PDA

View Full Version : Oneness and Duality (spin-off thread)



solomon levi
05-03-2012, 12:38 PM
This is a spin-off thread (as requested by Seth-Ra) from this thread: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2683-A-Big-Trap-of-the-Alchemist

Hey Seth. :)
I guess for me to know that someone sees what I see, they would have to say something
to the effect of what I recently said in post 161 in this thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2683-A-Big-Trap-of-the-Alchemist&p=21281#post21281) - oneness IS the only whole view;
anything partial is subjective and not a workable path. I mean you can work any path you want
but where is it going - to dualism. Emphasizing the good in dualism will never erase or heal
the dualism, and there will still be rape and murder and all those things dualists call evil or
misguided. As far as I know, I'm the only "sick bastard" (not quoting anyone - just using quotes
to mean I don't think that about myself but I can see how others might) that sees rape and feeding
the poor as equal due to them both being based in false/partial knowledge of a doer.
Losing the mind is the only way. The reason it's called the Tao is not to suggest a million ways
for a million people (or 10,000 things) but to suggest that EVERYONE sees this when they are not there,
when their mind (the lord/cause of 10,000 things/separation/fragmentation) is not there. The Tao is
a choiceless way.

I know a lot of people know some of these things and relate. But when you see, it is total, leaving no other
alternative. As respectful as I would like to be, no one can blend any knowledge into this whole way/Tao.
We can't alter it one bit, can't bring anything dual/partial/not of its nature into it. No christian flavor or kabbalah
or anything. If any of these religions describe this Oneness (and they do) it is the point of departure for that religion,
of the religious. "What is" cannot be religious or philosophical or spiritual even. It's the common ground of all
those things, the fount of wisdom. It's neither average nor extraordinary, not spiritual or material... it has no
defining characteristics - the smooth point of the kabbalists perhaps.

When people find this treasure buried in a field, they sell all they have to purchase that field.
So we cannot, as much as we'd like to be respectful, accomodate other views.
You can't agree with me and Moshe... with Oneness and twoness.
You can, but I'll know that you don't see.
The seeing of Oneness shows the inadequacy of any dualistic approach.
And dualism is so simple to see - if there is a will of God, different from the will of man,
different from what is, different from anything... it's simply dualism - this, not that.
Any "this, not that" system would be immediately abandoned by the the seeing of the whole/One -
the same way a person knows not to walk off a cliff without anyone having to tell them, the same
way one would see not to walk a path of dualism/knowledge.
Yet outwardly, this person is doing nothing special, nothing different than anyone else.
Not walking a path of dualism doesn't mean avoiding anything like it does in religions.
The seeing/direct perception of what is makes everything happen, without the presence of a thinker/chooser/doer.
Because the seeing is total/whole/One/without a second.
There is nothing else like this. All religions/paths/systems fall into another category.
A category I might label "equally useless".
When we're on one of these paths, we feel we are progressing and growing and learning, so how
could it be wrong or useless? The virgin birth has no cause. It is not the result of any previous
efforts on the part of the doer - it is the death of the doer and the spontaneous causeless
emergence of ... a big hole of emptiness which was filled with "me" before. A hole unrelated
to anything. Your past may as well never have happened, because it is gone. That past which
held so much meaning before.


Do you really know what I'm saying?
I know what I'm saying, and it still makes no difference. :)
I know and I don't know.
I've changed and I haven't changed.
When I stop trying to make sense of anything, there is perfect silence.
Who made such silence? It's so beautiful.
And now I'm crying. And now I'm feeling a little crazy.
Life in a rock tumbler.
It's going to beat me until I stop trying to figure it out.
That's a good thing I guess - my own personal trainer. :)

I love you Seth-Ra
You're a great friend.
Thanks for listening.

Seth-Ra
05-03-2012, 07:00 PM
Hey Seth. :)
I guess for me to know that someone sees what I see, they would have to say something
to the effect of what I recently said in post 161 in this thread - oneness IS the only whole view;
anything partial is subjective and not a workable path. I mean you can work any path you want
but where is it going - to dualism. Emphasizing the good in dualism will never erase or heal
the dualism, and there will still be rape and murder and all those things dualists call evil or
misguided. As far as I know, I'm the only "sick bastard" (not quoting anyone - just using quotes
to mean I don't think that about myself but I can see how others might) that sees rape and feeding
the poor as equal due to them both being based in false/partial knowledge of a doer.
Losing the mind is the only way. The reason it's called the Tao is not to suggest a million ways
for a million people (or 10,000 things) but to suggest that EVERYONE sees this when they are not there,
when their mind (the lord/cause of 10,000 things/separation/fragmentation) is not there. The Tao is
a choiceless way.

I know a lot of people know some of these things and relate. But when you see, it is total, leaving no other
alternative. As respectful as I would like to be, no one can blend any knowledge into this whole way/Tao.
We can't alter it one bit, can't bring anything dual/partial/not of its nature into it. No christian flavor or kabbalah
or anything. If any of these religions describe this Oneness (and they do) it is the point of departure for that religion,
of the religious. "What is" cannot be religious or philosophical or spiritual even. It's the common ground of all
those things, the fount of wisdom. It's neither average nor extraordinary, not spiritual or material... it has no
defining characteristics - the smooth point of the kabbalists perhaps.

When people find this treasure buried in a field, they sell all they have to purchase that field.
So we cannot, as much as we'd like to be respectful, accomodate other views.
You can't agree with me and Moshe... with Oneness and twoness.
You can, but I'll know that you don't see.
The seeing of Oneness shows the inadequacy of any dualistic approach.
And dualism is so simple to see - if there is a will of God, different from the will of man,
different from what is, different from anything... it's simply dualism - this, not that.
Any "this, not that" system would be immediately abandoned by the the seeing of the whole/One -
the same way a person knows not to walk off a cliff without anyone having to tell them, the same
way one would see not to walk a path of dualism/knowledge.
Yet outwardly, this person is doing nothing special, nothing different than anyone else.
Not walking a path of dualism doesn't mean avoiding anything like it does in religions.
The seeing/direct perception of what is makes everything happen, without the presence of a thinker/chooser/doer.
Because the seeing is total/whole/One/without a second.
There is nothing else like this. All religions/paths/systems fall into another category.
A category I might label "equally useless".
When we're on one of these paths, we feel we are progressing and growing and learning, so how
could it be wrong or useless? The virgin birth has no cause. It is not the result of any previous
efforts on the part of the doer - it is the death of the doer and the spontaneous causeless
emergence of ... a big hole of emptiness which was filled with "me" before. A hole unrelated
to anything. Your past may as well never have happened, because it is gone. That past which
held so much meaning before.


Do you really know what I'm saying?
I know what I'm saying, and it still makes no difference. :)
I know and I don't know.
I've changed and I haven't changed.
When I stop trying to make sense of anything, there is perfect silence.
Who made such silence? It's so beautiful.
And now I'm crying. And now I'm feeling a little crazy.
Life in a rock tumbler.
It's going to beat me until I stop trying to figure it out.
That's a good thing I guess - my own personal trainer. :)

I love you Seth-Ra
You're a great friend.
Thanks for listening.

Ah, you see, that is why i said they both are valid - within perspective/placement. ^.~
Yes, the "What IS, is Truth/Whole/One" is the only "whole" view - after all, its in the name. ^.^

Im both a visual and audio kinda guy - so ima use visuals, as a picture is worth a thousand words, and an iconic emblem is worth more. ^.~
To give an example of the Duality of things, within the Whole, lets look at light.

http://tee2i.org/sites/tee2i.org/files/prism.gif

Each band of color is part of what makes up the Whole - white light. Removing the head-banging lies from all religions (lies = rebellion from what IS), then you get the pure color beam of that particular. Each particular is part of the Whole, people will go to the one that resonates with their own individual frequency of mind/spirit, while still remaining part of the Whole. ^.^

Now, in the duality perspective, we can sit back and see both the left and right have value, but they war with each other anyway. But this is ok, the exchange is needed to propel them both forward towards the whole.

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQBdo_tNnjzvFBgF&w=180&h=540&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia% 2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F57%2FCaduceus.svg%2F720px-Caduceus.svg&fallback=hub_likes&prefix=d

Once these two realize their coherent Whole Truth (their inner spectrums, where they fit together), then they unite into a single harmonious circle. (this happens all the time without our conscious knowing - because it IS, but the idea is to merge our conscious knowing with our subconscious/inner/higher self's understanding.)

http://whatisthepyramid.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ouroboros-and-solomons-seal-woodcut-297x300.jpg

Now, when these unite as they do, and when they see their union is full - the dual aspects begin to fade (from conscious mind) and they realize they are a collective single dragon, not a fixed and a volatile half, or some other dual half.

http://ourfunnyplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Ouroboros_dragon.jpg

In this unity, the individuals that make the whole are not removed or ignored, they are merely contained within their proper placement.
For instance, while we can see and understand rape, murder, etc as what IS, and we can understand how not to be victims, by accepting what IS and moving forward (within the infinite circle of perfection ;) ), as individuals, we agree that we do not want to, nor will commit rape, murder etc. (again, i define murder as shedding innocent blood - if you shoot at me, i'll shoot back. No hate, but its part of the game :) )
While we are not the do-er, we are the do-er, in that the doing is the vibrational expression of our frequency, which fits in the whole. We are outside of the do-er, bigger than it, and thus can see the higher point, even of the things we would not do - but we still do as we do, and dont do as we dont. Some call us "playing God" for this - which isnt fair, since they do too, and dont realize it. We realize it, and are ok with it, as we hold all to the same standard - no standard, for it all IS and has its place.

The whole of light-color is white. The whole of material/pigment color is black. These two are "dual" opposites - but the exact same also.
Thus, the yin-yang, where the energy turns into the matter, and the matter into the energy - its all void; void light, void matter - yet All-light, and All-matter. Even the seemingly duals, are in One circle - they are Whole.

http://www.californiasurfstickers.com/catalog/yin_yang_sticker.jpg

This is how i agree with you both. Its not the duality is "on par" with the One - the One is bigger than the dual. But the dual helps make-up the One - thats why i mean by everyone needing to understand themselves, to understand their side/frequency/placement - within the Whole. Understanding the whole, we understand where everyone fits, and can thus relate to them, and see its all ok. ^.^


The love is mutual, my friend (and to all my friends reading. ^.^ ).
I have enjoyed listening, and enjoyed sharing (with you all ^.~ ).

_______

Dev,

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!

lol no worries, i thought it was a joke, and ive seen that one before. ;) Its ok - i love wolves anyway. (religiously, that may sound bad - its akin to loving goats XD lol but still, i resonate with wolves, and get along with most all canines.) So no worries. ^.^

LOL i know how ya feel. XD I've been threatened with Hell too. I was always being attacked at the church i was made to go to - i dont get into churches and shit. lol Last time i read the book, it was between Yahweh/Yahoshua = God and me - not God, me and a priest/pastor/3rd wheel. ^.~

Funny thing is, i feel like an island unto myself sometimes (micro of macro?) - to "christian" for the pagans, and to "pagan" for the christians. XD lol At least God loves me. ^.~
But its ok, cause i love the people regardless. ^.^
Probably doesnt help that the alchemist in me likes to unite the opposites and test the ones spouting the dual truths. (If im in a church, im the voice of magick. If im around my gypsy and satanist friends, i speak about God. If im in a room of republicans, i advocate for the democrats, etc.. etc... ^.~ lol)

I simultaneously advocate peace, while bringing a sword - for the two are One. :cool:
(placement/perception being key)


^.^




~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
05-04-2012, 05:18 AM
Hey Seth-Ra.

I enjoyed reading your post. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it.
Do you think/see that the dual can somehow attain unity?
If not (which is what I see) what is the practicality of it?
All practice of it will be frustrated.

I'm not sure I see the significance of being part of the whole.
It's an explantation, but I'm not sure what it explains.
Is it just comforting or...?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I feel like I'm missing something.
Do you see/agree that the whole is more than the sum of its parts?

I guess I wonder if you are suggesting the parts have a purpose, and if so,
what is that purpose?
I think I've argued fairly well that parts can't become whole by their efforts.
Do you see that or no?

If they can't become the whole, then what is the purpose of organising them into different
composites of parts - some which we call good, some bad, 10,000 things?
If you have a good answer, then there is reason for religion.
The answer I have is "folly", not purpose.
The dual is a closed loop.

But I am curious why the dual emerges, just like the virgin birth.
This is where I feel maybe I'm missing something and maybe you are
talking about this thing. I'll keep reading your post to see if I get an "Aha!".
Otherwise, if you know what I am missing, can you shine some more light on it?

Thanks my friend. :)
Please do answer each question I asked here, if/when you have time.
It will help me to know if we're on the same page and understanding eachother.
I'm not asking them to judge you (I'm sure you know that) but to see if we're
communicating/same page. I know I seem very certain about things, but I am
very open to this discussion with you.

Seth-Ra
05-04-2012, 06:19 AM
No worries my friend, youre not being difficult, i understand your questions and will do my best to answer them. :)
(limited language and all ;) )


Do you think/see that the dual can somehow attain unity?

Yes - because it balances out. For instance, if religion A has what we consider "good" characteristics, and religion B has what we consider "bad" characteristics - its an equivalent of +1 added (because we combine the dual opposites) to -1 = 0 <--- our unified whole.
Thats the basic concept for the alchemical marriage of the opposites, as per what im describing.

The practicality of that, is the individual expression of yourself within the body. Each cell of the body communicates with the others, they each have a distinct signal they send out, so if its damaged or removed, the others recognize thats gone and work to rebuild it. Or like when i shot my .40 without ear protection (dumb, i know, it was new, i was excited. >.<) - my brain knew it should be receiving signals from those cells, but wasnt, so i had a bit of tinnitus for a few weeks until it was repaired.
You've spoken before about the God within us - it is an expression of that. The 1 from the 0 - within the 0, that makes up the 0.


I'm not sure I see the significance of being part of the whole.
It's an explantation, but I'm not sure what it explains.
Is it just comforting or...?

Its an explanation for the religions, for individual perceptions, for all beliefs (even the belief of "no-belief") - it shows their function, their purpose, which is the expression of that aspect of the whole. :)


Do you see/agree that the whole is more than the sum of its parts?

Yes and no. The whole is the sum before and thus outside of the parts - but it is also the sum of all the parts that proceed from it. I'll try to clarify; think of void/whole of spirit being the possibility of everything (while being nothing at all), now/then upon the creation/manifestation of all things (matter), the material or Fixed All (what IS made/expressed) fills and is in union with the spiritual or Volatile All (that which IS not-made, that which is pure possibility and void substance) - these two are both dual, and yet they interchange. I see this as our Sun-symbol, the outer circle being the possibility void, the 0, and the All-expressed being the resulting "aha!" of God, as it were - thus the inner circle/dot - that which fills itself, though is itself. There is no real difference between spirit and matter, there is no true separation, its merely a game of frequency to raise the overall being. It acts on itself. Just like when we meditate - the body shows the effects, it is the manifest, and our inward spirit is the possibility - they are the same being - the same Whole, but they are frequency-divided, the purpose of which is so it acts on itself to grow itself further.
When this growing is accomplished, we see from the whole, and act out that God-aspect of ourselves, in our personal/fractal world around us. As you said, everything changes, but nothing changes - we understand ourself, and are back at the beginning but on a higher level. We always go back to the beginning, because that is how we continue to evolve the things around us, which in turn work on us. Is the process ever finished? Sure, its finished now. Its also not. All is as it should be, ever - but we move forward, even when still. Thats how we are both, and neither, as One. :)

Damn i hope that made sense. lol XD i know my wording may sometimes get rather... circular... lol

I think i answered in the above your question on "purpose" so i'll go to the next:

I think I've argued fairly well that parts can't become whole by their efforts.
Do you see that or no?

Not by their efforts, no. Each side has its "flaw" - or a better term would be, its shade/coloring/frequency. It is what it is. But there is the loop also - it IS. All the religions exist - the words are there, the thoughts are there. That doesnt mean there are not some conundrums, but thats where the growing comes in - when you remove the "blur" of the frequency and get to the heart, you see its true shade. By simultaneously looking out to the Whole, you see where that frequency fits into it, thus its ok. :)

See, im not saying you only study the fractals - those can be infinite, about like the hindu deities; while being various forms of the One, personalized for each person, a comprehensive study like that could be maddening, especially when more people are coming along seeing more, quicker than you can learn them and study them. ;) This is the problem with what i call "knowledge" or "supposed-knowledge", for that is folly and infinite. Wisdom comes by understanding. So, if you study and see from the Whole, and you study and see the fractal of yourself as well - you then can relate and understand everyone else's fractal, though not having to do a full comprehensive "knowledge" study of such. Understand the frequency - its place in the Whole, just as you understand your own.


If they can't become the whole, then what is the purpose of organising them into different
composites of parts - some which we call good, some bad, 10,000 things?

But they are a Whole - good and bad, 10,000 and more. There is nothing that exists outside of the Whole - from the duality we see, to the possibility we cant at the moment. Fro every possibility thought of, there is an opposing one to counter it. We continue to say "Whole" or "One" - we equally can and do mean "Empty" and "None" at the same time - so even in this Filled Void, there is a sort of duality, for we ascribe the wording/concept to it. You mentioned earlier the beautiful silence - without the harmonious noise, how would you know? ;)Compare and contrast - and they both are the same, and not simultaneously. Its like having two brains as one... oh wait. XD ;) lol


But I am curious why the dual emerges, just like the virgin birth.

I'll try to use some wording you have before so that it maybe will be more easily understood. :) (forgive me if i butcher it to hell and back lol)

When the One became conscious of itself, resulting in the "big bang" of sorts - you could say it was all of the possibility culminating to a thought of "make it" thus then the "Let there be" aspect - as possibility became reality, and possibility further exists - for gravity, there is anti-gravity, for fire there is cold - matter and anti-matter, we get the duals, because their applications on one-another allow for further possibilities that have been there, waiting to further burst forth - and in ouroboros time, have already done so. We experience the time as a linear event, we understand that its not - part of the wonderful miracle of it all is that the One both split and recombined all at once - just pow! But we experience things on this plain in a more linear fashion, so we still see possibilities being born, and manifest. Why dont we just "get it"? Well, the saying goes that anything worth having requires work - the work for us is to be grown by the understanding of all this.
The whole point of the Art, the Stone, transmutation in general - is for us to move forward, consciously. For the "dot" to enter the "circle" and be "Like Them" understanding (which is akin to knowing - but not vulgarly knowing as i described earlier). The spirit already "gets it" - it is trying to make the physical "get it" - the physical is testing it to prove it true, and to remove any false-hoods from it - this they do to one-another. Falsehoods are the things against the What IS, the lies. Perhaps the Lie itself is the Lie - but the two must challenge each other in this elegant duel, just as the serpents of the caduceus until they ascend to the One orb/dot - then these melt away marking our dual ouroboros, who is our Dragon, and in the final blurring of all lines, while solidifying them also - we have our yin-yang. Matter is Spirit, Spirit is Matter, it all IS, One, None, empty, full, volatile-possibility, fixed-immutabulity, Whole, Void. The Holy Mother AND the Perfected Son/Sun/Father. :)


I think that answers your questions, but if not - i'll still be around till the end of this month. ;) lol

Im enjoying the conversation very much, dont worry about your questions or how you may "seem" to me - ive been around here a while, i understand, and am more than happy to share to the best of my ability. ^.^
Its somewhat tricky though, as i ponder this: How can one speak of the Divine, using a vulgar means?
But then again, Spirit and understanding unify the two - so its all the same. ;)
lol it really is a divine comedy. Maybe why im always in a joking/funny/happy mood. *shrugs* Always quietly content also. ^.^




~Seth-Ra

Andro
05-04-2012, 09:14 AM
A bit of a spin-off from the spin-off :)

Religion has been mentioned. I remember (please correct me if I'm mistaken) that Seth-Ra mentioned at least once that he is NOT religious (a christian, yes, but not religious - like catholic, etc...).

Without disputing the historical existence of the 'Jesus' persona, he was a reformer of sorts and he apparently didn't like the old testament very much (the Torah/the old ways), and he also didn't leave any instructions to build a religion/church in his name.
That was Paul, and came later.

I can't recall Jesus making any remarks against gays for example, and he often appeared to be a fierce advocate of non-judgment. He advocated love, but also had episodes of 'righteous rage'. A very interesting character, no doubt.

If we read the gospels censored by Constantine (the gnostic ones) we can find out much more about the esoteric teachings involved.

I'm not really a bible reader, so please correct me if I missed anything.

Awani
05-04-2012, 09:54 AM
Jesus was probably bi-sexual, imo. The man I know from the gnostic texts is so different from the man in the Bible. Buddha too didn't want people to build statues and worship him... the only reason we do is because humans normally are sheepish. Which is fine if the sheep herder is a wise man, alas all our leaders are scumbags.

Bunch of sayings by Jesus: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html


16. Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

After all in Jesus time the Romans were the fascist regime... and he would have been a rebel. No doubt.

Many sayings in the Gospel of Thomas contradict the bible/torah.


53. His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?"

He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."


44. Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."

Also in the Gospel of Philip: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html


Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".

Seth-Ra: sure you are not a Gnostic rather than a Christian? For what I gather regarding your outlook on Christianity it seems so relaxed that it fits the Gnostic model more than the dogmatic Christian versions. Not that we really need to put you in a certain compartment or that there is a need to define what anyone is... just wondering.

:cool:

solomon levi
05-04-2012, 10:12 AM
Okay. It's nice just to talk and not have to be on guard of offending someone
or being taken the wrong way. :)

I agree with the balance of opposites in theory, and even in magnets we see they
produce a null point in the exact center... but how can humans achieve this precision?
It doesn't seem practical that we can perfectly balance these frequencies through our
life experience and knowledge. The partial knowledge isn't that precise - there's not just
opposites/two. We're fractured into so many pieces - degrees of good and bad.
Practically this would take so many lifetimes, which you may agree with. But I know
from experience that unity comes in a flash, timeless, not based on the past, not a product.
I just stop using my mind/knowledge. I don't match up opposites. It's something that happens
by grace - I can't really say how it happens. The Nagual does it in Nagual's time as Castaneda
would say. But maybe you're right too. Castaneda does speak about pairing up the items on
the island of the tonal to prepare the tonal to be swept clean into the Nagual. I know I've done
a lot of that. But still we (from others I've read besides my own experience) can't say "this is
what caused my unitive experience", pointing to anything specific.
How about you? Do you have a method or practice to get to unity? That has worked for you?
That you can say, "follow these steps"...?
I suspect we are talking about the difference between chemistry and alchemy - the missing word,
secret fire, donum dei...


Me - "I'm not sure I see the significance of being part of the whole.
It's an explantation, but I'm not sure what it explains.
Is it just comforting or...?"

You - "Its an explanation for the religions, for individual perceptions, for all beliefs (even the belief of "no-belief") - it shows their function, their purpose, which is the expression of that aspect of the whole."

I'm still not seeing the purpose. What I have seen is that purpose is a projection of knowledge/thinking.
It is not inherent. Thinking seems a sufficient explanation for all those things.
I could go into why thinking/ego projects purpose to support its appearance, to give itself the
appearance of substance, the same way it projects the past to give itself the appearance of continuity.
Or do you see this already? I don't see that the purpose has any objectivity. It only exists to verify the
ego/knowledge, thus so many people interpret purpose differently.
You've only said they have purpose. You haven't offered any evidence of purpose. Is there any evidence?

I was going to argue that the whole is not a pole to the parts; it's the one thing not like anything else.
But Castaneda agrees with you:
"What can one specifically find in that area beyond the island? There is no way of answering that. If I would say, Nothing, I would only make the nagual part of the tonal . All I can say is that there, beyond the island, one finds the nagual.
But then you say, when I call it the nagual , aren't I also placing it on the island? No. I named it only because I wanted to make you aware of it. I have named the tonal and the nagual as a true pair. That is all I have done.
We sense that there is another side to us. But when we try to pin down that other side the tonal gets hold of the baton, and as a director it is quite petty and jealous. It dazzles us with its cunningness and forces us to obliterate the slightest inkling of the other part of the true pair, the nagual."

So I'll have to give that some more attention. Maybe both are true/accurate. I know the tonal/thinking is
a closed loop, the box. Castaneda describes it very well, saying "the tonal learns to see as it thinks and think as
it sees" creating this self-verifying loop or self-reflection. If thinking is the source of this, how can the nothing
also be the source, a true pair? I'm missing something.
I also used to describe frequency and matter coming from the voids awareness of itself - the big bang. But now that
I have seen the virgin birth, a spontaneous manifestation without prior cause, I'm confused how both of these can be true.
I'll probably never resolve it, anymore than one can answer "if god created the universe, who created god?"


You - "Wisdom comes by understanding. So, if you study and see from the Whole, and you study and see the fractal of yourself as well - you then can relate and understand everyone else's fractal, though not having to do a full comprehensive "knowledge" study of such. Understand the frequency - its place in the Whole, just as you understand your own."

I completely relate to that experience. And the description seems accurate.
But it keeps coming undone for me. Like if I folded a piece of paper and as soon
as I set it down it unfolds itself. Something is happening to me since I saw the virgin
birth and I can't make sense of anything anymore. Maybe I need some time to let
things settle, if they settle.

You make some great observations about the whole and empty, noise and silence.
I'll contemplate this too.

The mystery we are also talking around is that the "lies" or thinking are also "what is"
while at the same time being against "what is", a rejection of "what is". In another
translation, the egos will is God's "will"/what is.


Here is a Castaneda quote that seems applicable to our conversation:
"No one develops a double. That's only a way of talking about it. All of us luminous beings have a double. All of us! A warrior learns to be aware of it, that's all. There are seemingly insurmountable barriers protecting that awareness. But that's expected; those barriers are what makes arriving at that awareness such a unique challenge. You are afraid of it because you're thinking that the double is what the word says. A double, or another you. I chose those words in order to describe it. The double is oneself and cannot be faced in any other way.
The double is not a matter of personal choice. Neither is it a matter of personal choice who is selected to learn the sorcerers' knowledge that leads to that awareness. Have you ever asked yourself, why you in particular? I don't mean that you should ask it as a question that begs an answer, but in the sense of a warrior's pondering on his great fortune, the fortune of having found a challenge. To make it into an ordinary question is the device of a conceited ordinary man who wants to be either admired or pitied for it. I have no interest in that kind of question, because there is no way of answering it. The decision of picking you was a design of power; no one can discern the designs of power. Now that you've been selected, there is nothing that you can do to stop the fulfillment of that design.
A warrior is in the hands of power and his only freedom is to choose an impeccable life.
You're in a terrible spot. It's too late for you to retreat but too soon to act. All you can do is witness. For you there is only witnessing acts of power and listening to tales, tales of power.
The double is one of those tales. You know that, and that's why your reason is so taken by it. You are beating your head against a wall if you pretend to understand. All that I can say about it, by way of explanation, is that the double, although it is arrived at through dreaming , is as real as it can be. It is the self. It is the awareness of our state as luminous beings. It can do anything, and yet it chooses to be unobtrusive and gentle."
"The self dreams the double. Once it has learned to dream the double, the self arrives at this weird crossroad and a moment comes when one realizes that it is the double who dreams the self. Your double is dreaming you. No one knows how it happens. We only know that it does happen. That's the mystery of us as luminous beings. You can awaken in either one."

Seth-Ra
05-04-2012, 09:01 PM
Androgynus,

You are correct, in that im not "religious" in that context. Ive been "burned" in churches to much to care about the flawed dogma - regardless of what flavor of christianity they are. (from my experience, Pentecostals are the worst)
Ive been in a few different ones, i was fine with the Methodists until i learned of the inner-corruption and politics (which cut my brother more than me, as he was a member), i played the role of acolyte in an Anglican church after the priest befriended my brother and me - that was fun, but dead ritual is dead ritual. ;) I also dont get into the Mary-stuff. She was blessed, yes - nothing more, nor an intermediary between the people and the son. lol In a christian perception, she carried the manifestation of God within her - a prepared temple/vessel. We do the same thing - hence we are the temple/kingdom.

Those are just some examples. Ive also argued with BS on TBN since i was little (my mother likes to watch it). lol

That being said - that doesnt mean any of them are 100% incorrect. Some just have more "blur"/"fog"/"deception"/"blinders" to them than others. (At the heart of all of christendom, there is the Divine birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Period. All else, is various actions/thoughts on that, and/or blurs within the spectrum.)
The heart of the matter is not what divides it, the fractal minds are. In doing so, i do not separate myself from the Heart of the Faith - but i do separate myself from the fractal bullshit (this does not mean it is meaningless, but i can see to the heart of it, and the majority do not, and it becomes an issue) of the mindless masses, though i still love them all as people and would help them if i could. :)

_____

Androgynus and Dev,

I do not place the "apocrypha" or "lost books" etc in the same category as the 66 of the bible. I dont mean to say, or sound like, they do not have their value - but as has been pointed out, they contradict the OT and NT, not to mention authenticity of author, etc. etc. (we could probably debate this for all of it - but the 66 are accepted as "authoritative" for a reason. I have never found a contradiction in those 66, though i found where they could be misinterpreted to contain them - whereas the others out-right contradict, on some things.)
If yall, or anyone else disagrees - you are more than welcome to do so. :) Merely stating my perception on it.

If its Heart does not line up - then it is solely a mental fractal (see the {1} below in the SL responce) made to imitate (everyone wants there own church ;) ). If the Heart does line up, i have no problem with the core, even if there is some mental/fragmented blurring in there - just as with the churches.

I also do not subscribe to many things considered "gnostic" - like the demiurge. I understand the concept, i just dont see it as a factual thing. My reasoning is because i do not see creation as flawed or whatever. The Fall was necessary to promote our growth, and allows Spirit to demonstrate its grace etc. so all of creation is turning and churning as its supposed to in this appointed spot of linear time - and its creator is just as perfect, and more so, as i see God as being both the infinite void/possibility as well as the infinite whole/manifestation - thus God the Father (pure spirit - outside material creation), Christ/Son (the material manifestation of the same Spirit) and then what we call the Holy Spirit/Ghost/comforter (the Spirit within us, teaching of possibilities and guiding us towards manifesting them) - and these 3 are One. :cool:
So to have an "evil" creator of some kind, seems silly to me, a mental fractal created, probably out of anger at the established church's/temple's God, thus a demonizing of it. And as far as any sort of enemy/devil goes - even "Satan"/"Lucifer" - whatever you wanna call it, has its purpose and fits in the whole, i dont see it as real "threat", but rather, a testing fire used for growth.

Aside from the Heart of the matter, it really boils down to perception, which is in the eye of the beholder - what eye do you behold? ;)

http://www.misha-art.com/art/fine%20art/2009/Hamsa%20Hand72.jpg

________

Solomon Levi,


but how can humans achieve this precision?
It doesn't seem practical that we can perfectly balance these frequencies through our
life experience and knowledge.

Ah, main word there, human. ^.~
To understand it, we have to step back and see the Whole (from a Whole-God-perspective, not the fractal-human one), see that whatever fractal we directly perceive/resonate with has its direct counters, or spin-offs, and that they all fit somewhere, or they wouldnt be. ({1}The hearts fit somewhere, there are mental-blurs/deceptions, even if self-imposed, and its not that the deceptions do not stem from a root effecting the heart, cause they do or they wouldnt be, but once understood, are healed/removed, leaving only the true heart of the fractal which is a piece of the whole).


How about you? Do you have a method or practice to get to unity? That has worked for you?
That you can say, "follow these steps"...?

Possibly. lol Your results may vary - but the way ive done it, is to purposefully collide opposites, and find the whole/middle that they both possess, on top of meditation outside of fractal thoughts - i.e. meditating on the void/whole - the ouroboros, circular time, all black or all white "space" - no-space etc...
To understand the void/whole is to see all perspectives, all things that are, etc. - and shows where your own individual resonance is within the whole - its a mode of operation, as we all operate. This is why i said we are not the do-er, and we are the do-er.
Its the simultaneous yes and no thats tricky. lol
I understand the head-wrapping issue. For me, its both in my head and outside of it. lol


I'm still not seeing the purpose. What I have seen is that purpose is a projection of knowledge/thinking.
It is not inherent. Thinking seems a sufficient explanation for all those things.
I could go into why thinking/ego projects purpose to support its appearance, to give itself the
appearance of substance, the same way it projects the past to give itself the appearance of continuity.
Or do you see this already?

I do see it - its purpose is to explore and manifest the possibility(ies) - to express each band of the One Light - and thereby, make-up the substance of the Light. It ends up becoming a chicken or the egg thing, and again the answer is both. lol brilliant madness. ^.^


I don't see that the purpose has any objectivity. It only exists to verify the
ego/knowledge, thus so many people interpret purpose differently.
You've only said they have purpose. You haven't offered any evidence of purpose. Is there any evidence?

Objectively, it is merely a part of the expression of the whole. Subjectively, each expression is the expression. For example - what makes my room, my room. The entire space is the room - the void possibility of anything i design it to be, though still is even if do nothing. Do my swords make it "my room", my guns, my lab, my books, my wolf pictures, arcane drawings, my bed, desk, etc? No one thing makes it the room that it is - though each is responsible for the expression of the whole - the expression that said space, is my space, where i dwell.

Expression is purpose in and of itself - if it were not, the Void would not have expressed itself with the Whole, and people would neither express their resonant selves of what they think/feel/experience - cause there would be no experience, thought, or feeling, or people for that matter. A possibility with no substance or expression of itself, is absolutely nothing, to the point that you wouldnt even know it, or experience it - because without the expression of it, how would you know? Even the very thought or feeling, is an expression. :)

Sounds like i need to read some Castaneda. lol I seen a book of his in a store once and thought of your many quotes, so i began reading it. I liked what was in it, may have to buy it sometime.


Maybe both are true/accurate.

That is the way of it, and the conundrum of it too. ;)


I don't mean that you should ask it as a question that begs an answer, but in the sense of a warrior's pondering on his great fortune, the fortune of having found a challenge.

This, i really liked, and i think it applies to the entire question/problem/solution of the both/one, as well as the question in the context of the quote. :)





~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
05-04-2012, 10:03 PM
Okay.
Yeah, I see the precision isn't something people have to worry about - the whole
takes care of it somehow when we meditate on it (the whole).

The purpose is the expression/action. Okay, I agree. Keep it simple.
This is seen, not interpreted purpose. It's the interpretations that are subjective/projections.


I also don't agree with the evilness of the demiurge.
I wonder if someone twisted things to make it look bad, or if gnostics
actually believed that. Because gnosis doesn't see evil; evil is an interpretation, not gnosis.
Gnosis is not ordinary knowledge where we can interpret things as good or evil.
I don't see how someone could make that error from gnosis.
What I recall from reading Nag Hammadi doesn't suggest this evilness.
Maybe certain sects of gnostics went there, but not all of them.
Belief in evil would make one not a gnostic by definition IMO.

Of course, the story has to be told that way - the rape of Sophia by demons...
that's an accurate metaphor, and depending on your understanding/definition of
demon/archon, it is also literal without implying evilness. Maybe its a translation
error. One can interpret Jesus as saying If thine eye be single... if thine eye be dual...
dual, not evil. Who can say? I haven't seen anything evil out there, but plenty which
can be interpreted evil. Each person has to see for themselves and write their own bible.
Why interpret others experiences when we can have our own. Of course we have some
experiences and then we say, "Oh, that's what the garden of Eden means", or "that's what
Jesus intended". I don't know... It's all personal. The seeing is the power; not reading. If
you see what you read, it is yours, it is alive written in your heart, not on dead stones/papyrus.
I have seen the rape of Sophia. I've seen the demiurgos. It's a true story for me. It doesn't require
any belief on my part. One can see all kinds of things - the Egyptian book of the dead, the bardo -
Tibetan book of the dead, the myths of Orpheus or Hercules, or Zeus... the visions of Jacob and
Ezekiel and Hermes/Poimandres... all these are true recordings of other planes which exist
simultaneously and parallel to this one, vibrating at different frequencies in the space right before
your eyes.

solomon levi
05-04-2012, 10:09 PM
Oh - this a nice site for a distillation of the best parts of Castanedas books,
the knowledge without the story. Reading the books is an experience you
wouldn't want to miss IMO. It is an initiation. Don't be turned off by the first
book. It's probably the worst - before Castaneda realised what was going on
so more of an academic description/view. The rest of the books get better and
better. You can find the books online. But here is a distillation as i said for those
who have read and want a refresher course. Not the mp3s, but below that you will
find each book and quick readin of the essential quotes:
http://www.prismagems.com/castaneda/

Seth-Ra
05-04-2012, 10:29 PM
Okay.
Yeah, I see the precision isn't something people have to worry about - the whole
takes care of it somehow when we meditate on it (the whole).

The purpose is the expression/action. Okay, I agree. Keep it simple.
This is seen, not interpreted purpose. It's the interpretations that are subjective/projections.


Exactly. ^.^
It is very simple, but not always simply explained. lol


Gnosis is not ordinary knowledge where we can interpret things as good or evil.

I agree, but i like to call it "enlightenment" rather than "gnosis" - to remove the perceptions/interpretations of "evil" in its various forms. that just me though. :)
I have a friend that wears the title of "gnostic" like a badge of honor - to each their own. lol


Thanks for the site, i will try to give the books a read as im able, but will look over the quotes also. :)




~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
05-04-2012, 10:37 PM
Oh. I just realised that the "keep it simple" may have sounded like I was
telling you to do that. I didn't mean that. I just said it as the saying,
not as a criticism of you Seth. :)

Have you read any books that discuss "the myth of enlightenment"?
One of my favs was "Doing Nothing"

This bit of an interview sums it up the point:
Q: "But, what took place in your searching that allowed you to realize that there was no longer anything to search for?"

A: "When I consider that question, it seems to me that you are asking about a point of transformation. There is a period of life before this point, which is in one state of mind. There is the point of transformation. And then there is the rest of the life which is lived in a fundamentally different way.
I am suggesting that this whole notion of a point of transformation is a myth. This is the enlightenment myth. For me to indicate a point where I realized that enlightenment was a myth, that there was no need for a spiritual search and so forth, would just be another version of the enlightenment fiction. This would just reinforce this lunacy we all seem to be caught up in.
I don't see a difference in my being now, before or ever. It seems to me that whatever it is that is here, has always been here. There is no causal relationship that I can find between any of the so-called spiritual practices I have undergone and the state of being in which we all exist. Whether you meditate or not, do yoga or not, have a guru or not, the access point to all of reality is always in reach, always available, always here in this moment."


I like this guy because he goes even further than most non-dualists, which sounds
odd - what's further? What I mean is, some people are content with being present
or being enlightened. But these can become knowns, experiences and then constructs
of the mind again - goals, etc. This quote kind of says it:

"To enter the unknown you must leave everything that you've accumulated, including the wonderful peacefulness of the present, which in the end is just one more experience, just one more construction of the mind.” –The Love of Uncertainty

Here's the rest of the interview for anyone interested. Great stuff IMO.
http://www.doingnothing.com/ta1.html

Seth-Ra
05-04-2012, 10:42 PM
Oh. I just realised that the "keep it simple" may have sounded like I was
telling you to do that. I didn't mean that. I just said it as the saying,
not as a criticism of you Seth. :)

lol oh, no i didnt even realize it could sound like a criticism XD lol i was agreeing with it. lol

Its all, my friend, its all. ;)



~Seth-Ra

zoas23
05-05-2012, 05:43 AM
Seth-Ra: sure you are not a Gnostic rather than a Christian? For what I gather regarding your outlook on Christianity it seems so relaxed that it fits the Gnostic model more than the dogmatic Christian versions. Not that we really need to put you in a certain compartment or that there is a need to define what anyone is... just wondering.

"Gnostic" and "Christian" aren't two opposite terms.
The people we call "gnostic" nowadays are people that called themselves "Christian".
I am quite sure that you know about it... it's just that placing those terms as two opposed terms sounds weird.



I do not place the "apocrypha" or "lost books" etc in the same category as the 66 of the bible. (...)
I also do not subscribe to many things considered "gnostic" - like the demiurge. I understand the concept, i just dont see it as a factual thing. My reasoning is because i do not see creation as flawed or whatever.

You made me think of a joke... mostly because my English is terrible, it won't sound funny, but you'll get what I mean.

A man says: "I have no interest in cross dressing, I certainly don't like the music of Madonna or Lady Gaga, I would never think of wearing make-up, I love soccer and rugby. I think I never saw any movie in which Barbara Streisand was acting... I obviously have nothing in common with the gays: I am simply attracted to men and prefer to have sex with men".

In short: I am mostly with the ones who label you as Gnostic (LOL... maybe a "closet gnostic" -I'm joking!).

It is very much like the joke: a person who has sex with persons of his same sex is "gay"... it's not about listening to Madonna or being able to walk in high heels... and not being into those practices doesn't make a person "less gay".

Gnotic is a Christian who thinks that the way to God is the way of Knowledge. That's all. The Apocrypha, the Demiurge... and mostly everything that you mentioned is just like the "Madonna" and the "High Heels" of the previous joke.

Pardon me the incredibly large quote of Plato's Republic (Book VI):

Now take a line which has been cut into two unequal parts, and divide each of them again in the same proportion, and suppose the two main divisions to answer, one to the visible and the other to the intelligible, and then compare the subdivisions in respect of their clearness and want of clearness, and you will find that the first section in the sphere of the visible consists of images. And by images I mean, in the first place, shadows, and in the second place, reflections in water and in solid, smooth and polished bodies and the like: Do you understand?

Yes, I understand.
Imagine, now, the other section, of which this is only the resemblance, to include the animals which we see, and everything that grows or is made.

Very good.
Would you not admit that both the sections of this division have different degrees of truth, and that the copy is to the original as the sphere of opinion is to the sphere of knowledge?

Most undoubtedly.
Next proceed to consider the manner in which the sphere of the intellectual is to be divided.

In what manner?
Thus: --There are two subdivisions, in the lower or which the soul uses the figures given by the former division as images; the enquiry can only be hypothetical, and instead of going upwards to a principle descends to the other end; in the higher of the two, the soul passes out of hypotheses, and goes up to a principle which is above hypotheses, making no use of images as in the former case, but proceeding only in and through the ideas themselves.

I do not quite understand your meaning, he said.
Then I will try again; you will understand me better when I have made some preliminary remarks. You are aware that students of geometry, arithmetic, and the kindred sciences assume the odd and the even and the figures and three kinds of angles and the like in their several branches of science; these are their hypotheses, which they and everybody are supposed to know, and therefore they do not deign to give any account of them either to themselves or others; but they begin with them, and go on until they arrive at last, and in a consistent manner, at their conclusion?

Yes, he said, I know.
And do you not know also that although they make use of the visible forms and reason about them, they are thinking not of these, but of the ideals which they resemble; not of the figures which they draw, but of the absolute square and the absolute diameter, and so on --the forms which they draw or make, and which have shadows and reflections in water of their own, are converted by them into images, but they are really seeking to behold the things themselves, which can only be seen with the eye of the mind?

That is true.
And of this kind I spoke as the intelligible, although in the search after it the soul is compelled to use hypotheses; not ascending to a first principle, because she is unable to rise above the region of hypothesis, but employing the objects of which the shadows below are resemblances in their turn as images, they having in relation to the shadows and reflections of them a greater distinctness, and therefore a higher value.

I understand, he said, that you are speaking of the province of geometry and the sister arts.

And when I speak of the other division of the intelligible, you will understand me to speak of that other sort of knowledge which reason herself attains by the power of dialectic, using the hypotheses not as first principles, but only as hypotheses --that is to say, as steps and points of departure into a world which is above hypotheses, in order that she may soar beyond them to the first principle of the whole; and clinging to this and then to that which depends on this, by successive steps she descends again without the aid of any sensible object, from ideas, through ideas, and in ideas she ends.

I understand you, he replied; not perfectly, for you seem to me to be describing a task which is really tremendous; but, at any rate, I understand you to say that knowledge and being, which the science of dialectic contemplates, are clearer than the notions of the arts, as they are termed, which proceed from hypotheses only: these are also contemplated by the understanding, and not by the senses: yet, because they start from hypotheses and do not ascend to a principle, those who contemplate them appear to you not to exercise the higher reason upon them, although when a first principle is added to them they are cognizable by the higher reason. And the habit which is concerned with geometry and the cognate sciences I suppose that you would term understanding and not reason, as being intermediate between opinion and reason.

You have quite conceived my meaning, I said; and now, corresponding to these four divisions, let there be four faculties in the soul-reason answering to the highest, understanding to the second, faith (or conviction) to the third, and perception of shadows to the last-and let there be a scale of them, and let us suppose that the several faculties have clearness in the same degree that their objects have truth.

The quote was too long, I am sorry.
But that's mostly the BEST explanation of what Gnosticism is about: non-gnostic Christianity placed "faith" as the path/way to God.
When "faith" was for the Platonic Philosophers a very low activity of the soul.
... The Gnostics mostly followed the ways of Plato.

So I don't really get the difference between you and any Gnostic (even if you mention your lack of interest in the apocrypha, you lack of belief in the Demiurge and so on.... Gnosticism is simply the idea that Knowledge is the way to God... whilst all the other stuff is just lik the "Madonna", the "make-up" or the "Barbara Steisand" of the joke).

Then again, labels are silly and the "historical gnostics" simply called themselves "Christians"... so it's kinda silly to discuss those labels nowwadays.

solomon levi
05-05-2012, 06:15 AM
From what I learned on gnosticism, a gnostic is one who knows.
What knowledge does the gnostic possess?
The gnostics knowledge is who we are, where we're from, where we're going.
That and knowing the difference between the true ineffable God and the god of images.

Yes, I would say Seth-Ra fits the bill.

Seth-Ra
05-05-2012, 08:09 AM
LOL!

Well, what can i say to all that? XD
It is not for me to label myself, but those that witness me - so in the words of Harry Houdini: "Good or bad, say what you want to about me, just get my name right." ;)


Solomon Levi,

From what I learned on gnosticism, a gnostic is one who knows.
What knowledge does the gnostic possess?
The gnostics knowledge is who we are, where we're from, where we're going.
That and knowing the difference between the true ineffable God and the god of images.

Yes, I would say Seth-Ra fits the bill.

That was a kind way to say that. Thank you. :)


Zoas23,

You made me think of a joke... mostly because my English is terrible, it won't sound funny, but you'll get what I mean.
lol yes, i understood what you were saying - and it was funny. :)


In short: I am mostly with the ones who label you as Gnostic (LOL... maybe a "closet gnostic" -I'm joking!).

lol perhaps, or perhaps what you said here....:


Then again, labels are silly and the "historical gnostics" simply called themselves "Christians"... so it's kinda silly to discuss those labels nowwadays.

... is more akin to how i perceive it. ;)




~Seth-Ra

Seeker of Truth
05-05-2012, 06:33 PM
Have you read any books that discuss "the myth of enlightenment"?
One of my favs was "Doing Nothing"

This bit of an interview sums it up the point:
Q: "But, what took place in your searching that allowed you to realize that there was no longer anything to search for?"

A: "When I consider that question, it seems to me that you are asking about a point of transformation. There is a period of life before this point, which is in one state of mind. There is the point of transformation. And then there is the rest of the life which is lived in a fundamentally different way.
I am suggesting that this whole notion of a point of transformation is a myth. This is the enlightenment myth. For me to indicate a point where I realized that enlightenment was a myth, that there was no need for a spiritual search and so forth, would just be another version of the enlightenment fiction. This would just reinforce this lunacy we all seem to be caught up in.
I don't see a difference in my being now, before or ever. It seems to me that whatever it is that is here, has always been here. There is no causal relationship that I can find between any of the so-called spiritual practices I have undergone and the state of being in which we all exist. Whether you meditate or not, do yoga or not, have a guru or not, the access point to all of reality is always in reach, always available, always here in this moment."


I like this guy because he goes even further than most non-dualists, which sounds
odd - what's further? What I mean is, some people are content with being present
or being enlightened. But these can become knowns, experiences and then constructs
of the mind again - goals, etc. This quote kind of says it:

"To enter the unknown you must leave everything that you've accumulated, including the wonderful peacefulness of the present, which in the end is just one more experience, just one more construction of the mind.” –The Love of Uncertainty

Here's the rest of the interview for anyone interested. Great stuff IMO.
http://www.doingnothing.com/ta1.html

Again and again I find that what you write in different posts, including this one, resonates deeply with my being of Truth. I find this post of yours Solomon to be very inspirational. I read on some online dictionairy one of the definitions of Spiration; The act of breathing, then in-spiration becomes " in the act of breathing", beautiful just as being. I am thankful.


(When previewing this post I felt as if maybe someone here had written it already, if so I thank you as well.)
I thank you Seth-Ra and every member of Alchemy Forums (and wholeness/oneness)


TALLAT LATTAL LATTAL TALLAT - LATTAL TALLAT TALLAT LATTAL

:-) 117 8 711 (-:

solomon levi
05-05-2012, 08:47 PM
TALLAT LATTAL LATTAL TALLAT - LATTAL TALLAT TALLAT LATTAL

:-) 117 8 711 (-:


Hi Seeker of Truth.
I love this! I don't know what specific meaning it may have, but it does reflect the mirroring and balance of
what may be seen as opposite or backwards, contrary/complementary truths, like Seth-Ra and I were discussing.

Is there a reason/meaning these specific letters and numbers are chosen that you are willing to share?

Seeker of Truth
05-05-2012, 09:53 PM
Hi Solomon :-)

The letters are simply Truth-and-Love-Love-and-Truth Love-and-Truth-Truth-and-Love condensed to be more effective:-)

The number 117 for me starts back when I first played Halo 1 on XboX, Master Chief has it as he is also known as John 117. This game is a First Person Shooter, back then I simply enjoyed the action, the graphics and the cool story. Now I see that as I play I can play in a different way where the Chief/theplayer is merely performing the necessary actions in certain situation(s). I also sometimes add compassion, love, truth etc as they affect the game when I play, in other words as an exercise for whatever anyone may choose. But it does not elude me that FPS games/all games are on the market for a very specific reason and many of the games are very violent. All how you see it I guess, but I can not Judge any body, just that Truth has all layers and all layers have Love.

In numerology the number 9 is the last number from 0-9 and so represents completion and it reminds me that all things are complete. I am soon about to tattoo 117 to the top of my right hand and will in the future have 117 on my chest upon my heart (I love tattooes). If you multiply 117 with any number from 0 to infinity,and then add the resulting numbers till you are left with only one number that number will always be 9.(f.ex: 117*117 = 13689 = 1+3+6+8+9 = 27 = 2+7 = 9). I think that is cool. As my attention falls to this number often I discover more about it trusting it in a very specific way.

I like balance, wholeness, oneness, completion and I seek and find them in Truth and Love. That means Truth no matter Truth may be and that means Love.

side note: I have a tree in the woods 10 minutes by car from where I live where I go to be. When I got there today many of the trees had been cut down and I did get scared that maybe the tree that I know and Love was gone. I reach my destination and my tree still stands, in its close company friends for a long time, on the ground cut down. As I stood there I saw my thoughts turn to sadness in the words of "They know not what they do", as I recognized this I only saw that the trees that have fallen will always be. They are in Truth and so can never not be in Truth. They existed and so they will always exist. They are part of the complete and so they are complete. I am still a little bit worried about my tree though and will soon go visit even though its late where I live. I saw that the woodcutter was still there and since I saw four trees fallen in close proximity to my tree it is not unthinkable that they might continue to cut down trees (I hope not).

I did not expect the length of my response, I hope my answer was satisfying :-) No matter what I thank you for responding and asking your question letting my mind seek 117s meaning :-)

Seeker of Truth
05-05-2012, 10:03 PM
I forgot 8 which represents eternity as its being goes on forever when you follow its lines.

It reminds me of something I discovered when I used Internet Anagram Server and found that Eternity when its letters are mixed also become Entirety (completeness) and Tiny Tree. Truth is found in all of being and so "eternity in its entirety is found in a tiny" tree :-) This sentence makes sense in many ways and I like that.

Awani
05-05-2012, 10:05 PM
In this day and age a Christian is NOT a gnostic... Even if it was not so 2000 years ago it is so now in 2012.

A gnostic represents one outlook, a Christian another. Some words have lost their meaning and some words are beyond reclaiming. Christianity, imo, is one such word.

Anarchist is another example... a word that these days is connected to chaos. Completely misrepresented in the media. An anarchist would be foolish to go around calling himself that, he would only be misunderstood. Just as a gnostic spirit would be misunderstood if he calls himself a Christian.

In the end we don't need to call ourselves anything, but perhaps debates will be easier if we don't focus on small details like this? I've noticed it happens a lot... words are always weak... but I think they are useful enough to get our points across without being dogmatic about it.

Same goes with EVIL actually. I mean if I call the Demiurge evil we can debate evil... it doesn't really matter... you will get what kind of aura I am talking about... I don't think it is productive to be too picky about stuff. Or maybe I want to move forward faster than what is actually possible.

Details can be interesting but I try to debate with the GIST of any argument... the details don't really interest me, some here are very interested in the details which is fine. But a GISTER and a DETAILER can never really debate good enough, because they are looking at the same subject from different perspectives.

I hope I've stated my outlook good enough without causing confusion.

:cool:

Andro
05-05-2012, 10:06 PM
A few (IMO) pertinent quotes from Jewish Gnostic Kabbalist David Chaim Smith:

"The Ourobouros appears as the specter of ADaM in a world of dreams.

Its seal is the non-dual union of the breath and ground of the most sublime paradox.

Behold the mirror of 0 = 1. It consumes and digests of the vain myth of god!"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Even if salvation were possible, a true gnostic would have no need of it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The main subject of the work is to investigate the link between epistemological and ontological ends of the contemplative spectrum (what knows and what can be known).
The central concern is how human ‘subjectivity’ and universal ‘objectivity’ transcend division in service of basic inherent wholeness.

According to many generations of mystics this wholeness is identical to the original state of the Mind beyond the lesser concern of individual human identity or personality.
It presupposes that Mind’s primordial essence is not the byproduct of a biological brain which is born and will die with the body. In this highest sense the essence of Mind and god are equal.

The problem is that this primordial essence must paradoxically include all of the variations within it. It must be simultaneously the 'One' and the 'Many'.
This is the key paradox that mystics must come to terms with: the infinite and the finite must abide within an equalizing continuum.

The fact that human beings adhere to egoic separation is precisely the mechanism that obscures and obstructs direct recognition of this wholeness.
It locks cognition into modes of limitation based solely on bodily identification (I am this body-mind). This insures a conflict between the self identified body-mind and immensity around it.

This fundamental split is the basis of human alienation as well as the fragmentary and isolated experience human beings come to accept as ‘normal’.

Mystics have always asked the same question about this dilemma: if the split between the internal knower and the external world could cease, if each could ‘swallow the other’, then what would be left?
What is their most essential continuum? What lies beyond the dualistic extremes that obstruct it?"

- David Chaim Smith

solomon levi
05-06-2012, 03:10 AM
Thank you Seeker of Truth. :)
That was beautiful.
TAL-LAT

I hope your tree is ok.
I'm about to head to the woods with my trees and waterfall for a while.

Albion
05-06-2012, 08:38 PM
A bit of a spin-off from the spin-off :)

Religion has been mentioned. I remember (please correct me if I'm mistaken) that Seth-Ra mentioned at least once that he is NOT religious (a christian, yes, but not religious - like catholic, etc...).

Without disputing the historical existence of the 'Jesus' persona, he was a reformer of sorts and he apparently didn't like the old testament very much (the Torah/the old ways), and he also didn't leave any instructions to build a religion/church in his name.
That was Paul, and came later.

I can't recall Jesus making any remarks against gays for example, and he often appeared to be a fierce advocate of non-judgment. He advocated love, but also had episodes of 'righteous rage'. A very interesting character, no doubt.

If we read the gospels censored by Constantine (the gnostic ones) we can find out much more about the esoteric teachings involved.

I'm not really a bible reader, so please correct me if I missed anything.

I had an encounter with the Christ/Logos a number of years ago. Due to the rather unusual nature of the context, It’s perfectly understandable to me if 3rd parties [not that I‘ve told the story on more than a few occasions], be they self-described Christians or not, evince difficulty in accepting that this literally involved the resurrected Jesus - as opposed to some sort of merely astral mimic, or my imagination. When all is said and done, I suppose the real transformative and educational value of such experiences remains primarily ones own. For me, it was certainly life-changing.

Religion, played no part in the scenario. Scarcely so much as an artifact of 2,000 years of history entered the operating theatre. And it wasn’t “personal” in the sense of being a dialectic involving whatever I may have presumed myself to have been at the time. Perhaps “transpersonal” would be a better term. If a Zen master thwacks you with his staff, is it a personal matter? If a surgeon performs open heart surgery on you [an appropriate metaphor, since both an experimental anesthetic and my “heart” was involved] is your personality a matter of consideration? It was totally “out there” yet “in here” in the purest sense.

Oddly enough, even after the experience, I didn’t care at all for church services, worship, hymns, group prayer, and many of the more common doctrinal interpretations. Instead, I gravitated towards the more marginalized mystics - most of whom, I eventually concluded, also weren’t quite getting it right (in their explications - which were, understandably, limited/filtered by the range of any given individuals conceptual palette, usually informed by the interpretive trends [such as neo-Platonism] of their day.

Since that time, I’ve had the pleasure of discovering so many gems from a wide variety of sources, yet a certain constellation of elements/factors which are presented (especially) in the gospels (that I’ve explored experientially) seem always to be vital to me, perhaps the most central being validity of the categories of Man, Creation & the Heart.

It has been said “Man is the measure of all things.” Consider, if you will, the primal Logos as a dimensional toggle switch (my terms) mediating two conditions of what we are: identity/being in the one/zero/sub-plenum, and individuality in 3-D existence - such Logos being both our primal defining in no-time as well as the defining of Man as its generation of that in-time.

What offends many is the proposition that there was one Man, one particular historical personage, whose life, death and light-body resurrection supposedly has meaning for the greater design-agenda of Creation and other human expressions.

What if the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is an archetype-fulfilling message we sent to ourselves, so that we, in the in-time, might Remember ourselves, as he did, our awareness/identity from the no-time) - meant to declare that Creation, Man & the Heart have a purpose, a validity, and a destiny in the Logos, and that, as Forerunner/Exemplar/Pattern, he heralds the promise and possibility of a New-Human design.

It causes offense to think that there would be this one Man to not simply live as the pattern of the New Human, but to be uniquely the one whose resurrected light-body might serve somehow as a dimensional bridge into a new phase of human evolution - as well as being, in some mysterious sense, a spiritually nutritive resource.

Jesus made statements such as “I and the Father are one” “I am in you,” and “You are in me,” - which, taken together, seem like some pre-scientific rendition of holography. A number of Christian mystics came into experiential realization that there was only “God“, yet held this together with the reality of creation and the individual soul thus preserving the dynamic paradoxical tension, and the integrity of both the One and the Many. I always had so much trouble with the various renditions of the trinity (a term which, strictly speaking, doesn’t even occur in the New Testament) until I it struck me more like a Zen Koan - meant to break one’s absolute distinction between the human (temporal manifestation) and the divine - while yet retaining the dynamic paradoxical validity and utility of the two categories. In that sense, it evinces greater sophistication than the simplistic cancellation of one side as being “merely an illusion.”

[When I had the first experience of being “creator” (upon which I spontaneously found myself blurting out “wake up” and (regarding creation), “It is Good”), I certainly underwent a major reordering of my world, but subsequently suffered somewhat from a simplistic, categorical disparagement of perceptual reality as being merely illusory and therefore negligible.]

What is the a-priory truth of any thought one might have but “Man” insofar as such is the design-format through which one is experiencing and thinking - on whatever level? Even if one perceives what they would label “the void” or “no-thing-ness” they are doing so with that multi-dimensional framework, and the “space” for consciousness that creates. So one can only say such terms are relative and comparative, but not absolute as long as they are having their experiences in embodiment.

Yes, creation sprang from a dream. But if the manifestation amounted to no more than a dream, how does one account for the high degree of predictability (as in not having a giraffe greet you at the door in the morning when you live in New Jersey for example). Or why have individuals in it who manage to remember they are God simply so that they can then return to some primordial oceanic oneness/nothingness sans the multi-dimensional configuration that simultaneously allows for multiplicity? Or could it be that God/the One/no-thing/Infinity/us-in-no-time desired to multiply in a genuine manyness, a multi-phonic infinity in which the original androgyny plays in a creator/creation modular-duality in genuinely generated multiplicity of individuality?

Perhaps we had a desire to manifest dimensionality to truly know and express our nature, and express our consciousness, and that only in a holographic generation of many expressions, could our aspects (which, in the in-time, we know as individuality) be brought into proper or satisfying dynamic play.

“If you have form'd a Circle to go into,
Go into it yourself & see how you would do.”
― William Blake
__________________________________________________ _____________________

A mixture of experience and speculation here - currently informed somewhat by the Thuban material I've been reading. Subject to ongoing revision.

Albion
05-06-2012, 08:43 PM
A few (IMO) pertinent quotes from Jewish Gnostic Kabbalist David Chaim Smith:

"The Ourobouros appears as the specter of ADaM in a world of dreams.

Its seal is the non-dual union of the breath and ground of the most sublime paradox.

Behold the mirror of 0 = 1. It consumes and digests of the vain myth of god!"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Even if salvation were possible, a true gnostic would have no need of it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The main subject of the work is to investigate the link between epistemological and ontological ends of the contemplative spectrum (what knows and what can be known).
The central concern is how human ‘subjectivity’ and universal ‘objectivity’ transcend division in service of basic inherent wholeness.

According to many generations of mystics this wholeness is identical to the original state of the Mind beyond the lesser concern of individual human identity or personality.
It presupposes that Mind’s primordial essence is not the byproduct of a biological brain which is born and will die with the body. In this highest sense the essence of Mind and god are equal.

The problem is that this primordial essence must paradoxically include all of the variations within it. It must be simultaneously the 'One' and the 'Many'.
This is the key paradox that mystics must come to terms with: the infinite and the finite must abide within an equalizing continuum.

The fact that human beings adhere to egoic separation is precisely the mechanism that obscures and obstructs direct recognition of this wholeness.
It locks cognition into modes of limitation based solely on bodily identification (I am this body-mind). This insures a conflict between the self identified body-mind and immensity around it.

This fundamental split is the basis of human alienation as well as the fragmentary and isolated experience human beings come to accept as ‘normal’.

Mystics have always asked the same question about this dilemma: if the split between the internal knower and the external world could cease, if each could ‘swallow the other’, then what would be left?
What is their most essential continuum? What lies beyond the dualistic extremes that obstruct it?"

- David Chaim Smith


"The Ourobouros appears as the specter of ADaM in a world of dreams.”

Creation sprang from a dream (just as an invention has its prior form in mind’s eye) and allows for a subset of human dreaming, but if creation, once formed were but a dream we were having, why the high degree of order, continuity and progression - so unlike merely human dreaming?


“Its seal is the non-dual union of the breath and ground of the most sublime paradox.”

A paradox is solved when a means is found for both sides to be kept in play simultaneously.


“Behold the mirror of 0 = 1. It consumes and digests of the vain myth of god!"

Below is a logical presentation in which literal “nothingness” is averted. To me, the fact that something is clearly going on means that the originary no-thing-ness has potential and quality and so is not-nothing in a strict literal sense. I understand the relative value of employing such terms as zero and nothingness, but also believe they can be taken in a way that becomes false, just as the word “God” can.

From The Rabbit Tree and the Logic of Life’s Beginning

“What is demonstrated in terms of the logical foundation of the "nothingless" Fibonacci sequence is not the non-dynamic identity of "nothingness" and "something," but rather the perfect asymmetry of "nothing" and "something," the very identity of the "nothingness" of the beginning in which beginning nothingness is not something and not something is not. The real trinary logic values, 0, 0, 1, "not nothing," "not not nothing," and "universe," replace the binary values of the logics of Boole and Peirce, 0, l, "nothing" and "universe." If, with its either-or structure, and the consequent inconsequence of its beginning, the binary logic approximates the system of life, the trinary system of the beginning, with its perfect middleness, is the very logic of life.”

http://dgleahy.com/p07.html

http://dgleahy.com/p38.html

http://dgleahy.com/

The Myth of Zero, or nothingness

http://fractalicawakening.com/mythzero.htm

Infinity and Infinitesimals

http://fractalicawakening.com/infinit1.htm

The “vain myth of god” (as other) is surpassed by the vain myth that the categories of Creation and Man (one side of the paradox) necessarily militate against clear perception and that their invalidation or dissolution is warranted. What is not vanity is to acknowledge that, vis a vis the individual perspective, there is always “beyond,” that there is a creator component relative to the creation component - however inter-related they may be, and that there is a greater collective.


“The problem is that this primordial essence must paradoxically include all of the variations within it. It must be simultaneously the 'One' and the 'Many'.
This is the key paradox that mystics must come to terms with: the infinite and the finite must abide within an equalizing continuum.

The author perceive/posits/frames a problem. Is there really a problem?
There is already a continuum of the one and many - although at various levels, quantification/quantum-ization/discreteness, holofractilization comes into play so that there may be distinction/individuation. To imply that one side of the paradox is “bad” or must be dissolved in the other “pure” continuum side is a problem the author seems to have.


“The fact that human beings adhere to egoic separation is precisely the mechanism that obscures and obstructs direct recognition of this wholeness.
It locks cognition into modes of limitation based solely on bodily identification (I am this body-mind). This insures a conflict between the self identified body-mind and immensity around it.”

One can be simultaneously aware of both individuality and wholeness. They are not mutually exclusive. When the human mind goes off into fractal identity spin-offs, then the view is obscured, but the simple primary distinction is not itself inherently problematic if one abides in the quantum moment. One can identify with both creator (sub plenum all/no-thing/infinity) and creation (unitary multi-dimensional all) simultaneously [“Double-Vision”] as a holo-fractal individuation/aspect thereof. It needn’t be a matter of “either/or” but rather of “both/and.”

The enlivened Heart can serve as an effectual toggle that holds both sides of the paradox in validity and play. Love (the thinking heart and the feeling mind) is like the 8Hz nested wave that goes from one extreme through to the other, connecting all.


“This fundamental split is the basis of human alienation as well as the fragmentary and isolated experience human beings come to accept as ‘normal’.”

Said distinction may well serve as a “basis” for delusion but neither need it do so, neither need it be discarded as invalid simply because “humanity” misemploys it. I wouldn’t expect “humanity” in general to get this right anymore than I’d bother as to why Neanderthals couldn’t ever seem to come up with a good sonnet in hexamic pentameter. In other words, humanity has developmental phases.


Mystics have always asked the same question about this dilemma: if the split between the internal knower and the external world could cease, if each could ‘swallow the other’, then what would be left?

1) Quality.

2) Hope.

3) The Heart of the individual who desired to carry out that particular exercise and enter into such a state.

4) The highly trained Will of such an individual.

5) The nested multi-dimensionality of the Universe, which allowed for the body-mind of this individual, as well as the “space” for his consciousness to enter - a framework so perfect it can be utterly ignored as if it weren’t even necessary, but can never be proven that it wasn’t, as the perceiver is embodied. Which isn’t to say there aren’t “beings” operative outside of 3-D - but they too have their respective information-clouds/minds which presuppose some sort of semi-permeable membrane and an ambit of dimensionality.

6) Probability waves: breaking, out of sight, upon myriad shorelines.

7) One’s own vouchsafed (always, in some sense “given“), sacrosanct “I” categorically beyond even any “oneness.”

8) One’s individual logos, even if in “dormant“ mode (or relatively disengaged from the greater Logos).


“What is their most essential continuum? What lies beyond the dualistic extremes that obstruct it?"

The author could, in my opinion, benefit from expanding/upgrading his conceptual palette somewhat. That, and realize he invariably does all his perceiving within an invisible multi-dimensional context. If he is presenting a “Human” problem, embodiment and individuality will necessarily be part and parcel of any real solution [as well as his experiential explorations, however void-like they may seem] and his seeming intent to abstract away from them may amount to no more than a philosophical/cognitive exercise that attempts to solve the paradox by negating the validity of one side.

The continuum of the sub-plenum and the quantumized (I.e. discontinuous) universe have a common nexus in the Logos. Duality, in and of itself, in a modular-duality is a magnification, not an obstruction, per se. That one can then get “lost” in a labyrinth of false self-identifications does not mean that simple duality inherently obfuscates perception of reality.

Having said all that, I do respect the sense of quandary , the author means to address, and certainly respect his motives, efforts, and exploratory valor - however much I may disagree with his argumentative progression.

A loop of paper has two sides, like a paradox.

I’m inclined to believe that one day soon there will be a dimensional twist that makes a two-sided loop one-sided, and the problem of which the author speaks will be resolved, in a manner which, for those who can enter into it, will

Instead of one side seeming unreal to the other, both will be perceived/enjoyed as real.

http://www.robives.com/images/july2010/mobius002.jpg

Or something like that.

I feel at home in “Yes” - not in “No.” That’s why I/We created. Why source found its way out of mere pre-distinctiveness. Continual renewal introduces all the negation necessary in the forgetting of whatever is best forgotten.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

Andro
05-06-2012, 08:52 PM
if the manifestation amounted to no more than a dream, how does one account for the high degree of predictability (as in not having a giraffe greet you at the door in the morning when you live in New Jersey for example).

Because the dream dreaming itself needs enough 'credibility' to also believe that it's real. One possible answer.

Now: About Nothing/Something...

There no 'Nothing'.

It only appears that way, like I've already mentioned a few times before.

'Nothing' is merely infinitely compressed 'Everything'.

It can be helpful to look at this in terms of computer/data compression.

A very good data compression algorithm can compress extremely 'large' amounts of data into a very 'small' storage space, without loosing the quality of the data.

A PERFECT compression algorithm (infinite data compression) can compress EVERYTHING into ZERO 'storage space/time'.

So, again, I see 'Nothing' as infinitely compressed 'Everything'. The same as 'Everything' being infinitely expanded 'Nothing'.

The rest of the mentioned concepts and particularities, I see as just various dream fragments of perception.

Hope, evolution, ascension, mind, salvation, god, unity/duality/polarity/multiplicity - - - anything and everything we (as the self-dreaming dream) tell ourselves is real.

And they definitely ARE 'real' (for us) as long as they are perceived and therefore taken for 'real'.

They ALL are also definitely valid in their own right, by the very occurrence of the dream's auto-feedback generated awareness.

What I long for, is what I am completely incapable to know/relate/imagine/dream/explain/understand.

Seth-Ra
05-06-2012, 11:14 PM
Albion,


One can be simultaneously aware of both individuality and wholeness. They are not mutually exclusive. When the human mind goes off into fractal identity spin-offs, then the view is obscured, but the simple primary distinction is not itself inherently problematic if one abides in the quantum moment. One can identify with both creator (sub plenum all/no-thing/infinity) and creation (unitary multi-dimensional all) simultaneously [“Double-Vision”] as a holo-fractal individuation/aspect thereof. It needn’t be a matter of “either/or” but rather of “both/and.”

Exactly. :)

_________

Androgynus,

What I long for, is what I am completely incapable to know/relate/imagine/dream/explain/understand.

It sounds to me like you long for nothing. ;)

If so, i can relate...



~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
05-07-2012, 04:27 AM
Albion said,
"What if the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is an archetype-fulfilling message we sent to ourselves, so that we, in the in-time, might Remember ourselves, as he did, our awareness/identity from the no-time) - meant to declare that Creation, Man & the Heart have a purpose, a validity, and a destiny in the Logos, and that, as Forerunner/Exemplar/Pattern, he heralds the promise and possibility of a New-Human design."

This is incredibly insightful IMO. Beautiful.

"What is the a-priory truth of any thought one might have but “Man” insofar as such is the design-format through which one is experiencing and thinking - on whatever level? Even if one perceives what they would label “the void” or “no-thing-ness” they are doing so with that multi-dimensional framework, and the “space” for consciousness that creates. So one can only say such terms are relative and comparative, but not absolute as long as they are having their experiences in embodiment."

I'm hearing you. This is true.

"Yes, creation sprang from a dream. But if the manifestation amounted to no more than a dream, how does one account for the high degree of predictability (as in not having a giraffe greet you at the door in the morning when you live in New Jersey for example). Or why have individuals in it who manage to remember they are God simply so that they can then return to some primordial oceanic oneness/nothingness sans the multi-dimensional configuration that simultaneously allows for multiplicity? Or could it be that God/the One/no-thing/Infinity/us-in-no-time desired to multiply in a genuine manyness, a multi-phonic infinity in which the original androgyny plays in a creator/creation modular-duality in genuinely generated multiplicity of individuality?"

Wow. It's nice to hear you contributing.
I really appreciate the knowledge you shared and the way you convey it. :)

solomon levi
05-07-2012, 06:35 AM
"Creation sprang from a dream (just as an invention has its prior form in mind’s eye) and allows for a subset of human dreaming, but if creation, once formed were but a dream we were having, why the high degree of order, continuity and progression - so unlike merely human dreaming?"

Well, the ego construct constantly projecting the past/knowledge makes this dream so orderly and fixed,
in appearance anyway. Without the ego construct perception is nonlocal and infinite. The world we
perceive is a description that we are taught since birth. We can learn new descriptions, disorderly ones.
We can learn to make this fixed volatile again; to remember we're dreaming; to not believe. To this I can
testify. We are the dreamers. Creation is formed by us. We observe the quantum potential into static
material. When we sleep, we are not ego/order so much. But we can learn to wake up in our dreams and
give fixity to dreams that aren't the usual consensus dream of "waking life".


"The continuum of the sub-plenum and the quantumized (I.e. discontinuous) universe have a common nexus in the Logos. Duality, in and of itself, in a modular-duality is a magnification, not an obstruction, per se. That one can then get “lost” in a labyrinth of false self-identifications does not mean that simple duality inherently obfuscates perception of reality."

Duality is a magnification of what?


What does valid mean? The ego may be a valid perception - able to be perceived.
Does that make it real? We know we can perceive all kinds of illusions. For example,
we can have a 2-d drawing that appears 3-d and/or appears to move. It's valid - just about
everyone can perceive it. But it isn't what is actually going on.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRV_M_Lzu4Q8KhPcZOSysr8DzV9lnmqV IIw1B4SYCK4YB42ifc

Seth-Ra
05-07-2012, 08:12 AM
"The continuum of the sub-plenum and the quantumized (I.e. discontinuous) universe have a common nexus in the Logos. Duality, in and of itself, in a modular-duality is a magnification, not an obstruction, per se. That one can then get “lost” in a labyrinth of false self-identifications does not mean that simple duality inherently obfuscates perception of reality."

Duality is a magnification of what?


What does valid mean? The ego may be a valid perception - able to be perceived.
Does that make it real? We know we can perceive all kinds of illusions. For example,
we can have a 2-d drawing that appears 3-d and/or appears to move. It's valid - just about
everyone can perceive it. But it isn't what is actually going on.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRV_M_Lzu4Q8KhPcZOSysr8DzV9lnmqV IIw1B4SYCK4YB42ifc

Just to play devil's advocate... :)

According to some cultures, like Egypt, writing was, itself, magickal,because it manifested the thought/word. Similarly, such "images" are not truly 2D, we just like to think they are, but part of their magick is that they are alive and moving. Quantumly, a picture is a pixel or pigment-particle on a surface of something (among other things) thus is matter = the subatomic things that make it up, are indeed in motion, even if it appears "still", and like the one you link, it appear to move - but honestly, doesnt it? ;)

/end devil's advocate

Honestly, i see it as both. :)
(both 2D and 3D, both stationary and moving, etc...etc...)

And i think thats what is meant by "valid" - valid because they are. The illusion is that there is an illusion - and yet, thats not an illusion either... :D

Oh, and this is probably what is meant by a "magnification" - magnification of what is perceived/believed/known in that moment. For the "yes" you see, there is a "no" also, and vice-versa etc. :)




~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
05-07-2012, 08:37 AM
I don't know what to say to that.
It's 2-d because it's flat. The 3-d - that it isn't flat - is an illusion.
One can prove it by looking at the image without your mind.
It's the mind that makes it appear 3-d; associations, memories, knowledge.
Clear them from your mind and it looks like a bunch of 2-d circles without
the 3-d effect.

So again, valid. Yes. Everything is valid. Imagination is valid. "What is not" is valid.
But when everything is valid, valid has no meaning. Why do we say that - "it's valid"?
It's more than valid that you can't put your physical finger through that 2-d image. :)
Theoretical can be valid. All religions are valid, but you have chosen very specific
views for yourself. What does that say about validity? It doesn't mean much is what it
says. It's just something to say, but not something we do.
If everything was REALLY valid, would we emphasize this and de-emphasize that?
So obviously something trumps validity in us. What is that? Cause we believe it more
than we do validity.

solomon levi
05-07-2012, 08:53 AM
Is it possible the illusions are valid only when we don't understand them?
The hindus often use the example of a rope coiled in the corner that is mistaken
for a snake. At first we are startled. Upon closer inspection, we are not afraid
of the rope at all. Why develop some teaching about the validity of the snake
that was never there except in one's imagination/mind? It was a mistaken identity/
projection.

I guess it's rediculous to argue. Of course people can focus on, emphasize, believe
whatever they want. But projecting mind on to what is doesn't lead to greater
awareness. Sure 90% of the people can say "who cares about greater awareness?"
But we are here (at this forum) and those people are not.

And I'll agree that everyone is going to the same place eventually. But again, aren't
we here for a more direct path? It's not enough to say those other paths are valid.
We are here! So they aren't valid enough for us. Isn't that significant?

Seth-Ra
05-07-2012, 09:28 AM
I see what youre saying, i think Paul summed it up in one of his letters to the effect of:

All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial.

Ofcourse, to not let that "degrade" into a "whats good vs whats bad" thing, the context here would obviously be that it all is - but what is the significance of that, or deeper aspect - what is the root of what is?

As Androgynus said,

So, again, I see 'Nothing' as infinitely compressed 'Everything'. The same as 'Everything' being infinitely expanded 'Nothing'.

i.e. we are back to our paradox - the beginning is the ending also, the head is the tail. The meaning cannot be found in either one of those, alone, but in their union, the understanding of their co-existed-non-existed-always-existed-never-existed-all/one-empty/full-ness that it is. lol

Individually, it is the silence, and the notes - but together, it is the Song of the Logos, always playing, never heard; always listened too, never experienced - and the inversion of all that also. :) In that "aha!" moment, is the meaning.



~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
05-17-2012, 09:48 PM
"Nonduality does not mean ‘not-duality’ – that would be completely dualistic! In reality, nonduality includes (the appearance of) duality, because it is everything. It is nothing – no-thing – and it is everything.
Ultimately, nonduality appears as duality. They are one and the same. Then you can’t even speak of ‘nonduality’."
- Jeff Foster

Nibiru
06-17-2012, 01:21 AM
The Dagaz Rune:

http://i46.servimg.com/u/f46/17/56/95/23/dagaz310.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=7&u=17569523)

http://i46.servimg.com/u/f46/17/56/95/23/dagaz210.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=5&u=17569523)



Dagaz is a rune of bold change, for example, the burst of light at the moment of illumination. It contains within its energies the experience called ‘satori’, a spiritual awakening experience common in all cultures.

Archaeological evidence proves that Dagaz has been used as a symbol of Light for more than four thousand years. It is the rune of hyper-consciousness. Achievement of this state of mind SEEMS to be a relatively rare occurrence in human life at this stage of evolution. When chronicled, it marks the beginnings of the mission of a World Savior on Earth.


Much has been written on the psychology and metaphysics of uniting left and right brain functions. Dagaz holds dominion over this union and is a tool that gives you great potency for present awareness and future growth. It is reminiscent of the lemniscate, the symbol of infinity, and the moebius strip, timelessness and illimitable potential, as well as an overturned hourglass.


The ‘point of poise’ entails balancing polarities so that all mystery is revealed to consciousness. The transformation of paradox into non-dual awareness occurs with Dagaz energies. It is to find the center between two extremes and maintaining a state of mind undisturbed by any mental or emotional storm. At the center, all power is to be found and equilibrium is a desirable attainment. This practice eventually leads to the practitioner no longer requiring a single right or wrong answer to the mysteries and many truths can exist complimentary to one another. No one single belief or viewpoint is sufficient and so all beliefs and viewpoints can be progressively abandoned. In the stillness and silent questioning of the mind that is left behind, all truth resounds.


An interesting thing to keep in mind is that the futhark has no rune for the night or for the moon. These are absences, not things. Darkness is not darkness, it is a quality of the light. The sun is always ‘there’, it is our world that spins around and causes the illusion that it is not. As well, the light of the moon is a reflection of the sun’s light. There is little reason to think that the ancients were not aware of this, even mathematically. “Darkness is not darkness” is a wonderful saying to meditate upon, and will reveal to the seeker that there is no true opposites as we are often convinced of, but only polarities within the supreme mystery of existence.

-Quotes taken from here: http://runesecrets.com/rune-meanings/dagaz


http://i46.servimg.com/u/f46/17/56/95/23/dagaz_10.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=6&u=17569523)

Krisztian
06-18-2012, 06:02 PM
Thanks for posting those images Nibiru! I'm an enthusiast of ancient art, illustrations, symbols, etc.

From all humour aside, I see an ancient reference to the symbol that our modern 'bow tie' represents: the meeting point of two opposing forces that are locked together for eternity. For an aristocrat, neither right wing nor left, neither one nation dueling another, should have all-the-power; but more importantly, the duel between the two opposing forces is what creates the distinct advantage of the overall plan. In other words, you always need two opposing forces to have a truly powerful game plan. That's why aristocrats wear bow ties, symbolic representation of omnipotence.

Anyone else? (I'm sure I'll get laughed at for posting that comment but hey, it's a Forum for exploring ideas, discussions, so forth).

Nibiru
06-19-2012, 02:38 AM
You're welcome, I had never thought of the bow-tie analogy in the way you presented but perhaps you're on to something. I have heard of a simple tie being referred to as a "corporate noose" or "leash" by some in the counter-culture. Once you open your eyes to symbolism you realize that it's literally everywhere you look.. The part that intrigues me the most about the symbol I posted, I find to be the point of non-duality that rests between the opposing forces. It also seems to correlate well with the pineal gland and the idea of an Axis Mundi.

Krisztian
06-19-2012, 05:33 PM
You're welcome, I had never thought of the bow-tie analogy in the way you presented but perhaps you're on to something. I have heard of a simple tie being referred to as a "corporate noose" or "leash" by some in the counter-culture. Once you open your eyes to symbolism you realize that it's literally everywhere you look.. The part that intrigues me the most about the symbol I posted, I find to be the point of non-duality that rests between the opposing forces. It also seems to correlate well with the pineal gland and the idea of an Axis Mundi.

Yes, I think you're, Nibiru, onto something there about the Axis Mundi. Please if you don't mind, keep posting images of that sort I'm very interested! I just can't get enough of alchemical symbolism!

solomon levi
06-21-2012, 10:34 PM
I was just listening to The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran and heard a beautiful reconciliation of spirit and matter, one and many:

"But tell me, who is he that can offend the spirit? Shall the nightingale offend the stillness of the night, or the firefly the stars?
And shall your flame or your smoke burden the wind? Think you the spirit is a still pool which you can trouble with a staff? .....
Go to your fields and your gardens, and you shall learn that it is the pleasure of the bee to gather honey of the flower, But it is
also the pleasure of the flower to yield its honey to the bee. For to the bee a flower is a fountain of life, And to the flower a bee
is a messenger of love, And to both, bee and flower, the giving and the receiving of pleasure is a need and an ecstasy. People of
Orphalese, be in your pleasures like the flowers and the bees."

http://www.bohra.net/archive/gibran/gibran24.html