conclusion is that he was 'a man anointed by God,' any such metaphysical assumptions amount to more speculation, more theologizing about the mystery of Being - your's, mine, and Iesous. In fact, those "I AM" assertions of Iesous in the Johannine writings, give us a message about the ultimate nature of All human beings - the Secret which cannot be uttered without the penalty of blasphemy. In other words, what was true about Iesous, is true for us all. Our ultimate identity is ____!

Moshe
03-19-2012, 01:18 AM
My utter apologies for the hit-and-miss.

No worries at all.
However, after this most epic discussion / debate between myself and Solomon, with some relevant discussion added by others,
this now seems a little off topic. Maybe it's not.



John Shelby Spong, a former bishop in the Episcopal church, does not deny the existence of a historical Iesous, but like his predecessor Karl Barth, he sets out to demythologize the person, whose main identity has been colored by the Johannine writings. Spong is a biblical scholar, most people are not. There is a vast difference between the mind-set of the Synoptic [same-view] gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke, and the Gospel of John.

I'll have to read this book. Then I will have more to say... but let me address some of your points below now.



The Hellenistic Jewish writer John seems to have created his Prologue ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...") from the writings of another hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, whose writings we have today on the Logos. The earliest translations into Latin, capitalizing of the word 'Word,' (since there is no capitalization or punctuation in the original Greek), lead early interpreters to think that the Word [Logos] was a separate aspect of God. In another century, the Holy Spirit was thought to be a third aspect, and Lo! The Trinitarian God was coined by Tertullian. But I digress.

What John had written and how it was interpreted by Christians is also another matter.
For instance, John could have been likening Christ to the Hellenistic writings.
So what?
Christ was a very universal teacher. In my understanding, he traveled the world to learn of the great teachings of other cultures before returning to do his work with the Hebrews / Jews.
Could he not have shown them / taught them universal messages that they would then have incorporated into their writings?
And then these would have been singularized to focus only on Jesus / Yeshua, by the Church, an act which de-universalized the original writings?



Whereas the Synoptics view Iesous as 'a man anointed by God,' John reframes Iesous as 'God wrapped in flesh,' hence we have incarnational theology. The Hellenistic notion of a demigod - a hybrid being conceived from the union of God and a mortal woman. Greek myth abounds with such beings as Dionysus, or Heracles - both conceived from Zeus [Latin: Deus, i.e., God] and a mortal woman. The virgin birth is based partly from this and partly from a mistranslation of the word used in Isaiah 7:14 which speaks of the birth of the Messiah to a young woman in the Hebrew original. Matthew used the then-common Greek Septuigint instead of the original Hebrew. In the Hebrew, the word referring to the mother of the Messiah is 'almah' [young woman]. The Hebrew word for virgin is 'bertollah.' In Greek there was only one word forth both virgin and young woman - 'parthenos,' (as in the Parthenon - the temple built to 'the virgin goddess, Athena). There is no incarnational, virginal birth stories among the Hebrews. The Johannine Iesous, which colors the whole NT in the minds of most people, is heavily mythologized by Hellenism.

like I said, I will read the book (when I can) but this is a bit of a flimsy argument against the Virgin birth.
can there not be many mythologies supporting virgin births?
Have you seen Zeitgeist part 1?
the author does a weak job of trying to demonstrate that Jesus never existed because there are so many examples of others who were like him historically...
so he must never have existed.
couldn't there be a universal story with these master - avatar - adept - christ beings, so that they share a similar story?

I feel I should reiterate something here -
I was not born into any dogma.
When I came to Christ, after having been born and raised a Jew, with many of the cultural biases nicely implanted AGAINST him,
I was already a pretty aware person - recognizing the facts from the fiction, and the control from the truth within organized religion.
I'd been doing it for a while with Judaism and i subsequently did the discernment with Christianity.

I see the control and I don't like it.
when you wrote:

In other words, what was true about Iesous, is true for us all. Our ultimate identity is ____!

I totally agree. BUT, the question is - how many of us actually DID IT?

answer - not a heck of a lot.
so the accomplishment is noteworthy.
It's more than that, but it is at least greatly noteworthy, if he did in fact achieve the status of the Christ, which I believe he did.

I also do not see him as the only begotten son, nor as many of the ways of seeing him as a Christian, but the first to cross the threshold between hell and death, to pave the way for us all.
When others follow, then they too will have those keys, but he was specially prepared to be the first.
and i do think he fulfills the prophecies in Tanach.
I won't go on about that, since I am naive without knowledge of your book..



Moreover, if you read Liberating the Gospels, you will lose the naive belief that Iesous was the focus of all those prophesies in the Tenach, but you will gain a great reconciliation between faith and reason! The gospels that were selected (vs. those that were not only excluded, but burned in typical fascist way), were, as Spong illustrates, written to parallel the Jewish liturgical calendar. He brings out truths that had always been right in front of me, but always occulted by the story-line superimposed upon a calendar that I truly was not conscious of. He also shows how the themes of liberation in the Tenach were re-written with new characters in the NT, and that Iesous was intentionally portrayed with all manner of scribal insertions, to be the historical fulfillment of all prophesies concerning the Messiah. The book speaks for itself, it does not have to reach. What may die hard, are many assumptions that have become automatic, and are left-overs from an uncritically childish (not child-like) acceptance of dogmas, hook-line-and-sinker. I guarantee that a cartoon-like light bulb will appear above your head many times in the reading of this book (figuratively speaking of course :) ).

I don't really follow what you're saying in the above paragraph.

Moshe
03-20-2012, 04:04 AM
Markos,

Here's one of Spong's quotes regarding Darwinism and the deductive chain of events that follow it:


'We see old and dated thinking when we continue to define human life as fallen from an original perfection' and thus identifying ourselves as the victims of “original sin.” These ideas died with the work of Charles Darwin, who taught us that human life was never perfect, but that we evolved from single cells into self-conscious, complex creatures. Now look for a moment at what Darwin’s insight means to the common religious language of our day. If there was not original perfection, there could have been no fall from perfection into sin. If there was no fall, there would have been no need to be saved from a fall that never happened. This means that the whole idea that “Jesus died for my sins” is absurd."

BUT, concerning alleged Darwin's theory of evolution: There has NEVER been a mechanism discovered for which species 'evolve'. Never. "Natural selection is just variation within a species. Genetic mutations are required to evolve from one species into the next, however mutations are not common and mostly neutral. If they happen, they are almost always harmful not beneficial. The occurrence of many small, beneficial steps of mutations is against all odds and has never been observed. They are also not found among vegetation.
“Mutations are almost universally harmful. In human beings, they are classified as ‘birth defects.’ They result in death and sterility. People today suffer from more than 4,000 disorders caused by gene mutations. Down’s syndrome, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia are familiar examples.”

It feels and sounds like a lifeless sort of a mind...
I'd rather be back in high school with my old geography teacher boring me to death over territories, rungs, land divisions, etc. then have someone explain deductively, seductively things
that I simply would rather not be true about this world... and what i mean by that is this:
We all have choice.
Would you rather live in a world where everything is deduced down to ashes? Where nothing is sacred? Nothing is holy?
I am not saying Spong is doing that entirely here, but he sure sits in the camp of folk who bore me to tears with their brilliant stupidity.

I think I may pass on reading that book.
I have more interesting things to read that inspire and enliven me.

MarkostheGnostic
03-20-2012, 11:15 AM
I have not studied Gnosticism, only heard a smattering of ideas from it. However, if THAT is Gnosticism, then it is most definitely not for me.

I agree that the Serpent plays a role. And it is a good role, ultimately, but not to be followed. But saying that the Serpent is Good and God is false... ummm, no.

Scenario is the same. There is a trap to desire the Stone and forget about one's Being.

First vignette is relevant. Just found the link on my FB wall: http://cdcruz.wordpress.com/

solomon levi
03-20-2012, 01:02 PM
Solomon,

We made that prayer and something HAS occured.

Let me say, as I have continued to ponder your words closely,
it revealed to me where I was seeing duality where I could see Oneness. In other words, my focus was too much on duality - looking out for it, seeing, it, focusing on it.
Part of that is definitely because of the debate, it puts focus on the subject, but also because I was doing so within myself.
As a result, I have been working at my focus, and how I am seeing things in my mind, and I feel even more positive and integrated.
So thank you for that.
I still disagree with some of the fundamentals that you have stated, and that remains, but I wanted you to know that those points which you made,
and that I may not have fully agreed with, or only mildly nodded towards, I do embrace now, and agree with.
The idea of "seeing... creates". yes. i do agree. And seeing Oneness creates Oneness. This is happening for me more now.
I was being a little lazy, I must confess. Waiting for something. It clouded my vision.
Also, I have known this in the past and embraced it, but several encounters with very negative people, in my naive, trusting, 'everything is good' state, (of the past)
made me hyper-vigilant to "spot the wolves dressed in lamb's clothing," because I had missed them in the past and had been quite "inconvienced" by them (understatement).
Things are coming back into balance.

Life is good.
thanks again.

Hi Moshe!
That's nice to hear. :)
Since then I had a very clear and revealing thought about the duality. It goes like this:
How does one know when one has lost their way?
Don't we define lost (or right and wrong, good or bad, true and false, the way and not the way, etc)
in reference to some point of reference? And if we have a point of reference to tell us we are lost,
how can we be lost seeing this reference point and knowing where we are in relation to it?

In oneness we even lose the reference point that tells us we are in oneness.
We only recognise it after the fact, when the mind/internal dialogue is describing it and talking to itself.
Without the description, the definition, the association, etc, the describer is also absent.
Now that's a vacation. :)
"Wherever you go, there you are" - except in Oneness.
I'm getting giddy just talking about it. :)
I rejoice with you!

Moshe
03-20-2012, 02:58 PM
Hi Moshe!
That's nice to hear. :)
Since then I had a very clear and revealing thought about the duality. It goes like this:
How does one know when one has lost their way?
Don't we define lost (or right and wrong, good or bad, true and false, the way and not the way, etc)
in reference to some point of reference? And if we have a point of reference to tell us we are lost,
how can we be lost seeing this reference point and knowing where we are in relation to it?

In oneness we even lose the reference point that tells us we are in oneness.
We only recognise it after the fact, when the mind/internal dialogue is describing it and talking to itself.
Without the description, the definition, the association, etc, the describer is also absent.
Now that's a vacation. :)
"Wherever you go, there you are" - except in Oneness.
I'm getting giddy just talking about it. :)
I rejoice with you!

Hi Solomon! I rejoice with you too!

In response to this, I do feel that the Oneness that has no reference is the Oneness that existed BEFORE we fell into the duality. The duality gave us reference / ability to recognize Oneness.
And... when we Return to the Oneness, ie - when we recognize the truth and are One again, then, having been in the duality, we have an eternal reference for the Oneness.
This is the evolution and graduation of the Universe.

MarkostheGnostic
03-20-2012, 10:08 PM
Markos,

Here's one of Spong's quotes regarding Darwinism and the deductive chain of events that follow it:



It feels and sounds like a lifeless sort of a mind...
I'd rather be back in high school with my old geography teacher boring me to death over territories, rungs, land divisions, etc. then have someone explain deductively, seductively things
that I simply would rather not be true about this world... and what i mean by that is this:
We all have choice.
Would you rather live in a world where everything is deduced down to ashes? Where nothing is sacred? Nothing is holy?
I am not saying Spong is doing that entirely here, but he sure sits in the camp of folk who bore me to tears with their brilliant stupidity.

I think I may pass on reading that book.
I have more interesting things to read that inspire and enliven me.

Spong may be deficient in areas outside his forte - biblical hermeneutics. I once wrote to him, for example, to replace the word "impersonal' with regard to God, with 'Transpersonal,' which means 'more-than-personal,' as opposed to impersonal, which suggests less-than-personal. Clearly, the Creator is more than personal, if we are ourselves persons, and can transcend our personalities to become transpersonal. So don't be put off by that passage you quoted. I promise that 'Liberating the Gospels' remains entirely within an analysis of the biblical literature.

The book answers your question about the paragraph that you say you "don't follow." It amply illustrates that the gospel narratives were (1) public relations pieces, written long after the original Pauline material, (2) the gospel narratives followed the Jewish liturgical calendar in a story format, (3) the 'tomb-narratives,' so-called, appealed to the lowest literal understanding of Hebrew midrash, with the unfortunate result that the spiritual Resurrection of Paul began to be interpreted as a magickal resusitation of a corpse. (4) But most importantly, it shows the New Testament being a recapitulation of Jewish themes, expanded to peoples beyond the exclusivism of the Jewish cultus. I have read nearly a dozen of Spong's books, but this is the one I had him autograph because it is brilliant, not "brilliant stupidity." After struggling with the social and familial resistances of my oown to understand the New Testament, I appreciate any reluctance to dis-assemble a gestalt you might now have. I do not know how recent your faith is, but I took Baptism in 1976, followed by two years of a very ecumenical Methodist seminary degree (M.T.S.). I have no agenda to undermine your 'faith,' but I do have every intention of having you [bracket] your previous understanding of Christian doctrines as a Phenomenologist would. This is not a reductio ad absurdum, it is a Phenomenological Epoche in which one observes one's own understanding of doctrine and views it from another perspective.

Thus, Spong does not damage one's 'faith,' which, as Andrew Greeley noted, was a 'contemplative attitude.' Rather, one's faith stands, while one's thinking undergoes deconstruction for the sake of Truth.

Moshe
03-20-2012, 10:16 PM
The book answers your question about the paragraph that you say you "don't follow." It amply illustrates that the gospel narratives were (1) public relations pieces, written long after the original Pauline material, (2) the gospel narratives followed the Jewish liturgical calendar in a story format, (3) the 'tomb-narratives,' so-called, appealed to the lowest literal understanding of Hebrew midrash, with the unfortunate result that the spiritual Resurrection of Paul began to be interpreted as a magickal resusitation of a corpse. (4) But most importantly, it shows the New Testament being a recapitulation of Jewish themes, expanded to peoples beyond the exclusivism of the Jewish cultus. I have read nearly a dozen of Spong's books, but this is the one I had him autograph because it is brilliant, not "brilliant stupidity." After struggling with the social and familial resistances of my oown to understand the New Testament, I appreciate any reluctance to dis-assemble a gestalt you might now have. I do not know how recent your faith is, but I took Baptism in 1976, followed by two years of a very ecumenical Methodist seminary degree (M.T.S.). I have no agenda to undermine your 'faith,' but I do have every intention of having you [bracket] your previous understanding of Christian doctrines as a Phenomenologist would. This is not a reductio ad absurdum, it is a Phenomenological Epoche in which one observes one's own understanding of doctrine and views it from another perspective.

Thus, Spong does not damage one's 'faith,' which, as Andrew Greeley noted, was a 'contemplative attitude.' Rather, one's faith stands, while one's thinking undergoes deconstruction for the sake of Truth.

Fair enough.
Thanks Markus.

MarkostheGnostic
03-21-2012, 12:23 AM
Shalom Moshe. ;)

Andro
03-23-2012, 12:00 AM
Shalom Moshe. ;)

"Shalom" / "Salam" / "Peace" can be used as both "Hello" and "Goodbye"...

:cool:

Even such 'basic' words can become relative, 'coded' language (open to interpretation) and of course tone & context-dependent...

The days of communication (as we know it) are numbered IMO.

Releasing ALL culturally programmed perspectives and embracing the UN-Known (letting go of what we beLIEve to 'know', is IMO the Key to the 'next' level (assuming linearity).

My friend Salazius has a wonderful expression for this: Virgin Vision.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Maybe this is another Big Trap for the Alchemist: Not being able to embrace & internalize 'Virgin Vision'...

solomon levi
03-23-2012, 11:41 AM
My friend Salazius has a wonderful expression for this: Virgin Vision.


C'est belle!
Perfect

Salazius
03-23-2012, 03:44 PM
And the Virgin Vision opens the inner Virgin Ground !

From my blog :


It's hard to explain, but at a certain moment, you have an "emptyfulness" in your mind when you look at engravings, sculptures, stainted glasses and when reading texts. You know, and you don't, you beleive and you don't, at the same time. Both enrich themselves. And create a special place in your mind.

Your senses, intuition, attention are awaken, and you process in your brain and soul what you see, but, with this very weird feeling : just like if you pushed yourself to not think like you already know. You push yourself to think in a way you never though before. This is going into your "Virginland", a place of unknown understanding.

Go to your "Virginland." Push yourself to think, process, understand, see, taste, feel, beleive in a way you never, never did before.

The Virginland is a place of miracles, of impossible things (for the "knowing you"), a potential place where everything can stand and rise, perish, flourish ... and reflorish after not being validate a first time or perish after flourishing a first time .. nothing stands constant, but everything can stay constant too ! This is a place of creativity. Of a new vision. Out of your limited, personnal, culturally bounded vision.

There you have a chance to push your beleives to the extreme.

You can manipulate paradoxes. Envision two, three, or more opposite explanations and accept, validate them ALL as GOOD/Working !

No it's not a chaotic place. It's a place of Life. A Virgin Ground.

Not everyone can have this ground, one must have touched the Virgin Vision before. But the V.V is not an erasing/reset process. It's entering in the non limited space of yourself.

The Virgin Vision is the moment when you detach yourself of your believes.
The Virginground is the unlimited place left in you after that.

It's a streching of your inner limits.

I guess you ever saw the rainforest (in french litterally "virgin forest"), it's a place of exhuberant life.
It's analogical to a blank page. But it's green.

You can inscribe and develop anything in it. This is a good analogy in my opinion.

So I invite you to understand and grasp this concept and to touch it in your mind, your soul.

It's a way to "think out of the box", to "think crazy". To develop your openess, to evolve.

Think crazy ! Unlimit yourself ! http://dartigne.blogspot.fr/2012/03/old-alchemists-methods-to-share.html

My pleasure :)

Moshe
04-17-2012, 09:37 PM
Dear Solomon Levi,

During this thread, I made a prayer - that the truth would be revealed to us in light of our discussion.
I subsequently wrote that I, as a result of our long and profound discussion, I have come to see more integration... And so I had done.
I also mentioned that what I wrote remains. Fundamental principles of good and evil remain.

I am curious if you have come to any changes, alterations or addendums in your consciousness?

I ask this because, through my healing practice, I have encountered a couple of people with philosophies that are highly similar to yours, and they
have come to experience quite a bit of suffering and malignment as a result. So it has made me begin thinking about this thread again.

And the fact that I hadn't heard anything on your part as a result of the prayer...

solomon levi
04-20-2012, 11:13 AM
Dear Solomon Levi,

During this thread, I made a prayer - that the truth would be revealed to us in light of our discussion.
I subsequently wrote that I, as a result of our long and profound discussion, I have come to see more integration... And so I had done.
I also mentioned that what I wrote remains. Fundamental principles of good and evil remain.

I am curious if you have come to any changes, alterations or addendums in your consciousness?

I ask this because, through my healing practice, I have encountered a couple of people with philosophies that are highly similar to yours, and they
have come to experience quite a bit of suffering and malignment as a result. So it has made me begin thinking about this thread again.

And the fact that I hadn't heard anything on your part as a result of the prayer...


Hi Moshe.
Changes in my consciousness?
Or addendums in my philosophy?

My philosophy hasn't changed.
I'm deepening the practice of it and it's pretty wonderful.
I'm not sure what you mean by malignment - bad things happening?
As a result of their beliefs?

I don't know about that. I'm sure you've heard things like I've said, but I really
don't practice beliefs or philosophies; I practice direct perception of what is.
Suffering and malignment are afterthoughts and interpretations about what is -
they are the result of reflection and knowledge and thinking.
When I have thoughts like that, which is pretty rare for me to interpret my reality negatively,
but positively is no different (thinking I'm blessed is still afterthought, etc...)... when I have thoughts
like that, I don't believe in them. I recognise them for what they are - projections of the past/knowledge/
personal mind.
What we label, interpret, think, define, etc about reality is not reality.
Reality will never be suffering or malignment.
And mind/thinking will always be suffering because it is the source of fragmentation
and separateness - thought and thinker, subject and object, "I" and not "I", etc, etc...

This is no philosophy. Anyone willing to perceive the actual goings on can see what I am saying.
This is something that cannot change or suffer alteration because there is no willful ego to
declare that it should be other than it is.
I can't imagine how malignment (or mal-alignment) can ever come from this.

There really can be no system of measuring for what I am talking about, for that measure would be knowledge
and necessarily measures must be fixed points relative to that knowledge... a measure must be limited.
And I am talking about the absence of self - the absence of center which is also the absence of circumference.
As long as you are there (as the center) there is a circumference and measure/knowledge and limitation.
When you are not there, there is unlimited unmeasureable isness or consciousness, undivided, whole, nothing
outside of it to judge/label/measure/alter, etc....

:)

My life situation has changed, and one could say it's for good or for bad, but I can't say anything like that
without it being one description among billions with no objective, inherent, real value.

But for a short answer, IMO, my consciousness is greater than ever.

All egos will suffer under the illusion of their own significance until it is seen that
we do not live by our own will but we exist in "God" or the One, or whatever.
So suffering and malignment are progress from my perspective.
A person who is comfortable and/or content is further from the kingdom of heaven, in a sense.
We really can't measure by external appearances.

Andro
04-22-2012, 03:31 PM
Dedicated to all those Totalitarian Salvationists out there - regardless of whether it's about faith, diet, lifestyle or anything in between:

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/RightPath.jpg

Even if the 'Path' is a 'Non-Path'...

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/YouAreYou.jpg

Even if the 'You' is a 'Non-You'...

:cool:

solomon levi
04-22-2012, 06:14 PM
And if pain and renunciation are personal psychological creations/interpretations,
then who can change that but oneself by changing or eliminating the interpretation
system/measure?
Pain may seem pretty factual, a "what is"; but if you really look into it without
interpreting, it is just a sensation, a vibration, maybe heat or pulsing or pounding
or something like that... and when we aren't separate from it, when we pulse
entirely, it becomes... ??? who can say? There's no one outside to compare it or
describe it. From my experiences, I'd guesstimate that more than 90% of pain is
psychological - not wanting it, calling it bad or painful. That's what's intolerable
about it, or what makes it painful instead of some undescribable sensation. That
and isolating it from the rest of the universe as "my tooth", or my headache, or
whatever.
I know this may sound really impractical or unrealistic, but it can happen. I'm not
saying it should happen. I'm saying that as an option, it changes what we think
reality is. You don't have to practice not feeling pain as pain. But then you won't
have as large a picture of the whole without that experience. You won't know that
an interpretation is just one description among millions. Which is valuable to me,
because otherwise I am fated to be a victim of circumstance, or my interpretation
of circumstances. :)

Andro
04-22-2012, 06:39 PM
Pain may seem pretty factual, a "what is"; but if you really look into it without
interpreting, it is just a sensation, a vibration, maybe heat or pulsing or pounding
or something like that... and when we aren't separate from it, when we pulse
entirely, it becomes... ??? who can say?

Actually there is a powerful healing technique that I discovered, using the OOB vibrations by 'synching' them to the vibration of the specific pain, and the pain is gone in an instant and never comes back.

Of course one would have to practice achieving this pre-OOB vibrational state, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same technique is used in DMT based healing journeys.

Seth-Ra
04-22-2012, 08:22 PM
And if pain and renunciation are personal psychological creations/interpretations,
then who can change that but oneself by changing or eliminating the interpretation
system/measure?
Pain may seem pretty factual, a "what is"; but if you really look into it without
interpreting, it is just a sensation, a vibration, maybe heat or pulsing or pounding
or something like that... and when we aren't separate from it, when we pulse
entirely, it becomes... ??? who can say? There's no one outside to compare it or
describe it. From my experiences, I'd guesstimate that more than 90% of pain is
psychological - not wanting it, calling it bad or painful. That's what's intolerable
about it, or what makes it painful instead of some undescribable sensation. That
and isolating it from the rest of the universe as "my tooth", or my headache, or
whatever.
I know this may sound really impractical or unrealistic, but it can happen. I'm not
saying it should happen. I'm saying that as an option, it changes what we think
reality is. You don't have to practice not feeling pain as pain. But then you won't
have as large a picture of the whole without that experience. You won't know that
an interpretation is just one description among millions. Which is valuable to me,
because otherwise I am fated to be a victim of circumstance, or my interpretation
of circumstances. :)

You bring up an important point in this.

Often we mis-percieve what we experience, because we are thinking to material and base (lacking genuine Spirit (or should i say, ignoring it), for Spirit would see the One within the All, and not get lost in the maze). This type of thinking, often done out of habit or for lack of understanding better, leads to the victim mentality - which is to perceive pain as we normally do "this hurts me, this wrongs me in some way, this is problematic to me." etc. ("me" "me" "I" "I" - ego forms at its finest. ;) )
But, if we understand ourselves, we can look within to the root of our perceived pain - "Why do i feel wronged? Why does this seem to hurt? What part of me does this effect, that i should feel negatively towards it?" (unweave the ego) - and by tracing down the root cause deep within us, we can then understand our real problem/blockage/obstacle that was within us - not outside of us, and in rectifying this within ourself, there is then nothing - a moment of all-experience, for the proof is in the pudding (bliss) and the preparation is in the rectification. :)



~Seth-Ra

Moshe
04-24-2012, 06:05 PM
There really can be no system of measuring for what I am talking about, for that measure would be knowledge
and necessarily measures must be fixed points relative to that knowledge... a measure must be limited.
And I am talking about the absence of self - the absence of center which is also the absence of circumference.
As long as you are there (as the center) there is a circumference and measure/knowledge and limitation.
When you are not there, there is unlimited unmeasureable isness or consciousness, undivided, whole, nothing
outside of it to judge/label/measure/alter, etc....

Hi Solomon,

Thank you for responding.

I still highly disagree with you and see your stance and what you express as quite an unbalanced state of being.
There is a self. And then there is a self stuck within the self, which we can call the separate self, or the ego self...
you're throwing out the baby (the true self) with the dirty bathwater that the self-within the self has created.

without self, this entire creation is pointless. useless.

alchemy is all about the blending of opposites. this brings about the undefinable, yet, it still is something even while it is No thing.
the great paradox.
what i see you, and others on this forum doing / statting, is going into the formless aspect of the Divine which lacks balance with the form.
it is nothing. not No Thing. Perhaps coming from a swinging of the pendulum too far into the Eastern extreme away from the Western controlling rational mind.

people have died (left their incarnation / their bodies) by following along this line too far.

For someone who claims to be releasing all thoughts and constructs, your intellect is more developed and constructed than most people I have ever encountered...

Moshe
04-24-2012, 06:08 PM
Dedicated to all those Totalitarian Salvationists out there - regardless of whether it's about faith, diet, lifestyle or anything in between:
http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/RightPath.jpg
Even if the 'Path' is a 'Non-Path'...
Even if the 'You' is a 'Non-You'...
:cool:

Androgynous,
Agreed, we can never JUDGE the lives of others... judgment is an act devoid of love. God help us if we do so.

But we can DISCERN the lives of others.
in fact, sometimes, there is no need to look into the lives of others, but at times, we must...
Discernment is an act which should include compassion and understanding... therefore, it is not judgment.

The balance, my friend... the balance.... Androgynous.

solomon levi
04-26-2012, 12:16 AM
Hi Solomon,

Thank you for responding.

I still highly disagree with you and see your stance and what you express as quite an unbalanced state of being.
There is a self. And then there is a self stuck within the self, which we can call the separate self, or the ego self...
you're throwing out the baby (the true self) with the dirty bathwater that the self-within the self has created.

without self, this entire creation is pointless. useless.

alchemy is all about the blending of opposites. this brings about the undefinable, yet, it still is something even while it is No thing.
the great paradox.
what i see you, and others on this forum doing / statting, is going into the formless aspect of the Divine which lacks balance with the form.
it is nothing. not No Thing. Perhaps coming from a swinging of the pendulum too far into the Eastern extreme away from the Western controlling rational mind.

people have died (left their incarnation / their bodies) by following along this line too far.

For someone who claims to be releasing all thoughts and constructs, your intellect is more developed and constructed than most people I have ever encountered...

Yes, without self the whole creation is pointless and useless.
That is freedom from the consumer/aquirer/point-maker.
It's an option.
As long as we think about creation in terms of how we can use it, we will destroy ourselves
and this planet, which isn't wrong IMO, but the solution is difficult and narrow.
You can disagree, but there are certainly some who have no use for a self.
And not just eastern traditions - I recently posted in the Oneness thread on a catholic nun
who went through all the phases - the dark night, the cloud of unknowing, oneness and then no-oneness.

There's simply no right or wrong; no need to compare.
I am not suggesting the path of no-self is the best.
People do whatever they do; no one can do anything else.
I just like oneness and no-oneness because they are not well known or spoken about
about often. It's radical. Why would we want no self? Why would we want a useless world?
Why would no meaning/purpose be desireable?
Well, they're not wanted. But considering who the "wanter" is and what s/he knows (the past),
do you want all your eggs in that basket?

Basically, for me, I see the self/ego/knowledge/wanter as a system, a conditioned program.
I need to know there is something else so I have seen something else.
Everyone sees when they're ready; basically, when it's a matter of life and death.
Most people cannot see that they are already dead, so they needn't see outside the closed system.
The closed system is their life; to some others it's death. I certainly wouldn't try to change
anyone's mind about it. But I do like to talk about it and share my experiences and perceptions.

I don't disagree with your view at all. I too was repulsed by the uselessness of no-self.
Maybe you have a choice? I didn't.
The thing is, when we see the truth of it in its totality, there's no choice - the seeing IS
the undoing of the self. The seeing sees that there is no choice in a conditioned recycled past
which we call our self, me, my mind, etc. So I do not have the luxury of agreeing and disagreeing.

We're really talking about different worlds. Why bother comparing apples and oranges?
You want to accomplish something and you need a will and a separate self and right and wrong
to define and reveal the future improved version of you on the path of betterment, and you need
to feel that you make a difference and that things have meaning and purpose... Certainly I'd be a fool
to argue that that doesn't exist. It's just not very creative. In fact it's very predictable.
I don't want to live in that predictability. So I've altered some perceptions. Yes, I do think that
humanity will evolve to not discard that which they deem unuseful (like grandparents) and stop
their self-centeredness, but I don't care if they do; I see nothing wrong with how people are
proceeding now. It is natural, to me, that awakening occur individually and subjectively.
Only dreamers imagine the whole world should be saved. For the one who awakens, the whole
world IS "saved" in the microcosmic/fractal reflection. People who choose to sleep are still God
in their choice. Who am I to say they should "God" differently?

Agreeing or disagreeing is easy requiring only a one-sided effort. But to truly communicate is an art,
a dance, a co-operation. I hope you don't think I want you to agree with me. I'm just hoping to communicate.
Greater options equal greater awareness. That's all I want. I will never disprove an option or think it invalid.
I guess that is how I've changed by this conversation. I started out disagreeing with right and wrong.

Moshe
04-26-2012, 02:56 PM
I don't disagree with your view at all. I too was repulsed by the uselessness of no-self.
Maybe you have a choice? I didn't.
The thing is, when we see the truth of it in its totality, there's no choice - the seeing IS
the undoing of the self. The seeing sees that there is no choice in a conditioned recycled past
which we call our self, me, my mind, etc. So I do not have the luxury of agreeing and disagreeing.

We're really talking about different worlds. Why bother comparing apples and oranges?
You want to accomplish something and you need a will and a separate self and right and wrong
to define and reveal the future improved version of you on the path of betterment, and you need
to feel that you make a difference and that things have meaning and purpose... Certainly I'd be a fool
to argue that that doesn't exist. It's just not very creative. In fact it's very predictable.
I don't want to live in that predictability. So I've altered some perceptions. Yes, I do think that
humanity will evolve to not discard that which they deem unuseful (like grandparents) and stop
their self-centeredness, but I don't care if they do; I see nothing wrong with how people are
proceeding now. It is natural, to me, that awakening occur individually and subjectively.
Only dreamers imagine the whole world should be saved. For the one who awakens, the whole
world IS "saved" in the microcosmic/fractal reflection. People who choose to sleep are still God
in their choice. Who am I to say they should "God" differently?

Agreeing or disagreeing is easy requiring only a one-sided effort. But to truly communicate is an art,
a dance, a co-operation. I hope you don't think I want you to agree with me. I'm just hoping to communicate.
Greater options equal greater awareness. That's all I want. I will never disprove an option or think it invalid.
I guess that is how I've changed by this conversation. I started out disagreeing with right and wrong.

Solomon, I can see much accord between us, and for those parts in disagreement, I don't mind disagreeing.

I do recall your initial disagreement with what I led out as The Big Trap of the Alchemist... which I said is falling into desire of the Stone.
I still feel it is very true and to the point, and that things do matter.

If humans destroy the earth because of their choices, vs they save the earth and effect love and miracles and abundance and healing and wisdom for all,
it is a very basic understanding for me, so silly to even have to mention it, in my opinion, that obviously there is something, somewhere somehow that
distinguishs one of those fates for planet earth as being better, more suitable, more desirable for the whole of Creation than the other.

I think you have done so much reflection, so much contemplation, and stripped so much down of that ego that divides, causes suffering, and illusion,
that you have stripped away some of the good stuff too. To see a simple wisdom that can never be removed - that remains a small defining quality of the nature of Creation,
and it is this: There is still good, there is still purpose.
That good is undefined, formless, but it has an essential nature which we call good, even if we should not define it and set it in stone.... an error of control of humanity.
this, again, is a paradox, and i see it as a balance of the opposites.

We're like two travellers from different land who walked along with each other on a long journey, sharing a canteen of water.
We're like two Rabbis debating some aspect of Torah all day long, only to dance fervently at night, in celebration of the fact that despite our disagreement,
we both acknowledge the Mystery is and always will be, greater than us.

solomon levi
04-26-2012, 07:49 PM
:)

I see purpose. I just insist on calling personally projected "meaning" and "purpose" what it is.
I would have to say that all life is meant to evolve or go extinct.
That is the only impersonal purpose I see, and I see its limitations as well.
These limitations I have outlined already as the ego/knowledge/comparison/past, etc.
Not unlike the Fibonacci series, we grow by reflecting on what we have been and
then projecting what we will be, all based on our knowledge/experience/soul, etc.
When we grow this way, it is very slow. Nothing wrong with that. But some like
to be free of this linear progression of time and enter spirit/all/potential as opposed to
soul/memory/the known.

I've heard it said that the only mandate from "God" was to make known the unknown,
and there are no limits or restrictions (thou shalt nots) on that - we are unconditionally
loved and allowed as the conscious lights/aspects of the (great unconscious) "Dark Sea
of Awareness". If you think about it, it is really impossible for the unlimited to impose
limits on us or rules - we do that to ourselves, and necessarily so (for the sake of creation).

Anyway, one can see clearly that the process of reflecting on the past for direction and the
future is only going to produce a re-arrangement of the past items - not a true creation from
the unknown. In the same vein, one cannot have a virgin birth from spirit in that way. The past
is not "philosophical" or "living water" like the unconditioned present is.

I've stated that argument enough, I think. So one either sees it or doesn't. But if it is seen, it is
also seen that meaning and purpose cannot exist without the past/knowledge either. So as much as
this gives people (apparent/believed) security and stability and order and direction and meaning...
the price is our ability to be new and present and whole. And there is only holiness in the whole.
Otherwise we can strive to be good, but that will never be the good of Plato or of Jesus
("Why callest thou me good? No one is good, save one, that is God." - Luke 18:19).


I very much like and appreciate the sentiment of this:
"We're like two travellers from different land who walked along with each other on a long journey, sharing a canteen of water.
We're like two Rabbis debating some aspect of Torah all day long, only to dance fervently at night, in celebration of the fact that despite our disagreement, we both acknowledge the Mystery is and always will be, greater than us."

Oh - yes, one has to throw out the good with the bad. I know that is contrary to popular opinion,
but I am compelled by my seeing to release poles/extremes. Of course when I am acting in society,
I favor the good and am quite pleasant and congeanial. I have a great respect for life, only rarely
killing a mosquito (bees, flies, spiders - I hold in my hand and transfer them elsewhere). It's not that
I think killing is bad. I just prefer to be "mindful"/present, and the present never instructs me to kill
anything - you know it's meaning that kills things? "God's purpose" has done atrocities throughout
history. Anyway... I'm trying to say that I'm not out of touch with humanity or the world. I practice
controlled folly... abide by the rules so as not to stand out too much... I just don't believe in any of
man's rules/interpretations. I respect them, and I respect people... I love people. But most are programs.
It's not either-or for me. I try to see all and allow/love all. My last "meaning" that I hold on to is to see
the bigger picture, to prefer it. That's how I am still tied into growth/time/comparison/knowledge. But not
tied/bound really. It's another controlled folly for the time; a general rule when arguing these things -
the relatively more objective view.

Moshe
04-27-2012, 04:26 PM
Solomon after your latest response, my question to you is:

Do you believe it is possible for a human being to know God's Will?

The subtext of this question includes the following understanding: That besides the fact that many project from their own framework of
past structure... and this is clearly NOT knowing God's will... Is it possible for a human being to know God's Will?

Salazius
04-27-2012, 07:55 PM
This is God's Will :




























Amen.

Andro
04-27-2012, 08:37 PM
This is God's Will :




























Amen.

Couldn't have put it better :)

Moshe
04-28-2012, 12:28 AM
Couldn't have put it better :)

All the friend fellows chime in to express cohesion of thought...
feeling supported by each other's accord, they are edified in their thinking.
See Theoricus quote below.

The question to Solomon remains.

Ghislain
04-28-2012, 05:07 AM
That is an unfair advantage Androgynus.

;)

Ghislain

Edit: With great power comes great resposibility.

Ghislain
04-28-2012, 06:04 AM
Do you believe it is possible for a human being to know God's Will?

Our Lord says of himself, "I am the way, and the truth" (John 14:6) (Tao IMHO)

Jesus at the last supper:

“The Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you
know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you”

“On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.”

We are all waiting for a great theophany that is us, has been in us and all around us for eternity
whether your eyes are open or closed; we can’t see the wood for the trees are in the way.


Androgynus: “Do you DARE free yourself?”

How does one free oneself if one is already free?

We are exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc... If we, with our will, thought,
choice, action, etc... understand that we are free, and can deal with the consequences then we are
already independent and unrestricted.

Just know that you are free; there are no shackles other than those which you create for yourself for
your own protection.

We are all free and know it. One has to ask oneself if one wants to take on the responsibility of freedom
and drop the guise of being entrapped. We hate to see others break free for it erodes the reason for us to
remain in self captivity.


Crab mentality, sometimes referred to as crabs in the bucket, describes a way of
thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you."

The metaphor refers to a pot of crabs. Individually, the crabs could easily escape from the pot,
but instead, they grab at each other in a useless "king of the hill" competition (or sabotage) which
prevents any from escaping and ensures their collective demise. The analogy in human behavior
is that of a group that will attempt to "pull down" (negate or diminish the importance of) any
member who achieves success beyond the others, out of envy, conspiracy or competitive feelings.

This term is broadly associated with short-sighted, non-constructive thinking rather than a
unified, long-term, constructive mentality. It is also often used colloquially in reference to
individuals or communities attempting to "escape" a so-called "underprivileged life," but kept
from doing so by others attempting to ride upon their coat-tails or those who simply resent
their success

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality)

Along the road there have been those that used and abused that freedom either through misinterpretation
or frustration.

List of rampage killers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers)

However it shows how free we are, good or bad. It is a matter of what one does with this great responsibility
of freedom bestowed upon us.

So know this; you are as free as you deem it fit to be.

We are our own Jailers (gaolers)

If there is a “Big trap of the Alchemist” it is a self imposed trap; and you know it!

Ghislain (still shackled)

Moshe
04-28-2012, 01:50 PM
That is an unfair advantage Androgynus.


What advantage?
Advantage is a relative word -it must involve the idea that one thing can be better than another.
I think Androgynous and Solomon would be the first to agree - that is not possible.
And then the next problem with your statement Ghislain -
the idea of advantage implies some construct of the past. How can that be if there is only present, and there is no universal truth?

Your very presumptuous act of even entering onto this forum to share some of your thoughts and insights is faulted, because you are a you
and you are using language of a past world to write about ideas that don't exist in the now.
in fact, as soon as you, or anyone else writes anything and then posts it, it becomes something of the past and thus nullified into non-existence.

Well maybe that is the point. that is the wisdom through all the non-sensicalness of these ideas.
we arrive at wisdom when we've stripped away everything that has any substance, truth, or purpose or realism to it.
we arrive at absolute nothingness and besides the serene flow of drool dripping down our chins, we have nothing to say or do or think or be...

we're free.



What you call "god'' 's will - I see as a blank page on which people (such as yourself) write/project their so-called 'truth', then call it 'universal' (like you did earlier on this thread) and insinuate that other perspectives are 'nonsense' (like you are doing now).

What you're clearly saying is that God's will does not exist.


Are you making the assumption that there is *A* 'truth'?

Yes. I most definitely am.
There is a Universal Truth.
It does not fit well into a constricting structure of belief, but some cosmologies, models and poetry and music
can point beautifully to it... to light the way in guidance. Once there, a being can experience this universal truth.
Experiencing this Universal truth, they can then look to others to recognize if they, too, have heard the "beat of that drum"
or felt the "flow of those waters", in their own, unique way.
It is a fluid Truth that can be expressed in myriad ways.
but it's essence is Universal. And one CAN be standing outside or oblivious to it, especially if one
believes so vehemently that it doesn't or cannot exist.


Are you implying that I am 'gullible' and am being sold 'nonsense' in the form of 'enigmatic language'?

I was implying that sort of enigmatic statement by Salazius and your strong support of it, is exactly the sort of invitation for someone gullible to
think that therein dwelled some kind of wisdom.


There is no 'enigmatic language' on a blank page. It is _exactly_ what it is: a BLANK.

Again, you are making it clear - that you believe there is no Universal truth.



You (and others) seem to be circling a lot around this 'truth' concept.
What if there isn't any? Who would _you_ be then?

If there isn't any, Androgynous... then everything falls apart. everything.
your head would have melted into fragments of form, then into particles, then into subatomic particles, then
into light, then diffused into nothing, nada, shoom cloom, zippo...
in fact, it is God who is still holding you together, despite the fact that you cannot see that. That is how compassionate God is.
If it was just YOUR will, you'd be in oblivion now, as a reflection of your oblivious thinking.


On a lighter note: If 'god' DOES have a will, he left me NOTHING in his will.
Cheap bastard.


it's actually an excellent pun. And very clever. I will give you that.
However, your insolence toward God continues to reveal where you're coming from...

He/She left me a lot.
My life. Every breath. The chance to experience and learn about His/Her Truth.
The beauty of this world (along with all the stupidity to deal with... well, that's not His/Her fault..)

Andro
04-28-2012, 02:13 PM
That is an unfair advantage Androgynus.

;)

Ghislain

Edit: With great power comes great resposibility.

You are referring to the post I made and deleted after an hour or so. I decided the subject was not worth my reply, after all.
'Normally' I would have just changed it to something like 'edited back to nothing because of recognized irrelevance'.

I clean up such kind of posts from time to time to keep the forum uncluttered, including the likes of 'oops double post' or 'posted in the wrong section', etc...

Technically there is no difference between deleting a post within 24 hours or editing/changing it into some replacement remark like 'Sorry, off topic' or 'Oops, didn't mean to write this post'.

And I DID check to see if anyone had replied yet when I deleted it/edited back into nothingness. There were no replies at the time of deletion.

So I preferred not to clutter, and I don't think I used any 'unfair advantage'. But if it makes people uncomfortable, I'll stick to editing into 'Sorry, irrelevant', and ONLY within the 24 hour editing window.

Moshe - This is what Ghislain was actually referring to (the deletion of the post I originally made and regretted an hour later).

But since you and Ghislain quoted the deleted post anyway, below is the post (the one I found not worth making), in its entirety. I guess it needed to come out after all :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One man's sense is another man's nonsense.

The Salazius 'quote' I have endorsed supports neither (sense OR nonsense). And yes, we DO have similar perspectives on many issues.

What you call "god'' 's will - I see as a blank page on which people write/project their believed 'truth', and then often call their beliefs 'universal' (like you did earlier on this thread) and insinuate that other perspectives are 'nonsense' (like you are doing now with the 'Theoricus' quote).

Are you implying that I am 'gullible' and am being sold 'nonsense'?


Do you believe it is possible for a human being to know God's Will?

Now, this question is already projecting biases. It's like polls/statistics - you can arrive at different results by the way you formulate (manipulate) the questions.

The way this question is formulated already contains an 'a priori' assumption that there is a such a 'thing' as 'god'. Not only that, but this assumed 'god' also has a 'will'.

So now, I am adding a new question for everyone:

Who are you without a 'truth' to cling to?

And also a Philosophical Game to play:

TRUTH or DARE ?

Maybe this 'truth' is the last (and/or strongest) link in the chain that keeps us in bondage?

Do we DARE free ourselves from the very concept of 'truth'? Or do we continue the endless debates on who's 'truth' is 'truer'?

'Truth' is a power game. It's politics. It's religion. It's the need to believe and identify.

It's an opportunity to tell others they're 'wrong'. It's the ultimate fear to let go.

It's what gets 'Totalitarian Salvationists' through the night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a lighter note: If 'god' DOES have a 'will', he left me NOTHING in his 'will'.

Cheap bastard.

:cool:

Moshe
04-28-2012, 02:49 PM
You are referring to the post I made and deleted after an hour or so. I decided the subject was not worth my reply, after all.
'Normally' I would have just changed it to something like 'edited back to nothing because of recognized irrelevance'.
I clean up such kind of posts from time to time to keep the forum uncluttered, including the likes of 'oops double post' or 'posted in the wrong section', etc...
Technically there is no difference between deleting a post within 24 hours or editing/changing it into some replacement remark like 'Sorry, off topic' or 'Oops, didn't mean to write this post'.
And I DID check to see if anyone had replied yet when I deleted it/edited back into nothingness. There were no replies at the time of deletion.

Oh...
I read your post via email and then after reading Ghislain's last posts, I couldn't find your post, thought it was on the last page, and went back into email
and quoted it.

I quoted something out of nothing.
:p

solomon levi
04-28-2012, 05:39 PM
Solomon after your latest response, my question to you is:

Do you believe it is possible for a human being to know God's Will?

The subtext of this question includes the following understanding: That besides the fact that many project from their own framework of
past structure... and this is clearly NOT knowing God's will... Is it possible for a human being to know God's Will?


Yes. But I am seeing the same as Salazius and Androgynus.
I am willing to go so far as to say God's will is for us to make know the unknown,
as I said above. But God cannot have a will or determined outcome for us and
love us unconditionally. God could not have a will that would not be absolute.
Thus, not killing, for example, cannot be God's will or no one would be able to do it,
unless our will is greater than God's, in which case we have to redefine the whole
system with man at the top and God as some lesser force, which is rediculous IMO,
God not having a will being more reasonable, for how can undefined no limits have
will?
So if I have said something to the effect of surrendering my will to God's, which I don't
disagree with, what this means to me, God's will, is "what is", the present/Presence/moment
of no time/separation - surrendering my knowledge self, which is a part, to the no knowledge,
no will, no self, which is the whole, and in the whole we have "silent knowledge" of what
one may call "purpose" or "God's will" or one's place in everything, but it is natural and
evident and not a projection of knowledge or interpretation. One doesn't have any thoughts
like that - one cannot have the separate thought "I am doing God's will". One just senses
completely a unification with consciousness. A truly "enlightened" man will not think the
thought "I am enlightened." It cannot occur to him. The same with "God's will". Which is
a clue that the "sleeping" are doing "God's will" just as much as the "awakened". :)
God's will is absolute. We cannot not do it. Therefore we may surmise that God's will is
for us to be whatever we are and do whatever we do. But to put it more poetically, God "said",
"Discover me! Go and make of me what you will. I wish to know Myself through you, the
conscious (awakened) lights of Me (the unconscious sleeping void which became aware of Itself,
became conscious...
Let me go into this further, for clarity. So when the unconscious became conscious of Itself, there
was light - a big bang of sorts. What I wish to clarify is that the slumbering void remains unmodified.
It is the never-changing, eternal fount, immoveable rock, etc, never sullied by the doings of the conscious
part. So, for me, I do not imagine the whole of the "void"/infinity became conscious and awakened/aware.
This is an important point. There must be the stable, never-changing, never-moving relative to the light,
primum mobile, dimensions of creation. This is the True subject-object relationship, and all the conscious
parts/lights/us are objects of the uncreated subject. In Gnosticism, there is the story of the Demiurgos,
the blind creator god, who actually exists a few levels down from the 8th (which is their highest level).
But the Demiurgos looks around and seeing nothing/no one, declares himself god. They also say the
Demiurgos was Sophias attempt at creating without her consort, the void or True God, and it came out
deformed because of this. And this god/Demiurgos created the earth and man and everything, so (to Gnostics)
all creation is "evil", blind, deformed, a lie.
Anyway, one way we can interpret this story (besides the literal) is that the ego also imagines itself the subject
in all relationships (we say "I") when it's true place is actually an object of the uncreated. For me, there is no
difference between the ego and the Demiurgos. The ego/idea of the separate self/false image and its demons/
archons are what rapes Sophia/wisdom and turns her into a whore. Only the unconditional light of Christ/8/
infinity can save Sophia, as It does in the story. This is also the story of alchemy and the first matter, the most
pure (Sophia) trapped or disguised in a saturnine filth, used by all and casts upon the dungheap... Anyway...
So I have established my understanding of the unconscious and conscious "division" of unity and the nature of
the true subject and object relationship which has been mistaken by every human ego - an important mistake to
make! But so relatively few rectify it. And I might as well add here, being unselfish by thinking of others and
giving to others - which is great and an improvement, a bigger picture - does not rectify the ego to the uncreated,
the true subject/source. It's true, those who have seen the truth, the true relationship, are very unselfish and giving.
But mimicking this does not manifest the realisation any more than surgery cures cancer. (Read - the cause of cancer
is not enough surgery. !?!? of course not.)

So... human being... this needs some definition for me. But I did want to add some more to what I said in the past.
I said my God is not human and I am not human, consciousness is not human... I just wanted to say I am not
inhuman either. Human is a part, an expression of the totality, a collection of emanations (and necessary rejection
of other emanations if one is to remain human). So I am not scary enough to not relate to human beings. :) I'm
not psychotic, at least to that degree. I just see human as an extension of fracturing/dividing - not whole, not the All.
So a human (part of the whole) cannot know God's will (the whole); by definition they are dimensionally separated,
even though this separation is only psychological; psychological = real to humans/egos.
In Samkya philosophy, as with Gnosticism, we see the "I-maker" (ahamkara means "I-maker") comes in at a lower level:

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4879658920117604&id=5d3fa3fad3ab45bedf7f400b24ead8c4&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.energyenhancement.org%2fayurv eda%2fimages%2fsamkhya%2520creative%2520philosophy .GIF

Perhaps in Kabbalah we may associate this level with Da'ath/knowledge, which is not
a true sephiroth! Just as the ego/knowledge/past is but an image.
But it does make the game interesting. :)

Oh - here is a clearer, larger version of the above image:
http://www.energyenhancement.org/ayurveda/images/samkhya%20creative%20philosophy.GIF

It shares the same elements as I have described, coincidentally. I did not intend to describe a Samkya view
of creation, just the one I have seen. But in both we have the unmanifest/uncreated (Purusha), the created (Prakriti),
intelligence/consciousness (Buddhi or Mahad), and then ego/identity/separate self (ahamkara). So one can say I
am describing a state of solving ahamkara into buddhi.

solomon levi
04-28-2012, 07:47 PM
"It shares the same elements as I have described, coincidentally. I did not intend to describe a Samkya view
of creation, just the one I have seen. But in both we have the unmanifest/uncreated (Purusha), the created (Prakriti),
intelligence/consciousness (Buddhi or Mahad), and then ego/identity/separate self (ahamkara). So one can say I
am describing a state of solving ahamkara into buddhi."

Buddhi, intelligence, consciousness... the awakened, enlightened... this is what I refer to as the conscious
lights/parts/points of God. Buddha = enlightened = to be in light of, which one may go further and say
"to be in knowledge of", but the knowledge of light/gnosis/silent knowledge must be distinguished from
the knowledge of the ego/thinking/past.

In Krishnamurti, intelligence is perception without images/past/knowledge which is different than the
intellect, the thinker. This intelligence/perception is also love, the unconditioned aspect of consciousness.

Who wants to be associated with "the most evil man who ever lived", Aleister Crowley? And yet he saw
the first precept of his mysticism, which he named Thelema, to be "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the Law"; this copying Rabelais. Is it evil? Or simply affirming free will, God's unconditional love?
Of course most humans/egos don't agree that you can do whatever you want. What about law and order?
Isn't this a lack of faith or insight into "God's (unconditioned) law and order"? Man believes injustices
occur all the time, while some spiritual traditions or seeing insist that the universe is just/balanced/perfect.
For me, there came a time when I could see man's law and "God's law", and they have nothing in common.
Man does not care about the unconditioned ineffable infinite true God. Ego-man only cares/places meaning
in that which is self-serving/knowable/useable. Even the ark of the covenant became a weapon to kill other
men! Yes, there are "good" people, but that is of no consequence. The ego must be removed from the picture,
not conditioned to be good. A wolf in sheep's clothing comes to mind.
Crowley's second precept is/was "Love is the law... love under will." I don't presume to know what that meant
to Crowley, but one can see how the wording, "love under will" sounds like putting the cart before the horse.
But it's really a matter of definitions. For me, there is no distinction between love and will until ego came into
being, and even then all the ego does is encompassed and empowered by love and freedom. Again, for me,
God "said" "Make known the unknown in whatever way you are able, the subtle and the gross, the high and
the low..." whatever. Of course those distinctions didn't exist for God. There was/is no "out of bounds" for
the unconditioned true God. The Demiurgos is responsible for the "out of bounds", the "thou shalt not...", etc.
An important distinction is that the true God is not a creator god, while many systems/religions freely confuse
the two. It is us, the conscious lights, that are creating as we go, from the void into mass - we are making
known the unknown. Though most of us (as humans anyway, most of us conscious lights aren't humans)
have become trapped in a very narrow band of the infinite, becoming obsessed with the ego-illusion-game,
only recycling the known. The things that humans do here on this earth...
it isn't even 1% of what is possible for consciousness. That doesn't cheapen any of it. It is wonderful. But we
already know this part of consciousness. One can interpret that man has forgotten God, forgotten the mandate
to make known the unknown, has thus sinned or gone against God. Okay, I get it. But this is also still within
God; this is something possible to God - to forget Itself in a dream of matter. There are lights of God smeared
through all the dimensions into mass, separated and connected by time and frequency, creating the appearance
of Jacob's ladder. So there is no judgement on it, no "we must wake up and remember God!" That becomes
religious fanaticism because it is partial truth, the rest of the truth being that to sleep is still an option in God,
and never judged by God. There is no time limit imposed by God; or maybe there is - maybe the conscious
parts are destined to return to slumber once again?? If so, that is what it is and I wouldn't interpret it as a reason
for pressure or haste... haste to what? there is no pre-ordained goal in making known the unknown. As objects
of God, we cannot grade or evaluate our success and failure - such meanings are irrelevant; relevant only to
those who believe themselves to be subjects. It's both funny and frightening that the one's who have forgotten
their true relationship to God are the ones who have made the rules for everyone, rules about god, rules about
right and wrong, about what is and isn't acceptable... all lies, all error, all from the blind, misinformed Demiurgos/ego.
Christ is not welcome here, nor is Aleister Crowley. :) But on occasion beings who draw
outside the lines will come and go, and society will call them saints or demons, genius or psychotic, guru or
cult-leader, christ or anti-christ...
What I hope will be recognised is the radical change in consciousness/awareness that is necessary to even
begin to see outside the box. All the methodical disciplinary approaches which emphasize this and avoid that
are only more of the same. If one desires to know God, the only reasonable "approach" must be something
whole and total, not partial and separative/fracturing. The ego/knowledge/Demiurgos (half-maker; thus two,
duality) must be "seen through", seen for what it is. Then it will have no power over you. The ego is an object
of an object, which is crazy: an object without a subject! It is an illusion. It is as if you drew a portrait and the
character in the portrait took on a life of its own - imagined itself to be the artist, a subject!
But part of what God is/can do is to make worlds out of illusions. Some have learned these secrets and
become mischievious tricksters, coyote shamans, Hermes, etc.

Ghislain
04-29-2012, 08:19 AM
I feel what is and as I have written before, I am not that well-read and cannot see myself being so
anywhere in the near future; so excuse me if I cherry pick from that which others write.


God's will is absolute, we cannot not do it. Therefore we may surmise that God's will is
for us to be whatever we are and do whatever we do. But to put it more poetically, God "said",
"Discover me! Go and make of me what you will. I wish to know Myself through you, the
conscious (awakened) lights of Me (the unconscious sleeping void which became aware of Itself,
became conscious...

As it is meant to be...IMHO


Though most of us (as humans anyway, most of us conscious lights aren't humans)
have become trapped in a very narrow band of the infinite, becoming obsessed with the ego-
illusion-game, only recycling the known. The things that humans do here on this earth...
But this is also still within God; this is something possible to God - to forget Itself in a dream of matter.

All is one therefore we are part of God (for want of a better word). Those that appear trapped
are just the children starting their journey, or the bottle-white holiday-makers starting out on their
sunshine trip, walking on the beach among the bronzed bodies of those who arrived earlier; most
likely to be burned before bronzed. They are no more ‘Trapped’ than you or I but have to see this
for themselves, learning from their own and others mistakes.

Although I am still searching I have come to the realisation that I can enjoy the ‘Trap’, it is a privilege
bestowed upon us; hence the jealous Angels :). When you escape the ‘Trap’, and I am guessing, all that
can be taken with you is the memories of your moment spent in it, and what you may think you have
learnt from the experience; like the holiday snaps from the vacation.

In Robert Monroe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Monroe)'s books he talks of "last timers" <- feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. These
are (shall we say souls/spirits?) that have repeated the journey here on earth over and over, addicted to
being human, until they become aware and leave humanity for the last time. Perhaps those of us
drawn to this forum are 'last timers' :) just a thought.


I am a human being, we are human beings, but we are pluralising the wrong word, it should read
‘we are humans being’ or to put it a better way ‘we are being humans’.

Below I have placed a link to a thread set up purposely for this post.

The Game of Life (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2848-Game-of-Life&p=21141&posted=1#post21141)

Now we can play God...metaphorically speaking.

Ghislain

Salazius
04-29-2012, 11:04 AM
My blank page made a lot of pixels appear.

Emptyness always call for something to come in. Or out.

Ok. God's Will ... If God is a primordial Nothing/FullNothing, then there is no will, since there is no one there to express something.

Now if you ask for the Will of the created Light, First Matter, Out of the Nothing or In it, -same thing-, then I would say that the Laws at play in the Universe are expressing it. Gravity and creation, preservation, evolution, and destruction, and me sitting in front of this computer, and me having my feet cold, and me blah blah blah about me now.

Whatever can do the creation in the video game of the universe is an expression of the Will.
Since the Nothing can hold anything ... everything is God/dess' Will.

So, what you want is what God wants, since you are God expressed. Loop.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-CkNOqiOHANk/T50hYMnarLI/AAAAAAAAHyo/dv4U9ozyXbc/s620/elvis.jpg

:)

solomon levi
04-29-2012, 06:02 PM
"When you escape the ‘Trap’, and I am guessing, all that
can be taken with you is the memories of your moment spent in it, and what you may think you have
learnt from the experience; like the holiday snaps from the vacation."

Well, not for me. I don't care for memories. They are the substance of the trap.
When we are free from "traps" or eddies/whirlpools in the sea of awareness
(which are created by our attention - fixation of attention - just as matter is gravitationally
trapped light) we are free to explore other areas, or the same area without being attached,
or to create new attachments if you like. Without memory/past, there is nothing to trap you,
nothing that identifies you, nothing especially relative or associated to you.

Moshe
04-29-2012, 09:29 PM
Yes. But I am seeing the same as Salazius and Androgynus.
I am willing to go so far as to say God's will is for us to make know the unknown,
as I said above. But God cannot have a will or determined outcome for us and
love us unconditionally. God could not have a will that would not be absolute.
Thus, not killing, for example, cannot be God's will or no one would be able to do it,
unless our will is greater than God's, in which case we have to redefine the whole
system with man at the top and God as some lesser force, which is rediculous IMO,
God not having a will being more reasonable, for how can undefined no limits have
will?

Solomon, you're offering only a narrow spectrum of the possibilities regarding God's will and free will.

I believe you are operating under the assumpting that everything that is... now, and everything that happens, is a result of God's will. As I recall all that you have written in this long thread, you have implied that what is, is God's will. All that is, if it is, or has happened, it is God's will.
And I can see, now, after all we have said, this is something I disagree with and it may be why I find many of the things you say to be untrue, bc it rests on this foundation which is also untrue.

Can we not be living here, in this realm of existence, making choices based in our own free will, which is not aligned with God's will?

This is HUGELY important.

So can God's will be that we NOT kill each other and yet we do simply because we are not in alignment with God's will?

That just seems so right and true.
The rest makes little sense and has no resonance of depth and truth.



So if I have said something to the effect of surrendering my will to God's, which I don't
disagree with, what this means to me, God's will, is "what is", the present/Presence/moment
of no time/separation - surrendering my knowledge self, which is a part, to the no knowledge,
no will, no self, which is the whole, and in the whole we have "silent knowledge" of what
one may call "purpose" or "God's will" or one's place in everything, but it is natural and
evident and not a projection of knowledge or interpretation. One doesn't have any thoughts
like that - one cannot have the separate thought "I am doing God's will". One just senses
completely a unification with consciousness. A truly "enlightened" man will not think the
thought "I am enlightened." It cannot occur to him. The same with "God's will". Which is
a clue that the "sleeping" are doing "God's will" just as much as the "awakened". :)
God's will is absolute. We cannot not do it.

back to this again...
oh yes we can, and we often do not do God's will.
We sometimes do God's will because there is a sense of truth within a human being, which can be listened to, sometimes is not, sometimes is...



Therefore we may surmise that God's will is
for us to be whatever we are and do whatever we do.


back this too, again.

murder?
rape?
subjugation of poor people in poor countries by multinational corporations, taking away their crops, their rights to free water, etc.

c'mon!!



So... human being... this needs some definition for me. But I did want to add some more to what I said in the past.
I said my God is not human and I am not human, consciousness is not human... I just wanted to say I am not inhuman either. Human is a part, an expression of the totality, a collection of emanations (and necessary rejection of other emanations if one is to remain human). So I am not scary enough to not relate to human beings. :) I'm not psychotic, at least to that degree. I just see human as an extension of fracturing/dividing - not whole, not the All. So a human (part of the whole) cannot know God's will (the whole); by definition they are dimensionally separated, even though this separation is only psychological; psychological = real to humans/egos.

I see your point.
a better version of the question is, then, can a human being know God's will for that human being?
Or... as another sort of question: can a human being know God's will in any given situation for themselves?
(knowing God's will for another is a whole other ballgame and beyond the scope of this discussion. :p )



In Samkya philosophy, as with Gnosticism, we see the "I-maker" (ahamkara means "I-maker") comes in at a lower level:

Oh - here is a clearer, larger version of the above image:
http://www.energyenhancement.org/ayurveda/images/samkhya%20creative%20philosophy.GIF
It shares the same elements as I have described, coincidentally. I did not intend to describe a Samkya view
of creation, just the one I have seen. But in both we have the unmanifest/uncreated (Purusha), the created (Prakriti),
intelligence/consciousness (Buddhi or Mahad), and then ego/identity/separate self (ahamkara). So one can say I
am describing a state of solving ahamkara into buddhi.

this is a bit of an "aside" but i do not attribute a sense of "I Am" to Ego.
to me, Ego is the separate self. when a human being has a rift in truth, has a block of love, therein dwells the ego, which brings with it a sense of self that is not a part of I Am, but more like, I am not, or i am separated.

Moshe
04-29-2012, 09:41 PM
Although I am still searching I have come to the realisation that I can enjoy the ‘Trap’, it is a privilege
bestowed upon us; hence the jealous Angels :). When you escape the ‘Trap’, and I am guessing, all that
can be taken with you is the memories of your moment spent in it, and what you may think you have
learnt from the experience; like the holiday snaps from the vacation.

the angels are not jealous of us because we are trapped and can remain so if we wish.
they are jealous / envious / whatever you call it because they do not know themselves as individuals and we do.
in their wisdom, as it emanates from God, they know the parameters of what is of God and what is not.
Love vs what is not love.
what they seek is to be the Love of God as they are and to know themselves, as we have the potential to do both.
(although few have succeeded fully)




In Robert Monroe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Monroe)'s books he talks of "last timers" <- feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. These
are (shall we say souls/spirits?) that have repeated the journey here on earth over and over, addicted to
being human, until they become aware and leave humanity for the last time. Perhaps those of us
drawn to this forum are 'last timers' :) just a thought.


I am a human being, we are human beings, but we are pluralising the wrong word, it should read
‘we are humans being’ or to put it a better way ‘we are being humans’.

Below I have placed a link to a thread set up purposely for this post.

The Game of Life (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2848-Game-of-Life&p=21141&posted=1#post21141)

Now we can play God...metaphorically speaking.

Ghislain

solomon levi
04-30-2012, 12:30 PM
"Can we not be living here, in this realm of existence, making choices based in our own free will, which is not aligned with God's will?
This is HUGELY important.
So can God's will be that we NOT kill each other and yet we do simply because we are not in alignment with God's will?
That just seems so right and true.
The rest makes little sense and has no resonance of depth and truth."

Well, then let that be your truth.
But I can tell you why it doesn't seem that way to me.
Because I chose not to use that system of measurement.
I chose to look without prejudice.
You are giving God a will for no reason.
Why must God have a will?
People do that, not God.
God IS One. God IS absolute. God IS infinite.
Because God IS those things, it makes no sense that God can have a will.
Your god is a lower version, a dualistic god, having a will that isn't absolute because
he wants human beings to choose him of their own free will.
That's a story. Mine's direct perception of what is.
Mine isn't mine, so I don't wonder if it's true.
What is the point of imagining a god if it's going to be just like human beings?
I had a girlfriend just like your god - she wanted me to give her what she wanted
without her having to ask for it, otherwise, she said, it wasn't love on my part if
she had to ask for it.


"murder?
rape?
subjugation of poor people in poor countries by multinational corporations, taking away their crops, their rights to free water, etc.
c'mon!!"


Yes. Everything. You just don't see that it is everything or nothing.
If it could be some things, as you prefer, how does God know where to draw the line?
Tell me the location, the coordinates of this line in infinity/Oneness.
Right. You're god is not the God of Oneness.

What's so bad about rape and good about ice cream?
You really think that's real?
You think box jellyfish are evil?
You think tornados are evil? or tsunamis?
People suffer. It's called "life".
What does it matter if a bad man kills you or your own diet?
This really makes a difference to you?
No wonder you're not free.
The whole planet is sufferring.
ALL planets are sufferring.
Everything in the universe, because it exists, suffers in some way.
So what. Why should I emphasize kittens over puppies, or poor people over rich,
or people over dinosaurs...?
What is this obsession with human beings?
Association.
You see, I have done a lot of work on my associative memory, so it isn't automatic -
it doesn't dictate who I am and what I should care about. You have surrendered
the free will that God gave you for knowledge/memory.
You've mentioned several times that you have heard people like me.
Well, you don't think I've been and heard 1000s like you?
You don't have free will. No one who identifies has free will.
But I bet you won't look at that scientifically because you are certain we must have free will.
I bet you would have difficulty telling me how one could objectively measure if it is free
will or not. If the solution doesn't come to mind immediately, why are you immediately
sure you have free will?

I've been more scientific/objective than you this whole time, and still you speak as if I am
the one untrue, "little sense"... ha! You didn't even provide an explantion or argument for
your view of God with a will! Mine's as solid as mathematics and you say it's little sense.
You just want to see what you want to see and I want to see what's actually there. You're
a believer. All you bring to the table is your biased human perspective on humans. At least
I can tell you about humans from outside of them as well as inside. That's called objectivity -
the thing you laughed at how obviously it must exist and yet rarely perform. How much
thought have you given to bugs raping bugs? You don't know what objectivity is. You're
identified with your cause of good vs evil and truth. It's in your signatures:
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Nothing is easier than to sell gullible persons nonsense for truth, especially if one knows how to
wrap this nonsense in an enigmatical language." Theoricus

I just can't care what you think when I see that there is no flexibility or room FOR you to think.
Your thought is mechanical, not free. It's totally subjective. It would be a miracle for you to
come to some other conclusion than good and evil, right and wrong, god's will and man's will.
You never give me a satisfying/complete answer and all I have to do to for my part is say 1 is not
2, and this isn't sensible enough for you. Everyone will agree that 1 isn't 2. But not everyone will
agree that God can't have a will, but they are the same equation, the same statement. For you to
get to god's will you have to leave the sound logic of 1 is not 2 and somehow magically the One
has a will - 1 IS 2, and you cannot explain that, but I don't make sense/have the resonance of truth!?
You're impossible to reason with because you want to believe.

Ghislain
04-30-2012, 03:45 PM
a = b

a^2 = ab

a^2 − b^2 = ab − b^2

(a − b)(a + b) = b(a − b)

(a - b) (a + b) = b (a - b)

(a + b) = b



therefore:

a + a = a

2a = a

Hence

2 = 1

Ghislain \o/ ... who'd have thought :)

Andro
04-30-2012, 07:10 PM
a = b

a^2 = ab

a^2 − b^2 = ab − b^2

Following simple Arithmetic:

If a = b

then when each half of the equation contains a number minus itself:

a^2 − b^2 = ab − b^2

(like you did above)

then this always amounts to zero.

A number minus itself equals zero, right?

So, the rest of the equations are based on a being zero, and in this case, one time zero is equal to two times zero, and does NOT prove that 1 = 2.

NOW:

Philosophically speaking:

How much is Zero?

First, it's One.

And how much is 0 + 1 ???

The answer:

First it's 1

Then it's 2

Then it's 3

Then it's 1 again...

And finally equals 0 (Zero)

(And in-between, it's 'Ten Thousand Things' and more :))
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you see how? And why?

0 = 1

Ghislain
04-30-2012, 11:23 PM
You outed my zero :)

Check out the Möbius Band that would be a good way of explaining where this thread is going.

Ghislain

Ghislain
04-30-2012, 11:46 PM
the angels are not jealous of us because we are trapped and can remain so if we wish.
they are jealous / envious / whatever you call it because they do not know themselves as individuals and we do.
in their wisdom, as it emanates from God, they know the parameters of what is of God and what is not.
Love vs what is not love.
what they seek is to be the Love of God as they are and to know themselves, as we have the potential to do both.
(although few have succeeded fully)

Moshe

I was saying the Angels were jealous of the privilege bestowed upon us, the trap is not my analogy.

Love is a word banded around, which I dont have any idea of the meaning.

There is a thread called "love" on the forum and in it Androgynus posted a quote from the great POO

Piglet: How do you spell love
Poo: You don't spell it, you feel it.

I like that, but still not sure what it is I am supposed to feel.

Ghislain

Andro
04-30-2012, 11:47 PM
You outed my zero :)

A matter of outing experience :)


Check out the Möbius Band that would be a good way of explaining where this thread is going.

Nowhere? In a one sided loop?

It's the Trap-Thread after all, and we need to find a way to ESCAPE it :)

Moshe
05-01-2012, 02:56 AM
Moshe
I was saying the Angels were jealous of the privilege bestowed upon us, the trap is not my analogy.



Oh, I see. very well.

Love is a word banded around, which I dont have any idea of the meaning.

There is a thread called "love" on the forum and in it Androgynus posted a quote from the great POO

Piglet: How do you spell love
Poo: You don't spell it, you feel it.

I like that, but still not sure what it is I am supposed to feel.

Ghislain

Ghislain, have you not felt love ever? had an experience of love for someone / something that gave you the feeling of love?

Awani
05-01-2012, 03:15 AM
Your god is a lower version, a dualistic god, having a will that isn't absolute because
he wants human beings to choose him of their own free will.
That's a story. Mine's direct perception of what is.
Mine isn't mine, so I don't wonder if it's true.
What is the point of imagining a god if it's going to be just like human beings?

I think the above is the reason why the whole debate seems to have no end. The participants of the debate are clearly speaking about different Gods. It is the Demiurge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge) story again... Robert A. Heinlein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein) said it best: “Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.”

Perhaps human beings are too small and stupid to even discuss God? I don't deny God's existence, but I won't verify it either. Belief is not good enough for me. The only truth I have is what I have seen and experienced. I have never seen or experienced God yet... I have experienced infinite forces and the intelligence of nature... perhaps this is God who knows... but if it is then it seems very estranged from the Gods that figure in Holy Books.

In fact IMO all Holy Books are nothing more than political propaganda of its day... perhaps people will worship TIME magazine 1000 years from now?

:cool:

Seth-Ra
05-01-2012, 04:24 AM
Like many im sure, ive watched this conversation and it usually makes me laugh, and i mean that in a good way. :)

The thing i find most funny, is the lack of understanding (from what ive seen).

SL - you try to keep your focus on the Whole, the "all that IS" aspect of God; both the perceived good, and perceived bad. This is the ouroboros perspective - the All is One perspective. Its important to understanding the bigger picture.

Moshe - you tend to stay focused on the fractal form of here and now; the perceived good vs the perceived bad. This is the caduceus perspective - the One is All perspective - the Dual forces acting on one another. Its important to understand our individual here and now picture.

Both of these sides/pictures are the same, just at different angles of perception. I dont think its a matter of "different God" (from what im seeing), but rather, a different view of that God.

The concepts of rape and murder keep getting thrown around, and they are good points, so i'll use them:

Moshe, I myself, like most Christians and infact "sane" people will agree that rape and murder (shedding of innocent blood) is bad/wrong/"evil". Infact, a question was posed before if anyone would intervene, and if my memory served, most everyone agreed they would, or likes to think they would. People tend to want to do good. Sometimes a person seems to not - maybe they really dont. But here lies the point then:
Anyone who reads Job realizes the "devil"/"enemy" is on a leash. Such a creature is part of the creation - it is not the creator God, it creates nothing. It can be argued that every thought, and action, and all that IS has enough Truth to it, to exist, the enemy included (especially since the enemy cannot create - hence being full of lies, rebellion from what IS, which is folly in and of itself). Part of this, is because God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Omnipresent etc...etc... Do you honestly believe the enemy, or even some half-witted dumb-ass human can surprise such a being? Or do something so outrageous that its outside of His thinking, or Will? Thats madness.
God using the enemy to accomplish His goals, is not evil. A hurting human with a victim mentality may for the moment think so - but that is them undercutting themselves and not seeing the bigger picture. For instance - youre only a victim if you allow yourself to be, and no one is innocent (born into sin (ignorance?) etc).
It is said that NO ONE is given more than they can bare - in Truth they just have to realize the bigger picture, use any supposed negative to become stronger, wiser etc...
God is thought to be the Greatest Alchemist - the Macrocosmic Alchemist - so why is it surprising He would use various degrees of fire to perfect the matter - His living Stones, His People? Develop the larger view. It doesnt shatter your individual-here-and-now view, it simply allows you to see your place within the whole. :)


Solomon Levi, your focus on the Whole/Ouroboros aspect is done quite a lot, and im sure is probably vexing to an extent to always strive to view from that height/angle. (Not saying it is, i myself tend to jump back and forth all the time, but maintaining only one for so long would be bothersome to me. ;) )
The Ouroboros perspective is an important one, but does not negate also the individual choice/polarity of the fractal person/time/event here and now. For me to say any more than that, would be redundant as im sure you know/understand this already - if memory serves you also opted for helping the "victim" in the scenario, so you see what im saying im sure. :)


See the Whole, so that nothing shocks or offends you, so you can understand and respect those on the other side of the board/battle-field etc... and when you understand/see yourself, you'll understand/see where your place in that Whole is. Neither invalidates the other - both ARE = Truth = God's thumb-print is on it. Its ok.

The world is evil - the world is hurting - the world is healing - the world is good. <---- this is a linear/dual polarity.

The world IS - all that is in the world IS - God = Truth = what IS = God is part of the world - the world is part of God - what IS is the world. <---- this is an ouroboros/circular polarity.

The One serpent encompasses the warring/Dual serpents, and the warring/Dual serpents make-up and evolve the One serpent. :cool:

With that, PEACE my brethren, peace and understanding. :)


On a bit of a lighter note, but somewhat equally relevant; me and my brother were talking earlier, and he mentioned that Death gets thrown into the Lake of Fire. I responded that "The Lake of Fire is the second death - so Death gets thrown into the Second Death..." and he picked up my train of thought and concluded "So Death gets thrown into itself. O_O" and i smiled and said "Like the ouroboros." :cool:
Which then reminded me of a quote from the Game of Thrones show ive been watching; the swordsman asks his student if she prays to the gods. She says, "To both the old and the new." He smiles and says:

There is but one God, and his name is Death. Do you know what we say to Death? We say "Not today." ;)

Bit of tongue-in-cheek humor there. :)


All is One and One Is All.





~Seth-Ra

Awani
05-01-2012, 04:29 AM
...and in the end we discover that even death itself is an illusion.

:cool:

Andro
05-01-2012, 08:46 AM
Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.


In fact IMO all Holy Books are nothing more than political propaganda of its day... perhaps people will worship TIME magazine 1000 years from now?

This is also the way I see it. (Everyone please note that I didn't say "You're 'right'/'correct'/etc...")

The founder of scientology started as a Sci-Fi writer until he finally saw he could get much further (money and power - wise) by penning a religion.

No reason it could not have been the same 'back in the days' when the older religions were penned.

And the keys to penning a successful religion are to mix in natural and 'supernatural' phenomena PLUS a good dose of regulations and emotional manipulation with a reward and punishment system. And a good story, of course. It's all in the story.

There is also the level of Alchemical allegories, but you can find these everywhere, in fairy-tales, Music and Film and Art in General.

I've recently read a novel by Carlos Ruiz Zafón (called 'Angel's Game' in English), where the main character (a writer) is commissioned to actually write a religion.

Ghislain
05-01-2012, 09:03 AM
Write a religion...I like that idea...but will it catch on?

I have stumbled across a few interesting items that seem to fit this thread...



"Imagine not being able to distinguish the real cause, from that without which the cause would
not be able to act, as a cause. It is what the majority appear to do, like people groping in the
dark; they call it a cause, thus giving it a name that does not belong to it. That is why one
man surrounds the earth with a vortex to make the heavens keep it in place, another makes
the air support it like a wide lid. As for their capacity of being in the best place they could be
at this very time, this they do not look for, nor do they believe it to have any divine force, but
they believe that they will some time discover a stronger and more immortal Atlas to hold
everything together more, and they do not believe that the truly good and 'binding' binds and
holds them together."

—Plato, Phaedo 99



"In the poetic theory of William Blake, the act of creation requires a type of visionary activity
quite beyond the ordinary, especially if that creativity is to be powerfully original and
revolutionary. In the classic Romantic view of the role of art and the functioning of the
artistic personality, imagination is epistemologically central--a philosophy and method which
Blake was quite in advance of his time in formulating for himself at the tail end of the 18th
Century "Enlightenment" of reason. There must be, in this anti-rationalist theory of the mind,
a certain unmoored willingness to experience the horror and beauty of the sublime, of that
which goes beyond the common norms of awareness and experience, and which springs from
unseen sources at the roots of being. This functioning of the creative mind, later characterized
finely by the French poet, Rimbaud, as the derangement or disordering of the perceptive
faculties in order to allow for real vision (le déréglément de tous les senses ), ever seeks the
new and unpredictable muse. For Rimbaud, however, the tendency is toward a dissipated
intoxication with egotistic novelty. Blake’s disordering of the conventional is not an end in
itself nor merely the means toward an avant garde art. Rather, it is the revolutionary alchemy
of a salvational transformation of the mind, perceptions and emotions of the human
individual. This process is geared towards not only the mirroring of the idea of a divine Man,
or Christ, but also the creation of that nature within each person so revivified. It is the
reconstitution of the "fallen," unrealized nature of mankind. Blake’s artistic self-salvation
enacts, in essence, the creation of the soul through imaginative activity. Made unteleological
by its emphasis upon the freeing-up of energies and the loosing of bindings from the
perceptive and conceptual faculties, it is a way wherein the process of self-creation through
vision is all. Where teleological thinking argues an inherent purpose of existence, Blake
posits emphatically that what meaning there is in life is that which we make, and that realities
are conditioned by mental perspective. Thus he defines the real distinction between human
beings as that between the artistically awakened and those who accept reality as given.

By nearly all of the normative standards of his day, William Blake was strangely inverted,
wrapped in idiosyncrasy, seemingly lacking an advanced, formal style in his art, and clear,
sensible thought in his poetry. Yet he, more than any poet of his day in England, saw the as
yet unformulated ways in which art and knowledge were to advance.

As Evelyn Underhill characterizes his and other "mystics’" making of new prophetic and visionary "maps,"

"Such maps are often wild in drawing, because good draught-manship does not necessarily go with a talent
for exploration. Departing from the usual convention, they are hard -- some-times impossible -- to
understand. As a result, the orthodox have been forced to regard their makers as madmen or heretics: when
they were really only practical men struggling to disclose great matters by imperfect means"

-The Anti-Teleological Dialogism of the Imagination in William Blake’s The
Marriage of Heaven and Hell by Steven M. Streufert

Read on... ( http://streufert.www4.50megs.com/blaketext.html)

Religions are the maps.

Ghislain

Andro
05-01-2012, 11:47 AM
http://quantumpranx.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/truthlies.jpg

Watch the video below with great attention to the lyrics and to the images.

A song by an amazing duo of gay girls - The Indigo Girls.

(We know how much your biblical god of right and wrong/good and evil 'loves' gays, and just for this 'he' can burn in his own hell for all I care, so damn right I'm 'insolent' - not that I don't have plenty of other reasons :p)

'Love' ??? Gimme a break...

Some of the lyrics of the amazing song linked below:

"There's more than one answer to these questions"

"The less I seek my source for some definitive, closer I am to fine"

Closer To Fine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayxbY9mImKo&feature) (click to watch on youtube, it turns out embedding has been disabled on this one)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayxbY9mImKo&feature=related

Also, from U2's 'One':


Is it getting better
Or do you feel the same
Will it make it easier on you now
You got someone to blame
.................................................. ........
Have you come here for forgiveness
Have you come to raise the dead
Have you come here to play Jesus
To the lepers in your head
.................................................. .......
We're one
But we're not the same
.................................................. .......
You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing outside the Absolute. There's Nothing inside it, either.

But 'we' can dream and imagine ('Lost Word'), dreams within dreams, even to the point of believing that our particular dream is the only thing that's 'true' or 'real'.

'We' can even dream that we are separate dreamers, while we are merely the same dream dreaming itself in different ways. Dreamer and dream are the same, and made out of the none and the same 'matter'.

When you no longer identify with the particular dreamer and realize you ARE the dream - you are 'Closer to fine' :)

So unless you relinquish your particular dreamer specifications, you are not too well equipped to discuss Universality or the Absolute.

You can only project what you see/imagine/hallucinate in your dream.

Finally, Moshe, IMO, you are taking this particular dream of yours WAY too seriously :)

So I'd say - Do what you feel is right for you, and save the value judgments for the bible club or whatever dream company of shared hallucination you are keeping.

As a side note - there are a few christian/bible adhering alchemists here on AF, much younger by the way (hint :)), and IMO having the great wisdom to strongly hold on to their faith without conducting value judgments on others.
Such people have my utmost respect, in spite of disagreements on particularities. There may be something to be learned here...
---------------------------------------------------
Important Note: This is all my perspective, and in no way do I claim to present it as 'absolute truth' or as 'right' or 'closer to the heart' or whatever...

solomon levi
05-02-2012, 06:39 AM
From Byron Katie:

I've heard you say you're a lover of reality. What about war and rape and all the terrible things in the world? Are you condoning that?
Quite the opposite. I notice that if I believe it shouldn't exist when it does exist, I suffer. Can I just end the war in me? Can I stop raping myself and others with my abusive thoughts and actions? Otherwise I'm continuing through me the very thing I want to end in the world. I start with ending my own suffering, my own war. This is a life's work.

So what you're saying is that I should just accept reality as it is and not argue with it. Is that right?
The Work doesn't say what anyone should or shouldn't do. We simply ask: What is the effect of arguing with reality? How does it feel? This Work explores the cause and effect of attaching to painful thoughts, and in that investigation we find our freedom. To simply say that we shouldn't argue with reality is just to add another story, another philosophy or religion. It hasn't ever worked.

Awani
05-02-2012, 04:54 PM
This forum cannot continue to be open to good content with you as moderators...

There is no power struggle here, no agenda... maybe this is what is your issue? As long as people debate without personal attacks what's the problem? Not everyone will agree with you. The forum will continue... mainly because the best minds have NOT left... how can I say this?

We don't rank minds here. No one is above the other. Also please note that they have NO POWERS as moderators other than keeping things clean... stuff you never see... spam that gets deleted etc... this is the job of moderators. If someone becomes abusive they can ban such a person, but this is never done without a discussion first. Don't be paranoid. Let me add also that I don't see myself as having any power here either. I, nor the moderators, have ever claimed to be GURU or MASTER of anything (not to my knowledge)... people who claim they are is, IMO, suspect. Also let me add that no moderator here ever asked to be one, I asked them based on the fact that they are NOT telling people they are wrong and that their world view is supreme.

There is no conspiracy, and there never will be. How do I know this?

Because it is so fucking uninteresting.

All we are doing here is making friends and talking about subjects that fascinate us. That's it. We are not looking for leaders nor followers. Most members here agree with this and the only time problems arise are from people who come in and want to either Rule, Sell or Recruit something, or make a name for themselves in Alchemy. But if someone wants to do any of this Alchemy Forums is not the place. It is way too modest for any of that.


There is an autocracy now

Yes, it is I (and have, and will always be).;) I'm not making money on this forum, nor do I intend to. There are many forums like this one, I prefer to be here the most... I have friends here and we are, most of the time, having adult debates about things.

Last time I gave up autocracy the forum got sabotaged... so I will not repeat that mistake btw.


More will follow.

If people want to leave they are free to do so. This is not a political party that needs its members to survive... this forum is what people put into it nothing more. If everyone leaves I will be here posting by myself. I don't fear that everyone will leave to follow someone else because here they are not following anyone least of all me or the moderators. Since neither money nor followers is what I get from having this forum the threat of people leaving is utterly ludicrous. When this forums started many years ago I never expected so many people to join... so if they all leave nothing has been lost. Personally I have only gained friends and knowledge. That's it.

:cool:

Awani
05-02-2012, 05:07 PM
I don't mind being the target now of your gang, unpleasant as it is, because it reveals the power that you all fling around.

Anyone claiming to be a know-it-all is making themselves a target. Everyone should think about this. I did the same mistake many years ago on another forum... that kind of tactic doesn't work.

For example: this is the way it is, you are all wrong and deluded!

:cool:

Awani
05-02-2012, 05:41 PM
What was also very telling, is that no one has chimed in in support of my words and thoughts.
That is not to say that others do not agree. I know people do... for a fact... it's just that this has become a space where people do not...

Maybe because no one has yet agreed with you. What is wrong with that? No one agrees with me on certain beliefs I have... so what? Maybe you are right, that there aren't any people who think like you here... again so what? Everyone thinks differently, I just hope we agree that we shouldn't kill, rape or steal from each other. What else do we really need to agree on?

God is a joke, and evil is an illusion. You won't agree with me. I don't agree with you. So what?

The only advice I can give: chill out...

:cool:

Moshe
05-02-2012, 05:50 PM
Maybe because no one has yet agreed with you. What is wrong with that? No one agrees with me on certain beliefs I have... so what? Maybe you are right, that there aren't any people who think like you here... again so what? Everyone thinks differently, I just hope we agree that we shouldn't kill, rape or steal from each other. What else do we really need to agree on?
God is a joke, and evil is an illusion. You won't agree with me. I don't agree with you. So what?
The only advice I can give: chill out...
:cool:

Hey Dev...

these words of yours, here and now, are much more "moderator-ish" than others' words have been...
however, they don't properly address the fact of what is actually going on on these forums...

and i think you're wrong about the power that moderators have.
there is a certain respect one feels toward a moderator bc of their special and selective role.
I know I felt it when I entered herein.
secondly, for example, you just chose to close a thread about RogerC / LeoR's departure.
that is power.
I couldn't do that if I wanted to.
thirdly, the three of you moderators discuss some of the larger choices you make, re banning and stuff like that,
but your philosophies, albeit differing slightly, certainly do add up much more similarly, than mine, for instance,
and so this does have impact and certainly has had an impact on my experience in this forum...

something for you to consider.

Awani
05-02-2012, 05:53 PM
Nothing is going on. Especially behind the scenes, if that is what you mean.

Andro and Sol are not ganging up on you, they just happen to both disagree. That's it.

I think you agree that a thread about someone else who won't be able to defend themselves should be locked, yes? Power is the wrong word... for me it implies something else. If everyone wants it open again SURE... is that power? No that is co-operation.

You can push IGNORE on people who bother you and you won't see their posts. Try it out. Then your view of the forums will change as you will only see the posts of the rest. Although I don't know how to ignore (can't recall)... I have never done it.

:cool:

Awani
05-02-2012, 06:09 PM
thirdly, the three of you moderators discuss some of the larger choices you make, re banning and stuff like that,
but your philosophies, albeit differing slightly, certainly do add up much more similarly, than mine, for instance,
and so this does have impact and certainly has had an impact on my experience in this forum...

something for you to consider.

Apart from spammers we have banned 2 people really (in soon 5 years). One was LEO, who had another account (rogerc) which we let be (even though he should have been banned again), the other person banned hacked/sabotaged the forums AND was a moderator of sorts at the time. Your concerns are unnecessary I am afraid.

If we banned people we didn't agree with or disliked we could ban about 50 people... we don't because we don't have the right to ban anyone based on opinion of their beliefs. I wouldn't ban a gay hating nazi moron either... as long as he is civil in debates.

:cool:

solomon levi
05-02-2012, 06:52 PM
Hi Moshe.

There is no ganging up that I see. You and I have been conversing in this thread
for a long time. How is my continuing to respond "ganging up"? I do not conspire
with Androgynus or anyone to "get" anybody. You are simply witnessing us share
some similar points of view sometimes. Androgynus has posted about people making
value judgements and not allowing diversity. I come from a slightly different angle,
but that does bother me too. You have stated that my views are untrue - that is why
you have drawn a more pointed debate from me, a retaliation of sorts. It really is
offensive to say that what someone else sees is untrue. Why can't you allow that you
just don't grasp what I see? Why do you have to imagine you understand me and I am wrong?
Androgynus has been defending this since before he and I became friends I think. So it
isn't ganging up as I have said - just shared life experience.
I have gone off on your subjectivity because you laughed and said "Of course objectivity
exists" and yet you haven't really examined it. I don't recall Androgynus writing any posts
about subjectivity bothering him.
Also, this is not a big issue IMO. Besides you and Leo, I am not making waves with anyone.
As zoas23 has recently said, he and I are good. We have not continued the debate. I can let
things go. :) Leo is a personal project of mine, a conscious decision. I even let that go until
recently when he has made outrageous blanket statements that anyone would recognise as
unproveable opinions, but he says them as if he knows them for facts when they are so
blatantly untrue I can't help myself. :) I actually have not claimed to be egoless. Leo has.
What I say is that I don't identify with the ego. You see, something you don't understand and
filter through your system and judge "me" again. In my seeing, one does not have to kill the
ego. Let the ego ego I say. Just don't mistake it for you. So you are wrong.
BTW - my retaliations are what I accuse others of doing? No I don't. Quote where I have accused
other of retaliating. This makes no sense to me.
I ooze with judgement and I have convinced myself I am free of it from my lofty perch of being above it all?
Where did I say I was above judgement? This is another assumption/misinterpretation of me by you.
There are times when I make a point to show the difference between an observation and a judgement.
When I am not making that point, how do you know what I think? I freely participate in judgement
sometimes. I have not claimed otherwise. You projected that onto me from your partial knowledge/
understanding of my views.
One thing that bothers me is when people imagine they understand someone based solely on their self
as measure. Trust me, I will tell you when you understand me. It means absolutely nothing for you to
determine that you understand me. Again, this is why you can't determine that something I see is untrue.
What you would say, if you were objective, isn't that my foundation is untrue, but that your understanding
of my foundation doesn't seem true to you. Any objective person will recognise the flaw in the subjective
system which we use to interpret/understand others.
Again, no I haven't claimed I am beyond constructs. Where do I say that? Every word I write is a construct.

Let me clarify this once and for all (hopefully). I am the same as everyone else except perhaps for the fact
that I do not believe in my doings. I still do them. What makes a big difference is to not believe in what you
do. And what makes an even bigger difference, internally - externally I appear as everyone else - is to no
longer believe in the doer/ego as your identity. This doesn't mean my ego doesn't exist and act like everyone
elses. I just don't identify with it all the time. Sometimes I do for a moment, and then I step back and
remember who I am. If you knew about this from personal experience, you would admit what an amazing
difference this is - it changes everything. But nothing externally, which I have pointed out in this thread many
times when I said the world doesn't change its doings, but to the person without a self (I should have said w/out
belief in the self) s/he no longer sees suffering, rape, etc.
I can't help how you see me. But I can help how I see myself. And it makes a big difference whether I believe
in my doings and the doer and no difference at all if you believe in my doings or doer. Does that not make sense?
It makes perfect sense that I would appear confused or lying about myself to you. That fits perfectly with what
I have been saying if you believe in your doings and doer, which you do. Of course you won't see me as not the doer.
Of course you will see me as misguided or deceptive. That fits perfectly with what I have been saying about projections
and knowledge and the knower. So why would you not see that if you understand me enough to judge me?

I pounce on anyone with any sense of knowing truth? Where am I pouncing besides you? Leo excepted - I freely
admitted my pleasure in pouncing on Leo. So two people I pounce on = everyone with a sense of knowing the truth?
I will always challenge what can be challenged. I think that's a wonderful thing, that's science, that's how we grow.
We face challenges. Either our view withstands the challenge or it falls apart. One should not be attached to their
view more than the evidence of what can prevail in the face of challenge. That would be subjective preference of
one's illusions over science. If you tell me you want that, I won't challenge you if you don't try to impose it on others.
But you admit and allow our philosophical debate. Now I am pouncing? Yes, I did become more agressive, but so did
you when you called my foundation untrue. If you want to absolutely denounce my seeing, I'll absolutely argue yours.
If you want to respectfully present your view, you have seen I can do that too. Why this victimisation? I am letting
you lead the dance.

"There is an autocracy now, because your moderation, which opposes anything that stands on any sort of belief or ideals.
THAT is the new chain of control, which you are all swinging around, in support of each other."

Not from me. Yes, I have argued against belief, but not on a personal level.
Well, when you took this to the personal level by saying my seeing was untrue,
I went there with you. But I'm pretty sure I only butt in when people project these
beliefs on others, or claim something false about me. Why don't you see that as autocracy -
people projecting their beliefs on others? You're not concerned about THAT autocracy.
Where's the objectivity? Unbias?

RogerC was one of the best minds? Don't get me started.
I'll allow your personal preferences, but there's nothing objective about
your opinon of RogerC. Or let's say your idea of the best mind is far different than mine.
You see, you're coming close to making a statement as if it is objectively absolutely true,
and thus you are inviting attack - the same as when RogerC talks about "our God" as if his
idea of god is everyone's or the true one. I hope you can see this, because the only thing
you can do to help prevent disagreements here is to be responsible for your word and be
conscious about not projecting and making absolute blanket statements.

Moderators are also simply participants of the forum most of the time. I wouldn't get caught
up on the label. I'm just a person. I am not moderating anyone right now, nor have I had to
in a long time. I usually make a statement when I find it necessary to say something as a moderator.
Otherwise, I'm just me. There's no abuse of power here. If I can't converse with people freely and
be a moderator, I'll stop being a moderator. This place is my main source of talking to people with
like minds. I am only a moderator when I am executing some moderating function. Otherwise,
please do not treat me any differently than anyone else. I do not demand respect or anything
for myself that I don't argue for all.

I would not presume to know why people do not "chime in". Again, this lacks objectivity.
I really can't believe how much we disagree on what is objective.
If I may help, again, when you laughed and said "of course objectivity exists", you, as an objective
observer, must know that you have invited attack by that response. I know when I am inviting
attack and I don't blame people when they respond to my invitations. I practice assuming responsibility.
If you don't do that, you will feel victimised by attacks. I hope this helps.

solomon

Andro
05-02-2012, 07:01 PM
Moshe,

I have been friends with Sol since shortly after joining AF, almost 3 years ago - because we simply tend to see eye to eye on many issues and plain and simple feel close.

This was LOOOOONG before I accepted the moderator job, which was quite recently.

You don't need to feel any respect for someone because he's a moderator. Respect those who have earned your respect. I'm certainly not 'demanding' respect. Respect has to be earned IMO.

And as long as you follow the guidelines of this forum (which are actually pretty relaxed), there is absolutely no reason to feel uncomfortable with expressing your views as you see fit.


If we banned people we didn't agree with or disliked we could ban about 50 people...
We don't because we don't have the right to ban anyone based on opinion of their beliefs.
I wouldn't ban a gay hating nazi moron either... as long as he is civil in debates.

I absolutely adhere to the same concepts as Dev presented them above, regardless if I am or am not on the moderator team.
Before I accepted the job, at least I had the luxury to use the IGNORE function (only used it for one member). Now I can't afford that, but you certainly can.

And you certainly don't need to confuse the moderator job with my personal views on various issues (which views, by the way, are not very popular here either, believe it or not :))

There are other christian bible adhering alchemists here, like Seth-Ra for example. Despite his young age, he is extremely wise IMO. He is strong in his faith but doesn't try to tell others they are wrong or impose/enforce his views.
I've had a few brushes with him in the beginning when I joined, but we found it much more efficient and cooperative to focus on Common Ground than to have endless debates trying to prove each-other wrong.
Even though we may have 'conflicting' views on many issues, he has my utmost respect. Maybe there is something to be learned from this fine young Alchemist. Just sharing this with you as an example...

Also, something to keep in mind:


No moderator here ever asked to be one, I asked them based on the fact that they are NOT telling people they are wrong and that their world view is supreme.

__________________________________________________ _________________________________________

Take care.

Awani
05-02-2012, 09:41 PM
Oh that is why I couldn't find the ignore button... because I am a moderator... :)

Anyway to get back to the topic of this thread... or more so the title... the big trap is EGO (something I have understood after personal experience of talking to 'alchemists' on-line for many years). Especially those that have made some progress, the EGO always seems to get in the way.

So in a sense most budding alchemists fail already in the beginning, in the calcination stage; getting rid of the ego (as one alchemical system goes)... quite ironic.

Psychedelics is very good at destroying the ego, but one can do it without such assistance.

http://www.alchemylab.com/mindathanor.jpg


"The ego is an activity, not an entity." - Adi Da Samraj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Da_Samraj)

:cool:

solomon levi
05-02-2012, 11:15 PM
If we are getting back to the original topic, I would agree that any goal is a trap.

I did think of a couple more things I would like to pass by Moshe, about our other
topic. For me, a truly objective viewpoint would be an absolute truth. If my view is
Oneness, it should be absolute, and any subjective view will be flawed in comparison.
I don't think that is my opinion. I think that is the definition. What I've hoped to point
out is that any partial subjective view or philosophy has never worked and will always
fail. The subject IS the problem. So if that is accurate, then removing the subject, or seeing
it for what it is and isn't, IS the ONLY solution. That is what I am arguing. But I am not
doing it in an absolute truth imposition kind of way. I am just arguing the definitions.
And I kind of have taken this up with you because your claim to know objectivity. So
we have a measure to argue by if we both see or believe in objectivity. But unfortunately,
we don't see objectivity the same way, otherwise the argument would have been very easy
and scientific, both of us simply noting which view was more objective. I think it is clear
that mine is, but I can understand that you don't see that. If we did choose to talk more, I would
go from there, establishing what objectivity is. Otherwise we have no objective, or relatively
objective measure to argue with. Without that, we should be wise to simply state our own views
without comparing them in a measuring, right or wrong way.

I also had some other things in life that added to my frustration. It isn't all meant for you, but I
let it out anyway instead of trying to control it or keep it in, because it was how I felt, even though
you were only partly involved in why I felt that way.

Another very reasonable point of why the view I am hoping to share comes across as absolute is
because there is no flaw to "what is". So if I were, to make an extreme point, to kill a baby (I'm
cringing for you - I know this won't sound good), in a "what is" philosophy there is no way to
judge it without suggesting that "what is" should not be what it is, which is insanity - to argue with
what is. So if anyone really understood what I was saying, there is no point in searching for flaws
or ways that it is wrong - it's not mine; it's the real actual world, not a subjective version/preference/
projection. "What is" IS the only thing like that, therefore absolute and all others compared to it are
flawed. That's not my fault; not my doing. I am only describing it. I didn't invent it! Don't you see?
You can disagree to see the world that way, but you can't logically disagree that what is is the only thing
we can't touch and mess up or judge or whatever - as soon as we do, it isn't what is but rather is what we'd
like/prefer.

I have been angry that you haven't been able to see this after so much describing. It has nothing to do with me.
It's not mine. But you have always tried to make it into me being in error. I'm not in error. This is how the "what is"
"philosophy" (it's actually not a philosophy) is described - I am accurate. You not liking it doesn't make me
confused or inaccurate or untrue.
Can anyone not see that arguing/disagree/rejecting what is is as sane as saying "It shouldn't be raining" when it
IS raining? If there IS rape in the world, why is saying there shouldn't be not insane? We are insane. And there
will be billions of people agreeing with you that there shouldn't be rape in the world, except me and Byron Katie.
:) It isn't insane of me to not hit my head against the brick wall that is rape, or murder or whatever. In fact, people
who accept what is come up with elegant solutions to things that people who are against something never see.

If none of these have been acceptable or made sense, let me put it this way: there is only one NOW. I'm simply
substituting a synonym for "what is" - now, presence, the present. There can't be more than one now right now.
We can be fancy and talk about multiple nows right now, but what is your direct experience? Well, that may not
be a helpful question because most people are not experiencing Now but are experiencing their minds/past images
and can't tell me their direct experience if they tried, because they identify with the mind so much. Anyway, if there
is only right now (what is), then yes, this "philosphy" will be absolute truth. I am arguing the definition of course.
I am not imposing this view on anyone. But if anyone wants to pit their view against "mine", the absolute view
will win for the objective and rational. Every subjective system/view has flaws, IS partial - do this, don't do that.
That IS the definition. I am not wrong.

Oh, no one has come to my defense either and I am arguing the most obvious and rational thing in the world IMO.
So I feel for you there. Even Androgynus hasn't joined me in this. Or Illen who said she loved Krishnamurti.
So maybe everyone is respecting our thing by not getting involved. ?? Or maybe they don't see the point of
arguing. I don't either, but I am free to do things without having a point. :) So you're in trouble if you're
waiting for me to end this. :) I don't believe in reasons/meaning/purpose. I use them sometimes - a lot of
times. But I don't believe in them.

Andro
05-03-2012, 01:46 AM
Even Androgynus hasn't joined me in this. Or Illen who said she loved Krishnamurti.

Of course I'm not joining! I strongly argue against Illen being a 'she'!

LOL :)

--------------------------------------------------

Joking aside, I perceive this 'Now' as all possible pasts/futures compressed into the 'Zero Point' of the 'NOW' moment - the Eternal Present.

Identifying oneself as a 'dreamer' (particular/specified) - one can perceive only fractions of the Eternal Now.

But by releasing the 'Dreamer ID' and realizing one IS the Dream - one is 'one' no more, but 'one with the dream' (or one with 'The Force', as they say in Star Wars).

One can only know 'Nothing' (which is the same as knowing 'Infinity'/'The Absolute') by BECOMING this 'Nothing'/'Absolute', but then there isn't anyone to 'know' anymore.

It's fascinating to contemplate this Sublime Paradox that 'Absolute Truth' is also the 'Ultimate Lie' (the illusion of the dream dreaming itself and 'telling' itself that it's real).

'Nothing' lying to itself that it is 'Something' and believing it as 'Absolute Truth'.

'Nothing' lies to 'itself', and 'is' an excellent liar, as well as infinitely gullible.

And so, by this 'Lost Word' of Imagination, 'Nothing' beLIEves (and therefore becomes) 'Something'.

And the result of all this - is this very moment.

Bizarre, bizarre - yet here we are... It's all 'Smoke and Mirrors', really :)

The Smoke is the Dream, the 'First Matter' of the Alchemist.

And the 'Mirror' is what 'Zero' (0/Nothing) looks into and sees 'One' (1/Something).

0 = 1

So there is no trap, just as 'there is no spoon' :)
------------------------
This is how I see it.

solomon levi
05-03-2012, 03:07 AM
Thank you Androgynus.
That was good for me to read someone else's language.
I don't know how to word it like that, but I liked it -
fired some new neurons in my brain.

Awani
05-03-2012, 03:17 AM
God Trap = Part Dog

Think about it.

;)

Seth-Ra
05-03-2012, 05:53 AM
Androgynus:

There are other christian bible adhering alchemists here, like Seth-Ra for example. Despite his young age, he is extremely wise IMO. He is strong in his faith but doesn't try to tell others they are wrong or impose/enforce his views.
I've had a few brushes with him in the beginning when I joined, but we found it much more efficient and cooperative to focus on Common Ground than to have endless debates trying to prove each-other wrong.
Even though we may have 'conflicting' views on many issues, he has my utmost respect. Maybe there is something to be learned from this fine young Alchemist. Just sharing this with you as an example...


That was kind of you, and the sentiment is appreciated. :)
I sometimes look back over our early "duels" and laugh, perhaps we'll have a few more down the road, but not today. ;)
I like clashing conflicting views together, because i respect my "opponent" and their view, because i see it as a learning experience.
But everyone should know that each of our opinions/beliefs/sides - etc, do not make up us. They are but expressions of how and what we have seen, and when we expose one another to new sights, the info we held, changes and evolves (transmutes).
Oh my... i think im going off on a stray chain of thought...
http://www.evercurious.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/dumbledore_pensieve.jpg
Anyway, thank you. :) Tis mutual.

_____

Moshe:

What was also very telling, is that no one has chimed in in support of my words and thoughts.
That is not to say that others do not agree. I know people do... for a fact... it's just that this has become a space where people do not
feel comfortable to support such thinking / feeling as what I have expressed openly, for the reason that the moderators are in "attack mode".

Solomon Levi:

Oh, no one has come to my defense either and I am arguing the most obvious and rational thing in the world IMO.

Now see, i thought/felt/seen that i gave equal validity and "nod" to both sides, within reason/perspective/placement back in post #143 on Page 15 of this thread. (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2683-A-Big-Trap-of-the-Alchemist&p=21199#post21199)
*shrugs* Perhaps i didnt, dunno. Twas the best i could do. (i put that in past-tense, cause i might can do better now - or maybe later, who knows. What does it matter, its in the past. ;) )
______

Aside from all that - while i dont agree with Dev's, and some other's, "God-bashing", i also have a sense of humor, and i understand they see God differently, and thats ok. Ive not seen moderator power abused due to perspective. Ive watched offended/assaulted humans fight (SL and Leo), and ive watched some behind-the-scenes power-play/struggle happen (Dev and Aleilius), but neither case has resulted in abuse of moderator power, and i observe this as friend to all 4 of them. Ive always gotten along well with SL, i cant recall a time Dev and i have had crossed words, Leo/Roger was always nice to me, and vice-versa, and Aleilius and i have been friends since i joined here, and im a mod on his forum (not that i do much - tis similar to mod-jobs here, clean-up, occasional thread splitting etc. *shrugs*).
From an un-bias, non-mod here, with friends on all sides - there is no "empire" here. Some members are "louder" than others - but that is each members choice; to speak, or be silent. If logic fails their side, or if it alludes them personally, they dont have to speak and be made to feel dumb (not that anyone would purposefully do that, but it could be self-imposed). Im sure many feel its better to listen, and learn, and quietly think, while the more experienced talk, rather than for them to try to preach to an audience that can jump deeper into the "game" than they are currently ready for. This is natural, and its ok. Its also a sign of wisdom/maturity.

Like Androgynus said - im not here to preach the Gospel of Christ to the poor lost alchemists. Any such that i do, i do by example, not lofty wording and "youre wrong - just because" and "thou shalt not". Its not to say that i dont think some of their views are wrong, but i will admit some of that is personal belief (like what Androgynus and I do disagree on) - right or wrong i see it as i do. I understand myself, and i see where i fit in the whole. With that said, i can still relate to them, try to see why they feel and see the way they do, and not beat them over the head with a metal-backed bible. ;)
Their views, are theirs, and its ok, especially when it has some good merit and validity (like the many other things that i agree with Androgynus, SL, Aleilius, Dev, Roger/Leo, and many others, on). I like to walk both visions, so both do something, while doing nothing. People have to learn. I have to learn. See it from their perspective, or you'll never reach them - and if you cant hear them, so they dont hear you, then what good are the words?


There are many traps; there is One trap. There are many views; there is One view. It all IS, and its all ok - and its all needed to test us and grow us unto perfection. :)

All are just humans, made of iron, reaching in and out for God/Truth/Soul/Perfection/All-thing/No-thing.
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs42/f/2009/080/1/4/FMA_new_anime_3_by_thefinalexpert.png



~Seth-Ra

This post resulted in a spin-off thread here: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2865-Oneness-and-Duality-%28spin-off-thread%29

Awani
05-03-2012, 10:51 AM
I love this. You guys are absolutely confirming what I said just before.
No we are not... we are just talking. You are taking all this way too seriously.


Aside from all that - while i dont agree with Dev's, and some other's, "God-bashing", i also have a sense of humor, and i understand they see God differently, and thats ok.

I am glad... the God/Dog thing I wrote was a joke btw. You are probably the most open believer/Christian I have ever talked to. I respect this, compared to all the other dogmatic Christians that almost tear their hair out if they get criticism. And my beliefs have been criticized as well, I mean I don't know how many times I have been threatened with hell. LOL!

In the end people can believe what they want, and when they believe like you do (i.e. not forcing others to agree) then I don't see a problem with that. I don't force others my beliefs, I can inform them and argue... but nothing I say can convince anyone since we all have different experiences in life.

If people get upset by other peoples views it it's on them. Easiest thing is to laugh at whatever you feel to be stupid. I do.

:cool:

solomon levi
05-04-2012, 02:07 PM
So I cleaned up this thread since mostly it was Moshe and I who got off into
attacking eachother a bit, and then there was some "politics" that were deleted
as well. But some was left too. I don't know - where do you draw the line?
It's subjective. So I left as much of the philosophical debate until it became
more of a personal debate and the personal stuff was deleted.
I made an effort to not favor one side unjustly - some of the moderator
defense comments were left for the record - maybe they could have been deleted,
but I think they state our policies and such. I know I can't please everyone, but I
did my best.

Ghislain
05-08-2012, 05:33 AM
I don't know what was said in the posts that have been deleted, and they may well have needed
deleting, but it is paramount to sensorship to do this.

It costs nothing to leave the posts there and let others make up their own minds if it is trash or not.

I hope this doesn't become a habbit...there is already enough sensorship in this world...and "protection".

If something is posted it reflects what the person was thinking at that time and what is rubbish for one
may be enlightening for another.

As I said before...with great power comes great responsibility.

I am sure you had the best intentions Sol, but how will I know what it is that I have been "allowed"
to read in future?

Ghislain

Awani
05-08-2012, 04:16 PM
It was off topic clutter having nothing to do with anything. Nothing is deleted, only hidden so we can always re-open the posts if we want. It was more cleaning than censorship. The post that are hidden belong to all sides of the flame war. People who come here want to read debates on alchemy not personal feuds and bitching or at least I hope that is why people come here.

Should we not delete porn spam posts? The reason you don't see these are because we do this kind of cleaning.

:cool:

Illen A. Cluf
05-09-2012, 10:04 PM
Good and Evil

Less than an hour ago, I finally completed reading the entire thread (took me days). The discussion was most informative and touched on many challenging issues. These are the same issues that I, and likely others here, have thought about for decades. At first I did not bother to follow this thread as it directly or indirectly involves religious beliefs, which is usually not a productive topic to discuss for a number of reasons, primarily because it involves the very personal and subjective nature of this issue and often the enormous amount of emotional attachment held by those with strong beliefs. This often leads to some very bitter attacks, although in this case the subject was discussed with a great deal of respect for each other for some time until, like so often, it led to personal attacks. I initially read some of the messages, especially those mentioning Krishnamurti, Castaneda and Gurdjieff, all of whom also influenced me greatly over the years, which aroused my interest, and so I decided to read the entire thread. I thus have a few additional comments to make for the purpose of consideration, which I may possibly do under separate messages.

For example, in this message, I will provide some of my thoughts on the discussion involving good and evil (even though it relates to other issues). I apologize if my summarized understanding of the issue as presented on this thread is not accurate, or over-simplified. Based on my reading of this thread with regard to good and evil, the following then is my understanding of the two main positions (there were other excellent points brought up by others, but I will focus here on the representatives of the two main positions).

Moshe’s view seems to be that good and evil are entirely separate. His concept of God is that God reflects only all that is good, while evil is reflected by a somewhat undefined entity or essence completely separate from God, commonly known as the Devil. Moshe never defines exactly where the dividing line between good and evil exists or who makes that determination, since God only knows and reflects good, and thus apparently has no knowledge of evil. Thus, it is not clear how or from whom we obtain those distinctions. Further, Moshe suggests that Man started out Good, but lost his way after he ate of the Tree of Knowledge. It’s this loss of his identity that is considered to be Evil, and we must attempt to make our way back to God and “Good”, thereby abolishing the influence of those “Demons” who encourage Evil.

Solomon’s view seems to be that good and evil are indefinable in a philosophical here and now sense, since they are just an indistinguishable part of the All which does not judge, which has no clear distinction of good and evil, or anything else, for that matter. His concept of God is that it represents All, everything, including both good and evil as understood by those who make the distinction. This All just Is, and exists moment by moment, without past or future. Each moment is unique without distinction. It’s only Man who makes distinctions based on arbitrary differentiations and subjective definitions. No other living specie makes those distinctions.

In my view, this was never intended to be a question of who is right or wrong, since it appears obvious that it will always remain a personal matter based on personal experience, location, knowledge, influence and belief. It is more a question of the degree of communication and explanation, and who has been able to convey a more understandable, objective and cohesive explanation of their own view. From this discussion, the potential for a greater mutual understanding could be derived. In this respect, I would have to lean towards Solomon, since Moshe has repeatedly tended to avoid explaining some of the key elements of his position. In particular, Moshe has not been able to explain how the line between Good and Evil is exactly drawn. Rape has been mentioned several times as a good example of Evil, so I will also focus here on that concept. Moshe considers rape to be evil, while Solomon has asked what exactly it is that defines and establishes it as evil. By legal definition, we all seem to know today that it is an evil action, but even a century or two ago this designation was not entirely clear. In some parts of the World, it is not even clear today. The designation has changed over time and location, apparently not by any specific direction from God, but by nothing else than human definition. Let me explain.

As a very brief historical summary, up to only a few centuries ago, rape of women by warriors was almost universally considered to be entirely appropriate as a deserving reward when armies conquered other lands. This was even tolerated under the specific rule of Kings and Popes (for example, research the Albigensian Crusade in southern France). This continued through to the conquering of the indigenous people of the Americas beginning in the 15th and 16th centuries. The conquerors thought nothing of raping and killing for sport the indigenous peoples who had lived in the conquered land for centuries. Like war, it was considered to be one of the benefits or perks of conquest, and rape was therefore considered to be appropriate and “Good”. When slaves were later brought over from Africa to work on the lands of powerful landlords, rape of slaves continued even through the 19th century, generally without any repercussions.

Even today there are cultures that tolerate and support the rape of women, and even stone the victims since these women must have “lured” the rapist in the first place - a most convenient excuse to legitimize rape for the benefit of desperate men. Even today in the civilized cultures of which we are part, and likely even including many who are members of this forum, numerous men frequently continue to forcefully “rape” their wives or girlfriends against their Will in circumstances when the wife/girfriend is not in the mood for making love. That is still “rape” according to common definitions today, but out of fear or embarrassment, seldom are these events reported and the men, who likely don’t even consider these common acts as “evil”, punished.

So when or where is rape actually considered to be “evil”? Who decides? Where does one draw the line? Is it really decided by God who knows only Good? If so, then how? How does he communicate and how do we know it really comes from him rather than from some deluded saint or prophet? Or, as Solomon suggests, is “Evil” just an arbitrary and/or convenient decision made by Man? If “rape” is truly a representative example of what is “Evil”, and if there is no evidence that the act is anything other than something defined by Man, then isn’t Evil necessarily nonexistent outside of the minds of Men? And if God created Man, did he not also create the potential for the existence Evil as defined by Man? And if so, is this potential not part of God or the All, however he/it is defined?

P.S. In my opinion, one of the biggest traps of the Alchemists is allowing oneself to become influenced by those egotists claiming to be experts or even adepts in areas in which they are not qualified (false claims, exaggeration, lies, misleading inferences, dogmatic statements, deluded beliefs, etc.). Perhaps more on that later, or even a separate thread.

Illen


“So the moment we assert that there is absolute evil, that very assertion is the denial of the good. Goodness implies total abnegation of the self. Because the "me" is always separative. The "me", "my family", the self, the person, the ego, is the centre of disorder, because it is a divisive factor. The "me" is the mind, is thought. And we have never been able to move away from this egocentric activity. To move completely away from it is complete order, freedom, goodness. And to remain in the circle of self-centred movement breeds disorder; there is always conflict there. And we attribute this conflict to evil, to the devil, to bad karma, to environment, to society; but the society is me and I have built this society. So unless this me is totally transformed I am always contributing to a major extent or to a minor extent to disorder. Order means behaviour in freedom. And freedom means love and not pleasure. When one observes all this one sees very clearly that there is a marvellous sense of absolute order.” (“On Good and Evil”, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Malibu, California, March 28, 1971).

solomon levi
05-12-2012, 01:59 PM
I think you summed it up quite accurately Illen.
I mean that really got to the heart of the matter IMO.

The Krishnamurti quote reminded me of this chapter from Kahlil Gibran's "The Prophet".
And it seems fitting for the topic of good and evil:

Then one of the judges of the city stood forth and said, "Speak to us of Crime and Punishment."

And he answered saying:

It is when your spirit goes wandering upon the wind, That you, alone and unguarded, commit a wrong unto others and therefore unto yourself. And for that wrong committed must you knock and wait a while unheeded at the gate of the blessed.

Like the ocean is your god-self; It remains for ever undefiled.

And like the ether it lifts but the winged. Even like the sun is your god-self; It knows not the ways of the mole nor seeks it the holes of the serpent.

But your god-self does not dwell alone in your being.

Much in you is still man, and much in you is not yet man, But a shapeless pigmy that walks asleep in the mist searching for its own awakening.

And of the man in you would I now speak.

For it is he and not your god-self nor the pigmy in the mist, that knows crime and the punishment of crime.

Oftentimes have I heard you speak of one who commits a wrong as though he were not one of you, but a stranger unto you and an intruder upon your world.

But I say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each one of you, So the wicked and the weak cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also.

And as a single leaf turns not yellow but with the silent knowledge of the whole tree, So the wrong-doer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all.

Like a procession you walk together towards your god-self.

You are the way and the wayfarers.

And when one of you falls down he falls for those behind him, a caution against the stumbling stone.

Ay, and he falls for those ahead of him, who though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone.

And this also, though the word lie heavy upon your hearts: The murdered is not unaccountable for his own murder, And the robbed is not blameless in being robbed.

The righteous is not innocent of the deeds of the wicked, And the white-handed is not clean in the doings of the felon.

Yea, the guilty is oftentimes the victim of the injured, And still more often the condemned is the burden-bearer for the guiltless and unblamed.

You cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked; For they stand together before the face of the sun even as the black thread and the white are woven together.

And when the black thread breaks, the weaver shall look into the whole cloth, and he shall examine the loom also.

If any of you would bring judgment the unfaithful wife, Let him also weight the heart of her husband in scales, and measure his soul with measurements.

And let him who would lash the offender look unto the spirit of the offended.

And if any of you would punish in the name of righteousness and lay the ax unto the evil tree, let him see to its roots; And verily he will find the roots of the good and the bad, the fruitful and the fruitless, all entwined together in the silent heart of the earth.

And you judges who would be just, What judgment pronounce you upon him who though honest in the flesh yet is a thief in spirit?

What penalty lay you upon him who slays in the flesh yet is himself slain in the spirit?

And how prosecute you him who in action is a deceiver and an oppressor, Yet who also is aggrieved and outraged?

And how shall you punish those whose remorse is already greater than their misdeeds?

Is not remorse the justice which is administered by that very law which you would fain serve?

Yet you cannot lay remorse upon the innocent nor lift it from the heart of the guilty.

Unbidden shall it call in the night, that men may wake and gaze upon themselves.

And you who would understand justice, how shall you unless you look upon all deeds in the fullness of light?

Only then shall you know that the erect and the fallen are but one man standing in twilight between the night of his pigmy-self and the day of his god-self, And that the corner-stone of the temple is not higher than the lowest stone in its foundation.

chrysopoeia
05-13-2012, 02:00 PM
Goodness, gracious me... I just happened to read some of the posts.

My response is just to the general reader contemplating over when rape is supposed to be considered ‘evil’.
I would suggest looking up the precise definition of rape. If you knew the definition, there would be no need for contemplation.

Secondly, I would reflect upon the following:

Do you have any idea what traumatic experience can do to a person? Do you have any idea what any kind of traumatic experience can do to a person's heart (emotions)? How do you think they feel afterwards? How would you feel if it were you? How long do you think it might take you to recover from such an experience? How likely do you think it is that you would ever recover completely? Do you have any idea how the state of your heart (emotions) can affect not only your body but your mind? Do you have any idea how important the heart is?

The female is the bringer forth of life and so the state of her body and mind is so very important for future generations. If you commit a crime like this against a female, you are affecting not only her but potentially any child she decides to bring forth in the future. She is the vessel within which her child is formed. Her unborn and developing child will be affected by her physical and psychological state. If she is carrying emotional baggage in the form of traumatic experience which continues to affect her heart and mind, you can be sure this will affect her unborn baby. So by committing something as atrocious as rape, you are potentially affecting future generations and the evolution of the human race. And you should be punished accordingly.

solomon levi
05-14-2012, 04:06 PM
Yeah, but was Webster (or whoever wrote your brand of dictionary) a seer.
Is the dictionary divinely inspired?
Maybe (I mean look where we are - an alchemy forum) we are interested in something
outside the lines of consensus.

No one suggested that anyone commit rape.
No one suggested rape is not traumatic.
No one even suggested rape should not be punished.

Being born is traumatic and scars most people for life.
Should we not be born? :)

Ok - I'm just suggesting a view which has been supported by many open-minded
beings. Here's one more:
"HAMLET: Denmark's a prison.
ROSENCRANTZ: Then is the world one.
HAMLET: A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards and dungeons, Denmark being one o' the worst.
ROSENCRANTZ: We think not so, my lord.
HAMLET: Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so: to me it is a prison."
- William Shakespeare

Andro
05-15-2012, 02:27 PM
This 3 second video is dedicated to all ye 'Totalitarian Salvationists' out there. Incidentally, it's from an Adam Curtis Documentary called 'The Trap':


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syrv6eygmNY

And finally, could it be that I have discovered the ultimate trap of the Alchemist? (look beyond the common as well):

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/Finally.jpg

PS: Unfortunately, you can't see the cheese in the picture... But notice Micky's colors, anyway. Walt's work was LOADED with Alchemical symbolism.

:cool:

Illen A. Cluf
05-16-2012, 04:02 PM
The Krishnamurti quote reminded me of this chapter from Kahlil Gibran's "The Prophet".
And it seems fitting for the topic of good and evil:


Hi Solomon,
Sorry for not responding sooner. I've been on vacation since Saturday and won't be back until next Tuesday. I just happened to check the forum from my wife's laptop. The quote from Kahlil Gibran is most appropriate and sums the understanding of Good and Evil better than most discourses I have seen. I read this many years ago, and forgot about this well thought out passage. It is time to re-read his book.

I like how he stresses that we are all responsible for the total degree of good and evil in the world, since we are all one in Spirit. I think the biggest misunderstanding concerning our responsibilities involving good and evil lie in our misunderstanding of the difference between matter and spirit. We have elevated the role of material understanding to a point where spiritual understanding has become but a vague memory.

Illen

Pleroma
05-17-2012, 01:22 AM
I like how he stresses that we are all responsible for the total degree of good and evil in the world, since we are all one in Spirit

complete bull...

Illen A. Cluf
05-17-2012, 02:03 AM
complete bull...

This is a great example of a totally immature response that achieves nothing. Try substantiating your criticisms if you ever wish to be taken seriously.

Pleroma
05-17-2012, 02:28 AM
well, you cant really think that your comment is true about ''we are all responsible for the total degree of good and evil in the world''...i don't agree.

solomon levi
05-17-2012, 06:23 AM
I know it wont mean anything - it will sound like spiritual new age bs to anyone who hasn't
seen it themselves - but you are all there is. "The world" is a concept. Of course you are responsible
for your concepts. Good and evil are concepts.

There is nothing but you.
That thing-nothing which peers from behind your eyes is the only thing we have no concept about.

That's the deepest way we are responsible.
There are several other explanations, but "thinking it is true" is nothing like seeing.
Explanations are useless if one doesn't see.
An explanation is an abstraction which still leaves distance for those who don't see.
For one not seperated by abstractions and thinking, that one IS the world; that one
IS the evil they perceive - no distance. Who else could possibly be responsible?

Of course, if one sees oneself as a seperate ego identity, how could they be responsible
for other seperate ego identities?
Now if this seperate ego identity is a concept and not a reality, then who is right?

solomon levi
05-17-2012, 07:20 AM
"all one in spirit"...

I've been noticing how material non-duality is.
I suppose it's where the head and tail of the Ouroboros meet.
If awareness is total, there is no separate self.
This is true if it is awareness of anger, of body, of awareness...
I, for one, like that non-duality is concerned with reality instead of spirituality. :)

Awani
05-17-2012, 10:16 AM
well, you cant really think that your comment is true about ''we are all responsible for the total degree of good and evil in the world''...i don't agree.

We are all co-creators of reality so how can it not be true?

:cool:

Illen A. Cluf
05-17-2012, 04:30 PM
well, you cant really think that your comment is true about ''we are all responsible for the total degree of good and evil in the world''...i don't agree.

We might never know whether my view or your view is "true:" while in this form of life. Just because my view is different than your view does not make either of our views "complete bull". This thread is designated as "Spiritual Alchemy" so obviously it is already an established premise established by others. There are many books about spiritual alchemy, indicating its acceptance, although in my view, I don't agree with most of them because they are too simplistic and appeal to New Age groupies.

I personally believe that "God" is the sum total of all that is, which means that we are PART of God. It only appears that we are "part" because our spiritual selves are merged with the material bodies. I think we are experiencing this apparent separateness in order to reflect back to God (us) his own awareness. In other words, God can have no awareness of himself if he wasn't able to separate himself such that he can see all perspectives of himself - both what we consider "good" as well as "bad". In my view, this continual fluctuation between opposites is the dynamic that creates awareness. Without it there would be no awareness. If you read and study the ancient writings enough, you will find that many of these concepts are already incorporated in the text of the ancient Philosophers.

"Complete bull" is something that someone who is addicted to his own "beliefs" without really understanding why, would say. You have provided no explanation as to why you think that this view is full of bull. I'm not interested in your subjective beliefs. I'm only interested in your rational/philosophical explanations as to your view.

Illen

Illen A. Cluf
05-17-2012, 04:40 PM
Of course, if one sees oneself as a seperate ego identity, how could they be responsible
for other seperate ego identities?


I agree. Further, if we didn't have a spiritual nature, we would never, as a society, have progressed as far as we have. We would have no rehabilitation programs, no charities to help the oppressed, no laws against crimes, etc. Thus there is an innate sense of responsibility for each other. We sympathize because we know that under different circumstances we could become those who we view as either oppressed or those we view as criminals. Thus we do feel that we are responsible for each other.

Illen A. Cluf
05-17-2012, 04:43 PM
"all one in spirit"...

I've been noticing how material non-duality is.
I suppose it's where the head and tail of the Ouroboros meet.
If awareness is total, there is no separate self.
This is true if it is awareness of anger, of body, of awareness...
I, for one, like that non-duality is concerned with reality instead of spirituality. :)

The problem is in the very terms we use. When entering the world of non duality, there is no language to describe it. Our very language is what creates the impression of separateness.

Illen

Seth-Ra
05-17-2012, 04:47 PM
I think we are experiencing this apparent separateness in order to reflect back to God (us) his own awareness. In other words, God can have no awareness of himself if he wasn't able to separate himself such that he can see all perspectives of himself - both what we consider "good" as well as "bad". In my view, this continual fluctuation between opposites is the dynamic that creates awareness. Without it there would be no awareness. If you read and study the ancient writings enough, you will find that many of these concepts are already incorporated in the text of the ancient Philosophers.

Speaking of the ancient texts and their peculiar wording...

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. ...
Gen. 3:22

Just like our own self-reflection is a microcosm of the macro-God's self-reflection. :)




~Seth-Ra

Illen A. Cluf
05-17-2012, 04:53 PM
Just like our own self-reflection is a microcosm of the macro-God's self-reflection. :)

~Seth-Ra

Great summary, Seth-Ra! It brings the discussion right back to Hermetics!

solomon levi
05-17-2012, 06:02 PM
The problem is in the very terms we use. When entering the world of non duality, there is no language to describe it. Our very language is what creates the impression of separateness.

Illen

Yes. So true.

solomon levi
06-10-2012, 12:53 PM
The thing about good and evil, even if you consider yourself on the side of the good,
you are maintaining the separation... you are preventing the new unified dimension that
you imagine is to come when we are all good. You are preventing it as much as evil people are.